Government

Why increase aid to Afghanistan by 40pc when troops are dying from a lack of body armour and helicopters? The pledge to not just protect but vastly increase the aid budget is one which, polls show, leaves the public puzzled.  I was on the Politics Show with Jon Sopel, who was putting to Andrew Mitchell some very sharp questions about all of this. Why build schools in Afghanistan, but cancel them in Britain? Worse, in fact, DFID has a habit of building schools but not finding teachers for them – its ideology states that teaching should be a job for central government, just like it is in Britain. The Afghan

It’s all going swimmingly. David Cameron is almost as popular as Gordon Brown was in August 2007. A worrying omen perhaps, but for the moment the government’s honeymoon is in full swing. It’s quite a bash, and many of the coalition’s initial detractors admit to being pleasantly surprised by Cameron and Clegg. Iain Martin is positive, though he maintains a learned scepticism. Fraser Nelson can see a possible re-alignment of British party politics, and today Martin Kettle gushes about Cameron the ‘man of grace’. I’m not sure what a ‘man of grace’ is, but Cameron’s languid charm and opportunism are effective. Kettle writes: ‘[Cameron] recognises that he is delivering a

In this exchange from the “Yes, Minister” TV series Sir Humphrey welcomes the newly-appointed James Hacker to his department. ‘James Hacker: Who else is in this department? Sir Humphrey Appleby: Well briefly, Sir, I am the Permanent Under Secretary of State, known as the Permanent Secretary. Woolley here is your Principal Private Secretary, I too have a Principal Private Secretary and he is the Principal Private Secretary to the Permanent Secretary. Directly responsible to me are ten Deputy Secretaries, 87 Under Secretaries and 219 Assistant Secretaries. Directly responsible to the Principal Private Secretary are plain Private Secretaries, and the Prime Minister will be appointing two Parliamentary Under Secretaries and you

I doubt David Cameron will have many better days in government than this. Considering the government cancelled a hospital project yesterday, today has passed as one long photo-op, free of incident. It began with Theresa May banning a radical Islamist cleric, Zakir Naik, displaying a resolve that eluded her immediate predecessors. The papers were full of Cameron’s ‘coup’ in Brussels yesterday; the only major news story that might have unnerved Cameron was the FT’s research into Tory immigration policy, which the FT calculates will hit growth and raise taxes. It was too esoteric to hit the TV screens, so too the cuts in arts funding. It must have been a

It still looks like your TV set is on a horizontal flip when you see Cameron at the government dispatch box. Even more disorientating to see Chris Huhne on the front bench and Nick Clegg beside Cameron – making supportive facial gestures on areas he agrees with (pupil premium), and looking quizzical on areas on which he does not (marriage). Cameron’s performance shows that Britain has just had a tremendous upgrade in the eloquence of its Prime Minister: his performance was no better than as Leader of the Opposition, but still at a high standard. Without Brown’s henchmen leading Labour, their backbenchers were disorientated. But still rather numerous: Labour has

Is the new government marching across scorched earth?  They certainly claim so, and now they seem to have the civil service backing them up.  Speaking to the Beeb this afternoon, Jonathan Baume, the leader of a civil service union, said that senior civil servants had written “letters of direction” to Labour ministers in concern at the spending decisions they took in the final months of their government.  As Baume put it: “It’s not a decision that is taken very often to ask for such a letter of direction, which is why it is regarded something of a nuclear option. So when it happens it tends to be a big spending

So now the coalition stretches as far as Labour, with the news that Frank Field is being lined up as an anti-poverty advisor for the government.  In itself, this is an encouraging development: Field is one of decent men of Westminster – committed, informed and passionate.  But when you look at it beside the Tories’ other appointments in this area, then it really becomes exciting.  Field, IDS, Grayling and Lord Freud – all are deeply knowledgable about the welfare reform agenda, to the point where it’s difficult to think of many more impressive teams in recent political history.  So perhaps there is hope for this most difficult of policy areas,

Spare a thought for poor Theresa May. Judging by the reaction so far, she now faces the unenviable task of shouldering almost everyone’s preconceptions about Tory women in government – with Caroline Spelman, Baroness Warsi and the lower-profile Cheryl Gillan for back-up. She will no doubt continue to disappoint feminists and irritate reactionaries, and she will do so while responsible for the notoriously unwieldy Home Office, which has rapidly taken over from the Department of Health as the ministry where political careers go to die. Representation in politics does matter. It is not unreasonable to claim, as Katharine Viner did in Thursday’s Guardian, that “democracies simply don’t work unless they

One of the most interesting questions is whether the Tories and the Lib Dems will be able to move from the talking points to the action points. Besides Ken Clarke, Francis Maude and William Hague none of the ministers have any previous government experience. They know government from the outside, from the sidelines, from parliamentary questions but not from the inside. It will be really interesting to see how the Cameron-Clegg government copes not just with the issues where they can set the agenda – like police reform – but where the Goverment is mugged daily by reality – like Pakistan or Yemen. I suspect they will find Labour acted

Much ado about this 55 percent proposal – whereby that proportion of the House, rather than just over 50 percent, would be required to vote down a government – and rightly so.  But, as so often, Iain Martin says all that needs to be said.  Here’s a snippet from his must-read post: “It is rather stretching things to try and present this piece of proposed gerrymandering as ‘Political Reform.’ It is actually designed to ensure that even a walk-out of the whole Lib Dem parliamentary group couldn’t actually bring down this government. This would weaken parliament and strengthen the hand of the executive considerably – when it is only weeks

Today’s civil partnership between two men who look uncannily like each other will, I suspect, be remembered as a festival of misplaced optimism. Cameron overdid it a little, making out that this was his ideal outcome. It seems rude to point it out, but there were two podiums in that rose garden because he flunked the election (see Tim Montgomerie’s superlative report for details). The cost of his failure to win is having to do a deal with Nick Clegg. The country didn’t vote for a new politics: the Lib Dems did worse than last time, so polls show most voters would have preferred Cameron to have formed a minority