X Close

The Right’s new parties won’t save Britain Luxury beliefs will perish in a poor, angry world


May 16, 2024   8 mins

In January 1942, retreating British troops blew up the causeway linking Singapore to Malaya. As the Raffles College schoolboy Lee Kuan Yew, the father of modern Singapore, heard the detonation boom across the Straits, he turned to his friend, he later recalled: “I said that’s the end of the British Empire. I think it was… The world as we knew it had disappeared.”

This is the situation we are rapidly approaching. In the Nineties, their heads spun by the unexpected Soviet collapse and the unipolar empire America won by default, the architects of our current order sincerely believed that a golden age of peace and prosperity could be won by the free movement of goods, wealth and people across national borders. Millions of words were devoted to lauding this new transnational order, as politicians busied themselves with the dismantling of hard-won state capacity, whose sacrifice would bring about the earthly paradise. To stand against this was to stand against progress; the protests of those who doubted the wisdom of the new order were merely the death-rattle of history’s losers.

Yet it is this order that is already dead, and the old world of hard power and industrial capacity is writing the outlines of the coming century. The ideological fantasies of the Nineties have placed the collective West at a great structural disadvantage even before the true confrontation begins. Rightly, in his recent Sorbonne speech, Macron observed that “the era when Europe bought its energy and fertilisers from Russia, had its goods manufactured in China, and delegated its security to the United States of America, is over”.

So, when Rishi Sunak professed to feel, as he did this week, “a profound sense of urgency, because more will change in the next five years than in the last 30”, and declared “the next few years will be some of the most dangerous yet the most transformational our country has ever known”, he was entirely correct. Where he is mistaken is in his belief that “the United Kingdom is uniquely placed to benefit”. Instead, Britain is almost uniquely exposed to the dangers of this harsh new world, through the compounded errors of those who ruled us during our brief holiday from history — and whose worldview, barely altered, rules us still. The world order crumbling around us is, unfortunately for us, the one around which our entire economic and political systems still revolve.

Britain is on a war footing, we are now told, as Sunak announces a return to the 2.5% of GDP defence expenditure previously announced by Boris Johnson just two years earlier: our fleet may be shrinking, our Army cannot withstand two weeks of war, and we still sell off what remains of our industrial capacity, but we are preparing for conflict nevertheless. In all the many examples of the gulf between Westminster’s bombastic rhetoric and concrete action, there is little that could instil a greater sense of dread. No one sane would wish to be led into war by the current Conservative Party, but then Starmer’s front bench hardly inspires confidence either: it is hard, observing the international situation and then glancing towards Westminster, to avoid feeling like a passenger sitting in the backseat of a vehicle revving up at the edge of a cliff.

Yet there is at least one modest victory we can console ourselves with before we crash the barriers: the destruction of the Conservative Party, at whose door half the blame for our current state of crisis can be laid. The possible extinction of the world’s oldest political party would, in less tumultuous times, seem a historic event: right now, it is the barest minimum we can hope for. Though a Starmer government may well be more competent than the revolving carousel of dysfunction the Conservatives have given us over the past decade, this is a very low hurdle to clear. Labour’s timid, vacillatory leader gives little sense of understanding the scale of effort necessary for national survival, and that the grand rebalancing of British strategy, announced by David Lammy, offers only a continuation of a worldview already splintering into wreckage, gives us little confidence in a dawning era of national renewal.

The entire system requires change — as Dominic Cummings says, “every aspect is rotten and this exerts a collective paralysis” — yet it is manifestly incapable of reforming itself. Indeed, it is a sombre augury of Westminster’s future stability that both Labour’s path to power and the corresponding Tory decline rely not on a sudden wave of enthusiasm for Starmer, but instead on disengagement from the political process entirely. Cynical and disenchanted, the voters are “quiet quitting” from British democracy, even as the Westminster system’s cascading errors make them poorer and angrier.

It is to arrest this volatile course of events that two new contenders are seemingly emerging to wrest control of the British Right from the Conservative Party’s skeletal grasp — Reform UK, already struggling for a populist party, can for now be written off. Both Cummings, whose “New Party” is apparently focus-grouping itself into being, and the academic analyst of populism-turned-aspiring-populist Matthew Goodwin, teasing the launch of a new Right-wing movement if enough people subscribe to his Substack, are seemingly readying themselves to “plough the old Tory Party into the earth with salt”, as Cummings puts it, and birth new political movements. Though both have, to differing degrees, won the ire of the defenders of the current order, jealous to maintain control of the ship of state as they steer it towards the coming iceberg, their emerging platforms diverge in tactics even as they agree on the fundamentals.

First, the parallels: correctly, both see the crisis of British politics as systemic. For Goodwin: “We have two big parties… that were born to provide answers to questions from a different era and which are ill-equipped to address the questions that face us today.” For Cummings: “The old parties have failed for decades, they’re programmed to fail, they’ll carry on failing.” Both see Labour’s turn in office as a brief, doomed interlude. In Goodwin’s analysis, Labour “will likely become very unpopular, very quickly”, as “while the Tories are simply too strongly rooted in an old politics, in an old world, to be able to truly adapt to the new world that’s emerging around us today… So too are Labour.” For Cummings, equally, as outlined in an excellent recent interview: Labour’s just a carbon copy of the Tories… the MP ranks are filled with obviously useless people who can’t do anything. And the party itself is dead. It’s intellectually dead, organisationally dead, same as the Tories.” The result, he predicts, is that everything will keep failing and everyone will be even more miserable by 2026 than they are now”.

The opportunity, or in Cummings’s phrasing, “market share” for an insurgent reformist party therefore looks excellent: yet the British political system, with its Early Modern parliament clustered round by whispering courtiers, is almost expressly designed to prevent such a possibility (indeed, to imagine a different, functional political system may now even face legal sanction). Where the two differ is in their approach to this problem. For Goodwin, the new movement — it need not necessarily be a party — may find its greatest chance of success outside Parliament. After all, Brexit was, he notes, “perhaps the single most important thing achieved over the last decade and it had nothing to do with winning seats in Westminster… Indirect political pressure, from outside the system, can often be as consequential as direct pressure from the inside.” For Goodwin, the guiding principle behind the new movement, its overriding goal, is “popular sovereignty” as “the only way to hand power back to the people, where it belongs”, though the means to achieve this outcome is so far left unsketched.

Where Goodwin is then a genuine populist, Cummings, by contrast, leans towards elitism: the effective models he cites as examples are California tech CEOs, “the subset of elites who are a) most competent at building but also b) almost entirely disconnected from mainstream politics”, particularly Marc Andreessen and other Silicon Valley would-be philosopher kings. The Cummings solution is built around “the elite Insider network”, who “are overwhelmingly in hedge funds, banks, VCs, PE, tech startups, research labs, academia and so on — keeping their heads down and building walled gardens between themselves and political madness”. Yet even here, the Cummings model is more democratic, in practice, than our current sclerotic system.

As he told The i:

“I don’t think it’s a coincidence that when Britain was the most powerful country in the world its domestic politics was extremely decentralised and now that so much is broken we are more centralised than we have ever been in terms of where there’s power and money. If you’d said to people in 1800 or 1900 that all sorts of decisions about what happens in Bolton or what happens in Birmingham and ‘Do we build this or not build that?’ will be decided by some 27-year-old PPE idiot in the Treasury they’d have just thought this is complete madness.”

Yet ironically, the two radical opponents of Westminster dysfunction depend, to a certain extent, on the ancién regime’s survival: but the greatest shock we face, with Starmer likely at the helm, is yet to come.

Like other European nations, only perhaps more so, Britain has committed itself to the war in Ukraine and the corresponding confrontation with Russia. Unfortunately, due to a combination of Western deindustrialisation and political dysfunction, and Ukrainian errors of military planning and organisation, that war is not going well. For all that Cummings’s dismissal of the Ukrainian state is too vicious for his analysis to gain much currency in Westminster, his assessment that Britain has found itself “getting into a war of attrition with Russia who we pushed into an alliance with the world’s biggest manufacturing power” is unfortunately correct. With even Ukraine’s leading commanders cautioning that military victory is unattainable and the best outcome is a negotiated peace settlement — a sentiment until recently taboo in Britain — the mismatch between Britain’s stated strategy in Ukraine and the war’s likely outcome is increasingly stark. A cynic would suggest that Europe’s actual strategy in Ukraine is to buy time, at Ukraine’s expense, for our continent’s own rearmament, while Biden’s aim is merely to palm final defeat onto Trump.

“Where Goodwin is then a genuine populist, Cummings, by contrast, leans towards elitism”

Yet with the war in Ukraine concluded, will an angry, more powerful Russia attack Nato itself? The answer is: we do not know, but fear the worst. Would a Trump administration go to war with Russia to defend the territorial integrity of Lithuania or Estonia? Again, we do not know, but the anxiety of Nato officials on this question is not reassuring. The United States, on whose military power our political settlement ultimately depends, has found itself on the back foot in Ukraine, humiliated in the Red Sea, and rushing to prepare itself for a war in the Pacific in which geography and industrial capacity weigh steeply against it. Living standards in Britain have been battered by the war in Ukraine, but the economic shock of America’s looming confrontation with China will vastly outweigh anything we have ever known. When, as seems likely, America withdraws its attention from Europe’s security to wrestle with its existential rival, our necessary expenditure on rearmament and perhaps mobilisation — even if we avoid open war with Russia — will vastly reduce available spending on the social welfare we have come to expect.

