To think Liz Truss MUST call a general election to make “unpopular” and “difficult” decisions that deviate from the last GE manifesto?

[CurseOfBigness]

I get that Liz Truss is a keen new prime minister full of beans and ideas. I just don’t think she has the mandate to push through decisions that are “unpopular” and “difficult” if it deviates from the last general election’s manifesto.

Liz Truss plans radical shift in economic policy: New UK prime minister readies tax-cutting mini-Budget and says she is prepared to be unpopular.

This new prime minister has not gained her position by winning a general election. If she wants to radically change things and be “unpopular” then she needs to put the vote to the people.

Truss talked the talk about promoting “freedom” and not being dictated by “instructions”. But Freedom is not for free. The rule of law applies as “instructions” to help keep society civilised. Checks and balances.

Removing the cap on bankers’ bonuses is a poor PR move. Trickle down economics is problematic and already being criticised as ineffective.

Truss thinks she can do what she wants because she’s party leader and by default became prime minister. But Truss can’t afford to be “unpopular” because she needs to win a general election in her own right first.

AIBU to think Liz Truss must call a general election to make “unpopular” and “difficult” decisions that deviate from the last GE manifesto? Isn’t that how democracy works?!

@JassyRadlett ”the peak of the divine right era had endless wars, a whole bunch of plague, famine, short life expectancy, horrible infant mortality rates... I don't know, seems to me that God might be up for a bit of constitutional moderation.”

In some texts I’ve read, people believed God sent misfortunes with agency. Usually, they believed that there were too many humans and the numbers needed moderation.

Loads of theories. But they’re just that. Theories.

All those improvements were impacted by the world wars… Wars tend to drive advancements in technology (such as Turing’s machine). Health standards improve through wars and caring for soldiers (Florence Nightingale and the Crimea War).

Er, no. You can believe in divine intervention if you like - as you say, that's faith not fact - but you don't get to write out of history the very, very many huge technological advances of the last few centuries developed outside of wartime pressures that led directly to higher living standards and better health.

Any more than you can point to any event or series of events and say 'that was god, that was' rather than considering the human and natural factors that are frankly more likely causes (and more theologically plausible in modern terms.)

You're quite right that the Enlightenment focus on questioning, inquiry and the search for truth undermined the foundations of faith that were based on unquestioning obedience and adherence to interpretations of religion by authority figures and structures, at the same time as undermining the basis on which absolute monarchy was based. As you've pointed out, the two are closely linked.and as became increasingly untenable as the value of individual human life gained greater value - it can be argued that the science of people like Newton and Descartes drives the philosophy by driving a spirit of inquiry and rational questioning - as science improved, human life improved, people valued it and their worth as individuals more. I don't think that's particularly controversial, though people will of course differ on whether it was a good thing. (I obviously think it was great, Karen Armstrong doesn't.)

I apologise for assuming you were a Christian; the way you talked about 'God' as conferring power as if there weren't plenty of other deities on offer led me down that path. From your posts you do seem to have religious faith?

I think I’m more agnostic. So I’m open. Doesn’t bother me either way but I am curious.

In that playful curiosity I try to apply how it’s possible god can play a part in society. Like hot seating god in human history.

And I find the monarchy meshed with god thing very confusing.

From an outsider viewpoint looking in, without knowing the backstory, the shop window says “God save the [monarch]” and the monarch’s title is “By the grace of God”.

Not unreasonable that people looking in assume that monarchy is a God show.

Not unreasonable that people looking in assume that monarchy is a God show.

You could say the same for just about every archaic ritual or aspect of our slightly weird society, from state education (daily act of collective worship, anyone?) to local government to Parliament itself. Monarchy isn't an outlier.

Monarchy is internationally recognised though.

Different playing field.

In what way does that affect its intrinsic nature?

Even if 'famous abroad' was relevant to whether God plays a part or not, our Parliament, for example, is fairly well known abroad. Mother of Parliaments, Westminster system, all that...

(I'm not even sure what overall point you're trying to make - is it about the intrinsic nature of monarchy being divine grant, or is it what it appears to be to outsiders? God causing Brexit and Covid and world wars to punish us for removing absolute monarchy, or the impression amongst the daft that he/she/it did?)

Anyway - leaders throughout history have used religion to cement their power and encourage obedience and conformity. Not particularly linked to any particular religions but one theory about the rise of monotheism, and in particular the idea of an omniscient deity, is that it coincided with larger societies and was often better vehicle for societal control than a bunch of gods who lived on a hill, etc.

