Conservative party

Michael Savage called it right. The LibDems’ campaign slogan (Change that works for you. Building a better Britain) is a wooden, overly alliterative union of Labour’s and the Tories’ respective slogans. All three party slogans are jumbled. ‘A future fair for all’ is mealy-mouthed and grammatically suspect – where will they build this national fairground? Similarly, ‘Year for change’ is vague, and ‘We can’t go on like this’ is a staple line of Radio 4 afternoon plays. So to be fair, the Liberals didn’t have much to work with. Campaign slogans are important, reducing a vision to a firm phrase. For me, none of these quite hit the mark. 

If you listen to the Tory front bench, you’d be excused for believing that Rue des Drapiers, 17-23, Ixelles in Belgium houses a place of unadulterated anti-British evil. What lies at this address? The European Defence Agency (EDA), which the Tory party has pledged to pull Britain out of should they win power. Does this institution really aim to curtail Britain’s procurement of its own military hardware, and suborn future purchases to a common European plan? The truth is different and a lot more boring. The EDA does not procure anything for EU governments. It does not force the military to do anything. It exists to develop European defence capabilities

Three weeks ago, James argued that the Tories’ incoherence emanated from their disjointed campaign management. Steve Hilton, Andy Coulson, George Osborne and George Bridges were not communicating and the stark clarity on the economy and ‘Broken Britain’ was obscured. James urged the Cameroon duma to put its house in order. Cameron heeded some of his advice, but this morning brings the most significant change. Tim Montgomerie reports that Andy Coulson and Steve Hilton have at last joined forces and will report direct to George Osborne, who will be replaced by Ken Clarke as the Tory’s economic face. That that this is news reveals the utter chaos  that ruled the campaign;

The City’s elopement with New Labour has ended violently. A poll of leading financiers, conducted by City AM, reveals that 73 percent think that a Tory majority would be best for the economy; a mere 10 percent support Labour. But the City has little enthusiasm for George Osborne: 23 percent believe he has the mettle to be Chancellor, 13 percent behind Ken Clarke. So where is it going wrong for Osborne? James Kirkup observes that the Tories recent collapse in the polls coincided with Osborne and Cameron obscuring their economic message. But the City’s antipathy to Osborne is long established. Disquiet reigned even when Osborne and the Tories were storming

Nick Clegg is the rage of the papers this morning. His interview with the Spectator is trailed across the media and the Independent has an interview where Clegg once again lists the four demands that would be his initial negotiating tests for backing a minority government. They are: – Raising the income tax threshold to £10,000 through taxes on the rich. – An education spending boost for the poorest in society through the ‘pupil premiums’. – A switch to a Green economy, less dependent on financial services.  – Political reforms at Westminster, including electoral reform. What to make of that quartet? There is much that is sensible, much that is