George osborne

A story that has escaped largely unnoticed this weekend is the creation of the Liberal Democrat party’s sinisterly named ‘anti-Tory attack unit’. Sam Coates has the details in the Times: ‘Nick Clegg has created an anti-Tory attack unit which will focus Liberal Democrat firepower on exposing George Osborne’s “complete inexperience”. In an interview with The Times, Chris Huhne said that specialist staff will be seconded to the new group, which he will chair and will include all the party’s most effective attack dogs, including Norman Baker, Norman Lamb and Lord Oakeshott. Mr Huhne, the party’s home affairs spokesman, will lead the party’s attack at their conference, which begins today in Bournemouth.

On July 2nd, Gordon Brown told the House of Commons: “I have always told the truth and I’ve always told people as it is…we don’t want to have the 10 per cent cuts the Conservatives are talking about.” The Tories’ extremely destructive Treasury mole has leaked documents proving that Labour has been planning substantial cuts in front line services since before the budget. The DEL figures, printed below, are key: suggesting that a cumulative 9.3% cut was planned for 2011-2014, and Paul Waugh is right to point out that these revelations may explain why the government delayed its comprehensive spending review. This leak is such a coup for the Tories

George Osborne has just announced at The Spectator’s inaugural conference, Paths to Prosperity, that there will be an emergency Budget in June or July of 2010 if the Tories win the election. Osborne told Andrew Neil that the aim of this Budget would be to reduce borrowing for fiscal year 2010-11, which will already be under way at that point, and for the years thereafter. Presumably this will be done through a combination of tax rises, spending cuts and asset sales.

David Cameron doesn’t give much away in his interview with the Telegraph. He again commits the Conservatives to making cuts and implies that taxes will have to be raised. But there are no specifics given. On the one hand, the lack of detail is frustrating—surely the party would have more of a mandate in government if it was more explicit now about what it was planning to do? Some straight talk would also put to bed the idea that the Cameroons are nothing more than marketing men. But on the other hand, one can appreciate that any specific pledge would hand Labour an issue to campaign on. In private, though,

There’s an intriguing story in today’s Times suggesting that the Tories may “backtrack” on some defence spending commitments, and are thinking about shelving the Trident replacement.  Here’s a snippet: “Liam Fox, the Shadow Defence Secretary, pledged last year to protect the three most expensive equipment programmes: aircraft carriers, an armoured vehicle system known as FRES and Britain’s nuclear capability. He also indicated his desire to expand the Army by 10,000 soldiers. An aide to Dr Fox said this week that commitments ‘had been superseded’ by plans for a Strategic Defence Review (SDR) after the election. George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor, also warned that a Conservative government would have to make

If you want some insights into where Labour are going next, then do read this story in today’s Guardian.  The main points are that Brown and Darling have agreed not to spare the health and international development budgets from cuts; that Labour’s public spending cuts will be set out over the next couple of months, beginning with a couple of speeches this week; and that Labour wants to frame its cuts as a return to the public service reform agenda.  As one “cabinet source” tells the paper: “The new economic context is a challenge for us, but New Labour in its original form never saw spending more money as the

So what overarching theory do Cameron & Co. believe in now?  Is it Phillip Blond’s “Red Toryism”?  Are they still invigorated by “libertarian paternalism”?  Or have they struck on something else?  This week’s Bagehot column in the Economist gives us a useful overview of all the -isms the Tories have gone through recently, before landing on a conclusion that the policy wonks in CCHQ may not like: “The Tories should stop worrying about whether their view of the world works in theory, and concentrate more on generating ideas that will work in practice. They can live without an ideology; what they urgently require is balls.” Bagehot’s take is certainly attractive. 

Peter Mandelson has been getting very cross, and rather personal, about George Osborne’s ‘political cross dressing”. But during the Blair era, it was New Labour politicians who were keen on cross dressing. Indeed, on his farewell tour Tony Blair went out of his way to declare it as something that was here to stay: “Most confusingly for modern politicians, many of the policy prescriptions cross traditional left-right lines. Basic values, attitudes to the positive role of government, social objectives – these still divide among familiar party lines, but on policy cross-dressing is rampant and a feature of modern politics that will stay. “The era of tribal political leadership is over.”

Earlier, I wrote that Osborne’s speech today seemed to be a significant moment for Project Cameron.  Having attended the Demos event a few hours ago, I still think that’s the case.  Sure, there wasn’t anything particularly new in it – and the delivery didn’t quite zing – but its central point that Brown’s approach to the public finances is regressive, while spending cuts and the right reforms could deliver better services for all, is a necessary refinement of the Tory message.  Come election time, Brown is going to deploy all kinds of attacks on the “nasty Tories” and their “cuts in frontline services”, so it’s important for Cameron & Co.