Publishing 20 new mini-novels on Amazon/Kindle

During the last decade I have been working on a series of short novels or mini-novels, each about 10,000 words or 50 pages. To me at least the form is hugely attractive, and has a long pedigree.

    Dickens used to pre-publish many of his novels in pieces of about this length in various magazines. It is approximately the amount which can be easily read at a single sitting of about an hour. The Sherlock Holmes stories are also of approximately this length. No doubt there are numerous other historical examples of similar-sized fiction.

     For my own purposes, I make a distinction between the mini-novel and the short story or the novella. To me at least a mini-novel should be (as the name suggests) a short novel. It should have a beginning, a middle and an end, preferably at least one strong or sympathetic character, and (for my taste at least) some subtext or layering. Given these self-imposed rules, I have found it a demanding, fascinating and enjoyable form in which to write.
    Most of the mini-novels to date have been satires or comedies of manners. Either the form lends itself to satirical expression, or that is my natural bent. Since I despair of the homogeneity and mediocrity of the British book-publishing scene, I have decided to publish the mini-novels in Amazon/Kindle first, and perhaps to look for a paper publisher at a later stage. 
    From an authorial perspective, the 20 mini-novels so far completed and published in Amazon/Kindle have been a highly demanding enterprise. Considered collectively, such a body of work could be regarded as the approximate equivalent of 4 full-length novels of, say, 250 pages each. One could argue, in addition, that 20 separate and distinct narratives, each with their own set of characters, is at least as difficult to accomplish as 4 full-length novels.

   While on the subject of characters, one of the pleasures of writing mini-novels is that a character in an earlier mini-novel can reoccur in a later one. The protagonist of 5 of the mini-novels, for example, is a certain Lucien Bellamorte, a somewhat highbrow novelist who chronicles the sins of the upper classes, and who is described by his literary enemies as "a poor man's Evelyn Waugh". I am afraid, given my satirical bent, that I have used Bellamorte's progress through the literary world, including his bitter battles with the darling of that literary world -- the self-aggrandising half-Indian, half British "super-novelist" Siam Deishur -- to lampoon the literary establishment. 

    For the purposes of commenting on the mini-novels, I have set up another blog called, er, mini-novels, in which I have been writing a few words of background about each of the mini-novels published. As currently published in electronic form, the price of each is $0.99 in US dollars (the lowest price permitted by Amazon/Kindle), or £0.86p (with VAT) in pounds Sterling.  Here is a link to the mini-novels blog.

    Meanwhile, I hope some of the kind readers who have looked at my blogs may be tempted to sample one of the mini-novels. I suspect that any potential reader will know rather soon whether he or she likes the mini-novels. If not, I hope that reader may publicise that dislike, and not hesitate to give full vent to it because -- for writers at least -- most forms of publicity are good publicity. If, on the other hand, he or she does finds the experience enjoyable, there are currently 19 others from which to choose.

The altruistic society versus the equal society

In these remarkably fluid political times, when our major political parties are each in the process of redefining themselves, I should like to propose an alternative radical vision of a society other than the conventional one which is based on equality.

Let us begin by making a clear distinction between certain types of equality. Equality of opportunity, and lack of discrimination, are both goals to which every society should aspire. It is equality of outcome which causes genuine problems.

We should, I believe, be highly suspicious of the principle of equality of outcome. The problem is that in its current usage it is not only consistent with uniformity, but practically its synonym. The attempt to impose equality of outcome by the state has always seemed to me morally dubious.

As evidence, we should look at societies which have pursued this type of equality above other values. There can be little doubt that during the past century the drive towards equality of outcome — at the forefront of the Soviet experiment, for example — has led to some of the most brutal and inhuman tyrannies the world has ever seen. If anyone should wish to observe what happens in a modern state when equality of outcome is the central and overriding aim, they should look to North Korea.

It is now quite clear how an equalitarian tyranny starts and perpetuates itself. If a naturally highly diverse human society is to be moulded into equality, it requires enormous state power — in fact, at its fullest extent, absolute state power.

