by

What’s in a word.

The Prime Minister believes there is nothing wrong with labelling the Benn Act, which prevents him from leaving the EU without a deal, the Surrender Act. His colleagues have suggested it is a legitimate part of robust political discourse. It is equivalent to the Labour Party’s labelling the removal of the “spare room subsidy” as  the “bedroom tax”. This is however a false equivalence.

In the case of the bedroom tax there was a dispute over the change to a welfare benefit which penalised households deemed to have chosen to live in accommodation which had a bedroom they did not need. The Government attacked the Opposition for tax and spend profligacy and a failure to recognise the seriousness of the deficit. The Opposition attacked the Government for a heartless attack on some of the most vulnerable members of society. The debate about this was passionate some might say vitriolic.

However, whilst the terms were strongly contested the disputants were always arguing about who was right and who was wrong. However much they disagreed about who was right and who was wrong they accepted the legitimacy of the other side putting their case. On the bedroom tax, critically, the Government thought the opposition was wrong, but not the enemy.

Using terms like surrender and other rhetoric that has its origins in military discourse and war time challenges the legitimacy of the other sides right to argue a case. The patriotic integrity of the other side is brought into question. They  are no longer people who have a very different view of the world they are the “enemies of the people”.

The distinction between this kind of language and the the dispute over the bedroom tax is fundamental, and profoundly important. It takes public debate into very dangerous territory. At best the PM’s hubris is clouding his common sense. I don’t like to think about the worst.

Recently, I looked at how President Trump compared against a number of tests set out by Levitsky and Ziblatt. in their book How Democracies Die. He did not fare well, which is a real worry for democracy in the US. Sadly, looking at the actions of Mr Johnson we also have cause for concern.

Before I go any further however, let me make clear I do not think Boris Johnson is equivalent to President Trump. Mr Trump is in a category of his own for venality, banality and an absolute stranger to the meaning of right and wrong, truth and lies. By contrast Boris is a pale imitation. But imitation he is.

In their book Levitsky and Ziblatt look at how how populist leaders gain democratic support and then proceed to corrode the democratic system from within. Typically they argue the system is frustrating the “will of the people”. Initially they may well be implementing popular policies but over time their view of the “will of the people” becomes less consistent with what most people think and they transition into increasingly authoritarian systems of government.

This transition is not always the result of a conscious strategy. They did not set out to be an authoritarian. They started out shortcutting the democratic system because it was too bureaucratic, or complex. The shortcuts outrage the opposition who push back and a tit for tat process spirals out of control and can lead to the establishment of a genuinely authoritarian government.

Levitsky and Ziblatt recognise that many people in long established democracies think “it could never happen here”. Their research, however, is a wake up call as in a number of the examples they consider similar views were present before it did, in fact, happen. Their aim is to provide warning signs of the kind of behaviour that precedes a drift to increasing authoritarianism. They identify 4 key indicators and for each indicator they give examples of more or less egregious behaviour which evidence a move towards  it. Thankfully, as yet in Britain, there is evidence of only the first two indicators and indeed the behavioural evidence is at the lower end of the spectrum.

The first key indicator is “Rejection of (or weak commitment to) democratic rules of the game”  evidenced by whether they “… they reject the constitution or express a willing ness to violate it.” The Supreme Court seemed to think, eleven / nil, that the Prime Minister’s behaviour did evidence this. Choosing which laws to obey probably falls into this category also.

The second indicator and the one most relevant to the question in hand is the “Denial of the legitimacy of political opponents” evidenced by whether “… they describe their rivals as subversive, or opposed to the existing constitutional order?” Talk of “surrender”, “traitors” and “betrayal” clearly attack the legitimacy of those opposed to a no-deal Brexit.

Boris Johnson is not a “dictator” and he has not staged a “coup”. He is, however, playing with fire. Talk about a people versus Parliament election ignores that 48% of “the people” wanted to remain. Reinforcing and promoting the divisions in a country should not be the aim of a  of a democratic leader. It may not work  in achieving the leaders goal but even if it does it could well be a case of an operation which was a great success but sadly the patient ended up dead.

 

 

 

 

by

IFS Green Budget

Sometimes a single chart encapsulates a whole policy agenda. The one below from the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies looks at the impact of one of Boris Johnson’s proposals to radically overhaul personal taxes. There are two major proposals.

The first is simply to  increase the higher rate threshold (the level of earnings you must have in order to pay higher rate tax) from £50k per annum to £80k. A straight tax give away to the better off.

The second, and the subject of the chart below, is to raise the point at which National Insurance contributions start. This, they claim, is in order to help the poorest in our society. The dark green bars in the chart shows the government must believe those with most money are the poorest.

The chart also looks at an alternative way to boost the incomes of low earning families by boosting the work allowance in Universal credit. This is shown in the lighter green colours. Clearly, the IFS seems to have a view of who are the poorest in society which more closely aligns to that of people here on planet earth.

It seems caring Conservatism doesn’t care any more.

