Morning:
10°c
No one can accuse the Conservative party conference this week of being short on specifics.
It has opened with promises that the Tories would cut payments for many people now on incapacity benefit in order to fund what David Cameron calls a "big, bold" shake-up of the benefit system intended to get more people back to work.
The plan would also mean scrapping Gordon Brown's flagship New Deal for the unemployed.
These proposals have, if nothing else, taken some of the spotlight off the toxic question of Europe and whether and how David Cameron would hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty if it were already ratified by all the other member states.
London's mayor, Boris Johnson, has said that he favours a referendum, including questions on not just the treaty but continued UK membership of the EU.
But Mr Johnson's challenges to his party's leadership do not end there: he has also suggested that his own mayoralty might offer some lessons for the party nationally in how to cut public spending without endangering public services.
In particular he says that he is planning to save £5 billion over nine years at Transport for London by reducing spending on consultants and cutting backroom office costs.
Where TfL leads, the nation can follow, he suggests. It is certainly welcome if he can cut TfL's spending, so long as cuts do not hit numbers of drivers and station staff.
If significant sums are saved by cutting waste then Londoners should expect to be spared above-inflation rises in bus and Tube fares next year.
Is London, under Mr Johnson's ebullient aegis, indeed a template for the rest of the country? Certainly it is good that Mr Johnson is freezing the Mayor's precept, his levy on council tax, and he is right to trim City Hall's wasteful bureaucracies.
Inevitably, cutting spending on a national scale will be a greater challenge.
This week Mr Cameron will be at pains to show that he is realistic about the size of the task, both in cutting spending and reviving the economy - without making the prospect of a Conservative government look too austere.
Cleaner London air
Boris Johnson's U-turn on the Low Emissions Zone was almost inevitable. The LEZ already covers lorries and buses coming into London, forcing them to comply with air pollution standards but the Mayor had previously pledged to postpone the third phase of the zone, which would apply to smaller vans and older black cabs.
However, without the full scheme, London would have exceeded EU air pollution limits, thereby attracting £300 million in fines.
It would have been irresponsible for the Mayor to allow us to be fined in that way.
Mr Johnson's rationale for postponing the LEZ had been that it would impose too great a burden on small businesses with older vans.
Certainly the cost of upgrading vehicle exhaust systems to meet new pollution standards or buying new vehicles could be significant for many small businesses feeling the pain of a recession.
But they have three years in which to do so before the new rules will come into force.
The Government's scrappage scheme will help. Ministers should also look at incentives for retrofitting cleaner exhausts. London's air quality is the worst in the UK and among the worst in Europe.
Diesel vans contribute almost a quarter of PM10 pollution, the small particles of dirt most responsible for lung diseases. Cleaning up our air is a worthwhile aim.
Raising the game
Andrew Marr, on his Sunday BBC programme last week, caused consternation by asking the Prime Minister whether he was taking prescription drugs.
Yesterday, he embarrassed David Cameron by asking him about his personal wealth.
All of which raises the interesting issue: whether it is more personally embarrassing for a British politician to be asked about their wealth or their health?
