Vive L’Empereur! (DeAgostini/Getty Images)
![](https://unherd.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Tom-McTague-Website-100x100.jpg)
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is weird. Just look at how it plays sport. It competes in the Olympics as Great Britain, while in football it plays as separate entities called England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In rugby, meanwhile, Northern Ireland doesn’t get a team, and in cricket, the Welsh play for England. Don’t ask.
But this sporting oddity is only a pale reflection of the UK’s political and constitutional complexity. While it is one sovereign state with one King, it has two established churches, three judicial systems, four home nations, and a whole host of crown dependencies and overseas territories which form part of its single, royal realm. (Are you following at the back?) And that’s before you consider the fact that the King of the United Kingdom (not England) is also king of lots of other countries with lots of other titles, which were once also part of the UK’s single royal realm but are no longer.
To some, the impenetrable complexity of the UK and its royal family is part of its strength. Nations aren’t “rational” constructs but the products of history and human imagination; old trees which suit the soil in which they grow, not brutalist modern buildings rising from concrete. In fact, often the more arcane a country’s political order, the better. The Holy Roman Empire was impenetrably messy but gloriously superior to many of the Germanies which followed its violent destruction.
This is the Burkean conception of constitutions, anyway: organic orders which contain much that cannot be justified in simple rational terms but nevertheless provide the shelter under which nations live freely and in harmony — often more freely than those constantly forced to cut down and rebuild their societies based on some abstract principle. As T.S. Eliot wrote, art does not “improve” with time but simply changes to reflect the new material. So, too, with constitutions.
While I agree with much of this Burkean analysis, it also seems clear to me that the British constitution today is not some glorious old oak left to grow naturally, but the product of half-arsed topiary. The UK has been robbed of much of the organic strength of a traditional constitutional order without gaining the simplicity of a revolutionary constitution; we have the constitution of Ted Heath, not Edmund Burke or Napoleon Bonaparte.
Nothing better illustrates this reality than our impenetrable local democracy. Occasionally, someone or other tries to call Britain’s local elections our “midterms”, but they are nothing of the kind. In the United States, every seat in the House of Representatives is up for grabs every two years — as well as a third of the Senate. The midterms are a chance for the American public as a whole to grant or deny the President legislative control. They are an important moment in the life of the nation, part of its ever evolving story. In Britain, meanwhile, local elections happen every year in some form or another and are so arcanely complicated that almost nobody understands what is going on. Today, for example, around 8,000 councillors will be elected from around two thirds of our 300-plus local authorities in England. Why some councils vote in this four-year pattern and not another is largely just chance. Scotland and Wales will not be voting; Northern Ireland will vote in a couple of weeks.
The map of British local democracy makes the principalities in the Holy Roman Empire look positively geometric. In some parts of England there are “county councils” and “district councils”; in others “unitary” authorities; and in others metropolitan boroughs. Some of these hold elections for a third of their councillors each time, some for half. Some parts of the country also have “metro mayors”, some of whom double up as local police and crime commissioners. There are fire and rescue authorities, sui generis councils such as the City of London and the Council of the Isles of Scilly as well as the Greater London Authority and, of course, the devolved parliaments and assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Each body has different powers and responsibilities, each funded according to different formulas described by the House of Commons library as “extremely complex”. Meanwhile, voting systems differ across the nations.
The problem is not so much the complexity of Britain’s political order, but the fact that it just doesn’t hold together: partly the product of tradition and partly of supposedly modernising reforms which have just been bolted on here and there. The result is a whole array of competing bodies with criss-crossing lines of responsibility and legitimacy, a mishmash of incohesion that robs the country of shared national moments, customs and stories. A country needs more than an army and king to hang together.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeSimply repeal all constitional and electoral changes made by Heath and Blair.
Two utter disasters
Voted by the people.
TB won 3 elections – he won even after the Iraq Debacle (no WMDs).
