On the working class/middle class blurred lines, my parents were both 2nd generation immigrants. My dad grew up on a North Shields council estate and was the first in his family to go to university. His younger brother went to prison for steeling cars because he got involved in the wrong crowd.
My mum grew up in North London and was the daughter of a black cab driver. She was also the first in her family to go to university. It is at university where my parents met.
Because of the nature of the time, 2 university graduates (with low degree classifications, I might add) had well paid graduate jobs and could afford to buy a house together in affluent Solihull and I grew up fairly middle class by all accounts. My dad was the stereotypical "Mondeo man".
I of course went to University myself (twice, as you all know).
Now obviously I am middle class by most definitions but I don't feel wealthy whatsoever. I only managed to buy a house because my mum had the gall to die of cancer so I got a little inheritance early.
That level of social mobility is pretty much gone I reckon.
My family is a mixture of working-class and middle-class people. I don't think that happens now. Very strange. Middle-class people today seem to have suddenly become very intolerant of having anything to do with working-class people, which wasn't the case in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s.
I feel that's a very stereotypical view. What makes you say that? Are you sure it's not just that shared experiences bring people together?
No, I think there is some truth in what he says. My father was from an upper middle class family, my mother from an upper working class family (married in the 1950s). They both had snobbery problems from both families but each was accepted in the end, though my mother did take elocution which didn't go down well with her family.
But he's saying the problem exists now when it hasn't in the past. Surely snobbery has always existed in some circles?
I think snobbery has just morphed into something quite different. From a personal point of view I always hate the class obsession. It is probably because of my mixed background. I can never understand someone saying "I am proud to be working class". For a start it was not something you chose, but secondly the whole concept of what working class is is incredibly nebulous.
People say they are proud to be working class to counter some snobby twat looking down on them.
Just like a black person can say they are proud to be black to counter racism.
A good explanation, but being black is normally not arguable, and therefore very different.
The best way to stop some snobby twat looking down on you is to realise you are probably equal or better in many ways, and if it is within your capability a bit of biting sarcastic wit to put them in their place. As Eleanor Roosevelt is said to have said: "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."
On the working class/middle class blurred lines, my parents were both 2nd generation immigrants. My dad grew up on a North Shields council estate and was the first in his family to go to university. His younger brother went to prison for steeling cars because he got involved in the wrong crowd.
My mum grew up in North London and was the daughter of a black cab driver. She was also the first in her family to go to university. It is at university where my parents met.
Because of the nature of the time, 2 university graduates (with low degree classifications, I might add) had well paid graduate jobs and could afford to buy a house together in affluent Solihull and I grew up fairly middle class by all accounts. My dad was the stereotypical "Mondeo man".
I of course went to University myself (twice, as you all know).
Now obviously I am middle class by most definitions but I don't feel wealthy whatsoever. I only managed to buy a house because my mum had the gall to die of cancer so I got a little inheritance early.
That level of social mobility is pretty much gone I reckon.
When I graduated, only 10% went to university but there was plenty of social mobility.
As university proportions ballooned it seems social mobility plunged.
I'm not sure the two are even linked, but it makes you think.
It has killed the non-degree entry routes into the top jobs.
And created a two-tiered degree system. If you have a degree from the bottom group of universities (roughly non-Russell Group), you are not getting a top job either.
So, previously, investment banks hired high end graduates and a few barrow boys. Now they just hire high end graduates.
I'm not sure that's quite true anymore.
In law, for example, most of the big firms I have come across now (within the last few years) hire "solicitor apprentices" as well as graduates.
There's been a change in the last 4-5 years, but only in the last few years.
Before then most big firms were Russell Group (although they didn't always admit it).
"We pride ourselves on not shying away from sensitive issues that other local politicians prefer not to discuss."
"Promotion of a unifying shared British identity."
Sufficient provision for the essential needs of the populace, otherwise preserving individual liberty."
No Labour votes here. Plenty for the "Eng Nat" Cons.
What about the above is "Eng Nat"? The only nationality mentioned is British.
Yes, it could be written by Gordon "British jobs for British workers" Brown.
Not really.
"British jobs for British workers" is infinitely more xenophobic than anything written there.
"British jobs for British workers" versus "Promoting a Unifying British Identity".
Depends on intent and context. You can imagine both being said by the Far Right. And it's hard to imagine anyone but the Far Right pushing the 2nd one.
Are you are into the promotion of a "unifying national identity" btw?
What on earth is far right about wanting to unify rather than divide people? 🤔
I could imagine anyone pushing the second. A unifying national identity should include the best bits of your country - that is Tony Blair did with his flag waving "Cool Britannia".
What's the best of Britain that unifies us to you? Yes that's what politicians tend to put forwards in any mainstream party in any country around the globe. If you consider that "off" rather than "meaningless guff everyone should find agreeable" then I think your political antenna is a bit broken.
I was merely wondering if "promoting a unifying national identity" warmed your cockles. Seems it does. Doesn't do much for me, I must confess. But my cockles and yours are dissimilar, we know that. So no surprise there.
As to whether it's "off", this depends on what's meant by "identity".
And one has to get specific about it in order to tell. So, eg, if you wish a political party to promote a "Unifying English Identity" - which you do - what exactly does this mean to you?
Happy to defer any judgement until you flesh it out for me.
What does it mean to be united to be English? What does that mean to me?
A lot along the lines of stuff @Cyclefree has a tendency to put in her thread headers.
Equality before the law.
A free and fair judicial system.
A free and fair Parliamentary democracy.
That all people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, religion or anything else are free and equal.
Welcoming anyone who comes to make this country their home.
Generosity of spirit both at home and abroad. Giving aid to those who need it.
That anyone who gets sick in this country will be looked after.
Respecting the rights of others.
Treating each other with respect.
Settling our differences politely and democratically.
Accepting that we may not always win or get our way, with grace and generosity of spirit.
On a more fun level.
Complaining about the weather, then losing our minds and enjoying ourselves when its sunny.
Cheering on the Three Lions, only to see them eliminated by penalties.
The England Cricket Team and taking on the Aussies in The Ashes.
Wanting to beat the other Home Nations but coming together with them with Team GB.
And most importantly for all
A healthy respect that what it means to be united to be English might be different between different people.
That others may disagree with any or all of my list or have other priorities and be just as English.
Well @kinabalu you asked me what my interpretation of a Unifying English Identity is but then haven't responded.
To you what is a Unifying English Identity?
Or since you find the term offensive, are you against politicians unifying people instead of dividing them?
Or are you against the notion of identity?
Or is the idea of English or British you find offensive?
None of those things I suspect. I imagine he just finds your posts very boring, or finds your attempts to justify your adherence to the unpleasant creed of English nationalism obnoxious. Good to see you took my advice on the skull motif though. Best to not advertise your extremism when you are trying hard to cover it up
We are in fact making progress. Philip is about to offer up some distinctive policies he'd like to see implemented to "Promote A Unified English Identity". I'm genuinely looking forward to seeing what he comes up with. Or am I? Yes, let's say I am.
I never said I was in favour of specific policies to do so, I said it was motherhood and apple pie.
You responded with pages of arguments before deciding that it was all ... Motherhood and apple pie.
So we're agreed in full. Took a few pages but you ended up using my own words. You agree with me, I can rest comfortable with that.
It's tricky, 'cause the St Pancras hotel rather gets in the way. But from there the British Library looks likes a cruise liner! I think that's quite a nice touch from Sir Colin Wilson, who served in the Navy in WW2.
Easier to see from the model in the British Library than from outside..
Same as the British Library (the "new" one on Euston Road). Lovely lush interiors, but the exterior? Pff. A great public building like THE BRITISH LIBRARY should resonate with a welcoming grandeur, a proper sonority. A confident embrace of the street
It looks like a mildly fortified Tesco in Croydon with extra arty bits. It is not in Holyrood's league for actual howling ugliness, but it is so disappointing. So timid and pathetic.
As I said earlier the Senedd in Cardiff shows we can still design lovely AND impressive public buildings, but too often we get them wrong. A cultural decay
I've never seen that - I will have a look the next time I visit the rather nice cafe that was there pre Covid.
"We pride ourselves on not shying away from sensitive issues that other local politicians prefer not to discuss."
"Promotion of a unifying shared British identity."
Sufficient provision for the essential needs of the populace, otherwise preserving individual liberty."
No Labour votes here. Plenty for the "Eng Nat" Cons.
Seems a bit "motherhood and Apple Pie" as the Americans would say.
Are you against the British identity?
Are you against individual liberty?
Are you against discussing sensitive issues?
All meaningless phrases. Where's the beef?
I have little interest in them other than from the by-election betting angle. They have the air of hardcore Ukip to me (the guy who formed them certainly is) and I think they'll be breaking heavily Con. If you wish to make another bad call by thinking something else, by all means go for it.
I'm not making a call this time. I know nothing about them and if BXP were prepared to go Tory and not be neverTories then there seems to be little reason these won't do the same.
UKIP is dead so hardcore UKIP is meaningless, just as those words in bold you highlighted are meaningless. You've not said what they mean to you that Labour should be against instead of being meaningless guff.
It's dead as a party but not as an attitude. In this sense it's still a lot of people and where their votes are going these days is a significant factor shaping our politics.
Its dead as an attitude, we've left the EU. That was the unifying feature, beyond that they were just cranks.
What's left of the attitude?
What remains of their attitude is that its imagined nature forms a convenient balustrade behind which @kini can feel better about himself and condemn others.
What is the matter with you?
Ukip attracted a big vote in their prime. Not so long ago either. So where is that vote going now and what's driving it?
Surely a more fascinating topic for a politics site than how I happen to be feeling about myself.
Absolutely. So let the latter go as it manifests itself in a need to denigrate others insidiously and not so insidiously (depending upon how much prep you have done).
There really is no need to be insecure on here goodness knows we've all got our problems (me excepted). Just go with the political debate. We love you, really. You had cracking views on Trump and Hartlepool. Go with that.
I seem to have upset you and I genuinely don't know why. If you wish to drop the obliquery and tell me what it is, I'll take it seriously and see if I can uncross the wires.
LOL! Just can't help yourself.
As I said, relax, enjoy PB and grace us with your political insight which is not insubstantial rather than worrying about what we think of you. I have already noted, and I think I speak for all of PB, we love you.
That sounds rather forced and it doesn't help. I can't kiss it better unless you tell me where it hurts.
"We pride ourselves on not shying away from sensitive issues that other local politicians prefer not to discuss."
"Promotion of a unifying shared British identity."
Sufficient provision for the essential needs of the populace, otherwise preserving individual liberty."
No Labour votes here. Plenty for the "Eng Nat" Cons.
What about the above is "Eng Nat"? The only nationality mentioned is British.
Yes, it could be written by Gordon "British jobs for British workers" Brown.
Not really.
"British jobs for British workers" is infinitely more xenophobic than anything written there.
"British jobs for British workers" versus "Promoting a Unifying British Identity".
Depends on intent and context. You can imagine both being said by the Far Right. And it's hard to imagine anyone but the Far Right pushing the 2nd one.
Are you are into the promotion of a "unifying national identity" btw?
What on earth is far right about wanting to unify rather than divide people? 🤔
I could imagine anyone pushing the second. A unifying national identity should include the best bits of your country - that is Tony Blair did with his flag waving "Cool Britannia".
What's the best of Britain that unifies us to you? Yes that's what politicians tend to put forwards in any mainstream party in any country around the globe. If you consider that "off" rather than "meaningless guff everyone should find agreeable" then I think your political antenna is a bit broken.
I was merely wondering if "promoting a unifying national identity" warmed your cockles. Seems it does. Doesn't do much for me, I must confess. But my cockles and yours are dissimilar, we know that. So no surprise there.
As to whether it's "off", this depends on what's meant by "identity".
And one has to get specific about it in order to tell. So, eg, if you wish a political party to promote a "Unifying English Identity" - which you do - what exactly does this mean to you?
Happy to defer any judgement until you flesh it out for me.
What does it mean to be united to be English? What does that mean to me?
A lot along the lines of stuff @Cyclefree has a tendency to put in her thread headers.
Equality before the law.
A free and fair judicial system.
A free and fair Parliamentary democracy.
That all people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, religion or anything else are free and equal.
Welcoming anyone who comes to make this country their home.
Generosity of spirit both at home and abroad. Giving aid to those who need it.
That anyone who gets sick in this country will be looked after.
Respecting the rights of others.
Treating each other with respect.
Settling our differences politely and democratically.
Accepting that we may not always win or get our way, with grace and generosity of spirit.
On a more fun level.
Complaining about the weather, then losing our minds and enjoying ourselves when its sunny.
Cheering on the Three Lions, only to see them eliminated by penalties.
The England Cricket Team and taking on the Aussies in The Ashes.
Wanting to beat the other Home Nations but coming together with them with Team GB.
And most importantly for all
A healthy respect that what it means to be united to be English might be different between different people.
That others may disagree with any or all of my list or have other priorities and be just as English.
That's all a bit motherhood and apple pie.
Give me a couple of actual distinctive policies you'd implement in order to "Promote A Unified English Identity".
You need to identify with the land, history, heritage, culture and people - there are different ways of doing that.
It's a menu, and we'll all pick different things from it.
I could certainly give you my list, but that would be to invite disagreement as it would suggest that unless others agreed with it all they weren't "English".
"The Tories' stonking super-majority is built on sand Johnson's uneasy coalition between Red Wall voters and Tory libertarians may yet implode as spectacularly as the Labour Party
Paywall. Could you summarize the thrust of Sherelle's argument? Because I have been arguing this myself.
Unsurprising that she used to write for the Guardian .
Sherelle has long argued that the Conservatives are getting the red wall all wrong - that the Conservatives are drawing the conclusion that what red wall voters want is Labour-ish policies, when what they actually want is low taxes and low interference in their lives. I don't know if she's right or not.
There was a Hugo Rifkind piece in The Times this morning, arguing something similar;
He quoted James Kanagasooriam, who came up with the idea of the “Red Wall” in the first place. Basically, the RW switchers aren't normal working people as such. They're older, either near the top of their workplace or retired, biggish house, decent money. Basically, the kind of people who, if they lived in Northamptonshire, would have voted Conservative for ages. The miracle is that they didn't switch before.
The thing we sometimes forget is that constituencies don't vote, people do. And even in a safe seat and good year for party X, there are probably a decent slice of voters for party Y.
Indeed. Rother Valley was always the example. Socio-economically identical to any number of middling seats in the south (Broxbourne?) which voted Conservative - yet for years didn't do so. Until it did. And what's good for Rother Valley is good for Broxbourne. However, I think Sherelle's analysis (I don't want to come over as some sort of Sherelle Jacobs fanboi here - well - maybe a bit) is based on seats a bit further down the prosperity scale - the West Bromwiches of this world. Even here, there are lots of people who aren't necessarily very well paid or affluent, but are in private sector employment and don't really see what the state can do for them, apart from take less from them and inflict fewer rules.
"We pride ourselves on not shying away from sensitive issues that other local politicians prefer not to discuss."
"Promotion of a unifying shared British identity."
Sufficient provision for the essential needs of the populace, otherwise preserving individual liberty."
No Labour votes here. Plenty for the "Eng Nat" Cons.
What about the above is "Eng Nat"? The only nationality mentioned is British.
Yes, it could be written by Gordon "British jobs for British workers" Brown.
Not really.
"British jobs for British workers" is infinitely more xenophobic than anything written there.
"British jobs for British workers" versus "Promoting a Unifying British Identity".
Depends on intent and context. You can imagine both being said by the Far Right. And it's hard to imagine anyone but the Far Right pushing the 2nd one.
Are you are into the promotion of a "unifying national identity" btw?
What on earth is far right about wanting to unify rather than divide people? 🤔
I could imagine anyone pushing the second. A unifying national identity should include the best bits of your country - that is Tony Blair did with his flag waving "Cool Britannia".
What's the best of Britain that unifies us to you? Yes that's what politicians tend to put forwards in any mainstream party in any country around the globe. If you consider that "off" rather than "meaningless guff everyone should find agreeable" then I think your political antenna is a bit broken.
I was merely wondering if "promoting a unifying national identity" warmed your cockles. Seems it does. Doesn't do much for me, I must confess. But my cockles and yours are dissimilar, we know that. So no surprise there.
As to whether it's "off", this depends on what's meant by "identity".
And one has to get specific about it in order to tell. So, eg, if you wish a political party to promote a "Unifying English Identity" - which you do - what exactly does this mean to you?
Happy to defer any judgement until you flesh it out for me.
What does it mean to be united to be English? What does that mean to me?
A lot along the lines of stuff @Cyclefree has a tendency to put in her thread headers.
Equality before the law.
A free and fair judicial system.
A free and fair Parliamentary democracy.
That all people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, religion or anything else are free and equal.
Welcoming anyone who comes to make this country their home.
Generosity of spirit both at home and abroad. Giving aid to those who need it.
That anyone who gets sick in this country will be looked after.
Respecting the rights of others.
Treating each other with respect.
Settling our differences politely and democratically.
Accepting that we may not always win or get our way, with grace and generosity of spirit.
On a more fun level.
Complaining about the weather, then losing our minds and enjoying ourselves when its sunny.
Cheering on the Three Lions, only to see them eliminated by penalties.
The England Cricket Team and taking on the Aussies in The Ashes.
Wanting to beat the other Home Nations but coming together with them with Team GB.
And most importantly for all
A healthy respect that what it means to be united to be English might be different between different people.
That others may disagree with any or all of my list or have other priorities and be just as English.
Well @kinabalu you asked me what my interpretation of a Unifying English Identity is but then haven't responded.
To you what is a Unifying English Identity?
Or since you find the term offensive, are you against politicians unifying people instead of dividing them?
Or are you against the notion of identity?
Or is the idea of English or British you find offensive?
None of those things I suspect. I imagine he just finds your posts very boring, or finds your attempts to justify your adherence to the unpleasant creed of English nationalism obnoxious. Good to see you took my advice on the skull motif though. Best to not advertise your extremism when you are trying hard to cover it up
I don't know why you keep targeting Philip like this?
I am to the Right of Philip on social and cultural issues, and I disagree with him on a number of them, but I don't attract your ire.
"We pride ourselves on not shying away from sensitive issues that other local politicians prefer not to discuss."
"Promotion of a unifying shared British identity."
Sufficient provision for the essential needs of the populace, otherwise preserving individual liberty."
No Labour votes here. Plenty for the "Eng Nat" Cons.
Seems a bit "motherhood and Apple Pie" as the Americans would say.
Are you against the British identity?
Are you against individual liberty?
Are you against discussing sensitive issues?
All meaningless phrases. Where's the beef?
I have little interest in them other than from the by-election betting angle. They have the air of hardcore Ukip to me (the guy who formed them certainly is) and I think they'll be breaking heavily Con. If you wish to make another bad call by thinking something else, by all means go for it.
I'm not making a call this time. I know nothing about them and if BXP were prepared to go Tory and not be neverTories then there seems to be little reason these won't do the same.
UKIP is dead so hardcore UKIP is meaningless, just as those words in bold you highlighted are meaningless. You've not said what they mean to you that Labour should be against instead of being meaningless guff.
It's dead as a party but not as an attitude. In this sense it's still a lot of people and where their votes are going these days is a significant factor shaping our politics.
Its dead as an attitude, we've left the EU. That was the unifying feature, beyond that they were just cranks.
What's left of the attitude?
What remains of their attitude is that its imagined nature forms a convenient balustrade behind which @kini can feel better about himself and condemn others.
What is the matter with you?
Ukip attracted a big vote in their prime. Not so long ago either. So where is that vote going now and what's driving it?
Surely a more fascinating topic for a politics site than how I happen to be feeling about myself.
Absolutely. So let the latter go as it manifests itself in a need to denigrate others insidiously and not so insidiously (depending upon how much prep you have done).
There really is no need to be insecure on here goodness knows we've all got our problems (me excepted). Just go with the political debate. We love you, really. You had cracking views on Trump and Hartlepool. Go with that.
I seem to have upset you and I genuinely don't know why. If you wish to drop the obliquery and tell me what it is, I'll take it seriously and see if I can uncross the wires.
LOL! Just can't help yourself.
As I said, relax, enjoy PB and grace us with your political insight which is not insubstantial rather than worrying about what we think of you. I have already noted, and I think I speak for all of PB, we love you.
That sounds rather forced and it doesn't help. I can't kiss it better unless you tell me where it hurts.
Off topic apology. Anyone else watching the Greensill Capital Committee evidence? They are definitely trying to paint him as a fraudster but I get the impression he was an innovator doing some complex stuff, with insufficient reserves to cope with the pandemic and alleged fraud within a significant customer. A lot of mud is being thrown at him but in my view it isn't sticking. What do our corporate PB members think?
It's worth following Robert Smith, the FT journo who has done a lot of the digging on Greensill, for commentary that cuts through a lot of Greensill's "flexibility" with the truth - although the regulators don't come out of it with much credit either. https://twitter.com/BondHack
I think it's fair to say that he views Greensill's "innovation" in the same way as the Great Train Robbers had innovative ideas on the ownership of bank notes...
Seattle Times ($) - Halt to 737 MAX deliveries stymies Boeing’s recovery effort
Boeing delivered just four 737 MAXs in April before an electrical problem grounded the jet again, halting further deliveries until a fix is approved. The setback frustrated Boeing’s effort to begin to climb out of the pandemic downturn as air travel slowly recovers.
The company’s monthly update to its jet orders and deliveries figures, posted online Tuesday, otherwise showed marginal progress.
Deliveries of the 787 Dreamliner, which resumed in March after a more than four-month halt due to a separate production quality issue, picked up in April. And while last year was dominated by order cancellations, Boeing for the third straight month showed a small positive net order total.
However, as U.S. airlines look to a recovery in domestic travel, the 737 MAX is the Boeing jet in most demand, so the stoppage in deliveries is a major blow that drastically cuts much-needed cash flow.
Due to a change in the manufacturing process, various panels and power control units on the MAX flight deck built since early 2019 are not properly grounded electrically, which can potentially affect operation of certain systems, including engine ice protection.
COMMENT - Boeing USED to be run by engineers and aviation experts. For last several decades, has been run by bankers and bean counters. Right into the ground, or close enough.
You should hear what the old Boeing mangers & employees from my neighborhood have to say about it!
It was the McDonnell Douglas merger that did it. The old Boeing was run by engineers, the new McD management now in charge are all MBAs with no engineering experience, who don’t even live and work near the factory any more.
They've begun to see the error of their ways (gee, wonder why?) But are still trying to climb out of the Grand Canyon (or Grand Coulee) they dug for themselves.
Few weeks ago they let their CFO go - good riddance to bad garbage!
