The rise of totalitarianism in britain, 1994-2006

[Lord Kal]

There is of course no reason why the new totalitarian states should resemble the old. Government by clubs and firing squads is not merely inhumane, it is demonstrably inefficient and in an age of advanced technology, inefficiency is a sin againt the Holy Ghost. A really efficent totalitarian state would be one in which the all powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to coerced, because they love their servitude...The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished not by doing something but by refraining from doing. Great is truth but still greater is silence about the truth.
- Aldous Huxley, Brave New World, Foreward to 1946 edition


It is unquestionable that Britain is one of many countries in the world drifting into fascism. The US is an obvious one, but we fail to realise how close it is happening to home. But if we continue to refer t this new oppressive system of government as 'fascism', we cannot fight it, as we will do nothing until we see armed soldiers patrolling the streets. the new system of government is authoritarian, oppressive, and increasingly totalitarian.

Primarily, the country is increasingly run by unelected individuals. We have the house of lords, an unelected group of 'politicians' consisting of landowners and businessmen who have either inherited or bought their position. They use this primarily to hinder progressive laws and maintain the old ways, for example opposing the fox-hunting ban. Here, we have a prime example of unelected figures playing a role in politics.

Politically, there is a very small spectrum of acceptibility. Only the three main parties gain any media coverage, which are all practically identical. Here we see election campaigns revolving around "well a vote for a minor party you actually agree with will be wasting your vote."

Politically, the group with the most power is a conglomerate of businessmen and industrialists called the CBI. Almost every private television station and newspaper is operated by them, so they exercise their influence over the government. To quote George Monbiot, "Every public event the bosses' trade union hosts is attended by a senior minister, usually either the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They come on bended knee to ask permission to stay in office."

The vast majority of the media is controlled by multi-millionaires, members of the elite class who control the government, as their stranglehold over the media results in them being the most powerful group of voters in the country. This is effectively weighting the votes of one group above another, and is another unelected group of people wihtout whose consent nobody can be elected prime minister. An example of this is the conservative party conference. A mere couple of hundred old men, it was widely covered and reported by all newspapers and television stations. In contrast, the 51,000-strong, youth-dominated European Social Forum achieved only one report in the entire printed British press.

There is also no doubt that we are seeing a gradual erosion of our civil liberties. It is now banned to protest outside parliament, and the government has the power to dissolve any protest. It is now illegal "to persuade any person ... not to do something that he is entitled or required to do, or to do something that he is not under any obligation to do". This has been used to break up several peaceful protests, and distributing leaflets has now become a crime.

During the Labour party conference, an old man said the word "nonsense" at the back of the room, and was removed by two heavies and thrown onto the street. If he had said this vicious and evil word twice, fortunately, he would have been recognised as the threat to national security he surely is and charged. As the law states - it “must involve conduct on at least two occasions … conduct includes speech.” It has since been used to stop peaceful protests, used by arms companies to disperse protests at their gates, and used to prosecute a woman for sending two police emails to a drugs company asking them to stop testing on animals.

The terrorism act in 2000 is even worse. Yes, you can now be arrested for wearing a t-shirt that might “arouse reasonable suspicion”. The police can now arrest anyone they believe may be about to commit an offence, and holding them in custody without trial for seven days. Added to the obvious fact we have more CCTV cameras per person than anywhere else in the world, it's pretty hard to get away with. Plans are also underway to fit mandatory tracking devices in every vehicle, along with ID cards fr every citizen.

Welcome to the brave new world.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Rubbish. Though you have a point with the House of Lords, it ends there. The poor old man at the back of that conferance, for example, was actually being genuinely abusive and disruptive. It was right that he was removed.

[Lord Kal]

He muttered "nonsense". Once. And not loud enough to drown out the speaker.

Oh, you mus think it's right that we can jail people for 7 days without trial for wearing a t-shirt then.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Depends what report you read. Other witnesses at the conference itself claim that Walter Wolfgang went on to start yelling "That's a lie and you know it!" and/or "Pack of lies!". And the police can do no such thing.

[Lord Kal]

It's on film. And the quotes in my post are taken from actual bills. I stated in the article it was possible and said the bill that allowed it. Look up the terrorism act 2000 and read it. You'll find you can be arrested and held for 7 days if you are wearing a t-shirt that might “arouse reasonable suspicion”.

[removeduser_487563287433]

It's on film. And the quotes in my post are taken from actual bills. I stated in the article it was possible and said the bill that allowed it. Look up the terrorism act 2000 and read it. You'll find you can be arrested and held for 7 days if you are wearing a t-shirt that might “arouse reasonable suspicion”.

Wolfgang being removed is on film. Nothing else.

I don't care about the T shirt. What if it is some neo-nazi walking around with a swastika on his T shirt?

[Tostig]

Incidentally am I the only one that finds it odd that we must rely on an unelected historical body to defend the rights and liberties of the British people?

And in general, Labour has given us far more rights, by its actions hugging the EU, then we have ever experienced in the past. There is a distiction between rights and liberties - you have the former while you may enjoy the latter.

In my opinion a solid government needs unelected checks on it's power. Why? Because what politicians ultimately care about it staying in power, not doing the right thing. Moan about Spin Doctors and Alastair Campbell rather than the people helping us.

Oh, and most people opposed the ban on foxhunting

[Shaun]

I don't care about the T shirt. What if it is some neo-nazi walking around with a swastika on his T shirt?

Prince William( or was it harry) wore a full nazi cosume once, so i doubt that its actaully a law.

The government can break up ANY protest, and ALL protests are, de jure, illegal, because they are "telling people to do something they are not obliged to do", such as boycoot GM crops or Nike. The police can, and frequently do, use this law to break up peaceful protests.

No, its only illegal for the whole country to be on strike at once. And is there not a European law that makes a strike a right?

[removeduser_487563287433]

Prince William( or was it harry) wore a full nazi cosume once, so i doubt that its actaully a law.

Well, the difference being Harry isn't a nazi, just a :wub:.

[Shaun]

There is of course no reason why the new totalitarian states should resemble the old. Government by clubs and firing squads is not merely inhumane, it is demonstrably inefficient and in an age of advanced technology, inefficiency is a sin againt the Holy Ghost. A really efficent totalitarian state would be one in which the all powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to coerced, because they love their servitude...The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished not by doing something but by refraining from doing. Great is truth but still greater is silence about the truth.
- Aldous Huxley, Brave New World, Foreward to 1946 edition


It is unquestionable that Britain is one of many countries in the world drifting into fascism. The US is an obvious one, but we fail to realise how close it is happening to home. But if we continue to refer t this new oppressive system of government as 'fascism', we cannot fight it, as we will do nothing until we see armed soldiers patrolling the streets. the new system of government is authoritarian, oppressive, and increasingly totalitarian.

Primarily, the country is increasingly run by unelected individuals. We have the house of lords, an unelected group of 'politicians' consisting of landowners and businessmen who have either inherited or bought their position. They use this primarily to hinder progressive laws and maintain the old ways, for example opposing the fox-hunting ban. Here, we have a prime example of unelected figures playing a role in politics.

Politically, there is a very small spectrum of acceptibility. Only the three main parties gain any media coverage, which are all practically identical. Here we see election campaigns revolving around "well a vote for a minor party you actually agree with will be wasting your vote."

Politically, the group with the most power is a conglomerate of businessmen and industrialists called the CBI. Almost every private television station and newspaper is operated by them, so they exercise their influence over the government. To quote George Monbiot, "Every public event the bosses' trade union hosts is attended by a senior minister, usually either the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They come on bended knee to ask permission to stay in office."

The vast majority of the media is controlled by multi-millionaires, members of the elite class who control the government, as their stranglehold over the media results in them being the most powerful group of voters in the country. This is effectively weighting the votes of one group above another, and is another unelected group of people wihtout whose consent nobody can be elected prime minister. An example of this is the conservative party conference. A mere couple of hundred old men, it was widely covered and reported by all newspapers and television stations. In contrast, the 51,000-strong, youth-dominated European Social Forum achieved only one report in the entire printed British press.

There is also no doubt that we are seeing a gradual erosion of our civil liberties. It is now banned to protest outside parliament, and the government has the power to dissolve any protest. It is now illegal "to persuade any person ... not to do something that he is entitled or required to do, or to do something that he is not under any obligation to do". This has been used to break up several peaceful protests, and distributing leaflets has now become a crime.

