Treasury

George Osborne’s claim that the Treasury thinks Brexit would make you £4,300 worse off has gone down like a cup of cold sick with the Leave camp. While many Brexiteers have hit back in less than polite terms, it’s Leave.EU who win the award for ‘most blunt response’. In light of the claims, Arron Bank’s Brexit group have added a new picture to their Facebook group. The banner reads: ‘If this is our key economic team we are in deep s–t’. It seems that now Leave.EU are out of the race in terms of winning the official designation, they are able to speak freely.

Punch and Judy politics is clearly the mood of the moment in the House of Commons. Last week, David Cameron offered Corbyn some motherly advice on his dress sense, while a Tory MP heckled Jeremy Corbyn by yelling ‘who are you?’ during an EU debate. This morning, it was Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell’s turn to be on the receiving end of some Chamber abuse. After trying to get the Government to withdraw its proposals over regulatory regimes for senior bankers, he sat back down but didn’t quite get the answer he expected. Before Chief Secretary to the Treasury Greg Hands stepped up to reply, a Tory MP on the other side

All Westminster might be agog with the latest shenanigans vis-a-vis the got-to-happen-at-some-point EU referendum but most sentient folk in this blessed land are magnificently uninterested in the matter. Not even this morning’s Telegraph splash – ‘Attorney General may back Brexit’  – can stir them from their slumber. At best the majors will have asked, over their E&B this morning, ‘Who is the Attorney General these days?’ North of the border, matters are just as quiet even though another great question remains unsettled. As yet, you see, there is no agreement on the terms of a ‘fiscal framework’ which will underpin the relationship between the finances of the devolved parliament in Edinburgh and the

George Osborne and John McDonnell went head-to-head at Treasury Questions today and one topic predictably dominated: tax credits. There was a charged atmosphere in the Commons as the shadow chancellor explained ‘the Chancellor has a choice before him’ and outlined his proposal for reversing the planned cuts to tax credits. The plan differs somewhat from Osborne’s: ‘He can push on with the tax giveaways to multinational corporations. He can press on with tax cuts to the wealthiest few in inheritance tax that he announced in his summer budgets. Or he can reverse those tax breaks for the few and instead go for a less excessive surplus target in 2019-20 and be in

George Osborne has recruited Richard Davies, The Economist’s economics editor, to replace Rupert Harrison as chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, Coffee House understands. This position is essentially the Chancellor’s top economic adviser, although Thea Rogers has taken on Harrison’s chief of staff role. Harrison was one of the most influential figures in the last government and was responsible for creating and implementing much of the government’s economic policy — so much so that the Chancellor joked at his leaving party ‘it has been an honour to play a role in the Harrison chancellorship’. He left the Treasury after the general election and has since gone to work in the City. His replacement has plenty of experience

For the final three years of his 18-year career at Goldman Sachs, Jim O’Neill, the Treasury’s new commercial secretary with responsibility for developing the Northern Powerhouse, served as chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, the company’s least-regarded and most bothersome unit. While two younger executives ran the business, O’Neill was dispatched to faraway conferences to bore audiences of docile suits with his views on whether Nigeria or Malaysia offered a better investment opportunity. When finally in early 2013 he resigned his sinecure, he was not replaced and his title was mothballed. Since then, he has been all but marching up and down Whitehall wearing a sandwich board pleading for a

It’s dangerous, in my line of work, to promise you’ll be anywhere by 8 p.m. I made this mistake recently, saying I’d turn up to a dinner after a Budget discussion — a ‘quad’ meeting, where I sit with the Prime Minister, George Osborne and Nick Clegg. We’ve been doing this for five years, so have come to know each other pretty well. Not that we all agree; on the night in question, Nick was angry about something (I won’t say what) and our meeting ran on. I headed back with him to Dover House, a magnificent building where I was based during my tenure as Scottish Secretary. A great

The Commons is pretty quiet at the moment, draining of energy earlier and earlier in the week as MPs head out to their constituencies. So quiet, in fact, that Labour seems to have given up on using departmental question times as a forum for making government ministers uncomfortable or piling any political pressure on their opposite numbers. Yesterday’s Work and Pensions Questions were pretty lacklustre from an opposition attack point of view, but today’s Treasury questions were far worse. Tory MPs had turned up with piles of sickly sweet loyal questions to ask, most running along the lines of ‘is the Chancellor aware that he’s doing a fantastic job?’ The

Ed Balls had two great lines of attack today at Treasury questions, but didn’t really manage to get any traction with either. He started his stint in the Chamber by trying once again to push the Chancellor on when the Treasury knew about the ‘surprise’ £1.7 billion EU bill, then moved on to the Conservatives’ failure to meet their net migration target. The first attack simply led to George Osborne saying this: ‘First of all, may I say that it is very good to see the shadow Chancellor in his place? We had heard disturbing rumours that there was going to be a shadow Cabinet reshuffle. We waited nervously by

Improving the supply of new housing, adjusting the Help to Buy scheme if necessary, revaluing council tax bands and accepting that universal credit won’t solve all of Britain’ welfare ills: all ideas batted around in domestic political debate in this country by politicians and commentators who manage to secure a reasonable hearing each time they suggest them. But the problem with this latest list is that it comes from the European Commission: poorly supported by last week’s European elections and not preaching from a position of runaway economic success. The EC has published recommendations for each EU member state which are ‘designed to strengthen their growth potential, increase competitiveness and