"We pride ourselves on not shying away from sensitive issues that other local politicians prefer not to discuss."
"Promotion of a unifying shared British identity."
Sufficient provision for the essential needs of the populace, otherwise preserving individual liberty."
No Labour votes here. Plenty for the "Eng Nat" Cons.
What about the above is "Eng Nat"? The only nationality mentioned is British.
Yes, it could be written by Gordon "British jobs for British workers" Brown.
Not really.
"British jobs for British workers" is infinitely more xenophobic than anything written there.
"British jobs for British workers" versus "Promoting a Unifying British Identity".
Depends on intent and context. You can imagine both being said by the Far Right. And it's hard to imagine anyone but the Far Right pushing the 2nd one.
Are you are into the promotion of a "unifying national identity" btw?
What on earth is far right about wanting to unify rather than divide people? 🤔
I could imagine anyone pushing the second. A unifying national identity should include the best bits of your country - that is Tony Blair did with his flag waving "Cool Britannia".
What's the best of Britain that unifies us to you? Yes that's what politicians tend to put forwards in any mainstream party in any country around the globe. If you consider that "off" rather than "meaningless guff everyone should find agreeable" then I think your political antenna is a bit broken.
I was merely wondering if "promoting a unifying national identity" warmed your cockles. Seems it does. Doesn't do much for me, I must confess. But my cockles and yours are dissimilar, we know that. So no surprise there.
As to whether it's "off", this depends on what's meant by "identity".
And one has to get specific about it in order to tell. So, eg, if you wish a political party to promote a "Unifying English Identity" - which you do - what exactly does this mean to you?
Happy to defer any judgement until you flesh it out for me.
What does it mean to be united to be English? What does that mean to me?
A lot along the lines of stuff @Cyclefree has a tendency to put in her thread headers.
Equality before the law.
A free and fair judicial system.
A free and fair Parliamentary democracy.
That all people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, religion or anything else are free and equal.
Welcoming anyone who comes to make this country their home.
Generosity of spirit both at home and abroad. Giving aid to those who need it.
That anyone who gets sick in this country will be looked after.
Respecting the rights of others.
Treating each other with respect.
Settling our differences politely and democratically.
Accepting that we may not always win or get our way, with grace and generosity of spirit.
On a more fun level.
Complaining about the weather, then losing our minds and enjoying ourselves when its sunny.
Cheering on the Three Lions, only to see them eliminated by penalties.
The England Cricket Team and taking on the Aussies in The Ashes.
Wanting to beat the other Home Nations but coming together with them with Team GB.
And most importantly for all
A healthy respect that what it means to be united to be English might be different between different people.
That others may disagree with any or all of my list or have other priorities and be just as English.
That's all a bit motherhood and apple pie.
Give me a couple of actual distinctive policies you'd implement in order to "Promote A Unified English Identity".
You need to identify with the land, history, heritage, culture and people - there are different ways of doing that.
It's a menu, and we'll all pick different things from it.
I could certainly give you my list, but that would be to invite disagreement as it would suggest that unless others agreed with it all they weren't "English".
Ok, but remember the idea being mulled is the active promotion of a UNIFIED English Identity.
"The Tories' stonking super-majority is built on sand Johnson's uneasy coalition between Red Wall voters and Tory libertarians may yet implode as spectacularly as the Labour Party
Paywall. Could you summarize the thrust of Sherelle's argument? Because I have been arguing this myself.
Unsurprising that she used to write for the Guardian .
Sherelle has long argued that the Conservatives are getting the red wall all wrong - that the Conservatives are drawing the conclusion that what red wall voters want is Labour-ish policies, when what they actually want is low taxes and low interference in their lives. I don't know if she's right or not.
There was a Hugo Rifkind piece in The Times this morning, arguing something similar;
He quoted James Kanagasooriam, who came up with the idea of the “Red Wall” in the first place. Basically, the RW switchers aren't normal working people as such. They're older, either near the top of their workplace or retired, biggish house, decent money. Basically, the kind of people who, if they lived in Northamptonshire, would have voted Conservative for ages. The miracle is that they didn't switch before.
The thing we sometimes forget is that constituencies don't vote, people do. And even in a safe seat and good year for party X, there are probably a decent slice of voters for party Y.
"We pride ourselves on not shying away from sensitive issues that other local politicians prefer not to discuss."
"Promotion of a unifying shared British identity."
Sufficient provision for the essential needs of the populace, otherwise preserving individual liberty."
No Labour votes here. Plenty for the "Eng Nat" Cons.
What about the above is "Eng Nat"? The only nationality mentioned is British.
Yes, it could be written by Gordon "British jobs for British workers" Brown.
Not really.
"British jobs for British workers" is infinitely more xenophobic than anything written there.
"British jobs for British workers" versus "Promoting a Unifying British Identity".
Depends on intent and context. You can imagine both being said by the Far Right. And it's hard to imagine anyone but the Far Right pushing the 2nd one.
Are you are into the promotion of a "unifying national identity" btw?
What on earth is far right about wanting to unify rather than divide people? 🤔
I could imagine anyone pushing the second. A unifying national identity should include the best bits of your country - that is Tony Blair did with his flag waving "Cool Britannia".
What's the best of Britain that unifies us to you? Yes that's what politicians tend to put forwards in any mainstream party in any country around the globe. If you consider that "off" rather than "meaningless guff everyone should find agreeable" then I think your political antenna is a bit broken.
I was merely wondering if "promoting a unifying national identity" warmed your cockles. Seems it does. Doesn't do much for me, I must confess. But my cockles and yours are dissimilar, we know that. So no surprise there.
As to whether it's "off", this depends on what's meant by "identity".
And one has to get specific about it in order to tell. So, eg, if you wish a political party to promote a "Unifying English Identity" - which you do - what exactly does this mean to you?
Happy to defer any judgement until you flesh it out for me.
What does it mean to be united to be English? What does that mean to me?
A lot along the lines of stuff @Cyclefree has a tendency to put in her thread headers.
Equality before the law.
A free and fair judicial system.
A free and fair Parliamentary democracy.
That all people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, religion or anything else are free and equal.
Welcoming anyone who comes to make this country their home.
Generosity of spirit both at home and abroad. Giving aid to those who need it.
That anyone who gets sick in this country will be looked after.
Respecting the rights of others.
Treating each other with respect.
Settling our differences politely and democratically.
Accepting that we may not always win or get our way, with grace and generosity of spirit.
On a more fun level.
Complaining about the weather, then losing our minds and enjoying ourselves when its sunny.
Cheering on the Three Lions, only to see them eliminated by penalties.
The England Cricket Team and taking on the Aussies in The Ashes.
Wanting to beat the other Home Nations but coming together with them with Team GB.
And most importantly for all
A healthy respect that what it means to be united to be English might be different between different people.
That others may disagree with any or all of my list or have other priorities and be just as English.
Well @kinabalu you asked me what my interpretation of a Unifying English Identity is but then haven't responded.
To you what is a Unifying English Identity?
Or since you find the term offensive, are you against politicians unifying people instead of dividing them?
Or are you against the notion of identity?
Or is the idea of English or British you find offensive?
None of those things I suspect. I imagine he just finds your posts very boring, or finds your attempts to justify your adherence to the unpleasant creed of English nationalism obnoxious. Good to see you took my advice on the skull motif though. Best to not advertise your extremism when you are trying hard to cover it up
I don't know why you keep targeting Philip like this?
I am to the Right of Philip on social and cultural issues, and I disagree with him on a number of them, but I don't attract your ire.
Neither of us are extreme.
Most of your posts I don't find ludicrous or inconsistent. Philip doesn't attract my ire he attracts my piss take.
"We pride ourselves on not shying away from sensitive issues that other local politicians prefer not to discuss."
"Promotion of a unifying shared British identity."
Sufficient provision for the essential needs of the populace, otherwise preserving individual liberty."
No Labour votes here. Plenty for the "Eng Nat" Cons.
What about the above is "Eng Nat"? The only nationality mentioned is British.
Yes, it could be written by Gordon "British jobs for British workers" Brown.
Not really.
"British jobs for British workers" is infinitely more xenophobic than anything written there.
"British jobs for British workers" versus "Promoting a Unifying British Identity".
Depends on intent and context. You can imagine both being said by the Far Right. And it's hard to imagine anyone but the Far Right pushing the 2nd one.
Are you are into the promotion of a "unifying national identity" btw?
What on earth is far right about wanting to unify rather than divide people? 🤔
I could imagine anyone pushing the second. A unifying national identity should include the best bits of your country - that is Tony Blair did with his flag waving "Cool Britannia".
What's the best of Britain that unifies us to you? Yes that's what politicians tend to put forwards in any mainstream party in any country around the globe. If you consider that "off" rather than "meaningless guff everyone should find agreeable" then I think your political antenna is a bit broken.
I was merely wondering if "promoting a unifying national identity" warmed your cockles. Seems it does. Doesn't do much for me, I must confess. But my cockles and yours are dissimilar, we know that. So no surprise there.
As to whether it's "off", this depends on what's meant by "identity".
And one has to get specific about it in order to tell. So, eg, if you wish a political party to promote a "Unifying English Identity" - which you do - what exactly does this mean to you?
Happy to defer any judgement until you flesh it out for me.
What does it mean to be united to be English? What does that mean to me?
A lot along the lines of stuff @Cyclefree has a tendency to put in her thread headers.
Equality before the law.
A free and fair judicial system.
A free and fair Parliamentary democracy.
That all people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, religion or anything else are free and equal.
Welcoming anyone who comes to make this country their home.
Generosity of spirit both at home and abroad. Giving aid to those who need it.
That anyone who gets sick in this country will be looked after.
Respecting the rights of others.
Treating each other with respect.
Settling our differences politely and democratically.
Accepting that we may not always win or get our way, with grace and generosity of spirit.
On a more fun level.
Complaining about the weather, then losing our minds and enjoying ourselves when its sunny.
Cheering on the Three Lions, only to see them eliminated by penalties.
The England Cricket Team and taking on the Aussies in The Ashes.
Wanting to beat the other Home Nations but coming together with them with Team GB.
And most importantly for all
A healthy respect that what it means to be united to be English might be different between different people.
That others may disagree with any or all of my list or have other priorities and be just as English.
That's all a bit motherhood and apple pie.
Give me a couple of actual distinctive policies you'd implement in order to "Promote A Unified English Identity".
You need to identify with the land, history, heritage, culture and people - there are different ways of doing that.
It's a menu, and we'll all pick different things from it.
I could certainly give you my list, but that would be to invite disagreement as it would suggest that unless others agreed with it all they weren't "English".
Ok, but remember the idea being mulled is the active promotion of a UNIFIED English Identity.
What's the U word mean there, do we think?
There are certainly many similarities you and I would share, culturally, if we met in person - notwithstanding our different politics.
And we do have a culture here - it's just we can't see it very well, although it's more noticeable when you go aboard.
Foreigners do far better. The best book is Watching the English: the hidden rules of English behaviour by Kate Fox.
"We pride ourselves on not shying away from sensitive issues that other local politicians prefer not to discuss."
"Promotion of a unifying shared British identity."
Sufficient provision for the essential needs of the populace, otherwise preserving individual liberty."
No Labour votes here. Plenty for the "Eng Nat" Cons.
What about the above is "Eng Nat"? The only nationality mentioned is British.
Yes, it could be written by Gordon "British jobs for British workers" Brown.
Not really.
"British jobs for British workers" is infinitely more xenophobic than anything written there.
"British jobs for British workers" versus "Promoting a Unifying British Identity".
Depends on intent and context. You can imagine both being said by the Far Right. And it's hard to imagine anyone but the Far Right pushing the 2nd one.
Are you are into the promotion of a "unifying national identity" btw?
What on earth is far right about wanting to unify rather than divide people? 🤔
I could imagine anyone pushing the second. A unifying national identity should include the best bits of your country - that is Tony Blair did with his flag waving "Cool Britannia".
What's the best of Britain that unifies us to you? Yes that's what politicians tend to put forwards in any mainstream party in any country around the globe. If you consider that "off" rather than "meaningless guff everyone should find agreeable" then I think your political antenna is a bit broken.
I was merely wondering if "promoting a unifying national identity" warmed your cockles. Seems it does. Doesn't do much for me, I must confess. But my cockles and yours are dissimilar, we know that. So no surprise there.
As to whether it's "off", this depends on what's meant by "identity".
And one has to get specific about it in order to tell. So, eg, if you wish a political party to promote a "Unifying English Identity" - which you do - what exactly does this mean to you?
Happy to defer any judgement until you flesh it out for me.
What does it mean to be united to be English? What does that mean to me?
A lot along the lines of stuff @Cyclefree has a tendency to put in her thread headers.
Equality before the law.
A free and fair judicial system.
A free and fair Parliamentary democracy.
That all people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, religion or anything else are free and equal.
Welcoming anyone who comes to make this country their home.
Generosity of spirit both at home and abroad. Giving aid to those who need it.
That anyone who gets sick in this country will be looked after.
Respecting the rights of others.
Treating each other with respect.
Settling our differences politely and democratically.
Accepting that we may not always win or get our way, with grace and generosity of spirit.
On a more fun level.
Complaining about the weather, then losing our minds and enjoying ourselves when its sunny.
Cheering on the Three Lions, only to see them eliminated by penalties.
The England Cricket Team and taking on the Aussies in The Ashes.
Wanting to beat the other Home Nations but coming together with them with Team GB.
And most importantly for all
A healthy respect that what it means to be united to be English might be different between different people.
That others may disagree with any or all of my list or have other priorities and be just as English.
Well @kinabalu you asked me what my interpretation of a Unifying English Identity is but then haven't responded.
To you what is a Unifying English Identity?
Or since you find the term offensive, are you against politicians unifying people instead of dividing them?
Or are you against the notion of identity?
Or is the idea of English or British you find offensive?
None of those things I suspect. I imagine he just finds your posts very boring, or finds your attempts to justify your adherence to the unpleasant creed of English nationalism obnoxious. Good to see you took my advice on the skull motif though. Best to not advertise your extremism when you are trying hard to cover it up
I don't know why you keep targeting Philip like this?
I am to the Right of Philip on social and cultural issues, and I disagree with him on a number of them, but I don't attract your ire.
Neither of us are extreme.
Philip can be extreme in his enthusiasms, but they are far from universally of the right, and to suggest he is any kind of Trumpian is utterly absurd.
"We pride ourselves on not shying away from sensitive issues that other local politicians prefer not to discuss."
"Promotion of a unifying shared British identity."
Sufficient provision for the essential needs of the populace, otherwise preserving individual liberty."
No Labour votes here. Plenty for the "Eng Nat" Cons.
What about the above is "Eng Nat"? The only nationality mentioned is British.
Yes, it could be written by Gordon "British jobs for British workers" Brown.
Not really.
"British jobs for British workers" is infinitely more xenophobic than anything written there.
"British jobs for British workers" versus "Promoting a Unifying British Identity".
Depends on intent and context. You can imagine both being said by the Far Right. And it's hard to imagine anyone but the Far Right pushing the 2nd one.
Are you are into the promotion of a "unifying national identity" btw?
What on earth is far right about wanting to unify rather than divide people? 🤔
I could imagine anyone pushing the second. A unifying national identity should include the best bits of your country - that is Tony Blair did with his flag waving "Cool Britannia".
What's the best of Britain that unifies us to you? Yes that's what politicians tend to put forwards in any mainstream party in any country around the globe. If you consider that "off" rather than "meaningless guff everyone should find agreeable" then I think your political antenna is a bit broken.
I was merely wondering if "promoting a unifying national identity" warmed your cockles. Seems it does. Doesn't do much for me, I must confess. But my cockles and yours are dissimilar, we know that. So no surprise there.
As to whether it's "off", this depends on what's meant by "identity".
And one has to get specific about it in order to tell. So, eg, if you wish a political party to promote a "Unifying English Identity" - which you do - what exactly does this mean to you?
Happy to defer any judgement until you flesh it out for me.
What does it mean to be united to be English? What does that mean to me?
A lot along the lines of stuff @Cyclefree has a tendency to put in her thread headers.
Equality before the law.
A free and fair judicial system.
A free and fair Parliamentary democracy.
That all people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, religion or anything else are free and equal.
Welcoming anyone who comes to make this country their home.
Generosity of spirit both at home and abroad. Giving aid to those who need it.
That anyone who gets sick in this country will be looked after.
Respecting the rights of others.
Treating each other with respect.
Settling our differences politely and democratically.
Accepting that we may not always win or get our way, with grace and generosity of spirit.
On a more fun level.
Complaining about the weather, then losing our minds and enjoying ourselves when its sunny.
Cheering on the Three Lions, only to see them eliminated by penalties.
The England Cricket Team and taking on the Aussies in The Ashes.
Wanting to beat the other Home Nations but coming together with them with Team GB.
And most importantly for all
A healthy respect that what it means to be united to be English might be different between different people.
That others may disagree with any or all of my list or have other priorities and be just as English.
Well @kinabalu you asked me what my interpretation of a Unifying English Identity is but then haven't responded.
To you what is a Unifying English Identity?
Or since you find the term offensive, are you against politicians unifying people instead of dividing them?
Or are you against the notion of identity?
Or is the idea of English or British you find offensive?
None of those things I suspect. I imagine he just finds your posts very boring, or finds your attempts to justify your adherence to the unpleasant creed of English nationalism obnoxious. Good to see you took my advice on the skull motif though. Best to not advertise your extremism when you are trying hard to cover it up
I don't know why you keep targeting Philip like this?
I am to the Right of Philip on social and cultural issues, and I disagree with him on a number of them, but I don't attract your ire.
Neither of us are extreme.
Most of your posts I don't find ludicrous or inconsistent. Philip doesn't attract my ire he attracts my piss take.
Ok, but he's not extreme is he? That's my point.
We certainly have had several posters like that on here, most of which are no longer with us.
"The Tories' stonking super-majority is built on sand Johnson's uneasy coalition between Red Wall voters and Tory libertarians may yet implode as spectacularly as the Labour Party
Paywall. Could you summarize the thrust of Sherelle's argument? Because I have been arguing this myself.
Unsurprising that she used to write for the Guardian .
Sherelle has long argued that the Conservatives are getting the red wall all wrong - that the Conservatives are drawing the conclusion that what red wall voters want is Labour-ish policies, when what they actually want is low taxes and low interference in their lives. I don't know if she's right or not.
There was a Hugo Rifkind piece in The Times this morning, arguing something similar;
He quoted James Kanagasooriam, who came up with the idea of the “Red Wall” in the first place. Basically, the RW switchers aren't normal working people as such. They're older, either near the top of their workplace or retired, biggish house, decent money. Basically, the kind of people who, if they lived in Northamptonshire, would have voted Conservative for ages. The miracle is that they didn't switch before.
The thing we sometimes forget is that constituencies don't vote, people do. And even in a safe seat and good year for party X, there are probably a decent slice of voters for party Y.
Indeed. Rother Valley was always the example. Socio-economically identical to any number of middling seats in the south (Broxbourne?) which voted Conservative - yet for years didn't do so. Until it did. And what's good for Rother Valley is good for Broxbourne. However, I think Sherelle's analysis (I don't want to come over as some sort of Sherelle Jacobs fanboi here - well - maybe a bit) is based on seats a bit further down the prosperity scale - the West Bromwiches of this world. Even here, there are lots of people who aren't necessarily very well paid or affluent, but are in private sector employment and don't really see what the state can do for them, apart from take less from them and inflict fewer rules.
And, going back on-topic, that might the the difference between Hartlepool and Batley & Spen.
Hartlepool is eye-catching but freakish. The Conservatives did very well there, but with all due respect, so did H'Angus the monkey in the recent past. It's hard to see a way back there for Labour, or other ultra Brexit places. But there aren't that many seats like that.
Batley and Spen is a bit different. Less Brexity, a bit younger, more working people. Labour really need to do better there.
The song quoted by @SandyRentool, "Man In the Corner Shop" is off a Jam album called "Sound Affects" that is a bit of a soundtrack to being Working Class in my opinion... in 1980! My favourite album of theirs and I think it stands the test of time
"We pride ourselves on not shying away from sensitive issues that other local politicians prefer not to discuss."
"Promotion of a unifying shared British identity."
Sufficient provision for the essential needs of the populace, otherwise preserving individual liberty."
No Labour votes here. Plenty for the "Eng Nat" Cons.
Seems a bit "motherhood and Apple Pie" as the Americans would say.
Are you against the British identity?
Are you against individual liberty?
Are you against discussing sensitive issues?
All meaningless phrases. Where's the beef?
I have little interest in them other than from the by-election betting angle. They have the air of hardcore Ukip to me (the guy who formed them certainly is) and I think they'll be breaking heavily Con. If you wish to make another bad call by thinking something else, by all means go for it.
I'm not making a call this time. I know nothing about them and if BXP were prepared to go Tory and not be neverTories then there seems to be little reason these won't do the same.
UKIP is dead so hardcore UKIP is meaningless, just as those words in bold you highlighted are meaningless. You've not said what they mean to you that Labour should be against instead of being meaningless guff.
It's dead as a party but not as an attitude. In this sense it's still a lot of people and where their votes are going these days is a significant factor shaping our politics.
Its dead as an attitude, we've left the EU. That was the unifying feature, beyond that they were just cranks.
What's left of the attitude?
What remains of their attitude is that its imagined nature forms a convenient balustrade behind which @kini can feel better about himself and condemn others.
What is the matter with you?
Ukip attracted a big vote in their prime. Not so long ago either. So where is that vote going now and what's driving it?
Surely a more fascinating topic for a politics site than how I happen to be feeling about myself.
Absolutely. So let the latter go as it manifests itself in a need to denigrate others insidiously and not so insidiously (depending upon how much prep you have done).
There really is no need to be insecure on here goodness knows we've all got our problems (me excepted). Just go with the political debate. We love you, really. You had cracking views on Trump and Hartlepool. Go with that.
I seem to have upset you and I genuinely don't know why. If you wish to drop the obliquery and tell me what it is, I'll take it seriously and see if I can uncross the wires.
LOL! Just can't help yourself.
As I said, relax, enjoy PB and grace us with your political insight which is not insubstantial rather than worrying about what we think of you. I have already noted, and I think I speak for all of PB, we love you.
I came here for the political insight, but I stay for the entertainment value of Philip and Kinabalu winding each other up/bickering in a (generally) good natured fashion. Like an old married couple. You winding Kinabalu up - which you seem to have a gift for - is simply a bonus
I must say, kinbalu's politics are not mine; nor are they those of many on here. But I do enjoy watching him spar with all comers, single-handedly holding his end up, always deftly and with grace and style. I picture him as Errol Flynn, stylishly swashbuckling against several foes at once, always with a winning smile to camera on the way. It would seem unsporting to join in against him except that he is so clearly able to manage insurgencies from all corners at the same time as sparring with his main foe, Philip.