In a deeply religious society that's full of folk terrified of going to hell, if the priest and the king tell you that the king was put there by God so you need to do what the king says, then people did it, mostly. And that cemented the power of both priests and kings, particularly when kings enforced theological rules as much as priests promoted the idea that kings were chosen by their god.

(This thread a LONG way from whether Liz Truss should or must call an election.)

We digress!

Based on my own experience with close family and friend from abroad.

They assume Monarchy is a God show based on how it’s presented. I’ve tried seeing it from their perspective and I get what they mean. Because that is the propaganda of the shop window.

They’re from Republic countries where they elect a Head of State. So Monarchy as unelected Head of State is baffling and unfair to them anyway. But if God chooses the monarch as Head of State then that makes a tiny bit more sense - less likely to question when ‘it’s a God show’.

See what I mean?

*family and friends

@JassyRadlett ”Anyway - leaders throughout history have used religion to cement their power and encourage obedience and conformity.”

I hear this presented as a bad thing by a lot of atheists.

Tbh… if religion was used to encourage obedience and conformity then I don’t think it’s necessarily bad because that’s how to create cohesion, cooperation and peace. Less disturbances to the peace. Religion served a useful function…

I'm not even sure what overall point you're trying to make

No point really. Just a discussion trying to imagine how god is supposed to work according to various groups.

Monarchy is one group that has ‘God’ attached to it. Seems silly now that they don’t mean ‘God’ anymore… why not just say what it means now?

Divine Right (if it’s a thing) can’t be dictated by parliament… because they’re not divine. The divine grant would come from a God. That was how this digression started I think.

@JassyRadlett

Excellent post on the enlightenment.

Divine Right (if it’s a thing) can’t be dictated by parliament… because they’re not divine. The divine grant would come from a God. That was how this digression started I think.

Divine right isn't a thing. No UK monarch has claimed divine right for centuries. And it has never actually been a thing rather than a technique to cement power.

Divine right was used as a mandate for power. The claim to the crown comes through that mandate…

Just reading up Divine right of kings

“It stems from a specific metaphysical framework in which a monarch is, before birth, pre-ordained to inherit the crown. According to this theory of political legitimacy, the subjects of the crown have actively (and not merely passively) turned over the metaphysical selection of the king's soul – which will inhabit the body and rule them – to God. In this way, the "divine right" originates as a metaphysical act of humility and/or submission towards God.”

That is how the Royal Family’s line of succession works, isn’t it?

Charles is King now because he was firstborn to the Queen.

Anyway, that is an outdated way to choose a Head of State if there’s no divine mandate involved.

As it stands we have an unelected Head of State (because apparently even God had no part in this because there’s apparently no such thing as divine right).
And we have a PM who was voted in by something like 0.3% of the electorate (and all members of the conservatives).

@JassyRadlett ”No UK monarch has claimed divine right for centuries.”

But non-UK monarchs have claimed divine right to rule and also wielded their absolute powers skilfully. It matters to the UK monarchy because they have taken mystical Crown Jewels that were associated with divine right. The Sikh King Ranjit Singh prized the Koh-I-Noor as sacred.

And there’s supposed to be a God curse involved in the Koh-I-Noor. Held by the UK monarchy and they’re superstitious enough of it to only give it to a woman. Way after 1689 and the Enlightenment.

I don’t think parliament has any jurisdiction over non-UK crowns or jewels… or does it?

I have some knowledge on that particular history. See also the Crown Jewels chat.

Yeah I'm not going to get into Crown Jewels and curses, that's even further down a very bizarre rabbit hole than this discussion.

You're right that it was used as a mandate for power until that mandate shifted to Parliament (in the UK) or shifted even further by ditching the monarchy altogether.

But I think your logic is skewed on the question of whether power derived from the divine - and therefore the mandate is divine - or whether the power is one largely of strong, rich institutions (the church as institution rather than religion, using religious belief to entrench power, the aristocracy and nobility using their land, money and swords to entrench power) and then using the idea of divine right to keep the people in line. The power derives from the institutions, not the almighty.

I'm not saying that some monarchs - in all countries - didn't believe that God had made them born special, in the same way as some Americans think God specifically favoured them by having them be born in the US, and the US as a country as being a divinely inspired creation that is 'special' in the eyes of God.

That doesn't mean that either is actually the act of God rather than the belief of the deluded.

And I totally agree with you that having a Head of State who is there due to accident of birth is a very odd system. I think most people do, but tradition and comfort with a system are strong drivers. And if you asked most people, it's the tradition and the 'it works so don't change it' is the driver for retaining it, rather than 'God put him there, don't mess with God.'

