Photo credit: www.FreeFoto.com

Dominic Lawson in the Sunday Times wrote about David Cameron’s “smarm offensive” on his recent foreign sojourn. Analysing Cameron’s statements about Gaza and Pakistan, Lawson found his “spontaneity and directness” to have “an undeniable appeal”, but concluded that, in some ways, his remarks betrayed a “tendency to improvise foreign policy”.

Andrew Rawnsley in the Observer looked back at 11 weeks of David Cameron’s “sushi government”, and concluded that he is “an instinctive politician” who handles the “public performance” aspect of the job very well. Despite the unfamiliarity of a coalition in Britain, Rawnsley feels that he’s made “an impressive start”, but stressed that this is just “the beginning of the beginning.”

Jenny McCartney in the Sunday Telegraph found Ian Duncan Smith’s plans to reform the benefit system “interesting and surprising”. After being ousted as Tory leader, Duncan Smith went off and founded the Centre for Social Justice with the aim of “actually doing some good”, and is now the work and pensions secretary trying to enforce “the principle that working should actually enrich you”.

Frank Rich in the New York Times recalled the release of the Pentagon Papers in 1971, and attempted to lay to rest once and for all any comparisons with the war logs released last week, saying “they contain no news. They will not change the course of the war.” He wrote that the reaction has mostly been a “shrug” and a “national yawn”, and that the numbers show that the public supports a withdrawal starting next year.

David S. Broder in the Washington Post looked at the rumours that the White House is gearing up to seek more bipartisan support after the mid-terms in November. It is hard to see, Broder admitted, how issues like climate change and immigration will get support across the aisle, but it seems that Obama is ready to try something unconventional if the elections goes as predicted – after all, “as he has sometimes remarked, he is not the classic party animal.”

Peter Mandelson at Davos in 2007. Photo credit: World Economic Forum

Barbara Ellen in the Observer finds a depressingly “samey” response to the publication of Peter Mandelson’s memoirs this week, saying, “from what I’ve seen of the extracts, the only ones being betrayed are those who buy the book. We’ve heard this stuff so many times that it has all the anecdotal allure of a pre-sucked boiled sweet.” However, she feels he deserves praise for suffering “barely disguised gay bashing throughout his political career”, and thinks it’s time he got some recognition for it.

India Knight in the Sunday Times looks back at the media storm surrounding the manhunt for murderer Raoul Moat, and finds that the issue of his domestic violence has been overlooked, in a way that it wouldn’t “if Moat had raped an old woman, or tortured a child, or gone on a random-seeming rampage like Derrick Bird in Cumbria.”

Andrew Gilligan in the Sunday Telegraph examines the mistakes and subsequent apologies of education minister Michael Gove, but believes that the incident is more important for the spotlight it throws upon the attitudes of civil servants towards the Coalition. “Whitehall sincerely thinks that it is one of the best things about Britain,” Gilligan writes. However, “this country’s unique level of centralisation is one of the reasons why our public services are less well-run than those of our northern European counterparts”.

Maureen Dowd in the New York Times takes on the Vatican over its release of “a document that equates pedophilia with the ordination of women”. However, there has been no “moral awakening” over the child abuse scandal. She argues that accepting women into the clergy could actually help the Catholic church, saying “If men prove that all-male hierarchies can get shamefully warped, why can’t they embrace the normality of equality?”

David S. Broker in the Washington Post returns to the issue that consumes many Democrats at the moment: can they keep the House in November? The “underlying ferment” on the Hill that followed press secretary Robert Gibbs’ unguarded omission that the danger is very real must be addressed by President Obama with a psychological turn-around, Broder argues. However, recent polling suggests that “all the Republicans have to do is to reject the Bush label and bring Reagan back for an encore.”

Barbara Ellen in the Observer takes on the big issue of the past few days: the manhunt and subsequent death of Raoul Moat. She writes that the whole incident was clearly a set-piece designed by Moat, with us, the viewers, cast as the willing audience to his ghoulish show. However, she says “It’s too pat to blame the news media” but does ask of the 24-hour news channels “when did it become routine to put out trailers for real-life tragedies?”

An editorial in the Sunday Telegraph looks at the state of the Church of England as it conducts its synod this weekend, arguing that “the Church of England faces the serious possibility of a damaging split over the issue of women bishops.” However, the Church looks to have abandoned the compromising attitude that have kept it safe for 400 years, and “in its determination to see women bishops, the majority has decided to sacrifice Church unity.”

