Brilliant John Gray interview in the New Statesman.

HighToryPsychic said:

I am a High Tory, supporter of the Aristocratic High state being restored

Does this mean the masses being effectively controlled by the unelected elite who have inherited their positions?

Yes. 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 as it was before in the mid-late 1800's. Its fitting that in the name of democracy we are now ruled by the civil service, international law and judges. The elected politicians have less control now than they did in the 1800's. 

High Tory goes along with High Church Anglicanism, High culture, High state. It means the state is broadly non interventionist within society/the economy, it has a basic role to defend the country, police it, slightly regular it, enforce the law. But it doesn't try to direct or change society like the Liberal low state has done. So its a low tax, low regulation, Patriarchal state. 

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.

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.

"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.

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?