I think with Home Secretaries like Patel and Braverman, and a PM like Truss and Johnson - it is not impossible for that descent to be that improbable.
Both Johnson and Patel were sacked from high office but returned to high office after that public sacking.
Yes, a long way from being equated, but going down is easier that getting back up.
Sure. Not just in the UK but in all democracies citizens should be vigilant about this kind of thing.
But the UK is a long way off being ranked with Russia in this regard.
Quote ^^ 'The UK has a dreadful electoral system which regularly delivers government to parties that a majority of voters have rejected, but it's not an authoritarian country, because the rule of law is still very much a reality in the UK.'
Not yet. But they are heading that way.
Sending asylum seekers to Rwanda with no chance of return to the UK is against the UNHCR and is battling against the ECHR and failing. The UK courts are being bypassed.
Preventing protests by increasing the powers of the police to break up all protests with little reason. Even holding up a blank A4 piece of paper had one protester arrested.
I am sure there are many other examples creeping through UK life.
No, no. In a real democracy, the power of voters and the prospects of losing office are not the only, or even the main constraint, on government oppression. True democracies are also characterised by the rule of law - government authorities, just like citizens, must obey the law, and are answerable to the courts if they do not, and citizens have access to the courts for that purpose. It's the weakness or absence of the rule of law in countries like Russia that make them authoritarian, more than the weak electoral system.
The UK has a dreadful electoral system which regularly delivers government to parties that a majority of voters have rejected, but it's not an authoritarian country, because the rule of law is still very much a reality in the UK.
Well, few would describe the current Tory regime as being a good example of democracy.
Currently they are removing freedom of speech, right to protest, and brining in voter suppression. And there are many such matters in planning.
I think your case would include the UK on the autocracy scale as closer to Putin than most EU member states - with perhaps two exceptions. I am sure you do not need to go to Google to identify them.
I would say Putin's Russia fails on all counts in your tests for democracy. Holding up an A4 white sheet of paper gets the person arrested and jailed. Likewise anyone using 'war' to describe the 'special military operation'.
I rest my case
@bob mcbob This autocracy vs democracy has nothing to do with Scottish Independence as although FPTP is not that democratic, it is a very long way from autocracy.
It is not just percentages.
Really!
Approx 13.4M people in the UK live in poverty (that is 20% of the population). Would these people swap this for a more comfortable life in an autocratic state - well I cannot speak for them but I think I have an idea. 60% of the population are struggling economically - I wonder how many of these chose this through their "voice".
With regards to democracy - the 5 key characteristics are -
Putin Russia, where.as you said fear and repression rule, meet 3 or 4 of the characteristics of a democratic state. No it is not democracy good (white) and autocracies bad (black). All you really have are different shades of grey, with the difference between democracies and autocracies merely a question of scale.
No, just no.
Democracies are based on the voice of the people. I know that is trite but it is the basis that the whole system is built. Now it is not uncommon for such systems to go off the rails, and they often do, but many return to stability.
Go back a few centuries, when democracy was just autocracies where power was held by a small coterie of wealthy families. That gradually morphed into democracy as the industrial revolution spread wealth to the nouveau riche.
These new powerful individual wanted a share of the action and they made sure they got it. However, their wealth and power depended on those workers who did the generation of the wealth and those workers realised that in unity was strength, and so the Labour movement evolved.
Once the genie was out of the bottle, it was not going back. The ancienne regime no longer has any power, and all power is with the people (in a true democracy).
Now Putin rules by fear and repression, as does Xi Jinping, with the ability both have for 'disappearing' any opposition. That is the style of all these despots.
It is not a question of percentages. It necessary for a depot to use the spectre of fear, naked violence and repression.
I think this is an interesting perspective but for me a bit naive.
What is the difference between authoritarian regimes like Russia and democracies - nothing more than percentages. Putin has maybe 30% bought into his regime and the democracries have maybe 60% bought into it. So you talk about incompetence and corruption but what is really meant is that democracies are a bit better than authoritarian regimes but only if you do not let the ruling party get settled. If you do no difference.
Not much media comment here either re the SNP's recent woes. Sturgeon was always given something close to a reverential status by us, although I always thought that was more to do with an anti English stance. The eviction ban and now the Joe show has overshadowed all else over the last couple of weeks though.
I agree wholeheartedly with the comments re political parties being in power too long and when they are the careerists and types it attracts. One could argue we've never really had that radical departure of politics between FF or FG across the years, hence also attracting similar types.
The SNP were a single issue party who rose in support very quickly over the last 20 years. Once in power though, they became the establishment and were viewed not solely as the part of future independence for Scotland, but the government whose role it is to govern, day to day, and all the issues that entails.
Before this story broke last week, there seemed to be enough friction in the party, as was espoused during the leadership campaign. One cannot but assume this is damaging enough to knock support for independence which was already beginning to wane, or if not wane, just was not showing much of an increase in support.
A lesson also for SF when they land in power here.
Independence is tough to say. Snp I would expect pretty quickly. Certainly there is a lot that needs investigating but also there needs to be a viable alternative to them that isn't just funnel more economic growth to London.
It was revealed recently that the SNP doesn't currently have auditors - that was bad enough but then it emerged that the Auditors had resigned last September. When asked about this, Humza Yousaf said that:
he had not been aware of the issue until he became leader, adding that "it would have been helpful to have known beforehand" and that "there should have been more transparency around the party finances".
Similarly, when asked about the motorhome that the party bought, he said that he had found out about it:
"Shortly after I became leader of the party".
So either Nicola Sturgeon is after leaving him the biggest pile of dung to deal with, or his claims of ignorance beggar belief.
It will be a long time before anyone can seriously suggest a new indyref.
So by the time they do it will be a generation on from 2014.
Impossible to say at this point; we'll need to see what emerges over the next weeks and months.
To be honest, perhaps the best thing that could happen to the SNP would be to be ejected from office fairly quickly, so that they can have a term in opposition which would give them an opportunity to address some of their internal problems, acknowledge errors, get rid of some undesirable elements, etc. They could then make a fist of presenting themselves as a renewed party at the following Scottish election.
But that's unlikely. The next election isn't due until 2026, so we are looking at another three years of the SNP trying to govern while being subjected to long-drawn out investigations, quite possibly prosecutions, and a lot of relentless scrutiny, all of which will require them to be very defensive. That won't improve the quality of their governance, and it is not the ideal climate in which do the kind of self-overhaul that they could do in opposition. After three years of that they could be looking like a very stale offering.
How long will it take the SNP and Independence movement to recover lost ground?
A party which has governed well for two terms is quite likely to be returned for a third by a grateful electorate, but often the quality of governance in the third term will start to slip (and things tend to go to hell altogether in the fourth term, if there is one).
Your point about political renewal in European countries is a good one. I think the ways in which political renewal is acheived in those countries is not just constantly shifting coalitions (which can facilitate a kind of "rolling renewal") but also changing parties. One of the things that characterises UK (and to some extent Irish) politics is the extraordinary longevity of political parties. The Conservatives have been one of the two dominant political parties in the UK pretty much since the UK became a semi-democracy in the late nineteenth century; the Labour party are relative newcomers but have been the other dominant party for a century. This is become the UK electoral system strongly entrenches the established parties, regardless of how dysfunctional they may become.
Few other European democracies have dominant parties which endure for so long. Parties merge, or split, or are refounded, or are superseded, with relative frequency. For example, if we look at the top four parties in the French National Assembly, they were founded in 2016 (La République En Marche), 1972 (Rassemblement National, founded as Front National), 2016 (La France Insoumise) and 2002 (Les Républicains, founded as Union pour un mouvement populaire). Of course they all had predecessor parties and their first leaders and members of parliament came from those parties, but the foundation of new parties still allows for the injection of new ideas and (just as important) the abandonment of old ones.
If a party wants to implement a radical change, then 2 terms in Govn't should achieve most of that. Thus 7/8 years is the maximum. Multiple coalition situations as in many European countries might have a different dynamic.
Bit of a false dichotomy, there, since incompetence and corruption can go hand-in-hand. Indeed, they often do. Case in point right now — the Tories.
While there is much that separates the Tories and the SNP there is one thing they have in common — too long in government. The Tories have been in office continuall since 2010; the SNP since 20007. This isn't healthy.
Parties that have been too long in office run out of ideas and energy. Also, it's in the nature of politics to attract careerists, opportunists and people on the make. The more successful a party is perceived to be, the more of these it attracts. The combination of these factors mean that, when a party is too long in office, the quality of government it provides starts to decline, and in fact to decline precipitously. Hence, incompetence and corruption. This phenomenon is unrelated to ideology; it affects both progressive and conservative parties.
Functional democracies need regular changes of government. Both Edinburgh and Westminster are exemplifying that right now.
"out-of-touch careerists and activists pursuing issues which the wider public regard as irrelevant to their daily lives"
One could describe the UK Labour party or the US Democrats in the same fashion - and for the same reason. These are parties dominated by well-off college graduates who don't give a shít about bread and butter issues because they are unaffected. It's a flaw that Republicans/Tories exploit successfully by painting the decision makers in these parties as out-of-touch elitists, and by promising the less well off that the right will look after them - when in reality the likes of Rees Mogg despise them.
Incompetence or corruption?
6 auditors for the SNP resigned 6 months ago, their new First Minster has been forced to admit.
Bizarre goings on in the SNP.
Seems Douglas Ross would prefer Lb in Westminister and a weakened SNP:
Didn't Cliff Richard get an unwelcome visit from the plods, with the BBC in tow?
How did that end?
I guess we'll know in due course. But if it turns out they found little of note at the premises, there may be questions as to why the search operation was so big - police raids on houses investigating financial fraud don't normally feature dozens of officers, diggers in the garden etc.
Maybe the police know or suspect something he does not?
It should be noted though that even Richard Littlejohn - a right wing, Brexity type and Sturgeon critic - says he has serious misgivings about the raid on the house and feels it was a totally over the top operation by the Scottish police:
It is reported in many places on the media that it was.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11942651/Police-seen-holding-shovels-search-Nicola-Sturgeons-garden.html
https://www.channel4.com/news/what-next-for-the-snp-as-nicola-sturgeons-husband-is-arrested
I suppose the large tent in the garden and the spades the police were pictured with was for something else?
Ah now, Murrell resigned suddenly. This investigation has been ongoing. Even so, the raids would not have been expected probably.
Really, having the two major roles occupied by members of the one family, is never a good idea. Neil Kinnock resigned his EU job because his wife Gladys got another position.
I've no doubt that Sturgeon's resignation was connected to the forthcoming police raid.
Doesn't make much sense to be honest.
If they knew there was going to be a police raid, they'd have cleansed the place surely?
I'd think it's as likely there are political shennangins going on here, somebody has made an accusation safe in the knowledge it will be capitalised on by the 'there's no smoke without fire' crew.
I'm not claiming this is what happened, I could be totally wrong, but caution should be observed here. Political shennanigins and political policing are a thing after all.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e68aa2b0e039b12ade8384a2f42841c6.svg)
