Labour’s agony about how to attack the Tories continues. Is Cameron a spivvy PR man? A lightweight, unqualified for the job? Or is he actually an alright bloke; the acceptable face of an unacceptable party? The problem with the latter argument is that you accept that Cameron and Osborne are good things. But it’s the latter argument Labour are going for today.
What I love about the Labour attacks is seeing who they wheel out – they seem to have a small number of Labour MPs who are deemed popular. Poor old Stephen Pound is made to say the most terrible things about the Tories. Now it’s the turn of John Spellar to claim that the Tories have revealed a secret cuts agenda (which, as CoffeeHouses will know, I wish were true). Spellar says:
“Cameron had done a good spray job on the Tory party but it’s still the same old, nasty party that voters overwhelmingly rejected at the last three elections.”
Overwhelmingly rejected? The 2005 election saw Michael Howard win more votes than Blair did in England – it’s the Westminster system that converts this into a huge majority.
Britain’s best politics newsletters
You get two free articles each week when you sign up to The Spectator’s emails.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in