I know many of you out there reading this have, it is fair to say, never been fans of George Osborne. However, spare a moment to consider how quickly the Right have turned on him – for supposedly moral reasons as well. This excerpt from Janet Daley’s Telegraph article yesterday sums up perfectly this new, post-budget mode of thinking:
“So this has been coming for a long time: this thunderous collapse of the loose confederation between Conservative politicians who believed in something they thought was worth fighting for to the death, and those who had adopted the model of politics as a branch of public relations.”
For a start, I don’t recall Janet having such reservations about George Osborne’s morality a couple of weeks ago. It’s as if via Iain Duncan Smith’s resignation, the Right have decided to place all of austerity on the shoulders of Osborne (as they successfully did with Clegg previously), as if George has dragged them all kicking and screaming down a path they all looked upon in horror these last six years. As if IDS has been sat there this whole time around the cabinet table weeping “But what about the children? Let’s bring back good, old fashioned socialism, please” while Osborne sneered in the corner, sat on a cartoon pile of money.
This is complete rubbish: IDS has been as signed up to the measures the government he has been part of for the last six years as much as anyone has (in fact, more than most given his post at the DWP). The ironic thing about the Janet Daley article, actually, is it decries people like George Osborne for being only interested in PR while being itself part of an elaborate PR exercise.
I’m sure Iain Duncan Smith wasn’t fond of the cuts to disability benefit. But the timing of his resignation was based on pure calculation – one designed to inflict the maximum damage on George Osborne possible. And his reasons for doing this have nothing to do with austerity, or which cuts fall where, but something that has nothing to do with the budget – or indeed anything to do with the Treasury at all. IDS resigned from the cabinet when he did because of Osborne’s stance on Britain remaining in the European Union.
So the Right tells us that IDS represents some sort of moral beacon, the kind of politician who follows his heart, while telling us that Osborne only cares about strategy and power – all while IDS stabs Osborne because George has actually taken a principled stand on something for the good of the country, a move that looks like it will cost him a shot at being prime minister.
Dislike Osborne all you like for the budget – beyond anything else, it was stupid politics of the kind that someone of his supposed tactical genius should have understood was a bad move. When people think you’re the nasty party, cutting disability benefit while taking high earners out of more tax is never going to be the smoothest strategic decision. But however much you may distain George and his politics, bear in mind that he is being crucified by the Right for his stance on Europe – and nothing else.
Gr8 article – having watched the fall-out in 1996 from EU spats in the party – this dismal indiscipline and in- fighting now seems to be leading to a far more fundamental rupture – and one that may not easily be fixed – ever
Hopefully IDS’s toy throwing will allow a wider public to focus on exactly who the hardline anti-EU brigade are – and whether they represent the kind of politics one might want to support by voting out : unprincipled, infighting and paternalistic.
Osborne represents what they despise most – ant-nationalistic, socially liberal / fiscally conservative.
Conservatives should consider whether they want to stay in government beyond the next election – or revisit the dire days of Duncan Doughnuts’ party leadership.
IBS certainly had principles but that was part of the problem, he was so wedded to his ideology that he shouted down anyone who told him it wouldn’t work even with treasury support.
Osborne does represent mammonism, IBS represents principle but his ideas aren’t even that good in theory, and even worse when a man of limited intelligence is called upon to put them into practice. The limited support he got is one part, his own ideological and other limitations another.
As for Stephen Crabb, I don’t know much about him, save to say whenever I’ve seen or heard him he has simply regurgitated Young Dave’s talking points. When the obnoxious ideologue is replaced by the sycophant (I’m looking at you, Owen Paterson and Liz Truss) it’s celebrated by people who’d hated the incumbent but who really knows how it will end?
I see it like that too, Nick. I also find it amusing if not tragic that when Conservatives were smugly laughing at Labour’s mess with Corbyn last year they seem to be heading for a coup against the pragmatic side of their party too. Come 2020 neither will look electable the way things are going.
All this serves to highlight is that, regardless of tone, hug a hoody/husky or any other PR puff, the Tories of McMillan, Douglas Home etc have been replaced almost totally by Tea Party like clones who have no compunction in doing the nastiest things, so long as they are not exposed as such.
The dismemberment of our education system is another precursor to back door privatisation, and I am sure the architects of universal education are spinning in their graves.
What puzzles me is the Church of England’s silence on the issue; forced academisation will be the biggest sequestration of church assets since Henry VIII – in many rural areas the church owns virtually every primary school. I can’t see Odborne buying them or building replacements, or perhaps the Church will become a mega Academy chain