If you support Trump, you are destroying our culture
This is a very long-post, I typed it up in Word. But it is a distillation of my thoughts on the matter (I entered a legal essay competition held recently by the Commonwealth Legal Education Association, so these issues of rule of law and democracy are quite fresh in my mind). It is long, but the background is very important so stick with it.*****
It’s coming up to election day in the United States, and the polls have tightened immensely; Clinton is still the favourite to win but Trump now has a plausible path to victory. This comes as we have news that the Ku Klux Klan has formally endorsed Trump, and that people at his rallies are chanting “Jew-S-A, Jew-S-A” and talking about how Jews control the world. One of Trump’s most ardent supporters is that utter piece of crap David Duke. All of this is not some coincidence; it’s not some random accident that Nazi filth believe Trump is their salvation.
And on to the topic at hand; there are plenty of Trump supporters who are basically morons, deplorables, people whom I wouldn’t piss on if they were on fire. But there is a very narrow (perhaps 1% of his support) band of people who are supporting him who really should know better; people who are ordinarily quite sensible on a range of issues, but for whom their increasing obsession with “SJWs” and feminism and the rest has caused them to identify with the civilisational slash-and-burn of the Trump candidacy. These people invariably identify themselves as patriots, as being somewhat traditionalist in an open-minded way, that they want to “return us to greatness”. But those beliefs and supporting Trump are fundamentally incompatible propositions. If you support Trump then you can make no claim to traditional patriotism, and you clearly do not have any intuitive or even emotional grasp of what the Anglo-American civilisation is all about (by Anglo-American civilisation, I’m not talking about race; I’m talking about the countries, UK/USA/Canada/Aus/New Zealand, in which certain linguistic, legal, cultural and political norms have predominated).
The great saving grace, the political and cultural crown jewels, the true and valuable treasure, of the Anglosphere has always been the Rule of Law. The rule of law is that everyone is equally subject to the law no matter their position or estate, that no-one can be deprived of life, liberty or property except by judgment of their peers or by due process of law, and that those who make and execute the laws and particularly the executive, are not above the law.
In the 13th century, the Kingdom of England suffered terrible civil strifes; in the 1210s King John’s oppressive and kleptomaniac behaviour led the barons and principal clergy of England to force him to sign a charter of liberties in 1215, the Magna Carta, which includes those vital clauses that fired the starting gun on the rule of law in this realm;
Magna Carta also introduced clauses that for the first time ensured that instead of following the king’s itinerant court around the country, the courts would hold sessions in fixed places which meant people could seek justice without the incredible expense of having to follow the king around like a groupie while litigating their lawsuit. And the incredible innovation of the English, creating the common law that was common to this entire realm and everyone in it, that allowed every free man to seek his justice in the king’s courts rather than being at the mercy of the local baronial courts (basically, his landlord having his own little court system)… this too created a space for liberty to grow and flourish in England.
In that same 13th century, the same issues came up under King John’s son Henry III, and so the barons revolted again and their leader, Simon de Montfort, won the civil war and created England’s first proper legislature; yes the nobles would be summoned to these councils (or parliament, as they called it), but so would two knights be elected in each shire and two burgesses in each borough (town) be elected to represent their interests too. For the election of knights of the shire, the franchise (who could vote) was restricted; it was called the “40 shilling franchise”. You could vote if you had at least 40-shillings of land in freehold. This was not an exceptionally wide franchise but nor was it exceptionally restrictive either. People who were not great magnates and barons would have a say in electing the knights of the shire. And in the boroughs, the franchise was completely variable depending on the borough; in some towns they had universal male suffrage (every man could vote), in others it was more stitched up so that the guilds kept themselves as electors. In some very limited examples where it was a pure property franchise, even some women who met the qualifications voted (yes, in medieval England). And because in the House of Commons the burgesses outnumbered the knights of the shire by three-to-one, the voice of representatives, many of whom were elected by quite a broad franchise, was substantial (naturally counterbalanced by the House of Lords).
This was not democracy as we know now, but it was a system in which no single class held all the power. In the end Henry III and his son Prince Edward (later Edward I) escaped de Montfort’s captivity, raised an army and defeated de Montfort, killing him and his three sons at the Battle of Evesham. But de Montfort’s first parliament had made its mark. Edward ruled more consensually than his father and in 1295 he summoned the “Model Parliament”, the first properly-summoned parliament on the de Montfort model (in fact, my constituency of Southwark, on the southbank of the Thames in London, has been sending its representatives across the river to Westminster since 1295, an incredible democratic continuity). So, yes the nobility and clergy were summoned, but so too were elected representatives of other interests and places. Two years later this same parliament enacted Magna Carta into law as an act of parliament; not only did you have the shift from previous times where it was the kings who legislated, but now this same parliament was not going to the king begging/negotiating for freedoms but confidently passing their charter of freedom in their own name, under their own powers to legislate. During that same period of the 1290s, parliament refused King Edward’s requests for taxation to fight wars; the elected representatives and the nobility were pushing back, and the kings were absolute rulers no longer.
You can see just how impactful these reforms were in the impeachment trials of the 1380s. Richard II was a very feckless king in the mould of Edward II (homosexual favourites, lands and titles distributed to his close friends, the government of the realm placed in the hands of mates of the king who enriched themselves). A group of important magnates called the Lords Appellants asked parliament to step in; parliament innovated a procedure to dismiss a king’s minister called impeachment where the House of Commons drew up and voted on an indictment which they presented to the Lords, who voted to decide whether to dismiss the minister. This procedure is still used today in the United States Congress where the House of Representatives will draw up and vote on an indictment to impeach, and then the Senate makes the final decision (it happened unsuccessfully to Bill Clinton in 1998). The king’s close friend and Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Suffolk Michael de la Pole, was impeached and dismissed. And thus you have, in 14th century medieval England, a partially elected parliament overseeing the executive and saying “No, just because you are the king you are not above the law”. [Working my way to the issue; circuitous I know but the background is quite relevant]
Parliament also appointed a group of financial commissioners to oversee the royal finances. Naturally the king did not like this, and so violence followed; there was a battle and the Lords Appellants won. A parliament was summoned, and an indictment for an appeal of treason against the king's ministers was drawn up and approved by the Commons; the king’s principle ministers like the Earl of Suffolk, the Chief Justice of the King’s Bench Sir Robert Tresilian, the Lord Mayor of London Sir Nicholas Brembre, and others, were indicted in parliament and convicted by the Lords. Suffolk escaped, Tresilian and Brembre were executed. This is not democracy as we would understand it today; it was a brutal time. But it was an early form of the rule of law and democracy. And in an interesting caveat, that same parliament enacted a very interesting statute; when a traitor was convicted their lands would be seized. But parliament decided that where the said traitors were holding lands as trustee for a beneficiary, that land in trust would not be seized; it's a remarkable recognition of legal forms, of protecting property rights, in a time that we mostly view as being brutal and backward.
