Cabinet reshuffle should Osborne go? (and a little on Clegg)

DonDaddyD

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19462469

So the first Coalition cabinet reshuffle is upon us. Should Osborne go? England is - perception wise - in no worse shape than expected, but it isn't in a better shape either. In fact (Alders is closing down in Croydon, the Country is doomed).

He, for political reasons, will not be moved but do you think he should? Why?

Who do you think is in for the chop and who should be bought in?

Also, while listening to LBC the presenter made a good point. Nick Clegg has something like 50 - 60 MPs and yet has arguably more than 50% of his manifesto pushed through the Coalition. He has literally done the impossible and yet seems to be universally hated with people vowing never to vote Lib Dem again (or while he is leading it at lease). The guy has taken the party further than its ever been in my lifetime - surely he needs recognition of this?

EKE_38BPM

LBC for kids.
Radio 4 for adults.

Anonymous

Like rearranging deckchairs on the titanic, as Queen_UK so eloquently put it

bompington

I don't think Osborne should go, maybe just ban him for a week

rick_chasey

Osborne's ratings are super low.

Latest ICM poll:

Nearly half (48%) of voters say he should lose his job in the reshuffle.

This rises to 52% among the over 65s and 53% among those aged between 35 and 64 – the age groups that are most likely to vote.


More than a third (39%) of those who voted Conservative in 2010 believe Osborne should be moved. This rises to 60% among Labour voters and 62% among Liberal Democrat voters.

The chancellor has now overtaken Nick Clegg at the bottom of the rankings for poor job satisfaction.

Osborne has a ranking of minus 32 points compared with minus 26 for the deputy prime minister. David Cameron is on minus 12 points, just ahead of Ed Miliband on minus 13 points.

Of voters who supported the Tories in 2010, 44% believe Osborne is doing a bad job, with 43% saying he is doing a good job (43%).

This is in sharp contrast to the prime minister. More than two thirds (67%) of Conservative voters in 2010 believe he is doing a good job compared with 25% of those who believe Cameron is doing a bad job.

The difficult statistics for Osborne come as a growing number of senior Tories say the prime minister will only be able to refresh his government if he moves, but does not sack, Osborne.

.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012 ... sfeed=true

If you were Cameron, you'd get rid of him on the basis of those figures, surely?

greg66_tri_v2.0

Why would anyone move Osborne? He has the most toxic job in the Govt, and he's basically taking one for the team (repeatedly). The job of Chancellor at the moment is the most poisoned of chalices, because there's simply no jam to bribe people with.

Move him on and you won't rehabilitate him. All you'll do is kill the reputation of whoever replaces him.

FWIW, I seem to recall hearing in 2008 some academic say that the next election was not one that Cameron should aspire to win, because he'd be walking into a complete mess. Most prescient.

edhornby

should he? Yes

will he? No

should be working on growth not just hacking at the numbers and relying on the old 'markets want it' schtick

won't go because he's too close, personally, politically and intellectually to Cam

jds_1981

Greg66 wrote:

Why would anyone move Osborne? He has the most toxic job in the Govt, and he's basically taking one for the team (repeatedly). The job of Chancellor at the moment is the most poisoned of chalices, because there's simply no jam to bribe people with.

Move him on and you won't rehabilitate him. All you'll do is kill the reputation of whoever replaces him.

FWIW, I seem to recall hearing in 2008 some academic say that the next election was not one that Cameron should aspire to win, because he'd be walking into a complete mess. Most prescient.

Mervyn King said something along those lines?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010 ... ion-victor

Bank of England governor Mervyn King reportedly said austerity cuts will be so severe that general election winner will make itself unelectable

chadders81

A good work contact assures me that Lansley, Pickles and Justine Greening are out the door. I'll see how reliable she is tomorrow.

But I the Greening thing stacks up since they abandoned the decision on the West Coast franchise and said they'd review it i.e. let the transport secretary decide.

Santa cruzing

DonDaddyD wrote:

Nick Clegg has something like 50 - 60 MPs and yet has arguably more than 50% of his manifesto pushed through the Coalition. He has literally done the impossible and yet seems to be universally hated with people vowing never to vote Lib Dem again (or while he is leading it at lease). The guy has taken the party further than its ever been in my lifetime - surely he needs recognition of this?

This is the bit that amazes me most, and has done since the coalition was formed. People seem to forget that Clegg is not in charge! Peole berate him for not putting things right, and not fighting Cameron. People that voted for him are abandoning him because his influence is not strong enough.

