In modern politics it’s largelly an illusion to make elections seem worthwhile. The system is now corporate funded populist malignant centerism.

As for constitutional monarchy no one would actually create that notion form scratch as clearly having a monarch is an archaic system – you may as well argue for chieftains and/or clans

Or, put another way…

Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. Oh, but you can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you.

In modern politics it’s largelly an illusion to make elections seem worthwhile.

So how do you explain the fact that all the major parties play down whether they are left or right ?

The system is now corporate funded populist malignant centerism.

When is STW going to put a Facebook/YouTube “like” symbol in the smiles?

Junkyard – lazarus
Most member states of the Commonwealth maintain a Crown

Well that is conclusive then- not exactly pre selecting the sample then is it …face palms
As for constitutional monarchy no one would actually create that notion form scratch as clearly having a monarch is an archaic system – you may as well argue for chieftains and/or clans

‘Archaic’ is not synonymous with ‘bad’, or even ‘ineffective’. There were members of the French Resistance that wished they had a crown when they were being accused of treason for their refusal to acknowledge the Nazi puppet head of state. Because of the guarantee of lineage, the same situation could not have arisen in Britain.

And what’s to say that government by chieftains doesn’t work in places where that form of government has been in operation for hundreds of years? There are tribes of Indians in Canada, such as the Gitksan that, when compared to the tribes that had a ‘democratic’ government imposed on them by Federal Treaty, are thriving.

druidh – Member
You do know that the Labour and Tory parties are simply operating a good cop/bad cop scam on you, don’t you? The Tories are obviously the “baddies” in this instance. They implement all the nasty policies while the Labour party stand on the sidelines whinging. After a while, they “pop out for a coffee” and in come Labour, talking all friendly and pally but not actually undoing anything the Tories did. They are both complicit in this – it’s to give the electorate the impression that they actually have a say in how the country is run via the ballot box and both parties need each other to survive.

There were members of the French Resistance that wished they had a crown when they were being accused of treason for their refusal to acknowledge the Nazi puppet head of state.

That’s the weirdest thing I’ve read in a while. Do you think the Belgium and Dutch Resistance had an advantage over the French Resistance because they had constitutional monarchies ?

There were members of the French Resistance

Most of the early resistants were journalists and teachers of left-wing, republican convictions. Once Germany attacked the Soviets the Nazis went about their business of repressing communists which forced communists into the maquis soon to be joined by those who refused the STO. None of the resistants were royalists.

There were members of the French Resistance that wished they had a crown when they were being accused of treason for their refusal to acknowledge the Nazi puppet head of state. Because of the guarantee of lineage, the same situation could not have arisen in Britain.

So if the nazi took over here because we had monarch they would not have considered the resistance to be traitors* – well when you put it like that all my criticisms are firmly defeated – No offence but are you drinking or something that is just a weird argument tbh

thanks for pointing out that tribal government works well for tribes

* they would as they did in constitutional monarchies

There is also the small fact that there was very pro-Nazi sympathy at the very top of the British royal family.

not forgetting that Edward VII gave away the Allied defense plans to the Nazis thus facilitating their advance.

So how do you explain the fact that all the major parties play down whether they are left or right ?

It’s laregelly irrelevant to their brand – and traditional voters will continue to vote left or right regardless?

I’d argue that mos t issue we face today are not even on a left-right spectrum. I think I have more influence on the government via the like of 38degrees than via my MP.

It’s laregelly irrelevant to their brand

So they are not part of this “illusion to make elections seem worthwhile”.

Who is then ?

None of the resistants were royalists.

Having no knowledge of this, and assuming that ‘resistants’ is a term for all resistance fighters, not just a particular group, is this true? I would have thought that resisting the occupation would have drawn in people from across the political spectrum, as I imagine would have been the case in the UK. Ah, or is it that no royalist ‘groups’ became resistance groups?

There would be next to no royalists in France at that point in history (other than perhaps a few descendants of aristos longing for a forgotten past). Just like there were no roundheads or cavaliers fighting in the British army.

Ah! Thanks!

France had a revolution 150 years before WW11 and disposed of its royal family. A few royalists formed the Action Française in the 30s and collaborated with the Vichy régime undr the Nazis. They were collaborateurs rather than résistants.

