FT: Tories to ditch Osborne in favour of Hague?

A month ago Lib Dem Voice’s Alix Mortimer suggested it was high-time the Tories considered ditching their under-whelming shadow chancellor, George Osborne:

My guess is that Cameron is wincing his way through the current crisis, burying his head in a cushion every time George goes on TV, and he’s planning the reshuffle. He hasn’t spent all this time and effort decontaminating the Tory brand to have his plans trashed by some oily twerp who hides his weekly treasury briefings down the back of the sofa, old mate or not. He can’t afford to go into a General Election side-by-side with a man whose claim to competence is that he “talks to people about the economy a lot”. George Osborne, you are the weakest link. And you read it here first. Goodbye.

A week ago LDV’s Mark Pack noted Mr Osborne’s plunging popularity among the public and Tory grassroots.

Now the Financial Times is joining the refrain:

The scale and substance of the criticisms has reached a point where MPs are openly discussing possible replacements for one of David Cameron’s closest allies. One reshuffle scenario doing the rounds would put William Hague, the former leader, in the Treasury job, with Mr Osborne moved to an enhanced party chairman role that would wrap in his other roles as election co-ordinator and strategist.

… the perception [is] that Mr Osborne, and by extension the Conservative party, has suffered a bad run-up to the recession. His decision to outflank Labour by matching the government’s spending plans and refusing to pledge unfunded tax cuts worked when the economy was in good shape. But the Tories now find themselves in the exposed position of advocating less radical action on tax and spending than their political rivals.

“George was a good chancellor for the good times – now he’s lost credibility,” said one MP.

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in News.
Advert

10 Comments

  • I’ve always thought that David Cameron must have secretly resented Michael Howard’s decision to put Osborne in as Shadow Chancellor after the 2005 general election but before Cameron’s own election as party leader, effectively taking the decision out of his hands. Having assumed the Tory leadership, he couldn’t very well sack his own closest political ally from such a senior position, but I very much doubt that he would have made the decision to promote him to that role in the first place, had he been given the choice.

    To do it now might be seen as weakness, but it would make a fair bit of political sense for the Tories. Osborne isn’t suited to his present role and would probably be more useful in a role of, say, party chairman, where Caroline Spelman has been doing rather poorly. The bigger problem is the lack of a credible replacement for Osborne; Hague is a throwback and his only relevant experience comes from having been a member of John Major’s Cabinet pre-1997 – hardly something to shout about!

    For sheer comedy value all round, I have to hope that John Redwood gets the job! 🙂

  • Clegg's Candid Friend 12th Nov '08 - 1:32pm

    “The bigger problem is the lack of a credible replacement for Osborne”

    Why not Kenneth Clarke?

  • Good point. Turning the clock back 15 years might be the best option that the Tories have!

  • A ConHome survey a while back had a plurality in favour of Ken Clarke returning to the front bench.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert

Recent Comments

  • Simon McGrath
    This seems a surprising decsion. The problem in the London housing markets is not ' deevlopers arent building affordable homes' is that noone is building homes ...
  • Jana
    “ and argued that local people deserve to be able to afford to live in the communities they grew up in.” So, is the plan that local people who ‘grew up...
  • Peter Martin
    @ Paul R , The EU Treaties may not explicitly use the term "political union," but they legally codify the core objectives of "ever closer union among the pe...
  • Peter Martin
    '...
  • Peter Martin
    Andy Burnham does seem to have a knack of choosing constituencies which don't have a railway station -at least not for their major town. Neither Ashton-in-Maker...