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”.
-
5 prize-winning cartoons about Donald Trump's appetite for awardsCartoons Artists take on operatic ambitions, peace prize pacifiers, and more
-
Will Trump’s $12 billion bailout solve the farm crisis?Today’s Big Question Agriculture sector says it wants trade, not aid
-
‘City leaders must recognize its residents as part of its lifeblood’Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
-
Trump: Losing energy and supportFeature Polls show that only one of his major initiatives—securing the border—enjoys broad public support
-
Trump’s poll collapse: can he stop the slide?Talking Point President who promised to ease cost-of-living has found that US economic woes can’t be solved ‘via executive fiat’
-
Is a Reform-Tory pact becoming more likely?Today’s Big Question Nigel Farage’s party is ahead in the polls but still falls well short of a Commons majority, while Conservatives are still losing MPs to Reform
-
The military: When is an order illegal?Feature Trump is making the military’s ‘most senior leaders complicit in his unlawful acts’
-
Ukraine and Rubio rewrite Russia’s peace planFeature The only explanation for this confusing series of events is that ‘rival factions’ within the White House fought over the peace plan ‘and made a mess of it’
-
The US-Saudi relationship: too big to fail?Talking Point With the Saudis investing $1 trillion into the US, and Trump granting them ‘major non-Nato ally’ status, for now the two countries need each other
-
Nigel Farage: was he a teenage racist?Talking Point Farage’s denials have been ‘slippery’, but should claims from Reform leader’s schooldays be on the news agenda?
-
What does the fall in net migration mean for the UK?Today’s Big Question With Labour and the Tories trying to ‘claim credit’ for lower figures, the ‘underlying picture is far less clear-cut’
