My radio show - 25/11/2015 - Votes at 16, Autumn Statement and In Vision TV Continuity

I do these most weeks between 8:30pm and 9:30pm on Wednesday evenings. You can listen to the station live here.

This week I talk to Henry Hill of Conservative Home about votes at 16 and Osborne's Autumn Statement and to cultural commentator and old school TV expert Steve Williams about in-vision TV continuity and why it's largely died out

I have put an edited (sans music) version of the show on the House of Comments podcast feed so if you subscribe you should get it automatically.

You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes here.

Other podcasting software e.g. for Android can be pointed here to subscribe.

Or you can listen to the embedded episode below here:


Any feedback welcomed in the comments below.


PS: A big thanks to Audioboom for hosting the podcast.

My radio show tonight at 8:30pm - Votes at 16 and has Osborne dodged a bullet?

On my Music Mill FM show tonight from 8:30pm:

First I'll be joined by assistant Editor of Conservative Home Henry Hill about votes at 16. 16 and 17 year olds had a vote in the Scottish referendum last year and the Lords have now voted for similar for the impending EU referendum. Would this be a good thing? Do under 18s understand the issues well enough to make an informed decision?

We'll also spend some time discussing the Chancellor's Autumn Statement today. Has he dodged the tax-credits bullet? And if so how has he managed to execute a U-turn that may have severely damaged the career of lesser politicians?

Then later we'll be joined by old-school TV enthusiast Steve Williams to discuss in-vision continuity. If you recall, back in the day, mainly on ITV lots of the regions had continuity announcers who we could see, usually sitting behind a desk. In some ways this gave the viewer a strong connection with the station in a way that perhaps we don't get any more. Have we lost something here? And could they be set for a comeback with some of the hyper-local TV stations that have started recently?

If you want to listen live the best way is either to find "Music Mill FM" on the TuneIn Radio app if you have a mobile device or via this link from a browser.

If you want to get in touch during the show I'm on twitter @MarkReckons – you can tweet your thoughts about today's topics or anything else. You can also e-mail me on markreckons@live.co.uk either during the show or if you're listening to the podcast version any time afterwards.

I will also be uploading a recording of the show to the House of Comments podcast feed in the next day or two as usual.

House of Comments - Episode 128 - The Living Wage Budget

The latest House of Comments podcast is now out.

This week the podcast is back for a one off special during the current podcast hiatus. I am joined by the Guardian political columnist Rafael Behr to discuss George Osborne's "Living Wage" budget and its political consequences.

You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes here.

Other podcasting software e.g. for Android can be pointed here to subscribe.

Or you can listen to the embedded episode below here:



Any feedback welcomed in the comments below.


PS: A big thanks to Audioboom for hosting the podcast. We would also like to thank Kevin MacLeod from Incompetech.com for our theme music.

House of Comments - Episode 94 - Cash4Fracking

Episode 94 of the House of Comments podcast "Cash4Fracking" is out. I am joined by Labour activist and council candidate Claire Spencer and Ruth Porter of the centre-right think tank Policy Exchange to discuss Ed Miliband's banking reforms, Osborne's £7 minimum wage intervention, cash incentives to councils for fracking and the continuing fallout from the Lord Rennard case.

You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes here.

Other podcasting software e.g. for Android can be pointed here to subscribe.

You can download the mp3 for the latest episode directly from here.

Or you can listen to the embedded episode below here:

listen to ‘Episode 94 - Cash4Fracking’ on Audioboo

Any feedback welcomed in the comments below.


PS: A big thanks to Audioboo for hosting the podcast for us. We would also like to thank Kevin MacLeod from Incompetech.com for our theme music.

House of Comments - Episode 65 - The Spending Review Review

Episode 65 of the House of Comments podcast "The Spending Review Review" is out. This week myself and Emma Burnell are joined by Conservative liberal campaigning organisation Bright Blue's Kate Maltby to discuss the spending review and the related fortunes of the parties in its wake, the double dip that never was, royal spending, ministerial no shows and violent porn.

You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes here.

Other podcasting software e.g. for Android can be pointed here to subscribe.

You can download the mp3 for the latest episode directly from here.

Or you can listen to the embedded episode below here:

listen to ‘Episode 65 - The Spending Review Review’ on Audioboo

If you are a political blogger and wish to be considered as a future guest please drop me an e-mail at markreckons@live.co.uk.

Any feedback welcomed in the comments below.


