A chance for change

Posted on 04/07/2024 by stewculbard

This article is being written on the day of the national election in the UK. As this day has approached, there has been an abundance of letters, emails, podcasts, documentaries, news specials, interviews, etc., on the possibilities extant in this election. One of the movements to which this writer subscribes is Open Britain (OB), a movement that works for the furtherance of democracy in the UK.

Open Britain is independent of political parties, and the emails from its writers have been positively critical, insightful, and suggestive of future directions that could be espoused by all political parties -particularly the party that forms a government. I have appreciated the contents of the emails and the issues to which they have drawn attention, particularly as the national election has drawn near. However, there is one matter that does concern me about OB’s stance.

This writer is of the view that, after 14 years of Conservative mis-governance under successive failed leaders, the UK is in dire need of a different direction. What is also most obvious about the current political situation in the UK is that the only political party capable of providing such governance – in both party size, financial strength, and overall ability – is the Labour Party.

I am not a member of the Labour Party and, it should be added that, were I living in Scotland, I would vote for the Scottish National Party. I am a Scot by birth and strongly believe in the country of Scotland being independent from an anachronistic UK. Nevertheless, in the belief that, in contemporary Great Britain, Labour is the only party that can hold together a practical challenge to the dominant conservative views of the UK, it is my intention at this election to vote for the Labour Party, even though I live in a traditionally Tory electorate.

To return to the focus on the Open Britain movement. My present perspective on OB material is that it is following the trend of most election-time journalism in, almost obsessively, requiring the Labour Party to prefigure its expected success in the election by stating the extent, the method, and the manner of its anticipated election victory, i.e. by stating in detail the “changes” it will make when in government.

Along with other outlets, OB seems to want the Labour Party to give details of how it will successfully govern, whereas previously the party has been criticized for being too expansive, e.g., when Jeremy Corbyn was the Labour Party leader. One example of this is the fact that Labour under Corbyn was criticized for being fiscally imprudent; Sir Keir Starmer, the present leader of the Labour Party, is now criticized for being “too prudent”! Has faith been removed from British politics?

The type of “faith” to which I refer is of the kind that leans towards trusting politicians and their parties to keep their word, or to follow-through on their manifestos. I can understand the reasons(s) why, after 14 years of Conservative financial austerity, a former one-sided coalition with the Liberal Democrats, responsibility for Brexit, five failed leaders, lies, misinformation, mistakes on a monumental scale, and a move towards the right wing of British politics, the UK is in such an institutional mess and why so many citizens say that they cannot trust politicians and the political process. The foregoing is primarily why the country has seemingly lost faith with the Conservative Party.

I do not belong to the, apparently growing, section of voters who say that “all politicians are the same”. It seems to me that this viewpoint is over-reactionary, cynical, and lacking in political insight. Recently, I was appalled to hear such a feted figure as the British boxer, and former world heavyweight champion, Anthony Joshua, say that he would not be voting at this election. The reason he proffers is that he knows little of the various parties’ politics and would not know for which party to vote. Astonishing! It left me wondering whether people who know little about boxing should ever engage in watching boxing – particularly bouts between heavyweights! What would Anthony Joshua say to that? The advice would seem to be to listen and learn, watch and enjoy/criticize. Give it a chance, at least!

The present leadership of the Labour Party has been careful not to pre-judge their political performance, nor to promise what they will not be able to deliver. They have been stark as to the state of the UK, at multiple levels, of which many Britons are aware. Surely, what is not presently desirable is undue criticism of the unknown. This is easy to make, but should not be the direction taken not by reputable outlets such as OB.

Like many UK citizens, I am hopeful of a Labour Party victory being the outcome of the election. Further, that the victory will be such that governance provided by the Labour Party will have the tenacity, wisdom, courage, patience, integrity, and political nous to bring about the change of which it promises and which the country desperately needs. The party’s promise of change needs to be given a chance.

If I may conclude with an analogy.

The English football team have been criticized for not producing the style of football at the Euros that many fans would like to have seen. Still, they have not lost any matches and have finished ahead of their challengers after the preliminaries and have now entered the knockout stages of the competition. Hopefully, the English team will not only continue winning, but will do so in the manner and style that will satisfy and meet the expectations of its many supporters – including those who derive from, or live in, that country to the north of the English border.

RSC

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

That was the year that was – Part Two

Posted on 04/02/2024 by stewculbard

Welcome to Part 2 of the connected article, That Was the Year That Was. In Part One, I discussed the work of three movements, or organizations, that I support – the National Secular Society (NSS), Republic, the British Republican Movement, and 38 Degrees, a movement of people working together to bring about a better world, or, at least, a better UK.

In this article, I will discuss the work of a further three organizations, or movements, that place ordinary people at the centre of their concerns and activities. These are The Guardian, the major centre-left leaning British newspaper, Dignity In Dying, a campaign that exists to enable people to have a say in the circumstances of their own death, and Open Britain, a campaigning movement with the aim of bringing about greater democracy within the UK.

As with the three organizations discussed in Part 1, I commend the organizations and movements being discussed.

The Guardian

In an article that surveyed the COP28 conference in Dubai, The Guardian newspaper asked the question: “Was COP28 a cop-out?” The answer was given…. “So, here’s the key point: it does mark progress. In a fractious world, divided by war and conflict, people have come together and agreed to move forward to try and solve the greatest riddle facing the planet – climate change”.

The article went on to question whether the agreement may not be as ambitious as it could be, it may not demand all the action the science says is necessary, but it does show us that our species can – sometimes – move in the right direction, can come to a consensus, even if the explanatory language used is a bit slippery.

Commenting on The Guardian article, George Monbiot, that indefatigable commentator on all matters to do with ecology, climate change, and associated subjects, stated: “I’ve been pressing for more effective language for a long time, and I was delighted when, in 2019, The Guardian started altering the manner in which it talks about our crisis, using terms such as ‘living planet’ or ‘natural world’ instead of ‘the environment’; replacing ‘climate change’ with ‘climate breakdown’. I’m even happier to see how The Guardian’s shift has triggered a wider change.

“However, there is one term that still niggles. It might seem an odd one to contest, because it’s graphic: mass extinction (author’s emphasis). Mass extinction, horrendous as it is, is one outcome of something even bigger: Earth systems collapse. This, I feel, is what we should call the thing we are facing. We are amid the sixth Earth systems’ collapse.”

