logo
Richard Murphy: Passing laws that destroy our freedoms is tyranny

Richard Murphy: Passing laws that destroy our freedoms is tyranny

The National5 days ago
On Tuesday, the UK Government effectively abandoned almost all of its planned cuts to disability benefits in England and Wales, due to pressure from many people who reminded Labour backbenchers that no MP was ever elected to make some of the least well-off in society even worse off.
Hundreds of thousands, and maybe more, now have reason to be thankful that protest still creates change.
Then, as if to prove sanity had not returned to the Labour Party, large numbers of its MPs trooped through the lobbies to contentiously vote in favour of declaring an activist organisation a terrorist threat – a move not all MPs or peers agreed with. A step such as this has never previously been seen in the UK.
READ MORE: Details emerge of Scottish arm of new Corbyn project
Almost certainly, the UK Government's action breaches the rights to freedom of expression and association under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights 1950, which the UK helped draft.
It also seems to violate Articles 19 and 20 of the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights, of which the UK was a principal author.
Bizarrely, on the day this action was approved in the Commons, Yvette Cooper wore a sash celebrating the Suffragette movement which won votes for women after a campaign in which people died.
Acts we might now call terrorism took place and serious vandalism, including arson, were committed (contemporary news reports did call them terrorism). Cooper conveniently forgot all that.
By the standards Cooper is now imposing, anyone who supported the Suffragettes at the time, even without taking part in direct action, might today face 14 years in prison.
This new move against the freedom to campaign affects me directly. For the last 25 years, I have been a campaigner above all else.
In the first decade of this century, when I spent much of my time exposing tax abuses in Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, I became intensely unpopular in those places. Simply by blogging, I proved their tax systems did not comply with EU requirements. All of them were forced to change their laws.
I faced what felt like a fabricated criminal investigation in Jersey at one point, which quietly disappeared after an election.
I also received death threats and more mundane abuse.
The then first minister of the Isle of Man suggested I was mathematically incompetent. My calculations showing the UK was providing his government with half its income to subsidise its tax haven activities were then accepted by the UK Government, which took that money back, saving the UK more than £200 million a year. I didn't even get a note of thanks.
READ MORE: Devolved relations reset with Labour has 'failed', says SNP official
I recount these stories to show I know campaigning comes at a cost. No-one should expect to voice opinions that upset others without anticipating some backlash. That's how we change things. That process is fundamental to democracy.
And, of course, if during a protest someone breaks the law, they should expect prosecution for the crime committed. That's the price of taking action.
But what no-one should expect is to face grossly disproportionate penalties simply for expressing a genuinely held opinion that does not incite violence or threaten human life. Yet such penalties are exactly what UK ministers are now creating.
Ministers probably know convictions under their new law will be rare. Juries often refuse to convict when penalties are wildly inappropriate. People, unlike politicians, generally have a sense of justice.
However, what the Government has done is a sign we are on a perilous path to more draconian measures. How long might it be before suggesting Scotland should be independent is labelled a terrorist threat because it implies the UK should cease to exist?
How long, too, before expressing socialist views is treated the same way? After all, government literature already suggests such views can justify referral to the anti-terrorist Prevent programme.
And might the day come when even questioning 'free market' capitalism is deemed so extreme that it should be outlawed?
To suggest any of these things would once have seemed absurd, but everything has changed. The Labour Government's actions force us to reconsider the world we live in.
We can no longer rely on our right to free speech. We can no longer rely on common sense. Nor can we trust international law or declarations of human rights to protect us.
Now, tyranny is not represented by those who protest, even if they sometimes commit criminal damage (which I do not condone).
Instead, it is undertaken by Cabinet ministers intent on passing laws that destroy our freedoms.
I will continue to campaign. I will continue to protest. I will still raise my voice. I hope others will too.
But people in Scotland have an opportunity denied to those of ethical conscience in England – to leave this desperate Union and recreate in Scotland a country where genuine freedoms exist.
I truly hope that happens, and I will continue to say so.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Why the knives are coming out for government bogeyman Lord Hermer
Why the knives are coming out for government bogeyman Lord Hermer

