David cameron

The trouble with Ban Ki-moon

In the little compound known as “Bantanamo,” located outside the UN headquarters in New York, a small sigh of relief was probably breathed last week. For, inside, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had just been told of the UN Security Council’s unanimous decision recommending that he be elected for a second term. Gabon’s UN ambassador Nelson Messone made the announcement to the press after the 15-nation council met behind closed doors. The UN General Assembly will probably vote this week, confirming that Ban will run the organisation until the end of 2016. Earlier David Cameron had told the press that he was “glad” to support Ban Ki-moon’s candidacy for a second

Fraser Nelson

The limits of stigma

As James says, it’s been a day of high passions here at The Spectator. He feels strongly that many of the problems in Britain are societal, and require a cultural shift. Maybe so. I disagree with James when he says a Prime Minister’s role is to “lead society”. I disagree. We pay him to run the government, not offer his advice (or, worse, condemnation) on how society is running itself. Sure, society is shaped by government incentives. Cameron can fix these. But shaping society by exhortation is not what we expect of limited government. Fundamentally, it confuses what I see as the natural pecking order. In Britain, the people pass

James Forsyth

Cameron is right to use the bully pulpit of his office

The normal Monday morning calm of The Spectator was disturbed today by an argument about David Cameron’s comments about fathers who go ‘AWOL’. I thought Cameron was right to say what he did, my editor didn’t. He felt that it wasn’t the Prime Minister’s job to moralise, and that him doing so was the beginning of a descent into totalitarianism.   The reason I think Cameron was right to speak out is that so many of the problems in this country are social or cultural. They can’t be solved by another piece of legislation or a government initiative. Rather, they require a broader cultural shift: a move away from the

Cameron takes on bad dads

It’s Fathers’ Day today — and David Cameron is marking it with an extraordinary attack on those dads who are AWOL. It comes in one paragaph of an otherwise excellent and moving piece for the Sunday Telegraph (albeit one that downplays the role of the taxman), in which he says that men leaving their family is “beyond the pale”; that such fathers should feel the “full force” of society; and goes as far as comparing them to drunk drivers. This is a brave move — in the Sir Humphry sense of the word — for three reasons. 1. Britain has more absent fathers than any country in the EU. That’s

Cameron vs Kirchner

After stating the obvious at PMQs this week — that the Falklands would remain sovereign British territory as long as they want to be — David Cameron has come under heavy fire from the Argentine President, Cristina Kirchner. As today’s papers report, she yesterday described our PM as “arrogant,” and said his comments were an “expression of mediocrity and almost of stupidity”. But there is nothing new in the British position, which has always been that there can be no negotiations over sovereignty unless and until such a time as the Falkland Islanders so wish. The issue has recently heated up after the United States sided with Argentina in demanding

Hilton will probably ride it out

Not for the first time, a throwaway line in a Spectator article by James Forsyth has been picked up by Fleet St and set the hares running. It’s about Steve Hilton, Cameron’s best friend and chief strategist, and whether he’ll quit. Hilton is a man in a hurry — rightly, in my view, as the Tories are not incapable of blowing the next election. So he wants things transformed, and — for all his faults — acutely feels the sense of urgency and tries to communicate it through government. The Whitehall machine (and, more specifically, the permanent secretary of No.10) does not share this urgency and waters down change. It

James Forsyth

How the Tories could capitalise on the eurozone’s woes

With events in Greece moving at pace, next week’s European Council meeting (which was scheduled to be a low-key affair) could be the place where attempts to resolve the crisis in the eurozone take place. I’m told that Number 10 has now woken up to this possibility and is doing some preparatory work on the matter.   But, frustratingly, there’s still no strategy for how David Cameron could use this crisis to advance the British national interest. As I wrote last week, if the eurozone countries decide that a solution will require a treaty change, then Britain has a veto over that — and could use the negotiations to secure

Balls’ bloodlust gets the better of him

Ed Balls’ problem is his killer instinct. If he were a Twilight vampire, he’d be a Tracker: someone whose uncontrollable bloodlust takes him to places he should avoid. His position on the deficit is so extreme — more debt, more spending — that he’s pretty much isolated now. People are mocking him. John Lipsky, the acting IMF chief came two weeks ago and rubbished Balls’ alternative (as Tony Blair did) — so Balls, ever the fighter, has today given a long speech where he sinks his fangs into Lipsky and says (in effect) “I’ll take on the lot of you!” But Balls is brilliant. Often George Osborne seems not to

General outspokenness 

Recent wars have given rise to an unusual phenomenon in British civil-military relations: frequent, and often high-profile interventions, by serving or recently retired senior military officers in public debates. The latest has been the intervention of Britain’s chief naval officer, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, who questioned the Navy’s ability to sustain the Libya campaign. Different prime ministers have dealt with this kind of outspokenness in different ways. Tony Blair was too weak to rein in Army chief Sir General Richard Dannatt, while Gordon Brown did not have the credibility, vis-à-vis the military, to do so either. David Cameron is different. He is at the height of his powers and determined

