Posts Tagged ‘David Cameron’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Knife crime: Cameron’s pre-election lies and subsequent betrayal

06/06/2011, 03:00:54 PM

by Matt Cavanagh

Five years ago, shortly after he became Conservative leader, David Cameron made a speech in which he called on politicians to “stop making incredible promises that the public do not believe they will keep”. He announced a “taskforce” that would help him sort out this problem. The man he asked to chair it was Ken Clarke.

Last week, Ken Clarke’s department released figures showing how he and Cameron are getting on with one particular promise Cameron made loudly and often while in opposition: that anyone caught carrying a knife would go to jail.

In fact, Clarke had already let slip back in December that this promise had been abandoned. But the latest figures show that, never mind everyone caught carrying a knife going to jail, in fact, a smaller proportion are going to jail now than under Labour. This was greeted with predictable outrage by the Sun, Telegraph and others who have campaigned for tougher sentences on knife crime.

Tory MPs have also reacted angrily, blaming either Clarke, the Liberal Democrats, or the judges. But on this issue, the blame must go to the top. Back in 2008, it was David Cameron who personally led the Conservatives’ attack on Labour’s response to the moral panic over knife crime then gripping the country. He encouraged the media and the public to believe it was the job not of judges but of politicians, and in particular the prime minister, to ensure that people caught carrying a knife were getting the punishment they deserved. He made his position clear in July 2008, in an exclusive interview with the Sun: “anyone caught carrying a knife will be jailed under a Tory Government, David Cameron vows today. The Conservative leader declares automatic jail terms for carrying a dangerous knife is the only way of smashing the current epidemic gripping broken Britain”.

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Posted in Uncut | 3 Comments »

Our class based attacks on Cameron are missing the mark

02/06/2011, 07:46:31 AM

by Peter Watt

To paraphrase Sun Tzu in The Art of War, you need to know your enemy. But does Labour know who David William Donald Cameron is? Understanding him, his relationship with voters and his party is an important part of Labour’s preparation for the tough elections to come.

I suspect that while we think that we understand him, we are deluded. Instead we are judging him through our own partisan prism, which is in contrast to much of the electorate. Ask most Labour party folk what they think of Cameron and they will emphasise his class. They will talk of Eton and the Bullingdon club, of the baronets in his lineage and the millions he has in the bank. This all adds up, so the theory goes, to one seriously out of touch (and obviously posh) politician.

But this emphasis on his “poshness” is currently cold comfort. Let us start with first principles: he is likeable and popular with voters. According to the latest You Gov poll for the Sunday Times, his approval ratings are at +2, with 48% saying he is doing very well or fairly well. Nearly one in five Labour 2010 voters agree. And popular leaders tend to win elections more often than not. As importantly, according to a Populus poll, in early May, Cameron is comfortably beating the other party leaders on leadership attributes like “standing up for Britain”, “determination” and “competence”. It is true that Ed does have a lead on “shares my values” and “on my side”, but these leads are small.

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Posted in Uncut | 17 Comments »

Brown haters remember: what goes around comes around

25/05/2011, 07:00:17 AM

by Kevin Meagher

So George Osborne is to officially nominate French finance minister, Chstistine Lagarde, to replace Dominique Strauss-Kahn as managing director of the international monetary fund.

In the process, Gordon Brown’s potential candidacy for the role has been banjoed before it even (officially) began. His pitch well and truly queered.

The black spot was pushed across the table to him last month when Cameron said he “might not be the most appropriate person” for a role “work[ing] out whether other countries around the world have debt and deficit problems”.

A bit rich, perhaps, coming from the former special adviser to Norman Lamont on Black Wednesday, but there you go.

Now it is suggested that David Cameron intends to champion Peter Mandelson for the soon to be vacated role as director general of the world trade organisation; suitable political cover, he no doubt thinks, for not backing Brown’s IMF bid.

Now there’s nothing wrong with a bit of tribal disdain for your political opponents. In fact, I would go further; it is impossible to hold ministerial office without doing some things badly and having at least part of your record that deserves to have rocks thrown at it.

