David cameron

Cameron and Clegg, head to head

Now here’s a shock: something to trump the relentless tedium of the Cricket World Cup. The AV referendum. Labour MP Jim Murphy held his constituency surgery in a large supermarket today and it was well attended, but no one asked about the referendum. Murphy ruefully tweeted: ‘the public are so out of touch with today’s politicians.’ But it is odd, or at least it should be, that the nation’s second ever plebiscite has inspired only indifference; then again, electoral reform is not a subject to quicken the pulse. Even the campaigners are resigned to expect scant enthusiasm for their cause. The campaign is days old and already its emphasis has

It’s a knock out: judicial activism versus the sovereignty of parliament

The prisoner voting debate is coming to a head, and Dave has turned once too often. The Times has received (£) what it describes as a government legal memo, urging the government to defy the demands of the European Court of Human Rights. After last week’s parliamentary debate, the government’s lawyers calculate that the ECHR can only put ‘political pressure rather than judicial pressure’ on British institutions. This is a seminal moment: political will has not been met by administrative won’t. But would non-compliance succeed? Last month, Austria’s attempt to withdraw the franchise from all prisoners serving more than a year was thrown out by the ECHR; but one suspects

The government has been weak over forests

A very dangerous precedent has been established today over the forest fiasco. Caroline Spelman earlier gave the most extraordinary interview on Radio 4’s PM. “We got it wrong,” she said in the Commons. “How so?” asked Eddie Mair. She wouldn’t say. As he kept asking her, it became increasing clear that she didn’t think they got it wrong. They conducted the U-Turn because they were losing the media war.   Really? Is that all it takes to defeat Cameron’s government? A decent two-week campaign with a couple of celebs? The forest policy was a good one: why do we need state-run timber farms? Not that this argument was ever aired.

James Forsyth

In the AV referendum, either Clegg or Cameron has to lose

Tomorrow both Clegg and Cameron will give speeches on AV, Clegg for and Cameron against. They’ll be very civil about their disagreement. But the truth is that one of them has to lose in this vote and the loser will have a very unhappy party on his hands. As Steve Richards points out in The Independent today, there’s been a lot more talk of the consequences for Clegg of AV going down than of what happens to Cameron if it passes. But Cameron would have almost as many problems if it passes as Clegg would if it failed. Fairly or not, a large number of Tory MPs will blame Cameron

IDS vows to tackle Britain’s welfare addiction

IDS and David Cameron have been evangelising. An insistent newspaper article and pugnacious speeches herald the latest welfare reform drive. There has been one significant u-turn: the threat to decimate housing benefit for those who have been unemployed for more than a year has been dropped. There is debate about the origins of this sudden decision, but Nick Clegg has been apportioned some credit. He is understood to have expressed private concerns about ‘hammering the poor’ and also argued that private sector landlords in areas of high unemployment would be reluctant to rent to claimants, which would impede reform. IDS agrees with Nick, confiding to the Today programme that the

Cameron fells the forestry consultation

Despite his easy charm, David Cameron is unsentimental. His dismemberment of Caroline Spelman’s sagging forestry policy at yesterday’s PMQs was as ruthless as it was abrupt. The Prime Minister cannot be an enemy of Judy Dench and other doughty dames, so the hapless environment minister had to be shafted. Cameron’s strategic withdrawal did not end there. Several newspapers report that the 12-week consultation will be curtailed by the end of the week, on the simple grounds that the public does not like it. Spelman is expected to pronounce the project dead in the Commons at lunchtime today, and the chamber will ring with the noise of Labour’s braying benches. Ed

The Tories’ secret weapon

Too much time at the barbers. That’s the opposition’s problem. Ed Miliband showed up at PMQS today after a long morning lounging in the chair having his hair coiffed and burnished. His darkly gleaming scalp now looks like the kind of thing toffs scrape their boots on after a morning’s shooting. And that’s precisely what the Prime Minister proceeded to do with him today. With no time for a strategy meeting beforehand Ed had just grabbed a list questions from the last PMQs-but-three.   He began by having a go at Cameron on youth unemployment. But we know how Cameron deals with that one. Been a problem for decades, old

