Heroes: ‘Senatus Populus Que Romanus'(1) 

 

‘Segregation, determination, demonstration, integration 

Aggravation, humiliation, obligation to our nation’ 

 

It’s easy to tell when a populist politician is in trouble, they resort to citing ‘the will of the people’.  

 
Only two weeks ago Sunak, in a desperate attempt to save his Rwanda madness, challenged the House of Lords to accept ‘the will of the people‘ and to pass the bill unamended. 

Sunak, is by modern British standards, a very right-wing PM. Unlike Truss, he was a believer in Brexit from the very start. He was not an apostle of Boris Johnson’s levelling-up. He has weakened environmental targets, and during the pandemic he was a lockdown-sceptics. His asylum policy is so hardline that even Theresa May has qualms. He clearly believes in cutting taxes, and will do so whenever the time is ‘right’, most likely just before the election! 

However, citing this is all well and good, but there must then be a clear majority, that is over 50.1%, behind it.  
 

‘His asylum policy is so hardline that even Theresa May has qualms’

 
If we consider the electoral system in the UK, the country is split into constituencies, each one elects an MP to represent them. More often than not that MP, whilst polling the most votes, rarely has an actual majority, I.E., 50.1%+ of the vote. 

The Tories best highest share of the vote post WW2 was 49.7% in 1955.⁽²⁾ 

Labour highest share of the vote post WW2was 48.8% in 1951, when the Conservatives won the most seats despite polling fewer votes. ⁽²⁾ 

The Labour position in 1951 sums up how undemocratic the UK electoral system is; more people voted Labour than Tory, yet the Tories won the most seats and formed a government. 

As such there is no statistical evidence that supports UK politicians citing the will of the people, if we exclude referendums. 

The latter, of course, are much loved by populist fascist dictators. Dear old Uncle Adolf loved them, who can forget Anschluss referendum held in German-occupied Austria in 1938; the official result was reported as 99.73% in favour, with a 99.71% turnout. Puts ‘vote leave’ to shame! 

When populist politicians resort to ‘the will of the people’, it is because they wish to override the constitution, treaties or the separation of powers. For any healthy democracy the judges must be free to decide prevail. ‘If politicians are able to break or bend fundamental legal principles to suit the mood of the moment, the future of freedom and human rights is in danger‘. 
 

‘When populist politicians resort to ‘the will of the people’, it is because they wish to override the constitution, treaties or the separation of powers’

 
In the US, the supreme court will soon rule on whether Trump should be allowed to run again for president after having encouraged and condoned the storming of the Capitol in a violent attempt to prevent Congress certifying the election of Joe Biden as his successor. Two states, Colorado and Maine, have barred him from the ballot. 

The 14th amendment of the constitution, adopted right after the civil war, states that no person shall ‘hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath (…) to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof‘. 

Reading the amendment it is hard to see any other verdict than guilty, however supreme court appointments are made by the president, and Trump, during his presidency, loading the deck in his favour. 

There are also fears that denying the GOP clear favourite the opportunity to run again would ignite a firestorm of outrage among his supporters, and perhaps a wider sense of a denial of democracy. In many ways it would be preferable for trump to be defeated at the polls rather than sitting on the sidelines inciting hatred. 

There was a similar issue in the UK, when the high court ruled in 2016 that even after the Brexit referendum, the government still required the assent of parliament to give notice of Britain’s intention to leave the EU. The Daily Mail infamously branded those judges ‘enemies of the people‘. In 2019, the supreme court overruled Boris Johnson’s proroguing of parliament, and more recently it ruled unanimously that Rwanda was not a safe country to send people seeking asylum in Britain. Each time, populist politicians denounced what they call ‘rule by judges‘ and vowed to find ways to limit their powers. 

Whilst it may be politically inconvenient for a government, or a parliament, to be thwarted by judges for acting illegally or unconstitutionally, it is an essential safeguard of our democracy that those rulings be respected and implemented faithfully. 

While Britain lacks a written constitution and is governed by a mixture of laws and informal conventions, its courts are bound to uphold the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the UK is a founding signatory, and the jurisprudence of the European court of human rights that derives from it. 

There have been similar examples of this in recent years in France, Germany, Israel and Poland. Only in Germany was the initiative not at the behest of right-wing politicians. 

The situation in Poland best highlighted how fascist governments misuse power, when  a democratically elected nationalist government defied the EU to dismantle the independence of the judiciary by packing the constitutional court and prosecutors’ offices with loyalists and creating a politically controlled body to discipline judges for their rulings. Now a pro-European government is trying to reverse the damage wrought by its predecessors, but faces accusations of violating the rule of law itself by ignoring the packed court’s rulings. 

