Eiu: 'medium Risk'of Social Unrest In Britain In 2014

[Kromovaracun]

So the Economist Intelligence Unit has attempted to categorise countries according to how likely it is that social unrest will break out:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/theworldin2014/2013/12/social-unrest-2014#comments

Britain is the 'Medium' category - along with France, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Belgium.

Obviously this is pretty superficial research and doesn't actually mean very much, but just for funsies - do you think it should be higher/lower or is it right as is?

[emmie]

from the link

this is already here, the importation of more people will only add fuel to the fire.

"wide income-inequality, poor government, low levels of social provision, ethnic tensions and a history of unrest. Of particular importance in sparking unrest in recent times appears to have been an erosion of trust in governments and institutions: a crisis of democracy."

[Kromovaracun]

Yes I was thinking that, emmie... Britain actually meets a lot of the 'prereqs' that are named.

[anotheoldgit]

If unrest does breakout it won't be the easy going, tolerant Englishman, who carries it out.

[emmie]

that link was referring to the US, i see us going the same way. Sorry to say i see divisions that i would not have thought possible just a few short years ago. I do think that one day we will have a civil war, i said so years ago and i haven't changed my mind since then. Some see our essentially for what it's worth Britishness, going the way of the do do. That with so many people's from so many countries who have no ties to us do not share our ways, ideals, fundamental beliefs, culturally and religiously. we have been a Christian country by and large and that is most definitely changing. We may become more secular, however a large and getting larger Muslim population could well change all that.

[ludwig]

// If unrest does breakout it won't be the easy going, tolerant Englishman, who carries it out. //

Too right AOG. It'll be more likely someone like you that starts it.

I think medium is about right.

[youngmafbog]

For 2014, medium probably about right. Unless things, especially immigration, change drastically over the next few years I could easily see the UK (-Scotland) heading towards civil unrest and yes emmie, I agree, it could end up with civil war.

I suspect the same will be in many of the other EU countries such as France, Germany Belgium etc. We are already seeing a surge towards the far right in many EU countries. Not good, not good at all.

[Zacs-Master]

I'm happy to be grouped with Belgium and have cancelled my holidays to Greece in favour of Austria.

[Kromovaracun]

Out of interest, how do YMB/emmie/anybody else envision a civil war happening? The UK is certainly divided - like anywhere else - but the divisions don't follow territory or institutions too closely, they're mostly within one culture.

I can imagine us having something more along the lines of the 'culture wars' America has been experiencing for the past 20-25 years, but that's a rather different beast.

[youngmafbog]

Well it's where it began last time Zac so maybe a good choice or not!

[youngmafbog]

Krom, can't speak for otehrs but my main concern is that ugly beast Religion will be behind it. We are already 'at war' with certain fundamentalists if the far right (or left even) get a hold and take a stance you get civil war. By civil war I dont mean Cromwell all over again, more a fight for power and total submission of the other side.

[jno]

the UK doesn't have "poor government". Places like Zimbabwe, North Korea and Laos do. Not even Cameron and Clegg belong in that company.

[dave50]

Yes it will due to the large influx of foreigners and the blame for any unrest will be due to the last Labour government, it will be their fault.

[Kromovaracun]

"he UK doesn't have "poor government". Places like Zimbabwe, North Korea and Laos do"

See, I understand this argument - and it's true, our government isn't that bad compared to these places.

But I don't find it all that reassuring that the best we can say about our government is that it isn't actively trying to destroy us.

[youngmafbog]

Dave, much as I would like to blame the last Government, and it is true they started the decline, this current Government has not done anything to improve the situation either.

This implies all three main parties are in it together, which is where extremist parties step in to fill the gap. Just like Adolf did, with disastrous consequences.

[jno]

well, put it this way, Kromovaracun... how many governments can you think of that are better than ours?

The USA's, periodically brought to a halt by disaffected Republicans? The Australians, with their coups and counter-coups and all-out sledging in parliament? Both are on the low-risk list.