Indeed, the emphasis by both Cummings and Goodwin on “woke elites” and culture wars already seems outdated: it is hard to see such luxury beliefs long surviving a world where British voters, already poor and angry, will be poorer and angrier than we have known in many decades. Yet of the two aspiring reformers, it is Cummings who seems most alive to the possibilities as well as threats posed by the great storm forming on the horizon. As he observes, overhauling a political system is “seemingly hard, but history shows it’s doable but it happens in response to huge system changes. Historically, wars and pandemics are things that reshape states, and financial clashes. So now we’ve got all of those things.”

But even the most radical reformer would find it hard to derive much optimism from the present international situation: Britain’s political system only survived the 20th century through American military intervention, kept on life support by the unmatchable industrial base of the rising superpower. Without this deus ex machina, and in a world where China fills America’s Forties role — only this time, on our opponent’s side — it would take unreasonable optimism to imagine that either Sunak or Starmer will muddle Britain’s ramshackle state through to victory. 

We are in a situation where everything around us is rapidly changing, to our detriment, and yet our leaders act as if at the end of it, everything will somehow stay the same. Macron’s recent warning, that “a civilisation can die” in a “brutal” way in which “things can happen much more quickly than we think” seems closer to the mark. If the crisis is pregnant with political opportunity, as it proved to be for Lee Kuan Yew, it is increasingly likely to come in the wake of defeat.


Aris Roussinos is an UnHerd columnist and a former war reporter.

arisroussinos

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.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

233 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
R Wright
R Wright
4 days ago

“it is hard to see such luxury beliefs long surviving a world where British voters, already poor and angry, will be poorer and angrier than we have known in many decades”

Even as the entire country falls into penury and there are running street battles between blackshirts and blackblocs, the elites will still insist on chemically castrating children, policing speech, importing the world and empowering NGOs to attack ordinary people. They are just that out of touch – inured against the effects of the chaos they unleash, living as they do in gated developments and homogeneous enclaves.

Even as they are devoured by furious, hungry white working class the elite will preach their doctrines of egalitarianism while continuing to enrich themselves. I would have preferred to have been ruled by inbred aristocrats, quite honestly. At least they had some skin in the game.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
4 days ago
Reply to  R Wright

 I would have preferred to have been ruled by inbred aristocrats, quite honestly. At least they had some skin in the game
… and understood that their privileges came with responsibilities

Andrew Dalton
Andrew Dalton
3 days ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

That is part of the problem. The current elite believe they’ve actually earned their privilege. Although I do hate that word these days.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Dalton

Mee too.. the “Predatory Class” is more apt I feel.

Jonathan Andrews
Jonathan Andrews
3 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Dalton

Absolutely. The elites think that because they have passed a few exams they understand the world better than everyone else.
Even if this is true, the world is still far, far more difficult to understand than a degree in PPE affords.
Those of us with less elite educations understand that we understand little.

Norfolk Sceptic
Norfolk Sceptic
2 days ago

I remember the comment that though the eloquent may pass a written exam on how to drive a car, they might not be able to drive a car safely. The same is true for conducting Physics experiments, or being in charge of the national Energy policy.

Katja Sipple
Katja Sipple
2 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Dalton

Which one? Elite or privilege? Hugh is quite right that the aristocracy of old understood that their status and responsibility go hand in hand.

However, I firmly believe that even the current crop of so-called elites will eventually reap what they have sown. Their gated enclaves and ideologies will not protect them forever; all revolutions eventually eat their children.

Neil Turrell
Neil Turrell
3 days ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

Quite, the House of Lords was a far better place with hereditary peers; they took their good stewardship duties seriously, unlike the large numbers of clapped out, virtue signalling has beens that inhabit the place now.

Jonathan Andrews
Jonathan Andrews
3 days ago
Reply to  Neil Turrell

I’d rather have some old soak of a Lord selected randomly than some smartypants who’s done the politicians a few favours.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 days ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

That applied only to the previous generation.. this one prefers to burn £50 notes in front of homeless beggars; jolly good fun though as Boris said!

General Store
General Store
3 days ago
Reply to  R Wright

If Macron was serious about the possibility of civilization dying he would hold a press conference in Tours and announce a total ban on Muslim immigration and a range of coercive, illiberal measures for integrating the existing population. Shared values are the a priori of liberalism. Unrestrained liberalism is corrosive of shared values.
And also define ‘saving Britain’? If Reform achieved the former, that would create a path dependent future more in line with the past and head off at least one more disjunctural future in the form of the emergence of a whole series of urban caliphate fiefdoms in the heart of Albion. That would qualify as a ‘save’

El Uro
El Uro
3 days ago
Reply to  General Store

Unrestrained liberalism is corrosive of shared values – That’s why all these LGBTQIA+ letters and their prophets must be removed from public space and gay marriage should be abolished as a concept, since it has nothing to do with marriage

General Store
General Store
3 days ago
Reply to  El Uro

I agree. Liberalism unbound ends-up in authoritarianism and some variant of Maoism

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 days ago
Reply to  El Uro

What do you propose to achieve that? The wrack or burning ar the stake?

General Store
General Store
3 days ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

I would have thought a simple change in the law prioritizing heterosexual marriage as a vehicle for child conception, birth and socialization and societal reproduction would suffice. You’re always so extreme Liam. Calm down

Norfolk Sceptic
Norfolk Sceptic
2 days ago
Reply to  El Uro

Changing definitions has consequences.

Just think of the redefinitions of vaccine, safe (meaning no risk, at all), marriage.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
2 days ago

“Safe” is always a relative term: no risk at all is not possible.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 days ago
Reply to  General Store

Our “Civilisation” such as it is, is allegedly based on fundamental Christian values.. but Islam is based on exactly the same values! as indeed is true Judaism.. Tolerance and respect for difference was the hallmark of hundreds of years of Ottoman rule at a time when Christianity preferred Inquisition and torture!
Christian Civilisation was at best practiced by the working class and a few notable elites but the powerful, then as now are closer to Satanism where the motivators were and are Fear, Greed and Hatred.. For those unfamiliar with Christ’s teachings His “civilised” approach was based on Love, Generosity and Respect, ie the diametric opposite of elitist behaviour. Western Civilisation my ass!

Paul Johnston
Paul Johnston
3 days ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Islam is based on a rejection of Christianity since it fundamentally denied the identity of Christ. It considers Him a prophet and a Muslim one superseded by Muhammad. Not the Son of God, not crucified and did not rise from the Dead. It is monotheistic and derives some ideas from Judaism but there the similarities end.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
2 days ago
Reply to  Paul Johnston

Quite a lot of similarities then!

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
3 days ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Curiously the ‘Islamic’ rulers who were ‘enlightened’ were none of them Ayatollahs or from any priestly class IIRC. As for Mustafa Kamal Ataturk …

D N
D N
3 days ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

That’s fantasy Islam.
Islam is not based on “exactly the same values!” That’s wishful thinking. It is also typical leftist, self-hating, western, woke rubbish (even if that does not apply to you).

Islam is a totalitarian system, it’s not just a religion, but a system of law, politics, social and economic relations.

‘Ideally’ muslim countries are meant to be governed by Islamic law–not other people’s legal ideas. Jesus said, “my kingdom is not of this world..” That’s not islam. For centuries, the Caliph was the “shadow of god on Earth.” A political ruler with vastly more power than any Christian Pope. The Caliph had huge armies at his disposal (see fall of Constantinople, 1453, siege of Vienna, 1683).

Jews and Christians were only tolerated on sufferance in the Islamic Arab and later Ottoman lands, as second class citizens. They had to pay the special tax for non-muslims, the Jizya, including ritually humiliation while paying it (beard pulling, spitting etc) because they had not done the ‘right’ thing and converted to the supreme religion.

Egypt was mainly Christian at the time of the Muslim conquests.. now? Less than 10% Why? Because it was hard to resist the pressure, over centuries, of being treated like a 2nd class citizen, and ritually humiliated, even as you were being fleeced by your “superior” oppressors.

Look up “devshirme” if you want to see how “tolerant” to Christians the Ottomans were… and “janissary”… too

Before anyone says the Crusades were uniquely awful, why do we not hear more about the vast Muslim conquests not that much earlier: the “Crescades?” including most of the original Christian heartlands… Syria, Iraq, Israel-Palestine, Lebanon, Anatolia, Egypt, across North Africa to Morocco, into Spain, onto France.. and East, across Iran (Zoroastrianism gone), onto Afghanistan, including the Hindu Kush, and (what is modern) Pakistan and northern India.

Look up “Hindu Kush” (clue… “Kushtan” means to kill in Persian), mostly Buddhist and Hindu before the Islamic conquests. Mahmoud of Ghazni is another name to look up… 2m hindus killed…

Starting in the 18th C. some European thinkers who disliked aspects of the west, especially Christianity, started the fashion, continuing to this day, especially on the left, to use Islam as a (fake) stick with which to beat the ‘decadent’ Christian west..

