tuco wrote:

The paradox is, of course, that at present it appears the only people who can change how democracy operates are the very same people who are intimately invested in maintaining the instruments of state power exactly as they are.

I only read here because I am not qualified to comment though it does interest me because as I noted before (in the Brexit thread I believe) what happens in the let's say established and strong democracies has some impact on democracies not so established and not so strong like the one I live in. Anyways ..

I do not think that the only people who can change how democracy operates are the people in power. In a hypothetical situation when, for example, only 1% of voters would actually vote in an election, I do not believe the winner of such an election could claim to have legitimacy/mandate. That is why I don't vote. I know it's a long shot but what else? Business as usual is indeed probably not gonna change anything.

But maybe the real problem is that most people don't want to have such change because of the time and energy needed to take power and responsibility to their own hands. Sure they could get more efficiency, more justice, and more democracy. But perhaps the cost is too high and it is easier to have scapegoats in the form of politicians and just bitch about it.

I guess that those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear, eh?

‘Shocking’ scale of UK government’s secret files on critics revealed

Fifteen government departments have been monitoring the social media activity of potential critics and compiling “secret files” in order to block them from speaking at public events, the Observer can reveal.

Under the guidelines issued in each department, including the departments of health, culture, media and sport, and environment, food and rural affairs, officials are advised to check experts’ Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn accounts. They are also told to conduct Google searches on those individuals, using specific terms such as “criticism of government or prime minister”.

The guidelines are designed to prevent anyone who has criticised the government in the previous three to five years from speaking at government-organised conferences and other events.

In September, the Observer revealed how three early-childhood education experts discovered that the Department for Education tried to cancel invitations for them to speak at government-funded events because they were judged to have been critical of government policy. Many more education experts and school staff have since uncovered files of their critical social media posts held by the department.

However, it has now become clear that the practice is widespread across government and is probably targeting large numbers of individuals...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... s-revealed

No doubt the likes of Toby Young and other prominent so-called 'free speech absolutists' will remain stoically silent on this - as per.

On a related note about free speech there's going to be an interesting moment about the proposed Glorifying Terrorism Laws. I speak as a musician with a profound distaste for Irish Rebel songs. I outright refuse to perform them. I understand the concerns entirely. However legislation that could in theory make singing The Foggy Dew, or Flower of Scotland illegal because of how loosely worded it is should be a cause for alarm. Obviously, in practice it would unlikely to gain a conviction, but it could absolutely be used to censor songwriting or artistic expression. You could saddle an artist with endless court cases, making it impossible to viably earn a living quite easily if you wanted to silence them. On a song by song, gig by gig level. The British Establishment is well known for keeping tabs on musicians.

It's OK, because they're going to make all the lazy disabled people get a job, which should cover the shortfall. Simples.

More all-night-too-much-coffee-stress-headaches for Sunak as immigration minister has it off on his trotters...

Robert Jenrick quits frontbench over Rwanda bill, piling pressure on Sunak

Rishi Sunak’s government was plunged into further crisis when the immigration minister quit just hours after the prime minister tabled a bill to save his Rwanda deportation policy.

Robert Jenrick stood down after it was revealed that the legislation did not allow the government to override the international laws that have stopped the government sending asylum seekers to central Africa.

In a letter published on X, the MP for Newark said Sunak’s bill was “a triumph of hope over experience” and will mean that the policy will be challenged again in the courts.

Jenrick’s resignation will be seen as a move to position himself as the head of the growing rightwing rebellion aimed at ensuring that the UK can act unilaterally and send flights to Kigali.

It comes just weeks after the former home secretary Suella Braverman was sacked and accused Sunak of “wishful thinking” to “avoid having to make hard choices” on immigration.

Jenrick, seen until recently as a close political ally of Sunak’s, wrote: “I am unable to take the currently proposed legislation through the Commons as I do not believe it provides us with the best possible chance of success.

“A bill of the kind you are proposing is a triumph of hope over experience. The stakes for the country are too high for us not to pursue the stronger protections required to end the merry-go-round of legal challenges which risk paralysing the scheme and negating its intended deterrent,” he said.

