A leap into the unknown

Posted on 08/02/2015 by stewculbard
There is a predominance of women now attending the Sunday services of the Church of England (CofE) in the UK. The female influence within the Anglican Church is growing. What effect is this having on the male adherents? This was a question asked in a recent BBC “The Big Questions” programme.
It was further stated that one in every six persons regularly attending Sunday worship in a CofE within the UK does not believe in God. This equates to between 16-17% of Anglican worshippers not having a personal faith in God. Whether either of these factors – a decrease in male worshippers or a general lack of belief in God – are the causes of what one commentator has described as the “gentle downward gradient of a 1% loss in membership (of the CofE) a year” as the Anglican Church “slips quietly into non-existence”, is arguable.
(Interestingly, as reported in The Independent  newspaper, a recent U-Gov poll of Anglican clergy found that as many as 16% are unclear about God and for 2% it is no more than a human construct. Older, more experienced priests are less God-believing: whereas nearly 90 per cent of those ordained since 2011 believe in God, only 72 per cent who became priests in the 1960s so believe, the research discovered.
An organisation called Sea of Faith rejects the Church’s traditional belief in one personal God and claims to represent dozens of vicars. One member of this movement, a retired Church of England priest, said there was no conflict in preaching while being unable to believe in God. “Within my congregation I would take the line that how you feel about God is not in the least dependent on whether you think God exists or not. I preach using God’s terminology, but never with the suggestion that God actually exists.” Rather a paradoxical admission.)
The BBC’s “The Big Questions” programme also raised the issue of what impact there might be on the CofE in consequence of it being the “established” church of the nation. In particular, this issue touches on the relevance in a 21st century democracy of continuing to have an Established Church, one that is intrinsically linked to:
 * Monarchy (the reigning British monarch is the head of the CofE and has a ludicrous role in  the appointment of CofE  bishops);
* Government (the British government, elected by the people, serves in the name of the British monarch and admits publicly unelected CofE bishops to a politically unelected House of Lords; the Prime Minister has an integral role in the selection of CofE bishops);
* Military (the British monarch is the commander-in-chief of the British military).
The issue of the dis-establishment of the CofE is, of course, a more general question than simply seeking to explain the decline in male participation in the church. I will return to this topic later in the article. Meanwhile, it is instructive and worthwhile to survey the contemporary CofE scene a little more closely.
Around a million people go to a Anglican church service each week in the UK. Not quite the glory days of the church. However, for comparative purposes: the membership of the Conservative Party is just 134,000; membership of the Labour party is about 190,000; and the Lib Dems have just 44,000. Add them all together, even throw-in UKIP for good measure, and there is still less than 50% of the number of people who each week attend some form of worship in an Anglican church. In terms of its own existence, the CofE is not yet ready to utter “Here endeth the lesson”!
In a country where football and religion are regarded by many as co-terminous, more people attend Anglican churches on a Sunday than go to Premiership League stadiums on any given weekend. The Established Church of England may argue over doctrine, can be pompous and narrow-minded, but for many in this church sitting in the same pew, sharing the liturgy and contemplating the meaning of things is an important aspect of their Sunday existence.
Nevertheless, the Anglican Church in the UK is in decline and various other reasons have been advanced for the decrease in the number of Anglican devotees. These reasons would include:
 * the internecine strife between those who identify more with Catholic Rome and the Evangelical wing of the CofE (the so-called “high” and “low” adherents);
* the increasingly secular society within which the church has to compete for the hearts and minds of the people (the Bishop of Blackburn once said that the Anglican Church is set to go the same way as Lancashire’s cotton mills);
* those within the CofE, though perhaps a minority, who feel that their church requires to be dis-established from the secular institutions of the country (see above).
On the other hand there are groups, like Reform and English Churchman, within the Anglican Church who believe that the CofE will be reinvigorated only with a return to the Anglicanism of the 16th century – as expressed in the 39 Articles and the Book of Common Prayer. It is worth recalling that that the CofE came into being with the Act of Supremacy in 1534. This ensured that the monarch was and remained, by virtue of sovereignty, head of the English church (in England or any other country to which empire or missionary zeal took it).
It is speculative whether this reversion to the late medieval variant of the CofE includes a desire to return to the despotism and spiritual anarchy that the architect of this scheme, Henry VIII, brought to both kingdom and church – certainly not the “unity in diversity” that aspires to be the CofE’s contemporary signature tune. One thing these revisionist groups do not seem to be in favour of is the dis-establishment of the CofE.
One Anglican who seems very much in favour of this move is the Rev Dr Giles Fraser. Formerly the Canon Chancellor of St Paul’s Cathedral, Giles Fraser is now the parish priest of St Mary’s, Newington. A regular newspaper columnist, Dr Fraser considers that “the establishment weakens the church and turns clerics into fawning Jeeves-like courtiers who prefer dressing up to speaking out.”
In support of his viewpoint, Dr Fraser offers the example of “the offensive nonsense of Westminster (10 Downing Street, the Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey) lowering their flags to half-mast for a king who presided over a regime with one of the worst human rights records in the world, which beheads people with swords on a similar scale to Islamic State, and where conversion to Christianity remains a capital offence.” He speaks, of course, of the royal regime in Saudi Arabia.
Why fly the flags at half-mast? The Abbey explained: “It is at half-mast because the government has decided to fly their flags at half-mast today. This is in line with government protocol. For us not to fly at half-mast would be to make a noticeably aggressive comment on the death of the king in a country to which the UK is allied in the fight against Islamic terrorism”. Ironically, at the Saudi embassy, their flag was flying at full mast. Saudi Arabia does not observe official mournings – not even for their national monarchs. Fraser comments: “That is precisely the problem with the whole mentality of establishment.”
This link between the Christian Church and the establishment has been a persistent issue from the moment Christianity became popular with the ruling classes. Giles Fraser traces the link back to the Roman Emperor Constantine and his belief that Christianity helped him win battles. So, in an act of political expedience, “he converted the Roman Empire to the sign of the cross.”
Ever since then, the proponents of Christian orthodoxy have been “helpfully rowing back on all that stuff Jesus said about not fighting and giving all your money away – neither of which were particularly attractive propositions for a man who lived in a palace and who headed up one of the largest war machines the world had ever seen. He also insisted on appointing his own bishops”. One outcome of this was that a just war tradition was created in the church to offset pacifism and allow the Roman army to continue fighting. So too, “the theologians who came up with it were no doubt well-intentioned, but they were little more than the ‘useful idiots’ of the military complex.”
Giles Fraser’s critique of this situation is as damning as it is final: “This is the great heresy of an established church – it ends up forgetting who the boss is. And this forgetfulness has stalked the church throughout centuries of what came to be called Christendom – that pernicious self-supporting symbiosis of church and state.” Dr Fraser’s hope is that as Christendom continues to disintegrate, so the church may recapture some of the “vitality and radicalism” of its early centuries, when the memory of the apocalyptic preacher called Jesus was still relatively fresh.
Accordingly, Giles Fraser does not wish the Christian Church to retain the worldly stature, wealth and strength that it has acquired over the centuries. He does not desire a church that is “big or strong, at least not in worldly terms”, for as he, along with many radical Christians, reminds us: “that was never part of the promise of the Gospel.”
Of course, it must be remembered that the Christian Church is more than the established churches whose ecclesiastical centres are based in Rome and Canterbury. As a former minister in the Non-Conformist tradition, I observe that the virile epicentre of contemporary Christianity has been the churches of the Protestant tradition. These have been churches that have stood on their own two feet without a “state-sanctioned life-support system”. Churches that require the latter in order to survive deserve, as Giles Fraser professes, “to pass away into obscurity.”
Is the CofE in decline? If so, is this decline due to the feminine influence within it or a lack of faith in God by its adherents and priesthood? Can this decline be arrested by dis-establishing the CofE? Or, does the Anglican Church contain the ingredients of its own decay and demise? Whatever are the answers to these existential questions, it would seem that what is required of the CofE is a leap into the unknown – what used to be known as a “leap of faith”!
RSC
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

