Archives for November 2009

At the beginning of the second week of the Chilcot inquiry into the reason behind the Iraq war, commentators continue to make their judgements and anticipate Tony Blair's contribution.

Peter McKay in the Daily Mail points out that the conclusion of the inquiry won't come until after the next election and wonders what the Tories will do if Tony Blair is judged to have misled the public on the presence of weapons of mass destruction:

"If they are in power and the Chilcot Inquiry reports that Blair and Co did mislead the British people, there isn't much they can say or do without exposing their own shortcomings... Cherie says he's writing a book. It's fair to assume the title won't be: Iraq: Why I Was Wrong."

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown says in the Independent that she is starting to feel sorry for Tony Blair as last week saw his colleagues going against him:

"I have to go lie down. I am feeling a tremor of sympathy for Anthony Charles Lynton Blair. Hearing so many turncoats who once cuddled up to him must fill him with righteous rage.

Sir Jeremy Greenstock, then our man at the UN now says his knowledge and conscience made him feel uncomfortable that the war, though legal had no legitimacy. He thought of resigning. Well, Sir WHY DIDN'T YOU?"

George Pitcher in the Telegraph says that the emergence of a letter from then Attorney General Lord Goldsmith saying the war would be illegal under international law changes everything:

"First find the heart, Tony. Your Attorney General told you, in writing, the year before you invaded, that it would be an entirely illegal enterprise. International law is there for a reason: To prevent the waging of bad wars. And the Iraq war has turned out to be catastrophically and wickedly wrong. Ultimately that is not only about illegality. It is about immorality."

The Mail leader column also says the letter is enough evidence to hold Tony Blair to account:

"No more whitewashes, no more obfuscation. Mr Blair perpetrated upon the British people one of the most disgraceful betrayals in history. His day of reckoning is long overdue."

In his blog, Professor Dylan Jones-Evans says the real scandal is that the UK government knew for several months that it was going to war with Iraq:

"Given this, why did it focus its entire efforts on making the case for war rather than preparing our troops for a war it knew was coming?"

Links in full
• Peter McKay | Daily Mail| Will Tony Blair ever go on trial after the Chilcot Inquiry?
• Yasmin Alibhai-Brown | Independent | I'm beginning to feel some sympathy for Blair
• George Pitcher | Telegraph | The 'just war' that was illegal and immoral
• Daily Mail | For Blair, the day of reckoning is nigh
• Professor Dylan Jones-Evans | Chilcot, Gordon Brown and unanswered questions
• James Denselow | Guardian | Whose foreign policy is it anyway?
• The Irag Inquiry Blogger | Channel 4 News | Week one's report card

Dubai's debt problems have got commentators talking about why it happened and what it means for the rest of the world.

Johann Hari in the Independent reported on the cheap labour used to build Dubai earlier this year. In a piece today he calls Dubai "one of the great lies of our time", which he considers morally and ecologically bankrupt aswell:

"Yes, it has Starbucks and Dunkin' Donuts and the Gucci styles, but beneath these accoutrements, there is a dictatorship built by slaves."

The Guardian leader article says Dubai failed because it was reliant on easy money and a property boom:

"Just like Iceland, Dubai is a cautionary tale of what happens when an economy grows too fast and too lopsidedly. What outsize financial services was to Iceland, reckless property development was to Dubai."

In his Reuters blog Felix Salmon is glad that Dubai World has collapsed because he says it sets a precedent:

"Personally, I'm quite happy about this default, since it sets another very useful precedent of a state-owned company defaulting on its debt. Historically investors in state-owned companies have perceived an implicit sovereign guarantee -- there's even a German word for it, Anstaltslast. The result is a huge and unhelpful moral-hazard trade."

The Times business commentator Ian King says fears of market contagion are at the moment stalled because of holidays:

"The markets, due to the fact that Dubai is now shut for Eid and the US is more or less closed until Monday for the Thanksgiving break, have very little new information on which to trade. Expect the gulf to be filled, instead, by rumour..."

This has created a chance for financial bloggers to say they saw this coming. Claus Vistesen does just that albeit cautiously:

"On a personal note the 'Cranes of Dubai' always represented one of the clearest example of the excess and froth observed in the context of the economic boom that ended abruptly with the current financial crisis. With this in mind I am not the least surprised about this which of course is easy to state ex post, but then you choose whether to believe me or not."

Links in full

• Johann Hari | Independent | A morally bankrupt dictatorship built by slave labour
• Guardian | Dubai: Storms in the Gulf
• Felix Salmon | Reuters blog | Dubai World: A great precedent
• Ian King | Times | Dubai debt drama revives fears of contagion
• Claus Vistesen | Alpha Sources |The Great Unravelling (Dubai Edition)
• Marla Singer | Zero Hedge | What Dubai Says About Capitalism: Not Much
• Richard Barley | Wall Street Journal | Dubai's Shock May Not Be Last
• Jim Krane | Financial Times | Dubai gambles with its financial reputation

All eyes were on the House of Lords as the man formerly known as "Sur Alan" made his maiden speech as Lord Sugar of Clapton.

