According to new polling, 63% of British adults now say that Brexit has caused more problems than it solved. While some of you may be shocked that the number isn’t even higher, given the shambolic economic state of affairs in Britain over the past several years, that figure is proof that the public attitude towards Brexit has changed. The big question is: why are neither of the major parties saying it?
It should be clear to everyone by now that the Conservatives have permanently pinned their colours to the Brexit mast and that there is no going back for them. The cult of Brexit has subsumed the entire party’s identity. With an evangelical glint in their eyes, ministers pontificate endlessly about the sunlit uplands, plucking imaginary “Brexit benefits” out of thin air and holding them up as victories.
For the Brexiters in the Conservative and Reform parties, anything that goes wrong – as so much has lately – is attributed to a lack of dedication to the cause. As Labour backbencher Hilary Benn put it so eloquently during the recent e-petition debate on a public inquiry into Brexit:
“It is like all revolutionaries, if I may use the analogy. When the revolution does not quite work out, they say, “But comrade, it was not applied with sufficient vigour and purity”—an argument that some Members in the Chamber might be more familiar with than others.”
But what about Labour? While lacking the religious fervour of the Conservatives, Keir Starmer has also insisted that Britain’s future lies “outside the EU.” Beyond that comment, we have no idea what Labour’s specific position is.
A recent YouGov poll made it clear that the general public is completely uncertain about Keir Starmer’s stance on Brexit. He seems to be trying to assuage the right-wing press who want to attack him as a remainer, while also trying not to alienate his remain-heavy base. It’s a tough balancing act.
We have to ask why no major party in the UK is willing to come out as unapologetically anti-Brexit. At the next general election, we’ll almost certainly have just two options to form the next government – Labour or Conservative. Westminster’s bubble is now so insular that it’s barely possible to see daylight between their stances on this, the biggest issue of our time.
63% of British adults are not having their voice heard. These are people who want their freedom of movement back, who want an economy bolstered by the single market, who want the worker and environmental protections previously attached to our EU membership. They are a silent majority that our broken political system has systematically sidelined.
A political system that excludes a majority can’t really be called a democracy. This is yet another glaring indicator of the UK’s democratic deficit, and the abyss that awaits us if we fail to get a grip on our failing institutions and policies.
Just got this from the pro-democracy organisation, who explain how it is that the various official watchdogs designed to protect democracy aren’t doing their job. They’re allowing Reet Snob (so appropriately named here by Brian Burden, I believe) and the rest of them to get away with an open admission that the Voter ID laws were gerrymandering.
‘Dear David,
We were all stunned by Jacob Rees-Mogg’s admission at NatCon last week: he confessed that voter ID was an attempt to “gerrymander” elections. At the very least, we expected an investigation from the relevant authorities.
However, Byline Times reporting this week shows that none of the watchdogs are going to investigate Mogg’s comments. The institutions tasked with holding MPs and political parties to account for their actions – the Electoral Commission, the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, the Cabinet Office – are not going to do anything about it.
This is shocking news given the serious implications of Mogg’s comments. Mandatory voter ID was introduced when Mogg was still serving in Boris Johnson’s cabinet, putting him close to the policy’s conception and implementation. During May elections, at least 16,000 voters across 53 council areas were turned away at the polls – and more than 6,000 didn’t come back. It will only be more extreme during a General Election. Mogg’s “gerrymandering” scheme had real-world consequences, potentially even swinging certain close races.
So why is no one investigating? Apparently, arcane rules in Parliament mean that because Dawn Butler MP raised this issue in the House, the Standards Commissioner is reluctant to open an investigation. The Electoral Commission views the issue as outside of its remit, and the Cabinet Office has simply said, without giving a reason, that it does not plan to launch an inquiry.
