29 March 2010

The Chancellors’ debate: It should have been Ken Clarke

It wasn't enlightening nor a game changer, but nobody bombed.

The important point is whether voters perceptions of Darling, Osborne and Cable were changed by the debate.

However, the trick that the Tories have missed is not having appointed Ken Clarke as Shadow Chancellor.

Digg This


  1. All three put in reasonable performances. But Osborne was noticably better. Darling was a little subdued and under-confident, Cable was mostly good except for the rant at the end.

    But Osborne managed to pull it off, with a reasonable air of gravity rather than over-exuberance. He is perhaps perceived as a 'young' chancellor for such testing times. But it's too late to change horses, Ken Clarke is excellent and a 'big beast' but he can appear lazy at times, and Osborne is rising to the challenge. If he carries on in this vein, the blue team can breathe a sigh of relief. It's how the papers report it that matters most, not the few thousands who watched the rather gentlemanly debate.

    The Osborne message on NI is simple and clear: this will hit taxpayers and businesses in a double whammy...we'll be paying extra for the public sector NI increase as well.

  2. Although I agree, Clark would be too controvercial. The damn little Englander brigades cannot tolerate anyone who doesn't foam at the mouth when Europe and 'jonny foreigner' is mentioned.

    Sad really, but hey-ho, Cameron has still to purge the Party of the rancid Eurosceptics.


  3. The trick that the Tories missed was not electing him leader in '97.