We live in a country where logic has departed from political debate.
On Monday evening the government had legislation make progress in the House of Commons when it is very clear that its Bill to reform the Northern Ireland Protocol is illegal under international law. Nothing about the current situation in Northern Ireland, or the government's own knowing part in creating it, can justify the unilateral response made by the government to a situation it merely dislikes, but which does not represent an imminent threat necessitating unilateral action in breach of prior agreements. Those claiming otherwise are, to be blunt, simply lying. But the Bill passed anyway.
Yesterday the Scottish government, with a majority in the Scottish parliament and in terms of Westminster seats representing Scotland, and as a result probably the most representative elected authority in the UK, announced its intention to bring legal action that might empower it to hold a consultative referendum on the future constitutional status of Scotland. The UK government is opposing it, suggesting the rule of law must come first. Democracy must not prevail, in its opinion.
But Johnson, out on tour, is touting his own credentials as a defender of democracy and as an upholder of international law that prevents rule by an oppressor, when his own government flouts democracy, breaches the law and seeks to impose English rule on Scotland, maybe against its will. It may be doing so in Northern Ireland as well.
As I noted on Twitter yesterday, the fact that Scotland cannot be sure it has a legal route out of a supposed union of nations is reason enough for it to want to leave. When the union has become an occupation it ceases to represent a United Kingdom. There is instead a colonial power anxious to maintain the colonial status of the few locations still under its control.
The Johnson world view is in tatters, because he has shredded it. And if further evidence is required, the sight of 20 police turning up to arrest persistent Whitehall demonstrator Steve Bray, and to seize his equipment, on the very first day that new laws that permit a crackdown on noisy protest is sure sign that Johnson's government has really lost the plot. Democracy is dependent on the right to dissent. There must be opposition for democracy to function. Steve Bray might be annoying, but the right to be annoying is at the absolute heart of the freedom that identifies a democracy. This government has passed law to remove that right, and is clearly intent on using it. I chipped in to Steve's defence fund yesterday as a result. Democracy requires our support.
As too do fundamental human rights. Tory MP Danny Kruger (the son of TV personality Prue Leith) said in parliament yesterday that he does not think woman have autonomy over their bodies. The comment was very obviously made in the context of US abortion debates, but was chilling. Where the Republicans go the Tories follow, and the Republicans are intent on unwinding a great many more freedoms as yet.
Why note all this? Simply to record that in a mature democracy, where we could be confident that the government was being run accountably in the interests of people and with all appropriate checks and balances in place we would not face situations like these where it is apparent that the only interest being pursued is that of the ruling party and its desire to maintain its power, come what may, and at whatever cost in terms of democracy foregone.
And at the same time we are learning of many interventions by the royal family in the legislative process to protect its interests.
I keep getting adverse reaction to my suggestion that we are now living in a fascist state, but the evidence is overwhelming that we are. Even the military are now demanding greatest significance and resource, with the obvious desire that they might be able to react unilaterally.
The situation we are in is very dangerous. Freedoms, the rule of law, checks and balances, respect for the will of people and the necessary acceptance of obligations once willingly accepted are all disappearing. In their place is pragmatic elected government turned apparent dictatorship in raw pursuit of perpetuating power. One day the question will be asked ‘why did people let it happen?', unless of course we try to stop it. That is our duty, however we can do it.
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:
This is a very chilling read and I agree we are on the slippery slope of fascism which creeps up silently step by step. We cannot be silent or complacent. Thank you Richard.
Let us be honest here – the molestation of Steve Bray is just the terminus of Thatcher’s anti-union/union breaking use of the police not for law an order but as an agent of political policy.
The gate for ever-more suppression of common public outrage was opened there and never closed. First the unions, then……etc., etc.
This is also why I actually feel sorry for the police who are being abused by politicians who should know better.
This issue also needs to be part of any new constitution this country might have in the future – the relationship between Government and law and order needs to be de-politicised. Thatcherism pushed at the boundaries between the two and that still exists. It is an abuse of executive power – simple as that.
