Speaker A
Hello, I'm Graeme Smith. And I'm Abby Tatellan, and this is From Below the Balcony, the Republic podcast.
Discussion on monarchy, environmentalism, capitalism, and protest rights with George Monbiot on From Below the Balcony podcast.
Ask about this video. Answers come from its transcript only — with the timestamp, so you can check them.
Generated from the transcript and can be wrong — check the timestamp.
Key Takeaways
- The British monarchy is deeply intertwined with historical and ongoing social inequalities.
- Media coverage of royal events often omits or downplays protest and dissent.
- Environmentalism is linked to broader political and economic issues including capitalism and land ownership.
- Legal restrictions on protest are frequently misused to suppress legitimate public dissent.
- Constitutional reform and republicanism are crucial for addressing systemic power imbalances.
What the video covers
- Hosts Graeme Smith and Abby Tatellan discuss republicanism and critique the British monarchy's links to colonialism and inequality.
- The episode features George Monbiot, a writer and environmentalist, discussing monarchy, land reform, wealth taxation, and constitutional change.
- They cover the Trooping the Colour event, highlighting protests, media coverage biases, and police restrictions on demonstrators.
- Monbiot critiques the portrayal of the monarchy in British media and the suppression of dissenting voices during royal events.
- Discussion includes the environmental impact of the monarchy and broader issues like neoliberalism and capitalism's role in inequality.
- The conversation touches on rural nostalgia, green pragmatism, and resistance to technological solutions for climate change.
- Population issues and the influence of elite interests on environmental and social policies are examined.
- The podcast explores the symbolism of the British parliament and ongoing debates about constitutional reform and civil rights.
- They emphasize the need for public awareness and activism to challenge entrenched power structures and promote social justice.
- The episode critiques the use of legal measures to restrict protests and the broader culture of deference to elite power.
Chapters
- 00:00Introduction and Podcast Overview
- 03:27Trooping the Colour and Protest Experiences
- 06:48Media Coverage and Public Perception of the Monarchy
- 10:26Monarchy, Environmentalism, and Capitalism
- 14:14Rural Nostalgia and Green Pragmatism
- 20:14Population Issues and Elite Influence
- 28:52Housing Crisis, Land Ownership, and Symbolism of Parliament
- 32:17Constitutional Reform and Protest Rights
- 39:44Culture of Deference and Capitalism Critique
Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown
Speaker A
[music] We are so pleased to be with you. This is our second season as that rare space in British media where celebrities, politicians, comedians, and journalists can talk freely about our shared republicanism and criticize the inegalitarianism that puts billionaires
Speaker A
and inherited power at the heart of our country. Last season, we explored how the British monarchy is inextricably linked to colonialism, empire, and slavery. This season on YouTube and podcast channels everywhere, we discuss how taxing the 1%, environmentalism,
Speaker A
gender, and billionaires are indelibly republican issues. Our previous guest, comedian Christian Brighty, and producer Jeff Atkinson have both asked me to send their well-wishes to our guest today. He's a writer, activist, and environmentalist whose work is so beloved by many in the UK, and whose
Speaker A
books include seminal works, Feral, Regenesis, and The Invisible Doctrine. We'll be talking Monarchy in the Environment, Land Reform, Taxing Wealth, and Changing the Constitution. But first, let's get some right royal news from my co-host, Republic campaign's CEO Graeme.
Speaker A
So, Graeme, we just had Trooping the Colour.
Speaker A
Yeah. So, this is the third time that we've protested Trooping the Colour. So, this is the big, um, parade down the Mall from—they all troop out in their carriages and on their horses with
Speaker A
a bunch of soldiers in their, um, lovely red jackets. Of course, because if you're not super into the monarchy, you might not know what Trooping the Colour was.
Speaker A
It did. I mean, a lot of people don't really. I mean, I was, I think, only vague on the details until more recently, until I started turning up. It's, uh, it is that big sort of, um, procession that
Speaker A
um, it's probably one of the things they're well known for because they go down to Horse Guards Parade at the other end of the Mall, watch the soldiers march up and down the square, and then come back down again, and then they come
Speaker A
out on the balcony and there's a flyover of various RAF planes. And how meaningful is that to British identity? What do you think the meaning is?
Speaker A
Well, not really. I mean, I would guess because there used to be a big royal, um, I keep forgetting what it's called now.
Speaker A
Royal, uh, something, um, in Royal Albert Hall until 1998, I think it was, and it got cancelled and no one can remember what it was now.
Speaker A
You mean like a royal knight or a big military [clears throat] thing?
Speaker A
Oh, a military thing.
Speaker A
Yeah. And, um, royal tattoo or something. I forget now, but it's, you know, it's, um, patronized by the royals and, uh, yeah, because they have a royal music night, don't they? Because I'm pretty sure Jerry Hall sang at it
Speaker A
possibly. Yeah. During the era of the Spice Girls, which is my era that I know about.
Speaker A
Smaller scale stuff, but yeah. Anyway, I don't—I mean, the crowds there are definitely smaller than they used to be.
Speaker A
If you look, they always do this shot from fairly low when it's just looking down the Mall across people's heads. So, you can't really see the huge spaces between people and it looks like a lot of people, like looks like the Mall's full,
Speaker A
and it's not remotely full. And when you look at the aerial shot when the royals come out the balconies, you know, there might be a couple of thousand people there. Um, but, you know, most of them are probably tourists. There are
Speaker A
people there. Um, there were people there who were in the audience for the actual trooping bit who have walked down the Mall. So, they might be friends and family or I don't know who they are. I guess
Speaker A
there's a lot of the, you know, the great and good as it were and, um, sort of lords, left tenants, and people like that, and then they pack it out with cadets and scouts and and so on.
Speaker A
And you're there. Um, and we're there. But we've been there for the last few years and so we, um, there's a running argument with the police about whether or not, you know, where we can be and and what we can do
Speaker A
and all the rest of it. But, um, they have allowed us to go down to the palace when the royals come out. And what's interesting is the crowd, 'cause most of them are not particularly royalist. Um, they are most of them are tourists, to be
Speaker A
honest. Um, when the flyover starts, the crowd goes dead quiet because they're all on their phones taking photos of the royals on the balcony and and filming the planes coming over.
Speaker A
Yeah. So, when we start with the megaphone and chanting, "Not my king," and sort of heckling Charles, they can hear us.
Speaker A
It's really polite of the crowd.
Speaker A
Yeah.
Speaker A
Yeah. It's very nice of them.
Speaker A
Yeah. That's so interesting what you said about, um, that the camera is at a low angle in order to make it look like there are more people there. And it got
Speaker A
me thinking like, well, why would it be important for whoever's filming to do that? But then presumably somebody gets a contract to go and film that.
Speaker A
Well, BBC Events does the contract. So BBC, you think that they they're in danger of losing it if they don't do that or if they if they show a bunch of, you know, blank space or I mean BBC Events are appalling. I mean,
Speaker A
we have written to them before about their, uh, North Korea-esque coverage because with, um, they always, you can see the panning of the camera as they go down the Mall that they, they pan lower to dodge any sign of the protests. Um, and
Speaker A
they say nothing. I mean, in the coverage, I don't know who it was last year was Clare Balding and, uh, Charles Brand doing the narration. It's all slick nonsense about how lovely they are and how hard they work and how
Speaker A
there's these huge crowds, but they didn't. You could hear us in the background.
Speaker A
Yeah.
Speaker A
Very clearly as you could this year. And they make almost no mention of us.
Speaker A
That's so interesting. Do you do you think that they think that it makes more interesting television for everybody to agree that the royals are so great than it does to film a protest?
Speaker A
Story is like there's a protest going on, there's the royals going on.
Speaker A
Well, indeed. You would, you would think Britain.
Speaker A
Yeah. You would think so 'cause some of the, I mean, what's funny is that a lot of these royalists, um, if we're there they boo us and so but on the footage it sounds like they're booing the royals so, you know, it
Speaker A
yeah exactly [clears throat] they're very, very good to us in that sense but they have a contract with the royals and it's very clear that the royals say this is what we want, you know, and if you you don't include people like
Speaker A
the Republicans but it and I was allowed into the media tent to do an interview on Sky and I found out later from someone in the tent that, um, there was, uh, word said about from the MOD about why I was let in
Speaker A
there.
