George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer, has written a letter to The Sunday Telegraph today. In it he says, "Our recovery - already facing powerful headwinds from high oil prices and the debt burden left behind by the boom years - is being killed off by the crisis on our doorstep." The response from Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, was predictable: "It's deeply complacent and out of touch for George Osborne to blame Europe for a double-dip recession made in Downing Street. He will fool nobody with these increasingly desperate excuses."
Déjà entendu? Don't you remember the Labour Government saying our economic woes were all the fault of the American sub-prime market and the bankers? It's really not our fault, they said. Of course the Tory Opposition repeatedly asserted that the deficit was actually the result of the government's irresponsible stewarding of public finances. Of course it was their fault, they told us.
Life's not that simple. It's not black and white. No wonder so many people feel like Mercutio, dying because of the ancient feud between the Montagues and Capulets - "a plague o' both your houses"! If the consequences weren't so serious for the people in the middle, we might write it off as "Punch and Judy politics". However there are casualties - from the young unemployed with little prospect of finding a job, to the genuine disabled facing cuts in their support. And of course there's the cost of people's faith (and interest) in politics.
This coming week our political leaders will be in the spotlight in front of Lord Justice Leveson. I don't suppose the modus operandi of their politics will be focused on. Perhaps Her Majesty might have a word, when she has a chance after her strenuous week. She might remind them of the New Testament reading from her St Paul's service on Tuesday which was read by the Prime Minister: "Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honourable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all." Did she choose it deliberately? I wonder.
Showing posts with label Queen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Queen. Show all posts
Sunday, 10 June 2012
Tuesday, 5 June 2012
Royal reflections
I'm sorry. I think this will do me good - a sort of therapy; and if I'm lucky, if I can get it out of my system, it will save Jane from having to put up with a somewhat cynical husband for another day. It may lose me some friends, but there we are; you win some, you lose some....
My problem is this. All this hooha over the Queen's Diamond Jubilee has been getting to me. As readers of this blog will be aware, I admire HRH immensely; I take some pleasure in having passed Prince Charles once or twice going to lectures on the Sidgwick Site in Cambridge (and personally I don't think he's as potty as his detractors try to make us believe); and I admit to having been thoroughly seduced by last year's royal couple. However yesterday in church we had a short video compilation of the coronation and, I am sorry, I saw the rows of ermine, that gaudy coach and all the ceremony (highly symbolic, I know) of gold, and crowns, sceptre, sword of state etc etc, and I thought, "Surely, please, we're not going to repeat all that in a few years' time, are we?" And the answer was of course a resounding affirmative. And next time the media juggernaut will roll into action with even greater hyperboles. The national anthem was sung at the end of the service: "Long live our noble Queen... send her victorious... long to reign over us..." - and I had heretical thoughts, such as, "Is it fair to pray that she'll get very old? Or to ask that she'll never be allowed to enjoy a retirement? And whom exactly do we want her to fight and beat?" At least the verse about frustrating her enemies' knavish tricks was left out.
No, it's not her majesty that's been getting under my skin. Neither is it communities coming together for celebrations. I think street parties like village festivals (of which Stanford's is a good example) are excellent occasions, bringing people out from their houses worshipping their one-eyed gods in the corner (or on the wall if it's a big-screen plasma one) and reminding them that they have a lot of neighbours who are human and indeed quite nice. Jane and I went yesterday to Wantage Market Place, where about 4000 people had been in spite of the rain, and this afternoon we sauntered down to Grove Rugby ground where there was a panoply of entertainments and stalls and many more people enjoying the sunshine. I understand these cost ratepayers nothing, unlike nearby Abingdon which had budgeted £50,000 for their weekend.
It's not even the money, however, that's made me reflect, although the message of lavish spending to celebrate the unusual length of a queen's reign should create pause for thought in a period of austerity when most people are being forced to economise and many are without jobs. We're told that the cost of the celebrations is being met by private donors - though that is clearly not the case, as Abingdon illustrates, and when such things as heightened security and additional policing, fly-pasts, broadcasting etc are factored in. But the message is still there, loud and clear, money can be found for some purposes after all - just not for the most disadvantaged. I heard someone on the radio this morning defending the expense by saying, "For once, can't we forget about bread, and give them circuses? We need both...".
