I’ve watched a very entertaining Commons exchange between Michael Gove and Ed Balls. This is Gove’s take on Balls requesting a big real terms increase in his budget:

He’s the Katie Price of public spending, the Jordan of this government

All he’s interested in is being on the front pages, so he’s massively inflated what he’s got to offer and now the last few months have left him dangerously over-exposed.

That means he’s now in desperate need of support before it all goes south. But given his record of loyalty you’d have to be a very brave man to get into bed with him.

Sam Coates has spotted that Maria Miller was not entirely impressed by the joke.

.

.

Here is some more fun and games from the debate: an Ed Balls science quiz

Well, for those of you who missed it, Gordon Brown’s mangy fluffy rabbit turned out to be a clutch of “guarantees” for young jobseekers.

There was a “January guarantee”, which he said was better than the “September guarantee”. Then there was a “one day guarantee” (which sounds dangerously like telling some that that they will get a job “one day”) and a “graduate guarantee”, which is nothing to do with Dustin Hoffman.

Finally, there was a new “jobs guarantee”, which is almost the same as the old “jobs guarantee”, but you don’t have to wait as long.

To be serious, all the measures basically ensure that if you have left school, university or find yourself out of work in your 20s, you’ll be given training or offered some work (even if it is created by the state) at an earlier stage than before.

But, once you can get past the thicket of guarantees jargon, there is a rather interesting economic debate behind all this. The initiatives have no price tag: the costs will be unveiled at the PBR. But we know how they will be funded. Brown is ploughing the money “saved” from lower-than-expected unemployment back into job initiatives, rather than paying down debt. It is a concrete example of how he places stimulating economic growth above deficit reduction.

What is the gamble? Firstly, that unemployment will stay low. Should it rise sharply in coming months, the “savings” will evaporate. Secondly, that these schemes actually work, otherwise we’ll have money wasted on some well-intentioned but ineffective programmes for years to come.

And lastly, whether the weight of debt catches up with the government before the economy picks up. How long will the credit ratings agencies put up with Brown ploughing money into growth, rather than deficit reduction?

Brace yourselves. Somewhere in Downing Street, a mangy fluffy rabbit is being lovingly groomed, ready for Gordon Brown to proudly present it to the Commons, less than an hour from now.

It is a Brown trick so old he probably picked it up in Scottish student politics. Last year, you may remember the prime minister looked in his hat and found a mortgage interest holiday for struggling homeowners.

This year it may be a bit less dramatic. I hear Brown will offer some “real help now” to young people out of work and graduates who have fallen on hard times after leaving University. It is likely to be more jobseeking support, at an earlier stage than it is given at the moment. Don’t expect fireworks.

There is one interesting omission from the Queen’s Speech: the Pope.

This was going to be the day when the Queen would tell parliament that she had invited the Pontiff for a state visit next year. But there was no mention, suggesting his visit may well be on the same “pastoral basis” as Pope John Paul II’s six-day tour in 1982.

Why does this matter? Well, ever since Downing Street briefed details of the Pope’s plans to visit, there has been an unholy internal row over whether to award the Pope full state honours. It would be a truly historic trip — the first state visit to Britain by the Holy See since the break with Rome in 1534.

But there were various complications, not least that the tour was pencilled in for September. The Queen spends that month in Balmoral and accepts most state visits in the Spring. You can imagine the kerfuffle this has caused with protocol officials.

When I last called to ask the Palace about all this, they said state visits were usually announced in the Queen’s Speech. Today the Palace just said they “will not comment on speculation”. But there is still hope for those praying for full state honours. There are apparently precedents where a state visit has been announced after the Speech. Whitehall works in mysterious ways.

UPDATE

Forgot to add who was invited by the Queen to make a state visit: Jacob Zuma, president of South Africa.  This superb profile from 2007 explains why the decision is bound to be controversial.

UPDATE II

Ann Widdecombe, who has been tipped as our next envoy to the Vatican, just told me it would be a “great shame” if it was less than a state visit. “Given that Gordon Brown invited him I would have thought a full state visit would be appropriate,” she said.

Her Majesty is about to speak, setting out the agenda for the final legislative period before the election. The most important bill is likely to be on financial services, which you can read about here and here. Just remember as we listen to the Queen that some of the bills may well not pass: with a maximum of 70 legislative days of this parliament left, the Lords have a lot of power. We’ll have a story on FT.com as soon as the Queen is finished.

Who is Hillary Clinton’s “favourite new colleague”? Just take a look at this passage from a long profile of Clinton in Vogue that includes a gushing quote on the “vital and attractive” David Miliband:

When I mentioned to her over lunch that I had spoken with him, she lit up. “Oh, my God!” I joked that I got a crush over the phone in about five seconds partly because of his accent, and she said, “Well, if you saw him it would be a big crush. I mean, he is so vibrant, vital, attractive, smart. He’s really a good guy. And he’s so young!”

Treasury baffled by Ed Balls’ request for an extra 2.6bn

Vince Cable calls for windfall tax and pushes one more pin in the Banker voodoo doll

Gordon Brown prepares to streamline Whitehall but rejects idea to merge Foreign Office and Defence

Rachel Sylvester on Mum power

Paul Waugh looks at Jeremy Paxman’s ties to the Turnip Taliban

There has been another flurry of speculation in Westminster over the risks to the UK’s AAA rating. Britain is only being spared from a downgrade because the sovereign credit rating agencies expect the Tories to be elected, at least according to Fraser Nelson and others. It’s an interesting argument — so interesting that I thought it was worth asking the credit ratings agencies directly. Here is my Q&A with Brian Coulton, Head of EMEA Sovereign Ratings at Fitch.

Q: Is the expectation of a Conservative victory at the general election a significant factor in calculating the UK’s sovereign credit rating?

We are obviously aware that there will be an election next year but our capacity to forecast the election outcome would not be a sufficient basis to maintain a ‘AAA’ rating. We believe that fiscal policy objectives will be reorientated over the course of 2010 regardless of which government is in power.

Q: Is there a big enough difference between the Labour and Conservative spending plans for the election result to materially impact the Fitch stable rating outlook for the UK?

The judgement about the likelihood of a successful fiscal consolidation from 2011 which stabilises and reduces UK public debt ratios over the medium term will depend on a range of factors including the realism of economic forecasts, the actual details of spending and tax plans, as well as the overall parameters of the planned adjustment.

Q: Have either Labour or the Conservatives given Fitch analysts more information about their post-election spending plans than is available to the public?

No.

Q: The Fitch stable rating is based on the government articulating “a stronger fiscal consolidation program next year”. Do you expect that to happen regardless of who wins the election?

Yes. As we get into 2010 the downside risk of deflation will be significantly diminished and fiscal policy goals are expected to shift from stabilisation towards consolidation. It is a feature of large AAA sovereigns like the UK - which have exceptional near term funding flexibility - that they can “sequence” fiscal policy goals in this manner and act in the near term to prevent an unnecessarily deep recession. But the re-orientation does need to happen during 2010.

Q: Is the likelihood of a hung parliament a factor in your calculations? Is it the election outcome that would most threaten the UK’s sovereign credit rating?

We detect a growing cross party consensus that fiscal adjustment needs to happen. A hung parliament could complicate the process of agreeing how this should be done but we do not believe it would lead to an impasse, unduly delaying the adjustment plans.