PS: A big thanks to Audioboo for hosting the podcast for us and especially to Audioboo's James O'Malley who has helped us out getting relaunched. James is also editor of The Pod Delusion podcast which is about "interesting things" and is well worth a listen too! We would also like to thank Kevin MacLeod from Incompetech.com for our theme music.

House of Comments - Episode 52 - The Meh Budget

Episode 52 of the House of Comments podcast "The Eastleigh Fallout" was recorded on Sunday and is out. This week myself and Emma Burnell were joined by former Ed Miliband adviser Sonia Sodha to discuss the budget, Leveson and blogs, Workfare and JSA targets and immigration bonds.

You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes here (note - this is a new feed so if you used to subscribe to the old feed a couple of years ago you'll need to do so again).

Other podcasting software e.g. for Android can be pointed here to subscribe.

You can download the mp3 for the latest episode directly from here.

Or you can listen to the embedded episode below here:

listen to ‘Episode 52 - The Meh Budget’ on Audioboo

If you are a political blogger and wish to be considered as a future guest please drop me an e-mail at markreckons@live.co.uk.

Any feedback welcomed in the comments below.


PS: A big thanks to Audioboo for hosting the podcast for us and especially to Audioboo's James O'Malley who has helped us out getting relaunched. James is also editor of The Pod Delusion podcast which is about "interesting things" and is well worth a listen too! We would also like to thank Kevin MacLeod from Incompetech.com for our theme music.

House of Comments - Episode 48 - The Politics of AAA

Episode 48 of the House of Comments podcast "The Politics of AAA" was recorded on Sunday and is out today. This week myself and Emma Burnell were joined by Isabel Hardman the editor of the Spectator Coffee house blog to discuss the AAA debacle and what it means for George Osborne and the government, the Eastleigh by-election and what I found out pounding the streets in South Hampshire at the weekend and finally the accusations against Lord Rennard and more generally women in public life.

You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes here (note - this is a new feed so if you used to subscribe to the old feed a couple of years ago you'll need to do so again).

Other podcasting software e.g. for Android can be pointed here to subscribe.

You can download the mp3 for the latest episode directly from here.

Or you can listen to the embedded episode below here:

listen to ‘Episode 48 - The Politics of AAA’ on Audioboo

If you are a political blogger and wish to be considered as a future guest please drop me an e-mail at markreckons@live.co.uk.

Any feedback welcomed in the comments below.


PS: A big thanks to Audioboo for hosting the podcast for us and especially to Audioboo's James O'Malley who has helped us out getting relaunched. James is also editor of The Pod Delusion podcast which is about "interesting things" and is well worth a listen too! We would also like to thank Kevin MacLeod from Incompetech.com for our theme music.

George Osborne thinks he can win by appealing to mean-spiritedness - I think he's wrong

During his pre-budget statement last week, the Chancellor George Osborne set out his intent to ensure that many benefits only rise by 1% for the next 3 years.

This has been hailed by some on the right of politics as a fiscally responsible thing to do and a way of ensuring that benefits do not rise by more than many people's wages have in the last few years. There have been others who have claimed that it is regressive and unfair to heap such a burden of real-terms cuts on those in society least able to afford it.

But what many think, regardless of what they consider the rights and wrongs of the decision is that Osborne has set a clever trap for Eds Miliband and Balls to fall into. The theory goes that public opinion is on the side of those who want to "control" the benefits bill and that anyone arguing against this will essentially be putting themselves on the side of the "skivers" as opposed to the "strivers".

As it happens it is beginning to look like Osborne has actually got this calculation wrong with 69% of people in a recent poll saying they thought benefits should rise in line with inflation or higher. However even without polling evidence this move just feels wrong. The idea that the poorest in society should suffer a real terms cut in their income when many of those people are already close to the edge financially (witness the huge rise of payday lenders in recent years for example) sits very ill with me.

Part of the problem that was identified almost straight away by opponents of the measure is that 60% of those affected by the cuts are actually in work. But really, that shouldn't matter either. Trying to pitch those who are working against those who are not is the worst kind of politics. The vast majority of those out of work would love to have a job and although unemployment is falling it is still far too high. Many of those who Osborne seems to be painting as skivers currently have no choice.

He has made a serious political mistake here. Ten years ago Theresa May made a speech where she described how the Conservatives had the unwelcome mantle of "The Nasty Party". This resonated because it rang true. David Cameron has spent years trying to detoxify his party with trips to the Arctic, endless speeches on the NHS and all sorts of other measures to attempt to reassure voters that they have changed.

