ConservativeHome's ToryDiary

Team Cameron meets Team Obama

After today's PMQs, David Cameron raced off to his meeting with President Obama.  It was the second meeting between the men - the first was when Mr Obama was still a candidate last summer.

The meeting didn't need to happen.  There certainly wasn't a meeting with Nick Clegg.  President Obama has a massive schedule that included his first meetings with the Russian and Chinese leaders.  That it happened at all is a sign of the White House's expectation that Gordon Brown (who Obama lavished praise on earlier in the day) is unlikely to be in office for long. 

On the American side were Hillary Clinton, Tim Geithner, National Security Advisor Jim Jones and the Acting US Ambassador to London.  On our side were David Cameron, William Hague, George Osborne, Pauline Neville-Jones, Ed Llewellyn and Andy Coulson.

The meeting that ran for slightly longer than thirty minutes focused on the G20, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, green technologies and NATO reform.  CCHQ described the meeting as "positive" and "business-like".  Mr Cameron told the BBC that he had found the President "deeply impressive".

Samantha Cameron and Michelle Obama also met together at the same time.  Mrs Cameron gave Mrs Obama a designer bracelet and gave the Obama children a copy of the Railway Children and Stories from Shakespeare.  America's First Lady gave Mrs Cameron a book on the Wizard of Oz and also a book of fairy tales.

Mr Cameron has also met the Australian PM over the last few days and the Mexican President.  He is also due to hold talks with Canadian PM Stephen Harper.

Tim Montgomerie

Liam Fox: A Britain obsessed with celebrity, indifferent to serious learning and unsure of its values and history risks being unable to defend itself

1. Russia is spending over $200 billion in the next five years upgrading its forces.  Vladimir Putin's strategic bombers are probing UK airspace again.
2. The world's greatest exporter of terrorism - Iran - is inching ever closer to becoming a nuclear power.  An Iran - still publicly committed to wipe Israel off the face of the map - with nuclear capability will be able to sponsor 'nuclear terrorism' which may include the detonation of a dirty bomb containing enough radioactive material to contaminate whole cities.
3. The ideology of the Islamic fundamentalist continues to be spread across the globe.  All over the world young Muslims are being exposed to an ideology that is "irreconcilable to our political system and our values."

These were some of the threats outlined by Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox yesterday - during a speech to Politea.  He could also have mentioned the increasingly worrying situation in Pakistan.  Dr Fox warned that Britain was a nation that was losing its moral seriousness and that this endangered our ability to meet the threats to our peace and security:

"There seems to have been a view developing in recent years that defines peace simply as the absence of war.  If only we can avoid armed conflict the argument seems to say then we will live in a more peaceful world.  But peace is not simply the absence of war.  Real peace has an unavoidable set of values which accompany it.  Freedom from tyranny, freedom from oppression and freedom from fear are essential for real peace.  Unfortunately we sometimes have to fight and even to die for these freedoms. The need to maintain public support for the conflicts which are sometimes required to ensure these freedoms is a burden which democratic states have to carry but many of our enemies do not.  The absence of a clear and rational argument for the necessity of military action in certain circumstances can hand the advantage to those who wish to undermine our democratic systems and, indeed, our whole way of life.  This is where our social attitudes, our political direction and our national security converge- in the crucial question about the state of our national resilience.  For it is our resilience-  our political and social fortitude- which will determine whether or not we are able to deal with the threats and challenges which lie before us."

Pasted below are sections of Dr Fox's speech in which he identified the key forces weakening Britain's fortitude:

Obama will meet Cameron on margins of G20

The Times's Sam Coates thought it was going to be the case and Toby Harnden has now confirmed it.  In a coup for the Tory leader David Cameron will meet 'The One' on the margins of the G20.  Toby blogs: Obama "can read the polls and see that the writing is on the wall for Gordon Brown."

The sound you hear in the background is Gordon Brown throwing his box set of DVDs against that wall.

Has President Obama requested to meet David Cameron next week?

At David Cameron's monthly press conference at the beginning of last week, I specifically asked him whether he would be meeting President Obama in London during the G20 summit.

