I’m a sucker for pomp and ceremony and two people getting married in the spring time is one of those timelessly happy things that people of all creeds, nations and wage-brackets should go on celebrating as long as there’s a sun in the sky.
However, as the crowds receded from Westminster and the dream-vision of Pippa Middleton’s rear-end swayed out of sight, I began to feel a little uncomfortable.
Had we not just witnessed an extraordinarily lavish, luxuriant ceremony of golden rings, designer dresses and towering marzipan at a time when the government is asking everyone to tighten their belts, pull together and make “difficult decisions”? Were not the very men asking us to make these sacrifices at the front of the queue at the Abbey door; chief among them the rosy-cheeked Prime Minister, looking very comfortable in a morning suit? And were not Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, the Labour men who broke a Tory hegemony on the reigns of power that had lasted, with brief interludes, for most of the 20th century, conspicuous by their absence?
You see the Royal Wedding now looks to me like one thing above all; a confident declaration from the echoing halls of the rich and the powerful; the Establishment is back.
The progressive spirit of New Labour, or of the pre-Coalition Liberal Democrats is dead, the wedding said. Tony who? Gordon Brown? Wasn’t he the beardy chap that Queen Victoria fancied? As for Nick and Vince, we’ll suffer their presence but only if Dave and Gideon keep a close eye on them, in case the pleb Cable uses the golden cheese prong before the silver dessert spoon at dinner.
The Conservative party, for all its slippery adaptability, is and will always remain, the party of the Establishment: of the rich, for the rich. That’s a rather fantastic recipe for holding onto power.
Or, at least, it is under our current voting system. First past the post has an inherent bias toward powerful minority interests; and there is no more powerful minority in this country than the Establishment.
In a system where generally it only takes the backing of just over a third of voters to become an MP, it’s no surprise the wealthy few have been able to maintain their hold on power.
There is a dividing line in this country between the majority of those that believe that wealth should, to some extent, be shared out and not hoarded by private individuals; that a person’s chief goal in life should be to benefit his society first and himself second; and the minority who do not.
The people who do believe this generally split their vote between one of the many parties – Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens, Plaid Cymru, the SNP – that more or less share this view. It is after all, a majority view, so it’s no surprise that so many parties adopt it. The people who do not, vote Tory.
Nick Clegg, who for all his grave mistakes this past year, is to be commended for his commitment to vote reform, calls First Past the Post a Conservative party “racket”, and he’s rarely spoken so pointedly.
Now why, do you think, are the Tories so vehemently opposed to reforming the voting system? Because the old one keeps them in power. Why are their rich Establishment backers pouring money into a patronising, dishonest, grubby campaign to defeat it? Because as long as the Tories are in power, taxes will remain favourable to the wealthy, blame for the country’s ills will continue to be placed at the feet of the undeserving poor and the healthy racket that serves the fat, red-faced sort that filled the pews at Westminster Abbey last weekend will go on unopposed.
But we can oppose it, and we can defeat it. And nowhere have we more power to do so than in London.
Because there’s no local elections in London to coincide with this Thursday’s referendum, it is expected that voter turnout will be low. In fact, the No campaign is counting on it. Because the No campaign is afraid of London. And so they should be. If anywhere in the country is to stand up and defeat the centuries-old grasp that overgrown public-schoolboys have had on power, then let it be London; the most diverse, tolerant, vibrant city in the world; the city that reflects what Britain really is better than any icing-sugar Royal Wedding attended by fat white men and ladies in silly hats ever could.
The new voting system will be one that reflects Britain’s diversity, one where the Tory voice of entrenched privilege will be just one that is heard among many; it will be given it’s due place; a minority voice in an otherwise progressive, fair and honest democracy. Go out on Thursday and vote Yes.
Anyone who thinks Blair isn’t one who enjoys the “entrenched privilege” is naive. Blair is arguably now one of the biggest Tory’s there is. There are as many Labour peers and supporters who are members of the Upper Class – to suggest otherwise is, again, naive.
Blair and Brown weren’t invited because they’re not Knights of the Garter – something completley different to what the author of this piece is suggesting.
Nick Clegg described AV as a “miserable compromise” if I’m not mistaken.
AV is wrong, and will hopefully be defeated on Thursday. If we’re going to have voting reform, lets do it properly!
I agree, Blair walked a fine line while in power and I am certainly no apologist for much of what he did as PM. But he did represent a powerfully anti-establishment force: which was reflected in his tense relationship with the royal family.
I’m really not convinced by the “Knight of the Garter” excuse. I believe Blair is personally disliked by the royal family, and that not inviting him necessitated not inviting Brown so as not to single out Blair – though I’m sure the royals were only too happy to have them both out of the frame. Remember Brown’s attempts to redefine “Britishness” which was conspicuous for its lack of reference to the royals. The excuse that this was not a state occasion is a bit rich when ambassadors from nearly every nation under the sun that is not actively murdering its citizens (and some that are) were forthcoming. Might I be so bold to return the label “naive” to you on this one?
As for Labour peers of the upper class, there may well be, and I should imagine most of them are voting no to protect their privilege. I regret not making this point clearer in the piece. There is a strong and problematic strain of “Establishment'” thinking in the Labour party too, which I hope will be rooted out as the party realigns itself along social democratic lines over the next few years.
I too think that we could probably go further than AV, though I must admit that the compromise is not so miserable as it might appear – AV is more proportional, whilst maintaining – and I believe strengthening – the constituency link between an MP and the people he represents, which is the lifeblood of our democracy, and the only good thing about the current system.
Thank you for taking the time to reply. An informed, well-argued reply at that too.
Blair will probably become one of the Knight’s of the Garter (as will Brown) – only 24 can exist so they wait on people to die. Major only became one in 2005. Additionally, he was appointed guardian to Princes William and Harry in 1997, so perhaps he had more of a connection for being invited than Blair/ Brown. Personally, I would have liked to have seen Brown invited, although I agree on you Brown’s attempt to redefine ‘Britishness.’
Unfortunatley, I must disagree with you on AV. AV is sadly not something that Britain needs – money could better be spent elsewhere (although I do not believe the total spouted by the ‘No’ campaign is correct – maybe a bit of creative accountancy there). Britain should look to its past, but not forget to look also to the future. FPTP is a good past, giving strong governments. But we must also recognise we no longer live in a 2 party system anymore. AV would benefit fringe parties (the ‘Yes’ campaign is wrong there. And a survey last week suggested most BNP supporters backed AV).
The idea that AV makes MPs work harder is one of the silliest arguments I’ve ever heard. Surely work ethics depends on the person, and MPs are not going to change their ways. It wouldn’t change the political landscape that much. Only about 100 seats are truly ‘swing seats’. The argument that there would be ‘no more seats for life’ is equally bizzare. An area for eg, Sunderland, is always going to be LAB regardless of voting system.
Very good article.Much thanks again. Awesome.