James Forsyth

Tom Ricks has a fantastic essay in The Washington Post about the generals who—in defiance of the military establishment—pushed for the surge and the change of tactics in Iraq that have been key to that country making such progress in the last two years. One of the key points in the piece is how the architects of the surge, oppose any rapid draw down of US troops—something that Obama remains committed to. Ricks writes: “Obama is likely to find Odierno and other generals arguing passionately that to come close to meeting his commitment to keeping U.S. troops safe, keeping Iraq edging toward stability and maintaining the pressure on extremists, he will need a relatively large force to remain in Iraq for may years. When asked what sort of U.S.

Judging from the interview with Alan Johnson in The Sunday Times, Labour have given up on its attempt to character assassinate David Cameron. Johnson concedes that Cameron is “likeable” and that “He’s articulate. He’s a nice guy.” But Johnson argues that Cameron’s own qualities don’t matter that much as this “is a party system” and Cameron’s party hasn’t changed. Labour’s new line of attack is hardly novel but it marks an important step for Cameron, it is a recognition that his persona is established enough with voters that it can’t be changed by ever more vigorous attacks from his opponents. Cameron now needs to adapt his approach to this new reality.

Vice-President Biden’s speech today at the Munich Security Conference was meant to spell out the kind of partnership that Obama wants between the United and Europe. The tone was very different from the Bush administration, with a lot of stress on the new beginning and how America wants to listen and the like, but the overall agenda seems similar: America wants Europe to step up in Afghanistan. The remarks on Russia are dominating the headlines. But what grabbed my attention was how explicit Biden was about Afghanistan and Pakistan strategies now being one. As Biden put it: no strategy for Afghanistan, in my humble opinion, can succeed without Pakistan.

Considering the debate that the whole Carol Thatcher business has generated, it seems worth noting Adrian Chiles’ account of what happened. Chiles writes in The Sun today: 'Carol was in full flow, talking about who’d win the Australian Open. “You also have to consider the frogs,” she said. “You know, that froggy golliwog guy.” “Ooh,” she added — waving an arm about. “If I was Prince Harry I’d get shot for saying that.” Before I’d worked out what to do, Jo — plainly aghast — leant across and said: “Excuse me, did you just say golliwog?” “Yes, well, he’s half-black,” Carol explained, waving her hand in front of her face.

To my mind, no commentator has better understood Obama and what he represents than David Brooks which makes Brooks’ column today particularly interesting. Here’s the key question that he poses: “Barack Obama is a potentially transformational figure. In political style and intellectual outlook, he is unlike anything that has come before. On matters of policy substance, however, he’s been pretty conventional. The policies he offered during the campaign matched those of just about every other Democrat. So an important question for the Obama presidency is this: Will his transformational style eventually lead to transformational policies, or will his conventional policies eventually force him to shelve his transformational style?

On the current political trajectory, Labour will go down to a heavy defeat at the next election. For this reason, it would be foolish in the extreme for Brown to carry on with his current approach: the polls show that it clearly isn’t working. Brown should be prepared to try something completely different; it can hardly lead to a worse result. Matthew Taylor, the former Blair aide, has suggested that Brown should declare a ‘unilateral political ceasefire’ and concentrate solely on the economy. The theory being that the country would be impressed by the statesman-like action and give Brown until May 2010 to turn things around.

There is a typically thoughtful column in The Independent today by Steve Richards responding to those columnists, principally Matt, who have declared that Labour has already lost the next election and that David Cameron will be the next Prime Minister. Steve presents four reasons, one each about Brown and Cameron’s leadership and two about the current crisis and the ideological pull it is exerting, for why the election result might not yet be a done deal. Steve is right that the political landscape has moved left because of the economic crisis. But, in an odd way, this might benefit the Tories. The state did not nationalise the banks because of public demand but out of necessity.

The Today Programme was as snow obsessed today as it was on Monday. Once more it dominated both the 7 and 8 am news bulletins, one would think there was nothing else going on in the world. But the height of absurdity was reached soon after 8.10 am when a reporter asked if we should invest in the same snow preparedness measures as Moscow and Stockholm. So, on Coffee House we’re launching a new feature that’ll last until the snow melts: Snow Balls. Leave in the comments the most ridiculous comments you hear or see in the media about the snow. The best entry wins the usual bottle of Coffee House champagne.