Page 48 of the Tory Manifesto
First I’ll mention the not so scary but still anti democratic policies already in place that Johnson’s conservatives are doubling down on.
As they are the status quo these of course do not serve as examples of my argument that this manifesto represents a real potential for a dilution or downgrading of our democracy. Rather it is choosing, it is their choice, to reinforce existing deficiencies in our democracy.
In fact, because the Withdrawal Bill, that word ‘deficiencies’ will be significant in the ways our democracy is already being downgraded.
That is something to remember, these policies laid out in the manifesto are just one part of the threat our democracy faces. At the moment, it is that bill that I think will be the most damaging to our democracy, rights and access to justice.
That could well change due to how vague these proposals are, much like the bill.
Vague language in law is dangerous, they have been warned of this danger and have never provided justification for why they don’t see it as a problem.
Anyone objectively looking at this will see that the new policies regarding the entire way our democracy operates operates it all about taking every advantage for themselves so they can stay in power.
In the context of this manifesto the Autocracy to maintain these aspects of our democracy take on a new light, appearing as what you could call retroactive voter suppression. But these are a blip on the radar in terms of what about this manifesto has code red alarm bells ringing
let’s start with the deficiencies in our democracy they are doubling down on.
"We will get rid of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act – it has led to paralysis at a time the country needed decisive action”
This is no surprise. It favours the two party system and as people vote for third parties the victory of those parties becomes increasingly unrepresentative.
Also I’ll just briefly point out that there are proportional systems of voting that provide for local representatives so that’s not a good enough argument for a electoral system that has rendered every ballot I have ever cast redundant.
"We will maintain the voting age at 18 – the age at which one gains full citizenship rights."
Again no surprise at all - young voters are less likely to vote Tory.
So those are the undemocratic features of the system they are maintaining.
Now we move on to the undemocratic policies proposed, unsurprisingly, only, in their manifesto.
Election Manipulation: Staying in Power
"We will get rid of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act – it has led to paralysis at a time the country needed decisive action."
This is one of the actions this administration is taking to give them another electoral advantage. This certainly does, it gives the incumbent government a significant advantage in that they can call an election whenever they are having a good moment in the polls and extend their term.
While there were issues recently that have exposed aspects of the fixed term parliament act that are not ideal that no reason to go back to a system which had deficiencies that meant it was actually undemocratic .
"We will ensure we have updated and equal Parliamentary boundaries, making sure that every vote counts the same – a cornerstone of democracy."
They claim this redrawing if parliamentary boundaries is because the way things are favours labour... a party that has been in opposition continuously for a decade... yeah I’m not buying that and neither should you.
This, also is all about partisan advantage for them. Gerrymandering is the practice of redrawing boundaries to exclude groups of people that are less likely to vote for you. If you think they aren’t as calculating just wait a couple of bullet points.
Also They can piss off their their "every vote counting the same" Crap. Especially as In the very next breath their manifesto reads
"We will protect the integrity of our democracy, by introducing identification to vote at polling stations, stopping postal vote harvesting and measures to prevent any foreign interference in elections." I am trying rather hard to contain my reaction to their talk of the integrity of our democracy. Boris Johnson has done more than anyone to degrade the integrity of our democracy. Upholding a mandate that had it been binding would now be void is an affront to democracy. But. Let’s stay on point with these further measures of election manipulation.
There is absolutely no evidence that voter impersonation is a problem and despite amply warnings of the inevitable damage to our democracy.
Every time these trials are carried out there are always people who despite being eligible to vote are unable to do so because of the restrictions that Johnson proudly proposes in his manifesto.
Voter ID laws always impact migrants and the poor - two groups that statistically are less likely to vote tory another group are those that use postal ballots, I'm unsure why this is but these new restrictions on postal ballots will also limit those that are apparently less likely to vote tory.
Despite the efforts of experts and campaigners, government have so far sat on their hands in the face of the actual threats to electoral integrity – anonymous ‘dark ads’, dodgy donations and disinformation. Yet now, just days after securing a majority, the government now seeks to invest in fighting an imaginary problem.
The Electoral Reform Society director policy and research Jess Garland said of this policy:
Make no mistake – these plans will leave tens of thousands of legitimate voters voiceless. Ministers should focus on combating the real threats to our democracy, rather than suppressing voters’ rights
The government has no examples to justify this ‘show your papers’ policy. There is simply no evidence of widespread impersonation. Simply put, ministers must think again and withdraw this dangerous proposal".
As for how much Boris Johnson cares about foreign interference:Well there’s this video that should have fucking disqualified him. There were so many things he’s done that should have killed his chances.