Speaker A
Wow.
Speaker A
Yeah. Why is the MOD trying to tell the media who they can and can't let into the—
Speaker A
Yeah. And also why, you know, like what would be the threat? Why is the MOD somehow protecting the royal family over
Speaker A
you're a member of the British public, right? Protection if same with the police. They, they, um, put a condition on us that we had to be in a particular space. Now, in order to use a condition under the
Speaker A
section 14 thing, they have to say that the reason why. And they had to tick a box saying, um, we believe there's a risk of serious public damage to property and serious disruption, which clearly is a lie.
Speaker A
You've never done, right?
Speaker A
No. So, and and can I can I just for the, uh, newbies in the crowd, section 14, explain?
Speaker A
Well, it's just one of the many, many laws we have in this country, um, curtailing the right to protest. So, um, and it's been abused before. Um, it's not the worst abuse of it, but it's, um, it's an
Speaker A
outright lie. So we will be taking that up with the police. I mean, it didn't really disrupt our protest. We, we were able to protest and I'd encourage everybody to come down because it's actually a lot of fun.
Speaker A
But it does, it's quite scary that they're like telling this narrative about you that you disrupt things and might damage property because, you know, down the line there you could see a
Speaker A
yes it's silly but it's not important. That's something that we talked a lot about during uh meetings running up to this season isn't it? that um you know I I I do think millennials like myself and Gen Z people and now like Gen A are all
Speaker A
becoming adults all able to vote and um there's a lot of us who will agree with narratives like that we should tax wealth. Yeah.
Speaker A
Um and that you know who were anti-climate change, pro- environmentalism, feminists, but the monarchy is just not something necessarily that people um it's not an issue that people like adopt as their own. It's not particularly hip and they're [clears throat] they're kind of
Speaker A
in the background in a way, aren't they? And and they they've done that on purpose. That's part of their PR.
Speaker A
Yeah, absolutely. It's changing. That is changing. But I think which is hence the changing in mood and so on. But I think that and part of that is to do with the changing monarch and to do with Andrew and scandals and so on and also
Speaker A
to do with us as well and that we've changed the the image if you like of republicanism.
Speaker A
But uh but yeah, we've got a long way to go because it's not quite the zeitgeist movement. But um and part of it is to attach it to those things which are much more serious, but also the monarchy
Speaker A
issue is becoming more urgent because it does it does address a whole load of issues around power and politics. I think when I saw a post by everyone hates Elon about the monarchy, um that's when I thought, "Oh, great." Like, it's
Speaker A
in the public consciousness and and it's going to become something that people just adopt as part of this slew of issues and values that they hold.
Speaker A
And it is um because, you know, we there's a great deal of concern about this um unchecked power of the wealthy and the wealthy are getting so wealthy that their power is getting out of hand.
Speaker A
And of course there is the rise of authoritarianism and populism and the right in a country that has almost no checks and balances or guardrails around its constitution.
Speaker A
I've really been amazed like while I've been co-hosting here learning about the duchies and about the abuses of power and about how much money they have and about kind of um Jeff Atinson, one of our uh guests from the previous season. We did a
Speaker A
fantastic live episode with him in front of members. He called me the other day and he was talking about a a Channel 4 news item he's putting together. Um, and he was talking about um basically one royal getting a million here, one royal
Speaker A
getting a million there to, you know, to kind of grease the wheels of deals, business deals that were going on, but that affected uh the country and and real estate and and you know, local people. Um, it was very interesting
Speaker A
talking to him. But, uh, I just like I'm kind of, you know, have been horrified and and particularly last season talking about kind of genocide and slavery and and, uh, you know, African remains in British museums and things like that.
Speaker A
like the number of atrocities that that predecessors of this family or at least the people who have held this power and passed it on to this particular family have committed, you know, are so vile and you just kind of never hear about
Speaker A
them. But I I I wanted to ask you about something a bit more um pathetic in a way. Um just today the Daily Express reported that Charles is refusing to set a date to meet up with Harry this
Speaker A
summer. Um, there was absolutely tons of stuff about Harry and Megan in the in the paper over the last couple of days.
Speaker A
Um, is it worth it talking about these family spats? Is there polling to suggest issues like this move the needle for members of the public in any significant way?
Speaker A
I think it's difficult to tell. I mean, they've done a they've done a serious number on Harry and Megan for the most absurd reasons. I mean, they haven't actually done anything wrong. But what's particularly obscene is when you see
Speaker A
journalists and commentators talk about Harry in the same breath as Andrew that, you know, if you're going to take Andrew's titles, why not Harry's? It's like, well, because Harry hasn't done anything wrong. All he's done to conflate the two.
Speaker A
Yeah. I say appalling. I mean, Harry is um I'm not a big fan of Harry Megan. I'm not a big fan of any of them. I the all he's done is speak his mind in public, explain how his experiences being a
Speaker A
royal, decide it's not for him, um and walk away. I think he's come across very human. I mean, you're not going to get out of a childhood like that unscathed, and I don't think they pretend to be.
Speaker A
No. Indeed. And I think that um his actions are entirely reasonable. And um the suggestion that somehow you know that he is that he is an awful person for doing that is absurd. But there is quite deliberate briefing and you know
Speaker A
the stories and the papers are coming from the palace. Um do you think they help their cause?
Speaker A
Well I think that they hope that they want to make sure they continue to damage. I mean the polling suggests that they have no they're not popular anymore in the UK because there's been this um briefing against them. But I I find it
Speaker A
all quite pathetic. I mean it's in terms of the you know will Charles meet his let's just say Gre just knocked something off the table. We're surrounded by papers here. All the research that we've [laughter] done ahead of meeting our guest.
Speaker A
Um we we um yeah I find it quite pathetic this idea that you know there's speculation about whether Charles is going to meet Harry.
Speaker A
I mean no one it doesn't matter. You know there's loads of families who are estranged.
Speaker A
It's such a toxic family dynamic. Well it is but I mean that's not unusual. Does it make people dislike having these people as figureheads?
Speaker A
I don't think so because so many people have difficult family relationships. And I think that people, you know, it's not unusual. And I think it's weird that given that he's done nothing particularly wrong. And I don't think it
Speaker A
speaks well of Charles and William that they've reacted in that way because as I said, he's done, you know, he's not needed. He's not the heir. He hasn't done any damage to the monarchy. He has simply embarrassed them and and
Speaker A
threatened the the PR image. But they could have actually leaned into that and said, "Look, we fully support Harry making his own decisions and you know the monarchy is stronger that you know we can carry on without him and whatever
Speaker A
and we still know he's still part of our family." But instead they they um turned on him which I think is pretty appalling.
Speaker A
It's interesting to me that you say that you know part of those stories about Harry in the Daily Express like actually come from the royal household. Do you think um that kind of reporting in newspapers neutralizes our perception of
Speaker A
their power because they're reporting solely on things you or I could experience like a weekend in Vegas or not going to Ascot?
Speaker A
Yeah. Yeah, I mean there there's a lot of um uh appalling reporting in the press that comes from briefings from the palace which is quite consciously tailored to create a particular image which is not only positive but takes the draws the
Speaker A
eye away from uh other issues. So um you know you can see um particular journalists in serious newspapers who just talk absolute nonsense about uh about the royals um particularly around things you know recently we've had national audit office
Speaker A
which put out a report saying that um working royals you know so-called working royals had 11 huge home or 11 royals sorry had huge homes in Kensington Palace and um St. in James' palace. Uh, and a lot of the spill the
Speaker A
following days was William is going to be tough on this, William's going to take the take the reigns and William's going to be um proactive proactive in sort of dealing with this.
Speaker A
And then there was stuff about Charles uh that he's going to rethink the way that royal properties managed and and divvied out. I mean, it's not their property, so they shouldn't be making these decisions, but it's all being
Speaker A
pitched as if William and Charles were in charge. But it's two different. This is the other thing. See, it's two different camps. So, Williams camp, Charles's camp are not the same. And they counterbrief each other against each other in subtle ways by trying to
Speaker A
put one of them in front of the other as being the mover and shaker.
