Osborne's weak response

Richard

So why don't the Tories replace Oik with Gemma Tetlow?
He really is becoming a liability.
Can the Tories really be placing all their cash and treasure on the difference of 5 Billion and a Vat increase to 20%....blimey!

Ian Walker

Hmm your headline is that the response is "weak," whereas the text reveals that the problem was more poor presentation.

chris as usual

This is like 1000 German bombers crossing the Channel, and the politicians and media arguing about whether or not we can afford to spend any money by raising taxes or cutting other services, so that we can put into action 10 Spitfires or 11 Hurricanes. (That's a 10% difference, actually).

It is all nonsense. They are playing a Prisoners' Dilemma game, with both parties seeing the disaster as 'not getting elected', rather than being honest and telling people to expect 'blood, sweat and tears'.

Quite honestly, you would be better off by telling it straight, and if the others win then when the **** hits the fan and we can't sell gilts and interest rates start rocketing, then take over the mess with a proper mandate, like Churchill did.

It's that serious.

Tiberius

It seems to me, Fraser, that the BBC weren't the only ones to go into the interview with assumptions.

Dinosaur

I weep about Osborne, and worse, it makes me wonder about Cameron for choosing. The poor lad just doesn't cut it.

If only he'd used some simple cliche to describe the budget like 'rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic' - at least it would have amused.

AndyLeeds

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Leaves me thinking that this bloody shower of a Government will get re-elected. God help us all.

Naomi Muse

It was a shame that Alistair Darling did not appear on the Today programme.

I thought George Osborne was a bit weak too, but Evan Davies was totally unrealistic and bounced like a puppy around Osborne chanting mantras of what the government would do and that there was not much between the two main parties.

What was missing the most was reality in the questioning by Evan Davies who appeared not to have either done his research or to have listened to the answers given by George Osoborne.

Of course interviewers want to goad a politician into giving information away ahead of time, that's half the fun,

BUT

Everyone knows that the sitting government does not divulge the total financial information ahead of time.

Everyone knows that it was a pre-election bit of window dressing of a budget rather than one which would make a great difference to any of the BIG problems within the economy.

Everyone knows too that the budget speech was more of a party political bit of puff with all that Broon use of words like 'choices'.

On that basis, scepticism by the interviewer toward the government with at least an acknowledgement that any opposition party could simply not have all of the figures and contract details, and therefore not have done all of the calculations and made all of the decisions would seem to be the best reality for Mr E Davies to have projected in the circumstances.

That, combined with a comment as to why Mr Darling had declined the normal appearance on Today the day after the budget, could have made a much better interview, and got a better response out of George Osborne.

I thought George Osborne was frustrated by Evan Davies banging on and haranguing him rather than running the interview in the most helpful way for the electorate, which is what a public service broadcaster, who is paid from our tax pounds, should do.

Vulture

Oiky IS the weakest link: for God's sake Dave, do an Anne Robinson & say 'Goodbye!'

I can't stand the Europhiliac Ken Clarke but he sounds reassuring, realistic abt money and would get tons of Tory votes that Oiky loses every time he shows his unappealing face.

Marcus Cotswell

I dunno, Fraser, there's such a thing as tailoring your message to your audience. While I agree the Sun soundbite you cite would work with almost any audience, the sort of person who is listening to the Today programme at whatever time in the morning generally does know what the OECD, the IFS and AAA ratings are all about. Don't they??

potager

You want it simple, Fraser, so I'll make it simple - just go and join the Labour Party.

For whatever deep-seated psychological reason, you seem inexorably driven to boost Labour by undermining the Tories: Cameron and Osborne are brave, principled men trying to wrest control from unspeakable forces amidst a blatantly hostile media barrage. It is high time that commentators from the centre-right swallowed their pained critiques and offered the battling Tories some unambiguous encouragement!

Gawain

I didn't hear it, some of us have to earn a crust. How very, very depressing. This is becoming a bit like experiencing a national suicide in slow motion. Perhaps we should just rename the country Argentina. The politicians are all dancing on the same pin head, the media slags off everyone and everything and a bored populace sticks its fingers in its ears, shuts its eyes and goes shopping.

Nick

"But Davis, promoted to that programme because of his non-geeky numeracy, had a killer point: ‘It’s a £5bn difference in spending on a government spend of £622bn. Not to be sniffed at but it’s a detail, really, in truth.’"

