Unionism: What is Mrs May pitching?

Unionism was Joseph Chamberlain's special province when he dominated Victorian politics. Today, Theresa May is trying to spark a resurgence. Photograph: Joseph Chamberlain plaque by Simon Harriyott (License) (Cropped)

At the beginning of last week, Theresa May launched her first full year as the leader of the Conservative & Unionist Party with a speech that called for a 'shared society' (BBC, 2017). Over the years, the Conservatives have made many rebranding attempts. Is May's any different?

For the most part, the attempts of her predecessors - Major, Hague, Duncan Smith and Cameron - have been focussed on repackaging Thatcher. They have tried to soften the harsh anti-government and anti-interventionism tone to the policies of the Thatcher-Reagan consensus (BBC, 2017{2}).

But they all contained the same disdain for the idea of a 'society' as a figment created to justify collectivism - to justify a claim that people have duties towards others beyond themselves and their own families, expressed through taxation and the state. They just tried to make rejection of the state, and embrace of the free market and privatisation in its place, palatable or 'empowering'.

May's rebrand seems different. She has appealed harder to the idea of the state's role, promising intervention in a way that none of her recent forebears would perhaps have contemplated. She has hinted at moving away from austerity and letting the state intervene more. But how does this all relate to what we know of conservatism and do these appeals follow through?

Chamberlain and Unionism

Theresa May's inspiration, it seems, for this deviation from the legacy of Thatcher is Joseph Chamberlain. Chamberlain was the Victorian political heavyweight who broke his Unionists away from the Liberals and led them into alliance, and eventual merger, with the Conservatives.

A businessman, and industrialist, he was at first aligned with the radical liberal reformers who campaigned for enfranchisement and free, compulsory - and local authority run - education. As Mayor of Birmingham he reorganised municipal utilities, bringing them under municipal control, cleared slums, and rallied public and private money to public works, such as building libraries, museums, schools and parks.

On the other hand, he proved himself to be an aggressive nationalist. He opposed Irish Home Rule and defended the Union, and further wanted to see the Empire become a truly, exclusively, British trading system, protected by trade tariffs and was willing to back military action to advance Britain's interests - in ventures not so far removed from the interventions of the neoliberal governments in oil rich countries in the early 2000s.

The Unionists, of which he was a leading figure, where a strange coalition of aristocratic Whigs with landed estates, who as a faction were drifting away from the Liberal mainstream, and a group of radical reformers led by Chamberlain. These two groups were united mostly by their opposition to Irish Home Rule, which would break up the Union.

The composition of the Unionists shifted over time, but it settled around a particular outlook: a British nationalism that transcended its constituent nationalities, built upon institutions like Westminster government, and preserved the Union; and, economic intervention at home with a protected British system of trade abroad, directed to British interests alone.

But what was perhaps most significant, from where Theresa May sit, was that the Unionists brought a working class base to the Conservative coalition. Chamberlain's personal support, centred on Birmingham, included working class voters, gave the traditional party of the landed aristocracy a broad enough base of followers to dominate government in the twentieth century.

May and Unionism

May's first conference as leader was at Birmingham, the centre of her hero's political empire and was the scene for the first two big moves of her ministry: to disentangle a still United Britain entirely from continental entanglements and to prioritise some spending over paying down the deficit (BBC, 2016; BBC, 2016{2}).

And there have been other moves. Intervening to delay Hinckley Point, alleged promises made to Nissan that speak of protectionism, hints of economic planning in the promises to develop an industrial strategy, and the continuance of the Conservative policy of devolution to the local government level that could have pleased Chamberlain (Goodall, 2016).

However - and it is a big, emphatic, however - no Conservative leader has been scared to use central government, top down, intervention when it suited them; privatisations continue; part of the Brexit rhetoric is that Britain is leaving the EU in search of freer trade, not more protected; and devolution has been hand in hand with cuts, as a way to impose austerity while handing off responsibility for its results.

Without a tangible set of policies to mark her approach out as distinct, what part of the legacy of Unionism is May promoting? Well, so far, the main thrust of May's Unionism has been cultural. Her speeches focus heavily on acknowledging injustice (Kuenssberg, 2017) and warning that it will 'undermine the solidarity of our society' (May, 2017).

