I got the impression George Osborne was brighter than most of the current lot, but used his intelligence for political ends (austerity, nearly destroying the LibDems) rather than for the benefit of the country. He wasn't intelligent enough to see that these actions would lead to the vote for Brexit and all the troubles we are in today.
I believe the Tories became the largest party in 2010 on the old Thatchite argument that the country should be run like a household and if you are living beyond your means the answer is to cut spending. They either didn't know or chose to ignore what would and did happen, that the austerity measures hit the economy and tax income and became self-perpetuating, not to mention all the social consequences which were a big factor in Brexit. Gordon Brown's 2010 line, while more in tune with economic principles, was a much harder sell to the public. The same approach was even more politically successful in 2015, to the extent that the Tories no longer needed the LibDems, thus destroying Cameron's probable assumption that he could promise a Brexit referendum but wouldn't have to deliver it.
I am not sure that he failed to grasp that it was a joke, I am more confident that he knew he could get The Daily Crucible or The Daily Excess to put it on the front page to discredit Labour when his austerity programme came in ('the alternative is a country that is broke'). What was less than intelligent was that the author of the note, Liam Byrne, did not seem to realise that it would be used against the Brown government.
Only if there was close to full turn out. Otherwise he should be safe. It is Uxbridge that wants him out in favour of Corbyn's friends but South / Ruislip will always vote in favour of any Conservative even if it is BoJo.
Priceless.
It'll be interesting to see if the Evening Standard (editor - George Osborne) pontificates about middle class marching powder use, with special reference to politicians and the chattering classes over the last fifteen years, say, whether with photographic evidence or not. It was originally planned, in those heady pre-Referendum days, that M. Gove would be G. Osborne's Campaign Manager when D. Cameron retired to spend more time with his offshore investments, pardon, family.
Look, a bus....
Oh come on now, it's a raising of the higher rate band. It doesn't just benefit the rich, although they certainly benefit more than anybody else. It benefits the full 30% of the population who need it least
Byrne knew his history, and was simply paraphrasing the Conservative Reginald Maudlin, after the 1964 election defeat to Labour.
Perhaps, but this was a subtlety that was hardly going to get a mention anywhere (except perhaps The Guardian). The usual suspects (which a large number of moderate voters read) simply used it as a stick to beat the Brown government and have repeated it ever since - I am sure my MP used it in either 2015 or 2017.
It's something Liam Byrne is on record as being hugely regretful of, but at the end of the day it was just part of rich narrative of nonsense that Cameron and Osborne were so success at stitching together about the last Labour government. The ridiculous tale about selling off the gold had even less root in reality but they put out through friendly (and unfriendly) media outlets until it was accepted as a fact. For that matter the whole austerity pitch was just some vaguely credible-sounding dribble with no base in economics or finance.
It was interesting hearing all these Tory leadership candidates yesterday saying what they will or will not do as if we had a say in their election.
That may be so compared to the rest of the field, but I don't think I'd agree if the yardstick was any normal one of sense and reasonableness.
Perhaps they were speaking to the party membership who do have a say in their election.It was interesting hearing all these Tory leadership candidates yesterday saying what they will or will not do as if we had a say in their election.
If I believe what I read, that's what a majority of the people who will elect the new Tory leader did last month.
I'm not sure anybody's massive angry about it, but there are two reasons for pointing it out. The first is that it demonstrates that our national leader is in no way directly elected, which challenges various claims that Europe is somehow less democratic. The second is that Boris in particular is on record puffing out a bunch of his trademark faux outrage when Gordon Brown did exactly the same thing, and nobody much cares for a hypocrite
Yeah, read about this recently. I'm sure if Boris gets the job he will insist on a general election. Ha ha.