These are the days of our lives

Posted on 26/01/2015 by stewculbard
I am writing this on 26 January, 2015. Australians worldwide celebrate this day as “Australia Day” – the official national day of Australia.  Twelve months ago, in an article called “A day for all” (see 29 January, 2014),  I wrote about the background to this day and how it has evolved over time  – for some, but not all, Australians.
In contemporary Australia, the Australia Day holiday is marked by the presentation of the “Australian of the Year” Award, announcement of the Australia Day Honours List and addresses from the Australian Governor-General and Prime Minister. With community festivals, concerts and citizenship ceremonies, the day is celebrated in large and small communities and cities around the nation. Australia Day has become the biggest annual civic event in Australia.
For some, Australia Day is less auspicious. There are many Indigenous Australians who refer to Australia Day as “Invasion Day” – describing an alternative Indigenous observance of the occasion. The day is marked by protests.  A major feature of this protest has been the setting-up of a gathering place for Aboriginal people known as the Tent Embassy. This is located at a site called Mrs Macquarie’s Chair, adjacent to the Sydney Royal Botanic Gardens.
Since January 1988, when the Tent Embassy was established, various Indigenous people of Australia have made a concerted effort to promote awareness among other Australians of their presence, their dispossession, their needs and their desire that there should be communication, reconciliation and co-operation over the land rights issues. The questions concerning the Indigenous Australians are still being asked – and still require answers. These answers must begin by the recognition of what the colonial invader has imposed on the Aboriginal people of Australia from that day of 26 January, 1788.
It is against the above background that this year’s national day announcement by the Australian PM, Tony Abbott, should be heard. A knighthood has been recommended for Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh (the husband of the present British monarch, Elizabeth Windsor). Mr Abbott, who last year reintroduced the knighthood honour, said the Prince had lived a “long life of service and dedication”. As the loyal partner of the reigning British monarch, he surely hasn’t had much of a chance of lifestyle alternatives!
Opposition politicians described the decision as out-of-step with the times, indeed, the leader of the Opposition in the Australian Federal Parliament, Bill Shorten, said that it was “anachronistic” to give the top award to a British royal on Australia Day – adding: “Why would we give him our top Australian honour? He’s already got a lot of them.”
This situation is not without its irony. The recommendation for Philip Mountbatten to be awarded a knighthood requires to be ratified by the British monarch – Philip’s wife! Now that would be a topic for conversation over high tea. The whole system seems, to this observant expatriate eye, to be an outdated remnant of colonialism – of the type that has over time so devastated the Aboriginal people of Australia.
Australia is a parliamentary democracy that retains Britain’s monarch as its head of state. The country has a republican movement, but recent polls suggest enthusiasm for making Australia a republic has dwindled since the 1999 referendum on the issue, when 45% of voters were in favour. Most Australians at the time elected to maintain the status quo. The republican movement in Australia was split between those who wanted an elected president and those who preferred a parliamentary appointee.
In a recent speech, the Labour Opposition Leader, Bill Shorten, argued that Australians should rally behind the idea of a republic. “Let us have the courage to ask ourselves if we measure up to more than just a grab-bag of cliches,” he said. “Let us declare that our head of state should be one of us.”
Opposition politicians have also criticised Mr Abbott’s decision and its timing. “As we try to reflect upon our nation… one of Australia’s highest honours goes to someone who’s not part of our community really,” the former premier of Western Australia, Geoff Gallop, told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). “In effect this is the eccentricity of Tony Abbott’s views on our constitution coming through,” he was quoted as saying. “It certainly doesn’t reflect the view of the Australian people through a meritocratic process.”
The Australian Greens Party leader Christine Milne said: “There are plenty of wonderful people right here who are worthy of recognition. But this is Tony Abbott – stuck on what Australia was and failing to notice all that we are, or have any vision or pathway towards all that we can be.”
As Australians celebrate Australia Day – whether it be their “national” or “invasion” day, it would seem that the British nation might well take note of the words of Christine Milne. As a British citizen, and a republican, I believe that there are those in this country who are stuck on what the UK was and are failing to notice all that we are. In this election year we need to have a vision of what all, and not just some, can be.
RSC
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Is God back?

Posted on 15/01/2015 by stewculbard
Where can wisdom be found; where can religion find its true roots?
In extolling the principle that “Wisdom is not supernaturally dispensed from on high”, but “can only be sought by humans at home on earth, and it is inseparable from human kindness”, the Sea of Faith (SoF) network, of which I am a member, also advances the view that “religion is a human creation”. Therefore, in rejecting the supernatural, the SoF network favours the idea that wisdom and religion are “for humanity with its questing imagination and enabling dreams”.
The British cultural critic Terry Eagleton, commenting on “the contradictions, difficulties and significance of the modern search for a replacement for God”, also speaks of the “unsatisfactory surrogates for the Almighty invented in the post-Enlightenment era”. Another reviewer, the SoF network’s Dominic Kirkham, says that “religion remains the most distinctive expression of the human spirit….it is not going to disappear.”
In the introduction to his seminal work, The Sea of Faith (SCM, 1984), the Cambridge philosopher of religion, Don Cupitt, said: “If nothing can be prior to the acts of choice by which values and life-policies are adopted, then we see that religion is completely human, bound up with the cultures and histories that it creates…Religion has to be human; it could not be otherwise, for it would not work as religion unless it were simply human.”
Don Cupitt’s view of religion is anthropocentric and voluntarist. This interpretation, as he himself states, “will clearly involve drastic revision of the popular understanding of religious belief”. It follows that Dr Cupitt’s view of God could be termed “non-realist”.
With all of the foregoing in mind, therefore, it seems appropriate to contemplate what is going on today with “God-believing religion”, especially when it is considered that, in the opinion of many, such religion is growing. The view of God held by this approach could be termed “realist”.
Two researchers who firmly believe in the growth of “God religion”, that “God is back”, are John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge. Their co-authored book, God is back: how the global rise of faith is changing the world (Allen Lane, 2009), seeks to persuade its readers to share this conviction (many of whom, of course, would be convinced that God has never been away!).
In seeking to highlight a world-wide contemporary comeback of conservative/fundamentalist religion (something not exclusive to Christianity), this book, unsurprisingly, is inspired by and seeks its most positive evidence in a powerful North American approach to Christian religious faith and practice. Specifically, a form of the Christian religion that is attended by certain recognisable moral, social, economic and even political outlooks and qualities – sometimes referred to as “the American way”.
In relation to the foregoing, therefore, what should be the approach adopted by the non-realist position, for example, the SoF network, with respect to the suggested reinvigoration of a literalistic, God-believing Christian religion?
Interestingly, if not disconcertingly, within the SoF network there seems to be a perceptible and ongoing legacy of the institutional Christian Church. This would suggest that, even when the concept of, and belief in, the realist God is no longer acceptable, there is much within the institutional church, particularly the Anglican Church, which retains loyalties of a peculiar kind – inclusive of the liturgy, the cultural sitz-em-leben and social status of the Established Church.
Further, the existence of the Established Church (the Church of England), which covets its central role within worldwide Anglicanism, suggests other connotations. These would include the formal link with the British monarchy, significant financial investments in capital markets, a role in the parliamentary system (bishops in the House of Lords), and the ubiquitous presence of church buildings and parish references throughout the land. Perhaps it is not a new understanding of religion that is called for, but a renewed secularism that dispenses with all of the presuppositions, pretensions, privileges and predicaments of historical and traditional religion.
The foregoing is recognised by that outspoken critic of “God religion” and its various institutional manifestations, Richard Dawkins. In his provocative and challenging book The God Delusion (Bantam, 2006), Dawkins comments: “And, of course, we can retain a sentimental loyalty to the cultural and literary traditions of, say, Judaism, Anglicanism, or Islam, and even participate in religious rituals such as marriages and funerals, without buying into the supernatural beliefs that historically went along with those traditions. We can give up belief whilst not losing touch with a treasured heritage.” (p.344). However, to what extent is that heritage dependent on the beliefs that gave it birth?
Books such as that by Micklethwait and Wooldridge, present a challenge to the non-realist movement in religion, as well as being a timely reminder for the SoF network to reappraise its ongoing thinking and development. Of course, it is to be recognised and accepted that the SoF network is not necessarily homogenous in its approach and that there are a variety of “diggers and seekers” with their “questing imaginations and enabling dreams”.
Furthermore, there is an insistent presence in SoF network publications, at conferences and in discussion groups, of the theological perspective known variously as the “social gospel”, the “Christ of the powerless”, a “Gospel for the poor” and, of course, “Liberation theology”.
The foregoing was the vogue in radical Christian circles 40-50 years ago, when theologians, such as Altizer and Robinson, were speaking of the “death of God” but addressing an audience that, generally speaking, was pre-occupied with looking for alternatives within a realist approach to God-believing Christianity and, therefore, was unable or unwilling to recognise and appreciate the implications of a non-realist perspective and understanding of the concept of “God”.
The alternative realist approaches identified in the above masked the need to face-up to what Christianity had become or what it was never meant to be. How could it when it is based on perhaps the most divisive, if not subversive, idea in human history (that the existence of God is literally true), and the appropriation into orthodox Christian doctrine of a gross intellectual misunderstanding (that Jesus actually was/is God). Both of these dynamic and far-reaching concepts were outcomes of what the church historian Bart D. Erhmann has called “the victory of proto-orthodox church history, teaching and tradition”.
It is intriguing, if not inconsistent, that some in the SoF network seem to find the contemporary expressions of this way of being the church, but not the radical missiology that accompanies it, as a repository for, or an ally of, some non-realist view of continuing to be the “church without God”!
The “Jesus of the poor in the apocalyptic age”, a perspective shared, if not popularised, by the writings of Don Cupitt, is a favoured way in the SoF network of understanding the role of Jesus in a non-realist view of religion. This perspective resembles a “God of the gaps” type of theology; it looks for a relevant place and role for Jesus when any assumption of his divinity, or messianic role, has been removed – as it must be in any non-realist understanding of Christianity.
Where, then, can wisdom be found; where can religion find its true roots? From where and when is that vital paradigm shift to take place that will project the SoF movement to the next level of wisdom or unbelief? Is either extant in a perplexing God-less Christianity, or in a simple form of religions-less atheism that obliterates gods of any kind and enables a truly this-world sensibility and genuinely human form of living and believing?
RSC
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Learning the lessons of life

