The Fraudulent King's Speech

I think I'll this one speak for itself. Thanks for the feedback.  Approx 2,300 words

The Fraudulent King’s Speech

“…[T]here is no such thing as cold, objective reality that is solid, fixed and not open to interpretation. Inevitably, we are to some extent creating a fiction in every second of our lives, the fiction of who we are, what our lives are about, the meanings that we give to things… Obviously there are some occasions when the fictions that we base our lives upon lead us into some terrifying territory.”

Alan Moore

The King was not Himself in those final days. His muttered ramblings of ‘illusions’ and ‘nonsense held up on stilts’ should have been an indication of the deterioration of His faculties. Still, the lunatic ramblings of His last public address could never have been foreseen. I shall repeat it as faithfully as I can in due course but it should be apparent that His words were inappropriate for the Lord of Our Fairest of Nations. The King’s physical state appeared to be far more rapid in its decline. The cough was incessant and the constant production of fluid led to an acute awareness among the closest staff and confidantes that our King’s reign was rapidly coming to its termination.

In those last days, He paced rampantly as He spluttered and muttered. Most of us took it for the bitter musings of a man coming to terms with His mortality. If there is anyone who is less aware of the encroaching shadow of death than an almighty leader, I am at a loss who to speculate who he may be.

(Indeed, if I may digress from my account further into still more speculative musings, I would suggest that, in a way, a monarch’s perceived immortality is less an illusion and more a case of understanding that a monarch is not a man; he is a title, a concept; an entity beyond the individual. Who thinks of their leader as a human being? As a mere mortal? Who cares for his personality over what he represents? He is far less who he is and far more what he is. That is a leader’s burden.)

(And if I may explore this idea further – is not the reverse true? Do the subjects not become merely a mass? Each individual an irrelevance to a leader, who must rule all of them but not each of them: a king does not think about how his decrees affect people but The People. He must remove himself of sentiment if he is to rule effectively. Again, this is the leader’s burden. And the people’s burden too.)

As I was explaining, there was a misperception that the King’s ramblings were that of Him facing His certain, rapidly impending demise. However, it transpires that we misperceived the King’s concerns – indeed His concerns regarding His own misperception. I suppose His communications with us closest to Him should have hinted at his true musings but that is a comment borne out of the gift of hindsight. In short, our misperception was reasonably misperceived.

I recall one conversation that perhaps indicated that more was amiss than the comprehensible concern of death. In those last days, the King asked me what was the most impressive legend or rumour that I had heard told about He and His reign. I shared the oft-told legend of the battle against the army of our rival nation, where the King had been known to arrive to lead our soldiers with a rousing speech – and, not only that, but to be first into the fray, successfully shedding the blood of four hundred enemy soldiers alone!

“Do they believe it?” He asked.

“They believe it enough to tell it, sir.” I replied, “They believe it enough to want to believe it.”

“But can there truly be comfort in such falsehoods? Especially one as inconceivable as this?”

“My Lord,” I said, shielding my astonishment, “there is more than comfort in such tales. There is justification for you and your position. If men battle for you, that shows they accept you as their leader. But if men battle behind you, that shows they are right to accept you as their leader. Especially if you commit such feats. To rally for a king is one thing, but to rally behind a king! Much less important than its truth is its meaning – it means you are one to be followed, to be admired, to be worshipped! Is there a comfort in these falsehoods? I’d say there is a truth in these falsehoods! The legend is more important than the truth because it reveals a greater truth.”

“That’s a contradictory web you have just spun.”

“To say a lie can express a truth – I do not view a contradiction.”

The King stared into space.

“The illusions we create for ourselves…” He said, sick with wonder.

And, of course, it was His sickness that dominated our concern. His physical failings demanded more immediate attention than His ill state of mind. His last days had to be made comfortable. Perhaps it would have been wise to spend at least a little more time on His mental disturbances.

For when it came to the King’s last address – His final farewell to His subjects – we expected sadness and a sombre, serious speech. However, we did not expect the wild ravings of a man gone mad.

