Proceedings of the Castle Aching Parish Council, 1905

[Compound2632]

Didn't the Foreign Secretary say the other day, I think apropos of trade with non-EU countries, that democracy was in decline? Or did I mis-understand him?

[Edwardian]

33 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Didn't the Foreign Secretary say the other day, I think apropos of trade with non-EU countries, that democracy was in decline? Or did I mis-understand him?

 

I don't know, I suppose it depends on whether that was thought to be a good thing!

[Hroth]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

He's shown all along that he cannot bear scrutiny of his actions. But ultimately what is whispered in secret will be proclaimed from the housetops.

 

You'd probably get fined for that too.

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

I don't know, I suppose it depends on whether that was thought to be a good thing!

 

The impression I got was that he was telling us it was inevitable and we'd better get used to it. It seems to me he is one who would prefer government by elected oligarchy, as in Singapore, which is constantly being held up as a model. But maybe he mis-spoke and consequently I have misunderstood.

[Edwardian]

5 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The impression I got was that he was telling us it was inevitable and we'd better get used to it. It seems to me he is one who would prefer government by elected oligarchy, as in Singapore, which is constantly being held up as a model. But maybe he mis-spoke and consequently I have misunderstood.

 

Yeah, that sounds like Saruman trying to convince Gandalf that he's best off accepting the inevitable triumph of  Dark Lord Sauron. 

 

For my part, I'll join the Elves fighting the long defeat. 

[Compound2632]

3 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

For my part, I'll join the Elves fighting the long defeat. 

 

For elves, read lawyers. Our judiciary and our legal traditions are still our strongest bulwark against such creeping fascism. Is it any wonder that the public is taught to regard all lawyers, like all politicians, as venal?

[Regularity]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

Our judiciary and our legal traditions are still our strongest bulwark against such creeping fascism. Is it any wonder that the public is taught to regard all lawyers, like all politicians, as venal?

Whilst the judiciary are lawyers, not all lawyers are the judiciary. In fact, very few are. Most are run-of-the-mill solicitors, barristers, para-legals, etc. Similarly, very few politicians can effect real change: most are somewhat surprised to find that most of their time is taken up by everyday stuff (if MPs, councillors, etc) or running around like a blue-tailed fly to satisfy the whims of Ministers and Secretaries (if junior ministers).

In both cases, if you want big money, you end up siding with the few people who have lots of money, rather than the majority of people without. (Look at recent allegations about David Cameron.) One way to resolve this is to raise the minimum age for becoming a representative of the people, and to provide a good pension afterwards (say, twice the individual median income - about £50k a year), but to not allow any paid or unpaid work for companies, charities, lobby groups, no directorships, etc: nothing. I.e. live a life, enter into public service, then retire from public life.

 

Personally, I am wary of anyone who wants to tell other people how to live their lives. Well, perhaps a few enlightened figures, but for every Jesus preaching respect and tolerance, there is a Moses preaching law and punishment.

[monkeysarefun]

Politicians - surely in this day and  age they can be replaced by a phone app.

[Hroth]

31 minutes ago, monkeysarefun said:

Politicians - surely in this day and  age they can be replaced by a phone app.

 

Mr Trump tried that one out... 

 

Of course, it'd have to be platform-agnostic. 

[Nearholmer]

54 minutes ago, monkeysarefun said:

Politicians - surely in this day and  age they can be replaced by a phone app.

I reckon it would be possible to write a program that could give a politicians answer to any question, and that it would then be impossible to tell whether you were interacting with it, or a real politician.

 

In fact, it might be feasible to include a menu of politicians to choose from, with the answers tailored to match their individual styles.

 

Only a tiny few politicians would be inimitable, those unusual types who give straight answers, treating the questioner with genuine respect.

[Caley Jim]

1 hour ago, Regularity said:

.... I.e. live a life, enter into public service, then retire from public life.

isn't that the problem with many of today's politicians?    They've never lived in the real world - studied politics at Uni - got a job as an MP's researcher - got elected to local council - got elected to Parliament.

 

5 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Only a tiny few politicians would be inimitable, those unusual types who give straight answers, treating the questioner with genuine respect.

Never seen one of these.  If they don't like the question they answer a different one - the one they would have liked the interviewer to have asked them in the first place.   Or maybe do a Ronnie Corbet?

 

 

Jim

[monkeysarefun]

50 minutes ago, Caley Jim said:

isn't that the problem with many of today's politicians?    They've never lived in the real world - studied politics at Uni - got a job as an MP's researcher - got elected to local council - got elected to Parliament.

