I write this entry less than a week before the country ‘goes to the polls’. On July 4th, the British electorate will vote, and it will pick – as it always does – the best option before it. This will mean electing a Labour Government. I say these words, to use one of Boris Johnson’s favourite expressions, “with a heavy heart“. Goodness knows I have not the smallest crumb of affection for the Labour Party (being raised in a Labour-voting household in a Labour stronghold thoroughly inoculated me in that regard). I wish that the people had better options to choose from. But that is not the way democracy works. The voters have to eat what is in front of them on the dinner table, not the Michelin-starred feast they could be having if only they had Michel Roux in the kitchen. And they will, naturally, choose the bland over the actively distasteful – the spam sandwich over the bowl of cold sick.
I have no time, in other words, for – I am choosing my words carefully – the wilfully purblind drivel that is currently being served up by much of the conservative commentariat (David Frost is one of the honourable exceptions), to the effect that voters are mistakenly ushering in a Labour Government without realising the full import of what they are doing, as though what is going to happen on July 4th will be some sort of accident, or the result of petty vindictiveness against the Tory Party which the public will some day end up regretting. The contempt for ordinary voters that is revealed in that sort of hogwash in fact goes to the root of the problem. People don’t vote on the basis of wanting to “punish” the Government or because “they don’t know what they’re voting for”. In aggregate they vote on the basis of a rational choice. And the Tory Party has simply presented the U.K. electorate in 2024 with only one such choice: not to elect it into Government.
Let me explain what I mean by this, because it goes beyond the observation, often made, that there is “no real difference” between the parties in terms of policy. Policy obviously matters. But it is not the main thing in politics – the main thing is the structure of the framework of government.
I have written a lot about Machiavelli (see, for example, here, here and here). This is for a good reason: it is because he had a way of getting to the bottom of things. (I am hardly alone in observing this – there are few thinkers in the history of political thought who have been more productively and widely read and commented on, by people with as little in common as Frederick the Great, Isaiah Berlin, Leo Strauss, Antonio Gramsci, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, and Louis Althusser.) And one of the things which he got to the bottom of was the basically dualistic nature of politics in modernity. Machiavelli, standing at the dawn of the modern era, saw that there were going to be two modes of governance from here on in to pick from, and more or less everything could be understood in those terms.
These two modes of governance are that of the Republic and the Principality. In the former, government represents the people, and gives effect to their norms and values on the basis that it respects those norms and values – it considers the people to be imbued with the capacity to govern themselves, by and large, and seeks therefore to create the conditions in which they are able to do so. In the latter, government rules the people: it governs them for their own good on the basis that without it they are corrupt, weak, incapable and immoral, and need government to rescue them from that predicament.
There is an awful lot more to be said about that basic dichotomy and its philosophical origins (as I have done in the posts linked to above) but I am keen here to be more direct than I would normally be. The point about the distinction between the Republic and Principality is really that it represents two different justifications for the prevailing governing framework. In a republican mode of governance, government is justified because it represents; in a princely mode, government is justified precisely because it governs: it does things.
These are qualitatively (I am tempted to use the word ‘metaphysically’, but I will restrain myself) distinct. Republican government says to the people: the reason why my government should exist is that I embody and put into effect your norms and values, which are good, because I want the polity to endure in recognisable form across time. Princely government says to the people: the reason why my government should exist is that you need me, and I will competently meet your needs. It follows that the former’s proposition is really about the creation of a relationship between governor and governed which respects the governed as equals, and the latter’s proposition is about the creation of a technocracy which is absolutely and necessarily predicated on knowing better than the people themselves what their interests are and how to realise them.
This makes principalities fundamentally unstable in the medium-to-long term, because as Machiavelli was anxious to make clear, technocracy never works. It is based on a fundamental misconception, the most serious misconception in all of politics, which is that government in general knows better than the people where their real interests lie. The only way to secure stability in perpetuity for Machiavelli was hence through maintaining the conditions of republican government where they existed, or creating those conditions through temporary ruthless princely expedience where they did not.
