The problem with Osborne...

...is that he is just too concerned with political point scoring as this response to a perfectly reasonable question from David Miliband on the Autumn statement shows. (The full debate and exchanges can be downloaded from the Hansard website). 

David Miliband (South Shields) (Lab):

This time last year, the Chancellor told me not to worry about youth unemployment on the grounds that his Youth Contract would take care of it. Now we know that 450,000 young people have been unemployed for more than six months and that 179,000 have gone on to the Work programme but only 5,920 have got a job as a result. That is 3% of those going on the Work programme and less than 2% of the long-term youth unemployed. Will he now agree, without point scoring, to look at the level of the wage subsidy to incentivise take-up, at the structure of the Work programme, so that voluntary organisations are not squeezed out, and at the role of a part-time job guarantee to give hope to these young people?

Mr Osborne:

The right hon. Gentleman often has interesting and intelligent things to say about welfare to work programmes, and I am happy to consider the points he makes. I read some of his work earlier this year—it was quite a good job application for being shadow Chancellor.

Osborne's credibility as Chancellor is reduced by this undergraduate debating style and his use of political beartraps in his proposals.  He should take a leaf out of Vince Cable's book and play it straight and grown up.

Lib Dems should back Martin Lewis' campaign

The ever excellent MoneySavingExpert - Martin Lewis - has launched a campaign to rename student loans - graduate contributions.  For two years he has been trying to explain the new student finance system and keeps coming across young people who are being put off university becauseof fears of going into debt.

Martin Lewis says of the new system: 

"Labour and the National Union of Students (NUS) on the other hand want a graduate tax. Frankly, in reality, that’s close to what we have now, as the repayments are more like a tax than a loan."

Perhaps if Clegg and the Parliamentary party had been a bit more bullish about the changes - instead of the defensive dithering that ended up with Clegg's mea culpa - then Lewis' campaign would be unneccessary.

But Lewis is right - the name is important - and a formal change to 'graduate contribution' should be made as soon as possible.  Over to you Vince.

Coalition should call Balls's bluff over economy

On C4 news tonight Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, called for a grand coalition to deal with the economic crisis.  You can watch it here.


Obviously, given it's Balls he is unlikely to be serious about the offer - he's only interested in the short term tactical embarrassment ot the government.  But it carries risks for Labour - if they were brought into the key economic decisions, then they become just as culpable for this stage of the recession as the Lib Dems and Tories.  And that can only be a benefit to the coalition parties.

Which is why they should take him up on his offer.  But given the personal animosity between Balls and Osborne, the offer will be rejected and Balls's tactics will have (again) won the day over the supposedly superior strategist, Osborne.  But that shouldn't stop Vince Cable entering the fray.

Barclays cheating shows need to disband banks

The news that Barclays has been caught cheating by manipulating overnight interest rates - no doubt at a cost to mortgage holders - shows why Vince Cable is right that the big banks need to be broken up into retail and investment banking.  The chinese walls and regulatory arrangements that have allowed the banks' exectutives to claim there are no risks to them growing bigger and bigger have proved to be worthless.

Vince Cable is oft quoted as saying banks that are 'too big to fail are too big'.  And he's right.  It's clear that there is a cultural problem at the mega banks - they're not interested in the small customers when there are deals to be made with their rich mates.  Bob Diamond and the other senior execs should have the decency to admit they are responsible and go.   In addition the coalition has no excuse to drag its heels over banking reform.  Barclays and the other mega banks need to be busted and put on a human scale where the problems of local people, business and communities are the main focus of their operations.

And it needs to happen now - not in a few years time.

Hunt should resign

Jeremy Hunt's coat as the Scots say is 'on a shoogly peg' and the resignation of his special adviser is clearly an exercise in backside covering.  And as the enquiry and evidence slowly emerges it will only get worse for Hunt - not better - even if he can muster a robust defence.  The vultures have circled and they will get their flesh.

The coalition set out to be different - less sleazy and more open than previous governments.  The grip of collective responsibility was supposed to be loosened to allow the two parties space to reflect their differences.

Well here is one area where the differences between Conservative and Lib Dems are vast (and indeed between the Lib Dems and Labour).  While senior Tory and Labour politicians bent over backwards (or indeed forwards) to accomodate the Murdoch monster, Lib Dems stood alone.  Vince Cable's comment that saw him removed from the BSkyB decision process, that he was going to war with the Murdochs was not news.

Nick Clegg should now demand Hunt goes.  This time two years ago he was an-anti politician - standing up against the vested interests, sleaze and expense ridden politicians.  He needs to reassert that side of him if he is ever to have a chance of rehabilitation in voters' eyes.  Hunt is toast and the longer he drags out the inevitable the worse for him and the coalition.  If Hunt wants to come back at a later date, the sooner he does the honourable thing the better for him.

And if Clegg is the catalyst for a swift resignation he can reassert both his independence and start to reclaim his anti politics inheritance from Labour who are desperately hoping we forget their complicity in the Murdoch love fest.

And by way of reminder that Labour are in as deep as the Tories - where did Mili minor go on day one of his leadership?  You guessed it...

Mansion tax opponents make Vince Cable's case

Tonights London Evening Standard carries an article attacking the concept of the mansion tax - much favoured by Lib Dem economic guru - Vince Cable.

If one was trying to find the least effective spokespeople for the anti mansion tax case Vince couldn't have done better. Here's a flavour of their opposition:

Ivor Dickinson, 54. Estate agent managing director who lives in a large house worth about £3.5 million in Sussex and commutes to his London office every day.

He says: “I inherited this house from my grandparents and would have to pay the extra tax out of my salary. Bringing up three daughters and sending them to private school makes life quite tricky as it is. Anyone of my age will tell you it’s a very expensive time of life. I just about scrape through...It’s the most outrageous idea I’ve ever heard.”

James Wright, 60. Chairman of the Belgravia Residents’ Association. He lives in a house valued at £10 million in Eaton Terrace, near Sloane Square, SW3.

“If the mansion tax is introduced, my bill would be £80,000 a year,” he says. “It would not actually ruin me, as I run a successful business. But it would mean I would have to sell or remortgage some cheaper properties I own to pay it."

Zac loses out in Boundary review

Zac Goldsmith's continued career as an MP looks in doubt as a result of draft proposals issued by the Boundary Commission. They suggest linking his Richmond Park seat with Vince Cable's Twickenham seat.

In 2010 Vince Cable had a majority of 12,140 and Zac Goldsmith 4,091.

Government shouldn't listen to bankers on regulation

Apparently, bank shares have risen following criticism from bankers that they might have to face some more regulation. The BBC reports, the chief Executive of the British Bankers' Association, Angela Knight, saying, "This means allowing the banks to finance the recovery first, pay back the taxpayer next, and only then turn to further regulatory change."

Well they would say that. In other news apparently the British Bears' Association has called on the government not to prevent them defecating in woodland areas and the Bishop of Rome has asked to be allowed to carry on attending mass.

My problem with the government proposals is that not that they regulate the banks too much, but too little. Vince Cable needs to get his way so that the investment arms are hived off from the retail side and any bank 'too big to fail' is deemed too big to exist.

Angela Knight is a former Conservative MP.