Posted on 01/01/2015 by stewculbard
My initial secondary education was undertaken at the Footscray Technical School for Boys. For the three final years at the school I was a member of the school’s soccer team. During that time one of our opponents was the Williamstown Technical School for Boys. It was normal for the FTSB to beat the WTSB by a considerable margin.
That was not the case in the very last match I played against our old rivals before ending my years at Footscray aged 15. The Williamstown boys beat us 1-0! As the captain of the Footscray team, it was my task to give the team results and reports to the school assembly on a Monday morning.
On the Monday following our defeat at the hands of Williamstown, I started my report on the match by saying: “With the help of the referee, Footscray were beaten 1-0 by Williamstown”. There were some murmurings from the assembled students and staff. But, it was when I announced the best Footscray players from the match that the assembly really erupted. In the list I included…..yes, yours truly, Stewart Culbard!
Needless to say, that was the last assembly report I gave for some time. It did not matter that the Footscray boys unanimously agreed with my view about the perceived bias of the referee – and wanted me to report the same. Neither did it matter that the best players for either side were selected, rather ironically, by that same referee!
More than coincidentally, I also announced that one of the best players for the Williamstown team in that match was a wingman whose first name was Andy. In later years Andy was to become a close and valued mate. He still is.
I was unaware if Andy was ever told about that incident. But it came to my mind again a year or two back. At that time, Andy had made a comment on one of the articles I had written in my personal blog. He finished with the words: “Good on you, Stewart, it makes one vulnerable to write a blog.”
Way back in 1959, when Andy and I were playing football for our respective schools, “vulnerability” was a little-known concept – at least amongst 15 year-old boys! However, now that we have both celebrated our 70th birthdays, we are aware of what being vulnerable can mean. I certainly learned a worthwhile lesson in vulnerability (and perhaps humility) as a schoolboy at Footscray Technical School for Boys (now the Victorian State University at Footscray).
At times vulnerability is a result of being somewhat innocent – and maybe too honest. At other times it is a consequence of being foolish – and maybe somewhat vain. Youth can be all of these things. However, I will continue to appreciate Andy for many things – especially his more recent comment that vulnerability can be, by implication and in fact, a sign of strength and maturity.
But the story does not end there. Andy celebrated his 70th birthday in 2014. At the request of his family I wrote a piece to be included in some greetings for his birthday celebrations. Following that event, the response from Andy was salutary:
“Do you remember it was me who scored the goal (for Williamstown) that day? I crossed the ball from the right wing and I think your goalie misjudged the flight of the ball in the air and it dropped behind him into the net. I mention it because the next day I was late for school and was lining up for my allocation of yard-duty from Mr. Reeves, one of our sheet-metal teachers, and he asked me if I played on the wing against Footscray, to which I said yes and he said ‘Off you go, no yard duty!’”
I had forgotten (sub-consciously, of course) who it was had scored “that” goal for Williamstown on that memorable day. So I duly informed Andy that I did appreciate the addition to my tale and the very gracious manner of his recollection.  It did not escape my recollection, however, that the outcomes of the incident recalled were that I was carpeted at my school, with Andy being given the “red carpet” treatment at his. “To the victor goeth the spoils”. Life can be so unfair!
Life also contains lessons that need to be learned, remembered and applied. One of these lessons is about the value of friendships – especially those that, irrespective of circumstances and personal outcomes, endure.
A recent conversation with a respected member of my extended family expressed the viewpoint that, throughout life, relatively few genuine and lasting friendships are made. Such friendships are to be highly prized. As one year ends and another begins, this is a lesson of life about which it is appropriate to be reminded.
May I take this opportunity to express the wish that 2015 will be a happy, prosperous and friendly year for all readers of this blog.
 RSC
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Band aids