The greed of the Patrician class and the primitive instinct of the masses saved Blair.
The greed of the Patrician class and the primitive instinct of the masses saved Blair.
Voted by the people.
TB won 3 elections – he won even after the Iraq Debacle (no WMDs).
And bring back the old regiments
Which ones?
Rather a lot to choose from!
Which ones?
Rather a lot to choose from!
Two utter disasters
And bring back the old regiments
Simply repeal all constitional and electoral changes made by Heath and Blair.
Let’s have parish councils, borough/district councils, city councils and county councils.
No metropolitan councils, no regional bodies, no devolved assemblies, no mayors (other than ceremonial ones like the Lord Mayor of London).
One parliament in Westminster, representing the whole country, with no more than 250 MPs. 250 London properties to be acquired, varying in size and allocated according to family need. MPs should not be able to make a killing on the property market at the taxpayer’s expense.
A second (revising) chamber, again of no more than 250 and probably a lot less, composed of representatives of parishes, boroughs, counties etc, plus appointed experts in their fields, possibly chosen by lottery.
I await the call.
N Bonaparte, St Helena.
Shouldn’t that be ‘Les Invalides’ Paris?
No, I’m still alive, awaiting the nation’s call in its hour of need (the inhabitant of the tomb at Les Invalides is an imposter, as any fule kno)
No, I’m still alive, awaiting the nation’s call in its hour of need (the inhabitant of the tomb at Les Invalides is an imposter, as any fule kno)
Shouldn’t that be ‘Les Invalides’ Paris?
Let’s have parish councils, borough/district councils, city councils and county councils.
No metropolitan councils, no regional bodies, no devolved assemblies, no mayors (other than ceremonial ones like the Lord Mayor of London).
One parliament in Westminster, representing the whole country, with no more than 250 MPs. 250 London properties to be acquired, varying in size and allocated according to family need. MPs should not be able to make a killing on the property market at the taxpayer’s expense.
A second (revising) chamber, again of no more than 250 and probably a lot less, composed of representatives of parishes, boroughs, counties etc, plus appointed experts in their fields, possibly chosen by lottery.
I await the call.
N Bonaparte, St Helena.
It is ‘Mr Plod’ who really needs serious reform .
With something like 41 Constabularies and thus 41c Chief Constables this really is a case of ‘jobs for the boys’(and girls).
National detection rates for what most regard as heinous crimes are at an all time low, whilst detection for ridiculous ‘hate/woke’ offences at an all time high!
Additionally the hard earned reputation of the nations premier Police Force, the ‘Met’,* lies in tatters.
Never in my lifetime has the image of the Police been so low. Sir Robert Peel, the founder of the Met in 1829, decreed that ‘consensus’ policing was what was required.
How he would weep if he saw todays Blobies!
(* ‘Best Police money can buy’ as they used to say in the 1970’s.)
Metropolitanazi secret police and Gestaplod! Some of the thickest, most biased, moronic automatons I have ever had yhe displeasure to meet, too stupid even to see how much they are despised, and how bent they are!
Policing needs to have a local/regional underpinning. ‘Police Scotland’, with one chief constable for the whole of Scotland, is a very bad idea.
Agreed!
And as we have just discovered with that wonderful faux Police Unit somewhere near Glasgow!*
The present arrangement works out at about one Constabulary per 1.5 head of population. In Scotland one per 5 million.
So perhaps something in between may suffice?
(* The one that left a young couple dead in their car for 9 days was it?)
Agreed!
And as we have just discovered with that wonderful faux Police Unit somewhere near Glasgow!*
The present arrangement works out at about one Constabulary per 1.5 head of population. In Scotland one per 5 million.
So perhaps something in between may suffice?
(* The one that left a young couple dead in their car for 9 days was it?)
Metropolitanazi secret police and Gestaplod! Some of the thickest, most biased, moronic automatons I have ever had yhe displeasure to meet, too stupid even to see how much they are despised, and how bent they are!