You can already I am sure sense the direction in which this post is going and it is almost insulting to your intelligence to spell it out. But the problem the current Tory Party is facing is that it has got itself precisely into the position of the bad prince, in that it has been in government for 14 years, and things have over that period become appreciably worse. The prince’s only claim to legitimacy, remember, is that he knows better than the people and meets their needs competently. It obviously and necessarily follows that to govern in the mode of a prince is to make yourself a hostage to fortune – if it it turns out that you can’t meet the needs of the people competently, and competently meeting needs is the only basis for your occupying the position of ruler, then why on earth would the people want you to stick around if they have the choice in the matter?
What people are in other words concluding (let’s face it, what they concluded long ago) is that Tory government hasn’t worked on the basis of what it has purported to offer. It has said to the electorate – squarely in the princely mode – that it will govern them competently and meet their needs, on the basis that they are in fact needy, vulnerable and corrupt. It turns out it hasn’t governed competently or met their needs on these terms (to repeat: this is because no government can), so they are kicking it out and electing another prince, which they reason might do a better job.
It is as simple, then, as that: if you are going to govern as a prince, you have to do it well. Sooner or later you will fail, because technocracy cannot in the long-term work. And when that happens, in the absence of some other option, a different prince – a different technocrat – will take charge instead. And there will be no reticence about the shift in preferences within the public. That shift will be decisive and thoroughgoing, because the people definitionally have no residual loyalty to a princely technocracy that does not represent them. They are willing to suffer such a form of government only if it can always present a plausible image of itself as governing expediently and effectively. The moment that stops, their tolerance ends.
We are seeing the consequences of having ruled badly as a prince playing out for the Tories before our eyes. I hope I will be forgiven for crowing about the accuracy of my prediction, made in a post back in March which covered much of this ground in greater depth and detail, that “the odds of a Labour majority [in the next General Election] are if anything significantly undervalued”. When I wrote those words the bookies were offering odds of 2-17 on a Labour win. Well, the average is at the time of writing 1-41.
I am then a veritable Paul the Octopus. But one doesn’t need to be a mystic cephalopod to understand what will happen after the election. The punchline is that the same thing that has happened to the Tories will happen to Labour in government, because the underlying logic will not change. In the medium-long term, technocracy – princely government – does not work and is unstable. Stable government is republican in nature. The Tories would do well to dwell on that ancient insight as they lick their wounds in opposition (if they’re lucky to even occupy that status on July 5th): my advice would be to forget the focus groups and go back to the Discourses on Livy and start to think very hard about what an actual alternative to Labour would look like. That alternative will not, I hope it now goes without saying, be a different set of policies within the princely mode. It will be a different mode of governing entirely.
Dr. David McGrogan is an Associate Professor of Law at Northumbria Law School. You can subscribe to his Substack – News From Uncibal – here.
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.
Well, we’ll see. I actually voted for the local Labour candidate two weeks ago, by post. However, I can remember a fair bit about the 1992 election, and there is outside chance that the polls are a bit inaccurate, maybe with too many not voting if it looks in the bag – or if they are fed up with the whole affair.
I was about to ask this question but I may as well address it to you, having read your post. Why would anyone vote Labour? I’m a bit aghast that anyone would, especially on this site. I’m just curious what the appeal is and why people would vote Labour over Reform. I was also interested in the character traits of your typical Labour voter, but that’s probably me going too far into the psychology of it all, to be honest. I can’t think of a single thing that I find appealing about Starmer and his party. Latest polls here;
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68079726?embed=true
Oh Mogs, referring to the BBC to ‘verify ‘ your argument 🙄x
Mog is right referring to the BBC: it is the one the Proles go to and trust. Misguided yes but that is the fact of the matter.
Answer: tribalism; habit: It avoids having to think.
Well in that case you will have contributed in a tiny way to what I believe will be much suffering for all of us – for me, for people who comment here, for our once great country and for Western Civilisation, which Labour wish to destroy. Nut zero, medical fascism, suppression of freedom of speech, fiscal irresponsibility, being invaded by more and more foreigners, mentally ill children being mutilated with taxpayer’s money. Nice one.
