There follows a guest post by Dr. James Alexander, a Professor in the Department of Political Science at Bilkent University in Turkey, responding to a recent suggestion of Dr. David Runciman, a Politics Professor at Cambridge, that the franchise be extended to six year-olds. In some respects, he argues, it’s not such a bad idea.
David Runciman is a Professor of Politics at the University of Cambridge. I know him a bit, since he supervised me for the Political Philosophy paper when I was reading Part II of the Historical Tripos; and we have had some brief exchanges since then. I salute my old teacher – though he is not old: he is not much older than I am. Amusingly, he is also someone who was edited by Toby Young very early on, when he wrote a piece on Gascoigne the footballer for the Modern Review. Runciman is an extremely able writer about politics, with not only a handful of books but also a continuous stream of reviews for the London Review of Books and a podcast called Talking Politics to his name. Runciman in writing exhibits smoothness, acuity and skill; Runciman in speech exhibits, in addition, receptivity and geniality. He seems to enjoy politics, even when it may be the sort of politics he doesn’t like. I would assume that his views are fairly standard Late Cambridge stuff: liberal, tolerant, leftish, remainish, but I don’t know, and we don’t know, since Talking Politics holds onto the academic or BBC habit of preferring not to admit to an opinion when something more lofty or indirect is there to be had.
Recently Runciman has published an article in the Guardian advocating extending the franchise to everyone: and by everyone he means children: and by children he means everyone over the age of six.
This is interesting, and amusing. My own view is that Runciman may, consciously or unconsciously, be trying to reduce democracy to absurdity. Perhaps this will be Runciman’s greatest coup yet, his Modest Proposal. Instead of eating small children – recall Swift’s delicate attention to how to prepare them (fricassé and ragout) – we shall give them the vote. The formerly cooked shall now cook. In addition to Junior Masterchef we will have Junior Legislator. And why not? Since we live in an age in which men are women and women are men (if they say so), then why should children not be, in effect, adults? (Let us admit it: since adults are children, there is no reason why children should not be adults.)
I shall not argue against the arguments directly because I think that there is nothing wrong with such arguments when they are proposed in order to make us think: though they are to be handled cautiously when they come too close to politics. For the record, my eight year old son thought it was a very good idea. “When is the next election?” he immediately asked.
What I want to reflect on is Runciman’s reason for making this suggestion. It was, he said, that politics is stale. Now, this seems to me to be a preposterous claim. I’d say, on the contrary, that politics became almost spectacularly interesting in 2016, and that, in 2020, it became even more interesting, so much so that the events of 2016 now look like extremely wet tinder. Runciman talks about recent politics: and his complaint seems to be that politics is too predictable. He suggests that if you tell him how you voted in the Brexit referendum then he will probably be able to predict what you think about lockdowns and any number of other matters. This is, by and large, true – though it ignores the many old people who were pro Brexit but also pro Lockdown, and it ignores the serene and subtle Lord Sumption, almost the only living lord with any gumption, who was anti Brexit and also anti Lockdown: indicating that even a civilised Remainer of the Auberon Waugh type can step out of his trench and cross no-man’s-land to the other side when the entire historical inheritance of common law and history moving from precedent to precedent (and not from principle to principle) is at stake.
Nonetheless, I agree with Runciman. Something remarkable has happened. The nation – nay, the world – is divided. On the one hand, there are those who accept the Guardian and BBC narrative, who are sympathetic to Floyd but not Rittenhouse, who at the very least go along with and at the very most actively support the ‘unholy trinity’ of our nice totalitarianising ideologies of CLIMATE, COVID and WOKERY. On the other hand, there are those who cling on to sanity in the comments section of the Spectator website, take their opinions from YouTube rather than television or newspapers, and meditate continually on the central question of our age which is whether Toby Young or James Delingpole has eyes which are wider open.