Yes, Christianity was horribly distorted, but, regrettably it is not so clear that Islam was… there’s a sad saying: “If only more Christians were more like Jesus and thank goodness most muslims are not more like [fill in the blank].

Christianity started as a religion of courageous martyrs (lions, human candles, crucifixions). Islam did not start that way, but as the state religion of a triumphantly conquering tribe…. As Khomeini said: “Islam was never a religion of peace… ” and worse that cannot be said here.

Note: christians, muslims, atheists, hindus are just people. Christianity, Atheism, Judaism, Islam, Islamism are ideologies (good points and bad). Unfortunately, many good, kind muslims do not know much about their own tradition, let alone classical Islamic doctrine, let alone Islamic Jurisprudence. They are just ordinary, good people, trying to live ordinary good lives. Rational concerns about Islam as a religious, legal, and political ideology (Islamorealism (not a phobia)) never justify generalized discrimination against people of that challenging (to us) heritage.

Last edited 3 days ago by D N
Katja Sipple
Katja Sipple
2 days ago
Reply to  D N

Thank you! Perfectly stated.

General Store
General Store
2 days ago
Reply to  D N

It’s just a shame Liam won’t read it.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
2 days ago
Reply to  General Store

How do you know he won’t?

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
2 days ago
Reply to  D N

I think we might agree that many civilizations committed atrocities and this certainly didn’t exclude Western Christianity. Of course when you make this point there’s a sleight of hand is immediately invoked by which apologists redefine who Christians actually were. The crusaders were blessed by the Pope and certainly considered themselves Christian. I’m not sure anybody has ever claimed they were uniquely evil but the contrast between massacring all the inhabitants of Jerusalem in 1099 (for example) and the idea of a supposedly peace loving religion is rather stark.

Yes Islam was spread by military conquest but then that’s exactly what happened in northern Europe, the Baltic states the Americas and others. Actually the Islamic conquest of the Near East was carried out rather easily with a few fairly minor military battles; there was huge discord already between the population and the Byzantine imperial centre over issues of religious orthodoxy. And later on of course with the conquest of Constantinople many byzantines much preferred living the Turkish turban to the papal tiara!

99% of Christians who have ever lived were not liberals! What was it about judging people by what they do and not what they say?

Gordon Arta
Gordon Arta
1 day ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

The Islamic conquest of the Near East might have been carried out ‘rather easily’, but their conquest of the Indian sub-continent was anything but. It’s been described as the ‘greatest tragedy in human history’, and for very good reasons. ‘Timur the Great’, the ‘Sword of Islam’, slaughtered an estimated 17 million people, laying waste to numerous cities, in his march across NW India. His legacy there? Piles of skulls hundreds of feet high. The Mughal emperors couldn’t match that, though the last Aurangzeb tried.

General Store
General Store
3 days ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

It’s fantastic how little you know of Christianity, Judaism or Islam.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 days ago
Reply to  General Store

Really? ..are you sure you’re not confusing Christianity with rip-off (so-called Christian) religions and sects? ..and Islam with Islamist doctrine? I do admit ti knowing far less about Jewish Talmudic law being familiar with the OT only.. but I’m reliably informed by devoid Jews that the fundamentals of Judaism are very close to fundamental Christian (ala Christ’s) teaching. Jesus and Mary are helping the highest regard in Islam. As for the Trinity, 99% of Christians,yself included don’t understand how it can sit alongside ‘one true God’ ..who believes in 3 gods? ..besides, this nitpicking is off point.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
2 days ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

That’s a slightly absurd caricature of Western civilisation Liam! The paradox of western Christian civilisation is that it was indeed often remarkably intolerant as imposed by the Church or indeed churches. However for complex reasons, including the church / state split that Tom Holland and others have gone into, it ultimately led to the concepts of individual human individualism and the liberal order (which of course now seems to itself to be shifting radically). This did not happen in China, India or the Muslim world.

Much as I admire aspects of Islamic civilization the reality is that it went into a long period of stagnation obscurantism and decadence. Christian Europe had thousands of printing presses when Ottoman Turkey had a handful. There was already a huge difference.

You also omit the classical inheritance to European culture. I have not heard of any significant republican tradition emerging in other parts of the world.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
3 days ago
Reply to  R Wright

What makes you think the elites of today are any different than the inbred aristocrats who ruled Europe for hundreds of years? They’re not. The problems inherent with aristocrat/elite classes, however they’re defined, rationalized, or justified are consistent throughout history. Over and over again, when they become too powerful, they lose touch with the real problems and make mistakes that lead them to be conquered by stronger, more effective neighbors, overthrown by a new ruling class, or preside over the wholesale collapse of their civilization. Our modern aristocrat class is no different. Their days are already numbered and a few of them have some idea what’s coming, hence their panicking over populist movements. Like this author, I can almost feel the tide turning. We will all suffer for their failure, but in the final fall, they will not be spared. In the end, they will lose more simply because they have the most to lose. Like the decadent courtiers of Vienna in the 1780’s, modern aristocrats will, if they are fortunate and foresighted, flee to foreign nations who will use them for their own purposes, or if they are less fortunate, they’ll be marched right to the guillotine with their heads high and their noses in the air, convinced to the last that they are the rightful rulers, unfairly usurped by unruly, uneducated, dirty peasants. They may not have the Habsburg chin, but they’re just as myopic and detached as any feudal noble. They’re also just as doomed. Give it time.

Last edited 3 days ago by Steve Jolly
Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 days ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

Paradoxically, they may have to flee to Muslim countries who, if we’re talking about historical civilisation, were consistently the most tolerant of difference and seem to like elitism as well!

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
3 days ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

LOL- so who blew up young girls in Manchester, who abused them in many a town and city across the UK. Which will you nip to first? Pakistan or Gaza, or perhaps Iran?

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
3 days ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Oh, I’m aware. By the standards of the medieval world, Islamic civilization was fairly tolerant, particularly by the time of the Ottomans, who were pointedly not Arabs nor originally Muslims, but Turkic people from Central Asia who fled the Mongol hordes and adopted Islam when they overthrew for the Mamluks, who were another such Turkic people, both groups being far more tolerant than the Caliphates which immediately preceded them. They then proceeded to finally finish the conquest of the ailing Byzantine Empire, which put them in the position of having large religious minorities to rule, which they managed quite effectively for many centuries. On the whole, the Ottomans were one of the least oppressive empires in history and deserve more respect than they generally receive, probably because of their ignominious end at the close of WWI.
All that has no bearing whatsoever on whether modern Islam still qualifies as ‘tolerant’ by modern standards, particularly towards blue haired protesters waving pride flags and demanding other people respect their preferred gender pronouns. The image of Macron and his ilk fleeing from a populist mob alongside the millions of people they imported is pretty amusing I grant, but they’ll have other options. I don’t expect the global aristocrat class to collapse entirely everywhere at once. More likely they’ll be outright evicted through revolution in some places and see their power and authority slowly decay in others, much like their feudal predecessors. History is a process.

Last edited 3 days ago by Steve Jolly
Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
2 days ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

I don’t think there is any basis for saying that Arab ruled states were any more or less religiously tolerant than Turkish ones.

I don’t think we can simply read history from as continuous story of islamic intolerance and brutality. What you are talking about today is Islamism, a modern political ideology, perhaps the last 150 years itself a response to Western domination, and not Islam itself. That movement is certainly very intolerant as far as I can see with few exceptions.

However it is true that Islam has much more prestige and importance as a source of law and authority then canon law (say) does does in the West, because there was there was no fundamental church / state split in Islamic history. (Well obviously there is today but modern Muslim states are precisely that, largely modern creations, constructed both by and in opposition to the dominant Western powers)

Last edited 2 days ago by Andrew Fisher
Zeph Smith
Zeph Smith
1 day ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

So they would flee to one of the historical eras of Muslim countries? If they can flee across time, they would probably have better choices.

Richard Calhoun
Richard Calhoun
3 days ago
Reply to  R Wright

The answer lies in our democracy, the British electorate will hopefully vote against these elites who rule us.
#DisruptLibLabConGrn
#DisruptGE2024

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 days ago
Reply to  R Wright

If this had been submitted a year ago the scores would have been opposite! How times have changed..