With measures like this 1% rise Osborne is retoxifying his party. He is punishing the poorest in society for an economic situation that they had nothing to do with creating and doing it in such a way as to try and pitch different sections of society against each other. He seems to be hoping that envy will win the day.

I hope and expect he is wrong about this. Not because opinion polls tell us so. But because I do not recognise the mean-spirited picture of Britain that he seems determined to paint. We're better than that.

The trap he thought he had set has sprung shut on the Chancellor as he tried to tip-toe away from it.

He and his party will ultimately pay a heavy price for this.


This post was originally published on The New Statesman online.

What's good for the goose....

Initial GDP figures for Q3 2012 suggest that we are now out of recession and that the economy grew by 1%.

Good news! Or so you would think.

There are plenty lining up though to claim that the "exceptional circumstances" of the Olympics are largely to credit for this and that hence the picture is still quite bleak.

They may well have a point, but I would take them more seriously if these criticisms were not largely coming from the same quarters that reacted with derision when George Osborne tried to claim last year that one off factors such as the extra bank holiday for the Royal Wedding had suppressed growth.

So it would appear that exceptional circumstances should be taken into account, but only when they contribute positively. If they have an adverse effect we're not allowed to hear them mentioned under threat of vilification for any who dare.

Can we have a bit of consistency please? Either they count or they don't.

Personally I would rather just see the figures reported and leave any exceptional stuff to one side no matter which direction. There will often be one off things going on and it seems a bit silly to constantly have these sort of arguments.

For now I'm just pleased we have some good positive growth figures. Hopefully this will help boost confidence and contribute to a virtuous circle that becomes self fulfilling.

David Cameron is now weaker than John Major

I'm not even talking about the fact that he has not been able to persuade his backbenchers to support a key plank of the coalition agreement, although that is pretty weak.

I'm referring to how he has steadfastly refused to move George Osborne from the Treasury brief. It has demonstrated just how hidebound his political room for manoeuvre has become.

I understand those who say Osborne is one of Cameron's oldest political friends. But Blair was old friends with Peter Mandelson and David Blunkett and he did what was necessary to remove them from their cabinet posts when the time came. And even John Major had the guts to remove Norman Lamont as Chancellor when it became clear he was a political liability in that role.

Most observers agree that Osborne has performed poorly as Chancellor. His budget earlier this year was a political disaster. Worse, Cameron knew it would be (specifically regarding the reduction of the 50p rate - he didn't want to do it) but gave Osborne enough rope to hang himself with. Now that he has done so, instead of letting him swing he has cut the rope and is giving him his undeserved political support.

Even worse still, other Prime Ministers just over 2 years into a parliament would likely have at least one more chance to remove an errant minister as reshuffles can be fairly frequent when one party is in power. But the nature of the current coalition makes it pretty unlikely there will be any more reshuffles before 2015. So this is the one chance that Cameron has to put someone politically and economically competent into No 11 (e.g. Philip Hammond) and he has flunked it.

Prime Ministers need to have a shaft of steel running through them. No matter who were close allies on the way up, a politician that wishes to retain power needs to be unsentimental about friendship. That he feels unable to do anything about Osborne demonstrates how weak he has now become.

When even John Major was able to do things you cannot it is surely time to think long and hard about your long term political strategy?

Should Nick Clegg have held out for the Chancellorship?

Should Nick Clegg have held out for the Chancellorship during the coaliton negotiations last year?

I know, I know but bear with me.

I was suprised following the coalition negotiations that none of the jobs that are traditionally considered the big 4 (PM, Chancellor, Home Secretary or Foreign Secretary) were given to Lib Dems. Sure, we got Deputy PM which depending on how you looked at it could have been a bigger job than any of the big 4 except PM. But I am not convinced it has turned out like that nor was it really very likely.

