David Blackburn

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.

George Boateng, Alan Milburn and Andrew Smith have written a letter to George Osborne, calling him to task over the contradictions in his policy. 'It is not clear to us whether these mixed messages are a deliberate attempt to obscure your plans or a symptom of a confused approach to policy but either way the public deserves better.' Fair enough. Osborne's policy has become more concrete in recent weeks, but much remains still to do. Peversely, I think they've given too much detail, and have been found out because they haven't seen the nation's books.The reduction in the amount of cuts that are planned is a case in point. But talk about hypocrisy: take a look at Labour's economic policy in the run-up to the budget. They are certainly clear on cuts: there aren't going to be any.

The gods are smiling on George Osborne. On Monday, he wrote an excellent article in the FT, explaining why he opposed the government’s fiscal plans and giving a brief sketch of his alternative vision. It was a short, sharp, shock article that contrasted with the tentative and nebulous announcements that characterised the Tory post-New Year slump. They were immediate benefits. On Tuesday, the EU Commission broadly supported the Conservative position on reducing public spending, and today a City AM poll indicated that 77 percent of a panel of City experts think that cuts must be made this year. Indeed, many panellists rejected Samuel Brittan’s contention, elucidated in last week’s Spectator, that the markets expect the continuation of current strategy.

The Daily Politics featured a telling exchange between Stephen Timms and Ken Clarke. Their arguments were unclear and their hypotheticals relentless - they were debating deficit reduction. A football phone-in DJ had been invited onto the programme to adjudicate. After 7 minutes he broke his befuddled silence and declared, understandably, that Clarke and Timms were a turn-off to ordinary voters. Immediately, Clarke responded clearly and directly, making a case for reducing the deficit with reference to the chillingly close reality of Greece’s collapse. He avoided patronising, homespun economics; and simply delivered bald analysis and a statement of intent with his characteristic gusto. By contrast, Timms remained silent. Clarke is the Tories’ prize-fighter.

At last, Gordon Brown has been forced from the comfort of silence on the Unite/BA strike. Yesterday, Lord Adonis said that he "absolutely deplored the strike” because the “stakes were too high”. Brown has done nothing more than echo those sentiments, but that is at least a step in the right direction. Obviously, the strike poses an enormous problem for the government. Betting men would get decent odds on BA collapsing, but it is a failing business that needs to change. Labour is a near insolvent party that needs Unite, and not just for its funds but for Charlie Whelan’s tireless work in support if the PM in an election year. So I doubt Labour will take any meaningful action.

It was mostly standard fare for a political interview, but the Cameron/Trevor McDonald show reminds you of what I think is one of Cameron’s foremost positives, and one that is welcome amid the Tories' current self-doubt. Cameron and his team turned the unelectable Tories into a modern and truly representative force. Jonathan Freedland may argue that the change is cosmetic, but candidates, such as Shaun Bailey, selected by the Hammersmith association, say otherwise. If Cameron saw-off grass-roots interests who were still fighting Margaret Thatcher’s early battles, if not those of Churchill too, he has the resolve to tackle the legacy that Gordon Brown is likely to bequeath him.   I’d expected to be left slightly flat by this interview.

Edward McMillan-Scott fights a lone and determined battle. Timing his defection for maximum destruction, McMillan-Scott characterises the Tory party in the style of Orwell’s Big Brother. He told the LidDem spring conference: "People are controlled within the Conservative party, as I was.” It is a common charge, but, because the Tory leadership currently resembles Channel Four’s Big Brother, it doesn’t stick. Consequently, McMillan-Scott sounds shrill. He accuses David Cameron of ‘propitiating extremism abroad’, a charge usually reserved for Abu-Hamza, and condemns Cameron as being ‘committed to power for its own sake’.

Liam Byrne told The Daily Politics yesterday that Labour would reduce the deficit without raising additional taxation to that which is already planned. Iain Martin describes this pledge as being akin to a chocolate fireguard. He’s right. It’s less realistic than a Jeffrey Archer novel. As Andrew Neil notes, Labour plans to reduce £82bn from the deficit by 2014 with £19bn in tax rises and £38bn in cuts. They bank on economic growth eradicating the remaining £25bn. The government’s optimism for Britain’s economic prospects is touching but scarcely credible on the basis of 0.3 percent growth and the frightening trade deficit. Andrew Neil observed that Byrne was armed with books of notes and briefings.