Being "a bit anti-establishment"

In September I wrote a post about how I didn't feel like I was feeling what everyone else was feeling after the Queen died. I had some feedback on that post. My mum said it seemed "cynical". My friend Paul said I sounded "a bit anti-establishment". 

My first thought when Paul said that was "Only a bit?" Maybe it took me saying something out of step with the prevailing sentiment to show that I'm a bit anti-establishment. But I'm not going to deny it. I think there are a lot of problems with 'the establishment' and the way things are arranged in the UK.

I've been a republican for a long time - probably all my adult life. It's nothing personal about any member of the Royal Family. As another friend, Jon, said, the Queen chose to do the public duty side of her role, and I respect the Queen for playing the hand she was dealt and playing it well. But I don't have to approve of the way the deck was stacked. (What's the saying? Hate the game, not the player?)

I studied Politics at A-level, back when politics was comparatively boring. We spent a year looking at the British political system and a year looking at the American political system. That left me firmly of the opinion that the House of Lords should be abolished. This has current relevance if you can be a Prime Minister for a mere 44 days and still give a load of party donors paid jobs for life in the House of Lords. My preference would be to replace that unelected body with regional parliaments in England that have power devolved to them.

The American system seems to have gone horribly wrong in this century, but the idea of splitting powers between Congress (the legislature) and the President (the executive) is fundamentally sound. Having an elected President gives everyone a say in who holds the top job, unlike the incredible farce we have seen recently appointing a new Prime Minister.

In the last few years I have become an active supporter of Welsh Independence. Overall, you can see a trend in my thinking - a greater say in who governs with more direct influence for voters. A self-governing Cymru will mean more direct accountability to the people who live here. 

I was recently asked if I felt an independent Wales was viable - I replied asking whether the UK still feels viable. The person I was talking to is politically astute and told me for the first time in their life they felt truly fearful for the future. My feeling is increasingly framed as 'Can Wales afford to stay in the Union?', rather than 'Can Wales afford to leave?'

I have strong opinions beyond abstract proposals for changing political structures. I think all "necessities" - power, water, housing (to an extent), broadband - should be nationalised and run as public services to ensure everyone's needs are met. (I have heard an interesting idea that football clubs should be 'nationalised' and run for the good of communities. It's an idea that had some merit to it. Social institutions are important. However, I would start with the utilities and transportation.) 

I'd also support the idea of a Universal Basic Income, to remove financial stress from people and really free up creative endeavour and innovation. Wages would then reflect the value of a particular job in society and work would have greater inherent value. 

Universal Basic Income is a way to break the poverty cycle and reset our society. There is good evidence that the solution to poverty is actually to give poor people enough money to live on. That sounds so blindingly obvious it feels almost like sarcasm. But it's hard to argue against, unless you are willing to ignore all the research and cling to your prejudices that all poor people are stupid or irresponsible. Of course, some people might prefer the UK to be a nation of foodbanks and misery. They can keep voting Tory. I'm not going to apologise for wanting things to be better than that.

Don't know the writer; agree with the message

Because of its ever-presence in the lives of almost everyone who is alive, people forget the NHS was considered radical and revolutionary in its time. It was vigorously opposed by the Conservative Party of its day (and also by a lot of doctors!) and even now the idea of free healthcare available at the point of need is rare around the world. I believe in the NHS concept and believe it is worth defending, which is becoming increasingly necessary as it is being deliberately under-funded and privatised by stealth. 

My point about the NHS is that, generally, we can get used to radical approaches. Welsh Independence, or republicanism, or nationalising utilities, or Universal Basic Income, may all appear radical and unachievable. But so did the NHS when Aneurin Bevan first entered politics. 

So, having said all that, overall I'm happy to be described as "a bit anti-establishment". The only bit I would quibble with is the word "bit".

End of the EIIR era

While there has been an undercurrent in news reports for a little while regarding the health of Queen Elizabeth II, there was an unexpected suddenness in events last Thursday. The news cycle focused on the Queen under the care of doctors in Balmoral, it was revealed family members were travelling to see her, and then came the announcement that she had passed away, all in the space of an afternoon. 

This news rather eclipsed the installation of a new Prime Minister a few days earlier. That saga which started months ago had finally concluded with Liz Truss winning more votes from Conservative Party members - meaning that there was briefly a Monarch and a Prime Minister with the same first name. One of the Queen's last public appearances was welcoming the new Liz.

Events since the announcement of the Queen's death have unfolded quickly. The new king proclaimed at events around the country, a new Prince and Princess of Wales entitled, plans for a funeral procession and state funeral bank holiday announced. The "lucky unlucky" politics students I envied back in July have even more big political happenings to assimilate into their studies. 

