Tories

Watching the news last night, I was struck by how little one had seen of Gordon Brown on TV recently. No wonder the polls have tightened. But the Prime Minister, alas, cannot play McCavity forever. The “bullying” allegations weren’t as damaging as they might have been in other circumstances because, for many, they merely confirmed that Brown is an impossible individual and, frequently, an unpleasant one too. But people already knew or suspected that. Instead, the papers and the teevee have been dominated by Ashcroft and the Tory wobble. In a sense this was a verdict on the government too: since few people expected Labour to win, it’s sensible to

Not the least of the entertainments* between now and polling day will be seeing how the Guardian manage to keep up their exhausting warnings of the dire consequences that will inevitably follow any Conservative victory. Nothing but nothing will be too trivial for the paper and that’s fine: free press and all that. The best so far was the suggestion that the Tories are extremists who favour US-style gun laws so their youthful paramilitaries can storm NHS hospitals to control costs by executing anyone a) who voted Labour or b) looks like they might have voted Labour. Today’s effort is only marginally less ridiculous. Apparently the Northern Ireland “peace process**”

Commenting on this post, Tim Montgomerie writes: Did you actually read what I wrote Alex? Not once did I call for an end to the new Toryism. I advocated blending new and old messages. I did not suggest “banging on” about immigration but as voters’ number two issue it should be part of the mix. I didn’t even advocate talking about Europe at all. I said our three main messages should be (1) the economy, debt and regulating the banks; (2) immigration and crime; and (3) protecting the NHS and the vulnerable. Your readers who read what I actually wrote will get a very different sense of my argument. Now

Actually, there seem to be rather more than six promises Still, the Daily Mail reports on a series of Tory pledges that Dave & Co will roll out this weekend as part of their Get Back on Track plan. Let’s have a look at them: Act now on debt to get the economy moving: Deal with the deficit more quickly than Labour so that mortgage rates stay lower for longer with the Conservatives. Get Britain working by boosting enterprise: Cut corporation tax rates, abolish taxes on the first ten jobs created by new businesses, promote green jobs and get people off welfare and into work. Make Britain the most family-friendly

One of the odder aspects of contemporary politics is the amount of attention lavished upon the goons at the BNP. Anyone would think they were about to win the election. But they’re not. Nevertheless, grant Nick Griffin and his pals this: they’ve managed to hijack the debate – such as it is – on immigration. Despite what the media might have you think, there is no party of open borders in this country. Instead both the Tories and the Labour party effectively concede the argument to the BNP. Labour boast that they have immigration “under control” and then the Tories complain that the government isn’t “cracking down” hard enough. The

Fraser’s back and forth with the estimable Danny Finkelstein about public spending and the Tories is excellent stuff. Fraser concludes by saying that, regardless of tactical differences, on a strategic level “we’re all cutters now”. And of course in one sense he’s right: anyone who wins the election is going to have to be prepared to be unpopular. Perhaps very unpopular. And are we all cutters anyway? In the abstract yes, but not when it comes to any given project or department or priority. Consider this chart which though from a Pew survey in the United States would, I suspect, be mirrored by any comparable British poll. Pew asked voters

David has already highlighted some of the more dubious arguments Con Coughlin deploys in response to his critics but a couple of other points may still be made. Con writes: If I understand correctly Alex Deane’s high-minded rant about the rights of innocent people receiving a fair trial (which, just to put the record straight, I fully support), he is prepared to accept at face value former Guantanamo detainee Binyam Mohamed’s claim that he was brutally tortured during his interrogation with the full complicity of British security officials. David Davies, the former shadow Home Secretary, made a similar argument on the Today programme this morning, preferring to believe the word of

Bad news for David Mundell. The Tories’ sole MP in Scotland (at the moment!) might think himself the obvious choice to be Scottish Secretary, should David Cameron form a government later this year but the party leader seems much less convinced of poor Mr Mundell’s merits, telling the Herald today: “You will have to wait and see what appointments are made if we win an election but, suffice it to say, David has done an excellent job.” So, Cameron’s looking for an alternative. And reasonably so. Mr Mundell is an inoffensive man and that’s not something you can say about all MPs, but few people, I think, truly think that

This is one of those things that I don’t quite understand. Gordon Brown is obsessed with dividing lines and this is supposed to be upsetting us? Sure, this need to draw a contrast (often a false one, but never mind) between his Virtuous Labour party and the Callous Toffs & Cads at Tory head office is frequently petty, prickly and pointless. But what of it? Pete’s the latest Spectator gentleman to complain about the Dividing Lines Obsession: So far as the government is concerned, it matters not that these pledges have been made before – what matters is the opportunity to draw more dividing lines across the landscape of British

The Tories are quite right to point out that, when it comes to repairing the public finances, Labour are making it up as they go along. Unfortunately, so are they. Pete thinks that, despite this, the Tories still have the advantage and he may well be right. But if, for now anyway, a hung parliament looks more likely than it did a month ago, that’s surely because of Tory mistakes rather than any brilliant manoevre from the government or any game-changing shift in the underlying economic fundamentals. And there have been Tory blunders. Consider the famous poster*: At first glance, it looks good doesn’t it! But no, it’s a terrible

Oh dear. George Osborne and his guru, Richard Thaler, have been at Davos. This means, sure as eggs is eggs, that there’s a piece celebrating behavioural economics on the way. And, yup, it duly arrives in the Guardian today. I’ve mentioned the Nudgers before and few people doubt that there are some useful ideas that it can bring to bear on policy. Then again Thaler and Cass Sunstein call their ideas “libertarian paternalism” which, while confusing is at least vastly less confused than Tory policy seems to be. Apart from anything else, David Cameron frequently rails against libertarianism (or, to be more precise, his idea of a libertarianism built of