The British Left Should Support The Monarchy, by David Lindsay

As the Queen attains the age of 90, the question of the monarchy’s dying with her is being given another outing.

When Prince George was born, there were complaints that we now knew that our next three Heads of State, probably stretching into the twenty-second century, would all be white males.

Well, they would all have been white males, anyway. The present one is not male. But any elected Head of this State always would be. And white. And quite or very posh.

So why bother changing the present arrangements? 

No one with anything like the Royal Family’s foreign background would ever stand a hope of becoming the President of Britain. The Queen is of heavy immigrant stock, and she is married to an immigrant.

They are both probably part-black.

In fact, no one could believe anything else having seen a portrait of Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, whose features were publicly called “Negroid” at the time, when her ancestry was common knowledge and apparently disturbed nobody.

The city of Charlotte in North Carolina is named after her, and it is the seat of Mecklenburg County. 

Furthermore, the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh are plausibly believed to be descended from Muhammad through various part-Moorish royal lines on the Iberian Peninsula.

Even if Robert Graves was once ushered away from Her Majesty after he had mentioned their common descent from the Prophet of Islam, that view is widely held in an entirely matter-of-fact way across the Islamic world. 

Genghis Khan and the Tang Emperor Suzong are less plausible ancestors, but not impossible ones. 

Loyalty to the monarchy is nothing if not a bulwark against racism, and not only, although certainly, because the Queen is the Head of the Commonwealth, as well as directly of 16 member-states.

Only four of those 16, including this one, have white majority populations.

Only two of the remaining 14 British Overseas Territories are predominantly white, and only one of those two has a population descended primarily from these Islands, something that Canada and Australia also do not have.

Try and imagine anyone with anything remotely approaching the Queen’s known ancestry as a candidate for President of Britain. No such person would stand the slightest chance of election to that office.

Nor would anyone aged 26, as the Queen was when she came to the Throne. Nor would anyone aged 90.

The Royal Family is not at the pinnacle of the class system.

That is the old Noble Houses of England and Scotland, who look down on the Royals as immigrant noovs, an unfortunate political necessity from the eighteenth century.

That was the root of the trouble with Diana. She had married down. Time was when the Spencers, then the richest family in the Kingdom, had even bankrolled the indigent Hanoverians.

Liberty is the freedom to be virtuous, and to do anything not specifically proscribed.

Equality is the means to liberty, and is never to be confused with mechanical uniformity; it includes the Welfare State, workers’ rights, consumer protection, local government, a strong Parliament, public ownership, and many other splendid things.

And fraternity is the means to equality. For example, in the form of trade unions, co-operatives, credit unions, mutual guarantee societies and mutual building societies; numerous more could be cited.

Liberty, equality and fraternity are therefore inseparable from nationhood, a space in which to be unselfish. Thus from family, the nation in miniature, where unselfishness is first learned.

And thus from property, each family's safeguard both against over-mighty commercial interests and against an over-mighty State, therefore requiring to be as widely diffused as possible, and thus the guarantor of liberty as here defined.

The family, private property and the State must be protected and promoted on the basis of their common origin and their interdependence, such that the diminution or withering away of any one or two of them can only be the diminution and withering away of all three of them. 

All three are embodied by monarchy.

Monarchy further embodies the principle of sheer good fortune, of Divine Providence conferring responsibilities upon the more fortunate towards the less fortunate.

It therefore provides an excellent basis for social democracy, as has proved the case in the United Kingdom, in the Old Commonwealth, in Scandinavia and in the Benelux countries.

Allegiance to a monarchy is allegiance to an institution embodied by a person, rather than to an ethnicity or an ideology as the basis of the State.

As Bernie Grant understood, and as one expects that Diane Abbott understands, allegiance to this particular monarchy, with its role in the Commonwealth, is a particular inoculation against racial feeling.

No wonder that the National Party abolished it in South Africa. No wonder that the Rhodesian regime followed suit, and removed the Union Flag from that of Rhodesia, something that not even the Boers' revenge republic ever did.

No wonder that the BNP wants (or wanted, since it now scarcely exists) to abolish the monarchy here.

It was Margaret Thatcher who mounted an assault on the monarchy, since she scorned the Commonwealth, social cohesion, historical continuity, and public Christianity.

She called the Queen “the sort of person who votes for the SDP”, and she arrogated to herself the properly monarchical and royal role on the national and international stages.

She used her most popular supporting newspaper to vilify the Royal Family.

