Skip to main content

Storm in a tea cup?

Regular readers will know that I did not support Jeremy Corbyn in the Labour leadership elections. I said he appealed to my heart but not my head. Since then he has won a handsome victory.  The media say his start has been chaotic.  It is difficult to see how it could have been different.

Of course he could have sung the national anthem and not given ammunition to the right wing press.  My advice would have been to have sung it, but it raises an important issue. Do we really judge that those who would wish not to sing the anthem are being unpatriotic? I cannot see the logic of that.

I am not strongly republican, but nor am I a monarchist. I live with the constitutional monarchy but with little enthusiasm for it.  Of course it works - or at least it seems to work.  It works so long as we don't question it too much.  When we do that we open a can of worms. So best keep a lid on it. The truth is that it is part of a system that maintains the privilege of a few. Now I don't expect you all to agree with that even though I said it was the truth.  Some don't mind that it maintains such privilege.

It works so long as we have leading politicians whose opinions cannot contradict it. Jeremy Corbyn is a republican - or at least that is what we are told.  He like me probably doesn't regard it as the most burning issue at this time.  Nevertheless it is an issue.  It is an issue most leading politicians don't like to address.  It isn't just a question of whether we have the monarchy.  It is a question of how we reconcile that with our democracy.

A democracy cannot be founded on the idea that we must all behave as monarchists.  It cannot be founded on the idea that all leading politicians should sing an anthem the words of which pledge allegiance to the monarch.  This would rule out any republican being a leader of a main political party. That would not be democratic.

But it gets worse.  The media have questioned whether Jeremy Corbyn will kneel to the Queen when he is made a member of the Privy Council.  It is widely accepted that the leader of the opposition should be a member of the Privy Council, although it is possible for Jeremy Corbyn to turn down an invitation to join.

It is said that the benefit of being a member of the Privy Council is that it enables the leader of the opposition to be consulted on matters of security.  It is a compelling reason.  But even more compelling would be the argument that the leader of the opposition should be so consulted regardless of whether  he or she is a Privy Councillor.  He should be so consulted because he IS leader of the opposition.

Jeremy Corbyn has now indicated that he will be singing the national anthem in future. That at least should put the matter to bed.  It is all a bit of a storm in a tea cup. But we should not ignore the fundamental questions it raises about our democracy.

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 balan…

Keir Starmer has a lot to offer

The Labour Party is in the process of making a decision that will decide whether it can recover from the defeat in 2019 General Election.  All the candidates have much to offer and are making their case well.

No doubt for some the decision will be difficult.  Others may well have made up their minds on the simple binary of Left-wing-Right-wing.

The choice should be whoever is best placed to pull the party together.  Someone who can form a front bench of all talents and across the spectrum in the party.

That is what Harold Wilson did in the 1960s.  His government included Roy Jenkins on the right and Barbar Castle on the left; it included Crossman and Crossland, and Tony Benn with Jim Callaghan.  It presented a formidable team.

Keir Starmer brings to the top table a formidable career outside politics, having been a human rights lawyer and then Director of Public Prosecutions.   He is a man of integrity and commitment who believes in a fairer society where opportunities are more widel…

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods. 
Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects? 
A new report now provides some of the answers.

New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism.

Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases caused by …