That's real pressure, Cookie. I now have to go away and write something incredibly nice about YOU.
Off topic apology. Anyone else watching the Greensill Capital Committee evidence? They are definitely trying to paint him as a fraudster but I get the impression he was an innovator doing some complex stuff, with insufficient reserves to cope with the pandemic and alleged fraud within a significant customer. A lot of mud is being thrown at him but in my view it isn't sticking. What do our corporate PB members think?
It's worth following Robert Smith, the FT journo who has done a lot of the digging on Greensill, for commentary that cuts through a lot of Greensill's "flexibility" with the truth - although the regulators don't come out of it with much credit either. https://twitter.com/BondHack
I think it's fair to say that he views Greensill's "innovation" in the same way as the Great Train Robbers had innovative ideas on the ownership of bank notes...
The description "...an innovator doing some complex stuff, with insufficient reserves to cope with..." etc might have been similarly applied to Enron, too.
"We pride ourselves on not shying away from sensitive issues that other local politicians prefer not to discuss."
"Promotion of a unifying shared British identity."
Sufficient provision for the essential needs of the populace, otherwise preserving individual liberty."
No Labour votes here. Plenty for the "Eng Nat" Cons.
What about the above is "Eng Nat"? The only nationality mentioned is British.
Yes, it could be written by Gordon "British jobs for British workers" Brown.
Not really.
"British jobs for British workers" is infinitely more xenophobic than anything written there.
"British jobs for British workers" versus "Promoting a Unifying British Identity".
Depends on intent and context. You can imagine both being said by the Far Right. And it's hard to imagine anyone but the Far Right pushing the 2nd one.
Are you are into the promotion of a "unifying national identity" btw?
What on earth is far right about wanting to unify rather than divide people? 🤔
I could imagine anyone pushing the second. A unifying national identity should include the best bits of your country - that is Tony Blair did with his flag waving "Cool Britannia".
What's the best of Britain that unifies us to you? Yes that's what politicians tend to put forwards in any mainstream party in any country around the globe. If you consider that "off" rather than "meaningless guff everyone should find agreeable" then I think your political antenna is a bit broken.
I was merely wondering if "promoting a unifying national identity" warmed your cockles. Seems it does. Doesn't do much for me, I must confess. But my cockles and yours are dissimilar, we know that. So no surprise there.
As to whether it's "off", this depends on what's meant by "identity".
And one has to get specific about it in order to tell. So, eg, if you wish a political party to promote a "Unifying English Identity" - which you do - what exactly does this mean to you?
Happy to defer any judgement until you flesh it out for me.
What does it mean to be united to be English? What does that mean to me?
A lot along the lines of stuff @Cyclefree has a tendency to put in her thread headers.
Equality before the law.
A free and fair judicial system.
A free and fair Parliamentary democracy.
That all people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, religion or anything else are free and equal.
Welcoming anyone who comes to make this country their home.
Generosity of spirit both at home and abroad. Giving aid to those who need it.
That anyone who gets sick in this country will be looked after.
Respecting the rights of others.
Treating each other with respect.
Settling our differences politely and democratically.
Accepting that we may not always win or get our way, with grace and generosity of spirit.
On a more fun level.
Complaining about the weather, then losing our minds and enjoying ourselves when its sunny.
Cheering on the Three Lions, only to see them eliminated by penalties.
The England Cricket Team and taking on the Aussies in The Ashes.
Wanting to beat the other Home Nations but coming together with them with Team GB.
And most importantly for all
A healthy respect that what it means to be united to be English might be different between different people.
That others may disagree with any or all of my list or have other priorities and be just as English.
That's all a bit motherhood and apple pie.
Give me a couple of actual distinctive policies you'd implement in order to "Promote A Unified English Identity".
You need to identify with the land, history, heritage, culture and people - there are different ways of doing that.
It's a menu, and we'll all pick different things from it.
I could certainly give you my list, but that would be to invite disagreement as it would suggest that unless others agreed with it all they weren't "English".
Ok, but remember the idea being mulled is the active promotion of a UNIFIED English Identity.
What's the U word mean there, do we think?
There are certainly many similarities you and I would share, culturally, if we met in person - notwithstanding our different politics.
And we do have a culture here - it's just we can't see it very well, although it's more noticeable when you go aboard.
Foreigners do far better. The best book is Watching the English: the hidden rules of English behaviour by Kate Fox.
Yes, it's very difficult to see your culture when you're in it.
Re: Richard Dawkins, in the USA he followed on TV - with great personal & commercial but NOT artistic success) the trail broken in the movies by Michael Caine
Dawkins was the English POW on "Hogan's Heroes" and later the first (I think) emcee for the "Family Feud" game show which is still going strong on this side of the Atlantic (and Pacific).
More Americans have heard of THIS guy than any British Prime Minister with exceptions of Winston Churchill, Tony Blair and (maybe) the Duke of Wellington.
"We pride ourselves on not shying away from sensitive issues that other local politicians prefer not to discuss."
"Promotion of a unifying shared British identity."
Sufficient provision for the essential needs of the populace, otherwise preserving individual liberty."
No Labour votes here. Plenty for the "Eng Nat" Cons.
What about the above is "Eng Nat"? The only nationality mentioned is British.
Yes, it could be written by Gordon "British jobs for British workers" Brown.
Not really.
"British jobs for British workers" is infinitely more xenophobic than anything written there.
"British jobs for British workers" versus "Promoting a Unifying British Identity".
Depends on intent and context. You can imagine both being said by the Far Right. And it's hard to imagine anyone but the Far Right pushing the 2nd one.
Are you are into the promotion of a "unifying national identity" btw?
What on earth is far right about wanting to unify rather than divide people? 🤔
I could imagine anyone pushing the second. A unifying national identity should include the best bits of your country - that is Tony Blair did with his flag waving "Cool Britannia".
What's the best of Britain that unifies us to you? Yes that's what politicians tend to put forwards in any mainstream party in any country around the globe. If you consider that "off" rather than "meaningless guff everyone should find agreeable" then I think your political antenna is a bit broken.
I was merely wondering if "promoting a unifying national identity" warmed your cockles. Seems it does. Doesn't do much for me, I must confess. But my cockles and yours are dissimilar, we know that. So no surprise there.
As to whether it's "off", this depends on what's meant by "identity".
And one has to get specific about it in order to tell. So, eg, if you wish a political party to promote a "Unifying English Identity" - which you do - what exactly does this mean to you?
Happy to defer any judgement until you flesh it out for me.
What does it mean to be united to be English? What does that mean to me?
A lot along the lines of stuff @Cyclefree has a tendency to put in her thread headers.
Equality before the law.
A free and fair judicial system.
A free and fair Parliamentary democracy.
That all people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, religion or anything else are free and equal.
Welcoming anyone who comes to make this country their home.
Generosity of spirit both at home and abroad. Giving aid to those who need it.
That anyone who gets sick in this country will be looked after.
Respecting the rights of others.
Treating each other with respect.
Settling our differences politely and democratically.
Accepting that we may not always win or get our way, with grace and generosity of spirit.
On a more fun level.
Complaining about the weather, then losing our minds and enjoying ourselves when its sunny.
Cheering on the Three Lions, only to see them eliminated by penalties.
The England Cricket Team and taking on the Aussies in The Ashes.
Wanting to beat the other Home Nations but coming together with them with Team GB.
And most importantly for all
A healthy respect that what it means to be united to be English might be different between different people.
That others may disagree with any or all of my list or have other priorities and be just as English.
That's all a bit motherhood and apple pie.
Give me a couple of actual distinctive policies you'd implement in order to "Promote A Unified English Identity".
You need to identify with the land, history, heritage, culture and people - there are different ways of doing that.
It's a menu, and we'll all pick different things from it.
I could certainly give you my list, but that would be to invite disagreement as it would suggest that unless others agreed with it all they weren't "English".
Ok, but remember the idea being mulled is the active promotion of a UNIFIED English Identity.
What's the U word mean there, do we think?
There are certainly many similarities you and I would share, culturally, if we met in person - notwithstanding our different politics.
And we do have a culture here - it's just we can't see it very well, although it's more noticeable when you go aboard.
Foreigners do far better. The best book is Watching the English: the hidden rules of English behaviour by Kate Fox.
Yes, it's very difficult to see your culture when you're in it.
It's the same thing with accents, you can't hear those you're most used to.
"We pride ourselves on not shying away from sensitive issues that other local politicians prefer not to discuss."
"Promotion of a unifying shared British identity."
Sufficient provision for the essential needs of the populace, otherwise preserving individual liberty."
No Labour votes here. Plenty for the "Eng Nat" Cons.
Seems a bit "motherhood and Apple Pie" as the Americans would say.
Are you against the British identity?
Are you against individual liberty?
Are you against discussing sensitive issues?
All meaningless phrases. Where's the beef?
I have little interest in them other than from the by-election betting angle. They have the air of hardcore Ukip to me (the guy who formed them certainly is) and I think they'll be breaking heavily Con. If you wish to make another bad call by thinking something else, by all means go for it.
I'm not making a call this time. I know nothing about them and if BXP were prepared to go Tory and not be neverTories then there seems to be little reason these won't do the same.
UKIP is dead so hardcore UKIP is meaningless, just as those words in bold you highlighted are meaningless. You've not said what they mean to you that Labour should be against instead of being meaningless guff.
It's dead as a party but not as an attitude. In this sense it's still a lot of people and where their votes are going these days is a significant factor shaping our politics.
Its dead as an attitude, we've left the EU. That was the unifying feature, beyond that they were just cranks.
What's left of the attitude?
What remains of their attitude is that its imagined nature forms a convenient balustrade behind which @kini can feel better about himself and condemn others.
What is the matter with you?
Ukip attracted a big vote in their prime. Not so long ago either. So where is that vote going now and what's driving it?
Surely a more fascinating topic for a politics site than how I happen to be feeling about myself.
Absolutely. So let the latter go as it manifests itself in a need to denigrate others insidiously and not so insidiously (depending upon how much prep you have done).
There really is no need to be insecure on here goodness knows we've all got our problems (me excepted). Just go with the political debate. We love you, really. You had cracking views on Trump and Hartlepool. Go with that.
I seem to have upset you and I genuinely don't know why. If you wish to drop the obliquery and tell me what it is, I'll take it seriously and see if I can uncross the wires.
LOL! Just can't help yourself.
As I said, relax, enjoy PB and grace us with your political insight which is not insubstantial rather than worrying about what we think of you. I have already noted, and I think I speak for all of PB, we love you.
I came here for the political insight, but I stay for the entertainment value of Philip and Kinabalu winding each other up/bickering in a (generally) good natured fashion. Like an old married couple. You winding Kinabalu up - which you seem to have a gift for - is simply a bonus
Topping was in the Armed Forces. A full Captain. So I try and keep on the right side.
I can't believe Labour haven't replayed on a loop Boris's "it's better to spend money in London than the rest of the country" soundbite.
It seems like a no brainer.
Nah. He never said that. By the way, this country has always been at war with East Asia.
He pretty much did - someone had obviously told him how the Treasury evaluates capital spending, which means that the same project is more likely to go ahead in a richer area with higher population because the payback is more, which is the justification for spending £20bn on Crossrail but not £20bn on (pet project X in the North).
"A pound spent in Croydon is of FAR more value to the country, from a strict utilitarian calculus, than a pound spent in Strathclyde"
"We pride ourselves on not shying away from sensitive issues that other local politicians prefer not to discuss."
"Promotion of a unifying shared British identity."
Sufficient provision for the essential needs of the populace, otherwise preserving individual liberty."
No Labour votes here. Plenty for the "Eng Nat" Cons.
What about the above is "Eng Nat"? The only nationality mentioned is British.
Yes, it could be written by Gordon "British jobs for British workers" Brown.
Not really.
"British jobs for British workers" is infinitely more xenophobic than anything written there.
"British jobs for British workers" versus "Promoting a Unifying British Identity".
Depends on intent and context. You can imagine both being said by the Far Right. And it's hard to imagine anyone but the Far Right pushing the 2nd one.
Are you are into the promotion of a "unifying national identity" btw?
What on earth is far right about wanting to unify rather than divide people? 🤔
I could imagine anyone pushing the second. A unifying national identity should include the best bits of your country - that is Tony Blair did with his flag waving "Cool Britannia".
What's the best of Britain that unifies us to you? Yes that's what politicians tend to put forwards in any mainstream party in any country around the globe. If you consider that "off" rather than "meaningless guff everyone should find agreeable" then I think your political antenna is a bit broken.
I was merely wondering if "promoting a unifying national identity" warmed your cockles. Seems it does. Doesn't do much for me, I must confess. But my cockles and yours are dissimilar, we know that. So no surprise there.
As to whether it's "off", this depends on what's meant by "identity".
And one has to get specific about it in order to tell. So, eg, if you wish a political party to promote a "Unifying English Identity" - which you do - what exactly does this mean to you?
Happy to defer any judgement until you flesh it out for me.
What does it mean to be united to be English? What does that mean to me?
A lot along the lines of stuff @Cyclefree has a tendency to put in her thread headers.
Equality before the law.
A free and fair judicial system.
A free and fair Parliamentary democracy.
That all people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, religion or anything else are free and equal.
Welcoming anyone who comes to make this country their home.
Generosity of spirit both at home and abroad. Giving aid to those who need it.
That anyone who gets sick in this country will be looked after.
Respecting the rights of others.
Treating each other with respect.
Settling our differences politely and democratically.
Accepting that we may not always win or get our way, with grace and generosity of spirit.
On a more fun level.
Complaining about the weather, then losing our minds and enjoying ourselves when its sunny.
Cheering on the Three Lions, only to see them eliminated by penalties.
The England Cricket Team and taking on the Aussies in The Ashes.
Wanting to beat the other Home Nations but coming together with them with Team GB.
And most importantly for all
A healthy respect that what it means to be united to be English might be different between different people.
That others may disagree with any or all of my list or have other priorities and be just as English.
That's all a bit motherhood and apple pie.
Give me a couple of actual distinctive policies you'd implement in order to "Promote A Unified English Identity".
You need to identify with the land, history, heritage, culture and people - there are different ways of doing that.
It's a menu, and we'll all pick different things from it.
I could certainly give you my list, but that would be to invite disagreement as it would suggest that unless others agreed with it all they weren't "English".
Ok, but remember the idea being mulled is the active promotion of a UNIFIED English Identity.
What's the U word mean there, do we think?
There are certainly many similarities you and I would share, culturally, if we met in person - notwithstanding our different politics.
And we do have a culture here - it's just we can't see it very well, although it's more noticeable when you go aboard.
Foreigners do far better. The best book is Watching the English: the hidden rules of English behaviour by Kate Fox.
Yes, it's very difficult to see your culture when you're in it.
Indeed, and due to British/ English exceptionalism (shared by us all on some level, even if we don't know it) we tend to think our values and culture are "normal" or "standard", hence the motherhood & apple pie way of describing ourselves, when they are actually quite distinctive and anything but.
The song quoted by @SandyRentool, "Man In the Corner Shop" is off a Jam album called "Sound Affects" that is a bit of a soundtrack to being Working Class in my opinion... in 1980! My favourite album of theirs and I think it stands the test of time
Far k'nell. As a very callow youth I went to see the Jam at Poplar Town Hall it could have been my first ever gig - 1977 I just googled. All I remember was an awful lot of working class folk with very short hair and Harringtons having a huge scrap on the platform of Poplar tube station and onesuch, in the midst of it all, running past me, pausing - was I going to get a smack? - realising I was very young, and running on to attack someone else.
"We pride ourselves on not shying away from sensitive issues that other local politicians prefer not to discuss."
"Promotion of a unifying shared British identity."
Sufficient provision for the essential needs of the populace, otherwise preserving individual liberty."
No Labour votes here. Plenty for the "Eng Nat" Cons.
Seems a bit "motherhood and Apple Pie" as the Americans would say.
Are you against the British identity?
Are you against individual liberty?
Are you against discussing sensitive issues?
All meaningless phrases. Where's the beef?
I have little interest in them other than from the by-election betting angle. They have the air of hardcore Ukip to me (the guy who formed them certainly is) and I think they'll be breaking heavily Con. If you wish to make another bad call by thinking something else, by all means go for it.
I'm not making a call this time. I know nothing about them and if BXP were prepared to go Tory and not be neverTories then there seems to be little reason these won't do the same.
UKIP is dead so hardcore UKIP is meaningless, just as those words in bold you highlighted are meaningless. You've not said what they mean to you that Labour should be against instead of being meaningless guff.
It's dead as a party but not as an attitude. In this sense it's still a lot of people and where their votes are going these days is a significant factor shaping our politics.
Its dead as an attitude, we've left the EU. That was the unifying feature, beyond that they were just cranks.
What's left of the attitude?
What remains of their attitude is that its imagined nature forms a convenient balustrade behind which @kini can feel better about himself and condemn others.
What is the matter with you?
Ukip attracted a big vote in their prime. Not so long ago either. So where is that vote going now and what's driving it?
Surely a more fascinating topic for a politics site than how I happen to be feeling about myself.
Absolutely. So let the latter go as it manifests itself in a need to denigrate others insidiously and not so insidiously (depending upon how much prep you have done).
There really is no need to be insecure on here goodness knows we've all got our problems (me excepted). Just go with the political debate. We love you, really. You had cracking views on Trump and Hartlepool. Go with that.
I seem to have upset you and I genuinely don't know why. If you wish to drop the obliquery and tell me what it is, I'll take it seriously and see if I can uncross the wires.
LOL! Just can't help yourself.
As I said, relax, enjoy PB and grace us with your political insight which is not insubstantial rather than worrying about what we think of you. I have already noted, and I think I speak for all of PB, we love you.
I came here for the political insight, but I stay for the entertainment value of Philip and Kinabalu winding each other up/bickering in a (generally) good natured fashion. Like an old married couple. You winding Kinabalu up - which you seem to have a gift for - is simply a bonus
Topping was in the Armed Forces. A full Captain. So I try and keep on the right side.
"We pride ourselves on not shying away from sensitive issues that other local politicians prefer not to discuss."
"Promotion of a unifying shared British identity."
Sufficient provision for the essential needs of the populace, otherwise preserving individual liberty."
No Labour votes here. Plenty for the "Eng Nat" Cons.
What about the above is "Eng Nat"? The only nationality mentioned is British.
Yes, it could be written by Gordon "British jobs for British workers" Brown.
Not really.
"British jobs for British workers" is infinitely more xenophobic than anything written there.
"British jobs for British workers" versus "Promoting a Unifying British Identity".
Depends on intent and context. You can imagine both being said by the Far Right. And it's hard to imagine anyone but the Far Right pushing the 2nd one.
Are you are into the promotion of a "unifying national identity" btw?
What on earth is far right about wanting to unify rather than divide people? 🤔
I could imagine anyone pushing the second. A unifying national identity should include the best bits of your country - that is Tony Blair did with his flag waving "Cool Britannia".
What's the best of Britain that unifies us to you? Yes that's what politicians tend to put forwards in any mainstream party in any country around the globe. If you consider that "off" rather than "meaningless guff everyone should find agreeable" then I think your political antenna is a bit broken.
I was merely wondering if "promoting a unifying national identity" warmed your cockles. Seems it does. Doesn't do much for me, I must confess. But my cockles and yours are dissimilar, we know that. So no surprise there.
As to whether it's "off", this depends on what's meant by "identity".
And one has to get specific about it in order to tell. So, eg, if you wish a political party to promote a "Unifying English Identity" - which you do - what exactly does this mean to you?
Happy to defer any judgement until you flesh it out for me.
What does it mean to be united to be English? What does that mean to me?
A lot along the lines of stuff @Cyclefree has a tendency to put in her thread headers.
Equality before the law.
A free and fair judicial system.
A free and fair Parliamentary democracy.
That all people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, religion or anything else are free and equal.
Welcoming anyone who comes to make this country their home.
Generosity of spirit both at home and abroad. Giving aid to those who need it.
That anyone who gets sick in this country will be looked after.
Respecting the rights of others.
Treating each other with respect.
Settling our differences politely and democratically.
Accepting that we may not always win or get our way, with grace and generosity of spirit.
On a more fun level.
Complaining about the weather, then losing our minds and enjoying ourselves when its sunny.
Cheering on the Three Lions, only to see them eliminated by penalties.
The England Cricket Team and taking on the Aussies in The Ashes.
Wanting to beat the other Home Nations but coming together with them with Team GB.
And most importantly for all
A healthy respect that what it means to be united to be English might be different between different people.
That others may disagree with any or all of my list or have other priorities and be just as English.
Well @kinabalu you asked me what my interpretation of a Unifying English Identity is but then haven't responded.
To you what is a Unifying English Identity?
Or since you find the term offensive, are you against politicians unifying people instead of dividing them?
Or are you against the notion of identity?
Or is the idea of English or British you find offensive?
None of those things I suspect. I imagine he just finds your posts very boring, or finds your attempts to justify your adherence to the unpleasant creed of English nationalism obnoxious. Good to see you took my advice on the skull motif though. Best to not advertise your extremism when you are trying hard to cover it up
We are in fact making progress. Philip is about to offer up some distinctive policies he'd like to see implemented to "Promote A Unified English Identity". I'm genuinely looking forward to seeing what he comes up with. Or am I? Yes, let's say I am.
I never said I was in favour of specific policies to do so, I said it was motherhood and apple pie.
You responded with pages of arguments before deciding that it was all ... Motherhood and apple pie.
So we're agreed in full. Took a few pages but you ended up using my own words. You agree with me, I can rest comfortable with that.
Ok, so you are not in favour of any specific policies to actively promote a Unified English Identity.
The fact it turns out the Heavy Woollen District candidate was actually the UKIP candidate at a previous election is a bit of a blow for Labour, assuming he picked up the same type of voters under the new label.
"We pride ourselves on not shying away from sensitive issues that other local politicians prefer not to discuss."
"Promotion of a unifying shared British identity."
Sufficient provision for the essential needs of the populace, otherwise preserving individual liberty."
No Labour votes here. Plenty for the "Eng Nat" Cons.
What about the above is "Eng Nat"? The only nationality mentioned is British.
Yes, it could be written by Gordon "British jobs for British workers" Brown.
Not really.
"British jobs for British workers" is infinitely more xenophobic than anything written there.
"British jobs for British workers" versus "Promoting a Unifying British Identity".
Depends on intent and context. You can imagine both being said by the Far Right. And it's hard to imagine anyone but the Far Right pushing the 2nd one.
Are you are into the promotion of a "unifying national identity" btw?
