Early this morning on GB News I debated a former Tory MP (and the presenter) on why there’s no connection between our leader’s criticism of the present occupant of the White House and the alleged political violence that took place this past weekend -the argument simply doesn’t stand up to even the most basic scrutiny.

Let’s start with first principles. All political violence is wrong. Full stop. Whether it’s an alleged incident at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner this weekend, or the well documented events of January 6th, 2021 – when a mob of angry supporters of Donald Trump (arguably at his direct instigation) stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to overturn a democratic election result – it is always indefensible. But what is both intellectually lazy and politically dangerous is the attempt to draw a straight line between robust democratic criticism and acts of violence. That’s not analysis – it’s deflection.

Because let’s be absolutely clear: Ed Davey criticising Donald Trump is not the problem here. It is, in fact, part of the solution.

We live in democracies. That means leaders – whether in Washington or Westminster – must be open to scrutiny, challenge, and yes, criticism. If a British political leader cannot express concerns about the rhetoric, behaviour, and record of this U.S. President without being accused by some of somehow “inciting” events thousands of miles away, then we are in very troubling territory indeed. Especially as, at the same time, I was being told that no one in the States has heard of the Lib Dem leader and that he has ‘no impact’ across the Atlantic.

Even as presented, the argument collapses under its own weight. Because it implicitly suggests that the real issue is not an act of alleged violence itself, but the existence of criticism that may have proceeded it. That is a profound inversion of responsibility.
And it also ignores the wider context. The United States has, in recent years, experienced a worrying increase in political tension and high-profile violent incidents, with experts pointing to the corrosive impact of genuinely inflammatory rhetoric and polarisation. To pretend that a British leader from the mainstream political centre is somehow the catalyst for that, or, indeed, plays any part in it whatsoever, is frankly absurd.

Ed Davey is entirely right to be critical of Donald Trump – and he should continue to do so without fear or favour. Trump’s rhetoric, his destructive approach to democratic norms, and his willingness to blur the line between political contest and personal grievance, are all legitimate subjects for critique. That is not “provocation,” it is democratic responsibility.

And here’s the deeper point. Our liberal and democratic politics – grounded in pluralism, respect, and the rule of law – are the polar opposite of the brand of politics represented by Trump and, closer to home, I’d argue, Nigel Farage. Where they trade in grievance and division, we argue for openness and accountability. Where they seek to delegitimise institutions, we seek to strengthen them.

To conflate those two approaches is not just wrong – it is dangerous. Because it risks creating a chilling effect, where politicians become wary of speaking plainly about threats to democracy for fear of being blamed for the actions of others.

That cannot be allowed to happen. Democracy depends on robust, honest debate. It depends on people like Ed Davey being willing to call things out when they see them. And it depends on us having the intellectual honesty to hold those who commit or encourage violence responsible – not those who simply speak uncomfortable truths.

Blaming criticism for violence doesn’t lower the temperature. It just obscures where the real heat is coming from.

Another difficult week for Keir Starmer

It’s the start of another potentially bruising week for the Prime Minister – and the pressure is only building. MPs are set to vote tomorrow on whether to allow a committee of Parliament to launch a formal investigation into claims he may have willingly misled MPs over the vetting process involved with the appointment of Peter Mandelson as the UK’s Ambassador to Washington, a move that goes right to the heart of trust and accountability in public life.

Also on Tuesday, Starmer’s former Chief of Staff Morgan McSweeney is due to give evidence before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, raising the prospect of further uncomfortable revelations about what Downing Street knew – and when.

Starmer insists due process was followed and denies any wrongdoing, while allies dismiss the row as politically motivated. But the optics are undeniably difficult: conflicting accounts, mounting scrutiny, and the looming possibility of a privileges committee inquiry – something that has proved very politically damaging in the past. Will Labour MPs vote to save Starmer from such a potential fate or will enough defy the Whip to keep this matter front and centre?

In politics, perception matters at least as much as reality. Right now, both are proving a challenge for the Prime Minister.

Birmingham needs a fresh start – not more Labour spin

After more than a year of strikes, mounting rubbish and rising frustration, Birmingham deserves much better. A last minute political statement from Labour won’t fix a crisis rooted in apparent mismanagement, broken trust, and failure to lead.

If the second city is to truly turn the page, it needs a genuine fresh start – and the Liberal Democrats are ready to offer it.

* Mathew Hulbert is a former Councillor, is a regular commentator on TV and Radio, and is Co-Host of the Political Frenemies podcast.