27 minute read
Comment
Editors: Ciaron Tobin, Matt Holland, Anna Lee (Deputy), Rose Henderson (Deputy)
comment@oxfordstudent.com
Advertisement
Liz Truss: The Chameleon Prime Minister
Freddie Foulston
You could be forgiven for thinking our new Prime Minister has all the conviction of a flip flop who’s flip flapped her way to Number 10. In 47 years of shapeshifting, she’s managed to roam the entire political spectrum: avid Remainer to staunch Brexiteer,‘disruptorin-chief’ to figurehead of the establishment. She claimed to ‘rip up’ treasury orthodoxy despite herself being Chief Secretary to the Treasury from 2017-19. Liz Truss appears to be an amalgam of opposites. Born to left-wing parents whom she described as ‘to the Left of Labour’, the first sparks of Liz’s political activism were ignited when her mother took her to campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in a ‘ban the bomb’ protest. It was there that she railed against the government and chanted anti-Thatcherite slogans. This is perhaps surprising given her efforts to channel Margaret Thatcher throughout her campaign, being photographed atop a tank during NATO exercises in Estonia to mirror Thatcher in the Falklands War.
She also emulates Thatcher in her plans to enforce low regulation, low tax, free-marketeering, small state policies, keeping corporation tax low and vowing (for now) not to introduce a windfall tax on energy companies. But how do we reconcile such a libertarian leaning with chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng’s proposal of £150 billion in handouts, designed to freeze the average energy price at £2,500 per year? Or plans to raise defense spending to 3% of GDP?
The enigma continues when one examines her past. As President of the Oxford Liberal Democrats, she campaigned to decriminalise marijuana. Truss joined the Conservatives in 1996 just two years after a speech she gave at a Liberal Democrat conference calling for the end of the monarchy. These progressive leanings seem firmly in the past since she now frames herself, or is being framed by the media, as a hardline rightwing Conservative. She’s also transformed from square and squawky student to zealously curated self-publicist and ‘Queen of Instagram’. Given the frequency and scale of such metamorphoses, it is difficult to know who she truly is and what she represents. Her belief systems change like the wind; Neil Fawcett, Lib Dem Councillor told the Washington Post, ‘it’s very difficult to tell what she actually believed. She took strong positions to play to whatever audience she was speaking to’. It seems she’s adept at harnessing all the populist instincts of Johnsonesque demagoguery. Though we can’t be sure what she believes in, she did a good job of telling Tory voters what she thinks she might believe in and what she thought they seemed to want her to believe in. To the Conservative party members, ‘the golf club boors’ as Alistair Campbell gaudily refers to them on the Rest is Politics, her purported policies went down like honey-glazed duck leg confit and chateau lafîte. It’s no wonder they eagerly sucked up the razzmatazz about ‘conservative values’ of liberty, freedom, and personal responsibility. This populist seduction is nothing new. Since she shares so much of his unruly duplicity, perhaps she should be seen as the Boris Johnson continuity candidate. Like Truss, Johnson was a self styled ‘libertarian’, though his enforcement of authoritarian Covid lockdowns proves he was not. Like Truss, he was once a remainer and a brexiteer, though his infamous double column for the Telegraph in 2019, in which he transparently toyed with the arguments for both, proves that really, he was neither. Like Truss, he framed himself as a pragmatist who would deliver in times of need and get things done. Brexit and thoroughly trumpeted vaccine rollout aside, he largely did not. But what do principles matter? It is a politician’s job after all to sniff the air of public opinion, whisper the winds of democratic demand, and change tack accordingly. In fact, a lack of steadfast political principles is in many ways a strength. It has been for Truss throughout her career. She plays on this elusive, mercurial nature to constantly redefine herself. She carries an air of mystery, but it doesn’t always pan out well. You’re more gaffe prone when dissimulating, jesting, or hiding opinions, as revealed by the Emmanuel Macron ‘friend or foe?’ question to which Truss playfully replied, ‘the jury’s out’ . It could be tactful to equivocate where personal beliefs are concerned, but perhaps not when dealing with the UK’s closest ally in Europe. For all her caprices, she does sometimes present well as a selfprofessed ‘plain-speaking Yorkshire woman’, the foil to Johnson’s overelaborate, bumbling bombast. Though lampooned in the press and on Twitter for saccharine remarks in her first speech to the Conservative party, her words are simple and clear. In PMQs her retorts were sharp, quick and decisive, unlike her predecessor’s. Starmer will struggle to attack bluster and boosterism on the opposite bench where he can no longer find any. He will have to adjust to a lower level of buffoonery to face a Prime Minister who has camouflaged to present a veneer of competence. For now, Truss and her newly appointed cabinet will pursue this new brand of ostensibly practical politics following on from the chancellor’s mini budget to combat the energy crisis. This necessary proactivity is refreshing on the back of the Tories’ recent inertia. But will it continue? There is an obvious friction between her desire for small state government promising low taxes and her desire to increase spending on the NHS and the armed forces, to name a few. The Chameleon Queen will need to scheme how best to plot her way through these conflicts of interest. Time will tell if she can effectively strike the age-old balance between being opportunistic and delivering practical change, these being the key to re-election in 2024. Is she simply another of David Aaranovitch’s (as quoted in The Times) ‘faux-populist, promisemuch deliver-nothing wheezes’? Perhaps her greatest strength is that we don’t really know who she is or what she represents. Only a decade ago did she burst onto the political scene and her meteoric rise has been a surprise to all of us. She’s unpredictable. Her true plans and machinations are disguised. But the old adage may prove to ring true: “Power is at its most effective when least visible”.
