Over the weekend, I had the good fortune to be staying with some very generous and hospitable people. They were religious Jews living on a West Bank settlement. Other than that, they were not much different from many other people, except for one thing. They belong to an extraordinary society called the Society for Creative Anachronism. They devote all the available spare time they have to re-enacting mediaeval events, but it seems the real object of their pursuit is not some perfectionist re-enactment of this tournament or that battle. It's really all about taking on fantasy identities and dressing up in what they call "garb".
Looking at the outcome of the Today Programme's Who Runs Britain poll, I get the sense that the people who voted in the poll are maybe also into some sort of version of fantasy funland. Can we call it the Land of Creative Anachronism? Because according to this poll, it seems that more people think the head of Tesco's really runs Britain than think that Tony Blair does.
And more people think that the search engine Google really runs Britain than think that Gordon Brown does so. And even though my answer to both of those candidates is really "none of the above", as I pointed out in an earlier post, nobody seems to have offered any evidence that Google runs anything.
Quite a lot of votes, it seems, for democratic-sounding choices like "the British people" and "Parliament". I wasn't able to get a sound link from where I was, so I haven't yet heard the discussion. But there's no shortage of evidence that policies supported by "the people", such as hanging for murders, are rejected by both Parliament and successive governments. And the role of Parliament is an interesting one, for it seems that Parliamentary pressure leads to government legislation being truncated or watered down. But running the country?
Not surprisingly, the poll probably reflects the Today programme's audience.
Like I suggested, the Land of Creative Anachronism.
Who runs Britain? I think we all know who runs Britain: the government (from Westminster down through successive strata to local government agencies). Of course, all kinds of people and institutions have an influence over the government (either directly or via the democratic influence of British subjects). I am sure that the boss of Tesco's has more influence over policy and opinion than I have (and this state of affairs is likely to continue until I get off my lazy behind and establish a huge business empire employing thousands of people). Similarly the likes of Rupert Murdoch and Google also wield more influence. But they do not run the country, as you point out, Judy.
This, of course, is what the Today Programme was getting at. They perhaps should have phrased the question something along these lines: what are the chief influences - individuals, institutions or ideas - affecting the way in which Britain is governed?
But we could hardly expect sense from the BBC these days. Let's be honest, the whole thing was really aimed at (1) maintaining the fiction, through yet another facile "audience participation" gimmick, that the BBC is interested in the views of the people who are forced to fund it; and (2) providing the programme makers with another excuse to parade all their favourite environmentalists, conspiracy theorists, pro-Saddam poodles, anti-Globalisation paranoiacs and leftist bores in front of the audience and thus nudge their Islingtonian prejudices and preoccupations further into the mainstream.
Of course, the BBC itself is hugely powerful and influential. I suppose it's too much to hope that it will drop its adolescent affectations and use its power and influence in a more grown-up manner.
I enjoy your blog very much by the way. More power to you.
Posted by: Horace Dunn | January 02, 2006 at 03:29 PM