The Guardian continues to present its readers with investigative journalism of the highest order, art and culture articles of genuine interest, news of events and persons of general and special relevance to sport, politics, world happenings, British institutions, etc., and the effects of all of this on the fabric of society, at home and overseas.

The world can only be grasped by action, not by contemplation. The hand is the cutting edge of the mind (Jacob Bronowski – Polish mathematician and humanist)

Dignity In Dying:

Towards the end of 2023, there was a media focus on several British celebrities who have voiced their opinions on of how persons who have terminal and painful illness, e.g., cancer, should have the power to determine the circumstances of their own death. Foremost in this was the 83-year-old journalist and broadcaster Dame Esther Rantzen. In 2023, Ms Rantzen, who has stage four lung cancer, urged MPs to hold a debate when Parliament returned in 2024, and that any vote must take place outside the party whip system – an attempt at a genuine vote of conscience on the part of MPs.

Rantzen has told the BBC that she has joined Dignitas, an assisted dying clinic in Switzerland, and that she would “consider the option (of assisted dying) if her lung cancer treatment does not improve the condition.” She has further stated that she might “not live long enough” to see assisted dying debated again in Parliament. Esther Rantzen’s story is one that could be repeated many times by people who are affiliated with Dignity In Dying.

As a movement, Dignity In Dying has long campaigned for the debate on assisted dying to take place, in the public domain as well as in government counsels and corridors. The organization exists primarily to enable people to have this important say and decision-taking role in the circumstances of their own death.

It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees (Delores Ibarruri – Civil War Spanish Communist Party leader)

Open Britain

Throughout 2023 there has been a constant examination by Open Britain of the state of democracy in the UK. Its contribution to the discussion of democracy has included what has been referred to as “democratic decoupling”. This is “the phenomenon where the will of the majority is no longer reflected in government. One result of this is that it is unlikely that a politician will be found anywhere who will endorse a highly popular issue.”

In the UK, the First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral voting system is pushing the electorate towards a two-party duopoly – like that which exists in the USA. What has been called the “good chaps” style of governing has proven ripe for abuse, with elected parties conveniently ignoring the mandates upon which they were elected. Examples of areas where this forgetfulness has occurred include the climate, healthcare, and Brexit. In each of these areas, current citizen concern is not reflected in government policy and action.

Articles for Open Britain have focused on the situations where “democratic decoupling, when paired with lax campaign finance laws, outdated institutional safeguards, and the power of political lobbyists, as well as self-styled pressure groups, opens the door for authoritarians, demagogues, and con men”. Their conclusion is that the far right is using the nation’s distrust of politicians and, indeed, democracy itself, for its own gain – and it is winning, in the UK and the USA.

As 2023 ended, Open Britian was warning that the coming year may well the nation’s last chance to fix the exploitable gaps in British politics (as it may well be for the USA in the year that Donald Trump is again exercizing his audacious style of political anarchy and personal hubris).

With an acute sense of urgency, Open Britain is evangelical in saying that, “If democracy is truly important to you, it may no longer be enough to simply vote for the better option. We need to organize and mobilize, and force the next government to defend, strengthen, and renew our democracy before we lose it for good.”

Humanity’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but humanity’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary (Reinhold Niebuhr – German theologian)

Postlude:

In the world in which we live and exercise our beings, there are as many organizations and movements as there are problems that confront that living. In the above, indeed, in both parts of this connected article, I have mentioned some of those with which I have become involved, essentially in a supportive, rather than physically active, way. These movements and organizations are deeply and daily involved with the social, cultural, political, personal, and economic lives of those I do not know, as well as those I do know.

These organizations and movements address contemporary existential questions. These questions require answers. May 2024 be a year when the answers are forthcoming, when lives are changed for the better, when our planet becomes a more welcoming and accommodating world, a sphere in which all of humanity can live in peace and prosperity.

RSC

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

That was the year that was – Part One

Posted on 22/01/2024 by stewculbard

Prelude:

The end of one year and the beginning of another is often the opportunity to look back across the year that has gone and to reflect on its events, both personal and otherwise. Such reflection can then become a basis upon which to prepare for the coming year, an opportunity to use the information gained and lessons learned to resolve what the coming year might look like, what it may achieve, and, in general, shape life as it continues – for the individual, the family, or a community, even a nation.

Those who may return to this blog on a frequent, even occasional, basis, will have realized that this writer belongs to several regional and national organizations. Therefore, in this first article of 2024, rather than outline and comment on personal directions taken, resolutions made or broken, or events transitional or permanent that have happened, I wish to cast a backward glance at what has been written by and proclaimed, undertaken, and achieved, by those major groups and organizations to which I offer my support.

To do this, I will simply provide examples of what have been significant outcomes of the words and actions of these groups, their major ambitions, and recognized achievements. They will be outlined and briefly discussed in order of their progression during 2023.

However, to avoid a single essay being too lengthy, I will divide this discussion into two parts and deliver the outcome over two articles. In this first article, I will comment on the National Secular Society, Republic (the British Republican Movement), and 38 Degrees. Naturally, in these articles, I am commending the organizations about which I write.

National Secular Society

The National Secular Society (NSS) is an organization that campaigns for a secular democracy, where, amongst other things, no religion is given privileges or has a status above any other religion. The NSS is of the view that, now more than ever, religious privilege needs to be challenged. The NSS exists to do that and has been very active in this field during 2023.

The imposition of religious values on personal autonomy, particularly in relation to reproductive rights, sexual orientation, and end-of-life decisions, impedes societal progress and infringes upon the freedom of individuals to determine their own paths. Furthermore, the presence of faith schools inserts division, discrimination and dogma into a school system that should be a beacon of inclusivity and critical enquiry. Meanwhile rising religious fundamentalism means the ability to speak freely about religion is in retreat. And an outdated law that regards ‘the advancement of religion’ as a public benefit worthy of charitable status means the state is subsidizing religious extremism and intolerance.

This year, 2023, the NSS backed a parliamentary bill to disestablish the Church of England. This action should be taken as a statement of the NSS’s intent. The NSS remains steadfast in its educative mission to achieve a secular democracy where everyone is treated equally, regardless of religion or belief, on none. As we look ahead to a new year, and with a general election on the horizon, the NSS plans to step up its campaigning for the policy changes necessary to deliver greater freedom, equality, harmony, and democracy, especially in state funded schools.

Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world (Nelson Mandela – former South African freedom fighter and President of the SA Republic, Nelson Mandela)

Republic (the British Republican Movement)

As to be expected, the British republican movement, Republic, has been very active during 2023. It has continued its campaign for abolishing monarchy in the UK, with demonstrations at the time of the coronation of King Charles III. Republic recently published a new survey which showed that support for the monarch as the Head of the British State is decreasing. The results of the survey were as follows: Monarchy – 41%; Elected Head of State – 31%; Don’t Know – 24%.

Republic concludes that support for the Monarchy is collapsing, no longer commanding the support of the British people and, therefore, it is time that a serious public debate, about the democratic alternative of a monarch being the Head of State for the UK, took place within the broadcasting networks and the wider media. There has been significant acclaim for the new book, Abolish the Monarchy – Why we Should and How we Will, by the CEO of Republic, Graham Smith.

If ever you thought tradition, tourism, or political stability were good argument for the Crown, this razor-sharp book knocks that nonsense into a top hat (Polly Toynbee – renowned political journalist)

38 Degrees

38 Degrees gets its name from the angle at which a pile of snow becomes an avalanche. When enough gathers in the right place, it becomes an unstoppable force. By sharing a petition with people whom you know will care and, further, will act as an indicator of that caring, one person can join an avalanche of people working together for a better world.

Amongst many other campaigns started and financed by members, 38 Degrees petitioned King Charles from secretly seizing the assets of dead people for his own profit. He can do this because of the financial arrangement and privileges he receives from the Duchy of Lancaster. The 38 Degrees campaigners believe that such a scheme should be immediately concluded and, where relevant and legitimate, financial profits from the assets of dead people should be deposited with the government exchequer, and then used for the benefit of the UK taxpayer and the public good.

The basis of each action by members of 38 Degrees is that, with concerned, concrete, and concerted action by masses of ordinary people, change can be achieved. Furthermore, the movement encourages those associated with it to effect change through the organizing of petitions, media campaigns, and considered use of the media. It is a peoples’ movement, a movement for ordinary people.

Remember, a real decision is measured by the fact that you have taken new action. If there is no action, you have not truly decided (Anthony Robbins – American motivator)

Note:

Part 2 of this article will be published on 29.10.2024. It will discuss the work of The Guardian newspaper; Dignity In Dying, the campaign for the legalization of assisted dying; and Open Britain, a movement advocating greater democracy in the UK.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What to do with the royals?

Posted on 02/11/2023 by stewculbard

Later this month (November 2023) the National Secular Society (NSS) will hold its annual Member’s Day and AGM. This year, the guest speaker at the Member’s Day will be Graham Smith, the CEO of the British Republican Movement (Republic). The movement was set up in 1983 as a “democratic group” that believes that a head of state should be an elected position and not something that is associated with bloodlines. Republic claims to have 80,000 members within the UK who call themselves republicans.

At the NSS Member’s Day, Graham Smith will talk about the relationship between the monarchy and the established church. As a Republic member, as well as the NSS, Smith’s talk will be of major interest to me, especially as this blog has raised the matter of the monarchy’s relationships with the established church, the Church of England, on several occasions.

There is little doubt that, in speaking about the topic of the established church and the monarchy, Graham Smith will discuss some of the points raised in his recent book, Abolish the Monarchy: Why We Should and How We Will (published in June 2023).

Though an Australian by birth, Graham Smith is now a permanent resident in the UK. He is is an activist who has been Republic’s chief executive since 2021. He has been tirelessly campaigning against the Royal Family for more than a decade, believing that the monarchy is an ancient idea, an outdated organisation that has not moved with the times. He regularly calls for the monarchy to be abolished.

Republic ran a nationwide campaign, entitled “Not My King”, in the lead up to the coronation of Charles Windsor. At the coronation ceremony, Smith and others were arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance, affray, and other offences, but later released without charge. He has since labelled the arrests as “a direct attack on democracy”.

As reported by the Guardian, Republic has previously campaigned at royal events, including the Diamond Jubilee in 2012. Dozens of protesters held banners saying “citizen, not subject” on the banks of the Thames during the pageant, where a flotilla of 1,000 boats sailed down the river and were inspected by Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip. Further, according to the Guardian, Mr Smith in 2018 wrote to Thames Valley Police asking that peaceful protests by the group be allowed in Windsor on the day the Duke and Duchess of Sussex married.

Graham Smith is adamant that he will not be silenced, and the writing and publication of his book is ample testimony to that fact. With this book, Graham Smith establishes himself not just as the CEO of the British Republican Movement but also a leading UK spokesperson in the movement to abolish the British monarchy. Smith’s book is not only a statement of purpose but also a detailed narrative of intent.

It almost seems as if “cometh the moment, cometh the man”, with the moment being the death of Elizabeth Windsor and the coronation of Charles Windsor, and Smith being the man. The end of one reign that had longevity and familiarity on its side, with no little personal admiration, has been replaced by another where questions are being asked about the suitability of a family – their inherited right, individual abilities, and personal histories – to be at the head of the British State and to receive so much financial remuneration from the British exchequer.

Graham Smith’s accumulated arguments for the abolition of the monarchy are probably the most convincing since Norman Baker’s “And What Do You Do” (2019), and, indeed, they provide a challenge to someone in favour of monarchy to write a refutation of Smith’s position. This would be a most difficult task as Smith’s book has not only posited the points in favour of monarchy, but he also then proceeds to demolish them!

A primary focus of Graham Smith’s overall argument is that, in a nation that loudly proclaims its democratic credentials, there exists a family that is privy to government secrets and favours, has private and easy access to ministers of the British government, lives in jealousy protected wealth and privilege through the past and present exigencies of the British taxpayer, and collectively maintains the fiction of being divinely appointed. Furthermore, this family fervently endeavours to cement this belief through self-recommendation and activities, esoteric ritual, and archaic practices that are shared by few people they consider to be their subjects.

Finally, and much due to the lack of knowledge of the British people with respect to what is supposed to be a British Constitution (but still not in formal written form), the monarch is supposed to be the guardian of this same constitution, and yet, as a monarch, but also as the Head of State, refuses to become involved in politics – at least publicly! A truer form of democracy does not accept the moral compromises regularly exhibited by the various members of the British royal family, and certainly would not tolerate the extent of the inequality and interference, albeit done in a covert manner, in British laws that are consequential in maintaining the present form of monarchy.

