I don’t understand why anyone needs to be brave to speak out ones genuine opinions especially when they are realistic and true. It just shows where we are as a civilisation now, a sign of the times I suppose. Are we are the end of the peer. 😮😒
@Flux_40 Yes but not to the scale you're statement is suggesting. Have you heard of automation and AI? Space based resource extraction in the long term? Not least, you're advertising consumer driven capitalism which has gone out of control in the last half century and can be tempered whilst maintaining economic growth.
Lifelong Tory here. I will keep voting Reform until they finally get it. Or even better, the Tories eject the wets and merge with Reform to get the Reformed Conservative Party.
Being a Tory all my life, I will never forgive them for them for failing us once too often. I'm a former member of the Conservative Party and now I'm a member of Reform UK.
The Tory's f*ked up as soon as they ousted Boris. That's where they went wrong. If they had let Boris win the election first, and then oust him, they'd still be in power. It never made sense to me, to oust Boris 2 years before the GE. Then I looked at who his replacement was, and, suddenly, it made perfect sense.
@@MrPokerblot Put it this way, if Queen Elizabeth 1 or 2 were still alive, I would fight for them if they so requested. If Winston Churchill were alive, I would fight for him if requested. If Putin was attacking us tomorrow, and Starmer asked me to fight for him, I would tell Starmer to pick up an AK47 and do his own fighting. I've seen what the left's idea of reformation is. What we're going through now, is nothing more than an invasion via foreign policy, what with what's going on down south right now. The left are doing with legislation, what Hitler couldn't do with bombs and guns. How is it right, for instance, that Labour can find 100,000 houses for all the migrants coming over, built on Green Belt land that they claim to want to protect under a banner of environmental protectionism, while our own veterans, men and women who have fought and bled for this country, fighting their wars, go homeless?
“Starmer is not very clever” That’s why those who are really in control have elevated him to the top of the Labour Party. The same with Milliband, Raynor and a whole host of others.
@@Risingtide930Liz the lettuce Truss cut taxes... The bank of England (who appear to run the country now, along with the snivel servants) didn't like that idea, so sold off tens of billions of UK bonds on the eve of her mini budget. Deliberately destabilising what she was trying to implement, which is what the tory members who voted for her wanted.... Lower taxes. It appears the B of E prefer a good old socialist system, with socialist "leaders"
@@Risingtide930 It's possible to make that statement without it requiring a comparison. When you're knee deep in fools, it's easy to allow oneself to think the least foolish of them is smart. In case you missed it, Starkey isn't exactly showering the people you mention with praise, even if he is doing so tangentially.
which is against freedom of speech , freedom to make your own decisions , freedom to disagree , welcome to your dictatorship , do nothing , dont complain
@@MrPokerblot Yeah, I do. In the eye's of the left, Farage is Satan, because he goes against everything that they stand for. He stands for old English values, old liberties, like Freedom of Speech, where as the left want to restrict free speech, and tell you what to think, which started under Tony Blair, when he bought in PC, under his reign. Do you know that Labour, Starmer, told the SNP up in Scotland to crack down on VPN use? Now, why would they do that, unless they were concerned about monitoring what people were saying online? Which is an infringement on my right to privacy, the way I see it. Thing's like that should be protected under our basic human rights, and it is stated in the Human Rights Act, that we should not be put in fear of recrimination or punishment for exercising our right to our freedom of expression etc. Our right to express ourselves freely, is a basic human right. I shouldn't have to worry about the Government spying on what I'm saying online every time I open my mouth. What happens when they do decide to act on something that you've said online? Are we going to be sent to the Salt Mines? That's what the Russians did under Stalin, when the political opponent's criticised him. Otherwise, he had them shot on the spot. Will we have the secret police kick our doors in at 3 in the morning, like they did in East Germany, with the Stazi? I suspect that Farage won't be in Whitehall in 5 years time. I suspect that he will be bombarded with a slew of trumped up, malicious accusations, several months before the elections are due to start. It's what the left do, eliminate their main political rivals, usually by any means necessary. I mean, look at what the Democrats tried to do to upend Trump's run for a second term, having him charged with dozen's of crimes months before the election, in micky mouse show case trials. Meanwhile, Hunter Biden got off with everything he was accused of doing, didn't he? Things that we know he did.
I remember David Starkey when he did those Henry VIII & Elizabeth documentaries on Channel 4 in the early 2000s He looks the same now as he did 20 years ago
Sure but the Tories are not right wing and have not been since at least 2010. Name a single piece of Blairite legislation that the Tories repealed during their 14 years in power.
Agreed, Blair's evil genius was converting lots of law-making and enforcement from Parliament, into an institutionalised technocracy with quangos such as OFCOM and the like being given huge powers. They have become the dominant way to enforce the leftist cultural hegemony. The Tories did nothing, even with large majority's to dismantle these pernicious organisations, Cameron was actually to the left of Blair.
The problem is wet and woke Conservative MPs rule the roost and local Conservative parties lack the gumption to deselect them. If anyone is ever going to rip up Tony Blair's legislation it will have to be Reform or someone like them.
Reform is merely reheated Thatcherism, very lukewarm and starting to go a bit rubbery. They can't do anything about mass immigration because they believe in unregulated global markets, low wages, high rents and mobile skivvies.
@Flux_40 Interesting claim, but false. It's the Welfare State, even when funded by Capitalism, that plays a balancing act. A Welfare State needs X number of tax paying workers to pay for all the "free stuff", and for retirees. Had my parents been allowed to invest their Socialism Security taxes in a 0% risk whole life insurance policy, they would be receiving at least 50% more...plus, with the added benefit of willing the principle upon passing. Had they put the money in stock market index fund - 300% more. “Socialism has a record of failure so blatant -- that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.” Thomas Sowell
@Flux_40 It's fair that for a reply, a real name is best ;) "World view" based upon the hard science of Economics, since membership in an Intl Econ Honor Society in 1985. Cheers. --- Suggest - Economics in one lesson and New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America If your child's history book lauds FDR, fire your school board. Better yet, vote for anyone that supports School Vouchers. "Poor Blacks should not have the same choices as rich Whites, like Private School. Choice is bad" The Democratic Party Platform
Let’s elect the Rt. Honourable David Starkey, son of a char woman and toolmaker, as Prime Minster for Great Britain. Let’s make this country great again.
Dr David Starkey seems to be the only person I have come across so far who speaks about politics in the UK whilst having genuine understanding of how it all works. And why.
But the people voted him in all the same... Just as long as no one complains to me about it in 5 years time. It's what they voted for, and it's what they usually do. They sit there, after voting Labour, complaining about how bad Labour are, for 5 years, and then, come the next election, they vote Labour right back into power again. Why? Because their great grandfather, who died 100 years ago, was a Labour voter. They voted him in to office, so that he could continue crapping all over us. I suspect that this country has just made the biggest mistake it has made since voting Blair in to office.
@@cadderley100me father voted labour, me grandfather voted labour me great grandfather voted bloody labour. Therefore 💁🏼. Am vootin blody labour. A don’t care what appens. Ahh dooont care what them blody policy tings aaahh aaa, am vootin blody labour with ya like it or not.. Eee bah gum.
@@MrPokerblot lol, that's pretty much what it is. The Labour rep could literally be a turd on a plate, and they would still vote for it, because it's a Labour turd on a plate. Then, they'd spend 5 years crying about what a poor job the turd on a plate was doing, and then vote it right back in again. I mean, look at Khan down London. There's a classic turd on a plate. They hate him for things like Ulez. They vocally protest about it every week. What do they do at the Mayoral Election? He's won 3 elections in a row.
Social contract is cringe liberalism. Rousseau is awful and the root of almost all our problems today. You need to read more. Even Starkey could tell you that Rousseau is a progressive leftist cringelord.