In recent years, the enforcement powers, remit, and operational capacity of crucial watch dogs has been undermined by the government. Boris Johnson’s revisions to the ministerial code made it harder to enforce accountability on government officials. In the same bill that included Voter ID policies, the government reigned in the Electoral Commission’s powers, in addition to jeopardising its very independence. That’s not a coincidence.
What we’re seeing is the systematic removal of political guardrails. As this government looks to consolidate power and crush dissent, these “pesky” watch dogs become obstacles for them to overcome instead of critical safeguards to democracy.
Part of our call to fix democracy is giving watchdogs their teeth back. In a fair political system, admitting to an entire nation-wide strategy of gerrymandering would be, at the bare minimum, cause for investigation. Moreover, gerrymandering in itself is not even an illegal act – which goes to show how much work needs to be done to make a democracy that works for all of us.
We’re glad you’re with us on this important mission.
I got this message earlier this afternoon from the pro-democracy organisation, Open Britain, commenting on Sunak’s inability to sack Braverman despite her breach of the codes governing ministerial conduct. In their view, and I think it’s the correct one, this is because Braverman’s part of the hard line, anti-European ERG, who now appear to be the major force pulling the strings in the Tories. This is another indication of the parlous state of our democracy, as no-one should be above the law.
I found one detail particularly interesting, because I hadn’t heard about it anywhere else. Perhaps it has been reported, but I simply missed it. It’s that Braverman founded a charity with members of the Rwandan government who were part of Rwandan immigration scheme. This is, in my view, utterly corrupt, and demonstrates more clearly than the speeding fine fiasco why she shouldn’t be in government. Here’s Open Britain’s message
‘Dear David,
No matter the circumstances, it seems that Rishi Sunak is completely unable to hold his ministers to even the most basic standard of conduct. It speaks not only to the ERG’s stranglehold on the Conservative party, but Britain’s ever-lowering bar for standards in public life under this government.
Remember, Braverman’s tenure didn’t start on a high note. Sunak reappointed her just six days after her resignation as Home Secretary under Liz Truss, which she tendered for committing a serious national security breach in violation of the Ministerial Code. Despite the public outcry at the time and Sunak’s laughable commitment to “integrity, professionalism and accountability”, the PM ultimately succumbed to the power of the Brexit lobby.
Today, we’ve learned of two new Ministerial Code violations by the Home Secretary. Firstly, three days ago, Braverman was alleged to have used her position to change the punishment for a speeding violation. And now a further accusation has emerged that Braverman failed to disclose her co-founding a charity linked to members of the Rwandan government, including several key officials involved in her Rwanda immigration scheme. So far, Number 10 has refused to announce an investigation into either matter.
How exactly did Suella Braverman become politically untouchable? For her, standards that would apply to any other job in the world seem to be completely absent. Even as a communications officer at Open Britain (an important role, but not one quite as consequential as Home Secretary), I wouldn’t be allowed to perform to such an abysmally low standard. I’d have personally resigned in disgrace long ago.
There is one disturbingly simple answer. Braverman is part of the ERG clique, a secretive and “militant” wing of the Tory party which has exerted immense power over government policy and operations. Sunak, in a futile attempt to unite various splinter groups within his party, has no choice but to put up with her or face the full wrath of this “party within a party”. Sunak, like the rest of us, is hostage to the insanity of these swivel-eyed loons.
But there is a deeper explanation. As our democratic institutions crumble, our rights fade away, and our political debates descend into the realm of petty grievance, the standards we once expected of those in public life simply slip away. Nothing illustrates our steady slide towards authoritarianism than the way government has become more about pledging fealty to Brexit fundamentalism than to honouring a commitment to deliver proper democracy or effective governance. Braverman stays because she is loyal to the cause, not because she serves the people or institutions of Britain. It’s the mark of a nation in steep decline.
It’s time to re-assess. Who are we as a country? What are our values? What do we, as a nation, actually believe in? Right now, the great ship of state is just chugging along to nowhere in particular, with the worst among us steering us closer and closer to the abyss.