From my understanding of what happened during the negotiations themselves, gleaned from various contemporaneous accounts I do not think that the idea of any of these jobs going to a Lib Dem was seriously entertained. To be fair there are specific problems with each of them:

PM: Non-starter. This role clearly has to go to the leader of the largest party.
Chancellor: Economic policy is the lynchpin of any government and it seems superficially obvious that the role should go to a member of the largest party. But I will come back to this.
Foreign Secretary: Figurehead of the government's foreign policy and given how important this area is to the Conservatives it is difficult to imagine them being happy with a Lib Dem in the top job at the start of a new coalition.
Home Secretary: Given the Conservative Party's traditional stance on issues like Law and Order it would be surprising if they took a Lib Dem in this role lying down. You've only got to look at how the "Sixth Lib Dem in the cabinet" ((C) Nick Clegg 2011) Ken Clarke is doing in the more minor role at Justice to see how this could have gone. Plus Home Secretaries are often only one or two prison or immigration scandals away from political oblivion so Clegg would likely have wanted to steer clear of this anyway.

So how do I think Clegg could have held out for the Chancellorship?

Well all the talk at the time of the negotiations, not least from David Cameron was of an open and generous offer to the Lib Dems to help form a government. It was clear that Cameron and Clegg wanted to bind the two parties together in a strong coalition primarily to reassure the markets that the incoming government was serious about getting a grip on the finances. As Clegg and the other senior Lib Dems made clear following the discussions that they were indeed serious about getting the deficit down there is no reason to think that this programme would have needed to be watered down had Clegg become Chancellor. Indeed if anything it could have sent an even stronger message to the market that the government was seriously committed. After all, Clegg would hardly be likely to demur later in the parliament from an economic policy that he was chiefly responsible for.

There is also of course the political dimension to this. I can certainly imagine that a good number of Conservative MPs would have been less than impressed with such a move. But it is easy to forget now just how opposed they were to a referendum on any sort of electoral reform until they were faced with the stark choice of potentially not forming the next government. I strongly suspect with the right leadership from Cameron that they could have been persuaded.

Which leads me to perhaps the most important point here. Part of the official title of the role of PM is "First Lord of the Treasury". This is often forgotten about, especially these days in the aftermath of the way Gordon Brown managed to use the Chancellor's office to essentially run an alternative government within government from Tony Blair. But that was an extreme example thrown up by a unique set of political circumstances. Cameron and Clegg are generally much more collegiate and it is reasonable to assume that their relations as PM and Chancellor would have been cordial. And of course Clegg would not have been able to get anything through without Cameron's backing so it's not as if he would have been able to go on manouvers even if he had he wanted to.

Another political aspect to this is how the allocation of the role of Chancellor would have reflected the political strengths of the people in the two most senior roles in government. We know Cameron can command 307 MPs through the lobbies (caveat - on subjects other than the EU!). But Clegg can command 57 MPs through the lobbies. How many can George Osborne command? Officially none. But even unofficially he would struggle to get the same number as Clegg through. The truth is that Clegg could effectively bring down the government if he wanted to. Osborne probably could not. He could weaken it for sure but the only person apart from Cameron himself who has the political clout to do this is the man who is currently our Deputy PM.

If Clegg had become Chancellor then the dynamics of the cabinet would have had to be quite different. There would have needed to be a strong Conservative as Chief Secretary to the Treasury (my money would have been on Phillip Hammond) and a suitable role would have needed to be found for Osborne (perhapsa beefed up Deputy PM role combined with Conservative Party Chair?). There would have been other knock-on effects such as Vince Cable would have been unlikely to be Business Secretary but I suspect things would have settled down quite nicely.

The problem I see with the current situation is that Deputy PM at the moment is a bit of a non-role. I know that Clegg has all sorts of responsiblity for constitutional change but with AV out of the window and Lords reform looking ever more tinged with chlorophil from that lengthening grass I can't help but feel that his political skills would have been much better served with the job that is actually number two in the government hierarchy rather than his current one that often seems difficult to define.

This sort of arrangement may have proven more sustainable in the longer run too. Since the failure of the AV referendum the Lib Dems in general and Clegg in particular have started to pursue a much stronger differentiation strategy from the Conservatives. This would have been much harder for him to do if he personally had been much more tightly bound into the centre of government decisions in the Treasury.

We'll never know for sure how this would have played out but Cameron and Clegg could be forgiven for reflecting that it might have been to the advantage of both of them if such a bold move to bind the current parties of government together had been taken from the outset.


This post was first published on Dale & Co.

Osborne cocaine allegations highlight political hypocrisy on drugs

Guido has details today of a story about how someone who knew George Osborne when he was in his early twenties is claiming that she saw him take cocaine on multiple occasions.

Osborne has had these allegations made to him before and has always strenuously denied them. It is possible that this latest round of allegations will come to nothing too. It is not clear if there is a smoking gun.

