‘You’re going to feel some pressure,’ say dentists as they prepare to inflict pain. The more honest they are, the more tolerable the experience tends to be. So it is with political actions that have foresee-able adverse consequences: as much as voters dislike those consequences, they dislike being lied to even more. David Cameron’s interview with the BBC’s Andrew Marr last weekend was another minor milestone on the road to Number 10.
Not every illness is swine flu Sir: Congratulations to Sarah Standing (‘The national swine flu sickie’, 25 July). It seems incredible that so much money is being spent so recklessly when we have such an enormous debt on our national books. In these days of ‘patient-led’ medicine the public decides what it is suffering from and certificates are often available for the asking; no doubt the flu itself will be followed by epidemic ‘post-viral fatigue’. GPs seem suddenly to have abandoned the god of ‘evidence-based’ medicine in favour of self-protection. I can say this because I am a GP of a certain vintage who rarely caught any disease from a patient.
...Here are some of the posts made on Spectator.co.uk over the past week: James Forsyth thinks we need a larger army, and believes that a televised electoral debate is a potential game-changer for Brown. Peter Hoskin sees another bubble about to burst, and highlights one of Cameron’s weaknesses. David Blackburn says that the public do not trust the government on defence, and reflects on Debbie Purdy’s victory. Daniel Korski writes that army enlargement should not come at the expense of the Peace Corps in Afghanistan. Matthew Frampton and John Bew believe that we should only to talk to Taliban from a position of strength. Martin Bright wants to know what a “soft job is”.
We've just uploaded a web exclusive article on the fifteenth anniversary of the Washington Declaration by James Clappison MP. Read it here.
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.
Wagner wallows Sir: Michael Henderson states (Arts, 18 July) that Wagner’s music reveals the aspects of the human personality that we try hardest to suppress. Certainly many deep ideas and emotions are revealed. But instead of purging the emotions with pity and fear, and achieving a catharsis, Wagner wallows in them, exalting primitive values, ignoring or despising detachment and reason. A genius of the first rank, but highly undesirable.
Having your prospects in life determined at birth is the most pernicious and fundamental form of inequality. So the present political focus on improving social mobility is to be welcomed on principle. To think that all the advantages and disadvantages of background can be ironed out is delusional; short of a Spartan-style nationalisation of child-rearing, how could such a level playing field even be attempted? But this country could — and should — go a lot further towards broadening equality of opportunity: a 2005 report funded by the Sutton Trust found that Britain came joint last with the United States in this respect in a survey of 11 developed economies.
The news that our former editor, Boris Johnson, is to appear in EastEnders alongside Barbara Windsor may surprise some, but strikes us as entirely sensible. Modern politics, after all, is a soap opera or it is nothing; and although politicians complain bitterly about ‘tittle tattle’ and ‘personality stories’, it is they themselves who do most of the gossiping, feuding and falling in and out of love with one another. The first ten years of the New Labour government were really an extended soap about Blair Square in which Tony, Peter, Alastair, Anji, Robin and Gordon all had their ups and downs, fallings out, feuds and rivalries. Like Dirty Den, Peter always seemed to be coming back from the political grave.
Here are some of the posts made on Spectator.co.uk over the past week: Matthew d'Ancona characterises the dark ties of loyalty between Gordon Brown and Damian McBride. James Forsyth says that the end is nigh for Labour after the Norwich North by-election, and discovers what the left thinks of the right. Peter Hoskin remembers one of Thatcher’s greatest speeches, and examines the Tories' proposed bank regulations. David Blackburn argues that Andy Coulson is safe unless new evidence emerges. Martin Bright wants the Enterprise Allowance Scheme revived. Clive Davis witnesses a strange night at the opera. And Melanie Phillips says that Britain is increasingly anti-Israeli.
…here are some posts made over the weekend at Spectator.co.uk: Fraser Nelson remembers exemplary soldier Lt. Colonel Rupert Thorneloe, and argues that James Purnell is building a platform to run for the Labour leadership. James Forsyth doubts Russia will help to squeeze Iran, and highlights a strategic dilemma for the Tories. Peter Hoskin notes that Lord Sainsbury seeks a new mode of political operation, and laments a procurement strategy that puts troops in danger. Martin Bright discusses the campaign to change the libel laws. Clive Davis says that Norman Tebbit has great humanity. And Alex Massie gives a potted history of cricket’s most heroic victories.
