Something of a result too for “none of the above”.

I expect the other 41% would like to see Caroline Lucas get the job.
http://www.greennewdealgroup.org/

I’ve always thought he was/is a real weak link – absolutely awful on the radio and TV, incompetent on the economy (remember his ‘ho ho ho it’s just like the 70s’ after the northern Rock bailout which he initially opposed and then supported). He seems to be quite good at low-level politicking which is why Cameron still owes him, but jesus the tories have a shallow pool of talent. There’s a reason why they’ve effectively gagged Gideon ever since Mandelson destroyed him – but they won’t be able to do that if he’s actually in control of the Treasury.

organic cheeseboard,

There has been a general underlying rumour in the Conservative blogosphere that the next chancellor might actually be Phillip Hammond (sorry, can’t find the links) although I haven’t heard anything of this lately to be fair. I can’t see the relationship between Messrs Cameron and Osborne being anything like as that between Messrs Blair and Brown, where the latter could not be moved. After all, both the aforementioned Conservatives come from the same political area and share support – they do not have different camps who need to be kept balanced.

Worth pointing out that this was a poll of 60 seats where Labour had a 6-14 point majority at the last election, and not a poll of the UK in general. I suspect if you asked voters in seats where the Tories got a majority of 6-14 in 2005, you might get some rather different answers.

I have no party allegiance or membership, but had a vote in the Crewe and Nantwich by-election (rather than all those who merely talked about it), and so was able to view the candidates and their cheerleaders close up, yet from a distance.

On the morning of the poll, I got to the station without being accosted by any party worker or leafletter – a rare occurrence at the time – only to find that the Tories had somehow been allowed into the concourse to do their campaigning (no other party was given this privilege).

Confronting me were two people, one of whom was the Rt Hon Gideon George Oliver Osborne, heir to the Seventeenth Baronet. With some difficulty – I suspect that the time of day and proximity to ordinary folk were not to his liking – he offered me a leaflet.

He held the leaflet in front of me. I looked briefly at the leaflet, and at the heir to the Seventeenth Baronet, and declined to award any further time to either, having a train to catch. But what I gleaned in that few seconds was this: that Osborne gave the impression of being instantly, and thoroughly, dislikeable.

I therefore hope that he gets to do lots more campaigning at the upcoming General Election. But I suspect that wiser heads, not least Fat Eric, will prevail on him not to.

But 17% is a vote of confidence in Alistair Darling?!! Talk about selective journalism.

As strategist says, this is only good news for ‘none of the above’

Worth reading Profs Skidelsky and Marcus Miller in Thursday’s FT on why Osborne is a menace:

Do not rush to switch off life support:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1efe0634-2700-11df-8c08-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

Vince Cable: ex-chief economist of a global corporation and a PhD in economics …. with a cv like that he never stood a chance in British politics. Journalist, lawyer and smoke and mirrors is all we do.

Interestingly I see almost all of the Chinese top brass are engineers.

@8: “Interestingly I see almost all of the Chinese top brass are engineers”

There’s a fairly well known and certainly perceptive quote from the Baron Rothschilds in the 19th century:

“There are three principal ways to lose money: wine, women, and engineers. While the first two are more pleasant, the third is by far the more certain.”

Sadly, the only link I could find is this:

http://www.presentationmagazine.com/rule-of-three-836.htm

To put the quote in its original context, Rothschilds was remarking on the Caledonian Canal:

“The Caledonian Canal in Scotland connects the Scottish east coast at Inverness with the west coast at Corpach near Fort William. . . The canal finally opened in 1822, having taken an extra 12 years to complete, and cost £910,000. Over 3,000 local people had been employed in its construction, but the draught had been reduced from 20 feet (6.1 m) to 15 feet (4.6 m), in an effort to save costs. In the meantime, shipbuilding had advanced, with the introduction of steam-powered iron-hulled ships, many of which were now too big to use the canal.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caledonian_Canal

In short, the canal was of little commerical use since it opened and now serves mainly as a tourist attraction. But it was regarded as a splendid engineering achievement in its time.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

“I can’t see the relationship between Messrs Cameron and Osborne being anything like as that between Messrs Blair and Brown, where the latter could not be moved”

Maybe some dark secrets from the Bullingdon years?

What are the error bars on a poll like this? +- 1%? Doesn’t suggest any significance apart from None of the Above, as Strategist says.

“What are the error bars on a poll like this? +- 1%? Doesn’t suggest any significance apart from None of the Above, as Strategist says.”

Maybe, but Osborne certainly gets a consistently bad press from professional and academic economists whereas Vince Cable is widely respected. Cable has already said that he won’t be supporting Osborne’s proposals for an emergency budget 50 days into a Conservative government.

There’s much to indicate that Osborne really doesn’t understand the economic issues at stake in our present policy context and is just spouting what he thinks will resonate in the Conservative constituency or – probably more likely – in the benighted Conservative blogsphere, which is hung up on pre-keynesian economics.

Recall what Cameron said:

“A Conservative government would not make ‘swingeing cuts’ to public spending during its first year, party leader David Cameron has told the BBC.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8490024.stm

That makes sense if we take account of the fragile state of the Eurozone economy – our major export market – when Osborne intends early cuts in public spending and is urging consumers to ramp up their saving while the banks are curtailing lending to business – in 2009Q4, business investment was running a quarter less than a year earlier.

It evidently has yet dawned on Osborne that combination is a sure prescription for a double-dip recession.

Sorry: This: It evidently has yet dawned on Osborne that combination is a sure prescription for a double-dip recession.

should have read: It evidently hasn’t yet dawned on Osborne that combination is a sure prescription for a double-dip recession.

To quote Alan: “Journalist, lawyer and smoke and mirrors is all we do.”

I too assumed that Osborne would be one of the 100s of lawyers in Parliament until I looked up his biog.

The only jobs he has ever done are towel folding for Selfridges and data inputting for the NHS. (And we all know how accurate most NHS databases are!)

Then he tried training as a journalist but failed to become one and started working for the Tories instead.

I think, even by our pathetic Parliamentary standards, he’s a complete dullard.

(Quite incredibly, given what went on under Thatcher/Major, compared to Osborne, I almost take some comfort from Ken Clarke being in the cabinet. !!!)

By the way, given the probable sample size, I strongly suspect there is a significant difference between 27% (Vince Cable) and 15% (George Osborne). But probably not between Darling and Osborne. 😉

“By the way, given the probable sample size, I strongly suspect there is a significant difference between 27% (Vince Cable) and 15% (George Osborne). But probably not between Darling and Osborne.”

Yep, I’m happy with that.

Next question: How far can one safely extrapolate poll results like this?

@3 Watchman: “There has been a general underlying rumour in the Conservative blogosphere that the next chancellor might actually be Phillip Hammond…”

Thanks for that info. However, as we enter general election campaigning, Cameron is stuck with Osborne, unless something weird happens. It would be very strange if the shadow chancellor got dumped the day after an election.

We also need to apply our grey cells to the Conservative election contest. That was the one where Cameron initially declined to enter the race because he thought:

a) Osborne had more support and was likely to win.

or b) Osborne had better ideas.

Both propositions suggest that Cameron is less bright than his public portrayal.

“Next question: How far can one safely extrapolate poll results like this?”

We can’t but the poll results probably reflect current public appreciation of the clear expositions by Vince Cable in broadcst interviews of the challenging economic issues we face and the relevant policy dilemmas.

Rightly or wrongly IMO, Darling is suspected of sweet-talking the very real problems while Osborne is simply playing a blatant blame game while showing little evident understanding of the economics.

News update from news report in Monday’s Indy:

“A senior adviser to the Conservatives will today warn that the party could plunge Britain back into recession if it brings in big public spending cuts immediately after winning the general election.

“Sir Alan Budd, who would head a new independent Office of Budget Responsibility to enforce financial discipline under a Tory government, will say: ‘If you go too quickly then there is a risk that the recovery will be snuffed out and we will go back into a recession. I mean what the Americans say, “Remember 1937″.’

“His remarks will be seized on by Labour, which would delay spending cuts until 2011 in order to stimulate the economy this year. It has rejected Tory calls for immediate action. . . ”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-economist-criticises-partys-plan-for-cuts-1917785.html

So much for George Osborne.