But if it turned out to be true would Osborne have to resign?

If it was up to me he would definitely have to. Not because I think taking cocaine as a 22 year old is such a terrible thing, I don't and I know many young people take all sorts of illegal drugs and go on to have completely normal lives. The only person he was likely to harm is himself and if he was willing to take the risk, it should have been up to him.

But Osborne is one of the most senior members of a government that supports punitive measures against people who take cocaine. In fact it is possible for someone caught in possession of a small amount of a "Class A" drug such as cocaine to be sentenced to 7 years in prison. The same sentence you can get for armed robbery.

So if it turned out that he had taken cocaine, by the terms of the drugs policies that he himself supports he has committed an offence equivalent to this. That's why he should have to resign. Because he himself insists that anyone caught doing what he is alleged to have done can have that sentence imposed on them.

Of course we already know that people like Louise Mensch have admitted drug use in the past and Nick Clegg and even David Cameron himself have refused to deny similar allegations. Cameron insisted that he is entitled to a "private life before politics".

The fact that Osborne could survive something like this, and that numerous of his colleagues have survived too demonstrates the truth of the matter. That despite the "tough on drugs" rhetoric, politicians actually understand that drawing a parallel between a crime like armed robbery and ingesting a powder that affects nobody but yourself is ludicrous.

If you don't believe me, ask yourself whether Mensch, Clegg, Cameron or Osborne could still continue as MPs if there was a strong suspicion that any of them had been involved in an armed robbery.

Of course not. Robbery is a real crime.

51p per person per year vs 1000+ nurses

Paul Waugh from Politics Home has just tweeted the following:

Osborne says Royals cost us 51p per person per year.

I have no doubt that George Osborne's figures are accurate for the direct cost of the Royals*.

But isn't it interesting how when Osborne is talking about something that he wants to spend money on (and you can't get much more Royalist than true blue Tories like our beloved Chancellor) it's presented in a way that tries to make it look miniscule? Almost as if it would be churlish to disagree that the Royals are worth every darn penny and anyway it's less than the cost of a mars bar don't you know and didn't she look radiant on the wedding day and sure the Duke occasionally says the wrong thing but he's been such a good consort for her etc. etc. etc.?

For example, I don't remember the (made up) figures for the cost of switching to AV being presented by the Chancellor in the format of cost per person per year (the real figures for this would have been less than 51p per person per year). Oh no, it was how many sick babies will suffer and how many soldiers will (implicitly) die because of lack of the millions that were supposedly going to be spent.

What what does this figure of 51p per person per year actually mean? Well the figures have just been released for the UK population last year. It was 62,262,000 (see here). I am assuming he is using the most up to date figures so this would be a total of £31,753,620. Or if you want to look at it another way, and a way that politicians like Osborne usually love to do it is approximately 6 new primary schools every year at a cost of just over £5m per school (source).

But the currency politicians simply adore using regarding public spending is nurses. How many extra nurses could we employ each year for the cost of the Royal family? Well according to salarytrack.co.uk the current average salary for a nurse in the UK is £26,123 per year. Let's add on 13.8% for employers' NI and that gives us a total salary cost of £29,728. So we could get around 1068 extra nurses each year. Imagine how many more lives each year could be saved and how much more comfort and care could be provided for that amount of money.

Suddenly that 51p per person per year seems a lot bigger doesn't it?

I know what I would rather spend the money on.

*I say "direct cost" because this does not include the cost of things like security and civic receptions etc. It's hard to know what the total cost is but I have seen estimates previously (e.g. here) of around £100m. So maybe the real cost is more like 3000 nurses.

UPDATE: Millennium Dome in the comments has correctly highlighted the following which I thought was worthy of putting the main post:

I agree with you, but actually I'd say you can get even more nurses for your Royal Family buck!

You've ADDED the employers NI cost - and fair enough that IS a cost to the Dept. of Health... but not to government spending overall because the Treasury, obviously, gets that money back. The actual cost to the exchequer of a nurse (or ANY public sector worker) is their salary NET of tax, so in the case of a nurse on £26,123 that's c£20,150 net of tax and NI.

So I reckon the government could afford 1575 extra nurses a year for £31,753,620 :)

The big winner from last Thursday is George Osborne

There has been a lot of talk about how (apart from Alex Salmond of course) the biggest winner from last Thursday's election and referendum results was David Cameron. Indeed Cameron is certainly in a strengthened position now having incredibly increased his share of council seats despite being a year into a government that has made big public spending cuts and increased taxation. And the fact that the AV referendum failed by such a large margin shows that Cameron can be a winner when he puts his mind to it (albeit slightly late in the day in this case).

