Two news items in the past week have given me a faint hope that we may finally begin to put this country on a better, by which I mean a fairer, way of running things. But both also provoked in me the reaction “about bloody time!”

The first news item broke about a week ago, when my wife and I were out of the country on a short break but the repercussions have rumbled on all week. It gives me hope that one key part of what I call “feudal detritus” may, at last, be beginning to crumble. The second item has already been misrepresented in the right-wing press as a “return to the 1970s” but may more accurately be described as a return to the spirit of the immediate post-war period in 1945.

The Banned Old Duke of York

It comes at something of a relief to see that many more people are waking up to the reality of the true character and skills of Andrew Windsor, second son of our current Head of State. People who know me can confirm that I have been banging on for years about two – previously inconvenient – truths about the man. One is that he is extremely stupid intellectually. The other is that he is morally reprehensible, arrogant and lacking in any self-awareness or concern for others. He reminds me very much of another pampered, spoiled son, over-indulged by his ever-loving mother: Mark Thatcher (of “lost in the desert” fame).

A decade or so ago, Andrew had a “job” ludicrously entitled Britain’s “Special Trade Envoy”. This entailed him jet-setting around the globe at taxpayers’ expense, staying in posh hotels and dining in expensive restaurants with some of the worst dictators and Human Rights abusers on the globe. And its purpose? To flog them British arms. In the end, his lack of intellect and self-awareness made him a diplomatic embarrassment and the role was quietly dropped. My favourite quotation from this period was from an obviously exasperated senior civil servant who was involved in these publicly-funded jaunts. Speaking of our envoy, he said “there is no evidence of any cerebral activity upstairs”. I just love that use of the word “upstairs”.

Anyway, a combination of a “car crash” TV interview (which Windsor thought had gone quite well!) and close association with a sex offender has finally woken people up to the man’s true character. He is now “suspended indefinitely” (sort of, it looks like) from his public “duties”. His big brother seems to have had the final word on this.

This “I told you so” moment is all very well. But the real significance is in the wider implications for the future of the monarchy as an institution. This is spelled out more fully in an interesting article on Friday by Gaby Hinsliff. As she says: “If the monarchy cannot put its house in order, it should not be surprised if the nation ultimately seeks to do it for them”. Republicans like me can only hope this is the beginning of the end.

The Labour Party Manifesto

A lot has already been said about the Labour Party Manifesto, launched this week. The usual hostile suspects in the press have used words like “unaffordable”, betraying their lack of understanding of economics and the damage done by 40 years of free market fundamentalism. Funding sources have been identified by Labour to explain how the policies in the manifesto will be paid for. It’s evident that Labour has learnt the lessons of the false basis of economic thought over the past four decades; the Tories plainly have not. The Overton Window is shifting back in Labour’s direction.

For the first time in decades, I feel genuinely excited to see a set of priorities which chime well with my own thoughts. Here are just a few of the details which provoked in me an “at last!” reaction:

• The prospect of rescuing the struggling NHS with a stable, above inflation increase in funding for the next few years.
• All schools brought back under democratic control. (I was at a briefing session for Governors earlier this week: there was much complaining about the confusion of responsibilities and lack of control introduced in the Gove / Cummings era.)
• Closure of tax loopholes for private schools: educating only those who can afford to pay is self-evidently not per se a charitable objective.
• Higher tax contributions to the common good from the wealthiest 5% (a figure fact-checked and confirmed by the BBC on Friday).
• The proposed “green new deal” to create high-skill jobs and tackle the greatest threat of all: that to our planet and its environment.
• Re-humanising the welfare system by removing its most vindictive policies (sanctions, benefits cap, bedroom tax) introduced in the Cameron years.
• A public health approach to drugs policy – hopefully one which is finally evidence-based.
• Renationalisation of the natural monopolies of energy, water, railways and the 21^st century sine qua non, broadband supply.
• Last but not least, building many more genuinely affordable homes, including a target of 100,000 new council houses a year. (From the 1950s to the 1970s, Labour and Conservative government oversaw up to 300,000 new homes a year, so it can be done, if Tory dogma doesn’t get in the way.)

There’s more to like, but that will do for now. One economics editor has described the manifesto as “radical, populist and worthy of Attlee”. High praise indeed!

Living in Hope

One lesson to be learned from the Andrew affair is that the Establishment always looks after its own. Labour’s manifesto paints a bold vision of how it doesn’t always have to be this way. Maybe, just maybe, there is finally some room for hope to replace frustration and despair for our future political landscape.

A century ago, in The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, Robert Tressell wrote these lines:
“..All who live under the present system practice selfishness, more or less. We must be selfish: the System demands it. We must be selfish or we shall be hungry and ragged and finally die in the gutter. The more selfish we are, the better off we shall be.”

