Having watched George Osborne on Andrew Marr's programme this morning, his performance just underlines what I have thought for a long time. That he is just not up to the job.
He went round and round in circles and was wholly unconvincing. Given the problems in the economy in the last few years and the fact that Labour have been in for well over a decade, the Shadow Chancellor should be doing much better than this. I really think Cameron should have moved him to another less high profile portfolio and let him concentrate much more on the party's election strategy.
Letters From A Tory did a post about his lamentable performance the other day. He goes even further than me and suggests that Osborne is no good in either of his current roles. This is the comment I left on that post:
Well said LFAT.I really cannot see why Osborne is still Shadow Chancellor. There are others in the Shadow Cabinet who would do a far better job of it (e.g. Hague or Hammond). He did play a blinder in Autumn 2007 with his IHT announcement to conference but that was now 2.5 years ago. You need to be judged by your recent performances and I am afraid Osborne’s are woeful.I hope Cameron is not keeping him there out of some sense of loyalty. If he is then that does not bode well for a potential premiership. A Prime Minister needs to be able to be ruthless if necessary.
The more I think about it though, the more the only explanation for having kept him in post is the friendship thing. He cannot still be dining out on his 2007 conference performance which is increasingly looking like an outlier.
It is too late for Cameron to credibly move him now but his previous inaction and misplaced loyalty could cost him the election.