Today is Remembrance Sunday and although it may well be different from London in other parts of the country observation has definitely been declining in recent years. A while back many would sport poppies weeks or certainly days before the main commemoration and the two minute silence would be observed in workplaces and in public including cafes. It’s not the case now. It was interesting to see a bit of a tussle on social media following a post about the lack of poppy wearing. Some respondents said they wouldn’t do it as it glorified war but quite a few said they regularly donated to veterans’ charities but chose not to take a poppy. All proof that we can’t afford to make assumptions about people’s views and experience. Inevitably there have been the usual sanctimonious comments in the media from politicians and others about ‘sacrifice’ etc when many of them have been guilty of stirring up dissent and making zero sacrifices themselves.
Another phenomenon, of course, has been the appearance of the royal family, a longstanding tradition but one which they may think helps validate them given recent unsavoury events. It’s been really striking that the Palace PR machine has released multiple monarchist bots on social media, swamping us with posts about William on yet another environment busting long haul trip in aid of his performative projects while he lectures us about the climate crisis, the Princess of Wales and what she’s wearing and now Prince George and what a great king he’s going to be. Not if anti-monarchists can help it.
Having spent years covering up for him, the King only took action on the then Prince Andrew when the scandal surrounding him continued to dominate the news and raise further questions about the continuity of the arcane and expensive institution of monarchy. King Charles only managed to prise his brother from Royal Lodge by making him a hefty one off payment and an ‘annual stipend’ intended to stop him overspending. Each decision eg about removal of titles was just enough, it was thought, to quell public discontent but the public weren’t buying it and, humiliatingly, the King had to keep making further gestures towards ostracism than he had intended to. Most people don’t believe that exile in another luxury home with an annual allowance is much of a punishment. The move was billed as being ‘as soon as practicably possible’ but this is a bit of a nonsense when it will actually be the New Year, in order for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s presence not to mar proceedings at the Sandringham Christmas. But what a hard bargain this arrogant de-princed individual is driving: we now hear that he’s demanding the same level of staffing that he’s had at Royal Lodge – a butler, housekeeper and cook at least. Why on earth in his humbled position would he need a butler? But the weak king will probably accept these conditions based on his form for caving.
So many commentators seem to be missing the main issue here and that is why there’s all this focus on the performative gestures of punishment when what’s needed is a criminal investigation of what he knew and when especially in view of the lies he’s told the media and public. There’s also the issue of his highly questionable financial arrangements and how he could afford his lavish lifestyle, partly enabled by some unsavoury connections he made when operating as a trade envoy. This isn’t just a personal matter because the sources of his finance touch on national security. The decisions taken by the King, with the collusion of this government, are widely seen as being about damage limitation, preserving the luxurious royals’ reputation rather than about justice and accountability. We keep hearing ‘no one is above the law’ but the royal family and other elites are in practice. Apparently AMW has until November 20th to respond to the US Congress request for him to give evidence over there regarding Epstein and it’s highly likely that lawyers and Palace staff, guarding their own positions as well as his, will recommend not replying and certainly not complying.
The royals seem to have fallen into the age old trap of believing that by excising what they see as the poison will be enough to deter well justified and way overdue attention and scrutiny – of their opaque finances, their being exempt from major taxes and numerous laws and the sheer amount they cost. Not only is the sovereign grant £86.3 million but besides the favourable conditions granted to the Crown Estate, the profits of the two Duchys (Lancaster and Cornwall) go straight to, respectively, King Charles and Prince William. But it doesn’t work like that: if anything this whole Andrew debacle has focused more attention on the arcane and hugely expensive institution of monarchy itself. Support for the monarchy is at its lowest ever level and especially given the parlous state of the country’s finances more are rightly asking why do we need it? The servility and deference (which some are still clinging onto) of previous times have goneand, thanks to the internet, social media and investigative journalism we know much more about the monarchy than at any other time. In recent years there have been media exposures of these issues by the Guardian (The Cost of the Crown), the Sunday Times and Channel 4 Dispatches. The Guardian one partly focused on what the royals do in return for the largesse they receive (very little and the work of projects is done by others, not them), and the responses they received from courtiers and others was one of surprise that any reciprocation would come into the equation at all. For its part Channel 4 discovered the exploitative way the Duchys were run, charging high rents for land and properties with no proper maintenance and the charges were also the same for strapped public sector organisations like the NHS.
In addition, several myths abound which monarchists use to justify the institution’s existence, for example the idea that it brings in tourist income. There’s actually no evidence of a link between this income and the royals, and France gets many more tourists (especially to Versailles) when they’ve not had a monarchy for centuries. Cutting ribbons and attending charitable events and the like are billed as ‘work’ when they’re not and besides all the expensive travel involving frequent use of helicopters, William and Kate in particular have been criticised for the number of luxurious holidays they take (at least 8 this year so far). Another argument royalists resort to is that some of the 19 homes they have in their portfolio are their ‘own’, eg purchased by Queen Victoria etc – but as veteran Labour politician (and former chair of the Public Accounts Committee) said, the land and property ownership were only made possible because of historical gifts and inherited wealth. They have not earned it themselves and it should belong properly to the state. Some of those using these arguments are amongst the army of royal ‘correspondents’, photographers and other hangers on, who depend on royals for their living, constituting a form of parasitism. What would they all do if they had to seek alternative work?
