Tag Archives: political accountability

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.