Moving tributes to Ivan

Gordon Brown, William Hague and Vince Cable have just given moving tributes to Ivan Cameron.

I have been very critical of the Prime Minister, and was so over his handling of the Baby P story during PMQs a month or so ago.

However, the Prime Minister has given a very moving and sincere tribute to Ivan and extended his sympathies and condolences to David, Samantha and the rest of the Cameron family. One could sense, given Gordon Brown's own personal experiences with the loss of a child, that he found it a difficult experience. He also deserves praise for suggesting PMQs should be cancelled this week.

Hague and Cable also gave very moving tributes.

Brown bounce has just gone splat!

The Brown bounce is well and truly over.

The voting intention figures from the latest Ipsos MORI poll have just been released and show the Conservatives on 48 percent (+4), Labour on 28 percent (-2), and the Lib Dems on 17 percent (no change).

Since the turn of the year we have seen the polls shift back towards the Conservatives with their double digit leads being re-established. Recent polls have also shown Labour fall back under the psychologically important 30 percent level and several (ICM, ComRes and Populus) have shown a jump in support for the Lib Dems, at Labour's expense.

This latest poll shows the Conservatives as the main beneficiaries with the Lib Dems unchanged (YouGov's latest showed the Lib Dems down by 2).

The Tory 20 point lead is the largest since September and shows (i know it's only one poll - but it is following a trend) that Brown's bounce has been completely erased. Brown's personal ratings have also suffered a hit with 64 percent of people dissatisfied with Gordon Brown.

Brown inexplicably coaxed voters back to the Labour fold in the latter months of last year after the Labour Conference. As PM he was able to act and therefore portray himself as a man of action and as the "saviour of the world" he was able to give the impression that he had a grand plan that would save the British economy. The recession would be shorter and shallower because of his action and leaders across the world were following his lead.

These same voters have now deserted him and returned to the Tories. Brown has been found out. Last year he was giving the impression he was on top of events, but now it is painfully obvious that he is behind the curve and being buffeted around on a whole range of issues. The steps he has taken are not working, they are just adding to our huge public debt and are being denounced by Germany, France and the Netherlands.

Far from being the decisive strong leader, he has once again shown himself to be a dithering, ineffectual leader - something which was clear from his handling of his handling of the bankers' bonuses issue. He has sat on his hands since October, then the bonus season arrived and the negative press finally spurred him into action only for him to then announce yet another review which will report by the end of the year.

The recent stories about Sir James Crosby are also really damaging for Brown who had a terrible time last week. It was last week that Brown was linked to the failures of the bankers as it was he who designed our regulatory system, removing the supervisory role of the Bank of England against the advice of the then Governor Eddie George. This will be Brown's Achilles Heel. This is just the beginning. Public hostility towards the bankers will increasingly turn to Brown and the Labour government.

Time to call that general election, Gordon...

Brown fails to answer oral and written questions

Those who have seen our Dear Leader in action in PMQs or in television interviews will be well aware that he has a pathological inability to answer a single question put to him.

However, it seems that this is not just confined to oral questions. ConservativeHome has flagged up Brown's wholly inadequate responses to Parliamentary Written Questions. His "grumpy" and "terse" responses to questions from Tory MPs are worth looking at.

The contempt Brown holds Parliament in is astonishing.

During PMQs he routinely ignores questions. Sometimes he even gives just one or two word answers which demonstrates his contempt for the questioner (something Blair also used to do on occasion). At other times he answers the question with a question of his own.

The Speaker is powerless to compel him to properly answer the question posed rather than the one he wished had been asked. I understand the reason why - otherwise it would drag the Speaker, who is supposedly impartial, into a political quagmire. But it really is farce.

And now we have evidence that he uses obscuration tactics in his replies to Written Questions. A favoured tactic of his is to say: "I have nothing further to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member on XX XXXX XXXX, Official Report , column XXX." But when you check that previous answer you find it was completely inadequate. He also gives one word answers to Written Questions.

There seems very little that can be done to make our disgrace of a Prime Minister respect Parliament and democracy. The only action we can take is flag up his contempt he shows our elected representatives, and through them, us.

Brown is shameless.

Will Brown say sorry?

Martin Bright has written on his new blog, The Bright Stuff, that "Whitehall officials have been ordered to make a compilation DVD of Obama's various apologies to the American TV networks to be studied by the Prime Minister."

This follows Barack Obama's frank admission that he "screwed up" over his attempted appointment of Tom Daschle. Obama has won plaudits for the good grace of his confession of fault.

If Bright is correct, it seems Brown's advisers have come to the decision that unless Brown makes a mea culpa, he is doomed electorally. With Labour polling once again under 30 percent, something drastic needs to be done. Labour cannot put all their eggs into the 'G20 summit meeting with Obama' basket which is likely to prove insufficient in any case - and they probably know this.

His advisers will have their work cut out, however.

More...

Brown continues to ridiculously boast that we are "best placed" to weather the recession; refuses to admit "British jobs for British workers" was a grave error of judgement; refuses to admit he was completely wrong to have said he "abolished boom and boom;" refuses to admit we are in a "bust" (though bizarrely will admit we are in recession - how are the two not one and the same?); and worst of all, continues with his strategy of blaming everything on America and not taking any responsibility for his actions over the past 11 years.

The latter is the most serious obstacle to any credible, wholehearted mea culpa.

The idea that Brown will give a humble, 'Obama-style' apology in a self-deprecating manner is difficult to believe.

First, the man is in denial. He seems to honestly believe he has done nothing wrong; that it was not his fault that Britain has the biggest Budget deficit in the world; that Britain is the most indebted country in the world; that he designed our regulatory system that failed; and that he failed to curb the excesses of our financial services sector and call time on debt and the over-supply of money in the boom years which lies at the root of our particular troubles.

Second, he is unlikely to apologise because it this a huge character flaw of his - the man simply does not do apologies. Psychologically he just cannot bring himself to admit regret or mistakes because that, in his mind, makes him look weak and vulnerable rather than strong. He will see any admission of guilt as an electoral gift to the Tories.

Third, if Brown decides to play against type and go ahead, or was persuaded to do so, I doubt it would work because Brown, to put it bluntly, is a lousy actor. If this was Tony Blair we were talking about, you just know he would be able to pull it off even if he didn't mean a word he said. Brown, on the other and, will be incapable of looking convincing. Brown will be unable to pull off a Blair-style "masochism strategy."

Fourth, any apology is likely to fall short of what is necessary because of Brown's unwillingness to give his opponents too much ammunition and thus will feel underwhelming. His opponents will attack him for conveniently glossing over certain issues. It will only work if it is fulsome but this would undermine his current strategy (see below). But if it was seen as only a part apology his critics would continue to raise the issues he avoided demanding a further apology. A part apology would be the worst of all words.

