We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

The Labour meltdown

The Labour Party has suffered a crushing defeat in a by-election for one of its supposedly safe seats. The odds now must be rising that Gordon Brown will be challenged for leadership of the party. Having been given the job in a coronation last year rather than face a democratic election, his credibility is in shreds. Quite who would want to step up to challenge him is another matter. Labour looks to be headed for defeat at the next election, which must happen by 2010, and who wants to be the man or woman at the helm when or if that happens?

Watching the BBC television networks this morning, I see Labour folk blaming the government’s woes on the economy. This is pretty disengenuous. Yes, of course, the darkening economic situation is a worry for millions of people and Labour – which shamelessly tried to claim credit for the previous fat years – is now suffering from the effects of rising economic worries. But the reasons for the public anger go much deeper. There is a sense that this government is lazy, out of ideas, corrupt, incompetent.

I also like to think that the government’s assault on freedom, particularly civil liberties, might have something to do with the public anger, plus its shameful behaviour over the EU Constitution, sorry Treaty, being rammed through parliament in flagrant defiance of Labour’s previous election promises. It would be nice to imagine that authortarianism was a reason for hatred for this government.

53 comments to The Labour meltdown

  • Julian Taylor

    One might have hoped that Gordon Brown would be doing the honourable thing right now, downing a large glass of his favourite single malt followed by writing out his apology to the nation and then putting the business end of a revolver in his mouth and pulling the trigger. Unfortunately he still remains the (unelected) resident of Number 10 Downing Street.

    As for blaming the economy for their woes, I suppose next that they will be blaming George Orwell’s 1984 for the current staggering 13 million CCTV ‘security’ cameras in the UK.

  • (unelected)

    The UK uses the Westminster System of Parliamentary democracy at Westminster.

    Brown is leader of his party, and head of the government, but not head of or leader of the country.

    This is fine by me, I have no problems with it at all. My complaint is that NuLab, as a whole, are crap. Regardless of who is in #10.

  • There’s precious little chance of an incoming Conservative administration doing anything about civil liberties, I would have thought.

  • Unfortunately he can’t be handed a revolver and a glass of whisky, since they banned hand guns. Sepuku is out as well unless he is willing to spring the £2k needed for a genuine Katana (which he wouldn’t if it is his own money rather than ours) since they banned buying single edged curved swords other than the very expensive collectors items. Likewise can you really expect him to go for self immolation with petrol prices as they are thanks to the excessive taxation? Oh well, a one way ticket to Eastbourne and Beachy Head it is then. Assuming he can get there on public transport that is, which is doubtful.

  • Kevyn Bodman

    ‘It would be nice to imagine that authoritarianism was a reason for hatred for this government.’

    Yes, it would. And it is one of the reasons that I hate them.
    But for most people it just doesn’t matter.
    I had the ID card conversation on Wednesday with someone who hadn’t discussed it before, with anyone.
    My side of the conversation was predictable, and you can probably predict the other side too. Pretty much along the lines of ‘If you’ve got nothing to hide…’
    Then on to CCTV.At least I got agreement that CCTV footage of a bomber on his way to detonate a bomb is of very little value, but of course ‘they are not going monitor the comings and goings of people like us,are they? We’ve got nothing to worry about’

    Most people just don’t care about the authoritarian nature of this government, or the next one.
    Ban booze on the Tube. Yes, of course.
    Deal with criminal behaviour and leave ordinary people alone? No, let’s just ban booze.
    Frustrating, isn’t it?

  • ‘It would be nice to imagine that authoritarianism was a reason for hatred for this government.’

    This is probably one of the reasons, but as much as I would like to believe (and hope) that freedoms, decency and the desire to have a government that is regulatory and not authoritarian is at the top of most citizens’ agenda, most likely it is all about money. People now earn less, stuff is much more expensive and life is a bit more difficult and uncertain regarding financial security.

    As the previous commenter said, people just do not care enough, as long as their own little world is a content one.

  • Johnathan Pearce

    The UK uses the Westminster System of Parliamentary democracy at Westminster. Brown is leader of his party, and head of the government, but not head of or leader of the country.

