Alistair Darling’s dilemma over cuts gets worse

Today the Chancellor, Alistair Darling, has tried to signal his seriousness over the task of reducing the UK's £178 billion deficit, rebuffing pressure from the Prime Minister to give away more in the Budget expected next month. Yet he remains under pressure from those warning that deeper cuts are needed sooner than he plans.

Shadow Chancellor George Osborne has today made that case once more, although the Tories are vague on details of any substantive cuts. But they have received an unexpected boost in the shape of a letter published yesterday signed by 20 eminent economists, including liberals such as US Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, warning that unless the UK reduces its deficit faster than Mr Darling plans, we risk losing investor confidence.

To be sure, it will be an unpalatable choice to Mr Darling or Mr Osborne, whichever sits in the Treasury after the election. There are renewed signs today of a "double dip": a survey of employers finds that a higher proportion are preparing to cut more jobs than were set to do so in the final quarter of last year, when the UK economy inched back into growth. Deeper cuts to public spending would compound the coming job losses, the majority of which are already predicted to be in the public sector.

A balance will have to be found, and until the Budget, we won't know where Mr Darling will come down, even if he has at this point ruled out deeper cuts. By that point we are likely to have a clearer idea too about whether the economy really is heading back into recession or else maintain its weak growth. The next six weeks will indeed be pivotal for the Government's election chances.

Afghan tragedy

The deaths of 12 Afghan civilians in a US missile attack are a tragic mistake. They are also an unwelcome hiccup in positive media coverage of the new offensive launched at the weekend. But the incident should not deflect allied forces from their goal of driving the Taliban from central Helmand.

Certainly, when the ostensible goal of the offensive is to build civilian support for the allies and the Afghan government, such casualties are counter-productive. The allies want to convince Afghans of their seriousness about rebuilding the nation and its security, moving Afghan police and government officials into the zone liberated from the Taliban. Killing civilians will not do that.

Yet the fact that the deaths of 12 people are being taken so seriously by the US — use of these battlefield missiles has now been banned — is a sign of how much the strategy has changed since the nadir of the "shock and awe" approach in Fallujah, Iraq in November 2004. There, around 6,000 civilians were killed and more than 30,000 homes damaged. In Afghanistan, the "integrated" strategy aims to win hearts and minds as well as rebuild government structures. Whether the Afghan army and police are up to such a task is a moot point, but the allies are at least taking it seriously — as the reaction to these tragic deaths shows.

Icy bonus

It is admittedly hard for Londoners to get excited about the Winter Olympics. But consider this: despite our at best patchy record in winter sports, these Games are fundamentally positive for Britain. There is little risk of disappointment in sports many of us have never heard of. Expectations could not be lower. We haven't won any medals yet. But if we do, it will be an unalloyed bonus.