The government has announced new restrictions on the right of unions to fund political parties as well as on the right to strike. The restrictions on funding were not in its election manifesto. I am not going to get overly absorbed in the detail or the consequence for the Labour Party, to which the majority of unions are not affiliated. I am much more interested in two, in my opinion, more significant, philosophical issues.
The first is the restriction on access to politics that appears to be a goal of this government. There ae at least three obvious strands to this move. The first is this crack down on political campaigning by unions. The second is the so-called Gagging Law which restricted the campaigning rights of civil society organisations. The third is to be found in the more restrictive views now being presented on what represents acceptable political campaigning by charities. The moves cannot be unrelated: the are all, very clearly, part of a continuum of action.
What is notable is that none appear to have equivalent on the right wing of politics. So, for example, there are no restrictions on political contributions by employer organisations. Nor does the Gagging Law have almost any real impact on commercial lobbying whilst right wing thinking appears very largely untouched by changes in opinion on what constitutes political action by charities.
There is, it seems, an imbalance at play here. The logic appears to be that to structure society around self interest, market forces and the creation of inequality is natural ordering and so not political whilst the opposite view is unnatural and so political. There is, if course, no justification for this view: if the teaching of almost all wisdom and faith traditions is to benchmark what is natural it would be hard to find significant long term support for this view of the natural order. Nor does it, in practice, accord with either the stated opinions of a great many people in the UK or their actual actions, that appear considerably more inclined to social justice than any such suggestion implies, but this appears to have little sway on the government's dogmatic thinking. The implication is obvious, and is that there is, in practice, a deep insecurity inherent in this attempt to redefine the nature of what is politcial that may indicate a lack of confidence on the government's part that it is right. Why, otherwise, work so hard to suppress opinion?
The second issue is as fundamental. This relates to the view that is implied by these actions of people who have to work for a living. It is a fundamental human right, according to the United Nations, that a person should be able to withdraw their labour. The proposed change in strike laws puts such restrictions upon access to this right that the possibility that it will be denied to many has to be considered a very real possibility. This is in itself deeply troubling, but even that may not be the most worrying aspect of this, which is the indication that it gives that those proposing this legislation see most of those who work for a living as mere means to the ends of those who engage them. I know of no ethical code that thinks such an attitude acceptable, and yet it appears to be the underlying logic of this proposal.
In both these cases what is clear is that this government's proposals are deeply morally flawed. That is what really worries me. I cannot see how a strong, stable democracy or resilient economy can be built on the basis of such beliefs and that has consequences for us all.
NB: I am a member of Unite but of no political party. I have worked for a number of trade unions. The views expressed here are, as ever, personal.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Great analysis as usual. And don’t forget the BBC, the only national broadcaster with a politically critical eye, also under that from the Tory government.
Hugh, I think the BBC lost it’s critical eye many years ago and has become a mouthpiece for the dominant neo-lib narrative. If you want to find a critical eye these days, you have to turn to RT or Al Jazeera.
Typo in my previous comment should have read “under threat”…
“In both these cases what is clear is that this government’s proposals are deeply morally flawed. That is what really worries me. I cannot see how a strong, stable democracy or resilient economy can be built on the basis of such beliefs and that has consequences for us all”
There you go again….
Your assumption that TPTB want a stable democracy, a strong democracy or a resilient economy.
This government all-too-obviously does not want democracy to apply to The Lower Orders.
Although, it must be said, neither does/did labour…..did not a certain Monsieur Miliband want to sever the labour/union link?
The problem, as I see it, is that we have no politicians: We have Purchased-People who represent us, at election time, and money the rest of the time.
The final triumph; democracy subverted to being the servant of the rich, powerful and amoral.
John M-I agree, largely. I’m now convinced that the Tories don’t give a damn about most of the populace and know that there heavily financialised (profit without production) world is a stand alone affair that can uncouple itself from the main body of the stressed and struggling majority.
I too am equally alarmed by some of the announcements made yesterday in the Queen’s speech. It appears to me somewhat hypocritical and undemocratic for a government elected on less than 25% of the vote would insist that a union vote to strike must have a turnout of at least 50% of it’s members and if I am correct, must also achieve 65% of the vote in order for the vote to be considered valid. Quite simply this is a further attack on workers rights which I suspect the government hopes will see membership of unions fall further and therefore restrict one source of funding to the labour party. I wonder if there are grounds for challenging this attack on workers rights under the ECHR, perhaps some of the more legally qualified could comment on that.
