The Spectator

The scale of the loss Sir: You state that ‘the British army was defeated in Basra’ (leading article, 22 January) as though it were a re-run of Alamein or Waterloo. Would it not be more true to say that the undermanned and under-resourced segment of the army in Basra was insufficient to cope with the task it was given? Had it been able to deploy force on the same scale as the Americans, perhaps the result would have been different. It has been suggested that the government couldn’t face the possibility of heavy casualties in such a scenario, but unavailability of troops must have been an overwhelming factor. All deaths in action are terribly sad. But we now seem to be unable to accept any losses.

Here are some of the posts made on Spectator.co.uk over the past week: Fraser Nelson explains why the GDP drop may not be as bad as it first appears, and reveals what's inside this week's Spectator. James Forsyth wonders what the Tories must do to win in 2015, and reports on the shrinking GDP figures. Peter Hoskin investigates the lineage of the Big Society, and explains how our national debt went up by £1,300 billion in one day. David Blackburn sees Nimrod fall from a symbol of pride to one of decline, and tracks the government's changes to control orders. Daniel Korski wonders whether Hosni Mubarak will fall. Martin Bright asks, what happens when journalists become the story?

Welcome to the latest CoffeeHousers' Wall. For those who haven't come across the Wall before, it's a post we put up each Monday, on which – providing your writing isn't libellous, crammed with swearing, or offensive to common decency – you'll be able to say whatever you like in the comments section. There is no topic, so there's no need to stay 'on topic' – which means you'll be able to debate with each other more freely and extensively. There's also no constraint on the length of what you write – so, in effect, you can become Coffee House bloggers. Anything's fair game – from political stories in your local paper, to chat about the latest football results.

The plot thickens It is as if we are stuck in a hideous loop. The plot thickens It is as if we are stuck in a hideous loop. Every few months, it seems, Tony Blair is once again hauled up to give evidence to the never-ending Iraq inquiry. Each time he is dragged from a luxury hotel in some distant land to London, where he gives the younger political generation a masterclass in how to evade direct questioning. The questioning always proceeds along the same lines: why did we go to war? But the real scandal is the British army was defeated in Basra, and the Iraqi people abandoned to death squads. The question that should be asked is ‘why did we lose?

Here is a selection of posts made at Spectator.co.uk over the past week. Fraser Nelson warns against under-estimating the two Eds, and watches the inflation crisis deepen. James Forsyth says that appointing Balls as Shadow Chancellor is a gamble on Miliband's part, and reflects on a bad morning for the government. Peter Hoskin asks if it is worth paying children to remain in secondary education. David Blackburn analyses where Warsi is right and wrong, and is intrigued by David Davis and Jack Straw’s sudden alliance. Nick Cohen explains what he understands by the term ‘Islamophobia’. Rod Liddle has had a problem with an acclaimed book. Alex Massie wonders if Andy Coulson was any good at his job.

Welcome to the latest CoffeeHousers' Wall. For those who haven't come across the Wall before, it's a post we put up each Monday, on which – providing your writing isn't libellous, crammed with swearing, or offensive to common decency – you'll be able to say whatever you like in the comments section. There is no topic, so there's no need to stay 'on topic' – which means you'll be able to debate with each other more freely and extensively. There's also no constraint on the length of what you write – so, in effect, you can become Coffee House bloggers. Anything's fair game – from political stories in your local paper, to chat about the latest football results.

Top dogs Sir: I very much enjoyed the excerpts from Dean Spanley (The Spectator’s Notes, 8 January). Hitherto my favourite depiction of the canine mindset had come from Three Men in a Boat, by Jerome K. Jerome: Montmorency’s ambition in life is to get in the way and be sworn at. If he can squirm in anywhere where he particularly is not wanted, and be a perfect nuisance, and make people mad, and have things thrown at his head, then he feels his day has not been wasted. Anyone who has ever attempted to shift a beloved pet from underfoot while cooking is surely familiar with such an attitude. I am sure other readers will have their own favourites.

Welcome to the latest CoffeeHousers' Wall. For those who haven't come across the Wall before, it's a post we put up each Monday, on which – providing your writing isn't libellous, crammed with swearing, or offensive to common decency – you'll be able to say whatever you like in the comments section. There is no topic, so there's no need to stay 'on topic' – which means you'll be able to debate with each other more freely and extensively. There's also no constraint on the length of what you write – so, in effect, you can become Coffee House bloggers. Anything's fair game – from political stories in your local paper, to chat about the latest football results.