/cont

But no more. Trump gave voice to the losers of these systems and road it to victory. Johnson has detached vast swathes of the working class from Labour by giving voice to their concerns. ScoMo likewise here. The Adani workers versus the chardonnay socialists issue in the last election is a small but excellent example of the world-wide phenomena. Labor here and Labour there tried to ride both horses. But its no longer possible to get support from the downtrodden lower classes as well as the urban elite. Adani and anti-coal don't mix.

Trumpism is putting the sword to the old world order. If he gets another 4 years, unencumbered by bogus investigations, he will remake the world and the next two generations. He'll be supported by the rest of the anglosphere.

Yes, an inflexion point

Great question Bren, and I think the answer is a bit fluid. It's true that some nations treat their internal nationalities just as poorly as the Europeans treated Britain in the Brexit negotiations. The Basque Separatists don't fare too well under the Spanish, for example.

At one stage I thought you needed a common language, but a moment's thought indicates that is wrong, including thinking about my country of birth, Canada.

I think the best definition of a nation is a customary one, rather than a strictly legal one, and the nation state is the legal expression of the customary position.

One could argue that nation states involve a common understanding of what it is to be a member of that nation, which is an idea that pluralist Australia has taken to heart. But I'm not sure that is true either.

But however you define it I would contend that those boundaries, often negotiated over centuries, are the best way to govern the people of the world, and that the idea it can be managed on some supranational basis has always been mad.

We might ask what is Australia, but we can quite clearly see that China and India are both not-Australia, as are Saudi Arabia, Papua New Guinea, Venezuela, etc. etc. But supranational government either involves the largest countries winning, if you do it on one person one vote, or the smallest countries, if you do it on the basis of one country one vote. Either way, I'm happy to claim that countries like Australia are run better than just about anywhere else, so we should be left to show the way with best governance and best economic practice. They will be copied and propagate. The alternative is that less than best practice will be imposed from elsewhere.

.

Dear Canem Malum,

.

You wrote :

« In battle it's not your hair cut that wins … »

Quite right, Canem Malum. Boris knew that. That’s why he respected biblical mythology to the letter. His miraculous election obviously marks a revival of divine right of rule in the United Kingdom.

But, as our Aboriginal cineaste compatriot, Warwick Thornton, reminded us just ten years ago now, for every Samson, there is always a Delilah lurking somewhere close by :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXSdOyh1HaM

That said, Australia is not the UK and perhaps Sir Tom Jones’ version is more appropriate in Boris’s aristocratic circles :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPl_GEznKxM

.

Banjo- Touché. I'll need to think about that one.

Dear GrahamY,

You write;

“This UK election was about two things – whether the nation state is the best and primary unit of democratic governance; and welfare capitalism versus retro-socialism, cultural Marxism, and Modern Monetary Theory.”

Well no, it was also about Scottish independence in the face of a Brexitting UK. I did note that you made no mention of the surge in popularity of the SNP going from 35 to 48 seats.

The Scots also made a definite statement about 'whether the nation state is the best and primary unit of democratic governance'. If it is something you applaud then I imagine you will have no issue supporting a second referendum on Scottish independence.

Also Boris and Churchill? Really?

@mhaze

How do ScoMo give workers a voice?