The News Today

In 1985 American educationalist Dr. Neil Postman published a book, “Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business”. He said that today owed more to Huxley’s Brave New World, with people addicted to amusement, than to Orwell’s vision of public state control. Citizens’ rights were now exchanged for entertainment. TV news is “misplaced, irrelevant, fragmented or superficial information that creates the illusion of knowing something”, wrote Postman.

If anything this view has proved even more prescient in the 35 years or so since. These days, it seems, public interest in political, social and economic issues can only be sustained through media celebs and TV ‘personalities’. Leaders are chosen and gain electoral success just by being recognisable from their media exposure. The key quality is visibility, with a gift for the photo-op. And many people only look that far, if indeed they notice politics at all. As former Chancellor Ken Clarke said recently, “There is an increasing yearning for colourful theatrical personalities with simple solutions to complex problems. These individuals offer up scape-goats and easy ways out that save people from having to engage with a very confusing world”.

The Brexit disaster

This has reinforced the trend to populist politics and politicians. Eight years ago, in an attempt to appease one faction of the Conservative Party, a fateful decision was taken. Though Europe hardly figured in wider public priorities at the time, PM Cameron decided if his party won the election there would be a simple in out referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union. The vote, and subsequent Brexit, has seen Britain decline from a successful, open outward-looking state, with good co-operative relations with Europe and the globe generally. It’s now economically and politically weak, angry with itself and pitied by the rest of the world. Some say a state nearing its own dissolution.

So what are the myths leading the country to this monumental act of self-harm? First the idea that Britain was being held back by an endless plethora of rules decided by the European Union, that if only the country could escape from, we’d all be better off. A ridiculous idea, of course. Britain had key opt outs as an EU member, including Schengen, and avoided joining the Euro. In fact the country had the best of all worlds with its whole economy - and financial services particularly - benefiting from the Single Market.

Populist myths

Extending the myths, those who led the Brexit charge promised ‘we’d take back control of our laws, our money and our borders’. But ‘we’ already had control of them. When shortened to ‘take back control’ it could mean absolutely anything. Like many such slogans, it offered an apparently simple answer to complex problems in an increasingly complex world. It appealed to the credulous, the angry and the disappointed. It was backed by tax exiles. And the list of broken promises is endless. Most notable was the wealth the country would gain (the government itself now predicts a major decline in GDP).

Former Deputy PM Michael Heseltine said, “Just take the phrase ‘Take Back Control’…The government is lurching from crisis to crisis, and it’s patently not in control”. Writer Nick Tyrone asserts, “Brexit was a revolution disguised by its champions as a minor change, all to free the country from an oppression that was always entirely imaginary, as well as to try and take advantage of opportunities that do not actually exist”. An absurd but recurrent belief among Brexiters is that any problem can be solved if the rest of the world would just reorganise itself to fit in with Britain.

Brexit was clearly based on a series of myths swallowed by enough people to force the issue. And despite a near 50:50 split in the 2016 referendum it has been delivered in a ‘hard‘, ideological version. Given the accompanying lies, its supporters have felt obliged to keep up the fantasies. Worse, under cover of the Covid-19 pandemic and Brexit, PM Johnson’s government is steadily weakening the constitutional props and institutions defining a liberal democracy. Sometimes dressed as emergency measures, Britain is being remade along populist authoritarian right wing lines.

Shafting Britain's constitution

The sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law are Britain’s constitutional keystones. Yet in 2019 Parliament was illegally suspended. There are plans to make judicial review harder, with the Law Society warning of a threat to curbs on ‘the might of the state’. The PM wants power to override judges. New laws against public protests, whistle blowers, government accountability, plus widening the scope of the Official Secrets Act are in preparation. The government threatens the independent Elections Commission, and new voter ID moves will hit those with no driving licence or passport. It wants to hobble bodies that may restrain the state, and to replace the Human Rights Act. It flouts laws and conventions at will - all to keep a grip on power. But threats to the Northern Ireland Protocol inspired European, and particularly US, pushback.

The process of debating and approving measures in Parliament is being regularly by-passed by ministers. There is little, if any parliamentary scrutiny. This worries growing numbers of informed people, including Sir Jonathan Jones, former head of the Government Legal Department. The ministerial code governing behaviour, and aiming to avoid corruption, is regularly broken. There’s no longer any independent adjudication. When Home Secretary Patel was earlier found to have breached the code there were no consequences and the matter was just dismissed. 

