Let Osborne finish the job

Upon taking office, David Cameron promised himself that he would resist the temptation to sack ministers in response to every scandal. He would have a major reshuffle halfway through his government and another one before the election. That would be all. He is now understood to be weeks away from deciding who should go where, and Labour-supporting newspapers are commissioning opinion polls to help the Prime Minister in his deliberations. The main verdict: sack George Osborne. Some Tory MPs agree. If there is to be a new Chancellor, now would be the time, because any new economic strategy would take three years to have much effect.

This argument is as misleading as it is simplistic. To remove a Chancellor is a radical step for any British government, and one that should only be made if it serves a clear purpose. In this case, there is no such clear purpose. Sacking Osborne would delight the Labour party, who have been outfoxed by him on several occasions. It would force Cameron to admit that the most important appointment of his government — that of Chancellor — was a wrong one. It would send out a message of panic to the markets, which are nervous enough about Britain’s debt as it is. And there is not the slightest evidence that any replacement would be any better.

The problem facing the Conservatives is not one of personnel, but of ideas. Osborne is sitting in the Treasury surrounded by the baggage of the Gordon Brown years. Labour’s 2010 budget proposed a five-year plan cutting departmental spending by just over 2 per cent a year. Osborne hardened this only slightly, to just under 3 per cent. But the overall plan (slow-motion cuts, eased through by the world’s largest money-printing programme) was never going to revive the economy, because there was nothing to promote growth.