The second great flaw in the ideal of an equalitarian society is that full equality can never be reached. Again, the Soviet experiment shows that however strenuous the state’s efforts to reduce differences in material outcome, the very structure of the equalitarian society, in which the state is guarantor, will act to undermine and destroy equality. As George Orwell demonstrated so eloquently in his great political satires, those who control the state will always end up much more “equal” than the passive, patronised population who are the recipients of state largesse. As the Soviet experiment collapsed, the shocking degree of material inequality between the state apparatchiks — with their exclusive shops and hunting lodges — and the rest of the population was cruelly exposed.

Given these historical lessons, I should like to suggest an entirely different society, which I propose to call the altruistic society. The altruistic society does not penalise diversity or variety; rather, it celebrates it. It sees diversity and variety as the engine of social and economic progress.

Equalitarian societies in which the state is the lead player expend enormous social capital in attempting the impossible — the equalising of material outcome. In an altruistic society, those same resources could and should be aimed not at the toxic and unreachable aim of equality of outcome, but at a single great social objective — eliminating poverty entirely, so that no single person lacks the material benefits of a full life, and only those who value poverty as a lifestyle (such as hermits or extreme ascetics, for example) would be poor.

Instead of expending valuable social capital trying to equalise incomes over the whole of society, the social capital of the altruistic society would be directed at raising the material levels of the least well off to sufficiency in material things. Above this level, the rest of society should be allowed to be as diverse as possible, to pursue its own individual interests (including the pursuit of wealth) to its heart’s content.

Indeed, these two aspects of the altruistic society are complementary. The chief product of an altruistic society, in which individuals are free to pursue material wealth and to enjoy its fruits, would be a healthy, strong economy. This healthy, strong economy would provide the material resource for its own great social objective, to eliminate material poverty in that society.

Carried to its logical outcome, it would benefit the altruistic society to eliminate the chief agency of the equalitarian state — namely, income tax. This is not quite as strange or radical as it first seems. William Gladstone, perhaps the greatest left wing politician in British history, thought income tax (initially created as a “temporary” tax to generate extra state income for war) was iniquitous, not only because it resulted in gross state interference in individual liberty, but because he believed it represented a crude and highly inefficient means of redistributing wealth. During his various chancellorships Gladstone reduced income tax from 8p in the pound by various stages to 3p in the pound. At each reduction of income tax the economy was stimulated, and he gathered more revenue. Unfortunately, he never achieved his aim of eliminating income tax altogether.

In Gladstone’s view the best, and fairest, way of taxing a population was through various kinds of sales tax. The beauty of sales tax is that it taxes consumption directly. And it is quintessentially fair. The more you consume, the more you pay. Its progressive quotient can be enhanced by placing high taxes on luxury goods — such as large, expensive cars — and low or no taxes on essentials such as food.

A second great advantage of sales taxes is that they are easily collected. Every time you buy a luxury item you pay tax. No tax collectors are necessary to pry into your individual affairs. No bureaucratic forms or complex and changing accounting formulas would be required to establish the level of tax payable. In fact, that part of the Inland Revenue which collects income tqax could be disbanded and its numerous, highly educated and capable functionaries redeployed to creative and productive work in the real economy. In addition the vast income tax avoidance industry which flows from the collection of income tax — and which has been the traditional bugbear of left wing economists — would also become redundant and its workers diverted to more productive occupations.

Currently, approximately half of all tax is generated by income tax, and approximately half by sales taxes of various kinds, such as VAT. The structure for collecting and enforcing sales taxes is already largely in place. Increasing the rate of sales taxes to take up the shortfall in income tax would hardly increase this existing structure at all.

An economy without income tax, and with every incentive for the individual to be as productive and creative as possible, would be a healthy and expanding economy. But it could also be a very “green” economy. The application of differential or graduated taxation according to environmental criteria could be a powerful instrument of green policy. Products or services with a high carbon footprint would be more heavily taxed, those with little or no carbon footprint less taxed or untaxed.

The elimination of poverty, never before achieved, could now be pursued with real purpose. Before doing so, poverty must not be defined in equalitarian terms, as some more-or-less arbitrary proportion of average incomes. It must be defined more precisely and objectively in material terms, as the amount of income required to lead a decent life without material want.

