Andrew Sullivan's reasons for departing from the 'conservative' movement in America are set out in his blog comment. Since his reasons stem from his classical liberalism, they make interesting reading.
The press are certainly able to make a lot of noise. Most of the country may not be that bothered about press regulation, but it has definitely become the NUMBER ONE ISSUE for the denizens of the media class. The Budget is almost looking like light relief tomorrow.
There are a few voices of sanity if you look hard enough. Amol Rajan in the Evening Standard yesterday commented on the dangers of victim justice, while Will Sturgeon on today's Media Blog provides a reminder of exactly why press regulation is on the agenda, and it's not to do with politicians trying to extend their power, funnily enough.
But there is also still plenty of group press hysterics to keep us all entertained, nowhere more obviously than in Quentin Letts' parliamentary 'sketch' in today's Mail. Letts is so focused on pouring vitriol over the heads of any MP who dared suggest that press regulation is needed that he quite forgot to be funny. Or maybe that's become his house style n…
There seems to be a popular liberal narrative emerging about the present state of British politics which is largely summed up by (1) the Tories have got us into a mess over the past couple of years and (2) they, especially Theresa May, should apologise for getting Britain into this mess.
There may be a number of things Mrs. May needs to apologise for - a poor campaign, an overly insular leadership style, the loss of a number of Conservative seats - but all these apologies need to be directed purely at the Tory party that she leads and its candidates. Further, an acknowledgement that she has learned lessons from the election and will seek to adapt her premiership to suit those would be helpful and politically adept. But an apology to the country? What a fruitless, pointless, unnecessary exercise that would be.
I presume the apology in question that liberal commentators have in mind would be along the lines of saying sorry for calling an election. Really? In a democra…
Clause One of the Labour Party's constitution commits it to maintaining a strong parliamentary party:
“[The party’s] purpose is to organise and maintain in Parliament and in the country a political Labour Party.”
Given that Jeremy Corbyn is opposed by 95% of his own MPs (only 15 MPs voted for him in the 2015 ballot; he wasn't required, as the incumbent leader, to check out that support again in 2016), the first obvious division within Labour would appear to be that between those who want to maintain a strong parliamentary party (the MPs who opoosed Corbyn) and those who want to make it more a grassroots-run organisation (principally Corbyn supporting groups like Momentum and the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy). This New Statesman editorial summarises and comments on the division.
The policy differences, of course, are severe. The leaking of Labour's election manifesto suggested serious opposition within the party to it. It has become a fundamentally binary struggl…