And during that medieval period up until the Tudors, parliament was very active, meeting every year and passing much legislation. Unfortunately when the Tudors came along, they ruled much more like absolute monarchs; they went years (sometimes even decades) without summoning any parliaments. This continued and became worse when the Scots kings the Stuarts ascended to the throne. The king needed money so he would summon a parliament as only they could approve taxes, parliament would say “Fine but we have legitimate grievances we want dealt with at the same time, and we want a reasonable say in the government of the kingdom”. And so the king would dismiss the parliament again, try to raise taxes illegally. This led to the English Civil War; the parliamentary faction won, the king was executed and Cromwell became ruler. The Cromwellian regime was not particularly nice and so in 1660 the Stuarts were restored to the throne. [Stick with me, the history is important... working my way to Trump]
But by 1688, the Stuart King James II had so reverted to type by trying to bring back Catholicism, by imprisoning people illegally, by trying to rule without parliament, that we had the Glorious Revolution of 1688; James II was run out of the country and they invited James II’s protestant daughter and her husband, William and Mary, to come and reign as joint monarchs, with very strict conditions. The parliament that was then summoned passed the Bill of Rights 1689, guaranteeing that no taxes could be made without consent of parliament, that the king could be petitioned without fear of retribution, that no standing army could be summoned without consent of parliament, that parliaments should be held frequently, that there would be freedom of speech in parliamentary proceedings, and many other things we consider fundamental building blocks of our democracy.
William and Mary had no male heirs and so when they died in 1714 parliament invited a distant German cousin, George, to come and be king. By that time there was no doubt the balance of power had shifted to parliament, and by inviting a guy who didn’t even speak English and was not familiar with England, they ensured that they would not have an activist king who would try to interfere with things and rule as an absolute monarch. And ever since then, since 1688, the United Kingdom has never had a despot, has never had a dictator. We’ve never again had a break in the rule of law.
That’s not to say things were always 100% fair; from de Montfort’s parliament in 1265 until the Great Reform Act of 1832, the 40-shilling franchise remained in place (though with inflation, that meant more people could vote each year). From 1688 until the 1790s, the dominant tendency in this country was that of the “Whigs”; the great, noble aristocratic families who believed passionately in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, who believed in parliamentary rule, who were suspicious of standing armies (which were viewed as injurious to liberty) but very supportive of naval power and global trade (as navies are much less dangerous to liberty; you can't use a ship to break up a protest); these views were dominant in the establishment of this country. We never again had a situation where some dictator simply tried to abolish parliament, or overturn a law by dictat. The independence of the judiciary was respected, the courts were a place where you could obtain justice, and in general the most powerful families of the country adopted a mentality that valued these things. And that mindset has simply continued and grown until the present day.
It’s not an accident that while most of Europe had strongmen and dictators in the 20th century, the UK remained a parliamentary democracy. It’s not a coincidence that the rights of, say, Jews were mostly protected in this country that valued the rule of law; a Holocaust is not something that could have happened in this country, because of those values we cultivated over time. Rule of law generally means minorities are protected (there are caveats, happy to argue them, but I believe this is generally true).
As I said, rule of law and basic democratic settlement does not guarantee fairness; from the late 1600s this was still a very unequal country in wealth. But rule of law and a democratic settlement do provide some fundamental safeguards, a “floor” below which you can be pretty sure you won’t fall. And the great innovation of the Anglosphere, the UK and the democracies to which it gave birth, which also respect rule of law (the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand), is that we developed a situation where the establishment perceived it was in their interests to promote a system with the rule of law and basic democratic settlements. They might advocate (they do, of course) for things that are in their best interests, but as a whole you don’t see them calling for the introduction of fascism, or that we should put all power in the hands of a powerful executive leader at the expense of the legislature and the courts.
And this is why Trump is so dangerous. He is a complete break from centuries in which the Anglosphere has always been in the position where the debates between the two parties, often between the representatives of labour and the representatives of capital, were debates of policy but never one where one side sought to fundamentally abolish the rule of law and democracy. This is why even with the exceptional changes brought in by Labour in 1945, by Clement Attlee (creating the NHS, nationalising strategic industries, etc) he never sought to abolish the monarchy or the peerage or the House of Lords, he never went after the judiciary, he never sought to make people fear that some commissar would come and take them away in the middle of the night because they put their boy down for Eton. They might not agree with the decisions of the Labour government, but they had no cause to fear that if something illegal was done, that they couldn’t remedy it with a simple application to the High Court for a judicial review.
Trump simply doesn’t possess this mindset, he’s not intelligent enough even to have something resembling a fundamental ideology but even intuitively he doesn’t believe in or respect the rule of law. That’s why he attacks judges who make rulings against him, that’s why he threatens to lock up his opponent, that’s why he says journalists who cross him had better watch out when/if he becomes president, that’s why he says contrary to all Anglosphere legal and political precedent he will default on America’s debt (in other words, simply steal money from bondholders who have loaned money to the US government; it’s worth adding no Anglosphere democracy has defaulted on their national debt since the 1600s, because respect for rule of law, for people’s private property, and an understanding of the nexus between those ideas and the government’s loan book), that’s why contrary to all the precedent of Magna Carta and the Glorious Revolution Trump has threatened to find ways to unilaterally impose ‘presidential taxes’ on companies who outsources jobs (and in the United States, they recognise Magna Carta and the 1689 Bill of Rights as part of their law too; English law prior to the American revolution is valid precedent in American courts because it is their heritage too).
Trump has absolutely no commitment whatsoever to those values, to those principles, which have stood the Anglosphere in such good stead for centuries; principles that are a big part of why we haven’t had a dictator since the 1600s (whereas for some of our near neighbours had them as recently as the 1970s... the Anglosphere really is exceptional in this respect).
