tag:theconversation.com,2011:/global/topics/jacob-rees-mogg-42923/articlesJacob Rees-Mogg – The Conversation2022-09-09T14:27:50Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1902802022-09-09T14:27:50Z2022-09-09T14:27:50ZWhat Liz Truss’s government means for climate action<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/483691/original/file-20220909-7256-ooc4dy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=975%2C860%2C4532%2C3375&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The new prime minister Liz Truss has announced plans to reverse the fracking ban and drill for more North Sea gas.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/uk-foreign-secretary-liz-truss-holds-2184533585">Clicksbox/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Ever since climate change appeared on the political agenda, there has been general agreement on the need for a robust response. While the implementation of climate policy has lagged over the past decade, that basic consensus has held. Liz Truss’s new government puts that under serious strain.</p>
<p>There are a number of components to worry about. First of all, the job of coordinating climate policy has gone to <a href="https://www.desmog.com/jacob-rees-mogg/">Jacob Rees-Mogg</a>, a man with a history of climate denial who continues to decry “climate alarmism”. He is open in his hostility towards the pursuit of net zero and brazen in his support for fossil fuels.</p>
<p>Various other members of the new government also actively oppose ambitious climate policy. Steve Baker, a critic of the government’s net-zero strategy and founder of the <a href="https://www.desmog.com/net-zero-scrutiny-group/">Net Zero Scrutiny Group</a>, which works to undermine climate action, is now a cabinet minister. Two of Truss’s <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/07/liz-trusss-chief-of-staff-brings-key-figures-from-lobbying-firm-into-no-10">key advisers</a> also have blemished climate records.</p>
<p>The prime minister herself has <a href="https://www.desmog.com/2022/09/05/analysis-new-uk-prime-minister-liz-trusss-links-to-climate-science-denial/">extensive connections</a> to organisations opposing climate action. She is also a vocal advocate for the role of gas as a transition fuel. </p>
<p>Truss is more ideological than her predecessor. Boris Johnson’s opportunism often <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-ten-point-plan-for-a-green-industrial-revolution">created openings</a> for climate action that served other elements of his agenda. His support for wind turbine manufacturing in red wall seats is evidence of this. Driven by an ideological commitment to “free markets”, Truss is less likely to take such an approach. </p>
<p>There are some appointments that offer optimism. The new junior minister for climate change, Graham Stuart, has <a href="https://www.endsreport.com/article/1798233/graham-stuart-new-climate-minister">consistently pushed for renewables</a>. While the former climate minister, Chris Skidmore, has been appointed to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/08/liz-truss-appoints-green-tory-chris-skidmore-to-lead-net-zero-review">lead a review</a> of the UK’s net zero strategy.</p>
<p>However, the decision to select a loyal cabinet with questionable environmental credentials indicates a sharp shift away from previous commitments to climate action.</p>
<h2>Fossil-fuelled response to the energy crisis</h2>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="An offshore oil rig with a flare emerging from one of its chimneys." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/483696/original/file-20220909-23-1qd39x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/483696/original/file-20220909-23-1qd39x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483696/original/file-20220909-23-1qd39x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483696/original/file-20220909-23-1qd39x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483696/original/file-20220909-23-1qd39x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483696/original/file-20220909-23-1qd39x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483696/original/file-20220909-23-1qd39x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The new government’s response to the energy crisis so far has been to increase fossil fuel supply.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/flare-boom-on-offshore-oil-rig-432473">Ingvar Tjostheim/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The new government’s response to the energy crisis reflects this. So far, the focus has been on expanding fossil fuel supply. Up to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/exclusive-uk-announce-dozens-new-north-sea-oil-gas-licences-sources-2022-09-07/">130 new licences</a> are being approved for North Sea oil and gas drilling, while plans to overturn <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/liz-truss-fracking-ban-energy-bills-b2162399.html">the moratorium on fracking</a> have been announced. </p>
<p>Neither fracking or North Sea gas exploration will have an immediate impact on natural gas prices. <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/exclusive-uk-announce-dozens-new-north-sea-oil-gas-licences-sources-2022-09-07/">New production</a> will not come on stream immediately and even when it does the supply will remain relatively small. </p>
<p>The populist rhetoric about protecting people from rising costs has seen heat pumps, electric vehicles, and renewables all attract blame. However, the £130 billion being borrowed to cap energy bills will help energy <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/money/2022/sep/07/liz-truss-energy-bills-cap-will-fail-to-protect-poorest-say-thinktanks">corporations</a> far more than poor households. </p>
<p>These actions will undermine attempts to eliminate fossil fuel consumption, instead consolidating more capacity for years to come. Oil and gas companies can also be expected to fiercely resist future attempts to reverse this move.</p>
<p>Measures consistent with net zero instead have the potential to address the energy crisis and should be prioritised. Enhancing energy efficiency, insulating housing, and accelerating the shift away from natural gas could have an immediate impact on <a href="https://friendsoftheearth.uk/climate/whats-insulation-and-can-it-save-me-money">energy demand</a>. However, these measures would undermine the oil and gas industries to which the new government is allied, making their adoption improbable.</p>
<h2>How severe is the threat?</h2>
<p>Whether UK climate policy will be watered down depends on factors beyond the prime minister’s immediate control. </p>
<p>Legislation, including the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/contents">Climate Change Act</a>, has so far been effective in constraining governments from relapse. Its structure of five-year carbon budgets, and <a href="https://www.theccc.org.uk/">external scrutiny</a> has generally kept policy moving forward.</p>
<p>There is also organised support for climate action within the Conservative party. The influential <a href="https://www.cen.uk.com/">Conservative Environment Network</a>, with a <a href="https://www.cen.uk.com/our-caucus">membership</a> of 133 MPs and 17 members of the House of Lords, resist reversals on climate action. They have immediately pressured the new government over their net zero commitments.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1567796889046622208"}"></div></p>
<p>How effectively they oppose policy shifts will depend on various factors including their own political ambitions and electoral situation. However, fracking and the expanded fossil fuel production are <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/topics/science/trackers/should-britain-start-extracting-shale-gas">deeply unpopular</a> with the public, which will further help the group. Organised parliamentary support for climate action, if it materialises, can restrict how far climate policy can be undermined.</p>
<p>The situation the new prime minister finds herself in is both novel and politically delicate. She is the first prime minister to be elected <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/25/liz-truss-wins-election-tory-prime-minister">against the wishes</a> of the majority of her own party’s MPs. This may weaken her ability to pass legislation. The decision to select a loyal cabinet, forming a narrow range of opinion may intensify the problem she faces.</p>
<p>While the new government represent a threat for UK action on climate change, their ability to inflict damage to climate policy will be restricted. But, immediate risks remain regarding expanded hydrocarbon production. This undermines the pursuit of net zero while doing little to relieve pressure on energy prices.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/190280/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Paterson has previously received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (Canada). He is a member of the Green Party. </span></em></p>Liz Truss has appointed a loyal cabinet with varied environmental credentials. What will this mean for UK climate action?Matthew Paterson, Professor of International Politics, University of ManchesterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1410082020-06-18T12:10:26Z2020-06-18T12:10:26ZWhy Boris Johnson must stop talking about ‘good British common sense’<p>British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has lately made a habit of appealing to “good British common sense” as a solution to any problem or controversy. </p>
<p>During the coronavirus pandemic, Johnson has repeatedly referred to “common sense” and “British common sense” at prime minister’s questions. And while it wasn’t explicitly stated, the same message appeared to underlie the government’s response to the Dominic Cummings scandal. Defending his chief adviser, Johnson claimed Cummings was following the “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1sItsBuB5E">instincts</a>” of every parent by driving across the country with his son during lockdown. </p>
<p>Jacob Rees-Mogg, leader of the House of Commons, also notoriously said in November 2019 that victims of the Grenfell tower fire who lost their lives following firefighters’ advice to stay inside the building should have followed their common sense and fled.</p>
<p>In both cases, the use of such a glib comment to refer to such a high stakes matter raises the question: what do they actually mean? </p>
