No it doesn't. I am an atheist and I do not believe the King is ordained by any form of deity. I look past that and support the constitutional monarchy settlement on the grounds of tradition/culture, how it provides constitutional checks and balances, how it can be a unifying figure against the negatives of elected head of state populists etc e.g. president Blair or president Farage. I am not saying this is the setup which I would use for any new countries, but it works at least for us. It also works for many countries in Europe.
You don't have to be religious to recognize that this is the stated reason for which the royal family was given its legitimacy. Obviously that is not the sole reason for its continued existence, but (as an outside observer) all of the rituals and ceremony surrounding the coronation seem to further entrench that idea.
But religion was also the stated reason given for the legitimacy of the US revolution. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..."
The US becoming far more atheist doesn't undermine the legitimacy of the US democracy, even if the original stated basis isn't regarded as valid any longer. The same can be true of the monarchy.
Mind you, I'm not actually a supporter of the monarchy. Where I'm from, we don't bow to monarchs. I'm just saying that this argument against the monarchy does not seem valid to me.
The US Revolution kicked the British government out of the region that would become the United States, but did not itself create the government that the US operates under. That happened 13 years later, when the present secular US Constitution went into effect.
Nuance there is that the legitimacy in the form of line of succession has been governed by law too (and no doubt conquest historically) at least following the glorious revolution of 1688. It has jumped around.
This feels like a partisan hatchet job. There is a balance. Freedom of protest does not give the right to perpetually block roads and motorways putting protestors and others into danger.
This organisation had no issue with governments imposing multi year lockdowns without any form of criticism.
Are you referring to the couple of months in 2020?
Because we didn't really have any sort of lock down in the UK, the Tories just said the police would need to informally enforce a non-rule. The met responded that they were not going to enforce anything that wasn't an actual rule.
There were words said and a couple of high profile incidents which shows how little any sort of lockdown happened. I know I drove around the country still and no one ever asked why, and all my neighbours had garden parties with social gathers still happening.
You broke the law and got away with it. That doesn't mean millions of people weren't having a thoroughly miserable time of it observing the law, and for a lot longer than "a couple of months in 2020".
There was no law preventing people travelling or doing anything.
Boris said "it would be best if you don't" and then held parties. He got away with it because he didn't break any laws.
I had to travel for work, so I didn't even break guidance as in their advice, people who had to travel still could. No one ever checked which is my point.
No, it was law. Immoral law which deserved to be broken, but that is no consolation to the millions who suffered greatly by going along with it.
To hear one of the most shameful periods in our legal history being brushed off as couple of months of half hearted barely observed lockdown is pretty disturbing.
"15 minute cities" -- you mean, walkable, normal cities? Lord have mercy, I have a case of the vapors. What a silly thing to be upset about, and definitely the weirdest manufactured outrage of 2023. I for one hope they force us to walk at least 45 minutes or take a car!
When even comedian Joe Lycett starts complaining about them, you know you've lost the public:
"Joe Lycett and Sophie Duker take on Croydon Council over the Parsons Mead LTN (Low Traffic Neighbourhood) which has left locals racking up hundreds of pounds in fines."
Cities are responsible for directing the flow of traffic. Traffic sucks and cars suck. I really don't see the problem with dissuading their use.
Again, manufactured outrage.
Having everything around you is great, it's why people live in cities. There's no dystopian undertone to having a grocery store and other amenities around the corner and easily accessible, lol. Why would you intentionally want things further away from you?
Absolutely, the idea of having everything within 15 minutes walking distance is great. But actively restricting people's movements in this way is not, at least to me.
Public highways are really the people's property. In a democratic society if the majority of the public dislike the roadblocks, the local government should remove them.
I think it's valid for the public to get upset about attempts by the government to micromanage their lives in this way. Such micromanagement may sound trivial, but the underlying motivation for doing so is not. As it is an attempt to exercise power and control over the population. Often it starts with very trivial matters, and later expands to greater ones, as we have seen over the years.
And it's not just this particular issue, it's many other things which are restricting our freedoms in general, all together. Which are increasing the level of outrage against the state.
That's good because at least the public is pushing back against it. There may be a point where people can't take it anymore and might start protesting en masse.
I'm really waiting for that to happen, we might find ourselves getting our civil liberties back eventually.