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Posted in Uncut | 22 Comments »

Thursday News Review

12/05/2011, 06:53:52 AM

£60m, a drop in the Future Job Fund’s ocean

David Cameron and Nick Clegg will be together at an event later to launch a government drive on youth unemployment. The prime minister and his deputy will announce a £60m package to boost work prospects and vocational education. They will commit in their appearance in London to tackle “structural barriers” to young people starting a career. It comes as the coalition is under more strain after the flagship policy of directly elected police commissioners was defeated in the House of Lords. – BBC News

The Government has announced a £60m funding boost to help youth employment. As nearly 700,000 14- to 18-year-olds are currently not in employment or full-time education, it is hoped the cash will help boost apprenticeships and reform vocational education. The announcement comes as 100 large companies and tens of thousands of small companies across the country have responded to the Government’s call and pledged to offer work experience places. In total the coalition will provide funding for up to 250,000 more apprenticeships over the next four years, and funding for 100,000 work placements over the next two years. The £60m will be spent over the three years and fund more early access Work Programme places, increase the capacity of Jobcentre Plus to support teenagers who are not in education, employment or training and pay for a new £10m per year Innovation Fund to help disadvantaged people. – Yorkshire Post

The war on red tape claims its first victims

Unions have rounded on the government over plans to water down workers’ rights to “make it easier for businesses to grow”. Lib Dem minister Ed Davey will announce the new areas of employment legislation up for review at the Institute for Economic Affairs as the government attempts to clear away restrictions for employers. It will consult on cutting compensation payments for discrimination, reducing the current 90-day timescale for firms to consult over job losses, and changing the Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment Regulations (Tupe) which protects the pay and conditions of public sector workers transferred between companies. One law firm has warned that the move will disadvantage women and ethnic minority workers. The government is already simplifying the employment tribunal system, looking at extending the period before an unfair dismissal claim can be brought and reviewing the system for managing sickness absence. – the Guardian

Workers are set to receive less protection against redundancy, dismissal and workplace discrimination as the Chancellor George Osborne tears up sections of employment law so businesses can dispose of their staff more easily. Mr Osborne has proposed imposing a cap on awards given in cases of discrimination and abuse in the workplace on the grounds of race or gender. Employers will also be able to sack people more quickly. As well as introducing fees and new rules to prevent “vexatious” claims at employment tribunals, the Government wants to review the unlimited penalties currently applied in employment tribunals, simplify the administration of the national minimum wage and reform the consultation period for collective redundancies. Mr Osborne attacked the trade unions as “the forces of stagnation” who “will try to stand in the way of the forces of enterprise”. The Chancellor’s words were criticised by the unions and Labour Party. John Denham, the shadow Business Secretary, said: “George Osborne’s only idea for growth is to make it easier to cut pay and pensions, dismiss employees without giving time to plan for the future, and make working life more insecure. Successful companies have a workforce that is confident, dedicated and fairly rewarded.” – the Independent

Lords ‘rip the heart’ out of policing bill

Rebel Liberal Democrats scuppered flagship Tory plans for elected police commissioners last night. Former Met chief Ian Blair sided with Lib Dem peers to inflict a bruising Lords defeat on David Cameron. The introduction of elected police chiefs – with the power to hire and fire chief constables – is the Prime Minister’s flagship law and order policy. The Tories say it is vital for making police more accountable to the public. But peers voted to change the plan so that commissioners are appointed by policing panels – not the public – leaving the plan worthless. Liberal Democrat Baroness Harris of Richmond, who led the revolt, said the proposals ‘put so much power in the hands of one person’ that they posed ‘great risks to policing’. The independent peer claimed there was nothing to stop a police commissioner ‘just announcing that he has got rid of the chief constable, or that he wishes to get rid of the chief constable or he has no confidence in the chief constable.’ Analysis of division lists showed there were 13 Lib Dem rebels. The Government’s position was supported by 36 Lib Dem peers. Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said: ‘The Lords have ripped the heart out of this deeply flawed flagship Bill’. – Daily Mail

David Cameron suffered a major set-back last night after his flagship plan for elected police commissioners was chucked out in the House of Lords. Peers instead backed a rebel Lib Dem move that would see the commissioners appointed rather than directly elected. The PM wanted to see commissioners elected from May next year to replace police authorities in England and Wales. They would have the power to hire and fire chief constables and set forces’ budget and “strategic direction”. But under Lib Dem Baroness Harris of Richmond’s amendment, the chiefs would be chosen by a police and crime panel and not by the public. She raised deep fears over plans that would pose “great risks to policing”. – Daily Mirror

