David cameron

The debate over the Beecroft report is now the politics of the viscera. For Tory MPs it has become symbolic of how the Liberal Democrats — and Vince Cable, in particular — are holding them back from doing what they need to get the country out of this economic emergency. On the Liberal Democrat side it has become emblematic of everything about Steve Hilton — ‘Thatcher in a t-shirt’ as they dubbed him — that annoyed them. Adrian Beecroft’s intervention today in the Telegraph and the Mail is bound to increase Tory tensions on the matter. He tells the Mail that Cameron and Osborne have ‘given up’ on unfair dismissal.

It’s no surprise that the Lib Dems aren’t keen on Adrian Beecroft’s proposals for hiring and firing. This intra-coalition disagreement has been rumbling on for months now, after all. But when Vince Cable spoke out against them yesterday, it wasn’t entirely clear whether this was his party’s line or just Vince being Vince. Other Lib Dems might have taken a more conciliatory approach. Today, however, it’s clear that they’re not going to.

The publication of the Beecroft report on Thursday is a big moment for the coalition. The Lib Dems have long been dismissive of it but it is now a crucial part of any coalition grand bargain on growth. In recent days, those close to David Cameron and Nick Clegg have been talking about a more cooperative, coalition attitude to growth. There’s been a recognition that the two sides both need to make some concessions to give the coalition a more adequate growth strategy. As one senior figure puts it, the coalition needs to show ‘more radicalism and unity on growth’. This is what makes the publication of Beecroft on Thursday so important.

Have you noticed the weird hold that François Hollande has over our politics? If you haven’t, then let me tell you: his name has been almost inescapable in Westminster over the past couple of weeks. Even in PMQs this week, David Cameron and Ed Miliband couldn’t resist of spot of Hollandery. Behind-the-scenes, too, there is much consideration being given to how the new French President should be treated. Political strategists recognise, as I’ve suggested before, that his election could be a significant moment in the life of the Eurozone and the European Union.

I doubt that Angela Merkel is looking forward to the G8 summit very much. It will mostly consist of the other world leaders telling her to give ground on austerity. But I suspect that Merkel won’t budge much, if at all. She clearly believes that the Greeks can be whipped into line by telling them that the election is really a referendum on euro membership. Hence both her suggestion of a simultaneous referendum on election-day and her backing for the European Central Bank cutting off support to Greek banks which shows that while there’s no formal mechanism for ejecting a country from the single currency there are ways of doing it. The German government, intriguingly, seems more accepting of the idea of the Greeks leaving the Euro than others do.

The Cameroons have long taken comfort in their belief that Ed Miliband will never be Prime Minister. They have seen him as a firebreak between them and electoral defeat. Three things have driven their conviction that the Labour leader will never make it to Number 10. First, their belief that he fails the blink test: can you see him standing outside Number 10? Second, the next election will almost certainly be fought on the economy, Labour’s weakest area. Their final reason was a sense that he would never get the full support of those on the Labour side who know how to win elections. But recent events suggest that this confidence that Miliband will lose the next election might be misplaced.

The 1922 elections were not a clean sweep for the loyalist 301 Group slate, they missed out on one of the secretary position. But they have pretty much succeeded in purging the ’22 and the Backbench Business Committee of the so-called ‘wreckers’. Indeed, the only ‘wrecker’ who has survived is Bernard Jenkin who remains on the ’22 executive. But, significantly, I understand that Stewart Jackson, who spoke up in defence of Nadine Dorries at ’22 last week and was very critical of David Cameron at the weekend, came — in the words of one who has seen the actual voting numbers — ‘within a whisker’ of being elected to the executive. These elections are odd affairs, people vote on friendship as much as ideology.

The news that Rebekah Brooks and Charlie Brooks have been charged with perverting the course of justice means that there'll be at least one trial involving friends of the Prime Minister before the next election. In cynical political terms, that Charlie has been charged as well as Rebekah creates an additional political problem for David Cameron. Part of Cameron's explanation for how close he got to Rebekah Brooks has always been that she married an old school friend of his. Undoubtedly, the Charlie Brooks connection added a genuine layer of friendship to relations between Rebekah Brooks and Cameron. I suspect that if it was not for Charlie Brooks there would have been no riding of the retired police horse and the like.

Elections to the 1922 Committee of Tory backbenchers have always been a test of the relative strengths of the right and left of the party. But this year, the split is between those who are backing the broadly pro-leadership 301 Group slate and those who view the ’22 as more of an alternative voice. The contest has become particularly heated after last week’s fiery meeting of the ’22 Committee. Intriguingly, Stewart Jackson, who was barracked when he tried to defend Nadine Dorries for her ‘posh boys’ attack on Cameron and Osborne, is standing for the executive. Given what he wrote on Sunday and that he resigned as a PPS over the EU referendum vote, the support for him will demonstrate how many MPs are dissatisfied with Cameron’s leadership.