George Osborne: I'm no über-moderniser

Interviewed by Fraser Nelson for this week's Spectator (not yet online), the Shadow Chancellor distances himself from what he calls the über-modernisers and embraces 'the politics of and':

"I don’t take the kind of über-modernising view that some have had, that you can’t talk about crime or immigration or lower taxes.  It is just that you can’t do so to the exclusion of the NHS, the environment and economic stability. I have always argued for a more balanced message, and that is what I hope you would see at this party conference."

The Daily Mail's Ben Brogan reads this statement as an attempt by George Osborne to distance himself from the modernisers in the Cameron camp and questions the helpfulness of his remarks.

Mr Osborne also uses the interview to talk about immigration - agreeing with David Cameron's recent statement that it is too high:

"I don’t think we were ready for the impact on public services of a very large number of people coming to this country. Immigration from eastern Europe was 100 times, well maybe 50 times greater than the government predicted it was going to be. So there was a complete failure to anticipate the impact on our public services or indeed the impact on our economy.’  Immigration has been a ‘broad benefit’, he says. ‘But it has put an enormous pressure on some of our low-skilled British citizens who have found themselves in some parts of Britain priced out of the job market. I don’t think we have done enough as a country to give these people the right education or skills. It is no good Gordon Brown saying, “British jobs for British workers”, when he has singly failed to prepare British workers for the ten year he’s been chancellor."

2.45pm: A source close to Mr Osborne tells me that George is not in any way distancing himself from Team Cameron and points to David Cameron's 7th September speech in which the Conservative leader said: "Forget about those on the left who say I shouldn’t talk about Europe, crime or lower taxes... or those on the right who say I shouldn’t talk about the NHS, the environment or well-being.  That is a false choice and I will not make it... And to those who think, even in 21st century Britain that commitment and responsibility cannot be embraced by all, I say: you will not find a stronger supporter of marriage but why not also recognise the commitment that gay couples make to each other in civil partnerships? That’s modern Conservatism."

3.15pm: "The first sign of a possible rift between David Cameron and George Osborne emerged today.  In an interview, the shadow chancellor appeared to distance himself from his party leader and friend.  Mr Osborne sought to contrast his own political views with what he called "uber-modernisers" - seen as a reference to Mr Cameron and his image guru Steve Hilton... The modernisers around Mr Cameron include Mr Hilton and Nicholas Boles, the former head of the Policy Exchange think tank.  The Spectator identified what it called a rival group of "balancers".  Tory MPs say this group would include Michael Gove, the shadow education secretary, and Andy Coulson, director of communications." - Evening Standard

Comments

[Deputy Editor]

Traditional Tory, Brian Jenner hasn't jumped ship - he was stitched up.

[Matt Wright]

Thanks for John Leonards post that put what Ann Widdecombe actually said into context.

[Alex Swanson]

'Thats why we are doing so badly in the poll's, the right are putting us back onto the previous stance.'

What?!? How are we supposed to be doing that? Every political party is under the control of the Left, so are the entire broadcast media, and most of the press. What are we supposed to be doing, sneaking into CCHQ at night and tippexing policy documents?

A classic case of blame-the-messenger if ever there was one.

Oh and incidentally, we don't actually want to go back to any "previous stance". We want policies that work, eg low taxes and a properly robust attitude towards the EU. Those haven't been party policy in my lifetime (even Maggie didn't actually lower them).

[Mr Angry]

So Osborne has not particularly subtly launched his bid to suceed Cameron when, after Brown has creamed the heir to Blair at the polls, common sense returns to the Conservative party and Cameron wisely "decides" that it is time to spend more time with his money. Unfortunately for squeaky he is entirely unsuitable for the job.

[Graham D'Amiral]

Quite a bit of hysteria about George Osborne's common sense remarks about the need for a balanced agenda. Concern about the Environment doesn't mean we can't talk about crime ans Immigration, nor does a committment to social justice mean we can't talk about tax cuts.

David Cameron and George Osborne have both been pursuing such a balanced agenda in any case, though from reading the comments on here you wouldn't have thought so.

[Opinicus]

I dont think Gorgeous is stupid enough to try and launch a leadership bid at this time or to suppose that this marker will have any effect on his leadership standing. Cameron and Osborne must realise they sink or swim together.

I think this is code for a general retreat by the modernisers. A general recognition that they were wrong and hopefully the signal of a political shimmying at the Conference. Whether Brown will allow them the time to learn from their mistakes will be announced in the next ten days.

[Iain]

Graham D'Amiral, sorry but if George Osborne cannot use the correct language when he is Election co-ordinator, and uses language open to misinterpreted. If nothing else, doesn’t that suggest he is unsuitable for the role?

[Chad Noble]

OK, let's forget the interpretation, nuance, misundersanding etc and look at what Gids actually said:

"I don’t take the kind of über-modernising view that some have had"

So he is unequivocally distancing himself from those (unnamed people - clearly plural y the use of 'some') he defines as having an 'über-modernising view'".

So the big question is; Who are these unnamed people he referring to? Shadow cabinet members, activists, Maude, Bagshawe, Cameron himself etc?

Just who are the übers?

[Scott Carlton]

Dear all,

It is of my belief that the current course that the Conservative Party have been following, heading down the liberal conservatism approach is a dangerous game, particularly at the time of an economic crisis. Ultimately this is leading to the point that there is no difference between New Labour and the current Conservative Party. Whilst this move by George Osbourne seems to be an attempt to remove himself from the so called uber-modernisers, he is still responsible for the strategy setting for the next general election and so therefore partly responsible for this uber-modernisation. This sounds to me more of a David Milliband moment in sounding out the possibilty of becoming a future Conservative Leader.