I’m not a lawyer, but as far as I can see Steve Bray had not broken any laws when the police stole his equipment.
They say it was a 2011 law
Which rather makes you wonder why it was that they waited until yesterday to act
Yes and no.
Steve Bray has been careful to set up his amp just outside Parliament Square. Why, and what has changed?
Section 76 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 has amended section 142A of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 and expanded the “controlled areas in vicinity of the Palace of Westminster”. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/32/section/76/enacted
And then section 143 of the 2011 Act sets out that certain activities are prohibited in a “controlled area”, including “operating any amplified noise equipment”.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/13/section/143
The 2005 provision replaced the controls on demonstrations in Parliament Square that were in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, e.g.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/15/section/137/enacted
So at least three governments, of all political stripes, are implicated – Labour in 2005 (trying to get rid of Brian Haw), the Con-Dem coalition in 2011, and the current Conservatives.
Perhaps government ministers want to live and work in a grace and favour bubble where they don’t have to see or hear any contrary opinions. But this current attempt to squash dissent seems bound to fail to me. Bray is right. If you try to close down and criminalise legitimate peaceful protest, desperate people will take desperate steps.
Thanks
He had broken the new anti-protest laws that had come into force on literally the same day they confiscated his equipment. The bill (I forget the name) passed a few months ago and came into effect this week. He was being a ‘nuisance’ you see. Our right to protest is now severely curtailed.
After the latest January 6th Senate hearings in Washington, we may wonder whether, if we substitute Joe Average from Main Street for the current object of scrutiny; had there been similar evidence of transgression, would not he already be facing serious legal charges? Of course there aren’t charges. What we have is more hearings, as if the law bows politely to the precedence of politics; or realpolitik.
If I may, allow that to simmer a while in the mind. Take the recipe, re-heat in the UK, for example on the NI Protocol, Brexit, Scotland, or the freedom to protest.
Correct
Totally agree with you Richard, there can be no mistake unless a troll, now we know for sure what it was like to live in Nazi Germany.
I’ve had family and friends ask me what it is that’s happening now to make me surmise that the UK is sliding into fascism, and I’ve struggled to put together a coherent list of those factors that distinguishes fascism from ‘normal’ right wing governments. So Richard et al, I’d really value a blog and additional comments that lists and outlines what makes our slide to fascism clearly visible, that would be most helpful. Thanks.
I will work on it
Give it time to ferment though
The clearest and most obvious evidence of the slide into Fascism is the development of a leader/leadership where the existing forms of governing and law no longer apply to them. New laws are written to enhance and perpetuate the leadership and party without regard to existing norms, laws or values. Where under normal circumstances a government would fall when the democratic norms and laws are not observed the current leader/leadership feel free to simply ignore these constraints on them . The one thing that currently points to the UK not being fully fascist is the failure to create a one party state despite best efforts. The recent by-elections show that. In a truly fascist state these would have returned the ruling party candidate despite opposition. As a nation we probably have one opportunity left to ensure that the one Party State does not form. The next General Election will be it. If the Tory Party wins with a majority the system will be further changed to ensure that they retain power for a long time and any opposition will be restricted further. Press freedoms will be controlled and new offences enacted against those who oppose them. The likelihood is that the UK will become more economically impoverished giving the only outlet for the One Party to direct its ire outwards toward others creating enemies within and outside of the country in order maintain the perception of strong government. Fascism is defined by the ability of the one Party State to exert control over all areas of the population. The UK has moved towards that outcome with attempts to control the BBC, muzzle Channel 4, put or attempt to put extremist supporters into key areas of the nation in the arts, ofcom, honours committees and other ostensibly independent parts of the system designed to ensure that one view does not overly dominate.
I agree that we are in last gasp saloon – but if we elect a party itself not interested in electoral reform we may achieve little
You probably know Umberto Eco’s article on fascism which gives a very useful and (to my mind) complete list of criteria. For info, it’s easy to find on internet, here’s one link: https://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf.
Many thanks for the blog & comments.
