Labour party

David Cameron's statement to the House of Commons on the Cannes summit was dominated by the question of increasing Britain's dues to the IMF. Cameron stressed that his message to the Eurozone countries was "sort yourselves out and then we will help". He also tried to offer reassurance that the IMF would not contribute to any eurozone-specific bailout fund. But after Ed Miliband's response, the Prime Minister tried to counter-attack. He began by saying of the Labour leader's speech, "I don't know who writes this rubbish" which drew one of Ed Balls' infamous calm down gestures. Cameron then offered an aggressive defence of the IMF, calling it an "organisation that rescued us from Labour in the 1970s".

While the Coalition is split over Europe, Labour does not look like they are in a much better position. Ed Miliband told the BBC that he was in favour of the Euro; Ed Balls would presumably tackle anyone to avoid that becoming the party's policy. Meanwhile Douglas Alexander, Labour's brainy Shadow Foreign Secretary, has yet to make a game-changing intervention. Their predicament is obvious. Should Labour accept the narrative of renegotiation but opt for different areas to opt out of than those favoured by the Tories? Or should they, like William Borroughs, stand astride history and scream "stop", arguing for a pro-European position? Seemingly caught between the two views, the party's criticism of the government is like those two old-age pensioners in Woody Allen's joke.

The games have started a day early, folks. The latest quarterly growth figures are set to be released tomorrow morning, but already Ed Balls is waxing insistent about what they have to be: "Simply to stay on track for the Office for Budget Responsibility’s most recent forecast, already downgraded three times, we will need to see growth in the third quarter of 1.3 per cent. And to reach the OECD’s latest and more pessimistic forecast, we will need to see a figure next week of 0.9 per cent." To be fair — and this is not something you'll read often on Coffee House — the Shadow Chancellor has a point, although he's not making it explicitly. When he says that growth needs to hit 1.

Dave Wooding rightly upbraids one Labour MP, Alex Cunningham, for trying to make political capital out of the fact that MPs on the government benches were not wearing poppies at PMQs yesterday. In another sign of how politicised our symbol of rememberance has become, the Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has written to his Cabinet colleagues providing guidance on when it is appropriate to start wearing a poppy. The note informed ministers that while there was no definitive view on when it was appropriate to start wearing one, that Thursday from noon would be a good time as that would coincide with the launch of the Royal British Legion’s campaign. Obviously, none of this detracts from the remarkable and important work that the Royal British Legion does.

Easy-peasy at PMQs today. All Ed Miliband had to do was slice open the Coalition's wounds on Europe and dibble his claws in the spouts of blood. But his attack had no sense of bite or surprise. And his phraseology was lumpen. He used all six questions gently stroking the issue of Europe rather than driving a nail through it.  He asked about growth. He asked about the '22 committee. He asked about Nick Clegg's "smash-and-grab" phrase to describe the repatriation of powers. He asked about the social chapter. He asked about everything he could think of, and it was clear he couldn’t think of the right thing to ask. At the climax he sounded like a nursery-assistant scolding Cameron for "pleading not leading" on Europe. Desperately flaccid oratory.

One of the striking things about politics at the moment is that Ed Miliband is proving adept at spotting issues that are going to become big — think the squeezed middle, energy prices — but is failing to drive home this advantage. There’s scant evidence that, for instance, the voters regard Miliband as the solution to the problem of rising energy bills. I suspect that the coalition’s plans to make it easier for people to switch tariff and supplier will cut through with the public more than Miliband’s speeches on the issue. In part, this is the natural advantage of incumbency — governments can actually do things. But the challenge for Miliband’s operation is to make him appear a more effectual figure.

A few months ago I hosted a debate at my think tank with one of the key Tahrir Square leaders. After his talk about Egypt, he warned the audience: the protests that toppled Hosni Mubarak were not just an Egyptian or Middle Eastern phenomena; it could – and, he said, would – spread to the West. For the youth of today, he argued, feel disempowered, empoverished and betrayed. As protests spread from New York to London and other European capitals, it seems that Egyptian protester may have been right. Today's efforts to occupy the London stock exchange failed but protesters remain on the grounds of St Paul's Cathedral. Whatever happens in the next days, protests like these are likely to appear, disappear and appear again.

It is as you'd think: a sea of news coverage and commentary about Liam Fox's departure. Some of its currents are merciless, such as the Mirror's front cover. Some are more circumspect, such as an excellent pair of articles by The Spectator's own Matthew Parris (£) and Charles Moore. But, on the whole, there is a strange absence of finality about this story. A Defence Secretary has resigned – and rightly so, I think – but we still cannot be completely sure why. Maybe it is just the "appearance of impropreity," as Philip Stephens puts it, that killed this Fox. Or maybe there is something more poisonous waiting to emerge in the next few days. The dots are still being connected, the knots of Adam Werritty's business dealings still being untangled.

So, CoffeeHousers, are Eds Balls and Miliband a gruesome twosome or the most sparkling partnership since Torvill and Dean? I ask only because they're really pushing the double-act shtick today. There's their first-ever joint interview in the Evening Standard, for instance, in which they reminisce about the Shadow Chancellor's 30th Birthday party, among other things. And then there was their joint appearance to officially launch Labour's 'plan for growth' campaign this afternoon. They were talking policy, but there was also a strong emphasis on their personal relationship: eye contact, anecdotes, that sort of thing. Blair and Brown we are not, they seemed to be saying. As for the policy, if you heard Ed Balls' speech to the Labour party conference, then you've heard it before.