When the Sex Pistols sang of a “Fascist regime” in the Britain of 1977, then they were referring to a Labour Cabinet with Tony Benn in it. 

Benn had also been the Postmaster General who had taken on the pirate radio stations in order to protect the livelihoods of the unionised musicians.

The fans of pirate radio and then of the Sex Pistols went on to elect Thatcher three times, and did not vote Labour at another General Election until Tony Blair had come along, giving him a third term as Prime Minister even two years after the invasion of Iraq.

God Save The Queen, Comrades.

God Save The Queen.

@davidaslindsay

A Patriotic Vision for the Left, by Tom Bailey

A version of this article previously appeared here.

For a long time now, the words “nationalistic” and “patriotic” have seemed to me to be largely associated with xenophobia, bigotry and prejudice.

Political parties like UKIP and the British National Party have long been claiming that only they are proud of their country and their people.

UKIP’s 2015 General Election manifesto was emblazoned with the slogan “Believe in Britain” as if no other political party did. The English Defence League adopted St George’s flag (ignorant to the fact that St George was Syrian) as if to suggest that they were the true guardians and lovers of our country, and that no other political party could really care for England.

A quick Google search reinforces this unusual association between bigotry and patriotism.

The so-called “patriot movement” consists of various conservative movements in the United States that include organised militia members, tax protesters, conspiracy theorists, and radical Christians who believe in an impending apocalypse.

‘Patriotism’ apparently equates with ‘loony’, too.

And just as these illiberal, conservative groups often pose as patriotic, so the left has forever been accused of the opposite: of having a deep loathing for the United Kingdom and wanting to systematically dismantle all of its traditions and institutions.

In his novel A Time of Gifts, Patrick Leigh Fermor describes his early perception of left-wing politicians as men and women determined to see the destruction of everything ‘British’, from country-life and religion to cricket and farming.

This view of the Left as anti-patriotic was evident in the Daily Mail’s childish and brutal attack on Ralph Miliband, the socialist writer and late father of Ed Miliband.

The tabloid absurdly branded Ralph as “The man who hated Britain” for no other reason than his left-wing political stance, despite the fact that he fought for Britain in the Royal Navy.

Of course, the Daily Mail consistently publishes utter nonsense, but its influence and power cannot be ignored – these are views held by a large amount of the electorate. 

The persistence of this perception is terrifying: if you type “Corbyn hates” into Google, the first two suggested searches are not (as you might expect) “Corbyn hates inequality” or “Corbyn hates injustice”, but instead, Google suggests the two searches “Corbyn hates England” and “Corbyn hates Britain”.

Although Google may not be trustworthy when it comes to politics (I wonder why…), it seems that many in England agree with Cameron when he says Corbyn has a “security-threatening, terrorist-sympathising, Britain-hating ideology”. 

This branding of the Left, and the Labour Party in particular, as anti-British or anti-patriotic, is very damaging indeed. 

Previous polling has shown that nearly 8 out of 10 British people are proud of their nationality, and so any party hoping to win in 2020 must reflect that pride. 

And I believe that it can be done. 

The rise of the SNP in Scotland and the popularity of Plaid Cymru in Wales show that patriotism and socialism can and should be synonymous. 

Nationalistic politics does not have to mean regressive politics. Loving your country does not necessitate xenophobic values and inward-looking views. 

Caring about our country does not mean we must abandon our concern for the rest of the world, nor does it mean we should redirect foreign aid to benefit ourselves alone, one of UKIP’s manifesto pledges.

I also believe that patriotism, while it involves pride, does not mean we must agree with everything our country has and will do.

Being patriotic does not mean we must celebrate our terrible imperialist past, nor does it mean applauding war and supporting unnecessary violence.

For too long, we’ve allowed the word ‘patriotism’ to be wrongly defined, and we as radicals must reverse that.

We should not be afraid of waving the English flag or of calling ourselves patriots, because patriotism can mean pride in our National Health Service, in our Welfare State, and in our democracy.

Patriotism can mean the love of our diversity, our tolerance, and our acceptance of other cultures.

Patriotism can mean the love of our artistic history and our support of progressive values, notable in our fight against Nazism.

It doesn’t have to mean a passion for the monarchy, a love of tradition, or a constant support of war, as many now see it.

Patriotism certainly can be dangerous – there’s no denying it.

That’s possibly why Marx opposed it so much (“The working men have no country”), seeing it as divisive, anti-internationalist, and a direct cause of conflict.