If the new generation of the Labour Party leadership wished to consider a genuinely revolutionary idea for a new society, it should consider whether the broad programme of the altruistic society is not superior to the older, traditional and divisive idea of an equalitarian society, with its morally dubious aims which remain always out of reach, its over-powerful state and its disastrous historical precedents.

By contrast, the altruistic society would liberate its population to earn as much as they are able within their talents and abilities, would require a tiny proportion of the vast administrative costs of the current equalitarian society to collect its graduated sales taxes, and (by directing its collective economic resources towards a primary aim) could achieve perhaps the greatest of all radical social objectives — the absolute elimination of material poverty.

IS BLAIR A FASCIST?

On most mornings, starting at 8 a.m., I play table tennis with the poet David Pidsley.

Much of the time during these table tennis sessions is spent in discussion, and from this dialogue there gradually emerged the idea of a long collaborative poem on Tony Blair and the New Labour administration.

In a number of ways, not least Blair's launching of British troops into four invasive wars (Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Iraq) Blair's administration is unprecedented in British politics, and perhaps a fitting subject for a satirical poem. In imitation of Blair's own high-flown rhetoric and boundless personal ambition, perhaps it also deserves to be on an epic, or at least quasi-epic, scale.

Turning to the detailed subject matter of the poem, although the subtitle is "The rise of a British fascist", we are not asserting that Blair is a "fascist" in the popular, pejorative sense, which usually implies malign intentions. In many respects, Blair is considered to be innocent, not least because the poem assumes the chief elements of Roy Jenkins' description of Blair -- that he is a first rate politician but a third rate intellect.

There is much evidence that Blair gloried in his lack of interest in detailed history, and even regarded such knowledge as inhibiting to a politician with ambitions to make history afresh. In this sense Blair is protected from the charge of active or conscious fascism by his lack of a clear or rigourous historical framework. But this does not prevent us from pointing out the remarkable similarities between New Labour and certain fascist precursors.

In science, one tries to classify a subject according to criteria of similarity. How would one classify Blair? As a socialist? Hardly. As a free market liberal? He liked and admired rich and successful people but had little understanding of the complex mechanisms of markets. We propose that the frame in which he best fits is classical fascism, which is also a precise historical category.

According to its founder Mussolini, fascism is based upon the belief that the state is more important than the individual. Mussolini claimed that fascism was the first belief system to state that important premise overtly. It does seem to be a unifying theme underlying New Labour's chief characteristics -- its passion for domestic and overseas interventionism, its championship of "security" over civil rights or individual liberties, and its rejection of the traditional constraining mechanisms of democratic government.

If we take into account that Blair was obliged to act within the terms of our British liberal heritage, some of the key elements of his administration were:

1. An effective putsch in taking over the Labour Party with two fellow conspirators (Brown and Mandelson) and leading it in a radically different direction.

2. Top-down command and control of the Labour party, based on undermining and isolating anyone who was "off message".

3. Bypassing ancient democratic traditions such as scrutiny by parliament.

4. Transmuting cabinet collective responsibility into centralised ("sofa") government.

5. "Controlling the political narrative" (Blair's own words) through numerous "eye-catching initiatives" (Blair's own words again) which allowed him, as Leader, to dominate the news. As further empirical evidence of the qualitatively different nature of his administration, Blair's remarkable domination of the opinion polls through the great majority of his three Parliamentary terms is also unprecedented in British politics.

6. As a consequence of all these deliberate centralisations of power, Blair generated a capacity to launch British troops, more or less unilaterally, at his own behest, into four separate and unrelated invasions of foreign territory during nine years of premiership (Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Iraq). That's four times as many invasions of overseas territory as Mussolini (Abyssinia) during Mussolini's entire administration, and four times as many hot wars as Margaret Thatcher (the Falklands) during her eleven years as premier.

7. Even in parting, Blair agreed and co-engineered the non-democratic succession of his chief henchman Gordon Brown, leading to a further three years of centralised rule by a politician unelected by either his party or the country.