My wife interviewed lots of maquisards for her doctorate on the maquis in the Dijon area and her masters on the passeurs in the Pyrenees. She knows the profile of maquis members quite well. My son is studying the resistance at present at school.

romanesco broccolli – infinitely more interesting than the rich and untouchable mafiosi **** that squabble over the rights to embezzle us as a society..

Junkyard – lazarus

So if the nazi took over here because we had monarch they would not have considered the resistance to be traitors* – well when you put it like that all my criticisms are firmly defeated – No offence but are you drinking or something that is just a weird argument tbh
thanks for pointing out that tribal government works well for tribes

* they would as they did in constitutional monarchies

Look, I don’t want to take a defence of what I said too far, as I was only repeating something I read many years ago and can no reference now. In other words, my argument won’t hold any water at all.

That said, I do need to clarify a few things.

What I was trying to say was this:

If you take de Gaulle’s trial for treason against the Vichy government as typical of what countless Resistance fighters also faced, they were accused of betraying France. But what was France? Was it the Third Republic? Or was it another idea of France? And where was France? Was it the German-occupied North, or the Vichy South? What is to say that the Vichy government was not legit, and that the Resistance was not indeed committing treason, punishable by death? These are questions that some members of the Resistance reported asking themselves when they were arrested, meaning that their confidence was shaken when they stood trial.

This is a problem that a British person would not have faced had the Germans taken over and installed a new government. Because they could not simply break the lineage that bore the Crown, they could not have made the same claim that a resistor was disloyal. A captured resistor might still have faced trial and execution, but he/she could still have claimed loyalty to the Crown, which could not be limited to one region or a puppet governor.

Now, by all means say that the argument is faulty. I am not drunk, and therefore can not offer much by way of defending it. But perhaps now it is a bit clearer…

Oh, and Junkyard: was that comment about tribal government in response to my example of it functioning meant to be sarcastic? I mean, I don’t mind if what I said doesn’t stand up to argument, but you had made an earlier comment implying that all tribal government would be faulty by virtue of being archaic, and I was simply offering an example suggesting otherwise.

Now, by all means say that the argument is faulty.

It’s certainly one of the worse argument I’ve ever heard to justify retaining the monarchy.

But it’s so creative (I mean who would have thought of bringing in the Nazi occupation of Britain into the the argument ffs) that I actually like it 8)

I meant archaic as in old fashioned and out of date / no longer in date
yes it was sarcastic re tribal.
Tribal govt is fine if you are a tribe, monarchies are great if you are a feudal country but we are neither though we were in the past hence archaic.

I do get your argument I dont agree

Plenty argue that constitutional monarchy brings stability – Check out Thailand for a very interesting example of every kind of govt imaginable but all have been a constitutional monarchy

Since the political reform of the absolute monarchy in 1932, Thailand has had 17 constitutions and charters.[24][25] Throughout this time, the form of government has ranged from military dictatorship to electoral democracy, but all governments have acknowledged a hereditary monarch as the head of state

Whether your argument is true or false over what nazis could do it is no reason to keep a constitutional monarchy- I dont think it is a good argument either they would have tried them for treason

This is an interesting thread, particularly as just this very evening I was trying to explain this very thing to my youngest, I went down the route organised labour on the left and capitalist business owners on the right as my starting point with which to simplify the beginning, then went on pretty much along the lines above, but pointing out the shift to the right of New Labour which I personally feel was more right wing than the current coalition was trying to be prior to the UKIP surge at the elections.

Personally I think that Greens could prove the new left with a bit more marketing effort than they currently seem capable of.

On the Nazi thing, wasn’t the plan to install Edward and Mrs Simpson on the throne, thereby giving the US an American Queen of England that might have helped keep them out of the war and secure a single front for the assault on Russia, I’m sure I either read that some where or thought of it as a possible novel, whatever…

I see now why I struggle.

My view is generally one of helping ourselves – I believe in hard work and related reward, looking after your family, your posessions are yours to own and look after.

Although I also believe that I pay taxes and part of that tax money fund things like the NHS, my kids educations and a few other things which because I pay those taxes, I deserve to enjoy part of.

