James Forsyth

James Forsyth

James Forsyth is former political editor of The Spectator.

Ken’s doing a paper round at your expense

From our UK edition

Anyone wanting proof of the contempt in which Ken Livinsgtone holds the London taxpayer need only read this item on Guido’s blog. Not content with deluging Londonders with dubious, public information announcements that have an uncanny tendency to reflect well on the Mayor he is also posting his Londonder newsletter to the constituency offices of MPs around the country. I've contacted the Mayor's office for a comment and I'll let you know what there justification is for this. Also watch out for more on Livingstone and his unsuitability for the job in the next few days.

Pensioned off

From our UK edition

Today at Centreright.com, Matthew Elliott flags up a truly shocking fact: “by 2009, each person working in the private sector will be paying more each month into the pension of a civil servant than they will into their own pension.

Between a Rock and a hard place

From our UK edition

Rachel Sylvester has a typically eloquent and perceptive piece on the political ramifications of nationalising Northern Rock in the Telegraph today. As Sylvester points out the government has to come up with a solution before the end of February when the six month period for state aid mandated by the European Union runs out. The problem isn’t so much nationalisation per se but the fact that it was so clearly the government’s least preferred option. Reading Hansard one is struck by the venom with which the Liberal Democrats were attacked for first floating the idea. The political effect in the North East is going to be magnified by the fact that it was local MPs such as Jim Cousins who led the charge against it.

Can McCain keep the momentum going?

From our UK edition

Today, John McCain will either take a massive stride towards winning the Republican nomination by winning the Michigan primary or a triumph for Mitt Romney will scramble the contest still further. McCain is the candidate with the wind at his back. His victory in New Hampshire has vaulted him into a considerable lead in the national polls and in the crucial first in the South primary in South Carolina. Victory tonight should ensure that McCain maintains his lead in South Carolina and if he wins there, McCain will likely win in Florida and pick up the lion’s share of delegates on Super Tuesday; leaving him as the Republican nominee presumptive. A McCain victory, though, can not be taken for granted.

<strong>Is it our guilt that makes us so critical of Britney?</strong>

From our UK edition

Ayleet Waldman has a sure to be controversial piece in this week’s New York Magazine arguing that the reason society is so keen to jump on bad mothers like Britney Spears is because mothers are acutely aware of their own failings. As Waldman writes, “The single defining characteristic of iconic Good Motherhood is self-abnegation. Her day is constructed around her children’s health and happiness, and her own needs and ambitions are relevant only in relation to theirs. If a Good Mother works, she does so only if it doesn’t harm her children, or if her failing to earn an income would make them worse off. She takes care of herself for their sake, to make them better people: “She is in shape and works outside of the home so she can be a good role model.

The Hain and Osborne cases are not the same

From our UK edition

The idea that George Osborne and Peter Hain’s funding issues are somehow equivalent is absurd. One is a case of confusion over how many times something should be declared and the other is an issue of complete non-disclosure. Hain’s use of the Progressive Politics Forum to donate to his campaign is a scandal in and of itself. Whether intentionally or not, this device obscured the identity of those giving to Hain and had the same effect as David Abraham’s use of third parties. Then, there’s the question of timing. Hain first conceded irregularities in his funding on November 27th last year when he announced that he had failed to register a £5,000 donation from the Brown recruited, chief Labour fundraiser Jon Mendelsohn.

Gordon Brown: I’m not the decider

From our UK edition

Gordon Brown’s interview with the Sun this morning displays one of the least attractive qualities of his premiership, his tendency to pass the buck. So, Peter Hain is praised but the possibility of him being forced to stand down is conceded. Surely, though, if Brown thinks Hain has done nothing intentionally wrong he shouldn’t be prepared to see him forced out over the issue? Meanwhile, the Today Programme is lumping together the Hain and Osborne funding stories when they are of a different order. As Nick Robinson pointed out on the programme, there is a reason that Osborne is prepared to go on the show to answer questions while Hain is not.

Clinton, Obama fight escalates

From our UK edition

The Clinton-Obama fight is turning increasingly nasty and personal. In Washington, there is much talk about how the party can be put together again after the primaries. Tensions have been raised still further today with a prominent black supporter of the Clintons, the prominent entrepreneur Bob Johnson, appearing to raise both Obama’s youthful drug use and the question of how ‘black’ he is. Johnson told an audience in South Carolina, which is a must-win state for Obama: Johnson also went off on a bizarre riff comparing Obama to Sidney Poitier in the movie Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, a film about a black man dating a white woman.

Cameron’s Sunday best

From our UK edition

David Cameron turned in a strong performance on the Andrew Marr show this morning pushing back firmly and effectively against Marr’s suggestion that there was somehow equivalence between Peter Hain and George Osborne’s funding issues. However, as always, the questions about Lord Ashcroft’s status haunt the Tories. The key message that Cameron wanted to communicate was that Brown is a ditherer, he used the word at every available opportunity, and that the Tories have the policy heft to govern. He was generally effective but he still seems slightly unsure of himself when talking about the economy. One has to wonder whether this is why Gordon Brown and Cameron are effectively tied for who would be the best PM.

Overwhelming public support for Tory welfare policies

From our UK edition

Fraser wrote the other day about how public attitudes seemed to be moving decisively in favour of welfare reform and new poll numbers,flagged up by Conservative Home, back up this argument.  82% back the new Tory policy that those who have been on unemployment benefits for two years should have to do work in the community if they are to continue receiving benefits.  While more than three quarters of voters, 77%, thinks that unemployed people who live where they do could get work if they really wanted it. It looks like the Tories have a new powerful weapon in their armoury. The key, now, is not to overreach in terms of language. David Cameron and Chris Grayling must strive to sound both compassionate and calm on this issue.

