Robert Stewart Culbard

It was recently reported by the writer and critic, Christina Patterson, that the pop world celebrity and charity event organiser, Bob Geldof, “carried the coffin of his late daughter into a church. Later, in the service, he spoke. But we do not know what it was he said, because the service was only for family and friends”.

Amongst other considerations, what stays with me is the fact that a public place, a church building that is normally open for the public to spend time in worship or quiet reflection, was used for a private ceremony – albeit involving a celebrity, that is, a person whose life is to be celebrated, in life or death.

I write this article on the second anniversary of my mother’s death. She was a church-going person for most of her life. My mother was known for being a devout Christian of evangelical persuasion. Though she was a most private person, her quiet, religious devotion was publicly acknowledged. Yet, when she died, her funeral service took place for “family and friends” in the privacy of a Funeral Director’s chapel. My mother was, for me and my family, a celebrity.

This seems to me to be a picture of religion in Australia (where my mother died) and the UK today. Religion has become a private matter. We refrain from publicly showing our grief at the death of someone we have loved and cherished, yet we choose to say goodbye to people we have lost in a church building or a chapel.

It is reported that, in the UK today, the Church of England still conducts 1,000 weddings a week. It conducts 2,700 baptisms and at least 3,000 funerals. It is thought that the actual figures may be higher than these. The National Association of Funeral Directors thinks that more people have a church-centred funeral than any other kind (including those held in their own chapels).

These kinds of statistics are still used by some to insist that the UK is a “Christian country”. The Christian rituals we observe, in life and in death, according to the champions of Christian Britain, are the appropriate response to those “militant atheist” claims that the UK is post-Christian, if not anti-Christian. Yet, many of those who lie buried in church ground rarely, if ever, went near those sacred places when they were alive. Notwithstanding, the Christian Church in the UK, and particularly the Church of England, still performs what would appear to be regarded as valuable cultural and social functions.

Still, the observation of the current Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, is worth pondering: “If regular church-going is the sign of a Christian country, then Britain doesn’t make the grade”. This is the case even though the Church of England is the Established Church of the British State, with strong links to government and royalty, not to mention a presence in every parish in the country and the resultant numerous baptisms, weddings and funerals it conducts.

Speaking generally, it would seem that the British are quite happy to acknowledge the existence of the Christian Church and its churches, even use them at certain times to fulfil their rites of passage into or out of, or even within, British society. Otherwise they seem to have limited value and appeal, and certainly not in terms of attracting widespread personal commitment to and support of.

Perhaps a suitable expression of this dichotomy is to be found in the distinction I became aware of as a theological student – more years ago than I care to remember. That is, the distinction between the “pastoral” and “prophetic” functions of the Christian Church. The former refers to the caring, nurturing, parenting and educating roles of the Christian churches – essentially relating to those within the Church or who identify with the parish or local church. The latter speaks of the Christian Church’s mission in the world, its “outside” work – evangelism, work for social justice, peace and human well-being.

The pastoral church is the place to go to when a comforting word or an inspirational piece of music is wanted; when a calm and peaceful place is required; where the solace of ritual and a culture of acceptance is desired to be experienced; where the recognised rites of passage of British society can be carried out.  This is a natural and acceptable desire of the human being. Bob Geldof and his family and friends would have realised the value of such experience, as did my family and friends two years ago as I led the funeral service of my mother.

The prophetic church is another matter. This is the hard place of challenge and response, the domain of uncertainty and pain, the rough land of much work for little reward except that of knowing the works needs to be done in what is often a warlike culture.

The prophetic church is still exemplified in the life and work of the Salvation Army SA). The SA is a Christian institution for which I retain a special feeling, having been born in a SA nursing home and dedicated under the SA flag in Glasgow, Scotland – though never becoming a militant member of the SA ranks (despite experiencing the romance of the organisation in my early 20’s).

It is often thought that the prophetic church is the particular responsibility of those ordained for the task of mission, rather than the combined work of the whole Church. This is a mistaken notion. The Christian Church is true to itself only when those committedly attached to it realize both its functions – the pastoral and the prophetic.

If Christian beliefs are to be genuinely believed, if Christian ethics are to be honestly appropriated, then both beliefs and ethics are to be given a loud voice and a practical application both within the Christian Church and in the world outside of the doors of the Christian churches. It is simply not enough for the people of the UK to collectively identify as a “Christian nation”. Appropriate actions must qualify presumptuous and appealing words, at both individual and institutional levels.

Evidentially, there are many people in the UK who are quite accepting of the pastoral life of the Church. It is safe and secure, continuous and dependable. This situation is understandable and generally acceptable to both sacred and secular societies within the nation. However, there would appear to be far more persons who would gag at the thought of taking on the roles and responsibilities of the prophetic Church. It is this fact, amongst others, that needs to be fed into the current debate as to whether or not the UK is a “Christian” nation.

The history of the Great Britain and Northern Ireland, indeed, the whole of the British Isles, may have been decisively shaped by Christianity, but that does not make the UK a contemporary Christian country. The facts need to speak for themselves without fantasy being allowed to skew the debate.

RSC

The headline stood out on the front page of the broadsheet: “Cameron puts God back into politics”. The newspaper’s editor followed-up with the editorial: “How refreshing to have a PM who does ‘do God’”. The regeneration is about to begin, the answer to the degenerate state of British politics is God!

However, it is not any old god of which Cameron speaks – it is the Christian God, the God that is represented in England by the established Church of England, over which, as one of her or his many privileges, presides the monarch of the day. More than this, Cameron says that the British (presumably including the Scots, Welsh and Irish, all of whom have religious traditions significantly different to that of Anglicanism) should be “unashamedly evangelical about their Christian faith”.

I seem to recall that the Church of England set aside the 1990’s as a post-Thatcher “decade of evangelism” (the link between the two may not be as immediately obvious to the reader as it is to me as I think and write). The positive results, if any, of this era have yet to be established. So too, the United Kingdom (to include the people of all the nations entitled to a British passport) has had a significant history of evangelism through its many Non-conformist Christian churches and traditions.

As a former ordained minister in the Baptist Church tradition (in Australia as well as the UK), I was a part of that history and do not take too kindly to any abrogation of this tradition – by any one proponent of the state church, a politician, the editor of a newspaper, or anyone else.

David Cameron cites his personal experience of the “healing power” of religion and insists that Christianity could “transform the ‘spiritual’, ‘physical’ and ‘moral’ state of Britain, even the world”. When did a British Prime Minister, Tory or otherwise, ever make such a bold statement based on personal experience? David Cameron: sage or fool? Discuss.

Now, in many ways it is refreshing to hear a voice for the Christian religion proclaiming the move out of the pew and into the world at large – with the distinct aim of changing the world. However, Mr Cameron is not very explicit about which world he wishes to change.

There are many “worlds” that require changing, including, in the view of many, the world of the Christian Church itself (and not just the child abusers in the Roman Catholic Church). David Cameron might need to be careful about what he is suggesting or wishing for, or opening himself to. There is a saying in the Old Testament: “Every prudent man dealeth with knowledge: but a fool layeth open his folly” (Proverbs chapter 13, verse 16). Based only on his personal experience, David Cameron’s view could be cited as arrogance based on the unreasonable certainty that he has the answer to the question of what will heal the “diseased state” of Britain and, indeed, the world.

