In some ways it seems tedious, and almost unnecessary to record further assaults by Johnson's government on those instruments of power that provide the checks and balances within our unwritten constitution. And yet, at the same time, it seems to be absolutely essential to do so. If blogging has taught me anything it is that recording contemporaneous opinion has almost invariably useful, whilst giving little cause (as yet) cause for regret.
On this occasion there are two issues to note. One is the departure of Sir Philip Rutnam from the Home Office. He has suggested that abuse, coming in a number of forms, gave him little option but do so, saying which it is also important to note that he refused a financial settlement to go quietly. Sir Philip is very clearly very angry. And he is clearly politically motivated, even if I very strongly suspect, not in a party political sense.
Let's not get too left/right righteous our about this for a moment. It is worth noting that civil servants are custodians, by and large of the conventional wisdom. And they are also exponents, in the main, of what has been done and the lessons learned from it. I do not knock either, by the way: the fact is that the vast majority of what any government does is perpetuate what is already in progress. That has to be the case: a few ministers cannot usually alter the course of massive organisations by that much, thankfully. And what this means is that the left will also have conflict with civil servants over policy, as much as the right do.
But Rutnam knew all this. Thirty three years in the civil service had taught him something. Including, I am fairly sure, how to advise, and to have that advice rejected, as I am sure had happened on many an occasion.
So what is this about? I think we should take it at face value. This dispute is about the abuse of power. It is about undermining the independence of the civil service. And it is about a civil servant saying that there are limits to the abuse a department must suffer when dealing with a minister who, along with many of her cabinet colleagues is on record for holding government itself, and all who work in it, in contempt.
And Rutnam has had enough. This could be seen as The Establishment fighting back. I stress, maybe it is. But even then the issue cannot be ignored because what The Establishment is upholding is that tradition which we call a constitution.
An independent civil service is part of that.
And actually, so too is respect for government.
And so too is respect for independent and contrary thinking, which brings me to my next point.
News that the government blocked the appointment of Mary Beard as a trustee of the British Museum because of her Remain views is equally worrying today. Few could doubt her qualities for this post. Except those who see adherence to 'the cause' as the new basis for all advancement. It would seem we do not need to spot political armbands any more to identify those who will advance or not; a cursory scan of their Twitter account will suffice to tell. The oppression of free-thinking is being advanced. The aim is deliberate: all those with ambition are meant to take note and toe the line Johnson and his government determine to be the one true way, whatever public role is now being considered.
And then take note of one final issue. The Sunday Telegraph has noted that the government is planning divergence from European standards on human rights. No one is going to believe that is to ensure the UK might advance those rights. So they are to be undermined. Deviate at your peril is the message.
All of which is profoundly worrying.
Including for those who record their contemporaneous thoughts.
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:
The book “Defying Hitler” by Sebastian Haffner is a good eye witness account of how lunatics were able to take over what was generally regarded as a civilised nation (exception the region of Prussia). From Hafners account it was clear that the decent into barbarism was gradual but almost unstoppable. Face does not fit/wrong views: no job/no position.
Neil Asher in his science fiction series “Departure” series introduces us to the delights of “Safe Departure” clinics and the concept of “societal assets” in which people are ranked by their value, or lack thereof. Looks like the Tories are heading down these paths. Humand rights? only if you are a tory.
Petal is a serial liar – whilst an MP she expressed support, on television for bring back the death penalty – later also TV she denied ever having supported the death penalty as an MP. There is something sick & wrong with the woman – but that could be extended to much of the fatbergs cabinet – & as history shows – the same could be said with respect to Hitler and mob of lying gangsters (supported by big business…..oh look – snap).
You are right to point this out and it is (let us remember) consistent with Thatcher’s ‘Not one of us’ and ‘whets’ mantra – the Tories (as we know) are the real political extremists in British society and have been since the party started to be infiltrated by the Chicago School in the 1970s (‘Dancing with Dogma’ as Ian Gilmour famously put it). Compromise is out of the question for this mindset. Thatcherism lives on unfortunately, but now turbocharged by the fact that 2008 and all that spoiled the party. The answer for such ideologues is only to become more extreme – ‘We weren’t Neo-liberal enough’ say the Rabbs and Patels of this world. Boris and his backers know that the game is up. Their answer – to keep going and kick out the whets and remodel the British state in their own image to reduce opposition.
Reflecting on Sean Danaher’s piece on fascism, whereas the Nazis were gifted a Great Depression and uncompromising reparation by external factors that got them into power, what is particularly disgusting about what is happening in the UK and the USA is that the economic woes that have led to voter anger and BREXIT/Trump/Johnson are the result of internal polices of those currently in power who have expertly managed to turn voters on themselves and Europe or the rest of World. This is a high stake and very risky strategy befitting I think the mind-set of those whom we know have infiltrated our political and economic systems for far too long – the financial sector. To us progressives, there are no ‘unseen hands’ here – the trouble is getting wider society to see them too!
Added to that, we now have the court jester (formally employed on a huge wage to make up fantastical stories about Europe and British history) as ‘the King’ – yes, Boris himself in all his glory. And then there is Trump – a huge debtor himself, portrayed as a powerful man only because if he could not pay his debts, the banks who have given him the loans would collapse.
As American folk singer Gillian Welch says ‘Time (is) the Revelator’ – but how much time have we got to have until people realise they have been bamboozled? Progressives have some scary allies – environmental – in the form of global warming, flooding and biological (the Coronavirus) all of which require huge investment to deal with them that only sovereign Governments can deal with in terms of cost and organisation. How can an idiotology (sic) like Neo-liberalism deal with that, given the anti-statism and absolutism concerning money creation (the ‘We can’t just print the money’ bollocks they adhere to ) that is so intrinsic to its sensibilities? Answer: it can’t. It won’t.
So unfortunately, we have sit back and watch it happen – watch our fellow human beings suffer in order for them to call time on what they think they voted for. It’s not going to be quick or nice. The only glimmer is that the dominating idiotologies (sic) we have endured for 30+ years are now actually coming to an end, hence the extremism we are seeing in policy.
This will also take time because in most cases, effective political opposition in most cases is in disarray. I will never vote for the Labour party as it is again. They are hopeless. They need to change too. And can they? The world that is going to be shaped by our ecological problems and phenomenon like the Coronavirus means that they or any other party must become truly courageous.
I have recently discovered Schubert’s Piano Sonata in B flat major (D960). I listen to lot of music from all genres but there is something about it that sums up for me at least where we are without a word being spoken. I commend it to you to offer you all a little comfort as we go into the increasing unknown.
Thanks PSR
Good to have you back
Agreed. Trust all is well.
It is…
Power is delicious, absolute power is absolutely delicious. It is sadly a road travelled by all despots and/or religious fanatics. The question surely is whether British institutions are strong enough to withstand this new assault. My personal opinion is they are not. How many for example designed over the invasion of Iraq? Only a handful.
All politics is deeply worrying at the moment, a distinct lack of interest in even pretending at integrity. But, what can we do? Let it pan out, pick up the pieces afterwards? Unfortunately I think there is a time limit on governments fannying about – are we not closing in on irreversible climate change in a few years? Has enough been done and is there even a slowing of the damage yet?
Sorry, lots of question marks there and probably all rhetorical. As I was despairing at the inward focusing navel-gazing social change-type strategies of our governments, I was wondering about what actions were being taken to combat climate change and came across this:
In brief: https://www.lawscot.org.uk/news-and-events/legal-news/english-legal-group-set-up-to-combat-climate-change/
“He added: “Our laws and contracts have until now allowed and encouraged humans to live unsustainably. But those laws and contracts are human inventions. The Chancery Lane Project shows us when we collaborate without agenda we can create the solutions needed to tackle the climate crisis.””
Describing:
https://chancerylaneproject.org
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d2f4d738d48be0001dee7c4/t/5e5587696eb9ca67a2b1040d/1582663542063/TCLP+-+Climate+Contract+Playbook+-+1st+Edition.pdf
In the Foreword:
“As a legal community, we have a responsibility to play our part in ensuring that the whole machinery of the law, public and private, is brought into line with the objective of a just transition to a climate- resilient and net zero emissions economy. Judges must play their part, but there are limits to the judicial toolbox at their disposal. The statutes and regulations with which judges have to work must be adapted to compel or encourage sustainability in every aspect of society.
The role for commercial lawyers to help tackle the climate crisis has been largely overlooked. Lawyers who draft the contracts that shape the economic relationships of our society must use these arrangements to enable rather than hinder the transition”
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d2f4d738d48be0001dee7c4/t/5e5587f196f3913deb57cbbe/1582663681838/TCLP+-+Green+Papers+of+Model+Laws+-+1st+Edition.pdf
Then in particular, Louis’ Law:
“Issue: Due to limited liability and the corporate veil, parent companies are not typically liable for environmental damage caused by their subsidiaries. This allows businesses to unfairly limit their responsibility for and authority over profitable subsidiaries whose activities may be causing gross environmental damage. It also acknowledges that passing on carbon emissions to subsidiaries or supply chains is just shifting a problem from one location to another.
Solution: Introduce a class of environmental crimes for which liability will pass through from overseas subsidiaries to parent companies registered, listed or active in the target jurisdiction. The solution would be comparable to the reach and breadth of the Bribery Act or GDPR.”
Sorry if you’ve already covered the Cancery Lane project – but this is the first I’d heard of it and was intrigued to see in that last snippet some of what you’ve talked about Richard, well, not quite, but extending the liability of the parent company anyway. Has the role of commercial law been overlooked – could contract obligations be put on companies even without laws being passed in Westminster? I’m very likely being over optimistic, hoping that some action will be taken – we seem to be waiting a long time for politicians to actually DO something (except argue over who gets to go to the climate summit in Nov.)
Further to PSRs reflection on Schubert, I went to see Beethoven’s 3rd Symphony (Eroica) last night – conducted by Sir Roger Norrington (who, I suspect is over 90 years old, I have never seen a conductor sit before! Remarkable energy for an older person though) – his interpretation, using Beethoven’s metronome notations (exact timing), and arranging the orchestra more in line with how it would have been in his era – smaller, and divided differently – he had the wind instruments standing around the edges (normally they are nearly hidden) – it was remarkably fresh. And really good stereo sound. Norrington also gave us some chat at the start, and said that NOT clapping between movements is a 20th century invention – in Beethovens time they would have done so. Well, normally I object to such outlandish suggestions, but in this case to get fully enveloped in the piece I did indeed join in. Norrington was delighted that we played along with ‘how it would have been in 1804’. An excellent concert and I’d highly recommend Norrington recordings of Beethovens 3rd.
Eroica is, of course, famous for having been written in celebration of Napoleon Boneparte – Beethoven thinking him truly heroic and that he would would usher in an era of social progress and lots of socialist values – but on finding out Napoleon had declared himself Emperor, Beethoven reportedly scored out ‘Boneparte’ as the title of the piece, bemoaning that he’d turned tyrant. So I suppose the lesson from history here is never rely on or deify any one person that has ambition. 😉
Contrary
It’s available on Spotify
https://open.spotify.com/album/1CsNXIJAnRQrbn3WBY0hYu?highlight=spotify:track:0wek54pJgWBMZOcuyYRT4X
I will be listening this evening
Thanks
And for the Chancery Lane Project
I will be reading that
Cool! Re the Spotify recordings.
And glad to have distracted you for at least 5minutes with the legal stuff 🙂 – just seems like everyone else in the country and round the world wants action on environmental issues, except for the politicians and media! I was impressed with the lawyers putting together actual thought-out Bills, all pro bono.
I will be reading that…