The Spectator

The week that was | 1 October 2010

Here are some of the posts made at Spectator.co.uk over the past week. Fraser Nelson sees the penny drop at the Labour conference, and is sure that Liam Fox did not leak that infamous letter. James Forsyth watches Ed Miliband produce the bare minimum, and notes that the IMF has upset Labour’s plans. Peter Hoskin bids David Miliband au revoir, and says that Ed Miliband’s speech was neither here nor there. David Blackburn reckons Liam Fox doesn’t have David Cameron’s ear, and believes that Ed Miliband is stuttering for an authentic voice. Rod Liddle thinks that David Miliband is not dignified, he’s simply self-regarding. Alex Massie castigates Obama’s hit squad.

Who is the Greatest Parliamentarian of the Last 25 Years?

It is 25 years since The Spectator first began to recognise our better politicians with the annual Parliamentarian of the Year Awards. The inaugural winner of our main prize, the Parliamentarian of the Year award itself, was David Owen. Since then, the roll call of victors has grown to include John Smith, Nigel Lawson, Robin Cook, William Hague, John Major, Tony Blair and even, we must admit, Gordon Brown. The choices made by our judging panel of Westminster cognoscenti may not please all of the people, all of the time — but they are a reliable catalogue of the dominant players in modern British politics. But the Spectator's judges won't be only people to get their say.

Reaction to Miliband’s speech

Here is a selection of the blogosphere’s reaction to Ed Miliband’s speech. James Forsyth thinks Miliband did what he had to do. Peter Hoskin watches a Janus act from the Leader of the Opposition. David Blackburn sees Red Ed turn into a social conservative. Mary Riddell thinks that Ed’s speech has frozen out David. Tim Montgomerie reflects on a speech of clichés. Michael White praises a good first speech. Janet Daley thinks that Miliband’s 'optimism' is a euphemism for statism. And Will Straw has collated Ed Miliband’s world cloud. It spells: ‘New Generation must change country.

CoffeeHousers’ Wall, 27 September – 3 October

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.

Just in case you missed them… | 27 September 2010

…here are some of the posts made at Spectator.co.uk over the weekend Fraser Nelson asks if Ed Miliband will face facts. James Forsyth praises the dignity of David Miliband, and urges the right not to underestimate Ed Miliband. Peter Hoskin examines the Whelan factor, and observes the start of the Ed Miliband de-toxification process. David Blackburn says that the disaster at the Delhi games indicts the Indian state. And Rod Liddle is amazed that some people voted for Diane Abbott.

Blame Games

India has given a good impression of a country that views the Commonwealth as an embarrassment. It should be an honour to host the commonwealth Games. We hoped that India would use the event to show the world that it is not just an emerging superpower with nuclear weapons and a space programme, but a country with a sense of pride — as China did with the Beijing Olympics. Instead, India has given a good impression of a country that views the Commonwealth as an embarrassment. Advance parties from England, Scotland, Australia and Canada arrived to find squalid and even incomplete accommodation. There were reports of walls bubbling with mould and floors covered with pools of stagnant water. The site is so structurally unsound that one of the footbridges collapsed.

Letters | 25 September 2010

Spectator readers respond to recent articles Thought crime, style crime Sir: I welcome the new presentation of The Spectator, along with the continuing commitment to ‘elegance of expression and originality of thought’, and providing ‘a refuge from an often censorious and humourless world’. These are the reasons why I subscribe, and I am seldom let down. Yet I see with disappointment that Melanie Phillips has been quick to exercise her right to oppose Spectator doctrine (‘I think, therefore I’m guilty’, 18 September). While I agree with the thrust of her argument, a less elegant, more censorious and humourless way of expressing it is difficult to imagine. Isn’t style crime just as bad as thought crime?

The night our house burnt down

Murray Sayle, who died last weekend, wrote regularly for The Spectator. Here is an edited extract from his column of 13 May 1989. Aikawa, near Tokyo The night of 19 December last was cold and starry. Our house stood in a clearing in a pine forest halfway up a mountainside, and the flames could be seen a good ten miles away, down by the Nissan factory. Some of them even downed tools for a moment or two, we heard, wondering what the bright light was. Not that fires are unusual in Japan. Before the days of concrete cliffs they were called ‘The Flowers of Edo’, the old name of Tokyo.

Don’t knock the rich

The Spectator on the Liberal party conference We appreciate that Nick Clegg and Vince Cable had a gallery to play to during their party’s conference — a gallery of left-leaning Liberal Democrats baying for attacks on the wealthy. The two ministers are in an awkward position, having joined a government that is attempting the first real cuts in government spending since the war. But denouncing capitalism and growling at the rich is no way for those now in power to conduct themselves. We have become accustomed to ignoring what the Lib Dems say at their conferences. Until now, it didn’t matter. But Mr Cable is now Business Secretary, and when he says that capitalism ‘takes no prisoners and kills competition when it can’, it is worth listening.