<p>Encouraging the public to follow “good British common sense” may seem a harmless piece of advice. Philosophical debates about common sense, however, reveal that there is no consensus about what the phrase means. Even worse, it often turns out that seemingly innocent appeals to common sense are actually masking controversial ideas or viewpoints. This suggests that asking the public to rely on common sense is an irresponsible thing for a politician to do. </p>
<h2>What is common sense?</h2>
<p>References to common notions stretch back as far as Euclid who, in his Elements (thought to have been published around 300 BC) lists several mathematical principles that are self-evident and cannot be doubted. Such principles are common to all mathematical reasoning.</p>
<p>It is in the hands of philosophers in Enlightenment Britain, however, that common sense as we know it became a popular topic for philosophical debate. In the 17th century, <a href="https://www.iep.utm.edu/herbert/">Herbert of Cherbury</a> claimed that common notions were the product of human “natural instinct”.</p>
<p>The best known “common sense philosopher” was the Scottish thinker <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reid/">Thomas Reid</a>, who wanted to find a way to combat the sceptical philosophy of his compatriot David Hume. He turned to common sense to defend his claim that no matter how much you philosophise it is impossible to doubt the existence of the world around us. After Reid, common sense philosophy was popular in Scotland for most of the 19th century.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/CT2z-TtgElU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Rees-Mogg on Grenfell.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Reid tells us common sense is literally a sense. It is something that is “common to men with whom we can converse and transact business”. It is not exactly clear who Reid is attributing common sense to, and whether he includes women. </p>
<p>But what is it? How do we know when someone is following it? Reid tells us not to worry, because:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>when it is made a question, whether a man has this natural gift or not, a judge or jury, upon a short conversation with him, can, for the most part, determine the question with great assurance.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Reid thus seems to endorse using common sense to work out if someone else is doing the same. Perhaps most unhelpfully of all, he writes: “it seems to me, that common sense is as unambiguous a word, and as well understood as the county of York.” It remains unclear what we are to make of that.</p>
<p>Reid’s case shows us that, though it is natural to appeal to common sense, it is far from obvious what it actually is, despite the fact that we apparently all have it. </p>
<p>There were echoes of this conundrum in Johnson’s claim that “everybody understands” social distancing rules. Clearly, it is not the case that “everybody understood” government guidelines. Did the vast majority misunderstand when they stayed at home or did Cummings misunderstand <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-leaders-breaking-rules-is-a-far-more-serious-attack-on-our-liberty-than-lockdown-itself-139405">when he left his home</a>? Deliberately or not, Johnson (like Reid) seems to have relied heavily on a very ambiguous set of circumstances. </p>
<p>One answer is that common sense is simply popular opinion. But as the German philosopher <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/10/sunbhttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/10/sunbathing-park-deep-moral-questions-philosophers-coronavirus-individualathing-park-deep-moral-questions-philosophers-coronavirus-individual">Immanuel Kant</a> argued, if that’s what common sense is supposed to mean then it is unclear why we should follow it. After all, it was popular for a long time to believe that the Earth is flat.</p>
<h2>Common sense as evasion</h2>
<p>Appeals to common sense in philosophy are also often used to disguise controversial ideas or make them seem more palatable. This is what Reid thought was going on with the Irish philosopher <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/berkeley/">George Berkeley</a>, who had argued that the only things that exist are minds and ideas – and that matter doesn’t exist.</p>
<p>Berkeley claimed that he was defending common sense; he found that the scientific idea of “matter” was something that did not sit easily with our everyday experience of things.</p>
<p>Reid claimed this was a deceitful ploy: Berkeley only said this because he knew he would be accused of contradicting common sense. In other words, Reid thought Berkeley was masking his own controversial ideas behind an appeal to common sense.</p>
<p>If the history of philosophical debates about “common sense” has taught us anything, it’s that there is no consensus about what those words imply. Whether one is trying to combat philosophical scepticism or defend questionable decisions during a global pandemic, these debates suggest it is irresponsible to rely on talk of common sense. So we ought to be troubled when we see governments incorporating common sense into instructions or advice. The outcomes, for many people, could literally be a matter of life or death.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/141008/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter West does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Telling the public lockdown rules are just good common sense is irresponsible.Peter West, Lecturer in Philosophy, Trinity College DublinLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1120062019-02-18T13:03:18Z2019-02-18T13:03:18ZConcentration camps in the South African War? Here are the real facts<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/259529/original/file-20190218-56246-3rfis.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">One of the Boer concentration camps.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Photographical Collection Anglo-Boer War Museum, Bloemfontein SA</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>More than a century after 48 000 people died in <a href="https://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/15941">concentration camps</a> in what’s known as the South African War between 1899 and 1902 – or the <a href="https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/second-anglo-boer-war-1899-1902">Anglo-Boer War</a> – the events of that period are back in the headlines.</p>
<p>The camps were established by the British as part of their military campaign against two small Afrikaner republics: the ZAR (Transvaal) and the Orange Free State.</p>
<p>The scandalous campaign is back in the news following controversial <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-47247835/jacob-rees-mogg-comments-on-concentration-camps">comments</a> by British Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg on a BBC television programme.</p>
<p>Rees-Mogg’s statements have caused consternation because they were riddled with inaccuracies. It’s time to set the record straight and to refute his inaccuracies one by one. I do this based on the <a href="https://www.up.ac.za/historical-heritage-studies/news/post_2437602-b1-rating-for-professor-pretorius">historical research</a> I’ve done on the South African War for the last 49 years.</p>
<h2>Setting the record straight</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://citizen.co.za/news/news-world/2084411/uk-politician-says-boers-were-in-concentration-camps-for-their-own-protection/">claim</a> that caused the most upset was Rees-Mogg’s allegation that the concentration camps had exactly the same mortality rate as was the case in Glasgow at the time.</p>
<p>This is simply factually incorrect. </p>
<p>In its recent Glasgow Indicators Project the Glasgow Centre for Population Health gives the <a href="https://www.understandingglasgow.com/indicators/population/deaths/historic_trends">death rate</a> of people in the city as 21 per 1000 per annum in 1901. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/259531/original/file-20190218-56212-2gktp7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/259531/original/file-20190218-56212-2gktp7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/259531/original/file-20190218-56212-2gktp7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/259531/original/file-20190218-56212-2gktp7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/259531/original/file-20190218-56212-2gktp7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/259531/original/file-20190218-56212-2gktp7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/259531/original/file-20190218-56212-2gktp7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Inside one of the British concentration camps.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Photographical Collection Anglo-Boer War Museum, Bloemfontein SA</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Anglo-Boer-War-1899-1902-Fransjohan-Pretorius/dp/1868721795">death rate</a> for Boer civilians in the concentration camps in South Africa exceeded this by a factor of 10. It’s well established that <a href="https://www.sahistory.org.za/topic/women-children-white-concentration-camps-during-anglo-boer-war-1900-1902">28 000 white people</a> and 20 000 black people <a href="https://www.sahistory.org.za/topic/black-concentration-camps-during-anglo-boer-war-2-1900-1902">died</a> in various camps in South Africa. Between July 1901 and February 1902 the rate was, on average, 247 per 1000 per annum in the white camps. It reached a high of 344 per 1000 per annum in October 1901 and a low of 69 per 1000 per annum in February 1902. </p>
<p>The figures would have been even higher had it not been for the fact that British welfare campaigner <a href="https://www.sahistory.org.za/people/emily-hobhouse">Emily Hobhouse</a> exposed the deplorable conditions in the camps. A subsequent report by the Government’s Ladies Commission prompted the British Government to improve conditions. Another factor that reduced the fatality rate was that <a href="https://www.sahistory.org.za/people/alfred-milner">Lord Milner</a>, High Commissioner for South Africa and Governor of the Cape Colony, took over administration of the camps from the military from November 1901.</p>
<p>Rees-Mogg also revealed his total lack of understanding why the British military authorities established the concentration camps in statements such as:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Where else were people going to live when … (the Boers were fighting the war)?</p>
<p>People were put in camps for their protection.</p>
<p>They were interned for their safety.</p>
<p>They were being taken there so that they could be fed because the farmers were away fighting the Boer War.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The reality was very different.</p>