Graham Smith’s primary focus, then, is pointing out that the people of the UK do not have to accept the continuing existence of a monarchy that is unfit for purpose in contemporary Britain. Smith is of the view that the British monarchy is “a corrupt and corrupting institution”. It is out of touch and out of time. Smith considers that, if persons within a monarchy that has been foisted on the citizens of the UK were to stand as legitimate candidates in an election for a democratic government, then none of them would be elected. More reason why an unelected Head of State, the monarch, is an affront to democracy – especially when such an individual is unlikely ever to be elected to the position through the democratic process.

Not that monarchy is unsupported in the UK. Smith carefully outlines the support that the institution, if not the individuals that comprise the monarchy, receives. In this respect, Smith considers the support given by what he describes as popular “fairy tale image-makers, a deferential media, and a largely acquiescent political class that is either too keen on, or too fearful of, monarchy to speak against it.”

There is, however, an alternative to a present British monarchy that has become “anachronistic, divisive, expensive, and unelected.” Smith’s book is a comprehensive explanation of what is this alternative, and how it may be achieved. His arguments are detailed, riveting, and, for this reviewer, persuasive. Graham Smith’s “Abolish the Monarch: Why We Should and How We Will”, is a timely, valuable, and comprehensive expose of the British monarchy. Smith’s talk at the NSS Member’s Day may be focused on monarchy and the established church, but the ramifications of what he is expected to say will extend far wider.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

At the sharp end

Posted on 25/09/2023 by stewculbard

In 1955, when I was a boy aged 10 years, my parents decided to remove the family from Cardiff, South Wales, to Melbourne, Australia. We sailed from Liverpool on May 15, and for the next four weeks we tolerated life on board the HMV Georgic, an aging ship that had been more accustomed to transporting British troops during WW2.

After four weeks of sailing, with stops only at Aden, the Yemeni city situated at the southern end of the Arabian Peninsula, and Fremantle, the Western Australian port city for the W.A. capital of Perth, we arrived in Melbourne on June 12. Coincidentally, this date was a holiday for the then Queen’s birthday. One of our fellow travellers on the ocean journey was a man named Tex. He was from the north of England.

On reflection, the name Tex was probably an epithet. Tex dressed only in clothes that personified the American cowboy, replete with a Stetson hat. My family got to know Tex quite well, even to the extent that, when we arrived in Melbourne and spent several days at the Exhibition Buildings reception centre, we explored the city that was to be our new home in the company of Tex. Naturally, my admiration, or was it fascination, for Tex was substantial. A particular reason for this was the fact that Tex wore an impressive array of sheaf knives around his waist.

Just before we parted company with Tex and, as it happened, were to see him for the last time, Tex gave me one of his sheaf knives. It was the smallest in his collection, with a four-inch blade and a handle that was made of black and grey metal rings. The knife came with a brown leather sheaf. What a gift for a pre-teenager who still had a fascination for American cowboys and the paraphernalia that came with them. I still have the knife, but not its sheaf, and the blade is still without the sharp point that Tex removed when he gave me the knife.  I have no idea what, at that time, were the rules for the public possession of dangerous weapons in Melbourne, but, seemingly, that was of no concern to Tex. As the reader would appreciate, Tex was some kind of character, one not easy to forget – sheaf knives or otherwise.

For whatever reason, I recently thought of Tex when I read an article about a rule of public law in Queensland, Australia, that prevented male persons of the Sikh religion from wearing full ceremonial daggers in public. The ceremonial dagger, known as the kirpan, is a curved, single-edged blade that Khalsa Sikhs are required to wear as part of their religious uniform, as prescribed by the Sikh Code of Conduct. Present day it is commonly manifested as a dagger or knife. Traditionally, however, the kirpan was a full-sized Talwar sword that has been described as “the quintessential combat sword used by Sikhs as their sacred kirpan due to its superior handling while mounted on horseback”.

In what follows, I acknowledge information from various sources, including publications of the National Secular Society (NSS).

With the above description of the kirpan in mind, it is obvious to realise why opposition has been raised, in Australia as elsewhere, for example, Canada, to the wearing of the kirpan. This is a complex and controversial question that has been debated in many countries. There is no definitive answer, as different legal systems and cultural values may have different views on the issue. What follows are some possible arguments for and against allowing Khalsa Sikhs to wear the kirpan, for example, Sikh children bringing ceremonial daggers to school.

The argument by those who feel that Sikh males should be permitted to wear the kirpan consider that it is a religious symbol and a sign of commitment to the Sikh faith. It is not intended to be used as a weapon, but as a reminder of the duty to protect the weak and oppressed. Banning the kirpan would violate the freedom of religious faith expression of Sikh children and, furthermore, would discriminate against them based on their identity. The kirpan is usually worn under clothing and secured in a sheath, so it poses no threat to the safety of others. 

There are legal exemptions for carrying the kirpan in public places in some countries, such as the UK and Canada, which recognize the religious importance of the kirpan for Sikhs.

The alternative argument, that is, against the carrying of the kirpan in public places, would suggest that the kirpan is a sharp and potentially dangerous object that could be used to harm others, intentionally or accidentally. Allowing the kirpan to be worn by Sikh children in school, for example, would create a security risk and a double standard, as other students and staff are not permitted to carry knives or similar items. Banning the kirpan would not infringe the freedom of religion and expression of Sikh children, as they can still practice their faith in other ways.

The kirpan is not a mandatory requirement for all Sikhs, but a choice made by those who undergo the initiation ceremony of the Khalsa. There are alternative ways of wearing the kirpan, such as a symbolic pendant or a smaller blade, that would respect the religious significance of the kirpan without compromising the safety of others.

The matter of whether the kirpan should be worn in public by dedicated Sikhs is yet another example of the debate between free expression (in word or practice) and religious interests from two opposing perspectives.

On one side, there is the desire of Khalsa Sikhs to openly wear the kirpan as being yet another campaign to any opposition of censorship in the long war of supposed religious bias and blasphemy that some religious organisations believe is behind the disapproval of allowing all religious beliefs and practices to be legitimated. It is an opposition being raised by several religious faiths to any argument against these faiths speaking and behaving in a way that excludes any philosophical critique and debate about their religious beliefs and public practices. Another example of this attitude and behaviour can be seen in religious fundamentalists calling for the boycott and censorship of both the new Barbie and Oppenheimer films on grounds of ‘offense’.

