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.
Aren’t you watching The Crown, season four, released just this morning on Netflix? HMQ realised that Andrew was dodgy way back in the early 1980s.
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.
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.
I would argue that a superficial version of empathy - where "I feels" is supposed to be the winning argument - is a component of this.
I was rather struck by the responses shown in a wargame of a terrorist attack in London, with various minor politicians taking minor roles. Not sure who broadcast it.
The people in question managed to create a disaster that killed quite a lot of people un-necassarily. They were quite clear in the game post-mortem that they acted correctly - because valuing a small number of live over a much greater group would have... made them *feel bad*
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.
The future Supreme Governor of the Church of England has to set the tone.
The other thing that annoys me about Prince Charles is his blatant hypocrisy.
When James Hewitt violated the wife of a brother officer the rest of the armed forces pretty much excommunicated him.
But when Prince Charles violated the wife of a brother officer he wasn't excommunicated.
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?
He wasn’t, instead being what we would think of as a very High Church Anglican. However, his wife was a Roman Catholic, and between the two that was enough for most of his enemies to claim he was a closet Catholic.
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.
Aren’t you watching The Crown, season four, released just this morning on Netflix? HMQ realised that Andrew was dodgy way back in the early 1980s.
I wonder how broad the paragraph about defending national institutions goes. I hope the BBC, NHS and trade unions fall within its scope.
Actually, yes - I've increasing been reflecting on this and I think the UK would be poorer, weaker and have less global influence without the BBC. However, that doesn't mean it shouldn't reform and I think it should.
Further, I think the NHS could do much much better, and I am not particularly wedded to its current model (I am, for instance, much more impressed by the German model) but I don't think the institution should be ripped to pieces.
Trade unions, local communities, voluntary societies, sports clubs, working men's clubs, are all part of what builds up the ecosystem of civil society.
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.
Aren’t you watching The Crown, season four, released just this morning on Netflix? HMQ realised that Andrew was dodgy way back in the early 1980s.
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.
Aren’t you watching The Crown, season four, released just this morning on Netflix? HMQ realised that Andrew was dodgy way back in the early 1980s.
You do know that it's not a documentary, don't you?
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.
You are getting parnoid and a bit odd
I believe in taking back control from our unelected rulers.
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?
That's true. And I live in Scotland, remember. Just consider the elements of Unionism in Scotland. But I didn't wan tto go there just now (decent Australian red and free range pork loin on the grill). I was thinking specifically of the Sovereign.
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.
Aren’t you watching The Crown, season four, released just this morning on Netflix? HMQ realised that Andrew was dodgy way back in the early 1980s.
Is the Crown that authentic and all knowing then?
Who can say? But it’s amusing seeing the Americans shoehorn our history into their preconceived narrative. And it’s very well made, and the casting and performances are superlative.
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?
He wasn’t, instead being what we would think of as a very High Church Anglican. However, his wife was a Roman Catholic, and between the two that was enough for most of his enemies to claim he was a closet Catholic.
I wonder how broad the paragraph about defending national institutions goes. I hope the BBC, NHS and trade unions fall within its scope.
Actually, yes - I've increasing been reflecting on this and I think the UK would be poorer, weaker and have less global influence without the BBC. However, that doesn't mean it shouldn't reform and I think it should.
Further, I think the NHS could do much much better, and I am not particularly wedded to its current model (I am, for instance, much more impressed by the German model) but I don't think the institution should be ripped to pieces.
Trade unions, local communities, voluntary societies, sports clubs, working men's clubs, are all part of what builds up the ecosystem of civil society.
Yes they spread power around . The problem with state power is that it is centralised and too much power is in the hand of too few . Thats not to say the BBC etc has their faults (personally I think the BBC has lot the plot over the last 3 years) but at least power is segmented and spread by having such institutions
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.
You are getting parnoid and a bit odd
I believe in taking back control from our unelected rulers.
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.
Part of the problem is that our collective understanding of what "the basics" are has grown over time, and is possibly exceeding our collective ability to deliver them. Whilst 2020 has been a rotten year, it's not obvious that there is a time in the past which was objectively better at delivering a good life to as many people as happens now. And that's one of the things that makes life hard.
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.
You are getting parnoid and a bit odd
I believe in taking back control from our unelected rulers.
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.
It was full-fat Periclean style democracy, not an Alexandrian appointee, which executed Socrates for - I am summarising here - shits and giggles, which must rank among the worst atrocities carried out by any system, ever. Fifth century Athens really anyway wasn't what it is cracked up to be - yes OTOH the Parthenon and those interminable fucking tragedies, but also yes the Peloponnesian war and a constant struggle of democrats vs oligarchs. We rightly as a polity reject direct democracy in favour of a democratically selected oligarchy, with the occasional utterly disastrous deviation.
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.
Aren’t you watching The Crown, season four, released just this morning on Netflix? HMQ realised that Andrew was dodgy way back in the early 1980s.
You do know that it's not a documentary, don't you?
Everything the US produces sticks strictly to accurate history, surely?
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.
Hadn't thouyght of that. That is a very good point.
Looking at the House results, it looks like Dem 223 - GOP 213 for a Dem majority of 10. That's a really, really poor result and it means Biden is going to be reliant on moderate GOP congressional representatives to chart a moderate path because the hard left of the Dems won't play ball. It also helps with the probable Senate minority he will be facing and definite one in 2022 and probable house minority as well.
Have to say, I'm eating my words over Biden being the worst candidate. The house vs presidential vote spread shows the value of picking cookie cutter candidate like Biden.
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?
He was very heavily leaning that way, hence the falling out over the new liturgy of Archbishop Laud, particularly with the Scottish Covenantors and English Calvinists.
Worth noting that while these disputes appear to be obscure theological issues to modern eyes, they were class warfare expressed in theological language. Episcopelianism reinforced the powers of the Aristocracy and their Bishops to enforce teachings, while Presbyterians and Congregationalists believed that the power to interpret the Gospels was via direct study, rather than second hand. Hence the importance of education, self study and an individual relationship with God.
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.
There is certainly a radical view that religions and nations are passé and actually rather chauvinist - things that are intrinsically reactionary, an obstacle to progress and actually hold us back.
I don't agree. You can have faith and love your country, and also respect and admire those of others; just as loving your own family, friends and community doesn't mean you hate others.
If you took it all away in the name of stopping hate you'd risk taking away all love at the same time, which would be a recipe for anarchy.
I wonder how broad the paragraph about defending national institutions goes. I hope the BBC, NHS and trade unions fall within its scope.
Actually, yes - I've increasing been reflecting on this and I think the UK would be poorer, weaker and have less global influence without the BBC. However, that doesn't mean it shouldn't reform and I think it should.
Further, I think the NHS could do much much better, and I am not particularly wedded to its current model (I am, for instance, much more impressed by the German model) but I don't think the institution should be ripped to pieces.
Trade unions, local communities, voluntary societies, sports clubs, working men's clubs, are all part of what builds up the ecosystem of civil society.
