George Osborne attends a press conference at the French Economy Ministry in Paris on April 28, 2014. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Osborne's speech is also an attack on Tory EU withdrawalists

The Chancellor's denouncement of those who want to "pull up the drawbridge and shut Britain off from the world" applies to a significant number in his own party.

George Osborne will not mention Ukip by name in his speech to the CBI today, but it will be clear that he has them in mind when he says:

Political parties on the left and the populist right have this in common: they want to pull up the drawbridge and shut Britain off from the world.

They want to constrain foreign investment in our economy, and deprive us of the British jobs that it has created in industries from car manufacturing to energy. They want to set prices, regulate incomes, impose rent controls, wage war on big business, demonise wealth creation, renationalise industries — and pretend that they can re-establish control over all aspects of the economy.

The Chancellor's attacks on Labour are nothing new (although as a supposed friend of the minimum wage it's odd to hear him denounce Ed Miliband for wanting to "regulate incomes") but more striking is his decision to brand Nigel Farage's party a threat to the economy. In a direct echo of Nick Clegg's language, he denounces Ukip's support for immediate EU withdrawal as an attempt to "pull up the drawbridge and shut Britain off from the world". 

Europhiles will note the irony that it is Osborne's party that has threatened the UK's EU membership by pledging to hold an in/out referendum by 2017. In his interview on Today on Monday, Miliband described the possibility of withdrawal as "the biggest threat to prosperity". Many businesses are far more worried by the Tories' euroscepticism than they are by Labour's proposed energy price freeze or the reintroduction of the 50p tax rate. Martin Sorrell recently revealed that he and others had told David Cameron that "if he were to drop the referendum he would be a shoo-in". That's almost certainly not the case (as Sorrell appeared to forget, most voters support a referendum) but it shows how desperate businesses are for Britain to remain in the EU. 

To this, Osborne would reply that it is only by renegotiating the UK's relationship with Brussels that the government can preserve its membership. As he argued in his recent speech to Open Europe: "If you cannot protect the collective interests of non-eurozone member states, then they will have to choose between joining the eurozone, which the UK will not do, or leave the European Union...I believe it is in no-one's interests for Britain to come to face a choice between joining the euro or leaving the European Union. We don't want to join the euro, but also our withdrawal from a Europe which succeeded in reforming would be bad for Britain. And a country of the size and global reach of Britain leaving would be very bad for the European Union."

But if Osborne is committed to reforming the EU, his contempt for those who favour automatic withdrawal ("they want to pull up the drawbridge and shut Britain off from the world") is also clear. And that is not just an attack on Ukip but on a significant number in his own party. That, in turn, suggests that Osborne is confident that he'll be in government after 2015, potentially as Foreign Secretary, rather than wooing EU opponents in a Conservative leadership election. 

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.