Fifth, and finally, a mea culpa would mean Brown would have to adopt a completely new strategy and he is unlikely to want to change course - because again it will look like he has been following the wrong path during the past few months (not to mention years). He would no longer be able to just blame America as he will have admitted some responsibility lies at home - and most importantly, with him. If he gave a full apology he would admit he borrowed and spent too much money; allowed the deficit to grow too large; failed to run a surplus in the boom years; failed to design a financial regulatory system that was fit for purpose; and failed to call time on household debt and the over-supply of money. If Brown admits to all that – which would constitute a full apology – then not only will he have just agreed with the Tory critique of him, but it will also mean he could no longer pursue his policy of borrowing and spending more money to fight the recession as he will have admitted they were some of the causes for Britain’s recession – the worst in the developed world, according to the IMF.

For these reasons, I’d be amazed if Brown did a full mea culpa. However, if he does go ahead, it seems clear to me that Brown can study all the Obama DVDs he wants, but unless he truly believes he is culpable his mea culpa will be half-hearted and consequently will do more harm than good.

My gut instinct is that any apology will be similar to the bankers' apologies yesterday. He will say he is sorry in a general sense, but downplay any personal failings. It would be more of an apology about what the government did not do - properly regulate the banks, secure global economic early warning system (blah blah blah) - rather than what he did do - debt, deficit, over-supply of money etc. This will enable him to say sorry but pin the blame on others in reality without taking any genuine responsibility for his own actions.

As i argued above, a part apology would be insufficient and ill-advised.

British jobs for British workers

“British jobs for British workers” is a soundbite that has undoubtedly come back to haunt the Prime Minister given the wildcat strikes throughout the country.

It sounded ill-judged when he used it in 2007 during his Labour Party Conference Speech and sounds even more so as it echos in the middle of a recession.

Those feeling their jobs are under threat from foreign workers should not go on strike. Wildcat strikes are a sad return to Britain's dark days of the 1970s - incidentally also under Labour rule. We must not retreat into protectionism.

But it is surely understandable that these workers are calling on Brown to honour his pledge – as is the Labour MP Frank Field.

The problem is that Brown can do nothing. It was a hollow soundbite, reminiscent of the dog whistle politics Labour condemned the Tories for using during their 2005 general election campaign. It was nationalist-protectionist rhetoric not befitting of the Prime Minister. Some even described the pledge as xenophobic. Had Cameron used it, Labour would have accused him and the Tories of being racist.

Brown was trying to appeal to working class voters on the run-up to a general election that never materialised.

It was also part of his bizarre “Britishness” agenda that he was pursuing, perhaps to lessen his Scottishness to the English electorate.

Brown should never have used the meaningless soundbite that could never be turned into policy.

The problem for him now is that those working class voters he was trying to appeal to in a hollow pledge believed that what he said had meaning.

Far from attracting voters, Brown’s inability to follow through could cost him votes.

Brown should be straight with voters and apologise for his use of words. He should admit he misled them. Alas, we have more chance of hell freezing over seeing as our Dear Leader doesn't do apologies or regret.

Will Labour leadership speculation start again?

Gordon Brown's second bounce - his perverse economic bounce - has come to crashing, thudding halt. This will be his last bounce.

As one can see from the figures below, taken from the excellent UK Polling Report website run by Anthony Wells, the Tories have regained double digit leads in surveys by all of the pollsters and are also above the psychologically important 40 percent mark.

It is not quite as bad for Brown and Labour as it was last summer but it is still pretty awful pointing to an outright Conservative victory at the next general election. What is more, it is likely the polls will continue to get worse for Brown.

More...

It is clear that nothing our hyperactive Prime Minister does is having the desired effect of making the recession shorter and shallower. Voters who seemingly started to give Brown the benefit of doubt before Christmas have since concluded that far from "saving the world," he hasn't even saved Britain. Brown is the "achieve nothing" Prime Minister.

Consequently, some are speculating that given Labour's dire polling and the worsening economic situation, the fun and games of last summer with all the leadership speculation will return with a vengeance.

I don't think this will happen.

Just as Brown had his chance to win an election back in Autumn 2007, the Parliamentary Labour Party had their chance to oust Brown last summer. As usual, the party bottled it and failed to knife a leader who will lead them to a heavy electoral defeat in 2010.

The Labour Party has made their bed and will have to lie in it. There is not time to change leader and in any case the public would punish them for naval gazing if they engaged in an act of regicide at a time of recession which is likely to prove the worst since the Second World War. Brown is therefore safe.

It would seem that Bottler Brown and the Bottler Labour Party deserve one another... and their electoral fate!

Brown as accomplished at table tennis as he's with economy

Hilarious! Brown is absolutely hopeless!

Of the four balls hit to him, he failed with all four of his 'returns' - 1) Net 2) Missed ball 3) Missed ball 4) Hit out - missed table. Shocking!

As Iain Dale asks, which adviser thought a game of table tennis with Harry Redknapp was a good idea in front of the Sky News cameras?

Dale goes too easy on the PM excusing his poor performance due to the fact that he has sight in only one eye. That's rubbish! He struggled to hit the ball because he was just plain crap! I would have been more successful if I had both my eyes shut!

I'm amazed Brown went for it. A year ago, almost to the day, Brown bottled a game of table tennis with Chinese Premier Wen.

The Guardian reported: "Ping-pong diplomacy hit a new low today as Gordon Brown ducked out of a table tennis challenge from the Chinese prime minister. The British PM, who is blind in one eye, politely declined a quick knockabout with Wen Jiabao as the two watched exhibition matches between young British table tennis hopefuls and their Chinese counterparts. Prime minister Wen told Brown: 'Actually, I do want to play a table tennis match with you.' The two men walked over to the tables and for one brief moment it appeared the contest between them might actually happen. But instead Brown walked to a microphone to announce a new scheme of partnership between young Chinese athletes and their British colleagues, who would work and train together on a 'buddy' system."

After today's performance, now we know why he bottled it!

Who's interested in the economy, Prime Minister?

I've just found this gem taken from Hansard's coverage of the debate on the Queen's Speech.

Brown criticised the Tories saying: "It is absolutely clear that the Opposition have no interest in listening to what we are doing about the economy. It is also absolutely clear that they are obsessed with only one thing today, but we have got to get on with the business of helping move from the downturn to higher prosperity."

Then a couple of minutes later Tory MP Andrew Robathan stood up and asked Brown: "The Prime Minister accused the Opposition of not being interested in his speech. Could he explain why the Benches behind him are empty, whereas ours are full?"

Hilarious! Sometimes Brown can be a right plonker!

