There is a widespread desire amongst Conservatives for “dividing lines” between us and Labour. One of the least problematic and most popular would be the enactment of a parental right of access to school teaching materials.
In order to pacify Stonewall and its followers outraged by this apparent new outbreak of Labour flip-flopping, Labour has made two very significant, but less publicised, promises.
This is a complicated issue, not least legally, and ministers have to do their best to make sure any new rules are fit for purpose before rolling them out.
If Suella Braverman wants to restore “common-sense policing”, she should start by overhauling the Public Order Act.
Rights are about ensuring equal treatment, not coercing others into giving you or your children special treatment.
It is the tool we need to give both families and schools an incentive to engage with the urgent question of what third-party providers are peddling to young people.
I felt depressed that it had taken over 20 years for these grievous mistakes to be rectified. But I think I have described how, with infuriating slowness, politics does sometimes work.
We comprise half the electorate. You’re either with us – or with those on the left who can’t even bring themselves to define us.
A bolder government would not win every battle it fought, but it would win more than one that never gave battle at all.
They didn’t get a surge when the UK Internal Market Act passed and saw only a temporary one after their Supreme Court defeat. What about now?
It is absurd to demand that the Conservatives stop waging the culture war when the other side continues to advance at pace.
The UK’s equalities framework looks set to fragment because whilst the Equality Act is reserved, the Gender Recognition Act is not.
Gender-critical views are protected beliefs under the Equality Act 2010. Local authorities would do well to take a hard look at the mess the LGA got itself into, and how recklessly published material might cause a council to fall foul of the law.
He says that if she didn’t support self-ID, how did the Government and civil service decide on it on her watch?