Is Hillary Clinton massively favoured by “the establishment”? Of course. She’s not principally favoured by the establishment for her economic policy (because big business in the US does not want a $12 minimum wage, or paid annual and sick leave, etc); they favour her because they adhere to the traditional respect and support among the Anglo-American establishment for the rule of law. Their adherence to it is partly a cultural inheritance (which they pick up from their parents, at school, at university etc), it’s partly about norms of behaviour that are built up over centuries, and it’s partly about self-interest; a country with the rule of law is not one where a mob can just turn up and take your business and you can’t do anything about it (the courts will protect you in such a situation). But that self-interest is our self-interest too. Hillary Clinton is a pretty conventional, middle-of-the-road centrist democrat. Under her we will have another 4 years of the status quo with a progressive flavour; is that such a bad thing? The status quo in the Anglosphere is that despite our problems we enjoy great prosperity and freedoms, we have a great tradition of the rule of law and our democratic settlement is worthy and effective.
That is a status quo I would always vote for and defend in the face of a man who spits on the traditions of Anglo-American civilisation; of our tradition for rule of law and democratic norms, of Magna Carta and the Glorious Revolution. I would vote for Clinton every day over a man who openly admits he intends to rule as a fascist dictator.
Liberty is a precious and beautiful thing; it has taken many centuries for the Anglosphere to build up not only these legal precedents, but also norms of political behaviour and cultural outlooks that mean doing dictatorial things (like, say, a general trying to take over the government in a coup) is not considered normal behaviour and would not be supported by anyone. Those norms, that heritage, is so precious that it is an act of civilisational vandalism, a knife in the heart of our culture, to introduce to it a man who will clearly do everything in his power to injure and even destroy it. If you support Trump, please don't call yourself a conservative; Anglo-American conservatives (and I say this as a left-winger) have always, at the least, been trusted to uphold the traditions of our Anglo-American civilisation viz. the rule of law. Trumpites have nothing but contempt for that. If you support Trump, you clearly don’t have a clue what the Anglo-American civilisation is about and you are supporting its dissolution.
@KimKallstrom @Bornblue @JamesN88 @nulli tertius
It’s coming up to election day in the United States, and the polls have tightened immensely; Clinton is still the favourite to win but Trump now has a plausible path to victory. This comes as we have news that the Ku Klux Klan has formally endorsed Trump, and that people at his rallies are chanting “Jew-S-A, Jew-S-A” and talking about how Jews control the world. One of Trump’s most ardent supporters is that utter piece of crap David Duke. All of this is not some coincidence; it’s not some random accident that Nazi filth believe Trump is their salvation.
And on to the topic at hand; there are plenty of Trump supporters who are basically morons, deplorables, people whom I wouldn’t piss on if they were on fire. But there is a very narrow (perhaps 1% of his support) band of people who are supporting him who really should know better; people who are ordinarily quite sensible on a range of issues, but for whom their increasing obsession with “SJWs” and feminism and the rest has caused them to identify with the civilisational slash-and-burn of the Trump candidacy. These people invariably identify themselves as patriots, as being somewhat traditionalist in an open-minded way, that they want to “return us to greatness”. But those beliefs and supporting Trump are fundamentally incompatible propositions. If you support Trump then you can make no claim to traditional patriotism, and you clearly do not have any intuitive or even emotional grasp of what the Anglo-American civilisation is all about (by Anglo-American civilisation, I’m not talking about race; I’m talking about the countries, UK/USA/Canada/Aus/New Zealand, in which certain linguistic, legal, cultural and political norms have predominated).
The great saving grace, the political and cultural crown jewels, the true and valuable treasure, of the Anglosphere has always been the Rule of Law. The rule of law is that everyone is equally subject to the law no matter their position or estate, that no-one can be deprived of life, liberty or property except by judgment of their peers or by due process of law, and that those who make and execute the laws and particularly the executive, are not above the law.
In the 13th century, the Kingdom of England suffered terrible civil strifes; in the 1210s King John’s oppressive and kleptomaniac behaviour led the barons and principal clergy of England to force him to sign a charter of liberties in 1215, the Magna Carta, which includes those vital clauses that fired the starting gun on the rule of law in this realm;
•
(1) nullus liber homo (no free man) etc (“shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, nor we will proceed with force against him… except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land" )
•
(2) That the City of London shall have its ancient liberties and customs
•
(3) That to no man will justice or right be sold, denied or delayed
•
(4) That no taxes will be raised except by the common consent of the realm
Magna Carta also introduced clauses that for the first time ensured that instead of following the king’s itinerant court around the country, the courts would hold sessions in fixed places which meant people could seek justice without the incredible expense of having to follow the king around like a groupie while litigating their lawsuit. And the incredible innovation of the English, creating the common law that was common to this entire realm and everyone in it, that allowed every free man to seek his justice in the king’s courts rather than being at the mercy of the local baronial courts (basically, his landlord having his own little court system)… this too created a space for liberty to grow and flourish in England.
In that same 13th century, the same issues came up under King John’s son Henry III, and so the barons revolted again and their leader, Simon de Montfort, won the civil war and created England’s first proper legislature; yes the nobles would be summoned to these councils (or parliament, as they called it), but so would two knights be elected in each shire and two burgesses in each borough (town) be elected to represent their interests too. For the election of knights of the shire, the franchise (who could vote) was restricted; it was called the “40 shilling franchise”. You could vote if you had at least 40-shillings of land in freehold. This was not an exceptionally wide franchise but nor was it exceptionally restrictive either. People who were not great magnates and barons would have a say in electing the knights of the shire. And in the boroughs, the franchise was completely variable depending on the borough; in some towns they had universal male suffrage (every man could vote), in others it was more stitched up so that the guilds kept themselves as electors. In some very limited examples where it was a pure property franchise, even some women who met the qualifications voted (yes, in medieval England). And because in the House of Commons the burgesses outnumbered the knights of the shire by three-to-one, the voice of representatives, many of whom were elected by quite a broad franchise, was substantial (naturally counterbalanced by the House of Lords).
