  Such a style of thought emphasises the importance of combining a wide range of principles, and of remembering that principles, however numerous, are only one element in a satisfactory conduct of practice. There can be no doubt that analysis was involved in Burke's proceedings: “let this position be analysed,” he instructed the House of Commons critically in 1794, “for analysis is the deadly enemy of all declamation.” [10]  Though Burke could certainly conduct effective analyses of ideas and words even after more than twenty years at Westminster, as his Letter to Sir Hercules Langrishe (1792) demonstrates, his accent lay more decidedly upon the necessity of connecting ideas with each other, and the inclusion of non-conceptual elements in any treatment of politics that aspired to intellectual and practical validity. There is nothing in a style of doing philosophy that centres upon analysis that is logically inconsistent with these procedures. One temper of mind, however, which sometimes accompanies this manner of philosophising is antipathetic to Burke, whilst there is much in contemporary opinions about politics, including those held by at least some analytical philosophers, that he would have found dangerously naive. Amongst these a belief in a continuing popular sovereignty (the modern term of art for this is ‘democracy’)—rather than parliamentary sovereignty is only the most obvious example. If Burke is unlikely at present to be the darling of some philosophers and of some pundits; still less will he be of those who suppose that in discussing a small number of principles they provide a prescriptive and sufficient guidance for the conduct of policy; and even less of anyone who supposes it logically adequate to claim that ‘one very simple principle’ is ‘entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control’ or any other matter (Mill 1859, ‘Introductory’). The complex character of ideas, their connexions with each other, the need to understand practice in terms of such relations, and to conduct it with attention to habitual linkages amongst people's ideas and activities, suggest a different sort of thinking. So it is not surprising that Burke has been quietly ignored by many recent thinkers, or summarily dismissed from consideration by being labelled as a ‘conservative’—but it is of great interest that he has found many admirers amongst those who succeed in the conduct of practical politics. Whilst Burke would have been the first to point out that his specific conclusions belong to a time and a place, his intellectual style, is one with which any serious thinking about politics, whether reflective or practical, needs to engage.