Even more telling of the governments intentions is that there has been no subsequent restriction on the power of the City of London and their funding of the conservative party. Taking into consideration the number of illegal rigging scandals and subsequent fines from regulators both here and in the US, the city is providing both a much bigger in money terms and a more questionable source of funding than unions. However to receive money from the perpetrators of illegal activity is much more acceptable than hard working people it seems. Again, perhaps someone more legally qualified than I could comment on the grounds for a legal challenge on the source of the conservative party’s funding.
The cynic in me thinks the conservative party are trying to remove any challenge to them having a clear path to remain in power for a very long time. If it is true, not only would that be wholly undemocratic, given what we learned yesterday and David Cameron’s threat to remove Britain from the ECHR, it would also be a very worrying prospect indeed and not only for British democracy.
Perhaps the ‘long run’ answer is that maybe we will have to lose a lot of what we have fought for in order to recognise how valuable it was in the first place?
Only then will we be truly mobilised to turn the tables? Mind you, when you look at America and see how all that concentrated wealth gets used to cement certain ideas into society. It’s not looking good is it?
Scary stuff.
He may well rewrite the UK human rights act.
Unless the UK choses to remove itself from the ECHR, which would largely invalidate anything the UK choses to say/do with respect to other countries abuses of human rights, then UK citizens/subjects will still be able to take the country to the ECHR.
Maybe people should be made aware that the ECHR is not a European union court?
Only I note that a majority of “news”papers do not make that distinction.
It is a sad time for the UK, having been party to many of the initiatives, and laws, to put in place, and enforce, human rights, it is soon going to be in the position of stating that its own citizens/subjects can only have the human rights that its government will allow it to have. While other countries allow their citizens enhanced rights.
And where does that leave Scotland?
With all SNP elected members against the HR act removal.
‘…those proposing this legislation see most of those who work for a living as mere means to the ends of those who engage them. I know of no ethical code that thinks such an attitude acceptable, and yet it appears to be the underlying logic of this proposal.’
You don’t know of one because there isn’t one in your lexicon of thinking, Richard, nor in that of many (most?) that read this blog, or indeed many millions of UK citizens. But to a Tory? And particularly a bunch of Tories brought up on privilege and wealth? This is simply a return to the natural order of things – circa the 19th century and before – master and servant/slave/serf. That’s all the “moral” legitimacy they need.
As for the suppression of political debate that isn’t neoliberal, I think it was evident at the time that if the Tories had their way they’d go much further. Hence it illustrates once again that while the Lib Dems might have been patting themselves on the backs for taking the “nasty” edge off Tory policies, they were, in fact, allowing an initial breach to occur (not just here but in many policy areas – a Trojan Hose, if you like) that the Tories can now exploit to the full.
Anyway, the Lib Dem’s stupidity/shortsightedness has been punished in full – RIP. But if I recall correctly, when you first raised the issue of the Gagging Law on this blog there was at one point some discussion of whether it was leading us towards our very own 21st century version of Orwell’s Newspeak. As I think I quoted at the time: ‘The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible.’ (Orwell, Appendix to 1984).
Substitute Neolib for Ingsoc, and my argument was that when combined with surveillance laws and powers (now to be enhanced significantly), and an already largely Newspeak orientated media (now joined by a cowed BBC) we were, in fact, a long way down that road. I dare say many people thought that an overstatement. But with the raft of developments now set to take their place alongside the Gagging Law and constraints on charities the picture – or more accurately, the objective – becomes clear, and it isn’t a million miles away from Newspeak after all. Indeed, the only substantive difference is that Orwell would probably never have believed that his parable of power, control and fear in a socialist state would apply to the UK under a right wing government. But then again, having witnessed facism he might.
What we should all be clear about, however, is this: whether these developments are due to some underlying insecurity on the part of the Tories – as you flag in your blog – or not, is in many ways irrelevant. The fundamental point is that this is a planned and ongoing process the intended results of which are obvious – some of which you highlight. Ultimately it is to entrench in our economy, society and culture a world view – and the institutions and actions that flow from it – in which an elite rule and the rest of us serve. Where exploitation (of people and the environment) and inequality are accepted as a “norms”. And where our representative democracy is merely a a five yearly exercise in legitimising either more or less vile versions of this newliberal excuse for 21st century feudalism.