@Flux_40 No, capitalism doesn't require infinite growth. Neoliberalism does, sure, in order to pay for things it can't afford (like social programs, imperial ambitions and foreign wars), but neoliberalism is corporatist, with fiat currency and a large tax and spend policy with high deficit spending. It's a form of capitalism, sure, but not the totality of capitalism. I would describe myself as "anti-corporate and pro-small business" rather than capitalist. While technically correct, in that unlike marxists I understand basic things like the utility of money and markets, the word "capitalist" comes with too much ideological baggage, and even some large social programs are acceptable within a homogenous state (or at least, a state with strong borders and no parasites), but they still come with a great many trade-offs, and some (like state pensions) require infinite growth to sustain. We should be encouraging people to have extended families and community support networks, rather than living isolated and alone living off a substandard pension. We should also not succumb to atomisation and promote community thriving. And the fixing of a laundry list of other issues that liberalism and materialism have created in our lives.
Why is Britain being deleted from Wikipedia because it’s “controversial”. I tried to edit Prof Starkey’s Wikipedia description from English historian to British historian. Instead of editing it back and discussing in the comments, the Wikipedia editors blocked me and sent me a message saying Britain is a controversial term😂😂
Because as of the late 1940s being British became the first "trans" identity. You could become "British" just by gaining a piece of paper through a legal fiction; rather than the fact of being born one.
@@MegaHux I was being 'humourous'. I agree with what you say. FWIW I do not hold with the left / right meme. The only difference between Left and Right is when they shoot you. The Fascist Left (e.g. Starmerism) sends along its commissars with their badges and guns and shoot you, take away your stuff and do what they want with it. The Lefty Fascists (e.g. the late lamented Mr Schickelgruber) send along their gauleiters with their badges and guns and tell you exactly what THEY want you to do with YOUR stuff, and if you do not do it they shoot you and take away your stuff and do it anyway. We are now in the battle between freedom and fascist left slavery. Freedom being the rule of law to which all are subject including the Crown and Government; personal freedom and personal responsibility (that is our lives and liberty); strong property rights (and especially sound money - which is a fundamental property right); the full accountability of all government institutions (the quangocracy has zero democratic, legal and financial accountability) and so on. All of which - as DS asserts - is not at all what Starmer stands for or wants. He is about to inflict massive bureaucratic technocratic managerialism on us. He will imbue those bureaucrats full powers of sanction, with any recourse, on all those new quangos as well as increasing those powers on all existing quangos. We are in for an appalling time. But, as DS states, it will all go horribly wrong. It's what happens after that that matters.
@@MegaHux Facts? You need to read some history. Either that or learn what a millennium is. Our current system of government has been in place since 1911. Prior to that the Lords held equal legislative power to the Commons, and as a result the establishment were protected from the vagaries of the oiks. If you want to extend it to before then, you can only go as far as 1689 and the Glorious Revolution. Anything in place prior to that was very different to the system we have now.
Hey, that was uncalled for...I got 2 B's & a C! Economics / Pure Maths with Stats / English Professor Starkey just burned me good!! ('Told you I only got a 'C' in English!)
Mr Starkey thank you. You never fail us in reminding us of past political failures and successes. Politicians will ignore what you say at their peril unless they hsve chosen another path.
@Flux_40 completely inaccurate. Capitalism is an economic and political system where trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit. Its core principles are accumulation, ownership, and profiting from capital.
What an interesting man. He reminds me of Roger Scruton, the same kind of interdisciplinary erudition, althoug more expressive, passionate and vigorous.
@@bestcomsystems4458 that is possible, I am not so much into western European and UK politics. I am living far away up in the Carpathian mountains. Could you name an example?
@@bestcomsystems4458 riiight, does that explain why academic institutions are completely dominated by left wing dogma.... because they are evidence based? give me a break
The Overton Window has been applied to the Conservative Party, itself - it currently represents Lab/Liberalism and has abandoned it's core values.. As anticipated, a SUPERB Public Address from a National Treasure. 👌✨
I agree with much of what Dr. Starkey says here. However, I do think Thatcher went too far in bashing the unions as harshly as she did. Much of the North of England suffered awfully and it still has not recovered, socially, culturally or economically. However, he is absolutely right on his other points. I NO LONGER TRUST POLITICIANS. I no longer believe they share my values. I no longer trust them to fulfill the promises they have made.That surely speaks volumes.
She went too far on censorship aswell as being heavily backed mega wealthy corporations. Ignoring the wishes of the smaller businesses & ordinary folk in the process. Something the last government took to the extreme
A passionate and exactly to the point speech. The Conservatives were not conservative and they have much to be ashamed of as a result. We are now left with a socialist government which bizarrely overlaps much of what the previous administration espoused.
How can they be socialist being backed or influenced by mega billion dollar corporations?! As every party is. Blair numbered some of the wealthiest people here amongst his closest friends
I agree, Britain did invent modernity. I don’t know why the liberal British government wants to adopt our American institutions, what works for us Americans doesn’t automatically work for Britain. We started out with a written constitution, and adjusted it as we went along. Britain is different.
We did nothing and we do not have a plan. You cannot argue rationally against a written constitution. That is the protection of the people. In the context of a constitutional court. A non politicised civil service is our great strength - or should be.
You need to remember the "Conservative" party carried on where Blair left off. The party itself is on it's way out, it's beyond help at this point. Unless you want to move the "right" massively to the "left", they aren't fit for purpose.
Possibly. But the British are still fundamentally 'conservative'. From memory it is a fact that without the Scottish Labour MP's there would never have been a Labour government in the UK.
@stevef01 some British, but not a single party is. If the Conservative party isn't vaguely conservative then who exactly are people supposed to vote for? I also think you're overstating the Conservativism in the uk, there's plenty of old people that are, but they are currently on their way out. The people who will be voting and running the government are all indoctrinated in school and aren't slightly conservative. They are the products of Tony Blair's Britain.
They never understood blairism. For some reason they thought it was being liberal and homosexual, when actually it was about pretending to be conservative to get the population to go to sleep, and then ruling with an autocratic iron fist.
@@stevef01 Not true. Why don't you check it before posting ?? Blair's majorities were larger than twice the total number of all Scottish MPs (all parties combined). Blair 1997 majority 176 seats; Scottish Commons seats, all parties 72; Scottish Labour 56 Take away all Scottish seats - no problem for Tony Blair. Or, even assuming all of Scotland is there but would vote Tory (total nonsense of course) it would've still been a Commons majority for Labour. 2001 and 2005 essentially the same.
It was constituted that all Englishmen have the Right to take part in our legislative process. The Lords sit and give their vote on legislation in person, while because of our great number, again it was constituted, that we (the commonalty) elect like minded representatives from amongst ourselves to sit in the House of Commons in our place. That is the correct way to view our form of government and our relationship to it. It was never constituted that we are to be subject to the arbitrary Will of political parties! This is a grotesque subversion of our Constitution and a vicious attack on our birthright. That is our problem to correct. Lord Chief Justice John Holt explains with perfect clarity, and why it is so. "It is very well known that always the Commons of England had, and still have, so considerable share in the property of the nation, that from thence, in this well-balanced Government, they become justly entitled to an equal share in the legislature of this Kingdom, without whose consent no tax can be imposed nor law enacted, but because of the immense number of individuals which constitute that vast body, it was impossible to have it executed by them in person, it was therefore so established in the original constitution that a convenient and proportionable number from amongst themselves should by them be chosen and invested with a plenary authority to deliberate, advise, and determine, for themselves and those who sent them.” - Lord Chief Justice Holt, Ashby v White & Others (1703)
This is very interesting. Thank you. I don't ordinarily make a note of comments, but I have done so in your case. A rare and beautiful moment! As I understand it, the "party" system was embryonic in 1703 (the date of Holt LCJ's decision). The Whigs and the Tories were only beginning to emerge. So, yes, presumably "parties" are, in substantive terms, a more modern feature. They were not how things worked before this time, dating all the way back to the thirteenth century (I seem to recall that Starkey mentions a hypothetical Yorkshireman of this period who refuses to pay his taxes but is obliged to do so by the courts because he is duly (i.e. personally) "represented" in Parliament). Indeed, the Whig politician Robert Walpole is regarded as Great Britain's first Prime Minister, and he served as such from 1721 to 1742. Of course, there was no "Great Britain" until the Act of Union which, from memory, dates from around 1707, a few years after Holt's decision. I don't think there was anyone who could be described as a "Prime Minister" before Walpole.
