Brilliant John Gray interview in the New Statesman.

I stand corrected (and will leave it as is with your info), thanks  

John Kenneth Galbraith surely:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Uncertainty

Robert Galbraith is a nom-de-plume used by J. K. Rowling:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._K._Rowling

"Why was Britain so successful when it was run by the aristocracy from 1660-1906?"

Oh, just stuff like suppression, genocide, you know, that sort of thing. You presumably see that as a means to an end. I think a lot of people have been very polite in responding to you here, but you are living in a fantasy world if you think going back to that way of rule is in any way beneficial to the vast majority of the country. It's barely even worth debating. You may as well suggest we give up agriculture and go back to living in caves.

Commoner. 

Thanks for that.

Having decided to unlearn the 'Second-Class Citizen' mindset us NI Catholics had imposed on us, I realise now, through research, that a Classical Society is the least-corrupt form of Governance. Prime Example being the Austrian Empire being a cultural and economic hub during the Classical era. Plus, Mozart composed Requiem Masses.

America tried to implement a Constitutional Republic, rather than a Democracy, at first. However, their initial French Allies became envious and sought to undermine attempts to reconcile America and Britain.

Everything fell apart once Academics sought to promote 'Anti-Colonialism'. The intent was to help poorer nations. However, it left them indebted to the World Bank. Nowadays, Philanthropy is usurped by Administration.

FYI The Age of Uncertainty by Robert Galbraith is currently showing on BBC 4 / BBC iPlayer

www.bbc.co.uk/.../m002l6s9 on this theme.

I also see the series is available to watch on YouTube

youtu.be/KGSID_Uyw7w

HighToryPsychic said:

Accountability is a dream (and the only true form of accountability would be execution), it never existed.

I don't understand why you say this because in your original post you say you want accountability to be restored.

Democracy has given us accountability through placing obligations on government/organisations/business etc., making them liable for failures of standards and ultimately reporting to the public. This is happening in abundance at the moment, albeit imperfectly. The public can seek redress through the government and council elections, the courts, statutory bodies, going to the media and so on. 

The system doesn’t work perfectly for everyone, that’s life, yet it’s a lot better than being ruled by unelected men who aren’t subject to scrutiny and who would be free to get up to all the sorts of unsavoury things that we hear about in the media. Many women and girls are grateful that those privileged people who think they are entitled to abuse the vulnerable can be held accountable. The Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches have long covered up sexual abuse of boys and girls by men. New abuse cases continue to emerge because these elite male power structures do not successfully self regulate. I don’t believe acceptable standards of accountability would be achieved within an a male hierarchical church or a ruling body of aristocrats. 

I don't agree with the rest of your comments. Equality in every aspect of life can never be given to all fairly, yet your alternative would remove the voice of the majority.

Going back to the ‘New Statesman’ article (18/10/25) referred to in the video, Gray says, ‘’Whatever one might think of Marx’s communist utopia, he understood that revisiting an idealised past is an exercise in futility’’. With regard to your idea of an ‘Aristocratic High State’, I would suggest that you are doing precisely that.

i don't want the country to be ruled by the aristocracy under any circumstances. 

Well my view is the opposite to be honest, I look at the Aristocracy and I think, well that's just better than the Liberal democratic system we have now. It was the Aristocracy who ended slavery, who undertook the industrial revolution, the technological revolution too. It was them to made Britain rich, powerful, free. It was the Liberal state which destroyed all that. 

The Aristocracy we operating in a system where they were constrained by the Liberals and the Liberals constrained by the Aristocracy. In a unitary Parliamentary system, the common law, the Church and so on. Who invented High culture? Who formed Parliament and the common law? Who created the British civil service? It came from the Aristocracy, not from Liberalism. 

Meritocracy is a lie for two reasons 'who chooses what a merit is? and as soon as the first generation of grammar school children got into power they destroyed the grammar schools so they would remain in power. Who created the grammar schools in the first place? The Aristocracy. 

Indeed, Newton did that. I don't think there are other Newton's, I think that level of genius is incredibly rare and its only limited by a lower grade education system. I think doing things based on who you know is better for changing society than anything else. 

Social mobility was better under the Aristocracy than today, look at the level of public life today, its terrible. No debate is interesting on TV at all. Anyone worth anything is old like the man I made this thread about. Yet there are no old people in power now. And the English class system was never rigid. What I am frustrated by is the current system been worse on its own terms than the old system, and be act like the old system was some horrific reality which we can't go back to. 