What on earth is far right about wanting to unify rather than divide people? 🤔
I could imagine anyone pushing the second. A unifying national identity should include the best bits of your country - that is Tony Blair did with his flag waving "Cool Britannia".
What's the best of Britain that unifies us to you? Yes that's what politicians tend to put forwards in any mainstream party in any country around the globe. If you consider that "off" rather than "meaningless guff everyone should find agreeable" then I think your political antenna is a bit broken.
I was merely wondering if "promoting a unifying national identity" warmed your cockles. Seems it does. Doesn't do much for me, I must confess. But my cockles and yours are dissimilar, we know that. So no surprise there.
As to whether it's "off", this depends on what's meant by "identity".
And one has to get specific about it in order to tell. So, eg, if you wish a political party to promote a "Unifying English Identity" - which you do - what exactly does this mean to you?
Happy to defer any judgement until you flesh it out for me.
What does it mean to be united to be English? What does that mean to me?
A lot along the lines of stuff @Cyclefree has a tendency to put in her thread headers.
Equality before the law.
A free and fair judicial system.
A free and fair Parliamentary democracy.
That all people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, religion or anything else are free and equal.
Welcoming anyone who comes to make this country their home.
Generosity of spirit both at home and abroad. Giving aid to those who need it.
That anyone who gets sick in this country will be looked after.
Respecting the rights of others.
Treating each other with respect.
Settling our differences politely and democratically.
Accepting that we may not always win or get our way, with grace and generosity of spirit.
On a more fun level.
Complaining about the weather, then losing our minds and enjoying ourselves when its sunny.
Cheering on the Three Lions, only to see them eliminated by penalties.
The England Cricket Team and taking on the Aussies in The Ashes.
Wanting to beat the other Home Nations but coming together with them with Team GB.
And most importantly for all
A healthy respect that what it means to be united to be English might be different between different people.
That others may disagree with any or all of my list or have other priorities and be just as English.
That's all a bit motherhood and apple pie.
Give me a couple of actual distinctive policies you'd implement in order to "Promote A Unified English Identity".
You need to identify with the land, history, heritage, culture and people - there are different ways of doing that.
It's a menu, and we'll all pick different things from it.
I could certainly give you my list, but that would be to invite disagreement as it would suggest that unless others agreed with it all they weren't "English".
Ok, but remember the idea being mulled is the active promotion of a UNIFIED English Identity.
What was the Foreign Office smoking when they appointed Craig Murray a Her Majesty’s Most Excellent Ambassador Extraordinaire and Plenipotentiary?
Serves him right though, there would be anarchy if we allowed doxxing of complainants of alleged sexual crimes.
I am sorry but this is "justice" that would shame a banana republic. It will be interesting to see what the Supremes make of it.
Pardon my ignorance but did he not
1) Post information that allowed some of the complainants to be identified?
2) In a sexual assault/attempted rape cases?
That's a bit of a no no in England & Wales.
I believe he also claimed to be an accredited journo and therefore entitled to cover the case but has thus far not provided NUJ details. Dunno if that played a part in his sentence.
"We pride ourselves on not shying away from sensitive issues that other local politicians prefer not to discuss."
"Promotion of a unifying shared British identity."
Sufficient provision for the essential needs of the populace, otherwise preserving individual liberty."
No Labour votes here. Plenty for the "Eng Nat" Cons.
What about the above is "Eng Nat"? The only nationality mentioned is British.
Yes, it could be written by Gordon "British jobs for British workers" Brown.
Not really.
"British jobs for British workers" is infinitely more xenophobic than anything written there.
"British jobs for British workers" versus "Promoting a Unifying British Identity".
Depends on intent and context. You can imagine both being said by the Far Right. And it's hard to imagine anyone but the Far Right pushing the 2nd one.
Are you are into the promotion of a "unifying national identity" btw?
What on earth is far right about wanting to unify rather than divide people? 🤔
I could imagine anyone pushing the second. A unifying national identity should include the best bits of your country - that is Tony Blair did with his flag waving "Cool Britannia".
What's the best of Britain that unifies us to you? Yes that's what politicians tend to put forwards in any mainstream party in any country around the globe. If you consider that "off" rather than "meaningless guff everyone should find agreeable" then I think your political antenna is a bit broken.
I was merely wondering if "promoting a unifying national identity" warmed your cockles. Seems it does. Doesn't do much for me, I must confess. But my cockles and yours are dissimilar, we know that. So no surprise there.
As to whether it's "off", this depends on what's meant by "identity".
And one has to get specific about it in order to tell. So, eg, if you wish a political party to promote a "Unifying English Identity" - which you do - what exactly does this mean to you?
Happy to defer any judgement until you flesh it out for me.
What does it mean to be united to be English? What does that mean to me?
A lot along the lines of stuff @Cyclefree has a tendency to put in her thread headers.
Equality before the law.
A free and fair judicial system.
A free and fair Parliamentary democracy.
That all people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, religion or anything else are free and equal.
Welcoming anyone who comes to make this country their home.
Generosity of spirit both at home and abroad. Giving aid to those who need it.
That anyone who gets sick in this country will be looked after.
Respecting the rights of others.
Treating each other with respect.
Settling our differences politely and democratically.
Accepting that we may not always win or get our way, with grace and generosity of spirit.
On a more fun level.
Complaining about the weather, then losing our minds and enjoying ourselves when its sunny.
Cheering on the Three Lions, only to see them eliminated by penalties.
The England Cricket Team and taking on the Aussies in The Ashes.
Wanting to beat the other Home Nations but coming together with them with Team GB.
And most importantly for all
A healthy respect that what it means to be united to be English might be different between different people.
That others may disagree with any or all of my list or have other priorities and be just as English.
That's all a bit motherhood and apple pie.
Give me a couple of actual distinctive policies you'd implement in order to "Promote A Unified English Identity".
You need to identify with the land, history, heritage, culture and people - there are different ways of doing that.
It's a menu, and we'll all pick different things from it.
I could certainly give you my list, but that would be to invite disagreement as it would suggest that unless others agreed with it all they weren't "English".
Ok, but remember the idea being mulled is the active promotion of a UNIFIED English Identity.
What's the U word mean there, do we think?
There are certainly many similarities you and I would share, culturally, if we met in person - notwithstanding our different politics.
And we do have a culture here - it's just we can't see it very well, although it's more noticeable when you go aboard.
Foreigners do far better. The best book is Watching the English: the hidden rules of English behaviour by Kate Fox.
Yes, it's very difficult to see your culture when you're in it.
Indeed, and due to British/ English exceptionalism (shared by us all on some level, even if we don't know it) we tend to think our values and culture are "normal" or "standard", hence the motherhood & apple pie way of describing ourselves, when they are actually quite distinctive and anything but.
Precisely.
Take my list of what a Unified English Identity is to me, after Kinabalu asked, and then go to Xinjiang, China. See how much of the list applies there. Or go to Hong Kong and see how much of the list used to apply there, versus how much still does now. 😕
What we have is something precious to keep. Not be taken for granted.
I can't believe Labour haven't replayed on a loop Boris's "it's better to spend money in London than the rest of the country" soundbite.
It seems like a no brainer.
Nah. He never said that. By the way, this country has always been at war with East Asia.
He pretty much did - someone had obviously told him how the Treasury evaluates capital spending, which means that the same project is more likely to go ahead in a richer area with higher population because the payback is more, which is the justification for spending £20bn on Crossrail but not £20bn on (pet project X in the North).
"A pound spent in Croydon is of FAR more value to the country, from a strict utilitarian calculus, than a pound spent in Strathclyde"
Boris / Rishi did change this back in 2019/20 (can't remember exactly when) so it's slightly unfair to use an interview he did while London Mayor as the basis of the attack.
The song quoted by @SandyRentool, "Man In the Corner Shop" is off a Jam album called "Sound Affects" that is a bit of a soundtrack to being Working Class in my opinion... in 1980! My favourite album of theirs and I think it stands the test of time
Far k'nell. As a very callow youth I went to see the Jam at Poplar Town Hall it could have been my first ever gig - 1977 I just googled. All I remember was an awful lot of working class folk with very short hair and Harringtons having a huge scrap on the platform of Poplar tube station and onesuch, in the midst of it all, running past me, pausing - was I going to get a smack? - realising I was very young, and running on to attack someone else.
Happy days!
Bit before my time, would have loved to have been there. My first memory of The Jam was my Mum tutting at Paul Weller on TOTP for chewing gum! Prob early 80s
Looking at the track list, that album is a corker - no filler. Young Weller was a genius at social commentary I think - “Saturdays Kids” describes what I think of as Leave voters to a tee
"We pride ourselves on not shying away from sensitive issues that other local politicians prefer not to discuss."
"Promotion of a unifying shared British identity."
Sufficient provision for the essential needs of the populace, otherwise preserving individual liberty."
No Labour votes here. Plenty for the "Eng Nat" Cons.
What about the above is "Eng Nat"? The only nationality mentioned is British.
Yes, it could be written by Gordon "British jobs for British workers" Brown.
Not really.
"British jobs for British workers" is infinitely more xenophobic than anything written there.
"British jobs for British workers" versus "Promoting a Unifying British Identity".
Depends on intent and context. You can imagine both being said by the Far Right. And it's hard to imagine anyone but the Far Right pushing the 2nd one.
Are you are into the promotion of a "unifying national identity" btw?
What on earth is far right about wanting to unify rather than divide people? 🤔
I could imagine anyone pushing the second. A unifying national identity should include the best bits of your country - that is Tony Blair did with his flag waving "Cool Britannia".
What's the best of Britain that unifies us to you? Yes that's what politicians tend to put forwards in any mainstream party in any country around the globe. If you consider that "off" rather than "meaningless guff everyone should find agreeable" then I think your political antenna is a bit broken.
I was merely wondering if "promoting a unifying national identity" warmed your cockles. Seems it does. Doesn't do much for me, I must confess. But my cockles and yours are dissimilar, we know that. So no surprise there.
As to whether it's "off", this depends on what's meant by "identity".
And one has to get specific about it in order to tell. So, eg, if you wish a political party to promote a "Unifying English Identity" - which you do - what exactly does this mean to you?
Happy to defer any judgement until you flesh it out for me.
What does it mean to be united to be English? What does that mean to me?
A lot along the lines of stuff @Cyclefree has a tendency to put in her thread headers.
Equality before the law.
A free and fair judicial system.
A free and fair Parliamentary democracy.
That all people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, religion or anything else are free and equal.
Welcoming anyone who comes to make this country their home.
Generosity of spirit both at home and abroad. Giving aid to those who need it.
That anyone who gets sick in this country will be looked after.
Respecting the rights of others.
Treating each other with respect.
Settling our differences politely and democratically.
Accepting that we may not always win or get our way, with grace and generosity of spirit.
On a more fun level.
Complaining about the weather, then losing our minds and enjoying ourselves when its sunny.
Cheering on the Three Lions, only to see them eliminated by penalties.
The England Cricket Team and taking on the Aussies in The Ashes.
Wanting to beat the other Home Nations but coming together with them with Team GB.
And most importantly for all
A healthy respect that what it means to be united to be English might be different between different people.
That others may disagree with any or all of my list or have other priorities and be just as English.
That's all a bit motherhood and apple pie.
Give me a couple of actual distinctive policies you'd implement in order to "Promote A Unified English Identity".
You need to identify with the land, history, heritage, culture and people - there are different ways of doing that.
It's a menu, and we'll all pick different things from it.
I could certainly give you my list, but that would be to invite disagreement as it would suggest that unless others agreed with it all they weren't "English".
Ok, but remember the idea being mulled is the active promotion of a UNIFIED English Identity.
What's the U word mean there, do we think?
There are certainly many similarities you and I would share, culturally, if we met in person - notwithstanding our different politics.
And we do have a culture here - it's just we can't see it very well, although it's more noticeable when you go aboard.
Foreigners do far better. The best book is Watching the English: the hidden rules of English behaviour by Kate Fox.
Right. But again, the notion I was exploring was the active promotion (in the political arena) of a Unified English identity.
If you think about what "active promotion" means there, in conjunction with "Unified", can you not see how that is best avoided?
"We pride ourselves on not shying away from sensitive issues that other local politicians prefer not to discuss."
"Promotion of a unifying shared British identity."
Sufficient provision for the essential needs of the populace, otherwise preserving individual liberty."
No Labour votes here. Plenty for the "Eng Nat" Cons.
What about the above is "Eng Nat"? The only nationality mentioned is British.
Yes, it could be written by Gordon "British jobs for British workers" Brown.
Not really.
"British jobs for British workers" is infinitely more xenophobic than anything written there.
"British jobs for British workers" versus "Promoting a Unifying British Identity".
Depends on intent and context. You can imagine both being said by the Far Right. And it's hard to imagine anyone but the Far Right pushing the 2nd one.
Are you are into the promotion of a "unifying national identity" btw?
What on earth is far right about wanting to unify rather than divide people? 🤔
I could imagine anyone pushing the second. A unifying national identity should include the best bits of your country - that is Tony Blair did with his flag waving "Cool Britannia".
What's the best of Britain that unifies us to you? Yes that's what politicians tend to put forwards in any mainstream party in any country around the globe. If you consider that "off" rather than "meaningless guff everyone should find agreeable" then I think your political antenna is a bit broken.
I was merely wondering if "promoting a unifying national identity" warmed your cockles. Seems it does. Doesn't do much for me, I must confess. But my cockles and yours are dissimilar, we know that. So no surprise there.
As to whether it's "off", this depends on what's meant by "identity".
And one has to get specific about it in order to tell. So, eg, if you wish a political party to promote a "Unifying English Identity" - which you do - what exactly does this mean to you?
Happy to defer any judgement until you flesh it out for me.
What does it mean to be united to be English? What does that mean to me?
A lot along the lines of stuff @Cyclefree has a tendency to put in her thread headers.
Equality before the law.
A free and fair judicial system.
A free and fair Parliamentary democracy.
That all people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, religion or anything else are free and equal.
Welcoming anyone who comes to make this country their home.
Generosity of spirit both at home and abroad. Giving aid to those who need it.
That anyone who gets sick in this country will be looked after.
Respecting the rights of others.
Treating each other with respect.
Settling our differences politely and democratically.
Accepting that we may not always win or get our way, with grace and generosity of spirit.
On a more fun level.
Complaining about the weather, then losing our minds and enjoying ourselves when its sunny.
Cheering on the Three Lions, only to see them eliminated by penalties.
The England Cricket Team and taking on the Aussies in The Ashes.
Wanting to beat the other Home Nations but coming together with them with Team GB.
And most importantly for all
A healthy respect that what it means to be united to be English might be different between different people.
That others may disagree with any or all of my list or have other priorities and be just as English.
That's all a bit motherhood and apple pie.
Give me a couple of actual distinctive policies you'd implement in order to "Promote A Unified English Identity".
You need to identify with the land, history, heritage, culture and people - there are different ways of doing that.
It's a menu, and we'll all pick different things from it.
I could certainly give you my list, but that would be to invite disagreement as it would suggest that unless others agreed with it all they weren't "English".
Ok, but remember the idea being mulled is the active promotion of a UNIFIED English Identity.
What's the U word mean there, do we think?
There are certainly many similarities you and I would share, culturally, if we met in person - notwithstanding our different politics.
And we do have a culture here - it's just we can't see it very well, although it's more noticeable when you go aboard.
Foreigners do far better. The best book is Watching the English: the hidden rules of English behaviour by Kate Fox.
Yes, it's very difficult to see your culture when you're in it.
Indeed, and due to British/ English exceptionalism (shared by us all on some level, even if we don't know it) we tend to think our values and culture are "normal" or "standard", hence the motherhood & apple pie way of describing ourselves, when they are actually quite distinctive and anything but.
Our view of British/English exceptionalism is that it, itself, is somehow exceptional. I suspect not:
What was the Foreign Office smoking when they appointed Craig Murray a Her Majesty’s Most Excellent Ambassador Extraordinaire and Plenipotentiary?
Serves him right though, there would be anarchy if we allowed doxxing of complainants of alleged sexual crimes.
I am sorry but this is "justice" that would shame a banana republic. It will be interesting to see what the Supremes make of it.
Pardon my ignorance but did he not
1) Post information that allowed some of the complainants to be identified?
2) In a sexual assault/attempted rape cases?
That's a bit of a no no in England & Wales.
I believe he also claimed to be an accredited journo and therefore entitled to cover the case but has thus far not provided NUJ details. Dunno if that played a part in his sentence.
I saw the bloggers aren't journalist thing earlier.
FWIW - OGH, I think, is still a member of the NUJ.
"We pride ourselves on not shying away from sensitive issues that other local politicians prefer not to discuss."
"Promotion of a unifying shared British identity."
Sufficient provision for the essential needs of the populace, otherwise preserving individual liberty."
No Labour votes here. Plenty for the "Eng Nat" Cons.
What about the above is "Eng Nat"? The only nationality mentioned is British.
Yes, it could be written by Gordon "British jobs for British workers" Brown.
Not really.
"British jobs for British workers" is infinitely more xenophobic than anything written there.
"British jobs for British workers" versus "Promoting a Unifying British Identity".
Depends on intent and context. You can imagine both being said by the Far Right. And it's hard to imagine anyone but the Far Right pushing the 2nd one.
Are you are into the promotion of a "unifying national identity" btw?
What on earth is far right about wanting to unify rather than divide people? 🤔
I could imagine anyone pushing the second. A unifying national identity should include the best bits of your country - that is Tony Blair did with his flag waving "Cool Britannia".
What's the best of Britain that unifies us to you? Yes that's what politicians tend to put forwards in any mainstream party in any country around the globe. If you consider that "off" rather than "meaningless guff everyone should find agreeable" then I think your political antenna is a bit broken.
I was merely wondering if "promoting a unifying national identity" warmed your cockles. Seems it does. Doesn't do much for me, I must confess. But my cockles and yours are dissimilar, we know that. So no surprise there.
As to whether it's "off", this depends on what's meant by "identity".
And one has to get specific about it in order to tell. So, eg, if you wish a political party to promote a "Unifying English Identity" - which you do - what exactly does this mean to you?
Happy to defer any judgement until you flesh it out for me.
What does it mean to be united to be English? What does that mean to me?
A lot along the lines of stuff @Cyclefree has a tendency to put in her thread headers.
Equality before the law.
A free and fair judicial system.
A free and fair Parliamentary democracy.
That all people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, religion or anything else are free and equal.
Welcoming anyone who comes to make this country their home.
Generosity of spirit both at home and abroad. Giving aid to those who need it.
That anyone who gets sick in this country will be looked after.
Respecting the rights of others.
Treating each other with respect.
Settling our differences politely and democratically.
Accepting that we may not always win or get our way, with grace and generosity of spirit.
On a more fun level.
Complaining about the weather, then losing our minds and enjoying ourselves when its sunny.
Cheering on the Three Lions, only to see them eliminated by penalties.
The England Cricket Team and taking on the Aussies in The Ashes.
Wanting to beat the other Home Nations but coming together with them with Team GB.
And most importantly for all
A healthy respect that what it means to be united to be English might be different between different people.
That others may disagree with any or all of my list or have other priorities and be just as English.
That's all a bit motherhood and apple pie.
Give me a couple of actual distinctive policies you'd implement in order to "Promote A Unified English Identity".
You need to identify with the land, history, heritage, culture and people - there are different ways of doing that.
It's a menu, and we'll all pick different things from it.
I could certainly give you my list, but that would be to invite disagreement as it would suggest that unless others agreed with it all they weren't "English".
Ok, but remember the idea being mulled is the active promotion of a UNIFIED English Identity.
What's the U word mean there, do we think?
There are certainly many similarities you and I would share, culturally, if we met in person - notwithstanding our different politics.
And we do have a culture here - it's just we can't see it very well, although it's more noticeable when you go aboard.
Foreigners do far better. The best book is Watching the English: the hidden rules of English behaviour by Kate Fox.
Yes, it's very difficult to see your culture when you're in it.
Indeed, and due to British/ English exceptionalism (shared by us all on some level, even if we don't know it) we tend to think our values and culture are "normal" or "standard", hence the motherhood & apple pie way of describing ourselves, when they are actually quite distinctive and anything but.
Precisely.
Take my list of what a Unified English Identity is to me, after Kinabalu asked, and then go to Xinjiang, China. See how much of the list applies there. Or go to Hong Kong and see how much of the list used to apply there, versus how much still does now. 😕
What we have is something precious to keep. Not be taken for granted.
What you have to remember is that because @kinabalu for some unknown reason is very insecure he is invested in belittling your views of nationality and what it means to be British.
He does this because as a working class lad made good (very good) and now moved away from his roots, he is confused about what he is supposed to think about these things. He feels he should condemn anyone who even mentions nationality and being British but has no views himself on them.
And hence when he bumps into someone like you, someone he believes he is far more successful and intelligent than, but someone who is far more confident in their own opinions on such to him delicate and taboo subjects, he has literally no answer.
"We pride ourselves on not shying away from sensitive issues that other local politicians prefer not to discuss."
"Promotion of a unifying shared British identity."
Sufficient provision for the essential needs of the populace, otherwise preserving individual liberty."
No Labour votes here. Plenty for the "Eng Nat" Cons.
What about the above is "Eng Nat"? The only nationality mentioned is British.
Yes, it could be written by Gordon "British jobs for British workers" Brown.
Not really.
"British jobs for British workers" is infinitely more xenophobic than anything written there.
"British jobs for British workers" versus "Promoting a Unifying British Identity".
Depends on intent and context. You can imagine both being said by the Far Right. And it's hard to imagine anyone but the Far Right pushing the 2nd one.
Are you are into the promotion of a "unifying national identity" btw?
What on earth is far right about wanting to unify rather than divide people? 🤔
I could imagine anyone pushing the second. A unifying national identity should include the best bits of your country - that is Tony Blair did with his flag waving "Cool Britannia".
What's the best of Britain that unifies us to you? Yes that's what politicians tend to put forwards in any mainstream party in any country around the globe. If you consider that "off" rather than "meaningless guff everyone should find agreeable" then I think your political antenna is a bit broken.
I was merely wondering if "promoting a unifying national identity" warmed your cockles. Seems it does. Doesn't do much for me, I must confess. But my cockles and yours are dissimilar, we know that. So no surprise there.
As to whether it's "off", this depends on what's meant by "identity".
And one has to get specific about it in order to tell. So, eg, if you wish a political party to promote a "Unifying English Identity" - which you do - what exactly does this mean to you?
Happy to defer any judgement until you flesh it out for me.
What does it mean to be united to be English? What does that mean to me?
A lot along the lines of stuff @Cyclefree has a tendency to put in her thread headers.
Equality before the law.
