As my loyal readers know (kia ora korua), a recent encounter with a person with settled views of the opposite end of the spectrum to my own in the Rolleston Aquatic Centre left me shaken and disturbed. My chief concern was this person’s racial politics. Plenty of wars have been fought on the politics of race, most recently, of course, World War Two. In the wake of the Christchurch attacks, it seemed to me particularly disturbing that a casual acquaintance should so vehemently state and defend such views.
The creeping ideology of the Third Reich, which worshipped Aryans and hated, in particular, Jews, but also women, gays, persons with disability and so on, was a guiding principle of Hitler. And don’t forget that the eugenic views that underpinned that ideology had been very active throughout the British Empire for a couple of decades prior to WW2, with New Zealand not exempt. Sir Truby King, that famous founder of the Plunket Society, acted purely out of concern to ensure that the white race reproduced itself. He often bemoaned that educated white women suffered more pain in childbirth (or perhaps they merely had better means of expressing themselves).
But I digress. This week’s Supreme Court decision in the UK reached back much further than the second world war into British common law to find that Boris Johnson illegally prorogued parliament. From a legal perspective, it was an elegant and comprehensive decision that invoked the shadows of much older law.
It was clarified that the decision to prorogue parliament was made by the Crown, on the advice of the Privy Council. The Supreme Court noted that any attempt to “alter the law of the land by use of the Crown’s prerogative powers was unlawful”, based on a range of earlier common law decisions dating back to 1611. In short, it is illegal for the ‘executive’ or ‘Crown’ to remove parliament’s powers for any reason, and especially in times of need where Parliament’s decision-making powers are crucial. As the Court put it: “The government exists because it has the confidence of the House of Commons. It has no democratic legitimacy other than that.”
Invoking 17th century decisions reminds us it is only a few hundred years since England erupted into civil war, executing one King (the rather feckless Charles 1) before eventually restoring the monarchy with Charles 2. That struggle involved the King’s men, the Cavaliers, against Oliver Cromwell’s pro-Parliament forces, the so-called Roundheads.
And just recently, considering the parallels between these groups and the total split between ‘Leavers’ and ‘Remainers’ over Brexit, the similarities have made me wonder whether it is only by civil war that the current differences will be resolved.
There have already been victims, in particular the Labour MP Jo Cox, murdered in 2016 and numerous verbal attacks, death threats and the like towards Labour MPs, especially women. Boris Johnson, echoing his mate Donald over the Atlantic ditch, has deliberately starting using incendiary language to deepen the cracks that already exist, in order to push through his reforms, or die trying. And it may be the latter rather than the former, if the escalation he seeks comes to pass.
No matter what happens, the sight of a Prime Minister deliberately using violent and incendiary language to whip up a storm to achieve his anti-democratic goals is a very scary one. It was brought to the playing field by Donald Trump, but Boris Johnson has used the constitutional weaknesses of the UK to attempt to rip apart the structures of power, to support his goal. There is little doubt that strong language by a leader incites action by the followers. Meanwhile, in turn he is being investigated for the improper use of funds. These are days of dirty politics indeed, with sex, power and money domination political decision-making.
The conditions for a larger conflagration, for indeed some form of civil war, already exist in the UK, with a decade of austerity for the poor (following on from 30 years or post-Thatcher neo-liberalism), the obscene gathering of wealth by the rich and plenty of talk of privatization of the pillars of society, in particular the bruised but not broken NHS. The situation barely differs from earlier causes of war.
The rise of far right views in contemporary times is shocking; something I never thought I would see in my lifetime, being brought up in the post-war hiatus of internationalism and development.
Several weeks ago, my personal encounter rudely reminded me (as if the Christchurch Mosque attacks did not) that the same contested views seen in the UK, much of Europe and the USA, are present in this peaceful and pleasant land of Aotearoa. We are not immune, even though the voice of reason and not contestation comes from the mouths of our leadership. I hope that we as a nation are protected from the scary and dangerous politics afflicting a bunch of other countries, because I do not see the current situation ending well.
Dr Liz Gordon is a researcher and a barrister, with interests in destroying neo-liberalism in all its forms and moving towards a socially just society. She usually blogs on justice, social welfare and education topics.



“No matter what happens, the sight of a Prime Minister deliberately using violent and incendiary language to whip up a storm to achieve his anti-democratic goals is a very scary one.”
The language under condemnation here seems to be most often exemplified by calling the Benn bill the “surrender bill”. Which of course it is.
I think Liz’s language describing it wins hands down .
There won’t be any civil war in the UK unless the result of the Brexit referendum is thwarted. There won’t be one then either but the death threats you will notice are all being made to politicians that are trying to prevent the result of the Brexit referendum being implemented . Indefensible in themselves but they show what is angering the electorate.
D J S
David Stone: “The language under condemnation here seems to be most often exemplified by calling the Benn bill the “surrender bill”. Which of course it is.”
Exactly. It’s an utterly extraordinary spectacle, watching the UK parliament pull a stunt like this.
“….the death threats you will notice are all being made to politicians that are trying to prevent the result of the Brexit referendum being implemented . Indefensible in themselves but they show what is angering the electorate.”
Indeed. Scarcely surprising under the circumstances; the citizens pushed almost beyond endurance by the anti-democratic actions of the remainer MPs. So much for the will of the people.
Jay 11 is right. I’ve always thought that the main reason why we are so apathetic is that Britain (and then NZ) never had a Revolution. UK had a Civil War but that’s not the same as a Revolution. It may have been civil but not revolting. That’s because the conflict was between the aristocracy (and the monarchy uberalles) on one side and the politarians on the other. Revolution needs to originate with the workers,who may have taken sides in the Civil War but had little at stake in it.
Its not as though they had no chances but it seems we lack the stomach for chopping off heads, something that the aristocracy have happily done to the working class. All the rallies and marches from the the Peasants Revolt to the Peterloo massacre ended in disaster. Oh! for a bloody good revolution.
no it’s rugby.
Dave, you are spot on.
Liz, step back from your partisan viewpoint and consider what is undemocratic; stifling a majority decision to leave? Stifling the opportunity to put the decision to an election? Using the courts to over rule parliamentary executive powers because your side doesn’t have any democratic way forward?
It’s all so reminiscent of the liberal Lefts war on Trump. Standards lowered, lies told, misinformation against their “evil” foe. This rush to unprincipled action is rather akin to Tolkeins ring of power.
To me the liberal left looks very like Saruman. They crave power far more than principle.
Nick J: “It’s all so reminiscent of the liberal Lefts war on Trump. Standards lowered, lies told, misinformation against their “evil” foe. This rush to unprincipled action is rather akin to Tolkeins ring of power.
To me the liberal left looks very like Saruman. They crave power far more than principle.”
Nicely put. Yeah, it looks that way to me, too. The liberal left hasn’t exactly covered itself in glory over ithis situation.
Civil wars are typically a middle class phenomenon. They were in 1789. Its only when then middle feels sufficiently unhappy that they rise up. Lets keep in mind too the Ancien Regime lasted from the middle ages so these types of events are not that common. In England the whole thing was reversed with the return of Charles II.
Comments are closed.