Returned home today. Strange to think, looking at the crowds of commuters all enjoying a sunny Thursday evening drink outside Liverpool Street, that this may be the coolest day between now and at least mid July.
We had complaints when we were in the high 30s, which London is not designed for, but the forecast over the next 2 weeks of consistent high 20s and dipping into low 30s with no rain for 2 weeks is idyllic.
It was looking that way, but let me reel off the UK maxima from this evening’s 15 day GFS run (actual maxes are usually 1 or 2C above these). Starts quite nice, then just keeps going.
27,30,30,32,32,34,32,33,36,37,35,35,35,37,40,33
The temperatures in France are a whole other ballgame. Not looking forward to being there mid-month. It’s already 32C in the downstairs study according to my weather station.
Come on, you know that accuracy drops off massively after 5 days. That 40 has as much validity as the endless beasts from the east in winter. It may happen, sure, but let’s see.
Yes I know accuracy drips off, but:
- Several models are consistently showing upper 30s in their runs, for days on end. Until a few years ago even an outlier with a 37 or 38 was eye poppingly rare. - It’s almost nailed on that France will get a week or more of Persian Gulf style weather. Possibly much more. Very little uncertainty. Hence why their emergency services are having planning meetings
You know and I know what’s coming. Whether it happens this July, or next month, or in 3 years time, we’re going to get the big one.
I am very uncomfortable with those charts of bright pink day after day across the near continent.
All this moaning about a bit of good weather.
Get some beers in, some sausages, have some barbecues and slip, slop, slap.
Enjoy the summer.
Last week was unbearable. But whether warning levels are set way too law - there was practically no day in winter that there wasn't some warning showing up on my local weather, making the warnings pointless by overuse, and it wasn't because climate shifts (which are real I believe) have made practically every day worth a warning.
It was quite bearable. Only disappointment was it was over too soon. High in the week then cool again for weekend, blah.
Hope the next one lasts longer. Or falls over some time off, even better.
This feels like someone trying to bring their alien culture over here and imposing it on us.
Amid rampant speculation about who will be in Andy Burnham's cabinet, assuming he is unopposed in the Labour leadership contest, the PM-in-waiting was asked if he has decided who his chancellor will be.
He told LBC: "No, I haven't made those decisions and deliberately not.
"I think it's been a little frustrating for me in the last sort of 10 days, two weeks, because kind of Westminster goes into its normal mode and it wants to endlessly speculate about personalities before policy and before direction.
"And I very deliberately have said, no, I'm going to set out a new direction for the country. And I did that on Monday."
Burnham said more broadly that he wants to include all wings of the Labour Party in his cabinet, pointing to his stated ambition to bring a "freshness" to politics.
"What I am putting forward here is a very different approach. When it comes to the political direction, that is not up for negotiation," he said.
"But then to deliver that change, to come back to your question, I want there to be the most inclusive approach to building the team so that all parts of the party, can see themselves represented within it."
Burnham denied that he is "disappointed" by the number of people in the Labour parliamentary party scrambling for jobs in his government, but added that he wants to ensure that people understand his political direction and "consider what their contribution to delivering that new direction for the country might be".
This is slightly disingenuous. Without 'endless speculation about personalities' Burnham would not be an MP, there would not have been a by election, and he would not be PM later this month.
You missed his qualifier : "before policy and before direction." I don't think that 'disingenuous'.
It's a pretty clear message that any potential chancellor not on board with whatever it is that he's trying to do will not be chosen.
Which seems sensible to me, FWIW. No doubt compromises will come later, but if he doesn't get his way at the outset, what's the point of being PM ?
And yet I doubt when inevitably some poor economic news/policy comes out a Burnham No.10 would not reach for the standard tool and leak that it was the nasty chancellor and the PM knew nothing about it.
1346: longbows 1356: rear attack 1415: longbows 1495: plague, a pope, and supply lines 1525: their own stupidity 1672: flood the dykes 1704: two military geniuses 1805: one-eyed genius 1812: a Russian winter 1815: infantry squares and a stiff upper lip 1954: take the high ground
Spain are probably the second best team in the tournament, arguably third behind Argentina. They are, however, one of those teams that never seem to score as many goals as they should. In the brief glory days under Jim McLean Dundee United were like this. They played beautiful football but seemed to be determined to walk the ball into the net and all too often they thrashed their opponents for a slightly nervy 1-0.
I can't help feeling that against the very best teams this weakness may cost them. But Yamal is just a brilliant player to watch.
Yamal at Dundee United. There's a manifesto you could get behind.
Came here 20 years ago from Somalia, did voluntary work, got a degree, worked in the public sector, became a councillor and seems like he’s done a good job.
… in reply to…
Also: the Lord Mayor isn't really 'running' the city, is he? He's a figurehead - he gets to wear the mayoral regalia. He's like a municipal constitutional monarch.
I'm right up the immigration-sceptic end of the spectrum, but I can't get exercised about this at all. He looks to me very much like he's integrating. This is what we want, surely?
Same here
I think it’s nice to see a positive story of Somali migration and integration and actual economic participation for a change
In fact, this post crystallises one of my problems with Reform. I have so many complaints about immigration. The sheer numbers of undesirable immigrants crossing in boats. The criminal elements it introduces. The refusal to deal with the criminal elements robustly. The bending-over-backwards to put the needs and in some cases wants of (some) immigrants before the needs of our own people. The sheer amount of money we’re spending on immigrants (while, simultaneously, and puzzlingly, making it very hard and expensive for immigrants from places like Canada). The sheer squalor of places like Cheetham Hill. The depression of wages. But that very much isn’t to say I have an aversion to all immigrants or all immigration. I recognise the benefits. What I want is for immigrants to buy into Britishness. This is what most of the immigrants I know do. My daughter’s football and cricket clubs are peppered with immigrants and their families. For immigrants – like this guy in Britsol, willing to don silly British clothes – who want to buy into Britishness: this is absolutely brilliant. I love it. It’s not only great for Britain, but great that Britishness is something that people like this want to adopt. I think my views on this are perfectly mainstream.
A perfectly good case could have been made opposing ‘bad’ immigration while welcoming ‘good’. I’d say it would have been popular. Once again, Reform had an electoral open goal which they’ve judiciously aimed a good 45 degrees right of.
I agree, but I think what you miss is that Reform don’t want what we want. We see an integrated immigrant becoming Lord Mayor and think, "great, more of the same please".
For at least part of Reform’s coalition, the objection isn’t just illegal immigration or failed integration. It’s demographic and cultural change itself. From that perspective, Goodwin’s post isn’t a blunder at all. It’s entirely consistent.
To want to nudge the future in a particular direction is politics. To address what has already happened WRT who is lawfully living here by attacking its foundations and opposing assimilation, and wanting to demonise and reverse it is a starting point for the genuine fascist.
Yes, exactly. Opposing future policy is one thing. Looking at someone lawfully here, visibly assimilated, civically engaged, and then objecting anyway is quite another.
At that point the issue clearly isn’t failed integration. It’s that integration has succeeded, and some people still don’t like the result. - If successful assimilation still counts as a problem, then assimilation was never really the test.
Matt Goodwin @GoodwinMJ · Jun 29 A citizenship that belongs to everybody belongs to no one.
If anybody can become British, or English, then Britishness & Englishness no longer exist.
If the only thing that defines a people is that they welcome others then they no longer exist, either.
What an imbecile.
Citizenship does not belong to everybody, it belongs to everybody who has it only. A French citizen living in France is not British.
If anybody living here adopts British citizenship or being English then Britishness and Englishness do not cease to exist, it just has another person who is that. With the rights and responsibilities associated with citizenship.
He's not an imbecile, he's just trying to intellectually dress up a point that he doesn't want certain people to be able to become citizens so it sounds like a grand philosophical stance rather than just that he hates and fears those people.
There's definitely been a shift online in the last 18 months, and not a happy one, from arguments about assimilation and limitations on immigration, towards an argument that even assimilation is not enough, or is impossible, or is undesirable even if it is possible.
There's a market for open racism in this country which is larger than most people would like. It's not the majority like the Lowe's and Goodwins of the world think, but it's probably still a few million, and capable of drawing in even more if disguised.
Though to.an extent, it was always there. Remember Nigel moaning about people having conversations in (gasps) not-English on the train?
There's a case- though one I'd want to interrogate- for"it doesn't matter where people are from, as long as they integrate". The reason to interrogate that is... how and how far? There's a balance between being who you were and becoming who you are. (A bit of expat experience is very salutary for exploring that.)
But if Britishness is really something you'll can't attain for a few generations, even if you play entirely by the rules, then include me out
Well I would have preferred it if the Manchester Arena bomber, for example, had chosen to integrate rather tham rejecting British culture. I like British culture. I don't want it to turn into someghing else. People are welcome to come here if they choose to adopt British culture, but if they would prefer to reject it in favour of their own, I'd rather they didn't come. I don't think this is unreasonable.
British culture? Not definable. People will give different answers as to what it is. We don't want ghetto-isation, we want mixing and matching of different backgrounds and perspectives, I agree with that. But the main obligation IMO - shared by immigrants and non-immigrants alike - is to live within the law. Agitate to change any particular one if you feel strongly about it, sure, but live within it. The Manchester bomber didn't do that. His failure in that regard was abject.
I don't find the point that British culture is not definable to be very persuasive on this issue. No culture is precisely definable as it will inevitably fall back on a level of generic or universal values - family, fairness, whatever - and/or inclusion of certain steretypical cliches - loving cricket and tea or whatever - which are not going to be shared by everyone anyway.
By that logic no country has a culture that is definable. Yet despite that changeability, I'd wager most places still insist that that culture is what is driving their policy attitudes.
So yes, there are dangers to introducing strict definitions of culture which people must meet - which is one reason people get a chuckle out of citizenship tests which existing citizens might struggle with - but many concepts, ideologies, or even the line between acceptable and unacceptable action can be hard to define, and yet they will still be real things.
British values, wokeness, fascism, art, pornography, MAGA, these might struggle to be agreed in all contexts by all people, and they will be prone to being overused and over applied, but they can still exist.
Yes you can have a discussion on what British Culture means. The very fact that it's slippery and everchanging and subjective means that it's great to discuss. Where you run into trouble (imo) is if you start to lay it down as something that people must 'adopt' or 'comply with' etc. That's a road to nowhere good at all.
I don't think it can be applied to rigidly. My joke example of if someone does not like cricket for example. But a general entreaty, even setting an expectation, that people coming from country A to country B, permanently, should seek to engage with and integrate with that culture rather than, perhaps, an expectation for country B to accommodate the language and cultural expectations of country A? More reasonable.
That would not be able to be subject to a strict test which you could then kick people out as a result if they fail of course, so would not be firm enough for many, but my answer to that would probably be that it would require, if our politics went that way, being firmer on rules of who can come in in the first place, given the impracticability of creating a fool proof 'culture' test (formal or otherwise).
I think it helps to be specific on this topic because much waffle is talked about it.
So, ok, the 'British Culture' that every resident should sign up to. My answer:
The law. That's the most important aspect.
To which I think we can add the language. Being able to communicate in English. That's the other important aspect.
That's it. Law and language.
If you disagree tell me what bespoke British (as opposed to universal) cultural necessity we are missing.
Returned home today. Strange to think, looking at the crowds of commuters all enjoying a sunny Thursday evening drink outside Liverpool Street, that this may be the coolest day between now and at least mid July.
We had complaints when we were in the high 30s, which London is not designed for, but the forecast over the next 2 weeks of consistent high 20s and dipping into low 30s with no rain for 2 weeks is idyllic.
It was looking that way, but let me reel off the UK maxima from this evening’s 15 day GFS run (actual maxes are usually 1 or 2C above these). Starts quite nice, then just keeps going.
27,30,30,32,32,34,32,33,36,37,35,35,35,37,40,33
The temperatures in France are a whole other ballgame. Not looking forward to being there mid-month. It’s already 32C in the downstairs study according to my weather station.
Come on, you know that accuracy drops off massively after 5 days. That 40 has as much validity as the endless beasts from the east in winter. It may happen, sure, but let’s see.
Yes I know accuracy drips off, but:
- Several models are consistently showing upper 30s in their runs, for days on end. Until a few years ago even an outlier with a 37 or 38 was eye poppingly rare. - It’s almost nailed on that France will get a week or more of Persian Gulf style weather. Possibly much more. Very little uncertainty. Hence why their emergency services are having planning meetings
You know and I know what’s coming. Whether it happens this July, or next month, or in 3 years time, we’re going to get the big one.
I am very uncomfortable with those charts of bright pink day after day across the near continent.
All this moaning about a bit of good weather.
Get some beers in, some sausages, have some barbecues and slip, slop, slap.
Enjoy the summer.
Last week was unbearable. But whether warning levels are set way too law - there was practically no day in winter that there wasn't some warning showing up on my local weather, making the warnings pointless by overuse, and it wasn't because climate shifts (which are real I believe) have made practically every day worth a warning.
It was quite bearable. Only disappointment was it was over too soon. High in the week then cool again for weekend, blah.
Hope the next one lasts longer. Or falls over some time off, even better.
This feels like someone trying to bring their alien culture over here and imposing it on us.
I have never objected to that.
Though I think plenty of people here are more than capable of enjoying summer.
I expect beer gardens will be quite busy as people enjoy themselves, even if some Moaning Myrtles insist that it is awful.
‘Complicated and expensive’: Burnham is right about the risks of nationalisation
Track record of Welsh Water shows changing ownership status is not the answer to all the woes in the utilities sector
Welsh Water is not state owned.
And would we really be worse off if zombie companies like Thames Water or (whisper it) a certain fairly large gas/leccy supplier were properly bankrupted and taken into state ownership without the enormous overhang of debt they have accumulated?
Whether they would be better managed by the government is a different matter - very probably not - but it's hard to imagine they would be much worse managed.
Or even better, let the zombies die then flog the assets to someone new to operate without the overhang or the state needing to run it.
The problem with that, ultimately, is that water in particular is a monopoly supplier and any incoming owner will just abuse that monopoly power again in the way Thames Water has.
At least when the monopoly supplier is the government we get to vote the bastards out when we're fed up with the asset stripping.
Just don't be afraid of letting failed businesses fail while ensuring shareholders and bondholders bite the bullet if they do.
If shareholders and bondholders face a haircut or getting wiped out, so be it. That is on them for failing to do due diligence.
As ever, Harrington makes good points, some of which may be true and/or I agree with. Let's go thru them
1: the disciplinary and control models She makes a good point: pre-21st century oppression took the form of discipline - if you do not obey I will hurt you - wheras 21st century takes the form of control - if you do not obey I will change things so you stop. The former requires treating individuals as units (or sub-units of a group), the latter requires or enables treating characteristics of individuals, not the individuals as individuals per se. I'm not sure I agree with this and put forward religious wars or slavery as counter-examples.
2: the importance of borders I agree with her but I would point out that i) this requires a re-adoption of nationalism - if you have borders, then they have to bound something - and ii) that the importance of borders is a subset of the importance of thresholds. Which brings me to...
3: the boundary between “child” and “adult” At last somebody else has pointed this out. I have been saying for years on PB that we need a bright line between "this person is a child" and "this person is a adult". Everybody disagrees with me, but blurring the line results in adultised children and infantilised adults and makes the country stupid.
4: doctor-worship In my assisted suicide article, I pointed out that you solve moral problems with judges, not doctors. But British doctor-worship results in doctors coercing outcomes against patient consent, which is exactly wrong. And her example was...
5: the draft conversion bill This bill contains a clause permitting coerced conversion if the person is a medic working in healthcare [section 1 subsection (3)]. Gender-critical people object to this because it permits doctors but not parents to convert children. Trans people object to this because it permits doctors to convert children. I object to this because everybody has forgotten that gay conversion therapy used to be permitted medical policy and this clause would have permitted Alan Turing's conversion therapy. Harrington is OK with the trans conversion but is correct with the doctor-worship bit...
Where does it say "doctors" ? All I can see is this: .. is not a conversion practice unless the person acts in a way that falls far below the standards reasonably expected of a person in their position...
Which is so broad that I'm not sure what the point of the legislation is at all.
Returned home today. Strange to think, looking at the crowds of commuters all enjoying a sunny Thursday evening drink outside Liverpool Street, that this may be the coolest day between now and at least mid July.
We had complaints when we were in the high 30s, which London is not designed for, but the forecast over the next 2 weeks of consistent high 20s and dipping into low 30s with no rain for 2 weeks is idyllic.
It was looking that way, but let me reel off the UK maxima from this evening’s 15 day GFS run (actual maxes are usually 1 or 2C above these). Starts quite nice, then just keeps going.
27,30,30,32,32,34,32,33,36,37,35,35,35,37,40,33
The temperatures in France are a whole other ballgame. Not looking forward to being there mid-month. It’s already 32C in the downstairs study according to my weather station.
Come on, you know that accuracy drops off massively after 5 days. That 40 has as much validity as the endless beasts from the east in winter. It may happen, sure, but let’s see.
Yes I know accuracy drips off, but:
- Several models are consistently showing upper 30s in their runs, for days on end. Until a few years ago even an outlier with a 37 or 38 was eye poppingly rare. - It’s almost nailed on that France will get a week or more of Persian Gulf style weather. Possibly much more. Very little uncertainty. Hence why their emergency services are having planning meetings
You know and I know what’s coming. Whether it happens this July, or next month, or in 3 years time, we’re going to get the big one.