Change or lose

Ed Miliband has been given an astonishing warning by a senior shadow Cabinet minister that he is on course to lose the next election. Shadow culture secretary Ivan Lewis, who backed David Miliband in the Labour leadership contest, said the party was seen as one of the ‘North, benefit claimants and immigrants’. His remarks are the most serious internal criticism of Mr Miliband since he became Labour leader last September. They reflect growing anxiety among a rump of Blairite MPs that he is appealing only to core voters, rather than reaching out to swing voters who will decide the next election. They are calling on Mr Miliband to change his strategy after results in last week’s local elections that were worse than those of Michael Foot – Labour’s least successful leader ever. Mr Lewis said the elections showed that so-called ‘squeezed middle’ voters were not yet returning to the Labour fold. In a provocative speech to the modernising group Progress last night, Mr Lewis warned that southern voters see Labour as standing up for other people. – Daily Mail

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Posted in Unbound | 1 Comment »

It’s Lib Dem MPs, not Labour ones, that Cameron is really trying to cull

09/05/2011, 02:00:45 PM

by John Underwood

So there we have it. Vince Cable is surprised to discover that the Conservatives are “ruthless, calculating and thoroughly tribal”. That’s a bit like being surprised that the Pope is a Catholic, that fish swim and that this year Christmas Day will fall on the 25 December. The word “naïve” doesn’t come close.

A man who is surprised that the Conservatives are ruthless would probably be surprised that a couple of young, female “constituents” asking sharp questions at a constituency surgery turned out to be a pair of reporters from the Daily Telegraph.

For years, of course, the Liberal Democrats have been the very embodiment of ruthless calculation, by pretending to be different things to different people in different parts of the country – the “only” alternative to Labour in the north of England and the “only” alternative to the Conservatives in the south.

Last week, they reaped a whirlwind of rewards for years of political duplicity. In the north, they lost votes to Labour because they were seen to be part of a Conservative-led government that is cutting public services; and in the staunch Tory heartlands they lost votes to the Conservatives because die-hard Conservative voters rather like the idea of cutting public services.

Labour supporters can be forgiven a few days of schadenfreude as they reflect on the mire the Liberal Democrats find themselves in. But before long they will need to turn their attention to the Conservatives.

As for the Lib Dems, the question is whether they will learn their lesson and wise up to the need to get tough with their coalition partners.

It won’t be enough to posture and strut over Andrew Lansley’s health service changes and to threaten a “veto”. The current proposals have, in effect, already been vetoed by Conservative back benchers like Charles Walker MP, who is currently leading a particularly vociferous campaign to save an urgent care centre in his Broxbourne constituency. There will be changes to the health and social care bill, but it’s no thanks to the likes of Nick Clegg.

Having been stitched up by the Conservatives on the AV referendum, the question is whether the Liberal Democrats will get tough with their coalition partners in other areas.

Reducing the number of MPs from 650 to 600 has largely been reported as a barely disguised ruse for reducing the number of Labour MPs. In fact, it could be more accurately described as a ruse for maximising David Cameron’s chances of achieving what he failed to achieve at the last election – an overall majority. Reducing the number of MPs is as much about getting rid of his Liberal Democrat “partners” as it is about hurting Labour.

If, in the aftermath of the AV referendum, the Liberal Democrats really want to prove to their supporters that haven’t been taken for patsies, they could do worse than consider a serious “go slow” on this part of the coalition agreement.

John Underwood is a former director of communications of the Labour party.

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Posted in Uncut | 3 Comments »

Cameron’s doomed attempt to be a Labour moderniser

02/05/2011, 07:58:07 AM

by John Woodcock

Has anyone noticed how David Cameron has been talking more about Labour “modernisers” in recent days?

On Marr yesterday, the prime minister insisted it had been appropriate to share a platform on AV with John Reid because he had been “an effective minister… a moderniser”.

And in PMQs last week, Cameron responded to my question about why NHS waiting times were going up by protesting that I was “meant to be a moderniser” – so why was I criticising his reform plans?

Apart from obviously being flattered that our country’s leader has taken the time to keep abreast of the political leanings of this Parliamentary newbie (he must be a secret Labour Uncut reader), there are a number of striking things about this.

