The Spectator

Don’t bank on Osborne Sir: Reinforcing your article on City doubts about Osborne’s economic credentials (Politics, 5 September), a City contact of mine, technically expert in a matter of finance and taxation of central interest to any Chancellor, had a meeting with Osborne a few months back. He found Osborne not only badly briefed and largely ignorant, but disengaged and uninterested in the subject. Neither was he the first, I believe, to have found Osborne arrogant and barely civil. Apart from a very evident need to bone up on economic and City matters, someone in CCHQ clearly needs to make him a present of Dale Carnegie’s famous little book.

There’s one present a parent can give a child in modern Britain that they will prize above all others. It’s not a Playstation or a puppy or even an iPhone. If a boy today has any sense, he’ll instead insist on having a certificate diagnosing him with the popular personality syndrome Attention Deficit Disorder. This has evolved from an excuse to behave badly in the classroom to the real-life equivalent of one of Willy Wonka’s golden tickets.

Here are some of the posts made at Spectator.co.uk this week. James Forsyth believes that the government’s handling of the al-Megrahi affair was colossally incompetent, and suggests that a live election debate might be a lifeline for Mr Brown. Peter Hoskin argues that Brown’s fightback is marred by negative stories, and sees some evidence that the Treasury may finally be getting to grips with spending. David Blackburn reviews the Lockerbie documents, and insists that governments tackle illegal immigration. Daniel Korski makes a convicing case for remaining committed in Afghanistan. Martin Bright says that the game is up over the release of the Lockerbie bomber. Clive Davis on the psychology of rage. Alex Massie asks why the SNP did it.

Senator Edward Kennedy lived in the shadow of Chappaquiddick, but his life deserves just as much celebration as it does censure. Like his brothers, he exemplified his clan’s customary mix of vice and virtue, he was irrepressible and impossible to predict. Though a Rabelaisian figure — a great playboy and drinker — he was disciplined and hard-working in the Senate. Though he was born to one of the wealthiest families in America and became a great celebrity, he nonetheless championed the poor and referred to health-care reform as ‘the cause of my life’. Despite being a devout and practising Catholic, he endorsed same-sex marriage and a woman’s right to abortion.

Here are some of the posts made at Spectator.co.uk this week. Matthew d'Ancona wishes one of the nation's greatest novelists a happy 60th. Peter Hoskin dissects a disingenuous Ed Balls, and argues that Gordon Brown’s unpopularity runs deeper than concern for the public finances. David Blackburn asks if Cameron would govern differently, and says that foreign policy is one issue where Cameron is emphatically not the “heir to Blair”. Daniel Korski believes Libyagate has its roots in Labour’s devolution. Clive Davis says that, from Labour’s perspective, Dan Hannan is the gift that keeps on giving. Alex Massie remembers Senator Edward Kennedy. And, over at Cappuccino Culture, Lloyd Evans hails BB's demise.

Conservative progress Sir: So the notion of ‘progressive’ conservatism is roiling British politics these days (Politics, 15 August). Well, come on over to the colonies, mate, and get educated! We in Canada have had ‘progressive conservative’ political parties, at both the provincial and federal levels of government, for decades — they’re even officially named Progressive Conservatives. Sadly, though, our ‘progressive’ conservatives tend, over time, to become indistinguishable from big-government nanny-state lefties. That’s why we in Canada have a derogatory term for ‘progressive conservatives’: we call them Red Tories, and we were doing so long before anyone in your Labour party imagined that they had coined a new slur.