But I think the biggest winner from last week is Chancellor George Osborne. It is widely known that Osborne was the one who stiffened Cameron's spine and got him to focus on the consequences of a Yes vote for the party. In this excellent comprehensive account of the No campaign by Tim Montgomerie on Conservative Home at the weekend he explains how it was only when Osborne starkly relayed this message to Cameron that he properly got it.

And once the brakes were off I have been told that Osborne then put a bit of stick about (to coin an Urquhartism) within the No campaign making it clear that they had to pull out all the stops to win. His interventions during the latter part of the campaign will doubtless have been music to the ears of many Tory activists too.

Allied to this is the fact that he is a Chancellor that is responsible for the biggest spending cuts this country seen in modern times and yet the public does not seem to want to blame him for them. Some deft political footwork (and a bit of luck - always important for a putative leader) has led to the Lib Dems getting the lion's share of the blame. Witness how it is Danny Alexander who ends up going onto the media regularly to defend Treasury decisions, not Osborne.

When you weigh up the fact that the Tory base are very happy with his performance, coupled with his behind the scenes successes during the last few weeks of campaigning it becomes more and more clear that at the moment at least there is no serious alternative challenger for the Tory leadership. Hague does not seem to want it and there are no other obvious contenders. Were Cameron to fall under the proverbial bus tomorrow I suspect Osborne would walk it.

But longer term Osborne is in a great position too. It is often assumed that the retention of FPTP and the boundary changes will benefit Cameron. And indeed they will to an extent, but they will equally benefit his successor, perhaps more so. I think it is quite likely that Cameron will step down during the next parliament. As I recall he has hinted that may well happen. The Tories are likely to still be in government after the next general election if the economy comes good before 2015. And of course if the economy comes good it will be Osborne who will get the lion's share of the credit, you can bet on it.

Had AV passed, a Tory majority (or even coalition or minority) government would have been a fair bit less likely after 2015. No wonder Osborne felt the need to get involved!

A lot can happen over the next four years and none of what I have said above is guaranteed. But Osborne's star is rising rapidly. If events pan out for him we could well find our next Prime Minister is another Chancellor who used careful behind the scenes manoeuvring to win the ultimate crown.

Surely it's too early to tell on the economy?

The surprise news this week that the initial figures for Q4 2010 showed a 0.5% contraction of the economy caused a lot of comment.

Labour claimed that it proved the government was going in the wrong direction and that the cuts are damaging the economy. The government claimed it showed no such thing and tried to shift much of the blame onto the cold weather (although independent economists calculate that even without the cold snap growth would have been "flattish" (down from 0.6% growth in Q3)).

So who is right? Do the figures prove that the government is heading in the wrong direction and that Labour was right? Or is it a statistical blip that will be ironed out as we forge ahead.

I would suggest neither response has this right. In fact I would suggest it is far too early to decide one way or the other.

Let's look at the facts. The period Q4 runs from October-December 2010. At the start of the quarter the coalition government (AKA Teh ConDems) had been in power for just over 4 months. The CSR was not even announced until 20th October. The way people behave and the decisions they take simply do respond immediately to these anyway. It takes time. If anything it could be argued that people were still largely responding in Q4 to decisions taken earlier in 2010 and even earlier than that. I know new governments love to blame the previous administration and it does get ridiculous (I still remember Labour blaming the Tories for things in 2005 for example) but after only a few months this is surely still legitimate? At the very least it is fair to say that the current administration cannot be solely to blame for economic behaviour towards the end of the year when they only took office in May.

It will be a while before it becomes clear exactly which direction the economy is going in and whether Q4 2010 is a blip or a trend. Michael Portillo said something interesting on This Week on Thursday. He suggested that from his experience, the way the government has reacted and the other economic indicators suggest that they really do believe this is just a blip and even that when the revised Q4 figures come out they will tell a better story. Otherwise, if they really thought we were heading for a double dip they would be forced to act as it would be politically very damaging.

Having said this I return to my main point. We just do not know.

And anyone who claims Q4 2010 is at this point clear evidence one way or the other is being misleading. They don't know either.