Policing needs to have a local/regional underpinning. ‘Police Scotland’, with one chief constable for the whole of Scotland, is a very bad idea.
It is ‘Mr Plod’ who really needs serious reform .
With something like 41 Constabularies and thus 41c Chief Constables this really is a case of ‘jobs for the boys’(and girls).
National detection rates for what most regard as heinous crimes are at an all time low, whilst detection for ridiculous ‘hate/woke’ offences at an all time high!
Additionally the hard earned reputation of the nations premier Police Force, the ‘Met’,* lies in tatters.
Never in my lifetime has the image of the Police been so low. Sir Robert Peel, the founder of the Met in 1829, decreed that ‘consensus’ policing was what was required.
How he would weep if he saw todays Blobies!
(* ‘Best Police money can buy’ as they used to say in the 1970’s.)
I agree that we should return to the pre-1974 boundaries for English counties.
Make Lancashire Great Again!
Bring Back Westmorland!
(Probably best not to google BBW)
At least the splendid little town of Appleby has done its best in that respect.
I’ll raise a glass to that!
I’ll raise a glass to that!
And Rutland.
At least the splendid little town of Appleby has done its best in that respect.
And Rutland.
Perhaps some historic counties deserve to be revived, but a lot of the old boundaries were changed because they didn’t match urban agglomerations.
I live in Oxford, and naturally identify with Oxfordshire, but Oxford once sat on the border with Berkshire.
Even city-centre locations like Grandpont and New Hinksey were apparently in Berkshire until 1889. Caversham went the other way in 1895.
See Wikipedia’s “List of Oxfordshire boundary changes” for details.
Rivers and streams make easily-identifiable borders, but not administratively sensible ones.
Until about 1540 ‘you’ were in the Diocese of Lincoln.
Then you got your own Diocese based on the magnificent Augustinian Church of Osney Abbey.
Sadly a few years later in 1546 ‘you’ binned that for the rather miserable, stunted nunnery church the former St Frideswide’s Priory, and so it remains today.
Thus the greatest medieval building ever to grace Oxford is gone forever.
And Surrey went right up to the river (the county cricket club still plays at the Oval). As an erstwhile Kennington resident I’d have been more than happy to be returned to Surrey County Council and liberated from the Khan jackboot.
Hear, hear, Khan should be returned to Karachi, ‘Red Star’’, and recorded delivery as soon as is humanly possible.
Hear, hear, Khan should be returned to Karachi, ‘Red Star’’, and recorded delivery as soon as is humanly possible.
Until about 1540 ‘you’ were in the Diocese of Lincoln.
Then you got your own Diocese based on the magnificent Augustinian Church of Osney Abbey.
Sadly a few years later in 1546 ‘you’ binned that for the rather miserable, stunted nunnery church the former St Frideswide’s Priory, and so it remains today.
Thus the greatest medieval building ever to grace Oxford is gone forever.
And Surrey went right up to the river (the county cricket club still plays at the Oval). As an erstwhile Kennington resident I’d have been more than happy to be returned to Surrey County Council and liberated from the Khan jackboot.
Bring Back Westmorland!
(Probably best not to google BBW)
Perhaps some historic counties deserve to be revived, but a lot of the old boundaries were changed because they didn’t match urban agglomerations.
I live in Oxford, and naturally identify with Oxfordshire, but Oxford once sat on the border with Berkshire.
Even city-centre locations like Grandpont and New Hinksey were apparently in Berkshire until 1889. Caversham went the other way in 1895.
See Wikipedia’s “List of Oxfordshire boundary changes” for details.
Rivers and streams make easily-identifiable borders, but not administratively sensible ones.
I agree that we should return to the pre-1974 boundaries for English counties.
Make Lancashire Great Again!
I’ve never properly understood why the people who arrange my bin collection have to have a political philosophy.
An 18 year old A-level student is standing in my ward today on that very platform. Good luck to him, I say.
