After ten days of news near-blackout in the UK, reality lurched back into view—but not in a familiar way. Instead of moving forward into a new era, there is an ominous sense of retrogression.

In the UK, the 'new Liz' is preaching 'trickle down (supply side) economics'. She takes the stance of a GCSE student trying to make simple sense out of the mystery of money. When in doubt, just give the rich more money to create a bigger economy; everyone will benefit eventually. As if giving the most corpulent person more to eat will eventually satisfy the appetites of the leanest.

Despite the manifest failure of this crude idea over decades Truss' unexpected rise to power has her grasping for what she can to appear bold (the unfortunate challenge for any woman holding high office, even in 2022). In the face of a plunging pound and the howling of the Commons (itself an expression of the U-turn on the economic manifesto that won the 80 seat majority), Truss pushes to prove she can take the 'hard decisions'. How sad to see this newly diverse cabinet, futuristic in that way, be so defined by this 70s vision.

However, this feeling of retrogression is not confined to the UK. Like a series of strange dreams, the 'new era' appearing is of a Europe - Sweden, Denmark, Italy - pulled back to an old political right. While Left v Right can be confusing when calling for an alternative people's politics that brings us together, this wave of advances is clear about its identity as an anti-diversity stance. Fearful rather than supportive of refugees from the crises our economies and geo-politics have caused. And against the influence or protection of our LBGTQ communities.

The formerly disgraced Silvio Berlusconi is back in the frame, alongside new PM Meloni, flirting with a Russian President whose flagging military campaign gestures towards a nuclear option. Even as Putin's own young men flee to the borders to avoid subscription, he pushes for multiple referenda in the captured Ukrainian provinces. A single Yes to annexation would change the status of Americans and Europeans helping Ukraine, to being at war with Russia.

How many people reading this news the world over are aghast at the stupidity reigning here. And at the same time alarmed and grieving for those affected. For the young Russian men it's a brutal shift—from refraining to comment on the war via social media, to having your body dragged onto the front line. Whether you agreed or disagreed with your leader until now, this is an extreme wake-up call for the families of boys.

It's one thing to imagine distant others in the line of fire, another to imagine your own child looking down the barrel of a gun. Especially when ignominy is a much more likely reward than glory in this case. It's not a video game that you can shrug and switch off, whenever you get blasted. Mostly pain and shame beckon.

Of course, there are plenty who might rise to the call just as the Ukrainian soldiers did: anxious to defend their mother country. But for so many young people in particular, this must feel like a call from the past - old ways of settling disputes, way past their efficacy. Surely this form of hard, military power lost its guarantee after Vietnam? When the only super power of the time - the USA - was forced to withdraw with its tail between its legs, from one of the smallest countries in the world? Since then Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria have all proved to be unwinnable wars

So where are we (writers and readers in this space) when we observe this unfolding tragedy? For some, it is only an extension of the other troubles we are witnessing every day—more evidence of our failing socio-economic-political system. The sense of powerlessness only increases with every news item, be it on the epidemic of knife crime , deepening poverty or a collapsing environment.

How do we even relate to those people who seem hell bent on making each situation worse for the majority? The general alienation from the public sphere of power is echoed on the inside - a growing inability to reconcile our own common sense with what we perceive occurring.

But for some (maybe you) it can fall differently. You can intensify your purpose and vision for an alternative deal with the future. Not simply through the agency of a political party, or a set of policies (though both may arise out of this deal) - but by means of a paradigm shift that has us looking at our own everyday actions in a new way. A different and direct relationship between the decisions I take with my mind and body, and my impact upon the future.

Is that truly available to us? When did you last experience such a shift?

It's quite possible that for some people, being immersed in the Royal pageantry last week really brought home how much we have been subject to the idea of a central power at the helm. How we have allowed the transference of our personal effectivity to those who 'traditionally' knew better.

And this central power isn’t about the British Isles but about a post-Empire that reaches, through the English language, far out into the world. Seeing world leaders so readily jet over to take part in The Queen's funeral, making themselves subject to the Church and God's will, suggested that their more worldly status came second.

But what is the nature and character of the Royal office (known as The Firm) as we see them performing their familiar roles of overwhelming power? For the first time, the cameras were let into previously private aspects of the ceremonies, such as the accession ceremony where the King formally succeeds the Queen. It proved to be a drama of leaky pens, short tempers, strange language and awkward allegiances. Seeing all eight of the surviving UK Prime Ministers speak in unison, as they swore to serve the new King, will not be easily forgotten.

Yes, there was a massive call by the mainstream press to honour a fond image of the long serving Queen - whose most remembered act was not announcing a commitment to reparations for former colonies, but eating a marmalade sandwich with Paddington Bear. If nothing else, we proved that the Britons most fond of queuing are also heart-felt and grateful for a symbol of unity.

Yet, what was it they lined up to see after a few minutes glimpse of a closed coffin? Overwhelmingly, a spectacle of men in various forms of uniform, walking in lock step to a brass band. Some wearing bear skins, some sailors bibs, others with lines of medals pinned to their chests for surviving the war. The kind of war that young Russian men would abandon their country to avoid, rather than actively wage today.

Aesthetically, the spectacle was impressive: but it also highlighted a sort of rigidity, a rejection of any natural or fluid movement. Which made it, contra-intuitively, appear very fragile. While human beings can execute complex manoeuvres quite naturally, the army made it look painstakingly difficult to turn a corner together.

Is it possible that after a week like that, rather than feel more loyal and more subject to these centralising powers, greater numbers than before might anticipate, even welcome, some liberation from the past? A readiness to let go of a structure that cannot address the most urgent of issues?

What might those sentiments lead to now? Even republicans might feel a new rush of energy to their previously restricted supply, after Royalty was presented in such an ancient, non-negotiable form.

The alternative to party politics

Might a rise in scepticism about the monarchy simply enliven democracy: prompt people to become more active within the current party political system? Not necessarily. Party membership has been an option for more than a century and has never attracted much more than 2% of the people.

It's more likely that the shift towards new forms of agency in these extreme times will happen informally at first - in conversations, campaigns, initiatives. And then begin to take more formal shape as impact grows. The way, for example, a mutual-aid group that might have started on WhatsApp during Covid, becomes a Community Interest Company (CIC) as it grew in its reach.

Any regular reader of The Alternative Daily blog will know that we have been tracking new forms and practices over the past five years. We have a strong sense of how a new infrastructure for the era of greater individual and community power might emerge.

An education system that would equip people at any stage of life with the tools of self-sovereignty and social agency. Cosmolocal action networks that act as incubators of diverse skills, weaving together plural theories of change, contributing to a flourishing planet.

International networks of neighbourhoods, towns and cities with access to a global commons of ideas, models and prototypes through which to develop. New forms of 4th sector economies that help us shift from free market growth dependent upon extraction from Nature, through to ecocivilisation built on regenerative practice. It’s not the simple one person one vote in five years model for citizens: it's the goal of collective intelligence, happening 24/7/365.

Even so, each person has to find their own way into this new possibility at large. To simply project direct democracy onto the polity would cause as much polarity as it might resolve.

Collective agency is not simply the mediation of accumulated opinions, manifested in constant referenda. Nor would it be enough to be sociocratic - using structured agreement processes - any more than such structured process might work in a family or a neighbourhood today.

However, through the more active engagement of complex citizens, moving into formal and informal relationship, a new socio-political-economic settlement arises. Or, as participants in our CANs say, 'it all changed when we started to talk to each other'.

Alternative Editorial: A New Feel For Power