@@christophereverest4547 The thing is, I've never taken an interest in our Constitution or Law until fairly recently and as such am still trying to piece it all together in my head. It dawned on me one day that today, whoever has control of the creation of legislation can pretty much do what the hell they like. But surely that can't be correct if it is true when they say that we are governed by consent? That has taken me down a bit of a rabbit hole where now I believe I have a pretty good understanding of the principles that define our Constitution, and why they exist. You don't get this from moderns books thought. You have to go back in time and to the authorities on these subjects who would know more about it than anyone else. What is said in that piece that I quoted pretty much sums up the whole thing. To remain a people free from tyranny and oppression we ourselves must make and obey laws that we consent to. Any law enacted without our consent is not law. The authorities of old were adamant about this. That is why David is correct when you stated what he said about being obliged to pay taxes. When we are truly represented those taxes would have been agreed to as necessary by those 'like minded' individuals that we sent to Parliament on our behalf. It would have the 'common assent of the realm'. At present this is not the case. Taxes are raised to fund projects that we have no say in, and in most cases would disagree with. Anyone who believes the subversive lie that we don't have a constitution should look up the definition of that word; and also ask themselves why in the nineteenth century, if we don't have one, were the charges brought against the men found guilty, hanged and beheaded in the Cato Street Conspiracy; '1. Conspiring to devise plans to subvert the Constitution. 2. Conspiring to levy war, and subvert the Constitution.', etc? :) I believe that by understanding our Constitution it will give us not only the justification, but all the tools we need to defeat those that use OUR Law to remove our Rights and freedoms. "The Laws of England are the birthright of the People thereof, ..." [An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown and better securing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject - aka the Act of Settlement (1700)]
@@christophereverest4547 For the sake of clarity I want to point out that I'm a big believer in backing up what I say with verifiable sources. The quote posted above is from a book entitled 'The Judgements Delivered by The Lord Chief Justice Holt in The Case of Ashby v. White and Others, and in The Case of John Paty and Others (page3).' It is a publication of Holt's own reports of this two case's. As much as I have searched, I cannot find this quote online. Amazon have this book, and the preview contains the introduction, which is quite informative; also explaining that his reports are 'considerably fuller' than that of contemporary reporters. A standard report contains it written in this form: '"By the common law of England, every commoner hath a right not be subjected to laws made without their consent; and because it cannot be given by every individual man in person, by reason of number and confusion, therefore that power is lodged in their representatives, elected by them for that purpose, ..." [Ashby v White (1703) 92 ER 126]'
Reform is merely reheated Thatcherism, very lukewarm and starting to go a bit rubbery. They can't do anything about mass immigration because they believe in unregulated global markets, low wages, high rents and mobile skivvies.
Thatcher was the reason property prices rose was the london Allowance! It started at £2200, ànd it was index linked. As you could not get teachers. Then the landlords got greedy and put up rents THEN property prices rose! One tory mistake after another!
"... some of them aren't very good at reading". That's the big problem - most modern politicians are not of the calibre of preceding generations; if it were ever possible to make them attend a lecture, they wouldn't 'get it'.
Dear Dr Starkey, my dad was not a toolmaker! I agree with you that Britain's greatness is its unique system of parliamentary government which represents everybody. I'll not jest with you about the former member for South West Norfolk, but surprisingly, you do omit to mention Churchill's protege and One Nation Tory, the unflappable "Supermac", and his disdain regarding the "Selling off the family silver".
Excellent summary - thank you. May I commend Alexandra Solzhenitsyn's Mathematician friend; Igor Shafarevich's book on the failure of socialism from earliest times to now: The Socialist Phenomenon. It just does not add up. Enjoy
@hayleys-w5qThere's no way back to earlier times.The graduate liberal elite have taken over the left and are rubbing the Right's noses in diversity.White collar workers e.g civil servants , led by activists, have moved away from old style small-c Conservativism.The ageing Brits have lost their mojo.
Yes Totally.. One has to choose between corporate anarchy in a globalized World antithetical to internationalism, or civilization. I know that is a stark statement.
Superb, as always. Many thanks. Your faith in the multitude calls to mind Aristotle's Politics, book 3, chapter 11. Admittedly, Aristotle was dealing with direct democracy in classical fourth-century BC Athens. However, I dare say the passage in question could apply equally to our representative form of democracy if the latter worked properly and our MPs were truly representative and responsive to our wishes. How do you feel about broadening our democracy to much greater rule by referendum? If one accepts the principle of "the wisdom of the multitude," it seems a logical step. Cut out the "agents" (the MPs) on the most important issues, as occurred with the Brexit vote. Anyhow, this is what Aristotle said: "The principle that the multitude ought to be in power rather than the few best might seem to be solved and to contain some difficulty and perhaps even truth. For the many, of whom each individual is not a good man, when they meet together may be better than the few good, if regarded not individually but collectively, just as a feast to which many contribute is better than a dinner provided out of a single purse. For each individual among the many has a share of excellence and practical wisdom, and when they meet together, just as they become in a manner one man, who has many feet, and hands, and senses, so too with regard to their character and thought. Hence the many are better judges than a single man of music and poetry; for some understand one part, and some another, and among them they understand the whole." Of course, multitudes can differ, depending on their composition. We'd probably be okay today if the majority called the shots as we are still in time (but only just). However, imagine what "the multitude" in Britain will be like in, say, ten years time... Total insanity beckons. Just look at the obscenities in the opening ceremony of the Paris Olympics... Is that European "culture"? More like far-left wokish barbarism. Aristotle and his contemporaries would be horrified to see what has become of their games. Although the classical Athenians pre-dated Christ, in his Divine Comedy the late Medieval Florentine poet, Dante (1265-1321), put the pagan philosophers in the first circle of his Inferno for a reason. They were not Christians and therefore were denied the benefit of grace and could never be destined for heaven. Nevertheless, the best of them (such as Plato and Aristotle) anticipated Christianity and were credited for this. Further, it was, of course, the ancient Roman poet Virgil, another brilliant pagan, who led Dante through the Inferno and Purgatory. One of the best Christians, namely Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), managed to accommodate the wisdom of ancient thought (Aristotle in particular, although he also used Plato's theory of ideas/forms as modified and developed by Neoplatonism) with the Christian Tradition. Unsurprisingly, Dante places Thomas in Paradise. This collective wisdom, pagan and Christian, is the true foundation of Europe ("the Central Tradition," as Princeton's Robert George calls it). The English poet, author and civil servant, Geoffrey Chaucer (c. 1343-1400), spent some time in Italy and may even have met Petrarch (1304-1374) there, the "father of the Italian Renaissance," a Renaissance that gave rise to later geniuses such as Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) and masterpieces such as his painting of "The Last Supper" (now cruelly mocked by the French, along with the Christian faith it depicts). As Chaucer is, in turn, regarded as "the father of English literature" and, indeed, the father of the English language as we know it today, we can see our connection to the Central Tradition (even though the wokerati are hell-bent on cancelling Chaucer!). After all, we were all Catholics back then and had been so since the first millennium. As you mentioned, the English (and then the British) went on to create "modernity." This is our great contribution to the Tradition and it's worth protecting and preserving. We desperately need genuine conservatives who are willing to do this. It's also worth remembering what Nevile Gwynne said in his excellent little book on English grammar: "Those who speak English today have the prodigious good fortune to have inherited from our ancestors a language which has two really spectacular features. One is that it is the most widely spoken language there has ever been. The other is that during the last four centuries, it has been, together with classical Greek and Latin, one of the three great vehicles of thought, communication, science and culture of all time." We should be very proud of this.
I don't think it is smart to take sides between left and right - the tension between them (left wanting change, right wanting to conserve) is extremely valuable to our society.
