David cameron

Friday

Peter Hoskin

Miliband is trapped in his own foggy argument

With one well-timed jab in PMQs, David Cameron turned much of this week’s political debate – in domestic terms, at least – into a debate about Ed Miliband’s leadership. And how is Miliband responding? Predictably, for the most part. His celebratory speech in Feltham and Heston this morning reduced down to the claim that the result ‘offers a verdict on the Government’s failed economic plan’. And his interview in today’s FT covers much of the same territory. But the FT interview is also revealing in one particular regard: it demonstrates, once again, how Miliband is caught in a strange, undefinable strategy somewhere between attack and defence. This was, if you

Thursday

James Forsyth

The veto arguments rumble on

The Times has a very interesting story (£) today on page 17. It claims that David Cameron had agreed to inform Nick Clegg if it appeared that Britain was going to be isolated at last week’s European Council. The significance of this is that it suggests that the Lib Dems believed they would be consulted before the government vetoed anything. This news emerges after senior Liberal Democrats have privately questioned why their leader did not insist that Cameron only use the veto once he had Clegg’s explicit agreement. The Times also reports that this negotiating protocol did not envisage a situation where Britain was left in a minority of only

Matt Cavanagh

Dave’s ‘troubleshooters’ policy is right — but it needs working on

David Cameron has finally announced the way forward on his pledge to ‘turn round the lives of 120,000 of Britain’s troubled families’ — and it is good news. These families combine behaviour that is harmful or disruptive to the rest of society with reliance on benefits, social housing and other services, reinforcing the sense that they are taking a lot from their fellow citizens while giving nothing positive back. And although dealing with their problems is expensive, they already cost government and society a lot of money, as the Prime Minister is rightly emphasising today.  He actually made this pledge a year ago, ‘based on the broken society’ agenda he

Jonathan Jones

Who’s right on public v private employment?

If you listened to PMQs yesterday, then you’ll have heard two very different accounts of what’s happening in the labour market right now. Had Ed Miliband been able to get anyone’s attention, they’d have heard him say: ‘over the last three months, for every job being created in the private sector, thirteen are being lost in the public sector.’ Cameron’s response: ‘Since the election, in the private sector there have been 581,000 extra jobs. In the public sector, he’s right, we have lost 336,000 jobs.’ According to the Labour leader’s figures, public sector losses are far greater than private sector growth. But according to Cameron’s, the private sector is more

Fraser Nelson Fraser Nelson

The growth script still needs writing

The Times is being a bit harsh on Cameron in its leader this morning. ‘On the economy’, it says, ‘Cameron has contracted out policy to George Osborne and then followed the usual (although not invariable) practice of postwar prime ministers of supporting his Chancellor’s decisions. But he has not added to this a convincing contribution of his own.’ Yes, Cameron has not done very well articulating his government’s growth policy. I’ve also noticed that he is not much good at describing the Loch Ness Monster and for the same reason. Unconfirmed rumours of its existence whirl around now and again. Grainy photos of something supposed to be a UK growth

Peter Hoskin

Cameron targets his resources at problem families

The Prime Minister’s message today is, basically, that he hasn’t forgotten about the riots. In a speech this morning, he’s going to announce his biggest new policy in response to them so far: a network of ‘troubleshooters’ who will work with 120,000 of the country’s most unstable families, with the aim, of course, of stabilising them. The idea is that the troubleshooters can help coordinate various services — from police to Job Centres –— to focus on these people. According to the Sun, the families will, in turn, face ‘tough penalties’ if they don’t cooperate. Some of you may be wary of this scheme — and it’s easy to see

Wednesday

James Forsyth

Cameron’s warning to his applauding backbenchers

David Cameron was greeted with a full-on, desk banging reception at the 1922 Committee. The applause only stopped when the chief whip told the assembled backbenchers to sit down. The Prime Minister’s message was that the next year is going to be even tougher than the 1979-81 period. He argued that the government needed to be even bolder to show that it wasn’t just a technocratic government but one motivated by a desire to help families who do the right thing, but sadly no MP pressed him on how that fitted with the coalition decision to increase out of work benefits by more than 5 per cent. One other interesting

Peter Hoskin

Miliband’s poll nightmare returns

There has, as we all know, always been a fug of doubt about Ed Miliband’s leadership. Even when Labour have been winning by-elections (as they’re expected to in Feltham and Heston tomorrow), even when even when they have fluttered ten points above the Tories, the question has always been there: would they be better off without him? After all, in terms of poll numbers, the party has generally exceeded the man. But today that question is wrapped in flashing, coloured lights, with a star on top. It’s not just how David Cameron filleted Miliband in PMQs earlier, but more Labour’s position in the latest opinion polls. As others have pointed

Lloyd Evans Lloyd Evans

Miliband crumples to a new low in PMQs

Inept, useless, incompetent, maladroit, hopeless, clumsy, crap. With thesaurus-rifling regularity Ed Miliband comes to PMQs and delivers a performance which is inept, useless, incompetent, maladroit, hopeless, clumsy and crap. The only virtue the Labour leader has is consistency. He’s consistently worse than last week. In theory he should have scored some damage today. Unemployment is soaring. Growth seems grounded. Cabinet ‘partners’ scuffle in public whenever they get the chance, and Nick Clegg changes his mind as often as he changes his socks. And Miliband’s tactics had some merit too. By disinterring the PM’s New Year Statement from January 2011 he was able to open up the Coalition’s wounds and have

