As we've seen with Covid, democracy falls by the wayside when the shit hits the fan.
Medico-authoritarianism has been the successful strategy. Of course we've seen a bit of a backlash against it, but it is clearly a vocal minority with the greater complaint being that the government hasn't been authoritarian enough.
Now some would say that other issues are just as pressing and require similar decisive action. I'm not quite there yet. I still describe myself as an eco-socialist, unlike the eco-authoritarian sat beside me on the sofa. However, if the majority are unable to see what needs to be done, then I may need to change my position.
Would that be to under or over the eco-authoritarian? Or would you just swap places?
I always sit on the right hand side of the sofa. Is that what you were getting at?
Always knew you were a closet right winger, Sandy!
Excellent article. Thank you. An issue is what democracy is. Is it the best possible way of running things and to be defended and protected at all costs. Or is it a stage of development reached for the UK after centuries of other things which will in due time morph into something else.
In a sense democracy is an obvious piece of logic. We seem to be born sort of equal. People want to get what they want. How do you know what they want unless they are asked. How do you ask them without some sort of democracy process (of which there are infinite variants. I'm sure the North Koreans think they have one of them).
But suppose there are things people want even more like security, protection, freedom from having everything they have got stolen, freedom from invasion from enemies, enough food, a roof over your head, clothes. Because this is true Thomas Hobbes developed the 'strong man' theory of government; ie obey the guy at the top because he is tough enough to have got there and no other protection is possible.
When democracy fails at providing what the 'strong man' provides - and I like the fact that it has done pretty well at doing it for quite a time - it will fail and be replaced.
There is a philosopher - I forget which one - who argues democracy is inherently contradictory. It needs men (this was early 20th century) of great strength, talent and charisma to succeed, but relies on such men not being around as otherwise that leads to dictatorships. Therefore, it can only succeed with leaders who are weak and inept. But because they are weak and inept, the system fails.
The parallel used was the rise of Caesar, but I’ve always been struck with how apt a description the latter could be of the Third Republic and Weimar.
Whether its weaknesses are fatal is yet to be seen. The evidence is that it only is remotely effective in communities well beyond the stage of very basic functioning, with spare time for leisure and reflection. At its most basic democracy serves its purpose, as with Trump (here's hoping) that having elected a psychopathic, Machiavellian narcissist it is possible to unelect him in the same way. it provides a removable 'strong man' system - which is Hobbes ameliorated by rival strong powers co-existing and available for office without being allowed to kill each other.
Precisely this. It's as much about removal of people in power as it is about choosing them. Proper democracies have, at minimum, maximum lengths of term with free and fair elections to emplace the officeholder. The former is as important as the latter. As long as the machinery of government is strong enough to remove someone who refuses to leave, and strong enough to resist someone stopping an election being free and fair, the democracy persists. American democracy is strong enough to meet those challenges, notwithstanding the fact that US elections are not perfectly fair.
Is anyone following politics in Peru? - a corrupt Congress has just binned a President for being corrupt. He probably was, but far less so than the Congress. Who are trying to protect their corruption.
All of this is quite possibly constitutionally OK - they've impeached and chucked out a President. But....
One of the things that is often missed in the tale of the Roman Republic, is that it was an Oligarchy (the Senate) vs the Tribunes of the People that was the true battle. With the Senate ultimately declaring the right to murder anyone who broke their *interpretation* of the Constitution.
Our democratic system cannot sustain when so many of the politicians within it either oppose how it works, believe it is rigged against them, or fundamentally don't understand it. And consequently don't fight to defend it. Particularly those at the top, as opposed to on the fringes.
There was a time when you could confidently state that given the choice between holding power or protecting the system, most leading politicians would see protecting the system as the most important thing.
That disappeared a long time ago.
Somebody posted this a few weeks ago, when people were arguing that the Govt should not have to defend its Covid response to the Commons. Nothing wrong with repeating IMO. How many in the current Govt would argue the same thing today.
"29th January 1942: Winston Churchill wins vote of ‘Confidence’ in British Parliament
Sir, in no country in the world at the present time could a Government conducting a war be exposed to such a stress. No dictator country fighting for its life would dare allow such a discussion. They do not even allow the free transmission of news to their peoples, or even the reception of foreign broadcasts, to which we are all now so hardily inured.
Even in the great democracy of the United States the Executive does not stand in the same direct, immediate, day-to-day relation to the Legislative body as we do. The President, in many vital respects independent of the Legislature, Commander-in-Chief of all the Forces of the Republic, has a fixed term of office, during which his authority can scarcely be impugned.
But here in this country the House of Commons is master all the time of the life of the Administration. Against its decisions there is only one appeal, the appeal to the nation, an appeal it is very difficult to make under the conditions of a war like this, with a register like this, with air raids and invasion always hanging over us.
He concluded the debate:
On behalf of His Majesty’s Government, I make no complaint of the Debate, I offer no apologies, I offer no excuses, I make no promises. In no way have I mitigated the sense of danger and impending misfortunes of a minor character and of a severe character which still hang over us, but at the same time I avow my confidence, never stronger than at this moment, that we shall bring this conflict to and end in a manner agreeable to the interests of our country, and in a manner agreeable to the future of the world.
I have finished. Let every man act now in accordance with what he thinks is his duty in harmony with his heart and conscience."
In truth, the flu in 1918 was not as severe as its later waves (1919-1920). And we were also much more inured to death from illness (no antibiotics). Also no nhs to save, just a system of local healthcare, so no ‘save the nhs’.
The First World War didn’t officially finish until 1919.
Edit - technically it actually finished in 1958, but 1919 was when the BEF was withdrawn and stood down.
Alternative views of history exist. Philip Bobbitt de-emphasises the distinction between WW1, WW2, and the Cold War, and lumps them together into a single "epochal" war he terms The Long War, 1914-1990, fought essentially over which type of the nation state was legitimate. Read The Shield of Achilles: War Peace and the Course of History for more on that framework.
And of course, there was a war in Britain itself in 1919 - a very nasty one.
And a number of other continuation wars, notably in Poland, Ukraine, Russia, and the collapsing Ottoman Empire, some of which our troops were heavily involved with. I would suggest the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne was the real end of WW1.
You could add the wars in the collapsed Austrian empire, e.g. Hungary.
If there's one thing a non-(?)sentient virus, whose only purpose of existence is to replicate fears it's the scrutiny of the Press. Come to think. Has anyone tried asking it repeatedly whether we can hug grandkids, where we can go on holidays and how many we can have over for Christmas incessantly? Worth a try. It might just bugger off.
If the press had performed informed criticism of the announced *policies* and *science* of the pandemic, then there might well have been a different outcome. The inability of the press to follow a story to more than superficial depth has proved to be an enormous issue.
Almost as much as the government’s inability to do so.
How do you reconcile calculating r as more or less equal to 1 for a month, with the fact that numbers of cases, admissions and deaths are all much higher than a month ago?
I think your sums consistently under estimate by perhaps 0.2 or so.
On topic. A problem is that for some people, articulating something positive about their country seems wrong, or arrogant. There is also a belief that social, democratic, liberal, mixed market economy societies are a default that just happen.
I can recall intense anger and debate about the idea that immigrants should learn English. Not must (in Denmark, for example, leave to remain and citizenship are both tied to passing stringent language tests, which include colloquial usage) but simply *should*.
The common rejoinder to any comment to the effect of promoting common systems of values, is the accusations that the person doing the proposing is against "Multiculturalism". Note the capital. The doctrine of this was that integration is bad, and that every community should keep it's separate culture intact.
The problem is that, despite the bullshit, not all cultural problems are caused by white Europeans. Every culture on the planet has its issues.
For example, tolerating everyone else's religion. An obvious liberal values, yes?
Yet for much of human history, the idea that the other guys religion is anything other than wrong (at best), physically evil (at worst) has been a standard way of doing things. There are many, many countries, today where discrimination against other religions is explicitly enshrined in law. Why shouldn't its be? To tolerate heresy is to risk the spiritual death of the nation. God might turn against us. So for the good of all, the heretics and godless ones must be destroyed.
Strangely, people raised in such cultures and societies do not instantly become fans of the ecumenical approach, when they find it.
And so it goes through the long list of liberties and values that people hold.
It is worth considering this - the Western world is accelerating into a cultural Singularity. It is further away from much of the world than we realise and the distance is growing. One thing I have found interesting in my life is trying to explain, in response to questions from people outside the Western sphere, why and what it is we do. Sometimes even the basic building blocks of understanding are hard to find.
There are two choices.....
One, you can hold these values are universal and apply to all within a country. They should be taught, and promoted. Join us....
Two you can say, your culture is just as good or better, no questions asked.
But please, no hypocrisy. If the second approach is adopted, then the Districts in parts of France are the best we can hope for. If that is what you want - say so.
The trouble is, those who seem most fervently in favour of assimilation are also most likely to be furious about children and students being "indoctrinated" with certain values. I've never quite been able to get my head around those apparently irreconcilable opinions. Surely if children are being indoctrinated, that's evidence of multiple native cultures which are keenly contested.
I've always said it, and I'll say it again: I feel very little in common with some people from the same country as me. They seem baffling, weird and, yes, stupid to me. As I do to them. If some immigrant rocks up eager to assimilate, should they be like me, or should they be like Casino? One would hope, for their own sake, they choose neither.
culture should never be forced or controlled or regulated. Its why organised religion is so damaging as is communism and fascism as well. People obviously are influenced by culture and peers around you but nothing wrong with being different and individual ,in fact its healthy. The media love grouping people together as though they all think and like the same - the muslim community , the black community etc . Its lazy and naive and patronising. Just in the same way if you go to a sports event of a national nature you are frowned upon if you dont join in a national anthem which is wrong - The cult of the individual is always suppressed because having to have control is drummed into us all - look at covid-19 for example - how can you control a virus - you cannot .
Top piece, it's currently being pushed to its limits in America. On postal voting......... /www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUman3tZYpY&ab_channel=DailyMail
A bloke I used to work with pronounced "issue" as Farage does there, along with other similar words, solely to wind up another bloke at the firm, and it never failed
On topic. A problem is that for some people, articulating something positive about their country seems wrong, or arrogant. There is also a belief that social, democratic, liberal, mixed market economy societies are a default that just happen.
I can recall intense anger and debate about the idea that immigrants should learn English. Not must (in Denmark, for example, leave to remain and citizenship are both tied to passing stringent language tests, which include colloquial usage) but simply *should*.
The common rejoinder to any comment to the effect of promoting common systems of values, is the accusations that the person doing the proposing is against "Multiculturalism". Note the capital. The doctrine of this was that integration is bad, and that every community should keep it's separate culture intact.
The problem is that, despite the bullshit, not all cultural problems are caused by white Europeans. Every culture on the planet has its issues.
For example, tolerating everyone else's religion. An obvious liberal values, yes?
Yet for much of human history, the idea that the other guys religion is anything other than wrong (at best), physically evil (at worst) has been a standard way of doing things. There are many, many countries, today where discrimination against other religions is explicitly enshrined in law. Why shouldn't its be? To tolerate heresy is to risk the spiritual death of the nation. God might turn against us. So for the good of all, the heretics and godless ones must be destroyed.
Strangely, people raised in such cultures and societies do not instantly become fans of the ecumenical approach, when they find it.
And so it goes through the long list of liberties and values that people hold.
