Despite the fact they achieved a large Parliamentary majority, this Government was elected with just 20% of the voting population in favour: it might be assumed, they would approach their tasks with humility and concern for the majority of people who evidently do not share their philosophy. But that is not so.
The Prime Minister is sworn to ensure all Government decisions are designed to improve economic growth, with the nation’s security the top priority. Yet his own mantra is that human rights, and the rule of law, whether beneficial to the UK or not, guide everything he does. Ed Milliband, Minister for Energy, is evidently on a personal crusade that the UK, whatever the cost to ordinary people, reaches net zero by 2030 and even though the energy world is in turmoil. And as the following examples illustrate there are various less dramatic personal campaigns afoot of perhaps lesser consequence but illustrative of an attitude, almost Trump-like, that this Government, given its Parliamentary majority but despite its lack of public support, can do what it likes.
BEWARE OTHER MINISTERS AND MPs WITH PERSONAL CRUSADES
Have you heard of Clause 208 of the Crime and Policing Bill? This Bill has various aims such as tackling serious violence against females, and anti-social behaviour, and improving trust in the police and the criminal justice system. Tucked in there is Clause 208, which decriminalises abortion: that is to say, a pregnant woman is to be allowed at any time up to the due birth date to terminate the pregnancy, so decriminalising abortion after 24 weeks, the current position. Some, including a cadre of MPs in the Labour party driving this, will say that infanticide while in the womb is a woman’s right. But would most of the country? It seems very strange that the NHS goes to great lengths to save premature babies from death but now the Government wants mothers to be able to kill them off at any time. Women have that choice in the earlier part of pregnancy, and perhaps many would say 24 weeks is too long a cut-off date as it is far longer than any other democratic nation. But at what point does the unborn child have rights to be protected? Labour clearly believe they have no rights whatsoever. But is this Clause 208 an abuse of power in respect of a basic human value? Is there not a moral aspect requiring full transparency? And this major event is not even in their manifesto.
And have you heard of Clause 40 of the Pension Schemes Bill? This would empower the Government to order fund managers to invest their clients’ money in projects nominated by Government. How a person invests their money is a freedom surely not to be interfered with at the whim of the people in power. A fund manager has a duty to act in the best interests of the client, but here the Government is saying they must do what Government requires. Surely a person can decide for themselves what they invest in, assuming it’s not treacherous against the UK. But this initiative seems to be a personal favourite of Pensions Minister Torsten Bell. Another abuse of power?
Fortunately, there is a journalistic media to bring such things to public attention, but did not this Government swear itself to transparency? What else may be seeping through surreptitiously which needs airing? It is only public pressure which led to the reversal of the disdain for democracy which was the intended cancellation of local elections.
In a different vein, Brigitte Philipson , Minister for education but also for Women and Equalities, has delayed the guidelines for determining the privacy of space for different genders by reference to biological sex: she seems to dislike the effects of the clear ruling of the Supreme Court for trans people and the recommendations of the independent committee proposing the guidelines. The same Minister is telling employers to stop using, in advertisements for jobs, language such as “ambitious”, “entrepreneurial” and “competitive” as these are traits which attract men and put off women in her opinion. Is this not an insult to women? Personal foibles are driving Ministerial judgements.
And a cadre of 18 Labour MPs have written to the PM demanding that the UK pays reparations to Palestinians for the way in which the UK governed in Palestine between 1917 and 1948 and as Israel was established as an independent state, alleging UK war crimes. It is to be hoped that the Government will in the interests of the nation deny all reparations claims, as it is also reported that, in addition to the West Indies, African nations are determined to seek reparations for the UK’s involvement in slavery centuries ago. The UK’s history is undoubtedly peppered with bad stuff, as is probably every country in the world, including the Middle East and Africa. There is evidently a movement within the UK bent on destruction of the UK’s reputation and national story, who weaken the national unity, which may be their purpose. And who knows how far this denigration might be sponsored by hostile states?
WHAT NEXT?
Rejoining the EU or the Customs Union was ruled out by the Labour manifesto. There is, however, now a clear head of steam among Labour MPs and some Ministers, such as the Minister for Business, to ditch promises such as these. Rachel Reeves, unable to take hard decisions to grow the economy, is turning to the closer relationship with the EU as the best, and perhaps last hope, to bring real growth. Closer trading ties with the EU are a great idea, but not at any cost? Will this Government agree so many different ways to tie the UK to the EU, no doubt on terms very favourable to the EU, that in effect they undo the independence created by the exit from it, without a referendum. There are many different views among economists about the reduction in the size of the UK economy which has occurred due to Brexit, and certainly a degree of scepticism on whether being part of it will in the long term improve the UK overall. Keir Starmer has reversed on so many commitments that anything is possible. The disdain of Government for the public is perhaps the biggest risk the UK faces, accompanied by an evident propensity of Government to say things and assert positives which are just not true.
Leave a Reply