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
3 days ago
Reply to  R Wright

He’s wrong on 2 counts. a) Russia will NOT start a kinetic/actual war with Europe. It has no need to. They will probably camp on the East bank of the Dnieper and say – “Come and get us if you think you are hard enough.” AND we won’t be.
b) The West is committing economic suicide with Net Zero, little else matters IF we stick with that, particularly the UK.
To expand on the above.
The US is about to hit serious financial issues at home and their reserve currency status of the $ and ‘safe Treasury assets’ are both under threat because the morons in Washington ‘weaponised’ them against Russia and frightened off the rest of the planet. The biggest of whom, by the way, meet in Moscow just before US elections AND are reputed to be looking at a gold backed trade replacement for the $ – In Go(l)d they trust! 😉
Ironically only a surfeit of gas/oil is holding off the US recession. After all how can you have a recession when gas is $2 – $4 a Million BTU AND your greens won’t let you export it? That more than -ve interest rates is keeping Biden’s economy alive. Will it work? I’m sure the Fed and the insane idea of letting Freddie Mac enter the ‘equity release’ market with a $1 – 2 Trillion war chest is just what they need! That’s not even considering Taiwan & the South China Sea.
Then to Europe. No one in Europe will be because they’ll all be too busy with the enemies within.
Then finally, Russia is NOT that keen on wars believe it or not. They spent years telling NATO ‘keep doing this and it will be war’ – Then the only hit Ukraine.
They are happy to occupy Russian speaking enclaves isolated from Russia by Soviet borders in a post Soviet world but that’s about it. They also help out their friends in say Syria, but they didn’t back up Christian Armenia when Islamic Azerbaijan took over Ngorno Karabakh. Nor is Chechynya a stable place and Russia is more interested in that than Western Ukraine. If anything Western Ukraine might be more wary of it’s ‘Western’ neighbours. They owned chunks of it through history and Poland and Slovakia aren’t exactly chucking weapons or Euros their way.
Slovakia’s recent events show up the tensions in that area. Who did what and why isn’t in the mainstream, but then, it wasn’t Russia who blew up the Nordstreams either.
So Russia has enough problems of its own. NATO was the biggest, but assuming we can stop our insane leaders sending NATO into the Ukraine, then it will hollow out and Russia will simply gradually extend the warm hand of gas, oil etc to say, Slovakia, Hungary and maybe others. You’d be amazed how welcoming the gas man is during a bitter East European winter. At the end of this year the current Ukraine/Russia pipeline agreement comes up for renewal.
What? I hear you ask? The agreement that currently transports Russia gas, across the Ukraine and into the EU. How many on here knew that I wonder?
“Against all odds, Russian pipeline gas is still flowing through Ukraine—mainly to Austria, Slovakia, Italy, and Hungary. But for how long?”
From this link
https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/will-the-ukrainian-gas-transit-contract-continue-beyond-2024/
As for the UK – oh dear. Like the US re finance, BUT not like them re floating in oil/gas , our Net Zero means decarbonising the grid by 2030 – ie next parliament as Starmer promised. That means we will be fighting nobody for very long. Not foreigners (except those already in this country) anyway.
The collapse of an electricity grid kills modernity AND leads to hunger in big Urban areas – as we’ll discover IF the morons actually try it.
Decarbonising ? As I post the Grid demand of 33.8Gw (that can be well over 40Gw in winter) is being supplied, by ALL the decarbonised renewables, – a total of 4.61Gw of wind, 1.37Gw of Solar & falling, 0.37Gw of hydro and 1.78Gw of US Forests burning in Drax. A grand total of say 8Gw. So only a shortfall of 27Gw. Decarbonise in 5 years? ROFL – Euronews has it right, as has David Turver
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/wait-for-the-blackout
The West is about to become the new 3rd world, BUT we MAY have a slight chance of avoiding total collapse IF we vote Reform who are NOT committed to Net Zero insanity. Open coal mines, frack and DO NOT join any wars, AND we may come out of this in one piece, but VERY battered. But one piece is good!
https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/live

Last edited 3 days ago by Bill Bailey
Norfolk Sceptic
Norfolk Sceptic
2 days ago
Reply to  Bill Bailey

The speed with which Truss was removed, because she wanted test fraccing to start, shows the mountain that needs to be climbed.

The Conservative Party has become like an iceberg, with most of its influencers hidden from view, which is why it needs to be more than defeated.

William Shaw
William Shaw
3 days ago
Reply to  R Wright

The Global economy that we have depended on for the past 70 years is rapidly declining. The US is reshoring the industries they exported to China, Taiwan, Korea and Japan and planning to trade extensively with its two neighbours, Canada and Mexico.
China and Russia have teamed up. China provides the manufacturing and Russia provides the raw materials and energy,
The Europe has food but is poor in terms of energy and raw materials. It’s also set to become overrun by African and middle Eastern refugees and social welfare migrants.
The best advice for any young man with an education or skill is to emigrate and start a new life elsewhere. If he doesn’t have an education or skill I strongly recommend he get one.

Paul MacDonnell
Paul MacDonnell
2 days ago
Reply to  R Wright

Agreed. They have neither noblesse nor do they oblige

Tyler Durden
Tyler Durden
1 day ago
Reply to  R Wright

Talking of the British political class, somehow all of them are organised to attend a course on transhumanism at the University of Berkeley, California, as well as the standard classes in neoconservatism in Washington. And perhaps that same gospel is being pumped into their bedrooms every night in the style of Telly Savalas’ ‘girl ambassadors’ in “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”?

Saul D
Saul D
4 days ago

The challenge is to break out of the administration trap that has captured the Western world. The arrival of first computers, and then the web, and then mobile phones means administrators find themselves with more and more data, and so more and more things to do. Because they have the data they believe they have to tell us what to do, for our own good. Benevolent dictators where another piece of data, another form, another regulation will make lives better.
When there was little data, administrators had to rely on the scraps and good sense of the citizens and to do what citizens said was best. Now there is so much data they rely on that they now don’t trust citizens to come to their own conclusions – disinformation and misinformation means different from the administrative consensus.
As a result children who used to freewheel around on bikes (see The Commitments film) are now only permitted to cycle with stabilizers, helmets, knee-pads, in fenced in cycle parks and segregated cycle lanes.
It makes ‘data sense’ but we have also lost something in the process – courage and the ability to take and judge risks. And it front-loads all activities with administration first, making administrators feel like they are in charge of ‘their’ citizens like teachers controlling children, instead of citizens controlling their government.
The conventional political parties are too embedded and fearful of disruption to even start to unpick the administrative state, but we see from Brexit, Podemos, Five Star, Trump, Zelinski, Milei that voters are craving for something or someone – even comedians – to create the chaos to change things. Voters are looking out for someone with courage, who will take their side, and perhaps need more radical solutions like more direct democracy to keep the tendency to administration in check.

Sam Hill
Sam Hill
4 days ago
Reply to  Saul D

I disagree with very little here – but I think it has to be said that Cummings himself is the personification of many of the bad trends you talk about.
Perhaps it is hard for politicians in a social media world to just calm down, and take things at a slower pace. The Conservative Party post 2010 has been hyperactive and the result has been government by initiative rather than policy (which is not to say that all initiatives have been bad), half-baked and rushed ideas and indeed just plain bad ideas. It is telling that the ultimate hyperactive, Liz Truss, made it to the PM job in this hyperactive party.
Cummings himself as I said can’t I think disassociate himself from this hyperactivity. Though his strong point about Ukraine is a good example of something where Western governments, not just the UK, charged in head first having spent two decades making bad decisions on Russia.
Will Keir Starmer do any better? Hard to say, but there’s no shortage of hyperactives in the Labour Party. My own feeling is that the best course now would be for a new government to pick a low number of policy areas, maybe even as low as 3 or 4, and really focus on those and leave the rest for another day. That’s not easy to defend on twitter though. And Starmer is going to have to pick up the pieces in Ukraine.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
3 days ago
Reply to  Saul D

Interesting perspective.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
3 days ago
Reply to  Saul D

children who used to freewheel around on bikes (see The Commitments film)

Luckily I don’t have to watch The Commitments because I am old enough to have spent my own childhood roaming the neighbourhood with friends on bikes, only returning home for an early tea of fishfingers and Smash. There were massively lower levels of cars, higher levels of ‘social trust’ in the monoculture of our provincial town, and no sense of shame for getting a scraped knee. Above all, there was no legal liability and compensation culture, which seemed to emerge during the early Blair years and was never there before.

Norfolk Sceptic
Norfolk Sceptic
3 days ago
Reply to  Saul D

The Great Homogeniser is the BBC, with over 50% of the market, a guaranteed income, influencing as much by what they don’t say as what they do, they swap jobs within the rest of the Legacy Media, QUANGOs, Climate Activist Groups, Academia and EU connected pressure groups, to form the nation’s culture, and destiny, and reach into the homes of the unthinking, with the reputation earned from decades earlier.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 days ago

Oh no! Not the Beeb as well? Is nothing sacred?

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
3 days ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

The planet is. Though why is beyond me it couldn’t give a toss and it will be here until the sun expands and engulfs it. Even the Greeks Gods meddled with human lives, so had SOME interest in us.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 days ago
Reply to  Saul D

Nigel Farrage? Laurence Fox? ..why not George Galloway? He has the experience, the humanity and the commonsense, doesn’t he? I feel sure you have someone in mind? I know: Jeremy Corbyn! ..am I right? Nah, it’s Suella Braverman isn’t it?

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
3 days ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Only someone who is prepared to scrap Net Zero. Don’t do that and you can put anyone in power and we’ll be fighting over food in 5 years.

Saul D
Saul D
3 days ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

That’s almost 100% of the problem. It’s very hard to think of anyone in Britain who has the skills, courage and character to weather the political storms needed to set a course for change.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 days ago
Reply to  Saul D

So glad you (alone) hot the point.