That word - 'solidarity' - seems like an odd choice of phrase for a Conservative in the modern era, but it might be understood better when coupled with her phrase 'bringing our country together', which is what May presents as her solution to the rising resentment.

That phrase makes clear that this isn't 'solidarity' in its usual collectivist democratic sense, of the people standing together for mutual empowerment - an egalitarian mass movement of people aiding each other as a counter the power of an elite class.

Rather, May's point - her Unionism - seems to be very conventionally conservative: the traditional institutions have broken down and people are lost without their place in the established order. To end resentment, May seems to be arguing that a Burkean social harmony must be restored.

In that, there seems to be marked a drift in the party away from liberal conservatism towards something more purely conservative. Since the decision to enter the Coalition, a reaction within the party has grown ever louder against Cameron's soft conservative neoliberalism. In its place, rises an effort to reconcile individualism and competition, with an appeal to nationalism and community coherence, to unite the two errant wings of the ideology.

It is in the prioritising of these first two, and neglect of the last two, from which May sees resentment springing - and it certainly seems to fit how resentment has been filtered through Farage and UKIP. What May also sees is an opportunity.

Chamberlain combined local social reform with banging the patriotic drum, pitching a British system that carried a sense of a nation and tradition in which ordinary people have a stake - where everyone has their part to play. May sees a chance, in evoking the Chamberlain heritage of Unionism, to bring working people into a Conservative coalition.

Society as seen through a Prism

To do this May has taken up the language of the Left, but filtered its cause through a conservative prism. For instance, she wants to equate social justice with social harmony - in the process stripping it of its sense of distributional equality, leaving behind only class collaboration and perhaps, in the conservative sense, a 'fair deal' on work and pay.

The trouble is that social harmony is illusory. It requires citizens to accept exclusion and inequality in exchange, maybe, for a place of safety and security within the fold. Meanwhile the true elite - the wealthy, the rentiers - do not need to give up or compromise much of anything to take up their place within the harmonious order.

"A Britain that works for everyone" is not a slogan that promises very much - just as "We're all in this together" proved an empty promise to ordinary citizens, their sacrifices unmatched by the elite. Unionism addresses resentment by falling back on nationalism, looking to 'the nation', 'the Union' and their institutions as a rallying point.

Chamberlain's own Unionist star fell when colonial adventures brought misery and his closed economy could not compete with the benefits of being open to the world. The reality is that his Unionism did not leave ordinary people better off, however much it rallied them about a patriotically waved flag. Theresa May is trying to pick up and claim that fallen standard.

Progressives should not be seduced. People cannot be content with a place within May's social hierarchy: tightly ordered, tightly surveilled - living under close control, in exchange for just the hope of a little basic social security. Unionism, and its social harmony within a hierarchy, offers citizens neither liberty or justice.

Policing and Crime Bill, with oversight and transparency reforms, goes to Commons unlikely to face much opposition

Theresa May's Policing and Crime Bill has a stated aim of improving disciplinary and complaints systems, along with the Inspectorate, in order to improve public confidence in the Police.  Photograph: Police Motorbike from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

In Parliament today, Home Secretary Theresa May presents her Policing and Crime Bill to the Commons for its first formal vote (Parliament, 2016). With a Conservative majority, its passage at this stage should be just a formality - particularly when English Votes for English Laws is applied. That only makes it all the more important for those outside of Parliament to pay particularly close attention.

The government claim the bill will 'finish the job' of police reform (Home Office & May, 2016). Included in its aims are reforming the police disciplinary and complaints systems, strengthening 'the independence of HM Inspectorate of Constabulary', increasing protections for people with mental health problems, allowing chief officers to "confer a wider range of powers on police staff and volunteers", and introducing a requirement for 'suspected foreign nationals to produce a nationality document'.

While moves to increase oversight and accountability are always welcome, along with further considerations for mental health, elements of the bill have faced some criticism. For instance, the expansion of volunteers in police service with police powers has raised some concerns (BBC, 2016) - with suggestions that it may be an artificial way to inflate police numbers in the face of austerity and cuts. There is also some scepticism regarding the continually expanding role of the Police and Crime Commissioners (Russell Webster, 2016), though it has been argued that accountability brought by PCC's election are having a positive impact (Baird, 2016).

