Gordon brown

George Osborne must have changed breakfast cereals, or something, because he’s suddenly a different man.  After the Tories muddied their economic message to the point of abstraction a few weeks ago, there’s now a new clarity and directness about the shadow chancellor’s languange.  Exhibit A was his article in the FT last week.  And Exhibit B comes in the form of his article for the Sunday Telegraph today. It sets out five deceptions that we can expect from the Budget this week, and are all punchy and persuasive in equal measures.  But it’s the first which, as I said on Friday, is the most important: “The Chancellor might be so

Ed Miliband certainly isn’t one for holding back, is he?  In an interview with today’s Guardian he discusses what we might expect from the Labour manifesto, and there’s some pretty noteworthy stuff in there: a People’s Bank based around the network of Post Offices; an increase in the minimum wage; a reduction in the voting age to 16; things like that. But, as Sunder Katwala suggests over at Next Left, the most eye-catching passage is when Miliband discusses Free School Meals for all: “The manifesto could well include a pledge to provide free school meals for all children, Miliband says. ‘I think a lot of people would like free school

Listening to BBC news, it’s striking how they are still using Labour’s politically-charged vocabulary. When the universities are kicking off about their budgets being cut, the BBC newsreaders are told to talk about “investment” in higher education, rather than spending. Why, though? An “investment” would be to put £1 billion of taxpayers’ money into an Emerging Markets fund, and hope it grows. Giving it to universities – many of which serve neither students nor society – is not an investment. But using the word “investment” is Labour code for “good spending”. There is one particularly frequent example if this: the BBC regularly confuse the words “deficit” and “debt” – a

Gordon Brown has been shameless in using the tools of state to advance his party political objectives – to him, government is electoral war by other means. Anyone who has turned on a commercial radio station recently will have worked out his latest trick: a mass propaganda splurge before an election campaign. Get on a bus, and it can be 100 percent state adverts – advising how Big Brother will help you get a job, buy a car, see off door-to-door salesmen, give you a job in the prison services – anything you want. We at The Spectator have tracked down the figures that show the extent of all this.

Whisper it quietly, but there is a sense that the Tory campaign is getting back on track. The Tories have had three good days in a row, have Labour on the back foot over Unite and the polls appear to be moving in their favour. Certainly, Tory morale is better than at any point since the start of the year. One thing raising Tory spirits is Cameron’s own performance. As Iain Martin points out, on Sunday Brown met the voters and was incapable of finding the right tone. Cameron, by contrast, is at his best among ‘real’ people as Monday’s event demonstrated. Another thing bolstering Tory morale is their campaign

Gordon Brown must be feeling generous today, for he did the Tories two favours on Woman’s Hour earlier.  David has already mentioned the first one: Brown saying that he would “keep going” as party leader even if Labour loses the next election, which ups the potential for more summertime Sturm und Drang on his own side.  But the second, as Ben Brogan points out, is his claim that the state of the economy makes it difficult for the government to detail any spending cuts.  The Tories will happily seize on that to justify their own “wait until we see the books” approach. More broadly, Brown’s claim also sets the stage

It was mostly standard fare for a political interview, but the Cameron/Trevor McDonald show reminds you of what I think is one of Cameron’s foremost positives, and one that is welcome amid the Tories’ current self-doubt. Cameron and his team turned the unelectable Tories into a modern and truly representative force. Jonathan Freedland may argue that the change is cosmetic, but candidates, such as Shaun Bailey, selected by the Hammersmith association, say otherwise. If Cameron saw-off grass-roots interests who were still fighting Margaret Thatcher’s early battles, if not those of Churchill too, he has the resolve to tackle the legacy that Gordon Brown is likely to bequeath him.   I’d expected to be left

One of the Brownie’s we’ve been hearing recently from the Dear Leader is that it is in some way ambitious to “halve the deficit by 2014”. It’s a Brownie because it is technically accurate, yet designed to mislead the voter. Two years ago, he forecast no deficit at all by 2014. Now he’s projecting one of 5 percent of GDP – simply mammoth – and still makes out that this is something to be proud of. It’s a confidence trick: the voter is supposed to think ‘I don’t know about the figures, but if he’s boasting about it then it must be good’. When Brown told the Economist that his deficit

Three weeks ago, James argued that the Tories’ incoherence emanated from their disjointed campaign management. Steve Hilton, Andy Coulson, George Osborne and George Bridges were not communicating and the stark clarity on the economy and ‘Broken Britain’ was obscured. James urged the Cameroon duma to put its house in order. Cameron heeded some of his advice, but this morning brings the most significant change. Tim Montgomerie reports that Andy Coulson and Steve Hilton have at last joined forces and will report direct to George Osborne, who will be replaced by Ken Clarke as the Tory’s economic face. That that this is news reveals the utter chaos  that ruled the campaign;