At the time of writing, during the next several years or so of New Labour autobiography, biography, hagiography etc., perhaps we need some form of antidote to the vast New Labour publishing industry which is due to swamp us.

Although the poem does not attempt to pull its satirical punches, I would also claim that in the main it is not vindictive, score-settling or revenge-seeking towards its protagonist. Rather, it treats Blair as largely innocent of malign intentions, and instead directs its searchlight onto us, the electorate who placed him in power with substantial majorities for three consecutive parliamentary terms.

BLAIR -- the rise of a British Fascist will be published in 3 volumes in the blog publicpoems.com, starting on 13 July. There is also a detailed introduction. The poem has been written in a form somewhere between prose and blank verse, so that those who do not usually read poetry can read it as a prose narrative if they wish. At the very least, the historical subject matter -- including the bitter battle for power between Blair and Brown -- is wonderfully rich. We hope that BLAIR does its subject justice, in the full meaning of that term, and that it entertains you.

Why do publishers think in boxes?

I have been looking for a publisher for a popular paperback version of my book A Silent Gene Theory of Evolution to follow the beautifully produced hardback published by University of Buckingham Press. The book is a rival to Darwin's theory that natural selection drives evolution, and argues instead that evolution is driven by variation, which has to be present before natural selection can act. (Darwin himself wrote "... unless profitable variations do occur, natural selection can do nothing.") If variation must be present before natural selection can act, then it seems to me obvious that the natural processes which generate variation, and not natural selection, are more likely to drive evolution. A more detailed outline of the theory can be reached on the University of Buckingham Press web-site.

One particular publisher was starting to show interest. The subject of Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time came up. It is perhaps the most celebrated popular science work of the last few decades, so it is a book whose history interested us both. I made the point that mainstream publishers, because they are nearly all arts educated, tend to underestimate the interest of the general public in science, particularly in scientific subject matter which is potentially significant.

We discussed in more detail the publishing record of A Brief History of Time. Patrick Janson-Smith, its publisher at Transworld, reportedly warned Hawking that every formula he included in the book would halve the number of readers. Janson-Smith believed that, given the difficulty of the subject matter, the work would be immensely fortunate to achieve a sales figure of 25,000. In the event, A Brief History of Time sold a million copies in hardback over the next three years in the UK alone, and dominated the non-fiction bestseller lists during that period.

The publisher to whom I was talking, who shall remain nameless, immediately trotted out a favourite hoary myth amongst publishing folk about A Brief History of Time -- that, although it achieved astonishing sales, very few people actually read it. This unproven generalisation has always irritated me, largely because it seems to me strange that people would buy a book in such vast numbers without reading it. However, I managed to control myself, until the publisher added, "Of course, that was one those unusual books which was spread by word of mouth, and word of mouth is famously unpredictable and difficult to replicate." I'm afraid that was when my patience finally broke. I replied that one could perhaps argue at a stretch that no one read A Brief History of Time, but one surely could not argue at the same time that it was also sold largely by word of mouth. How could that operate? You buy the book, then phone up a friend and say, "I've just bought this bought in hardback which I can't understand and don't intend to read. You should rush out immediately and buy a copy, so that you won't understand and won't read it, just like me."

There was a strained silence at the end of the phone. I could sense I had made a faux pas by questioning the received view. (Now you perhaps know why I have found it difficult to deal with British corporate publishers -- I don't know when to keep my mouth shut.) I was clearly a troublesome maverick. Perhaps unsurprisingly, so far I haven't heard anything further from that particular publisher about publishing a paperback version of A Silent Gene Theory of Evolution.

Since I seem to be a master in the art of annoying people, perhaps I could add something further about that curious publishing phenomenon. Greatly though I admire Hawking as a man, the book itself seemed to me a relatively lightweight concoction. It included such trivia as the fact that Hawking was born almost exactly four hundred years after Newton. When it did address black holes and event horizons, it did so relatively lightly and anecdotally, clearly with a popular mainstream readership in mind.

