The Attorney General on judges, Asian values, Spartans, the Good Law Project, Lord Frost – and why the Tories should revive the torch logo.
Patel should haul in Dick for an interview without coffee. Meanwhile, Loughton intends to raise the case at the Home Affairs Select Committee.
Its future is not yet in the bag, but it has made a remarkably assured start. Much now depends on the genius of its editors.
Plus: Leadsom stonewalls, Cox charms, Brexit stalls. And: my almost-but-not-quite shoulderpads fetish.
When I worked in Number Ten, the people who grasped most clearly this ideology’s threat were my Muslim co-workers.
First, that Leave had won dishonestly. Second, that the country had become more racist. Third, that the 52 per cent had wrecked the economy.
We have to be furtive when at the theatre, but the benefit is we have no choice but to hear and learn about the opinions of our opponents.
His critics have fallen for the Fact-Checking Fallacy: the illusion that in politics or journalism, accurate facts are all that matter.
Plus: Ivan Massow – a joke. Greenhalgh and Boff – no charisma. Tulip Siddiq and Stephen Kinnock – impressive. And: Ben Harris-Quinney (for it is he)
While some Ukippers don’t mind dishing out insults – ‘LibLabCon’, ‘EUSSR’ etc – they get worse in return
There is an ideological fault line that divides the left from top to bottom. Nick Cohen, stands on one side of the split and, in an article for Standpoint, describes those who stand on the other: “In human rights organisations, leftish political parties, liberal newspapers and, above all, in the universities, committed and morally earnest […]
Nick Cohen is often wrong, but never boring. For instance, in a piece for the Observer he has a go at the British people for not being angry enough: "For all the complaints from the powerful about the decline of deference, the most notable feature of the British today is their docility, servility, even. "You […]
His critique of the teaching of politics is a simple one. In his view, it is not a mode of experience. So the language of politics is not genuinely a language of explanation.