Comment
Is Democracy The Only Way?
Aquestion concerning the function and composition of the House of Lords is a question about the British constitution. Aside from the Monarchy, the upper house “of Lords” is the oldest institution in our society and is, unsurprisingly, the most archaic too. The function of the upper house, by and large, is to check the actions of the current government and if needed, veto bills. Since the turn of the 20th century, the powers of the Lords have largely diminished from absolute veto power over bills to a more limited delaying power, with the only failsafes being vetoes to prevent the formation of a dictatorship. Since the Lords blocked David Lloyd George’s “People’s Budget” in 1909, the House of Lords has undergone numerous reforms and, in the process, been the subject of lively public debate. This debate concerns largely the purpose of the upper house and how this must change as the composition and source of legitimacy changes. As such, though it is one of the most static aspects of our governmental system, it is in a slow state of flux. Yet again, the Lords has reached public discourse, as a leaked document hints at significant reform under a new Labour government. These proposed reforms have not been elucidated in full as they are yet to be officially announced. However, the constitutional review, written by former PM Gordon Brown, recommends further devolution of powers to “regions and nations” granting them independent control over taxation, education, research funding and transport. This builds on the devolution work of the Blair government in the 90s and early 2000s, which saw the introduction of the Welsh Assembly (Senedd Cymru) as well as a major Lords reform in 1999. One cannot help but think, upon reading this, that Starmer is trying to invoke some of Blair’s spirit, and perhaps in doing so will another landslide victory for Labour into being. In fact, this is hardly surpris-
ing – the writer of the report is Gordon Brown, no shock then that he is urging Starmer to continue where he left off. This proposal must be analysed in the context of two things: twelve years of Conservative government and Though it is one of the Starmer’s strategy as leader most static aspects of of the opposiour governmental sys- tion. Under tem, it is in a slow state the consequent of flux governments of Cameron, May, Johnson and now Truss, the faith of the people in a democratic mandate for government has eroded. May and Johnson held a “snap” general election soon after their appointments in order to secure this democratic mandate; Truss has not, and has announced no plans to do so. Longitudinally, it rather appears that Brexit has thrown our government into seven years of chaos, the conservative party haemorrhaging its more moderate members with each iteration. This has exposed a very right-wing economic skeleton of Truss and Kwarteng, surrounded by successively fewer experienced cabinet members. This is a deviation from the economically socialist policies enacted during the Covid-19 pandemic, where, with the conservatives behaving in this way, Labour had few corners to run to: this new government is the sort of conservatism that Labour, under a more Blair-like leader, knows how to fight. This is evidenced in the now thirty percent lead Labour now has over the Truss govt in the opinion polls—it is therefore likely that if an election were to be held soon, Labour could obtain a sufficient majority to push through ambitious legislation. Labour had few corners to run to: this new government is the sort of conservatism that Labour, under a more Blair-like leader, knows how to fight.