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Posted in Uncut | 3 Comments »

Sunday News Review

01/05/2011, 06:56:33 AM

Their last push

he importance and seriousness of Thursday’s AV referendum have been obscured by scratchy, bad-tempered debate. But the edginess of the campaign tells us something: there is a lot at stake, politically. A change could have major consequences. AV recognises that we now live in a world of multi-party politics and makes it easier for voters to express a wider range of choices. It will encourage prospective MPs to reach out beyond a narrow party base for wider support in the form of second preferences. Coalition is not a necessary consequence of AV, but it is more likely that parties will have to work together in government. AV undoubtedly poses a threat to the old tribal politics and to the Conservatives in particular, who have been best able to exploit it to advantage. The forces of reaction have been impressively marshalled on the battlefield. Not a single Conservative parliamentarian has broken ranks in an uncompromising defence of the status quo. The country’s right-wing newspapers – both the Murdoch and non-Murdoch titles – have swallowed their dislike of the coalition’s liberal compromises, and of each other, to line up solidly behind the No campaign. – Vince Cable, the Independent

You cannot build a fair society on an unfair politics. Britain consistently votes as a centre-left country and yet the Conservatives have dominated our politics for two-thirds of the time since 1900. On only two occasions in that long century – 1900 and 1931 – have the Tories won a majority of the votes. Instead, they have divided and ruled. No wonder David Cameron says the current system “has served us well”. For those who weren’t well served by the Tory 20th century, fair votes matter. They matter for the millions of voters who suffered the worst excesses of the Thatcher government, despite more than 54% repeatedly voting against her. They matter for the millions of progressive voters, supporters of the Lib Dems, Labour and the Greens among others, who want to be able to express their support for the party of their choice without feeling that they are wasting their vote or letting the Tories in. And they matter for the millions who do not bother to vote because safe seats mean they have no chance for a change. – the Guardian

He uses an article in The Sunday Telegraph to deliver his most passionate denunciation yet of the Alternative Vote (AV) method being backed by Nick Clegg and the vast majority of Lib Dems in Thursday’s referendum. The Prime Minister highlights the sacrifices of “generations of campaigners” who “fought and died” to establish the principle of equality at the polls in Britain – “one person, one vote,” as in the current First Past the Post (FPTP) system. He describes AV as “hopelessly unclear, unfair, indecisive” and accuses its supporters of backing a voting system which leaves “half-dead governments living on life support”. – the Telegraph

Possible outcomes

There is one party leader who can look forward with confidence to Thursday’s elections and referendum. Is David Cameron the man with reasons to be cheerful? The Conservatives may lose council seats, but they will probably not do so badly that reverses can’t be shrugged off as the level of bruising to a government that must be expected when the economy is fragile and taxes are being hiked and spending slashed in the name of dealing with the deficit. Truth to tell, Mr Cameron has not been losing any sleep over the fate of Tory councillors. He has much more at stake in the referendum. First past the post has generally been good for the Tories by inflating minority support in the country into majorities at Westminster. It gave most of the 20th century to the Conservatives. – Andrew Rawnsley, the Guardian

Labour will be the big winner with Ed Miliband’s party set to record its biggest share of the vote in council polls for around a decade. The Liberal Democrats could lose around 600 seats in Thursday’s poll – a third of all those currently held by Nick Clegg’s party which are being contested. A loss on this scale – together with a failure to win the referendum on changing to the Alternative Vote (AV) system, also being held on Thursday – could be enough to prompt behind-the-scene discussions about how long Mr Clegg can continue at the party’s helm. He has already faced criticism from some activists over a U-turn on big increases in university tuition fees and support for Government spending cuts. Chris Huhne, the Climate Change Secretary, is suspected by fellow ministers of being “on manoeuvres” as a possible alternative leader. – the Telegraph

Cameron somehow beats Becker

He is more at home exchanging verbal volleys with Labour MPs in the House of Commons but David Cameron proved he’s a bit of a dab hand with a racquet too. The Prime Minister took on tennis legend Boris Becker in a charity football match this weekend – and came out on top. The Tory leader seemed to have bags of energy despite a day of celebration at Buckingham Palace yesterday when him and wife Samantha Cameron attended the Royal Wedding before hosting their own wedding day celebrating in Downing Street. Living the dream of many keen amateurs, he donned shorts and t-shirts and stepped on court at his Chequers residents with the former Wimbledon champion. The event in Buckinghamshire came about after an auction in aid of the Kirsty Club, fronted by brave Kirsty Howard, who was born with a rare heart condition. Caroline Wynn and Sharon Kettle bid £8,250 to take part in a game with Becker and Mr Cameron. The money will help the Francis House Children’s Hospice in Didsbury, Manchester. – Daily Mail

