The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I have to say that whilst I often agree with you on many things, on this you are, in my opinion, wrong.
Having spent much of my life working and living overseas, I am certain that the differences - cultural, social and philosophical - between the peoples of different nations are, with some exceptions, far greater than those between the individuals of a nation. History, society and language all shape the outlook of a nation far more than I think you can understand.
I do not see this as a problem. Nor do I believe that our culture, history and society is 'better' in any significant way than those of other countries. But it seems daft to deny those differences, especially when that denial inevitably leads to a lack of understanding of those cultural differences.
Let's test this -
Give me one human characteristic where the difference between the mean of it in the population of England and the mean of it in the population of (say) Germany isn't far less than the high/low spread of it in both of England or Germany alone.
Understanding of irony. Self deprecation. Sarcasm
Sorry I gave you three instead of one. There are many more.
I'd say on all of those the high/low spread here or in Germany is much greater than the spread between the average Brit and the average German.
I think these supposed big differences are in general mainly myth. I reckon if you take away all language barriers - ie so you can communicate deeply and intimately and honestly with everyone you meet and vice versa - you'd find people are essentially the same from one nation to the next. The differences in aggregate between country populations are really on the margins compared to the differences between individuals within countries.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I don't think I agree with you, at least not completely. A nation is like a family. You don't choose your family, you might love them or hate them, you might much prefer the company of your friends and have way more in common with them, but you still have a history and a kinship with your family that you can't deny or ignore. Sometimes a family becomes toxic and unhealthy, and sometimes nationhood can be twisted too, but in the main it is simply a natural and healthy way for people to organise themselves, just like families are.
I do feel a national identity and I'm not saying the nation state isn't a decent way to organize many things. But the notion of a nation having 'characteristics' other than landscape, culture and politics, is what I don't buy at all. But people often talk as if they do. Eg the one mentioned here, Scots are dour! I mean, c'mon. It's all just banteraid, isn't it. But sometimes it gets darker than that.
Yes. Within culture there are certain types of attitude and behaviour that one associates with one country or another. Throw in language and weather and you've got it covered. Although language can be a distraction - apart from speaking the same language, Brits and Americans have more cultural differences than Brits and Swedes, I've always thought. Scots and Swedes for sure.
On national identity.
I'm British* and I feel British. It's to do with my history and the physical place itself. My memories, who I've known, things I've done, my home town, parents, family, friends, places I've lived and visited, bits of culture, the weather, all of this sort of thing.
So British identity is real in that sense. But this is MY British identity, it's not A British identity or - even more inaccurate - THE British identity. Because it'll be different - and often wildly different - for each person.
And there is nothing over and above that going on. In particular my feeling of Britishness is totally unrelated to any notion of what the British people are supposedly like as opposed to any other people. Eg 'stiff upper lip' or 'good at queuing' or 'tolerant' or 'like a belly laugh' or any of that stuff, all of which I think is pretty much nonsense.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I don't think I agree with you, at least not completely. A nation is like a family. You don't choose your family, you might love them or hate them, you might much prefer the company of your friends and have way more in common with them, but you still have a history and a kinship with your family that you can't deny or ignore. Sometimes a family becomes toxic and unhealthy, and sometimes nationhood can be twisted too, but in the main it is simply a natural and healthy way for people to organise themselves, just like families are.
If someone belongs to an exploited class and has been exploited all their life - which accounts for a majority of the population - why should they buy into the idea of commonality with the local members of the ruling class? They're not friends. Those on opposite sides of the divide don't treat each other as equals or give a damn about each other or invite the other into their home. Karl Marx was right: the working class have no country. Class hatred is especially strong in Britain - flowing downward in society, not upward. Screw country - it's just a brand. That said, of course culture affects personality. To my taste, some places have much sh*ttier cultures than others. Can't see any good in denying I feel that way.
Almost no one in the “Exploited Class” thinks like that. Nationalism always trumps class.
I suppose if you represent a country where 48% of wealth is owned by the top 1% then all that stuff about exploited class makes sense.
EDIT: before anyone reads too much into the low UK number, that’s largely a product of our high property prices.