Posted on 09/12/2014 by stewculbard
Russell Brand. Now there’s a name to divide opinion. Controversy is never very far away from his views and exploits.
It would seem that, amongst other activities, Mr Brand is currently advising young people that they should not vote in political elections. He seems to believe that this is an effective way of protesting against the establishment and bringing revolution to the British state.
But, hang on. Surely it is a fact that the only way that specific and long-term change can occur within the UK is through the time-honoured process of parliamentary elections – even though that process has no cast-iron guarantees (just ask the Scots!). The UK has not had a revolution; even the 17th century English Civil War was a joust between those who held the power in the land. It was a band aid on a gaping tear in the social and political fabric of English society.
The history of the British Isles, particularly that part called England, has been one of conflict between powerful people – hardly those, it seems, whom Russell Brand wishes to champion.
As popularly impressive as it may be, a problem with Russell Brand’s message is that he preaches against a process that is more likely than most to bring about the changes he would wish to see in this country. It is perhaps stating the obvious that it is young people, and not only those at university, who potentially hold a key position in the British voting system.
It is also prudent to consider that there would be a significant number of younger people within British society who are quite content with the existing state of things, those who have no thought of revolution in the sense suggested by Mr Brand. Like them, or not; agree with them, or not, these views also deserve to be heard and debated.
Russell’s brand is not to everybody’s liking. It seems to me that further diagnosis is required before acting on the prognosis favoured by Mr Brand.
(One aspect of this further diagnosis would be to consider that it is almost certain that it is the consistent voting practice and power of the aged citizens of our nation that ensures that successive governments rarely, if ever, do anything to arouse the ire of this section of the citizenry)
 *****
So, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Reverend Justin Welby, has called on the British government to ensure that there is an extension of food bank provision in the UK. This seems to be a call to treat symptoms rather than the disease.
The disease is that which is brought about by poverty and inequality amongst the citizens of the land. The disease is called powerlessness. Food banks are a symptom of this disease, whether or not the provision of food outlets is adequate for the times, the fact of their existence is an affront to every fair-minded person. Therefore, the Archbishop’s obviously genuine and sincere call for more investment in this provision, though well-meaning,  also seems insufficient – if not misplaced.
Whilst I am well aware that there are individuals within the British church in general whose diagnosis accords with mine, the Archbishop’s plea for greater provision of food banks is another example, to change the metaphor, of putting a band aid on an wound that requires major surgery. There is an urgent need for a fundamental change in the political, economic and social governance of the UK. (Part of this change is a serious critique of the system of welfare provision and its delivery, the direction in which the Archbishop now seems to be moving).
What is required is a form of governance that puts people above profits and financial surpluses; a practice of government that puts integrity at the heart of the political process; a political process that ensures that all voices are heard and opinions have meaning; a social system that is more akin to a circle than a straight line.
Band aids of the kinds suggested by Justin Welby and Russell Brand are simply not the complete answer. It is only when governance in the UK serves the well-being of all the people who live in the land that power will return to the people. This is not a political slogan of some quasi-Marxist kind; it is the reality behind the ideals of the system of the democracy under which this nation is supposed to be governed.
The time for jousting with a few windmills is gone. It is time for their demolition.
 *****
Memories are instructive.
Several years before retiring as a schoolteacher, I took a group of Sixth Form students to a London conference on A Level Philosophy and Ethics. As we alighted from the train at Euston station, our group was attracted to a commotion on one of the inter-city line platforms. Being a naturally inquisitive group (philosophy and all that) we wandered across to the relevant platform to see what was going on.
At the centre of a number of media cameras and reporters stood Bob Geldof, enunciating his latest exploit as a pop entrepreneur and giving the privilege group of media people some insights into his private life. What else one might ask? One member of our group, obviously a Geldof admirer, wandered a little too close to the media circus – just at the moment his mobile phone inadvertently rang. He was promptly set on by the man himself. I do not remember the exact sequence of words uttered by an interrupted and clearly very angry Bob Geldof, but I do recall that the words themselves, although being most instructive, were not very choice and contained some words I would refrain from using in an article such as this.
In short, my student, a rather shy and retiring lad of 17, was thoroughly demoralised in receiving, in no uncertain terms, his marching orders. Clearly shaken, the student was somewhat dumbfounded at his treatment. Whether he remained a Bob Geldof fan is a moot point, but I feel sure that, following his experience, his focus on the day’s conference would have been less than philosophical as he contemplated Geldof’s ethics.
I recalled this happening as I recently watched the TV footage and listened to the media hype surrounding the latest reincarnation of Band Aid’s rendition of “Do They Know Its Christmas?”
The reader will recall that Band Aid is a charity supergroup featuring mainly British and Irish musicians and recording artists. It was founded in 1984 by Bob Geldof and Midge Ure to raise money for anti-poverty efforts in Ethiopia. The main effort was releasing the song “Do They Know It’s Christmas” on the Christmas market that year. The song was released in late November of 1984 and the single surpassed the hopes of the producers to become the Christmas number one on that release.
On 7 November, 2014, it was announced that a new version of the song would be recorded by artists under the name of “Band Aid 30”. The fund-raising focus this time is on the Ebola crisis in West Africa. Once again, Bob Geldof  is organising and personally advertising the effort and he has been doing the rounds of the media studios – not always as a model of propriety, but, there again! Television appearances have been supported by multiple pages in the more popular newspapers and magazines.
Coverage of the latest version of the song has not been without criticism, not least for continuing its negative portrayal of the African continent. So too, the name of the song is less appealing and more controversial than it was thirty years ago (for instance, the patronising lyrics and westernised philosophy). Geldof has rejected criticism of Band Aid and its participants out of hand, telling one news channel the dissenting voices were “talking bollocks”. He has urged people to buy the recording “whether you like it or not” – so much for personal choice and the fact that there are other fund-raising campaigns underway on behalf of the Ebola crisis in West Africa.
Whether he is on radio, television or railway station platforms, it would seem that Bob Geldof needs to listen to himself as much as to the words of the song he champions.
Whilst an impressive amount of money has been raised through the Band Aid concerts – money that will be appreciated by those whom it aids – the name of the enterprise itself betrays its limitation. Band Aid!

*****

Brand, Welby and Geldof – a rather interesting collection of “Band Aid bedfellows”!
RSC
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

An old ethic for a new economy

Posted on 26/11/2014 by stewculbard
It was the 19th century social philosopher Karl Marx who famously coined the idea of a “reserve army of the unemployed”. For Marx, the existence of such a large number of workers would act as a weapon that could be used by employers to discipline workers. Obviously, Marx was concerned about and opposed to this kind of situation as it would further enable the owners of production – the employers, to exploit the producers – the workers.
There are those in this early part of the 21st century who would consider that Marx’s idea and concern is somewhat anachronistic.
However, it is indisputable that in contemporary UK the number of “core workers” (those in settled employment, enjoying full-time hours and decent pay/salaries and conditions) has shrunk, whilst the number of “contingent workers” (those who work situation is uncertain, conditional and dependent) has risen. In a real sense, these “contingent workers” reflect Marx’s “reserve army of the unemployed”.
Of course, it is true that there are many who are not in any form of employment or who, in part-time work, are not actively seeking full-time work. Therefore, these persons cannot be numbered amongst Marx’s “reserve army”. Nevertheless, there are also many who can be included.
In this “age of austerity” it is worthwhile to be reminded of this. Stephen Haseler, Emeritus Professor of Government and Director of the Global Institute at the London Metropolitan University, is one writer who so reminds us. He does so towards the end of his book The Grand Delusion: Britain after sixty years of Elizabeth II, in a section called “Jubilee Year: Celebrating an illusion”. I acknowledge Professor Haseler as a source of inspiration for what follows.
The economic conditions of our times are notable for the increase in the price of housing and the necessary household goods, fuel and transports costs, indeed, the cost of most things. So, at a time when more income is required in traditional households, when there is a growth in single-parent families and persons, including the disabled, who are living alone, it seems that particular action is required from those who control the strings of the national economy. What has been happening seems, however, to be the very opposite of what is needed.
In the present economic climate, it is counter-productive to, for example, freeze wages, permit “revenge evictions”, curtail welfare spending, permit the increase in cost of a wide range of necessary goods, give tax cuts to those more able to afford the cost of today’s living, and to allow a situation that requires people to work for a minimum wage instead of a living wage.
Economists inform us that the growth in unemployment in the western world has been rising since the 1970’s. It has been, more or less, a constant factor in society and not one dependent on economic cycles during that period. Full-time employment has gone down, but there has been a growth in part-time employment. Governments have used the growth in the latter to mask the situation overall.
The reasons for the decrease in full-time employment and the subsequent “jobless growth” are many and varied – structural factors such as changing technology, corporate downsizing, the machinations of global capital, the search for low production costs and increasing profits all contribute to the mix. It is incontrovertible that, even when the level of a country’s economic activity (GDP) has increased, employment has fallen.
It is difficult to argue against the fact that the contemporary situation with respect to employment – and its opposite – has generated a legacy of profound insecurity. Day after day we hear about and read of widespread hardship brought about by the economic conditions in the UK. People are going hungry as they decide between food or other necessities; food banks are increasingly being resorted to – out of necessity; household rents in forfeiture and disgraceful practices in the rental market; children’s educational requirements and family recreational pursuits being severely cut back; caring for the disabled and elderly becoming more difficult; huge numbers of people, and not only the young, being offered zero hours and no guarantee of work whilst being tied to a single employer and receiving no holiday allowance or sick pay.
Such a situation is bound to develop indecision and a sense of insecurity. Though difficult to prove at the statistical level, their effects can be seen in the stories that people tell – and in the faces and life situations of those who tell them!
It is relatively straightforward to witness the signs of anxiety in the work force – longer time spent in the office for no increase in remuneration; flexi-time; increased competition between workers for work space and higher salaries; misery caused by the need for extended years in the work force in order to realise pensions and other benefits; jobs and salaries justified by an increase in useless paperwork and procedures. At the very least it is arguable that a major consequence of the foregoing is a less efficient workforce.
The economic consequences of the present-day labour market have been, and continue to be, well argued in the newspapers, political programmes on television, and in a plethora of books on the market. There does not seem to be anywhere near the same amount of words, both verbal and written, on the personal, moral and social consequences of what Stephen Haseler has described as “the new, flexible labour market”.
With this in mind my attention was drawn to a review of Richard Sennett’s book The Corrosion of Character: The personal consequences of work in the new capitalism. “In the brave new world of the ‘flexible’ corporation,” Richard Sennett observes, “workers at all levels are regarded as wholly disposable, and they have responded in kind, ceasing to think in terms of any long-term relationship with the organizations they work for.” Sennett, a sociologist at the London School of Economics, proceeds to argue that this situation has tremendous negative consequences for workers’ emotional and psychological well-being.
A major part of Sennett’s argument is devised from anecdotes of worker’s experiences, drawn from both sides of the Atlantic – from bartenders to IBM executives, bakers to bankers, janitors to advertising agents.  In line with what has been said earlier in this article, Sennett is of the view that the increasing flexibility amongst workers and within the workplace “does not allow people to shape their experiences or build a coherent narrative of their lives”.
Work and the workplace, both of which occupy so much time in the lives of people, are amongst the major factors that shape their characters. So, and most importantly, it is a required conclusion that the new adaptability in business places and practices, and the insecurity that goes with it, militates against the formation of a worker’s character. This has major implications for the vast majority of the population.
Since ancient times, philosophers have advocated that honest and respected work can lead to the development of virtues such as loyalty, trust, mutual helpfulness and commitment (the sustaining of purpose). However, for these virtues, hence the human character that can be shaped by them, work requires motivation, stability and genuine reward.
In modern parlance, a “career” is a major shaper of self-image. It is to be regretted, therefore, that, rather than giving workers greater freedom, “the modern flexibility model, with its emphasis on short-term, episodic labour; projects and flexibility, allows another kind of power to be imposed from the top”. In short, this is the kind of oppressive situation opposed by Marx – and he was not the first and, no doubt, will not be numbered amongst the last of the opposition.
In speaking about the task of raising children, family values such as loyalty and short-termism at work, Stephen Haseler tells the tale of the management consultant who “told me he felt stupid talking to his children about commitment, since at work he does not practice it”! Karl Marx and numerous social commentators since him have had much to say about the contradiction in employment values and ethics that this kind of comment highlights.
In recent years in the UK, there has been much criticism of the ethics of the work force, especially those at the lower end of the wage scale. The time is surely now when that criticism needs to be applied to those who do the employing and those who legislate the conditions of employment.
I am convinced that the old ethic, the ethics of virtue, has relevance to the new economy. But virtuous living does not come naturally, it needs to be taught and then practiced – by the owners of production as well those who produce. Therein rests the challenge.
RSC
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Reflections in red