    Yes I know that, but the symbolism of a man getting the job as if he is entitled to it is telling. Whether we like or not, the fact is that the electorate does take the leadership qualities of party leaders into account at elections and want the prime minister to be up to the job. To pretend otherwise is frankly bizarre.

    The electorate can sense that Brown, a man who seethed with rage that the more charming-looking Blair became PM, plotted to remove Blair almost from the start and undermined what limited half-decent reforms Blair might have implemented. Of course, Brown deserves some praise for resisting Blair by not entering the euro. But in general, the voters sense that the gloomy Scot is not up to the job, runs away from electoral contests and deserves to be kicked out. Which he will be.

  • Ian B

    Didn’t we just discuss this landslide/pause/landslide thing?

  • Surely you wouldn’t want the man making a mess in Downing Street? Besides where is the sense of tradition,we have the Tower of London,Traitors Gate and we have had experience with Scottish rulers before.

  • John Louis Swaine

    Unfortunately I’ve been on the other side of the fence and I can safely say that almost nobody gives a rat’s arse about Civil Liberties or about Government intervention in their lives.

    They only care when it’s too late or they’ve been suckerpunched by the state.

  • Johnathan Pearce

    Didn’t we just discuss this landslide/pause/landslide thing?

    We sure did. We are discussing it again.

  • philmillhaven

    I also like to think that the government’s assault on freedom might have something to do with the public anger

    Sadly not. People are more worried about loutish behaviour and (exaggerated) terrorist threats than abstract notions of individual liberty. Boris won partly on the basis of dealing with anti-social behaviour by introducing the draconian measure of banning booze on the underground. People want more limitations on the freedom of individuals to intimidate, rob and murder, not less.

  • Ian B

    I refer the honourable member to the reply I gave earlier.

  • manuel II paleologos

    Just finished reading Andrew Marr’s History of Modern Britain and it’s striking how even he stresses the massive loss of basic freedoms in recent times. Generally a very good read indeed.

    However, I have to say it’s not very clear to me what Gordon’s done wrong (I mean, compared to Blair or Cameron). Cancelling the early election just annoyed the press rather than anyone else. Flat tax was a bit muddled but not really. Not sure most punters really care even about the Union of Soviet European Republics Constitution. Where does this sudden despair come from?

    And unconvinced that all this will equate to a Labour defeat. For starters, electoral rules are heavily stacked in their favour. One of Andrew Marr’s interesting observations was that Major’s share of the vote in ’92 was similar to Blair’s in ’97, but only have him a majority of 21.

    And I certainly won’t be voting Tory while Zac Goldsmith remains our candidate.

  • Ian B

    We also need to remember that we are no longer discussing the election of representative members to our national government; we are now choosing the electoral college who select our representative to the European Council and nothing more. The government is now in Brussels; the “prime minister” merely a provincial governor. The general election is now nothing of the sort; it’s just an “electoral reshuffle” of the provincial council.

  • Johnathan Pearce

    Ian B, since we don’t yet have archives for previous articles, sometimes I prefer to re-heat a previous discussion thread with a new post. I chose to write about this topic of electoral changes after what has been, by any measure, a huge swing from Labour to the Tories, and wondered about some of the factors behind it. It does of course chime somewhat with Brian Micklethwait’s comment on this a few days ago.

    One of the encouraging features was that a daft attempt by the Labour side to play the class war card failed in the most humiliating fashion. He has his faults – well documented on this blog – but being an old Etonian is not something about David Cameron that I, a comprehensive schoolboy, worry about.

    We also need to remember that we are no longer discussing the election of representative members to our national government; we are now choosing the electoral college who select our representative to the European Council and nothing more. The government is now in Brussels; the “prime minister” merely a provincial governor. The general election is now nothing of the sort; it’s just an “electoral reshuffle” of the provincial council.