His reply - which I posted here - was pretty firmly in the negative:

"I'm not trying to muscle in on the G20. It isn't normally possible to have those sorts of meetings... I haven't requested one and don't expect one to take place."

Intriguing, then, to read The Times' Sam Coates' latest post on his blog:

"Looks like that David Cameron could be meeting President Obama on Wednesday. The Conservatives absolutely will not comment when we ring, although his spokeswoman did not repeat the remark by Cameron a couple of weeks ago that there would be no meeting. Cameron is pencilled in - with a question mark next to it - on Wednesday daytime."

If David Cameron didn't request such a meeting - as he told me he had not done - then I can only conclude that if they do meet that the request must have come from the White House. Which suggests that President Obama and his entourage are very aware of which way the political wind is blowing this side of the pond.

Jonathan Isaby

Andrew Mitchell: We must call time on British financial aid to China

Shadow international development secretary Andrew Mitchell has declared that the UK should stop sending financial aid to China.

His demand comes on the back of a new report from the House of Commons International Development select committee, which has proposed continuing sending aid to China for at least the next six years.

But Mr Mitchell says that there are poorer countries which are more deserving of aid from the British Government:

"British taxpayers need to know that their aid money is helping the poorest people in the world, not going to countries which have enough money to tackle poverty themselves.

"China... has an ambitious space exploration programme and is sitting on foreign exchange reserves of almost £2 trillion."

And, lest we forget, it spent £20 billion hosting the Olympics last year - which makes the £10 million annual subvention proposed by the DfID select committee seem like small beer by comparison.

Britain should nonetheless continue to pursue with China “a strong development partnership based on dialogue, advice and skill sharing," Mr Mitchell adds.

Jonathan Isaby

Pauline Neville-Jones analyses the foreign policy implications of a prolonged global recession

Shadow Security Minister Dame Pauline Neville-Jones is, according to the monthly ConservativeHome survey of grassroots members, the most popular female member of the shadow cabinet.  Elevated to the Lords at the same time as Sayeeda Warsi she has been working away at developing a coherent Conservative security policy – taking a tough line on domestic extremism and developing a global perspective on threats and opportunities.  Although, by many accounts, she has struggled to adapt to the political cut-and-thrust she is set to be a very authoritative minister.

Earlier this week she delivered a speech to the World Islamic Economic Forum in Jakarta.  Key extracts are published below.

We could see a reversal of progress on international poverty: “According to the World Bank, from 1981 to 2001, the number of people living on less than $1 a day went down from 1.5 billion to 1 billion.  Improvements in global literacy went hand-in-hand with this.  This favourable trend could now go into reverse. Just one indicator of what is at stake.”

Private capital flows to emerging economies are set to collapse: “In 2007, net private capital flows to emerging economies were $898 billion… The Institute of International Finance estimates that net private capital flows to emerging and developing countries will be just $165 billion in 2009 – a decline of 82 per cent from 2007.”

Tebbit's anger at knighthood for Ted Kennedy

Quoted in the Daily Mail, Lord Tebbit leads Tory concern at Gordon Brown's decision to award American Senator Ted Kennedy with an honorary knighthood:

"Edward Kennedy may never have said outwardly he supported the IRA but he certainly leaned towards extreme Republicanism. He was certainly no friend of the UK. This honour is wholly inappropriate on the basis of the sleaze attached to him after the crash at Chappaquiddick, let alone his support for nationalism in Northern Ireland. It cheapens the whole honours system."

In the same newspaper Andrew Roberts agrees:

"For it is no exaggeration to say that Ted Kennedy did his damnedest to poison U.S.-UK relations over Ulster during the long decades in which he has castigated successive British governments. Rather than expressing any genuine commitment to peace in Northern Ireland, he would always play exclusively to his own Catholic-Irish voters in Massachusetts, whom he has represented in the Senate for more than 46 years."

Michael Ancram and Ann Widdecombe are also said to be disappointed although long-term Kennedy admirer, Simon Burns MP, will be sure to welcome the decision.

10.45am Statement from Michael Ancram MP: "I find it extraordinarily inappropriate that Ted Kennedy who was the champion of Irish nationalism and the opponent of unionism as well as a supporter of republicanism should be so honoured for his unhelpful one-sidedness in the Peace Process when others like Senator George Mitchell who went out of his way to be even-handed between both sides is not.  But then under this Government so much else is upside down and perverse as well."