Proper democracy means taking back the reins. It means giving real people a real say in what Britain is and what Britain will be in the future. It means having politicians who are happy to be held to account by the public, not focussed on covering the backs of those who climbed the same greasy pole they did. In a proper democracy, no one is untouchable.
I’m proud to be fighting for a system like that. Sometimes it seems like an insurmountable task, but we’re not resting until it’s done.
Just got this through from the pro-democracy groups about an article in the Heil by someone called Charles Dunst. Dunst says, rightly, that Brits, especially young Brits, are losing faith in democracy. They are, but this isn’t the fault of 13 years of authoritarian Tory rule and legislation setting up secret courts and curbing the right to protest and strikes! No! The real threat to democracy comes from authoritarian leftists like Extinction Rebellion. And Liz Truss, a puppet of the free trade NHS privatisation lobbyists at Tufton Street, is just the woman to defend democracy. This is just completely bonkers. It’s on the same level as telling the British public that Judge Dredd is a staunch believer in civil liberties and prison reform. I don’t have much respect for Extinction Rebellion as their stunts of holding up traffic and so on seem designed particularly to annoy the ordinary public. And they have harmed people, as when they prevented an ambulance from taking a woman having a stroke in hospital in time, so that they woman wouldn’t have suffered paralysis down one side of her body. But Dunst’s crazy article does remind me of the advice Private Eye gave about reading the opinions of Rees-Mogg senior. He must be read carefully. Then you turn his ideas through 180 degrees and, vioila! he’s exactly right. Here’s Open Britain’s comment:
‘Dear David,
In 2023, Britain is inundated with flag-toting, vote-suppressing, reality-denying authoritarianism. In times like these, nations rely on journalists to speak truth to power, to challenge the government line and speak for the people when their voices aren’t being heard. In Britain, our media ecosystem is doing the opposite – its supercharging and amplifying our vocal right-wing minority.
You may have seen this Daily Mail headline circulating on Twitter. Charles Dunst’s unbelievable article claims that young people are losing faith in democracy, that they just don’t feel it’s working for them anymore – and that’s true. Our institutions are not adequately reflecting the will of the people, meaning we need to fix those institutions and restore trust (which is exactly what Open Britain is fighting for).
Dunst has other ideas. Instead, he goes on to commend Liz Truss of all people for standing for “liberal values”, while arguing that the reason democracy isn’t working is actually because of China. He claims that climate protestors are the real authoritarians in the UK, despite their almost complete lack of power and the harsh government crackdowns on their right to protest. It’s an incomprehensible distortion of reality – but it still gets into people’s heads.
The mental gymnastics required to write such an article must have required years of rigorous training. But it’s just one example of how the UK media manufactures consent among the public, deploying specific framings and omitting hard truths that change the tone of the story altogether, functioning as unofficial state propaganda. This article is toeing the line of people like Liz Truss, Rees-Mogg, and Boris Johnson, presenting them as a solution to a problem that they caused.
None of this is terribly new. From backing the actual Nazis back in the 1930s to going on xenophobic, anti-muslim tirades in the 2010s, the Mail and its counterparts have long pushed an unpopular agenda. But now, in the age of tabloid articles, social media, and targeted advertising, it’s posing a real threat to democracy itself. A democratic system is only as good as its information environment – and ours is clouded with propaganda and misinformation.
For one thing, we need to support the independent media in the UK. In recent years, a new breed of media companies like Byline Times, Politics JOE, and openDemocracy have started to set a new standard, covering substantial political stories instead of hacking into Harry and Meghan’s phones.
What we really need, however, is meaningful press regulation. At this critical time, we need to start asking questions like “Why does Russian oligarch Evgeny Lebedev get to sit in the House of Lords and own the Evening Standard?” or “Why are we allowing Rupert Murdoch’s media empire to warp public opinion in his favour?”.
