Media

That's how Bruce Anderson sums up Tony Blair's book in a caustic piece for the magazine. Here's the whole review for the benefit of CoffeeHousers: 'It is bizarre. As he often demonstrated in the House of Commons, Tony Blair knows how to use words. He could also have mobilised a team to help him write his memoirs. Instead, it is all his own work, and the words mutinied. This book is not just badly written. it is atrociously written. For almost 700 pages, Tony Blair stumbles between mawkishness and banality. Prime ministers send soldiers into combat. Some of those soldiers are killed. That is a subject which would lead the least sensitive of men to reach into their souls and craft language out of emotional depth. This is Mr Blair's version.

Say what you like about Blair, but he is something of a political entrepreneur. He detects a gap in the market and fills it: he did with New Labour in the mid-1990s. And he detects a trend in the globalised world: a system where governments don't matter so much and power is held by a global elite. This, CoffeeHousers, is what he's up to with his memoirs. He is presenting himself in new incarnation, a statesman without a state, able to move without being tied down to an electorate. There's a very revealing passage in his book where he talks about Condi Rice: “She is a classic example of the absurdity of people with experience and capacity at the highest level not having big political jobs after retirement from office,” he writes.

The rumours were true: Jon Cruddas has backed David Miliband. It’s an unlikely union on the face of it - an ambitious centrist and an almost utopian socialist. Though Cruddas once forged a partnership with the equally centrist James Purnell, so it is no great surprise that he is a pluralist. Cruddas tells the New Statesman that in ‘terms of the nature of the leadership that's needed, he's beginning to touch on some of those more profound questions that need to be addressed head-on.’ Is Cruddas right? Miliband has delivered the speech that he thinks will define his campaign. To be brutally honest, it was not profound. There was little other the usual Milibandian quota of abstractions and specious waffle.

Nick Clegg’s few days in charge have summed up his current political problem. If he says he agrees with what the government is doing, the media ask what’s the point of the Lib Dems? That’s what happened to him on the Today Programme this morning. But if he talks about where he disagrees with the coalition programme as he did on Monday when discussing Trident, he’s lambasted for exacerbating coalition tensions.   It is all far cry from the early days of the coalition when there was some concern in Conservative circles that Clegg was a thinner, better version of David Cameron.

Few writers can make a silly season story read like official history, so it's worth drifting behind the Times’ paywall to read Rachel Sylvester on Boris and Dave's mutual emnity. It is no secret that BoJo and DC are united in rivalry, but Sylvester adds a second dimension with insider quotations - a mix of arch witticisms and savage partisanship. Here are several of many from today’s column: ‘Most people at Westminster assume that Boris — compared by one of his editors to Marilyn Monroe, “another egomaniacal blonde” — still harbours ambitions to lead his party.

There’s an intellectually enriching debate going on at the moment between Ross Douthat and Andrew Sullivan over gay marriage. It was all started by an eloquent and heartfelt column by Ross arguing that the idea that “lifelong heterosexual monogamy at its best can offer something distinctive and remarkable — a microcosm of civilization, and an organic connection between human generations — that makes it worthy of distinctive recognition and support” and that is incompatible with gay marriage. Andrew Sullivan, who along with Jonathan Rauch, deserves a huge amount of credit for moving the argument for gay marriage into the mainstream, wrote a powerful set of rebuttals.