19th October 2021
There is asymmetry in the United Kingdom state (and no doubt other countries) when it comes to information flows.
On one hand: we have the strict official secrets legislation, almost useless freedom of information legislation, and a neat and cosy political-media compact where things can be made routinely – even casually – public without accountability or attribution.
On the other hand: we have extensive surveillance and interception powers by which the state can have access, as and when it wan to almost all information about any individual.
The goal of the modern state is to know as much as possible about individuals, while ensuring individuals know as little as possible about the state.
For just as Frank Wilhoit once defined political conservatism – “There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect” – the same is true of the state more generally, but with information flows.
****
This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters.
If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary – for the you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
*****
You can also have each post sent by email by filling in the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).
******
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.
Comments will not be published if irksome.
I suspect that the tendencies towards autocracy of the English ruling elite combine with a rarely admitted taste for such behaviour amongst those ruled in this way is the explanation. I wonder if the English realise how different this is to the attitudes in European republics, which have much more constitutional clarify and respect for their citizens.
I tend to agree Kyrl. I would put it this way: I think we’re fundamentally a bit lazy, and if we can let someone else do the job of ruling (so we can get on with what’s important to us) then we tend to let that happen.
We moan when they do it ‘badly’ but the majority are not bothered enough to do anything about it.
Yes – I believe that you are right. There is a large segment of the UK population that are not politically motivated or aware, and are happy for things to muddle along so long as it does not affect them too noticeably.
More, more please…
A person I follow on Twitter with an interest in history and cultural evolution puts it down to a Viking cultural legacy. He says England and Russia share such attitudes because they have never shed this. Whereas in Ireland the Viking legacy was geographically limited to Dublin and even there was ultimately defeated.
Another way of putting this is to ask whether the state has as much power as we give it, or as much as it chooses to take? In the UK I fear it is the latter – partly as a constitutional hangover from the days of unfettered monarchical power.
So where is the endless surveillance by the state and endless incompetence and secrecy likely to lead? Give a fool enough rope has not worked so far. I suppose all but the very biggest nations have shrunk into a mess of corporate brands and cross coupled holding companies. The position is that so long as Boris does as the moneypersons say then he keeps his job. Just don’t tell anyone.
Perhaps we could start a nice little war with someone we are guaranteed to lose against. Someone with a reasonable legal and political system. Mmmm… Pity is that starting a revolution is not all that easy. Bound to come to Priti’s ears and she is already looking to have all our emails etc streamed into her office. We are well stitched up.
Boris et al have become the front persons for big finance and the game has become one of feeding the geese just enough to produce feathers fast enough to avoid too much hissing as they are plucked. Just keep paying those mortgages and taxes. How will this end? Lebanon looks like the end game of this process but a year or two to go yet.
I like the Frank Wilhoit quote, akin to Corey Robin’s definition of conservatism in terms of ‘private regimes of power’.
The rest of conservatism seems to be mystification, mostly. ‘The market’ went into the same bin as the ‘divine right of kings’ as soon as it had outlived its usefulness. In time ‘the people’s will’ will be thrown down the same oubliette. Privilege remains, with the shedding of an occasional walrus & carpenter tear for the ‘underprivileged’.
Of course we should not be partisan and should be alert for ‘conservatism’ in its liberal and left forms, too…
Neatly put, but wasn’t it ever thus?
I suspect that the main obstacles are our incomplete democracy (for example first past the post and the House of Lords) and the sense of entitlement of much of the ruling class which is embedded by our education system.