Seconded 👍
Three, sorry, thirded
This is part of my argument for voting Reform. People need to see how bad, evil and sick Labour really are. If we want change the people have to see why we want change. I would put money on Labour being the most hated party in our history within two years.
I doubt they will be hated enough before the next election to lose it
Sadly my views are way out of step with the times
There is that word again —“Change”. It is all over Labour Party Placards and rhetoric. —–But it is about as vague a term that can mean anything you want it to mean as you can get. Do these imbecile politicians take us all for fools? Yes they do . ——-You will probably say that if look at the Reform manifesto I will see what they mean by “change”. I don’t have to because I will be voting Reform anyway as they claim they are the only party willing to ditch NET ZERO, and that is all I am concerned about at this time. ——–CHANGE means NOHING and allows cretinous goons to imply they are saying something important, when they are doing nothing of the sort, they are taking voters for idiots, and if people keep voting for the same political class over and over and expect a different result then that is exactly what they are —-idiots
The only change they’re after is all this Globalist crap on steroids, faster and harder.
When the shit hits the fan for Labour and the sheeple start to kick off because our country is being torn asunder Kneel will be on the tellybox saying something like ‘well we promised you change, stop moaning.’
Or they’ll just blame Brexit!
Inevitably 😀
Don’t forget what you describe had its beginnings in 1945 when the collective wisdom of the electorate returned a Socialist Labour Government bribing them with free stuff, which then nationalised just about everything and established a command economy, which despite some of it being ‘free market’, we still have to our detriment.
The question is often asked, why did the electorate reject Winston Churchill – the answer is he knew the Country was bankrupt and couldn’t afford the welfare Statism being offered by Labour – so the electorate chose the ones offering the biggest bribes – Labour, as it has done every election since, and the electorate will drop its pants for the Party promising to ’fix’ the NHS by throwing the largest amount of magic money tree cash at it… yeah! Bang those pans.
Sad but true
I postal voted for Lee Anderson(reform), the wife too! (no I didn’t vote for the wife, she voted reform too)
What swayed you to labour John?
You voted for a technocratic childhood commie who’ll make you poorer, colder and live less long. When ppl vote so obviously against their own self interest it’s very hard to regard them as adults.
Absolutely agree 100%. It is not possible to have a grown up debate with such people. They have to see Labour in full on left mode. They will hate Labour for the rest of their lives after just 2 years.
Why do you vote for a party that will treble your energy bills, cover the country in turbines, and have millions of migrants swarming all over every single corner of the country? Is this what you want? If so, that is fine then go vote Labour. Don’t get me wrong, the Tories are nearly as bad on these issues but I just wonder why you think you only have 2 choices. Personally I would rather vote for Monster Raving Loonies before I would put a cross in a box that would allow Ed Eco Parasite Miliband anywhere near government.
I also wonder what ex Post Masters who were wrongly convicted when they see that false wan?er Davey doing all these stupid stunts.
A very fair appraisal of where we are pre-election. Nevertheless by installing Kneel and his apprentice terrorists we will simply be giving time, space and money to an outfit that cannot help but be significantly worse than that which we will be gladly rid of. Our only current alternative is Nigel Farage.
I am fairly confident that Nigel Farage has worked that he has just five years to rescue the country out. He is working on the basis that come 2029 neither the Tories nor Kneel’s raiders will be in any way palatable to an electorate virtually begging for a new electoral system. It is a bold gamble. Kneel will be working for the WEF / Davos Deviants so Farage going against him is likely to turn very nasty. Actually from snippets let loose in the NEC speech I believe Farage has realised this.
Effectively the fight for the soul of Britain will be run over the next five years. Kneel will be attempting to destroy the country irrevocably and in God’s corner stands Nigel Farage.
Shit or bust time.
I was thinking the other day why don’t I hear more from Nigel about the UN WEF etc, it’s not like he hasn’t been fighting to free this nation from the totalitarian EU, only to see that the EU was but one Globalist entity. His old pall Godfrey Bloom was well ahead of Nigel on this one as the video I posted above shows.