All this is not normal. It can’t be treated as just politics as usual. Cabinet and parliamentary government now barely exists. A small group of ‘courtiers’ surrounds Johnson, picked not for competence but loyalty to him and the Brexit lie. In the past if a minister lied in Parliament he had no choice but to resign. But Johnson and his colleagues lie prodigiously as a matter of choice. It’s worth stressing that this is not the Conservative party of old. Many of those members with moderate views and government experience were forced or eased out. Entryists from UKIP helped take control of several constituencies and some of these people are now serving ministers. The Conservatives have largely been transformed into populist UKIP-lite English Nationalists.        

Threat to democracy

It’s said that Britain’s constitution depended on people being ‘good chaps’. That with a covenant of mutual tolerance politicians would abide by unwritten rules and conventions. And until now, they mostly have. But when people who are not ‘good chaps’ take power, the fragile fabric is easily broken. Would a written constitution help? It’s worth noting that the USSR constitution was perfectly democratic in theory, but cruelly authoritarian in practice. And the USA still suffers huge gun violence dating from the right to use muskets in a rural 18^th century society. Perhaps a Bill of Rights would help, but there’s no easy answer.

Coups may occur without a bunch of colonels moving their tanks into the capital. Britain’s democracy is barely 90 years old, or only 75 if we ignore the national governments of World War II and the 1930s. H.A.L. Fisher in 1935 said, “Progress is not a law of nature. The ground gained by one generation may be lost by the next”. Historian Rob Saunders points out, “The first UK prime minister born under universal suffrage was John Major. Every PM from Baldwin to Thatcher saw democracies collapse or be crushed. That democracy is fragile is a lesson we forget at our peril”.

Corruption

Brexiters condemned endemic corruption in the EU. They promoted the myth that leaving would shield the UK against such taints. Instead the combination of Brexit and Covid-19 has given opportunities for a huge level of corruption in Britain. Establishing so called VIP lanes for procurement of personal protection equipment and testing capacity has resulted in around 50 companies awarded contracts without competitive tender. Many had no experience or competence in the field, though they had links with ministers or Conservative party donors. In one example 43,000 people were wrongly given a negative Covid test result. The sums involved are enormous - over £12bn. 

Legal challenges are proceeding against the government. The Major administration of the mid 1990s was crippled by sleaze, and the ‘cash for questions’ scandal. This pattern has returned but at a turbocharged level. Eye watering sums have been uncovered in paid consultancy lobbying by some MPs, completely against the rules. Several ministers and ex ministers have been implicated, too. The consequences have yet to be seen.

For anyone who didn’t realise, it’s abundantly clear that Brexit is a disaster. Nobody can cite one single benefit to Britain. Fewer and fewer people in recent polls now think leaving the EU was the right choice. The number should fall even further as the effects become clearer and Britain’s overall position deteriorates. The government keeps repeating the lies rather than face up to the truth. But once lies start they have to be kept going. It seems just too difficult politically to admit that the emperor has no clothes.   

Ameliorating the damage

So how to get out of the mess? Many find it hard to admit they were conned or foolish in supporting Brexit. In 2017 the security services concluded in private that the public had been shafted. Still, common sense and geography should dictate change. It’s impossible for Britain to re-join the European Union soon. But a step by step approach may help. First is to try and rebuild damaged relations with Ireland and the EU. Then Britain could cooperate with Europe on things like Erasmus and standards alignment with further moves to ease friction on trade and other areas of mutual interest. Gradually a more positive climate may emerge. No-one needs to admit folly. It gets everyone off the hook. But a change of PM is a sine qua non here. 

Meanwhile culture wars are a key part of Johnson’s divide and rule modus operandi. He has a group in Downing St stirring this pot - involving statues, misinterpreting history, music - indeed anything the media can work into a national dust up. Other japes are akin to putting up a two fingered salute to foreigners, especially if deemed to be part of the ‘liberal elite’. Straight out of the Trump playbook.  But it's not clear this is really effective.The culture war extends to Covid-19 too. The ‘libertarian’ wing of the Tory party recently had 100 MPs rebel against their own government on new pandemic safety measures. 

