Latest from Coffee House

Perhaps I’m alone in this, but David Cameron interviews better in print than he does on screen. He’s almost too polished on television. His supreme confidence and tendency to guffaw at his scripted jokes can grate. But in print his assurance has an affable, human quality. The Daily Mail has interviewed him today. Most of the piece is a lifestyle feature – Dave at home attending to Florence’s evening feed as he watches Newsnight. It is vacuous fare, but it strikes a brilliant contrast with Ed Miliband’s rout at the hands of the nation’s housewives on the Jeremy Vine Show, where there were echoes of Gordon Brown’s excruciating unease with the world beyond Westminster.

Now here's a thing: a radio appearance by Alan Johnson that actually clarified some details about Labour's economic policy in the Miliband era. Sure, the shadow chancellor spent most of his time on the Today Programme setting about the coalition's VAT hike, with all the usual arguments about jobs and growth. But there was also confirmation that Labour's deficit reduction plan would split 60-40 between tax rises and spending cuts, and that they would raise national insurance levels rather than VAT. It repositions the argument some way beyond the simple Do/Don't divide that was developing around VAT. Now there are two choices for voters to make. Do they prefer a deficit reduction plan which, for the first time, emphasises tax hikes over spending cuts?

There could barely be a starker contrast between Danny Alexander's interview with the FT today and the, ahem, Cableleaks. Unlike his fellow Lib Demmer, the Treasury Secretary knew that he was speaking to a journalist – and he keeps well within the lines when discussing the coalition. "My impression," he says, "is that the Liberal Democrats support the coalition. People knew the first couple of years would be extremely tough." Alexander saves his most enthusiastic rhetoric for the quad: the group of four ministers – David Cameron, George Osborne, Nick Clegg and himself – who met regularly during the spending review period to decide where the cuts would fall. As he puts it, "it was a very effective way of making sure the government is joined up".

The Christmas Special of The Spectator is out today, and George Osborne kindly agreed to an interview. We have printed 1,500 words in the magazine, but James and I thought CoffeeHousers may like a fuller version, where he has more space to speak for himself.  We have gone into way more detail on tax policy here than in the magazine, for example, as Osborne is seldom pressed on this point and his thoughts are very interesting. We have divided it up by subject headings, so CoffeeHousers can skip the chunks they’re not interested in.   Liberty, paternity and Treasury It is an exciting day for Liberty Osborne, the Chancellor’s daughter, to join him at work.

The scrubbing job starts in earnest this morning, as Ed Miliband tries to erase that "Red" epithet from before his name. Exhibit A was his appearance on the Andrew Marr show, in which he took every opportunity to cast the manner of his victory in a favourable light. "If you look at this as one vote-one member, then I got more votes than anyone else," he assured us, before going on to say that he won the union vote because, "I spoke about things that matter to working people in this country." When asked whether he would sway under pressure from the union leadership, he averred, "I'm nobody's man, I'm my own man – and I'm very, very clear about that." And as a final flourish, "I'm certainly not Bob Crow's man.

David Cameron’s interview in the Telegraph this morning is striking for three reasons. First, despite the interview appearing on the day of the Labour leadership declaration, there’s no attempt to bring the hammer down on the new Labour leader. All we get is some framing on the deficit. Next, as Paul Goodman notes, it is an attempt to reassure the Tory faithful after the Lib Dem conference Vince Cable is gently put back in his box with the line ‘Vince is Vince’. Cameron also stresses that he ‘will always safeguard our nuclear deterrent’; a line that is very different from the nakedly political discussions of Trident in Liverpool, where what seemed matter to most was making life difficult for Labour.

Oh look, Gordon Brown has continured his return to public life with a sizeable interview in today's Independent.  It's a generous portrait which seems designed to dispel any rumours about the former Prime Minister's wellbeing. Apparently, he "looks healthy and fit … seems quite cheerful." And we're treated to descriptions of his face, "like a map of a man's soul." For those who can read any further, there are accounts of his constituency work and his aspirations to "do more on international development". The world shudders. Despite his claims to the contrary, there are ominous signs that Brown is keen to impact upon our national politics.

When General Petraeus called for a "united effort" on Afghanistan earlier, he might as well have been addressing our government.  Between David Cameron's and Liam Fox's recent statements, there's a clear sense that the coalition is pulling in two separate directions.  And it's left William Hague explaining our Afghan strategy thus, to the Times today: "'The position on combat troops is as the Prime Minister set out last weekend. By the time of the next election, he hopes we won’t still be fighting on the ground. We are working towards the Afghan national security forces being able to stand on their own two feet by 2014,' but there is 'no strict or artificial timetable'. 'Five years is a long way ahead. There is a lot more work to be done.

