Westminster blog

The news from the High Court in the last few minutes is bad for ministers in the energy department, with a ruling against the way in which cuts to solar subsidies were imposed. It is a victory for Friends of the Earth and two solar companies which launched the action – which are now likely to see a delay in the cuts.

Last month the government announced a halving of the feed-in tariff – which allows people to sell power back to the grid – after overwhelming demand from the public.

The move prompted a backlash from the industry because the speed with which it was imposed from the point of December 12. Solar companies also pointed out that the move was retrospective as the date was more than week before the supposed end of a consultation on the issue. These were the issues on which the court case was launched.

We may not get the full details of the High Court ruling until tomorrow but it is likely to provide relief for those companies which had millions of pounds of stock in

There was a point when it looked as if the “winter of discontent” – long predicted by all and sundry – could happen; the one-day strike three weeks ago seemed to augur months of misery as umpteen unions embarked on a season of ill-will towards the government.

Today, however, has seen the big thaw – at least for many of the unions in their negotiations with ministers over public sector pension reform: not for all.

Four different sets of talks have been ongoing.

1] Three unions have been negotiating with the Local Government Association over local government workers’ pensions. An agreement has been reached and will (I’m told) be approved tomorrow by Eric Pickles, communities secretary. It isn’t a full detailed deal, but more a “roadmap” of principles under which talks will continue. Council pension funds are seen as a special case as they are fully funded, unlike central government pension funds.

2] Health. As my colleague Brian Groom reports, some 15 health unions have signed an agreement with the Department of Health. It is a big deal that Unison, the largest, has agreed to take the outline proposals back to its health executive for consideration. One

My understanding is that “half a dozen” companies will be quizzed next week into their tax deals with HM Revenue and Customs.

Sir Andrew Park, a former judge, has been approached (but not quite appointed) to investigate the agreements that might have benefited companies including Vodafone and Goldman Sachs.

The news comes ahead of a report next Tuesday by the Public Accounts Committee of MPs which will raise serious concerns about the so-called “sweetheart deals”.

Margaret Hodge, chair of the PAC, said she couldn’t comment on the report yet but said:

“We have serious, serious concerns about this whole issue because there is a lot of taxpayers’ money at stake.”

Dave Hartnett, the most senior tax official, earlier this year admitted mistakes in

One could be forgiven for wondering if the “entente cordiale” has become the “entente vitriole” in the last few days.

Earlier today the governor of the Bank of France suggested that France did not deserve a downgrade by ratings agencies; at least not before the UK.

“A downgrade doesn’t strike me as justified based on economic fundamentals,” Christian Noyer told Le Telegramme, a Brittany-based newspaper. “Or if it is, they should start by downgrading the U.K., which has a bigger deficit, as much debt, more inflation, weaker growth and where bank lending is collapsing.”

The French are braced for a possible downgrade by Standard & Poor’s. For a head of a central bank – normally the most staid of characters – to talk like this is a sign of the mounting anxiety across the Channel.

The comments from Noyer, which are unlikely to slip down smoothly in the corridors of Whitehall and the City of London, follow broader tensions in the wake of David Cameron’s veto in the early hours of Friday morning.

Nicolas Sarkozy is reported to have described David Cameron as an “obstinate kid” over his behaviour in the EU summit, as the Guardian reports this morning.

There are two rules for politicians during a period of economic uncertainty. One is not to claim to have seen “green shoots” too early; the mistake made by Norman Lamont (and arguably by Shriti Vadera). The other is not to talk the economy down even further.

Ken Clarke, the justice secretary, today referred to the strong possibility of “a prolonged recession, with a long period of youth unemployment.” He may be correct, of course, but the comment did not show the most deft of political touches.

Labour has jumped on the comment with Rachel Reeves, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, accusing the coalition of “planning for a recession”. Ministers should instead “be doing everything they can to stop it,” she said.

Clarke made his comments during justice questions today. (You’ll notice that he also implies that crime may go up, which isn’t exactly reassuring either.) The exact answer was:

It is possible with a prolonged recession, with a long period of youth unemployment there will be an increase in acquisitive crime if that is the experience we have in this country. What we’re doing is responding to that and the courts, the prison service is responding very well…

One of the most interesting lines to come out from Vince Cable’s statement today on the Green Investment Bank is the sheer number of cities vying to host the new entity, which will have £3bn of capital to invest in renewables.

We already knew about Edinburgh, Leeds and Bristol. The business department has now put out a much longer list today, made up of:

Angus; Bournemouth; Brighton; Bristol; Cardiff; Chester; Derby, Edinburgh; Gloucester; Leeds; Liverpool; London; Manchester; Newcastle; Nottingham; Paisley; Peterborough; Sheffield; Stoke on Trent; Warrington; Wales; Yorkshire.

The GIB will not be enormous, with some 70 employees; but it will have a wider symbolism for the winning city.

Ed Balls has given an interview this morning to the FT where he accuses European leaders of “catastrophic failure of leadership“, warning that the debate over Britain’s isolation should not obscure the wider danger to the eurozone.

