David cameron

The need for a strong man to strong-arm the new counter-terror policy

If the counter-terrorism strategy the government is announcing today is to succeed, it will have to overcome bureaucratic opposition and institutional inertia. As Dean Godson writes in The Times today (£), senior civil servants in the Office of Security and Counter-Terrorism are highly reluctant to accept the government’s new, more muscular approach to this issue and will go back to the old, failed way of doing things if given the chance. If the Prime Minister’s writ is going to run across government on this issue, he is going to need someone working from the centre with Cameron’s explicit backing whose sole role is to supervise the implementation of the policy

Cameron’s health worries

David Cameron has made the NHS his political mission. “I can do it (explain his priorities) in three letters: NHS,” he once said. It was a reassurance that the NHS was safe in his hands. His conviction doubled as a vital tactical stance to prove that the Tories were ‘nasty’ no more. So, the news that he is re-affirming his faith with an NHS pledge card is telling – a response to the fact that the public do not trust the Conservatives with the health service. It’s back to square one. According to Benedict Brogan, the pledges simply reiterate that the Tories can be trusted with the NHS. There is

James Forsyth

Counter-terrorism means stopping dealings with extremists

The coalition’s counter-terrorism strategy will be published tomorrow. This rather delayed review has been the subject of some semi-public wrangling, Cameron and Clegg have given speeches setting out very different visions for it. But one thing to remember is that the test of the review’s robustness isn’t just whether it stops government money going to extremists groups. It also has to lead to government, at all levels, stopping dealings with these groups, denying them the oxygen of recognition. Today’s Telegraph notes that 20 groups will lose their funding because the views they espouse are antithetical to British values. This is to be welcomed. But it won’t have much of an

Cable tries to keep everyone happy – apart from the unions

When the GMB union invited Vince Cable to address their conference today, I doubt they wanted this: a warning that the government could legislate if the brothers decide to militate. The Business Secretary does add that “the case for changing strike law is not compelling,” so long as industrial action remains limited. But, on the surface, this is still the firmest coalition attack on the unions since David Cameron and Boris wrote that angry article for the Sun in January. And it comes from the side of the coalition, the Lib Dems, who were thought to be opposed to taking on the unions in the first place. Perhaps Cable really

Helping the kids be all right

Tomorrow sees the publication of the report David Cameron commissioned on how to address the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood. Thanks to a leak we already know most of what’s in the report. It proposes, among other things, that sexualized advertisement shouldn’t be displayed in places near where children go, that the watershed should be more strictly enforced, that lads mags shouldn’t be displayed at eye level and that it should be easier for parents to block access from home computers to certain internet sites. There’ll be those that dismiss these proposals as gimmicks or as too small to make a difference. But making the public square more family friendly

Charles Moore warns that the Downing Street machine isn’t working

Charles Moore, Margaret Thatcher’s biographer, is one of the columnists most sympathetic to and best informed about what David Cameron is trying to do. So when Charles warns that the current set-up of Downing Street isn’t working for the Prime Minister, Number 10 should take notice. Charles’ worry is that the new Downing Street set up is insufficiently political, that policy and politics are being kept too far apart. I think Charles is right about this. The Number 10 policy unit is now made up mostly of civil servants or former management consultants who, by their very nature, aren’t intellectually or ideologically committed to the Cameron public service reform agenda.

Cameron’s European opportunity

Jean-Claude Trichet’s speech yesterday proposing a ministry of finance for the eurozone (£) can be taken as setting out how the European Central Bank wants to resolve the eurozone’s problems. It is yet another example of how the European elite use crises to advance integration.   But just as important from a British point of view is Trichet’s admission that the overall package of changes he is talking about “naturally demand a change of the [EU] treaty”. This, as Fraser has written previously, presents David Cameron with a glorious opportunity to take advantage of this moment to redefine Britain’s relationship with the European Union. There are those who say that

Not just a wily Fox, but a watchful hawk with time on his side

Liam Fox is fond of reminding us that he didn’t come into politics to cut the armed forces. A wistful look falls across his face when he says it – an indication of frustration as much as sincerity, a sense deepened by his letter of concern about the government spending so much more on international development. Opponents of Fox might characterise this as hypocrisy: he would reduce the size of the state without touching the armed forces, they say. His enemies in the Conservative party say that it’s typical of this “clever fool’s” intellectual indiscipline. Fox the military and fiscal hawk wants to “have it both ways”. The Economist has

Where we are in Afghanistan

I wrote back in November that as we approached the July deadline when President Obama promised to start drawing down troops from Afghanistan, the tensions between politicians and military would re-emerge, as “the military ask for more time to get it right, and Obama tries to hold them to the deal he thought he made in late 2009”. This is now coming to pass, in London as well as Washington. I also argued that having some sort of public timetable for the troop drawdown was a reasonable solution, perhaps the only solution, to the politicians’ problem of balancing conflicting messages to different audiences in Afghanistan and at home. But the