I will now relay the speech as accurately as is appropriate. I omit the intermittent coughs, heavy and hacking, for ease of flow and reading. However, be assured that where His emotions were most animated and His voice most intense, His words often spilled over into spluttered spitting, making Him mercifully difficult to comprehend. Indeed, His physical state helped to give credence to the view that the King’s words should be approached cautiously. If a man is sick then he needs to be cared for, not listened to. For the King may be infallible but the man is not. And on that day, the speech was given by much less a king than a mortal and miserable man.

The speech was delivered thusly:

“My people. I come before you as a dying man. I stand here today to speak honestly with you. To console you regarding my passing and to direct you to happier times. I will share with you some truths; truths which will be shocking but that I tell with kindness, with you at the centre of my concerns.

(Only now can I see the sinister undertones in what appears to be a commendable and considered opening!)

“I stand here before you on numbered days. I am clearly aware – clearer than I ever have been – of my own frailty and humanity. We like to think of our leaders as gods – well-intended, superior and, though we know it to be untrue, immortal. We cannot imagine an existence without our leaders but our leaders change. Your leaders change. Your systems change. There was a time when consultation with the king was little more than an exercise in sycophantic flattery. Now the consultation is genuine – there is consideration of your situation when the leader makes a decision. In short, your position has progressed and my rule has been softer than the rulers previous. In consideration of this fact, my position has progressed also.

And so, systems change, orders change, the world does change and kings as well.

We have to realise that it is an innocence that makes you believe that I am, in a sense, permanent. Your innocence perceives me as an individual that is an institution. The institution is permanent, so I am permanent.

But I am not permanent. I am temporary. Finite and frail is my life, exactly as is yours. Granted, in many ways our lives differ significantly. Mine is a position of power and privilege. It is a position that is universally acknowledged and accepted. We all have our different places in this order but in one way our places are the same – they are places that outlast us. They are places that are eventually filled by someone else.

And now my place is to be filled by someone else. My frailty has come to reveal itself in the starkest terms. We see that it is a mistake to see our leaders as permanent, an innocent illusion.

And are perhaps our other perceptions of leaders illusions also? Is it also perhaps naïve to consider our leaders well-intended and superior? For what makes me superior to you? Is it my permanence? I have told you clearly that this is a falsehood. Is it my position of privilege? That seems to me to be a circular argument. I am in a position of superiority because I am superior. I am superior because I am in a position of superiority. This defines my position but it does not justify it.

Perhaps it is my good intentions, my perceived infallibility? My power to choose what is right.

Today, I tell you something. A statement sincere that applies to myself and every other leader. It applies to every other would-be God. My intentions are only so far well-intended. As my frailty is as real as yours, so my fallibility is as real as yours. To believe otherwise is more innocence.

And, ultimately, what is innocence apart from excusable ignorance?

Today I take away your innocence. Your ignorance may no longer be excused. I pardon it no more. I condone it no more.

For in revealing my fallibility, I reveal my injustice. My superiority is tradition, is custom. You accept the order because you refuse to question, to scrutinise, to demand something else. You believe me infallible, so you refuse to question. Your lac k of questioning helps to reinforce the myth that I am infallible. You accept my superiority so you defer power, which, in turn, creates my superiority. You see me as unchanging and immortal, which is why, though I die, there will be another king. The order of things is not accepted because it is inevitable; it is inevitable because you accept it.

And so today, I ask you: should you accept it? Today, I ask you to scrutinise, to question. Should I, or anyone else, stand before you like a giant or a God? When I am as frail, flawed and prone to fault as you are, can it be right to support my position?

I cannot see that.

In truth, your blind acceptance made me blind. The illusions you succumbed to, I succumbed to them too. I saw my privilege as justified. It is only through staring at death do I see this illusion for the damaging lie that it is.

For who benefits best from this situation? I do! And then all those I surround myself with, all those that sneak in close to me. We may consider you but it’s only so that we can continue to clasp to power. We want you to think of us as infallible and untouchable so that way we can continue to be infallible and untouchable. We want you to see us as Gods so that we may live like Gods. You may curse your worth but you cannot question the order of things. And until you question, your worth is cursed.

I stand before you today as a dying man. Not a king, not a title, but a man. I have led you too long. The legacy of my rule and the rulers before me has been for too long. And this is a reality that is so easy to change. Because it’s not real at all. It is as real as you choose to make it. So, when you first respond to me – or anyone else – as your leader, your response should be ‘why?’ And after you have explained the ‘why’ the response to me – or any other would-be king – standing as your leader should be ‘no.’

