In the event of a Conservative/Lib Dem coalition, would you rather see George Osborne or Vince Cable as Chancellor?

[FlyingMonkey]

Naturally, the Lefties amongst us would prefer Vince Cable. But I'm curious to know whether Conservative supporters actually rate Osborne. Vince Cable has spoken a lot of sense on the economy but sadly I doubt Cameron would agree to giving him the keys to No. 11.

Is Tinky Winky not available as a third option then?

Vince Cable seems a little doddery

George Osbourne is a foul ham head with no integrity and no moral standing

I would prefer my dad. But he has been dead for a year.

George Osborne is a very effective political strategist. He is also very clever and quietly effective. I have a good deal of faith in his economic judgement.

But he is simply awful on TV - especially when compared to Ken Clarke, who is such a natural.

Vince Cable is absolutely awful. He simply hasn't been scrutinised and the media built up a mythological halo narrative around him. He essentially has old Labour instincts and would be a disaster if he got anywhere near the Chancellorship.

If I were Cameron, I would fob him off with Agriculture or something.

To be fair, he does have a PhD in Economics.....

LOL @ effective political strategist

Well Osborne was the Conservative election director, and I'm not exactly convinced on some of his strategy.

Well, he single handedly panicked Gordon Brown into calling off the 2007 election with the inheritance tax cut (which Brown would have easily won).

That in itself justifies my faith in his political nous.

LOL @ singlehandedly panicked GB into calling off the 2007 election

Yeah, yeah total genius And all on his own

i think the UK would be courting an IMF bailout if it were Cable, not to say I fancy Osborne particularly.

The inheritance tax cut has been the single most unpalatable conservative policy on the doorstep locally. It just doesn't make sense in the current climate, and it is pretty foolish to argue otherwise. The one saving grace about a potential Con-Lib alliance is that the Tories could drop that particular proposal fairly quickly.

Neither. I'm fine with an agreement with the Tories, but I don't want us (the LDs) to take any cabinet seats.

Err what?

The inheritance tax policy is MASSIVELY POPULAR, especially for aspirational voters who were won over by Blair but were basically Thatcher Tories, and are disproportionately located in marginals.

I doubt it will happen now, because it can get voted down by the other parties - but when Cameron was talking about it in the final debate the worm went stratospheric.

People want to make life better for their children. It is deeply engrained in the human psyche.

As it happens, I agree with the inheritance tax cut as an aspiration but feel it should have been ditched as soon as the recession hit. Every spare penny we have should go towards paying down the deficit.

Agree people are aspirational - just this cut at this point in time doesn't affect enough voters to be truly popular. Yes it takes your family home out of IHT - if it is worth £2m. The people with £2m houses in my ward weren't your average Labour voter.

Cable a few years ago actually proposed raising the inheritance tax threshold to £500k. So not necessarily a dealbreaker on that one.

X-post - agree entirely: it should have been dropped, and the fact it wasn't was a huge tactical mistake.

Am amazed that it is seen as a popular issue though. I live in a strong Conservative majority constituency, but did the footwork in the neighbouring marginal. The issue was seen as a total embarrassment in both.

The actual details are irrelevant when it comes to most policy. Anyone motivated enough to know the details already knows which way they are going to vote.

It is about values. It is about the instinct to leave something for your children; the idea that you aren't taxed on income and then taxed again on assets when you die; the idea that the State will encourage you to do the Right Thing (TM).

george osbourne ...clever? On what basis? is there any fact of that?

On IHT did you see my thread reminding everyone that Labour significantly improved the inheritance tax position for married people in 2007?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/politics/960378-Labour-inheritance-tax-benefit-for-married-people

Read his Mais lecture

www.politicshome.com/uk/article/5955/osborne_speech_to_mais_lecture_%28full_text%29.html

It is not a speech a stupid man would give.

Am I the only non tory who actually thinks that raising the income tax threshold to 10K would be a very bad thing?
Id rather they lowered income tax to a token amount, but the principle that everyone has to pay something is very important. Society (such as it is in teh UK) would suffer if there was a large class of non payers at the bottom of the scale.

nighbynight

Firstly, Tories love the idea of increasing the income tax threshold - they just don't see how to afford it. I imagine there will be a gradual increasing of the lowest threshold over the next few years.

There is a definite argument for your point - that paying tax, even a tiny bit, gives you a genuine stake in society.

But ultimately I think it is much weaker than the argument that taxing the low paid disincentivises work and encourages benefits as a lifestyle choice.

oh dont get me wrong, I also agree with giving the poorest in society a break. I would keep a token amount of tax though.

Nighby - 30% of uk adults pay no income tax already. And the top 20% pay 80% of income tax. You have a point about wide based contribution (even if token) being important -countries like Denmark I think do this.