Yes they spread power around . The problem with state power is that it is centralised and too much power is in the hand of too few . Thats not to say the BBC etc has their faults (personally I think the BBC has lot the plot over the last 3 years) but at least power is segmented and spread by having such institutions
‘tis Britain’s continuing mistake. Our history has gifted us (cursed us with) the most centralised governance of any contemporary western state. Such that even governments that come to power proclaiming its weaknesses cannot resist pulling all the levers they find when they come to power.
We desperately need a government that establishes a new constitutional settlement with entrenched power and rights (and obligations) for local government at all levels. Yet how on earth are we ever to get those who win power to give it away?
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.
It is for now, but we've seen in the last 2 weeks the losing side attack the entire legitimacy of the system.
Any democracy can work, of any shape or size, but people have to identify with the demos first in which it sits, or they won't accept or acquiesce in its authority.
Simplistically speaking, this is how independence movements break out - even in democratic countries.
But what has belief in the nation state got to do with democracy? Nations are entirely arbitary. As a native of southern England I have no more in common with someone from Yorkshire than I do someone from California, Australia or Denmark (to pick a few examples).
(Not that I have anything against Yorkshire folk - it's just an example.)
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.
The future Supreme Governor of the Church of England has to set the tone.
The other thing that annoys me about Prince Charles is his blatant hypocrisy.
When James Hewitt violated the wife of a brother officer the rest of the armed forces pretty much excommunicated him.
But when Prince Charles violated the wife of a brother officer he wasn't excommunicated.
"Violate" is probably not what you mean.
I do just wonder how much quieter PB would be if a watertight no-adulterers clause were written in to the right to post here.
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?
He was very heavily leaning that way, hence the falling out over the new liturgy of Archbishop Laud, particularly with the Scottish Covenantors and English Calvinists.
Worth noting that while these disputes appear to be obscure theological issues to modern eyes, they were class warfare expressed in theological language. Episcopelianism reinforced the powers of the Aristocracy and their Bishops to enforce teachings, while Presbyterians and Congregationalists believed that the power to interpret the Gospels was via direct study, rather than second hand. Hence the importance of education, self study and an individual relationship with God.
It went on into the 19th century, come to thinkj of it - the Disruption of the Kirk of Scotland was in part about thje parishioners' demand to choose their ministers rather than have the lairds do it for them. It ended up also on class warfare lines, with the Highland peasants and Lowlands middle classes in the new Free Kirk and the lairds and their employees in the Auld Kirk (when the lairds weren't Piskies, of course). And the Liberal/Tory vote split followed much the same division. Hence Gladstone's care to sort out the crofting system. Though by then the FC minister mannies had mostly reverted to their class politics. So Charles Kennedy and Alister Carmichael owed their MP's seats to a now obscure question of parish administration ...
But what has belief in the nation state got to do with democracy? Nations are entirely arbitary. As a native of southern England I have no more in common with someone from Yorkshire than I do someone from California, Australia or Denmark (to pick a few examples).
(Not that I have anything against Yorkshire folk - it's just an example.)
You share a currency with Yorkshire. That is a fundamental part of life that doesn't get much attention these days.
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.
There is certainly a radical view that religions and nations are passé and actually rather chauvinist - things that are intrinsically reactionary, an obstacle to progress and actually hold us back.
I don't agree. You can have faith and love your country, and also respect and admire those of others; just as loving your own family, friends and community doesn't mean you hate others.
If you took it all away in the name of stopping hate you'd risk taking away all love at the same time, which would be a recipe for anarchy.
Weak religion is harmless, and the rest of us can sit back and tolerate those believers pursuing their hobby.
But does anyone really believe that if Christianity still held the sway that islam holds in most of its geography, those of us who dared to express a contrary view wouldn’t still be facing the horrors that freethinkers in previous European generations had to endure?
Looking at the House results, it looks like Dem 223 - GOP 213 for a Dem majority of 10. That's a really, really poor result and it means Biden is going to be reliant on moderate GOP congressional representatives to chart a moderate path because the hard left of the Dems won't play ball. It also helps with the probable Senate minority he will be facing and definite one in 2022 and probable house minority as well.
Have to say, I'm eating my words over Biden being the worst candidate. The house vs presidential vote spread shows the value of picking cookie cutter candidate like Biden.
I suspect that the US politicians in Congress failed to understand how much their success in 2018 was an anti-Trump vote. In 2018 voting Democrat was the only way to express that view.
In 2020, given the chance to split their votes and express their anti-trump vote directly rather than by proxy, they did so. It could be noted, that whilst they are disappointed, they are still fighting permanently against pretty significant odds because of the longstanding gerrymandering disadvantage.
But what has belief in the nation state got to do with democracy? Nations are entirely arbitary. As a native of southern England I have no more in common with someone from Yorkshire than I do someone from California, Australia or Denmark (to pick a few examples).
(Not that I have anything against Yorkshire folk - it's just an example.)
But what has belief in the nation state got to do with democracy? Nations are entirely arbitary. As a native of southern England I have no more in common with someone from Yorkshire than I do someone from California, Australia or Denmark (to pick a few examples).
(Not that I have anything against Yorkshire folk - it's just an example.)
Someone in California doesn't pay taxes to the same Treasury that you do or live under the same laws. Someone in Yorkshire does.
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.
If what you said was true we wouldnt have moved from god fearing Christians to largely secular whilst still enjoying some Christian traditions and festivals within a century.
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.
There is certainly a radical view that religions and nations are passé and actually rather chauvinist - things that are intrinsically reactionary, an obstacle to progress and actually hold us back.
I don't agree. You can have faith and love your country, and also respect and admire those of others; just as loving your own family, friends and community doesn't mean you hate others.
If you took it all away in the name of stopping hate you'd risk taking away all love at the same time, which would be a recipe for anarchy.
Weak religion is harmless, and the rest of us can sit back and tolerate those believers pursuing their hobby.
But does anyone really believe that if Christianity still held the sway that islam holds in most of its geography, those of us who dared to express a contrary view wouldn’t still be facing the horrors that freethinkers in previous European generations had to endure?
Religion is not about love (that was just spin) it is about control
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.
The future Supreme Governor of the Church of England has to set the tone.
The other thing that annoys me about Prince Charles is his blatant hypocrisy.
When James Hewitt violated the wife of a brother officer the rest of the armed forces pretty much excommunicated him.
But when Prince Charles violated the wife of a brother officer he wasn't excommunicated.
"Violate" is probably not what you mean.
I do just wonder how much quieter PB would be if a watertight no-adulterers clause were written in to the right to post here.
My OED's second definition.
'Treat (something sacred) with irreverence or disrespect.'
Looking at the House results, it looks like Dem 223 - GOP 213 for a Dem majority of 10. That's a really, really poor result and it means Biden is going to be reliant on moderate GOP congressional representatives to chart a moderate path because the hard left of the Dems won't play ball. It also helps with the probable Senate minority he will be facing and definite one in 2022 and probable house minority as well.
Have to say, I'm eating my words over Biden being the worst candidate. The house vs presidential vote spread shows the value of picking cookie cutter candidate like Biden.
