Darling or Osborne for the economy? Budget views from the commentariat

By Alex Smith

Perhaps understandably, Polly Toynbee’s opinion piece on the front page of this morning’s Guardian found it unnecessary to mention George Osborne at all. The shadow chancellor was conspicuous largely by his absence yesterday, but has now appeared to try to rebut Alistair Darling’s sound budget.

When he did, Fraser Nelson, one of the right’s key media commentators, was unimpressed, criticising a “weak response“:

“Osborne just didn’t sound confident. A series of exchanges left him looking unprepared…Osborne was asked for his overall verdict on the Budget. He said he’d wait to see what the IFS has to say this afternoon.”

Read the full article here at the Spectator’s Coffee House blog.

Toynbee, meanwhile, was enthusiastic in her praise for Labour’s chancellor Darling:

“The man who called the worst recession in 60 years when all about him were in denial had his day of vindication. The nation’s modest bank manager doesn’t do the hubris, hyperbole and vainglory of his predecessor, but he allowed himself a quiet preen.

“Honesty back then has earned him credibility now: disaster was averted, the worst damage mitigated by prompt state action. The fiscal stimulus worked and, defying expectations, unemployment is lower, debt less, inflation down, home repossessions fewer and frail growth on track. So far the social calamities of the recessions of the early 1980s and 1990s have been lessened. Why? Because this is a Labour recession, unlike the laissez-faire, “It’s not working if its not hurting” Tory recessions. “Government should not stand aside”, Darling said.

But this is “the crossroads”. Voters will choose soon between his steady-as-she-goes road to recovery with growth, jobs and industrial investment – or “short sighted cuts”. In its untheatrical sobriety, this was Labour’s most effective political speech in a long time. Why? Because the choice is real, not rhetorical. Cameron warns that the deficit is the danger; Darling warns that cutting now risks everything. No other G7 country is cutting this year, so why should Britain, except for reasons of “dogma”? The treasury held its breath to see if the markets agreed: they seemed to, with no crash in stocks, sterling or credit ratings, since, for all its clauses, the budget was fiscally neutral.”

Also at the Guardian, Patrick Wintour writes:

“Darling’s judgment for months, if not a year, has been that the electorate are not going to listen to politicians bearing gift-laden Christmas trees. They want workmanlike honesty, and in that regard Darling is a man for these times, indeed almost Gordon Brown’s secret weapon this election. He presented himself as the man who had called the scale of the recession right, and intervened effectively with the banks at the height of the credit crisis.”

And the FT leader says:

“Mr Darling has a good story to tell on state activity through the crisis and the downturn. Ministers have told it many times before, but the government is entitled to claim credit for having generally been on the right side of the argument while the Tories have often been on the wrong.”

While the FT also warns of the continued difficulty for public finances, and would have liked to see more details on how the deficit will be reduced over four years in yesterday’s budget, it adds “this does not mean wielding the axe now”.