Having briefly skimmed your article (apologies, I will read it in full tomorrow), I'm left wondering why immigration wasn't mentioned as an issue. Regardless of whether you're ultimately pro-immigration or not, the way it was handled in the last few years has utterly undermined voters faith in the traditional parties (hence the explosion of Reform).
Surely this deserved a significant mention in such an article cataloguing the different points of failure in British society.
Charming piece and the complements are well received, but we never had freedom of speech. We used to rely on our natural reserve and politeness to avoid conflict, but online that is clearly insufficient.
Neither have we had freedom of religion or religious expression and an American should know that.
What you have had is a tradition of just generally leaving people alone to say whatever they wanted. That’s the tradition that has been eroded because you don’t have a constitution. It’s the ‘good chap’ theory of government: without a written constitution you are at the mercy of your rulers, elected or otherwise. And parliamentary sovereignty means they/it can pretty much do anything. All your traditional rights have been disappearing over the years due to not having a constitution. Trial by jury (disappearing soon, yes?). The functional equivalent (I forget what it was called in the UK) of the US’s fifth amendment. And now, essentially a total lack of freedom of speech. It’s very upsetting to those of us that wish you well!
We never needed to police speech because, in public, people policed themselves. This is different from "leaving people alone to say what they wanted". Online discourse has opened a vipers nest: people are alone with their thoughts but not their words. There never was a functional equivalent of the 5th amendment, this is precisely my point.
If you come at this question (I mean explicitly freedom of speech) from a left wing perspective you find the government shutting down debate throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.
The hope, of course, is that societies move towards more freedom, not less. For all its faults, the US supreme court has pretty much done that, more or less. That is what is, I think, missing in the UK. Which is what I find sad, since the US constitution, again more or less is based on the rights (real or imagined) that Britons (which is really what the US founders thought of themselves as; I think the US War of independence was really a civil war) thought they had.
Couldn't agree more; your sharp insight into how ideas, not just drugs, can dismantle stagnant systems and your keen observation of reallity winning out against propaganda is exactly why open societies thrive, even if 'reality' itself is an ever-evolving dataset.
This was a great article - totally agree it is like watching a spouse develop a drinking problem. I despair but remain hopeful for the country of my grandparents.
Great article. I’d be interested in your thoughts on a take I read on X recently:
'Global India' would be a good centre-left rejoinder to 'Global Brazil'. Modi is by far the best bogeyman for populism. They tie into the Thiel-Musk ACC stuff through poorly executed 'start up culture' which is, by some metrics, actually reversing development in India achieved by state socialism while the chest-beating pseudo-patriotism, combined with a complete reluctance to impose an actual civic religion upon Muslims, mirrors the worst sort of populist parties i.e: Reform and Vanceism.
He’s a weird guy. As I say about India, everything you can say about India is true as is its opposite. This is also true of Modi. You can call him a populist, extremely right wing, and head of an organization (the RSS) which is explicitly structured on fascist lines. All true. Yet, despite much complaining, the elections are still free, he is genuinely popular and the economic reforms are real, not cosmetic. They took serious willpower, and they most definitely were opposed by some of his key constituents. He did them anyway. India contains multitudes, sometimes in one person. No simple narrative of India is true. That’s the key point to always keep in mind.
I loved your opening paragraph and immediately so looked forward to what was to come. Just as that was my reaction, I realized, too, how much a turn-off that intro would be for those adherents to the people and policies that have given rise to the modern-day Britain you so effectively describe. So many go out of their way to avoid red flags; others, like you, embrace them.
As a great Englishman once wrote: “Cowards die many times before their death; the valiant taste of death but once.”
Thanks. As an Anglophile having grown up in a former African colony , I share your love for England and its mannered ways . But you describe a government and rules which say “ we don’t need no education “
Having briefly skimmed your article (apologies, I will read it in full tomorrow), I'm left wondering why immigration wasn't mentioned as an issue. Regardless of whether you're ultimately pro-immigration or not, the way it was handled in the last few years has utterly undermined voters faith in the traditional parties (hence the explosion of Reform).
