Politics

4 July 2009

Fraser Nelson reviews the week in politics

This proposal — for a Number 101/2 Downing Street — is in its infancy and is being kept tightly under wraps. Mr Cameron is nervy about anything which might give the impression that he is complacent about victory, and he has decided not to confirm or deny anything about transition talks. He regards the subject as absolutely toxic, and rather foolishly denied on Monday that any negotiations are taking place about ‘who sits where’. As he well knows, there is plenty of this sort of discussion: including plans for a Department of Social Justice and even the suggestion that Mr Letwin might head the Department of Climate Change.

At present, the focus is on how to transfer the Norman Shaw South gang into government — rather than how to integrate the rest of the party into the broader machine. This, frankly, is the greater challenge. ‘If you don’t work there, you don’t count,’ explains one grumpy backbencher. ‘And if you’re not in the shadow cabinet, you don’t exist.’ Many Tory MPs are still sore about the expenses fiasco, which they believed was exploited by Mr Cameron to purge faces that did not fit. Summer drinks events are being planned to repair relations, but there is still much work to do.

These are the problems of power. It was not so long ago that the Tories were eating out of Mr Cameron’s hand, refusing even to rebel over tax cuts when — as it happened — he desperately wanted to stage a fight on this terrain. Now, MPs have adjusted to the expectation of victory and want to know what is in it for them. Who sits where is suddenly a matter of great importance. Office — even the expectation of office — brings its own distinct headaches. And much as they may irritate Mr Cameron, such headaches are here to stay.

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4

More articles from: Fraser Nelson | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (2)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

john parfitt

July 2nd, 2009 10:44am Report this comment

Fraser. Saw you this on the box: interesting. Can you explain somewhere please? Never mind which party does it to revive a failing economy means injecting money into it. True (not Gordon's) 'Investment' in things like roads/railways/factories is a suitable vehicle surely as long as it will produce a return on the money spent and not spent on consumerism/imports. Why then are all you pundits talking about cutting it? The difficult bit is finding a way of harnessing savings/taxation money into that investment I guess. Isn't it? You could answer here or in your Speccie column or just e-mail?

Regards