George osborne

Public sector net borrowing, public sector net debt, total managed expenditure, departmental expenditure limits … zzzzz.  One of the main reasons why Labour has been able to fashion an economic narrative, against all odds, is because they can rely on some pretty esoteric language.  Thus debt becomes interchangeable with deficit, and cuts can be hidden under layers and layers of different spending metrics.  Perhaps more than anything, this almost-casual deception is Brown’s greatest skill. Which is why it’s encouraging that the Tories have tried to demystify some of the fiscal debate, putting it into language that everyone can follow.  They’ve set out their “more for less” argument by referring to

I’m at a loss. How can a government that will raise the national debt to £1.4 trillion be trusted to run the economy? The Daily Politics/Com Res poll shows that Labour is more trusted on the economy than the Tories; it indicts George Osborne’s political performance. As Fraser noted, Osborne blew an unprecedented opportunity on yesterday’s Today programme. The danger inherent in a £1.4 trillion national debt is not a difficult argument to make. Tax hikes, inflation and soaring interest rates will be the progeny of Brown’s continued borrowing binge. Yet Osborne confined his attack to valid but esoteric points about credit ratings and a list of acronyms. Ken Clarke

One of the most eye-catching stories this morning comes courtesy of ConservativeHome: “As part of the pre-election package, ConservativeHome expects Mr Osborne to announce that a Tory government will cancel Labour’s National Insurance tax rise. The Tories will announce an alternative way of plugging the hole. Earlier this week Policy Exchange argued that the NI rise was a very damaging way of raising extra revenue.” Sure, Cameron has hinted at this before, and there will be questions about how the Tories would fill the fiscal gap.  But that doesn’t make this anything less of a smart move.  Not only does it makes sense economically, but it would give the Tories

George Osborne must have changed breakfast cereals, or something, because he’s suddenly a different man.  After the Tories muddied their economic message to the point of abstraction a few weeks ago, there’s now a new clarity and directness about the shadow chancellor’s languange.  Exhibit A was his article in the FT last week.  And Exhibit B comes in the form of his article for the Sunday Telegraph today. It sets out five deceptions that we can expect from the Budget this week, and are all punchy and persuasive in equal measures.  But it’s the first which, as I said on Friday, is the most important: “The Chancellor might be so

The gods are smiling on George Osborne. On Monday, he wrote an excellent article in the FT, explaining why he opposed the government’s fiscal plans and giving a brief sketch of his alternative vision. It was a short, sharp, shock article that contrasted with the tentative and nebulous announcements that characterised the Tory post-New Year slump. They were immediate benefits. On Tuesday, the EU Commission broadly supported the Conservative position on reducing public spending, and today a City AM poll indicated that 77 percent of a panel of City experts think that cuts must be made this year. Indeed, many panellists rejected Samuel Brittan’s contention, elucidated in last week’s Spectator,

So, we have a date for the Chancellor’s debate. Channel 4 News will host Darling, Cable and Osborne on Monday the 29th of March at 8pm.   I have a suspicion that George Osborne will come out of this debate rather well. He doesn’t have an expectations problem, unlike Cable, and is quick on his feet. Most importantly, the facts are on his side. It is also worth remembering, as one Tory MP reminded me earlier this week, that since becoming shadow Chancellor Osborne has never failed on a set-piece occasion.   One thing that Osborne must do in the debates is make sure he takes on Cable as well

The Daily Politics featured a telling exchange between Stephen Timms and Ken Clarke. Their arguments were unclear and their hypotheticals relentless – they were debating deficit reduction. A football phone-in DJ had been invited onto the programme to adjudicate. After 7 minutes he broke his befuddled silence and declared, understandably, that Clarke and Timms were a turn-off to ordinary voters. Immediately, Clarke responded clearly and directly, making a case for reducing the deficit with reference to the chillingly close reality of Greece’s collapse. He avoided patronising, homespun economics; and simply delivered bald analysis and a statement of intent with his characteristic gusto. By contrast, Timms remained silent. Clarke is the

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.

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

Both James and Tim Montgomerie felt that William Hague must be more prominent during this campaign and Cameron has reached the same conclusion. Hague opened the spring confernece with a stark, bleak message: “And I say it is that most crucial election because I believe the choice for Britain is as stark as this: it is change or ruin.” He then detailed the easiest illustration of Brown’s appalling economic stweardship: a 13 year statistical progress of regression for which Brown, and Brown alone, is responsible. ‘When Gordon Brown took over, this, our great country, was the 4th largest economy in the world. Now it is falling behind and forecast within

At the beginning of this week the key figures in the Tory election campaign gathered together in Notting Hill to try and work out what was going wrong with the Tory campaign, why the Tory lead has halved since December. Our cover this week attempts to answer this question. My take is that the problem is largely caused by the structure of the campaign. Successful campaigns tend to have a chief strategist and a campaign manager. The strategist’s job is to work out what the election is about and the campaign manager’s role is to implement that vision and take charge of day to day tactics. The Tory problem is