George osborne

There is a fascinating glimpse at the tensions inside the top echelons of the Conservative party in The Times today. Francis Elliott reports that Steve Hilton is trying to veto the appointment of James O’Shaugnessy, head of policy for the party, as head of the Downing Street policy unit should the Tories win the election. Francis writes that tensions between Hilton and O’Shaugnessy have been exacerbated by disputes about what should go in the initial slice of the Tory manifesto which will be published on Monday. O’Shaugnessy is one of politics' nice guys. But he has been the focus of negative briefing in recent months. Back in early September, I was told that Hilton was casting around for other candidates for the job in government.

Make a note, CoffeeHousers: Labour won’t be fighting a class war against the Tories, after all.  That’s what Ed Balls tells us in this morning’s Times – so it must be true, mustn’t it?  Erm, well, perhaps not.  This is how the Schools Secretary continues: “‘David Cameron’s and George Osborne’s vulnerability is not their schools or their background but that they are prioritising tax cuts for the richest estates ahead of spending on the key public services,’ he said. ‘They have designed an inheritance tax policy which costs billions but which won’t benefit a single lower or middle-income family in Britain but will benefit themselves and a tiny percentage of other individuals.

The latest Comres poll for the Independent indicates, as if we needed telling, that the Tories are yet to seal the deal. It’s far from panic stations – the lead remains at 9 points – but there are two figures that prove where the Tories are going wrong. The majority of respondents feel that a Conservative government would exclusively represent the interests of the rich, and the contention that the Tories represent an appealing alternative to Labour was rejected. If Cameron is merely a PR man I hope he’s cheap. Aside from Alex Salmond I can’t envisage anything worse than five more years of Gordon, and this suggests to me that Cameron is struggling to communicate with voters. Nowhere is this more palpable than the preposterous class war.

It's the most straightforward dividing line the Tories could draw: "Tories good, Labour bad".  But it's still striking to see it deployed quite so bluntly as in George Osborne's Telegraph article this morning.  His point is that four more years of Labour will lead us to ruin, whereas a Conservative government would pull us out of the mire.  Here are some snippets: "Down the path of least resistance lie economic decline, higher interest rates, high unemployment, and more social breakdown. This is the path down which a cynical and exhausted Labour Government tempts us. But there is another path that leads to lasting recovery, rising prosperity, social responsibility and a new way of doing things. ... If Labour get in again, that won't happen.

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 couple of months railing against the the twin debt and deficit burdens, and stressing the need for spending cuts.

Is it just me, or have the Tories developed a slightly harder edge in the couple of days since the Pre-Budget Report?  We had an unusually acidic address from David Cameron yesterday, in which he likened Brown 'n' Darling to "joy-riders in a car smashing up the neighbourhood," and criticised the PBR for its "irresponsibility, basic deceit and complete lack of moral principle".  There have been a couple of quite powerful attack posters from CCHQ.  And now we've got George Osborne saying that Brown may have "betrayed the responsibilities of the office he holds." "So what?" you say, "they're the Opposition – it's their job to oppose."  Well, yes, of course.  But that opposition seems to have been concentrated over the past few days.

Bernard Gray, a member of the Tories’ Public Service Productivity Advisory Committee, explains why he has joined forces with the Tories. He writes in today’s Times: ‘From my experience of working in and with the Ministry of Defence over the past decade I know how strong such vested interests are and how much commitment is required to overcome resistance to change. It will take acts of extraordinary political will to take on these entrenched interests. The Shadow Treasury team, George Osborne and Philip Hammond, have persuaded me that they are have the determination, drive and belief in change to tackle this issue at this critical time. That’s why I’ve been persuaded to help them.

There are a couple of noteworthy snippets in today's FT interview with George Osborne: the claim that the Tories may not take corporation tax as low as it is in Ireland; the outline of a "five-year road map" on business tax policy, etc.  But, I must admit, it's this passage which jumped out at me:    "[Osborne] says his Tory conference speech in October, which included plans for a public sector pay freeze and an increase in the state retirement age, 'was an important moment' that showed a mental leap to being 'an alternative government, not just an opposition'." These self-bestowed titles – "alternative government," and the like – are silly, really.  The only thing that actually matters is whom the public regards as governing material.

Gordon Brown’s much heralded tripartite regulatory system failed the first time it was faced with a financial crisis, proof that taking away regulatory powers from the Bank of England was a massive mistake. Now, Ben Bernanke — who is trying to secure a second term as Fed Chairman and keep the Fed’s regulatory powers intact — is citing the Brown model as what not to do, telling the Senate banking committee: "[O]ver the past few years the government of Britain removed from the Bank of England most of its supervisory authorities.

During the Tory party conference, I wrote about how the Tories were developing plans to radically cut corporation tax. In recent weeks, the Tories have been dropping plenty of hints about this agenda but giving little detail on it. After reiterating the Tories' existing plans to lower the rates of corporation tax at the CBI conference last week, David Cameron said: "and we want to go further." Today, in an interview with the FT, the Tory treasurer Michael Spencer reveals that he is "hopeful that, over the next parliament...we will get corporation tax down towards the 20 per cent level." Spencer is close enough to the leadership to know what he is talking about, and his comments track with what is being said in private.