Labour Has Been What You Rightly Described It As. My Only Point That Might Contradict You? Is That I Believe That This Began With That Twice Deputy EU Commission President, Aka As Neil Kinnock And The Once EU Commission President, Aka Peter Mandelson…Who Were Both The REAL Architects Of “New Labour”, Either Side Of The Year 1990… …It Was Kinnock Who Brought In Tony Blair, Gordon Brown And Probably Alastair Campbell Too? And If It Weren’t For Kinnock They Probably Wouldn’t Have Been Around To Achieve What They Did In 1995 And 1997 Either? Both Kinnock And Mandelson Did This By Turning The Labour Party In Around 1990, From A Patriotic British Socialist Working-Class Political Party, FOR The British Working-Class, Which Was Traditionally Both Anti-EEC “Common Market” And Anti-EC After That… …Into A Post-British “Champagne Socialist”, Middle-Class Professional “Anywhere” Political Party, FOR The Middle-Class “Anywheres”… …And Kinnock And Mandelson Both Did This, By Simply Flicking The Switch By Turning The Labour Party From Being Traditionally Anti-EEC/EC…Into A Pro-EU Political Party Instead. Instantly Turning Labour From A Patriotic Working-Class Party… …Into A Post-British, Post-Socialist And Even Post-Working-Class Party Too. Into The Middle-Class “Anywhere”, Now Also Woke-Left And Global Corporate Marxist, Post-Democratic Abomination That It Is Today. Which Also Had Unexpected Repercussions Within The Rest Of The UK Too? Because No Sooner Did Labour Go From Being Anti-European Community In Around 1990, Into Being Pro-European Union… …But Also SNP, Plaid Cymru, SDLP And After The GFPA Years Later, Even Sinn Fein Changed From Being Traditionally Anti-EEC/EC? Into Becoming Pro-EU Too… …What Labour Did, Didn’t Just Affect Their Party, In Also Affected (INFECTED!) The Rest Of The UK Political Parties Too…That’s Why Both The UK And UK Wide Politics, Has Gone Downhill Since 1990 And The Fall Of Thatcher.
Dead rite if the government decide to do something they shouldn't be held back by any courts lords or protests but I do agree with referendums for the big issues like now with the imagination
🎯 Key points for quick navigation: 00:00:16 *🏭 David Starkey highlights his humble beginnings to connect with his audience, emphasizing his working-class background.* 00:49 *🏫 Starkey criticizes Keir Starmer's intellectual capabilities and suggests that cleverness and wit are effective strategies against him.* 01:56 *🌳 References the ideological shift within the Conservative Party during the 1970s as a pivotal moment that led to Margaret Thatcher's leadership.* 02:48 *📘 Emphasizes the influence of Friedrich Hayek on Thatcher, framing socialism as destructive to freedom and prosperity.* 03:54 *🛠️ Argues that true conservative governance requires undoing previous legislation, particularly that which expands the state's role.* 04:51 *🧭 Starkey asserts that historical evidence shows right-wing policies succeed while leftist policies fail.* 06:36 *🏳️ Criticizes recent Conservative leaders for adopting progressive policies, such as gay marriage and net-zero commitments.* 07:44 *🏛️ Highlights the historical importance of Parliament representing the people, warning against removing Parliament's central role.* 09:05 *🎯 Discusses the disconnection of government functions from democratic scrutiny, like the Bank of England setting interest rates independently.* 10:27 *⚖️ Calls for the repeal of laws from the New Labour era, arguing they undermine traditional British values of parliamentary sovereignty and individual rights.* 11:46 *🌍 Claims that centrism in politics fails because it masks left-wing policies with right-wing rhetoric for electoral success.* 13:07 *🛡️ Describes the Labour Party as representing a new ruling class rather than traditional working-class values.* 14:30 *🚧 Acknowledges the limitations of Thatcher's reforms, particularly in addressing state institutions like the NHS and universities.* 16:06 *📜 Emphasizes the need for a Conservative revival that respects the historical and social fabric of Britain, avoiding radical right-wing shifts.* Made with HARPA AI
"Criticizes recent Conservative leaders for adopting progressive policies, such as gay marriage and net-zero commitments." AI Needs better training. His point wasn't criticising the legislation, but that politicians were using said legislation to toot their own horns and say how good they were.
I think it was because in Modern times people still held Enlightenment values. In that, people could engage in meaningful conversation. Nowadays, people have gone Postmodern which is anti-Enlightenment. Having one side debate using reason, logic and rational thought against another side which is irrational but values power dynamics and will use any method to attain the power is a recipe for disaster. I see it is true that the Left is wrong and the Right is right. Cannot be overly conservative in a time full of hyper-progressivism.
Please join the David Starkey Members' Club via Patreon www.patreon.com/davidstarkeytalks or Subscribestar www.subscribestar.com/david-starkey-talks
Thatcher was not a conservative. She was interested in the economy alone and had no social or cultural concerns
No I will vote Farage
@@bgg-jp5ei Farage is also a Thatcherite. The man has called for drug legalisation for goodness sake
@@Rootle2exactly a true right wing conservative that's y people vote for him
@@RichardFox-rl4vb What socially or culturally conservative position has Farage ever held?
A heartfelt speech. There are still a few brave men who are prepared to speak the truth.
I don’t understand why anyone needs to be brave to speak out ones genuine opinions especially when they are realistic and true.
It just shows where we are as a civilisation now, a sign of the times I suppose.
Are we are the end of the peer. 😮😒
he is talking crap the right wing are vile
@Flux_40 Yes but not to the scale you're statement is suggesting. Have you heard of automation and AI? Space based resource extraction in the long term?
Not least, you're advertising consumer driven capitalism which has gone out of control in the last half century and can be tempered whilst maintaining economic growth.
Lifelong Tory here. I will keep voting Reform until they finally get it. Or even better, the Tories eject the wets and merge with Reform to get the Reformed Conservative Party.
@metrx
Spot on👍
metrx, I am Conservative. I’m not sure that reform are free market capitalists. It seems that they are more concerned about immigration.
👊
@Fuji_62 Your alternative?
Want be that long .
Excellent speech David 👏👏
Yes it was, but now I'm one of the 70,000 reform members who will be voting for them at the next election which might be a lot sooner than we think.
@Flux_40 Read 'Limits to Growth'. Or maybe they should it's been around fifty years.
Absolutely bloody magnificent. Mark his words.
@Profit_is_Theft what are you trying to say exactly?
Being a Tory all my life, I will never forgive them for them for failing us once too often. I'm a former member of the Conservative Party and now I'm a member of Reform UK.
The Tory's f*ked up as soon as they ousted Boris. That's where they went wrong. If they had let Boris win the election first, and then oust him, they'd still be in power. It never made sense to me, to oust Boris 2 years before the GE. Then I looked at who his replacement was, and, suddenly, it made perfect sense.
You don’t know what real reformation would do to this country though so be careful what you wish for.
@@MrPokerblot Put it this way, if Queen Elizabeth 1 or 2 were still alive, I would fight for them if they so requested. If Winston Churchill were alive, I would fight for him if requested. If Putin was attacking us tomorrow, and Starmer asked me to fight for him, I would tell Starmer to pick up an AK47 and do his own fighting. I've seen what the left's idea of reformation is. What we're going through now, is nothing more than an invasion via foreign policy, what with what's going on down south right now. The left are doing with legislation, what Hitler couldn't do with bombs and guns. How is it right, for instance, that Labour can find 100,000 houses for all the migrants coming over, built on Green Belt land that they claim to want to protect under a banner of environmental protectionism, while our own veterans, men and women who have fought and bled for this country, fighting their wars, go homeless?
YOU'VE GOT IT, MATE! The Cuckservative Party is now no place for a tue Tory. JOIN REFORM!
PR, elected HoL? Be careful who you get into bed with
Thank you, Dr. Starkey.
An excellent speech.
Fantastic speech!
“Starmer is not very clever” That’s why those who are really in control have elevated him to the top of the Labour Party. The same with Milliband, Raynor and a whole host of others.
‘Not very clever’ compared to whom? The clown Johnson? Liz ‘the lettuce’ Truss?
@@Risingtide930Liz the lettuce Truss cut taxes... The bank of England (who appear to run the country now, along with the snivel servants) didn't like that idea, so sold off tens of billions of UK bonds on the eve of her mini budget.
Deliberately destabilising what she was trying to implement, which is what the tory members who voted for her wanted.... Lower taxes.
It appears the B of E prefer a good old socialist system, with socialist "leaders"
@@Risingtide930 It's possible to make that statement without it requiring a comparison. When you're knee deep in fools, it's easy to allow oneself to think the least foolish of them is smart.
In case you missed it, Starkey isn't exactly showering the people you mention with praise, even if he is doing so tangentially.