It is worth considering this - the Western world is accelerating into a cultural Singularity. It is further away from much of the world than we realise and the distance is growing. One thing I have found interesting in my life is trying to explain, in response to questions from people outside the Western sphere, why and what it is we do. Sometimes even the basic building blocks of understanding are hard to find.
There are two choices.....
One, you can hold these values are universal and apply to all within a country. They should be taught, and promoted. Join us....
Two you can say, your culture is just as good or better, no questions asked.
But please, no hypocrisy. If the second approach is adopted, then the Districts in parts of France are the best we can hope for. If that is what you want - say so.
The trouble is, those who seem most fervently in favour of assimilation are also most likely to be furious about children and students being "indoctrinated" with certain values. I've never quite been able to get my head around those apparently irreconcilable opinions. Surely if children are being indoctrinated, that's evidence of multiple native cultures which are keenly contested.
I've always said it, and I'll say it again: I feel very little in common with some people from the same country as me. They seem baffling, weird and, yes, stupid to me. As I do to them. If some immigrant rocks up eager to assimilate, should they be like me, or should they be like Casino? One would hope, for their own sake, they choose neither.
If you don't teach and promote liberal democracy, the chances that people will adopt it by osmosis are pretty low.
The point is to have a a common legal, ethical and social framework within which you have your differences.
So, Labour, Conservative and Liberal parties discussing what to do Good
On topic. A problem is that for some people, articulating something positive about their country seems wrong, or arrogant. There is also a belief that social, democratic, liberal, mixed market economy societies are a default that just happen.
I can recall intense anger and debate about the idea that immigrants should learn English. Not must (in Denmark, for example, leave to remain and citizenship are both tied to passing stringent language tests, which include colloquial usage) but simply *should*.
The common rejoinder to any comment to the effect of promoting common systems of values, is the accusations that the person doing the proposing is against "Multiculturalism". Note the capital. The doctrine of this was that integration is bad, and that every community should keep it's separate culture intact.
The problem is that, despite the bullshit, not all cultural problems are caused by white Europeans. Every culture on the planet has its issues.
For example, tolerating everyone else's religion. An obvious liberal values, yes?
Yet for much of human history, the idea that the other guys religion is anything other than wrong (at best), physically evil (at worst) has been a standard way of doing things. There are many, many countries, today where discrimination against other religions is explicitly enshrined in law. Why shouldn't its be? To tolerate heresy is to risk the spiritual death of the nation. God might turn against us. So for the good of all, the heretics and godless ones must be destroyed.
Strangely, people raised in such cultures and societies do not instantly become fans of the ecumenical approach, when they find it.
And so it goes through the long list of liberties and values that people hold.
It is worth considering this - the Western world is accelerating into a cultural Singularity. It is further away from much of the world than we realise and the distance is growing. One thing I have found interesting in my life is trying to explain, in response to questions from people outside the Western sphere, why and what it is we do. Sometimes even the basic building blocks of understanding are hard to find.
There are two choices.....
One, you can hold these values are universal and apply to all within a country. They should be taught, and promoted. Join us....
Two you can say, your culture is just as good or better, no questions asked.
But please, no hypocrisy. If the second approach is adopted, then the Districts in parts of France are the best we can hope for. If that is what you want - say so.
The trouble is, those who seem most fervently in favour of assimilation are also most likely to be furious about children and students being "indoctrinated" with certain values. I've never quite been able to get my head around those apparently irreconcilable opinions. Surely if children are being indoctrinated, that's evidence of multiple native cultures which are keenly contested.
I've always said it, and I'll say it again: I feel very little in common with some people from the same country as me. They seem baffling, weird and, yes, stupid to me. As I do to them. If some immigrant rocks up eager to assimilate, should they be like me, or should they be like Casino? One would hope, for their own sake, they choose neither.
culture should never be forced or controlled or regulated. Its why organised religion is so damaging as is communism and fascism as well. People obviously are influenced by culture and peers around you but nothing wrong with being different and individual ,in fact its healthy. The media love grouping people together as though they all think and like the same - the muslim community , the black community etc . Its lazy and naive and patronising. Just in the same way if you go to a sports event of a national nature you are frowned upon if you dont join in a national anthem which is wrong - The cult of the individual is always suppressed because having to have control is drummed into us all - look at covid-19 for example - how can you control a virus - you cannot .
We can control a virus in critical ways that saves many lives.
Rawnsley: A common complaint from cabinet colleagues and officials is that Mr Johnson has a tendency to agree with the last person who spoke to him. This means that a huge amount of power is wielded by whoever is the last “last person”. For a long time, it was usually Mr Cummings who stayed in the room with the prime minister after everyone else had left. This is why a vicious power struggle erupted within Number 10 around the issue of who would fill the vacant position of chief of staff. All the factions involved in the warring on Downing Street agree that it boiled down to “who controls Boris”. Which makes him sound less like a prime minister than a TV remote being wrestled over by squabbling aides.
The question now preoccupying Westminster is whether this upheaval will lead to a change of style, performance and direction. Those Conservative MPs who have long been demanding “a reset” of an alienating and dysfunctional Number 10 are fervently hoping it will. So should everyone else if it means the Johnson government will evolve into a less hapless and more professional outfit than the amateurish and chaotic regime that has stumbled from calamity to U-turn to debacle to disaster throughout the epidemic.
“Left to his own devices, Boris will wander off from decisions and read Pliny or Pericles or eat or shag,” remarks a senior Tory who has sat in the cabinet with this prime minister. “The bit of self-knowledge that Boris has is that he needs someone who will sit him down at the table and say there’s a decision to be made and tell him that you’re not leaving this room until you’ve made it.” It was by being the person who cajoled decisions out of the prime minister that Mr Cummings made himself so powerful. He’s gone. That gap in Boris Johnson, that hole at the heart of government, remains.
Pericles was not an author in that sense. Not even Boris can read him in an extant form. The nearest you can get to reading him is in Thucydides reporting a speech. To make up for it there are two extant Plinys to choose from, the younger more readable than the elder.
Her first attempt to get elected as an MP was when she stood in Ealing Central and Acton in 2017. She managed to turn a 274 Labour majority into a 13,800 Labour majority.
Her first attempt to get elected as an MP was when she stood in Ealing Central and Acton in 2017. She managed to turn a 274 Labour majority into a 13,800 Labour majority.
I think worst PM ever Theresa May might have played a part in that. A lot of seats went that way that year.
How do you reconcile calculating r as more or less equal to 1 for a month, with the fact that numbers of cases, admissions and deaths are all much higher than a month ago?
I think your sums consistently under estimate by perhaps 0.2 or so.
The number are derived from cases and hospital admissions.
You will note, that while they are lower than some other guesstimates* of R, they are still above 1. It doesn't take much above 1 for cases to rise rapidly.
*The closest thing we can get for a true R number would be derived from the ONS (and similar) infection surveys.
Excellent article. Thank you. An issue is what democracy is. Is it the best possible way of running things and to be defended and protected at all costs. Or is it a stage of development reached for the UK after centuries of other things which will in due time morph into something else.
In a sense democracy is an obvious piece of logic. We seem to be born sort of equal. People want to get what they want. How do you know what they want unless they are asked. How do you ask them without some sort of democracy process (of which there are infinite variants. I'm sure the North Koreans think they have one of them).
But suppose there are things people want even more like security, protection, freedom from having everything they have got stolen, freedom from invasion from enemies, enough food, a roof over your head, clothes. Because this is true Thomas Hobbes developed the 'strong man' theory of government; ie obey the guy at the top because he is tough enough to have got there and no other protection is possible.
When democracy fails at providing what the 'strong man' provides - and I like the fact that it has done pretty well at doing it for quite a time - it will fail and be replaced.
There is a philosopher - I forget which one - who argues democracy is inherently contradictory. It needs men (this was early 20th century) of great strength, talent and charisma to succeed, but relies on such men not being around as otherwise that leads to dictatorships. Therefore, it can only succeed with leaders who are weak and inept. But because they are weak and inept, the system fails.
The parallel used was the rise of Caesar, but I’ve always been struck with how apt a description the latter could be of the Third Republic and Weimar.
Whether its weaknesses are fatal is yet to be seen. The evidence is that it only is remotely effective in communities well beyond the stage of very basic functioning, with spare time for leisure and reflection. At its most basic democracy serves its purpose, as with Trump (here's hoping) that having elected a psychopathic, Machiavellian narcissist it is possible to unelect him in the same way. it provides a removable 'strong man' system - which is Hobbes ameliorated by rival strong powers co-existing and available for office without being allowed to kill each other.
Without some basic structure of accountability it would be infinitely easier for a Trump to get into a top position than it would to get him out of it again.
On topic. A problem is that for some people, articulating something positive about their country seems wrong, or arrogant. There is also a belief that social, democratic, liberal, mixed market economy societies are a default that just happen.
I can recall intense anger and debate about the idea that immigrants should learn English. Not must (in Denmark, for example, leave to remain and citizenship are both tied to passing stringent language tests, which include colloquial usage) but simply *should*.
The common rejoinder to any comment to the effect of promoting common systems of values, is the accusations that the person doing the proposing is against "Multiculturalism". Note the capital. The doctrine of this was that integration is bad, and that every community should keep it's separate culture intact.
The problem is that, despite the bullshit, not all cultural problems are caused by white Europeans. Every culture on the planet has its issues.
For example, tolerating everyone else's religion. An obvious liberal values, yes?
Yet for much of human history, the idea that the other guys religion is anything other than wrong (at best), physically evil (at worst) has been a standard way of doing things. There are many, many countries, today where discrimination against other religions is explicitly enshrined in law. Why shouldn't its be? To tolerate heresy is to risk the spiritual death of the nation. God might turn against us. So for the good of all, the heretics and godless ones must be destroyed.
Strangely, people raised in such cultures and societies do not instantly become fans of the ecumenical approach, when they find it.
And so it goes through the long list of liberties and values that people hold.
It is worth considering this - the Western world is accelerating into a cultural Singularity. It is further away from much of the world than we realise and the distance is growing. One thing I have found interesting in my life is trying to explain, in response to questions from people outside the Western sphere, why and what it is we do. Sometimes even the basic building blocks of understanding are hard to find.
There are two choices.....
One, you can hold these values are universal and apply to all within a country. They should be taught, and promoted. Join us....
Two you can say, your culture is just as good or better, no questions asked.
But please, no hypocrisy. If the second approach is adopted, then the Districts in parts of France are the best we can hope for. If that is what you want - say so.
The trouble is, those who seem most fervently in favour of assimilation are also most likely to be furious about children and students being "indoctrinated" with certain values. I've never quite been able to get my head around those apparently irreconcilable opinions. Surely if children are being indoctrinated, that's evidence of multiple native cultures which are keenly contested.
I've always said it, and I'll say it again: I feel very little in common with some people from the same country as me. They seem baffling, weird and, yes, stupid to me. As I do to them. If some immigrant rocks up eager to assimilate, should they be like me, or should they be like Casino? One would hope, for their own sake, they choose neither.
culture should never be forced or controlled or regulated. Its why organised religion is so damaging as is communism and fascism as well. People obviously are influenced by culture and peers around you but nothing wrong with being different and individual ,in fact its healthy. The media love grouping people together as though they all think and like the same - the muslim community , the black community etc . Its lazy and naive and patronising. Just in the same way if you go to a sports event of a national nature you are frowned upon if you dont join in a national anthem which is wrong - The cult of the individual is always suppressed because having to have control is drummed into us all - look at covid-19 for example - how can you control a virus - you cannot .