George Osborne's lips betray concentration not conspiracy

I noticed on a couple of blogposts yesterday (Lib Con and Hadleigh Roberts) that they were drawing attention to the fact that when Nick Clegg made his now infamous statement about how Jack Straw had supported "the illegal invasion of Iraq", George Osborne appeared to know what he was saying before he said it as he was lip-syncing along with him.

Here is the relevant clip so you can judge for yourself:

Having watched it several times now I have come to a different conclusion. I think Osborne is engaging in a form of unconscious mimicry. I have noticed this amongst some people I know. It seems to often manifest itself in repeating the last word of somebody's sentence just after they have said it but I have also seen it where someone appears to be half-heartedly lip-syncing with the speaker too. This is what appears to be happening here. Osborne is sort of making the same mouth movements as Clegg but if you watch closely it is a split second after he has said each word. He is also nodding along with the rhythm of Clegg's speech pattern. The look on his face is one of intense concentration, I suspect as he is taking in what Clegg is saying rather than knowing what it will be before he has said it.

This actually makes more sense than Clegg and Osborne having colluded on this. Osborne voted for the Iraq war and also does not consider it illegal. Why would he want Clegg to say that? It just puts him and his colleagues in an embarrassing position. And if there was collusion you would expect Osborne to do everything in his power to suppress any urge to mouth the words as Clegg said them. As for the pointing at Straw and laughing as soon as Clegg sat down, well that's what happens at PMQs. I do not think we need read anything much into it.

So in this case I think that all Osborne's lips betrayed were intense concentration and a slight nervous tic rather than some conspiracy.

James Forsyth's contorted logic

There's some rather specious reasoning going on over on the Spectator blog today. Fraser Nelson has posted a piece where he refers to an article by James Forsyth in the paper version of the magazine entitled "The true meaning of Osborne's budget".

Some of the points from James that Fraser highlights are quite incisive but this one is not:

"During the election campaign, nearly every Tory candidate despaired at how so many families on £50,000 a year were voting Labour to protect their £545 child tax credit — despite the overall cost of a Labour government to them being far higher than that. Osborne’s Budget dealt with this directly. Within two years, no family earning £30,000 a year or more and with one child will receive tax credits. That class of wavering Labour voters, so irritatingly prevalent in marginal seats, will be no more."

According to James this is part of the process of reversing dependency on the state and trying to ensure that the Tories win outright next time. But just look at what he is saying. Some families in marginal constituencies who were on around £50K per year were worried that if the Tories got into power then they would lose their child tax credit. That is exactly what has now happened so by those terms they were right to be worried and if enough of them had voted Labour then they would perhaps not have lost it (although of course we cannot be sure Labour would not also have made this move).

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely think that in the current economic circumstances this adjustment was the right thing to do. But to then make the leap to suggest that because the benefit is not there any more then the Tories will benefit electorally from exactly those people is contorted logic to say the least. Unless everyone just forgets that they used to get those tax credits. If anything it's likely to be the other way round, after all Labour will surely bang on about this at every opportunity they get.

Is there something I am not spotting here?

Budget 2010 - painful but necessary

So we now know following George Osborne's first budget today what measures are going to be taken over the next few years to get the deficit under control.

I have picked out some of the main points along with my thoughts below:

• VAT up to 20%. As I have repeatedly stated on here I would have preferred income tax to go up rather than VAT as at least that is clear and based on ability to pay. VAT is a stealth tax and by some measures is regressive. But governments hate putting up income tax (because the public hates it whatever they might say to pollsters, punishes politicians that do it and we do live in a democracy). The £13 billion it raises is necessary unless the cuts were to go even deeper which would surely have been politically impossible and caused even greater howls from the opposition.
• Income tax allowance threshold to increase by £1,000. I am very much in favour of this and it moves us towards the Lib Dem policy of having everyone who earns under £10,000 taken out of income tax altogether. I have had arguments with numerous left wingers on Twitter about this who keep saying that it does nothing to help the poorest in society. I know. It's not designed to. It's an income tax measure and the poorest in society do not pay income tax. What it does do it allow the lowest earners to keep more of their own money which I see as a very good thing.
• Capital Gains tax threshold up to 28% for higher rate tax payers, kept at 18% for lower rate tax payers. I would have preferred to see this go closer to 40% to completely close the gap with the higher rate of tax but I understand that this is a compromise.
• Corporation tax for large companies to come down from 28% to 24% in 1% decrements over the next 4 years. Corporation tax for small companies to come down from 21% to 20% next year with no further reductions scheduled. First, declaration of interest, I own and run a small business. Whilst I am pleased to see corporation tax coming down (this will encourage growth which will help us get out of the fiscal problems faster) I think the balance should have been reversed with the small companies rate coming down more quickly. This is not from a self-motivated perspective but because small companies are the engine of the economy and the less tax they pay, the more likely they are to grow and ultimately also become the large companies that pay the higher tax ultimately anyway.
• Levy of £2 billion on banks. I would have liked this to be higher.
• Accelerating the change in retirement age to 66. A necessary move. The sooner politicians are honest about this the better. We cannot continue to subsidise retirements of 20 or more years as the norm. Pensions were never intended to do this and the next generation cannot afford to do it.
• Child benefit frozen for 3 years. I would much rather have seen it means tested although some say it would have been expensive to administer this. I am not convinced this would make it unworkable though. I expect Labour to go for the government's throat on this and it is harder to justify than means testing.
• Tax credits reduced for families earning over £40K per year. I have no problem with this. The money needs to come from somewhere and this is one example of where those earning a bit more have to contribute.

