Uk politics

It’s not often that three relatively small NGOs can change politics. So today’s parliamentary debate on the Defamation Bill is cause for considerable pride, among my former colleagues at Index on Censorship and their partners at English PEN and Sense about Science. In November 2009, we began a campaign to reform England’s unfair libel laws. The claimant cabal, those law firms who encourage the rich and famous, particularly those from abroad, to use London’s indulgent courts, assumed that the campaign would fizzle out. It didn’t, picking up steam as it went along. So today’s events should be a cause for celebration. They are, but only in part. The legislative process

Ed Miliband’s speech last week, in which he grappled with questions of Britishness, identity and Unionism, was a worthy effort. By which you will grasp that it was also, in the end, not quite good enough. The Labour leader spoke as though he had only recently appreciated — or had brought to his attention — that national identity on these islands is often a matter of choice and that — insert obligatory Whitman reference here, please — many people have multiple, layered identities that may, at times, even seem to contradict one another. Gosh, you think?   And, alas, he foundered in the Q&A when he told one inquisitor: ‘People

It has become the conventional wisdom in Westminster that Jeremy Hunt’s career will turn on his appearance before the Leveson Inquiry tomorrow. Friends of Hunt have today been arguing that the Inquiry’s focus should be on how he carried out the quasi-judicial role. They are saying that once appointed to it, Hunt behaved — unlike Vince Cable — properly. They concede that Hunt’s texts to Fred Michel were overly familiar. But they maintain that, unlike Adam Smith’s texts, they gave away nothing about the state of the bid process. On the charge that Hunt misled Parliament, when he told it on the 25th of April that ‘I made absolutely no

Michael Gove’s appearance at the Leveson Inquiry has set the heather alight in Tory and journalistic circles. There is, among those who fret about the dangers to free speech created by the current mood, relief that someone has set out the case for liberty so clearly and without apology. While among Tories there is a delight at seeing one of their ministers articulate a Conservative worldview so clearly. Gove was, in some ways, at an advantage going before the inquiry. His department has no responsibility for the press and so he knew that the focus would be on his work as a journalist and his attack on Leveson, saying that

No government likes to u-turn, and particularly not on a Budget measure. So, tonight’s changes to the VAT regime proposed by the Budget for Cornish pasties and static caravans are embarrassing for the coalition. It is also worth noting that they have come after they have taken most of the political heat they were likely to take for the changes, including in the House of Commons where there were decent-sized rebellions on both issues. One of the lessons that I suspect that politicians, and particularly the coalition, will learn from this episode is: don’t try and deal with the anomalies in the VAT system. Voters, for obvious and understandable reasons,