Thanks Ron 👍
Because the BBC etc have inserted in to ppls brains that only tin foil hatter dislike the UN.
You have to pick one front to fight on. Since the WEF ideas are so James Bond it is impossible to convince people even when you point out that they have written it all down including all those who must die.
Because most people won’t know what he’s talking about.
Pretty much my thinking. The Tories are a busted flush, their only redemption is a hung Parliament with Reform. People have never seen a full unleashed Socialist Government. Within two years they will loathe Labour. That’s where we come in.
👍 👍 👍
The BBC interviewed Tice this morning trying to snare him on Farage and him view on Ukraine, that the war was provoked. He also read out a quote from a Reform member who said about the head of the European Central Bank as a “head bitch” a Globalist and the new normal is the new Swastika. I can’t disagree with any of that. But that is probably too much for BBC Kool Aid drinkers.
Emotional plea. ———-and great comment.—– If the deviants succeed as they are likely to then freedom and prosperity is dead and as Nancy Pelosi pointed out a few years ago. “We are all socialists now” Sadly this is true. But I see the torch of freedom in Reform. Can it shine bright enough though or will the deviants crush it?
Thank you.
A dose of significantly worse is just what the dopes who form the majority of the population need to liven them up.
👍 👍 👍
Here is the video and full transcript of Nigel Farage’s Birmingham speech – no prompter, no notes.
I have seen the vid and read the transcript. He is simply brilliant. As a politician none of the rest can get anywhere near him.
Magnificent.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/fixing-broken-britain-the-farage-way-a-great-reformists-political-speech/
The level of passion, integrity, track record of achievement, deep historical knowledge and charisma evident in the character of Nigel Farage… barely qualifies him as a politician. Get out of the Westminster quagmire, you deviant racist scum! We’re happy with the way things are. All we need is #solidarity, #TheGreaterGood, #compliance, and most importantly, no party of significance with common sense policies getting in the way of #Change! Oh yes, and all of you nice folk one car-repair away from financial ruin, yes – even you need to play your part to #StopClimateChange. If everybody get’s poorer, then so be it… at least we’re more equal. Vote Labour if you want more #hashtags!
👍 👍 👍
Saw this on you tube. Tremendous.
If I was permitted to vote then it would definitely be for Reform. Sadly as a tax-paying expat I am NOT permitted to vote and it makes so bloody ANGRY.
Thanks Judy.
5,000 people on a Sunday afternoon. No other party could do that.
Exactly. Something is stirring.
The transcript is a bit rambling but well worth a read. Farage would certainly make a better prime minister than either Sunak or Starmer.
Only slightly Off-T
Although the focus of this article is the USA and Trump v Biden the parallels between our countries is uncanny.
https://off-guardian.org/2024/07/01/electing-the-next-dictator-ugly-truths-you-wont-hear-from-trump-or-biden/
” The government long ago sold us out to the highest bidder. The highest bidder, by the way, has always been the Deep State. America’s shadow government—which is comprised of unelected government bureaucrats, corporations, contractors, paper-pushers, and button-pushers who are actually calling the shots behind the scenes right now and operates beyond the reach of the Constitution with no real accountability to the citizenry—is the real reason why “we the people” have no control over our government.
12. Every U.S. citizen is now guilty until proven innocent.”
A very thorough article focusing on the manifestos of the main parties ( and some independents ) in relation to farming and food security in the UK. *Spoiler* Reform tick all the boxes;
”The first aim of the Government, after the Brexit vote, should have been to make the UK as self-sufficient as possible for food. In 1972, the UK was producing 86 per cent of its own food. Through Government policies to stop food being grown here and increasing immigration, it has been reducing since then. If, for any reason, imports could not reach the UK, what would happen then? I have read that supermarkets only have two days’ worth of food supply in store at any time? How quickly could we run out?
So we have a General Election coming up and I decided to look at the manifestos of the main parties to see what they say about their commitment to farming and food.
Let’s look at the Labour manifesto. Somebody told me that they had not mentioned farming and food security in their manifesto at all. They could be right. I have looked at it and, unless I have missed it, I can find nothing. As food security is one of the most important things for our country and Labour have not even written about it. For me, Labour is definitely not the party to support.
