Politics

Tom Harris writes: There’s never a whip on Fridays; Friday sittings are reserved either for government-sponsored adjournment debates (when there’s no vote) or for Private Members’ Bills. I always enjoy the very different atmosphere that prevails on Fridays; there’s always a sense of camaraderie which cuts across party divisions, probably because everyone present is volunteering to give up a day in the constituency, often as a favour to a colleague who wants support for a particular measure. [Emphasis added.] He says this like it’s a bad thing. You mean MPs want to spend more time with voters? Why? What’s wrong with these people? Anyway, many of them live in places

An interesting post, as always, from Jim Manzi: I’ve written often about the need for renewing the conservative- libertarian fusion, why I think this is a natural alliance, and the terms on which I think it should be forged. The actions of an assertive liberal (in the contemporary American sense) government are starting to illustrate this to the most interesting of those writers often termed crunchy cons, who often think of themselves in direct opposition to a hyper-individualized, commercial political culture on the Right. That is, as among the least natural candidates for fusionism imaginable. The nature of this alliance is simple: crunchy cons want government to be limited to

Could there be anything nicer and popular than “green jobs”? Gordon Brown and Baack Obama has determined that a “green” job – all fresh and wholesome and wrapped in the (endlessly recyclable!) promise of a “sustainable” future – is better than any other kind of job. Including, probably, the one you have right now. Also: Green is the Future. Apparently. To which you might say, “aye right” and your suspicions might not be misplaced. Here’s Michael Levi in Slate: Green jobs seem to be an ideal solution. But just because “green” and “jobs” are both in demand doesn’t mean that policies focused on creating “green jobs” make sense. In fact,

…here are some of the posts made on Spectator.co.uk over the weekend: Fraser Nelson reveals why so many people in this country are on welfare. James Forsyth reports in the Labour party and the politics of immigration, and observes that Gordon Brown thinks he has nothing to apologise for.  Peter Hoskin wonders whether the Lib Dems are spurning Tory advances, and makes the case for common sense over computers. Martin Bright gives his take on the complex personality of Peter Hain. Clive Davis cites one reason to move out of Buenos Aires. Alex Massie looks into the future and its countercyclical assets. Melanie Phillips gives her take on the terrorist

Gordon Brown has absurdly high expectations of the political boost he will get from this week’s trip to Washington and the G20 summit in London next month, says James Forsyth. It is David Cameron who stands to be the likely beneficiary of the special relationship The ‘legacy’ might be an extremely touchy subject in Downing Street these days, but the speech reflected how Gordon Brown wanted history to remember him: a consequential prime minister who helped steer the world through one of its great crises. When the senators and congressmen rose to applaud him, all the ambitions that Brown has nursed throughout his political career must have seemed within reach.

Freddy Gray meets Middle America’s radicals of the Right at the Conservative Political Action Conference, a gathering that is both bonkers and vitally important to the Republican party In the basement of Washington D.C.’s Omni Shoreham hotel, a friendly young Korean–American is showing off his ‘Enoch Powell was right’ lapel pin. ‘People are like: “Oh, is that the British National Party?”’ he says. ‘And I’m, like, duh — it’s Enoch Powell.’ He is trying to recruit like-minded controversialists to protest against the EU on behalf of Geert Wilders. Nobody seems interested. ‘Come on …Come on,’ he urges, as rivers of sweat slosh down his face. All around him, in the exhibition