As the Guardian notes this morning:
Despite the car-crash quality of Prince Harry's sulk from a middle-status rowbehind Princess Anne's feathered hat and the introduction to the coronation of that dress by Penny Mordaunt, the sword-wielding leader of the Commons, the standout story of the crowning of King Charles III on Saturday continues to be the arrest, hours before the event at Westminster Abbey, of Smith and the five other key organisers of the main Republican protest.
This is not just in the UK. The New York Times is going big on it this morning, for example.
I have made my own position on this issue quite clear. I support Republic. I gave up on the monarchy in the 80s, as I recall, always believing that its demise was a necessary precondition of the creation of a proper democracy.
But there is another twist to this now. Has the police arresting, and then apologising to, members of Republic actually advanced its cause, with new protest laws backfiring as a result? My view is that this is no justification for those laws and that their immediate failure will make reform of them more likely but what do you think? Two polls:
Has the police arresting members of Republic advanced that organisation’s cause?
- Yes (57%, 260 Votes)
- Only temporarily - the authorities will win in the end (30%, 135 Votes)
- I don’t know - but show me the answers anyway (7%, 31 Votes)
- No (6%, 27 Votes)
Total Voters: 453
Loading ...Are reforms to the new protest laws more likely now that their use has spectacularly backfired?
- There will be a doubling down on protest instead to prove the law does work (50%, 217 Votes)
- Yes (23%, 101 Votes)
- No (17%, 75 Votes)
- I don’t know but show me the answers anyway (9%, 39 Votes)
Total Voters: 432
Loading ...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 government is running scared after their defeat at the local elections and has to make out it is tough on protest because they know that people are no longer prepared to put up with continual crisis, whether it is the complete lack of action on climate, cost of living or anti-democracy regarding the feudal monarchy.. Now is the time to step up protest as the government have not a leg to stand on as has been shown by the eloquent comments on this blog.
Did you hear Starmer asked about it? Approximately- it’s early days, it needs to bed in and police need time to understand how to use it better.
Starmer’s much lauded human rights on show again.
Indeed
It would be interesting to know who lent on the police – that’s how I see it anyway.
Again, the police are in an awkward situation really – too easily used as tools by politicians and other sources of power to repress certain public sentiments. There is always a fine line to be walked.
The police end up dealing with the results of bent and bought/hacked politicians who will not listen to the public.
If some accounts by Tory MPs who disagreed with the legislation can be believed, some in Laboured were up for it too and would be cheering the arrest of a protest that did not even start.
Charles Walker MP was good on that point last night – saying Labour was as bad as his own party
Walker was an almost deranged extreme brexit nut case, but since he has announced he not going to stand again – he has sounded almost human.
UK politics is its own art form – somewhere between panto and music hall.
Yes, Richard, I agree that Walker was right and spot on in his criticism. It was refreshing to see, especially from a Tory. Sadly, he is out of step with his party. It is unfortunate about Labour. I don’t know where the Liebor rot, to borrow a phrase, is fundamentally coming from. I think Starmer is simply a symptom, though a significant one, rather than a cause. But, then, where to look.
Starmer supporting the new bill – let it bed in !
https://twitter.com/jrc1921/status/1655983044157661184?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1655983044157661184%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=
Totally missing the point
The same effect as when Nero fed Christians to the lions. He only succeeded in giving them publicity and creating martyrs.
It’s not your theme here but your Guardian quote included the words “Prince Harry’s sulk”.
I admire most of what you write – so stimulating, evidence- and logic-based and prolific – yet I feel that what is written about our royalty is too often unkind and unfair (the above were not your words, I know).
Royals did not choose to be born into it. They have been ceaselessly trained/advised/schooled in ‘perfect’ behaviour. They were (are) expected to find, fall in love with and marry a wealthy virgin – preferably one with royal blood.
Margaret was not allowed to marry Townsend, Charles warned off Camilla (when they were both youngish). Harry loves Megan … but she is not ‘good enough’. How many of us meet the imagined ideal?
Eventually, Charles married Diana. Whatever she did wrong, she produced heirs. After her tragic death, Blair said ‘people everywhere, not just here in Britain, kept faith with Princess Diana.’ “They liked her, they loved her, they regarded her as one of the people.” “She was the People’s Princess and that is how she will stay, how she will remain in our hearts and our memories for ever.”
Was William and Harry’s Mum mentioned on coronation day?
I have long argued that royalty is unfair on those it is imposed upon because it very obviously is.