James Forsyth

Gove goes forwards, while other reforms stall

The good, the bad and the ugly of the coalition’s reform agenda are all on display this morning. The good is the quickening of the pace in education. As Michael Gove tells this week’s Spectator, the 200 worst primary schools will now be taken over by new management, 88 failing secondary schools are to be converted into academies and any school where half the pupils are not reaching the basic standard of five good GCSEs including English and Maths will be earmarked for a takeover. Gove’s aim is remarkably simple: he wants good schools to take over bad ones.   The bad is yet another delay to the public service

Milburn withdraws the Blairite seal of approval

Alan Milburn’s article for the Telegraph this morning is a rhetorical blitzkreig against the coalition and their NHS reforms. From its opening shot that “The Government health reforms are the biggest car crash in NHS history,” to its closing call for Labour to “restake its claim to be the party of progressive, radical reform,” it is searing stuff. And no-one is spared, least of all Andrew Lansley and his “foolish bout of policy-wonking”. Such fierce language is unusual, even by the standards of cross-party rough ‘n’ tumble. What makes it extraordinary is that Milburn is employed by the government to work on their social mobility agenda. The coalition’s last report

Ed Miliband volunteers for a kicking, gets kicked

“First he denies his own policy, then he tries insults.” So said Ed Miliband of David Cameron’s performance in PMQs today. But I wonder what he’d say of the hundreds of Twitter users who went straight for the insults in a special Q&A with the Labour leader earlier. Urged on by Guido, plenty deployed the #AskEdM hash-tag to be rather unkind to MiliMinor. Here’s a selection of some of the crueller, funnier and less comradely tweets: @MTPT: If a train leaves Paddington at 1136, carrying 200 commuters, what time will the RMT bring it to a standstill? @FelicityParkes: Where did Ed Balls touch you? Show us on the doll. @MShapland:

James Forsyth

Miliband relieves the pressure

After last week’s performance and this weekend’s headlines, Ed Miliband needed a win at PMQs — and he got one. Knowing that David Cameron would attack him over the fact Labour will vote against the welfare reform bill this week, Miliband had a string of questions for the Prime Minister on the detail of the bill and whether people recovering from cancer would lose the contributory element of their benefits. The issue was both wonky and emotive. The fact the questions were about cancer meant that Cameron couldn’t deliver his usual string of put downs to Miliband. Indeed, when one Tory backbencher heckled him, the Labour leader shot back that

PMQs live blog | 15 June 2011

VERDICT: The specifics of today’s exchange between David Cameron and Ed Miliband may have everyone rushing for this Macmillan press release, but the rhetorical positions were clear enough. There was the Labour leader, angrier and more indignant than usual, painting the government’s welfare reforms as cruel and insufficiently thought-through. And there was the PM, painting his opponent as yet another roadblock to reform. Neither really triumphed, although their battle will most likely set a template for in future. The coalition has extensive public backing for its changes to the welfare system. So, Miliband’s challenge is to attack certain aspects of them, without making Labour appear to be — as he

Bring on the strikes

An old boss of mine once said to me: when you start a new assignment, seek out a fight — and win it. The same advice should be given to incoming Prime Ministers. U-turns, as Mrs Thatcher knew, just create demand for more U-turns. If the government is willing to revise its NHS plans, then why not reopen the Defence Review, or alter the pledge to spend 0.7 of our national income on overseas aid (or at least abandon the questionable idea of legislating for it)? But seeking out and winning battles, while avoiding too many retreats, is not enough. To be great, a Prime Minister needs good enemies. Mrs

Those three little letters

The NHS saga is over at last, or so the government hopes. The coalition is expected to adopt the recommendations of the NHS Future Forum, which have been delineated by panel member Stephen Bubb in this morning’s Times (£). Last night, the prime minister and his deputy addressed their respective parliamentary brigades and each claimed the credit for re-shaping Andrew Lansley’s bill for partisan gain. The political saga continues. The Lib Dems have been crowing over their victory; the Tories are licking their wounds –a voluble Conservative MP has told Philip Johnston that a ‘once in a generation opportunity to reform the NHS has been lost.’ Some of the anger

Miliband borrows from the Cameroons for his most substantial speech so far

Thematically speaking, there wasn’t too much in Ed Miliband’s speech that we haven’t heard before. The middle is still squeezed, the Tories are still undermining the “Promise of Britain”, the bankers are still taking us for fools, and communities still need to be rebuilt. Even his remarks about benefit dependency bear comparion to those he made in February. But there was a difference here, and that was his punchiness. The Labour leader may not be the most freewheelin’ orator in town, but the text he delivered was less wonky than usual, more coherent and spikier. It was even — in parts — memorable. You do wonder whether Miliband has learnt