John Major: let's keep the Coalition after the next election

[LLETSA]

I was talking about generalised anger towards policies. The politicians are irrelevant. No party can (openly) abolish the NHS. There's a reason for that. There is no reason why it cannot be made equally politically impossible to cut HB, reduce JSA, offer benefits in return for forced labour, charge tuition fees, move council tenants on for earning too much, and so on ad nauseam. Which of these things becomes politically impossible is down to us, and more specifically, how many of us give enough of a shit to do something about it.

The only reason no political party has been able to abolish the NHS is because no party has wanted to. Keep paying attention though as it's lying in wait somewhere up the road. It is by no means politically impossible, particularly when the effects of the present stifled economic depression rear their heads again and the coming energy crunch starts to bite. In terms of many other examples of lowering working class living standards, however, politicians have proved far from irrelevant.

 

[ymu]

@ ymu post #117 - well yeh and once upon a time it would have been unacceptable but now it isn't, and i don't think there is a guarantee that, if it was "reformed", that that turn of events couldn't take place again (which isnt to say that fighting for reforms and other gains isn't necessary or worthwhile) im just saying that there needs to be another alternative in place other than "don't do this..." etc.

I never said it was a one off fight that we could win and immediately enter Nirvana. It's not a revolution, but millions of people can't afford to sit around and wait for that. Eventually, history will repeat itself often enough that we don't make the same mistake again. Maybe this century, maybe next, maybe the world will be underwater by the time the right claw their way back. I dunno, but I'm sure as hell not going to wait for someone to produce a manifesto that 35 million angry people are willing to sign up to.

I don't want coordinated action and committees and pre-agreed demands. I want people to do whatever they hell they feel willing and able to do to assert their right to live in a democracy.

 

[ymu]

The only reason no political party has been able to abolish the NHS is because no party has wanted to. Keep paying attention though as it's lying in wait somewhere up the road. It is by no means politically impossible, particularly when the effects of the present stifled economic depression rear their heads again and the coming energy crunch starts to bite. In terms of many other examples of lowering working class living standards, however, politicians have proved far from irrelevant.

Absolute bollocks. Thatcher privatised dentistry and turned GPs into private businesses, Blair and Brown contracted out half the NHS to Capita. They can't do it openly, but they sure as hell want to.

And once again, you miss the point. It's up to us to make the politicians irrelevant. They're not going to do it voluntarily.

 

[frogwoman]

I dont really want that either ymu but i think you may have been missing the point - i didn't really want to bring this up, but don't forget, the far right want to take advantage of this as much as they can too and especially through dressing up their policy in a general "anti-politician" and slightly left-wing-appearing guise (look at the bnp's slogan last election of "punish the pigs" and politicians depicted as pigs in troughs etc). do you not think there's a risk in just having a general movement that says "dont do this" or whatever as opposed to putting an altnernative (however limited that alternative may be?) because it also allows space for people to brign whatever nefarious agenda they have. I'm not saying that this will happen mind you (at the moment it doesn't show any signs of it). But there's one thing saying you dont want committees and a list of demands etc (and i partially agree with you!) but it's another thing to say that the anti cuts movmeent mustnt put forward any kind of political stuff whatsoever?


And also what would you say to people who are angry about something being cut (say healthcare provision etc) and want to get involved for that reason but then think on some other things (benefits, council houses etc) they aren't cutting back far enough? would you challenge it (without necessarily throwing them out or anything or writing them off as scum!!) or would you be happy for them to promote those views on the basis that it should be non political and people shouldn't be telling others how to think? i know YOU would challenge it, but it's a similar debate about the one that's going on at the moment about Labour Councillors who don't oppose all cuts etc no?

sorry if im not making any sense btw ...

 

[ViolentPanda]

This is pretty confused stuff. Who has suggested that politics is only, or even primarily, what happens in parliament? So we can't change the people in power, only the consensus (by rioting presumably?)-which can then presumably be ignored by those in power because 'they're all the same' (the familiar refrain of the apolitical throughout the ages.)

Although "they're all the same" does have somewhat more applicability in a situation where all the parties represent exactly the same interests, but merely window-dress their policies differently.

 

[ymu]

@ frogster

You're making plenty of sense. I'm not sure if I was missing the point or not. I don't honestly see it as relevant.

