Turn on thread page Beta

Has the Tax credits saga dented Osbourne's leadership chances? watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Putting aside, Labour and Corbyn (which aren't relevant in this debate), but has the tax credits saga in the last few weeks damaged Osbourne's chances of becoming tory leader and if so by how much?

    Whilst Osbourne would certainly have been expecting criticism from the left, he surely wasn't from the right, his own party and the press.
    A number of Tory MPs have criticized the plans, especially ones who live in marginals where a fair amount may be on tax credits. The right wing press, even the telegraph, times and the Sun have offered somewhat criticism of the plans. Polls as well show that people are much more opposed to the cutting of tax credits than they are in support of it.

    It seems that if Osbourne pushes these plans through it could well be his very own poll tax. 3.3 million would receive a letter telling them they are set to lose out on a lot of money and they won't easily forget that.

    Although I dislike Cameron as much, he has a softer, more compassionate appearance than Osbourne and is much more of a PR man. Osbourne seems a lot colder and a lot more like a 'nasty tory'.

    This isn't about whether or not you agree with the principle of tax crdit cuts - there's plenty of other threads about that. But if you're a tory, has it made you want Osbourne as leader less then you did before? And if you aren't a tory, who do you want as their leader?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I think only a little bit. Remember the leadership contest is likely to be in 2019 and to use an old phrase, a week is a long time in politics (never mind 3 and a half years).
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Nah. How many times did we hear from Guardian commentators that the Tories had killed their chances for 2015 with the extreme austerity agenda several years before the election?


    People have short-term memories.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Incongruous)
    Nah. How many times did we hear from Guardian commentators that the Tories had killed their chances for 2015 with the extreme austerity agenda several years before the election?


    People have short-term memories.
    Not necessarily in terms of an election, remember the tories won the election after the poll tax!
    But rather in terms of his bid for the leadership.

    Boris Johnson the other day could barely hide his delight at the situation.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Yep, I think it has. How much it will be an issue several years down the line remains to be seen, but it's not something he needed at this stage.

    As has been said, Boris was clearly ****-a-hoop.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The public are actually not as fussed about tax credits as the media and house of Lords.

    His economic record may have been not that great and this may have damaged his reputation but Theresa May has utterly failed in immigration, like she has a shot if Osbourne doesn't.

    For me he could be the next leader still. I mean the Tories will look at him and see a person the public have faith in-they voted Tory for the economy and that is his role. When you consider that Corbyn isn't going to be PM and won't even manage to win back Scotland whoever replaces Cameron will have plenty of time to settle in and won't even have to do a great job.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Well the people voting in the leadership election are unlikely to be effected in large numbers so its more a question of whether this has turned a faction of MP's away and also whether the perception is bad enough publicly that he'd look like a dead horse.

    I'd say that it will have damaged him relative to the capital he's built up in recent months but not enough that a single cut to a small number of people 3 years before a leadership election will dictate how leadership credentials. Osbourne's fate rests far more in the macro economy and devolution.

    Personally I'm no more or less likely to vote for him but he's not my first preference anyway.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Well the people voting in the leadership election are unlikely to be effected in large numbers so its more a question of whether this has turned a faction of MP's away and also whether the perception is bad enough publicly that he'd look like a dead horse.

    I'd say that it will have damaged him relative to the capital he's built up in recent months but not enough that a single cut to a small number of people 3 years before a leadership election will dictate how leadership credentials. Osbourne's fate rests far more in the macro economy and devolution.

    Personally I'm no more or less likely to vote for him but he's not my first preference anyway.
    Who is your first preference?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by i<3milkshake)
    The public are actually not as fussed about tax credits as the media and house of Lords.

    His economic record may have been not that great and this may have damaged his reputation but Theresa May has utterly failed in immigration, like she has a shot if Osbourne doesn't.