You told a story of me that I slew 400 men in battle. An absurdity but you believed the lie. The story gave you faith and you had faith in the story. Your faith gave you comfort in an uncomfortable reality. I am a lie. It is time for me to die. It is time for the lie to die.

Do not mourn what you may lose over the next few days. Celebrate what you could win.”

The question I ask upon recounting the King’s words is: can you kill a king for treason against himself? The answer is irrelevant, I suppose, as He died hours later. But it is an interesting consideration for future concerns. For the King – as He made quite clear – not only betrayed Himself but His legacy, both past and future. Still, at least we have a future to be concerned about, for the King’s rule remains. The King did cause a storm and upset our nation but not by igniting a demand for republicanism. They wanted to know, to understand why the King would try to wreak such havoc, to cause such confusion and provoke such questioning. When confronted with the King’s thoughts, the people recoiled. They rejected the King that would have them reject the King. For the people understand the order of things. Things are so because they should be so.

And so the old King is gone, his malicious monologue largely forgotten. There is a new King, currently at ease ruling His subjects. No one questions and no one doubts. Which is just as well, for if order does not sit in the people’s minds, then order must be preserved through force. For even if this way of existing was a ‘nonsense on stilts’, it has a military might sufficient to help it keep the balance. But it is not a nonsense on stilts, it is a truth in mind – irresistible and immovable. The seeds of revolution cannot take root on the stony ground of convention. Everything stays the same, and it is with pleasure that I may proclaim:

The king is dead, long live the king!

Reflections on the Corbyn Prime Ministership

Written shortly after Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour Party but it took me a long while to edit it and sort it out. As is inevitable when writing something so specific on something current, I think it's already got a little bit dated. Still, might make for an interesting read. About 2,250 words.

“Just a speculative fiction. No cause for alarm.”

‘A Speculative Fiction’, Propagandhi.

Reflections on the Corbyn Prime Ministership

Election, Struggles and Resignation

The election of Jeremy Corbyn was probably the most surprising result in Britain’s recent electoral history, easily surpassing John Major’s unlikely victory over Neil Kinnock. Having reneged on his promise to resign (never being a politician to ensure that his actions were consistent with his words), Cameron was the incumbent who, though unpopular, had convinced the media and a great deal of the population that the austerity agenda was a necessary one. Meanwhile, Corbyn represented a stark alternative and one that, though popular among a large number of people, did not seem to have gathered sufficient momentum to secure victory in the general election of 2020.

However, more than his policies, it was Corbyn’s understated personality that appeared to be the decisive factor in his success. In contrast to the spin of New Labour and the regular breaking of promises from both Cameron and the Liberal Democrats (from their time in a coalition – a decision that was probably decisive in their relegation to ‘just another minority party’), Corbyn’s sincere approach to politics, his willingness to quickly concede to errors and inaccuracies of statistics within his talks, and his refusal to snipe at his critics – both in opposing parties and within Labour – was largely considered a breath of fresh air.

Corbyn then, incredibly got in on a message of hope. It was just a question of whether the hope lay upon a socialist, democratic alternative to the neo-liberal consensus or if it was simply the hope of a politician with apparent integrity and human decency. From polling it seems to be the latter, for while there seemed to be mixed views about Corbyn’s proposals, he regularly received high approval as an individual – probably helped by such facts as his impressively low expenses bill (less than £10 on a printer cartridge) during a time when politicians were seen as a largely greedy collective willing to exploit the benefits available to them as far as legitimately (and sometimes illegitimately) possible. By contrast, Cameron’s policies were largely accepted as ‘realistic’ or ‘necessary’ in polls and were therefore supported, significantly if grudgingly, by a great deal of the British population. But while there might have been support of his proposals for dealing with the deficit, people did not like Cameron in the way they liked Corbyn; Cameron’s approval rating rarely reached a third, while Corbyn’s approval never went under 50%.