More ermine troubles for Nick Clegg

Tory backbenchers have been whispering to the Times (£), and their words will not hearten Nick Clegg. If the coalition pushes for Lords reform, one says, then about 50 of them will rebel. “If you were listing priorities for the Tories, I’m not sure you would put this at the top,” another adds, “[it might be] bumped down by other priorities that come along.” Much hinges on how eager David Cameron is to confront this resistance, and hasten a policy that was more or less writ into his party’s manifesto. In the weeks following the AV referendum, the Tory leader has been happy for Clegg to act alone as the

The coalition’s 2015 problem

The generals and the politicians are at odds with each other. This much has been clear since the run-up to last year’s Defence Review, but it finds a particularly clear expression in the Telegraph’s interview with Lt Gen James Bucknall today. Britain’s most senior commander in Afghanistan may not say, in terms, that we should avoid a timetable for withdrawal from the country — but he skirts awfully close to it. “It is of utmost importance that we stay the course, that we stay as long as it takes to finish our job,” he says, only a fortnight after David Cameron announced that 450 troops will be pulled out of

Clegg’s ermine troubles

Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas, that much we know. But thanks to the wonders of modern science, we can now poll them on it. Today’s Times carries a survey of the 789 peers who are entitled to sit in the Lords — of whom, 310 responded. It’s not a huge sample size, but the results, you assume, are representative. 80 per cent oppose a wholly or mainly elected second chamber, including 46 per cent of Lib Dem peers. 81 per cent believe that the Lords works well as it is. And 74 per cent believe that it wouldn’t be “constitutionally correct” for the Commons to force through a cull of

Lansley’s original reforms are off the table

Nick Clegg’s speech on the NHS this morning was not as bad as many feared it would be. It recognised that there is a role for competition in the NHS, something that the Lib Dems were questioning last weekend, and that the NHS needs to be opened up to any qualified provider. But, on the other hand, the idea that any willing provider should be able to deliver NHS services — an idea which was in the manifesto of all three parties — will now only be introduced at a glacial pace. There’ll also be a two-tier NHS for the foreseeable future with some areas having GP-led commissioning, while NHS

Grading Obama’s visit

It was a good state visit. Actually, it has been an excellent visit. Much better than George W Bush’s and even Barack Obama’s 2009 trip to London. The US president got his photo with Wills ‘n’ Kate. The Prime Minister got his presidential high-fives. There were some odd points. The personal chemistry between David Cameron and Barack Obama made the ping-pong match better than it would naturally have been. For, let’s be honest, table tennis is not a natural US-UK sport. There were policy differences between the two leaders too, for example on Libya and deficit reduction. In the end, though, the way to judge visits is not to think

Obama re-affirms the special relationship

The speech was not a classic but Barack Obama’s address to both Houses of Parliament covered the bases today. He started with a winning line, remarking that the previous three speakers in Westminster Hall had been the Pope, the Queen and Nelson Mandela which is either “a very high bar or the beginning of a very funny joke.”   As is traditional in these kinds of speeches, Obama paid tribute to the special relationship, lauding it as the embodiment of the values and beliefs of the English-speaking tradition. He went on to say that both the British and the Americans knew that the “longing for human dignity is universal.” Indeed,

Cameron and Obama’s mutual appreciation has its limits

And the Word of the Day is “we”. Both David Cameron and Barack Obama deployed it liberally in their joint press conference just now, as they ran through all the mutual pleasantries and backslapping that attends these events. “We have discussed the two things we care about the most,” flushed Cameron, “getting our people jobs, and keeping our people safe.” From there on in it was first name terms — “thank you, David” — and claims about the strength of our two countries’ special, essential, unique relationship, etc. With the sun blazing down on the garden of Lancaster House, I’m sure the photos will turn out nice. Cameron appeared to

James Forsyth

A good day for Cameron

Today is one of those days when David Cameron gets full political benefit from being Prime Minister. He is basking in the president of the United States’ reflected glory. The papers this morning are full of him playing table tennis with Barack Obama and tonight’s news bulletins will lead on their joint press conference at lunchtime. As Cameron stands next to Obama, he’ll look both a statesman and a centrist. It’ll be hard for Labour to attack Cameron as an extremist on deficit reduction when he keeps stressing how he and Obama agree on a sensible level and pace to get their budgets heading back into balance. There are, obviously,

The Tory divide over European bail-outs

As Obama and Cameron played table tennis yesterday, a considerably more furious game was being waged between the government and Tory backbenchers. It related to a Parliamentary motion tabled by Mark Reckless – and described here – that sought to stem UK involvement in any future bailouts for eurozone countries. All well and good, you’d think, until a rival amendment percolated down from on high to dilute Reckless’s proposals. This new amendment would only go so far as to “urge the Government to raise the issue of the [bailout mechanism] at the next meeting of the Council of Ministers of the European Council”. The green benches were set for a

A good time to go

Today is, as the saying has it, a good day to bury bad news. With President Obama on the ground and an ash cloud in the air, not much else is going to get a look in on the news’ bulletins. But it is worth noting that Nat Wei, the government’s big society advisor, has quit his role today having scaled back his involvement in February. Wei has been pretty detached from Downing Street for the last few months, his role rather usurped by Cameron’s big society ambassadors, Shaun Bailey and Charlotte Leslie. So his departure won’t make much difference to the government. But it is still rather embarrassing as