Any republicans/anti-conservatives in?

Just curious. I'm of a political persuasion where I fidn English conservatism extremely limiting and frustrating. I am a supporter of Sinn Fein, a united Ireland, I take inspiration from the American and French revolutions. I think the English have a false perc eption of superiority, are living in a post imperial dream world, are chronically conditioned and averse to change. We could be so much better. There is no point in being, for example, half in Europe, not commiting to either leaving or full integration. Everything is a half measure and we are not getting the best from Europe, and yet conservatives are happy to hang of the USA's coat-tails, or worse, sell out the place to them. We are a generation that is getting the wrost of everything, in terms of our sovereignty, economic policies, civil liberties, etc etc. Does anyone esle feel incerdible sick of our malaise and think we need to wake up, change, and look forward?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Chillaxer

Tbh as symbolic and precpitative acts, healthy acts that would help humanise us, get in touch with the modern globalised world, and our Englishness, and maintain our Englishness whilst curing our ills,
a)Becoming a republic
b)Joining the Euro

Would be a great start.

Reply 2

Matt:)

Original post by Chillaxer

This is exactly the problem with the Euro. You should not join a currency because of symbolic reasons. The EZ is not an Optimal Currency Area, and will not become one because we join it.

Reply 3

Chillaxer

It was more a generalised question to anyone. I'm surprised how despite the fact that time goes on, and we are distinctly in a malaise, many people maintain their conservatism, even the young. Just looking for other types of people, those who feel change is required.

Reply 4

chrisawhitmore

Original post by Chillaxer

Yep. Pointless constitutional change and adopting a more restrictive version of the program which caused the recession in the early 90s and lead to black wednesday, but without the ability to drop out. That's a great symbol of modern politics, pointless political gestures at the expense of the people.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 5

Chillaxer

Original post by chrisawhitmore

Our economic woes are to do with the US/UK banking crisis. And how can removing the main symbol of heriditary privelige and rule in order to bring about a more meritocratic Britain be pointless? There's already enough done at the expense of the people, they've been sold so far down the river by New Labour. We are not running the world anymore, America uses us and thinks nothing of us, we have to go into Europe and move forward 'constitutionally'.

Reply 6

chrisawhitmore

Original post by Chillaxer

So we should get rid of the monarchy which has no real effect on our democracy and move into a group which has willfully broken its own rules repeatedly and has shown utter contempt for the idea of democracy?

Reply 7

gladders

Yeah, I'm not sure what removing the monarchy you think would achieve. We are a fully democratic nation at the moment: power is concentrated in the elected House of Commons and the other government institutions depend upon the Commons for their direction, funding and very existence. This includes the monarchy. We could have a president, but the impact on our day to day lives would be zero. We'd still be the same cynical, small-c conservative people who spent half our national history dicking around the Irish and conquering half the world.

Reply 8

Chillaxer

Original post by chrisawhitmore

See this is what fascinates me, along with over-reverence for the past, is why do conservatives actually believe this country is working so much better and is so much less corrupt? Again, i'd argue this is part of the nature of many Brtiish people to just accept what they are given and never ever consider change. If Americans are indoctrinated to erroneously believe things are superior, we laugh at them, but never believe we can befall the same fate. I think we are unhealthily adverse to change in a globalised world. It's not about minutae or statistics, it's an attitudinal shift. We are living in another world to both the continental European and American mentality, and yet not getting the best out of either relationship and not really moving forward. Yes thing are ok here and better than many other places, but that's because of the geography of this island and various histroical factors, not monarchy and the principle of heriditary rule. And it won't help to pretend that Europe isn't 20 miles away in the modern world either.

Reply 9

Chillaxer

Original post by gladders

Well, I'm not conservative, so I want to see change. I kind of expect these responses as the English are very conservative. One of the main reasons I would leave honestly. The English cannot see that others don't think like them and that maybe on occasions may be worth listening to. Again, it's still mostly an accident of random events and geography that give the natio it's view of itself, and this causes an unhealthy bolstering of resistance to change. They laugh at us on the continent, and Americans rightly say how dull we are.