Of course, if a statement such as that uttered by Cameron stands up to scrutiny, then the “transforming power” of Christianity needs to start at the personal level. From the evidence of Mr Cameron’s often-frenzied and insulting performances at Prime Minister’s Question Time (PMQT), his turnabouts on policy promises, his government’s squeeze on the poor and powerless in the UK, and his apparently scant recognition that the UK has become a multi-cultural and, therefore, multi-religious community (all of which have answers to moral questions), it would appear that this transformation is a work only in progress.

Indeed, proportionately speaking, larger numbers of those in the UK whose adherence to such religious traditions as Islam, Judaism and Sikhism, amongst others, attend their respective weekly worship sessions at a Mosque, Synagogue or Gurdwara, and with greater regularity, than those who profess to be Christians and attend a church service (and, therefore, are available to be personally influenced by Christianity). The latter has dipped into single figures.

For many citizens of the UK, the only time when they are to be seen inside a Christian church building is for a christening/baptism, wedding or funeral – hardly a regular feature of the normal and everyday life of the British population! I rather suspect that there are many amongst the British population who encourage others, including their politicians, to “do God” – as long as they do not have to “do God” themselves!

Further, is Mr Cameron unaware of the fact that Christianity has been present in these isles since the times of the Romans and that the Christian evangelist, St Patrick, continues to be a celebrated figure in at least one major denomination of the Christian faith, the Roman Catholic Church, as well as being commemorated in Anglican, Eastern Orthodox and Lutheran church circles?

Cameron is also of the opinion that a decline in the influence of Christianity results in depriving the British of “a vital source of morality”. David Cameron also appears to be singularly unaware that morality has many sources – from humanists, athiests and “brights” – thinking non-believers – to those who are “religious” but do not believe in a God, for example, Buddhists, as well as those ordinary people who actually make the world a better place by their efforts and the conviction that to be a part of this world is to strive to make the world a better place in which to live.

Furthermore, is Mr Cameron aware that religions per se, especially the monotheistic religions that claim their ancestry from the biblical figure of Abraham – Judaism and Islam, as well as Christianity – teach essentially the same moral code? Have the two non-Christian religions in this trilogy nothing to say or add to the moral fabric of British society? Is it any wonder that the Conservative Party has difficulty in appealing to a constituency other than the white, middle classes of England – despite Cameron’s intention not to “do down” other religious faiths?

Of course, David Cameron’s words on this subject have elicited the usual positive responses from the leaders of the Church of England. Even those who have been strong in criticising his government’s economic policies have stated that his words are “striking” and have signalled a new “willingness to espouse faith”. One has to question where these church leaders, and their pre-Henry VIII predecessors, have been during the decline of Christianity in the British Isles as implied by Cameron.

So too, it is eminently understandable that Mr Cameron finds “the greatest peace”, and perhaps the most sublime expression of his faith, at a sung Eucharist service of the Anglican church. His faith would appear to exact feelings rather than actions – an antidote, perhaps, to his experiences at PMQT!

Now, I do not wish to give the impression that I want to send rain on David Cameron’s religious parade. Indeed, I would want to encourage any faith that leads to an enhancement of human life and experience – anything that brings dignity, justice, well-being, harmony and security to ordinary people.

But I am also aware that, in the wake of disputes (with the bishops of the established church as well as opposition parties) over his governments cuts to welfare; his affront to conservative Christianity with the institutionalisation of gay marriage; his previous failure to champion the cause(s) of Christianity; the challenge of the fundamentally “ordinary Englishness” of UKIP, as well as his personal uncertainties about what faith is and how it should be expressed (for example, he has said: “faith is like FM in the Chilterns” – it periodically fades and reappears), his current comments may well be seen as an olive branch to the Christian churches and traditional Tory voters. After all, an election is just over a year away.

There is more than a hint of the Republican religious right in the USA, not to mention the Tea Party, in the methodology of David Cameron. A politician’s modus operandi is never to be taken on faith – Cameron’s or that of anyone else. That is the purpose of the party manifesto and the scrutiny that comes with its publication. When a politician starts to bring God and personal faith into the political debate, the question needs to be asked: Cui bono? Who benefits?

So too, I wish I could be more confident that David Cameron is really being serious when he says that the British need to be “more evangelical about a faith that compels us to get out there and make a difference to peoples’ lives”. There are many and divergent ways involved in “making a difference”. It is also to be considered that politicians can make a negative difference in peoples’ lives!

For many, myself included, the government of which David Cameron the Prime Minister has been “out there making a difference”, but the difference has been in making life more difficult for the ordinary people of Britain, whilst enhancing the lives of those in positions of power, affluence and influence. His politics, if not his Christian faith, have had a divisive influence. To what extent and in what direction, therefore, has his faith influenced his politics and their practical ramifications?

The philosopher, Daniel C. Dennett, has said: “politicians who still practice religion can be elected if they prove themselves worthy in other regards, but few would advertise their religious affiliation – or affliction, as the politically incorrect insist on calling it. It is considered as rude to draw attention to the religion of somebody as it is to comment in public about his sexuality or whether she has been divorced”. Judging by the frequency of his television appearances, David Cameron has no qualms about soliciting attention.

With respect to him being “worthy in other regards”, that will be decided by the British electorate and, in due course, by history.

David Cameron considers himself to be “a rather classic Anglican” – as would, no doubt, most of those who wear the Old Etonian tie. I will leave the reader to ponder at the mysterious workings, magical solutions, momentous decisions and magnificent decrees, not to mention the monumental cock-ups, this might lead to.

RSC

If, like me, you are a football fan, then you will have listened to some of the outpourings of the football match commentators which, if they were to be taken seriously, even analysed, would prove to be ridiculous, illogical, biased, irrational and, sometimes, just plain stupid. Over time, most commentators are guilty of this, and not only when they are covering a match involving a team for which they have may have played during their playing careers.

One of the comments that most irks me occurs when a team scores a goal and the commentator says that the team should be several more goals to the good – if only they had converted the chances missed earlier in the match. On suitable reflection, the commentator may come to realise that this kind of comment is nonsense. The reason I would suggest this conclusion is the fact that, if a goal had been scored earlier in the game, then that would have altered the way in which the rest of the match would have developed.

Opportunities for further goals may not have come. Depending on whether or not these opportunities came, and, if transpiring, were taken, would further determine other match outcomes. The outcome of a football match may also be dependent on a bad or an exquisite pass, or the dubious decision of a match official, or a moment of individual football genius.

Such forms of reflection aren’t confined to football. There have been a number of recent television programmes and newspaper articles in which historians, and others, have speculated on what would have happened if the United Kingdom had not entered the First World War in 1914.

One viewpoint was that, had the United Kingdom had not entered the war at all, then Germany would have crushed Europe under what the historian described as “the iron heel of proto-Nazi dictatorship”. Another historian took what seems to be an opposite view in saying that “the British empire would have been safe for another century, as the Germans settled down to creating something rather like the European Union of the present day.”