<h2>The origins of the camps</h2>
<p>After <a href="https://www.sahistory.org.za/dated-event/field-marshal-lord-roberts-appointed-british-supreme-commander-south-africa">Lord Roberts</a>, chief commander of the British forces, occupied the Free State capital, Bloemfontein, on 13 March 1900, he issued a <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Anglo-Boer-War-1899-1902-Fransjohan-Pretorius/dp/1868721795">proclamation</a> inviting the Boers to lay down their arms and sign an oath of neutrality. They would then be free to return to their farms on the understanding that they would no longer participate in the war. </p>
<p>Eventually about 20 000 Boers – about a third – made use of this offer. They were called the <a href="https://www.exclusivebooks.co.za/product/9780798141925">“protected burghers”</a>. Roberts had banked on this policy to end the war. But after the British occupation of the Transvaal capital, Pretoria, on 5 June 1900, there was no end in sight. On the contrary, the Boers had started a guerrilla war, which included attacks on railway lines. </p>
<p>In reaction Roberts issued a proclamation on 16 June 1900, stating that, for every attack on a railway line the closest homestead would be burnt down. This was the start of the scorched earth policy. When this didn’t work, Roberts issued another proclamation in September stating that all homesteads would be burnt in a radius of 16 km of any attack, and that all livestock would be killed or taken away and all crops destroyed.</p>
<p>This <a href="https://www.exclusivebooks.co.za/product/9780798141925">policy</a> was intensified dramatically when Lord Kitchener took over from Roberts as commander in November 1900. Homesteads and whole towns were burnt down even if there was no attack on any railway. In this way almost all Boer homesteads – about 30 000 in all – were razed to the ground and thousands of livestock killed. The two republics were entirely devastated.</p>
<p>Meanwhile the Boer leaders were reorganising their commandos after some major setbacks. One action was to remobilise the Boers who had laid down their arms. </p>
<p>Roberts felt he should protect his oath takers and gather them in refugee camps. The first two were established in Bloemfontein and Pretoria in September 1900. </p>
<p>But the <a href="https://www.labuschagne.info/scorched-earth.htm#.XGqE-KIzbIU">scorched earth</a> policy had led to more and more Boer women and children being left homeless. Roberts decided to bring them into the camps too. They were called the “undesirables” – families of Boers who were still on commando or already prisoners of war. They were given fewer rations than others in the camps.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/259526/original/file-20190218-56232-mv7b07.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/259526/original/file-20190218-56232-mv7b07.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=448&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/259526/original/file-20190218-56232-mv7b07.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=448&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/259526/original/file-20190218-56232-mv7b07.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=448&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/259526/original/file-20190218-56232-mv7b07.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=563&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/259526/original/file-20190218-56232-mv7b07.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=563&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/259526/original/file-20190218-56232-mv7b07.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=563&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A Boer family looks on at their house that was set alight by the British forces during the South African War.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Photographical Collection Anglo-Boer War Museum, Bloemfontein SA</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>These families eventually <a href="https://www.exclusivebooks.co.za/product/9780798141925">outnumbered</a> the protected burghers and their families by 7:3. </p>
<p>These families were taken against their will. They were forcibly put on ox wagons and open railway trucks and taken to the camps. They were not, as Rees-Mogg claimed, moved for their protection and safety. Nor were they moved to the camps to be fed. Rather, their internment had everything to do with ending the resistance of Boers still fighting the British. </p>
<p>The administration of the camps was appalling. Food was of a very poor quality, sanitation deplorable, tents were overcrowded and medical assistance shocking. Little was known at the time about how to handle epidemics of measles and typhoid.</p>
<p>This isn’t all. Rees-Mogg is also obviously unaware of the action that the British commanders took against black South Africans. A total of 66 black concentration camps where set up across the Transvaal and Free State where conditions were just as bad and the death rates similar.</p>
<p>These camps were set up to get black people off the land so that the Boers couldn’t get supplies from them. In addition, forcing black farmers off their land also enabled the British to use black men as labourers on gold mines. </p>
<p>Rees-Mogg was right on one point: the concentration camps didn’t have the same aims as Adolf Hitler’s extermination camps during the Second World War. The aim in South Africa wasn’t systematic murder. </p>
<p>But this shouldn’t detract from his numerous other falsehoods.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/112006/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fransjohan Pretorius receives funding from the National Research Foundation.. </span></em></p>A British Conservative MP has brought concentration camps during the South African War back into the spotlight.Fransjohan Pretorius, Emeritus professor of History, University of PretoriaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1088462018-12-14T16:02:18Z2018-12-14T16:02:18ZThe road to Brexit: how euroscepticism tore the Conservative Party apart from within<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/250668/original/file-20181214-185240-15ersr2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">PA/Stefan Rousseau</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Theresa May has survived a vote of no confidence in her leadership but to quote the prime minister: “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/video/2017/may/22/nothings-changed-may-claims-as-she-announces-social-care-u-turn-video">Nothing has changed</a>.” The Conservative Party remains just as divided as it was before. While divisions over Europe have been very prominent recently, they have been a thorn in the side of the party leadership for many years now. That said, looking at the situation today it’s hard to imagine how these rival ideologies have managed to coexist within the same party for so long.</p>
<p>While there has always been some hostility in the party towards the European project, the nature of this hostility has evolved over time. In the 1975 referendum on EEC membership the party was largely in favour of remaining. Even Margaret Thatcher wore a very colourful, very European <a href="https://i2-prod.birminghammail.co.uk/incoming/article11505552.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/thatcher-jumper.png">jumper</a> to express her support of continued membership. Of course, Thatcher’s views on the European project would change over time as institutions themselves changed and evolved. This inevitably had a significant impact on the party’s future ideology.</p>
<p>However, arguably the key turning point came on September 16 1992 – otherwise known as Black Wednesday. This was when the government of John Major had to withdraw the pound from the Exchange Rate Mechanism. The crisis made the party deeply unpopular with the electorate and had a profound effect on how its MPs viewed the European Union. Many turned sour on the UK’s membership, which changed the nature of the party’s divide over Europe. What was once a debate about the ins and outs of Britain’s place in Europe became a polarisation between soft and hard euroscepticism.</p>
<h2>Rise of the eurosceptics</h2>
<p>While some europhiles remained, their numbers started to dwindle over time. Older MPs were replaced by fresher and younger MPs, most of whom were, at the very least, sceptical of the EU – and many of whom were in fact very hostile. This group was growing restless during the Conservatives’ long period in opposition under New Labour and looked back to the glory days under Thatcher for the solution to reclaiming Number 10. Euroscepticism became a key theme to <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jcms.12205">emulate</a>.</p>
<p>The UK’s continued membership of the EU became an increasingly salient issue, not least because some voters started to oppose the free movement of people that came as part of the package. New right-wing party UKIP capitalised on <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jcms.12208">negativity towards European immigration</a> to become a real electoral threat to the Conservatives. </p>
<p>The 2016 referendum was the then leader David Cameron’s attempt to stave off this UKIP threat. Like many in the political class, he believed that people would vote to remain in the EU and that the debate that haunted his party would be put to bed once and for all. However, after years of lukewarm support for Europe and a lack of engagement with the public hostility, pro-European MPs struggled during the short campaign period to convince enough voters that the UK’s membership of the European Union was actually a good thing.</p>
<p>With the victory of the Leave campaign in 2016, figures who were once on the periphery of their party were suddenly catapulted into to the forefront. They have positioned themselves as the guardians of the “will of the people” ever since.</p>
<h2>Irreconcilable differences?</h2>
<p>The big question is: where does the party go from here? Although May is safe from another leadership challenge for the next year, those who voted against her are still insisting that she should take the hint and <a href="https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/reesmogg-hails-pms-confidence-vote-terrible-as-mps-react-a4016016.html">resign</a>. The vote has not unified the party – nor has it really stabilised anything.</p>
<p>As things stand, reconciliation between the warring factions seems unlikely, so they will have to try to coexist for a while longer, although this will probably prove difficult given that the malcontents can, and likely will, continue to stir up trouble for the prime minister.</p>
