In the UK and the USA, the aim appears to be the same: the destruction of democracy by the use of false narratives is on the cards.
In this morning's Letters from an American, Heather Cox Richardson notes:
There seems to be some tension in the White House tonight. As Trump's poll numbers are in the low 40s on his job performance and underwater on every one of his policies, tonight he wrote: “Except what is written and broadcast in the Fake News, I now have the highest poll numbers I've ever had, some in the 60's and even 70's. Thank you. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!”
And then she notes:
Trump followed that post up with another. “Despite a very high popularity and, according to many, among the greatest 8 months in Presidential History, ABC & NBC FAKE NEWS, two of the worst and most biased networks in history, give me 97% BAD STORIES. IF THAT IS THE CASE, THEY ARE SIMPLY AN ARM OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY AND SHOULD, ACCORDING TO MANY, HAVE THEIR LICENSES REVOKED BY THE FCC. I would be totally in favor of that because they are so biased and untruthful, an actual threat to our Democracy!!! MAGA”
Trump tends to do what he threatens: those parts of the US media that are doing a good job in holding him to account for his actions are under threat. We have to assume that he will continue to threaten at the very least. And democracy is not democracy without the fourth estate provided by a media that is willing to hold politicians to account.
Then there is an FT report here:
Sir Keir Starmer is braced for a pitched battle with the House of Lords when parliament returns from its summer break, as the Conservatives mount a last-ditch bid to save Britain's ancient caste of hereditary peers.
A total of 91 hereditary peers, some tracing their ancestry back to the Norman Conquest, are still able to shape the laws of the land, but they are set to be ejected from the upper house under legislation brought in by Starmer's Labour government.
This issue is that 44 of the remaining 91 hereditary peers are Tories, and the Tories put party far ahead of democracy.
As one of those hereditary Tories, Lord Strathclyde is leading the counter-attack to Labour. As the FT notes:
Strathclyde, full name Thomas Galloway Dunlop du Roy de Blicquy Galbraith, said the government was playing with fire by passing legislation to remove its political opponents from parliament.
“If any other country were doing this, we would be launching petitions at the UN,” he said, adding that Nigel Farage, whose Reform UK party had no peers, might seize on this precedent were he to win a general election.
This is utterly crazy.
The UN would not defend an anti-democratic claim to govern purely based on hereditary principles. There is no human right to behave eugenically.
And to bring Reform into the issue is just absurd, not least because if the hereditaries have gone by 2029, then Reform could not get rid of them again, although it might flood the chamber with Reform peers, of course.
If there is an argument based on the actions of Reform, it is to be rid of the Lords now, as democracy demands.
However, no one dares look above the parapet in Westminster and see that democracy is killing both the Tories and Labour and that all of their power might be swept away soon. Instead, they fight their old and largely irrelevant wars, and all around them, democracy is dying, as it is in the USA.
The question is, will they ever notice?
Or have they already, and are they just arrogantly indifferent to the consequences, as too many in the USA are already?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I note that the FBI raided John Bolton’s home recently. I’m no fan of Bolton, but the abuse is rampant.
Indifference?
Maybe, maybe – for me it is the constraints that these numpties have imposed on themselves, following Thatcher’s words and ceding problem solving to markets and the private sector which have already made things worse (2008, profiteering during Covid) – walking into the arms of false saviours to give away our freedom. The epoch of ‘no new ideas’ is upon on us, ‘TINA’ rules.
And the political class will make hay from it – plenty! Indifferent? You are too kind. More like self interested to me I’m afraid?
Politicians – potentially the biggest threat to democracy and us.
“I’m no fan of Bolton, but the abuse is rampant.”
Glad you see this. Bolton may be a “good guy” compared to Trump but that is like saying Mussolini was a “good guy”……….compared to Hitler.
However, what is being done to Bolton is very disturbing.
I went out on foot today to deliver some homegrown apples for distribution to the foodbank and saw a new back garden flag I didn’t recognise. The wind was blowing it the wrong way so had to decipher mirror writing. Looked v like an RAF ensign, light blue ground with a Union flag in the top corner. The wording was something like “make Britain Great – Reform UK” in light outlined cursive script on the light blue. All quite soft and attractive. Can’t find it on the internet. First Reform stuff I’ve seen on open display in our neighbourhood.
As yet, no sign of the St George floor-painting or lampost embellishing terrorists.
Reform is sailing close to the wind with its new team football shirts – uniforms are still illegal for political parties in the UK as far as I know, and for a very good reaon.
What other parties will fill the political vacuum given the demise of LINO & the Tories. Obvs: Deform. Can the LibDems (tory-lite?), the Greens (middle-class-r-us) and the Sultanan/Corbyn party (Labour II) fill this vacuum, given the media & the state’s propaganda arm (BBC) seem to support flag-waving Deform. Strange times. The other parties need to find some narratives (& counter naratives) that resonate with the population – fast.
Counter narrative: does flag waving reduce food prices? or reduce energy costs? or improve the NHS, or………
Thanks
Alternatively, and with greater darkness, might it be that democracy is being subverted by the connivance between the rich donnors,, the politician enablers and too many of the main stream media accomplicies?
For those who haven’t sen it, Nesrine Malik has a very good article on a related subject in The Guardian today. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/aug/25/us-democrats-collapse-in-support-labour-uk
Fits with your, ‘Are Labour trying to lose the 2029 election’, blog too.
Agreed.
Worth reading.
She usually is.
Ivan, you beat me to it in mentioning Nesrine Malik’s article.
Coupled with the current ‘operation raise the colours’ – effectively racism / fascism – I do think that if we are going to achieve what many of the followers of Richard’s blog want, we need an activist approach and to change the narrative. We need a rallying cry for democracy, for a more caring society, against poverty, etc. To clearly describe what we are trying to achieve and why it is beneficial to the many. Deform – with Fartrage at the helm – rely on dog whistles. Deform have no valid policies, morals, ethics and have no interest in the people they purport to be looking after. However, it cuts through because it plays on fear …and basic racism/ tribalism, etc. It is not a complicated message and doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, however, it cuts through – particularly to many unthinking people.
We need braver politicians who can narrate a better vision. A vision that creates support, interest and commitment from the populace. The vision needs to talk about that wellbeing, caring society and its benefits – a positive message as opposed to simply pointing out what is wrong. They could start by exposing the myth of the household analogy and being clear that we can support the NHS, we can eliminate poverty, provide great education for all, etc.
Labour unfortunately does not possess that bravery or vision to create that positive message…or, at least, has not yet demonstrated it. Maybe the new left-leaning party can bring more activism and conviction politicians (as opposed to self-interested ones) and help demonstrate there is a real and positive alternative that protects democracy and is founded on eliminating neoliberal policies but expressed as a positive narrative.
Much to agree with.
The House of Lords has over 800 members. It is quite hard to justify any element of its composition.
Some Anglican bishops ex officio or by long tenure but no one automatically from other faith traditions. 90 or so hereditary peer elected from a body of 800 or so, so about one in nine of them. And an enormous number of the great and the good appointed by the prime minister through political patronage.
Of the hereditary peers, almost half are Conservatives. Most of the rest are Crossbenchers. I think four Labour and four Lib Dems. The most recent surviving hereditary peerage was created in 1984 for Harold Macmillan and before that Lord Margadale in 1965 (since then, there are a few more for the royal family but they are a law unto themselves, and two other hereditary peerages created under Thatcher in 1983 died out, Willie Whitelaw and George Thomas). Many elderly white men.
With the hereditaries removed, the house would be split four ways – around 200 Conservative, 200 Labour, 200 Crossbenchers, and around 100 others. But all appointed through political patronage. Is that any better? The implicit threat is that a prime minister could always appoint hundreds of supporters and get their own way anyway.
The last is the Farage threat
With regards to the House of Lords: Why just get rid of the hereditary peers? Why not get rid of all of the peers and replace the House of Lords with a Senate with members elected to 15 years terms.
In my humble Yank opinion, there are too many seats in the House of Lords. There are more seats in the Lords than in the Commons. Anytime you you have a PM appointing so many people for life, there is a great opportunity for abuse of power now (Starmer) and abuse of power in the future (wannabe Lord Farquaad……I mean Farage).
Yank Question: Why are there more “appointed for life” seats in the Lords than “elected” seats in the Commons. Seems to me, if you want more legislators, increase the number of seats in the Commons.
This situation is a sign of a system of patronage that undermines democracy that is out of control.
Patronage is exactly the right word. I don’t know about the UK, but the US has seen a significant amount of reporting on our patronage problems: exotic trips, exclusive invites, revolving door employment, insider trading, housing provided at a discount, disappearing debts, inaugurations taking place in a billionaire’s private library, etc. Yet what was done about any of it? Nothing. Not even during the “Yes we can!” years full of preachy hope.
The US has a straightforward case of short-sighted corruption. I would not be surprised if the corruption extended to darker measures like entrapment and mining phones for extortion material. Yet who is policing this activity? Who is confronting it? Newsom’s answer seems to be, well if they can break democracy, we can too! Great. Now we have a race to the bottom. Yet many see no other path, because it seems we cannot confront the corruption head on. The people behind it are too powerful to see the inside of a prison cell.
Regarding the ones who needed no stick, only the carrot, willingly selling out like Judas: I wonder if they realize no one is safe in a fascist regime. No matter how much they try to get on the inside, they will always be expendable.
Soft-Fascism:-
https://svidomi.in.ua/en/page/soft-fascism-a-fast-moving-political-trend-or-an-ideology-of-the-twenty-first-century