We hear regularly about the King’s plans for a ‘slimmed down monarchy’ but we don’t see much evidence of change. All these are serious questions in the 21st century and the conduct of Andrew Mountbatten Windsor is only part of a much larger picture.
As the long anticipated Budget approaches there’s been no end of speculation and ‘kite flying’ about what it may or may not include, with increasing efforts by media figures to trap government interviewees into disclosing details. This becomes very tedious after a while eg interviewers like the right wing Nick Robinson, Chris Mason or Laura Kuenssberg divert from the main subject of the interview with the aim of landing a gotcha, only for the recipient to respond ‘I won’t be drawn…’ etc or ‘I honestly don’t know… that’s a matter for the Chancellor’. Of course right wing parties won’t suggest this but we should have had a proper wealth tax from the start of this government and some commentators have said a fair approach is a land tax. And there should be much more tax applied to the royal family, which currently manages to escape most of them due to historical precedent which needs challenging. At the same time Opposition parties engage in much scaremongering besides speculation, for example about taxes rising when they actually need to in order to maintain crumbling public services. This political habit of demonising tax is very harmful, in my view: it creates a ‘tax cuts good, tax bad’ narrative that can strongly influence voting patterns.
Speaking of which, that was quite some result recently in Caerphilly, where, contrary to the expectations of Reform UK, they were roundly rejected in favour of Plaid Cymru, a key element having been strong tactical voting to keep Reform out. Of course it was a massive wake-up call for the main parties as well, and as various commentators have observed, we’re seeing anyway the beginning of the end of the traditional two party system. Besides the nationalist parties doing better, the much more ethical Lib Dems and Greens (particularly following the election of leader Zack Polanski) are rising up the ranks. The government is not performing well, with numerous disappointments and resignations over the 18 months of their administration, and with the rise of Reform the Tories have been flailing around on the sidelines despite the arrogant bullishness of their leader Kemi Badenoch and gimmicky policy announcements like the one on stamp duty.
Commentator Andy Beckett suggests that the end of safe seats and long careers could lead to less complacency but the demise of large parties could result in greater corporate influence. And already the largely under the radar influence of powerful lobbies is toxic to our politics. Another key factor is the unsatisfactory nature of the first past the post system. ‘Every party’s gains or losses could be hugely magnified or minimised by an electoral system not designed for such multiparty competition… Experienced ministers and veteran rebels may become even more rare. Swing voters – easy to identify in battles between two parties – may be replaced by a multitude of still more fickle electoral groups, chased by half a dozen parties. Meanwhile, party heartlands may crumble, old loyalties overcome by dynamic-seeming new choices’. A third option he identifies is that this could be a temporary phase until a more settled political order takes hold.
I thought the most striking part of his piece is the 2013 quote from the Irish political scientist Peter Mair, from his book Ruling the Void: ‘The age of party democracy has passed. Although the parties themselves remain, they have become so disconnected from the wider society, and pursue a form of competition that is so lacking in meaning, that they no longer seem capable of sustaining democracy in its present form’. That’s so true about parties becoming disconnected from society, many politicians existing in the privileged and well-remunerated Westminster bubble whatever they say about what they allegedly hear ‘on the doorsteps’. Usually we only see them on said doorsteps prior to elections and it seems quite a few don’t hold regular constituency surgeries and some none at all.
With the rise of right wing parties in Europe and Donald Trump’s increasingly reactionary tenure in the US, it was very good news to at least see some Americans fighting back with the election of the Muslim DemocratZohran Mamdani elected as Mayor of New York City. No surprise that the vengeful Trump immediately declared war on him and threatened to withhold federal funding – something surely he should not have the power to do. It will be very interesting to see how the situation develops especially as more MAGA supporters become disillusioned with Trump.
Two current news items about the broadcasting industry are focusing minds on how we use the broadcast media in 2025 and what we’re prepared to pay for. A veteran of the industry, Sir Peter Bazalgette, commented that given the power of the streaming giants it was inevitable that some consolidation would take place, but surely the news that ITV is seriously considering selling part of its organisation to Sky is quite alarming. The mostly right wing ownership of all media means that we need more diversity of provision, not less. But a marked decline in advertising revenue is a reality which might well force them down this path. Such a sale would be worth £1.6 billion and include the public service broadcaster’s terrestrial TV channels and streaming service ITVX.