But I feel like I am out of step with a lot of people right now, in this period of mandatory mourning presented as a time of unstinting sorrow by the BBC without any 'balance' or dissenting voices. (It's not like climate change or Brexit, when the state broadcaster will leave no rock unturned to find a voice to present the other side.)

Maybe my dislocation from the mainstream narrative is because I don't like being told how I should be feeling about things. It's inescapable. Mournful music played in fast food restaurants. Messages of condolences on websites and in apps. Endless rolling coverage and talking heads on TV. The subtext is very clear - you must feel sad; sadness is the only acceptable emotion. 

I have no doubt that the people who are posting about their sadness on social media, or are texting in their grief to radio stations, genuinely feel that way. While everyone knew the Queen was not going to live forever, this has been sudden, unexpected, a shock. It is a massive change to a key element of the societal background in an afternoon. For most of us - anyone under 70 - the Queen has been queen for all our lives. Change like that, beyond our control, provokes a sense of loss, which feels like grief. 

There is a theory that our culture is still very much 'keep calm and carry on', bear your burdens in silence, maintain a stiff upper lip, recognise that 'it could be worse', and so on. Even if we don't feel that way on the inside, we might project that to the outside. Then along comes a moment when we have permission to actually feel things, and all that grief comes out. It may even be easier to grieve for a public figure like the Queen, instead of processing the private grief for family members and beloved friends that is harder to face and deal with. 

That might explain some of the grief-talk. It's also true that lots of people admired and liked the Queen, or at least their projection of her. Because, really, nobody outside a very small circle of people actually knew her. What people like is a version of the Queen they carry in their own heads - a caring, decent human being who wanted to do the right thing, considered her regal duties as an act of service, and was friends with Paddington Bear. (And that seems to have been an image the Queen encouraged.)

People go as far as asserting that the Queen had a deep 'personal' Christian faith. The people claiming this seem certain, but it's impossible to know what anybody really believes about anything, let alone how deep their piety goes. Ultimately the only people who know the strength of a person's religious faith are the believer and their god, and I have doubts about how much the latter knows. 

In the last couple of days I have been really struck by this image, which sums up where we are as a country. (Borrowed from the artist Dayvid. who posted it on Twitter)

That picture caused me to stop because for all the nice versions of the Queen people have in their heads, she was still the monarch - pretty much the absolute representation of the institutionalised inequality and inequity that is baked into our society. One reason why I have been a republican for most of my adult life is because I see no reason why one person should be memorialised on an illuminated sign and another person be left to beg next to that sign.

However, now is apparently not the time for questioning privilege. People who have protested mildly at various ceremonies around the country have been arrested - one man in Oxford on his way home from church was arrested for just asking who elected the new king. He was later de-arrested because asking questions isn't actually a crime... yet. Other people have been threatened with arrest for holding up signs saying 'Not my king', or for holding blank pieces of card that they could write a protest sign on. 

We are mandated to grieve, not question.

But now is the best time to ask questions - and that is precisely why things are moving so quickly. That's why King Charles was proclaimed in key cities in the United Kingdom within 72 hours. That's why Prince William had the title Prince of Wales conferred on him so rapidly. 

This haste, while the rest of the country is pausing activities to mourn, is about acting fast to retain privilege. There can't be a gap in the accession, because if there was a brief window of time when we didn't have a monarch... people might get ideas that maybe we don't need a monarch at all. 

A post that's not really about the Royal Wedding

I drove home from Gateshead to Cardiff today, thinking that the world would be watching the Royal Wedding so the roads would be quiet.

Apparently much of the world had the same idea, with many people taking advantage of the extra day off to get in a long weekend away with the caravan. Unfortunately my idea of counting the caravans and camper vans to provide me with some blog fodder backfired, as I missed a motorway turn and so we ended up in Leicester.

(I counted 313 before the realisation that I was on the wrong road struck! That total includes 5 'Herbie Vans' - still the coolest campers ever.)

Anyway, that added about 30 minutes to our journey. Cathy did some first-class navigating to get us back on track.

I'm not sure I missed much by opting to drive than watch TV. I gather the bride wore a nice dress.

I have mixed feelings about the whole thing really. I'm kind of ambivalent - it's nice that they got married, but I don't always want to go to weddings of people I know, let alone strangers. (I don't mind the actual weddings - it's the hours of standing around waiting for photos to be taken and the interminable discos I can't really stand.)

But it's over now, and with any luck the world will return to some semblence of normality fairly quickly.