I am very uncomfortable with those charts of bright pink day after day across the near continent.
All this moaning about a bit of good weather.
Get some beers in, some sausages, have some barbecues and slip, slop, slap.
Enjoy the summer.
Last week was unbearable. But whether warning levels are set way too law - there was practically no day in winter that there wasn't some warning showing up on my local weather, making the warnings pointless by overuse, and it wasn't because climate shifts (which are real I believe) have made practically every day worth a warning.
It was quite bearable. Only disappointment was it was over too soon. High in the week then cool again for weekend, blah.
Hope the next one lasts longer. Or falls over some time off, even better.
The next one will last longer, certainly that’s what the models suggest. And well done you, enjoying it and all that. I don’t enjoy 40C, which is why I don’t live in Dubai, but that seems to be what my upcoming 2 weeks in Burgundy is offering.
We are a cool temperate island on the Atlantic seaboard. If we’re looking at forecasts saying 40C and thinking “yeah, bring it on” then what does that imply for the hot countries of the world? Or the glaciers of the Alps.
Betting post, WRT the year of next election. Does anyone think that about 7/1 is value for a general election in 2028? Older readers will remember the time when it was normal for PMs to go to the country after four years, sometime in the fifth year, if the going looked prosperous. By the end of 2028 Burnham will have done two years+ and UK plc will be a cornucopia of joy and prosperity tiny bit more hopeful than it is now.
Yes it is value, but I do not need to wait two years (or more) for a 7/1 shot.
Pat McFadden!
Just noticed Jeremy Hunt is 100/1 to be PM after Burnham. Worth a pound?
Hunt has said he would not run again but obviously can change his mind. You'd need Kemi to be ousted, which presumably means the Conservatives performing very badly, then Hunt to take over, followed by a miracle to get Tory polling up from panic-mode all the way to winning an election. I can't see it although there may be some value as a trading bet if Kemi is ousted and Hunt does agree to stand. It seems unlikely but then most 100/1 shots do. I won't be following you in.
Kemi I think is secure now, the 2025 and 2026 LEs were the worst and she got through those, next year and in 2028 the Tories will start from a much lower base. Hunt would not win a Tory members vote anyway so would need a coronation in the unlikely event he got the job
‘Complicated and expensive’: Burnham is right about the risks of nationalisation
Track record of Welsh Water shows changing ownership status is not the answer to all the woes in the utilities sector
Welsh Water is not state owned.
And would we really be worse off if zombie companies like Thames Water or (whisper it) a certain fairly large gas/leccy supplier were properly bankrupted and taken into state ownership without the enormous overhang of debt they have accumulated?
Whether they would be better managed by the government is a different matter - very probably not - but it's hard to imagine they would be much worse managed.
We would be better off. At least if the government ripped off consumers, the money would go to the exchequer rather than overseas.
Spain are probably the second best team in the tournament, arguably third behind Argentina. They are, however, one of those teams that never seem to score as many goals as they should. In the brief glory days under Jim McLean Dundee United were like this. They played beautiful football but seemed to be determined to walk the ball into the net and all too often they thrashed their opponents for a slightly nervy 1-0.
I can't help feeling that against the very best teams this weakness may cost them. But Yamal is just a brilliant player to watch.
That great tikky takky Spain team only ever needed one goal because they never conceded. They never conceded because their opponents never got the ball.
It was amazing but it did get a bit boring at times. I'm glad its time came but also glad it went.
Betting post, WRT the year of next election. Does anyone think that about 7/1 is value for a general election in 2028? Older readers will remember the time when it was normal for PMs to go to the country after four years, sometime in the fifth year, if the going looked prosperous. By the end of 2028 Burnham will have done two years+ and UK plc will be a cornucopia of joy and prosperity tiny bit more hopeful than it is now.
Yes it is value, but I do not need to wait two years (or more) for a 7/1 shot.
Pat McFadden!
Just noticed Jeremy Hunt is 100/1 to be PM after Burnham. Worth a pound?
Hunt has said he would not run again but obviously can change his mind. You'd need Kemi to be ousted, which presumably means the Conservatives performing very badly, then Hunt to take over, followed by a miracle to get Tory polling up from panic-mode all the way to winning an election. I can't see it although there may be some value as a trading bet if Kemi is ousted and Hunt does agree to stand. It seems unlikely but then most 100/1 shots do. I won't be following you in.
Kemi I think is secure now, the 2025 and 2026 LEs were the worst and she got through those, next year and in 2028 the Tories will start from a much lower base. Hunt would not win a Tory members vote anyway so would need a coronation in the unlikely event he got the job
‘Complicated and expensive’: Burnham is right about the risks of nationalisation
Track record of Welsh Water shows changing ownership status is not the answer to all the woes in the utilities sector
Welsh Water is not state owned.
And would we really be worse off if zombie companies like Thames Water or (whisper it) a certain fairly large gas/leccy supplier were properly bankrupted and taken into state ownership without the enormous overhang of debt they have accumulated?
Whether they would be better managed by the government is a different matter - very probably not - but it's hard to imagine they would be much worse managed.
The utter contemptuous folly of the Blair Government was they didn't renationalised before the foreign shareholders ladelled off the cream and a huge amount of everything else too.
Renationalisation now is simply acquiring liability upon liability.
Came here 20 years ago from Somalia, did voluntary work, got a degree, worked in the public sector, became a councillor and seems like he’s done a good job.
… in reply to…
Also: the Lord Mayor isn't really 'running' the city, is he? He's a figurehead - he gets to wear the mayoral regalia. He's like a municipal constitutional monarch.
I'm right up the immigration-sceptic end of the spectrum, but I can't get exercised about this at all. He looks to me very much like he's integrating. This is what we want, surely?
Same here
I think it’s nice to see a positive story of Somali migration and integration and actual economic participation for a change
In fact, this post crystallises one of my problems with Reform. I have so many complaints about immigration. The sheer numbers of undesirable immigrants crossing in boats. The criminal elements it introduces. The refusal to deal with the criminal elements robustly. The bending-over-backwards to put the needs and in some cases wants of (some) immigrants before the needs of our own people. The sheer amount of money we’re spending on immigrants (while, simultaneously, and puzzlingly, making it very hard and expensive for immigrants from places like Canada). The sheer squalor of places like Cheetham Hill. The depression of wages. But that very much isn’t to say I have an aversion to all immigrants or all immigration. I recognise the benefits. What I want is for immigrants to buy into Britishness. This is what most of the immigrants I know do. My daughter’s football and cricket clubs are peppered with immigrants and their families. For immigrants – like this guy in Britsol, willing to don silly British clothes – who want to buy into Britishness: this is absolutely brilliant. I love it. It’s not only great for Britain, but great that Britishness is something that people like this want to adopt. I think my views on this are perfectly mainstream.
A perfectly good case could have been made opposing ‘bad’ immigration while welcoming ‘good’. I’d say it would have been popular. Once again, Reform had an electoral open goal which they’ve judiciously aimed a good 45 degrees right of.
I agree, but I think what you miss is that Reform don’t want what we want. We see an integrated immigrant becoming Lord Mayor and think, "great, more of the same please".
For at least part of Reform’s coalition, the objection isn’t just illegal immigration or failed integration. It’s demographic and cultural change itself. From that perspective, Goodwin’s post isn’t a blunder at all. It’s entirely consistent.
To want to nudge the future in a particular direction is politics. To address what has already happened WRT who is lawfully living here by attacking its foundations and opposing assimilation, and wanting to demonise and reverse it is a starting point for the genuine fascist.
Yes, exactly. Opposing future policy is one thing. Looking at someone lawfully here, visibly assimilated, civically engaged, and then objecting anyway is quite another.
At that point the issue clearly isn’t failed integration. It’s that integration has succeeded, and some people still don’t like the result. - If successful assimilation still counts as a problem, then assimilation was never really the test.
Matt Goodwin @GoodwinMJ · Jun 29 A citizenship that belongs to everybody belongs to no one.
If anybody can become British, or English, then Britishness & Englishness no longer exist.
If the only thing that defines a people is that they welcome others then they no longer exist, either.
What an imbecile.
Citizenship does not belong to everybody, it belongs to everybody who has it only. A French citizen living in France is not British.
If anybody living here adopts British citizenship or being English then Britishness and Englishness do not cease to exist, it just has another person who is that. With the rights and responsibilities associated with citizenship.
He's not an imbecile, he's just trying to intellectually dress up a point that he doesn't want certain people to be able to become citizens so it sounds like a grand philosophical stance rather than just that he hates and fears those people.
There's definitely been a shift online in the last 18 months, and not a happy one, from arguments about assimilation and limitations on immigration, towards an argument that even assimilation is not enough, or is impossible, or is undesirable even if it is possible.
There's a market for open racism in this country which is larger than most people would like. It's not the majority like the Lowe's and Goodwins of the world think, but it's probably still a few million, and capable of drawing in even more if disguised.
Though to.an extent, it was always there. Remember Nigel moaning about people having conversations in (gasps) not-English on the train?
There's a case- though one I'd want to interrogate- for"it doesn't matter where people are from, as long as they integrate". The reason to interrogate that is... how and how far? There's a balance between being who you were and becoming who you are. (A bit of expat experience is very salutary for exploring that.)
But if Britishness is really something you'll can't attain for a few generations, even if you play entirely by the rules, then include me out
Well I would have preferred it if the Manchester Arena bomber, for example, had chosen to integrate rather tham rejecting British culture. I like British culture. I don't want it to turn into someghing else. People are welcome to come here if they choose to adopt British culture, but if they would prefer to reject it in favour of their own, I'd rather they didn't come. I don't think this is unreasonable.
British culture? Not definable. People will give different answers as to what it is. We don't want ghetto-isation, we want mixing and matching of different backgrounds and perspectives, I agree with that. But the main obligation IMO - shared by immigrants and non-immigrants alike - is to live within the law. Agitate to change any particular one if you feel strongly about it, sure, but live within it. The Manchester bomber didn't do that. His failure in that regard was abject.
I don't find the point that British culture is not definable to be very persuasive on this issue. No culture is precisely definable as it will inevitably fall back on a level of generic or universal values - family, fairness, whatever - and/or inclusion of certain steretypical cliches - loving cricket and tea or whatever - which are not going to be shared by everyone anyway.
By that logic no country has a culture that is definable. Yet despite that changeability, I'd wager most places still insist that that culture is what is driving their policy attitudes.
So yes, there are dangers to introducing strict definitions of culture which people must meet - which is one reason people get a chuckle out of citizenship tests which existing citizens might struggle with - but many concepts, ideologies, or even the line between acceptable and unacceptable action can be hard to define, and yet they will still be real things.
British values, wokeness, fascism, art, pornography, MAGA, these might struggle to be agreed in all contexts by all people, and they will be prone to being overused and over applied, but they can still exist.
Yes you can have a discussion on what British Culture means. The very fact that it's slippery and everchanging and subjective means that it's great to discuss. Where you run into trouble (imo) is if you start to lay it down as something that people must 'adopt' or 'comply with' etc. That's a road to nowhere good at all.
I don't think it can be applied to rigidly. My joke example of if someone does not like cricket for example. But a general entreaty, even setting an expectation, that people coming from country A to country B, permanently, should seek to engage with and integrate with that culture rather than, perhaps, an expectation for country B to accommodate the language and cultural expectations of country A? More reasonable.
That would not be able to be subject to a strict test which you could then kick people out as a result if they fail of course, so would not be firm enough for many, but my answer to that would probably be that it would require, if our politics went that way, being firmer on rules of who can come in in the first place, given the impracticability of creating a fool proof 'culture' test (formal or otherwise).
I think it helps to be specific on this topic because much waffle is talked about it.
So, ok, this 'British Culture' that every resident should sign up to. My answer:
The law. That's the most important aspect.
To which I think we can add the language. Being able to communicate in English. That's the next most important aspect.
That's it. Law and language.
If you disagree tell me what bespoke British (as opposed to universal) cultural necessity we are missing.
Again, that's an argument that nowhere has a unique culture, since what place doesn't substitute (mostly) universal values as emblematic of their national culture, so I don't see the value in effectively saying there is no bespoke British culture, yet people feel these things nonetheless.
Take an anecdote I had the other day, where an acquaintance was telling me one thing they love about the culture in this country is because unlike their native country (which they still love) officialdom and bureaucracy cares about individuals and doesn't just treat service users with indifference and hostility. I think a fair few British people, including those who have traveled widely, would say that is not something they associate with UK local government and public service, nor cultural values.
So as to your main point I wouldn't disagree about the primary significance of acceptance of the rule of law and language (though I think some would disagree on the latter), but how national cultures emphasise universal values is itself part of the national culture. What do we tell ourselves are more important, which of those values do we tend to focus upon more than others.
Fair play over free speech, for example, or how, say, Spain or Italy have a better culture around family and looking after the elderly (I don't know if they actually do, but I'd heard that) despite 'family' being a universal value it could still be more of a value in those places than here.
It's not bespoke, but it can still present differently. And yes, that makes a loyalty or integration 'test' impossible.
I'm sorry if that is felt to be waffle, but I think waffle is necessary on this subject, because precision is unobtainable.
We need to be woollier, go with the flow a bit more - which, incidentally, I would say is more of a British thing than some cultures.
‘Complicated and expensive’: Burnham is right about the risks of nationalisation
Track record of Welsh Water shows changing ownership status is not the answer to all the woes in the utilities sector
Welsh Water is not state owned.
And would we really be worse off if zombie companies like Thames Water or (whisper it) a certain fairly large gas/leccy supplier were properly bankrupted and taken into state ownership without the enormous overhang of debt they have accumulated?
Whether they would be better managed by the government is a different matter - very probably not - but it's hard to imagine they would be much worse managed.
We would be better off. At least if the government ripped off consumers, the money would go to the exchequer rather than overseas.
Yeah because the water firms and rivers were so much better pre privatisation ...
1346: longbows 1356: rear attack 1415: longbows 1495: plague, a pope, and supply lines 1525: their own stupidity 1672: flood the dykes 1704: two military geniuses 1805: one-eyed genius 1812: a Russian winter 1815: infantry squares and a stiff upper lip 1954: take the high ground
Betting post, WRT the year of next election. Does anyone think that about 7/1 is value for a general election in 2028? Older readers will remember the time when it was normal for PMs to go to the country after four years, sometime in the fifth year, if the going looked prosperous. By the end of 2028 Burnham will have done two years+ and UK plc will be a cornucopia of joy and prosperity tiny bit more hopeful than it is now.
And, you will realise your mistake, admit it on here, and vote Conservative again.
We shall see. As a Tory voter for 50 years obviously I will vote for them if I can, but there are actually things more important than 'my party right or wrong'. I am not going to vote for them if they might be in bed with Reform, I am not going to vote for them if their leader is an immature 6th form debater, and I am not going to vote for them if voting elsewhere is necessary to keep Reform out.
The extent to which the Tories have trashed the brand is strange. Three things stand out:
Failing to plan when there were only two outcomes to the 2016 referendum and they forget to prepare for half of them. Cameron's resignation at the moment it was essential that he saw through the choice he himself had given us. The corruption under Boris and the lamentable farrago of Truss.
Now, starting from there, persuade me why I was wrong at the time, in 2024, to vote Labour and would reluctantly do so again tomorrow.
This is you starting from a conclusion you've already reached, and working back to find some information to fit it.
Your core rationale that Labour are the true "one nation Tories" today is one of the most laughable I've ever seen on here. You are their useful idiot.
Only you can persuade yourself. But you have to find the courage within yourself to admit you got it wrong first.
Whatever happened to the one nation Tories? Where did they go?
Amid rampant speculation about who will be in Andy Burnham's cabinet, assuming he is unopposed in the Labour leadership contest, the PM-in-waiting was asked if he has decided who his chancellor will be.
He told LBC: "No, I haven't made those decisions and deliberately not.
"I think it's been a little frustrating for me in the last sort of 10 days, two weeks, because kind of Westminster goes into its normal mode and it wants to endlessly speculate about personalities before policy and before direction.
"And I very deliberately have said, no, I'm going to set out a new direction for the country. And I did that on Monday."
Burnham said more broadly that he wants to include all wings of the Labour Party in his cabinet, pointing to his stated ambition to bring a "freshness" to politics.
"What I am putting forward here is a very different approach. When it comes to the political direction, that is not up for negotiation," he said.
"But then to deliver that change, to come back to your question, I want there to be the most inclusive approach to building the team so that all parts of the party, can see themselves represented within it."
Burnham denied that he is "disappointed" by the number of people in the Labour parliamentary party scrambling for jobs in his government, but added that he wants to ensure that people understand his political direction and "consider what their contribution to delivering that new direction for the country might be".
This is slightly disingenuous. Without 'endless speculation about personalities' Burnham would not be an MP, there would not have been a by election, and he would not be PM later this month.
You missed his qualifier : "before policy and before direction." I don't think that 'disingenuous'.
It's a pretty clear message that any potential chancellor not on board with whatever it is that he's trying to do will not be chosen.
Which seems sensible to me, FWIW. No doubt compromises will come later, but if he doesn't get his way at the outset, what's the point of being PM ?
