Ed’s inbox – February 17th

By Mark Ferguson / @markfergusonuk

If Ed Miliband could only read five blogposts each day, he’d read these ones…

Osborne gives banks another handout and scuppers any chance of reform – Liberal Conspiracy
By Duncan Weldon

According to a front page FT story this morning George Osborne is looking to relax the rules on UK banks’ liquidity, in effect allowing them to hold less gilts and cash.

This is big news, George Osborne is relaxing rules on the UK banking sector, rules designed to prevent a future crisis by forcing the banks to hold more liquid assets – assets that can be easily sold in a crisis to raise cash.

Barclays apparently claim that the UK’s tough liquidity rules, designed to prevent a repeat of the post-Lehman crisis, cost it around £900mn last year.

The FT reports that Nick Clegg and Vince Cable agree with Osborne. – Read more.

Somebody tell the government that some disabled people are actually, er, disabled – Labour Uncut
By Sally Bercow

The disability living allowance (DLA) is forecast to cost the taxpayer £12 billion this year, the same as the department of transport’s entire annual budget. So briefed the Whitehall machine as the government launched its public consultation on DLA reform in December (the consultation closes tomorrow).

Doubtless, the figure of £12 billion is correct, but before you rush to join the chorus of Daily Mail-minded souls and proclaim your horror, bear in mind that we spend three times more on defence than we do on disabled people (around £37 billion a year), that renewing the UK’s Trident nuclear deterrent will cost around £20 billion, that we have spent over £20 billion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t spend those sums on defence, Trident or our international adventures (well maybe I am – but that’s a whole different column), but the point is that it’s all relative. – Read more.

What really matters about Labour Leadership elections? – Left Futures
By Jon Lansman

Labour’s review of its structure is right to include the way it elects its leader but public attention has so far been drawn to the wrong things. That’s happened because Ed’s recent victory surprised many, not least his brother and his brother’s supporters, and some of Ed’s people see a need to spin away the role played in Ed’s victory by the two-thirds of the electorate who voted as union members, hence the suggestion that Labour ‘supporters’ be added in some way to the electorate. What’s really important is that, in future, Labour does have leadership elections, not coronations, when it needs to, and that the process ensures that future Labour Leaders do not lose touch with both the party and its supporters as happened in the New Labour years. – Read more.

Welfare reform: harder than it looks – Donpaskini
By donpaskini

The FT has a good run down of today’s welfare reform changes. Key points:

1. Spending on benefits will increase by £2.6 billion, which will give more money to 2.7 million people.

2. Incentives to work for the average claimant will decrease, particularly for people working more than 30 hours a week; receiving tax credits; and not claiming housing benefit or council tax relief.

3. The government still has no idea how the new Universal Credit will interact with childcare costs or council tax benefit. In particular, their plans for council tax benefit will make the benefits system more complicated, as every local council will be able to set its own different criteria for eligibility.

4. Some people will be hit really hard – 100,000 will lose more than £75 per week, and 1.7 million will receive less money. That’s on top of the cuts to housing benefit, unemployment benefits and disability benefits which were previously announced. – Read more.

You Turn if You Want To – Rupa Huq’s home on the web
By Rupa Huq

Another embarrasing climbdown for the ConDems. First it was over Bookstart, the scheme to get toddlers reading they wanted to axe but kept. Today it’s the selling off of the family silver… ooops I mean flogging off the forests which Caroline Spelman has reversed today. In both cases they completely misjudged the public reaction. – Read more.

Our suggestions for Ed’s inbox are limited by what we read – so if you’ve seen a blogpost that should be in Ed’s inbox, let us know.