I suppose that's the question. Has the monarchy just become a circus to entertain the hungry masses? Is that its real function? I don't presume to know the Queen's personal views, though we are told that if history hadn't lined her up for the throne she'd have chosen a quiet life in the country with horses and dogs. All the more credit to her for fulfilling her role of service to the country with such faithfulness. However all the pomp and circumstance, all the traditional razzmatazz, all the extravagance of the "court" could be regarded as circus entertainment, which is of course how the media treat it, when all the pseudo deference is stripped away. I'm left wondering not so much whether we want a monarchy, but whether we want a celebrity-style royal family, frozen in theme-park aspic.
My intelligent friends abroad had interesting reactions to the weekend. Mark, an Englishman in Sydney, commented: "So glad I'm in Australia, there is only so much of the Union Jack I can cope with..... And I've seen too much on Facebook alone!!" It's not that he's unpatriotic; but I think he is tired by jingoism and our constant apparent need to "big ourselves up" (to use the unpleasant but vivid modern expression), often at the expense of others. Jeannie in New York when I mentioned the Jubilee weekend commented that she was "not into the 'queen'" (by which I think she meant monarchy show), but she had been "a Diana fan", and she "likes Prince Charles's environmental stuff". Such a balanced assessment was refreshing to read after all the uncritical adulation or unthinking antagonism which occupied the airwaves of the BBC at times. I asked a Dutch friend who lives in the UK, "Do we REALLY do royalty so well? I know we do it expensively; but it seems to me we do it extravagantly. Should we go Dutch? I can't believe you're so prodigal. (NB I think good Queen Bess 2nd does royalty very well.)" She agreed that Britain could manage its monarchy at a much more modest cost, and that the Netherlands manage a constitutional monarchy with far more simplicity, "properly rooted in the Dutch calvinist tradition, sense of duty and profound awareness of God's grace."
It was interesting for me to read about the Dutch monarchy, and also to google pictures of Dutch royal ceremonies. Pictures of pageants and pomp are strikingly missing. Only Queen Beatrix and her consort, and the heir apparent and his are paid stipends (linked to the civil service's rate). The rest of the extensive royal family have to earn their own living. I seem to remember her mother, Queen Juliana, used a bicycle. The queen is provided with one official residence and one work palace. For state occasions there's the Old Palace in Amsterdam, which open to the public at other times. This unshowy royal family have between 85 and 83% approval rating. According to Jenni Bond, the former BBC royal correspondent, our Queen's approval rating in the polls is 80% (Radio 5 this morning), when she's never been more loved. From which I conclude that all the flim-flam industry with which we surround our monarchy is dispensable. (And please don't give me the tired and irrelevant "It's good for the tourist industry" line!)
I tuned in to a heated exchange on Radio 5 Live this morning, including one Dicky Arbiter, once the Queen's press secretary and now public speaker. I think it was him that made a comment, to justify monarchy, that seven of the most stable democracies have monarchies, by which I guess he meant Belgium, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. For some reason he didn't mention states like Saudi Arabia, Brunei, Swaziland, Omar, Dubai, Qatar, Morocco, Bahrain etc. I'm sorry. It's empty arguments like that which make me consider democracies such as Ireland which elects its impressive non-executive head of state. However for the moment I'm grateful for ITV4 which has been showing the diverting French Open Tennis, which has provided welcome relief from saturation coverage of plastic-flag-waving jubilifications. And to be honest, I am more grateful and full of admiration for the woman standing alone in the centre of this picture, while at the same time I wish her husband a speedy recovery.