William Hague demands answers from Miliband over alleged Guantanamo torture cover-up

The Daily Mail has been running hard this week on the issue of whether or not the British Government asked for help from the US Government to cover up the alleged torture of Binyam Mohamed, a British resident at Guantanamo Bay.

It ran this article this morning and now the paper's website has published a piece by shadow foreign secretary William Hague, detailing the issues on which he says David Miliband has questions to answer.

Here are the key excerpts:

"First, it was the Foreign Secretary who stopped the Courts publishing seven paragraphs containing details of the alleged torture on grounds that this would harm intelligence-sharing and so threaten UK security. But his argument is undermined by claims that the letter from the Bush administration backing up this assertion was actually solicited by the Foreign Office. It is very important that we get clear answers about why this was done.

"Second, until very recently the US government said that Binyam Mohamed could not be released because he posed a significant threat. The British Government is now committed to bringing him to Britain, but has still not explained how they have resolved these security concerns and under what terms and arrangements Mr Mohamed would live in the UK.

"And third, despite the fact that we have repeatedly asked them to do so, the government have not asked the Obama administration to allow the paragraphs to be published. There seems no reasonable explanation for this, since the High Court ruled that nothing in these short paragraphs could possibly be described as highly sensitive classified US intelligence. This reluctance by the Foreign Secretary contributes to the impression that the Government does not wish to see the information come to light.

"The British Government’s role in this damaging episode must be made clear, to restore trust and to ensure that nothing like this can ever happen again."

Jonathan Isaby

Liam Fox: The world cannot allow Iran to become a nuclear power

Liam Fox was in a determined frame of mind at this morning's Conservative Friends of Israel briefing on yesterday's elections which - even by Knesset standards - have produced a messy outcome.  (The joys of proportional representation).

The Shadow Defence Secretary worried that paralysis might result from the result and Israel could not afford uncertain leadership in a year in which Iran is on the verge of becoming a nuclear power.

Dr Fox worried that Iran was absolutely determined to acquire nuclear weapons.  It has seen North Korea's experience as proof that the world will not enforce the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and they are determined to join the 'nuclear club' of nations.

If Iran gets a nuclear weapon the risk is not just that they might use it against Israel, he said, but that they might provide a dirty bomb to one of Tehran's terrorist surrogates; not least Hamas.  A nuclear Iran will also trigger an arms race across the region - provoking Turkey and Saudi Arabia to seek nuclear weapons.

Also at the meeting David Lidington MP said that it was vital that the EU matched the USA's sanctions regime against Iran.  He also said Russia and China needed to be pressurised to pressurise Tehran.  Mr Lidington, a Shadow Foreign Minister, said the great problem facing western policymakers was a lack of intelligence about thinking within the Iranian regime.

> Liam Fox has also written for The Telegraph about the nature of Hamas:

"It is a general rule that those with nothing to lose are likely to be willing to gamble with it. Give people a stake in their own prosperity, security and freedom and they behave in a more circumspect way. It follows that if you want people to be in a perpetual state of anger, reconciled to terrorism and ripe for Jihad, then the maxim of Marxism that less is best pertains. Having purged the moderate Palestinians from their territory, Hamas have rocketed the power station in the Israeli city of Ashqelon which provides electricity to Gaza itself. The people of Gaza are sure to be the losers but Hamas will not care."

William Hague pledges Conservative support for the Commonwealth

Shadow foreign secretary William Hague will make a speech to the Royal Commonwealth Society tonight in which he will accuse Labour of having relinquished its commitment to the Commonwealth.

Furthermore, he will promise that, if elected at the next general election, a Conservative government would embrace the Commonwealth as an important foreign policy tool, with the 53-state organisation playing a vital role in 21st Century diplomacy.

He will pour scorn on Tony Blair's promise in 1997 that he would not allow the Commonwealth to "fade into nostalgia":

"Despite these intentions, we have seen a complete failure by the Government to deliver on these promises over the last decade; instead the Government’s term in office has been characterised by a neglectful ambivalence. Relinquishing our Commonwealth commitments is incredibly short-sighted and ultimately detrimental to the prosperity and sphere of influence of our country."

