As the Guardian has noted:
The Conservative party's deputy chair, Lee Anderson, has said that anti-monarchist campaigners should emigrate rather than use their right to free speech to protest against the coronation of Charles III.
This reminds me of two things. One is the statement made to protestors in Jersey who object to that island being used by the financial services industry as a platform for a full blown assault on the right of democratically elected governments to tax. They are told ‘there is a boat in the morning'. The protestor is expected to be on it.
The other is more sinister. The Nazis did, by the time they denied Jews all opportunities to leave Germany, suggest that those who remained should have taken the opportunity to leave when it was still available to them. That they had not, the Nazis said, made the Jew's fate a matter of their own choosing.
I am not sure where Anderson might be on this issue. He might be in a category all of his own making, not like the two I note. But my point is the same whatever is the case. You cannot claim to be a democrat and suggest your opponents leave your country if they do not like what you are saying. That makes you a straightforward oppressor, and a totalitarian. It most certainly makes you an opponent of democracy, when respect for duality of opinion and the right to oppose are fundamental to that system of government.
So my question is, did Anderson really mean to oppose democracy, freedom and choice as he did? Or was it just a mistake on his part that we are expected to ignore?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
What he meant to do was stoke the culture war….. we must not rise to the bait.
I understand that Penny Mordaunt played a prominent role in the King’s coronation. The political significance of this has been overlooked. The Conservative Party insinuates itself into every public traditional event (watch the Conservative MP/MSP Twitter feeds at every public event of a military or Royal nature); with the clear purpose of establishing themselves in the public mind as having a special and privileged relationship with the event or institution. The honourable thing is in politics is to avoid such claims. The Conservatives, with a unique charmlessness possess no such standards. Mordaunt is not an exception; they can’t help themselves.
Ben Wallace MP, the Defence Secretary is a member of the Royal Company of Archers, the King’s Bodyguard in Scotland; that has functioned since the pantomime visit to Scotland of George IV in 1822 (and exists as a doubtful and suspect remembrance of the Garde Eccossais, the personal guard of the mediaeval French Kings during the Auld Alliance, that ended abruptly in 1560). This is all far too political, and obviously so; but this is Britain, so nobody says anything. The absurdity of the Royal Company of Archers is that it is a living gerontocracy; I have no idea what physical test is required of members; presumable – no Zimmer frames.
Mordaunt got her role as Lord President of the Council (I.e. Privy Council)
The protocols of Crown Ceremonial are not issues in which I claim any significant historical interest or knowledge; but at Elizabeth II’s coronation I understand there were three swords carried; carried by Peers – two Dukes and an Earl – only one of whom, Alec Douglas-Home I think was a Conservative politican, but in 1953 representing himself in the House of Lords, and a Scottish Office Minister, but not President of the Privy Council (I stand to be corrected), Happy for someone to provide a plausible explanation; but we should remember that everything in British public ceremonial is constantly remade to create only the illusion of permanence. It is very easy to frame change as unbending continuity. I ask the question.
My point about politicisation and the Crown is, I would have thought pertinent given the importance of transparency, the separation of powers and the claim to maintain an apolitical position for the Crown; to say nothing of the search to represent diversity in Britain, as an expression of its aspiration openly to embrace the inevitability of change in the modern world.
I admit I think it was all so Chitty Chitty Bang Bang it makes very little difference
As I prefer at least to understand something of the principles of an issue, I have now tried to check further back; George VI in 1937 seems to have chosen the three military services as sword bearers: three Peers – Cork and Orrery (Navy), Milne (Army), Trenchard (Air Force).
My point is, this is Britain. It looks like Chitty-Chitty; but there are other processes at work. I think you are overlooking the suppressed suasion, the real political influences at work. This looks to me like politicisation. It is a matter of recognising it. In Britain we too often look for bias and manipulation in the wrong places. The point here, I suspect is that we do not know how that process of selecting ritual coronation roles actually worked. Nobody asks the questions; before or after. The gushing guff is just accepted.
The BBC coverage of the coronation was negotiated and presented in conjunction with agreements carefully choreographed with Buckingham Palace. Journalism, independence and impartiality was not involved (it is already in the Charter, it doesn’t require a contract; nobody else will ever receive one). Carrying off a fairy tale British coronation suitable for five year olds, to present a fantasy image of a Britain sound in wind and limb (it isn’t) to the outside world, and a domestic population grateful to be managed like five year olds is – NOT an accident. 64 arrests and, so far only 4 charged. I await demonstration that was proportionate.
Britain is divided. There is a cost of living crisis, inflation; deprivation, strikes, a long post-Covid crisis throughout Britain; and in the middle of all this, we have had a coronation, presenting to the world a representation of Britain with as much contact with reality as a Disneyland procession, or a Disney animated, blockbuster fairy-tale. Reality is elsewhere.
I was struck by the resemblance of Ms Mordaunt’s costume to that of those worn by the Usherettes of Heaven, seen in the trial sequence of Powell and Pressburger’s “A Matter of Life and Death”.
Even her appearance and general bearing looked like a frame by frame copy.
Unlike David Niven, let us hope that monarchy does not get off.
Anderson “has form” as the expression goes. So no mistake.
We could ask him directly on Twitter. We could retweet Richard’s at him or make up our own.
What he means is ‘I can say my opinions even if they offend you. You can’t.’
This is such a good idea. If you don’t like the monarchy, come to Scotland and help us leave Britain. And can you just bring Richard with you? The SNP’s approach to economics is a bit Mickey Mouse…..
“So my question is, did Anderson really mean to oppose democracy, freedom and choice as he did? Or was it just a mistake on his part that we are expected to ignore?”
You ascribe too much intelligence to the publicity-seeking imbecile that is Anderson soon-to-be-ex-MP if the Stoke local election results are to be believed. That said, he probably is a Nazi, albeit without the socialism bit and thus is in total conformance with the political position of most of the vile-tory party with his utterances reflecting their views and thoughts, perfectly.
Not that Liebore is any better, they support (through silence) the suppression of protest. Which leaves the open question: who from Liebore will contest the seat against Jackboot Andreson, doubtless some milquetoast Liebore fascist (after all one does need continuity – doesn’t one! – too much change will make the serfs nervous).
He doesn’t give me the impression of being a great believer in democracy, and his comments about anti-monarchy protesters are just the latest of many examples of him displaying intolerance of those who disagree with him, including his arrogant treatment of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner in the house not so long ago.
Just read the comments in the Mail and Express on the protests. Anderson has a constituency and he knows it. A great many of the English are at heart still the kind of people who enjoyed punishing the natives in empire days.
“So my question is, did Anderson really mean to oppose democracy, freedom and choice as he did? Or was it just a mistake on his part that we are expected to ignore?”
I don’t think Anderson understands the implications of what he said.
I suspect he would vehemently deny being opposed to democracy. Indeed he might say that it is the anti-monarchists who are undemocratic on the grounds that the crown is the guarantor of our freedom and democracy.
But the reality is that we know it is not
I cite the prorogation of parliament
Agreed, but that example is unlikely to impress the likes of Anderson. What, so he might argue, could be more democratic than trying to enforce the “will of the people”?
Lee Anderson is of himself and where he comes from.
Do you know Ashfield in Nottinghamshire at all? I do.
When the pits were open, Ashfield was a hard place to live, with people who went to work and play hard. Then Thatcher came along and ripped the guts out of places like that and left them to rot (Labour hadn’t done much for them in the 70’s either) . And what exactly was Labour able to do for Ashfield in the face of that?
And when Blair came along, what exactly did New Labour do for sacrifice zones like Ashfield in their pursuit of a middle class vote? Not much.
And this is what you get – a man angry at socialism and democracy which has not delivered, who politically then throws his lot in with his oppressors because he is that desperate to achieve something for his home town under a lie of a promise called ‘levelling up’.
Lee Anderson should be taken seriously. How exactly did someone like him come about? I can’t stand him, but we should all try to understand him, as Arendt sought to understand the Nazis.
I see Anderson and all the other Anderson’s in this country as the epitome of the failure of the Left – its adherence to unsound methods of change, its timidity, its politics of revenge, adoption of ‘market segment’ politics, use of fascist techniques and its worst offence of all – it’s lack of faith in humanity and community.
Lee Anderson – and all the Lee Anderson’s in this country – are also tragedies brought about by the piss-poor politics of our times.
I think there is a strong argument in that
Great post PSR – hits the nail squarely on the head & begs the question: what to do – how to describe the change that is needed such that it appeals/resonates with the Lee Andersons of this world.
Mike
The best thing Labour should do if it got in is to stop the the under-the-counter and over-the-counter austerity that has been practised in this country on working people for far too long.
The Anderson’s of this world are good people turned bad by a system of deliberate meanness in social security and government support for former industrial areas.
The meanness, niggardliness (whatever you want to call it) of resources is what enables fascism and un-democracy so that it can be toyed with by political scientists. Investment to promote more equality – more broadly based social security instead of targeted benefits at certain groups – all of these would help. Laboured’s adoption of Clinton style social security ‘reforms’ has to go. Income support is still even now withdrawn too quickly when other earned income comes into play – it’s an all or nothing system that ignores the grey areas.
If everyone can feel the benefits of adequate and supportive social security, everyone supports it. We do not have that now. Our politicians under-provide quoting ‘moral risk’ whilst ignoring the moral risk of a huge fat Central Bank Reserve Account for bankers.
How would I do it? Well, once I was in, I’d just make it happen. People would see the difference in the term of a parliament and then and only then would I tell the Anderson’s what I’d done – when they could feel it. The Anderson’s of this world are past words you see. They need relief that will lead them to change their opinion and believe in democracy again and not see slight differences of opinion as a root cause of their troubles.
Our divide and conquer politics must be resolved by both Left and Right, and even Centre.
Well said
Well, there are some in the US with a decidedly strange view of what constitutes democracy
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/08/lawyer-trump-2020-election-attacks-college-student-voting
And we are copying
Worth making the point that until the Thatcher Government dropped controls on Industrial Development Government Policy was to prohibit the growth of Industries in Mining Areas that might compete with the mines for labour.
So when the mines were closed it was a total disaster for these areas.
I didn’t know that