David cameron

If you’re still scratching your head over the latest opinion polls, then I’d recommend you read Anthony Wells’ latest post over at UK Polling report.  In it, he outlines four potential reasons for the diminishing gap between the Tories and Labour: Cameron’s “reverse” over the Lisbon Treaty; increased economic optimism; Labour performing better; and the absence of positive feeling towards the Tories.  To my mind, it’s probably a case of “all of the above,” to varying degrees – but, as Anthony concludes, “we can’t tell for sure.” One further point that’s worth making is that the reduced gap between the parties isn’t due to a “Brown bounce”.  After all –

Ok, so the Age of Austerity means that promises made in sunnier times will need to be forestalled – or even cancelled altogether.  But it’s still revealing that Labour are thinking about reversing their plan to raise the threshold at which inheritance tax is levied. After all, this is what Brown regards as The Great Dividing Line: the Tories implementing a tax cut for their “rich friends,” on the one side, and Labour implementing policies “for the many,” on the other.  Darling’s decision to raise the IHT threshold to £350,000 for single people and £700,000 for married couples undermined that crude message.  Reversing the policy may, in Labour strategists’ eyes,

In the politics column this week, I write about how the Tories plan to hand over many of the traditional policy making powers of the Cabinet to a seven man policy board. The Cameroons are going to do this partly because it is a model that has worked well for them in oppoistion and that they are comfortable with but also because the Cabinet is just too large for effective, detailed discussions about policy. The shadow Cabinet currently has 34 members in it. In government, this number will have to drop by at least ten. But still, a 24 person group is, probably, too large to foster constructive and detailed

Another good quote for the Brown ‘n’ Blair scrapbook, courtesy of Ben Brogan’s column in the Telegraph: “Only once in the 20th century has a government that won the games survived to deliver them. A change of administration in the run-up to the Olympics might be expected to herald political trouble. Thankfully, David Cameron does not share Gordon Brown’s loathing of what he refers to as ‘Tony’s f—— Olympics’. He is committed to ensuring stability by protecting London 2012’s status as the Switzerland of politics, immune from partisan attacks.” Brogan’s wider argument is worth noting: that the Cameroons think 2012 could be the tonic the country – and their potential

Fascinating details dominated PMQs today. Instead of the usual custard pie-fight this was a game of chess. Things began with talk of downpours and sandbags. Both leaders were concerned that the sodden folk of Cumbria are receiving enough hot soup and blankets. The PM reminded us that he’d recently popped up there to squelch around in his wellies shaking people’s hands and nodding sympathetically. Then Cameron pulled out a firecracker. He accused Brown of shambolic incompetence in allowing public money to flow into the hands of a front organization for Hizb ut-Tahrir, an extremist group whose constitution denounces non-Moslems in virulent terms. ‘They are combatants in the battlefield. Their blood

The Observer’s Ipsos-Mori poll has dominated political discussion since its publication on Sunday. But two things that I have heard tonight have increased my scepticism that it marks a dramatic shift in public opinion. First, I hear that another of the big pollsters had a survey in the field at the same time and it showed a fourteen point Tory lead. Second, a new poll for Political Betting has Labour down on 22, only a point ahead of the Lib Dems. With polls it is the ones that are surprising that make waves; I’m sure we’ll all run down a few more rabbit holes before election day. The odd surprsingly

If you want a measure of how disastrous yesterday’s Queen’s Speech was for Gordon Brown, you need only pay heed to two things.  First, today’s news coverage, which is almost universally negative for the PM.  Even the FT, which is usually quite forgiving of Brown, launches an acerbic attack on the “shameless politicking” in the speech.  And that’s before we get onto numerous stories about discontent on the left, as well as unflattering write-ups by political columnists across the political spectrum. The second is David Cameron’s interview on the Today programme this morning.  One of the lines of questioning was whether the Tories had got in touch with Sir Christopher

Even before the Queen had trundled back to Buckingham Palace, Mandy had let the cat out of the bag. Speaking on BBC News he said of the Gracious Speech, ‘All these laws are relevant … and achievable. It will be for the public to decide whether they want them or not.’  There you have it. The greatest power in the land admits the Queen’s Speech is Labour’s manifesto. The response to the Gracious Speech is an enjoyably ragged parliamentary occasion, full of ancient traditions and even more ancient jokes. Frank Dobson proposed the Humble Address and spoke with pride about his Holborn constituency where the anti-Apartheid movement had been born.

David Cameron has written an apoplectic editorial in the Times condemning Gordon Brown’s partisan hijacking of the Queen’s Speech. Here is the key section: ‘We are mired in the deepest and longest recession since the Second World War, with deep social problems and a political system that is held in contempt. The State Opening of Parliament tomorrow ought to be about radical ideas to deal with this triple crisis. Instead, by all accounts, the Queen’s Speech will be little more than a Labour press release on palace parchment. Don’t take my word for it. As The Times reported yesterday, a Cabinet minister has been boasting about the contents of the

All hail, Jeremy Hunt, the axe man. Cameron’s first tax cut will be a licence fee cut* – and Hunt is planning to axe some stations to pay for it.  Hunt is thinking of axing 1Extra, apparently, with BBC3 and BBC4 already under threat. Also under Hunt’s axe would be the National Lottery’s runnng costs. The Sunday Times apparently has the details tomorrow, but I give Hunt this warning: if he even tiptoes in the direction of Cbebbies then he will have a revolution on his hands. Parents depend on it now, utterly. Personally, I’d pay £100 a year just for it – just for its kid-sedating powers. But it