Although he was making his debut in the Queen's Speech on the economy, the Times' Ann Treneman notes how he stuck firmly to one topic throughout - himself:

"It was a sort of I Did It My Way and I Will Survive all wrapped into one long rags-to-riches boast. It was not so much a speech as karaoke."

The Guardian's Simon Hoggart agrees that the new peer spoke of little else, even managing to name-check the TV programme that transformed him from successful entrepreneur to a household name.

It was a thoughtful speech, devoted to his thoughts about himself and his multitudinous talents. He was a new boy on the block, he said, 'and certainly the apprentice'. Ho ho.

Quentin Letts of the Daily Mail says that the normally super-confident Lord Sugar looked positively nervous before he spoke and appeared out of place on the red leather benches:

Before saying a word, Lord Sugar did something I have not seen from a peer. He shot his cuffs. Performed that gesture Del Boy Trotter does when he reckons he is on to a good thing. There may even have been a small tweak of the neck.

The Independent's Simon Carr says that Lord Mandelson's reaction to the speech was worth watching:

Mandelson's rictus might have been chiselled into his face by Benvenuto Cellini. He hadn't been enjoying this since Lord Hunt had teasingly stated that Lord Sugar 'speaks with the authority of Cabinet'. Lord Mandelson clearly felt that Sugar speaks with the authority of a highly-edited, total-format TV robot with a catchphrase.

• Ann Treneman | Times | Apprentice Lord Sugar wakes up lords with rags-to-riches story
• Simon Hoggart | Guardian | The value of a Scottish education
• Quentin Letts | Daily Mail | Lord Sugarpuff stroked his beardlet and rotated his chops like a solo trombonist
• Simon Carr | Independent | Lords bowled over by Sugar's maiden speech

The Supreme Court has overturned earlier court rulings that allowed the Office of Fair Trading to investigate the fairness of charges for unauthorised overdrafts. The Commentators are split between those who think the charges are fair and those who think it is a blow for consumers.

In the red corner standing up against overdraft charges is the Independent leader article which admits the paper was surprised by the outcome. It says the decision did not reject the idea that customers had been treated unfairly and urged the Office of Fair Trading to continue fighting.

David Prosser continues the fighting talk in the Independent saying the banks have won the battle but they mustn't win the war against high overdraft fees:

"As soon as a court gets to rule on the legality of these fees - rather than the technicalities of the OFT's remit - yesterday's setback will be reversed."

Alex Brummer in the Daily Mail suggests what the banks should do now regardless of what they are allowed to do:

"If they had any sense they would put the case of customers ahead of their own employers and perhaps use bonus pots to compensate."

Gerald Warner in the Telegraph thinks overdraft charges will become an election issue, with the voters supporting whoever offers to "crucify" the banks. He is not impressed with the argument that this is a technical ruling:

"So let's hear no unsporting and uninformed complaints from ignorant laymen, just because they have been robbed of a few thousand pounds. Once again, the sophisticated interpretation has triumphed."

The personal finance editor of the Times Andrew Ellson says this is a blow for the customers:

"The sad reality is that the chequebooks, cash machines and internet banking that many customers currently enjoy at no cost are cross-subsidised by overdraft charges that fall disproportionately on those who are least able to afford them."

In the black corner, supporting the outcome Julian Goldmith at Bnet and Ian King in the Times both argue that this protects savers and free banking.

Damien Reece in the Telegraph thinks the regulators shouldn't stop here:

"If regulators wanted to do something useful they would either stop banks offering unauthorised overdrafts (too much regulation for my liking) or allow banks to double the fees on them to act as a real deterrent."

Also in the Telegraph, Ian Cowie says the Supreme Court's ruling stood up for savers who he thinks are often ignored:

"Borrowers make far more noise than savers because borrowers tend to be younger, more telegenic and better represented in the media; both in front of the camera and behind it."

Natalie Haynes in the Times dismisses the argument that overdraft charges hit the poor:

"It is perfectly possible to be skint and not go overdrawn. For a start, banks offer a basic bank account that won't allow you to."

Links in full

• Damien Reece | Telegraph | Overdraft ruling strikes a blow for common sense
• Ian Cowie | Telegraph | Supreme Court was right to stand up for beastly bankers
• David Prosser | Independent | The customers are in the right
• Natalie Haynes | Times | You can be poor and not overdrawn, you know
• Independent | The campaign for fair bank charges must go on
• Alex Brummer | Daily Mail | Making amends at the bank
• Gerald Warner | Telegraph | Votes are on offer to the party that will crucify banks
• Ian King | Times | Times for the silent majority
• Andrew Ellson | Times | Decision is bad for consumers and competition
• Julian Goldsmith | BNet | Overdraft Fees: The Pitfalls of 'Free'

The inquiry into the Iraq war, headed by Sir John Chilcot, was the main focus of attention in Westminster.

