Media

Ahead of this morning’s Cameron, Clegg, Lansley event on the NHS, it is worth reminding ourselves of what Nick Clegg was saying about these reforms back at the start of the year. On January 23rd, he went on the Andrew Marr show and had this exchange: ‘ANDREW MARR: Huge change to the NHS just coming down the line. Was that in the Liberal Democrat manifesto? NICK CLEGG: Actually funnily enough it was. Indeed it was. We were one of the primary critics in opposition of what we felt was a top … ANDREW MARR: (over) I don’t remember you saying you were going to get rid of Primary Care Trusts

George Monbiot is undergoing an astounding and very public transformation. Last week he overcame the habit of a lifetime and fully endorsed nuclear power as a safe energy source. He went further this week, attacking the anti-nuclear movement for perpetuating lies and ignoring the consensus around scientific facts. He levels special criticism at the allegedly lax scholarship of Dr Helen Caldicott, a decorated primate of the anti-nuclear communion.  He also debunks the myths surrounding the disaster at Chernobyl and laments that campaigners have abused that tragedy by exaggerating its consequences. Monbiot’s tone is neither arch nor righteous. Rather, he’s disappointed and the piece has a dignified poignancy. He concludes:     

It’s a funny old world. I have now been contacted by two journalists informing me that Bedfordshire Police are investigating The Spectator. Why? Because of the Melanie Philips blog where she referred to the “moral depravity” of “the Arabs” who killed the Fogel family in Israel. CoffeeHousers can judge for themselves if they agree or disagree with her language and views – but should this be illegal?  The Guardian has written this story up, claiming The Spectator is being investigated by the Press Complaints Commission. This is untrue. The PCC tell me that a complaint has been lodged, but that’s as far as it has gone. They investigate only if

All hands to the Defence Select Committee this afternoon, for questions about the nation’s security apparatus. Of course, most onlookers were not remotely interested in the answers. For them, this gathering was convened to see if William Hague might regain his “mojo“. He didn’t get the chance. This was Letwin Hour. Or Letwin’s Two Hours, to be precise. After a difficult fortnight for the government, the brain behind Cameron’s premiership high-jacked proceedings. In insouciant tones, he explained the manifold complexities of the government’s security policy to the committee. Real terms defence spending is likely to increase after the next spending round and Trident will be replaced; both are a response

“A well-targeted aid budget is essential if Britain is to punch above its weight on the world stage.” That’s how Tim Montgomerie finishes his neat defence (£) of British aid policy for the Times today. But, putting aside the matter of whether it’s wise to give aid to, say, India at a time of spending restraint back home, Tim’s claim rather inspires a question: is our aid budget well-targeted? And the answer, it seems to me, is encoded in Ian Birrell’s punchy piece for the Evening Standard. Ian’s overall point is similar to that made by economists such as Dambisa Moyo, whose work we have mentioned on Coffee House before