And yet I doubt when inevitably some poor economic news/policy comes out a Burnham No.10 would not reach for the standard tool and leak that it was the nasty chancellor and the PM knew nothing about it.
Of course. The point is that he evidently wants to try his policies, not Ed Milliband's or anyone else's.
‘Complicated and expensive’: Burnham is right about the risks of nationalisation
Track record of Welsh Water shows changing ownership status is not the answer to all the woes in the utilities sector
Welsh Water is not state owned.
And would we really be worse off if zombie companies like Thames Water or (whisper it) a certain fairly large gas/leccy supplier were properly bankrupted and taken into state ownership without the enormous overhang of debt they have accumulated?
Whether they would be better managed by the government is a different matter - very probably not - but it's hard to imagine they would be much worse managed.
‘Complicated and expensive’: Burnham is right about the risks of nationalisation
Track record of Welsh Water shows changing ownership status is not the answer to all the woes in the utilities sector
Welsh Water is not state owned.
And would we really be worse off if zombie companies like Thames Water or (whisper it) a certain fairly large gas/leccy supplier were properly bankrupted and taken into state ownership without the enormous overhang of debt they have accumulated?
Whether they would be better managed by the government is a different matter - very probably not - but it's hard to imagine they would be much worse managed.
‘Complicated and expensive’: Burnham is right about the risks of nationalisation
Track record of Welsh Water shows changing ownership status is not the answer to all the woes in the utilities sector
Welsh Water is not state owned.
And would we really be worse off if zombie companies like Thames Water or (whisper it) a certain fairly large gas/leccy supplier were properly bankrupted and taken into state ownership without the enormous overhang of debt they have accumulated?
Whether they would be better managed by the government is a different matter - very probably not - but it's hard to imagine they would be much worse managed.
The utter contemptuous folly of the Blair Government was they didn't renationalised before the foreign shareholders ladelled off the cream and a huge amount of everything else too.
Renationalisation now is simply acquiring liability upon liability.
Why would anyone be mad enough to take on liabilities?
If Thames are bust then let them go bust. Sorry bondholders, there's no money left.
I am sure Burnham could find someone capable of writing a note to that effect.
In any case, the main defining quality of British values is not wanting anyone to build anything within sight or sound of your own property, and excitement at curtain twitching and banning other people having a good time.
Came here 20 years ago from Somalia, did voluntary work, got a degree, worked in the public sector, became a councillor and seems like he’s done a good job.
… in reply to…
Also: the Lord Mayor isn't really 'running' the city, is he? He's a figurehead - he gets to wear the mayoral regalia. He's like a municipal constitutional monarch.
I'm right up the immigration-sceptic end of the spectrum, but I can't get exercised about this at all. He looks to me very much like he's integrating. This is what we want, surely?
Same here
I think it’s nice to see a positive story of Somali migration and integration and actual economic participation for a change
In fact, this post crystallises one of my problems with Reform. I have so many complaints about immigration. The sheer numbers of undesirable immigrants crossing in boats. The criminal elements it introduces. The refusal to deal with the criminal elements robustly. The bending-over-backwards to put the needs and in some cases wants of (some) immigrants before the needs of our own people. The sheer amount of money we’re spending on immigrants (while, simultaneously, and puzzlingly, making it very hard and expensive for immigrants from places like Canada). The sheer squalor of places like Cheetham Hill. The depression of wages. But that very much isn’t to say I have an aversion to all immigrants or all immigration. I recognise the benefits. What I want is for immigrants to buy into Britishness. This is what most of the immigrants I know do. My daughter’s football and cricket clubs are peppered with immigrants and their families. For immigrants – like this guy in Britsol, willing to don silly British clothes – who want to buy into Britishness: this is absolutely brilliant. I love it. It’s not only great for Britain, but great that Britishness is something that people like this want to adopt. I think my views on this are perfectly mainstream.
A perfectly good case could have been made opposing ‘bad’ immigration while welcoming ‘good’. I’d say it would have been popular. Once again, Reform had an electoral open goal which they’ve judiciously aimed a good 45 degrees right of.
I agree, but I think what you miss is that Reform don’t want what we want. We see an integrated immigrant becoming Lord Mayor and think, "great, more of the same please".
For at least part of Reform’s coalition, the objection isn’t just illegal immigration or failed integration. It’s demographic and cultural change itself. From that perspective, Goodwin’s post isn’t a blunder at all. It’s entirely consistent.
To want to nudge the future in a particular direction is politics. To address what has already happened WRT who is lawfully living here by attacking its foundations and opposing assimilation, and wanting to demonise and reverse it is a starting point for the genuine fascist.
Yes, exactly. Opposing future policy is one thing. Looking at someone lawfully here, visibly assimilated, civically engaged, and then objecting anyway is quite another.
At that point the issue clearly isn’t failed integration. It’s that integration has succeeded, and some people still don’t like the result. - If successful assimilation still counts as a problem, then assimilation was never really the test.
Matt Goodwin @GoodwinMJ · Jun 29 A citizenship that belongs to everybody belongs to no one.
If anybody can become British, or English, then Britishness & Englishness no longer exist.
If the only thing that defines a people is that they welcome others then they no longer exist, either.
What an imbecile.
Citizenship does not belong to everybody, it belongs to everybody who has it only. A French citizen living in France is not British.
If anybody living here adopts British citizenship or being English then Britishness and Englishness do not cease to exist, it just has another person who is that. With the rights and responsibilities associated with citizenship.
He's not an imbecile, he's just trying to intellectually dress up a point that he doesn't want certain people to be able to become citizens so it sounds like a grand philosophical stance rather than just that he hates and fears those people.
There's definitely been a shift online in the last 18 months, and not a happy one, from arguments about assimilation and limitations on immigration, towards an argument that even assimilation is not enough, or is impossible, or is undesirable even if it is possible.
There's a market for open racism in this country which is larger than most people would like. It's not the majority like the Lowe's and Goodwins of the world think, but it's probably still a few million, and capable of drawing in even more if disguised.
Though to.an extent, it was always there. Remember Nigel moaning about people having conversations in (gasps) not-English on the train?
There's a case- though one I'd want to interrogate- for"it doesn't matter where people are from, as long as they integrate". The reason to interrogate that is... how and how far? There's a balance between being who you were and becoming who you are. (A bit of expat experience is very salutary for exploring that.)
But if Britishness is really something you'll can't attain for a few generations, even if you play entirely by the rules, then include me out
Speaking in not-English! In my local town the day before yesterday I had a conversation with a man who had lived in north Cumberland all his life, about the same age as me, and Farage would not have comprehended a single word of what he said, such was his dialect.
The hard right always flatten the diversity within nations. Britishness is diverse. As well as the broad dialects, there are people whose first language isn’t English, it’s Welsh, and a few first language speakers of Scots or Gaelic too… not to forget those whose first language is British Sign Language. What is our religion? Lowe insists we’re a Christian nation, although there are more atheists + agnostics, and does Christian mean Anglican, the Wee Frees, Catholic or what? I’m born and raised a Londoner. Is that the same experience as someone born and raised in Cumberland, or Belfast, or the Orkneys? Britishness is more complicated and messier than Goodwin wants, and that’s not a bad thing.
Came here 20 years ago from Somalia, did voluntary work, got a degree, worked in the public sector, became a councillor and seems like he’s done a good job.
… in reply to…
Also: the Lord Mayor isn't really 'running' the city, is he? He's a figurehead - he gets to wear the mayoral regalia. He's like a municipal constitutional monarch.
I'm right up the immigration-sceptic end of the spectrum, but I can't get exercised about this at all. He looks to me very much like he's integrating. This is what we want, surely?
Same here
I think it’s nice to see a positive story of Somali migration and integration and actual economic participation for a change
In fact, this post crystallises one of my problems with Reform. I have so many complaints about immigration. The sheer numbers of undesirable immigrants crossing in boats. The criminal elements it introduces. The refusal to deal with the criminal elements robustly. The bending-over-backwards to put the needs and in some cases wants of (some) immigrants before the needs of our own people. The sheer amount of money we’re spending on immigrants (while, simultaneously, and puzzlingly, making it very hard and expensive for immigrants from places like Canada). The sheer squalor of places like Cheetham Hill. The depression of wages. But that very much isn’t to say I have an aversion to all immigrants or all immigration. I recognise the benefits. What I want is for immigrants to buy into Britishness. This is what most of the immigrants I know do. My daughter’s football and cricket clubs are peppered with immigrants and their families. For immigrants – like this guy in Britsol, willing to don silly British clothes – who want to buy into Britishness: this is absolutely brilliant. I love it. It’s not only great for Britain, but great that Britishness is something that people like this want to adopt. I think my views on this are perfectly mainstream.
A perfectly good case could have been made opposing ‘bad’ immigration while welcoming ‘good’. I’d say it would have been popular. Once again, Reform had an electoral open goal which they’ve judiciously aimed a good 45 degrees right of.
I agree, but I think what you miss is that Reform don’t want what we want. We see an integrated immigrant becoming Lord Mayor and think, "great, more of the same please".
For at least part of Reform’s coalition, the objection isn’t just illegal immigration or failed integration. It’s demographic and cultural change itself. From that perspective, Goodwin’s post isn’t a blunder at all. It’s entirely consistent.
To want to nudge the future in a particular direction is politics. To address what has already happened WRT who is lawfully living here by attacking its foundations and opposing assimilation, and wanting to demonise and reverse it is a starting point for the genuine fascist.
Yes, exactly. Opposing future policy is one thing. Looking at someone lawfully here, visibly assimilated, civically engaged, and then objecting anyway is quite another.
At that point the issue clearly isn’t failed integration. It’s that integration has succeeded, and some people still don’t like the result. - If successful assimilation still counts as a problem, then assimilation was never really the test.
Matt Goodwin @GoodwinMJ · Jun 29 A citizenship that belongs to everybody belongs to no one.
If anybody can become British, or English, then Britishness & Englishness no longer exist.
If the only thing that defines a people is that they welcome others then they no longer exist, either.
What an imbecile.
Citizenship does not belong to everybody, it belongs to everybody who has it only. A French citizen living in France is not British.
If anybody living here adopts British citizenship or being English then Britishness and Englishness do not cease to exist, it just has another person who is that. With the rights and responsibilities associated with citizenship.
He's not an imbecile, he's just trying to intellectually dress up a point that he doesn't want certain people to be able to become citizens so it sounds like a grand philosophical stance rather than just that he hates and fears those people.
There's definitely been a shift online in the last 18 months, and not a happy one, from arguments about assimilation and limitations on immigration, towards an argument that even assimilation is not enough, or is impossible, or is undesirable even if it is possible.
There's a market for open racism in this country which is larger than most people would like. It's not the majority like the Lowe's and Goodwins of the world think, but it's probably still a few million, and capable of drawing in even more if disguised.
Though to.an extent, it was always there. Remember Nigel moaning about people having conversations in (gasps) not-English on the train?
There's a case- though one I'd want to interrogate- for"it doesn't matter where people are from, as long as they integrate". The reason to interrogate that is... how and how far? There's a balance between being who you were and becoming who you are. (A bit of expat experience is very salutary for exploring that.)
But if Britishness is really something you'll can't attain for a few generations, even if you play entirely by the rules, then include me out
Speaking in not-English! In my local town the day before yesterday I had a conversation with a man who had lived in north Cumberland all his life, about the same age as me, and Farage would not have comprehended a single word of what he said, such was his dialect.
The hard right always flatten the diversity within nations. Britishness is diverse. As well as the broad dialects, there are people whose first language isn’t English, it’s Welsh, and a few first language speakers of Scots or Gaelic too… not to forget those whose first language is British Sign Language. What is our religion? Lowe insists we’re a Christian nation, although there are more atheists + agnostics, and does Christian mean Anglican, the Wee Frees, Catholic or what? I’m born and raised a Londoner. Is that the same experience as someone born and raised in Cumberland, or Belfast, or the Orkneys? Britishness is more complicated and messier than Goodwin wants, and that’s not a bad thing.
Indeed. Translate Cumberland
'aarsgaanyam' or in phonetic: ˈɑrsɡɑnɪˌæm
into English.
I is going back to da ghetto?
If Restore get into government, you may indeed be going back to the ghetto. Thank goodness most people are not like Restore. We quite like you here.
Returned home today. Strange to think, looking at the crowds of commuters all enjoying a sunny Thursday evening drink outside Liverpool Street, that this may be the coolest day between now and at least mid July.
We had complaints when we were in the high 30s, which London is not designed for, but the forecast over the next 2 weeks of consistent high 20s and dipping into low 30s with no rain for 2 weeks is idyllic.
It was looking that way, but let me reel off the UK maxima from this evening’s 15 day GFS run (actual maxes are usually 1 or 2C above these). Starts quite nice, then just keeps going.
27,30,30,32,32,34,32,33,36,37,35,35,35,37,40,33
The temperatures in France are a whole other ballgame. Not looking forward to being there mid-month. It’s already 32C in the downstairs study according to my weather station.
Come on, you know that accuracy drops off massively after 5 days. That 40 has as much validity as the endless beasts from the east in winter. It may happen, sure, but let’s see.
Yes I know accuracy drips off, but:
- Several models are consistently showing upper 30s in their runs, for days on end. Until a few years ago even an outlier with a 37 or 38 was eye poppingly rare. - It’s almost nailed on that France will get a week or more of Persian Gulf style weather. Possibly much more. Very little uncertainty. Hence why their emergency services are having planning meetings
You know and I know what’s coming. Whether it happens this July, or next month, or in 3 years time, we’re going to get the big one.
I am very uncomfortable with those charts of bright pink day after day across the near continent.
All this moaning about a bit of good weather.
Get some beers in, some sausages, have some barbecues and slip, slop, slap.
Enjoy the summer.
Last week was unbearable. But whether warning levels are set way too law - there was practically no day in winter that there wasn't some warning showing up on my local weather, making the warnings pointless by overuse, and it wasn't because climate shifts (which are real I believe) have made practically every day worth a warning.
It was quite bearable. Only disappointment was it was over too soon. High in the week then cool again for weekend, blah.
Hope the next one lasts longer. Or falls over some time off, even better.
This feels like someone trying to bring their alien culture over here and imposing it on us.
I have never objected to that.
Though I think plenty of people here are more than capable of enjoying summer.
I expect beer gardens will be quite busy as people enjoy themselves, even if some Moaning Myrtles insist that it is awful.
Beer gardens will do well up to about 32C, above which trade will start to drop off.
I see it around here: peak outdoor eating and drinking conditions are 24-30C.
'Burnham set to ditch Palantir from NHS Left-wing critics have called for deal to be axed over US tech giant’s work with Israeli Defense Forces and US immigration'
‘Complicated and expensive’: Burnham is right about the risks of nationalisation
Track record of Welsh Water shows changing ownership status is not the answer to all the woes in the utilities sector
Welsh Water is not state owned.
And would we really be worse off if zombie companies like Thames Water or (whisper it) a certain fairly large gas/leccy supplier were properly bankrupted and taken into state ownership without the enormous overhang of debt they have accumulated?
Whether they would be better managed by the government is a different matter - very probably not - but it's hard to imagine they would be much worse managed.
The utter contemptuous folly of the Blair Government was they didn't renationalised before the foreign shareholders ladelled off the cream and a huge amount of everything else too.
Renationalisation now is simply acquiring liability upon liability.
Not entirely. Certainly the case of Thames, we can make the bond and shareholders eat the existing liabilities first, if we're sufficiently ruthless.
Betting post, WRT the year of next election. Does anyone think that about 7/1 is value for a general election in 2028? Older readers will remember the time when it was normal for PMs to go to the country after four years, sometime in the fifth year, if the going looked prosperous. By the end of 2028 Burnham will have done two years+ and UK plc will be a cornucopia of joy and prosperity tiny bit more hopeful than it is now.
And, you will realise your mistake, admit it on here, and vote Conservative again.
We shall see. As a Tory voter for 50 years obviously I will vote for them if I can, but there are actually things more important than 'my party right or wrong'. I am not going to vote for them if they might be in bed with Reform, I am not going to vote for them if their leader is an immature 6th form debater, and I am not going to vote for them if voting elsewhere is necessary to keep Reform out.
The extent to which the Tories have trashed the brand is strange. Three things stand out:
Failing to plan when there were only two outcomes to the 2016 referendum and they forget to prepare for half of them. Cameron's resignation at the moment it was essential that he saw through the choice he himself had given us. The corruption under Boris and the lamentable farrago of Truss.
Now, starting from there, persuade me why I was wrong at the time, in 2024, to vote Labour and would reluctantly do so again tomorrow.
This is you starting from a conclusion you've already reached, and working back to find some information to fit it.
Your core rationale that Labour are the true "one nation Tories" today is one of the most laughable I've ever seen on here. You are their useful idiot.
Only you can persuade yourself. But you have to find the courage within yourself to admit you got it wrong first.
Whatever happened to the one nation Tories? Where did they go?
Betting post, WRT the year of next election. Does anyone think that about 7/1 is value for a general election in 2028? Older readers will remember the time when it was normal for PMs to go to the country after four years, sometime in the fifth year, if the going looked prosperous. By the end of 2028 Burnham will have done two years+ and UK plc will be a cornucopia of joy and prosperity tiny bit more hopeful than it is now.
