That sounds like pretty high praise! Are you good at sewing sleeping powder into raisins?
Historian of modern Britain, singer and political nerd. Author of "Yes to Europe! The 1975 Referendum & Seventies Britain". "A jaw-dislocating page turner"(Andrew Marr). Deputy-director @mileendinstitute.bsky.social, Reader @QMHistory
24,553 followers 490 following 2,483 posts
view profile on Bluesky
That sounds like pretty high praise! Are you good at sewing sleeping powder into raisins?
Though that's an example of where the emphasis on "sovereignty" and "democracy" was so effective. Leave campaigners could say "it's not up to us what use we make of Brexit: that's for the democratic decision of the British people. We're simply restoring their ability to make those decisions".
But that doesn't explain why they *only* post on that site.
Exactly. It's the difference between giving interviews to/writing the odd article for The Daily Mail, and saying "we will communicate exclusively through the Daily Mail and no other outlet".
I understand (though I do not accept) the government's case for remaining on X. What is totally indefensible is the *exclusive* presence of many MPs & departments on that site. They are handing a monopoly of key government communications to a site that's increasingly run by & for the radical right
Lee Childs said something similar: he didn't anticipate the fan backlash against Tom Cruise playing a man who's meant to be six-foot-five, because he didn't really think of the show as "Reacher". He saw it as something different, that he could watch with a detached rather than proprietorial interest
The Tories used to excel at identifying cartoon villains, allowing them to attack "loony left" councils or "trade union bosses" without being seen to attack ordinary trade unionists or Labour voters- & which divided Labour itself. Musk will *never* be a friend to Labour. It might as well fight back
This is a tactical, as well as moral, error. Musk is spectacularly unpopular in the UK. There's a chance to take the patriotic high-ground, calling out foreign billionaires stoking up violence in Britain, without being seen to dismiss "ordinary people". And you can challenge Reform to back you.
2. Brexit failed as policy, but it won every electoral battle it faced & was hugely effective at reshaping the Right, redrawing the electoral map & acting as a battering ram for other changes. It's not surprising Farage, Cummings & the Tory Right look back at Brexit & think "that again - but more!"
I suspect there are two problems here: 1.The failure of Brexit makes its proponents more radical, not less. They can't accept it was a mistake, so they have to find new traitors to blame, new barriers to demolish & new powers to amass, to restore the victory of which they think they've been cheated
That could have been the sequel: the darker middle episode of the trilogy, before the Ewoks show up.
Excellent episode, this!
Absolutely socking plot twist away from the book, though, which is going to complicate any sequels. As someone who *hates* being edited, I always wonder whether authors mind when their work is radically rewritten for the screen? I'd go nuts. Maybe that's why Netflix never picked up "Yes to Europe"
Am thoroughly enjoying "The Thursday Murder Club", but Pierce Brosnan's accent has more bends than a country railway.
"If Conservatism turns its back on the climate question, it will be a dereliction of the Conservative tradition & those who claim to represent it." As Kemi Badenoch prepares to do just that, here's a piece I wrote on Conservative environmentalism from Burke to Thatcher. unherd.com/2023/08/how-...
This is insane. Every environmental indicator is flashing red, and Badenoch's response is just to give up and burn everything while we still can. Badenoch once said "I'm a conservative, not an arsonist". Yet when the challenge is to conserve the planet, it's "burn, baby, burn".
Richard Tice consistently claims to be standing up for "Christian values", on the basis that "we are a Christian nation". If that's your pitch, you can't just tell the Bishops to shut up when they criticise your policies.
Thanks for replying - I do appreciate that. This seems odd, since I've not been Labour since 2015 and have criticised authoritarianism on the left under both Corbyn & Starmer. But if you're casting *anyone* who's Labour or Conservative as "authoritarian", you may be a touch authoritarian yourself.
Yes, I was pleased about that!
Good piece by Rowan Williams, pointing out that refugees are also "ordinary people" and that pride in your country should be "more than a sullen self-congratulation for just being where you are". www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...