The politics of “doing something”

Gordon Brown is repeatedly attacking the Tories as the “do nothing” party. The opposition is undoubtedly vulnerable to Brown’s jibe because he is portraying himself as the “do something” leader. On the face of it, surely “doing something” is better than “doing nothing”? However, I believe Cameron is showing signs of developing a strategy to neutralise Brown’s attacks. Cameron is saying that Brown’s “do something” is effectively a costly dud; it will not work, will only lead to higher, unnecessary taxes and all because Brown knows that he has to be seen to be “doing something” otherwise he is finished politically, even if his “something” is an expensive waste of time, a “fig leaf” in the words of Vince Cable.

So why has Brown adopted this strategy?

1) DIVIDING LINES - For Gordon Brown, politics is about dividing lines; it is how he operates. His most famous and successful dividing line used at consecutive general elections against the Conservatives was “Labour investment vs. Tory cuts.” The Prime Minister now wants the electorate to embrace his new dividing lines: “Labour action, strength and fairness vs. Tory inaction, dithering, and unfairness.” Brown believes this strategy will secure him victory at the next general election. For this is to work, he will need to call an election in 2009 rather than hang on until 2010. The PBR had all the hallmarks of an old-style pre-election giveaway Budget with: more money for pensioners; VAT tax cut in a pre-Christmas giveaway; softening the potential impact of planned changes to vehicle excise; and making permanent the pay-out for a majority of those who lost out from the abolition of the 10p tax rate (though still ignoring a million people who have yet to be ‘compensated’). In a year’s time Darling is unlikely to have any money left to hand out pre-election bribes. This will especially be the case if his (optimistic) growth forecasts need to be downgraded yet again as seems likely. Whether Brown can call an election in 2009 in the midst of a recession and after all his election shenanigans for party political advantage a year ago is a moot point. John Rentoul reckons Brown has made calling a 2009 election harder on Sunday's BBC1 Politics Show, when he ad libbed: "I am not planning it at all; I do not think people would think much of me." We shall see…

2) FEAR OF IMPOTENCE FROM A BIG STATE POLITICIAN - Another reason why Brown has adopted a “do something” strategy is that he is an instinctive big State politician who thinks that the State always offers the best solution. He will have felt compelled to act because of this and also because he would not have wanted to admit his own impotence. Brown could have prepared Britain better for an economic downturn. Over the last 11 years he could have taken steps to prevent Britain having the world’s biggest housing boom. Remember in his 1997 Budget Statement he promised: "I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the recovery." He could have taken steps to ensure that Britain did not have the highest levels of personal debt in the world. And he could have taken steps to balance the economy so that it was not overly dependent on housing, finance and government spending. But Brown chose to do none of these things and instead chose to preside over an unsustainable boom with the largest budget deficit in the developed world. As a result of not “fixing the roof when the sun was shining,” he has been forced to abandon his fiscal rules – the bedrock of his economic policy – and borrow vast sums of money, leading to a doubling of the national debt to over £1 trillion in just five years time. Faced with a large budget deficit and no money Brown is unwilling to admit he is impotent to act even though he admitted back in 1997 as Chancellor that: “We have learned from past mistakes... you cannot spend your way out of a recession.” But that was then and this is now. Now, Brown is Prime Minister and fighting for his political life. He is returning to type as the instinctive big State politician, believing that if he “does nothing,” admits he did not prepare for a downturn and as a consequence is impotent in the face of the recession, he will be duly punished by the electorate

3) HE ACTUALLY BELIEVES IT WILL WORK - A further reason – and the least cynical - why Brown has adopted his “do something” approach is that he genuinely believes his fiscal stimulus will work. It will not come as a surprise that I do not agree. I think the centrepiece of his stimulus – the cut in VAT – will not work as I cannot see how it will have a great effect on behaviour, or any effect, to that matter. Why will a 2.5 percent cut make any difference when shops are already offering substantial discounts of 20 percent or more? Furthermore, only about half of the 2.5 percent cut translates into an actual cut in consumer prices, according to economists, and this is even dependent on retailers passing on the cuts rather than pocketing themselves. I understand why the government chose VAT for a cut because it is immediate and is designed to encourage spending because to make savings you have to spend money as VAT is a tax on spending but I strongly believe, for the reasons outlined above, it will have only a marginal effect at best and definitely not worth the £12 billion the government is borrowing to pay for its temporary tax giveaway. Brown would have been better off raising the tax free allowance of income tax for low income workers or cutting the basic rate of income tax. This would benefit low income and middle income workers most and these are the type of people who are feeling the pinch and are unlikely to save their tax cut as they do not have that luxury. Brown has made a costly mistake which although passes the “do something” test, fails the “do something worthwhile” test.

The Conservatives criticise Brown’s fiscal stimulus because they argue, quoting the IMF, that Britain, with such a large budget deficit, should not be going down this route, as a stimulus package is only for those with surpluses or relatively small deficits. The Tories thus argue the government is being irresponsible – both in not building a surplus in the good years and for borrowing even more money to fund a fiscal stimulus now in the bad years. They also argue that economic history proves that governments cannot spend their way out of recession. It failed in the 1930s when FDR tried it in the United States (only working with a shift to a war economy) and it failed during the 1990s when Japan tried it during their “Lost Decade.” The Conservatives also argue that tax cuts should be funded (paid for by cuts in spending and thus responsible) and they should be permanent. Brown’s fiscal stimulus essentially lasts only 13 months and then comes to end followed by permanent tax increases which is the last thing the economy will need when it is trying to recover.

That is the critique from the Right, but one can also criticise Brown’s fiscal stimulus from the Left. Brown’s stimulus basically amounts to 1 percent of GDP, which is what the IFS said would be the bare minimum. The IMF has called for a stimulus of 2 percent of GDP which in Britain’s case would equate to about £30 billion. Moreover, in the United States, President-Elect Obama’s advisers have been talking about a stimulus in the region of 3.5 to 5 percent of US GDP. The critique from the Left is therefore that never mind whether Brown has chosen the right way to transmit his stimulus to the failing British economy, the real problem with Brown’s stimulus is that it simply is not large enough to do any good anyway. If this US stimulus comes to pass it will be a bold move by the new President because America’s budget deficit and public debt are also at similar levels, proportionally, to Britain’s. When one looks at the measures Brown has announced from the perspective of the Left, he has been far too cautious – and fudged his stimulus. Not large enough to do any good, but large enough to claim he is “doing something.” Gerard Baker in the Times (25 November) has given an explanation for why Brown has chosen not to “go for broke” like Obama. He wrote: “The answer is that Britain is much more vulnerable to further meltdown in the financial system. As bad as it is, the total size of the contingent liabilities of the US banking system is probably no more than 30 percent of US GDP. In Britain the number is probably between 200 and 300 percent. If a large chunk of that eventually has to be met by the Government, the scale of the fiscal crisis would be awful in America but literally catastrophic in Britain.” I would add another answer. Brown does not like being branded “irresponsible” by the Tories and accused of putting economic stability at risk. Had he gone for a fiscal stimulus of 2 percent of GDP or more he would have opened himself up further to the “irresponsible” charge and a larger “tax bombshell” to follow. In the consequences, Brown compromised and took the middle road between “doing nothing” and “doing something worthwhile” leaving him with the worst option of “doing something costly and ineffective.”