So too, there are other views, perhaps as many as there are writers on the theme. What each has in common, however, is that each perspective is unprovable. Each is a hypothetical speculation. One might even say that each and every viewpoint contains a certain amount of fantasy. Just like a football commentator expressing his or her thoughts on what would have happened if other patterns and events in a match had been different.

One of the intriguing things about watching and listening to the pundits comment on football matches, or historians talking about events such as the First World War, is that they stimulate the mind without demanding a firm conclusion. The outcome of a football match or a war may have been determined, but intrigue comes from speculating on what may have happened if various aspects of the event had been different. This may well be a source from which conspiracy theories are generated.

I believe that the word used by aficionados to describe this kind of speculation is “Counterfactuals”. This term refers to “what-if” forms of speculation. What-if the UK had not entered into the conflict between Germany and other European powers in 1914? What if a Manchester United player had not missed that open goal in the recent European Cup match with Bayern Munich? What would have been the outcomes of both events?

This kind of fantasising goes on all the time – and not only for events such as wars and football matches.

What if I had not passed that examination or had been more successful with that job interview? What if I had won the lottery instead of my neighbour? What would my life be like if my parents had not gone to live in Australia when I was a boy or I had stayed a single person and not married?  What would be my beliefs and life-style if my social and cultural background had been in a country of the two-thirds world rather than an advanced industrialised democracy? The speculation could be endless.

“Counterfactuals” are claimed to have the power to “open-up the past by demonstrating the myriad possibilities, thus freeing history from the straitjacket of determinism and restoring agency to people.” The idea is that human beings can believe that they are able to realise all of the possibilities in their lives. We can be what we believe we can be, or want to be. I have heard the same said by head-teachers when trying to inspire students at school assemblies. It is a form of positive thinking.

However, this can work in the opposite direction. We have no ultimate control over what happens outside of our own lives and circumstances. This is similar to a footballer having no control over what team-mates do, or, as may be the case, cannot do, no matter how thorough the match planning may have been!

Historians interpret the past; they do not predict or determine the future. They may speculate on what would have happened if different strategies had been planned or decisions made, or if different people has been in charge of the planning and decision-making processes. But they do not have the power to change what has actually happened – as if they could go back into the past in order to change the future. History, as with personal circumstances, does not afford human beings this luxury.

So, it will be seen that “Counterfactuals”, the form of thinking that says “what-if”, may in fact be seriously constraining. They encourage us to think that our lives progress without the constraints of the larger forces that operate in them. “Counterfactuals” encourage unreality.

That is not to say that reflection, in contradistinction to counter-factualism, has no value. Indeed, it has much value. Apart from football in particular and sport in general, I have an abiding interest in classical music. With such, I occasionally think about what it was that caused the transition from the baroque period in music to the classical, and from the classical to the romantic and then on to the modern and contemporary periods in music.

The more I contemplate musical history the more I realise that there were myriad reasons for the transitions and no single, all-pervading reason. Amongst these reasons would be motive, opportunity, circumstance, taste, personality, invention and technology. Personal life is the same. At any one time there are a variety of influences affecting our lives and some of these are beyond our control.

Why is it, then, that counterfactual thinking seems to be so popular today?

Perhaps it is because we live in uncertain times and desire to have more control over our individual lives. Perhaps it is because life moves and changes too fast and we want to circumscribe movement and put a break on change, in order to ensure that progress does not confuse or leave us behind. Perhaps it is because truth and morality have become, or seem to be, subjective and we wish to have greater moral certainty and a more objective understanding of our existence.

There again, with the apparent decline of formal religion,  we may wish to find a substitute in the Harry Potter world of magic and fantasy and see this as an alternative way of interpreting the past and offering salvation for the future. However, as with all things in the counterfactual way of thinking, we may need to be careful with what we wish for!

With respect to counter-factualism and the start of the First World War, perhaps we should concentrate not on the “what-ifs” of that war but on what factors actually caused it. It might well be the case that, in understanding the reasons behind the events of the past and the mistakes made, we will learn from them and not repeat them in the present and future. This will facilitate a measure of personal and community freedom and power to shape the future

As far as Manchester United missing that open goal against Bayern Munich is concerned, as a West Ham United supporter I am most happy to completely ignore the “what-if” way of thinking. Such thinking might encourage the fantasy that Manchester United, had they scored at the time, may well have gone on and won the game!

RSC

Two stories recently caught my eye. Each in its own way, to change the metaphor, left its distinctive taste.

The first story may be called “Army manoeuvres”.

In 2006 an open verdict was recorded by the investigating QC on the deaths of four young soldiers who died at the Deepcut Army Barracks, Surrey. The QC had concluded that the deaths of the four soldiers were self-inflicted, despite the fact that he considered that “bullying, harassment, ‘foul abuse’ and a systemic failure to investigate complaints” were part of life at the Deepcut base.

It would seem that a substantial amount of evidence to do with the inquest, including documents, notes and photographs, were not examined. It is only through the efforts of the civil rights group Liberty, using the Human Rights Act, that permission for a fresh inquest has been granted.

In the event, it needs to be questioned as to whether human rights mean very much in the normal course of ensuring justice in the British state. QC’s are charged with the highest administration of law and justice in the land; why, then, the need for the increasing involvement of groups such as Liberty?

Or, is this example simply pointing to the fact that the Armed Services, the Army in this case, see themselves as being outside of the norms affecting everyone else? Whatever may be the truth behind the deaths of the four soldiers, the story emanating from the Deepcut Army Barracks leaves a distinctively bad taste.

The second story may be called “Fostering good practice”.

The Conservative Party’s Edward Timpson is the Children’s Minister in the British coalition government. In many respects, Timpson is a traditional Tory: public-school educated, from a rich family, and a barrister by profession. In February he was named the Minister of the Year. He is married to Julia, an accountant, and the couple have three pre-teenage children. I am familiar with the Timpson name as I sometimes get keys cut or a pair of shoes mended from one of the Timpson outlets.

Domestically speaking, Edward Timpson would seem to be a fine choice to be both an MP and the Children’s Minister.

He recently pushed through reforms that will see the age of leaving foster care raised from 18 to 21 – a change piloted by the previous Labour Government (no criticism here, then, simply following-on). So too, he favours further changes to working patterns in parliament. He acknowledges that many MP’s, like himself, have young families and that much needs to be done to recognise that life – in parliament, as outside – has moved on.

It seems to me, therefore, it comes as no reason to laud the fact that when Timpson was elected to parliament in 2008, Labour Party activists “donned top hats and mocked him as an out-of-touch toff”.

Perhaps these same activists were unaware of how active were Timpson’s parents in fostering around 90 children and had adopted a further two. Edward Timpson is himself the youngest of three children born to his parents. Participation in such a family was, it seems, fundamental in shaping Edward Timpson’s desire to read family law at university and then enter politics after substantial experience in the courts of law.

It might be sobering for the same Labour Party activists who mocked Timpson’s entry to parliament to reflect on the suitability of its own opposition front bench to be in the same position now occupied by Edward Timpson. The comparison might prove to be odious.

Whilst comparisons might be odious, the story of Edward Timpson leaves a distinctively good taste.