It seems to give them confidence that they aren’t alone. Unfortunately it doesn’t enable them to actually take any decisions which conflict with what their employees – the all-powerful council officers – have decided.
The end result (predicted by “Yes, Minister”) of the 1974 changes is that no elected representatives are allowed to decide anything at parish, town, district or county level. They are all told that they don’t understand the complexities and must therefore do what the ‘civil servants’ advise. The Party system (which is wholly irrelevant) then prevents them all agreeing to stand up for themselves, as one lot will always undermine any such move, purely to score “political” points.
An 18 year old A-level student is standing in my ward today on that very platform. Good luck to him, I say.
It seems to give them confidence that they aren’t alone. Unfortunately it doesn’t enable them to actually take any decisions which conflict with what their employees – the all-powerful council officers – have decided.
The end result (predicted by “Yes, Minister”) of the 1974 changes is that no elected representatives are allowed to decide anything at parish, town, district or county level. They are all told that they don’t understand the complexities and must therefore do what the ‘civil servants’ advise. The Party system (which is wholly irrelevant) then prevents them all agreeing to stand up for themselves, as one lot will always undermine any such move, purely to score “political” points.
I’ve never properly understood why the people who arrange my bin collection have to have a political philosophy.
The traditional county borders that existed before 1974 had a millennia of heritage to shape them, and often came to consist of a balance between urban areas, market towns and rural landscapes…all undone by a Conservative government unwilling to conserve anything. And then New Labour went beyond failing to conserve and into the realm of deliberate constitutional vandalism.
The traditional county borders that existed before 1974 had a millennia of heritage to shape them, and often came to consist of a balance between urban areas, market towns and rural landscapes…all undone by a Conservative government unwilling to conserve anything. And then New Labour went beyond failing to conserve and into the realm of deliberate constitutional vandalism.
A rather odd argument. Societies flourish when allowed to grow organically. A top down rationalisation made a mess so what we need is … a top down rationalisation.
Yes, but there is not such thing as “organic”.
Was the English Reformation organic?
Yes, but there is not such thing as “organic”.
Was the English Reformation organic?
A rather odd argument. Societies flourish when allowed to grow organically. A top down rationalisation made a mess so what we need is … a top down rationalisation.
France has got a Napoleon. It’s not going well.
It is going well – the fact that (few) people are rioting is the proof that Macron has done the right thing for the country – long term.
It actually is.
Macron is doing the necessary reforms. French will protest – what did you expect?
Perhaps a “whiff of grapeshot “ might help!
It is going well – the fact that (few) people are rioting is the proof that Macron has done the right thing for the country – long term.
It actually is.
Macron is doing the necessary reforms. French will protest – what did you expect?
Perhaps a “whiff of grapeshot “ might help!
France has got a Napoleon. It’s not going well.
‘The Holy Roman Empire was impenetrably messy but gloriously superior to many of the Germanies which followed its violent destruction.’ All of them in fact. And of course it was Napoleon who dismantled it, resulting in three European wars under Bismarck, two racist, jingoistic and militaristic dictators (the Kaiser and Hitler), and two horrific global wars, followed by the inevitable reconstitution of the HRE in the form of the EU.
Was Kaiser any different than the British ruling class? Or French? or Russian?
Yes, because unlike those rulers, he was strongly influenced by the racist and anti-Semitic writer Houston Stewart Chamberlain. Kaiser Wilhelm is recorded as having read Chamberlain’s ‘The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century‘ twice, ‘page by page.’ Chamberlain had himself been influenced by the French racist writer Arthur de Gobineau, who developed the theory of the Aryan master race. The Berliner Zeitung newspaper complained of the close friendship between Wilhelm II and such an outspoken racist and anti-Semite as Chamberlain, stating this was a real cause for concern for decent, caring people both inside and outside Germany. Regarding the First World War, Wilhelm wrote to Chamberlain in January 1917: ‘The war is a struggle between two Weltanschauugen [world views], the Teutonic-German for morality, right, loyalty and faith, genuine humanity, truth and real freedom, against … the worship of Mammon, the power of money, pleasure, land-hunger, lies, betrayal, deceit and—last but not least—treacherous assassination! These two Weltanschauugen cannot be reconciled or tolerate one another, one must be victorious, the other must go under!’