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
3 days ago
Reply to  Saul D

They wouldn’t know how to interpret data if it jumped up and bit them on the @r5e.
Here’s some simple data anyone can look at.
https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/live
As I post
Demand:31.5Gw
Supply
Windmills: 4.12Gw
Solar: 0.11Gw (Some roofs must be under street lamps)
US Forests (aka Drax): 1.48Gw
Hm that’s almost a whopping 5.7Gw – only another 25Gw or so to find to keep the lights on on a mildish evening. I wonder where that comes from now!
Decarbonise by 2030 anyone?

Norfolk Sceptic
Norfolk Sceptic
2 days ago
Reply to  Bill Bailey

Even if they could interpret the data, they would still have to be tall enough, have the right colour skin, the right accent, the right footwear (we had a recent plimsoll headline), in fact, nothing that can be ruled out. Even wanting what is best for the nation, like fraccing, is a reason to ditch a potential leader.

Christopher Chantrill
Christopher Chantrill
4 days ago

First of all, Monty’s two rules:
Don’t invade Russia. Don’t invade China.
The problem is that Russia doesn’t have any natural boundaries. But it really, really does want a warm-water sea port.
China? I don’t know when China last did any invading. It basically thinks that everyone outside China is a barbarian.
And by the way, military experts agree, Taiwan would be very difficult to invade.
The question is what to do about the dumb-as-rocks welfare state. I suspect it will have to break utterly first.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
4 days ago

I also don’t think many people realize how much support there is for China in Taiwan. The Premier is a strong opponent, but lots of elected politicians are very pro China.

Martin M
Martin M
4 days ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

It seem curious that there are people in Taiwan who are happy to be ruled by Communists, but each to their own.

Santiago Excilio
Santiago Excilio
3 days ago
Reply to  Martin M

They generally live on the eastern side of the island and therefore don’t get to see on a daily basis what’s going on across the strait.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 days ago

Haha.. very funny!

Santiago Excilio
Santiago Excilio
3 days ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Not only funny but also true:

https://focustaiwan.tw/politics/202401090007

Blue is KMT who want closer ties with China, and DPP is green who want to remain independent.

Enjoy.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 days ago
Reply to  Martin M

A right-wing London based think tank carried out a study on perceptions in the US and China.. 47% of US citizens believe the US was truly democratic; 70% of Chinese think it is truely democratic.. There a different kinds of democracy.. none is ala ancient Greece!

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
3 days ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

What do the Irish think?

Martin M
Martin M
6 hours ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Are you saying that 70% of Chinese think the US is truly democratic? Presumably even they don’t contend that China is truly democratic.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 days ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

..now you’re trying to introduce reality and commonsense.. such nonsense has no part to play in this modern age!

Martin M
Martin M
4 days ago

I certainly wouldn’t suggest invading Russia, but it is incumbent on us to do everything we can to weaken it. Trading with it is insanity.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 days ago
Reply to  Martin M

What utter rubbish.. in 1941-45 you thought fighting alongside it made sense!! Trading with opposing states is as old as humanity!

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
3 days ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

I agree with you, which isn’t often. In fact this is why Russia won’t bother crossing the Dnieper for West Ukraine.
https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/will-the-ukrainian-gas-transit-contract-continue-beyond-2024/
Ukraine’s allies in the rear may desire Russia’s gas. Probably why the US blew up Nordstream. Europe is now on the US leash until the Nordstreams are repaired, and why should they bother? The BRICS are proving a good market AND they won’t walk off with your assets. (Which by the way isn’t that smart – Russia has under its control equivalent amounts of western assets, we already flogged off gas/oil interests at a discount of billions to Putin’s mates too!
More intriguing is go back to WW1
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/4797vh06x16KYYpsLyh7SPx/nine-unexpected-facts-about-world-war-i
and why the Brits have hope, get rid of our incompetents and we can thrive BUT we have to do it next GE or Starmer will wreck the grid!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25776836

Martin M
Martin M
6 hours ago
Reply to  Bill Bailey

Oh, it was the USA that blew up Nordstream. I’m glad you have put that beyond doubt.

Martin M
Martin M
6 hours ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

It made sense in that very narrow context (namely the defeat of an even greater enemy). There were those in the west who though that with Germany defeated, the armies of the Western allies should continue on into Russia. Personally, I think they had a point, although I appreciate that it would have been a “hard sell” after six years of war.

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
3 days ago
Reply to  Martin M

Wrong, Russia was actually a good business partner. China is the one you should never deal with. BUT too late now. They’ve stolen and learnt virtually all they need to know. China won’t need to invade Taiwan soon, they’ll have their own Chip industry. They already own windmills, solar panels, electric cars, steel then start addding up all the commodities that are in short supply and are needed for high tech stuff -Magnesium, rare-earths? Still, Temu does bloody amazing offers on virtually everything AND I didn’t give them all that expertise, the morons who rule us did that.

sal b dyer
sal b dyer
4 days ago

Make it three. Don’t invade Russia, don’t invade China, don’t invade Afghanistan.

D N
D N
3 days ago
Reply to  sal b dyer

Don’t invade Vietnam… don’t invade Turkey…

Norfolk Sceptic
Norfolk Sceptic
2 days ago
Reply to  D N

I can see a pattern forming.

If only I had a degree in an ology, I would be able to avoid coming to any satisfactory conclusion.

Peter B
Peter B
4 days ago

China’s last invasion: Vietnam in the late 1970s. Didn’t go very well for China. Tibet before that. China is an empire posing as a unitary nation state – just as the Soviet Union was, though the colonised minorities are a smaller percentage of the population in China.
They’re also trying to stealthily expand into India and Bhutan.

Anna Bramwell
Anna Bramwell
3 days ago
Reply to  Peter B

Plus the Chinese minority in Malaysia, Chinese Communists defeated by Britain in a forgotten colonial war.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 days ago
Reply to  Anna Bramwell

You’re delusional!

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
3 days ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Evidence?

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 days ago
Reply to  Peter B

..now you’re just being silly!

Seb Dakin
Seb Dakin
3 days ago
Reply to  Peter B

In fairness, the Chinese don’t have a monopoly on failed military adventures in Vietnam.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
3 days ago

The question is what to do about the dumb-as-rocks welfare state. 
The answers are simple:
Stop taxing productive activity in order to reward the rent-seeking of the middle class. There is no reason at all why metropolitan multi-millionaires whose wealth is entirely gifted to them by fiscal and monetary policy should not pay for their own social care or winter fuel.Recover a portion of the c£7 trillion so gifted by shifting a larger portion of the tax burden onto council tax.Cut both regulation and taxes on the small businesses that employ 60%+ of the working population. A healthy economy is one in which small businesses can grow to become large ones – yet the barriers to such growth now are insuperably higher than they were in the 1990s and, thanks to the slavish devotion of our Establishment to Brussels, will continue to become more burdensome, especially if Labour win this year.Adopt the Swiss cantonal system – or at least institute a constitutional rule requiring that no decision that can be taken by the Parish Council should be taken by the Borough Council and so on right up to Westminster. Cummings is dead right that over-centralisation is a huge part of the problem.Finally, close half the universities and convert the campuses to affordable housing for young families.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
3 days ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

Apologies – didn’t realise that the bullet points in the editor don’t transfer to the page!

Samuel Ross
Samuel Ross
3 days ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

Use the angle brackets

Testing the editor

Last edited 3 days ago by Samuel Ross
Pedro the Exile
Pedro the Exile
3 days ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

and accept that fossil fuels will be around for at least the next 50 years and1-promote the North Sea Industry rather than trying to shut it down and 2-promote fracking which will transform the North west of England,expand our skill bases and help our balance of payments.These 2 alone will be transformational.

Norfolk Sceptic
Norfolk Sceptic
3 days ago

From when the trade unions wanted to keep their restrictive working practices, for extra pay, in the 60s, to Major converting the Technical Colleges to mush spreading, intelligence reducing, 4th rate universities, and the catastrophe of the 2008 Climate Change Act, and the BBC’s ill-informed enthusiastic support of it, it still isn’t obvious to the Arts, Humanities and Social Science ‘educated’ majority, that modern skillsets, manufacturing, food production, and wealth creation, are needed to keep us in the manner to which we are accustomed.

If you want it, just outsource it! 🙂

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 days ago

Franking will indeed transform NW England.
It will turn it into a wasteland! Do you know what franking does???

Paul Johnston
Paul Johnston
3 days ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Dont?The you mean “fracking”? I’m which case I entirely agree, though Lancashire County Council might not.

Jonathan Andrews
Jonathan Andrews
3 days ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Don’t they have enough stamps?

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 days ago

don’t you hate when predictive text does that!

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 days ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Fracking of course.. predictive text eh! Grrh

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
2 days ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Yep. It’s an automated process for paying for postage.

