Yesterday's newspapers buzzed with reshuffle speculation but today's Guardian and Telegraph suggest that the stories were completely unauthorised. A "furious" David Cameron is said to be particularly concerned at suggestions that David Davis was to be demoted from his Shadow Home Secretary post - in favour of Liam Fox. Both newspapers report Cameron aides blaming Fox supporters for the briefings. An aide to Mr Cameron told The Telegraph: "There is absolutely no desire to humiliate or demote David Davis. He has made clear that he wants a shadow cabinet of all the talents."
It will be essential for Mr Cameron to quickly strengthen his press team in order for similar speculation to be better controlled in future.
Fulford - How dare you accuse me of drinking you rabid little twerp. I know your name - you don't know mine. And believe me I will pay you in full for that slur on my character. You really are a pathetic little creature.
Posted by: Barbara Villiers | 06 December 2005 at 15:34
"Are all the Cameronites saving themselves for the onslaught of gloating we can expect following the Doomsday Declaration in a couple of hours' time?"
No gloating Daniel. I want you to come with us. I've really enjoyed jousting with you and James and others over the past few months. Now its over, the thing that would make me most happy would be for you guys to find the little bit of faith, the little bit of optimism, that will ensure we can all win together.
Posted by: Henry Cook | 06 December 2005 at 16:02
"I want you to come with us."
The Blairism begins here ;-)
Posted by: James Hellyer | 06 December 2005 at 16:08
The business pages of the newspapers haven't been covering this contest. The news pages of the business papers have covered the contest.
*sigh* *wriggle*
So how does this translate into the press hostility you allege the coverage contained?
I'm not alleging that the coverage was hostile. Daniel is making hay out of a Sun article that said Cameron had got on the wrong side of financial journalists (The Sun???). I'm just pointing out the obvious - *if* journalists from Cameron's Carlton days really don't like him, it's made his achievements in this campaign even more remarkable.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | 06 December 2005 at 16:32
"*if* journalists from Cameron's Carlton days really don't like him, it's made his achievements in this campaign even more remarkable."
But my point, far from being a wriggle, was that the journalists who covered his Carlton days (for the business sections of papers) are not the same journalists who are the political and news reporters covering this leadership election.
If Trevor Kavanagh had hated him, The Sun would have mentioned it a lot more!
Posted by: James Hellyer | 06 December 2005 at 16:37
Next you'll be telling me hacks don't drink together...
Posted by: Mark Fulford | 06 December 2005 at 16:40
They may do, but that doesn't mean that the person who ran foul of a young Carlton exec years ago can tell the political editor what to write...
Posted by: James Hellyer | 06 December 2005 at 16:43
And there I think you've hit the nail on the head... a young Carlton exec. Even if Cameron did rub some journalists up the wrong way, it was a long time ago, another person, and totally inconsequential to today.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | 06 December 2005 at 16:54