Category Archives: David Cameron

David Laws

Appeared on BBC’s Politics Show this lunchtime and was, inevitably, asked about the resignation of David Laws. 

Certain sections of the media are trying to spin the line that this was a homophobic witch-hunt, but it was nothing of the sort.  The allegation against David Laws is that he diverted expenses to his partner in contravention of Parliamentary rules.  This would have been a serious matter whether the partner were male or female.  Laws has decided, correctly, that his continuance as Chief Secretary is impossible, given the nature of the allegation.

It may well be, of course, that David Laws is wholly exonerated by the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, to whom, quite properly, he has referred himself.  In that case, as David Cameron has made clear, there may  be a future role for him in government.

I hope so.  In the short time that  he was at the Treasury, David Laws showed that he has a great deal to offer public life in Britain.

Quite a day

An extraordinary day, by any standards.

Around 3.00 pm, my mobile rang.  It was the Government Chief Whip: “David, the Prime Minister has asked me to invite you to join the Government as Parliamentary under Secretary of State in the Wales Office.”

It didn’t, frankly, require too much thought.  I was delighted.

And then the phone started ringing.  And didn’t stop. It continued ringing until 6.00 pm, when I left to attend the mayor making ceremony in Abergele.

People have been so very kind; I have been greatly touched to receive so many messages of goodwill from so many friends, colleagues, constituents and acquaintances.

Yes, it’s been quite a day.  But now the work starts. 

I understand that, even as I write, my first ministerial boxes are on their way to me from Whitehall.

The right note

David Cameron’s accession to power around 8 o’clock last night could not have been more different from Tony Blair’s thirteen years previously.

I remember, as a candidate who had experienced my own small share of the Tory pain in the face of the Labour landslide, watching Blair swagger into a Downing Street thronged with apparent well-wishers, but actually Labour staffers, giving transatlantic-style double handshakes, his eyes brimming with tears of faux emotion (or possibly genuine – it wasn’t always possible to tell with Blair).

I was fascinated, but also repelled, by the scene, and not just because I was a Tory and Labour were taking over the reins of power.  It was all so stage managed, so forced, so ersatz.

Yesterday, Cameron struck a different note.  There was no lap of honour, no blubbing, no high fives.  The car drew into Downing Street and the new Prime Minister stepped out, to deliver a speech that was brief, businesslike and devoid of triumphalism.

He spoke of the difficult decisions that lie ahead; of the need for Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to put aside political differences and work together for the national good; of his determination to restore trust in politics and politicians; of the duty of Government to protect the old, the frail and the poor.

Cameron knew that he was inheriting possibly the most difficult economic, social and constitutional conditions the country has faced since the end of the war.  He has a tough job to do.

There is no time for nonsense.

The Prime Minister

An extraordinary day, to which the adjective “historic” can be justly applied.

Too late now to blog fully, but three memories of it are already engraved on my mind:

  • the grim look on the face of Peter Mandelson as he left Downing Street for the last time;
  • the catch in Gordon Brown’s voice as he mentioned the names of his young sons;
  • the smile of satisfaction on the face of the Chief Whip as he announced to the occupants of a packed Committee Room 14:  “Colleagues… the Prime Minister!”

Every little helps

Travelled over to Delyn, the prospective seat of our excellent candidate Antoinette Sandbach, yesterday, where David Cameron was visiting Holywell’s Tesco store.  I was astonished to be greeted by Tesco’s chief executive, Sir Terry Leahy, who was, as might be expected, a most impressive, switched-on individual, but also a thoroughly nice guy.

David’s plane from Newquay had been delayed, so I spent a lot of time speaking to the Tesco staff who had stayed behind after the store’s closing time to meet him.  I also enjoyed the incongruous sight of a major press operation in the fruit and veg department, with cameramen jostling for the best position.

David finally arrived, accompanied by Samantha, and went off for a fifteen minute conversation with Sir Terry.  He then returned to fruit and veg and fielded half a dozen or so unprepared questions from staff members on issues as diverse as education maintenance allowance and the conditions experienced by our troops in Afghanistan.

It was an interesting experience, not least because it gave me the opportunity to observe the press pack at close quarters.  Most of them looked as harassed as the politicians.

