David cameron

Why increase aid to Afghanistan by 40pc when troops are dying from a lack of body armour and helicopters? The pledge to not just protect but vastly increase the aid budget is one which, polls show, leaves the public puzzled.  I was on the Politics Show with Jon Sopel, who was putting to Andrew Mitchell some very sharp questions about all of this. Why build schools in Afghanistan, but cancel them in Britain? Worse, in fact, DFID has a habit of building schools but not finding teachers for them - its ideology states that teaching should be a job for central government, just like it is in Britain. The Afghan government is corrupt and pays a pittance for teachers, who can usually earn more as translators for other foreigners, etc.

Remember when David Cameron said that Britain "cannot be [in Afghanistan] for another five years"?  Since then, the coalition has expended a good deal of energy trying to clarify this statement.  The latest formulation was something like that given by William Hague to the Telegraph a couple of weeks ago: "By the time of the next election, [Cameron] hopes we won't still be fighting on the ground ... but there is 'no strict or artificial timetable'." But now Cameron has brought up the 2015 date again, and this time it sounds a lot more like a pledge than a hope.  Here's what he said at a PM Direct event today: "I don't think we should set lots of short term deadlines ....  I've set, if you like, a long term cut off point of 2015.

All of a sudden, the coalition partners can't get enough of their backbenchers.  Last night, it was David Cameron meeting the 1922 Committee to reassure them about their mutual relationship.  And, today, Nick Clegg is going on an "away day" with that half of his party which isn't in government, all to explain his close affair with the Tories.  Presumably, flowers and chocolates will be involved. The Clegg meeting, in particular, is worth dwelling on – and Sam Coates and Greg Hurst do just that in an insightful article for this morning's Times.  For those who can't travel beyond the paywall, here's the line which stands out: "Lib Dem MPs will be warned that history shows that small parties that walk out of a coalition are destroyed at the polls.

So now we know what happened during those uncertain days following the election in May – or at least we know Peter Mandelson's side of it.  The Times begins its serialisation of the Dark Lord's book today with a front-page photo of Nick Clegg and the legend, "Clegg the Executioner".  And, inside, Mandelson explains how the Lib Dem leader made Gordon Brown's departure a precondition of any coalition deal with Labour.  Not the most surprising news ever, but worth having on record nonetheless. Aside from that, there's little of much weight in these first extracts, but plenty of titbits for political anoraks. Here are five that jumped out at me: 1) Blair thought that a LibLab deal was an "error".

David Cameron has today told the News of the World that he is "terrified" about the prospect of sending his children to an inner-London state school. This is quite some statement, given how many tens of thousands of parents are in the same predicament. Isn't it the classic politician's error? To betray how his aloofness from voters by showing how he fears what ordinary parents have to put up with? That's what Tony Blair thought – so he'd pretend to be happy with state schools while sending his kids to the ultra-selective Oratory School. That is hypocrisy. What David Cameron has said represents honesty. After all, why shouldn't he be terrified? As I say in my News of the World column today, the record is appalling.

Tim Montgomerie reports that the 1922 Committee is to launch its own inquiry into the Tories’ election campaign. This, as I understand it, is in addition to the party’s official inquiry, and therefore suggests that the backbenches want to assert their independence by criticising Steve Hilton and George Osborne’s strategy. After May’s ruptures between Cameron and the backbenches there is a chance that this story could snowball. There is a sense that some of the ’22 haven’t yet buried the hatchet. And the feeling’s mutual. Some Cameroons and modernisers are disdainful – ‘self-indulgent farts’ was how one put it. But the ’22 must assert itself and I welcome this review.

Iain Dale has news of fresh ruptures in the Tories’ controversial European grouping. Here are the details: This is an intriguing development. Perhaps the combination of being in government, the balance of the coalition and Cameron’s markedly improved relations with Merkel and Sarkozy (whose parties are aligned with the EPP) brings the need for fresh European alliances? Most of the controversy surrounding the CRG is unfounded but it certainly damaged Cameron at home and abroad. I’m told that the Tories have no intention of shifting allegiance, and that the original plan was for Kirkhope and Kaminski to share the chairmanship if possible.

Matthew d’Ancona’s piece in the new GQ on who’ll succeed David Cameron as Tory leader has been much discussed today. Matt says that Jeremy Hunt ‘is the man to watch’. But I think Hunt’s problem is that he is too like the current leader—telegenic, personable and pragmatic—and parties tend to opt for a successor who is a bit different from what they’ve just had. Boris Johnson would, of course, be very different from Cameron. But as Matt notes, if Boris returns to Parliament early it will be regarded as a declaration of intent. Boris’s greatest weakness is that he’s seen as great fun but not a man of substance.

When the coalition was first formed, I expected it to collapse in months. But, then, I was expecting the type of coalition that I’d seen in the Scottish Parliament when Labour and the Lib Dems kept their distance (and their mistrust). But what has emerged is a far tighter coalition – and one that may even end up in a merger. Cameron has been very generous to the Lib Dems, in both Cabinet places and policies. But since then, he has just grown more generous. In the News of the World today, I wonder if he’s playing for keeps.   It was great to welcome Nick Clegg to The Spectator’s summer party last week, and the other Lib Dems who turned up to raise a glass to the return of fiscal sanity.