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

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

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