We can control a virus in critical ways that saves many lives.
Her first attempt to get elected as an MP was when she stood in Ealing Central and Acton in 2017. She managed to turn a 274 Labour majority into a 13,800 Labour majority.
Her first attempt to get elected as an MP was when she stood in Ealing Central and Acton in 2017. She managed to turn a 274 Labour majority into a 13,800 Labour majority.
Her name is two words you don't associate with each other
On topic. A problem is that for some people, articulating something positive about their country seems wrong, or arrogant. There is also a belief that social, democratic, liberal, mixed market economy societies are a default that just happen.
I can recall intense anger and debate about the idea that immigrants should learn English. Not must (in Denmark, for example, leave to remain and citizenship are both tied to passing stringent language tests, which include colloquial usage) but simply *should*.
Yet Yougov has it 83:9 that they should. You are confusing finding someone on twitter to demonstrate intense anger with real divisions in the country. As much as it agrees on anything, it agrees immigrants should learn English. It is not controversial just because a few percent disagree.
Imagine living in a country where that would exclude a person from holding such an office.
Imagine. Luckily our country is a constitutional monarchy so in practice, Heads of State will follow their family's religion, and no-one else is eligible to be Head of State regardless of faith.
On topic. A problem is that for some people, articulating something positive about their country seems wrong, or arrogant. There is also a belief that social, democratic, liberal, mixed market economy societies are a default that just happen.
I can recall intense anger and debate about the idea that immigrants should learn English. Not must (in Denmark, for example, leave to remain and citizenship are both tied to passing stringent language tests, which include colloquial usage) but simply *should*.
The common rejoinder to any comment to the effect of promoting common systems of values, is the accusations that the person doing the proposing is against "Multiculturalism". Note the capital. The doctrine of this was that integration is bad, and that every community should keep it's separate culture intact.
The problem is that, despite the bullshit, not all cultural problems are caused by white Europeans. Every culture on the planet has its issues.
For example, tolerating everyone else's religion. An obvious liberal values, yes?
Yet for much of human history, the idea that the other guys religion is anything other than wrong (at best), physically evil (at worst) has been a standard way of doing things. There are many, many countries, today where discrimination against other religions is explicitly enshrined in law. Why shouldn't its be? To tolerate heresy is to risk the spiritual death of the nation. God might turn against us. So for the good of all, the heretics and godless ones must be destroyed.
Strangely, people raised in such cultures and societies do not instantly become fans of the ecumenical approach, when they find it.
And so it goes through the long list of liberties and values that people hold.
It is worth considering this - the Western world is accelerating into a cultural Singularity. It is further away from much of the world than we realise and the distance is growing. One thing I have found interesting in my life is trying to explain, in response to questions from people outside the Western sphere, why and what it is we do. Sometimes even the basic building blocks of understanding are hard to find.
There are two choices.....
One, you can hold these values are universal and apply to all within a country. They should be taught, and promoted. Join us....
Two you can say, your culture is just as good or better, no questions asked.
But please, no hypocrisy. If the second approach is adopted, then the Districts in parts of France are the best we can hope for. If that is what you want - say so.
The trouble is, those who seem most fervently in favour of assimilation are also most likely to be furious about children and students being "indoctrinated" with certain values. I've never quite been able to get my head around those apparently irreconcilable opinions. Surely if children are being indoctrinated, that's evidence of multiple native cultures which are keenly contested.
I've always said it, and I'll say it again: I feel very little in common with some people from the same country as me. They seem baffling, weird and, yes, stupid to me. As I do to them. If some immigrant rocks up eager to assimilate, should they be like me, or should they be like Casino? One would hope, for their own sake, they choose neither.
If you don't teach and promote liberal democracy, the chances that people will adopt it by osmosis are pretty low.
The point is to have a a common legal, ethical and social framework within which you have your differences.
So, Labour, Conservative and Liberal parties discussing what to do Good
Hot Trod Bad
I don't differ at all - but just on the last point, er, the hot trod was very much based on a common legal framework by mutual agreement.
Tiger woods has just taken a 10 at a par 3 - makes me feel better about my golf !
Ten thwacks for the price of three. Bargain!
You’ve set me off on a train of thought about some Bill Clinton jokes.
Tiger Woods and Bill Clinton are playing at a charity golf tournament.
Bill sees Tiger at the urinals and peeks down to see that Tiger is very well endowed.
"Tiger, what is your secret?" Bill asks.
Tiger responds: "It's really simple. Every night before I get in bed I whack my dick against my bedpost 3 times. It's been working for me for years!" r> Bill goes home that night and as he's about to get into bed, he decides to try Tiger's trick. So he takes his dick out and whacks in on the bedpost 3 times.
Imagine living in a country where that would exclude a person from holding such an office.
Imagine. Luckily our country is a constitutional monarchy so in practice, Heads of State will follow their family's religion, and no-one else is eligible to be Head of State regardless of faith.
If my understanding of the rules is right, if the heir chose to become catholic, they would not be allowed to become the monarch.
A really excellent header in defence of democracy. One or two bits I disagree with, but it would be churlish to cavil.
I note the author's repeated pleas for tolerance and respect for others' views. For example: All the issues we face are valid: concerns over climate change, generational and racial inequality, personal identity, national identity, sovereignty, mass migration, border control, and global stability. We need solutions for all of them, and to treat one another with respect, and several other similar sentiments.
So I take it that the author will now desist from some of his more lurid full-frontal assaults on those who don't share his views, and perhaps will show a bit more tolerance of 'wokeness'?
Imagine living in a country where that would exclude a person from holding such an office.
Imagine. Luckily our country is a constitutional monarchy so in practice, Heads of State will follow their family's religion, and no-one else is eligible to be Head of State regardless of faith.
If my understanding of the rules is right, if the heir chose to become catholic, they would not be allowed to become the monarch.
The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 removes any specifically anti-Catholic prejudice. Monarchs can't be Catholic, Buddhist, Jain, Methodist or Muslim or anything else because of the Head of the C of E thing.
Imagine living in a country where that would exclude a person from holding such an office.
Imagine. Luckily our country is a constitutional monarchy so in practice, Heads of State will follow their family's religion, and no-one else is eligible to be Head of State regardless of faith.
Eh? Why would someone automatically follow their families religion? What if their parents have two different faiths?
Imagine living in a country where that would exclude a person from holding such an office.
Imagine. Luckily our country is a constitutional monarchy so in practice, Heads of State will follow their family's religion, and no-one else is eligible to be Head of State regardless of faith.
If my understanding of the rules is right, if the heir chose to become catholic, they would not be allowed to become the monarch.
The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 removes any specifically anti-Catholic prejudice. Monarchs can't be Catholic, Buddhist, Jain, Methodist or Muslim or anything else because of the Head of the C of E thing.
So would a catholic Charlie ascend to the throne or not? If so, who would become the head of the CoE? EDIT: I didn't read your post properly, despite its short length. Sandy's point, and mine, still stand. It's not specific to catholicism, but catholics are excluded.
On topic. A problem is that for some people, articulating something positive about their country seems wrong, or arrogant. There is also a belief that social, democratic, liberal, mixed market economy societies are a default that just happen.
I can recall intense anger and debate about the idea that immigrants should learn English. Not must (in Denmark, for example, leave to remain and citizenship are both tied to passing stringent language tests, which include colloquial usage) but simply *should*.
The common rejoinder to any comment to the effect of promoting common systems of values, is the accusations that the person doing the proposing is against "Multiculturalism". Note the capital. The doctrine of this was that integration is bad, and that every community should keep it's separate culture intact.
The problem is that, despite the bullshit, not all cultural problems are caused by white Europeans. Every culture on the planet has its issues.
For example, tolerating everyone else's religion. An obvious liberal values, yes?
Yet for much of human history, the idea that the other guys religion is anything other than wrong (at best), physically evil (at worst) has been a standard way of doing things. There are many, many countries, today where discrimination against other religions is explicitly enshrined in law. Why shouldn't its be? To tolerate heresy is to risk the spiritual death of the nation. God might turn against us. So for the good of all, the heretics and godless ones must be destroyed.
Strangely, people raised in such cultures and societies do not instantly become fans of the ecumenical approach, when they find it.
And so it goes through the long list of liberties and values that people hold.
It is worth considering this - the Western world is accelerating into a cultural Singularity. It is further away from much of the world than we realise and the distance is growing. One thing I have found interesting in my life is trying to explain, in response to questions from people outside the Western sphere, why and what it is we do. Sometimes even the basic building blocks of understanding are hard to find.
There are two choices.....
One, you can hold these values are universal and apply to all within a country. They should be taught, and promoted. Join us....
Two you can say, your culture is just as good or better, no questions asked.
But please, no hypocrisy. If the second approach is adopted, then the Districts in parts of France are the best we can hope for. If that is what you want - say so.
The trouble is, those who seem most fervently in favour of assimilation are also most likely to be furious about children and students being "indoctrinated" with certain values. I've never quite been able to get my head around those apparently irreconcilable opinions. Surely if children are being indoctrinated, that's evidence of multiple native cultures which are keenly contested.
I've always said it, and I'll say it again: I feel very little in common with some people from the same country as me. They seem baffling, weird and, yes, stupid to me. As I do to them. If some immigrant rocks up eager to assimilate, should they be like me, or should they be like Casino? One would hope, for their own sake, they choose neither.
If you don't teach and promote liberal democracy, the chances that people will adopt it by osmosis are pretty low.
The point is to have a a common legal, ethical and social framework within which you have your differences.
So, Labour, Conservative and Liberal parties discussing what to do Good
Hot Trod Bad
I don't differ at all - but just on the last point, er, the hot trod was very much based on a common legal framework by mutual agreement.
As are many legal systems. Throwing gay people off buildings had been an agreed legal framework, in some countries.
The idea is to promote liberal democracy, and deprecate non-liberal democratic systems. Hence vigilantes = bad.
Imagine living in a country where that would exclude a person from holding such an office.
Imagine. Luckily our country is a constitutional monarchy so in practice, Heads of State will follow their family's religion, and no-one else is eligible to be Head of State regardless of faith.
If my understanding of the rules is right, if the heir chose to become catholic, they would not be allowed to become the monarch.
The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 removes any specifically anti-Catholic prejudice. Monarchs can't be Catholic, Buddhist, Jain, Methodist or Muslim or anything else because of the Head of the C of E thing.
So would a catholic Charlie ascend to the throne or not? If so, who would become the head of the CoE?
God. He does in Scotland. Not quite sure what happens when the Royal Train crosses the border ...
Imagine living in a country where that would exclude a person from holding such an office.
Imagine. Luckily our country is a constitutional monarchy so in practice, Heads of State will follow their family's religion, and no-one else is eligible to be Head of State regardless of faith.
Eh? Why would someone automatically follow their families religion? What if their parents have two different faiths?
or god forbid (excuse the pun) no religion at all (like most sensible people!)
On topic. A problem is that for some people, articulating something positive about their country seems wrong, or arrogant. There is also a belief that social, democratic, liberal, mixed market economy societies are a default that just happen.