I’m sorry Jo Burlington but you have not tugged at my heart strings at all when considering the challenges of being in the ‘royal family’.
You infer that it is a one way deal – a loss of humanity and personal freedom. But what being a royal is, is a something for something deal. Their compliance and flexibility is handsomely rewarded unlike that of their subjects who get chucked in the local nick for having the gall to question their validity or get zero hours contracts, fewer rights and declining living standards.
The royals get:
An opportunity to never want for anything.
An opportunity to choose which laws they obey or not.
To be mediocre, but in charge (Camilla has one GCSE apparently but is our queen – so much for a society that rewards hard work and attainment).
To be able to interfere with the running of state with no accountability whatsoever (does the Privy Council ring a bell at all)?
Acquire state assets in their name? Sounds like theft to me.
Have questionable accountability within the law of the land unlike you and I.
I appreciate that you are trying to look upon the royal family as human beings and it is a credit to you. But I honestly think you are wasting your time.
No one subject to a system like that can remain normal or ‘connected’ to real life. Or shall we say ‘human’? Because it’s designed not to.
OTOH – as soon as I hear Charlie and others consistently speaking out against austerity and unfairness and corrupt government, worrying about the condition of the poor – sticking up for his subjects like many stick up for him – I will recant and give my apologies.
And I’m patient.
I’m not a flag waving royalist but I was disgusted by the Guardians sulk comment re Harry. He showed no evidence of sulking – just because he left promptly to return to his son’s 4th birthday – maybe he has his priorities right. Clearly he was not consulted on the date – in fact I rather wonder if the Government demanded it be May 6th to divert from the local election results. I would have expected Charles to choose a day in June when the weather was likely to be better and much more suited to street parties, and not immediately after the May bank holiday.
When royalty, male or female reach their late teens/early twenties they can always divest themselves of everything and walk away and live a ‘real’ life – they virtually never do, there is nothing stopping them.
I recently read a paper (see below) by Margaret Levi, an American professor of political science, on trustworthy government which made a great deal of sense to me. In particular I thought it particularly insightful that she pointed out we’re now in in the age of politicians “weaponising distrust” in government. Obviously for MMT supporters we are well aware of one dominant mechanism for generating this distrust government has no money generating powers of its own and if it had hyper-inflation would happen in the twinkling of an eye. But this weaponising can be seen in the behaviour of Trump (which even led to a physical attack on the Capitol) and the Ayn Rand fanatical Tory politicians of the last thirteen years (deliberately under-mining the NHS for example). Indeed we can even see it in the behaviour of Keir Starmer with his banishment of Jeremy Corbyn and other left leaning Labour politicians not to mention his refusal to commit to abolishing the recently created Tory Protest Law because he’s shut down the ability of local Labour constituency parties what protest groups they’d like to affiliate too:-
“Labour MPs have spoken out in the run-up to the coronation against party rule changes that prevent constituency branches from affiliating with an anti-monarchy group.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/04/labour-mps-attack-party-rule-changes-curbing-links-with-anti-monarchy-group-republic
“Labour officials argue that a refusal to commit to repeal does not necessarily imply support for a measure, or a veto on action, just a refusal to overly tie the party’s hands after an election.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/08/labour-urged-to-say-whether-it-would-scrap-new-anti-protest-laws
“We would get debt falling and balance the current budget.”
https://policymogul.com/key-updates/23804/labour-sets-out-plans-for-responsibly-rebooting-the-economy-as-it-emerges-tory-tax-plans-would-rip-up-fiscal-rules-and-cause-public-sector-debt-to-rise
Of course those familiar with Attachment and Caregiving theory know that trust has to be built up from infancy between the infant and its caregiver/s and this is often inadequate resulting in adults who experience difficulty in reciprocating with others. This makes life difficult because in the human species we rely heavily on collective action.
Here’s Margaret Levi’s paper:-
https://www.amacad.org/sites/default/files/publication/downloads/Fa22-Daed_12_Levi.pdf
I might add that as a professor of political science Margaret Levi has had to take note of Marxist theory and of course during the 50’s and 60’s in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War workers were able to extract a higher percentage of the profits from businesses together with increased benefits from government. This inevitably led to kickback from the rich and consequently a push to weaponise distrust in government which we are now experiencing in the US, UK and other countries to a greater or lesser degree.