A heated debate Sir: One reason why we continue to live in an unsustainable way is that not enough people accept the reality and implications of climate change (‘The great climate change con trick’, 11 July). Green issues may be higher up the agenda than before but Professor Plimer needn’t fret: procrastinating politicians continue to encourage business-as-usual consumption and unsustainable growth. Sadly, Professor Plimer is not alone in his climate-sceptic views, as sales of his new book indicate. So he has, it would seem, every reason to be cheerful. Nick Reeves Executive Director, Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management London WC1 Sir: It is sad to see the desperate wishful thinking that The Spectator is now engaged in over the climate crisis.
Part Two of The Spectator’s Guide to the Top 50 Political Scandals — counting down from No. 25 to No. 1 There is one word that frightens politicians more than any other: scandal. They know that scandal can bring about personal ruin, cut short a promising career and even bring down a government. The power of scandal is that it imprints itself on the public mind. Some are about sex, others about money, drugs or espionage. But they are all about power: the corrupter, the ultimate aphrodisiac. This is your guide to the scandalous world of Westminster. Read on. And if you missed the first part, you can catch up on the countdown from 50 to 26.
Few subjects animate the polenta- eating classes more than constitutional reform: tinkering with institutions excites the bien-pensant mind in the way that train sets excite ten-year-old boys. So it is no surprise that the expenses scandal triggered a fresh flurry of demands for wholesale upheaval of the political system and — in particular — proportional representation. It was always unclear why anyone would think that PR, a system that weakens the constituency link and empowers the party bosses who control the candidate lists, would ever reduce corruption. In search of better judgment, The Spectator consulted its readers on the sorts of reforms that might improve the system and then submitted their recommendations to a PoliticsHome opinion poll.
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.
...here are some posts made over the weekend on Spectator.co.uk: Fraser Nelson looks back on some American political scandals, and reveals what Labour women think of Gordon Brown. Peter Hoskin wonders who is really playing politics over troop numbers, and sets out a framework for shelving tax cuts. Daniel Korski reports on the UK "surge" debate. And Clive Davis gives his take on Barack Obama's wandering gaze.
The world does not hold its breath during US-Russia summits as it did in the days of Kennedy and Khrushchev or Reagan and Gorbachev. But they are still important moments of (mostly choreographed) dialogue. Without Moscow’s co-operation, Barack Obama will find it far harder to make progress in Afghanistan or in his diplomatic strategy to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons programme. On top of this, Russia still has the capacity to create huge problems in Eastern Europe and Central Asia for the United States. It must be prevented from becoming a more chauvinist and aggressive power — otherwise Washington will be forced to choose between conflict and breaking its promises to the fledging democracies on Russia’s borders.
Moore’s TV dinner Sir: While I have been generally supportive of Charles Moore’s quest to impose a degree of financial proportionality on what the BBC pays Jonathan Ross, and of his ‘scheme’ to withhold payment for his TV licence until the matter is satisfactorily addressed, I am dismayed to read that he is doing so at my expense (The Spectator’s Notes, 4 July). If he wishes to dine with the corporation’s director-general in order to discuss his ‘project’, could he not do so at his own expense instead of that of the taxpayer? Or should I now withhold payment of my TV licence until such gorging ceases? Adrian Hilton Farnham Common, Buckinghamshire James on James Sir: James Walton (Arts, 4 July) may be doing Clive James a disservice.
There is one word that frightens politicians more than any other: scandal. They know that scandal can bring about personal ruin, cut short a promising career and even bring down a government. The power of scandal is that it imprints itself on the public mind. Some are about sex, others about money, drugs or espionage. But they are all about power: the corrupter, the ultimate aphrodisiac. This is your guide to the scandalous world of Westminster. Read on. 50. Sex and the Palace, March 2009 You wait years for a good, old-fashioned Commons sex scandal, and then one comes along and is immediately buried by weightier political controversy. It was 22 March 2009 when the News of the World ran its exclusive on Nigel Griffiths.
Our guide to the top 50 political scandals concludes in this issue, and seems already to have brought great pleasure and amusement to readers. As David Selbourne observes on page 18, parliament is presently suffering from a terrible dose of swine flu, symptomatic of a much wider malaise in the polity. Revisiting the great scandals of the past, however, has reminded us that the British tend to deal with outbreaks of political disgrace with laughter and satire. Our instinct is usually to mock and scorn, rather than to roll out the tumbrils: one of many reasons why this is not a revolutionary country. In France, they stormed the Bastille. In this country, we produced Swift, Addison, That Was the Week that Was, Private Eye, Have I Got News for You and (best of all) Michael Heath.