Given past form, i think he really needs to win the two Georgia seats if he wants to have any success in the bipartisan approach. The Republicans are far more likely to work with him if they don't have the absolute power to block him. The "far left" as you put it are hardly likely to have any influence in the Senate under any circumstances.
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.
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.
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'?
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'?
Yes on the first bit, and on the second I support equality and fairness to all - my objection to "Wokeness" is precisely because I think it's (largely) well-meaning people not seeing how political and divisive their approach to that can be, particularly in responding to criticism toward it.
I will try, though, to be more measured with my own criticisms.
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.
I'll skip over the political stuff, and I hope you saw in my thread header that I emphasised the importance of a free media and independent judiciary and stressed these should not be attacked.
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'?
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'?
Yes on the first bit, and on the second I support equality and fairness to all - my objection to "Wokeness" is precisely because I think it's (largely) well-meaning people not seeing how political and divisive their approach to that can be, particularly in responding to criticism toward it.
I will try, though, to be more measured with my own criticisms.
I think it helps to consider 'wokeness' (and political correctness that preceeded it) as 'informed politeness'.
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'?
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'?
Yes on the first bit, and on the second I support equality and fairness to all - my objection to "Wokeness" is precisely because I think it's (largely) well-meaning people not seeing how political and divisive their approach to that can be, particularly in responding to criticism toward it.
I will try, though, to be more measured with my own criticisms.
I think it helps to consider 'wokeness' (and political correctness that preceeded it) as 'informed politeness'.
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.
I don't agree with that. Taiwan would have been taken by China well over 20 years ago without American support, and South Korea would be part of a unified People's Republic of Korea nearly 70 years ago.
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?
Having her lady garden given the once over by a royal gynecologist for signs of defilement may have coloured her subsequent views.
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.
I would argue that a superficial version of empathy - where "I feels" is supposed to be the winning argument - is a component of this.
I was rather struck by the responses shown in a wargame of a terrorist attack in London, with various minor politicians taking minor roles. Not sure who broadcast it.
The people in question managed to create a disaster that killed quite a lot of people un-necassarily. They were quite clear in the game post-mortem that they acted correctly - because valuing a small number of live over a much greater group would have... made them *feel bad*
I think, in matters of governance, empathy plays a part as must clear-headed realism. And you have to be tough when you have to be tough.
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.
There is certainly a radical view that religions and nations are passé and actually rather chauvinist - things that are intrinsically reactionary, an obstacle to progress and actually hold us back.
I don't agree. You can have faith and love your country, and also respect and admire those of others; just as loving your own family, friends and community doesn't mean you hate others.
If you took it all away in the name of stopping hate you'd risk taking away all love at the same time, which would be a recipe for anarchy.
Weak religion is harmless, and the rest of us can sit back and tolerate those believers pursuing their hobby.
But does anyone really believe that if Christianity still held the sway that islam holds in most of its geography, those of us who dared to express a contrary view wouldn’t still be facing the horrors that freethinkers in previous European generations had to endure?
Religion is not about love (that was just spin) it is about control
We are lucky that, in our generation, religion has no control, and simply flounders about peddling its nonsense in search of a purpose.
Many of our previous generations, and many alive in the world today, aren’t so fortunate.
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.
Yep. Taiwan holds the world record for longest Martial Law in history. The "White Terror" took place at the height of US influence. As did a huge amount of commercial child abuse under the auspices of the US military when it was an "R+R" location during the Vietnam War.
Am I the only political activist here who believes Farage and Tice simply invented all that crap? I campaigned in that Peterborough vote. I neither saw nor sniffed a hint of any of that: among fellow-LDs campaigning or LDs commiserating afterwards. And unlike Farage &Tice, those LDs had spent months on the ground. And had no reason for lying.
Unlike F&T, of course, they had no need to lie to explain away defeat. We weren't surprised, we didn't have to justify the pointless purchase of ridiculously expensive campaigning technology and we didn't have to sustain a myth about our electoral brilliance.
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?
That's true. And I live in Scotland, remember. Just consider the elements of Unionism in Scotland. But I didn't wan tto go there just now (decent Australian red and free range pork loin on the grill). I was thinking specifically of the Sovereign.
Yes the sectarian unionists are still living in the dark ages and boy do they love their Butcher's Apron
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.
I'll skip over the political stuff, and I hope you saw in my thread header that I emphasised the importance of a free media and independent judiciary and stressed these should not be attacked.
It would be good if the free media could also reciprocate with their need to be a responsible media at the same time. In acknowledgement that they have great power, and those with great power should not abuse it.
But what has belief in the nation state got to do with democracy? Nations are entirely arbitary. As a native of southern England I have no more in common with someone from Yorkshire than I do someone from California, Australia or Denmark (to pick a few examples).
(Not that I have anything against Yorkshire folk - it's just an example.)
You share a currency with Yorkshire. That is a fundamental part of life that doesn't get much attention these days.
That's arbitary though. I don't get any meaningful choice over the currency in use locally. Personally, I'd be just as happy (or rather, unbothered) if we used the US dollar, Aus dollare or Euro here in Dorset.
(@Carnyx makes a good point about Marmite though. I hadn't considered that. Maybe the UK should be renamed Marmitia?)
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'?
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'?
Yes on the first bit, and on the second I support equality and fairness to all - my objection to "Wokeness" is precisely because I think it's (largely) well-meaning people not seeing how political and divisive their approach to that can be, particularly in responding to criticism toward it.
I will try, though, to be more measured with my own criticisms.
I think it helps to consider 'wokeness' (and political correctness that preceeded it) as 'informed politeness'.
If that's all that it was then I'd agree with you.
I don't want to get sucked into this now but I don't think tearing down statues or hectoring people that they have white privilege is part of that.
Looking at the House results, it looks like Dem 223 - GOP 213 for a Dem majority of 10. That's a really, really poor result and it means Biden is going to be reliant on moderate GOP congressional representatives to chart a moderate path because the hard left of the Dems won't play ball. It also helps with the probable Senate minority he will be facing and definite one in 2022 and probable house minority as well.
Have to say, I'm eating my words over Biden being the worst candidate. The house vs presidential vote spread shows the value of picking cookie cutter candidate like Biden.
Surely that depends on whether it is the Presidential result or the House results that are the anomaly; whether Biden overachieved at the top of the ticket or underachieved down-ballot. If the latter, then Biden was an appalling candidate.
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'?
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'?
Yes on the first bit, and on the second I support equality and fairness to all - my objection to "Wokeness" is precisely because I think it's (largely) well-meaning people not seeing how political and divisive their approach to that can be, particularly in responding to criticism toward it.
I will try, though, to be more measured with my own criticisms.
I think it helps to consider 'wokeness' (and political correctness that preceeded it) as 'informed politeness'.
If that's all that it was then I'd agree with you.
I don't want to get sucked into this now but I don't think tearing down statues or hectoring people that they have white privilege is part of that.
For sure. There isn’t a strand of human philosophy that hasn’t overshot.
