X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

Please note: Previously subscribers used a 'WebID' to log into the website. Your subscriber number is not the same as the WebID. Please ensure you use the subscriber number when you link your subscription.

Brown Study

Brown study

15 March 2014

9:00 AM

15 March 2014

9:00 AM

I don’t want to harp about the ABC and I hope this will be my last contribution on that subject, or at least on the widespread concern about the most recent of the organisation’s aberrations, namely its strange publishing venture with the Guardian and its glee at running tasteless and untested allegations against the Navy. But it deserves to be said that the issue has now evaporated and the ABC must be excused for thinking it won the dispute and that it is now free to go on as usual, as a sort of private club promoting its own ideology at the taxpayers’ expense, with no apparent control by its board and no real incentive to change. After all, several ministers made it clear they wanted an apology from the organisation and an inquiry into its behaviour, but none has been forthcoming and none will be given. So the ABC is entitled to think that if it stands its ground, no matter how sloppy it is on some occasions or downright disloyal it is on others, it will eventually win. As it has done. This might be seen as little more than an amusing cultural divertissement, a skirmish of little interest to anyone outside the gilded circle of the political class. But it is more than that. I am still sorry the government did not act on the ABC when the case for doing so was running so hot. The ABC now knows it can ignore the government with impunity. It has an opinion-making empire to promote its official views, most of its news is opinion, its ‘fact checking’ is the new way of declaring its own approved version of the facts and the role of Media Watch is apparently to intimidate the commercial media. All of this will simply entrench its left-wing mindset and will be arrayed against the government at the next election. It will be a powerful force.

Sometimes I feel sorry for the republican cause; well, a little bit. It seems they really can’t take a trick. Every time there is a royal marriage or birth, there is an outburst of royalist sentiment, not because of the pomp and ceremony involved in the monarchy, although pomp and ceremony are intimately associated with every form of government; the chocolate soldier syndrome is just as apparent when the guard lines up in republican Paris as it is at Trooping the Colour on Horse Guards Parade. No, it is not the pomp and ceremony, but genuine affection for each manifestation of royalty and the royal family that takes place and it is this genuine affection that cements the monarchy into our system of government and makes it so hard for the republicans to get a foothold or advance their cause. Their task to persuade the people to change to a republican system has now been made even harder by the established line of succession. But for whatever reason, there is no doubt that support for the monarchy is gathering strength and support for an Australian republic is steadily eroding. It is not just in opinion polls that you see this trend; you also see it whenever a choice has to be made between symbolic adherence to the crown, knowing as we do what it stands for, and the uncertain vagaries of the republican alternative.

[Alt-Text]


My own profession is the latest example and a good one, because the crown is intimately associated with the law, being responsible for the courts, launching prosecutions in the Queen’s name and that extraordinarily valuable creation and the scourge of wrong-doers, the Royal Commission. So it is not surprising that there has been dissatisfaction in the ranks of the law since the early left-wing flirtation with the abolition of the office of Queen’s Counsel and the centuries of tradition associated with it and its replacement by the anodyne Senior Counsel. What is particularly interesting is that the move to undo this retrograde step started as a groundswell from the profession itself and was not something handed down by government. When, at the instigation of barristers in Victoria, it was proposed to allow individuals to choose to revert to QC and then approved, about 90 per cent voted in favour. Queensland has gone in the same direction with 94 per cent accepting the title QC. In NSW the silk gown was first worn by, guess who, W.C. Wentworth and the NSW Bar is now seeking comment from members on whether to support the change (comments must be in by 17 March). In short, the move to QC is proving wildly popular. I suspect that this same sentiment to retain or revert to traditional titles and symbols, where appropriate, is there in many sections of society and will come to the fore whenever it is given the chance.

It is difficult to outdo others who have already condemned the small group of artists who successfully held the Sydney Biennale to ransom in protest at government policy on refugees. The result is that the sponsor, Transfield, has been forced to withdraw, the Biennale may fold, the interests of other artists not involved in the campaign have been damaged and the public may miss out on this major cultural event. Worse, this latest event marks another victory for the thuggish notion that minorities can push the community around whenever they like and impose their own minority views, always left-wing. Too much of this is happening and we see it, for example, in how easy it was for a handful of academics to put an embargo on contact with Israeli institutions. The good news is that we have also seen a possible way of combating this trend, with the resignation of Scarlett Johansson as an Oxfam ambassador rather than give in to Oxfam’s boycott of an Israeli company.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
Close