 

Here right now we are in the middle of a kind of #metoo moment where politicians left right and centre but mainly right are getting outed for their  misdeeds in parliament house and elsewhere, up  to and including alleged rape...

 

The last of the better ones here seem to be back in the '70's and '80's and usually turned out to have seen some kind of action in WW2 or later Vietnam -(we were there  too, "all the way with LBJ!" said our PM at the time, America didn't lose that one all by themselves..)

 

Not saying all politicians should be sent off to fight in real battles first but it does seem to have given them a bit of grounding or whatever and  maybe it gives one some perspective on things.

Slightly related, I will always remember cricketer Keith Miller on Parkinson when asked about  all the pressure facing modern cricketers and how he handled it in his day,

 

Miller who'd served in the RAAF in WW2 and flew combat missions  over Germany in fighters  while attached to the RAF replied "Pressure is a Messerschmitt up your arse, playing cricket is not".

 

 

 

 

Edited March 26, 2021 by monkeysarefun

[Malcolm 0-6-0]

For Britain and for other Commonwealth countries who have gone down the immediate post-war track of expanding social services etc. the end result has been this dictatorship of "good" intentions. As I watch the way in which people accept gradual erosion of their range of liberties I more and more think that in the end a badly run inefficient private sector enterprise of any kind is far more acceptable than badly run inefficient public sector enterprise of any kind. The reason is that it is far easier for governments to legislate to change laws to achieve their aims than it is for the private sector. The government need only cite a few generally rare cases of whatever calamity, crime etc. and it will get its way.

 

That situation arises because governments can make the laws and, if they have a sizeable majority, can pass them despite demure, while a privately owned industry etc. has to defend itself in the courts if there is opposition. Now graft and corruption can be brought to bear but if done by private industry it becomes publicly apparent far more quickly than if the same erosion of a range of liberties by government, because governments have the draconian powers to render any observation of their decision making process completely impenetrable. They talk of FOI but anyone who had experience of that process knows that it is run by the Circumlocution Office in such a way as to render FOI completely impossible for the average organization, business or individual.

 

Yet for some bizarre reason the citizens that are quite willing to accept erosion of liberties by their elected government will get themselves in a frenzy if a private business does something that inconveniences them. One need only look at the hoops that a developer has to leap through to get a commercial enterprise up and running (especially in Australia) that will have positive economic benefits if completed compared with something like how easy it is for a government to restrict, or make the process of orderly disagreement by citizens nigh on impossible. Or for example the excessive compulsory acquisition of private land for infrastructure development when, in many cases, it is unnecessary except as a place to park construction vehicles for the life of the project. The cost to the citizen who has their house and land acquired in such a way is far greater in all terms (relocation, memories etc.) than the cost to government of acquiring the property.

 

But overall it is the sheep like way in which people are encouraged to overreact to criminal events by government so that they can strengthen laws which restrict activities that generally speaking may be unpopular with some activists. On the sillier side, but which demonstrates the sheep like tendency of people to accept these electioneering stunts as worthwhile policy, I offer one thing in which I was centrally involved in my day job.

 

About 10 years ago in Victoria we had a couple of instances of people (mainly teenagers) attacking each other with imitation swords which were sold quite freely in those sort of shops that sell gifts and collectables. Our government, as ever decided, that these few instances were sufficient reason to move what are essentially toys to the Control of Weapons Act. Items which to a genuine arms historian and collector interested in edged weapons were absolute and unattractive junk. It didn't matter that no one had been attacked with a genuine edged weapon. So many collectors were forced into a regulated system controlled by the Control of Weapons Act, because a handful of teenagers did something stupid. Not to mention that because these things suddenly became illegal unless you could demonstrate a valid reason to own them quite valuable antiques were being crushed willy nilly by the government. Fortunately the organization for which I work was able to put a stop to this and begin serious negotiations with the government to stop the the process and properly examine just who might have a valid reason to own them. But the upshot of this is that in this state it is illegal for a person under the age of 18 to go into a shop and by ordinary kitchen cutlery.

 

Now if a non-government business sought to introduce such silly restrictions they'd be laughed out of business. Ironically by the same "model" citizens who applaud the actions of the government. The government is able to do it because it controls the input to the media by playing the morally bankrupt "in the public interest" card while the majority of citizens are powerless to stop them. We all recognise the need for a government to do something constructive about things like COVID-19 but we seem unaware that with many of the tracking mechanisms there is no real absolute sunset clause. During WW2 many sorts of equipment were impressed for military use. Once the war finished those same items were all returned over a period of time if still in existence, or compensation was offered. In many cases the owners were happy to get the compensation, but if those peculiar circumstances were to happen again how certain are we that our modern caring thoroughly "democratically" elected governments could be trusted not to retain the tightened screws because they find them a useful power.

