Margaret thatcher

One of the interesting features of this election campaign is the near-absence of ex-leaders in national election roles. Tony Blair has been stuck in the Middle East because of the eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano and has, at any rate, been “Gored” by Gordon Brown, who is as keen to have his predecessor canvassing for Labour as Al Gore was to see ex-president Bill Clinton in the 2000 election. The former Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott has been more active. For the Tories, Michael Howard is standing down and has not been particularly visible. When I saw him recently in Portcullis House, he looked chipper and relaxed – not like a man about to electioneer for all he is worth.

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.

After delivering an insipid, insufficient Budget yesterday, Alistair Darling has now smuggled a little bit of honesty into the fiscal debate.  In interview with Nick Robinson, he has claimed that if Labour is re-elected its spending cuts "will be deeper and tougher" than Thatcher's.  Needless to say, that's a message which will not sit well with his Cabinet colleagues like Ed "investment vs cuts" Balls. And this is precisely why Darling is such a confusing figure.  Yes, he deserves some praise for being more upfront about the public finances than his predecessor ever could be, and for restricting the wilder excesses of Brown and Balls.  But it's hard to forget that he, as Chancellor, hasn't delivered a spending review when we need one most.

Nick Clegg has a blue rose in his mouth in tomorrow's Spectator, serenading readers - and showing his hidden Tory side. I have to say, he puts his heart into it. Not only does the Lib Dem leader say he'll end the structural deficit with 100 percent spending cuts (not the 20 percent tax rises, 80 percent cuts combo that the Tories advocate), but he even heaps praise in Lady Thatcher. More, he describes her as something of an inspiration: just as she took on vested interests in the 1980s, so he will take on the banks now.   Personally, I can't quite see the equivalence - and Clegg as the Heir to Thatcher is an image that I just can't conjure in my mind. But you can't blame him for trying.