@@Risingtide930Yes, possibly even more stupid than those you mention.
Yep
They’re petrified about the working class organising. Hence the persistent persecution & demonisation of Mr T Robinson.
I suspect that Farage will be next.
which is against freedom of speech , freedom to make your own decisions , freedom to disagree , welcome to your dictatorship , do nothing , dont complain
@@cadderley100next? seriously
@@MrPokerblot Yeah, I do. In the eye's of the left, Farage is Satan, because he goes against everything that they stand for. He stands for old English values, old liberties, like Freedom of Speech, where as the left want to restrict free speech, and tell you what to think, which started under Tony Blair, when he bought in PC, under his reign. Do you know that Labour, Starmer, told the SNP up in Scotland to crack down on VPN use? Now, why would they do that, unless they were concerned about monitoring what people were saying online? Which is an infringement on my right to privacy, the way I see it. Thing's like that should be protected under our basic human rights, and it is stated in the Human Rights Act, that we should not be put in fear of recrimination or punishment for exercising our right to our freedom of expression etc. Our right to express ourselves freely, is a basic human right. I shouldn't have to worry about the Government spying on what I'm saying online every time I open my mouth. What happens when they do decide to act on something that you've said online? Are we going to be sent to the Salt Mines? That's what the Russians did under Stalin, when the political opponent's criticised him. Otherwise, he had them shot on the spot. Will we have the secret police kick our doors in at 3 in the morning, like they did in East Germany, with the Stazi? I suspect that Farage won't be in Whitehall in 5 years time. I suspect that he will be bombarded with a slew of trumped up, malicious accusations, several months before the elections are due to start. It's what the left do, eliminate their main political rivals, usually by any means necessary. I mean, look at what the Democrats tried to do to upend Trump's run for a second term, having him charged with dozen's of crimes months before the election, in micky mouse show case trials. Meanwhile, Hunter Biden got off with everything he was accused of doing, didn't he? Things that we know he did.
Tommy Robinstein is good theatre. But that's the extent of it.
I 100 % agree with you Sir,
Very good, and well said,
Cheers
Paul Foster
Can't fault David Starkey. He always tells it as it should be.
I disagree. He tells it how it is but shouldn't be, or rather how it would have been back in the 19th century.
Top drawer as always David
What a fabulous talk. Thank you very much David Starkey CBE
I remember David Starkey when he did those Henry VIII & Elizabeth documentaries on Channel 4 in the early 2000s
He looks the same now as he did 20 years ago
Do you think he drinks some sort of magic potion?
@@jonnylotr Or he buys L'Oréal Paris & puts it on every morning
@@CalumRoberts-i1x or maybe it's Maybelline!
Has anyone checked his attic for paintings recently?
@@ph8077 maybe it’s Maybelline!
Sure but the Tories are not right wing and have not been since at least 2010. Name a single piece of Blairite legislation that the Tories repealed during their 14 years in power.
Agreed, Blair's evil genius was converting lots of law-making and enforcement from Parliament, into an institutionalised technocracy with quangos such as OFCOM and the like being given huge powers. They have become the dominant way to enforce the leftist cultural hegemony. The Tories did nothing, even with large majority's to dismantle these pernicious organisations, Cameron was actually to the left of Blair.
Torys are the political wing of international finance capitalism and have been the bulwark for Liberalism and the open borders Globalisation project.
Identity Cards Act
@@davidleoceron
Okay, granted but major legislation. E.g Equalities, Gender Recognition, parts of Communications Act.
@@jackarcher9652Dont pull that card
The problem is wet and woke Conservative MPs rule the roost and local Conservative parties lack the gumption to deselect them. If anyone is ever going to rip up Tony Blair's legislation it will have to be Reform or someone like them.
Reform is merely reheated Thatcherism, very lukewarm and starting to go a bit rubbery. They can't do anything about mass immigration because they believe in unregulated global markets, low wages, high rents and mobile skivvies.
"No talent is so ardently rewarded, nor generously rewarded,
... as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims"
Thomas Sowell
@Flux_40
Interesting claim, but false.
It's the Welfare State, even when funded by Capitalism, that plays a balancing act.
A Welfare State needs X number of tax paying workers to pay for all the "free stuff", and for retirees.
Had my parents been allowed to invest their Socialism Security taxes in a 0% risk whole life insurance policy, they would be receiving at least 50% more...plus, with the added benefit of willing the principle upon passing.
Had they put the money in stock market index fund - 300% more.
“Socialism has a record of failure so blatant
-- that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.”
Thomas Sowell
@Flux_40 You missed the point, sorry.
Without Capitalism, the Welfare State is impossible.
@Flux_40 It's fair that for a reply, a real name is best ;)
"World view" based upon the hard science of Economics, since membership in an Intl Econ Honor Society in 1985.
Cheers.
---
Suggest -
Economics in one lesson
and
New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America
If your child's history book lauds FDR,
fire your school board.
Better yet, vote for anyone that supports School Vouchers.
"Poor Blacks should not have the same choices as rich Whites, like Private School. Choice is bad"
The Democratic Party Platform
A huge fan if Dr sowell
The not afraid to speak the truth intellectual. David Starkey is a man of great courage.
Such truth being spoken. Thank you so much Mr Starkey.
This man is a National Treasure. Imho!
Mr Starkey has burned all the bridges behind him to find himself in a dark an barren no man's land.
@@vgstb I'd rather follow him than you if its all the same! Now pop off back to bot land sweetie! Imho
Spot on Starkey.
Excellent commentary from David Starkey.
Let’s elect the Rt. Honourable David Starkey, son of a char woman and toolmaker, as Prime Minster for Great Britain. Let’s make this country great again.
Dr David Starkey seems to be the only person I have come across so far who speaks about politics in the UK whilst having genuine understanding of how it all works. And why.
Starmer just like Blair is a criminal
But the people voted him in all the same... Just as long as no one complains to me about it in 5 years time. It's what they voted for, and it's what they usually do. They sit there, after voting Labour, complaining about how bad Labour are, for 5 years, and then, come the next election, they vote Labour right back into power again. Why? Because their great grandfather, who died 100 years ago, was a Labour voter. They voted him in to office, so that he could continue crapping all over us. I suspect that this country has just made the biggest mistake it has made since voting Blair in to office.
@@cadderley100well stated From across the Pond !
@@cadderley100me father voted labour, me grandfather voted labour me great grandfather voted bloody labour. Therefore 💁🏼. Am vootin blody labour. A don’t care what appens. Ahh dooont care what them blody policy tings aaahh aaa, am vootin blody labour with ya like it or not..
Eee bah gum.
@@MrPokerblot lol, that's pretty much what it is. The Labour rep could literally be a turd on a plate, and they would still vote for it, because it's a Labour turd on a plate. Then, they'd spend 5 years crying about what a poor job the turd on a plate was doing, and then vote it right back in again. I mean, look at Khan down London. There's a classic turd on a plate. They hate him for things like Ulez. They vocally protest about it every week. What do they do at the Mayoral Election? He's won 3 elections in a row.
Talk about criminals is that troy minsters that give out p.p.e contracts.
I think we should teach Hobbs , locke and Rousseau at school .
And we need to remind our politicians about the social contract.
Agree, with the exception of Rousseau. He was simply a neurotic. And as Dr. Starkey is fond of saying, all bad ideas are French.
Rousseau is an arch heretic and arch subversive.
Social contract is cringe liberalism. Rousseau is awful and the root of almost all our problems today. You need to read more. Even Starkey could tell you that Rousseau is a progressive leftist cringelord.
@Flux_40 No, capitalism doesn't require infinite growth. Neoliberalism does, sure, in order to pay for things it can't afford (like social programs, imperial ambitions and foreign wars), but neoliberalism is corporatist, with fiat currency and a large tax and spend policy with high deficit spending. It's a form of capitalism, sure, but not the totality of capitalism.
I would describe myself as "anti-corporate and pro-small business" rather than capitalist. While technically correct, in that unlike marxists I understand basic things like the utility of money and markets, the word "capitalist" comes with too much ideological baggage, and even some large social programs are acceptable within a homogenous state (or at least, a state with strong borders and no parasites), but they still come with a great many trade-offs, and some (like state pensions) require infinite growth to sustain.
We should be encouraging people to have extended families and community support networks, rather than living isolated and alone living off a substandard pension. We should also not succumb to atomisation and promote community thriving. And the fixing of a laundry list of other issues that liberalism and materialism have created in our lives.
Like a fine wine, he just gets better with age.
100% agree
He's complete shit now, how bad could he have been earlier?
A brilliant analysis David. I agree with every word. If you don't understand the lessons of the past you cannot plan for the future.
We are better than this. Well said Dr S. ❤
If only we could have Mrs.Thatcher back….she would sort this shit out.
David is the best, and I have yet to disagree with anything you say
This was a master class.
Why is Britain being deleted from Wikipedia because it’s “controversial”. I tried to edit Prof Starkey’s Wikipedia description from English historian to British historian. Instead of editing it back and discussing in the comments, the Wikipedia editors blocked me and sent me a message saying Britain is a controversial term😂😂
The real question you should be asking yourself is 'why am I using Wikip_dia?'
Because as of the late 1940s being British became the first "trans" identity. You could become "British" just by gaining a piece of paper through a legal fiction; rather than the fact of being born one.
Davids best ever video
The word for left in Italian is sinister.
It's very gratifying when a genuine public intellectual confirms ones own prejudices.
Did you listen? Do you know the meaning of that word?
@@MrPokerblot eh?
@@MegaHux I was being 'humourous'. I agree with what you say. FWIW I do not hold with the left / right meme. The only difference between Left and Right is when they shoot you. The Fascist Left (e.g. Starmerism) sends along its commissars with their badges and guns and shoot you, take away your stuff and do what they want with it. The Lefty Fascists (e.g. the late lamented Mr Schickelgruber) send along their gauleiters with their badges and guns and tell you exactly what THEY want you to do with YOUR stuff, and if you do not do it they shoot you and take away your stuff and do it anyway.
We are now in the battle between freedom and fascist left slavery. Freedom being the rule of law to which all are subject including the Crown and Government; personal freedom and personal responsibility (that is our lives and liberty); strong property rights (and especially sound money - which is a fundamental property right); the full accountability of all government institutions (the quangocracy has zero democratic, legal and financial accountability) and so on. All of which - as DS asserts - is not at all what Starmer stands for or wants. He is about to inflict massive bureaucratic technocratic managerialism on us. He will imbue those bureaucrats full powers of sanction, with any recourse, on all those new quangos as well as increasing those powers on all existing quangos. We are in for an appalling time.
But, as DS states, it will all go horribly wrong. It's what happens after that that matters.
@@MegaHux Facts? You need to read some history. Either that or learn what a millennium is. Our current system of government has been in place since 1911. Prior to that the Lords held equal legislative power to the Commons, and as a result the establishment were protected from the vagaries of the oiks. If you want to extend it to before then, you can only go as far as 1689 and the Glorious Revolution. Anything in place prior to that was very different to the system we have now.
@@MrPokerblot - you are depriving a village somewhere, of it's idiot. You really are, but I think in truth you know this.
Hey, that was uncalled for...I got 2 B's & a C! Economics / Pure Maths with Stats / English
Professor Starkey just burned me good!! ('Told you I only got a 'C' in English!)
Mr Starkey thank you. You never fail us in reminding us of past political failures and successes. Politicians will ignore what you say at their peril unless they hsve chosen another path.
What about the Kings WEF reset?
Bang on‼️
Absolutely brilliant and my how right he is and so easily we forget.
A brilliant analysis.
Don’t disagree, however, the Conservatives are not “right” - that’s the problem.
They are the political wing of international finance capitalism and haven't conserved anything from 1945.
Starkey is a leftist
@@armstrong698labour or conservatives are not right is what i think he meant.
He said the right. Then he explained how the conservatives were not right.
@Flux_40 completely inaccurate.
Capitalism is an economic and political system where trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit. Its core principles are accumulation, ownership, and profiting from capital.
What an interesting man. He reminds me of Roger Scruton, the same kind of interdisciplinary erudition, althoug more expressive, passionate and vigorous.
But not revolutionary.
Small c conservativeism has completely failed and lost ground every year from 1945.
We need the Right to become revolutionary.
@@bestcomsystems4458 that is possible, I am not so much into western European and UK politics. I am living far away up in the Carpathian mountains. Could you name an example?
@@bestcomsystems4458Sounds like good old party politics without the wit.
@@bestcomsystems4458How did Putin help Leave again?
Have you been reading lying Carole? She was tucked up good and proper by the courts.,
@@bestcomsystems4458 riiight, does that explain why academic institutions are completely dominated by left wing dogma.... because they are evidence based? give me a break
Brilliant. David. Perfectly said.
By uderstanding the lessons of history the way ahead is clearly defined. Mr Starkey as always is happy to iluminate the way. !!!
“Socialism has a record of failure so blatant
-- that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.”
Thomas Sowell, Economist
Bang on, Starkey! 👍🥳
Very interesting article 👍 👏 👌
Great Stuff !!!! Go DAVID go !!!
The Overton Window has been applied to the Conservative Party, itself - it currently represents Lab/Liberalism and has abandoned it's core values.. As anticipated, a SUPERB Public Address from a National Treasure. 👌✨
Starkey is a marvel..if one reads just a little into previous politics.. no matter your persuasion..he is absolutely correct
Would love to see this guy challenge Starmer at prime ministers questions !
Starmer would never agree to meet him for a debate
I agree with much of what Dr. Starkey says here. However, I do think Thatcher went too far in bashing the unions as harshly as she did. Much of the North of England suffered awfully and it still has not recovered, socially, culturally or economically.
However, he is absolutely right on his other points. I NO LONGER TRUST POLITICIANS. I no longer believe they share my values. I no longer trust them to fulfill the promises they have made.That surely speaks volumes.
Where do you think the north of england would be now with labour net zero nonsense...all.mines wojld be closed effective immediately
She went too far on censorship aswell as being heavily backed mega wealthy corporations. Ignoring the wishes of the smaller businesses & ordinary folk in the process. Something the last government took to the extreme
Good one Starkey 👍
A passionate and exactly to the point speech. The Conservatives were not conservative and they have much to be ashamed of as a result. We are now left with a socialist government which bizarrely overlaps much of what the previous administration espoused.
How can they be socialist being backed or influenced by mega billion dollar corporations?! As every party is. Blair numbered some of the wealthiest people here amongst his closest friends
Thank you
What will it take to wake people up? Like Mr. Orwell said, unfortunately, a government boot on one's face.
Our greatest thinker. A masterpiece of truth.
Starmers dad was definitely a toolmaker😡🇬🇧
Great video
I like to hear him and goerge galloway debating instead hearing one side .
Galloway would never engage with thay at all
I agree, Britain did invent modernity. I don’t know why the liberal British government wants to adopt our American institutions, what works for us Americans doesn’t automatically work for Britain. We started out with a written constitution, and adjusted it as we went along. Britain is different.
We did nothing and we do not have a plan.
You cannot argue rationally against a written constitution. That is the protection of the people. In the context of a constitutional court.
A non politicised civil service is our great strength - or should be.
You need to remember the "Conservative" party carried on where Blair left off. The party itself is on it's way out, it's beyond help at this point. Unless you want to move the "right" massively to the "left", they aren't fit for purpose.
The Torys look on our ancestral homeland as just an economic zone open to the World in the interests of international finance capitalism.
Possibly. But the British are still fundamentally 'conservative'. From memory it is a fact that without the Scottish Labour MP's there would never have been a Labour government in the UK.
@stevef01 some British, but not a single party is. If the Conservative party isn't vaguely conservative then who exactly are people supposed to vote for? I also think you're overstating the Conservativism in the uk, there's plenty of old people that are, but they are currently on their way out. The people who will be voting and running the government are all indoctrinated in school and aren't slightly conservative. They are the products of Tony Blair's Britain.
They never understood blairism. For some reason they thought it was being liberal and homosexual, when actually it was about pretending to be conservative to get the population to go to sleep, and then ruling with an autocratic iron fist.
@@stevef01 Not true.
Why don't you check it before posting ??
Blair's majorities were larger than twice the total number of all Scottish MPs (all parties combined).
