It’s unsurprising that she’s aware of this.
Britain has a tradition of democracy, and Britons shunning elections are not, typically, making a stance against that.
Arguments for interfering further, or differently, with the pie, therefore, should be based primarily on need rather than on redistribution.
It’s possible to accept all the arguments suggesting that it’s sensible for us to do so – but still feel morally queasy.
When was the last time you answered your landline? Actually, when was the last time you talked to anyone on the phone at all – out of preference?
We spend so much time arguing about what it ought or ought not to do that we seldom consider its fundamental nature.
Watch what he says, and what he does – not what we think he means, represents, or how he comes across.
As any crossword fan knows, that letter (or, ok, more usually her full monogram) represents the Queen. Here’s why it seems a topical signifier.
Only in a place or time where you hadn’t witnessed the effects on people of a lack of choice might you be willing to countenance it yourself.
This week, a stone bearing his name will be added to Westminster Abbey’s Poet’s Corner.
Perhaps the 60 million Americans who backed him simply thought other factors were more important. But is that judgement bigoted in itself?
Its winner may well face Marine Le Pen in next year’s presidential showdown
It’s easy, even comforting, to stick a simple narrative onto the election result. But it would be a mistake.