I understand that Gordon Brown visited a Tesco yesterday, too – the store in Hammersmith, where he was accompanied by Prunella Scales, who used to appear in the company’s TV ads.

This close to polling day, in politics, as in grocery, every little helps.

No leg to stand on

 

 Caption suggestions welcomed.

Brown substance

Labour’s general election manifesto will be launched later today. It is heavily trailed in all the dailies and the Mirror even prints a picture of its front cover, which shows a family gazing at the sun rising over a green and pleasant land.

As might be expected, Labour’s pre-launch hype seeks to gloss over the not unimportant point that the party has been in power for the last thirteen years:

“The days of take it or leave it public services are over,” Brown says. “The days of just minimum standards are over. The days of the impersonal are finished. It has to be personal, accountable and tailored to your needs, and with a mechanism to trigger change if the service does not meet your needs.”

A reasonable reader might be inclined to ask why, if the Prime Minister is so determined to do away with “take it or leave it” services, he has presided over them for so long.  That, however, is not the issue.  The real issue, you see, is one of substance.

Yes, “substance” is a word that may be found spattered across today’s papers.  The manifesto is a “manifesto of substance” because the choice for electors is one between “Cameron style” and “Brown substance”.

I could make a joke about “Brown substance”, but, since I am not the former Labour candidate for Moray, I shall refrain.

By the way, I’m not entirely sure that the “sunrise” motif is one that Labour should be employing.  It merely serves to remind people that it is always darkest before the dawn.  And the darkness is one of Labour’s making.

Tory already in government

The Prime Minister is looking ever more embattled over his plans to increase National Insurance contributions from April next year.

Not only are increasing numbers of senior businesspeople coming out in support of the Conservative view that the NI hike is a tax on jobs, but we learn today that Stephen Timms, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, also considers that the measure will have an “impact” on employment.  However, the Mail reports that:

Mr Timms refused to publish Treasury forecasts of the numbers of jobs that will go, saying they would be released after the election “if necessary”.

When David Cameron, at this week’s PMQs, referred to the view of Diageo’s Paul Walsh that the NI increase was indeed a tax on jobs, a number of Labour Members catcalled that Mr Walsh was “a Tory”, notwithstanding that he is also a member of the Prime Minister’s business advisory council.

No doubt those Brownite diehards would now also be inclined to accuse poor Mr Timms of the same grievous offence.

Ashes victory

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

The Conservative party has now launched its own “Ashes to Ashes” campaign on exactly the same electronic poster sites as those used by Labour.

Losing the Ashes test

I can’t help feeling that Labour’s new poster campaign is unlikely to produce the effect desired by the party’s spin machine. 

It depicts David Cameron as DCI Gene Hunt from the BBC TV series Ashes to Ashes, with the caption “Don’t let him take Britain back to the 1980s” and will apparently go up on 1,000 electronic billboards across the country.

Labour’s problem is that the poster is targeted at the youth vote, which – self-evidently, one might have thought – doesn’t remember the 1980s.  What is does remember, however, is Ashes to Ashes, of which – despite his manifest political incorrectness – Hunt was the charismatic star character.

What’s more, showing Cameron perched casually on the bonnet of the iconic Audi Quattro, wearing a sharp suit and snakeskin boots, his tie insouciantly loosened, the poster arguably makes the Tory leader look pretty cool.

All in all, an image that may prove rather attractive to undecided yoof.

More, please.

Insulting our armed forces

For the first time, there was a flash of real anger from David Cameron at Prime Minister’s Questions today.

Cameron was questioning Gordon Brown about his evidence to the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war:

Mr. Cameron:   Following his evidence, one former Chief of the Defence Staff said that he was being “disingenuous” and another said that he was “dissembling”. Both those people worked with the Prime Minister—

From the Government benches, most particularly the area below the gangway occupied by the most hairy-knuckled members of the Labour awkward squad, came the cry: “Because they’re Tories!”

Cameron was incensed:

Mr. Cameron:  Oh, it is because they are Tories, is it? That is what this tribalist, divisive Government think about people who serve our country.  I think, first of all, the Prime Minister should get up and dissociate himself completely from what those people behind him have said.

