The Spectator was established in 1828, and is the oldest continuously published magazine in the English language. The Spectator’s taste for controversy, however, remains undiminished. There is no party line to which The Spectator’s writers are bound - originality of thought and elegance of expression are the sole editorial constraints.

The trial issue contains a “Thought Crime Special” with articles from Melanie Phillips, “I think, therefore I’m guilty”; Christopher Booker writes about “Scientists in hiding; the demonisation of academics who question the consensus”; Alan Rusbridger explores “How to stifle the press” and how England’s libel laws make it easy.

UK politics come under scrutiny from James Forsyth, Brendan O’Neill ponders if teenagers could ever be “Drunk and orderly”; while Tom Hollander writes his diary and James Delingpole says eat local organic food if you like, but don’t kid yourself that it’s ‘green’. 

The Spectator’s regular arts coverage includes books, theatre, opera, cinema and exhibitions.

John Jenkins: what can be done in Iran. It is tempting to feel hope regarding Iran, says John Jenkins, Britain’s former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Syria. It is natural to want to see a ‘country that reflects joy, hope and modernity rather than Ali Khamenei’s brutal Islamist fever dream’. However, ‘revolutions tend to produce disorder and repression, not order and freedom’. John explains that if the Basij (the regime’s thuggish militias), the IRGC and the religious elite remain united, the regime will survive. What then can Britain do to hamper its power? We should be less timid about damaging diplomatic ties and instead shut down Iran-backed institutions operating in this country: ‘As I know from the long and dismal hours I used to spend with them, the absence of Iranian diplomats in London would be no loss at all.’ Similarly, ‘the idea that a diplomatic presence in Tehran’ lets us ‘shape their views is for the birds’. Too many governments have treated Islamist bodies in this country ‘with kid gloves to “keep lines open”’, says John. Britain should think about doing something meaningful.

William Atkinson: Iran’s useful idiots. The Spectator’s William Atkinson takes us on a nightmare tour of the Iranian regime’s defenders. He looks at David Miller, the former Bristol academic who attended the funeral of Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah and presents on Iran’s Press TV. There’s Chris Williamson, Miller’s co-host and a former Labour MP. There’s distinguished company, too: one of our former ambassadors to Tehran, Sir Richard Dalton, thinks that ‘the US and Israel together constituted a greater threat’ to Middle East stability than Iran. This magazine’s record isn’t perfect, though: days after the last Shah of Iran fled in 1979, Roger Cooper wrote in The Spectator that an ‘Iranian Islamic republic… must surely be more alluring to all but the most stubborn defenders of an ancient regime’.

Charlie Gammell: what comes next. What’s next for Iran? According to Charlie Gammell, a former diplomat at the Foreign Office’s Middle East department, the two most unlikely scenarios are a coherent revolution, or regime stability ad infinitum. Instead, there’s a real chance of civil war. As Charlie points out, the most violent of the protests have been in Iran’s western and southern provinces, home to non-Shia ethnic groups. During his time at the Foreign Office, Charlie saw British diplomats refusing to take seriously the idea that the Ayatollahs could ever fall. ‘“No chance of change there”, they’d say confidently.’ After the 2022 student uprisings, one said protestors were ‘just a bunch of schoolgirls’. For now, Khamenei’s logic is that ‘I can kill more of your people than you have stomach for the fight’. However, the current regime’s rule is damaged beyond repair: ‘This violence simply cannot sustain Ayatollah Khamenei indefinitely.’

Tim Shipman: is this Gordon Brown’s second term? For the first year of Keir Starmer’s government, everyone tried to detect the hand of Tony Blair. Instead, Tim Shipman writes, this government is actually closer to ‘the second term of Gordon Brown’. Relations between Blair and Starmer have dried up: calls between the two are now infrequent. ‘Tony has basically given up on Keir,’ says one source close to Blair. Brown’s hand is detectable in several government policies: not just abolishing the two-child benefit cap, but also in attacks on the gambling industry. One source says that ‘for much of the past 15 years, Gordon has been a nuisance caller to Labour leaders. Now they’re taking his calls and doing what he wants’. There are also similarities over how much power both men have tried to exert over their chancellors. One former Tory chancellor observes that Rachel Reeves has ‘traded her power over economic policy in order to stay in her job’. However, the Brownites aren’t flattered by the comparison to Starmer. ‘Gordon had dense knowledge, constant curiosity and intellectual flair’, one says, while Starmer has a ‘vapidness and uninterest in economics which is startling’.

Max Jeffery: inside Oldham’s toxic politics. Last month in Oldham, the car of a candidate in the May council elections was petrol-bombed. For residents of this Greater Manchester borough, it confirmed their feeling that local politics is broken. ‘People in Oldham say the local elections are rigged and believe that council seats are handed out through the South Asian biradari clan system,’ Max writes. ‘They say the town’s grooming gangs scandal has become a political toy and they worry about the increasing number of intimidatory crimes in the area.’ Amid the unruliness, Oldham’s establishment is cracking and more reactionary politicians are finding success. ‘Irish Imy’, a former drug trafficker, is running as an independent in the ward of Werneth in May. He tells The Spectator that he wants to ‘break up the little boys’ club’ of Oldham Council. Many fear that the borough is going the way it was 25 years ago, when Oldham suffered race riots unlike anything Britain has seen since.