Telegraph

timean hour ago

  • Telegraph

Why the knives are coming out for government bogeyman Lord Hermer

Within hours of entering No 10, Sir Keir Starmer made an important decision. All but one of the shadow cabinet would retain the briefs they had held in opposition. The exception? Richard Hermer, the Prime Minister's long-time friend. Starmer handed him a peerage, the post of Attorney General and a brief to restore Britain's reputation abroad. Yet 12 months on, there are few appointments that have caused more controversy. Disdained on the Right as a bogeyman and increasingly disliked on the Left, his pronouncements leave many of his Labour colleagues cold. Hermer's arrival in Whitehall was greeted with a chorus of delight by his old chums in the field of human rights. Gushing tributes were reported in the liberal press. 'A career that has never been distracted by politics,' remarked Geoffrey Robertson KC, the founder of Hermer's old Doughty Street chambers (once Starmer's stomping grounds too). At the time, this political virginity was seen by some within Downing Street as a positive. Hermer was the first incumbent since 1922 not to have served in Parliament before his appointment. But now there is a growing sense his lack of nous is being regarded within the highest levels of government as a problem. His latest controversy has been to hand himself an effective 'veto' across swathes of Starmer's agenda. One of Hermer's first acts in office was to revise the Attorney General's guidance on legal risk to government lawyers. This edict assumes that every decision made by a minister will be subject to a legal challenge. Some 23 references to 'international law' were inserted, as was a new 'snitch clause', telling officials to inform him if ministers may be about to break the law. It follows his declaration at the European Court in Strasbourg that he would 'never' refuse to comply with judgments handed down there. The consequences for domestic policymaking are obvious. Ministers, including those in cabinet, accuse Hermer's changes of slowing down a slew of policy across government. This includes the Border Security Bill and the ' Hillsborough Law ' to establish a duty of candour for public officials. The former is necessary to deal with the Channel crossings emergency; the latter is a touchstone issue for some northern MPs. Lord Maurice Glasman, the founder of Blue Labour, spoke for others when he called Hermer 'an arrogant, progressive fool who thinks that law is a replacement for politics'. In foreign affairs, the Attorney General's influence is obvious too. His advice was cited in the decisions to hand sovereignty over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius and suspend certain arms sales to Israel. More recently, there was America's bombing of Iran, when Hermer reportedly warned that any UK involvement beyond defensive support would be illegal. That has infuriated some within the world of military and diplomatic affairs, who argue that their hands are being tied by a lawyer who does not appreciate the need for maximum flexibility in responding to rapidly moving events overseas. Having antagonised his colleagues privately, Hermer's public pronouncements are causing concern, too. Speaking to the Rusi think tank at the end of May, the Attorney General compared calls to quit the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) with the early days of Nazi Germany. He swiftly apologised, but the damage was done. Part of Hermer's problem is institutional. Ensconced in the rarefied atmosphere of the House of Lords, he is shielded from the noise and drama of the Commons. Against David Wolfson, the genteel Tory spokesman in the Lords, Hermer has held his own. But down the corridor, Robert Jenrick – the heat-seeking missile of the Tory frontbench – is determined to take him down. The Shadow Justice Secretary and his staff spend their days plotting the downfall of the man they call 'the Herminator'. For Jenrick and others, Hermer is the living embodiment of judicial overreach. It was Margaret Thatcher who distinguished between the rule of law and rule by lawyers. Hermer seems, to many Tories, to exploit the veneer of the former to enable the expansion of the latter. After 14 years of frustration in government, there is an increasingly Cromwellian attitude to Hermer's constant evocation of international law. He has featured prominently in Jenrick's prolific online content. One such video has images of the clients whom the Labour peer represented prior to entering government: Gerry Adams, Shamima Begum, five terrorists linked to al-Qaeda. It is a compelling critique which has some within the Labour party now asking if Hermer is causing more trouble than he is worth. Against this onslaught, the Attorney General has declined to come out swinging. He has given few interviews and rarely seeks to explain his past career and the work he is doing in office. 'He is so easy to attack,' boasts one Tory MP. This frustrates his allies within government. They argue that Hermer is unfairly maligned for merely trying to follow his Prime Minister's instructions. The Rusi speech, which attracted such opprobrium, is believed to have been cleared by No 10 in the usual way. Dominic Cummings and others have fulminated against the edicts of government lawyers for years; ministers have always resented colleagues who trample on their turf. Hermer is nothing new in these respects. One older MP argues that 'whomever was in that role, they'd be getting it in the neck', as a global migration crisis continues to test international law to breaking point. Yet there persists a sense amongst those who have brushed up against Hermer that he is not being as helpful as he could be. 'A blocker, not a builder' is the judgement of one aide. Another asks, despairingly: 'Does he have any instinct of self-preservation?' And for those in the Commons, fearful of re-election in four years' time, the perceived lordly attitude of Hermer and his team, indifferent to their electoral needs, is regarded as profoundly tone-deaf. In a party as tribal as Labour, there are doubts about whether he is truly one of the team. 'He's like Starmer,' says one former advisor. 'He has no politics, except the law. He is just not a Labour person.' A gaggle of young MPs, like Dan Tomlinson, Jake Richards and Mike Tapp have now taken it on themselves to publicly call for reform of the ECHR and its overinterpreted protections on torture and family life. Hermer's allies insist that he is on board with this mission, pointing to his Rusi speech. Yet those in the pro-Reform camp argue that it is Shabana Mahmood, the Justice Secretary, who is driving this change, rather than Hermer and the Attorney General's Office. Cut off from the Commons and lambasted in the press, Hermer's position looks to be an unhappy one. Cynics wonder whether Starmer – or those around him – are content to keep using the Attorney General as a lightning rod, to absorb flack that would otherwise be directed at No 10. But the Prime Minister has shown a willingness before to protect his allies, like Ed Miliband, who helped get him selected for his safe seat in 2015. The Energy Secretary had been widely tipped for the sack before – but is now thriving as of the big winners of the recent Spending Review. Starmer and Hermer are genuine friends; the former even gave the latter's toast when he took silk in 2009. Yet unlike Miliband, with his legions of eco-friendly backbenchers, Hermer lacks a power base. 'International lawyers don't have many votes,' jokes one within Labour. Isolated and attacked, after a difficult first year in office, the knives are out for Lord Hermer as he prepares for the travails of the next 12 months. Not all his colleagues think he will last the course.

