Conservative party

The Tories need an attack dog

Iain Martin has a thought-provoking post up about how the Tories lack an attack-dog. Certainly, the Tories lack a shadow Minister for the Today Programme, someone who can be relied to go on when it is a bad morning for the party and deal robustly with a tough interview. This is a position the Tories will need to fill before the campaign gets under way. As Iain says, Chris Grayling was at one point used as the party’s attack dog. But this has come to overly define his political persona and he hasn’t really recovered from his Wire speech and a lacklustre conference, although his recent more thoughtful speeches on

Tax cuts are a better form of stimulus than more spending

Greg Mankiw is one of the best academic economists out there and having been chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors has a good sense of how to turn theory into policy. His column last weekend in The New York Times is essential reading for anyone wondering about how Britain can avoid a double dip recession. In it, Mankiw summarises the recent academic evidence which shows that cutting business and income taxes is a more effective form of stimulus than increasing spending. The challenge for Osborne in drawing up his first Budget, if the Tories win, will be how to foster a private sector stimulus for the economy. Without that

Should an opposition sell itself as a responsible government?

One of the Tories’ favoured lines recently has been that they are acting like a responsible government while Labour is behaving like an irresponsible opposition. But I wonder if this attitude is entirely healthy for an opposition, or whether it ends up blunting its campaigning edge. For example, the Tories’ refusal to say for definite that they will repeal Labour’s planned increase in national insurance stems from their view that they aren’t certain where they would find the £8 billion from. But given the number of black holes and blanks in the PBR and that the deficit is over £170 billion this seems slightly absurd. Labour’s plan to make a

So what if Zac Goldsmith’s loaded

Hold your breath, the ‘Zac’s filthy rich’ furore is coming to a front page near you. In addition to scurrilous insinuation about his tax status and the fact that he has spent Walpolean sums on campaigning in Richmond, Paul Waugh breaks the news that the Electoral Commission intends to investigate an allegedly impermissible donation Zac made to the Conservatives. An impermissible donation is of course illegal, but Goldsmith is innocent until the local Tory association’s case that his was an honest mistake made during the interim between moving out of Kensington and Chelsea and registering in Richmond is disproved. Other criticism is simply bunk. Goldsmith’s off-shore assets were determined by

The Tories should resist any temptation to go soft on debt

Of all the findings from today’s ICM poll for the Guardian, I imagine this one will concern the Tory leadership most: “Just two months ago, 49 percent of voters said they thought Cameron and Osborne would do better than Darling and Brown, but that figure is 38 percent today.” They’re still ahead of Brown and Darling – who are langushing on 31 percent – but the drop is still pretty striking.  What’s more, it seems to go against conventional wisdom about fixing the fiscal mess we’re in.  While they could still go further in setting out a few specifics, the fact is that the Tory pair have spent the last

Exceeding expectations

Today’s Guardian has an interesting story on the success of the New School Network, an organisation set up to get parents’ to take up the opportunities offered by the Tories’ planned school reform. The Guardian reports that 200 parents groups and 100 groups of teachers are interested in setting up schools. I suspect that take up of the Tories new schools will exceed expectations. One person involved with the New Schools Network told me recently that they would judge the policy a failure if it did not lead to the creation of a 1,000 new schools in the first two years. From a political perspective, the problem for the Tories

Things the Speaker shouldn’t discuss in public

As Andrew Sparrow says, it’s well worth reading Iain Dale’s interview with John Bercow in the latest issue Total Politics.  It’s a fun read, mostly because the Speaker is remarkably candid – a quality that’s normally to be admired in a politician.  But I can’t help thinking that he made a mistake in admitting this:   “I received various approaches from various senior people in the Labour party saying: ‘Aw, you know, we’d love to have you on board. We think you’re being discarded by the Conservatives. We think you’d be quite at home with us.’ Senior people, not in a formal setting, but people sidling up to you –

Labour Now Managing the Scale of the Defeat

I was struggling towards an analysis of the true meaning of the PBR in Friday’s post, but a couple of the Sunday commentators were a little closer to the mark. John Rentoul, in an article with the provocative headline Labour is Unelectable Again the Independent on Sunday’s chief political commentator has finally announced the death of New Labour. For him, Labour’s latest pronouncement on the bankers’ bonuses is the final death rattle. Labour sorely needs to move beyond the philosophy that made it so attractive to the electorate for a decade but at the moment it is finding it difficult to put one foot in front of the other. Matthew D’Ancona gets

Playing politics with the public finances

It has started. The Labour attack unit is out today talking about a “Tory VAT rise” – as per Paddy Hennessy’s scoop. Osborne stated his (to me, relatively paltry) position on the deficit: that he’d reduce it faster than Labour but can’t say how much. The Labour attack unit keeps partying like its 1999 with the “Tory cuts” line, now augmented with a “Tory tax rise.” Here are the words which the attack unit has crafted for Stephen Timms, chief secretary to the Treasury: “George Osborne refuses to say what services he would cut or what taxes he would increase in order to cut the deficit ‘further and faster’ than

