Brown still does something to the right-wing press...

The Sun has got excited about the Chancellor of the Sex-chequer's "cut-price condoms" and "cheap champagne"...  A second 'right-wing' newspaper - The Daily Mail - also has a frontpage to delight Labour's next leader...

It's certainly true that The Sun is warm about David Cameron's response to the Budget speech (as are most newspapers) and within The Daily Mail there is plenty of critical commentary about Mr Brown's Tenth Budget...

• Stephen Pollard writes that 'Money alone is not the answer'...
• Senior economist Michael Taylor wrotes about 'A tax burden that's paralysing Britain'...
• and Alex Brummer, Mail City Editor, notes that 'His problems are mounting'...

...but overall there's still a lot of residual warmth to the 'Iron Chancellor' who is desperate to move into Ten Downing Street.  There is, of course, a bit of Blair-bashing within the Brown-boosting but there is deeper affection/ respect for Brown in the two newspapers' high-ups.  The Chancellor is known to have a good relationship with Mail Editor Paul Dacre.  Rupert Murdoch is also known to be positive towards Brown. 

Today's newspapers are a reminder that two newspapers that Margaret Thatcher was able to take for granted are not going to be easy cheerleaders for David Cameron in his forthcoming battles with Brown.

MORE BUDGET LINKS CAN BE FOUND ON THE FRONTPAGE.

Comments

[malcolm]

Not sure I agree with the premise of this thread.Generally Browns budgets are initially well received in the press for a day and are then criticised after the details have been exposed.This budget has received the coolest reception I can remember.
I do wonder about the Mail 'though.As you say the splash is favourable to Brown but the budget is torn apart on the inside pages.I wonder if 1)the Mail is trying to talk up Brown to get rid of Blair more quickly or 2)the front page was designed before the journalists writing the etailed commentary had completed their work.
The Sun is easier to explain,they won't be nasty to Labour until Murdoch tells them to be.

[kingbongo]

The contrast between the Sun and Times is getting quite interesting. The Times has been pretty scathing about Brown just recently while the Sun has been 'bigging him up'. This looks like Murdoch hedging his bets.

Cameron has received a surprisingly positive repsonse from the Sun today and I'm sure he'll be pleased about that.

Also now El Gordo has told us he's going to set out aspirations with no plan on how to pay for them beyond mutterings about mythical savings I think we can safely promise everyone a free roast chicken on Sundays during 2010 11, 12, 13 14 and holidays to Florida for those with children who are 5 then 9 then 11, 14 and 15. It would certainly be a better use of taxpayer's money then 'summer schools for entrepreneurs' - or we could just cut taxes but let's not go there.

[True Blue]

Editor,

An aside - is there any particular reason that you put "right-wing" in inverted commas when referring to the Mail? It implies that is it isn't really right wing, when it patently is, although in a bad way.

[True Blue]

The day the Sun switches editorial support to the Tories, is the day we can be certain of winning the election.

Incidentally, Osborne didn't do too well on Newsnight under Paxo's steely gaze. He was asked "Would you stick by the Chancellor's spending commitments in this budget?" He effectively answered "yes", but wouldn't say the word. A weak performance. He'll need to get some steel in his belly to face his opposite number when the time comes.

[Ted]

Osborne's performance on Paxman was dire - the obvious answers to Gordon's vision of increasing cash spent per pupil to some artificial target are around -

what is a meaningful target - why private schools? Why not the cash spent per pupil at best performing state school?
we've seen from NHS that throwing money in without meaningful reforms is wasteful - why do it again on Education?
Cash isn't the answer - refoprm & targeted funding in areas such as inner cities will produce better results.

He hadn't got analysts to prepare him on hidden things like the alignment of NI & income tax thresholds (in readiness for tax increases?)
He hadn't got a good story on why carbon taxes better than climate change levy.

Comes back to my oft repeated whinge - preparation, preparation, preparation.
Cable was prepared so come out much better.

[libertorian]

Very O/T but has anybody seen this?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/story/0,,1737445,00.html

[malcolm]

Osborne was also pretty poor on the Today programme yesterday.Some soundbites but no substance.Has he been over promoted?

[Editor]

Tue Blue: "Editor, An aside - is there any particular reason that you put "right-wing" in inverted commas when referring to the Mail? It implies that is it isn't really right wing, when it patently is, although in a bad way."

I will drop the inverted commas in future!

[Editor]

Thank you Rich. This is an important topic that I'll post about tomorrow. There was this in yesterday's Times, too:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,200-2097470,00.html

[Jon Gale]

Osbourne was good on Channel 4 News last night and BBC Breakfast this morning, but he got beat by Paxman on Newsnight.

[libertorian]

I hadn't seen the Times article, I only stumbled on the guardian link when browsing a conference football forum of all places and recognised the name!

It's certainly an interesting development when it comes to blog comment sections like this.

[Chris Palmer]

The Future's Bleak, The Future's Brown.

[a-tracy]

Re: The Guardian article I read it last night it was a 'Tracy' that did it - but not me!

[Ted]

regarding Murdoch I read Irwin Stelzers web log in Times. it was overall damning of Browns direction and underlying philosophy but ended
"Too bad that the Tories are better at jokes insulting people who happed to have been born before the members of the Nottinghill set than they are at developing plans to cut Britain’s tax burden."

Touchy or what! Seems Irwin could be bought by some grovelling apology for something. Boy George is obviously too young for someone of Irwin's seniority.

[J T Tozer]

Replying to a tracy

I agree with Stelzer, it's time that Cameron stopped this ludicrous line of attack. Gordon Brown is the age that Mrs Thatcher was when she first became PM. People in their mid-fifties will soon get fed up of being told they are over the hill when they reach that age, and we've got the vote. Agree about Osbourne, a very unfortunate manner, comes across as brash and arrogant, must do a lot better.

[Chad]

Osborne was all over the place on PM on Radio 4 too.

[Margaret]

Does Osborne have any credentials for being Shadow Chancellor, or is he just another pretty face?

[Jaz]

Margaret, what credentials DO you need? Did anyone actually think Maggie Thatcher would become one of Britains best prime ministers? Did anyone really think that Gordon Brown was going to be the longest running chancellor with 10 years of economic growth?

We need to stop crtising our own cabinet and critise a far worse Labour one.

[Margaret]

He's not a particularly good performer. Still wet behind the ears.

To stand up to Gordon Brown you need a heavyweight. Oliver Letwin was beaten by Brown, and he knew what he was talking about.

[matt wright]

I do think there are dangers in attacking people personally just because they are older eg on Brown. By all means say his ideas have not worked and are part of the past but don't attack his age or most voters will feel insulted,

Matt

[malcolm]

The Mail has certainly come to its senses (if it ever lost them).Browns budget is castigated in no uncertain terms today (Friday).

[Editor]

In which case, your post of 9.41am yesterday seems to have been vindicated, Malcolm.

[Richard Allen]

It really doesn't matter what the papers say today. Yesterdays headlines were a dream come true for Brown.

[Nižinskyj]

Oh reading this now is so good.