 

 

Edited March 27, 2021 by Malcolm 0-6-0

[nick_bastable]

1 hour ago, Malcolm 0-6-0 said:

For Britain and for other Commonwealth countries who have gone down the immediate post-war track of expanding social services etc. the end result has been this dictatorship of "good" intentions. As I watch the way in which people accept gradual erosion of their range of liberties I more and more think that in the end a badly run inefficient private sector enterprise of any kind is far more acceptable than badly run inefficient public sector enterprise of any kind. The reason is that it is far easier for governments to legislate to change laws to achieve their aims than it is for the private sector. The government need only cite a few generally rare cases of whatever calamity, crime etc. and it will get its way.

 

That situation arises because governments can make the laws and, if they have a sizeable majority, can pass them despite demure, while a privately owned industry etc. has to defend itself in the courts if there is opposition. Now graft and corruption can be brought to bear but if done by private industry it becomes publicly apparent far more quickly than if the same erosion of a range of liberties by government, because governments have the draconian powers to render any observation of their decision making process completely impenetrable. They talk of FOI but anyone who had experience of that process knows that it is run by the Circumlocution Office in such a way as to render FOI completely impossible for the average organization, business or individual.

 

Yet for some bizarre reason the citizens that are quite willing to accept erosion of liberties by their elected government will get themselves in a frenzy if a private business does something that inconveniences them. One need only look at the hoops that a developer has to leap through to get a commercial enterprise up and running (especially in Australia) that will have positive economic benefits if completed compared with something like how easy it is for a government to restrict, or make the process of orderly disagreement by citizens nigh on impossible. Or for example the excessive compulsory acquisition of private land for infrastructure development when, in many cases, it is unnecessary except as a place to park construction vehicles for the life of the project. The cost to the citizen who has their house and land acquired in such a way is far greater in all terms (relocation, memories etc.) than the cost to government of acquiring the property.

 

But overall it is the sheep like way in which people are encouraged to overreact to criminal events by government so that they can strengthen laws which restrict activities that generally speaking may be unpopular with some activists. On the sillier side, but which demonstrates the sheep like tendency of people to accept these electioneering stunts as worthwhile policy, I offer one thing in which I was centrally involved in my day job.

 

About 10 years ago in Victoria we had a couple of instances of people (mainly teenagers) attacking each other with imitation swords which were sold quite freely in those sort of shops that sell gifts and collectables. Our government, as ever decided, that these few instances were sufficient reason to move what are essentially toys to the Control of Weapons Act. Items which to a genuine arms historian and collector interested in edged weapons were absolute and unattractive junk. It didn't matter that no one had been attacked with a genuine edged weapon. So many collectors were forced into a regulated system controlled by the Control of Weapons Act, because a handful of teenagers did something stupid. Not to mention that because these things suddenly became illegal unless you could demonstrate a valid reason to own them quite valuable antiques were being crushed willy nilly by the government. Fortunately the organization for which I work was able to put a stop to this and begin serious negotiations with the government to stop the the process and properly examine just who might have a valid reason to own them. But the upshot of this is that in this state it is illegal for a person under the age of 18 to go into a shop and by ordinary kitchen cutlery.

 

Now if a non-government business sought to introduce such silly restrictions they'd be laughed out of business. Ironically by the same "model" citizens who applaud the actions of the government. The government is able to do it because it controls the input to the media by playing the morally bankrupt "in the public interest" card while the majority of citizens are powerless to stop them. We all recognise the need for a government to do something constructive about things like COVID-19 but we seem unaware that with many of the tracking mechanisms there is no real absolute sunset clause. During WW2 many sorts of equipment were impressed for military use. Once the war finished those same items were all returned over a period of time if still in existence, or compensation was offered. In many cases the owners were happy to get the compensation, but if those peculiar circumstances were to happen again how certain are we that our modern caring thoroughly "democratically" elected governments could be trusted not to retain the tightened screws because they find them a useful power.

 

 

twaddle

[Edwardian]

The problem, of course, is in the dynamics of large institutions and organisations.  In the private sector they can simply develop a rogue sense of entitlement and screw over their customers, evade their taxes and take-down social media in Australia. In the public sector they develop a terrible sense of self-righteousness as they over-identify as the good-guys.  This means that they all too often abuse their powers and lie about their mistakes because unconsciously they apply the maxim that the public good (as they see it) justifies the means. 