In summary, perhaps I could add that I continue to find the mythology of this reputedly difficult work - which the general public bought in vast numbers, supposedly never read, but nevertheless enthusiastically recommended by word of mouth to their acquaintances - entirely perplexing.

Perhaps I suffer from an over-simple mind. I suspect that, outside the arts-educated publishing fraternity, people did actually read A Brief History of Time, found the autobiographical details of its remarkable author to be fascinating and entertaining, were intrigued by the tentative glimpses the book offered into black holes and the beginning of our universe, and - taking all these factors into account - enthusiastically recommended A Brief History of Time to their friends.

Obama's accession to power

President Barack Obama's inauguration was stirring and powerful. I have enjoyed supporting him throughout his candidacy and elections. Having read both his published books twice, I have have on several occasions expressed the view that this is one of the finest intellects, if not the finest, to approach the White House since the Enlightenment.

It will be interesting to see how his administration proceeds. The most likely result is a cautious, pragmatic, skilful administration, as smooth as his election machine. I hope that in addition there are some genuinely original and effective policies. 

Since I am British, and since I speak as a libertarian left-winger, I look forward to the unrolling of his foreign policy. The areas which I hope he will be proactive and not merely follow in the footsteps of earlier administrations are in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, and Africa. 

In Iraq, I was in favour of invasion, and of toppling Saddam (like the great majority of both the British and American populations at the time), but not of the occupation afterward. I was also in favour of a rapid withdrawal after the invasion, and I would support an early withdrawal now along the time-line which Obama proposes. The great benefit of American withdrawal of combat troops is that the disparate forces that have united against American "occupation" would be denied their focus, and would be more easily dealt with by the elected Iraqi authorities.

In Afghanistan, the war is being lost because the U.S. and their allies are losing the struggle for the hearts and minds of the people. A radical overhaul of civil, political and military strategy should now take place. The long term objective should be a peaceful, democratically elected country which is able to function as a healthy member of the international community. But the means of achieving that result should be subject to the most stringent analysis. Purchasing the poppy crop for medical purposes, eliminating the Taliban and warlord middle-men, should be seriously and objectively considered. The influx of payments for this cash crop directly to the peasants would help to support and strengthen the economic base of the rural communities, and enable peasants to invest in livestock and other crops. Given that effective rule of the majority of Afghanistan from Kabul seems impossible, federation into regions with different ethnic majorities should also be evaluated. Afghanistan can be successfully negotiated, but it will require political will and ruthless clarity of vision.

Turning to Israel, I suggested in my previous posting that Israel and America should seize the strategic initiative from Hamas and others who believe in violence by building a "peace-road" between Gaza and the West Bank, uniting the two Palestinian territories and demonstrating their commitment to a future Palestine state. 

In Africa, President Obama should demand the end of the corrupt political class which -- with the exception of rare countries like Botswana -- rules almost all African states. Not surprisingly, perhaps, the political elite are called locally the Wa-Benzi. Wa means "people" and Benzi refers to the fact that they always have the latest Mercedes Benz limousines. Obama should demand that South Africa immediately withdraw its support for the terrible, failed, genocidal regime of Robert Mugabe. Africa's problem is not that it produces tyrants -- every society has its potential tyrants -- but rather that Africa's cowed and impoverished populations permit tyrannical rulers to exploit them with little more reaction than passive fatalism. A powerful and high-minded black American President should raise their expectations and morale, and they should learn to demand effective and non-corrupt governance.

As a last wish, I hope Obama cold-shoulders Gordon Brown. Brown's profligate state spending has brought Britain to the brink of bankruptcy as surely as George W Bush's own uncontrolled state spending has contributed to America's current impasse. Perhaps Obama will be that rarest and most valuable of political leaders -- a left-winger at heart who at the same time respects tax-payers' hard-earned money and who uses it frugally and wisely. That really would provide a fine model for future political leaders.

ISRAEL - a strategy for peace?

It continues to surprise me that Israel, that most intellectually vibrant of countries and cultures, allows its political life to be dictated by Hamas. 