On the other, is the privileged status afforded by UK charity law to religious organisations, seemingly irrespective of any harmful or hateful output. An example of this can be seen in the NSS’s critique of a fundamentalist religious group’s complaints when the NSS raised concerns about it being a religious charity which promoted ‘witch hunting’. It is the view of the NSS that, all too often, religion is insulated whilst speech which upsets the religious is subject to attack. That disparity is not only hypocritical, but also anti-democratic, and underpins religious efforts to avoid scrutiny and suppress criticism. To combat this the NSS is committed to ensuring that doesn’t happen, by standing up for freedom of speech, wherever it is threatened.

I am uncertain as to where the above would place my erstwhile boyhood travelling companion, Tex, were he to be alive today and strolling the street of Melbourne, or any other city, dressed as an American cowboy who hails from the north of England. What I am quite certain of is that he would unlikely be allowed to stroll very far before being apprehended for the variety of sheaf knives he wore around his waist – with or without the one he gifted me.

Life and times have changed; religious faiths are more numerous and aggressive; secular critique is more vocal and nuanced, even if, occasionally, it has the tip of its blade blunted.

RSC

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Conflicts of Interest

Posted on 18/07/2023 by stewculbard

It has been suspected for a long time, but to the knowledge of this writer very little and not too substantial forensic-style investigation into the matter has been done. I refer to the issue of the shareholdings that British MPs hold in major companies.

Shareholder resisters are not readily available to the public, so it is necessary to use legal counsel to establish the right to the data involved in this matter. This is the painstaking and time-consuming process that a journalist with The Guardian newspaper, Henry Dyer, was required to go through recently in order provide an expose of which MPs in the British Parliament have an interest in, or have owned, stakes in big, publicly listed companies. This article acknowledges The Guardian’s publication of Henry Dyer’s work.

The work undertaken by Henry Dyer took months of legal, technical, clerical and digital research, referencing, and writing to find even the most basic information with respect to this issue. After all, it was never going to be a simple matter of asking those MPs who were involved. So too, it was not Dyer working on his own – he involved lawyers, other journalists, and IT specialists in his endeavours.

The result of this investigation was that Henry Dyer discovered that more than 50 MPs have owned, or had an interest in, stakes in big, publicly listed companies. Prior to this investigation, such information has effectively remained secret. It is the present situation that British MPs do not strictly have to declare any shareholding worth less than £70k. Henry Dyer is of the view that this “threshold is high and could conceal conflicts of interest.” Further, in stating that it is generally accepted that we have the right to know if an MP being taken out for a £300 day at the races, or has a second job, Dyer observed that this threshold “is one worth looking into.”

The investigation has identified government ministers who have met lobbyists for companies in which they or their families have shares, whilst failing to declare these shares. MPs have also voted against amendments that would have increased windfall taxes on oil and gas companies in which they have undisclosed shares. Members of both the major political parties have been found to hold shares in companies such as Royal Mail, BP, various supermarket chains, and banks. So too, MPs have been able to hold shares under the £70k. limit in several companies at any one time without having to declare their holdings.

Though MPs shareholdings may be below the £70k. threshold, the question arises as to whether they may still be considered relevant for disclosure “under the rule that suggests that members should register any interest that might be reasonably thought to influence their actions in parliament.” This is especially so since the House of Commons disclosure threshold is higher than it is in other areas of the British political system. So too, and unlike the general rules around income from employment, there is no requirement for MPs to declare any income from dividends nor any income gained from the sale of shares.

There is also the important issue of whether MPs should be involved in making decisions about lowering the threshold without declaring all their shareholdings.  

Dyer and his team of investigators had to systematically go through old parliamentary debates to cite as evidence in support of this right of MPs to hold shares and financial interests in companies. As well, there was the exhausting task of analysing millions of lines of shareholder records, a task that Dyer described as looking for “the needles in a barn of hay”. However, Dyer and his associates were sustained in their effort by the belief that the issue of MPs shareholdings in big, publicly listed companies is “…an important issue to look into because it’s about transparency in public life, and the right of the electorate to have a detailed understanding of the vested interests that could affect their representatives.”

It is an important principle of British parliamentary democracy that an MP is elected to Parliament to serve those persons who have elected her or him. We hear on numerous occasions those same MPs stating how important, even critical, is the work of representing the people in a constituency. Without exaggeration, it could be said that an MP is a servant of the people he or she represents. Therefore, it is surely at odds with the principles and practices of constituency representation that an MP focuses on special treatment or paid work for individual entities in a constituency.

There have been times in the work experience of this writer when he has worked two jobs. However, both jobs were more or less of a part-time nature, even if both together constituted more than a single full-time job. On such occasions, the work involved was to have a remuneration at least the equivalent of a full-time job.

MPs are remunerated at a level that most people would consider to be substantial. In addition, MPs receive allowances for things like office requirements and travel, items that many employed persons would need to finance themselves. To seek further remunerated employment would be judged by most to be financially unnecessary, if not exploitative.

Moreover, where this further employment involves representing or lobbying for big, publicly listed companies, there is an element of using the position of an MP for private gain. There is also the consideration that time and effort spent on such work means that constituency work may well suffer, especially in terms of a conflict of interests. For this writer, such a situation goes against both the spirit and the letter of what it means to be an MP.

Henry Dyer and those who worked with him to research and make public the number of MPs who own, or have interests in, stakes in publicly listed companies, deserve the commendation of both Parliament and the nation in general. Suggestions of financial impropriety or actual practice of corruption in government, for that is what Henry Dyer was investigating, deserves to be rooted out and named for the sake of integrity in government.

The governing of the United Kingdom deserves no less for its people and governing institutions.

RSC

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A farce by any other name

Posted on 25/05/2023 by stewculbard

In the 1975 film Monty Python and the Holy Grail, a peasant asks Arthur how he became king. Arthur replies: “The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur.” Another peasant then says: “Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.”

Megan Manson, Campaign Secretary for the National Secular Society (NSS) comments that: “Monty Python are comedy legends not just because they lampoon mythology central to British culture. They also brilliantly parody our existing system affairs of state – which are no less bizarre than Arthur’s ‘farcical aquatic ceremony’’. Megan Manson recently appeared on a BBC 4 programme in which she discussed the coronation and the importance of addressing the dominant role of the Church of England in the inauguration of the British head of state and other public ceremonies. Her above comments were most appropriate.

Commenting on the recent coronation event featuring the latest in the hereditary line of British monarchs, and their partners, an Australian friend stated: “No country can hold a match to England when it comes to holding such an event.  It really was spectacular from every point of view.  And the music in the cathedral was outstanding.  What gets me though, is how the Church of England was at the centre of everything – for a couple of hours! It seemed that the ceremony wasn’t the crowning of the King of England, but rather crowning God’s King on Earth, or, at least, crowning the King of the Protestant faith. The percentage of the members of the Commonwealth who seriously and devoutly believed in the Protestant God would be way below 50%.  They were supposed to be crowning the King of England, but you would not have known it.”