Looking ahead to what the Conservatives would do in office, he will say:

"We should be excited and determined about what the nations of the Commonwealth can do together. Amidst the shifting global landscape, the Commonwealth can act as a bridge across divides of religion, ethnicity, culture and wealth, to the benefit of common humanity. When the modern Commonwealth was born sixty years ago with the inclusion of a newly independent India, the final Communiqué from the Commonwealth Prime Ministers meeting stated that the association had demonstrated the ability to 'strengthen its unity of purpose while adapting its organisation and procedures to changing circumstances'.

"It should draw upon this experience and continue to evolve in the full assurance that it has an important role to play in the twenty-first century. It should also have complete confidence that it will have the unwavering support of a future Conservative government for it will be an important instrument in our foreign policy tool box. We will adopt a more assertive, energetic and enthusiastic attitude towards the Commonwealth since there is vast potential to be unlocked and Britain must, along with our friends and allies, be at the forefront of these efforts.”

One are in which he is especially keen for the Commonwealth to play a role is as a "conduit for certain reform initiatives in the Arab world", noting that Commonwealth countries contain approximately 500 million Muslims.

Jonathan Isaby

David Cameron meets the Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao

As pro-Tibetan protests continue outside the Chinese Embassy in London, it has been confirmed that David Cameron - along with Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague, Shadow Chancellor George Osborne, Shadow Security Minister and National Security Adviser Baroness Neville-Jones and Shadow Foreign Office Minister David Lidington - met the Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao for 45 minutes this morning.

Topics for discussion included the world economy and human rights in China.

David Cameron has just released the following statement:

"I had a very good meeting with Premier Wen. I stressed to him how, if elected, a Conservative Government would be committed to a strong relationship with China, to deepening our trade relationship and to co-operating together to tackle the economic downturn.  We discussed the need to avoid protectionism and the importance of keeping markets open. We also talked about how we could continue to work together to tackle issues like climate change, and the opportunities presented for new growth and jobs through 'green tech' in areas like carbon capture and storage.

“I also raised with Premier Wen the issue of human rights in China and greater participation in the political process, including at a time of economic difficulty, and our wish to see a continuing dialogue on these issues.   We also discussed Iran, and I made clear the importance a Conservative Government would attach to forging a strong and united international response to prevent Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon."

Premier Wen met Gordon Brown briefly yesterday and the pair will have further talks tomorrow.

Jonathan Isaby

Ken Livingstone will be turning in his political grave

When Ken Livingstone was London Mayor you were more likely to see honours for Hugo Chavez or some suicide-bomb-justifying-cleric.  Fortunately Boris is now Mayor.  Marking Barack Obama's Inauguration, the man who put a portrait of The Queen up in City Hall, has the Stars & Stripes flying outside today.  Boris issued this statement:

"This is a momentous day and I'm proud to raise the US flag over City Hall. As an Englishman, born in New York, as an elected politician, as a democrat and addict of history, I'm inspired by the prospect of this great man entering the Oval office. We in the United Kingdom will always share a unique relationship with the United States. But the inauguration of Barack Obama, as the 44th President, is a cause for a very special celebration."

But - for those who aren't Obama fans - there's always Melanie Phillips.

> Related link: Hague urges Obama to boost America's moral authority in the world

Notes on Conservative foreign policy

The decision by William Hague and David Lidington to speak against Israel's attempts to disarm Hamas is the latest indication of the nature of David Cameron's foreign policy.  Here are some thumbnail summaries of key components:

Europe: Opposition to Lisbon and a commitment to hold a referendum on all future transfers of power to Brussels have pleased Eurosceptics. There has also been a hardening of policy against the Euro but there has been retreat from Michael Howard's support for abolishing the Common Fisheries Policy.  David Cameron's delayed pledge to take Tory MEPs out of the EPP was undermined by the decision to protect pro-EPP MEPs from deselection by grassroots members.

Multipolarity: David Cameron has insisted that America remains Britain's most important bilateral partner - although never "slavish" - but has also said that Britain has a special relationship with India. He and other shadow cabinet ministers have also regularly visited China.

