THE NEW STATESMAN: The latest issue features Tom McTague defending the magazine’s radical spirit, arguing that every publication needs a driving project. Emily Lawford examines the modern Conservative party, noting that true believers remain undeterred by recent electoral failures. Nicholas Harris uses Cornish nationalism as a mirror for broader British politics, while Andrew Marr warns Labour against falling for opposition election strategies. Internationally, JS Rafaeli critiques the Israeli state following an arrest in the West Bank. Finally, the collection includes a public letters feature emphasizing legal equality.

Bin the Budget – Every magazine needs a project

In defence of the New Statesman’s capital-R Radical spirit

Last week’s open letter in support of Sally Rooney, calling for the Terrorism Act to be amended to protect free expression, generated an extraordinary response. Not all of it has been positive, of course. While many readers wrote in to endorse the letter, others argued – reasonably and often forcefully – that it was Rooney who was to blame for the situation, not the government. She has chosen, of her own volition, to self-censor by going out of her way to breach a law that, irrespective of its merits, should be followed because it is the result of a democratic process. One reader, Peter O’Halloran, from Cavan, Ireland, was among many who got in touch to make this point: “While taking a moral stance is, of course, to be admired, surely the law is the law?”

Abolish the Budget

It is an inherently dishonest way to run a country By Will Dunn

In recent decades, a sinister new force has assumed power in Westminster. They can appear in any political party. They are formidable at converting politicians to their cause. They’re not the Blob, or the Deep State, or the Lizard People. They’re worse. They are the Budgetarians, and no matter which party is in power, they are running the country.

The government must resist Gogglebox politics

Don’t try to read the mind of the British Everyman By Anoosh Chakelian

Every few weeks, I am surveyed for my opinions – not as a journalist, but as a human – by a polling firm. Five years ago, our household was chosen by whatever magical selection process these companies concoct to be part of a polling panel, answering questions about everything from pension literacy to the state of our neighbourhood to how we feel on an emotional scale about heat pumps.

I sometimes wonder how to answer. Should I tick “yes” that I’ve heard of political buzz terms such as “levelling up” or “net zero”? Would someone of my demographic have come across them if it hadn’t been for having a job like mine? And am I being misleading about my media habits if I tick that I read every newspaper, multiple times a month, even if it’s only for work?