If the far right sects gain enough popular support to force change, then that would happen. I can't see it. There's no doubt that the far right is a threat at times like these - I've made that point often on here - but I can't think of any better way of neutralising them than getting out on the streets ourselves. I'm not proposing a top down approach - I'm proposing autonomous groups of friends and acquaintances and workmates and randoms being empowered to take action in the knowledge that hundreds of thousands, and probably at least a million others, are doing likewise with the wholehearted support of over half the country. The swappies will try to take it over, and they won't succeed. I can't see the boneheads being any more successful.

This is the chance of a lifetime. I don't think we should throw it away because ... well, because of what? You're not suggesting we rally behind a political party or a revolutionary committee. You're not suggesting we abandon the fight on the grounds that the outcome isn't worthwhile enough. I'm certain you're not suggesting we abandon effective forms of protest just in case some boneheads get involved.

I've said that the anti-cuts movement has to be just that - anti cuts, not anti Tory-cuts. www.anticuts.org.uk is the perfect vehicle for discussing the kinds of messages that people need to project - but if we're going to win, people are just gonna have to get on with it and do the best they can with the resources available to them, instead of being stifled by a committee or beaten over the head with someone else's ideology until they get fed up and abandon it as a lost cause.

 

[ViolentPanda]

There is a limit to their power - but only if we exercise ours. Repeatedly. .

True, insofar as the pretence of democracy can only be made for as long as we communicate even a tacit consent to their governance of us. They've decided to unilaterally resile from the implicit social contract between governed and those who govern. Why not make it multilateral?

 

[ymu]

Why not, indeed.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Right but who said anything about party politics? I wasn't even referring to that necessarily.

my point is that we have to be a little less timid about saying what we actually want in terms of society and economic systems (because a lot of the time, people are thinking this anyway - the things that we want - but are afraid to say so). also people are also clever enough imo to work out that keynseian capitalism is just frequently (usually) a short term solution and those gains can be clawed back as they have been during the last 30 years?

I agree, and for all LLETSA's doomsaying about there being no alternative, we still need to talk about what we want as well as what we need from any political system, whether it's "pie in the sky" anarchism, primitivism or liberalism.

and surely the danger with a movement based on generalised anger towards "politicians" and nothing beyond that, is that it could - im trying to think of a good way of putitng this that won't be offensive or anything - but that it could be "hijacked" and used by people with less than savoury ideas about how the crisis originated etc and end up giving space to those people, if there's not a clear view (or range of views) that are put forward of what we want other than that cuts are bad, etc

I've been expressing worries about any movement around the cuts being "captured" by such elements for a while now. IMO any such "capture", although it may benefit the organisation that does so, will sound a death-knell for the wider movement.

 

[frogwoman]

@ frogster

You're making plenty of sense. I'm not sure if I was missing the point or not. I don't honestly see it as relevant.

If the far right sects gain enough popular support to force change, then that would happen. I can't see it. There's no doubt that the far right is a threat at times like these - I've made that point often on here - but I can't think of any better way of neutralising them than getting out on the streets ourselves. I'm not proposing a top down approach - I'm proposing autonomous groups of friends and acquaintances and workmates and randoms being empowered to take action in the knowledge that hundreds of thousands, and probably at least a million others, are doing likewise with the wholehearted support of over half the country. The swappies will try to take it over, and they won't succeed. I can't see the boneheads being any more successful.

This is the chance of a lifetime. I don't think we should throw it away because ... well, because of what? You're not suggesting we rally behind a political party or a revolutionary committee. You're not suggesting we abandon the fight on the grounds that the outcome isn't worthwhile enough. I'm certain you're not suggesting we abandon effective forms of protest just in case some boneheads get involved.

I've said that the anti-cuts movement has to be just that - anti cuts, not anti Tory-cuts. www.anticuts.org.uk is the perfect vehicle for discussing the kinds of messages that people need to project - but if we're going to win, people are just gonna have to get on with it and do the best they can with the resources available to them, instead of being stifled by a committee or beaten over the head with someone else's ideology until they get fed up and abandon it as a lost cause.

Im not talking about the boneheads being successful in taking over stuff as I don't think they'd take it over, but that isn't really my point. I'm saying that if it's just a general movement about people being angry with the government etc and one that specifically doesnt haven an ideology and makes a point out of not having one then - ummm. I dunno. Like can you see how this might be bad?

