Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Jacob]

I hate any hint of fascism creeping into our country. Yes, that is certainly true. 

I'd certainly take a Liberal government over Fascism.

I'd also take a Conservative government over Fascism, if it was the Liberals who were careening into the arms of Fascists.

Though, historically, the rise of Fascists and right wing dictators appear to have been enabled by conservatives and national conservatives in most of the examples I'm familiar with.

[Barrister]

Though, historically, the rise of Fascists and right wing dictators appear to have been enabled by conservatives and national conservatives in most of the examples I'm familiar with.

That's pretty much a matter of definition though isn't it?

There's no shortage of left-wing authoritarians and dictators around the world and throughout history, from Chavez, Castro, Mugabe, Mao, Stalin and the like.  They may often share a number of characteristics with ring-wing dictators and authoritarians (so-called "horseshoe theory".)

But because they're from the left they would get called socialists or communists, and never fascists.

I've long ago given up on the "but the Nazis were really left-wingers - their name was even National Socialists".  It carries too much of an element of "no true Scotsmen"-type analysis, and ignores the historical fact that Mussolini and Hitler were broadly creatures of the political right (even though Mussolini's early days were as a socialist).

But don't make the mistake of thinking that makes the political left nothing but virtuous and pure.

[Sheilbh]

I think it sounds like the Met was playing fast and loose with Operation Assure/Onyx. Rowley was trying to clean up the force however he could without the government giving him proper powers to do so. I think he's whining now to try to jar them into action.

It feels to me like they did a messy job of trying to line him up for departure. I started reading part of the judgment and it looks like there were numerous mistakes/errors in the process - including in the facts relied on for removing his vetting.  Repeatedly the allegations that were made against him were not substantiated and/or dropped by CPS and he was actually even promoted during the period in question.

Now where there is smoke, there is probably fire, but feels like the Met botched it and the government has botched it by not yet updating the regulations on what the Met can do.

Interesting - thanks. I think you could be right this is Rowley trying to force the government's hand given that repeated Home Secretaries have backed what he's been trying to do with this (as has Sadiq) since 2022. But apparently none of them have actually changed the law so the police chiefs have that power - and I remember posting about Rowley complaining about his hands being tied a couple of years ago so I suspect he probably just tried to go ahead knowing it was possibly arguable at court in order to force the government to actually do something.

From my read I'm not so convinced on people - or the CPS - dropping cases given the really bad statistics on that here. I think less than 5% of rape reports to police end in someone being prosecuted, the conviction rate is even worse. It does feel like there's a pattern of concerns when you've got two women alleging rape, others indecent exposure, domestic abuse, inappropriate touching making women feel unsafe and complaints from the public. As you say if nothing else, definitely a "where there's smoke" situation.

I'm less convinced by the judgement particularly the "anomalous" situation she finds that there is a legal requirement for police officers to hold vetting clearance but withdrawal of vetting clearance is not lawful grounds for dismissal of a police officer. Also I think the obiter dicta that the way a police force could dismiss someone for failing to disclose something material for their vetting clearance is by withdrawing it and dismissing them (as withdrawing of vetting amounts to gross misconduct) makes sense to me - and I'm not convinced she's right on that. And I broadly agree with the College of Policing argument that vetting is an administrative/management procedure rather than a hearing that engages Article 6 rights to a fair trial. I'm more convinced by the third ground.

I suppose underpinning this is that I think the fact of allegations or complaints by members of the public and other police officers is a relevant factor in whether someone should be considered vetted as appropriate to have the trust and legal powers of a police officer. I don't think they necessarily have to go all the way of either the officer accepting the allegations/complaints, or formal proceedings making findings.

[garbon]

My other thought is that if you are going to dismiss someone because you think they are a danger to others, pursue that route. Don't go admin procedure to remove vetting and then oh we can declare you fit for dismissal by reason of gross incompetence as we won't let you access necessary systems without vetting. Oh and you've no right to any hearing on this until up for dismissal hearing. And nothing you can really do at that hearing as vetting decision is set in stone by then.

Feels all bureaucracy stacking the deck against you in a very unfair manner.

