David cameron

Tim Montgomerie observes that the FCO now stands for Foreign and Commerce Office. David Cameron is determined to conduct British foreign policy in our economic interest. And, in that spirit, he is off to charm India in the hope of gaining access to that enormous emerging market – last week’s magazine has exhaustive coverage of the trip. Tim also claims that the Foreign Office won’t like this ‘redirection of their mission’. I’m not so sure. From what I hear, the Foreign Office is loving it; it’s just like old times. The FO was marginalised under the previous government; Labour cut staff in embassies and consulates around the globe.

Matthew Parris and Charles Moore are the two of the most eloquent exponents of conservatism. But they represent different strands of conservative thought as their views on AV demonstrate. Matthew argues in his column in The Times today that the Conservative party should let AV pass if that is what it takes to keep the Lib Dems happy. He thinks that the Lib Dems are not only needed to make the Coalition work but that their presence is, in itself, a good thing. As he writes, ‘Lib Dems bring to government a distinct and healthy slant on politics. There is a reactionary component in the Tory make-up; I often share it, but it must always be kept in check.’ Charles, by contrast, remains a principled opponent of AV.

David Cameron has just made a quite spectacular mistake. Talking to Sky News he said: 'I think it's important in life to speak as it is, and the fact is that we are a very effective partner of the US, but we are the junior partner'. 'We were the junior partner in 1940 when we were fighting the Nazis.' The obvious problem with Cameron’s remarks is that, as any fule kno, the Americans did not enter the war until after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. The error is even odder given Cameron’s penchant for war movies, he’s watched Where Eagles Dare 17 times apparently. This howler from Cameron following Clegg’s Iraq gaffe at PMQs, means that this has not been a good day for the Coalition.

A little odd, and certainly inconvenient, that al-Megrahi still lives and breathes. Then again, Scotland's a notoriously unhealthy place and a bit of desert air probably did him some good. Ensconced in Washington, David Cameron will have taken some flak for the Lockerbie bomber’s compassionate release, for which he has the perfect riposte: terrible business, but nothing to do with me. His second line of defence is constitutionally watertight: the decision was Holyrood’s alone. The Lockerbie Papers suggest that al-Megrahi’s inclusion in a Prisoner Transfer Agreement was a precondition of any deal between the UK and Libyan governments, as Saif al-Islam Gadaffi maintains.

There are some British politicians who are obsessed with American politics, who could at this moment tell you who is most likely to pick up the open Senate seat in Colorado or pride themselves on their ability to name every Republican and Democratic vice presidential nominee since the war. But David Cameron isn’t one of them. Rather, Cameron takes a rather more hard-headed approach. At times this lack of emotional attachment has translated into a lack of empathy; giving a speech on the fifth anniversary of 9/11 which was designed to distance himself from the policy of the then US government was not particularly sensitive.

Given that the Labour leadership campaign is so dull, we should thank Chuka Umunna for cheering us up with his comedy economic analysis. Now on the Treasury Select Committee, he has regaled us with an ‘Open letter to George Osborne' where he makes many entertaining points. It’s worth looking at, because it sums up a few errors swirling around the Labour benches.   1)   During our exchange, you insisted your budget was "progressive"… you stood by your decision to apply a 10 percent cut to the housing benefit of those who have been on JSA for more than 12 months. Osborne has to use words like “progressive" to assuage the LibDems, but by their definition he is right.