Speaker A
Oh, that's just so interesting. It's all just a big episode of succession. We just, as you know, we've got this webinar which is once a month um on Tuesday evenings um called uh Beyond the Royal Headlines. Um, and we had Andrew
Speaker A
Looney, who's the author of entitled um the the book the biography of Andrew um talking about this in in quite a lot of detail because he's he talks to a lot of people in the background in these camps
Speaker A
that um yeah they they don't necessarily get on because there is this tension between what William wants to do and what Charles wants to do. Of course, Charles is already king and he's got a legacy to think about. He's very much
Speaker A
towards the end of his life. William is thinking ahead and wants um he wants a monarchy basically that suits his interests. He's very lazy. He doesn't feel the need to do all the public duties. So he wants to um but he also
Speaker A
doesn't want people to be prying into his business. So I think the monarchy will take a turn for the worse under him. Um and he's clearly trying to shift it in a direction that's going to suit his interests, expecting his dad not to
Speaker A
be around for that much longer. Graeme, we have a new bit that we introduced last episode called Bust a Myth. Um, I still want us to do the uh head thing where we go like this. Bust a myth. Bust a myth. Anyway, I will just
Speaker A
say so you've got one minute and one minute alone to bust I'm going to go to my clock. Put on my stopwatch. Um, you've got one minute to bust this myth.
Speaker A
Graham, Buckingham Palace and the royals bring in more money than any other royal family.
Speaker A
any other royal family. I mean that might be true I suppose but I mean if they if the myth is about uh them being good for tourism um I mean the point is there's no evidence they bring any
Speaker A
anything for tourism at all. I met in 2011 or 2012 I met the CEO and chair of Visit Britain that promotes this as a as a tourist destination overseas. And I said to them there's no evidence we that
Speaker A
they uh that we would lose tourism revenue if the monarchy was gone. And they said no you're correct there is no such evidence and there simply isn't any. never has been shown uh never no figures have been put forward uh that
Speaker A
stand up to any scrutiny. So um it is a it is a myth that has been generated by people trying to defend their expenditure.
Speaker A
You have 30 seconds left and I thought that you were going to talk about maybe the royal palace in the world that generates the most money. Do you want to do that in your last 20 seconds? Do you
Speaker A
know which one it is? Well, I'm assuming you're talking about Versailles. Yes, I am talking about if you look but if you look at the UK people always make exceptions for France. If you look at the UK, Tower of London is far more
Speaker A
popular than Buckingham Palace. Tower of London in the top 10, Buckingham Palace in the top 20.
Speaker A
But I'm talking about palaces because obviously we've got the royal family and and you know, but to London is a palace, but the I want to say that Windsor Castle [laughter] is something like 22.
Speaker A
Yeah. Buckingham Palace is 20 to 25 million a year in total admission income. Do do you want to hazard a guess at what the Palace of Versail is?
Speaker A
I know. exceeds a hundred million euros. Yeah. Every year. Um Windsor Castle Yeah. is far less popular than Windsor Legoland. So it's, you know, they do not draw the people in.
Speaker A
We're off to Legoland. In future episodes, Graeme and I will be talking about recent non-fiction releases.
Speaker A
Andrew Lan's entitled The Rise and Fall of the House of York, Virginia, Du Frey's postumous memoir, Nobody's Girl, and protests and members events for the rest of the year. So do subscribe to us wherever you are watching or listening.
Speaker A
And remember remember this season you can send us questions at podcastrepublic.org.uk for our upcoming guests. So Graeme, who's our guest today?
Speaker A
George Momio is an award-winning journalist, activist, founder of movements and projects challenging the power of governments and the vested interests of the rich. And judging from his early career, a fearless adventurer setting off across Indonesia, the Amazon, and East Africa in pursuit of
Speaker A
groundbreaking stories about injustices, land rights, and environmental destruction. George is also a prolific author with more than a dozen books to his name from poisoned arrows published in 1989 to Feral in 2013, Reenesis in 2022 on how we feed the world without
Speaker A
destroying the environment and his latest book out in 2024, the invisible doctrine, the secret history of neoliberalism and how it came to control your life. He sees his life as a slightly unhinged adventure who perpet whose perpetuation is something of a
Speaker A
mystery. So, a fascinating life and career that would take more than the time we have to dissect in great detail, but in short, it's fair to say George is not a fan of the rich and powerful, which makes him a perfect guest on from
Speaker A
below the balcony. George, welcome to the show. Thank you very much. Now, um yes, I I was going to ask uh obviously jump straight into the question of the royals. I mean, are William and Charles great uh advocates
Speaker A
against climate change or is that much bad for the environment? Well, look, I I mean, I've got no particular animous against them as people. Um, I think they they've got a ridiculous job and I wouldn't want to do it myself. Um,
Speaker A
uh, there are certain other members of the royal family who I do feel very I have very different views about as you might imagine. But, um, you know, we can come on to the issue of the institution which is another matter of course. Um so
Speaker A
it's quite interesting that there is a strong strand of a particular kind of environmentalism running through the royal family.
Speaker A
Um it was there with Prince Philillip um uh King Charles and and then now with with Prince William and it has slightly evolved over time. Um but what it it focuses on is what I see as one of the
Speaker A
three philosophies of environmentalism. and and we we I think in philosophical terms we're the most diverse movement that I know of that has ever existed on earth because it encapsulates these very different world views and yet somehow manages more or less to cohhere with
Speaker A
with a few rows along the way but surprisingly few by comparison to for instance standard left politics where whose main main occupation is is ripping each other's heads off. Um and and so these three philosophies that I perceive
Speaker A
in environmentalism are first of all green liberationism which is very much founded in social justice. Um it's um inspired by decolonization movements, civil rights movements, feminist anti-aparttheide movements etc.
Speaker A
um uh justice and and liberty are absolutely fundamental to its worldview and it's represented by groups like um um uh Friday's future um or uh Green New Deal Rising, Extinction Rebellion, Just Stop Oil, etc. very visible um very um
Speaker A
much engaged in protest um we we're all familiar with that model of environmentalism. So green liberationism is one philosophical strand and then you've got what I would call green pragmatism which is very much about well we just need to get the right
Speaker A
technological change we um need to apply the lessons of science and we need to do these sensible things which need to be done and you could see this really in the position of Ed Milliband in the government just a technical issue fix that we carry
Speaker A
on exactly technical issue with a technical solution and obviously we we need technical solions My my belief is we also need political and economic change.
Speaker A
And often in this green pragmatist worldview, the um political and economic stuff is shunted to one side in favor of this purely technical approach. And with the current British government, that takes an extreme form in that they're really trying to shut down people's
Speaker A
voices and say, "You will accept this. You are going to have the solar farms.
Speaker A
You're going to have the pylons. You're going to have the nuclear power plants because it's all for the greater good.
Speaker A
It doesn't feel particularly persuasive, does it? Because, you know, you're not appealing to anybody's um better values or or economic situation.
Speaker A
Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's it's really swapping out persuasion for coercion. And I I find this quite disturbing in in some ways. Um I you know, what's so interesting is how little effort it's made to persuade. Where are the public
Speaker A
information videos? Where's the emergency briefing? You know, we've got less of it now than there was before.
Speaker A
Yeah. And it's just like we know what's best. U we we're take we got good scientific advice. So you're going to have it. Now, you know, there are more benign forms of of of green pragmatism, but that that is
Speaker A
um it's sort of exemplified really in the government approach. And then there's a third strand which is very much certainly King Charles's strand um to an extent perhaps Prince Williams.
Speaker A
I'm not so sure. It was definitely the Duke of Edinburgh's strand, Prince Phillips. Um, and this is what I call green social nostalgia. [clears throat] And it's all about things were better in the past. I mean, we I say social
Speaker A
nostalgia because I think all greens are ecologically nostalgic because we realize the extent to which ecosystems have been depleted and we like to see them restored. That cuts across all all aspects. But the green social nostalgia is a distinct philosophy from those
Speaker A
other two. and and it's um very much tied up with this idea of rural revivalism, which is we got to have a localized landbased economy protected by protectionist tariffs. Um we um we it should be homespun. It um um we
Speaker A
basically regret everything that's happened since the industrial revolution, including in some cases we regret the democracy that that goes with it. Um it can often be a very elite um uh version of environmentalism.