But this might be connected to need for more powers given to Met?

[Jacob]

That's pretty much a matter of definition though isn't it?

There's no shortage of left-wing authoritarians and dictators around the world and throughout history, from Chavez, Castro, Mugabe, Mao, Stalin and the like.  They may often share a number of characteristics with ring-wing dictators and authoritarians (so-called "horseshoe theory".)

But because they're from the left they would get called socialists or communists, and never fascists.

I've long ago given up on the "but the Nazis were really left-wingers - their name was even National Socialists".  It carries too much of an element of "no true Scotsmen"-type analysis, and ignores the historical fact that Mussolini and Hitler were broadly creatures of the political right (even though Mussolini's early days were as a socialist).

But don't make the mistake of thinking that makes the political left nothing but virtuous and pure.

You are right, that when left wing dictators come in their path may be eased by non-dictatorially inclined leftists who support them "for the revolution" or "for the working class" and so on.

But we are not facing the threat of a leftist dictatorship. We're facing the threat of Fascism. As such, I think it would behoove conservatives who value democracy and freedom to examine their positions and ensure they're not chasing a few extra points in the democratic contest by facilitating a Fascist takeover.

[Sheilbh]

But also I think that's part of the problem with Wayne Couzens and why they went down this route?

From my understanding there weren't any allegations that went to a final determination of facts. Instead there were lots of cases with no further action due to "evidential difficulties", insufficient evidence or a victim not proceeding to make a statement about their complaint. But all of those allegations or complaints would absolutely be picked up as part of vetting to join the police - and should have been when he became a firearms officer. Especially as lots of those allegations were sexual and targeted at women which indicates a pattern of behaviour.

So I think it was exactly that type of risk they were trying to determine - not necessarily that there's been an incident that can be proven that indicates someone's a danger, but a number of incidents and complaints that indicate the person might not be worthy of the trust or power of being a police officer.

It maybe requires a change in law which Rowley's trying to force but I feel like there's a case for basically having vetting being an open ongoing process for police (and I'd expect the same for, say, security services) rather than a one off decision at the point of joining or moving into more specialised units.

[garbon]

Vetting (at least one of the types) isn't a one off as it is something that gets renewed. However it is unclear what was supposed to happen say in the past if you failed vetting at a renewal.

Note I believe there was something in judgment about him being told he was going to need vetting again given some other sort of clearance he now had?

[Sheilbh]

Vetting (at least one of the types) isn't a one off as it is something that gets renewed. However it is unclear what was supposed to happen say in the past if you failed vetting at a renewal.

Note I believe there was something in judgment about him being told he was going to need vetting again given some other sort of clearance he now had?

Yeah you're right it expires and if you move to a different team or are promoted then you might need a different type of vetting. I think again this slightly ties into Couzens because I think he didn't get properly vetted for moving into the diplomatic protection team or becoming a firearms qualified cop and I assume that should have flagged all the allegations around him.

And yeah this is where I struggle with the judge's finding because I just can't quite get my head round a requiremnt to obtain vetting for recruitment, but an inability to dismiss someone once recruited if they subsequently lose that vetting. Otherwise as you say what's the point of renewing vetting? As I say she distinguishes other cases and obiter dicta in other cases that a failure of vetting could be fixed by removing the vetting and dismissing someone as they no longer had it - that in particular seems to me where it slightly falls down (and I think flowing from that is your take on the ECHR/Article 6 point).

In this case he was initially vetted when he joined in 2004. That was renewed in 2014/5 (at the level of "Recruitment Vetting and Counter-Terrorist Check"). He then applied for a new role which had a higher vetting level in 2017 and was granted that higher level ("Management Vetting and Security Check"), which would expire in 2024 but in 2023 he was told he no longer required the higher level of vetting - presumably because that role didn't require it.

Total aside but all those levels reminds me of when I was in private practice working with American clients they were regularly surprised that they weren't allowed to do criminal record checks or things like that for most roles (you need to be able to objectively justify it and limit the search for relevance).

[Tamas]

Was just listening to Rest is Politics in the background, Rory Stewart was saying something along the lines of Starmer should just get a customs union with the EU without freedom of movement, easy, done, big success.