It passes the time, but the script is pretty dire and the plot has more holes in than my wardrobe. The cast are good, but deserved better materials to work with.
I don't know enough about Italy, but on the UK: I think there's a reckless, Jacobin streak on the Right that is grotesquely complacent about the risks of throwing petrol around, & chunks of the media that think it makes great TV.It's less a desire for a crisis than complacency about what crises mean
Thanks for replying. I'm not sure what that conversation was, as I opposed Brexit and haven't voted Labour since 2015, but leaving that aside: what's the "authoritarian" bit?
It's a bit of a dud, despite the strong cast.
There's clearly a gap in the market for a well-paid "constitutional advisor" for political dramas.
Stuart - I'm intrigued to see that I'm on your list of "Labour Brexit Authoritarians". May I ask in what respect I'm a "Brexit Authoritarian"? I'm genuinely interested. (I'm not a member of the Labour Party, but that's a less interesting point).
It's always a bit puzzling when someone replies to you, then blocks you so you can't see what they said...
It's not the worst thing about "Hostage", but its understanding of the British constitution is all over the place.
In theory, though it's a rather murky area of canon law and in practice doesn't really happen.
There's been no formal veto since 1708, though monarchs sometimes forbade their cabinets to bring measures forward. No one really knows what would happen if a monarch withheld assent today, because it's so long since it's been tested.
Does any human institution? We'll find plenty of "abuse, cover-ups and enrichment" in nations, parties, charities, trade unions, the left and the right. But we'll also find people straining towards the light. If you'll only accept allies from perfect institutions, it's going to be a lonely fight.
If "mass unrest" ever happens, that will be an important news story. But this fevered speculation every week on what *might* happen is downright irresponsible. It's misleading, it's fear-mongering & it makes the press look like an apocalyptic cult, gathering every Friday for the end of the world.
If a politician, writer or musician spoke out against Farage, would you post a picture of Lloyd George, Wells or Strauss & say "you can't rely on politicians/writers/musicians"? We can't "rely on" any group - we're human. But we can be glad when we find the courage of a Niemoller, Delp or Bonhoffer
He's said repeatedly that he would leave without compensation if the club asked, so no, I don't think he's greedy. He's just a *very* heart-on-sleeve kind of guy.
He's a heart-on-sleeve guy, but there's a basic point about professionalism here (and about the privilege of that job). If I sat in seminars saying "sometimes I hate my students, & think about jacking it in", while their results plunged, I think my employer (and the students) would Have Thoughts.
Sorry to bang on, but I don't see how this is sustainable. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/footba...
I'm not sure that's true. Different churches have played a variety of roles - and this bishop, for example, has been very active in promoting reconciliation, dialogue & cross-community support between those affected in Oxford. It's partly why he's so critical of those who want to stir up hatred.
It may be partly because I come at this as a historian, rather than as a political scientist. Terms like "far left" and "far right" don't really make sense before the 20th century, yet lots of the things that we see in Reform UK are very familiar from earlier forms of "radical" politics.
I find "radical right" a more useful term for parties like Reform (which I know horrifies some of my colleagues!) The issue isn't how far the party is from an imagined "centre" - another concept I find unhelpful - but its "radicalism" (from "radex", or "root") on institutions, norms and obligations
Naturally, Farage has called the bishops "out of touch". (Not with God, presumably - he cheerfully admits to having no "deep religious convictions"). But the Church exists to challenge, not echo secular values. And the case for Christianity is certainly not that it made this or any country "great"
The radical right in Britain increasingly claims to represent "Christian values" & "Christian civilisation" - though its leaders rarely go to church or pretend to believe anything. It's especially important that Christian leaders speak out against this, as it's their tradition that's being claimed.
A problem is that doing nothing doesn't maintain "traditional constitutional norms". FPTP doesn't work the same way if vote-splintering produces landslides on 34%. Royal Prerogatives work differently when the Crown is absorbed by the Executive. Hence the Whig call to "Reform, that you may preserve".
