From 1984:
It was part of the economy drive in preparation for Hate Week. The flat was seven flights up, and Winston, who was thirty-nine and had a varicose ulcer above his right ankle, went slowly, resting several times on the way. On each landing, opposite the lift-shaft, the poster with the enormous face gazed from the wall. It was one of those pictures which are so contrived that the eyes follow you about when you move. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, the caption beneath it ran...
Winston's evenings were fuller than ever. Squads of volunteers, organized by Parsons, were preparing the street for Hate Week, stitching banners, painting posters, erecting flagstaffs on the roofs, and perilously slinging wires across the street for the reception of streamers. Parsons boasted that Victory Mansions alone would display four hundred metres of bunting.
From The Huffington Post:
Monday, 28 May 2012
Hate Week
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Is the Royal Family particularly Home-Ownerist?
B, we live in a country where the head of state, historically, is whoever has the most land and the most castles, until recently, a lot of large landowners were allowed to sit in the legislature as of right.
The Duke of Cornwall (i.e. Prince Charles) effectively has his own country - certain land laws apply differently in Cornwall. So yes, the Royal Family is at the pinnacle of the Homey pyramid.
Thankfully, I think they're in decline. I was driving to work today and into some of the more Conservative areas around town and there were 3 houses on the whole route that had put out flags or bunting.
Of course, we'll hear various bullshit about how popular they are because of how many people turned out, as though people would still turn out if you didn't have a large pop concert and fireworks.
I wouldn't mind the hereditary system, if I thought they were in some way superior to me. But despite having fantastic education and all privileges and having done the job for decades, both the Queen and Prince Charles show little in the way of intelligence, charm or oratory. Have you ever watched a Queen's Christmas Message that you haven't forgotten 5 minutes afterwards?
TS, the recent Guardian/ICP poll said that 69% of people were happy with the monarchy.
... and what is it with the fancy faux military uniforms? Did all the other 20th and 21st century dictators copy the European 19th and 20th century monarchy (the British monarchy are pretty much the only ones left who routinely do this)? Or does it go deeper than that?
I know they still enjoy majority support, but how strong is that? Look at what happened over Diana's death, when the monarchists got pretty angry with the Queen. Look at how many monarchists say things like "it should skip a generation to William" without considering that such a view is incompatible with being a monarchist.
Most monarchists don't arrive at the view that the monarchy is a good idea. They've been told it's a good idea, and either never questioned it or gone with the herd. Change the way the herd goes and they'll all follow quite swiftly. The remaining monarchists are the middle and upper classes that want to retain the class structures.
And yes, the military uniforms and faux job titles of "commander in chief" are about making them seem important. Prince Charles walks down a line inspecting the troops, as though he matters to that regiment being combat ready. At least I hope that's all he gets to do and isn't going to be called on to work out battle tactics.
"we live in a country where the head of state, historically, is whoever has the most land and the most castles"
Mark, you must have been smoking behind the bike sheds during your history lessons. The only people who strong-armed their way into the monarchy were William I, Henry VII and Oliver Cromwell, AFAIK. All the rest inherited it, whether they had land and castles or not.
"Look at how many monarchists say things like "it should skip a generation to William" without considering that such a view is incompatible with being a monarchist."
In what way is it incompatible?
Anyway, the Queen and Prince Charles may have their failings, but they are still a lot better than David Cameron or Tony Blair and, yes, those are exactly the sort of people who would be President of Britain if we were a republic.
I support the monarchy (even though there is a risk of Charles succeeding to the throne and using it to promote his hippy-ite opinions that, as part of current government policy, are causing great economic hardship to the poorest people in this country).
The alternative is either the PM as Head of State or a separate president, and we know full well that any system for electing a president will be arranged so as to ensure only a (failed or soon to fail) politician will get the job.
Our current system seems to work pretty well for us because the Head of State has no direct political power. She is a figurehead and her job is to give a bit of sparkle to peoples lives here and there and a big sparkle on occasions like the Silver, Golden and, now, Diamond Jubilees.
It always tickled me that George Galloway cited the presence of half a million or more people on the streets of London as evidence that opposition to the Iraq war was the majority view and should prevail whilst remaining a republican despite the far greater numbers that turned out for the Golden Jubilee.
As for the "fancy faux military uniforms" they are fancy but not faux. Of course the royals can hand themselves all sorts of titular positions over various parts of the armed forces, but those positions remain real and substantive as long as their presence at the top gives something to those beneath them - and it seems to. Everyone knows that a royal Colonel-in-Chief is not going to have any part to play in the direction, management or activity of armed combat, they are there as constitutional figureheads. Whether such figureheads are members of the same family or anyone else is beside the point, what matters is that they have legitimacy in their roles in the eyes of the servicemen and women.
One other advantage of the current system is that you can have someone as titular head for a long time and provide an excuse for a party when they clock-up a decent number of years.
If it ain't broke don't mend it. It might have its flaws but it's not broke, as we will see this coming weekend.