The mistake is condemning the entirety for the failings of the extreme.
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.
There is certainly a radical view that religions and nations are passé and actually rather chauvinist - things that are intrinsically reactionary, an obstacle to progress and actually hold us back.
I don't agree. You can have faith and love your country, and also respect and admire those of others; just as loving your own family, friends and community doesn't mean you hate others.
If you took it all away in the name of stopping hate you'd risk taking away all love at the same time, which would be a recipe for anarchy.
Weak religion is harmless, and the rest of us can sit back and tolerate those believers pursuing their hobby.
But does anyone really believe that if Christianity still held the sway that islam holds in most of its geography, those of us who dared to express a contrary view wouldn’t still be facing the horrors that freethinkers in previous European generations had to endure?
Religion is not about love (that was just spin) it is about control
I don't feel in the slightest bit "controlled". Quite the opposite in fact.
Thanks to @Casino_Royale for a most interesting and thought-provoking piece. There's not a lot in it with which one could disagree.
Democracy is far more complex and nuanced than putting a "X" or a"1" on a piece of paper every four or five years.
The promise of "change" by subverting the political democratic process is a chimera - revolution simply means replacing one elite by another. Revolutionary change via politics is little different from revolutionary change via force of arms - was the Norman Conquest of England in 1066 that much different to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917? I'd argue not.
Democracy is grossly imperfect - we know that, it is strongly predicated on wealth and often (not always) on a very narrow elite of the well educated and independently wealthy. As a riposte, there might be many in politics who might argue they could have made more money staying in business and that's possibly true.
I've banged on about this before but the political disconnection starts with the centralisation of decision-making whether it's in Brussels, Westminster or the "Council". As a case study, I live in Newham which has 100% Labour representation on the Council and not surprising since Labour wins 65% of the vote in most Wards.
My argument is not about whether Labour deserves a majority but why the 35% who don't vote Labour are left unrepresented. It's not (and shouldn't be) about electoral systems but a simple understanding and recognition of plurality because that's what plural democracy should be about - many voices, many opinions.
I'd argue Newham Labour should voluntarily give up 20 of their seats and offer them proportionately to the Opposition parties - they'll never do that but they should as should Bromley's Conservatives or the LDs in Richmond.
Here's the problem - we may have democracy but do we have plural democracy? I'm told the Conservative and Labour parties are "broad churches" - perhaps but that has to be reconciled with the notion of Party loyalty we see on here from some which means the Party can never be wrong, it must always be defended and its detractors always rebutted.
People become excluded from the political process if they feel they are not being listened to - it isn't possible for Government to please all of the people all of the time. Pleasing all of the people some of the time would be a good start - unfortunately, for the post-election weasel words it tends to be more about appeasing some of the people (the supporters) all of the time.
Sometimes doing the right thing means alienating your supporters and that's when the politician has to explain and educate and convince. Government is, as Casino states, for all of us not just the supporters, the donors and the allies.
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.
You're right about American power acting as a bulwark for other democracies -- which is why it's so worrying to watch the Republicans indulge Donald Trump's dying thrashes. But none of that really makes a difference to the strength of their internal systems. We can see in Europe a range of policy responses and their relative efficacy which America's influence does not explain. If Western countries "learned the lessons" of Asian democracies and adopted a less liberal approach to governance, that would be a policy choice that some would mourn, probably including me, but not from a democracy point of view. I think the important thing is that none of us mistake our own preferred flavour of governance for the only acceptable form of democracy. I'm a liberal, and I can live with conservative or social-democratic flavours of government. I thoroughly dislike some of the things this government does, and I would be feeling the same with aspects of a Corbyn government had the election gone differently last year. I don't think anyone should fear us becoming more South Korean, or more Danish, or more German. They are all acceptable flavours. We need to clearly demarcate the personally suboptimal from the democratically unacceptable. Becoming like Japan is something we could live with. Becoming like Russia is a massive no-no.
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.
There is certainly a radical view that religions and nations are passé and actually rather chauvinist - things that are intrinsically reactionary, an obstacle to progress and actually hold us back.
I don't agree. You can have faith and love your country, and also respect and admire those of others; just as loving your own family, friends and community doesn't mean you hate others.
If you took it all away in the name of stopping hate you'd risk taking away all love at the same time, which would be a recipe for anarchy.
Weak religion is harmless, and the rest of us can sit back and tolerate those believers pursuing their hobby.
But does anyone really believe that if Christianity still held the sway that islam holds in most of its geography, those of us who dared to express a contrary view wouldn’t still be facing the horrors that freethinkers in previous European generations had to endure?
Religion is not about love (that was just spin) it is about control
I don't agree with that actually. I think historically it was, and it still is in some countries where religion and politics are essentially the same thing, and there are some odder ones like JW and Scientology, but I think all major religions in their moderate forms are fascinating aspects of the culture of the world, and have value.
My only frustration is when they become exclusive - and don't allow, for example, intermarriage with those of other faiths or of none. I don't mind collective worship or organised religion, but I do believe it should be a personal choice.
So many deeply thoughtful challenges to the current way of things raised in this thread, and yet we look back to our government and see a disinterested clown sitting in the top chair.
Looking at the House results, it looks like Dem 223 - GOP 213 for a Dem majority of 10. That's a really, really poor result and it means Biden is going to be reliant on moderate GOP congressional representatives to chart a moderate path because the hard left of the Dems won't play ball. It also helps with the probable Senate minority he will be facing and definite one in 2022 and probable house minority as well.
Have to say, I'm eating my words over Biden being the worst candidate. The house vs presidential vote spread shows the value of picking cookie cutter candidate like Biden.
Surely that depends on whether it is the Presidential result or the House results that are the anomaly; whether Biden overachieved at the top of the ticket or underachieved down-ballot. If the latter, then Biden was an appalling candidate.
Oddly enough, Biden may not be too disappointed with the Senate and House results. It will keep a check on the more radical elements in the House Democrat caucus and allow him to reach out to moderate Republicans thus exacerbating the tensions between the Trump diehards and the more traditional GOP base.
I'd go further and say if Biden gets this right (aided by the coming of a vaccine), the Democrats might have a decent mid-term in 2022 and could well be in a strong position to retain the WH in 2024.
So many deeply thoughtful challenges to the current way of things raised in this thread, and yet we look back to our government and see a disinterested clown sitting in the top chair.
I would have thought we would prefer our politicians to be as disinterested as possible.
But what has belief in the nation state got to do with democracy? Nations are entirely arbitary. As a native of southern England I have no more in common with someone from Yorkshire than I do someone from California, Australia or Denmark (to pick a few examples).
(Not that I have anything against Yorkshire folk - it's just an example.)
They are essential. You can't have a democracy without a nation state and all a nation state is is a defined geographical entity with a common form of government and shared identity that accepts its authority.
You can argue that we haven't got the current 'cut' of nation states just right but, without it, you would need to create new ones.
I find it interesting that this was the most contentious point of my thread header.
