The danger is that we engage in the wrong argument: we say "we must defend democracy", & the other side thinks "yes we must - against unelected lawyers, civil servants, losing parties & obstructive parliaments". We need to persuade people that those things are good for democracy, not obstacles to it

Here is the key section of that train wreck of an interview by Robert Jenrick on #r4today.

Robinson: Did you raise it when you were Home Office minister?

Jenrick: We talked about it... I wasn't... My portfolio... But we talked about it.

Only a minute, if you can bear it. ~AA

I see that the government says it is working ‘at pace’ on implementing recommendations. This is comms code for ‘we know we should have done this already but now we might actually think about doing it’!

Sobering discussion on Today of the tech billionaires jostling to buy influence with Trump, so they can gut the regulation of their industries.

It's plutocratic feudalism, with tech-barons fighting to control the court.

The long project to bring economic power under democratic control is in ruins.

To his credit, a theme of Starmer's career is that he learns from mistakes.

But he needs to make fewer of them to start with. Pat McFadden's line ('The people are good but the systems & structures they work in...make it hard for them to deliver') shd have been the starting point, not the correction

If you've ever wondered why parliamentary oratory isn't what it was, I've been reading about Lord Brougham's "superhuman" speech ("the best ever made") on the Reform Bill in 1831.

He drank two bottles of port while speaking, ending up so drunk he needed help to put the question to the House.

A word on the Allison Pearson free speech row, and what she describes as a ‘Kafkaesque’ threat to it. We asked her on @thenewsagents.bsky.social to discuss.
She said: ‘No. And if you get any aspect of the story wrong my lawyers will be watching.’
Gotta love a free speech warrior 🤷🏻‍♂️