This was not democracy as we know now, but it was a system in which no single class held all the power. In the end Henry III and his son Prince Edward (later Edward I) escaped de Montfort’s captivity, raised an army and defeated de Montfort, killing him and his three sons at the Battle of Evesham. But de Montfort’s first parliament had made its mark. Edward ruled more consensually than his father and in 1295 he summoned the “Model Parliament”, the first properly-summoned parliament on the de Montfort model (in fact, my constituency of Southwark, on the southbank of the Thames in London, has been sending its representatives across the river to Westminster since 1295, an incredible democratic continuity). So, yes the nobility and clergy were summoned, but so too were elected representatives of other interests and places. Two years later this same parliament enacted Magna Carta into law as an act of parliament; not only did you have the shift from previous times where it was the kings who legislated, but now this same parliament was not going to the king begging/negotiating for freedoms but confidently passing their charter of freedom in their own name, under their own powers to legislate. During that same period of the 1290s, parliament refused King Edward’s requests for taxation to fight wars; the elected representatives and the nobility were pushing back, and the kings were absolute rulers no longer.
You can see just how impactful these reforms were in the impeachment trials of the 1380s. Richard II was a very feckless king in the mould of Edward II (homosexual favourites, lands and titles distributed to his close friends, the government of the realm placed in the hands of mates of the king who enriched themselves). A group of important magnates called the Lords Appellants asked parliament to step in; parliament innovated a procedure to dismiss a king’s minister called impeachment where the House of Commons drew up and voted on an indictment which they presented to the Lords, who voted to decide whether to dismiss the minister. This procedure is still used today in the United States Congress where the House of Representatives will draw up and vote on an indictment to impeach, and then the Senate makes the final decision (it happened unsuccessfully to Bill Clinton in 1998). The king’s close friend and Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Suffolk Michael de la Pole, was impeached and dismissed. And thus you have, in 14th century medieval England, a partially elected parliament overseeing the executive and saying “No, just because you are the king you are not above the law”. [Working my way to the issue; circuitous I know but the background is quite relevant]
Parliament also appointed a group of financial commissioners to oversee the royal finances. Naturally the king did not like this, and so violence followed; there was a battle and the Lords Appellants won. A parliament was summoned, and an indictment for an appeal of treason against the king's ministers was drawn up and approved by the Commons; the king’s principle ministers like the Earl of Suffolk, the Chief Justice of the King’s Bench Sir Robert Tresilian, the Lord Mayor of London Sir Nicholas Brembre, and others, were indicted in parliament and convicted by the Lords. Suffolk escaped, Tresilian and Brembre were executed. This is not democracy as we would understand it today; it was a brutal time. But it was an early form of the rule of law and democracy. And in an interesting caveat, that same parliament enacted a very interesting statute; when a traitor was convicted their lands would be seized. But parliament decided that where the said traitors were holding lands as trustee for a beneficiary, that land in trust would not be seized; it's a remarkable recognition of legal forms, of protecting property rights, in a time that we mostly view as being brutal and backward.
And during that medieval period up until the Tudors, parliament was very active, meeting every year and passing much legislation. Unfortunately when the Tudors came along, they ruled much more like absolute monarchs; they went years (sometimes even decades) without summoning any parliaments. This continued and became worse when the Scots kings the Stuarts ascended to the throne. The king needed money so he would summon a parliament as only they could approve taxes, parliament would say “Fine but we have legitimate grievances we want dealt with at the same time, and we want a reasonable say in the government of the kingdom”. And so the king would dismiss the parliament again, try to raise taxes illegally. This led to the English Civil War; the parliamentary faction won, the king was executed and Cromwell became ruler. The Cromwellian regime was not particularly nice and so in 1660 the Stuarts were restored to the throne. [Stick with me, the history is important... working my way to Trump]
But by 1688, the Stuart King James II had so reverted to type by trying to bring back Catholicism, by imprisoning people illegally, by trying to rule without parliament, that we had the Glorious Revolution of 1688; James II was run out of the country and they invited James II’s protestant daughter and her husband, William and Mary, to come and reign as joint monarchs, with very strict conditions. The parliament that was then summoned passed the Bill of Rights 1689, guaranteeing that no taxes could be made without consent of parliament, that the king could be petitioned without fear of retribution, that no standing army could be summoned without consent of parliament, that parliaments should be held frequently, that there would be freedom of speech in parliamentary proceedings, and many other things we consider fundamental building blocks of our democracy.
William and Mary had no male heirs and so when they died in 1714 parliament invited a distant German cousin, George, to come and be king. By that time there was no doubt the balance of power had shifted to parliament, and by inviting a guy who didn’t even speak English and was not familiar with England, they ensured that they would not have an activist king who would try to interfere with things and rule as an absolute monarch. And ever since then, since 1688, the United Kingdom has never had a despot, has never had a dictator. We’ve never again had a break in the rule of law.
That’s not to say things were always 100% fair; from de Montfort’s parliament in 1265 until the Great Reform Act of 1832, the 40-shilling franchise remained in place (though with inflation, that meant more people could vote each year). From 1688 until the 1790s, the dominant tendency in this country was that of the “Whigs”; the great, noble aristocratic families who believed passionately in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, who believed in parliamentary rule, who were suspicious of standing armies (which were viewed as injurious to liberty) but very supportive of naval power and global trade (as navies are much less dangerous to liberty; you can't use a ship to break up a protest); these views were dominant in the establishment of this country. We never again had a situation where some dictator simply tried to abolish parliament, or overturn a law by dictat. The independence of the judiciary was respected, the courts were a place where you could obtain justice, and in general the most powerful families of the country adopted a mentality that valued these things. And that mindset has simply continued and grown until the present day.
It’s not an accident that while most of Europe had strongmen and dictators in the 20th century, the UK remained a parliamentary democracy. It’s not a coincidence that the rights of, say, Jews were mostly protected in this country that valued the rule of law; a Holocaust is not something that could have happened in this country, because of those values we cultivated over time. Rule of law generally means minorities are protected (there are caveats, happy to argue them, but I believe this is generally true).
