Peter Hoskin

Apart from the sentiment expressed, perhaps the most damaging aspect of Mervyn King's intervention on Tuesday was its timing.  Brown's round-the-world trip was meant to act as a rallying call - but now it's more an exercise in firefighting, as he deals with tricky questions surrounding our capacity for a "fiscal stimulus".   Take his comments in New York yesterday , where he suggested that there wouldn't be any further stimulus in the Budget, and claimed there were more "effective and quicker ways" of boosting the economy.  This is a trifle unconvincing, coming from a man who has paraded his "everything it takes" credentials for the past few months, and who has been pushing his colleagues to borrow, borrow, borrow, spend, spend, spend.

A thought-provoking article by Iain Martin in today's Telegraph, on the subject of MPs and their expenses.  Here are some of his proposals for strengthening Parliament and making the system more transparent: "So, how to improve the quality of members and their work? Some political analysts argue, with some justification, that MPs should be paid more, with a simpler allowance system and publication of all expenses claims. But, realistically, this is a non-starter: the public would hate the idea, and it would be a foolish government that risked it in a recession. Better would be to increase the size of constituencies, to cut the number of seats to around 400 and bring down the cost. Supply and demand would ensure there were fewer seats for weak MPs.

A tale of two speeches today, as Brown and Cameron delivered addresses largely on the markets and financial regulation.  The big difference: Brown's was directed at a European audience in Strasbourg, whilst Cameron's was delivered here in Blighty.  It made for a striking comparison. On the one hand, you had the PM putting a Continental spin on his usual platitudes - he even said that "we in Europe are uniquely placed...".  Will this really achieve all that much, apart from raising a few chuckles from those European politicians who can remember when Chancellor Brown frequently snubbed meetings of EU finance ministers?

Could the second homes controversy be a chance for the Lib Dems to set themselves apart from the other parties?  They've certainly come out hard on the issue, tabling an early day motion calling for the second home allowance to be abolished for London MPs, and calling for an inquiry into MPs' expenses.  Here, courtesy of Politics Home, is the statement put out by their housing spokesman, Sarah Teather: "It is completely unacceptable that London MPs living within commuting distance of Westminster are allowed to claim money for a second home. Thousands of Londoners travel to work in Central London every single day, so why on earth shouldn’t their MPs?

Now here's another tax debate for the Tories to get caught up in.  Appearing on the Politics Show today, Ken Clarke has suggested that the Tory plan to raise the inheritance tax threshold is no more than an "aspiration".  Here's how the indispensable Politics Home reports it: "Mr Clarke said Tory plans to raise the inheritance tax threshold would not be a priority if they win the next election. Hinting plans had been kicked into the long grass, he called inheritance tax reform 'an aspiration' but not something they would do 'the moment we take power'. Asked if inheritance tax was 'off the shelf', he said: 'We'll have to consider when we get in whether we can afford to do that, in my opinion. I don't think Labour's going to leave us in a position where we can do that.

Yet another set of alarming recession statistics, these from today's FT: "One in every 56 businesses is expected to collapse this year as the recession intensifies, a leading accounting firm has warned. BDO Stoy Hayward says the rate of business failures will increase by 59 per cent by the end of this year to 36,000 companies, up from 22,600, or one in 87, in 2008. As the UK economy contracts at its fastest rate since the second world war, the firm’s Industry Watch report predicts that more company casualties will follow in 2010. It says 39,000 businesses, or one in 50, are likely to fail next year." What's particularly striking about this set of predictions is how, for this measure at least, they warn of an even worse position in 2010.

Labour's Obama-centricity has certainly been grating recently - the hoo-haa surrounding Brown's trip to the States, for instance, and the name-dropping he's engaged in since. But now it's been cranked up to 11, and is all the more disspiriting for it.  Exhibit A: the party's G20 micro-site, which Dizzy highlighted yesterday.  It features a picture of Brown and Obama, and calls for users to submit statments to "Prime Minster Brown, President Obama and the G20".  Somehow, I doubt other G20 leaders will be amused at Obama's elevation from the pack.  And, now, Exhibit B: a Labour party leaflet emblazoned with the words "Yes. I want to make a difference" and, again, featuring a picture of the US President.  Iain Martin has details, and a scan of it.