    For me he could be the next leader still. I mean the Tories will look at him and see a person the public have faith in-they voted Tory for the economy and that is his role. When you consider that Corbyn isn't going to be PM and won't even manage to win back Scotland whoever replaces Cameron will have plenty of time to settle in and won't even have to do a great job.
    No Not at all. Here is a fact for you over half of people claiming tax credits in london are working. I heard this on a BBC radio station so how can you say people are not fussed 7 million people claim working tax credits, without tory propaganda they would never win postal votes to the rescue. On the topic of tory leadership i hope osborne wins it then the guardian can do a reverse miliband can you trust a cokehead
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Labour claimed in 2012 that austerity policies put 60 Tory MPs at risk of losing their seat at the next election. In the end 6 did, and 54 kept their seat.
    It seems to me that Labour want to wish tax credits into a big thing, more than anything else. John McDonnell said in the past that tax credits were nothing more than a subsidy for bad businesses. Now suddenly they're essential for the proletariat?
    I can't see this having any long lasting effects on Osborne's reputation tbh.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Labour claimed in 2012 that austerity policies put 60 Tory MPs at risk of losing their seat at the next election. In the end 6 did, and 54 kept their seat.
    It seems to me that Labour want to wish tax credits into a big thing, more than anything else. John McDonnell said in the past that tax credits were nothing more than a subsidy for bad businesses. Now suddenly they're essential for the proletariat?
    I can't see this having any long lasting effects on Osborne's reputation tbh.
    One of the issues with Ed that Labour haven't got to grip with is that the UK is not a working class country, it's middle class (in the sense that more than half the population owns property). As much as tax credits and zero hour contracts tug at the heart strings, they simply don't have a substantial effect on most of the population so bar the politically interested having a more negative opinion, the masses that vote without a lot of research will only know that it didn't effect them and therefore they'll vote in their self interest.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    The mere fact that he was receiving heavy criticism from his own party members says enough.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Who is your first preference?
    Right now i'd say Gove.

    He's intelligent, a lot of his politics are in the right place, i think he's a man with a vision and somewhat ruthless in terms of pushing through opposition. With Hague out of parliament, i think he'd be our best leader and i reckon it would be fairly easy to improve his image since most people don't hate his education policies, they just dislike the fact that he annoyed teachers.

    The main drawbacks are that while he's not uncharismatic i'm not sure he speaks normal enough for most people, he's not demonstrated a grip on strategy in the same way Osbourne has with his 'Northern Powerhouse' idea (an explicit plan to turn Labour cities blue) and he doesn't always have the appropriate tact. The first and later are minor issues, the second is the difference between a leader that holds seats or takes more, only Osbourne has a credible plan for more right now but i consider him less desirable than Gove.

    Bookies currently have him 6th.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Right now i'd say Gove.

    He's intelligent, a lot of his politics are in the right place, i think he's a man with a vision and somewhat ruthless in terms of pushing through opposition. With Hague out of parliament, i think he'd be our best leader and i reckon it would be fairly easy to improve his image since most people don't hate his education policies, they just dislike the fact that he annoyed teachers.

    The main drawbacks are that while he's not uncharismatic i'm not sure he speaks normal enough for most people, he's not demonstrated a grip on strategy in the same way Osbourne has with his 'Northern Powerhouse' idea (an explicit plan to turn Labour cities blue) and he doesn't always have the appropriate tact. The first and later are minor issues, the second is the difference between a leader that holds seats or takes more, only Osbourne has a credible plan for more right now but i consider him less desirable than Gove.

    Bookies currently have him 6th.
    Gove, like Hunt, is incredibly toxic. Why do you think he was removed from Ed Sec last Cabinet reshuffle before the 2015 GE?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Right now i'd say Gove.

    He's intelligent, a lot of his politics are in the right place, i think he's a man with a vision and somewhat ruthless in terms of pushing through opposition. With Hague out of parliament, i think he'd be our best leader and i reckon it would be fairly easy to improve his image since most people don't hate his education policies, they just dislike the fact that he annoyed teachers.

    The main drawbacks are that while he's not uncharismatic i'm not sure he speaks normal enough for most people, he's not demonstrated a grip on strategy in the same way Osbourne has with his 'Northern Powerhouse' idea (an explicit plan to turn Labour cities blue) and he doesn't always have the appropriate tact. The first and later are minor issues, the second is the difference between a leader that holds seats or takes more, only Osbourne has a credible plan for more right now but i consider him less desirable than Gove.

    Bookies currently have him 6th.
    Noticeably Morgan is unpicking parts of Gove's legacy at education whilst Gove unpicks Grayling's at the MoJ.

    Gove's policies had more issues that merely tweaking teachers' noses.

    The most important one is that he ended up with Whitehall becoming the regulator for thousands of schools without (a) caring about anything other the exam results and (b) having sufficient apparatus to do so.

    That was Gove's undoing at education. The mud didn't stick over numerous academy funding frauds but it did when Gove's department was oblivious to schools which were "outstanding" jihadi training centres.

    The second problem is that is he had little interest in any other sort of education than a narrow academic one with a focus on humanities. That can be seen from his failed bid to reintroduce O levels without really addressing his mind to whether he should reintroduce CSEs. He largely got away with this with Vince Cable at BIS but with a Tory trade and industry minister under pressure from businesses wanting technicians, Gove's view was unsustainable in the long term.

