David cameron

Nearly a decade ago, a book called He’s Just Not That Into You became what is termed a ‘publishing sensation. I don’t know if this attempt to explain men to women was persuasive or not (the odds seem against it being so) but its title seemed pertinent to yesterday’s launch of the Unionist campaign to preserve the United Kingdom in a more-or-less recognisable form. Why? Because of the man who wasn’t there. David Cameron didn’t attend the Better Together event held at Napier University. This was not a surprise but his absence was still telling. Perhaps the Prime Minister has been persuaded his presence in Scotland is more liable to

Why has David Cameron chosen to launch what is effectively a 2015 manifesto pledge on welfare today? The Prime Minister’s speech, which he has just finished giving, had quite interesting timing: we still, after all, have just under three years before the next general election. Cameron has already dropped hints about how much further the Conservatives could go on key areas – and specifically referred to welfare – without the Liberal Democrats holding them back, but this is the first instance where he has pinpointed a particular post-2015 policy. It leaves the Liberal Democrats once again on the back foot over benefits, suggesting to a public hungry for a more

A few years back the radio disc jockey John Peel died. Some public sorrow was expressed and soon Tony Blair issued a press release explaining his personal sadness. A little while later someone else who was popular died and the same thing happened. A few days later still and hundreds of thousands of people were killed and many more made homeless by a Tsunami out East. For several hours Blair was silent. Some media jumped on this and whipped up public expressions of shock. ‘Why has our Prime Minister not expressed sadness about the Tsunami deaths?’ and so on. I don’t know why Blair took a few more hours than

Michael Gove’s plan to scrap GCSEs and replace them with a beefed-up O-Level are, as Brother Blackburn observed earlier, threatened by the Conservatives’ coalition partners. It seems quite probable that Gove’s proposals will be watered down following the usual “consultation” with the Liberal Democrats. This will, understandably, vex Tories. Gove’s proposals have considerable merit even if, as always, the advantages of his plans are (partially) offset by their drawbacks. As successive governments have discovered it is difficult to build an education system that is demanding, universal and equitable. There must be winners and losers and the argument is chiefly about defining those terms. Today’s developments also demonstrate that neither partner

There is much excitement on the wires about David Cameron’s attitude to tax avoidance. The PM’s just told ITV news: ‘He’s [Jimmy Carr] taking the money from tickets and as far as I can see, he’s putting all of that into some very dodgy tax avoiding scheme.’ It is ‘completely wrong’, he said. Asked about today’s revelations in the Times, which include allegations against Cameron-backer Gary Barlow, the prime minister said: ‘[I will] look at that scheme … as soon as I get in front of my computer.’ Tax avoidance embarrasses the Conservative leader, especially as his government has not successfully curbed it. But two specific points emerge from Cameron’s

David Cameron acquitted himself well at Leveson yesterday, as he does in all such events.  But it was odd to hear him say that there should be ‘more distance’ between politicians and the press. The implication of his comment is that he has been sucked into the brutal realpolitik of the newspaper industry; that he had to spend weekends with Rebekah Brooks or face electoral oblivion; and that the only question for Lord Justice Leveson is why politicians are left in such a position. I look at this in my Telegraph column today.   No one forced Cameron to get on LOL-terms with the editor of The Sun. Certainly, he

David Cameron was visibly rattled by Robert Jay QC, Counsel to the Leveson Inquiry, earlier today. Counsel was examining the relationship between the PM and Rebekah Brooks. Counsel concentrated on the text that Mrs Brooks sent Mr Cameron on the eve of his 2009 party conference speech. Mrs Brooks’s use of Cameron’s phrase ‘in this together’, which he used extensively in the subsequent speech, has led some to argue that their relationship was too close. In the morning session, Counsel asked Mr Cameron how often he met Mrs Brooks socially at the weekend. Mr Cameron was vague in response, only offering ‘well not every week’ in answer. (Mr Cameron returned from lunch with

A firestorm has torn across Westminster overnight, since Nick Clegg instructed his MPs to abstain from today’s opposition motion demanding that Jeremy Hunt be referred to Sir Alex Allan, the ministerial standards supremo. Numerous Tory backbenchers have taken to the airwaves to condemn their perfidious coalition colleagues. The Mail has the most complete record of the rage. One MP vowed revenge on the liberals. Another described the abstention as ‘an act of war’ before Cameron and Clegg appear before the Leveson inquiry. And Peter Bone said that the Lib Dems ‘are not fit to be in government because they can’t accept collective responsibility.’ Downing Street tells a different tale. ‘There