All fur coat and nae knickers.

When I saw the Daily Prompt today was “ostentatious” this stirred something inside of me. As someone who was born and brought up in Scotland, and who now lives in Wales, this is possibly one of the worst, possible sins. I grew up with repeated warnings against the sins of pride and greed. It seemed to combine both the sin of pride and also that of greed or avarice.

Ostentatious displays of wealth were considered both vulgar and morally wrong. It was held to be bad form to display one’s wealth for two reasons. Firstly as it was rarely the case that wealth was imply earned by ones own endeavours; often accidents of birth or fortune, or the endeavours of co-workers and friends, underpinned the wealth, and on some occasions the source of the wealth was frankly underhand and at the expense of someone else. Secondly, it was generally held that, in a society with noticeable inequality, it might be seen as cruel or unpleasant to make lavish displays of wealth or consumption when there were others in straitened circumstances and in need.

Therefore when I see ostentatious behaviour I still find it jars with me and makes me feel less about the person behaving thus. Even when this conspicuous consumption involves good works, or charity, I find it difficult to feel benevolent to the donor,  tending to side with the New Testament’s instruction (Mathew 6:2-4) to donate quietly and unobtrusively .. ..

So when you give to the needy, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be praised by men. Truly I tell you, they already have their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.…

However, I feel that my feelings tend also to date me. I seem to harking back to an older time before we had the exhortation that “if you’ve got it flaunt it“. Today, it appears that displays of wealth are something to be admired if my reading of the popular TV programmes is correct. The whole point of “Real Housewives”, The Kardashians and other reality programmes seems to be to wallow in the apparent success of others. If I felt that this inspired ambition I could perhaps feel better that it might act as a spur to endeavour by others, but I fear that it may simply act as fuel for envy by others, which is to no ones benefit.

Envy, pride, and avarice I seem to be recalling the moral teaching of when I was young. These were things to avoid if one wanted to be a good and proper person. Now they seem to be, at best, minor discretions and, at worst often promoted as virtues. How the world has changed – I recall decadence meaning decay, decline and deterioration now it appears to be a virtue and a way to sell a chocolate ice-cream.

via Daily Prompt: Ostentatious

Irked rather than enraged.

Irked rather than enraged.

via Daily Prompt: Irksome

It seemed apt that the Daily Prompt today was irksome as, like many others in the UK (and probably the majority), I had been feeling irked by the success of the legal challenge raised against aspects of the process of Brexit. I say irked, as opposed to irate or enraged,  as this is a minor, and possibly inevitable and necessary, annoyance.

Why am I not enraged alongside many in the media ? Because this is haggling over minor details and unlikely to do more than cause a minor delay in the triggering of Article 50. Yes, I agree that it is having an adverse effect on the economy by extending the period of doubt and uncertainty – we have seen the effects of this already on the effect on the FTSE. Further, yes, I agree that will weaken Britain’s bargaining hand when they negotiate in Europe – it will be difficult to present a strong and resolute front when the negotiators on the other side of the table know there is so much friction and uncertainty at home.

However, these are small issues compared to the issues of democracy and sovereignty. It was these major issues on which the Brexit campaign was fought and won. I know that many feel that parliament handed authority back to the people when it agreed to a plebiscite. With a referendum the normal mechanics of representative democracy are changed to permit an episode of direct democracy. However, it appears that the wording of the Act was not sufficient to ensure this in law, leaving the referendum with an ‘advisory’ status despite the statements made that its results would be binding. We now need to amend this error. We will do this and then move on. While doing so we should ensure we do not damage our democratic institutions, it was for these that we fought. Any righteous anger that an error was made, or that we were mislead, should be kept in check.  We should be careful that we do no win the war and lose the peace.

So, if this is only tidying up a minor legal error, why is it even irritating or irksome ? It is irksome because it was not necessary. No-one was acting with malevolent intention by planning to use the Crown Prerogative (which had been used to usher in much of the EU legislation before – it could have been a delightful irony). The government was not planning anything underhand but rather trying to deliver what it thought it had promised. It is irksome not because of the governments actions but because the actions of those who brought the legal challenge acted in bad faith. They had no desire to fine tune the legal process of Brexit they wished to impede or halt it.