I do indeed
I have a mindmap building from that and the later Larenece Britt version, which also has some merit
Umberto Echo’s 14 Features of Fascism is the best ‘definition’ of fascism. Hard to define as it’s not exactly a coherent political and economic ideology. More a collection of traits that corrupt, nationalist and xenophobic far right politicians kind of fall into. The Tories and their supporters would be appalled to be called fascist, but if you could sit down with them and go through each of the 14, asking them if they agree with each and without using the F word they would probably proudly nod along in agreement at each of them.
Here’s a fantastic video linking Trump’s ‘accomplishments’ (as his supporters would see them) to the 14 characteristics. (Don’t judge a book by its cover – this guy is the wisest political analyst on youtube, and left wing) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M6CXhUS-x8
I like the Eco list but think Britt has value to
And neither need be considered complete
Yes, we need to get rid of this shower, but the trouble is that is very difficult with the Tory party having an 80 ish seat majority. We are left as impotent opposers achieving nothing for all the logic and passion of our anger. Aned I have a fear that in the next general election, the FPTP system will deliver a repeat Tory government, perhaps under the leadership of the fat lying toerag who currently lives at number 10. Pessimistically, I can see a scenario where they scrape through to a majority of , say 10, with only 30% of the vote and 70% voting to get rid of them. We can only imagine the anger and fury that would sweep through the nation if that happened, and it is hard to believe there would not be a wave of street demonstrations, hopefully, and not a resigned apathetic acceptance of forur more years of sub-fascist government.
Yoy are pessimistic: 30% cannot deliver that
In Scotland, it doesn’t matter if there is a clear electoral mandate, what the electoral success (comprehensive pro-independence majorities in a deliberately proportional Parliament designed to block overall majorities), a mandate is not a mandate unless aprroved by the Conservatives. The Conservatves merely move the goal posts. If a proprotional triumph, the only test is an FPTP system majority; if that fails, the only proper test is an opinion poll. If it is an opinion poll, it is the next general election. The test is on wheels.
Richard, I think you’re working on the assumption that the next election will be fair and free one.
I agree that this is probably going to be just about the case in spite of the voter ID requirements imported from the Republican playbook and intended to suppress the ‘wrong’ sort of voters. However, we know that the current government has also removed the independence of the Electoral Commission and is willing to break most rules and regulations as required, so it wouldn’t surprise me to see some distinctly dodgy practices in the run up to the next election, not least through vast amounts of disingenuous advertising. During the last election, I remember reading reports of illegal political adverts driving up and parking outside of polling stations in certain areas and I suspect ‘they’ will double down on this sort of thing as well as being aided and abetted by their friends in the right-wing media to the usual extent.
Agreed
The risk is real
“We can only imagine the anger and fury that would sweep through the nation if that happened, and it is hard to believe there would not be a wave of street demonstrations, hopefully, and not a resigned apathetic acceptance of forur more years of sub-fascist government”.
Good morning Mike
I’m afraid the above might be just wishful thinking. Many people don’t know how the present voting system works and don’t understand what FPTP is and how an alternative system might be better – I know, because I’ve tried to explain it many times
I also think you’re over-estimating the political consciousness of the British public. Many people just aren’t interested and many vote at elections for the party they have always supported. It would take alot for Britons to rise up in “anger and fury” on the streets (though the cost of living crisis might spark some disorder) but I don’t think the injustices of the voting system is one of them
Maybe we are ‘proto-fascist’ . There have been some useful lists of Nazi thirties legislation alongside equivalent recent Acts passed – to control information and journalists, protests, independent institutions (BBC, Electoral Commission etc) , judiciary, suppression of voting rights etc etc
But more insidious – transition to a one party state? – yesterday’s news coverage for example on radio 4 – maybe up to six Tories to every one from an oppositon parties. The BBC concept of ‘balance’ now seems to be to platform all the different Tory factions re Johnson, NI protocol, defence spending, etc etc. The message is, that they provide their own opposition, and what happens inside the Conservative party is the only thing that matters – because they will always be the governing party.
Labour seems to offer nothing worth mentioning.
