Cameron's Osborne comments are far from helpful to the Tory cause

marc antony

Ossie's time is not now, he does not ring true; Ken is required. Remember Bobby Robson's changes in Italia 90, enforced by circumstance?
It's worth all the flak to go with Ken, even at this stage. Shows Cam has the requisite ruthlessness and Ken is the master of the media. He has the gladiatorial nous to deal with the fat controller.
Who would Labour rather have as shadow chancellor? Ken or Ossie?
Also, in power he'd do the better job. Does the country not need the best man?
Make that move, Dave!

C

Your over analysing this.

He was asked a question and gave an answer.

Austin Barry

In the absence of a robust response from Osborne, Cameron's comments simply compound the perception of George as a weak and insipid acolyte - Copperfield to Cameron's Steerforth.

As each day passes the Tories appear more and more attentuated and floundering - languid toffs indeed. I can just imagine Brown and his bully boys watching the Downing Street TV and making vigorous 'tosser' gestures whenever Cameron's bland, low-definition features and pious homilies fade into view.

Vulture

I know Dave has plenty of fans on this site. But isn't it weird that never, not once, have I read a comment supporting Ozzie.

That's because everyone - even Dave - knows he's a useless, economically illiterate lightweight. Despised in the City; laughed at by economists; and detested by the public whenever and wherever he shows his smirking, supercilious little gob.

Far from Dave's comment being 'unhelpful' I think he was giving his chum a hint with a capital 'H'. Why on earth doesn't the little fella do us all a favour and just piss off back where he came from?

Andy

Vulture,

'That's because everyone - even Dave - knows he's a useless, economically illiterate lightweight. Despised in the City'

In a recent City poll, Ken Clarke was first choice as Chancellor, Osborne was 2nd.

Darling came 4th!!

Amongst the Labour voters, Clarke got more votes than Mandelson and Balls combined.

TrevorsDen

Vulture - Well I support Cameron and Osborne.

How can you say Osborne is useless?

Would Osborne have sold gold at a a low and subsequent massive loss?
Would Osborn have ignored advice and taxed pensions companies and ruined our system of occupational pensions?
Would Osborne have castrated the Bank of England and removed its role in regulating the banks (thereby precipitating our end of the credit crunch?
Would Osborne have run up a £90 billion structural deficit? Would the national Debt be heading upward to £1 trillion and beyond under Osborne?
Would 1.7 million have disappeared since 1997 under Osborne?
Would manufacturing decline from 20.9 per cent of the United Kingdom's GDP to below 13 per cent under Osborne?
Would we have a January trade gap of £8 billion despite a 25% devaluation under Osborne?
Would govt spending have doubled to £700 billion - leaving us with the small matter of finding £180 billion to find to pay for it - under Osborne?

What we do know is how useless Brown has been - so stop fantasising.

Moraymint

Vulture, I wish you'd come down off the fence.

David Boycott

I am not a particular Osborne fan, but I do find this obsession with him weird. Given Labour gave us - in Gordon Brown - the worst Chancellor in modern history and then a Chancellor so impotent he owes his position only to the even greater weakness of the Prime Minister, we can be absolutely confident that Osborne will make the best Chancellor since 1997.

JONNY

Vulture's spot on.
Boy George is a liability.
Ken as Chief Economic Spokeman (as is huinted) is worth

strapworld

Vulture, well written.

Osborne lost the support of a great many people 1, over the expenses-which is not resolved! and 2.Holidaying with Mandleson and the Russian billionaire with a dubious past.

Both show a man with too much arrogance and certainly no savvy!

Mind you Cameron cannot wear the saintly mantle. WisteriaMan still caned the expenses, although certainly not in the Gordon Brown league.

I much prefer georgie porgie to Maude, Letwin,Lansley and two brains. Goodness what a team of nonentities Cameron has got around him. No wonder they are useless at the moment.

radgie gadgie

Even though dave's response was honest, the fact that he chose to answer it in the way he did seems somewhat self indulgent and dilletante. This is precisely the kind of question that a serious contender for the PM's job should be able to smother or steam roller with an indulgent smile and move on. These are the times where dave needs to impress by force of personality that he has a single minded vision for the country that he is determined to carry out. This is the kind of stance that wins voters over. The fact that he is getting sidetracked by staffing issues gives big hints that he isnt up to the job.