Gina Miller, who raised this challenge (Along with the Orwellian doublespeak group ‘The Peoples’ Challenge’), was a remainer who described herself as “stunned”, “shocked” and “alarmed”  by the results of the referendum. She was thus galvanised to to do something about it, to try and subvert the results of the democratic process by legal pettifogging. This subversion will have some negative impacts, but in the greater scale of things their effects will likely be minor. She did not act to protect our sovereignty nor to promote democracy, she, and they, acted to thwart the choice made by the majority of those who voted and to try and stem the transfer of powers back to Westminster. They used the powers we have to keep us weaker but it will be in vain. Once the people have spoken their words can not be unsaid and, after jumping some legal hurdles,  Article 50 will be triggered and the process started.

However, if I am wrong, if I have misjudged the situation and predicted wrongly, then I may be using the wrong word by saying it is “irksome”. If, albeit very unlikely, the House of Commons stood in the way of the expressed will of the people then irksome would be the wrong word. Or, if the un-elected House of Lords decided, like suicidal lemmings, to reject the results of the referendum and enforce their greater authority on the people, then irked would not be the appropriate word.

Should frankly anti-democratic steps such as those be taken then much stronger adjectives will be needed. Perhaps furious, enraged or livid might be more appropriate. However, even in the Daily Prompt proffers these words as cues it is unlikely I will see them as I, alongside many others, will not be at our screens but out on the streets.

Please don’t wear your Poppy with pride

As Remembrance Day approaches in Britain red poppies have started to appear on the lapels of all those who appear on television and at the same time an argument has started with FIFA over the right of footballers to wear poppies on the outfits during international matches. _92205469_sun.pngThis is a slight change from the usual annual argument which normally occurs when someone apparently ‘fails’ to wear a poppy and is publicly berated for their lack of sensitivity. This is the usual hyperbole that we accustomed to each year – “How dare they not wear the poppy?“. This year there has been a slight twist, as the focus has been  FIFA and hyperbolic anger at its decision to classify the red poppy as a political badge (and thus not permissible on the playing field). So the call this year is  “How dare they stop them wearing their poppy ?”.

This argument has even involved the Prime Minister who insists, like the newspapers, that “people should be able to wear their poppies with pride”. There has been a tinge of  indignation that a body, as corrupt as FIFA, has dared lecture us on morality.

My concern, however, is the idea that we should wear our poppies with pride. I do not feel that this in the spirit of remembrance. The function of the poppy is twofold. Firstly to pay respects to those in British uniforms who died in war,  and secondly to collect money to help the lot of those disabled while in military service or those left bereft following the loss of their loved onbuy-your-poppy-and-wear-it-with-pridee. Both of these aims are laudable and no-one would wish to do other than promote them.

However, none of this necessitates feeling of pride. None of it needs to be associated with promotion of the military or the nation. Indeed, hopefully  most people during their one minute’s silence will be pondering on how to prevent future war and loss of life. Certainly not feeling any sense of military or national glory.  Pride is the feeling of satisfaction or pleasure we have about past actions or skills. There are few times we could extend this to include the death or maiming of soldiers. There has always been a sad irony that the poppy appeal has its origin with Earl Haig who was responsible for sending so many young men to their death (earning the  sobriquet “Butcher Haig” as a result.) A modern day irony is to watch politicians with their red poppied lapels promoting new fresh wars in the Middle East or seeing  British businessmen sporting their poppies as they sell new weapons to enable the ongoing slaughter in Yemen or elsewhere.

The Red Poppy appeal is limited in its concern to those in the British Military forces. It does not concern those who died wearing other countries uniforms nor those civilians who died as a consequence of war. There is no special place for some dead over the others. The German soldier did his duty equally, the  dead farmer’s family are just as bereft.

We need to remember everyone who died as a consequence of all wars and think how we can make war less likely. Therefore, if you wear your poppy wear it with sadness, wear it with regret, wear it with anger,  or wear it with hope for a better future. But please, do not wear it with pride. Pride, and national pride in particular, is often at the root of war and surely  we do not need to see any more people die before we learn our lesson.

Peace.

via Daily Prompt: Hyperbole