This is politically significant as it implies that the shadow chancellor is aware of the fact that the British public rather enjoys the sight of the prime minister “standing up” to Brussels. A poll by Populus for the Times this morning suggested that 14 per cent of the public disagree with Cameron’s stance while 57 per cent agree.

Thus Balls’ focus more on the fact that the eurozone crisis has not been tackled; for example the summit has not yet addressed the role of the EC in heading off the

Nick Clegg is to sound a critical note against his Tory cabinet colleagues by warning in a speech that the debate about cuts should not become “polarised” between the public sector and the private sector.

The deputy prime minister’s comments at 10am this morning will be seen as a riposte to those Tory ministers who are ideologically keen to see the influence of the state reduced as a result of the deficit reduction programme.

“I know that some of our public sector workers bristle when they hear ministers talk about paring back the public sector,” the Lib Dem leader will say.

“If we play into these bygone caricatures of the left and the right, if we allow our society to fracture into these camps, that is the surest way to drag the UK back to the 1980s.”

Mr Clegg will make the comments as he sets out plans for England’s largest cities to take greater autonomy over their transport systems and housing under a “dramatic shift in power”.

The deputy prime minister and cities minister Greg Clark will offer individual “city deals” to the eight main regional conurbations under which they could each have “one consolidated capital pot to direct as they see fit”.

But Mr Clegg’s speech is likely to attract attention for his defence of government workers

The prime minister was asked in the Commons if he would show some “bulldog spirit” at the weekend EU negotiations. “That’s exactly what I will do,” he insisted.

Yet however the talks are resolved, Cameron seems unlikely to emerge clutching what many of his backbenchers would like to see: the repatriation of various powers such as human rights legislation and employment laws.

That is likely to stoke the internal pressures which were visible in the October Commons debate over an EU referendum, when 81 Tory backbenchers rebelled against the leadership.

Ed Miliband skewered the prime minister over the issue during PMQs, reminding the House that Cameron had promised the repatriation of powers during that debate: “Six weeks ago he was promising his backbenchers a handbagging for Europe, now he’s reduced to handwringing.”

The line is sensitive for the Tory leader as it reflects what many of his rank and file believe. Asked by backbencher Steve Baker whether Britain should simply “leave Europe” –

Rather a strong question in the heading, you might think. But when YouGov asked thousands of people about the characteristics of our national leaders the replies were striking.

Asked whether leaders were “strong” the replies were Cameron 18 per cent, Ed Miliband 7 per cent and Nick Clegg4 per cent.

On “good in a crisis“, it was Cameron 13 per cent, Miliband 4 per cent and Clegg 3 per cent.

“In touch with ordinary people” produced a different result with Cameron on 8 per cent, Miliband on 21 per cent and Clegg on 11 per cent. (Miliband was also slightly ahead on ‘honest‘).

As for “natural leader“, Cameron was on 17 per cent with Miliband and Clegg both tied on 5 per cent.

The most striking angle is not who comes out with the most popular personality but just how low the scores are throughout; suggesting the low regard with which our political leaders are held.

With eight positive characteristics to choose from, 58 per cent of those surveyed – when asked to describe Nick Clegg – replied “none of these”.

More broadly, Labour – who might be expected to do well out of the government’s economic difficulties – appears to be treading water in the polls. Sunday’s ICM poll

It was the Sunday Times which broke the news on November 13 of “Osborne’s £50bn plan for growth“. The newspaper revealed that the chancellor had devised a major infrastructure programme funded by private sector money to boost the flagging economy.

It described a “£50bn housing and road-building boom” through harnassing the wealth held by pension fund managers and insurance companies.

The Sunday Times did remark that the plan was a cunning attempt to lever in loads of money without affecting the nation’s balance sheet, as I explained on Thursday. “We will not be changing the government’s capital spending envelope and we will not be issuing new bonds to fund this,” a Treasury source told them.

But the £50bn figure has turned out to be not quite what it seemed. We reveal in today’s FT that Monday’s big announcement revolves around a memorandum of understanding (not a firm deal) between the Treasury and four pension funds and fund managers.

The four groups have £50bn of assets between them; this appears to be where the figure has come from. As yet none of the four* has yet said how much money they will invest in any forthcoming grand plan. If they decide to put in anything – and it is still “if” - it will inevitably be a small percentage of the huge flows of money they manage, given the onus on them to ensure diversification in a wide spread of investments.

* Hermes GPE, the Greater Manchester Pension Fund, the London Pensions Fund Authority and Meridiam Infrastructure

It may seem like an age ago but there was another growth review back in March, which some may have already forgotten.

Not FT Westminster. We’ve been back through the 137 initiatives launched back then to see how they fared. Under our unscientific calculations Vince Cable and George Osborne deserve a B- for their efforts.

Out of the 40 most concrete measures (many of the others were too vague to be measured precisely) there are some 17 which are firmly on track; another 18 which are in consultation still and 3 which are doing badly. Here is our list in full.