The odd heckle is a small price for free speech

Theresa May’s call for a new gag on political debate is unnecessary nanny state interference

Iwas on the Question Time panel last week and, as night follows day, we had a heckler. Chap in the second row, blond hair. Now, heckling is against my nature, so my toes were curling as it was – but you know what made the experience even more uncomfortable? He was on my side. “Brexit means Brexit!” he shouted, and “I agree with Tim!” After 40 minutes of angry back-and-forth with other members of the audience, David Dimbleby called time. “Can we have our next question please?”

Up shot his arm. It was his question. The gentleman cared, he wanted to be heard, and the panel handled him with courtesy. What’s wrong with that? Far, far worse goes on. A fight broke out at a speech by Jacob Rees-mogg last Friday; MPS say abuse has become a routine part of elections. The Tories have decided this is unacceptable, which it is, and that it’s time to legislate, which it’s not. In a speech today to mark the centenary of women’s suffrage, Theresa May will call for a ban on intimidation in public life. This is a silly idea from a silly Government that, among its silliest notions, also pledges to eliminate loneliness. Don’t they realise the main reason people vote for the Conservatives is on the understanding that they’ll leave us alone?

Intimidation is already illegal under at least five Acts, but Mrs May wants to expand it to electoral law. Interpretation will be a minefield. Candidates will accuse each other of threatening behaviour, and, even if it doesn’t wind up in court, it will draw the police further into politics, distracting them from the vital work of attending gay pride rallies and investigating dead prime ministers.

They really do have a lot on their plate. Last month, Labour students at the University of Liverpool commemorated the execution of Charles I by tweeting: “We did it once, we can do it again.” And Merseyside Police said: “We have received numerous reports of comments made by a Twitter account regarding regicide... The matter is currently being looked into further.” As others pointed out, if they’re concerned about the safety of Charles I, they’re about 400 years too late.

Yes, politics has become a bit uglier recently, but please don’t use that to justify yet another power-grab by the state. Keep some perspective. Are things really so much worse than the Troubles, when politicians lived in fear of a perpetual terrorist threat? Or the early 19th century, when corruption poisoned politics so much that when Prime Minister Spencer Perceval was shot by an assassin in 1812, church bells rang out with joy?

An angry politics can reflect traumatic social change or difficult policy choices that cannot be avoided. Why does Brexit divide us so? Because it’s about personal identity and because there’s little ground for common agreement: Britain is either in the EU or out. Those who insist that a consensus can be reached are usually agents for Remain using a subtler argument. That’s how liberalism gets its way. It delegitimises alternative points of view, narrowing the field of acceptable opinion to a point that represents a quiet victory for the status quo. Want to discuss immigration? You must be a racist. Favour nationalising the railways? You are presumably a communist.

And while it’s true that everyone indulges in bad Second World War metaphors, it’s striking just how often liberals compare their opponents to Hitler. Jacob Rees-mogg, I am forever being told, is definitely an “extremist” out of the Thirties. When asked why, all people can usually come up with is that he once admitted he’d never changed a nappy on the grounds that “nanny wouldn’t approve” because he’d do it badly.

Mogg is pro-nanny but anti-nanny state, which is the right mix. And before I’m accused of sexism for using such language – another classic liberal policing tactic – ask yourself what the Suffragettes, who Mrs May is celebrating today, would think about making it an offence in electoral law to intimidate politicians? I’m not sure. Remember that they could be rather intimidating themselves – they slashed paintings and broke windows – and that the line between mo rally justifiable civil disobedience and unsettling confrontation might be thinner than you first think. Perhaps they’d conclude that the hideous, often sexualised abuse directed at women online has gone so far that legislative action is now needed. Or perhaps they’d judge that this requires the Government to take on the powerful social media companies and enforce the existing law better.

On balance, it might be necessary to endure some heckling to maintain the general principle of free speech. I get plenty. In fact, a kind friend sometimes takes care of my Twitter account. I’d forgotten this when, after Question Time, I rang to say that I’d received my best response on Twitter yet: “Not one negative comment! People must’ve loved my new tie!”

My friend gently reminded me that he’d been muting all the worst tweets as the show aired. “How many were there?” I asked. “I stopped counting after 60,” he replied. The tie wasn’t as popular as I thought.