As I said, rule of law and basic democratic settlement does not guarantee fairness; from the late 1600s this was still a very unequal country in wealth. But rule of law and a democratic settlement do provide some fundamental safeguards, a “floor” below which you can be pretty sure you won’t fall. And the great innovation of the Anglosphere, the UK and the democracies to which it gave birth, which also respect rule of law (the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand), is that we developed a situation where the establishment perceived it was in their interests to promote a system with the rule of law and basic democratic settlements. They might advocate (they do, of course) for things that are in their best interests, but as a whole you don’t see them calling for the introduction of fascism, or that we should put all power in the hands of a powerful executive leader at the expense of the legislature and the courts.
And this is why Trump is so dangerous. He is a complete break from centuries in which the Anglosphere has always been in the position where the debates between the two parties, often between the representatives of labour and the representatives of capital, were debates of policy but never one where one side sought to fundamentally abolish the rule of law and democracy. This is why even with the exceptional changes brought in by Labour in 1945, by Clement Attlee (creating the NHS, nationalising strategic industries, etc) he never sought to abolish the monarchy or the peerage or the House of Lords, he never went after the judiciary, he never sought to make people fear that some commissar would come and take them away in the middle of the night because they put their boy down for Eton. They might not agree with the decisions of the Labour government, but they had no cause to fear that if something illegal was done, that they couldn’t remedy it with a simple application to the High Court for a judicial review.
Trump simply doesn’t possess this mindset, he’s not intelligent enough even to have something resembling a fundamental ideology but even intuitively he doesn’t believe in or respect the rule of law. That’s why he attacks judges who make rulings against him, that’s why he threatens to lock up his opponent, that’s why he says journalists who cross him had better watch out when/if he becomes president, that’s why he says contrary to all Anglosphere legal and political precedent he will default on America’s debt (in other words, simply steal money from bondholders who have loaned money to the US government; it’s worth adding no Anglosphere democracy has defaulted on their national debt since the 1600s, because respect for rule of law, for people’s private property, and an understanding of the nexus between those ideas and the government’s loan book), that’s why contrary to all the precedent of Magna Carta and the Glorious Revolution Trump has threatened to find ways to unilaterally impose ‘presidential taxes’ on companies who outsources jobs (and in the United States, they recognise Magna Carta and the 1689 Bill of Rights as part of their law too; English law prior to the American revolution is valid precedent in American courts because it is their heritage too).
Trump has absolutely no commitment whatsoever to those values, to those principles, which have stood the Anglosphere in such good stead for centuries; principles that are a big part of why we haven’t had a dictator since the 1600s (whereas for some of our near neighbours had them as recently as the 1970s... the Anglosphere really is exceptional in this respect).
Is Hillary Clinton massively favoured by “the establishment”? Of course. She’s not principally favoured by the establishment for her economic policy (because big business in the US does not want a $12 minimum wage, or paid annual and sick leave, etc); they favour her because they adhere to the traditional respect and support among the Anglo-American establishment for the rule of law. Their adherence to it is partly a cultural inheritance (which they pick up from their parents, at school, at university etc), it’s partly about norms of behaviour that are built up over centuries, and it’s partly about self-interest; a country with the rule of law is not one where a mob can just turn up and take your business and you can’t do anything about it (the courts will protect you in such a situation). But that self-interest is our self-interest too. Hillary Clinton is a pretty conventional, middle-of-the-road centrist democrat. Under her we will have another 4 years of the status quo with a progressive flavour; is that such a bad thing? The status quo in the Anglosphere is that despite our problems we enjoy great prosperity and freedoms, we have a great tradition of the rule of law and our democratic settlement is worthy and effective.
That is a status quo I would always vote for and defend in the face of a man who spits on the traditions of Anglo-American civilisation; of our tradition for rule of law and democratic norms, of Magna Carta and the Glorious Revolution. I would vote for Clinton every day over a man who openly admits he intends to rule as a fascist dictator.
Liberty is a precious and beautiful thing; it has taken many centuries for the Anglosphere to build up not only these legal precedents, but also norms of political behaviour and cultural outlooks that mean doing dictatorial things (like, say, a general trying to take over the government in a coup) is not considered normal behaviour and would not be supported by anyone. Those norms, that heritage, is so precious that it is an act of civilisational vandalism, a knife in the heart of our culture, to introduce to it a man who will clearly do everything in his power to injure and even destroy it. If you support Trump, please don't call yourself a conservative; Anglo-American conservatives (and I say this as a left-winger) have always, at the least, been trusted to uphold the traditions of our Anglo-American civilisation viz. the rule of law. Trumpites have nothing but contempt for that. If you support Trump, you clearly don’t have a clue what the Anglo-American civilisation is about and you are supporting its dissolution.
@KimKallstrom @Bornblue @JamesN88 @nulli tertius
(edited 7 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
OP, what happened in the 50s or 60s has nothing to do with the election between two candidates in 2016. This is about who will keepbAmerica strong, their economy strong, create more jobs and continue having a strong relationship with UK after Brexit. The person I believe who will do this is Donald Trump.
Point 1:
Trumps supporters believe that the current status quo is rigged in favour of people who are hell bent on destroying this heritage- primarily through immigration but also by legal wrangling. Sometimes this belief is justified.
Iirc you supported leaving the EU? That's how Trump supporters feel about the current Washington establishment- they might not like some of the things the Leavers say and do but they think it's the best chance they have of change and of having somebody stand up for them. Note how Trump and Farage get along so well.
Point 2.
You can accuse Trump of many things. But he isn't dumb- he is exploiting the current sentiment superbly and has a fair shot at being the next president. You do not get there by being dumb.
Trumps supporters believe that the current status quo is rigged in favour of people who are hell bent on destroying this heritage- primarily through immigration but also by legal wrangling. Sometimes this belief is justified.
Iirc you supported leaving the EU? That's how Trump supporters feel about the current Washington establishment- they might not like some of the things the Leavers say and do but they think it's the best chance they have of change and of having somebody stand up for them. Note how Trump and Farage get along so well.
Point 2.
You can accuse Trump of many things. But he isn't dumb- he is exploiting the current sentiment superbly and has a fair shot at being the next president. You do not get there by being dumb.
Original post by Davij038
Point 1:
Trumps supporters believe that the current status quo is rigged in favour of people who are hell bent on destroying this heritage- primarily through immigration but also by legal wrangling. Sometimes this belief is justified.
Trumps supporters believe that the current status quo is rigged in favour of people who are hell bent on destroying this heritage- primarily through immigration but also by legal wrangling. Sometimes this belief is justified.