Posted on 11/11/2014 by stewculbard
I am not an art critic – nor do I have pretensions to be such. Nevertheless, having personally seen the earlier stages of the ostensible war memorial in the moat of the Tower of London, I have not been overly impressed by the artistic merits of the display of red ceramic poppies spread out beneath the walls of this historic royal residence and prison. The display is intended to be a memorial to the British dead of World War 1, the so-called “Great War” – the “war to end all wars”.
The Tower of London display is currently attracting huge crowds and has become something of the defining popular artwork in this centenary of the Great War’s outbreak. Understandably, the display has become a point of debate, and not just among art critics. Nevertheless, The Guardian newspaper’s art critic mentioned the words “toothless as art” and a “UKIP-style memorial” in his critical evaluation of the sea of red poppies. The right-wing press duly waded-in with its denunciation of this “sneering left-wing critic”.
In some ways it seems most appropriate to have a commemoration of a brutal and bloody war displayed at the Tower of London – itself a monument in stone to discrimination, torture and death and a refuge throughout its history for the royal class who were so much at the centre of the causes of the First World War. Whether it is appropriate to have a display composed of 888,246 red ceramic poppies is, arguably, another matter.
In this day and age, with the UK a member of the European Union, yet still recognising, if not celebrating, the existence of a British Commonwealth (though no longer an Empire), is it sufficient to just remember British military fatalities – and to do so in a tourist location that annually draws many thousands of global visitors to it? What about the Commonwealth troops from, for example, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and India (and many others, large and small) who “defended the Empire” with their lives – each one a member of a family and a citizen of a country who responded to the appeal of the “mother country” in its hour of desperation.
There is, of course, some discrepancy, even ambiguity, about numbers. This is to be expected given the uncertain nature of the secondary sources used to compose the number of fatalities. The Tower of London’s memorial claims to have one red poppy for each “British and Commonwealth” military fatality. This is clearly not the case.
The number of red poppies quoted above (888,246) is very likely the number of deaths of British military and those of the “former colonies” – many of which were in Africa, for example Nigeria and Kenya. When the former British “Dominions”, for example Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and Undivided India, are included, the official number of casualties of the then British Empire rises to 1,118,760 deaths.
So too, the Tower of London display will not serve as a memorial for French fatalities (one in ten of its young men – 1,397,800), nor for Russia (for whom the war casualties numbered 2,254,369 and precipitated bloody and remorseless revolution, civil war and famine). The total number of military casualties for the Allied forces (Entente Powers) was a colossal 6,349,352. And, of course, there will not be a red poppy remembering a single casualty of the Axis forces (Central Powers) – a staggering total of 4,390,544 (including 2,037,000 Germans).
In consequence of the First World War, the combined number of military fatalities from all causes was a horrific 10,739,896. That number does not include civilian deaths. These have been estimated to have been a further 17,989,982. These figures do not include those who were wounded and survived. The cost of the First World War in human life and suffering has been appalling. There are no victors in human slaughter of this kind – just victims!
The Great War, therefore, was not just a British tragedy and, in a city that lays genuine claim to be one of the truly great cities of the modern World, as patriotic as it might seem (if you are British) it also seems insufficient to have such a memorial upon which the world gazes but to be seen only through a distinctly British prism and to be coloured red. This insufficiency is highlighted when the story of the red poppy is told.
Lieutenant Alexis Helmer was an officer in the 2nd Battery, 1st Brigade Canadian Field Artillery and had become good friends with Major John McCrae, the second in command of the 1st Brigade. On the morning of Sunday 2nd May, during the Second Battle for Ypres, Alexis left his dugout and was instantly killed. Alexis Helmer was a 22 year-old university graduate in Civil Engineering from Ottowa, Canada, and a popular young officer.
Near to the 1st Canadian Brigade’s position on the canal bank there was a small burial ground and, by early May, 1915, the burial ground contained a growing number of graves of French and Canadian casualties. Lieutenant Helmer was buried on that site on the 2nd May, 1915. In the absence of the brigade chaplain, Major John McCrae conducted a simple service at the graveside, reciting from memory some passages from the Church of England’s “Order of Burial of the Dead”.
It is believed that the death of his friend, Alexis Helmer, was the inspiration for Major John McCrae’s famous poem “We Shall Not Sleep”. Whilst exact details of when the first draft was written may never be known, it is generally thought that McRae began writing the poem on the evening of the 2nd May, 1915 – the evening after Alexis Helmer began his eternal sleep under Belgian soil.
One account says that, on the following day, McRae was seen writing the poem sitting on the rear-step of an ambulance while looking at Helmer’s grave and the vivid red poppies that were springing up amongst the graves in the burial ground. During 1915 John McCrae sent the poem to The Spectator magazine. It was not published and was returned to him. It was, however, published in Punch magazine on 8th December 1915.
In 1918, it was the idea of an American, Moina Michael, to use the red poppy to commemorate the fallen. Her inspiration came from McRae’s poem, now better known as “In Flander’s Field”.
It would, however, be somewhat of a mistake to claim that the use of the red poppy is an exercise in neutrality – not when one line of the poem reads, “Take up our quarrel with the foe”. As the saying goes, these are fighting words! It is for this reason, amongst others, that there is strong advocacy for the use of a white poppy to replace the red. The white poppy was worn recently by the Green Party MP Caroline Lucas on the BBC’s Question Time, and by the historian Neil Faulkner on that same broadcaster’s Sunday Morning Live programme.
For some time now the “No Glory in War – 1914-1918” campaign has been an advocate of putting white poppies at the centre of Remembrance Day and the wearing of the white poppy instead of the red. Each year more and more people choose to wear the white poppy – as a respectful way to emphasise (white) peace and not (red) violence at the heart of remembering those who died in war. This year, 100 years on from 1914, seems a fitting time to spread the white poppy as widely as possible.
Of course, this is not an action centred merely on emotion. There are those who consider that the significance of the red poppy has been devalued through its use as a symbol of “sacrifice” and “honour” instead of a “solemn remembrance and a determination to end war”.
It is poignant to recall the opinion of the American constitutional lawyer and historian, Philip Bobbitt (in his 2008 book Terror and Consent: The Wars for the 21st Century), that, far from being the “war to end all wars”, the 1914-18 war was the beginning of a series of conflicts that ended only with the tearing down of the Berlin Wall on 9 November, 1989. Interestingly, the 25th anniversary of this significant event has been celebrated in the lead-up to the WW1 centennial remembrances. Bobbitt refers to this period of war as the “Long War” and included protracted wars in Russia, Greece, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, colonial wars in Africa and South-East Asia, and, of course, the various wars in the Middle East.
It is further argued that the Festival of Remembrance and the Remembrance Sunday ceremony at the Cenotaph have been turned into “militaristic occasions to encourage recruiting and forget the inhumanity of warfare”. It is certainly a time when the British establishment comes together, and is seen doing so, albeit to remember the deaths of so many ordinary people who had no choice in the matter and manner of their deaths.
The question has also been raised as to whether the British Legion still carries advertisements for arms dealers in the back of the programme for the Festival of Remembrance? Now, this is an interesting question. When, in 1921, the red poppy came to be adopted in the UK, it was promoted by the British Legion under their founding father General Douglas Haig (of “lions led by donkeys” infamy) in order to raise funds for British service personnel and their families. Is this an unmistakeable echo, perhaps an inference, of partisanship? But there is more.
A week ago the current British Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, announced he was making a start on repaying money a former coalition government had raised in order to finance the First World War (a long memory is needed in politics). The chancellor announced the redemption of bonds that, as well as paying for WW1, date back to the UK’s first brush with wild financial speculation – the British East India joint-stock company (EIC) that received royal assent from the first Queen Elizabeth in 1600. This trading company was heavily involved in the South Sea Bubble of 1720.
In order to pay for WWI, the coalition (Conservative and Liberals) British government of the day sold war bonds. This was advertised as a patriotic duty and the bonds were sold to private investors in 1917 with the advertisement, “If you cannot fight, you can help your country by investing all you can in 5% exchequer bonds…..unlike the soldier, the investor runs no risk…..A large part of the nation, instead of being impoverished by the war, has been enriched.” By the end of WW1, many of the rich had got richer, but the UK’s national debt had risen to 175% of GDP. Nothing much seems to have changed!
Many of those who cling to the present remembrance of war with red poppies, militaristic services and the accompanying pomp and circumstance, uniforms, ribbons and decorations, do so with the view that far from being “lions led by donkeys” in a futile bloodbath whose origins remain controversial, the British soldiers who fought from 1914-1918 were fighting to defend democracy from militarist authoritarian Germany.
This seems to be an unjustifiable viewpoint and explicitly a revision of actual history. What sort of “democracy” existed in the first decades of the 20th century, especially when so many parts of the world existed as colonies and supply zones for the major political and military players – including the UK! To see Germany as the “unique culprit” of the Great War seems to me to be absurd, as is the simplistic explanation of events in the lead-up to and performance of this conflict.
A recent BBC programme on the causes of the Great War weaved a far more complex background and production – as do recent books and debates on the matter. Not the least of the factors is the solid evidence of the internal conflicts within the royal families of the main European nations which instigated and perpetrated the war.
Several of the monarchical families involved in this long period of turmoil, for example, those of Germany and Russia, were closely linked with the British monarchy during the period before the Great War. Indeed, they were members of an extended family that centred in the UK. It is no coincidence that, following the war, the British royal family changed its name to “Windsor” and endeavoured to sever its association with Germany and its Hanoverian roots.
Debate about the war memorial and red poppy display at the Tower of London goes on. There are those, like Boris Johnson, who believe that the display should be prolonged so that “as many people as possible can see it.” However, the actress, Sheila Hancock, is of the view that “a tank should mow down the poppies and leave them shattered like the bodies of the guys that died. That would be an amazing image.” The BBC has refused to put to air the Stone and Beck song “No Man’s Land”. The Royal British Legion says that such a decision is “disappointing” (it has hopes of raising money through the song for “wounded and disabled war heroes” – echoes of 1923 and the first sale of red poppies).
The last few paragraphs of this article are being written as the Armistice Day remembrance at the Cenotaph is concluding. The military carnage of the Great War was supposed to mark it out as “the war to end all wars”. This has not been the case, as even bloodier and subsequent slaughters have proved.
Even so, the quiet dignity of soldiers old and new at the Cenotaph and memorials all over the country carry added poignancy 100 years from the start of World War One. The poppy river at the Tower of London is nothing if not stunning and should, silently and dramatically and, perhaps, regardless of artistic merit, remind us that it is both the living and the dead that are honoured. The living for the legacy they carry on; the dead for a debt that can never be repaid.
RSC
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The week that was

