Labour party

The political implications of today’s growth numbers are complex. On one level, a contraction in the economy should provide Miliband and Balls with an opportunity to make their economic case against the government. Indeed, Balls is already out with a statement calling the GDP figures a ‘damning indictment of David Cameron and George Osborne’s failed economic plan’. I suspect that Miliband is also looking forward to PMQs rather more than normal.   But on the other hand, as long as Cameron and Osborne enjoy a big lead on the economy — 18 points in the last ICM survey — bad economic news will reinforce voters’ tendency to stick close to nurse for fear of something worse.

Britain's national debt rose to over £1 trillion last month, and will never return below this threshold. George Osborne is increasing net debt by 61.5 per cent in real terms over this parliament, more than the 59.9 per cent which Labour proposed when it fought the last election. Here's how the OBR's current projections for debt contrast with what Darling proposed in his last Budget: At the time, Osborne said Labour's debt plan was reckless and unsustainable. I think he owes Alistair Darling a generous apology. Then, Darling said he'd halve the deficit over four years. Too slow, said Osborne. Now, he's taking five years to do it – as the below graph shows: Osborne has kept to his spending plans, which cut departmental totals by 2.

Rarely can a government have been so pleased to have been defeated. The Tories are, privately, delighted that the Lords have voted to water down the benefit cap, removing child benefit from it. The longer this attempt to cap benefit for non-working households at £26,000 stays in the news, the better it is for the government. It demonstrates to the electorate that they are trying to do something about the injustices of the something for nothing culture. The matter will now returns to the Commons where the coalition is confident it can be reversed. I understand that Nick Clegg remains solid on the issue, despite the fact that Ashdown and Shirley Williams led the Lib Dem rebellion in the Lords on this amendment.

Today’s polls make grim reading for Labour. Even three months ago senior Labour or Tory people wouldn’t have thought that the Tories would be five points ahead at this point in the cycle. Part of Labour’s problem is that its positions require too much explanation. As one Number 10 source jokes, ‘Ed Miliband can do a Rubik's cube in less time than it takes him to explain his position on the cuts.’ A prime example of these overly complicated policy positions is Labour’s approach to the benefit cap. The leadership says that it is in favour of a cap in principle but against this one in practice.

This week's Spectator cover has achieved a rare distinction: it's going to be hung up on the wall chez Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper. Or at least that's what the shadow chancellor told Sky's Jon Craig when quizzed about it earlier. You can see the cover image itself, by Stephen Collins, to the left. And below are a few extracts from the article by Melissa Kite that it illustrates. ‘Can Cooper save the Labour party?’ it asks. ‘Is she Labour's Iron Lady?’ And the answer… well, you'll have to read the full thing for that. In the meantime, here are those extracts to whet your appetite: 1) Office space. ‘In Yvette Cooper’s home, an entire room is given over to memorabilia of her husband’s life in politics.

What’s the point of Ed Miliband? Does the Opposition leader have any purpose in life other than to provide ritual entertainment for the Tory wrecking crew at PMQs? Having spent the New Year listening to lethal attacks from his dearest supporters, Mr Miliband has now seen his leadership shrivel to a pair of policy statements which rival each other in desperation and barminess. The first, outlined by Liam Byrne this morning, is a fantasy tax on banking, ‘to create 100,000 jobs’. The second is Labour’s new position on the government’s austerity programme. This would baffle the dippiest and trippiest resident of Alice in Wonderland. We hate the cuts. We back the cuts. We oppose the cuts. We endorse the cuts. We accept the cuts.