I found a link to this recent poll of 8,000 UK adults:
% support for running the UK with “a strong leader who doesn’t have to bother with parliament/elections”
All: 46%
18-34s: 61%
35-54s: 49%
Over-55s: 29%
So three fifths of adults under 35 think the UK would benefit from a dictator. And pretty much half of everyone else thinks the same.
Is this because people are fed up with the self-serving current political system? Or do they want the UK to be systemically corrupted and have its wealth stolen? (I know, loaded questions!) (I know, some might suggest nothing would change!!)
Thanks for that. I had a quick read of this report and found it lacking.
It seemed to make unsubstantiated claims (“young people work more intensively than previous generations, leaving them with higher rates of work-related stress and exhaustion after work” - a claim made with no evidence or justification). Then used such claims as the backbone of their recommendations.
It made other claims, which are actually understated, and then made recommendations that don’t actually address the issue: “Social and economic mobility depend on networks. Declining quality and quantity of social connections therefore undermines young people’s opportunities to progress, particularly those from lower socio-economic backgrounds who lack the professional networks available to better educated or wealthier peers.” This is a real problem, the wealthy keep their networks to themselves. But the report’s recommendation is some form of national civic service scheme for the youth, everyone joining in on worthwhile projects. This seems to be a very partial answer. Changing access to elite private education, or pricing private education fully (remove charitable status, tax properly, etc.) would have a more significant impact.
Worse, this report ignores the glaring problem that pushes younger people away from the UK’s current form of political structure and democracy. The stalemate two party system has failed to deliver on things that matter to these generations. The first past the post system means that the majority of votes are wasted - your vote will not impact the outcome in a strong labour or strong tory constituency. These two factors are much more significant in deterring younger people from joining in with democracy.
So, overall, a pretty dismal reaction to a major issue.
Explain. And put particular emphasis in your explanation on the legal right to invade a sovereign country just because some think a stretch of land is ‘traditionally yours’. And add in a bit about why he invaded the whole of the Ukraine with Kiev as his primary target just to get hold of the Dunbas region.
And when your done that explain where the hundreds of millions of dollars of Yukos money went.
Traditionally and rightly … so that gives Russia the right to invade a sovereign country and plough on smashing down everything in the way.
I would say that’s traditionally wrongly
“This seems to be a very partial answer. Changing access to elite private education, or pricing private education fully (remove charitable status, tax properly, etc.) would have a more significant impact.”
I did warn that it was a Conservative Think Tank! - they ain’t going to suggest anything that damages the elite private schools!
[quote=“The_Artful_Todger, post:8, topic:93739”]
Dunbas and Crimea
[/quote] The Crimea has been autonomous republic within Ukraine since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Indeed it became part of Russia in the 1700s when claimed by Catherine the great.
Until 1954, when the Soviet government transferred Crimea from the Russian Soviet Federation of Socialist Republics to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic .1991 The Crimea became part of Ukraine upon the breakup of the Soviet Union.
It wasn’t until 2014 that the Soviets annexed the Crimea.
I don’t still don’t see how that gives Putins the right to smash his way across the Ukraine. It’s no more than cold blooded murder by a Vicious dictator.
Or for Putin to lie to the world denying Russia was about to invade the Ukraine
.Or concoct ridiculous stories revolving around uprising of nazi elements within the Ukraine to justify Russia’s invasion.
[quote=“strathmore, post:1, topic:93739”]
So three fifths of adults under 35 think the UK would benefit from a dictator. And pretty much half of everyone else thinks the same.
[/quote]t
Scary, very scary. This is perhaps because the under 35’s have had easy lives - so far and the many have little understanding of life under a dictator - history is of little importance to many of them.
The survey and associated paper places the likely driver for this scary percentage (and I agree it is scary) down to a few factors but none are that under 35’s have had an easy life. I kind of agree with the paper as I cannot see the link between an easy life and a desire for a dictator. Would it not be more likely to be driven by frustration with the current system? Or possibly down to a lot of uncertainty at the moment?
Maybe uncertainty has something to do with it, but I think primarily ignorance and poor education plays a great part . A lot of British children do not continue with history when they make their choices for GCSE’s (13yrs of age I think). They perhaps think that not having choices and the vote absolves them from any responsibility, committment or involvement - just like a child having a parent to make their decisions for them. Young people have always been frustrated and I certainly was, but I would hope that today’s young do not think having a dictator will solve their problems for them. As I said - (but I will re-phrase it) I think they believe it is an easy way out of taking responsibiity for their own country and lives and not neediing to make decisions. I sincerely hope it does not come to pass. I would hate for my grandchildren to live under a dictatorship.
I fully agree that having little or no knowledge of what history can tell us creates a dangerously ignorant mind that is vulnerable to half baked notions. The insights from the major lessons learnt in the past should be mandatory education.
And your point on not taking responsibility and owning ones own decisions does seem to be a trend. A worrying one.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that, if there is such a thing as a “natural” form of government, it is to be found in monarchy, not in republicanism.
The British monarchy has developed along the constitutional lines first laid out in Victorian times by journalist Walter Bagehot’s The English Constitution. It was Bagehot who articulated the famous definition of the British monarch’s threefold powers, which remain at the heart of the monarchy’s constitutional and political role: the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn. Since his time, the scope of his dictum has been extended to cover the British monarch’s role in relation to Commonwealth rulers too.
However, Bagehot also understood the popular appeal of monarchy: “The best reason why monarchy is a strong government is, that it is an intelligible government. The mass of mankind understand it, and they hardly anywhere in the world understand any other.”
Republic v monarchy
The US is a republic with the form of a monarchy, while the UK is a monarchy with the form of a republic – and, to a greater or lesser extent, this has been true ever since the American Revolution.
The US has a chief executive who combines being head of government (the initiating and implementing policy bit) and head of state (the formal, ceremonial bit). A president has a similar constitutional function to that pre-18th century English kings – needing congressional (or parliamentary) approval for tax and spend, but with huge prerogative powers. Of course the American president, unlike the British monarch, is elected, and since 1796 has been elected in nationwide and often polarising contests – yet once in office they have the power and many of the trappings of an early modern monarch.
In the UK, by contrast, the formal executive is split. The head of state (the Queen) is unelected but supposed to have no political role at all, while the head of government (the prime minister) is in office not because the Queen wants them there but solely because he (or she) commands a majority in parliament.
I think it is entirely understandable for the young to fancy living in a
dictatorship ?
Having to watch the shambles that is the house of commons going through
it’s organised chaos on a daily basis, and the resulting lack of direction in
the countries policies ?
With each successive government only interested in overturning the previous
government’s policy decisions !!
No wonder the general direction of this country is DOWN !!