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Posted in Unbound | 1 Comment »

Saturday News Review

30/04/2011, 06:51:12 AM

A nation celebrates

David Cameron, still in his morning suit, tucked into cake and posed for pictures at the No10 celebration. Guests included actress Barbara Windsor, schoolchildren and charity fundraisers, young and old. The PM said: “It’s been an amazing day.” In Anglesey, North Wales, where Prince William serves at the RAF base, thousands partied in a showground. One reveller said: “I expect William won’t be at the pub’s quiz night with his friends as often now he’s married.” Coronation Street star William Roache, who plays Ken Barlow, joined 300 friends and neighbours in Wilmslow, Cheshire. In ­Southampton, Michaela Coutakis, 45, dressed in patriotic colours, said: “We’re not royalists but it’s bringing the ­country together. We will remember this when we’re old and grey. She looked absolutely stunning.” Outside the royal residence of Balmoral Castle in Aberdeenshire, people enjoyed picnics and drank bubbly on the lawn where six large TVs showed the wedding. Mother Amanda Mann, 40, said: “You can’t put a price on memories like today.” – Daily Express

While the nation readies itself for mass jubilation tomorrow as Prince William and Kate Middleton tie the knot, Downing Street too has got in on the act – with a little bit of bunting. Perhaps the Government didn’t want to give the wrong impression in these times of austerity as the bunting budget clearly didn’t stretch very far. There may have been no signs of Union Flags or George Crosses outside – but it was a different matter inside. Larry the cat – brought in to deal with a rodent problem – was seen sporting a very patriotic bow tie ahead of the No.10 street party. Sitting on the Cabinet table, wearing his little Union Flag number, he looked as happy as, well, Larry – but let’s hope he won’t be called on for his official rat-catching duties tomorrow. The usually cordoned-off street will host a party for 100 revellers to celebrate the Royal Wedding. Guests for the do are mostly pensioners chosen by local charities and Save The Children. As well as tucking into home-made cupcakes – which Samantha Cameron helped to bake – they will be entertained with games. To get in the mood for the big day, David Cameron took a stroll along The Mall this evening and met well-wishers. He also re-visited the spot where he camped out at for the wedding of Prince Charles and Lady Diana in 1981. – Daily Mail

Dave says “They have no right to stop you having fun”

An unofficial street party in Glasgow’s Kelvingrove Park was descending into violence tonight as police stuggled to cope with a crowd of thousands of revellers. Hundreds of thugs threw missiles at officers and at least three cops were injured. Two teenagers had organised the rave in on Facebook on the back of a pledge from PM David Cameron, who hit out at spoilsport councils for blocking parties with red tape. However trouble flared after the plug was pulled more than three hours early on the unofficial event, amid rising tensions and scuffles inside and outside the park. Many of the 4000-strong crowd at the bash were boozing heavily and attacked officers as they tried to split up a fight. The event was organised after David Cameron attacked “pen pushers and busybodies” for thwarting royal wedding celebrations. The PM said : “They have no right to stop you from having fun. I am the Prime Minister and I am telling you if you want to have a street party, you go ahead and have one.” – Daily Record

Police condemned “irresponsible” drunkenness after arresting 21 people when violence broke out at an unauthorised Glasgow park rave to coincide with the royal wedding. One officer was taken to hospital with a head injury after police moved in to break up the unofficial party in Kelvingrove Park, and police say more arrests could be made as they study video footage. More than 4000 revellers, mostly in their teens and early-twenties, converged on the beauty spot yesterday and the majority were drinking. Glasgow City Council, which now has to mount a huge clean- up operation, had warned against the unofficial party and urged people to find a “safer alternative” way to celebrate. JJ Gardner, 19, one of two students who organised the event, spreading the word through social networking sites, said: “David Cameron said people wanting to organise street parties should forget the red tape. That’s what we’re doing.” – Daily Herald

