I am probably the last person the recently departed Chancellor of the Exchequer would expect an endorsement from. In 2008 – ahead of the financial crisis, and with the Tories still committed to Brown’s spending targets – I wrote a piece (in the Telegraph) saying he should be moved from his post. As usual, David Cameron, possibly wisely, didn’t listen…

In the intervening years, Osborne has been at times overly fond of “the game” and focussed on tactics rather than strategy. His record as Chancellor is mixed. But unless you are a raving Corbynista or on the grievo-max wing of the SNP, it should be possible to acknowledge that he did not deserve to be dispensed with in the manner he was by the new Prime Minister Theresa May

No, I’ll go further. His treatment at the hands of the Prime Minister and her team was shameful. All he got was a brief “cordial” conversation late in the day, during which he was effectively fired. That is not how to treat a leading figure at the end of a long period of public service.

It may be a tough old business, government, but Osborne has been Chancellor for six years and form matters. In that time he has endured public vilification and retained a sense of humour. Never a natural show-off, he worked hard in the Treasury, developed his presentation skills and built a gifted team.

For his efforts – and I say this as a critic who wishes him well – he deserved the earliest possible warning from May and then a polite exchange of letters, enabling him to publicly “resign” and herald the achievements of the Cameron government. Instead he was bundled out of the back door of Downing Street.

When that happened, I felt the first glimmer of concern about the style of the new Prime Minister and her tiny team of trusted people.

Since Wednesday evening, May has engineered the most brutal clear-out in modern British political history. Much of this is fine, because she is putting her own stamp on government. After the turmoil of recent weeks it is a relief that there is an experienced person in charge. But there are two problems with the substance and the way it is being done:

1) The government’s majority is small – only 12 – and the Prime Minister has now dispensed with a lot of people. Not only has she cleared out the Cameroons, she has even abandoned loyalists such as Anna Soubry. Once the Prime Minister’s honeymoon is over – and it will be – there will be a large number of people among the sacked not inclined to help when things become difficult. Even before this she had to look out for pro-Brexit MPs suspicious of potential betrayal. Party management is not going to be easy, which is why one would have expected her to take a slightly different approach.

2) The country is now run by a triumvirate of May and her two most trusted advisers. There are others, but Nick Timothy (the policy brain) and Fiona Hill (protecting May) are where it is at. The trio having won in the manner they did, and with that small majority and Brexit to come, they needed straight away, within 48 hours, to show dexterity in all aspects of their arrival in office. The May team comes with a reputation for deep paranoia about criticism. Temper tantrums are not unknown (ask officials). Number 10 cannot day in day out work like that – or not for long – without it becoming a story. Whitehall is too big. There are too many papers flying around, and nosy MPs and journalists, for it be run for more than a few months in a such a fashion. If you doubt it, look at the ghosts of enforcer after enforcer from the Blair, Brown and Cameron years now languishing in the political graveyard.

There is plenty about May’s start to be commended. Her trip to Scotland was both bold and sensible. She is strong and wants to offer something different. But she is firing a lot of people when she has a small majority and needs support. The scope of the reshuffle suddenly looks vengeful and unwise.