Wider Middle East: William Hague believes that Labour has neglected relations with moderate Arab states and has invested considerable time in improving relations with these nations.  He has also called for a thawing of relations with Syria.  He has talked of "acquaintanceship".

Israel: William Hague and David Cameron have edged Britain away from the US position on Israel.  Mr Hague criticised Israel for a "disproportionate" use of force against the Iranian-backed Hezbollah in 2006 and has urged Israel to cease its current military campaign against Hamas in Gaza.

Iraq: The Conservative Party has not retreated from its initial support of the decision to topple Saddam Hussein but opposed the one decision that has probably been the most successful component of the campaign; General Petraeus' troops surge.

Afganistan: David Cameron has consistently made the case for continued engagement in Afghanistan but - with Liam Fox - has complained about a lack of clarity in the mission.

NATO: The Conservatives support NATO expansion - notably for Georgia - and a new mechanism whereby nations that do not fight contribute to the financial costs of those who do.

Defence: David Cameron backed Tony Blair's decision to renew Britain's independent nuclear deterrent.  Mr Cameron and Liam Fox have led public disquiet against the Government's record on the welfare and resourcing of servicemen and their families. Defence is Tory members' number one public spending priority and Liam Fox recently secured his brief as one of four Tory expenditure priorities.

International justice: George Osborne has agreed that Conservatives should honour the Government's plan to contribute 0.7% of national income to overseas development.  David Cameron recently made a big picture speech on human rights but it contained no bankable commitments.  William Hague led calls for Guantanamo Bay to be closed in 2007.

Tim Montgomerie

Tories renew call for immediate ceasefire from Israel

After Israeli ground troops entered Gaza yesterday evening to continue the operation to eliminate Hamas' rocket bases, Shadow Foreign minister, David Lidington MP, issued this statement - renewing William Hague's earlier call for a ceasefire:

"This is a serious development that is bound to lead to yet more loss of life. We support international calls for an immediate ceasefire by both sides. The rocket attacks by Hamas on Israeli cities are acts of terrorism and must cease if there is to be a chance of restoring peace. But only a political agreement and a sustainable ceasefire, possibly backed up by international supervision, will bring about a permanent end to those rocket attacks.  Gaza's one and a half million civilian population is caught between the warring forces and is paying an appalling price in blood, hunger, misery and fear. Whatever the result of today's military action, Israel and Gaza will still be neighbours.  The longer the bloodshed continues, the more difficult it will be to overcome intransigence and extremism."

Writing for The Sunday Telegraph, Sir Malcolm Rifkind offers a more sympathetic account of Israel's actions:

"The Israeli attacks on Hamas are not unreasonable, regardless of electoral considerations. Imagine missiles being fired, most days, across the 21 miles of the English Channel and landing in the towns and villages of Kent. Imagine if, for several years, the IRA had been allowed to fire missiles into the villages of Northern Ireland from the Irish Republic with the consent and approval of the Irish government. Of course, it is controversial to make such comparisons, as Israel's conflict in Gaza has a very different historic background. But every government has a first duty to protect its citizens. Israel evacuated Gaza in 2005, removing not only its soldiers but all Israeli settlements, despite bitter resistance from the settlers and their political allies. If Hamas, with total power in Gaza, had been willing to concentrate its energies on the economic development of the region and cease cross-border attacks, the Israeli government and public would have been much more willing to make a similar withdrawal from the West Bank where the majority of Palestinians live."

> Read Martin Parsons' CentreRight post on why Hamas CANNOT be treated as an equal of Israel

Hague calls for Israel to stop its action against Hamas

After his call for "restraint" on Saturday, the Shadow Foreign Secretary has just issued this second statement:

“I am gravely concerned about the continuing violence in Gaza and the numbers of civilians killed and injured. The crisis is exacting a terrible human toll on both sides and it is imperative that further loss of life is avoided. I join the Security Council’s call for an immediate ceasefire and call on Arab countries to use their influence to urge Hamas to end rocket attacks on Israel. I also call on Israel to work with the international community so that the humanitarian relief so desperately needed in Gaza can be provided. The British Government must work with the United States and other members of the Middle East Quartet to secure an early return to negotiations in 2009. The only long-term solution is a negotiated two-state agreement that achieves a viable and secure Palestinian state living alongside a secure Israel with her right to live in peace and security recognised by all her neighbours. The world looks to the new President of the United States to place these negotiations at the top of his foreign policy agenda and to pursue them with vigour and determination from the very outset.”