I honestly think nepotism/hierarchy/hereditary succession is the fairest way to do things, at least within part of society to constrain the other ways people gain power/wealth.  

One thing I have notice is 'left-wing' people think the right-wing are monsters who want to do things which we ourselves would consider abhorrent. It was the High Tories in the 1840's-50's who passed the laws to protect children from the Liberal industrialists and working down mines. I think it comes from a lack of actual debate with 'right-wing' people. 

Part of wisdom and virtue are understanding that you will die, so you need to live your life accordingly. Right now school is about getting into work or uni, people learn nothing about themselves who they are as individual personalities. You get to that through experience and thinking about your life. 

Thank you for taking the time to explain your views. Whilst I don't entirely agree or understand some of them, it is reassuring to at least know that you weren't suggesting child labour be mandatory. 

To my mind, preparing people for death strikes me as rather maudlin. Whilst I consider it a good thing that discussions about death and dying are no longer the taboo subjects they once were, I believe the education system should be about equipping students with the knowledge and skills required for living life to the best of their abilities.

Be careful that you don't have an unrealistically rose-tinted view of the past. There are failings in the current system, but a simple return to the past is not the solution.

If you took the 600 richest in the country and put them in charge, with no way to remove them, would it be ideal? This is effectively what what the old aristocrat gentry were.

A rigid class system is unlikely to create a worthy meritocracy. Do you want your fortunes to depend on wealthy benefactors and their whims?

Newton got to Cambridge through the recommendation of an uncle. For the first 3 years he was a valet to help pay for it, before he got a scholarship.

Progress was based on who you knew, same as it always has been. How many other Newton's didn't, and still don't, have the right connections?

You can be justly frustrated with the current lack of social mobility, but that is something that isn't easily fixed.

There is a fundamental problem - people want things to be fair, but there is way to really achieve it because life is not fair. All people are not equal. Who, what and why you reward certain things is at the root of any system.

Why was Britain so successful when it was run by the Aristocracy from 1660-1906? Why did it go from being a lesser European power to being the most powerful country in the world? Why since 1906 and the overthrow of the Aristocracy have we gone from that foremost position to being where we are now? 

I think its the unconstrained ideology of Liberalism, which has laid the country low from that place it held in 1906. For example the Aristocratic High state built and maintained the largest most advanced, best trained navy in the world. By 1922 the Liberal state had scrapped 60% of it for no reason but it wanted to increase welfare spending. So by WW2 we lost it because the navy couldn't fight a three theater war like it could in WW1. British industry was destroyed in WW1/WW2 by the state taking control of it to fight the wars, then nationalization/privatization has crippled our ability to innovate and then sold our country off to the highest bidder. We had the finest more integrated functional railway network in the world in 1906, now is one of the worst in the world because of Liberalism and the Liberal state. 

I understand what you are saying in theory or just common sense terms makes sense, but for some reason having Aristocracy constraining the Liberal state and limiting its ideological power makes society function better. It shouldn't, but this reality functions in the opposite way to how it should. Democracy leads to everything its means to stop and Aristocracy leads to everything its meant to be disinterested in. 

You also have the issue of factions and competition within the Aristocracy, and then within the wider political system leading to actual accountability and lose of power between the factions, rather than the uni-party we have today. Lord Salisbury for example we the last great British PM and he was Aristocratic, Autistic and genius. Nobody in modern political life is close to him would you agree? 

Cool username, I like it. I am not surprised by your reaction, I don't like my views in terms of the idea of them. I am opposed to the patriarchy and have been limited by it in my own life. I actually like and respect women, there intellect and emotions, in the patriarchy that is rejected often. In terms of child labor, of course I am talking about part time work for children like paper rounds or doing jobs with there family sometimes and getting paid for. I think children should be allowed to leave school at 13 if they have paid work or apprenticeships to go into. 

The problem with modern state education is that its based on DEI and equality, not on preparing men and women for death, that they may live a just and moral life. That was the purpose of the classical Christian education system, which should be implemented from the age of 5 until 15. With the less academically capable people going to work schemes at the age of 11 and the smarter children going into academic aspects of education. The problem is sex integration of education has been a disaster, having selection at 16 rather than 11 has been a disaster and the push for more people to go to university has ruining that entire sector of the economy. I myself with my autism really struggled in school because I like being by myself and other people dis-regulate me, so my brain struggled to function, but I am actually highly aware person. 