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
3 days ago

That is the most important thing now. So far the west is about to commit social and economic suicide. ironically the US oil industry is keeping the US alive BUT thanks to the Greens banning the export of the excess gas the US is awash with, Europe is going to be stuffed because the US blew up the Nordstreams. Smart move that. Ukraine’s gas pipeline is only supplying 4 EU countries, and NOT Germany. So they helped the German Greens stuff German industry. Brexit was never so well timed. ALL we need to do now is kick out any party that adheres to Net Zero or even worse, Absolute Zero. We may then save ourselves (PS convert Drax back to coal and start importing from Oz or mining it here) AND invite BASF and other German energy intensive industries to come to the UK – oh ,and get blast furnaces back into Port Talbot – the pig iron from ore ones ASAP.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
3 days ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

I have always thought that the centralization of power in London has been hugely detrimental to the rest of the country and was the legacy of 2 world wars and the Attlee Government

Norfolk Sceptic
Norfolk Sceptic
3 days ago

I remember, in the 60s, that I never wanted to be an Engineer: they were ALWAYS on strike, or so it seemed from watching the BBC. There was also that mob rule cloud across much of the industrial Midlands and North. Yes, not a very accurate view, but one one that was broadcast across the country, to me, so I avoided Engineering, until I found Computers and IT.

Maybe, that is why Finance, and London, became so prosperous.

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
3 days ago

UK industry had until possibly COVID grown every year since 1948. The myth that Thatcher killed it off was just that. There was more manufacturing when she left office than when she took it. It just wasn’t crappy red BL cars.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 days ago

The EU has the Principle of Subsidiarity whereby decisions are supposed to be taken at the lowest viable level.. never practiced of course! Pity..

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
2 days ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

I am aware. It depends on those who have the power releasing it. So that was never going to work

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 days ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

Far simpler solution: tax wealth! UK wealth estimated at £12tn.. on a sliding scale from 0.1% on owner occupied homes up to £¼m, peaking at 5% pa.. that will bring in a min. of £100bn a year. Problem solved, overnight!

General Store
General Store
3 days ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

OMG genius. No-one ever thought of that before. I wonder has it ever been tried? I wonder if there might be unintended consequences? Who cares….let’s go for it eh Liam

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 days ago
Reply to  General Store

Unintended consequences for whom? The 1% who bribe the govt? If you’re part of the 1% then of course you will object due to your greed and narcissism so you’ll make sure the media scares you with it’s propaganda as will the bribed govt. 8f not I guessyour oneifthe many scared, gullible easy to pick off 50%..

Seb Dakin
Seb Dakin
3 days ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Another 100 billion for vacuous politicians to spend on short-term vanity projects, and p*** up the welfare wall.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
2 days ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

No. Tax unearned wealth. Taxing productive people in order to reward rent-seekers is what got us into this mess in the first place.
If you want everyone to be rich you have to allow some people to become very rich. The problem in the UK is not that people get rich, but that the wrong people get rich.

Ken Bowman
Ken Bowman
3 days ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

“.Finally, close half the universities and convert the campuses to affordable housing for young families.”
I regularly cycle through a university estate and notice its low utilisation. With more of a “hot desking” approach we could surely achieve the same throughput with half the number of universities. The infrastructure released could be put to useful purpose.

Anna Bramwell
Anna Bramwell
3 days ago

Itdid send 50 million people to Uigher country, which it now rules. Then there’s forgotten Tibet.

Citizen Diversity
Citizen Diversity
3 days ago

Does Macron, Sunak and Lord Cameron realise that NATO is closer to Moscow than the Russians are to Paris?

Peter B
Peter B
3 days ago

And that’s because Russia’s neighbours chose voluntarily to join NATO because they know from their own history just how dangerous it is being a neighbour of Russia. Pretty much every single one has been a colony of Russia/the Soviet Union within living memory. I’ll give you Norway as an exception. And the US (Alaska).
It would be surprising if they weren’t in NATO.
Just ask yourself who you’d trust if you lived in Poland. Or Romania. Or the Baltic States …

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 days ago
Reply to  Peter B

Since Nato is just a fatter version of the US and since Trump will renege on Nato commitments I’d say Nato is finished. Europe will have to build its own unified army in a defensive structure.. happily, modern Russia is not the warmonger the US is.
All the former USSR independent states are being destabilised through USUK attempted coups: that is what is causing the problems.. When they see that Nato minus the US is a paper tiger they’ll all look to Moscow again..

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
3 days ago
Reply to  Peter B

Rubbish. The US went ballistic over a Monster Raving Loony Party Fancy dress day out in the Capitol. They piled in, took selfies and a few souvenirs, then went home. What do you think Victoria Nuland telling the crowds in Maidan square to revolt, kick out the Russian favouring president, validly elected, shortly before all the shooting started, appeared like to Russia?
You need to read more widely.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 days ago

..and that while Moscow and Beijing are geographically very distant, The RF and PRC share a huge border? Add in India and you’re looking at nearly half the World! ..the bRICs are building and the West is collapsing..

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
3 days ago

They should do, Putin and Russia have been telling them for decades, AND that any nearer and it might be war. Oops it was. Curiously I now hear that Russia is winning? But they told me Russia was useless, their army dead, their economy trashed. Don’t tell me they lied about that as well as COVID, experimental vaccines and face masks?

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 days ago

Can one “invade” part of its own terrotory? Isn’t Taiwan a part of China? The UN, US and UK say it is.. and I think the rest of the world does too? Can England invade Yorkshire? They’re a very different lot up there aren’t they? More Viking than Anglo Norman. Will the Scots come to their rescue? Should we Irish get involved? It’s tricky Isn’t it?

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
3 days ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

It’s called Civil war Liam – you should know, you Irish had one. Ironically my Grandad and Grandma smuggled guns to Ireland for it, well the uprising before it. Thank heavens I won the lottery of life and was born English.

General Store
General Store
3 days ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

‘we’ and Irish is looking a little strained is it not. How do ‘you’ (plural) feel about immigration right now?

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 days ago
Reply to  General Store

Like you we have our Farrages and Foxes and Murrays and our version of the BNP but they are a small minority, their ranks swelled by the ignorant, the xenophobic, the racist , the propaganda ridden and the scared.. By and large our immigrants have done great things for Ireland. Our national identity is more or less indestructible so, in general we don’t have the fears less self confident nations have.. and we assimilate much better because we celebrate difference.

Last edited 3 days ago by Liam O'Mahony
Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
2 days ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Blimey, not even slightly smug. Well done!

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
3 days ago

I recommend watching Netflix A Thousand Goodnights. The Taiwan landscape is marvellous – but you wouldn’t want to try and fight your way into, and over it. Even the Chinese mightn’t have enough men to come out of that unscathed.

D N
D N
3 days ago

Don’t see how much use a warm water port in the Black Sea is, as far as projecting naval power is concerned.. when a relatively powerful country controls the Dardanelles..

Martin M
Martin M
6 hours ago

China might not do much “invading”, but it does do a bit of “deciding other places are really part of China”.

Richard Calhoun
Richard Calhoun
4 days ago

There is little doubt the Tories will be routed at ge2024, but that will only set the scene for 5 years of political turmoil.

Expect 3 general elections by 2030 before this political shenanigans is resolved.

Welfarism has destroyed our economy and our values and only by returning to the “Small State” will we bring about the revolution that is so desperately needed.

Samuel Ross
Samuel Ross
4 days ago

Prophet of Doom, Aris? The cup is either half empty OR half full, but your cup is half empty. Yes, we have problems. No, all is not lost. Some look at the ocean as a barrier, some see it as a bridge. The ‘hard times’ will call forth strong men, the fat will be trimmed from our public discourse, and the necessary work to create a world that is more good then before will be well begun.

The danger will be great, but the rewards correspondingly so.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
4 days ago
Reply to  Samuel Ross

Interesting essay for sure, but definitely nihilistic.

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
3 days ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Ironically it misses the real danger. Starmer promises to decarbonise the UK grid next parliament. Even Greens know that isn’t possible, so he is about to risk the Grid on an impossibility. NO modern economy can survive without a functioning power grid (note what Russia targets in Ukraine) The UK Grid is under threat already.
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/wait-for-the-blackout
or if you are sufficiently left wing to demand that it facts are only provided by the left (there are such people)
https://www.euronews.com/business/2024/02/28/britain-could-see-lights-out-in-perfect-storm-power-cuts
The economy will fail, AND so will society if blackouts become regular and prolonged AND they will!
Here’s the experience of the US, you don’t hear much about.
https://newsletter.doomberg.com/p/inverted-priorities
So, one vote only to stop the destruction of the grid and hence the economy. We won’t be fighting any wars with no grid.
Only Reform promise to scrap Net Zero.

Dennis Roberts
Dennis Roberts
4 days ago
Reply to  Samuel Ross

That was a indeed a very fatalistic read. The UK was in a parlous state in the 70s, then something changed, and that was enacted through change in one of the established parties.

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
3 days ago
Reply to  Dennis Roberts

The blackouts in the 1970’s were because the supply of fuel to the generators was interrupted. When the generators AREN’T there, that’s a whole new ball game. No half-a-day of trucking in coal to put it right. You have only this next GE to save the UK, as Labour has promised to decarbonise the grid by 2030. So ONE vote to save the UK sometime in the next 7 months. Vote Reform, the only party not committed to Net Zero insanity.