So what does this have to do with the House of Lords? It is the question of democracy and legitimacy. The House of Commons has long held its legitimacy from its democratic rep-
resentation, an expectation that Truss, having been voted in by only 80 thousand conservative members (in a national population of millions) has since subverted. The House of Lords traditionally represented the interests of the aristocracy, and this has been a major argument for its reform: in today’s age, it is generally considered unjust to give landowners (and especially those with hereditary titles) political pre-eminence over the interThis proposal must ests of the widbe analysed in er population. the context of two things: twelve years Thus the question of reforming the House of of Conservative gov- Lords is to find a source, alternative to the individual representation of the commons, from which the upper house could derive its legitimacy. One route, which the US has achieved, is to represent territories: something workable within a federal system. With the increased devolution Labour is suggesting, Labour has concluded that the next logical step is to reform the House of Lords to represent regions
Did Putin Save The Liberal World Order?
in the quasi-federal state we would find ourselves in. In this way the Lords reform is handin-hand with wider national devolution, which would radically change the purpose, function and composition of the upper house. The composition of House of Lords as it stands today was shaped in a major way by two acts of government: the Life Peerages act 1958 and the House of Lords Act 1999. The former enabled peerages to be made by appointment, instead of solely via the hereditary system, and also enabled women to enter the upper house for the first time. Traditionally, Labour politicians were far less likely to accept hereditary peerages (aristocratic titles, passing on to the firstborn son after death) so this Act laid the first stones in giving the Lords more political balance. Even so, before 1999 Conservative peers outnumbered Labour by a large majority. It is worth noting that the composition of the house of Lords is not solely Labour or Conservative; a large number of peers are “cross-bench” (independent or affiliated with neither party), a smaller number represent less dominant political parties such as Greens or Plaid Cymru, and some are notable bishops. The consequence of this imbalance is that regardless of the party in government, the dominant party was Conservative. As this upper house has delaying power over government bills (sometimes up to a year), this led to calls by some that we had in effect a one-party state, where Labour actions are subject to the approval of Conservative peers. It comes as no surprise, then, that in most influential Labour governments since the early 20th century, there have been attempts to reform the House of Lords. This is also valuable on a symbolic level. As was touched on earlier, the House of Lords is an archaic representation of the aristocracy and, above all, a separation between “Lords” and “Commons”. This two-step class system is effectively entrenched into the very fabric of our politics. Gaining entry via a Life Peerage is only a small step from being born into it: with the majority of our government’s senior figures being career politicians from privileged backgrounds, this system is still quite a way from being a true meritocracy. Additionally, the presence of bishops undermines the separation of church and state. Does our constitution really serve everyone in Britain when its protectors are the gilded hangover of a more feudal age? Perhaps Labour is onto something. The second reform, the House of Lords Act 1999, slashed the number of hereditary peers by about 80 percent. Blair had aimed for a full removal of hereditary peerages but this would never have got through Lords, hence a considerable number remain. That said, this built on the impact of the Life Peerages Act to further balance the political map of the Lords and shift its composition from a crowd of ageing nobility to something more like a legitimate company of experts. This shift has allowed the Lords to fulfil more function than simply scrutiny of government bills: since the foundation of the first Select Committee in the late 1970s the Lords has committees across a wide range of areas which, by the nature of the House of Lords, are able to operate for far longer terms than we have in the Commons. It is primarily through this that the Lords does work to hold the government (and the European Union) to account. Select Committees also exist in the House of Commons, but are purely departmental, so are slightly more limited in their scope. A general conclusion is that an entirely democratically elected upper house is too transient in nature to effect long-term change, and that there may be some experts worth keeping in valuable roles for far longer than a five-year term. This begs the question: would a new, reformed House of Lords, with its representation based on “regions and nations”, be able to pull together the same expertise? Would it fulfil the same function? When the upper house is also democratically elected, and intended to represent regions, there is the risk of being far more effective at representing the interests of dominant political parties as opposed to the interests of the region itself. As we await Labour’s official announcement of this plan, there are a few questions to keep in mind. How will this new upper house avoid being a second Commons? Will Life Peerages remain? What does this mean for future government? A full analysis of Labour’s ideas would be unfair at this stage— so I eagerly await the full detail.
Ali Khosravi Investigates
If you were a Liberal thinking about the ‘liberal world order’ back in 2019, you could have been forgiven for being quite worried.
A cynic may have recycled Voltaire’s quip on the Holy Roman Empire that it was ‘neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire’ and asked ‘What Liberalism? What World order?’ Yet up until that point in time, you could have confidently replied that a distinctly rules-based world order had been established after the Second World War, which was underpinned by international institutions which seek to prevent the horrors of the early 20th century. A former UN GeneralSecretary, Dag Hammarskjöld, once said of United Nations that it was “not created to take mankind to heaven, but to save humanity from hell” which perfectly captures the rationale behind the liberal world order.
