George osborne

Following the milk fiasco, No. 10 plans to tighten its control over Cabinet Ministers. The Times (£) has the details. To paraphrase, No.10 holds the egregious Andrew Lansley responsible for not recognising that Anne Milton’s proposals were politically untenable. Cameron has ordered a political review of Cabinet Minsters’ proposed cuts to minimise embarrassments ahead of October’s spending review. Understandably, Cameron is keen to insulate himself against inevitable negative publicity. But there is a danger that a hands-on Downing Street will become publicly embroiled in Whitehall spats.

David Cameron's neatly-constructed article in the Sunday Times (£) perfectly typifies the balancing act he is performing ahead of this autumn's Spending Review. The Prime Minister has to sound tough on the deficit because, thanks to the fiscal brinksmanship of one G. Brown, that's the job he has been appointed to do. But he doesn't want to come across as sadistic or gloomy, lest it alienate voters and coalition partners alike. The edges of the cuts need to be rounded off, made more presentable. To that end, Cameron suggests first that the cuts aren't ideological. There are, he says, items of spending that he'd like to keep – but wider budget constraints mean that he can't.

Few MPs have made quite so many waves recenty as last year's Spectator backbencher of the year, Andrew Tyrie. Under his chairmanship, the Treasury Select Committee seems to have gained a new vitality and edge. And it has certainly accumulated more powers, with the ability to veto the government's appointments to, and dismissals from, the Office for Budget Responsibility. As he put it himself in an interview with the Independent last week, "The fight back by Parliament is beginning now." Just how aggressively he intends to prosecute that fight back is suggested by his comments in the Times (£) today.

Alistair Darling has been on Sky News doing a lap of honour for today’s GDP growth figures. “Vindicates everything we did,” he said - his narrative being that the extra debt did indeed boost the economy and produced 1.1 percent growth in this quarter. This chimes with what I wrote in the Daily Telegraph a few weeks ago: that the economy is better, not worse, than the Tories thought. Even if, or should I say when, the ONS say the figure was wrong and needs to be revised downwards it will still mean tax revenue churning in at a far faster rate than thought. This will give Osborne a get-out clause if he wants to go softer on the cuts, or the tax rises (any adjustment would have to be consistent with his 80/20 split between cuts and taxes).

George Osborne has talked of simplifying the tax system for years, and today he launched the OTS, The Office for Tax Simplification. The OTS will be chaired by Michael Jack, s Treasury minister in the Major government, and John Whiting of PWC and Chartered Institute of Taxation. The OTS looks suspiciously like a quango, but some public bodies are necessary and welcome. The tax system is unintelligible, and, needless to say, Gordon Brown complicated it further with morass of stealth taxes, tax credits and new loopholes opened more by chance than design. This has particularly affected small businesses and the OTS will identify salient businesses taxes and recommend their simplification. That can only assist hard-pressed small businesses.

Given that the Labour leadership campaign is so dull, we should thank Chuka Umunna for cheering us up with his comedy economic analysis. Now on the Treasury Select Committee, he has regaled us with an ‘Open letter to George Osborne' where he makes many entertaining points. It’s worth looking at, because it sums up a few errors swirling around the Labour benches.   1)   During our exchange, you insisted your budget was "progressive"… you stood by your decision to apply a 10 percent cut to the housing benefit of those who have been on JSA for more than 12 months. Osborne has to use words like “progressive" to assuage the LibDems, but by their definition he is right.

If only PMQs were more like select committee sessions. Sure, the latter aren't completely free from tribalism, even if it takes a subtler hue – but they are still considerably more insightful than Wednesday's pantomime in the chamber. Frequently, they play like a demonstration of how democracy can, and should, work. Such was the case with George Osborne's appearance before the Treasury Select Committee this morning.  The questions, particularly those on whether the Budget hits the poorest hardest, were generally measured and insistent.  But Osborne stood up well through it all, pointing out how any party in power would have to implement hefty spending cuts and tax rises.

Much ado about the Office for Budget Responsibility's growth predictions in the Treasury Select Committee earlier, especially as an OBR official admitted that the cuts and tax hikes in the Budget could conceivably tip us into a double-dip recession. So are the OBR's official forecasts too optimistic, as some are now claiming? Only time will tell, but we can get a decent sense of things by comparing them with the independent forecasts that the Treasury collect here. And this is the result: In other words, the OBR growth forecasts stick pretty closely to the average independent forecast, although they are a touch more optimistic. Admittedly, these independent forecasts were collected before the Budget (but after the election), so they may be tweaked in a month or two.

It may not be the sexiest story in today's newspapers, but the ongoing Office for Budget Responsibility row is certainly among the most important.  After all, a great deal rests on how it is resolved.  Not only could we end up without a body capable of restoring trust in fiscal forecasts, but the government's promising transparency agenda could be sunk before it has even had chance to sail.  Much will depend on how far George Osborne goes to reinvigorate the OBR's independent credentials. In which case, it's worth highlighting the Sunday Telegraph's summary of Sir Alan Budd's proposals to do just that.

And so this morning's Office for Budget Responsibility story rumbles on, with various Labour figures questions whether the organisation is as independent as it should be.  The most significant intervention, though, is from the government.  As the FT reports, George Osborne's Treasury team is hanging onto its ability to select the next head of the OBR. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that the next OBR chief will be a placeman, sympathetic and mouldable to the Tories' wishes.  In fact, my guess is that Osborne will go out of his way to find an uncontroversial, neutral replacement for Sir Alan Budd.