The Government cracked down on street yobs so riots became rarer, but when they did happen they were more deadly, led by paramilitaries
“Far-right mobs rioted on Sunday for a second consecutive night in London, injuring at least 30 police officers. Crowds of men wearing masks terrorized citizens and attacked security forces. Cars were set on fire at major intersections, closing a highway into London. The more than 3,000 police officers at the scene were bombarded with homemade explosives while they held rioters back. Sir John Stevens, London's chief constable, said the clashes posed "one of the most dangerous riot situations in the history of policing in the UK,". One policeman was shot in the eye and partly blinded by a gunman associated with the paramilitary group Civil Assistance. "It is unique for officers to come under live fire in what was a public order situation," Sir John said.” - Far-Right Riot for 2nd Night in London, Injuring 30 Police Officers, Brian Lavery, New York Times (2005)
As summer gave way to cooler weather and cooler heads, the violence of the summer began to subside into a brief respite. Attacks became more sporadic rather than a factor of everyday life as the police became better at riot control and lower-level attacks. The Johnson administration now began to push on with its legislative agenda, most notably with a raft of socially liberal legislation. Under the Junta, Britain’s social policy had been frozen in the 1960s and it lagged far behind other western countries in terms of rights for LGBT people and ethnic minorities, the SDP Government now set about to rectify this.
The liberal reforms had two aspects, firstly was the obvious social benefit to expanding civil liberties, but the reforms also had a political aspect. National was heavily split, with reformists in favour of modernising social legislation, and the hardliners strongly opposed. Johnson hoped he could use the reforms to drive a wedge between National’s warring factions, putting further pressure on Collin’s leadership. Obviously if you asked Johnson publicly the rights of Britain’s minority groups came first, but the political benefit definitely didn’t hurt.
A new British bill of rights guaranteed civil liberties not seen since the pre-Junta days. It included rights such as the right to legal counsel, a fair trial, religion, to join a union and to protest. As well as new sections preventing discrimination on LGBT, ethnic and other grounds. LGBT rights were especially expanded, with the age of consent for same-sex relationships lowered in line with different sex relationships. Same-sex couples were also granted the right to a civil partnership and adoption. Finally the British Government gave a formal apology for the Aids crisis of the 1980s, where thousands of gay men died after the Junta government failed to provide proper support.
The Junta had swept the aids epidemic under the bus, killing thousands of gay men
“18 years ago, a new killer invaded Britain, setting off panic buttons and causing rumors among an ill-informed population. The killer was Aids. Some people were afraid to sit near gays in case they caught it from breathing the same air. Some believed it could be contracted by visiting a public toilet. Others thought it was a punishment sent by God to end the scourge of homosexuality. Tabloid newspapers branded it a 'gay plague'. Medical experts feared they could be facing the worst public health disaster of the century. The lack of effort the Government put into averting an epidemic, have been revealed in remarkable Cabinet Papers. Under Health Secretary Martin Smyth, a former Presbyterian minister the British Government failed to properly respond to the virus.” - How Aids flustered the Junta, Andy McSmith (2005)
These reforms, dubbed the 05 Charter, were the most consequential civil rights reforms since the Magna Carta. For the first time in British history the rights of citizens were enshrined in an American-style bill of rights. With one stroke of a pen Parliament could bring Britain forward forty years. Some in the SDP were concerned with the radicalism of the reforms. They called for the reforms to be split up and delivered slowly, one by one. However, the momentum within the SDP was against them, with the vast majority of SDP members supporting the Charter.
Some argued Britain's lack of a written constitution had allowed the Junta to happen
In National the reforms were incredibly divisive and provided a headache for Tim Collins. Hardliners like Anne Widdecombe and Gerrard Batten were calling for the party to oppose the whole thing, meanwhile reformists like Tim Boswell, Lembit Opik and Sajjad Karim spoke publicly in favour of the reforms. Collins found himself stuck in the middle deciding how to whip. If he came down strongly on either side he could ferment more internal dissent or even a split. If he didn’t choose a side he’d look weaker and weaker. National had spent the last year on the political back foot, reacting rather than leading.
Eventually Collins announced a free vote on the issue pointing to the “broad range of opinion” on the National bench, Collins personally abstained. This move was roundly condemned as a cop-out and showed the issues at the heart of National. Most National MPs (122) would follow Collins in abstaining, including most frontbenchers. 44 hard-line MPs would vote against the bill and 23 of the reformists voted in favour. Without any real opposition in Parliament the Bill of Rights passed easily, much to the rage of the hardliners and social conservatives.
In Britain’s once underground gay pubs and bars the rainbow bunting was hung up with pride. Registration offices saw a deluge of civil partnership applications. Britain’s various protest groups and NGOs, who had spent the last year technically operating illegally were not recognised, able to open offices and hire staff. Britain’s culture had taken a great leap forward. Home Secretary Peter Tatchell welcomed a new, modern and tolerant Britain. But with the darkness of the Junta still looming over Britain there were still fears as to how the far-right would respond. Figures on the hard-right of British politics, such as Reverend Robert West warned of deadly consequences as Britain moved to “degeneracy”. The new Britain was here, but not everyone was happy.
“A party with a long term record holding executive power is most likely to be dominated by it. A period of repression may persuade transition actors to take an interest in institutional mechanisms, such as a Charter of Rights. This is the insurance model in relation to the politics of constitutional design during regime transition. Evidence from Britain indicates that a change in attitude may be engendered by concrete experience of life in the wilderness. A rational, prospective calculation of the likelihood of holding executive power in the future. The sheer strength of feeling that had built up during 40 years of Junta rule ensured the passage of the path-breaking Rights Charter.” - Explaining the Elite Politics of Britain’s Bill of Rights Debate, Lecture by David Erdos, University of Cambridge (2009)
Women's rights were updated, including easing access to abortion