It's not a "killer point" though because Evan Davis's £5bn figure is WRONG. The difference between 80% cuts and 67% cuts on a total government spend of £600bn and a deficit of £170bn is a lot more that £5bn. It's actually £20bn if you want to eliminate the fiscal deficit altogether.

jason

Cameron didn't pick osborne he was picked by michael howard.

Richard Blogger

Except that the NHS "ring fence" is no such thing. What is being ring fenced is the actual Department of Health budget. This may seem like an uninteresting detail, but when you look at Lansley's plans for the NHS you'll see that he intends to shift a large amount of care from NHS hospitals to GPs and private healthcare, so his plans will be real cuts (I am told 10-15%) in NHS hospitals' incomes.

Most voters think the "NHS ring fence" means hospitals' income will be protected. Once it becomes apparent that their income will suffer real cuts then the proverbial fan will starts to look very brown.

Richard Blogger

But Vulture, the time to have dropped "oik" was 6 months ago. It is electoral suicide to drop your finance "expert" 6 weeks before an election. But if you can persuade Dave to ask Gids to step aside then be my guest :-)

Noa Zrk

If you're saying, Fraser, that he's not up to the job, then you're absolutely right.

Still time for Dave to change him but it won't happen. Evans may be a geek but Osborne has no vision, no alternative to offer and most disgracefully no ability to rip apart Darlings patched- up socialist workers spend-fest of a budget.
What was most apparant was the lack of preparation behing the lack of conviction. Sloppy, sloppy work. He hsould learn from Heseltine on how to prepare and from Thatcher on how scared he should be if he doesn't.

JONNY

Vulture you are right.

Osborne by himself
will lose the Election.
As Enoch Powell might have said:
"this is a dagger.
There's his back,.
Plunge the bugger in".

DavidDP

You do appear to have a deep seated dislike of Osborne. Contrast this with your praise yesterday for Darling. Given your argument is predicate on Osborne saying much the same, then you really shouldn't be criticising him.

DavidDP

"Kavanagh's column has another arsenal of verbal bullets. "

I hope they are better than the bland cliches you have provided for an example.

strapworld

It is like many area's of life, which I am sure most people can identify. Someone is really good privately. In a closed meeting they can shine BUT when it comes for them to convince a wider audience they fail.

Osborne may well be a brilliant person. But he comes across as a hesitating, poorly briefed individual. Yes he is good at sound bites-especially when it is insulting people- but to convince people of the seriousness of the financial situation he just does not cut the cloth.

It would be far better, as 'chris as usual' suggests telling it absolutely straight. Say that every department, including the NHS and overseas aid, will have to suffer massive cuts. that benefits may well have to be cut, that nothing can be ruled out.

As I wrote earlier they should follow Boris's line. "We will audit every departments books then publish the details of the real mess we are in and then tell you chapter and verse just what we will have to cut"

But Cameron is treating the people as fools. As if they are ill prepared to face facts. If that is the case the Tories have got to be in the position of saying that they have been open and honest.

IF the public do not support that line- all well and good. At least, in opposition, the tories under a new leader and team will be able to say that WE TOLD YOU SO! Then wait for the inevitable vote of no confidence in Labour and then achieve a massive victory later this year or next.

Cameron and Osborne are so weak they are an absolute gift to the Labour Party. I am truly sorry for keeping on about this but the tories are sleep walking into another disaster. Bring on Boris, at least he was truthful to Londoners.

ian

This is what an expensive education can do - get an intellectual lightweight like Osborne to within a whisker of 11 downing street. god help us all.

Jan M

I too thought that Labour’s decision not to send anyone on to the Today programme was leaving an open goal for Osborne. It turns out that leaving an unattended and gaping goal makes you look foolish…but not half as foolish as the other side running up with the ball only to trip up on their laces and end up nose deep in the mud.

GeoffH

Potager.

Hear, hear. The sniping and grumbling from some of the most tedious posters on here (you know who you are) is one thing but that the editor and his staff are so willing to prop up Labour by their constant sniping is dispiriting and depressing.

One might as well read the New Statesman.

paulg

George Osbourne needs to stick to his position on the only way to get a sustainable recovery, is to start to shift the economy back to equilibrium.

Lower government spending, lower taxes, casino banks broken up and, capitalism reaffirmed.

