Wine Club

It can be cruel, the way politics plays out. At the very moment George Osborne was telling the bemused staff of the London Evening Standard that his working life in politics had obscured a passionate desire to become a newspaper editor, a familiar figure could be seen in the fresh meat department of the Whole Foods supermarket almost directly underneath the paper’s Kensington newsroom. That man was David Cameron, and inevitably someone with journalistic instincts spotted him, snapped him on her phone, and tweeted it. We congratulate ourselves on the ‘here today, gone tomorrow’ nature of British politics.

In a monumental irony, the ECHR’s agreement with an Austrian court that offensive comments about the Prophet Mohammed were 'beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate' has handed a big victory to both Islamists and Islamophobes – while infantilising believing Muslims everywhere. The case concerns an unnamed Austrian woman who held a number of seminars during which she portrayed the Prophet as a paedophile. After she was convicted by an Austrian court of 'disparaging religion' (and fined nearly €500), she appealed to the ECHR claiming the punishment breached her right to free expression. The court disagreed.

If you had to draw up a list of people and things it is de rigueur to loathe, it would definitely include Ryanair. Tabloid newspapers, Jeremy Clarkson, Brexit, red-hued men who pop up in the Question Time audience to moan about Jeremy Corbyn, and Ryan-bloody-air — these are things that every self-respecting member of the chattering class must bristle against. And that is why one moral error made by a Ryanair crew member has led to demands for the entire company to be boycotted. ‘Let’s all boycott this airline!’, the right-on have cried in response to a racist incident on a flight being badly handled by an attendant. Yeah, right, like these people would ever deign to use this cheap airline with its cheap passengers in the first place.

Two beliefs obsess the Remain cause. First, that voters were lied to during the referendum campaign. (Questionable). Second, that the negotiations are being botched. (Indisputable). But while Remainers believe that their opponents are fibbers, they can’t see that they too are being misled. At the People’s Vote rally last Saturday, I found general acceptance of these four myths. 1. Brexit is a ‘far-right’ policy. 2. Europe will be closed to Britons after we leave. 3. The EU is run by saints who negotiate in good faith. 4. A second vote will heal the divisions caused by Brexit. The rally was vast and good-tempered. Many demonstrators had come to be photographed rather than to protest.

It always amazes me that people think it is normal and acceptable to have hate-crime legislation. To have laws which allow for the harsher punishment of people who entertain prejudiced thoughts while committing an offence. To have it written into the actual statute books that the man who punches a Buddhist because he hates Buddhism can be punished more severely than the man who punches a Buddhist because he hates that individual Buddhist for some reason. When are we going to twig that this represents the punishment of thought, of ideology, of belief (warped belief, but still)? I don’t like that Britain has become a country in which people, especially the political class, think it is okay for the state to punish individuals for what they think.

As chalices go, few are as poisoned as the one Emmanuel Macron has just handed Christophe Castaner. Minister of the interior is one of the most challenging posts in government. The former Socialist MP has cultivated an image over the years of a political tough guy, in contrast to his predecessor, the diminutive Gérard Collomb. But what passes for tough in the National Assembly won't intimidate the tough guys in France's inner cities. During his eighteen months in the post, Collomb was a diligent minister, but in the end the 71-year-old was worn down by the enormity of his task. He parted with a message that should cause his successor a few sleepless nights.

Patience. Pragmatism. Perseverance. Nationalist leaders do not, as a general rule, use such terms to inspire their troops. Not, at any rate, if they think the day of national emancipation is imminent. Yet these were precisely the terms in which Nicola Sturgeon spoke to her party’s conference in Glasgow this week. That reflects one of the paradoxes of our time. Politically-speaking it is possible to march closer to independence without actually getting closer to it. Or, to put it another way, the road to independence is shorter now but also littered with more, and larger, obstacles than was the case as recently as 2014. This is the conundrum in which Sturgeon finds herself: the route is simple but the road is not open.

A confession: when I set off on my journey down the rabbit hole of gender issues, I was a bit sceptical and possibly even dismissive of some of the fears raised by some of the more animated feminist participants in the debate. When I heard women talking about “erasure” and the removal of women as a distinct category of people from public conversation and policy, I had my doubts. I mean, the concept of “woman” is pretty robust, isn’t it? Just because a number of male-born people start describing themselves as “women”, the fundamental concept of “woman” will surely remain as the vast majority of people understand it to mean: “adult human female,” in the phrase of the Oxford English Dictionary.