If you don’t like any of the voting options available at this upcoming election, you should still go to “vote”. You can write across your ballot paper “I DO NOT CONSENT”. This is in line with a legal case called Ashby vs White that was decided in 1703 and still applies today. The case covered three key issues: 1) the separation of powers; 2) the use of the Monarchy’s prerogative for the benefit of the people; and 3) election and ballot rights. Putting “I DO NOT CONSENT” aligns precisely with the full judgement of Ashby vs White.”
https://uncut.substack.com/p/three-main-parties-would-destroy
I have been posting articles about food and farming for many, many months and actually stated in one post that this country has not had a food security policy since WWII and I called it out for the criminal neglect that it is – all post WWII governments carry a portion of blame.
Currently the major, major concern is H5N1, or Bird Flu, not because it is particularly dangerous to humans because it isn’t, but because it can be used in a more destructive manner than the non-existent C1984. If the go ahead is given for a second Scamdemic then it will probably kick off in late Autumn. Unfortunately, notwithstanding the best efforts of our Health Security Agency H5N1 is going to ravage domestic poultry flocks and sadly millions of birds will have to be slaughtered. Despite best efforts some dozy bugger lets his chickens into the cattle sheds and before we know it H5N1 has infected the nation’s cattle herds which sadly will have to be culled a la Bliar’s rehearsal of 2001 which accounted for 11 million beasts.
Well what do you know – we have an enormous food crisis and people starving. Obviously imports will be banned and in any case the H5N1 will have comfortably enveloped the globe so there will be nothing to import anyway. Of course such measures will be ‘safe and effective’ 😀
The reason there is no mention of food security in the Labour Party manifesto is because Labour will be ensuring there is no food security
as they will be shutting all the farms and killing the farm animals.
Let’s not forget the Deagel forecasts – UK population down to 25 million by 2025.
An interesting and perceptive article. However, I must take issue with the author’s claim that “they are kicking it out and electing another prince, which they reason might do a better job”
They’re not – they know full well that Starmer and his mob will do a very worse job, but they know that voting for a party which has let down and betrayed them, a party that had – with an 80 seat majority a once in a generation chance to enact real, actual, conservative policies – and blew it.
Being a lifelong Conservative voter is now like living in an abusive relationship “Honestly, I’ll do better – just trust me again”. Well, they’re not getting my vote. I’ve packed my bags and I’m leaving.
VOTE REFORM!
I thought it was pretentious rubbish!
Er, sorry, what a load of rubbish. Leaving aside fringe parties not standing everywhere, Reform are a perfectly credible alternative who could hardly do a worse job than Labour.
Godfrey Bloom has a good take on Starmer….WEF stooge!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZQ4ktFy3Ek
He spoke well. Starmer – thicko that he is did a marvellous job of outing himself as an apprentice WEFfer. I have seen that clip a few times, always good for a chuckle.
For one thing, Machiavelli was the ultimate exponent of Realpolitik – a Nietzschean advocate of der Wille zur Macht before his time. His work was as far from ‘metaphysical’ as it could possibly be, and I don’t recognise the gloss put on him in this article.
For another thing, there is no single entity called ‘the electorate’. It is hopelessly divided. In the coming vote, some will get what they vote for, others will not. Again, the article does not seem to recognise this reality.
Why is your name in blue Steven? Forgive me if I don’t recognise you as a moderator or whatever.
The thought crossed my mind.
The Guardian????
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/17/a-labour-landslide-on-37-of-the-vote-that-makes-the-case-for-pr
The Guardian????
OK, so first past the post is shyte, PR is the next best?
PR would certainly shake up uk politics!
Some people vote for a good candidate rather than a party. For example, I’m probably going to vote for Reform this time, for a candidate I know barely anything about, but if there was a good candidate of another party in my constituency, I’d vote for that candidate instead. But there isn’t! (There is one quite good candidate but her party leader wanted to force health workers to get vaccinated or get sacked, and she never said anything to the contrary, so I’m not voting for her.) However, if the Conservative MP, David Davis, was in my constituency, I’d vote for him instead, or if Rosie Duffield or Andy Burnham were standing in my constituency, I’d vote for that Labour candidate rather than a Reform candidate I know nothing about.