Here’s Owen Jones in today’s Guardian on the topic of “weaponising distrust” in the democratic right to protest supposed to exist in the UK:-
“Those hoping that today’s Labour party will neutralise this Tory war on democracy should abandon their delusions. Keir Starmer’s team are both bad social democrats, lacking a commitment to redistribute wealth and power, and bad liberals – that is, poor defenders of freedom. Starmer has refused to commit to repealing the Public Order Act the opposition voted against just months ago, saying he would allow it to “bed in”. Labour has condemned the government for not taking enough action against climate protesters and clampdowns on civil liberties under Tony Blair’s governments point to how his ideological heirs intend to behave once in power.”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/10/coronation-arrests-britain-public-order-act-tory-government
I agree with him
Continuing my theme. When you start to look at which political parties in the UK are “weaponising distrust” there isn’t a single one that isn’t either consciously or unconsciously doing so.
Even the Green Party has two issues that stick in my craw namely it doesn’t clearly argue that government has money creation powers of its own given the huge public and private spend necessary to tackle climate change and secondly, given that human beings do have a propensity to “weaponise distrust” (think politics and religion), then to want the UK to nuclear disarm unilaterally doesn’t make sense to me when I believe along with non-nuclear weapons it acts as a deterrent to sociopaths like Putin who really do want to “weaponise distrust” big time!
Politically, then I think a lot of voters in the UK are homeless. This clearly will be a driving force for the UK’s continuing decline. Sorry to be so bleak. On the positive side using the tool of who is “weaponising distrust” whether consciously or not and who is doing their best not to is a way forward!
2 thoughts…
1 – if protesters are labelled as ‘anti-monarchy activists’ then shouldn’t there be a balance by naming those (including the establishment) defending the monarchy as ‘pro-monarchy activists’?
2 – interesting play on words… ‘pro-monarchy activists’ didn’t want protesters to ‘rain’ on their parade, while ‘anti-monarchy activists’ didn’t want the establishment to ‘reign’ on their parade.
And there was a trooper in the procession who had a job to rein in his horse.
Maybe the trumpets were too noisy.
Maybe they should not ride horses?
After all, why do we need to keep so many? For what purpose?
The current situation with the London’s Thug-plods
self- investigating more than 1,000 sexual assault and domestic abuse claims involving around 800 of its thugs. Assorted thug-plods have been taken off serious and organised crime investigations and counter-terrorism in order to investigate wrongdoing within their own force. This begs the question would you ask the Stasi to investigate its human rights abuses? – thought not.
Thug-plods remain in special measures, two months since the publication of Louise Casey’s report that found it institutionally racist, sexist and homophobic,
(special measures? would those be the ones on view on Saturday?)
The head of Thug-plods said: “In all cases, I don’t have the final say on who’s in the Metropolitan police,I know that sounds mad, I’m the commissioner.”
Thus a key establishment institution, with a monopoly on the use of violence is: institutionally racist, sexist and homophobic (and has been for 40+ years – suggesting it is these things – by design – we will pass over in silence the legitimaisation of undercover thug-plods having sex with any and all women they were monitoring). Given the comments of the head thug-plod, it is clear that it is not even under his control and appears, on an hour to hour basis, to interpret the law as any given set of thug-plods see fit.
Oh & UK serfs via their taxes pay for this “service” – as good an example as any of “biting the hand that feeds you” (down-boy-down, you have been a very bad thug,).
Given the above, the London Thug-Plods are the way they are by establishment design – the last meaninful reform being when in the 1960s/1970s Robert Mark sorted out the cosy relationship between thug-plods and organised crime. Since then nothing has happened – as the above report shows & nothing will happen because vile-sunak, vile-Starme and the others are very happy with the current state of affairs – which has existed +/- since…….well pretty much forever.
Unfortunately your suggestion that chances of reform are more likely seem based on the premise that politicians, Tories in particular, have the self reflection and confidence to admit they got it wrong (or even not quite right).
I can see no evidence of these qualities in the majority of our current crop if leaders, rather there is an absolutely inability to have an adult conversation and for positions to change. Therefore a doubling down and increasingly vicious application of the law is almost certain.
Craig Murray has a disturbing piece on the policing at a protest at an Israeli weapons factory in Leicester:
‘ …The protestors are confined to a designated area by an order under the Public Order Act 1986. One demonstrator, who left the protest on Monday to go home, was detained by police for leaving the designated area.
Three protestors approached the police to inquire – politely – why their friend was being detained. They then returned to the cordon. 30 police then surrounded the cordon from the front and, through the woods, from the rear. They then entered and, with force, arrested the three for having left the cordon.
