David cameron

In his column in the Mail, Peter Oborne writes that Cameron’s stance on Afghanistan represents the same mistake made by IDS in his unstinting support for the Iraq war. Oborne fears that neo-conservatism has gripped the Tory leadership. ‘The ‘Neocons’, despite being discredited by the Iraq war, have furtively regained their position at the heart of the Tory party. Almost without exception, Cameron’s senior team are passionate Atlanticists who seem committed to the policy of ‘reinforcement of failure’ in Afghanistan. Both the Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague and the Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox are ‘Neocons’. As are Cameron’s two most trusted Shadow Cabinet colleagues, Michael Gove and George Osborne.’

The mainstream parties’ collective silence on immigration has, undoubtedly, contributed to the BNP’s growing popularity. Nicholas Soames and Frank Field have penned such an argument in today’s Telegraph. David Cameron’s modernisation of the Conservative Party came at the expense of even mentioning immigration. Yesterday’s mind-boggling population projection should curtail the era of uncontrolled immigration: Britain cannot sustain such human and social pressure in the age of austerity. The Tory leadership might view this reality with trepidation. They should not. Limiting immigration would alleviate poverty; it equates exactly with the Tories’ broad one nation philosophy. Labour has ceded its traditional support to the BNP, which indicates that the government’s appalling record

The Communication Workers Union has just confirmed that there will be a national postal strike tomorrow and on Friday, effective as of midnight tonight.  From a purely political perspective, this largely vindicates David Cameron’s decision to major on the strikes during PMQs earlier.  You imagine that the story will dominate news broadcasts later, and the Tory leader can expect to have some of his attacks on Brown inserted into the coverage.

Now this is going to stir up some trouble.  Addressing today’s Speaker’s conference, David Cameron has said that the Tories still don’t have enough women candidates, and, as a result, he may impose women-only shortlists on those constituencies which are yet to pick a candidate for the next election.  Putting aside the many persuasive arguments against “positive discrimination”, you imagine this will just fuel more questions about the amount of central control that the Tory leader wields.  Cameron & Co. clearly believe that those questions are a price worth paying for the modernisation of their party, but I have my doubts.  I’m sure CoffeeHousers do too, so your thoughts please…

One already hears grumblings from members of the Shadow Cabinet about how much power has been concentrated in Norman Shaw South, the suite of offices where Cameron and Osborne and their teams sit in Parliament. But judging by a report in The Times today the leadership is thinking about centralising power even more when in office. Jill Sherman writes that: ‘Cabinet ministers have traditionally had two special advisers with another 25 in Downing Street. But Mr Maude is said to be thinking of giving ministers one each, supplemented by a separate pool of advisers, who would be based at No 10. Only advisers from the central pool would be authorised

If it remains a mystery that, 12 years after describing the House of Lords as an “affront to democracy”, Labour have not attempted wholesale reform, then look no further than the fact that Labour is the largest party in the upper chamber. As Ben Brogan notes, this causes Cameron a problem: ‘For the first time, a Conservative leader faces coming to power with an Upper House that will not reflect the outcome of the election. All those People’s Peers created by Mr Blair have made Labour the biggest party on the red benches, with 213 to the Tories’ 192. Add in 71 Lib Dems, and the unpredictability of 183 crossbenchers,

Poppy day came early to Westminster today.  Brown began proceedings by reciting the names of the 37 men killed in Afghanistan over the summer. This took two minutes. The house was silent, funereal, almost awe-struck with the solemnity of the occasion. Brown looked like a man deeply moved by personal grief as he worked his slow way through the deadly list. Ann Winterton punctured the mood with the first question, suggesting that once the Lsibon treaty is ratified the government’s first duty will be ‘to further the objectives of Europe in preference to those of Britain’. Brown denied this again referenced the Afghan conflict in response. When his trun came,

In his recent interview with Fraser, David Cameron said that he’s keen on bringing in outside talent to the government – the so-called “Goat” strategy, which has been a feature of Brown’s premiership.  In her ever-excellent column, Rachel Sylvester makes the point that this may be as much from necessity as by design: “According to Anthony Wells, of UKPollingReport, at least a third of the House of Commons are likely to be novices after the next general election — the highest proportion since 1945. A perceived house of whores, whose members would sell their souls for a bathplug, will soon be replaced by a virgin Parliament, untouched by the John

David Miliband has really gone for it in the Observer. Far from apologising for his Labour conference attacks on David Cameron’s right-wing alliance in the European parliament, he has suggested that Churchill would have been ashamed of the modern Tories for getting into bed with Poland’s Michal Kaminski and Latvia’s Roberts Zile.  I interviewed Mr Kaminski last week, and I found his responses to my questions on the wartime massacre of Jews by Poles at Jedwabne in north east Poland unconvincing. His comments to me have been picked up by The Observer today. Most worrying is the idea that he believes this massacre to be of a different order to