George osborne

Back with a vengeance | 25 February 2010

All of a sudden, the Big Banks are Big Politics again.  And who’d have it any other way, on the day that the 84 percent taxpayer-owned RBS announced losses for 2009 of £3.6 billion?  And that’s alongside a bonus pool for its staff of £1.3 billion.  Yep – however hard they try, the exorcists of Westminster just can’t shift the ghost of Fred the Shred. In which case, there’ll be plenty about bankers’ pay, and about getting taxpayers what’s owed to them, over the next few days.  And rightly so.  But I often feel that these issues detract from even bigger ones, such as how to ensure that there aren’t

Worse off than you were in 2005

The obsession of British politicians – and political journalists – with American politics is often mocked. But there’s a clarity to American political messages that is often missing in this country. So it is good to see George Osborne borrowing a line from the Reagan playbook, and pointing out that people are now worse off than they were at the last election. The Tories desperately need to shift the focus of the campaign back onto Labour’s failures and this is a start to that process. Osborne is delivering the Mais lecture tonight, one of the prestige dates in the British economic calendar. He’s the first shadow Chancellor to deliver it,

A Cameron-Clegg government

With even Michael Portillo predicting a hung parliament, what would Britain’s post-election government actually look like if the Tories did not secure an over-all majority.   The Tories could form a minority government, hoping to persuade enough MPs from other parties, but principally the Liberal Democrats, to vote with them on the key issues. Such a government would be inherently unstable, lurching from vote to vote and dependent on the relationship between a Prime Minister Cameron and Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, as well as between George Osborne, the would-be Chancellor, and Vince Cable, who many think is a more qualified potential occupant of No 11. Party leaders would

Fraser Nelson

Some reasons to be cheerful about Cameron and the Tories

By way of a response to the comments on my post yesterday, here are some reasons to be cheerful about Cameron and the Tories. The poll lead dropping to six points is indeed a wake-up call, and Cameron probably worked out a while ago that things were going a bit Pete Tong. Indeed (Short the UK), there are signs that he has already started to act. Look at last Monday: three strong election videos, without a politician in sight. The perfect remedy to the Tragedy of Cameron’s Head poster. The policy of allowing management buy-outs of government departments is bold, radical and entirely in keeping with Cameron’s general policy of

The Tories needed to be negative

There is only one way the Tories can lose the election and that is if it becomes a referendum on them rather than a choice between them and the government. We are in such an anti-politics moment that the electorate is unlikely to give a positive endorsement to any politician or political party. This—not the poor choice of photo—was the real problem with the Tories’ opening ad of the year: it invited voters to judge Cameron in isolation. Cameron is the biggest asset the Tories have but he is their biggest asset when contrasted with Gordon Brown. This is why I think Daniel Finkelstein is wrong to argue that the

Purnell’s ‘empowerment’ pledge falls flat

James Purnell envisages a society of ‘empowered’ voters left to make decisions for themselves. It is an attractive concept – individual responsibility displacing state directives will save money and, providing those running the institutions are competent, improve public services. Writing in the Times, Purnell acknowledges that these concepts can become lost in the abstract terms in which they are expressed. What a pity he didn’t take his own advice – his article is an extended abstract noun. Not that it’s all bad. What power is there for parents who can’t afford to move close to a good school, he asks. His answer is broadly similar in tone and substance to

Branson’s comments are nectar to the Tories

Sir Richard Branson may often personify a leering joke, but, as Steve Richards observed this morning, this election is descending into a personality contest. Branson remains a symbol of British entrepreneurial success: his endorsement is crucial and I expect to see this story splashed across the right-wing tabloids tomorrow. The Standard quotes Branson saying: “I believe the UK’s record budget deficit does pose a serious risk to our recovery. “It would be damaging if we lost the confidence of the markets through delayed action and saw interest rates have to go up steeply. “We are going to have to cut our spending and I agree with the 20 leading economists

The politics of Osborne’s co-ops

There’s plenty of buzz this morning about George Osborne’s new policy proposal: allowing public sector workers to run schools, job-centres, hospitals and other services as cooperatives. James Crabtree, Tim Montgomerie and Spectator.co.uk’s very own Martin Bright have exhaustive posts on why this might work in practice. It is, as they all suggest, pretty radical stuff.   But it’s also clever politics.  It is something which appeals directly to people on the left (like Martin), as well as public sector workers.  When so much of the Tories central “post-bureaucratic” agenda is about decentralising power from the government to individuals or to private enterprise, this says that the public sector won’t be

Does George Osborne finally have a big idea?

Listening to George Osborne on Today (and stripping away the visceral prejudice I always feel at his sneering patrician tone) I have to recognise that he was saying something very interesting. The idea of throwing open the public sector to worker-control is very, very intriguing. Co-operatives are the future of Britain: this is not something I ever thought I would hear from the mouth of a Conservative politician. I don’t know if George Osborne has any experience of living or working in a co-op (it strikes me he is not the type). They can be a mixed bag, but the principle is great one. I have long thought Gordon Brown

Brown’s personality defines the character of his government

David Cameron will re-launch his election campaign with a personal attack on Gordon Brown. Cameron will embark on the straightforward task of proving that the Road Block is not a moderniser – the Prime Minister’s sudden avowed passion for PR is merely a marriage of electoral convenience. Cameron has led the expenses reform debate and will use Brown’s dithering over the latest furore to condemn him as a ‘shameless defender of the old elite’. According to Francis Elliot, Cameron will say: “There is no chance Gordon Brown will do what is right and put the public interest before his own political interests. He cannot reform the institution because he is