They also arrested two others who had never left the cordon at all, including one nervous young lady who had done absolutely nothing but stand quietly inside the designated area and had been telling fellow demonstrators how scared she was.
All the arrested people that day were BAME. White people were left alone.
As is common with demonstrations, numerous motorists had been honking their horn in support in passing. The police (and I have never heard of this before) were stopping the vehicles that sounded their horn, demanding to see driving licenses and vehicle insurance, taking down the drivers’ details and warning them they were liable to be charged with an offence…. ‘
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2023/05/freedom-of-speech-elbit-and-fascist-policing/
Wow…
And technically they can do that – using a car horn inappropriately is pints ion your licence and a fine up to £1,000
I had not thought of it in this context before.
I was about to share Craig Murray’s post but Neil MacInnes did it first. But I didn’t realise that about “using a car horn inappropriately” – as you say Richard: Wow.
This example of facist policing didn’t require new laws, but was using legislation passed in 1986:
“In a reminder that suppression of protest was not invented in 2022, the police are operating largely through a draconian order made under the Tory “Public Order Act 1986”.’
This legislation was Thatcher’s reaction to the Greenham Common Women’s Peace Camp, to trades union picketing and to travellers.”
It seems there are categories of protest that will no longer be tolerated.
Against:
Monarchy
Israel’s treatment of Palestine
Profiteering on Climate Disaster
Why does it feel Starmer has links with the Met perhaps from his previous job of Director of Public Prosecutions? The following is a list of organisations Labour Party constituency parties can no longer affiliate to unless permission is obtained from the NEC:-
Palestine Solidarity Campaign
Labour Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Stop the War Coalition
Republic
London-Irish Abortion Rights Campaign
Jewish Voice for Labour
Somalis for Labour
Sikhs for Labour
All African Women’s Group
Health Campaigns Together
The Campaign Against Climate Change
Trade Union Group
Peace and Justice Project
Some very wide-ranging groups there.
I can understand Peace and Justice Campaign as that is for Corbyn, but some of the others are outrageous. Does it mean that CLPs can join CND, but not Labour CND?
Health Campaigns Together consists of just about every union campaigning for the NHS as well as other organisations campaigning to have the NHS back in public ownership, such as KONP and Weownit.
https://www.healthcampaignstogether.com/aboutus.php
Plurality of views is what democracy is all about as long as those are not preaching hate of others or devaluing those who make different views. You need to reach a certain level of maturity to understand this which is why the Labour Party was formed on the basis of the idea of democratic socialism.
Few know, for example, that the Tiananmen Square Massacre was a consequence of Deng Xiaoping deciding to allow the sudden floating of prices for basic commodities that had traditionally been subsidised by the state and this resulted in high inflation and widespread protests.
Legitimising protest groups is a way for politicians to get feedback whether they are disadvantaging a large number of people. Keir Starmer’s authoritarian streak makes him blind to this important cybernetic process! Mature voters should aim at neutralising this authoritarianism by tactical voting to achieve a coalition to replace the dreadful Tories who clearly are massively authoritarian!
Thanks
Question – what did Robert Peel want to do when he created the ‘Peelers’ – to control the London populace, to protect the elite and their property.
Nothing has changed, the actual function of the Met and all other police forces is to ‘maintain the status quo’. So it is entirely logical that if the elite want to maintain their position, which they obviously do, they will use any and all new technology at their disposal to enhance this control. Fast forward and AI/robots will eventually replace all the ‘bipeds’ that serve them today. Their ‘bipeds’ cannot allow themselves to see their eventual fate since this would mean they were beginning to ‘wake up’ ergo taking responsibility for their own lives – they have not been programmed/brainwashed to do this. Any that do have always been ejected from their ranks.
Orwell was a very prescient human being. If he was alive today and perceived to be threat to the status quo, he would be sectioned under the mental Health Act and receive a daily chemical straitjacket injection.
https://bylinetimes.com/2023/05/10/coronation-clampdown-18-hours-in-elephant-and-castle/
An interesting article on what the Met did on Saturday. Clive Lewis was warned not to take part with vague talk of security threats!
jenw,
thanks for that. Of course Mic Wright wouldn’t get a call from Sky/Murdoch Speak (it still is) or the BBC (why are most of their presenters still P/S?, silly question).
Wouldn’t it be great if ITV (impossible for the BBC) were to put together an Al-Jazeera look-alike investigative programme to put a spotlight on issues like this.
When I want to hear real news, not propoganda I look to Al-Jazeera, it rarely disappoints.