David cameron

Who watches the watchmen? | 7 March 2011

There’s a fuse-meet-flame quality to PoliticsHome’s smart little scoop this morning. Our parliamentarians are already somewhat hacked off with IPSA, the body tasked with overseeing their expenses. So how will they react upon reading that IPSA spent £300,000 of taxpayers’ cash on furbishing their London office? The watchdog’s shopping list includes 25 cabinets (£2,295 each), 14 “relaxer loungers” (£465 each) and a table at £837. It sounds awfully like some of the MPs’ claims that were so controversial in the first place. IPSA are defending the spending, citing “industry standards” and such. But, whatever, it just fuels the sense that they are an unduly expensive and convoluted answer to the

Cameron hugs his party

David Cameron’s speech to the Conservative Spring Forum was one of the most Conservative speeches he has given in a long time. It was an address that was meant to reassure the party during what looks set to to be this government’s most difficult year. The Tory leader opened with a list of policy pledges delivered and they were all distinctively Conservative policies: making work pay, the EU referendum lock, teaching British history in schools, freezing council tax, capping immigration and doubling the operational allowance. There was further crowd pleasing material in a substantial section of the speech which attacked AV. Cameron sought to present the Tories as the moral,

Obama backs Cameron on no-fly zone

Everyone knows that a media narrative is a difficult thing to change. So No.10 must be annoyed that so many newspapers, from the Telegraph to the Independent, are suggesting that David Cameron’s response to the Libya crisis has been “embarrassing,” and rejected by the US. But the Prime Minister would do well to stay the course and ignore the media for a number of reasons. First, just because US Defence Secretary Robert Gates is sceptical about a policy does not mean it is wrong. Somehow, the US Defence Secretary’s words are now taken as gospel in the British media and the PM is meant to repent immediately. Why? So what

Harriet ‘shambolic’ Harman

I’ve spent ten minutes reading the same passage and still don’t understand what it means. It comes from Harriet Harman, quoted in the Independent, criticising the government’s Libya strategy: “The response to the terrible events in Libya has been a shambles. The key to their shambolic response lies in their ideology. If your perspective is that government is a bad thing and you want less of it, you’re not going to be on the front foot when the power of government is exactly what is needed.” Do you get it? Is the Labour MP saying that her party would have harnessed the power of the state, principally the military, and

James Forsyth

A night that will not be quickly forgotten

Last night’s by-election result in Barnsley is embarrassing for both Clegg and Cameron. For Clegg, it is obviously humiliating to come sixth. Fourth would have been bad enough but sixth is an even worse result than the Lib Dems feared. The fact the Lib Dems also lost their deposit just adds insult to injury. The result will certainly make activists heading to Sheffield next week for their spring conference jumpy. I also suspect that we’ll see some enterprising newspaper doing a poll in Clegg’s Sheffield constituency before next weekend.  On the Conservative side, coming third behind UKIP is going to lend weight to those who argue that the party has

New World temporarily postponed

We are meant to be living in a multi-polar world, one where US power is waning, and where countries reject the prying interference of the West. Except, erm, we aren’t. Today’s world looks exactly as it did yesterday. First, many of the 20th century issues people thought would disappear – dictators, repression and democracy – remain as prevalent now as then. The Iraq War has tempered people’s appetite for humanitarian interventions without extinguishing it. The key difference seems to be that support is now minimal on the Left and still strong on the neo-con Right. Everyone is also still focused on what the US will or will not do, even

Clegg collides with Cameron over extremism

Nick Clegg’s speech in Luton today on extremism is a challenge to large parts of David Cameron’s remarks on the subject in Munich just last month. Indeed, even the venue of the speech can be seen as a rebuke to Cameron who was attacked for giving a speech on Islamic extremism on the same day that the English Defence League was marching in Luton. Cameron’s speech, which was one of the best of his premiership, argued that ‘the ideology of extremism is the problem’ and that terrorism’s ‘root lies in the existence of this extremist ideology’. In the key section of the speech, Cameron declared: “As evidence emerges about the

James Forsyth

Hunt’s rising star

The decision on News Corp’s take-over of BSkyB has thrust Jeremy Hunt into the spotlight. The culture secretary is many Tories’ bet to be the next leader of the party. Hunt is ambitious even by political standards: during the Brown bounce he canvassed opinion as to whether he should stand in the Tory leadership contest that would follow an election defeat, and has a John Major like ability to make factions in the party feel like he is one of them. Add to this, a good television manner and one can see why people think he’ll go far. One of the odd things about politics is that there is no

Cameron caught in the middle

Need a bestiary to tell the hawks from the doves? Then this article (£) in the Times should serve your purpose. It’s an account of Tuesday’s Cabinet meeting on Libya, and the differences of opinion that transpired. Michael Gove, we are told, was “messianic” in his call for a tougher stance against Gaddafi. William Hague, for his part, was considerably more cautious. A graphic alongside the article puts George Osborne, Liam Fox and Andrew Mitchell in the Gove camp, and Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander with Hague. David Cameron, chairman of this diverse board, is said to be “caught in the middle”. The government has since denied that the Cabinet

Lessons from wars gone by

As the situation deteriorates in Libya and the international community begins to look at various options, including military ones, policymakers would do well to remember a number of key lessons from the last 15 years of warfare. Like all history, they don’t provide a guide to the future, but can be a warning nonetheless. The Bosnian experience of the mid ’90s contains four key lessons. The first is that international handwringing costs lives. Many lives. (The same lesson emerges from the post-Gulf War I slaughter of the Kurds and Shia by Saddam Hussein). Wait, and the situation usually gets worse not better. The second lesson is that however great the

