The Spectator

Here are some of the posts made at Spectator.co.uk over the past week. James Forsyth argues that the government must resist the EU's latest attempt to raise tax, and says that IDS’ resignation would be a catastrophe. Peter Hoskin welcomes the government’s transparent approach to worklessness, and introduces the questions surrounding Cameron’s benefit crackdown. David Blackburn prepares to be nudged, and says that the Bank of England’s growth revisions needn’t worry Osborne. Susan Hill is opposed to bull-fighting. Rod Liddle hits out at the self-confessed ‘Bag Nazis’. And Alex Massie remembers Jimmy Reid.

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.

Neocon Coughlin Sir: Con Coughlin’s article (‘How we lost the war’, 31 July) criticising David Cameron’s supposed disenchantment with our bogged-down campaign in Afghanistan confirms him as the Henry Newbolt of our day. He does not see this conflict in terms of a cost-benefit analysis in relation to the security and wealth of the United Kingdom, but in terms of moral obligation — ‘a mission’. But why should Cameron, as the Prime Minister of a Conservative and Liberal-Democrat coalition in 2010, be morally bound by a commitment unwisely entered into in 2001 by Tony Blair in the aftermath of 9/11?

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.

Colourful Mo Sir: I am surprised to read Charles Moore (The Spectator’s Notes, 24 July) opine that ‘in a better world’ there would have been no film about Mo Mowlam but instead one depicting the ‘heroic struggles’ of Owen Paterson. Mo Mowlam was vibrant, colourful and exuberant — an authentic character who was in every sense entertaining. Her story captivated millions; her unorthodoxy was appealing and her eccentricities made for compulsive viewing. She spoke her mind, even when that mind’s capacity was in moving decline. A film about Owen Paterson, by contrast, would not only be irredeemably dull; it would be viewed in just two households — those of Paterson and (if he has paid his TV licence) Moore.

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.

Carrying the fight Sir: Your leading article (Military matters, 17 July) suggests that aircraft carriers are vulnerable to missile and suicide attack. I am not sure where you have sought your military advice, but those who think along these lines usually know very little about carriers. We should reflect on carriers’ invulnerability, not their vulnerability. The last time that a British serviceman was killed as a result of enemy action in an RN aircraft carrier was in 1945. The contrast with our deployed operating bases in Afghanistan and Iraq could not be more stark. Recently, an RAF Regiment Officer told me of an occasion in 2008 where the British base at Basra was mortared over 60 times in one hour; this was not an isolated event.