If one simple student society can’t avoid the metastasiation of unelected office holders, what hope has a government?
Nearly seven years after the campaign, we are finally moving towards the kind of deal we might have had all along had we never joined.
Not only does focusing on such trivialities backfire, it also occludes proper scrutiny of the vast sums that government actually wastes.
Australia, Canada, and New Zealand have all managed to better implement the centre-right recipe for success, despite being ruled by left-of-centre parties.
But, again and again, there is temptation to say nothing, do nothing and hope for things to turn around on their own. And that, in our current circumstances, won’t do.
General Galtieri’s was a wicked regime. But his armies, unlike Vladimir Putin’s, at least respected the rules of war.
Ordinary voters have the luxury of damning our representatives without facing up to the contradictions and trade-offs of democratic government.
Pity poor Hunt, facing the most miserable in-tray ever to greet a Tory Chancellor when even rising to the challenge will benefit only Starmer.
Party members deserve a larger say over policy, candidate selection, and much else. But it must be for the House of Commons to choose the prime minister.
Are we in recession? Of course not. The ONS has in fact just uprated its growth forecast, and the IMF now admits that Kwarteng’s reforms will boost growth.
Concern over too-low interest rates and growing fear of an anti-growth Labour government are much more likely culprits.
This is a war between two visions of human life. And ours is the better.
It will be trickier than promising the earth, but the new prime minister must fight the next election on a credible platform.
Treating people as groups, not individuals, has a long history and appeals to our inner caveman – but is not compatible with liberal society.
Food security comes not from growing everything yourself, but having the most diverse supply network you can maintain.