adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Politics

How Princess Diana shaped politics – The Economist

Published

 on


NETFLIX’S FLAGSHIP series, “The Crown”, has done a fine job of telling the story of post-war Britain through the prism of the monarchy. The previous series left viewers in the mid-1970s, mired in the miners’ strike and the three-day week. The new one, which begins streaming on November 15th, introduces us to two women who were destined to change the country in profound ways—Margaret Thatcher and Lady Diana Spencer.

Lady Thatcher made it clear from the first that she was in the business of changing the nation. Lady Diana Spencer was a bird of a very different feather—a shy girl who had failed all her O-levels twice and had no interest in politics. She was brought onto the national stage for the sole purpose of producing (male) heirs to the throne. Yet the country is still living with her political legacy as surely as it is with Lady Thatcher’s.

Princess Diana’s genius was to mix two of the most profound forces of modern politics—emotion and anti-elitism—into a powerful populist cocktail. She was one of the modern masters of the politics of emotion, feeling the people’s pain just as they felt hers. She repeatedly outmanoeuvred Prince Charles during the long “War of the Waleses” because she was willing to bare her soul in public. Her interview with Martin Bashir of the BBC in November 1995 is now the focus of controversy, as her brother, Earl Spencer, claims that it was obtained under false pretences, using forged documents. Whatever the reason for giving it, the interview was a masterclass in emotional manipulation. At one pivotal moment Princess Diana acknowledged that she would never be queen but hoped that she would be “queen of people’s hearts”.

The princess used her mastery of the politics of feeling to turn herself into a champion of the people against the powerful—the “people’s princess” in Tony Blair’s phrase. She patronised charities that helped marginalised folk such as HIV patients, and kept company with pop stars and celebrities rather than with the usual royal waxworks. The most memorable music at her funeral was not an historic hymn but a song by Elton John, adapted for her but originally written about another icon-turned-victim, Marilyn Monroe.

Her anti-elitism was directed not at the monarchy’s wealth—she happily lived in Kensington Palace and received a £17m ($23m) divorce settlement plus £400,000 a year—but at its stunted emotional state. The traditional deal to which royals signed up allowed them to behave as they liked in private—kings have almost always had mistresses because they marry for reasons of dynasty not compatibility—so long as they behaved with decorum in public. Princess Diana regarded this as humbug.

She succeeded in reconciling the most jarring of opposites. Despite being a top-tier aristocrat (her family, the Spencers, looked down on the Windsors as German carpetbaggers) she was universally known as “Di”. Her death in a car crash won her a spectacular posthumous victory against the royal court. It produced the greatest outburst of public lacrymation Britain has ever seen and led to widespread demands that the royals should display more emotion, as if the damp cheek had replaced the stiff upper lip as the definition of Britishness. “What would really do the monarchy good, and show that they had grasped the lesson of Diana’s popularity,” an editorial in the Independent thundered, “would be for the Queen and the Prince of Wales to break down, cry and hug one another on the steps of the Abbey this Saturday.”

Since her death, her emotional populism has threaded through politics. Tony Blair presented himself as the people’s prime minister. He championed “Cool Britannia”, surrounded himself with pop stars and urged his staff to “call me Tony”. The next Conservative prime minister, “Call me Dave” Cameron—a distant relation of Princess Diana’s—adopted this combination of compassion-signalling (hugging hoodies instead of cracking down on juvenile delinquents) and studied informality (chillaxing and kitchen suppers replacing previous Tory premiers’ stiffness).

Both men were too responsible to let emotional populism interfere with the affairs of state. Domestic and foreign policy choices continued to be conducted according to the icy dictates of reason and evidence. Brexiteers, by contrast, followed the Diana-script. They appealed to the heart rather than the head; to win their arguments they used feelings of patriotism and resentment rather than facts about trade flows. They denounced the elites for trying to frustrate the wisdom of the people in much the same way as Dianaphiles had denounced the Palace for ignoring the people’s emotions. They turned on the nation’s core institutions—Parliament, the civil service, the Supreme Court—when they suspected attempts to frustrate their wishes. They succeeded in defeating the establishment in much the same way as Princess Diana had, by claiming to stand for emotion rather than reason and the people rather than the elite. Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson has reconciled the opposites he embodies just as she did. A card-carrying member of the metropolitan elite, he has managed to sell himself as a man of the people. As she was Di, so he is Boris.