It’s just another reason we need a democratic renewal in this country. As much as a broken press is a threat to democracy, democracy is equally the solution to a broken press. In a survey of 24 countries, the UK had the second lowest level of trust in the press (just 13%) – only beating out Egypt and ranking well below Russia, Indonesia, and Mexico. The people want change, and we need real democracy to reflect that.
As Charles Dunst said, the people are losing faith in democracy. But the solution is not more NatC conventions or bringing back Liz Truss. It’s a wholesale revitalisation of the democratic institutions that deliver the will of the people. That’s what Open Britain is all about.
I got this latest comment from the pro-democracy organisation about the National Conservatives’ conference earlier this afternoon. They make the point that their real views about democracy and transparency are shown by the way they stopped left-wing media organisations like Novara entrance, despite all their rhetoric about it. Other highlights included Reet Snob stating plainly that the Voter ID laws were all about gerrymandering and a speech by Cruella in which she went on about genitals. This last was dig at Starmer. Cruella said that she and Sunak knew that 100 per cent of women don’t have penises, unlike Starmer. Who, she joked, would stand as the trans candidate at the next election. Here’s the message
Dear David,
The National Conservativism (Nat-C) Conference kicked off yesterday, proving to be just as much of a weird, far-right cringe-fest as any of us could have anticipated. Despite one of the conference’s ostensible themes being “free speech”, they’ve shut their doors to journalists.
Once again, this clique of Conservatives is showing that their commitment to freedom of expression is ankle-deep. One of their core values crumbles to dust the moment anyone disagrees with them, in which case they become the delicate “snowflakes” they claim to detest.
Byline Times’ political editor Adam Bienkov, as well as the political correspondents from OpenDemocracy, Politics JOE, Novara Media and others, all had their press tickets rejected. It’s not hard to see what those publications have in common: they don’t share the extreme views of the conference and probably wouldn’t cover it favourably.
We shouldn’t be surprised that non-Conservative media is being barred from entry. This conference is a symbol of minority rule, a gathering of election deniers, theocrats, and billionaires’ mouthpieces. They’re becoming increasingly bold about rejecting democracy outright.
Here are some highlights from the conference so far that illustrate the point:
Jacob Rees Mogg openly acknowledged that voter ID laws were “gerrymandering” elections. He actually just admitted it.
US Senator JD Vance said that the US and UK Conservative movements are on “similar trajectories“. This from one of the people that tried to overturn the 2020 US election.
Douglas Murray said that just because Germany “mucked up” nationalism doesn’t mean the UK can’t give it another go.
Suella Braverman’s weird speech about genitalia and the need to arrest protestors – ironically interrupted by an Extinction Rebellion stunt.
They may call themselves “populists” and pretend to be representative of ordinary people, but it’s all just rhetorical sleight-of-hand. These are free-market fundamentalists, Christian nationalists, and conspiracy theorists – and thepublic at large is not behind them.
As the old adage from David Frum goes: “If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.”
We’re already there – the mask is now fully off. The only way to counter people like this is to force them to play the game fairly. Instead of letting them “gerrymander”, spread lies, and appeal to the worst elements of xenophobia and hate in Britain, we need to fix the system that has enabled them for far too long. We know that the general public rejects this kind of politics – we just need a system that reflects that.
A more democratic, fairer politics would prevent the rise of fascism in Britain. We’re running out of time to build it. As a young person in Britain, my future depends on us changing this trajectory – there’s nothing for me in the UK under Nat-C rule.
That’s why I signed up to Open Britain’s mission and why I would encourage everyone who shares my concerns to do so too. We know the majority of people in this country are on our side. By working together, we can and will see off this creeping authoritarianism and set free Britain.
I’m not a member of Open Britain, but I’m leaving the link here for anyone who is so alarmed by this swing to the extreme right that they do want to join the organisation.