As a Scot by birth, I readily forgave my Aussie friend for his reference to the crowning of the “King of England”, as this conflation of “England” with the “United Kingdom”, and vice versa (not to mention The Commonwealth) seems to be a universal phenomenon (particularly when referenced by Americans and Australians). Further, I also pointed out to my friend and valued correspondent that, as a former Minister of the Baptist Church tradition within Christianity, it is a fact that the Christian Church is so much wider and more incredibly varied than merely one of Christianity’s denominations, the Church of England, whether referring to religious practice in the United Kingdom or to the world in general.

Readers of my blog articles, or regular email correspondents, may know that, apart from what I formerly may have been in my personal and professional lives, I am now a member of the British Republican Movement (BRM), as well as the National Secular Society (NSS). As such, present readers will not be surprised to know that I was not one of the minorities of British persons who witnessed the recent coronation event, neither on location nor on television.

However, after reading a couple of articles in a recent edition of the NSS newsletter, as well as hearing of the arrest and brief imprisonment of the BRM’s CEO, Graham Smith (for his peaceful protest at the event – even before it began!), I was constrained to write this article. Further, I am of the view that many, if not the majority, who viewed the coronation event with such fervour, if not favour, may well have been unaware of the significance of matters unfolding at and during the ceremony within Westminster Abbey.

Naturally, I respect the right of any person, British or otherwise, to be a monarchist, or to be a person who subscribes to the beliefs of any religious faith. However, I also firmly believe that the holding of any such views or beliefs should be, without prejudice, subject to the open expression of alternative perspectives – providing of course that they are consistent with prevailing laws that are sensible and are pursued and practiced without discrimination.

With the foregoing in mind, it was interesting to read that the National Secular Society recently brought together people of different faiths to discuss the future of the campaign to disestablish the Church of England. Although recent events, viz., the CofE’s role in the coronation event have led to increased scrutiny of the CofE’s established status and the privileges that flow from it, what this multi-faith conference made apparent was that these privileges are now being scrutinized and criticized by people of very different beliefs and backgrounds.

As the current NSS Newsline (19.05.2023) stated, “It is encouraging to see that those who may have profound disagreements with one another joining together in recognizing the unsustainability and injustice of the CofE’s established status.”

The shared commitment of those who came together, including Anglican priests and atheists, is not only to challenge the CofE privileges and replace privilege with equality. This is a promising first step, and one that the partners will be working hard to build upon. However, the partnership’s endeavors will also include such objectives as “holding the CofE to account for abuse, recognizing that the CofE’s increasingly dire record on safeguarding should have consequences for its established status and the need to separate the CofE from the state.”

Stephen Evans, the Chair of the NSS, has stated that this is not to deny religious leaders the freedom to speak out on matters that concern them, but “they should do so based on the principle of equality, not privilege.” The British system of government should not make “politicians out of prelates”, privileged or otherwise. Such challenges to the CofE also recognize that research in recent years shows that “the people of the United Kingdom are increasingly wary of religion, yet comfortable with people belonging to different religions.”

If the inauguration of a new monarch gives rise to some of the matters raised and questions discussed in this article, then this is to be welcomed. However, for this writer, the recent events involving the British royal family evidences the fact that the event and process of placing a new monarch on a throne in contemporary UK is a farce by any other name.  

RSC

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Separate in form and function

Posted on 07/02/2023 by stewculbard

In my previous article, I made a case for the disestablishment of the Church of England as the state church of the UK.

Relevant to this subject, it is anticipated that The National Secular Society (NSS) will hold an online discussion to explore the necessity of disestablishment in the context of modern Britain’s religiously diverse landscape. The online discussion, to be held this month (February), will explore not only how disestablishment benefits the state, but also arguments from those within the Church who support a secular state from a religious perspective. It has been reported that Anglicans sceptical of the Church of England’s established status will join the NSS for this online discussion on the future of church and state.

The chief executive of the NSS, Stephen Evans, said: “Following the revelation that Christians are no longer the majority in England and Wales, the established church has never looked so out of place. It is, therefore, more imperative than ever that serious conversations about separating church and state are brought to the fore.” The online discussion is “…an event designed to bring together everyone who believes that a secular democracy, in which people of all religions and beliefs are treated equally, is the best way to protect the rights and freedoms of all.” Naturally, the Anglican bishops would not agree to abolish their presence in the House of Lords. The NSS head of campaigns Megan Manson said: “The bishop’s opposition to plans for a more democratic second chamber reveals how self-serving the Lords Spiritual are.”

Moreover, and to indicate the political nature of issue, following the Labour Party’s recent pronouncement that it would seek to abolish the non-selective aspect of the House of Lords, a Labour Party spokesperson has said that, “Under Labour’s plans, it is inconceivable that the bishops’ bench could remain part of the legislature, because it is one of the most archaic, undemocratic, and unjustifiable groupings in the House of Lords. Alan Smith, and the bishops in the Lords he represents, know this – hence his opposition to such reforms.” Whether the House of Lords is abolished entirely, replaced, or reformed, there should be no reserved seats for religious clerics. The bishops’ bench has no place in a modern democracy – let alone a largely irreligious and religiously diverse country where Christians are not now the majority (see the previous blog).

During 2022, as well as campaigning for the issues mentioned above, the NSS had been active in many other areas in the cause of advancing secularism in British society. In what follows, this article will briefly discuss a number of these.

The National Secular Society (NSS) was responsible for proposals for updating marriage law to reflect the nature of contemporary society in which British people live. Such proposals were reflected in the Law Commissioner’s recommendations for reform. The NSS has advocated tolerance, rather than condemnation, of those who aren’t in an opposite-sex marriage. In the face of religious opposition, the NSS has successfully lobbied to improve women’s access to abortion services.

In sympathy with the aims of the Dignity in Dying campaign, the NSS has been successful in bringing about a review of the assisted dying laws. The NSS support has given valuable support to a proposed bill to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill adults in the Isle of Man. So too, the NSS has issued a warning that some religious groups with theological objections to assisted dying resort to fearmongering and misinformation to impose their beliefs on those who want the option. The NSS has recently responded to two other consultations on assisted dying held by a UK parliamentary select committee and the government of Jersey.

