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 Erm… I didn’t mean you personally. You weren’t around in the 18th/19th century, were you?

When I said ‘mindset of the British’ I clearly meant the colonialists in the 18th/19th century who were deposing Indian monarchies. Makes sense now that the British mindset towards monarchy and divine right in general was influenced by the UK constitution (that you have helped explain was settled by men in 1689 and the Enlightenment). British mindset of a disposable monarchy (and a rubbishing of divine right ideas) extended towards the colonies - this makes more contextual sense now.

In contrast, the Indian monarchies I’ve read about were always treated like gods on earth, hence divine right was still held sacred there. Deposing their own King/Queen would have been viewed as sacrilegious because of the the association with divinity.

If the British colonialists didn’t hold the same view of divine right of royals for their own monarchy (due to the UK constitution as you’ve described) then it makes sense why they didn’t take the sanctity of Indian royalty seriously. Instead they projected the UK constitutional ideas of disposable monarchy onto the Indians.

But it seems the idea that divine right of monarchy was so ingrained in Indian culture and psyche, that when Queen Victoria declared herself Empress of India she was almost deified by some.

Monarchy without divine right makes less sense because royals claim to be special people in some way. What’s the point of royalty if there’s nothing divine about it? That’s the point.

Ah, my misunderstanding. As the only other person who participated in the discussion, when you said the discussion (rather than your research) had opened your eyes to the British mindset, it was a reasonable but clearly incorrect inference.

"I’m saying Glorious Revolution of 1689 settled amongst non-divine people means very little because the whole idea of Divine Right is that it comes from God (or something divine), not people. Divine right is not granted by Parliament (because they are not the givers of divine right… )."

No, the Glorious Revolution of 1689 settled the Constitution and the Monarchy for people of all backgrounds.

Religious or otherwise, all had to accept that Parliament is the Supreme Legislator and Authority in England as it originated there. This carried on in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and has remained so ever since.

It is Parliament who keeps the Monarch on the throne. Indeed, Charles II gave Parliament a blank sheet in response to the Restoration of the Monarchy terms and conditions. In other words, an acknowledgement that Parliament is Supreme. Not the Monarch. The Glorious Revolution of 1689 absolutely cemented this into the UK Constitution and political life.

"Black Rod can slam the door on the monarch… but not the divine (divine can probably walk through doors like a ghost, you know, Holy Spirit ghost… 😝)."

This proves you're not paying attention and certainly not reading a thing.

Black Rod is appointed by the Monarch and is the Monarch's representative in Parliament.

Hence, the Commons slams the door shut in the face of Black Rod ever since Parliament trumped the Monarch in terms of political power.

"So how can parliament (or people or anyone not divine) claim to have removed the monarchy’s Divine Right to anything? It’s not their place."

On the contrary, it's is within Parliament's power to destroy the idea of the Divine Right and the power a Monarch used to derive from this in the past before the Restoration in 1660 and the Glorious Revolution in 1689.

"Divine Right is not Parliament’s jurisdiction. To suggest so is ludicrous…"

Political power IS Parliament's jurisdiction. Monarchs in the past only stayed on the throne due to their own political power. Hence, why Kings for centuries led their armies onto the battlefield in contrast to modern military practice where commanders never do.

If a Monarch can no longer remain the Supreme Power, they're subordinated. That's precisely what Parliament did and once power was consolidated brought the Monarchy back on their own conditions.

"And even if Glorious Revolution of 1689 claimed to have settled the Divine Right matter then, you don’t know if God decided to reinstate divine right. That’s God’s prerogative with divine right…"

Circular Reasoning Fallacy.

"My point is. You don’t know. No one knows Divine Righty things. That’s a spiritual matter and above Parliamentary sovereignty."

Circular Reasoning Fallacy. A Fallacy is an error in logic and reason.

It looks like you're trying to dig yourself right out of the hole you've dug for yourself. I note you've dropped your original claims of undemocratic means to power via the current PM.

The Constitution is clear - its democratic.

@CurseOfBigness you said, "The UK Constitution is a fallible human construct written long ago; this means it can be deconstructed and/or changed too."

All Man made constructs are fallible, but this doesn't actually change the discussion.

You're incorrect that the UK Constitution was written long ago - it's more accurate to say it was started long ago.

But it has undergone a LOT of changes since. It's often referred to as a Living Constitution which is a strength. It is NOT static since it isn't codified. The US Constitution is static since it is codified and very narrowly written so as to make changing it very, very difficult.

All humans in the distant past before the Enlightenment believed in and relied on the supernatural, including to justify power. But invoking the supernatural has been completely irrelevant since 1689 especially. Absolute Monarchs such as James II and Louis XIV lost to William of Orange who became a Constitutional Monarch under Parliament essentially.

By invoking the supernatural, you're showing a lack of understanding of political power and knowledge. It's not necessary.

@DownNative You’ve put forwards the UK’s historical approach towards monarchy and (lack of) divine right for British royalty. I appreciate you probably know more about that UK history than I do. Thanks for educating me (because I have learned a lot tbh).

I am saying you’re neglecting the wider British Empire history of monarchies around the world that’s also relevant and shared between East/West. The UK approach to monarchy is not the only one I’m afraid.

”By invoking the supernatural, you're showing a lack of understanding of political power and knowledge. It's not necessary.”

Based on my reading of Indian royal history that’s how it worked in India; the supernatural was enmeshed with political power.
Do you remember India in British history? India was the country that had practically all its monarchies deposed by the British by the 19th century. To the point that all was left as a reminder of Indian royalty is a diamond (Koh-I-Noor) that is shrouded in mystery and talk of supernatural power, which is now on a British Crown.

I have not made up this supernatural idea… The jewel in the crown: The curse of Koh-i-Noor. Queen Victoria was concerned enough about the supernatural aspects that the British Royal Family have a strict policy to only give it to a woman (because they think women are immune to the supernatural curse etc).

I’ll quote this extract from a well researched book too, “Ranjit’s peculiar mix of piety and power caught the attention of the authorities in London at a time when Britain was expanding its territories in the East. Not knowing what to make of the one-eyed warrior of the Punjab, they dispatched a political agent, Captain William Murray, to assess the Maharajah’s rise to power and identify his weaknesses. Murray’s initial reports were fulsome in their praise: ‘Ranjit Singh has been likened to Mehmet Ali and to Napoleon. There are some points in which he resembles both; but estimating his character with reference to his circumstances and positions, he is perhaps a more remarkable man than either.” (Anita Anand)

Ranjit Singh’s empire was untouchable during his life and his most prized possession was the Koh-I-Noor diamond that continues to kick up so much international fuss. His empire was only invaded after he died and later his ten year old child was forced to sign the enigmatic Koh-I-Noor over to the British.

Maybe you’re also lacking in understanding political power and knowledge that Britain has inherited from India. The history of the gem is that it was a sign of divine right if a monarch could wear it with impunity (it derived its supernatural ideas from Hindu scriptures as a gift from the sun god Surya).