Brown wants to discuss nothing besides the middle class

Aspiration is Gordon’s middle name. The Observer has an extensive interview with Brown and though the classification has changed class remains his obsession: Brown wants to fight the election on the middle classes. He spoke of little else. Education and family policy will be defined by Sure Start, child tax credits and the school leaving age; the NHS will offer yet more choice and unaffordable luxuries, such as one to one care. It may seem peculiar for a man who is synonymous with stealth taxes, and whose time in government will be remembered for the polarisation of society, to frame his arguments in such terms; but his reason is clear:

Fraser Nelson

The cuts consensus

John Rentoul today puts Trevor Kavanagh and myself in the dock for demanding “massive spending cuts” and concludes that if we “had any power” we would be “about as helpful to Cameron as Sarah Palin was to John McCain” but believes Cameron “will hold to his strategic course”. I mean: massive cuts. How crazy is that? Surely only swivel-eyed maniacs would be planning cuts – real, hard-core ideologues – would plan that when the deficit is a mere 13 percent of GDP. Surely? It struck me, reading this, that John is unaware of the massive cuts which Labour is planning (understandable, as they were in the small print and have still not

The Tories need to push the fiscal case for public service reform

Andrew Haldenby’s article in the Telegraph this morning got me thinking: when was the last time the Tories really pushed the fiscal case for public service reform; that the government can indeed deliver better services while spending less money? By my count, you’d have to go back around six months to George Osborne’s speech on progressive politics at Demos. There, the shadow chancellor said this kind of thing: “Indeed, I would argue that our commitment to fiscal responsibility in the face of mounting national debt is not at odds with progressive politics, but fundamentally aligned to it – as politicians on the left from Bill Clinton to former Canadian Prime

Number crunching cuts

The debate about cuts so far lacks any numbers, so I thought CoffeeHouses might like some. Contrary to what he claims Darling is planning cuts – but he just didn’t print the spending totals in his Pre-Budget Report (lack of space, one presumes). The Institute for Fiscal Studies, which produces its Green Budget tomorrow, has worked out what will be left for departments after debt interest, dole et. It amounts to a 10 percent cut. Here’s the table. Yet the Tories plan for DFID to be 0.7 percent of GDP by 2013 – ie, rising by 63 percent – and health will not be cut. Cameron has indicated that he

Fraser Nelson

Osborne’s speech contained not a whiff of radicalism

I’m afraid I did not detect a “new economic model” in George Osborne’s speech. He has said he will “eliminate “a large part” of the deficit (ie, the amount that debt goes up by) over the next parliament. In questions, he kept repeating this phrase: “a large part” – and which is woolier than Labour’s plan to halve it. When asked about this he said that he would do more than half it – but gave no indication by how much. It could be a lot, or a negligible amount. We still don’t know. Osborne said he will stick to what was, in my view, the root error of the

The Tories are muddying their clear, blue water

Front page of the Independent: “Vote of no confidence in Tory economic policies”.  As headlines go, it’s one of the worst the Tories have had for a while – even if, as Anthony Wells and Mike Smithson point out, it’s kinda misleading.  Truth is, the Indy’s ComRes poll finds that 82 percent of people want “Mr Cameron to be clearer about what he would do on the economy”.  And 24 percent think the Tories would have ended the recession sooner, against 69 percent who don’t.  They’re hardly positive findings for CCHQ, but, by themselves, they don’t quite add up that that two-line scarehead. The main concern for CCHQ is how

Mandelson is spinning to his heart’s content

Peter Mandelson was doing his full Alan Rickman impression at Labour’s press conference this morning. His aim was to imply that every time Labour put the Tories under pressure they wobble. As so often since his return to British politics, Mandelson delivered lines that were so memorable that they were bound to make it into copy. He said that the Tories “would strangle the recovery at birth”, that David Cameron was “bobbing around like a cork in water”, and that George Osborne was the Tories’ “weakest link”. As I type, Mandleson’s sound bites are being replayed yet again on News 24. Now, these lines aren’t going to cut through to

Cameron has shifted the spending debate to Labour’s home ground – but the Tories still have an aggregate lead

So, is David Cameron’s shift in emphasis on spending cuts a u-turn, a clarification, or something else?  Well, when it comes to existing Tory policy, it doesn’t actually change much.  We were always rather taking it on trust that Cameron & Co. would cut spending by much more than Labour this year.  The cuts they’ve announced so far aren’t really that much deeper – and most folk in Tory circles were waiting for George Osborne’s potential Emergency Budget to see whether that would change.  So, when Cameron says that his party wouldn’t introduce “swingeing cuts” this year, the position is still remarkably similar: we still need more details to judge

Clarification or u-turn?

Smarting from the savaging he received in Mo, Peter Mandelson characterised David Cameron’s “no swingeing cuts” comment as a u-turn, and compared Cameron and Osborne to Laurel and Hardy. This is a bit rich considering the government’s obvious confusion over the timing and extent of cuts, and that the immortal line “That’s another fine mess you’ve gotten us into” should be the Tories’ campaign slogan. Cameron’s comments are a clarification, not a u-turn. As Jim Pickard notes, Tory policy has to respond to last week’s withered growth figures. Whilst still recognising that cuts have to be made now to avert a fiscal crisis, a distinction that the government fails to

Out of recession and into debt

The deficit is in the Tories’ crosshairs this morning. George Osborne pens an article in the Times, castigating Brown’s obsession with continuity: ‘We need a new British economic model that learns from the mistakes of the past. First, that new economic model requires government to live within its means. We entered the recession, after years of growth, with one of the highest deficits in the developed world and we leave the recession with our credit rating under threat. That will have potentially disastrous consequences for international confidence. If Britain starts to pay the sort of risk premiums that Greece is paying, the interest bill on a £150,000 mortgage would go