> Robert Halfon on CentreRight: "If we want an enduring peace in the Middle East, then Israel must be allowed to defeat Hamas in Gaza"

> Iain Dale on Hague's call for a ceasefire: "The trouble is that any Hamas backed ceasefire isn't worth the paper it is written on. If we have learned nothing from recent history, surely we have learned that."

3.45pm: I've just received the best briefing so far on the Gaza situation (by Tom Gross, former Jerusalem correspondent for the Sunday Telegraph).  It contains a quotation from Barack Obama that suggests he might be a lot steelier than Mr Hague:

“If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I would do everything to stop that, and would expect Israel to do the same thing”

- Barack Obama, in July, while visiting Israel as a U.S. presidential candidate

Tim Montgomerie

Conservative Friends of Israel's briefing on action against Hamas

ConHome has published four posts on the situation in Gaza:

• William Hague's statement calling for restraint.
• Video of David Cameron calling the situation "horrific"
• Plus CentreRight posts from Alex Deane and Ridley Grove.

Pasted below is a briefing just emailed out to supporters of Conservative Friends of Israel (of which I am one).

Tim Montgomerie

Hague calls for restraint from Israel as 155 die in Gaza air raids

Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague has called for restraint from Israel after it launched massive air strikes against terrorist targets in Gaza in retaliation for Hamas missile attacks on Israel:

"We deeply regret the loss of civilian life in Gaza today.  We call on the Israeli government to show restraint. At the same time we call on Hamas to stop the rocket attacks which are an unacceptable threat to Israel's security, so that the ceasefire, which Hamas failed to renew, can be urgently restored".

Sunday morning: Video including David Cameron's response to crisis

Britain fails the Crockery Shop Rule in Iraq

There are various versions of the Crockery Shop (or Pottery Barn) test but the essence is: If you break it, you own it.

My own view is that Saddam broke Iraq and set up the insurgency but once Britain and America had entered Iraq we had a responsibility to fix the chaos that ensued.

Former Defence Secretary Michael Portillo has written a superb piece in The Sunday Times about Britain's defeat in Basra.  Here are the key quotes:

Britain abandoned Basra to 'fundamentalist thugs': "For all his persuasiveness, Blair could not hold public opinion over the medium term and so he cut troop numbers fast and sought to avoid casualties. As a result, British forces lost control of Basra and left the population at the mercy of fundamentalist thugs and warring militias, in particular Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army."

America may have got much wrong but it didn't quit: "In the early days in Iraq we bragged that our forces could deploy in berets and soft-sided vehicles while US forces roared through Baghdad in heavily armoured convoys... If a fair-minded account of the Iraq war is written, credit should go to President Bush for rejecting two years ago the report by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group that called for force reductions. He defied conventional wisdom and ordered a troop surge instead. It has been an extraordinary success and, unlike Britain, the Americans will not withdraw in defeat."  [Unfortunately no senior Conservative frontbencher supported the surge; William Hague actually warned that it might fuel the insurgency.]

Hi-tech weaponry isn't enough: "It is an uncomfortable conclusion that Britain, with nuclear weapons, cruise missiles, aircraft carriers and the latest generation of fighter-bombers, is incapable of securing a medium-size conurbation. Making Basra safe was an essential part of the overall strategy; having committed ourselves to our allies we let them down."

The media share in Britain's failure: "The extent of Britain’s fiasco has been masked by the media’s relief that we are at last leaving Iraq. Those who have been urging Britain to quit are not in a strong position to criticise the government’s lack of staying power. Reporting of Basra has mainly focused on British casualties and the prospect for withdrawal. The British media and public have shown scant regard for our failure to protect Iraqis, so the British nation, not just its government, has attracted distrust. We should reflect on what sort of country we have become. We may enjoy patronising Americans but they demonstrate a fibre that we now lack."