Runciman thinks this is the death of politics. Hence his rather quixotic appeal to the children. His argument is that children are probably unpredictable. Even writing that makes me laugh. Bien sur! He claims that it is their unpredictability which is why he does not think that his suggestion conceals a conspiracy to get more votes for the Corbyn-Meghan-Greta left, or, perhaps more hopefully, the new post-Blairite coalition which would stretch from the Mandelson millionaires on the right to the Banksy T-shirt-wearing Anti-Colstonite rowdies on the left. He thinks that the unpredictability of children ensures that his argument is apolitical. We may doubt, especially since a large part of his argument seems to about how the nation is divided not by view but by age: as far as he is concerned, it is the old who are retrograde and unnatural, it is the young who are in favour of the narcissistic gnostic religions growing up on the left.
I think that the divide of recent years – the divide of Brexit and Trump compounded and exaggerated and forced-into-our-faces by Covid – is a sign that politics is more alive than it has been for a hundred or possibly two hundred years. Somewhere a historian wrote (it might have been Alfred Cobban) that Burke-and-Paine was the last time there was serious political debate in England. (Before that there was Rainsborough v. Ireton in the Putney Debates; and, before that, of course, Coke v. James I, and Becket v. Henry II.) We do not have any Burkes and Paines nowadays. But in the interstices of our literature there are positions which are as clear, as resolute and as well stated. Serious political debate is non-existent in Parliament, or even outside Parliament. Marr and Peston avoid it. But it is there nonetheless. Perhaps it is not a fit subject for polite society. But politics which is fit for polite society – especially a mass polite society – is superficial politics. The point about the current argument – even when it is not being had and, in fact, especially because it is not being had – is that it is eminently political because it goes down to fundamentals.
On the one hand, there are those who are defending almost any aspect of the older order. The reactionaries and the liberals are making common cause. Anyone who believes that tradition is the democracy of the dead is on one side of the argument. Anyone who wants to defend any aspect of Christianity, the Common Law, Monarchy or even the status quo of before 2020 is on one side the argument. This side I call, for want of a better word, the populist side: for it is now actively defended usually, but not always, but certainly in the last instance, nowadays, by those whose politics is called or disparaged as ‘populist’.
On the other hand, there are those who are on what I call, for want of a better term, the constitutionalist side. These are those who defend the new social media politics of Facebook, Amazon, Greta, Fauci, Merkel, Blair and the EU, plus the ranks of educated and professionalised and administrating people who play along with the strange new politics (if we dare let the cat out of the bag) of Placating Victims as a means to Perpetuate Current Inequalities and Perhaps Increase Them. By ‘victims’ I of course mean the victims identified by the ideology of the ‘unholy trinity’: the victims of Covid being the old, the sick and the healthy, the victims of Privilege being the marginalised, the minorities and the aggrieved, and the victims of Climate Change being – all of humanity!
This is politics in the most fundamental sense. For it is a question about what the nature of our state is. Is it something which carries it with a respect for its origins and traditions, or is it something which is constructed out of its zero historic ideals? This divide was evident to everyone after the French Revolution. The question made Edmund Burke hysterical. It motivated the writings of Michael Oakeshott. But the question is no longer simply a Westminster or University question. It is being asked up and down the land.
Now, if by ‘politics’ we do not mean discussion of the fundamentals of our arrangements, then this might seem very destructive. Indeed, it is destructive, as everyone says, to have fundamental disagreement, fundamental cleavage, at every point. The Greeks called this not politics but stasis, which was their wonderful word for not only faction, but also for the conflict between factions, and ultimately for civil war. So Runciman may have a point about this not being politically good, not good for calm order as such. But he cannot argue that stasis is stale. Stasis is anything but stale: it vivifies everything it touches.
If nothing else, we can say that Britain is alive politically.
What this means for the six year olds is unclear. Runciman seems to want them to be alive too, to join us in our stasis. But if this stasis is a bad thing, and if what Runciman really wants is an exciting politics of Cameron-versus-Miliband (or, as the Beatles put it, ‘Ah, ah, Mr Wilson, Ah, ah, Mr Heath!’), then it does not seem likely that we shall get this by consulting the children.