Speaker A
Um and it's very easily adopted by fascist movements. It was an absolute mainstay of fascist movements in the 1920s and 1930s and is again today. And it's has this sort of agrarian romanticism baked into it. You know the
Speaker A
farmers they're the true people of the land. They are being usurped by these outsiders. And in the 1920s and 1930s, the outsiders were called aliens and cosmopolitans, which is basically code for Jews. Um, today, uh, they're called immigrants and globalists, which is
Speaker A
often also code for Jews, but also for, you know, asylum seekers, everybody else. And you know, in its extreme forms, like with the Dutch farmer revolts, you get this um conspiracy theory that it's all part of the great
Speaker A
replacement, that they're trying to throw the true people off the land and replace them with with with these immigrants who are coming in and diluting our blood and soil. And now, you know, rural revivalism and green social nostalgia, they don't they're not
Speaker A
necessarily connected with with fascism. Of course, you know, there's there lots of different ways in which they can be expressed, though they lend themselves quite easily to paternalistic. I find I mean, and I get the impression that Charles's um sort of
Speaker A
social uh nostalgia. It links the environment with the notion of the him and his big house and the the the surfs tilling the soil by hand rather than using these dirty old machines.
Speaker A
Very much so. That's definitely how how I see it. Um and and you can trace this back well on one level you can trace it back a very long way to the pastoral poetry of theocritus and the and the
Speaker A
sort of vision of the old testament but more more recently you can trace it back to the agricultural depression in the 1870s where um thanks to um much cheaper grain imports from North America agriculture more or less collapsed in
Speaker A
Britain and what that meant was that the rental value of the land collapsed which was a big problem for the aristocrats because that was their unearned income just going overboard and they weren't at all happy about this. And so they
Speaker A
created this vision of this localized land-based economy um and demanded protectionism in order to allow that to to flourish. And and then then when there was a further agricultural depression after the first world war um uh that idea got more legs and it was
Speaker A
then picked up by the British Union of Fascists, the English mystery, the English array, the other fascist organizations in in this country. Um, and it's remarkable how how faithful to their ideas rural revivalism today is. So, for instance,
Speaker A
they were obsessed with the idea that food is too cheap. They hated processed food and they fetishized unpasteurized milk. And all of these things are still there and they're still the ideas of King Charles in in particular. You know,
Speaker A
he's really big on unpasteurized milk and all of these things. That's interesting because I was going to say to Graeme's vision, you were making me think of Tradives on social media and of course um I can never remember his first name, but
Speaker A
there's the the Kennedy who's now the Oh, Robert Kennedy Robert [laughter] I always feel like I shouldn't be calling him Robert Kennedy because that's great person.
Speaker A
But um and that's his kind of view in terms of health, isn't it? So um it's actually what you say it is very closely aligned to the tradife movement this whole rural revivalist thing particularly in in the back to the land
Speaker A
movement in the US that is absolutely handin glove conservative notion of going back to where we were perceived to be where the the peasant man is tilling the soil and the the beautiful wife is the rich man at his in his castle the
Speaker A
poor man at his gate and the wife slaving away in the kitchen underneath. There's kind of another element because I was when I was writing my book I was reading this thing very brief interview the rare interview that Charles did sort
Speaker A
of fairly unscripted as far as I could see with a BBC person. it was during um whichever cop it was in Glasgow, COP 26 or 7, whatever it was. And um his answer was like, "Oh, you know, I I try not to
Speaker A
eat meat two days a week and you know, I tried to recycle and if we all did a little bit, it would help." And it was it was this kind of very peacemeal notion that rather than the the richest
Speaker A
1% who churn out most of the carbon pollution doing you know having huge structural changes to their lifestyles it should is on all of us to sort of recycle our milk bottles and and all the rest of it which seems to completely
Speaker A
tilt the argument in entirely the wrong direction. Yeah. I mean look I'm I'm happy that there is a strand of environmentalism at all. Um and and I think there is a tendency in the green movement and on the left to attack people who who go
Speaker A
some of the way towards where we want them to be but don't go the whole way while ignoring those who aren't aren't involved at all. So you the fact that there are members of the royal family who are enthusiastic about environmental
Speaker A
ideas does in this very differential hierarchical society give a kind of stamp of approval to the idea of environmentalism which might otherwise be even more um intolerable to to [clears throat] to the ruling class than it is already. And and let's face it,
Speaker A
you know, the way environmental protesters are being treated, the prison sentences are getting all all this, I mean, they are trying to demonize us and trying to cast us as the other at at all times. So, yeah, I have to say that
Speaker A
having members of the royal family um um expressing enthusiasm for the protection of the living world in whatever form it takes is broadly a good thing. However, I I would I my environmental vision is quite radically different from theirs
Speaker A
because you know while I think a lot of environmentalists have a mixture of the three philosophies, it's not that they sort of cut cleanly where this person is purely a green revol [clears throat] green liberationist and this person is
Speaker A
purely a green pragmatist or a green social nostalgic. Um I I think uh you know I definitely tend more towards the green liberationism than than the two other strands. So I also have quite a bit of green pragmatism because I see the need for
Speaker A
technological change as well. And what do you think is the impact of Charles favoring that social nostalgia version of environmentalism? Well, yeah, it it does mean that um there's it sort of gives credence to a version of environmentalism which is highly
Speaker A
antagonistic to liberationism and and indeed to pragmatism also. So for instance, the people he absolutely worships and supposedly has got a bronze bust of each of these people, Patrick Holden and Vanderashiva in Highrove, he apparently has them in bronze. These are
Speaker A
people I see as deeply nostalgic Greens who really want to stop a lot of benign technological change. For instance, um they're both been highly critical of the calls that I've I've made and others have made for um dietary
Speaker A
change towards um for instance new alternative protein sources which could have a much lower environmental impact than animal products do. Um uh animal farming is um one of the two most devastating influences on on the planet along with fossil fuels. It's it's
Speaker A
transformed more of the planet surface than anything else that humans do. Has massive greenhouse gas footprint, huge impacts on habitats, on wildlife, on on everything really. Pollution, it's massive polluter. Um if we got out of animal agriculture, that would be a
Speaker A
really wonderful thing. And to help do that, alternative proteins are to animal farming what solar and wind are to fossil fuels. And and and but you know, the influences that King Charles is very keen on are deeply antagonistic to that
Speaker A
kind of he is he is a you know he runs an agricultural business and the two duchies are businesses. And when he was Prince Charles, the Duchy of Cornwall wouldn't allow wind farms and presumably solar farms on their land. So he's very
Speaker A
and again I think it's the nostalgia of you know wind farms aren't natural. They they spoil the skyline. So that is quite contrary to you know the technological solutions to dealing with uh fossil fuels.
Speaker A
Yeah. And it's very interesting that you the way in which the royal family has has changed our view of the living world and and not always for the better. So there's this phenomenon which S Simon Sharma is described as balmorality where
Speaker A
um where what Victoria and Albert did at Balmoral became a model for what all the other Highland estates did. So uh basically this was a devastated land where the people had been thrown off through the highland clearances and of
Speaker A
course also the lowland clearances. Um and vast numbers of people had been forcibly removed from the land. Um and and many of them had fled to the cities.
Speaker A
Some of them had been literally shipped off to to Canada and and and and the US and elsewhere, the Caribbean. Um and there was a vast rural depopulation. And then Victoria and Albert turned up and say, "Oh, we like all this Highland
Speaker A
culture stuff." And invented basically this whole tradition of Scottish dancing and Scottish clothes and and and and it was all this sort of Ursat tradition which they created. part of what they they they they embraced as as this
Speaker A
supposed culture, this completely imaginary um invented culture was um uh driven grouse shooting and deer stalking. Now driven grouse shooting is an absolute ecological disaster because in order to sustain large numbers of grouse so that your very posh people can
Speaker A
sit in a hole and shoot them as they come over, you have to burn the land sequentially um in order to um create uh uh new growth little heather shoots which the grass like to eat. And so all the other
Speaker A
plants get destroyed, the trees get destroyed, you it looks like Mordor in in many places, particularly around Bal Mar on Dside. It's horrendous.