These are two tales that tell us something about aspects of the society in which we in the UK live and the impact that institutions and individuals can have on that society.

RSC

Whether it is because I am, for one reason or another, more aware of it, or because it is happening more often, it seems to me that there is a growing preponderance for the things that people say at one time to be out of synchronization with what they have said at other times, or else the complete opposite of what they themselves do at any one time.

 In what follows, I will offer several examples of this phenomenon.

1.   The present coalition government has often championed, at least verbally, the view that, because of or in spite of the fact that the British prison system is over-crowded and too expensive, prisons should be more proactive in rehabilitating the incarcerated and moving them on into general society. Even the least liberal of minds would concede that an important aspect of rehabilitation is education.

 So, what has Chris Grayling, the current Justice Secretary, gone and done? He has signed-off on new rules that in effect ban prisoners from being sent books by family and friends. It would seem that the new rules from the Ministry of Justice were part of an “incentives and earned privileges regime”. In other words, prisoners are required to behave themselves or be denied a good read!

It is true that the prisons themselves supply readable material. But there is no guess-work involved in knowing which stuff the prisoners would favour reading.

To those who have much, more will be given; to those who have little, even that which they have will be taken away.

2.    It has been widely reported that the Secretary for Education, Michael Gove, has been somewhat critical of the number of Old Etonians in the Prime Minister’s inner circle. Gove described the situation as “ridiculous”. Surprisingly, Mr Gove has also stated that he would wish that “every school might be like Eton” – though what he actually meant by this and how it could possibly be achieved is anyone’s guess, including that of Mr Gove himself!

This, then, is one of the coalition government’s ace front benchers who, along with his wife, the Daily Mail columnist Sarah Vine, recently made much out of the fact that they had entered their daughter in the Grey Coat Hospital Comprehensive School for Girls – a state-funded secondary school in Westminster, no less, but one that comes with a much sought after entry label. It comes as no surprise, therefore, to learn that many of Gove’s own appointees in government have been Old Etonians!

These appointees included Henry de Zoete, a special adviser and a close lieutenant of Gove’s; Henry Dimbleby, the leader of his food review in 2012-13; and Charles Taylor, now overseeing the recruitment of teachers across England as the chief executive of the National College for Teaching and Leadership.

However, to be fair to Mr Gove, it should be said that he has not been exclusive in the appointment of Old Etonians. Grandees from other independent schools are part of his inner circle. Two of Gove’s closest associates at the Department for Education are Lord Nash and Theodore Agnew – the former an old boy of Milton Abbey School, Dorset; the latter a former pupil of Rugby School, Warwickshire.

So, it is not only the Prime Minister who seems to be “ridiculous” with his appointees. What is it said about those in glass houses?

3.     There are some houses that are, or at least seem to be, built of rock but, ironically, are built on sand. I speak of the citadels of the Church of England (the Anglican Church).

A few days ago it became official within UK law that gay persons could get married. I would be wary of suggesting that this was met with universal acclaim within British religious society. Personally speaking, gay marriage is a matter of human rights as much as it is one of morality. The former recognises our common humanity; the latter pays obeisance to our varieties of difference and seems to be the throne to which the Anglican Church curtseys.

The Church of England is, regrettably, still recognized as the official state church of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Within this established,  but increasingly less esteemed, British institution, gay marriage continues to cause divisions.

The formal, if somewhat paradoxical, position within the Church of England, is that Anglican clergy are not able to conduct marriage ceremonies where the partners are of the same sex. There is, however, a significant body of dissent for this position within Anglican ranks. An aspect of this was recently expressed by the Bishop of Salisbury when he said: “Gay marriage embodies a commitment to be faithful, loving and lifelong. These are virtues which the Church of England wants to see maximized in society.”

Whilst declining to name any specific gay bishops with partners, the Bishop of Buckingham waded into the argument when he said: “I would discourage heterosexual curates from living with partners to whom they were not married and I do not see why it should be any different for gay people”. Yet, the same bishop, along with representatives of Liberal and Reform Judaism and the Quakers, has signed a statement “rejoicing” in gay marriage!

It would seem that very few in the Anglican Church have not been embarrassed by the antics of the anti-gay campaigners. On the other hand, conservatives and traditionalists within the same church, whilst recognizing that the battle opposing gay rights has been lost in wider society, nevertheless are determined that the Church of England should not change its stance on what these entrenched groups believe to be a rock-hard Christian moral principle.

Admirable as this stand on principle would appear to be, it is to also be recognized that it might well have something to do with the very negative position on gay rights held by the powerful Anglican Church in Africa. In the meantime, the situation in the UK is that the Church of England is prevented by government ministers – the very people who have introduced gay marriage into the secular law of the land – from solemnizing gay marriages!

Is there really no difference between a rock and a hard place?

4.     In all the words of rage and apprehension that have issued from western governments, especially those of the USA and the UK, since the Russian annexation of Crimea, none have been as repetitive as the accusation that Russia has broken “the rule of international law”.

In his speech in Moscow last week, the Russian leader Vladimir Putin wondered at the west accusing him of “violating norms of international law”, given its own military interventions. Western countries seemed to believe, he said, “that they can decide the destinies of the world, that only they can ever be right”.

It is not only Putin, however, that can amaze with his pronouncements. The same Vladimir must have gasped as the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, on returning recently from a friendly visit to Israel, immediately condemned Russia’s invasion of neighbouring Palestinian territory as “unacceptable”. Cameron, too, has been vociferous in accusing Russia of breaking the norms of international law.

David Cameron seems to have overlooked the fact that Israel, a state which has been resolutely befriended and defended by the governments of both the UK and the USA, has also been one of the most frequent and flagrant breakers of international law in contemporary political history. When did Downing Street condemn Israel or demand even a referendum over its continuing annexation of Palestinian territory for further Israeli settlements on the West Bank? This action has to be seen against the background of numerous United Nations’ resolutions for Israeli to withdraw from the West Bank, worldwide calls from human rights’ groups and even from opposition within the Israel state itself?

As for Ukraine, we can chide Russia over it’s supposed lack of respect for sovereign borders, if we have the temerity to do so. We can tell Russia to behave better towards small countries. But Putin will not return Crimea, which he regards as historically Russian territory, to the jurisdiction of the Ukraine. Vociferously requesting him to do so is as ridiculous as asking the British to hand back the Falkland Islands to Argentina!

It seems, however, that the British government – for which we, the British people, bear the responsibility of electing – cannot even spell the word hypocrisy.

Am I being too sensitive, or is it the society in which I exist and have my being? Is there in fact a distinct lack of synchronicity between what people – including myself –  in my society,  say and do at varying times? In other words, is ours “The Age of Hypocrisy”? The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines “hypocrisy” as “the assumption or postulation of moral standards to which one’s own behaviour does not conform”.

Another way of expressing this is: “Do not do as I do, but do as I say”. It is a matter worth thinking about – and not just by politicians!

RSC

Arguably the greatest Russian composer of the 20^th century, Dimitri Shostakovich, was once asked which of his musical compositions he loved the most. His reply was that he loved all of the music he composed – otherwise he would not have composed it and brought it to musical fruition!

