David cameron

So was the "rations" video a gaffe too far?  The news has just come in that Alan Duncan has been demoted from the shadow cabinet, going from shadow leader of the Commons to shadow prisons minister.  Having spoken to various Tory sources, I understand that the decision was made in an "amicable" meeting between Duncan and Cameron – where the former acknowledged he has become a "lightning conductor" for public anger over expenses – and that, apparently, Duncan is "relaxed and relieved" to be working under Dominic Grieve. Some people might be surprised at the timing: many expected Cameron to hold off until next year, so as not to rile any backbenchers who broadly agreed with Duncan on expenses.

Remember that New Statesman article about Obama calling Cameron a "lightweight"?  Well, the Journalist Closest to Obama, Richard Wolffe, has a different take.  Here's what he told the Today programme this morning, courtesy of the ever-alert Andrew Sparrow: "He had a strong impression, a strong reaction, to both Cameron and Brown. It was right at the end of his foreign trip. And he was really taken with Cameron. He and his aides thought that he had energy and verve, a dynamism that suggested he was a good candidate – remember this was a candidate at the time, not a president. And there was bonding that took place which you might not expect of two people at the opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Looking at the OECD’s latest economic forecast it seems that the UK—unlike the US and the Euro-Zone--will not return to growth by the end of this year. (Although, one can’t help but wonder if Brown will start heralding zero percent growth in the fourth growth). Indeed, the OECD projects that the UK economy will shrink by 4.7 percent over this year as a whole—although the worst appears to be behind us with the rate of shrinkage slowing since the last quarter of 2008 and the first quarter of this year.   As Kevin Maguire suggests today, Labour’s election strategy is likely to be that Britain is not out of the woods yet and so it is still no time for a novice.

Few Tories will enjoy looking back on 1974, but they may find it useful to study the second Wilson government and its successor, the Callaghan government, when it comes to the question of Europe.  Back then, we had a government coming to power in the midst of a severe economic climate, and which sought to change the pro-European course that its predecessor had set, including by re-negotiating Britain’s relationship with the EU and by appealing to fraternal parties in France and Britain. However, it ultimately ran into blades of domestic discontent and international indifference. The question is: could this end up being the story of a Conservative government from the middle of next year? Sure, there are key differences between then and now.

I’ve just re-read Cameron’s article in the Times and it contains one section that might come back to haunt him, should he become Prime Minister. He writes: ‘Many will be disgusted by the suggestion that ministers in Whitehall encouraged al-Megrahi’s release — and did so for commercial reasons. Diplomacy often involves hard-nosed backroom deals. It would be naive to think otherwise. But there need to be lines you are not prepared to cross; values you will not compromise, whatever deal you broker. I believe even to hint that a convicted terrorist could be used as makeweight for trade is a betrayal of everything that Britain stands for.’  I agree with Cameron.

In an episode of Yes Prime Minister, a tobacco mogul asks Sir Humphrey: “Does he carry any clout in Whitehall?” The Mandarin replies: “None at all, he’s only a minister.” The context has changed but the essential truth remains – most Cabinet ministers have no clout in government whatsoever. That at least is the view of four former Sir Humphreys. Lords Turnbull, Wilson, Butler, and Armstrong are quoted in the Guardian saying that New Labour has centralised government around a clique of special advisers. The result? The marginalisation of the cabinet and the breakdown of what they term ‘the efficient and proper conduct of government’.

Fantastic, thought-provoking stuff by Matthew Parris in the Times today, as he looks back on the past 12 years of Tory opposition and asks: "Just what did they achieve?"  His response is generally unfavourable: that, until more recently, the wilderness years have largely been wasted years.  And he highlights the Tories' inability to take on Labour over their wasteful spending and burgeoning deficit: "But it was on the central domestic question of the era that the Tories’ nerve failed almost fatally. At first new Labour held to the tight spending plans that it inherited from John Major’s outgoing administration. Then the Government let go. The letting go was, in retrospect, fairly spectacular.

There's plenty to be sceptical about with this #welovetheNHS Twitter campaign - not least the manner in which it's falsely polarising the debate into "lovers" or "haters", given that 140-character "tweets" hardly allow for nuanced arguments.  But, as Fraser pointed out last night, there's little doubting that it's a spot of good luck for Gordon Brown: a campaign by the left, for the left, which he managed to seize on with uncharacteristic speed.   Indeed, Brown beat David Cameron to the punch for perhaps the first time in months, and has put the Tory leader on the defensive.  Hence Cameron's blog post last night, which set out his own #reasonsforlovingtheNHSbutstillwantingittoimprove, so to speak.

...Alan Duncan saying on video that MPs are treated "like sh*t", and that they're forced to live on "rations".  He's just apologised, saying that the remarks were meant in jest.  And I'm inclined to believe him: he was, after all, in conversation with the political pranksters over at Don't Panic (although he didn't know he was being filmed).  But, either way, it's easy work for his opponents to take these things out of context.  And many will argue that the expenses fiasco isn't a laughing matter in the first place.

Earlier, I wrote that Osborne's speech today seemed to be a significant moment for Project Cameron.  Having attended the Demos event a few hours ago, I still think that's the case.  Sure, there wasn't anything particularly new in it - and the delivery didn't quite zing - but its central point that Brown's approach to the public finances is regressive, while spending cuts and the right reforms could deliver better services for all, is a necessary refinement of the Tory message.  Come election time, Brown is going to deploy all kinds of attacks on the "nasty Tories" and their "cuts in frontline services", so it's important for Cameron & Co. that they counter this in advance.