Absolutely. I tried to make this point in a piece on the Gary Lineker controversy in 2023, asking "(How) do we talk about fascism?" gladstonediaries.blogspot.com/2023/03/how-...
I'd add that the right have started adopting the US strategy of claiming to represent "Christian values" & "Christian civilization", while cheerfully admitting that they don't go to church or believe anything. It's important that Christian leaders speak out when it's their tradition being claimed.
I suspect quite a lot of people think there actually *was* a "surge of protest" across the UK last weekend, given the tone of much of the reporting.
It's possible, but we're in big trouble if saving the day relies on "one person, with no democratic authority, who might be inept, corrupt or Prince Andrew", & whose institutional interest will always be to avoid political controversy. Cf royal silence over prorogation ukandeu.ac.uk/the-monarchy...
Just removed the date label from an old book and discovered that someone has drawn a design for a teapot that can serve either tea or poison how's your day going?
That made me laugh! Me and Magna Carta, we go way back...
"What Nigel Farage needs is a big majority after the next election and then he can do whatever he wants". The dangers of the UK system in a nutshell - especially when "big majorities" can be won on 34% of the vote.
It may be that the Trump presidency reminds people of the dangers of untrammelled power - but that's only going to happen if politicians, journalists & opinion formers actively make that case. If we keep pretending the problem is that there are *too many* constraints on govt, we really are doomed.
The culture of constitutionalism drew on a visceral sense of the alternative: Napoleon III/the Kaiser, fascism/communism... I suspect some of our problems are about their fading resonance - or recasting as things "we" defeated. Nazism has become less a warning than a source of self-congratulation.
We don't really have that understanding at present, but it would need to take account of the machinery of government (what happens when ministers pull levers), the way parties worked, changing media cultures and above all - as you've consistently argued - a culture of "constitutionalism".
As I wrote here, I don't think the "Good Chaps" theory holds much water. If it was ever widely believed, it was for a fairly short window in the 50s/60s. So we need a better understanding of the other cultural & institutional forces that limited overreach. www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/378...
As you say, thinkers have warned for 100 years of the dangers of parliamentary sovereignty. So it's also worth thinking about why their worst fears have not *yet* been realised: not as a source of complacency but to understand which constraints worked, which are eroding & which most need rebuilding
The doctrine of unlimited parliamentary sovereignty wasn't designed for an age in which a single party, elected on a minority of the vote, could exert total control over the Commons, wield all the powers of the Royal Prerogative & override the Lords, while legislating at pace on any possible subject
I'd add that what "unlimited parliamentary supremacy" means in practice has changed over time. The idea emerged in an era when there were two chambers with near-equal powers, party discipline was weak, the scope of legislation was less extensive & passing major legislation was genuinely hard. [...]
A courteous but very impressive rebuke to Nigel Farage from the Bishop of Oxford. "I heard no compassion in what you said...". "I disagree profoundly with your attempts to ... increase fear of the stranger in our communities". Do read. blogs.oxford.anglican.org/an-open-lett...
guys I'm going to need you to be very gentle with me and NOT make fun of me today, I would say roughly three minutes ago, I found out that Justin Webb and Justin Welby are in fact two different people kept seeing posts and wondering why the former Archbishop kept popping up on the Today programme
Though he's said repeatedly that he would leave without compensation if the club wanted him to go. This is partly what I mean by his tendency to talk regularly about leaving.
I don't think it's ideal to have a manager keep hinting that he might resign, either. I kind of respect the humility, but there's an obvious problem when the guy himself keeps musing that he might not be able to fix this, that the board might want to make a change, and that he might be the issue.
This was almost the worst part of last night's debacle: Amorim hiding in the dugout during the penalty shoot-out. I get that penalties are stressful &the manager isn't taking the kicks. But surely you have to show some leadership? What does it say to the players if even the boss can't bear to look?