Speaker A
Um because there it's probably more intense than anywhere else in Scotland. Um and um so you burn the land and then you legally or illegally kill anything which might eat or compete with the grouse. And so these places become
Speaker A
complete wildlife black holes. and all the the the raptors, the the the predatory birds. Um but also um all the the mammal predators, the stos, the weasels, the pole cats, the uh the pine martins, um the wild cats, that they're
Speaker A
all killed as well on mass um by by their gamekeepers. And and that tradition has very much got its roots in um the the the royal practice of you know we got to get the biggest grouse bags of all. And in fact the the
Speaker A
invention of the breach loading shotgun um which which um coincided with um the development of far more um efficient um military weaponry um led to these huge massacres at game. just at the same time as the British were able to carry out
Speaker A
huge massacres of of of people in in their colonies and and there was a very similar ethos, you know, sort of ah we you know we bagged 2,000 Zulus today or we bagged x number of feeasants or or
Speaker A
grouse and that's another colonialist royal impact on the environment, isn't it? Taking away the original people who looked after the land and managed it is going to change the land substantially. They do still hunt as far as I know in terms
Speaker A
of you know where it was legal to to do so. And I um the um a few years ago I think William took his son George to Spain to hunt wild boar. Um and I think it's the hypocrisy which is which gets a
Speaker A
lot of people and you you wrote about this quite a long time ago when um you mentioned that Charles had two large houses. He's now got six large houses.
Speaker A
So [clears throat] um the you know and these places have to be lit and heated all year round whether they are there or not. and they fly everywhere by helicopter famously flying to Cambridge from Gsters to lecture environmentalists on the need to reduce
Speaker A
um uh air pollution from aircraft. Um I mean isn't that quite a significant problem that he's also I mean the audience there is the other rich people who are again I mean celebrities do this as well Hollywood actors they go off on
Speaker A
their huge yachts and then lecture people on the environment. I mean this is a big problem isn't it? It is it's a constant problem. Um and particularly becomes a problem when you have very rich people generally post-reproductive white men lecturing people about
Speaker A
population. This is a big issue. Population is the big issue and this is certainly something which certain Prince Philip was very big on um because it's basically the only issue for which post-reroductive white men aren't aren't [clears throat] responsible in
Speaker A
environmental terms. Um and and it's a great way of transferring responsibility away from the high consumers of the west to much much poorer people in other countries whose fertility rates tend still to be slight slightly higher. Um and and you know it's you know so quite
Speaker A
aside from all the sexism, the racism and everything else which is encapsulated in it um is also completely and utterly futile because [clears throat] you know if you wanted to intervene in um population growth today the time to act was 100 years ago.
Speaker A
What what we got is what's called demographic momentum. Um, fertility rates are falling at tremendous speed.
Speaker A
Um, not through any efforts of these population obsessives, but um, simply because as well primarily because as women have more choices, they choose not to have uh, so many children or to massively delay um, having children. I mean, I think I'd like to jump in there
Speaker A
and say on behalf of my generation that I feel like economic issues are a much greater um barriers to having children than choice these days. I I have lots of personal friends who would love to have had lots
Speaker A
of children, but you can't even live in a flat. You a full bed share house. And uh and that's you know kind of brings me to a different question because you launched um the British land rights campaign this
Speaker A
land is ours in 1995 along with a manifesto um on land reform and I wondered you know what at that time made you think okay it's important to address this um and also where is that movement going now and how how's it doing? So, I I
Speaker A
think land is is a crucial and massively overlooked issue. And it's not overlooked by accidents, it's overlooked by design. Um and and I discovered this the hard way when I edited a report for um um Jeremy Corbyn's Labor Party. Um it
Speaker A
was published in 2019 um shortly before the election. um called Land for the Many and brought together some really brilliant people to to write this this report. And we very carefully laid out how we could have a much fairer society
Speaker A
if we used land in a more equitable way. And um and through you know taxation through sort of more popular control of of planning process um through um you know the money from land going back into the community effectively um uh with a
Speaker A
whole load of of you know very sensible um and careful measures that we suggested u which would have a really big and important material impact um on people in this country. well, you know, disadvantaging very few people. Um, and
Speaker A
um, the the Mail on Sunday, I don't think they even looked at the report. I mean, there's no evidence that they did.
Speaker A
They wrote this massive piece. There was a headline story about how how um Labour was going to steal your garden and and and it was complet I mean it was total fiction and everyone then went berserk and all piled in on us and and you know
Speaker A
we were going to um hang them from the lamp post and all of this and you know you think hang on a moment did we write any of you know they were so that the themes became so repeated and so strong
Speaker A
that we you began to question yourself say did we say that and then through the paper I was literally [laughter] flipping flipping through saying no no we didn't we we didn't say anything like that and and and we realized you know
Speaker A
what a nerve we had touched there and so you know this is it's an issue which people avoid uh because you find out what happens if you don't avoid it um and newspapers the media in general just seeks to shut down. Um but it's
Speaker A
absolutely fundamental to our well-being because how the land is used. Um how decisions over that use are made. This determines whether we have the houses we need to live in.
Speaker A
It determines whether we have the the the facilities, the schools, the hospitals, the community centers, um all the other things, the the shops, the pubs that that we need to lead a decent life. Um, but also whether you have
Speaker A
access to nature and and green places to kick a football around in and walk the dog and you know all these really fundamental things.
Speaker A
There's been a lot of talk around the housing crisis of the need to start to reduce regulations around uh green belts and I just think well knowing that so much of the urban land is owned by so few people I mean there must be
Speaker A
land owners that sit on empty property because it's better to sit on it than get rid of it and they want to sell it or rent it or whatever. So that land ownership could avoid us if we reformed
Speaker A
the land ownership. I guess that might avoid us then building on the green side.
Speaker A
Well, there's all sorts of things we could do and one of them is to break the strangle hold of the big house builders because the big house builders don't actually want to build houses. um they their value comes from the speculative
Speaker A
value of the land and and [clears throat] so they'll sit on these land banks and they'll trade these land banks and they'll release land for housing as slowly as possible because if you release too much the price comes down.
Speaker A
Um and and it really comes down now to six volume house builders. Um and and they've they've got us all in a strangle hold and and so you know we need to have a much more interventionist policy to
Speaker A
say right let us decide collectively where the houses should be and and who they're going to serve and how they're going to be built and then government and local authority with popular backing because you know again this is something which where we need to
Speaker A
be engaging people as widely as possible. um we we then say right these are the houses we're going to build rather than leaving it to this thing called a market which doesn't really function as a market at all. I mean
Speaker A
[clears throat] it's completely dysfunctional. It's it's just um a massive great rontier system leaving it to them to decide whether and where houses will will be built. And so a the houses we need don't get built and b when they are built or the houses we
Speaker A
don't need are built because it's all about effective demand. In other words, um supplying people who can [clears throat] actually pay for houses who aren't necessarily the people who need them most where they where they are built is often in places which is just
Speaker A
completely inappropriate in terms of um having being supplied with services in in in terms of um environmental impact um and a whole load of issues like that.
Speaker A
Access to work for people being you know not having to drive long distances or educate their children far away.
Speaker A
Exactly. I mean, every community should be a 15-minute community. You know, this is is, you know, what Anne Hidalgo did in Paris was was genius. Absolutely genius. She's transformed that city.
Speaker A
She's made it so much more livable by making sure that the services are where people are and people are where the services are and and it's just it works.
Speaker A
The 15 minutes thing has become a conspiracy as well, which is this strange idea that we're trying to box people in, which is actually trying to help people live, you know, [snorts] lives and and environmentally friendly lives.
Speaker A
Sorry. Yeah. Sorry. Go on. I I just wanted to ask you because obviously you have a a huge amount of work, so I've been doing some deep Googling and I I I read an article um from 2009 when you talked about this,
Speaker A
but I think it's relevant to the conversation today. um Charles um being able to access information that that Parliament is kind of working on, legislation that they're working on, and being able to comment on things and writing letters to MPs and sort of
Speaker A
lobbying for himself. Now, he's one of the largest land owners in the UK, as is William with the Duchies.
Speaker A
Um how do you feel about that now? Has your kind of opinion changed? I mean, I think it's fair to say that we have the minimal possible democracy that we could have been allowed. Um I I mean it's it's remarkable how many of the old
Speaker A
structures and old systems remain intact despite the supposed democratic transformation of this country. I mean just look at the symbol of parliament.