Burnham is a thug. A really nasty piece of work.
He played a controlled opposition during the Lockdowns if you remember. “We must have enough testing kits” etc. They will argue about the small stuff to gave a veneer democratic accountability. Just like the MSM in general.
I like the idea of voting for an individual if you really have confidence in them but the thing is they are so limited by what their evil parties let them do. There is the “change from the inside” argument but that only goes so far. All the people you have named sat on their hands or clapped when the moment came to oppose medical fascism so that’s a no from me.
Can you name me politician that you do have confidence in, tof, and huxley can you name a candidate that you would vote for?
I might have considered voting for Sir Desmond Swayne had I been in his constituency. Andrew Bridgen for sure. I will be voting Heritage or Alliance for Democracy and Freedom.
I would add Neil Hamilton. He is the only one left of Mark Dolan’s guests on GBN worth listening to. He stood up to the Covid fascism in the Welsh Assembly, and refers to ‘climate emergency’ as a hoax.
I didn’t realise that – thanks for the info
So a candidate doesn’t have to be perfect for you to vote for them, they don’t have to be in agreement with you about everything. Same here!
Well of course – I don’t even agree with myself about everything! How can one know what all of a given politician’s views are?
There are a few red lines for me – unequivocal opposition to lockdowns, medical fascism, Nut Zero, people with willies at birth are men, reduce absolute immigration to a tiny number, freedom of speech, low taxation, small government.
Danny Kruger, Christopher Chope. I am sure there are a few more.
“huxley can you name a candidate that you would vote for?”
In this election I will be voting for an Independent who is a friend of mine – Paul Errock. Honest, kind, decent and totally committed to the constituency, Oldham East and Saddleworth.
In 2019 myself, Paul and a lady associate set up an independent party with the aim of taking away Labour’s overall control of Oldham Council. At this year’s local elections we achieved our aim. In five years we took Labour down from 43 councillors to 27. We have the biggest social media platforms in Oldham. In fairness much of the graft has been done by Paul and others but our small team has changed Oldham politics for good.
We are not going to elect our own candidate and we know that but we are hoping to rid the town of the useless Debbie Abrahams. In 2019 we helped reduce her 7,000 majority to 1500, hopefully this year she gets the boot.
In Ashton, Oldham and Rochdale Labour are on the back foot and the muzzies are deserting Labour and in some cases standing their own candidates.
If Labour do achieve massive electoral success on Thursday they need to make the best of it because their nadir will hit in 2029, if they even get that far.
Godfrey Bloom is voting for David Davis on the video I posted on here. He may be a friend but I could never vote for any Uniparty, friend or foe.
Personally I think the polls are way off the mark and it will be either very close or a hung Parliament. Hung has been my position for the last three years and I see no reason to change now. The key is 40%+ who have not decided. They will play safe and vote Tory or be stupid and not vote at all. Many who say Reform will change at the booth. I will not, I want real long term change and a failed Tory and a loathed Labour suits me perfectly.
As to the article, well, what if a terrible Prince is better than an incoming Usurper to the throne who lies? Geppetto, the businessman who ran his own company, made a right Tool did he not?
Basic fact of life is that the Prince stinks, the Usurper stinks but the majority will not revolt and go with the Outliers Army. The one who occupies the throne will always be the safe bet because it is better to go with what you know than chance something worse.
This is where Kiernocchio has completely and utterly misjudged people. He waged everything on not having to say what he intends to do. That makes the Proles nervous so they stick with the whips and servitude they know.
Richard I mostly agree with you but except you keep calling for “change”.——This is a nonsense term. Its better to speak about what it actually is you want rather than use that silly term.
And a bit of honesty about the Blob would be a start. Mr Humphries et al.
When Starmer says he is returning politics to service, what does he mean in terms of the republican/princely arrangement?
It may have been Dr McGrogan who made this observation. The King can say he is a servant. Yet he is a king, and thus not a servant.