James Forsyth

Cameron breaks from the norm at PMQs

PMQs today contained a rare moment: the Prime Minister admitting that he wasn’t happy with government policy. Ed Miliband, who split his questions up this week, asked Cameron if he was happy with his position on forestry and Cameron replied, ‘the short answer to that is no.’ The answer rather drew the sting from the rest of Miliband’s questions on the topic. But it was a rather embarrassing admission for the PM to have to make.    Cameron made quite a lot of news at the despatch box this week. He accused Manchester City Council of making “politically driven” cuts, said that more regulations needed to be scrapped and announced

Why we need a rate rise

Now that today’s inflation figures are up, to a predictable and predicted 4.0 percent on CPI and 5.2 percent on RPI, we can expect the usual response. Nothing from the government (even though the declining standard of living will eclipse cuts as the no.1 problem of 2011); plenty of shocked news stories; and, then, the round of commentators saying that Mervyn King should “hold his nerve,” and not increase the absurdly low base rates of 0.5 percent. Inflation is temporary, he says, and should be okay again this time next year (that’s what he said about the start of 2011). The Spectator does not have much company in finding fault

My Adventures in the Big Society

I was invited to Somerset House on the Strand yesterday as part of the Big Society Network to watch David Cameron take questions for the best part of an hour on his pet subject. My organisation, New Deal of the Mind, has been helping deliver two welfare-to-work contracts since last year and, along with most people in what I have learned to call “the third sector” I am prepared to give this idea the benefit of the doubt. There doesn’t seem to be anything particularly ideological about the Big Society, although Ed Miliband showed in his Independent on Sunday article at the weekend just how convenient a whipping boy this

Aid to India to be replaced with pro-growth help

How to manage Britain’s aid to India? The fast-rising country has a space programme, costing nearly the same as Britain gives in annual aid. To many people, that is reason enough to cut all aid. Yet, at the same time, India is one of the world’s poorest countries. 456 million people live on less than $1.25 per day. Annual income per person is only $1,180, compared to $3,650 in China and $41,370 in the UK. That means there are 20 percent more poor people in India than in sub-Saharan Africa. But India receives only $1.50 in aid per person, compared to $28 for Sub-Saharan Africa. A good example of India’s

Is Cameron’s counter-offensive headed in the wrong direction?

As James has noted, Downing Street has turned its energies to the big society. Op-eds are being written, airtime used and speeches made. This morning saw the centrepiece: a former Labour donor, Sir Ronald Cohen, has joined the campaign and Cameron devoted a speech to what he described as his “political mission”. Cameron was fluent and passionate, determined in shirt-sleeve order. He was not exactly clear, but I don’t think that’s a problem. There is no concrete definition of what the big society is. As I argued yesterday, Cameron has changed tactics and is now using it as a descriptive term of the sort of voluntary and philanthropic instincts his

The big-society counter-offensive

Last week Steve Hilton set up a war room in Downing Street. In daily meetings, Hilton plotted the ‘big society’ fight-back that started today with Cameron’s op-ed in The Observer. Hilton, who is predominant in Downing Street at the moment, knows that Cameron will never u-turn on the big society. It is what the Prime Minister thinks defines him as a politician. Cameron is desperate to be seen as more than a deficit hawk and the big society is what he wants to be his legacy. The big society is sailing into quite a headwind. Francis Maude’s unintentionally comic comment today that the big society has been a massive ‘communications

