“Tory leader David Cameron will warn that Britain is in a ‘social recession’ even deeper than its economic one as he steps up pre-election campaigning. And the Tory leader will point to the torture of two young boys as an extreme symptom of what he dubs Labour’s ‘moral failure’ as he launches a raft of social policies.”

If Gordon Brown is to blame for the two boys from South Edlington does that mean John Major was really responsible for the murder of James Bulger? I think we should know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger

I do think Osborne is an extremely weak link for the Tories – and I dispute that he’s not highly recognisable to the general public (@John Booth). Despite the best efforts of journos and others to discredit Cameron (e.g. http://tiny.cc/rlQG8), he does seem to have a teflon coat and it’s not a good enough strategy to just hope for ‘Cameron fatigue’ to set in.

This idea has to be run in conjunction with other positive Lab/Lib Dem campaign strategies… of course it does! But I do think one of the best ways to prevent a Tory victory is to try and get an image of Mr Osborne popping into people’s heads just before they mark the X on their ballot paper!!

‘ Targeting Osborne is a pretty good idea IMO as there are plenty of clues that he really doesn’t have much feel for economics and is therefore apt to fall under the influence of whichever Tory nutcase he last talked with.

Example? ‘

During the worst of the financial crisis he was making statements about ‘ a run on the pound ‘. It is a well established principle that the government and the opposition do not comment on the currency. The Governor of the BoE does comment on the currency, which can act as verbal intervention but the politicians do not comment. The ‘ run on the pound’ was a stupid narrative. Sterling had been vastly overvalued and was finding a new level. Did he expect the government to intervene in the currency markets? Who was supposed to decide what the effective sterling rate should be? Incidentally, Governor King during the same period was subtly talking down the pound as the Bank knew it had to depreciate. I doubt whether the Shadow Chancellor noticed.

Other examples would be various statements about ‘ national bankruptcy’ or the ‘ government running out of money’ mark him out as clueless. The Shadow Chancellor does not seem to be aware that a sovereign issuer can’t run out of money nor can they be made bankrupt.

As Bob B covered the opposition to the VAT cut was economically illiterate. The economy was in a deep recession and we were in a liquidity trap. The quickest and best measure in such circumstances is a sales tax cut.

Maybe it is just all politics but lots of non-partisan people have formed an opinion that he does not understand his subject. I have noticed a subtle change in his statements over the last six months and it is obvious he is getting coached/advised by someone as he is less silly.

Vince Cable was really good but has now unfortunately become a populist.

Osborne’s an incredibly weak link for the Tories, but most voters know nothing about him. In weak campaigns without the ability to put out a coherent message over time, it’s hard to sell it, but in a fighting marginal, with lot’s of literature going out, consistency will get it across.

And the media spotlight in a GE campaign always points at more than just the leaders, they won’t be able to hide him when Vince is out fighting daily.

@Watchman and others–targetting the Tories will do very well in seats where either the Lib Dems are defending against them or in three-way seats where Labour has little to no chance. Sure, it won’t help them as much in other areas, but the election is a series of 500+ fights, not one big one.

Slightly amused to see those mocking this both a) saying no one knows who these people are (true) and b) saying the opinion polls say people still favour the Tories.

One of the reasons the polls favour the Tories is because little focus has been put on Osborne, who very few people know of, yet.

Thanks for that Hard Talk interview on the BBC with Vince Cable.

His halo may have slipped a little but he still comes across as impressive under pressure. For one thing, he clearly admits to “keynesian” influences and judging by the silly stuff churned out by Tories here and elsewhere, Keynes and all his works are usually dismissed as rubbish. Mind you, it usually becomes fairly obvious that they’ve not read Keynes and know little about macroeoconomics.

Cameron is demonstrably clueless about economics.

On 2 Janauary last year, Cameron is quoted in his New Year’s message saying the VAT cut has failed:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7808634.stm

But the VAT cut had only been announced in the Pre-Budget Report on 9 December 2009. Less than a month later, Cameron already knows that the policy has failed – even before the umpteen business and economics research consultancies do.

Curiously, trace it back and it turns out that Kenneth Clarke first suggested a VAT cut as a fiscal means for boosting the economy in a recession (link to The Times available).

In April last year:

“The government’s much-criticised cut in VAT is working and has led to a big boost in consumer spending, according to a leading economics consultancy.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7995850.stm

Come the festive season last year and retail sales did especially well:

“Retailers HAVE shrugged off the downturn to record their best Christmas trading figures since December 2001, but store owners are warning that the buoyant sales may offer only temporary relief on the ‘painful road to recovery’.”
The Independent, Tuesday 12 Januery 2010 (link available).

QED – and I presume Cameron consulted Osborne before making that stupid claim.

I do agree that he has become more of a pundit but that doesn’t stop the fact that he was right about recession and personally when I see him talk in PMQ’s, I tend to agree with him 89%.

I also agree about newspaper comments but you were throwing around stats that didn’t make sense if you look at voting patterns and peoples reactions after a government takes them into a recession. The same kneejerk behaviour you see in voting polls is the same you see on Daily Mail or The Times commentary. They are both as suspect as each other in terms of rational and well thought opinions on a subject.

Now I think it is deeply insulting to even put Osbourne in the same breath as Cable and yes, I do think he is the weak link.

And I actually think Cameron is also the weak link. Cam’s team are as unpopular as Howards team and I’m sorry, with the rubbish job that Brown is doing, is this good enough?