But Brown didn’t dissociate himself from his backbenchers; how could he?  In a few short weeks, after all, he will have to rely on the support of each and every one of them if he is to remain as leader of his party.  He did, however, say that he had “never at any time criticised the patriotism of anybody who has been involved in the defence establishment of this country”, which wasn’t really the same thing.

Cameron then proceeded to criticise the Government for attempting “to fight two wars on a peacetime budget”.

Brown, in answer, contended that:

the defence budget has been rising every year. He might have had a complaint if we were cutting the defence budget every year, but it is rising every year.

This is a claim that the Prime Minister has made on several occasions, but it does not bear close scrutiny.  As a proportion of GDP, government spending on defence has fallen by almost half over the last two decades.  Last, week, Ian Godden, chairman of ADS, the UK’s defence trade organisation, commented:

“Any criticism of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) must be seen in the light of the defence budget having fallen from 4.4 per cent of GDP 20 years ago to 2.3 per cent today while many other departmental budgets have continued to grow. The MoD has been given an insufficient budget by the Treasury with which to support our armed forces during a period of increased operational commitments.”

It is difficult to think of any greater insult that Gordon Brown could offer our armed forces than to contend that defence spending has increased when, as a proportion of our national income, it has in fact significantly declined.

Apart, of course, from allowing the integrity of their commanders to be gratuitously traduced by his own backbenchers.

Madness in the Commons

PMQs were even more eagerly anticipated than usual today, given the incendiary allegations published in the Observer on Sunday, the flames of which had been fanned by Alistair Darling’s assertion on Sky News that No 10 had “unleashed the forces of hell” against him in 2008 for daring to predict (correctly, as it transpired) that the recession would be the worst for 60 years.

Would there, we wondered, be a certain froideur evident between the PM and his next-door neighbour? Would they each sit at extreme ends of the front bench, legs crossed in opposite directions, and stare at the rafters?  Would the body language, in short, be bloody?

As it turned out, when Gordon and Alistair arrived they were joined at the hip.  Literally.  They entered the chamber in a curious manner similar to the sub-conga shuffle formerly adopted by the 80s pop group, Madness, Darling almost physically attached to the back of the PM’s jacket, both grinning self-consciously.  You couldn’t put a cigarette paper between them. 

They sat down together.  Very close together.  An ironic cheer erupted and the Speaker had to ask us all to settle down.

Of course, David Cameron asked Brown about the briefings against Alistair.  I mean, he had to.  There was an open goal and it would have been unprofessional, indeed disrespectful of the PM, not to have a crack at it.  Gordon, intensely discomfited, affected a sort of hysterical insouciance by pretending to chat cosily with Alistair, who, in fairness, played along and chatted back.  It didn’t deter Cameron:

Mr. Cameron: Just as we need openness in the health service, we need openness at the heart of Government. After the Chancellor’s extraordinary statement last night, the Prime Minister said this morning on GMTV:

“I would never instruct anybody to do anything other than support my Chancellor”.

Will he try to stand up with a straight face and tell us that that is true?

The Prime Minister: Not only is that correct, but this is the nearest that the right hon. Gentleman has ever got to talking about the economy in the past few months.

Not a terribly good answer, but the Labour backbenchers, heavily whipped, roared.  Not very enthusiastically, you understand, but roar they did.

Cameron was still undeterred:

Mr. Cameron: If the Prime Minister wants to talk about the economy, we can talk about the Prime Minister trebling the deficit, about wrecking the pension system, about ruining the tax system and about bringing this country to its knees. Right now, six weeks before an election, with a record Budget deficit, at the end of a long recession, I want to ask why the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are at war with each other. This is what we are told—

Gordon and Alistair were continuing their animated love-in, pretending not to listen to the beastly man, their heads almost touching.

Mr. Cameron: If they get any closer, they will start kissing. We are told that Damian McBride, Gordon Brown’s spin doctor, was “spreading poison against Darling” and that he

“told every journalist who had access to a pencil that Alistair’s interview was a disaster.”

We are also told that there was the most poisonous briefing against him. Last night, the Chancellor said that after he had said what he had said, No. 10 Downing Street unleashed “the forces of hell”. Why does the Prime Minister think that he said that?

