Fraser Nelson

David Cameron acquitted himself well at Leveson yesterday, as he does in all such events.  But it was odd to hear him say that there should be ‘more distance’ between politicians and the press. The implication of his comment is that he has been sucked into the brutal realpolitik of the newspaper industry; that he had to spend weekends with Rebekah Brooks or face electoral oblivion; and that the only question for Lord Justice Leveson is why politicians are left in such a position. I look at this in my Telegraph column today.   No one forced Cameron to get on LOL-terms with the editor of The Sun. Certainly, he wanted better media relations — especially after the near-death experience of the election-that-never-was in 2007.

Will The Sun’s story about David Cameron leaving his daughter in a pub be politically damaging? Not in the least, I suspect. These stories only hurt if they seem to fit a trend of behaviour, or confirm what everyone suspects. But no one, even the prime minister’s harshest critic, could accuse him of neglecting his family or failing to prioritise his children. Those who have seen him around his kids usually come away feeling amazed, and envious, by the way he can just flick a switch, no matter how tough things are politically, and go into ‘family mode’: baking cakes, playing Star Wars games, being the model father.

Ed Miliband laid out his vision for Scotland today, which didn’t quite set the heather alight. But word reaches me about what David Cameron is planning. He has already said that if Scotland votes ‘No’ they’d get a special something as a thank-you. But he did not specify what that something was. A bluff, says Alex Salmond, the same lies that Jim Callaghan sold Scotland in the 1970s and the special something was 18 years of Tory government! But Cameron is working on an offer. Soon, the &"Scottish government” (as Salmond calls his half-government) will control 30 per cent of all money raised in Scotland. Cameron is thinking that, after a ‘no’ result, he’ll raise it to 70 per cent and throw in complete control of income tax.

A visibly relieved David Cameron gave a statement outside No. 10 earlier today about the successful rescue of four aid workers from a cave on the Afghan/Tajikistan border, including a Northern Irish aid worker, Helen Johnston. The Prime Minister said he had personally authorized the operation, which must have been some decision given the recent history of such rescues. He praised British troops, and gave a brief mention to American ones for carrying out ‘a related operation’. But I was struck by the difference in emphasis between Cameron’s video statement and that of the British commander in Kabul, for whom the main point of the rescue was its multinational nature.

It’s tempting to see comedy in the government’s 30th U-Turn, but there’s a more serious side to this. It fits a pattern: act first, think later. The lack of special advisers in government is part of the problem. Even in the Labour days, I argued for more and better political appointees to help a reforming government get its agenda through. But the problem this time was George Osborne’s chillaxing approach to being Chancellor, coupled to what seems to be a casual disregard for detail. This approach was embodied in his decision to join Cameron on White House jolly the week before delivering his shambolic Budget. It makes you wonder if his growth strategy (or what purports to be his growth strategy) has had enough thought put into it.

There are calls for Britain to pull out of the Eurovision Song Contest, after Engelbert Humperdinck finished second-last on Saturday, with Norway bottom. The Mayor of Leicester has today denounced Eurovision, saying: ‘The politics of Europe — which countries are friendly with which others — has a lot more to do with it than the quality of the songs.’ I agree: politics are involved and it is outrageous. Had George Osborne not given Ireland that £3.2 billion loan we would not have had its four points and Britain would be where it deserved: at the very bottom. We were dismal, and in the eyes of half a billion people. But the solution is not to withdraw from Eurovision. The solution is to properly compete.

The Eurozone is a kind of lunacy if you look at it as an economic project. But this isn’t about economics, or rationality — it's about emotion, as the leader in today’s Telegraph says. The Brits and Americans often fail to understand this fully because we judge a currency union in terms of its economic merits. But many European nations see it as part of another, wider, agenda. For the Spanish and Portuguese it’s about not going back to dictatorship. For Greece it’s about being Western rather than Eastern (and not being run by the military).