Yes, because unlike those rulers, he was strongly influenced by the racist and anti-Semitic writer Houston Stewart Chamberlain. Kaiser Wilhelm is recorded as having read Chamberlain’s ‘The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century‘ twice, ‘page by page.’ Chamberlain had himself been influenced by the French racist writer Arthur de Gobineau, who developed the theory of the Aryan master race. The Berliner Zeitung newspaper complained of the close friendship between Wilhelm II and such an outspoken racist and anti-Semite as Chamberlain, stating this was a real cause for concern for decent, caring people both inside and outside Germany. Regarding the First World War, Wilhelm wrote to Chamberlain in January 1917: ‘The war is a struggle between two Weltanschauugen [world views], the Teutonic-German for morality, right, loyalty and faith, genuine humanity, truth and real freedom, against … the worship of Mammon, the power of money, pleasure, land-hunger, lies, betrayal, deceit and—last but not least—treacherous assassination! These two Weltanschauugen cannot be reconciled or tolerate one another, one must be victorious, the other must go under!’
“Neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire”*
(*V.)
Was Kaiser any different than the British ruling class? Or French? or Russian?
“Neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire”*
(*V.)
‘The Holy Roman Empire was impenetrably messy but gloriously superior to many of the Germanies which followed its violent destruction.’ All of them in fact. And of course it was Napoleon who dismantled it, resulting in three European wars under Bismarck, two racist, jingoistic and militaristic dictators (the Kaiser and Hitler), and two horrific global wars, followed by the inevitable reconstitution of the HRE in the form of the EU.
How do you reconcile this view with the near-constant decline of France since Napoleon? Before and during his rule it was the leading power in continental Europe. Subsequently it slipped not into second but third place with many seeing the future axis of Europe lying to Germany’s east rather than west. The riots in France are, in small part, due to this sense of national decline and the inability of the french government to stop the rot. That rot set in with the Sun King and only really accelerated after the Corsican ogre tried to give a fudge (so despised by the author) to the revolutionary government which really did try to rewrite the rules in a genuinely ground-zero way.
Barmy article but more please Unherd!
The concept of ‘man the barricades’ entered the French political consciousness in 1789. They’re still at it in 2023, this time over a modest pension reform which was implemented peacefully in the UK over a decade ago.
True, but look how Tory governments (ever since TM’s debacle) have run away from reforming the elderly care sector.
And British did try to do their own version of Yellow Vests…they were frankly embarrassing.
True, but look how Tory governments (ever since TM’s debacle) have run away from reforming the elderly care sector.
And British did try to do their own version of Yellow Vests…they were frankly embarrassing.
By 1914 France had the 2nd largest empire in the world, had industrialized and it was at the forefront of human achievement (literature, art, science). What more do you want?
The riots in France are the riots in France. The pension system needs to be reformed so Macron went ahead with it. There is no legal/legislative way to turn over the reforms. Long term a big plus for France.
What happens after Macron? No idea. But whoever comes to power will face the same financial and demographic situation.
It depends how you define ‘decline’. If you think that success is the ability to invade non-French countries, kill and miserate millions of non-french people and then try to rule them, then indeed there was a decline. But if you think that learning to largely mind its own business (albeit badly and painfully) and live really rather well is success then…..
I have always been impressed that France shook off total, or near total, defeat in 1815, 1871, 1918 and 1945 to get back to that nice life. Maybe that was due to Napoleon’s reforms? BTW, my personal opinion is that Napoleon was a butcher and war criminal of the highest order, but as a leader he did rather well, before hubris and overreach toppled him.