Minette Marrin in the Sunday Times [paywall] writes of the landmark decision this week by the Supreme Court “that men and women who faced persecution in their own countries because of their homosexuality had valid grounds for claiming asylum and should not be deported.” However, she says although we should be proud in principle of this decision, in practice it is “completely unworkable” as “the unlucky people in the world with a genuine need for asylum amount not to millions but to billions”.

Michael Lind in the Washington Post looks at Washington’s love-affair with comprehensive reform, and argues that not every “complex, giant problem must be addressed by one complex, giant bill.” First healthcare, then financial reform, now perhaps energy is to get the sweeping, history-making treatment that has presidents go down in history. But this approach can be harmful, he says, and “instead of striding boldly into the future, we should grope our way cautiously forward, ever ready to back up upon encountering an obstacle and always prepared to consider an alternative path if the road is blocked”.

Nicholas D. Kristof in the New York Times writes from the West Bank of how Palestinians are beginning to see the value of non-violent opposition, in the style of Martin Luther King or Gandhi. But, he says, “the biggest challenge [is that] many Palestinians define “nonviolence” to include stone-throwing.” The answer, he argues, lies with the women of Palestine. “What if 1,000 women sat down peacefully on a road to block access to an illegal Jewish settlement built on Palestinian farmland?…  Those images would be on televisions around the world — particularly if hundreds more women marched in to replace those hauled away.”

Andrew Rawnsley in the Observer writes of the UK’s forthcoming referendum on electoral reform, the date of which was leaked this week, saying that this issue is “one for the connoisseurs of political paradox”. Rawnsley argues that the referendum presents all three parties with a paradox: For the Lib Dems, the proposed reform doesn’t go far enough; for Labour, the temptation to oppose for the sake of it wrestles with more genuine motives; and David Cameron opposes on the grounds that alternate vote produces weak coalitions. But as he now heads a coalition he must present as strong, how can he make that case at all?

The Grey Lady, pale shadow of what she once was? Photo credit: John Shablotnik

Andrew Sullivan in the Sunday Times looks at the American press, and finds that “many US newspapers have simply become pale, quivering shadows of what they once were.” He asks why the biggest political stories of the past year, such as John Edwards’ affair or General McChrystal’s opinions were broken by tabloids and specialist magazines, rather than the former titans of the press. He warns, “The editors and producers of American journalism have long wondered why their industry has been in decline. Perhaps they should try looking in the mirror.”

Jenny McCartney in the Sunday Telegraph examines Tony Blair’s post-Downing Street career and asks why he commands such celebrity overseas while in Britain he was pushed out of office because people became “weary” of him. He jets around the world, receiving awards for “supporting the foreign policies of two American presidents”, and promoting his eponymous foundations, all the while reviled by a large segment of the British public who voted for him in the first place. McCartney writes, “Perhaps Britain should warn the rest of the world by putting up some posters in airports: ‘Watch out for this man – dangerously plausible at first meeting.’”

David Ignatius in the Washington Post ponders the alleged Russian spy ring story in the context of modern “cyberspying” techniques which “can steal in a few seconds what it took an old-fashioned spy network years to collect.” With their software trapdoors, phishing scams and “bots” that can all collect vast tranches of information in seconds, “the modern digital spies are as seductive as Anna Chapman but less visible.”

Frank Rich in the New York Times uses the opportunity of American Independence Day to look back at the Civil Rights Act, “signed into law just in time for another Fourth of July, 46 summers ago.” And in a week of celebrations of the life of Senator Robert Byrd, Rich reminds us, “Of all the filibusters trying to block the bill, largely from Southern and border state racists then welcomed by the Democratic Party, Byrd’s was the longest (some 14 hours) and perhaps the most appalling.” And in spite of the vast progress made since then, he writes that “on this Fourth, as on the 233 that preceded it, America is still very much a work in progress.”

Photo credit: www.FreeFoto.com

Matthew d’Ancona in The Sunday Telegraph marked the week of the coalition’s emergency budget as a turning point in our society at large, saying that “This Budget was a stern call to action, as well as an inventory of measures and objectives: it invited the political class and the public alike to grow up”. D’Ancona felt that the Chancellor’s offering “crackled with political energy”, but also warned that this was the “easy bit”.

An editorial in The Observer assessed the likely outcomes of George Osborne’s austerity budget, and concluded that it risks creating a “lost generation” of young people, who will not receive funded training because of spending cuts, and thus will be unable to take the “first vital step up the ladder of prosperity” when the recovery comes.