Having said that, once the electionering starts in earnest, liebour's enforced repeating of 'we saved the world' and Ashcroft, Ashcroft, Ashcroft is likely to induce nausea after a while so the odds are still on for a narrow Tory victory.

Richard

I think you are being unfair to Georgie boy. Give the lad a go. Put him up infront of Paxman, he will win the argument easily.
He is well capable of trading blows with the French President so why not let him have a go at the poor public school boy, from the red brick Uni and millionare, Paxman.
For that matter why not let Hague loose a bit more he has a certain charm about him and goes down well with the female voters (I am told).
Mr Grayling; that very nice chap, seems to be a bit hamstrung right now...poor lad is worried he doesn't have a job so cheer him up and support him in public Dave!
I want to see a fair fight let Sam Cam loose in an Old Kent Road pub and tell everyone how class and priviledge doesn't matter.
That's the way to show people you have nothing to hide and a winning agenda.

JohnT

The problem with Osborne is that he reminds everyone that Dave is rather like him.
Clarke would not do that - he'd be a foil.
Clarke also knows a shrewd bit about the economy and the City. Unfortunately he's also a EU-nuch.
Can't have everything. Clarke it is, with Redwood in his team if poss.

stephen

Who's leaking this idea? Is it ITV trying to get some good ratings for their show or is it those in the Tory high command trying to judge the effect of dropping of their Boy?

Holly ......

Looks like he's not going to fall imto the Blair/Brown trap.
If he had to move him he would.
Simple,honest and Osborne would not go around campaigning to 'get Cameron',as Brown the almighty useless one did.
Cameron has no reason or intent to shuffle George until the economy is in better shape,so this is just an honest answer to a question.
Shock.horror.

Tiberius

I agree with C.

Clarke is a calculated risk. If he messed up while holding a higher brief, the fallout would be greater.

Btw, has anyone read the drivel written by Heffer in the DT today? I'm pleased to see many of the responses to it characterize it as such.

Why is the centre Right relatively more prone to self-immolation?

TrevorsDen

JohnT makes a good point - Clarke brings a bit of diversity. But the reason Clarke was brought back was that he would present a diverse face and the reason he chose to come bacl=k was to serve his country at a time of need.

So the realisation that we may see more of him is only to be expected.

Strap as ever rewrites history - Osborne did no holiday with Mandelson. The fact of course is that Mandelson told lots of tales out of school to Osborne and came to regret it. So its Mandelson who is the crap brained dope.

Oh and to drone on ...
the Telegraph says
"The Financial Services Authority (FSA) will drop its long-held commitment to so-called "light-touch" regulation in a major shake up of the way the UK market regulator operates,"
it has
"has called time on the era of "light-touch" or "principles-based" regulation and said that a new "outcomes-based" approach was needed "

Now remind me - Just who was behind this light touch regulation? Whoever the 'useless economically illiterate lightweight' person was, it was not Osborne.

denis cooper

Excellent idea - let's have a Chancellor running the UK economy who believes as a matter of deep-rooted ideological principle that there shouldn't even be such a thing as "the UK economy" for him to run.

Fergus Pickering

Richard, I've told you about your spelling before. I'm afraid it makes people who don't know you think you are a lower class twerp.

stephen

I wonder if Dave has had a similar conversation with "sinister" Steve Hilton? Team Osborne/Hilton/Coulson relly need to start delivering the goods on the campaign!

TGF UKIP

Ah, there you are Tiberius! Been very quiet though lately haven't you - embarrassment I suppose at the unholy mess your boy has made over what should have been putting the ball into an empty net.

I guess the only rival Calamity Cameron's got is your other boy Vokes.

General Zod

Fergus, don't you know? Richard is both dyslexic and a non-native English speaker.