Reply 10

gladders

Everything you have just posted is utter nonsense.

Original post by Chillaxer

Well, I'm not conservative, so I want to see change. I kind of expect these responses as the English are very conservative. One of the main reasons I would leave honestly.

The English aren't particularly conservative (we had one of the earliest and most comprehensive welfare state systems and gave women and the poor the vote a lot earlier than many European countries - plus our great advances on toleration of homosexuality and alternative cultures, in which we are light years ahead of many).

The English cannot see that others don't think like them and that maybe on occasions may be worth listening to.

What exactly do you mean by this? I honestly can't think of anything you're referring to that any other country can't be accused of. Can you give an example?

Again, it's still mostly an accident of random events and geography that give the natio it's view of itself, and this causes an unhealthy bolstering of resistance to change. They laugh at us on the continent, and Americans rightly say how dull we are.

They laugh at us? And America thinks we're dull? Really? Any sources to back up these claims, or is it just your own projecting?

Reply 11

Ripper-Roo

Repped.

This country is set in the past:
* Monarchy
* Class system
* Still thinking the Empire was good, it was a disaster
* Cultural deference

Reply 12

Chillaxer

Original post by gladders

Everything you have just posted is utter nonsense.

The English aren't particularly conservative (we had one of the earliest and most comprehensive welfare state systems and gave women and the poor the vote a lot earlier than many European countries - plus our great advances on toleration of homosexuality and alternative cultures, in which we are light years ahead of many).

What exactly do you mean by this? I honestly can't think of anything you're referring to that any other country can't be accused of. Can you give an example?

They laugh at us? And America thinks we're dull? Really? Any sources to back up these claims, or is it just your own projecting?

We are no different to Europe now on welfare etc and social conservatism, and in fact the continent is left of us. I'm talking about willingness to change now, the class system, heriditary rule, lack of social mobility. The continent does think we're pompous, the Germand and French especially. And many Americans have utter contempt for the place, the stuffiness, protocol, class system and all. If it's not conservative why do so many expats, even the people who've decided to go in the first place, have such a hard time, especially the ones in the USA ho are desperately homesick.

Reply 13

Ripper-Roo

Original post by Chillaxer

ye boii

Reply 14

gladders

Original post by Chillaxer

But removing the monarchy won't change a bit of that. The US's class system as just as immobile as ours and arguably the rich/poor gap is wider. France especially has a very, very bad wealth gap and a lot of class antagonism.

Meanwhile, the Scandinavian monarchies have some of the greatest social mobility and economic equality in the world.

I agree with you that economic inequality and class tensions need to be addressed and for my part I am wholly sympathetic to a more left-wing policy on that front. But removing the monarchy is simply barking up the wrong tree.

The retention of a monarchy is a powerful sign that a country has been able to achieve great change without violence or bloody revolution. I'm proud of our monarchy for that reason.

Reply 15

Arbolus

Original post by Chillaxer

See, that's why I think conservatism is the only sensible point of view. Change for the sake of improvement is normally a good thing; change for the sake of change is not. All too often we see politicians meddling with established institutions for ideological reasons alone, which might make those institutions a tiny bit more democratic/equal/accountable, but which also tends to make them more inefficient and ineffective.

Take the monarchy as an example. It doesn't do anyone any harm, and there's arguably still a potential use for it. Yes, having an elected ceremonial president might be slightly more democratic, but it wouldn't do anything to improve governance and it would come at the risk of future instability. Until there's a way to eliminate that risk, we may as well stick with what we know works.

Reply 16

Chillaxer

Original post by Arbolus

Until there's a way to eliminate that risk, we may as well stick with what we know works.

Risk aversion, over quibbling details that are an illusion of superiority in an increasingly globalised world where we need to think bigger and more broadly.