I can recall intense anger and debate about the idea that immigrants should learn English. Not must (in Denmark, for example, leave to remain and citizenship are both tied to passing stringent language tests, which include colloquial usage) but simply *should*.
The common rejoinder to any comment to the effect of promoting common systems of values, is the accusations that the person doing the proposing is against "Multiculturalism". Note the capital. The doctrine of this was that integration is bad, and that every community should keep it's separate culture intact.
The problem is that, despite the bullshit, not all cultural problems are caused by white Europeans. Every culture on the planet has its issues.
For example, tolerating everyone else's religion. An obvious liberal values, yes?
Yet for much of human history, the idea that the other guys religion is anything other than wrong (at best), physically evil (at worst) has been a standard way of doing things. There are many, many countries, today where discrimination against other religions is explicitly enshrined in law. Why shouldn't its be? To tolerate heresy is to risk the spiritual death of the nation. God might turn against us. So for the good of all, the heretics and godless ones must be destroyed.
Strangely, people raised in such cultures and societies do not instantly become fans of the ecumenical approach, when they find it.
And so it goes through the long list of liberties and values that people hold.
It is worth considering this - the Western world is accelerating into a cultural Singularity. It is further away from much of the world than we realise and the distance is growing. One thing I have found interesting in my life is trying to explain, in response to questions from people outside the Western sphere, why and what it is we do. Sometimes even the basic building blocks of understanding are hard to find.
There are two choices.....
One, you can hold these values are universal and apply to all within a country. They should be taught, and promoted. Join us....
Two you can say, your culture is just as good or better, no questions asked.
But please, no hypocrisy. If the second approach is adopted, then the Districts in parts of France are the best we can hope for. If that is what you want - say so.
The trouble is, those who seem most fervently in favour of assimilation are also most likely to be furious about children and students being "indoctrinated" with certain values. I've never quite been able to get my head around those apparently irreconcilable opinions. Surely if children are being indoctrinated, that's evidence of multiple native cultures which are keenly contested.
I've always said it, and I'll say it again: I feel very little in common with some people from the same country as me. They seem baffling, weird and, yes, stupid to me. As I do to them. If some immigrant rocks up eager to assimilate, should they be like me, or should they be like Casino? One would hope, for their own sake, they choose neither.
If you don't teach and promote liberal democracy, the chances that people will adopt it by osmosis are pretty low.
The point is to have a a common legal, ethical and social framework within which you have your differences.
So, Labour, Conservative and Liberal parties discussing what to do Good
Hot Trod Bad
I don't differ at all - but just on the last point, er, the hot trod was very much based on a common legal framework by mutual agreement.
As are many legal systems. Throwing gay people off buildings had been an agreed legal framework, in some countries.
The idea is to promote liberal democracy, and deprecate non-liberal democratic systems. Hence vigilantes = bad.
Ah, I'm with you. But if there are no polis there can't be vigilantes, and this was the system to go and catch the thieves. It legalsied going across the Anglo-Scottish border. Like hot pursuit across a police force boundary, only without the police.
How do you reconcile calculating r as more or less equal to 1 for a month, with the fact that numbers of cases, admissions and deaths are all much higher than a month ago?
I think your sums consistently under estimate by perhaps 0.2 or so.
That's not how R works, a constant R of 1.1 is still an exponential rise, even an R of 1.05 is an exponential rise.
The R is 1.1 in England as calculated from ONS, daily case and hospital admissions data, the R is 0.95 as calculated from the realtime ZOE app data.
If we were at R 1.3 then we'd be seeing a much steeper rise in daily cases than we are at the moment, 10 cases become 13 then 17 then 22. That's not what's happening, we haven't seen cases more than double.
Imagine living in a country where that would exclude a person from holding such an office.
Imagine. Luckily our country is a constitutional monarchy so in practice, Heads of State will follow their family's religion, and no-one else is eligible to be Head of State regardless of faith.
Eh? Why would someone automatically follow their families religion? What if their parents have two different faiths?
Good question. Do the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh have two different faiths? If not, we can put off worrying about it for a few years.
Imagine living in a country where that would exclude a person from holding such an office.
Imagine. Luckily our country is a constitutional monarchy so in practice, Heads of State will follow their family's religion, and no-one else is eligible to be Head of State regardless of faith.
Nice to know that they have the right to choose their own system of beliefs.
Imagine living in a country where that would exclude a person from holding such an office.
Imagine. Luckily our country is a constitutional monarchy so in practice, Heads of State will follow their family's religion, and no-one else is eligible to be Head of State regardless of faith.
If my understanding of the rules is right, if the heir chose to become catholic, they would not be allowed to become the monarch.
The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 removes any specifically anti-Catholic prejudice. Monarchs can't be Catholic, Buddhist, Jain, Methodist or Muslim or anything else because of the Head of the C of E thing.
Presumably then they cannot also be agnostic or athiest ? Which if you think about it is bonkers . The head of a mature (mainly sensible ) country has to believe ( or pretend to ) in a man in the sky that micro manages us earthlings and hates any dissenters
Imagine living in a country where that would exclude a person from holding such an office.
Imagine. Luckily our country is a constitutional monarchy so in practice, Heads of State will follow their family's religion, and no-one else is eligible to be Head of State regardless of faith.
Eh? Why would someone automatically follow their families religion? What if their parents have two different faiths?
Good question. Do the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh have two different faiths? If not, we can put off worrying about it for a few years.
When the queen married, she wasn't at liberty to marry a catholic and remain the heir.
Imagine living in a country where that would exclude a person from holding such an office.
Imagine. Luckily our country is a constitutional monarchy so in practice, Heads of State will follow their family's religion, and no-one else is eligible to be Head of State regardless of faith.
If my understanding of the rules is right, if the heir chose to become catholic, they would not be allowed to become the monarch.
The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 removes any specifically anti-Catholic prejudice. Monarchs can't be Catholic, Buddhist, Jain, Methodist or Muslim or anything else because of the Head of the C of E thing.
So would a catholic Charlie ascend to the throne or not? If so, who would become the head of the CoE?
Imagine living in a country where that would exclude a person from holding such an office.
Imagine. Luckily our country is a constitutional monarchy so in practice, Heads of State will follow their family's religion, and no-one else is eligible to be Head of State regardless of faith.
Eh? Why would someone automatically follow their families religion? What if their parents have two different faiths?
Good question. Do the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh have two different faiths? If not, we can put off worrying about it for a few years.
I couldnt care less about the specific. I do find the presumptions of the lack of free will for the individuals involved very distasteful though.
On topic. A problem is that for some people, articulating something positive about their country seems wrong, or arrogant. There is also a belief that social, democratic, liberal, mixed market economy societies are a default that just happen.
I can recall intense anger and debate about the idea that immigrants should learn English. Not must (in Denmark, for example, leave to remain and citizenship are both tied to passing stringent language tests, which include colloquial usage) but simply *should*.
The common rejoinder to any comment to the effect of promoting common systems of values, is the accusations that the person doing the proposing is against "Multiculturalism". Note the capital. The doctrine of this was that integration is bad, and that every community should keep it's separate culture intact.
The problem is that, despite the bullshit, not all cultural problems are caused by white Europeans. Every culture on the planet has its issues.
For example, tolerating everyone else's religion. An obvious liberal values, yes?
Yet for much of human history, the idea that the other guys religion is anything other than wrong (at best), physically evil (at worst) has been a standard way of doing things. There are many, many countries, today where discrimination against other religions is explicitly enshrined in law. Why shouldn't its be? To tolerate heresy is to risk the spiritual death of the nation. God might turn against us. So for the good of all, the heretics and godless ones must be destroyed.
Strangely, people raised in such cultures and societies do not instantly become fans of the ecumenical approach, when they find it.
And so it goes through the long list of liberties and values that people hold.
It is worth considering this - the Western world is accelerating into a cultural Singularity. It is further away from much of the world than we realise and the distance is growing. One thing I have found interesting in my life is trying to explain, in response to questions from people outside the Western sphere, why and what it is we do. Sometimes even the basic building blocks of understanding are hard to find.
There are two choices.....
One, you can hold these values are universal and apply to all within a country. They should be taught, and promoted. Join us....
Two you can say, your culture is just as good or better, no questions asked.
But please, no hypocrisy. If the second approach is adopted, then the Districts in parts of France are the best we can hope for. If that is what you want - say so.
The trouble is, those who seem most fervently in favour of assimilation are also most likely to be furious about children and students being "indoctrinated" with certain values. I've never quite been able to get my head around those apparently irreconcilable opinions. Surely if children are being indoctrinated, that's evidence of multiple native cultures which are keenly contested.
I've always said it, and I'll say it again: I feel very little in common with some people from the same country as me. They seem baffling, weird and, yes, stupid to me. As I do to them. If some immigrant rocks up eager to assimilate, should they be like me, or should they be like Casino? One would hope, for their own sake, they choose neither.
If you don't teach and promote liberal democracy, the chances that people will adopt it by osmosis are pretty low.
The point is to have a a common legal, ethical and social framework within which you have your differences.
So, Labour, Conservative and Liberal parties discussing what to do Good
Hot Trod Bad
I don't differ at all - but just on the last point, er, the hot trod was very much based on a common legal framework by mutual agreement.
As are many legal systems. Throwing gay people off buildings had been an agreed legal framework, in some countries.
The idea is to promote liberal democracy, and deprecate non-liberal democratic systems. Hence vigilantes = bad.
Ah, I'm with you. But if there are no polis there can't be vigilantes, and this was the system to go and catch the thieves. It legalsied going across the Anglo-Scottish border. Like hot pursuit across a police force boundary, only without the police.
I always loved it when the Dukes of Hazard county foiled Roscoe and Boss Hogg by crossing state (or was it county?) lines in the General Lee . Boss Hogg always then threw down his white hat and said "dem Dook boys "
Imagine living in a country where that would exclude a person from holding such an office.
Imagine. Luckily our country is a constitutional monarchy so in practice, Heads of State will follow their family's religion, and no-one else is eligible to be Head of State regardless of faith.
If my understanding of the rules is right, if the heir chose to become catholic, they would not be allowed to become the monarch.
The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 removes any specifically anti-Catholic prejudice. Monarchs can't be Catholic, Buddhist, Jain, Methodist or Muslim or anything else because of the Head of the C of E thing.
Presumably then they cannot also be agnostic or athiest ? Which if you think about it is bonkers . The head of a mature (mainly sensible ) country has to believe ( or pretend to ) in a man in the sky that micro manages us earthlings and hates any dissenters
Okay, the Sovereign becoming a RC was a big thing in the 16th and 17th centuries - in England and Scotland (and Wales and Ireland had to put up wiht it). Marie Stuart and James VII and II got the chop, literally or metaphorically, for it. So we have the same issue 300+ years on?
Imagine living in a country where that would exclude a person from holding such an office.
Imagine. Luckily our country is a constitutional monarchy so in practice, Heads of State will follow their family's religion, and no-one else is eligible to be Head of State regardless of faith.
If my understanding of the rules is right, if the heir chose to become catholic, they would not be allowed to become the monarch.
The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 removes any specifically anti-Catholic prejudice. Monarchs can't be Catholic, Buddhist, Jain, Methodist or Muslim or anything else because of the Head of the C of E thing.