It's also odd to have clergy in your legislature, but here we are...

And as we all know, the succession only goes to the firstborn up to a point, and ultimately Parliament can intervene as it so ably did with the Act of Settlement and much more recently with the Succession to the Crown Act - which was the bit where they went 'actually, girls should be treated equally in the succession from now on'. And it can also be argued that Parliamentary government left Edward VIII with no option but to abdicate. So not even the succession is inviolable by Parliament.

Both Parliament and monarchs in this country know where the mandate lies; British people (and the other realms) just really like ceremonial stuff and pageantry and aren't massively motivated by sweeping constitutional change for the sake of it.

@JassyRadlett ”Yeah I'm not going to get into Crown Jewels and curses, that's even further down a very bizarre rabbit hole than this discussion.”

Outside your comfort zone?

I brought the Koh-I-Noor into discussion because you specified “UK Monarchy”. I was just showing that UK Monarchy has become a hybrid monarchy and undergone some ‘mixing’ through its colonial exploits (especially the illegally and immorally obtaining Crown Jewels like the Koh-I-Noor that was taken from a ten year old child who had been forcibly separated from his mum).

It’s a bit arrogant to assume there’s no curse on the Koh-I-Noor when you don’t know everything… it was never a UK crown jewel. So, how can you say whether or not there is a curse?

Actually it was Lord Dalhousie who dismissed the possibility of the Koh-I-Noor’s curse. Then he sleep walked into the 1857 Indian Rebellion (that started the independence movement and by 1947 the Second World War had helped India secure its victory). Some have put it down to the curse of the Koh-I-Noor (in 1857 the British thought it was the Koh-I-Noor’s malignant influence).

Eastern approaches to deities is very different to some Western ones.

William Dalrymple has written a book in the diamond called “Koh-I-Noor: History of the World’s Most Infamous Diamond”. Read the last chapter where he addresses the curse issue… quite interesting. And he’s a credible historian too.

P.S. I realise my username says curse but that’s just the title of the book I recently read by legal scholar Tim Wu “The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age”. Nothing to do with the Crown Jewels!

God tends to be linked to war memorial stuff for a reason…
Because when staring death in the face, people will grasp at anything that might remotely help them. When mobilisation happens, suddenly the Padre is a very popular man.

I was meaning i still pay vat in say France if i buy product x in a shop in france.

On imports, for my interest i still can't get anything sent to me from EU, always comes up "wont ship to uk" if its over £135 - its a pia as you see stuff available in EU but not in UK.

I don't know of any EU outfit that has got round this unless they set up a UK branch.

Outside your comfort zone?

Nope, just honestly not that interested in discussing anything that relies on claims of the supernatural. Largely because they can't possibly be honestly debated. But also because it had utterly nothing to do with UK constitutional principles which is what was being discussed. It takes two to shift a discussion onto a new subject; I'm politely declining on this count.

@JassyRadlett But our side discussion on this thread was about monarchy. Monarchy does rely on supernatural claims. Even now.

William Dalrymple could also have said ‘yeah I’m not going into the supernatural stuff because that’s obviously silly’. The Koh-I-Noor curse claims are too prevalent, including the royal family’s own treatment of the jewel. So Dalrymple gives it a fair consideration… which boils down to ‘We don’t know for certain either way’. That means: be careful.

The UK Constitution is a fallible human construct written long ago; this means it can be deconstructed and/or changed too.
The Koh-I-Noor curse (if true) has no regard whatsoever for the UK Constitution (just like how the British had no regard for the Indian constitutions the diamond was stolen/looted from).

What you’ve said about the UK constitution helps explains why the likes of Lord Dalhousie may have treated non-UK monarchies in India the way he did; he deposed practically all of them with apparent impunity. It seems Dalhousie felt he could do away with the world’s monarchies based on the UK constitution alone (and that’s dangerous, ideologically, practically and even supernaturally).

Sounds like the UK Constitution has a lot to answer for in India and to their deposed monarchies. It’s more like an arrogant colonial attitude and maybe even a fatal mistake… Dalhousie didn’t know what he was messing with when he caught his “hare” (I.e. the diamond).

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the relevance and factual basis of your many assertions. 🙂

😊

Thanks for discussion. It has helped me understand the mindset of the British who went into India and deposed their monarchy. If they thought their own monarchy was disposable, then why not others?

But of course, one looks after their own 😉

You've assumed I'm British - I'm not.

Sorry about undermining your sneery post!