Labour party

The News of the World's endorsement of the Conservatives today is worth reading. It has taken some time and much soul-searching for the paper to make this decision. Papers, even under the same proprietor, have different readerships with different outlooks on life. The Sun came out for the Tories on the last day of the Labour conference last September, but its stablemate has taken far longer. It has been firm in its denunciation of Brown's failings but – like many voters – it has looked long and hard at just how a Tory government would correct them. The reason for its endorsement now is laid out in the leading article. It started with the reasons for why it backed New Labour in 1997 – what would it change?

After reading Brown's claims in the Guardian today, this Kill A Minister mechanism in his speech today rather jumped out at me: "I will set out a clear and public annual contract for each new Cabinet Minister, detailing what I expect them and their department to deliver to the British people, and that their continued appointment is dependent on their delivery just as it would be in a business or any other organisation." I mean, you can just imagine what Alistair Darling's first "contract" would look like: You, the Chancellor, will undertake to deliver the following to the British people: i) Economic growth of 5 percent in 2010-11 ii) A sufficient level of investment in our schools, hospitals and families, to be determined by Number 10.

So the Labour pledge card is back – and, this time, it's a good deal more nebulous than in 1997 or 2001, but quite similar to 2005.*  Here are the themes that Brown & Co. will be campaigning on: i) Secure our recovery ii) Raise family living standards iii) Build a high tech economy iv) Protect frontline services v) Strengthen fairness in communities There's another key difference with previous elections too: one of trust.  Sure, voters have always been reluctant to take politicians' promises and exhortations at face value.  But it's a safe bet that they're even more sceptical and uninterested this time around. *Although, as Alastair Campbell points out, there is more detail on the back of the card – but a bit too much to be immediately memorable.

The weekend cannot come quick enough for Andrew Adonis. What an awful week. The BA strike wrecked travel; the absurd Stephen Byers dragged him into the lobbying scandal; the RMT voted in favour of Bob Crow’s surreal steam-era fantasy; and today comes the coup de grace: the High Court decides that the third Heathrow runway is ‘untenable’. Transport is beginning to make Northern Ireland look like a soft brief, but Adonis hides his perturbation. He responded to this morning’s news by saying: "I welcome this court ruling. Heathrow is Britain's principal hub airport. It is vital not only to the national economy but also enables millions of citizens to keep in touch with their friends and family and to take a well-deserved holiday.

There's been some hubbub on the good ol' blogosphere about Darling's claim that Labour spending cuts would be "deeper and tougher" than Thatcher's.  Did Thatcher actually cut spending?  What would that indicatate about Labour's plans?  And so on. Part of the confusion is caused by the different metrics that are referred to as "spending".  So here's a quick guide to what Darling might have had in mind: OPTION 1: Real-terms total spending.  As the below graph from the IFS shows (taken from this excellent blogpost by the FT's Alex Barker), real-terms total public spending only fell in two years of the Thatcher premiership.  In all the other years it rose.  Indeed, spending increased by an average of 1.