Meanwhile the Labour party leadership candidates argue about who can be the best “manager” of our country. Remarkable!
Remarkable indeed
Ivan
My elder son has recently been doing his Economics AS Level.
This is, essentially, an exam in having right-wing opinions , the more right-wing winning the more points. Hence, he must say that the Supply Curve can be shifted to the right (towards greater productivity) by lower taxes on the wealthy & lower (or no) welfare for the poor. As I’ve said to him, those are the answers they want so put them down. They are, demonstrably, false, but if they’re what they want….
So true
Economics has been captured
But it gets worse. Last night I had a long debate on Facebook with a US “econ PhD student who was interested in studying such dynamics of the economy (when we get stable vs unstable equilibria).” He was trying to defend Neoclassical Economics. This was on an LVT group and some of the other respondents were able to argue with him much more precisely because they were into econometrics and modelling. But what it showed was that this type of twisted certainty is still the product of economics departments. I told him twice to go read Debunking Economics, but he only wanted to urge us to read the rubbish authors pushed by the universities.
The idea that there is equilibrium is absurd: it implies an ideal world of no change. There has never been such a thing. For economists toi waste time discussing it is absurd
eriugenus, I’m not surprised at all as the same has happened in most universities over the past two decades (with some notable exceptions). Of course, that means that unless those kids have a parent such as yourself, or Richard, they’re effectively brainwashed into a partial and corrupted concept of economics that then very conveniently fits into the neoliberal narrative that dominates our politics and popular discourse. Again, just further advancing our 21st century variant of Newspeak.
In fairness, this corruption has lasted a long time
My son recently made his choices for GCSE; he was left with one undecided option towards the end which was music or economics. As an ex music teacher I didn’t want to unduly influence him so on the options evening we went to a talk by the economics GCSE teacher. As I suspected, the textbooks were appalling, offering the usual money multiplier model of bank lending and the usual ethics free graphs. The teacher rattled on about how economics can help us understand phenomena like the recent recession and then opined that we were merging out of it! That clinched it for me but I left the decision to my son -he’s taking music! A more inspiring teacher and a subject that will provided real social/collegiate experience.
My eldest is taking music
The younger one art
Both better than economics, I think
I did economics for A level (for one year FFS and passed) and at 18, with no experience of real life I was inclined to think that socialism sounded nice but capitalism worked. Fortunately we couldn’t vote back then and by the time I could I was married, working and living in the real world. When I did my economics degree as a mature student, with 2 small children, a mortgage and an out-of-work husband,I quickly realised that most of what I was being taught was rubbish, even though it introduced me to the very important topics of market failure and taxing land. Thereafter, I considered that a little bit of economics is a dangerous thing. Later, Steve Keen’s Debunking Economics, confirmed that my instincts were correct.
Spot on Carol
I should check for typos before I hit submit, Richard. The second to last sentence, should be neoliberal, not newliberal. The latter would be an example of Newspeak 🙂
I think we can live with typos Ivan but I can’t say same about Neoliberalism.
Have shared this on Facebook, with the following intro:
Very important, dealing with 3 issues on which I have frequently commented and posted, and these are;
1) the rise of a neo-feudal state of 99% serfs (with NO rights, only obligations, including taxation) with 1% new Barons (with ALL rights, AND exemption from taxation)
2) the Right Wing/Tory argument from nature = Toryism is NATURAL, ALL other political ideas are DEVIANT (so can be suppressed)
3) Tory “double double standards” = “We Tories are allowed double standards, you, as deviants, are not”.
Welcome to the incipently, developing, Fascist neo-feudal state!
Last sentence would read better as follows:
“Welcome to the developing, incipiently Fascist, neo-feudal state.”
Andrew/Ivan
I put up a comment on this blog earlier which may have came across as very risque (as I’ve noted Richard has not posted it – his choice of course) but I’m glad to see that some others sense some sort or fascistic under-current with the Tory approach to their thin majority as I do myself.
Cameron’s ‘one nation’ approach is obviously ‘one nation under one yolk’ – the Tory party’s yolk that is.