Should Brown go to the polls 'early' in 2009?

Will Gordon Brown call an ‘early’ general election in June 2009 (the same day as the European elections)?

I say 'early' but 2009 is when the election would ordinarily have taken place. The conventional view has been that Brown will call a general election in May or June 2010, waiting until the last minute. However, people have started to suggest that 2009 could now be on the cards as the Tory opinion poll lead has narrowed and Brown has got himself back in the game, aided and abetted by a pliant media all too willing to welcome back the 'Comeback King' and 'Saviour of the World', although it must be said that Labour is playing down such a suggestion, in public at any rate, mindful of the difficulties they experienced last year when a general election was discussed.

Why go for 2009?

1. The effects of the recession on the real economy are only just starting to be felt. By going to the polls in spring 2009, the effects of the recession may not be as bad as in 2010.
2. Moreover, the IMF and the European Commission have both predicted that Britain will suffer one of the worst recessions out of developed world economies and the CBI has predicted a deep recession. By 2010, the UK could still be in recession or, even if the first shoots of growth were being seen, the economy would not have picked up sufficiently to help Brown electorally.
3. Furthermore, Andrew Rawnsley and Robert Winnett have both argued that the Conservative strategy is based on playing a long-game over 18 months until 2010. Winnett wrote: “The Tories are betting everything on a 2010 election,” and added: “With big quick tax and interest rate cuts on the way, 2009 will be looking increasingly attractive for Brown. He won't be able to pull the same trick next year and the eye of the recession may be the best time for Labour to go to the polls. By 2010 they may be long forgotten and any recovery will be in the very early stages... The Conservatives will be hoping that Brown doesn't have the nerve to go early." Nevertheless, I would argue that the Conservative strategy is not as rigidly based on 2010 as Rawnsley and Winnett have argued. I'm sure this is their preference but their strategy could still be applied to 2009. By then they could have offered their own significant funded tax cuts and still use the “higher taxes under Labour” message in an election campaign. Moreover, by spring 2009 the tax giveaways from Brown may not have come through in time to be felt and therefore it would be too early to decide whether Brown was indeed the saviour he claims he is - though this does perhaps bolster his claim to see the job through.
4. An early poll could play into Brown’s hands because he could ask the British people to give him a mandate to steer the country out of recession using all his experience he gained as Chancellor for 10 years. On this, he has the opinion polls on his side. Polls are still showing that there is a contrast between people’s preferences now and in the longer term future. In the latest Populus poll for the Times (11 November), Gordon Brown has a large lead over David Cameron as the “right leader to deal with Britain’s economy in a recession” (52 percent to 32 percent). However, David Cameron beats Brown when people are asked who is “better able to lead Britain forward after the next general election” (42 percent to 35 percent).

These are persuasive arguments. If I were Gordon Brown I would go to the polls in 2009.

The Conservatives are confident they would win in 2010 because of a public appetite for change and this desire if anything is likely to be stronger in 18 months time after the electorate has really been able to experience the affect of the recession hitting the real economy with higher unemployment and falling house prices. The race will also be tighter in 2009 because by 2010 it is likely that Brown would be a busted flush.

That said, the final decision may all come down to the opinion polls. Oh my God, what am i saying? Brown does not look at polls! Polls in no way whatsoever sway his decisions on whether to call an election early or not! Back to the real world... Margaret Thatcher used to want at least a five percent lead in the polls before calling a general election. Despite all Brown's positive coverage for handling the banking crisis, Labour are still anything from 3 to 11 percent behind in the polls and the Tories are holding steady at just above 40 percent. Most of Labour’s ‘recovery’ has been at the expense of the Lib Dems and ‘others’. In addition, the polls that give the Lib Dems higher support also show a larger Tory lead over Labour. I would contend that these polls showing a larger Tory lead are the more accurate polls as, historically, the polls which show lower Labour support are more accurate. Moreover, polls tend to underestimate Lib Dem support because they are starved of media coverage which is not the case during a general election campaign. Whatever the reality, Brown would nevertheless prefer a sustained lead in the polls prior to going ‘early’ in 2009. He is a cautious man so if he does not have an election lead by say April 2009, 2010 would then still seem the more likely option. However, Brown has been bolder of late and may decide if the polls are tight he can build an election winning lead during the election campaign. A risky move but he may be advised that last year he was too cautious and paid the price so next year he should be bold to win Labour a fourth term in office.

We shall see. But I agree with James Forsyth on the Spectator's Coffee House blog that the Tories need to make 2009 as difficult as possible by talking about it lots so that Brown has to shut down the speculation and kick the election into the long grass of 2010 because he cannot afford another bout of election speculation that damaged him so badly last year when he looked like he was trying to cash in on his popularity, putting his interest above national interest.

Has Brown made a fundamental error?

For years Brown has favoured raising taxes (indirectly and by stealth, it must be said) and using the money raised to fund public spending (what Brown preferred to call 'investment').

But recently, given the economic crisis and recession, Brown has positively endorsed a tax cutting agenda - which he calls a 'fiscal stimulus' (Brown has to use euphemisms you see).

This is a huge strategic error by Brown. He has not only allowed tax cuts on to the agenda, but worse still, for him and Labour, he has abandoned his previous position of a responsible, prudent steward of the economy who would put economic stability above all else, by embracing UNFUNDED tax cuts. This has played into the Conservatives' hands. It has given the Tories the confidence to abandon their pledge to match Labour's spending totals which in turn frees them up to offer FUNDED, responsible, and prudent tax cuts.

And as Fraser Nelson has pointed out, far from abandoning people as Labour alleges with its misrepresentation of Conservative policy, the Tories will be helping people by allowing them to keep more of their own money - and all in a way that doesn't weaken the economy and lead to higher taxes down the line which would be necessary to pay for Labour's irresponsible and reckless government borrowing.

But why did Brown suddenly embrace tax cuts a couple of weeks ago, and UNFUNDED tax cuts at that? Remember, this is the man who said: "No political party will be trusted if it promises stability in one breath and unfunded tax cuts in the next,” and who also pledged: "to make unfunded promises, to play fast and loose with stability... is... something I will never do and the British people will not accept.”

He could have embraced a tax cutting agenda because he saw other world leaders doing it. It could have been because sections of the media were calling for them. It could even have been that Brown realised that a 'fiscal stimulus' based purely on increased public spending would not work.