The Policing and Crime bill itself is being steered through Parliament by Theresa May. As Home Secretary, Theresa May has already overseen a number of disputes over law enforcement and policing policy.

May has been the force behind the slow and controversial progress of the Investigatory Powers Bill, the so-called snooper's charter (Watt, 2016). Nick Clegg, as Deputy Prime Minister, had forced early bills covering public surveillance, particularly on the internet, to be withdrawn. The most recent attempt has been criticised, not just for being an infringement of liberty, but for being largely unworkable (The Guardian; 2016).

By way of contrast, a positive move was made by May in response to Boris Johnson's wish to deploy water cannon in London. May promised never to deploy police with military style equipment, for fear of undermining the legitimacy of the police (Dodd, 2015) - which is supposed to be based on the principle of policing by consent.

Between refusing water cannons and promoting mass data gathering, and her lack of surety on elected Police and Crime Commissioners (BBC, 2016{2}), Theresa May has cut an inconsistent path as Home Secretary. That inconsistency, along with the Conservative government's poor attitude towards human rights, since cutting loose the Liberal Democrats in May 2015 (Bowcott, 2015), call for a particularly critical eye to be turned on any reform efforts they spearhead.

It is only the early stages for this bill. A bill whose aims will likely be disrupted by disputes over further 'efficiencies' to be found in police budgets (ITV, 2016) - and maybe still further cuts as those scarcely avoided by the Chancellor last time, through heavy dependence upon the prediction of an improved economy, may well come around again in next week's budget with the economy struggling and tough choices expected (Elliott, 2016).

Yet whenever one party seeks to make changes to the enforcement of law and order, it is important to stress the need for the public to remain vigilant. Reform is need. Oversight and transparency are needed. Clear statements of powers, who has them and when, are needed. But the process of reform should too be constrained by those principles.

Jurassic Park is still the king of the dinosaur movies as Jurassic World fails to match its strong feminist overtones

Photograph: IMG_4881 via photopin (license) (cropped)

Jurassic World always faced a gigantic task in trying to emulate the screen success of its predecessor. Jurassic Park was a groundbreaking movie. The clever classic threw maths and science, an appreciation for nature, botany and ecology, and palaeontology at a popular audience, and fully trusted them to be excited and inspired.

The male lead Alan Grant was a grumpy and unsociable Dinosaur expert. Dr Malcolm, the 'cool' character, was a mathematician and the unorthodox voice of reason. John Hammond, the park's creator and 'villain' such as there was one, was a likeable, charismatic and ultimately very human, billionaire philanthropist.

The Dinosaurs were not monsters but animals, which inspired a gleeful awe from the protagonists. The antagonists were neither the Dinosaurs nor the limited number of 'villains' - who amounted to nothing more than wild animals or flawed humans, respectively - but rather human hubris before nature and the creeping abstract concept of chaos.

But above all else, Jurassic Park gave us a pair of strong female characters: Dr Ellie Sattler and Lex.

Lex, Hammond's granddaughter, doesn't let being a frightened child reduce her to a mere passenger. She faces her fears to outwit predatory dinosaurs and protect her brother. Then she uses her own technical skills, as a self-designated hacker, to proactively help get the park's security systems back online.

Dr Ellie Sattler, meanwhile, was the female lead and an expert in her own right, a palaeobotanist who took immediate command of the situation when she encountered a sick Triceratops. With intelligence and dry humour, she openly and unashamedly calls out sexism on at least two occasions while being unapologetically maternal in wanting children. She is also the one to call out the quixotic philanthropist Hammond on his delusions, showing her growth from being 'overwhelmed' by the marvellous dinosaur island to being frightened but resolved. She acts on her own initiative in emergency situations and is strong and dependable.

Then, we have Jurassic World. In comparison, it was just a monster movie. A dumb but entertaining movie that falls well short of its predecessor's high standard. Worse, however, it has been derided as openly sexist (Shoard, 2015; Battersby, 2015).