Presumably then they cannot also be agnostic or athiest ? Which if you think about it is bonkers . The head of a mature (mainly sensible ) country has to believe ( or pretend to ) in a man in the sky that micro manages us earthlings and hates any dissenters
I wouldn't want anyone in the job who didn't have the flexibility to go along with the whole charade on Paris vaut bien une messe grounds, whatever their private feelings.
Imagine living in a country where that would exclude a person from holding such an office.
Imagine. Luckily our country is a constitutional monarchy so in practice, Heads of State will follow their family's religion, and no-one else is eligible to be Head of State regardless of faith.
If my understanding of the rules is right, if the heir chose to become catholic, they would not be allowed to become the monarch.
The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 removes any specifically anti-Catholic prejudice. Monarchs can't be Catholic, Buddhist, Jain, Methodist or Muslim or anything else because of the Head of the C of E thing.
Presumably then they cannot also be agnostic or athiest ? Which if you think about it is bonkers . The head of a mature (mainly sensible ) country has to believe ( or pretend to ) in a man in the sky that micro manages us earthlings and hates any dissenters
A bit of a caricature of Christianity... In any case you can be almost an atheist and be a C of E prelate.
Coronavirus - have the results of the Liverpool mass testing been released yet, and are they incorporated within the figures?
No and no, the testing is taking far longer than expected as well. It's a bit of a failure.
I like Liverpool the city and scousers generally but as a product of watching Harry Enfield in the 90s just have mental images of lines of scousers getting tested with loads of people saying "Calm down Calm down"
I think it’s great to take the time to write an article, but I am stuck on paragraph about nations, which rejects dogma but in the same breath instructs us that we must do X or Y, which just so happen to coincide with authors beliefs.
Thanks. I'm not intending to instruct anyone to do anything. I think some on the radical right have been attacking our institutions, and I think some on the radical left have been attacking our history and values. There's even a radical centre that rejects the ideas of nations themselves as somehow passé and an obstacle to global freedom.
I said that those who believe in nations need to be far more comfortable with those who have multiple or complex identities (not just one) and those who do not need should recognise that nations are the building blocks which allow an internationalist order to have effect, which I believe is rejecting dogma from both sides.
Lord Lester, co founder of the Runnymede Trust and Lib Dem peer, talking about Immigration and Multiculturalism
"The model we had was everyone share the broad values of being British, what we did not expect that there would be those who would unwisely suggest that, for example, sharia law should be applied in this country, or the punishment of stoning for adultery might be looked at. It never occurred to us that there might be those kind of unwise challenges to the core values of a liberal democratic society, and I can very much remember towards the end of Roy Jenkins life him saying to me "We just didn't realise that, in the struggle for race equality, we would also have to struggle for a secular society, and for the universal values of human rights"
In what way? He’s found a way to turn off caps lock at last?
He's showing off his anti Catholic bigotry, the sort of bigotry the British Royal family endorses.
Is there any evidence of the Royals opposing the 2013 Act? If not their bigotry consists only of being bound by the terms of the Act of Settlement 1701 which is binding on everybody, including you. Are you a bigot?
Imagine living in a country where that would exclude a person from holding such an office.
Imagine. Luckily our country is a constitutional monarchy so in practice, Heads of State will follow their family's religion, and no-one else is eligible to be Head of State regardless of faith.
If my understanding of the rules is right, if the heir chose to become catholic, they would not be allowed to become the monarch.
The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 removes any specifically anti-Catholic prejudice. Monarchs can't be Catholic, Buddhist, Jain, Methodist or Muslim or anything else because of the Head of the C of E thing.
Presumably then they cannot also be agnostic or athiest ? Which if you think about it is bonkers . The head of a mature (mainly sensible ) country has to believe ( or pretend to ) in a man in the sky that micro manages us earthlings and hates any dissenters
The UK has gone past maturity and has settled into senility. Nothing explains the weird parliamentary rituals better than a well-crafted dementia metaphor; we are living the 21st century through the worn patterns of centuries-old habits. It used to be cute, but now we've started "having falls" and wandering around the international stage not fully clothed.
Imagine living in a country where that would exclude a person from holding such an office.
Imagine. Luckily our country is a constitutional monarchy so in practice, Heads of State will follow their family's religion, and no-one else is eligible to be Head of State regardless of faith.
If my understanding of the rules is right, if the heir chose to become catholic, they would not be allowed to become the monarch.
The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 removes any specifically anti-Catholic prejudice. Monarchs can't be Catholic, Buddhist, Jain, Methodist or Muslim or anything else because of the Head of the C of E thing.
Presumably then they cannot also be agnostic or athiest ? Which if you think about it is bonkers . The head of a mature (mainly sensible ) country has to believe ( or pretend to ) in a man in the sky that micro manages us earthlings and hates any dissenters
Okay, the Sovereign becoming a RC was a big thing in the 16th and 17th centuries - in England and Scotland (and Wales and Ireland had to put up wiht it). Marie Stuart and James VII and II got the chop, literally or metaphorically, for it. So we have the same issue 300+ years on?
You didn't notice the burning of Catholic effigies last week then?
Lord Lester, co founder of the Runnymede Trust and Lib Dem peer, talking about Immigration and Multiculturalism
"The model we had was everyone share the broad values of being British, what we did not expect that there would be those who would unwisely suggest that, for example, sharia law should be applied in this country, or the punishment of stoning for adultery might be looked at. It never occurred to us that there might be those kind of unwise challenges to the core values of a liberal democratic society, and I can very much remember towards the end of Roy Jenkins life him saying to me "We just didn't realise that, in the struggle for race equality, we would also have to struggle for a secular society, and for the universal values of human rights"
The classic symptoms of people assuming that their values are the default, universal values.
Top piece, it's currently being pushed to its limits in America. On postal voting......... /www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUman3tZYpY&ab_channel=DailyMail
A bloke I used to work with pronounced "issue" as Farage does there, along with other similar words, solely to wind up another bloke at the firm, and it never failed
In what way? He’s found a way to turn off caps lock at last?
He's showing off his anti Catholic bigotry, the sort of bigotry the British Royal family endorses.
Is there any evidence of the Royals opposing the 2013 Act? If not their bigotry consists only of being bound by the terms of the Act of Settlement 1701 which is binding on everybody, including you. Are you a bigot?
I'm an ardent Republican, I want to to overturn the Act of Settlement 1701.
If the Royals weren't such anti papists the Queen and others would split the roles of Head of State and Head of the Church of England.
See example how Her Majesty didn't make Head of the Commonwealth hereditary.
One of the reasons I don't celebrate Bonfire night is because of its inherent anti Catholic views, which is widespread in the UK.
How do you reconcile calculating r as more or less equal to 1 for a month, with the fact that numbers of cases, admissions and deaths are all much higher than a month ago?
I think your sums consistently under estimate by perhaps 0.2 or so.
The number are derived from cases and hospital admissions.
You will note, that while they are lower than some other guesstimates* of R, they are still above 1. It doesn't take much above 1 for cases to rise rapidly.
*The closest thing we can get for a true R number would be derived from the ONS (and similar) infection surveys.
Th covid actuaries group calculate r as 1.2 at the end of October, while your figure is 1.0 or so. Theirs seems to better match the increase in cases since.
I suspect the parallel has already been made, but people thought Physics was all over bar the loose-ends in the 1890s.
Ideological thought, or politics, evolves really very slowly, but it does evolve. The politics of now are really quite different to those of previous ages, although it doesn't really feel that way - seems just more baggage.
Politics in the future really will have to deal with a lot of issues that have appeared in SF. Animal rights, AI rights, to what extent can we mess up other worlds? How self-engineering can we do?
Easily another few thousand years of backstabbing, corruption, grandstanding, and lies to build upon that base. Maybe even some actual progress too.
A really excellent first class header. Very well argued and written CR.
I must confess you baffle me.
On the one hand, you are full of good sense and I very frequently agree with you. I often "like" your comments.
On the other hand, you are irrascible and frequently lose it.
I guess that's just who you are.
Your comment - and a fair few of those before it - highlight the struggle that must have been going on as Casino wrote his lead, seeking to stake out higher ground than he normally manages to occupy.
Interestingly, his own position (evidenced by his posts, rather than the lead) as an anti-woke nationalist owes much to the counter-reaction to ‘the end of history’, beginning in Eastern Europe, that rejected the view that the only future path (other than Islamic terrorism) lay in imitating a triumphant United States.
So successful has this counter-reaction been that it actually captured the White House, until just now.
The lead misses that the challenge to the dominance of the West, and the future for democracy, are actually very separate (if overlapping) issues.
We are familiar with the argument that the rise of China (and after it India, Brazil and Nigeria) threatens US economic dominance. The counter-argument is that, in the fields that appear to be critical to our emerging future - IT, AI, genomics, etc. - the US (together with key allies) still commands a dominance of both intellectual and industrial capacity. China and Russia still rely on ripping off whatever they can steal.
For future democracy - people overlook that its key character is competition, dispersal of power and influence, and actually relies more upon having an independent media, and independent judiciary, and other powerful civil society institutions (all the things Casino and his Tories are busily undermining) than the shape of our politics.
Lord Lester, co founder of the Runnymede Trust and Lib Dem peer, talking about Immigration and Multiculturalism
"The model we had was everyone share the broad values of being British, what we did not expect that there would be those who would unwisely suggest that, for example, sharia law should be applied in this country, or the punishment of stoning for adultery might be looked at. It never occurred to us that there might be those kind of unwise challenges to the core values of a liberal democratic society, and I can very much remember towards the end of Roy Jenkins life him saying to me "We just didn't realise that, in the struggle for race equality, we would also have to struggle for a secular society, and for the universal values of human rights"
The classic symptoms of people assuming that their values are the default, universal values.
Yes, I think that's my main issue with the HRA as it's written, it applies universally even to those who have shat all over those rights themselves and clearly don't value them. Some things in life should be earned, I just don't know where the line should be drawn.
Another weird paragraph: "We also need to demonstrate our democratic system can manage crises better than everywhere else. Therefore, it is concerning that the West has struggled to escape the cycle of lockdowns over Covid, whilst life in Asia has largely gone back to normal. Things like this further undermine confidence in the system and weaken our ability to provide global leadership to deliver a democratic future."
The West is not synonymous with democracy. Some of the Asian countries that have coped better with Covid-19 are as democratic as Western countries that have struggled. The USA is no more a democracy than South Korea. Ditto Belgium and Singapore.
Yes, there are different forms of democracy but Japan, Taiwan and South Korea were only able to become democracies because of the American umbrella, which has both a hard and soft edge to it. And, it should be noted, that they have slightly different views on individual liberty to European or Anglosphere democracies - ones that allowed them to take far stronger action on Covid than our population would have accepted here.
They could easily slip back, keeping "the bits that work", and ditching the democratic aspects, particularly if the Western model is seen to fail, and America turns in on itself and withdraws from the region, and so it is therefore essential that it does not.
Imagine living in a country where that would exclude a person from holding such an office.
Imagine. Luckily our country is a constitutional monarchy so in practice, Heads of State will follow their family's religion, and no-one else is eligible to be Head of State regardless of faith.
If my understanding of the rules is right, if the heir chose to become catholic, they would not be allowed to become the monarch.
The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 removes any specifically anti-Catholic prejudice. Monarchs can't be Catholic, Buddhist, Jain, Methodist or Muslim or anything else because of the Head of the C of E thing.
