David cameron

DD’s classy intervention

David Davis’ interview on Jon Pienaar’s show this evening has revived the debate about whether or not it matters how posh the Cameron top table is. Andy Coulson was the most senior person there who understood what it is actually like to work your way up the ladder and with him gone that experience is missing. But what matters far more than the personalities involved is the policy outcomes. As I said in the Mail on Sunday, the most important thing for Cameron to do is to deliver for these voters. To cut their taxes and give them public services that offer them value for money. One other thing worth

James Forsyth

Sizing up the runners and riders to replace Coulson

I suspect the identity of the Prime Minister’s next director of communications is of far more interest to those who work in Westminster than those in the country at large. But the identity of Coulson’s successor will reveal something about the balance of power in the coalition and at the Cameron court. I’m told that the Tories are in no rush to make the appointment, they’d rather take their time and try and find the right person. Despite what Nick Clegg said on Marr this morning, I’m informed that this will be very much a Tory-run selection process. Those in the know say that as with the Coulson appointment, George

Extremism – not just violent extremism – is the problem

Charles Moore has an important piece in the Telegraph today criticising Baroness Warsi’s muddle-headed speech [a speech which interestingly doesn’t appear on her page on the party website]. In it, he reveals that the Prime Minister himself has been devoting much thought to the question of how to deal with Islamic extremism. Charles writes that Cameron will give a significant speech on the matter in the next few weeks in which he’ll argue that the government and society need to tackle extremism per se, not just violent extremism. This is welcome news. To say that extremism only becomes a problem when it turns violent is to miss the point. If you

Why Coulson’s departure matters

Courtesy of the ConHome tag team of Paul Goodman and Tim Montgomerie, two articles that are worth adding to your Saturday reading list. Both capture why Andy Coulson’s resignation matters, if not to the general swell of British politics, at least to internal operations in Coalitionville. The wider argument of Paul’s article for the Guardian is captured by its headline: “Andy Couslon had a nose for the view of the aspirational voter.” But it also homes in on the point that Coulson’s departure tilts No.10 in favour of Steve Hilton – something that, rightly or wrongly, will bother the Tory right far more than it does Lib Dems of any

How do you snare a spin doctor?

So, who’s next after Andy Coulson? This question is oddly important, and will certainly influence the direction of his government. It shouldn’t, but you have to understand the way the Cameron operation works – and of how life looked before George Osborne persuaded Coulson to come on board (hoodie hugging, husky-riding, etc). Coulson was an advocate of fundamental conservative values (crime, tax cuts, Europe) and emphasised their mass appeal. Tim Montgomerie has a list of possibles for this job. But how to persuade them? Whoever does it can kiss goodbye to their life (and family) for the duration. No.10 is a pressure oven, and there’s a horribly large chance that

The Coulson story won’t be buried – but will it matter?

There’s not much chance that the Andy Coulson story will be buried in tomorrow’s newspapers. Blair’s appearance at the Chilcot Inquiry will scatter a handful of earth across it, as will AJ’s travails. But it’s not as though people outside the Westminster bubble will fail to notice all this. Watching the 24 hour news channels now, it’s all Coulson, Coulson, Coulson. In which case, this is bound to inflict some damage on the government in the short term. The public is not inclined towards liking, or trusting, spin doctors. And Andy Coulson leaving Downing Street through a fug of phone-hacking allegations will not do anything to change that. Questions will

Coulson’s resignation statement

Here’s Andy Coulson’s resignation statement: “I can today confirm that I’ve resigned as Downing Street director of communications. It’s been a privilege and an honour to work for David Cameron for three-and-a-half years. I’m extremely proud of the part I’ve played in helping him reach No 10 and during the coalition’s first nine months. Nothing is more important than the Government’s task of getting this country back on its feet. Unfortunately, continued coverage of events connected to my old job at the News of the World has made it difficult for me to give the 110% needed in this role. I stand by what I’ve said about those events but

James Forsyth

Coulson resigns

Andy Coulson has resigned today. David Cameron has issued a statement paying effusive tribute to his departing communications director. But there will be questions asked about his judgment in appointing Coulson after he had resigned from the editorship of the News of the World over the phone hacking scandal.

Déjà vu | 21 January 2011

Tony Blair is beguiling the Chilcot Inquiry once again. He was majestic last time – quick witted, sincere and convinced. There was nothing in that benign hearing room to alter, as he might have put it, the ‘calculus of risk’. His ease was sufficient to crack subtle jokes at Gordon Brown’s expense, and most emerged from the hearing believing that Britain had actually been at war with Iran. He is already ploughing those same furrows, albeit with a barely audible note of impatience, irritated that these banal proceedings continue. Iran is the new Iraq, Blair says, and he publicly takes a ‘hard line’ against Tehran, just as his government, in

A bad morning for the government<br />

This morning has not been a good one for the government. There’s been an embarrassing admission that 28 days detention will simply lapse on Monday, the Conservative party chairman is delivering a speech that the vast majority of Conservatives think is muddle-headed at best, and the Prime Minister finds himself in a public debate with the mother of a quadriplegic child. 2011 was always going to be a hard year for the government but what should worry Downing Street is that two of these problems are self-inflicted. The whole counter-terrorism review should have been finished before 28 day detention expired. The fact that it has not been makes the government

Act 3 in the prisoner voting farce

An ingenious man, John Hirst. First he achieved the considerable feat of committing manslaughter with an axe; and he has since proceeded to cause governments no end of trouble. The prisoner voting saga is nearing its end and a fug of ignominy is descending on the government. The BBC reports that the coalition is to dilute its policy of enfranchising prisoners serving less than four years. Now ministers will be seeking to enfranchise only those serving a year or less. This u-turn is the result of the alliance between Jack Straw and David Davis and the slew of assorted backbench dissent. Tim Montgomerie argues that this is yet another example

Remember this?