<p>Given that they failed to oust their leader through the official mechanisms, the likes of Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg may have to refocus their efforts and put pressure on her to simply resign instead. This is something that May <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46547832">has claimed</a> she will do before the next general election, but it is unlikely her opponents will be willing to wait for this to occur naturally. Their most likely tactic will be to oppose and undermine May’s Brexit withdrawal agreement regardless of what, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46569699">if any</a>, amendments the prime minister can secure. The almost inevitable failure to get the agreement through parliament, they may hope, will make May’s position untenable.</p>
<p>Failing that, there is always the option of trying to <a href="https://theconversation.com/theresa-may-survives-confidence-vote-but-her-brexit-deal-is-still-in-deep-trouble-108728">orchestrate</a> a vote of no confidence in the government, thus forcing a general election. But while many key figures have regularly put self-interest before their party, it seems unlikely that they would want to side with rival parties to bring about such a vote, especially when these other parties may very well fare much better in the election than their own.</p>
<p>May’s struggles are not over – and her credibility may never recover. But voters dislike divided parties and, if the different factions continue to pull further apart, it may not be just their leader whose days in office are numbered.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/108846/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chris Stafford does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Looking back, it’s a wonder the party is still together after years of arguing about this issue.Chris Stafford, Doctoral Researcher, University of NottinghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1085182018-12-10T17:05:51Z2018-12-10T17:05:51ZBrexit vote postponed: what parliament must do now to fix Theresa May’s mess<p>Finally, after two tortuous years of negotiations, it looked like the UK’s elected representatives were about to vote on Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit deal. Then, despite vowing to go ahead, May decided to postpone the vote the day before. She had faced almost certain defeat and now says she will speak to EU leaders to find a new way forward.</p>
<p>Technically and legally May was within her rights to back out of the vote. However, the political optics are another thing altogether. This is a government, remember, found in <a href="https://theconversation.com/ministers-found-in-contempt-of-parliament-over-legal-advice-why-it-matters-for-brexit-108199">contempt of parliament</a> for withholding information from MPs. Pulling such an important vote out of self-interest does not look good. Doing so a day before the vote is not politic, as Speaker John Bercow pointed out after her statement. Just how much of the normal running order of UK politics is the prime minister ready to jettison?</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1072158915289182209"}"></div></p>
<p>It seems that May now intends to go back to Brussels and seek concessions around the <a href="https://theconversation.com/brexit-backstop-refresh-why-the-uk-and-eu-cant-agree-on-northern-ireland-105080">Irish backstop</a> – a sticking point that riled Brexiteers and Remainers MPs alike – in order to make the vote winnable at a later date. But the question here must be: what concessions? Is she going to ask that the UK as whole to stay in the customs union and maybe even the single market, which is the only real way the Irish border (and the backstop) problem disappears?</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1072106899905105921"}"></div></p>
<p>Not a chance: this would anger the Brexiteers in her party even more (if that is possible). Rather, the concession she is after is to somehow make the backstop more palatable to the people she has been appealing to from the beginning: the hard Brexiteers. That might be something like agreeing that the backstop becomes a temporary arrangement, somehow.</p>
<h2>Corbyn’s alternative?</h2>
<p>How will opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn react to this delay? Is he going to try and stick to the line that he wants a general election, promising that if – and it is a big “if” – he won that election he would go back and renegotiate with the EU?</p>
<p>If so, then his fate looks as bleak as May’s. What is it that he imagines he can offer that will provide enough fuel to power the EU27 to reopen the negotiations they have just taken so long to close? And remember, they are not just reopening negotiations with the UK, but among themselves too: they have to reach a unified position before they can agree a position with the UK. The idea that they will be able to reopen talks and get negotiations finished before the end of March is quite frankly ludicrous.</p>
<p>Apart, maybe, from one scenario: that a Labour government would offer to stay in the customs union, in the single market, accept freedom of movement and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. That may be motivation enough for the EU – but it is essentially staying in the EU in anything else but name (and decision-making power).</p>
<h2>Parliamentary power</h2>
<p>Whatever happens next, one thing is clear: the heads of the UK’s two main parties are no closer to solving this problem from their positions of leadership. It is to other MPs, then, that voters should turn. Only the House of Commons, acting as a collective body, can steer the nation through this political mess. </p>
<p>We should remember that despite all the cries of betrayal from the Brexiteers, this House of Commons as a collective entity was constituted by the people in a vote that superseded the referendum: the snap election of 2017. The MPs that sit in this parliament are the representatives the people chose to enact Brexit in 2017.</p>
<p>And key here is that this house of Commons is hung – there is no outright majority. A clearer display of where the country is at you could not find. As a reflection of that very vote, this house has found it very difficult to agree on anything as the negotiations on Brexit have progressed.</p>
<p>This, then, is the state of the House of Commons as we head into Christmas. And the reality is, everything the government and the opposition have tried so far in terms of Brexit has so far failed. MPs need to find away to coalesce around a different way forward. There needs to be a a proposal, plan or motion that will attract the magic number of 314 MPs needed for a majority in order that a way out can be enacted.</p>
<p>Crucially, we know that if such a plan were to emerge, it would not be a hard Brexit or May’s deal – that much has been proven in the run up to the originally planned vote. Whatever the proposal would be, we should remind ourselves and others that this will be the will of the people expressed via British constitutional means.</p>
<p>Whatever the focus on the role of the PM and other individual politicians in another crazy week, let’s try to remember that the collective sense of the country’s elective representatives is the key player here. Let’s hope it shows up.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/108518/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andy Price does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>We can’t agree what the ‘will of the people’ was in 2016, but these are the representatives they elected in 2017.Andy Price, Head of Politics, Sheffield Hallam UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1052612018-10-19T11:30:48Z2018-10-19T11:30:48ZWe must stop allowing a minority of Brexit fanatics to hold this country to ransom<p>As the Brexit negotiations peter out this week in Brussels, fevered Brexit fanatics – from Boris Johnson, David Davis and Jacob Rees Mogg in the <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/10/17/boris-johnson-david-davis-tell-theresa-may-british-people-will/">Telegraph</a>, to many others on Twitter – are ranting and raving about the most sensible thing Theresa May has done in two and a half years of Brexit negotiations by suggesting <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-transition-period-deadline-divorce-bill-eu-uk-theresa-may-brussels-latest-a8589286.html">extending the transition period</a> in an attempt at genuine compromise.</p>
<p>This would be a good opportunity to remind ourselves of some salient facts. These Conservative MPs are speaking on behalf of the hardest of Brexiteers, a collection of somewhere between 60-80 of the Tory MPs.</p>
<p>That’s somewhere between 60 and 80 MPs out of a total of 317 Conservative MPs in the House of Commons. And while having 317 MPs means the Conservatives are the largest party at the last election, they did not win enough of the votes to form a majority. Therefore, for all their bluster and bloviating, let’s just state clearly what the members of this small group are: they are a minority faction, holding a minority view, in a minority government.</p>
<p>Their claims to speak for the “will of the people” as cast in the EU referendum of 2016 thus grow weaker by the day. Time alone is a good enough driver of this – the actual vote on referendum day is fading in the historical memory. But more than this, the electorate is changing by the day. Polling points to increasing <a href="http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-polls-show-britain-wants-to-remain-in-eu-2018-9?r=US&IR=T">scepticism about Brexit</a> and even just the straightforward demographics are telling. More and more people are coming of age, turning 18, becoming voters. And young people are the group <a href="https://fullfact.org/europe/how-did-young-people-vote-brexit-referendum/">most opposed</a> to leaving the EU.</p>
<p>This is the real driver of the hard Brexiteer’s frothing, wide-eyed cries of betrayal and surrender: these MPs surely know that whatever appeal they had in 2016 is withering before the nation’s eyes.</p>
<h2>Still squabbling</h2>
<p>Nothing more quickly erodes public opinion of politicians than politicians fighting amongst themselves. And the Conservatives seem to be spending more time doing this than any other activity – such as, say, representing their constituents – at present. It’s all doubly distasteful when those doing the fighting claim to be spending all their energies fighting not for themselves or their ideological positions but for the will of the people.</p>