Here’s the controversial part – i do believe in – and I think I’ve got the right word – patriotism. I’m all for a national identity, respecting our (english, although obviously anglo saxon) culture and that people coming to out country should work and seek to live to our cultural rules and not try to change it to thier own. I have nothing against foriegners races or religions but do expect them to respect our cultural background and not try to / be allowed to change it.

Does that ultimately make me “The centre” or slightly Left?

I should say that I raised the original questions becuase, when asked why I favour a particular newspaper (The Times) I couldn’t explain it in a left/right wing concept.

I do get vexed when “patriotism” and “racism” are bundled as synonyms.

Anywhere else, being proud of your country is something to be celebrated; here if you wave an English flag people assume you’re either a football fan or a member of the EDL. Go to Wales or Scotland and see how many Welsh / Scottish flags you see in comparison to Union Flags.

Well said Cougar, we shouldn’t be ashamed to be English, unfortunately some of history and minority groups have tarred that brush. I don’t believe though that because of that the rest of us should hide our patriotism in shame.

The Times is pretty right wing imo.

What do you mean about foreigners ‘changing the cultural background’?

Culture is nothing more than the things that people do in a particular place. There is no official culture to change. We’ve chaged our own culture far more in the last 100 years than immigrants have.

You’re getting into questions about what a nation or a state actually is.

Does that ultimately make me “The centre” or slightly Left?

It makes you right wing.

And bringing unnecessary patriotism and statements like ” I have nothing against foriegners races or religions but” makes you sound like a daily mail reading colonel blimp right wing frothing loon, or a troll of course which is much more likely.

I think the definition of left versus right given so far are fairly good.

Politics in the UK has definitely moved to the right since the 80’s

Tony Blair realised that without any left wing opposition he only had to be one step to the left of the tories to capture both the left wing vote and the centre ground.

Labour have been punished for this strategy in Scotland though where a credible centre left party exists.

Labour have been punished for this strategy in Scotland though where a credible centre left party exists.

That could well be irrelevant. It’s a nationalist party.

I doubt it matters whether UKIP is left or right either.

Being patriotic is viewed as a right wing tendency, God Queen and Country and all that, it’s viewed with contempt by the left, the extreme opinion being there should be no nation states and we are all one planetary group.

It gets very confusing, you can have left wing views yet be called a fascist for waving the flag at the wrong time and your suggestions of British culture will have the left crying racist sooner than you can say STW.

I can sympathise with the views that the typical Englishness that we knew in our youth has changed quite dramatically and it is indeed interesting to note how various regions have changed with the influx of different cultures. Driving through London on a back road to Alexander Palace the other week with a group of friends I was taking to an exhibition, had them astounded at the costumes of the Hesidic & Orhtodox jews wandering around seemingly aimlessly early on the Saturday morning with their peculiar cake like hats and curly pig tails.

All manner of dress types then emerged as we passed from one part to another, more familiar Muslim stuff with Burkha clad women and bearded men, Afro Caribbean Rasta men, easy to become unsettled by it all if all you have known is a village like upbringing in the Weald of Kent.

But, it’s a Global village these days, cheap air travel, has opened the world up to us, I dare say, various parts of Africa just love yuppie Motor bike tours roaring through their villages, and wonder what is going on in the Western style cities that have been inflicted upon them as their resources have been plundered.

It’s a tough one, but you can’t expect to act the colonial master for hundreds of years and not have your people return to the country that at one time ruled and set the standards that they should all aspire to.
Especially since when it was all going on we didn’t exactly change our habits to suit their culture.

So it is what it is, all part and parcel of living in a post colonial country with enough wealth to offer human rights and living costs to anyone who manages to show up here.

Sometimes, simple question can be the hardest to answer. The OP is a case in point. Even when you might have a vaguely sensible theoretical answer, you then face the challenge of placing political parties, or more precisely, their actions, accurately along the theoretical spectrum. In the UK, where we generally have broadly centre/moderate politics IMO, we often see that the positioning of the major parties overlapping along the spectrum with some odd ironies or anomalies where so-called parties of the right take stances on issues or implement policies that could be considered relatively left wing and vice versa. Then you have the challenge of defining Liberalism!