The first series of “The Crown” shows a young Queen Elizabeth studying Walter Bagehot’s “The English Constitution” under the guidance of Sir Henry Marten, the vice-provost of Eton, who kept a pet raven in a cage and addressed the young princess as “gentlemen”. Bagehot’s great work distinguishes between the dignified branch of the constitution (the monarchy) and the efficient branch (elected politicians). Implicit in that distinction is Bagehot’s perception that emotions pose a dangerous threat to the proper conduct of politics. The monarchy provides a controlled outlet for them, thus enabling responsible people to get on with the difficult task of running the country.

By using people’s feelings as the fuel for her astonishing career, Princess Diana broke that safety valve. Britain will be living with the consequences of the emotional populism that she helped to release for years to come.

This article appeared in the Britain section of the print edition under the headline “A populist in the palace”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

News

Alberta Premier Smith aims to help fund private school construction

Published

 on

 

EDMONTON – Alberta Premier Danielle Smith says her government’s $8.6-billion plan to fast-track building new schools will include a pilot project to incentivize private ones.

Smith said the ultimate goal is to create thousands of new spaces for an exploding number of new students at a reduced cost to taxpayers.

“We want to put all of the different school options on the same level playing field,” Smith told a news conference in Calgary Wednesday.

Smith did not offer details about how much private school construction costs might be incentivized, but said she wants to see what independent schools might pitch.

“We’re putting it out there as a pilot to see if there is any interest in partnering on the same basis that we’ll be building the other schools with the different (public) school boards,” she said.

Smith made the announcement a day after she announced the multibillion-dollar school build to address soaring numbers of new students.

By quadrupling the current school construction budget to $8.6 billion, the province aims to offer up 30 new schools each year, adding 50,000 new student spaces within three years.

The government also wants to build or expand five charter school buildings per year, starting in next year’s budget, adding 12,500 spaces within four years.

Currently, non-profit independent schools can get some grants worth about 70 per cent of what students in public schools receive per student from the province.

However, those grants don’t cover major construction costs.

John Jagersma, executive director of the Association of Independent Schools and Colleges of Alberta, said he’s interested in having conversations with the government about incentives.

He said the province has never directly funded major capital costs for their facilities before, and said he doesn’t think the association has ever asked for full capital funding.

He said community or religious groups traditionally cover those costs, but they can help take the pressure off the public or separate systems.

“We think we can do our part,” Jagersma said.

Dennis MacNeil, head of the Public School Boards Association of Alberta, said they welcome the new funding, but said money for private school builds would set a precedent that could ultimately hurt the public system.

“We believe that the first school in any community should be a public school, because only public schools accept all kids that come through their doors and provide programming for them,” he said.

Jason Schilling, president of the Alberta Teachers’ Association, said if public dollars are going to be spent on building private schools, then students in the public system should be able to equitably access those schools.

“No other province spends as much money on private schools as Alberta does, and it’s at the detriment of public schools, where over 90 per cent of students go to school,” he said.

Schilling also said the province needs about 5,000 teachers now, but the government announcement didn’t offer a plan to train and hire thousands more over the next few years.

Alberta NDP Leader Naheed Nenshi on Tuesday praised the $8.6 billion as a “generational investment” in education, but said private schools have different mandates and the result could be schools not being built where they are needed most.

“Using that money to build public schools is more efficient, it’s smarter, it’s faster, and it will serve students better,” Nenshi said.

Education Minister Demetrios Nicolaides’ office declined to answer specific questions about the pilot project Wednesday, saying it’s still under development.

“Options and considerations for making capital more affordable for independent schools are being explored,” a spokesperson said. “Further information on this program will be forthcoming in the near future.”

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 18, 2024.

Source link

Continue Reading

News

Health Minister Mark Holland appeals to Senate not to amend pharmacare bill

Published

 on

 

OTTAWA – Health Minister Mark Holland urged a committee of senators Wednesday not to tweak the pharmacare bill he carefully negotiated with the NDP earlier this year.