If the majority of the public want to drive through towns not built for ever widening roads to accomoadte what the public wants, we should knock down the historic town centres for wide streets for larger traffic jams, remove pedestrian crossings so we don;t slow the crawling traffic, remove bus lanes so we can fill them up with crawling cars close down the railways and force everyone to buy a car
The majority of us don't dislike them. That's a right wing narrative that ties to conspiracy theories. (Speaking as someone who doesn't have a block on my road, but have had to adjust my driving habits when visiting local family).
It's a public safety issue as well, so far 240 ambulances have been delayed due to the blockades. I wonder if a local authority can be successfully prosecuted if a patient were to die as a result of the delay?
Same if someone were to die in a house fire, because the fire brigade could not get there on time? I personally believe that those responsible for implementing this scheme should see time behind bars, possibly for criminal negligence, should that happen.
By the way, in the comments section of that Daily Mail article, the majority of the readers disagree with the blockades. I'm not sure if that's representative of the whole of the general public or not.
Daily Mail readers appear to place the blame on the World Economic Forum as the cause, I'm not sure if that's conspiracy theory terrority or not?
However it's likely to be the work of environmental pressure groups, who generally do not represent the will of the people. They are a minority dictating the rules to the majority.
Note Google search is biased heavily in favor of these schemes, I had to use Bing to get any results that were against them.
No conspiracy here, just people in power trying to increase their control over people's lives, as usual. It's a distributed phenomenon that arises from human nature.
" Pundits continue to sneer, dismissing critics of 15 minute cities (a critique, as the great Simon Cooke points out, that it’s perfectly reasonable to make) as “conspiracy theorists”. "
"In this explanation we begin to see just how authoritarian the urban green agenda has become - not a surprise given that Moreno is an advocate of ‘smart cities’ and literally profits from authoritarian smart city technology:"
Yes, polling indicates the majority would like to live in a 15 minute city, however that poll does not mention restricting vehicles. And of course I agree with it personally, minus the roadblocks.
People are not opposed to the concept, they are opposed to the vehicle restrictions, and the latter is what's riling up conspiracy theorists.
> Yes, polling indicates the majority would like to live in a 15 minute city, however that poll does not mention restricting vehicles.
So what? That's what cities do. They balance needs.
They weren't told that it would expand the quantity, scope or role vehicles either, so there's nothing deceptive here.
They're selling the vision, people like the vision, so they'll execute on it assuming conspiratorial nuts don't get in the way :)
The future doesn't need to involve having exactly the same role and scope for personal-use vehicles. Change is okay! We've way over-indexed towards the needs of cars and under-indexed on the needs of human beings. It's time to revisit that contract. And look, if people don't like it, the roadblocks can come down after we give it the ol' college try. Remember the status quo is the result of arbitrary decisions and compromise, it doesn't represent a local or global optima.
Why don't you consider an alternate option - allow people to stay in a 15-minute city if they want and walk to shops etc as they desire but allow others to take a vehicle and go elsewhere if they want?
The problem only arises if you remove that option or if you penalise that action in some way.
People are still free to drive to other areas, just not on all roads.
You could just as well be saying "why not let people drive drunk and at 100mph on residential roads, and let others can choose not to?"
Sure we could say that... or we could say it's legal to drive your car onto historically pedestrian-only paths.
But we elect people to try to make decisions that benefit the most people as best as possible, and it turns out that most people don't think that "any road that currently allows cars must always allow cars" is an inalienable rule that must be followed.
Yes we should debate these things - I assume very few people would support removing all speed limits or lowering speed limits to 2mph on all roads, though there's bound to be some variance in views about what goes too far or not enough.
But in this topic of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, you've got one side saying "wouldn't it be nice if residential side roads stopped being hugely used (thanks to GPS routing apps) by through-traffic, and therefore made much better for the people living there, and for pedestrians and cyclists" while the other side instead of engaging on that actual debate instead jumps to "they want to lock us into 15min areas we won't ever be allowed to leave! It's climate fascism!"
Your comparison makes no sense. A person is banned from driving drunk because it can result in people getting killed.
There is nothing preventing 15-minute cities from having both pedestrian walkways as well as roads.. as most cities ALREADY do.