I’ve seen a couple of videos about them on YouTube already. In one of them, various attendees were claiming that it was for small ‘c’ conservatives and that while some Conservatives were there, most of the attendees didn’t belong to the party. Hmmm. The problem is, some of the speakers were very definitely big ‘C’ Tories, like Rees Mogg and Braverman. They also had the former MEP Daniel Hannan, dubbed by Guy Debord’s Cat as ‘the Lyin’ King’, a hard-line Brexiteer who’d like to sell off the NHS. Politics Joe put up a video in which they interviewed some of the people going to the conference outside. One of them was an older man, who lamented the lack of sexual restraint in modern society and said quite plainly that if a man fathered a child, he had a duty to support it. Now I didn’t watch all of the video, and perhaps this gent said something far more extreme later on, but I don’t think what he said was particularly controversial. I think the traditional attitude among intellectuals at least until the middle of the last century was that restraint was one of the key elements of civilisation. It was what made us civilised beings instead of animals. And sexual restraint, finding appropriate channels for sexuality like marriage was an intrinsic part of this. As for men supporting their children, again I can’t see anything wrong or controversial about it. Not on its own, unless it’s coupled with more extreme policies, like attacks on gay marriage. But I don’t doubt that as a whole, the Nat Cons are indeed a deeply unpleasant, highly reactionary movement.
I got this message from the pro-democracy organisation giving their assessment of Labour’s proposed policies as revealed on the Labour list website. They welcome many of them, but criticise Labour for not including proportional representation, repealing the harsh anti-protest laws or defending the political independence of the electoral commission.
‘Dear David,
Yesterday, the LabourList website published a summary of Labour’s draft policy platform – likely to be the foundation of Labour’s 2024 manifesto. There’s a lot in there that we at Open Britain can get excited about, but also some concerning omissions which we simply can’t ignore.
Let’s start with the positive. We’re finally seeing some fleshed-out policy on key issues, and from what we can see, it does look like Labour is taking public concerns around the environment, economy and security seriously. Of particular interest to us, though, is the section at the bottom entitled “Reform Westminster and Devolve Power.” Here are some of the plans featured there:
Reducing the voting age to 16
Greater devolution of power to the nations
Creation of the Integrity and Ethics Commission, which looks into breaches of ministerial code and misconduct
Banning second jobs for MPs
Replacing the House of Lords with an elected chamber
Cracking down on political donations from shell companies
This is all really good, sensible stuff. It shows a distinctive move away from the current government’s anti-democratic legislative agenda and a commitment to restoring public trust in politics, getting younger people involved, and putting the Boris Johnson days long behind us.
But there is an elephant in the room that we need to talk about. Proportional representation is a potentially disastrous omission. PR is supported en masse by Labour stakeholders across the board because it would fundamentally change Westminster’s toxic, win-at-all-costs dynamic. It would also make more people’s votes count, restoring their confidence in the system. Starmer can’t just wish the calls for PR away.
And there are some other elephants in the room too. What about revisiting this government’s sly voter identification policy? What about repealing the Policing and Public Order Acts so that dissenters aren’t arbitrarily thrown into cells? What about reinstating the independence of the Electoral Commission? As much as we applaud this positive constitutional agenda, there’s a lot of damage being done right now that it won’t undo.
Imagine this policy package with those additions. That would be the kind of landmark reform that would boost this country’s mood almost overnight, unleashing the democratic power of so many who have gone without a voice for so long.
We don’t want just to imagine it. We want to make it real. We want to make our voices so loud that the Labour leadership has to listen. This agenda shows that they understand the issues we face – but they’re not yet willing to do everything it takes to address them. Let’s keep the pressure on.