The bill would underpin a potential national, single-payer pharmacare program and allow the health minister to negotiate with provinces and territories to cover some diabetes and contraceptive medications.

It was the result of weeks of political negotiations with the New Democrats, who early this year threatened to pull out of their supply-and-confidence deal with the Liberals unless they could agree on the wording.

“Academics and experts have suggested amendments to this bill to most of us here, I think,” Independent Senator Rosemary Moodie told Holland at a meeting of the Senate’s social affairs committee.

Holland appeared before the committee as it considers the bill. He said he respects the role of the Senate, but that the pharmacare legislation is, in his view, “a little bit different.”

“It was balanced on a pinhead,” he told the committee.

“This is by far — and I’ve been involved in a lot of complex things — the most difficult bit of business I’ve ever been in. Every syllable, every word in this bill was debated and argued over.”

Holland also asked the senators to move quickly to pass the legislation, to avoid lending credence to Conservative critiques that the program is a fantasy.

When asked about the Liberals’ proposed pharmacare program for diabetes and birth control, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has often responded that the program isn’t real. Once the legislation is passed, the minister must negotiate with every provincial government to actually administer the program, which could take many months.

“If we spend a long time wordsmithing and trying to make the legislation perfect, then the criticism that it’s not real starts to feel real for people, because they don’t actually get drugs, they don’t get an improvement in their life,” Holland told the committee.

He told the committee that one of the reasons he signed a preliminary deal with his counterpart in British Columbia was to help answer some of the Senate’s questions about how the program would work in practice.

The memorandum of understanding between Ottawa and B.C. lays out how to province will use funds from the pharmacare bill to expand on its existing public coverage of contraceptives to include hormone replacement therapy to treat menopausal symptoms.

The agreement isn’t binding, and Holland would still need to formalize talks with the province when and if the Senate passes the bill based on any changes the senators decide to make.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 18, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

News

Nova Scotia NDP accuse government of prioritizing landlord profits over renters

Published

 on

 

HALIFAX – Nova Scotia’s NDP are accusing the government of prioritizing landlords over residents who need an affordable place to live, as the opposition party tables a bill aimed at addressing the housing crisis.

NDP Leader Claudia Chender took aim at the Progressive Conservatives Wednesday ahead of introducing two new housing bills, saying the government “seems to be more focused on helping wealthy developers than everyday families.”

The Minister of Service Nova Scotia has said the government’s own housing legislation will “balance” the needs of tenants and landlords by extending the five per cent cap on rent until the end of 2027. But critics have called the cap extension useless because it allows landlords to raise rents past five per cent on fixed-term leases as long as property owners sign with a new renter.

Chender said the rules around fixed-term leases give landlords the “financial incentive to evict,” resulting in more people pushed into homelessness. She also criticized the part of the government bill that will permit landlords to issue eviction notices after three days of unpaid rent instead of 15.

The Tories’ housing bill, she said, represents a “shocking admission from this government that they are more concerned with conversations around landlord profits … than they are about Nova Scotians who are trying to find a home they can afford.”

The premier’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Also included in the government’s new housing legislation are clearer conditions for landlords to end a tenancy, such as criminal behaviour, disturbing fellow tenants, repeated late rental payments and extraordinary damage to a unit. It will also prohibit tenants from subletting units for more than they are paying.

The first NDP bill tabled Wednesday would create a “homelessness task force” to gather data to try to prevent homelessness, and the second would set limits on evictions during the winter and for seniors who meet income eligibility requirements for social housing and have lived in the same home for more than 10 years.

The NDP has previously tabled legislation that would create a $500 tax credit for renters and tie rent control to housing units instead of the individual.

Earlier this week landlords defended the use of the contentious fixed-term leases, saying they need to have the option to raise rent higher than five per cent to maintain their properties and recoup costs. Landlord Yarviv Gadish, who manages three properties in the Halifax area, called the use of fixed-term leases “absolutely essential” in order to keep his apartments presentable and to get a return on his investment.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 18, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending