Coalition

“Millionaire David Cameron wants you to pay off your credit card – are you going to obey the Prime Minister?” asked one local BBC radio station phone-in this morning. This is not what No. 10 had in mind when releasing selective quotes from his speech last night. “The only way out of a debt crisis is to deal with your debts. That means households - all of us - paying off the credit card and store card bills.” This line in his speech is now being rapidly rewritten – and for good reason. Because the Prime Minister was in danger of making a major mistake.   The premise of the now-never-to-be-delivered quote is incorrect. The British public actually are paying down their debts, while the British government is vastly increasing its borrowing.

After Gove, a minister whose agenda has gone less smoothly — and it showed. Andrew Lansley's speech to Tory conference was part re-re-restatement of the case for reform, part massage for any residual tensions left over from the summer. Here's a five-point summary of the things that stood out to me: i) An appeal to NHS workers. Lansley began not just by paying extended tribute to NHS staff, but by encouraging everyone else to do the same. "I want to thank them," he said, "and I know we all want to thank them" — to which the audience duly responded with applause. Although this was designed to sweeten some of the less romantic rhetoric later on, it was still telling that Lansley should be quite so effusive at the start.

It’s a day for growth initiatives. In addition to those described earlier, George Osborne has announced that Whitehall’s annual underspend will be reinvested into capital spending projects. The emphasis on infrastructure echoes Danny Alexander’s statements during the Lib Dem conference, when the Treasury secretary disclosed that existing programmes would be brought forward and funded by recalibrating budgets. So there seems to be agreement between the two parties about bolstering the coalition’s growth strategy in a certain way, which may explain why the Tories are so determined to resist pressure to introduce politically awkward tax cuts. Grant Shapps has also been elaborating on the changes to the Right to Buy.

James Forsyth has interviewed the foreign secretary, William Hague, in tomorrow’s issue of the Spectator. Here is an extended version of the piece that will appear in the magazine. Politicians normally have to wait for the history books for vindication. But for William Hague it has come early. All his warnings about the dangers of the euro, so glibly mocked at the time, have come to pass. But, as he makes clear when I meet him in his study in the Foreign Office days before the start of Tory conference, he is not enjoying this moment. Rather, he is absorbed with trying to sort out the mess that others have created.

It's safe to say that Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg don't get on. Even before he was elected leader, Miliband told the New Statesman he would never work with the Lib Dem leader: "Given what he is supporting, I think it is pretty hard to go into coalition with him." He refused to share a platform with Clegg in the AV campaign, and then attacked him in Newcastle with a list of promises he accused the Lib Dems of breaking. All along, the plan has been to turn those who voted Lib Dem in 2010 against Clegg and lure them over to Labour. Whether it's working is hard to tell. In the latest Ipsos MORI poll, 52 per cent of 2010 Lib Dem voters said they were "dissatisfied" with Nick Clegg, but then only 23 per cent are "satisfied" with Ed Miliband.

Finally, a good idea from the Labour conference. In his speech tomorrow, Ed Miliband will say he'd give workers priority over the jobless for social housing. This is the dividing line he was reluctant to draw when asked to by Andrew Marr on Sunday. It's a clever move, and one that recognises the resentment felt by the strivers against the welfare dependent. He will say: "The hard truth is that we still have a system where reward for work is not high enough, where benefits are too easy to come by for those who abuse the system." So councils dolling out housing should not only take need into account, but whether applicants "are working, whether they look after the property and are good neighbours." I can't see why IDS would oppose this, and perhaps consensus can be reached.