I don't think highly of the coalition's policies or their competence, but that's a long way from the sort of "poor government" envisaged. The worst I can say of them is that they need to tackle youth unemployment, which does seem to be a big factor in unrest anywhere.

[Kromovaracun]

Actually, I quite like the American system. I realise that may not be fashionable given that it's been shut down twice, but I like the level of devolution to local/state-level governance, and I think that on the rare occasions that they make new laws, they tend to make better and slightly more considered laws than we do. It doesn't top the list as my favourite though.

I think France has a much better way of selecting leaders - the AV system followed by another round between the two highest candidates. I think this system is much more sensible than our rather antiquated system where a government can be (and for the last 30/40 years, has typically been) elected on 45% of the electorate. I also much prefer the German executive structure - where the President acts as a head of state that rarely intervenes but at least has the legitimacy to do so when he does. If our monarch publicly intervened in our system, it would cause a constitutional crisis.

Furthermore, the infernal cabinet tradition of 'collective responsibility' (and the more idiotic sections of the public) essentially prevent any cabinet member from offering a reasoned critique or any semblance of disagreement or nuance in policymaking. They all have to churn out the same soundbites in favour and just ignore any kind of questioning or scrutiny.

Our voting system is antiquated and our democratic institutions poisoned by the fact that the two major parties are *exactly the same.* They are for the most part absolutely indistinguishable. I will not be voting in the next election because in all honesty I have no faith whatsoever in the system my vote is going to - I don't believe that as it stands it has any real capacity to change the country for the better and I will not walk into the polling station and dance just because it expects me to.

So no, I'm not willing to show gratitude to our synthetic, unprincipled class of parasites in parliament purely because they have not tried to kill me.

[jno]

a big question... I would have said the country changed sharply for the better under Attlee after 1945; others would say it did so in 1979. Either way, it requires a substantial majority, meaning widespread public support, which I think is a decent precondition for big changes. If everyone supports centrist rule (or doesn't vote) then that's what they'll get.

As for the Americans - there's a spectrum between strong executive and weak legislature (us) and the opposite (America to a large degree). Given a straight choice I'd go for the UK system; having government brought to a standstill by factional squabbles is just a mess. Of course, it needn't be a straight choice - there are plenty of other places on the spectrum and there may well be better governments elsewhere that occupy them, though I don't know enough about the world to name them without doing a lot more research.

The French presidency has improved since they shortened the term, but I confess I'd sooner be ruled by Britain's head of state than by any of the recent French ones. But maybe they're just having a bad run.

[Kromovaracun]

"the country changed sharply for the better under Attlee after 1945"

To be clear, I meant that I don't think our system *in the present* (i.e. with the parties as they are) has any real capacity to change the country for the better.

[emmie]

to get back to that point, i think it will be cultural, religion based, most of us are worlds away from those in the Islamic faith, which like it or not is on the rise in Britain, it's been here for a long while i am aware of that, but with more people settling here and in the rest of Europe from these Islamic countries, and those countries fighting amongst themselves over which brand of Islam they wish to adhere to can see that being a problem here. after all how many Jewish people live in Britain and how many Muslims. That could be the spark that sets it off. I have never had a problem ever with Jewish people, they don't shove their culture, religion down one's throat, however the Islamists do - i see it in the capital with ever more Mosques, and centres for Islamic studies springing up. With towns being culturally divided, places like Luton where Asians dominate or at least that is the perception.
And it's not limited to small areas, we may see a handful or more of the fanatics on our streets, people like the objectionable Anjem Choudary and the killers of Lee Rigby, what is to say that culturally and religiously more won't join that cause. We know that the killers of the soldier were converts so how many more...
This may seem like that doomsday we have been promised, who knows, but i don't like the way this is going, nor do i care to constantly see women dressed in Burkha, niqab, veil, thought that we had got past all that nonsense years ago...