Posted on 28/10/2014 by stewculbard
Apart from major items of news, for example, the ongoing story of the ebola outbreak in Western Africa and the never-ending saga of the British government’s battle with UKIP and the situation in respect of the European Union, there were several important stories that crossed the news desks during the week that was. Of specific interest to me was the news of the death of the former Australian Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam (born 11.07.1916 – died 21.10.2014).
 I was living in London during the three turbulent years (1972-1975) that Gough Whitlam sought to lead a reformist Australian Labour government. For many Australians, especially the younger to whose idealism he appealed, Whitlam was a heroic figure. After a generation of uninterrupted conservative rule, it was felt that Australia was in need of a government that purposefully tried to implement a decidedly reformist political agenda (for example, healthcare, national parks, Aboriginal rights).
He and the Labour government came to power with a campaign that was spearheaded with the slogan “it’s time”. He treated the Australian electorate’s mandate to govern with an almost sacred intent. Unfortunately for him and his government, the 1970’s mix of dearer oil prices and the wage-cost spirals that undermined the big social ambitions of nations worldwide, dogged the Whitlam years.
A series of administrative scandals in 1975, including the somewhat infamous “loan’s affair” – involving attempts to borrow an immense sum of money from an international source – resulted in the threat of a right-wing Australian Senate (Upper House in the national parliament) to block the supply of government finances. The consequence was that Whitlam’s government was sensationally dismissed by the Australian Governor General (AGG), Sir John Kerr. At the subsequent election, the Australian Labour Party was routed and Gough Whitlam passed into Australian political history.
The fact that Whitlam’s demise was the result of a constitutional coup against a majority government, as well as the fact  that it was carried out by an AGG who was the official representative (the notional employee) of the British monarch and, by implication, the British government and its unwritten constitution, was a major contributing factor in me becoming the republican I am today – irrespective of which country I live in.
It could be said, however, that Gough Whitlam was confounded and ensnared by the technicalities of the political situation of his age. It has been considered that “he did not fully realise the importance of the rule book and the letter of the Australian Constitution.” There was something of the maverick in him, if not in his entire administration. As a consequence, Gough Whitlam “will be more remembered for dreaming big dreams than instituting big programmes”.
In describing Gough Whitlam as a “commanding presence” and a “towering figure”, one eulogy commented: “The vicissitudes of his adventurous government will always be seen as a stirring era in Australian history, a period when his vision, verve and brilliance in the public arena won the veneration of hordes of admirers.” Superbly stated and, no doubt, there are many who experienced those heady days in Australian politics – who stood and admired and then were stirred to take one further step.
On the day of  Gough Whitlam’s death, Helen Razer, writing in the Australian Daily Review, said:
“Even as a living reformer and even as a man with an ego proportionate to his height, Whitlam was a servant of history much more than a servant of self. We cannot mourn his end as though it is an end of history. It’s time to say that Whitlam’s moment of Utopian thinking is not done. It’s time.”
 *****
Speaking of Australians, this year’s Man Booker literary prize has been won by Richard Flanagan. Flanagan is from Sydney and joins a distinguished list of Australian novelists, including Peter Carey and Thomas Keneally, to have won this coveted award.
Flanagan’s novel is called The Narrow Road to the Deep North. It is broadly based on the experiences of his father as a PoW working on the so-called “death railway” – the line that ran from Burma to Thailand – during WW2. The unspeakable horrors of this Japanese construction project are well known to many Australians – through experience, literature and legend.
Reviews of the book suggest that the novel is not simply one of unremitting horror, suffering and inescapable death for, as one reviewer put it: “Acts of terrifying violence and appalling humiliation are suddenly illumed by slivers of hope – expressed by the naked, skeletal prisoners in acts of unexpected generosity (the sharing of a rice ball or a joke) – and a central love story.”
The story of the novel is not without love and hope. Flanagan says that “he had to find a story from hope, and love is the greatest expression of hope. Love is the discovery of eternity in a moment that dies immediately.” He quotes the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche in saying: “Hope is the cruellest of torments because it prolongs human suffering, but it is also the engine of us. Without it we die.”
The love element is provided by a tale that Flanagan heard about a Latvian man who scoured the earth in search of his wife at the end of the war. Moving to Tasmania, the Latvian later caught sight of the woman in Sydney, a child holding each of her hands. This was a moment of decision. Gripping stuff!
Richard Flanagan is not, however, without the kind of social and political consciousness that reminds one of Gough Whitlam. Following some remarks of Tony Abbott, the current Australian Prime Minister, about coal being “good for humanity”, Flanagan is recorded as saying that he was “ashamed of being Australian”. So too, in one of last week’s BBC Newsnight programmes, he spoke of his dismay at the repeal of the peace deal struck between logging companies and activists in Tasmania. It would seem that his opposition is to policies, not to people.
In the past Flanagan has spoken eloquently about “the bankruptcy of political rhetoric in Australia” – the false myths; the conformity of political culture; the cynicism of political groupthink; and, with echoes of Richard Wagner, the twilight of the political gods. Again, “We are living in a new period where the old forms don’t hold – a new form hasn’t yet been invented.”
A quote from Charlotte Higgins’ review of Flanagan’s novel seems to encapsulate the ideas behind both the prize winning book and Richard Flanagan’s philosophy of life: “I get more optimistic as I get older. If you choose to take your compass from power, in the end you find only despair. But if you look around the world you can see and touch – the everyday world that is too easily dismissed as everyday – you see largeness, generosity, hope, change for the better. It’s always small but it’s real.”
And, in an analogy that could only come from a typical, down-to-earth Australian, Flanagan said: “We need politics like we need a good sewerage system – it should be run properly and efficiently. But over the last century we have made a fetish of politics and we believe too much in it; we invest too much of ourselves in it and we don’t recognise the wonder in ourselves.”
In a week that announced the death of Gough Whitlam, such words seem apposite.
RSC
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

