David cameron

The public remains infatuated with Vince Cable. A Politics Home poll reveals that 31 percent want Cable to be chancellor. It’s a crushing endorsement: Don’t Know is his nearest rival on 24 percent, followed by Ken Clarke on 16 percent. Cable’s reputation rests on his sagacious airs and an apparent contempt for party politics. His eminence is baffling. Fleet-footed fox-trotter he may be; economic guru he is not. Andrew Neil’s interview shattered Cable’s invincibility. The Sage of Twickenham admitted to changing his mind over the HBOS Lloyds merger and his constantly shifting position on cuts was exposed. Add to that the ill-thought out Mansions Tax and Cable begins to look

We have just witnessed a fascinating glimpse of the use of the internet in elections. This morning, Cameron proposed a unilateral bank tax – moving, I suspect, ahead of what he believes Darling will announce in next week’s budget. Next, at 1.19pm, Will Straw digs up a selectively-edited version of Chris Grayling speaking in his local constituency (put online by the Labour candidate, Craig Montgomery). Straw’s headline: “Calamity Grayling opposes Cameron’s unilateral bank tax.” Now, this headline – a lie – might have worked on a Labour Party press release. But it’s far harder to lie on a blog. Grayling is quoted saying “there is absolutely no point on earth

Listening to BBC news, it’s striking how they are still using Labour’s politically-charged vocabulary. When the universities are kicking off about their budgets being cut, the BBC newsreaders are told to talk about “investment” in higher education, rather than spending. Why, though? An “investment” would be to put £1 billion of taxpayers’ money into an Emerging Markets fund, and hope it grows. Giving it to universities – many of which serve neither students nor society – is not an investment. But using the word “investment” is Labour code for “good spending”. There is one particularly frequent example if this: the BBC regularly confuse the words “deficit” and “debt” – a

So has the Lord Ashcraft saga fouled the Tories’ reputation?  Well, looking at this One Poll survey in PR Week it would seem it has.  52 percent of respondents feel that the party’s reputation hasn’t improved since the start of the year – and 37 percent think that the Ashcroft revelations are the biggest contributing factor to that. But what does all that really mean?  After all, another finding is that 20 percent of respondents believe that the 2006 story about a bike-riding Cameron being trailed by his chauffeur is “still damaging” to the Tories.  That may be so.  But will that kind of reputational “damage” really stop people voting

Could you vote for Piers Morgan? In an interview with Freddy Gray in The Spectator tomorrow, he says he’s tempted to stand for Parliament – and it’s not such a surprise. He has weirdly inserted himself in the political process in recent weeks, defining Nick “no more than 30” Clegg and giving Gordon Brown probably the best piece of television coverage he will receive – ever. Now he is even considering standing for election. ‘I am tempted to run on a ticket of openness and frankness about the problems of this country and not being afraid to deal with them,’ he says. He doesn’t have much time for Cameron, describing

Whisper it quietly, but there is a sense that the Tory campaign is getting back on track. The Tories have had three good days in a row, have Labour on the back foot over Unite and the polls appear to be moving in their favour. Certainly, Tory morale is better than at any point since the start of the year. One thing raising Tory spirits is Cameron’s own performance. As Iain Martin points out, on Sunday Brown met the voters and was incapable of finding the right tone. Cameron, by contrast, is at his best among ‘real’ people as Monday’s event demonstrated. Another thing bolstering Tory morale is their campaign

Now here’s a turn up: according to Nick Robinson, the Tories are going to announce details of what spending they would cut in the forthcoming fiscal year after next week’s Budget.  So it looks like Cameron might come good on his promise, after all. We’ll have to wait and see before judging whether those cuts are credible.  But, along with George Osborne’s FT article today, it does seem that the Tories have rediscovered the will to take on Labour over when and what to cut.

It was mostly standard fare for a political interview, but the Cameron/Trevor McDonald show reminds you of what I think is one of Cameron’s foremost positives, and one that is welcome amid the Tories’ current self-doubt. Cameron and his team turned the unelectable Tories into a modern and truly representative force. Jonathan Freedland may argue that the change is cosmetic, but candidates, such as Shaun Bailey, selected by the Hammersmith association, say otherwise. If Cameron saw-off grass-roots interests who were still fighting Margaret Thatcher’s early battles, if not those of Churchill too, he has the resolve to tackle the legacy that Gordon Brown is likely to bequeath him.   I’d expected to be left

Edward McMillan-Scott fights a lone and determined battle. Timing his defection for maximum destruction, McMillan-Scott characterises the Tory party in the style of Orwell’s Big Brother. He told the LidDem spring conference: “People are controlled within the Conservative party, as I was.” It is a common charge, but, because the Tory leadership currently resembles Channel Four’s Big Brother, it doesn’t stick. Consequently, McMillan-Scott sounds shrill. He accuses David Cameron of ‘propitiating extremism abroad’, a charge usually reserved for Abu-Hamza, and condemns Cameron as being ‘committed to power for its own sake’. You can argue the toss over whether McMillan-Scott is poetic or pompous, personally I think he makes Speaker Bercow