    I agree with that entirely. However, if you read books such as Peter Oborne’s “The Rise of the Political Class,” it all becomes clear. Brown and his ilk have taken the decision to make politics a full time business with the EU as the ultimate in corporate head offices. As a result, elections ain’t what they used to be. This is a deliberate strategy; it is no wonder that voters are turning to fringe parties.

    And I certainly won’t be voting Tory while Zac Goldsmith remains our candidate.

    Well said Manuel; Zac is a pillock although I’d quite like to shag his sister.

  • Ian B

    Sorry Johnathan, I wasn’t having a poke at your reheating the topic though in retrospect it looks like I was. One of my more pointless posts I suspect, lucky it was nice and short 🙂

  • Kassandra

    Mainstream politics is now merely the shadow cast by big concentrations of capital. Concentration of ownership in the media, the financial system and the corporate sector renders formal democracy virtually meaningless. Bond traders now enjoy more veto power over macroeconomic policy than any political configuration.
    Not hard to guess what’s on the corporate/political agenda:

    Regressive taxes and ‘welfare reform’
    Deregulation and privitisation
    Rapid intervention wars to capture strategic resources and markets.
    Corporate welfare – bail outs, PFI, increased military subsidies etc.
    The entire neo-labour manifesto.

    None of which has anything to do with democracy or even free markets.

    Vote for who you like – pretexts change, but policy doesn’t.

  • hovis

    “Labour looks to be headed for defeat at the next election, which must happen by 2010, and who wants to be the man or woman at the helm when or if that happens?”

    Someone who would otherwise not get the top job – who’s time might have passed otherwise – Jack Straw for instance? If this type of leader fails – he lost nothing, if he succeeds he is a hero …

  • RRS

    Hey ! Y’all ain’t seen nuthin” yet.

    Watch the next two years in the U S as there is no “opposition” party atall, atall; only an opposition executive; and N. Pelosi continues to groom herself to replace the role of H C and take that executive place with non-Bosnian foreign policy experience.

    The show is about to commence – with an audience that still doesn’t get it; that the dollars issued as bribes for votes today (plus interest thereon) will turn out to be the dollars that would have been their retirement income. As Bill Gross has just reported, U S inflation just can’t be that far off the world rate; nor can that of the U K be.

  • However, I have to say it’s not very clear to me what Gordon’s done wrong (I mean, compared to Blair or Cameron).

    Blair and Cameron are both terrible cunts. So is Brown. Alas for him, he isn’t a stealth-cunt like the other two.

    JP, you want to shag Imran, “For Muslims these cartoons are worse than the Holocaust was for the Jews”, Khan’s sloppy-seconds! For shame JP. For shame!

  • JP, if you want to get jiggy with Jemima then agreeing that her brother is a pillock on an extremely public blog probably isn’t the best strategy.

    Anyway, he isn’t a “pillock” he’s just yet another stealth-cunt.

    Sorry for the appalling obscenity but I’ve just Karchered the entire gaff and am bushed.

  • vivictius

    “…but I’ve just Karchered the entire gaff and am bushed.”

    huh?

    While I find this site a good source for goings on across the pond you do occasionaly remind me that we really dont speak the same language. (-:

  • joe

    Whats “stealth” about them all? They seem fully out there to me.

  • manuel II paleologos

    So you reckon Johnathan’s blown his chances with Jemima?

    She might quite like it, you never know; I’m pretty sure my sister wouldn’t be discouraged by someone just because they’d been rude to me. Quite the opposite in fact.

    Johnathan – let us know how you get on! I’m still not voting for Zac though, no matter what she does to you.

  • Laird

    Vote for who you like – pretexts change, but policy doesn’t.

    – Kassandra

    Nice line. I may “borrow” it someday!

  • Otto

    Whilst Westminster is effectively not much more than a provincial assembly at present, as long as it exists it has the possibility to legitimise an English or British secession from the EU. I say “legitimise”, because any movement to leave the EU will be a bottom up popular movement rather than something top down from our “leaders” (ie the vermin of the Enemy Class).

    Remember what Yeltsin and his associates in the Russian parliament did to the Soviet Union in the months after the August 1991 Coup attempt.