They will always be with us

Posted on 16/10/2014 by stewculbard
I feel sure that, when I was a practicing minister of the Christian Church, I must have preached on the particular text on several occasions.
The text in question appears in three of the four New Testament Gospels. It is the story of a woman of obvious substance who gives Jesus some expensive ointment. He makes personal use of the ointment. His disciples protest and consider that the ointment should have been sold and the proceeds given to the poor. Jesus disagrees and utters those rather enigmatic words:
“The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.”
Apart from seemingly undermining the later belief of the Christian Church that Jesus will remain within the world or, more precisely, remain constantly with his followers, Jesus’ words inevitably seem to signify that poverty will be an ongoing condition of a significant proportion of humanity. Indeed, in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and despite a confusion between “poor in spirit” and the “economically and socially poor”, poverty is close to being a virtue. This complicates matters for the Christian Church.
The current leader of the Roman Catholic Church, the largest branch of the Christian Church, Pope Francis 1, has seemingly made poverty a primary focus of his papacy (I say “seemingly” for Francis has, so far, done nothing to alter the Roman Catholic dogma that is a major cause of poverty in those countries dominated by that church).
The United Kingdom is a modern welfare state. One of the foundational documents of this welfare state is the Beveridge Report. This report does not use the term “poverty”; instead it speaks of “want”. This term has less value-baggage. So too, it needs to be kept in mind that when we talk of poverty in the UK we are not talking about the same kind of poverty that is to be seen in the developing world – the so-called two-thirds world.
The definition of poverty generally used in the UK, as in the rest of the developed world, is set at 605 of the median income. Naturally, 60% of median income in the UK is much greater than that of people living in, for example, sub-Saharan Africa. That might be one reason why many in the UK do not believe that an estimated 13 million UK citizens actually live in poverty.
The 1942 Beveridge Report on “Social Insurance and Allied Services” defined want as the lack of “what is necessary for subsistence”. This seems a much stricter criterion than the one which defines poverty in the modern British society and is one that might well meet with approval amongst large sections of the British population. So too, it could be seen to lead to the view that in today’s UK “no one actually starves”. Surely this is a situation to be encouraged, even one with which Jesus might have agreed?
Notwithstanding, when Jesus is recorded as having said those words, “the poor you will always have with you”, he was not, if my interpretation of his words are correct, dismissing poverty as if it was unimportant. He was saying something completely different. He was identifying the specific need of companionship with, if not the championing of, the poor. These, as the context makes plain, are the economically poor. In the protest of his disciples he perhaps saw a hard-heartedness that masqueraded as sympathy for the poor.
In a similar way, there is the argument that, in contemporary British society, there is a hard-heartedness that wishes to cloak itself in the rationale that “no one actually starves”. In this way it can ignore the fact that inequality in the UK is actually rising. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation recently pointed out that that British public expects levels of poverty to get worse, while at the same time “support for welfare spending… is at a historical low”. People don’t believe in their poverty.
Some of this state of affairs may reside in the fact that people are confused by, or disagree with the word, “poverty”.
For that reason, amongst others, it may be that the most appropriate term to use is “inequality”. When people lose their jobs or are forced into low paid work, with zero-hours or income supplements; when food banks are resorted to; when government cuts to welfare are made but the wealthy are left relatively unscathed; when prices of food, power, transport and housing continue to rise but wages are frozen, many people are placed in a position that is increasingly unequal to that of more fortunate others.
When these situations are manipulated by a government, that is, when inequality is the policy or the consequence of the political and economic arrangements of those who are elected to look after the welfare of all British citizens, then it is time for the people of the UK to raise their collective voice in protest.
Not the protest of the type made by the disciples of Jesus, merely sympathetic but having no personal investment; but with the protest of Jesus who, in saying that “the poor you will always have with you” is actually identifying with the poor, indicating an empathy that shows that he will remain on the side of those in poverty.
In using expensive ointment for his personal use, Jesus expresses the view that a genuine gospel of the poor means placing, not only expensive items, but oneself personally at the service of those who, socially, economically, politically and personally, are left alienated and discriminated against.
 *****
This was the week in which nursing staff in British hospitals, including for the first time maternity nurses (midwives), expressed their anger and anxiety at the austerity measures affecting the British NHS by going on strike.
The particular focus on the nurses’ action was the fact that a substantial number of nurses in the UK would not be getting any form of pay rise. Some would get a less than inflation 1% rise, but those still on (contractual) incremental pay increases would get nothing – their increment being regarded as, amongst other things, a cost of living increase. The matter is further understood when it is remembered that this has been the situation for the past several years. The nurses have had enough of the swingeing governmental cuts.
Of course, the government justifies its position by saying that, in a time of austerity, these cuts to take home pay must be expected and, when all is said and done, the whole of British society, especially those “hard working families”, is facing the same cuts. With this goes the by now infamous words, “we are all in this together”.
Oh, except those on higher incomes who are to have a tax break. At the same time, we are informed from the research of the Income Data Services that the earnings of the FTSE 100 company directors have surged by more than a fifth over the past year. Their annual average total earnings were 2.4 million, rising to 3.3 million for chief executives.
Wage growth for the overall workforce, meanwhile, trails well behind inflation, rising to 0.6% in the three months to July compared with the same period a year earlier. This is less than half the present rate of inflation of 1.5% (a rate higher than the increase of 1% that some, but not all, nurses will be getting – see above).
The research by the Income Data Service found that between 2000 and 2014 the median total earnings for FTSE chief executives surged by 278%, while the corresponding rise in total earnings for full-time employees was 48%. This means that a FTSE 100 chief executive earned 120 times more than a full-time employee in the past financial year, while in 2000, it was 47 times more.
These figures prompted Frances O’Grady, the general secretary of the TUC, to say: “Now we know who is benefitting from the recovery, and as sure as anything it is not the great majority of workers who continue to face cuts in their living standards. Every year people ask if soaring boardroom greed can continue. It seems that it can.”
It seems true, therefore, that the rich get richer whilst everybody else, including the poor, gets even poorer. Jesus said, “The poor you will always have with you”. The fact is that this will continue to be the situation whilst we always have the rich, even the super-rich, with us.
RSC
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