He believed that all of the music he conceived needed to be written and to be heard – from the patriotic response to the 1905 October Revolution (2^nd symphony), to that which expressed his hostility to the Soviet regime (5^th symphony); from his view of the horror and destruction of the siege of Leningrad (7^th symphony), to his autobiographical 8^th string quartet, which was subtitled “To the victims of fascism and war”.

Dimitri Shostakovich could be described as a “conviction” composer of a range of music that included jazz, ballet, classical and more modernist compositions. He wrote music that expressed his emotions, beliefs and life commitments. He had a firm grasp of what he wished his music to say and the direction in which he wanted it to go.

I have joined in the lament at the recent death of Anthony Neil Wedgwood “Tony” Benn (1925-2014). Tony Benn was a British Labour Party politician who was a Member of Parliament for 50 years and a cabinet minister under Harold Wilson and James Callaghan. He was described in one newspaper editorial as being “one of the most charismatic, most controversial, most inspirational and most divisive public figures in the second half of the 20^th century”.

I listened with great interest in, and growing admiration for, what Tony Benn said – especially in his later years when he became something of a travelling guru, appearing on stage and in the television studio. He will always be remembered. Probably his most valuable legacy, however, will be the diaries he wrote – to which he made a written contribution every day whilst in public office. My memories will also include what I most admired about him. He was a “conviction” politician.

In the same way that Shostakovich composed music that expressed his beliefs, emotions and commitments, so Tony Benn’s personal convictions were expressed in his politics and public life. His politics were always within the traditions of the British Labour Party’s left-right divisions and were a development of a trade union-socialist position. Of particular note was the fact that he was anti-nuclear and anti-American and he positioned himself “against a more outward-looking, modernizing centrism” within the Labour movement.

In some ways Tony Benn could be regarded as a “champion of lost causes”. He certainly saw things differently to many others. Personally speaking, as someone who attracted a reputation of this kind at various times in my life, I would happily stand alongside Tony Benn. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to say that his are the giant shoulders on which I would gladly stand (with appropriate apologies to Stephen Hawking).

It has been said that conviction politicians are so rare and are appreciated so much nowadays that they are accepted, warts and all. Yet Tony Benn was demonized during his life and, in death, much of what is being said is patronizing – as if he is still a challenge, a threat, to the status quo.

A major concern of Tony Benn’s commitment to politics caused him to ask a recurring question: “Why did Labour in power fail to live up to its ambitions, and what mechanisms could ensure a better outcome in future”. He was an activist who believed in the “inherent radicalism” of the ordinary person. So, he campaigned to bring popular pressure against established power, in such areas as British membership of the EU – of which he was against, and, within his own party, he campaigned for reselection of MPs and the electoral college for party leadership elections.

There is no doubt that he was divisive. It is impossible to be a conviction politician, or a conviction composer, without dividing opinion. Shostakovich’s music was not admired by everyone, even apart from the guardians of the USSR. Benn’s politics wrought a modicum of havoc within his own party. One contemporary right-wing member of the Labour Party, Gerald Kaufman, said that the one-time left-wing manifesto drawn-up by Benn was “the longest suicide note in history”.

Mindful of Dimitri Shostakovich and his distinctive blend of music during the Soviet age, as well as Tony Benn and his somewhat unique brand of politics in the second half of the 20^th century, it is useful to reflect on the idea that “making the state a religion while using the powers of the state to shape its citizens according to consensus politics is neither the product of love or justice” (anon). It is, rather, the product of a mind given over to authoritarian beliefs which always end up eventually at fascism. The contemporary British state needs to be mindful of this. In the Soviet Union of his day, Dimitri Shostakovich was so mindful. as was Tony Benn in the UK.

Perhaps one of my favourite lines from all the obituaries written about Tony Benn is this: “Like his Puritan heroes, Tony Benn belongs in the great tradition of English revolutionaries – a passionate radical destined to be loved in popular memory for his defence of democracy and freedom, and whose passing leaves the political world a smaller place”.

 I like that. Amen.

RSC

It is common knowledge that many of those who occupy important positions in the present British government, including a substantial number who are currently engaged in determining the Conservative Party’s manifesto for the next national election, are male and former students of Eton College.

It was, therefore, somewhat surprising that it was recently announced that Michael Gove, the present Secretary of State for Education in the Coalition Government, and his wife, Sarah Vine, the Daily Mail columnist, are to place their daughter in a State Secondary School. If this happens, then Michael Gove will be the first Conservative education secretary to enrol a child in a state funded secondary school.

Gove is not himself an ex-Etonian but, after an initial state primary school experience in Aberdeen, he attended the independent Robert Gordon’s College before studying at Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford. He has famously said that he “wants all schools to be like Eton” (but has not, so far, outlined how that might become a reality). Sarah Vine describes herself as “mostly the product of the rickety state educational system of the 1980s”. Though some of her schools were “scary” and “bloodcurdling”, they did in their own way “provide me with a broad education”.

Vine considers that it is the miracle of our state system that it, like the NHS, “welcomes all-comers” – the state “doesn’t care where its pupils come from, or whether they can afford the fare, all that matters is where they’re heading”. She agrees that the private sector is built on different principles – selective, ability to pay, pupil potential – all of which encourages student snobbishness, cossetting and distrust of those who are different. The honesty of Gove and Vine is refreshing.

Despite this, however, they now know that their daughter is to attend Grey Coat Hospital Church of England Comprehensive School for Girls (in Westminster). It seems that this school is not exactly “Sinkhouse High”. It is regarded as an “amazing school”, “rated outstanding by Ofsted” and produces “lovely and well-balanced” girls. Who needs private schools when you can get your daughter, or son, into schools like Grey Coat – without paying any fees! The Secretary of State for Education and his wife are a bit out of order.

Still, the fact that Michael Gove and Saran Vine have chosen to send their daughter to a state secondary school, no matter how up-market the school, raises questions for other Conservative grandees. It used to be the case that it was only Labour politicians, particularly those on the left, who came under the microscope about the use of private education – for themselves or their offspring (remember the furore last year when Dianne Abbott announced that she was sending her son to an independent school – she still has not been allowed to forget it).

Indeed, it is reported that the former Labour education minister, Andrew Adonis, now taking his place in the House of Lords, claimed that “politicians who went to private school should have no say in the state education system.” It occurs to me at this point to mention my view that unelected politicians who permit themselves to be called “Lord” should have no say in parliamentary democracy. It would seem that Lord Adonis is a little out of order.

It might well be that the current Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, is also a tad out of order. Osborne is famous (or should that be infamous?) for saying that, with respect to the present period of British economic austerity, “we’re all in this together”. What may not generally be known is that, in 2008, it was reported that George Osborne had “withdrawn his two children from a state primary school close to the Houses of Parliament, and secured them at an £11,500-a-year prep school.” Perhaps he had a premonition about the austerity to come.

So too, the Prime Minister, David Cameron is facing a decisive choice for his own daughter later this year. The daughter of David and Samantha Cameron attends the same state primary school as Gove and Vine’s. He is said to be “terrified” by the prospect of living in central London and having to find “a good secondary school”. I would suggest that, for the ordinary residents of central London, the Prime Minister is out of order.

The decision taken by Michael Gove and Sarah Vine for their daughter raises the stakes for David and Samantha. On the other hand, in consequence of the result of next year’s parliamentary elections, there are those in the UK who are hopeful that the current Prime Minister and his wife will no longer need to find schooling for their daughter in central London!

 *****

There is another family who live in central London and who have made historic use of private education at all levels – though not necessarily in central London. I speak, of course, of the Windsors. This family has upheld many of the most famous, and most expensive, preparatory, primary, secondary and tertiary educational institution that the UK (and elsewhere) has to offer.

It would also seem that the privileges of royalty extend further than mere entrance into the hallowed halls of learning. It is reported that William Windsor, second in line to the British monarchy (another unelected office) was recently accepted for a further degree course by Cambridge University.

Now, it is true that William is also the Duke of Cambridge, but does this justify the fact that he was given entry to the course without an adequate and necessary entrance qualification.

From what Sarah Vine recounts (see the above) it is doubtful whether her academic background, though it resulted in a degree from University College, London, would have got her into a further degree course at Cambridge – even if her husband is the Secretary of State for Education.

This is yet another example of where royalty is out of order – in this case being aided and abetted by one of the UK’s finest and most prestigious universities.

 *****

There is something touching and sweet about Michael Gove, at least until the wrapping is removed! It would seem that in recent years, he has written letters of apology to his former teachers for misbehaving in class.

This begs the question, however, as to how long it will be before he writes a letter of apology to teachers in state funded schools. The reason put forward for this suggestion is that, under his watch as the Secretary for State for Education, a plethora of mistakes and injustices are being committed.

These include the following: continuous and ill-advised changes to state funded schools’ curricula and administrative processes; uncalled for expansion of academies and the further privatisation of education; ongoing cutting back of the role of LEAs in state funded education; over-provision and under-supervision of free schools; laissez faire attitudes to free schools under the guise of parental freedom to choose, including the permission to employ unqualified teachers; the refusal to provide extra funding for long overdue building maintenance in state schools, a process commenced by the previous government; references to, but no hard evidence for, the “best” teachers being in independent schools; as well as the impertinence to say that he wants all schools “to be like Eton”.

Touching and sweet – maybe! Out of order – certainly!

 *****

It is encouraging to know that I am not alone in my opposition to the misuse of nomenclature with respect to names within the UK.

The journalist Ian Jack has referred to the confusion between the words “nation”, “country” and “state” within the BBC, with “alienating effects in the three parts of the United Kingdom that aren’t England” (see my recent blog article “This sporting life”).

It would seem that, in his recent documentary on the growing economic gap between London and the rest of the UK, Evan Davis used the “country” and “Britain” as interchangeable. The programme was exclusively focused within England, even within the southern half of England. He used such terms as “moving from one end of the country to another” and “the North”, yet still remained within England.

At best this is a limited view of England, at worst it shows an appalling appreciation of specifically English and generally British geography. It may come as no surprise to learn that Evan Davis is from Dorking and, according to Ian Jack, this represent the kind of thinking “where everything north of Oxford Circus assumes a hazy dimension, but editors of the BBC should know better.” Perhaps the BBC is being rather more than a little out of order.

Jack also refers to the “National News at Ten” one night when England’s football match with Denmark was described in detail while viewers were told only that Scotland’s team had won away, without giving the score!

Ian Jack is a Scot, so it comes as no surprise to learn that he regards “the combined effect of these and other metropolitan irritants suggests that the BBC is quietly but effectively  campaigning for a ‘Yes’ victory in the referendum”. Now, as a fellow Scot, that would be a possibility the present writer would consider very much in order!

RSC 

During my sixteen years as a secondary school teacher, it was the accepted dictum that if you got an education then you got a job. This was especially the case if you were a university graduate. This was a powerful driving force in the educational process.

At the time there was no talk of the lack of apprenticeship opportunities or, at least, what today passes for an apprenticeship. When I was at school, apprenticeships lasted for 4-5 years of schooling and practical experience, rather than less than a year and little, if any, further education in the necessary areas of required expertise.

So too, little was known of zero-hours contracts; unpaid internships were unheard of, as was the idea of working for less than a living wage; there was little knowledge or experience of part-time employment or the fact that even if a graduate was willing to work stacking shelves at a grocery chain, something like 8-9 applicants would be after every single job available!

So, what is the end result of and what is it worth for many young people to be subject to SAT’s at primary school, entry examinations to grammar and expensive independent schools, year-on-year tests in secondary schools, mock GCSE’s and the real thing, AS and A Levels and, in turn, the range of examined degrees undertaken at university?

I do not recall ever telling a school leaver or university entrant to “just get a job”. I believe that I had more respect for education and for the young people involved than to offer this platitude. Formal education has its own intrinsic values; it should offer more than simply the promise of  employment – any employment – at the end of it.

So, as related by one young graduate who has been through the whole soul-destroying job-seeking process and has told the story: “Telling a young person ‘just get a job’ is not tough love. It’s like going to the Sahara, looking up and yelling ‘Just rain!’ This is weird. Stop it”. As sung by the rock group, Extreme, what is required is “More than words”.

 *****

Apart from my interest in political debate, I am not fully aware of the reasons why I may have been drawn into watching the BBC Television’s programme of parliamentary PMQT (Prime Minister’s Question Time).

For those unfamiliar with the charade of PMQT, this is the time in the parliamentary week when the incumbent Prime Minister is open to being asked questions that have to do with running the government and the governing of the nation. In a parliamentary democracy, this occasion should be a showpiece for the government and the members of parliament. But is it? The answer would seem to be a categorical “No!”

All questions to the PM are submitted to his office beforehand. He can plan a suitable answer. This permits time to couch answers in trivia, half-truths and often meaningless statements and statistics, as well as providing the opportunity, in the absence of objectivity, to subjectively abuse those persons asking awkward questions or who sit on the opposite front bench.

MP’s in the house are expected to behave with decorum, patience and an interest in what is being questioned and answered.  But the opposite seems the practice. Speakers are drowned-out in a cacophony of cheers, jeers and paper-waving, most of which is generally abusive and inflammatory.

And what of the promises made in answer to serious, awkward, necessary and practical questions. Do they come to fruition? Are there any pragmatic outcomes and positive effects in the constituencies of the MPs concerned? Are the objectives of a parliamentary democracy developed and progressed in consequence of this staged and rancorous debate in the house?

I would again suggest that the answer to each of the foregoing questions is a categorical “No!”

The display on show at PMQT is, more often than not, a disgrace. Rather than showpiece the workings of a parliamentary democracy, not to mention what a serious debate should look like and actually be, it gives an insight into the lack of respect, integrity and transparency that exists amongst the parliamentary players in British politics.

So many of the questions and too many of the answers reveal the party-political nature, the serving of vested interests and the individual manoeuvrings of those who take part.

Perhaps all of this provides an explanation as to why there are so many scandals emanating from within the Westminster Village, why so much of the electorate has so little faith in party politics and does not bother to vote at election time. The ascending numbers of the powerless are put-off by the attitudes and antics of the powerful!