    Further more the continued existence of Westminister even in neutered form is an important link with our past, reminder and reproach. It is no accident that the Enemy Class seeks to denigrate and vanish our history.

  • Ian B

    I quite agree Otto.

    The question is, how long will it be before the EU machine abolishes the national parliaments? It’s clear that the EU will want rid of them. Their task will be to carefully manage a change of narrative, from “Of course the EU isn’t a government, it’s just a place where the nations cooperate” to “Of course it’s a government, and the current system is inefficient and anachronistic, let’s talk about what would be the best system!” The current system of 27 provincial governors will be portrayed as inappropriate since some governors from big countries are more equal than others. The EU will want to be moving to a model of regional faux representation.

    So I guess we’ll end up with two chambers; the useless parliament providing toothless “direct democracy”. Then there’ll be a “Chamber Of The Regions”, with one EU apparatchik from each region. They will in turn appoint the Commission; the EU government proper.

    All that remains is the issue of Head Of State. Either the new “president” job and president of the commission will be combined, or they’ll end up as President + “Prime Minister”. The only certainty is that there will be no hint of real democracy within the system, and by the time this has occurred there’ll be no hope of getting out without fighting our way out.

    What the timetable will be nobody can know; the EU works by stealth and they’ll be watching to stage manage the whole thing. All we can be sure of is we’ll see it coming from a long way off but still be entirely powerless to prevent it.

  • philmillhaven

    by the time this has occurred there’ll be no hope of getting out without fighting our way out.

    I agree. I’ve discussed the possibility of a coup with a friend of mine who is fairly senior in the army. I encourage everyone here to use their contacts to do the same.

    But in the meantime we must do everything we can to prevent or repeal the Lisbon Treaty democratically, and then if (alright, let’s be realistic: when) this goes through we’ll elect a Conservative Government and lobby them to repeal it.

    As Frederick Forsyth has argued, it’s quite possible we only need to repeal one piece of significant EU legislation to refute the principle of acquis communautaire. From there we’d have a good chance of turning massive public resentment into political momentum until the UK leaves the EU. On this optimistic scenario we would then destroy the EU and save other member States by proving that countries genuinely can be grown-ups and participate in the world as vigorous sovereign internationalists.

    But ultimately, if all our demands are ignored and every hope of democratic involvement is dashed, we’ll have to remove the current political class along with the EU baggage using violence. Bring it on.

  • philmillhaven

    by the time this has occurred there’ll be no hope of getting out without fighting our way out.

    I agree. I’ve discussed the possibility of a coup with a friend of mine who is fairly senior in the army. I encourage everyone here to use their contacts to do the same.

    But in the meantime we must do everything we can to prevent or repeal the Lisbon Treaty democratically, and then if (alright, let’s be realistic: when) this goes through we’ll elect a Conservative Government and lobby them to repeal it.

    As Frederick Forsyth has argued, it’s quite possible we only need to repeal one piece of significant EU legislation to refute the principle of acquis communautaire. From there we’d have a good chance of turning massive public resentment into political momentum until the UK leaves the EU. On this optimistic scenario we would then destroy the EU and save other member States by proving that countries genuinely can be grown-ups and participate in the world as vigorous sovereign internationalists.

    But ultimately, if all our demands are ignored and every hope of democratic involvement is dashed, we’ll have to remove the current political class along with the EU baggage using violence. Bring it on.

  • Sunfish

    I agree. I’ve discussed the possibility of a coup with a friend of mine who is fairly senior in the army. I encourage everyone here to use their contacts to do the same.

    Wow. There’s a frying-pan-to-fire leap you got right there. I’ve been in places where a military coup overthrew a pretty bad elected government. The results were highly unfavorable. Actually, that was about the only way things could have gotten worse.

    I realize that some might think that the UK armed forces would never get ugly once they’re in the driver’s seat. Sure, maybe, whatever. Thank God I won’t be there to watch it happen.

  • Nick M

    “Karcher” – pressure-washer. It’s one of those words like “hoover” or “Xerox”

    “gaff” – home. As in “come round my gaff for 7 and we’ll watch the footy”

    “Bushed” – tired-out, knackered – like the US economy.

    I could comment in Geordie if you prefer.

  • I’ve discussed the possibility of a coup with a friend of mine who is fairly senior in the army. I encourage everyone here to use their contacts to do the same.

    Absolutely not.

    I will never, under any circumstances, of my own free will, acknowledge the legitimacy of authority derived from military force.

    The military receive their instructions from the civil political authorities and that is the way it must remain. Given the choice between military insurrection and any of these other foul systems we are faced with, I choose the foul systems.

  • philmillhaven

    I will never, under any circumstances, of my own free will, acknowledge the legitimacy of authority derived from military force.

    Where do you think the UK’s present political system came from (clue: James II of England and the Glorious Revolution)? For that matter, the USA’s political system (American War of Independence) or modern day France, Germany, Holland, Belgium etc. (WW2) were all forged in war.

    You may be prepared to accept any “foul systems” in your serene existence as a peacenik. Fortunately for you, however, people like me will not. We’ll do everything we possibly can to resolve things through dialogue. We’ll lobby and complain, write and broadcast, reason and propagandize and go on and on and on testing the political process for a smidgen of democracy. But ultimately if the political class refuses to give us a say, we believe they’re in the wrong and we’re prepared to stand up and fight for what’s right.

  • philmillhaven

    I realize that some might think that the UK armed forces would never get ugly once they’re in the driver’s seat.

    Not a very British kind of naivety though, is it? Cromwell remains in the collective consciousness and anyone who’s studied English history knows well the horrors of civil war and military government.

    I don’t know anyone who thinks the armed forces would never get ugly once their in driver’s seat. Methinks you attack a straw man. For myself, I make the simple calculus that if we’re already living in an authoritarian state run from Brussels, even if the present administration is benevolent, it’s nevertheless only a matter of time before it mutates into a malevolent one (absolute power corrupts absolutely and all that). Given this is the case, and given the overwhelming monarchist loyalty of the British army, I’m prepared to take my chances with a military coup in which democracy and constitutional monarchy can be restored in practice, rather than just in theory, which is increasingly the case today as long as the weeds of the EU overgrow and choke to death British sovereignty.

  • philmillhaven,

    There is significant difference between military solutions imposed by civil authority, and civil authority being eliminated by military actions.

    A military which set itself above civil authority is not one which I could follow.

    The American Revolution and the Glorious Revolution both involved a military subservient to to higher authority, and acting according to their commands.

    Nothing peacenik about it. A military which regards itself as the highest political authority is not a military I regard as worth the risk.

  • philmillhaven

    The American Revolution and the Glorious Revolution both involved a military subservient to to higher authority, and acting according to their commands.

    But the political masters weren’t a higher authority before the revolution were they (anyway Washington was a soldier for goodness sake!)? They were pamphleteers and agitators* just like us, saying things that weren’t considered very sensible at the time by stuck in the mud reactionaries. The higher authority in both cases was the British monarchy until a bunch of upstarts took it upon themselves to subvert it. That’s the whole point of a revolution: radicals learn that no amount of lobbying or persuasion will reform the system and quite legitimately resort to military force.

    There is significant difference between military solutions imposed by civil authority, and civil authority being eliminated by military actions.

    No there isn’t, you are being specious.

    * This version of events applies more cleanly to the American Revolution where the agitators were famous (Jefferson, Paine et al) and the outcome decisive, than the protracted events in England i.e. what you fear came to pass in the guise of Cromwell as Lord Protector and then we got the Stuarts back. But taking the longer view, Britain post-1688 more resembled the views of Edward Coke and John Locke than Charles I.

  • One thing about George Washington was that he always was ready to limit his own power. As commander of the Continental Army he reported directly to Congress and sent the his personal expense accounts (Fun reading)

    He refused to get involved a coup, even though the officers who’d been most loyal to him were losing their homes and farms due to the debts they’d assumed to feed their(and his) troops.

    He refused to be King.

    He stepped down after two terms as President, a great precedent.