Speaking of dictatorships, at the end of the editorial to ‘DEUTSCHLAND, DEUTSCHLAND….OH NOT AGAIN, SURELY!, I made a mistake, saying that we could, ‘in relatively short order, see the globe dominated by three dictatorships; Putin’s Russia, Zi’s China, and Trump’s America‘. I should have cast my eyes towards the Gulf, and included Iran.  

A new player in the Gulf, at least to my limited knowledge are the Yemen based, Iranian backed, Houthis? 

Recent attacks on them by the US have, as President Biden admits, not delivered, but he he seems determined to continue them. 

His logic is simple; if the US and its allies do not deal with the Houthis and their Iranian backers, their attacks on vessels in the Red Sea will continue. In addition, there was the attack in Jordan last weekend which killed three US soldiers and injured dozens more. Reports suggest that the attacks were the work of Islamic Resistance in Iraq, a loose coalition of Iranian-backed militias. Tehran has denied involvement, but Biden blames ‘Iran-backed’ groups and vowed to respond. 

It is no secret that Iran’s long-held goal has been to drive American troops out of their bases in Iraq, Syria and the Gulf, and ultimately end the US presence in a region Tehran seeks to dominate. The appalling acts by Hamas, and Israel’s US-backed response have afforded them an opportunity to advance that objective. 

It is easy for political opponents such as Trump, to claim that Biden has been weak in responding to previous attacks and, through nuclear-related talks and a recent prisoner swap, I viewed as appeasing Iran. 

‘He left our troops as sitting ducks,’ said the Republican senator Tom Cotton, speaking for many on the right. ‘The only answer … must be devastating military retaliation against Iran’s terrorist forces, both in Iran and across the Middle East.’ 

But, American military retaliation against Iran itself would be a disaster, prolonging the Gaza conflict, and possible triggering an all-out Hezbollah attack on Israel. Instead of a localised conflict, it could destabilise the entire region. 
 

‘Instead of a localised conflict, it could destabilise the entire region’

 
Internationally, it would likely divide the western democracies between those, such as the UK, that would back Washington, and those, such as France, Germany and Italy, that might sensibly prioritise renewed diplomatic outreach to Tehran. Furthermore, It could encourage China in furthering its anti-democratic geopolitical ambitions and Russia in justifying its aggression in Ukraine. 

For the president, in an election year it is a catch-22 situation; domestically he cannot be seen to be weak, whilst he will want to avoid the kind of escalation that will see gas prices soar, still more a direct clash with Tehran. However, retaliatory actions will not take the US or the region where Biden wants it to go. Equally, if the US strikes directly against Iran, they will likely feel obliged to retaliate – almost certainly via proxies – to shore up or advance its position and undermine America’s. 

Both Washington and Tehran say they are not looking for war. However, the increasing number of rocket and drone attacks by Iranian‑backed groups in recent months, meant there was an inevitability that US personnel were going to be hit. What seems unclear is the immediate objectives of Iran. The Houthis and Islamic Resistance in Iraq pursue their own interests as well as Iran’s. The biggest concern is that the current gradual and apparently containable escalation suddenly gathers pace. 

US hopes of the situation in Gaza being localised haven’t been realised, with Jordan the latest country to be drawn in. Whilst the situation in Gaza remains unresolved the situation will likely only degenerate further. 
 

‘sometimes words and listening achieve more than the gun’

 
More than 26,600 have been killed in Gaza, according to the health ministry, and survivors are in desperate need. Despite this, the US, UK and 8-other countries have withdrawn funding from the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees following Israel’s allegations that 12 employees participated in the Hamas atrocities of 7 October. 

The UN is investigating these claims, but withdrawing support leaves the accused guilty until proven innocent. Even then the UN agency employs only 13,000 people in Gaza attempting to support C. 2 million. The UN special rapporteur on food has warned that famine is now ‘imminent’ and ‘inevitable’. 

As is always the case in this part of the world nothing is simple. But, when you have such dogmatic countries all trying to dominate, many unwilling to live and let live, that cannot be a surprise. 

Whatever the President might wish for, attacking Iran would not achieve the fundamental twin objectives of protecting western security and changing the mullahs’ behaviour. It is more likely to backfire by accelerating the escalatory spiral. 

Perhaps something more considered is required, such as addressing the root causes. To start the US should demand a halt to Israel’s bombardment of Gaza, enforce a ceasefire that frees the Israeli hostages, and then bring the parties to the negotiating table to create a two-state solution in Palestine. 

Like it or not, the US is the world’s policeman, sometimes words and listening achieve more than the gun.

 
 

‘A love for each other will bring fighting to an end 

Forgiving one another, time after time doubt creeps in’ 

 
Notes: 

1. The Senate and the People of Rome. 
2. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7529/CBP-7529.pdf 

 
Wow, is it me, or is the world feeling a very dangerous place; maybe that’s why the mega rich are considering taking that ‘one small step’ to finding that the moon is actually just a big bunker.