The week that was | 24 September 2010

Here are some of the posts made at Spectator.co.uk over the past week. Fraser Nelson praises Clegg’s little bit of political S&M, and explains the problem with Cable’s posturing. James Forsyth says that attacking bonuses are a matter of political economy, and concedes that Nick Clegg still has more to do to bring his party with him. Peter Hoskin argues that David Miliband poses the greatest threat to the coalition, and notes that the Liberal Democrats are opposing the government’s school agenda. David Blackburn believes Labour will gain if the government chooses to delay the decision on renewing Trident, and thinks that Ulster Unionists will go into competition with the DUP. Susan Hill ponders the trials of age, in a whisper.

WEB EXCLUSIVE: Risky Business

The Spectator and KPMG hosted a conference recently that explored possible investment opportunities in today’s fragile geo-political climate. Panellists included Sir Malcolm Rifkind, John Ruffer, Lord Guthrie, Frank Gardner and Rory Stewart. CoffeeHousers can read James Forsyth’s magazine review of the debate here.

The reaction to Clegg’s speech

Here is a selection of responses to Clegg's from across the blogosphere.  Fraser Nelson reflects on Clegg’s bout of political S&M.   James Forsyth hears Clegg talk to party not country.   Peter Hoskin watches Nick Clegg shade the coalition yellow.   Alex Massie describes it as ‘lacklustre’, but reckons the audience may have seen it differently.   Iain Martin says that Clegg looked confident, but the Lib Dems aren’t very sure about this government business.   Nick Robinson reviews a ‘largely defensive speech’ from Nick Clegg.    Comment is Free’s Jackie Ashley and Deborah Orr give their verdict.

CoffeeHousers’ Wall, 20 September – 26 September

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.

Just in case you missed them… | 20 September 2010

…here are some of the posts made at Spectator.co.uk over the weekend. Fraser Nelson explains why he has stopped worrying and learned to love Nick Clegg, and live-blogs from the fringe. James Forsyth analyses Alexander’s arguments, and says that the coalition must make its case more forcefully. Peter Hoskin watches the Lib Dems deliver the right lines, and evaluates the Lib Dems’ Scottish problem. David Blackburn has news of Baroness Ashton, and ponders the reality of Nick Clegg’s ‘savage cuts’. And Rod Liddle asks how do you solve a problem like Sally Bercow.

Letters | 18 September 2010

The ventures of faith Sir: Peter Hitchens eloquently describes the moral vacuum created by the permissive society, and suggests recourse to the Book of Common Prayer (‘In the shadow of the Pope’, 11 September). The world, however, will never be saved by beautiful prose. Indeed, aesthetic indulgence may all too easily substitute for moral rigour. ‘We do earnestly repent, and are heartily sorry for these our misdoings,’ we Anglicans pray; ‘the remembrance of them is grievous unto us; the burden of them is intolerable.’ How glorious to surrender to such seductive self-flagellation. And then we go out and sin again. The Christian message is that we can overcome sin only through suffering.

Benedict brings hope

But, if the protestors know where Benedict XVI stands on issues of sexual morality, they have a very shaky grasp of his precise relationship to these issues. The arrival of Pope Benedict XVI in Britain has provoked protests that, in the intesity of their anger, far exceed those that greet the state visits of blood-drenched dictators. That is because the Pope is seen to represent — in ascending order of secular distaste — religion, Christianity, the Roman Catholic Church and the conservative wing of Catholicism. Fair enough: Benedict does represent all of these things. He opposes atheism, regarding it as a desperately sad alienation of man from his creator.

Spot the difference

You may notice that your Spectator looks a little different this week. We have updated its design, but cautiously, taking the best ideas from past magazines, and refreshing the rest. Even the tidiest house needs a little spring-cleaning from time to time. Many read the Spectator back to front, so our peerless books and arts sections now have their own opening page. Some readers felt that Taki and Jeremy Clarke were buried at the back of the Arts section, so we’ve given them a section of their own — Life begins at page 71. And we’ve made room for some shorter features as well as long reads. And what of the character of The Spectator? We’ve changed it not one jot. We have no interest in striving to be modern, and no need to either.

Barometer | 18 September 2010

Papal visit Pope Benedict XVI visits Britain this week, only the second pope to do so. The first was John Paul II in 1982. Some facts and figures from his visit: — John Paul II’s native Poland was still behind the Iron Curtain and it was to be another 22 years before it joined the EU. Nevertheless, 24,000 Poles then living in Britain attended a mass at Crystal Palace. — As the media coverage intensified, 350,000 people attended open-air mass at Coventry Cathedral, a million lined the streets in Liverpool and 180,000 attended mass at York racecourse. —By the time the Pope reached Manchester, interest had waned. Only 200,000, compared with an estimate of 1 million, attended mass in the city.