James Forsyth

A recent email from Samantha Cameron started an intriguing debate in the Prime Minister’s social circle. It was an invitation to a Christmas party at Chequers and word quickly spread on the Notting Hill grapevine that the PM was convening an unusually large gathering of friends at his country retreat. So, the guests wondered: were they being asked around because the Camerons were having a last hurrah at Chequers, sensing that they would be evicted by the electorate? Or was the bash being thrown because they were in celebratory mood, convinced that the political tide has turned their way? This confusion is understandable. We might only be three months away from the start of the election campaign but only a fool would predict the result with much confidence.

Nick Clegg’s performance at PMQs reminded me of Field Marshall Bosquet’s verdict on the charge of the Light Brigade, ‘c’est magnifique, mais ce n’est pas la guerre’. After a week in which the Lib Dems have been busy trying to differentiate themselves from the Tories, Clegg turned up at PMQs and delivered an aggressive defence of everything that the government has done. Indeed, I’m struggling to think of anything that Clegg said from the despatch box today that Cameron would have disagreed with. The session was also a reminder of the personal animosity between Clegg and the shadow Cabinet. Harriet Harman went for him over his party’s attitude to women, complete with reference to Clegg’s unfortunate GQ interview.

Competence versus chaos—that’s what the Tory leadership want to frame the next election as a choice between. Hence George Osborne’s repetition of this phrase five times in one brief interview with the BBC’s Nick Robinson. The Tories want to make the voters think that they offer competence and everyone else chaos. As George Osborne puts it, ‘And it’s not just Liberal Democrats, it’s Labour, UKIP, you can put them all into the same mix. What they’re offering is a chaotic alternative of higher taxes, higher borrowing, a return to economic chaos.

All the talk about the ‘colossal’ cuts to come if the Tories win re-election has been predicated on the assumption that the Tories are committed to running a £23 billion surplus in 2019/20. But this assumption is wrong. As David Gauke told Andrew Neil just now, ‘At the moment the OBR predicts that we will have a surplus of £23 billion, but we’re not making a commitment to the British people, that’s what the number will be in 2019.’ Instead, I understand — after extensive conversations with members of the Chancellor’s circle — that the Tories intend to start increasing spending in line with inflation once the Budget is back in surplus.

In the last few days, George Osborne has moved to close down three Tory vulnerabilities ahead of the election campaign. First, there was the decision to put another £2 billion into the NHS. Osborne has always believed that support for the NHS is the most important feature of Tory modernisation and this extra money has rather undercut Labour’s commitment to spend another £2.5 billion on the health service. The Tory hope is that this extra money, and the party essentially signing up to Simon Stevens blueprint for the NHS, will prevent health from becoming the major election issue that Labour need it to be. Second, Osborne has tried to neuter the appeal of the mansion tax.

A preview of James Forsyth's political column in this week's Spectator, out tomorrow: Autumn Statements lack the drama and traditions of the Budget. Gladstone never delivered one, there is no Autumn Statement box and no possibility of a dram of whisky as the chancellor delivers it. But this year’s Autumn Statement was more important, and more substantial, than next year’s Budget will be: the Liberal Democrats are adamant that March is too close to the general election for the Budget to do anything other than update the fiscal forecasts and set out the duty rates. The test this week isn’t economic but political.

There is a simple political test for the autumn statement, does it make the economy Topic A again? The Tories’ election strategy relies on the economy being the dominant issue of the campaign. If it is not, it is very hard to see how Cameron and co can win.   The Tories want everything to be seen through the prism of the economy. Hence Osborne’s emphasis this morning that he can only put an extra £2 billion into the NHS because the economy is strong.   In recent months, immigration has supplanted the economy as voters’ top concern. This has been to Ukip—and not the Tories—benefit. This is why Cameron’s speech last Friday was designed to shut the issue down.

Ed Miliband is determined to talk about the NHS as much as possible at PMQs while David Cameron wants the economy to be Topic A. The result: Miliband asks about the NHS and Cameron replies by saying that you can’t have a strong NHS without a strong economy. At the moment, there is no sign of either side being able to break this PMQs stalemate. listen to ‘PMQs: Leaders battle over the NHS’ on audioBoom With the leaders stuck in a groove, the backbench questions are now where the action is. The SNP’s Pete Wishart previewed one of the SNP’s 2015 lines of attack, warning of a Ukip-UK as the main parties try and catch up with Nigel Farage. Cameron’s reply wasn’t bad though; he said that the SNP and Ukip were linked by their desire to divide people.

This was meant to be the weekend when Ed Miliband got some ‘breathing space’, a chance to recover after the last torrid few weeks. But his—and his party’s—troubles are still all over the papers today. The Tories defeat in Rochester has not moved the spotlight on to Cameron and his difficulties in the way that Labour hoped it would.   Now, this is largely because of that Tweet. Emily Thornberry has succeed in uniting Miliband critics and loyalists alike in anger at her stupidity. But, as I report in the Mail on Sunday, many of Miliband’s longest standing political allies feel that the Labour machine has grossly mishandled the issue.

What’s the most significant political story of the week, Ukip winning Rochester or Emily Thornberry’s resignation? Well, I suspect, it might be neither of them and that the really big event this week happened north of the border, Nicola Sturgeon being sworn in as First Minister. For the new SNP leader is riding a quite remarkable wave of popularity. Right now, she’s addressing a rally at the Glasgow Hydro, a 12,000 seat venue that she sold out faster than Kylie Minogue—what other politician in Britain could hope to do that?   As I say in the column this week, what makes Sturgeon’s popularity all the more remarkable is that she is a career politician.

Walk round the Commons today and it is striking that Tory MPs are in relatively good spirits while Labour ones looks distinctly more downcast. At first this seems odd, after all it is the Tories who have just lost another seat to Ukip. But in the battle of the weak that is British politics right now, Labour have had the worst of the past twenty four hours. Obviously, it is Ukip who have the best of it, but the Tories have come off rather less badly than Labour which is what counts for relative success in Westminster at the moment. In the end, the Rochester result wasn’t as bad for the Tories as they feared it would be a fortnight ago. Ukip’s seven point margin of victory means that the Tories have a strong chance of taking the seat back in May.

Emily Thornberry has resigned from the shadow Cabinet for sending a Tweet that appeared to mock a Rochester voter who was flying several St George’s Cross from their window and had a white van parked outside. Thornberry’s resignation follows Miliband aides briefing that the leader was the angriest they’d ever seen him after being told about the tweet. All this shows just how sensitive Labour is to the charge that it is now a party run by a metropolitan elite who have little connection with the party’s traditional working class base. I suspect that if Miliband had not had the last few weeks that he has, Thornberry would have been allowed to try and ride out this storm. But Labour clearly feel that they have try and close this story down as quickly as possible.

PMQs is in a rut. The exchanges between Cameron and Miliband now descend into the trading of insults even faster than they did before and both sides simply use PMQs as an opportunity to trot out stock lines. Miliband was determined to use today’s exchanges to paint Cameron as a kiss-up, kick-down politician, trying to contrast his opposition to the mansion tax with his support for the so-called ‘bedroom tax’. (It is, though, worth remembering that only one of these policies is actually a tax.) Miliband fumed, ‘If you’ve got big money you’ve got a friend in the Prime Minister. If you don’t, he couldn’t care less.’ Cameron, for his part, was keen to mock Miliband at every opportunity.