Eleanor Mills in The Sunday Times reflected on the women who are “finding a new way to the top” and admitted that the myth of “having it all” also involves the “either/or” dichotomy of a choice between work and home. The trouble is, said Mills, that there is no “off-ramp/on-ramp structure in most companies for mothers”, meaning that women are less likely to return to the workforce having raised a family. If we can sort out this “new female career trajectory”, we might just see a real change in the way women progress in the workplace.

Frank Rich in The New York Times looked back over the “36 hours that shocked Washington” and which saw President Obama dismiss General McChrystal. But however inevitable the dismissal may have been portrayed as by the media, we must not forget that “Once made the top commander in Afghanistan, the general was kept on long past his expiration date. He should have been cashiered after he took his first public shot at Joe Biden during a London speaking appearance last October.”

George F. Will in The Washington Post has some “vapid and hollow” questions for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, including “If Congress concludes that ignorance has a substantial impact on interstate commerce, can it constitutionally require students to do three hours of homework nightly?” and “Is it constitutional for Arizona to devote state resources to enforcing federal immigration laws?” – he’s “just wondering”, Elena.

The former Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Photo credit: Keith Edkins

Martin Ivens in the Sunday Times offers his own recollections of the affair, saying, “Although his sexuality wasn’t such a closely guarded secret, Laws’s refusal to discuss his private life with colleagues was to be respected, even applauded.” But looking at the issue of the expenses in the context of our much-vaunted “new politics”, Ivens concludes this is going to be a long-lasting story – it has “succeeded in tipping it back into the mire of the late unlamented “manure” parliament”, he claims. He concludes with praise for the Chief Secretary’s swift action in resigning, and hopes, “Soonest gone, perhaps soonest back.”

Andrew Rawnsley in the Observer casts his eye over the Labour leadership contest and the immediate instinct of those just ejected from power to go through a period of “dirtying” the party’s immediate past. As he puts it, “[T]he opening phase of the contest for the Labour leadership is already an orgy of competitive self-flagellation.” He argues that although this is to be expected from left-wing contenders John McDonnell and Diane Abbott, the “sons of New Labour” – the Milibands, and Ed Balls – should remember the men and the movement that got them where they are today, and seek “a clear view of why it won as well as why it finally went down to defeat” before they completely destroy its legacy.

Thomas L. Friedman in the New York Times looks at President Barack Obama’s response to the Gulf oil spill, arguing that while it isn’t his fault or his responsibility to fix the mistake, there is one very valuable thing he must do. He must “react to this spill as a child would — because it is precisely that simple gut reaction, repeated over and over, speech after speech, that could change our national conversation on energy.” Referring to Malia Obama’s prescient comment to her father (“Did you plug the who yet, Daddy?”), he points out that Obama must seize this opportunity to fix this for his daughter’s generation. In this kind of situation “a disaster is an inexcusable thing to waste.”

Jessica Valenti in the Washington Post takes a look at Sarah Palin’s recent activity, and finds that she “sure is dropping the f-bomb a lot lately.” She is adopting the language of feminism to “woo women”, as part of a broader strategy by conservatives who are “trying to sell anti-women policies shrouded in pro-women rhetoric.” But there is a more sinister undertone, Valenti argues. While “dropping the f-bomb” is frustrating, it has a deeper effect – “it’s deliberately misrepresenting real feminism to distract from the fact that she supports policies that limit women’s rights.”

The best of the opinion pages, all in once place. Photo credit: www.FreeFoto.com

Andrew Rawnsley in The Observer examines the truth behind the new coalition government, and concludes that David Cameron is secretly pleased not to have to face certain elements of his party alone. He is wary of the right, as demonstrated by his infiltration of the 1922 Committee this week and his appointment of Ken Clarke as Lord Chancellor – Clarke being, in Rawnsley’s opinion, the last vestige of the “moderate, pro-European, Christian Democrat” wing of the party. Cameron might be making it up as he goes along, but “if a grand realignment [of your party] was your intended endgame, this is how you’d start.”

Dominic Lawson in The Sunday Times takes a look at the long history of political lying, with particular reference to the recent revelations that a frontrunner for a Connecticut Senate seat invented his own participation in military service and, despite this, will be continuing his campaign. Lawson examines the difference between “misspeaking” and “lying”, and finds that in some cases, “many will still prefer to believe the lie.”

Alasdair Palmer in The Sunday Telegraph muses on the production this week of the first ever synthetic DNA. He writes that despite the hype, “reality turns out to be much more prosaic” – Dr Venter has not “created life”, just “mimicked it.” Fears of cloning or germ warfare is far-fetched, he says. The really scary part is that this research has debunked the “intangible, miraculous glory of life.” It forces us to accept that “there are only molecules and the void.”