Sorry – some of the language went beyond what I thought could be said
Richard
Upon reflection you are right.
“Cameron’s ‘one nation’ approach is obviously ‘one nation under one yolk’ — the Tory party’s yolk that is.”
On a lighter note, would that be “one yoke”? Or are we talking about Cameron as Humpty Dumpty here? Omelette, anyone?
🙂
Dear me – talk about getting egg on my face – AGAIN!
Anyhow, it is the policies of this Government that are beyond a yolk/yoke (delete as applicable).
Note to self: Stop doing comments during lunch breaks!
I would say that the continuum of action extends to the withdrawal of juficial review, legal aid, and onshore deportation appeals.
It is indeed about ‘access to politics’, as part of a comprehensive policy of disempowerment.
‘A comprehensive policy of disempowerment.’
Concisely and oh so accurately put, Nile.
Reading what Ivan says is depressing. I am getting older and I worry what my 13 year old son has to look forward to. I feel like giving up, keeping my head down, making sure I do what I can to not lose my job and the bills get paid and just plodding on.
I hate this government and I have little faith in Labour or anybody offering a progressive alternative.
I know I shouldn’t hate them, and those who voted for them, I understand how negative and destructive that is.
But I do *hate* them. There is going to be trouble as inequality gets worse and we see or welfare state slip away, and I sometimes think there needs to be.
And I wish I didn’t.
You are not alone
We also have children of similar ages
Their future profoundly worries me too
John, I’ve been similarly worried and depressed by this for years, though now its not so much my kids as my grandkids’ future that concerns me. The source of my worries lie in the fact that when I first went into academia in the early 1990s my research specialism for over a decade was what was then called electronic democracy (now digital, of course). One of the pieces of research I undertook with colleagues from Holland and Denmark was a survey of how/if ‘technologically mediated innovations in political practice’ across western Europe were impacting on the various democratic models and systems and polities of the region of the time. I should note that this was a period in which techno-utopian views of the how “good” new technology would be for democracy were pretty dominant, particularly in the US.
Anyway, having noted the emergence and growing influence of ‘managed democracy’, our analysis led us to the view that far from the development of some new, liberating, empowering form of cyberdemocracy: ‘The scenario which emerges then, is of a “two-tier” democracy: a “big” democracy, concerned with policy and decision-making at a national and international level, dominated by practices associated with demo-elitist and consumer democracy. And a “small” democracy where “ordinary” citizens try to make a difference in terms of the quality of their everyday life.'(2000, p.187)*
At the time I think me and my co-authors hoped that this negative prediction wouldn’t prove accurate. But if anything, in the UK at least, our worst fears have been more than matched.
Apologies for being even more depressing.
* Ivan Horrocks, Jens Hoff and Pieter Tops, ‘Reflections on the models of democracy: cyberdemocracy?’ In, Hoff, J., Horrocks, I. and Tops, P. (Eds) (2000) ‘Democratic Governance and New Technology’. Routledge/ECPR Studies in Political Science.
Ivan
Let me see if I can get my head around this……
So what you seem to be saying is that rather than bringing people closer to democracy, technology has actually pulled people away and is actually making it easier for bad Governments to govern?
That technology has effectively insulated politicians from the closer scrutiny and the consequences of their policy making?
Ivan, this appalling account of Jack Monroe’s experience strikes as being an excellent exemplification of your argument about (against?) the cyber state. Shocking stuff.
http://agirlcalledjack.com/2015/05/28/thinking-of-applying-for-britains-hardest-grafter-read-this-first/
Agreed
I know Jack, a little
She’s great and there is no side to her
I admire what she’s done and does
Likewise John – I have a 14 year old son with whom I talk about these issues. Sometimes I’m awake at 3.00 in the morning feeling very ill at ease. I also live in a Housing Association house and have a background anxiety that ‘they are on their way to get me.’ I think this is not entirely paranoia! However, I’m determined not to let it all get me down and undermine my life. One things for sure, this sh**t cannot go one forever though it might be a long moral arc before we change direction.
On a positive note, I’m reading Naomi Klein’s ‘This Changes Everything.’ Despite our political and economic narrative being diametrically opposed to what is reasonable, sane, decent and responsible she sees a great opportunity for change nestling in the bleak wasteland of neo-liberalism -worth a read.