Not being rude, that's just what I think is everything that is wrong with English peoples mode of thought, which in itself is deemed to be superior than the US and the continent.

Reply 17

Chillaxer

Original post by gladders

The US social mobility is down to their beliefs about economics. And class there is only wealth and influence, it's not that self important garbage of 'gentlemen and players.'
Scandinavia being like it is is down to politics again, and is independent of monarchy, and anyway their monarchies are not remotely comparable in stature, wealth or what they represent. France is even willing to vote for a guy who puts in a 75% top tax rate says they are willing to think differently. And there are plenty in the US who care far more about social mobility. Look at Bill O'Reilly, Barack Obama for e.g , both came from humble backgrounds. It's rare in the UK with anybody at the top.

Reply 18

gladders

Original post by Chillaxer

The US social mobility is down to their beliefs about economics. And class there is only wealth and influence, it's not that self important garbage of 'gentlemen and players.'

Scandinavia being like it is is down to politics again, and is independent of monarchy, and anyway their monarchies are not remotely comparable in stature, wealth or what they represent. France is even willing to vote for a guy who puts in a 75% top tax rate says they are willing to think differently. And there are plenty in the US who care far more about social mobility. Look at Bill O'Reilly, Barack Obama for e.g , both came from humble backgrounds. It's rare in the UK with anybody at the top.

I think you're comparing apples to oranges. The standing, wealth or symbolism of the monarch has no bearing on British social mobility, the class system, or how progressive/conservative this country is.

There are plenty of British leaders who come from humble beginnings. David Davis, for example, or Margaret Thatcher, or John Major.

Reply 19

Chillaxer

Original post by gladders

...I can't say that it's in any way different in the UK. Class in Britain and the US is far, far more complicated than you make it out to be, and it's actually nothing to do with any formal social hierarchy. We could abolish the monarchy tomorrow and 100 years from now the class system would remain unchanged.

I think you're comparing apples to oranges. The standing, wealth or symbolism of the monarch has no bearing on British social mobility, the class system, or how progressive/conservative this country is.

There are plenty of British leaders who come from humble beginnings. David Davis, for example, or Margaret Thatcher, or John Major.

Davis isn't exactly PM. Thatcher had to have elocution lessons and put on a posh phoney voice, Major probably appealed to certain working class tories and hence they got more votes of those people. I dunno, but there's nothing that could be described as
egalitarianism. I'm talking about the level of importance/self-importance and formality, protocol and pomp related to English establishment, which is literally unrivalled across Europe and in the USA, where it is more wealth based and a californian sounds californian, a bostonian sounds bostonian, etc. In Britain a man representing the North East in a rural conservative seat will speak in plummy RP and in a patrician tone that knows whats best. Even over the whole Snowdonm thing in the US, at least there was soul searching and self-examination, we just have the same public schoolboys wheeled out to be deferred to. I think English people are fooling themselves, particularly those of the most conservative persuasion, to think there are not significant differences for the worse between us and the USA and the continent. It's almost like they still believe everythig about the way we do things is the key to why we are different and better in spite of the fact we no longer are, and even where it appears great there is a lot of deceit going on, the belief in the integrity and honesty above other nations is mad.
My persepctive is that if you are hardline freemarketer or neo liberal or social conservative, then the US is a better model, and if you're a social democrat then Eruope is. But the myth is our superiority and the problem our unwillingness to chnage. You may see as cursory acts, such things as removing the monarchy, but it isn't .It looms so large in the deferential psyche of Britian, it would be a domino effect and show people what else could change, and change their conception of themselves. Society comes down to inequality/inequality, educationala nd economic, but if we got rid of monarchy and people were citizens not subjects, that could precipitate a lot of good changes in the people. I would re-iterate that just the obsession over minute detail and unwillingness to overthrow anything, as the French and Americans did, is indicative of a tedious nature to English people, and whilst the Irish and Scots went to build America, and the French had their revolution and helped the yanks kick us out, I can't help feeling we are a bit lame, and self-satisfied.