David cameron

I’ve just re-read Cameron’s article in the Times and it contains one section that might come back to haunt him, should he become Prime Minister. He writes: ‘Many will be disgusted by the suggestion that ministers in Whitehall encouraged al-Megrahi’s release — and did so for commercial reasons. Diplomacy often involves hard-nosed backroom deals. It would be naive to think otherwise. But there need to be lines you are not prepared to cross; values you will not compromise, whatever deal you broker. I believe even to hint that a convicted terrorist could be used as makeweight for trade is a betrayal of everything that Britain stands for.’  I agree with

In an episode of Yes Prime Minister, a tobacco mogul asks Sir Humphrey: “Does he carry any clout in Whitehall?” The Mandarin replies: “None at all, he’s only a minister.” The context has changed but the essential truth remains – most Cabinet ministers have no clout in government whatsoever. That at least is the view of four former Sir Humphreys. Lords Turnbull, Wilson, Butler, and Armstrong are quoted in the Guardian saying that New Labour has centralised government around a clique of special advisers. The result? The marginalisation of the cabinet and the breakdown of what they term ‘the efficient and proper conduct of government’. Not even Jonathan Powell denies

Fantastic, thought-provoking stuff by Matthew Parris in the Times today, as he looks back on the past 12 years of Tory opposition and asks: “Just what did they achieve?”  His response is generally unfavourable: that, until more recently, the wilderness years have largely been wasted years.  And he highlights the Tories’ inability to take on Labour over their wasteful spending and burgeoning deficit: “But it was on the central domestic question of the era that the Tories’ nerve failed almost fatally. At first new Labour held to the tight spending plans that it inherited from John Major’s outgoing administration. Then the Government let go. The letting go was, in retrospect,

There’s plenty to be sceptical about with this #welovetheNHS Twitter campaign – not least the manner in which it’s falsely polarising the debate into “lovers” or “haters”, given that 140-character “tweets” hardly allow for nuanced arguments.  But, as Fraser pointed out last night, there’s little doubting that it’s a spot of good luck for Gordon Brown: a campaign by the left, for the left, which he managed to seize on with uncharacteristic speed.   Indeed, Brown beat David Cameron to the punch for perhaps the first time in months, and has put the Tory leader on the defensive.  Hence Cameron’s blog post last night, which set out his own #reasonsforlovingtheNHSbutstillwantingittoimprove,

…Alan Duncan saying on video that MPs are treated “like sh*t”, and that they’re forced to live on “rations”.  He’s just apologised, saying that the remarks were meant in jest.  And I’m inclined to believe him: he was, after all, in conversation with the political pranksters over at Don’t Panic (although he didn’t know he was being filmed).  But, either way, it’s easy work for his opponents to take these things out of context.  And many will argue that the expenses fiasco isn’t a laughing matter in the first place.

Earlier, I wrote that Osborne’s speech today seemed to be a significant moment for Project Cameron.  Having attended the Demos event a few hours ago, I still think that’s the case.  Sure, there wasn’t anything particularly new in it – and the delivery didn’t quite zing – but its central point that Brown’s approach to the public finances is regressive, while spending cuts and the right reforms could deliver better services for all, is a necessary refinement of the Tory message.  Come election time, Brown is going to deploy all kinds of attacks on the “nasty Tories” and their “cuts in frontline services”, so it’s important for Cameron & Co.

Is Andrew Lansley using his untouchable status* to bounce David Cameron into a three-year budget settlement? On the Marr sofa (or the Sophie Raworth sofa as it was today), he announced that the Tories are planning “real term increases to the NHS year on year.” Well, David Cameron has only said he would protect health from cuts – but he has not specified how long for. It could be as little as one year. In my political column for this week’s magazine I recommend Cameron keeps uses this to wriggle out of what is now an unaffordable promise. He should freeze NHS spending for a year, then take a scalpel

Reports that the Tories are thinking about appointing a Minister for Afghanistan raise the broader question of how they should structure their national security team. Though the Tories bang on about their idea of setting up a National Security Council, there has been precious little detail given  of how it would work, how it would be different than the Foreign and Defence Policy Secretariat in the Cabinet Office and who would staff it. The National Security Council should be led by a minister, sitting in either the Commons or the Lords, who would also act as the National Security Adviser to the Prime Minister, supported by a National Security Director,

When David Cameron flew to Georgia last year, it was perhaps the clearest and most welcome statement of foreign policy made by the party since he became leader. Liam Fox’s piece on conservativehome today pays tribute to this, and gives us a welcome reminder of the stakes. The Russian threat is growing: there are 10,000 troops there and settlements will soon start. The best the West can do is show solidarity, and there is no clearer sign than going there. As Cameron did. Like Israel in the Middle East, Georgia is a light of democratic freedom in an area with plenty of unlit candles. There is something totemic about its

One of the strangest and most dramatic parliamentary terms ended today in bizarre fashion. The fiasco over fiddled expenses has preoccupied Westminster for months but it was helicopters in Afghanistan that dominated PMQs. From whoppers to choppers. The Speaker seems to have ruled against public lamentations over battlefield casualties and, without these solemnities, our MPs had more time to ask questions and the PM had more time to avoid answering them. David Cameron said the Afghan mission needed, ‘a tighter definition, greater urgency and more visible progress,’ in order to maintain public support. Brown’s definition was looser rather than tighter. ‘To prevent terrorism coming to the streets of Britain, to