David cameron

If PMQs today was anything to go by, everything is so hunky-dory in Iraq that MPs needn't discuss it at all. No-one raised it. Afterwards, the Prime Minister's official spokesman was repeatedly asked whether the UK would provide assistance. He said the government's message focuses on the 'Iraqi government working with partners in the region, for example the Kurdistan regional government'. Asked to rule out providing military assistance to the country, the spokesman said 'that's not on the table'. At the same time, the Prime Minister was finally being asked about Iraq in the Commons as he addressed MPs on the G7 talks. He said:- 'What we have to deal now is with the situation today, where we've got an extremely serious situation in Mosul.

Angela Merkel is annoyed that David Cameron seems to be issuing threats to other European leaders in order to get what he wants. At a press conference concluding talks held by the centre-right EU leaders in Harpsund, the German Chancellor reiterated her support for Jean-Claude Juncker, and said: 'I made myself clear by saying that I am for Jean-Claude Juncker. But when I made that statement in Germany I also made the point that we act in a European spirit. We always do that because otherwise you would never reach a compromise. 'Thus we cannot just consign to the backburner the question of the European spirit. Threats are not part and parcel of that spirit. That is not part of the way in which we usually proceed.

You can judge a minister by their special advisers. Ambitious ministers surround themselves with aides who view their primary loyalty as being to the minister rather than the Prime Minister or the government as a whole. But those who are just happy to be in Cabinet accept the advisers they are sent by Downing Street and CCHQ. Theresa May was, without a doubt, in the former category. Her aides are ferocious defenders and promoters of her. Indeed, May is, in many ways, the Gordon Brown of this government. Anyone who her team thought was interfering in her domain got their head bitten off. Even on relatively minor issues like visas for Chinese tourists, they fought like tigers. No quarter is given to those who disagreed with the Home Office line, no matter how minor the subject.

I see that the Labour party, and Labour’s shadow education secretary Tristram Hunt in particular, are trying to make political capital out of the ‘Trojan Horse’ Islamic schools scandal. I’ll write more about this in the coming week, but for the meantime let me point out what a steaming pile of political opportunism and hypocrisy this all is. Tristram says that Michael Gove ‘chose not to act’ and is guilty of 'gross negligence' on Islamic extremism in schools. Let me remind Tristram of a very recent piece of Labour party history. In 2009 it transpired that the Labour government was funding a school-running group called the Islamic Shakhsiyah Foundation (ISF).

The Tories have held Newark with a comfortable majority of 7,000 plus. The party will be relieved to have won and delighted with the size of their majority over Ukip which was far larger than the 2,500 that Nigel Farage had been predicting earlier in the night. There will be relief in Downing Street and CCHQ that they have sidestepped this banana skin. Considering that the by-election was a result of the disgrace of the previous Tory MP Patrick Mercer and took place only 11 days after Ukip had topped the poll in the European Elections, it had the potential to be a disaster for the Tories that could have sent the party into a Ukip-induced panic. But victory, and especially by this margin, will ensure that the Tory party goes into the summer in relatively calm and united fashion.

The row between Michael Gove and Theresa May over how best to tackle Islamist extremism in schools is typical of how tense things get between these two whenever the subject of Islamist extremism arises. Gove wants to wage intellectual war on Islamist extremism, taking on the argument wherever it raises its head. May, heavily influenced by the civil servant Charles Farr, who is very much part of her circle, thinks that a distinction has to be drawn between extremism and violent extremism. But this problem would never have arisen if Number 10 had made the Prime Minister's writ run on this subject. Cameron in his 2011 Munich speech made clear that he wanted even non-violent extremism tackled: ‘Now, you might say, as long as they're not hurting anyone, what is the problem with all this?

David Cameron might be hoping that the eurosceptics in his party are chuffed with his tough guy stance on Jean-Claude Juncker. And by and large, they are. But they're not wholly impressed. One eurosceptic remarks that this intervention is simply about the Newark by-election, given its timing. Another, who is minded to at least believe that the Prime Minister is thinking about European reform, rather than Patrick Mercer's old seat, says: 'This is no way to do diplomacy. Cameron has left this to the last minute yet again and it could be too late to do anything. He has had months to express a view yet is only engaging now.' Indeed, discussions about the next president have been taking place in Europe for months.

George Osborne's interview today with the Sun on Sunday does show the Conservatives are starting to see a little bit of sense about their net migration target. They're starting to realise that they aren't going to meet it when they can only control non-EU migration. It's surprising, really, that it's taken them so long to realise that the target was going to be a bit tricky to meet. In this week's magazine, Douglas Murray argues that Cameron will need to listen - really listen - to voters' concerns about immigration if he is to have a hope of winning next year: 'Because the deep, underlying story of last week is clear: the British public have made the connection between the EU and mass immigration. They do not like the latter and they blame it on the former.