Uk politics

I applaud the Prime Minister for pointing out the scandalous lack of black students at Britain’s top universities, but he’s wrong about whose fault it is – at least when it comes to Oxford, his alma mater. Yes, it’s true that Oxford only admitted five black British Caribbean applicants in 2013, a disgracefully low number, as David Cameron points out, but there’s no evidence to suggest that the cause is 'ingrained, institutional and insidious' attitudes, i.e. racism, on the part of Oxford’s admission authorities. How do I know this?

We are only days away from seeing Donald Tusk’s proposed text for the UK/EU deal. The President of the European Council is expected to circulate a draft early next week following his Sunday night supper with David Cameron. But, as I write in The Sun this morning, Downing Street is keen to stress that the publication of this draft doesn’t mean that the renegotiation is over. They are adamant that Cameron will have a chance to toughen up the terms at the European Council on February the 18th. Cameron’s problem is that he would like a deal at the February Council, so that he can have a referendum in June. But the more EU leaders think he wants a quick deal, the less they will be inclined to give him.

Why is David Cameron having such trouble persuading Jean-Claude Juncker to give in to his minimal demands for EU reform? The Prime Minister pledged, in a Tory manifesto, to restrict welfare for migrants for the first four years they're in Britain: not as an ‘emergency’, but as a matter of routine. He was returned with a majority, and under British democracy this means it ought to happen. If the Lords were to try to frustrate this, the PM would overrule them because it was a manifesto pledge, voted on by the public. Why accept a veto from the EU? But the polls show a clear lead for 'in' - a ComRes poll for the Daily Mail tomorrow shows in leading by 18 points (54pc to 36pc) with just 10pc as 'don't knows'.

The latest incarnation of the Saatchi Bill - a piece of legislation properly known as the Access to Medical Treatments (Innovation) Bill - has its report stage in the Commons tomorrow. I’ve written before about the problems with this Bill, which is now being taken through Parliament by Tory MP Chris Heaton-Harris, and it now seems that a cross-party group of MPs will tomorrow succeed in making a well-meaning bill less dangerous. A series of amendments from Labour, Tory, SNP, SDLP and DUP members will remove the sections of the Bill that are aimed at preventing a doctor from being sued for negligence if they decide to use an ‘innovative’ treatment for an illness, which is what had worried clinicians so much.

It’s fair to say that David Cameron’s answer to John Baron at last week’s Prime Minister’s Questions, in which the Tory leader basically confirmed to his backbench colleague that he was ignoring him, hasn’t exactly helped relations with the eurosceptics in the Tory party. The row was splashed across the front page of the Sunday Telegraph this weekend, and I now understand that Baron has secured a Commons debate that will take up the issue he has been trying to raise with the Prime Minister.

David Cameron has decided that social justice will be his key legacy theme as Prime Minister, with his autumn conference speech and most of the announcements so far this year focusing on an ‘all-out assault on poverty’. At times, this has appeared a little vague, while other announcements, like the plan for Muslim women to learn English, have been a little confused. But Cameron has clearly decided that the Conservatives must tackle injustices in society, not just because it is right for the country, but also because it is right for the party, which is still seen by too many voters as for the rich.

Honesty and consistency; two qualities everyone agrees to value but that are easily jettisoned as soon as maintaining them proves too inconvenient. It turns out they're not so valuable as all that. So it is with all things Euro-referendum-related. If we are to believe the rival tribunes competing for your affections later this year, negotiating the terms of a British exit from the European Union will either be a doddle or a disaster, with little room for hope in between those twin imposters. Well, perhaps. Sometimes, however, it helps to imagine an alternative but comparable scenario in which, as it happens, you may be less invested. Doing so might make some things clear. Conveniently, we have just such an alternative but comparable example close to hand.

Given last year’s election was so much about the possibility of the SNP and Labour working together in government, Labour figures will be smiling ruefully at Nicola Sturgeon’s interview on the Andrew Marr Show today, in which she stuck the boot into the party she once suggested a ‘progressive alliance’ with. The Scottish First Minister is of course thinking more about fighting Labour in this year’s Holyrood elections than about the Westminster Parliament, and so she wanted to paint her main challengers as weak and confusing.

With the government still convinced that there’s a better than 50:50 chance of a deal at the February EU Council which would pave the way for an EU referendum in June, the pressure on Tory backbenchers to back the Prime Minister is being stepped up. This week, saw the launch of the Cameron endorsed, pro-EU membership Conservatives for Reform in Europe group. Those involved in this group are confident, as I write in The Sun today, that they will get the support of a majority of Tory MPs. Tory MPs are being left in no doubt as to what side Cameron wants them on come the referendum. The message to them, as one of those close to Cameron puts it, is that a ‘free vote doesn’t mean a free pass’. But there are reasons to suspect that the referendum timetable might slip.

Angela Eagle wasn’t told about a controversial plan to ban companies who do not pay a living wage from paying out dividends to shareholders before Jeremy Corbyn floated it in a speech last week, Coffee House understands. I have learned that the Shadow Business Secretary was not consulted over the proposal, which is believed to have triggered the resignation of the Labour leader’s Head of Policy and Rebuttal, Neale Coleman. Corbyn floated the idea in his speech to the Fabian Society on Saturday, saying 'another proposal would be to bar or restrict companies from distributing dividends until they pay all their workers the living wage'.

What does David Cameron mean when he says, as he did today, that he’s happy to wait a bit longer for a deal in his renegotiation of Britain’s relationship with the European Union? The Prime Minister told the Davos summit today that ‘if there isn’t the right deal, I’m not in a hurry’ and that ‘it’s much more important to get this right than to rush it’. The expectation in Westminster has been that Cameron would get a deal at the European Council summit in February, but the Prime Minister has been dropping hints that he is prepared to let the timetable slip at the same time that his colleagues are saying privately that they are confident of a deal.