David Cameron's reaction to the troops withdrawal was silent on these key issues on Thursday - only Bernard Jenkin MP addressed the heart of the matter: That America has had to 'own' the situation in Basra after Britain failed the Pottery Barn test.

Tim Montgomerie

David Cameron reiterates call for inquiry into the Iraq War as Brown announces British troop withdrawals

As promised in this morning's papers, Gordon Brown has formally announced the timetable for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq next summer, saying that good progress has been made in the areas of security, democracy and reconstruction in the country.

Iraq will regain full sovereignty on the expiry of UN resolution 1790 on New Year's Day, and as of 31st May there will be a "rapid withdrawal" of the remaining 4,100 British combat troops over the following two months. After 31st July, 400 troops will remain, principally dedicated to naval training.

He also said that the memorial wall to the fallen British servicemen in Basra would be brought to Britain and put in a fitting place.

David Cameron welcomed the statement and joined the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the bravery of our servicemen who have served there, especially the 178 who gave the ultimate sacrifice.

Did Obama really brand David Cameron "a lightweight"?

Today's New Statesman contain an article (not yet online) in which it is suggested that after meeting David Cameron in London in July, the now President-elect described the Tory leader as "a lightweight".

Its author James McIntyre suggests:

"On meeting Cameron, Obama was, according to diplomatic sources, “distinctly unimpressed”, contrary to some reports (excitedly spun by the Conservatives) which suggested that the two men had formed an instant “bond”. Instead, I have been told, Obama exclaimed of Cameron after their meeting: “What a lightweight!” He apparently also asked officials about Tory Euroscepticism. Soon, word about the rather awkward encounter between the two self-professed candidates of change made its way quietly round the upper echelons of Whitehall."

If this is true, I find it astounding that it has taken nearly six months to reach the public domain. Furthermore, the video footage of the two men at that meeting suggested to me that the pair were not only very comfortable in each other's company (unlike the Brown/Obama encounter) but, dare I say it, that they could do business in the (now highly likely) event of them both leading their respective countries in the not too distant future.

Do you think the New Statesman account rings true?

Jonathan Isaby

Two Tory MEPs caught up in Mumbai terrorist attacks

11pm

David Cameron has issued the following statement:

“I utterly condemn the attacks that have taken place in Mumbai, and the terrible loss of life that has occurred. My thoughts are with all those who have been caught up in these attacks. India and Britain stand together at this time in the face of terrorism.”

9.15pm update

The Times has a report here.

9pm update:

I've just had a text from Syed saying that he is OK but that his understanding from the ground is that 80 people are dead, 200 people are injured and that some tourists have been taken hostage. He gathers that more than 20 terrorists have been involved and says that there's a "long night ahead". Indeed so. We're all thinking of you, Saj and all the other victims of these atrocities, the horror of which is becoming more apparent by the minute.

---

8.45pm update:

Syed has been quoted by the Daily Star website as having said that he managed to escape from the hotel as the gunmen arrived.

"I was staying at the Taj Mahal with a party of MEPs from the international trade committee on a fact-finding mission. I had just left the hotel when the gunmen arrived and now they’ve closed off the hotel and we have been told not to go back. As far as I know the Taj Mahal Palace, the Oberoi Hotel and the Leopold restaurant have been attacked. One of my friends said he walked past the gunmen as they arrived, one just looked at him then turned round and shot someone else. He’s in shock. We have been texting people trapped inside the hotel to see if they are okay. One German MEP Erica Mann is hiding in the kitchen and I think British MEP Sajjad Karim is still in the hotel. "

---

Can David Cameron make political capital out of Obama's victory?

Most of today's papers mock both David Cameron and Gordon Brown for having fallen over themselves to associate themselves with Barack Obama at Prime Minister's Questions yesterday.

David Cameron certainly came up with the best line when he asked if the Prime Minister had used his "no time for a novice" line when he spoke to the President-Elect yesterday morning.

But on a serious note, Obama's victory showed a comparatively inexperienced politician emerging victorious with a message of change - and Cameron will surely take some reassurance from this, as Louise Bagshawe noted on CentreRight yesterday.