 

Sticking with my fantasy analogy, like the wizard who would take the One Ring to do good, such organisations always wish to expand their powers and remits the better to discharge their functions, and resist criticism as that is seen as threatening their mission.  if you want an amusing take on a 'good' guy going bad in an attempt to make everyone happy, catch the episode of R4's Elvenquest when the Questors take the 'third way' to the White Wizard (yes, very obviously Tony Blair).  

 

Thus, I suggest that all large organisations develop problematic tendencies; it is the way human nature works when amplified through institutional cultures. 

[Compound2632]

38 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Thus, I suggest that all large organisations develop problematic tendencies; it is the way human nature works when amplified through institutional cultures. 

 

TDR. 

 

But, in many cases, we'd be worse off without them.

[Edwardian]

10 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

TDR. 

 

But, in many cases, we'd be worse off without them.

 

Indeed, but one should never stop fighting the abuses.  There is no acceptable balancing act here (e.g. the police keep us safe, so we accept that every so often they shoot an unarmed black guy).   

 

 

Edited March 27, 2021 by Edwardian
spelling!

[Compound2632]

Indeed, they must be continually called to account - which is what some in Government are pathologically resistant to. The erosion of the concept that ministers are accountable for the actions of their departments is one of the most poisonous aspects of what has been going on.

 

Mind you, it goes back at least as far as Charles II, who responded to Rochester's mock epitaph:

 

Here lies our Sovereign Lord the King

whose word no man relied on.

He never said a foolish thing

or ever did a wise one

 

with the comment: True, for my words are my own but my actions, my ministers'.

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

Indeed, they must be continually called to account - which is what some in Government are pathologically resistant to. The erosion of the concept that ministers are accountable for the actions of their departments is one of the most poisonous aspects of what has been going on.

 

 

 

And it is the Law, and the commitment of lawyers to the rule of law, which, in our system, provides much of the answer to the question quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

 

At no prior point in my adult life have I ever felt that question to be as vital and urgent as it is now. because the grave weakness in our system is that a parliamentary majority can change the law so that our protection from arbitrary government and injustice is eroded.

 

There has been, as I noted before, an erosion of constitutional norms and conventions - fuelled by the 'get BREXIT done' campaign of the present Prime Minister. I say that by way of identifying the behaviour, not as a comment on the policy of BREXIT; why, or in aid of what, these constitutional violations were done is, in any but the short term, irrelevant. It is the fact that it was done.  That's one area of safeguards eroded; constitutional conventions. Since I ranted on about that, we can add the convention that ministers resign where there has been a breach of the ministerial code to the scrap-heap of safeguarding constitutional conventions that we expect governments to respect.

 

The second safeguard is the Law itself. We have some positive laws in the UK, giving us rights and freedoms.  These are often specific, and therefore limited, rather than universal and over-arching.  Examples of this are the various anti-discriminatory laws, which have been found necessary. For any general protection, and it is limited, we rely upon the Human Rights Act 1998, the UK's enactment of its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (nothing to do EU membership, BTW).  In practice, reliance on these, and other, rights, is severely limited by the Administrative Court of the High Court, whose judges are often surprisingly and disappointingly pro-Government, but who are anyway limited by the rather narrow limits of the law on judicial review of government decisions. Judicial review has frequently been attacked by Government in recent years, general using the Daily Mail's favourite bogeyman, the Asylum Seeker, as the stalking horse for eroding this vital, if limited, route to redress. During the BREXIT agonies of 2016-2019, Ministers of the Crown were content to enable the undermining of the judicial review system and our judges by the press and by their own MPs (Judges were now the 'Enemies of the People'). The Conservative party's latest (2019) manifesto (see page 48) commits them to "update" the1998 Human Rights Act.  Personally I find that ambiguous phrasing rather sinister.

 

So, we have limited legislative safeguards to our freedoms, and these can be repealed or amended to weaken them (e.g. "updating" the HRA) as Parliament cannot bind itself.  With our unwritten constitution, we have relied on the premise that our freedoms are limitless unless and until Parliament enacts a law that limits them.  But there is no limit, as it were. to the limits that Parliament can impose upon our freedoms, as, apart from the vilified European Convention, there is no written constitution with a 'bill of rights' that would limit Parliament's actions.

 

So, this is the context in which I say we should view the innocuously named Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill*, the one that so curtails the scope for peaceful protest - not during lockdown, but permanently, with concern. 

 

For me it is the third of the three great enabling acts that should be giving us more concern that the relative lack of public awareness and debate suggests that they do.

 

I would name the first as the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (aka the Snoopers' Charter)***, and the second was the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021 (aka the Licence to Kill Act), which I've highlighted with concern before now.