I say this because Hamas can, effectively at will, undermine and destroy any peace initiative or attempt at negotiation simply by firing rockets at the Israeli civilian population. The consequences are inevitable. However long or patiently the population may suffer the disruption caused by rocket attacks, Israel in due course will be forced to respond and launch an attack against the Hamas military operations in Gaza. However careful Israel may be in targeting its military response, the heavily populated area means that there will be collateral damage, including the horrifying sight of dead or mutilated women and children, and the result will be a wholly understandable international public outcry against Israel. 

Another inevitable consequence of concerted Israeli military action will be a new generation of militant Islamic youth ready to take up arms and follow the banners of organisations like Hamas.

Surely it is time to consider whether there should not be a pro-active policy for long term peace, preferably one which seizes the strategic initiative from Hamas and which is not subject to Hamas's military or political veto. On this subject, I have one suggestion which I hope the Israeli government, along with President Obama and the new US administration, might at least consider. 

Israel should act to undermine the Hamas militants, and all those who believe in the elimination of the Israeli state, by building a "peace road" between Gaza and the Palestinian West Bank, uniting the two segments of a future Palestinian state with a highway which would be under the control of the Palestinians. This would demonstrate Israel's sincerity in helping to create a viable Palestinian state. The building of the "peace road" would have huge symbolic value. Given appropriate will, it should not be affected by random attacks by militants on the Israeli population. On the contrary, an organisation such as Hamas which persisted in attacking the Israeli population with rockets while that same population was busy constructing a road uniting the two regions of Palestine would incur the condemnation of civilised and rational international opinion. 

On a purely pragmatic and physical level, it might be argued the "peace road" would divide Israel. This would be an unjustified fear. The contractual rights granted to the Palestianians would allow the Palestinians control of, say, 10 feet of earth beneath the road to effect maintenance, and, say, 20 feet above the road to allow all conceivable forms of traffic. That would leave Israel free to build bridges over the highway or tunnels beneath it. In practice, the "peace road" would be far less of a physical obstacle to Israel's transport infrastructure than natural or geographical obstacles such as a line of hills or a valley.

Set against this, the political and social benefits would be of almost incalculable value. The "peace road" would seize the strategic initiative in the region, and create powerful momentum to turn politics away from the terrible and apparently interminable axis of war and retaliation. 

Above all, a "peace road", because it would be built on Israeli territory, would require no formal Palestinian consent. This would overcome perhaps the greatest and most intractable problem of all in future peace negotiations -- gaining the consent of a politically divided Palestinian population to agree to any form of unified representation. This is why, it could be argued, such a programme is superior to other forms of proposed progress in the middle east. To be set in motion, it requires the consent of only one of the opposed parties -- the Israelis.

   

If a new American administration wishes to invest in a more settled middle east, the construction of a "peace road" would be a far more effective contribution to the future stability of the region than any comparable military expenditure. An estimated cost of $4 billion is a considerable sum, but it pales, for example, beside the total cost of the Iraq war, which is now estimated at $597 billion. Funded by America, and built by Israeli labour, there are good reasons for believing a peace road uniting Palestine has a better chance of transforming the politics of the region than any further costly and potentially destructive military adventures.

A new English national anthem?

It may seem odd, perhaps even perverse, during a period in which the levels of immigration to this country have seldom been higher, to suggest that this is precisely the time when those of us who think of ourselves as English should celebrate our diversity of background.

Regarding my own nationality, perhaps I should put my cards on the table and say that, although I consider myself to be English, and (for example) avidly support English sporting teams, I suspect I have relatively little “pure” English blood in my veins. My father, Robin Collins, always cheerfully assured me that his side of the family came from a long line of Irish horse-thieves, and my mother, whose maiden name is Irvin, is of largely Scottish lineage. But I should add that I hardly feel alone. Almost always, whenever I meet someone who appears to be English to the core, further knowledge nearly always reveals a more exotic, complex and perhaps more interesting ancestry.

Even in the seventeenth century, Daniel Defoe was aware of this variety in our social lineage. In his trenchant verse satire The True Born Englishman, he describes how the English were always happy to welcome foreigners. According to him, our ancestors:

In whose hot veins new mixtures quickly ran,

Infused between a Saxon and a Dane

While their rank daughters, to their parents just

Received all nations with promiscuous lust.

