Cholent and Tebeet: December 2018

Hi All,

As is customary this time of year me and Sarah have accompanied my sister and brother-in-law to sunny west Midlands Staffordshire- our in laws are quite frail and ill with dementia and cancer , so it was an emotional time.

Today we decided to visit the sir Robert Peel museum.
For those of you who don't know Peel is known as the Prime Minister who spilt the Conservative party for fifty years due to wanting to repeal the corn laws. He is also known as a reforming Home Secretary , reducing criminal law and making it more humane and just, while also creating the basis of modern day policing in the UK and abroad. The idea was the police should be there to defend people and not to suppress them as an arm of the state.

Today in British politics people are drawing analogies between Peel and May. Both were Home Secretaries and both became prime minister and both spilt their party.

But I think the comparison is flawed. Peel reformed the criminal justice system and wanted police to protect the citizen. May did the opposite : do you feel the police are there first to defend the citizen or there as an arm of the state enforcement? Do you think May splitting the Conservative party is honourable or just a political tactic?

Discuss..

Hi All,

At first glance this question may seem strange coming from a Jewish blog, so let me first explain what I mean and to do so I must give a brief history lesson.

Ostensibly Anglican means that you are or belong to the established church of England , which in current form was came out of the English reformation of the 16th century . Of course many Anglicans would say that the church of England existed since st Augustine came over to convert the natives in the 6th century and was merely a "franchise" of the Roman Catholic church until Henry VIII, i.e. the church of England always had a particular degree of latitude and practice compared to the control exerted on the continent .

The reformation was not merely as bloody as the continental version , although some would say that the bloody British (it is wrong to say English as the civil wars were fought all over the continental British isles) civil wars of 1642 to 1651 were a culmination of religious antagonism (alongside other factors) which resulted in the British isles being run as a Puritan Protestant Republic.

In 1660 , people were fed up with the banning of Christmas and closing down theatres, music and sport. This culminated in the "restoration" of the monarchy in 1660, with the merry monarch Charles II, but one which lost its divine right to rule, had to share power with an elected house of commons and the nobility in the house of lords (bishops of the church also were members). Gradually the power dynamic shifted more and more toward parliament , especially in the glorious revolution of 1688 which meant parliament could depose a King and appoint one (in this case a Dutchman) and later when the Hanoverian Monarch , George I (a German) became King. One of the dynasty- George III- went mad and appointed a Christmas tree as ambassador to Prussia.

But the basis of Anglicanism was made during the 16th century with theologians such as Latimer, Hooker and Cranmer. In essence they argued that the church of England should or was both Protestant (reformed) and Catholic (universal and following what is known as an Episcopal structure or a hierarchy of clergy). This was termed the via media or middle way. Ever since ,the church of England has basically done just that : it shuns the extremes of both Protestantism liberalism and Catholicism. True it has these elements within it, but has never been one particular strand.

This is how over two thirds of English people identify as church of England, even as less than 1% of people actually attend church on Sunday. However recently it seems that the church is divided into two fractions : a very liberal one and a very Evangelical or Protestant one, with little moderation of yesteryear.

I would also suggest that the effects of the Anglican via media shaped British Judaism and indeed the largest section of British Jewry is, unlike America, both Orthodox and centralist , with the office of Chief Rabbi consciously being modelled in scope and power as the Archbishop of Canterbury. The chief Rabbi is , like the Archbishop, a figurehead but does not have the power of a Pope to appoint Rabbis or issue infallible statements. I would also opine that Orthodox British Jewry has a similar philosophical disdain for opposing ends of ultra orthodox or the liberalism of reform Judaism.

##############

What then has this to do with politics? My view is that the Anglican via media not only affected the national religious consensus , but also a political via media consensus . For the past 358 years this has given Britain an enviable political stability and an ability to reform institutions and the constitution without resort to violent revolutionary bloodshed . This was true of voting reforms in the 19th century, the post war welfare state of the 20th and then the Thatcher revolution of the late 20th and early 21st century.

While the first past the post system seemingly generates a very hostile and combative politics ; even the layout of the benches as opposed to a European horseshoe arrangement seem to psychologically enforce this, the British parliamentary system is actually more consensual. The two main parties are in fact giant coalitions , because the electoral system favours a handful of parties , unlike proportional representation. This means these coalition parties have to seek a middle ground, a political via media or the Anglican (in a secular sense) politics.

########

Some people fret about the fact that Brexit, a binary issue, has upset this consensus are witnessing a breakdown in democracy or at least the two main parties. I believe this to be overblown hyperbole .

While it is true that Britain has an enviable track record of political stability , this does not mean that the road to change has happened without people in the past fearing for that very stability.

One can look no further than recent history. In the 1970s people referred to Britain as the sick man of Europe. The trades unions were overwhelming elected governments of left and right and striking to the extent the country was crippled and some thought ungovernable . In effect the Unions and the left helped to destroy the very "post war consensus" they'd started and which the Conservative party followed through with. The end result or climax was Mrs Thatcher destroying the Unions during the coal strike of 1984, which was not without violence, albeit not one which resulted in a coup. Similarly in the 1970s and 1980s , Britain had to deal with very brutal Irish terrorism, one act which almost ended up in the mass murder of the entire Cabinet.

The key matter was that despite this , from the 1980s onward the major parties swung rightward and Tony Blair's "new Labour " was in essence conservative lite , as that government kept most of the Thatcher legislation and continued the privatisation of our public services. In effect the main parties grudgingly came to a consensus , after the previous consensus became untenable.

This then is the real heart of the matter and the real key to the Anglican consensus. It is not a set of written down rules or an ideology with a worldview. It is more a cultural meme of the British people to shun extremists and extremities and preferring instead pragmatism and to form a broad consensus on how the country should run and the framework of the country. Within that framework there will be left or right wing ideas on how best to achieve that.

So with brexit we may well be seeing the end of the Thatcher consensus , with a new consensus emerging. It may seem like upheaval, but it follows in the tradition of the people of this isle that has served us so well. If it ain't broke don't fix it. If it is broke fix it with the minimum of fuss.