There are important differences between Trump and Johnson, but I'm wary of the idea that Johnson is "liberal" and Trump "authoritarian". I fear this overstates Johnson's "liberalism", and risks missing the warning lights that should now be flashing across British politics. THREAD
2. It's true that Johnson has a "libertarian" streak: he dislikes rules, taxes, "red tape", "do-gooders" and the "nanny state". But so does Trump. Indeed, Trump goes much further on this, presenting masks, lockdowns, gun control, taxes & environmentalism as a danger to "freedom".
3. Johnson is not morally conservative, but nor is Trump. Neither much cares what people do in private, & neither sets much store by "conservative" moral norms on truth, fidelity or sexual continence. (Tories used to call this "licence", not "liberalism", but it's common to both)
4. Johnson might, personally, be more "liberal" on immigration than Trump, but he's been no less quick to weaponize the issue for political gain. The demand to "Take Back Control of our Borders" was as central to Johnson's victory in 2016 as "Build the Wall" was to Trump's.
5. Johnson is not, like Trump, an instinctive protectionist. But he was happy to lead a nationalist insurgency against the UK's biggest free trade arrangement, and stoked support for a "no deal" Brexit that would have involved huge tariff increases. To quote an earlier leader...
6. In their governing style, both Trump and Johnson embody a form of "democratic authoritarianism", that overrides constitutional constraints in the name of "the people". Both are intolerant of dissent, contemptuous of checks on their power, and hostile to competing institutions.
7. Like Trump, Johnson has overridden ethical constraints (the Ministerial Code, the Standards Commissioners, the Appointments Commission); burned out dissidents MPs; boycotted critical news outlets; & threatened to ignore legislation. More examples here.
8. Above all, Johnson has been persistently hostile to parliamentary institutions. When Parliament challenged his authority in 2019, he tried to shut it down. He has repeatedly denounced MPs, sidelining them from decision-making & legislating where possible by ministerial decree.
9. Trump was not the first to whip up a mob against elected representatives. In 2019, crowds shouted death threats outside Parliament, egged on by attacks on "enemies of the people" and "a dead Parliament" with "no moral right to sit". "We're enjoying this", an advisor commented.
10. There are, of course, differences. Trump has an angrier, more dystopian temperament: it's hard to imagine Johnson giving the "American carnage" speech, without cracking a joke or promising it would be over by Christmas. One plays the class joker; the other the school bully.
11. It matters that they operate in different institutional cultures. Trump cannot prorogue Congress or control what it debates. Johnson cannot appoint judges, but can more easily legislate to constrain them. One operates within a written Constitution; the other does not.
12. The two were formed by different trainings: one, the mafia don businessman; the other the Bullingdon Club "pen for hire". One is heir to the robber barons, the other to the press lords. One plays a bumbling eccentric; the other, a rough, plain-spoken street-fighter.
13. But the similarities matter, if we are to learn from Trump's grim example. The storming of the Capitol was not an aberration: it was the logical end-point of an authoritarian populism that is on the march across the world, and that has seeded into our own politics, too.
14. Millions of Americans passionately believe that the election was rigged; that their democracy has been stolen by a treacherous elite and its client institutions. They believe that, because their President, leading Republicans and right-wing media have repeatedly told them so.
15. In Britain, as in America, populist politicians and newspapers have not hesitated to whip up popular fury against judges, MPs and journalists, whom they excoriate as "enemies of the people".
16. Rejecting what Trump did means rejecting the politics that led to this: at home, as well as abroad. The Republican Party endorsed a 4-year assault on truth & liberal democracy for short-term electoral gain. The Right in Britain should reflect seriously on its example. [ENDS]
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Quiz question: of which prime minister was it said, "the P.M. never moves until he is forced, and then it is usually too late"?
Answer: H.H. Asquith in World War One. It's a parallel that tells us something, I think, about Boris Johnson's current predicament.
Asquith was a lifelong Liberal - the last man to lead a wholly Liberal govt - but found himself dismantling the liberal state in the face of total war. Conscription, press censorship, unprecedented restrictions on personal freedom: all went against the politics he believed in.
Johnson lacks Asquith's intellectual depth, but faces a similar problem. The pandemic is shredding his whole approach to politics: the mockery of the "nanny state", the nose-thumbing at authority, the contempt for rules, and dislike of "do-gooders" who try to tell you what to do.
Like @ProfTimBale, I'll be standing down shortly as Co-Director of the @MileEndInst. It's been one of the best parts of my job in recent years, so thanks to the brilliant @ProfTimBale & @sofiacusano and to everyone who took part in our events. A few lockdown highlights follow...
Our "Future of British Democracy" series explored reform of the Civil Service, the future of the House of Lords, "Corruption and the British State", and reform of Judicial Review. All our webinars are freely available on our YouTube channel.
The big story in Parliament today really isn't which of three bad options the Opposition parties will choose. It is the absolute travesty of parliamentary democracy that is about to play out: a microcosm of the shattering effect Brexit has had on our constitution. [THREAD]
MPs are being asked to shovel through, in a single day, a bill that was published yesterday, implementing a treaty agreed six days ago, which comes into force tomorrow night. The European Communities Act 1972 was debated in Parliament for 300 hours. Today's bill will get about 5.
MPs will have at most four minutes to speak on a trade agreement covering more than 1,200 pages. Few will have had time to read it anyway, and their votes will mostly be cast by the Whips. The entire charade will be over shortly after lunch.
It is right to ask *why* industries like fishing have declined. The problem is the blithe assumption that the answer must always be "because of the EU". The problems facing the UK fishing industry long predate EU membership, and will not be magically solved by Brexit. [THREAD]
1. Fishing had been declining for much of the twentieth century. The number of UK fishermen more than halved in mid-century: from nearly 48,000 in 1938 to 21,000 in 1970. By 1970 - the year *before* the UK signed the Treaty of Accession - fishing made up less than 0.1% of UK GDP.
2. That decline had many causes. A century of over-fishing had left stocks dangerously depleted. Younger generations were moving out, in search of safer and better-paid work inland. And the "Cod Wars" with Iceland (1958-76) triggered the collapse of the Atlantic trawler fleet.
The 1970s was a decade of serious anxiety about food supplies. Norman Tebbit, of all people, urged the government to consider rationing basic foodstuffs. That played a significant role in the decision to join the EEC, and raises some important questions today. [THREAD]
2. The UK has not been able to feed itself since the early C19th. Even for an industrial economy, it is unusually dependent on imported food. And by the 1970s, a mixture of bad harvests, population growth, inflation & the collapse of Commonwealth agreements was starting to bite.
3. In 1974, for example, Caribbean sugar imports dropped by a third, as producers abandoned Commonwealth trade agreements and sold to more lucrative markets elsewhere. Supermarkets introduced informal rationing, and consumer organisations urged the public to stop buying sugar.
The Brexit negotiations have been such a disaster because Britain never had a serious debate about what it most wanted to achieve. Instead, ministers spent years pretending no trade-offs were necessary. We could have everything we wanted, if we only had the courage to believe.
Ministers boasted, repeatedly, that we could have unlimited sovereignty, frictionless trade, full access to the Single Market & "the exact same benefits" as the CU. Compromise was not a way to achieve the things we most valued, but a surrender of our ability to have it all.
As Ben Jackson wrote in 2019, Conservatives have drawn a dangerous lesson from the Thatcher years. "Compromise" and "negotiation" are dismissed as signs of weakness, not as a way to achieve the most advantageous outcome in a world we do not control. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.11…