<p>Moreover, the most prominent members of this group only do further disservice to their long-term goals. Jacob Rees Mogg, no matter what levels of popularity he has in the Conservative party, is categorically not the future of a tech savvy, multicultural, diverse, post #MeToo Britain. That ship has sailed, and no amount of quaint caricatures of a gilded past can stop the move to a different kind of Britain envisaged by the generation now turning 18.</p>
<p>But beyond Rees-Mogg, the other figures do the cause no favours either. Johnson and Davies, both key architects of the vote to Leave, very publicly <a href="https://theconversation.com/brexiteers-outmanoeuvred-at-chequers-after-theresa-may-corrals-cabinet-before-brexit-secretary-resigns-99405">walked away</a> from government and the difficult job of delivering Brexit when things didn’t go their way. In a time of national crisis such as this, this behaviour does not come across as a principled falling on their swords but rather as a desertion of a sinking ship.</p>
<p>In short, the hard Brexit wheels are coming off. We know it, the EU knows it, May knows it. And the reason the wheels are coming off is equally as clear: the Brexit that took shape out of the days following June 23 2016 was always, always, undeliverable in any kind of form that didn’t cause untold political and economic damage to the UK. This is particularly true in the matter of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/irish-border-46135">Irish border</a>. History will show that the lion’s share of the blame for the type of Brexit that emerged in those early days lies with May. Her quite frankly ridiculous political game playing, aimed at pleasing the fanatics in her party, created the red lines that have that run through the heart of this whole debacle.</p>
<p>But even she now knows that the tine for compromise has arrived. As in life, so it should be in politics – we compromise constantly in our private and professional lives: why should it be any different here? It seems May might be realising that, belatedly.</p>
<p>Sadly, she is hampered by the fanatics. And this is what the rest of us should be focusing on: how is it that a tiny handful of MPs holding a minority position in society – remember, 99% of the things they are fighting for in a hard Brexit were not on a ballot in 2016 (and indeed, many of them <a href="https://youtu.be/ut74Tkz4Eho">argued publicly</a> against these positions) – came to hijack the political debate as a whole? </p>
<p>That worrying question has many answers – answers we need to address collectively over the coming years. In the meantime, let’s extend the transition period and give ourselves time to breathe as we reflect on how we got to this sorry state – and how we get out of here.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/105261/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andy Price does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Jacob Rees-Mogg speaks for a minority of a minority, so why are we letting him dictate government policy?Andy Price, Head of Politics, Sheffield Hallam UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1042182018-10-02T12:12:27Z2018-10-02T12:12:27ZConservative conference: a party surprisingly united on Brexit, just divided from the rest of the world<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/238802/original/file-20181001-195250-6k5urx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">PA/Stefan Rousseau</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In his <a href="https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/10/full-text-dominic-raabs-conservative-conference-speech/">big speech</a> to the Conservative Party conference in Birmingham on Monday, Brexit secretry Dominic Raab urged fellow Tories to “come together”. I’m not sure he needed to bother. Here in Birmingham the issue’s already one big circle jerk.</p>
<p>After all, the fringes are full to bursting with Brexiteers strutting their stuff in front of adoring audiences who are utterly convinced – as Theresa May still insists she, too, is convinced – that “no-deal is better than a bad deal”.</p>
<p>There are Remainers and Second-Referendumers around, of course. But unless they’re high-profile members of the Resistance, like Anna Soubry or Justine Greening or <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/dr-phillip-lee/3921">Philip Lee</a> – who managed to attract quite a crowd at a <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/juncker-british-planes-may-be-stopped-from-landing-in-eu-if-brexit-talks-fail-11514505">People’s Vote</a> meeting rather tellingly held outside “the secure zone” – they tend to huddle together for warmth and comfort, hoping against hope that reality might dawn on their colleagues before it’s too late.</p>
<p>So while people often refer to the “conference bubble”, really we’re talking about a whole bunch of bubbles. It’s easier than ever to float around in these sealed spheres thanks to the now-notorious conference apps almost everyone seems to have on their smartphones. Installing them allows those attending to plan their day so rigidly that they never need find themselves in a situation where they and their opinions are in a minority. As a result, those opinions are reinforced rather than challenged, meaning they’ll return home more convinced than ever, not just that they’re right but that pretty much everyone thinks the way they do.</p>
<p>In some ways, of course, that’s the whole point of party conferences. Sure, they’re about showcasing a slew of new (or at least recycled) policies to the public, even if research suggests that the public <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/news/2018/09/24/who-cares-about-party-conferences-not-british-publ/">isn’t paying much attention</a>. Sure, especially when you’re in government, they’re a chance to milk some much-needed cash out of lobbyists and exhibitors. And sure, they’re an opportunity – especially this year – for leadership contenders to try, like Raab, to more or less transparently pitch for the top job in front of those who will ultimately decide who gets it. But essentially these annual get-togethers are rallies for the faithful, designed to make them feel part of something and to gee them up so that they’re more likely to get out on the doorstep for the party at election time.</p>
<p>As to who the faithful are, that’s an interesting question. Some would say that, if you strip out all the (overtired) media people, the (always-on) Conservative Campaign HQ and parliamentary staffers, the “come to our event” think-tankers, the slightly-handsomer-and-more-beautiful lobbyists, and of course the MPs, you’re left with a fair few 50-something men – often small businessmen – in blue suits, a fair few celebrity-spotting ladies of a certain age queuing to see “Boris” or “Jacob” or “Dominic” (first-name terms apparently), and a smattering of mainly male, 20-something, brylcreamed wannabees equally keen on getting a selfie with their heroes. However, as someone who’s conducted extensive academic research <a href="https://esrcpartymembersprojectorg.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/grassroots-pmp_final.pdf">on the membership</a>, I couldn’t possibly comment.</p>
<p>What I can say, however, is that anyone walking through the building site that is Central Birmingham at the moment to get to the ICC for an 8am fringe event, could very, very easily tell the difference between the conference-goers and the morning commuters – a sure sign, perhaps, of a party that’s still struggling to look and sound like the 21st-century country it claims to govern.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/104218/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tim Bale receives funding from the ESRC for the Party Members Project. </span></em></p>Conservative conference 2018 feels even more of a bubble than usual.Tim Bale, Professor of Politics, Queen Mary University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/996132018-07-09T19:33:50Z2018-07-09T19:33:50ZWho’s to blame for Theresa May’s meltdown – and where will it end?<p>When Theresa May gathered her cabinet at Chequers on July 6, it seemed she would face one of three possible outcomes. Perhaps least likely was the Cabinet agreeing on a detailed and realistic plan that would be acceptable to both Remainers and Leavers in the Conservative Party, never mind to the EU’s 27 member states. Slightly more likely was a welter of resignations among the Cabinet’s heavyweight Leavers. Finally, there was the most likely outcome: that the meeting would produce a fudge which pushed most decisions further down the road.</p>
<p>By the time the Cabinet members <a href="https://theconversation.com/brexiteers-outmanoeuvred-at-chequers-after-theresa-may-corrals-cabinet-before-brexit-secretary-resigns-99405">emerged from their country house retreat</a>, it looked like May had managed to combine option one with a large helping of fudge, which seemed to be quite a coup for a prime minister not used to success. However, it’s becoming rapidly apparent that the real outcome was May’s nightmare: major resignations, albeit in slow motion.</p>
<p>The departures of <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/08/uk/brexit-secretary-david-davis-resignation/index.html">David Davis</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/09/boris-johnson-resigns-as-foreign-secretary-brexit">Boris Johnson</a> clearly rip apart what appeared to be the makings of a fragile Brexit ceasefire among some of the big players in the Conservative Party. That ceasefire has now collapsed into open conflict and chaos. And while it’s foolhardy to make any firm predictions at the moment, it’s clear that May has a major crisis on her hands.</p>
<p>In more “normal” political times, her leadership would be in mortal peril, especially given she lost her parliamentary majority in 2017’s disastrous snap election. (Indeed, any Conservative prime minister who lost their majority in an election called because of massively favourable opinion polls wouldn’t usually last a few days, never mind more than a year.) But these times are far from “normal” – and as it stands, it’s difficult to see who in their right mind would want to take over from May right now considering the mess they would inherit.</p>
<h2>Down but not out</h2>
<p>That mess is only partly of May’s own making. The main cause of chaos is the near impossibility of creating an agreement on Brexit, and there is no obvious alternative leader who could do better. The gap between Leavers and Remainers is simply too great for that – so provided May does not give up in frustration (which would be understandable) it is unlikely that a serious challenge will emerge. </p>