Exchanging one prince for another might have been changing the royal house in the past. But today, exchanging a blue prince for a red one is exchanging cousins in the same centrist dynasty.
Is it possible in the state that is more modern in terms of modernity than what existed in Machiavelli’s time to arrange a permanent princely dynasty? If constitutional changes are made to remove power to the judiciary, NGOs and quangos, the blame for failures of princely rule become spread as thinly as pollen over a field. As in the Post Office scandal, there is no discoverable centre of power to introduce to Mme La Guillotine.
The EU shows signs of great resilience as the ‘first non-dynastic empire’. Governments that are elected on the republican ticket, like Meloni’s, are soon brought to the position of being client kings by the bond markets acting as proxies – akin to the knightly retainers of medieval kings – of the European Central Bank, the king’s chancellor.
I do believe the Bond Markets did the number on Truss too.
Yes they did and with ministerial backing.
So nothing in the MSM this morning about a top BBC presenter tweeting that Biden should have Trump murdered.
I don’t follow Twitter …. do tell me more.
Clearly the writer has no issue with what happened to us during the Covid years, when the veil was truly torn away and both Conservative and Labour (who wanted to go harder,faster and longer) were shown in their true colours, authoritarians with zero respect for humanity, and with a blood lust for absolute power over the individual, even down to controlling the bodies of the individual through coerced use of experimental substances.
I will not ever give my vote to such people or parties, I will never offer myself up as a cowardly slave. How can an individual respect themselves who willingly offers up their freedom and liberty in order to perpetuate so corroded and corrupted misanthropic group of people.
The answer is in the Stanley Milgram effect and the obedience to authority.
👍 👍 👍
Let’s not forget that for much of the last 5 years, they didn’t govern as a Prince: they governed as a Henry VIII or an Ivan the Terrible ….. ie a Tyrant …… and that tendency had been slowly building for quite a long time as the “Nudge/Shove Unit” became more confident.
As Galloway said “two cheeks of the same arse” and as Nigel pointed out the other day, we’re not getting a new Leader with Starmer, we’re getting another Middle Manager.
Reform is making the Republican offering. That’s what I voted for.
Galloway needs reminding how he supported a 0 Covid Lockdown where they can nail you into your house. I would’ve been in Jail because I would’ve put up a fight.
I am voting Reform.
Dullards voting Labour because they always vote Labour?
The Labour Party will win because the voters got tired of Sammy Davis Sunak and they think the beady eyed parasite is the only other choice. Then once they get tired of the beady eyed parasite they will once again vote for whoever the Conservatives stick up there next as leader. ——-When are the people going to realise that these two globalist showers of UN and WEF lackey scumbags are their enemy?
Cheeks of the same backside, or the less crude, two wings of the same ugly bird.
A good article with a useful dichotomy between the Republic and the Principality.
Another, more Anglo-Saxon take on this, is provided by Adam Smith and Edmund Burke. For them the difference between a British and an American system is that in a British system MP’s are meant to be responsible to their electors whereas in the American system they are explicitly meant to be representatives of the people.
The Tory’s long ago abandoned any thought of being responsible or accountable to their electors and are rightly classed as an incompetent principality. In the US, the failure is different, to avoid being representative of the electors, the US and State governments have devolved power to the bureaucracy and their quangos who happily ignore taxpayers and voters.
So, a republic can end up in the same position as the principality, jsut by a different route.
“… as it always does – the best option before it.”
Best? Define best. Least worse, I think.
The appropriate term is, Hobson’s choice.
The question is not for whom I vote but who will be let in by my vote?
The Roman republic lasted less long than the Roman empire. And the Roman empire developed from a republic at home with a princely chief of the army mainly abroad to an absolutist monarchy which regulated the everyday lives of its citizens in great detail, eg, decreeing that sons must always continue the professional occupations of their fathers.
Judging from a TV performance of yesterday I partially watched in passing, giving the people a choice between Sunak and Starmer seems pretty much like them being allowed to choose the colour of a large wheelie bin someone will permanenty put into their living room.