After all the hoo-haa about Lord Ashcroft's tax status, it's only fair to mention this passage from his interview with the Telegraph today: "He explains that new laws brought in under the Coalition mean that all members of the Lords will have to be fully taxed. Yes, I reply, but when does he plan to come onshore? 'I already am.' Really? There has been no public announcement. So he is now paying all of his taxes, including everything that comes from his businesses around the world? 'Yes. So I say to people don’t go moaning on about it because it is no longer an issue. The point is moot... Can we move on?' We move on.

After the sunshine of the Downing St rose garden, the gloom of the public finances. This morning's newspapers are full of stories about the tax hikes and spending cuts that our coalition government is looking to introduce. The Sun and the Times dwell on yesterday's forecast for a rise in VAT. The Guardian outlines possible cuts to middle-class benefits. And there's plenty more besides. Two articles, though, are particularly indicative of the tensions that the government will face.  Interviewed in the Sun, David Cameron has to go on the defensive about tax rises; insisting that "The Conservative party is still a low-tax party, a tax-cutting party – and that's in the agreement.

For the past few years, the Tory task has been to look like a government-in-waiting. Now, with the election only a matter of days away, David Cameron has dialled that process up to eleven. In interviews with the Sunday Times and Andrew Marr today, the Tory leader concentrates firmly on the nuts and bolts of government. The content of the Queen's speech, the depth of Tory cuts, the possibility of coalition – all get name-checked and cross-referenced. There's much in there to encourage Tory supporters. Indeed, CoffeeHousers have been clamouring for one of Cameron's proposals: a "Great Repeal Act," which would "scrap ID cards, home information packs and dozens of rarely enforced criminal offences introduced by Labour over 13 years.

There's a strange fin de siècle air about Labour this weekend: a new appreciation that the forthcoming election marks either the end of their reign, or – at best – is the start of a different, diluted kind of power.  There are still a few signs of life and struggle, sure.  I mean, Gordon Brown's interview with Jeremy Paxman last night was fairly proficient by his standards, if typically disingenuous.  But, even then, the PM is struggling to move the conversation on from Gillian Duffy.  In interview with the Telegraph today, he admits that he has "paid [a] heavy price" for his gaffe. That line forms the headline of the article. Even Tony Blair can't inject much joy into Labour's campaign.

Wow. Just when you thought Labour's campaign couldn't get any worse, they go and wheel out Brown in front of ordinary voters.  And this is the result: he has been caught on mic describing a member of the public as a "bigoted woman".  Speaking to one of his advisers, he added "you shouldn't have put me with that woman. Whose idea was that?"  Classic. This may be trivial beside the big questions about the economy, etc. - but you can expect is to become one of the defining TV moments of the campaign.  It's one thing to insult and attack the politicians who serve alongside you, but quite another to do similar to someone whose vote you're courting.  Toxic, toxic stuff.

Two noteworthy entries, today, in the will-they-won't-they game of coalition government.  The first from Nick Clegg in the Sunday Times: "You can’t have Gordon Brown squatting in No 10 just because of the irrational idiosyncrasies of our electoral system." And the second from Paddy Ashdown speaking to the People: "Nick Clegg cannot work with David Cameron ... We could not go into a coalition with the Tories, it wouldn't work." So, assuming both are true, it sounds as though Clegg would only work with a Labour party headed by someone other than Brown.  But don't count on it.

Planting seeds, that's what the Tories are doing – they're planting the seeds of a Lib-Con alliance.  Yes, it's a subtle process, and is couched in terms of denial and defiance.  But it's still going on.  I mean, look at Cameron's interview with Jeremy Paxman past night (video on Spectator Live), where he declined to rule out having Nick Clegg in his Cabinet – although, happily, he was more unequivocal on the subject of Vince Cable.  And then there's Ken Clarke's interview with the Daily Telegraph this morning, in which he says that the Conservative "starting point" for any coalition would be a refusal to compromise on their economic plans.

David Cameron is recording his interview with Jeremy Paxman at 5.15 today, it’ll air at 8.30. Cameron didn’t want to do this interview. Originally, Clegg was the only leader to agree to be interviewed by Paxman. But after the first debate, Brown said yes and the Tories decided that Cameron couldn’t be the only party leader not to do it. There is, of course, history between Paxman and Cameron. When Paxo interviewed Cameron during the 2005 leadership contest, Cameron turned the tables on Paxman spectacularly, attacking the whole Paxman school of interviewing. Cameron’s approach in 2005 was previewed by a very funny piece by Michael Gove in The Times which imagined Paxman interviewing Jesus.