Jesus famously rebuked some of his adult disciples who were trying to steer children out of the room by declaring that the Kingdom of God belonged to such as these. Runciman appears to be trying to provoke his disciplines in the same way for the sake of the City of Earth. Even if we can see Jesus’s point, which was that children are in some way innocent and unoccluded and therefore holy in a primitive sense, it is harder to agree with Runciman’s claim that political innocence is likely to offer us some sort of secular deliverance. Unless the children remain coolly Beatlesque, won’t it just mean that schools become divided? Surely, by Runciman’s own argument, it would be better to remove the politics from schools, universities, and lock it firmly down inside Westminster?
There is another problem. If, as many suggest, we are in age of almost unparalleled infantility, then it seems hardly likely that an actual infantilisation of our politics would help us get rid of the cultural infantilism which is ruining it.
Instead of changing the age for voting to that of six, I could equally and oppositely suggest that the age be 60. Indeed, perhaps only 60 year-olds should be allowed to vote, like consuls, for one year. Everyone who knew a 60 year-old would then have to petition them, and allow the 60 year-olds to do what they do best, which is adjudicate. The problem with universal suffrage is that it makes us selfish, since everyone has a vote: a wiser politics would surely require us to think of others. This was, at any rate, one of the justifications of the hereditary system and noblesse oblige, a principle which Runciman surely understands.
There is one final argument against ‘Now We Are Six’ (or ‘Brave New School’). It is that our education system has already become a dangerously and monotonously centralised system of indoctrination. It seems to me that this phenomenon would only be exaggerated further if teachers were not only the guardians of future voters but guardians of present voters. For then the state would certainly have more of an interest in altering textbooks to get everyone to think what they ought to think. This seems a decisive counter-argument. Even if children were to remain unpredictable that would not change the fact that an entire Goebbelsian apparatus would be devoted to creating the codes of thought within which the young would be expected to operate.
One last thought. I would be prepared to consider changing my mind if Runciman were to be really bold and say that under the new dispensation only six year-olds would be allowed to vote. This is a cry that would deserve very serious consideration. Here at last we would have a constituency not yet morally ruined by schools, smartphones, computers, and adminicorporacademitechnocratic ways of thinking, strongly aware of the difference between justice and injustice, having vivid knowledge of both good and evil, possessed of a vital interest in defending the family, and bestowed with a primitive interest in the beauty, sanctity and divinity discernible within an established order.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Stuart Andrew is floppier than a damp dishcloth. Nobody cares what he has to say.
Pudsey can do better: Pudsey Bear.
The government are frightened of a not-that-famous retired footballer sounding off. I think we can win this war – the enemy are rattled. They know their lies can collapse their house of cards.
Won’t be long before they do an Andrew Tate on him, mark my words.
Don’t care about footy, didn’t know about Barton until this story broke and have no opinion on footy pundits – but what I do care about is the increasing and overt use of govt power to shut down anyone who doesn’t agree with The Narrative™, which seems to be closing in on more and more of us. Assange is of course the pinnacle of this massive totalitarian overreach, but they recently tried it with Russell Brand, now Barton and god knows who else. We must resist.
The standard of senior women’s football is around the standard of 14 to 15 year old boys. The England senior women’s team, for example, might be able to give an under 15 academy team a good game, if the boys aren’t too physically. developed yet. That’s just a fact that can be and pretty much has been demonstrated.
That is not to say that women can’t be good at commenting on football games or giving insight. It’s definitely possible. Plenty of men who haven’t played to a high standard do so.
But generally, in the case of men in that position, they know who they are and, for example, if faced with an ex-pro will defer to him.
The problem I see with these women pundits, the ex-player types, is that they seem to present themselves as equals of the men pros. And they just aren’t. Not in that field. And it’s grating.
