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".

Quotes from Raymond Williams, playwright and political thinker

Occasionally I read a quote that just leaps out and sticks with me. Often these are from quite unexpected sources - like when I read an article written by the Welsh health minister, Mark Drakeford, which included this quote:

“To be truly radical is to make hope possible rather than despair convincing.”

I liked that. In the political narratives around us, it all seems to be about despair - extremists, the pressures of migrants, the NHS at breaking point, the economy. Every party, or factions in parties, seems to be trying to convince us that the other side will bring ruin upon us. And we seem to be buying into this. The despair has become convincing. Hope seems impossible.

I've been called a radical a few times for my politics and theological world view. It's not a label I would use to myself. But then if I am going to be regarded as a radical, I want my lived out beliefs to be a radicalism that makes hope possible.

The person who said “To be truly radical is to make hope possible rather than despair convincing.” was a playwright and political thinker, Raymond Williams. This particular quote was from a book called Resources of Hope, which was published posthumously in 1989.

The internet - that great reservoir of quotes - has some more interesting thoughts from him, many of which I agree with, and some that have made me think about things, if nothing else. Raymond Williams was very interested in class and society, and also the moral bankruptcy of unalloyed capitalism, all of which I am interested in. So, here are some more thoughts, in his own words:

“Culture is one of the two or three most complicated words in the English language.” (Keywords, 1983)

“Real independence is a time of new and active creation: people sure enough of themselves to discard their baggage; knowing the past is past, as shaping history, but with a new confident sense of the present and the future, where the decisive meanings and values will be made.”

“We all like to think of ourselves as a standard, and I can see that it is genuinely difficult for the English middle class to suppose that the working class is not desperately anxious to become just like itself. I am afraid this must be unlearned.” (Culture and Society, 1958)

“What breaks capitalism, all that will ever break capitalism, is capitalists. The faster they run the more strain on their heart."

“It wasn't idealism that made me, from the beginning, want a more secure and rational society. It was an intellectual judgment, to which I still hold. When I was young its name was socialism. We can be deflected by names. But the need was absolute, and is still absolute.”

We always listen to the voices outside the house

My house has no front garden. You step out the front door and you’re on the pavement. Our living room window similarly opens out onto the street.

When people walk past you hear snippets of conversation. Arguing couples, people discussing their medication, parents moaning at their kids, teenagers gossiping about who got off with who.

I find it hard not to listen to the voices outside the house. Which I’m sure irks my wife when she’s trying to tell me something.

Recently I’ve been thinking about how much we do the same thing in church. Recently we had Shane Claiborne come to my church and talk about living ‘radically’. (That’s a word that is currently in vogue, will stay in vogue for a year or so, and will be in vogue again in about six years time – you get used to seeing things spin round again in Christian circles).

I’ve got nothing against Shane. He won me over and I went perfectly ready to find fault. But I do wonder whether we really needed to ship a guy in from Philadelphia to tell us about how to love the people around us.

We have people living sacrificially and working (hard) in our church. We have people going out day in day out to interact with a community that really doesn’t give a shit about what we believe. But these guys keep on going out and serving. What could they tell us about loving the people around us?

Or are we just used to them? Their voices are the ones we know, and we can just about hear tantalising snippets of conversation from outside the house.

I’ll give another example. Soul Survivor last year shipped in two speakers from down under – one Australian and one New Zealander. Again, nothing against those people, one was very good in what he said, one less so. But again did we really need to hear what was essentially very middle of the road commentary in an antipodean twang?

Or did the fact they’d travelled so far make the things they said seem more valid?

We do the same thing in workplaces as well. The place I just left chronically under-invested in an essential part of its business. Just before I walked out the door forever (dangerous, using that word I know, but hey) they got a consultant in. The first thing said consultant said was that this particular department was ridiculously small.

Helloooooo? That’s what several staff members had said over and over. Why does it take a voice from outside the house to be heard? Why do we overlook the wisdom sitting right next to us?

We chase after new knowledge. We hanker after hearing something new and exciting from an exotic speaker hailing from a foreign land. And we think we’re smart to track down these dispensers of wisdom.

But maybe we’re just so dumb we ignore the people in the room who have grown tired of trying to be heard by us.