In the field of education, the NSS promoted the rights of children to live, learn, and develop their beliefs free of religious coercion and control. So too, the society has stepped up to the plate when it comes to reminding religious offence takers that free speech is a fundamental right of citizens, in this country, as elsewhere, and that this is a positive value that the society is unwilling to surrender.

Steven Evans, pointing out that next year will mark the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, reminds us that “Secularism’s role in allowing equality and human rights to flourish is too often unrecognised and hugely under-appreciated. In a world where polarisation, authoritarianism, and religious fundamentalism are gaining ground, the secular liberal democratic ideals that underpin human rights can’t be taken for granted.”

Meanwhile, across the pond in the United States of America, the 2022 US Supreme Court ruling in the Roe v Wade case, was a wake-up call to remind all of us that conservative religious views threaten women’s reproductive rights globally. In Europe, the movement towards the political right, and more extreme conservative views in Poland and Italy, is eroding reproductive freedoms.  

However, it is not only in allegedly Catholic Christian countries in which religious conservatism represses human freedoms. The NSS has widely campaigned against the role of religious rites and rituals that impose restraints and restrictions on women and children. Children’s circumcision and women’s compulsory wearing of the hijab, have been challenged. In the absence of a fair measure of secularism, children, women, as well as minority religious and sexual views, have continued to feel the full force of oppression and a complete absence of secularism by theocratically controlled countries. For a state to be protected from oppressive religious institutions, and for human rights and freedoms to be protected, it is necessary for state and religion institutions to be separate in form and function. No matter in which country they constrain human freedoms, it is blasphemy laws, not books, that belong on the bonfire.

The above shows various ways in which the NSS has furthered its mission to bring people together to build a freer, fairer, and more tolerant society. It does so with the belief that a secular state is the best way to bring this about, and that secularism’s time has come.

RSC

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The time has come

Posted on 30/12/2022 by stewculbard

The time between Christmas and the dawn of a new year, is an opportune time to reflect on the year that has nearly ended. As a member of the National Secular Society (NSS), I am aware that secularists are sometimes accused of removing the religious celebration of Christmas and replacing it with some sort of godless, mid-winter festival. In a recent NSS bulletin, Stephen Evans, the CEO of the NSS, has reminded the society’s members that, “Like almost everyone else, we (the NSS) see Christmas for the inclusive religious/secular mash up that it is – and secularists welcome the chance for a midwinter break”.

For NSS members, Christmas/New Year reflections offer an opportunity to consider the fact that, in today’s world, nobody can claim Christmas as their own. The same could be said of our (British) state and its institutions. In what follows, and with reference to the publications of the NSS during the year, I will briefly summarise some of the involvements and achievements of the NSS during 2022, particularly in respect of the relation between Church and State.

Politicians and community leaders have in the past used Christmas to claim that “Britain is a Christian country”. This may have been true in the past but cannot be substantiated today. This year’s census figures shows that only 46% of the population, less than half, identify as Christian. This is significant. Whilst in some parts of the country there has been a growth in the numbers of fundamentalist and ethnic Christian churches, there has been a noticeable decline in the historical British churches. Such trends could be substantiated by reference to the East End of London and the English Midlands.

The 2022 census show that attendance figures at Christian places of worship in England has fallen to 0.9% of the population. More starkly, this reveals that Christianity is now a minority interest. Interestingly, non-Christian religions have generally seen an increase in their adherents, with immigration patterns, as well as their methods of religious evangelism, contributing to this phenomenon. As revealed by the census, the present situation should be a humbling moment for the historical UK churches – not least the recognised national church, the Church of England.

The above would suggest that the British political settlement should reflect this reality. The census figures paint a clear picture of the growing irreligiosity and religious pluralism across the country. The obvious conclusion to this diverse situation is for the country to be managed as a secular state, and not as a Christian country. It follows that the Christian Church, most notably the Church of England, should relinquish its disproportionate privileges. Such a move would have significant implications.

Such implications would affect the following: the establishment of the Church of England as the State Church; the continuation of Christian prayers before parliamentary sessions; the presence of 26 Anglican (Church of England) bishops in the House of Lords (often used as  voting block to support its agendas); the content and method of teaching of Religious Education in schools; the control of thousands of state schools; and, perhaps of more significance than anything else, the institutionalising of the Christian faith in consequence of the reigning monarch being also the Head of the State Church, the Church of England.

As with monarchy itself, the fact of having a monarch as the Head of the Church of England, is surely an anachronistic, discriminatory, and anti-democratic constitutional anomaly. In May of next year, King Charles III will be coronated. This ceremony will include the anointing of Charles Windsor by a Church of England bishop and his act of swearing to defend the Anglican faith. Despite the arrogant and rather ludicrous desire of the new king to be the “defender of faiths”, his coronation ceremony will be an explicitly Anglican rite. He and his wife will be anointed and blessed by the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury in Westminster Abbey (an historic edifice of the Church of England), and he will take an oath to “maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by established law in England”.

One critical description of the coronation ceremony stated as follows: “For many the ceremony will be a fascinating view. Fascinating because, for most brits, it will be inscrutable and exotic. We’ll be watching an ancient quasi-shamanic initiation rite of a largely unfamiliar tribal religion, complete with elaborate costumes and esoteric songs and chants”.

The writer of the above goes on to ask, “But is that how a nation should be viewing its leader, as an otherworldly and outlandish religious figure with little to nothing in common with the people he leads? As Monty Python and the Holy Grail put it, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Similarly, neither are strange men invoking a god only a minority believe in to crown the head of state”.

This is another reminder of the archaic religious privilege at the heart of the (unwritten) British Constitution, especially where Christians have become a minority of the population the constitution is meant to serve. This situation should be as embarrassing as it is overbearing. It is a glaring reminder of the herculean task of the sensible and secular reformation required in this country, to consider the nature of the British monarchy’s ties to the church, even to the extent that there are those, perhaps even inside the monarchic circle, that wholeheartedly believe that, whether male or female, the monarch’s authority is divinely ordained.

Faced with growing competition from a myriad of other approaches to faith, as well as non-religious worldviews, e.g., secularism, the Christian Church no doubt sees itself as having several aces in its hand, as referenced in the above. Notwithstanding, the numbers of British Christians continues to decline year on year, and the stigma of UK citizens being non-believers has almost completely vanished. Surely, and for the sake of both, it is time for state and church in the UK to go their separate ways, with a minimal of decisions taken, firstly, for the Church of England to be disestablished, and, secondly, for the affairs of State to be separated from those of the Church.