George Osbourne has won the opening arguments on the way forward, he must press home his advantage.

Andy Mcrae

Why would the Government need to send anyone to the Today programme or any other BBC 'interview' to put their point across when they know the BBC will always do their job for them?

TrevorsDen

"I’m sure Osborne will reduce the overspend faster, but I’m also sure Labour would have to do this as well. The markets will impose fiscal discipline on whoever is the next Chancellor" ---
---- So why you gormless idiot, is your headline not -'Osborne exposes Darlings lies' or 'Osborne is straight with the electorate' ??

You expect the Tories to announce a 20% rise in VAT as a prelude to the election???

There is however no doubt that Browns policy is (awlays has been) 'Live Now - Pay Later'. I commend Jack Trevor Storeys film - and the slogan to all tories.

Irene

Here you go again Fraser - put a sock in it for God's sake!

Jane

I listened to the interview. Well done George Osborne for submitting himself to Evan Davis. I was disappointed and surprised that Alastair Darling refused the invitation to be subject to an interview with George Osborne.

I really do not understand this criticism. George Osborne was not sitting on a sofa in the GMTV studio. he was answering questions on serious matters. I thought the reference to the OECD report was relevant and it certainly helped me. I do not consider a 13% difference in cuts between the government and the opposition to be insignificant. Further George Osborne clarified his position by saying that it did not necessarily mean that he would not cut further. So too was his reply that he needed time to study the red book and listen to the IFS as well as others who would be analysing the figures. I also learnt that the Treasury had redacted information that he sought. This astounded me - a government department which spends my money redacting information which is legitimately requested from the official opposition.

I am not an expert on economic affairs although I have an interest like many other people. There is a danger that you underestimate the public by stating that we do not know what the IFS stands for. Those of us who regularly listen to the Today programme may feel patronised.

I thought George Osborne did well this morning. I continue to hear him pressed on what he will do and we all know that he cannot be specific until he has access to the books.

I do not think this was a fair analysis of the interview. By the way, I do not intend voting at the next election so have no axe to grind.

Megan

I sometimes think you are a Labour plant, Fraser. You know full well that even if your analysis of George Osborne is correct, to replace him this close to May 6th would be electoral suicide. By writing a piece like this, you are handing Labour more ammunition to fire at the Tories.

Personally, I disagree with your views on the shadow chancellor, but for the sake of all of us who are desperate to get rid of this fag-end of a government, please bite your tongue until after the election. At this stage in the electoral cycle, and with so much at stake for our country, your writing smacks of self-indulgence.

Ben G

Osborne's line that he was waiting for the IFS was very weak. Can't he do his own sums?

Fitalass

In defence of Alastair Darling yesterday and that budget, and today complaining about Osborne's weak response on the Today programme when Darling refused to even debate with him!! Suggest comparing and contrasting the two articles. Three paragraphs to sum up Darling's budget, and an bullet point hatchet job on Osborne. That red book must have been really empty.

I hate being spoon fed rubbish like this.

teledu

Fraser - and others - off topic but have a gander at this. If true it's explosive stuff surely, concerning the real motives behind Brown selling gold reserves when he did and against advice:-
http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2010/03/browns-bottom-is-enormous-issue-in-uk.html
Perhaps readers on here know all about it and it's not that startling. But it made me sit up!

General Zod

Fraser is just being an irresponsible show-off here.

TomTom

Edward Heath chose a weak Anthony Barber as Chancellor after Iain Macleod's untimely death and left the country with an inflation problem as he tried to spend his way out of the oil crisis of 1973 instead of cutting back.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Cameron does not want a strong rival in place at the Treasury because he fears the G Brown T Blair problem, and he is destroying credibility by having an ill-informed weakling covering Finance rather than someone like John Redwood who would have much more credibility with the public.

Tiberius

Ben G: don't you think quoting the IFS figures will add weight to whatever Osborne's response will be, as opposed to going with unsupported data?

THX1138

Fraser looks like you have the wrong headline ib in the mag this week

How about "Tory pundits Civil War"

Yon knife Osborne in the Speccie, while Phillip Blond puts the boot into Tim Montgomerie in Prospect.

http://bit.ly/cYnjIP

If your boys don't win the mud slinging is going to be a joy to behold.