Simon Carr of the Independent has given his verdict on the Iraq inquiry so far, saying it "looks set to be boring, miasmic and faintly dishonest". He blames the make-up of the panel "that the toadiest of Blair toadies would have chosen":

"Will they do what they're told? Good God no. They are so well chosen they don't have to be told."

The Daily Mail's Quentin Letts agrees, referring to the panel as "Establishment puddings" while bemoaning the inquiry's "underwhelming" location.

"The only way you could tell the inquiry was starting was a small, plasticated sign on a stainless steel stand."

"Low ceilings. Dull carpets. Temporary office hell."

Ann Treneman in the Times switches between the Iraq Inquiry and the Defence Select Committee's questioning of Bob Ainsworth on Afghanistan, comparing the two war-focused inquisitions. She notes that although initially interest surrounded Sir John Chilcot's session, which had "all the glamour, the TV, the press, the previews" it soon faded, unlike the defence questions:

"It was much more chaotic in the room with Bumbling Bob. Actually Bumbling Bob has had a change of consonant. He is now Mumbling Bob. I saw entire chunks of war zone disappear behind that little triangular moustache."

Any other business? David Wilby on Yesterday in Parliament picks up on the the new identity commissioner's appearance in front of a Commons Select Committee. He suggests that Sir Joseph Pilling "won't be out of pocket" after the former civil servant revealed his fee for the work - "£44,000 for six month's working for an average of half a week. He's also got a staff of four with a budget of £560,000".

Simon Hoggart in the Guardian steps across the park from Westminster to the Political Studies Association awards, which he was hosting. There was no prize for politician of the year as "the judges thought it embarrassing even to name one". The award for political journalist of the year was scooped by Robert Peston, the BBC's business editor, who Mr Hoggart reckons "has far more influence than most of us".

"Malcolm Tuckers of this world... tremble when Peston hits the airwaves with all the latest disasters."

• Simon Carr | Independent | If he's come to this inquiry with an open mind, he'll leave with one too
• Quentin Letts | Mail | Grandeur, oomph and a sense of theatre there was none
• Ann Treneman | Times | Glamour fades fast as grey men go to battle
• David Wilby | BBC Yesterday in Parliament
• Simon Hoggart | Guardian | Dead gazelle of politics offers plenty to feed on

A committee set up after the MPs' expenses row delivered its proposals on parliamentary reform yesterday. These included giving backbenchers more powers by increasing their access to select committees and weakening the whip. Columnists and commentators welcome the proposed changes, insist on urgency in putting them through and ponder the proposals' relevance as a response to the MPs' expenses row.

The Telegraph sees the MPs expenses row as an ideal time to bring in changes:

"However painful these past few months have been for Parliament, this is a unique opportunity to rebalance the political system to reduce the power of the executive and reinvigorate the legislature. If not now, when?"

In the same vein but slightly more damning, in her blog Committee Watch ex-civil servant Eleanor Goodison calls the report an opportunistic initiative:

"Although the report itself refers to the row over MPs' expenses in its first paragraph, it is actually an expression of much longer-standing backbench aspirations."

The Guardian editorial describes the reaction to the report as tepid, which it says is not good enough. It urges instead immediate action to put through the proposed changes:

"Ministers must get off the fence. They must give unambiguous support to the Wright committee report. It must not be postponed to the uncertain future after the general election. Just do it. Do it now."

Political commentator Peter Riddell in the Times says the Wright report "deserves at least two cheers for recommending more democratic election of select committee chairmen." But Riddell judges the report is too cautious on increasing public involvement.

The Financial Times says party leaders must insist on the reforms going through, despite being a counter-intuitive response to MPs' expenses:

"Giving more power to MPs would not be everyone's plan to restore faith in UK political life after the Westminster expenses scandal. Some might even see it as a minor diversion. Yet the report published on Tuesday into changing the House of Commons so that MPs can hold the executive to account more effectively contains some sensible proposals."

Ben Farrugia at the Taxpayers' Alliance Better Government blog welcomes the proposals but fears they would be forgotten:

"Anyone who wants to see good Government in the UK - which depends entirely upon having an effective and robust Parliament - should support their recommendations."

Links in full
• Telegraph | A unique opportunity to rebuild Parliament
• Eleanor Goodison | Committee Watch | Start of process
• Guardian | Reform of parliament: Just do the Wright thing
• Peter Riddell | Times | How to give the public a louder voice
• Financial Times | UK's House of Commons needs more teeth
• Ben Farrugia | Better Government blog | Make the most of this crisis

The parliamentary debate du jour was the Queen's Speech debate on foreign affairs [which you can see here], notably discussion of Baroness Ashton's appointment to the post that David Miliband turned down.