Simon – yes, I just finished Naomi Klein’s work, and I agree it is good, necessary even, to be aware that there are sane voices like hers (and Richard Murphy’s, Ivan Horrocks et al) out there amongst the neoliberal zombies in government taking us back to the 1930s.
The best thing we can do for Jack Monroe is to buy her book and use it. I know I will.
Any news on your next opus Richard?
Jack’s book is good
I use it
The opus is in progress
Some blogs here test ideas for it…so you contribute
Poverty and fear are Tories tools and they are very comfortable with using them.
The politicians are mere tools of an out of control, ruthless, amoral and sociopathic elite, who have conducted a class war to advance and maintain their own interests.
We have just been through a General Election which was a complete farce. It should be obvious that we do not live in a properly functioning democracy. The display of democracy was nothing more that “Potemkin Village” hand in glove with an engineered fake recovery to the UK economy.
How is it possible for a party elected by less than 1 in 4 of us can dictate policy for the next five years?
The UK’s turn towards a service based economy was nothing but a “Trojan Horse” for financialization.
Like the white heat of technology speech of more than 50 years ago promising all three day working weeks, the goal of a service based economy was but a mere mirage. It like the Cheshire Cat, disappeared on close inspection leaving almost no trace apart from a smile; the sickeningly smug smile belonging to our truly dismal elite.
The veil is lifted briefly now and again to reveal the monied interests who really control the UK. Peter Oborne’s departure from the Telegraph was but one recent example.
The aim is to strip away the rights of ordinary citizens in conjunction with “debt slavery” to ensure that we are controlled under a warped version of communitarianism subject to a totalitarian overlay of billionaires and transnational corporates, which are to be feared and revered as the high priests of our modern age!
Enough is enough. isn’t it time for us, the ordinary citizens of the UK, to use all peaceful means to wrest power from our corript elite, who have gourged themselves over the past 35 years at monumental cost to the rest of us.
Richard, sounds well and truly like the UK is on the road to totalitarianism, but I don’t think Australia and the rest of the Western world are far behind. 🙁
We are now under the jackboot (or should I say the pinstripe suit-boot) of an authoritarian right wing administration proceeding towards democracy in name only and the suppression of competing points of view. A very similar set-up to Viktor Orban’s Hungary (where the ruling right-wing Fidesz party has taken similar steps to ensconce itself in power by altering the constitution and laws) and indeed Putin’s Russia. It strikes me that the only way the Tories will be ejected from office now is via some sort of revolution. I just hope we can achieve a peaceful transfer of power to democratic forces (e.g. Czechoslovakia in 1989) rather than a violent collapse of the existing regime (e.g. Romania 1989). Given the weakness of the UK economy the parallels with the last days of the Soviet bloc are very striking.
Have you read Jack London’s ‘The Iron Heel’? Eerily similar.
Carol. This is from the publisher’s note to my 1974 edition of The Iron Heel: ‘Its publication in 1907 caused a sensation, yet sixty eight years later its message is just as clear: allow the Revolution to be defeated and the ruling class, in their own words, will “walk upon your faces”‘.
I’ll leave it up to others to judge how accurate that might be.
(Note: 1907 – 1974 = sixty seven years)
This one unknown to me….
To Richard: It’s not that well known that Jack London was a communist, in Marx’s terms, as was William Morris. We all decide how much of a communist we are. We should all read a lot more before we make a decision on how we view the question of what we strive for in the world. I know where I stand on the matter…
Came across this quote from the London book:
‘ Out of the decay of self-seeking capitalism, it was held, would arise that flower of the ages, the Brotherhood of Man. Instead of which, appalling alike to us who look back and to those that lived at the time, capitalism, rotten-ripe, sent forth oligarchy.’
‘Rotten-ripe’…perfect for our times.
IJack London was, himself, a really unpleasant bigot &, in the true sense, racist.
You’re right, eriugenus, I only found one paragraph which revealed this, but it was truly shocking.
From wiki….
¨Indeed, the tragic turn in the novel (and Jack London’s core warning to his contemporaries) is the treachery of these favored unions which break with the other unions and side with the Oligarchy¨
New Labour anyone?