But I don't believe any of the above is true. Based on past behaviour, the most credible explanation is that Brown has made a religious conversion to tax cuts because he took a political calculation that Cameron and Osborne had seemingly boxed themselves into a corner by branding themselves as being fiscally responsible while pledging to stick to Labour's spending totals out of fear that Brown would attack any spending cuts (real or imagined). He thought that he could split the Tories by offering tax cuts while Cameron and Osborne were left in disarray as the Tory right turned on them.

But Cameron and Osborne are scared no more and have abandoned their pledge to stick to Labour's spending totals. Brown has come unstuck once again by playing political games. He has underestimated Cameron, offered unfunded tax cuts and by doing so has abandoned any claim he could have had to be the champion of economic stability.

This is a fatal error by Brown and he deserves everything that will come to him!!!

Hugo Young on Gordon Brown

I have just been reading extracts from a new book of private papers written by Hugo Young, the late Guardian columnist, when I came across some of his thoughts about Gordon Brown:

December 6, 2001 - "He makes efforts to be 'human'. There's a certain loud hail-fellow approach as he walks in, but then he forgets he has done it to one person and does it again to the same person. It is rather hollow, even though well meant. He just does not know how to distract himself from the problems of state and come down to the level of humanity. Even so, though, he has a sense of humour. He can see the point of jokes. He can laugh, though seldom at himself."

I think it's fair to say Hugo Young had got Brown's number! Seven years later, Brown still isn't any more human! At uni Brown should have spent more time practicing interacting with people and less time with his head in books (the opposite to most students!)

It's too late now, we just have to put up with our gauche, psychologically flawed Prime Minister... until the next general election, that is!

Those in doubt of Osborne, read Rawnsley...

Andrew Rawnsley's column in the Observer on Sunday is well worth a read by anyone who has any doubts about Osborne's economic strategy.

Rawnsley argues that it is Osborne's refusal to heed the call for the Conservatives to out-bid Labour on tax cuts which is causing him the most trouble, but that he is holding out because he has taken the long-term, strategic view that Gordon Brown is "purchasing short-term advantage at a high long-term cost."

Rawnsley wrote: "By finally abandoning altogether the territory of fiscal responsibility, the Prime Minister has given the Conservatives the chance to take ownership of that precious ground. Grand gestures by the government may cause the Conservatives discomfort when the Pre-Budget Report is unveiled in a week’s time but the shadow Chancellor thinks that is not as important as which party looks the more trustworthy on the economy at an election in 18 months' time."

Now, Rawnsley readily admits this is not a cost-free strategy describing it as a "gamble" because Osborne is "taking a punt about how things will develop both politically and economically. Osborne will have made the wrong bet if Brown comes out of this looking like the bold saviour of the economy. The Prime Minister's reward will be the gratitude of the voters and a big split in the Conservative Party." But if Osborne gets it right, then the Conservatives will be well placed to prosper at the next general election and Brown's and Labour’s economic reputation will once again be in tatters.

Rawnsley concludes by saying: “The Prime Minister has to take a double-or-quits gamble. The Tories do not. George Osborne's critics are only thinking eight days ahead. He is trying to see 18 months ahead. That makes the Shadow Chancellor smarter than those Tories who want to toss him overboard.”

Wobbling Conservatives need to grow some backbone and hold the line. Brown wants nothing more than the scalp of Osborne and the Conservatives once more in disarray. The Tories are anything between 5 and 13 points ahead in the polls and are consistently polling between 41% and 43%. In 18 months time it will be clear to all that Brown has been a reckless steward of the British economy and he will be duly punished at the next general election. One just hopes that the damage inflicted by Gordon's "scorched earth policy" will be able to be rectified by Cameron and Osborne after 2010!

Osborne tells it like it is...

And surprise, surprise Labour doesn't like it.

What is it with this increasingly pathetic Labour government that it cannot tolerate dissent? The Chief Whip told a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party the other day that those Labour MPs who had voted against the government would not be considered for places on select committees (that rules out 104 Labour MPs then) and whenever the Opposition does it's job - i.e. opposes the government, the Prime Minister and the Labour Party whinge that it is playing politics.

This is exactly what has happened after George Osborne has come out fighting, attacking the government's handling of the economy in the Times.

Labour have called Osborne 'irresponsible' for warning that the government's excessive borrowing could cause a run on the pound and Gordon Brown has said he regrets the 'partisan' nature of Osborne's comments.

Let's address these points and tear them to shreds:

1) Party politics? Give me a break Gordon! Party politics is all you do. Anyone remember the 'Tax con budget'? Which one you ask? Fair point... let me be specific - Brown's last one as Chancellor (2007) which gave us the 10p tax debacle. Anyone also remember the election that never was last year which of course was not called off because of the polls? Anyone also remember Gordon Brown making capital about Britain's exit from the ERM despite being supportive of Britain's membership? Anyone remember the good Europeans that are Brown and Labour who opposed the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty because they wanted to inflict a defeat on Major's government in the Commons even though they supported ratification? The list of shameful party politics from Gordon Brown and Labour is too long to detail here...

2) Osborne is being irresponsible? Why? Because he is telling the truth? Brown should try it sometime! Osborne is just doing his job. If Osborne does not point out that Brown's actions could lead to a run on the pound he would be accused of a dereliction of duty and branded ineffectual. People seem to have their knives out for George at the moment and he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. My message to George - keep attacking this failed government and expose the serious harm they have and are doing to our economy!

Osborne is right to warn that the markets will not allow the Prime Minister to borrow money indefinitely if the markets lose faith in the government's financial responsibility. Sterling has already fallen 25% against the dollar - a devaluation greater than any other in the last 40 years - and the markets are already demanding double the risk premium for British Government debt as they are now for German government debt.

What is more, former Chancellor Ken Clarke has corrected the media that Osborne should not have talked about Sterling. Clarke said he had not heard "of any convention that opposition politicians - including the shadow Chancellor - cannot comment on sterling." He said: "The foreign exchange markets had already made their minds up about the pound, regardless of any political comment." He added that the shadow Chancellor had "made a perfectly sensible comment."

The government and media seem to be working in concert to attack George Osborne. His detractors are wasting their time if they think Cameron will move or sack the second most important person to Team Cameron and the Conservative revival. People seem to have very short memories. It was Osborne, after all, who made the PM run away from an election last year with his tail between his legs.

3) The PM regrets the 'partisan' nature of Osborne's comments? Ah, that old chestnut. Brown pulls this one out of the bag whenever he doesn't have anything substantive to say but just wants to shut down debate. Now, dear readers, you may have heard this type of phrase before recently...

