David cameron

Lord Justice Leveson reports at 1.30pm tomorrow and David Cameron has blocked out 90 minutes in parliament to respond. The big question is this: will he introduce state licensing of the media? A group of 42 Tory MPs wants him to, and No.10 apparently thinks they will rebel if he doesn’t. But this would mean revoking Britain’s 317-year history of press freedom, and give Parliament power to set the parameters under which the press operates. If the state seeks to compel publications to join the government scheme, then they face a choice: sign up, or defy the new law. In tomorrow’s Spectator, we make our choice. We say in our leading article that we would happily sign up to any new form of self-regulation which the industry proposes, no matter how onerous.

Two thousand spice lovers crossed the river last night for the enormous British Curry Awards at Battersea Evolution. Between dousing my tongue with milk to calm the fiery dishes, I chatted about Leveson with the Justice Secretary and adoption with the leader of UKIP. The former was coy, the latter seething. Other political heavies braved the curries' heat: a dinner jacket-less Patrick McLoughlin sat at a top table, as did Francis Maude, who was wearing a tie for a change. Maude was not too chatty with Nigel Farage; but sources close to the pinstriped-one say that Grayling was much friendlier.

David Cameron took great pains in his statement to the Commons on the EU budget summit to emphasise the alliances that Britain had formed in trying to keep the budget down. He started by telling MPs that Britain had worked 'together with like-minded allies from a number of countries', and repeatedly used words such as 'together' and references to 'we - and others'. This was important as one of the key lines of attack that Labour has tried to make since last year's veto is that Britain is standing isolated in Europe. Labour struggled to make an impact, both in Miliband's response to Cameron's statement and during the ensuing debate.

The Leveson Inquiry will dominate this week. Inside Number 10 they regard it as ‘the most difficult’ of the three big issues dominating their time at the moment – the other two are the autumn statement and the EU Budget. But I suspect that voters will be far less interested in Leveson and the Prime Minister’s response to it than the media and political class are. I’d be surprised if Cameron’s handling of it changed the views of voters—as opposed to those of elites— of him. So, on The Sunday Politics today it was striking to see Liam Byrne, Labour’s welfare spokesman, trying to turn Cameron’s striver rhetoric back on him.

So, the EU budget summit has — as expected — broken up without agreement. We await the date of the next discussion of the matter. But for the moment it means there is nothing that David Cameron will have to try to pilot through parliament. Talking to those close to the Prime Minister, I sense that they are not unhappy with this conclusion. In Downing Street, they feel that their criticisms of the running costs of the EU bureaucracy have struck a chord with other contributor countries. They’re also pleased that Cameron has managed to strike a tough negotiating position without isolating himself. But what is giving them the greatest satisfaction is how solicitous of the British position Angela Merkel was. They regard this as a promising sign for the coming renegotiation.

Politics is gearing up for the publication of the Leveson Report next Thursday. It was telling that when Boris Johnson picked up politician of the year at The Spectator Parliamentarian of the Year awards, he didn’t use the occasion to list of his achievements in London or to reminisce about the Olympics but rather took the opportunity to decry the possibility of statutory regulation of the press. On the other side is Ed Miliband, whose party is committed to backing whatever Leveson comes up with. It is unclear yet what Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats will do. But there are a large chunk of Tory MPs who appear to have come round to the idea of statutory regulation.

A muted PMQs today. But Cameron opened a fresh offensive which may prove to be a blunder. The leaders began by discussing the Gaza crisis in bland and soporific tones. The absence of heat and noise from the debate indicates how little it affects Britain. And how little Britain affects the debate. Cameron and Miliband were in virtual agreement throughout. And they were keen to urge everyone, other than themselves, to work harder to create peace. Cameron suggested that Obama should make the Middle-East a key objective of his second-term, just as one might make weeding the raspberries a key objective of the coming weekend. Miliband noted that ‘confidence in the two-state solution is dwindling.

Some tickets to the Spectator’s next debate, ‘No Ifs, No Buts: Heathrow Must Have a Third Runway’, are still available. Tim Yeo, chairman of the energy and climate change select committee, and Jon Moulton, chairman of Better Capital, and influential Tory backbencher Graham Brady will be speaking in favour of the motion, while Daniel Moylan, Boris’ right hand man, and John Stewart, chairman of the ClearSkies campaign, will oppose the motion. Click here for more information and the box office. In the piece below, Cheryl Gillan MP, the former Secretary of State for Wales, discusses many of the economic issues that surround this vital political debate.

Another day, another set of newspapers full to bursting with pieces about Britain’s fractious relationship with the European Union – all of which, in their way, will unnerve David Cameron. The most enjoyable read is Boris Johnson’s column the Telegraph. Boris made his name as the Telegraph’s European Community Correspondent in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, writing amusing stories about the EC’s penchant for mad waste and corruption. He gives a reprise today, drawing attention to the fact that the EU distributes your money to Spanish sheep farmers who do not have any sheep. Boris’ conclusion is that David Cameron must go into this week’s debates armed with Maggie’s handbag and tell Brussels that enough is enough.

Over the summer, the balance of probability nudged away from a Cameron win towards a Miliband win in 2015. The collapse of the boundary review deal lifted the bar for Cameron, who might have struggled anyway. The Cameron operation - for all of its strengths elsewhere - has proven weak at campaigns. Failing to win a majority in a recession against a loathed opponent was one sign, the disastrous mayoral referenda another and the tragicomedy of the PCC elections completed the hat-trick. And then there were the U-turns, many of them defeats at the hands of ad hoc groups running a decent week-long campaigns: 38 Degrees on health reform, etc. The prospect of the 2010 team running the 2015 election would encourage only Labour.

On Monday, the government is set to announce its alcohol strategy. It is expected that this will call for a minimum unit price of 40p. As Graham Wilson reports in The Sun, this idea is a personal favourite of the Prime Minister but opposed by several influential members of the Cabinet. These ministers worry that it’ll be seen as the rich man taking away the poor man’s pleasure. Given the media reaction to the pasty tax and the caravan tax, this is a legitimate concern. They also fear that a successful legal challenge to it, which is a distinct possibility, would do further damage to the government’s reputation for competence.