George Osborne’s hanging on – for now. The chronology the Tories released seems convincing, and he has the backing of David Cameron. But the forces against him are ranking up. Yesterday evening, Nat Rothschild unveiled a witness to back up his allegations – one New York fund manager, James Goodwin. The basic position, though, remains the same – it’s essentially one man’s word against another’s. And as CoffeeHouser Ricardo so rightly put it yesterday:
We’ve got to decide who’s word to accept: a politician or a man who runs a hedge fund. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Where did I put that coin?
This uncertainty comes across in this morning’s papers; few come down completely on one side or the other. If there is a consensus, it’s probably that – regardless of the legality of it all – Osborne was stupid to put himself in this situation (for the best take, check out Peter Oborne’s column in today’s Mail). But will the narrative change today? Stay tuned.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in