There are lots of other measures but I think these are the main ones. Overall it is not a nice budget and there is lots of pain. However I totally agree with Osborne's comments that the government has been forced into this position. I think Harriet Harman actually made a good impassioned contribution from the dispatch box in response in terms of performance but there is no narrative from Labour about what they would have cut differently. They just seem to oppose everything and as a result lack credibility. They should also display more humility about why we are in this situation in the first place.

At the end of his statement, Osborne claimed that the Treasury has analysed the changes and calculated that the poorest are least affected and the richest most affected. I expect to see lots of alternative analysis from left wing blogs in the next few days telling us why they think this is wrong.

I think however that particular argument goes, the pain is necessary to get our finances back on track. Hopefully as the economy grows in the next few years some of the pain can be mitgated.

Raising the income tax threshold - great news!

According to reports, George Osborne is likely to raise the threshold at which people start to pay income by £1000 to £7,475. This is apparently to be paid for by clawing it back from top-rate taxpayers. I am am not clear on exactly how this second part will work but if this is correct then I think it is excellent news.

Firstly it is the beginning of an implementation of the Lib Dem policy to take everyone earning less than £10,000 per year out of income tax. It gets us over a quarter of the way to realising this aim. It is also something I think we can genuinely point at at say that it is unlikely to have happened had we not been in the government.

Secondly it will offset the likely rise in VAT to 20% for the poorest earning families. If a 2.5% hike in VAT is going to cost the average family £389 ((c) 2010 Lib Dem election campaign) then surely it will cost the average lower earning families proportionally less. I do not have the exact figures but I would expect it will be a net gain to those earning the lowest amounts.

Don't get me wrong, I still don't think raising VAT is the right move but at least its effect will be mitigated for some of the most vulnerable.

Of course we hit the problem of what happens to those who do not earn anything at all but I await to see what is in the budget overall before passing comment on that.

Why is VAT seen as the natural option?

In George Osborne's first budget next week, most commentators are expecting him to put VAT up to 20% or thereabouts. It will bring in a decent chunk of extra revenue to help deal with the deficit.

Why is it though that VAT is perceived as a natural, easy option for putting up by politicians?

If you measure how VAT affects people by relating it to their income then it is regressive, i.e. it affects the poorer disproportionately. There are some who argue it should be measured by consumption (by which measure it is less regressive) but opinion is at the very least divided on which is the right way to measure it. Items such as some foods, children's clothes and other essentials are exempt from the tax and I would be surprised if Osborne significantly changes this but I still think putting up VAT is quite unfair. There are plenty of things that are not exempt.

One form of tax that is not regressive is income tax because it is based on the ability to pay. So for example if Osborne instead decided to put up income tax by 2% next week, at least then those paying the extra tax would be those earning above the earnings threshold and would only be proportionate to how far up that scale they go.

Of course income tax is the most visible of taxes. A VAT rise may not even be noticed by lots of people because it is many small adjustments to the various things they purchase rather than being able to compare one month's salary slip with another and seeing a very definite and comparatively chunky drop.

But just because something is politically easier should not make it the only game in town. I hope these options are being discussed at a high level and not dismissed out of hand.

The current government is almost certain to be unpopular in a year or two's time due to all the things it is going to have to do that will affect people's services and pockets. Given that, it might as well implement measures that spread the pain more fairly around.