God Save The King

[The Minsky Moment]

Weren't those the same criteria for education and infrastructure spending back home too? .

Point taken, but for any time period you pick, educational spending per person in Britain was always far higher than in the colonies.

[Oexmelin]

I think depending on how we define colonialism, it usually did.

The main issue of those discussions hinges upon the capacity of European empires to remake the whole world in their image. At some point, colonial spaces will have been broken and remade enough so as to be "better equipped" to deal with the world thus remade.

Were African kingdoms or Asian empires of the 15th century so much worse off than European kingdoms of the same period? Not really - I mean, not if you compare elites to elites, and common folk with common folk. By the 19th century, however, the differential of power was such that it was entirely possible to indeed make matters much worse for, say, a lot of African polities, between coastal kingdoms with access to firearms and inland empires that didn't - until the coastal kingdoms were themselves reduced to client polities and then colonies. That came with dislocation of society, culture, references, etc. Compared to that moment of the mid-to-late 19th century with the mid-20th century, yes - eventually, some elements of the industrial (consumption) and scientific revolutions (vaccination) spread. But that process still made societies that were generally similar to European societies in the 15th century, clear "losers" by the 19th century, and *kept them losers* throughout the 19th and 20th century. India had to be *made poor* before being vaguely made better again.

Obviously, such metrics are tied to some ill-defined notion of material well-being. The discussion is even more fraught when we start to discuss consensus polities of the Americas, the question of labor, the sentiment of freedom, etc.

[Sheilbh]

Ok, but then what is wrong with a Presidential system (even though it wouldn't be my preference)? The way I see it the only thing stopping a PM from acting like a US president is reluctance to do so.

I think these are all standard reasons for a parliamentary system to be honest. I think you basically are at risk of ending up with referendums every four years for the soul of the nation - France and America for the forseeable are deciding for Trumpism or Le Penism v an alternative. I don't think that's great because I think they might win if they haven't already. Which matters because in a presidential system the ceremonial stuff, the relationship with the military, the speaking for the nation side of things is entangled with that political figure - in a parliamentary system (whether constitutional monarchy or republic) you separate that out from politics. So the "sentimental loyalty" doesn't go to the leader of a political faction - they are interchangeable (or as the Queen told Ted Heath, "you're expendable"). Hate Johnson as much as you like he can't pretend or try to embody Britain while the Queen's on the stage, or now the King.

Also I think presidents with power and a direct electoral mandate are and should be really difficult to get rid of, because they have that direct mandate. So there is a bit more of a crap shoot about it, while in a parliamentary system they're easy to replace (as we've seen - and in the post-war era only Attlee and Wilson I think came to and were removed from power by an election). In theory you should be able to get rid of the bad ones - though this hasn't recently worked in the US - but there's not really a solution for an incompetent president until the next election.

The other point is about how you balance powers which I think requires attention in a system with a powerful president. Personally I think if you're going to do it you should follow the French and create a system that gives clear precedence to one branch and reinforces that. I think if they are equal there are always risks of different branches with legitimate claims to power conflicting or deadlock between branches, both of which have been common in those systems and normally end with either a coup or one branch taking over.

[Sheilbh]

Separately - King's speech:
https://twitter.com/RoyalFamily/status/1568297669382082567?s=20&t=toHdpJlWfwg08LPXUA7T1Q

Seems like he did pretty well.

[Barrister]

Oh heck - never thought of this.

In my world every criminal file has a nine digit file number, followed by a letter identifying which court it has been filed in, followed by a single digit to identify which specific accused person.  So it looks something like this:

2201234567p1

First two digits indicate the year (2022).  Next 7 just identify the file.  P indicates Provincial Court.  And 1 indicates the first person named (or only person if one one name).

This all ties into a 30 year old computer system called JOIN (Justice Online Information Network).  All our important records are in JOIN.  It was cutting edge in it's time, but has long shown its age, but it's proven impossible to replace without losing all that data.

So why do I bring this up?

The letter code.  It's "P" for Provincial Court, or "Q" for Queen's Bench.

I can't imagine the problems they're going to have to get the system to accept "K" files. 

[HVC]

How can a data system not be exportable?

@sheilbh good speech.

[Barrister]

How can a data system not be exportable?

How the hell should I know?

That's just the story I've been told.

[Sheilbh]

How can a data system not be exportable?

Having worked on the contracts for them - please let me introduce you to government IT projects

[HVC]

Fair enough to both of you

[Oexmelin]

Interesting. I was curious to know if he would re-create the title of Prince of Wales, which is never inherited automatically.

[Caliga]

Interesting. I was curious to know if he would re-create the title of Prince of Wales, which is never inherited automatically.

I figured there was zero chance of him not conveying it on William.... why would he not?  In an attempt to placate Welsh republicans?

[Valmy]

If I was William I would be brushing up on my Welsh.

[The Brain]

I am very comfortable with a hereditary monarchy where the monarch has no political power, like in Sweden. I think there are distinct advantages to having a head of state who is above everyday politics. Monarchies where the monarch retains formal political power, even if it's hardly ever used, are in my mind wide open to valid criticism, even if I don't think they are a major problem in practice.

My impression is that to many anti-monarchy people it's not about a lack of democracy, but about something else. For instance, The Swedish Republican Association is against monarchy because it means inherited position of head of state, which they think is undemocratic. Of course they know that the Swedish monarch was elected until well into the 16th century when the grandfather of Gustavus Adolphus made Sweden a hereditary monarchy. If their problem was actually with the lack of democracy they would be in favor of going back to an elected monarch, which would solve any democracy concerns and at the same time not alienate every pro-monarchy person making it much more likely to actually happen. So they are just lying to people about their motives.

[HVC]

If I was William I would be brushing up on my Welsh.

Man, first his grandmother dies and now he has to learn Welsh? Tough week.

[Sheilbh]

Man, first his grandmother dies and now he has to learn Welsh? Tough week.

And the looming inevitability that he will have to meet Liz Truss