It would be like some 15 year old academy boy being on a panel with ex-professional men and speaking as if he was one of them. He’d look ridiculous.
That, I think, is the problem.
The question is, why women’s football? Is there huge public demand for it?
Yes but it is the same with women’s tennis (kind of) I remember Serena Williams being asked on TV how she thought she would against the men. ——She replied ” If I played Andy Murray I would lose 6-0 6-0″. ——But this is simply the reality in physical sport. Men are stronger. The current arguments about women in football though to me are related to the stuffing of women on the telly where formerly it would be men talking about men’s football. But not because a woman’s opinion is necessarily a bad thing, but because they are being shoehorned onto programmes for (a) for political purposes of gender equality and (b) to try and promote the women’s game and get more women into football. Then ofcourse you can also tick few other boxes if the woman happens to be black or lesbian. —-It is quite sad really but it pervades all of society now.
Why do we need pundits or commentary anyway? Football, like lots of sports, doesn’t need commentary. Why can’t we just watch the game?
I am always struck by how little conversation about football seems to focus on… football. How many millions Team A paid Team B for a player seems infinitely more important. And the private lives of Managers.
Or whether the player has come out as gay. Or whether there are enough black football managers or you sometimes have to wait 15 minutes to hear about sport because the channel has decided to rant on about race first.
Darts commentary on ITV. Absolutely appalling. The commentators simply will not shut up. It’s not as if they have anything useful to say. Utter crap.
Yep I think it was Dan Maskell who said (something along the lines of) “the best commentators know when to talk and when to shut up.”
Peter Allis was a phenomenal commentator and he learnt from the master himself – Henry Longhurst. A pleasure to listen to.
And it’s all so tediously predictable…’game of two halves etc’. I don’t really watch sport – don’t have a telly for a start – but on occasion, big occasion, I may visit a friend and watch a 6 nations match, and the silences are the golden bit when the commentator shuts the F up and allows you to view the spectacle with your own inner commentary or not.
The BBC do have a second agenda here. They’ve been priced out of most sports coverage. About the only sport they can still afford the rights to is women’s football. As such they’ve been attempting to build an audience for women’s football for years, though not too much in case Sky or Amazon gazump them.
To support the putative audience they need commentators & pundits. It’s possible that the BBC lose MOTD soon & all they’ll be left with is women’s football.
You have to accept that women’s football & rugby are very different to the men’s game. Women’s rugby is often very good. The girls can’t kick the ball very far so they can’t get out of trouble with a 60m kick to touch, consequently they invariably have to run the ball from the deep, so there tend to be more running moves. The England team have some fabulous athletes in the back line. Accept it’s different & enjoy it for what it is. Unless you’re prepared to pay for Sky it’s all you’re gonna get.
An excellent article. Joey Barton is correct. DEI is shit. Tokenism is actually psychologiclly draining.
The gold standard for football punditry was set by Saint and Greavsie, since then nothing has come close.
Joey Barton rightly lambasts the female “pundits” but the dross churned out by the likes of the crisp salesman and his bunch of nonentities is equally boring. Actually unwatchable which is partly why I don’t bother.
The real problem here is not Joey Barton’s opinions it is the thicko MP’s who believe they have a right to regulate those opinions.
By God I wish I could regulate some MP’s
Excellent stuff, HP!
Thanks Aethelred
“By God I wish I could regulate some MP’s”
In the past you could it’s called an Election, sadly nowadays as we seem to be in a one party state it’s getting harder.
Very true.
I enjoy Steven Tucker’s Daily Sceptic articles, always very well-written and entertaining.
Me too. Especially because they’re not solely entertaining, like, say, a typical Mark Steyn rant, but actually have something to say, too.
I seem to recall SoccerAM on Sky having a female co-presenter, i can’t remember her name but nobody batted an eyelid because she was genuinely knowledgeable, entertaining and did a good job. Barton is correct, the current crop are not entertaining and it’s hard not to come to the conclusion that they where hired for reasons other than being the best person for the role.