Surely this deserved a significant mention in such an article cataloguing the different points of failure in British society.
Yep. Was getting a bit long so I contended myself with talking about Rishi Sunak and Kemi Badenoch.
Charming piece and the complements are well received, but we never had freedom of speech. We used to rely on our natural reserve and politeness to avoid conflict, but online that is clearly insufficient.
Neither have we had freedom of religion or religious expression and an American should know that.
What you have had is a tradition of just generally leaving people alone to say whatever they wanted. That’s the tradition that has been eroded because you don’t have a constitution. It’s the ‘good chap’ theory of government: without a written constitution you are at the mercy of your rulers, elected or otherwise. And parliamentary sovereignty means they/it can pretty much do anything. All your traditional rights have been disappearing over the years due to not having a constitution. Trial by jury (disappearing soon, yes?). The functional equivalent (I forget what it was called in the UK) of the US’s fifth amendment. And now, essentially a total lack of freedom of speech. It’s very upsetting to those of us that wish you well!
We never needed to police speech because, in public, people policed themselves. This is different from "leaving people alone to say what they wanted". Online discourse has opened a vipers nest: people are alone with their thoughts but not their words. There never was a functional equivalent of the 5th amendment, this is precisely my point.
I don’t know. Tradition more than anything else suggests to me you’ve lost a lot.
If you come at this question (I mean explicitly freedom of speech) from a left wing perspective you find the government shutting down debate throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.
The hope, of course, is that societies move towards more freedom, not less. For all its faults, the US supreme court has pretty much done that, more or less. That is what is, I think, missing in the UK. Which is what I find sad, since the US constitution, again more or less is based on the rights (real or imagined) that Britons (which is really what the US founders thought of themselves as; I think the US War of independence was really a civil war) thought they had.
Couldn't agree more; your sharp insight into how ideas, not just drugs, can dismantle stagnant systems and your keen observation of reallity winning out against propaganda is exactly why open societies thrive, even if 'reality' itself is an ever-evolving dataset.
This was a great article - totally agree it is like watching a spouse develop a drinking problem. I despair but remain hopeful for the country of my grandparents.
Bravo good Sir
Great article. I’d be interested in your thoughts on a take I read on X recently:
'Global India' would be a good centre-left rejoinder to 'Global Brazil'. Modi is by far the best bogeyman for populism. They tie into the Thiel-Musk ACC stuff through poorly executed 'start up culture' which is, by some metrics, actually reversing development in India achieved by state socialism while the chest-beating pseudo-patriotism, combined with a complete reluctance to impose an actual civic religion upon Muslims, mirrors the worst sort of populist parties i.e: Reform and Vanceism.
He’s a weird guy. As I say about India, everything you can say about India is true as is its opposite. This is also true of Modi. You can call him a populist, extremely right wing, and head of an organization (the RSS) which is explicitly structured on fascist lines. All true. Yet, despite much complaining, the elections are still free, he is genuinely popular and the economic reforms are real, not cosmetic. They took serious willpower, and they most definitely were opposed by some of his key constituents. He did them anyway. India contains multitudes, sometimes in one person. No simple narrative of India is true. That’s the key point to always keep in mind.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Your ‘Precipice’ article - along with this - ranks among the best work I’ve read in some time.
Fantastic!
I loved your opening paragraph and immediately so looked forward to what was to come. Just as that was my reaction, I realized, too, how much a turn-off that intro would be for those adherents to the people and policies that have given rise to the modern-day Britain you so effectively describe. So many go out of their way to avoid red flags; others, like you, embrace them.
As a great Englishman once wrote: “Cowards die many times before their death; the valiant taste of death but once.”
Thanks. As an Anglophile having grown up in a former African colony , I share your love for England and its mannered ways . But you describe a government and rules which say “ we don’t need no education “
They want to eat their pudding before their meat.
And they seem to want “thought control”!