I made an unfortunate error on my computer this morning and accidentally tuned into the meeting of the ‘Accession Council’ of the Privy Council, which met to officially announce that a 73 year-old bloke from SW1 had been nominated to be King. It was an important meeting because the front row was dominated by six former prime ministers, each of whom clearly looked as if, had they only just been given a few more years, they could have saved the country and turned it into the arcadia they promised on their first day. Oh well, let’s not talk about Enoch Powell’s famous comment now. The striking thing about this gathering was not just how it was largely comprised of grey-haired white men, but how seriously they took it. One of the few women present, ‘Lord’ of the Council, Penny Morduant MP (she’s on the stage doing the MC-ing) indicated how serious the business was with a series of eight ‘proclamations’ most of which authorised various secretaries of state to order guns to be fired in Hyde Park, Edinburgh and Belfast (no mention of Cardiff). Proclamation No.4 gave us a clue as to who really runs the country when authority was given to the Aldermen of the City of London and their associated worthies to shout hurrahs from wherever they roll up their trouser legs. This display of national unity was marred however by a controversy over the Privy Counsellors who couldn't get into the meeting. In 1952, there were about 250 PCs, now there are over 700. Such is the planning that goes into these great occasions of state nobody thought about moving the venue to accommodate the vastly expanded numbers of ’Right Honourables.’ Well, I suppose it’s on a par with crowding in airports, you just can’t get the staff. Anyway, the good news is that the 300% rise in Rt. Hons. does suggest that the UK is three times more honourable than it was in 1952, which is no bad thing when you think about it. I am relieved the proclamation was made. For King Charles 3 it must feel like being elected onto a district council unopposed. It saves a lot of hassle. Many of his predecessors had no such luck. In fact, one could argue that the majority of his predecessors had to literally fight for the job. That was one way in which the metal of our hereditary monarchs was tested. Well, call me old fashioned, but . . .
0 Comments
+At some earlier point in their lives, it seems that both of our two main political leaders expressed republican views. But the radicalism of earlier days withers the more it is exposed to the oleaginous wiles of the British establishment, with all its inducements and rewards. Both leaders are now fully signed-up monarchists and neither will espouse the slightest doubt that the British monarchy is the mainstay of our quality of life, aka as ‘the best country in the world’ to live in. There will be no hint—after the mourning for the Queen is over—that this might be a good time to look again at whether the flummery, obsequious deference and deeply ingrained class distinctions we all hold dear are actually any good for a country facing a very shaky future. But that is one of the very reasons we’re told we need the monarchy, to provide a rock of continuity we can cling onto as more waves of misfortune ravage our crumbling, post-imperial glory. But you’ve got to give it to ’em—the royals can always come up with something to distract us when the going gets tough—a birth, a wedding, an affair, a divorce, a funeral. With careful timing we can now anticipate the coronation. Perhaps next year, not too long before a general election. +The coronation will, after the state funeral, be the biggest show on earth, bigger even than Maggie Thatcher’s semi-state occasion. At both events our statement of pride will be expressed through a display of plumage, both literal and metaphorical, from the plumed hats to the Ruritanian chestware. Ahh, the chestware! I came across this photo which shows Prince Edward alongside Prince Charles, sporting a fine display of medals. Since Edward’s military service was short, uneventful and prematurely curtailed I wondered which campaigns his medals were awarded for. None, it turns out. Three of them, the Queen’s Silver, Golden and Diamond Jubilee medals are just commemorative gongs somewhat less useful than a jubilee mug. I wonder how many other worthy recipients got the whole set? I imagine his line-up will be lengthened when Edward gets his Coronation Medal (there’s bound to be one, isn’t there?). These medals are created to adorn the emperor’s clothes. No member shall go naked up the aisle of state. One of the medals was given to Edward by the Sultan of Brunei. That must have been a real honour (“500 Rolls-Royces, $20,000 haircuts, and a 1,788-room palace: Everything we know about the lavish life of the Sultan of Brunei, who sparked outrage after introducing a law punishing homosexuality with death” screams the internet). It is interesting (sort of) that another far eastern potentate, Kim Jong-Un seems to avoid the chestware altogether, preferring, generally to be seen in unadorned, austere tunics. Perhaps we should stick with the medals. +The Archbishop of Cant(erbury) gave one of his routine solemn homilies this morning on the BBC’s Thought for the Day slot. The Archbish gave us his usual, standard stuff about eternity, resurrection and all that, which made me wonder: is there a special place in Heaven for royals, or do we all just get mingled together, indistinguishable from each other? And will there be a special barber’s shop to keep the Sultan of Brunei in trim? +One sight to avoid when the funeral takes place will be the twitching, sobbing, self-flagellating form of Nicholas Witchell, the BBC’s royal correspondent (whom I believe Prince Charles once described as that ‘dreadful man’). At times I thought Nicholas, wearing the appropriate wig could have stood in as Her Majesty’s double. But alas, no. Now, as the baton is passed on, poor Nicholas has reached the apogee of his career, and must await his medal. Whatever you do, don't shake hands with Liz Truss.
