Gordon brown

The story today of a pregnant woman being downgraded so Gordon Brown and his six aides could travel business class from Abu Dhabi to London may ring a bell with CoffeeHousers. We revealed last August that Brown has a taste for freebies, and that he was offering himself for $100,000 at speaking and award-giving engagements. For an extra $20,000 he would throw in his wife, Sarah. The Mail on Sunday reports that one of the pregnant woman's co-passengers was "livid, asking why it was necessary for all of [Brown's team] to be travelling business — and if it was being paid for by the taxpayer." He raises an interesting point. Tony Blair notoriously claimed a "pension" of £64k, and an £84k contribution for the costs of running his office.

Eds Miliband and Balls gathered the press corps together this morning to broadcast a straightforward message: oh yes, we do have an alternative. And the shape of that alternative? A repeat of the one-off tax on bankers' bonuses that, Balls claimed, raised £3.5 billion last year. The money would be used for an entire buffet of economic delights, from the creation of new houses to the funding of job schemes for the young. The upshot, apparently, would be 110,000 new jobs. Nice work, as they say — if you can get it. But there are a couple of problems with all that, the first of which Labour has pre-empted. It is that last year's bonus tax may not have raised as much as £3.5 billion, after all.

Balls is a bit like a vampire – he has bite, but he works best in the darkness. In the House of Commons, with those lights shining on him, his powers drain. George Osborne had the better of him in their brief exchanges at Treasury Questions. Balls led on the snow joke. But Osborne had pre-empted that earlier, when he first stood up. Balls teased him about going to Klosters in the winter, but these things only work in newspapers where you can run a picture of Osborne in ski gear. It leaves the House cold.   The key Osborne line was that Balls is “the man with a past” – and how. It was said with just the right touch of menace. And he had a fairly decent gag: that Eds Miliband and Balls both “know what's it's like to be people's second choice.

As shocks go, Politician Uses the Correct Statistic is not particularly electric stuff. But I was struck nonetheless by Cameron's claim in his speech earlier that, "we still have the fourth largest military budget in the world." You see, Gordon Brown used to exaggerate this figure by various sneaky methods – and so, by his account, we'd be second in the military spending league table, rather than around fifth. Whereas Cameron had it spot on. Here's what the latest top ten looks like, going off the best measurement that the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute knows (see their explanation here): On the face of it, this would appear to be a strong point against the claim that we underspend on defence. But it doesn't close the case.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies are out prowling the airwaves again, and they bring happy and unhappy tidings for the coalition. On the happier side, at least presentationally speaking, is their assessment that, "those being hit the very hardest [by tax and benefit changes] are those on [a] higher level of earnings" – just as Cameron and Clegg suggest. But far less marketable is the IFS's claim that 750,000 people will be pulled into the 40 per cent rate of tax as a result of the threshold being reduced from £37,400 to £35,001 this April.   To be fair to the government, they have at least been upfront about this tax change.

A weird, sprawling kind of speech from David Cameron in Davos this morning. It started off on an unusually, if expectedly, gloomy note: all talk of Europe's debt-induced decline in the face of competition from India, China and Brazil. And he emphasised, of course, that Britain would, and should, stick to its current trajectory of "tough" deficit reduction. But it's where it went from there that was more striking still. Cameron contrasted his position with that of "the pessimists". These people, he claimed, have a charter which includes propositions such as, "we in Europe are incapable of solving our debt and deficit problems," and, "we're attached to liberal values that are leaving us far behind the juggernaut of authoritarian capitalism".

  To the chagrin of CoffeeHousers, I have long rated Ed Balls and his abilities. He has a degree of brilliance, albeit tragically deployed in the services of a destructive economic agenda. But as we welcome him back, it’s worth reminding ourselves that his abilities are of a specific type. He understands economics (even though he did PPE) but his speciality is in creative accounting. His only tactic is to spend, borrow and cover both up by cooking the books. He is a trickster, not an economist. More Arthur Daley than Arthur Laffer. In my News of the World column today (£) I say he is dangerous to Labour as well as the Tories, perhaps more so. But it’s worth recapping what we’re dealing with.

The timing could hardly have been more resonant. On the day that Tony Blair is paraded, once again, in front of the Iraq Inquiry, Team Brown is firmly back in charge of the Labour party. For, I'm sure you've noticed CoffeeHousers, three of the four great shadow offices of state are occupied by former members of the Brown coterie: Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper. The fourth belongs to someone who doesn't sit easily in either half of the TB-GB divide: Douglas Alexander. The question, of course, is what this means for Labour's economic policy. And the answer according to Miliband is "nothing much". The Labour leader has been keen to stress that his party's fiscal plans remain largely unchanged by Balls' ascension.

Ed Miliband's leadership may be young, but his trickery on the public finances is already well worn. We got it all in his interview with Andrew Marr earlier – and then some. There was the claim that Labour "paid down the debt" (that I dealt with here). There was the claim that Labour's spending was responsible (my response here). And there was a straight-up lie about Miliband's forecast for a double-dip. So far, so Brown. What caught my ear, though, was this exchange: Andrew Marr: I mean Tony Blair said in his memoir that by 2005, he was worried that the party was spending too much. And Alistair Darling said actually it was about 2007, he was worried that the party had been spending too much - before the crash happened.

Did he get cold feet? Or was his new spin-team overenthusiastic in their pre-briefing? We were told we'd get an apology from Ed Miliband in today's speech, but instead he entrenched himself in his position that Labour did nothing wrong on the deficit. I'm surprised at this decision. Surely Ed Miliband understands, as his Shadow Chancellor understands, the central importance to an opposition party of economic credibility. That credibility will not return while Miliband bases his economic argument on a denial of the facts. First, and critically, he argues that Britain's deficit was not a problem going into the crisis. Not only is this disputed by an impressive array of domestic and international experts, from Tony Blair to the European Commission and Mervyn King.