“Poppy Fascism”

Jon Snow has caused a media sensation by not wearing a poppy on air, condemning “poppy fascism”. He tried to explain why he does not wear a poppy on air, responding to several complaints from viewers of Channel 4 News who thought he should be wearing one. He explained that he does not wear any charitable symbol on air because it would be impossible to show support for all of the causes that he would like to. He also complained at the “poppy fascism” that causes the nation to expect certain people to wear a poppy.

Every newsreader, reporter, interviewer, interviewee and guest on BBC news is expected to sport a poppy. Likewise, anybody attending a quasi-official meeting of any kind in early November is expected to wear one. How can people complain at Jon Snow’s decision not to show support for one charitable cause over another just because everyone else does? Why are poppies any different to the red anti-AIDS ribbon, or the pink breast cancer ribbon? Indeed, if the cause is so important, why don’t people wear poppies all year round?

The poppy appeal is highly political, but wearing a poppy is considered to be required, regardless. How sad.

When charity becomes tradition, and is synonymous with support for the Armed Forces, it is a dangerous force. Politicians would never dream of not wearing a poppy in early November, for fear of attracting criticism from the “they died for your freedom; the least you can do is to buy a prosthetic flower” lobby.

I don’t mean to criticise the appeal itself, but rather the way that it has evolved over the years. It started with a charity selling a poignant symbol in order to raise funds for their cause. Now, it represents support for the armed forces of yesteryear and today, supporting them and their families because they are fighting for our freedom. It is a symbol of nationalism; of solidarity against our military enemies of then and now.

Hard-line pacifists will not show support for the appeal because of its negative connotations. It means showing support for the actions of the Second World War, where Britain helped to build the atomic bomb that indiscriminately slaughtered scores of thousands, the effects of which are still being seen today. They will not show their solidarity for the blanket bombing of Dresden, nor of the use of cluster bombs, or the illegal war in Iraq. The poppy appeal is highly political, but wearing a poppy is considered to be required, regardless. How sad.

I respect their right to wear a poppy, but would respect it rather more if they chose to show their support all year round. “Our servicemen are for life, not just for November”, the slogan could read.

So what’s the point in wearing a poppy? Few of those who have the time to write to Channel 4 News to complain about Jon Snow’s attire are rushing to the Royal British Legion offices to lend their support. They just pay a pound once a year to wear a fake flower for a week, but think it is the end of the world if a newsreader shows their support in a different way. For all they know, Jon Snow could have donated thousands of pounds to the appeal, but chosen not to prove it by wearing a poppy.

This said, I respect those who agree with what poppies stand for. I respect their right to wear a poppy, but would respect it rather more if they chose to show their support all year round. “Our servicemen are for life, not just for November”, the slogan could read. That nobody thinks to complain that a newsreader is poppyless in March, but cares deeply in November demonstrates a distinct lack of regard for the people they wish to “remember” by wearing a poppy.

The real point is this: if you only think a charity is worth supporting for 10 days, why do you care if someone else does not wish to show their support at all? And if you only wear it because you feel you have to, one must wonder what the point is at all.

And, for the record, Jon Snow has stated that he wears a poppy off air.

State Opening of Parliament

We have all had chance to reflect on the State opening of Parliament by now, and political commentators of all colours have branded it a great disappointment. However it is not the content of the “Queen’s Speech” that I wish to discuss at length, so I shall be brief in my summary of it.

The Labour government is clearly on its way out, and this Queen’s Speech clearly demonstrated that. It featured a rehash of failed policies from the last nine years, and aims to add yet more pointless legislation to the statute books. It is no surprise that the media are focusing on Blair’s “anointing” of Gordon Brown: that was the most interesting story from the day’s proceedings.

The pomp and circumstance surrounding this ceremony is shameful. The unelected Lords, dressed in stupid red robes (at the taxpayer’s expense) listened to Blair’s annual propaganda drive. Each year the Queen delivers her speech, spewing out the plans of “Her Majesty’s Government”, legitimising the actions taken by that government. If she had any dignity she would refuse to support “Her” government unless it had the popular support of the public. As things stand, Blair never has – and never will have – the majority support of the electorate, so the Queen’s co-operation in his legislative programme is entirely anti-democratic.

Each year, The Queen is sucked into a political black hole where she willingly pledges her allegiance to the legislative programme of a government that the majority of the electorate don’t want to see implemented. In essence, she is announcing her opposition to democracy, and encouraging an increasingly presidential style of government. This is a grave folly indeed. She, or at least her son, is the person who stands to lose the most from this.

The alternatives? Well, a representative electoral system would legitimise the legislation that parliament produces. An elected House of Lords would legitimise their gross waste of taxpayers’ money. The abolition of the monarchy would return the government to the hands of the electorate, not “Her Majesty”. A fair, accountable, representative parliament would serve this country far better than the ill-thought-out mess we call our constitution.

Legislation cannot be made law with two-thirds opposition of the electorate disagreeing with it. It cannot be imposed upon a nation that has actively voted against its implementation. This constitution is fundamentally undemocratic and immoral. It’s about time the Queen stood down, and a democratic electoral process was implemented. Until then, parliament’s actions are not legitimate, and they should be held to account for their oppression of the public against their will.

The New Constitution

Welcome to the New Constitution Blog. This blog aims to give a perspective of British Politics that is all but ignored by the mainstream media. I believe the current political scene in the United Kingdom is stagnant because of centuries of political defeatism. I hope to highlight some of the injustices in our political landscape, and suggest alternatives.

As such, I hope to compile an extensive document outlining my theories for a better, more just constitution for the United Kingdom. I hope to use this blog to cover issues of constitutional importance as they occur, and ultimately add them to The New Constitution.

For starters, I can give you a brief summary of what I would change.

1. Abolish the monarchy.
2. Real, radical reform of the House of Lords – or the abolition thereof.
3. Implement a proportional electoral system in the United Kingdom.
4. Set out key principles in human rights, including:
   a. Right to peaceful protest in all circumstances
   b. Right to trial by jury in all circumstances
   c. Right to freedom from control orders, etc, unless charged with an offence.
5. Renationalise certain industries, including:
   a. Bus services
   b. Train services
   c. Water supplies
   d. Electricity supplies
… and much more.

In the coming weeks and months, I will add to this list and suggest a New Constitution, founded on liberal principles. And all the while, I will comment on British politics, and analyse the mainstream media coverage thereof. I hope you will join me for my voyage through the smokescreen of the status quo to a political system the world will envy.