With all the red lights flashing at the state of the UK’s democracy, I’ve seen it said we shouldn’t assume the next general election will even happen. The issue, though, isn’t whether an election will happen (it will). It’s whether it will be free and fair (it won’t). THREAD
The UK isn't about to become a totalitarian state. But it’s well on the way to becoming a sham democracy. And elections are essential to a sham democracy. They allow it to claim international legitimacy. And they reassure a sleeping public that they still have their freedom.
But scratch below the surface and things are bleak. Voter suppression. A neutered electoral commission to be brought under government control. Public money withheld from constituencies that don’t vote Tory. Personal data used to target susceptible voters with blatant lies.
And yet many people seem to believe that the mere holding of an election or referendum is all that matters. That those things alone constitute democracy. The very word “democracy” has been weaponised.
Never mind ruling by executive fiat. Never mind closing down parliament. Never mind going to excruciating lengths to avoid scrutiny. Never mind attacking all the institutions whose role is to hold you to account. "We've had an election ergo we live in a healthy democracy".
Many in the Conservative Party are encouraging this way of thinking. In response to recent scandals, I’ve heard Dominic Raab and Daniel Hannan, among others, say that if the public don’t like it they can vote the Government out.
Their meaning is clear. Once elected, a Government should be entitled to do what it wants without limit or challenge, and it is only the electorate - at the next election - which has the right to hold it to account.
A good reason, you might say, to make it harder for other parties to win an election.
When your reasoning is this warped, opposition, scrutiny and debate, holding the powerful to account, all the things that are the very essence of liberal democracy, are seen as anti-democratic. The poles are inverted.
It's an authoritarian position, revealed time and again in the things Tory MPs such as @joymorrissey say on social media, often before rushing to press delete, as she did yesterday. Being elected means you can do no wrong, and being unelected means you have no legitimacy.
Since the Brexit vote, many people have fallen for this. And even if they haven’t, if their preference is for permanent or entrenched Conservative power, they are unlikely to do too much to challenge it.
So no, we are not about to see general elections come to an end. But there is a danger that the mere fact of their taking place will be seen as evidence that the UK has a healthy democracy.
Together, of course, with a referendum held half a decade ago, in which the vote of a minority of the population was used as a mandate for a full-scale revolution.
As a further thought, who’s to say that if the devolved governments continue to be formed by parties opposed to the Tories, or to the Union, they won’t also one day be deemed "undemocratic?"
You can pick up hints in the utterings of some politicians and commentators, with their not-so-subtle messages that the success of the SNP in Scotland means democracy isn’t working.
People, you begin to suspect, for whom the preservation of the Union is more important than the preservation of democracy.
It’s not too great a leap of imagination to envisage these people calling one day for the dissolution of the devolved parliaments.
After all, rather than try to convince people of the merits of the Union in a post-Brexit, authoritarian UK, easier just to remove the institution that gives voice to the counter-arguments.
Especially if you can persuade yourself that you’re doing it all in the name of democracy. Your own, special kind of democracy.
Yesterday's result gives me hope that the Tories will yet go down in flames. But I'm still not confident. And you can be assured they will continue to undermine democracy across the UK, at all levels, if that's what they deem necessary to hold on to power. ENDS
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Given Labour's description of a youth mobility scheme with the EU as "synonymous with free movement", I've made a list of 25 other things that might come into that category so we can avoid wasting their time and let them get on with the business of serious opposition (thread):
When I look back over the last eight years, one image dominates.
September 2019, and @paulasherriff 's pleas to Johnson to tone down his language - language being quoted back to her colleagues in death threats - is dismissed as 'humbug' . THREAD
It wasn't the day the ugliness started - heaven knows there'd been enough of that under Theresa May, who bears far more responsibility for it than some would have you believe.
But it was the day I realised without any lingering doubt that Johnson didn't care what his words led to.
And it was the day I realised that - even if some of his colleagues cared a little bit - they clearly didn't care enough.
If you have progressive instincts and don’t live in Scotland, I suspect it can be hard to understand the ambivalence or even hostility felt towards Labour by many people who might naturally vote for them were they living in England. THREAD
Maybe, paradoxically, you need to look at the Tories to understand.
The party of Truss, Braverman and Anderson.
The party which lets rampant Islamophobes retain the whip.
The party which accepts money from people who would wipe out our freedoms in the blink of an eye.
Because when you do live in Scotland it’s hard to escape the impression that, for all that, it’s the SNP who many prominent Labour people would have you believe are the main threat to us all.
"This is what happens when you normalise the unthinkable.
First it becomes thinkable.
Then sayable.
Then ‘desirable’, ‘the only option’, ‘common sense’.
Once out there, it cannot be unthought, unsaid, unnormalised".
THREAD
I’ve been thinking about it a lot over the past year, as Rwanda has entered the national vocabulary.
We all know what Rwanda means these days.
It’s much more than just a country.
It’s a policy.
A way of thinking.
A statement of ill intent.
I thought of it again a few weeks back, when I heard former Lord Chancellor Robert Buckland give an interview to @TheNewsAgents in the aftermath of Suella Braverman’s resignation.
Have a look at this paragraph from a summary of the the UK-Lebanon development partnership, with its focus on helping both Syrian refugees and Lebanese host communities.
Or this from the UK government's equivalent document for Jordan, which covers similar territory.
This section of the Jordan document talks about the importance for both refugees and their host countries of their being allowed to work, thereby contributing to the local economy and reducing their reliance on others (somebody please tell the Home Office).