<p>Boris Johnson might be the most likely challenger, but has not exactly covered himself in glory considering his <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/8075e68c-7857-11e8-8e67-1e1a0846c475">undiplomatic language about business</a>, declining to make good on his promise to lie down in front of bulldozers to obstruct a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/25/boris-johnson-criticised-over-decision-to-miss-crunch-heathrow-expansion-vote">third Heathrow runway</a>, and seemingly flip-flopping repeatedly over whether to support May’s plan. </p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/jacob-rees-mogg-start-taking-this-backbench-joke-seriously-97195">Jacob Rees-Mogg</a> is perhaps a more likely contender, as a supporter of Brexit who seems like he might be perfectly comfortable with a no-deal Brexit. However, he has so far shown no signs of seriously wanting to take on the responsibility of the highest political office, and seems happy to keep sniping from the backbenches.</p>
<p>While May is certainly in a precarious situation, the absence of banner-barer leading the charge for a clear and widely supported alternative position to the Chequers deal makes her relatively safe for now. A challenge can certainly not be ruled out, but despite misgivings about the deal, there does not seem to be much appetite for a leadership contest amongst <a href="https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/986188/Theresa-May-Brexit-latest-news-David-Davis-Boris-Johnson-vote-confidence-leadership">rank and file MPs</a>.</p>
<p>All things considered, especially given she faced no challengers after her humiliation at the 2017 election, May limping on is probably the most likely immediate outcome. But no prime minister this badly wounded can limp along forever.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/99613/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robin Pettitt is a member of Loughton Residents Association.</span></em></p>Badly wounded and yet limping along, May seems condemned to govern in interesting times.Robin Pettitt, Senior Lecturer in Comparative Politics, Kingston UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/971952018-05-25T10:24:59Z2018-05-25T10:24:59ZJacob Rees-Mogg: start taking this backbench ‘joke’ seriously<p>It used to be a common complaint that Britain’s political class consisted of bland, identikit PR creations who were all spin and no substance. Recently, there has been something of a backlash. A 66-year-old veteran left-wing backbencher, Jeremy Corbyn, became <a href="https://theconversation.com/jeremy-corbyn-wins-labour-leadership-election-so-what-next-47449">Labour leader</a> in 2015. A year later, Nigel Farage – a curious combination of bonhomie and belligerence – helped deliver victory for Leave in the EU referendum. Even the prime minister, Theresa May, made a virtue of not being flashy in her campaign to become Conservative leader in 2016.</p>
<p>Jacob Rees-Mogg, the backbench Conservative MP and Brexiteer, is another in this line of “authentic” politicians. The son of former Times editor William Rees-Mogg, Jacob is an unashamed anachronism. Instantly recognisable with his <a href="https://life.spectator.co.uk/2017/11/jacob-rees-mogg-a-sartorial-standard-bearer/">double-breasted suits</a>, side parting and plummy accent, Rees-Mogg is an eccentric young fogey, a modern-day Bertie Wooster. He is enormously privileged and gloriously out of touch. </p>
<p>During his first (unsuccessful) election campaign, his childhood nanny joined him canvassing. Despite having six children – the latest named Sixtus – he admits to having <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/21/jacob-rees-mogg-have-six-children-have-never-changed-nappy/">never changed a nappy</a> (“I don’t think nanny would approve because I’m sure she’d think I wouldn’t do it properly”). He has his own online fan club, “<a href="https://twitter.com/moggmentum?lang=en">Moggmentum</a>”. And he is currently the 9/2 second favourite with the bookmaker, William Hill, to become the next prime minister (Jeremy Corbyn is the favourite).</p>
<h2>Rise to prominence</h2>
<p>Rees-Mogg’s popularity is based on his authenticity. He is renowned for his willingness to stand by his socially conservative principles. That has led to controversy: as a devout Roman Catholic, he opposes same-sex marriage and has expressed his <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41172426">opposition to abortion</a> in all circumstances, including rape. To his progressive enemies, Rees-Mogg is a bigot and his public appearances have <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-42926535">attracted protestors</a>. To his supporters, his refusal to compromise on his principles ensures that his political messages have clarity, and that whatever else he is accused of, obfuscation and opportunism are not among them.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="InstagramEmbed" data-react-props="{"url":"https://www.instagram.com/p/BXxQOhAl2RQ/?taken-by=jacob_rees_mogg","accessToken":"127105130696839|b4b75090c9688d81dfd245afe6052f20"}"></div></p>
<p>But if Rees-Mogg’s early years in British politics were spent as a gadfly, he is becoming a more significant figure – and Brexit is the reason. He campaigned for Leave in the referendum and, since then, has become a vocal spokesman for a clean separation between Britain and the EU.</p>
<p>Like most on the right of the Conservative Party, Rees-Mogg is opposed to any “soft Brexit” that would keep the UK in the single market and the customs union. His clarity of principle, calm delivery and occasional wit, together with his greater public profile, elevated his voice above those of other hard eurosceptic Tories. This prominence helped him to be elected unopposed in January as chairman of the European Research Group (ERG), a eurosceptic lobby group of Conservative MPs. The group sent a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43131446">letter to the prime minister</a> urging her to stand by her Lancaster House speech of 2017 in which she set out her vision of Brexit. The letter was signed by 62 backbench Tory MPs, including Rees-Mogg.</p>
<h2>Brexit champion</h2>
<p>The government’s loss of its parliamentary majority in the general election last year left it in a weakened position over Brexit policy. A handful of pro-EU Tory rebels have used their leverage to extract concessions from the government and on one occasion (a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43951405">“meaningful vote” </a> over any Brexit deal) to side with the opposition and defeat it. In response, hard eurosceptics have organised to prevent the government being dragged into a soft Brexit by Remainer MPs.</p>
<p>Rees-Mogg’s election as ERG chairman has given Brexiteers a high-profile leader who is a true believer and not afraid to stand up to the prime minister. That was evident last month when he dismissed May’s preferred “customs partnership” with the EU to avoid a hard border in Ireland as “<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43878356">completely cretinous</a>”.</p>
<p>He then went <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/05/22/jacob-rees-mogg-admits-doubts-theresa-may-accuses-pm-abject/">further</a>, hinting that he had “doubts” about the prime minister, while denouncing the UK’s Brexit negotiating strategy as “abject weakness”. His utterances on Brexit are now routinely reported by the media.</p>
<p>May’s weak authority and the delicate parliamentary arithmetic prevent her from launching a full-scale attack on Rees-Mogg and the Brexiteers. Indeed, the ERG provides ballast for cabinet Leavers like Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, with the former in particular feeling emboldened to stretch the bounds of collective responsibility over Brexit.</p>
<p>Some commentators have urged May to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/02/no-hard-brexit-not-enough-mps-martin-kettle">call Rees-Mogg’s bluff</a> and go for a soft Brexit, for which they claim, there is a majority in parliament. But is it a bluff? There is no majority for soft Brexit within the Conservative Party and if the prime minister tried to push it through, she would split her party. In those circumstances, and with nothing more to lose, who could be certain that Tory MPs would not trigger a confidence vote in their leader? It would take 48 of them to do it and Rees-Mogg could play a key mobilising role.</p>
<h2>The next PM?</h2>
<p>Some have spoken of Rees-Mogg himself as a potential leader. A few years ago, that would have sounded absurd. But Corbyn’s election as Labour leader transformed perceptions of feasible candidacies. Like Corbyn, Rees-Mogg is a grassroots favourite with an unspun image and strong convictions. His controversial views on abortion would be held up by opponents as evidence of his unfitness to lead. But supporters would say he is not afraid to hold unpopular opinions – just as Corbyn’s supporters said of their man in relation to immigration, nuclear disarmament and Hamas. Also like Corbyn, Rees-Mogg is personable and mild-mannered in a way that belies his non-centrist views. In today’s politics, personality goes a long way.</p>
<p>Given that individual Conservative members select the leader from a shortlist of two drawn up by MPs, a Rees-Mogg tilt at the leadership cannot be ruled out. Even if he didn’t run, he could still be influential in the next leadership contest. As the tribune of backbench euroscepticism in the Conservative Party, Rees-Mogg could be the kingmaker. Brexiteer candidates would eagerly seek his endorsement.</p>
<p>That might be his best bet. Inflexible principles can hobble one’s own leadership, but usefully influence someone else’s leadership. Rees-Mogg looks set to continue influencing the politics of Brexit more than most other politicians. It is time we started taking him seriously.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/97195/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tom Quinn does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It’s easy to dismiss this modern-day Bertie Wooster as a caricature. But his power is not to be underestimated.Tom Quinn, Senior Lecturer, Department of Government, University of EssexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/915062018-02-08T15:03:46Z2018-02-08T15:03:46ZThis Tory Brexit coup still doesn’t seem like an immediate threat<p>Not for the first time in its modern history, the Conservative party stands at a crossroads. It is again tearing itself apart over the explosive issue of Europe. Long-standing internal divisions have been heightened by the UK’s impending departure from the European Union, and prime minister Theresa May faces an ominous scenario. Like previous Conservative leaders, she could be ejected from office over a deep-rooted ideological dispute about Europe.</p>