It's not justified, it's nonsense. There is no conspiracy by the "illuminati" to "destroy the white race". And whatever their grievances, none of it justifies the destruction of the rule of law.
You can accuse Trump of many things. But he isn't dumb
I disagree. Someone doesn't have to be intelligent to be cunning. He is extremely unintelligent, it's very clear from the fact he can barely construct a coherent sentence.
Original post by Naveed-7
OP, what happened in the 50s or 60s has nothing to do with the election between two candidates in 2016. This is about who will keepbAmerica strong, their economy strong, create more jobs and continue having a strong relationship with UK after Brexit. The person I believe who will do this is Donald Trump.
Trump has openly talked about not honouring America's foreign alliances and wants to cosy up to Putin. I don't see how either of those things are good for us.
(This isn't an endorsement of Hilary who's a criminal and should be locked up IMO)
Original post by Naveed-7
OP, what happened in the 50s or 60s has nothing to do with the election between two candidates in 2016
Because obviously our history, our political culture, our norms of behaviour, and the way the candidate relate to these... obviously that is completely irrelevant
This is about who will keepbAmerica strong, their economy strong, create more jobs and continue having a strong relationship with UK after Brexit. The person I believe who will do this is Donald Trump.
My post wasn't really aimed at you. To be honest I'm not seeking contributions from people who are incapable of understanding complex ideas. All you can do is repeat slogans, which is completely meaningless. That's not a discussion, it's just someone acting as a re-broadcaster for ideas they don't understand.
Original post by JamesN88
Trump has openly talked about not honouring America's foreign alliances and wants to cosy up to Putin. I don't see how either of those things are good for us.
Agree. How does a candidate who is basically a Russian shill make America stronger?
(This isn't an endorsement of Hilary who's a criminal and should be locked up IMO)
Ahh, I can see you're a big fan of the rule of law and the presumption of innocence.
What crime has she committed? When was she convicted? I didn't hear about any such conviction.
Original post by Davij038
Point 1:
Trumps supporters believe that the current status quo is rigged in favour of people who are hell bent on destroying this heritage- primarily through immigration but also by legal wrangling. Sometimes this belief is justified.
Iirc you supported leaving the EU? That's how Trump supporters feel about the current Washington establishment- they might not like some of the things the Leavers say and do but they think it's the best chance they have of change and of having somebody stand up for them. Note how Trump and Farage get along so well.
Point 2.
You can accuse Trump of many things. But he isn't dumb- he is exploiting the current sentiment superbly and has a fair shot at being the next president. You do not get there by being dumb.
Trumps supporters believe that the current status quo is rigged in favour of people who are hell bent on destroying this heritage- primarily through immigration but also by legal wrangling. Sometimes this belief is justified.
Iirc you supported leaving the EU? That's how Trump supporters feel about the current Washington establishment- they might not like some of the things the Leavers say and do but they think it's the best chance they have of change and of having somebody stand up for them. Note how Trump and Farage get along so well.
Point 2.
You can accuse Trump of many things. But he isn't dumb- he is exploiting the current sentiment superbly and has a fair shot at being the next president. You do not get there by being dumb.
I don't think I've ever really feared about humankind in the West until the last few months. Sure I detested the neoliberal consensus, I hated the astonishing levels of wealth inequality and the idea that 'the market will fix everything'. I deplored the brutal economic assaults on the poor and vulnerable.
But I never felt that we were physically and socially at risk.
Now I do. Just look at the reaction of the papers today, the Daily Mail, Daily Express and even the broadsheet Telegraph labelled the judges as 'enemies of the people'. That is very dangerous, labelling someone as an 'enemy of the people' is very 1930s Germany ish. It dehumanises them.
Gina Miller, the woman who brought the legal challenge has faced numerous death threats including people calling for her to be publically hanged.
In the last few months attacks on Polish and minority communities have rocketed. Suddenly it's perfectly acceptable to blame immigrants for everything and anyone who argues against you is just 'liberal, pc, metropolitan, elitist, sjw'
Immigrants and people who opposed Brexit are not just political opponents, but 'enemies' and that language is so, so dangerous and undoubtedly incites hatred and violence - such as in the case of the murder of Jo Cox.
Trump is much the same. He is normalising sexism, racism and bigotry. He incites violence against his opponents. He accuses his opponents of being 'enemies' and 'traitors'.
He is playing on people's worst attributes and exploiting them for political gain.
Original post by Bornblue
I don't think I've ever really feared about humankind in the West until the last few months. Sure I detested the neoliberal consensus, I hated the astonishing levels of wealth inequality and the idea that 'the market will fix everything'. I deplored the brutal economic assaults on the poor and vulnerable.
But I never felt that we were physically and socially at risk.
Now I do. Just look at the reaction of the papers today, the Daily Mail, Daily Express and even the broadsheet Telegraph labelled the judges as 'enemies of the people'. That is very dangerous, labelling someone as an 'enemy of the people' is very 1930s Germany ish. It dehumanises them.
Gina Miller, the woman who brought the legal challenge has faced numerous death threats including people calling for her to be publically hanged.
In the last few months attacks on Polish and minority communities have rocketed. Suddenly it's perfectly acceptable to blame immigrants for everything and anyone who argues against you is just 'liberal, pc, metropolitan, elitist, sjw'
Immigrants and people who opposed Brexit are not just political opponents, but 'enemies' and that language is so, so dangerous and undoubtedly incites hatred and violence - such as in the case of the murder of Jo Cox.
Trump is much the same. He is normalising sexism, racism and bigotry. He incites violence against his opponents. He accuses his opponents of being 'enemies' and 'traitors'.
He is playing on people's worst attributes and exploiting them for political gain.
But I never felt that we were physically and socially at risk.
Now I do. Just look at the reaction of the papers today, the Daily Mail, Daily Express and even the broadsheet Telegraph labelled the judges as 'enemies of the people'. That is very dangerous, labelling someone as an 'enemy of the people' is very 1930s Germany ish. It dehumanises them.
Gina Miller, the woman who brought the legal challenge has faced numerous death threats including people calling for her to be publically hanged.