"We will make it easier for British expats to vote in Parliamentary elections, and get rid of the arbitrary 15-year limit on their voting rights."
Ah yes "expats" a group which traditionally have always been more likely to vote Tory. So it’s votes for life for them.
Regulations and Standards
"Once we get Brexit done, Britain will take back control of its laws. As we end the supremacy of European law, we will be free to craft legislation and regulations that maintain high standards but which work best for the UK. We want a balance of rights, rules and entitlements that benefits all the people and all the parts of our United Kingdom."
As we have already seen the straight faced promises to protect workers rights has been torn up in the faces of voters just a week after they elected him. Those minimum standards for workers rights have now been removed. There is only one reason to get rid of a minimum and that is to fall below it.
"We want a balance of rights, rules and entitlements that benefits all the people and all the parts of our United Kingdom."
The other thing is I just want to put a question out there, which of our rights exactly are causing an imbalance? Which of those rights are Johnson’s Tory’s now telling us are actually no good for us? No, apparently there are rights we don’t want.
That’s some prime gaslighting from this terrible PM.
"After Brexit we also need to look at the broader aspects of our constitution: the relationship between the Government, Parliament and the courts; the functioning of the Royal Prerogative; the role of the House of Lords; and access to justice for ordinary people”Okay we have now arrived at the point where shit gets crazy. And do ask yourself, did Johnson ever mention in the campaign trail that he wanted to change the relationship between government parliament and the courts? Also known as the balance of powers. It matters
Remember Johnson had government lawyers in argue in the Supreme Court for fucking impunity. They were prepared, hoping to stop a president that a prime minister can prorogue parliament without limit. even if it was Clearly politically motivated and years and years, their entire term that they wanted to prorogue for - had Johnson won there would be NO body or authority to stop them. To pursue the creation of such a president is reckless if not contemptuous for our democracy.
So now they are talking about stopping the courts from taking political decisions (which the Supreme Court didn’t) this should be met with a healthy dose of alarm.
Whenever ANY leader starts talking about change to the fundamental "way our democracy operates" we should be worried
or at least aware that the first thing a despot wants to get their hands on is the constitution. As a country with an unwritten one I’m not sure if is easier or harder to subvert and pervert in the way despots have their countries constitution in the past.
"We will update the Human Rights Act and administrative law to ensure that there is a proper balance between the rights of individuals, our vital national security and effective government."
Fist thing, yet again there is this insinuation that there are some rights that apparently the population don’t want? Statements like this should be met with suspicion. A government trying to convince you that actually you don’t want some of your rights should be questioned and watched with vigilance.
As for the substance of the policy: The one "update" that we know for sure they want would fundamentally undermine the act. They intend on changing it so that the act cannon be applied to any human rights breach before the creation of the bill. One example where this will have significant implications would be Bloody Sunday investigations. The change would mean that the act no longer applies to everyone in every situation. Exemptions lead to exemptions.
Liberty have responded to this
"What the Government is proposing is an attempt to take out politically inconvenient elements of the Act, the bits that force Government to admit miscarriages of justice.
This move would undermine the fundamental basis of the Act - that it applies to everyone, in all situations. This simple premise is the only way effective justice can be sought."
Senior and prominent QCs are rightly alarmed at Johnson’s intention. Jolyon Maugham and Joanna Cherry say Boris Johnson’s bid to "update" human rights law and the judicial review process are causing "deep alarm".
Another to express alarm was Jessica Simor QC
The thread continues, Reading;
It has long been an objective of the ERG Tories [Rees-Mogg and pals] to weaken the judiciary so reducing their own accountability and increasing their powers. This is the reason for the ‘Judicial Power Project’ in Tory think tank Policy Exchange.
• The Withdrawal Bill 2019 transfers masses of powers to the executive that previously rested with Parliament. These proposals were rejected by Parliament before enactment of the 2018 Act. No doubt this is why Johnson did not want Parliament to have time to debate the 2019 bill.
Executive powers are however, subject to judicial review. This is irksome for those who seek absolute unfettered powers. So unsurprisingly the Tories intend to diminish these review powers. Do not under estimate the importance of this.
Now I debated getting into talking about the threat Johnson’s brexit and the new withdrawal agreement poses to our rights and to the sovereignty of parliament with a but it’s all pretty complicated so I’m just letting you know that there is more when it comes to our rights.
Liberty gives a clear explanation of Judicial Review
"Judicial review is a crucial tool which everyone can use to hold the powerful to account. It’s been used to tear up oppressive laws such as mass surveillance powers and block abuses of power from the top levels of Government to local councils and police forces.It offers the hope of justice to people when Government and public agencies behave outside the law. Attempts to change this should be viewed with deep suspicion."