FFS we are STILL at this stage where many Brits just don't understand that EU-UK relations are not something the UK cherry-picks and the EU accepts without comment.

[mongers]

Was just listening to Rest is Politics in the background, Rory Stewart was saying something along the lines of Starmer should just get a customs union with the EU without freedom of movement, easy, done, big success.

FFS we are STILL at this stage where many Brits just don't understand that EU-UK relations are not something the UK cherry-picks and the EU accepts without comment.

Now come on Tamas, he's a former player of the 'Great Game', he knows this stuff, you know cunningly outwitting the local tribes. *



* I was going to overegg it with "skills learned on the playing fields of Eton" but I don't think he's that posh a public school boy.   

Edit:
I had a look on wiki, turn out he Is and old Etonian. 

[Sheilbh]

I agree in general - as I say I think it's a sin of the pro-European side/soft Brexit side more than anyone else. It's why I think Labour is kind of wasting its time focusing so much on Europe because they've ruled out any change on freedom of movement or a customs union - which leaves very marginal gains from a lot of diplomatic time spent talking to the EU. I think if you've politically said no to freedom of movement or customs union, then the logic of that choice is that you should focus elsewhere.

But customs union without freedom of movement is an option - that's what Turkey has, for example. It would mean leaving the post-Brexit trade deals (which are few) and, more problematically, breaking an election promise.

I would say this goes both ways - the EU's first proposal for change to the relationship was a youth mobility scheme which politically no-one in Britain wants, but is a big EU priority.

More broadly I think the whole debate is a displacement activity - much like Euroscepticism - that takes up a lot of energy, promises a magic bullet but distracts from the structural problems facing Britain and the need for reform.

[Sheilbh]

Now come on Tamas, he's a former player of the 'Great Game', he knows this stuff, you know cunningly outwitting the local tribes. *



* I was going to overegg it with "skills learned on the playing fields of Eton" but I don't think he's that posh a public school boy.   

Edit:
I had a look on wiki, turn out he Is and old Etonian. 

Stewart is phenomenally posh - he was the private tutor to Princes William and Harry and used to live in Buckingham Palace

I've always felt that is reflected in his politics. He gives the impression of being a "serious" person but his actual ideas basically don't seem to amount to more than planting lots of trees. It's the politics of a well-meaning, benign landowner.

(I've also always half-suspected that a lot of his animus against Johnson is because he thought he was the Old Etonian, with an unusual pre-politics career who would be the man of destiny...)

[Josquius]

I think where labour are looking with Europe (rightly) is towards a customs union... But not in this government. More everything short of it for now but with it ready to go after the next GE when it should be ever more clear brexit was a disaster.

I've always felt that is reflected in his politics. He gives the impression of being a "serious" person but his actual ideas basically don't seem to amount to more than planting lots of trees. It's the politics of a well-meaning, benign landowner.

Sure.
But placed next to the other tories who are the less well meaning land owners, recently joined by the similarly dastardly mill owners...

[garbon]

You assumed a world in which you did not have your current privileges to make the point that you could have been drafted, then you assume you do have your current privileges to make the point that the economic mobility of the 70s would not have mattered to you, because you would have made it anyway. There is some inconsistency occuring.

Totally fair

I too have been very lucky. I did not benefit from the social mobility of the 70s because I was too young.  But in the 80s I was still able to make it out of poverty, really only due to a bunch of luck, and being 6'7'' with an ability to play with a round ball.  Even though things have worked out quite well for me individually, I can still appreciate the fact that the 70s were much better economically for the vast majority of the population than afterward.

As long as we recongise that when we say 'the majority' we are implicitly meaning white.

A few graphs from Pew Research regarding trends in America.

Inequality in household income:


Inequality in poverty rate:


Inequality in home ownership (note this appears to suggest home ownership has remained steady?):


For unemployment, we can see even when it spiked up for white Americans in the 70s, it was never a bad as it was for black people:


So when we are talking about how relatively good people had it in the 70s, we need to remember who was benefiting at that time and who was not.

[Josquius]

I expect that high black unemployment rate gets blamed on the black people.