Ed balls

Will Cameron have a Brown moment over petrol?

Remember when Gordon Brown came up against Fern Britton in a TV interview? I’ve pasted the video above to remind CoffeeHousers of two persistent truths: how tricky a subject petrol costs can be for a serving Prime Minister (watch on from around the 0:50 mark), and how Labour are hardly blameless when it comes to the current cost of fuel. As Britton asks in the interview, “How much tax do you put on the fuel?” And the answer that Brown mumbled to avoid, from a House of Commons briefing note at the time, was this: In other words, for a huge portion of the New Labour years, fuel duty accounted

Labour sets about warning of a “cost of living crisis”

Ed Balls has been warming up to this one for a while, and now it has finally come: an all-out attack over rising prices. In an interview with the Sunday Times (£), the shadow chancellor warns of Britain’s “cost of living crisis,” and demands that George Osborne reverse the VAT increase. Much of his pleading is made on behalf of motorists, who – as I pointed out a couple of days ago – face punishment at the petrol pumps. He doesn’t even mention spending cuts once, especially not where his own party’s are concerned. Rising costs, clearly, are the new weapon of choice. And it’s not just Balls. Ed Miliband

Why Ed Balls shouldn’t brag if the OBR downgrades its growth forecasts

Some speculation (£) today that the Office for Budget Responsibility will shortly downgrade its 2011 growth forecast – and hence the growth forecast in next month’s Budget. If so, then you can expect Ed Balls to crow on and on about it. He did, after all, prime the attack in his recent clash with George Osborne across the dispatch box: “With consumer confidence falling, with inflation rising, with no bank lending agreement, no plan for jobs, no plan for growth, no plan B – does he really expect us to believe he can meet this forecast for economic growth this year or will he have to stand here at the

A fraternal fix

“Now he and his leader know what it’s like to be people’s second choice,” trilled George Osborne during his recent encounter with Ed Balls over the dispatch box. But might Balls actually have been Miliband’s third choice for the shadow chancellorship? That’s the implication of a delicious little story in today’s Sun, which claims that Miliband first “tapped up” his brother, aka MiliD, when trying to replace Alan Johnson: “A Labour insider revealed: ‘Ed’s people were desperate not to give the job to Balls.’ However, Ed stopped short of offering his brother the job when David made it clear he wanted to stay on the backbenches.” If true, then it’s

Coffee House Exclusive: McBride joins CAFOD

                  The penance of Damian McBride continues. After being ejected from No10, and disowned by his mentor Ed Balls, I can reveal that our antihero now has a new job – head of media at the Catholic overseas aid charity CAFOD. He will be doubtless be brilliantly effective at briefing against its enemies (in CAFOD’s case, hunger and the devil). I imagine the pay is several leagues below what he’d get from cashing in on his notoriety and publishing a hit man’s confessions. The weird thing is that McBride could have done so well, had he steered clear of Balls. He was a Treasury

Cameron’s back is against the wall – now he must fight

Given that David Cameron will have a tougher fight than perhaps any postwar Prime Minister other than Thatcher, it’s a bit unfortunate that his team doesn’t like political combat. Losing to Rachel Johnson over forests last week exposed major weaknesses, and sent a message to the government’s enemies: that these guys have pretty poor political combat skills. Now word is out, the cuts protests in Liverpool today will be the first in a series of challenges. Cameron, too, is stung by the avoidable mistakes of the last few weeks – and is reshaping No.10 to account for them. Some changes are great, some less so, others downright worrying. Here’s my

Balls’ shrill attack on King

Ed Balls’ irresponsible attack on Mervyn King is a clearly calculated attempt to undermine the Bank of England for Balls’ own narrow political ends. Balls both approved Mervyn King’s appointment and supported King as Governor when he was Chief Economic Adviser to the Treasury. Balls was central to creating the record deficit left by Labour, yet who has no plan for clearing the mess up. Now he is attacking the Governor of the Bank of England for supporting the Government’s plan to deal with the deficit. In what way is it political for the Governor to support the Government? I’d say that’s deeply non-political. By contrast, to play narrow party

Osborne’s conjuring trick

Earlier today, the government unveiled Project Merlin, its attempt to link executive pay in banks to institutional lending, whilst driving down bonuses and increasing the Treasury’s revenue take. Here are its key components: Osborne welcomed ‘the most transparent pay regime in the world.  Executive pay will be linked to targets for gross lending; remuneration for the top ten highest paid staff in each financial institution will be subject to the approval their board’s remuneration committee; in 2012, all large banks will have to publish payment details for members of their board and the 8 most high paid staff members. He then promised a new deal for small business lending. There

Osborne bests the Man With A Past

Balls is a bit like a vampire – he has bite, but he works best in the darkness. In the House of Commons, with those lights shining on him, his powers drain. George Osborne had the better of him in their brief exchanges at Treasury Questions. Balls led on the snow joke. But Osborne had pre-empted that earlier, when he first stood up. Balls teased him about going to Klosters in the winter, but these things only work in newspapers where you can run a picture of Osborne in ski gear. It leaves the House cold.   The key Osborne line was that Balls is “the man with a past”

Osborne v Balls at Treasury questions

Tomorrow is the first Osborne Balls Treasury Questions clash. It should be a fiery encounter. There’s little love lost between the two men, they are both aggressive despatch box performers  and the two of them know that their clash over the economy is likely to be the major factor in determining the next election result. Balls has a fair amount of material to work with: the disappointing growth—or, more accurately, non-growth—figures for the final quarter of last year, the limited success of the national insurance holiday for new small companies and the failure to publish a growth plan. Set against that is that Osborne will be able to accuse Balls