How Angela Rayner has become the most influential figure in Starmer's government
How Angela Rayner has become the most influential figure in Starmer's government

The Independent

time2 hours ago

  • The Independent

How Angela Rayner has become the most influential figure in Starmer's government

As Keir Starmer gathered his top ministers for a special away day in Chequers for a team-building reset on Friday, one figure arrived in a much more powerful position than she was in just two weeks ago. It is now widely recognised by Labour MPs, across the different wings of the party, that deputy prime minister Angela Rayner 's influence in this government is greater than almost anybody else. Certainly more than the wounded chancellor Rachel Reeves, who has been beset by economic woes, and even more than health secretary Wes Streeting who, like Rayner, has been tipped as a future contender for the leadership. She was, though, completely unprepared for the shot fired by the Unite union, after its general secretary announced it had suspended her membership for failing to resolve the Birmingham refuse collectors dispute. But while a trade union that looks set to peel off and back Jeremy Corbyn's new party gave her a headache, Ms Rayner nevertheless is enjoying a surge in influence – for now. Welfare rebellion The biggest reason for her rise is the result of the welfare rebellion just over a week ago. As one party whip put it: 'There's nobody more powerful in the government than Angela at the moment. 'She was the one who brokered the deal with Labour rebels, she was the one who talked people off the ledge from voting against the government.' As another ally pointed out that she did not even want the disability cuts and had already sent a leaked memo to Ms Reeves suggesting wealth taxes instead of austerity. Now, after last Wednesday's PMQs, it seems like the government has no option but to raise taxes. But the turnaround for Ms Rayner actually started with her holdout in the spending review, where she got a £39bn for housing and more than expected for local government. A spot of union bother Some may see the recent decision by Unite the union to suspend her membership (even though she left the union in April) as a problem. But behind the scenes it has confused people on the left and other unions, who believe Ms Rayner has turned Starmer's government leftward on disability benefits and steering through the bill on workers' rights. As a TUC source noted: 'The main metric we are judging this government by is the workers' rights legislation and that is on course.' Unite took action because of her position on the Birmingham bins strike. But an ally of Ms Rayner said: 'It's wild! They know full well that Angela cannot directly intervene in the way that they say, and to attack one of the few remaining cabinet members who is standing up for workers rights and real labour values is simply mad.' However, it remains to be seen if the escalating clash with Unite will halt Ms Rayner's rise. A rival court to Downing Street How the tide can turn. Just over a month ago, there was talk about Ms Rayner being demoted and losing the housing part of her portfolio. Now there is speculation in Westminster that the deputy prime minister could soon have her own official office, with its own staff and comms team. There is some scepticism, especially over what it would mean for Sir Keir himself and his chief of staff Morgan McSweeney. As one ally of Ms Rayner noted: 'Morgan will hate the idea and do everything he can to stop it. An Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) would create a rival court, an alternative centre of government.' The last person to have an ODPM was John Prescott under Tony Blair, but unlike Ms Rayner, Prescott was never seen as a candidate to replace Sir Tony. All about the leadership There is still a lot of fevered speculation about whether Sir Keir can survive as prime minister. The image of his chancellor in tears while he failed to guarantee her future this month became the image of a government spiralling out of control after just a month. There are many waiting to see the results of the elections in Scotland, Wales and English councils next May to decide whether to launch a putsch. If he is forced out, Ms Rayner is now the clear favourite to take over, despite her protestations that she does not want the job. Beware the 'Rayner's rise' trap While Ms Rayner is on top at the moment, there is some speculation that the spending review with Ms Reeves has laid a trap for her much more problematic than the issues with Unite. In getting her cash for local government and housing it appears that the deputy prime minister has signed up to council tax rises of 5 per cent. At the housing and local government select committee hearing this week in the Commons she denied that the increase was 'baked in', but MPs from her own party and the opposition were not convinced at all. The Independent has been told that already the term 'Rayner's rise' is being used for hefty council tax increases not seen since the Blair era two decades ago. Back in the Blair government it was Prescott and his Office of the Deputy PM which took the brunt of the anger over rising bills - it will be the same for Ms Rayner. Among her allies there is genuine concern that Ms Rayner's opponents inside and outside the party are 'preparing to weaponise' it as an issue when council tax bills land at the end of the year. There are fears that it will not take much to turn the public against her.

