This government has gagged unions and charities.
It is now denying charities the right to question its policies in the interests of those they represent if they receive government funding for that work.
And academics are to now also be bound by a 'no opposition rule' as a condition of being paid by public funds.
And yet commercial lobbying has not been impacted by these rules.
And commercial companies in receipt of government contracts are encouraged to express opinion on how public services may be provided.
Whilst the representatives of big business are invited to run the Boards organisations like HM Revenue & Customs. And Amazon supplies a non-executive director to the Department of Work and Pensions.
This is not evidence of a commitment to free speech.
Or democracy.
Or balance.
Or even the inevitable process of developing change for the good of society.
This is the behaviour of a government intent on imposing a dogma on a society that it is not confident embraces it.
I readily admit I never thought I would live in such a country. But I am.
It is only time before the long knives descend on academia.
And charities close.
Whilst unions are bankrupted.
This is not the country I was brought up in, or was taught to believe in. It is, in fact, the antithesis of it.
We have travelled a long way, in the wrong direction on the right to speak.
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:
It seems reasonable to observe that the accuracy of the above picture is as dire as it’s possible to get on that issue and that it has major implications across all other parts of our society.
In the context of a debate which is currently underway it also seems reasonable to observe that there could well be certain logical conclusions drawn as to where the country was whilst the process by which this juncture was arrived at was taking place. Any obvious ‘could have been worse’ observation would need to include a lot of detail and specifics to be sufficiently convincing.
Can there really be any convincing “it could have been worse” observation?
The floor is open till at least June 23…………..
I have just been reminded that all this is being put into place when the UK is still subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. A jurisdiction which it will be argued is as a result of our membership of the EU.
It would seem reasonable, therefore, to anticipate an argument that, if no protection on this issue is forthcoming from this and any other related and/or relevant EC bodies arising from our membership, how could non membership be any worse?
As previously indicated, particularly on the demise of the Conservative Party thread, this question/issue along with a number of similar questions needs to be seriously addressed if the narrative for staying in is to hold the line never mind gain traction.
Not least amongst such questions is how the role of the British State in derailing any changes towards redemocratising the Project, which seems to be the key positive peg in which the narrative to remain is holding up as the reason to stay in, will be tackled. The record so far is not encouraging and the need to spell out in detail how the project will be revived without concrete and radical changes in the centuries old approach of the British State (as previously outlined) will be necessary if many good people are to be convinced.
Hoping for change in the project without spelling out how the British state itself is to be changed, which is a pre requisite for a positive revival of the project, will not cut it with a great many people who have lost patience with the business as usual, hope for the best approach, something will turn up narrative. A positive case has to be made that staying in will change things rather than just a negative case based on fear of an exit.
If that positive case is not made and those questions not tackled and answered convincingly than the argument, if not the referendum, will be lost, and the basic human right of freedom of speech and speaking truth to power is going to be a key litmus test of the narrative of the argument. If, it will be argued, existing membership, which includes the HR Act, cannot protect the key sectors and actors of civil society in a member state than membership is not worth the paper it’s written on. The only thing it proves is the argument made by the two wings of the Conservative Party currently arguing opposite positions (out/reform) that we are dictated to from above and that we have insufficient sovereignty is a pile of donkey droppings because clearly membership does not stop this dangerous nonsense.
The floor is still open……..
Superb blog, Richard, bringing these parallel attacks on the right to speak and promote open and transparent debate out into the open.
On a related point, I find it interesting to note that these developments originate from the Cabinet Office – the hear of government – and are therefore pretty much fully formed before they become “public”. Scrutiny and the opportunity to block them is therefore much reduced – deliberately, of course.
I recall many of your blogs ago now, long before the last election, a discussion took place about Orwell, 1984 and Newspeak (which was partially repeated some months ago) and I suggested at the time that we were heading into that Orwellian world faster than people appreciated. It seemed an overly depressing thing to say at the time – and I’m sure many who read my comments thought me a depressive. But lo and behold, what do we now see before us? As you so aptly put it: “This is not the country I was brought up in, or was taught to believe in. It is, in fact, the antithesis of it.”
Never have you written a truer word.
We are of one mind
This is the totalitarian tiptoe in operation.
Do we need to remind ourselves why those brilliant pioneers of the late 18th Century enshrined “the rights of individuals to speak freely within the “First Ammendment” of the US Constitution?
and I’m beginning to understand why it was followed immediately by “the Second Amendment”!
Well, perhaps it’s just what the people voted for?
Charities and Unions gagged? So what?
When is anything they do reported on anyway?
Fact is, millions of people still support their objectives, and give their time and effort (forget money, it’s a largely statist thing) for a common good.
And what are the “penalties” for violation of this latest gagging?
Fines, I suppose? Perhaps charities would be better off dropping the status so that they can say what they want? Surely a Royal Patron helps in such instances?
Seeing as we are still, after all, a monarchy?
This is so crass I think your time here is over
I expect contribution to debate
David,
Charities, along with Trades Unions and institutions of academia like Universities are part of civil society. In their different ways they play key roles in holding the different interest groups in society together.
Taking organised charities as an example; the existence of such charities, the need for them, is stark evidence of a failure of the resource distibutive systems of society and therefore a key objective of any charity should be to strive for a position and situation in which charity in that form is no longer required. The point of giving to charity is to ensure that a situation is not just temporarily relieved, as some form of sticking plaster, but is permanently altered so that people, for example, can stand on their own two feet.
That is not possible if the actions of other groups in society, such as Government and it’s decision making pursue policies which undermine that work and make it necessary for millions of people to contribute money down a black hole on a continuous basis. Which is why it is vital that charities are allowed to point out the negative impact of Government policies on their work because in effect it is indirectly stealing money from people’s pockets when policies negate the work that money does and forces a situation in which it is necessary to continue to ask those millions of people to keep throwing money into that black hole.
Similarly, academia plays an important role in civil society by utilising the tools of The Enlightenment to robustly assess the impact and efficacy of policy and ways of doing things using the evidence based methodologies we have inherited (apart from economics and management departments). Supressing the findings and conclusions of academia because they do not support the faith based voodooism of sociopaths, and evidence does exist that it does happen, whilst seizing on any scraps or even distorting them to support the same nonsense, does society (and that means you David, as part of that society) no good at all. It produces policy which is dangerous to the majority in many ways and weakens the wellbeing, health and ability of society to function effectively.
Every decision we make as individuals in society is dependent upon information which is robustly congruent with reality. If you do not have access to the necessary information because the public which includes yourself is not allowed to hear it, or it is distorted and censured, and what information is available is deliberately inaccurate or pure propoganda than the decisions you make, as well as others, are not going to be effective or efficient,never mind congruent with reality. I some cases they will be counterproductive or downright dangerous.
The bottom line is that when the emporer has no clothes on it is vital that not only he be informed of the matter and why but that everyone else can be made aware of that fact. It would seem reasonable at this juncture to point you in the direction of one Edward Bernay whose methods and techniques of manipulating the decision making processes and outcomes of whole populations are now part and parcel of very day life.
Making it vital for you along with everyone else that civil society groups such as charities, academia and trades unions to be able to publicly state and inform society that the Government does not always get it right or anywhere near right without fear of reprisals of blacklisting, loss of contracts, career suicide, self censorship and so on.
Because that is part and parcel of being part of society. We all have reciprocal responsibilities towards each other which includes the responsibility to point out error or sloppy thinking when and where it occurs and, in cases where it does, to act on that by making the effort to understand why.