But what has belief in the nation state got to do with democracy? Nations are entirely arbitary. As a native of southern England I have no more in common with someone from Yorkshire than I do someone from California, Australia or Denmark (to pick a few examples).
(Not that I have anything against Yorkshire folk - it's just an example.)
You share a currency with Yorkshire. That is a fundamental part of life that doesn't get much attention these days.
That's arbitary though. I don't get any meaningful choice over the currency in use locally. Personally, I'd be just as happy (or rather, unbothered) if we used the US dollar, Aus dollare or Euro here in Dorset.
(@Carnyx makes a good point about Marmite though. I hadn't considered that. Maybe the UK should be renamed Marmitia?)
It is arbitrary, but at the same time you'd want to be able to use the same currency in a reasonably sized area. Okay, there will always be boundaries as long as there are multiple currencies in the world. Presumably you want to have the same currency as the next town. Perhaps it wouldn't bother you if Yorkshire had a different currency, but for the time being they have the same currency. And the BoE take into account their lives as much as yours.
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, a rather arrogant and presumptuous view to start off with - they thought people from the commonwealth were desperate to better themselves by becoming just like white Englishmen. They were wrong, quite racist actually, and that's why the problems he describes followed
Thanks to @Casino_Royale for a most interesting and thought-provoking piece. There's not a lot in it with which one could disagree.
Democracy is far more complex and nuanced than putting a "X" or a"1" on a piece of paper every four or five years.
The promise of "change" by subverting the political democratic process is a chimera - revolution simply means replacing one elite by another. Revolutionary change via politics is little different from revolutionary change via force of arms - was the Norman Conquest of England in 1066 that much different to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917? I'd argue not.
Democracy is grossly imperfect - we know that, it is strongly predicated on wealth and often (not always) on a very narrow elite of the well educated and independently wealthy. As a riposte, there might be many in politics who might argue they could have made more money staying in business and that's possibly true.
I've banged on about this before but the political disconnection starts with the centralisation of decision-making whether it's in Brussels, Westminster or the "Council". As a case study, I live in Newham which has 100% Labour representation on the Council and not surprising since Labour wins 65% of the vote in most Wards.
My argument is not about whether Labour deserves a majority but why the 35% who don't vote Labour are left unrepresented. It's not (and shouldn't be) about electoral systems but a simple understanding and recognition of plurality because that's what plural democracy should be about - many voices, many opinions.
I'd argue Newham Labour should voluntarily give up 20 of their seats and offer them proportionately to the Opposition parties - they'll never do that but they should as should Bromley's Conservatives or the LDs in Richmond.
Here's the problem - we may have democracy but do we have plural democracy? I'm told the Conservative and Labour parties are "broad churches" - perhaps but that has to be reconciled with the notion of Party loyalty we see on here from some which means the Party can never be wrong, it must always be defended and its detractors always rebutted.
People become excluded from the political process if they feel they are not being listened to - it isn't possible for Government to please all of the people all of the time. Pleasing all of the people some of the time would be a good start - unfortunately, for the post-election weasel words it tends to be more about appeasing some of the people (the supporters) all of the time.
Sometimes doing the right thing means alienating your supporters and that's when the politician has to explain and educate and convince. Government is, as Casino states, for all of us not just the supporters, the donors and the allies.
Democracy isn't easy - nobody ever said it was.
I would argue that the Swiss style of democracy is effective at reconnecting the people with government. But many find the idea that the people can directly change *any* law by a referendum terrifying.
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.
You are getting parnoid and a bit odd
I believe in taking back control from our unelected rulers.
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'?
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'?
Yes on the first bit, and on the second I support equality and fairness to all - my objection to "Wokeness" is precisely because I think it's (largely) well-meaning people not seeing how political and divisive their approach to that can be, particularly in responding to criticism toward it.
I will try, though, to be more measured with my own criticisms.
I think it helps to consider 'wokeness' (and political correctness that preceeded it) as 'informed politeness'.
nah - virtue signalling
Here's the thing. I have been a paraplegic for forty years. If someone refers to me as a cripple, handicapped or a 'wheelchair' (as in 'here's another wheelchair'), I find it offensive.
Some will say avoiding such terms is just political corectness. I say it's simply politeness.
If you feel people who avoid terms the recipients will find offensive are 'virtue signalling' I can't help you, but I say it's just being polite.
But what has belief in the nation state got to do with democracy? Nations are entirely arbitary. As a native of southern England I have no more in common with someone from Yorkshire than I do someone from California, Australia or Denmark (to pick a few examples).
(Not that I have anything against Yorkshire folk - it's just an example.)
They are essential. You can't have a democracy without a nation state and all a nation state is is a defined geographical entity with a common form of government and shared identity that accepts its authority.
You can argue that we haven't got the current 'cut' of nation states just right but, without it, you would need to create new ones.
I find it interesting that this was the most contentious point of my thread header.
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'?
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'?
Yes on the first bit, and on the second I support equality and fairness to all - my objection to "Wokeness" is precisely because I think it's (largely) well-meaning people not seeing how political and divisive their approach to that can be, particularly in responding to criticism toward it.
I will try, though, to be more measured with my own criticisms.
I think it helps to consider 'wokeness' (and political correctness that preceeded it) as 'informed politeness'.
nah - virtue signalling
Here's the thing. I have been a paraplegic for forty years. If someone refers to me as a cripple, handicapped or a 'wheelchair' (as in 'here's another wheelchair'), I find it offensive.
Some will say avoiding such terms is just political corectness. I say it's simply politeness.
If you feel people who avoid terms the recipients will find offensive are 'virtue signalling' I can't help you, but I say it's just being polite.
But what has belief in the nation state got to do with democracy? Nations are entirely arbitary. As a native of southern England I have no more in common with someone from Yorkshire than I do someone from California, Australia or Denmark (to pick a few examples).
(Not that I have anything against Yorkshire folk - it's just an example.)
You share a currency with Yorkshire. That is a fundamental part of life that doesn't get much attention these days.
That's arbitary though. I don't get any meaningful choice over the currency in use locally. Personally, I'd be just as happy (or rather, unbothered) if we used the US dollar, Aus dollare or Euro here in Dorset.
(@Carnyx makes a good point about Marmite though. I hadn't considered that. Maybe the UK should be renamed Marmitia?)
It is arbitrary, but at the same time you'd want to be able to use the same currency in a reasonably sized area. Okay, there will always be boundaries as long as there are multiple currencies in the world. Presumably you want to have the same currency as the next town. Perhaps it wouldn't bother you if Yorkshire had a different currency, but for the time being they have the same currency. And the BoE take into account their lives as much as yours.
True but in theory we could have a single global currency.
But what has belief in the nation state got to do with democracy? Nations are entirely arbitary. As a native of southern England I have no more in common with someone from Yorkshire than I do someone from California, Australia or Denmark (to pick a few examples).
(Not that I have anything against Yorkshire folk - it's just an example.)
They are essential. You can't have a democracy without a nation state and all a nation state is is a defined geographical entity with a common form of government and shared identity that accepts its authority.
You can argue that we haven't got the current 'cut' of nation states just right but, without it, you would need to create new ones.
I find it interesting that this was the most contentious point of my thread header.
Yep, people on the right tend to like the Nation bit, whilst people on the left are keen on the State bit. But both sides of the political debate have to recognize that you can't have one without the other.
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.
Lots of good points, but I don't think they explain why numbers are increasing again after plateauing for a couple of weeks. Hopefully FrancisUrquhart is right re the pre-lockdown effect, because that should be temporary. A more concerning alternative is that the plateau reflects the half term holidays and the increase reflects pupils going back to school and parents going back to work.
But what has belief in the nation state got to do with democracy? Nations are entirely arbitary. As a native of southern England I have no more in common with someone from Yorkshire than I do someone from California, Australia or Denmark (to pick a few examples).
(Not that I have anything against Yorkshire folk - it's just an example.)
They are essential. You can't have a democracy without a nation state and all a nation state is is a defined geographical entity with a common form of government and shared identity that accepts its authority.
You can argue that we haven't got the current 'cut' of nation states just right but, without it, you would need to create new ones.
I find it interesting that this was the most contentious point of my thread header.
Why couldn't we have a global democracy?
Its a hard one to get right but I think nations are ok as long as people can effectively choose which one to live in - ie free immigration - The EU had its faults but it was a step to this. A one global democracy sounds good but would soon limit individual choice and congregate power in too small a group of people
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.
You're right about American power acting as a bulwark for other democracies -- which is why it's so worrying to watch the Republicans indulge Donald Trump's dying thrashes. But none of that really makes a difference to the strength of their internal systems. We can see in Europe a range of policy responses and their relative efficacy which America's influence does not explain. If Western countries "learned the lessons" of Asian democracies and adopted a less liberal approach to governance, that would be a policy choice that some would mourn, probably including me, but not from a democracy point of view. I think the important thing is that none of us mistake our own preferred flavour of governance for the only acceptable form of democracy. I'm a liberal, and I can live with conservative or social-democratic flavours of government. I thoroughly dislike some of the things this government does, and I would be feeling the same with aspects of a Corbyn government had the election gone differently last year. I don't think anyone should fear us becoming more South Korean, or more Danish, or more German. They are all acceptable flavours. We need to clearly demarcate the personally suboptimal from the democratically unacceptable. Becoming like Japan is something we could live with. Becoming like Russia is a massive no-no.
Th problem comes with the claim that all cultures must be respected.
Which is, of course, a lie.
The people who promote it have no respect for a number of cultures.
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'?
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'?
Yes on the first bit, and on the second I support equality and fairness to all - my objection to "Wokeness" is precisely because I think it's (largely) well-meaning people not seeing how political and divisive their approach to that can be, particularly in responding to criticism toward it.
I will try, though, to be more measured with my own criticisms.
I think it helps to consider 'wokeness' (and political correctness that preceeded it) as 'informed politeness'.
nah - virtue signalling
Here's the thing. I have been a paraplegic for forty years. If someone refers to me as a cripple, handicapped or a 'wheelchair' (as in 'here's another wheelchair'), I find it offensive.
Some will say avoiding such terms is just political corectness. I say it's simply politeness.
If you feel people who avoid terms the recipients will find offensive are 'virtue signalling' I can't help you, but I say it's just being polite.
political correctness is much more than that though . Its stifles different thought processes and ideas
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.
You are getting parnoid and a bit odd
I believe in taking back control from our unelected rulers.
Cummo, Cain and Carrie to the stake, then.... ?
I have a soft spot for Carrie.
Why is that, out of curiosity?
I've met her a few times in the 2010 Parliament, and she was genuinely a nice warm person as well as very competent, she had been SPAD to a few cabinet ministers.
She also did something very brave when she waived her anonymity in the John Worboys trial.
I also find some of the attacks on her deeply repugnant, people who should know better shouldn't attack her the way they do.
But what has belief in the nation state got to do with democracy? Nations are entirely arbitary. As a native of southern England I have no more in common with someone from Yorkshire than I do someone from California, Australia or Denmark (to pick a few examples).
(Not that I have anything against Yorkshire folk - it's just an example.)
You share a currency with Yorkshire. That is a fundamental part of life that doesn't get much attention these days.
That's arbitary though. I don't get any meaningful choice over the currency in use locally. Personally, I'd be just as happy (or rather, unbothered) if we used the US dollar, Aus dollare or Euro here in Dorset.
(@Carnyx makes a good point about Marmite though. I hadn't considered that. Maybe the UK should be renamed Marmitia?)
It is arbitrary, but at the same time you'd want to be able to use the same currency in a reasonably sized area. Okay, there will always be boundaries as long as there are multiple currencies in the world. Presumably you want to have the same currency as the next town. Perhaps it wouldn't bother you if Yorkshire had a different currency, but for the time being they have the same currency. And the BoE take into account their lives as much as yours.
True but in theory we could have a single global currency.
But what has belief in the nation state got to do with democracy? Nations are entirely arbitary. As a native of southern England I have no more in common with someone from Yorkshire than I do someone from California, Australia or Denmark (to pick a few examples).
(Not that I have anything against Yorkshire folk - it's just an example.)
You share a currency with Yorkshire. That is a fundamental part of life that doesn't get much attention these days.
That's arbitary though. I don't get any meaningful choice over the currency in use locally. Personally, I'd be just as happy (or rather, unbothered) if we used the US dollar, Aus dollare or Euro here in Dorset.
(@Carnyx makes a good point about Marmite though. I hadn't considered that. Maybe the UK should be renamed Marmitia?)
It is arbitrary, but at the same time you'd want to be able to use the same currency in a reasonably sized area. Okay, there will always be boundaries as long as there are multiple currencies in the world. Presumably you want to have the same currency as the next town. Perhaps it wouldn't bother you if Yorkshire had a different currency, but for the time being they have the same currency. And the BoE take into account their lives as much as yours.
True but in theory we could have a single global currency.
In theory yes but it doesn't mean it would be a good idea.
But what has belief in the nation state got to do with democracy? Nations are entirely arbitary. As a native of southern England I have no more in common with someone from Yorkshire than I do someone from California, Australia or Denmark (to pick a few examples).
(Not that I have anything against Yorkshire folk - it's just an example.)
You share a currency with Yorkshire. That is a fundamental part of life that doesn't get much attention these days.
That's arbitary though. I don't get any meaningful choice over the currency in use locally. Personally, I'd be just as happy (or rather, unbothered) if we used the US dollar, Aus dollare or Euro here in Dorset.
(@Carnyx makes a good point about Marmite though. I hadn't considered that. Maybe the UK should be renamed Marmitia?)
It is arbitrary, but at the same time you'd want to be able to use the same currency in a reasonably sized area. Okay, there will always be boundaries as long as there are multiple currencies in the world. Presumably you want to have the same currency as the next town. Perhaps it wouldn't bother you if Yorkshire had a different currency, but for the time being they have the same currency. And the BoE take into account their lives as much as yours.
True but in theory we could have a single global currency.