Blair 1997 majority 176 seats; Scottish Commons seats, all parties 72; Scottish Labour 56
Take away all Scottish seats - no problem for Tony Blair.
Or, even assuming all of Scotland is there but would vote Tory (total nonsense of course) it would've still been a Commons majority for Labour.
2001 and 2005 essentially the same.
It was constituted that all Englishmen have the Right to take part in our legislative process. The Lords sit and give their vote on legislation in person, while because of our great number, again it was constituted, that we (the commonalty) elect like minded representatives from amongst ourselves to sit in the House of Commons in our place.
That is the correct way to view our form of government and our relationship to it.
It was never constituted that we are to be subject to the arbitrary Will of political parties!
This is a grotesque subversion of our Constitution and a vicious attack on our birthright.
That is our problem to correct.
Lord Chief Justice John Holt explains with perfect clarity, and why it is so.
"It is very well known that always the Commons of England had, and still have, so considerable share in the property of the nation, that from thence, in this well-balanced Government, they become justly entitled to an equal share in the legislature of this Kingdom, without whose consent no tax can be imposed nor law enacted, but because of the immense number of individuals which constitute that vast body, it was impossible to have it executed by them in person, it was therefore so established in the original constitution that a convenient and proportionable number from amongst themselves should by them be chosen and invested with a plenary authority to deliberate, advise, and determine, for themselves and those who sent them.” - Lord Chief Justice Holt, Ashby v White & Others (1703)
This is very interesting. Thank you. I don't ordinarily make a note of comments, but I have done so in your case. A rare and beautiful moment!
As I understand it, the "party" system was embryonic in 1703 (the date of Holt LCJ's decision). The Whigs and the Tories were only beginning to emerge. So, yes, presumably "parties" are, in substantive terms, a more modern feature. They were not how things worked before this time, dating all the way back to the thirteenth century (I seem to recall that Starkey mentions a hypothetical Yorkshireman of this period who refuses to pay his taxes but is obliged to do so by the courts because he is duly (i.e. personally) "represented" in Parliament). Indeed, the Whig politician Robert Walpole is regarded as Great Britain's first Prime Minister, and he served as such from 1721 to 1742. Of course, there was no "Great Britain" until the Act of Union which, from memory, dates from around 1707, a few years after Holt's decision. I don't think there was anyone who could be described as a "Prime Minister" before Walpole.
@@christophereverest4547 The thing is, I've never taken an interest in our Constitution or Law until fairly recently and as such am still trying to piece it all together in my head. It dawned on me one day that today, whoever has control of the creation of legislation can pretty much do what the hell they like. But surely that can't be correct if it is true when they say that we are governed by consent? That has taken me down a bit of a rabbit hole where now I believe I have a pretty good understanding of the principles that define our Constitution, and why they exist. You don't get this from moderns books thought. You have to go back in time and to the authorities on these subjects who would know more about it than anyone else.
What is said in that piece that I quoted pretty much sums up the whole thing. To remain a people free from tyranny and oppression we ourselves must make and obey laws that we consent to. Any law enacted without our consent is not law. The authorities of old were adamant about this.
That is why David is correct when you stated what he said about being obliged to pay taxes. When we are truly represented those taxes would have been agreed to as necessary by those 'like minded' individuals that we sent to Parliament on our behalf. It would have the 'common assent of the realm'.
At present this is not the case. Taxes are raised to fund projects that we have no say in, and in most cases would disagree with.
Anyone who believes the subversive lie that we don't have a constitution should look up the definition of that word; and also ask themselves why in the nineteenth century, if we don't have one, were the charges brought against the men found guilty, hanged and beheaded in the Cato Street Conspiracy; '1. Conspiring to devise plans to subvert the Constitution. 2. Conspiring to levy war, and subvert the Constitution.', etc? :)
I believe that by understanding our Constitution it will give us not only the justification, but all the tools we need to defeat those that use OUR Law to remove our Rights and freedoms.
"The Laws of England are the birthright of the People thereof, ..." [An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown and better securing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject - aka the Act of Settlement (1700)]
@@christophereverest4547 For the sake of clarity I want to point out that I'm a big believer in backing up what I say with verifiable sources.
The quote posted above is from a book entitled 'The Judgements Delivered by The Lord Chief Justice Holt in The Case of Ashby v. White and Others, and in The Case of John Paty and Others (page3).' It is a publication of Holt's own reports of this two case's. As much as I have searched, I cannot find this quote online. Amazon have this book, and the preview contains the introduction, which is quite informative; also explaining that his reports are 'considerably fuller' than that of contemporary reporters.
A standard report contains it written in this form:
'"By the common law of England, every commoner hath a right not be subjected to laws made without their consent; and because it cannot be given by every individual man in person, by reason of number and confusion, therefore that power is lodged in their representatives, elected by them for that purpose, ..." [Ashby v White (1703) 92 ER 126]'
While I agree with the points made I can not in good conscience vote Conservative while they refuse to represent me.
"The thing that created the West is freedom"
Quoted for truth.
The man, the LEGEND
Hear,hear David. The Tories are finished however. The Reform Party may be our last hope.
Reform is merely reheated Thatcherism, very lukewarm and starting to go a bit rubbery. They can't do anything about mass immigration because they believe in unregulated global markets, low wages, high rents and mobile skivvies.
Thatcher was the reason property prices rose was the london Allowance! It started at £2200, ànd it was index linked. As you could not get teachers. Then the landlords got greedy and put up rents THEN property prices rose! One tory mistake after another!
I agree with most of what you say.
"... some of them aren't very good at reading". That's the big problem - most modern politicians are not of the calibre of preceding generations; if it were ever possible to make them attend a lecture, they wouldn't 'get it'.
Dear Dr Starkey, my dad was not a toolmaker! I agree with you that Britain's greatness is its unique system of parliamentary government which represents everybody. I'll not jest with you about the former member for South West Norfolk, but surprisingly, you do omit to mention Churchill's protege and One Nation Tory, the unflappable "Supermac", and his disdain regarding the "Selling off the family silver".
Excellent summary - thank you. May I commend Alexandra Solzhenitsyn's Mathematician friend; Igor Shafarevich's book on the failure of socialism from earliest times to now: The Socialist Phenomenon. It just does not add up. Enjoy
We have moved beyond the old Left v Right paradigm.
@hayleys-w5q Impossible to turn the clock back. He's an old school Thatcherite, -their day is done.
@hayleys-w5q the muslim vote is neither left nor right, and they won't stop winning for your benefit. We need an Anglo-Saxon vote.
@hayleys-w5qThere's no way back to earlier times.The graduate liberal elite have taken over the left and are rubbing the Right's noses in diversity.White collar workers e.g civil servants , led by activists, have moved away from old style small-c Conservativism.The ageing Brits have lost their mojo.
Yes Totally..
One has to choose between corporate anarchy in a globalized World antithetical to internationalism, or civilization.
I know that is a stark statement.
@@Harriet-Jesamine Yeah ,Its the -Or civilization bit that's awkward
I haven't left the Conservative party, they have "left" me.
Patriotic revolution Vote Reform En Masee next time.
Even if we all vote reform, they will never let us win. We can't vote our way out of this.
DS cancelled by the BBC
It is embarrassing that they introduced him as Lord David Frost
An object lesson from Mr Starkey in the Ad Hominem attack
Superb, as always. Many thanks.
Your faith in the multitude calls to mind Aristotle's Politics, book 3, chapter 11. Admittedly, Aristotle was dealing with direct democracy in classical fourth-century BC Athens. However, I dare say the passage in question could apply equally to our representative form of democracy if the latter worked properly and our MPs were truly representative and responsive to our wishes. How do you feel about broadening our democracy to much greater rule by referendum? If one accepts the principle of "the wisdom of the multitude," it seems a logical step. Cut out the "agents" (the MPs) on the most important issues, as occurred with the Brexit vote. Anyhow, this is what Aristotle said:
"The principle that the multitude ought to be in power rather than the few best might seem to be solved and to contain some difficulty and perhaps even truth. For the many, of whom each individual is not a good man, when they meet together may be better than the few good, if regarded not individually but collectively, just as a feast to which many contribute is better than a dinner provided out of a single purse. For each individual among the many has a share of excellence and practical wisdom, and when they meet together, just as they become in a manner one man, who has many feet, and hands, and senses, so too with regard to their character and thought. Hence the many are better judges than a single man of music and poetry; for some understand one part, and some another, and among them they understand the whole."