My problem is this. All this hooha over the Queen's Diamond Jubilee has been getting to me. As readers of this blog will be aware, I admire HRH immensely; I take some pleasure in having passed Prince Charles once or twice going to lectures on the Sidgwick Site in Cambridge (and personally I don't think he's as potty as his detractors try to make us believe); and I admit to having been thoroughly seduced by last year's royal couple. However yesterday in church we had a short video compilation of the coronation and, I am sorry, I saw the rows of ermine, that gaudy coach and all the ceremony (highly symbolic, I know) of gold, and crowns, sceptre, sword of state etc etc, and I thought, "Surely, please, we're not going to repeat all that in a few years' time, are we?" And the answer was of course a resounding affirmative. And next time the media juggernaut will roll into action with even greater hyperboles. The national anthem was sung at the end of the service: "Long live our noble Queen... send her victorious... long to reign over us..." - and I had heretical thoughts, such as, "Is it fair to pray that she'll get very old? Or to ask that she'll never be allowed to enjoy a retirement? And whom exactly do we want her to fight and beat?" At least the verse about frustrating her enemies' knavish tricks was left out.
 |
| Wantage Market Place festivities with the "Rockits" |
It's not even the money, however, that's made me reflect, although the message of lavish spending to celebrate the unusual length of a queen's reign should create pause for thought in a period of austerity when most people are being forced to economise and many are without jobs. We're told that the cost of the celebrations is being met by private donors - though that is clearly not the case, as Abingdon illustrates, and when such things as heightened security and additional policing, fly-pasts, broadcasting etc are factored in. But the message is still there, loud and clear, money can be found for some purposes after all - just not for the most disadvantaged. I heard someone on the radio this morning defending the expense by saying, "For once, can't we forget about bread, and give them circuses? We need both...".
I suppose that's the question. Has the monarchy just become a circus to entertain the hungry masses? Is that its real function? I don't presume to know the Queen's personal views, though we are told that if history hadn't lined her up for the throne she'd have chosen a quiet life in the country with horses and dogs. All the more credit to her for fulfilling her role of service to the country with such faithfulness. However all the pomp and circumstance, all the traditional razzmatazz, all the extravagance of the "court" could be regarded as circus entertainment, which is of course how the media treat it, when all the pseudo deference is stripped away. I'm left wondering not so much whether we want a monarchy, but whether we want a celebrity-style royal family, frozen in theme-park aspic.
My intelligent friends abroad had interesting reactions to the weekend. Mark, an Englishman in Sydney, commented: "So glad I'm in Australia, there is only so much of the Union Jack I can cope with..... And I've seen too much on Facebook alone!!" It's not that he's unpatriotic; but I think he is tired by jingoism and our constant apparent need to "big ourselves up" (to use the unpleasant but vivid modern expression), often at the expense of others. Jeannie in New York when I mentioned the Jubilee weekend commented that she was "not into the 'queen'" (by which I think she meant monarchy show), but she had been "a Diana fan", and she "likes Prince Charles's environmental stuff". Such a balanced assessment was refreshing to read after all the uncritical adulation or unthinking antagonism which occupied the airwaves of the BBC at times. I asked a Dutch friend who lives in the UK, "Do we REALLY do royalty so well? I know we do it expensively; but it seems to me we do it extravagantly. Should we go Dutch? I can't believe you're so prodigal. (NB I think good Queen Bess 2nd does royalty very well.)" She agreed that Britain could manage its monarchy at a much more modest cost, and that the Netherlands manage a constitutional monarchy with far more simplicity, "properly rooted in the Dutch calvinist tradition, sense of duty and profound awareness of God's grace."
It was interesting for me to read about the Dutch monarchy, and also to google pictures of Dutch royal ceremonies. Pictures of pageants and pomp are strikingly missing. Only Queen Beatrix and her consort, and the heir apparent and his are paid stipends (linked to the civil service's rate). The rest of the extensive royal family have to earn their own living. I seem to remember her mother, Queen Juliana, used a bicycle. The queen is provided with one official residence and one work palace. For state occasions there's the Old Palace in Amsterdam, which open to the public at other times. This unshowy royal family have between 85 and 83% approval rating. According to Jenni Bond, the former BBC royal correspondent, our Queen's approval rating in the polls is 80% (Radio 5 this morning), when she's never been more loved. From which I conclude that all the flim-flam industry with which we surround our monarchy is dispensable. (And please don't give me the tired and irrelevant "It's good for the tourist industry" line!)
