Peter Hoskin

A week devoted to Mervyn King and his eight-year reign at the Bank of England sounds like pretty turgid stuff. But, already, the series that has started in the Times (£) this morning — building up to an interview with the man himself — is anything but. Here, for instance, is a snippet from one of its articles, by David Wighton, on how Mr King reacted to the crumbling of Northern Rock: ‘As the plight of Northern Rock and other banks worsened, Sir John Gieve and Paul Tucker were urging Sir Mervyn to act, but he would not budge. “He mocked them as ‘crisis junkies’ and more or less accused them of enjoying it,” one former official says. Sir Mervyn took a different approach.

Have you noticed, CoffeeHousers, that our politicians are talking more and more about what they'd do after the next election? This has been happening, really, since last November, when George Osborne extended the forecasting horizon of his Budget to 2017. That had a hint of chicanery about it, ensuring that Osborne continued to meet his first fiscal rule — but it has still triggered a fashion for future gazing. Since then, both Labour and the Lib Dems have talked, in broad terms, about what they would offer for after 2015. I mention this now because of a story in today's Sunday Times (£).

At the end of last year, Ed Balls suggested that Labour would be ‘taking a tougher approach to conditionality [for benefit claimants]. If people can work, they should work.’ Now the party are starting to outline what that means. As the Independent puts it today, summarising a speech that Liam Byrne has given in Birmingham, ‘The unemployed would be guaranteed the offer of a job but could lose their benefits for six months if they turned it down, under a tough new policy on welfare planned by Labour.’ The paper characterises this as an attempt to ‘outflank the Tories on welfare,’ which is surely true. But the whole thing also reminds me of the Brown era.

Oh look, Ed Balls has backed a mansion tax, saying in an interview with Nick Robinson that ‘If the chancellor wants to go down that road then we will support him... let's work together.’ But, never fear, it's not a completely non-partisan offer from the shadow chancellor. He does weave a divide with George Osborne, by adding that ‘The issue is what's the purpose? If the purpose is to help families facing higher tuition fees, higher VAT or higher fuel bills — for example boosting their tax credits — yes.’ In other words, the money should go towards Labour policies, or Balls will withdraw his hand of friendship.

Try telling George Osborne that ‘tax doesn't have to be taxing’ — I'm sure he'd laugh at the sentiment. The story this morning is that he has a grand, gritty choice to make ahead of the Budget: to tax income or to tax wealth. The Lib Dems have apparently agreed to relent on the 50p rate, but only if they get a mansion tax on properties worth over £2 million in return. The thinking is that, in the current political environment, the government must always be seen to be hitting the well-off in some way. So, will Osborne accept the offer? He and other Tories will certainly be tempted to do so.

The trouble with the Unionist cause is that it's so disunited. Douglas Alexander's speech in Scotland today may appear to bring Labour in line with the Tories and Lib Dems by hinting at greater powers for Scotland in future, but the truth is that it's just another piece of string in an increasingly tangled mess. And so we have Alexander saying that ‘we must be open minded on how we can improve devolution’s powers, including fiscal powers,’ while, we're told, he's also ‘cautious… about fiscal measures that undermine the stability of the block grant system used to fund the three devolved governments in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast.

Just like fuel duty, George Osborne can't shake off the fury and discontent over the 50p tax rate. This morning, in a letter to the Telegraph, 537 bosses of small-to-medium-size businesses have called on the Chancellor to drop the rate. ‘The tax, which is in effect a 58p tax after national insurance is taken into account,’ they note, ‘puts wealth creators like us in a very awkward position.’   Usually, it's easy to be both sceptical and dismissive of these mass-signed letters. They tend to be party political constructs, such that another group of ‘experts’ will soon reply to profess the opposite. But this one is different, and could help cast the whole battle over 50p in a fresh light.