Presumably then they cannot also be agnostic or athiest ? Which if you think about it is bonkers . The head of a mature (mainly sensible ) country has to believe ( or pretend to ) in a man in the sky that micro manages us earthlings and hates any dissenters
Okay, the Sovereign becoming a RC was a big thing in the 16th and 17th centuries - in England and Scotland (and Wales and Ireland had to put up wiht it). Marie Stuart and James VII and II got the chop, literally or metaphorically, for it. So we have the same issue 300+ years on?
You forgot Charles I as well.
Although it didn’t bother people when it came to Charles II, possibly because he may have been a total philanderer and erratic wastrel but was at least not a total knobhead.
Imagine living in a country where that would exclude a person from holding such an office.
Imagine. Luckily our country is a constitutional monarchy so in practice, Heads of State will follow their family's religion, and no-one else is eligible to be Head of State regardless of faith.
Eh? Why would someone automatically follow their families religion? What if their parents have two different faiths?
Good question. Do the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh have two different faiths? If not, we can put off worrying about it for a few years.
I couldnt care less about the specific. I do find the presumptions of the lack of free will for the individuals involved very distasteful though.
For the most part, people follow the same religion as their parents, be that Christian or Jewish, Hindu or Muslim, Sikh or Atheist. The correlation is so high that free will rarely comes into it. The same is true to a lesser extent of politics.
Another weird paragraph: "We also need to demonstrate our democratic system can manage crises better than everywhere else. Therefore, it is concerning that the West has struggled to escape the cycle of lockdowns over Covid, whilst life in Asia has largely gone back to normal. Things like this further undermine confidence in the system and weaken our ability to provide global leadership to deliver a democratic future."
The West is not synonymous with democracy. Some of the Asian countries that have coped better with Covid-19 are as democratic as Western countries that have struggled. The USA is no more a democracy than South Korea. Ditto Belgium and Singapore.
Yes, there are different forms of democracy but Japan, Taiwan and South Korea were only able to become democracies because of the American umbrella, which has both a hard and soft edge to it. And, it should be noted, that they have slightly different views on individual liberty to European or Anglosphere democracies - ones that allowed them to take far stronger action on Covid than our population would have accepted here.
They could easily slip back, keeping "the bits that work", and ditching the democratic aspects, particularly if the Western model is seen to fail, and America turns in on itself and withdraws from the region, and so it is therefore essential that it does not.
I would have said in the case of Taiwan and South Korea that they became democracies *despite* the American umbrella.
After all, for many years American policy was to support dictators amenable to US interests in those countries - Syngman Rhee and Chiang Kai-Shek.
Imagine living in a country where that would exclude a person from holding such an office.
Imagine. Luckily our country is a constitutional monarchy so in practice, Heads of State will follow their family's religion, and no-one else is eligible to be Head of State regardless of faith.
If my understanding of the rules is right, if the heir chose to become catholic, they would not be allowed to become the monarch.
The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 removes any specifically anti-Catholic prejudice. Monarchs can't be Catholic, Buddhist, Jain, Methodist or Muslim or anything else because of the Head of the C of E thing.
Presumably then they cannot also be agnostic or athiest ? Which if you think about it is bonkers . The head of a mature (mainly sensible ) country has to believe ( or pretend to ) in a man in the sky that micro manages us earthlings and hates any dissenters
Okay, the Sovereign becoming a RC was a big thing in the 16th and 17th centuries - in England and Scotland (and Wales and Ireland had to put up wiht it). Marie Stuart and James VII and II got the chop, literally or metaphorically, for it. So we have the same issue 300+ years on?
You forgot Charles I as well.
Although it didn’t bother people when it came to Charles II, possibly because he may have been a total philanderer and erratic wastrel but was at least not a total knobhead.
Whereas Charles III is a total philanderer, erratic wastrel, and total nobhead.
FWIW judging by those who have seen the latest episodes of The Crown it isn't doing wonders for the reputation of the fornicator and adulterer that is Prince Charles.
Imagine living in a country where that would exclude a person from holding such an office.
Imagine. Luckily our country is a constitutional monarchy so in practice, Heads of State will follow their family's religion, and no-one else is eligible to be Head of State regardless of faith.
If my understanding of the rules is right, if the heir chose to become catholic, they would not be allowed to become the monarch.
The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 removes any specifically anti-Catholic prejudice. Monarchs can't be Catholic, Buddhist, Jain, Methodist or Muslim or anything else because of the Head of the C of E thing.
Presumably then they cannot also be agnostic or athiest ? Which if you think about it is bonkers . The head of a mature (mainly sensible ) country has to believe ( or pretend to ) in a man in the sky that micro manages us earthlings and hates any dissenters
Okay, the Sovereign becoming a RC was a big thing in the 16th and 17th centuries - in England and Scotland (and Wales and Ireland had to put up wiht it). Marie Stuart and James VII and II got the chop, literally or metaphorically, for it. So we have the same issue 300+ years on?
You forgot Charles I as well.
Although it didn’t bother people when it came to Charles II, possibly because he may have been a total philanderer and erratic wastrel but was at least not a total knobhead.
Whereas Charles III is a total philanderer, erratic wastrel, and total nobhead.
Bit unfair to call him a total philanderer.
He slept with one woman.
Diana was unfaithful twice - once with a brain surgeon, and once with the entire officer corps of the British Army.
Imagine living in a country where that would exclude a person from holding such an office.
Imagine. Luckily our country is a constitutional monarchy so in practice, Heads of State will follow their family's religion, and no-one else is eligible to be Head of State regardless of faith.
If my understanding of the rules is right, if the heir chose to become catholic, they would not be allowed to become the monarch.
The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 removes any specifically anti-Catholic prejudice. Monarchs can't be Catholic, Buddhist, Jain, Methodist or Muslim or anything else because of the Head of the C of E thing.
Presumably then they cannot also be agnostic or athiest ? Which if you think about it is bonkers . The head of a mature (mainly sensible ) country has to believe ( or pretend to ) in a man in the sky that micro manages us earthlings and hates any dissenters
Okay, the Sovereign becoming a RC was a big thing in the 16th and 17th centuries - in England and Scotland (and Wales and Ireland had to put up wiht it). Marie Stuart and James VII and II got the chop, literally or metaphorically, for it. So we have the same issue 300+ years on?
You forgot Charles I as well.
Although it didn’t bother people when it came to Charles II, possibly because he may have been a total philanderer and erratic wastrel but was at least not a total knobhead.
Whereas Charles III is a total philanderer, erratic wastrel, and total nobhead.
I thought he regal name wasn't going to be Charles.
Imagine living in a country where that would exclude a person from holding such an office.
Imagine. Luckily our country is a constitutional monarchy so in practice, Heads of State will follow their family's religion, and no-one else is eligible to be Head of State regardless of faith.
If my understanding of the rules is right, if the heir chose to become catholic, they would not be allowed to become the monarch.
The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 removes any specifically anti-Catholic prejudice. Monarchs can't be Catholic, Buddhist, Jain, Methodist or Muslim or anything else because of the Head of the C of E thing.
Presumably then they cannot also be agnostic or athiest ? Which if you think about it is bonkers . The head of a mature (mainly sensible ) country has to believe ( or pretend to ) in a man in the sky that micro manages us earthlings and hates any dissenters
Okay, the Sovereign becoming a RC was a big thing in the 16th and 17th centuries - in England and Scotland (and Wales and Ireland had to put up wiht it). Marie Stuart and James VII and II got the chop, literally or metaphorically, for it. So we have the same issue 300+ years on?
You forgot Charles I as well.
Although it didn’t bother people when it came to Charles II, possibly because he may have been a total philanderer and erratic wastrel but was at least not a total knobhead.
Whereas Charles III is a total philanderer, erratic wastrel, and total nobhead.
Imagine living in a country where that would exclude a person from holding such an office.
Imagine. Luckily our country is a constitutional monarchy so in practice, Heads of State will follow their family's religion, and no-one else is eligible to be Head of State regardless of faith.
If my understanding of the rules is right, if the heir chose to become catholic, they would not be allowed to become the monarch.
The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 removes any specifically anti-Catholic prejudice. Monarchs can't be Catholic, Buddhist, Jain, Methodist or Muslim or anything else because of the Head of the C of E thing.
Presumably then they cannot also be agnostic or athiest ? Which if you think about it is bonkers . The head of a mature (mainly sensible ) country has to believe ( or pretend to ) in a man in the sky that micro manages us earthlings and hates any dissenters
Okay, the Sovereign becoming a RC was a big thing in the 16th and 17th centuries - in England and Scotland (and Wales and Ireland had to put up wiht it). Marie Stuart and James VII and II got the chop, literally or metaphorically, for it. So we have the same issue 300+ years on?
You forgot Charles I as well.
Although it didn’t bother people when it came to Charles II, possibly because he may have been a total philanderer and erratic wastrel but was at least not a total knobhead.
Whereas Charles III is a total philanderer, erratic wastrel, and total nobhead.
I thought he regal name wasn't going to be Charles.
I've read contradictory things, some say he will be, some say he'll be King George VII.
I would add three things to the list of drivers of the potential decline of the West:
(1) The death of empathy. That is, there's no understanding of why you might vote for Trump, or support Black Lives Matter, or feel that the State is threatening your religion, or care about trans-rights.
(2) The rise of media (and I include YouTube in this, but not politicalbetting) that *only* tells you what you want to hear. (See 1, and what this means for the death of empathy.)
(3) A belief that trolling your opponent is somehow acceptable behaviour.
Thanks Robert. I agree entirely.
I had in mind some of my own failings when writing this article, which I've also seen in others, and if you lay that down on top of the broader social trends we already have ample evidence for, and extrapolate them out to their natural conclusion, we end up in a dark place.
I hope recognising them is the first step to doing something about them, and arresting the change.
Imagine living in a country where that would exclude a person from holding such an office.
Imagine. Luckily our country is a constitutional monarchy so in practice, Heads of State will follow their family's religion, and no-one else is eligible to be Head of State regardless of faith.
If my understanding of the rules is right, if the heir chose to become catholic, they would not be allowed to become the monarch.
The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 removes any specifically anti-Catholic prejudice. Monarchs can't be Catholic, Buddhist, Jain, Methodist or Muslim or anything else because of the Head of the C of E thing.
Presumably then they cannot also be agnostic or athiest ? Which if you think about it is bonkers . The head of a mature (mainly sensible ) country has to believe ( or pretend to ) in a man in the sky that micro manages us earthlings and hates any dissenters
Okay, the Sovereign becoming a RC was a big thing in the 16th and 17th centuries - in England and Scotland (and Wales and Ireland had to put up wiht it). Marie Stuart and James VII and II got the chop, literally or metaphorically, for it. So we have the same issue 300+ years on?
You forgot Charles I as well.
Although it didn’t bother people when it came to Charles II, possibly because he may have been a total philanderer and erratic wastrel but was at least not a total knobhead.
Whereas Charles III is a total philanderer, erratic wastrel, and total nobhead.
Bit unfair to call him a total philanderer.
He slept with one woman.
Diana was unfaithful twice - once with a brain surgeon, and once with the entire officer corps of the British Army.
His persistent adultery with one woman drove the innocent rose that was Princess Diana to adultery.
Disgusting and disqualifying behaviour from the future Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
Remember Prince Charles wanted to be a tampon so he could spend all day inside Camilla Parker-Bowles. He's not right in the head.