Do tax havens also make a difference? I did wonder.
More Lee Anderson trolling today, this time on net zero (where’s he’s out of touch with the vast majority even of 2019 Tory voters).
If Labour have their wits about them I think they can use the combination of him, Braverman and Raab to create a fear/disgust factor at the next election in the same way the Tories successfully did last time with Corbyn.
Labour need to keep reminding voters that the next election isn’t in the bag and if they don’t turn out and vote they could face 5 more years of the likes of Anderson.
My Tory member mum loves Braverman and Raab. You sure your not displaying all your biases?
Your point being? I thought we'd pretty much established that Tory party members shouldn't be allowed near sharp instruments.
My point being a much better one than Arsenal got today 😈
Romford Stew replied far far better than you to the same post, sort of saying: I agree Rabbit, such populism as everything from Braverman needs to be articulately picked apart, just waving angry fists at it achieves absolutely nothing at all.
Lighten up, it wasn't intended as a penetrating analysis for God's sake.
Good morning. This is my first post so please be gentle. I wonder, apropos of the debate about a possible Labour majority, whether this would be a better result for the Tories in the long term than NOM. If, after large poll leads and a truly dreadful Government, the Labour Party cannot win a majority at the next GE, might they not conclude, egged on by the LDs and Greens, that PR is the way to go? If that happens what price the Conservatives then?
Welcome.
And yes. The Tories would also benefit from being forced to reflect on just how badly they threw away a golden opportunity - indeed, a series of golden opportunities - to genuinely change this country for the better and leave things, amazingly, in a worse state than in 2010.
I would suggest that, given the world events outside of their control, it was always likely that the Tories would leave the country in a worse state than they found it. I suspect there are few European countries that would consider they are currently in a better position than they were in 2010.
The remarkable point is just how much worse the Tories will be leaving it. More importantly, from their point of view, how much worse they will be leaving the state of their own party.
The first curious thing is that we've had four premierships since 2010; five if you count Coalition Dave and Majority Dave as different. That's odd in itself.
But what's really odd is how much each new PM has run against the record of their predecessor. May told Osborne to go away and kept Gove out for a time. Johnson blew up everything May wanted to achieve. Truss ran against fiscal orthodoxy. Sunak was appointed to clear up Truss's mess.
No wonder so little has actually got done.
Basically it is time people realised that the Tory party is not fit for purpose. You could say pretty much the same for the Labour party given their internal stresses as well. Neither party in its forward facing persona represents more than a small minority of the electorate.
Yet you are a fervent supporter of the voting system that ossifies and entrenches our two-party system and makes difficult any challenge to it.
No, I just believe that any of the likely alternatives are going to give yet more power to the parties over the MPs and delay the real necessary evolution in democracy which is a massive curtailing of party power entirely.
I was in favour and voted for AV. But I suspect that when we get around to voting for a PR system, the party hierarchies will make sure what we are choosing is one which gives more power to the parties (even if it allows a few more of them into Parliament) rather than less.
If you want real political reform then limit the powers of the whips. Make most votes free votes. That would be real and meaningful democratic reform.
But would do little to nothing to change the two-party system, which was the OP
Comments
I think these supposed big differences are in general mainly myth. I reckon if you take away all language barriers - ie so you can communicate deeply and intimately and honestly with everyone you meet and vice versa - you'd find people are essentially the same from one nation to the next. The differences in aggregate between country populations are really on the margins compared to the differences between individuals within countries.
I'm British* and I feel British. It's to do with my history and the physical place itself. My memories, who I've known, things I've done, my home town, parents, family, friends, places I've lived and visited, bits of culture, the weather, all of this sort of thing.
So British identity is real in that sense. But this is MY British identity, it's not A British identity or - even more inaccurate - THE British identity. Because it'll be different - and often wildly different - for each person.
And there is nothing over and above that going on. In particular my feeling of Britishness is totally unrelated to any notion of what the British people are supposedly like as opposed to any other people. Eg 'stiff upper lip' or 'good at queuing' or 'tolerant' or 'like a belly laugh' or any of that stuff, all of which I think is pretty much nonsense.
* English works here too just as well.