Yes, there seem to be a lot of people on here who don't like John Stuart Mill.
Yes, that's been quite the fall!
💯 Debating whether a period was one of "decline" - asking "for whom" & "on what metrics" - is a long-standing form of historical argument. (See also postwar GB). What's sad is the foot-stamping assumption that, if others think differently, that's proof of a discipline "pursuing falsehood over truth"
If we can have a "polycrisis", we can have a "poly-resurgence", in which a modern Gladstone captains Manchester United to the title, after a team-talk inspired by John Stuart Mill, before leading a pro-European campaign in the country, prompting a respectful congratulatory debate in Parliament...
It's fine to disagree over what we call periods. I oppose calling the modern era an "age of neoliberalism". But we don't have to trash the motives of those we disagree with or cast whole fields as vaccine denialists who don't care about truth. Too much argument today relies on this casual smearing
This is a bit silly. Debating what labels we apply to periods (& all ages contain multitudes) is hardly akin to vaccine denial. Few reputable medievalists, who know more about the period than you or I, use the term. By all means disagree,but it doesn't make them woke warriors who want "kudos" online
The vast majority of Reform supporters observed COVID restrictions. (Reform's electorate & the online right are not the same thing). Those who didn't had to convince themselves that the regulations themselves were unlawful (a breach of "Magna Carta" or "Common Law").I made no claim about inequality.
This has been a rough decade to be a supporter of parliamentary democracy, liberalism, membership of the EU and Manchester United.
There is, unfortunately, a long association between democracy and dictatorship. The idea that democracy is a "liberal" form of rule is a comparatively modern idea.
It's worth noting that turnout in Scotland in 2016 was the second lowest in the UK. Ironically, the fact that it was clear Scotland would vote to Remain seems to have reduced interest in maximising turnout: the goal was more to reject Tory Euroscepticism than to keep the UK in the EU.
Indeed - & that's one of the many dangers of authoritarian democracy. But it's striking that even Trump has to frame this as *defending* the integrity of elections. That claim is false, but it matters: he's not telling supporters that he's rigging the system, but that he's stopping others rigging it
Labour Home has published my thoughts on Braverman’s plans (probably also Farage’s plans) to quit the ECHR. They won’t work and will harm, not help, the UK’s ability to enforce its immigration policy (as well as trashing other cooperation with our neighbours). www.labourhome.co.uk/the_first_ti...
Strongly agree with this: "a defence of the ECHR has to be about more than the difficulties of leaving. Rather, a positive case has to be made". I'm amazed at how many people resist this, and claim that even to engage in the argument is to concede something that should be above debate.
"One might think that the very serious economic implications of that might trouble a body calling itself the Prosperity Institute, were one not aware that it is in fact a deeply ideological pro-Brexit knitting circle". 🔥🔥🔥!
I thought at the time that 2015 was the most consequential election of my lifetime. And I still think that holds.
That varies by country, but it's often more about how they think representatives should behave than an opposition to the principle. So it was possible, in 2019, to make a highly successful claim that "Parliament" was acting "undemocratically", but that didn't translate into a desire to abolish it.
It would be intriguing to see the sales figures for EU flags and - in particular - EU wristbands for the year before and after the vote! There was an "anti-Tory-Brexit" movement before 2016, but a "pro-EU" movement only really emerged after the referendum.
Indeed. Populists can point to quite a lot of electoral evidence for their claim to speak for "the people", "ordinary people" or "the silent majority". The challenge to "liberal democracy" is "illiberal" or "authoritarian democracy", rather than anti-democratic ideologies.
We don't disagree on that.
The mechanism is actually very simple: you just pass a vote of No Confidence. All the paraphernalia of "letters in" and so on is just a mechanism to avoid the embarrassment of doing that. But internal rules - like a Tory leader being "safe from challenge" for a year - have no standing in Parliament.