    Morgan looks as though she is more politically astute over the grammar school issue. There is a certain type of Tory that wants to roll back the clock on this notwithstanding it is proven vote loser. Gove simply set his face against the electoral disaster that it would be. Morgan is allowing grammar school growth in an area where the issue isn't toxic.

    Finally, Gove's testing regime might be good for bureaucrats in Whitehall but parents are only interested in things that benefit their children and parents can't see the benefit to their children of testing very young kids.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Right now i'd say Gove.

    He's intelligent, a lot of his politics are in the right place, i think he's a man with a vision and somewhat ruthless in terms of pushing through opposition. With Hague out of parliament, i think he'd be our best leader and i reckon it would be fairly easy to improve his image since most people don't hate his education policies, they just dislike the fact that he annoyed teachers.

    The main drawbacks are that while he's not uncharismatic i'm not sure he speaks normal enough for most people, he's not demonstrated a grip on strategy in the same way Osbourne has with his 'Northern Powerhouse' idea (an explicit plan to turn Labour cities blue) and he doesn't always have the appropriate tact. The first and later are minor issues, the second is the difference between a leader that holds seats or takes more, only Osbourne has a credible plan for more right now but i consider him less desirable than Gove.

    Bookies currently have him 6th.
    Do you not feel that Gove, like Osbourne will be a bit toxic on a personal level in the way that Cameron isn't?
    Your best bet in my opinion is someone who has the appearance of a soft tory (I don't think Cameron actually is one, but the press portray him as one).

    (Original post by Rakas21)
    One of the issues with Ed that Labour haven't got to grip with is that the UK is not a working class country, it's middle class (in the sense that more than half the population owns property). As much as tax credits and zero hour contracts tug at the heart strings, they simply don't have a substantial effect on most of the population so bar the politically interested having a more negative opinion, the masses that vote without a lot of research will only know that it didn't effect them and therefore they'll vote in their self interest.
    The thing with cuts to tax credits though, is that unlike other austerity measures, they're going to start to hit more middle income and 'aspirational' tory voters like that woman on Question Time.

    The tories were clever with austerity in the last Parliament, those who were affected either tend to vote Labour or don't vote at all.
    However it now seems that Osbourne is going after his own voters. The tories are also doing a good job at pissing off numerous professions such as doctors and lawyers.

    I'm not making a prediction for the next election but if anything is going to be the tories downfall it will be their own complacency. There's also the fact that with these tax credit cuts Osbourne has done what no Labour leader in a while has and united the Labour party!
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    I think it'll depend more on how they do in the next election. If they win then I doubt he'd have much trouble with a leadership bid, as he'd be affiliated with maintaining power. If they lose and it is a close election then I think he will still have a good chance of gaining the top job. However if the Tories lose and lose badly, shedding dozens of seats then I imagine he will be damaged heavily by the defeat and will be too toxic to win.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    I think it'll depend more on how they do in the next election. If they win then I doubt he'd have much trouble with a leadership bid, as he'd be affiliated with maintaining power. If they lose and it is a close election then I think he will still have a good chance of gaining the top job. However if the Tories lose and lose badly, shedding dozens of seats then I imagine he will be damaged heavily by the defeat and will be too toxic to win.
    The leadership election will be before the next general election.

    It is presently unclear whether Cameron will resign as PM to give the new leader a lead in to the next election or whether the intention is to campaign with a PM-elect with Cameron retaining the top job until either election day or dissolution day. The latter has never been tried in the UK but for example it is what Trudeau pere did in Canada in 1984.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    The leadership election will be before the next general election.

    It is presently unclear whether Cameron will resign as PM to give the new leader a lead in to the next election or whether the intention is to campaign with a PM-elect with Cameron retaining the top job until either election day or dissolution day. The latter has never been tried in the UK but for example it is what Trudeau pere did in Canada in 1984.
    I think the latter would be very bad for the Tories as it would give off the impression that they don't have confidence in their new leader's ability to win elections.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I think the latter would be very bad for the Tories as it would give off the impression that they don't have confidence in their new leader's ability to win elections.
    Cameron is very wary of a Fleet Street driven agenda. He has successfully managed to kill off the idea of an almost continuous ministerial reshuffle that gained momentum under Margaret Thatcher. The Fixed Term Parliaments Act wasn't just to deal with coalition but to stop speculation mounting about the election date that had been an issue since 1970. Neither of Margaret Thatcher's two complete Parliaments lasted 4 years. Momentum for Thatcher to retire started building the day after her last election victory and a promise was extracted from Blair to retire even before his last victory.

    Seeing out a complete 2nd term and then leaving someone else to fight the next election would be consistent with Cameron's approach.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 1, 2015
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.