It is a reflection of my age that one of the first records I can ever recall is ‘Things ain't what they used to be' sung by Max Bygraves. You can question my father's musical taste in buying the record. You can also be sure that this one fact indicated that he was a small c conservative. What message he thought this might be imparting to a child I do not know. But the song's title resonated with me this morning. Things aren't what they used to be.
Once upon a time Prime Ministers who had lost six parliamentary votes in a row, spectacularly lost his majority, and had then lied to the Queen to illegally prorogue parliament, which fact had to be pointed out to him by a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court, would have resigned, immediately. Johnson very clearly has no intention of doing so. If that is not indication that we live in a different political era from that I was brought up in, nothing is.
The question is, does it matter? The dividing line on this appears to be a person's position on Brexit. But I wonder if that is also true, even if some paper's might suggest that the Supreme Court's decision is merely an anti-Brexit plot. I strongly suspect the paper's are not an indication of popular sentiment on this issue. What the real dividing line is, I would suggest, relates to a desire for effective government.
Those like me who celebrate the decision do so because it confirms that there are checks and balances on the use of prerogative power that we have always known should exist, and which we also know always did exist simply because prince ministers and others respected that fact without having to be reminded of it. We therefore think that yesterday was about the reinforcement of effective government.
And those who think, with Jacob Rees-Mogg, that this is a constitutional coup also want effective government, but of the form that just gets on with things, that as many will recall governments once did because they enjoyed majorities that could survive any parliamentary challenge. Those are, of course, now history.
What unites the sides is, then, a desire for things to happen. What divides them is how that is to be achieved. I would argue that yesterday was a victory for due process (and thank goodness for that) which felt like a snub to the ‘just get on and do it' brigade, fuelled by a referendum result that we still know was inappropriately secured.
How to resolve this? I am not sure there is a way to do that at present. Things are not the way that they used to be. But, for the sake of good government we do need a continuing respect for the rule of law, in both its spirit and letter. Yesterday we got that. And some do not agree. Rather bizarrely, those wanting to ‘take back control' wish to do so in ways never used, and without there being appropriate checks and balances on that control to ensure that those meant to benefit from it might really do so. That's the paradox that we face.
We can agree we have moved on. We cannot agree where we are. And we have no idea where we're going. And for England (and I make the point deliberately as for Scotland and Northern Ireland the trajectories are very different, which might also be the case for Wales in due course) that is unknown territory. The country that once, as a result of its assured self-confidence seemed to rule much of the world, now has no common vision of what it wants to be. It's sense of purpose has vanished. And one of the supposed competing visions appears to lack any vision at all.
No wonder we're in a mess.
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:
My first record was an Elvis – either “Let’s have a party”, or “All shook up”. Whichever, they both seem appropriate: get a united party that can present a positive vision of the future of this country; or, well, everything is shook up. But surely the most appropriate song is still William Blake’s: away with dark satanic mills that mar those clouded huills where once those feet trod in ancient time, and bring me my bow of burning gold, to build Jerusalem in England’s green and pleasant land. That used to be sung at Labour party conferences; not sure that it is any more; so while England is all shook up, let’s have a party that does sing Jerusalem with determination and passion and understanding, and no intolerance and nastiness within its ranks.
It still is sung
It’s an interesting question as to why
They also still (enthusiastically) sing ‘The Red Flag’ which doesn’t endear them to the wider public. Weird.
Agreed
Mine was Tchaikovsky’s Piano Concerto No. 1 in B minor, Op. 23 (in yiddish, thanks gran). I quickly replaced the gift from my Gran with what is still my VERY favourite album, Miles Davis’ “Kind of Blue” ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fC1qSxpmKo )
The Red Flag was of course a Party Song at our house. It was sung enthusiastically at every opportunity and solemnly at Shabbat Dinner. It might not have endear us (socialists) to the tax-dodging owners of the ‘free’ press and the wider public who bought their newspapers, but G*d needed to know that we were on the right side.
We have quite a significant proportion of right and far right views in the UK at present. Many of those that hold these views are also monarchists, and, I suspect, harsh in their views on crime. We have a Home Secretary that prefers the zero tolerance approach to crime and up until recently actively supported the death penalty.
What are their views now on a Prime Minister that has broken the law and misled her Maj?
My first Album was Jailbreak by Thin Lizzy. Actually it was my second, my first was Arrival by Abba. :cough:
My two earliest musical attractions were Peter Green’s ‘Albatross’ ( a tune that I eventually taught myself to play on the guitar in my early teens) and ‘Oh Happy Day’ by the Edward Hawkins Singers.
My father had a huge classical music collection and I swallowed Beethoven whole as well as others, discovering rock and pop later on. My first love was the Rolling Stones to be honest and The Who.
Anyhow, I agree whole heartedly with Richard’s assessment; the Tories have effectively stolen our democracy through sheer obduracy.
There is much discussion of further-deferment of the current (already-deferred) leave date (in order to block a no-deal leave without Commons approval). However, there is little discussion of Revoke for the same purpose. After all, if we Revoke, we could always Re Invoke at any time in the future. Revoke would merely reset the ‘legal default’ in the current Brexit fiasco from Leave to Remain (and thereby take the cliff-edge mischief off the table). It would be equivalent to an open-ended further deferment of the current (already-deferred) leave date.
Deferral would require a ‘begging letter’ from the UK to the EU, and a requirement for no-veto by every one of the other EU members. Revoke would require only an ‘information letter’ from the UK to the EU, with no option for the EU to refuse.
Deferral would require bad-tempered negotiation about purpose and extent, and the potential for further mischief in bad-tempered cliff-edge negotiations and posturing, and further request(s) for further deferral(s). Re-Invocation would require only an ‘information letter’ from the UK to the EU, with no option for the EU to refuse.
If there is no prospect of an acceptable leave-deal, the Commons should insist on Revoke (without prejudice, and with the potential for Re Invoke), followed by ‘grown up’ negotiations to define a leave-deal endorsed by all parties other than the electorate (and including resolution of the Ireland conundrum), followed by a re-referendum for the electorate on a leave-deal with a realistic chance of approval by the electorate.