John L. Cotter
H-index:
15
And listen, I don’t mean to have a particular go at Britain here: all countries have their comforting myths, Ireland too.
Again, not what I was saying. However, even today *imperialist* thinking about Ireland sometimes rears its head. Which is why Brexit was an upsetting and alienating process for many Irish people, when Ireland’s position, preferences and statehood were often treated with derision in Britain.
We could probably go back and forth on this all evening. Sure, there may not be conscious imperial nostalgia. But there are leftovers in thinking. We are still living in the post-WW2 era as far as I’m concerned and the post-imperial era. Britain, in my mind, hasn’t worked through its loss of empire.
What I am trying say awkwardly is that Britain has always been a strange mix of liberalism in some contexts and reactionary conservatism in others, sometimes in conflict and sometimes in coexistence. In a way, the hard right Reform/current Tory party are bringing imperialist thinking home.
What we are seeing rise in England primarily right now is not new. And the experience of Britain in colonies (including Ireland) does not fit with this idea of liberal Britain. Your description exists of course, but it exists against this contradictory tradition also.
That was not my intention. I cannot say what most Tories think or thought about WW2 or the primary motivation for fighting it. I do, however, more generally get a sense that the victories in both wars are framed by many people as primarily victories over the Germans, rather than over an ideology.
That is certainly one version. But there is also a strong reactionary Tory tradition, as well as one which defines itself in terms of fighting and defeating Germans (the political persuasion of the opposition being a matter of happenstance).
For a moment I thought he was talking about something they’d found in the White House water supply which would’ve explained a lot.
Reposted by: John L. Cotter, David Darmofal
Trump: "We call them the water drugs. The drugs that come in through water. They're not coming. There are no boats anymore. Frankly, there are no fishing boats. There are no boats out there period, if you want to know the truth. Does anybody go fishing anymore?"
I have deleted a post from earlier in which I criticised BBC Radio 4’s framing of Jenrick’s comments on judges. While they seemed to be brushed over at the beginning of the programme, Lord Sumption was interviewed about them later in the programme. The tone, however, doesn’t convey the radical…
I don’t recall that during the 1pm news, but I may have missed it.
by John L. Cotter — Reposted by: Steve Peers
View post
Here’s hoping that we never have to see Robert Jenrick Lord Chancellor giving a roomful of judges a Pete Hegseth-style speech on how to do macho British judging.
Reposted by: John L. Cotter, Steve Peers
Coverage of Jenrick today basically amounts to sane-washing. He didn't criticise judges. He claimed there was a conspiracy by certain judges, who he had discovered and could number, to undermine British law and create open borders.
If you make it through to the end, it’s almost like “fair play, you deserve it.”
The process of succession to the Ottoman throne was less brutal than the pathway to the Presidency of Ireland. The nominations, press coverage, debates, etc etc seem designed basically to leave one candidate standing.
Oh, it would be incredibly stupid, but I wouldn’t rely on that being a reason it wouldn’t happen.
And sure, you can point to constraints (constitutional [I wouldn’t hold my breath]; economic [maybe, although I wouldn’t assume rational action or underestimate the use of economic problems for a would-be autocrat]; etc). Maybe I’m overly pessimistic; I just sense some denial in some commentary. /7
to deal with such opposition, so he would likely to react to it in authoritarian fashion. And so, whether autocratism is premeditated or not almost becomes immaterial. /6
And even if you don’t think there would be some grand autocratising plan, there wouldn’t need to be. Farage’s policies would automatically bring him into conflict with the devolved systems, the judiciary, and civil society. Because he wouldn’t have the political skills, patience or personality… /5
This is not me being alarmist. A Farage win or Badenoch win is far from inevitable. But I wouldn’t be under any illusions as to what a win for the former especially might mean. /4
As I keep saying, leaving the ECHR would only be a small part of a Project 2025-style development which would also likely involve the same kinds of things we are seeing in the States. /3
I think things under Farage in particular would be much worse than people realise. Who is to say he wouldn’t welcome such a confrontation as an opportunity to use the military domestically. Trump is showing him the way in that regard. /2
Even sensible commentators who point to the effect leaving the ECHR would have on Scotland and/or NI haven’t really caught up with how bad Reform and Badenoch’s Tories are. Do you really think they would allow Scotland or NI to leave the UK peacefully even if it were their clear democratic will? /1
Boris Johnson’s purge left the Rump Tories and Badenoch’s will leave behind the Barebone’s Tories.