But, as I have attempted to demonstrate, it doesn’t have to be.

If we love our own country, we do not have to hate the countries of others. Love of one thing does not necessitate the hatred of another. 

So patriotism isn’t necessarily a bigoted ideology.

Indeed, if argued correctly, a left-wing patriotic ideology could unite the British people like no other, ending the politics of fear (exemplified by the scapegoating of the poor and foreigners) and ensuring pride in, and passion for, our liberal institutions. 

That is why the Labour Party and the Left as a whole must embrace the word patriotism, rather than shying away from it – not just to increase their electability, but to bring people together. 

Whilst right-wing politicians brand the people of the UK as scroungers and wasters; just this week, Alan Duncan claimed that achievement equals wealth, suggesting that millions of British people are lazy and unsuccessful.

And whilst the Tories take benefits from working people and dismantle the NHS, the Left must stand for compassion and love, protecting our people and its institutions – what could possibly be more patriotic?

The Left are the true patriots, and we must prove it.

@TomBaileyBlog

An Alternative Blueprint for Britain’s Future, by Tom Fowdy

The British state we know today, the “United Kingdom” is in a terminal state of unrest and decline.

Its best days are behind it, its identity is rejected and broken and its economy is unconvincing at best, not to mention unjust.

Successive Conservative governments since the 1980s, and the legacy of New Labour, have effectively destroyed the country by pursuing a corporatist programme that has destroyed the British working class, lead to a surge in divisive individualism, hurt communities, and eroded national identity.

Far from being the “protectors” of British interests, these governments sold off the British economy, assets, foreign policy and sovereignty to foreign and elitist interests.

Modern Britain is now a distorted, oligarchic state with an elite governing in the name of financial interests alone, contrary to the interests of ordinary people.

With British communities fragmenting, the country is now plagued with seperatist movements in Scotland and Wales, left-wing unrest, radicalized communities who have no loyalty to the nation, and record levels of distrust in politicians as whole.

I myself am deeply disillusioned with what Britain has become. It has lost not only its identity, but its community, cohesion, mission and purpose.

The country is fast losing political stability as the government is propped up an unjust electoral system that renders rule by a tiny plurality of voters.

I mourn how young people seem to resent their country and hold no affiliation to it, in contrast to East Asian nations where even the young have such a powerful sense of national belonging and drive which has made those countries extremely successful.

I believe Britain should start again from scratch or otherwise it will face total collapse.

The current regime does not rule in the people’s interest, and in the past 30 years has made catastrophic mistakes and decisions.

Britain should start again, it should rebuild itself as a unified community orientated state built solely on  the will of the people, national values, citizenship, and a more open democracy. 

It should not ruled as it is today, by corporations, big banks and foreign interests that govern only in the name of money. Without identity and without purpose, we cannot exist.

Therefore, in this article I set out my theoretical vision and blueprint for what I call “The New British State”, a new Britain, a better Britain, one which has discarded all of the horrible flaws of the regime that is bringing us on the verge of national collapse.

This alternative is not “Socialist”, but a left-wing nationalist, populist and Republican state infused with many of the ideals expressed in Clement Attlee’s post-war Britain.

Effectively, it is a populist social-democracy with a patriotic character and a set of ideals very similar to revolutionary France. 

It likewise involves an attempt to reconcile discontented groups against the status quo (on the populist left and right) into one unified umbrella.

How this “nation” would come about is of course, open to popular imagination and I make no reference to how, but nonetheless I offer this as a recommendation as to what Britain ought to be. 

I have based this on simple four principles which ought to be remembered, 1) “The People’s Sovereignty” 2) “The People’s Patriotism” 3) “The People’s Economy” and 4) “International Neutrality”.

The People’s Sovereignty and Democracy 

Sovereignty ought to be held by the people and for the people, and by nobody else; bound only by the people themselves and answerable to nobody else.

Representatives in the elected body ought to represent nobody but the people.

Upon election, they ought to resign all “other jobs”, renounce all other forms of income and forfeit any interests which would bring them into conflict with the fundamental priority of representation.

All forms of corporate association, lobbying, “media friendships” and “connections” in government must be banned outright.

As much as banks and businesses have a right to exist, they must be subordinate to democracy and subordinate to the people.

The elected body must be bound by nothing but the people themselves and the independent judiciary; although power may be devolved downwards to the grassroots in various respects, power must not be developed upwards to institutions unaccountable to the people.

