We have a ComRes opinion poll in The Independent on Sunday tomorrow, shared with the Sunday Mirror. As well as asking people how they would vote in a general election, we have re-run the Favourability Index, asking whether people have a favourable or unfavourable view of leading politicians and, this week, three members of the royal family: the Queen, Prince Charles and Prince William.
After Michael Gove’s announcement this week that he wants state schools in England to “promote British values”, we also asked people what the most important British values were. Some of the findings were unexpected (by me). I will post the results here this evening, and the full tables will be on the ComRes website.
I was chatting to an East European colleague yesterday to congratulate her on taking out British citizenship. She found revising for the written test quite informative and instructive.
But she is someone very keen on becoming British; having lived in a much less free society herself.
I just hope that the introduction of 'British values' into the curriculum is managed better than the response to trojan hoax.
I fear it will be a vague mish-mash, and Ofsted will be asking questions along the lines of the *awe and wonder* fad a while back.
I'm sure there's a sensible way of doing it. I just don't hold out much hope based on experience.
The new test is definitely a good step in the right direction, but I still think we could go further. Most average intelligence people could pass with only light revision. I don't think we need to go full Norway here, but I think we should genuinely push incoming immigrants to know more about our values, how they evolved and why they're important than we currently do.
I think we could do more to get those who are born here to understand our values too.
Indeed. Hopefully Gove's new narrative history push will help a lot. Will it effect those in free schools? I know they don't have to follow the curriculum, but they still need to follow the exam boards...
I was chatting to an East European colleague yesterday to congratulate her on taking out British citizenship. She found revising for the written test quite informative and instructive.
But she is someone very keen on becoming British; having lived in a much less free society herself.
I just hope that the introduction of 'British values' into the curriculum is managed better than the response to trojan hoax.
I fear it will be a vague mish-mash, and Ofsted will be asking questions along the lines of the *awe and wonder* fad a while back.
I'm sure there's a sensible way of doing it. I just don't hold out much hope based on experience.
The new test is definitely a good step in the right direction, but I still think we could go further. Most average intelligence people could pass with only light revision. I don't think we need to go full Norway here, but I think we should genuinely push incoming immigrants to know more about our values, how they evolved and why they're important than we currently do.
I think we could do more to get those who are born here to understand our values too.
A debate about what those values are and how we balance them would be very welcome. What we do not want is a situation in which they are elastic and dependent on who is in power.
If by them you mean the ex pats, I would say the majority. Even in Kuwait and Saudi there is a thriving market in smuggled alcohol and home made hooch.
I have been to many a Muslim's home where they have proudly displayed their booze cabinet. It became quite awkward when I, as a non-Muslim, said I was a tee-totaller....
I'm a teetotaller too! But a non-Muslim too. I think it's more cultural than religious. Then again, India's only two 'dry' states (Gujurat and Andhra Pradesh) are overwhelmingly Hindu.
However, if you like the odd tipple or two, visit the former French enclave of Mahe which is "geographically" in Kerala state in southern India. Every other shop seems to sells booze!!
I was surprised by the alchohol taboo when I visited Delhi recently even among secular attendees of the conference I was at. I also saw the scariest looking off license I have ever seen while searching for a beer near my budget hotel. I guess decent people don't go there. I decided against it that night! (I found a nice and posh liquor shop in a fancy mall in the end)
In Kerala outside Mahe you get these "Toddy Shops", which sell toddy - fermented coconut, which always seem a little seedy and "discreet" from the outside!
I have drunk in a toddy shack in the Backwaters. The stuff is slightly cabbagey and I drank a little too much because most other people in the party didn't fancy it. There was fresh toddy, which is quite weak, day old toddy which is stronger, at two days apparently it turns into vinegar and the Goans use it for vindaloo, not sure what the Keralans do with it (maybe they aim to have drunk it by that point).
"... whether people have a favourable or unfavourable view of leading politicians and, this week, three members of the royal family: the Queen, Prince Charles and Prince William."
But not Pince Harry? Probably ComRes thought there was no point in asking.
What time will you be posting the results this evening, Mr. Eagles.
I was chatting to an East European colleague yesterday to congratulate her on taking out British citizenship. She found revising for the written test quite informative and instructive.
But she is someone very keen on becoming British; having lived in a much less free society herself.
I just hope that the introduction of 'British values' into the curriculum is managed better than the response to trojan hoax.
I fear it will be a vague mish-mash, and Ofsted will be asking questions along the lines of the *awe and wonder* fad a while back.
I'm sure there's a sensible way of doing it. I just don't hold out much hope based on experience.
The new test is definitely a good step in the right direction, but I still think we could go further. Most average intelligence people could pass with only light revision. I don't think we need to go full Norway here, but I think we should genuinely push incoming immigrants to know more about our values, how they evolved and why they're important than we currently do.
I think we could do more to get those who are born here to understand our values too.
A debate about what those values are and how we balance them would be very welcome. What we do not want is a situation in which they are elastic and dependent on who is in power.
Absolutely, this is an opportunity if we seize it!
As Lee Kwan Yew and John Stuart Mill observed you can't have democracy in a multi-ethnic country.
The problem is not ethnicity, it is values and culture. I don't care what someone's descent is, as long as they identify as British, adopt British values, and integrate with the wider country.
"... whether people have a favourable or unfavourable view of leading politicians and, this week, three members of the royal family: the Queen, Prince Charles and Prince William."
But not Pince Harry? Probably ComRes thought there was no point in asking.
What time will you be posting the results this evening, Mr. Eagles.
atherine Peacock, head of pollsters ComRes, has carried out focus groups where pictures of Mr Miliband are superimposed on 10 Downing Street. “The general reaction is, ‘that leaves me apprehensive, or even a little scared’ or ‘he doesn’t inspire confidence’,” she says. A common reaction is “they picked the wrong brother”, four years since Mr Miliband beat elder brother David to the post.
Mr Miliband scores highly on only a few measures, such as being “in touch” with voters’ concerns
I am not Ed's biggest fan, but I am not sue what specific focus-grouping on him really achieves. People give reactions when asked specifically about something, but that does not give you any context about, for example, how important the issue is to them overall. Ed needs 35% of those voting to put their views about him personally to one side and to vote Labour because they have greater reservations about the negatives they see in the alternatives. If they do he becomes PM.
It is one of those self fulfilling memes.
Ed won't be PM because voters can't imagine him being PM because other voters can't imagine him being PM.
Here's barely hitting 35% now and if you're a believer in swing back then he's going to struggle to get that 35%.
I get that, but my sense is that while Ed is a drag on the Labour vote the biggest problem Labour has is a general lack of credibility. That's Ed's fault - not because of any personal attributes he has (or hasn't) got, but because he has put Not Being the Tories at the heart of Labour's strategy.
I was chatting to an East European colleague yesterday to congratulate her on taking out British citizenship. She found revising for the written test quite informative and instructive.
But she is someone very keen on becoming British; having lived in a much less free society herself.
I just hope that the introduction of 'British values' into the curriculum is managed better than the response to trojan hoax.
I fear it will be a vague mish-mash, and Ofsted will be asking questions along the lines of the *awe and wonder* fad a while back.
I'm sure there's a sensible way of doing it. I just don't hold out much hope based on experience.
The new test is definitely a good step in the right direction, but I still think we could go further. Most average intelligence people could pass with only light revision. I don't think we need to go full Norway here, but I think we should genuinely push incoming immigrants to know more about our values, how they evolved and why they're important than we currently do.
I think we could do more to get those who are born here to understand our values too.
We could start off perhaps with the conservative,labour and lib dem parties because they sure do not seem to understand traditional values such as a non intrusive, not authoritarian state or not only being able to get an honest days pay for an honest days toil but also being allowed to keep some of it rather than having it stolen from us before it even reaches our wallets for some idiot scheme or other
An excellent article and some excellent responses.
This is going to take all sides in politics to admit fundamental mistakes. And it is a subject in which all sides need to work together. Blame-apportionment, name-calling and all the rest of the usual rituals of the FPTP system will solve nothing. Labour tolerated and at times encouraged multiculturalism because it was politically expedient to do so; the Tories ignored it because it did not affect people who voted for them. That has to change and, as David suggests, we have reached a point where it could change. It would be unforgivable if it didn't. I lean to the left, but I have never had a problem with seeing western democratic values as being inherently superior to medieval theocratic ones. I suspect that I am far from alone. That clearly puts us on the same side as the vast majority of those people who lean to the right. So let's do something about it. Don't leave the debate and the definitions and the dividing lines to be decided by those on the extremes.
Southam - if the rest of the left was willing to be open-minded and properly engage in this debate as you have we would be in a far, far better position. Hopefully this will be a turning point, although the reaction of the Guardian and the muted reaction from the Labour party make me wonder.
"... whether people have a favourable or unfavourable view of leading politicians and, this week, three members of the royal family: the Queen, Prince Charles and Prince William."
But not Pince Harry? Probably ComRes thought there was no point in asking.
What time will you be posting the results this evening, Mr. Eagles.
British values are being left alone by politicians and moralists if you stay within the laws of the land. Schools should be locally accountable ' teach national curriculum and be required by law to be non discriminatory. The current mess arises from Blair's messianic period and then gove's reckless and narcissistic approach to schools planning.
atherine Peacock, head of pollsters ComRes, has carried out focus groups where pictures of Mr Miliband are superimposed on 10 Downing Street. “The general reaction is, ‘that leaves me apprehensive, or even a little scared’ or ‘he doesn’t inspire confidence’,” she says. A common reaction is “they picked the wrong brother”, four years since Mr Miliband beat elder brother David to the post.
Mr Miliband scores highly on only a few measures, such as being “in touch” with voters’ concerns
I am not Ed's biggest fan, but I am not sue what specific focus-grouping on him really achieves. People give reactions when asked specifically about something, but that does not give you any context about, for example, how important the issue is to them overall. Ed needs 35% of those voting to put their views about him personally to one side and to vote Labour because they have greater reservations about the negatives they see in the alternatives. If they do he becomes PM.
It is one of those self fulfilling memes.
Ed won't be PM because voters can't imagine him being PM because other voters can't imagine him being PM.
Here's barely hitting 35% now and if you're a believer in swing back then he's going to struggle to get that 35%.
I get that, but my sense is that while Ed is a drag on the Labour vote the biggest problem Labour has is a general lack of credibility. That's Ed's fault - not because of any personal attributes he has (or hasn't) got, but because he has put Not Being the Tories at the heart of Labour's strategy.
Rightly or wrongly the two Eds have been portrayed as Brown's right hand men.
When the economy is central to the next election, they have a weakness that via osmosis effects all their other positions.
We know the Tory and Lib Dem slogan for next year "Don't let Labour ruin it AGAIN"
I was chatting to an East European colleague yesterday to congratulate her on taking out British citizenship. She found revising for the written test quite informative and instructive.
But she is someone very keen on becoming British; having lived in a much less free society herself.
I just hope that the introduction of 'British values' into the curriculum is managed better than the response to trojan hoax.
I fear it will be a vague mish-mash, and Ofsted will be asking questions along the lines of the *awe and wonder* fad a while back.
I'm sure there's a sensible way of doing it. I just don't hold out much hope based on experience.
The new test is definitely a good step in the right direction, but I still think we could go further. Most average intelligence people could pass with only light revision. I don't think we need to go full Norway here, but I think we should genuinely push incoming immigrants to know more about our values, how they evolved and why they're important than we currently do.
I think we could do more to get those who are born here to understand our values too.
We could start off perhaps with the conservative,labour and lib dem parties because they sure do not seem to understand traditional values such as a non intrusive, not authoritarian state or not only being able to get an honest days pay for an honest days toil but also being allowed to keep some of it rather than having it stolen from us before it even reaches our wallets for some idiot scheme or other
But that isn't our tradition, or at least not entirely as a reasonable reading of history will confirm. Our state has often been deeply intrusive and authoritarian, punctuated by revolts against admittedly, but much of our history cannot be shoehorned into a libertarian narrative.
I was chatting to an East European colleague yesterday to congratulate her on taking out British citizenship. She found revising for the written test quite informative and instructive.
But she is someone very keen on becoming British; having lived in a much less free society herself.
I just hope that the introduction of 'British values' into the curriculum is managed better than the response to trojan hoax.
I fear it will be a vague mish-mash, and Ofsted will be asking questions along the lines of the *awe and wonder* fad a while back.
I'm sure there's a sensible way of doing it. I just don't hold out much hope based on experience.
The new test is definitely a good step in the right direction, but I still think we could go further. Most average intelligence people could pass with only light revision. I don't think we need to go full Norway here, but I think we should genuinely push incoming immigrants to know more about our values, how they evolved and why they're important than we currently do.
I think we could do more to get those who are born here to understand our values too.
We could start off perhaps with the conservative,labour and lib dem parties because they sure do not seem to understand traditional values such as a non intrusive, not authoritarian state or not only being able to get an honest days pay for an honest days toil but also being allowed to keep some of it rather than having it stolen from us before it even reaches our wallets for some idiot scheme or other
This illustrates the problem of talking about "values". Tax levels now are actually much lower than they have been in the past under both Labour and Conservative governments. They have been lower in the past too, but usually when we did not have an NHS or old age pension provision. A lot of people would argue that both of those things are British values too.
In living memory we have also had a state that banned books, jailed people for obscenity and sodomy, and allowed discrimination on the basis of gender, race and sexuality. That strikes me as being highly authoritarian and not a little intrusive.
This illustrates the problem of talking about "values". Tax levels now are actually much lower than they have been in the past under both Labour and Conservative governments. They have been lower in the past too, but usually when we did not have an NHS or old age pension provision. A lot of people would argue that both of those things are British values too.
In living memory we have also had a state that banned books, jailed people for obscenity and sodomy, and allowed discrimination on the basis of gender, race and sexuality. That strikes me as being highly authoritarian and not a little intrusive.
Are tax levels actually lower as a share of GDP? Income tax rates are lower, but VAT is a lot higher. I don't know how it balances out overall.
This illustrates the problem of talking about "values". Tax levels now are actually much lower than they have been in the past under both Labour and Conservative governments. They have been lower in the past too, but usually when we did not have an NHS or old age pension provision. A lot of people would argue that both of those things are British values too.
In living memory we have also had a state that banned books, jailed people for obscenity and sodomy, and allowed discrimination on the basis of gender, race and sexuality. That strikes me as being highly authoritarian and not a little intrusive.
Are tax levels actually lower as a share of GDP? Income tax rates are lower, but VAT is a lot higher. I don't know how it balances out overall.
I don't know, but the phrase Zen Pagan used - "being able to get an honest days pay for an honest days toil but also being allowed to keep some of it rather than having it stolen from us before it even reaches our wallets" - implied he was talking about income tax.
An excellent article and some excellent responses.
This is going to take all sides in politics to admit fundamental mistakes. And it is a subject in which all sides need to work together. Blame-apportionment, name-calling and all the rest of the usual rituals of the FPTP system will solve nothing. Labour tolerated and at times encouraged multiculturalism because it was politically expedient to do so; the Tories ignored it because it did not affect people who voted for them. That has to change and, as David suggests, we have reached a point where it could change. It would be unforgivable if it didn't. I lean to the left, but I have never had a problem with seeing western democratic values as being inherently superior to medieval theocratic ones. I suspect that I am far from alone. That clearly puts us on the same side as the vast majority of those people who lean to the right. So let's do something about it. Don't leave the debate and the definitions and the dividing lines to be decided by those on the extremes.
Southam - if the rest of the left was willing to be open-minded and properly engage in this debate as you have we would be in a far, far better position. Hopefully this will be a turning point, although the reaction of the Guardian and the muted reaction from the Labour party make me wonder.
Most (but from all) secularists are of the left. I have said before: whip all religion out of everything state sponsored and things will change for the better.
I'm sure there's a sensible way of doing it. I just don't hold out much hope based on experience.
The new test is definitely a good step in the right direction, but I still think we could go further. Most average intelligence people could pass with only light revision. I don't think we need to go full Norway here, but I think we should genuinely push incoming immigrants to know more about our values, how they evolved and why they're important than we currently do.
I think we could do more to get those who are born here to understand our values too.
We could start off perhaps with the conservative,labour and lib dem parties because they sure do not seem to understand traditional values such as a non intrusive, not authoritarian state or not only being able to get an honest days pay for an honest days toil but also being allowed to keep some of it rather than having it stolen from us before it even reaches our wallets for some idiot scheme or other
This illustrates the problem of talking about "values". Tax levels now are actually much lower than they have been in the past under both Labour and Conservative governments. They have been lower in the past too, but usually when we did not have an NHS or old age pension provision. A lot of people would argue that both of those things are British values too.
In living memory we have also had a state that banned books, jailed people for obscenity and sodomy, and allowed discrimination on the basis of gender, race and sexuality. That strikes me as being highly authoritarian and not a little intrusive.
Tax levels are only much lower if you are talking about direct taxes. It is the hidden charges that have been ever creeping upwards. NI,VAT, green levies, excise duty, fiscal drag on tax allowances, removal of tax allowances etc
While the state certainly could be intrusive in the past it was no where near on the same scale. An example of this is down my local council. It reads "Do you have someone looking after your children for more than 29 days that isnt a family member? Then you must by law tell us so that we can monitor them".
Frankly F Off. I am better placed to decide who can and can't look after my children than some idiot social worker. That is the sort of everyday low level intrusion I am talking about.
An excellent article and some excellent responses.
This is going to take all sides in politics to admit fundamental mistakes. And it is a subject in which all sides need to work together. Blame-apportionment, name-calling and all the rest of the usual rituals of the FPTP system will solve nothing. Labour tolerated and at times encouraged multiculturalism because it was politically expedient to do so; the Tories ignored it because it did not affect people who voted for them. That has to change and, as David suggests, we have reached a point where it could change. It would be unforgivable if it didn't. I lean to the left, but I have never had a problem with seeing western democratic values as being inherently superior to medieval theocratic ones. I suspect that I am far from alone. That clearly puts us on the same side as the vast majority of those people who lean to the right. So let's do something about it. Don't leave the debate and the definitions and the dividing lines to be decided by those on the extremes.
Southam - if the rest of the left was willing to be open-minded and properly engage in this debate as you have we would be in a far, far better position. Hopefully this will be a turning point, although the reaction of the Guardian and the muted reaction from the Labour party make me wonder.
Most (but from all) secularists are of the left. I have said before: whip all religion out of everything state sponsored and things will change for the better.
I think that is naively optimistic to be honest. If religion is removed as the pretext for irrational behaviour people will find something else.
atherine Peacock, head of pollsters ComRes, has carried out focus groups where pictures of Mr Miliband are superimposed on 10 Downing Street. “The general reaction is, ‘that leaves me apprehensive, or even a little scared’ or ‘he doesn’t inspire confidence’,” she says. A common reaction is “they picked the wrong brother”, four years since Mr Miliband beat elder brother David to the post.
Mr Miliband scores highly on only a few measures, such as being “in touch” with voters’ concerns
I am not Ed's biggest fan, but I am not sue what specific focus-grouping on him really achieves. People give reactions when asked specifically about something, but that does not give you any context about, for example, how important the issue is to them overall. Ed needs 35% of those voting to put their views about him personally to one side and to vote Labour because they have greater reservations about the negatives they see in the alternatives. If they do he becomes PM.
A year or so ago the Sunday Times did a focus group of 12 people and devoted three pages to it, which was the duly hammered for dear life on here and by Dan Hodges etc. The polling then, as now, showed a different story but for whatever reason it was the focus group that got all the attention.
An excellent article and some excellent responses.
This is going to take all sides in politics to admit fundamental mistakes. And it is a subject in which all sides need to work together. Blame-apportionment, name-calling and all the rest of the usual rituals of the FPTP system will solve nothing. Labour tolerated and at times encouraged multiculturalism because it was politically expedient to do so; the Tories ignored it because it did not affect people who voted for them. That has to change and, as David suggests, we have reached a point where it could change. It would be unforgivable if it didn't. I lean to the left, but I have never had a problem with seeing western democratic values as being inherently superior to medieval theocratic ones. I suspect that I am far from alone. That clearly puts us on the same side as the vast majority of those people who lean to the right. So let's do something about it. Don't leave the debate and the definitions and the dividing lines to be decided by those on the extremes.
Southam - if the rest of the left was willing to be open-minded and properly engage in this debate as you have we would be in a far, far better position. Hopefully this will be a turning point, although the reaction of the Guardian and the muted reaction from the Labour party make me wonder.
Most (but from all) secularists are of the left. I have said before: whip all religion out of everything state sponsored and things will change for the better.
I think that is naively optimistic to be honest. If religion is removed as the pretext for irrational behaviour people will find something else.
Okay, let's keep doing it then, carry on as we are.
A more fundamental problem than cultural traditions or even the treatment of women would surely be the issue of allegiance. In country after country across the world, we are seeing what happens when a large minority that bears no allegiance to the host country is cultivated, and develops a grievance or is used by an hostile external power. The US has been assiduous in supporting various minority groups and colour revolutions across the globe, subsequently using them to topple regimes it doesn't like. Russia is arguably doing the same thing in order to annexe East Ukraine. There is no reason why the same thing couldn't happen in the UK. This doesn't even necessarily refer to cultural traditions coming from outside -the destructive self-gratification of the London rioters is just as dangerous.
This illustrates the problem of talking about "values". Tax levels now are actually much lower than they have been in the past under both Labour and Conservative governments. They have been lower in the past too, but usually when we did not have an NHS or old age pension provision. A lot of people would argue that both of those things are British values too.
In living memory we have also had a state that banned books, jailed people for obscenity and sodomy, and allowed discrimination on the basis of gender, race and sexuality. That strikes me as being highly authoritarian and not a little intrusive.
Therein lies one of the conundrums, our values are evolutionary and dynamic not static. It is controlling the direction of travel that we need manage and have a national agreement on.
I would take issue with you on the NHS, about which I have no sentimental feelings, I do however have feelings about the provision of medical care that is free at the point of delivery. I think it is inarguable that the rigidity of remaining in the NHS system will, at some point, be an overall drag on the outcomes of the health for any people. To be wedded to the institution (which by human nature will adopt a methodology that promotes self survival of the system) rather than the outcome is a major error, in my view.
It is also possible to take issue over old age provision, and question if our method is better than that practised in societies where the extended family accepts far more responsibility.
There are great areas for discussion that traverse left and right, but are of paramount importance to the way our society develops in the future.
Who knows, we may all end up saying the 'big society' is the solution!
An excellent article and some excellent responses.
This is going to take all sides in politics to admit fundamental mistakes. And it is a subject in which all sides need to work together. Blame-apportionment, name-calling and all the rest of the usual rituals of the FPTP system will solve nothing. Labour tolerated and at times encouraged multiculturalism because it was politically expedient to do so; the Tories ignored it because it did not affect people who voted for them. That has to change and, as David suggests, we have reached a point where it could change. It would be unforgivable if it didn't. I lean to the left, but I have never had a problem with seeing western democratic values as being inherently superior to medieval theocratic ones. I suspect that I am far from alone. That clearly puts us on the same side as the vast majority of those people who lean to the right. So let's do something about it. Don't leave the debate and the definitions and the dividing lines to be decided by those on the extremes.
Southam - if the rest of the left was willing to be open-minded and properly engage in this debate as you have we would be in a far, far better position. Hopefully this will be a turning point, although the reaction of the Guardian and the muted reaction from the Labour party make me wonder.
Most (but from all) secularists are of the left. I have said before: whip all religion out of everything state sponsored and things will change for the better.
I think that is naively optimistic to be honest. If religion is removed as the pretext for irrational behaviour people will find something else.
Okay, let's keep doing it then, carry on as we are.
I wouldn't want that but we need to be realistic. People have a tendency to irrationality, religion can formalise that but removing religion won't remove the irrationality. I would like to see the decline of religion but I think we shouldn't overstate what that would do etc
An excellent article and some excellent responses.
This is going to take all sides in politics to admit fundamental mistakes. And it is a subject in which all sides need to work together. Blame-apportionment, name-calling and all the rest of the usual rituals of the FPTP system will solve nothing. Labour tolerated and at times encouraged multiculturalism because it was politically expedient to do so; the Tories ignored it because it did not affect people who voted for them. That has to change and, as David suggests, we have reached a point where it could change. It would be unforgivable if it didn't. I lean to the left, but I have never had a problem with seeing western democratic values as being inherently superior to medieval theocratic ones. I suspect that I am far from alone. That clearly puts us on the same side as the vast majority of those people who lean to the right. So let's do something about it. Don't leave the debate and the definitions and the dividing lines to be decided by those on the extremes.
Southam - if the rest of the left was willing to be open-minded and properly engage in this debate as you have we would be in a far, far better position. Hopefully this will be a turning point, although the reaction of the Guardian and the muted reaction from the Labour party make me wonder.
Most (but from all) secularists are of the left. I have said before: whip all religion out of everything state sponsored and things will change for the better.
*Sighs* Yes you have said that before, but as has also been pointed out before, your idea will not solve any real problems. For example, if a school has a set of values that its staff evidence in their words and behaviour and their tolerance of pupil behaviour then those values, and behaviours, will be picked up by the pupils. So, whilst formal religious education might be banned, the values of the dominant religion (if any) of the teachers will be passed to the pupils.
On another note would you also ban Chaplains from the armed services? Make it illegal to have church services aboard HM ships or religious rites at burials of those killed in action?
On another note would you also ban Chaplains from the armed services? Make it illegal to have church services aboard HM ships or religious rites at burials of those killed in action?
What about banning chaplains in H.M. Prisons? There would be riots within hours...
As Lee Kwan Yew and John Stuart Mill observed you can't have democracy in a multi-ethnic country.
The problem is not ethnicity, it is values and culture. I don't care what someone's descent is, as long as they identify as British, adopt British values, and integrate with the wider country.
Shame then we aren't blank slates. British values are the customs and norms we have evolved over a millennia, they aren't abstract slogans. Delayed marriage, nuclear families, individualism, high trust etc. none of which can be taught.
Who agrees with me that the trio of so-called experts commenting on the Spain vs Netherlands game last night were all very disappointing? The BBC seems to be of the view that only former professional footballers are capable of being able to provide intelligent comment. Let's hope for a better line-up this evening.
Ferdinand is inarticulate and adds nothing. None of them pointed out at half time the ease that holland were having getting between and behind the central defenders. Spain has two young quick full backs and two old, slow central defenders. And a terrible keeper.
Ferdinand is inarticulate and adds nothing. None of them pointed out at half time the ease that holland were having getting between and behind the central defenders. Spain has two young quick full backs and two old, slow central defenders. And a terrible keeper.
Ferdinand wasn't the only problem, Henry seemed to struggle in being able to express himself fluently in English and as for Alan Shearer ...... oh dear, oh dear!
I suppose I'm used to shearer. Liked Henry's cardie. At least he was being un incisive in a second language. Not as bad as cannavaro the other night who despite being a great player and a handsome bloke speaks virtually no English.
I found the ITV bods on opening night less impressive. I also think that for World Cup you need more articulate communicators as there must be occasional fans who struggle to get the technical aspects. You need people who are readily understandable, and don't confuse people.
Also boos for the Brazilian tv directors who like playing montages of goal celebrations while the game is going on. We missed the move leading to Torres epic miss yesterday because of repeats of van Persie sticking his tongue out.
Who agrees with me that the trio of so-called experts commenting on the Spain vs Netherlands game last night were all very disappointing? The BBC seems to be of the view that only former professional footballers are capable of being able to provide intelligent comment. Let's hope for a better line-up this evening.
Not been watching the football, but the 'who is worse' conversation is interesting. It was surprising, when I compared Sky and BBC commentary of Bahrain, that Coulthard was clearly sharper than Brundle. The Scot's got a less natural manner (of course, Brundle's been doing it longer) makes better observations.
On football punditry, surely having Adrian Chiles on your side is the equivalent of a Fatality in Mortal Kombat?
atherine Peacock, head of pollsters ComRes, has carried out focus groups where pictures of Mr Miliband are superimposed on 10 Downing Street. “The general reaction is, ‘that leaves me apprehensive, or even a little scared’ or ‘he doesn’t inspire confidence’,” she says. A common reaction is “they picked the wrong brother”, four years since Mr Miliband beat elder brother David to the post.
Mr Miliband scores highly on only a few measures, such as being “in touch” with voters’ concerns
I am not Ed's biggest fan, but I am not sue what specific focus-grouping on him really achieves. People give reactions when asked specifically about something, but that does not give you any context about, for example, how important the issue is to them overall. Ed needs 35% of those voting to put their views about him personally to one side and to vote Labour because they have greater reservations about the negatives they see in the alternatives. If they do he becomes PM.
It is one of those self fulfilling memes.
Ed won't be PM because voters can't imagine him being PM because other voters can't imagine him being PM.
Here's barely hitting 35% now and if you're a believer in swing back then he's going to struggle to get that 35%.
I get that, but my sense is that while Ed is a drag on the Labour vote the biggest problem Labour has is a general lack of credibility. That's Ed's fault - not because of any personal attributes he has (or hasn't) got, but because he has put Not Being the Tories at the heart of Labour's strategy.
Rightly or wrongly the two Eds have been portrayed as Brown's right hand men.
When the economy is central to the next election, they have a weakness that via osmosis effects all their other positions.
We know the Tory and Lib Dem slogan for next year "Don't let Labour ruin it AGAIN"
I must say, and I say this as a conservative supporter, I am quite surprised that among many on the site next election is now seen as foregone conclusion. Must one point out again and again that the much heralded crossover last month proved quite fleeting (the last Conservative lead was on 16 May), that the electoral system heavily favours Labour and that the polling graph appears to be showing Labours support bottoming out in the low 30s (i.e. still above where they were in 2010).
Ed undoubtedly is crap and his government (if it happens) may well be a disaster but I am certainly happy to be betting on him in the Betfair next PM market at odds just long of evens.
Not been watching the football, but the 'who is worse' conversation is interesting. It was surprising, when I compared Sky and BBC commentary of Bahrain, that Coulthard was clearly sharper than Brundle. The Scot's got a less natural manner (of course, Brundle's been doing it longer) makes better observations.
On football punditry, surely having Adrian Chiles on your side is the equivalent of a Fatality in Mortal Kombat?
With cycling. Eurosport is way better than ITV4 and bashing myself over the head with a baking tray is better than Hugh Porter
atherine Peacock, head of pollsters ComRes, has carried out focus groups where pictures of Mr Miliband are superimposed on 10 Downing Street. “The general reaction is, ‘that leaves me apprehensive, or even a little scared’ or ‘he doesn’t inspire confidence’,” she says. A common reaction is “they picked the wrong brother”, four years since Mr Miliband beat elder brother David to the post.
Mr Miliband scores highly on only a few measures, such as being “in touch” with voters’ concerns
I am not Ed's biggest fan, but I am not sue what specific focus-grouping on him really achieves. People give reactions when asked specifically about something, but that does not give you any context about, for example, how important the issue is to them overall. Ed needs 35% of those voting to put their views about him personally to one side and to vote Labour because they have greater reservations about the negatives they see in the alternatives. If they do he becomes PM.
A year or so ago the Sunday Times did a focus group of 12 people and devoted three pages to it, which was the duly hammered for dear life on here and by Dan Hodges etc. The polling then, as now, showed a different story but for whatever reason it was the focus group that got all the attention.
Quite, I agree with you from across the political chasm! it dose not matter a jot what people think of Ed as long as say 33% (I actually think it is less than 35) of people vote Labour and no more than 36% (i.e. the same as they got last time) vote Conservative.
Mr Dancer I seem to remember Adrian Chiles used to do a business version of the Daily Politics on BBC2. I think it was Working Lunch, I think he really should have stayed there in obscurity. I've never seen him without wanting to pummel his face with a lump hammer.
There is a significant refugee population of Tibeteans around Dharamasala as well as Nepalese communities in India, as well as populations of Persian, Portuguese and British extraction.
While India has its own strains it is a triumph of democracy in a part of the world where democracies are few and far between.
As Lee Kwan Yew and John Stuart Mill observed you can't have democracy in a multi-ethnic country.
India is the world's biggest democracy, with over 20 official languages (including the King's!)
It's also riddled with corruption, sectarian conflict and came into being with partition. I also fail to see any immigrant communities of any size, not surprising as India limits immigration to ethnic Indians, NRIs.
Maybe we should follow that part of the worlds example, and partion England into three states according to religion or lack of... Muslims, Atheists, and the rest?
I am all for odd foreign expert but an ability to convey one's opinion in English should be a prerequisite skill. The wheels came off for Spain when Alonso came off and they lost their double pivot in midfield. De Gea must start, Spain still my favourites.
Who agrees with me that the trio of so-called experts commenting on the Spain vs Netherlands game last night were all very disappointing? The BBC seems to be of the view that only former professional footballers are capable of being able to provide intelligent comment. Let's hope for a better line-up this evening.
There is a significant refugee population of Tibeteans around Dharamasala as well as Nepalese communities in India, as well as populations of Persian, Portuguese and British extraction.
While India has its own strains it is a triumph of democracy in a part of the world where democracies are few and far between.
As Lee Kwan Yew and John Stuart Mill observed you can't have democracy in a multi-ethnic country.
India is the world's biggest democracy, with over 20 official languages (including the King's!)
It's also riddled with corruption, sectarian conflict and came into being with partition. I also fail to see any immigrant communities of any size, not surprising as India limits immigration to ethnic Indians, NRIs.
Maybe we should follow that part of the worlds example, and partion England into three states according to religion or lack of... Muslims, Atheists, and the rest?
Actually, two states... Muslims & Atheists in one, the rest in the other.
It is probably happening without intervention anyway
Excellent post Max and the points you make re-emphasise OGH's thread yesterday on the prospects and betting opportunities in terms of the Tories winning the most votes, but Labour winning the most seats. There is probably around a 4% band of Tory support where such an outcome is likely (above and below the 35% mark, depending upon how UKIP and the LibDems fare ultimately. Me, I'm relying on the very clever Stephen Fisher's projections and the time-honoured "shy Tory" syndrome.
As Lee Kwan Yew and John Stuart Mill observed you can't have democracy in a multi-ethnic country.
The problem is not ethnicity, it is values and culture. I don't care what someone's descent is, as long as they identify as British, adopt British values, and integrate with the wider country.
Shame then we aren't blank slates. British values are the customs and norms we have evolved over a millennia, they aren't abstract slogans. Delayed marriage, nuclear families, individualism, high trust etc. none of which can be taught.
Oh, I agree, but children from one culture can be taken to another and take to their new culture and prefer it to that of their parents. Also, if you provide people with a positive advert for your culture, if you convey the genius of things like due process, innocent until proven guilty, common law, constitutional governance etc, then people can be impressed with it and want to buy into those values.
An excellent article and some excellent responses.
This is going to take all sides in politics to admit fundamental mistakes. And it is a subject in which all sides need to work together. Blame-apportionment, name-calling and all the rest of the usual rituals of the FPTP system will solve nothing. Labour tolerated and at times encouraged multiculturalism because it was politically expedient to do so; the Tories ignored it because it did not affect people who voted for them. That has to change and, as David suggests, we have reached a point where it could change. It would be unforgivable if it didn't. I lean to the left, but I have never had a problem with seeing western democratic values as being inherently superior to medieval theocratic ones. I suspect that I am far from alone. That clearly puts us on the same side as the vast majority of those people who lean to the right. So let's do something about it. Don't leave the debate and the definitions and the dividing lines to be decided by those on the extremes.
Southam - if the rest of the left was willing to be open-minded and properly engage in this debate as you have we would be in a far, far better position. Hopefully this will be a turning point, although the reaction of the Guardian and the muted reaction from the Labour party make me wonder.
Most (but from all) secularists are of the left. I have said before: whip all religion out of everything state sponsored and things will change for the better.
*Sighs* Yes you have said that before, but as has also been pointed out before, your idea will not solve any real problems. For example, if a school has a set of values that its staff evidence in their words and behaviour and their tolerance of pupil behaviour then those values, and behaviours, will be picked up by the pupils. So, whilst formal religious education might be banned, the values of the dominant religion (if any) of the teachers will be passed to the pupils.
On another note would you also ban Chaplains from the armed services? Make it illegal to have church services aboard HM ships or religious rites at burials of those killed in action?
Not a strong enough point to justify the *Sighs*. Take the beliefs that adulteresses should be stoned to death or that you should not covet your neighbour's ass. It is quite rare for a teacher to have the opportunity to exhibit adulteress-stoning or non-ass-coveting behaviours in the classroom context, so those beliefs are passed on by religious instruction, or not at all.
I cannot abide football, and will be quietly chanting 'Forza Italia' tonight. The earlier the exit the sooner the hype and hysteria will end.
You should be grateful we don't do stoning, expressing sentiments like that round here.
Although a punishment more in tune with the English way would be for public BBQ. Probably at a car-boot sale. Or maybe at a transport caff, in the car park, surrounded by white vans each fluttering the cross of St. George....
I cannot abide football, and will be quietly chanting 'Forza Italia' tonight. The earlier the exit the sooner the hype and hysteria will end.
I fear you are being wildly over-optimistic in believing that England's early exit would in any way diminish the broadcasters' wall to wall saturation of all things World Cup. Even with the retirement of Alan Hansen, complete with his reported £1.5 million per annum salary, the BBC and others have sunk far too much money into their coverage to offer you much else of value over the next few weeks.
I get that, but my sense is that while Ed is a drag on the Labour vote the biggest problem Labour has is a general lack of credibility. That's Ed's fault - not because of any personal attributes he has (or hasn't) got, but because he has put Not Being the Tories at the heart of Labour's strategy.
Depends what you mean by "credibility". In my experience, it's absolutely not the case that people think "OMGZ Labour are going to overspend and bankrupt us!!!!!11" However, definition is a big problem for Labour, and I agree with you that Miliband takes a huge share of the blame for that, with his cautious, over-academic and fence-sitting approach to leadership.
OT EU, not sure if Shadsy still has odds available for Juncker but apparently it looks like Herman Van Rompuy, who got sent off to make a short-list of candidates for Commission President, is going to come back with a list like:
Cameron seems to have forced the issue and got people who were a bit meh to commit, so there's probably now a blocking minority in the Council for anyone except Juncker, and that's before you get to the Parliament where any other nomination will be DOA.
"Depends what you mean by "credibility". In my experience, it's absolutely not the case that people think "OMGZ Labour are going to overspend and bankrupt us!!!!! "
"Depends what you mean by "credibility". In my experience, it's absolutely not the case that people think "OMGZ Labour are going to overspend and bankrupt us!!!!! "
You mean like they did last time?
Except, despite what PBTories and the Westminster bubble think, the public doesn't accept the supposedly unarguable case for yet more austerity at all.
Lord Ashcroft's last poll: 59% of people say they see no need for 5 years more of austerity.
I cannot abide football, and will be quietly chanting 'Forza Italia' tonight. The earlier the exit the sooner the hype and hysteria will end.
I fear you are being wildly over-optimistic in believing that England's early exit would in any way diminish the broadcasters' wall to wall saturation of all things World Cup. Even with the retirement of Alan Hansen, complete with his reported £1.5 million per annum salary, the BBC and others have sunk far too much money into their coverage to offer you much else of value over the next few weeks.
I rarely watch television - which I find so 20th century. What does irritate me,however, is entering supermarkets, bakers, restaurants etc only to be served by someone wearing an English football jersey. We don't have this nonsense in relation to rugby, cricket, tennis or indeed any other sport , and I see no reason why we should have to suffer it with football. I have no problem with people enjoying a game of soccer - but do object to it being rammed down everyone's throats.
I cannot abide football, and will be quietly chanting 'Forza Italia' tonight. The earlier the exit the sooner the hype and hysteria will end.
You should be grateful we don't do stoning, expressing sentiments like that round here.
Although a punishment more in tune with the English way would be for public BBQ. Probably at a car-boot sale. Or maybe at a transport caff, in the car park, surrounded by white vans each fluttering the cross of St. George....
I've never understood why people who don't like football actively want their national team to lose. I don't like syncronised swimming but I don't wish defeat on the England synchronised swimming team. Sad.
What does irritate me,however, is entering supermarkets, bakers, restaurants etc only to be served by someone wearing an English football jersey. We don't have this nonsense in relation to rugby, cricket, tennis or indeed any other sport , and I see no reason why we should have to suffer it with football.
You'd think the fans could all chip in and pay the team a basic wage so they could concentrate on football practice instead of having to take part-time jobs in supermarkets and restaurants to make ends meet.
Dodgy dealings reported from the Newark by-election. Not sure how you deal with this given that it is somewhat unusual and didn't involve any of the types of voting that people normally feel are open to abuse.
I cannot abide football, and will be quietly chanting 'Forza Italia' tonight. The earlier the exit the sooner the hype and hysteria will end.
You should be grateful we don't do stoning, expressing sentiments like that round here.
Although a punishment more in tune with the English way would be for public BBQ. Probably at a car-boot sale. Or maybe at a transport caff, in the car park, surrounded by white vans each fluttering the cross of St. George....
I've never understood why people who don't like football actively want their national team to lose. I don't like syncronised swimming but I don't wish defeat on the England synchronised swimming team. Sad.
Meanwhile: much needed wicket at the cricket
If the synchronized swimming was on the tv in virtually every pub for 2 weeks solid, you were bombarded with sweepstakes and predict the score in every game competition. If your co workers weren't having convenient sick days during which you have to pick up the slack or the fact that all half the people do is talk about damn synchronized swimming all day at work then you might find an equally vocal wishing for the england team to be knocked out.
I cannot abide football, and will be quietly chanting 'Forza Italia' tonight. The earlier the exit the sooner the hype and hysteria will end.
I fear you are being wildly over-optimistic in believing that England's early exit would in any way diminish the broadcasters' wall to wall saturation of all things World Cup. Even with the retirement of Alan Hansen, complete with his reported £1.5 million per annum salary, the BBC and others have sunk far too much money into their coverage to offer you much else of value over the next few weeks.
I rarely watch television - which I find so 20th century. What does irritate me,however, is entering supermarkets, bakers, restaurants etc only to be served by someone wearing an English football jersey. We don't have this nonsense in relation to rugby, cricket, tennis or indeed any other sport , and I see no reason why we should have to suffer it with football. I have no problem with people enjoying a game of soccer - but do object to it being rammed down everyone's throats.
So you want your own national team to lose? Sad indeed.
HOW FOOTBALL SOUNDS TO PEOPLE THAT DON'T CARE. (Pt 1of2 )
Firstly, imagine every time within a day that football is mentioned by someone else. Secondly, replace it with something that you don't want to hear about every day. Say... Archaeology. Then, think carefully about how an average day would pan out.
So, you awaken to the clock radio. It's 7AM. Just as you awaken, it's time for the news and archaeology already. Not news and other historical investigations, like library restorations or museum openings (unless there's another event happening), but just the news and archaelogy. Malaysian plane is still missing. Pistorius is still on trial. New dig announced in Giza. Ancient Mayan temple discovered. Exciting stuff.
Time for a bite to eat over the morning TV. More news. More archaeology. Yes, you are aware of what is up with the missing plane. Fine. Now the archaeology in video format. Video of people dusting off some skulls and bits of pottery. All well and good, but archaeology isn't your thing. It would be nice to hear about something else.
Even when it isn't archaeology season, the media follow noted archaeologists. They drive fast cars, date beautiful women, advertise fragrances, and sometimes they go to nightclubs and act in the worst possible way. Scandals erupt as the tabloids follow these new celebrities when they're not searching the past for answers. It is entirely possible you can recite the names of certain researchers, even if you don't pay attention to archaeology. You don't know what transfer season is, but you know that someone was transferred to a dig in Peru for a sum of money that could fund the London Underground for two whole days.
Out of the car at 8:55 and into work. What are the colleagues talking about, I wonder? Oh, Jones dropped a 3,890 year old pot and smashed it? What a useless wanker! Someone should do something unpleasant to him. And don't even ask about the unfortunate incident in Athens two years ago - you'll be there all day! Breaking a pillar like that! We don't talk about that here, mate. What? You don't want to discuss the finer points of the prevalence of phallic imagery in Pompeii? Is there something wrong with you?
HOW FOOTBALL SOUNDS TO PEOPLE THAT DON'T CARE. (Pt 2 of 2 )
The drive home from work. Every thirty minutes, no matter the station, someone mentions the archaeology. Best sit in silence. Drive past a huge billboard with a black and white picture of a rakishly handsome archaeologist draped over an impossibly beautiful woman. He's winking at you. Trowel in his left hand, supermodel in the right. Jurassic, by Calvin Klein.
And now the pub. A nice pub with a beer garden. Posters in the windows. LIVE EXCAVATION AT THE VALLEY OF THE KINGS! All of it on a huge TV with the volume up too loud. Drunken people yelling at the screen. "SEND IT FOR CARBON DATING, YOU USELESS ***K!" "WHAT ARE YOU ON, MATE? DUST THE ANCIENT MEDALLION GENTLY! SMELTING METHODS OF THE TIME PRODUCED VERY SOFT AND IMPURE METALS EASILY PRONE TO DISFIGURATION!" All this from two men out of a crowd of twenty. One lousy drunken idiot and his chum ruin the image of other archaeology fans. Carbon dating report from the lab updates on TV, read by a man employed because they've been following the beautiful science since they were a boy. The drunk chimes in again. "WHAT PHARAOH'S REIGN DID YOU SAY? DO YOU KNOW WHAT THIS SAYS ABOUT THE UNDERPINNINGS OF OUR THEORY OF AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT OF 4TH BC EGYPT? GET IN, MATE!" A cheer cascades through the building and you can only wonder why.
Best go home and avoid anyone who might be drinking and singing. You once met a disagreeable chap who threatened to beat you up because you didn't watch the archaeology. "Not a late paleolithic era supporter are you? Think you're better than me? I'll have you, you scrawny tw*t!"
To bed. To repeat the cycle tomorrow. The inescapable, inevitability that wherever you go, someone, somewhere, is just dying to talk to you about the archaeology.
Who agrees with me that the trio of so-called experts commenting on the Spain vs Netherlands game last night were all very disappointing? The BBC seems to be of the view that only former professional footballers are capable of being able to provide intelligent comment. Let's hope for a better line-up this evening.
100% agree - they appeared struck dumb and unable to speak with any great excitement or insight... I know they aren't as box office (as Henry, Shearer, Rio) but the likes of at least your Lawro, Savage et al can talk with some 'vim'. Lineker looked like he was desperate for one of them to have something interesting to say.
An excellent article and some excellent responses.
decided by those on the extremes.
Southam - if the rest of the left was willing to be open-minded and properly engage in this debate as you have we would be in a far, far better position. Hopefully this will be a turning point, although the reaction of the Guardian and the muted reaction from the Labour party make me wonder.
Most (but from all) secularists are of the left. I have said before: whip all religion out of everything state sponsored and things will change for the better.
I think that is naively optimistic to be honest. If religion is removed as the pretext for irrational behaviour people will find something else.
You cannot remove religion. It is hardwired into the human brain. It's like trying to remove creativity, or the love of music, or maybe even sexuality.
Non-religious people - true atheists (a vanishingly small proportion of humanity, concentrated in a few liberal western nations) do not understand the appeal and power of religious belief, BECAUSE they lack the faculty thereof. Hence, their request for the removal of religion is like deaf people saying let's get rid of all pop, jazz, rock, opera, and classical music, then not understanding why such a proposal might cause problems, as well as being utterly impossible.
This is one of the major problems of our confrontation with Islamism; I might do a Teleblog on it next week.
Peter hitchens has written two great blogs this week on the Trojan horse school/praise of Islam and on why modern progressive interventionists not do it to feel good about themselves to fill the void left by lack if religion
"Depends what you mean by "credibility". In my experience, it's absolutely not the case that people think "OMGZ Labour are going to overspend and bankrupt us!!!!! "
You mean like they did last time?
Except, despite what PBTories and the Westminster bubble think, the public doesn't accept the supposedly unarguable case for yet more austerity at all.
Lord Ashcroft's last poll: 59% of people say they see no need for 5 years more of austerity.
LOL ! - That's just about on a par with asking people if they would be in favour of halving the rate of VAT or such like. You can kind of guess what the answer might be!
100% agree - they appeared struck dumb and unable to speak with any great excitement or insight... I know they aren't as box office (as Henry, Shearer, Rio) but the likes of at least your Lawro, Savage et al can talk with some 'vim'. Lineker looked like he was desperate for one of them to have something interesting to say.
I caught a bit of the Fast Show update with Ron Manager - "Ferraris for goal-posts..." Can we have him please?
Possibly Sean, but not certainty. There's also being atheist, and there's being irreligious (the people who if asked will say they believe in some form of god, but do not worship or otherwise have it affect their lives at all).
But whether these will continue to grow or not, is unclear.
(Worth noting secularism is different from eliminating religion).
Dodgy dealings reported from the Newark by-election. Not sure how you deal with this given that it is somewhat unusual and didn't involve any of the types of voting that people normally feel are open to abuse.
An excellent article and some excellent responses.
decided by those on the extremes.
Southam - if the rest of the left was willing to be open-minded and properly engage in this debate as you have we would be in a far, far better position. Hopefully this will be a turning point, although the reaction of the Guardian and the muted reaction from the Labour party make me wonder.
Most (but from all) secularists are of the left. I have said before: whip all religion out of everything state sponsored and things will change for the better.
I think that is naively optimistic to be honest. If religion is removed as the pretext for irrational behaviour people will find something else.
You cannot remove religion. It is hardwired into the human brain. It's like trying to remove creativity, or the love of music, or maybe even sexuality.
Non-religious people - true atheists (a vanishingly small proportion of humanity, concentrated in a few liberal western nations) do not understand the appeal and power of religious belief, BECAUSE they lack the faculty thereof. Hence, their request for the removal of religion is like deaf people saying let's get rid of all pop, jazz, rock, opera, and classical music, then not understanding why such a proposal might cause problems, as well as being utterly impossible.
This is one of the major obstacles to our confrontation with, and understanding of, Islamism; I might do a Teleblog on it next week.
Zzzzz. Not this tired old bollocks again Sean. Every so often you pop up with this crap that atheists are missing something. You are wrong. We live for today and for our children.
Who agrees with me that the trio of so-called experts commenting on the Spain vs Netherlands game last night were all very disappointing? The BBC seems to be of the view that only former professional footballers are capable of being able to provide intelligent comment. Let's hope for a better line-up this evening.
100% agree - they appeared struck dumb and unable to speak with any great excitement or insight... I know they aren't as box office (as Henry, Shearer, Rio) but the likes of at least your Lawro, Savage et al can talk with some 'vim'. Lineker looked like he was desperate for one of them to have something interesting to say.
I was so pissed and full of adrenalin by the time the fifth goal went in I didn't really care.
HOW FOOTBALL SOUNDS TO PEOPLE THAT DON'T CARE. (Pt 2 of 2 )
The drive home from work. Every thirty minutes, no matter the station, someone mentions the archaeology. Best sit in silence. Drive past a huge billboard with a black and white picture of a rakishly handsome archaeologist draped over an impossibly beautiful woman. He's winking at you. Trowel in his left hand, supermodel in the right. Jurassic, by Calvin Klein.
And now the pub. A nice pub with a beer garden. Posters in the windows. LIVE EXCAVATION AT THE VALLEY OF THE KINGS! All of it on a huge TV with the volume up too loud. Drunken people yelling at the screen. "SEND IT FOR CARBON DATING, YOU USELESS ***K!" "WHAT ARE YOU ON, MATE? DUST THE ANCIENT MEDALLION GENTLY! SMELTING METHODS OF THE TIME PRODUCED VERY SOFT AND IMPURE METALS EASILY PRONE TO DISFIGURATION!" All this from two men out of a crowd of twenty. One lousy drunken idiot and his chum ruin the image of other archaeology fans. Carbon dating report from the lab updates on TV, read by a man employed because they've been following the beautiful science since they were a boy. The drunk chimes in again. "WHAT PHARAOH'S REIGN DID YOU SAY? DO YOU KNOW WHAT THIS SAYS ABOUT THE UNDERPINNINGS OF OUR THEORY OF AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT OF 4TH BC EGYPT? GET IN, MATE!" A cheer cascades through the building and you can only wonder why.
Best go home and avoid anyone who might be drinking and singing. You once met a disagreeable chap who threatened to beat you up because you didn't watch the archaeology. "Not a late paleolithic era supporter are you? Think you're better than me? I'll have you, you scrawny tw*t!"
To bed. To repeat the cycle tomorrow. The inescapable, inevitability that wherever you go, someone, somewhere, is just dying to talk to you about the archaeology.
Gosh this archaeology lark seems popular, it must have something going for it.
OT EU, not sure if Shadsy still has odds available for Juncker but apparently it looks like Herman Van Rompuy, who got sent off to make a short-list of candidates for Commission President, is going to come back with a list like:
Cameron seems to have forced the issue and got people who were a bit meh to commit, so there's probably now a blocking minority in the Council for anyone except Juncker, and that's before you get to the Parliament where any other nomination will be DOA.
There is a theory going round that Cameron wants to lose on the Juncker issue, as 1. the Commission President is increasingly irrelevant, and 2. the election of Juncker will strengthen his case for reform and UK opt-outs, and 3. the other EU nations will now HAVE to give Cameron something in return for overruling him on Juncker.
Not sure it is true, but I have the seen the argument bruited about.
That was my original assumption about what he'd do; Whoever gets the job is going to have the tabloids on their case, so Cameron would presumably rather not be held responsible for them getting appointed. (Miliband likewise; Labour refused to endorse Schulz, and must have been relieved that he lost.) But then Cameron seemed to turn the rhetoric up beyond where you'd go if you expected to lose, so I reckon it was an accident; Merkel had intended to switch Juncker out which would have let Cameron claim a victory, but she got more domestic pressure than she expected and retreated, leaving Cameron high and dry.
The irony of the stand he's taken on this is that by making a big issue about the process, he's actually ended up making the precedent that will be set if they pick Juncker (as it looks like they will) a lot stronger. Juncker is the kind of insider fixer the member states would generally have wanted to pick, but they could still have refused to back a more high-profile and potentially troublesome candidate if one had won next time. But Cameron has forced everyone to take sides on the spitzkandidat getting the job, so if Juncker loses next time it's going to be almost impossible for them to resist appointing whoever beats him.
Anyhow I definitely think the UK can get something juicy in return, especially if can get somebody more high-powered to take the job. (Hague?)
'I rarely watch television - which I find so 20th century. What does irritate me,however, is entering supermarkets, bakers, restaurants etc only to be served by someone wearing an English football jersey. We don't have this nonsense in relation to rugby, cricket, tennis or indeed any other sport , and I see no reason why we should have to suffer it with football. I have no problem with people enjoying a game of soccer - but do object to it being rammed down everyone's throats.'
'So you want your own national team to lose? Sad indeed. '
In so far as I would recognize a national team it would be Great Britain - England being the only team in the tournament that does not represent an independent country due to an historical anomaly re-football. I don't actually accept the premise underlying that comment which rather assumes one SHOULD support the national team. If I had the slightest interest in the game I might well prefer the playing style of - say - Brazil , Germany or whoever and ,therefore, reasonably wish to see them triumph. I really don't give a toss for national identity when it comes to something so trivial.
An excellent article and some excellent responses.
decided by those on the extremes.
Southam - if the rest of the left was willing to be open-minded and properly engage in this debate as you have we would be in a far, far better position. Hopefully this will be a turning point, although the reaction of the Guardian and the muted reaction from the Labour party make me wonder.
Most (but from all) secularists are of the left. I have said before: whip all religion out of everything state sponsored and things will change for the better.
I think that is naively optimistic to be honest. If religion is removed as the pretext for irrational behaviour people will find something else.
You cannot remove religion. It is hardwired into the human brain. It's like trying to remove creativity, or the love of music, or maybe even sexuality.
Non-religious people - true atheists (a vanishingly small proportion of humanity, concentrated in a few liberal western nations) do not understand the appeal and power of religious belief, BECAUSE they lack the faculty thereof. Hence, their request for the removal of religion is like deaf people saying let's get rid of all pop, jazz, rock, opera, and classical music, then not understanding why such a proposal might cause problems, as well as being utterly impossible.
This is one of the major obstacles to our confrontation with, and understanding of, Islamism; I might do a Teleblog on it next week.
Zzzzz. Not this tired old bollocks again Sean. Every so often you pop up with this crap that atheists are missing something. You are wrong. We live for today and for our children.
@SeanT I don't think it is religion that is hard wired but pattern recognition. Human brains search for patterns, recognise them and often find them when they aren't there. Religion to an extent feeds off that by saying "that weird pattern you noticed is not weird". Marcus du Sautoy in a program on number patterns recently said that music players shuffle technology was initially mathematically random however the human brain didn't believe it because it thought it saw pattern, hence the shuffle had to be made less actually random to appear more random. Our Brains only process a few percent of the information that we are bombarded with we fill in bits and make half decent assumptions, which when we get the time to process other facts either amaze us or lead us towards conspiracy theory. So religion fits in with our brain and it's way of viewing patterns but it isn't religion but the pattern that is hard wired. Religion just is a neat way of explaining the perceived pattern.
At least us atheists think this world is actually worth fighting for cuz it's the only one we've got - unlike the religious, who have already written off this one as being far inferior to the next world....
@SeanT I don't think it is religion that is hard wired but pattern recognition. Human brains search for patterns, recognise them and often find them when they aren't there. Religion to an extent feeds off that by saying "that weird pattern you noticed is not weird". Marcus du Sautoy in a program on number patterns recently said that music players shuffle technology was initially mathematically random however the human brain didn't believe it because it thought it saw pattern, hence the shuffle had to be made less actually random to appear more random. Our Brains only process a few percent of the information that we are bombarded with we fill in bits and make half decent assumptions, which when we get the time to process other facts either amaze us or lead us towards conspiracy theory. So religion fits in with our brain and it's way of viewing patterns but it isn't religion but the pattern that is hard wired. Religion just is a neat way of explaining the perceived pattern.
i think yr music player example just shows people don't understand what random looks like, rather than any deeper point about human wiring.
An excellent article and some excellent responses.
decided by those on the extremes.
Southam - if the rest of the left was willing to be open-minded and properly engage in this debate as you have we would be in a far, far better position. Hopefully this will be a turning point, although the reaction of the Guardian and the muted reaction from the Labour party make me wonder.
Most (but from all) secularists are of the left. I have said before: whip all religion out of everything state sponsored and things will change for the better.
I think that is naively optimistic to be honest. If religion is removed as the pretext for irrational behaviour people will find something else.
You cannot remove religion. It is hardwired into the human brain. It's like trying to remove creativity, or the love of music, or maybe even sexuality.
Non-religious people - true atheists (a vanishingly small proportion of humanity, concentrated in a few liberal western nations) do not understand the appeal and power of religious belief, BECAUSE they lack the faculty thereof. Hence, their request for the removal of religion is like deaf people saying let's get rid of all pop, jazz, rock, opera, and classical music, then not understanding why such a proposal might cause problems, as well as being utterly impossible.
This is one of the major obstacles to our confrontation with, and understanding of, Islamism; I might do a Teleblog on it next week.
Zzzzz. Not this tired old bollocks again Sean. Every so often you pop up with this crap that atheists are missing something. You are wrong. We live for today and for our children.
Fancy that! A proposed discussion of the merits of religion v atheism and not that blight of the next fortnight; football.
While I agree that most religions are boringly nuanced to the utter boring, they are also quite barmy. I mean, to believe in only one god is soooo provincial.
Now us Pagans have a glorious time pointing out our gods to any that care to listen to us. look at that god of the rock, or that one over there of the sycamore tree; quite different to the god of the oak tree or the god of the rose bush. So you see pagan gods are everywhere you look, and touch, and sniff: so accessible, no special room or hall or church or mosque or synagogue needed.
Moreover, if atheism was such an appealing way of life, you would expect the children of atheists to be atheists themselves. They are not. Atheists are the LEAST likely of any parents to hand on their belief system to their offspring.
Think on that. Yr kids are gonna be Methodists, Muslims or Mormons.
Get on yr knees and pray, heathen, it's still not too late. Maybe.
Personally I just find it amusing that religious types are so sad and insecure that they need to believe in some all powerful deity to give meaning to their otherwise (as they must see it) pointless, insignificant lives.
You won't find us atheists on our knees, you'll find us sat in the bar, enjoying a drink whilst pointing at you and laughing.
Comments
After Michael Gove’s announcement this week that he wants state schools in England to “promote British values”, we also asked people what the most important British values were.
Some of the findings were unexpected (by me). I will post the results here this evening, and the full tables will be on the ComRes website.
blogs.independent.co.uk/2014/06/14/poll-alert-44?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
But not Pince Harry? Probably ComRes thought there was no point in asking.
What time will you be posting the results this evening, Mr. Eagles.
When the economy is central to the next election, they have a weakness that via osmosis effects all their other positions.
We know the Tory and Lib Dem slogan for next year "Don't let Labour ruin it AGAIN"
In living memory we have also had a state that banned books, jailed people for obscenity and sodomy, and allowed discrimination on the basis of gender, race and sexuality. That strikes me as being highly authoritarian and not a little intrusive.
While the state certainly could be intrusive in the past it was no where near on the same scale. An example of this is down my local council. It reads "Do you have someone looking after your children for more than 29 days that isnt a family member? Then you must by law tell us so that we can monitor them".
Frankly F Off. I am better placed to decide who can and can't look after my children than some idiot social worker. That is the sort of everyday low level intrusion I am talking about.
Therein lies one of the conundrums, our values are evolutionary and dynamic not static. It is controlling the direction of travel that we need manage and have a national agreement on.
I would take issue with you on the NHS, about which I have no sentimental feelings, I do however have feelings about the provision of medical care that is free at the point of delivery. I think it is inarguable that the rigidity of remaining in the NHS system will, at some point, be an overall drag on the outcomes of the health for any people. To be wedded to the institution (which by human nature will adopt a methodology that promotes self survival of the system) rather than the outcome is a major error, in my view.
It is also possible to take issue over old age provision, and question if our method is better than that practised in societies where the extended family accepts far more responsibility.
There are great areas for discussion that traverse left and right, but are of paramount importance to the way our society develops in the future.
Who knows, we may all end up saying the 'big society' is the solution!
On another note would you also ban Chaplains from the armed services? Make it illegal to have church services aboard HM ships or religious rites at burials of those killed in action?
The BBC seems to be of the view that only former professional footballers are capable of being able to provide intelligent comment. Let's hope for a better line-up this evening.
On football punditry, surely having Adrian Chiles on your side is the equivalent of a Fatality in Mortal Kombat?
Ed undoubtedly is crap and his government (if it happens) may well be a disaster but I am certainly happy to be betting on him in the Betfair next PM market at odds just long of evens.
The wheels came off for Spain when Alonso came off and they lost their double pivot in midfield. De Gea must start, Spain still my favourites.
When England made 575-9d, why did people think Sri Lanka would struggle?
Italy 2.9
Draw 3.0
https://www.betfair.com/sport#u=/sport/football/event?eventId=27113554
It is probably happening without intervention anyway
Excellent post Max and the points you make re-emphasise OGH's thread yesterday on the prospects and betting opportunities in terms of the Tories winning the most votes, but Labour winning the most seats. There is probably around a 4% band of Tory support where such an outcome is likely (above and below the 35% mark, depending upon how UKIP and the LibDems fare ultimately.
Me, I'm relying on the very clever Stephen Fisher's projections and the time-honoured "shy Tory" syndrome.
*chortle*
Although a punishment more in tune with the English way would be for public BBQ.
Probably at a car-boot sale. Or maybe at a transport caff, in the car park, surrounded by white vans each fluttering the cross of St. George....
Even with the retirement of Alan Hansen, complete with his reported £1.5 million per annum salary, the BBC and others have sunk far too much money into their coverage to offer you much else of value over the next few weeks.
http://www.wort.lu/fr/international/malgre-l-opposition-affichee-de-david-cameron-juncker-serait-le-nom-retenu-pour-le-conseil-fin-juin-539c497fb9b39887080368cf
Cameron seems to have forced the issue and got people who were a bit meh to commit, so there's probably now a blocking minority in the Council for anyone except Juncker, and that's before you get to the Parliament where any other nomination will be DOA.
You mean like they did last time?
Lord Ashcroft's last poll: 59% of people say they see no need for 5 years more of austerity.
I have no problem with people enjoying a game of soccer - but do object to it being rammed down everyone's throats.
Meanwhile: much needed wicket at the cricket
http://blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/electionsinwales/2014/06/13/new-bbcicm-poll-voting-intentions-for-the-national-assembly/
Dodgy dealings reported from the Newark by-election. Not sure how you deal with this given that it is somewhat unusual and didn't involve any of the types of voting that people normally feel are open to abuse.
http://newarkadvertiser.co.uk/articles/news/Police-investigate-how-89-year-old-with-Alzhe
Firstly, imagine every time within a day that football is mentioned by someone else. Secondly, replace it with something that you don't want to hear about every day. Say... Archaeology. Then, think carefully about how an average day would pan out.
So, you awaken to the clock radio. It's 7AM. Just as you awaken, it's time for the news and archaeology already. Not news and other historical investigations, like library restorations or museum openings (unless there's another event happening), but just the news and archaelogy. Malaysian plane is still missing. Pistorius is still on trial. New dig announced in Giza. Ancient Mayan temple discovered. Exciting stuff.
Time for a bite to eat over the morning TV. More news. More archaeology. Yes, you are aware of what is up with the missing plane. Fine. Now the archaeology in video format. Video of people dusting off some skulls and bits of pottery. All well and good, but archaeology isn't your thing. It would be nice to hear about something else.
Even when it isn't archaeology season, the media follow noted archaeologists. They drive fast cars, date beautiful women, advertise fragrances, and sometimes they go to nightclubs and act in the worst possible way. Scandals erupt as the tabloids follow these new celebrities when they're not searching the past for answers. It is entirely possible you can recite the names of certain researchers, even if you don't pay attention to archaeology. You don't know what transfer season is, but you know that someone was transferred to a dig in Peru for a sum of money that could fund the London Underground for two whole days.
Out of the car at 8:55 and into work. What are the colleagues talking about, I wonder? Oh, Jones dropped a 3,890 year old pot and smashed it? What a useless wanker! Someone should do something unpleasant to him. And don't even ask about the unfortunate incident in Athens two years ago - you'll be there all day! Breaking a pillar like that! We don't talk about that here, mate. What? You don't want to discuss the finer points of the prevalence of phallic imagery in Pompeii? Is there something wrong with you?
The drive home from work. Every thirty minutes, no matter the station, someone mentions the archaeology. Best sit in silence. Drive past a huge billboard with a black and white picture of a rakishly handsome archaeologist draped over an impossibly beautiful woman. He's winking at you. Trowel in his left hand, supermodel in the right. Jurassic, by Calvin Klein.
And now the pub. A nice pub with a beer garden. Posters in the windows. LIVE EXCAVATION AT THE VALLEY OF THE KINGS! All of it on a huge TV with the volume up too loud. Drunken people yelling at the screen. "SEND IT FOR CARBON DATING, YOU USELESS ***K!" "WHAT ARE YOU ON, MATE? DUST THE ANCIENT MEDALLION GENTLY! SMELTING METHODS OF THE TIME PRODUCED VERY SOFT AND IMPURE METALS EASILY PRONE TO DISFIGURATION!" All this from two men out of a crowd of twenty. One lousy drunken idiot and his chum ruin the image of other archaeology fans. Carbon dating report from the lab updates on TV, read by a man employed because they've been following the beautiful science since they were a boy. The drunk chimes in again. "WHAT PHARAOH'S REIGN DID YOU SAY? DO YOU KNOW WHAT THIS SAYS ABOUT THE UNDERPINNINGS OF OUR THEORY OF AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT OF 4TH BC EGYPT? GET IN, MATE!" A cheer cascades through the building and you can only wonder why.
Best go home and avoid anyone who might be drinking and singing. You once met a disagreeable chap who threatened to beat you up because you didn't watch the archaeology. "Not a late paleolithic era supporter are you? Think you're better than me? I'll have you, you scrawny tw*t!"
To bed. To repeat the cycle tomorrow. The inescapable, inevitability that wherever you go, someone, somewhere, is just dying to talk to you about the archaeology.
Lineker looked like he was desperate for one of them to have something interesting to say.
Although anything is better than Adrian Chiles.
But whether these will continue to grow or not, is unclear.
(Worth noting secularism is different from eliminating religion).
"It is not known which party he claimed to represent. He was described as wearing a blue suit and a blue rosette."
It shouldn't take Plod too long to narrow things down somewhat!
But I take your point
Where can I find out more?
Not sure it is true, but I have the seen the argument bruited about.
That was my original assumption about what he'd do; Whoever gets the job is going to have the tabloids on their case, so Cameron would presumably rather not be held responsible for them getting appointed. (Miliband likewise; Labour refused to endorse Schulz, and must have been relieved that he lost.) But then Cameron seemed to turn the rhetoric up beyond where you'd go if you expected to lose, so I reckon it was an accident; Merkel had intended to switch Juncker out which would have let Cameron claim a victory, but she got more domestic pressure than she expected and retreated, leaving Cameron high and dry.
The irony of the stand he's taken on this is that by making a big issue about the process, he's actually ended up making the precedent that will be set if they pick Juncker (as it looks like they will) a lot stronger. Juncker is the kind of insider fixer the member states would generally have wanted to pick, but they could still have refused to back a more high-profile and potentially troublesome candidate if one had won next time. But Cameron has forced everyone to take sides on the spitzkandidat getting the job, so if Juncker loses next time it's going to be almost impossible for them to resist appointing whoever beats him.
Anyhow I definitely think the UK can get something juicy in return, especially if can get somebody more high-powered to take the job. (Hague?)
'I rarely watch television - which I find so 20th century. What does irritate me,however, is entering supermarkets, bakers, restaurants etc only to be served by someone wearing an English football jersey. We don't have this nonsense in relation to rugby, cricket, tennis or indeed any other sport , and I see no reason why we should have to suffer it with football.
I have no problem with people enjoying a game of soccer - but do object to it being rammed down everyone's throats.'
'So you want your own national team to lose? Sad indeed. '
In so far as I would recognize a national team it would be Great Britain - England being the only team in the tournament that does not represent an independent country due to an historical anomaly re-football.
I don't actually accept the premise underlying that comment which rather assumes one SHOULD support the national team. If I had the slightest interest in the game I might well prefer the playing style of - say - Brazil , Germany or whoever and ,therefore, reasonably wish to see them triumph. I really don't give a toss for national identity when it comes to something so trivial.
I don't think it is religion that is hard wired but pattern recognition. Human brains search for patterns, recognise them and often find them when they aren't there. Religion to an extent feeds off that by saying "that weird pattern you noticed is not weird". Marcus du Sautoy in a program on number patterns recently said that music players shuffle technology was initially mathematically random however the human brain didn't believe it because it thought it saw pattern, hence the shuffle had to be made less actually random to appear more random. Our Brains only process a few percent of the information that we are bombarded with we fill in bits and make half decent assumptions, which when we get the time to process other facts either amaze us or lead us towards conspiracy theory. So religion fits in with our brain and it's way of viewing patterns but it isn't religion but the pattern that is hard wired. Religion just is a neat way of explaining the perceived pattern.
While I agree that most religions are boringly nuanced to the utter boring, they are also quite barmy. I mean, to believe in only one god is soooo provincial.
Now us Pagans have a glorious time pointing out our gods to any that care to listen to us. look at that god of the rock, or that one over there of the sycamore tree; quite different to the god of the oak tree or the god of the rose bush. So you see pagan gods are everywhere you look, and touch, and sniff: so accessible, no special room or hall or church or mosque or synagogue needed.
http://www.betfair.com/exchange/football/market?id=1.112173626&exp=e
You won't find us atheists on our knees, you'll find us sat in the bar, enjoying a drink whilst pointing at you and laughing.