Speaker A
What is a symbol of parliament? You start with a crown on top which tells you quite a lot straight away. Um and then below the crown there's a pork cullis. What does a pork cullis mean? It means keep out you bastard pearls. We
Speaker A
don't want you here. And then either side of it are chains. So is this a welcoming symbol?
Speaker A
It's quite hard to draw when you think about [laughter] Exactly. I know. I know. Yeah. When a system tells you what it is, believe it.
Speaker A
And and when you look at all the arcane parliamentary procedures, when you look at the way this whole supposedly representative system works where basically we're allowed to participate once for 30 seconds once every 5 years and then the whole of the rest of the
Speaker A
time it's presumed consent. We got a majority. So we presume everyone's consent for everything we want to do.
Speaker A
Not exactly a majority. No, exactly. We got a majority of the on a minority of the votes.
Speaker A
This is this was put to Blair. I remember this is such a great comment that he was is after 2005 where they dropped quite a lot but they I think they got in on 35% and they got like an
Speaker A
80 seat majority. And he's asked whether we needed reform, you know, electoral reform and he said, "Oh, well, you know, I think it's broadly what the people wanted." Well, I mean, it's quite obviously exactly not what they wanted.
Speaker A
That's one of those things where you're you're talking about anecdotal evidence rather than looking around. It's what he wanted and he felt good about it.
Speaker A
Um I think Graeme, you were telling me earlier about um the Republic's aim is not just to um get rid of the monarchy, but to replace it with a constitution.
Speaker A
And you wanted to talk to George about some Yeah. This is the thing of I mean I think a lot of the time people think that being a Republican is just about not liking the world and getting rid of
Speaker A
them. But there there is this issue of the big you know this as you said it's a constitution which has barely shifted in the last 300 years. We've had little bits I mean obviously the most significant change is the universal
Speaker A
suffrage but it it's just more people have been added to this uh you know very very inadequate system. M um and you were writing in I think November about the a sense of urgency for constitutional reform because we've got this rising
Speaker A
popul um the populism you know the rising far right the threat of a reform government and there really are no checks and balances in this country.
Speaker A
You can do I mean you can do almost anything you want. It's quite extraordinary. I mean look what this government is doing with Palestine Action. M you know first of all it says right we're going to ban them
Speaker A
and you know really the the evidence is not there which could justify that ban um and you know the fact that the court of appeal has decided it is there with the most I don't know if you've read it
Speaker A
is the weirdest judgment I've ever read you know where they say why can't you be like the suffragettes who organize openly and peacefully sorry what the suffragettes arson bombings attempted assassinations I think they'd be insulted [laughter] with that description
Speaker A
the court description. I mean, it's just it is this whole fairy tale. This whole fairy tale of how things work is the states is basically benign and the right protest is invisible and [snorts] you know governments they'll look after us. Just
Speaker A
leave it to them and democracy evolves under its own steam. It doesn't need your involvement at all.
Speaker A
It's like Britney under Bush, isn't it? Yeah. Yeah. I just trust my president. Yeah. No, it's it's quite amazing. It is quite amazing. So anyway, where were we?
Speaker A
I can't remember. Constitutional constitutional reform. Yeah. Along with Republican, they're trying to take away the right to jury by trial, which is a pretty fundamental right. I was I was debating in a very conservative uh group in London a couple of weeks ago,
Speaker A
and the the conservatives on the other side were saying, well, you know, we have all these rights, you know, why do we want to get rid of the the monarchy?
Speaker A
And then they started criticizing politicians for getting rid of the um right to trial by jury. Well, you're literally answering your own question.
Speaker A
You know, this is do being done under the monarchy because it doesn't protect us.
Speaker A
No. Exactly. And and we are unprotected. That is that is the problem that that you know it's it's a good chap's theory of government which you know they wouldn't do something like that. Well, they would do and they do do
Speaker A
all sorts of things. A lot of it covert. A lot of things which you know we only learn about much later. And they lied to us spectacularly as the Iraq war being being just one of many many examples.
Speaker A
Boris Johnson almost everything that came out of his mouth. And and we've got almost no recourse when when people get into power on the basis of lies when they take money from impermissible donors when um they they give lobbyists favors um which no one
Speaker A
else would receive. in fact when they almost effectively cut the population out of decision-m and just listen to the lobbyists um and when they take away our civil liberties and that's happening at tremendous speed and there's nothing solid to stop them from doing so within
Speaker A
the boundaries of this country we we apply to the ECR but European Court of Human Rights but you know they want to stop us doing that as well you know if reform get in they will stop us doing
Speaker A
that and so there's really no protections we don't have constitutional protection. Now, you know, a constitution is not a guarantee as they're finding out the hard way in the United States, but it's something to hang on to and there can be
Speaker A
some much better Yeah. I mean, I I I've argued myself that the only thing that you can that can stop the prime minister is the backbench. But if the backbench is acquiescent, then no, we're screwed. And this is
Speaker A
what's what they're finding finding out in America that when that division of power suddenly becomes um sort of fused together through this MAGA movement, it becomes a lot more dangerous. Although Trump is hitting against a lot of obstacles such as the
Speaker A
constitution, such as the states and and all the rest of it, but we don't have any of that.
Speaker A
But we are the US and US, the two least democratic countries in the OECD. And so perhaps, you know, some of that is that people aren't being held to account or if they are, they're thinking, oh, you know, this is this is happening
Speaker A
over here. Trump's going to support this guy. You know, how many votes am I going to get from this district because it's weighted more heavily in their favor.
Speaker A
And so they're not just thinking, you know, what's going to be popular in it and what can I do that the my constituency actually want me to do. Um in the UK they tend I mean you know electoral reformers will say they say
Speaker A
there's a very narrow group of people who swing an election and that's who they will target enough. Yeah that will they'll target them enough to give them the majority but once they're in it doesn't matter because you know I mean
Speaker A
people worry about Victor Orban and what he did in Hungary. We could go down that route within two weeks if we had the right government in place with the right there's nothing to stop it. Nothing to stop it. And you know, with all the
Speaker A
anti-protest laws and things, they've already got half the armory they need. Um, you know, right-wing authoritarianism is here.
Speaker A
Um, and they just have to realize its potential. Yeah. And we had a protest at Troop in the Color um just weekend just gone. And we were sort of given a spot we had to be in using conditions where they just
Speaker A
lied on a piece of paper said, you know, reasonable concern about serious disruption, serious property damage. Um, it was an outright lie, but there's not not a lot you can do about it.
Speaker A
Um, and a couple of years ago, they tried to use the Human Rights Act to stop us, saying that we would be breaching the rights of the spectators, which is hilarious. We won that argument, but it was absurd. But
Speaker A
there's, you know, unless you got the resources, you know, thousands of pounds to go to court with a, you know, two days notice.
Speaker A
They tie you up in all this. This is the thing that it's processes punishment now. And, you know, it's just they make your life impossible if you want to descend in any [clears throat] meaningful way. argument I keep hearing
Speaker A
bringing back to the monarchy is that the the um you know the king will somehow protect us from the the you know the excessive he wouldn't let it happen.
Speaker A
Yeah. But I mean I think that I mean I was he's a nice chap.
Speaker A
Yeah they quote Churchill saying um you know if we if Germany kept the Kaiser they wouldn't have hit Hitler but conveniently in laws the king of Italy who put Mussolini on the throne.
Speaker A
Well that's true and of course the previous Kaiser wasn't that great either. No. So, you'd like a written constitution, George? And would you? And and where do you see the the role of the monarchy in that if if at all?
Speaker A
I mean, I have to say that, you know, it hasn't been the biggest issue for me. I I It's a terrible thing to say on this podcast, but um All are welcome. [laughter] Okay.
Speaker A
um si simply because you know I've been more obsessed with the issue of corporate power of of billionaire power of you know this sort of multinational power block which is taking everything from us you know the billionaires who
Speaker A
are funding political movements all around the world all of which are heading in the same direction which is towards the far right because that's what suits their interests um and ripping down just about everything which makes for a good life for the majority
Speaker A
of people. Um and so by comparison to that while I absolutely see the link you know that the monarchy looks less scary.