Yet by 2019, those post World War II institutions like NATO or the European Union seemed to be under attack or in retreat. Donald Trump, at that point still in the White House, seemed to have no love lost for NATO or America’s other engagements around the world, seeing them not as prices for being the world’s hegemon but as examples of ‘America being ripped off’. The European Union, having just survived an economic crisis in the eurozone, and still grappling with a migration crisis, was by 2019 in the process of losing the second largest contributor to its budget after Britain’s vote to leave. In July 2019, Vladimir Putin felt bold enough to tell Financial Times readers that ‘Liberalism is becoming obsolete’, whilst being gleeful about a wave of national populist backlash. Looking across to the United States, he could see a President and the governing Republican party which far from its tradition of antagonism towards Russia had softened its rhetoric to talk of détente. Later in the year, France’s President Macron shocked The Economist’s liberal audience by describing NATO as ‘brain dead’, perhaps attempting to echo Charles de Gaulle whose ghost still overshadows French politics.
With these snapshots placed together, you could view 2019 as a so-called ‘post-liberal’ moment where liberal economics had remained discredited since 2008. Free-trade was replaced by a trade war between US and China, and social liberalism seemed to experience a populist backlash across the western world. Fast forward to August 2021, following the United States’ chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, Joe Biden declared in a televised address that “Americans should not fight in
wars other people wouldn’t fight for themselves”. That remark signaled the beginning of the end of America’s post World War II role as the custodian of the liberal world order. It was a role which at times involved what may have appeared to American isolationists like Joe Biden as ‘fighting other people’s wars’. America’s allies and liberal internationalists around the world may have wondered: so much for ‘America is back?!’. Yet with the tragic invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation in February 2022, Western leaders were presented with a clear and dangerous threat to the values and institutions they had perhaps taken for granted. Having lacked strategic coherence since the end of the cold war and having missed a common cause to unite around, the United States and her allies found themselves having to unite and focus. Russia’s invasion changed Germany’s foreign policy almost overnight from (effectively) pacificism to pledging to spend billions of euros on national defense. This marked an extraordinary turning point. For years, many NATO member states had spent below the 2% of GDP requirement. That will change. In retrospect, it seems at best extraordinarily naive if not reckless that France and Germany’s policy towards Russia was one of Rapprochement, even after the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and despite EU sanctions. Even worse, Germany planned to go ahead with the Nord Stream
2 gas pipeline, having inaugurated Nord Stream 1 in 2011 thus further appeasing Putin’s expansionism. Having subsequently phased out its nuclear power in the same year Germany became heavily reliant on Russia for energy and now faces a difficult winter ahead. Like other European leaders, Olaf Scholz, now faces the task of reminding Europeans what is at stake and what sacrificThat remark signaled the es may be beginning of the end of America’s post World War required in the coming months. II role as the custodian of The Eurothe liberal world order. pean Union having set out a timetable for transitioning away from Russian gas by late 2022 and early 2023 deserves some credit. Whilst NATO received application from Sweden and Finland for accession. For these hopefuls NATO does not spell ‘No Action Talk Only’, despite an old French joke, but as an insurance policy against Russian intimidation. If Vladimir Putin wanted a smaller NATO, he has now helped to recruit two new members, albeit inadvertently. Putin’s latest assault on the liberal world order with the invasion of Ukraine has clearly highlighted why such an order emerged in the first place and what the world may look like without it. His international campaign against liberalism has in fact injected moral clarity to the liberal project which may have been lacked since the fall of the Soviet Union. The Ukrainian people in their bravery have shown the world that there are still principles worth fighting and making sacrifices for. They have clearly shown that despite talk of a post-national hyper-globalised world, the nation-state, national sovereignty, and selfdetermination remain relevant. That freedom matters and it isn’t free of cost. The United States also faces a conundrum on Taiwan. The European Union will have to work out how to deal with Orbán. NATO may face further freelancing from Erdogan. But despite all these challenges, the liberal world order will continue to survive for as long as there are people left who are willing to fight for it. And having been reminded of liberalism’s reasons for existence, for now, liberals around the world have reasons to be slightly more hopeful!