But surely it shouldn’t be beyond the wit of man to stop beating lumps out of each other, and stop greedy bastards boiling our polar bears; it’s not difficult is it – ‘no, I’m sorry (insert name of greedy bastard here) we’re not going to give you free rein to destroy our planet to stuff your chops, so if you don’t fancy being part of the quest to save our children’s planet, best you do one’.

However, we should never underestimate the difficulty of uttering such pronouncements when your mouth is crammed with Grand Cru and Sturgeon eggs, and you’ve got tickets to the RWC final.

So what is Philip’s take? (as you may expect, it’s from the heart!):

This week we start by viewing fascisms / populisms’ last bastion of hope; “the will of the people”.

In truth it’s utter rubbish, it’s their will, what they want, and what they try to browbeat, and seduce others into wanting.

Having, to date, largely ignored the situation in Gaza, I have decided to look at how it might escalate. I still don’t see any good guys, but some are marginally less worse than others. Despite this, the ME remains a powder keg that needs to be diffused. Quite how this is achieved with such divisive attitudes, and total intolerance of each other, I leave to others!

This week saw the reappearance of Dame Andrea Leadsom who is always good for a laugh.

When asked what the successes of Brexit were, Leadsom told LBC News: “I’m hugely delighted at Brexit. We have our sovereignty back, we’re in control of our money, laws and borders. The NHS has considerably more than £350m a week and we’ve signed up to 70 trade deals.”

A full list of our trade deals can be found at:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/uk-trade-agreements-in-effect

As you will see, impressive isn’t the adjective that springs to mind!

“Sovereignty”, I love this one! It’s just so wonderfully pointless. The ultimate refuge of little Englanders.

“The NHS has considerably more than £350m a week”. Really? That’s over £17bn p.a. of extra funding. I have heard some rubbish over the years, but this is right up there. Does she think we are stupid?

What is truly amazing is that on the same day, a group of leading doctors and NHS leaders said that the NHS is in such a dire state that the next government should declare it a national emergency.

New figures show that since 2020 more than 200,000 people in England have not received potentially life-saving surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy within the NHS’s supposed maximum 62-day wait.

Prof Pat Price, a leading NHS oncologist who helped analyse NHS cancer care data, said that the UK was facing “the deepest cancer crisis” of her 30-year career treating cancer patients.

I listened to Dame Andrea lauding the government achievements in improving the NHS with utter astonishment.

I have considerable more trust in the comments from A&E doctors, who claimed that a government plan launched a year ago to relieve the strain on overcrowded emergency departments had made no difference. A&E remains in “permacrisis” while care in units is “as unsafe, or more unsafe, than at this time last year”, despite Rishi Sunak hailing his “ambitious and credible plan to fix it”.

Lastly, there is the Post Office Horizon scandal which just goes from bad to worse.

You may recollect that some weeks ago, Rishi, briefly rose from his slumber, promising to move heaven and earth to right the wrongs.

Well we have now seen just what he meant, a figure of C. one sixth of what Alan Bates requested. He described the package thus: “Full and fair’ might be his majesty’s government’s interpretation, but in reality the offer is derisory, offensive and after all this time, yes, cruel,” he told the Telegraph. “I will absolutely be turning this offer for financial redress down.”

In short, Alan plans to go back to court, and I wish him every success.

It rather looks like the Post Office knew such a derisory offer was the likely outcome, as they reduced by almost half the amount set aside for payments. Their annual results covering the year to the end of March show that it was now holding £244m for compensation payments related to overturned convictions, down from £487m a year ago, after 38% of appeals against convictions were either turned down, withdrawn or unsuccessful.

However, it isn’t all bad news; since 2013, they have managed to set aside C. £2bn for shareholders , equivalent to 60% of its profits after tax. Says Chris Hayes at Common Wealth: “Since privatisation, Royal Mail has been slowly bleeding cash to shareholders, while service quality has palpably deteriorated. Shareholders had never been necessary to Royal Mail’s viability prior to privatisation and have been jeopardising it since.”  

You see its simple; “the will of the people” is meaningless. A much more apt summary of this country can be found in the words of Alfie Solomons in S.4 of “Peaky Blinders”;  “Big fucks small always, actually. There is a fight going on out there between big and small. Big will fuck small.”

Lyrically, this week it’s Motown. We start with “Ball of Confusion” by The Temptations, and end with “Stoned Love” by the Supremes. Enjoy!

 
@coldwarsteve
 

Philip Gilbert is a city-based corporate financier, and former investment banker.

Philip is a great believer in meritocracy, and in the belief that if you want something enough you can make it happen. These beliefs were formed in his formative years, of the late 1970s and 80s

Click on the link to see all Brexit Bulletins: