“ I’m more populist than you are” “ Oh no you’re not ….”

When you have to replace a minister as mediocre as Robert Jenrick with two people, then you should be getting the hint that you are in trouble. 

Let me try to summarise where we are:-

The Government has spent £240m on a policy that has transported precisely no-one to Rwanda. Unsatisfied with it that it wants  to spend another £50m. The policy isn’t yet close to being law, and faces criticism by even further  right Conservatives whose preferred solution would put it outside of the reach of  international human rights scrutiny. This  might well cause a country that the Supreme Court considered to be unsafe for migrants,  to decide the UK is an unsafe country to do business with. A country where the President has been in power for decades and gets a routine 95% of the vote. Must be popular, but could be something else entirely. 

It might also mark a precedent. I can’t recall any previous attempt by a British Government to create legislation that defines the truth in their eyes that cannot be questioned legally. This is what dictatorships do, define their own truth and make it impossible to challenge.

We seem to be in a downward conservative spiral which can be described  as a fantastical political reality show where even the hideous prospect of viewing Nigel Farage’s naked buttocks in an actual reality show seems light relief. Take it from me that is a low point, spare yourself the research. 

We have “ New Conservatives”, “ one nation Conservatives”, “ERG, and another take on far right carpet chewing whose name escapes me and could change over night. This seems like the kind of political mayhem that Johnny Foreigner gets up to. (Sorry did I swear?) It is hard to keep up. 

How lucky are we? Apparently we have not one but three far right factions competing to be  the least legal most hard right option for immigration, including  one lead by that great intellectual  heavyweight,  Mark Francois.  We now have to cope with “Jenrick-Braverism” which sounds like a psychological syndrome, and on  reflection, it probably is. Possibly somewhere on the sociopathic spectrum. 

After all Suella has said that she alone knows what makes the entire UK population the most angry. ( I should qualify this as Suella doesn’t: definition of “entire UK population”  = the tiny fraction of a percentage point of the UK population who are Conservative Party members, mainly in the Home Counties,  who might be persuaded to vote for  her as party leader.) 

Turn to the TV for light relief and you get Boris Johnson at the Covid Enquiry explaining why the facts are not facts, why he doesn’t recognise facts others use as fact, they have never been facts and that he can’t remember any other facts. He was  the story before last, before Truss (remember her?) but the descent to this state begins a while back when David Cameron opened the political Pandora’s box that was Brexit. Give oxygen to populism as a legitimate political choice and you give it life through respectability. 

Where does this end up? Just a thought. Pause to consider if you will.  

If the Government in Westminster decrees that it can determine that a policy cannot be challenged in a court of law, because the political directive must take precedent against legal challenge, then what other legal findings  should/could we chose to ignore?  

The Scottish Government  passes a Bill on Trans Rights,  Westminster disagrees. So here is a problem. Two equally democratically elected entities are in conflict, so there needs to be a respected authority to turn to in order to determine what can or in this case cannot go ahead. 

So it goes to Court which makes a determination. 

But it is just a Court, right? According to  the new political philosophy of Jenrick -Braverism we can chose which courts to ignore. So we can just get on with it can’t we? We have passed the democracy test. This is the logical outcome if you put yourself above the courts of law. Just get on with it. 

I note today  Kate Forbes critiqued Scot Gov’s decision to take this to court as the findings against them legitimises Westminster’s use of Section 35 to overturn devolved decision making. She misses the point. What does that change? A sword of Damocles is not a sword only when it is used, it is the threat of its use that defines behaviour. Once used it loses its mystery and defines the truth about power. Challenging that power becomes easier because the alternatives are better defined. The genie is no longer in the bottle.

If we are to turn our backs selectively on the conventions of legal supremacy then what other convention  might we chose to ignore? Perhaps if Westminster makes its choices on what conventions to ignore  then Scotland (Wales and Northern Ireland)  should chose our own?  What about the convention of  Section 30 for an Indy 2 vote? Why wait? You suggest it isn’t legal ? But what is legal when you suspend legal judgement?

I guess the Scottish Government is wondering if the finding on trans rights  should be challenged. Putting aside things like moral arguments and the personal pain associated with the issue, there is a political case for just leaving the judgement there as a raw spot in the devolution settlement. An unalienable reference,  a demonstration of political fact, “this is what we want to do  exercising the political will  of a  democratically elected  Scottish  Parliament and  this is how under current terms they can stop us …” What  next? 

Add to that Johnson’s peevish critique of the Devolved Administrations’ insistence on their own messaging during  Covid. The cheek of it! I mean it is as if  they had their own health service ….oh we do. Match that to his inability under questioning to tell the difference between “country” and “nation.” ( The KC ignored him as you might’ve ignored a particularly irksome urchin in class who sniggered when he said the word “bum.”)  I might and  do criticise the length of the Westminster Covid Enquiry as being excessive, but it is rather delightful seeing ministers trying to behave in the presence of grown ups. 

All of this is furthering the cause of Independence almost without having  to make the argument. 

Westminster/ Holyrood relations right now  sounds an awful lot like “do as Mummy and Daddy say, not as we do” Not good parenting, particularly when you should have no parental rights. Would you be surprised the kids want to move out? 

But it is ok. At worst another year of this, and then the relief of a Labour Government whose leader thinks Mrs Thatcher did a great job. 

You can’t make this stuff up. 

Meanwhile, to the irritation of  those who try to characterise Indy 2 as about one Party,   in as hapless a year as there has been in the history  of the SNP, polling  on independence sticks stubbornly above 50%.  I wonder why ? 

(Written on Saturday 9th of December, I felt the need to say that in a week when it seems anything might happen)