Ben G

Tiberius, I would if the IFS had access to unique figures. But it is only one of many independent think tanks, and they can only go on whatever is already in the public domain - so nothing that George's team doesn't already know. So he has no need to wait for them to do the maths for him.

Now, the IFS might have an interpretation that is handy to George, but why should he wait for that? He should go with his own policy, which I would hope is already formulated...

Scary Biscuits

Osborne was given the Treasury brief because that is seen as the most powerful Minister after Cameron, that is, because he is Cam's right hand man. He was not given the job because he is good at economics or at explaining it.

Economic policy is Cameron's Achillies Heel. Cf Thatcher and Reagan who had economics - even if neither were professors - as their strong suit. In this Cameron really is the Heir to Blair. Blair's legacy is a country burdened by unprecedented debt with its Parliament help in contempt, the destruction of New Labour and maybe even the end of Labour as it currently is. Will Cameron do similar damage to the Tory brand? Far from decontaminating it, will he soil it further? After all, the Tory record isn't exactly stunning: think Heath and Major. Cameron reminds me of that accountant who took Mercedes into its ill-fated merger with Chrysler and promptly announced that the cars were 'over-engineered'. The trouble was he didn't realise that that was the brand's core value: people didn't buy Mercedes despite them being well engineered but BECAUSE they were. Similarly with the Conservatives, people don't vote for us because they think we're nice they vote for us because they think we'll sort out the economy and jobs. But, at the moment when people want this, what do we have? Instead of an economic policy proudly explaining how cutting taxes/borrowing causes economic growth we have a weak apology essentially accepting Brown's economic theory but merely promising different personnel. Strangely, that was exactly what Blair was promising 18 years ago.

Whig

Jane - is absolutely right and her response is entirely reasonable and measured. Rather like Osbourne's interview in a lot of ways! Unfortunately, given a lot of the responses here, and the mode of thought of most of the electorate (in terms of Sun headlines rather than detailed understanding) it seems that both you and Fraser Nelson are correct. It all depends on how one interprets the presentation - not what's actually the question at issue. Alas.

Lavandula

It seems to me that Fraser is looking forward to a Labour victory. He delights in undermining the Tories. I am on the point of cancelling my subscription.

Woody

Fraser
I said I would not comment on this site again but I'm afraid anger has got the better of me on this occasion.
I thought George Osborne did as well as he could this morning, at least he had the guts to go on Radio4 knowing he would get a grilling from Evan Davis.
What you should be doing is going after the most mendacious, sleazy, nastiest government this country has ever had. You know if the conservatives don't get in this time, then they never will. This country will become a one-party state and you and your supine journo friends will be partly responsible. Left-wing newspapers never put the government under the kind of scrutiny the conservatives get.
Start getting behind them or SHUT UP.
(I notice you are getting less people commenting on this site than previously - I wonder why?)

Liz Brown

Seems to me that you put Osborne into a no win situation. Has ANY shadow chancellor been pressed to the same extent as Osborne? Surely it is unrealistic to state what you will do when a) you haven't crunched the numbers and b) seen the full extent to which the books have been redacted/cooked? Instead of asking what Osborne will do - why the hell aren't you asking what Darling intends to do/ Where is the scrutiny of where his cuts are coming from. Have you gone all native on us and are now wupporting the Scottish mafia? To say I am disappointed in you would be to understate the way I feel. On a slightly different track - you never followed up on uncovering the truth behind the Neather report. A shocking oversight

stephen

IMHO Osborne is worth 50 seats to Lab and Lib Dem in the General Election Hopefully Saachi will tell Dave what a liability Boy George is before it is too late.

Robert Williams

I'm no fan of Osborne & Cameron but I wonder whether Osborne did so badly this morning.
Cameron & Hammond have both recently been squirming in interviews trying to row back from any suggestion that their cuts would be "deep". They presumably think that the Labour line that Conservatives would cut public services for fun does them damage.
So at least Davis's reasoning should have done something to avoid scaring the horses.

Anan

Labour have been gunning for Osborne since day 1. I say not to let these Cameron haters like Frasy get the better of the party and just stick with him.

Jules

Fraser,

I know you want to be a critical friend, but there comes a point where it is counter-productive; you have reached that point. Stop criticising and start cheerleading!

Otherwise, what was the point of all those Brownie articles? You made the case against Brown - that he is landing us with impossible debt. The Tories should win this election by default because they are instinctive tax cutters and know how to bring spending under control - but that message is being lost in a hostile media climate.