    As far as I am concerned he is the founder of limited government.

  • Otto

    Taylor, I am quite sure that Washington didn’t found limited government. Mechanisms to limit government are very ancient indeed; Why do you think the Spartans had two kings, and the Roman Republic had two consuls? Of course, they don’t always work, hence, for example, the Roman Empire.

  • Laird

    Otto, that may all be true, but Taylor is quite correct about Washington’s studied subordination to the Continental Congress during the revolution, and his insistence on limiting the powers of the presidency. (Of course, that is not the same thing as limiting the powers of the federal government, but it’s still important.) Washington may not have invented the idea of limited government, but he was significant factor in ensuring that it was adopted in the early years of the US. Unfortunately, we have forgotten his example over the last century.

  • They were pamphleteers and agitators

    Absolutely, then they set up a government, a civil authority, and that authority set up a military.

    As has been pointed out here, that military held itself subordinate to the civil authority. That a member of that military later went on to hold the highest civil position, as a civilian, is incidental, and does not detract from the principle.

    Adherence to this principle seems to have have a significant correlation with political stability. Not a bad thing in itself.

  • Cats, stability is a good thing only to an extent. NK is remarkably stable. Wouldn’t a military coup in NK be a potentially good thing? OK, ‘good’ is not the right word, but can it really get much worse than it is now? Now, this is a hyperbole, and I am far from suggesting that the situation in any Western state is nearly as bad as it is in NK, but on the other hand it doesn’t seem wise to wait until it gets just as bad (and yes, we are talking very long term here, but it still can happen). So while in general, and under present circumstances I sympathize with your sentiment, that option should never be completely off the table, or at least it should be in one of the well locked drawers:-|

  • philmillhaven,

    What I have noticed here, on a number of occasions, is that on this site people will stand up for peoples rights. Not those worthless human rights crap, but the real honest to god civil rights stuff.

    And that is why I keep coming back.

    I loath this current crop of career politicians, not because I disagree with their core policies, but because of the disdain they demonstrate to those values I admire. A military which equally demonstrated disdain, as you are proposing, would be no better philosophically, and a great deal more dangerous personally.

  • Sunfish

    Alisa,
    That may help to turn the discussion around to pure principles. However, NK isn’t really comparable to any other place around, and very much not comparable to the UK or frankly anywhere in the West. (Saudi Arabia without oil, maybe?)

    I also don’t know that I’d call NK ‘stable.’ It seems from here to be held together mostly by the cult of personality around one particular nutbar. When Kim Jong-il kicks from his liver exploding from all of the $100-a-bottle scotch, the whole place is going to fly apart.

    Maybe you’ve found the exception that proves the rule. I don’t know. I still think it’s a pretty good rule of thumb that military overthrow of an elected civil government NEVER improves matters.

  • NK isn’t really comparable to any other place around, and very much not comparable to the UK or frankly anywhere in the West.

    I thought I demolished that straw man with my own bare hands!:-)

    I don’t know if the UK can ever slide as low as NK – probably not. But my point is, how bad does it have to get?

  • philmillhaven

    they set up a government, a civil authority, and that authority set up a military.

    You cannot be serious. At some moment in the future we are going to decide “Enough’s enough” and like the American colonists (whose guns were every bit as lethal as the Redcoats), we’re going to form a Samizdata army and take on the combined 21st century military might of the UK, France, Germany… Don’t make me laugh.

    The EU is already creating a police force and an army. The EU has never introduced an EU-anything without progressively increasing its competence over time at the expense of national versions of the same. And at what stage are you going decide that the rug’s been pulled from under your feet?

    But it gets worse. Given that the UK government will have already created most the tools needed to subvert a troublesome province (millions of cameras, national database, ID cards, internet & telephony snooping, anti-terrorism Bill etc.), it’s hard to envisage how you’d even get organised, let alone armed. By the time you’re roused from your complacency into building an “army” you’ll be met with nothing more than gentle mockery. A perfectly adequate riposte I would think.