An editorial in The New York Times points out that this week could see the reversal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy towards gays in the US armed forces, as the repeal could be attached to the defence budget due for a vote this week. Despite the fact that “election-year nervousness is evident among some supporters”, this could just be the end of “a culture war scar on military honor that… denies qualified gay men and lesbians the chance to defend their country.”

Deborah L. Rhode in the Washington Post analyses the state of discrimination in the world today, and finds that “looks are the last bastion of acceptable bigotry.” It isn’t just about obesity, she writes. “16 percent of workers reported being victims of appearance discrimination more generally” – a figure similar to those who report gender or racial discrimination. And this extends to the law as well as the workplace. According to studies, “unattractive plaintiffs receive lower damage awards.” Legal remedy for such discrimination is difficult, but worth trying, because it “could reflect our principles of equal opportunity and raise our collective consciousness when we fall short.”

Britain's new Cabinet gets down to business. Photo credit: The Prime Minister's Office

Alasdair Palmer in The Sunday Telegraph teases apart the differences between Conservative and Liberal Democrat stances on crime and punishment, and feels that the resulting compromise could be damaging to the policing and prevention of crime. While the Tory manifesto plans prison-building, the Lib Dems have been “hostile to incarceration for more than 50 years.” Palmer feels that the most likely result is that the Tories will implement a version of the Lib Dem policy, but remarks ominiously that “if the Home Secretary compromises in this way, a lot of voters are going to feel betrayed.”

Jenni Russell in The Sunday Times looks in disbelief at the lack of women in the new coalition, and demands “is this really where we’ve got to, 40 years after the rise of feminism — invisibility, impotence and irrelevance combined?” While Cameron leads the unbalanced Cabinet (only 13 percent female), Russell feels that he is not entirely to blame for its lack of gender balance: “[H]is figures have undoubtedly been made worse by the Liberal Democrats, the supposed mould-breakers of politics, who didn’t select a single woman to take up one of their five cabinet seats.” However, she finds that the truly shocking thing is not the inequality itself, but the fact that “for those in power it seems to be the cause of utter indifference.”

William Rees-Mogg in The Mail on Sunday argues that the “arithmatical fluke” which forced the Conservatives to seek a coalition government is an incredibly fortuitous accident. He compares our need for a stable government to the success of the coalition during World War II, and has high hopes for its longevity: “People do not usually break up coalitions in the middle of a war or a slump.” Our budget deficit is the worst peacetime financial crisis since the Great Depression, and in 1931, a coalition was formed to deal with the problem. With this historical precedent to draw on, “the coalition should be able to overcome the British debt crisis; it has a better chance than a Conservative or Labour Government would have had on its own.”

Maureen Dowd in The New York Times pens an imaginary letter from Vice President Joe Biden to the American people on Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s “girly girl” credentials. Apparently, “Elena is anything but a history-making, barrier-breaking, proud, strong, happy gay woman. She’s a garden-variety, sad, scary, single, childless career woman who can’t get a man because she’s too smart, works too much and refuses to settle.”

Dana Millbank in the Washington Post examines the recent GOP primary upheaval in Utah, and asks what the current surge from the fringes will mean to history. He writes “we should be terrified — particularly the Republicans, whose party is turning into this One-World-Government, Obama-worships-Satan, Jesus-opposes-climate-bill mélange.” Apart from Utah’s humiliation of incumbent senator Robert Bennett, Maine’s Republican party has just adopted “a manifesto of insanity: abolishing the Federal Reserve, calling global warming a “myth,” sealing the border, and, as a final plank, fighting “efforts to create a one world government.” That is, if they survive the “Viking invasion” these policies are clearly designed to prepare for.

Cameron made overtures to Clegg much earlier on in the campaign?

Dominic Lawson in The Sunday Times claims that David Cameron’s courting of the Liberal Democrat party and their voters began long before the inconclusive outcome of Thursday’s general election. According to Lawson, Cameron’s early push on environmental issues was designed to undercut the Lib Dems core vote and deliver an overall Tory majority; while it wasn’t completely successful, it does mean that Cameron “is now in a much better position to bring about the sort of negotiated crossparty accommodation that will be essential if the Conservatives are to have any prospect of governing.”

Nick Cohen in The Observer believes that this new need for political negotiation will produce one very important change to our political system, as the lack of any clear majority will remove “the tendency to fawn before the powerful like courtiers before a king; to behave like subjects rather than citizens.” He points out that Britain changed governing party just once between 1979 and 2010, but that now we have a chance to break from this”monarchical system” and  “limit the horrible grovelling and self-censorship that disfigure British political culture.”