So, arguably, the hope was placed more in Corbyn the man in his politics. This was just as well because Corbyn was to find implementation of his Keynesian agenda thoroughly, if unsurprisingly, complicated. The media maintained their campaign in opposition to an alternative to austerity. The critics were the messengers of doom at their most apoplectic and apocalyptic. Other business interests lobbied with renewed vigour. And while Corbyn may have been given a mandate by the people, he did not have the backing of the majority of his party, let alone the majority of the House of Commons (to say nothing of the House of Lords, which Corbyn had hoped to reform – another eventual failure). Government was a frustrating and frigid affair for Prime Minister Corbyn. An energetic social movement was turning stagnant in the reality of political process. Economically, Corbyn was able to implement few changes and even then the pressure internally and externally (from the European Union and the International Monetary Fund) made the situation almost untenable. With these difficulties considered, it is perhaps unsurprising that Corbyn resigned after two years as Prime Minister, that the Labour party then capitulated and split and that a new election took place – with an almost equally interesting result.

In hindsight, Corbyn’s brief time as Prime Minister could be considered a surprising but ultimately irrelevant blip in British politics. However, while he may not have done much within Britain, his impact outside it was monumental. And it was all to do with a significant predecessor.

Corbyn and the Shift in Global Politics

The support for Corbyn came from a number of different groups: the disillusioned Left, especially those that had worked with other fringe parties (the Green Party and the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition, most significantly); the disillusioned non-Left just looking for an alternative; the trade unions; and many political activist groups of various agendas. Most significant among these groups was the Stop the War coalition, an organisation that Corbyn helped found and that he chaired before his election as Prime Minister. Corbyn’s position within Stop the War meant that the man and the movement fed into each other.

Corbyn’s stance clearly emphasised a foreign policy that was unlike anything that the Labour or Conservative parties had ever offered before. Cameron had continued to highlight Britain’s role in international affairs, supporting Barack Obama’s and Hilary Clinton’s policies across the Middle East and Africa. Meanwhile the Labour Party’s policies had been divisive – both within the party and with the public. Most significantly, the Iraq war that began in 2003 has been highly controversial and became an albatross around the party’s neck. The war had been considered an issue of resignation at the time for some members of the party and voting in favour of the war was considered a toxic smear on a politician’s reputation. It was the defining moment of Tony Blair’s career as Prime Minister and it plagued him in his future work.

Corbyn had never been supportive of the Blairite agenda and was strongly opposed to the Iraq war from the beginning, clearly evidenced through his prominent position within Stop the War. The organisation represented a key part of Corbyn’s outlook and became a notable part of his support. The Stop the War movement had been a consistent voice of dissent from 2003 but its significance had dwindled to a minor faction after its failure to dissuade the government from launching an attack on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Instead it had attached itself to other groups critical of government spending policies, arguing that money would be better spent on things other than arms budgets (especially in relation to the matter of Trident renewal) and questionable foreign interventions. However, Corbyn’s announcement to apologise for the Iraq war was to set an incredible set of events in motion.

During the time from Corbyn’s appointment as Labour leader until his election as Prime Minister, Stop the War began to increase its profile, support and influence. While this did not apply pressure to Corbyn into actions against his will, Stop the War helped to create, emphasise and maintain an anti-war narrative. By the time Corbyn was elected, scepticism of Britain’s previous approach to force in international politics had reached unprecedented and unimagined heights. Out of Stop the War, the War Justice Movement was born.

Tony Blair had been officially considered exonerated by the long-delayed Chilcot inquiry. However, public opinion was still that Blair had been disingenuous about his motives. Most people still believed that his actions leading up to war had been wilfully deceitful and unwaveringly determined. Before he became leader, Corbyn speculated on the possibility of Blair facing the International Criminal Court for war crimes. Such suggestions had been made by many fringe groups and individuals but very few genuinely believed such a thing was possible. However, the War Justice Movement was not only vocally powerful; it also had a very sympathetic ear. This encouraged and invigorated the idea that past actions should be more accounted for. The arrest and trial of Blair was still largely considered ludicrously unlikely. However, seemingly against all odds, six months after being elected, Corbyn had responded to the movement’s demands and Tony Blair was arrested and on trial for war crimes.

If the possibility of a trial was believed to be slim, the idea that a guilty verdict could be decreed was regarded as pure fantasy. If the supposed complexity of case was not enough (the question of whether Tony Blair intentionally lied appearing impossible to prove), Blair was an institution in his own right, an untouchable part of the establishment. A political powerhouse with a controversial but ultimately respected Prime Ministerial legacy, Blair’s work as a Middle East envoy working for peace, while inevitably derided by his critics, reinforced his stature on the international stage.  The condemning of Tony Blair’s actions was likely to create such a dramatic shift in global politics that it was unfathomable that it could be a reality.

