I readily grant that my information comes form news and talking to people for the most part since I have never lived in the UK, but we hear a lot of stories about harassment of non white football players for example. That is concerning since even over here that is less common. I've also seen a lot of nasty things said by British people online about the new Mayor of London being Indian.
Sadiq Khan is hardly "the new Mayor of London." He was first elected to that office in 2016, then re-elected in 2021 (the 2020 elections were postponed because of Covid), and then re-elected for an unprecedented third term in 2025. Nor is he Indian. He British and his family is from Pakistan. There's a big difference between British Pakistanis and British Indians, deriving not only from the two countries' different cultures and religions but from the areas from which the original immigrants from those countries were recruited during the 1950s and 1960s, and the sort of jobs they did.
I'm pointing this out not to be pedantic but as an example of how misleading online commentary can be. That's why I tend to rely on media sources I know I can trust, like Reuters, the Times and The Guardian, and other reliable mainstream media. I mean, I see an awful lot of online commentary on the US, both left and right, from US citizens that looks pretty dubious to me, so I discount it most of the time.
[/quote]
I don't have any data for 2024 that I could find but violent attacks against transgender people rose by 11% in 2023 and that was widely reported. It's thought this is largely due to the rhetoric going on over there. Though obviously the "TERF Island" reputation is often linked to certain gender-criticals like Rowling.
Yes, indeed. However, I'm still not sure how well online activity reflects people's lives. For example, almost all the online UK transphobic commentary I've seen has been about fears about trans men (i.e. assigned male at birth) assaulting cis women or participating in women's sports. A lot of these fears are imaginary - despite all the online concerns expressed about the possibility of CIS women finding themselves incarcerated (not a major concern for most women in the normal course of events) alongside male rapists, I don't think that, in recent years, there have ever been more than 5 or 6 trans women accommodated in English and Welsh women's prisons at any one time, and it's always been the case that the Prison Service determine whether to accommodate a trans prisoner who doesn't have a Gender Recognition Certificate in a men's or a women's prison, just as it's always been the case that the Prison Service has to make special arrangements for inmates who pose a particular danger to other inmates or are at particular risk from them -- and even when they're not, they always seem to be about predatory CIS men disguising themselves as women rather than about trans women.
That is, the discourse is mostly about hypothetical online issues rather than anything actually happening in meatspace (e.g. trans women wanting to be able to use a public bathroom or in-store changing room when necessary without harassment).
It's also remarkable that almost all the debates I've seen online concentrate almost exclusively on trans men, despite the fact that, at least according to the last UK Census, this certainly doesn't reflect reality
Nor do many debates I've seen online or in the media address the -- to my mind noteworthy -- fact that there's been a huge increase in the number of children and teens assigned female at birth seeking treatment for gender dysphoria in the UK
That is, despite the fact they're quite possibly a majority of the trans population of the UK at this point, and certainly were a majority of the patients seen by the Tavistock Clinic in recent years, trans boys and men hardly seem to figure in public consciousness.
(both images taken from
https://post.parliament.uk/research-briefings/post-pb-0053/)
We thought our Judiciary was very independent for a long time too.... It's obviously been steam rolled now. I think a major facet of Trump's power is his cult of personality. If we switched to a Parliamentary system tomorrow somehow, he'd be named PM right away and his party would still be too scared to oppose him.
In summary, I agree you're in a better spot for now... but I think there is some long term signs it could slide in the wrong direction too. The Brexit vote was arguably a strong sign of some bad sentiments over there. I agree the Buffoonery of Trump and Musk is pushing people in the right direction right now. ...and that's great; but I'm a bit worried of where this could go in another decade.
I think the biggest reason to be concerned about the UK and the rest of the world slipping further from liberal democracy is that our toxic online culture seems to be spreading to young people in many other places. The way Trump won over Gen-Z men here shocked me and that culture misinformation is spreading.
While the majority of young people plan to vote Green or Labour this week, support for Nigel Farage’s right-wing party is surging among 18- to 24-year-old men
www.dazeddigital.com
I would argue, though, that it's potentially misleading to compare the US and the UK because our political structures are so different. We don't have a President, and the role of Prime Minister is not the same as that of your President. The Conservatives ran through 5 Prime Ministers in 10 years, and only one of them left because they were removed by the electorate. The rest left because they'd lost the support of their own party. PMs are frightened of their Members of Parliament over here, not like your Members of Congress and Senators being frightened of Trump.
Our courts are not like your courts -- judges aren't political appointments and, because it's a lot easier for our parliament to pass laws than it is for your congress, it's very well established that it's up to parliament to make laws and the courts to interpret them. We didn't need the Law Lords (as the Supreme Court then were) to legalise abortion, or the Supreme Court to legalise equal marriage because Parliament did that. Similarly, if our government -- whatever the party -- don't like judicial decisions, the judiciary aren't at all worried about telling the government that, if they don't like the law, it's up to them to change it.
Most of the powers your President enjoys as Chief Executive are vested in our Monarch, who either exercises them on the advice of the Prime Minister or delegates them to the PM. In either case they're subject to judicial review in a way your President's decrees and orders aren't. Similarly, it's part of our civil servants' contracts of employment that they can't be made to carry out unlawful instructions, which adds another level of judicial oversight.
I'm not saying that Britain is immune to a far-right takeover, but if it happens it won't be analogous to how Trump has operated because the two societies and their power structures and institutions are very different.
The following is from
Out, an hilarious but authoritative account by The Times' political correspondent Tim Shipman of Boris Johnson's premiership. I can't imagine it happening in the US
MacNamara could see Cummings was bristling for a fight, but she was in no mood for equivocation either. She thought it ridiculous that she had had to come in on a day off to point out to the prime minister that he could not just break an Act of Parliament and get away with it. ‘Well you can’t do that,’ she said.
‘Where does it say you can’t do that?’ Cummings asked.
MacNamara warned that if the government set out to break the law, officials would down tools. ‘The civil service can’t work for you. If you want to do that, it’s the law, none of us can work for you.’ The mutiny threat was back.
Cummings had previously contemplated the ultimate photo opportunity to dramatise Johnson’s desire to deliver Brexit. ‘We’ll just barricade the door and the police can fuck off. They’ll have to break the fucking door down.’ Another Vote Leaver said, ‘There was serious conversation about what happens if the police come to arrest the PM. We couldn’t think of a better visual of how determined Boris was to deliver Brexit.’ Johnson chipped in, ‘I’ll barricade myself in.’ He then recounted the story of an uncle who went mad and holed up in Newham Town Hall under police siege. ‘They’ll have to winkle me out with a flamethrower.’ MacNamara thought they had both misunderstood how his scenario would play out. Far from protecting Johnson from a policeman with a warrant for his arrest, those guarding the building would be the ones arresting him. ‘The police don’t work for you in that situation, Dom, they work for me,’ she said. ‘They work for us. It’s not your building. These aren’t your people. The police work for the Queen. We all work for the Queen.’ Johnson confirmed later: ‘She did say that.’
Eddie Lister, who was also present, had another question: ‘Can the Queen sack the prime minister?’
‘Do you really want us to have to advise the monarch that she’s going to have to ask you to stand down?’ MacNamara snapped.
Johnson, losing his nerve, blurted, ‘This might be getting a bit out of hand!’ Another source said, ‘He wasn’t keen to serve at Her Majesty’s pleasure.’
