The Conservative MP Andrew Bridgen was “never the most glittering star in the political firmament”, said Gaby Hinsliff in The Guardian. He was known largely for his blunders: posting a “raunchy video” in a ministerial WhatsApp group; being suspended for breaching lobbying rules.
Last week, Bridgen’s colleagues’ patience finally snapped, after he tweeted that the mRNA vaccines that saved millions of lives constituted part of “the biggest crime against humanity since the holocaust”. He was condemned by all sides, and the Tories suspended him from the parliamentary party.
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Bridgen has form when it comes to deranged ravings, said Rod Liddle in The Sunday Times. Last spring, for instance, a judge branded him a liar, as the High Court ruled against him in a bitter, decade-long legal battle with his own family’s potato business – a case which he then claimed to have won.
The sad irony is that Bridgen’s brand of inflammatory rhetoric doesn’t only hinder life-saving immunisation campaigns, said Michael Head on The Conversation. It also makes it harder to discuss genuine “vaccine injuries” – such as the 50 officially documented deaths in England, and one in Wales, caused by Covid vaccines. This is an issue that’s difficult to scrutinise properly, when anti-vaxxers “persistently muddy the waters with misinformation and abuse”.
For all that Bridgen’s views are “inflammatory” and “misguided”, they are plainly lawful, said Molly Kingsley in The Critic. Punishing an MP for expressing “contrarian” views erodes our democratic system and promotes a “hegemony” of state-approved thought that’s only a “few short steps from authoritarianism”.
On the contrary, said Henry Hill on CapX. Political parties must be free to choose who they want as members, and to specify which beliefs they won’t tolerate. This isn’t about freedom of speech: it’s about “freedom of association”. Or, in Andrew Bridgen’s case, “disassociation”.
-
Political cartoons for January 18Cartoons Sunday’s political cartoons include cost of living, endless supply of greed, and more
-
Exploring ancient forests on three continentsThe Week Recommends Reconnecting with historic nature across the world
-
How oil tankers have been weaponisedThe Explainer The seizure of a Russian tanker in the Atlantic last week has drawn attention to the country’s clandestine shipping network
-
Three consequences from the Jenrick defectionThe Explainer Both Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage may claim victory, but Jenrick’s move has ‘all-but ended the chances of any deal to unite the British right’
-
The high street: Britain’s next political battleground?In the Spotlight Mass closure of shops and influx of organised crime are fuelling voter anger, and offer an opening for Reform UK
-
Venezuela: The ‘Donroe doctrine’ takes shapeFeature President Trump wants to impose “American dominance”
-
Minnesota fraud: Walz takes the hitFeature Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz will not seek re-election due to state welfare fraud scandal
-
MAGA: The battle over ‘Heritage Americans’Feature Blood-and-soil nationalism is roiling MAGA world
-
Donald Trump’s squeeze on VenezuelaIn Depth The US president is relying on a ‘drip-drip pressure campaign’ to oust Maduro, tightening measures on oil, drugs and migration
-
Trump vs. states: Who gets to regulate AI?Feature Trump launched a task force to challenge state laws on artificial intelligence, but regulation of the technology is under unclear jurisdiction
-
The MAGA civil war takes center stage at the Turning Point USA conferenceIN THE SPOTLIGHT ‘Americafest 2025’ was a who’s who of right-wing heavyweights eager to settle scores and lay claim to the future of MAGA