  • philmillhaven

    A military which equally demonstrated disdain, as you are proposing, would be no better philosophically, and a great deal more dangerous personally.

    Not sure you’re reading my posts with sufficient care. I am not in favour of the military taking over, I am proposing military force as a legitimate solution where politics fail us, and do so with the hope/expectation that the military would remain loyal to the Queen. Self-interest would soon impose the interests of business & finance (the army is expensive to run) and whole thing would hopefully be over without a shot being fired. Firstly, support would be secured throughout the military (what I advocate we do NOW), and next we undertake increasingly desperate political and legal means to make ourselves heard. Finally, as the struggle becomes more public and our political masters even more unyielding, numerous opinion polls would be commissioned showing popular resentment at the gross negligence, nay treachery, of British politicians, and then on one day in August the Queen disbands Parliament and calls for a referendum.

    I accept the risk of a military coup, which is why I advocate wholeheartedly that we pursue the political process as long as there’s any reasonable chance of a democratic outcome. We have to be realistic and the ugly truth lurking below the surface of any decent Western democracy is that it is guaranteed not by assemblies or documents but by physical force, as you would soon discover if you attempted to avoid customs next time you arrive at any of their airports.

    As I already granted you, the English Civil War was disastrous for people at the time because unlike Washington, Cromwell was a faith-head who believed his own God-given puritanical lifestyle should be imposed on as many other people as possible.

    And yet did he not start out in exactly the role you advocate now? He was a Member of Parliament long before Charles rose the Royal Standard, and the side he led to victory was not the New Model Army, it was the side of the Parliamentarians for which the New Model Army was merely the servant. The whole point of the Civil War was to impose the rights not of a military force, but a democratic force. The danger I would like you to be concerned about duly came to pass when Cromwell struggled to control the New Model Army and recognised no reasonable limits on his power to do good. The civil war wrecked the country and exhausted everyone so the military managed to hold sway over all the other forces and influences on the British Isles at the time (business, the aristocracy, the Church, the Irish etc.). It was like living under the Taliban for ten years – revolution should not be entered into lightly.

  • Johnathan Pearce

    I am not in favour of the military taking over, I am proposing military force as a legitimate solution where politics fail us, and do so with the hope/expectation that the military would remain loyal to the Queen.

    That is a lot of hope, never mind expectation. The last time the military got involved in British political affairs in a serious way – during the Cromwellian period – things got to the point where the public were only too pleased to see Charles II ascend the throne.

    The experience of military coups has been a poor one, to be polite about it. Your hopefulness that a UK military overthrow would be any better is at best, naive.

    No, if there is an uprising against a EU empire, it needs to be a grassroots affair if it is to carry legitimacy.

  • philmillhaven

    That is a lot of hope, never mind expectation.

    Have you met anyone in the British army? To say that the British Army is determinedly, wholeheartedly, died in the wool, fight to the death loyal to the Queen would be a bit of an understatement. Not really naively hopeful then.

    The experience of military coups has been a poor one, to be polite about it.

    No need for politeness, let’s be frank. As I already said, life under Cromwell was “like living under the Taliban for ten years”.

    Regarding your hope of a grassroots uprising. Recent events prove Europeans lack any appetite for asserting their democratic rights. Think you can vote the wrong way, you dumb Irish fucks? Vote again. Think you can vote against the Constitution? Ah, you don’t like the present French Government and this is a protest vote. Here, suck on this Lisbon Treaty, you’ll feel much better.

    All the instruments of a grassroots uprising are either missing (e.g. the military of the modern state is irresistible; the hope of a Bastille moment is just cloud cuckoo land) or are being actively blunted as we speak (who are you going to write to? Your MP? British civil servants? I work for the EU, mate.).

    As power is transferred from national to supranational level, the influence of every single media outlet — this one included — is reduced relatively to the government it criticizes. If this anti-democratic movement were merely within the UK, I’d agree with you. The national media would crystallize opinion and in no time the would-be dictator would be forced either to shut them all down or face the kind of grassroots uprising you naively cling to. But on a European scale, there simply aren’t the European wide media outlets to do this.