In their manifesto the government claim:
"We will ensure that judicial review is available to protect the rights of the individuals against an overbearing state, while ensuring that it is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays."
This is a little hard to swallow as we know that in the version of the bill before the election (in time to inform the manifesto, was changed to extend the remit of the unilateral delegated powers given to ministers to explicitly include judicial review. Again no justification was provided.
It is deeply concerning hearing them attack judicial review, like for example, Former Tory leader Michael Howard. Lord Howard launched an attack on the judiciary that consisted of openly complaining about the human rights act. They do want to diminish our rights.
The way they have refused to justify the absence of a clear prohibition on the bill that would mean ministers could not use these powers to altar our rights in any way.
Another thing to bear in mind for the next part of the manifesto I’ll take you through is that for all that they are seemingly open about their constitutional plans (though that is questionable due to the fact that anyone who did t read the manifesto won’t have any idea they have these intentions) what they are proposing is actually only one part of this constitutionally unprecedented transfer of Power from parliament to the executive:
"In our first year we will set up a Constitution, Democracy & Rights Commission that will examine these issues in depth, and come up with proposals to restore trust in our institutions and in how our democracy operates"
This is where things get really concerning. And that concern is it just mine. I’ve already mentioned the Electoral Reform Society and Liberty but they aren’t the only advocacy groups loosing their shit right now. The Public law project, Human rights consortium of Northern Ireland, Amnesty international to name a few off the top of my head and many others are all speaking in The strongest terms about the threat this set of policies (as well as the brexit bill power grab) post to our democracy.
in 2018 more than 20 human rights organisations signed an open letter warning of the rights implications of the repeal of the charter of fundamental rights.
In 2019, two days before the election over 100 asked each party to reaffirm their commitment to the human rights act. But they knew which party they were really talking to.
Since the new queens speech Johnson has been described as authoritarian and autocratic by mainstream newspapers like the independent and the guardian as well as the condemnation from numerous human rights organisations, parliamentarians , the sort of democracy watchdog - Democracy audit, the electoral reform society to name a few.
The law society of England and Wales have is another body to have expressed deep concern and alarm at these sweeping proposals of what amounts to a constitutional overhaul, an upheaval we really do there at this time where politically the gulf between perceived realities is so vast this is a result of grooming and gaslighting of the public.
Anyone can be manipulated it just has to be the right manipulation for you. This is not judgement of those that have been manipulated but a realistic view, informed by history that what this happens bad things can happen people can commit to a blind loyalty that can justify anything. that people
It’s the over all package that is scary and I will take everyone through the new brexit bill and the power grab contained in it.
With that information about changes to "how our democracy operates" as they brazenly say themselves. It’s similar to what trump has done to normalise the violations of democratic norms. Because if they aren’t hiding it them it must be okay. But they were also hiding it so they had the dual approach of not mentioning It on the campaign trail so those that don’t read the manifesto don’t even know about these proposals causing such alarm. And those that do are manipulated by thus normalisation of what Liberty strikingly calls "wholesale regime change"
"Unlike the Queen’s Speech earlier this year – and bear in mind that was only two months ago – this one was a sign of wholesale regime change.
It sets out what we feared and suspected. We now have a Government seeking to fatten state power while shrinking its accountability."
oh and when you realise these delegated powers for ministers that bypass parliament go by at least different names; delegated powers, statutory instrument (SI), secondary legislation, Henry VIII powers (I’ll get into this more in the Brexit Bill Power Grab video that will be next.
Once all of it isn’t pulled together and in its right context, you realise how much is being done to consolidate power and message with elections by voter suppression and gerrymandering.
The brexit Power Grab is the biggest democratic shift, an unprecedented transfer of power from parliament to the executive in modern history.
There was one article in particular I found quite shocking to read. It’s written by Dr Nadeem Ahmed- Systems Theorist, Research Fellow at the Schumacher institute and a Fellow at the Royal Society of Art.
It is pretty shocking To have the UK government described as "Unabashed authoritarians" by a man who has literally written a book called Failing States, collapsing Systems:Biophysical Triggers of Political Violence.
I’d like to think that this would give anyone pause. I’d love to have faith that they would ask the question; Why would someone that studies full on failed state situations concern themselves with what’s happening in UK democracy if there wasn’t a real problem here?
So that is the Tory manifesto section from page 48 titled "protecting our democracy" that coming from them make me sick. This should at least make everyone a bit more wary of Johnson’s regime.