The court case was long and complicated and this is not a review of Blair’s trial. Rather it is a review of the impact of Corbyn’s time as Prime Minister. So, in crude summation, the guilty verdict that was returned rested on this point: the UK (along with the United States – though this did not matter as Bush was not indicted by Hilary Clinton nor, unsurprisingly, her successor John Ellis (Jeb) Bush) was responsible for an unprovoked and unwarranted assault on another sovereign nation. The war was not supported by the United Nations and the evidence in the dossier was similarly unsatisfactory to the UN. The information presented was not sufficiently scrutinised and, even if corroborated, Saddam Hussein had not threatened the US or the UK, nor had he suggested he was unwilling to cooperate with further UN inspections. Ultimately, therefore, the pretext for war was insufficient in the view of the Court and unjustified aggression had indeed long before been defined as a war crime.

Blair was sentenced and imprisoned. (His declarations that ‘God will be my true judge’ and that he felt in his heart that he was right was noted by commentators,  drawing an almost amusing parallel with Saddam’s refusal to recognise the Iraqi court that had condemned him). After Blair’s trial, the political shift in international relations began to take place. With the election of Jeb Bush in 2020, the ‘special relationship’ between the US and UK became unbearably strained. After Blair was charged, Corbyn argued that the UK needed to recognise that it could not function in the ways it had done previously and that armed intervention was not within its remit. US/UK relations effectively ended when the UK unilaterally left NATO – a move praised by Russia and that further inflamed the fury of the US President. Since Corbyn, Britain has appeared to accept that its leaders can now be held accountable for their actions internationally. This attitude has seeped into the US and, though this hasn’t led to the trial of any US presidents, the level of public action and scrutiny – especially in relation to public dissent towards foreign intervention – has certainly held back the US’ military hand on occasions. Therefore, US interventions became increasingly difficult and clandestine, and less frequent. Along with the continued (though awkward and unsteady) rise of China and India, the US found itself greatly struggling to maintain the same level of influence.

The US did manage to continue its support of Israel and offer it some protection. However, without the backing of the UK (Corbyn was a vocal supporter of Palestinian rights), the international mood was becoming increasingly critical. Ultimately, despite the intensified condemnation, the Israel/Palestine situation has changed little, though a major change in the region now seems possible.

Excepting the continued US interference in the Middle East, its influence beyond was clearly restrained. Whether this improved matters is an ongoing argument and certainly open to debate. Some countries within Asia and Africa did descend wildly into violence but, while many remain in disorder with appalling human rights records, many others have flourished into democracies with a comparatively progressive politics appearing to develop across both continents. The radical group known as ISIS still has areas of power but in many places it has been pushed back by people aware of their nation’s increased autonomy and reduced oppression. However, these areas remain unstable and are vulnerable to being overtaken by more authoritarian forces.

The impact of Corbyn’s actions and their effect on global politics is still being explored. It is possible that a reversal to old relationships and orders could take place but this appears unlikely. It seems to be that the world is entering a new era where, though far from free of war, the most powerful nations are withdrawing from conflict.

In Summation

Corbyn’s Prime Ministership was a brief history of continuous surprises. His victory appeared unlikely and, once elected, few foresaw a resignation less than half way through his time in power (some predicted Corbyn’s resignation immediately after his election but such arguments disappeared after the first six months of his term). Many were surprised by his ineffectual domestic record. However, all were stunned at the arrest, trial and imprisonment of Tony Blair. Beyond this event, the chain of events and changes that have taken place in global politics appears to be creating a complete restructuring of how the world is run. Change often appears slow in international politics when it is in the middle of its shift, so it is difficult to fully assess the impact. It could also end up being that very little change truly occurs. However, the most sensible prediction appears to be that national sovereignty is going to be strengthened and that hard power politics will be largely a thing of the past (at least, until the next unexpected crisis). Many people approach this prediction with scepticism. But if Corbyn’s legacy has taught us anything, it is that we should expect the unexpected. For this has been the Corbyn narrative: an unassuming man responsible for some rather alarming changes.