 

We are not currently in a good place in the UK, I conclude. The shift towards authoritarianism in the world that we see, has it's modest, but worrying reflection in our own democracy.  This direction of travel is not good. 

 

 

* I think people ought to read the current draft legislation and make up their own minds, but the Wiki summary goes like this:

 

Part 3 of the bill gives police forces broad authority to place restrictions on protests and public assembly. Under current UK legislation, police must show a protest may cause "serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community" before imposing any restrictions. Under this bill, police forces will be allowed to criminalise protests they believe constitute a "public nuisance", including imposing starting and finishing times, noise limits, and will be able to consider actions by one individual as protests under provisions of the bill.

 

....  Robert Buckland, Secretary of State for Justice, said regarding the Bill and protests "We’ve got to think about the sometimes huge inconvenience caused to other people going about their lawful business, ...".

 

.... Human rights lawyer** Adam Wagner highlighted how the proposals would criminalise "serious annoyance"

 

** The Johnson government terms human rights lawyers as "activists".

 

*** Wiki on the Investigatory Powers Act 2016:

 

In April 2018 the High Court of Justice ruled that the Investigatory Powers Act violates EU law. The government had until 1 November 2018 to amend the legislation. On 31 October 2018 The Data Retention and Acquisition Regulations 2018 came into force to address this ruling. These regulations increased the threshold for accessing communications data only for the purposes of serious crime (defined as offences which are capable of being sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 12 months or more) and requires that authorities consult an independent Investigatory Powers Commissioner before requesting data. The regulations also included a loophole where rapid approval can be made internally without independent approval but with a three-day expiry and with subsequent review by the independent body. Most debates about the regulations have been about the definition of "serious crime" with many arguing that the threshold should be at three years.

 

Edited March 27, 2021 by Edwardian
unfinished sentence!

[sem34090]

I suppose, as ever, I am sad that those whose politics I would traditionally align with have done so much to demonise, disillusion and if not simply ignore that large "White Male" group as their idea of the root of all problems. Is it at all surprising that the traditional white, male, working class, Labour Party support base has increasingly abandoned left wing politics that were either largely ignoring their concerns or even demonising them? That's not to suggest that there aren't many other factors, but ultimately the Tories were able to prey on that by appealing to that large group and winning votes.

 

If the centre left and left hadn't abandoned that huge group in favour of pursuing minority votes then perhaps there's a chance that Boris, and maybe even Brexit, may not have happened, although the latter is something that I have conflicting opinions on. 

 

Please note that this isn't a criticism of minority groups, but is instead a criticism of the way majority groups have been dealt with.

 

It wouldn't exactly be the first time that people who appear to consider themselves ignored and silenced, whether that's true or not (Indeed I rather think that on the whole it's not particularly true, with notable exceptions) they will turn towards the politics, or ideology, that is actually addressing them. I'm sure we can all think of other examples besides the most recent ones.

 

 

 

[Compound2632]

13 minutes ago, sem34090 said:

I suppose, as ever, I am sad that those whose politics I would traditionally align with have done so much to demonise, disillusion and if not simply ignore that large "White Male" group as their idea of the root of all problems.

 

But that group (to which I belong) has been dominant for so long and at the expense of other groups in our society that equity and justice demands some rebalancing. All I hear is the howl of long-abused privileges being curtailed.

[rocor]

15 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The impression I got was that he was telling us it was inevitable and we'd better get used to it. It seems to me he is one who would prefer government by elected oligarchy, as in Singapore, which is constantly being held up as a model. But maybe he mis-spoke and consequently I have misunderstood.

 

One line in his speech gives pause for thought.

 

"Tyranny is richer than freedom, and that matters to us here at home."

[rocor]

12 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

 

Only a tiny few politicians would be inimitable, those unusual types who give straight answers, treating the questioner with genuine respect.

 

They would be filtered out by the process of natural selection, or to be more precise local party deselection.

[Regularity]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Indeed, they must be continually called to account - which is what some in Government are pathologically resistant to. The erosion of the concept that ministers are accountable for the actions of their departments is one of the most poisonous aspects of what has been going on.

 

Mind you, it goes back at least as far as Charles II, who responded to Rochester's mock epitaph:

 

Here lies our Sovereign Lord the King

whose word no man relied on.

He never said a foolish thing

or ever did a wise one

 

with the comment: True, for my words are my own but my actions, my ministers'.

Deeds, not actions, old boy.

 

[Compound2632]

18 minutes ago, Regularity said:

Deeds, not actions, old boy.

 

 

I was quoting from memory. "Deeds" is more 17th century, I've also found it given as "acts". The second line of Wilmott's poem is variously given as "whose promise none relied on".