Gordon, meet disillusionment.  Disillusionment, the Prime Minister.  Ask him questions on whatever you want: the economy, jobs, immigration, expenses - the ball is in your court.  Make him squirm, if you like.  Confront him.  He is, after all, here at your pleasure. For that was the set-up of Radio One Newsbeat's interview with Gordon Brown earlier this afternoon.  It was one of those impossible situations for the PM.  He could hardly decline to be quizzed by a group of first time voters, aged between 18 and 28.  But it put him at the mercy of some pretty disgruntled members of the public.  And they took full advantage. The questions were direct and drew blood.  On the economy: "Where are the cuts going to come from?

Labour high command will be very satisfied with Brown’s performance on Marr this morning. There was far less of the tetchiness that we usually see from Brown in interviews and by being invited to talk about the ash cloud and the government’s response to it at the beginning, Brown was able to assume some of the aura of his office as Prime Minister. The interview saw the debut of Brown’s latest rewriting of history. Apparently he has always been for bringing in the liberals (exact quote to follow when the BBC release the transcript) and a ‘progressive consensus’. This will come as a shock to anyone who has read Paddy Ashdown’s diaries or talked to those involved in the discussions between the two parties in the mid to late nineties.

The Liberal Democrats are doing well. Very well. More voters seem actively to want a hung parliament - they neither hate Labour or love the Tories enough to act decisevely either way - and a vote for Nick Clegg seems a safe, fair choice. A few years ago Paddy Ashdown was over the moon to have won far fewer MPs than the party is hoping for at this election. Then came the "Iraq Bounce" with Charles Kennedy's anti-war stance doing the party well. Many assumed that without a clear-cut issue, and having chosen a leader who looked like David Cameron's younger brother, the Lib Dems might struggle. Instead, the party seems to be fighting off Tory inroads.

David Cameron takes a few journalists with him on each of his one-day tours, and it's my turn tomorrow: 6am start. I should be able to get  half an hour or so with him, to do an interview for The Spectator. As is customary, I'll try and ask him some questions on behalf of CoffeeHousers - so please add any thoughts as a comment below.

Another day, another party leader on the Today Programme.  This time it was David Cameron, and his interrogator was Evan Davis.  My quick capsule review would be that the Tory leader did quite well, sounding measured and reasonable for most of the twenty minutes - which is certainly better than Brown managed yesterday.  But for more, read on... Unsurprisingly, Davis led on this morning's FT interview with Peter Gershon, the Tories' efficiency advisor, who has fleshed out some of the party's spending plans.  This was the most aggressive segment of the interview, with Davis asking how many job losses would be incurred by a "£2 billion saving on public sector pay rolls.

Last week, the Tories strengthened their tax-cutting credentials with a smart policy on national insurance.  I'm sure you didn't miss it.  But one part of the recent Tory resurgence is, to my mind, being underplayed: they now have a much stronger message on government waste.  After all, the NI policy is being funded by cutting waste.  And then there was that spoof website which pulled the limelight onto Labour's wasted spending.  And then there are the interviews in which Tory frontbenchers – such as William Hague today – say stuff like: "If there’s waste in government spending, which the Labour Government says there is, we should be saving the waste, not saying we’ll go on wasting it for several more years.

David Cameron said as much in his Today Programme interview, but now we know for sure: we've heard everything we're going to about Tory spending cuts this year.  George Osborne confirms the news in an interview with the Guardian today: "In the interview, the shadow chancellor also disclosed, for the first time, that he would not reduce public spending by more than £6.5bn in the current financial year. He said £6bn would come from efficiencies, and £500m from cuts to child trust funds and working tax credits for the better off. There would be no further 'in year' cuts in his emergency budget, scheduled within 50 days of a possible Tory victory, he said." It's tempting to point out that £6.

Want some more David Cameron?  Well, the Tories are happy to oblige.  After their party leader's speech yesterday, he is interviewed in the FT and appeared on the Today programme earlier.  The FT interview was certainly the more comfortable of the two.  In it, Cameron stikes a confident note – saying that his party have "come a long way," and that "people are gagging for change".  And he stresses that he thinks – and, apparently, Ken Clarke thinks – that George Osborne is "the right person" to be Chancellor. But Cameron had a tougher time in his Today Programme interview.  It started well, with Today highlighting the supportive letter that business leaders have written about the Tories' national insurance cut.