Of course, multitudes can differ, depending on their composition. We'd probably be okay today if the majority called the shots as we are still in time (but only just). However, imagine what "the multitude" in Britain will be like in, say, ten years time... Total insanity beckons. Just look at the obscenities in the opening ceremony of the Paris Olympics... Is that European "culture"? More like far-left wokish barbarism. Aristotle and his contemporaries would be horrified to see what has become of their games. Although the classical Athenians pre-dated Christ, in his Divine Comedy the late Medieval Florentine poet, Dante (1265-1321), put the pagan philosophers in the first circle of his Inferno for a reason. They were not Christians and therefore were denied the benefit of grace and could never be destined for heaven. Nevertheless, the best of them (such as Plato and Aristotle) anticipated Christianity and were credited for this. Further, it was, of course, the ancient Roman poet Virgil, another brilliant pagan, who led Dante through the Inferno and Purgatory. One of the best Christians, namely Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), managed to accommodate the wisdom of ancient thought (Aristotle in particular, although he also used Plato's theory of ideas/forms as modified and developed by Neoplatonism) with the Christian Tradition. Unsurprisingly, Dante places Thomas in Paradise. This collective wisdom, pagan and Christian, is the true foundation of Europe ("the Central Tradition," as Princeton's Robert George calls it).
The English poet, author and civil servant, Geoffrey Chaucer (c. 1343-1400), spent some time in Italy and may even have met Petrarch (1304-1374) there, the "father of the Italian Renaissance," a Renaissance that gave rise to later geniuses such as Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) and masterpieces such as his painting of "The Last Supper" (now cruelly mocked by the French, along with the Christian faith it depicts). As Chaucer is, in turn, regarded as "the father of English literature" and, indeed, the father of the English language as we know it today, we can see our connection to the Central Tradition (even though the wokerati are hell-bent on cancelling Chaucer!). After all, we were all Catholics back then and had been so since the first millennium. As you mentioned, the English (and then the British) went on to create "modernity." This is our great contribution to the Tradition and it's worth protecting and preserving. We desperately need genuine conservatives who are willing to do this. It's also worth remembering what Nevile Gwynne said in his excellent little book on English grammar:
"Those who speak English today have the prodigious good fortune to have inherited from our ancestors a language which has two really spectacular features. One is that it is the most widely spoken language there has ever been. The other is that during the last four centuries, it has been, together with classical Greek and Latin, one of the three great vehicles of thought, communication, science and culture of all time."
We should be very proud of this.
I don't think it is smart to take sides between left and right - the tension between them (left wanting change, right wanting to conserve) is extremely valuable to our society.
Labour Has Been What You Rightly Described It As. My Only Point That Might Contradict You? Is That I Believe That This Began With That Twice Deputy EU Commission President, Aka As Neil Kinnock And The Once EU Commission President, Aka Peter Mandelson…Who Were Both The REAL Architects Of “New Labour”, Either Side Of The Year 1990…
…It Was Kinnock Who Brought In Tony Blair, Gordon Brown And Probably Alastair Campbell Too? And If It Weren’t For Kinnock They Probably Wouldn’t Have Been Around To Achieve What They Did In 1995 And 1997 Either?
Both Kinnock And Mandelson Did This By Turning The Labour Party In Around 1990, From A Patriotic British Socialist Working-Class Political Party, FOR The British Working-Class, Which Was Traditionally Both Anti-EEC “Common Market” And Anti-EC After That…
…Into A Post-British “Champagne Socialist”, Middle-Class Professional “Anywhere” Political Party, FOR The Middle-Class “Anywheres”…
…And Kinnock And Mandelson Both Did This, By Simply Flicking The Switch By Turning The Labour Party From Being Traditionally Anti-EEC/EC…Into A Pro-EU Political Party Instead. Instantly Turning Labour From A Patriotic Working-Class Party…
…Into A Post-British, Post-Socialist And Even Post-Working-Class Party Too. Into The Middle-Class “Anywhere”, Now Also Woke-Left And Global Corporate Marxist, Post-Democratic Abomination That It Is Today.
Which Also Had Unexpected Repercussions Within The Rest Of The UK Too? Because No Sooner Did Labour Go From Being Anti-European Community In Around 1990, Into Being Pro-European Union…
…But Also SNP, Plaid Cymru, SDLP And After The GFPA Years Later, Even Sinn Fein Changed From Being Traditionally Anti-EEC/EC? Into Becoming Pro-EU Too…
…What Labour Did, Didn’t Just Affect Their Party, In Also Affected (INFECTED!) The Rest Of The UK Political Parties Too…That’s Why Both The UK And UK Wide Politics, Has Gone Downhill Since 1990 And The Fall Of Thatcher.
Kinnock is another odious champagne socialist
Dead rite if the government decide to do something they shouldn't be held back by any courts lords or protests but I do agree with referendums for the big issues like now with the imagination
🎯 Key points for quick navigation:
00:00:16 *🏭 David Starkey highlights his humble beginnings to connect with his audience, emphasizing his working-class background.*
00:49 *🏫 Starkey criticizes Keir Starmer's intellectual capabilities and suggests that cleverness and wit are effective strategies against him.*
01:56 *🌳 References the ideological shift within the Conservative Party during the 1970s as a pivotal moment that led to Margaret Thatcher's leadership.*
02:48 *📘 Emphasizes the influence of Friedrich Hayek on Thatcher, framing socialism as destructive to freedom and prosperity.*
03:54 *🛠️ Argues that true conservative governance requires undoing previous legislation, particularly that which expands the state's role.*
04:51 *🧭 Starkey asserts that historical evidence shows right-wing policies succeed while leftist policies fail.*
06:36 *🏳️ Criticizes recent Conservative leaders for adopting progressive policies, such as gay marriage and net-zero commitments.*
07:44 *🏛️ Highlights the historical importance of Parliament representing the people, warning against removing Parliament's central role.*
09:05 *🎯 Discusses the disconnection of government functions from democratic scrutiny, like the Bank of England setting interest rates independently.*
10:27 *⚖️ Calls for the repeal of laws from the New Labour era, arguing they undermine traditional British values of parliamentary sovereignty and individual rights.*
11:46 *🌍 Claims that centrism in politics fails because it masks left-wing policies with right-wing rhetoric for electoral success.*
13:07 *🛡️ Describes the Labour Party as representing a new ruling class rather than traditional working-class values.*
14:30 *🚧 Acknowledges the limitations of Thatcher's reforms, particularly in addressing state institutions like the NHS and universities.*
16:06 *📜 Emphasizes the need for a Conservative revival that respects the historical and social fabric of Britain, avoiding radical right-wing shifts.*
Made with HARPA AI
"Criticizes recent Conservative leaders for adopting progressive policies, such as gay marriage and net-zero commitments." AI Needs better training. His point wasn't criticising the legislation, but that politicians were using said legislation to toot their own horns and say how good they were.
The left needs to be educated,
Without socialism there would be no libraries keeping our history for David to search.
Andrew Carnegie was not a socialist.
Civil Servants will never allow needed repeals & reversals of Labour Blair/Brown /new Starmer? legislation in the future is Tories get back in
Did Starmer have to lick the road clean with is tongue?
What is proper is the people first, not there mates or money or careers.
I refer to Socialism as an Anti Social Disease.
Thank yo ladies and gentlemen. I am sorry but I am not allowed to say anything. But I'm working class and middle aged. Labour???? Sorry that's it
God bless
I think it was because in Modern times people still held Enlightenment values. In that, people could engage in meaningful conversation. Nowadays, people have gone Postmodern which is anti-Enlightenment. Having one side debate using reason, logic and rational thought against another side which is irrational but values power dynamics and will use any method to attain the power is a recipe for disaster. I see it is true that the Left is wrong and the Right is right. Cannot be overly conservative in a time full of hyper-progressivism.
Lord David Frost?!
Fair enough. Except they still did not 'get it'.
*Sir Keith Joseph was Jewish.*