Thanks
Anti-abortion groups are already active in the UK, with substantial funding:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/uk-anti-abortion-christian-right-roe-v-wade/
Sadly legal challenges on bodily autonomy with abortion implications are already happening:
https://twitter.com/jolyonmaugham/status/1274581335605153795
The BBC is openly platforming an anti-abortion group:
https://twitter.com/BBCScotNine/status/1541525526069772288
I fear that this will get worse.
At the very least, the government shows fascist tendencies, by which I mean a slide towards populist, nationalist, authoritarianism. A charismatic leader who is able to break law and conventions with impunity. Government ministers who push through legislation to give them more unaccountable power. A nostalgia for and desire to return to a golden age that never existed. Blame heaped on the “other” – foreigners, or lawyers, or judge, or unions, or public sector workers. A sense of entitlement with lack of honesty, integrity, openness and accountability. Contempt for domestic and international law. A ideological – almost theological – hatred of the state and belief in the magic powers of a capitalist market economy. Corruption writ large, pillaging the public purse. Changes to taxes that favour the powerful and wealth over the weak and poor. Changes to electoral law to favour the reelection of the government in power. Lie, lies, and more lies.
It is not jackboots and toothbrush moustaches, or yellow stars and concentration camps, (at least, not yet – the disgusting approach to refugees and asylum tends in that direction) but that is to mistake the form and the content. It is not about how the look: it is about what they do, and how they do it.
Just on abortion, I think the law in the UK get the position on abortion about right, in the way it is currently followed, at least. (If the government were so minded, they could insist that the law was enforced strictly, which could make things much more difficult.) In practice, abortion is available more or less on demand to 24 weeks (and we can debate on whether that is the right limit – it was 28 weeks until 1990 – but the vast majority are well before that – almost 90% before 10 weeks – and almost 90% medical not surgical) and then strict restrictions after that point. So as a matter of fact and law, women in the UK do not currently have an “absolute right to bodily autonomy” – we recognise that, at some point during a pregnancy, a woman’s right “is qualified by the fact that another body is involved”.
Statistics here: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/abortion-statistics-for-england-and-wales-2021/abortion-statistics-england-and-wales-2021
We must not be afraid of the debate: I think there would be a strong view among politicians and the public at large that the law as it stands in most of the UK is about right.
(We should not forget that the assembly in Northern Ireland failed to decriminalise abortion there: the Westminster parliament did it over their heads in 2019, while the assembly was suspended. If there are any moves to turn the clock back in the UK, we might see it in Northern Ireland first. But of course the assembly is suspended again. And we also should not forget that other countries make different choices: in the south of Ireland, as I understand it, since decriminalisation in late 2018/early 2019, there is a general limit of 12 weeks, with some exceptions.)
Having lived in South Africa while a student up until I was deported in 1984 then I know a bit about this. Emergency legislation (e.g. because of a terrorist attack) was always used against critics of the State, and not ‘terrorists’. The most common critics were journalists. Hence the UK film about the Editor of the East London Despatch having to flee the country after telling the story of the death in police custody of Steve Biko (who manged to miraculously die of multiple self-inflicted beatings in a police cell that left the Minister of Justice Paul Kruger ‘dit laat my koud’ (that leaves me cold, though to be fair the Afrikaans means shocked rather than unaffected). Biko was the man who when asked by the Judge ‘Why do you call yourselves Black when you are really chocolate brown?’ replied instantly ‘Why do you call yourselves White when you are really blotchy pink?’. When they started censoring the press then the newspapers left a blank space on the page, so they made leaving an empty space a criminal offence. In 1938 the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung closed down rather than submit to censorship. They started up again in 1946 and are a very heavy read until this day.
Thanks Tim
I think many of us have known this for decades, whether it is Tory or Labour in power.
that new laws that permit a crackdown on noisy protest ? What is noisy? Glastonbury rave? In law this should be an easy. What is the decibel reading at a aspecified distance? What is the decibel reading in Piccadilly and some tube trains
It is noise that causes distress to a complainant – I use plain E£nglish, but that’s the essence of it
So projecting your voice across the street is more than enough is someone takes offence