In this week’s New Statesman: Christmas Special

Richard Dawkins on the King James Bible | Ricky Gervais interview | Russell Brand on WikiLeaks.


This week's New Statesman is a Christmas special, with 100 pages of the finest writing to see you through the festive period. The highlights include Richard Dawkins on why, despite his atheism, he reveres the King James Bible, an interview with The xx, acclaimed winners of this year's Mercury Prize, and Russell Brand on why WikiLeaks shows our leaders to be "ham-fisted chumps". Elsewhere, Sophie Elmhirst talks to Ricky Gervais, who discusses fame, elitism, and why he's an atheist and dislikes religious people ("The burden of proof is on you! You started it!").

Also this week, in the Christmas Essay, Dominic Sandbrook profiles Oliver Cromwell and declares him "the greatest man in our history, warts and all", Arianna Huffington tells us why the Tea Party is here to stay and Samira Shackle and myself review the most turbulent political year in decades.

All this, plus our regular array of columnists and writers. Don't miss John Pilger on why Julian Assange deserves our protection, Mehdi Hasan on why the coalition is a Tory government in all but name, David Blanchflower on what Oxbridge can learn from the US and Laurie Penny on how Twitter has changed dissent for ever.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Show Hide image

No, David Cameron’s speech was not “left wing”

Come on, guys.

There is a strange journalistic phenomenon that occurs when a party leader makes a speech. It is a blend of groupthink, relief, utter certainty, and online backslapping. It happened particularly quickly after David Cameron’s speech to Tory party conference today. A few pundits decided that – because he mentioned, like, diversity and social mobility – this was a centre-left speech. A leftwing speech, even. Or at least a clear grab for the liberal centre ground. And so that’s what everyone now believes. The analysis is decided. The commentary is written. Thank God for that.

Really? It’s quite easy, even as one of those nasty, wicked Tories, to mention that you actually don’t much like racism, and point out that you’d quite like poor children to get jobs, without moving onto Labour's "territory". Which normal person is in favour of discriminating against someone on the basis of race, or blocking opportunity on the basis of class? Of course he’s against that. He’s a politician operating in a liberal democracy. And this isn’t Ukip conference.

Looking at the whole package, it was actually quite a rightwing speech. It was a paean to defence – championing drones, protecting Britain from the evils of the world, and getting all excited about “launching the biggest aircraft carriers in our history”.

It was a festival of flagwaving guff about the British “character”, a celebration of shoehorning our history chronologically onto the curriculum, looking towards a “Greater Britain”, asking for more “national pride”. There was even a Bake Off pun.

He also deployed the illiberal device of inculcating a divide-and-rule fear of the “shadow of extremism – hanging over every single one of us”, informing us that children in UK madrassas are having their “heads filled with poison and their hearts filled with hate”, and saying Britain shouldn’t be “overwhelmed” with refugees, before quickly changing the subject to ousting Assad. How unashamedly centrist, of you, Mr Prime Minister.

Benefit cuts and a reduction of tax credits will mean the Prime Minister’s enthusiasm for “equality of opportunity, as opposed to equality of outcome” will be just that – with the outcome pretty bleak for those who end up losing any opportunity that comes with state support. And his excitement about diversity in his cabinet rings a little hollow the day following a tubthumping anti-immigration speech from his Home Secretary.

If this year's Tory conference wins the party votes, it’ll be because of its conservative commitment – not lefty love bombing.

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.