“We will want to prevent EU judges gaining steadily greater control over our criminal justice system by negotiating an arrangement which would protect it. That will mean limiting the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction over criminal law…” That was David Cameron a year ago when he presented the Tories’ EU policy ahead of the General Election. As we all know, much has changed since then. The pledge to ‘repatriate’ powers has been dropped, a victim of the Coalition deal. But despite this, MPs now have a huge opportunity to make good on pledges to regain control over EU justice laws, and even to repatriate powers should they want to –

A soporific session

Labour are on the up. They strolled Oldham. They’ve recruited great armies of Clegg’s defectors. And they’d win a majority if a general election were held tomorrow. There’s been a lot of excited talk in Westminster about Tom Baldwin, Labour’s new communications attack-dog, coming in with his fangs bared and sharpening up their tactics. Well, it ain’t working so far, if PMQs is anything to go by. Ed Miliband had his dentures in today. He was humourless, slow to react and sometimes inaudible. His questions didn’t resemble even the most basic PMQs battle-plan, namely, a pre-meditated onslaught culminating in a simple powerful message presented in a memorable one-liner. He asked

PMQs live blog | 19 January 2011

VERDICT: No winners, and no real losers, from this week’s PMQs. Miliband’s questions were insistent and straightforward. Cameron’s answers were forceful and, in themselves, fairly persuasive. A no-score draw, then, if you want to look at it like that. There were one or two worrying leitmotifs for the coalition, though. First, the PM’s tendency towards grouchiness under fire; far less pronounced than it was last week, but still present. And then the continuing absence of any clear explanation of the NHS reforms, beyond “well, we had to change what was there previously.” The PM has a point about cancer survival rates and the like, but he’s not yet setting out

Cameron’s public service reforms are still stuck in New Labour’s intellectual territory

The man known to the Cameroons as ‘The Master’ casts a long shadow. David Cameron has re-launched his public service reform agenda and there was more of a whiff of Blair in the air. His speech was understated. He eschewed references to radicalism and appealed to continuity instead. The favoured phrase of the moment is ‘evolution not revolution’, and Cameron traced the lineage of his reforms to those of the thwarted Blair administration (and the market reforms of the Thatcher and Major years). He was so deep in New Labour’s intellectual territory that he was at pains to stress that the ‘spending taps have not been turned off’. As a

James Forsyth

Cameron’s rough ride on Today

David Cameron’s interview on the Today Programme this morning was another reminder of what a hard year it is going to be for the government. The bulk of it was devoted to Cameron doing his best to defend and explain the government’s planned reforms to the NHS. Cameron, normally so assured in these interviews, seemed frustrated as John Humphrys kept pushing him on why he was doing it having condemned NHS reorganisations in the past.   Then, the interview moved on to bankers’ bonuses. As he did on Andrew Marr earlier in the month, Cameron implied that action was coming. But there were no specifics set out, and if action

Too far, too fast?

It is hubristic of David Cameron to talk of his ‘legacy’ at this stage in his premiership, not least because he invites criticism that the government’s public service reforms are going too far, too fast. The leaders of six health unions have reacted to the imminent publication of the Health and Social Care Bill with a concerned letter to the Times (£); they argue that price competition is divisive and that the reforms promote cost above quality. Dissent has spread far beyond the usual union suspects. Dr Sarah Wollaston, the Tory MP for Totnes, has expressed her misgivings and there have been numerous accounts of GPs’ reluctance to embrace commissioning reforms

How it’s going right for Ed Miliband

Ed Miliband has had three launches in three months – but, much as I hate to admit it, things are getting better for him. His party are now consistently ahead in the polls, so in my News of the World column today I look at what’s going right. Here are my main points: 1) Cameron’s embrace has, alas, proved toxic for the Lib Dems. I have been impressed by Nick Clegg since he entered government. I’d like to see him rewarded for the tough decisions he took, and in more ways than being named ‘politician of the year’ by the Threadneedle/Spectator awards. But it just isn’t happening. The ‘merger’ model

Ditching Clegg won’t help the Libs

Despite the brave smiles, the senior Lib Dems are wearing long faces. Matthew Parris considers (£) the collapse of the Conservative vote in Oldham East and Saddleworth as a disaster for the Lib Dems, their own vote sustained by an influx of Tory voters. The Tories may not recover that support, but that does not ease the Liberal Democrats’ dilemma. Parris observes: ‘Privately Nick Clegg will have drawn from this the only sane conclusion, but it is one that I’ve found the Liberal Democrats strikingly reluctant to discuss. It is that in the seats where his party stands a chance next time, it must either re-engage the sympathies of its