Christopher Elletson
Christopher Elletson
3 days ago
Reply to  Samuel Ross

Or Panglossian

Citizen Diversity
Citizen Diversity
3 days ago
Reply to  Samuel Ross

Stout words that would have been understood by the people of 1914.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 days ago
Reply to  Samuel Ross

Quite right.. nothing good old socialist revolition can’t fix, eh?

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 days ago
Reply to  Samuel Ross

As we say in Vork: I hope it stays fine for ye boy!

Christopher Barclay
Christopher Barclay
4 days ago

‘ … the unexpected Soviet collapse and the unipolar empire America won by default … ‘ Hardly the US won the Cold War by confronting the USSR around the globe and by raising military expenditure to a level at which the USSR sued for peace.
Britain may be finished but the US is not. The failings of US politics hides the industrial and military strength that remains in the US.

Pedro the Exile
Pedro the Exile
3 days ago

Agreed-writers over here consistently fail to grasp the sheer economic and military heft of the USA and whilst currently being run by incompetents has consistently shown itself to be able to grow and develop in a way that Russia & China can only dream about.

Atticus Basilhoff
Atticus Basilhoff
3 days ago

As an American I applaud your belief in our nation, not currently shared by enough of our citizens today. The US has always risen to the challenge in whatever national or international issue needed to be addressed; WWI, WWII, the Cold War, expansion of commerce and democracy, technology, etc. Sadly, I think those days may be behind us and I’m not sure how to get them back. The destruction of American exceptionalism and the erosion of a national identity to rally ’round for the past few decades has resulted in a situation where, as in the UK, few persons under the age of 30 or so are willing to say they would fight for their country or their life’s advantages. I feel we have become a nation of takers across all the socio-economic spectrum with few willing to do for their country. While we may be able to field the most advanced and capable military in the history of civilization, do we have the wherewithal and stewardship to use it appropriately to maintain the West. The thought of our current leadership, on both sides of the aisle, and at all levels of of government and industry, doesn’t help me sleep better..

Peter B
Peter B
3 days ago

It’s not what people say today when some PR person asks their opinion that matters. It’s what they actually do if and when the crisis hits.
I’m far more optimistic than you that the instincts of the Americans and British are still sound.
Of course people are lazy and taking things for granted after so many relatively easy, peaceful decades.

Zeph Smith
Zeph Smith
1 day ago
Reply to  Peter B

I’m wondering if you have a lot of contact with *typical* people of younger generations, or if you are from an older generation and still form your model of the nation based on your past?
I say “typical” because of course there are many exceptional and wonderful people in all generations – but is the proportion of them high enough to carry the rest?
I’d like to believe you are right (ie: I’ll be pleased if you turn out to be). But I’m immersed in so much reality denial where I live, that I am developing somewhat of an allergy to wishful thinking, or to delusional thinking. I’m not saying you are part of that, just explaining why I am wary of confusing what I’d like to believe true with actual reality.

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
3 days ago

The industrial strength depends of fossil fuels, which, curiously enough, are swamping the US at present. Doomberg substack covers such stuff BUT, if you really want to worry. The US may be building factories, and may be awash with hydrocarbons, BUT the politicians can still stuff the US.
Here’s Doomberg – try Metals and Miners – in 2 parts on the damage the politicians could manage.
https://newsletter.doomberg.com/p/doomcasts

Santiago Excilio
Santiago Excilio
3 days ago

A rather bleak article. I’m not sure that the tattered raiment of some old testament doom-monger sits very comfortably on Aris’s shoulders, and his beard is far too trim and tidy.

Having said that there is no doubt that the current political settlement is failing people, throughout the West as a whole and not just in the UK. I would argue that this decline has in fact been in motion since the end of WWII and the establishment of the rules based international order which saw the creation of the UN, WHO, WB, NATO, The Council of Europe (eventually to become the EU) – a collection of supranational organisations that placed power and influence beyond normal democratic reach. In conjunction with this, politicians discovered that was easy and convenient to pass responsibility (and therefore accountability) to an ever increasing number of Quangos, NGO’s and regulators, thereby absolving themselves from having to answer tough questions and again putting huge budgets and accountability beyond democratic reach.

Which brings us to the present day, where people complain about the ineffectiveness of the political classes, the fact they all basically look the same, and that nothing ever changes.

From that perspective Cummings analysis that “everything is rotten” is essentially correct. His contention that it cannot be fixed and should be ripped up is open to debate. However, the idea that we should turn to tech philosopher kings for a solution makes little sense; companies are not democratic institutions, and many of these tech types subscribe to some odd anti-human beliefs such as effective altruism, which if enacted in earnest would create a very bleak world indeed.

Goodwins ideas about popular sovereignty stem from his continuous polling of focus groups and his findings that the bulk of voters lean to the left on the economy and the right on culture. The problem with this is that it like Boris’s views on cake: I like having it and eating it. If popular sovereignty is supposed to look like Aristotle’s Polity then maybe that would work, but one would have to surmount the basic flaw in democracy which is that whilst it provides for equality of voice it makes no provision for equality of contribution. This is the cake problem from another angle: I like cake providing someone else pays for it.

I don’t discount the possibility that a new political force could emerge, make headway and gain power with the sort of prospectus necessary to break the current paradigm and effect change. However, such a movement will require a leader who combines the three critical elements for success: vision, charisma and confidence. I can see only one person like this on the global landscape at present and that is Milei in Argentina, and whether he succeeds or not is still very much in the balance. But it could be done.

Last edited 3 days ago by Santiago Excilio
Lancashire Lad
Lancashire Lad
3 days ago

I’m not sure that the tattered raiment of some old testament doom-monger sits very comfortably on Aris’s shoulders, and his beard is far too trim and tidy.

Excellent analogy. He does have a tendency to hyperbole. In this article he’s touching on something that, rather than lending itself to prophecy, requires a degree of courage and hard-headedness that his words don’t quite capture. For all that, a useful addition to the dialogue as we approach perhaps the most moribund general election in British political history.

Last edited 3 days ago by Lancashire Lad
Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
3 days ago
Reply to  Lancashire Lad

Actually it isn’t. This article misses the most dangerous event possible – Net Zero and the destruction of the UK grid. AND that in the next parliament IF Starmer doesn’t drop his commitment to decarbonising the grid by 2030.
There is a reason Russia occupies the Zaporizhzhia nuke plant in Ukraine and why it targets thermal power plants. Modern economies cannot run without power. Starmer & the Greens with Net Zero insanity will ensure that outcome in the UK. Better not be a city dweller if the grid fails for very long. You have only ONE vote to stop that.

Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
4 days ago

We are in a situation where everything around us is rapidly changing, to our detriment, and yet our leaders act as if at the end of it, everything will somehow stay the same.”
It’s because we can’t – or don’t want to – imagine what’s on the other side.
I went to Auschwitz a few weeks ago. As we stood next to the blasted remains of the gas chambers there, being told about this conveyor-belt human destruction – one of the group asked: “But didn’t anyone ever struggle? Didn’t they rebel or resist? There were so many of them.”
The guide said that the only time they had any resistance there was from a group of women who had been brought in from Bergen-Belsen and therefore knew more about the nature of these places than the people who had just arrived on cattle trucks from elsewhere.
Most of the people just thought they were going for a shower – unable to comprehend how a civilised people like the Germans could be capable of such things. Off they went willingly like lambs to the slaughter.
It was hard enough to chew over the facts of the Holocaust again at one of its main focal points. At the same time, it struck me that Europe is currently collectively suffering from this exact kind of imagination limitation and that we could – again – sleepwalk into catastrophe.
Then I thought about our leaders and wondered whether they have a specific idea of what’s coming at us down the pike. With most of them, I’d say no – they seem far too dim and pedestrian. But others, maybe.
Then the question is whether sharing your suppositions or knowledge about the future is smart – as the Nazis found out back in the early 40s, the masses are much more malleable when you leave them in their own bubble of naivety.
Yes, the feeling that we are in the back of a car revving up before the edge of a cliff is a very good way of describing the current moment.

Mike Downing
Mike Downing
3 days ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

In the film ‘Son of Saul’ you also see the story of a group of Sonderkommando (they operated the gas chambers and crematoria for a few months and were then liquidated themselves) who left diaries about their situation and managed to actually escape briefly, before being caught and shot.

Those diaries form the basis of the film.

Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
3 days ago
Reply to  Mike Downing

I can recommend Laurence Rees’s book “Auschwitz” – an absolute must-read generally, but especially if you are thinking of going to visit the place.

Dennis Roberts
Dennis Roberts
3 days ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Politicians know more than they let on. They just don’t want to scare the horses.

