Skip to main content

Only we know how to do these things

Unfortunately 2015 has not started well. Oh it had the fantastic firework displays and I have no doubt that a lot of people were happy.  But then I hear Butler-Sloss speaking on BBC Radio 4.  Lady Butler-Sloss said she worried that “the victims and survivors, for whom I have the most enormous sympathy – and as a judge I tried a great many child abuse cases – for them to be deciding who should be the person chairing it creates real problems”. Yes, indeed it does, they wouldn't want her to chair it for a start. But is that really a problem? Here is what she went on to say.

“If you do not have in the past a position of authority, how are you going to be able to run the inquiry? You are going to need someone who knows how to run things and if you get someone with an obscure background with no background of establishment, they will find it very difficult and may not be able to produce the goods.”

You see, that is what the people who consider themselves to be 'of the establishment', 'one of us', think. They are better than everyone else. Oh yes they are! After all, how else would they be 'one of them'. Only they could possibly have the intelligence, the ability, the experience, the hidden ingredient of the elite. They dine with each other. Their brothers and uncles and aunts and mothers and fathers, and uncle Tom Cobbly and all were 'one of them', so they must be 'suitable'.  We are the establishment. We are the champions. We are the best. Only we, brothers, know how to do these things. Oh dear! Did she really say that? Well, almost.

I once read a book that was given to me as a Christmas present way back in the 19960s when I first got interested in politics. It was 'The Anatomy of Britain'. What it demonstrates was how a relatively small elite, from the 'right' backgrounds, who went to the 'right' schools 'ran' Britain. Sadly it is still true today. Which brings me to the New Year's honours.

I do not like the honours system. It perpetuates exactly the problem described above. The honours system still makes little sense. I am pleased for those who have received an honour 'from the Queen'. I am particularly pleased when it goes to those who worked hard to fight injustice and most often against the establishment - people like Butler-Sloss, the people who think they are the only people who can run things. Born and bred to it they are. So when honours do go to someone who has spent a lifetime fighting them then I should be happy. But I still think the system stinks. And Butler-Sloss can be thanked for being honest enough to reveal how the members of 'the establishment' think. Thank you Lady Butler Sloss. You have made me radical again.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As