Perhaps more on this subject later . . . +It has been suggested that the ‘new’ government will freeze energy prices, paid for by borrowing around £100 billion over the next year or two. No doubt such a freeze could be maintained until the next general election, late next year or early in 2024. That will be one of the considerations. Another is that if the borrowing is to be paid back—by the public—over decades, then once again pensioners, the perceived core demographic of Conservative support won’t have to worry too much. They’ll be dead before the loan is paid off. And all the while energy company profits will be propped up. It’s an all-round good’un for the Tories, they will hope.
+I listened to the live broadcast of our new PM’s speech at teatime today, and was most impressed by her polished use of clichés, even to the extent that in no time at all there are going to be ‘spades in the ground’ and she’s going to ‘get Britain working again.’ Such originality! Such insight! Of course, whatever a new PM says on the steps of No.10 is largely going to be bollocks. They’re too thrilled to be standing there to say anything profound. Remember Thatcher with her quote from St Francis (or whoever) about bringing us all together? Nothing was further from her mind. One of the media sports on such occasions is to read into the new PM’s inaugural words (thank god we don’t have to go through a US style inauguration ceremony every two years) all sorts of things they would like to think she/he really said. Naturally, such commentary will be worthless, since the commentariat is rarely any wiser than the rest of us. They could save their breath and just say ‘same old, same old,’ a cliché which in a year or two’s time will have proven its worth. Some pundit on the wireless today said that we in the benighted UK are about to get a ‘new’ government. I think he mis-spoke—what we’re getting is the Continuity Conservative Party with a coat of varnish to hide the old cracks. A number of people have also been given the opportunity to say that Liz Thick is not ‘thick.’ I have to say that there is a danger that to describe her as thick could lead to accusations of misogyny. In my own case however I would insist innocence of that charge. I freely communicated, years ago my view that George W. Bush was thick. And others of the male species. What determines the definition in these cases is not whether these politicians have the wherewithal to rise to great office, but what they do with it when they get it. By all appearances our new PM has no originality, no compassion and no schema of service which benefits us all. She is a born-again Tory as shallow as a shadow, hence her mimicking Thatcherite lines and a complete absence of analysis of what’s happened these last 30 or 40 years. She is thoroughly imbued with the belief that Britain’s future lies somewhere well beyond the neo-liberal wet dream. I’m not sure the Archbishop of Canterbury (ABC) does irony, but when he reportedly said today that he was praying for our new PM, I chose to have heard an ironic remark. Unless ABC too is thick, he well knows that God has other more important things to think about (like what He needs to do to create the next Big Bang, for example).
Of course, if it is true that we are getting a new government, which has in effect been chosen by 80,000 geriatric Tory members (I’m pretty much near the geriatric category myself so I can say this without prejudice) then perhaps Her Maj could step up and say to Liz you can kiss my hand (or whatever) just as soon as you’ve won a general election. That would be an honourable thing to do. Perhaps it was just too difficult getting V.I.P. visas for western leaders to show up in Moscow for Gorbachev’s funeral. Or perhaps they were worried about being kidnapped at the graveside. Somehow, Orban of Hungary made it—no doubt offering his respects to the late leader who made his own semi-dictatorship possible (one of the unintended consequences). Orban probably had a meeting with Putin afterwards. Of course, this was not a state funeral, since the Soviet Union hasn’t existed for a generation, but I think the non-appearance of western leaders illustrates their hypocrisy to the full. And cowardice. Had they shown up, or tried to show up Putin would have been, to say the least, embarrassed. His own excuse for not being there (scheduling commitments, too busy) was exactly the kind of disingenuousness we now expect from our own ‘leaders,’ like Johnson not finding the time to be grilled by Andrew Neil, or Liz Thick refusing to do a BBC interview. Who do they think they are kidding? This attitude of non-accountability is becoming endemic. Even my old friend Gordon Prentice, standing in regional elections in Ontario with a deliberate intent of exposing the incumbent’s friendly relationships with multiple developers is finding it hard to even get the media bothered by the silence of the said candidate—who knows, with his big electoral spend (part funded by developers) he stands a very good chance of being re-elected. This is the culture of politics today—don’t take risks, keep your head down and say as little as you can (a la Liz Thick). So, despite all the praise spouted forth about Gorby, no risks were taken. Perhaps the lesson here is that Gorbachev was the last leader who really did take risks, and all those that have followed have said to themselves there but the grace of god go I. Best stick to platitudes and no-shows. What a bunch of wankers.
|
Archives
March 2024
|