Rather riveting IMO is the row that’s broken out following Boris Johnson’s accusation of BBC left wing bias following the discovery that footage of Trump had been doctored and put together to suggest his complicity in the events of that fateful 6 January 2021. Radio 4’s Today programme presenter Nick Robinson allegedly ‘blasted’ Johnson over this accusation (absurd as the BBC is manifestly right wing in its news and current affairs coverage), linking it with plots to bring down the BBC. Our former PM said Director General Tim Davie had serious questions to answer and threatened to withhold his licence fee. (I never understand people saying this because most of us pay by direct debit and I’d have thought it doubtful that Johnson never watches BBC content, meaning that he’d be in breach of the law. Silly me, though – lawlessness is his second name). It’s this tweet of Robinson’s that seems to have annoyed Johnson the most: ‘Hands up all those who think Boris Johnson is well placed to lecture anyone else on upholding standards & admitting mistakes. As I said this morning on Today, ‘it’s clear that there is a genuine concern about editorial standards and mistakes. There is also a political campaign by people who want to destroy the organisation…Both things are happening at the same time’.”
For once I agree with both these two: there is indeed a difference between seeking accountability and trying to bring the organisation down but there’s also a longstanding and deep-seated arrogance characterising the BBC. The issue is much wider than bias – there’s well proven misinformation and news omission, which make a mockery of its recent advert condemning disinformation and which finishes with a dramatic flourish – ‘trust is all: it’s OUR BBC.’ Yet ‘Defund the BBC’ often appears in social media and there’s certainly some resentment about the licence fee. I wonder how the BBC would fare if it was forced to change to a subscription model. As the fee comes up for reconsideration in 2027 it’s a reasonable question.
Apparently the BBC’s chairman, Samir Shah, is set to apologise to MPs tomorrow following this criticism of the Panorama broadcast last October. Yet another performative gesture in public life – I wouldn’t have thought his apology (a letter, not even in person) would make much difference at all. The whole affair has also shown again the weakness of Culture Minister Lisa Nandy, who has every ‘confidence’ in the BBC and the useless Ofcom. The irony of the entire situation is that Boris Johnson appointed Tories to at least four key positions in the BBC and now he’s chosen to find fault with them when they depart from the bias he prefers. But maybe Nandy is finally showing some strength, with the news this evening that both Tim Davie and Deborah Turness have resigned. A good result but I wonder why now when there has been plenty of cause for them to go before now. Let’s hope Boris Johnson doesn’t try to attribute these developments to his intervention.
A very important piece of legislation has been making its way through Parliament and last weekMPs debated amendments to Labour’s Employment Rights Bill, destined to get Royal Assent before the end of the year. Angela Rayner wrote a moving piece explaining why it was so important and pointing out the relentless efforts of right wing parties to upend it. ‘This game changing package of measures includes protection from unfair dismissal, strengthened sick pay, bereavement leave, action against sexual harassment at work, a ban on zero-hours contracts, an end to fire and rehire, and a genuine living wage. It means family rights such as flexible working and parental leave from day one, stronger protections for pregnant women, and steps to tackle the gender pay gap. It also includes an historic fair pay agreement in social care – a new, legally binding pledge that will set minimum pay and employment terms for care workers in England and improve the standard of care. Taken together, this package would be the single biggest boost to rights at work in a generation. And yet, our bill has faced fierce criticism from the Tories and Reform, and relentless lobbying from vested interests.’
In City AM Shadow Secretary of State for Business and Trade, Andrew Griffith, penned a scaremongering article saying ‘Employers are dreading this Bill. Written by and for the trade unions, it poses a dire threat to businesses and the wider economy, both of which are already struggling under the weight of Rachel Reeves’ tax hikes. And it also spells disaster for the jobs market – and everyone who is either looking for a job or at any risk of losing one’. We get the usual arguments about how ‘Labour doesn’t understand business’, when the Conservatives themselves haven’t been great role models in that area. But the Tory and cross party amendments the government rejected do sound worthy of consideration, eg reversal of Labour’s plans to scrap the 50 per cent minimum turnout required for strike ballots, which (in Griffith’s words ‘would allow militant activists to shut down vital services at will’. Meanwhile Labour says a poll found that employers are largely in favour of the bill. What’s surely depressing, though, is the view in some quarters that organisations only work well when workers are deprived of rights. An important and overlooked point surely is that given all political parties are concerned at the rising numbers of people not in work, not seeking work, on sick leave etc, measures aimed at improving workplace conditions and rights must be a good thing.
On a positive note, it was great news to hear that the overlooked area of older people’s housing was the winner of this year’s Royal Institute of British Architects’ Stirling Prize. The Appleby Blue almshouse is a modernised form of this historic model of accommodation, located in Bermondsey, South London, consisting of 59 flats for pensioners on low incomes, with some great sounding communal facilities designed to tackle loneliness such as a roof garden, courtyard and community kitchen. This kind of thing should be the norm, not the exception – there’s just too much older people’s accommodation that’s grim and institutionalised. Hopefully this project will energise other architects to follow suit.
Finally, many will have been amused at the news that hoax council letters were sent to homes flying the St George’s flag in Gloucestershire, informing them that they would be required to house refugees because ‘we know you would be proud to assist your country’. A Reform councillor called the letters ‘childish’ and ‘silly’ whereas we could probably do with more wheezes like this!
Politics and mental health - the missing link? 