Politicians must be, and be seen to be, more than the words they speak – no matter how loud they sound or sincere their tone.

 *****

In a programme to be shown soon on BBC4, the English novelist Martin Amis suggests that “having a white skin is still widely perceived as a core part of being English.”

This view is a part of what Amis seems to regard as “being English” in contemporary British society. Here is part of the rub: Amis talks of what he sees as qualifying to be “English”, but then seems to generalise his discussion to speak of being “British”. Being English and being British seem, in Amis’ view, to be coterminous. The vote in Scotland on Scottish independence from the UK later this year, may cause Amis to re-assess his ideas, even if his knowledge of geography and history don’t.

Martin Amis may even wish to think again before he ascribes certain qualities to “Englishness”. In addition to having a white skin, Amis considers that to be “a citizen of this country” (does he mean England or the UK?) a person has to exhibit the “habits of what is regarded to be civilised society, and recognisable, bourgeois society.”

What does it mean to be civilised in English society – supporting cricket and/or singing “Swing low sweet chariot” at Twickenham, taking high tea in the late afternoon, reading the classic English poets and novelists, voting for the Conservative Party at election time, claiming the music of Edward Elgar for the English upper classes, reading The Times newspaper, watching BBC television, owning an estate in the countryside or a cottage on the coast?

The perspective Amis has on “Englishness” would seem to call into question the veracity and practicality of “multiculturalism”. He views multiculturalism as a declining factor in English public life. He considers that it is an altruistic philosophy and practice that is an appropriate ideology for the good times and the tolerant sections of the population, but inadequate when the country is faced with bad times and harbours intolerant sections of the population.

It is quite possible that Martin Amis is stating a personal judgement about contemporary life in England. Although he is somewhat vague about which parts of the country he considers to be the “tolerant” and the “intolerant” sections, the topic is open to investigation and scrutiny. He appears to equate his views on multiculturalism with the possession of money. When one has money in the bank one can be sympathetic to those that don’t; when one has no money in the bank, there is little or no sympathy for others.

Tolerance of multiculturalism is, therefore, dependent on personal circumstance – where one lives and how much money one has.  By extension, possession of money may be dependent on the part of the country in which one lives. So, having money, living in a good location and being tolerant go together and, for Amis, their opposites would appear to be an obvious alternative combination.

I will look forward to watching Martin Amis’ programme when it is shown on the BBC. In the meantime, I will take some comfort from the fact that he claims not to be nostalgic for the “class society” or to possess any great enthusiasm for the “money society” which he considers has replaced it. This is an opinion with which I have some broad and basic agreement, though, to me, “class” is still a significant factor in English life.

Perhaps, from my perspective, there is even further and wider agreement with him when he says that: “Another facet of British (or does he mean English?) life in decline is the monarchy”. This tired institution is, he suggest, “nearing the end of the road.”

Reading back over the above, I believe I have satisfied myself about one question posed by Amis’ programme. He is definitely focusing on England. The nuances are too obvious. Furthermore, for Martin Amis, being English is more than the words used to describe the reality.

RSC

The news has just come through that the “visually-impaired skier Kelly Gallagher and her guide Charlotte Evans earned Great Britain their first ever gold medal at the Winter Paralympics.”  This news was accompanied by the further announcement that “the gold was Britain’s first on snow at either the Olympics or Paralympics.”

This gives me an opportunity to revisit a topic mentioned in one of my earlier blog articles, that is, the matter of using the name “Great Britain” to refer to athletes competing for the United Kingdom or otherwise using the name as a substitute for the UK in any circumstances.

The issue here is that Kelly Gallagher is from Bangor, just west of Belfast in Northern Ireland (sometimes referred to as Ulster). Now, Ms Gallagher certainly is a citizen of the United Kingdom and her passport to travel to Russia for the Winter Paralympics will have been issued by an office of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. But she neither lives in, nor is a citizen of, “Great Britain”. There is, per se, no such country or nationhood!

“Great” Britain, as the name implies, is the largest island within the British Isles, a collection of islands that also includes the Irish Republic, otherwise known as Eire. The island of Great Britain also happens to form the mainland boundaries for three of the four countries comprising the United Kingdom. These three countries are Wales, Scotland and England, which, together with Northern Ireland, comprise the United Kingdom.

It is not merely a matter of semantics to decline the use of “Great Britain” as a substitute or synonym for the United Kingdom. Similarly it is a mistaken practice, as is increasingly the case, to call sporting teams representing the United Kingdom as “Team GB”. The nation of Great Britain does not exist! To think and act otherwise is to deny persons such as Kelly Gallagher of their rightful citizenship.

Kelly Gallagher is not a resident of the island of Great Britain; neither is she a citizen of such a fictitious nation. Her country, Northern Ireland, is not part of the island geographically known as Great Britain, but it is, nevertheless, as much a constituent part of the UK as any of the other countries comprising the British nation. Why is this not recognised as such? Why are teams representing the UK not known as “Team UK”?

In view of the fact that my late mother’s family background was in Northern Ireland, what mystifies and disappoints me is the fact that there appears not to have been any public outcry about this situation. Surprisingly, there seems to have been nothing but silence from within Ulster itself, never-mind from within the rest of the United Kingdom! This is strange considering the loyalty often shown to the Union flag by the people of Northern Ireland. Has some kind of understanding been reached, or deal done, by those who control such matters – or what?

No doubt it might appeal to some minds, sporting or other, to refer to the United Kingdom as “Great Britain” for the simple and attractive reason that it includes the word “great”. Pictures of empire, power, medals and conquest might accompany the reference. But it is misplaced and should be resisted.

In reflecting on the above, it occurs to me that the United States of America never refers to any of their sporting teams as “Team America”. At all sporting events their teams call themselves for what they are, representatives of their country – the United States of America.

The United States of America shares the continent of North America with the Canadians. There is a continent called South America and a geographical location known as Central America. Often regarded for their brashness, even self-importance, the citizens of the United States may call themselves “Americans” (as UK citizens may refer to themselves as British or Britons), but they never usurp the title, mistake their nationality or wrongly identify their sporting representatives. They are proud of their correct brand.

Congratulations, therefore, to Kelly Gallagher and Charlotte Evans. The latter is the skier from Chatham, Kent, who was the guide to Kelly Gallagher in their gold medal-winning effort on the slopes of Sochi. In the event, Northern Ireland partnered by England – truly a United Kingdom team!

 *****

Michael Clarke is the current captain of an Australian cricket team that overwhelmingly defeated England (not “Team GB”) in the recent Ashes series and then went on to defeat the world’s number one team, South Africa, in a series of matches in South Africa. He is also ranked amongst the finest batsmen of his era.

Yet, despite this impressive success, it would seem that, in the eyes of the Australian cricketing public, Michael Clarke has been the least popular captain of Australia’s national cricket team for at least a generation. He is denied the popularity of such recent predecessors as Ponting, Waugh, Taylor and Border – all of whom were superb cricketers and excellent captains of some of the finest teams Australian cricket has produced.