Speaker A
So I haven't been focusing on it. However, what I recognize very strongly is that we suffer massively in this country from a culture of deference and that culture of deference is absolutely rooted in the monarchy. I was going to say I think we at Republic see
Speaker A
monarchy as the kind of original sin of inequality and it kind of underwrites but by placing this hierarchical deference within us. Um how billionaires can enter in our society and live within us and be seen as celebrities and people
Speaker A
be interested in them. They were way in for billionaire. I mean, Charles is a billionaire, first billionaire king, and um and he has a lot of dodgy friends in dodgy places, receiving, you know, bags full of cash from them and and all the
Speaker A
rest of it. Uh but I think that, you know, for me, I think a lot of it, aside from that, you know, because it is an institution that revels in inequality. It doesn't see as a problem to be fixed. It sees as a
Speaker A
natural order of things, but it's it is also that, you know, that the strongest power or strongest defense we have against those corporate powers is constitutional power. And I think that's the the key point is to fix our
Speaker A
constitution which needs to be rooted in popular sovereignty. Do do you think that difference to the super rich that you mentioned, do you think it's really present in uh kind of what you might label commoners or do you
Speaker A
think it's it's more in the class of people just below who are hoping to make quite a lot of money off that that super billionaire class of people? Well, so so what you're talking about is the concagege class and so you know you get
Speaker A
a few thousand people with all the power and then you get a few hundred thousand people worldwide who are who are the primary uh people serving them who yes can become very rich and very powerful in their own right uh through their
Speaker A
concierge role um and and they sort of professionally committed to that difference but I think there is a wider culture of deference as well and it comes from generations of terror. I mean, we were terrorized in into uh into
Speaker A
deference and consent by by the terrible terrible things that successive monarchs and governments in this country did to people who who who who [clears throat] defied them.
Speaker A
You write in such detail about the enclosure acts and I I didn't realize that there were um decades that saw starvation because of those acts.
Speaker A
Yeah. Yeah. I mean it was um the terrible things happened in this country which many of which have been swept un under the carpet. Not as terrible in terms of their scale as we then went on to do in the colonies. But it became a
Speaker A
what happened first in Ireland, then in England, then in Scotland became a model for what we then did to the rest of the world. and the the horrors that were visited in Ireland from Cromwell onwards um you know the siege of Dracula and
Speaker A
many other terrible things that happened there became a kind of blueprint for they couldn't go quite as far in England because um um there was it was slightly more visible um over here but for the mass expulsion of people from their land
Speaker A
with devastating impacts um which then sort of pushed loads of people into the cities who very conveniently for um the the the the new industrialists who could employ them very cheaply. Um some of the first factories had cannons pointing inwards.
Speaker A
Wow. And and PE because people were, you know, not that far away from slave labor. I mean, they weren't actual slaves, but they were working 15our days in horrendous conditions um with no breaks and absolute minimum um payments.
Speaker A
um horrendous awful conditions and of course then many people were forced to go to the colonies. Then of course there were the Scottish clearances as well.
Speaker A
And so that became a kind of model which for colonial power. For colonial power. Exactly. Of of the monarchy and of of um companies such as East India Company. Um um other forms of of corporate and private power. Um and
Speaker A
we wreck havoc all around the world. We did the most terrible things to people.
Speaker A
Um, and of course, you know, the crown, the empire, the glory of it all justified those horrors.
Speaker A
And do you think, you know, the crown is such a symbol, do you think if we didn't have the monarchy and if the UK had something like an Icelandic style president that that symbolism would help us address other issues like taxing the
Speaker A
super rich? I I do think so. I I think that there's so many better ways of running a country and so so many better ways of of creating a sh sense of shared purpose and shared identity and shared land
Speaker A
and shared land and shared yeah shared assets shared shared wealth shared everything you know shared power um um and you know definitely having a a monarchy is not the way I would choose and and it's it's very antithetical to
Speaker A
building a fairer society and you talk you your latest book which is 18 months ago I think the invisible doctrine um you talk about the um neoliberalism and how it sort of controls um a great deal we're not necessarily
Speaker A
aware of the influence it's having I mean is there a solution is there like a manifesto saying here's how we address this is it constitutional is it social is it economic behind you on the if you can see it in
Speaker A
the camera the invisible doctrine well yeah it has to be all of these things. I mean, you you you can't just fly on one wing, you know? We we have to have political democracy, economic democracy, um a much more functional community life
Speaker A
than than we have at the moment. We are we have been atomized and ruled through this neoliberal doctrine. Um and um and so yes, some of the things that me and my co-author Peter Hutcherson um suggest um are um in on the economic
Speaker A
sphere um proposed something which we call um private sufficiency, public luxury that um there simply is not enough enough land, enough ecosystem for everyone to enjoy private luxury. And the only reason we tolerate private luxury is we think that one day it'll be
Speaker A
ours. We're all temporarily embarrassed millionaires. But no, that's sorry not how capitalism works. Some people are exceedingly rich because they're exploiting everyone else and extracting their money. And so, you know, capitalism does not lead to a situation where everyone becomes exceedingly rich
Speaker A
and lives in private luxury. But if it did, it would cook the planet in about 10 minutes because the e ecological impact of the very rich is so much greater than that of other people.
Speaker A
However, we do have the resources for everyone to enjoy public luxury. um to have magna magnificent public tennis courts and public swimming pools and public opera and and and all the things that the rich enjoy we can enjoy but in
Speaker A
the public domain where instead of taking away space and resources from everyone else we're opening the spaces and resources to everyone. Um and and you know I believe we should have our own private domains where our basic needs are met. decent home, roof over
Speaker A
your head with with you know the the the basic things that you need to lead a good life and those should be ours and ours alone. But if you want to spread your wings and you want to live in
Speaker A
luxury, well the luxury should be in the public sphere. So private sufficiency, public luxury.
Speaker A
So you think there are enough resources for everybody to be in a you know warm home with a couple of bedrooms but just not to have that you know more than your share.
Speaker A
Yeah. not not to be in your one of five super homes with your super yacht in the bay and your super car in the garage and and that that you know that as Andy said there's enough for everyone's need but
Speaker A
not for everyone's greed. I always think about taxing wealth as we're not really taxing a billionaire's money. We're taxing our share away from their hands.
Speaker A
Um because you I I don't think anyone can become a billionaire from their own work, can they? What's what work is worth a billion?
Speaker A
Yeah. So uh and um I I wanted to ask about the National Trust and and because you've commented on this several times. I really like your quotation that it presents a sanitized tea history of Britain. But obviously these properties
Speaker A
are really large and how do you think something like the National Trust might be changed? What's the alternative to these huge estates being preserved by public money in the way that they are?
Speaker A
So the first thing to say is that it is changing in some respects and it has been pretty good at acknowledging the um uh how these estates were built from slavery and and other horrors around the world. And it's come under a huge amount
Speaker A
of flack from ultra-conservatives, reactionaries, these restore trust people who are very much into this whole social nostalgia rural revivalism thing.
Speaker A
and they absolutely hate any acknowledgement of of how people got so so so rich. It's just like well they're they're rich because they deserve to be.
Speaker A
I was at a trust property where it said you know uh he built this beautiful park and he moved the village which was a great idea just like assaulted by the shock. So that this is a stuff they
Speaker A
haven't reckoned with at all. And they haven't reckoned with, you know, what did it take for capability brown to create this magnificent Elysian landscape? Oh, it took the expulsion of all these these the these villagers um um and and the seizure of their land
Speaker A
and oh the king gifted this land to to to this person because he won a battle.
Speaker A
Great. But hang on a moment. Who was on that land before? You know, and and and you have um all of those aspects of history still remain under the limestone. They're not that they're not being brought to the
Speaker A
four and discussed. We've had um there's a comedian Christian Brighty who does a a whole thing about being a lord. Um, and we were talking, we had him on the podcast and we're talking about the the sanitization of aristocratic life and
Speaker A
with, you know, costume dramas and it's always this sort of presented as the noble families and it's very rare that these costume dramas really get into the the darkest parts of their life and why they are in these positions.
Speaker A
Well, again, I mean, it's like, you know, just as like with the symbol of Parliament, you know, showing you who who who they are. You go to a stately home and what are the walls covered with? Death. They're all um paintings of
Speaker A
battles, paintings of hunting, the stuffed heads of various animals they've killed, the weapons of war covering the walls. It's a death cult.