Judging by this comment it seems the comments section of this blog is turning into an anti conservative rant by bitter people who can’t accept that the Tories were given a majority by the electorate.
I wonder how wrong you can be?
Many here make quite clear that their opinion is not formed by being pro-Labour
I am not a party politician and have no desire to be so
BUT I can be concerned about a deeply flawed electoral system, the abuse of human and economic rights and an economic policy designed to inflict harm nonetheless
And if you were a democrat you realise how important it is that people can say so without your type of comment being made
@James H
anti – Conservative – you bet, with very good reason, as the last 5 years (and many of the years since 1979) demonstrate.
Bitter? No; angry, damned angry
Tories were given a mandate by the electorate? Hardly. Only 24% of the total electorate, with a majority of the remaining 75% opposing them, and with their vote only increasing by 0.8% over 2010, but skilfully (I grant them that)_better focused in marginal seats, to give them a “mandate!?” to behave like Lord Hailsham’s warning of an “electoral dictatorship”
I suggest you read this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32954807
The Tories simply do NOT have the right, on 24% of the vote to tear up our Human Rights and replace them with some bogus “Bill of Rights”. Only a referendum – as would happen under the American Constitution for changes to that Constitution – will suffice.
If those of us who wanted to use online media to help democracy improve have indeed been shunted into some sort of siding, then the only conclusion one can come to is that over time, people must take to the streets once again to be heard.
How long this will take is unknown to me.
It will be interesting to see how this Government deals with 38 Degrees etc., going forward.
And look at the diversions that are being created around us. We still do not have any bankers in court or prison over the 2008 crash, yet the FBI are after Sepp Blatter & Co.
I concede that the American attorney leading this has actually sent a few shots over the bow of Wall Street recently too but is the way in which football is administered internatioanlly more important than the problems created by international banking? I think not.
But then again I’m into Rugby so I have a natural bias anyway.
All very alarming stuff. No doubt because of the Internet we are able to access information and to discuss with like minded people all that concerns us. World leaders and multinationals have their plan for us that is for sure, and it does not seem offer a hopeful and healthy life work balance. Holding them to account is increasingly difficult and seems futile, but maybe a wonderful groundswell will surge forward, some brave young souls out there. I wish with all my heart for a good life , for the young especially, throughout the world. Turning a bit Mills and Boone, it’s an age thing.
Hmmm
If people put as much effort into finding out more about how the world really works as they do in finding the best holiday deals & flights or cheap deals on goods, then I’m sure that the Times, Daily Mail and the Sun etc., would have a harder time ramming their nonsense down our throats on a daily basis.
Maybe the public perception is that the Web is just about fun and accessing markets and that is it? For now. The Web has come a long way in a very short time and hopefully human nature will catch up eventually.
But as we see on this blog, some of the most compelling counter-arguments to the destructive ideas we are living under are definitely out there – you just have to be interested in the first place.
It isn’t apathy that I think we are seeing – it is maybe more like a culture of contentment that J K Galbraith described. Maybe the Net and all the gizmos it has helped to flourish make us happier or just take up so much of our time that any deeper use of the content on the Web is well….just ignored?
“Welcome to the developing, incipiently Fascist, neo-feudal state” – and other similar comments.
There’s much to be critical of the current government but for some on here to claim it’s like Nazi Germany of the old eastern bloc communist countries is ridiculous.
If nothing else it’s an insult to the memories of those who suffered under those regimes (including relatives of mine) for you to pretend you are suffering in a similar way.
If nothing else, do you think a blog like this or a vocal critic like Richard would still be around if what you were saying were even remotely true?
Read some history books and get some perspective.
We have read the history books
Sue, I stand by what I say. As Richard says – read the books. Both Hitler and Mussolini were entirely constitutionally appointed, and only after assuming power did they use that power to subvert opposition. Pastor Niemoller’s quote accurately sets out the sequence:
“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.”
What are we to make of the Gagging Law (shown to have inhibited OXFAM)? Or threats to take action against the Trussell Trust? |Or the changes to the Electoral Registration system prior to the Election, causing many people to fail to be registered, followed now by a proposal to reduce the number of MP’s, and BASE THE CONSTITUENCIES ON NUMBERS REGISTERED, and NOT POPULATION – a transparent move to engineer constituencies based on potential Tory voters. many of whom will be either older or settled or both, in contrast to students and the impoverished? Then there is David Cameron’s threat to go after people who, while law-abiding, try the “tolerance” of those in power by “daring” to express ideas they find unacceptable – the police arrested a man in the crowd watching the State Opening of Parliament because he was HOLDING (not brandishing or waving) a small placard critical of the policy of austerity.
Please don’t play the relatives card: ALL of us can speak of relatives who suffered in the struggle against Fascism. My cousin died in a bombing raid on Germany, so I never knew him, as I was born in 1945. Please keep your eyes and ears open, and always test a Government’s bona fides by the old test “By their fruits shall you know them”. And I for one am profoundly concerned.
I share that concern Andrew
And it’s because we’ve read the history books that so many of us are fearful for the future, mainly for our childrens’ future.
Is living with the Tories over the last five years or so, we’ve experienced the propaganda blitz through which different sections of society have been turned against each other, the amplification of that propganda by the majority of the press and at least two TV stations, BBC and Channel 4, the ever-increasing use of hearsay rather than evidence to justify the governments postion, and ongoing, and apparently soon to be achieved the closing down of dissent from wherever it comes. To what conceivable end other than to secure total power and control through division and disinformation, not misinformation, could all this have been inflicted on us?
With the greatest respect and total regret for the horrors inflicted on your family, Sue, I can’t for the life of me understand how you can accuse Richard of having lost perspective. It may be cliched but it also seems appropriate to repeat the mantra that those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it – which is precisely what Richard and those of us who share his views are trying to avoid.
Thanks Nick
Read history books.
Read them when schools thought history was a good idea.
Read about pre-war2 nazi Germany.
And stasi East Germany.
Seems that things are going that way here, now!
Further neutering of trade unions.
Intensive monitoring of communication.
Removal of human rights [act]….rumours of tory home-grown human rights replacement.
Probably having to retreat from the EHRC as a result of the above (if it ever happens, more likely it will happen as a sneak addition to a vanilla bill)
Yep….seems history repeats….
Just to clarify John – you honestly think that the Tories getting a majority this election have left us on the brink of Nazi Germany?
That we are heading for the corporate state seems totally plausible to many who comment here
Just look at the evidence
Absolutely Sue. The comments on here are way over the top and reek of bitterness.
James
Respectfully, that’s what apologists for what’s happening in our society are always going to say to those who point them out
Present an argument, if you can
Richard
I’m all for debate. But let’s face it, the Tories won an unexpected majority and it has really been a shocking pill to swallow for some people. When people start to compare this country with Nazi Germany, then it can only be explained by bitterness in my opinion. How can I be expected to debate with people who say that just because the party they favour took a walloping in the polls?
James
You may not have noticed it, but this debate has been going on for a long time
You really do need to keep up rather than make things up
Richard
Sorry I missed this little beauty Mr Dickie earlier:
“followed now by a proposal to reduce the number of MP’s, and BASE THE CONSTITUENCIES ON NUMBERS REGISTERED, and NOT POPULATION — a transparent move to engineer constituencies based on potential Tory voters”
Given that the electoraral boundaries have given Labour a 6% advantage for the last 10 years, claiming that the Tories trying to remedy this is an indication that Cameron is similar to Hitler shows laugable partisanship on behalf of the poster.
Surely you’d agree with that? You’re normally pretty balanced when it comes to politics so I’m surprised you are supportive of people ranting in your comments section as Mr Dickie has done.
The reason why constituencies are drawn as they are is to make sure that they represent real communities not arbitrary groups of people
I am wholly happy for change to be made – but only if that is linked to electoral reform
James H – you seem to be oblivious to the real threats to democracy that our present situation poses.
1) Expecting a greater majority in union voting to that of the elected Government
2) Corporations potentially able to ‘sue’ states if industrial disputes affect profits.
3) Five years of systematic vilification of the poor/ill/ vulnerable that smacked of the eugenicist language of the 30’s.
4) A Government with immense power that received 24% of the votes of eligible voters.
The list could go on.
Presumably you are in a cosy corner feeling untouchable (forgive me if I’m wrong) so feel able to poor scorn on those that are deeply worried.
I think the comments and suggestions on this blog point out that perhaps some people are in need of a bigger measure of fairness and justice in the UK. The working poor are with us, food banks are a fact of life, need referral to use them. That the NHS has an internal market where any willing provider can tender I think is a retrograde step. My Dad in the 1930’s played his violin in the streets, begging, he was an engineer and soon picked up again. Sue, I only did O level history and I understand your point, however that some are unable, forget the unwilling, to make ends meet, is a sad state of affairs in a rich country. Yes we are lucky to be able to express ourselves, but we need to always be able to complain as opposed to whining. Sorry if this seems like a rant, I am a very polite elderly person generally speaking.
Sylvia, nothing you write is a rant. It’s a joy to come across “a very polite elderly person” who still has sufficient passion for justice to write what you do.
Thank tou
Or with my glasses on thank you
Sylvia, let me suggest a bigger picture, one of our potential futures…
Communists could still publish their newspapers in Germany straight after The Nazi seizure of power, but not for long. In the working-class districts of Berlin it took six months before the SA could process along the streets of Charlottenburg without being utterly obliterated by the occupants of the district’ streets.
Pastor Niemöller’s poem stars with the Communists, not the Socialists by the way. This is from Wikipedia: In 1976, Niemöller gave the following answer in response to an interview question asking about the origins of the poem. The Martin-Niemöller-Foundation considers this the “classical” version of the speech:
There were no minutes or copy of what I said, and it may be that I formulated it differently. But the idea was anyhow: The communists, we still let that happen calmly; and the trade unions, we also let that happen; and we even let the Social Democrats happen. All of that was not our affair. The Church did not concern itself with politics at all at that time, and it shouldn’t have anything do with them either. In the Confessing Church we didn’t want to represent any political resistance per se, but we wanted to determine for the Church that that was not right, and that it should not become right in the Church, that’s why already in’33, when we created the pastors’ emergency federation (Pfarrernotbund), we put as the 4th point in the founding charter: If an offensive is made against ministers and they are simply ousted as ministers, because they are of Jewish lineage (Judenstämmlinge) or something like that, then we can only say as a Church: No. And that was then the 4th point in the obligation, and that was probably the first contra-anti-antisemitic pronouncement coming from the Protestant Church.
Not that I care much for the church; but history is your friend, and only then if you ask questions of it. Beware your first or second understanding. It may be wrong.
Sue
If you DO know your history books as you advise us to do, you will know that the Nazi’s used propaganda to manufacture consent within the German public for their course of action. They demonised Jews, the disabled, homosexuals and then basically killed them in huge numbers. As noted elsewhere, they even legitimised this through school and university education.
The dehumanisation of a people or a section of the community is always a precursor in human society to declaring war on it (the Germans become ‘krauts; the Japanese become ‘Nips’ ad nauseum). Those subjected to this are no longer people – they are ‘things’ to be feared and eradicated and we are then also indifferent to their suffering. Indifference – a lack of empathy – is the most chilling aspect of all in my opinion.
I agree with other posters here that the Tory tactics are redolent of fascist states in history.
However, the war will be fought on these sections of society that do not fit in with Toryland ideology in that strangely British fashion whereby they are not physically killed by the State but throttled gently but remotely by withdrawing support and help and then simply ignored or side lined to get on best they can. There have been a lot of suicides in the past 5 years Sue over the withdrawal of State support for people who were relying on it.
It was such indifference to suffering that made people in World War 1 Britain for example riot because of lack of food due to the war effort. My late Father told me stories about this – about how the British army recruiters were reporting back to Government that their soldiers were coming into training for war malnourished (many did not have regular meals) and in poor health because they were finding times hard. Tales of civil disturbances over food supplies also figured – the ones he told me about were in rural areas. The latter were supressed in the media, but look hard enough and you can find info about them.
Back then, although there were the beginnings of some sort of social security here and there, the attitude was predominantly ‘laissez-faire’. So I would say that it is fair to say that this Tory Government is using fascist methods to take us back to a laissez-faire society.
In effect, they will normalise inequality. It will be accepted and unquestioned just as it was when Voltaire wrote Candide. This is not progress – it is REGRESS.
There is a lot at stake within the next 5 years.
Thank you takes some digesting. Discuss!
The UN Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, François Crepeau, seems to have the same concern as many of those posting on this topic.
See http://linkis.com/shr.gs/NCUjQ
And he’s right to speak out