Re: Coronavirus cases rising. I don't think it's about "super spreader" events before the lockdown (although that may have had some contribution).
I think it's simply that people have expectations that the outcome of this "lockdown" will replicate March/April. It won't (or at best will take MUCH longer) for a number of reasons:
1) most obviously, schools remain open. A major vector spreader, allowed to just keep spreading 2) as importantly perhaps there may (according to polling) be public support for the "lockdown" but i don't think there is real public buy-in. It's support along the lines of "the scientists say we should, so i suppose we have to". - there is less personal fear, and with the best will in the world "protecting others" is never the same motivator - in March/April there was the novelty of Zoom etc for everyone to get excited about. Many people are fed up of that now, they crave real social contact. - obviously loss of trust in the government reduces compliance
With the result that the prevailing approach (particularly among the 'low risk' groups, whether misguided or not) is "what can i do/get away with?", much less erring on the side of caution, and that is what people are doing. The contrast between the volume of people in town centres then and now is stark. Practically the only enforceable restriction on activity is the non-essential businesses that are shut (which in itself may be counterproductive). Beyond that most people are just continuing life as normal, to the extent that they can. Pubs with public open spaces nearby are doing a reasonable trade.
We desperately need a vaccine programme to start, to give the Government a plausible excuse to move away from lockdowns as a matter of policy.
I can't get past this paragraph: "And that’s before we get to those who don’t think a country is something we should be worried about governing at all: 29% of Britons surveyed this year felt that being British was unimportant to their identity and 23% didn’t think nationality is important at all."
I don't understand what this has to do with democracy. You can believe that nationality is unimportant -- as I do -- and be extremely concerned with tending and protecting democracy. Feeling like nationality is important is NOT a precondition to being a democrat. That paragraph is so strange I can't help thinking it's so poorly written that I'm getting a meaning completely other than the one that's intended.
Yes. That struck me too. First of all it is "Britons"...well one has always been able to prioritise English, Welsh, Scots, Irish, or even, God forbid European, above one's Britishness. It doesn't make you an anti-nation stater, let alone an anti-democrat.
True, but there is a high degree of overlap between those who don't think nationality is important at all.
I think shared group identities are important as it's what allows a rooted, stable human ecosystem to be both established and sustained.
In what way? He’s found a way to turn off caps lock at last?
He's showing off his anti Catholic bigotry, the sort of bigotry the British Royal family endorses.
Is there any evidence of the Royals opposing the 2013 Act? If not their bigotry consists only of being bound by the terms of the Act of Settlement 1701 which is binding on everybody, including you. Are you a bigot?
I'm an ardent Republican, I want to to overturn the Act of Settlement 1701.
If the Royals weren't such anti papists the Queen and others would split the roles of Head of State and Head of the Church of England.
See example how Her Majesty didn't make Head of the Commonwealth hereditary.
One of the reasons I don't celebrate Bonfire night is because of its inherent anti Catholic views, which is widespread in the UK.
It isn't up to her, it's up to her ministers.
When I were a lad in t'Lancashire, the C of E and RC primary schools in the village went on a bus trip once a week to the swimming pool at Southport. It was a double decker bus, and both schools strictly forbad their pupils from fraternising on the wrong deck. But that was then, and I don't think anti-papistry is much of a force in mainstream GB these days.
Imagine living in a country where that would exclude a person from holding such an office.
Imagine. Luckily our country is a constitutional monarchy so in practice, Heads of State will follow their family's religion, and no-one else is eligible to be Head of State regardless of faith.
If my understanding of the rules is right, if the heir chose to become catholic, they would not be allowed to become the monarch.
The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 removes any specifically anti-Catholic prejudice. Monarchs can't be Catholic, Buddhist, Jain, Methodist or Muslim or anything else because of the Head of the C of E thing.
Presumably then they cannot also be agnostic or athiest ? Which if you think about it is bonkers . The head of a mature (mainly sensible ) country has to believe ( or pretend to ) in a man in the sky that micro manages us earthlings and hates any dissenters
Okay, the Sovereign becoming a RC was a big thing in the 16th and 17th centuries - in England and Scotland (and Wales and Ireland had to put up wiht it). Marie Stuart and James VII and II got the chop, literally or metaphorically, for it. So we have the same issue 300+ years on?
You forgot Charles I as well.
Although it didn’t bother people when it came to Charles II, possibly because he may have been a total philanderer and erratic wastrel but was at least not a total knobhead.
Whereas Charles III is a total philanderer, erratic wastrel, and total nobhead.
Bit unfair to call him a total philanderer.
He slept with one woman.
Diana was unfaithful twice - once with a brain surgeon, and once with the entire officer corps of the British Army.
His persistent adultery with one woman drove the innocent rose that was Princess Diana to adultery.
Disgusting and disqualifying behaviour from the future Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
Remember Prince Charles wanted to be a tampon so he could spend all day inside Camilla Parker-Bowles. He's not right in the head.
"the innocent rose that was Princess Diana" - are you serious?
Imagine living in a country where that would exclude a person from holding such an office.
Imagine. Luckily our country is a constitutional monarchy so in practice, Heads of State will follow their family's religion, and no-one else is eligible to be Head of State regardless of faith.
Eh? Why would someone automatically follow their families religion? What if their parents have two different faiths?
Good question. Do the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh have two different faiths? If not, we can put off worrying about it for a few years.
I couldnt care less about the specific. I do find the presumptions of the lack of free will for the individuals involved very distasteful though.
For the most part, people follow the same religion as their parents, be that Christian or Jewish, Hindu or Muslim, Sikh or Atheist. The correlation is so high that free will rarely comes into it. The same is true to a lesser extent of politics.
Interestingly, less so nowadays, in politics, which is why it has become so fluid. For religion, there’s a good traffic between believing and not believing, but between various favours of fantastical belief, not so much.
Imagine living in a country where that would exclude a person from holding such an office.
Imagine. Luckily our country is a constitutional monarchy so in practice, Heads of State will follow their family's religion, and no-one else is eligible to be Head of State regardless of faith.
If my understanding of the rules is right, if the heir chose to become catholic, they would not be allowed to become the monarch.
The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 removes any specifically anti-Catholic prejudice. Monarchs can't be Catholic, Buddhist, Jain, Methodist or Muslim or anything else because of the Head of the C of E thing.
Presumably then they cannot also be agnostic or athiest ? Which if you think about it is bonkers . The head of a mature (mainly sensible ) country has to believe ( or pretend to ) in a man in the sky that micro manages us earthlings and hates any dissenters
Okay, the Sovereign becoming a RC was a big thing in the 16th and 17th centuries - in England and Scotland (and Wales and Ireland had to put up wiht it). Marie Stuart and James VII and II got the chop, literally or metaphorically, for it. So we have the same issue 300+ years on?
You forgot Charles I as well.
Although it didn’t bother people when it came to Charles II, possibly because he may have been a total philanderer and erratic wastrel but was at least not a total knobhead.
Charles I? Was he a RC too? Or am I missing something?
Another weird paragraph: "We also need to demonstrate our democratic system can manage crises better than everywhere else. Therefore, it is concerning that the West has struggled to escape the cycle of lockdowns over Covid, whilst life in Asia has largely gone back to normal. Things like this further undermine confidence in the system and weaken our ability to provide global leadership to deliver a democratic future."
The West is not synonymous with democracy. Some of the Asian countries that have coped better with Covid-19 are as democratic as Western countries that have struggled. The USA is no more a democracy than South Korea. Ditto Belgium and Singapore.
Yes, there are different forms of democracy but Japan, Taiwan and South Korea were only able to become democracies because of the American umbrella, which has both a hard and soft edge to it. And, it should be noted, that they have slightly different views on individual liberty to European or Anglosphere democracies - ones that allowed them to take far stronger action on Covid than our population would have accepted here.
They could easily slip back, keeping "the bits that work", and ditching the democratic aspects, particularly if the Western model is seen to fail, and America turns in on itself and withdraws from the region, and so it is therefore essential that it does not.
If you listen to EdmundinTokyo, the Japanese have barely taken any Government directed action on Covid at all, let alone things that "wouldn't have been accepted here". In fact their Government was on the record in stating that lockdowns were unconstitutional. Whether we would have followed Government advice to the same extent is another matter - but that is a question of national character, not the nature of our democracy.
Excellent article. Thank you. An issue is what democracy is. Is it the best possible way of running things and to be defended and protected at all costs. Or is it a stage of development reached for the UK after centuries of other things which will in due time morph into something else.
In a sense democracy is an obvious piece of logic. We seem to be born sort of equal. People want to get what they want. How do you know what they want unless they are asked. How do you ask them without some sort of democracy process (of which there are infinite variants. I'm sure the North Koreans think they have one of them).
But suppose there are things people want even more like security, protection, freedom from having everything they have got stolen, freedom from invasion from enemies, enough food, a roof over your head, clothes. Because this is true Thomas Hobbes developed the 'strong man' theory of government; ie obey the guy at the top because he is tough enough to have got there and no other protection is possible.
When democracy fails at providing what the 'strong man' provides - and I like the fact that it has done pretty well at doing it for quite a time - it will fail and be replaced.
People can talk about Athens of 5th century BCE. But how long was it from Pericles to rule by Alexander the Great's appointee?
Not particularly long. And you're absolutely right: this is Maslow's hierarchy of needs. I freely concede that point in the article - if democracy doesn't deliver the basics then it will be under threat.
My point is that no alternative will be better, and in fact risk being far worse.
Imagine living in a country where that would exclude a person from holding such an office.
Imagine. Luckily our country is a constitutional monarchy so in practice, Heads of State will follow their family's religion, and no-one else is eligible to be Head of State regardless of faith.
If my understanding of the rules is right, if the heir chose to become catholic, they would not be allowed to become the monarch.
The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 removes any specifically anti-Catholic prejudice. Monarchs can't be Catholic, Buddhist, Jain, Methodist or Muslim or anything else because of the Head of the C of E thing.
Presumably then they cannot also be agnostic or athiest ? Which if you think about it is bonkers . The head of a mature (mainly sensible ) country has to believe ( or pretend to ) in a man in the sky that micro manages us earthlings and hates any dissenters
Okay, the Sovereign becoming a RC was a big thing in the 16th and 17th centuries - in England and Scotland (and Wales and Ireland had to put up wiht it). Marie Stuart and James VII and II got the chop, literally or metaphorically, for it. So we have the same issue 300+ years on?
You forgot Charles I as well.
Although it didn’t bother people when it came to Charles II, possibly because he may have been a total philanderer and erratic wastrel but was at least not a total knobhead.
Whereas Charles III is a total philanderer, erratic wastrel, and total nobhead.
Bit unfair to call him a total philanderer.
He slept with one woman.
Diana was unfaithful twice - once with a brain surgeon, and once with the entire officer corps of the British Army.
His persistent adultery with one woman drove the innocent rose that was Princess Diana to adultery.
Disgusting and disqualifying behaviour from the future Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
Remember Prince Charles wanted to be a tampon so he could spend all day inside Camilla Parker-Bowles. He's not right in the head.
"the innocent rose that was Princess Diana" - are you serious?
She was until the Royal Family ruined her, this is the family that thinks it is ok to hang around with convicted paedos.
FWIW judging by those who have seen the latest episodes of The Crown it isn't doing wonders for the reputation of the fornicator and adulterer that is Prince Charles.