However my focus isn't on the minority aspect of society, but the majority of Neuro-typical people, what they need to function best and achieve positive outcomes for them. Lord Salisbury/Tesla/Newton were all autistic, in a deeply hierarchical High Aristocratic society and they achieved amazing things which changed our understanding of the world. 

I don't vote anymore because I don't want to consent to what the state is doing. We have never had a unelected dictator in Britain, apart from Cromwell who overthrew the High state. Its a non-sequitur in the case of Britain that we would have a dictatorship without universal voting rights. 

In WW1 the Liberal low state murdered 1,000,000 British men, conscripted and genocided them, it did the same thing again in WW2 to the tune of 400,000 men. In 30 years from 1990-2020 an estimated 100,000 English children were groomed, raped and sold into sex slavery by criminal gangs operating within the South Asian/Muslim community, dozens of children/family members were murdered by these gangs, this was covered up and denied by the Liberal state for decades in the name of anti-racism ideology. The Liberal state has bankrupt Britain 2 times, likely a third time soon. We have gone from the most powerful, richest, freest country on the face of the earth to a impoverish, weak fractured country since the 1906 general election. I am trying to come up with a way to end the Liberal state and replace it with something preferable. The best thing I can think of is to restore the old ruling class/structure of the state which is more honest and functions as intended. 

I hope you can understand where I am coming from here. Thanks. 

I have read your post and the various replies and comments with a mixture of deep amusement and absolute horror. As a woman, the thought of returning to a patriarchal society makes me feel uncomfortable. As a mother and someone who was once a child, the thought of child labour also causes me to feel uncomfortable. It's one thing if a teenager actively wants to do a paper round, or take on a Saturday job to earn a bit of extra pocket money, but if you're suggesting child labour be compulsory, then it is not a view I share.

The only thing I possibly do agree with is your view of modern state education. There is much my parents were taught at school that I wasn't, and there is much I was taught that my adult son wasn't. It seems to have been the case for decades that if it's predicted that there will be a shortage of skilled employees in a particular profession, the education system will prioritise teaching the subjects required for those professions. This is all well and good for students who may wish to pursue a career in those professions and/or have have an interest in those subjects. For those who aren't suited to academia and/or have no idea what they think they would like to do job-wise when they leave compulsory education, it's a problem.

Even if I choose not to do so, I would hate to lose my right to vote. If I was faced with the prospect of having an unelected dictator that couldn't be held to account, I think I'd be wanting to flee the UK. For me, the kind of society you strongly appear to desire is my idea of a living nightmare. 

HighToryPsychic said:

The Aristocratic High state which was in power from the 1660 restoration to the 1906 general election. Those people being restore to power. And the removal of the Liberal elite we have been ruled by since 1906. And yeah the right to vote would be massively limited

I'm curious as to why you think these untrained, individuals  who cannot be removed from power in this situation would be a better bet than a politician who can be removed by his party or the electorate.

They are also likely to be very much removed from the life experiences of the people they rule which will make it much harder to make decisions in the interest of the population.

To get to this stage I imagine the masses would have to vote to give them power otherwise it would take a coup for them to take over and it would take the power of our much diminished army to keep the riots under control.

While our existing system is deeply flawed and run by almost universally unsuitable people (ie the politicians), the alternative you propose is just so much worse.

If it came to this power takover and I was living in the UK, I believe I would be a very enthusiastic activist in taking down this new group of unelected toffs by whatever means necessary.

A question - in the new society you propose, do you see yourself as one of the aristocrats or one of the commoners?

The issues and problem with the NHS is that it was founded to enforce socialism, DEI. It was never about improving healthcare for the bottom third of society economically. I would abolish the NHS and totally rebuild a new state based form of healthcare. Based on Hierarchy, Patriarchy, discrimination. Its the same with state pensions, welfare, education. The poor laws and work houses actually functioned, the current system doesn't at all. State pension is a ponzy scheme which is going to bankrupt the state. It needs to be abolished too. Women we never views as property, they was sex based segregation. Like male university programs and female ones. I believe women had to get there husbands or fathers to sign for bank account and stuff, like parents? Child labor was a good thing generally, but needed to be regulated by the state and it was from the 1850's onwards by the High Tories within Parliament constraining the power of the Liberal industrialists. Like my brother wanted to leave school at 13 to work for my dad, the state actively prevented my brother from doing this. 