I tuned in to a heated exchange on Radio 5 Live this morning, including one Dicky Arbiter, once the Queen's press secretary and now public speaker. I think it was him that made a comment, to justify monarchy, that seven of the most stable democracies have monarchies, by which I guess he meant Belgium, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. For some reason he didn't mention states like Saudi Arabia, Brunei, Swaziland, Omar, Dubai, Qatar, Morocco, Bahrain etc. I'm sorry. It's empty arguments like that which make me consider democracies such as Ireland which elects its impressive non-executive head of state. However for the moment I'm grateful for ITV4 which has been showing the diverting French Open Tennis, which has provided welcome relief from saturation coverage of plastic-flag-waving jubilifications. And to be honest, I am more grateful and full of admiration for the woman standing alone in the centre of this picture, while at the same time I wish her husband a speedy recovery.
 |
| from Huffington Post |
Monday, 26 December 2011
The Queen's Speech
With Jane out of action, the A team did a sterling job on Christmas lunch yesterday. We lingered over the turkey and trimmings with Château Capville 2009, and the sherry trifle and mince pies. One result was that we watched the Queen's Christmas address after 3 o'clock. However in my opinion it was worth waiting for. You can watch it here. I gather it's all her own work, without political advisers interfering. Perhaps it was an illusion fostered by the fact that Prince Philip was in Papworth Heart Hospital while the broadcast went out (obviously it had been filmed some time ago), and perhaps because Jane and I have been extra aware of the fragility of life, but to me there was a sense of the Queen wanting to record her most urgent message while she could.
It was nicely constructed, reminiscing over the royals' past year in which they'd seen extreme hardship in Australia and New Zealand and South Wales, and the response of courage. It reflected on the strength of friendship and family, mentioning the her two grandchildren's weddings. Its conclusion, somewhat flinched at by the press, was uncompromising and uncoded, simple and profound:
"For many, this Christmas will not be easy. With our armed forces deployed around the world, thousands of service families face Christmas without their loved ones at home.
"The bereaved and the lonely will find it especially hard. And, as we all know, the world is going through difficult times. All this will affect our celebration of this great Christian festival.
"Finding hope in adversity is one of the themes of Christmas. Jesus was born into a world full of fear. The angels came to frightened shepherds with hope in their voices: 'Fear not', they urged, 'we bring you tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
"'For unto you is born this day in the City of David a Saviour who is Christ the Lord.'
"Although we are capable of great acts of kindness, history teaches us that we sometimes need saving from ourselves - from our recklessness or our greed.
"God sent into the world a unique person - neither a philosopher nor a general, important though they are, but a Saviour, with the power to forgive.
"Forgiveness lies at the heart of the Christian faith. It can heal broken families, it can restore friendships and it can reconcile divided communities. It is in forgiveness that we feel the power of God's love.
"In the last verse of this beautiful carol, O Little Town Of Bethlehem, there's a prayer:
O Holy Child of Bethlehem,
Descend to us we pray.
Cast out our sin
And enter in.
Be born in us today.
"It is my prayer that on this Christmas day we might all find room in our lives for the message of the angels and for the love of God through Christ our Lord."
"Neither a philosopher nor a general... but a Saviour with the power to forgive" - that is strong stuff. It's not PC, but yet it's true. "Forgiveness lies at the heart of the Christian faith" and it is able to heal families, friendships and communities, and, as her Majesty's prayer implies, it is not something endemic to humanity, but something given through Jesus Christ. Well said, Ma'am!
And thank you, family, for a wonderfully lovely Christmas.
Saturday, 1 January 2011
New Year's Day
"Well, that'll learn him!" I can almost hear the grizzly badgers in my former churches after both the Queen's Christmas Day message and the Archbishop of Canterbury's New Year message today on the subject of the 400th anniversary of the Authorised (or King James', as it seems fashionable to call it) Version of The Bible. I raised great ire in some quarters by introducing a dynamic equivalent translation, the Good News Version, for use in church. In fact it was not done without consultation or off my own bat, but vicars exist to stop the buck.
My answer was to point to William Tyndale, the first English translator of the Bible. I like this lively description, by Alice Brewer, apparently aged 10, in the Tyndale Archive: "To a 15th century farmer, the Bible was just a big book full of unreadable words and made-up rules. This was because priests in those times insisted on the Bible being in Latin. They said the Bible was a holy book, and shouldn’t be allowed to be read by any old sinful peasant. Really, they wanted it to be in a language only they could understand so they could make up a bunch of silly laws to suit themselves, then get away with it by saying "It says so in the Bible." They thought no-one would ever know different, and no-one would ever try and reveal the truth. And no-one did, until Tyndale came along...." (http://www.tyndalearchive.com/Brewer/Alice/WilliamT.htm)
Having taught English for many years I'm aware that for all the beauty of the 17th-century prose, much of the AV is actually inaccessible to the average reader - who's much more likely to read and understand The Sun or The Mirror than The Telegraph or The Independent. And the Bible contains good news for all people. When challenged by a grouchy priest one day, Tyndale's reputed reply was, "If God spare my life, before very long I shall cause a plough boy to know the scriptures better than you do!" In the end he was martyred for his work, but he had set in motion a tradition of putting the Bible within the reach of everyone who could read, of which the placing of the Authorised Version in every church in the land, was the fruit.
One of my favourite verses which I still prefer in that version over any other is: Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.' Might be a good motto for this year.
However the fact that there are versions which are now more comprehensible to people at large does not diminish or undermine the unique importance of the AV. Its influence on language, literature, culture, ethics and in fact on the whole of our heritage is unparalleled. But Rowan Williams pointed out its most significant contribution, which he summarised as: "for people to make sense of their lives, it helps to have a strongly defined story in the background, that tells us that we all matter" - whether we feel it or not, and whatever our circumstances. As well as referring to the Psalms, he showed us the words, "For God so loved the world... that he gave his only begotten Son." That is why we all matter.
I trust you enjoy 2011 and know, without doubt, that you matter, you are infinitely significant.
My answer was to point to William Tyndale, the first English translator of the Bible. I like this lively description, by Alice Brewer, apparently aged 10, in the Tyndale Archive: "To a 15th century farmer, the Bible was just a big book full of unreadable words and made-up rules. This was because priests in those times insisted on the Bible being in Latin. They said the Bible was a holy book, and shouldn’t be allowed to be read by any old sinful peasant. Really, they wanted it to be in a language only they could understand so they could make up a bunch of silly laws to suit themselves, then get away with it by saying "It says so in the Bible." They thought no-one would ever know different, and no-one would ever try and reveal the truth. And no-one did, until Tyndale came along...." (http://www.tyndalearchive.com/Brewer/Alice/WilliamT.htm)
 |
| From the Tyndale archive |
One of my favourite verses which I still prefer in that version over any other is: Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.' Might be a good motto for this year.
However the fact that there are versions which are now more comprehensible to people at large does not diminish or undermine the unique importance of the AV. Its influence on language, literature, culture, ethics and in fact on the whole of our heritage is unparalleled. But Rowan Williams pointed out its most significant contribution, which he summarised as: "for people to make sense of their lives, it helps to have a strongly defined story in the background, that tells us that we all matter" - whether we feel it or not, and whatever our circumstances. As well as referring to the Psalms, he showed us the words, "For God so loved the world... that he gave his only begotten Son." That is why we all matter.
I trust you enjoy 2011 and know, without doubt, that you matter, you are infinitely significant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)