What’s Coming over the hill? Samuel Kenny A Labour Government
It’s September, which can only mean one thing, it’s conference season. Over the last four days, the Labour Party has held its annual conference with the slogan “A Fairer, Greener Future” in comparison to last year’s “Stronger, Future, Together”. Going into the conference there was the backdrop of a new Tory leader in Liz Truss but also the pursuit of a completely different economic direction to contrast the alternative. The economy is in turmoil and the pound is crashing, a Government with spiralling polling numbers and the end of the reign of Britain’s greatest monarch. This is Keir Starmer’s second conference as Labour leader and how much has changed since his first? Labour was on average 5% behind in the polls last September, the party seemed as divided as ever and suggestions of a no-confidence vote against Kier were present. This year the story couldn’t be more different; Labour is on average 11% ahead in the polls, on track for a majority government and the party as a whole is far more united, with Keir far more popular. However, the biggest thing that was abundantly different in this year’s conference is the feeling of hope. Arguably for the first time since Labour was last in government, there is now a feeling amongst members and supporters at large that power is in the clutches of their fingertips. Starmer has been criticised for moving away from the ten pledges he made when running for party leader and has been accused by the left of taking labour back to the Blairite/Brownite ideologies. However, this conference has completely thrown that out of the window and has proved what Kier was supposed to be, soft left but pragmatic. A flurry of new, exciting but also radical policies has been announced. Labour would beef up renters’ protections by introducing a mandatory four-month notice period for landlords and creating a national landlord database. While not being as radical as rent controls it’s a big step in the right direction. Keeping in line with the previous three manifestos, Labour have committed to nationalising Rail and creating an “Elizabeth line of the north” another commitment as a clear olive branch to the left of the party. More medical school places, doubling district nurses and 10,000 more nurses overall. 13,000 aadditional police and PCSO’s in community teams to help rebuild neighbourhood policing. Keeping in tune with the conference’s overall slogan, Starmer is promising to get off fossil fuels by 2030.
Keir is perfectly balancing the necessity of showing the electorate that Labour has now changed on things like law and order and has moved to the centre ground, while also showing that Labour is keeping its radical credentials and will truly change Britain. Further policies included: being the party of home ownership and increasing current levels from 65% to 70%, here Starmer is seizing typical Tory territory and even channelling Margaret Thatcher on home ownership. Finally, in keeping with the themes of last year’s con- ference, Labour is remaining a party of patriotism, pro-monarchy, proUkraine, pro-NATO, and pro-west. Keir Starmer has moved Labour back to the centre ground but that ground it now inhabits is far more left-wing than it used to be.
Keir Starmer gave his keynote speech to conference and the nation at 2 pm on Tuesday. Last year’s speech was dominated by themes of change and rhetoric that very much only appealed to the Labour right. This speech kept many of the same themes, but Keir expressed far more significantly his left-wing credentials and his vision for Britain under his leadership. Kier opened by expressing his desire to implement the Hillsborough law, with a very supportive Liverpool crowd in front of him. He emphasised themes of aspiration and opportunity while also wanting to enact real change and a desire to create a new Britain. Starmer talked about the Queen’s life of service and learning from her, this will chime well after the immense outpouring of grief after the late Queen’s death.
A very well-received and well – grafted line was “Fresh start, New priorities, New way of government”. Keir wants to restore a sense of collective hope and acknowledged that people are crying out for change. According to Keir, the first term of a Labour government would: stabilise the economy, save the NHS, get people believing in Britain again, and restore aspiration and hope. The big flagship policy that Starmer announced during the speech was the creation of a publicly owned energy company named “Great British Energy” and the de facto semi-nationalising of the energy market. Kier finished his speech by reminding the British people and conference of the achievements of the big three Labour governments of 1945, 1964 and 1997, this next election is what Kier Starmer called a “Labour moment”. Labour represents the political wing of the British people and will win in 2024. This Labour conference may be noted in political history for when people finally saw Labour as a party ready for government and the beginning of Kier and the wider party setting out its true vision for a future Labour government. Taking inspiration from the last four Labour leaders in some way, Keir reached a near-perfect blend of radical policies combined with the centrism of pro-growth, economic competence, and patriotic sentiments. It appears Starmer has been playing 4D political chess this entire time. Appeasing both the left and right factions and transforming the image of the party. Starmer hasn’t just made Labour ready for government but made it ready to win big.