It was Helen Chamberlain, who was the eye candy, but also a genuine football fan of Torquay United (I think later a Director). I was talking about it with a friend only a couple of days ago. It was a bit risque, a bit ‘Carry On…’, but it was fun and good to watch. With the current crop of females, the lead guy asks them a question, and their response always seems to start ‘Absolutely…’, before they reiterate what the last person said. I want interesting opinions and contrary positions, which is why Soccer Saturday with Jeff Stelling was so bloody good. Jeff was also a mad supporter of a tiny team, Hartlepool in his case, man and boy. Maybe theres something in that.
Helen yes, that’s who I was thinking of.
“… critics like Barton don’t want to see any female sports presenters at all…”
Blokes like to go down the pub and discuss the footie with their mates, not the girls of St Trinians. I doubt there is much support for female presenters in men’s sports among the general male public.
Sexist? Don’t women want men kept out of their sports and their spaces? Sauce for goose, sauce for gander.
don’t want to see any female sports presenters at all
Well, what’s wrong with that? Do I have to want to see something just because BBC or ITV want to put it up? For illustration, let’s assume the BBC would want to put gay porn on TV, something that’s absolutely not far-fetched as these days, few movies about anything seem to be able to do without very explicit sex scenes and diversity obviously requires that gay couples must also feature in them, am I required to want to watch this? I absolutely don’t and nobody is going to tell me that I’m not equally absolutely entitled to that.
There are quite a few walks of life which easily escape woke tentacles, namely all which are neither glorious nor particularly lucrative in terms of amount of work needed to get paid. Eg, there are no diversity hires in areas like rubbish collection or brick laying or roofing.
As a woman I’m glad that there aren’t any diversity hires in these areas. I want the job done properly, and I’m grateful to the men who do it.
Have you thought about running for Prime Minster, Virginia?
Virginia wouldn’t stand a chance MAk – she talks sense.
But diversity isn’t just about women. It is about other things like race, and minorities
Well actually my mate is a fireman, and he tells me they insist on employing a 5’2″ woman whose feet cannot reach the floor of the fire engine. They have quotas. So who would you like to climb up a ladder and rescue a five year old child from the burning fire? A 5’2″ woman or a 6’3″ man? ———If you look hard enough you will find wokery, and you will find it even if you don’t look very hard. I suspect you are wrong about “diversity hires” in those areas like brick laying etc though as all companies these days are finding themselves ostracised if they don’t sign up to ESG and eg hire more black brick layers.
Fire brigade is a public glory – relatively little work role (that’s not supposed to communicate that it’s unimportant, just that the amount of time spent waiting for emergencies is a lot larger than the amount of time spent handling them). The wokesters are just people, after all, and they want their share of the cream whereever cream is to be had. They can do without their share of dog poo. I bet there are also preciously little ‘intersectional victims’ spending their time with carrying around pig and cow halves in abbatoir freezing rooms all night.
I reckon your sister has about the same knowledge of and interest in football as I do. And, just for the record (checks underpants) I am not of the female persuasion
Our politicians are becoming obsessed with closing down free speech. Joey is just expressing his views. No one has any right to call for him being shut down and MPs talking about preventing harms are very, very dangerous. Do they realise they are behaving like communists?
And, some people are not very good at certain things. I am afraid to say that lots of girls are rubbish at sports and engineering and science. And warriors do not have wombs. We can keep pretending and propagandising about women being just men with different sexual organs, but we all know it really isn’t true. Reality does not care about what you feel or believe.
Jeez, you’d think MPs had bigger fish to fry.
Never been a Joey Barton fan as my Old Man would have said he’s uncouth, but on this occasion 100% behind him despite his profanities.
As I recall Jeremy Clarkson saying “you have precious little chance these days getting a job in television if you have a scrotum”!