<p>But that’s not to say May’s own MPs biting at her heels are in a particularly strong position either. They might be unhappy with the status quo, but they don’t appear to have a coherent or united strategy for moving forward. They also know that excessive opposition could actually bring their own government down. </p>
<h2>Divisions laid bare</h2>
<p>Pro-European backbencher Anna Soubry has brought the tensions to the fore by <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42955553">urging</a> May to boot out the estimated 35 “hard, ideological Brexiteers” among Tory MPs. She claims this group wields undue influence over the party’s Brexit stance. She also alluded to past Conservative prime ministers John Major and David Cameron, who were severely damaged by this issue, adding that neither stood up to this particular anti-EU faction while in office.</p>
<p>Both Major and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/24/david-cameron-downfall-european-tragedy">Cameron</a> were fatally damaged by their failure to manage the European question. It even played a prominent part in the downfall of <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/9980360/Margaret-Thatcher-Conflict-over-Europe-led-to-final-battle.html">Margaret Thatcher</a>.</p>
<p>It’s this contextual backdrop that makes the ongoing negotiations with the European Union so dangerous for May. As her government engages with EU officials for the next round of crucial Brexit negotiations, she finds herself stuck between a rock and a hard place. </p>
<p>On one side, the eurosceptics are in dogged pursuit of a hard Brexit. On the other, europhiles seek a softer, more moderated departure from the EU. Faced with such polarised opposites, May has virtually zero room for flexible manoeuvre to deliver the kind of Brexit of her personal choosing. </p>
<p>The prolonged nature of Brexit discussions, plus her inability to offer a precise vision of Britain’s key demands and future vision of life beyond the EU has led to <a href="https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/687589/Theresa-May-reluctant-remainer-Michael-Fallon">growing speculation</a> about her ongoing tenure in office.</p>
<p>Many of the more ardent Brexiteers have never fully trusted May on Europe. Now prominent Remainers in influential Cabinet positions – most notably chancellor Phillip Hammond and home secretary Amber Rudd – have provoked the anger of Brexiteers in recent weeks due to perceptions that they are <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jacob-rees-mogg-attacks-theresa-may-and-philip-hammond-leadership-a8196076.html">actively depicting</a> a gloomy and negative post-Brexit outcome.</p>
<p>Some ambitious rivals sense her weakened position and detect an opportunity for themselves. Encouraged by backbench supporters and sympathisers in the media, reports have emerged that Boris Johnson, Michel Gove and Jacob Rees-Mogg could emerge as a Brexit <a href="http://uk.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-michael-gove-and-jacob-rees-mogg-urged-to-overthrow-theresa-may-2018-2">“dream team”</a> to drive home the final stage of negotiations from a more committed and assertive position.</p>
<h2>Confused position</h2>
<p>May has confirmed that Britain will be leaving the EU’s <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/theresa-may-and-liam-fox-clash-on-eu-customs-union-after-brexit-11232833">customs union</a> after much speculation that the UK could possibly remain in a diluted or revised version beyond the Brexit date of March 2019. This followed mixed messages from her government and appears to have marked a departure from a more pragmatic position that May adopted previously. While this announcement has delighted the pro-Brexit lobby, it has created further anxiety for others, particularly as further predictions have emerged indicating the potentially <a href="https://uk.news.yahoo.com/brexit-leak-government-analysis-reveals-222400864.html">negative economic impact</a> of Brexit.</p>
<p>Such economic gloom is heightened by fears that the various global trade deals being pursued by May’s government will not generate the same degree of trade and economic growth as the EU’s single market and customs union they are set to replace.</p>
<p>The highly sensitive issue of Northern Ireland’s border also remains unresolved. May has been warned that a hard border will be inevitable if Britain does leave the customs union, and this would <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/06/brexit-bind-hard-border-ireland-could-unavoidable-uks-customs/">potentially destabilise</a> the delicate peace process.</p>
<p>The stakes are therefore extremely high. May’s chances of political survival are now the subject of almost <a href="http://uk.businessinsider.com/leadership-challenge-theresa-may-conservatives-mps-brexit-2018-1?r=US&IR=T">daily speculation</a>.</p>
<p>But it’s all something of a catch-22 situation for Conservative Brexiteers. Removing the current prime minister could possibly set in motion a chain of events that could destabilise the entire Brexit process. It could also trigger a further general election. That, in turn, opens the possibility of Jeremy Corbyn entering <a href="https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/01/tory-attacks-on-the-brexit-impact-report-will-help-corbyn/">10 Downing Street</a>. And none of that would ultimately resolve the long-running civil war over Europe within the party anyway.</p>
<p>This is indeed a sobering thought for Conservative Brexiteers. They are increasingly impatient with their leader’s stuttering EU departure strategy, yet remain undecided about how they would accelerate the delivery of a version of Brexit they truly support.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/91506/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ben Williams is a member of the National Education Union (NEU), Amnesty International, the Higher Education Academy (HEA) and the Labour Party. </span></em></p>Johnson and Mogg are taking over? They should probably get on with it then.Ben Williams, Tutor in Politics and Political Theory, University of SalfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/895032017-12-27T17:06:49Z2017-12-27T17:06:49ZTheresa May brought a rotten year on herself – did she have to take the rest of the UK with her?<p>In politics, it is a truism events can shift, and shift quickly. What a difference a day makes, let alone a week, a month, a year. In 2017, the year following the UK’s vote to leave the European Union, there seems to have been so many shifts: so many <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-seismic-shift-has-occurred-in-british-politics-79209">fundamentals</a> have been up for discussion, so much has been at stake.</p>
<p>And yet, it also seems so little has changed. The UK’s entire political, social and economic system remains frozen in the seizure-like grip of the national paroxysm that is Brexit.</p>
<p>Looking back, it’s easy to discern the one, central reason for the freeze: this year, for better or worse, has been Theresa May’s year. Every decision the prime minister and her team have made has further entrenched the divisions wrought by the referendum result, and failed to move the nation beyond them. Let’s remind ourselves of this journey.</p>
<p>In her <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-read-theresa-mays-brexit-speech-71359">Lancaster House speech</a> in January, May reminded us that Britain had “voted to leave the European Union, and chose to embrace the world”. With these, her opening words, the tone for 2017 was set. It was either/or: embrace the EU, or embrace the world. You can’t have both.</p>
<p>And it was all or nothing too: you couldn’t have some of the EU – no single market, no customs union – it was in or out, completely, definitively.</p>
<p>In March, this same binary either/or lay behind her stage managed signing of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-linguists-guide-to-the-theresa-may-article-50-letter-75436">Article 50 letter</a>: against a backdrop in Downing Street of a solitary union flag, the EU flag conspicuous by its absence. Of course, we now know that the cabinet had not had a single discussion about what Brexit would look like. Pure symbolism, then, underpinned the first three months of May’s year – a simplistic reduction of a frightfully complex reality to a black and white in or out of the EU. </p>
<p>Indeed, so simple a reduction was it that May even beguiled herself with her binary view of the world: by April, the prime minister was explaining to the nation that the country needed to go to the polls again <a href="https://theconversation.com/theresa-mays-snap-election-gamble-explained-76423">in a snap election</a> to give her the mandate she needed to deliver this clean break Brexit. </p>
<p>People and politicians who urged caution on Brexit were “<a href="https://theconversation.com/just-who-exactly-is-playing-games-theresa-may-and-political-opportunism-76418">playing games with Politics</a>”, she told us; in the coming election, “every vote for the Conservatives, will make it harder for opposition politicians who want to stop me from getting the job done”.</p>
<p>Of course, as the true complexities of leaving the EU were already seeping out in the public realm by this stage, it was not difficult for the electorate to see through this reductionism, and May lost her already small majority. </p>
<p>But this did not stop the prime minister’s quest to render the difficulties of Brexit as child’s play: after the summer recess, May delivered her <a href="https://theconversation.com/theresa-may-in-florence-little-room-and-no-view-84534">Florence speech</a>, in which she talked about the “exciting times” ahead and how Brexit represented a “sovereign nation in which the British people are in control”. The referendum vote was “a statement about how they want their democracy to work”.</p>
<p>Form our current vantage point, it is crystal clear that this does nothing to genuinely understand the reasons for the Leave vote, nor to appreciate the incredible complexity of leaving the EU.</p>