Just to pick up on one of your points here: looking back at the 2016 campaign and the context in which it happened, the remarkable thing is that 48% still voted to Remain. For obvious reasons, there's been less attention to that, but this is perhaps what most needs explanation.
I'm not disputing your point that these things can be done. But there's a risk we get distracted from the dreadful things Reform really will do by envisaging things they won't. And I suspect telling voters that Reform will abolish elections (which I know wasn't your claim) will be counterproductive.
I do think there's a danger that we misunderstand the Reform vote. These are people who are highly suspicious of "elites" and think "politicians" are trying to "steal" their democracy. Saying "give MPs unlimited power to suspend elections" is a particularly problematic argument for this cohort.[...]
I honestly don't think this is a plausible scenario. But a party's own rules are irrelevant to MPs' ability to remove a prime minister: whatever their party, a PM must retain the confidence of the House. "Letters in" etc have no constitutional status - they're just internal party arrangements.
Respectfully, no it isn't already happening. There was a lot of guff about how Sunak was going to cancel the election in 2024 and it was all nonsense. There's enough to concern us that is actually happening without indulging this kind of conspiratorialism.
Ah! A Commons majority could certainly amend the powers of the Lords or abolish it altogether (something many on here say they want). Though I suspect the question of "how would we stop a future govt suspending elections" would become important in a campaign, & that a party would need an answer.
The Salisbury Convention is irrelevant here. The question is why the electoral tide would be in favour of suspending general elections. There's no evidence that Reform voters support that - indeed, they may be more hostile to such things than some other cohorts.
Ironically, of course, the difficulty of extending the life of a parliament became quite a significant problem just a few years later, during the First World War, and was quite an important driver of the 1918 Representation of the People Act!
I think an explicit manifesto commitment to make it easier to suspend elections would go down pretty badly - including, for the reasons suggested, among those otherwise attracted to Reform.
So while I have no doubt that a Reform government would be bad for "liberal democracy" - in ways that really do matter - it would need to be able to present its actions to its own supporters as a defence of democracy, not a suspension or subversion of it. That does impose some important constraints.
Reform/Trump voters also tend to believe quite strongly in the importance of rules: that's why Farage & co talk so much about "illegals", "criminals", "cheats" & "gaming the system". So again, when it comes to "the rule of law" they tend to see *themselves* as upholding it against elite manipulation
We should remember that Reform voters tend to think of themselves as the *real* democrats, & that's important in understanding their politics. There's a lot of survey data on this: the complaint against the EU, judges, "elites" & civil servants is precisely that *they* are obstructing democracy. ...
The Salisbury Convention would be irrelevant in this case: the Parliament Act explicitly reserves to the Lords a full veto power over extending the life of a Parliament. (In any case, as @davidallengreen.bsky.social would remind us, the Salisbury convention is *only* a convention). In any case...
I think the third point, in particular, is being underdiscussed at present: what the House of Lords Constitution Committee called the "breathtaking" powers vested in ministers by a variety of skeleton bills and Henry VIII clauses. These urgently need rolling back.
Granted there are lots of problems with United's squad, esp. midfield: surely a manager has to find the best formation for the players at their disposal? Taking out a defender, adding a second midfielder & letting Bruno/Mount roam free surely better than having Case overrun & Bruno out of position.
I think we're some way off that. Indeed, I suspect there would be extensive protests against Reform (re-opening an old dilemma for Labour). But the polarisation of opinion, & the representation of opponents as anti-democrats who won't accept an election result, can also work to populists' advantage.
I'd add that populist movements can draw strength from their own policy failures. Politically, Reform doesn't actually "need" to solve the asylum issue (hardly anyone knows the exact numbers anyway). It can profit just by projecting toughness, provoking liberal anger & shifting blame to lawyers.
Though the fact that Trump 1.0 happened means that it's available to learn from - which is why Trump himself is so much more effective this time around. As others have noted, parliamentary sovereignty & executive power-grabs mean a Reform govt would face fewer institutional constraints than Trump 1.
