David cameron

Gordon Brown and David Cameron have just been facing each other in the Commons chamber. Brown was notionally reporting back on the European summit meeting, but in relaity Brown and Cameron were setting the stage for the Chancellor’s debate tonight. Cameron claimed that there was a new dividing line in British politics, the Tories for ‘efficency and aspiration’ and Labour for ‘waste and taxes.’ Brown claimed that the Tories were indulging in panic measures and that their plans announced today would ‘withdraw the support that is necessary for the economy to have a sustained recovery.’ Brown might have some Keynesian economists on his side when he says this.

Public sector net borrowing, public sector net debt, total managed expenditure, departmental expenditure limits ... zzzzz.  One of the main reasons why Labour has been able to fashion an economic narrative, against all odds, is because they can rely on some pretty esoteric language.  Thus debt becomes interchangeable with deficit, and cuts can be hidden under layers and layers of different spending metrics.  Perhaps more than anything, this almost-casual deception is Brown's greatest skill. Which is why it's encouraging that the Tories have tried to demystify some of the fiscal debate, putting it into language that everyone can follow.  They've set out their "more for less" argument by referring to the practices of supermarkets.

Cameron was scarcely trying at PMQs today. Show up, look a bit cross, slip in a joke or two, then sit down and wait for the Budget. That was his plan. When the PM offered his congratulations on BabyCam, the opposition leader quoted a text he’d received – ‘How do you find time for these things?’ Making this wisecrack seemed more important to him than attacking the PM. His tactics were odd, out of touch, retrospective. He asked about Brown’s attempts to conceal the evidence that, as chancellor, he flogged the nation’s gold too cheaply and blew vast sums in potential profits. Brown’s bungling over the bullion billions should be a promising issue.

David Cameron may be talking about a new relationship with France, but let’s hope the Conservatives do better than Nicolas Sarkozy’s UMP, which suffered a heavy defeat in local and regional elections, with a Socialist-led opposition alliance taking an estimated 52 percent of the vote. This is bad. At least three of President Sarkozy’s enemies have now made a comeback: the French left, the far-right Front National and Dominique de Villepin, who appears to have been buoyed by UMP’s defeat and a new poll that showed the French preferred de Villepin to Sarkozy as UMP leader. It will be interesting to see how Sarkozy copes. Until now, he has not had any significant set-backs, but a defeat of this kind halfway into a five-year mandate cannot be dismissed.

The public remains infatuated with Vince Cable. A Politics Home poll reveals that 31 percent want Cable to be chancellor. It’s a crushing endorsement: Don’t Know is his nearest rival on 24 percent, followed by Ken Clarke on 16 percent. Cable’s reputation rests on his sagacious airs and an apparent contempt for party politics. His eminence is baffling. Fleet-footed fox-trotter he may be; economic guru he is not. Andrew Neil's interview shattered Cable’s invincibility. The Sage of Twickenham admitted to changing his mind over the HBOS Lloyds merger and his constantly shifting position on cuts was exposed. Add to that the ill-thought out Mansions Tax and Cable begins to look leaden. The Tories and Labour should emphasise Cable’s intellectual shortcomings.

We have just witnessed a fascinating glimpse of the use of the internet in elections. This morning, Cameron proposed a unilateral bank tax - moving, I suspect, ahead of what he believes Darling will announce in next week's budget. Next, at 1.19pm, Will Straw digs up a selectively-edited version of Chris Grayling speaking in his local constituency (put online by the Labour candidate, Craig Montgomery). Straw's headline: "Calamity Grayling opposes Cameron’s unilateral bank tax." Now, this headline - a lie - might have worked on a Labour Party press release. But it's far harder to lie on a blog. Grayling is quoted saying "there is absolutely no point on earth is any one country doing this unilaterally, because otherwise all the banking transactions will simply move to another one".

Listening to BBC news, it's striking how they are still using Labour's politically-charged vocabulary. When the universities are kicking off about their budgets being cut, the BBC newsreaders are told to talk about "investment" in higher education, rather than spending. Why, though? An "investment" would be to put £1 billion of taxpayers’ money into an Emerging Markets fund, and hope it grows. Giving it to universities - many of which serve neither students nor society - is not an investment. But using the word "investment" is Labour code for "good spending". There is one particularly frequent example if this: the BBC regularly confuse the words "deficit" and "debt" - a bugbear of mine, and something James Forsyth deals with in his column in this week's magazine.