A more familiar pattern returned as the Tories lost a solid seat in a by-election with a swing of 34% against them. Polls confirmed Johnson’s public popularity rating was at its lowest ever level. Ministerial Xmas parties during the pandemic, when the public were bound by strict safety measures, cut through and hugely damaged him. On 12th December 2021 Sunday broadsheet ‘The Observer’ wrote: “It is a national misfortune that we have a man who is by far and away the worst post war prime minister in office at the time of the worst post war crisis. Johnson lacks any shred of integrity, is driven by ego and self interest, and has been prepared to mislead voters again and again. He is incompetent and embodies the entitled politician who sees politics as a game rather than a duty. He is utterly unfit to govern Britain” This view was common among former Conservative colleagues.

The future?

This is the final chapter of my blog. In a previous post I quoted Dean Acheson’s 1962 remark “Britain has lost an empire and not yet found a role”. But it did develop a role, as a key member of the European Union. And a doorway to Europe for the United States. Offering a sound trading environment for Britain, recognising the UK's strength in financial services, the EU was a realistic and helpful political option for a medium sized, respected state.

Throughout its history Britain has overcome problems and mis-steps, many of its own making. But in 2016’s ill-fated referendum, a combination of lies, dark money from overseas and shocking media behaviour, lured the country into a mythical fantasy of past glory. Emotional, not rational, this disastrous choice began a sad period for Britain. Russian money was very likely involved. The former Russian ambassador actually claimed his country had got what it wanted. A modern democratic state has been all but taken over by a small group of extremists 'gaming the system' of lax media rules, with weak constitutional laws and conventions. All of Britain's authoritarian populism and corruption has resulted directly from it. Our history is respected. But it’s a hard road to a more hopeful horizon.

The 1832 Reform Act

It’s sometimes claimed that the 1832 Reform Bill was a watershed in British democracy. It marked the country’s evolutionary transition from first, absolute monarchy, then through a period of oligarchy to a modern constitutional settlement. The bedrock of the democratic political system, it supposedly typified Britain’s incremental approach to peaceful political change and its transition to a modern state. This, at least, is what many learnt at school. But is it true? Did 1832’s political and constitutional change pave the way for democracy?

British politics before the Reform Bill

To start with it’s worth taking a look at the state of British politics 200 years ago, in the 1820s. There were two main parties - Whigs and Tories - representing different interests. These had existed since the 17^th century having taken shape through the Exclusion crisis of the 1680s. The parliamentary process functioned through two houses, the Commons and the Lords, under a constitutional monarchy. But voting in elections was hardly democratic. It had developed in a ‘catch as catch can’ process with seven different ways to qualify to vote. The key thing is that over 95% of adults did not qualify.

Canvassing for votes, William Hogarth

There were no votes for women, or for most people without property. Areas that had grown quickly in the industrial revolution had barely any Commons seats. Manchester, with just under 200,000 people had no seats, whereas Cornwall, with roughly the same population, had 42. Depopulated places like Old Sarum had seven voters but returned members. Dunwich did, too, though it had disappeared into the sea. In these ‘pocket boroughs’ one dominant employer or landowner might control the voting. Seats were bought and sold. Voters had to vote publicly, so might be shy in opposing a local magnate’s candidate.

“Before 1832, around a third of parliamentary constituencies were controlled in this way”, says historian Matt Cole. “Under these circumstances it is hardly surprising that most constituencies - between 60 and 75 per cent - were not contested at all”. Some powerful local figures 'owned' several seats simultaneously. The Duke of Norfolk topped the charts here - he controlled 11. It was in pretty well every respect a corrupt system.

Demands for reform

In the 1820s calls for reform grew louder and were backed by the parliamentary Whig leaders. But what did they want and how did they plan to get it? On the face of it, supporters demanded fairer popular representation as industrial areas and interests hardly counted against an over-represented aristocratic ruling elite. Reformers wanted to correct the absurd and out of date distribution of parliamentary seats. And they also sought a better demographic balance. Despite 1832’s total electorate rising to 435,000, as a share of population it had fallen to only 3.2%. This was less than it had been in 1640.       

Duke of Wellington, John Jackson

An overwhelming case, then, but it took ages to convince Parliament. By 1830 the prime minister,Wellington, was the sole member of his Tory government refusing to accept the need for parliamentary reform. That year’s election returned the Whigs with a large majority under Lord Grey. But 15 months of detailed argument and delaying tactics were involved before the Bill passed through the Commons. The Lords was another problem. The King had to threaten to create enough peers to ensure its passage there. The Act eventually received royal assent on 7^th June 1832.

Effects of the 1832 Act

Those believing in the benefits of this measure have some awkward issues to confront. By removing non-resident voters, 30% of those boroughs that survived reform had fewer voters than before. And the Act did not abolish all pocket or proprietary boroughs in England and Wales, as at least 40 continued to exist, along with many attendant abuses. The ‘poor ratepayer’ franchise of 37 boroughs was abolished and an essentially democratic feature was replaced by a standard £10 pa property qualification. This disenfranchised numerous working class men, besides those rural tenants lacking security of tenure.     

Lord Grey, by Charles Hayter

So in practice the vote was taken from some groups, but extended to the commercial middle class and more prosperous rural householders. It excluded all males who fell short of the arbitrary £10 line. And all females were expressly banned from voting. While the arithmetic is hard without accurate registration figures, it seems as if the total electorate rose to 6%-7% of the population. Writes constitutional lawyer Jo Murkens, “The Reform Act thus created a division not between Whigs and Tories, but between economic (rural v industrial) interests, classes and also the sexes…The new constituents were either aristocratic or wealthy, and, of course, educated and male.”   

A democratic measure?

Democracy was never on the agenda. Commentators at the time, including the Bill’s main driver, Lord John Russell, downplayed the changes. A conservative, good housekeeping measure tidying up a few rotten boroughs and including some middle class voters. It was continuity, not real change, they reassured people. With the risk of unrepresented workers turning against parliament, the response was simple if cynical - to make aristocratic government acceptable by purging it of its most corrupt and expensive features. But the limitations were soon exposed as the Chartists organised a more radical movement to push the cause of the voteless working class.

Rotten borough cartoon

The 1832 Reform Act is often seen as a constitutional milestone. It was passed at perhaps the most dangerous moment in Britain’s political history, with the country teetering on the edge of revolution. The Act did little that it was later supposed to have done, and Britain waited almost 100 years for full adult suffrage. But it did solidify a principle - parliamentary representation should shadow population. It also shattered the Tory party. Two years later Tory leader Sir Robert Peel stated some new reform principles and renamed his party the Conservatives. Setting up clubs around Britain to fight elections, it was the dawn of modern political campaigning.

Robert Peel, by Pickersgill

Peel, according to historian Robert Saunders, was an interesting character. He exhibited several paradoxes in his various positions. He subscribed to the Protestant ascendancy in Ireland but supported Catholic emancipation in 1834. He backed agricultural protection for various reasons, but split his party when repealing the Corn Laws in 1846. There were numerous other examples. He had the priceless ability, and the intellectual honesty, to change his mind when the facts changed. He believed in a culture of atonement. His big fear was populism and where it would lead. Given today’s situation, this was to prove prescient.     

Parliamentary sovereignty?

Constitutional theorist AV Dicey saw an advance in 1832 - that people began to realise the constitution might be changed peacefully. But the men who passed the 1832 Act really had no interest in political democracy. They feared it would bring tyranny of the mob over the educated (and privileged) few, and a permanent majority over the interests of minorities. Political expedience forced them to concede the minimum to avoid possible riots or even revolution. This worked for a generation. And while a more democratic system was in retrospect perhaps inevitable, it was not the Reform Act, but changing political, economic and social factors which brought it about.

House of Commons, 1809 (destroyed by a fire in 1834)

Did the Act affirm the role of parliamentary politics? The sovereignty of parliament was originally propounded in the 1880s by Dicey. It was and still is accepted as the foundation of the British constitution. But these days government, with its patronage and media support, is very powerful. It can in practice often ignore or bypass the legislature. So is parliamentary sovereignty the basis of modern democracy? Or did it only truly apply in the context of a restricted 19^th century franchise? The question divides lawyers, historians and politicians. With an increasingly authoritarian executive, and in an age of referenda, social media and fake news, with weak ministerial and electoral regulation, recent events have clearly shown its fragility.