When it comes to the foreign secretary, nearly all commentators made the most of the oft-used image of the "Boy David" and/or Hillary Clinton's recent description of the foreign secretary as "so vibrant, vital, attractive, smart" and "so young".

Simon Hoggart reflects on the "cougar" US secretary of state's new-found "crush":

"The only woman facing him in the chamber today was Anne Main (C, St Albans) and she is a mere seven years older than him. A puma perhaps, or a lynx. And in any case she didn't exactly look smitten."

Simon Carr of the Independent calls Mr Miliband a "Miliboy":

"David really is a brilliant child and I don't just mean that he makes me feel 180 years old. He sat on the front bench yesterday running two of his fingertips back and forward over his upper lip like a pubescent boy feeling strange new hair growing there."

The Telegraph notes that the foreign secretary tried to compose himself with a look of "statesmanlike solemnity" during proceedings.

"This pose lasted about two seconds, after which Mr Hague's raillery burst through Mr Miliband's defences and forced the Foreign Secretary to start laughing.

"Mr Hague is so difficult to resist, not just because he is witty, but because he is unscrupulous enough to be witty in a friendly tone of voice."

The Times' Ann Treneman picks up on one of the lighter moments in the discussion of Baroness Ashton's new job:

"The Tories seemed a tad dismissive of her, with Michael Fallon claiming her main task will be 'handing out the Ferrero Rocher'.

"Everyone giggled. In Europe they have bon mots. In Britain we have bon-bon-mots."

The Daily Mail's Quentin Letts takes issue with the unlikely pairing that is Mr Miliband and his constituency:

"Were one to present him with an upside-down map of South Shields, would he correct the mistake? Were one to ask him to name his top five pubs in the town, would he manage even two?

"Yesterday, however, he did manage to say the word 'Government' in an uncharacteristically North-Eastern way - that is, the way that my 12-year-old son's pin-up, Mrs Cheryl Cole, might be expected to pronounce it.

"'Goovamunt,' said Mr Miliband. Goovamunt, Foreign Secretary? Are you feeling quite yourself?"

• Simon Hoggart | Guardian | A mauling for cougar's prey
• Simon Carr | Independent | David Miliband, the Nearly Man of our age
• Telegraph | David Miliband had a spring in his step after Hillary Clinton's compliments
• Ann Treneman | Times | David Miliband glowed - or was that sweat?
• Quentin Letts | Daily Mail | Mr Miliband's 'goovamunt' was worthy of Jimmy Nail

The Confederation of British Industry conference yesterday saw the leaders of the three main political parties outlining their plans for economic growth. The commentators debated who fared best:

The Times leader column says Gordon Brown still deserves congratulations on his efforts to bail out the banks, and says David Cameron's proposals do not add up:

"Mr Cameron's relations with business leaders are still best described as wary. Mr Cameron reiterated his belief yesterday that future growth could be jeopardised by a failure to cut the deficit. The trouble is that his precise measures - freezing public sector pay for a year, cutting Whitehall by a third, reducing benefits for better-off families and raising state pension age earlier - do not add up to an answer to his own question."

While the Times supports Gordon Brown's business policies, the Telegraph congratulated David Cameron for his idea that cutting public spending cuts would complement economic growth:

"He clearly grasps the fundamentals of economic recovery - that should help."

However, Faisal Islam at Channel 4 News Snowblog points out that the IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn appeared to come down firmly on the side of Gordon Brown.

Not supporting any party is Polly Toynbee at the Guardian. She does not welcome the spending cuts proposed by all parties:

"Believe not a word the parties say about protecting frontline services: the cuts they plan are deeper than anything before and can't be confined to 'bureaucrats' and 'quangos'. They will hurt everyone, they risk the recovery, and will cause another wave of unemployment."

The Independent took the focus off the political leaders to the leaders of the CBI, who it gave a slap on the wrist for being divided:

"If business is to get its view across to government, it is going to need to do a lot better job of convincing the public as well as politicians of its needs. Just sitting there listening to party leaders trading generalities is not going to help either it or the economy."

Links in full

The Times | The politics of business
Polly Toynbee | Guardian | Take a long, hard look at tax
Telegraph | A bigger state is not the route to recovery
• Independent | A strange business
• Faisal Islam | Channel 4 Snowblog | Has the IMF pulled the rug out from under Cameron
• Nick Robinson | BBC | Spot the difference
• Business Diary | Independent | Clegg ventures into enemy territory
• Ben Chu | Independent | Cameron's crowding out of reason
• Peter Hoskin | Spectator | Brown goes for growth - fails
• Ann Treneman | Times | Glowering Gordon gives way to dancing Dave

An Observer opinion poll shows a fall in the Conservatives' lead. Commentators are speculating about what this will mean for the next election.