After David Cameron perfectly reasonably raised the tragic case of the death of Baby P during PMQs last Wednesday, Brown said: "I regret making a party political issue of this matter— [ Interruption. ] I do regret that"

Gordon Brown couldn't bring himself to condemn Haringey council because it was a Labour council and because he didn't like the fact that Cameron had raised the issue chose to shut down the debate by saying Cameron had been party political. Now, George Osborne perfectly reasonably warns that the government's excessive borrowing and spending will lead to economic disaster and Stalin Brown does not like such a dissenting opinion, so our Dear Leader once again says he 'regrets' the 'partisan' nature of Osborne's comments.

I'm sorry Prime Minister, this is not the Soviet Union or North Korea! This is Great Britain and Her Majesty's Opposition must be allowed to voice dissent especially when you are taking our country down the toilet, whether you like it or not!!! And the media, the so-called Fourth Estate, needs to stop acting like Pravda and do its bloody job!

Keep up the good work, George!

BBC Bias #1

I mentioned this in my post on PMQs yesterday, but it deserves a post of its own as the BBC's Nick Robinson really was out of order yesterday in his remarks about Cameron's decision to go on the tragic story of Baby P.

As a reminder, this is what he wrote on his blog yesterday (points he had made earlier on the BBC's Daily Politics):

"It's clear that David Cameron was much keener to talk about this case rather than about the topic pretty much everyone expected him to raise - the economy. Before PMQs began, he had written a piece for the London Evening Standard which they'd splashed on their front page. This may have been because he felt passionately about it. It may also have been because he wanted to avoid a debate about taxes and the case for a fiscal stimulus - a view that would have been reinforced by today's comments by the governor of the Bank of England which posed some very awkward questions for the Tories.

What's also clear is that Labour backbenchers were relishing the prospect of a political punch-up on the economy. That's why they shouted when the Tory leader chose another subject. That, perhaps, is what was in the prime minister's mind when he suggested that Cameron was playing politics.

My immediate reaction on the Daily Politics on BBC2 was to say that the prime minister had shown a "political tone-deafness" to the mood outside Westminster and that Mr Cameron probably could not believe his "political luck" that he managed to avoid talking about the economy. Labour's John Cruddas and the Lib Dems' Charles Kennedy - who were in the studio with me - agreed. Interestingly, some who were watching in the Commons gallery did not. They thought the Tory leader's visible loss of temper showed him in a very poor light."

This is absolute biased nonsense with Robinson seeking to defend and offer excuses for the shameful behaviour of Gordon Brown and Labour MPs at ever turn.

I just don't get why Cameron would not want to go on the economy. If you were to just listen to Robinson and the rest of the BBC you would think that Cameron is responsible for the shit we find ourselves in, not Gordon who presided over the Treasury as Chancellor for a decade spending vast sums of our money irresponsibly and who has now just dumped his fiscal rules which were the very bedrock of his economic policy (the equivalent to Labour of the ERM to the Tories).

Robinson over blows comments the Governor of the Bank of England made about a fiscal stimulus being a positive temporary measure and says Cameron effectively used Baby P because it meant he would not have to face questions about tax during PMQs. But hang on there Nicky boy... Cameron had his own aces on the economy to go on. He had the prediction that unemployment would be 2 million by Christmas. A nice present from Father Gordon. Cameron also had the Governor's prediction that the economy would contract by 2 percent next year. So if anything, a debate on the economy would have ended as a score draw. In addition, why should Cameron have faced difficult questions? It is Prime Minister's Questions, not Leader of the Opposition's Questions - no matter how much Brown likes to pervert the half hour. Robinson is also insinuating that Cameron ran away from the economy. I'm sorry, but out of the two leaders, it is clear from past behaviour that the only coward, the only man lacking in courage, is Gordon Brown who has repeatedly ducked difficulties and run away like good ol' McCavity whenever the going gets tough. Moreover, it is clear from the beginning of the exchange that Cameron intended to get on to the economy - he even said so - but that he was so taken aback by Brown's response that he could not let the issue drop. Robinson is being disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

As for the excuse he gave for the behaviour of Labour MPs - that they were expecting a heated debate on the economy - this is no justification. These are grown men and women who behaved outrageously. The Speaker, Michael Martin, had the heart and political nous to realise that the Labour MPs were out of order and he had to repeatedly remind them that what was being discussed was the death of a baby. The Speaker has taken some flak for his reported bias towards Labour but even he could see Labour MPs were in the wrong, even if Robinson couldn't and felt compelled to defend the indefensible!

As for Robinson's assertion that Jon Cruddas and Charles Kennedy agreed with his analysis in the Daily Politics studio, i would suggest that he is as "tone deaf" as the Prime Minister. They certainly did not agree with him! They said Cameron was right to bring up the story and that the Prime Minister and Labour MPs had misjudged the mood by their response.

Finally, Cameron losing his rag showed he was passionate about an appalling tragedy. Brown's apparent calmness, prepared script and focus on procedure made him look out of touch, cold-hearted and lacking in empathy. But that's not what Robinson reported. Oh no, no mention of Brown lacking humanity, only Cameron showing himself in a "very poor light." No Nick, Gordon Brown, Labour and you were shown in a "very poor light" yesterday.

The BBC really needs to get its act together. Robinson did not like the outcome of PMQs yesterday because it did not fit into the new narrative he is partly responsible for constructing - that is, 'Gordon the comeback king', 'Gordon the saviour'. Labour weren't the only ones wanting the economy to take centre stage at PMQs - Nick Robinson and the BBC wanted it too. But PMQs showed Brown in a very poor light and reminded us of his failings as a Prime Minister whenever the subject moves beyond his economic comfort zone. It also reminded us, as Guido put it yesterday, that "Gordon is Emotionally Retarded."

I could not have put it better myself!

PMQs - The Fallout

Ruth Kelly: "My stomach turned listening to the debate. This is a very serious tragedy... I thought the tone adopted by the Conservative leader was inappropriate."

Chair of the Children Schools and Families Select Committee Barry Sheerman on Cameron: "It was purely party political; it was the leader of a party who says 'how can we get the most attention in the headlines today'."

I don’t understand the criticism from Labour MPs. They have criticised Cameron’s tone and said he was being party political. But his tone was fine until he was accused by Brown of trying to make the death of Baby P into a party political issue. His tone then changed understandably. As for the charge that he was being party political, Cameron said nothing about Haringey council being run by council. Cameron’s very reasonable substantive point, which he repeated several times, was simply that Sharon Shoesmith, the Children's Services director of Haringey's Children's Services department, should not be allowed to investigate the failings of her own department because clearly she is not independent. The fact that the Prime Minister could not agree just goes to show that Brown is always a factional, partisan leader who constantly makes political calculations. He could not bring himself to criticise a Labour council. But this is bigger than which party runs which council. I repeat what I said in my last post, if Tony Blair was PM this would not have happened. Once Brown is forced to depart from his script the empathy runs out and then we see his ugly political side come out.

