David cameron

Angry Conservative Party officials have hit back at attacks from the left on the education of the Prime Minister’s children. On Monday the PM’s spokesman claimed: ‘Like tens of thousands of other parents, the prime minister and Mrs Cameron expect to hear which secondary schools have offered a place to their daughter Nancy. If she gets more than one offer they will make a decision in due course.’ It is thought Nancy Cameron will attend a central London comprehensive, which would make Cameron the first Tory PM to send his child to a state comp. This has not stopped education campaigners weighing in. Fiona Millar, who lest we forget is Alastair Campbell’s partner,

Two party election policies, two failures to think things through. Or, at least, to engage with realities. First, Labour announces a cut in university tuition fees to a maximum of £6,000. Why? The sum itself isn’t important. For a potential student, £6,000 and £9,000 – or £18,000 and £27,000 – are much of a muchness. If you can pay off one, you can pay off the other. The issue, surely, is whether there should be tuition fees at all. I think not. But then I also think that the number of university places should be cut by about 75 per cent. Second, the Prime Minister announces a bunch of new

While the Tories scrabble around for a candidate for the 2016 London Mayoral election, Mr S hears one millionaire is already eyeballing the 2020 race. Barely an edition of the Evening Standard fails to feature either an interview by (or with) their proprietor Evgeny Lebedev. His face is regularly found across the pages of both his publications the Standard and the Independent, most recently in an awkward interview with David Cameron. His father Alexander must have been proud, as he uploaded a photo of the two to Instagram: Evgueny recently interviewed D.Cameron.Hope a question about UK/Russia relations was raised. A photo posted by @alexanderelebedev on Feb 21, 2015 at 10:36am PST While most have put all this

That was a close one. Miliband set two traps for the PM today. One was visible. The other, far more dangerous, was hidden until the very last moment. Miliband wants Tories to vote against a bill that will forbid serving MPs from acting as company directors. This connects sweetly with his  ‘Thatcherite swine gobbling at the Westminster trough’ motif. The Labour leader asked Cameron if he minded MPs having two jobs. ‘He has a chance to vote for change tonight.’ Cameron blithely objected that the new bill excludes directors of family businesses but not ‘paid trade union officials.’ Miliband pounced. Conceding Cameron’s point, he offered to make a ‘manuscript amendment’

Will any of the General Election TV debates take place? Labour hopes they will, and today Douglas Alexander has written to Grant Shapps demanding that the Tories commit to doing the head-to-head debate with Ed Miliband, even if all the smaller parties are tying themselves up into fights over he seven-way debate. Alexander writes: ‘In the light of the previous comments from yourself and Mr Cameron, I am sure you will agree this is a “credible debate” and an excellent opportunity for the British people to watch the two leaders who stand a realistic chance of being Prime Minister after May 7. ‘I am happy to confirm on Mr Miliband’s

Today’s Scottish Conservative conference in Edinburgh proved unexpectedly interesting. No, really. Or, rather, yes, really. Or whatever. David Cameron spoke, you see, and so did Ruth Davidson and they said very different things. For important Prime Ministerial timetabling reasons (ie, he needed to get back to London) Cameron spoke first and thus, unusually, served as the warm-up guy. Which merely helped emphasise the difference between what the Prime Minister said and what the Scottish Tory leader had to say. Some of this was a question of substance.Cameron declared that the national question is “settled” whereas Davidson warned that “This isn’t over and it hasn’t gone away”. Only one of them

Breakfast is under way on 8 May 2015, and the party leaders have already started haggling. The possibility of a loveless Labour/SNP ‘anti-austerity’ pact has sent the markets tumbling. With the largest number of seats but no overall majority, the Tories are making eyes at the least un-attractive potential bedfellows. Assorted pressure groups are trying to rekindle the same ‘Purple Protest’ movement which sought to exploit the political void immediately after the 2010 election. Having spent all night telling the television cameras that all this voting stuff is, like, rubbish, an exhausted Russell Brand urges his followers to rise up and do, er, something. But the protestors find that the

Will the Tories really dock benefits from obese people and those with drug or alcohol addictions if they refuse treatment? Even though David Cameron reaffirmed his commitment to the policy in his speech in Hove yesterday, anyone who is getting rather over-excited about it could probably expend their energy on something else as this looks suspiciously like one of those policy kites that gets flown from time to time. In the Times today, I point out that the idea cropped up several times under Labour as well as the Tories. The reason that this latest incarnation of the ‘sick people, get treatment or lose benefits’ policy might not ever become

“There’s a lot we need to do in this party of ours. Our base is too narrow and so, occasionally, are our sympathies. You know what some people call us – the nasty party.” Theresa May, October 8th 2002. February 17th 2015, David Cameron announces plans to make 50,000 youths spend 30 hours a week on community service schemes to keep their “Youth Allowance” benefits. The Youth Allowance, by the way, is £57 a week. And today’s announcement follows suggestions that fat people should lose access to benefits unless they lose weight. Look, it’s not the goal that’s the problem here. When Cameron says there is a moral quality to

Ed Miliband appears to have found some safe ground for his party this week, attacking the Tories whenever he can over tax avoidance claims. If he plans to continue on this note, Mr S suggests that he picks his words with more care in the future. Speaking at the Welsh Labour conference on Saturday about his plan to launch an HMRC review, Miliband went off message rather badly. The Labour leader promised to ‘stand up for all those who stand in the way of the success of working families’. That couldn’t be what he means, could it?