And oh, by the way, even a 15-minute city will have to make space for roads for vehicles. When you change houses, you aren't carrying your furniture on foot between houses, are you? or for that matter, when you call emergency (911), the cops and emergency workers are not arriving by foot. Or when you make a house, the construction equipment, material etc are not being carried in by foot either. Also, the shops in your neighbourhood are not been replenished by suppliers carrying in products on their back.
So this idea that you can suddenly replace all roads with pedestrian paths is just completely unworkable.
Please find one example of roads being replaced by pedestrian paths? LTNs put a block at one point in the road, so people who live there can drive from whichever side of the block they live on if they're moving house (or even if they want to use their car for any reason!) They're Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, not Zero traffic.
The block is to prevent people using the small residential street as a through-path for motorists from other areas, not to prevent any vehicle from ever using the roads.
Because you know it doesn't work already - if you live in a city that is trying this.
And because you know the reality is no new stores/shops etc are being "created" to facilitate any such goal. The reality is people simply order everything on Amazon instead.
Perhaps you can point to how these schemes are funding shops?
20 years ago when I moved to London, this was called "blocking off rat-runs" and had widespread support from most local residents.
The article mentions Hammersmith and Fulham. That has plenty of these roadblocks dating from around that time. I'm not sure if it was a Labour or Conservative initiative, but the Conservatives certainly had plenty of time to remove them.
The roadblocks in the 15 minute cities have been imposed to control the residents, to reduce their freedom and autonomy, to satisfy environmental goals. That is the difference.
Instead of being a left vs. right issue, instead I think it's an authoritarian vs. libertarian issue. On one side we have those advocating for more state control, in the name of the greater good. And on the other side we have those for personal freedom.
The effect on local residents is pretty much the same: on those roads in Fulham they have had to drive the long way around for decades, but can walk or cycle on a direct route.
I can just as easily argue that the blocks increase freedom and autonomy (especially of children and elderly) since they can now use their local roads safely and/or independently.
Whatever binary classification you choose, I don't want to shape a debate around it. It is too simple. Great for bad headlines, +1s on Facebook and so on, but detrimental to public discourse and society.
why was one situation for the benefit of the residents and the other for control of the residents? It seems you're putting your own spin on things here. Both were enacted by councils which are elected by the people.
There are increasing feelings of alienation from elected officials across the west, I imagine you somehow feel that whoever did this doesn't represent the people. Maybe thats what you should be adressing. It's not some election stealing or whatever, its just bubbles between political class and everyone else, we need good communication imo. Some way for elected officials to have to spend time in their communities
I most certainly have the right to put my "own spin" on it, because I am expressing my personal opinions and values here. My own personal interpretation of the situation, which most of us here are also doing too.
And I do feel that the actions of authorities here might not represent the values of the people. That it's a typical power grab by authorities, in many cases those "small minded" bureaucrats who micromanage and want to police the minutiae of daily lives. Not that different to the "bin police" here in the UK who hand out fines and warnings for not recycling.
That's making people angry. And conspiracy theorists are latching on to it too. But ordinary people are right to be upset about it.
With the "15 minute city" roadblocks and the "bin police" the overall benefit to the community from the measures is far outweighed by the inconvenience and control. In particular the feeling that you are being "ordered about" by the local government. It's micromanagement, and almost a form of bullying.
Yes, the alienation we are feeling is because the government is implementing the agenda of activist pressure groups and prioritizing that over the people's will.
Those pressure groups having minority opinions. And we are seeing that play out in multiple areas of society, including the restriction of freedom of speech here in the UK in order to prevent offense to minorities, such as transgender or LGBT people. Something the general public strongly opposes.
we live in a democracy. Authorities serve us. We shouldn't be rolling our eyes and saying "oh I guess that's just what they do". Imo that kind of cynicism's going to lead to our society crumbling - it's the reason democracy falls in undeveloped countries, because everyone assumes the elites are just corrupt to the core and so dont engage. Personally I don't think it's a "power grab" or whatever, the person who did it won't be serving after their term is done anyway.
I find it unusual to even frame it in that regard - if you talk to politicians, they aren't out for themselves, they're trying to make everyone's lives better. They might have a different idea of how to do it, because their experience doesn't match most people's, and endless lobbying organisations try to target them with information to influence what they think needs solving.