No one says’ Oh, wow, that Osbourne fella, what a brain? His fluent knowledge of macroeconomics and historical political economics is astounding…that speech he gave..so original..impassioned’ because it’s never happened and it’s not true. I have tried and tried to see what he has to him and there is nothing. That’s why you brought back Clarke!

I remember watching a PMQ and Osbourne was snarling and whining like a stupid little prick, he came out with rubbish and spent the whole time going over irrational stats. He was hysterical! And then Ken Clarke spoke and well…I’m not fan at all of Thatchers Regaenomics but he completely floored Osbourne when it just came to being bright and having any presence. Yes they are on the same team but it really showed how poor this Tory line up is.

And Cameron? Well no comment there.

Just admit things for what they are. You hardly have a team of all stars but hey something tells me these empty suits were put on course because they were ‘youthful and current’.

I mean Osbourne is just like us, he does a little coke and our man Dave is a geezer, who wears converse trainers! But you’ll more likey than not win because the Right will always be more unified in their dogma, than the Left-who like to discuss (gives too much room for disagreements!) and see themselves as pushing for equality and democracy.

Lol, we know that never works with society!

I think that Hague could do well in a Foreign Secretary debate, but I think more likely to be a score draw.

However:

“3. As for a Treasury debate, I’d watch that one just for the entertainment value of seeing Cable chew both opponents into tiny little kibbles. ”

Perhaps last summer I would have agreed, but I think St Vince’s halo slipped somewhat during this interview with Andrew Neil:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00mzzwj/b00mzzks/Straight_Talk_19_09_2009/

(I saw this originally on Guido Fawkes site)

And yes, there was a huge campaign by the Daily Mail that showed, ahem, everyone wanted Cable as a chancellor but not nec the Libs as a govt. If anyone bothers to read what people feel, say 400 + comments on the Mail, they would see that 99% wanted Cable.

Well, when opinion pollsters ask which party people feel has the best economic policies, the Lib Dems do worst of all. Even when Cable is specifically name-checked in the question. And I may have mentioned before that looking at comment threads under newspaper articles is really not the best way of forming a judgement about anything.

The argument espoused by the piece here is that Osborne is unpopular and a weak link. And all I’m saying is that there is no evidence whatsoever to support this. Whether you look at the party as a whole, or specifically at Osborne’s job within the party, he and the Tories are way out in front. Conversely, despite the sage of Twickenham’s fabulous status, the Lib Dems have lost ground over the course of this Parliament. And that’s because people have stopped treating him as a politician, and started treating him as a pundit.

I believe that tens of thousands signed a petition to get Jeremy Clarkson as Prime Minister. It’s the same with Vince…

Yeah right because using your experience and knowledge of society plus some political research, those figures you rustled up have nothing to do with the fact that we have just entered a stinging recession?

Do you want to rustle up some said figures after Maggie pissed off, Major took over and then New Labour won? Eh? Do you? Because in fact Major wasn’t that bad a PM and we had far greater consistency in terms of rich against poor with Major-the equality gap went higher with Major after Thatcher brought it really low and than went even lower with Blair but did people care? No! And they wanted to just get rid of the government that got them in that recession…

Both situations Tim are kneejerk and have NOTHING to do with the quality of the chancellor or even the PM who takes over at that short period of time, what an odd paragraph.

And yes, there was a huge campaign by the Daily Mail that showed, ahem, everyone wanted Cable as a chancellor but not nec the Libs as a govt. If anyone bothers to read what people feel, say 400 + comments on the Mail, they would see that 99% wanted Cable.

But it didn’t matter that he was with the Libs. The correlation did not occur in peoples prejudiced mindsets that maybe a party that has someone like that as such an important figure head would be any good to govern.

But hey even on this site with a load of intellectuals it all comes down to tribalism. My party is better than your party.

I’m a Lib Dem and consider myself left but even I can admit when I see the Tories come up with decent ideas or Labour because you know what, it ain’t personal, this isn’t about my ego but about trying to get some sort of sustainability to exist in this country and research/observe/analyse who are the best to do that.

Sigh, if we could only scrap the concept of political parties and actually have a system were you vote in for the best person to do the blimming job!

I think the last poll was a ComRes in December with a spilt of 33/26/16 for best placed. Ignoring don’t knows/none of the aboves, that gives a spilt of 44/35/21.

correlation does not equal causation, as you know. I wonder if there’s a poll asking ppl who they think will be the best Chancellor..

Since Darling was appointed Chancellor, Labour’s polling position has fallen from 39 to 30

Since Osborne was appointed shadow Chancellor, the Tories polling position has increased from 31 to 40.

Osborne is clearly the weak link.

hahahahaha!

Most voters will not look at the evidence you cite – what they will look at is the fact that we have been through a terrible recession, and Gordon Brown is a tired, clapped-out old shit of a leader -and this election is a chance to get rid of him.

On the face of it, there is no evidence that Cameron will do anything significantly worse than Brown will do. Both would make swinging cuts to services, potentially throwing us into a double dip recession.

The strategy seems to go with having run out of ideas. What is more worrying is the fact that the top two ideas suggested at this event seem to have been a green new deal and an attack on an opposition spokesman in person. Neither exactly novel, and neither likely to rejuvenate a tired government.

Historical note (just to explain a view above). The original new deal was possible because prior to 1929 the federal government of the United States was very small, and could therefore expand. Our government is not small (somewhere just under 50% of GDP if memory serves me right, although this could be a confusion of figures) so cannot really expand much further.

Rather like ‘New Labour, New Danger’ in 1997? The strategy seems to go with being a long-term incumbent government.