George Osborne may be too cagey and may be harping on details that seem too boring for people - but let me ask you this. If George reverted to simple messages, the sort that could be considered the Tory equivalent of Brownies without clarification, do you think the media would let him off the way they have on Brown and his Brownies?

Any doubts about this, then look at the media's handling of Ashcroft v Paul and the Unions. They pounced on the former in relation to the Tories, but barely laid a glove on Labour. We already knew about the BBC bias, but Sky, C4, Indy, Guardian, Mirror, FT are ranged agains the Tories; the Times, the Sun, the Daily Mail and now the Spectator are lukewarm to unhelpful.

How can the Tories get any message across successfully when they don't have solid cheerleaders? And not just in the media, judging from the comments on this board.

The media hate being criticized for partiality and unfairness - they always respond by saying "But I'm not standing for Parliament..." But you are acting as judge and jury - you shape the narrative which people are expected to read and listen to every day. You, along with the public, must take responsibility for the results of this election - it's no longer any use to simply blame politicians; the public and the media are responsible this time, especially what we know about the mountains of debt and risks of downgrade. To quote Obi-Wan, "Who's the bigger fool - the fool who leads or the fool who follows him?"

The results of this election will define the character of the British people unlike any other - are we sensible enough to know when to take our medicine (Tory) or have enjoyed playing the role of bowing our heads and playing the irresponsible teen maxing out the credit card for too long (Labour)? But it won't be like that - you were asking how Tory candidates could report people believing Brown had saved them; ask your chums in Fleet Street and White City to go look in the mirror.

Tiberius

A good post, Jules: it kind of amplifies my request to Fraser to heed the warnings of Marley's ghost before it's too late.

teledu

Has this been given any airing by the MSM?

http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2010/03/browns-bottom-is-enormous-issue-in-uk.html

Ben G

Jules, nonsense. The Tories have had it too easy from the press, and the result is that their policies are untested and confused. They need critical analysis as much as we, the electorate, do.

daniel maris

"This failure was crystallised when Osborne was asked for his overall verdict on the Budget. He said he'd wait to see what the IFS has to say this afternoon. But what proportion of the population know what that means?"

Well that's exactly what I thought as I heard him say that.

It wasn't a good performance and it leaves the impression, if only by omission, that the Tories will be targetting ordinary working people's conditions of employment in order to dig themselves out of the crisis.

The Tories are really playing the Labour game by allowing the debate to be conducted on economic grounds. The truth is that Labour's performance to date has not been that different from the Tories in terms of delivery on economic growth. And Brown contrives to exude an aura of economic competence, even now after the economic meltdown.

The Tories have missed a number of populist tricks. For instance they should take on the devil dog owning class. They haven't done that at all.

TGF UKIP

Most CHers have long known and been critical of Osborne, his frailties, his snidey personality and his unacceptablity to the voters.

However, to you lot who are jumping on Fraser's back for being an objective conservative journalist instead of a Camerloon cheeleader, I would simply point out that it is only very recently that the scales have dropped from Fraser's eyes on Boy George and the last few months I was able to take considerable pleasure from razzing him over his appearing to act as Georgie boy's very own Max Clifford.

I for one applaud Fraser's new found objectivity which may perhaps just be down to his Viking Queen finding the free rolls of wallpaper to be of unacceptable design and quality.

jules

Ben G,

Well, I disagree.
I don't think much of the media coverage of the Tories for the last few weeks has been about policy; all I seem to hear is "Ashcroft! Ashcroft! Ashcroft" - unless you seem to think mentioning his name is a policy in itself.

All the media has concentrated their fire on in the last few weeks is the Tories' mistakes, all of them presentational: the posters, the Ulster negotiations, the reveal of Ashcroft's status. Presentation is not necessarily indicative of policy and is an effective sideshow, detracting criticism away from Labour's economic vandalism.

Only a fool can promise policies at this stage - how can you effectively cost something when you do not know the true state of the accounts? Labour's giving away the store when it really cannot - lying through its teeth! Osborne being cagey and non-committal - not ideal, but at least there's less danger of misleading or misrepresentation.

Like I said, up to the public - do they want honesty or do they want to keep swallowing Labour's fantasy island tales until they bump back down to earth with a crash.

annassasin

Ben G is right on.

