The Deliberate Removal of Nuance

“Tyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance” commented American documentary film maker Albert Maysles (a relation of British comedian Alexei Sayle) during in the McCarthy era of the late 1940s & early 50s in America – a time when thousands of American were accused of “un-American activities” by Senator Joseph McCarthy. Evidence, debate and opinion were sidelined; if you are not for us you are against us said McCarthy. Maysles’ quote was true – when tyranny takes hold discussion, debate, different opinions, slightly different views - shades of grey - are the first things to go. All is black and white, no ifs, no buts, no arguments; you are either with us or against us, nuance and tyranny are mutually exclusive terms.

I have thought much about Maysles’ famous quote in the past 48 hours since Boris Johnson gained the Queen’s permission to shut down Parliament for five weeks. Put simply, Johnson has removed the opportunity for nuance (defined in my dictionary as subtle differences, shades of meaning) in our political and civil discourse; he has severely limited the opportunities for the sharing and putting forward of opinions different from his own and it leaves Johnson in complete control with no reference to anyone or anything else. No ifs, no buts, no argument. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Mussolini and other communist or fascist dictators would nod their heads in knowing approval – it is the classic first step to the establishment of a tyrannical regime, the closing down of debate, of differing opinions; it is the deliberate removal of nuance.

Of course, Johnson’s supporters argue that the prorogation of Parliament is perfectly legal and anyway, they argue, for most of the time that Parliament will be closed it would have been closed down anyway for the annual Party Conferences. This argument is both facile and mendacious. Whilst it is true that it is perfectly legal to close down Parliament that closing down is usually done with the agreement of Parliament. And this leads to the second point: it is true that Parliament may have been scheduled to be closed for the Party conferences, but this is always with the agreement of the Parties involved. Boris Johnson has acted arbitrarily showing no respect for the principles and traditions upon which our constitutional monarchy rests – he has closed down the opportunity for debate and taken the first steps in tyranny.

The UK is one of the few countries in the world not to have a written constitution. The situation is made even more complex because as well as our elected Commons we have an unelected head of state who is a Monarch - head of state by birth rather than common consent - and a second chamber that is also unelected. No other country has such a complex (and many might argue contradictory) parliamentary system. Nevertheless, for hundreds of years it has served us well – but only so long as everyone plays the constitutional "game". Half a millennia ago Charles 1st didn’t play the game and it ended badly for the country and for him – years of civil war ripped the country apart and this was followed by Charles losing his head. Our system has built in contradictions almost at every point and juncture as to who is in charge – Monarch, Prime Minister, ruling party, House of Lords or Parliament as a whole? And each has its own delicate and minute checks and balances all steeped in the nation's history and traditions – little written down as specific rules or requirements, fluid, but built up over hundreds of years - and all somehow clinging together in what seems to amount to little more that a series of “gentlemen’s agreements”. The delicate balance of who is in charge was illustrated in 1642 when the Speaker of the House, William Lenthall famously defied the King. Charles 1st entered the chamber of the House of Commons, supported by 400 armed men, in an attempt to seize five members whom he accused of treason. When Charles asked Lenthall where the five were, Lenthall calmly replied "I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as this House is pleased to direct me". A clever but defiant reminder to the Monarch that Parliament is sovereign - although nowhere is this written down as a constitutional law.

In 1642 William Lenthall knew that our political system and constitution rely not upon written constitutional instructions and rules but upon matters of principle and tradition, upon following the common practice that has built up over centuries, and respecting the traditions and principles upon which our system is based. But most of all on a government's willingness to bow to Parliament as the supreme or sovereign body – more important than any single individual or party – be it the Conservative, Labour or Liberal Party or Elizabeth Windsor, Charles 1st or indeed Boris Johnson. Our current Speaker John Bercow knows it and that is why he called Boris Johnson’s actions “a constitutional outrage”. But following Johnson’s action this week all that has been blown away by this man who doesn’t give a damn for tradition, delicate checks and balances, unwritten gentlemanly "understandings" or parliamentary sovereignty. We now know what Johnson meant when in the Brexit Referendum campaign he said that it was all about "Taking back control" - he meant taking back control for him alone. And he is ready to destroy anything that threatens this ambition.

