Peter Hoskin

Oh dear, the Treasury is mired in another controversy about equality after the Guardian published a letter which Theresa May sent to George Osborne before the Budget. In it, she warned that the government could face legal action if it is unable to show that its decisions were made with a consideration to "existing race, disability and gender equality duties." As she puts it: "If there are no processes in place to show that equality issues have been taken into account in relate to particular decisions, there is a real risk of successful legal challenge by, for instance, recipients of public services, Trade Unions or other groups affected by these decisions.

A thoughtful and thought-provoking column from Danny Finkelstein (£) in the Times this morning, which is well worth a trip beyond the paywall to read. In it, he makes a persuasive point: that, despite their plunging poll ratings, the Lib Dems aren't doing too shabbily at all. After all, who, looking back at the party's recent history, would have thought they would be in power in 2010? That they are suggests, in Danny's words, that "this is not not the bottom for the Lib Dems, it is the top." From there, an important point is made against those who still contend that the Lib Dems would have been better off shacking up up with Labour in May, that it would have been a more natural fit. Here it is: "…the price of joining Labour might well have been greater.

On one level, there is something admirable about the government's uncompromising support for a Trident upgrade: senior Tories really do believe in the deterrent's strategic importance, and are not willing to sacrifice that. But, on many other levels, that same inflexibility is looking more and more unwise. Three former senior military figures write to the Times today with a new riff on a point that they have frequently made before. Why not squeeze another 15 years out of the current system, they say – by which time, "the anachronistic and counterproductive aspect of our holding on to a nuclear deterrent would be even more obvious." This is an argument with which a whole host of military figures and Lib Dems will sympathise.

With the threat of major strikes timed to coincide with Osborne's spending review in October, I think it's worth exhuming an important point that Julian Glover made in his Guardian column last month: "UK politics is often characterised as a contest for the centre ground, but that misdescribes the nature of the quest. Centrism implies banality, but I don't think voters want their governments to be mundane. There is a willingness to endorse radical action if it is explained and if it looks practicable. It worked for the left under Attlee and Blair; it worked for the right under Thatcher; and it is working – so far – for this government.

As the New Statesman's George Eaton suggests, there's quite a lot packed into Ed Balls's piece in the Times today (also on his website for those who can't venture beyond the paywall). And, what's more, some of it makes sense. Take his argument that Labour shouldn't cede the "radical centre ground" of British politics to the coalition. That's the right argument to make, even it if is rather undermined by Balls's own efforts to drag the party leftwards. As usual, it all starts to unravel as soon as Balls gets to the public finances. His position is blunt and straightforward: that "Labour needs strong leadership to make a credible argument against slashing public spending and raising VAT, which will increase unemployment and risk a double-dip recession.

Here's a slightly curious one: David Cameron and Nick Clegg have written a public letter to their ministers, reminding them that, "deficit reduction and continuing to ensure economic recovery is the most urgent issue facing Britain," and that, "the purpose of our government … [is] … putting power in the hands of communities and individuals and equipping Britain for long-term success." If you wanted to read into it, then you could say that the emphasis on the "long-term" throughout the letter is a warning to any disgruntled sorts: policies for the long-term require time to implement, so the coalition has to be built to last, etc. etc. But, of course, this missive is directed at voters as much as anyone else.