David Cameron's press conference focuses on restoring trust in politics

ITN's Tom Bradby and BBC's Nick Robinson listen to David Cameron at this morning's regular press conference held by the Tory leader.

Highlights of the press conference:

David Cameron launched the latest report of the Democracy Taskforce which focuses on restoring trust in politics.  David Cameron ran through its six main recommendations and said that he was attracted to almost all of them:

• A £10m cap on total election spending and a £50K cap on individual donations.
• That the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards should investigate breaches of the ministerial code.
• That the process by which ministers and civil servants consult on jobs they take after public office should be put on a statutory basis.
• MPs should no longer vote on their own pay but an independent review body should decide their remuneration.  The review process should include a link to a civil service employment grade.
• MPs' allowances should be tidied and the Communications Allowance abolished.
• The MPs' pensions scheme should be closed to new entrants.  Ben Brogan has a little more on this.

George Pascoe Watson of The Sun asked about ConservativeHome's campaign on public spending.  David Cameron said that the public spending settlement with 2% growth was  already quite tight and there was no case to change it.

He said that he stood by his remarks of last week when he praised the "fascinating" Barack Obama.  He was also a great admirer of John McCain, he said, but his overall position was to watch with interest and not endorse any candidate.

He did not support Tony Blair becoming EU President because he did not support the idea of having an EU President.

After David Cameron confirmed that he would instruct frontbenchers to vote for a 1.9% pay increase for MPs Ben Brogan asked a tough question about the fact that half of his shadow cabinet was pursuing outside paid jobs.  David Cameron replied that they were all delivering the goods but would obviously have to stop outside jobs once they were in government.

The Mirror asked if he'd kept his New Year's resolution to stop smoking.  He said that he had (although Glen Oglaza isn't 100% convinced by Mr C's choice of words) and encouraged The Mirror to adopt a resolution of its own not to go through his rubbish bins.  Some time ago The Sunday Mirror had gone through his trash and found environmentally-unfriendly nappies but nappies, apparently, that Mr Cameron's severely disabled son needs.

And finally ConservativeHome asked Mr Cameron if he sympathised with Dizzy Thinks' concern that MPs have to report donations etc to two bodies - as is at the core of confusion with George Osborne's difficulties.  The Conservative leader said that rationalisation "would be worthwhile" but that it didn't need to be done from "on high".  The Electoral commission could streamline procedures in direct talks with the parliamentary authorities.  Mr Cameron agreed from personal experience that double reporting was frustrating.

The Guardian's Andrew Sparrow live-blogged the press conference.

Comments

[Mark Williams]

No the biggest highlight is the bit which says "and some increase in state support". Cameron is hardly going to restore trust in politics by omitting to mention that.

[Bexie]

Personally, anyone who breaks the ministerial code should be fired. The behaviour of some of the scum on the nuLab benches would get them fired from any normal organisation

[Alan S]

David Cameron said that the public spending settlement with 2% growth was already quite tight

It's quite tight for us taxpayers too Mr Cameron!

We should get a least half of the proceeds of growth and not just the crumbs left over from the unreformed public services.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Can't say I disagree with anything Cameron as reported here said but why no mention of State Funding? Iain Dale's blog gives quite a different slant on events.

[Editor]

Sorry Malcolm. We've noted David Cameron's support for more state funding before. It wasn't discussed at the press conference and I've mentioned all of the new recommendations in the democracy taskforce report.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Having a 50K cap on individual donations, will only work if a much tougher watch is kept on bogus organisations such as 'think-tanks' that do nothing, and 'charity' organisations who may be legitimate, but appear to be able to allow themselves to be 'used'. The present bodies that are supposed to keep a watch on this sort of deviousness have been watered down by this .. government, or at least hindered as much as possible.

Once upon a time if people's dishonesty or 'misdemeanours' were found out, they 'did their time', Poulson comes to mind, apart from the usual ones that Labour always quotes - gleefully. However, nowadays COVER-UP and absolutely never admit that anything could be done more honestly, seems to be the order of the day for this government, maybe that is the bad side of the union influence, but it is getting very similar to a 'banana republic'!

[Malcolm Dunn]

Thanks Tim, I hadn't realised that it was not discussed today.What was discussed all seems good stuff to me.

[Deputy Editor]

The Guardian and a couple of smaller media outlets have now picked up on the campaign too.

[Mr Angry]

Restoring public trust in politics cannot occur unless and until politicians of all hues learn to keep their promises and not to promise what they cannot or will not deliver. That is why it is so important that Cameron keeps his, already partially broken, word on leaving the EPP.

[John Leonard]

I've noted David Cameron seems to be avoiding mentioning State Funding for political parties (both yesterday and today) presumably because he knows how unpopular it is. Alternatively, does he intend to back away from such proposals?

However, it is discussed in the Democracy Task Force report linked above and therefore is still on the table. On top of the numerous immense objections to the concept and substance of these state funding proposals I have a question pertinent to the report?

How on earth do politicians sticking their grubby little mits in the taxpayers pocket improve or even relate to trust in politics positively?

It bears little relation to the topic of the report and if anything is likely to worsen trust in politics by increasing the spotlight on the amount and nature of party spending. Any issue will be blown totally out of proportion further damning our politcal system.

This issue at hand is about obtaining and declaring funding in a proper, transparent and competent manner NOT about changing the source of funding because it is beneficial and expedient to political parties to do so.

To include it in this report is slight of hand. State funding is not primarily a trust issue.

To me there is only one way to improve trust in politics and that is to take the powers away from politicians relating to their own existence that they are perceived to have abused.

In some areas of the report such as MP's pay and pensions, the report indicates that the Conservatives seem to recognise this and propose taking small steps in the right direction.

However, it will by no means be enough given the record of parties over recent decades, but it is a start. Unfortunately, it will be totally undermined should the state funding of political parties proposals become policy.

I only hope David Cameron drops the state funding proposals and tell the party at large that to improve the financial situation they will just have to work better and harder.

[James Maskell]

Like how Cameron answered the question on the referendum by not actually answering it. He invited the question with an earlier remark. His answer to the question on the referendum after ratification is ultimately wait till it happens. Good ol' Labour style delaying tactics.

Cameron may think he's being clever but the treaty will be ratified whether he likes it or not and it will come into force. He has to make a decision and pretty quickly because the longer he delays it the worse he will look in the long term.

[Nigel Syson]

The idea about closing the MPs final salary scheme is a step in the right direction. However it should be improved by closing the final salary scheme down as at 30 April 1997. All contributions and benefits thereafter would be based upon defined contributions. This would have the benefit of putting those MPs who supported Brown's 1997 Budget raid on pensions in the same boat as the voters who pay for their pensions.

[Jake]

I agree about the pensions . It is good to know that there is movement on this topic .
It will be painful for Conservative MPs but it just has to be done . Nigel Sysons idea is a good one and should acted upon ie back dated to 30/04/1997. Perhaps you could hit Brown with it in mid PMQs . The journalistas will need to be primed with a handout of the proposed details at and background together with quotes from Browns 1997 budget at the same time .

If the Conservatives are to do this then they need to maximise the political benefit . Labour are highly unlikely to agree . A major point must be to emphasise that the date in question is determined/"linked" to Mr Brown's own budget in which he commmenced taxation of pension schemes . This point must be banged on about for ever and a day .
There are lots of votes in it .