A free and fair judicial system.
A free and fair Parliamentary democracy.
That all people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, religion or anything else are free and equal.
Welcoming anyone who comes to make this country their home.
Generosity of spirit both at home and abroad. Giving aid to those who need it.
That anyone who gets sick in this country will be looked after.
Respecting the rights of others.
Treating each other with respect.
Settling our differences politely and democratically.
Accepting that we may not always win or get our way, with grace and generosity of spirit.
On a more fun level.
Complaining about the weather, then losing our minds and enjoying ourselves when its sunny.
Cheering on the Three Lions, only to see them eliminated by penalties.
The England Cricket Team and taking on the Aussies in The Ashes.
Wanting to beat the other Home Nations but coming together with them with Team GB.
And most importantly for all
A healthy respect that what it means to be united to be English might be different between different people.
That others may disagree with any or all of my list or have other priorities and be just as English.
Well @kinabalu you asked me what my interpretation of a Unifying English Identity is but then haven't responded.
To you what is a Unifying English Identity?
Or since you find the term offensive, are you against politicians unifying people instead of dividing them?
Or are you against the notion of identity?
Or is the idea of English or British you find offensive?
None of those things I suspect. I imagine he just finds your posts very boring, or finds your attempts to justify your adherence to the unpleasant creed of English nationalism obnoxious. Good to see you took my advice on the skull motif though. Best to not advertise your extremism when you are trying hard to cover it up
We are in fact making progress. Philip is about to offer up some distinctive policies he'd like to see implemented to "Promote A Unified English Identity". I'm genuinely looking forward to seeing what he comes up with. Or am I? Yes, let's say I am.
I never said I was in favour of specific policies to do so, I said it was motherhood and apple pie.
You responded with pages of arguments before deciding that it was all ... Motherhood and apple pie.
So we're agreed in full. Took a few pages but you ended up using my own words. You agree with me, I can rest comfortable with that.
Ok, so you are not in favour of any specific policies to actively promote a Unified English Identity.
Thank heaven for that.
I have a preference for the government encouraging non religious state schools - is that not promoting a unified national identity (not English, as I think the part of the country which would benefit most is N Ireland).
The fact it turns out the Heavy Woollen District candidate was actually the UKIP candidate at a previous election is a bit of a blow for Labour, assuming he picked up the same type of voters under the new label.
No doubt due to disadvantages of my colonial education & experience, but whenever yours truly sees the term "Heavy Woollen District" my mind immediately pictures a sizable area where the inhabitants all sport coarse long-johns.
Either under their clothes OR as their entire walking-around outfit.
Marina Hyde, as ever, puts it better then I ever could:
‘In 2019 there was ONE conviction for in-person voter fraud in the entire UK, handed to a man who had voted twice in the European parliament elections (arguably even more pointless than it was to vote once). Yet the government is pressing ahead with legislation to spend a conservatively estimated £20m per election on stopping something that isn’t even meaningfully occurring. What sort of a return on your investment is that for the party of business? The only reasonable conclusion is that the investment is in fact in a system that will end up favouring the Conservatives. Think of them as the party of funny business, and it all makes common sense.’
Marina Hyde, as ever, puts it better then I ever could:
‘In 2019 there was ONE conviction for in-person voter fraud in the entire UK, handed to a man who had voted twice in the European parliament elections (arguably even more pointless than it was to vote once). Yet the government is pressing ahead with legislation to spend a conservatively estimated £20m per election on stopping something that isn’t even meaningfully occurring. What sort of a return on your investment is that for the party of business? The only reasonable conclusion is that the investment is in fact in a system that will end up favouring the Conservatives. Think of them as the party of funny business, and it all makes common sense.’
Just as we don't know for certain, that space aliens are NOT snatching up & probing earthlings then returning them (wiser but a bit sore) to their beds.
I'm not sure this is the zinger you think it is. The self-employed and small business owners are the bedrock of the new northern Conservative vote. They still think they're working class. What matters is getting "stuck in" to the graft.
Oh, absolutely. The backbone of our economy. I think it's hugely positive to have a LOTO with a background with an understanding of small business. I certainly don't want to get all class war. But if it's true, it's a jarringly different picture to the one I understood to be true - presumably because it was how Kier wanted to be portrayed, though I grant I don't think I've ever heard about his background from him personally.
The problem with it, is that the Tory Facebook campaign ads at the next election write themselves. Sir Keir likes you tell you he grew up in a factory worker’s house, but didn’t tell you his father owned the factory and sent him to the good school. What is he offering today’s working classes other than sneering contempt?
That isn't fatal. Boris Johnson is quite literally the elite. What is he offering today's working classes?
If Keir can sort the Labour Party out (unlikely, but still), his background is not going to be relevant.
He’s offering the working classes his ear, and investment in working-class areas that have been neglected for years.
Labour are talking to and about the bottom 10% and the top 10%.
The bottom 10% aren’t working, and the top 10% are at the top of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and like talking about Palestine and trans rights, because they’re not worried about owning a house or saving for retirement.
The Conservatives are talking to the 80% in the middle. Those who get up and go to work in the morning.
Of course. But now Brexit is over he is going to have to deliver the arbitrary "rocket fuel" which is a lot harder to "deliver" than Brexit because it's completely subjective.
The problem with promising everything to everyone is that you can't please everyone. That's why I don't think it's going to be plain sailing. When the conservatives are in power both locally and nationally and things don't improve, it's going to be a lot harder to blame Labour.
Of course they now have to deliver, but it’s a low bar to cross and the signs so far are positive.
But it isn't a low bar at all.
Labour 1997-2010 piled record sums into education, healthcare, infrastructure, and yet got zero thanks. That's just politics. It will never be enough.
And then at what point does the spending need to be reined in?
Labour 1997 saw spending as the end rather than the means, and an awful lot of it was on expensive fancy buildings mortgaged for the next 40 years.
The Conservative attitude is to provide free enterprise zones subject to tax breaks, with the brivate sector creating most of the jobs and public money limited to infrastructure.
And what if those "free enterprise zones" don't actually create good jobs?
In any case, the headline "job creation in the North" so far is public sector treasury jobs in Darlington.
"We pride ourselves on not shying away from sensitive issues that other local politicians prefer not to discuss."
"Promotion of a unifying shared British identity."
Sufficient provision for the essential needs of the populace, otherwise preserving individual liberty."
No Labour votes here. Plenty for the "Eng Nat" Cons.
What about the above is "Eng Nat"? The only nationality mentioned is British.
Yes, it could be written by Gordon "British jobs for British workers" Brown.
Not really.
"British jobs for British workers" is infinitely more xenophobic than anything written there.
"British jobs for British workers" versus "Promoting a Unifying British Identity".
Depends on intent and context. You can imagine both being said by the Far Right. And it's hard to imagine anyone but the Far Right pushing the 2nd one.
Are you are into the promotion of a "unifying national identity" btw?
What on earth is far right about wanting to unify rather than divide people? 🤔
I could imagine anyone pushing the second. A unifying national identity should include the best bits of your country - that is Tony Blair did with his flag waving "Cool Britannia".
What's the best of Britain that unifies us to you? Yes that's what politicians tend to put forwards in any mainstream party in any country around the globe. If you consider that "off" rather than "meaningless guff everyone should find agreeable" then I think your political antenna is a bit broken.
I was merely wondering if "promoting a unifying national identity" warmed your cockles. Seems it does. Doesn't do much for me, I must confess. But my cockles and yours are dissimilar, we know that. So no surprise there.
As to whether it's "off", this depends on what's meant by "identity".
And one has to get specific about it in order to tell. So, eg, if you wish a political party to promote a "Unifying English Identity" - which you do - what exactly does this mean to you?
Happy to defer any judgement until you flesh it out for me.
What does it mean to be united to be English? What does that mean to me?
A lot along the lines of stuff @Cyclefree has a tendency to put in her thread headers.
Equality before the law.
A free and fair judicial system.
A free and fair Parliamentary democracy.
That all people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, religion or anything else are free and equal.
Welcoming anyone who comes to make this country their home.
Generosity of spirit both at home and abroad. Giving aid to those who need it.
That anyone who gets sick in this country will be looked after.
Respecting the rights of others.
Treating each other with respect.
Settling our differences politely and democratically.
Accepting that we may not always win or get our way, with grace and generosity of spirit.
On a more fun level.
Complaining about the weather, then losing our minds and enjoying ourselves when its sunny.
Cheering on the Three Lions, only to see them eliminated by penalties.
The England Cricket Team and taking on the Aussies in The Ashes.
Wanting to beat the other Home Nations but coming together with them with Team GB.
And most importantly for all
A healthy respect that what it means to be united to be English might be different between different people.
That others may disagree with any or all of my list or have other priorities and be just as English.
Well @kinabalu you asked me what my interpretation of a Unifying English Identity is but then haven't responded.
To you what is a Unifying English Identity?
Or since you find the term offensive, are you against politicians unifying people instead of dividing them?
Or are you against the notion of identity?
Or is the idea of English or British you find offensive?
None of those things I suspect. I imagine he just finds your posts very boring, or finds your attempts to justify your adherence to the unpleasant creed of English nationalism obnoxious. Good to see you took my advice on the skull motif though. Best to not advertise your extremism when you are trying hard to cover it up
We are in fact making progress. Philip is about to offer up some distinctive policies he'd like to see implemented to "Promote A Unified English Identity". I'm genuinely looking forward to seeing what he comes up with. Or am I? Yes, let's say I am.
I never said I was in favour of specific policies to do so, I said it was motherhood and apple pie.
You responded with pages of arguments before deciding that it was all ... Motherhood and apple pie.
So we're agreed in full. Took a few pages but you ended up using my own words. You agree with me, I can rest comfortable with that.
Ok, so you are not in favour of any specific policies to actively promote a Unified English Identity.
Thank heaven for that.
Oh no, I am.
A lot along the lines of stuff Cyclefree has a tendency to put in her thread headers. - she has written many political suggestions I agree.
Equality before the law. - Policies to ensure this is protected. Many laws passed I support on this issue.
A free and fair judicial system. - Policies to ensure this is protected. Agree with Cyclefree the backlog on justice etc is a very bad thing and this needs sorting out.
A free and fair Parliamentary democracy. - Policies to ensure this is protected. Against changes in electoral system etc that could mess with this.
That all people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, religion or anything else are free and equal. - Again support policies to support this. Again supported laws for years on this.
Welcoming anyone who comes to make this country their home. - Support policies ensuring this. Against those who campaign to do otherwise.
Generosity of spirit both at home and abroad. Giving aid to those who need it. - A good example of this is charities like Children in Need etc, policies like Gift Aid to facilitate and support this.
That anyone who gets sick in this country will be looked after. - Is the NHS not a policy area for you? Seriously?
Etc etc etc
Why would you NOT want policies to support these issues and to unify people? Of course you SHOULD not Thank God you don't.
Labour ideally needs a two stage strategy with leaders. First it needs someone with a bit of personality and energy to rough Boris up a bit and force him to make errors, even if that leader is not universally popular in the country. Then, when the time is right (realistically after a narrower loss at the next election) the new unifying Blair / Trudeau / Ardern figure can emerge. They don't currently exist as far as I can see. But Burnham would do well in that first role, as would Jess Phillips.
You could argue the SNP did that successfully with Salmond then Sturgeon. Or the even the Democrats with Pelosi then Biden.
And who might this person with charisma that might be parachuted in be?
I can't believe Labour haven't replayed on a loop Boris's "it's better to spend money in London than the rest of the country" soundbite.
It seems like a no brainer.
Nah. He never said that. By the way, this country has always been at war with East Asia.
He pretty much did - someone had obviously told him how the Treasury evaluates capital spending, which means that the same project is more likely to go ahead in a richer area with higher population because the payback is more, which is the justification for spending £20bn on Crossrail but not £20bn on (pet project X in the North).
"A pound spent in Croydon is of FAR more value to the country, from a strict utilitarian calculus, than a pound spent in Strathclyde"
Boris / Rishi did change this back in 2019/20 (can't remember exactly when) so it's slightly unfair to use an interview he did while London Mayor as the basis of the attack.
Of course its unfair. That's why Labour should be doing it.
I'm not sure this is the zinger you think it is. The self-employed and small business owners are the bedrock of the new northern Conservative vote. They still think they're working class. What matters is getting "stuck in" to the graft.
Oh, absolutely. The backbone of our economy. I think it's hugely positive to have a LOTO with a background with an understanding of small business. I certainly don't want to get all class war. But if it's true, it's a jarringly different picture to the one I understood to be true - presumably because it was how Kier wanted to be portrayed, though I grant I don't think I've ever heard about his background from him personally.
The problem with it, is that the Tory Facebook campaign ads at the next election write themselves. Sir Keir likes you tell you he grew up in a factory worker’s house, but didn’t tell you his father owned the factory and sent him to the good school. What is he offering today’s working classes other than sneering contempt?
That isn't fatal. Boris Johnson is quite literally the elite. What is he offering today's working classes?
If Keir can sort the Labour Party out (unlikely, but still), his background is not going to be relevant.
He’s offering the working classes his ear, and investment in working-class areas that have been neglected for years.
Labour are talking to and about the bottom 10% and the top 10%.
The bottom 10% aren’t working, and the top 10% are at the top of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and like talking about Palestine and trans rights, because they’re not worried about owning a house or saving for retirement.
The Conservatives are talking to the 80% in the middle. Those who get up and go to work in the morning.
Of course. But now Brexit is over he is going to have to deliver the arbitrary "rocket fuel" which is a lot harder to "deliver" than Brexit because it's completely subjective.
The problem with promising everything to everyone is that you can't please everyone. That's why I don't think it's going to be plain sailing. When the conservatives are in power both locally and nationally and things don't improve, it's going to be a lot harder to blame Labour.
Of course they now have to deliver, but it’s a low bar to cross and the signs so far are positive.
But it isn't a low bar at all.
Labour 1997-2010 piled record sums into education, healthcare, infrastructure, and yet got zero thanks. That's just politics. It will never be enough.
And then at what point does the spending need to be reined in?
Labour 1997 saw spending as the end rather than the means, and an awful lot of it was on expensive fancy buildings mortgaged for the next 40 years.
The Conservative attitude is to provide free enterprise zones subject to tax breaks, with the brivate sector creating most of the jobs and public money limited to infrastructure.
And what if those "free enterprise zones" don't actually create good jobs?
In any case, the headline "job creation in the North" so far is public sector treasury jobs in Darlington.
I’d say it was the Blyth battery factory.
1000 jobs via GE in Boro's free port would be my pick.
The problem with Blyth is that it's an infrastructure project and I don't see where the actual technical brains are that know how to build the batteries.
I am middle-class. I am probably not upper-middle class, but I am probably upper-middle middle class. So were both my parents.
And, you all know exactly what I mean by that.
Sorry, but us working class folk are oblivious to such distinctions.
The middle class is so big that it is necessarily full of gradations from lower-lower-middle to upper-upper-middle. I'd place myself at upper-middle-middle. Which itself is pretty big. I've become much more aware of class since I was a parent. I think class tended to pass me by beforehand. I don't think I judge people by it - I hope I don't - but I'd say I'm much more aware of it.
Looks pretty stupid to me. And surely quite a waste of money?
Doesnt sound like they are commissioned as replacement tube signs which would have been a serious waste of money. They are promoting his film being shown above the station, so it is a very different context. And yes they do look stupid.
"We pride ourselves on not shying away from sensitive issues that other local politicians prefer not to discuss."
"Promotion of a unifying shared British identity."
Sufficient provision for the essential needs of the populace, otherwise preserving individual liberty."
No Labour votes here. Plenty for the "Eng Nat" Cons.
What about the above is "Eng Nat"? The only nationality mentioned is British.
Yes, it could be written by Gordon "British jobs for British workers" Brown.
Not really.
"British jobs for British workers" is infinitely more xenophobic than anything written there.
"British jobs for British workers" versus "Promoting a Unifying British Identity".
Depends on intent and context. You can imagine both being said by the Far Right. And it's hard to imagine anyone but the Far Right pushing the 2nd one.
Are you are into the promotion of a "unifying national identity" btw?
What on earth is far right about wanting to unify rather than divide people? 🤔
I could imagine anyone pushing the second. A unifying national identity should include the best bits of your country - that is Tony Blair did with his flag waving "Cool Britannia".
What's the best of Britain that unifies us to you? Yes that's what politicians tend to put forwards in any mainstream party in any country around the globe. If you consider that "off" rather than "meaningless guff everyone should find agreeable" then I think your political antenna is a bit broken.
I was merely wondering if "promoting a unifying national identity" warmed your cockles. Seems it does. Doesn't do much for me, I must confess. But my cockles and yours are dissimilar, we know that. So no surprise there.
As to whether it's "off", this depends on what's meant by "identity".
And one has to get specific about it in order to tell. So, eg, if you wish a political party to promote a "Unifying English Identity" - which you do - what exactly does this mean to you?
Happy to defer any judgement until you flesh it out for me.
What does it mean to be united to be English? What does that mean to me?
A lot along the lines of stuff @Cyclefree has a tendency to put in her thread headers.
Equality before the law.
A free and fair judicial system.
A free and fair Parliamentary democracy.
That all people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, religion or anything else are free and equal.
Welcoming anyone who comes to make this country their home.
Generosity of spirit both at home and abroad. Giving aid to those who need it.
That anyone who gets sick in this country will be looked after.
Respecting the rights of others.
Treating each other with respect.
Settling our differences politely and democratically.
Accepting that we may not always win or get our way, with grace and generosity of spirit.
On a more fun level.
Complaining about the weather, then losing our minds and enjoying ourselves when its sunny.
Cheering on the Three Lions, only to see them eliminated by penalties.
The England Cricket Team and taking on the Aussies in The Ashes.
Wanting to beat the other Home Nations but coming together with them with Team GB.
And most importantly for all
A healthy respect that what it means to be united to be English might be different between different people.
That others may disagree with any or all of my list or have other priorities and be just as English.
That's all a bit motherhood and apple pie.
Give me a couple of actual distinctive policies you'd implement in order to "Promote A Unified English Identity".
You need to identify with the land, history, heritage, culture and people - there are different ways of doing that.
It's a menu, and we'll all pick different things from it.
I could certainly give you my list, but that would be to invite disagreement as it would suggest that unless others agreed with it all they weren't "English".
Ok, but remember the idea being mulled is the active promotion of a UNIFIED English Identity.
What's the U word mean there, do we think?
There are certainly many similarities you and I would share, culturally, if we met in person - notwithstanding our different politics.
And we do have a culture here - it's just we can't see it very well, although it's more noticeable when you go aboard.
Foreigners do far better. The best book is Watching the English: the hidden rules of English behaviour by Kate Fox.
Yes, it's very difficult to see your culture when you're in it.
It's the same thing with accents, you can't hear those you're most used to.
A most interesting comment that had not occurred to me.
The song quoted by @SandyRentool, "Man In the Corner Shop" is off a Jam album called "Sound Affects" that is a bit of a soundtrack to being Working Class in my opinion... in 1980! My favourite album of theirs and I think it stands the test of time
The Jam were the sound of the late 70s-early 80s working class. I am probably the only person who thinks “this is the modern world” is their best album
Marina Hyde, as ever, puts it better then I ever could:
‘In 2019 there was ONE conviction for in-person voter fraud in the entire UK, handed to a man who had voted twice in the European parliament elections (arguably even more pointless than it was to vote once). Yet the government is pressing ahead with legislation to spend a conservatively estimated £20m per election on stopping something that isn’t even meaningfully occurring. What sort of a return on your investment is that for the party of business? The only reasonable conclusion is that the investment is in fact in a system that will end up favouring the Conservatives. Think of them as the party of funny business, and it all makes common sense.’
The whole issue of personation can be solved in a very simple way.
If you arrive at the polling station without ID, then they take a photo of you with an instant camera, and you sign the back of it attesting to who you are.
If there is any question later that someone might have voted twice, well, there's a photo of the person who did it. Most criminals aren't keen on having their photos taken in the commission of an act of crime.
I am middle-class. I am probably not upper-middle class, but I am probably upper-middle middle class. So were both my parents.
And, you all know exactly what I mean by that.
Sorry, but us working class folk are oblivious to such distinctions.
The middle class is so big that it is necessarily full of gradations from lower-lower-middle to upper-upper-middle. I'd place myself at upper-middle-middle. Which itself is pretty big. I've become much more aware of class since I was a parent. I think class tended to pass me by beforehand. I don't think I judge people by it - I hope I don't - but I'd say I'm much more aware of it.
Sounds like we should just replace it by percentiles, with HMQ at 100. Id guess Im in the 74-77 range.
I can't believe Labour haven't replayed on a loop Boris's "it's better to spend money in London than the rest of the country" soundbite.
It seems like a no brainer.
Nah. He never said that. By the way, this country has always been at war with East Asia.
He pretty much did - someone had obviously told him how the Treasury evaluates capital spending, which means that the same project is more likely to go ahead in a richer area with higher population because the payback is more, which is the justification for spending £20bn on Crossrail but not £20bn on (pet project X in the North).
"A pound spent in Croydon is of FAR more value to the country, from a strict utilitarian calculus, than a pound spent in Strathclyde"
Boris / Rishi did change this back in 2019/20 (can't remember exactly when) so it's slightly unfair to use an interview he did while London Mayor as the basis of the attack.
Of course its unfair. That's why Labour should be doing it.
But it's also fixed (from memory in a way that switched the bias to be the opposite) - so there is nothing to attack, all Boris would say is that things have changed.
Off topic apology. Anyone else watching the Greensill Capital Committee evidence? They are definitely trying to paint him as a fraudster but I get the impression he was an innovator doing some complex stuff, with insufficient reserves to cope with the pandemic and alleged fraud within a significant customer. A lot of mud is being thrown at him but in my view it isn't sticking. What do our corporate PB members think?
I remember someone else in the supply chain finance industry, who said
"This is a great business, but I fly EasyJet".
Greensill let investors* in his funds "borrow" their private jet. That's corruption.
* As in fund managers. As in custodians of other peoples' money. As in they were evaluating investing in Greensill based on inducements, not fundamentals.
Looks pretty stupid to me. And surely quite a waste of money?
Welcome. I'm not so sure. They will be a nice addition to the tube experience. Although it is a bit gilding the lily as the original London Underground designs are timeless and design classics.
"The Tories' stonking super-majority is built on sand Johnson's uneasy coalition between Red Wall voters and Tory libertarians may yet implode as spectacularly as the Labour Party
Paywall. Could you summarize the thrust of Sherelle's argument? Because I have been arguing this myself.
Unsurprising that she used to write for the Guardian .