Clegg stands up for deficit reduction

Cleggologists will mark down the Deputy PM’s speech today as a typical effort. There was basically nothing in it that was new – but Clegg still put it across with more punch, and more persuasively, than most of his colleagues could manage. All of the slogans and pre-announced policies added up to something that sounded, fleetingly, like a plan for growth. Although we’ll still have to wait for Vince Cable’s review to see the outlines of that plan shaded in. Clegg’s main point was straightforward enough: that the government has to, and will, go beyond deficit reduction to stoke the embers of the British economy. He then ranged across everything

A new golden rule

The last few days have given us enough evidence for a new economic rule: the better the news about the economy, the less we’ll see of Ed Balls. As Tim Montgomerie notes over at ConservativeHome, the shadow chancellor was plastered right across the airwaves when last week’s growth figures were announced. This week – when the economic omens have been more encouraging – not so much. On Tuesday, as Fraser blogged, we had a record rise in manufacturing activity. Yesterday, there were heartening figures for the construction sector. And, today, the services sector has followed suit, with its strongest showing for eight months. Here’s the graph for all three: Sterling

IFS say Labour’s policy would mean higher interest rates

From the start of the financial crisis, the Conservatives have argued that when a country¹s finances are in a mess, the best way to manage demand is through monetary activism and fiscal responsibility. Going into this crisis, Britain¹s finances were indeed in a mess. We had the biggest structural deficit among major developed economies (according to the IMF, OECD, oh, and Alistair Darling). To claim there was no structural deficit is to oppose the truth. The principles of monetary activism and fiscal responsibility underpin the approach to the recovery too. By dealing with the fiscal mess, we can keep interest rates lower for longer, and avoid the sorts of financial

Treading the road to recovery

It will have been a quiet morning in the Balls household. Fresh economic indicators suggest that the British economy is not in some cuts-induced recession but, instead, doing rather nicely, thank-you. As I said last week, economic health is assessed by all manner of indices – and the ONS (which is forever having to tear up its GDP forecasts) might just have boobed last week with its preliminary Q4 GDP figures. Today we have the Manufacturing PMI surging to heights not even reached in the early 1990s:   Now, this might be a flash in the pan, you say. But then consider corporate liquidity – that is, how much debt

Ed Balls won’t answer the important questions

So Ed Balls has made his decision. In articles and a TV interview today, he has decided that, instead of apologising for his part in bringing Britain to the state it’s in today, he will deny what he did. It was the consensus that Britain had the biggest deficit in the G7 going into the crisis, because that’s what the facts show. Contrary to Balls’ assertions, Britain ran a structural deficit for the seven years running up to the crisis – the figures are right there in Labour’s own Budget red books. And it’s the consensus that Labour left the biggest deficit since the war, since it’s a fact. Given

Ten points about the Ed Balls interview

Ed Balls gets personal in his interview with the Times (£) today, but not in the way you might expect. For most of the piece he dwells on what the paper calls his “hidden vulnerability” – the effort to contain his stammer. And from there on, the politics seems a touch softer than usual. There are surprisingly few overt attacks on his opponents, and those that make the cut are considerably less violent that we’re used too. Which isn’t to say that the interview lacks politics. No sirree. Here’s a ten-point selection of some of the political highlights (so to speak), with my added comments:      1) Doubling back

From control to surveillance

Like husband, like wife. Yvette Cooper has begun shadowing Theresa May where Ed Balls stopped: by lacerating Nick Clegg’s naïveté in believing that control orders should be abolished. There is a faint note of animus in her politicking too. ‘National security,’ she said, ‘should not be about keeping Nick Clegg safe in his job.’ The government invited Cooper’s charge with its own crass political calculation. Spinning the new measures as a Liberal Democrat victory could only elicit that response from an opposition that is intent on exploiting the government’s broad weakness on law and order. In fact, as Lord West has remarked, the government has not even come close to

Brown takes the opportunity to peddle his “global growth plan”

As Iain Martin and Guido have noted, Ed Balls – and, for that matter, Ed Miliband – could probably have done without Gordon Brown hovering from the political graveyard to cast judgement on today’s growth figures. But hover he has, as the above video of his appearance on CNBC News testifies. It’s almost as though he wants to remind people that his spirit lives on in Labour’s rearranged top team. As for the content of his interview, it was stodgy mix of the arguments in his recent book and the attacks that Balls was making earlier. “Europe and America, but particularly Europe,” he said, “are now implementing policies that are

Ed Balls: I don’t think a double dip is the most likely outcome

And this, folks, is a day where Ed Balls is having his cake and eating it too. Not only is he basking in the grim light of the growth figures, but he is using the opportunity to recast his own stance on the economy. Speaking on the Daily Politics just now, he de-emphasised the argument that in-year cuts were to blame for today’s numbers, instead claiming that people have “changed their behaviour in anticipation of what’s coming in the future.” And, more ear-catching still, he added: “I don’t think [a double dip] is the most likely outcome.” This, as Fraser suggested earlier, is surely necessary caution on Balls’s part. He

Fraser Nelson

What to make of the GDP fall?

“Recession here we come, a snow-dabbed double-dip” tweeted Faisal Islam, Channel Four’s economics editor. He summed up much of the hysterical reaction. It may spoil a good story, but here is what I suspect the broadcasters won’t tell you today. 1. Erratic GDP swings are common when recovering from a recession. Remember how stunned everyone was with the surging quarter three data? Now, we’re all shocked by plunging quarter four figures. I’d advise CoffeeHousers to treat these two imposters just the same. After the 80s recession, quarterly growth rates swung between -0.7 percent and 1.5 percent. Following the ERM-induced recession in the 90s, growth rates swung between -0.2 percent and