Hain has a howler

Crude politics has intruded on the Royal Wedding after all, and all courtesy of Peter Hain. The Shadow Welsh Secretary has complained — on Twitter, naturally — that the BBC’s coverage of the event dwelt too long on David Cameron and Nick Clegg, and ignored Ed Miliband. “BBC airbrushing Labour like the Palace?” he asked leadingly. The Tory minister David Jones has since admonished him, “time, place, Peter.” If Labour have much sense they’ll play this down as efficiently as possible. Miliband, it is true, barely featured in the television coverage — but that’s really beside the point. It is rarely smart politics to take on the Palace at any time. Yet on the day of the Royal Wedding it’s just downright foolish. Hain’s outburst may not have been the official party line, but he is still a shadow cabinet member, and his leader could have lived without this embarrassment. – the Spectator

Shadow Welsh Secretary Peter Hain was rebuked by Labour bosses yesterday after accusing the BBC of political bias in its coverage of the royal wedding. He also appeared to attack the royal family when he took to social networking site Twitter to complain there had been far fewer television shots of Labour leader Ed Miliband during the course of the coverage than of Prime Minister David Cameron and his deputy Nick Clegg. Mr Hain tweeted: “Loads of TV coverage of Cameron and Clegg at wedding but none of Ed. BBC airbrushing Labour like the palace?” The second line is a reference to former Labour prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown not being invited to the wedding, unlike other living former premiers Baroness Thatcher and Sir John Major. Responding to Mr Hain’s comments, a senior Labour source said: “The last thing Ed and Justine [Thornton, Mr Miliband’s fiancee] are worried about is getting on television on William and Kate’s big day. It should just be about them. No-one should be trying to make a political row on this day of celebration.” – Western Mail

A day to bury bad news

Labour has accused health bosses of burying bad news on royal wedding day when it emerged that the health regulator Monitor had predicted hospitals would have to make efficiency savings up to 50% higher than previously envisaged. Monitor, in a letter to NHS foundation trusts dated 27 April and released on Thursday, said the higher efficiency savings were partly due to inflation rising above predicted levels. Monitor oversees NHS foundation trusts and assesses applications for foundation status. It is due to become the overall regulator for the whole of the NHS under the government shakeup. It suggested average savings of up to 7% a year may be required in the acute sector over the next five years, compared with the 4% called for by the Department of Health as part of efforts to slash £20bn from running costs. – the Guardian

John Healey, the shadow health secretary, raised questions over the timing of an official announcement that hospitals may need to make savings far greater than those already planned. He said the statement by Monitor, that leading hospitals must make savings of up to 7 per cent a year, proved that the reorganisation of the NHS and cost-cutting plans are putting the system under “huge strain”. Mr Healey said: “With all eyes on the Royal Wedding, the Government is trying to bury bad news on the NHS. This confirms the combination of broken promises on NHS funding and reorganisation is putting a huge strain on hospitals. David Cameron must halt his high-risk, high cost overhaul of the NHS. The Prime Minister promised to protect the NHS but his health policies are piling extra pressure on health services, and patients are starting to see the NHS going backwards again under the Tories.” In plans established under Labour, the NHS must make efficiency savings of 4 per cent of its budget by 2015, totaling £20billion. Many trusts have already announced job cuts and service reductions, although ministers want them to concentrate on reducing waste. But Monitor, which oversees the 137 leading hospitals known as Foundation Trusts, has warned them that they may need to make savings of at least 50 per cent more than initially thought.  – Daily Telegraph

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Posted in Unbound | 1 Comment »

A snap election is no longer unthinkable – but it won’t happen

26/04/2011, 03:10:58 PM

by Sunder Katwala

An election this year is no longer unthinkable, writes Guardian columnist Jackie Ashley. ConservativeHome’s Tim Montgomerie, influential champion of the Tory netroots, advises Cameron to prepare his troops. Perhaps the prime minister’s most unlikely adviser, Tom Watson, was ahead of the game.

Except that it won’t happen. (Just as economists have successfully predicted six of the last three recessions, commentators and bloggers promoting snap elections should have to declare their previous kite-flying efforts).

The most prominent objection so far is the difficulty of Mr Coalition Cameron engineering the destruction of his own government without the public seeing that he has acted in entirely bad faith. This would be Paxman’s dream “why should anybody believe a word you say” election, so brazenly have both governing parties done things which they promised not to. The prime minister who legislates for fixed term Parliaments and then runs to the country would put the seal on the most cynical interpretations of the new politics.

Perhaps a breakdown of collective responsibility and backbench rumblings will create gridlock, unless the LibDems do not simply pipe down again after May 5th. The LibDem grassroots are mobilising to seek to fillet the NHS Bill that their MPs voted for at second reading. But most Conservatives, while grumbling about the excessive influence of their junior partners, would be secretly relieved if a cosmetic pause comes closer to a full stop on reforms which the public finds incomprehensible. ‘Save Andrew Lansley’  is probably not a battle cry to win an electoral mandate.