Labour and Gordon Brown should be ashamed of themselves. Despite what Kelly and Sheerman et al say, Cameron can hold his head up high. Can they?

PMQs - Callous PM & Labour Party

PMQs was an extraordinary and riveting affair today. Most would have expected the economy to dominate today as David Cameron had the news that unemployment is forecast to hit 2 million by Christmas and the Bank of England has predicted the economy will contract by 2 percent, to go on. Brown and Labour no doubt were also looking forward to the economy being brought up after the Governor of the Bank of England today gave tentative support to a fiscal stimulus package proposed by the government.

However, that is not what happened. Cameron intended to go on the economy but first wanted to raise the horrific case of poor Baby P, a 17 month old baby boy, who had been repeatedly tortured and then murdered by his mother and two men (one of which was the mother's boyfriend). Baby P had head injuries, a broken back, nine fractured ribs, fingernails and a toenail missing, a severe mouth injury, a ripped ear and extensive bruising on his body. He was found dead in his blood spattered cot. The three despicable people have now been convicted (though not sentenced yet). Prosecuting QC Sally O’Neill told how a family friend revealed the depth of the abuse as the child was used like a punchbag. She said the stepdad would “pick him up by his throat, punch him and spin him around on the computer chair until he fell off.” What is truly shocking is that on Baby P's final day alive, August 2, police told his mother that they would take no further action over suspicions she had assaulted him.

Cameron understandably wanted to know why Sharon Shoesmith, the Children's Services director of Haringey's Children's Services department was being allowed to investigate her own department. Let us also remember this is the same Haringey Children's Services department which had failed to protect Victoria Climbié 8 years ago.

The PM responded with his usual prevarication, giving a dry response focusing on process and procedure. He even talked about executive summaries! But unsurprisingly, Brown did not answer the question.

Cameron asked again. And again no answer from Brown.

Cameron had meant to go on to his set of economic questions by this point but he was incensed by Brown's response. He said he had asked a straightforward question and had received no answer. The Labour MPs were loudly barracking the Tory leader at this point and the Speaker was forced to intervene and tell them to be quiet on what was a very serious matter. Cameron became angry and quite emotional and laid into the Labour Party. He detailed the horrific nature of the case and the abject failure of the social services. He asked his question for a third time but said he did not expect an answer from Brown.

The PM went back to his pre-prepared point about the Laming report and the national inquiry being conducted by Lord Laming. But then Brown made a grotesque error. Always the factional, partisan politician, he accused David Cameron of trying to make the death of Baby P into a party political issue!

The Conservative benches went mad but not as mad as Cameron who went apoplectic with rage and rightly so. Brown had made an outrageous suggestion. Cameron said the PM had made a cheap point after he had asked some very reasonable questions. He asked Brown to withdraw the attack.

Brown withdraw any remark? You must be kidding! To do that he would have to admit to making a mistake and an error of judgement which Brown with his huge chip on his shoulder and character flaw just simply cannot do. So with no sense of the trouble he was in, Brown just said there was common ground and again pointed to the steps he was going to take.

Cameron was not going to let this lie. He said Brown had accused him of party politics. Cameron said he had intentionally not mentioned that Labour ran Haringey Council and nor had he done so at the time of the Victoria Climbié inquiry. He asked again for the PM to please withdraw the comment.

The PM had lost the plot and just said that the whole House would want to be united. It was a bit late for that Gordon after your shameful antics!

Cameron, in his last intervention, said in a resigned, and disappointed tone that Brown won't withdraw the remark. He said he had only been trying to raise the point made by Brown's own Children's minister that people should not investigate their own conduct.

The PM merely said there would be an independent investigation and immediate action.

PMQs today has shown Gordon Brown and the Labour Party in damning light. Their behaviour was shameful and extremely callous given what was being discussed was the tragic, and avoidable death, of a 17 month old baby boy.

Brown looked evasive, shaky and cold hearted. He looked like he was trying to score points. The PM is politically tone deaf. He comes across as inhuman because he completely lacks empathy.

In contrast, Cameron was genuinely passionate and humane. This was not synthetic rage. He had said at the very beginning of his exchange with Brown that he had intended to go on the economy afterwards but he was so taken aback by Brown's response that he could not let it drop.

At this point it is worth mentioning Nick Robinson who, along with Brown and Labour, did not cover himself in glory. The BBC's political editor was on the Daily Politics show and he took the very cynical view that Cameron's decision to use all 6 questions was a combination of genuine disgust at the PM and political calculation that he couldn't believe his luck as it meant he did not have to go on the economy. He also tried to defend the Labour benches saying they were fired up to attack Cameron on the economy. I would say that such comments are not very becoming of Robinson and quite frankly indefensible. Even Jon Cruddas (Labour) and Charles Kennedy (Lib Dem) - both in the studio - did not make such crass comments. In fact they gave dignified responses which reflected well on both of them.

Had Cameron faced Tony Blair at the dispatch box today, PMQs would have been an entirely different affair. Blair always had a knack of being able to judge the political mood and he would have shown the requisite empathy that the situation deserved rather than badly miscalculating and turning an issue that ought to have unified the House into a bad tempered political affair.

I'd also say that the Speaker, Michael Martin, who has had his detractors of late - me included - performed excellently today, as he has of late. He had to intervene several times during the Brown/Cameron exchange and it was clear to me that he judged the public mood much better than Brown and reprimanded the Labour MPs for their barracking on the sensitive issue. Credit is given when it's due. Well done Mr Martin!

PMQs Ratings

The only one that matters:

Brown - 0/10 - The Prime Minister and the Labour Party were an absolute disgrace today!!!

Brown attacks tax cuts & spending... in 1997

Just read an interesting post over on the FT's Westminster blog. Worth a read.

I wrote in my last post that new Gordon is reckless and has essentially jetisoned his prudent past while Cameron was acting like Gordon of old.

The FT blog has unearthed an HM Treasury document written by Chancellor Brown in 1997 about the lessons of the previous economic cycle. He makes the case for difficult decisions, warning against kneejerk tax cuts and increases in public spending, and concludes that it is important to adopt a prudent approach and wrote: "Therefore a lesson from past mistakes is that policy makers should err on the side of caution.”

If that wasn't ironic enough given Brown's impending 'kitchen sink' approach to economic management, Brown also warns against "a lack of constancy" with fiscal rules! Hilarious!

So Gordon Brown's political transformation seems complete. He has gone from Prudent Gordon to Reckless Gordon.

The tax cut battleground

Cameron has outlined a national insurance tax break for companies as an incentive to take on staff. It would be funded from unemployment benefit savings. In other words, companies would receive a proportion of the benefit payment in the form of a tax break. Cameron said it costs the taxpayer over £8,000 every time someone takes unemployment benefit and his proposal would see approximately £2,500 of that sum used to fund a cut in the amount of NI paid by businesses. The Conservatives say their plan would create 350,000 jobs and cut the tax burden on companies by £2.6 billion.