Matt M
Matt M
3 days ago

I am starting to think that the idea that the British are “already poor and angry, will be poorer and angrier than we have known in many decades” is itself a luxury belief held by depressed Millennial journalists.
We are richer and happier than ever and I see no reason for that to stop. Our wage growth has outpaced inflation ever since the pandemic and GDP growth is currently the second highest in the G7 (double the EU figure). The recently published World Happiness Report 2024 put the UK as the happiest of the large countries ahead of the USA, France and Germany. This also tallies with my experience of living here for 50 years.
Our problems are minimal and our advantages huge: temperate climate, no dangerous animals, no guns and low crime rates, high-trust, law abiding culture, low unemployment and easy business formation, taxpayer funded health service and welfare state, reasonable taxes, cheap and abundant food, easily defensible homeland etc.
We could do more: reduce immigration numbers to bring them in line with housing availability and infrastructure capacity, frack our own natural gas, rein in the wokerati in our public institutions, select fewer wrong-uns as MPs.
But to suggest that we are in some period of steep decline is nonsensical.

Last edited 3 days ago by Matt M
Citizen Diversity
Citizen Diversity
3 days ago
Reply to  Matt M

All these benefits are a legacy from the past. The heat emitted by a garden wall as the sun is setting.
The Romano-British might have had such an optimism.
The claim that taxes are reasonable is strange given we are the most highly taxed people who have ever lived in the British Isles.

Matt M
Matt M
3 days ago

Surely everything is a legacy from the past.
Taxes were higher in 1948 and 1949. The high taxes were caused by the massive public spending on the war just as the current higher tax take is due to the massive public spending on the pandemic. By 1958 the tax take had fallen from 37.2% of GDP in 1948 to 28.9%. The same thing will happen now.
The same is true of NHS waiting lists – they spiked due to lockdowns and will fall back to pre-pandemic numbers in due course.
I don’t believe that there is anything fundamentally wrong with the economy. I see full pubs and restaurants. I was at Badminton last weekend and it was heaving. I went to the Isle of Wight the weekend before and the ferry and all the bars and cafes were packed. The FTSE 100 is at all time highs. Inflation is falling, the banks are cutting mortgage rates, unemployment is almost non-existent.
I don’t think this doom and gloom story is accurate. Personally I don’t lose sleep about border wars between the Ukraine and Russia, Jews and Arabs going at it hammer-and-tongs in the middle east or China imposing itself on Taiwan. All of these things have been going on since I was a boy and none of them really affect England.
I find the global warming hysteria very unconvincing (it has rained non-stop since mid-September). I think wokery is dying a death due to being complete nonsense (and the attention of the activists moving from trannies to Palestine). I don’t believe national pride, patriotism or love of British history and culture has ever diminished among normal people and will assert itself whenever the need arises (as seen at the Queen’s funeral and the Coronation)
I think eventually the government will get control of immigration numbers. I think all western governments will eventually stamp out illegal immigration. I think the Net Zero commitments will end up being quietly shelved. I don’t think the Muslims will take over Britain or grow as a % of the population. I think AI will be a boon. I marvel that scientists in the 1970s were able to increase harvests to be able to make food abundant and cheap and scientists in the 2020s seem to be able to fix the major downside of cheap food – obesity with this new set of Ozempic drugs.
All in all, I think things are pretty good and getting better.

Last edited 3 days ago by Matt M
Richard Calhoun
Richard Calhoun
3 days ago
Reply to  Matt M

The one big problem you seem to have overlooked is the UK public debt, standing at £2.6 Trillion and rising and the public deficit at £131 Billion.
The deficit not such a problem, but with sky high taxes and rising debt of over 100% of GDP we are in a precarious position going forward.
The level of welfarism is unsustainable

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
3 days ago
Reply to  Matt M

Did you know that Starmer is committed (so far) to ‘decarbonising’ the grid in the next parliament? That means you have ONE vote to stop it. Do you know what destroying the grid by that insanity will do to a modern economy and society?
Here’s Doomberg on what has happened in the Texas and in the US so far.
https://newsletter.doomberg.com/p/inverted-priorities
We in the UK will close another coal & a nuke generator this autumn. Here’s data – IF it doesn’t frighten you, it should.
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/wait-for-the-blackout
Only Reform is NOT committed to Net Zero.

Jonathan Andrews
Jonathan Andrews
3 days ago
Reply to  Matt M

A

Last edited 3 days ago by Jonathan Andrews
Richard Calhoun
Richard Calhoun
3 days ago
Reply to  Matt M

The one big problem you seem to have overlooked is the UK public debt, standing at £2.6 Trillion and rising and the public deficit at £131 Billion.
The deficit not such a problem, but with sky high taxes and rising debt of over 100% of GDP we are in a precarious position going forward.

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
3 days ago
Reply to  Matt M

Try being rich and happy IF the lights go out for any length of time. OR the Greens just stop oil. The first is a distinct possibility.

Matt F
Matt F
3 days ago

“Living standards in Britain have been battered by the war in Ukraine” This is an all too common scapegoat. It certainly hasn’t helped, but it’s easy to forget the steady rise of oil prices before war broke out. I suspect the crippling (and more concealed) cost of Britain’s unbridled rush to “Net Zero” is a much greater culprit, not to mention the devastating legacy of Covid lock downs, or the seeming inability to manage immigration levels to match the supply of affordable housing.

Last edited 3 days ago by Matt F
Gayle Rosenthal
Gayle Rosenthal
3 days ago
Reply to  Matt F

Similar alarmism exists in the US – the war is costing too much. However the war effort monies constitute less than 1% of our budget. The problem with the Ukraine war is that Europe’s will to win it seems to be absent. What are they afraid of ? Being bombed ? I have news – Israel’s Iron Dome is a game changer. Rather than hammer Israel for it’s war in Gaza, which is unlike any other war fought in history, Europe should be supporting them 100% and collaborating with them in the interest of proliferating defensive weapons. Why does no one see the brilliance in the shield which protected Israel from Hamas and Iranian rockets ?

Dennis Roberts
Dennis Roberts
3 days ago

You mean the shield that consisted of US, UK, French and Jordanian arms, in addition to Israel’s own, and was conducted over the countries between Israel and Iran (a luxury Europe doesn’t have)?

I also get the distinct impression that Iran wasn’t really trying and a surprise attack might have had a very different outcome.

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
3 days ago

No it isn’t. Israel’s Nukes were. BUT I agree, we should be supporting Israel to the hilt. They win, and the West has a chance, they lose, and the Islamists will be bombing more innocent young girls in another city in the west. There is no such thing as a phobia re Islam. The fear is rational and real.

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
3 days ago
Reply to  Matt F

Correct AND Net Zero isn’t done yet. Unless Starmer recants, you have only ONE vote to save the UK from grid meltdown.

Peter B
Peter B
4 days ago

” the unexpected Soviet collapse and the unipolar empire America won by default”
The US and the West won because they stuck at the task for 40 year. It’s wasn’t an accident or “by default”. Mr. Roussinos is too young to have lived through that period and is lazily parroting a false narrative here.
Accusing Dominic Cummings of “luxury beliefs” and implying that Macron is realistic really is stretching credulity.
The entire article is yet more specious catastrophism.

Paul MacDonnell
Paul MacDonnell
4 days ago

Excellent article — despite my needing to drink a stiff gin every time Dominic Cummings is cited as an authority. Cummings represents a highly left-brain, and doomed, technocratic response to the decline, not a remedy. (we live in a country where sex education for teenagers includes putting condoms on banannas—but, for heaven’s sake, don’t teach ‘morality’). The idea that we should emulate the governance of California is scary. That state is rich, true, but it shares the UK’s dysfunction — just at a higher income level.
That a civillisation can die suddenly is well attested in history. See this excellent interview with Victor-Davis Hanson where, in the spirit of Roussinos’ excellent piece, he recounts some particularly brutal examples, beginning with the story of the destruction of Thebes and ALL of its inhabitants.

The End of Everything, with Victor Davis Hanson | Uncommon knowledge: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIkay6YiIhs

Last edited 4 days ago by Paul MacDonnell
sal b dyer
sal b dyer
3 days ago

Although I don’t know much about anything, except perhaps which antibiotics to use for which bacteria and a few other moderate level medical snippets; I do wonder about the number of writers who seem to know so much about everything that they can foretell the future so confidently. Even the much hyped “superbugs resistant to antibiotics will take over the world” has largely been just that- hype. Antibiotics and improved medical technologies in general, still save far more lives than not. Mr Roussinos may be right, we may have an impoverishing economic contraction ahead, or more unwinnable military battles, but equally some combination of new technologies and a resilient human spirit may still shine through in pockets at least. And again, all these prophets of doom seem to know what the problems are but not very willing to come up with workable solutions. They just keep criticising everything without proposing anything. Being responsible to your editor to write eloquent prose is a bit different to being responsible to your voters to improve their lives.

Lancashire Lad
Lancashire Lad
3 days ago
Reply to  sal b dyer

Excellent comment, including the points about antibiotics.

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
3 days ago
Reply to  Lancashire Lad

Try creating any of them without energy. And that is what the Greens are promoting. Ironically I didn’t see a single reference to that in the article. Doomberg is better for reality, go to its Doomcasts and listen to the Doomcasts with Metals and Miners parts1 and 2 to understand the US Politicians’ death march. Then try this
https://newsletter.doomberg.com/p/cooking-the-books
Drax in focus.

Michael Cazaly
Michael Cazaly
3 days ago
Reply to  sal b dyer

But the politicians are only responsible to the voters in that they may not get elected; the improving lives bit doesn’t figure in the real world.