He is also a fantastist.

denis cooper

"But the reason Clarke was brought back was that he would present a diverse face and the reason he chose to come back was to serve his country at a time of need."

That'll be "serve" in the way that a bull "serves" a cow.

Richard

@Fergus Pickering,

I am sorry I'm trying harder but you know it's not easy. It is a good job well-bred upper class people like you would not be so crass as to mention it.....even those that don't know me.
Thanks mate you're a real brick....did I spell that right?

Noa Zrk

Ken Clarke to replace Osborne?

Oh... if only there was a hatchet man of Michael "The Hair" Haseltine in his ruthless high Tory prime, hewing socialist heads left and right from scrawny ill prepared shoulders!

Richard

@General Zod
March 13th, 2010 6:21pm

Fergus, don't you know? Richard is both dyslexic and a non-native English speaker.

He is also a fantastist.[sic]

Glad to see you now understand...oh and fantasist I think you mean......or is that another example of your towering intellect and humour?

Verity

John Redwood's the man for Chancellor.

After we get a replacement, one we are comfortable voting for, for Calamity Cameron. (Hat tip TGI UKIP.)

Tiberius

I'm sorry to disappoint you, TGF, but a tough week at the office has kept me distracted - it's nothing to do with losing faith in Cameron or Osborne.

And a 2-1 win at Burnely today rather makes the end of the week something to celebrate, as YouGov's polls continue to look silly when compared with the others.

David Lindsay

If Cameron wants to sack Osborne, then why doesn't he just do it? What's stopping him?

TGF UKIP

Tiberius, despite my teasing I do know you to be a very solid small "c" conservative Tory, so two things seen in the Press re Cameron might just give you pause in your unbridled enthusiasm for your boy.

First of all Toby Harnden and James Kirkup reported in the DT last Sat that Dave had recruited from the Obama Administration, Anita Dunn and today in the FT in a report of Dave's meeting with Sarkozy, George Parker indicated that should he form a government (ho, ho, ho!) it was Dave's intention to ask the French along with the US to make a submission to the strategic defence review. French officails were said to be pleased. I'll bet they were and amused as well, for can you, for one moment, imagine the cheese eating etc inviting the Brits to do likewise.

And by the way if you have any need of illumination on Anita Dunn then I'm sure Frank P will be only too pleased to assist.

2trueblue

The man was qualifying that 'if' ... then the country would come first, rather than his friendship. I do not get how people fail to understand that.

Just bacause we have had a completely useless chancellor who has destroyed our economy and contiues to allow the UK to sink, there are idiots who spend their time speculating about Osbourne, whose profile is pretty good, and refuse to stick to the real rpoblem, keeping the searchlight on Brown and his mob. We actually know they are continuing to sink us further whilst we allow the media and ourselves to be distracted. Get a grip.

Ian Walker

There's a reason Labour are targetting Osbourne, but it isn't because they think he is the weak link. Privately, they are terrified of him.

2trueblue

Did anyone watch the interview with Clarke/Mandy/Snow? It was about a month ago, and frankly Clarke did not present well. When Mandy wasn't talking over him Snow was. He got rather snowed under! He has that irritating EH,EH,EH habit, and whilst he is pausing, they take the floor.

I am not sure he is up to speed for the sharp shooters of today. All of the presenters think that we are interested in hearing their views and continually take over and unless you are quick, slick, rude and continuallly interrupt they take over.

Otto

I've said this in couple of places but it bears repeating....the reason Cameron and co are fading is obvious.....They are increasingly perceived as lightweights whereas Gordon is perceived as a moody thug but DEFINITELY not lightweight.....When in reality policy differences on the economy are slight (how could it be otherwise when facts is facts) the electoral choice comes down to a perception of "effectiveness."......and Brown is winning this battle whether Cameron fans want to accept it not.

mark taylor

Is it ITV trying to get some good ratings for their show or is it those in the Tory high command trying to judge the effect of dropping of their Boy?
Mark Taylor
testking 70-643 certified