I'm not suggesting any of those things, but I just think that there should be some sort of alternative and say so honestly - i mean we get asked this so many times, oh that stuff that you're saying might all be true, but what's the alternative for it? and a lot of people aren't convinced by just saying "this is wrong and shouldn't happen" - they want to know what our proposals would be instead. And as for being beaten over the head with someones ideology etc, im sure people can handle this and make up their own minds about their views, after all we're in a situation now where im working alongside people from all sorts of bizarre tiny left wing groups (and people who arent part of any group but are getting involved in this for the first time) and we mostly get along fine and its great as we work with people and share ideas etc? Im not saying that any group should control anything?

 

[ymu]

Well, there's little chance of the broad anti-cuts movement demanding no cuts at all unless people who believe it should be no cuts at all get out there and make the argument and provide the resources to back it up. What's wrong with talking to people? There's a fantastic information clearing house and forum already up and running and getting good traffic - we don't need anything else. If you're not waiting for someone else to tell you how it's going to be, just get out there and talk about it. People might listen, they might not. Nowt you can do about that - but it ain't going to happen if all the anti-any-cuts people keep their mouths shut until some kind of manifesto is drawn up and presented to the masses.

I might still be missing the point, I just can't see what action is being proposed on the basis of these concerns.

On beating over the head with someone else's ideology, I won't work with any group that allows ideological discussion to predominate. Take it to the fucking pub - we have a job to do. We're not planning a revolution, we're planning to force a government out so that it can be replaced by another government we don't want, and to repeat this until there is one that is acceptable enough that the movement cannot achieve any more because the numbers are too small. The more technical bickering from the left, the quicker the rest will give up, IMO. Not that they'll have to listen to it - they'll be doing their own thing anyway.

 

[frogwoman]

well, that's sort of my point. we are taking action here, not discussing ideological stuff, and so far it actually looks quite good and it shows that people can work alongside eacch other ... we've actually done a hell of a lot in a very short space of time.

 

[frogwoman]

and we are taking action - i don't think there's been much in the way of ideological discussion as opposed to actual action in any of the meetings i've attended. however some of the actions some people will take will be informed by their ideology/political views surely? (like someone for example being uncomfortable with protests/direct action and wanting to do stuff like write to their MP instead, at its simplest?)

And i'm a bit confused - you seem to be saying that ideology isn't important and then saying that unless people who are opposed to all cuts go out and state their views and put the arguments forward it can't change (which i don't disagree with tbh) but my point is that i think we can afford to be a bit more rigorous than that, i don't mean excluding people, but be a bit more forceful in the way that we put the argument there should be no cuts, and have little room for ambiguity on any of the material etc we print about the topic.

but then people will ask what the alternative is if we're not gonna have any cuts and we shouldn't be afraid to say what we think it is.

 

[ymu]

Of course people's actions will be informed by their political views! I may have completely missed your point, but all I'm saying is that it's fine to have a movement where there are lots of different political views. You don't have to agree with everyone else's political views to agree on the main objective. This is more than the typical single issue campaign, but I'm suggesting it is best thought of as a single issue campaign.

ISM has all sorts of activist from black bloc anarchists through to self-identified Zionists, one staters and two staters and no staters, out and out pacifists and those who will use violence when it is strategically appropriate. None of that matters - they're signing up to NVDA in Palestine to help create space for people who have been disenfranchised from their own struggle by the extreme violence used by both sides. They can argue all they like about their personal views, but not on activist time.

That's all I'm suggesting. You can't alter the national political consensus by telling everyone else what it is going to be. Let's work together and communicate and enjoy the huge victories we will most definitely achieve, and then see what sort of consensus emerges as a result of that experience.

 

[frogwoman]

I agree, and for all LLETSA's doomsaying about there being no alternative, we still need to talk about what we want as well as what we need from any political system, whether it's "pie in the sky" anarchism, primitivism or liberalism.

I've been expressing worries about any movement around the cuts being "captured" by such elements for a while now. IMO any such "capture", although it may benefit the organisation that does so, will sound a death-knell for the wider movement.

