George Osborne's Conservative fringe appearance: 10 things we learned

Including, his parents were non-Tory voters and Gordon Brown is the only politician "he found it impossible to have a civil relationship with".

It's been a while since anyone called George Osborne "the submarine" - and with good reason. The man previously known for surfacing only for set-piece events and retreating under water at the first sign of trouble, has become one of the government’s most visible faces. In the last year, he has made a series of high-profile speeches on the economy, taken the fight to Alex Salmond in Scotland, and braved the world of Twitter. The morning after the government’s defeat over Syria, it was the Chancellor who led the counter-offensive on the Today programme.

After his strikingly personal speech to the Conservative conference yesterday, in which he referenced his children and his parents (seen by many as preparing the ground for a future leadership bid), Osborne made a rare appearance on the fringe at lunchtime, speaking to Channel 4 News's Gary Gibbon. Here are ten things we learned.

1. His mum has voted Labour and his dad used to vote Liberal but both now vote Conservative.

2. Gordon Brown is the only politician "he found it impossible to have a civil relationship with".

3. He believes the Tories "never really" worked out how to deal with Tony Blair, "the master of the political landscape", and "need to understand why he was appealing".

4. He conceded of the 2012 "omnishambles" Budget: "in my job you're not supposed to make those political miscalculations."

5. After pledging in his speech to achieve a budget surplus by the end of the next parliament, he has not decided whether to continue to ring-fence health and international development spending.

6. Nigel Lawson's children helped persuade him to move his family to No. 11 Downing Street.

7. He sees himself as "a social liberal, small 'l'" and cited his strong support for equal marriage and gay rights.

8. He "does not want to run the election campaign" (Osborne is still officially the Tories' chief election strategist), "which is why we've got Lynton Crosby in. I was the one who approached him."

9. While refusing to comment on his reported leadership ambitions ("I'm not going to fall for that"), he believes that as Chancellor he has "an obligation to get out and about".

10. Michael Gove joked (brilliantly) of his new hairstyle: "you've applied your economic policy to your hair. You've turned it around to stop the recession."

George Osborne delivers his speech to the Conservative conference in Manchester. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Keystone/Hulton Archive/Getty Images
Show Hide image

What Donald Trump could learn from Ronald Reagan

Reagan’s candidacy was built on more than his celebrity. Trump not only lacks experience as an elected official, he isn’t part of any organised political movement.

“No one remembers who came in second.” That wisdom, frequently dispensed by the US presidential candidate Donald Trump, came back to haunt him this week. Trump’s loss in the Iowa Republican caucuses to the Texas senator Ted Cruz, barely beating Senator Marco Rubio of Florida for second place, was the first crack in a campaign that has defied all expectations.

It has been a campaign built on Trump’s celebrity. Over the past eight months, his broad name recognition, larger-than-life personality and media savvy have produced a theatrical candidacy that has transfixed even those he repels. The question now is whether that celebrity will be enough – whether a man so obsessed with being “Number One” can bounce back from defeat.

Iowa isn’t everything, after all. It didn’t back the eventual Republican nominee in 2008 or 2012. Nor, for that matter, in 1980, when another “celebrity” candidate was in the mix. That was the year Iowa picked George H W Bush over Ronald Reagan – the former actor whom seasoned journalists dismissed as much for his right-wing views as for his “B-movie” repertoire. But Reagan regrouped, romped to victory in the New Hampshire primary and rode a wave of popular support all the way to the White House.

Trump might hope to replicate that success and has made a point of pushing the Reagan analogy more generally. Yet it is a comparison that exposes Trump’s weaknesses and his strengths.

Both men were once Democrats who came later in life to the Republican Party, projecting toughness, certainty and unabashed patriotism. Trump has even adopted Reagan’s 1980 campaign promise to “make America great again”. Like Reagan, he has shown he can appeal to evangelicals despite question marks over his religious conviction and divorces. In his ability to deflect criticism, too, Trump has shown himself as adept as Reagan – if by defiance rather than by charm – and redefined what it means to be “Teflon” in the age of Twitter.

That defiance, however, points to a huge difference in tone between Reagan’s candidacy and Trump’s. Reagan’s vision was a positive, optimistic one, even as he castigated “big government” and the perceived decline of US power. Reagan’s America was meant to be “a city upon a hill” offering a shining example of liberty to the world – in rhetoric at least. Trump’s vision is of an America closed off from the world. His rhetoric invokes fear as often as it does freedom.

On a personal level, Reagan avoided the vituperative attacks that have been the hallmark of Trump’s campaign, even as he took on the then“establishment” of the Republican Party – a moderate, urban, east coast elite. In his first run for the nomination, in 1976, Reagan even challenged an incumbent Republican president, Gerald Ford, and came close to defeating him. But he mounted the challenge on policy grounds, advocating the so-called “Eleventh Commandment”: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” Trump, as the TV debates between the Republican presidential candidates made clear, does not subscribe to the same precept.

More importantly, Reagan in 1976 and 1980 was the leader of a resurgent conservative movement, with deep wells of political experience. He had been president of the Screen Actors Guild in the late 1940s, waging a campaign to root out communist infiltrators. He had gone on to work for General Electric in the 1950s as a TV pitchman and after-dinner speaker, honing a business message that resonated beyond the “rubber chicken circuit”.

In 1964 he grabbed headlines with a televised speech on behalf of the Republican presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater – a bright spot in Goldwater’s otherwise ignominious campaign. Two years later he was elected governor of California – serving for eight years as chief executive of the nation’s most populous state. He built a conservative record on welfare reform, law and order, and business regulation that he pushed on to the federal agenda when he ran for president.

All this is to say that Reagan’s candidacy was built on more than his celebrity. By contrast, Trump not only lacks experience as an elected official, he isn’t part of any organised political movement – which enhanced his “outsider” status, perhaps, but not his ground game. So far, he has run on opportunism, tapping in to popular frustration, channelled through a media megaphone.

In Iowa, this wasn’t enough. To win the nomination he will have to do much more to build his organisation. He will be hoping that in the primaries to come, voters do remember who came in second. 

This article first appeared in the 05 February 2015 issue of the New Statesman, Putin's war