Dave ‘n’ Ed’s Flying Circus

It was Monty Python without the jokes. The focus of PMQs today veered surreally between crisis in north Africa and early swimming pool closures in Leeds. The session opened in Security Council mode with Ed Miliband politely asking the PM to brief us on the humanitarian disaster evolving in Libya’s border-zone. Cameron went into his statesman-of-the-year routine and announced that HMS York had docked in Benghazi with medical supplies.   At such moments the imperial ghosts of the Commons seem momentarily reawakened. Ed Miliband sounds like some Victorian stooge asking the Foreign Secretary to reassure the nation that an uprising in a far-flung oriental possession is being energetically suppressed. Having

James Forsyth

Promoting Cameron from a party leader to a national leader

Danny Finkelstein’s paean of praise (£) to Andrew Cooper, the PM’s new director of political strategy, contains several interesting lines.  Finkelstein says that his former flat mate’s biggest challenge is, ‘Devising a strategy for changes in the NHS so that a critical political battle isn’t lost disastrously’. This is yet another indication of how nervous Osborne and co are about Lansley’s reforms and reopening the NHS as a political issue. The second is him reporting that Cooper will tell ‘Cameron to be a national leader, rather than a party politician. Especially in the Commons.’ To date, Cameron has been — with some notable exceptions such as his statement on Bloody

Toppling Mad Dog

Should Gaddafi be pushed? That is the question diplomats and policy makers are beginning to ask. The UN has imposed travel restrictions and frozen Gaddafi’s assets. But Gaddafi is resisting the hangman’s noose; the loss of his Mayfair property empire is the merest of inconveniences. And still he fights on. There is now a growing humanitarian case for direct military intervention by Western powers. However, there are plenty of arguments against even introducing a no-fly zone. Gideon Rachman makes some of them in today’s FT: ‘A few of the problems are practical. Some military observers say that a no-fly zone would be of limited use in Libya, since Col Gaddafi

British foreign policy needs to promote democracy

After a week of hesitation and well-publicised problems evacuating British citizens from Libya, the government has led the international community’s response to the crisis. The decision to move HMS Cumberland into position was astute, as was the authorisation to rescue the people stranded in the dessert. At the UN, British diplomats have been drafting most of the key resolutions and now David Cameron has out-hawked everyone by saying he’d be willing to contemplate a no-fly zone. US lawmakers have asked the Obama administration why they have not been as swift as the UK. As a Bosnian-born friend of mine said last night: “If only David Cameron and William Hague were

Cameron: military action not out of the question in Libya

The government’s game of catch-up on Libya continues apace. David Cameron came to the Commons to update the House on the current situation. His main message was now that we have the vast majority of our citizens out, we can have a policy. Indeed, the government is today openly admitting that it was hamstrung last week by the continuing presence of a large number of British nationals in Tripoli. Cameron told the House that ‘we do not in any way rule out the use of military assets’; a dramatic shift from the tone of his entourage on last week’s trip. At the moment, the main military option on the table

Boris: give us a referendum on Europe

Boris kicks off his Telegraph column today by observing that Colonel Gaddafi and Gordon Brown “look vaguely similar”. And yet the really provocative copy, at least so far as the government is concerned, is reserved for the final paragraph: “It is bonkers [by pushing for AV] to be pursuing the last manoeuvre of a cornered Gordon Brown. By all means let us have a referendum – the one we were promised, on the Lisbon EU Treaty. Have you noticed the EU policy on North Africa? Have you heard much from Baroness Ashton? Shouldn’t we have a vote on all that?” It’s hardly a secret that Boris wanted a referendum on

Will Cameron have a Brown moment over petrol?

Remember when Gordon Brown came up against Fern Britton in a TV interview? I’ve pasted the video above to remind CoffeeHousers of two persistent truths: how tricky a subject petrol costs can be for a serving Prime Minister (watch on from around the 0:50 mark), and how Labour are hardly blameless when it comes to the current cost of fuel. As Britton asks in the interview, “How much tax do you put on the fuel?” And the answer that Brown mumbled to avoid, from a House of Commons briefing note at the time, was this: In other words, for a huge portion of the New Labour years, fuel duty accounted

The charge that the coalition should fear

The greatest political, as opposed to strategic, threat to the coalition from the Libya evacuation crisis was that it would give the government a reputation for incompetence. As I say in the Mail on Sunday, Labour are looking to pin the incompetence charge to the coalition at every possible opportunity. The Miliband team knows that if the coalition comes to be seen as incompetent, then it is done for. Once a government comes to be seen as incompetent, then it is almost impossible for it to gain support for any of its proposals as even those who agree with the ideas don’t trust the government to implement them. Equally, any

Fraser Nelson

Corporatism is not an adequate foreign policy

The events of the last two weeks have demonstrated that David Cameron needs a revamped foreign policy. This is not, in itself, a surprise. Foreign policies sketched out in opposition seldom survive contact with reality. Remember Bush saying he did “not do nation-building”? And who can forget the ignominious fate of Robin Cook’s “ethical foreign policy”? David Cameron sought to distinguish himself from the adventuring, idealistic Blair with what he regarded as a ‘pragmatic’ foreign policy – that is, promoting British exporters.   But as I say in my News of the World column (£) today, this rebounded spectacularly last week when his tour of the Arab world was overshadowed

What difference will sanctions make?

Slowly, haltingly, the West decides what to do about Gaddafi. The latest news is that, having broken his silence over Libya a few days ago, Barack Obama is now imposing sanctions against its despicable regime: freezing assets, blocking transactions, that sort of thing. It follows a package of sanctions, including an arms embargo, that Britain and France have proposed to the UN. Although these sanctions are better than nothing – the West shouldn’t house Gaddafi’s slush funds, nor transfer weapons in his direction – they are of limited actual worth. Yesterday, the Mad Dog was parading the parapets once again, promising death for the protestors. You suspect he is unlikely