While the british monarchy is associated with landownerism, monarchies are adaptable, also to societies with a more flat structure in landownership. I don't really care for the pop-monarchy we see today, but for the same reasons as B and TFB, I'll take a western-european style constitutional monarchy over a republic any day. A quote from here (lengthy read) sums it up nicely:
To sum up my argument for monarchism: it keeps societies from worshiping themselves. From this self-worship comes the legitimacy of democratic appropriation of power from empirical society to the state, this latter being (amongst other things) the collective representation of society, society’s “ego” if you will.
The point of the Royals inspecting the troops is to instil loyalty into the troops. Obviously instilling loyalty into a standing army is very important; it's the only thing that makes them listen to the state and stops them staging a coup.
If it came down to it, I'm not sure whether the armed forces would side with the Monarchy or Parliament. Without those Royal inspections etc, it would definitely be Parliament.
TS, how strong is it? Your guess is as good as mine.
B, TFB:
1. There are different kinds of President, from countries like France where he is top dog, through USA, where he is very powerful, to Germany where he is purely symbolic.
2. The word 'President' is thus meaningless. To all intents and purposes, David Cameron is 'President' in the USA sense.
3. I wasn't criticising the concept of having a symbolic, hereditary monarchy, I'm perfectly happy with that. I was criticising the personality cult and the Home-Owner-Ism.
Kj, agreed. I did a bit of Googling and it seems that your lot in Norway like wearing the fancy uniforms as well sometimes.
J, I'm sure that serving troops identify primarily with themselves, and they are perfectly capable of loyalty to the country generally the same as anybody else.
In any event, it's Parliament (or the government) who decides whether to go to war or not, so it would be very helpful if the army were nominally loyal to Parliament/the government rather than to the King or Queen, at least that makes it clear from the start who is in charge.
Would as many people sign up to the army knowing that they'd have to swear an oath of loyalty to the likes of Blair, Brown, Cameron and those who will come after them?
In what way is it incompatible?
It's a hereditary monarchy based on the idea of line of birth, that birth is chosen for you. If you simply believe that the people should have the right to skip a generation then you don't support a hereditary monarchy, but democratic selection of head of state.
Anyway, the Queen and Prince Charles may have their failings, but they are still a lot better than David Cameron or Tony Blair and, yes, those are exactly the sort of people who would be President of Britain if we were a republic.
The comparison is absurd. Cameron and Blair have to make political decisions, often very unpopular decisions. The Queen gets to do a load of things that are very popular, like turning up to charity events, opening hospitals and watching traditional dancers in Africa.
They wouldn't necessarily be the people who would be Head of State, because we don't know what we would want that role to be. There is a big difference between the elected president of the United States and the elected president of Ireland. The elected president of Ireland is largely a symbolic role like our own.
Personally, I would pick almost anyone over Prince Charles to be head of state. I don't rate myself particularly highly in the grand scheme of things, but I consider myself as more intelligent, wiser and more capable of oratory than him, but you could pick from tens of thousands of other people who could do the job better.
Would as many people sign up to the army knowing that they'd have to swear an oath of loyalty to the likes of Blair, Brown, Cameron and those who will come after them?
Last year there was an incident over here where the PM sneaked in himself as a replacement for the King in handing out war-crosses to three soldiers, one of them post-mortem. The shitstorm he got is an indication that even if everyone knows it´s government sending people around to support the US in their endeavours, they don´t like to be reminded of it when it comes to the honours.
Kj: " they don´t like to be reminded of it"
That's the funny thing, why are people in denial?
MW: I don't know, but there has to be some grander story being told than the real thing to defend the practice of sending people on the other side of the world to fight for controversial reasons. As you said about loyalty, swearing it to someone who is most likely not here in a couple of years, usually being disliked by a majority by the time, is a tad less motivating than a non-political institution like the monarchy.
Kj, yes, I envisage an oath to be sworn something like this:
"I promise to fight for the interests of the [country], which are deemed to be whatever the serving Prime Minister at the time says they are."
"If it came down to it, I'm not sure whether the armed forces would side with the Monarchy or Parliament. Without those Royal inspections etc, it would definitely be Parliament."
Last time it was about 50/50, but Parliament had the better army.
"It's a hereditary monarchy based on the idea of line of birth, that birth is chosen for you. If you simply believe that the people should have the right to skip a generation then you don't support a hereditary monarchy, but democratic selection of head of state."
Possibly, but the powers that were at the time deciding to hand the crown to William III from James II wasn't incompatible with a hereditary monarchy, nor was the persuasion of Edward VIII to abdicate. Anyway, if Charles is passed over by the current powers that be, it certainly wouldn't be a democratic act. We, the people, would have no more say in the matter than we do about anything the government decides to do.
"Cameron and Blair have to make political decisions, often very unpopular decisions"
Ah, that's the reason they are unpopular. And there was I thinking it was because they were a pair of lying shits.
Even if we had an Irish style presidency, they are still exactly the sort of people who would end up president. Mind you, the whole thing could be arranged to exclude that sort of candidate, but since the arrangements would be made by politicians with an eye on the future presidency, it seems very unlikely that it will.
Post a Comment