I got this message yesterday from the internet pro-democracy group Open Britain. It describes the furore going on in parliament and the Tory party because of the Kemi Badenoch’s and Sunak’s realisation that the ERG’s demands to check through 4,000 pieces of EU legislation to decide what should be retained and what repealed is unrealistic. The two have proposed legislation to amend this, but even then, Badenoch was severely reprimanded by the Speaker because she broke parliamentary protocol and revealed her policies to the Torygraph before telling parliament. Jacob Rees-Mogg has gone on the attack for the Brexiteers, who claim that the civil service is too lazy or weak to do the job. As Open Britain shows, this is another flat out lie from the party of lying. And so the Tories continue to show their contempt for democracy.
Dear David,
Sunak failed to pass the latest ERG Brexit purity test today and sparked another bout of blue-on-blue conflict. As we watch each faction getting stuck into the other, it’s hard to feel sympathy for either.
Having sent the ERG into a tizzy with his endorsement of the Windsor agreement, Sunak has rubbed salt into the wounds by announcing that a particularly ridiculous element of the Retained EU Law Bill, much loved by the ERG, will be scrapped.
That element is a clause that sets the end of 2023 as a hard deadline for civil servants to complete a detailed review of the 4,000 or so EU regulations currently on the UK statute books. Under that clause, any regulation not actively retained by that date would fall, with who knows what unforeseen consequences for government, society or the economy.
Crazy, right? The truth is that the Retained EU Law Bill is more a symbolic monument to Brexit zealotry than a grown-up legislative proposal. The fact that Sunak feels able to drain at least some of its poison is a positive, though small, step.
I know a thing or two about regulations, having been responsible for managing their passage through Parliament when I worked for the Chief Whip in the Lords, and having seen how complex and intertwined they can be while supporting the Minister for the Cabinet Office with his ‘Better Regulation’ brief. The idea that civil servants would be able to properly review over 4,000 of them in just seven months is barking mad, however dedicated those civil servants might be. Yet, high on their Brexit supply, ERG loons like Jacob Rees-Mogg insisted through this bill that Whitehall must complete a detailed evaluation of 14 pieces of legislation per day. This twitter thread provides a sense of how ludicrous that demand was.
In a side drama, the Minister responsible for this bill, Kemi Badenoch, found herself in hot water as a result of her instinctive contempt for democratic norms. Badenoch was fiercely reprimanded today by an absolutely furious Speaker of the House for sharing elements of the revised bill with the Telegraph prior to bringing it to Parliament. Even doing something vaguely positive, these government ministers underline their inability to meet the most basic of Parliamentary standards.
Inevitably there was a backlash to Sunak’s decision. First Rees-Mogg kicked up a Great Stink, deploying his condescending tone to accuse the PM of “breaking his word”, saying that the harsh deadlines would “make Whitehall work”. Then Dominic “Are you looking at me?” Raab weighed in, insinuating that civil servants are just too lazy (or woke) to get the impossible task done. It’s only a matter of time before we hear from Boris Johnson and Liz Truss on why this is betraying Brexit and the will of the people.
Taking a step back from all the hullaballoo, there is a very serious point here. Raab, Rees-Mogg and others know that they’re lying. As long-term politicians, they know how Whitehall works. Kemi Badenoch knew she wasn’t meant to go to the press with a confidential government announcement before informing our elected representatives. It’s as clear as day that none of that matters to them anymore. They don’t care about democracy, and they don’t care what we think about that.
While all sides squabble over who is more committed to Brexit, the country remains devoid of effective leadership and in urgent need of a plan that will free us from this political quicksand. People’s livelihoods are being destroyed. Untreated patients are dying. Children are eating breakfast cereal with water because there’s no money in the house to buy milk. Those issues and many, many more are far more important than the ideological sparring of two-bit politicians. Things must change at the next election. Open Britain will do our damnedest to make sure they do.
My sincere thanks to you all for being part of this important cause.