In the last few months attacks on Polish and minority communities have rocketed. Suddenly it's perfectly acceptable to blame immigrants for everything and anyone who argues against you is just 'liberal, pc, metropolitan, elitist, sjw'
Immigrants and people who opposed Brexit are not just political opponents, but 'enemies' and that language is so, so dangerous and undoubtedly incites hatred and violence - such as in the case of the murder of Jo Cox.
Trump is much the same. He is normalising sexism, racism and bigotry. He incites violence against his opponents. He accuses his opponents of being 'enemies' and 'traitors'.
He is playing on people's worst attributes and exploiting them for political gain.
Hillary is the one who's campaign incites violence, how about her describing a certain group as super predators?
What about her profiting from a deal selling uranium to russia?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Bornblue
Trump is much the same. He is normalising sexism, racism and bigotry. He incites violence against his opponents. He accuses his opponents of being 'enemies' and 'traitors'.
He is playing on people's worst attributes and exploiting them for political gain.
Trump is much the same. He is normalising sexism, racism and bigotry. He incites violence against his opponents. He accuses his opponents of being 'enemies' and 'traitors'.
He is playing on people's worst attributes and exploiting them for political gain.
Well said. What I worry about is how a Trump presidency could sweep away centuries of political and cultural norms that support the rule of law.
For example, no general in the UK or US could get away with taking over the government in a military coup; it's quite simply so repugnant to the cultural and political norms we have built up over centuries that they could not find any soldiers who would follow those orders, they would not find any civil servants who would facilitate a military government, they would not find parliament amenable, and the immediate outcry from 99% of the country would see it collapse in hours.
This is not so in many countries; they don't have those centuries of accumulated cultural and political norms that tell people what is normal behaviour in public life, and what is abnormal/unacceptable behaviour. For the most part these norms serve to support the rule of law, and I strongly believe that is why we haven't had dictators in this country since the 1600s, and that culturally we (and in the United States) have not been vulnerable to such a thing because of those norms of behaviour and traditions of the rule of law.
Trump is normalising behaviour that is abnormal in the Anglo-American political culture. He is normalising dangerous and authoritarian ideas. And the point you make about his bigotry is important; even though there has been, historically, great prejudice in this country against minorities, it was almost unheard of to have the government of the day rabble-rousing against such minorities. That was considered really quite infra dig, such things almost always came from backbenchers, from fringe dwellers, and so on. So there was prejudice, but you didn't have the dominant political culture and the power of the state going out of its way to attack and pursue a particular group (the Labouchere Amendment that furhter criminalised forms of homosexual conduct, in the late 19th century, was a backbench amendment; the government was not comfortable with this kind of rabble-rousing though felt unable to stand against it either). I think this is a tradition in the Anglosphere; when people get into government they seem to be seised of a sort of sense of responsibility, that the institutional habits of our system of government gets pressed on them (for good and for bad; for bad because this favours the status quo in many ways, for good because this favours the status quo in many ways so you don't have dangerous, radical changes that can often be a vehicle for demagogy, etc).
If Trump is elected, it can rightly be asked whether the -American component of the Anglo-American civilisation is now in grave danger of succumbing to a break in the rule of law that we haven't seen in our Anglo-American civilisation since the 1680s
Original post by joecphillips
Hillary is the one who's campaign incites violence
BS and you know it is.
Hilary isn't the one gloating about using her fame to commit sexual assaults, or making fun of disabled people, or proposing banning all Muslims from coming, or labelling Mexican immigrants as rapists, or insulting the parents of fallen soldiers.
She isn't the one saying that the election is rigged or that she would refuse to accept the result if she lost. She isn't the one attracting utter thugs to her rallies who violently assault political rivals. She isn't the one accusing judge's who rule against her as being corrupt.
Original post by joecphillips
Hillary is the one who's campaign incites violence, how about her describing a certain group as super predators?
What about her profiting from a deal selling uranium to russia?
What about her profiting from a deal selling uranium to russia?
You are confused. Clinton approved, as Secretary of State, a uranium deal with Russia that every other regulator also agreed with. This had nothing to do with any business she was involved in, she had no personal interest in it.
Like all Trumpites, you read complete lies and you lap it up uncritically, and then you repeat it and it turns into this big circle jerk of inaccurate information on which you base your laughable "Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt person in history" attitude
By the way, why would a Trumpite be complaining about a deal with Russia? Trump is Putin's *****. You guys are constantly praising Putin. Try to get your story straight
Original post by joecphillips
Op do you want to comment about how Hillary is best friends with a top member of the kkk? Or does that not help what you are trying to say?
Whatabout, whatabout, whatabout.
Whataboutery isn't an argument. Either comment on the substantive issue raised or pipe down.
Why would people on a British student forum be voting in the US presidential election? How many people here do you think are US citizens?
This kind if thing would be better suited for reddit
This kind if thing would be better suited for reddit
Original post by AlexanderHam
Agree. How does a candidate who is basically a Russian shill make America stronger?
Ahh, I can see you're a big fan of the rule of law and the presumption of innocence.
What crime has she committed? When was she convicted? I didn't hear about any such conviction.
Ahh, I can see you're a big fan of the rule of law and the presumption of innocence.
What crime has she committed? When was she convicted? I didn't hear about any such conviction.
Fair point, I admit I was being a bit sensationalist. However any other establishment(pardon the buzzword) Democrat candidate would be miles ahead and we wouldn't now be faced with the absurd situation of Trump possibly winning.
She's certainly qualified for the job due to her extensive political experience but I'm guessing you don't perceive her as trustworthy individual?
Original post by Bornblue
BS and you know it is.
Hilary isn't the one gloating about using her fame to commit sexual assaults, or making fun of disabled people, or proposing banning all Muslims from coming, or labelling Mexican immigrants as rapists, or insulting the parents of fallen soldiers.
She isn't the one saying that the election is rigged or that she would refuse to accept the result if she lost. She isn't the one attracting utter thugs to her rallies who violently assault political rivals. She isn't the one accusing judge's who rule against her as being corrupt.
Hilary isn't the one gloating about using her fame to commit sexual assaults, or making fun of disabled people, or proposing banning all Muslims from coming, or labelling Mexican immigrants as rapists, or insulting the parents of fallen soldiers.
She isn't the one saying that the election is rigged or that she would refuse to accept the result if she lost. She isn't the one attracting utter thugs to her rallies who violently assault political rivals. She isn't the one accusing judge's who rule against her as being corrupt.