Much talk is about whether a hung Parliament would be a good thing. In the Guardian Jackie Ashley thinks such a result would be difficult for all, but a terrible blow for David Cameron who she says has been assuming the Tories are returning to power. Meanwhile, Martin Bright in the Spectator is holding out for a hung parliament:

"I think the British people deserves a hung parliament, which would be the best result of the next election. I have been saying for some time that the Conservatives do not have the strength in depth to form a credible government and that the electorate faces the most unappealing choice since 1970."

Sean O'Grady in the Independent says Nick Clegg has a Liberal dilemma:

"It is ironic indeed that Nick Clegg, the leader of a party that dedicates itself to the destruction of the first-past-the-post system, appears to have mortgaged his political future to it. It also makes the party seem uninterested in principle or policy.
Nick Clegg's strategy."

Labour MP Kerry Mccarthy in her blog Shot By Both Sides insists that Liberal Democrat voters need to know whether their leaders would align themselves with Labour or the Conservatives in a hung parliament. She tries to work out Nick Clegg's strategy:

"The other possible interpretations of this are that (a) Nick Clegg thinks the Tories are going to win and is getting cosy with them now in the hope of a decent job in a Tory Cabinet or (b) Nick Clegg is really a Tory at heart, who's just a bit keener on Europe than the rest of them."

In the gambling world, Mike Smithson at the blog Political Betting says the main effect of talk of a hung parliament is that few punters are ready to change their positions or start risking money on Labour.

The Daily Mail and the First Post disagree who this poll is worst for. Melanie Phillips in the Mail says the poll shows voters still don't trust Mr Cameron's Tories because "many see him as guilty of the same kind of cynical opportunism and contempt for the public that has turned so many against not just Labour but politicians in general."

And The Mole in the First Post says that those who see this poll as good news for Labour are wrong as Gordon Brown is still performing badly in the personality ratings:

"Instead of being a vote of confidence in his leadership, it suggests that if only Brown would step down and allow someone else - either of the Miliband brothers or even Ed Balls - to fight for the crown, Labour would have a real chance of beating Cameron."

The BBC's Political Editor Nick Robinson Analysed on Radio 4's Today Programme what Nick Clegg's motivations may be:

"I think he's trying to put a marker down now, a marker with the public saying look we're not trying to do some deal in smoke filled rooms when you're not looking."

• Melanie Phillips | Daily Mail | Why voters still don't trust the Tories
• Martin Bright | Spectator | I Hope I'm Wrong
• Jackie Ashley | Guardian | Election winner will be a Harold Wilson, not a Tony Blair
• Mike Smithson | Political Betting | Spread punters unimpressed by hung parliament talk
• Sean O'Grady | Independent | A neat sidestep of an age-old dilemma
• First Post | Labour aides celebrate poll showing hung parliament
• Kerry McCarthy | Shot By Both Sides | Time to come down off the fence
• Alex Massie | Spectator | People are Stupid, but the Electorate is Not
• Rod Liddle | Spectator | Why's it unravelling for Dave?
• Paul Flynn| Selfish reforms

After a day of tiaras, fascinators and ermine robes - aka the Queen's Speech - the sketch-writers have returned their attention to the more modest green benches of the Commons chamber.

All (hacks') eyes were on the education debate between Ed Balls and his opposite number, Michael Gove [which you can see here].

Simon Carr of the Independent takes a pop at Mr Balls' oratorical style:

"Now he's just a noisy party in the house next door. Try as you might you can't get off to sleep while he's talking. The thump thump thump of his bass line makes the walls of your eardrums bulge but you can't make out any words, or the tune. It's just thump thump thump, like an abstract form of corporal punishment."

Simon Hoggart, in the Guardian, seems to draw from the recent comments of Labour MP Barry Sheerman - he who labelled Ed Balls "a bit of a bully" - in his caricature of the schools secretary:

"Mr Balls, who is a playground bully at heart, realised he had found a victim... 'Does he want to try that? Wanna try?' He sounded like an aggressive thug chanting 'Want some, do yer? Want some?' in a pub car park."

Michael Gove escapes lightly by comparison at the hands of Mr Hoggart:

"[He] may have been watching I'm A Celebrity... because suddenly he accused Ed Balls of being 'the Katie Price, the Jordan of the government. All he is interested in is being on the front pages, so he has massively inflated what he has to offer!' Oooh, missus!"

The Times' Ann Treneman reckons that the whole debate took on a schoolboy air as MPs giggled their way through, giggling not only at the Katie Price cracks, but also when Mr Balls fired GCSE exam questions at Mr Gove following the Conservative spokesman's suggestion that they were dumbing down.

Quentin Letts of the Mail all but ignored the debate, only mentioning in passing Mr Balls' opening line.

"His first word: 'Hi!'
"Good grief."

Mr Letts instead chose to concentrate on the lack of bodies present in the chamber, especially after the crammed conditions of the previous day.

Any other business? During the health debate, the Health Secretary Andy Burnham gave a not-so-subtle nod to political aficionados' favourite, The Thick of It, in using the word "omni-shambles" to refer to Tory policy on NHS targets - to the apparent dismay of the show's creator.

