Just after midday on 25 November last year, Paul Johnson arrived at Millbank Studios, a pale stone building, used by news broadcasters, diagonally opposite the Palace of Westminster. Johnson, who is 49 and gangly, was riding a Brompton folding bicycle, his left suit trouser leg tucked into a red sock. (He claims to own socks of no other colour.) Johnson is the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, an independent economic research organisation that occupies a unique position in British political life. Though other outfits attempt similar work, the IFS stands apart: when it comes to economic policy, its assessments have, for many, become the closest approximation to revealed truth. “It is quite extraordinary in a way that it is regarded as the ultimate authority,” says Robert Peston, the former economics editor of the BBC and now the political editor of ITV news. “Basically, when the IFS has pronounced, there’s no other argument. It is the word of God.” Johnson had been summoned to the broadcast studios on the occasion of the autumn statement, one of two announcements the Treasury is mandated to make to parliament annually. (The budget, which is typically delivered in the spring, outlines the government’s… Read full this story
- Where Is the Debate on Race?
- Polis, Stapleton commit to debates (but not all the same ones)
- State College housing boom spurs debate over town's changing character You may also be interested in...
- The Dishonest Debate
- Opinion: Women Pioneered The Online Speech Debate. Now The Men Are Taking Over.
- Exit, loyalty and voice: A frame to understand the appeal of Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton
- If you missed billionaires Lasry & Sternlicht at Delivering Alpha, here's the transcript
- Jon Stewart as a Debate Moderator? Yes, Please!
- 37 Thoughts An American And A Brit Had Watching France's Presidential Debate
- British Consul General: U.K. Has Deeper Appetite for Engagement With the South
The British umpire: how the IFS became the most influential voice in the economic debate have 312 words, post on www.theguardian.com at March 15, 2016. This is cached page on CuBird. If you want remove this page, please contact us.