David cameron

So Sir Richard Dannatt has departed the Tory fold almost as curiously as he entered it. Sure, have been no gaffes from Chris Grayling this time around – but when it was announced last October that the former head of the Army was advising David Cameron, it was widely expected that he’d graduate to become a peer and a minister in any Tory government. But today he announces his “retirement” as neither. The Tories are downplaying all this, eager to avoid a repeat of the speculation that surrounded Sir Alan Budd’s departure. And, to be fair, there are few signs, as yet, that this is a viciously unamicable split. But

Andrew Rawnsley’s potted hierarchy of the coalition government – and especially its final sentence – is worth pulling out for the scrapbook: “There is still, of course, an inner circle. When not abroad, the first key fixture of the day at Number 10 is the strategy meeting. Its usual attendees include George Osborne, the chancellor; Andy Coulson and Steve Hilton, his director of communications and his senior strategist; Jeremy Heywood, the permanent secretary at Number 10; the prime minister’s chief and deputy chief of staff, Ed Llewellyn and Kate Fall. Note that Nick Clegg is not on that list. He belongs to the next circle of influence around David Cameron.

Oh for the days of inactive prime ministers. After yesterday’s hot-headedness about Gaza, comes an even more deliberately pointed statement. Cameron said: ‘[Pakistan] should not be allowed to promote the export of terror whether to India, whether to Afghanistan or to anywhere else in the world.’ I agree, providing of course it is established that the Pakistani state is fomenting terror and the Wikileaks revelations do not give that impression. That said, the Pakistan government is responsible for all of its agents, and they should curb S-Wing’s collusion with the Taliban and its affiliates in Waziristan. Cameron and Obama are right to press the Pakistani authorities. But a goodwill tour

In 1690, Thomas ‘Diamond’ Pitt led an opulent delegation of the East India Company’s Madras factors, bearing their wares, to the Nawab of the Carnatic, the richest man in southern India, with the intention of buying him out. They succeeded, but Pitt had nothing on David Cameron’s delegation.  Six cabinet ministers, more than 10 CEOs and God knows how many diplomats are accompanying the Prime Minister. The only person missing is Nick – but that sort of thing is frowned upon by Delhi’s Edwardianly genteel political classes. As I wrote yesterday, pageantry titillates commercial diplomacy, and Cameron is staking everything on this mission. As the Independent reported yesterday, current Anglo-Indian bilateral trade is worth

Tim Montgomerie observes that the FCO now stands for Foreign and Commerce Office. David Cameron is determined to conduct British foreign policy in our economic interest. And, in that spirit, he is off to charm India in the hope of gaining access to that enormous emerging market – last week’s magazine has exhaustive coverage of the trip. Tim also claims that the Foreign Office won’t like this ‘redirection of their mission’. I’m not so sure. From what I hear, the Foreign Office is loving it; it’s just like old times. The FO was marginalised under the previous government; Labour cut staff in embassies and consulates around the globe. The coalition

Matthew Parris and Charles Moore are the two of the most eloquent exponents of conservatism. But they represent different strands of conservative thought as their views on AV demonstrate. Matthew argues in his column in The Times today that the Conservative party should let AV pass if that is what it takes to keep the Lib Dems happy. He thinks that the Lib Dems are not only needed to make the Coalition work but that their presence is, in itself, a good thing. As he writes, ‘Lib Dems bring to government a distinct and healthy slant on politics. There is a reactionary component in the Tory make-up; I often share