Peter Hoskin

Over at his essential blog, Benedict Brogan says that Dave 'n' George deserve some praise for Moody's decision to retain the UK's AAA credit-rating.  His thinking: that because Messrs Cameron and Osborne have been going on about debt and the need to cut spending, investors - anticipating a Tory government - are more confident about Things to Come. A similar point is made by Edmund Conway in a comment piece for the Telegraph today: "Part of the reason the debt markets have remained relatively sanguine in the face of a staggering collapse in tax revenues and increase in the deficit is that they are assuming a Conservative victory: when the prospect of an Alan Johnson leadership challenge briefly made a hung parliament more likely, they panicked.

Kevin Maguire, who is keyed into Team Brown more than most journalists, writes that it's looking more and more likely the PM will participate in a televised party leader debate: "Talking to people in and around Downing Street I reckon the odds are shortening (if you can get odds) on Brown agreeing to a TV election debate. It's a no-brainer for a Prime Minister well behind in the polls. There's a touch of the stunt about the Sky News empty chair threat but the channel deserves credit for helping focus minds. Brown's view, I'm told, is now isn't the moment to decide or announce what he'll do in the campaign and, from where he sits, he's probably right. To say Yes would risk triggering another dose of election fever while to say No would look chicken.

So what has David Cameron achieved with his speech on "cutting the cost of politics" yesterday?  Quite a lot, judging by this morning's papers.  The coverage it receives ranges from wholehearted scepticism in the Guardian to front-page celebration in the Daily Mail, but - more importantly, from a Tory perspective - it steals the thunder from Alistair Darling's public spending speech.  The Chancellor's innuendo about "nasty Tory cuts" is much less resonant when juxtaposed against the Tory leader calling for cuts in MPs' perks, whether those cuts are regarded as populist or not. What's more, Cameron has drawn quotes from Labour and the Lib Dems that may look a little silly in time.

In today's Guardian, Polly Toynbee sets out a shopping list of policies by which Labour could "set national politics alight"; everything from personal carbon trading to bringing back media ownership rules.  But she adds that she'll "happily eat a rack of hats if any of this happens". In which case, part of me thinks that Toynbee may have to start investing in some hats and some ketchup, as I wouldn't be massively surprised if Labour did put its name to one of her proposals.  Namely, this one: "Spread the pain of the recession: make the coming 50% top tax rate start at £100,000, as those in good jobs are doing well with lower prices and mortgages." Why so?

Yesterday, the Guardian told us that the health and overseas aid budgets wouldn't be spared from Labour cuts.  But, today, Steve Richards suggests that may not be the case: "The preliminary manoeuvring begins today when the Chancellor delivers a lecture on the principles that will guide the Government's approach, in effect arguing that while the Tories 'wallow' in the prospect of spending cuts he will take a more expedient approach, in terms of timing, pace, depth and in his view that the Government can still play a creative role as an enabler in the delivery of public services. But even this early message is hazy.

Over at the indispensable UK Polling Report, Anthony Wells runs the rule over the latest Telegraph/YouGov poll: "The Telegraph today has looked at their Yougov poll and decided it shows the Conservatives doing badly in the North. For what it’s worth, it doesn’t even do that - it shows the Conservatives 2 points behind in the North, an aggregate of government regions in which they trailed the Labour party by 19 points in 2005 - so it actually shows a swing to the Conservatives of 8.5 points in the North, marginally better than this poll suggests they are doing in the country as a whole. That, however, is beside the point, since even if the Telegraph had correctly interpreted what the figure meant, it would still be meaningless.

You wait days to see the word "meekly" in print, and then it crops up twice at once.  Today's Sun reports on a Jon Cruddas speech tomorrow, in which he claims that: "[Labour] seem to be meekly accepting defeat, unable to show what we believe in... ...We have only months to get this right, otherwise we will go down to catastrophic defeat." While Jackie Ashley develops the same theme in a piece for the Guardian, highlighting the same Cruddas quote along the way. The Cruddas intervention is significant mainly because of its timing.  The MP for Dagenham has clarified his views on Labour's plight before now (including in the latest New Statesman), but with only a few weeks to go until the Labour party conference, this is bound to ruffle a few feathers.

If you want some insights into where Labour are going next, then do read this story in today's Guardian.  The main points are that Brown and Darling have agreed not to spare the health and international development budgets from cuts; that Labour's public spending cuts will be set out over the next couple of months, beginning with a couple of speeches this week; and that Labour wants to frame its cuts as a return to the public service reform agenda.  As one "cabinet source" tells the paper: "The new economic context is a challenge for us, but New Labour in its original form never saw spending more money as the only solution. We need to revisit the original New Labour approach of public service reform.