Artwork by Molly Howard-Foster
Showing posts with label corruption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corruption. Show all posts

Saturday, December 18, 2021

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 18th 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.


Saturday, May 22, 2021

1660 Restoration - the Merry Monarch

In May 1660 Charles II arrived in London from the Dutch quay of Scheveningen. The Protectorate had crumbled on Cromwell’s death. Parliament’s Rump was re-instated, but unrest among political and religious groups, and in the army, risked anarchy. There was popular relief at the prospect of a return to ‘normal’ rule. With Charles invited back, most people were pleased. Were their hopes met? Did Charles deliver on expectations? And is his sunny reputation deserved?

Charles II, by John Michael Wright

In early 1660 the Rump (Parliament filleted in 1648 of army sceptics), having actually been dismissed by the Army in October 1659, was now again in power. But 20 years of religious tensions persisted between those who wanted a new Church of England and a radical minority wishing to leave it behind. London street protests demanded a ‘free parliament’. The agitation seemed to presage a new civil war.

General Monck had marched his army down from Scotland and at first looked as if he would do Parliament’s will. But he changed his mind in February 1660, demanding new elections for a representative regime to carry authority. This was welcomed. But Charles’ return was no foregone conclusion. Some simply wanted a new Parliament, with maybe Monck as head of state. Things were certainly in flux.  

Charles' opportunism

But in April Charles presented himself as a unifying figure via his Declaration of Breda. In an opportunist move he offered a free pardon for ‘crimes’ against himself and his father, with Parliament to decide on exceptions; a ‘liberty to tender consciences’ with Parliament again to determine the terms of a religious settlement; and Parliament to decide on contested land rights. The pledges hit the right note. In May the Commons voted to restore the Stuart monarchy on this more constitutional basis. Charles II appeared in London a few weeks later.

He started well, choosing advisers from each side of the conflict. And he made good on his three main promises to Parliament. But in July the regime suppressed newspapers not under government control. In 1661 it severely restricted public grievance petitions. Ten so-called ‘regicides’ were hanged drawn and quartered as traitors.

Liberty of conscience?

Having promised to unify the country, 1661’s fanatically pro Royalist ‘Cavalier Parliament’ restricted freedom, being bent on preventing anyone ever again overturning its idea of law and order. Embittered, vengeful and in a mood of retribution it severely punished opponents.


Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon

In 1662 Parliament passed a Uniformity Act, part of the ‘Clarendon Code’ hobbling non-conformism and hugely boosting the re-instated Church of England. Office holders had to swear allegiance and the Common Prayer Book was made compulsory. It was hardly liberty of conscience. Puritan clergy then left the Church en masse. Despite being against the move Lord Chancellor Clarendon took the rap. The Test Act for religious conformity in public offices was a further blow to those who believed promises on liberty of conscience.               

Clarendon was impeached for treason in 1667 over the Second Dutch War. England’s fleet was destroyed in the Medway and its flagship Royal Charles towed back to Holland. A shocking episode after the Protectorate navy's success against the Dutch fleet. The king bore the main responsibility. He had ignored advice and been asleep at the wheel. But the monarch couldn't be publicly blamed so a scapegoat had to be found.


'Royal Charles', captured by the Dutch fleet

Secret French deal

In 1670 the Secret Treaty of Dover was signed with France. Charles would assist Louis XIV with 60 warships and 4000 soldiers in his war of conquest against the Dutch Republic. Charles got an annual pension of £230,000 with a bonus on a promised Catholic conversion. 6000 French troops would help him defeat any rebellion at home.


Louis XIV, after Lefebrve 

This was astonishing duplicity, even by Charles’ dire standards - and would have been incendiary if then known. The full damning terms were not discovered for 100 years. The Third Anglo-Dutch War followed the Dover Treaty. Louis benefited here, but not Charles, who underestimated Dutch resilience and misjudged his influence on nephew William, who won power in Holland without his help. Later, in 1679, Charles was bribed by Louis XIV to maintain England’s neutrality. Secretary of State Danby was unfairly blamed and sent to the Tower.

Despot rule

In 1679 Charles faced a hostile Parliament. Suspected of wanting to impose Catholicism, he sided with his brother on the Exclusion Bill. This sought to deny his Catholic brother James the succession. A huge political row saw Parliament dissolved four times. In his last five years Charles ruled as a despot, prosecuting pro-Exclusion Whigs and seizing their estates. Charles replaced judges and sheriffs at will and packed juries to secure convictions.

History’s treatment of Charles’ 25 year reign has often been gentle. Many in the arts community stress his re-opening theatres, and seem neither to know nor care much about the rest. That's indeed a common perception, On the other hand academic historians looking at statecraft have judged him far more severely. So what are the myths? Well, it’s really more about misperceptions.

He broke his promises and prorogued Parliament. An opportunist and self-serving unprincipled liar, who barely showed up for work, he spent most of his time at his own pleasure, had several illegitimate children and kept a string of mistresses at public expense. He greedily received cash from overseas powers and was happy to mortgage the country for his own benefit. Yet curiously, much of the press gave him a free pass.


Barbara Castlemaine, Peter Lely

He can be forgiven the Plague of 1665 and the Great Fire of London the following year. They occurred on his watch but were clearly just bad luck. On the admittedly sparse plus side he saw a chance to renew London after the fire, paying for it by levying a coal tax. And of course Charles was personal patron of architect Sir Christopher Wren. In the arts and sciences, he founded the Royal Observatory and supported the Royal Society.

Charles' corruption

But his hedonistic immoral lifestyle was notorious. Virtually drunk on sex - an obsession shared with the court - nothing would interfere with his social life. His queen, Catherine of Braganza, provided no heir, and was pretty shamefully treated. But other ladies produced at least 13 illegitimate children to him. One of these girlfriends, Barbara Castlemaine, alone had five. Charles deluged them with gifts and huge palace apartments. Barbara was allowed to siphon off massive sums that should have gone to the exchequer. At the Navy Board, Samuel Pepys said £2.3m was unaccounted for. The rumours were that Charles had lavished much of it on his mistresses.

’Orange-wench’ Nell Gwyn, plus Lucy Walter and Louise de Kerouaille, were other famous lovers. Louise, a Breton, was suspected of being a French Catholic spy. When an angry crowd shouted insults at Nell, mistaking her for Louise, she’s supposed to have smiled and shouted, “No. I’m the Protestant whore!” They, and all the others, were given titles and honours. Corruption on a grand scale, and even with a controlled press, it was most unpopular and strongly resented.


Nell Gwyn, Peter Lely

Historian Ian Mortimer has the Restoration as a tipping point between the medieval and modern world, in terms of calculation and rational explanation. “Worried about losing your goods to fire in 1660, your best hope was prayer. 10 years later it was fire insurance. Scientific problems came to be subject to calculation rather than supposition”.

Many from the 1660s just wanted a pragmatic return to regularity, not a succession of weak, short lived governments. It seems this was a prime reason for their backing Restoration. Until it ended badly the reign at least blocked a return to the earlier spell of confusion. This, rather than any great love for the king, was probably the main buttress of its public support.

There’s no getting away from Charles as a cynical, immoral, corrupt king. He “was a kick against the moral rectitude of late 17th century Puritanism. He wanted to rub the Puritans’ noses in filth” says Mortimer. He converted to Catholicism on his deathbed.