The Chancellor has been getting some stick recently, and no doubt after today's Autumn statement (delivered on December 5th? - not very Autumnal, George) he'll be in for some more.
I was watching the Ten O'clock News and Newsnight last night. Criticism seems to be two-fold. One, Osborne hasn't got the economy to grow. Two, he's borrowed too much. But considered together these criticisms collapse into a heap.
By universal consent, the economy has failed to grow because of weak demand. How could Osborne boost demand? Only by borrowing more.
You think he's borrowed too much already? Fine. Cut spending. But that would only lead to demand being still weaker.
His critics can't have it both ways. Either he's borrowed too much, or he's at fault for low growth. But not both.
Labour has been at the forefront of having its critical cake and eating it, which is a bit rich because we have ended up with borrowing levels pretty close to what they planned before the 2010 election.
Of course, it's possible that Osborne is to blame for neither. Trying to revitalise the economy when you are up to your eyes in debt, with the eurozone in crisis, America emerging from recession and growth faltering in the Far East is about as near a futile exercise as I can imagine. The truly depressing thing about recent economic news is that it is very difficult to think of anything else the Chancellor could do.
Which strikes me as the biggest and most telling charge to make against Osborne. He is two and a half years into the job, and is probably more fairly described as dogged rather than imaginative. Yes, it's hard, but he is paid to think creatively about the economy, which the rest of us aren't.
