Economy

This is supposed to be the week when people start thinking about the General Election. George Osborne certainly thinks voters are only just switching on as he used his press conference this morning to reiterate a number of claims about Labour’s economic policies that the Tories made last week, including one that the Institute for Fiscal Studies politely described as ‘unhelpful’. The Chancellor launched something called ‘Labour Party Fiscal Plans: An Analysis’, which he presented with the help of a nifty PowerPoint that splashed the words ‘SPENT’ over every funding stream Ed Miliband’s party has come up with so far. It included the claim that Labour would hit working families

The Tories want to frame this election as a straight choice between David Cameron and Ed Miliband. So, today Cameron delivered some of his most direct attacks on Miliband yet. Anticipating criticism, he said, ‘Some might say “don’t make this personal” but when it comes to who’s Prime Minister, the personal is national.’ Cameron warned that Labour could reverse everything that has been achieved in this parliament, the ‘painstaking work of the last 5 years – they could undo in just 5 months.’ He attacked Labour as ‘the welfare party’ and derided Miliband as a ‘Hampstead Socialist’. In contrast, he tried to paint the Tories as the party which is

George Osborne usually tells his aides to prepare for each Budget as if it were his last. This time round, the Chancellor and those around him needed no reminding of what is at stake. They knew that this statement had to boost the Tory election campaign and define the choice facing voters in May, otherwise it really will be the last Budget he gives. As one Tory MP put it, ‘The Budget’s got to deliver some political momentum or we’re done for.’ Osborne has long been aware of the importance of this Budget for his career. If David Cameron returns to No. 10 after the election, Osborne will take the

MPs this afternoon backed the motion calling for the government to set defence spending at 2 per cent of GDP – though not in huge numbers. There were 37 votes in favour to 3 votes against, which is hardly a furious uprising. This vote is a backbench vote, and so it is not binding on the government. Nevertheless, there are many good reasons why ministers should obey the demands of those MPs who did turn up – and listen to the concerns of many who did not. James sets out those reasons, as well as ministers’ reluctance to address them, in this week’s magazine. Ministers might think they can ignore

All the election forecast models agree, the next election result is going to be remarkably tight. On these models, neither Labour nor the Tories are going to come close to winning a majority. They would both be about 40 seats short. Now, events could intervene to change things. But, as I argue in the magazine this week, one of the reasons Labour and the Tories are finding it so hard to win a majority is that they are not national parties anymore. Compounding this is that no party is aiming for full spectrum dominance in this campaign. Rather, they are trying to talk up the issues that are best for

Last week’s public borrowing and tax-receipt figures, headlined ‘Chancellor hails biggest monthly surplus in seven years’, received considerably less attention than the employment and wage-growth numbers a week earlier, underlining my belief that voters care a lot less (or indeed not at all) about the intangible ‘fiscal deficit’ and its implications than they do about their own prospects and spending power. And rightly so. Failure to shrink the deficit at the rate he first promised is nevertheless the one major issue on which George Osborne is seriously open to criticism as Chancellor. But what matters in political terms at this stage is that borrowing this year is 7.5 per cent

The Labour vs. Conservative battle of economic plans is heating up. Ed Miliband is launching a 79-page Better Plan for Britain’s Prosperity today, which appears to be his latest alternative on the Conservatives’ robotic chants of a ‘long-term economic plan’ for ‘hardworking families’. But this isn’t the first time they have launched their plan for the economy. Here are seven previous occasions where Labour has made a fuss about some new plans, pledges or promises about the economy: 1. December 2014 – five election pledges. At the end of last year, Miliband announced that Labour would go into the election with five election pledges that constituted ‘a long-term plan to make

The Green party has been likened to a watermelon: green on the outside and red on the inside. But that is to do a huge injustice to generations of socialists and communists. Misguided though they were in many of their ideas, nobody could accuse them of actively seeking to make society poorer. That, however, is the unashamed aspiration of Natalie Bennett and what has become the fastest-growing political party in Britain. It is quite possible that a good proportion of the 9 per cent of the electorate who say they are planning to vote Green in May are unaware of this, but it is there in black and white (‘policy

These days George Osborne is rarely seen in public without a hard hat and a hi-vis jacket. But he used to take pride in being recognised as a political insider through and through — a member of the guild of politicians, in his own phrase. He revelled in writing detailed articles about the lessons Westminster could learn from American politics. Several of these were written for The Spectator when Boris Johnson was the editor, which shows how far back the relationship between the Chancellor and the Mayor of London goes. (Osborne was at Oxford as the same time as Johnson’s younger brother Jo, now an MP and the head of

David Cameron and George Osborne addressed Tory MPs this evening. The meeting was to update the Tory parliamentary party on the economy and its place in the party’s election strategy. Cameron told them that whatever the question was, the answer was that you can only have it with a strong economy and urged them to repeat this message as much as possible. He said, ‘Boring is good’. Addressing the assembled MPs, Osborne emphasised that the economy was the heart of this debate. He argued that this was first time since 1992 that Labour and the Tories had gone into an election with different spending planes. Most of the questions were

There’s 121 days to go till the General Election and the two main parties have released reports attacking each others plans for the economy. You can read them both here: A Cost Analysis of Labour Party Policy The Tories Claims Don’t Add Up  The Conservative’s document outlines how a Labour government would increase spending by £27.1 billion in its first year alone. In his introductory remarks, George Osborne puts forward the ‘simple choice’ facing the British people in May: ‘Ed Miliband’s Labour Party that offers more spending, more borrowing and higher taxes – or David Cameron leading the Conservatives as we continue to work through a long-term economic plan that

In 2010, David Cameron stumbled in his first New Year broadcast interview over the Tory plans for a married couple’s tax allowance. This slip-up knocked him and his party off course and was a harbinger of the disastrous Tory campaign to come. Today, there were no such mistakes from Cameron as he appeared on Andrew Marr. Instead, he stuck to his competence versus chaos message and tried, fairly successfully, to avoid making any other news. In this campaign, we will see a more disciplined Cameron than the one who fought the 2010 election. The Tories are this time, in contrast to 2010, certain of what their message should be. One

Today’s PMQs was the last one before the holidays. But there was not much Christmas cheer on display. Cameron and Miliband clashed on the economy, with the Labour leader keen to drive home his line that the Tories are intent on taking Britain back to the 1930s. Cameron had prior notice of Miliband’s first question because someone had seen the question on the Blackberry of a Labour staffer on the train and put it on Facebook. Armed with this knowledge, Cameron tried to defuse the attack by pointing out that he was only planning to return spending to, in real terms, 2002/2003 levels. He also had plenty of references lined