Matthew d'Ancona is one of the best known political journalists in Britain. He was deputy editor of The Sunday Telegraph before being appointed editor of The Spectator in February 2006. Under his editorship the Spectator has launched its own excellent blog.
If you have any questions for Matthew d'Ancona please leave them in the thread below.




















Having read Campbell's diary, it occurs to me again that Cameron's Tories- who's tactical thrust I massively support- still lack the essential fire in their bellies and thirst for power that Campbell so vividly describes in the upper echelons of New Labour from 1994 onwards.
"Heir to Blair" comments and giving the War Criminal a standing ovation in the Commons were huge tactical mistakes. Would you agree ?
Posted by: Matthew's Dad | July 19, 2007 at 10:22
Are you writing another novel?
Why don't you sack Taki? (just joking).
If Lloyd Evans leaves, may I apply to become the Hackney-based theatre critic?
Serious question: Have we reached the limits of the testing of the neocon hypothesis? How should Conservatives formulate foreign-policy in the light of Iraq? Would withdrawal from Iraq necessarily imply that we have to break with the importance of the struggle against those who would destroy our way of life?
Posted by: Graeme Archer | July 19, 2007 at 10:25
Don't you think that it is about time that the government stopped pussyfooting around and introduced a Bill to give all convicted prisoners the vote?
Posted by: jailhouselawyer | July 19, 2007 at 12:53
Have you finally seen the light and dropped Roy Hattersley's column?
If you could replace him and Mathew Parris -so much the better. There are lots of good columnists to choose from. Who would you like to have as Columnists who don't already write for the Speccie?
I wish Theodore Dalrymple was still writing regularly and I'm still waiting Peter Oborne's promised book on Blair's lies. I assume this has never materialised because there are far too many lies to fit them all in only one book. What do you think ?
Posted by: Ewan Wauchope | July 19, 2007 at 14:09
Is there any chance of forcing the publication of the two initial intelligence briefs on which the decision to invade Iraq was taken, so that we can assess the value (i.e. spin) added to the second version?
Posted by: David Belchamber | July 19, 2007 at 16:16
Recently there have been many areas where the Spectator has been critical of Project Cameron. Do you now think the leadership of Cameron has meant that 'true' conservatism such as the belief in low taxation and public spending, smaller government and minimal state involvement in everyday matters as espoused by the likes of lady Thatcher in the modern era is dead especially as there are now very few ideological differences between the main parties? And therefore it doesn't really matter which party is in government?
Posted by: Adam | July 19, 2007 at 16:25
I have been reading the Spectator for many years, but I can't weight it up. It doesn't seem to have steaming, driving thrust that the conservative world needs. I couldn't agree more with the above comment - there's no fire in its belly. The left is omnipotent - it is constantly driving new demands, inventing new problems and insisting only they can fix them. Look the Guardian comments page and especially the web CiF.
The left is all over the Today programme where the depressing phrase 'a report out today..' forever hanging in the air.
This is vital phase for booting out Brown and the Spectator is not there with week after week of firepower on the failure of the last 10 years and how to fix it.
Too many of the metro Tories are either shopping, drinking champagne or at the spa- as your 'style' section reflects.
How are you going to remodel the Spectator?
How are you going to help drive the intellectual right?
You do want Labour out, don't you?
Posted by: JH Holloway | July 19, 2007 at 18:27
I read and enjoyed the Speccie from at least the early 80s when it was a freebie at university. I stopped buying it under Boris Johnson's editorship. I find it far too navel gazingly metropolitan, Notting Hill and Cameroon. Why should I accept your constant offers of free copies and reduced subscriptions when I can find the conservative humour and insight equal to what the Speccie used to provide for free elsewhere on the internet?
Posted by: Bill | July 19, 2007 at 19:26
how do you feel about you misses working for the other side?
Posted by: anon | July 19, 2007 at 20:00
The Euro Project. To widen the debate, why don't you conduct a survey of sitting MEPs to ascertain their commitment to an EU referendum on the treaty? Are they with our leader/against? Then conduct a survey/opinion from those on the European Candidates' list to find out their views? Canvass existing MEPs and wannabe MEPs on withdrawal from the EPP/ED and what they think the alternative is and would they support Cameron's withdrawal by 2009?
Posted by: Janice Small | July 19, 2007 at 21:19
Please, please, please bring back Mark Steyn.
Posted by: Umbrella man | July 19, 2007 at 22:42
Can you get rid of Roy Hattersley?
Can you bring back some of the humour?
Can you try and use diarists we might be interested in, rather than ones you go to dinner parties with?
Can you please stop trying to turn the magazine into an upmarket style mag?
And finally, please get Theodore Dalrymple to write more often for you.
Posted by: Sarah Stalworthy | July 20, 2007 at 13:17
I endorse the negative and positive comments above about Hattersley, Steyn and Dalrymple.
Please drop what amount to advertising articles near the end of the magazine - hugely annoying.
And agree more fire please - critical.
Posted by: Lindsay Jenkins | July 21, 2007 at 15:31
As Tory activists prepare to eviscerate their seventh successive Party Leader as punishment for not making them popular enough, is there any self-aware minority within the Party who can look in the mirror and see what the real problem is?
Posted by: Chris @ Llandudno | July 22, 2007 at 09:29
Can you explain please why David Cameron does not go flat out for a fairer treatment of England? If DC made the setting up of a proper English Parliament with the same powers as for Scotland, with an English Executive and First Minister, I feel that most of England would vote for him. This policy coming from an Anglo-Scot who is very proud of his Scottish family connections but who sits for an English constituency would be very hard for Labour to attack. After all, Labour brought in the Scottish Parliament so what's good enough for the Scots should be fine for England. I feel that this one policy of an English Parliament would win him the next general election, so why does he not go for it?
Posted by: Andrew Constantine | July 22, 2007 at 10:06
The BBC has - quite rightly - been under pressure for its recent lack of integrity. We have a government that for years has similarly lacked integrity and it is very difficult to get any minister to accept that things are not as they state they are: education has not improved radically, the NHS is not run marvellously, Defra has recently been a shambles, ditto the Home Office.
Now the EU; have we been given a constitution by any other name or not? Brown says not, Hague and many others say we have.
Would it be possible to publish summaries of the salient points to compare between the current draft treaty and the proposed constitution?
Posted by: David Belchamber | July 22, 2007 at 11:02
David Cameron has said the 'big issue' that Mrs Thatcher identified was economic breakdown in the UK, and she fixed it. He says today's 'big issue' is family and social breakdown. Indeed, in Breakthrough Britain the Social Justice Policy Group is recommending a 'family and social cohesion index' and incentives for relationship education, including marriage preparation. However, during the passage through Parliament of the Statistics and Registration Service Bill and the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill no suitable amendments were proposed by Conservatives. For example, a Social Capital Index in the Statistics Bill, and provision for educational programmes that would prevent forced marriages and improve the chances of couples making good marriages - along the lines of those in the US government's Healthy Marriage Initiative - could have been proposed. My question is, "Why should we believe the Conservatives mean business, when they don't seem to have the courage of their convictions?" or is it - sadly - that they don't actually have those convictions?
Posted by: Nick Gulliford | July 23, 2007 at 09:24
Please get rid of Deborah Ross. She lowers the tone.
Posted by: johnC | July 23, 2007 at 12:24
Thank you for your questions for Matthew d'Ancona. We will publish his answers soon.
Posted by: Associate Editor | July 30, 2007 at 10:12