It is small wonder that the debacle between the Royal family and Harry and Megan has captured the world news.
Latent sympathies for Diana and the emotive story of her difficult life with the Royals have created a precedent of increasing disclosure which can be quite easily manipulated by the press. The reality is that the Royals have a qualified level of privacy given the high level of privilege they have within our constitution. It is a price they must pay periodically when the everydayness of their personal lives intersects with duty, tradition and constitutional matters in ways that captivate the press and the population in a far more emotional world, where feelings often transcend fact. In common with many, I find myself rather mixed about royalty as a concept. I have concern about the privilege within our society that is often disproportionately given to some and not others through institutions and other social structures that can support inequality. Unprecedented numbers of people are now obliged to go to food banks whilst we have others receiving high payoff on the state purse and an arguably sinecure place in modern government There is, however, no utopia and centuries of constitutional monarchy have brought a form of stability that many other nations envy.
What seems apparent however, is that as the debate of privilege and celebrity captivates the attention of ordinary people, it hides the plight of so many of them. Food banks have already been mentioned. It truly is a source of national shame when ordinary, hardworking people find they cannot make ends meet in one of the world’s richest democracies. Add to this the inadequacy of the Universal Credit system, with many of the population only now beginning to understand its vicissitudes in the light of their Covid hardships. We are also cutting state aid to overseas countries. A retrograde step notwithstanding the financial hardships and debt we have amassed during Covid. Cutting overseas aid, may seem popular with the public but this is not the way. We may have honoured the accord that advocated 0.7% of GDP was donated by participating countries whilst others have not kept their part of the bargain, but withdrawing from this, removes our standing in the world and makes a mockery of any attempts to address climate change.
That is the problem with complex issues, people only work on the edited highlights and the simple economic imperative of the need to tighten our belts. Beneath the far right and others clamouring to look after their own and the recent focus on concerns of royalty, there is a planetary crisis going on that still does not command the same amount of airtime. State aid when used oversees to improve health and educate women, we know reduces birth rates and their corresponding carbon footprints. It improves life chances and prosperity and is just the human thing to do. Nobody is suggesting that corrupt regimes should get hold of our tax pounds, and equally, state and other aid should not be applied to very high-level salaries in some of the charities involved, rather a sensible look at taking a lead role in the world to help the growth of sustainable civilisation and planetary care, just makes sense. Sense in the context of sustainable futures for our children and grandchildren, sense in terms of common humanity, and sense in terms of the preservation of environments and species. Governments eulogise about the value of investment and yet here is an area of investment that has been cut that is potentially the most significant in the long term.
The time is ripe to move to different values towards investing in our future rather than those that, for example, simply benefit newly acquired political constituencies with a disproportionate ‘splash the cash’, whilst down prioritising the provision of basics for the poor both of this country and others.
We should instead be setting an example to the world to encourage other countries to improve their contributions by matching the aid levels set by the Cameron government some years ago. This pre-Covid policy reflects the fact that we stepped forward, led the world on this agenda and still can! Let us lead and make the arguments to other nations to step up, as the danger exists that our current “Little Britain” approach will sully us in the eyes of the world and set an increasing climate where Russia and China will offer conditional support by default to the world’s long-term cost. Most people’s computers would probably say “no” to that!