However, I suggest you try to find statistics about what the public believes, as well as read the actual text of laws and find out about how they are actually enforced. Because there is a lot of misinformation about the government targeted to people you (and separately to people like me)
A lot of said misinformation paints the government in a caricatured light, as though they believe everything you stand against. The government of the UK has been Conservative for many years, and I find it hard to believe they would restrict free speech for the benefit of LGBT people.
How do walkable cities lead to roadblocks? Aren't they completely separate issues, especially considering you literally admit the reason for roadblocks is reducing pollution?
Car ownership = freedom is the real conspiracy, talking about controlling people, you have millions locked up in little mobile prisons getting to and from work.
1Password is E2E encrypted no with decryption/encryption happening only at the edge? If the cloud storage is compromised, that doesn't mean the attacker can read the passwords?
It's a march of small concessions and after 5 years of marching you find yourself very far away from where you thought you were. "We only collect things that don't matter to you, trust us."
That means that that shareholders can make the company choose things that benefit shareholders at the cost of customers. Taking investment is a fundamental change in trust architecture.
I no longer believed that 1password is aligned with me, and alignment is a constant force always acting. Removing local vaults was proof of lack of alignment. Removing local vaults was proof that 1Password will choose money over security. Removing local vaults was proof that that appearing worthy of trust is a lower priority than coercing people into their cloud.
No but it means a fake 1P login page can be served and that will result in some non-zero number of people who didn't have a choice on a local sync having their credentials compromised. I am a huge 1P and I think their whitepapers show off their top-tier talent in the crypto space but killing local sync was a very crummy decision.
AFAIK Modern Android (>= 8.0) reserves the right to kill your app when running in the background unless there's a foreground toast bound (even then, can still be killed in low memory situations). How does this solution work around that? Is there a need to opt into the legacy "battery saver disabled" mode for the app which more closely mirrors <= 7.0 execution model?
Most distributors both show a foreground notification at all times and require exempting them from battery optimization. Because of its efficient design, something like ntfy only uses a few percent of battery per day [1].
System-level integration into Android ROMs would eliminate the need for those things.
I haven't seen any complaints, but folks who set this up are usually used to having persistent notifications (I currently have 6) without Google services.
At least I replaced the one from my Matrix client with the UnifiedPush-enabled ntfy. Hopefully it'll replace Signal too at some point. KDE Connect? Why not. K-9 mail? I hope, but that would require JMAP or IMAP adjustments.
One option would be to install the distributor as a system app.
Is another low tech way simply print screening the redacted image + cropping? Naturally you will lose resolution if the OS/app is downsampling the image to render but could be good enough and a good hedge against the image format somehow encoding history. AFAIK, some law firms still redact, print, scan for this reason.
UK is NOT trying to emulate North Korea. This is a bad faith statement. Those countries (USA, China, Singapore) you mentioned are not in the EU Common Travel Area either.
Folks have touched upon this already but a real issue is the chattering classes can simply not get over Brexit. Everything is seen through the prism of either supporting remain or leave. Throw in some confirmation bias. The Economist is particularly guilty here. I don't follow this relish in talking your country down and having such click bait doomer titles - "Britain's demise". Such a bore.
I am not super optimistic in the short/medium term (5+ years) at least. There are clear structural headwinds which anyone would be foolish to deny. This doesn't mean the country is ending. The country will still remain a fantastic place to live in the grand scheme of things. Once inflation settles down, a lot of the current issues will settle down (strikes et al). The inflation while exasperated no doubt by Brexit is primarily caused by energy crisis + lockdowns.
On tribalism, it is tricky. Most of the discourse I find in the Anglosphere is similarly negative and tribalistic. Cutting down on news overall is a good tactic I won't lie + reading comments sections (HN is my vice, clearly). I stay away from Guardian and the Mail who love to wind up their audience.
On thriving outside of the UK, the UK needs to forge strong trade deals and have a visa system which supports skilled immigration (they are making good progress here). More funding/support in place for commercialising the great innovations happening in many of the UK universities (a significant advantage). More competitive taxation rates. Unfortunately, Truss totally messed this up which means we are probably saddled with high taxation without corresponding supply side reforms for a good period.
Domestically, the NHS needs to be reformed and a system found on the continent followed (note: not the awful US model).