Not Foxy enough

Analysts analyse, reporters report and politicians, well, they are meant to make decisions. When in power, they are meant to decide things; when in opposition they are meant to set our alternatives to government policy. But not, it seems, when it comes to defence policy. Or at least not always. I have just sat down to read Liam Fox’s NATO speech (as I could not attend), which he gave at Chatham House recently. To say that I am disappointed is an understatement. I think Liam Fox is a first-rate politician. His ongoing exposure of the Government’s military under-resourcing has been excellent. On a Tory team that is sometime accused of

Why class wars don’t work

Well, it seems like Paul Richards – a former aide to Hazel Blears – wants to corner the market in quietly persuasive demolitions of his own party’s strategy.  If you remember, he wrote a perceptive piece on Labour’s shortcomings in the aftermath of the Norwich North by-election, which we highlighted here on Coffee House.  And, today, he’s at it again, with a very readable article in PR Week on why the class war won’t work.  His three reasons why are worth noting down: “First, it is hypocritical. The Labour Party has a disproportionately far higher number of former public schoolboys and schoolgirls in parliament and in the government than a

How far could Boris go?

At Tory conference a bunch of candidates got together for supper. The conversation turned, as it so often does on these occasions, to who might be the next leader. One candidate was advancing the case for Boris with some gusto, until another interrupted saying, ‘can you imagine Boris representing Britain at the Security Council.’ The table agreed that they couldn’t and so the conversation moved on. Certainly, this perceived lack of seriousness will be Boris’s biggest problem in going further than Mayor of London. Cameron had a point when he said that Boris was stuck in a buffoonish rut from which he would find it hard to escape. But if

The unravelling continues apace

Has Brown got away with his horror Budget?  Reading the Populus poll in this morning’s Times, you might be tempted to say he has.  Sure, there’s some bad news in there for the government: trust in Dave ‘n’ George’s ability to manage the economy has hit an all-time high, and only 12 percent of respondents think that the measures outlined in the PBR will be sufficient to deal with our country’s fiscal woes.  But Labour types will also seize on those numbers which show quite high levels of support for the individual proposals annouced on Wednesday.  78 percent back the bonus tax.  61 percent back the capping of public sector

An unhealthy dependence

Few columnists are read more carefully in Conservative circles than Danny Finkelstein. He is extremely well connected in the Cameron circle and enjoys something of a mind-meld with George Osborne. Danny’s column today is the argument for sticking to the modernising message. It does, though, contain one significant criticism of the party, its dependence on David Cameron.   This Cameron dependence has been a problem for a while. But the leadership itself must take most of the blame for this. They have used Cameron for almost every announcement that they view as important and that has sent a message to the media that if it doesn’t come from Cameron the

Bad news for the country, bad news for Labour

Abandon hope all ye who enter here.  While we mostly knew what to expect from Darling’s PBR, it’s still surprising just how uninspiring, how thin and how insufficient it is in the flesh.  It’s pretty much a bad news budget for anyone you could mention.  Bad news, of course, for the bankers who will be hit by the hazily outlined bonus tax.  Bad news for public sector workers, who are already smarting at the frozen pay rise they’ll have to accept in a few years time.  Bad news for anyone who cares about the state of the public finances, which look just as grim, if not worse, as they did

One thing to remember today

As you can probably imagine, plenty of Labour folk are getting excited about the PBR today.  They regard it as a chance for their party to harden their rise in the polls, and hasten the Tories’ descent.  But Danny Finkelstein strikes a necessary note of calm over at Comment Central.  As he puts it, a Budget in which the government has to ‘fess up to the horrible state of the public finances is hardly going to do much good for them.   To Danny’s analysis I’d add one supporting fact: that rarely, if ever, in recent times, has the government received a significant poll bounce on the back of a

Brown’s bonus smokescreen

If today ends up with the government in a row with the City over plans to tax bank bonus pots with bankers threatening to take the government to court, then it will be mission accomplished for the Labour party. The same goes if we end up in a debate over the merits of a Tobin-style tax. For obvious reasons, Labour would rather talk about anything other than the state of the public finances so anything that distracts attention from that central question is, to use the word of the morning, a bonus for Brown. The Tories know this and will try and turn the debate back to the public finances

Clocking on

As publicity stunts go, the debt clock the Tories beamed onto Battersea Power Station this evening is quite a decent idea.  Their thinking’s pretty clear – get some coverage in tomorrow’s papers, and increase the likelihood that the horrendous state of the public finances becomes the story of the PBR – but it’s probably no less effective for it.  Anyway, here are some pictures so you can judge for yourself: P.S. Yes, I know it’s out of sync with the Coffee House debt counter. We’re going to update our numbers on the back of tomorrow’s PBR.