Cabinet ministers evoke a wide variety of judgments, but I cannot recall anything quite so caustic as that of the celebrated journalist Bernard Levin, on the foreign secretary, Selwyn Lloyd, in 1959. In a review in the Spectator of a book about the early 19th century statesman Lord Castlereagh, Levin wrote: "The real mystery, in fact, is not why Castlereagh cut his throat, but why Mr Selwyn Lloyd has not." Not long after that, Lloyd was elevated to the chancellorship by Harold Macmillan.
My dissatisfaction with the chancellorship of George Osborne has not diminished with time, but even I should find it a little extreme to suggest that he fall on his sword. Nor do I think any longer that that great fan of Macmillan, David Cameron, should sack him. No, I think Osborne should remain in place until he faces the verdict of the electorate: a verdict that ought to be damning.
It is laughable that Osborne should, apparently, have chosen to fight the Labour party on the issue that they are not being as tough on "the deficit" as he is. For a start, he has always been obsessed with the wrong deficit. The principal macroeconomic problem facing the British economy is the size of its balance of payments deficit. The budget deficit, so far from being a problem, was from 2010 onwards part of the solution: it stopped the rot when the economy was in a nosedive in 2009. That it is still with us, albeit at a lower level, is due to the failure of Osborne's strategy, which was to eliminate the deficit within this parliament – something, mercifully, he is nowhere near to achieving.
His opponent Ed Balls – a much maligned man, who may yet live to see off Mr Osborne – was absolutely right to criticise the strategy of accelerated deficit reduction when the economy was just emerging from recession in the summer of 2010. So far from boosting confidence and animal spirits with his deflationary budget of June 2010, Osborne depressed them. To all intents and purposes the economy did indeed "flatline" for almost three years. The current recovery, while welcome, has been needlessly delayed, and still leaves the economy up to 20% below the level of activity that could have been predicted from historical trends, if policy had not been so deflationary.
From the start, Osborne's public statements were disingenuous. We were told that the British economy was in as desperate a situation as Greece; the truth was that the Greek government did not know where the next month's loans were coming from, whereas money was pouring into London and the average maturity on government stock was 14 years.
There is no sign of panic in the gilt market: the UK's budget deficit is not a matter of great concern – except, that is, to a government that wishes to play the issue up for electoral reasons, and a media, including the BBC, that has bought into "the deficit" as a story.
It should by now be perfectly obvious to everyone that the Tory party is using the deficit scare as the justification for a rightwing agenda that involves shrinking the state at the expense of the most vulnerable in society.
One used to have to point this out: but, to judge from the speeches and policy announcements from the prime minister and chancellor at their party conference in Birmingham last week, they now as good as proclaim that they are cutting the benefits of the unemployed and the working poor so that they can cut taxes for the better off. Their shamelessness is quite remarkable.
The Tories got a strikingly good press last week, not least because of the contrast with what was generally perceived to be a lacklustre performance by Labour leader Ed Miliband the previous week. But the truth is that the Tories are on the run: on the run from Ukip. Even though the quality of the defectors to Ukip is nowhere near that of the people Labour lost in the 1980s to the SDP, nevertheless there is an obvious danger that there will be sufficient disruption to ruin the Conservatives' chances.
In their desperation, the prime minister and chancellor have managed to expose themselves to the charge they normally lay at Labour's door: irresponsible promises that the Institute for Fiscal Studies and other independent sources say do not add up. Consider: they are making a big thing about increased national security but plan to eat further into the already strapped defence and police budgets. It is not just the poor they plan to milk: it is essential services.
Meanwhile, by making it clear last week that the European Union was not close to his heart, the prime minister seems to be following the chancellor in buttering up his Eurosceptic wing.
This is not going down well with British business. North-west of the Birmingham conference, the importance of the European Regional Development Fund was highlighted at a lively conference I attended in Wolverhampton on business opportunities in the West Midlands.
What one sees in the West Midlands is a healthy manufacturing sector that is far from the moribund image often painted. The problem is that this government is waking up rather late in its term of office to the infrastructure problems that hinder the private sector, as any visitor to the Midlands soon becomes aware. And what would make the problems even worse would be an exit from the European Union.
