David cameron

Many Spectator subscribers, picking up today’s newspapers, will be a bit puzzled. Is it news that David Cameron has come round to the idea of an EU referendum? Haven't they read that somewhere before? This sensation is called Déjà Lu, and it I’m afraid afflicts all Spectator subscribers. Cameron’s decision to change his position on the EU was revealed by James Forsyth back in May. As so often, his weekly political column gave real-time updates of the No10’s decision-making process as it happened. He wrote then:  'A referendum on Europe is the obvious answer. It is one the leadership seems set to embrace.

Ed Miliband stands accused of many faults, but he rarely slips an opportunity to be opportunistic. James has said that the error and arrogance of the banking establishment, epitomised by the LIBOR and mis-selling scandals, allows Miliband to pose as a ‘tribune of the people’. And so it has come to pass. Miliband has today addressed the Fabian Society – a generous audience for him to be sure, but a suitably humble platform for him nonetheless.  He received a sort of reverse show trial: a lot of predictable questions to which he gave answers of breath-taking predictability. But that is their strength. Tony Parsons has a piece in today’s Mirror in which he argues that Miliband is beginning to sound prime ministerial.

Ed Miliband was spoilt for choice at today’s PMQs. Scarcely a week goes by without the government reneging on some budget promise, so Labour’s  leader had a whole fistful of blunders to consider. Wisely, he took the simplest option and quoted an apologia made by David Cameron on April 11th. ‘I will defend every part of the budget,’ the prime minister told some interviewer somewhere. ‘I worked on it very closely with the Chancellor. Line by line.’ That was pure gold for Miliband. And pure poison for the prime minister. ‘What went wrong?’ asked the Labour leader casually.   Cameron flipped into full denial mode. ‘I cannot be a U-turn!’ he shouted fierily.

Talk to anyone in Downing Street and they can give you the four main reasons that voters cite for switching from the Tories to Labour: the Tory leadership is out of touch, the cost of living, immigration and welfare. The first two of these reasons are why the government has been prepared to risk further ridicule by changing the Budget again to postpone the 3p fuel increase planned for August until the end of the year. The timing of today’s move, just hours after Ed Balls said Labour would call a Commons vote on the matter, will attract much Westminster comment. But the Tories are confident that this will pass most of the electorate by.

Why has David Cameron chosen to launch what is effectively a 2015 manifesto pledge on welfare today? The Prime Minister's speech, which he has just finished giving, had quite interesting timing: we still, after all, have just under three years before the next general election. Cameron has already dropped hints about how much further the Conservatives could go on key areas - and specifically referred to welfare - without the Liberal Democrats holding them back, but this is the first instance where he has pinpointed a particular post-2015 policy. It leaves the Liberal Democrats once again on the back foot over benefits, suggesting to a public hungry for a more conditional and less generous welfare state that the Government could go so much further without their Coalition partners.

A few years back the radio disc jockey John Peel died. Some public sorrow was expressed and soon Tony Blair issued a press release explaining his personal sadness. A little while later someone else who was popular died and the same thing happened. A few days later still and hundreds of thousands of people were killed and many more made homeless by a Tsunami out East. For several hours Blair was silent. Some media jumped on this and whipped up public expressions of shock. ‘Why has our Prime Minister not expressed sadness about the Tsunami deaths?’ and so on. I don’t know why Blair took a few more hours than was then normal for him to issue a personal grief-o-gram. But I doubted then, and doubt now, that it was because he was jubilant about the disaster.

Michael Gove's plan to scrap GCSEs and replace them with a beefed-up O-Level are, as Brother Blackburn observed earlier, threatened by the Conservatives' coalition partners. It seems quite probable that Gove's proposals will be watered down following the usual "consultation" with the Liberal Democrats. This will, understandably, vex Tories. Gove's proposals have considerable merit even if, as always, the advantages of his plans are (partially) offset by their drawbacks. As successive governments have discovered it is difficult to build an education system that is demanding, universal and equitable. There must be winners and losers and the argument is chiefly about defining those terms.

There is much excitement on the wires about David Cameron’s attitude to tax avoidance. The PM’s just told ITV news: 'He's [Jimmy Carr] taking the money from tickets and as far as I can see, he's putting all of that into some very dodgy tax avoiding scheme.' It is 'completely wrong', he said. Asked about today’s revelations in the Times, which include allegations against Cameron-backer Gary Barlow, the prime minister said: '[I will] look at that scheme ... as soon as I get in front of my computer.' Tax avoidance embarrasses the Conservative leader, especially as his government has not successfully curbed it. But two specific points emerge from Cameron’s statements this afternoon.