Look Out for Warning Signs

Tory politicians are covertly and gradually pushing Britain’s culture to the right

Across the world there has been a shift to the right, modest in some countries, more pronounced in others. It has been most obvious in Britain and the United States, but is definitely noticeable in both Poland and Hungary, and now seems almost normal in India.

For many people, it may appear that politics is the same as usual, just a little more outspoken, a bit more blunt in the language used, and somewhat unsteady in deciding on policy. We have a tendency to assume that life, politics, and the character of our country will carry on into the future as it has always been. But history, even recent history, is filled with examples of countries that suddenly changed direction, often, much to the regret of the majority of the population. Under the new order, outspokenness is sometimes followed by harassment, threats or even violence. We have learned that in Putin’s new Russia, even holding up a piece of blank paper is an arrestable offence.

What we see in Britain looks suspiciously like the first stages of some new order. A few right-wing politicians act in total disregard for the customs, traditions, conventions and rules of civilised behaviour, of common decency. Boris Johnson may not have broken a lot of the rules and principles in Erskine May’s Parliamentary Procedure, but there is also The Ministerial Code, and the Nolan Principles on Standards in Public Life. Boris treats all of these with equal indifference. Boris is not happy with regulators watching and monitoring his behaviour. He, like many politicians of a certain sort, want to act with impunity, but without control. And this is a dangerous combination. The mere fact that a person in power wants to be able to act without any limitations on his or her actions is cause for concern. And given that most of those actions will be harmful to the average person, there is good reason to be very worried indeed.

We have moved discreetly from a benevolent democracy, focused on the well-being of its citizens, and run according to established rules, backed up by full accountability, to a facade democracy, in which elections are tilted heavily in favour of the rich and powerful. This article is focused primarily on Great Britain but the arguments also apply to the United States, Australia and several other countries.

The crucial factor in creating this shift is confidence: those in power project confidence, strengthened by the knowledge that certain elements of the mass media will report the speech, claim or policy with the most positive spin possible. As a result, many voters will believe that politicians know what they are doing, and are taking the best course of action. Voters assume that their elected representatives have a meaningful understanding of the issues. And this is the first warning sign when our political leaders imply they have the ability to make difficult decisions on complex matters, because they have had a “good education,” or are “following the science.” We need to watch their decision-making very carefully because often they are choosing policy on the basis of what are in reality, opinions; they are not making judgements on the basis of knowledge and expertise.

Another warning sign is when our rulers blatantly ignore the advice of the experts that they themselves have put in place as evidence that their policies are the correct ones. They use the experts almost as a badge of honour, and then dump them when government policy has achieved a sufficiently widespread acceptance of the official line. Having said, “follow the science,” repeatedly, they can carry on using the phrase, but not bother about actually doing what it indicates.

At a press conference in May 2020, journalists wanted to ask Patrick Vallance, the government’s chief scientific adviser, and Chris Whitty, England’s chief medical officer, if Dominic Cummings had breached lockdown in driving to Durham Castle. Twice, Boris Johnson interrupted the questions to put his view of the matter, as if he was the sole source of the truth about Cummings’ legal position. Boris said he would not allow Vallance or Whitty to answer questions on Cummings’ actions, as this would be forcing them to comment on political issues. In fact, whether or not Cummings had breached the lockdown was not a political question, although it did have political implications. The rules were clear and Vallance and Whitty knew just as much about whether or not the rules have been broken as Boris. It is more likely that Boris didn’t want journalists to hear an honest answer.

What politicians say can be extremely powerful. In April 1968, a Conservative politician named Enoch Powell made what became known as his “rivers of blood” speech. Quoting Virgil’s Aeneid, Powell said, “I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see ‘the River Tiber foaming with much blood.’” He was worried about immigrants, who he believed should be sent “home.” If not, “in 15 or 20 years’ time, the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.” It is now 54 years later, and Powell’s “prophesy” seems melodramatic, if not deranged.

Quoting Virgil is another example of a right-wing politician wanting to present contemporary issues in terms of events in ancient Greece or ancient Rome. For Britain’s Conservatives, a classical quotation gives their argument authority and prestige. For this author, it raises the question of whether the Tories are in touch with the century they live in.

It is disturbing that they feel no need to be in touch with the issues of the twenty-first century, and certainly no need to understand those issues. They have advisers to tell them the pros and cons of the various possible solutions to contemporary problems, so perhaps politicians generally believe that they can listen to the experts, and drawing on the wisdom of their classical education, divine the correct solution. Having read Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars, Etonians not only know that Gaul was divided into three parts, they also have the confidence to decide how a state education system should be structured, how it should be managed, and what the syllabus should include.

But the more important message is that words can lead to action. Powell may not have been aware of the link between words and violence, but some modern politicians, especially in the Conservative Party, are made of sterner, if not fiercer stuff. Johnson, speaking in the House of Commons, accused Keir Starmer of failing to prosecute Jimmy Savile. This was incorrect, as the question of charging Savile had been decided before Starmer took up the post of Director of Public Prosecutions. And Boris’s accusation was not a spur of the moment whim; he had discussed it with his advisors, and they had warned him not to do it.

Given the divisiveness that has been stirred up since 2010 by Tory governments, and the active encouragement for right-thinking citizens to judge miscreants and nonconformists harshly, it was unsurprising that a backlash occurred. Starmer was lucky it was not violent. But one has to ask, did Boris realise that there could have been a much harsher reaction?

And did he ignore the opinions of his advisors, which must have included the possibility of violence, given the public hostility to Savile’s crimes. Anyone who makes incendiary statements, knowing that they could lead to assaults, or worse, is placing their own well-being above the physical safety of others. Boris is not renowned for his compassion, his integrity or his concern for the welfare of anyone who is not Boris Johnson. The blond waffler is known for his considerable self-interest, and his willingness to say absolutely anything to distract attention from the latest accusation, allegation or scandal.

The danger is that as Boris’s gaffes become increasingly offensive, the shock value of his attacks must also become more extreme. As he takes his invulnerability for granted, his blunders may become unacceptable to the electorate, so his dramatic outbursts must be more outrageous in order to distract attention. They may become divisive, even entering the realm of incitement. Johnson may not be concerned with whether or not the target of his camouflaged distraction is harmed. He can not only reply with slightly plausible excuses, but as is often the case, with a change of subject, such as a dramatic new policy, for example, when he suggests the privatisation of the BBC or Channel 4.

Throwing Starmer under a bus - metaphorically - would be well within Boris’s acceptable range of mischief. Starmer is lucky that Johnson did not do so literally.

But the blond waffler has a tendency to go to far, to be a little bit too outspoken, to push the boundaries of truth, decency, the rules of parliament and the law of the land, just a little bit too far. But what is most worrying is when a politician pushes their own agenda and ignores what the voters want. With Boris, we have already reached that stage. Brexit was sold to the public as an issue of sovereignty and a bureaucratic EU. The nation was promised prosperity, self-determination and trade agreements that would open up a new golden age. What we got was bureaucracy at the borders and labour shortages in everything from farming to the NHS.

Britain is in a brief interregnum between facade democracy and authoritarian rule. We need to act now before it becomes too late.