It gets very confusing, you can have left wing views yet be called a fascist for waving the flag at the wrong time and your suggestions of British culture will have the left crying racist sooner than you can say STW.

Indeed, look:

MSP – Member

And bringing unnecessary patriotism and statements like ” I have nothing against foriegners races or religions but” makes you sound like a daily mail reading colonel blimp right wing frothing loon, or a troll of course which is much more likely.

The highs and lows of STW – some quite excellent answers which have helped me understand my original question, follow by this. FWIW MSP I made that statement to out-qualify my comments as potentially racist, whilst making them in an attempt to summarise my political view – no need for insults.

Racism isn’t left or right wing, but you decided to plant it right into the debate, why? And then cry fowl when you are called on it.

Although it has to be said, the right tend to very much use it as a tool to hide the real inequalities. Much like the American right hide behind Christianity and abortion. They know it will garner support, no matter how many of their other policies harm the supporters.

As pointed out phrases like “British culture not being respected” are meaningless soundbites designed to fool the dimwitted into ignoring the realities and create an easy diversionary target. What exactly is “British culture” as I travel around I find I have more in common with large sections of Germany and France, than I do with those inside the m25. I long got over the fact that in reality there is nothing unique about being british.

MSP – Member
Racism isn’t left or right wing, but you decided to plant it right into the debate, why?

I planted my view of cultural identity into my statement in case it had a bearing on my perceived political alignment, which I am seeking to identify.

Although I do agree with you that its difficult to write down what is british culture today, I think there are various elements of “british-ism” which we all identify with, or moreover elements of foreign culture being introduced which we may or may not be comfortable with.

Edit: granted that’s true all over the world, we’ve seen McD’s in Russia etc

Left and Right wing are dogmas, as such they are inflexible and unchanging and so neither can be right more than half the time. A country needs to be run according to the evidence and state of things on the ground.

And, just maybe, this is what happens – with the difference between two govts being the actions they choose to highlight and the language they use to do so, more than the choices they make.

But maybe not.

moreover elements of foreign culture being introduced which we may or may not be comfortable with.

Why would you be uncomfortable with people doing their own thing?

Is something being imposed on you that you don’t like? That would be bad regardless of its geographical origin, would it not?

If there were anything to define British culture, I would nominate globalism and inclusivity as candidates.

Why would you be uncomfortable with people doing their own thing?

Failure to queue would be intolerable. 😯

whitegoodman – Member
The extreme opinion being there should be no nation states and we are all one planetary group.

Which is the only hope for the survival of the human race. About time we got over all this pettiness based on an accident of birth.

Its interesting isn’t it?

Tory boys profess to be all about personal responsibility and choice yet they lock up more people for breaking the rules than anyone.

They profess to be in favour of small government and therefore low taxation, yet invariably when they are in the majority pay more and receive less.

I am starting to suspect that the truth is that they a bunch of self opinionated, self serving twunts. Could be wrong of course, but the evidence does seem to be stacking up a bit.

Sadly the culture of ‘being English and Englishness’ we have killed ourselves, no outsiders did it.

What used to be proffered, English reserve, stiff upper lip, good manners, polite respect for all, modesty, thrift, and no sex please, have long gone, thanks to the excesses of the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s.

Where we used to be modest we now have the culture of celebrity for all, where we used to be thrifty, we spend it a long time before we earn it, where we used to have manners we have loutish behaviour encouraged by years of sitcoms and men behaving badly, where we used to be sexually behind closed doors we are now liberated to the point that anything goes almost anywhere.

So quite what English culture folk might feel has been eroded by foreigners I’m not sure. Indeed it is our lack of moral compass that alienates other cultures from integrating.

I have travelled all my working life and cringe if I end up in the company of the latter day British abroad and take my vacations as far from the beaten track as possible. That said on a personal level and in the sporting arenas of bikes, and watersports Brits generally are OK.

The Right wing can be blamed for the financial and greed excesses where the left may take the blame for the sexual revolution, but either way, both political wings destroyed that original essential “Englishness’ that other nations used to admire about us.