Osbourne must improve. His main event will be the debate on monday. He will be attacked from both sides. Hope he has watched Andrew Niel's interview of Vince Cable (Vince fell apart, inconsistent, flip flop crazy). So many think he is an economic oracle. I can't help liking him. Kill him off (doubt he's able too), and the Lib vote may crumble (if enough people watch). Why don't conservatives explain properly why we need to cut early???

Tiberius

The post is not objective, TGF. Fraser was clearly looking for something to go native over.

John David Barnett

No "u" in Osborne.

Dan

Everyone seems keen to jump on the bandwagon re George Osborne, but he's been in the job for 5 years and I think he will surprise many people. Maybe I'll be nit-picking myself after the debate but the true test will come when in government.

Ali C

1. Nulab bankrupted the UK, not George Osborne. He went on Today to try to oppose the government's complacent spend spend spend (not invest please no weasel words). What he said made sense; Evan prodded and picked and put words into his mouth. No Badger.... expect he's was home making up more growth stats.

Give the man a chance, he's all that stands between us and the IMF. Greek salad anyone?

TGF UKIP

Oh dear, Tiberius, as the denouement grows ever closer, it seems you are becoming ever more fractious and are now seeking to take out your frustrations on poor old Fraser for not making with the d'Ancona pom poms as vigorously as you think he should.

While thee and me are at the extreme ends of the pole on your boy's leadership, the sad fact, which you find so difficult to handle, is that Fraser is with the bulk of CHers who freely admit that Dave drives them to distraction, is far less than their ideal for a Tory leader, but who is, when all is said and done, not Brown and therefore they feel that they must vote for him and his Clique and clones on the ground that he's all they've got. Which is, of course a far more swingeing condemnation of him than anything Vulture, Verity or myself could proscribe.

Why Fraser still continues to profess such faith in his precious Cam, as he invariably does, I find impossible to fathom.

Tiberius

What so many of Cameron's detractors don't or can't see, TGF, is the scale of the job he has, and has had since he became leader.

Your roll call doesn't get it, certainly. Matthew d'Ancona gets it better than anyone else I've read. Lord Ashcroft gets it. And there is an interesting post from Leo McKinstry on one of today's threads, which set out the inglorious history of how we got to where we are.

There are numerous analogies, but most are too depressing to contemplate. I will sign off by saying that if your mighty Reds had thrown in the towel in the face of terrible odds at half time against AC Milan, what a betrayal of their history it would have been.

MCMC

Not only underprepared, it sounds as if Osborne is just too scared to admit the extent to which cuts are necessary. The Tories are no longer the nasty party, just the cowardly party.

Stormforce

I agree. His delivery was stilted and unconfident. It seemd like he was coming down with a bug or something.

stephen

Sorry it's Friday afternoon and our more humourless CH'ers should not read on!
IMHO Mandy has planted a mole in the photo library of Boy George's bunker. The pic of the Boy on the above CH piece is the same one as used by the Mail today with another unfavourable piece about the unfortunate Boy. It's an awful pic which makes me think he is a look alike for the Russian -President who displays a most slippery and untrustworthy image. Ha Ha! It would be funny if it was not so seriious with the Boy looking increasingly likely to screw up Dave's chances of a majority!

Damon Hager

Osborne is poor at presentation, true, but it's naive to expect him to present a stark case for swingeing cuts. (Which of course are what's needed, and which - one hopes - the Tories are secretly envisaging.)

George tried the honest, 'blood, sweat and tears' bit in a speech at the last Conference. Result? An immediate reduction in the Tory poll lead.

The Tories are trying to square a historically difficult circle. Precisely, they're a centre-right party aspiring to govern an instinctively left-of-centre nation.

Let's be frank. The Brits are, in the final analysis, a nation of lefties: a feckless, workshy, Bolshy lot, complacently addicted to a wasteful state sector, allergic to individual responsibility, atavistically envious of wealth and success, expecting the State to solve their problems and manage their lives at nearly every turn.

So, to stand the slightest chance of winning, the Tories must present themselves as far more statist, far more 'tax-happy', far less fiscally conservative than they actually are.

This is part of Osborne's, and Cameron's, existential dilemma. Their instincts about the economy are right, but they daren't express them honestly, thus leaving themselves open to the charges of fudge and waffle.