And, you will realise your mistake, admit it on here, and vote Conservative again.
We shall see. As a Tory voter for 50 years obviously I will vote for them if I can, but there are actually things more important than 'my party right or wrong'. I am not going to vote for them if they might be in bed with Reform, I am not going to vote for them if their leader is an immature 6th form debater, and I am not going to vote for them if voting elsewhere is necessary to keep Reform out.
The extent to which the Tories have trashed the brand is strange. Three things stand out:
Failing to plan when there were only two outcomes to the 2016 referendum and they forget to prepare for half of them. Cameron's resignation at the moment it was essential that he saw through the choice he himself had given us. The corruption under Boris and the lamentable farrago of Truss.
Now, starting from there, persuade me why I was wrong at the time, in 2024, to vote Labour and would reluctantly do so again tomorrow.
This is you starting from a conclusion you've already reached, and working back to find some information to fit it.
Your core rationale that Labour are the true "one nation Tories" today is one of the most laughable I've ever seen on here. You are their useful idiot.
Only you can persuade yourself. But you have to find the courage within yourself to admit you got it wrong first.
Whatever happened to the one nation Tories? Where did they go?
Betting post, WRT the year of next election. Does anyone think that about 7/1 is value for a general election in 2028? Older readers will remember the time when it was normal for PMs to go to the country after four years, sometime in the fifth year, if the going looked prosperous. By the end of 2028 Burnham will have done two years+ and UK plc will be a cornucopia of joy and prosperity tiny bit more hopeful than it is now.
And, you will realise your mistake, admit it on here, and vote Conservative again.
We shall see. As a Tory voter for 50 years obviously I will vote for them if I can, but there are actually things more important than 'my party right or wrong'. I am not going to vote for them if they might be in bed with Reform, I am not going to vote for them if their leader is an immature 6th form debater, and I am not going to vote for them if voting elsewhere is necessary to keep Reform out.
The extent to which the Tories have trashed the brand is strange. Three things stand out:
Failing to plan when there were only two outcomes to the 2016 referendum and they forget to prepare for half of them. Cameron's resignation at the moment it was essential that he saw through the choice he himself had given us. The corruption under Boris and the lamentable farrago of Truss.
Now, starting from there, persuade me why I was wrong at the time, in 2024, to vote Labour and would reluctantly do so again tomorrow.
This is you starting from a conclusion you've already reached, and working back to find some information to fit it.
Your core rationale that Labour are the true "one nation Tories" today is one of the most laughable I've ever seen on here. You are their useful idiot.
Only you can persuade yourself. But you have to find the courage within yourself to admit you got it wrong first.
Labour are not One Nation Tories and I have not said they are. The One Nation Tory party has ceased functioning, more or less from the day Cameron disgracefully resigned. Of the bad options available for government they were are are the least bad. Being least bad made them in 2024 the closest thing that a centrist Tory could vote for. They still are. I have lengthy criticisms of them however, as any One Nation Tory would.
Instead of putting up straw man arguments, persuade me that voting Tory is on balance better than voting Labour. I am generally on your side, I have voted Tory from the 1974 elections until 2024 when I stopped, so it shouldn't be hard.
Betting post, WRT the year of next election. Does anyone think that about 7/1 is value for a general election in 2028? Older readers will remember the time when it was normal for PMs to go to the country after four years, sometime in the fifth year, if the going looked prosperous. By the end of 2028 Burnham will have done two years+ and UK plc will be a cornucopia of joy and prosperity tiny bit more hopeful than it is now.
And, you will realise your mistake, admit it on here, and vote Conservative again.
We shall see. As a Tory voter for 50 years obviously I will vote for them if I can, but there are actually things more important than 'my party right or wrong'. I am not going to vote for them if they might be in bed with Reform, I am not going to vote for them if their leader is an immature 6th form debater, and I am not going to vote for them if voting elsewhere is necessary to keep Reform out.
The extent to which the Tories have trashed the brand is strange. Three things stand out:
Failing to plan when there were only two outcomes to the 2016 referendum and they forget to prepare for half of them. Cameron's resignation at the moment it was essential that he saw through the choice he himself had given us. The corruption under Boris and the lamentable farrago of Truss.
Now, starting from there, persuade me why I was wrong at the time, in 2024, to vote Labour and would reluctantly do so again tomorrow.
This is you starting from a conclusion you've already reached, and working back to find some information to fit it.
Your core rationale that Labour are the true "one nation Tories" today is one of the most laughable I've ever seen on here. You are their useful idiot.
Only you can persuade yourself. But you have to find the courage within yourself to admit you got it wrong first.
Whatever happened to the one nation Tories? Where did they go?
Came here 20 years ago from Somalia, did voluntary work, got a degree, worked in the public sector, became a councillor and seems like he’s done a good job.
… in reply to…
Also: the Lord Mayor isn't really 'running' the city, is he? He's a figurehead - he gets to wear the mayoral regalia. He's like a municipal constitutional monarch.
I'm right up the immigration-sceptic end of the spectrum, but I can't get exercised about this at all. He looks to me very much like he's integrating. This is what we want, surely?
Same here
I think it’s nice to see a positive story of Somali migration and integration and actual economic participation for a change
In fact, this post crystallises one of my problems with Reform. I have so many complaints about immigration. The sheer numbers of undesirable immigrants crossing in boats. The criminal elements it introduces. The refusal to deal with the criminal elements robustly. The bending-over-backwards to put the needs and in some cases wants of (some) immigrants before the needs of our own people. The sheer amount of money we’re spending on immigrants (while, simultaneously, and puzzlingly, making it very hard and expensive for immigrants from places like Canada). The sheer squalor of places like Cheetham Hill. The depression of wages. But that very much isn’t to say I have an aversion to all immigrants or all immigration. I recognise the benefits. What I want is for immigrants to buy into Britishness. This is what most of the immigrants I know do. My daughter’s football and cricket clubs are peppered with immigrants and their families. For immigrants – like this guy in Britsol, willing to don silly British clothes – who want to buy into Britishness: this is absolutely brilliant. I love it. It’s not only great for Britain, but great that Britishness is something that people like this want to adopt. I think my views on this are perfectly mainstream.
A perfectly good case could have been made opposing ‘bad’ immigration while welcoming ‘good’. I’d say it would have been popular. Once again, Reform had an electoral open goal which they’ve judiciously aimed a good 45 degrees right of.
I agree, but I think what you miss is that Reform don’t want what we want. We see an integrated immigrant becoming Lord Mayor and think, "great, more of the same please".
For at least part of Reform’s coalition, the objection isn’t just illegal immigration or failed integration. It’s demographic and cultural change itself. From that perspective, Goodwin’s post isn’t a blunder at all. It’s entirely consistent.
To want to nudge the future in a particular direction is politics. To address what has already happened WRT who is lawfully living here by attacking its foundations and opposing assimilation, and wanting to demonise and reverse it is a starting point for the genuine fascist.
Yes, exactly. Opposing future policy is one thing. Looking at someone lawfully here, visibly assimilated, civically engaged, and then objecting anyway is quite another.
At that point the issue clearly isn’t failed integration. It’s that integration has succeeded, and some people still don’t like the result. - If successful assimilation still counts as a problem, then assimilation was never really the test.
Matt Goodwin @GoodwinMJ · Jun 29 A citizenship that belongs to everybody belongs to no one.
If anybody can become British, or English, then Britishness & Englishness no longer exist.
If the only thing that defines a people is that they welcome others then they no longer exist, either.
What an imbecile.
Citizenship does not belong to everybody, it belongs to everybody who has it only. A French citizen living in France is not British.
If anybody living here adopts British citizenship or being English then Britishness and Englishness do not cease to exist, it just has another person who is that. With the rights and responsibilities associated with citizenship.
He's not an imbecile, he's just trying to intellectually dress up a point that he doesn't want certain people to be able to become citizens so it sounds like a grand philosophical stance rather than just that he hates and fears those people.
There's definitely been a shift online in the last 18 months, and not a happy one, from arguments about assimilation and limitations on immigration, towards an argument that even assimilation is not enough, or is impossible, or is undesirable even if it is possible.
There's a market for open racism in this country which is larger than most people would like. It's not the majority like the Lowe's and Goodwins of the world think, but it's probably still a few million, and capable of drawing in even more if disguised.
Though to.an extent, it was always there. Remember Nigel moaning about people having conversations in (gasps) not-English on the train?
There's a case- though one I'd want to interrogate- for"it doesn't matter where people are from, as long as they integrate". The reason to interrogate that is... how and how far? There's a balance between being who you were and becoming who you are. (A bit of expat experience is very salutary for exploring that.)
But if Britishness is really something you'll can't attain for a few generations, even if you play entirely by the rules, then include me out
Well I would have preferred it if the Manchester Arena bomber, for example, had chosen to integrate rather tham rejecting British culture. I like British culture. I don't want it to turn into someghing else. People are welcome to come here if they choose to adopt British culture, but if they would prefer to reject it in favour of their own, I'd rather they didn't come. I don't think this is unreasonable.
British culture? Not definable. People will give different answers as to what it is. We don't want ghetto-isation, we want mixing and matching of different backgrounds and perspectives, I agree with that. But the main obligation IMO - shared by immigrants and non-immigrants alike - is to live within the law. Agitate to change any particular one if you feel strongly about it, sure, but live within it. The Manchester bomber didn't do that. His failure in that regard was abject.
I don't find the point that British culture is not definable to be very persuasive on this issue. No culture is precisely definable as it will inevitably fall back on a level of generic or universal values - family, fairness, whatever - and/or inclusion of certain steretypical cliches - loving cricket and tea or whatever - which are not going to be shared by everyone anyway.
By that logic no country has a culture that is definable. Yet despite that changeability, I'd wager most places still insist that that culture is what is driving their policy attitudes.
So yes, there are dangers to introducing strict definitions of culture which people must meet - which is one reason people get a chuckle out of citizenship tests which existing citizens might struggle with - but many concepts, ideologies, or even the line between acceptable and unacceptable action can be hard to define, and yet they will still be real things.
British values, wokeness, fascism, art, pornography, MAGA, these might struggle to be agreed in all contexts by all people, and they will be prone to being overused and over applied, but they can still exist.
Yes you can have a discussion on what British Culture means. The very fact that it's slippery and everchanging and subjective means that it's great to discuss. Where you run into trouble (imo) is if you start to lay it down as something that people must 'adopt' or 'comply with' etc. That's a road to nowhere good at all.
I don't think it can be applied to rigidly. My joke example of if someone does not like cricket for example. But a general entreaty, even setting an expectation, that people coming from country A to country B, permanently, should seek to engage with and integrate with that culture rather than, perhaps, an expectation for country B to accommodate the language and cultural expectations of country A? More reasonable.
That would not be able to be subject to a strict test which you could then kick people out as a result if they fail of course, so would not be firm enough for many, but my answer to that would probably be that it would require, if our politics went that way, being firmer on rules of who can come in in the first place, given the impracticability of creating a fool proof 'culture' test (formal or otherwise).
I think it helps to be specific on this topic because much waffle is talked about it.
So, ok, the 'British Culture' that every resident should sign up to. My answer:
The law. That's the most important aspect.
To which I think we can add the language. Being able to communicate in English. That's the other important aspect.
That's it. Law and language.
If you disagree tell me what bespoke British (as opposed to universal) cultural necessity we are missing.
I think in trying to be specific you are losing the essence of culture. Law and language are necessary but not sufficient. Perhaps it is fair to say that nothing else is necessary but more is needed to be sufficient.
Some will be hyper local (i cycled past a corner shop that had whacked up two big TVs for the DRC England game and had attracted a hugely diverse crowd and probably plenty of unlicensed drinking). That was shared culture.
Dressing up in silly clothes and enacting pointless but rather quaint rituals (such as the Lord Mayor does) isn't uniquely British but definitely contributes to a shared culture.
Helping out at the PTA stall once every so often.
Turning up to a 'playing out' day on your street and bringing a poorly baked cupcake or two.
I agree that forcing people to adopt or comply with specific cultural traits or activities is nonsense. But equally someone (born here or not) who speaks the language, obeys the law, but doesn't otherwise participate in a shared local culture is not fulfilling their duties as a citizen imo.
Betting post, WRT the year of next election. Does anyone think that about 7/1 is value for a general election in 2028? Older readers will remember the time when it was normal for PMs to go to the country after four years, sometime in the fifth year, if the going looked prosperous. By the end of 2028 Burnham will have done two years+ and UK plc will be a cornucopia of joy and prosperity tiny bit more hopeful than it is now.
And, you will realise your mistake, admit it on here, and vote Conservative again.
We shall see. As a Tory voter for 50 years obviously I will vote for them if I can, but there are actually things more important than 'my party right or wrong'. I am not going to vote for them if they might be in bed with Reform, I am not going to vote for them if their leader is an immature 6th form debater, and I am not going to vote for them if voting elsewhere is necessary to keep Reform out.
The extent to which the Tories have trashed the brand is strange. Three things stand out:
Failing to plan when there were only two outcomes to the 2016 referendum and they forget to prepare for half of them. Cameron's resignation at the moment it was essential that he saw through the choice he himself had given us. The corruption under Boris and the lamentable farrago of Truss.
Now, starting from there, persuade me why I was wrong at the time, in 2024, to vote Labour and would reluctantly do so again tomorrow.
This is you starting from a conclusion you've already reached, and working back to find some information to fit it.
Your core rationale that Labour are the true "one nation Tories" today is one of the most laughable I've ever seen on here. You are their useful idiot.
Only you can persuade yourself. But you have to find the courage within yourself to admit you got it wrong first.
Whatever happened to the one nation Tories? Where did they go?
Johnson sacked them.
One nation != pro EU
He got all the big calls right?
Pretty much, yeah.
It was the little calls he struggled with more.
Johnson and his levelling up agenda was far more One Nation than Soubry, Grieve et al.
Betting post, WRT the year of next election. Does anyone think that about 7/1 is value for a general election in 2028? Older readers will remember the time when it was normal for PMs to go to the country after four years, sometime in the fifth year, if the going looked prosperous. By the end of 2028 Burnham will have done two years+ and UK plc will be a cornucopia of joy and prosperity tiny bit more hopeful than it is now.
And, you will realise your mistake, admit it on here, and vote Conservative again.
We shall see. As a Tory voter for 50 years obviously I will vote for them if I can, but there are actually things more important than 'my party right or wrong'. I am not going to vote for them if they might be in bed with Reform, I am not going to vote for them if their leader is an immature 6th form debater, and I am not going to vote for them if voting elsewhere is necessary to keep Reform out.
The extent to which the Tories have trashed the brand is strange. Three things stand out:
Failing to plan when there were only two outcomes to the 2016 referendum and they forget to prepare for half of them. Cameron's resignation at the moment it was essential that he saw through the choice he himself had given us. The corruption under Boris and the lamentable farrago of Truss.
Now, starting from there, persuade me why I was wrong at the time, in 2024, to vote Labour and would reluctantly do so again tomorrow.
This is you starting from a conclusion you've already reached, and working back to find some information to fit it.
Your core rationale that Labour are the true "one nation Tories" today is one of the most laughable I've ever seen on here. You are their useful idiot.
Only you can persuade yourself. But you have to find the courage within yourself to admit you got it wrong first.
Labour are not One Nation Tories and I have not said they are. The One Nation Tory party has ceased functioning, more or less from the day Cameron disgracefully resigned. Of the bad options available for government they were are are the least bad. Being least bad made them in 2024 the closest thing that a centrist Tory could vote for. They still are. I have lengthy criticisms of them however, as any One Nation Tory would.
Instead of putting up straw man arguments, persuade me that voting Tory is on balance better than voting Labour. I am generally on your side, I have voted Tory from the 1974 elections until 2024 when I stopped, so it shouldn't be hard.
Totally wrong, and you don't get to call yourself a One Nation Tory for voting for a left-wing Labour government. I find that infuriating.
If you were generally on our side, you wouldn't be asking this question.
Came here 20 years ago from Somalia, did voluntary work, got a degree, worked in the public sector, became a councillor and seems like he’s done a good job.
… in reply to…
Also: the Lord Mayor isn't really 'running' the city, is he? He's a figurehead - he gets to wear the mayoral regalia. He's like a municipal constitutional monarch.
I'm right up the immigration-sceptic end of the spectrum, but I can't get exercised about this at all. He looks to me very much like he's integrating. This is what we want, surely?
Same here
I think it’s nice to see a positive story of Somali migration and integration and actual economic participation for a change
In fact, this post crystallises one of my problems with Reform. I have so many complaints about immigration. The sheer numbers of undesirable immigrants crossing in boats. The criminal elements it introduces. The refusal to deal with the criminal elements robustly. The bending-over-backwards to put the needs and in some cases wants of (some) immigrants before the needs of our own people. The sheer amount of money we’re spending on immigrants (while, simultaneously, and puzzlingly, making it very hard and expensive for immigrants from places like Canada). The sheer squalor of places like Cheetham Hill. The depression of wages. But that very much isn’t to say I have an aversion to all immigrants or all immigration. I recognise the benefits. What I want is for immigrants to buy into Britishness. This is what most of the immigrants I know do. My daughter’s football and cricket clubs are peppered with immigrants and their families. For immigrants – like this guy in Britsol, willing to don silly British clothes – who want to buy into Britishness: this is absolutely brilliant. I love it. It’s not only great for Britain, but great that Britishness is something that people like this want to adopt. I think my views on this are perfectly mainstream.
A perfectly good case could have been made opposing ‘bad’ immigration while welcoming ‘good’. I’d say it would have been popular. Once again, Reform had an electoral open goal which they’ve judiciously aimed a good 45 degrees right of.
I agree, but I think what you miss is that Reform don’t want what we want. We see an integrated immigrant becoming Lord Mayor and think, "great, more of the same please".
For at least part of Reform’s coalition, the objection isn’t just illegal immigration or failed integration. It’s demographic and cultural change itself. From that perspective, Goodwin’s post isn’t a blunder at all. It’s entirely consistent.
To want to nudge the future in a particular direction is politics. To address what has already happened WRT who is lawfully living here by attacking its foundations and opposing assimilation, and wanting to demonise and reverse it is a starting point for the genuine fascist.
Yes, exactly. Opposing future policy is one thing. Looking at someone lawfully here, visibly assimilated, civically engaged, and then objecting anyway is quite another.
At that point the issue clearly isn’t failed integration. It’s that integration has succeeded, and some people still don’t like the result. - If successful assimilation still counts as a problem, then assimilation was never really the test.
Matt Goodwin @GoodwinMJ · Jun 29 A citizenship that belongs to everybody belongs to no one.
If anybody can become British, or English, then Britishness & Englishness no longer exist.
If the only thing that defines a people is that they welcome others then they no longer exist, either.
What an imbecile.
Citizenship does not belong to everybody, it belongs to everybody who has it only. A French citizen living in France is not British.
If anybody living here adopts British citizenship or being English then Britishness and Englishness do not cease to exist, it just has another person who is that. With the rights and responsibilities associated with citizenship.
He's not an imbecile, he's just trying to intellectually dress up a point that he doesn't want certain people to be able to become citizens so it sounds like a grand philosophical stance rather than just that he hates and fears those people.
There's definitely been a shift online in the last 18 months, and not a happy one, from arguments about assimilation and limitations on immigration, towards an argument that even assimilation is not enough, or is impossible, or is undesirable even if it is possible.
There's a market for open racism in this country which is larger than most people would like. It's not the majority like the Lowe's and Goodwins of the world think, but it's probably still a few million, and capable of drawing in even more if disguised.
Though to.an extent, it was always there. Remember Nigel moaning about people having conversations in (gasps) not-English on the train?
There's a case- though one I'd want to interrogate- for"it doesn't matter where people are from, as long as they integrate". The reason to interrogate that is... how and how far? There's a balance between being who you were and becoming who you are. (A bit of expat experience is very salutary for exploring that.)
But if Britishness is really something you'll can't attain for a few generations, even if you play entirely by the rules, then include me out
Well I would have preferred it if the Manchester Arena bomber, for example, had chosen to integrate rather tham rejecting British culture. I like British culture. I don't want it to turn into someghing else. People are welcome to come here if they choose to adopt British culture, but if they would prefer to reject it in favour of their own, I'd rather they didn't come. I don't think this is unreasonable.
British culture? Not definable. People will give different answers as to what it is. We don't want ghetto-isation, we want mixing and matching of different backgrounds and perspectives, I agree with that. But the main obligation IMO - shared by immigrants and non-immigrants alike - is to live within the law. Agitate to change any particular one if you feel strongly about it, sure, but live within it. The Manchester bomber didn't do that. His failure in that regard was abject.
I don't find the point that British culture is not definable to be very persuasive on this issue. No culture is precisely definable as it will inevitably fall back on a level of generic or universal values - family, fairness, whatever - and/or inclusion of certain steretypical cliches - loving cricket and tea or whatever - which are not going to be shared by everyone anyway.
By that logic no country has a culture that is definable. Yet despite that changeability, I'd wager most places still insist that that culture is what is driving their policy attitudes.
So yes, there are dangers to introducing strict definitions of culture which people must meet - which is one reason people get a chuckle out of citizenship tests which existing citizens might struggle with - but many concepts, ideologies, or even the line between acceptable and unacceptable action can be hard to define, and yet they will still be real things.
British values, wokeness, fascism, art, pornography, MAGA, these might struggle to be agreed in all contexts by all people, and they will be prone to being overused and over applied, but they can still exist.
Yes you can have a discussion on what British Culture means. The very fact that it's slippery and everchanging and subjective means that it's great to discuss. Where you run into trouble (imo) is if you start to lay it down as something that people must 'adopt' or 'comply with' etc. That's a road to nowhere good at all.
I don't think it can be applied to rigidly. My joke example of if someone does not like cricket for example. But a general entreaty, even setting an expectation, that people coming from country A to country B, permanently, should seek to engage with and integrate with that culture rather than, perhaps, an expectation for country B to accommodate the language and cultural expectations of country A? More reasonable.
That would not be able to be subject to a strict test which you could then kick people out as a result if they fail of course, so would not be firm enough for many, but my answer to that would probably be that it would require, if our politics went that way, being firmer on rules of who can come in in the first place, given the impracticability of creating a fool proof 'culture' test (formal or otherwise).
I think it helps to be specific on this topic because much waffle is talked about it.
So, ok, this 'British Culture' that every resident should sign up to. My answer:
The law. That's the most important aspect.
To which I think we can add the language. Being able to communicate in English. That's the next most important aspect.
That's it. Law and language.
If you disagree tell me what bespoke British (as opposed to universal) cultural necessity we are missing.
Again, that's an argument that nowhere has a unique culture, since what place doesn't substitute (mostly) universal values as emblematic of their national culture, so I don't see the value in effectively saying there is no bespoke British culture, yet people feel these things nonetheless.
Take an anecdote I had the other day, where an acquaintance was telling me one thing they love about the culture in this country is because unlike their native country (which they still love) officialdom and bureaucracy cares about individuals and doesn't just treat service users with indifference and hostility. I think a fair few British people, including those who have traveled widely, would say that is not something they associate with UK local government and public service, nor cultural values.
So as to your main point I wouldn't disagree about the primary significance of acceptance of the rule of law and language (though I think some would disagree on the latter), but how national cultures emphasise universal values is itself part of the national culture. What do we tell ourselves are more important, which of those values do we tend to focus upon more than others.
Fair play over free speech, for example, or how, say, Spain or Italy have a better culture around family and looking after the elderly (I don't know if they actually do, but I'd heard that) despite 'family' being a universal value it could still be more of a value in those places than here.
It's not bespoke, but it can still present differently. And yes, that makes a loyalty or integration 'test' impossible.
I'm sorry if that is felt to be waffle, but I think waffle is necessary on this subject, because precision is unobtainable.
We need to be woollier, go with the flow a bit more - which, incidentally, I would say is more of a British thing than some cultures.
All good and I think illustrates what I'm saying. You and I and the rest of PB can have a great conversation about what we think constitutes British Culture. But when it comes to statements along the lines of 'immigrants must adopt it' you do then need to go to press with a clear and common understanding of what the 'it' is. And beyond the law and the language there isn't one.
From Popbitch today 'Stanley Johnson is making new friends with his neighbours down on the family farm in Devon. He recently admitted to one that he voted Lib Dem in the local elections.'
From Popbitch today 'Stanley Johnson is making new friends with his neighbours down on the family farm in Devon. He recently admitted to one that he voted Lib Dem in the local elections.'
Betting post, WRT the year of next election. Does anyone think that about 7/1 is value for a general election in 2028? Older readers will remember the time when it was normal for PMs to go to the country after four years, sometime in the fifth year, if the going looked prosperous. By the end of 2028 Burnham will have done two years+ and UK plc will be a cornucopia of joy and prosperity tiny bit more hopeful than it is now.
Yes it is value, but I do not need to wait two years (or more) for a 7/1 shot.
Pat McFadden!
Just noticed Jeremy Hunt is 100/1 to be PM after Burnham. Worth a pound?
Hunt has said he would not run again but obviously can change his mind. You'd need Kemi to be ousted, which presumably means the Conservatives performing very badly, then Hunt to take over, followed by a miracle to get Tory polling up from panic-mode all the way to winning an election. I can't see it although there may be some value as a trading bet if Kemi is ousted and Hunt does agree to stand. It seems unlikely but then most 100/1 shots do. I won't be following you in.
Kemi I think is secure now, the 2025 and 2026 LEs were the worst and she got through those, next year and in 2028 the Tories will start from a much lower base. Hunt would not win a Tory members vote anyway so would need a coronation in the unlikely event he got the job
The Tories need to learn to work together and accept being a broad church, rather than the political version of the Wee Frees.
Spain are probably the second best team in the tournament, arguably third behind Argentina. They are, however, one of those teams that never seem to score as many goals as they should. In the brief glory days under Jim McLean Dundee United were like this. They played beautiful football but seemed to be determined to walk the ball into the net and all too often they thrashed their opponents for a slightly nervy 1-0.
I can't help feeling that against the very best teams this weakness may cost them. But Yamal is just a brilliant player to watch.
Worth remembering this was the feeling in 2024 too.
Came here 20 years ago from Somalia, did voluntary work, got a degree, worked in the public sector, became a councillor and seems like he’s done a good job.
… in reply to…
Also: the Lord Mayor isn't really 'running' the city, is he? He's a figurehead - he gets to wear the mayoral regalia. He's like a municipal constitutional monarch.
I'm right up the immigration-sceptic end of the spectrum, but I can't get exercised about this at all. He looks to me very much like he's integrating. This is what we want, surely?
Same here
I think it’s nice to see a positive story of Somali migration and integration and actual economic participation for a change
In fact, this post crystallises one of my problems with Reform. I have so many complaints about immigration. The sheer numbers of undesirable immigrants crossing in boats. The criminal elements it introduces. The refusal to deal with the criminal elements robustly. The bending-over-backwards to put the needs and in some cases wants of (some) immigrants before the needs of our own people. The sheer amount of money we’re spending on immigrants (while, simultaneously, and puzzlingly, making it very hard and expensive for immigrants from places like Canada). The sheer squalor of places like Cheetham Hill. The depression of wages. But that very much isn’t to say I have an aversion to all immigrants or all immigration. I recognise the benefits. What I want is for immigrants to buy into Britishness. This is what most of the immigrants I know do. My daughter’s football and cricket clubs are peppered with immigrants and their families. For immigrants – like this guy in Britsol, willing to don silly British clothes – who want to buy into Britishness: this is absolutely brilliant. I love it. It’s not only great for Britain, but great that Britishness is something that people like this want to adopt. I think my views on this are perfectly mainstream.
A perfectly good case could have been made opposing ‘bad’ immigration while welcoming ‘good’. I’d say it would have been popular. Once again, Reform had an electoral open goal which they’ve judiciously aimed a good 45 degrees right of.
I agree, but I think what you miss is that Reform don’t want what we want. We see an integrated immigrant becoming Lord Mayor and think, "great, more of the same please".
For at least part of Reform’s coalition, the objection isn’t just illegal immigration or failed integration. It’s demographic and cultural change itself. From that perspective, Goodwin’s post isn’t a blunder at all. It’s entirely consistent.
To want to nudge the future in a particular direction is politics. To address what has already happened WRT who is lawfully living here by attacking its foundations and opposing assimilation, and wanting to demonise and reverse it is a starting point for the genuine fascist.
Yes, exactly. Opposing future policy is one thing. Looking at someone lawfully here, visibly assimilated, civically engaged, and then objecting anyway is quite another.
At that point the issue clearly isn’t failed integration. It’s that integration has succeeded, and some people still don’t like the result. - If successful assimilation still counts as a problem, then assimilation was never really the test.
Matt Goodwin @GoodwinMJ · Jun 29 A citizenship that belongs to everybody belongs to no one.
If anybody can become British, or English, then Britishness & Englishness no longer exist.
If the only thing that defines a people is that they welcome others then they no longer exist, either.
What an imbecile.
Citizenship does not belong to everybody, it belongs to everybody who has it only. A French citizen living in France is not British.
If anybody living here adopts British citizenship or being English then Britishness and Englishness do not cease to exist, it just has another person who is that. With the rights and responsibilities associated with citizenship.
He's not an imbecile, he's just trying to intellectually dress up a point that he doesn't want certain people to be able to become citizens so it sounds like a grand philosophical stance rather than just that he hates and fears those people.
There's definitely been a shift online in the last 18 months, and not a happy one, from arguments about assimilation and limitations on immigration, towards an argument that even assimilation is not enough, or is impossible, or is undesirable even if it is possible.
There's a market for open racism in this country which is larger than most people would like. It's not the majority like the Lowe's and Goodwins of the world think, but it's probably still a few million, and capable of drawing in even more if disguised.
Though to.an extent, it was always there. Remember Nigel moaning about people having conversations in (gasps) not-English on the train?
There's a case- though one I'd want to interrogate- for"it doesn't matter where people are from, as long as they integrate". The reason to interrogate that is... how and how far? There's a balance between being who you were and becoming who you are. (A bit of expat experience is very salutary for exploring that.)
But if Britishness is really something you'll can't attain for a few generations, even if you play entirely by the rules, then include me out
Well I would have preferred it if the Manchester Arena bomber, for example, had chosen to integrate rather tham rejecting British culture. I like British culture. I don't want it to turn into someghing else. People are welcome to come here if they choose to adopt British culture, but if they would prefer to reject it in favour of their own, I'd rather they didn't come. I don't think this is unreasonable.
British culture? Not definable. People will give different answers as to what it is. We don't want ghetto-isation, we want mixing and matching of different backgrounds and perspectives, I agree with that. But the main obligation IMO - shared by immigrants and non-immigrants alike - is to live within the law. Agitate to change any particular one if you feel strongly about it, sure, but live within it. The Manchester bomber didn't do that. His failure in that regard was abject.
I don't find the point that British culture is not definable to be very persuasive on this issue. No culture is precisely definable as it will inevitably fall back on a level of generic or universal values - family, fairness, whatever - and/or inclusion of certain steretypical cliches - loving cricket and tea or whatever - which are not going to be shared by everyone anyway.
By that logic no country has a culture that is definable. Yet despite that changeability, I'd wager most places still insist that that culture is what is driving their policy attitudes.
So yes, there are dangers to introducing strict definitions of culture which people must meet - which is one reason people get a chuckle out of citizenship tests which existing citizens might struggle with - but many concepts, ideologies, or even the line between acceptable and unacceptable action can be hard to define, and yet they will still be real things.
British values, wokeness, fascism, art, pornography, MAGA, these might struggle to be agreed in all contexts by all people, and they will be prone to being overused and over applied, but they can still exist.
Yes you can have a discussion on what British Culture means. The very fact that it's slippery and everchanging and subjective means that it's great to discuss. Where you run into trouble (imo) is if you start to lay it down as something that people must 'adopt' or 'comply with' etc. That's a road to nowhere good at all.
I don't think it can be applied to rigidly. My joke example of if someone does not like cricket for example. But a general entreaty, even setting an expectation, that people coming from country A to country B, permanently, should seek to engage with and integrate with that culture rather than, perhaps, an expectation for country B to accommodate the language and cultural expectations of country A? More reasonable.
That would not be able to be subject to a strict test which you could then kick people out as a result if they fail of course, so would not be firm enough for many, but my answer to that would probably be that it would require, if our politics went that way, being firmer on rules of who can come in in the first place, given the impracticability of creating a fool proof 'culture' test (formal or otherwise).
I think it helps to be specific on this topic because much waffle is talked about it.
So, ok, the 'British Culture' that every resident should sign up to. My answer:
The law. That's the most important aspect.
To which I think we can add the language. Being able to communicate in English. That's the other important aspect.
That's it. Law and language.
If you disagree tell me what bespoke British (as opposed to universal) cultural necessity we are missing.
I think in trying to be specific you are losing the essence of culture. Law and language are necessary but not sufficient. Perhaps it is fair to say that nothing else is necessary but more is needed to be sufficient.
Some will be hyper local (i cycled past a corner shop that had whacked up two big TVs for the DRC England game and had attracted a hugely diverse crowd and probably plenty of unlicensed drinking). That was shared culture.
Dressing up in silly clothes and enacting pointless but rather quaint rituals (such as the Lord Mayor does) isn't uniquely British but definitely contributes to a shared culture.
Helping out at the PTA stall once every so often.
Turning up to a 'playing out' day on your street and bringing a poorly baked cupcake or two.
I agree that forcing people to adopt or comply with specific cultural traits or activities is nonsense. But equally someone (born here or not) who speaks the language, obeys the law, but doesn't otherwise participate in a shared local culture is not fulfilling their duties as a citizen imo.
From my point of view I share very fully in a shared local culture, but there are perspectives from which I could be said to be absent from it. I think communities, even rural ones, are more fragmented than you describe.
In most of rural England the traditional foci of shared culture are the pub and the church, with sporting offshoots, especially football and cricket, and the village hall as a venue, and the village school as the focus for the under 12s.
Even in villages this breaks down, so I suspect what you mean by 'shared local culture' will actually be rather up for grabs. In larger and more urban communities for example the very idea of church as focus of 'shared local culture' would be met with incomprehension even though within living memory it was.
Can the northerners please self identify before commenting on the hot weather?
Yes we know you were shocked to have a clear sky and a temperature starting with a 2 for more than 2 hours, but perhaps leave the discussions on the heatwave to people further south?
You are welcome to apply similar rules in reverse when we next have a cold spell.
Spain are probably the second best team in the tournament, arguably third behind Argentina. They are, however, one of those teams that never seem to score as many goals as they should. In the brief glory days under Jim McLean Dundee United were like this. They played beautiful football but seemed to be determined to walk the ball into the net and all too often they thrashed their opponents for a slightly nervy 1-0.
I can't help feeling that against the very best teams this weakness may cost them. But Yamal is just a brilliant player to watch.
Worth remembering this was the feeling in 2024 too.
Yes, but I think this team is better. They have made a really decent Austrian team look very poor.
Returned home today. Strange to think, looking at the crowds of commuters all enjoying a sunny Thursday evening drink outside Liverpool Street, that this may be the coolest day between now and at least mid July.
We had complaints when we were in the high 30s, which London is not designed for, but the forecast over the next 2 weeks of consistent high 20s and dipping into low 30s with no rain for 2 weeks is idyllic.
It was looking that way, but let me reel off the UK maxima from this evening’s 15 day GFS run (actual maxes are usually 1 or 2C above these). Starts quite nice, then just keeps going.
27,30,30,32,32,34,32,33,36,37,35,35,35,37,40,33
The temperatures in France are a whole other ballgame. Not looking forward to being there mid-month. It’s already 32C in the downstairs study according to my weather station.
Come on, you know that accuracy drops off massively after 5 days. That 40 has as much validity as the endless beasts from the east in winter. It may happen, sure, but let’s see.
Even 32 is warmer than I would like for London. I think the sensible London max is about 27.
Mortality goes up past something like 23.
But morality doesn't go up until you get into the mid-30s.
I am having a drink this evening with a friend in a Chiswick pub. Two policemen have just come into the pub and asked me to step outside. I have stepped outside and they have threatened me because I tweeted about a councillor banning seating outside pubs in Chiswick. They admit on video (watch it!) that I did not break the law at all.
No doubt only a dozen or so yards away there is a shop being battered by shop lifting whilst at the nearest tube people are fare dodging on mass and just down the road a mobile phone has been nicked off an innocent tourist.
But, hey, let's go after people who tweet.
He literally sent a tweet alleging that Green Councillor had called for the removal of outside seating at a well known river side pub.
Can the northerners please self identify before commenting on the hot weather?
Yes we know you were shocked to have a clear sky and a temperature starting with a 2 for more than 2 hours, but perhaps leave the discussions on the heatwave to people further south?
You are welcome to apply similar rules in reverse when we next have a cold spell.
In Scotland, a heatwave is when you can take the big coat off. A drought is when you can leave your raincoat at home.
I am having a drink this evening with a friend in a Chiswick pub. Two policemen have just come into the pub and asked me to step outside. I have stepped outside and they have threatened me because I tweeted about a councillor banning seating outside pubs in Chiswick. They admit on video (watch it!) that I did not break the law at all.
No doubt only a dozen or so yards away there is a shop being battered by shop lifting whilst at the nearest tube people are fare dodging on mass and just down the road a mobile phone has been nicked off an innocent tourist.
But, hey, let's go after people who tweet.
He literally sent a tweet alleging that Green Councillor had called for the removal of outside seating at a well known river side pub.
Moden Britain.
Going to have to ask you to step outside for a talking-to about "on mass" I'm afraid, Rottenborough.
Betting post, WRT the year of next election. Does anyone think that about 7/1 is value for a general election in 2028? Older readers will remember the time when it was normal for PMs to go to the country after four years, sometime in the fifth year, if the going looked prosperous. By the end of 2028 Burnham will have done two years+ and UK plc will be a cornucopia of joy and prosperity tiny bit more hopeful than it is now.
And, you will realise your mistake, admit it on here, and vote Conservative again.
We shall see. As a Tory voter for 50 years obviously I will vote for them if I can, but there are actually things more important than 'my party right or wrong'. I am not going to vote for them if they might be in bed with Reform, I am not going to vote for them if their leader is an immature 6th form debater, and I am not going to vote for them if voting elsewhere is necessary to keep Reform out.
The extent to which the Tories have trashed the brand is strange. Three things stand out:
Failing to plan when there were only two outcomes to the 2016 referendum and they forget to prepare for half of them. Cameron's resignation at the moment it was essential that he saw through the choice he himself had given us. The corruption under Boris and the lamentable farrago of Truss.
Now, starting from there, persuade me why I was wrong at the time, in 2024, to vote Labour and would reluctantly do so again tomorrow.
This is you starting from a conclusion you've already reached, and working back to find some information to fit it.
Your core rationale that Labour are the true "one nation Tories" today is one of the most laughable I've ever seen on here. You are their useful idiot.
Only you can persuade yourself. But you have to find the courage within yourself to admit you got it wrong first.
Labour are not One Nation Tories and I have not said they are. The One Nation Tory party has ceased functioning, more or less from the day Cameron disgracefully resigned. Of the bad options available for government they were are are the least bad. Being least bad made them in 2024 the closest thing that a centrist Tory could vote for. They still are. I have lengthy criticisms of them however, as any One Nation Tory would.
Instead of putting up straw man arguments, persuade me that voting Tory is on balance better than voting Labour. I am generally on your side, I have voted Tory from the 1974 elections until 2024 when I stopped, so it shouldn't be hard.
Totally wrong, and you don't get to call yourself a One Nation Tory for voting for a left-wing Labour government. I find that infuriating.
If you were generally on our side, you wouldn't be asking this question.
What's left-wing about this Labour government? It's very soft-left.
Betting post, WRT the year of next election. Does anyone think that about 7/1 is value for a general election in 2028? Older readers will remember the time when it was normal for PMs to go to the country after four years, sometime in the fifth year, if the going looked prosperous. By the end of 2028 Burnham will have done two years+ and UK plc will be a cornucopia of joy and prosperity tiny bit more hopeful than it is now.
And, you will realise your mistake, admit it on here, and vote Conservative again.
We shall see. As a Tory voter for 50 years obviously I will vote for them if I can, but there are actually things more important than 'my party right or wrong'. I am not going to vote for them if they might be in bed with Reform, I am not going to vote for them if their leader is an immature 6th form debater, and I am not going to vote for them if voting elsewhere is necessary to keep Reform out.
The extent to which the Tories have trashed the brand is strange. Three things stand out:
Failing to plan when there were only two outcomes to the 2016 referendum and they forget to prepare for half of them. Cameron's resignation at the moment it was essential that he saw through the choice he himself had given us. The corruption under Boris and the lamentable farrago of Truss.
Now, starting from there, persuade me why I was wrong at the time, in 2024, to vote Labour and would reluctantly do so again tomorrow.
This is you starting from a conclusion you've already reached, and working back to find some information to fit it.
Your core rationale that Labour are the true "one nation Tories" today is one of the most laughable I've ever seen on here. You are their useful idiot.
Only you can persuade yourself. But you have to find the courage within yourself to admit you got it wrong first.
Labour are not One Nation Tories and I have not said they are. The One Nation Tory party has ceased functioning, more or less from the day Cameron disgracefully resigned. Of the bad options available for government they were are are the least bad. Being least bad made them in 2024 the closest thing that a centrist Tory could vote for. They still are. I have lengthy criticisms of them however, as any One Nation Tory would.
Instead of putting up straw man arguments, persuade me that voting Tory is on balance better than voting Labour. I am generally on your side, I have voted Tory from the 1974 elections until 2024 when I stopped, so it shouldn't be hard.
Totally wrong, and you don't get to call yourself a One Nation Tory for voting for a left-wing Labour government. I find that infuriating.
If you were generally on our side, you wouldn't be asking this question.
What's left-wing about this Labour government? It's very soft-left.
Don't take my word for it, take that of your own.
A Labour cabinet minister himself has complained that this administration has passed the two most left-wing budgets in the past 50 years, and much of their base are still voting Green.
What Starmer has done is bequeath a several billion-pound “black hole” to his successor, repeating the crime for which he and Rachel Reeves were so voluble in denouncing the Conservative government. Some of it is even an “in-year” black hole, in the current financial year, which is what Reeves found when she opened the books two years ago.
This bit is more interesting though.
And Starmer was furious with Mahmood for suggesting that he should set a timetable for his departure – even though it was reported that Ed Miliband, Yvette Cooper and others said the same thing.
I find the subjects of culture and multiculturalism complex and nuanced.
In my part of the world, there are many cultures - as an example, we have a Christian Church, a Mosque, the Sri Mahalakshmi temple and a Gurdwara all within walking distance of Stodge Towers. Each will have its adherents, its community, its social scene yet I suspect they are largely mutually exclusive.
There are any number of diverse yet co-existing cultures in East Ham and trying to claim one as "better" than the others won't get you very far.
Indeed, "multi-culturalism" also means having to live within and across a number of cultures - the culture at home, the culture among friends, the culture at work etc. Conservative family life (often hierarchical) clashes with the more open culture beyond the front door and there are tensions (I suspect) within families we (normally) don't see and of which we are not aware.
The power of a relatively free society and the twin influences of capitalism and education do much to weaken traditional values and mores in some communities and what you get is new cultures evolving which nod to tradition but seek to create their own - it's the dynamic of an open society which we should be encouraging.
I am having a drink this evening with a friend in a Chiswick pub. Two policemen have just come into the pub and asked me to step outside. I have stepped outside and they have threatened me because I tweeted about a councillor banning seating outside pubs in Chiswick. They admit on video (watch it!) that I did not break the law at all.
No doubt only a dozen or so yards away there is a shop being battered by shop lifting whilst at the nearest tube people are fare dodging on mass and just down the road a mobile phone has been nicked off an innocent tourist.
But, hey, let's go after people who tweet.
He literally sent a tweet alleging that Green Councillor had called for the removal of outside seating at a well known river side pub.
Moden Britain.
Going to have to ask you to step outside for a talking-to about "on mass" I'm afraid, Rottenborough.
Crikey. I could get five years for this one. Gulp.
Came here 20 years ago from Somalia, did voluntary work, got a degree, worked in the public sector, became a councillor and seems like he’s done a good job.
… in reply to…
Also: the Lord Mayor isn't really 'running' the city, is he? He's a figurehead - he gets to wear the mayoral regalia. He's like a municipal constitutional monarch.
I'm right up the immigration-sceptic end of the spectrum, but I can't get exercised about this at all. He looks to me very much like he's integrating. This is what we want, surely?
Same here
I think it’s nice to see a positive story of Somali migration and integration and actual economic participation for a change
In fact, this post crystallises one of my problems with Reform. I have so many complaints about immigration. The sheer numbers of undesirable immigrants crossing in boats. The criminal elements it introduces. The refusal to deal with the criminal elements robustly. The bending-over-backwards to put the needs and in some cases wants of (some) immigrants before the needs of our own people. The sheer amount of money we’re spending on immigrants (while, simultaneously, and puzzlingly, making it very hard and expensive for immigrants from places like Canada). The sheer squalor of places like Cheetham Hill. The depression of wages. But that very much isn’t to say I have an aversion to all immigrants or all immigration. I recognise the benefits. What I want is for immigrants to buy into Britishness. This is what most of the immigrants I know do. My daughter’s football and cricket clubs are peppered with immigrants and their families. For immigrants – like this guy in Britsol, willing to don silly British clothes – who want to buy into Britishness: this is absolutely brilliant. I love it. It’s not only great for Britain, but great that Britishness is something that people like this want to adopt. I think my views on this are perfectly mainstream.
A perfectly good case could have been made opposing ‘bad’ immigration while welcoming ‘good’. I’d say it would have been popular. Once again, Reform had an electoral open goal which they’ve judiciously aimed a good 45 degrees right of.
I agree, but I think what you miss is that Reform don’t want what we want. We see an integrated immigrant becoming Lord Mayor and think, "great, more of the same please".
For at least part of Reform’s coalition, the objection isn’t just illegal immigration or failed integration. It’s demographic and cultural change itself. From that perspective, Goodwin’s post isn’t a blunder at all. It’s entirely consistent.
To want to nudge the future in a particular direction is politics. To address what has already happened WRT who is lawfully living here by attacking its foundations and opposing assimilation, and wanting to demonise and reverse it is a starting point for the genuine fascist.
Yes, exactly. Opposing future policy is one thing. Looking at someone lawfully here, visibly assimilated, civically engaged, and then objecting anyway is quite another.
At that point the issue clearly isn’t failed integration. It’s that integration has succeeded, and some people still don’t like the result. - If successful assimilation still counts as a problem, then assimilation was never really the test.
Matt Goodwin @GoodwinMJ · Jun 29 A citizenship that belongs to everybody belongs to no one.
If anybody can become British, or English, then Britishness & Englishness no longer exist.
If the only thing that defines a people is that they welcome others then they no longer exist, either.
What an imbecile.
Citizenship does not belong to everybody, it belongs to everybody who has it only. A French citizen living in France is not British.
If anybody living here adopts British citizenship or being English then Britishness and Englishness do not cease to exist, it just has another person who is that. With the rights and responsibilities associated with citizenship.
He's not an imbecile, he's just trying to intellectually dress up a point that he doesn't want certain people to be able to become citizens so it sounds like a grand philosophical stance rather than just that he hates and fears those people.
There's definitely been a shift online in the last 18 months, and not a happy one, from arguments about assimilation and limitations on immigration, towards an argument that even assimilation is not enough, or is impossible, or is undesirable even if it is possible.
There's a market for open racism in this country which is larger than most people would like. It's not the majority like the Lowe's and Goodwins of the world think, but it's probably still a few million, and capable of drawing in even more if disguised.
Though to.an extent, it was always there. Remember Nigel moaning about people having conversations in (gasps) not-English on the train?
There's a case- though one I'd want to interrogate- for"it doesn't matter where people are from, as long as they integrate". The reason to interrogate that is... how and how far? There's a balance between being who you were and becoming who you are. (A bit of expat experience is very salutary for exploring that.)
But if Britishness is really something you'll can't attain for a few generations, even if you play entirely by the rules, then include me out
Well I would have preferred it if the Manchester Arena bomber, for example, had chosen to integrate rather tham rejecting British culture. I like British culture. I don't want it to turn into someghing else. People are welcome to come here if they choose to adopt British culture, but if they would prefer to reject it in favour of their own, I'd rather they didn't come. I don't think this is unreasonable.
British culture? Not definable. People will give different answers as to what it is. We don't want ghetto-isation, we want mixing and matching of different backgrounds and perspectives, I agree with that. But the main obligation IMO - shared by immigrants and non-immigrants alike - is to live within the law. Agitate to change any particular one if you feel strongly about it, sure, but live within it. The Manchester bomber didn't do that. His failure in that regard was abject.
I don't find the point that British culture is not definable to be very persuasive on this issue. No culture is precisely definable as it will inevitably fall back on a level of generic or universal values - family, fairness, whatever - and/or inclusion of certain steretypical cliches - loving cricket and tea or whatever - which are not going to be shared by everyone anyway.
By that logic no country has a culture that is definable. Yet despite that changeability, I'd wager most places still insist that that culture is what is driving their policy attitudes.
So yes, there are dangers to introducing strict definitions of culture which people must meet - which is one reason people get a chuckle out of citizenship tests which existing citizens might struggle with - but many concepts, ideologies, or even the line between acceptable and unacceptable action can be hard to define, and yet they will still be real things.
British values, wokeness, fascism, art, pornography, MAGA, these might struggle to be agreed in all contexts by all people, and they will be prone to being overused and over applied, but they can still exist.
Yes you can have a discussion on what British Culture means. The very fact that it's slippery and everchanging and subjective means that it's great to discuss. Where you run into trouble (imo) is if you start to lay it down as something that people must 'adopt' or 'comply with' etc. That's a road to nowhere good at all.
I don't think it can be applied to rigidly. My joke example of if someone does not like cricket for example. But a general entreaty, even setting an expectation, that people coming from country A to country B, permanently, should seek to engage with and integrate with that culture rather than, perhaps, an expectation for country B to accommodate the language and cultural expectations of country A? More reasonable.
That would not be able to be subject to a strict test which you could then kick people out as a result if they fail of course, so would not be firm enough for many, but my answer to that would probably be that it would require, if our politics went that way, being firmer on rules of who can come in in the first place, given the impracticability of creating a fool proof 'culture' test (formal or otherwise).
I think it helps to be specific on this topic because much waffle is talked about it.
So, ok, the 'British Culture' that every resident should sign up to. My answer:
The law. That's the most important aspect.
To which I think we can add the language. Being able to communicate in English. That's the other important aspect.
That's it. Law and language.
If you disagree tell me what bespoke British (as opposed to universal) cultural necessity we are missing.
I think in trying to be specific you are losing the essence of culture. Law and language are necessary but not sufficient. Perhaps it is fair to say that nothing else is necessary but more is needed to be sufficient.
Some will be hyper local (i cycled past a corner shop that had whacked up two big TVs for the DRC England game and had attracted a hugely diverse crowd and probably plenty of unlicensed drinking). That was shared culture.
Dressing up in silly clothes and enacting pointless but rather quaint rituals (such as the Lord Mayor does) isn't uniquely British but definitely contributes to a shared culture.
Helping out at the PTA stall once every so often.
Turning up to a 'playing out' day on your street and bringing a poorly baked cupcake or two.
I agree that forcing people to adopt or comply with specific cultural traits or activities is nonsense. But equally someone (born here or not) who speaks the language, obeys the law, but doesn't otherwise participate in a shared local culture is not fulfilling their duties as a citizen imo.
I'm not so much losing the essence of culture, I'm more *employing* the essence of culture (which as you say is subjective and not definable in specifics) to show that it can't meaningfully be something that immigrants have to 'adopt'. I find that idea either well-intentioned but unworkable or sinister, depending on who it's coming from.
He thinks that Burnham has been agitating to undermine him all along, having left Westminster and played no part in winning the huge majority that should have entitled him to be PM for at least five years.
If Starmer genuinely thinks that he us a self-entitled idiot who does not understand our constitution at all.
Labour MPs are entitled by the election result of forming a government for five years, but no election grants anyone five years in Downing Street any more than a shadow minister is entitled if they win the election to hold that ministry for five years.
The PM is entitled to reshuffle his ministers. And MPs are entitled to reshuffle their leader.
If he did not want to be sacked, he should have been less shit at the day job.
If true, then Sir Keir is indeed giving Andy the best possible start by enabling him to distance himself totally from the prior leadership.
Does Burnham have access to a Civil Service transition team as he would in the lead up to possibly taking power at a GE? If not, then that’s something that should be changed.
Betting post, WRT the year of next election. Does anyone think that about 7/1 is value for a general election in 2028? Older readers will remember the time when it was normal for PMs to go to the country after four years, sometime in the fifth year, if the going looked prosperous. By the end of 2028 Burnham will have done two years+ and UK plc will be a cornucopia of joy and prosperity tiny bit more hopeful than it is now.
And, you will realise your mistake, admit it on here, and vote Conservative again.
We shall see. As a Tory voter for 50 years obviously I will vote for them if I can, but there are actually things more important than 'my party right or wrong'. I am not going to vote for them if they might be in bed with Reform, I am not going to vote for them if their leader is an immature 6th form debater, and I am not going to vote for them if voting elsewhere is necessary to keep Reform out.
The extent to which the Tories have trashed the brand is strange. Three things stand out:
Failing to plan when there were only two outcomes to the 2016 referendum and they forget to prepare for half of them. Cameron's resignation at the moment it was essential that he saw through the choice he himself had given us. The corruption under Boris and the lamentable farrago of Truss.
Now, starting from there, persuade me why I was wrong at the time, in 2024, to vote Labour and would reluctantly do so again tomorrow.
This is you starting from a conclusion you've already reached, and working back to find some information to fit it.
Your core rationale that Labour are the true "one nation Tories" today is one of the most laughable I've ever seen on here. You are their useful idiot.
Only you can persuade yourself. But you have to find the courage within yourself to admit you got it wrong first.
Whatever happened to the one nation Tories? Where did they go?
Podcast studios.
But yes- there isn't really anyone making a serious play for that slice of the electorate.
If true, then Sir Keir is indeed giving Andy the best possible start by enabling him to distance himself totally from the prior leadership.
Andy Burnham can rub salt into Starmer’s wounds by appointing Streeting and Mahmood to his cabinet whilst not appointing Starmer or his allies, and by reinstating the whip to the MPs to whom it was withdrawn by Starmer for disagreeing with him. Edit: he should also publicly not appoint anyone, like Douglas Alexander, who was associated with Mandelson.
Betting post, WRT the year of next election. Does anyone think that about 7/1 is value for a general election in 2028? Older readers will remember the time when it was normal for PMs to go to the country after four years, sometime in the fifth year, if the going looked prosperous. By the end of 2028 Burnham will have done two years+ and UK plc will be a cornucopia of joy and prosperity tiny bit more hopeful than it is now.
And, you will realise your mistake, admit it on here, and vote Conservative again.
We shall see. As a Tory voter for 50 years obviously I will vote for them if I can, but there are actually things more important than 'my party right or wrong'. I am not going to vote for them if they might be in bed with Reform, I am not going to vote for them if their leader is an immature 6th form debater, and I am not going to vote for them if voting elsewhere is necessary to keep Reform out.
The extent to which the Tories have trashed the brand is strange. Three things stand out:
Failing to plan when there were only two outcomes to the 2016 referendum and they forget to prepare for half of them. Cameron's resignation at the moment it was essential that he saw through the choice he himself had given us. The corruption under Boris and the lamentable farrago of Truss.
Now, starting from there, persuade me why I was wrong at the time, in 2024, to vote Labour and would reluctantly do so again tomorrow.
This is you starting from a conclusion you've already reached, and working back to find some information to fit it.
Your core rationale that Labour are the true "one nation Tories" today is one of the most laughable I've ever seen on here. You are their useful idiot.
Only you can persuade yourself. But you have to find the courage within yourself to admit you got it wrong first.
Labour are not One Nation Tories and I have not said they are. The One Nation Tory party has ceased functioning, more or less from the day Cameron disgracefully resigned. Of the bad options available for government they were are are the least bad. Being least bad made them in 2024 the closest thing that a centrist Tory could vote for. They still are. I have lengthy criticisms of them however, as any One Nation Tory would.
Instead of putting up straw man arguments, persuade me that voting Tory is on balance better than voting Labour. I am generally on your side, I have voted Tory from the 1974 elections until 2024 when I stopped, so it shouldn't be hard.
Totally wrong, and you don't get to call yourself a One Nation Tory for voting for a left-wing Labour government. I find that infuriating.
If you were generally on our side, you wouldn't be asking this question.
Persuade me. Tory voter for 50 years. Should be easy. Try.
I am having a drink this evening with a friend in a Chiswick pub. Two policemen have just come into the pub and asked me to step outside. I have stepped outside and they have threatened me because I tweeted about a councillor banning seating outside pubs in Chiswick. They admit on video (watch it!) that I did not break the law at all.
No doubt only a dozen or so yards away there is a shop being battered by shop lifting whilst at the nearest tube people are fare dodging on mass and just down the road a mobile phone has been nicked off an innocent tourist.
But, hey, let's go after people who tweet.
He literally sent a tweet alleging that Green Councillor had called for the removal of outside seating at a well known river side pub.
If true, then Sir Keir is indeed giving Andy the best possible start by enabling him to distance himself totally from the prior leadership.
Does Burnham have access to a Civil Service transition team as he would in the lead up to possibly taking power at a GE? If not, then that’s something that should be changed.
The Civil Service is unlikely to help Burnham if they think he will sack them or force them to move to Manchester.
If true, then Sir Keir is indeed giving Andy the best possible start by enabling him to distance himself totally from the prior leadership.
Does Burnham have access to a Civil Service transition team as he would in the lead up to possibly taking power at a GE? If not, then that’s something that should be changed.
The Civil Service is unlikely to help Burnham if they think he will sack them or force them to move to Manchester.
Then they should be sacked and hire new people in Manchester to replace them.
The Civil Service exists to serve the country, not the other way around.
Betting post, WRT the year of next election. Does anyone think that about 7/1 is value for a general election in 2028? Older readers will remember the time when it was normal for PMs to go to the country after four years, sometime in the fifth year, if the going looked prosperous. By the end of 2028 Burnham will have done two years+ and UK plc will be a cornucopia of joy and prosperity tiny bit more hopeful than it is now.
Yes it is value, but I do not need to wait two years (or more) for a 7/1 shot.
Pat McFadden!
Just noticed Jeremy Hunt is 100/1 to be PM after Burnham. Worth a pound?
Hunt has said he would not run again but obviously can change his mind. You'd need Kemi to be ousted, which presumably means the Conservatives performing very badly, then Hunt to take over, followed by a miracle to get Tory polling up from panic-mode all the way to winning an election. I can't see it although there may be some value as a trading bet if Kemi is ousted and Hunt does agree to stand. It seems unlikely but then most 100/1 shots do. I won't be following you in.
Kemi I think is secure now, the 2025 and 2026 LEs were the worst and she got through those, next year and in 2028 the Tories will start from a much lower base. Hunt would not win a Tory members vote anyway so would need a coronation in the unlikely event he got the job
The Tories need to learn to work together and accept being a broad church, rather than the political version of the Wee Frees.
They are a broad church, from Lord Heseltine and Jeremy Hunt to Mark Francois and John Redwood.
In case you hadn't noticed much of the old right of the party is now in Reform, so the broad church if anything is weakened on the party's right
Betting post, WRT the year of next election. Does anyone think that about 7/1 is value for a general election in 2028? Older readers will remember the time when it was normal for PMs to go to the country after four years, sometime in the fifth year, if the going looked prosperous. By the end of 2028 Burnham will have done two years+ and UK plc will be a cornucopia of joy and prosperity tiny bit more hopeful than it is now.
And, you will realise your mistake, admit it on here, and vote Conservative again.
We shall see. As a Tory voter for 50 years obviously I will vote for them if I can, but there are actually things more important than 'my party right or wrong'. I am not going to vote for them if they might be in bed with Reform, I am not going to vote for them if their leader is an immature 6th form debater, and I am not going to vote for them if voting elsewhere is necessary to keep Reform out.
The extent to which the Tories have trashed the brand is strange. Three things stand out:
Failing to plan when there were only two outcomes to the 2016 referendum and they forget to prepare for half of them. Cameron's resignation at the moment it was essential that he saw through the choice he himself had given us. The corruption under Boris and the lamentable farrago of Truss.
Now, starting from there, persuade me why I was wrong at the time, in 2024, to vote Labour and would reluctantly do so again tomorrow.
This is you starting from a conclusion you've already reached, and working back to find some information to fit it.
Your core rationale that Labour are the true "one nation Tories" today is one of the most laughable I've ever seen on here. You are their useful idiot.
Only you can persuade yourself. But you have to find the courage within yourself to admit you got it wrong first.
Whatever happened to the one nation Tories? Where did they go?
Podcast studios.
But yes- there isn't really anyone making a serious play for that slice of the electorate.
The old centrist Tories are scattered between: RIP, LD, Labour, still Tory, DK and stay home.
Can the northerners please self identify before commenting on the hot weather?
Yes we know you were shocked to have a clear sky and a temperature starting with a 2 for more than 2 hours, but perhaps leave the discussions on the heatwave to people further south?
You are welcome to apply similar rules in reverse when we next have a cold spell.
In Scotland, a heatwave is when you can take the big coat off. A drought is when you can leave your raincoat at home.
Sunil's 6th Scottish Expedition (newly covered bits of track):
Down through road at Darlington (avoiding station shed)
Glenrothes platform 2 to Thornton West Jn to Thornton North Jn (both ways)
Larbert curve from Falkirk to Larbert (opposite direction done in 2019)
Kilmarnock to Troon (opposite direction done in 2018 and in 2019)
Reprised East Kilbride branch to account for the new two-track Hairmyres station, new extended passing loop near there, and electrification
Carstairs north curve towards Edinburgh (towards Glasgow done in 2018)
Up through fast road at Darlington (avoiding both station shed and new platform 5)
He thinks that Burnham has been agitating to undermine him all along, having left Westminster and played no part in winning the huge majority that should have entitled him to be PM for at least five years.
If Starmer genuinely thinks that he us a self-entitled idiot who does not understand our constitution at all.
Labour MPs are entitled by the election result of forming a government for five years, but no election grants anyone five years in Downing Street any more than a shadow minister is entitled if they win the election to hold that ministry for five years.
The PM is entitled to reshuffle his ministers. And MPs are entitled to reshuffle their leader.
If he did not want to be sacked, he should have been less shit at the day job.
I'll bet he did not think Boris leading the Tories to a big win entitled him to five years. Arguments have to pass the 'would I object if the other side made the same point' test.
Someone posted it earlier, including the extraordinary claim that 13000 hours of government time was spent rehabilitating it. I wonder if it's 1300, plus Chinese whispers.
Betting post, WRT the year of next election. Does anyone think that about 7/1 is value for a general election in 2028? Older readers will remember the time when it was normal for PMs to go to the country after four years, sometime in the fifth year, if the going looked prosperous. By the end of 2028 Burnham will have done two years+ and UK plc will be a cornucopia of joy and prosperity tiny bit more hopeful than it is now.
Yes it is value, but I do not need to wait two years (or more) for a 7/1 shot.
Pat McFadden!
Just noticed Jeremy Hunt is 100/1 to be PM after Burnham. Worth a pound?
Hunt has said he would not run again but obviously can change his mind. You'd need Kemi to be ousted, which presumably means the Conservatives performing very badly, then Hunt to take over, followed by a miracle to get Tory polling up from panic-mode all the way to winning an election. I can't see it although there may be some value as a trading bet if Kemi is ousted and Hunt does agree to stand. It seems unlikely but then most 100/1 shots do. I won't be following you in.
Kemi I think is secure now, the 2025 and 2026 LEs were the worst and she got through those, next year and in 2028 the Tories will start from a much lower base. Hunt would not win a Tory members vote anyway so would need a coronation in the unlikely event he got the job
The Tories need to learn to work together and accept being a broad church, rather than the political version of the Wee Frees.
They are a broad church, from Lord Heseltine and Jeremy Hunt to Mark Francois and John Redwood.
In case you hadn't noticed much of the old right of the party is now in Reform, so the broad church if anything is weakened on the party's right
And like many churches, are poorly attended.
(It's a joke, don't show me a news story about how attendance is up a little)
‘Complicated and expensive’: Burnham is right about the risks of nationalisation
Track record of Welsh Water shows changing ownership status is not the answer to all the woes in the utilities sector
Welsh Water is not state owned.
And would we really be worse off if zombie companies like Thames Water or (whisper it) a certain fairly large gas/leccy supplier were properly bankrupted and taken into state ownership without the enormous overhang of debt they have accumulated?
Whether they would be better managed by the government is a different matter - very probably not - but it's hard to imagine they would be much worse managed.
The utter contemptuous folly of the Blair Government was they didn't renationalised before the foreign shareholders ladelled off the cream and a huge amount of everything else too.
Renationalisation now is simply acquiring liability upon liability.
That's not really true: it's only assuming liabilities if bond holders are repaid.
If it goes into administration and the best offer is that the government acquires Thames Water at 20 cents on the pound for their debt, sending a clear message to owners of (and lenders to) privatized utilities: that you will not be bailed out by the government.
Perhaps, maybe even probably. But without knowing Rentoul's sources for all of this, who knows? I think we can rule out Starmer as a source.
Rentoul is a huge Streeting fan. Perhaps the reverse is true also. But who knows. What I do know is the pulse of the Labour Party is not often troubled by John Rentoul's finger.
Russia’s second-largest producer of petrol, Lukoil’s Kstovo refinery, appears to have an unexpected conflagration issue this morning. That’s unlikely to make the queues at the petrol stations any shorter.
This chart, showing Russian oil refinery processing rates, very clearly demonstrates the success of the Ukrainian campaign against Russian oil refineries of the last few months.
It's down by a lot. At least 20% over the last few months. Plenty more work to be done and, if Ukraine chooses to hit the oil export terminals again, Russia may find that without refinery capacity, and without export capacity, it has to shut down oil production.
Betting post, WRT the year of next election. Does anyone think that about 7/1 is value for a general election in 2028? Older readers will remember the time when it was normal for PMs to go to the country after four years, sometime in the fifth year, if the going looked prosperous. By the end of 2028 Burnham will have done two years+ and UK plc will be a cornucopia of joy and prosperity tiny bit more hopeful than it is now.
Yes it is value, but I do not need to wait two years (or more) for a 7/1 shot.
Pat McFadden!
Just noticed Jeremy Hunt is 100/1 to be PM after Burnham. Worth a pound?
Hunt has said he would not run again but obviously can change his mind. You'd need Kemi to be ousted, which presumably means the Conservatives performing very badly, then Hunt to take over, followed by a miracle to get Tory polling up from panic-mode all the way to winning an election. I can't see it although there may be some value as a trading bet if Kemi is ousted and Hunt does agree to stand. It seems unlikely but then most 100/1 shots do. I won't be following you in.
Kemi I think is secure now, the 2025 and 2026 LEs were the worst and she got through those, next year and in 2028 the Tories will start from a much lower base. Hunt would not win a Tory members vote anyway so would need a coronation in the unlikely event he got the job
The Tories need to learn to work together and accept being a broad church, rather than the political version of the Wee Frees.
They are a broad church, from Lord Heseltine and Jeremy Hunt to Mark Francois and John Redwood.
In case you hadn't noticed much of the old right of the party is now in Reform, so the broad church if anything is weakened on the party's right
And like many churches, are poorly attended.
(It's a joke, don't show me a news story about how attendance is up a little)
(as an aside, I think the survey that led to a lot of news stories about a revival in attendances has been withdrawn).
If true, then Sir Keir is indeed giving Andy the best possible start by enabling him to distance himself totally from the prior leadership.
Does Burnham have access to a Civil Service transition team as he would in the lead up to possibly taking power at a GE? If not, then that’s something that should be changed.
The Civil Service is unlikely to help Burnham if they think he will sack them or force them to move to Manchester.
That may be the case, but if we’ve decided to manage one type of PM transition then it probably makes sense to manage other types of transition.
Russia’s second-largest producer of petrol, Lukoil’s Kstovo refinery, appears to have an unexpected conflagration issue this morning. That’s unlikely to make the queues at the petrol stations any shorter.
This chart, showing Russian oil refinery processing rates, very clearly demonstrates the success of the Ukrainian campaign against Russian oil refineries of the last few months.
It's down by a lot. At least 20% over the last few months. Plenty more work to be done and, if Ukraine chooses to hit the oil export terminals again, Russia may find that without refinery capacity, and without export capacity, it has to shut down oil production.
"The agency has identified 270 people linked to forums where footage of coordinated sexual abuse is shared online - crimes which echo the case of Gisèle Pelicot, a French woman who was repeatedly drugged by her husband and attacked by dozens of men.
The NCA said the abuse is usually perpetrated by a long-term partner, with offending "often taking place over decades".
"The agency has identified 270 people linked to forums where footage of coordinated sexual abuse is shared online - crimes which echo the case of Gisèle Pelicot, a French woman who was repeatedly drugged by her husband and attacked by dozens of men.
The NCA said the abuse is usually perpetrated by a long-term partner, with offending "often taking place over decades".
The forums encourage men to drug and rape women.
Hopefully, the people in question will be able to be identified and prosecuted. But (a subset of) men being complete shits is not new news, sadly.
"The agency has identified 270 people linked to forums where footage of coordinated sexual abuse is shared online - crimes which echo the case of Gisèle Pelicot, a French woman who was repeatedly drugged by her husband and attacked by dozens of men.
The NCA said the abuse is usually perpetrated by a long-term partner, with offending "often taking place over decades".
The forums encourage men to drug and rape women.
Hopefully, the people in question will be able to be identified and prosecuted. But (a subset of) men being complete shits is not new news, sadly.
This subset - how large a subset is the interesting question rather than the usual "0h, it's only a minority" which smacks of "I hope this is true because otherwise some very uncomfortable questions would need to be asked about the behaviour of the male sex" - includes the long-term partners of the women ie husbands and often the fathers of their children.
The breach of trust is grotesque. We should not accept this by shaking our heads saying that some men are "complete shits, sadly". We should be furious and we should be acting to try and stop this. Instead - and I make no apologies for saying this AGAIN - men's demands are treated like holy writ, any restraints on their behaviour are seen as somehow a breach of their human right to behave like complete shits and women are ethically invisible.
Someone posted it earlier, including the extraordinary claim that 13000 hours of government time was spent rehabilitating it. I wonder if it's 1300, plus Chinese whispers.
I have friends who worked on the detection and clean up of Salisbury. Essentially they swabbed every surface inch by inch that might have been contaminated. The novichok was on the door handle but the poor policeman who went there got some on his hands and likely spread it around the house. It would have taken a huge effort to swab the entire house. Swabs were checked by mass spec, so costly too. So I believe the numbers.
Someone posted it earlier, including the extraordinary claim that 13000 hours of government time was spent rehabilitating it. I wonder if it's 1300, plus Chinese whispers.
I have friends who worked on the detection and clean up of Salisbury. Essentially they swabbed every surface inch by inch that might have been contaminated. The novichok was on the door handle but the poor policeman who went there got some on his hands and likely spread it around the house. It would have taken a huge effort to swab the entire house. Swabs were checked by mass spec, so costly too. So I believe the numbers.
I thought the plan had been to demolish it and rebuild.
Someone posted it earlier, including the extraordinary claim that 13000 hours of government time was spent rehabilitating it. I wonder if it's 1300, plus Chinese whispers.
I have friends who worked on the detection and clean up of Salisbury. Essentially they swabbed every surface inch by inch that might have been contaminated. The novichok was on the door handle but the poor policeman who went there got some on his hands and likely spread it around the house. It would have taken a huge effort to swab the entire house. Swabs were checked by mass spec, so costly too. So I believe the numbers.
I thought the plan had been to demolish it and rebuild.
Well, that's what I would have thought. Perhaps then the problem is how to dispose of the waste. But surely even so it's easier?
Someone posted it earlier, including the extraordinary claim that 13000 hours of government time was spent rehabilitating it. I wonder if it's 1300, plus Chinese whispers.
***Three-Bedroom Link-Detached House*** Large Kitchen/Diner Driveway Parking Excellent Public Transport Links NearbyWell-Proportioned Bedrooms Utility Room & Cloakroom Spacious Reception room Good-Sized Rear Garden Superb Novichok Disposal Facilities
Interesting (for all the wrong reasons) tribunal ongoing at the moment. Involving all the usual narcissist and arrogant activists in the trans movement demanding that women are silenced in the work place. However, for once, that is not the most shocking section. I remember a discussion on here only a month or so ago about how light touch EDI is in the workplace, including in civil service and government work. Rubbish.
This particular extract is enlightening:
NC: para7 of your WS NC: You say, you were paid to be aG chair, full time. how long for? ED: [gives election dates] NC: So 2019-2026, first 5 full time, paid? ED Yes NC paid by? ED: Land Registry
The Land Registry pays someone full time to head up a pro-trans network in government. The female equivalent network (at the heart of the tribunal) that was set up, of course has no such paid head.
The list of networks and intranets getting mentioned is endless, the meetings and travelling, the disputes, the moderation, grievances constantly imagined. The cost of all this non-work activity across government departments must run into £100millions, likely many times more. None of it should be happening.
Delays and backlogs at the Land Registry are notoriously bad. Simple updates are taking 10 months. Yet they can afford this.
Someone posted it earlier, including the extraordinary claim that 13000 hours of government time was spent rehabilitating it. I wonder if it's 1300, plus Chinese whispers.
I have friends who worked on the detection and clean up of Salisbury. Essentially they swabbed every surface inch by inch that might have been contaminated. The novichok was on the door handle but the poor policeman who went there got some on his hands and likely spread it around the house. It would have taken a huge effort to swab the entire house. Swabs were checked by mass spec, so costly too. So I believe the numbers.
I thought the plan had been to demolish it and rebuild.
They wanted to ensure no agent was anywhere unaccounted for. Hence everything was swabbed everywhere. It was a bit OTT, but understandable. Arguably you could have waited for people to present with symptoms but that’s one hell of a risk. That no one at the restaurant got ill was a clue that perhaps the chances of spread elsewhere were minimal, but those taking the decisions had a terrible choice. Either risk lives or through everything at it. They chose the latter.
Can the northerners please self identify before commenting on the hot weather?
Yes we know you were shocked to have a clear sky and a temperature starting with a 2 for more than 2 hours, but perhaps leave the discussions on the heatwave to people further south?
You are welcome to apply similar rules in reverse when we next have a cold spell.
Comments
So, ok, the 'British Culture' that every resident should sign up to. My answer:
The law. That's the most important aspect.
To which I think we can add the language. Being able to communicate in English. That's the other important aspect.
That's it. Law and language.
If you disagree tell me what bespoke British (as opposed to universal) cultural necessity we are missing.
In his first broadcast interview since winning the Makerfield by-election, the prime minister-in-waiting ruled out 'crude cuts' to welfare.
Asked if he would stand by Labour's manifesto and its fiscal rules, he said yes but there is 'some room within that manifesto for movement on tax'.
https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15948773/Andy-Burnham-rules-crude-cuts-welfare-hints-taxes-rise.html?ico=comment-anchor#comments
Though I think plenty of people here are more than capable of enjoying summer.
I expect beer gardens will be quite busy as people enjoy themselves, even if some Moaning Myrtles insist that it is awful.
If shareholders and bondholders face a haircut or getting wiped out, so be it. That is on them for failing to do due diligence.
Because a tax is the best form of defence.
All I can see is this:
.. is not a conversion practice unless the person acts in a way that falls far below the standards reasonably expected of a person in their position...
Which is so broad that I'm not sure what the point of the legislation is at all.
We are a cool temperate island on the Atlantic seaboard. If we’re looking at forecasts saying 40C and thinking “yeah, bring it on” then what does that imply for the hot countries of the world? Or the glaciers of the Alps.
At least if the government ripped off consumers, the money would go to the exchequer rather than overseas.
It was amazing but it did get a bit boring at times. I'm glad its time came but also glad it went.
The utter contemptuous folly of the Blair Government was they didn't renationalised before the foreign shareholders ladelled off the cream and a huge amount of everything else too.
Renationalisation now is simply acquiring liability upon liability.
Take an anecdote I had the other day, where an acquaintance was telling me one thing they love about the culture in this country is because unlike their native country (which they still love) officialdom and bureaucracy cares about individuals and doesn't just treat service users with indifference and hostility. I think a fair few British people, including those who have traveled widely, would say that is not something they associate with UK local government and public service, nor cultural values.
So as to your main point I wouldn't disagree about the primary significance of acceptance of the rule of law and language (though I think some would disagree on the latter), but how national cultures emphasise universal values is itself part of the national culture. What do we tell ourselves are more important, which of those values do we tend to focus upon more than others.
Fair play over free speech, for example, or how, say, Spain or Italy have a better culture around family and looking after the elderly (I don't know if they actually do, but I'd heard that) despite 'family' being a universal value it could still be more of a value in those places than here.
It's not bespoke, but it can still present differently. And yes, that makes a loyalty or integration 'test' impossible.
I'm sorry if that is felt to be waffle, but I think waffle is necessary on this subject, because precision is unobtainable.
We need to be woollier, go with the flow a bit more - which, incidentally, I would say is more of a British thing than some cultures.
(Which, incidentally, is a pretty good example of "begging the question".)
The point is that he evidently wants to try his policies, not Ed Milliband's or anyone else's.
I'm not saying they will work.
If Thames are bust then let them go bust. Sorry bondholders, there's no money left.
I am sure Burnham could find someone capable of writing a note to that effect.
I see it around here: peak outdoor eating and drinking conditions are 24-30C.
Left-wing critics have called for deal to be axed over US tech giant’s work with Israeli Defense Forces and US immigration'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/07/02/burnham-set-to-ditch-palantir-from-nhs/
Certainly the case of Thames, we can make the bond and shareholders eat the existing liabilities first, if we're sufficiently ruthless.
Instead of putting up straw man arguments, persuade me that voting Tory is on balance better than voting Labour. I am generally on your side, I have voted Tory from the 1974 elections until 2024 when I stopped, so it shouldn't be hard.
Some will be hyper local (i cycled past a corner shop that had whacked up two big TVs for the DRC England game and had attracted a hugely diverse crowd and probably plenty of unlicensed drinking). That was shared culture.
Dressing up in silly clothes and enacting pointless but rather quaint rituals (such as the Lord Mayor does) isn't uniquely British but definitely contributes to a shared culture.
Helping out at the PTA stall once every so often.
Turning up to a 'playing out' day on your street and bringing a poorly baked cupcake or two.
I agree that forcing people to adopt or comply with specific cultural traits or activities is nonsense. But equally someone (born here or not) who speaks the language, obeys the law, but doesn't otherwise participate in a shared local culture is not fulfilling their duties as a citizen imo.
It was the little calls he struggled with more.
Johnson and his levelling up agenda was far more One Nation than Soubry, Grieve et al.
If you were generally on our side, you wouldn't be asking this question.
In most of rural England the traditional foci of shared culture are the pub and the church, with sporting offshoots, especially football and cricket, and the village hall as a venue, and the village school as the focus for the under 12s.
Even in villages this breaks down, so I suspect what you mean by 'shared local culture' will actually be rather up for grabs. In larger and more urban communities for example the very idea of church as focus of 'shared local culture' would be met with incomprehension even though within living memory it was.
Yes we know you were shocked to have a clear sky and a temperature starting with a 2 for more than 2 hours, but perhaps leave the discussions on the heatwave to people further south?
You are welcome to apply similar rules in reverse when we next have a cold spell.
Alastair Hilton
@London_W4
I am having a drink this evening with a friend in a Chiswick pub. Two policemen have just come into the pub and asked me to step outside. I have stepped outside and they have threatened me because I tweeted about a councillor banning seating outside pubs in Chiswick. They admit on video (watch it!) that I did not break the law at all.
https://x.com/London_W4/status/2072760736435065146
=====
No doubt only a dozen or so yards away there is a shop being battered by shop lifting whilst at the nearest tube people are fare dodging on mass and just down the road a mobile phone has been nicked off an innocent tourist.
But, hey, let's go after people who tweet.
He literally sent a tweet alleging that Green Councillor had called for the removal of outside seating at a well known river side pub.
Moden Britain.
A Labour cabinet minister himself has complained that this administration has passed the two most left-wing budgets in the past 50 years, and much of their base are still voting Green.
https://x.com/i/status/2072341591079972986
This bit is more interesting though.
And Starmer was furious with Mahmood for suggesting that he should set a timetable for his departure – even though it was reported that Ed Miliband, Yvette Cooper and others said the same thing.
I find the subjects of culture and multiculturalism complex and nuanced.
In my part of the world, there are many cultures - as an example, we have a Christian Church, a Mosque, the Sri Mahalakshmi temple and a Gurdwara all within walking distance of Stodge Towers. Each will have its adherents, its community, its social scene yet I suspect they are largely mutually exclusive.
There are any number of diverse yet co-existing cultures in East Ham and trying to claim one as "better" than the others won't get you very far.
Indeed, "multi-culturalism" also means having to live within and across a number of cultures - the culture at home, the culture among friends, the culture at work etc. Conservative family life (often hierarchical) clashes with the more open culture beyond the front door and there are tensions (I suspect) within families we (normally) don't see and of which we are not aware.
The power of a relatively free society and the twin influences of capitalism and education do much to weaken traditional values and mores in some communities and what you get is new cultures evolving which nod to tradition but seek to create their own - it's the dynamic of an open society which we should be encouraging.
If Starmer genuinely thinks that he us a self-entitled idiot who does not understand our constitution at all.
Labour MPs are entitled by the election result of forming a government for five years, but no election grants anyone five years in Downing Street any more than a shadow minister is entitled if they win the election to hold that ministry for five years.
The PM is entitled to reshuffle his ministers. And MPs are entitled to reshuffle their leader.
If he did not want to be sacked, he should have been less shit at the day job.
But yes- there isn't really anyone making a serious play for that slice of the electorate.
Edit: he should also publicly not appoint anyone, like Douglas Alexander, who was associated with Mandelson.
The Civil Service exists to serve the country, not the other way around.
In case you hadn't noticed much of the old right of the party is now in Reform, so the broad church if anything is weakened on the party's right
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/90003912
The final sentence.
Down through road at Darlington (avoiding station shed)
Glenrothes platform 2 to Thornton West Jn to Thornton North Jn (both ways)
Larbert curve from Falkirk to Larbert (opposite direction done in 2019)
Kilmarnock to Troon (opposite direction done in 2018 and in 2019)
Reprised East Kilbride branch to account for the new two-track Hairmyres station, new extended passing loop near there, and electrification
Carstairs north curve towards Edinburgh (towards Glasgow done in 2018)
Up through fast road at Darlington (avoiding both station shed and new platform 5)
(It's a joke, don't show me a news story about how attendance is up a little)
If it goes into administration and the best offer is that the government acquires Thames Water at 20 cents on the pound for their debt, sending a clear message to owners of (and lenders to) privatized utilities: that you will not be bailed out by the government.
It's down by a lot. At least 20% over the last few months. Plenty more work to be done and, if Ukraine chooses to hit the oil export terminals again, Russia may find that without refinery capacity, and without export capacity, it has to shut down oil production.
https://x.com/theipaper/status/2072668249234321716?s=20
A major symbolic shift towards government actively slowing tech development to protect existing jobs'
https://x.com/SamCoatesSky/status/2072761994210648193?s=20
Well I'm amazed!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoW7JAXDRWk
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy4e109nx04o
"The agency has identified 270 people linked to forums where footage of coordinated sexual abuse is shared online - crimes which echo the case of Gisèle Pelicot, a French woman who was repeatedly drugged by her husband and attacked by dozens of men.
The NCA said the abuse is usually perpetrated by a long-term partner, with offending "often taking place over decades".
The forums encourage men to drug and rape women.
The breach of trust is grotesque. We should not accept this by shaking our heads saying that some men are "complete shits, sadly". We should be furious and we should be acting to try and stop this. Instead - and I make no apologies for saying this AGAIN - men's demands are treated like holy writ, any restraints on their behaviour are seen as somehow a breach of their human right to behave like complete shits and women are ethically invisible.
It should not be like this.
Large Kitchen/Diner
Driveway Parking
Excellent Public Transport Links
NearbyWell-Proportioned Bedrooms
Utility Room & Cloakroom
Spacious Reception room
Good-Sized Rear Garden
Superb Novichok Disposal Facilities
This particular extract is enlightening:
NC: para7 of your WS
NC: You say, you were paid to be aG chair, full time. how long for?
ED: [gives election dates]
NC: So 2019-2026, first 5 full time, paid?
ED Yes
NC paid by?
ED: Land Registry
https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/2072680664655073540
The Land Registry pays someone full time to head up a pro-trans network in government. The female equivalent network (at the heart of the tribunal) that was set up, of course has no such paid head.
The list of networks and intranets getting mentioned is endless, the meetings and travelling, the disputes, the moderation, grievances constantly imagined. The cost of all this non-work activity across government departments must run into £100millions, likely many times more. None of it should be happening.
Delays and backlogs at the Land Registry are notoriously bad. Simple updates are taking 10 months. Yet they can afford this.
Lot of overtime at DSTL though…