I would look at it the other way round. The ability to invade other countries successfully (as we are seeing in Ukraine) depends on relative success at home. If you think the French largely mnd their own business you obviously need to look into their meddling in Francafrique – the level of immiseration designed to keep a french “sphere of influence” isn’t trivial.
Better to not suffer those humiliations in the first place I would say. They didn’t have to lay down their arms in WWII. By your final logic bringing your country to the point of total ruin is now the mark of a good leader. As I said before, this article is just a little bit over the top. The cult of Napoleon is hard to sustain in France, let alone anywhere else.
I don’t think that you read my comment carefully enough!
I don’t think that you read my comment carefully enough!
I would look at it the other way round. The ability to invade other countries successfully (as we are seeing in Ukraine) depends on relative success at home. If you think the French largely mnd their own business you obviously need to look into their meddling in Francafrique – the level of immiseration designed to keep a french “sphere of influence” isn’t trivial.
Better to not suffer those humiliations in the first place I would say. They didn’t have to lay down their arms in WWII. By your final logic bringing your country to the point of total ruin is now the mark of a good leader. As I said before, this article is just a little bit over the top. The cult of Napoleon is hard to sustain in France, let alone anywhere else.
The concept of ‘man the barricades’ entered the French political consciousness in 1789. They’re still at it in 2023, this time over a modest pension reform which was implemented peacefully in the UK over a decade ago.
By 1914 France had the 2nd largest empire in the world, had industrialized and it was at the forefront of human achievement (literature, art, science). What more do you want?
The riots in France are the riots in France. The pension system needs to be reformed so Macron went ahead with it. There is no legal/legislative way to turn over the reforms. Long term a big plus for France.
What happens after Macron? No idea. But whoever comes to power will face the same financial and demographic situation.
It depends how you define ‘decline’. If you think that success is the ability to invade non-French countries, kill and miserate millions of non-french people and then try to rule them, then indeed there was a decline. But if you think that learning to largely mind its own business (albeit badly and painfully) and live really rather well is success then…..
I have always been impressed that France shook off total, or near total, defeat in 1815, 1871, 1918 and 1945 to get back to that nice life. Maybe that was due to Napoleon’s reforms? BTW, my personal opinion is that Napoleon was a butcher and war criminal of the highest order, but as a leader he did rather well, before hubris and overreach toppled him.
How do you reconcile this view with the near-constant decline of France since Napoleon? Before and during his rule it was the leading power in continental Europe. Subsequently it slipped not into second but third place with many seeing the future axis of Europe lying to Germany’s east rather than west. The riots in France are, in small part, due to this sense of national decline and the inability of the french government to stop the rot. That rot set in with the Sun King and only really accelerated after the Corsican ogre tried to give a fudge (so despised by the author) to the revolutionary government which really did try to rewrite the rules in a genuinely ground-zero way.
Barmy article but more please Unherd!
This article is just plain terrible. This ‘clever’ person clearly doesn’t know anything about sport – his starting point not mine. Why are our council elections sometimes called midterms ? – because people like him steal words and slogans from the US. He does not understand the frequency of council elections. The whole article is just meaningless drivel.
Why do you think he doesn’t know anything about sport? All the observations made in the first paragraph are perfectly true. Nor do you offer any reasons for your subsequent criticisms, in view of which they are simply pointless insults.
Why do you think he doesn’t know anything about sport? All the observations made in the first paragraph are perfectly true. Nor do you offer any reasons for your subsequent criticisms, in view of which they are simply pointless insults.
This article is just plain terrible. This ‘clever’ person clearly doesn’t know anything about sport – his starting point not mine. Why are our council elections sometimes called midterms ? – because people like him steal words and slogans from the US. He does not understand the frequency of council elections. The whole article is just meaningless drivel.