On liberty

Posted on 06/10/2014 by stewculbard
Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, was recently described by the journalist Suzanne Moore as “a man with a severe case of premature popularity”. Whilst introducing the speech by his mate, Chancellor George Osborne, at the just-finished Conservative Party conference, Boris babbled on about bricks. As usual, the audience, though baffled, delighted in Boris’s buffoonery – they are quite used to it by now and even expect it.
Earlier this past summer, Mr. Johnson casually suggested scrapping the presumption of innocence for anyone caught travelling to Syria or Iraq without prior notice, leaving them presumed guilty of terrorist intent unless they can prove otherwise. Mayor Johnson may be seen by many as a man with a distinct, if not peculiar, sense of humour, but this was no joke!
Sami Chakrabarti, the director of the pressure group Liberty, would certainly not see such a comment as funny. Ms Chakrabarti has just has published her book On Liberty (echoes of the English philosopher John Stuart Mill’s 1859 work), a book said by one reviewer to be “that rarest of things, a history not overtaken by fast-moving events but enriched by them.” As rare, perhaps, as Boris Johnson’s buffoonery has become practiced and common!
Possibly one of the most insightful pieces in Sami Chakrabarti’s book is where she is questioned about the use of torture; specifically, if there was a nuclear bomb ticking away somewhere in London and she were alone in a room with the person who planted it, would she resort to torturing that person in order to find out where it was and, thereby, save countless lives? Her answer was surprising.
Interestingly, she does not answer “no”. She says, “If I did get out the thumbscrews, I should not expect the protection of the law”. In other words, torture, no matter what the circumstances of its use, should expect to be punished. “The law cannot always make it easy to do the right thing, but should never make it easy to do the wrong thing.” The law is an honourable institution. This reminded me of Immanuel Kant’s injunction about always telling the truth, no matter what the circumstances or the consequences.
The irony is that we live in an age of utilitarianism. All things, including, it seems, honour and truth, have value only in the sense of having a practical purpose, or in being useful or profitable. As a doctrine it means that the greatest happiness for the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct. A bit like the fact of the “No” vote winning in the Scottish referendum on independence means that all residents of Scotland, even those who voted “Yes”, should now go along with the status quo!
On Liberty will likely be a book that will be lapped-up by civil libertarians, but viewed with suspicion by the likes of Boris Johnson, Theresa May (British Home Office Secretary – see below) and the inappropriately named UKIP.
The Guardian newspaper’s literary reviewer, Gaby Hinsliff, commented on what she considered to be a “rabble-rousing attack on human rights law” at the recent Conservative Party conference. She further believed that the Home Secretary, Theresa May, focused the sheer scale of what civil libertarians like Sami Chakrabarti are up against. Hinsliff is of the view that Theresa May is at the core of “those who harbour growing hostility to anything European, a new public harshness towards many of the vulnerable individuals and groups protected by the European Court of Human Rights, and politicians increasingly nervous about challenging either of these attitudes”.
In the face of a coalition government which is intent on introducing laws and procedures that are divisive and discriminatory – many of which are right-wing and draconian, favour the rich and powerful and are increasingly hostile to human rights –  the need for a new statement On Liberty is timely.
*****
A request has gone out from Kate Middleton and William Windsor to the paparazzi that they refrain from taking pictures of their son, George Windsor, when he is in a public place with his family. It appears that they wish him to have a more or less normal childhood and free from the attention of the people who earn a living writing articles and taking pictures of people who normally welcome, indeed whose status and living depends on, being in the public eye.
Now, I am all in favour of the need for privacy, but the request from this branch of the Windsor family for the paparazzi to keep their pens and lenses off George, especially mentioning the Protection from Harassment Act of 1977 when making their request, seems a bit rich. A bit of a liberty, really.
Here is a family who earn their living from the public purse as royal celebrities and, when it suits their purposes, they seemingly have no qualms in thrusting Georgie-boy in front of the cameras; As an example of this reflect on the fact that, when in Australia earlier this year, young George was lingeringly filmed and photographed closely admiring koalas and wallabies (or was it kangaroos?), not always the easiest of Aussie animals to be next to, at Sydney’s Tooronga Park Zoo. The film sequence was accompanied by the usual royal gush.
However, this was all in the name of good royal relationships, you understand. As it happens, George Windsor is quite photogenic, even a bit of a poser! On the face of it, he is already a right-royal celebrity.
*****
The name of Dominic Grieve first came to my particular attention when, as the Attorney General of the present British government (and chief legal adviser to the crown), he was reported as saying that, if the opinions of Charles Windsor (the father of William Windsor and grandfather of George – see above) on certain matters were ever to be made public, then it would render him as being unfit to become the next British monarch.
Since then, Dominic Grieve has been removed from his official position within the British government. The reason for his removal, following a cabinet reshuffle several months ago, was not specifically because of what he said about Charles Windsor (though this is not out of the question), but, as seems more likely, because of his support of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). He shares this position with such former Conservative grandees as Damien Green and Kenneth Clarke, both of whom were also replaced in their government jobs around the same times as Grieve.
It is generally thought that, despite being a “decent and principled man”, Dominic Grieve was too close to the Strasbourg-based ECHR. In office, he was hounded by, amongst other right-wing newspapers, the Daily Mail, one of whose journalists said: “Everything about Dominic Grieve screams ‘fusspot’”… he is “a stickler from an earlier age … here is pettifogging made flesh”. Yet, here is me thinking that this is what British conservatism is all about – its “acceptable face”!
When elected to parliament in 1997, Dominic Grieve’s maiden speech focused on the ECHR. He fully supported the ECHR, which was to be incorporated into British law through the Human Rights Act shortly after he entered parliament.
When ousted from the cabinet, others, such as Theresa May, held on to their jobs. Though the leading opponent of the ECHR and, therefore, a constant thorn in the flesh to Grieve when he was Attorney General. Theresa May has become the siphon through which the work of the ECHR is being sifted. It is commonly felt that she is behind the current move to insist that the British Parliament be required to approve, if not remove, any judgement of the ECHR which is unfavourable to the UK.
For Dominic Grieve, such an opposition to the work of the ECHR is “incoherent, a bit anarchic, it breaches our international legal obligations. It’s a complete breach of precedent.” There is further shame in the actions of Theresa May and the Conservative section of the coalition government when it is remembered that it was the Conservative politician and prime minister, Winston Churchill, who first set up the British judges as instigators, formulators and protectors of the ECHR. His was a finer conservative mind than any of the small-minded charlatans who currently polish the government front benches in the House of Commons.
Despite this, Grieve, unlike some of his erstwhile conservative colleagues, is not about to run into the arms of UKIP. He remains loyal on most things conservative. He states: “The principles of conservatism include upholding the rule of law and the United Kingdom’s international legal obligations. If the party of which I’m a member makes an announcement which has the potential to breach the law and those obligations, then I will argue against it… It would be very unsatisfactory.” Surely, here is a man of some honour, if not also an upholder of liberty!
Dominic Grieve considers himself, as with his late father, Percy Grieve QC and Conservative MP, to be “probably an old-fashioned Conservative.” In the light of the above, what does that make many of those currently holding office in the Conservative Party and the Coalition Government?
RSC
 
 
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment