the cockiness problem

John Rentoul's excellent column (from Sunday) provokes several thoughts. Here's one for now: the Tories ought to be worried about the alarming cockiness exhibited by their Chancellor.

Of course, there is the whole strategy of trying to eliminate the deficit within four years, which is arguably reckless in itself (although I doubt this will actually happen; it's partly about signalling). But the specific incident that should worry cooler heads on the Conservative benches was Osborne's claim, at the end of his speech on the CSR, to have announced a smaller programme of cuts than was planned by Labour. This was entirely spurious, a trick of the numbers, and was almost immediately exposed as such by the press and think-tanks.

Why did he do it? He watched Gordon Brown pull similar stunts, year after year, and saw how it rebounded on his credibility in the end. He must know that as he takes these grave and painful decisions, the last thing he can afford to be painted as is overly political. Yet he couldn't resist. Presumably because, right now, he feels as if he can't do anything wrong.

For those of us who haven't experienced it, it's hard to imagine the ferocious assault on the nervous system that high office makes on a politician who has never held a government position. The sheer intoxicating rush that comes with entry to Downing Street, ministerial cars and red boxes; the machinery of state at your command. How a person responds to this depends on personality and situation, but there are two opposing dangers: one is that you lose confidence, intimidated by it all; the other is that you become carried away with your own brilliance (a war can have the same effect; Martin Amis said something to the effect that Donald Rumsfeld, in his early press conferences on Iraq, gave the impression of a man who had just plunged his face into a bowl of cocaine).

Abraham Lincoln, as ever, nailed it: "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

We are witnessing a severe test of the Chancellor's character; and probably not quite the test he thinks it is.

(As I've noted before, this governement's first-term problem will probably come to be seen as the opposite of Labour's first term problem; over-confidence, as opposed to under-confidence.)

Comments

[ejoch]

I'm reading Chris Mullin's book at the moment, he doesn't seem to have got very intoxicated. He spends a good few pages describing his attempts to refuse a ministerial car (that part puzzled me, I'd be thrilled to have a chaffeur driven car).
I wonder how US politicans react when given Secret Service protection. Is there an initial 'this is cool!' shortly followed by the realisation you're never getting a moment alone, ever again?

[Quiet Riot Girl]

I think Chris Mullins was quite an unusual member of government from what I have read and know of him. He seems to have managed to retain his humanity...

Also, power is always associated with 'masculinity' in how people talk about it, isn't it? As Abe said, if you want to test a 'man's' character, give 'him' power...

What about women who crave or obtain power? Or men who have power who don't fit with the traditional model of a powerful man?

I like Marbury as I think 'he' is interested in power as it is played out on our screens/stages.

It is all to play for...

[Scott]

Not just cockiness that's the problem... His premier has clearly been at the larder all hours.