Peter Hoskin

As an addendum to James's post earlier on potential tensions between No.10 and the Treasury, this from Benedict Brogan: "I hear persistent reports that No10 took so long to fix the date for the PBR because it tried with some difficulty to persuade the Chancellor to go for a thumping great tax giveaway. The Treasury quite rightly resisted by pointing out that impact is one thing, recklessness is another. We will discover who won on Nov 24.

Nothing too surprising in Alistair Darling's interview with the Independent this morning.  There's chat about how the Government's spend 'n' borrow reponse to the downturn is the "responsible" thing to do; how the country will "get though it" all, perhaps by 2010; and how we shouldn't expect £15 billion worth of tax cuts in the Pre-Budget Report.  Halfway through the article, though, there are two quotes which add up to a something of an admission: "There are two sides to it. It is also important that, like anybody else, you live within your means. You have to demonstrate in the medium term how you propose to do that." And, "Keynes is best remembered for what he said about making sure you help the economy in difficult times.

Today marks the 90th anniversary of Armistice Day and the formal end of World War One.  I quote from the climax of Norman Stone's stunning work, WWI - A Short History: "Meanwhile, as German morale was collapsing, the final crisis was precipitated by another act of desperation. In a weird descant upon the navy-army rivalry that had done so much to weaken the [German] war effort, the naval authorities resolved on a last, mad move. Captain von Levetzow, chief of staff of the navy, could see the likelihood that Germany's great ships would be interned, none of them left for the eventual reconstitution of the Reichsmarine.

I haven't seen all the numbers yet - or, indeed, many details at all - so consider the following as very loose, first impressions of the tax cut Cameron's just announced (details here): What is it? Companies which employ workers who have been jobless for three months will get a cut in the amount of national insurance they pay.  The cut will be worth £2,500 for every such worker taken on.  According to Cameron, that could reduce the overall tax burden on companies by up to £2.6 billion, and create up to 350,000 jobs. How is it funded? Out of the cash that would otherwise have been spent on unemployment benefits. Potential pros. A neat double action: reduces the tax burden whilst also reducing unemployment - helps both business and individuals.

Today's Populus poll in the Times - the first to be conducted in the aftermath of the interest rate cut and the Glenrothes byelection - has the Tories on 41 percent (down 4 since early October); Labour on 35 percent (up 5); and the Lib Dems on 16 percent (up 1).  That's Labour's highest level of support since March. I doubt Team Cameron will be unduly worried by those headline numbers - after all, they are still 6 points ahead; solidly in the 40s; and all after several weeks of positive coverage for Brown.  But some of the below-headline findings will cause concern. For instance, 52 percent of respondents think that Brown is the "right leader to deal with Britain's economy in a recession", compared to 32 percent for Cameron.