It is in the climate revealed in the above that the NSS has been working tirelessly to achieve a secularist influence over British public policy. In a subsequent article, and in acknowledging the publications which have come from the NSS over the past year, I will outline some further aspects of the work of the NSS during 2022, as it works to bring about and support a secular British state, a secular state whose time has come.

RSC

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

In the service of others

Posted on 11/11/2022 by stewculbard

There has been talk in political circles recently about what level of remuneration Members of Parliament should receive when their time in office ceases. In particular, the discussion has focused on whether the outgoing leader of the Conservative Party and, therefore, the Prime Minister, Liz Truss, was entitled to a yearly expenses allowance of £115k for life – if she wishes to accept. This is an offer is made to all outgoing PMs. The allowance is for ongoing expenses relating to diary commitments, police protection at personal events a former PM attends, stationary, staff, and travel.

The foregoing followed a particularly volatile period in British politics, in which the flames of economic turmoil were fanned by a highly controversial and damaging budget by the Truss government’s Chancellor, Kwazi Kwarteng, resulting in the resignations of Kwarteng as Chancellor and Truss as PM.

The view of this writer is that Liz Truss, or any other ex-PM, should receive payments in line with the going rate at the time of their office. They should not be cossetted, and especially not for life, with an “expenses allowance” of the present magnitude. This situation is outrageous, unfair, and, over time, expensive. In the case of Liz Truss, her extremely short tenure as the UK PM, exemplifies this viewpoint. (It is to be noted that Theresa May, UK Prime Minister 2017-2019, is the only living PM who has not accepted her “expenses allowance”). The question of an MP’s salary is a little more difficult to navigate.

There is a view, held strongly by some, that, “apart from the (usually) self-employed, like top lawyers, it would be ridiculous for gifted young to middle-aged persons, at the top of their profession, to consider entering politics.” Politicians are probably paid well enough while in office, but long-term employment is a very risky probability.  The risk is that after a few terms, no matter how able politicians may be, they could wind up being tossed out of office and on the dole. 

Some who adhere to this perspective further consider that this is a risk that few top people would be inclined to take, so we wind up with the “moronic self-seekers” that we have. A well-paid senior scientist, banker, academic, etc., would have difficulty re-entering their profession after 5 – 10 years, or more, in Westminster, so they would not contemplate taking the risk of getting into politics, regardless of their convictions or abilities.

Furthermore, and with respect to pensions, the foregoing view considers that the pensions we pay to ex-politicians are poor, and not worth the risk of entering the political arena. In view of this, it is held that the pensions paid to ex-politicians should at least be equal to what they would be getting as a salary, had they stayed in their (top level) “old job”.  It is not stated, however, what would be the pension payments if ex-politicians were subsequently to be re-employed in their former profession and at their concomitant salary. Would their level of pension from political service remain the same?

In the event of the system above outlined being the case, then, it is considered, we should see a sharp increase in the calibre of our politicians. However, there is a fatal flaw in this perspective.

The viewpoint outlined in the above seems to favour the practice of politicians coming from the professional classes, where salaries and pensions tend to be at the higher end of financial remuneration, a situation that may favour one or other of the political parties. The flaw is that the democratic system of government, as practised in the UK, is a system of government that requires politicians to represent a multitude of different constituencies in the country and, therefore, for the political representatives to themselves be of mixed occupational backgrounds – more of a reflection of the typology of their constituency.

The complication, therefore, is that parliamentary representatives may well be native to the constituencies they represent, and in so being, have a completely different social and economic background to that described above for politicians who have a professional background.

In this context, it is useful to reflect about the parliamentary representatives who come from less affluent backgrounds, e.g., a bus or train driver, metalworker, carpenter, dockyard worker, farmer, local council worker, or union official? Should they be content with receiving their former income whilst others receive the salaries of, for example, a lawyer, doctor, dentist, hedge-fund manager, business leader, or entrepreneur? The latter often become relatively wealthy before they “offer their services” to the business of governance. But they represent only a specific, and limited, area of life from which persons in any form of governance – local, regional, or national – come.

Politics is not, or should not be, an elitist career – that is a way to the corruption of the enterprise. Such politics then becomes the job of serving the elite, the powerful, the wealthy, and not THE PEOPLE. If that process and conclusion is naïve, then I stand accused.

There are very few, if any, areas of employment that could, or even should, guarantee life-long incomes at the one affluent level. There is a distinction here between employment earnings and inheritance. Serving THE PEOPLE (politics) could be described as an employment deserving of the title of a “calling”, in the same manner, perhaps, as being a social worker, priest, hospital worker, social carer, youth worker, that is, a vocation involving the personal caring of other persons in response to an inwardly felt call or summons. Genuine service to other persons is not an opportunity to feather one’s nest whilst doing something that provides prestige, affluence, and security in the process.

Being a politician has its demands – financial, personal, familial, and career or job implications. But persons who go into politics knowing that their time in office, as well as their salary, is probably limited, are likely to use their time and opportunity to be better servants than otherwise. It is also worth remembering that politicians are elected by their constituents – THE PEOPLE. Being a representative of THE PEOPLE is not a job for life and should not give politician privileges that are not generally enjoyed by THE PEOPLE whom they serve.

Call this idealism, but in any field of service determined by THE PEOPLE, there should not be an elite from which politicians are chosen or those whom politics separates into a privileged class.

Politicians are persons who join a political party from a variety of backgrounds – professions, trades, commerce, skilled and unskilled. On behalf of the party and the people who comprise its membership, whilst in office they work, whether at local, regional, or national level, to improve and enrich the lives of all THE PEOPLE. In the case of national government, the example with which this article commences, when their role, either in government or opposition, has concluded, they are able to re-connect with the grass roots of their party return to their previously normal way of life. The rewards ebb and flow with the direction of their working lives and political careers.

Their reputation, association, professionalism, etc., enable them to slot back into the career, job, and attendant way of life and culture they left. Or, perhaps, they choose another pathway through life, with all the related concerns for oneself and family that such a move brings. It is to be expected that ex-politicians should not have been so indulged whilst being in political service that, once they have left the service of THE PEOPLE, they need, or expect, to receive all the benefits (including salary and allowances) they once may have enjoyed in political service.

Politics is the focus on, the knowledge of, and effort expended in, the service of others – not oneself!

RSC

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment