GT

I don’t like this sort of politics. Societies are made up of individuals with different backgrounds, opinions, economic interests and moral and philosophical positions. The primary job of politicians in my view is to at least try to navigate these differences (guided of course by their own hopefully well-thought out political philosophy) with the aim of building a stable consensus - a necessary foundation for a well-functioning and prosperous society. That’s very hard of course, but it should be the desired destination. Nobody gets everything they want in a democracy, because a free society is a collection of individuals who hold different views, but also nobody should feel absolutely defeated. This is not compromise in a wish-washy sense of the word - it’s the very essence of and indeed the guarantor of our freedom as individuals. As Feynman memorably said, democracy is based, like science, on a satisfactory philosophy of ignorance; running societies is very hard, and nobody really knows how to do it, so we regularly change direction whilst building on the achievements of the past. Understanding this requires humility, and the instinct to unify rather than to divide. Seeking division therefore runs counter to everyone’s interests because it undermines a key idea underpinning democracy itself - the idea that individuals have legitimately differing views. To Mr Sunak - topically - I would say read some post-war Oppenheimer. He was aiming to persuade national leaders not to do what this article says you want to do, because in the context of countries with atom bombs, that would be literally playing with fire.