I got this email early this morning from the pro-democracy group Open Britain. They see the mass arrests of the anti-monarchy protesters at the coronation as showing that the right to protest in Britain is dead. They are also unimpressed with Wes Streeting’s pronouncements on the matter, as he failed to say whether Labour would repeal the legislation or change the approach to policing such protests. Starmer’s own comments on the matter are highly ambiguous. He states that he won’t repeal the legislation as it needs to ‘bed in’, and just because the cops have the power to do something, it doesn’t mean that they will on every occasion. There are other views and vloggers, which claim that Streeting has supported the anti-monarchy protesters’ right to demonstrate and that the legislation needs to be amended rather than repealed. But nevertheless, it strongly gives the impression that Starmer and the Labour right are deeply authoritarian who don’t support this key democratic right.
‘Dear David,
Whether this coronation weekend was one of celebration, quiet acceptance, or frustration for you, we can all agree on one thing – the right to protest is dead.
On Saturday, the met police hauled away peaceful republican protestors. They wrapped up their placards and signs and loaded them into the back of trucks. All told, 62 arrests were made, with charges including “conspiracy to cause a public nuisance” and possession of a bike lock (which could, in the Met’s eyes, be used to “lock on” to objects in protest).
In a free society, the state tolerates dissent. Even if the monarchy is a symbol of pride for many of those in Westminster, they can’t just have anyone who disagrees thrown in a police van.
This is the logical outcome of this government’s slide into authoritarianism, with policies like the Policing Act and Public Order Act granting officers sweeping powers over anyone creating a bit of noise or voicing a difference of opinion. So much for the “freedom of expression” that they’ve been ranting about – that only applies to discrimination or racist dolls, apparently.
The scary part of this story is that the entire power centre of British politics is already accepting this state of affairs as normal. Labour’s Wes Streeting declined to confirm that his party would repeal either of those illiberal bills or change the approach to protests in any significant way if in government. Keir Starmer’s comments today echoed Labour’s refusal to stand up for basic human rights.
In a 2021 poll, 63% of Britons said that “people should have the right to attend a protest to stand up for what they believe in” – and only 9% disagreed. How is it, then, that BOTH of the two major parties are now firmly against peaceful protest? In an odd twist, the Lib Dems, Greens and SNP – the UK’s smallest parties – are the only ones committing to reinstate the right to protest.
This proves beyond a doubt that what we need is a united movement to reclaim our rights and make Britain a real democracy again. We’re building that movement as we speak, bringing together everyone who will speak out against Westminster’s broken system. It’s deeper than partisan politics – it’s about pulling us out of the mess the country as a whole has fallen into.
As a small team, we need all the help we can get to make it happen. We’re working tirelessly with our allies in civil society, Parliament and the general public to shake this country out of its authoritarian stupor. We greatly appreciate whatever you can do to help us revive the right to protest.
I haven’t donated to the organisation, but am posting this message here as I believe it is an important comment on the current lack of proper democracy under this highly illiberal Tory legislation.
Mea culpa! Yesterday I put up a piece reporting that David Lammy had declared that Labour would not repeal Tory legislation, as otherwise the party would spend its time doing nothing else. This raised questions about whether it was worth voting for Starmer’s party in the first place if they weren’t going to repeal deeply unjust and illiberal Tory legislation. Now it seems I may have jumped the gun somewhat. The left-wing vlogger, A Different Bias, has put up a video stating that Lammy may have been somewhat clumsy in the way he answered the question, and that the Labour party certainly does not support the Tories’ anti-protest legislation. He states that Wes Streeting condemned the legislation and supported the anti-monarchy protesters’ right to demonstrate, and denounced their arrests by the Met police. As for repealing legislation, he states that this would indeed take up too much time as the bills were passed from one committee to another. He also argues that while the legislation against demonstrations does contain deeply illiberal curbs on freedom, some of it is still worth keeping. This includes the prohibitions on demonstrations outside abortion clinics. This legislation needs, therefore, to be amended rather than repealed. Furthermore, repealing it would take up too much that could be better spent on measures to grow the economy, stop the health service being run down and improving conditions for ordinary Brits.