Please get your research right, author- The House of Lords was not merely hereditary landowners, but was complemented with new peerages from a variety of sources, not least in the 19th century, from post industrial revolution self made wealth from industry, finance, manufacturing, and commerce of all sorts: previously senior legal and administrative figures and others were added.
Pre- judice and bias should not create innacurate ignorance by an author.
Indeed so, but I did rather like his line: “a House of inherited privilege has been replaced with an instrument of political corruption”
Indeed so, but I did rather like his line: “a House of inherited privilege has been replaced with an instrument of political corruption”
Please get your research right, author- The House of Lords was not merely hereditary landowners, but was complemented with new peerages from a variety of sources, not least in the 19th century, from post industrial revolution self made wealth from industry, finance, manufacturing, and commerce of all sorts: previously senior legal and administrative figures and others were added.
Pre- judice and bias should not create innacurate ignorance by an author.
We do need a benign dictator. Preferably a bloke down the pub with 3 pints inside him but not 6. (We have those already) An advisory cabinet of barbers and taxi drivers to keep him in touch with the road situation, general morale, grumbles etc. But wait, all the barbers are Turkish and the taxi firms run by Bangladeshis. OK, those who service gas boilers go into the homes of the public and must hear all…No women need apply, they’re quietly running enough as it is.
We do need a benign dictator. Preferably a bloke down the pub with 3 pints inside him but not 6. (We have those already) An advisory cabinet of barbers and taxi drivers to keep him in touch with the road situation, general morale, grumbles etc. But wait, all the barbers are Turkish and the taxi firms run by Bangladeshis. OK, those who service gas boilers go into the homes of the public and must hear all…No women need apply, they’re quietly running enough as it is.
Britain needs a dictator?
Uhm, no thanks.
We are already experimenting with being ruled by WEF diktat – and it is a disaster.
What we *need* is democratic policies, with it least two parties driven by *different* ideologies and offering *different* directions, so we can choose between them and mold both.
Currently, we have two parties who both agree to do whatever the WEF ‘recommends’. It is, I repeat, a disaster.
99% of voters in the UK do not want net zero. So why are we as a country hotly pursuing it?
Britain needs a dictator?
Uhm, no thanks.
We are already experimenting with being ruled by WEF diktat – and it is a disaster.
What we *need* is democratic policies, with it least two parties driven by *different* ideologies and offering *different* directions, so we can choose between them and mold both.
Currently, we have two parties who both agree to do whatever the WEF ‘recommends’. It is, I repeat, a disaster.
99% of voters in the UK do not want net zero. So why are we as a country hotly pursuing it?
Even more confusingly, one of the home nations, Northern Ireland, isn’t a nation in any sense of the word
And it isn’t even northern Ireland; there are parts of Donegal that are even further north!
And it isn’t even northern Ireland; there are parts of Donegal that are even further north!
Even more confusingly, one of the home nations, Northern Ireland, isn’t a nation in any sense of the word
And bring back tge old regiments.
The .
The .
And bring back tge old regiments.
Free Australia!
Are the ‘Warders’ still in control then?
No. The inmates.
‘The problem with Australians is not that so many of them are descended from convicts but that so many are descended from prison officers’. The late Clive James.
No. The inmates.
‘The problem with Australians is not that so many of them are descended from convicts but that so many are descended from prison officers’. The late Clive James.
With purchase of Australia of equal or greater value.
Are the ‘Warders’ still in control then?
With purchase of Australia of equal or greater value.
Free Australia!
Oh boy. How can I vote for you. And either you possess a memory or have done real research, or both.
What?
What?
~
~
“After the chaos of the revolution, the population wanted conservatism, and Napoleon gave it to them.”
Nope – Napoleon gave France continuous warfare and dictatorship. There was nothing conservative about Napoleon!
“After the chaos of the revolution, the population wanted conservatism, and Napoleon gave it to them.”
Nope – Napoleon gave France continuous warfare and dictatorship. There was nothing conservative about Napoleon!