<p>These were platitudes – the simplistic reduction of the complexities of international cooperation to nothing more than poppycock. And, where May led, others in her cabinet and party followed. In July, The foreign secretary suggested in parliament the EU should “go whistle” for the money it wanted for the Brexit divorce settlement. By September, David Davis, the Brexit secretary, was describing the mooted €50 billion divorce payment as “nonsense”. In November, influential Brexiteer <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/25/jacob-rees-mogg-mark-carney-enemy-brexit-bbc-biased/">Jacob Rees-Mogg</a> described Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of England as an “enemy of Brexit”.</p>
<p>As much as these people may be characters and have their own, elevated profiles, responsibility for inspiring them to ride roughshod over such sensitive matters should be laid squarely at the feet of a leader who was doing exactly the same.</p>
<h2>Britain deserves better</h2>
<p>As the whole of 2017 shows, the resort to these simple, oppositional binaries, just begets more of the same: oppositional thinking begets more oppositional thinking, more uncritical dismissal of opposing views. The year ended with <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/18/death-threats-brexit-media-rational-debate-crisis-confrontation">death threats</a> against MPs who rebelled against May in a recent parliamentary vote on Brexit – we would do well to remember this. </p>
<p>And it could have been so different. It was in fact always impossible for May – or any politician – to step into post-referendum 2017 and attempt to speak clearly on the “will of the British People”. Anyone who claims to be able to do this is wrong, even if 17.4m people voted Leave. Wrong, because there were 16m other people voting for the opposite; doubly wrong because the people who cast the 1m votes that made the difference in the referendum may have reason to change their mind now or at any time in the future.</p>
<p>An emollient tone was needed from May – a message to the country and our European partners that she understood the complexities that produced the referendum vote and the many different reasons for why people voted like they did.</p>
<p>This is the message to take into 2018: whatever side one might be on the Brexit divide, let’s all admit the complexities, and demand that politicians do the same.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/89503/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andy Price does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>For a full 12 months, this prime minister has encouraged and entrenched harmful divisions, particularly over Brexit.Andy Price, Head of Politics, Sheffield Hallam UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/835942017-09-08T12:26:46Z2017-09-08T12:26:46ZJacob Rees-Mogg thinks his anti-abortion stance doesn’t matter – here’s why he is wrong<p>In a recent appearance on the television show Good Morning Britain, Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg revealed that he is totally against abortion, even in the case of rape. He claimed that this was his personal view, based on his Catholic faith, and argued that his position doesn’t matter because it has no bearing on the law of the land and nothing would change that.</p>
<p>This is simply not the case. Rees-Mogg is being spoken of as a hopeful for the leadership of the Conservative party – and is therefore a potential prime minister. Even if rumours of that political ambition are overblown, he is a member of the House of Commons, where he has consistently <a href="https://indy100.com/article/jacob-rees-mogg-abortion-gay-rights-good-morning-britain-theresa-may-prime-minister-voting-record-7932801">voted</a> to restrict abortion. And, as he should well know, access to abortion is not the law of the land. In Northern Ireland, abortion is almost completely prohibited. And in the rest of the UK, it’s still a <a href="https://theconversation.com/abortion-is-still-illegal-in-the-uk-thanks-to-this-victorian-law-48536">criminal offence</a> with the threat of prison for both women and those who provide abortion unless carried out under conditions of strict medical control.</p>
<p>Parliamentary votes on abortion are also conscience votes – which means that parties allow their MPs to vote however they want. So when it comes to voting on this issue, Rees-Mogg’s personal opinion is the only factor at play. He, like other parliamentarians, is free to inflict his private religious beliefs on the population without hesitation – regardless of the <a href="http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/latest-report/british-social-attitudes-30/personal-relationships/abortion.aspx">overwhelming support</a> for abortion across the country.</p>
<p>Anti-abortion legislation is frequently introduced into parliament, although it rarely gets very far. In this current session, there are two bills which seek to reduce the time limit for abortion. Conservative peer <a href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2017-02-24/debates/CC8223A5-13F6-4AAA-A9B7-3F287A90A456/Abortion(DisabilityEquality)Bill(HL)#contribution-73F884C9-5B3C-4983-BAAA-2617C99073A0">Kevin Shinkwin</a> seeks to force women with a diagnosis of fatal foetal anomalies to carry a pregnancy to term. His fellow Tory peer Emma Nicholson seeks to restrict abortion to 12 weeks. This despite <a href="http://www.shnwales.org.uk/documents/485/(University%20of%20Southampton)%20Second-Trimester%20abortions%20in%20England%20and%20Wales.pdf">the evidence</a>, which shows that abortion after the first trimester is rare and only usually happens when women could not have made the decision any earlier or when they faced delays accessing a procedure.</p>
<p>If these bills arrive in the House of Commons, Rees-Mogg’s voting record suggests he will try to change the law based on his faith position. </p>
<h2>The role of conscience</h2>
<p>Historically, support for the Catholic Church was viewed with suspicion or even treason in the UK as support for the “ruler in Rome”. It was seen as being in conflict with national sovereignty following the split from the Catholic Church during the Tudor period. Only in the 19th century did this begin to change, particularly with the <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo4/10/7/contents">Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829</a>. Catholics began to regain social and political rights. Today, parliament has members from many different faiths. They routinely separate their private religious beliefs from their political activities. But because abortion is a conscience vote, it is considered differently. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WE6WC_BVZ4Q?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Jacob Rees-Mogg on Good Morning Britain.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The majority of British Catholics see abortion as a <a href="http://www.natcen.ac.uk/blog/british-attitudes-to-abortion">decision for women</a> – in other words a personal conscience decision. Yet the Catholic Church has a history of trying to influence Catholic politicians. It has even threatened to <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-abortion/pope-warns-catholic-politicians-who-back-abortion-idUSL0956318820070509">ex-communicate</a> politicians who vote to support abortion. With no formal separation between faith and state, and a parliamentary system which gives <a href="http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/LLN-2011-036">voting rights</a> to faith leaders, the UK already gives significant power to religious bodies. Many people think that is <a href="http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2016/08/the-house-of-lords-and-religion">undemocratic</a>.</p>
<h2>Abortion and women’s position</h2>
<p>The opposition to abortion within the Catholic Church has to be understood in the broader context of its understanding of women and motherhood. Within the Catholic Church, alongside abortion, contraception is also prohibited and this is interlinked with a belief that motherhood is seen as women’s natural calling. In this line of reasoning, every occasion of heterosexual activity binds women into accepting a child if one is conceived (and whether or not it was consensual).</p>
<p>This understanding of women as naturally mothers who can only have sex if they accept the consequences is no longer routinely used to deny women education or employment, but is still present in the opposition to abortion. It is active in the voting record of Rees-Mogg, who has tried to restrict abortion but also voted in favour of the budget which <a href="https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24926/jacob_rees-mogg/north_east_somerset/divisions?policy=6670.">restricted welfare benefits</a> for families who have more than <a href="https://theconversation.com/welcome-to-the-uk-land-of-the-two-child-policy-44756">two children</a> in July 2015. The logical consequence of this is that poorer women should just not have sex. </p>
<p>Women’s control over the reproduction is central to their freedom and restrictions on abortion threaten this. The lack of acknowledgment that women are more than just actual or potential mothers is also reflected in the claims by anti-abortion movements that women who choose abortion are victims of coercion. If you understand that motherhood is natural destiny of all women, this allows all abortion decisions to be called forced. But women have never accepted this position. Women throughout history have chosen abortion regardless of the legal status or religious teachings.</p>
<p>Where access to abortion is restricted, it can mean increased health risks including a huge number of deaths globally. This is not just a problem for other parts of the world, as <a href="http://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway/news/baby-died-after-mums-illegal-abortion-attempt-131422/">a recent case in Kent</a> has shown, women refused abortions often feel that they have little option but to try to self-terminate. </p>
<p>In a democratic society which purports to uphold equality, personal faith positions should not be allowed to be used to restrict the rights of others. Politicians such as Rees-Mogg are clearly entitled to their religious beliefs, but this should be kept separate from their public roles. Whether or not abortion is understood as a conscience issue is debatable, but if it is, it should be seen as a matter for the conscience of the pregnant woman alone.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/83594/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Pam Lowe is a member of Abortion Rights</span></em></p>Voting on this issue is a matter of conscience, so the MP’s view that women shouldn’t be allowed to terminate pregnancies, even when they’ve been raped, is very relevant to the rest of society.Pam Lowe, Senior Lecturer in Sociology, Aston UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.