Sacking chancellors is a dangerous business, so much so that it’s only been done twice in more than fifty years. In both cases, the subsequent actions of Geoffrey Howe and Norman Lamont hardly give a prime minister much cause for reassurance.
All the same, David Cameron would do well to make this week’s budget George Osborne’s last.
If Leave wins the referendum, Osborne will almost certainly follow Cameron out of Downing Street anyway. Despite Cameron’s assertions to the contrary, there can be little doubt that he’ll go if he loses the vote on June 23: his credibility would be shot and his party would in all probability give him the push even if he doesn’t jump. A new prime minister would be likely to want a new chancellor.
But there should be a change at Number 11 in the event of Remain winning too. The need for Cameron to reunite a party that is currently engaged in an authorised civil war makes that essential.
At the moment, the cabinet is far from reflective of the balance between Leavers and Remainers in either the parliamentary party or the wider membership. If Cameron is to head off a vote of no confidence, some concessions to those who backed Leave and lost will be needed.
By far the best move Cameron could make would be to reshuffle his cabinet on the Friday after the poll (again, assuming he wins), inserting Michael Gove as chancellor and moving Osborne to foreign secretary.
One benefit to Cameron of doing so – beyond the olive branch to the Leavers – would be that he’d probably gain a better chancellor out of the move. Osborne’s tendency to involve himself across the whole range of government, to take credit for spending decisions of other departments and to play the PR game not only looks uncomfortably Brownite but the distractions may well be responsible for some of his underperformance in his day job.
Gove, by contrast, has rarely tried to play to the gallery and does do detail. Teachers might argue that he does rather too much detail but at least it’s a symptom of concentrating on the job in hand.
Would Osborne accept such a demotion? As mentioned, the precedent isn’t a happy one. The answer to that is that it would still be the lesser of two evils. The chancellor, without any great parliamentary support never mind public popularity, isn’t in the strongest position to resist and Cameron’s remaining time is limited anyway, reducing the need for Osborne to risk forcing events.
A refusal to serve would certainly place a dangerous and bitter man on the backbenches but that would still be better than being caught between an over-mighty and over-confident chancellor on one side, and a great many unhappy and restless backbenchers on the other.
It might seem strange to advocate promoting Gove after the week he’s just had but his renewed prominence and his media difficulties may not be unrelated. Much speculation has been given to the source of the Sun’s story of the Queen’s supposed Euroscepticism. Less asked has been the question of who benefitted from Gove being damaged by it. Suffice to note that Brown’s office was, in its time, not averse to undermining colleagues who looked like potential rivals.
It was quipped of Macmillan’s 1962 reshuffle, in which a chancellor was dismissed, that “greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his friends for his life”. But prime ministers cannot allow sentiment to rule when ruthlessness is needed – and ruthlessness will be needed if Cameron is to reunite the currently warring factions within his party.
David Herdson is a political writer and regular contibutor to the Political Betting website. He tweets at @davidherdson.
By David Herdson.
Culled from Totalpolitics.
No comments:
Post a Comment