Gordon rose wearily:

The Prime Minister: I have already answered the right hon. Gentleman’s question. I never instructed a briefing against the Chancellor.

And perhaps he didn’t.  But he did look extremely uncomfortable.

The session was leavened at its very end by the House’s jester-in-residence, Stephen Pound, Labour Member for Ealing North, who, with a grin spread wide across his Punchinello countenance, asked in stentorian tones:

Stephen Pound (Ealing, North) (Lab): I enjoy a pint of porter and a game of darts as much as any old Etonian, but there the similarity ends. Can I ask my right hon. Friend to strain every sinew to try to achieve an international agreement on a Robin Hood tax, bearing in mind that we all know who in this House speaks for the Sheriff of Nottingham?

Even we laughed at that.

The friendly question had clearly come as a huge relief to the embattled Prime Minister:

The Prime Minister: I cannot beat the humour which my hon. Friend brings to this occasion.

Very true, Gordon.  But I’m sure you did your best.

PMQs

A very lively Prime Minister’s Questions, with Gordon Brown on the ropes over his Damascene conversion to the AV voting system, as David Cameron put it, thirteen years into this Government and ninety days out from a general election.

Cameron and other Members also tackled the Prime Minister on the evidence given by the former Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Walker, to the Chilcot inquiry that service chiefs had threatened to resign en masse because of cuts in defence spending.

“They’re all Tories,” yelled Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd) helpfully.

The Loyal Address

The debate on the Queen’s speech is one of the great set-pieces of the Parliamentary year.  Yesterday, the Loyal Address was proposed by Frank Dobson, the veteran MP for Holborn and St Pancras, who is both delightfully unreconstructed Old Labour and a very kind man (he once offered to buy me a coffee when I found myself without funds at the Portcullis House coffee shop).

Frank’s speech was extremely funny; the following story about his predecessor, Lena Jeger, gives a flavour:

She used to retell the tale that at her by-election in 1953 she was canvassing the top flat of a block in Camden Town. She launched into the great left-wing issue of the day—German rearmament and the threat it posed to international security. She stopped for breath, and the woman at the door asked, “Did you come up in the lift?”, and Lena says, “Yes.” “Stinks of pee, doesn’t it?” says the woman. “Yes,” says Lena. “Can’t you stop ’em peeing in our lift?” says the woman. “I don’t think I can,” says Lena. “Well,” says the woman, “if you can’t stop ’em peeing in our lift, how can you expect me to believe you can stop the Germans rearming?” A timeless lesson for us all.

The chamber was, of course, very full for the opening of the debate.  As a consequence, I found myself sitting on the furthermost back benches, behind the DUP and the small contingent from Plaid Cymru and the SNP.

David Cameron opened his contribution by congratulating Frank Dobson and Emily Thornberry, the Labour MP who had seconded the Loyal Address.  He then went on to welcome William Bain, the new Labour Member for Glasgow North-East, who had just taken his seat:

I expect that we will see the hon. Gentleman back in the House after the next election. I am sure there are many things that we will disagree about, but one thing on which I hope we will always agree is that we should never do anything to break up our United Kingdom.

At that point, one of the Plaid Cymru MPs dug his SNP neighbour in the ribs; they glanced at each other and both sniggered. 

It was a telling moment.

If that was a dud…

Extraordinary piece by John Rentoul, who opines in today’s Independent that David Cameron made a dud speech at the Manchester conference and that Labour can win the general election provided it ditches Gordon.

Rentoul should get out and talk to people more.  Everyone I have spoken to since Thursday – by no means all of them Conservatives – have agreed that Cameron’s speech was perfectly pitched, offering a serious assessment of the desperateness of the nation’s economic and social predicament, coupled with a vision of hope for the future.

What’s more, the polls – including today’s ICM for the News of the World, which gives the Conservatives a 19 point lead – show the Tories pulling further away since the close of the conference.  The NOTW also puts the Conservatives ahead of Labour in 9 out of 10 policy areas.

I’m taking nothing for granted, of course, but it’s hard to see the rationale for Rentoul’s assertion that “Cameron is the big loser from the conference season”.  On the contrary, I think he played a blinder and Labour must be deeply depressed.