Cameron and Osborne all smiles, for now
James Forsyth 11:13am
David Cameron and George Osborne are both singing from the same hymn sheet about the fact that there was no Granita style deal between the two of them in their joint interviews with the Mail and the Telegraph. The big difference between Cameron and Osborne and Blair and Brown is that Osborne was never the senior partner and as the younger man need not fear that he’s missed his turn.
Probably the most likely source of future tension between the two of them is foreign policy. Where as Cameron is a classic Conservative when it comes to foreign policy, see his Berlin speech which was depressingly Hurdian, Osborne’s world view is far more modern. In opposition this kind of difference is not that important but in government it could become a real problem.
Previous
Comments
David
December 20th, 2007 1:07pmHalf the time you complain Cameron isn't Conservative enough. Poor guy can't catch a break.
Ray
December 20th, 2007 1:25pmHurrah for a return of realpolitik! Much mocked and derided at the time, with the hindsight born of our experiences in Kosovo and Iraq is now easier to understand why Douglas Hurd was desperate to keep Britain out of any Balkan imbroglio. Hurd's only fault was he was too cautious in his non-intervention: he should have quietly permitted the rearming of the Bosnians and the Croats much sooner so that stalemate with the Serbs would have forced an end to the fighting in 1992/3 rather than allowing the war to drag on for another four years.
George
December 20th, 2007 1:56pmAre we really that desperate for news stories? I'd be truly alarmed if they had identical opinions on everything - they already look similar enough to cause some concerns.
David Lindsay
December 20th, 2007 4:24pm"More modern"? With no Election until 2010, how could a very Noughties foreign policy be "more modern" than one which eschews such decidedly unconservative concepts as coercive utopianism, world government, and the use of "realist" as a term of abuse, and which instead takes into account the re-emergence of multipolarity and multilateralism from Moscow, to Tehran, to Caracas, with several more to follow in the near future? Even George Bush now accepts these as the facts of life, and is behaving accordingly. So Osborne is a throwback even now, never mind in 2010 and beyond. By then, he won't even be dangerous. He'll just be ridiculous. Indeed, he already is.
Maggie Thatcher Fan
December 20th, 2007 4:40pmSlow day?
Anan
December 20th, 2007 5:27pmThere isn't a big Conservative split, so let's just make one up! With "Conservative-supporting" sites like this and conservativehome, who needs Labour.com?! Nice one guys!
TGF UKIP
December 21st, 2007 7:04pmI did a print of Dave's Berlin Speech just in case I ever came to consider voting for the Cameron Tories. In that extremely unlikely event all I would need to do would be to dig out that speech to put an end to such foolishness. Couple that speech together with the Dave policy of continuing Brown's underfunding of the Armed Forces and Cameron's unfitness to lead the Party of Winson Churchill and Margaret Thatcher is demonstrated beyond peradventure. But still Foxy doesn't resign. Perhaps, he's waiting for AQ's coming "Big One" to prove him right.
David Lindsay
December 23rd, 2007 2:04amTGF UKIP, your party opposed the Iraq War. Good for it, but I don't know why you're in it.
Philip Hurst
December 26th, 2007 11:07amWhat smug silliness. Just what is "Hurdian", Mr Forsyth? And why is it depressing? Perhaps it would be helpful to ease a little of your self-satisfaction at having coined a meaningless neologism and be explicit as to the failings of the speech, and then judge whether is is "depressing" in its own terms, rather than glibly offering throw-away offence to Douglas Hurd as a sly way of criticising Cameron.