British politicians should learn from the American primaries: authenticity wins votes

From our UK edition

In the British version of the 2008 US election, Gordon Brown is Hillary Clinton: the less talented half of a tempestuous political marriage who attempts to make up for shortcomings with a Stakhanovite work ethic. David Cameron is Barack Obama: the supremely confident speaker who has risen to the top in record time and who is, to his critics, all froth and no latte. Indeed, if successful, Obama’s ascent will have been even more meteoric than Cameron’s (Cameron took just over four and a half years from entering national politics to become party leader). To some, this comparison with British politics is absurd, proof of our infatuation with all things American.

What Gordon should learn from Hillary

From our UK edition

After Hillary’s remarkable come from behind victory in New Hampshire there have been a lot of jokes about how we can now expect Gordon Brown, and every other ambitious politician, to start choking up in public. Somehow, I can’t see Brown doing this or pulling it off if he tried. However, there is one thing that Brown should learn from Hillary. When her campaign was at its lowest ebb, Hillary embarked on a new strategy of making herself as available as possible. In the last few days in New Hampshire she took questions from the audience, which she hadn’t in Iowa, and allowed the press to talk to her far more freely. Hillary’s continuing this new approach with an hour long appearance on Meet The Press, the premier US political show, and a new web based QandA.

The Hain saga

From our UK edition

Ben Brogan has an absolute must read post on this whole business of Peter Hain and the donations. As Ben writes, “For the moment Downing Street's confidence remains solid, in part because if he goes then so do Harriet Harman and Wendy Alexander. But can Mr Brown, with all his talk of new politics, afford to tolerate having around him quite so many people who claim entitlement to senior public posts while at the same time showing such extraordinary disregard for the basics of electoral law?” Do read the whole thing.

Premium Politics

From our UK edition

Sam Coates, over at his splendid new blog, writes that the Tories have been indulging in some clothes stealing by adopting the Lib Dem idea for a pupil premium for poorer children. I’ve no doubt that Sam is right about what motivated the timing of the announcement, but it is my understanding that this has always been part of Tory thinking on the issue. James O'Shaughnessy, the Tory head of policy, was an enthusiastic advocate of such a scheme when he was at Policy Exchange and Michael Gove has long been supportive of the idea.  As Comment Central points out, the Tories haven't yet explained how large the premium would be or how they would pay for it. But this announcement is more proof that education is the area where Tory thinking is most developed and most radical.

Why the press wrote the Obama surge story so hard

From our UK edition

The debate over why the polls in New Hampshire were so wrong is still raging on this side of the Atlantic. An agenda-setting op-ed by the top pollster Andy Kohut in the New York Times says that it is all about race, while others think that it is all to do with gender. To my mind, the most persuasive argument is that the polls underestimated Hillary's support because she picked up the votes of those who were planning to back Democratic candidates who dropped out after Iowa. Like pretty much everyone else who was in New Hampshire, I’ve been thinking about why everyone (including yours truly) got it so very wrong.

The next Republican contest

From our UK edition

Washington, DC The Michigan primary coming up on Tuesday will determine whether Mitt Romney can remain a credible candidate. If he can’t win in a state where his father was a popular governor, it is curtains for him. By contrast, if McCain can repeat his 2000 triumph here he will establish himself as the Republican frontrunner. The two deciding factors in the Michigan primary are likely to be how many independents and Democrats cross over to vote in the Republican primary and whether the Huckabee-McCain brotherhood holds. The Democratic contest in Michigan is meaningless, only Hillary Clinton is on the ballot, and the more independents and Democrats who play in the Republican primary the better for McCain who has far more cross-over appeal than Mitt Romney.

What role did race play in Obama’s loss?

From our UK edition

The debate over whether the reluctance of white voters to support a black candidate once in the privacy of the voting booth is what explains Obama’s loss is raging here in New Hampshire. First Read lays out the case, “we can only think of three races in which the public polls and the final result were SO off, and they all involved African-American candidates: Bradley's '82 gubernatorial campaign in California, Doug Wilder's surprisingly narrow '89 victory for Virginia governor, and Harvey Gantt's surprise loss for North Carolina Senate. There is no poll question we can find that can truly measure this phenomenon.

Hillary’s remarkable triumph

From our UK edition

Hillary Clinton’s comeback win took everyone, including her own campaign, by surprise. The theories are flowing as to how she pulled it out. Some are claiming it is because people tell pollsters that they’re planning to vote for the black candidate then in the privacy of the ballot box don’t. This is certainly the simplest explanation for what happened but I’m wary of it as it lets people like me who predicted that he’d win big off the hook far too easily. The other theories doing the rounds are that New Hampshire voters didn’t want to end the contest this early. Or, that they reacted against the media narrative.  One definite factor is that the Clinton campaign had the best field operative in American politics working for them.

How did we all get this so wrong?

From our UK edition

To say that there is shock at tonight's result would be an understatement. Every poll was predicting an Obama win--the internal numbers of both campaigns had him up by double-digits, his crowds were bigger and more energised and his press coverage was far more favourable. In short, every metric that one could use to try and predict the result favoured Obama.  I'm crashing on a magazine piece right now but I will have some thoughts on this in a bit. In the meantime, Mark Halperin has some initial ideas on why the polls were so very wrong.