The core of the problem is centred on how the female lead is treated. She is a stereotype of a woman made 'unnaturally' cold by being out of her 'natural' element, who warms up by being exposed a strong male and the need to nurture and protect children (Fitzpatrick, 2015). Even being allowed a couple of instances of action movie heroics do little to redeem her from the painful stereotype. She's a smart professional who still gets ordered around by men and ignores expert advice; she's capable and informed but behaves with astonishing naivety; and makes some absurd choices, including remaining in breakneck heels in dangerous situations.

All of this, and some of the other rather bizarre plot choices, tend to overshadow what could have been a fascinating renewal of the message of the original movie. Jurassic Park was all about chaos emerging from order, as small events escalate beyond the human capacity for control (Oltermann, 2015). Somewhere in Jurassic World are messages about our short attention spanned consumerism and a very timely reminder of how easily our human constructed structures can be undermined - but it all got lost or buried along the way.

The biggest and most mystifying question is how Jurassic World, made twenty-two years after Jurassic Park, managed to be so much less progressive than the original. It was an entertaining but ultimately problematic movie that failed to break any new ground and so, in the end, will be largely forgetten. Even over twenty years later, the original Jurassic Park will still be the one viewers reach for a smart and entertaining movie.

The Met Police's water cannon and the dangers of ideology, escalation and suppression

Earlier this week came the news that London's Metropolitan Police want permission to deploy water cannon. On their behalf, London Mayor Boris Johnson has petitioned the Home Secretary Teresa May, and it seems that a public consultation is soon to follow (Dodd, 2014; Merrill, 2014).

If the growing publicity that protests have received in the last few years, and the obvious tensions that there have been between protesters and the police at those events, are taken into account, this response from the capital's police force should not be a surprise. It should, however, make you wary.

The British Police does already employ water cannon, but only in Northern Ireland - and there only controversially. The police of many European countries use water cannon too, alongside their armed officers, their Gendarmes. Yet, so far, since their introduction by Robert Peel, the British Met Police have largely managed to refrain from becoming militarised.

Water cannon being made available for policing in the capital would mark the passing of a watershed. It marks a step towards the abandonment of civilian policing and a step towards turning the police into a paramilitary force. It would be a step towards abandoning the principle of 'policing by consent' that has underwritten law enforcement in Britain, as point four on the policing principles stresses:

'To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.'

Abandoning those principles in favour of a more militarised force risks throwing away consent in favour of suppression. That problem is only enhanced by making the extent to which the police enforce the law a political issue. Unfortunately, opinions on that matter are very much subject to ideology.

Conservatism is an ideology deeply wed to the idea that society is something constructed out of chaos by the imposition of order. The wealth of capitalism, the traditions of the establishment and the dogmas of the church all depend upon that order to function. And so, despite some apparent hypocrisy, it makes sense that the same voices that might decry 'meddling governments' for getting in the way of the unrestricted pursuit of wealth, are also the voices that are now calling for the increased armaments for the police to deal with civil unrest (Watt, 2013).

The widening gap between rich and poor is a source of fear for the poor, but it is also a source of fear for the rich. When the wealth gap is greater, the inequalities of a society are more starkly visible and more likely to provoke bitter resentment.  The struggles of the poor, as Thomas Paine (1797) pointed out, is of the deepest concern to the rich, since their affluence is directly won with the acquiescence of the poor to remaining orderly within an unequal social structure, that offers them little in the way of benefits for doing so.

As such it is unsurprising that those affiliated with conservative ideology, or those institutions such as the police, whose role is to maintain the order that conservatism craves, should want these enhanced weapons for the keeping of order. The problem with the ideologically conservative perception, though, is that it is based on an essentially negative view of human kind. Through that negative perspective it would be dangerously easy to coalesce incidents like the English Riots of 2011, with the massive political protests over the last few years in which a small minority became violent or damaged private property.

We must be wary of allowing conflicts to escalate, as the expansion of the available suppressive weapons to the police surely only encourages. We must be wary of the potential for those weapons to be missapplied, and dangers of injuries and resentments that would follow. We must be wary not to let these steps infringe upon the rights of people to protest in the name of reform, in the name of a cause, or in the name of broad institutional changes - all essential in a political process that continues to isolate people from power that is wielded nominally in their name.

We must not lose sight of the point of order. We must keep in mind what our methods say of us, of what we say to one another when we give a green light to using ever more dangerous weapons and tactics to enforce the law.