Sherelle has long argued that the Conservatives are getting the red wall all wrong - that the Conservatives are drawing the conclusion that what red wall voters want is Labour-ish policies, when what they actually want is low taxes and low interference in their lives. I don't know if she's right or not.
There was a Hugo Rifkind piece in The Times this morning, arguing something similar;
He quoted James Kanagasooriam, who came up with the idea of the “Red Wall” in the first place. Basically, the RW switchers aren't normal working people as such. They're older, either near the top of their workplace or retired, biggish house, decent money. Basically, the kind of people who, if they lived in Northamptonshire, would have voted Conservative for ages. The miracle is that they didn't switch before.
The thing we sometimes forget is that constituencies don't vote, people do. And even in a safe seat and good year for party X, there are probably a decent slice of voters for party Y.
Indeed. Rother Valley was always the example. Socio-economically identical to any number of middling seats in the south (Broxbourne?) which voted Conservative - yet for years didn't do so. Until it did. And what's good for Rother Valley is good for Broxbourne. However, I think Sherelle's analysis (I don't want to come over as some sort of Sherelle Jacobs fanboi here - well - maybe a bit) is based on seats a bit further down the prosperity scale - the West Bromwiches of this world. Even here, there are lots of people who aren't necessarily very well paid or affluent, but are in private sector employment and don't really see what the state can do for them, apart from take less from them and inflict fewer rules.
And, going back on-topic, that might the the difference between Hartlepool and Batley & Spen.
Hartlepool is eye-catching but freakish. The Conservatives did very well there, but with all due respect, so did H'Angus the monkey in the recent past. It's hard to see a way back there for Labour, or other ultra Brexit places. But there aren't that many seats like that.
Batley and Spen is a bit different. Less Brexity, a bit younger, more working people. Labour really need to do better there.
Hartlepool is not freakish, though it may be temporary. It was exaggerated but consistent with the non urban WWC trad Labour north east (and far north west) trend found in Co Durham, Teesside, Cumbria (outside the posh bits), much of Yorkshire and Northumberland. There are lots of seats enough like Hartlepool. So many that Batley and Spen is essential to Labour but a luxury extra for the Tories.
If you are a Tory it is worrying because you don't want to lose the Hartlepools - it is a big chunk of the new 'battleground' so beloved of Jeremy Vine on election night. If you are Labour it is a sign that you really might be finished as a party of one party government and will be unless you sort it out.
The worry for the Tories is losing Chesham - which I would place as a higher chance than the markets. It would be a sure indicator that Lab + LD is a real prospect for the next election and would galvanise some action.
Perhaps the crowning irony (NOT Her Majesty) of the United Kingdom, is that England by absorbing Wales, Scotland and Ireland into the British nation state (largely in the interests of national security) in the process has lost or subsumed much of its own national identity.
Close-at-home imperialism is also a key reason (I think) why English nationalism is almost exclusively of the political right, whereas Irish, Scots & Welsh nationalism can be either right or left.
There are always exceptions to the conservative or (frequently but not PhilipT) rightwing tendency of English nationalism. William Blake & George Orwell being perhaps the most notable, which is why methinks many conservative-minded English people think they are fellow conservatives. But Blake & Orwell are exceptions to the general rule.
Off topic apology. Anyone else watching the Greensill Capital Committee evidence? They are definitely trying to paint him as a fraudster but I get the impression he was an innovator doing some complex stuff, with insufficient reserves to cope with the pandemic and alleged fraud within a significant customer. A lot of mud is being thrown at him but in my view it isn't sticking. What do our corporate PB members think?
I remember someone else in the supply chain finance industry, who said
"This is a great business, but I fly EasyJet".
Greensill let investors* in his funds "borrow" their private jet. That's corruption.
* As in fund managers. As in custodians of other peoples' money. As in they were evaluating investing in Greensill based on inducements, not fundamentals.
That's like an example from an anti corruption training session with a two option multi choice answer at the end where the correct answer is to say "Yes. This is a clear example of corruption" otherwise you have to read through the question again.
"We pride ourselves on not shying away from sensitive issues that other local politicians prefer not to discuss."
"Promotion of a unifying shared British identity."
Sufficient provision for the essential needs of the populace, otherwise preserving individual liberty."
No Labour votes here. Plenty for the "Eng Nat" Cons.
What about the above is "Eng Nat"? The only nationality mentioned is British.
Yes, it could be written by Gordon "British jobs for British workers" Brown.
Not really.
"British jobs for British workers" is infinitely more xenophobic than anything written there.
"British jobs for British workers" versus "Promoting a Unifying British Identity".
Depends on intent and context. You can imagine both being said by the Far Right. And it's hard to imagine anyone but the Far Right pushing the 2nd one.
Are you are into the promotion of a "unifying national identity" btw?
What on earth is far right about wanting to unify rather than divide people? 🤔
I could imagine anyone pushing the second. A unifying national identity should include the best bits of your country - that is Tony Blair did with his flag waving "Cool Britannia".
What's the best of Britain that unifies us to you? Yes that's what politicians tend to put forwards in any mainstream party in any country around the globe. If you consider that "off" rather than "meaningless guff everyone should find agreeable" then I think your political antenna is a bit broken.
I was merely wondering if "promoting a unifying national identity" warmed your cockles. Seems it does. Doesn't do much for me, I must confess. But my cockles and yours are dissimilar, we know that. So no surprise there.
As to whether it's "off", this depends on what's meant by "identity".
And one has to get specific about it in order to tell. So, eg, if you wish a political party to promote a "Unifying English Identity" - which you do - what exactly does this mean to you?
Happy to defer any judgement until you flesh it out for me.
What does it mean to be united to be English? What does that mean to me?
A lot along the lines of stuff @Cyclefree has a tendency to put in her thread headers.
Equality before the law.
A free and fair judicial system.
A free and fair Parliamentary democracy.
That all people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, religion or anything else are free and equal.
Welcoming anyone who comes to make this country their home.
Generosity of spirit both at home and abroad. Giving aid to those who need it.
That anyone who gets sick in this country will be looked after.
Respecting the rights of others.
Treating each other with respect.
Settling our differences politely and democratically.
Accepting that we may not always win or get our way, with grace and generosity of spirit.
On a more fun level.
Complaining about the weather, then losing our minds and enjoying ourselves when its sunny.
Cheering on the Three Lions, only to see them eliminated by penalties.
The England Cricket Team and taking on the Aussies in The Ashes.
Wanting to beat the other Home Nations but coming together with them with Team GB.
And most importantly for all
A healthy respect that what it means to be united to be English might be different between different people.
That others may disagree with any or all of my list or have other priorities and be just as English.
Well @kinabalu you asked me what my interpretation of a Unifying English Identity is but then haven't responded.
To you what is a Unifying English Identity?
Or since you find the term offensive, are you against politicians unifying people instead of dividing them?
Or are you against the notion of identity?
Or is the idea of English or British you find offensive?
None of those things I suspect. I imagine he just finds your posts very boring, or finds your attempts to justify your adherence to the unpleasant creed of English nationalism obnoxious. Good to see you took my advice on the skull motif though. Best to not advertise your extremism when you are trying hard to cover it up
We are in fact making progress. Philip is about to offer up some distinctive policies he'd like to see implemented to "Promote A Unified English Identity". I'm genuinely looking forward to seeing what he comes up with. Or am I? Yes, let's say I am.
I never said I was in favour of specific policies to do so, I said it was motherhood and apple pie.
You responded with pages of arguments before deciding that it was all ... Motherhood and apple pie.
So we're agreed in full. Took a few pages but you ended up using my own words. You agree with me, I can rest comfortable with that.
Ok, so you are not in favour of any specific policies to actively promote a Unified English Identity.
Thank heaven for that.
Oh no, I am.
A lot along the lines of stuff Cyclefree has a tendency to put in her thread headers. - she has written many political suggestions I agree.
Equality before the law. - Policies to ensure this is protected. Many laws passed I support on this issue.
A free and fair judicial system. - Policies to ensure this is protected. Agree with Cyclefree the backlog on justice etc is a very bad thing and this needs sorting out.
A free and fair Parliamentary democracy. - Policies to ensure this is protected. Against changes in electoral system etc that could mess with this.
That all people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, religion or anything else are free and equal. - Again support policies to support this. Again supported laws for years on this.
Welcoming anyone who comes to make this country their home. - Support policies ensuring this. Against those who campaign to do otherwise.
Generosity of spirit both at home and abroad. Giving aid to those who need it. - A good example of this is charities like Children in Need etc, policies like Gift Aid to facilitate and support this.
That anyone who gets sick in this country will be looked after. - Is the NHS not a policy area for you? Seriously?
Etc etc etc
Why would you NOT want policies to support these issues and to unify people? Of course you SHOULD not Thank God you don't.
I think those are values - with some policies - but I'm not sure they are the basis for a common identity.
I think it starts with identifying with the land, and sense of place, together with the people that live there.
"The Tories' stonking super-majority is built on sand Johnson's uneasy coalition between Red Wall voters and Tory libertarians may yet implode as spectacularly as the Labour Party
Paywall. Could you summarize the thrust of Sherelle's argument? Because I have been arguing this myself.
Unsurprising that she used to write for the Guardian .
Sherelle has long argued that the Conservatives are getting the red wall all wrong - that the Conservatives are drawing the conclusion that what red wall voters want is Labour-ish policies, when what they actually want is low taxes and low interference in their lives. I don't know if she's right or not.
There was a Hugo Rifkind piece in The Times this morning, arguing something similar;
He quoted James Kanagasooriam, who came up with the idea of the “Red Wall” in the first place. Basically, the RW switchers aren't normal working people as such. They're older, either near the top of their workplace or retired, biggish house, decent money. Basically, the kind of people who, if they lived in Northamptonshire, would have voted Conservative for ages. The miracle is that they didn't switch before.
The thing we sometimes forget is that constituencies don't vote, people do. And even in a safe seat and good year for party X, there are probably a decent slice of voters for party Y.
Indeed. Rother Valley was always the example. Socio-economically identical to any number of middling seats in the south (Broxbourne?) which voted Conservative - yet for years didn't do so. Until it did. And what's good for Rother Valley is good for Broxbourne. However, I think Sherelle's analysis (I don't want to come over as some sort of Sherelle Jacobs fanboi here - well - maybe a bit) is based on seats a bit further down the prosperity scale - the West Bromwiches of this world. Even here, there are lots of people who aren't necessarily very well paid or affluent, but are in private sector employment and don't really see what the state can do for them, apart from take less from them and inflict fewer rules.
And, going back on-topic, that might the the difference between Hartlepool and Batley & Spen.
Hartlepool is eye-catching but freakish. The Conservatives did very well there, but with all due respect, so did H'Angus the monkey in the recent past. It's hard to see a way back there for Labour, or other ultra Brexit places. But there aren't that many seats like that.
Batley and Spen is a bit different. Less Brexity, a bit younger, more working people. Labour really need to do better there.
Hartlepool is not freakish, though it may be temporary. It was exaggerated but consistent with the non urban WWC trad Labour north east (and far north west) trend found in Co Durham, Teesside, Cumbria (outside the posh bits), much of Yorkshire and Northumberland. There are lots of seats enough like Hartlepool. So many that Batley and Spen is essential to Labour but a luxury extra for the Tories.
If you are a Tory it is worrying because you don't want to lose the Hartlepools - it is a big chunk of the new 'battleground' so beloved of Jeremy Vine on election night. If you are Labour it is a sign that you really might be finished as a party of one party government and will be unless you sort it out.
The worry for the Tories is losing Chesham - which I would place as a higher chance than the markets.
I think the LDs will probably win Chesham at the by-election, but the Tories will win it back easily at the next GE.
The fact it turns out the Heavy Woollen District candidate was actually the UKIP candidate at a previous election is a bit of a blow for Labour, assuming he picked up the same type of voters under the new label.
No doubt due to disadvantages of my colonial education & experience, but whenever yours truly sees the term "Heavy Woollen District" my mind immediately pictures a sizable area where the inhabitants all sport coarse long-johns.
Either under their clothes OR as their entire walking-around outfit.
"We pride ourselves on not shying away from sensitive issues that other local politicians prefer not to discuss."
"Promotion of a unifying shared British identity."
Sufficient provision for the essential needs of the populace, otherwise preserving individual liberty."
No Labour votes here. Plenty for the "Eng Nat" Cons.
What about the above is "Eng Nat"? The only nationality mentioned is British.
Yes, it could be written by Gordon "British jobs for British workers" Brown.
Not really.
"British jobs for British workers" is infinitely more xenophobic than anything written there.
"British jobs for British workers" versus "Promoting a Unifying British Identity".
Depends on intent and context. You can imagine both being said by the Far Right. And it's hard to imagine anyone but the Far Right pushing the 2nd one.
Are you are into the promotion of a "unifying national identity" btw?
What on earth is far right about wanting to unify rather than divide people? 🤔
I could imagine anyone pushing the second. A unifying national identity should include the best bits of your country - that is Tony Blair did with his flag waving "Cool Britannia".
What's the best of Britain that unifies us to you? Yes that's what politicians tend to put forwards in any mainstream party in any country around the globe. If you consider that "off" rather than "meaningless guff everyone should find agreeable" then I think your political antenna is a bit broken.
I was merely wondering if "promoting a unifying national identity" warmed your cockles. Seems it does. Doesn't do much for me, I must confess. But my cockles and yours are dissimilar, we know that. So no surprise there.
As to whether it's "off", this depends on what's meant by "identity".
And one has to get specific about it in order to tell. So, eg, if you wish a political party to promote a "Unifying English Identity" - which you do - what exactly does this mean to you?
Happy to defer any judgement until you flesh it out for me.
What does it mean to be united to be English? What does that mean to me?
A lot along the lines of stuff @Cyclefree has a tendency to put in her thread headers.
Equality before the law.
A free and fair judicial system.
A free and fair Parliamentary democracy.
That all people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, religion or anything else are free and equal.
Welcoming anyone who comes to make this country their home.
Generosity of spirit both at home and abroad. Giving aid to those who need it.
That anyone who gets sick in this country will be looked after.
Respecting the rights of others.
Treating each other with respect.
Settling our differences politely and democratically.
Accepting that we may not always win or get our way, with grace and generosity of spirit.
On a more fun level.
Complaining about the weather, then losing our minds and enjoying ourselves when its sunny.
Cheering on the Three Lions, only to see them eliminated by penalties.
The England Cricket Team and taking on the Aussies in The Ashes.
Wanting to beat the other Home Nations but coming together with them with Team GB.
And most importantly for all
A healthy respect that what it means to be united to be English might be different between different people.
That others may disagree with any or all of my list or have other priorities and be just as English.
That's all a bit motherhood and apple pie.
Give me a couple of actual distinctive policies you'd implement in order to "Promote A Unified English Identity".
You need to identify with the land, history, heritage, culture and people - there are different ways of doing that.
It's a menu, and we'll all pick different things from it.
I could certainly give you my list, but that would be to invite disagreement as it would suggest that unless others agreed with it all they weren't "English".
Ok, but remember the idea being mulled is the active promotion of a UNIFIED English Identity.
What's the U word mean there, do we think?
There are certainly many similarities you and I would share, culturally, if we met in person - notwithstanding our different politics.
And we do have a culture here - it's just we can't see it very well, although it's more noticeable when you go aboard.
Foreigners do far better. The best book is Watching the English: the hidden rules of English behaviour by Kate Fox.
Yes, it's very difficult to see your culture when you're in it.
It's the same thing with accents, you can't hear those you're most used to.
A most interesting comment that had not occurred to me.
When I was at uni in Leicester an American student told me I had the poshest accent shed come across, which too me quite by surprise as I did not think I sounded any different to every day residents of the city. I supposed it was more that I have a rather stilted, awkward style of diction that struck them as peculiar.
California Here We Go! New UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies / LA Times poll
Politico.com - Poll: Opposition to Newsom recall grows and Jenner fails to break through Nearly half of poll respondents oppose the recall, compared to 36 percent who support it.
A growing number of Californians oppose the forthcoming recall of Gavin Newsom, according to a survey released Tuesday morning, a boost for the sitting governor who has suffered a series of political blows over the past year.
Roughly 49 percent said they were against removing Newsom, a tick higher than the 45 percent who responded similarly in January.
The poll found that only 36 percent of the registered voters queried supported recalling Newsom, virtually unchanged from the prior survey. Both were conducted by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times.
The poll surveyed 10,289 people between April 29 and May 5 with a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.
Opposition to the recall has grown as Newsom recovers politically somewhat and as Democrats begin to take more seriously the first gubernatorial recall since 2003 when former Gov. Gray Davis was removed in favor of Arnold Schwarzenegger. . . .
Slightly more than half — 52 percent — of respondents approved of Newsom’s job performance, a modest increase from January though appreciably below his high-water mark from last year.
The poll also shows little voter interest for Republican Caitlyn Jenner’s candidacy at this point. Just 6 percent of respondents said they supported the idea of the former Olympic gold medalist-turned-reality star replacing Newsom. . . .
"We pride ourselves on not shying away from sensitive issues that other local politicians prefer not to discuss."
"Promotion of a unifying shared British identity."
Sufficient provision for the essential needs of the populace, otherwise preserving individual liberty."
No Labour votes here. Plenty for the "Eng Nat" Cons.
What about the above is "Eng Nat"? The only nationality mentioned is British.
Yes, it could be written by Gordon "British jobs for British workers" Brown.
Not really.
"British jobs for British workers" is infinitely more xenophobic than anything written there.
"British jobs for British workers" versus "Promoting a Unifying British Identity".
Depends on intent and context. You can imagine both being said by the Far Right. And it's hard to imagine anyone but the Far Right pushing the 2nd one.
Are you are into the promotion of a "unifying national identity" btw?
What on earth is far right about wanting to unify rather than divide people? 🤔
I could imagine anyone pushing the second. A unifying national identity should include the best bits of your country - that is Tony Blair did with his flag waving "Cool Britannia".
What's the best of Britain that unifies us to you? Yes that's what politicians tend to put forwards in any mainstream party in any country around the globe. If you consider that "off" rather than "meaningless guff everyone should find agreeable" then I think your political antenna is a bit broken.
I was merely wondering if "promoting a unifying national identity" warmed your cockles. Seems it does. Doesn't do much for me, I must confess. But my cockles and yours are dissimilar, we know that. So no surprise there.
As to whether it's "off", this depends on what's meant by "identity".
And one has to get specific about it in order to tell. So, eg, if you wish a political party to promote a "Unifying English Identity" - which you do - what exactly does this mean to you?
Happy to defer any judgement until you flesh it out for me.
What does it mean to be united to be English? What does that mean to me?
A lot along the lines of stuff @Cyclefree has a tendency to put in her thread headers.
Equality before the law.
A free and fair judicial system.
A free and fair Parliamentary democracy.
That all people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, religion or anything else are free and equal.
Welcoming anyone who comes to make this country their home.
Generosity of spirit both at home and abroad. Giving aid to those who need it.
That anyone who gets sick in this country will be looked after.
Respecting the rights of others.
Treating each other with respect.
Settling our differences politely and democratically.
Accepting that we may not always win or get our way, with grace and generosity of spirit.
On a more fun level.
Complaining about the weather, then losing our minds and enjoying ourselves when its sunny.
Cheering on the Three Lions, only to see them eliminated by penalties.
The England Cricket Team and taking on the Aussies in The Ashes.
Wanting to beat the other Home Nations but coming together with them with Team GB.
And most importantly for all
A healthy respect that what it means to be united to be English might be different between different people.
That others may disagree with any or all of my list or have other priorities and be just as English.
Well @kinabalu you asked me what my interpretation of a Unifying English Identity is but then haven't responded.
To you what is a Unifying English Identity?
Or since you find the term offensive, are you against politicians unifying people instead of dividing them?
Or are you against the notion of identity?
Or is the idea of English or British you find offensive?
None of those things I suspect. I imagine he just finds your posts very boring, or finds your attempts to justify your adherence to the unpleasant creed of English nationalism obnoxious. Good to see you took my advice on the skull motif though. Best to not advertise your extremism when you are trying hard to cover it up
We are in fact making progress. Philip is about to offer up some distinctive policies he'd like to see implemented to "Promote A Unified English Identity". I'm genuinely looking forward to seeing what he comes up with. Or am I? Yes, let's say I am.
I never said I was in favour of specific policies to do so, I said it was motherhood and apple pie.
You responded with pages of arguments before deciding that it was all ... Motherhood and apple pie.
So we're agreed in full. Took a few pages but you ended up using my own words. You agree with me, I can rest comfortable with that.
Ok, so you are not in favour of any specific policies to actively promote a Unified English Identity.
Thank heaven for that.
Oh no, I am.
A lot along the lines of stuff Cyclefree has a tendency to put in her thread headers. - she has written many political suggestions I agree.
Equality before the law. - Policies to ensure this is protected. Many laws passed I support on this issue.
A free and fair judicial system. - Policies to ensure this is protected. Agree with Cyclefree the backlog on justice etc is a very bad thing and this needs sorting out.
A free and fair Parliamentary democracy. - Policies to ensure this is protected. Against changes in electoral system etc that could mess with this.
That all people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, religion or anything else are free and equal. - Again support policies to support this. Again supported laws for years on this.
Welcoming anyone who comes to make this country their home. - Support policies ensuring this. Against those who campaign to do otherwise.
Generosity of spirit both at home and abroad. Giving aid to those who need it. - A good example of this is charities like Children in Need etc, policies like Gift Aid to facilitate and support this.
That anyone who gets sick in this country will be looked after. - Is the NHS not a policy area for you? Seriously?
Etc etc etc
Why would you NOT want policies to support these issues and to unify people? Of course you SHOULD not Thank God you don't.
I think those are values - with some policies - but I'm not sure they are the basis for a common identity.
I think it starts with identifying with the land, and sense of place, together with the people that live there.
That's a big difference between you and me. You are more traditional than I am and consider the land etc important. I don't. That's why I don't see it as a big deal if parts of the country choose to go independent.
I consider it the people who choose to live here that make the country. I view the country as a living evolving nation that evolves with the people that live here. As immigrants arrive they rub off and influence the country just as much as the country influences them, and we are better off for it.
But others disagree. As I finished my list with, it includes respecting the fact others have different opinions. I understand and respect your opinion, even though I don't share it. I hope for most people the feeling can be mutual.
I'm not sure this is the zinger you think it is. The self-employed and small business owners are the bedrock of the new northern Conservative vote. They still think they're working class. What matters is getting "stuck in" to the graft.
Oh, absolutely. The backbone of our economy. I think it's hugely positive to have a LOTO with a background with an understanding of small business. I certainly don't want to get all class war. But if it's true, it's a jarringly different picture to the one I understood to be true - presumably because it was how Kier wanted to be portrayed, though I grant I don't think I've ever heard about his background from him personally.
The problem with it, is that the Tory Facebook campaign ads at the next election write themselves. Sir Keir likes you tell you he grew up in a factory worker’s house, but didn’t tell you his father owned the factory and sent him to the good school. What is he offering today’s working classes other than sneering contempt?
That isn't fatal. Boris Johnson is quite literally the elite. What is he offering today's working classes?
If Keir can sort the Labour Party out (unlikely, but still), his background is not going to be relevant.
He’s offering the working classes his ear, and investment in working-class areas that have been neglected for years.
Labour are talking to and about the bottom 10% and the top 10%.
The bottom 10% aren’t working, and the top 10% are at the top of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and like talking about Palestine and trans rights, because they’re not worried about owning a house or saving for retirement.
The Conservatives are talking to the 80% in the middle. Those who get up and go to work in the morning.
Of course. But now Brexit is over he is going to have to deliver the arbitrary "rocket fuel" which is a lot harder to "deliver" than Brexit because it's completely subjective.
The problem with promising everything to everyone is that you can't please everyone. That's why I don't think it's going to be plain sailing. When the conservatives are in power both locally and nationally and things don't improve, it's going to be a lot harder to blame Labour.
Of course they now have to deliver, but it’s a low bar to cross and the signs so far are positive.
But it isn't a low bar at all.
Labour 1997-2010 piled record sums into education, healthcare, infrastructure, and yet got zero thanks. That's just politics. It will never be enough.
And then at what point does the spending need to be reined in?
Labour 1997 saw spending as the end rather than the means, and an awful lot of it was on expensive fancy buildings mortgaged for the next 40 years.
The Conservative attitude is to provide free enterprise zones subject to tax breaks, with the brivate sector creating most of the jobs and public money limited to infrastructure.
And what if those "free enterprise zones" don't actually create good jobs?
In any case, the headline "job creation in the North" so far is public sector treasury jobs in Darlington.
Consensus among the trade geeks seems to be that freeports are pretty much a waste of time - they move jobs from other areas rather than creating new ones.
I'm not sure this is the zinger you think it is. The self-employed and small business owners are the bedrock of the new northern Conservative vote. They still think they're working class. What matters is getting "stuck in" to the graft.
Oh, absolutely. The backbone of our economy. I think it's hugely positive to have a LOTO with a background with an understanding of small business. I certainly don't want to get all class war. But if it's true, it's a jarringly different picture to the one I understood to be true - presumably because it was how Kier wanted to be portrayed, though I grant I don't think I've ever heard about his background from him personally.
The problem with it, is that the Tory Facebook campaign ads at the next election write themselves. Sir Keir likes you tell you he grew up in a factory worker’s house, but didn’t tell you his father owned the factory and sent him to the good school. What is he offering today’s working classes other than sneering contempt?
That isn't fatal. Boris Johnson is quite literally the elite. What is he offering today's working classes?
If Keir can sort the Labour Party out (unlikely, but still), his background is not going to be relevant.
He’s offering the working classes his ear, and investment in working-class areas that have been neglected for years.
Labour are talking to and about the bottom 10% and the top 10%.
The bottom 10% aren’t working, and the top 10% are at the top of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and like talking about Palestine and trans rights, because they’re not worried about owning a house or saving for retirement.
The Conservatives are talking to the 80% in the middle. Those who get up and go to work in the morning.
Of course. But now Brexit is over he is going to have to deliver the arbitrary "rocket fuel" which is a lot harder to "deliver" than Brexit because it's completely subjective.
The problem with promising everything to everyone is that you can't please everyone. That's why I don't think it's going to be plain sailing. When the conservatives are in power both locally and nationally and things don't improve, it's going to be a lot harder to blame Labour.
Of course they now have to deliver, but it’s a low bar to cross and the signs so far are positive.
But it isn't a low bar at all.
Labour 1997-2010 piled record sums into education, healthcare, infrastructure, and yet got zero thanks. That's just politics. It will never be enough.
And then at what point does the spending need to be reined in?
Labour 1997 saw spending as the end rather than the means, and an awful lot of it was on expensive fancy buildings mortgaged for the next 40 years.
The Conservative attitude is to provide free enterprise zones subject to tax breaks, with the brivate sector creating most of the jobs and public money limited to infrastructure.
And what if those "free enterprise zones" don't actually create good jobs?
In any case, the headline "job creation in the North" so far is public sector treasury jobs in Darlington.
Consensus among the trade geeks seems to be that freeports are pretty much a waste of time - they move jobs from other areas rather than creating new ones.
If those other areas are other countries it's not a waste.
I'm not sure this is the zinger you think it is. The self-employed and small business owners are the bedrock of the new northern Conservative vote. They still think they're working class. What matters is getting "stuck in" to the graft.
Oh, absolutely. The backbone of our economy. I think it's hugely positive to have a LOTO with a background with an understanding of small business. I certainly don't want to get all class war. But if it's true, it's a jarringly different picture to the one I understood to be true - presumably because it was how Kier wanted to be portrayed, though I grant I don't think I've ever heard about his background from him personally.
The problem with it, is that the Tory Facebook campaign ads at the next election write themselves. Sir Keir likes you tell you he grew up in a factory worker’s house, but didn’t tell you his father owned the factory and sent him to the good school. What is he offering today’s working classes other than sneering contempt?
That isn't fatal. Boris Johnson is quite literally the elite. What is he offering today's working classes?
If Keir can sort the Labour Party out (unlikely, but still), his background is not going to be relevant.
He’s offering the working classes his ear, and investment in working-class areas that have been neglected for years.
Labour are talking to and about the bottom 10% and the top 10%.
The bottom 10% aren’t working, and the top 10% are at the top of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and like talking about Palestine and trans rights, because they’re not worried about owning a house or saving for retirement.
The Conservatives are talking to the 80% in the middle. Those who get up and go to work in the morning.
Of course. But now Brexit is over he is going to have to deliver the arbitrary "rocket fuel" which is a lot harder to "deliver" than Brexit because it's completely subjective.
The problem with promising everything to everyone is that you can't please everyone. That's why I don't think it's going to be plain sailing. When the conservatives are in power both locally and nationally and things don't improve, it's going to be a lot harder to blame Labour.
Of course they now have to deliver, but it’s a low bar to cross and the signs so far are positive.
But it isn't a low bar at all.
Labour 1997-2010 piled record sums into education, healthcare, infrastructure, and yet got zero thanks. That's just politics. It will never be enough.
And then at what point does the spending need to be reined in?
Labour 1997 saw spending as the end rather than the means, and an awful lot of it was on expensive fancy buildings mortgaged for the next 40 years.
The Conservative attitude is to provide free enterprise zones subject to tax breaks, with the brivate sector creating most of the jobs and public money limited to infrastructure.
And what if those "free enterprise zones" don't actually create good jobs?
In any case, the headline "job creation in the North" so far is public sector treasury jobs in Darlington.
Consensus among the trade geeks seems to be that freeports are pretty much a waste of time - they move jobs from other areas rather than creating new ones.
Sounds like it will do exactly what the PM wants it to do then. Not necessarily the best policy choice for the county but, paired with a bit of state aid here and there, a good policy choice for retaining his new voters.
Looks pretty stupid to me. And surely quite a waste of money?
Welcome. I'm not so sure. They will be a nice addition to the tube experience. Although it is a bit gilding the lily as the original London Underground designs are timeless and design classics.
I haven't seen any other signs, if there are others, but that one just looks lazy by Hockney; like he really didn't care.
Opposition Leader Satisfied Dissatisfied Net satisfaction Date of poll % % % Thatcher 38 51 -13 Nov 1978 Foot 13 69 -56 Aug 1982 Kinnock 27 61 -34 Dec 1988 Smith 33 41 -8 May 1993 Blair 42 35 +7 Sep 1996 Hague 19 56 -37 Jan 2000 Duncan Smith 16 53 -37 Feb 2003 Howard 23 49 -26 Jun 2005 Cameron 23 45 -22 Sep 2007 Miliband 25 63 -38 Dec 2014 Corbyn 17 72 -55 Feb 2019 Either it's a blip, or Starmer's toast.
The only saving grace for Starmer is that the last 14 months the polls have been largely driven by the pandemic.
If this is the norm for the post pandemic phase then he's like a stepmom on Pornhub.
The only question is does the PLP have the desire to remove him?
I keep coming back to the question, that nobody's really answered - who would you replace him with?
Major Dan Jarvis.
Well quite. Personable, sane, doesn't keep banging on about Palestine. But does he want the job? All the signs I've seen are that he doesn't.
I've never heard Dan Jarvis speak, or what he really is like. All I know is that he was in the armed forces and that is why many think he could be good for Labour. The image of an ex squaddie might play well with the public. Other than that I don't know.
He's not strictly speaking a squaddie. He was an officer. BUT, and it's quite a big but, no one really thinks like that when you're talking about a Para or a Marine. He was the former. Pretty hard core.
I've a Labour friend from Barnsley who has been banging on about Jarvis for what feels like years and years.
How's Jarvis going to get past the membership vote though? Surely he will be viewed with suspicion by the bien pensants of N London and Middling University Labour club?
I just looked ta his Wiki page. he looks far too electable to be elected to Labour Leader. Absolutely no chance.
The next leader absolutely must be a woman apparently.
Hope you're not somebody who manages to ridicule Labour (i) for never having a woman leader and (ii) for thinking they have to pick a woman leader.
Because some people do manage that, would you believe.
Its entirely possible and consistent to ridicule Labour for both. The Tories have had a woman leader elected who was a tremendous success who was elected because of her own merits, not because she was a woman.
Labour should not pick a leader just because she's female, but equally true to say there ought to have been plenty of good quality female MPs who could have become leader down the years.
My dad said Labour missed a chance with Barbara Castle.
No disrespect to your dad, but no. IMO, she would have been as electorally attractive as J Corbyn, even though she was, unlike Corbyn, very bright. Shirley Williams was a different matter, except she felt the need to defect. She was highly intelligent and charismatic. She would have given Mrs T a run for her money.
Barbara Castle was very popular in the second half of the 1960s and a credible possible successor to Wilson had he met his demise at the time.
I'm not sure this is the zinger you think it is. The self-employed and small business owners are the bedrock of the new northern Conservative vote. They still think they're working class. What matters is getting "stuck in" to the graft.
Oh, absolutely. The backbone of our economy. I think it's hugely positive to have a LOTO with a background with an understanding of small business. I certainly don't want to get all class war. But if it's true, it's a jarringly different picture to the one I understood to be true - presumably because it was how Kier wanted to be portrayed, though I grant I don't think I've ever heard about his background from him personally.
The problem with it, is that the Tory Facebook campaign ads at the next election write themselves. Sir Keir likes you tell you he grew up in a factory worker’s house, but didn’t tell you his father owned the factory and sent him to the good school. What is he offering today’s working classes other than sneering contempt?
That isn't fatal. Boris Johnson is quite literally the elite. What is he offering today's working classes?
If Keir can sort the Labour Party out (unlikely, but still), his background is not going to be relevant.
He’s offering the working classes his ear, and investment in working-class areas that have been neglected for years.
Labour are talking to and about the bottom 10% and the top 10%.
The bottom 10% aren’t working, and the top 10% are at the top of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and like talking about Palestine and trans rights, because they’re not worried about owning a house or saving for retirement.
The Conservatives are talking to the 80% in the middle. Those who get up and go to work in the morning.
Of course. But now Brexit is over he is going to have to deliver the arbitrary "rocket fuel" which is a lot harder to "deliver" than Brexit because it's completely subjective.
The problem with promising everything to everyone is that you can't please everyone. That's why I don't think it's going to be plain sailing. When the conservatives are in power both locally and nationally and things don't improve, it's going to be a lot harder to blame Labour.
Of course they now have to deliver, but it’s a low bar to cross and the signs so far are positive.
But it isn't a low bar at all.
Labour 1997-2010 piled record sums into education, healthcare, infrastructure, and yet got zero thanks. That's just politics. It will never be enough.
And then at what point does the spending need to be reined in?
Labour 1997 saw spending as the end rather than the means, and an awful lot of it was on expensive fancy buildings mortgaged for the next 40 years.
The Conservative attitude is to provide free enterprise zones subject to tax breaks, with the brivate sector creating most of the jobs and public money limited to infrastructure.
And what if those "free enterprise zones" don't actually create good jobs?
In any case, the headline "job creation in the North" so far is public sector treasury jobs in Darlington.
Consensus among the trade geeks seems to be that freeports are pretty much a waste of time - they move jobs from other areas rather than creating new ones.
Sounds like it will do exactly what the PM wants it to do then. Not necessarily the best policy choice for the county but, paired with a bit of state aid here and there, a good policy choice for retaining his new voters.
He can even tell the voters that lose their jobs its the perils of globalisation whilst claiming credit in the places where the jobs shift to. And they will believe him.
"We pride ourselves on not shying away from sensitive issues that other local politicians prefer not to discuss."
"Promotion of a unifying shared British identity."
Sufficient provision for the essential needs of the populace, otherwise preserving individual liberty."
No Labour votes here. Plenty for the "Eng Nat" Cons.
What about the above is "Eng Nat"? The only nationality mentioned is British.
Yes, it could be written by Gordon "British jobs for British workers" Brown.
Not really.
"British jobs for British workers" is infinitely more xenophobic than anything written there.
"British jobs for British workers" versus "Promoting a Unifying British Identity".
Depends on intent and context. You can imagine both being said by the Far Right. And it's hard to imagine anyone but the Far Right pushing the 2nd one.
Are you are into the promotion of a "unifying national identity" btw?
What on earth is far right about wanting to unify rather than divide people? 🤔
I could imagine anyone pushing the second. A unifying national identity should include the best bits of your country - that is Tony Blair did with his flag waving "Cool Britannia".
What's the best of Britain that unifies us to you? Yes that's what politicians tend to put forwards in any mainstream party in any country around the globe. If you consider that "off" rather than "meaningless guff everyone should find agreeable" then I think your political antenna is a bit broken.
I was merely wondering if "promoting a unifying national identity" warmed your cockles. Seems it does. Doesn't do much for me, I must confess. But my cockles and yours are dissimilar, we know that. So no surprise there.
As to whether it's "off", this depends on what's meant by "identity".
And one has to get specific about it in order to tell. So, eg, if you wish a political party to promote a "Unifying English Identity" - which you do - what exactly does this mean to you?
Happy to defer any judgement until you flesh it out for me.
What does it mean to be united to be English? What does that mean to me?
A lot along the lines of stuff @Cyclefree has a tendency to put in her thread headers.
Equality before the law.
A free and fair judicial system.
A free and fair Parliamentary democracy.
That all people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, religion or anything else are free and equal.
Welcoming anyone who comes to make this country their home.
Generosity of spirit both at home and abroad. Giving aid to those who need it.
That anyone who gets sick in this country will be looked after.
Respecting the rights of others.
Treating each other with respect.
Settling our differences politely and democratically.
Accepting that we may not always win or get our way, with grace and generosity of spirit.
On a more fun level.
Complaining about the weather, then losing our minds and enjoying ourselves when its sunny.
Cheering on the Three Lions, only to see them eliminated by penalties.
The England Cricket Team and taking on the Aussies in The Ashes.
Wanting to beat the other Home Nations but coming together with them with Team GB.
And most importantly for all
A healthy respect that what it means to be united to be English might be different between different people.
That others may disagree with any or all of my list or have other priorities and be just as English.
Well @kinabalu you asked me what my interpretation of a Unifying English Identity is but then haven't responded.
To you what is a Unifying English Identity?
Or since you find the term offensive, are you against politicians unifying people instead of dividing them?
Or are you against the notion of identity?
Or is the idea of English or British you find offensive?
None of those things I suspect. I imagine he just finds your posts very boring, or finds your attempts to justify your adherence to the unpleasant creed of English nationalism obnoxious. Good to see you took my advice on the skull motif though. Best to not advertise your extremism when you are trying hard to cover it up
We are in fact making progress. Philip is about to offer up some distinctive policies he'd like to see implemented to "Promote A Unified English Identity". I'm genuinely looking forward to seeing what he comes up with. Or am I? Yes, let's say I am.
I never said I was in favour of specific policies to do so, I said it was motherhood and apple pie.
You responded with pages of arguments before deciding that it was all ... Motherhood and apple pie.
So we're agreed in full. Took a few pages but you ended up using my own words. You agree with me, I can rest comfortable with that.
Ok, so you are not in favour of any specific policies to actively promote a Unified English Identity.
Thank heaven for that.
I have a preference for the government encouraging non religious state schools - is that not promoting a unified national identity (not English, as I think the part of the country which would benefit most is N Ireland).
I'd go further than "preference" and "encouraging" with that. Great policy. Not sure if secular education = promotion of a National Identity though. I suppose it could do if that National Identity was described and taught. But you wouldn't want that, would you?
I am middle-class. I am probably not upper-middle class, but I am probably upper-middle middle class. So were both my parents.
And, you all know exactly what I mean by that.
Sorry, but us working class folk are oblivious to such distinctions.
The middle class is so big that it is necessarily full of gradations from lower-lower-middle to upper-upper-middle. I'd place myself at upper-middle-middle. Which itself is pretty big. I've become much more aware of class since I was a parent. I think class tended to pass me by beforehand. I don't think I judge people by it - I hope I don't - but I'd say I'm much more aware of it.
Sounds like we should just replace it by percentiles, with HMQ at 100. Id guess Im in the 74-77 range.
Yes - but this is class, with all its vagaries, rather than just wealth. I think I'm about 74-77 too. But probably I'm really about 95. I think we probably tend to underestimate the numbers of those who start from further down the scale, and assume we are more typical than we really are. 95 is in reality still only upper-middle-middle though! There really aren't that many upper middle class people.
"We pride ourselves on not shying away from sensitive issues that other local politicians prefer not to discuss."
"Promotion of a unifying shared British identity."
Sufficient provision for the essential needs of the populace, otherwise preserving individual liberty."
No Labour votes here. Plenty for the "Eng Nat" Cons.
What about the above is "Eng Nat"? The only nationality mentioned is British.
Yes, it could be written by Gordon "British jobs for British workers" Brown.
Not really.
"British jobs for British workers" is infinitely more xenophobic than anything written there.
"British jobs for British workers" versus "Promoting a Unifying British Identity".
Depends on intent and context. You can imagine both being said by the Far Right. And it's hard to imagine anyone but the Far Right pushing the 2nd one.
Are you are into the promotion of a "unifying national identity" btw?
What on earth is far right about wanting to unify rather than divide people? 🤔
I could imagine anyone pushing the second. A unifying national identity should include the best bits of your country - that is Tony Blair did with his flag waving "Cool Britannia".
What's the best of Britain that unifies us to you? Yes that's what politicians tend to put forwards in any mainstream party in any country around the globe. If you consider that "off" rather than "meaningless guff everyone should find agreeable" then I think your political antenna is a bit broken.
I was merely wondering if "promoting a unifying national identity" warmed your cockles. Seems it does. Doesn't do much for me, I must confess. But my cockles and yours are dissimilar, we know that. So no surprise there.
As to whether it's "off", this depends on what's meant by "identity".
And one has to get specific about it in order to tell. So, eg, if you wish a political party to promote a "Unifying English Identity" - which you do - what exactly does this mean to you?
Happy to defer any judgement until you flesh it out for me.
What does it mean to be united to be English? What does that mean to me?
A lot along the lines of stuff @Cyclefree has a tendency to put in her thread headers.
Equality before the law.
A free and fair judicial system.
A free and fair Parliamentary democracy.
That all people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, religion or anything else are free and equal.
Welcoming anyone who comes to make this country their home.
Generosity of spirit both at home and abroad. Giving aid to those who need it.
That anyone who gets sick in this country will be looked after.
Respecting the rights of others.
Treating each other with respect.
Settling our differences politely and democratically.
Accepting that we may not always win or get our way, with grace and generosity of spirit.
On a more fun level.
Complaining about the weather, then losing our minds and enjoying ourselves when its sunny.
Cheering on the Three Lions, only to see them eliminated by penalties.
The England Cricket Team and taking on the Aussies in The Ashes.
Wanting to beat the other Home Nations but coming together with them with Team GB.
And most importantly for all
A healthy respect that what it means to be united to be English might be different between different people.
That others may disagree with any or all of my list or have other priorities and be just as English.
Well @kinabalu you asked me what my interpretation of a Unifying English Identity is but then haven't responded.
To you what is a Unifying English Identity?
Or since you find the term offensive, are you against politicians unifying people instead of dividing them?
Or are you against the notion of identity?
Or is the idea of English or British you find offensive?
None of those things I suspect. I imagine he just finds your posts very boring, or finds your attempts to justify your adherence to the unpleasant creed of English nationalism obnoxious. Good to see you took my advice on the skull motif though. Best to not advertise your extremism when you are trying hard to cover it up
We are in fact making progress. Philip is about to offer up some distinctive policies he'd like to see implemented to "Promote A Unified English Identity". I'm genuinely looking forward to seeing what he comes up with. Or am I? Yes, let's say I am.
I never said I was in favour of specific policies to do so, I said it was motherhood and apple pie.
You responded with pages of arguments before deciding that it was all ... Motherhood and apple pie.
So we're agreed in full. Took a few pages but you ended up using my own words. You agree with me, I can rest comfortable with that.
Ok, so you are not in favour of any specific policies to actively promote a Unified English Identity.
Thank heaven for that.
Oh no, I am.
A lot along the lines of stuff Cyclefree has a tendency to put in her thread headers. - she has written many political suggestions I agree.
Equality before the law. - Policies to ensure this is protected. Many laws passed I support on this issue.
A free and fair judicial system. - Policies to ensure this is protected. Agree with Cyclefree the backlog on justice etc is a very bad thing and this needs sorting out.
A free and fair Parliamentary democracy. - Policies to ensure this is protected. Against changes in electoral system etc that could mess with this.
That all people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, religion or anything else are free and equal. - Again support policies to support this. Again supported laws for years on this.
Welcoming anyone who comes to make this country their home. - Support policies ensuring this. Against those who campaign to do otherwise.
Generosity of spirit both at home and abroad. Giving aid to those who need it. - A good example of this is charities like Children in Need etc, policies like Gift Aid to facilitate and support this.
That anyone who gets sick in this country will be looked after. - Is the NHS not a policy area for you? Seriously?
Etc etc etc
Why would you NOT want policies to support these issues and to unify people? Of course you SHOULD not Thank God you don't.
Beyond Britain's borders, think that the two things that most folks would most readily associate with England are parliamentary democracy and the rule of law.
Equality, generosity and warm welcoming are NOT. Certainly not compared to snobbery, cold shoulders and warm beer. As personified by Eliza Doolittle, Ebenezer Scrooge and "Have we been introduced?"
One positive qualilty you don't mention: dogged determination of the Bulldog Breed. As exemplified by Winston Churchill.
EDIT - Though of course you are focused on what the English can (or should) think of themselves NOT on how others see you.
Looks pretty stupid to me. And surely quite a waste of money?
It would look a whole lot less stupid if the "s" in Piccadilly Circus wasn't hanging off the edge stupidly looking stupid
The dropped S looks silly because of the big gap on the left before the word Piccadilly but the design looks slightly derivative. It's an old joke -- see the Citizen Smith titles -- and the overall style looks like one of those old children's cartoons that I can't quite place: Rhubarb & Custard maybe.
But I doubt it costs very much and if it makes people smile or think or visit London, that's fine. It's like Poems on the Underground (and buses?).
Opposition Leader Satisfied Dissatisfied Net satisfaction Date of poll % % % Thatcher 38 51 -13 Nov 1978 Foot 13 69 -56 Aug 1982 Kinnock 27 61 -34 Dec 1988 Smith 33 41 -8 May 1993 Blair 42 35 +7 Sep 1996 Hague 19 56 -37 Jan 2000 Duncan Smith 16 53 -37 Feb 2003 Howard 23 49 -26 Jun 2005 Cameron 23 45 -22 Sep 2007 Miliband 25 63 -38 Dec 2014 Corbyn 17 72 -55 Feb 2019 Either it's a blip, or Starmer's toast.
The only saving grace for Starmer is that the last 14 months the polls have been largely driven by the pandemic.
If this is the norm for the post pandemic phase then he's like a stepmom on Pornhub.
The only question is does the PLP have the desire to remove him?
I keep coming back to the question, that nobody's really answered - who would you replace him with?
Major Dan Jarvis.
Well quite. Personable, sane, doesn't keep banging on about Palestine. But does he want the job? All the signs I've seen are that he doesn't.
I've never heard Dan Jarvis speak, or what he really is like. All I know is that he was in the armed forces and that is why many think he could be good for Labour. The image of an ex squaddie might play well with the public. Other than that I don't know.
He's not strictly speaking a squaddie. He was an officer. BUT, and it's quite a big but, no one really thinks like that when you're talking about a Para or a Marine. He was the former. Pretty hard core.
I've a Labour friend from Barnsley who has been banging on about Jarvis for what feels like years and years.
How's Jarvis going to get past the membership vote though? Surely he will be viewed with suspicion by the bien pensants of N London and Middling University Labour club?
I just looked ta his Wiki page. he looks far too electable to be elected to Labour Leader. Absolutely no chance.
The next leader absolutely must be a woman apparently.
Hope you're not somebody who manages to ridicule Labour (i) for never having a woman leader and (ii) for thinking they have to pick a woman leader.
Because some people do manage that, would you believe.
Its entirely possible and consistent to ridicule Labour for both. The Tories have had a woman leader elected who was a tremendous success who was elected because of her own merits, not because she was a woman.
Labour should not pick a leader just because she's female, but equally true to say there ought to have been plenty of good quality female MPs who could have become leader down the years.
My dad said Labour missed a chance with Barbara Castle.
No disrespect to your dad, but no. IMO, she would have been as electorally attractive as J Corbyn, even though she was, unlike Corbyn, very bright. Shirley Williams was a different matter, except she felt the need to defect. She was highly intelligent and charismatic. She would have given Mrs T a run for her money.
Barbara Castle was very popular in the second half of the 1960s and a credible possible successor to Wilson had he met his demise at the time.
The first political comment I remember hearing was my Mam telling Dad "They should have had Red Barbara!"
I see Andy Burnham won in every single ward in all 10 boroughs of Greater Manchester, some of those wards are really not typical Labour heartlands by any stretch.
As reported this is all hot air. He is speaking of movement from outside the EU into an EU country - which is a national not an EU issue. He isn't talking about internal movement - which is an EU issue.
"We pride ourselves on not shying away from sensitive issues that other local politicians prefer not to discuss."
"Promotion of a unifying shared British identity."
Sufficient provision for the essential needs of the populace, otherwise preserving individual liberty."
No Labour votes here. Plenty for the "Eng Nat" Cons.
What about the above is "Eng Nat"? The only nationality mentioned is British.
Yes, it could be written by Gordon "British jobs for British workers" Brown.
Not really.
"British jobs for British workers" is infinitely more xenophobic than anything written there.
"British jobs for British workers" versus "Promoting a Unifying British Identity".
Depends on intent and context. You can imagine both being said by the Far Right. And it's hard to imagine anyone but the Far Right pushing the 2nd one.
Are you are into the promotion of a "unifying national identity" btw?
What on earth is far right about wanting to unify rather than divide people? 🤔
I could imagine anyone pushing the second. A unifying national identity should include the best bits of your country - that is Tony Blair did with his flag waving "Cool Britannia".
What's the best of Britain that unifies us to you? Yes that's what politicians tend to put forwards in any mainstream party in any country around the globe. If you consider that "off" rather than "meaningless guff everyone should find agreeable" then I think your political antenna is a bit broken.
I was merely wondering if "promoting a unifying national identity" warmed your cockles. Seems it does. Doesn't do much for me, I must confess. But my cockles and yours are dissimilar, we know that. So no surprise there.
As to whether it's "off", this depends on what's meant by "identity".
And one has to get specific about it in order to tell. So, eg, if you wish a political party to promote a "Unifying English Identity" - which you do - what exactly does this mean to you?
Happy to defer any judgement until you flesh it out for me.
What does it mean to be united to be English? What does that mean to me?
A lot along the lines of stuff @Cyclefree has a tendency to put in her thread headers.
Equality before the law.
A free and fair judicial system.
A free and fair Parliamentary democracy.
That all people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, religion or anything else are free and equal.
Welcoming anyone who comes to make this country their home.
Generosity of spirit both at home and abroad. Giving aid to those who need it.
That anyone who gets sick in this country will be looked after.
Respecting the rights of others.
Treating each other with respect.
Settling our differences politely and democratically.
Accepting that we may not always win or get our way, with grace and generosity of spirit.
On a more fun level.
Complaining about the weather, then losing our minds and enjoying ourselves when its sunny.
Cheering on the Three Lions, only to see them eliminated by penalties.
The England Cricket Team and taking on the Aussies in The Ashes.
Wanting to beat the other Home Nations but coming together with them with Team GB.
And most importantly for all
A healthy respect that what it means to be united to be English might be different between different people.
That others may disagree with any or all of my list or have other priorities and be just as English.
Well @kinabalu you asked me what my interpretation of a Unifying English Identity is but then haven't responded.
To you what is a Unifying English Identity?
Or since you find the term offensive, are you against politicians unifying people instead of dividing them?
Or are you against the notion of identity?
Or is the idea of English or British you find offensive?
None of those things I suspect. I imagine he just finds your posts very boring, or finds your attempts to justify your adherence to the unpleasant creed of English nationalism obnoxious. Good to see you took my advice on the skull motif though. Best to not advertise your extremism when you are trying hard to cover it up
We are in fact making progress. Philip is about to offer up some distinctive policies he'd like to see implemented to "Promote A Unified English Identity". I'm genuinely looking forward to seeing what he comes up with. Or am I? Yes, let's say I am.
I never said I was in favour of specific policies to do so, I said it was motherhood and apple pie.
You responded with pages of arguments before deciding that it was all ... Motherhood and apple pie.
So we're agreed in full. Took a few pages but you ended up using my own words. You agree with me, I can rest comfortable with that.
Ok, so you are not in favour of any specific policies to actively promote a Unified English Identity.
Thank heaven for that.
I have a preference for the government encouraging non religious state schools - is that not promoting a unified national identity (not English, as I think the part of the country which would benefit most is N Ireland).
I'd go further than "preference" and "encouraging" with that. Great policy. Not sure if secular education = promotion of a National Identity though. I suppose it could do if that National Identity was described and taught. But you wouldn't want that, would you?
It is clearly taught indirectly in schools. I see no need to teach it directly, but would certainly be against giving religious schools any more freedom to teach religious identity ahead of "UK norms", and comfortable with restricting the influence they already have. The goal of such policies is surely to help create a shared national identity?
I see Andy Burnham won in every single ward in all 10 boroughs of Greater Manchester, some of those wards are really not typical Labour heartlands by any stretch.
I heard that too. Is there a link anywhere? Some of them are true Blue Tory heartlands. Which probably have never voted Labour ever before.
A lot along the lines of stuff Cyclefree has a tendency to put in her thread headers. - she has written many political suggestions I agree.
Equality before the law. - Policies to ensure this is protected. Many laws passed I support on this issue.
A free and fair judicial system. - Policies to ensure this is protected. Agree with Cyclefree the backlog on justice etc is a very bad thing and this needs sorting out.
A free and fair Parliamentary democracy. - Policies to ensure this is protected. Against changes in electoral system etc that could mess with this.
That all people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, religion or anything else are free and equal. - Again support policies to support this. Again supported laws for years on this.
Welcoming anyone who comes to make this country their home. - Support policies ensuring this. Against those who campaign to do otherwise.
Generosity of spirit both at home and abroad. Giving aid to those who need it. - A good example of this is charities like Children in Need etc, policies like Gift Aid to facilitate and support this.
That anyone who gets sick in this country will be looked after. - Is the NHS not a policy area for you? Seriously?
Etc etc etc
Why would you NOT want policies to support these issues and to unify people? Of course you SHOULD not Thank God you don't.
I agree with all of those, and would gladly help you in any campaign for them. They don't strike me as uniquely English or British - arguably Denmark, of the countries that I know well, epitomises them more completely. As a programme for a Britain that we can all feel comfortable in, though, that's excellent.
Opposition Leader Satisfied Dissatisfied Net satisfaction Date of poll % % % Thatcher 38 51 -13 Nov 1978 Foot 13 69 -56 Aug 1982 Kinnock 27 61 -34 Dec 1988 Smith 33 41 -8 May 1993 Blair 42 35 +7 Sep 1996 Hague 19 56 -37 Jan 2000 Duncan Smith 16 53 -37 Feb 2003 Howard 23 49 -26 Jun 2005 Cameron 23 45 -22 Sep 2007 Miliband 25 63 -38 Dec 2014 Corbyn 17 72 -55 Feb 2019 Either it's a blip, or Starmer's toast.
The only saving grace for Starmer is that the last 14 months the polls have been largely driven by the pandemic.
If this is the norm for the post pandemic phase then he's like a stepmom on Pornhub.
The only question is does the PLP have the desire to remove him?
I keep coming back to the question, that nobody's really answered - who would you replace him with?
Major Dan Jarvis.
Well quite. Personable, sane, doesn't keep banging on about Palestine. But does he want the job? All the signs I've seen are that he doesn't.
I've never heard Dan Jarvis speak, or what he really is like. All I know is that he was in the armed forces and that is why many think he could be good for Labour. The image of an ex squaddie might play well with the public. Other than that I don't know.
He's not strictly speaking a squaddie. He was an officer. BUT, and it's quite a big but, no one really thinks like that when you're talking about a Para or a Marine. He was the former. Pretty hard core.
I've a Labour friend from Barnsley who has been banging on about Jarvis for what feels like years and years.
How's Jarvis going to get past the membership vote though? Surely he will be viewed with suspicion by the bien pensants of N London and Middling University Labour club?
I just looked ta his Wiki page. he looks far too electable to be elected to Labour Leader. Absolutely no chance.
The next leader absolutely must be a woman apparently.
Hope you're not somebody who manages to ridicule Labour (i) for never having a woman leader and (ii) for thinking they have to pick a woman leader.
Because some people do manage that, would you believe.
Its entirely possible and consistent to ridicule Labour for both. The Tories have had a woman leader elected who was a tremendous success who was elected because of her own merits, not because she was a woman.
Labour should not pick a leader just because she's female, but equally true to say there ought to have been plenty of good quality female MPs who could have become leader down the years.
My dad said Labour missed a chance with Barbara Castle.
No disrespect to your dad, but no. IMO, she would have been as electorally attractive as J Corbyn, even though she was, unlike Corbyn, very bright. Shirley Williams was a different matter, except she felt the need to defect. She was highly intelligent and charismatic. She would have given Mrs T a run for her money.
Barbara Castle was very popular in the second half of the 1960s and a credible possible successor to Wilson had he met his demise at the time.
The first political comment I remember hearing was my Mam telling Dad "They should have had Red Barbara!"
Was this before or after "In Place of Strife"?
Which was quite controversial politically within the Labour Party, and rather dented Barbara Castle's career? Even if it was (or may well have been) the right . . . err . . . correct way to go?
Comments
The best way to stop some snobby twat looking down on you is to realise you are probably equal or better in many ways, and if it is within your capability a bit of biting sarcastic wit to put them in their place. As Eleanor Roosevelt is said to have said: "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."
1) Post information that allowed some of the complainants to be identified?
2) In a sexual assault/attempted rape cases?
That's a bit of a no no in England & Wales.
Before then most big firms were Russell Group (although they didn't always admit it).
You responded with pages of arguments before deciding that it was all ... Motherhood and apple pie.
So we're agreed in full. Took a few pages but you ended up using my own words. You agree with me, I can rest comfortable with that.
It's a menu, and we'll all pick different things from it.
I could certainly give you my list, but that would be to invite disagreement as it would suggest that unless others agreed with it all they weren't "English".
And what's good for Rother Valley is good for Broxbourne.
However, I think Sherelle's analysis (I don't want to come over as some sort of Sherelle Jacobs fanboi here - well - maybe a bit) is based on seats a bit further down the prosperity scale - the West Bromwiches of this world. Even here, there are lots of people who aren't necessarily very well paid or affluent, but are in private sector employment and don't really see what the state can do for them, apart from take less from them and inflict fewer rules.
And as I said then just because others did it (and didn't get caught) doesn't justify you doing it.
I am to the Right of Philip on social and cultural issues, and I disagree with him on a number of them, but I don't attract your ire.
Neither of us are extreme.
It seems like a no brainer.
Irony eats itself.
But I like your new game plan. Let's see if you can improve it.
https://twitter.com/BondHack
I think it's fair to say that he views Greensill's "innovation" in the same way as the Great Train Robbers had innovative ideas on the ownership of bank notes...
Few weeks ago they let their CFO go - good riddance to bad garbage!
And, you all know exactly what I mean by that.
What's the U word mean there, do we think?
And we do have a culture here - it's just we can't see it very well, although it's more noticeable when you go aboard.
Foreigners do far better. The best book is Watching the English: the hidden rules of English behaviour by Kate Fox.
We certainly have had several posters like that on here, most of which are no longer with us.
He's not one of them.
Hartlepool is eye-catching but freakish. The Conservatives did very well there, but with all due respect, so did H'Angus the monkey in the recent past. It's hard to see a way back there for Labour, or other ultra Brexit places. But there aren't that many seats like that.
Batley and Spen is a bit different. Less Brexity, a bit younger, more working people. Labour really need to do better there.
That's real pressure, Cookie. I now have to go away and write something incredibly nice about YOU.
Dawkins was the English POW on "Hogan's Heroes" and later the first (I think) emcee for the "Family Feud" game show which is still going strong on this side of the Atlantic (and Pacific).
More Americans have heard of THIS guy than any British Prime Minister with exceptions of Winston Churchill, Tony Blair and (maybe) the Duke of Wellington.
"A pound spent in Croydon is of FAR more value to the country, from a strict utilitarian calculus, than a pound spent in Strathclyde"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N2AlpxRY9c
Happy days!
Thank heaven for that.
Take my list of what a Unified English Identity is to me, after Kinabalu asked, and then go to Xinjiang, China. See how much of the list applies there. Or go to Hong Kong and see how much of the list used to apply there, versus how much still does now. 😕
What we have is something precious to keep. Not be taken for granted.
Looking at the track list, that album is a corker - no filler. Young Weller was a genius at social commentary I think - “Saturdays Kids” describes what I think of as Leave voters to a tee
If you think about what "active promotion" means there, in conjunction with "Unified", can you not see how that is best avoided?
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10216435669019381&id=1086043551
FWIW - OGH, I think, is still a member of the NUJ.
He does this because as a working class lad made good (very good) and now moved away from his roots, he is confused about what he is supposed to think about these things. He feels he should condemn anyone who even mentions nationality and being British but has no views himself on them.
And hence when he bumps into someone like you, someone he believes he is far more successful and intelligent than, but someone who is far more confident in their own opinions on such to him delicate and taboo subjects, he has literally no answer.
As you are finding out.
Either under their clothes OR as their entire walking-around outfit.
https://twitter.com/MayorofLondon/status/1392134314939371527/photo/2
Looks pretty stupid to me. And surely quite a waste of money?
- A lot along the lines of stuff Cyclefree has a tendency to put in her thread headers. - she has written many political suggestions I agree.
- Equality before the law. - Policies to ensure this is protected. Many laws passed I support on this issue.
- A free and fair judicial system. - Policies to ensure this is protected. Agree with Cyclefree the backlog on justice etc is a very bad thing and this needs sorting out.
- A free and fair Parliamentary democracy. - Policies to ensure this is protected. Against changes in electoral system etc that could mess with this.
- That all people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, religion or anything else are free and equal. - Again support policies to support this. Again supported laws for years on this.
- Welcoming anyone who comes to make this country their home. - Support policies ensuring this. Against those who campaign to do otherwise.
- Generosity of spirit both at home and abroad. Giving aid to those who need it. - A good example of this is charities like Children in Need etc, policies like Gift Aid to facilitate and support this.
- That anyone who gets sick in this country will be looked after. - Is the NHS not a policy area for you? Seriously?
Etc etc etcWhy would you NOT want policies to support these issues and to unify people? Of course you SHOULD not Thank God you don't.
The problem with Blyth is that it's an infrastructure project and I don't see where the actual technical brains are that know how to build the batteries.
I'd place myself at upper-middle-middle. Which itself is pretty big.
I've become much more aware of class since I was a parent. I think class tended to pass me by beforehand. I don't think I judge people by it - I hope I don't - but I'd say I'm much more aware of it.
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/culture/bazaar-art/a36299730/david-hockney-public-installation/
I am probably the only person who thinks “this is the modern world” is their best album
If you arrive at the polling station without ID, then they take a photo of you with an instant camera, and you sign the back of it attesting to who you are.
If there is any question later that someone might have voted twice, well, there's a photo of the person who did it. Most criminals aren't keen on having their photos taken in the commission of an act of crime.
"This is a great business, but I fly EasyJet".
Greensill let investors* in his funds "borrow" their private jet. That's corruption.
* As in fund managers. As in custodians of other peoples' money. As in they were evaluating investing in Greensill based on inducements, not fundamentals.
If you are a Tory it is worrying because you don't want to lose the Hartlepools - it is a big chunk of the new 'battleground' so beloved of Jeremy Vine on election night. If you are Labour it is a sign that you really might be finished as a party of one party government and will be unless you sort it out.
The worry for the Tories is losing Chesham - which I would place as a higher chance than the markets. It would be a sure indicator that Lab + LD is a real prospect for the next election and would galvanise some action.
Close-at-home imperialism is also a key reason (I think) why English nationalism is almost exclusively of the political right, whereas Irish, Scots & Welsh nationalism can be either right or left.
There are always exceptions to the conservative or (frequently but not PhilipT) rightwing tendency of English nationalism. William Blake & George Orwell being perhaps the most notable, which is why methinks many conservative-minded English people think they are fellow conservatives. But Blake & Orwell are exceptions to the general rule.
I think it starts with identifying with the land, and sense of place, together with the people that live there.
https://kirkleescousins.co.uk/shoddy-and-mungo/
Politico.com - Poll: Opposition to Newsom recall grows and Jenner fails to break through
Nearly half of poll respondents oppose the recall, compared to 36 percent who support it.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/11/gavin-newsom-recall-opposition-grows-486973
A growing number of Californians oppose the forthcoming recall of Gavin Newsom, according to a survey released Tuesday morning, a boost for the sitting governor who has suffered a series of political blows over the past year.
Roughly 49 percent said they were against removing Newsom, a tick higher than the 45 percent who responded similarly in January.
The poll found that only 36 percent of the registered voters queried supported recalling Newsom, virtually unchanged from the prior survey. Both were conducted by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times.
The poll surveyed 10,289 people between April 29 and May 5 with a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.
Opposition to the recall has grown as Newsom recovers politically somewhat and as Democrats begin to take more seriously the first gubernatorial recall since 2003 when former Gov. Gray Davis was removed in favor of Arnold Schwarzenegger. . . .
Slightly more than half — 52 percent — of respondents approved of Newsom’s job performance, a modest increase from January though appreciably below his high-water mark from last year.
The poll also shows little voter interest for Republican Caitlyn Jenner’s candidacy at this point. Just 6 percent of respondents said they supported the idea of the former Olympic gold medalist-turned-reality star replacing Newsom. . . .
NOTE - Here is link to the polling
I consider it the people who choose to live here that make the country. I view the country as a living evolving nation that evolves with the people that live here. As immigrants arrive they rub off and influence the country just as much as the country influences them, and we are better off for it.
But others disagree. As I finished my list with, it includes respecting the fact others have different opinions. I understand and respect your opinion, even though I don't share it. I hope for most people the feeling can be mutual.
@MartinDaubney
This is an astonishing U-turn on open borders by EU's
@MichelBarnier
* End EU immigration for 3-5 yrs: it's "not working"
* EU borders like "a sieve"
* Links between immigration and “terrorist networks"
He's gone full "taking back control""
https://twitter.com/MartinDaubney/status/1392063057854189570
Playing up the hill at Mount Pleasant on Boxing Day is well, not pleasant.
I think I'm about 74-77 too. But probably I'm really about 95. I think we probably tend to underestimate the numbers of those who start from further down the scale, and assume we are more typical than we really are.
95 is in reality still only upper-middle-middle though! There really aren't that many upper middle class people.
Equality, generosity and warm welcoming are NOT. Certainly not compared to snobbery, cold shoulders and warm beer. As personified by Eliza Doolittle, Ebenezer Scrooge and "Have we been introduced?"
One positive qualilty you don't mention: dogged determination of the Bulldog Breed. As exemplified by Winston Churchill.
EDIT - Though of course you are focused on what the English can (or should) think of themselves NOT on how others see you.
But I doubt it costs very much and if it makes people smile or think or visit London, that's fine. It's like Poems on the Underground (and buses?).
Some of them are true Blue Tory heartlands. Which probably have never voted Labour ever before.
Which was quite controversial politically within the Labour Party, and rather dented Barbara Castle's career? Even if it was (or may well have been) the right . . . err . . . correct way to go?