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”.
-
The ‘ravenous’ demand for Cornish mineralsUnder the Radar Growing need for critical minerals to power tech has intensified ‘appetite’ for lithium, which could be a ‘huge boon’ for local economy
-
Why are election experts taking Trump’s midterm threats seriously?IN THE SPOTLIGHT As the president muses about polling place deployments and a centralized electoral system aimed at one-party control, lawmakers are taking this administration at its word
-
‘Restaurateurs have become millionaires’Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
-
How corrupt is the UK?The Explainer Decline in standards ‘risks becoming a defining feature of our political culture’ as Britain falls to lowest ever score on global index
-
Democrats push for ICE accountabilityFeature U.S. citizens shot and violently detained by immigration agents testify at Capitol Hill hearing
-
Fulton County: A dress rehearsal for election theft?Feature Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is Trump's de facto ‘voter fraud’ czar
-
‘Melania’: A film about nothingFeature Not telling all
-
Greenland: The lasting damage of Trump’s tantrumFeature His desire for Greenland has seemingly faded away
-
Minneapolis: The power of a boy’s photoFeature An image of Liam Conejo Ramos being detained lit up social media
-
The price of forgivenessFeature Trump’s unprecedented use of pardons has turned clemency into a big business.
-
The ‘mad king’: has Trump finally lost it?Talking Point Rambling speeches, wind turbine obsession, and an ‘unhinged’ letter to Norway’s prime minister have caused concern whether the rest of his term is ‘sustainable’