But Johnson is a coward – he has gone into hiding. The man who hopped up to Scotland at the drop of a hat to visit the Queen in mid-week is back in his burrow. He has created the greatest constitutional crisis this country has seen in many generations, set in motion a chain of events that will at the least split the nation even further and might possibly lead to civil unrest. And yet, except in the most perfunctory manner, he has not taken to the air waves or stood outside Downing Street and given some a cohesive speech to explain or defend his actions, and, it highly unlikely given his usual modus operandi, that he will allow himself to be interviewed by perceptive and forensic political commentators who might, God forbid, ask him some hard questions. This is a man playing fast and loose with not only democracy but with a nation – he needs to be held to account.

I am no fan whatsoever of Theresa May – either as a politician or a person but as with Margaret Thatcher I can admire her diligent management of Parliamentary process and procedures. Even the most strident critic like myself has had to give a grudging recognition to Mrs May as she fought for her EU deal – never once shirking her responsibility to be accountable to Parliament and the country. As I (and I suspect much of the country) watched her at the Dispatch Box hour after hour, day after day, being vilified and metaphorically torn apart by critics on all sides of the House (as well as large sections of the media who were quick to point out her short comings) she stood battered but firm. We all knew that she was said to be a stubborn woman but many, like myself began to think that this bordered upon self harm or some kind of masochism. I’m sure that there were many reasons for her intransigence: commitment to the EU Deal she was fighting for, personal bloody mindedness, belief in the democratic implications of the Referendum result, love of her country and her Party........but I cannot escape the fact that all of these ultimately must be rooted in her respect for Parliament, its procedures, its principles and its ancient traditions. Above all, I am firmly of the view that Theresa May, the vicar's daughter who once admitted that the naughtiest thing she ever did as a child was to run through a field of wheat, knew well the need to protect our delicately balanced unwritten constitutional monarchy with all its twists and turns and its delicate checks and balances of accountability, integrity, gentlemanly conduct - and above all its ultimate acknowledgement that Parliament is sovereign. She knew that all this is needed in order that opinion might be heard, shades of meaning understood, nuance protected - otherwise the House (Parliament) like a pack of cards, literally and metaphorically, comes crashing down. Theresa May knew well that Parliament, its opinions, and its nuances, must be heard, for if it is not protected, cherished and promoted then the UK is at huge risk of tearing itself apart. We have no written constitutional laws to protect either the individual or the state from those who would seize power when the Parliamentary system stumbles or finds itself in uncharted waters or when the whole pack of cards crashes down - as it is in danger of doing now – so despite my many policy disagreements with Theresa May I greatly respect and admire her for her commitment to the preservation of stability, good order and the protection of our civil and political liberties in these strange and dangerous times .

Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament has driven a coach and horses through this delicate constitutional world. It is an aggressive provocation of Parliament which widens the already great Brexit divide into a civil war state of mind. It is explosive and dangerous and leaves a dangerous vacuum. If Parliament, which in our system, is and must be sovereign is sidelined, disregarded, superfluous, then what and who will step into the vacuum? The future is both bleak and dangerous – but Hitler, Mao, Stalin and Mussolini, like the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse would know exactly what and who steps in. And so does Boris Johnson, and I have little doubt that he sees himself as the fifth member of that unholy band, ready to take control.

Tomorrow I will, for the first time in my life protest and join others in Nottingham (meet at the Brian Clough Statue near the Market Square at 11am) to try to ensure that opinion is heard, that nuance is not stilled and that even though Johnson has suspended our sovereign Parliament the views of the people will be heard.