The Spectator's Notes

On Sunday night, I went to Wellington College to defend God. The Almighty does not need human help, of course, but I was asked to oppose Professors Richard Dawkins and A.C. Grayling, and — with Lord Harries, the former Bishop of Oxford —  propose the motion that ‘Atheism is the new fundamentalism’. I had hoped that the audience would consist largely of the stalwart pupils and parents of Wellington, which would have had our side in with a chance. But in fact the event was run by the brilliant, Notting-Hilly debating organisation Intelligence Squared. This meant that 1,500 people turned up, cramming the vast sports hall. It also meant that the Wellington clientele was swamped by a very different crowd.

On Monday I attended a party at the Carlton Club for a new book about the Conservative Research Department, now 80 years old. Traditionally, this would have been a dusty occasion: the Research Department has almost prided itself on its separation from the vulgar worlds of media and power. But it was all rather glamorous. The fact is that, for the first time ever, its alumni have taken control of the Tory high command. George Osborne and Oliver Letwin began political life there; so did Cameron’s closest assistants, Steve Hilton, Ed Llewellyn and Kate Fall; and so did David Cameron himself. As Andrew Gimson discusses on page 19, Mr Cameron is the first CRD product ever to have led the Tory party.

Only a little more than a year ago, Gordon Brown was considered very clever when he had a word with Sir Victor Blank at a cocktail party and encouraged him to merge Lloyds and HBOS to help save the British banking system. Not long afterwards, Sir Victor was forced to resign after the merger produced chaos and stupefying losses were exposed. Mr Brown, however, is still here, and this week, with equal brilliance, he has ordered the break-up of the bank he merged, in order to help save the British banking system again, while he puts a further £5.8 billion of government money behind it. It is not easy to resist Mervyn King’s recent suggestion that the relationship between government and the banks is the greatest system of moral hazard ever created.

In the early Cameronian period, which now feels prehistoric, the only news was good news. It shows how the recession has turned everything topsy-turvy that this week the Tories have actually been aiming for ‘bad’ headlines. They have succeeded: cut invalidity benefit (weekend press), make people retire later (Tuesday), the ‘new age of austerity’ (Wednesday). This inversion also means that a boring speech is considered a good one. On Tuesday, George Osborne came on to the platform here. ‘Platform’ was the right word, because the set, a photograph of suburban houses from first-storey level, made it look as if George was waving goodbye to his family from an elevated railway before jumping on to the 8.14 from Esher.

Last week at Policy Exchange, the think tank of which I am chairman, General David Petraeus gave a fascinating lecture about what we are now not allowed to call the War on Terror. He spoke tactfully, but between the lines I thought I read a feeling that the fight in Afghanistan is in the balance. This made him emphatic in his praise of British troops: he can see the political dangers if we withdraw, he needs more of our men, and he wants this to be clear to a new Tory government. Now the Washington Post has leaked the views of the general on the spot, Stanley McChrystal. He sounds almost desperate for a greater US effort.

One can understand — if not agree with — Gordon Brown’s idea that a deal with Libya was so worthwhile that the release of al Megrahi was a price worth paying. One can see, by the same unpleasant reasoning, why Mr Brown wished to avoid trying to get compensation out of Libya for the victims of its supply of explosives to the IRA. But two points occur. The first is that, as the plot unravels, the boldness of the Libyans shows that they have nothing to fear from us: they have us over a barrel (of oil?). When they first came to the table with us, they were frightened that they were next in George Bush’s war on terror. Now it is only we who look fearful. The other point is about Mr Brown’s way of making decisions.

‘Moderate Taleban’ are being talked of. It is a very strange, almost oxymoronic concept, like ‘moderate fanatics’; but the conventions of Western political discourse are such that the Foreign Office and the BBC have to deploy the word ‘moderate’ to legitimise whatever our diplomats might be up to. Hunting the moderate is a favourite sport of ‘that old fox, Britain’, as the Iranian regime likes to call us. It conceals the less palatable point that sometimes Western democracies feel the need to make deals with people who are thoroughly vile, but capable of delivering results. The old fox may even be right.

No one seems to have noticed, but next week the House of Lords will be abolished. I don’t mean the entire chamber, but the highest court of appeal in the land. Until now, this body has been a committee of the House of Lords, and has met in committee rooms of the House. When it resumes its work in the autumn, it will be known as the Supreme Court, and will have moved to new premises in the old Middlesex Guildhall across Parliament Square. We are always told by people like Mr New Speaker Bercow how marvellously unstuffy our institutions are these days, but in fact they are characterised by ever greater pomp and expense. Being a mere committee, the Law Lords do not wear any robes when hearing cases. As the Supreme Court, they will wear gowns.

It may well be true that some equipment given to British soldiers fighting in Afghanistan is inadequate. It almost certainly is the case that the government has willed ends without willing means, and it deserves to be criticised for that. But it is a mistake to encourage bereaved parents to think that their sons’ deaths were essentially avoidable. All wars are difficult. No army is perfectly provided for. The fundamental reason that soldiers die in wars is because wars are dangerous. Soldiers know this when they join up, and though they complain (grumbling being the sacred right of the soldier throughout history), they accept it.

As the Conservatives try to make themselves fiscally responsible against spendthrift Gordon Brown, there are now only two departmental programmes which they will ‘ring-fence’ against cuts — health and international development. As the Conservatives try to make themselves fiscally responsible against spendthrift Gordon Brown, there are now only two departmental programmes which they will ‘ring-fence’ against cuts — health and international development. The politics of this is clear: both subjects are areas in which the Tories are seeking to ‘decontaminate the brand’. They are frightened of being depicted as heartless penny-pinchers. But there are plenty of reasons why one might suspect waste and misspending in both these departments.

Since the Speakership of the House of Commons depends on general acceptance for the holder to be able to do his job, it would seem to be right to say nothing further against the new one, and wish him well. The trouble is that John Bercow does not have that general acceptance. His own Conservatives dislike him with a unanimous virulence which I have never seen before about any other politician (and there is hot competition). Significant numbers of the Labour MPs who voted him in did so precisely for that reason. So he is the focus of disunity. You could argue, of course, that Mr Bercow will see which way the wind is blowing, and go out of his way to be nice to the Tories, since they will be the masters soon. But would that be any better?

Should the next Speaker speak? It is a surprisingly difficult question to answer. It seems obvious that, in the age of the 24-hour news cycle, the ‘first Commoner in the land’ should add his voice to the public conversation. Until now, he has been forbidden by convention from doing so. The favourite for the post, John Bercow, wants to get out there on the media, being, he says annoyingly, ‘a Speaker and a Listener’. But if Mr Speaker Bercow (or whoever) gets lots of invitations to appear on GMTV, he will have to say something, and if he says something, he will be expected to say something interesting, and if he says something interesting, it will be hard to avoid stirring controversy among the MPs towards whom he must be impartial.