She is accusing the Russian government of helping trump.
Where has trump said he wouldn't accept the result?
It's true and you know it Hillary's campaign have taken advantage of people who need help and causing trouble but you can not admit this as it goes against your narrative.
How about that old woman who said she was assaulted at a trump rally when the video shows she runs after a old man grabs him and falls over when he turns around.
No she is paying thugs to go to trumps rallies and cause trouble here is just one example https://youtu.be/mCx3ov55tUw
Try to defend the things people connected to her campaign have said https://youtu.be/5IuJGHuIkzY
It's estimated 80% of girls who immigrate illegally through Mexico are raped but just ignore this. http://fusion.net/story/17321/is-rape-the-price-to-pay-for-migrant-women-chasing-the-american-dream/
Original post by AlexanderHam
Whatabout, whatabout, whatabout.
Whataboutery isn't an argument. Either comment on the substantive issue raised or pipe down.
Whataboutery isn't an argument. Either comment on the substantive issue raised or pipe down.
Do you want to comment on Hillary's ties to the kkk?
Look into Robert Byrd the kkk and Hillary's relationship with him.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by AlexanderHam
You are confused. Clinton approved, as Secretary of State, a uranium deal with Russia that every other regulator also agreed with. This had nothing to do with any business she was involved in, she had no personal interest in it.
Like all Trumpites, you read complete lies and you lap it up uncritically, and then you repeat it and it turns into this big circle jerk of inaccurate information on which you base your laughable "Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt person in history" attitude
By the way, why would a Trumpite be complaining about a deal with Russia? Trump is Putin's *****. You guys are constantly praising Putin. Try to get your story straight
Like all Trumpites, you read complete lies and you lap it up uncritically, and then you repeat it and it turns into this big circle jerk of inaccurate information on which you base your laughable "Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt person in history" attitude
By the way, why would a Trumpite be complaining about a deal with Russia? Trump is Putin's *****. You guys are constantly praising Putin. Try to get your story straight
So the Russian government gets uranium then Hillary mysteriously gets $500,000 from a bank with links to the kremlin
Original post by JamesN88
Fair point, I admit I was being a bit sensationalist. However any other establishment(pardon the buzzword) Democrat candidate would be miles ahead and we wouldn't now be faced with the absurd situation of Trump possibly winning.
Counterfactuals are impossible to verify. I would say that I find the chants of "Lock her up" and the bold proclamations from people who have no legal education, who have no familiarity with the relevant caselaw, who often haven't even read the pertinent clauses in Title 18 of the US Code, to say "Oh she's defintely a criminal, definitely guilty, she should go to prison". If you probe that you often discover they seem to think just having a private email server was a crime and therefore she is guilty. And so you have a noxious mix of people whose ignorance of the law is being played on, and people with sinister motivations using that ignorance to start advancing very dangerous ideas (like locking up your political opponents) that are profoundly, fundamentally, obnoxious to the Anglo-American political tradition.
My view is that she did not break the law, and I saw that as a law student with a long interest in American law. It's an issue on which people who are qualified to opine can and do differ; the arguments could be finely balanced. That's why we have a judicial process, not trial by mob. By the way, the FBI director who decided not to send the case on to the US Attorney for potential prosecution, James Comey... he's a Republican. He was the Deputy Attorney-General in the Bush Administration. We're not talking about some pathetic little creature of the Clintons who was pulled out of a Wall Street firm to stitch up the FBI for them.
She's certainly qualified for the job due to her extensive political experience but I'm guessing you don't perceive her as trustworthy individual?
Trustworthy in regards of what? Our political system is based on reason, on verification, on self-interest. I trust Hillary Clinton will behave in precisely the way her political allegiances, her history, her ideological tendencies (as can be seen in the books she's written), her obligations to her supporters (in the labor unions, in the environmental movement, in the gay rights movement, as well as others in finance and technology sectors), would incline her to behave. I don't know Hillary Clinton personally so I'm not going to use these emotive words like trust in that kind of slightly pathetic "Oh I'm so deeply wounded, I trusted her" sense.
I trust Hillary Clinton would never, say, order her Attorney-General to do something that would undermine gay rights; not only because it would be contrary to her general political motivations and ideology but because she has been strongly backed financially by the gay rights movement and in the American political system she owes them. I'm not mentioning the gay thing because it's some particular political red line for me; I mention it because it's an example of an issue where we know exactly how she will behave, and "trust" is irrelevant. Her fundamental political interests are tied to her behaving in a certain way.
I trust she would never fundamentally betray Americans interests out of some bizarre sense of loyalty to the president of Russia. I trust she would be generally strong and emphatic on national security, which I care about. If you take the time to read up on a politician's history, their views, their associations... you'll rarely be surprised by what they do. The way they will approach any particular problem is usually fairly predictable based on the above considerations, and while that decision-making matrix is perhaps more favourable to capital, rather than labour, than I would prefer, broadly she is acceptable. When placed next to Trump, she is positively desirable.
The best way to predict her future behaviour is to look at her past behaviour, which is that she is broadly a middle of the road democrat who will find a balance between the interests of labor and capital, who will be supportive of the rights of minorities, who will generally continue to uphold the rule of law in America. I don't see what trust has to do with it; what are people who are claiming she can't be trusted saying she is going to do that will surprise us?
(edited 7 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Geert Wilders's far-right PVV wins most seats in Dutch election
- Do you wish Johnson to return?
- who is donald trump
- Could Britain get a US trade deal if Trump wins?
- Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
- Kamala Harris is the Democrat VP pick
- Have the Tories stopped being Conservative?
- Is the UK's future in peril?
- Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??
- Relationships as a police officer
- Which 2024 election will be most significant for the world?
- Out of all the universities that have been listed, which are more Muslim friendly?
- Anyone else not get boycotting brands or even countries trend?
- Trump ineligible to run for president in Colorado and Maine in 2024 Election
- Ask an Admissions Tutor: All about Languages
- 5 ways students will benefit from Bradford 2025
- Surrey (guilford) vs Sussex (brighton)
- Should i vote Labour?
- Tory MP William Wragg admits to leaking phone numbers in ‘honeytrap’ scandal
- Sociology A level
Latest
Trending
Last reply 8 hours ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 8 hours ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