We could, but I doubt it'd work out too well.
yes because one size never fits all - just as there is no one correct line of politics (political correctness and wokeness assume this) and individuals need choice not be controlled by state and other institutions.
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.
You're right about American power acting as a bulwark for other democracies -- which is why it's so worrying to watch the Republicans indulge Donald Trump's dying thrashes. But none of that really makes a difference to the strength of their internal systems. We can see in Europe a range of policy responses and their relative efficacy which America's influence does not explain. If Western countries "learned the lessons" of Asian democracies and adopted a less liberal approach to governance, that would be a policy choice that some would mourn, probably including me, but not from a democracy point of view. I think the important thing is that none of us mistake our own preferred flavour of governance for the only acceptable form of democracy. I'm a liberal, and I can live with conservative or social-democratic flavours of government. I thoroughly dislike some of the things this government does, and I would be feeling the same with aspects of a Corbyn government had the election gone differently last year. I don't think anyone should fear us becoming more South Korean, or more Danish, or more German. They are all acceptable flavours. We need to clearly demarcate the personally suboptimal from the democratically unacceptable. Becoming like Japan is something we could live with. Becoming like Russia is a massive no-no.
Th problem comes with the claim that all cultures must be respected.
Which is, of course, a lie.
The people who promote it have no respect for a number of cultures.
I'm not at all sure where you think that claim is, or whether you think I made it.
But what has belief in the nation state got to do with democracy? Nations are entirely arbitary. As a native of southern England I have no more in common with someone from Yorkshire than I do someone from California, Australia or Denmark (to pick a few examples).
(Not that I have anything against Yorkshire folk - it's just an example.)
They are essential. You can't have a democracy without a nation state and all a nation state is is a defined geographical entity with a common form of government and shared identity that accepts its authority.
You can argue that we haven't got the current 'cut' of nation states just right but, without it, you would need to create new ones.
I find it interesting that this was the most contentious point of my thread header.
Yep, people on the right tend to like the Nation bit, whilst people on the left are keen on the State bit. But both sides of the political debate have to recognize that you can't have one without the other.
Of course you can! Multinational states exist, and nations without states do too.
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'?
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'?
Yes on the first bit, and on the second I support equality and fairness to all - my objection to "Wokeness" is precisely because I think it's (largely) well-meaning people not seeing how political and divisive their approach to that can be, particularly in responding to criticism toward it.
I will try, though, to be more measured with my own criticisms.
I think it helps to consider 'wokeness' (and political correctness that preceeded it) as 'informed politeness'.
nah - virtue signalling
Here's the thing. I have been a paraplegic for forty years. If someone refers to me as a cripple, handicapped or a 'wheelchair' (as in 'here's another wheelchair'), I find it offensive.
Some will say avoiding such terms is just political corectness. I say it's simply politeness.
If you feel people who avoid terms the recipients will find offensive are 'virtue signalling' I can't help you, but I say it's just being polite.
political correctness is much more than that though . Its stifles different thought processes and ideas
Well they would be more ignored if you dont post tweets on here of them!
I'm more confused now, should these people be ignored or listened to?
Well before social media you or I would never have heard of them or their views . Social media and retweeters of them give them an importance they did not have before .
But what has belief in the nation state got to do with democracy? Nations are entirely arbitary. As a native of southern England I have no more in common with someone from Yorkshire than I do someone from California, Australia or Denmark (to pick a few examples).
(Not that I have anything against Yorkshire folk - it's just an example.)
They are essential. You can't have a democracy without a nation state and all a nation state is is a defined geographical entity with a common form of government and shared identity that accepts its authority.
You can argue that we haven't got the current 'cut' of nation states just right but, without it, you would need to create new ones.
I find it interesting that this was the most contentious point of my thread header.
Yep, people on the right tend to like the Nation bit, whilst people on the left are keen on the State bit. But both sides of the political debate have to recognize that you can't have one without the other.
Of course you can! Multinational states exist, and nations without states do too.
I guess the UK is the obvious example of the former. I'm not sure that it especially helps your case, though.
As for the latter, I'm not aware of many nations without states that are especially happy. The Kurds come to mind.
Well they would be more ignored if you dont post tweets on here of them!
I'm more confused now, should these people be ignored or listened to?
Well before social media you or I would never have heard of them or their views . Social media and retweeters of them give them an importance they did not have before .
Violent, right wing racist groups didn't have importance before social media? It's a view I guess.
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'?
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'?
Yes on the first bit, and on the second I support equality and fairness to all - my objection to "Wokeness" is precisely because I think it's (largely) well-meaning people not seeing how political and divisive their approach to that can be, particularly in responding to criticism toward it.
I will try, though, to be more measured with my own criticisms.
I think it helps to consider 'wokeness' (and political correctness that preceeded it) as 'informed politeness'.
nah - virtue signalling
Here's the thing. I have been a paraplegic for forty years. If someone refers to me as a cripple, handicapped or a 'wheelchair' (as in 'here's another wheelchair'), I find it offensive.
Some will say avoiding such terms is just political corectness. I say it's simply politeness.
If you feel people who avoid terms the recipients will find offensive are 'virtue signalling' I can't help you, but I say it's just being polite.
political correctness is much more than that though . Its stifles different thought processes and ideas
Example?
Loads - the one fairly topical now is the trans gender in sport events issue -
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.
I don't agree with that. Taiwan would have been taken by China well over 20 years ago without American support, and South Korea would be part of a unified People's Republic of Korea nearly 70 years ago.
Yes, but being defended from Communist takeovers and being made safe for democracy are two very different things. Rhee, for example, was put in place and kept in place because he had a thing for shooting Communists. Diem and Marcos spring to mind as other examples of that approach in that part of the world, or Suharto.
It isn’t any coincidence that Taiwan and South Korea began moving towards democracy in a serious way only after the Cold War had started winding down.
Comments
I was rather struck by the responses shown in a wargame of a terrorist attack in London, with various minor politicians taking minor roles. Not sure who broadcast it.
The people in question managed to create a disaster that killed quite a lot of people un-necassarily. They were quite clear in the game post-mortem that they acted correctly - because valuing a small number of live over a much greater group would have... made them *feel bad*
The other thing that annoys me about Prince Charles is his blatant hypocrisy.
When James Hewitt violated the wife of a brother officer the rest of the armed forces pretty much excommunicated him.
But when Prince Charles violated the wife of a brother officer he wasn't excommunicated.
Further, I think the NHS could do much much better, and I am not particularly wedded to its current model (I am, for instance, much more impressed by the German model) but I don't think the institution should be ripped to pieces.
Trade unions, local communities, voluntary societies, sports clubs, working men's clubs, are all part of what builds up the ecosystem of civil society.
Whilst 2020 has been a rotten year, it's not obvious that there is a time in the past which was objectively better at delivering a good life to as many people as happens now.
And that's one of the things that makes life hard.
Have to say, I'm eating my words over Biden being the worst candidate. The house vs presidential vote spread shows the value of picking cookie cutter candidate like Biden.
