James Forsyth

Sir Jeremy Heywood and Sir Bob Kerslake have penned a civil service tribute to Margaret Thatcher in today’s Telegraph. They laud her as the ‘best kind of boss.’ They are full of praise for her habit of producing home-cooked shepherd pie for civil servants working late, a hint—perhaps—to the current occupant of Downing Street. But I have to say that the whole thing makes me slightly queasy. These two men place a huge value on civil service neutrality but applauding her for the fact the ‘civil service was modernised’ on her watch does seem to be, or risks being seen, as a political statement.

It is one of the paradoxes of modern British politics that in the post-war era the power and hold of political parties have declined and our system has become more presidential. But the two most electorally successful leaders of this era have both been deposed by their respective parties. This has created problems for both parties, as today’s Sunday Politics with Andrew Neil demonstrated. After John Reid had been on to discuss Tony Blair’s comments on Ed Miliband, Grant Shapps was up to be questioned on Margaret Thatcher’s legacy for the Tories. Shapps was reluctant to declare that the Tories are a Thatcherite party. Trying to suggest that it is but only to the extent that it is also a John Major party.

Reading Norman Fowler’s recollections of the Thatcher years in the Telegraph, whose coverage this week has been simply superb, is to be reminded of how much debate there was in her Cabinet. Take Fowler’s account of the pre-Budget Cabinet in 1981: “Jim Prior described the proposals as ‘disastrous’, adding that they would do nothing for growth and send unemployment figures above three million. He was supported by the so-called economic ‘wets’, such as Ian Gilmour and Peter Walker, who on this occasion were joined by Francis Pym and Christopher Soames. Even Keith Joseph had his doubts as he argued for more private investment in public industries.

‘For many of us, she was, and is, an inspiration’, David Cameron said of Margaret Thatcher in his tribute to her. It was him, firmly — and proudly — placing himself in her tradition. Cameron has moved in Thatcher’s political direction as leader. He has become —partly, through circumstance and necessity — less interested in being a unifying figure, and more interested in getting things done. There has, in recent years, been an end to any attempts to distance the party from her legacy. Thatcher’s life-story is a truly remarkable one. Cameron rightly dwelled on the sexism she had to take on to become Tory leader. But she also had to overcome the class prejudice of large sections of the Tory party. Parliament will be recalled on Wednesday.

Alex Massie asks why I didn’t mention the Union in my piece in this week’s magazine on what David Cameron’s legacy will be. It is a good question. Indeed, one former Cameron aide told me that he thought that the likely preservation of the Union would be Cameron’s greatest achievement. But the reason I didn’t mention it was because Cameron’s strategy on Scotland has been to keep a relatively low profile. He has, deliberately, not made it his fight. He realised that Alex Salmond wanted to present himself as the opposition to an English Tory Prime Minister who was, in Nationalist-speak, imposing his will on Scotland—and has simply refused to play that role.

A new group designed to increase the Tory party’s appeal to urban northern voters will be launched this June. It already has the support of a considerable number of MPs and, I understand, senior figures in Number 10 are offering support to the project. David Skelton, who moved the Tories from third to second in Durham North at the last election, is stepping down as the deputy director of Policy Exchange to run it. This new group is right that it will be very hard for the Tories to win a workable majority without winning some seats in the urban and suburban north. This is going to require susbtanitally increasing the party's support among ethnic minority and working class voters. But the test for this group will be whether it has the patience to stick at it.

Sky News has revealed tonight that Rohan Silva, one of the Prime Minister’s key advisers, is leaving Downing Street. Silva might not be a household name but he has been a hugely influential figure there these past few years. In opposition, he worked for George Osborne before moving to work for David Cameron in government. He has been the driving force behind spending transparency, Tech City and crime maps. There have been few more pro-enterprise and pro-reform voices in this government. His departure is a big blow to Tory radicalism. One of the things that marked Silva out was a thirst for new ideas that is all too rare in British politics.

Today’s Sunday Telegraph front page has sparked off a flutter of speculation about whether George Osborne might be moved as Chancellor. I suspect that the short answer to this question is no. Osborne and Cameron are inextricably linked and to move him would be akin to the Prime Minister declaring that both his political and economic strategies have been wrong. He would not long survive such an admission. I also sense that Osborne’s stock in the parliamentary party is recovering from the battering it took with last year’s Budget. The fact that this year’s Budget was doorstep-ready, has survived the Labour and media onslaught and gone down relatively well with the voters has helped him with MPs.

Downing Street’s mini-shuffle announced this morning to coincide with a joint Cameron Fallon visit to a green car plant is intriguing. Having made some inquiries, it seems that the aim was to move John Hayes out of DECC, where he was still clashing spectacularly with the Secretary of State Ed Davey and alarming some in the industry, and Michael Fallon in. Everything else followed from that. Fallon’s additional responsibilities are yet another sign of the high regard Number 10 holds him in. Fallon might be culturally, and politically, quite different from most of those in Number 10 but they have come to see him as their safest pair of hands. I’d be surprised if he isn’t elevated to the Cabinet before the next election.

From tomorrow's Spectator. Downing Street aides nervously run through the symptoms: a flat economy, poor press, leadership mutterings. Then they say, ‘It’s just mid-term blues, isn’t it?’ A second later, they add nervously, ‘It’s nothing more serious than that, is it?’ The truth is, nobody can be certain. There’s no reliable way of distinguishing mid-term blues from something politically fatal. Part of the problem is that few Tories have anything to compare their current mood with. After 13 years in opposition, only a handful of them have been in government before, let alone in the mid-term doldrums. When I put this argument to one veteran of the Thatcher years, he delighted in pointing out that there was at least one person in No.

David Miliband is quitting the House of Commons to go and work for the International Rescue Committee in the United States, the Daily Mirror has revealed this evening. Friends of both Miliband brothers have long thought that David, who expected to win the Labour leadership contest in 2010, was not really prepared to serve under Ed. David’s departure confirms that. I also suspect, as John Rentoul points out, that David had realised that he was never going to be Labour leader. Ed Miliband’s position is so secure that it is pretty much a certainty that he’ll lead Labour into the election. It was also always highly unlikely that Labour would replace one Miliband with another.