During the Labour party conference, an old man said the word "nonsense" at the back of the room, and was removed by two heavies and thrown onto the street. If he had said this vicious and evil word twice, fortunately, he would have been recognised as the threat to national security he surely is and charged. As the law states - it “must involve conduct on at least two occasions … conduct includes speech.” It has since been used to stop peaceful protests, used by arms companies to disperse protests at their gates, and used to prosecute a woman for sending two police emails to a drugs company asking them to stop testing on animals.

The terrorism act in 2000 is even worse. Yes, you can now be arrested for wearing a t-shirt that might “arouse reasonable suspicion”. The police can now arrest anyone they believe may be about to commit an offence, and holding them in custody without trial for seven days. Added to the obvious fact we have more CCTV cameras per person than anywhere else in the world, it's pretty hard to get away with. Plans are also underway to fit mandatory tracking devices in every vehicle, along with ID cards fr every citizen.

Welcome to the brave new world.

There is some truth in this, but most of it is over emphsised. The only people who are nelected and have real power are the house of Lords.

Most of the British Media is anti Bush and Blair atm, but you are right in saying that only the three main parties get coverage( well the BNP get it as well, but fot the wrong reasons), and remember, the medias main interest is to sell stories. If they are biased and censored, then not so much stories will be sold.

And i wouldnt exactly say that our civil liberies are being impeded, well they are if you are Muslim, but for the majority of us, they arent. Has anyone been arrested for wearing a suspicious T-shirt? And if Anyone is arrested in Britian for terror charges, they make a fuss about it, then the media blows it out of proportion, then the government is left blushing .

And so far ID cards have had very little atention from either the press or the government. All that i heard about them was about 8 months ago, they were suppose to cost £300 each , as if they would get away with that.

And yes, there are more CCTV cameras watching us than ever, when you are down town beside shops! They arent watching us inside out houses, they arent watching us when we are out in the country!

And the vehclie tracker thing wont go ahead for a while yet, the technology isnt there yet. They can only tell to about 4 meters of your location, which is not precise enough when there are so many close roads.

[Lord Kal]

Here, i'll do it for you.

Uniform. 13. - (1) A person in a public place commits an offence if he-



(a) wears an item of clothing, or



(b) wears, carries or displays an article,

in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation.


So there. People have been arrested using this law, protestors have been dispersed for influencing people to "do something they are not obliged to do", as I said in the article (did you even read it?) people were dispersed for "causing distress" to american soldiers at a barracks by standing outside holding a placard. A protestor in hull was arrested for "staring at a building".

The media might be anti-Blair, but it never mentions these laws, it never mentions the CBI, it never mentions stuff like the European Social Forum as I stated. Anyway, this isn't really an attack on labour, it's a general trend. It might be bad now, wait til a more right-wing government takes power.

[Custor]

House of Lords and increasingly run by unelected officials? Eh the house of Lords have been around how long? The House of Lords does a damn site better job than the tabloid idiots in the Commons.
It's then House of Lords that has bene trying to prevent the retarded 'Terrorist Fear' legislastion that is being put through.
Arse laws being put through for 'terrorism' being used against everyday people doing everyday things. Nothing new there. Blair is a fine orator, but He's stuffed after Iraq. Pity the Tories can't shake off 'Fear' policies either and used some brains for once.

[Denny Crane!]

House of Lords is being reformed so it is no longer unelected - unfortuantly.

We still have the independant judiciary which while they will comply to legislation they will not bow to pressure from the government. There independance has been proved in recent cases for example the afghan hijackers.

While I do think the government is pushing the bounds of democracy I do not believe they will ever suceed in implementing an authoritarian state. I also think the abuses are more in the democratic process than the restriction of liberties.


peter

[removeduser_487563287433]

Viewing the House of Lords as some corrupt worthless and incompetant body just because they are historically unelected is plain wrong.

[Marly]

The house of commons can force a law through the house of lords however. Such as fox hunting. So..

Also i personally find it unlikely anyone stopped for wearing a suspcious T shirt would be held for 7 days..geez..they might stop and search you but they wont haul you to the station unless they find anything on you. In which case its no longer about the T shirt and in fact the law has entirely worked.

[Custor]

I find it unlikely that any Copper worth his salt as a public servent should use anti terrorism legislation against people people wearing t-shirts and against labour party members at a conference. It happens though and that was NOT how the law works entirely when it was drafted.

[MaximiIian]

Wait, what's exactly wrong with totalitarianism? As long as it's done properly, and doesn't obliterate one's basic human rights and freedoms, it can be effective. As long as the freedoms of speech, belief, press, peaceful assembly, and petition are assured, a mostly noncorrupt totalitarian government could defend those rights and freedoms more effectively. I mean, after all, look back at the days of the Enlightened Absolutists; they ruled well and wise, for thier people and not for themselves, and mainly because they had absolute power.

[the Black Prince]

Primarily, the country is increasingly run by unelected individuals. We have the house of lords, an unelected group of 'politicians' consisting of landowners and businessmen who have either inherited or bought their position. They use this primarily to hinder progressive laws and maintain the old ways, for example opposing the fox-hunting ban. Here, we have a prime example of unelected figures playing a role in politics.

Rubbish
the bulk of the Lords are appointed there by the elected government, and only 92 out of 450 odd inherit their titles.

as for hindering progression, may i remind you that it was a lord - Lord Lester of Herne Hill - who introdiced two landmark pieces of equality legislation - the Civil Partnership Act 2004 and the Gender Recognition Act 2004.

Politically, there is a very small spectrum of acceptibility. Only the three main parties gain any media coverage, which are all practically identical. Here we see election campaigns revolving around "well a vote for a minor party you actually agree with will be wasting your vote."

alas true...
however, the reason for it is that labour have conclusively shown that campaigning based on selling your ideology is nowhwere near as effective as campaigning on what people want... so instead of an election fought over Left Vs Right, labour vs Tory, we have an election where both parties take the ground whose policies sell well - Centre-Right, and try and present a better image... New Labour moved right, and won a landslide election and 3 terms in power, Howard started moving the tories left to counter him, and Cameron is accelerating this move... meanwhile there has been speculation that Ming will move the Lib Dems to the right as well, leaving all 3 main parties in same ground - fighting over who can give the people more of what thyey appear to want...
as opposed to say - american politics - where both parties seemed to be totally polarised, with no middle ground at all...

There is also no doubt that we are seeing a gradual erosion of our civil liberties. It is now banned to protest outside parliament, and the government has the power to dissolve any protest. It is now illegal "to persuade any person ... not to do something that he is entitled or required to do, or to do something that he is not under any obligation to do". This has been used to break up several peaceful protests, and distributing leaflets has now become a crime.

certainly it can be spun that way
however, it is NOT banned to protest outside parliament, you just need permission to do so...
the government does not have the power to dissolve any protest - only unlawful ones
afterall, marches take place quite frequently, such as the recent nude cyclists outside G8...
distributing leaflets has not become a crime... afterall, distributiung leaflets is one of the few tyhings political parties are GOOD at!

The police can now arrest anyone they believe may be about to commit an offence,

the police have been able to do this since 1984 - the Police and Criminal Evidence Act - attempts have always been arestable offences too
also, arresting someone doesn't mrean charging them... plenty of people are arrested each day and released without charge


yes, our anti-terrorism laws have been stepped up... and yes, i agree that our civil liberties have been enfringed under labour...

but whilst you rant on about it... may i also remind you it was the LORDS who put up the biggest opposition to the terrorism bills, it was the lords who delayed and demanded scrutiney of ID card plans, and it was the members of the Appelates Committee of the House of Lords who overturned evidence by torture and who overturned detention without trial for up to 90 days...

[Lord Kal]

But that's exactly it, the freedom of speech isn't being assured. "Harrassment includes speech" as it says in the bill, therefore if i "incite unrest" in a private conversation by saying the government arent very good, i'm "harassing" someone and then the police can come and get me.

Half of my point was that it's bad now, but what happens when a right-wing government gets voted in and inherits the laws?

Unelected people should not have any political power at all. That's how democracy works. If you think unelected people work so well, lets let old Elizabeth run the country as a dictator again then, eh?

[MaximiIian]

But that's exactly it, the freedom of speech isn't being assured. "Harrassment includes speech" as it says in the bill, therefore if i "incite unrest" in a private conversation by saying the government arent very good, i'm "harassing" someone and then the police can come and get me.

Well, that's one stupid bill, then.
However, a totalitarian government could, hypothetically, work, as long as they were to ensure human civil rights, which this supposed bill does not.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not a fascist, and am against racism or anything that violates human rights. I oppose corrupt governments, whether they be dictatorships, democracies, monarchies, or
socialist countries. However, if a government can at least ensure and protect individual rights and freedoms, it's bound to be doing something right. This bill seems to not be doing that.