Worth noting that while these disputes appear to be obscure theological issues to modern eyes, they were class warfare expressed in theological language. Episcopelianism reinforced the powers of the Aristocracy and their Bishops to enforce teachings, while Presbyterians and Congregationalists believed that the power to interpret the Gospels was via direct study, rather than second hand. Hence the importance of education, self study and an individual relationship with God.
I don't agree. You can have faith and love your country, and also respect and admire those of others; just as loving your own family, friends and community doesn't mean you hate others.
If you took it all away in the name of stopping hate you'd risk taking away all love at the same time, which would be a recipe for anarchy.
We desperately need a government that establishes a new constitutional settlement with entrenched power and rights (and obligations) for local government at all levels. Yet how on earth are we ever to get those who win power to give it away?
Any democracy can work, of any shape or size, but people have to identify with the demos first in which it sits, or they won't accept or acquiesce in its authority.
Simplistically speaking, this is how independence movements break out - even in democratic countries.
But what has belief in the nation state got to do with democracy? Nations are entirely arbitary. As a native of southern England I have no more in common with someone from Yorkshire than I do someone from California, Australia or Denmark (to pick a few examples).
(Not that I have anything against Yorkshire folk - it's just an example.)
I do just wonder how much quieter PB would be if a watertight no-adulterers clause were written in to the right to post here.
But does anyone really believe that if Christianity still held the sway that islam holds in most of its geography, those of us who dared to express a contrary view wouldn’t still be facing the horrors that freethinkers in previous European generations had to endure?
In 2020, given the chance to split their votes and express their anti-trump vote directly rather than by proxy, they did so. It could be noted, that whilst they are disappointed, they are still fighting permanently against pretty significant odds because of the longstanding gerrymandering disadvantage.
'Treat (something sacred) with irreverence or disrespect.'
As for your latter point, very quiet.
Which is what I (well, myself and MaxPB) have, above, for the hospital data.
I think differences are being magnified by different date ranges.... will try and reproduce to demonstrate...
I will try, though, to be more measured with my own criticisms.
It takes real character to get the balance right.
Many of our previous generations, and many alive in the world today, aren’t so fortunate.
The "White Terror" took place at the height of US influence. As did a huge amount of commercial child abuse under the auspices of the US military when it was an "R+R" location during the Vietnam War.
I campaigned in that Peterborough vote. I neither saw nor sniffed a hint of any of that: among fellow-LDs campaigning or LDs commiserating afterwards.
And unlike Farage &Tice, those LDs had spent months on the ground. And had no reason for lying.
Unlike F&T, of course, they had no need to lie to explain away defeat. We weren't surprised, we didn't have to justify the pointless purchase of ridiculously expensive campaigning technology and we didn't have to sustain a myth about our electoral brilliance.
F&T have a LOT of explaining to do
I'm not holding out much hope though.
(@Carnyx makes a good point about Marmite though. I hadn't considered that. Maybe the UK should be renamed Marmitia?)
I don't want to get sucked into this now but I don't think tearing down statues or hectoring people that they have white privilege is part of that.
The mistake is condemning the entirety for the failings of the extreme.
Thanks to @Casino_Royale for a most interesting and thought-provoking piece. There's not a lot in it with which one could disagree.
Democracy is far more complex and nuanced than putting a "X" or a"1" on a piece of paper every four or five years.
The promise of "change" by subverting the political democratic process is a chimera - revolution simply means replacing one elite by another. Revolutionary change via politics is little different from revolutionary change via force of arms - was the Norman Conquest of England in 1066 that much different to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917? I'd argue not.
Democracy is grossly imperfect - we know that, it is strongly predicated on wealth and often (not always) on a very narrow elite of the well educated and independently wealthy. As a riposte, there might be many in politics who might argue they could have made more money staying in business and that's possibly true.
I've banged on about this before but the political disconnection starts with the centralisation of decision-making whether it's in Brussels, Westminster or the "Council". As a case study, I live in Newham which has 100% Labour representation on the Council and not surprising since Labour wins 65% of the vote in most Wards.
My argument is not about whether Labour deserves a majority but why the 35% who don't vote Labour are left unrepresented. It's not (and shouldn't be) about electoral systems but a simple understanding and recognition of plurality because that's what plural democracy should be about - many voices, many opinions.
I'd argue Newham Labour should voluntarily give up 20 of their seats and offer them proportionately to the Opposition parties - they'll never do that but they should as should Bromley's Conservatives or the LDs in Richmond.
Here's the problem - we may have democracy but do we have plural democracy? I'm told the Conservative and Labour parties are "broad churches" - perhaps but that has to be reconciled with the notion of Party loyalty we see on here from some which means the Party can never be wrong, it must always be defended and its detractors always rebutted.
People become excluded from the political process if they feel they are not being listened to - it isn't possible for Government to please all of the people all of the time. Pleasing all of the people some of the time would be a good start - unfortunately, for the post-election weasel words it tends to be more about appeasing some of the people (the supporters) all of the time.
Sometimes doing the right thing means alienating your supporters and that's when the politician has to explain and educate and convince. Government is, as Casino states, for all of us not just the supporters, the donors and the allies.
Democracy isn't easy - nobody ever said it was.
If Western countries "learned the lessons" of Asian democracies and adopted a less liberal approach to governance, that would be a policy choice that some would mourn, probably including me, but not from a democracy point of view. I think the important thing is that none of us mistake our own preferred flavour of governance for the only acceptable form of democracy.
I'm a liberal, and I can live with conservative or social-democratic flavours of government. I thoroughly dislike some of the things this government does, and I would be feeling the same with aspects of a Corbyn government had the election gone differently last year. I don't think anyone should fear us becoming more South Korean, or more Danish, or more German. They are all acceptable flavours. We need to clearly demarcate the personally suboptimal from the democratically unacceptable. Becoming like Japan is something we could live with. Becoming like Russia is a massive no-no.
My only frustration is when they become exclusive - and don't allow, for example, intermarriage with those of other faiths or of none. I don't mind collective worship or organised religion, but I do believe it should be a personal choice.
I'd go further and say if Biden gets this right (aided by the coming of a vaccine), the Democrats might have a decent mid-term in 2022 and could well be in a strong position to retain the WH in 2024.
You can argue that we haven't got the current 'cut' of nation states just right but, without it, you would need to create new ones.
I find it interesting that this was the most contentious point of my thread header.
Some will say avoiding such terms is just political corectness. I say it's simply politeness.
If you feel people who avoid terms the recipients will find offensive are 'virtue signalling' I can't help you, but I say it's just being polite.
A damned near-run thing.
Which is, of course, a lie.
The people who promote it have no respect for a number of cultures.
She also did something very brave when she waived her anonymity in the John Worboys trial.
I also find some of the attacks on her deeply repugnant, people who should know better shouldn't attack her the way they do.
https://twitter.com/thoughtland/status/1328047931451191297?s=20
As for the latter, I'm not aware of many nations without states that are especially happy. The Kurds come to mind.
It isn’t any coincidence that Taiwan and South Korea began moving towards democracy in a serious way only after the Cold War had started winding down.