Gordon brown

So the Labour pledge card is back – and, this time, it’s a good deal more nebulous than in 1997 or 2001, but quite similar to 2005.*  Here are the themes that Brown & Co. will be campaigning on: i) Secure our recovery ii) Raise family living standards iii) Build a high tech economy iv) Protect frontline services v) Strengthen fairness in communities There’s another key difference with previous elections too: one of trust.  Sure, voters have always been reluctant to take politicians’ promises and exhortations at face value.  But it’s a safe bet that they’re even more sceptical and uninterested this time around. *Although, as Alastair Campbell points out,

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

Darling has now exposed as false the Brown/Balls dividing line of “investment vs cuts”. If Labour were to win, he said, the cuts would be worse than anything seen under Thatcher in the 1980s. This is Darling’s problem: he’s a dreadful liar. The IFS today laid out the scale of the cuts that would happen whoever wins the election, and the below graph is worth reprinting. Overall spending falls 12 percent (once dole and debt interest are taken into account). So when Darling says this is worse than anything in the 1980s, he is simply stating a fact. You’d never catch Balls or Brown doing that, by the way, and

It’s unusual for Chancellors to stand with their wives on the steps of the Treasury on budget day, and to see the Darlings together this morning gives an indication of what they have been through. Brown doubtless thought him an automaton when he appointed him to the job – but I was wrong to say that he would be “no more a Chancellor than Captain Scarlett was an actor”. He has defied Brown, bringing moderation and much-needed dullness to the worst fiscal crisis in Britain’s peacetime history. In James’s political column last week he suggested that Darling calls his autobiography “the forces of hell” – that he would defy Brown

One of the best things about this Brave New Web World is how it helps you to draw upon the talents, knowledge and expertise of people around the world. We certainly had that in mind when we asked CoffeeHousers to help us track down the tricks and deceptions in last year’s Budget – and now the Conservatives are thinking along similar lines. Earlier today, David Cameron said that the Tories would “crowd-source” their Budget response tomorrow. Jeremy Hunt has since provided more details here. This kind of thing ties in neatly with the Tories’ powerful transparency agenda. But the real test is whether they would continue this approach in government

In the News of the World today, I propose a new tax on the rich: specifically, on ex-ministers who go on to earn a crust advising companies how to avoid the regulations with which they have saddled the British economy. I proposed this before the news broke about Byers and Hewitt etc, but their appalling story makes it all the more pertinent. The Nelson tax should be above the top rate, and imposed on any activity such as giving speeches to the Chinese, lobbying, consultancy, etc. – anything which trades from contacts or reputation built up while serving the taxpayer. It would not be levied on activities which the ex-minister