George Osborne: more unpopular than Nick Clegg
Satisfaction with the Chancellor is now lower than with Clegg.
By George Eaton Published 28 August 2012 11:24
If you want an indication of how far George Osborne's political stock has fallen since the Budget, just take a look at the latest Guardian/ICM poll. The survey shows that net satisfaction with the Chancellor has fallen to -32, with Osborne now more unpopular than even Nick Clegg (whose rating is -26). In addition, 48% of voters say that Osborne should lose his job in next week's reshuffle (11% have no opinion), more than for any other cabinet minister (Andrew Lansley, who 37% of voters want to see moved, is in second place). This figure rises to 52% among the over 65s and 53% among those aged between 35 and 64 – the age groups most likely to vote - and includes 39% of those who voted Conservative in 2010. By 44% to 43%, more 2010 Tory voters than not now say that Osborne is doing a bad job.
The Guardian notes that "Senior Tory figures, who are calling in private for Osborne to swap with the foreign secretary William Hague, are likely to seize on the poll", but forgets that David Cameron has already publicly guaranteed Osborne's position. He told Sky News earlier this month: "George Osborne is doing an excellent job in very difficult circumstances and he has my full support in going on doing that job." Asked if he would still be in place in 2015, he replied: "He's not going anywhere... yes."
Unless accompanied by a change in economic policy, the removal of Osborne would, in any case, prove a false panacea. Until Cameron recognises the need for the government to stimulate growth through tax cuts and higher spending (and abandons the myth that you can't "borrow your way out of a debt crisis"), his party's fortunes will not improve. As Paul Krugman sagely observed in a recent essay for the New York Review of Books, "the economic strategy that works best politically isn’t the strategy that finds approval with focus groups, let alone with the editorial page of The Washington Post; it’s the strategy that actually delivers results." With or without Osborne, Cameron's priority must be to finally adopt a strategy that works.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists




















8 comments
Who says 'competition' doesn't work?
Comedy Store
Osborne and Cameronski are fukked!
Osborne is going nowhere, full stop. The coalition will fall first before he jumps. Glad to the Centre for Policy Studies talks about Osborne borrowing £600 Billion by 2015.
Matt
That means the coalition will have borrowed almost as much that Labour borrowed and spent growing the structural deficit and running down UK industry (which they did at the fastest rate since the 1970s). Big difference: the coalition have been shrinking the state and growing the number of private sector jobs i.e the opposite of Labour although in line with Plan A supported by Balls and Miliband following their economic U turn. It means Labour spent £600Bn creating the biggest financial mess in over 1,000 years of the country's history and the coalition will need to have spent £600Bn cleaning the mess up.
If you are a keynsian then you will support the coalition borrowing to keep the economy from imploading under the massive weight of the structural deficit and the government debt. Labour borrowed £350Bn before 2008 when the economy was booming and pumped the money into the economy to boost the feel good factor to win votes and power. They also boosted North Sea oil production to get the revenue in as fast as possible and consumed more oil revenue than the government before them (at least according to the HMRC's fact sheets).
Adding up Labours "achievments" (like half of all adults leaving school without maths and english GCSE, avaerage UK healthcare standards slipping behind other countries, huge house price inflation and shortage of affordable houses, and a diminished UK manufacturing sector) the spending identified in all the Labour spin is a lot less than £100Bn (if counted only once).
When are you going to learn Inastew?
Don't you understand we are in a recession, the worst double dip for fifty years. After borrowing £600 Billion up to 2015, he is then going to be borrowing post 2015, how much extra borrowing can you stomach?
Do you mean imploding?
We have a growing number of part time jobs, that is part of the reason why deficits are still increasing, even taking into account, all the stealth tax rises in the PAYE system.
Do you mean " achievements" ?
In the last two years, Osborne has plundered £20 Billion out of the North Sea, yet it still hasn't dented the deficit, how do you square that circle?
Matt
Thanks for correcting my spelling. I went to a comprehensive.
You'll thank me for saving you from you telling more porkies about oil revenue which you have been going on about for months. Your made up £350Bn figure for the oil spent by the Tories is wildly different from the facts published by HMRC which show Labour consumed more oil revenue than the Tories. You never were able to support where your number came from.
"all the stealth tax rises in the PAYE system". You mean like cutting the 10 pence rate and the NI increases that Gordon made or do you mean like raising the personal allowance by the Libdems? North Sea oil over again Matt.
"In the last two years, Osborne has plundered £20 Billion out of the North Sea,". But Matt, 2 seconds ago you were bleating on about oil revenues falling from 2000 onwards because -- all the Tories fault -- even though HMRC disputes this. Do you think Alistair would say the nonsense position you have created for yourself on North Sea oil over the last year is "credible"?
£600Bn is a huge amount of money. The difference is that the coalition will admit it and purposefully set up the OBR so it can not be hidden from the voters. But Labour have done everything they can to conceal the £600Bn they borrowed and waisted. If Labour ever win power they will have to close down the OBR to get away with abusing the neutrality of the treasury which explains the party's hostility to the OBR.
And here is another historical note for you, in 1997, UK debt interest payments amounted for 9% of total government spending. Just remind me about this Rolls Royce economy that Labour inherited.
I am surprised you have any formal education, i know you never took history.
I think my figure of £35o billion stands up again your stupidity, so no qualms there.
Did you get the email, Osborne lowered the higher tax rate thresholds, so a whopping 1 million tax payers have or will be paying the higher rate.
Don't forget, Brown cut VAT on utility bills, that is why the Right hate him, plus Brown never raised VAT, unlike Howe, Lamont and Clarke.
In 1992 the Tories had a manifesto commitment not to increase the scope of VAT, well we know what happened to that didn't we.
I know £600 billion is huge, but that is what Osborne is going to borrow, in the space of 5 years, apart from recession, we will have nothing to show for it,will we.
Post 2015, i think Osborne will be very quiet on what he wants to borrow, don't you think.
Did the OBR predict growth of 0.8% this year, are they on track?
Do you mean " wasted" ?