Oh come on you sound like some gossipy moral overlord.
A small stylistic point. In his excellent article CR keeps saying 'We must do so and so.'
When he says 'We' does he actually mean to include himself in the strictures. If so, he has a project on for himself. If not, he doesn't mean 'We' he means 'You'. Guardian journalists do it all the time.
I mean to include myself, as well as everyone else.
In what way? He’s found a way to turn off caps lock at last?
He's showing off his anti Catholic bigotry, the sort of bigotry the British Royal family endorses.
Is there any evidence of the Royals opposing the 2013 Act? If not their bigotry consists only of being bound by the terms of the Act of Settlement 1701 which is binding on everybody, including you. Are you a bigot?
I'm an ardent Republican, I want to to overturn the Act of Settlement 1701.
If the Royals weren't such anti papists the Queen and others would split the roles of Head of State and Head of the Church of England.
See example how Her Majesty didn't make Head of the Commonwealth hereditary.
One of the reasons I don't celebrate Bonfire night is because of its inherent anti Catholic views, which is widespread in the UK.
It isn't up to her, it's up to her ministers.
When I were a lad in t'Lancashire, the C of E and RC primary schools in the village went on a bus trip once a week to the swimming pool at Southport. It was a double decker bus, and both schools strictly forbad their pupils from fraternising on the wrong deck. But that was then, and I don't think anti-papistry is much of a force in mainstream GB these days.
Sectarianism is alive and kicking in parts of Scotland.
But for Her Majesty she could make her position known publicly, like she did during the Indyref.
Comments
On postal voting.........
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUman3tZYpY&ab_channel=DailyMail
Steve Walker would swear his mother was a chimpanzee if he saw some advantage in it for Corbyn.
Heck, even his own lawyer said the website is essentially a tissue of lies.
All of this is quite possibly constitutionally OK - they've impeached and chucked out a President. But....
One of the things that is often missed in the tale of the Roman Republic, is that it was an Oligarchy (the Senate) vs the Tribunes of the People that was the true battle. With the Senate ultimately declaring the right to murder anyone who broke their *interpretation* of the Constitution.
There was a time when you could confidently state that given the choice between holding power or protecting the system, most leading politicians would see protecting the system as the most important thing.
That disappeared a long time ago.
Somebody posted this a few weeks ago, when people were arguing that the Govt should not have to defend its Covid response to the Commons. Nothing wrong with repeating IMO. How many in the current Govt would argue the same thing today.
"29th January 1942: Winston Churchill wins vote of ‘Confidence’ in British Parliament
Sir, in no country in the world at the present time could a Government conducting a war be exposed to such a stress. No dictator country fighting for its life would dare allow such a discussion. They do not even allow the free transmission of news to their peoples, or even the reception of foreign broadcasts, to which we are all now so hardily inured.
Even in the great democracy of the United States the Executive does not stand in the same direct, immediate, day-to-day relation to the Legislative body as we do. The President, in many vital respects independent of the Legislature, Commander-in-Chief of all the Forces of the Republic, has a fixed term of office, during which his authority can scarcely be impugned.
But here in this country the House of Commons is master all the time of the life of the Administration. Against its decisions there is only one appeal, the appeal to the nation, an appeal it is very difficult to make under the conditions of a war like this, with a register like this, with air raids and invasion always hanging over us.
He concluded the debate:
On behalf of His Majesty’s Government, I make no complaint of the Debate, I offer no apologies, I offer no excuses, I make no promises. In no way have I mitigated the sense of danger and impending misfortunes of a minor character and of a severe character which still hang over us, but at the same time I avow my confidence, never stronger than at this moment, that we shall bring this conflict to and end in a manner agreeable to the interests of our country, and in a manner agreeable to the future of the world.
I have finished. Let every man act now in accordance with what he thinks is his duty in harmony with his heart and conscience."
I think your sums consistently under estimate by perhaps 0.2 or so.
Imagine living in a country where that would exclude a person from holding such an office.
The point is to have a a common legal, ethical and social framework within which you have your differences.
So, Labour, Conservative and Liberal parties discussing what to do Good
Hot Trod Bad
You will note, that while they are lower than some other guesstimates* of R, they are still above 1. It doesn't take much above 1 for cases to rise rapidly.
*The closest thing we can get for a true R number would be derived from the ONS (and similar) infection surveys.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2020/02/19/b6ab5/2?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=daily_questions&utm_campaign=question_2
Tiger Woods and Bill Clinton are playing at a charity golf tournament.
Bill sees Tiger at the urinals and peeks down to see that Tiger is very well endowed.
"Tiger, what is your secret?" Bill asks.
Tiger responds: "It's really simple. Every night before I get in bed I whack my dick against my bedpost 3 times. It's been working for me for years!"
r>
Bill goes home that night and as he's about to get into bed, he decides to try Tiger's trick. So he takes his dick out and whacks in on the bedpost 3 times.
Hillary shuffles in bed -- "Tiger...is that you?"
I note the author's repeated pleas for tolerance and respect for others' views. For example: All the issues we face are valid: concerns over climate change, generational and racial inequality, personal identity, national identity, sovereignty, mass migration, border control, and global stability. We need solutions for all of them, and to treat one another with respect, and several other similar sentiments.
So I take it that the author will now desist from some of his more lurid full-frontal assaults on those who don't share his views, and perhaps will show a bit more tolerance of 'wokeness'?
EDIT: I didn't read your post properly, despite its short length. Sandy's point, and mine, still stand. It's not specific to catholicism, but catholics are excluded.
The idea is to promote liberal democracy, and deprecate non-liberal democratic systems. Hence vigilantes = bad.
The R is 1.1 in England as calculated from ONS, daily case and hospital admissions data, the R is 0.95 as calculated from the realtime ZOE app data.
If we were at R 1.3 then we'd be seeing a much steeper rise in daily cases than we are at the moment, 10 cases become 13 then 17 then 22. That's not what's happening, we haven't seen cases more than double.
Or is that just something for the rest of us?
I said that those who believe in nations need to be far more comfortable with those who have multiple or complex identities (not just one) and those who do not need should recognise that nations are the building blocks which allow an internationalist order to have effect, which I believe is rejecting dogma from both sides.
"The model we had was everyone share the broad values of being British, what we did not expect that there would be those who would unwisely suggest that, for example, sharia law should be applied in this country, or the punishment of stoning for adultery might be looked at. It never occurred to us that there might be those kind of unwise challenges to the core values of a liberal democratic society, and I can very much remember towards the end of Roy Jenkins life him saying to me "We just didn't realise that, in the struggle for race equality, we would also have to struggle for a secular society, and for the universal values of human rights"
If the Royals weren't such anti papists the Queen and others would split the roles of Head of State and Head of the Church of England.
See example how Her Majesty didn't make Head of the Commonwealth hereditary.
One of the reasons I don't celebrate Bonfire night is because of its inherent anti Catholic views, which is widespread in the UK.
https://twitter.com/COVID19actuary/status/1327669903449583617?s=09
I suspect the parallel has already been made, but people thought Physics was all over bar the loose-ends in the 1890s.
Ideological thought, or politics, evolves really very slowly, but it does evolve. The politics of now are really quite different to those of previous ages, although it doesn't really feel that way - seems just more baggage.
Politics in the future really will have to deal with a lot of issues that have appeared in SF. Animal rights, AI rights, to what extent can we mess up other worlds? How self-engineering can we do?
Easily another few thousand years of backstabbing, corruption, grandstanding, and lies to build upon that base. Maybe even some actual progress too.
Interestingly, his own position (evidenced by his posts, rather than the lead) as an anti-woke nationalist owes much to the counter-reaction to ‘the end of history’, beginning in Eastern Europe, that rejected the view that the only future path (other than Islamic terrorism) lay in imitating a triumphant United States.
So successful has this counter-reaction been that it actually captured the White House, until just now.
The lead misses that the challenge to the dominance of the West, and the future for democracy, are actually very separate (if overlapping) issues.
We are familiar with the argument that the rise of China (and after it India, Brazil and Nigeria) threatens US economic dominance. The counter-argument is that, in the fields that appear to be critical to our emerging future - IT, AI, genomics, etc. - the US (together with key allies) still commands a dominance of both intellectual and industrial capacity. China and Russia still rely on ripping off whatever they can steal.
For future democracy - people overlook that its key character is competition, dispersal of power and influence, and actually relies more upon having an independent media, and independent judiciary, and other powerful civil society institutions (all the things Casino and his Tories are busily undermining) than the shape of our politics.
They could easily slip back, keeping "the bits that work", and ditching the democratic aspects, particularly if the Western model is seen to fail, and America turns in on itself and withdraws from the region, and so it is therefore essential that it does not.
Nothing to add really - just that we share the same concerns.
Although it didn’t bother people when it came to Charles II, possibly because he may have been a total philanderer and erratic wastrel but was at least not a total knobhead.
After all, for many years American policy was to support dictators amenable to US interests in those countries - Syngman Rhee and Chiang Kai-Shek.
He slept with one woman.
Diana was unfaithful twice - once with a brain surgeon, and once with the entire officer corps of the British Army.
I had in mind some of my own failings when writing this article, which I've also seen in others, and if you lay that down on top of the broader social trends we already have ample evidence for, and extrapolate them out to their natural conclusion, we end up in a dark place.
I hope recognising them is the first step to doing something about them, and arresting the change.
Disgusting and disqualifying behaviour from the future Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
Remember Prince Charles wanted to be a tampon so he could spend all day inside Camilla Parker-Bowles. He's not right in the head.
I think it's simply that people have expectations that the outcome of this "lockdown" will replicate March/April. It won't (or at best will take MUCH longer) for a number of reasons:
1) most obviously, schools remain open. A major vector spreader, allowed to just keep spreading
2) as importantly perhaps there may (according to polling) be public support for the "lockdown" but i don't think there is real public buy-in. It's support along the lines of "the scientists say we should, so i suppose we have to".
- there is less personal fear, and with the best will in the world "protecting others" is never the same motivator
- in March/April there was the novelty of Zoom etc for everyone to get excited about. Many people are fed up of that now, they crave real social contact.
- obviously loss of trust in the government reduces compliance
With the result that the prevailing approach (particularly among the 'low risk' groups, whether misguided or not) is "what can i do/get away with?", much less erring on the side of caution, and that is what people are doing. The contrast between the volume of people in town centres then and now is stark. Practically the only enforceable restriction on activity is the non-essential businesses that are shut (which in itself may be counterproductive). Beyond that most people are just continuing life as normal, to the extent that they can. Pubs with public open spaces nearby are doing a reasonable trade.
We desperately need a vaccine programme to start, to give the Government a plausible excuse to move away from lockdowns as a matter of policy.
I think shared group identities are important as it's what allows a rooted, stable human ecosystem to be both established and sustained.
When I were a lad in t'Lancashire, the C of E and RC primary schools in the village went on a bus trip once a week to the swimming pool at Southport. It was a double decker bus, and both schools strictly forbad their pupils from fraternising on the wrong deck. But that was then, and I don't think anti-papistry is much of a force in mainstream GB these days.
Yes, I do much of this. I need to get much much better.
Charles I? Was he a RC too? Or am I missing something?
My point is that no alternative will be better, and in fact risk being far worse.
But for Her Majesty she could make her position known publicly, like she did during the Indyref.