<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0">

<channel>
	<title>Clive Crook's blog</title>
	
	<link>http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog</link>
	<description>Clive Crook's blog on the intersection of politics and economics</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:52:30 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/ft/crookblog" /><feedburner:info xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" uri="ft/crookblog" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com" /><item>
		<title>Liberal condescension</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/2010/02/liberal-condescension/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/2010/02/liberal-condescension/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:48:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Clive Crook</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Current Affairs]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[US Politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/?p=3881</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Gerard Alexander complains of liberal condescension. Charles Krauthammer agrees, praising America&#8217;s bedrock common sense. Jake Weisberg says no, the problem is not condescending liberal politicians (or politicians of any kind, in fact)  but the country&#8217;s childish and ignorant masses. Mike Kinsley offers Weisberg support - &#8220;brilliantly,&#8221; says Weisberg disinterestedly. &#8220;Which is more condescending,&#8221; asks Kinsley, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/2010/02/liberal-condescension/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Further reading</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/2010/02/further-reading-32/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/2010/02/further-reading-32/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 06:12:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Clive Crook</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Further reading]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/?p=3861</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Democrats need a latte claque. Joe Queenan, Guardian. Some good observations about the tea party activists, though I disagree that this is &#8220;basically Nixon&#8217;s silent majority in a less reticent mode&#8221;. The silent majority is still silent. It has more important things to be doing than politics.
America is not yet lost. Paul Krugman, NYT. Krugman [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/2010/02/further-reading-32/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Death of the IPCC</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/2010/02/death-of-the-ipcc/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/2010/02/death-of-the-ipcc/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 05:42:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Clive Crook</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Current Affairs]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/?p=3851</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A turning point has been reached when in the space of a few days the chief scientist at the UK environment ministry complains about the IPCC&#8217;s ever-lengthening list of blunders; the head of Greenpeace UK calls for the IPCC&#8217;s head to step down; and, following a series of commendably forthright Guardian pieces on the scandal, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/2010/02/death-of-the-ipcc/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Republicans and the politics of No</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/2010/02/republicans-and-the-politics-of-no/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/2010/02/republicans-and-the-politics-of-no/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Feb 2010 23:52:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Clive Crook</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Current Affairs]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[US Politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/?p=3836</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The change in the Republican party’s prospects has been astonishing. A year ago, analysts were talking of a new Democratic hegemony. Republicans, shut out of the White House and consigned to a minority in Congress, were in disarray. They looked helpless and on the edge of civil war.
The remainder of the article can be read [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/2010/02/republicans-and-the-politics-of-no/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why is health care reform unpopular?</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/2010/02/why-is-health-care-reform-unpopular/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/2010/02/why-is-health-care-reform-unpopular/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 00:14:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Clive Crook</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Current Affairs]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Healthcare reform]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[US Elections]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[US Politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/?p=3821</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Obama isn&#8217;t giving up, but efforts to revive health care reform seem to be failing. It is worth remembering that Democrats could still pass the bill if they chose to. I still think they should. House Democrats could use their big majority to pass the Senate measure. But they cannot bring themselves to do it. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/2010/02/why-is-health-care-reform-unpopular/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dalrymple on Galbraith</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/2010/02/dalrymple-on-galbraith/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/2010/02/dalrymple-on-galbraith/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 11:44:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Clive Crook</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Further reading]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/?p=3801</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a novel approach to memorial lectures, Theodore Dalrymple sets about JK Galbraith, who is once again in vogue. It is an excellent essay (not that I needed much persuading).
Galbraith&#8217;s egotism and condescension toward most of the human race is evident in his admiration for Franklin D. Roosevelt-or rather, in the grounds for that admiration. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/2010/02/dalrymple-on-galbraith/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Further reading</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/2010/02/further-reading-31/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/2010/02/further-reading-31/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 10:11:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Clive Crook</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Further reading]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/?p=3791</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In praise of populism. Larry Sabato, Crystal Ball. He makes a good point: populism in moderation is a good thing. (See also: Obama should try populism. David Paul Kuhn, RCP.)
Tom Hoenig for Treasury. Simon Johnson, Baseline Scenario. But as I said the other day, Geithner&#8217;s position is unassailable.
Freeze tax expenditures. Len Burman, Washington Post. Good [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/2010/02/further-reading-31/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Volcker on the Volcker rule</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/2010/02/volcker-on-the-volcker-rule/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/2010/02/volcker-on-the-volcker-rule/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:02:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Clive Crook</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Current Affairs]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[US Politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/?p=3781</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Paul Volcker&#8217;s written testimony to the Senate Banking Committee yesterday put the Volcker rule in a clearer perspective. The theatricality of Obama&#8217;s earlier announcement - not to mention its vagueness (as yet unresolved) and populist spin - led a lot of observers to think that the White House was advocating a return to Glass-Steagall as [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/2010/02/volcker-on-the-volcker-rule/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Climate change, ripped bodices, and the precautionary principle</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/2010/02/climate-change-ripped-bodices-and-the-precautionary-principle/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/2010/02/climate-change-ripped-bodices-and-the-precautionary-principle/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 23:15:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Clive Crook</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Current Affairs]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/?p=3766</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This, from the first paragraph of an Observer piece, made me laugh:
The climate secretary, Ed Miliband, last night warned of the danger of a public backlash against the science of global warming in the face of continuing claims that experts have manipulated data.
A danger, you say? Call me an alarmist, minister, but I&#8217;d say this [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/2010/02/climate-change-ripped-bodices-and-the-precautionary-principle/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A procrastinating budget</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/2010/02/a-procrastinating-budget/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/2010/02/a-procrastinating-budget/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:41:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Clive Crook</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Current Affairs]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[US Politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/?p=3751</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[No huge surprises in the budget proposal. There is a bit more short-term stimulus than I had expected. In addition to the widely trailed $100bn &#8220;jobs package&#8221;, the proposal includes another $150bn or so of temporary tax cuts, extended unemployment benefits, and help for states. (It tells you something that the administration is now playing [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/2010/02/a-procrastinating-budget/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