Yeah totally and I do actually think that theory is important, not in a sense that my ideology is the right one and youve all got to be converted to it etc, but because these theoretical questions would actually affect whatever we do and say in the action in the current day (like some organisations cosying up to labour MPs and councillors and saying that having a policy of "no cuts" would put people off and saying that therefore we shouldn't promote it as i can think of one exampe recently)


What elements were you worired about vp - have you seen anything lately to make you think this could be the case?
What i think we've got to be alert to is the fact that it isn't only the left that are going to use this for political gain and this hasn't to my knowledge been talked about on here very much or anywhere else (and im not just talking about the established far right organisations either). i'd like to see the fact that there's such widespread anger over this as evidence that the country is becoming massively left wing or at least have a greater political consciousness but i think that that anger could be manipulated by the right just as much as the left if you see what i mean, and im not saying that people are going to become racists or that it's going to be taken over by boneheads without "leadership" etc but i think we just can't afford to be complacent.

 

[frogwoman]

Of course people's actions will be informed by their political views! I may have completely missed your point, but all I'm saying is that it's fine to have a movement where there are lots of different political views. You don't have to agree with everyone else's political views to agree on the main objective.

Oh I agree with you there, Im not saying otherwise And Im not attempting to tell people wht the consensus is gonna be. I don't know. nobody does. Im not suggesting everyone signs up to a full set of transitional demands or some shit like that.

and we do work together and enjoy the experience,ive found it amazing meeting so many like minded people tbh, and i hope that the work we do actually comes to something i do have the optimism and belief that it will but I just also think we can't close our eyes to these dangers.

 

[frogwoman]

Of course people's actions will be informed by their political views! I may have completely missed your point, but all I'm saying is that it's fine to have a movement where there are lots of different political views. You don't have to agree with everyone else's political views to agree on the main objective. This is more than the typical single issue campaign, but I'm suggesting it is best thought of as a single issue campaign.

to be honest tho, using your PSC example, im not so sure it should be seen as a single issue campaign. one of the major problems with psc (in my experience anyway, yours might have been completely different) is the fact that basically a very, very small minority of anti-semitic cunts (they might not have been cunts, just ill informed) were able to basically use the time in the meetings etc to promote their views, bring along books which advocated similar views to theirs, etc, and few people challenged it. especialy cos they were mostly the guys running the committee (!!) and if you objected to them saying the things they did it'd be the old stuff of "anti-semitism applies to arabs and not jews" etc. psc is an organisation that does fantastic work, but i think that that example shows the strengths and the limits of single-issue campaigning and im not sure that this would work if it was on the same lines.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

ymu's example was the ISM not the PSC.

 

[Streathamite]

The left sects have never called the shots.

While a lot of people seem set to protest the cuts, those who actively do so are only a minority of the working class, let alone of the population as a whole. And most of these will, as I said, place getting rid of the coalition as the main priority in the long run. Which unfortunately means voting Labour. Who will, as usual, ignore them, despite what they may say to the contrary prior to being elected. And so it goes on.

To me, all your posts on this thread are 100% defeatism.
Are you saying we - thousands of activists, TUers, studes etc, up and down the country SHOULDN'T organise within our communities and do everything we can, up to and including DA, civil disobedience etc, to stop these cuts? that we are wasting our time, and should just roll over?
Because if so, that's dismal, and massively understates the ever-growing groundswell of popular anger. We are only at the start of this - due to public sector accounting/finance, the cuts haven't even really started to kick in.
I think it's worth fighting them tooth and nail, and I think there is an opportunity to be had, to build a hugely effective broad-based campaign that can, if not stop the condems, at least force a whole load of major concessions out of them. Why don't you, on either count?

 

[LLETSA]

I never said it was a one off fight that we could win and immediately enter Nirvana. It's not a revolution, but millions of people can't afford to sit around and wait for that. Eventually, history will repeat itself often enough that we don't make the same mistake again. Maybe this century, maybe next, maybe the world will be underwater by the time the right claw their way back. I dunno, but I'm sure as hell not going to wait for someone to produce a manifesto that 35 million angry people are willing to sign up to.

I don't want coordinated action and committees and pre-agreed demands. I want people to do whatever they hell they feel willing and able to do to assert their right to live in a democracy.

As it seems necessary to keep pointing out, some people have started doing exactly what you are saying-in some parts of Europe on a much bigger scale than here-but with no viable political alternative, there will be no lasting political change.

 

[LLETSA]

Although "they're all the same" does have somewhat more applicability in a situation where all the parties represent exactly the same interests, but merely window-dress their policies differently.

