Treasury

Today, the government launched its Natural Environment White Paper. This document is a vision for how we value and use nature, now and in the future. The public was heavily involved in the White Paper’s creation. Thousands of suggestions came from individuals and small local naturalist groups, right up to large national NGOs and bodies like the National Trust. This shows that concern for nature is alive and well in Britain. The paper was launched by Caroline Spelman; but, crucially, it received input from Greg Clark from Communities and Local Government and Norman Baker from Transport. The Treasury have also been close partners. The proposals seek to reconnect people with

While Dominque Strauss-Kahn was in a New York court room, pleading not guilty to charges of sexual assault, his former IMF colleagues were delivering their verdict on the UK economy at the Treasury. The IMF are very polite guests and their report has provided some timely support for the coalition’s fiscal approach by declaring that there is currently no need for a Plan B. The Osborne operation has been quick to point out that even in various alternative scenarios the IMF set out in their report, they don’t call for more spending or smaller cuts. But there are things which the IMF says that won’t be music to Osborne’s ears.

At the weekend, it appeared that Chris Huhne had won his battle with Vince Cable and George Osborne over whether or not the government should sign up to the 4th carbon budget. This budget covers 2023 to 2027 and is all part of a plan to cut carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050 compared to the level in 1990; they have currently been reduced by 26.5 percent from the 1990 level. But it now appears that the greens in government might have been premature in declaring victory. First, the next set of cuts in UK carbon emissions is dependent on the European Union agreeing to embark on an equally

Andrew Tyrie promised that the Treasury Select Committee would be an assertive, insistent body under his stewardship — and he hasn’t disappointed so far. The committee’s recent evidence sessions have been fiery affairs, particularly by the usual standards of these things. And today they have released the result: an extensive and prescriptive report into last month’s Budget. Several of the report’s observations are worth noting down — not least that advance briefing of the Budget is “corrosive of good government,” and that “almost all the evidence received [about the government’s Enterprise Zones] is unsure about the extent to which they will contribute to UK growth.” But more significant is the

The birds chirruping in the sunlight clearly didn’t get Ed Balls’s memo. Otherwise they’d know that today is “Black Wednesday,” the day when the coalition’s tax and benefit policies swoop in to leave the average household some £200 a year worse off. This is the message that the shadow chancellor is broadcasting this morning, be it on Radio 4 or in a post for Labour Uncut. His claim is that the coalition is — by going “too far, too fast” on the deficit — merely squeezing the “squeezed middle” even more. Only that’s not quite the full picture. The Treasury, for one, is pointing out that today’s measures will actually

The Most Annoying Figure in British Politics™ is spread absolutely everywhere today: in the newspapers, on Twitter and, most notably, in interview with the New Statesman’s Mehdi Hasan. The interview really is worth reading, not least because it pulls out and probes some of Ball’s arguments, both for himself and for Labour’s fiscal reasoning. Guido has already dwelt on the former — “I’m a very loyal person,” quoth the shadow chancellor — but what about the latter? Three things struck me: 1) Oh, yeah, there was a structural deficit. The Big News here is probably Balls’s admission that Labour did run up a structural deficit (i.e. a deficit that remains

Usually, the task of David Laws Watch is to judge just how close the former minister is to a return to government. But, today, his article for the FT is worth highlighting for a different reason altogether. Referencing George Osborne’s signals on the 50p rate in the Budget speech, Laws has this to say (my emphasis): “The chancellor also signalled that excessive marginal rates of income tax – of 50 per cent, even 60 per cent – are on their way out. The Treasury believes that the majority of expected revenue from the current top rate is lost in avoidance. But the government is rightly cautious about the timing of

“We understand how difficult it is for so many people across our country right now.” If you weren’t sure which direction George Osborne’s Budget was going to head in, then he clarified it right from the start of his speech. This was one to tackle the rising cost of living. And much of it — such as the raise in the personal allowance and the fuel duty cut — was welcome. But there is a nagging question hovering above Osborne’s announcement today: has he done enough? The Chancellor will certainly hope so. After all, by scrapping the fuel duty escalator he has effectively encoded a tax cut into all of

From rescue to recovery — that’s how George Osborne is selling his Budget ahead of its release tomorrow. But what might we see beyond the rhetoric? Here’s a five-point guide for CoffeeHousers:   1) Growth. It almost feels like a tradition now: a new Budget, and a new set of forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility. Chief among them will be what the OBR says about growth. Its previous forecast for 2011, made last November, was for 2.1 per cent growth in 2011 — but that will almost certainly be downgraded after the mini-slump in the fourth quarter of last year. As this graph shows, the average of the

George Osborne’s Budget — his plan to deliver us from “rescue to recovery,” apparently — is less than a week away, and the wildfire of speculation is taking hold. Perhaps the most intriguing titbit in today’s papers is one that also appeared in the Express last Saturday: that Osborne is considering merging income tax and national insurance. This is a measure that the Office for Tax Simplification recommended in a report last week, suggesting that it would ease the administrative burden on small businesses. Yet that simply echoes a viewpoint that stretches back decades. This IFS report, for instance, quotes an article published by the British Tax Review during the