This includes bodies such as the European Union, multinational corporations or anything else. 

Political power and decision making must be forever in the people’s reach, it cannot be taken to dark and sinister places where it cannot be seen.

Therefore, the new state is owned by the people, sovereignty reflects the power of the people and any attempt to diminish the sovereignty of the state is a diminishment of the sovereignty of the people.

The state must not fall into the hands of banks, corporations, media moguls, landed aristocracies or expansionist powers such as the European Union.

Moving, on in order to bring political balance to this nation, all constituent countries of Britain ought to be treat as equal partners, than the failed model of England dominating the rest and fuelling separatist movements.

In a similar model to the U.S senate, one chamber of the parliament can be represented in proportion to population, but the other (replacing the House of Lords) ought to return an equal number of representatives for every constituent country: England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wale.

Although this is a massive power-based concession for England, it is the only means to ensure a much fairer and more equal British Union, rather than to lose it altogether to separatist movements.

Thus, instead of the currently fragile kingdom model, the new British State would be a republican model with a constitutional union between the involved states.

What would be the fate of the monarchy? After the death of Queen Elizabeth II, it ought simply to be discontinued.

It is little more than a distant memory of a regime that now fails to capture the people’s beliefs, imaginations and hopes. It long ceased to be a symbol of national unity.

The People’s Patriotism 

Any state or organization that does not believe in itself or its guiding mission effectively ceases to exist.

The new British state must believe in itself and must have pride in its own identity, otherwise it cannot be cohesive.

It’s values can only flourish if there is a common brotherhood, solidarity and unity; rather than being based on hatred, blood or racial prejudice, this patriotism ought to be based purely on values, citizenship, mission and culture.

Right now, Britain does not believe itself and the population is rapidly fragmenting into multiple identities, cultures and directions, which is hastening the dissolution of this historic state and leading to separatist movements.

British identity has been effectively binned as prejudice, and dismissed without a consideration as to how it could be reinvented.

It ought to be reinvented, separate from the controversial legacy of the empire; complete with a new mission, solidarity and sense of shared heritage. 

It ought to be an inclusive one that transcends ethnic origin. 

The state must take an active role in promoting these values in all areas of life for the cause of citizenship from the cradle to the grave. 

The People’s Patriotism is a motivator and a drive which can spur the economic and political success of the new state. It need not pursue an antagonistic foreign policy. 

It is the only the states that have the most cohesive identities and social order that become the most successful. 

The onset of liberal individualism and anti-patriotic politics has effectively destroyed Western unity, morale and economic prosperity. Our has become a civilization divided against itself.

It has failed. Only a common identity, a common morality and common community can ensure our prosperity. 

The People’s Economy 

The new British economy must be run for the prosperity of the people and nobody else.

Whilst it is essential that private enterprise exists, as competition is mandatory for progress, this should be an economy with leadership, direction and unity.

A mixed economic model is the way forwards with market and state initiatives.

Britain must resurrect its industrial and manufacturing base, it must re-create and nurture its traditional industries such as coal and steel, for there was never any mandate for their destruction. 

Likewise, to prevent financial disaster, collapse as well as subjection to sinister interests, the state ought to own all banks in the country and govern them prudently, nonetheless allowing them to pursue their own semi-autonomous initiatives. 

The state ought repeatedly to invest in the economy to pursue development and sustain public services for the people’s wellbeing. 

It should be prepared to significantly reconstruct the areas of the country that have suffered from economic devastation, neglect, stagnation and deprivation, such as North East England, Yorkshire, Lancashire, South Wales, and the Clyde region of Scotland. 

The economy of Britain is lopsided and is largely centred in London. This is not right. These regions must again become the powerhouses of the British state. 

International Neutrality 

The new British State ought to be neutral and step aside from great power alignments. Rather, it must to act impartially on behalf of the entire international community as an influential broker state. 

It must not pursue a hostile policy towards the United States or China, but rather continually seek a middle ground and a reconciliation of interests in the name of peace.

As a regime that values its own sovereignty, the new British State ought to value and respect the sovereign equality of all recognized states around the world, and offer an unconditional objection to all forms of interventionist foreign policy save there is an overwhelmingly and unbiased moral case in favour of such.

It must seek continually to counter the propaganda of great powers (including the United States) and offer a variety of alternative, open minded perspectives in all situations.

Neutrality and impartiality in the cause of peace.

Britain must keep its nuclear weapons programme, to maintain its global influence, and to prevent subjection to hostile nations.