Within that situation, you still get professional politicians who do try to make a difference and go beyond the mainstream consensus, although increasingly rarely now, and they're as powerless as the rest of us. It's far too simplistic to simply claim, 'they're all the same.' The kind of people who take it as their default position would do so under any and every set of circumstances: 'Representatives of the (ahem) worker's soviets? They're all the same.' It's essentially an apolitical stance.

 

[LLETSA]

Well, there's little chance of the broad anti-cuts movement demanding no cuts at all unless people who believe it should be no cuts at all get out there and make the argument and provide the resources to back it up. What's wrong with talking to people? There's a fantastic information clearing house and forum already up and running and getting good traffic - we don't need anything else. If you're not waiting for someone else to tell you how it's going to be, just get out there and talk about it. People might listen, they might not. Nowt you can do about that - but it ain't going to happen if all the anti-any-cuts people keep their mouths shut until some kind of manifesto is drawn up and presented to the masses.

I might still be missing the point, I just can't see what action is being proposed on the basis of these concerns.

On beating over the head with someone else's ideology, I won't work with any group that allows ideological discussion to predominate. Take it to the fucking pub - we have a job to do. We're not planning a revolution, we're planning to force a government out so that it can be replaced by another government we don't want, and to repeat this until there is one that is acceptable enough that the movement cannot achieve any more because the numbers are too small. The more technical bickering from the left, the quicker the rest will give up, IMO. Not that they'll have to listen to it - they'll be doing their own thing anyway.

Nobody has said anybody has to wait for a detailed manifesto to be drawn up. (You remind me of the kind of anarchist who always repeats. 'I don't have a blueprint,' as a cover for not having the faintest idea of how or what change could feasibly be brought about.) The only point I've made is that where no political alternative exists, people will look to Labour-who will always do what Labour governments do. Every Labour government has been economically to the right of the previous one. It is absolutely guaranteed that this will be the case with the next one (assuming there will be one), as in order to be able to compete economically with the rising industrial powers, those who tell the politicians what to do have decided that this means a low wage economy based mostly on services, with little welfare cover.

 

[LLETSA]

To me, all your posts on this thread are 100% defeatism.
Are you saying we - thousands of activists, TUers, studes etc, up and down the country SHOULDN'T organise within our communities and do everything we can, up to and including DA, civil disobedience etc, to stop these cuts? that we are wasting our time, and should just roll over?
Because if so, that's dismal, and massively understates the ever-growing groundswell of popular anger. We are only at the start of this - due to public sector accounting/finance, the cuts haven't even really started to kick in.
I think it's worth fighting them tooth and nail, and I think there is an opportunity to be had, to build a hugely effective broad-based campaign that can, if not stop the condems, at least force a whole load of major concessions out of them. Why don't you, on either count?

I've pointed out at least five times that I'm not suggesting people do nothing. I too hope they'll be fought tooth and nail. There might well be victories. But the war can't be won when nobody has a plausible alternative to the present social and economic system. I mean, for Christ's sake, even if one somehow came about, with a mass movement based around it, there's still no guarantee of anything. And there is no sign of anything of the kind. What do you think the long-term outcome will be under those circumstances?

 

[tbaldwin]

OK. I still don't want a political alternative. Party politics is a dead-end, doomed to ride the same depressing merry-go-round of idealism and betrayal. I want the electorate to set the terms of the debate and to define the boundaries of acceptable action. Politicians are careerist scum - we have to work out how to sack them or they'll never do what we want.

Crikey this post seems to sum up just how confused a lot of urban75 people are.......miserablism and elitism looking down on people at the same time as saying they reject vanguardism etc et fucking cetra....
To be fair though it is quite funny to read.

 

[LLETSA]

Crikey this post seems to sum up just how confused a lot of urban75 people are.......miserablism and elitism looking down on people at the same time as saying they reject vanguardism etc et fucking cetra....
To be fair though it is quite funny to read.

If you weren't one of the most confused and deluded yourself, your comments might carry more weight.

 

[tbaldwin]

If you weren't one of the most confused and deluded yourself, your comments might carry more weight.

You might think that.....Just like you thought that when Blair got in loads of people thought he was a closet leftie...

You and YMU both have a miserable view of life that is to be honest hopeless.

