Latest from Coffee House

The Spectator hosted a packed-out debate last night on the motion — ‘George Osborne isn’t working: we need a Plan B’ — and you can now hear the outcome for yourself. As Isabel reported earlier, it was an evening of intense discussion and disagreement, so we have recorded the entire evening for you to listen at your leisure. The event lasted nearly two hours, so here are the timings for the individual speakers: 03:12 – Alistair Darling (for) 10:25 – Jesse Norman (against) 19:04 – Matthew Oakeshott (for) 27:42 – Fraser Nelson (against) 36:10 – David Blanchflower (for) 47:13 – Norman Lamont (against) 54:30 – Question and answers with Andrew Neil 1:39:08 – Final

Mr Steerpike is now available weekly in the magazine. This one’s been getting them talking today: It’s a hat-trick! Word reaches me that Dave may be about to lose his third spin doctor in a row. First Andy Coulson left to spend more time with his Fingertip Guide to the Criminal Law. Then Steve Hilton legged it to California. Now Craig Oliver, Coulson’s replacement, is said to be heading for the chop. Mr Oliver, once a BBC news chief, enjoys the rare distinction of being completely unknown to the general public and his friends tell me he’s been doing a superb job as the PM’s communications tsar. But Andrew Mitchell

Many Spectator subscribers, picking up today’s newspapers, will be a bit puzzled. Is it news that David Cameron has come round to the idea of an EU referendum? Haven’t they read that somewhere before? This sensation is called Déjà Lu, and it I’m afraid afflicts all Spectator subscribers. Cameron’s decision to change his position on the EU was revealed by James Forsyth back in May. As so often, his weekly political column gave real-time updates of the No10’s decision-making process as it happened. He wrote then:  ‘A referendum on Europe is the obvious answer. It is one the leadership seems set to embrace. The popularity of Cameron’s EU veto made

The Union is safe — at least if last night’s Spectator debate was anything to go by. The motion ‘It’s time to let Scotland go’ was defeated by 254 votes to 43. The SNP weren’t present (they demanded two representatives on the panel, and we refused), but independent nationalist Margo MacDonald opened the debate. I thought CoffeeHousers may be interested in a summary of proceedings.   1) Margo MacDonald (for the motion) focused on foreign misadventures: Scottish soldiers should not fight American wars with British guns that were a greater threat to their own side than to the enemy. Money saved would go to essential social security. She explained that

The Battle for Britain is heating up this week, with the pro-union campaign launched in Edinburgh this morning and a Spectator debate on the union on Wednesday. We have, as ever, a strong lineup – but the Scottish National Party is noticeable by its absence. I thought CoffeeHousers may like to know why not.  We planned the debate ages ago, and from the offset wanted SNP to be on board. As Scottish separation would have implications for the whole of the UK we asked someone to make the case for English separation: Kelvin MacKenzie. And someone to speak up for the union: Sir Malcolm Rifkind. The Nats didn’t like this

The internet is democratising and enriching the world, right? It’s happening now in the Middle East, isn’t it? No it isn’t, says Evgeny Morozov, author of The Net Delusion, not as such. The Spectator has an interview with him over at the books blog (spectator.co.uk/blogs/books). He spoke to us about those liberal westerners, many of whom are close to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton, whose utopian dreams ask far too much of the internet, and how their misguided analysis of global affairs is strengthening dictators not weakening them. Here is a flavour of what he had to say: ‘We have a very confused sense of how modern authoritarianism works. It works differently.

We haven’t done enough to prevent the riots of last summer happening again, says Simon Marcus in this week’s cover feature. And in the latest episode of our The View From 22 podcast he expands on this, discussing his personal experiences with the Boxing Academy in Tottenham and Hackney: ‘What enabled us to engage in strong debate during the whole process was what I saw on the front line at the Boxing Academy for many years. But what I was being asked, in many ways, to accept was wrong. When you’re being told that your eyes and ears have deceived you for five years, that’s something I can’t accept.’ James

Why is Lords reform such an explosive issue? The subject should induce narcolepsy, but even loyal Tories are threatening to launch a rebellion against it that will make the Maastricht revolts look like child’s play. Subscribers to the Spectator will remember the James Forsyth article which first argued that Lords reform was an irreconcilable difference that was likely to break the coalition partners. In light of the last 24 hours, it’s worth revisiting: Irreconcilable differences, James Forsyth, The Spectator, February 25th 2012  It has become clear over the last few weeks that we are witnessing the beginning of the end of the coalition. Once, the rows between Tories and Lib Dems used to be about

It did not take long. Last month, Matt Ridley argued in a Spectator cover story that the wind farm agenda is in effect dead, having collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions. The only question is when our ministers would realise. In an interview with the Sunday Times (£), climate change minister Greg Barker admits that his department has adopted an ‘unbalanced’ approach to wind farms and will now look at other options. ‘Far from wanting thousands more, actually for most of the wind we need… they are either being built, being developed or in planning. The notion that there’s some new wave of wind [farms] is somewhat exaggerated.’ Indeed, the phrase ‘somewhat exaggerated’

The 2013 Matt Ridley Prize is now open. Click here for more details. We’ve already had some entries for the £8,500 Matt Ridley Prize for Environmental Heresy, and an inquiry as to whether it’s open to non-British residents. Misunderstanding of science and environment is, alas, a global phenomenon and CoffeeHousers hail from all over the world. So it’s open to everyone. The condition is a piece of 1,000 to 2,000 words which gores one of the sacred cows of the green movement — using facts to confront myths, and science to confront pseudo-science. The winning article will be published in The Spectator. Read Matt Ridley’s piece, laying out the scope of

‘Immigration: enough is enough.’ That’s the motion for The Spectator’s next debate, and also a major concern for many disgruntled voters. The Tories are currently miles off course for achieving their aspiration of reducing net migration from the ‘hundreds of thousands’ to the ‘tens of thousands’ in this Parliament. Should they do more to meet it, so that the UK’s economic and cultural fabric isn’t frayed irreparably? Or should we be glad that that they’re not, because immigration is a crucial ingredient for growth? These will be the questions at hand for our panellists, who are Dominic Raab, Frank Field and Kiran Bali speaking for the motion, and David Aaronovitch,

Finally, Lords reform becomes interesting: it could be the issue that splits the coalition. Lord Oakeshott’s admission of this yesterday has made the newspapers today — but it will come as no surprise to Spectator readers. James Forsyth drew out these battle lines for his cover story last week, and it’s worth reprising his arguments as the rest of the press has yet to catch up.   Self-preservation is a powerful force in politics. Even if the Lib Dem vote recovers, it’s likely to do so in different constituencies, meaning most Lib Dem MPs are likely to lose their seats. As Lembit Opik’s music career demonstrates, it’s tough to find