With thanks to Stephanie Flanders

The Tories now have two lines which are compelling. One is a gift to Labour and well highlighted by the BBC's Stephanie Flanders - the other comes from their own endeavour, although they possibly haven't thought it through yet.

1. If Labour has identified large amounts of waste, why wait a year to stop the waste? Why tax the economy in order to waste the money? Why borrow in order to waste money? Now, Maynard Keynes would say that there is no such thing as wasted government spending in a recession - but most of us cannot see the point of paying one man to dig a hole, and another to fill it in, to use Keynes's example. Osborne was a little slow to use this important point - probably he had not fully thought it through, possibly he was a little worried at the small matter of opportunism having denied the existence of Labour's efficiency savings, more likely it was just the vicissitudes of debate. But can Labour explain why cuts of waste should be deferred?

2. Labour highlight their stimulus measures. They stress the help to businesses that they will give? But how can it make sense to increase employer's national insurance? Labour propose taxing business generally in order to put money into chosen businesses and chosen business areas. And, throughout the process, there will be waste and inefficiency. Even if the civil service is thoroughly efficient, there will be costs in managing the process. And for what point - to tax business in order to stimulate business?

All in all, not so pessimistic. Osborne did okay, which should be enough to blunt the strongest attacks on him. Maybe, like Brown, he could even engage public sympathies for having been subject to attacks. He remains "not the best choice", but should have ceased to be a positive liability.

But, it all rather depends on the Tories sowing together simple points into a compelling narrative. In the above, with particular thanks to Stephanomics, they should have the starts.