Alasdair Palmer in The Sunday Telegraph presents the arguments against Britain adopting proportional representation, saying that “when coalitions are the only option, Groucho Marx’s quip – ‘You don’t like my principles? I have others’ – becomes every leader’s motto.” Most importantly, however, he feels that it would rule out the kind of “sea-change” elections we saw in 1945, 1979 or 1997, leaving the people stuck with the same group of politicians time and time again, with the eventual result that “the government becomes indistinguishable from the Civil Service.”

Frank Rich in The New York Times breaks down the immediate response of the media to the bombing attempt in Times Square, where “many of the country’s television news potentates” were “laughing it up” at the White House Correspondents’ dinner, which was also being covered on several networks, over the reality of the bombing. In a week where President Barack Obama has twice criticised the media and called for the restoration of “civility in public debate,” Rich feels the media did not acquit themselves well. Rich points out that it was “the heroic street vendors who gave America its reality check last weekend…  they were the first to report what was happening in Times Square.”

David Ignatius in the Washington Post gives us his reasons we should be worrying about Afghanistan, including their shaky independent security record, President Hamid Karzai’s anti-US diatribes and corruption, and the fact that the US is not yet bargaining from an adequate “position of strength” in the country. As Karzai prepares to visit Washington this week, Ignatius points out that “the Obama administration has just over a year to make the kind of progress in Afghanistan that would provide a political rationale for staying awhile longer.”

The best of the opinion pages, all in once place. Photo credit: www.FreeFoto.com

Nick Robinson in today’s Mail on Sunday describes his observations of politicians’ interactions with “real people” on the campaign trail this week. He peppers the piece with great anecdotes, but his point is serious: Voters must not give in to the temptation to “switch off” under the relentless barrage from party operatives and journalists. The importance of this is paramount, or as Robinson puts it: “[T]his election is a once-in-a-generation moment when the country will decide not just whether to change its Government but could, if the result is uncertain, trigger dramatic changes to the way we are governed.”

Christopher Booker in The Sunday Telegraph identifies the four issues key to Britain’s future that politicians will be trying to avoid discussing during the campaign. He argues that all three parties will avoid tackling the budget deficit, the loss of trust in politics, Europe and climate change in detail, either because they are too contentious, or because all three are unanimous on the action which must be taken – not a vote-winning position. Booker concludes that a low turnout will be the result, as “three virtually indistinguishable parties squabble over trivia, leaving the electorate without any clear alternative – so that on May 6 almost half the voters may well stay apathetically or sullenly at home.”

Dominic Lawson in The Sunday Times attempts to explode the oft-uttered campaign phrase “all politicians are the same.” He feels that voters should not allow themselves to be taken in by “electioneering methods” that attempt to cover up the fundamental divisions between the parties. For instance, Lawson argues that whatever Cameron may say to try and win over the undecideds, “he is a visceral Conservative whose gut reactions on a day-to-day basis will be as far removed as one could imagine from those of the current leader of the Labour party.”

Maureen Dowd in The New York Times explores the latest round of problems faced by the Catholic church. She points out that “negating women is at the heart of the church’s hideous — and criminal — indifference to the welfare of boys and girls in its priests’ care.” She compares it to another “world without women”, Saudi Arabia, and records her shock when she realised that as a life-long Catholic, she too found herself “acquiescing in her own subordination,” just as she observed the educated, sophisticated women of Saudi Arabia do.

David Ignatius in the Washington Post examines what he calls Vice President Biden’s “optimistic assessment of Iraq.” In a recent interview, Biden refuted claims that the March elections were not transparent, but refused to take sides over who should be the next Iraqi prime minister. But on the crucial question of withdrawal, he was not to be drawn into specific statements. Ignatius sums up the situation, saying, “[T]he paradox of Iraq is that to get out successfully, the United States must show that it’s still involved for now. The vice president’s comments send the right signal.”

Rachel Cooke in The Observer celebrates her new-found freedom from the internet and the meaningless research it engenders, both on political subjects and others. By using a programme called “Freedom”, which prevents you from accessing the internet for a time period you nominate, she managed to free herself from the unending round of trivia the internet provides. As she says,  “[F]or the next hour, I could not ‘research’ SamCam’s cape. Emails went unanswered, tatty hardbacks went unbought on AbeBooks. I did not visit Guido Fawkes or the Spectator. I did not investigate the state of Patsy Kensit’s fourth marriage on dailymail.co.uk. I did nothing but work.”