• Simon Carr | The Independent | Ed Balls: the dull thud of a party next door
• Simon Hoggart | The Guardian | I'm an MP... get me out of here!
• Ann Treneman | The Times | Third-form humour and insults. It's the education debate
• Quentin Letts | Daily Mail | It was 'Hi' from Ed Balls...
• Paul Waugh | Evening Standard | Andy Burnham as Malcolm Tucker

The appointment of the first President of the European Council has drawn comment on what this means for Europe.

The Guardian editorial is negative towards the choice of "unknown" Herman Van Rompuy as the first president of the council of Europe:

"Talk of President Blair has bitten the dust, but so too has any hope of Europe forcing the planet to pay it fresh attention."

The Economist blog Charlemagne's Notebook agrees with the Guardian, saying the decision shows the EU leaders want an inward-looking fortress, not a global power. The blog says the decision was made to avoid exposing a divided Europe:

"I fear the two candidates chosen tonight are an example of the lowest common denominator effect. Mr Van Rompuy had not had time to offend any of his fellow leaders. Lady Ashton achieved the job by default (though her supporters insist that she has always been underestimated, and triumphs every time.)"

With the same headline as the Guardian's front page, the Daily Mail call it an EU stitch-up and says the whole process of selection a president of the European Council is a slap in the face for the fundamental principles of British democracy. The paper is not much warmer towards Van Rompuy:

"The one certainty about him is that he is a rabid federalist, who believes in rapidly transferring more powers to Brussels - including the right for the EU to impose direct taxes - and will use his new job to further these aims."

Conversely the broadly pro-EU blogger James Clive-Matthews says in his blog Nosemonkey that this appointment is yet more proof that the real power in the EU lies with the governments of the member states. He reasons:

"For it is the heads of the member state governments who have agreed this pair of no-marks - and the only explanation I can think of is that the governments of the member states want these two new roles to be as powerless and unimportant as possible, so as to maintain their own power."

Tony Barber at the Financial Times' Brussels blog seems to be the only commentator, Eurocentric or sceptic, who is willing to give a compliment to Van Rompuy, but still leaves one question:

"Intelligent, civilised, modest, with a calming sense of humour - a consensus-builder and an organiser. Good qualities. But has the EU been ambitious enough?"

• Guardian | European Union: Fading presidential ambitions
• Charlemagne's notebook | Economist | What the EU's new leaders tell us about Europe
• Daily Mail | EU stitch-up is a slap in the face for voters
• James Clive-Matthews | Nosemonkey | The EU's new 'president' and 'foreign minister'
• Tony Barber | FT Brussels blog | Big enough for the big EU jobs?
• Alex Barker | FT Westminster Blog | Cathy Ashton: 10 things to know
• Gavin Hewitt | BBC | EU opts for Belgian leader

The Queen's Speech has got the newspaper columnists talking, something covered in the newspaper review. Meanwhile here are the pick of the bloggers' comments:

The formality of the ceremony struck in Liberal Conspiracy. Sunder Katwala is not a big fan of the Queen reading out a "shopping list of legislation" calling it "political ventriloquism".

Adam Boulton concluded in his Sky News blog that the content of the speech was "not so much complex legislation to change the way the nation works, but rather headline-grabbing statements of principle which he hopes will form the dividing lines on which the next election will be fought." Baghot's blog in the Economist calls the measures the Queen's Speech contained a "mix of the delusional, the recycled and the sensible but belated".

Phil Hendren in his blog Dizzy Thinks asks what the government will do if it doesn't reach targets enshrined by law, such as the target to eradicate child poverty by 2020 which was included as an intention in the Queen's speech:

"They cannot write into the law that it cannot be repealed - at least I don't think they can. So surely, whichever political party is running the Government in the future, will just break the laws by repealing it if they don't look like they're going to achieve it, right?"

Paul Staines in his guise as political blogger Guido Fawkes is surprised that the Queen's Speech made no reference to MPs' expenses.

Finally Mike Smithson in Political Betting looks to the future, putting his money on the Queen's Speech not having a big effect on the outcome of the election.

• Sunder Katwala | Liberal Conspiracy | The Queen's speech: political ventriloquism
• Adam Boulton | Sky News' Boulton and co | The Queen's Speech
• Baghot's Notebook | Thoughts on the Queen's Speech
• Phil Hendren | Dizzy Thinks | Eradicating child poverty and debt... together?
• Paul Staines | Guido Fawkes | Queen's Speech
• Mike Smithson | Political Betting | What'll the speech do to the election campaign?

Tomorrow night, the European Union leaders will meet in Brussels to choose the first president of the European Council. The front-runner, Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy, has been getting the commentators talking.

Ross Clark in the Daily Express isn't impressed with Herman Van Rompuy and says the appointment of a European federalist will make Britain reconsider its membership of the EU:

"A greying, bespectacled figure who makes even John Major look glamorous, Mr Van Rompuy's friends admit that one of his selling points is that no-one has ever heard of him and he can thus pose as a compromise choice."

Mirror columnist Kevin Maguire would prefer Belgian Herman Van Rompuy as European President; he thinks Tony Blair doesn't deserve the role because he failed to convince the public that membership to the EU was a good idea.

The Daily Mail complains that the presidency of Europe is not being decided by the public:

"No matter who emerges triumphant from the cosy horse-trading, the new president will be on a collision course with the British people.
"In the bitter clash that's sure to come, our political class, Tory and Labour alike, will rue the day they cheated us out of our referendum."

John Lichfield in the Independent argues that the president doesn't matter much anyway as he or she will have limited power.

Alice Thomson in the Times says there is a dearth of female candidates for European Presidency but warns against a political culture of putting women in a political job just to look pretty without wanting to hear her views.

• Ross Clark | Daily Express | Bossed around by a Belgian nobody
• Kevin Maguire | Mirror | Gord help us if Tony Blair is ever king of Europe
• Daily Mail | EU 'democracy' and why we always lose
• John Lichfield | Independent | Nothing presidential about new EU president's job
• Alice Thomson | Times | Wanted for the EU: female candidate, pretty, no opinions
• Darren Ennis | Reuters | Does the EU need another president?
• Tony Barber | Financial Times | Scarcity of women candidates signals trouble ahead
• David Rennie | Radio 4's Today Programme

The Sunday Times revealed the identity of previously anonymous call girl blogger Belle de Jour: She is Dr Brooke Magnanti, a research scientist. Newspaper columnists on the whole argue that her memoirs have glamourised a dangerous profession. Meanwhile bloggers are more interested in what this means for anonymity.

Bel Mooney in the Daily Mail is sceptical that nothing bad happened to Belle de Jour. She says any educated woman who has a choice should feel ashamed at defending prostitution. Tanya Gold at the Guardian agrees, saying that Magnanti was lucky and that prostitution is a profession which kills.

Tom Sutcliffe in the Independent wonders what made her stop in 2004 if the job was so enjoyable.

David Robson takes a sideways view in the Daily Express, suggesting that Magnanti's writing style could be used well in epidemiology - a subject so boring that Robson says you would only read it if you had to. Ex-editor of the Erotic Review Rowan Pelling met Dr Magnanti. Rowan says in the Telegraph that hers is not a shocking story, the only shocking aspect being that she wrote so well.

Giving the perspective of a pioneer blogger, Darren from Link Machine Go claims he had worked out who Belle De Jour was five years ago as he recognised her writing style from her other scientific blogs. He explains what he did to monitor if anyone else knew:

"During this time I published a googlewack hidden in my blog - the words 'Belle de Jour' 'Brooke Magnanti' and 'Methylsalicylate' were published and available in Google's index on a single page on the internet - my weblog. This 'coincidental' collection of links could in no way reveal Belle's identity. But I wondered if anybody else knew the secret and felt that analysing my web traffic might confirm my long-held belief. If someone googled 'Belle de Jour' 'Brooke Magnanti', I would see it in my referrers for LinkMachineGo.

I waited five years for somebody to hit that page (I'm patient). Two weeks ago I started getting a couple of search requests a day from an IP address at Associated Newspapers (who publish the Daily Mail) searching for 'brooke magnanti' and realised that Belle's pseudonymity might be coming to an end."

Meanwhile Foster Kamer says at Gawker [some offensive language in link] that, having worked at a literary agency, he finds it incredible that she was able to keep her identity even from her agent.

• Bel Mooney | Daily Mail | How can such a clever woman be so stupidly naive...?
• Tanya Gold | Guardian | Dr Brooke Magnanti says she enjoyed her life as Belle de Jour
• Tom Sutcliffe | Independent | The over-complicated life of Belle de Jour
• David Robson | Daily Express | The oldest solution to a scientific problem
• Rowan Pelling | Telegraph | Shocking - but only because Belle de Jour wrote so well
• Darren Shrubsole | Link Machine Go | Me and Belle de Jour - 'Could it be Brooke?'
• Ephraim Hardcastle | Daily Mail | Might the taxman make an inquiry...?
• Belle De Jour | Guardian | A dangerous precedent
• Tracy Corrigan | Telegraph | Belle de Jour makes prostitution sound pretty
• Foster Kamer | Gawker | Anonymous Call Girl Author Belle de Jour Outed

Last night, Gordon Brown announced his intention of setting up a timetable to withdraw from Afghanistan. Here are some responses:

Guardian assistant editor Simon Tisdall suggests what Gordon Brown should aim for in the upcoming meeting with Nato:

"Brown should set aside his mis-targeted fixation with al-Qaida, a much diminished threat. Instead, he or his successor should be pressing for more focused, better defined use of Nato military power to protect Kabul and other main population centres and key trade and communications routes."

The Telegraph leader column disagrees with Tisdall, naming al-Qaeda as our greatest threat and welcoming the proposed Nato conference:

"If the Nato mission in Afghanistan fails, it will encourage jihadis throughout the Middle East and the sub-continent, destabilise Pakistan and undermine the embryonic anti-clerical movement in Iran, a country whose nuclear ambitions remain the other great foreign policy headache."

Former High Commissioner to Pakistan Sir Hilary Synnott tells The World Tonight:

"The ultimate objective cannot just be to leave Afghanistan. It must be, as the prime minister has emphasised, to weaken the Taliban, to prevent the re-emergence of al-Qaeda and to prevent al-Qaeda's supporters claiming a defeat on our part. That would be the worst possible outcome."

Also in the Telegraph, political correspondent James Kirkup asks whether, in his rush to assure voters of progress in Afghanistan, Brown risks putting that very progress in jeopardy. The Mirror welcomes Gordon Brown's announcement and says it is recognition of public unease at a seemingly unending war.

• Simon Tisdall | Guardian | Whatever Obama decides, Brown must set withdrawal date
• Leader | Telegraph | Al-Qaeda: the greatest threat
• James Kirkup | Telegraph | Are we winning or running away? Or both?
• Sir Hilary Synnott | The World Tonight
• Voice of the Mirror | Convince the public
• Guardian | Britain's future role in Afghanistan: Six experts give their view
• Richard North | Defence of the Realm | Bad Idea
• NIck Robinson | BBC | Afghanistan ifs and maybes
• Peter Hoskin | Spectator | Brown misjudges the Afghanistan waiting game

Nick Clegg in the Independent argues that the Queen's Speech, to be delivered on 18 November, should be scrapped. The Lib Dem leader describes the speech as a waste of time, since there are only 70 sitting days left in parliament and the average bill takes 240 days to reach royal assent. He predicts the speech will be "little more than a rehearsal of the next Labour Party manifesto":

"[A]n attempt to road-test policy gimmicks that might save this Government's skin. It is a waste of everyone's time, and should be cancelled in favour of an emergency programme of reform."

Nick Clegg echoes the leader column in Friday's Daily Telegraph. The argument in the Telegraph is that the Queen's Speech will be used by Labour as an election tool, but many of the proposed bills will never see the light of day, making it a money-wasting exercise. The Times's political editor Philip Webster calls the speech the beginning of "a six-month election campaign" and "one of the shortest but most deliberately political programmes of recent years":

"Several of the Bills will be seen as populist measures that have been pushed forward at this stage to create dividing lines with the Conservatives."

At his personal blog, Conservative MP John Redwood says that he is "old-fashioned enough to think that a Queen's Speech should be for a government to announce new legislation it thinks is needed in the public interest" and remarks of the pre-announced plan to retrospectively remove bankers' bonuses:

"Any politician facing a close election will be tempted to support, given the low public esteem towards bankers. Yet this bill is just another political stunt."

Channel 4 News presenter Jon Snow wonders at Snowblog whether Mr Clegg's proposal "may have a stronger resonance than at first might appear":

I continue to find, in talking to people, that it is the disrepute into which parliament has been dragged by the peers and MPs' expenses scandal that dominates politics over and above party rivalry.

• Nick Clegg | Independent | Don't waste our time... Bring forward real reform
• Telegraph | This will be a Queen's Speech too far
• Philip Webster | Times | Brown lands a blow with blitz of populist measures to beat Tories
• John Redwood's Diary | The Queen's Speech: A case of excessive risk-taking
• Jon Snow | Snowblog | Parliament unfit for purpose? Maybe Mr Clegg has a point
• MP Tom Harris's blog | Will someone please tell whatsisname to be quiet?

From 2013, prospective nurses will require a degree. The Times leader column points out that the intentions behind the move may be to allay fears from doctors about the closing of the gap between the roles of doctors and nurses and concludes:

"Very many nurses could benefit from a university education. Degree-level entry to nursing should certainly be available. There is just no need for it to be mandatory."

Raymond Tallis was Professor of Geriatric Medicine at the University of Manchester and a doctor for 35 years. Tallis hopes in the Times that a degree won't create a distance between the nurse and the frightened patient and adds:

"The quest for power and status, then, is more important than the quest for higher nursing standards. That is why the nurses' leaders are so keen on the idea: kudos is their goal."

Also a retired doctor, Theodore Dalrymple says in the Daily Telegraph that the government is holding out the mirage of power and standing to the mass of nurses:

"Focusing on more abstract and theoretical issues, which a degree course, as opposed to vocational training, would require, might diminish the commitment to basic nursing -- a fear captured in the much used phrase: 'too posh to wash'."

• Jean Flanagan | Yorkshire Post | Nurses deserve the best training we can give them - and so do patients
• Ian Birrell | Independent | It is patients who will end up losing out
• Rona Johnson | Daily Mail | You don't learn compassion at university