James Forsyth James Forsyth

Cameron pummels Miliband in PMQs

Today, was yet another reminder that David Cameron knows just where to hit Ed Miliband to make it hurt. After a few questions on the economy, Miliband moved to Europe — the coalition’s greatest vulnerability. Miliband joked that it was ‘good to see the deputy Prime Minister back in his place’, before mocking the coalition’s divisions over Europe. Cameron began his reply by saying it was no surprise Tories and Lib Dems don’t agree on Europe before saying that the split on the issue could be exaggerated: ‘it’s not like we’re brothers or anything,’ Cameron said in his most mocking tone. At this line you could see the Labour benches

James Forsyth James Forsyth

Clegg in the spotlight

All eyes at PMQs will be on a man who isn’t speaking, Nick Clegg. His refusal to attend the Prime Minister’s statement on the European Council means that today he will be the centre of attention. Labour will attempt to embarrass him as much as possible, trying to highlight both the divisions in the coalition and the impotence of the deputy PM. For its part, the press will read an awful lot into his body language every time Cameron mentions the E or V words.   The worry for the coalition is that this split over Europe is just going to keep repeating. There are going to be many more

Peter Hoskin

Lansley stakes his claim on the post-2015 budget

Look slightly to the left, CoffeeHousers, and what you’ll see is the cover image to this week’s Christmas double issue of The Spectator — a brilliant send-up of Bruegel’s ‘The Hunters in the Snow’ by Peter Brookes. You’re now able to buy your own copy, but we thought we’d pull out an intriguing little snippet from James Forsyth’s interview with Andrew Lansley, by way of a taster. The Health Secretary, it seems, isn’t just determined to see health spending rise in real terms in this parliament, but beyond that too: ‘I ask him whether, despite the ramifications of the autumn statement, the NHS budget will still be immune from cuts.

Tuesday

Kelvin MacKenzie

Who will say sorry to Rupert?

Welcome to the world of journalism, Nick Davies. So the cops in Surrey told you the story was true — or so you claim. The cops at the Yard told you it was true — or so you claim. Every aching bone in your reporter’s anti-Murdoch body told you it was true. But there was a problem — as we all now know today. The Milly Dowler story that led The Guardian on that fateful day back in July was untrue: there is no evidence to show that the News of the World deleted Milly’s voicemails. So what price has Nick Davies paid since he tried to slip his deliberately

Peter Hoskin

Labour reach out to the Lib Dems (again)

Others have already been there, but it’s still worth noting Douglas Alexander’s article for the lastest issue of the New Statesman. Much of it, it’s true, is a predictable attack on David Cameron’s recent activity in Brussels. But slightly more surprising is the fact that, rather than criticising the coalition in toto, Alexander saves his ire for the Tories and reaches out to the Lib Dems. Here’s the relevant passage: ‘The roots of what happened on the night of Thursday 8 December lie deep in Cameron’s failure to modernise the Tory party. Just because he puts party interest before the national interest, there is no reason others should do the

Daniel Korski

Was the PM reasonable?

As the effects of last week’s European Council become clear, debate about the rights and wrongs of David Cameron’s diplomacy hinge on one question: were his demands ‘reasonable and modestly expressed’, as a source in No 10 put it to me? Everyone knows that there were chronic failures in the run-up to the meeting itself. I laid a few of them out in an earlier post, but, basically, they amount to a failure of prioritisation: the UK eroded the goodwill it needed by fighting tooth-and-nail on every issue beforehand, thereby blocking things that other EU states care about but which are not important, except symbolically, to the British. International —

Fraser Nelson Fraser Nelson

Where we are now

Reading through the paper’s this morning, it’s even clearer that we didn’t learn much from that marathon Europe debate yesterday. But here are my thoughts, anyway, on where it leaves us: 1) Ed Miliband lacked credibility from the outset. As Malcolm Rifkind put it, he’s had three days to work out whether he’d have signed that Treaty or not — and he still can’t make his mind up. God knows Cameron is vulnerable on this, but he won’t be hurt being attacked for indecision by a man who still cant make any decisions. 2) Clegg’s misjudgment, cont? First, Clegg backed Cameron after the veto. Now, he says he disagrees with

Monday

James Forsyth

Clegg ducks Cameron’s conciliatory speech

The text of David Cameron’s statement on the European Summit was clearly designed as balm for the coalition’s wounds. He devoted a large chunk of it to defending Britain’s membership of the European Union in a clear effort to reassure the Lib Dems about the future direction of European policy. But this effort was rather undermined by the absence of the deputy Prime Minister. This was, predictably,  the story of the session. In response to repeated Labour questions about where Clegg was, Cameron replied ‘I’m not responsible for his whereabouts. I’m sure he is working very hard.’ Nick Clegg has now given a TV interview in which he has escalated

James Forsyth James Forsyth

Expect today’s eurosceptic celebrations to be muted

The real Tory celebration of David Cameron’s veto will be on Wednesday. Then, behind closed doors, Cameron will address the 1922 Committee of Tory backbenchers. With no Lib Dems present, the Tories will be able to thump the desks and be rude about the EU without worrying about what their coalition partners might think. But in the chamber today, Tory MPs are being urged to be calm and forensic. The whips keep pointing out to ambitious MPs that a question on what Labour’s position is would be most helpful. Eurosceptics, though, should be in good cheer today even if Cameron’s statement is more downbeat than they would like. The veto

Peter Hoskin

The new premium on Lib Dem policies

Could it be an accident of timing that the government, in the shape of Sarah Teather, is announcing an expansion of the pupil premium today? Or is it part of a careful response to David Cameron’s adventures in Euroland? In any case, the Lib Dem-devised scheme to help the poorest pupils will be extended in 2012-13, so that both the amount given to each pupil and the number of pupils eligible are increased. What’s not clear yet is whether this was planned all along, or whether it’s because of some previously unforeseen slack in the existing £1.25 billion budget for next year. The pupil premium has, for instance, already been