But there is a better objection still. David Cameron hasn’t got the votes.

The Liberal Democrats certainly don’t want to face the voters anytime soon. They could lose their role in government and more than half of their MPs, probably including all of their women.

All the prime minister making that threat would have to lose is Downing Street and his political career.

The blindspot of much of the political class lies in consistently over-estimating David Cameron. He certainly looks the part as PM. He performs the public role with grace. But his record as party leader is as much about failure as success. His own side put him into TV debates to ‘seal the deal’ in 2010. He didn’t. But the assumption that he would was shared by his opponents, helping to explain why Labour didn’t prepare properly for the hung Parliament, and the LibDems made the pledge to students which would have served them well had the Tories won a small majority.

Yet everybody is doing the same thing again.

It has become a staple assumption that, had Cameron formed a minority government, he would then have swept to victory at the time of his choosing. If it was a sure thing, why didn’t it happen – and why was there so little Tory pressure to attempt it? It was because the risk was too great.
Historically, when the parties have gone back and asked the voters the same question after a hung Parliament, they have been given the same answer as the first time around. Had Cameron tried it, I have suggested before that David Miliband might now be Prime Minister.

A Tory election campaign this year would be rather less plausible than last Autumn. Ultimately, they would fall back on running against Gordon Brown and the government’s inheritance from Labour. Since that didn’t work well enough for the Tories to win when Gordon Brown was the alternative candidate, there is little reason to think the voters would find it more plausible now.

It is true that Labour is still rebuilding. If Ed Miliband’s party is more popular than Labour was at the last election – as, with 2 million LibDem voters having switched to Labour, it undoubtedly is – it is difficult to see how Cameron’s gamble could pay off.

If it didn’t come off, he’s Ted Heath, and surely on the way out. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Posted in Uncut | 7 Comments »

This government’s back-of-the-envelope approach to national security must change

21/04/2011, 04:05:03 PM

by Matt Cavanagh

Con Coughlin’s article in today’s Telegraph will make uncomfortable reading for those Conservatives (and News International journalists) who like to pretend that Cameron’s national security council (NSC) is a genuinely radical reform based on a serious attempt to learn the lessons of the last decade. Coughlin writes:

“To judge by the NSC’s increasingly inchoate response to the challenge presented by Gaddafi’s regime, it seems to me that all it has achieved so far is the replacement of Blair’s much-derided “sofa government” with a new, back-of-the-envelope approach.”

I argued in November that Cameron had persistently over-sold his reforms to our national security machinery, which really amounted to “a tinkering and re-badging exercise”. In the first couple of weeks of the Libyan crisis, the continuing lack of strategy, coherence, and grip was obvious.

The narrative changed when Cameron was able to take the credit for British diplomatic efforts to secure UNSCR 1973, and for being one of the first leaders to call for military intervention. The changed narrative didn’t change the facts – that Cameron’s call for intervention was more a response to immediate domestic pressure than part of a real strategy, and that UNSCR 1973 itself didn’t seem to be part of a real strategy – but it did push these inconvenient facts into the background. At that stage, what mattered was that Cameron seemed to be winning the international argument.

Now what matters is who is winning on the ground. The curiously timed joint letter by Sarkozy, Cameron and Obama, insisting that Gaddafi must go, hasn’t made that outcome any more likely compared to the various possible outcomes which leave him in place – the potential collapse of the revolution outlined by Anthony Loyd in this month’s Prospect, or a protracted stalemate, or a messy negotiated settlement. The letter has, however, increased the extent to which the West’s reputation, as well as Libyans’ future, is on the line.

It might therefore be time to look again, not just at the implications of the Libyan crisis for our defence and foreign policy – reopening or updating the strategic defence and security review (SDSR) – but also at the implications for our national security machinery. It needs real reform, rather than tinkering and re-badging, if we are to increase the chances of our foreign and security policy being driven by strategy rather than emerging out of the interaction between media coverage, domestic politics, and bureaucratic dysfunction.

Matt Cavanagh was a special adviser on defence in the ministry of defence, treasury, and Downing Street from 2005 to 2010.

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Posted in Uncut | 2 Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »