@Socrates - Can you tell me what my traditional culture is please?
The Neather "revelations" were denied and withdrawn.
I fear that in these posts on values you just reveal your prejudices. And that is why I find the idea of school lessons on British values so worrying. People see Britishness in very different ways.
There's little consensus on so many points that are, in theory, basic. My views on sexual equality and free speech would be very different to those of Harriet Harman, for example.
On topic: the high figures produced for UKIP by some of the on-line pollsters are almost certainly due to the self-select bias which on-line polls are notoriously subject to. YouGov is very experienced in dealing with this problem, and Populus explicitly adjusted their weightings to match their telephone polls, so I think it's a pretty safe assumption that Comres Online, Survation and Opinium are systematically over-stating UKIP. Note that the differences for UKIP are much greater than those for other parties - it would perhaps be clearer if the charts didn't rescale when you switch between them.
I also agree with Nick P's point that there is a possibility that ICM's adjustment of Don't Knows by past vote is having the effect of systematically over-stating the LibDem figure given the current political landscape. Of course there's no way to be sure of this at the moment, but the fact that ICM are the only pollsters showing such a big deviation from the average for the LibDems does at least suggest that this might be so.
I suspect also that a lot of UKIPpers are apt to be more rather than less forthcoming about this allegiance than supporters of other parties.
Basing this generalisation on the deranged UKIPpers of the DT comments section, it's clear that they see themselves as a huge and popular grassroots crusade with which most people agree. They do not see themselves as a fringe movement that got 3% of the last GE vote and is the most disliked of all major parties.
So is UKIP a 'fringe movement', or a 'major party'?
It's both. From a recognition POV, if voters are sufficiently aware of you to have a view on you either way, you probably qualify as major; so the BNP would be 'major', whereas We Demand A Referendum would not be.
On actual cast vote share, however, UKIP would be minor; as would they on councils controlled; or on meaningful representation (nobody would seriously argue MEP seats to be meaningful).
UKIP are a sort of Schrodinger's Party. They exist in a kind of quantum state in which they both are and are not significant. In the same way, David Steel's Liberals existed in a quantum party in which their terms for entering coalition were of deep interest right up until the moment where a majority was declared.
So by your definition on cast vote share the Lib Dems are also a minor party given that UKIP have out-polled them in both the Euros and local elections as well as almost every by-election this Parliament.
The Neather "revelations" were denied and withdrawn.
You must be the most naive person in the world if you believe they were withdrawn for any reason other than political pressure. People don't accidentally write a newspaper column.
I would have hoped that in reaction to an extremist Islamic school preaching sexism and sectarianism in lessons, the left would join in the condemnation and support the need to teach the values of this society instead. But no, they instead prefer to bash on British values:
Michael Gove argues that school children should be taught British values. From now on history lessons will teach kids how to invade countries, sell locals into slavery and nick anything that isn’t nailed down.
That's what they think of this country. When they hear "British" they think of slavery and imperialism first and foremost. They really do hate Britain don't they? No wonder they were so happy to import millions of foreigners. As Neather said, they don't want "mainstream British" culture, they want "true multiculturalism". They'd rather have a go at Britishness than Islamic bigots hating on "white prostitutes".
I used to think that the more right wing posters on here calling the Left traitors who hated this country were being hyperbolic, but I'm starting to think they have a point.
Indeed Socrates. How dare people not agree with your views on what Britishness entails. They are clearly traitors. And it is certainly entirely representative of British values to read a column in the Guardian, take it literally and then decide that it represents the views of the "left". This certainly illustrates why politicians should decree lessons in British values.
I think it's an attempt by the Guardian to be funny (almost always cringeworthy) but many a true word is said in jest.
Indeed, different British people have different senses of humour. I remember Jim Davidson having them in stitches at a Tory conference, but it did nothing for me.
I used to think that the more right wing posters on here calling the Left traitors who hated this country were being hyperbolic, but I'm starting to think they have a point.
Indeed Socrates. How dare people not agree with your views on what Britishness entails. They are clearly traitors. And it is certainly entirely representative of British values to read a column in the Guardian, take it literally and then decide that it represents the views of the "left". This certainly illustrates why politicians should decree lessons in British values.
Lol. Socrates has had a rough time here in the past and anyway I try not to comment much on other posters, but whatever he discusses - Muslims (quiz their loyalty!), the EU (they're scoundrels!), Russia (blockade the Black Sea fleet!), Tea Party supporters (denounce them!) - he feels explosively impassioned. It must be exhausting, and what I think of as, um, typically Greek.
My posts are merely the internet equivalent of strongly worded letters. I can assure you I am the typically restrained Brit in person.
Romney lost as he didn't motivate whites in the rust belt basically due to demonization of his background and because he sold out to self confessed Democrat Sheldon Adelson's on immigration, foreign policy and affirmative action. He got very poor turnout figures.
Not in the new glorious future SO. Our children will be assimilated into "britishness".........Just as soon as they can think of a definition that doesn't have us laughing our heads off.
London mayor Boris Johnson has agreed to be blasted by water cannon after his controversial decision to buy the weapons for Scotland Yard.
I don't mind. I am certainly prepared to do anything to show that they're safe within reason.
If it will really make you happy, I will investigate the whys and wherefores of whether I can stand in front of a water cannon without infringing some code of health and safety.
The latest one portraying Gove as a British Ayatolla demanding obedience to his vision, hardly splits my sides either. On the other hand, it is a political cartoon.
Funnily enough (if you'll excuse the expression) that one did raise a wry smile. Humour is a slippery devil, isn't she.
The Neather "revelations" were denied and withdrawn.
You must be the most naive person in the world if you believe they were withdrawn for any reason other than political pressure. People don't accidentally write a newspaper column.
You will believe what you want to believe. And you want to believe that the Labour government had a secret agenda to destroy traditional British culture - whatever that is - and to impose multiculturalism. I don't believe that. I believe they made a huge error of judgement based on listening too hard to the business lobby, under-estimating numbers and not beginning to think about the impact mass immigration would have - largely because the party's leadership was so disconnected from ordinary voters. It was a catastrophic mistake, but not a deliberate one.
On topic: the high figures produced for UKIP by some of the on-line pollsters are almost certainly due to the self-select bias which on-line polls are notoriously subject to. YouGov is very experienced in dealing with this problem, and Populus explicitly adjusted their weightings to match their telephone polls, so I think it's a pretty safe assumption that Comres Online, Survation and Opinium are systematically over-stating UKIP. Note that the differences for UKIP are much greater than those for other parties - it would perhaps be clearer if the charts didn't rescale when you switch between them.
I suspect also that a lot of UKIPpers are apt to be more rather than less forthcoming about this allegiance than supporters of other parties.
Basing this generalisation on the deranged UKIPpers of the DT comments section, it's clear that they see themselves as a huge and popular grassroots crusade with which most people agree. They do not see themselves as a fringe movement that got 3% of the last GE vote and is the most disliked of all major parties.
So is UKIP a 'fringe movement', or a 'major party'?
It's both. From a recognition POV, if voters are sufficiently aware of you to have a view on you either way, you probably qualify as major; so the BNP would be 'major', whereas We Demand A Referendum would not be.
On actual cast vote share, however, UKIP would be minor; as would they on councils controlled; or on meaningful representation (nobody would seriously argue MEP seats to be meaningful).
UKIP are a sort of Schrodinger's Party. They exist in a kind of quantum state in which they both are and are not significant. In the same way, David Steel's Liberals existed in a quantum party in which their terms for entering coalition were of deep interest right up until the moment where a majority was declared.
So by your definition on cast vote share the Lib Dems are also a minor party given that UKIP have out-polled them in both the Euros and local elections as well as almost every by-election this Parliament.
Depends how long it persists for, Richard. Coming second in a lot of by elections doesn't qualify as what I called meaningful representation, because it doesn't result in any. Likewise winning MEPs, unless somebody can explain to me what difference having a Labour versus a BNP MEP would make; likewise doing quite well in council elections, until such point as you start to control councils.
There's quite a high threshold of credibility (or postal vote fraud) that a party must reach to be put in control of electors' actual money or interests. So far, UKIP has not reached it.
There are fears over the pitch at Manaus's £173m Amazonia Arena after pictures emerged of it in poor condition only three days before England play their first World Cup match there against Italy.
The playing surface is noticeably dry and sandy and particularly bare around one of the goals, with large yellowing areas of turf.
The rest of the stadium is not completely finished, with naked power cables dangling from the walls of the changing rooms and workers still applying a final coat of asphalt outside the ground. Several security doors are also waiting to be fitted at the stadium where a construction worker died last year after falling from the roof.
Romney lost as he didn't motivate whites in the rust belt basically due to demonization of his background and because he sold out to self confessed Democrat Sheldon Adelson's on immigration, foreign policy and affirmative action. He got very poor turnout figures.
The white population is a declining share of total US population, and the fact that in policy and rhetoric the party appears hostile to non-white voters is a far bigger problem.
I seem to recall that J K Rowling is a close friend of Gordon Brown. Perhaps the prompting for the donation came from that quarter, given that he has become much more engaged in the independence debate recently.
They are indeed friends - though perhaps more through Sarah Brown. She is also a donor to the Labour Party.
That does sound more likely as otherwise it entails the idea of Gordon Brown having any friends, which seems very far-fetched.
He strikes me as someone who would have allies, contacts and colleagues, but not friends.
London mayor Boris Johnson has agreed to be blasted by water cannon after his controversial decision to buy the weapons for Scotland Yard.
I don't mind. I am certainly prepared to do anything to show that they're safe within reason.
If it will really make you happy, I will investigate the whys and wherefores of whether I can stand in front of a water cannon without infringing some code of health and safety.
You will believe what you want to believe. And you want to believe that the Labour government had a secret agenda to destroy traditional British culture - whatever that is - and to impose multiculturalism. I don't believe that. I believe they made a huge error of judgement based on listening too hard to the business lobby, under-estimating numbers and not beginning to think about the impact immigration would have - largely because the party's leadership was so disconnected from ordinary voters. It was a catastrophic mistake, but not a deliberate one.
That speech was based largely on a report by the Performance and Innovation Unit, Tony Blair's Cabinet Office think-tank.
The PIU's reports were legendarily tedious within Whitehall but their big immigration report was surrounded by an unusual air of both anticipation and secrecy.
Drafts were handed out in summer 2000 only with extreme reluctance: there was a paranoia about it reaching the media.
Eventually published in January 2001, the innocuously labelled "RDS Occasional Paper no. 67", "Migration: an economic and social analysis" focused heavily on the labour market case.
But the earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.
There was clearly a deliberate decision to open up the UK to mass immigration - the sudden step change in numbers show that - and the early drafts of the case actually included a political purpose of making the UK multicultural (i.e. replace traditional British culture). They wanted to change British society but were paranoid about it getting out (i.e. a secret agenda). This is hardly tin foil hat territory - one of the guys in the very meetings admitted to it.
I seem to recall that J K Rowling is a close friend of Gordon Brown. Perhaps the prompting for the donation came from that quarter, given that he has become much more engaged in the independence debate recently.
They are indeed friends - though perhaps more through Sarah Brown. She is also a donor to the Labour Party.
That does sound more likely as otherwise it entails the idea of Gordon Brown having any friends, which seems very far-fetched.
He strikes me as someone who would have allies, contacts and colleagues, but not friends.
It's amazing the kind of assumptions we are prepared to make about people we dont know at all.
Romney lost as he didn't motivate whites in the rust belt basically due to demonization of his background and because he sold out to self confessed Democrat Sheldon Adelson's on immigration, foreign policy and affirmative action. He got very poor turnout figures.
Demonization of his background? You don't think it might be related to his views that those who are earning too little to pay income tax don't take personal responsibility for their lives?
I seem to recall that J K Rowling is a close friend of Gordon Brown. Perhaps the prompting for the donation came from that quarter, given that he has become much more engaged in the independence debate recently.
They are indeed friends - though perhaps more through Sarah Brown. She is also a donor to the Labour Party.
That does sound more likely as otherwise it entails the idea of Gordon Brown having any friends, which seems very far-fetched.
He strikes me as someone who would have allies, contacts and colleagues, but not friends.
It's amazing the kind of assumptions we are prepared to make about people we dont know at all.
He's a public figure who has been widely written about, so it cannot be said that we don't know him at all.
There are fears over the pitch at Manaus's £173m Amazonia Arena after pictures emerged of it in poor condition only three days before England play their first World Cup match there against Italy.
The playing surface is noticeably dry and sandy and particularly bare around one of the goals, with large yellowing areas of turf.
The rest of the stadium is not completely finished, with naked power cables dangling from the walls of the changing rooms and workers still applying a final coat of asphalt outside the ground. Several security doors are also waiting to be fitted at the stadium where a construction worker died last year after falling from the roof.
Chris Bryant is floundering unvelievably on Free movement of workers on DP
Chasing his tail, wanting it both ways... impossible. You leave the EU or you put up with it
UKIP need to go hard on this whenever they are on TV with a politician from the other three parties. "Do you support unlimited migration from the EU? Or do you think it is a bad thing that we should just accept for the other alleged benefits?"
I am not seriously suggesting closing Eton. What I am pointing out is that outlawing what goes on in these Bham schools is not easy.
The antiChristian chant was apparantly "we do not believe in Christmas" which is something that Seventh Day adventists and a variety of Protestant sects would agree with.
I think what has been going on in Bham schools is deplorable, but the way to tackle it is to teach the law and civics not some nebulous "values" that many Brits would dispute.
Indeed the right to dispute and criticise values is a fairly fundamental British value...
Of course if we object to sectarian religious indoctrination in schools, sex segregation and archaic dress we are rather hoist by our own petard. Close down Eton and Cheltenham Ladies College! My presbyterian ancestors could give anyone a run for their money in terms of sectarianism.
Again, it's jaw-dropping to me that left-wingers react to this thing by having a go at traditionally British things. Clearly a school that leads an assembly with anti-Christian chants is in no way comparable to Eton College. This is a completely false equivalence. It's done because left-wingers have intellectually wired themselves to attack British culture and not to ever criticise immigrant groups. Seriously, how hard is it to say "yes, there was something seriously abhorrent about this school"?
The only serious threat to her is her health. If it holds up, she runs, and if she runs she wins.
At 6/4 I'd bite your hand off, but I've already done so - at 6/1, thank you.
Btw, I think your 25/1 Warren is wrong. She's not only said she won't run, but would get slaughtered if she did. The Dems wouldn't pick her though. It would be the equivalent of the GoP going with Ted Cruz, except they are barmy enough to do it.
Not in the new glorious future SO. Our children will be assimilated into "britishness".........Just as soon as they can think of a definition that doesn't have us laughing our heads off.
Another leftie more upset at teaching British values than the Islamic bigots that your side brought in. What a surprise.
@Socrates - Can you tell me what my traditional culture is please?
The Neather "revelations" were denied and withdrawn.
I fear that in these posts on values you just reveal your prejudices. And that is why I find the idea of school lessons on British values so worrying. People see Britishness in very different ways.
We need to be careful here. No matter what value or principle any of us defined, there would *always* be someone who didn't agree. You will never get 100% consensus.
That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Cameron and Clegg (Brown and Blair) all had slightly different spins on this (as you would too) but I think individual liberty (freedom of belief, speech and worship) respect for the rule of (and equality in front of) the law, tolerance and belief in the democratic process are uncontroversial.
The latest one portraying Gove as a British Ayatolla demanding obedience to his vision, hardly splits my sides either. On the other hand, it is a political cartoon.
Simon Jenkins has a very good article on Gove. Gove likes schools to be free unless he does not want them to be free.
The only serious threat to her is her health. If it holds up, she runs, and if she runs she wins.
At 6/4 I'd bite your hand off, but I've already done so - at 6/1, thank you.
Btw, I think your 25/1 Warren is wrong. She's not only said she won't run, but would get slaughtered if she did. The Dems wouldn't pick her though. It would be the equivalent of the GoP going with Ted Cruz, except they are barmy enough to do it.
Your last paragraph is completely incorrect in my opinion. There's a whole bunch of toxic stuff you can throw at Cruz, not least the fact that he tried to get US government to default unless government programs were cut. What is the equivalent for Warren? "Oh you liberal crazy - you set up a consumer protection bureau! You want to reduce student loan interest rates! You want to separate out retail banking from Wall Street!" Which of her positions would turn off Reagan Democrats in Ohio? Even putting positions to one side, Cruz comes over as an angry stiff-faced man. Warren comes over as a folksy woman from Oklahoma.
Being Scottish, the idea that I should have been taught to be "british" is not something that appeals to me. Teach morality yes, just don't try to wrap it up in a flag and a misconceived idea of "citizenship" That way leads in only one direction.
@Socrates - Can you tell me what my traditional culture is please?
The Neather "revelations" were denied and withdrawn.
I fear that in these posts on values you just reveal your prejudices. And that is why I find the idea of school lessons on British values so worrying. People see Britishness in very different ways.
We need to be careful here. No matter what value or principle any of us defined, there would *always* be someone who didn't agree. You will never get 100% consensus.
That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Cameron and Clegg (Brown and Blair) all had slightly different spins on this (as you would too) but I think individual liberty (freedom of belief, speech and worship) respect for the rule of (and equality in front of) the law, tolerance and belief in the democratic process are uncontroversial.
Inidividual liberty and respect for the law would be a great place to start the definition, I agree. The question of whether the law currently allows individual liberty is a whole other hornets' nest.
I would have hoped that in reaction to an extremist Islamic school preaching sexism and sectarianism in lessons, the left would join in the condemnation and support the need to teach the values of this society instead. But no, they instead prefer to bash on British values:
Michael Gove argues that school children should be taught British values. From now on history lessons will teach kids how to invade countries, sell locals into slavery and nick anything that isn’t nailed down.
That's what they think of this country. When they hear "British" they think of slavery and imperialism first and foremost. They really do hate Britain don't they? No wonder they were so happy to import millions of foreigners. As Neather said, they don't want "mainstream British" culture, they want "true multiculturalism". They'd rather have a go at Britishness than Islamic bigots hating on "white prostitutes".
I used to think that the more right wing posters on here calling the Left traitors who hated this country were being hyperbolic, but I'm starting to think they have a point.
Indeed Socrates. How dare people not agree with your views on what Britishness entails. They are clearly traitors. And it is certainly entirely representative of British values to read a column in the Guardian, take it literally and then decide that it represents the views of the "left". This certainly illustrates why politicians should decree lessons in British values.
I think it's an attempt by the Guardian to be funny (almost always cringeworthy) but many a true word is said in jest.
Indeed, different British people have different senses of humour. I remember Jim Davidson having them in stitches at a Tory conference, but it did nothing for me.
Being Scottish, the idea that I should have been taught to be "british" is not something that appeals to me. Teach morality yes, just don't try to wrap it up in a flag and a misconceived idea of "citizenship" That way leads in only one direction.
Seriously, how hard is it to say "yes, there was something seriously abhorrent about this school"?
Lefties have been saying that about Eton for years!
Improbable as it may seem, Neil, I actually went there - for a day.
The Boys Club to which I belonged as a lad, The Eton Manor, had close connections with the school. Through the club I once went on a tour of Greece with a dozen other lads, half from Eton and half from East End Grammar schools such as mine. We all got on fine (except for one of the GS lads, who was a tonk but that's another story.) When we returned the Eton lads arranged for us to spend a day as pupils at the School.
Seemed like a great place to me. Obviously the barriers to entry were quite high, but then the same could be said of the better East End Grammars.
The latest one portraying Gove as a British Ayatolla demanding obedience to his vision, hardly splits my sides either. On the other hand, it is a political cartoon.
Simon Jenkins has a very good article on Gove. Gove likes schools to be free unless he does not want them to be free.
Gove wants them to be free, unless they are promoting extremism.
The Left is revealing itself here. The Conservatives are on the side of promoting British values of democracy, liberty and the rule of law. Labour don't want to criticise the Muslims shaming "white prostitutes" and want to mock the concept of Britishness.
Not in the new glorious future SO. Our children will be assimilated into "britishness".........Just as soon as they can think of a definition that doesn't have us laughing our heads off.
Another leftie more upset at teaching British values than the Islamic bigots that your side brought in. What a surprise.
Does it not cross your mind that some people believe that it goes without saying - especially on a site such as PB - that Moslem fundamentalism, female genital mutilation, the stoning to death of gays and adulteress etc are horrific? Just because we do not proclaim it to be so in every thread on here does not mean we do not think it. The same thing applies to Guardian writers who do not add such a caveat to articles in which they critique or criticise aspects of British history.
You will believe what you want to believe. And you want to believe that the Labour government had a secret agenda to destroy traditional British culture - whatever that is - and to impose multiculturalism. I don't believe that. I believe they made a huge error of judgement based on listening too hard to the business lobby, under-estimating numbers and not beginning to think about the impact immigration would have - largely because the party's leadership was so disconnected from ordinary voters. It was a catastrophic mistake, but not a deliberate one.
That speech was based largely on a report by the Performance and Innovation Unit, Tony Blair's Cabinet Office think-tank.
The PIU's reports were legendarily tedious within Whitehall but their big immigration report was surrounded by an unusual air of both anticipation and secrecy.
Drafts were handed out in summer 2000 only with extreme reluctance: there was a paranoia about it reaching the media.
Eventually published in January 2001, the innocuously labelled "RDS Occasional Paper no. 67", "Migration: an economic and social analysis" focused heavily on the labour market case.
But the earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.
There was clearly a deliberate decision to open up the UK to mass immigration - the sudden step change in numbers show that - and the early drafts of the case actually included a political purpose of making the UK multicultural (i.e. replace traditional British culture). They wanted to change British society but were paranoid about it getting out (i.e. a secret agenda). This is hardly tin foil hat territory - one of the guys in the very meetings admitted to it.
As I say, you will believe what you want to believe. And I will believe what I want to believe. We will not agree.
Being Scottish, the idea that I should have been taught to be "british" is not something that appeals to me. Teach morality yes, just don't try to wrap it up in a flag and a misconceived idea of "citizenship" That way leads in only one direction.
Different countries have different value systems. Britain values parliamentary democracy and equality before the law. Saudi Arabia values utter devotion to Allah. It's not "wrapping it up in a flag" to point this out. Only lefties could have such a problem associating the basic values we have here with British citizenship.
The latest one portraying Gove as a British Ayatolla demanding obedience to his vision, hardly splits my sides either. On the other hand, it is a political cartoon.
Simon Jenkins has a very good article on Gove. Gove likes schools to be free unless he does not want them to be free.
Gove wants them to be free, unless they are promoting extremism.
The Left is revealing itself here. The Conservatives are on the side of promoting British values of democracy, liberty and the rule of law. Labour don't want to criticise the Muslims shaming "white prostitutes" and want to mock the concept of Britishness.
I would have hoped that in reaction to an extremist Islamic school preaching sexism and sectarianism in lessons, the left would join in the condemnation and support the need to teach the values of this society instead. But no, they instead prefer to bash on British values:
Michael Gove argues that school children should be taught British values. From now on history lessons will teach kids how to invade countries, sell locals into slavery and nick anything that isn’t nailed down.
That's what they think of this country. When they hear "British" they think of slavery and imperialism first and foremost. They really do hate Britain don't they? No wonder they were so happy to import millions of foreigners. As Neather said, they don't want "mainstream British" culture, they want "true multiculturalism". They'd rather have a go at Britishness than Islamic bigots hating on "white prostitutes".
I used to think that the more right wing posters on here calling the Left traitors who hated this country were being hyperbolic, but I'm starting to think they have a point.
Indeed Socrates. How dare people not agree with your views on what Britishness entails. They are clearly traitors. And it is certainly entirely representative of British values to read a column in the Guardian, take it literally and then decide that it represents the views of the "left". This certainly illustrates why politicians should decree lessons in British values.
I think it's an attempt by the Guardian to be funny (almost always cringeworthy) but many a true word is said in jest.
Indeed, different British people have different senses of humour. I remember Jim Davidson having them in stitches at a Tory conference, but it did nothing for me.
Are we the only country to believe in those things? If we aren't, why does it need to be called British?
Are we the only country that has pubs and drinks tea? If we aren't, why should such things be called British culture?
They're British because they're the values we have here. If they're also the values they have in Sweden, great, they can also be called Swedish values in Swedish schools.
Are we the only country to believe in those things? If we aren't, why does it need to be called British?
Are we the only country that has pubs and drinks tea? If we aren't, why should such things be called British culture?
They're British because they're the values we have here. If they're also the values they have in Sweden, great, they can also be called Swedish values in Swedish schools.
I am pretty sure that the left does not want to get rid of pubs or tea drinking.
As I say, you will believe what you want to believe. And I will believe what I want to believe. We will not agree.
I provided arguments and evidence and your reaction seems to be "I don't want to change my mind."
And subsequent to writing the article you quoted Neather said it was wrong. In addition, the claims in it were denied by a series of Labour politicians. You do not want to believe that.
You wouldn't be the only person to think along those lines, Casino.
If you could come up with a Democrat to beat Hillary in the way that Obama did, all us punters would be as eternally grateful to you as we are to Mike S for tipping the Senator from Chicago at 50/1 many years ago.
I've scoured the alternatives and the best I can come up with is Joe Biden. Thrillsville.
The Conservatives are on the side of promoting British values of democracy, liberty and the rule of law.
We've been saying for years that we're against democracy, liberty and the rule of law. Why are you acting all surprised now?
Not you, Neil. You're a PB Tory!
Didnt you realise that PB Tories are at the vanguard of the leftie drive to eliminate democracy, liberty and the rule of law? First we came for tim and noone complained so then we took a shot at democracy.
You wouldn't be the only person to think along those lines, Casino.
If you could come up with a Democrat to beat Hillary in the way that Obama did, all us punters would be as eternally grateful to you as we are to Mike S for tipping the Senator from Chicago at 50/1 many years ago.
I've scoured the alternatives and the best I can come up with is Joe Biden. Thrillsville.
Not in the new glorious future SO. Our children will be assimilated into "britishness".........Just as soon as they can think of a definition that doesn't have us laughing our heads off.
Another leftie more upset at teaching British values than the Islamic bigots that your side brought in. What a surprise.
Does it not cross your mind that some people believe that it goes without saying - especially on a site such as PB - that Moslem fundamentalism, female genital mutilation, the stoning to death of gays and adulteress etc are horrific? Just because we do not proclaim it to be so in every thread on here does not mean we do not think it. The same thing applies to Guardian writers who do not add such a caveat to articles in which they critique or criticise aspects of British history.
I'm not expecting people to proclaim it every thread. I just think, in response to news coming out about this stuff being promoted in Britain, the primary reaction of people might be "this is awful, what can we do to stop it?", rather than bashing the response to do something about it. Particularly when that bashing involves claiming the person wanting to teach liberal values is the authoritarian.
If it was a Guardian article about some element of history from a new study of slavery, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I just find the following chain amazing:
- Muslim schools engaged in Saudi-style Islam in the UK - Education Minister responds by wanting to teach liberal British values - Guardian writes article about how Britishness is about theft and slavery
It's just such a stunning case of an ideological blind spot. It's almost as if the first bullet didn't happen to them.
Romney lost as he didn't motivate whites in the rust belt basically due to demonization of his background and because he sold out to self confessed Democrat Sheldon Adelson's on immigration, foreign policy and affirmative action. He got very poor turnout figures.
The white population is a declining share of total US population, and the fact that in policy and rhetoric the party appears hostile to non-white voters is a far bigger problem.
Declining due to immigration policy which can be chnaged, much easier to boost your vote among white swing voters then solid Dem minorities. Pandering didn't work for McCain nor Romney. The white share of the vote has been relentlessly rising for the Republicans, just need it a little higher. In Mississippi the vote share is as high as it is for Dems amongst blacks.
Think there's something there. (Clearly they drink a lot of tea in the middle east as well), but compare the levels of tea drinking in the UK and Ireland with the EU average..
I agree that British values have a large overlap with other European countries, particularly Ireland, Scandanavia, the Netherlands, Poland Czech republic etc. Immigrants from these places seem to assimilate quickly to British values.
Are we the only country to believe in those things? If we aren't, why does it need to be called British?
Are we the only country that has pubs and drinks tea? If we aren't, why should such things be called British culture?
They're British because they're the values we have here. If they're also the values they have in Sweden, great, they can also be called Swedish values in Swedish schools.
Not in the new glorious future SO. Our children will be assimilated into "britishness".........Just as soon as they can think of a definition that doesn't have us laughing our heads off.
Another leftie more upset at teaching British values than the Islamic bigots that your side brought in. What a surprise.
Does it not cross your mind that some people believe that it goes without saying - especially on a site such as PB - that Moslem fundamentalism, female genital mutilation, the stoning to death of gays and adulteress etc are horrific? Just because we do not proclaim it to be so in every thread on here does not mean we do not think it. The same thing applies to Guardian writers who do not add such a caveat to articles in which they critique or criticise aspects of British history.
I'm not expecting people to proclaim it every thread. I just think, in response to news coming out about this stuff being promoted in Britain, the primary reaction of people might be "this is awful, what can we do to stop it?", rather than bashing the response to do something about it. Particularly when that bashing involves claiming the person wanting to teach liberal values is the authoritarian.
If it was a Guardian article about some element of history from a new study of slavery, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I just find the following chain amazing:
- Muslim schools engaged in Saudi-style Islam in the UK - Education Minister responds by wanting to teach liberal British values - Guardian writes article about how Britishness is about theft and slavery
It's just such a stunning case of an ideological blind spot. It's almost as if the first bullet didn't happen to them.
The Guardian did not write an article about how Britishness is about theft and slavery. It published a tongue in cheek questionnaire about Britishness with a tongue in cheek stand-first. It also published a number of serious articles about what happened in Birmingham and about Gove's proposals.
I agree. Romney was damaged by the GoP nomination process.
The Party has a long record of picking a plausible candidate - eventually - but the persistent flirtation with loonies undermines its credibility.
You may not like the Democrats, but it is a long, long time since they put on the platform anybody as implausible as Caine, Bachmann, Gingrich or Santorum.
You wouldn't be the only person to think along those lines, Casino.
If you could come up with a Democrat to beat Hillary in the way that Obama did, all us punters would be as eternally grateful to you as we are to Mike S for tipping the Senator from Chicago at 50/1 many years ago.
I've scoured the alternatives and the best I can come up with is Joe Biden. Thrillsville.
Did Mike Smithson really tip Obama at 50/1 ? .... first I've heard of it .... I'll be jiggered ....
As I say, you will believe what you want to believe. And I will believe what I want to believe. We will not agree.
I provided arguments and evidence and your reaction seems to be "I don't want to change my mind."
And subsequent to writing the article you quoted Neather said it was wrong. In addition, the claims in it were denied by a series of Labour politicians. You do not want to believe that.
Neather only said certain bits were incorrect. It was the non-denial denial. There were similar gaping holes in what other Labour politicians said. And this was in the context of media outrage. Obviously they're going to be in damage control mode.
Anyway, the original paper was released, and it did indeed have New Labour's "social objectives" in it:
Romney lost as he didn't motivate whites in the rust belt basically due to demonization of his background and because he sold out to self confessed Democrat Sheldon Adelson's on immigration, foreign policy and affirmative action. He got very poor turnout figures.
The white population is a declining share of total US population, and the fact that in policy and rhetoric the party appears hostile to non-white voters is a far bigger problem.
Declining due to immigration policy which can be chnaged, much easier to boost your vote among white swing voters then solid Dem minorities. Pandering didn't work for McCain nor Romney. The white share of the vote has been relentlessly rising for the Republicans, just need it a little higher. In Mississippi the vote share is as high as it is for Dems amongst blacks.
It says something if even George W Bush could see the writing on the wall and supported immigration reform.
I would have hoped that in reaction to an extremist Islamic school preaching sexism and sectarianism in lessons, the left would join in the condemnation and support the need to teach the values of this society instead. But no, they instead prefer to bash on British values:
Michael Gove argues that school children should be taught British values. From now on history lessons will teach kids how to invade countries, sell locals into slavery and nick anything that isn’t nailed down.
That's what they think of this country. When they hear "British" they think of slavery and imperialism first and foremost. They really do hate Britain don't they? No wonder they were so happy to import millions of foreigners. As Neather said, they don't want "mainstream British" culture, they want "true multiculturalism". They'd rather have a go at Britishness than Islamic bigots hating on "white prostitutes".
I used to think that the more right wing posters on here calling the Left traitors who hated this country were being hyperbolic, but I'm starting to think they have a point.
Indeed Socrates. How dare people not agree with your views on what Britishness entails. They are clearly traitors. And it is certainly entirely representative of British values to read a column in the Guardian, take it literally and then decide that it represents the views of the "left". This certainly illustrates why politicians should decree lessons in British values.
I think it's an attempt by the Guardian to be funny (almost always cringeworthy) but many a true word is said in jest.
I read The Guardians review of the David Beckham documentary last night... taking the mickey out of it and damning with faint praise, mocking him for not pronouncing words correctly... why do so many lefty journalists write in that sneering, sarcastic, bitter, unfunny student style? They cant help themselves
I seem to recall that J K Rowling is a close friend of Gordon Brown. Perhaps the prompting for the donation came from that quarter, given that he has become much more engaged in the independence debate recently.
They are indeed friends - though perhaps more through Sarah Brown. She is also a donor to the Labour Party.
That does sound more likely as otherwise it entails the idea of Gordon Brown having any friends, which seems very far-fetched.
He strikes me as someone who would have allies, contacts and colleagues, but not friends.
It's amazing the kind of assumptions we are prepared to make about people we dont know at all.
What astonishes me on a regular basis is how many, otherwise seemingly intelligent, people on here are prepared to state as a matter of fact, not opinion, what other people's motivations are. X has said or is doing Y because they think Z, sort of statements - they are on here every day and leave me astonished. How does the poster know what someone they have never met thinks and believes? Those posters must be incredibly clever or perhaps have special powers.
I agree. Romney was damaged by the GoP nomination process.
The Party has a long record of picking a plausible candidate - eventually - but the persistent flirtation with loonies undermines its credibility.
You may not like the Democrats, but it is a long, long time since they put on the platform anybody as implausible as Caine, Bachmann, Gingrich or Santorum.
Yup the GOP go through a process whereby they take a faintly plausible candidate screw them over, fatally compromise them but nominate them anyway but then they put a total crazy on the other side of the seesaw.
Romney lost as he didn't motivate whites in the rust belt basically due to demonization of his background and because he sold out to self confessed Democrat Sheldon Adelson's on immigration, foreign policy and affirmative action. He got very poor turnout figures.
The white population is a declining share of total US population, and the fact that in policy and rhetoric the party appears hostile to non-white voters is a far bigger problem.
Declining due to immigration policy which can be chnaged, much easier to boost your vote among white swing voters then solid Dem minorities. Pandering didn't work for McCain nor Romney. The white share of the vote has been relentlessly rising for the Republicans, just need it a little higher. In Mississippi the vote share is as high as it is for Dems amongst blacks.
But to get immigration policy changed, the GOP need to work with those in power of the other two parts of government. And they refuse to. If they pushed for residency for illegal immigrants in exchange for a more secure border and a higher skill immigration policy (i.e. more potential Republicans), they could get it, but they won't.
As for rising share of the white vote, that's happening in the South, but not clear they're doing it elsewhere.
I agree. Romney was damaged by the GoP nomination process.
The Party has a long record of picking a plausible candidate - eventually - but the persistent flirtation with loonies undermines its credibility.
You may not like the Democrats, but it is a long, long time since they put on the platform anybody as implausible as Caine, Bachmann, Gingrich or Santorum.
I would have hoped that in reaction to an extremist Islamic school preaching sexism and sectarianism in lessons, the left would join in the condemnation and support the need to teach the values of this society instead. But no, they instead prefer to bash on British values:
Michael Gove argues that school children should be taught British values. From now on history lessons will teach kids how to invade countries, sell locals into slavery and nick anything that isn’t nailed down.
That's what they think of this country. When they hear "British" they think of slavery and imperialism first and foremost. They really do hate Britain don't they? No wonder they were so happy to import millions of foreigners. As Neather said, they don't want "mainstream British" culture, they want "true multiculturalism". They'd rather have a go at Britishness than Islamic bigots hating on "white prostitutes".
I used to think that the more right wing posters on here calling the Left traitors who hated this country were being hyperbolic, but I'm starting to think they have a point.
Indeed Socrates. How dare people not agree with your views on what Britishness entails. They are clearly traitors. And it is certainly entirely representative of British values to read a column in the Guardian, take it literally and then decide that it represents the views of the "left". This certainly illustrates why politicians should decree lessons in British values.
I think it's an attempt by the Guardian to be funny (almost always cringeworthy) but many a true word is said in jest.
I read The Guardians review of the David Beckham documentary last night... taking the mickey out of it and damning with faint praise, mocking him for not pronouncing words correctly... why do so many lefty journalists write in that sneering, sarcastic, bitter, unfunny student style? They cant help themselves
Have you read the Mail on David Beckham? Or the Telegraph?
Think there's something there. (Clearly they drink a lot of tea in the middle east as well), but compare the levels of tea drinking in the UK and Ireland with the EU average..
Interesting that, despite British and Irish membership of the EU, the EU average is below the World average, indicating that average tea consumption is higher outside the EU rather than inside.
I agree. Romney was damaged by the GoP nomination process.
The Party has a long record of picking a plausible candidate - eventually - but the persistent flirtation with loonies undermines its credibility.
You may not like the Democrats, but it is a long, long time since they put on the platform anybody as implausible as Caine, Bachmann, Gingrich or Santorum.
They do it less often but Dennis Kucinich?
Yeah but Democrat crazies are only ever on the stage for the lols the GOP treat their crazies as serious and credible.
You believe in heritable titles, and that a bit of paper confers ownership of land. You are a truly modern Scot.
Actually bits of paper do confer ownership of land, and lots of other things. I have a bit of paper that says I own a chunk of land and the house built on it, I also have a bit of paper that says that a particular car belongs to me. Its called property rights and the rule of law. As a communist, I appreciate you might feel that property is theft, but that isn't the society we live in.
"Warren comes over as a folksy woman from Oklahoma."
Don't get me wrong, Socco. I like her and consider her a distinguished politician but she's a left-leaning liberal who would go down like cold sick in many States, some of them swing States.
The Democrats won't pick her because they know this. She cannot win (unless the GoP pick somebody like Cruz, in which case the Dems could run the office cat and expect to win.)
Comments
http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/06/11/is-hillary-clinton-a-certainty-for-2016/
Not in the new glorious future SO. Our children will be assimilated into "britishness".........Just as soon as they can think of a definition that doesn't have us laughing our heads off.
London mayor Boris Johnson has agreed to be blasted by water cannon after his controversial decision to buy the weapons for Scotland Yard.
I don't mind. I am certainly prepared to do anything to show that they're safe within reason.
If it will really make you happy, I will investigate the whys and wherefores of whether I can stand in front of a water cannon without infringing some code of health and safety.
– BORIS JOHNSON, MAYOR OF LONDON
Boris added:
Are you saying I need a bath?
http://www.itv.com/news/london/2014-06-11/boris-johnson-agrees-to-be-blasted-by-water-cannon/
There's quite a high threshold of credibility (or postal vote fraud) that a party must reach to be put in control of electors' actual money or interests. So far, UKIP has not reached it.
The playing surface is noticeably dry and sandy and particularly bare around one of the goals, with large yellowing areas of turf.
The rest of the stadium is not completely finished, with naked power cables dangling from the walls of the changing rooms and workers still applying a final coat of asphalt outside the ground. Several security doors are also waiting to be fitted at the stadium where a construction worker died last year after falling from the roof.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup/10891473/Manaus-pitch-raises-fears-ahead-of-Englands-World-Cup-2014-opener-against-Italy.html
He strikes me as someone who would have allies, contacts and colleagues, but not friends.
Chris Bryant is floundering unvelievably on Free movement of workers on DP
Chasing his tail, wanting it both ways... impossible. You leave the EU or you put up with it
The PIU's reports were legendarily tedious within Whitehall but their big immigration report was surrounded by an unusual air of both anticipation and secrecy.
Drafts were handed out in summer 2000 only with extreme reluctance: there was a paranoia about it reaching the media.
Eventually published in January 2001, the innocuously labelled "RDS Occasional Paper no. 67", "Migration: an economic and social analysis" focused heavily on the labour market case.
But the earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.
There was clearly a deliberate decision to open up the UK to mass immigration - the sudden step change in numbers show that - and the early drafts of the case actually included a political purpose of making the UK multicultural (i.e. replace traditional British culture). They wanted to change British society but were paranoid about it getting out (i.e. a secret agenda). This is hardly tin foil hat territory - one of the guys in the very meetings admitted to it.
The antiChristian chant was apparantly "we do not believe in Christmas" which is something that Seventh Day adventists and a variety of Protestant sects would agree with.
I think what has been going on in Bham schools is deplorable, but the way to tackle it is to teach the law and civics not some nebulous "values" that many Brits would dispute.
Indeed the right to dispute and criticise values is a fairly fundamental British value...
You are too generous, Shadsy.
The only serious threat to her is her health. If it holds up, she runs, and if she runs she wins.
At 6/4 I'd bite your hand off, but I've already done so - at 6/1, thank you.
Btw, I think your 25/1 Warren is wrong. She's not only said she won't run, but would get slaughtered if she did. The Dems wouldn't pick her though. It would be the equivalent of the GoP going with Ted Cruz, except they are barmy enough to do it.
That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Cameron and Clegg (Brown and Blair) all had slightly different spins on this (as you would too) but I think individual liberty (freedom of belief, speech and worship) respect for the rule of (and equality in front of) the law, tolerance and belief in the democratic process are uncontroversial.
Being Scottish, the idea that I should have been taught to be "british" is not something that appeals to me.
Teach morality yes, just don't try to wrap it up in a flag and a misconceived idea of "citizenship" That way leads in only one direction.
The Boys Club to which I belonged as a lad, The Eton Manor, had close connections with the school. Through the club I once went on a tour of Greece with a dozen other lads, half from Eton and half from East End Grammar schools such as mine. We all got on fine (except for one of the GS lads, who was a tonk but that's another story.) When we returned the Eton lads arranged for us to spend a day as pupils at the School.
Seemed like a great place to me. Obviously the barriers to entry were quite high, but then the same could be said of the better East End Grammars.
The Left is revealing itself here. The Conservatives are on the side of promoting British values of democracy, liberty and the rule of law. Labour don't want to criticise the Muslims shaming "white prostitutes" and want to mock the concept of Britishness.
http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/motorsport/story/162421.html
At the time I thought it was just a racing incident, but the stewards must've seen something to give Perez a penalty.
Very comfortable, though my ideas of "Scotishness" are at odds with JackW's, and not exactly aligned with some other Scots on here
I'm sure the playing fields there were better than the one England will be playing on in Manaus too
Jason Campbell @jcampbell1888 2h
Fuck you JK Rowling you whore
Are we the only country to believe in those things? If we aren't, why does it need to be called British?
They're British because they're the values we have here. If they're also the values they have in Sweden, great, they can also be called Swedish values in Swedish schools.
Someone with pent up frustrations and a tendency toward onanism?
Sorry, as a Socialist, I refuse to have National added to my resume. ;-)
You wouldn't be the only person to think along those lines, Casino.
If you could come up with a Democrat to beat Hillary in the way that Obama did, all us punters would be as eternally grateful to you as we are to Mike S for tipping the Senator from Chicago at 50/1 many years ago.
I've scoured the alternatives and the best I can come up with is Joe Biden. Thrillsville.
If it was a Guardian article about some element of history from a new study of slavery, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I just find the following chain amazing:
- Muslim schools engaged in Saudi-style Islam in the UK
- Education Minister responds by wanting to teach liberal British values
- Guardian writes article about how Britishness is about theft and slavery
It's just such a stunning case of an ideological blind spot. It's almost as if the first bullet didn't happen to them.
Think there's something there. (Clearly they drink a lot of tea in the middle east as well), but compare the levels of tea drinking in the UK and Ireland with the EU average..
It's a pity the native Americans didn't have immigration control, or several other countries our ancestors emigrated to.
I agree. Romney was damaged by the GoP nomination process.
The Party has a long record of picking a plausible candidate - eventually - but the persistent flirtation with loonies undermines its credibility.
You may not like the Democrats, but it is a long, long time since they put on the platform anybody as implausible as Caine, Bachmann, Gingrich or Santorum.
Anyway, the original paper was released, and it did indeed have New Labour's "social objectives" in it:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/7198329/Labours-secret-plan-to-lure-migrants.html
You believe in heritable titles, and that a bit of paper confers ownership of land.
You are a truly modern Scot.
Yes, Jack, but all this happened long ago while you were still in short trousers.
"Isnt Biden older than Hills?"
Which Hills - Hillary or The Cotswolds?
I think the fields outside my flats will be better than that, Neil.
As for rising share of the white vote, that's happening in the South, but not clear they're doing it elsewhere.
"Warren comes over as a folksy woman from Oklahoma."
Don't get me wrong, Socco. I like her and consider her a distinguished politician but she's a left-leaning liberal who would go down like cold sick in many States, some of them swing States.
The Democrats won't pick her because they know this. She cannot win (unless the GoP pick somebody like Cruz, in which case the Dems could run the office cat and expect to win.)