In praise of George Osborne

In previous eras and in pre-Christian cultures, it was widely believed that the vicissitudes of fate were explained by arbitrary movements of the wheel of fortune. In recent centuries, less superstitious, we have become more confident in linear progress. But the events of the past few months almost bring the wheel back into fashion.

Eighteen months ago, there were two successful politicians at the heart of government, in the prime of life: their combined age was still under one hundred. For years, they had been friends and colleagues. They had risen together and the inevitable strains of high office had only strengthened the bond between them. It seemed certain that they would have a dominant role for years to come. Now, they have both left the House of Commons.

David Cameron had been the youngest Prime Minister since 1812. But after his resignation, there was a sense that he had closed a chapter in his life. He is a man who does not believe in wasting time over futile regrets. Events had forced upon him the necessity of finding other things to do – so he would.

George Osborne had been the third youngest Chancellor ever. First in the list came the Younger Pitt, who was the youngest everything, but made up for it by dying at the age of 46. Second came Randolph Churchill. He was only Chancellor for four months and did not deliver a Budget. George Osborne had a six-year innings in difficult circumstances, a qualification, surely, for further high office, perhaps as Foreign Secretary – or for the top job.

At least for the time being, that will not happen. Unfortunately for him, he left office at a bad moment. Thus far at least, the Treasury’s warnings about the dangers of Brexit have not been vindicated. Equally, for those wishing to write Mr Osborne’s political obituary, there is material in the cuttings, especially the so-called omni-shambles budget. (That was much the best phrase Ed Milliband ever used, in his period as leader, working up to the omni-shambles Labour party.)

George Osborne was unlucky in small items; caravans, Cornish pasties et al. During the coalition years, a lot of energy had to be expended on arguments over the top rate of income tax. But there is a risk that all this will distract attention from the big picture.

Back in 2010, Britain’s annual deficit was running at above ten per cent of GDP. Judging simply by the figures, the UK’s public finances were in a similar state to Greece’s. There was a crucial difference. The markets had confidence in Britain, so the Treasury had no difficulty in selling the required number of gilts. But sooner or later, confidence would have to turn into performance. That was George Osborne’s task and he set about it with a steely resolve. I believe that his macro-economic judgments were sound which will ensure that in the longer-term, his reputation will recover.

He showed similar qualities in the Commons. At the outset, many Labour MPs thought that he would be an easy victim. A willowy public-school toff with a regency hauteur: what a target. They quickly realised that he enjoyed parliamentary rough stuff and that he knew how to use a rapier.

That boosted his party’s morale, which was needed. After the coalition took office, the first couple of years were bleak. The economy simply would not start growing. David Cameron’s anxieties did grow. But his Chancellor stayed calm and always laughed aside any talk of a plan B. He would have known that if such a plan had existed, the first item would have been: sack the Chancellor. In recent decades, the relationship between PM and Chancellor has almost always deteriorated in the course of a Parliament. Despite recessionary pressures, this was an exception, which ensured that an embattled government would have a core of strength.

After the Referendum defeat, George had to move. A generous-minded Prime Minister would have given him the Foreign office. Generosity is not one of Theresa May’s faults. So she fired him.

He then had a difficult choice. Hang on, and hope that the wheel of fortune would turn benevolent, or find a new venture. In choosing the latter, he has not ruled out a return to the Commons, and why should he? George Osborne is not yet forty-six. What is to prevent him returning to elective politics in ten years time? Although the world will no doubt change in all sorts of unpredictable ways, it is hard to believe that he would not be able to make a formidable contribution.

A couple of days ago, the out-going Chief Executive of Manchester city council, Sir Howard Bernstein, gave an interview. Sir Howard started his working life washing tea cups. He is not a willowy public-school toff. He was asked whether he missed the former Chancellor: “Yeah! Because George Osborne was an inspirational figure…He gave real political and economic credibility to the northern powerhouse…he’s a top guy.”

That is not a bad interim assessment. There will be many follow-ups to come.