One hundred years ago, income and wealth inequality were at a peak. In the 20^th century, it took two World Wars to reduce that inequality significantly and to remind ourselves of our common good. (Part 3 of Thomas Piketty’s 2013 book Capital in the 21^st Century explains this in some detail.) In the past 40 years, the false economic policy choices introduced by Thatcher and Reagan resurrected the moral sanctity of selfishness. “Greed is good” was the takeout line from that approach. As a result, over those 40 years, inequality levels have returned to levels last seen just before the outbreak of the first World War. No wonder Tressell’s words seem so fresh and relevant to today. Labour’s manifesto offers an opportunity to move economic policy in the UK to a healthy position, in line with how humans actually think and behave. (See my 2015 posts Being Human II: the Four Cs and Why George Osborne is Only Half Human for an explanation.) We can but hope.

When I was a child, the word “antidisestablishmentarianism” was a kind of word challenge. With its 28 letters and 12 syllables – count them or see Wikipedia if you don’t believe me – it’s claimed to be (one of) the longest words in English. For much of my life, it’s just remained as a kind of freakish part of our language and I never thought much about what it actually means. Actually, you can find a brief definition in Wikipedia, too.

So what brought the subject to my mind? It was the coincidence of two things. The first was a timeline in the preface to a book I’m reading, summarising key events in progressive politics with their dates, from the 1832 Reform Act to the early 21^st century. The second was number 11 in a list of 11 items which the National Secular Society is lobbying to be included in political parties’ pledges for the forthcoming election. The 11^th pledge is “separate church and state”, a constitutional reform woefully overdue in England.

The 19^th and Early 20^th Centuries

The term “antidisestablishmentarianism “ came to prominence in the mid 19^th century as a resistance movement to the progressive reforms of, naturally enough, proponents of disestablishmentarianism. The latter idea had been floated early in the 19^th century by Radical thinkers including Jeremy Bentham, “godfather” of utilitarianism. Following the aforementioned 1832 Reform Act and the emancipation of Catholics, the idea was further spurred on by nonconformist Christians.

The Liberation Society was founded by Edward Miall in 1844 to press for the disestablishment of the Church of England. Many MPs in the Liberal Party were supportive of the change but – you’ve guessed it – the Tories were opposed. Plus ςa change. And there, 175 years later, it remains stuck, in England, anyway.

The situation was rather different elsewhere in the British Isles. The Irish got there first, with disestablishment of the Anglican Church in 1869. Agitation for disestablishment started earlier there, in the previous century. This was hardly surprising as the Irish established church was especially corrupt, being disproportionately rich in a country full of poor Catholics. Gladstone was the Liberal Prime Minister at the time of Irish reform, via the Irish Church Act 1869.

The Welsh had to wait until 1920 for disestablishment there, following the long tradition of non-conformism (principally Methodism) in Wales. As is often the case, things were a bit different in Scotland. First, there was the famous “schism” of 1843 when Evangelicals split to form the Free Church of Scotland. The 1921 Church of Scotland Act formalised the reconciliation of the factions and can be seen as a sort of de jure disestablishment, even if the modern Scottish Church sees itself “in terms of service not status”. More information can be found in the section The 1929 Settlement in the Church of Scotland website history page.

The Present Day

So here we are now. In England, we still have an “Established” Church with 21 bishops in the House of Lords and the Head of State also head of that church. Positively mediaeval, I call it.

About a decade ago, you may recall, constitutional reform was again being discussed, mainly in relation to the reform or replacement of the anti-democratic House of Lords. It’s now 108 years since the Parliament Act which restricted the Lords’ powers. Those alive then would be aghast that no progress has been made since 1911.

So, I suppose – if asked – I would call myself a disestablishmentarian. But I would also sign up to the other 10 items in the NSS list. Full details are on the NSS website. In summary, along with disestablishment of the CofE, the other 10 items are:

1. No more faith schools
2. End religious discrimination in school admissions
3. Abolish the collective worship requirement – but note this brilliant new website, Assemblies For All, a great new resource for schools
4. Promote free speech as a positive virtue
5. End non-stun slaughter
6. Review laws on assisted dying
7. End all forms of non-consensual genital cutting
8. Outlaw caste discrimination
9. End “the advancement of religion” as a charitable purpose
10. Guarantee secular public services.

Oh, and one more thing: back to the heady days of the Tory / Liberal Democrat coalition under David Cameron. In 2014, as Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg – remember Cleggmania? – advocated the separation of Church and state “in the long run”. Just as in the mid-19^th century, this was still too much for the same-old enemy of reform. David Cameron said things were just fine as they are, responding to Clegg that disestablishmentarianism is “a long-term Liberal idea, but it is not a Conservative one”.

Oh, and coming even more up to date, I wonder what our current Prime Minister would make of the word. Probably, very much like I would have done as an eight year old. Some of us just never grow up. As I said earlier, plus ςa change, plus c’est la meme chose. Or, as we might say in English: same old Tories, defending the establishment few.