Options for cutting direct personal taxes and supporting low earners – Institute For Fiscal Studies – IFS

“This is a substantial and expensive tax cut from which only those on high incomes would gain. It would offset some of the big tax increases that have affected the very highest earners since 2009.”

via Options for cutting direct personal taxes and supporting low earners – Institute For Fiscal Studies – IFS

Northern Comment – The above is an extract from the Institute for Fiscal Studies assessment of the proposals that have been articulated to date by the Prime Minister and his team. It gives a clear indication of the direction of travel of a Boris Johnson Government, if we ever get one!

by

Constitutional Crises

Two of the foundational democracies in the Western world, both ironically containing united in their name, the United States of America and the United Kingdom are in the midst of constitutional crises. Here, where we famously have an unwritten constitution, the Supreme Court has declared the Prime Ministers prorogation of Parliament void. In the US, the country with probably the most famous written constitution in the world, the House of Representatives has begun impeachment proceedings against the President. In truth they are both responses to a similar issue.

In both countries there are leaders in power who are happy to override or ignore constitutional conventions and practices in the interests of getting things done i.e. delivering Brexit, or getting my way building a wall.

Boris Johnson has decided the country has expressed a clear view it wants to leave the European Union and therefore he is justified to do “whatever it takes” to secure this. More than three years on from the referendum, one indecisive election, two Prime Ministerial resignations, one year of unedifying Parliamentary manoeuvring, including three unsuccessful votes on a withdrawal deal, it is not surprising Mr Johnson can tap into a national mood of frustration.

A decisive strategy for dealing with the impasse must surely be welcome. The problem is Mr Johnson has been more decisive than strategic.

Mr Johnson has not attempted to build a consensus, or even a majority, in either his own party or Parliament, or thought of attempting to lance the boil with another referendum. He has in effect said the Parliamentary system is not working and so I will circumvent it. I will ignore Parliamentary sovereignty in order to return sovereignty to Parliament. Taking at face value what Mr Johnson says about his earnest desire to avoid a no deal Brexit, whatever was in his mind, proroguing Parliament and removing the whip from 21 tory members who voted against him looked like a concerted attempt to circumvent the democratic process. The Supreme Court seems to have viewed the latter in that light. So far so bad

However, when the news of the Supreme Court’s decision provides a cheap opening laugh in a speech to Business leaders in NewYork and the PM uses the opportunity to say how profoundly he disagrees with the Judges decision you have to be worried it is not just hubris that’s the problem. This concern is reinforced when there is talk of a “Constitutional Coup” and Number 10 start briefing about an election fought on a “people against the establishment” ticket. An establishment composed of the members of the Supreme Court and Jeremy Corbyn. You only have to say it out loud!

Across the Atlantic, after two years of continuous challenge the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives has eventually moved to impeach the President. The straw that broke the resistance of the Democratic leadership arose out of a whistleblowers complaint which has still to be provided to the Chairman of House Intelligence Committee.

Despite its not having been provided there seems to be a clear picture emerging the issue revolves around a conversation between President Trump and the Leader of the Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky. It is alleged Mr Trump tried to pressure Mr Zalensky into providing political dirt on Joe Biden (current frontrunner in the Democratic primaries) and of his son. It is further alleged that military aid, approved by Congress, was used as a bargaining chip.

In truth, it is difficult to keep up with the “high crimes and misdemeanours” of the current President of the United States. Appointing a secret foreign agent to the post of National Security Advisor; using his office to secure financial advantage for himself and his family; lying about his business dealings in Russia; paying $280k in hush money to women he had affairs with; refusing to release his tax returns; lying daily about everything from the economy to the weather; denigrating the free press and the judiciary. This is just a brief list of some of his deplorable actions. They contain a mix of offences against the the constitution, the constitutional  separation of powers, the conventions of political behaviour, and black letter State and Federal laws.

Whether the impeachment action is successful will depend on whether the current whistleblowing issue gains traction with the public. If not the President could likely shoot someone on 5th Avenue and the Republican Senate would still back him.

Whatever the outcome of Brexit or impeachment, on both sides of the Atlantic we have leaders surrounded by small groups  of ideologues determined to get their way whatever the cost. They don’t just challenge those who disagree with them, whether press, politicians or judiciary, they denigrate them as anti-democratic traitors.  In doing this they are undermining the foundations of constitutional practices within which democracy has operated for over 100 years.

Whilst it is important leaders project confidence it is always a worry when they claim certainty. Here the Prime Minister claims he knows what the British people want based upon a referendum held three years ago. The President has a view that when he was elected he became boss of US Ltd. He thinks his authority runs across all arms of government including the judiciary and  legislature. They should accept what he says and do as they are told. That includes locking up his opponents e.g. “crooked Hilary”.

What is happening on either side of the Atlantic is similar and profoundly dangerous. When you mess with precedents as a politician your self interest might tell you what goes around comes around. If the precedents don’t constrain you then they may not constrain the opposition when they move into power, as they will at some point. But worse if you undermine conventions and ignore precedents you strike at the credibility of the rules of the game. If this undermines public faith you may create a wholly different scale of problem.

The Supreme Court has blown the referees whistle and cried fowl. A sensible leader in a democracy would treat this seriously and temper their behaviour. Politics with rules is very demanding, difficult and frustrating, without them it’s war.