The nauseous brood directly did contain

The well-extracted blood of Englishmen.

Scurrilous though Defoe might be about our eclectic tastes in marital and sexual partners, like much of the best satirical verse, I would submit that The True Born Englishman makes a serious point. The notion of a pure-bred English race, in any scientific or genetic sense, is nonsense. The English are a remarkably diverse and varied bunch. And, frankly, that’s how I like it.

Breeders of domestic animals have long been aware that the introduction of new strains tends to generate more active and fitter progeny. It is called “hybrid vigour”, and it has a strong base in genetics. Broadly speaking, every individual inherits half of his genes from his father and half from his mother. Each one of us contains some genes which are detrimental. Statistically speaking, the more closely related the parents are, the more likely their detrimental genes are to be replicated in the other parent, and the greater the chances of weaknesses being multiplied in the offspring. Conversely, the more distantly related our parents are, the more likely that any underlying weaknesses will be countered by very different genes in the other parent. For many years, genetic diversity has been positively associated with vigour or fitness, and for that reason, amongst others, perhaps we should be proud of our highly varied ancestry.

This in turn might seem an odd introduction to the main subject of this post, the English national anthem. It has been said by various commentators that God Save the Queen applies to the entire United Kingdom, and it is therefore somewhat anomalous that English sporting teams should sing it, not least when they are playing Scottish or Welsh teams, who are part of that same kingdom. These same commentators argue (justifiably, to my way of thinking) that this tradition perpetuates the view that England is not merely one part of the United Kingdom, but its dominant core.

For these reasons, I should like tentatively to propose a new English national anthem, one which does not assume or imply our English hegemony, but which instead emphasizes our own social richness and individuality. To me at least, the English as a culture are not only extremely diverse, but also extraordinarily inventive, outward-facing, and enterprising. Despite the credit crunch and the prevailing economic woes, we still have one of the largest economies in the world, arguably the greatest financial capital city in the world, and our elegant and flexible mongrel language (a blend of Germanic and Latinate elements, amongst others) has risen to become the dominant world language.

Parallel to this outward-facing dynamism, there is another view of English culture — as an historical leader in the development of individual liberty and its associated characteristics. Freedom of speech, freedom of association, private property, individual privacy and the universal rule of common law have all been significantly developed and extended in the course of our history. Compared with other dominant cultures, such as the French, German, Russian or Chinese (to name only four), it seems to me that what particularly distinguishes the English-speaking cultures, from Magna Carta to the present day, is an underlying historical progression towards the gradual, pragmatic but apparently inexorable decentralisation of power, and the greater enshrinement of individual liberty.

Taking these factors into account, in any new national anthem, I would suggest we should consider at least two important and specific changes to God Save the Queen. There can be little doubt that our society is increasingly secular, and that (not least in order to be fair to multiple religions and faiths) the state should distance itself from any given religion or specific official religious belief. Regarding the words of God Save the Queen, do the majority of us in the twenty-first century really believe a personal God not only exists but has a specific interest in our royal family? And is loyalty to the monarch really any longer the fulcrum of English society, the central belief which unites us?

My own wish would be that any proposed English national anthem would make reference to deeper unifying characteristics, preferably by making a virtue out of our diversity, and emphasising that what really unites our remarkable culture is not some mythical idea of race, or absolute fealty to a monarch, but certain distinguishing values held in common, such as our historical love of liberty. Perhaps there’s even room to mention our peculiarly self-critical and ironical sense of humour.

So here, at any rate, is my own submission for a new national anthem:

We’re made of waves of immigrants,

Who come in from the sea:

Tolerant, ingenious,

Jealous of privacy.

And one thing’s certain about our roots,

On our path to liberty:

From Magna Carta to the suffragettes

We always have been free.

Through industry and irony

We always shall be free.

At the very least, perhaps my own poor efforts will stimulate others to put forward their own versions of a new English national anthem, and their own arguments too as to why some features of our culture deserve greater emphasis than others.