Cameron described his announcement this morning as a "budget submission," rather than a future policy pledge for an incoming Tory government, to help alleviate unemployment which he hoped Brown would accept and Darling would implement next week in the Pre-Budget Report.

Brown has already disappointed Cameron though by rejecting it as a "one-off initiative," said the figures "simply do not add up" and said "serious policy" was needed for "serious times." The government line continues to be that the Conservatives have an incoherent economic strategy.

Moreover, as Guido has pointed out, it is more of a tax credit than a tax cut. He said that although it was more welcome help for small businesses, the problem with it was that the £2,500 tax credit was only for new created jobs and did not apply to companies that were thinking of laying off workers to cut costs. In other words, it might help small businesses, if implemented, who want to grow and recruit staff - thus cutting unemployment; but will do nothing for those who want to retain staff but cannot afford to do so - thus doing nothing to prevent unemployment.

One must conclude that this is another welcome proposal but nothing revolutionary and once again small in scope. It thus can be added to other initiatives announced by the Tories on council tax, NI and VAT.

It will undoubtedly disappoint those who wanted to see something more substantial.

If Cameron is moving towards acknowledging that monetary policy alone is going to be insufficient to get us out of recession, "fiscal stimulus," as the PM puts it, will be necessary. So again we are back to two choices. Increased public spending or cut taxes. A Keynesian spending splurge will not work; it is far too slow. So we are left with tax cuts as even Brown seems to have come to admit.

Three more questions arise:

1) What taxes to cut? 2) By how much? and 3) How to pay?

1) WHAT TAXES TO CUT? The Conservatives have thus far focused most of their attention on measures to help small businesses (council tax pledge being the exception). They reason that it is SMEs that are the driving force of the economy so that by keeping them going, the economy will be stronger.

The Lib Dems (and possibly Labour - we'll see possibly next week) have argued that income tax should be cut to help stimulate demand. The Lib Dems, for example, have said they would cut the basic rate of income tax from 20% to 16% thus helping low and middle income earners.

Ordinarily I would be all for a cut in income tax but there is a problem with it. For it to have the desired effect, the government would need to ensure that people spent the extra money they were being allowed to keep. However, given the constant flow of bad economic news, it is quite probable that a majority of people would try and pocket the tax cut, saving the money in anticipation of worse times ahead. I can't see how the government can compel people to spend the money from the tax cut given the fear being whipped up by the media.

Nevertheless, in an ideal world a combination of the Conservative and Lib Dem approach - measures to help business and a cut in income tax would probably be the best option to help alleviate the effects of the recession and help stimulate demand.

But that leads us on to 2) BY HOW MUCH? How large should the tax cut be? The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has said that a tax cut would need to be in the region of £15 billion to have any effect.

The Conservatives are wedded to their 'fiscal responsibility' approach, which Rachel Sylvester in the Times today has called the 'housewife strategy' (households are having to tighten their belts and make sacrifices, so should government - it is no time to get another unaffordable credit card). He can't claim that the cupboard is bare to then suddenly magic up £15 billion worth of tax cuts. So if we really are entering the ‘tax cut war’ between the parties, the Conservatives will lose in the battle of who can promise to cut tax the most. Cameron will be trumped by both the Lib Dems and Labour which is a surprising position for a Tory leader to be in. Yet, ‘sound money’ is also a strong Conservative principle. Cameron is taking a punt that the British people will reward him for his pledge not to saddle future generations with large debts and high taxes. He is essentially saying that Gordon might have left Prudence at the alter, but she's dating Dave now. In contrast, Brown is saying to hell with Prudence, in 'unique' times like these, he needs Miss Profligate Spendthrift on his arm.

This leads us to the last question: 3) HOW TO PAY? This is the clear dividing line between Brown and Cameron. Brown is willing to borrow to cut taxes while Cameron is behaving like the Brown of old saying there should be no unfunded tax cuts. Brown is hoping that the British people will let him borrow and spend and ignore the fact that for decades he has been accusing the Tories of offering unfunded tax cuts but is now proposing to do just that himself. Cameron is hoping that the British people, and the media in particular, will not let Brown get away with it and instead will reward, prudent Cameron, the responsible steward of the economy. Cameron is setting himself out as responsible and therefore Brown as irresponsible.

There is of course more scope for Cameron to offer ‘funded’ tax cuts but he seems unwilling to go down that route, to the dismay of many Conservatives. He could pledge to cut public spending but Cameron would probably argue that cutting spending at such a time would not be ‘responsible’ as it would cut demand in a recession. However, many on the right disagree, including Nick Clegg, and say that public spending has increased by vast amounts over the last eight years or so, a significant proportion of which is wasted and spent inefficiently. But Cameron will know from his experience of the 2005 general election working for Michael Howard that a policy of tax cuts funded by pledges to cut government waste has not proved successful. Cameron might also be fearful of opening up another unnecessary front in which he is open to attacks from Brown that he is cutting vital frontline services – whether true or not. We all know that Brown doesn’t let truth and honesty get in his way. But nonetheless, if Cameron wanted to be bolder, there clearly is scope to offer funded tax cuts – though it is true that cutting waste is often easier said than done.

This is a ‘game’ of high stakes. Whoever wins the battle of borrow and spend vs. fiscal responsibility could very well have the keys for Number 10 in 2010. Cameron's approach is sensible, though not flashy, will help minimise the effects during the recession and will significantly reduce the hurt after the recession and place Britain in good shape globally ahead of the upturn. Brown's approach is likely to prove bold and brash, may very well have a greater effect during the recession (though this is not guaranteed as it could hurt the value of pound sterling, for example), but its recklessness will prove damaging after the recession as the costs of his borrow and spend policy are borne by us all through higher taxes and/or significant cuts in public spending. This could leave Britain behind the curve internationally in trying to benefit from any economic upturn.

What seems clear, however, is that Brown looks like throwing everything, including the kitchen sink, at this recession in the hope that it wins him another term in office after 2010. Brown is obviously in power so we will get what he wants and Cameron can only warn, criticise and set-out what he would do differently. Unfortunately for us, that means we will ultimately suffer the consequences and if Cameron does win the next general elections he will be left picking up the pieces of an economic wreckage caused by a reckless driver by the name of Gordon Brown.

UPDATE: Adam Boulton makes a good point I meant to include. He's written: "The challenge for the Tories will be whether they hold their nerve and oppose hand backs which are likely to appeal to hard-pressed voters and businesses." Will shall see...

UPDATE 2: Been thinking... If Brown does indeed offer unfunded tax cuts Cameron needs to hit home the message hard that we will all pay for it through higher taxes. Labour may offer short-term gain, but it will end in long-term pain!