Osborne under assault from all sides

Alastair Campbell slams Boy George

It must count as some achievement to simultaneously attract the ire of Alastair Campbell and Simon Heffer. That's the unusual position in which George Osborne finds himself this morning, with Campbell writing a deliciously catty letter to the Financial Times and Heffer calling on David Cameron to sack his shadow chancellor.

The departure point for Campbell's letter is the growing awareness that Osborne is more concerned with grabbing headlines than he is with credible economic policy. His pledge to ban retail banks from paying out large cash bonuses may have translated well in our soundbite culture, but it was soon exposed by economists who pointed out that it would weaken planned curbs on the investment banks responsible for the most extravagent bonuses.

Osborne's claim that capping bonuses would lead banks to lend more similarly fell apart under scrutiny. Banks would almost certainly use any spare cash to build up their balance sheets.

Campbell astutely notes that Osborne's dual role as shadow chancellor and election co-ordinator may be responsible for his economic shortcomings:

In appointing Mr Osborne to both positions, David Cameron perhaps reveals his own weakness in failing to differentiate between strategy and tactics. It might be sensible for the Conservative leader to relieve Mr Osborne of one of his two posts. I sense that the City would like it to be the shadow chancellorship. The Labour Party will be hoping that's the one he keeps.

Some may be surprised to see a Labour tribalist like Campbell pop up in the FT, but as I've noted before the paper is not the free-market bible some imagine it to be. Thanks to a strong Keynesian faction, the title has backed Labour at every election since 1992.

I notice that Iain Martin, formerly of the Daily Telegraph and now of the Wall Street Journal, has launched an "FT Watch" on his blog. That the most economically literate paper on Fleet Street has turned its guns on the Tories says much about the state of Conservative policy.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.