The emergency bill will give ministers the power to ignore some judgments that come from Strasbourg while stopping short of leaving or “disapplying” the European convention on human rights in its entirety...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -published

Imagine that. Stepping down because the government of which you are a part wouldn't simply wash away the concept of fundamental human rights.

So basically, the ToryScum want to cherry pick which parts of the ECHR they can abide by, and which ones they can toss into the bin when they don't want The Bleeding Darkies™ to enjoy the same rights as rich white bigots.

Some of the current ToryScum apparently have zero awareness of how pandering to the Faragerati and similar Gammons will backfire on them badly.

The May Election date is starting to look more likely. The Tories are building up a lot of dark shit to report sometime in early June. Down to how much of No. 10's top shelf wine and spirits reserves they arsed over lockdown. Any resultant hung Parliament would also hopefully be resolved before the Americans have what I firmly predict will be an absolute all consuming cluster fuck of an election stateside at the end of next year.

I'm feeling like they might even spring it before then - in the manner of the snap "strong and stable" election May called in 2017.

On the hung parliament, one might also keep in mind that sinse the repeal of the Fixed Term  Parliaments Act the Prime Minister has unrestrained powers to dissolve parliament whenever they want (I know the monarch has to "agree a request", but still), even the power to call another election immediately after one which failed to secure an overall majority. The repeal also returned the prerogative rights of the monarch formalised after QEII's coronation, which means the monarch could technically refuse a dissolution request if a parliament remained "vital, viable, and capable" of doing its job, or if an MP other than the sitting PM could be found to "command the confidence of the house". So, in circumstances where the Tories were the largest party following an election, but unable to form a coalition, there could be a prorogation (parliamentary pause or suspension) to allow a Tory leadership campaign in order to find someone who might subsequently form a coalition in the event Sunak stepped aside. Given that the Tories have demonstrated their all-consuming thirst to secure and exercise state power disinvested from any obligations to rule in the national interest, along with their proven willingness to abuse procedural rules and undermine or ignore constitutional conventions, even an electoral loss could still be gleefully gamed in their favour.

What with the boundary changes that reduce the number MPs, the unprecedented rate of appointments to the upper chamber which now grant the Tories 50% more Lords and Ladies than Labour, changes to voter registration and ID that have been shown to disenfranchise the young and minorities, and the power the Tories have reinvested in the PM and the monarch, UK general elections are a bit of a democratic shitshow these days.

I'm not expecting an election before next winter, personally. I guess we'll see.

Thommo wrote:I'm not expecting an election before next winter, personally. I guess we'll see.

I know it means nothing that the cabinet have been briefed NOT to hold a winter election due to the possibility the UK and U.S might be politically paralysed at the same time if they do that, but I do sense a rare moment of sobriety. They seem to be trying to occupy the illusion of the middle ground. In so much as they might be vaguely concerned what the plebs might do if shit goes dramatically south on both sides of the Atlantic, and a King who may be less than tractable with their shenanigans. Though at this stage, who the fuck knows. The plan might be to deliberately cause a constitutional crisis at a flashpoint because that's the only hope of clinging to power.

Sunak says his 'working assumption' is for an election in the second half of the year. Guess my idea of a snap Spring election was a bit wide of the mark.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Tory Party littered with swivel eyed mutants who would cream their incontinence pants if the Orange Scrotum secured a second term? Not least because they want to bring the same disease here?

Well, the party does seem to be increasingly split between the old One Nation types and the Libertarian Anatchist types at the moment. With the Tuftonisation of the Tories increasingly subject to American influence the US election campaign and its outcome could offer each wing a steer on both the social appetite for nationalist authoritarianism vs one-nation-ism and which strategies might achieve the best ends - which at the moment looks making sure Labour don't win with a 400 seat majority. In fact, I'd suggest that that Labour's polling popularity indicates that one-nation conservativism is alive and kicking and that the public are not enamoured with the ideals of a Trump or Braverman style nationalist authoritarianism. However, if people see things carrying on pretty much unchanged under a Labour govt far-right voices may become increasingly difficult to ignore as they offer such a seemingly simple and straightforward diagnostic reading of cause and effect.

Then again, despite decades of obsesively watching and engaging with UK politics I've generally been wrong more than I've been right - which i really hope is the case again here.