Speaker A
You you go around these places and particularly the royal palaces. I mean, more than more than any other. And you think it's Yeah. death, death, death, death, death. This is what they worship.
Speaker A
This is what they love. There is no there is no ganging to in to Galpa, which is more of a death cult than the British aristocracy.
Speaker A
Yeah. And that we were talking um last season about reparations and and we were saying how the the inside these houses gold everywhere and marble and what you know these things have been stolen or paid for by money that was that was
Speaker A
taken or you know earned from slavery other people's slavery. Why is keeping the physical history important? Why can't these things be taken away and you know smelted down and sold off and the money given to people who need it?
Speaker A
Yes. I mean, I'd stopped short of a cultural revolution, you know, [laughter] pulling pulling them all down, but let's open them up. Open them up as people's palaces, you know, and and it's um you know, I I would what
Speaker A
what I want to see is is a full acknowledgement, you know, of of how these people got so rich and how we going to stop them continuing to dominate our societies. And we do so through tax primarily. Now there's this
Speaker A
massive misconception. Oh um you know wealth taxes are there to raise revenue but they don't actually raise that much revenue. You said no that's not the primary purpose of wealth taxes. I want to shake people about this because it's like oh yeah well it's just
Speaker A
for re it's not the primary purpose of wealth taxes is to create a more equal society is to stop the rich dominating us because they translate economic power into political power and that's how you get oligarchs. That's how you end up
Speaker A
with governments completely beholdened to a few billionaires rather than listening to the rest of society.
Speaker A
Extreme wealth destroys democracy and the only way of taming that is to tax it and tax it and tax it until it's not extreme wealth anymore.
Speaker A
And and who cares how much money it raises or doesn't raise. That's not the issue. The issue is protecting our political.
Speaker A
Some people say, "Oh, you know, they'll they'll leave the country." But again, I mean, good riddance.
Speaker A
Yeah. Well, indeed. I [laughter] mean there was someone a rich person business person saying well they wouldn't because you know people say I know they go and live in Russia but they they don't want to do that because it's insecure for
Speaker A
their cash they want their wealth somewhere secure. Could we encourage them? Well we could encourage but the point is they would stay.
Speaker A
So it doesn't matter whether they're here or not. I mean I I started off I mentioned that you know early in your career you did some extraordinary um uh and I think you said yourself possibly reckless trips into places like Amazon and Indonesia.
Speaker A
Um, and I guess a lot of what you were seeing was the the result of colonialism and and um the is that something which you sort of connect to all of these um these issues and do you think that this
Speaker A
call for reparations is is something which should be answered with reparations? Very much so. And and what I was seeing was ongoing colonialism. You know, e even if countries like Britain no longer have a formal empire, there's a financial
Speaker A
empire which still operates and and drains huge amounts of wealth from other nations. We're there's a great sucking sound.
Speaker A
You said something about Sahhat's regime. He was in power at the time in Indonesia and he's I mean his I've lived in Australia for a long time and I I know a lot about what he was doing in
Speaker A
East Teour but you were saying that he was moving people from places like Java into the further out islands at great cost to everybody. Um but this was somehow sponsored by you know US and World Bank.
Speaker A
Yeah, the World Bank was um was pouring money into it. It was um massively supported by the US um diplomatically supported by the UK and it was genocidal in intent.
Speaker A
What was the purpose of it? I mean why would ostensibly ostensibly it was relieving population pressure in Java [clears throat] and Bali.
Speaker A
But the reality is that it was a cold war gambit. It was like Sahhatu has to secure his borders against the threat of communism. Um and and so um we need these sort of securitized um outer islands full of good loyal
Speaker A
citizens from Java and Bali who are going to displace these indigenous people because you never know which way they'll go. But also of course that in itself also disguises this colonial resource grab because they weren't just moving people
Speaker A
one way, they were shifting all the resources out the other way as well. And with huge destruction, mining and oil palm planting and timber cutting and and all the other things which deprive local people of their livelihood, trash the ecosystems, but
Speaker A
enrich a few um very prosperous multinational corporations. And you see, I mean, I think that people sometimes a little bit naive about the UK's role in the world. I mean, you've got the Marau massacre, which is is better [clears throat] known, but not
Speaker A
well known enough. You've got the treatment of the uh the Chaos Islands which has become a fresh controversy.
Speaker A
We've got this kind of behavior which we sponsored. I mean is this still going on where we are, you know, getting our hands dirty in this kind of thing?
Speaker A
Yeah. Well, I mean, we had this got this sort of myth that oh, we defeated fascism and and basically fascism is imperialism brought home and while even you know under Atley um you know the great peak of social
Speaker A
democracy in Britain, we were social democrats at home and fascists abroad. I mean it was Atly who launched the horrendous measures in Malaya which were basically using Nazi tactics against rebels in Malaya. uh Winston Churchill's government which oversaw the
Speaker A
um uh imprisonment effectively of the entire Cuyu population in Kenya with the most horrendous things happening as Caroline Caroline Elkins has has documented um uh these concentration camps in which large numbers of people were tortured to death. Um just
Speaker A
horrendous things happened. One of them the Ingaenya camp had the words um labor and freedom above the gates. I mean it's just like so this is Ashitz. In fact even the attorney general Eric Griffith Jones um in Kenya at one point said um I
Speaker A
say old chap isn't this disturbingly reminiscent of what the Nazis did. Um yes I suppose it is. Oh well carry on.
Speaker A
You [laughter] know it's it's quite extraordinary quite amazing. You know we we we just replicated those things not because we were copying the Nazis but it's because it's what we'd always done.
Speaker A
In fact, the Nazis were copying us. They were to a very large extent inspired by the British imperial model.
Speaker A
It's just that pattern of that dichotomy, isn't it? And wherever you have a hierarchy, you can have atrocities because, you know, like that old prison study where they put some university students in a prison and some were guards and some were um prisoners
Speaker A
and and within a day or two the guards were beating the prisoners. Um you're always going to get that outcome. And so I mean that's just another reason why we'd like to see a republic. Um I think we're gonna have to wrap up there, but
Speaker A
so George, uh you've got your book, The Invisible Doctrine, that's come out recently. Is there anything else that's up next? Can people get involved with this this land is ours?
Speaker A
Oh, uh well, there's still elements of it going. It was a long time ago, the land is ours. Uh there's a very active website. Really informative.
Speaker A
Yes. Yes. No, no, no. There's the good people still involved. Um it's just not such a big campaign anymore, but there's u yeah constantly involved in all sorts of nefarious activities [laughter] and um and I've uh yeah just working on
Speaker A
another book involved actually heavily involved with a scientific project because a couple of us stumbled into a scientific breakthrough quite by accident found a new way of looking into soil. So we've got um something called the earth rover program and we got um I
Speaker A
think it's now 20 scientists um this is amology. Yes, that's right. Exactly. Using seismology, ultra high frequency seismology to look at soil structure and crucial soil properties and it's got the potential to completely transform soil science and one day perhaps agriculture.
Speaker A
It's it's remarkable. It's one of those amazing things that just happens to you. It was a conversation in a pub and it we the two of us just went, "Oh my god." And and then it carried on from there.
Speaker A
It feels like you've had such an incredible life from just following your nose. I'm reading Feral at the moment.
Speaker A
I'm looking forward to your other books as well. So, thank you so much for coming on.
Speaker A
Thank you so much. Great. So, thank you so much to our guest, George Momio. You can read his work at mambio.com. He has a regular column in the Guardian or he is at George Mombio on Instagram. Remember to like,
Speaker A
subscribe, rate, review if you're on the podcast apps. We are on iTunes, Spotify, all your favorite apps. And we are also on YouTube where you can watch the full videos of our episodes. And of course, we're on Instagram at Republic Campaign.
Speaker A
Is that right, Graeme? Republic Campaign or one word, I think, on Instagram. Um, and Tik Tok. You can buy these t-shirts online to support us or become a member for4 pounds a month and receive news to your inbox of events and gatherings of
Speaker A
Republic members. And remember, you can also send us questions at podcastrepublic.org.uk. [music]
Topics:George MonbiotBritish monarchyrepublicanismenvironmentalismcapitalismprotest rightsTrooping the Colourmedia biasconstitutional reformwealth taxation