Whilst I am young enough to not know much about politics and remain content with my limited knowledge, this really winds me up! I'm sure I've even shouted at the news because the BBC were contently talking him down without clarifying the point!

rick_chasey

Santa cruzing wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Nick Clegg has something like 50 - 60 MPs and yet has arguably more than 50% of his manifesto pushed through the Coalition. He has literally done the impossible and yet seems to be universally hated with people vowing never to vote Lib Dem again (or while he is leading it at lease). The guy has taken the party further than its ever been in my lifetime - surely he needs recognition of this?

This is the bit that amazes me most, and has done since the coalition was formed. People seem to forget that Clegg is not in charge! Peole berate him for not putting things right, and not fighting Cameron. People that voted for him are abandoning him because his influence is not strong enough.

Whilst I am young enough to not know much about politics and remain content with my limited knowledge, this really winds me up! I'm sure I've even shouted at the news because the BBC were contently talking him down without clarifying the point!

Clegg's biggest problem isn't the policies he's failed to force the Tories to either put in or abandon.

His problem is his coalition rhetoric doesn't help his party.

rick_chasey

Hunt and Greening are out apparently.

mybreakfastconsisted

I guess we've all seen Osborne sweating like a paedophile on a bouncy castle as 60,000 people boo him?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0nMtSJD ... ture=share

I had NEVER felt sorry for Osborne before.





Still don't.

rick_chasey

IDS and Gove are staying put too.

Shame for me. Gove particularly bothers me education minister.

daviesee

I quite enjoy listening/reading people going on as if it will make any difference.

More lambs to the slaughter through the revolving door and it doesn't matter who they are or what party they represent.

DonDaddyD

My personal feelings is that the Lib Dems made promises of making things fairer. What they didn't do is explain that to do so would place many people - who benefitted under Labor's unsustainable policy - would be placed at a financial disadvantage.

The Lib Dems (ergo Clegg) also didn't anticipate that 'fairer' in a recession was never going to be the same as 'fairer' in a time of economic prosperity. The decisions they have had to make and/or support are hard but when has an economic downturn ever been easy?

mybreakfastconsisted

Warsi to Culture, or International Development unless that's felt tokenistic.

jedster

He won't move Osbourne and I wouldn't in his shoes.
Anyone (including Ed bloody Balls) doing the job would be extremely unpopular now because there is so little room for manouvre, the differences between the parties on the degree and nature of spending cuts is pretty small in reality. People, including jouralists who should know better*, totally overestimate the ability of a government to accelerate our way out of this mess. It's depressing and dull to accept the truth that the recovery is inevitably going to be long and grinding because that's what recoveries from massive credit bubbles and banking crises are like.

*Actually I think many of them do know better but it makes pretty dull copy if you acknowledge it.

So jettison one of your most talented colleagues and a personal friend to end up back in the same mess with a new chancellor? Where is the sense in that?

rick_chasey

jedster wrote:

He won't move Osbourne and I wouldn't in his shoes.
Anyone (including Ed bloody Balls) doing the job would be extremely unpopular now because there is so little room for manouvre, the differences between the parties on the degree and nature of spending cuts is pretty small in reality. People, including jouralists who should know better*, totally overestimate the ability of a government to accelerate our way out of this mess. It's depressing and dull to accept the truth that the recovery is inevitably going to be long and grinding because that's what recoveries from massive credit bubbles and banking crises are like.

*Actually I think many of them do know better but it makes pretty dull copy if you acknowledge it.

So jettison one of your most talented colleagues and a personal friend to end up back in the same mess with a new chancellor? Where is the sense in that?

Straw poll in my office, which is, apart from me, bread and butter Tory right. Small sample for sure, but they seem not too dissimilar to the poll stats quoted above.

All but one (5 outa 6) think Osbourne's in a tricky situation but think he comes across badly and has a bad rep.

Only one reckons he's any good or adding any value. The other five think there's little value to be added whoever it is beyond looking credible so that the Tory policies can be digested, and they're not sure he does.

I genuinely don't think he's particularly able as a politician. The various U-turns on the budget during the "omnishambles" week struck me as as someone who wasn't sure what was going on and how things would be received by the public - which, as a politician (as opposed to say, a Treasury technocrat) is kinda what he's there for.

Either you're a conviction politician and you do things because you think they have to be done regardless of public opinion ( within reason), or you're a populist. Either is fine, they have their problems, but at least there's a clear agenda. His budgets strike me as neither, and he's worse off for it.

DonDaddyD

I don't buy that 'little room for movement argument'.

We know Osborne's job is a poison challice etc. He should be judged upon the effectiveness of the policies he implements and his ability to deliver against targets (he sets).

jedster

"I don't buy that 'little room for movement argument'."

Yeah DDD but by your own admission, you are never one to allow weight of evidence to get in the way of your opinion!
;0)

The Rookie

You can only achive targets you set if all the reasonable assumptions made come true, the Euro zone has gone down the pan to a much greater extent than anyone else predicted, 'globalisation' means no one country is an economic island where it is master of it's own destiny any more.

Osbourne is between a rock and a hard place, has he done a bad job, no, has he done a blindingly good one, no, could anyone have done better, I don't think so.

Has his 'PR' been rubbish, yes, should we actually base our decisions on PR or on what they achieve, I know the previous shower did and to an extent were very succesful at it until it all came crashing down around their (and ours as well, Thanks Tony and Gordon) emphasises why I prefer substance over style!

jedster

Actually, to play the ball not the man, can anyone come up with a policy to drive growth in the economy that

a) will make a material difference
b) will not terrify the bond market*

* this matters because if the bond market gets the fear our borrowing costs will rise to levels that will curtail growth and widen the deficit

To my mind, the only serious option is a large increase in infrastructure spending but it carries serious risks of b) plus the problem that the lead time is such that it the stimulus effect may be a bit late.

On balance, I'd still do it - because I think we may well still find the stimulus useful in 5 years time (told you it was depressing). Guess what? I think Cameron and Osbourne are pretty much on the same page and we are beginning to see these kind of policies come through (e.g., recent announcements on guaranteeing private sector borrowing for infrastructure, repositioning to get on with expanding airport capacity, etc). Personally I'd go a bit fiuther and introduce road tolls more widely to fund a big road improvement programme but apparently that is toxic at the polling booth...

Any others?

rick_chasey

jedster wrote:

Actually, to play the ball not the man, can anyone come up with a policy to drive growth in the economy that

a) will make a material difference
b) will not terrify the bond market*

* this matters because if the bond market gets the fear our borrowing costs will rise to levels that will curtail growth and widen the deficit

To my mind, the only serious option is a large increase in infrastructure spending but it carries serious risks of b) plus the problem that the lead time is such that it the stimulus effect may be a bit late.

On balance, I'd still do it - because I think we may well still find the stimulus useful in 5 years time (told you it was depressing). Guess what? I think Cameron and Osbourne are pretty much on the same page and we are beginning to see these kind of policies come through (e.g., recent announcements on guaranteeing private sector borrowing for infrastructure, repositioning to get on with expanding airport capacity, etc). Personally I'd go a bit fiuther and introduce road tolls more widely to fund a big road improvement programme but apparently that is toxic at the polling booth...

Any others?

Bond market seems pretty chilled from what I've been reading.

Borrowing's not been cheaper for a very very very long time. Even the City backers of austerity measures in the past are now saying it's time for some stimulus - but these arguments go around in circles on forums.

Commenting on the man means people from all colours can comment, or in my case, I try to comment on the polls etc since it removes a certain amount of political hue from the thinking. Not particularly successfully, but still.

jedster

BTW - another test on growth policy - it should be spending that generates a positive return, i.e., it will make the economy more profitable in the future

jedster

Bond market seems pretty chilled from what I've been reading.

Agreed. But it would be rash to assume that it stays that way of the markets conclude that the Government is
a) no longer serious about reducing the deficit
b) willing to p1ss away (the bond market's) money on stupid things that are not going to help them pay off the debt in the future...

rick_chasey

jedster wrote:

Bond market seems pretty chilled from what I've been reading.

Agreed. But it would be rash to assume that it stays that way of the markets conclude that the Government is
a) no longer serious about reducing the deficit
b) willing to p1ss away (the bond market's) money on stupid things that are not going to help them pay off the debt in the future...

Sure, but the bond prices have been rising a bit recently because of fears of lack of growth, which is as big a threat to deficit reduction as excessive state spending is.

Make use of the borrowing while it's cheap and spend it wisely. We could all do without an economy with tendencies towards recession.

vermin

George enjoyed a particularly warm reception in the Olympic stadium last night, as he was introduced to present some medals.

mybreakfastconsisted

Fatty sweaty Osborne's first job was folding towels in Selfridges. He should have stuck to what he was good at. According to the prostitute who it's claimed shared charlie with Gideon, the other men at the party were rude and coarse. Gideon was shy and polite but flaccid and inept in bed.

rick_chasey

Er..

DonDaddyD

jedster wrote:

"I don't buy that 'little room for movement argument'."

Yeah DDD but by your own admission, you are never one to allow weight of evidence to get in the way of your opinion!
;0)

And

Osbourne is between a rock and a hard place, has he done a bad job, no, has he done a blindingly good one, no, could anyone have done better, I don't think so.

The evidence is there that proves that Osborne has missed his deficit reduction targets. He is borrowing more than he said he would and the economy hasn't picked up. His room for movement would be that he could have done things differently - you cannot judge a job on that. You can measure his effectiveness on results and meeting targets.