If you want local community formed classical education from children, partially funded by the state, I am all for that. Modern state education is rubbish and integration of the sexes has been a disaster for men in society. Then you have the collapse of birthrates because of extended education for women. There is a directly correlation between women getting 10 years of more of education and the collapse of birthrates, which then means we can't maintain any sort of welfare state or patriarchal structure for society. We have millions of working poor now in the UK reliant on food banks because of inflation. 

The best form of government is clearly one which functions, representative democracy as it is current operating doesn't function and should be replaced by something which does function. I support the old system which existed before because it function then and I think it could function now.  

I am not totally rejecting any great positives about Liberalism/Liberal society. For example I benefit massively from state support, cognitive talk therapy, I have a neuro-divergent therapist too, which wasn't accepted before in the Aristocratic High state. I was harassed because I have cerebral palsy year this year and I had a lot of support from the police for that. Which I am grateful for. 

Accountability is a dream (and the only true form of accountability would be execution), it never existed. England wasn't feudal from the 1300's, didn't have slavery from the 1300's, women we a massive part of the work force during and after the black death in England. So the English Feudalism/Patriarchy was very different from what people think. The key aspects I would like restored are the Hereditary peers to the House of Lords, the removal of the politically appointed life peers, the restoration of the Lord Judicial of the HofL, the Supreme court abolished. The devolved Parliament abolished. The district councils abolished. Restoration of the old counties. The enforcement of marriage contracts by the state. Massively limited access to higher education, classical Christian methods of education restored and selection at 11-14-16. 

In terms of the communities stuff, the High Tory state enforce for about 120 years something known as the Bloody code, which would hang people from basically anything from rape to stealing bread. The High Tory state wouldn't allow criminal gangs to operate, it wouldn't allow the rape gangs to operate, people smugglers, drugs, it would start hanging people for it. Murders, serial rapists, pedo-philes, serial property and violent criminals would be hanged. I respect the Liberal view that the state doesn't have the right to kill people and innocent people will be killed, however prison doesn't work either. 

The High Tory state was really enforced by custom and deference, not by state power. Its about what Starkey called the Self-governing society. So obviously I would abolish state multi-culturalism, the race relations acts, the equality act, sexism acts so on. I would not intervene to stop the English culture-identity/Patriarchy being enforced within society. So racism/sexism/homo-phobia, disability discrimination would be allowed. This is why I think the Liberal state has done valid and excellent work in limiting racism/sexism/homo-phobia/discrimination against disabled people, helping society understand different people/communities within it. However the High tory state would do this differently. For example there is a disability theater company called 'The Chicken Shed' who's founding patron was a Aristocratic lady. This is rather how the High state seeks to uplift people and be kind to them within society. So you allow the English nation to assert itself over the new-communities imported by the low state since 1945. 

Lastly you abolish the current police force and restore the old one which existed before the 1960's. You also enforce the common law, you can allow Sharia law or whatever, but common law is enforced by the state and other forms of religious law outside of Anglican Cannon law aren't accepted as legal. If communities riot or have high crime rate, they get expelled from the country or aren't integrating into English society. Its basically a total inversion of what the Liberal state has tried to do. Also equality before the law is a lie too, the common law was common to all people, as in simple, known explainable. It wasn't equal or just. Also it could change over time too. I would also enforce speech laws against Anglican blasphemy, child protection laws and decency laws in public. Keep in mind High Toryism is inherently anti-freedom-anti-equality, it doesn't accept what Liberals want. 

I'm not sure going back to no NHS, no social services, no disability support (apart from charity=work house), women as property, child labour, no school unless you can afford it and the era of the work house or starving if you can't work would be a good idea.

I think the quote that "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all others which have been tried" applies.

What you do is your build the corruption into the system, so everybody knows it and can adjust for it. Like the Aristocracy was wholly corrupt, but it was the system so it was accounted for. Amazingly the system we have now is meant to be anti-corruption, but it is way more corrupt than the Aristocratic High state was, which is actually lauded for its lack of corruption in the early 1900's.  

I argue for a system which means I can't vote, which means I have no power. I argue for the restoration of the Aristocracy, there rights, power and wealth which was stolen from them by the Liberal state. I also believe in the ruling class theory of history which states that whatever the ruling class wants it gets. I don't think building a system for the majority functions at all. But I agree there is no correct answer, just trade off's between different systems.