The Revolution is Postponed…

by Stoker

….until after the holidays.  Well, let’s face it.  The weather has been just glorious – in the UK anyway, but also on the ski slopes and in the Med, apparently. Too silly to go manning the barricades and chucking petrol cocktails just now; sit in the sun and drink beer for another week or two. 

But there seems to be a general growing consensus that trouble is coming. TROUBLE we should perhaps say.  In Britain you may scoff?  Oh yes indeedy.  But you don’t have revolutions in the jolly old UK, you say; you have cups of tea and cream scones.  Now, France, you say; that’s different; revolutions are etched into the political calendar.  From 1789 onwards there was one every twenty years or so, monarchs were chucked out, invited back, replaced with Emperors, then, when all the royals went off the job as entailing too much palace moving and badly paid, the French moved onto Republics. They are now on the Fifth. Need we say more?

Whilst in Britain nothing much has changed; the Windsors are still there, there are still hereditaries in the House of Lords, silly medals and decorations abound.  It is true the seat of government burnt down and a new one had to be built, but that was a result of a bonfire, not a riot. Any MP transmitted from 1832 to 2025 would recognise all the systems and titles and functions.  Wouldn’t he?  Well yes and no; the labels may be the same but the functions are generally different. Though Lord     Sumption recently pointed out that in the case of the Supreme Court the title may have changed but it does exactly what the Law Lords used to do in the House of Lords.  Up to a point mi’ lord, the blighters have given up their wigs.

Actually, Britain is very good at quiet revolutions; probably as a result of shyness and good manners. There was a bit of serious argy-bargy in 1642 to 1647, and there was a minor attempt by the Norfolk squire Robert Kett to set something off in 1549. This is known as the Commotion, which probably tells you how serious it turned out to be – i.e. not at all.  In 1660 there was a counter-revolution when the Cromwellian Parliamentarians were shoved out in favour of the Stuarts again, but the incoming monarch had more sense than to change anything that was working.  He brought back Christmas – a popular move - and generally was grumpy with the House of Commons, but not nearly as grumpy as Oliver Cromwell had been.  In 1689 out went the Stuarts to be replaced quietly and politely by the House of Orange, and it was clear that the people were taking charge.

In 1819 the urge for more democracy and more equitable spreading of wealth almost got out of hand in Manchester (the Peterloo Massacre) but everybody was so upset by the violence that they agreed, even the Duke of Wellington, that something must be done and a series of reform acts, and taxation and social reforms accomplished what in much of Europe took the 1848 uprisings to bring forth, and then not terribly successfully. After World War One, again Europeans took to fighting in the streets and assassination, but in Britain change went on vigorously under the surface but without frightening the horses. It is true the King felt he had to go in 1936 but that was more for loving and talking too wildly than violent change.

The Brits do tend to a natural reserve and politeness. Or did. Social media, perhaps, has eroded that. The inhabitants of this United Kingdom now say very rude things indeed to each other digitally; and alas increasingly face to face.  Including our Parliamentarians, traditionally pretty much always restrained and polite, but now getting rather direct and vulgar.  And there is a lot of shouting in the streets, and obstructing of citizens going about their lawful occasions, something in which the government, police, and courts also, regrettably, have begun to involve themselves. 

What is going on?  Tim Stanley is a member of an ancient English political family, whose main fame has been a tendency to change sides, beginning at the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485.  Tim was a Labour candidate and is now a Tory; was a Baptist, then an Anglican, now a Catholic; and was a teenager radical scribbler but now a journalist on the Daily Telegraph, or Daily Torygraph, if you prefer.  He is rapidly becoming a well-regarded commentator well connected with many politicians which give him useful insights into what used to be called “the condition of the people.”

He has observed this failure of manners, the decline of polite discourse, and it worries him. He sees increasing anger, a mulishness among what used to be tolerant citizens, a cynicism about and a resentment of those both elected to govern and those employed to execute (instructions, not monarchs).  He cites a feeling, very widely spread, that many civil servants, particularly dealing with town and country planning issues, are routinely bribed.  This is because of the way in which planning decisions are, or seem to be, reached in both strategic and minor matters. “Brown envelopes” (i.e. cash bribes) is the routine shoulder-shrugging remark about many planning decisions.  In fact all the evidence is that Britain is remarkably free of bribery in public life (a series of scandals in the 1970’s saw a real clean-up), but it is true to say that much governance is poorly decided and executed, and rarely explained to those it affects; often because civil servants are over-worked, under- trained, and attempting to do things which are not possible (build 1.5 million houses in 5 years; achieve net zero by 2030, for instance).

The issue, says young Stanley and an increasing number of commentators, is not what is actually happening, but what the people think is happening.  They feel disregarded and overlooked; the Brexit Leave campaign picked up that feeling brilliantly with Take Back Control.  The voters feel that they have no control and that those who are nominally their representatives and the supposed implementers of their wishes ignore them.  Some of this is true; a well-run society often best works by ignoring what the members think they want and giving them what they truly want, if only they had thought of it.

But at the moment our political masters seem to overlook that they should at least look and behave as though they were listening to us.  Even Mr Trump in another place seems to be forgetting this, and he is a master of selling the deal.  Sir Keir seems to be a little bit aware, but will he pay true heed to improving public services and cutting taxation, all at the same time?  It may be impossible, but it will have to be done.  Too much change; too little change. Too fast, too slow. And our leaders need to understand public concern over violence, immigration, lack of punishment , over punishment, threats to free speech, lack of proper jobs, potholes, overcrowded roads, late running trains, lack of airport facilities, building huge new schemes at terrible expense, mad power prices [that’s enough – Editor].   

Gil Scott-Heron advised in 1971 that the revolution will not be televised.  But in 2025 it assuredly will be, if it starts.  If Sir Keir doesn’t get a grip on the disaffection growing around the country, we could be in for a moderate, polite British revolution.  But will it stay that way?