Cameron downgrades the Big Society

It’s written in print: the Big Society has become the “big society”. David Cameron has responded to criticism of his flagship agenda by downgrading it from a proper noun to a compound adjective. He makes no attempt to define “big society”; rather, Cameron suggests that the term is descriptive of the impulses he hopes to encourage. He writes in today’s Observer: ‘Take a trip with me to Balsall Heath in Birmingham and I’ll show you a place once depressingly known as a sink estate but now a genuinely desirable place to live. Why the transformation? Because even in a tough neighbourhood, the seeds of a stronger society were there and residents boldly decided they’d

Fraser Nelson

Britain’s coming crunch with Europe

It did not take David Cameron long to realise that there were three parties in his coalition. A few months into government, the Prime Minister worked out that only half of the policies he was enacting came from the shared agenda drawn up when the Tories and LibDems got together. The other half comes from the EU. Or, more specifically, the Civil Service machine, which is busy implementing various EU Directives, often passed many years ago. Cameron is trying to put the brakes on this process. As I say in my News of the World column, this has led to much frustration in Whitehall. And dismay: the Civil Service remembers

A clue to how Cameron really thinks things are going

The most interesting question in politics right now is, to my mind, what does David Cameron really think about how his premiership is going? Does he subscribe to the view that the coalition is getting the big things right and that the numerous u-turns that Fraser referred to in his post really don’t matter that much. Or does he worry that the government is failing to communicate a message and that his defining political project—the big society—is coming under rapidly increasing fire. My own view is that the truth rests somewhere between these two statements. But my feeling has been that Cameron is too blasé about how Downing Street is

Cameron’s Eric Morecambe problem calls for the wisdom of Corporal Jones

It looks like the most almighty mess. The government’s communications are tongued-tied, the Big Society is flightless and the reform agenda is being neutered by inertia. The political will has been met by the administrative won’t. But, despite the gloom, the government should pay heed to Corporal Jones: don’t panic. The slow progress of public service reform is a positive. Haunted by the memory of Blair’s paralysis, the government embarked on its programme in fevered delirium. Its ambitions were much too great. It is now time to halt and concentrate on delivering cuts. Rome was not built in a day and it certainly cost more than Britain can currently spare.

The Commons rejects prisoner voting rights

The Davis Straw motion on keeping the ban on prisoner votes has just passed by 234 votes to 22. It is a crushing victory on what was a very good turnout given that both front benches were not voting. The 22 against the motion were a bunch of Liberal Democrats plus the Ulster MP Lady Hermon, the Plaid MPs Jonathan Edwards, Elfyn Llwyd and Hywel Williams, the Green Caroline Lucas,   Labour MPs Barry Gardiner, Kate Green, Glenda Jackson, Andy Love, Kerry McCarthy, John McDonnell, Yasmin Quereshi  and  one Tory Peter Bottomely, David Cameron now finds himself between a rock and a hard place. His MPs hate the idea of giving

A well fought fight

Plenty of personality at today’s PMQs. Not much policy. Miliband opened with one of his stiletto questions. Short sharp and deadly. ‘How’s his Big Society going?’ he asked the prime minister. Potentially this is tricky ground for Cameron and he rose to a barrage of Labour jeers. At least he’s had time to rehearse his defence. ‘Devolving power to local authorities was in the opposition manifesto and in ours and in the LibDems’ …Every member of the House of Commons backs what we’re talking about,’ he said cheerily. A robust counter-attack. Pose as an optimistic philosopher-king and leave Ed Miliband looking like a whining defeatist. Miliband duly obliged and unfurled

PMQS live blog

VERDICT: A rowdy session, but constructive. Miliband went for the Big Society, which is in severe difficulty at present. He was very effective, but his attacks lacked absolute coherence. He failed to establish a link between his examples and his wider political point that the agenda is mere packaging for latent libertarianism. So, Cameron had enough wriggle room to repulse Miliband and was able to launch his own attacks on the Labour leader’s irresponsible opportunism, and he also savaged Liverpool Council’s reactionary politicking. Both leaders had good lines and were deft on their feet, as point was met by counter-point. Their supporters were in full voice too, sufficient to allow