London

George Osborne sounds a more confident note than most of his Tory bandmates in interview with the Standard today.  On top of the obligatory Ready for Government noises, he rattles off a list of London marginals which are winnable for the Tories, and adds that an overall majority is “within our grasp”.  Pretty direct stuff for a politician, given all the uncertainty clogging the air in Westminster. To my eyes, though, the most significant passage could be this: “He gave a commitment to keep London’s £16 billion Crossrail scheme, although he confirmed he will look for savings. ‘I think Londoners would expect me to get good value for their money.'”

There it is. The Tories’ premier weapon emblazoned across the front pages of the Guardian and the Telegraph: Brown could stay on as PM in a hung parliament, even if the Tories win more seats. To be fair to Brown, the headlines are misleading. It is his duty to remain in office until it is clear that David Cameron or another politician commands the confidence of the House, which may take weeks in current circumstances. Mandarins are drawing up radical contingency plans to ensure that some modicum of economic stability is maintained during that period. These measures include temporarily proroguing parliament for 18 days after the election (rather than the

The gods are smiling on George Osborne. On Monday, he wrote an excellent article in the FT, explaining why he opposed the government’s fiscal plans and giving a brief sketch of his alternative vision. It was a short, sharp, shock article that contrasted with the tentative and nebulous announcements that characterised the Tory post-New Year slump. They were immediate benefits. On Tuesday, the EU Commission broadly supported the Conservative position on reducing public spending, and today a City AM poll indicated that 77 percent of a panel of City experts think that cuts must be made this year. Indeed, many panellists rejected Samuel Brittan’s contention, elucidated in last week’s Spectator,

The City’s elopement with New Labour has ended violently. A poll of leading financiers, conducted by City AM, reveals that 73 percent think that a Tory majority would be best for the economy; a mere 10 percent support Labour. But the City has little enthusiasm for George Osborne: 23 percent believe he has the mettle to be Chancellor, 13 percent behind Ken Clarke. So where is it going wrong for Osborne? James Kirkup observes that the Tories recent collapse in the polls coincided with Osborne and Cameron obscuring their economic message. But the City’s antipathy to Osborne is long established. Disquiet reigned even when Osborne and the Tories were storming

A striking passage from Peter Mandelson’s speech at Mansion House last night: “Starting in the 1980s we allowed the diversity of the British economy – or lack of it – to approach the limits of what was prudent. Sometimes there was an economic fatalism about manufacturing decline and falling British goods exports, rather than seeing them as something that policy and private enterprise should address. Our economy, and certainly our corporate tax base, became too dependent on the City. We were also carrying a huge hidden insurance liability for a sector that was taking badly understood and inadequately policed risks.” Yes, I know Mandelson takes things back to the 1980s

Boris Johnson has resigned as Chairman of the Metropolitan Police Authority, apparently because he could not devote enough time to the job. The deputy mayor for policing, Kit Malthouse, replaces him. This is a marginally embarrassing turn of events for Boris and the Tories. It’s a puerile point but Boris still has the time to write his extremely readable and by all accounts admirably remunerated column in the Telegraph. Equally, the Tories cited Boris Johnson as their first elected police commissioner – a famous face for one of their flagship policies. I don’t see either problem as being serious, certainly not beyond the present. Kit Malthouse is very able and

As Ben Brogan outlined in his Telegraph column last November, there are plenty of Tories placing a good deal of emphasis on the London Olympics.  By the time it comes around, they may well have spent two years cutting spending, raising taxes, and generally struggling against the fiscal problems that Brown has hardwired into our nation’s fibre.  A successful Games, the thinking goes, could be just the tonic for their midterm government – as well as for the country as a whole. Which is why today’s story about the Tories somehow keeping on Tessa Jowell, the current Olympics Minister, is unsurprising.  The thinking is clear: a bit of continuity could

First there was Ken, then Peter Mandelson, and now Jon Cruddas is the latest name to be linked with Labour’s campaign for the London Mayoralty.  According to the Standard, the Dageneham MP is winning “high level backing” to take on Boris in 2012. As James said last week, there’s every reason to believe that Cruddas will play an important role on Labour’s post-election stage.  Sure, his thinking is diametrically opposed to that of most CoffeeHousers – but at least he has some sort of political vision, more or less well-defined.  That alone distinguishes him from many of his colleagues.  Then throw in his general affability, and it’s understandable why Cruddas

In a few weeks time, a slew of foreign ministers will descend on London to attend a conference on Afghanistan. No.10 will use the event to sell Gordon Brown as a statesman, confidently dealing with the nation’s threats. The Conservatives, in turn, will probably try to score the usual points about Britain’s failure, alongside its NATO allies, to make any in-roads in the fight against the Taliban. Together with Tony Blair’s evidence to the Iraq Inquiry, the conference may create one of the few moments in the drawn-out election campaign when the three party leaders stop talking about the NHS and focus on national security issues instead. Too bad, then,

When Mandelson said in his Spectator interview that he plans another 15 to 20 years in politics, what could he have meant? Now that his European career is over, there is only one decent post coming up for a Labour figure in the first half of the next decade – and I float the latest theory in my News of the World column today: that Mandy might stand as Mayor of London in 2012. A bizarre notion, I grant you, but no less bizarre than his CV to date – and Ken Livingstone is certainly taking the prospect seriously. Whoever the Labour candidate, they have a pretty good chance given