I was influenced in my views about Lammy’s comments by Robespierre, who has since declared he made a mistake and issue this video retracting his views.
I hope I have been wrong about this, though many of the commenters on yesterday’s blog post pointed out how authoritarian Labour was, with their plans to introduce national ID cards. The pro-democracy group Open Britain don’t seem to be entirely convinced that Streeting genuinely objects to the Tory legislation. And there is the general problem of credibility. Starmer has broken every promise and pledge he made as leader of the Labour party, and I doubt he’ll change once in government. He may still end up supporting the anti-demonstration laws if he decides it suits his purpose.
They told us that there was absolutely no need for it, and that the Voter ID laws were brought in to prevent the demographics most sympathetic to Labour and the left from voting. It was introduced in America by the Republicans, one of whom actually said it was to prevent people voting Democrat. And now it’s happening over here. I got this report from the pro-democracy group Open Britain on how it has resulted in ordinary, decent British voters being turned away because they don’t have ID, or the ID they do have isn’t the correct one. This is yet another perversion of democracy by the Tories on their way to turning Britain into a third world Fascist dictatorship. No doubt with either Mogg or Farage as ‘Minister for Public Enlightenment’.
Dear David,
The picture emerging from the local elections is not a happy one. The polls are still open, votes are still being counted, and we don’t have the full story yet. However, so far it looks like all our worst predictions are coming true.
Worrying stories have been popping up on the news and on social media all day today. People are being turned away because they lack photo ID, and polling stations are having trouble handling the increased workload.
East Anglia Bylines has a running blog of the problems arising, cataloguing stories of people turned away and others headed off by greeters prior to entering the polls, meaning the rejection of their vote will go unrecorded. This is a critical concern, because it means we will never know the full extent of the damage that voter id is causing.
A comprehensive twitter thread from Edwin Hayward is collecting people’s stories from the polls, and the picture is equally bleak. Here are a few people’s testimonies:
@Jlilburnsniece:“One of our tellers at a polling station has just let us know that 15 women have been turned away so far because they didn’t have photo ID. This is going to be horrendous.”
@TorUdall:“Cried at the polling station this morning as the old lady in front of me, who had struggled to walk there, was turned away. She had photo ID but not the right version. When I handed them my passport, they questioned if the photo was me. Horrible atmosphere.”
@geography_paul:“Witnessed 3 people turned away for not having photo ID in the short time I was at the polling station.”
Byline Times, reporting from six English counties about the voter ID rollout, interviewed dozens of voters and poll clerks today finding similar results. Byline’s interviews paint a picture of a democracy mired in both chaos and apathy, with people who already found voting challenging struggling to get over this extra hurdle, and polling staff fighting to keep up.
The official numbers will be published by the Electoral Commission soon, but those figures won’t reflect all of the people turned away outside of the polls by greeters and front desks. Even with just the anecdotal cases we’ve seen so far, a higher number of people have already been turned away from the polls than have been convicted of voter fraud in the last decade.
If today’s experience were extrapolated to a General Election – when the entire country votes at the same time – there would be unmitigated chaos. Open Britain has been against this policy from the moment we heard the first mention of it in Parliament, and all of our concerns (which the government dismissed) are looking more valid by the minute.
As the dust settles on these elections, we’ll be doubling-down on our work with allied organisations like the Electoral Reform Society, Unlock Democracy, Fair Vote UK, and others to make the same case we’ve been making since the beginning, but now with hard evidence to back-up our position: Voter ID is an unnecessary and expensive gimmick that has undermined trust and confidence in our democratic system. We must revoke it now or jeopardise the integrity of the next general election.
If you had a bad experience today, related to voter ID or chaotic polling stations, please tell us about it by replying to this email. And if you’d like to support us as we continue the fight against this government’s agenda of voter suppression, please consider making a small donation.
Beastrabban\'s Weblog 