 

[LLETSA]

You might think that.....Just like you thought that when Blair got in loads of people thought he was a closet leftie...

You and YMU both have a miserable view of life that is to be honest hopeless.

I didn't say that's why I thought he got elected. I said that some people, especially in the LP, foolishly tried to convince themselves that Blair would eventually reveal himself to be 'true Labour,' whatever that's supposed to mean.

Trying to see things as they are, rather than how you want them to be, doesn't necessarily make you miserable. You are exactly the same as the kind of poster you constantly decry; you just substitute a slightly different kind of wishful thinking idiocy.

 

[Streathamite]

I've pointed out at least five times that I'm not suggesting people do nothing. I too hope they'll be fought tooth and nail. There might well be victories. But the war can't be won when nobody has a plausible alternative to the present social and economic system. I mean, for Christ's sake, even if one somehow came about, with a mass movement based around it, there's still no guarantee of anything. And there is no sign of anything of the kind. What do you think the long-term outcome will be under those circumstances?

busy now; will come back to this later, as you've made some serious points that deserve addressing

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yeah totally and I do actually think that theory is important, not in a sense that my ideology is the right one and youve all got to be converted to it etc, but because these theoretical questions would actually affect whatever we do and say in the action in the current day (like some organisations cosying up to labour MPs and councillors and saying that having a policy of "no cuts" would put people off and saying that therefore we shouldn't promote it as i can think of one exampe recently)

Exactly. Continuing to explore theory, even if it dead-ends, at least gives us a broader perspective from which to assess both what "we" do, and what "they" do, as well as informing our particular actions. For example, understanding that our main political parties accept the neo-liberal consensus, and appreciating what actually comprises that consensus allows us to calculate what best to propagandise.
As for orgs who can't/won't get behind "no cuts", that shows remarkably poor strategic thinking. As the Lib-Dems have shown, it's entirely acceptable practice for political parties to sign up to things, and then go back on them later.

What elements were you worired about vp - have you seen anything lately to make you think this could be the case?

The usual suspects, tbf. The whole SWP/Respect/CF nexus. They're inculcated with a certain way of doing things that's hard to break away from, and although I'd like to believe that they're forward-thinking enough not to try and do so in this case, I'm not a great believer in the triumph of hope over experience.

What i think we've got to be alert to is the fact that it isn't only the left that are going to use this for political gain and this hasn't to my knowledge been talked about on here very much or anywhere else (and im not just talking about the established far right organisations either). i'd like to see the fact that there's such widespread anger over this as evidence that the country is becoming massively left wing or at least have a greater political consciousness but i think that that anger could be manipulated by the right just as much as the left if you see what i mean, and im not saying that people are going to become racists or that it's going to be taken over by boneheads without "leadership" etc but i think we just can't afford to be complacent.

Oh, absolutely. We've already seen plenty of manifestations in the last decade or so of the right (fortunately with only limited success) appropriating the rhetoric of protest. Combine that with their historical fondness for anti-red agitation and they may well be able to score points from this if they act tactically.

 

[goebfwai]

Originally Posted by goebfwai

A one party state in Britain - of either left or right hue - would be death of democracy, plunge the country into a new form of dark age and either be, or presage, the end of the nature of our current experience of modern civilisation as we know it. Britain would become a post liberal society. Indeed, it has already started on that journey.

What a bizarre statement.

I think what you meant to say there was that you are either indifferent, or even perhaps fully in favour of moves which restrict democracy and move us further towards a one party state in Britain. That IS bizarre.

A merger of the Tories and the Lib Dems, restricts party political choice, and seriously restricts ability of an electorate to influence policy. And it is hard enough to do so now, with Yellow Tory Turncoats reversing their policy on tuition fees and damning future generations of poor students to exhoribitant debts.

Small parties like Plaid Cymru, the Greens and the SNP represent a miniscule force within Westminister. A formal merger of the Tories and the Lib Dems into a new 'Conservative Liberal Party', with a democratic 'Labour Party' (perhaps containing many Lib Dem defectors) would end up turning Britain into an American style, two headed, one party state. A choice between two brands: 'Extra Strong Capitalism' or 'Capitalism Light'.

The upshot of that is that it would strengthen considerably the UK police state, the war machine, Britain militarily, geoeconomically and geopolitically. But it would seriously weaken it democratically. That would be a very retrogressive step indeed.