This is the opinion of one journalist who, writing from the northern suburbs of Melbourne, considers that Michael Clarke “has been damned not for what he has done, but for what he looks like and who he is wrongly perceived to be”. The journalist – perhaps an Englishman humbled by Australia’s exploits on the cricket field in recent months (but that is sheer speculation) – further considers that the attitude towards Clarke “reflects an increasingly cosmetically-inclined nation, where it sometimes seems reality no longer aligns with self-perception”.

After an absence of some two years, I will be returning to Australia later this year. It will be interesting to ask the question, or find out from personal experience, whether or not a further observation of this journalist is accurate when he states: “It is a nation that seems ill at ease with itself  – where everyone seems to watch reality cooking shows, but hardly anyone cooks at home; where most people say they still believe in tolerance and a fair go for all, but many seem to have little objection to government policies that have allowed at least one asylum seeker in Australia’s care to be beaten to death in an off-shore detention centre.”

Now, the fact that I have enjoyed many a fine, home-cooked meal with family and friends down-under would cause me to seriously question the first part of this statement. However, the observation that the Australian nation “seems ill at ease with itself” in terms of its self-belief in “tolerance and a fair go for all” is one that I cannot so easily dismiss.

The second part of the statement seems to reflect a view of Australia echoed in the recent documentary film on Australia called “UTOPIA”. As mentioned in a previous blog article specifically dealing with this documentary,  its content is  highly critical of the Australian attitude towards its Indigenous Peoples, the Australian Aboriginals. The film’s maker, the world-acclaimed Australian journalist, John Pilger, reserves his strongest criticism for successive Australian governments.

However, he does not ignore the question of how the once-popular Aussie attitude of “tolerance and a fair go for all” may now be subject to severe scrutiny when it comes to the contemporary issue of Australia’s treatment of its Indigenous Peoples and, by extension, asylum seekers.

In the view of the above-mentioned journalist, Michael Clarke, no matter what his achievements, will never win over the public entirely. He concludes: “That says more about them than him. In such an age, Michael Clarke is perhaps the captain Australia no longer deserves.” In view of the apparently muted response in Australia to “UTOPIA”, perhaps John Pilger is the journalist Australia no longer deserves – a prophet without honour in his own country.

I am looking forward to visiting my home town of Melbourne. Not all of my family and friends down-under are cricket followers, but they are all Aussies (with the occasional Kiwi). I trust that I will once again find that Australia is the lucky country that all Australians – including the Indigenous Peoples, as well as my family and friends – deserve.

RSC

In my previous article I referred to the anger which has recently been expressed by a substantial number of the UK’s leading church-persons. The anger concerned the direction of government in pursuing its austerity programme – increasing cuts to welfare benefit, a hands-off approach to the wealthy and the maintenance of a low wage economy all were all a part of a general critique of this coalition government.

The anger over government policy and practice is not, however, confined exclusively to the clergy. In a poll conducted by The Guardian/ICM towards the end of last year, it was found that large numbers of the British population are disillusioned about, therefore disengaged from, the political process. This is what apparently lies behind the often-stated “apathy” of the British electorate and which, as voiced by politicians and pundits in harmony, seeks to be the explanation for the low voter turn-out at election times. It could also be one reason why politicians of all colours tend to dismiss the opinions of voters who honestly offer their opinions – to their detriment, as more than one politician has discovered in recent years.

The Guardian/ICM poll showed that voters are not apathetic; they are angry. Their anger is directed towards a previous Labour government that did the conservatives’ job for them. The Blair-Brown years were notable for the idea that you look after everyone by championing the concerns of the wealthy. The “trickle-down” effect has resulted in no flows and very few, if any, actual trickles!

Then there is the Liberal Democrat contribution to the present coalition government. They have sought to laud themselves as a third force in British politics but, as their activity in government has shown, they have, somewhat blindly, been loyal followers of the Conservative majority. They have tampered with the edges, but have failed to make an impression at the core. Despite the fanciful challenge of UKIP, British politics is still an historical two-party, adversarial system – perhaps more entrenched than ever. Prime Minister’s question time in parliament is a singular and lamentable expression of this fact.

What, then, did The Guardian/ICM poll reveal about how people feel about the state of UK politics? Amongst other things, it showed that 25% are “bored”; 16% are “respectful”, but only 2% said they were “inspired”. Interestingly, 46% of poll respondents believed that “MPs are just on the take” (not surprisingly in view of a succession of scandals involving Westminster).

I consider that, in spite of my previously stated view that politics is still important for the ordinary person and that democracy is worth fighting for, the British voter is, nevertheless, increasingly powerless to alter the direction of government in the country. It would seem that governments of whatever persuasion are able to exercise only limited control over events. These are mainly in the state sector. Real power is in the hands of financial institutions, multi-national business, the wealthy power-brokers who lobby and control governments, as well as those in advertising and the media who shape public perception about the world in which we live.

Of course people are angry. Their own vote has little or no power, because politicians insist that they can only control the public sector. This sector operates in ever-decreasing circles due to the privatisation programmes being undertaken by successive British governments – and most expressly by the current coalition government. The private sector is feeding-off the public domain, through government contracts to private firms, tax cuts for the wealthy and austerity programmes being paid for through extensive cuts to welfare benefits – all justified in the name of an ideology that says that we need as a country to live within our means, especially if we have little to our name and circumstances in the first place. No change here, then!

Politics, in the UK as elsewhere in the world, remains, indeed is becoming more, secretive, elitist and centralised. In a democracy we elect the peoples’ representatives and expect then to govern with the wisdom and practice of established precedent and institutions. However, in the words of one writer on the subject, “Power is still an alibi for avoiding responsibility while the ‘little people’ bear the brunt of ever more intrusive surveillance, on-the-spot fines, increasing laws and regulations”. It would seem that established democratic precedent and institutions can no longer protect the people of the United Kingdom.

In a recent interview about several of his upcoming politics-related television productions, the British playwright, Sir David Hare, commented on the seeming lack of democratic control over the security services (not to mention the judiciary). He said: “I think it’s partly because government has failed. People no longer believe in government. The crisis in politics has coincided with the conjuring of, as it were, this universal enemy that appears to want to destroy our way of life, so there isn’t a buffer any more between the security services and us.” He goes on: “Apart from anything else, the war on terror has been the biggest criminal racket for the past 10 years”. In this situation, Hare believes that we, the ordinary British citizens, are powerless.

Several years ago Hare considered that the British people had lost faith in all but three institutions – the BBC, the NHS, and the monarchy (in view of my on-going experiences with the NHS over the past few years, I still retain some faith in the worth of this institution). He now seems to think that such faith is gone, to be replaced by the unfailing deference to “the mysterious imperative of national security”. The state now uses this institution in an exploitative manner   tantamount to blackmail.

In this context and with reference to the decay in democracy and the development of digital communications, Heather Brooke, in her book “The Revolution Will Be Digitised”, says that “One of the biggest problems is the selection process. In the current setup, people gain political power not through merit but most often because they have sucked up to the right powerful people. Deference and patronage still rule the day: politicians and public servants gain and maintain their power not by doing their jobs well, or even competently, but by staying in favour with those who appoint them. This has to change.”

With this I concur. The people may be angry, but how angry do they have to get before this change can occur?

RSC