Britain’s Monarchy and the New ‘Puritans’
Adam Arnfield Discusses the challenges which face the monarchy amid the rise of republicanism
As a student at St. John’s College, I can hardly avoid pride in Oxford’s Royalist past. As I walk through the Canterbury Quad, I am struck by statues of Charles I, King and Martyr, and his wife Henrietta Maria. The quadrangle was gifted to the college by Archbishop Laud, an alumnus of St. John’s who was executed for his support of King Charles. But this Royalist heritage is not unique to St. John’s. Nearly every Oxford college has similar accolades – in the Civil War King Charles held court at Christ Church, with the Queen Consort staying at Merton. Magdalen boasts among its alumni a King of England and other royals, and even the unconventional Catz had Prince Philip as their ‘official Visitor’ for nearly 60 years. However, once again, the monarchy is under threat from Puritans. The fundamentalists that eventually beheaded King Charles were named Puritans for their concern with purity of symbolism in religion. The Puritans of today likewise have an unbounded concern with symbolism – one which leads them to attack the monarchy as representative of the hierarchy which their worldview opposes. This despite the fact that the monarchy actually does egalitarianism a lot of good. As the historian Nigel Saul has argued, Britain’s Royal Family has outlasted almost all of its European peers by virtue of its relative equality with the people of Britain and concern for their plight. Since the 13th and 14th centuries, he argues, the concept of the “community of the realm” has bound the monarch and the subjects together. Unlike in France, the British nobility were not exempt from taxation. In contrast to other European monarchies, the British monarchs have always maintained a commonality with their subjects, unafraid to engage in activities thought ‘beneath them’. One thinks of Prince Harry founding the Invictus Games and Prince Edward’s numerous trips around the world to promote British trade. It is the British monarchy’s recognition of their equality with the people that gave them their longevity. ‘Perhaps,’ our Puritan might reply, ‘but abolishing the monarchy would allow us to redistribute so much wealth!’ This isn’t necessarily true. The Crown Estate gives the majority of the revenue it makes to the treasury. Brand Finance estimated that every year, the monarchy costs the public £292 million, but generates £1.766 billion – a huge net surplus. Moreover, the Royal Family doesn’t receive any taxpayer money. Our taxes do fund royal visits and police protection, but these costs are low and could be expected, in a republican Britain, to carry over to the inflated office of Prime Minister. ‘Ah!’ says the Puritan for abolition,
‘but the real issue isn’t equality, it’s democracy! The monarchy is anti-democratic – it was in the Civil War and still is today!’ Not so. Following the Glorious Revolution, in which parliament forcefully asserted its control of the monarchy by putting William and Mary on the throne, the monarchy has become quite the democratic institution, ever sensitive to the ‘will of the people’. In 1937, Edward VIII abdicated partly due to public opinion, and even more because of the influence of the people’s representa-
tive, the Prime Minister. In 2013, the Succession to the Crown Act again asserted parliamentary authority over the monarchy. Other examples abound and the point is clear – the Royal Family does not undermine democracy. Besides, are we so committed to the ideal of democracy that we would rather sing ‘God Save Liz Truss’ than ‘God Save the King’?The Puritans of today like- That (or something quite like it), wise have an unbounded is really what we would be singconcern with symbolism ing, according to Univ graduate, – one which leads them to C. S. Lewis. He argued that withattack the monarchy as out a monarch to admire, people would look to alternative figures representative of the hier- of renown. ‘Where men are forbidarchy which their world- den to honour a king they honour view opposes. millionaires, athletes, or film-stars instead -- even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodBesides, are we so com- ily namitted to the ideal of de- ture, will mocracy that we would be served rather sing ‘God Save Liz -- deny it food and it will gobTruss’ than ‘God Save the King’? ble poison.’ We can see this in America with the idolisation of political figures like Donald Trump and Doctor Fauci. No doubt, those not inculcated from birth with a strong sense of patriotic duty would not serve so well as Queen Elizabeth as objects of adulation. Furthermore, honour bestowed upon politicians is far worse for democracy than honour bestowed upon Royals – there are legal safeguards to prevent Royals from abusing their popularity, while politicians can change laws that constrain them. So, the removal of the monarchy would not only damage the country’s spiritual, but also its political, well-being.
Besides the exhortations of one influential graduate, Oxford has plenty of other unique reasons to support the monarchy. A university so tightly bound to the Anglican church would be shooting itself in the foot if it supported the removal of the head of that church, the Defender of the Faith which the Oxford Movement fought so hard to preserve. The university and the monarchy have clearly developed a symbiotic relationship throughout their long histories, so much so that it is undoubtedly part of the Oxford tradition. And Oxford is nothing without its traditions. Moreover, an insignificant university on the river Cam once provided refuge to the parliamentarians of the Civil War. And nothing is more Oxonian than opposing Cantabrigians. So let us sing, (with heart and voice), ‘God Save the King!’