Labour not defending workers, says Unite after Rayner row
Labour not defending workers, says Unite after Rayner row

BBC News

time3 hours ago

  • BBC News

Labour not defending workers, says Unite after Rayner row

The leader of the Unite union says Labour is not defending working people and they are turning away from the party "in droves".Sharon Graham said Labour should be "seriously concerned" after the union voted to potentially rethink its relationship with the party, which could result in it formally cutting ties and comes after Unite said it had suspended the membership of Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner over her handling of bin strikes in Birmingham. A Labour source said Rayner quit Unite in April and defended her action on workers' BBC has contacted the government for a response. Delegates at Unite's policy conference voted to rethink their relationship with Labour should any of its members be made redundant in the course of the long-running bin vote also saw the union decide to suspend Rayner over her role in the deputy prime minister has urged workers to accept a deal tabled by Birmingham's Labour-run city council to end the dispute, saying the authority had "moved significantly to meet the demands of the workers".Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Saturday, Unite's General Secretary said Unite members "don't believe that Labour defends workers in the way we thought they would".Rayner was attempting a "Houdini act" by focusing on "whether she wasn't or was a member at this juncture," and said Labour should instead be asking where it was "going wrong".Ms Graham said its members reflected "what everyday people are saying" about the government."I have real difficulty in the way that Labour are making decisions," she said, "in terms of what they tried to do on winter fuel, what they tried to do to people with disabilities, what they're doing to workers".The government faced major political pressure over its planned cuts to winter fuel payments and welfare, including from the left of the Labour party - which were subsequently reversed and significantly watered-down. Unite is one of a number of unions which are affiliated with Labour - giving it seats on the party's ruling national executive committee and delegates to its annual is also Labour's biggest union funder through the affiliation fees that members pay to the party - currently totalling £1.2m a Graham said disaffiliation was a possibility and that she was under pressure to call an emergency rules conference - where a decision about disaffiliation could be needed to see that affiliation was "worth something," she said."At this present moment in time, it is hard to justify it, if I'm being honest. Would that money be better spent on frontline services for my members?"She said access to political power was useful but not "if you're walking into a room and that political power keeps saying, 'computer says no'."The BBC understands Rayner stopped paying for her Unite membership in April. On Friday, a Labour source called her suspension a "silly stunt".A Downing St spokesman said on Friday that the government's priority throughout the dispute had "always" been Birmingham's residents."We remain in close contact with the council and continue to monitor the situation as we support its recovery and transformation," he members walked out in January over plans to downgrade some roles as part of the city council's attempts to sort out its equal pay has also urged the council to guarantee long-term pay for Grade 4 bin lorry drivers, claiming in April that bin lorry drivers' pay could fall from £40,000 to £32,000 under new council all-out indefinite strike was announced in March, and a deal to end industrial action has not yet been service Acas has been mediating in the negotiations since May, but talks broke down on Wednesday. Council leader John Cotton said the authority had "reached the absolute limit of what we can offer".On Friday, Birmingham Edgbaston MP Preet Kaur Gill said the union did not need to "get involved" as a "fair deal" was on the told the BBC Radio 4's The World Tonight that Ms Graham "should have felt confident in her local officers that were negotiating" and they were "getting close to a deal before she got involved".

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store