    The origins of an EU monopoly on power is already discernible in the way they spin things differently in one country versus another. In France the Single Market combats globalization and is a victory for French farmers, in the UK it’s a victory for subtle British diplomacy bringing free trade to the Continent.

    Divide and rule is the oldest imperial trick in the book. Unless you can show me some tools you have to counter it (e.g. a high circulation EU-wide newspaper or a Howard Stern based in Germany and listened to throughout the continent) to be blunt, I can’t really see what the hell you’re on about.

  • Laird

    The idea of the Queen dissolving Parliament is interesting. I know there is historical precedent for that, but I’m very unclear on the details. Does she really have that legal authority? What would be the effect? How would she constitute a government during the interregnum?

    Also, is there really any hope that such could happen? My impression of your current Queen is that she is very apolitical (as well as being quite elderly) and seems unlikely to embark upon such a controversial course. And I certainly hold no hope for Prince Charles, who seems to be interested only in architecture and “green” causes. So how do you propose that this will come about?

    Of course, here in the US we have no monarch to dissolve Congress and let us start over. Too bad.

  • Ian B

    There’s a presumption here that the Queen and Royals are, or would be, loyal to British sovereignty, but we have no way of knowing the actual opinions and loyalties of the cough Saxe Coburg Gothas cough. Phil The Greek The Duke Of Edinburgh is hip deep in tranzi greenism such as the WWF, whose shadowy funders, the 1001 Club, he helped organise. Charles is a total moonbat. Indeed, 9 out of 10 conspiracy theorists say they prefer the belief that the New World Order is a monarchist plot.

    A revolution might be better off putting William on the throne. There’s no way to know where his loyalties lie either, but it’d be nice to have a gorgeous Queen Kate.

    :oD

  • philmillhaven

    I know there is historical precedent for that, but I’m very unclear on the details. Does she really have that legal authority?

    Royal Prerogative gives the Queen the power to summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament; nothing is law without her say-so. In practice of course almost all Royal Prerogative is exercised by democratically elected MPs* and her role is purely symbolic. Yet it remains the case that in principle, she, not the Prime Minister, has all the power. Were the Monarchy to assert Royal Prerogative against the will of Parliament it would cause a Constitutional Crisis.

    Royal Prerogative includes the power to ratify treaties and if the Queen refused, say, to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum the Government would then be in the uncomfortable position of asserting the democratic mandate of Parliament against popular sentiment and in refusal of giving the British people a direct say on something which had now become an international incident. Throw in the backdrop of the Labour manifesto promising a referendum on the very similar EU Constitution, countless opinion polls confirming broad support for what the Queen is insisting, and a message of unambiguous loyalty from the Army and there’s not a damn thing the EU fascists would be able to about it. We’d get our referendum and they’d have to fuck off. It would be a triumph for democracy.

    * Democratically elected MPs passing Bills roughly 80 per cent of which come from the EU, which emphatically is not democratic.

  • Paul Marks

    It is an odd position.

    Not just because Mr Brown was not the leader of his party at the last election – that has happened before.

    But because he was not even elected leader of his party. Basically when Mr Blair resigned Mr Brown (and so on) used the rules of the Labour party to prevent anyone else standing against him as leader.

    People who wanted to support the nomination of other candidates were told……..

    Well basically they were told “I will scream and scream until I am sick” if they supported the nomination of any other candidate.

    So the people who wanted to stand against Mr Brown found they did not have enough nominating names to do so.

    Most Labour party M.P.s appear to detest Mr Brown – but there seems to be no way to get rid of him. And some real fear that he would go mad if they managed to find a way – and I mean “go mad” kick, scream, expose all of the Labour government’s secrets on national television (and so on).

    The sight or Mr Brown having to be physically dragged from Number 10, whilst shouting about the most confidential matters of government, would do the Labour party more harm than keeping him in Number 10.

    As for Mr Cameron:

    Whether he would be any better on policy (for example on getting powers back from the E.U.) I do not know – I doubt it, but I am told I have a negative cast of mind.