So is there more political capital to be made by the Conservatives as a result of Obama's victory?

Also writing on CentreRight, Nile Gardiner puts the case against. He reckons that Gordon Brown is the one most likely to benefit from being seen to be hobnobbing with the new kid on the block that is the world stage, asserting that Labour may even seek to use their links with the Democrats to put pressure on the Obama administration to limit David Cameron's access to the White House.

Should David Cameron be trying to associate himself with Obama? Would that curry favour with the British electorate?

Jonathan Isaby

Russia's neighbours cannot rely on the EU, says Hague

European leaders like to talk about the exercise of soft power but perhaps Europe is simply just soft?

The Telegraph is reporting that the EU is preparing to start negotiations with Moscow on a special partnership deal.  Yesterday Peter Mandelson heralded a thawing of Britain's own relations with Russia.

All so soon after Russia invaded Georgia and Brussels promised a firm response.

Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague worries that such talks would send the wrong message to all of Russia's neighbours:

"It would show Russia that aggression pays off, that Britain and other European countries are incapable of holding a firm line against aggression and that Russia's neighbours cannot rely on the EU to protect them from Russian bullying."

Andrew Mitchell signals shake-up in UK aid priorities

The BBC is reporting that Shadow International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell will tell the Party Conference that a Conservative Government will end aid to China.  Britain currently gives £38m pa in aid to China although the communist state spent £20bn on this summer's Beijing Olympics.

We hope that Mr Mitchell will also look at Britain's aid to India.  The Department for International Development has already signalled an end to aid to China; the position with the world's other emerging supereconomy is much less clear.  The Burning Our Money blog has noted a large increase in defence spending by India and wonders why UK taxpayers are paying for anti-poverty programmes in India: "Why doesn't the Indian government tax its own booming economy? Or why doesn't it, say, use some of the money it currently spends on defence?"

It's time to stop UK aid to India and China and redirect it to the world's very poorest nations.

David Cameron's inappropriate soundbite

We covered the speech yesterday but the FT is one of a number of newspapers to major in on David Cameron's attempt to distance himself from "neoconservatism":

“We should accept that we cannot impose democracy at the barrel of a gun,” he said in Islamabad. “We cannot drop democracy from 10,000 feet and we should not try. Put crudely, that was what was wrong with the “neo-con” approach and why I am a liberal Conservative, not a neo-Conservative.”

Mr Cameron is politically sensible to distance himself from the toxic term neoconservatism but he's wrong to misrepresent what coalition forces are doing in Iraq.  The "drop democracy from 10,000 feet" soundbite isn't just silly, it borders on the offensive.

Bill Clinton tried to solve the Iraqi problem from 10,000 feet.  During his presidency America bombed Iraq but stopped short of any serious engagement.  At enormous cost America, in particular, but other nations, notably Britain, have committed ground troops to Iraq and Afghanistan in the hope of giving those two troubled nations the possibility of the same freedoms that we enjoy.  Mr Cameron is 100% correct to say that democracy is much more than elections but it is misleading to suggest that Iraq's democracy is being imposed from 10,000 feet or at the barrel of a gun.  For example, enormous efforts have been made to craft constitutions that respect the rights of women and religious diversity in both countries.  Troops are now embedded in Iraqi communities, intimately involved in community protection, and providing the space that is necessary for political and institutional progress.

In an ideal world we would have time to allow the institutions that support democracy to evolve - as Mr Cameron recommends - but we don't live in an ideal world.  The free world had to intervene in Afghanistan because the nation's Taliban regime was supporting al-Qaeda, not least the 9/11 attacks.  Without that intervention we cannot know how recent history might have been different but who thought, at the time, that 9/11 was an isolated event rather than the beginning of a campaign of terror?

More controversially, we also had to intervene in Iraq because Saddam Hussein was an unrepentant threat to the peace of the region and wider world.  The Iraq campaign was very badly handled.  We all know that but David Cameron would be better advised to criticise the Rumsfeld doctrine - and its belief in a limited deployment - or Iran for its destabilising role.  Talk of dropping democracy from 10,000 feet makes for good headlines but it doesn't help us understand what went wrong - nor what has begun to go right in Iraq.