ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ

No. The tradition to me is better;-) sometimes than the novalties.

I am against Britain having a monarchy but I have been increasingly impressed by the actions of Prince Charles as an individual.

To have a multi-faith coronation would merely be a recognition of the changing makeup of Britain's population and would be a brilliant statement of solidarity as a people. It makes a change from the inconsequential gestures normally seen from such politically correct buffoons as the Refugee Council (multi-cultural events with free buffet, funded by the British tax payer be they Muslim, Christian or Jew).

I welcome Charles' approach, he is a breath of fresh air.

Dear Newsnight

Question for tonight?

Would it be possible to ask tonight whether the mileage allowance to MPs form part of their expenses, how much it is now (I thought it was quite high compared to others) and whether there are guidelines or good practice for using public transport where practical(like many of us do) to travel to their constituencies which might be cheaper for the public in terms of expenses, less polluting and give them an insight into the state of public transport, as well as setting an example for the rest of us which is what I thought leadership was about

best wishes
Bob Goodall

King of the future! A saviour king who has proved himself to be the best defender of its faith...

We as a nation should define what it takes to be a king and queen and select them by article of that creed bestowed by the nation for the future of the nation...

A saviour king who has proved himself to be the best defender of the faith, the most dedicated, the most considerate, the greatest morale raiser, with the healthiest way of getting on, the most loyal, the best connected, and the most beautiful like her majesty

The most devoted to glory, the greatest createur of wealth, the most natural, most representative and understanding, the best with his words leadership and grammars, he praises the potential of all man, and safeguards the nature of family ease and welcome...

The most expressive of soul, the most exploratious of tastes, the most travelled in the kingdom, and the most trustable in trade, the most lawful, the best divine, the easiest to follow and the most eager to lead...

A man who can beat death and restore health, fight from the bottom and turn the future back to us to beat their leaders their deceits and their gods...

The unconquerable the indefatigable the inspiring.the most loving the most eternal....king and queen of the future

We as a nation should define what it takes to be a king and queen and select them by article of that creed bestowed by the nation for the future of the nation...

Look how they have failed... Charles is only so far a good duke..and only so worthy for that title!!

But the ambition is a great one for us all and lives in the heart of every man in britain and the world!!!

We are transcended by prosperity.. but we must safeguard the realities of the future.. and lead the world back to romance opportunity freedom and trade and ease of association to defeat the misrule of the people!!

What has Charles not written and what has he not done to achieve this??

Benedict of St George

Adonis is a spineless coward who would not answer the questions asked by the Newsnight presenter about whether he would agree to send his daughter to a Muslin faith school if she had to wear a head scarf. There would be absolute uproar if a Muslim girl at a Catholic school was forced to wear a crucifix!

There should be NO faith schools anywhere - and furthermore - no religion allowed anywhere. Religion and its ludicrous out-dated beliefs cause more upheaval, violence and hatred than anything else.

Ban religious schools. Ban religion. Global. We may then achieve peace.

i have been watching tonights programme and the news lately they keep going on about integration of different religions. that will only happen when we stop giving in to other faiths and they realise that this is a church of england country. political correctness has gone too far what happened to father xmas last year.

I am very concerned that the panel seems to think the problem with social and cultural separation will be solved through legislation forcing children (our most vunerable group of society) to join a school which is different to their culture is not going to create cohesion or better understanding. It will foster greater separation. Imagine being the minority child in a school of another faith! It is a receipe for bullying.

What is needed instead is multi cultural education for all parts of society, not just the children, the adults too, perhaps even more so. Why don't we all have to study the British model of a multicultural society? an exam where you have to show you have learn't about all religions & cultures. Perhaps the motivation for this might be a tax reduction?

Has made racism illegal in this country or american stopped racism? NO. Leglisation is not the answer, education is.

Well played Newsnight. It was good to see a discussion of the rightness or wrongness of placing religion at the heart of the English constitution rather than mere coverage and challenging of this lamentable change in policy.
In my opinion it's frankly ridiculous to place such superstitious nonsense anywhere near the heart of the State or indeed within schools. Let children assess the arguments about the existence of a god and let them make their own choice. As for having an established church, it's a farce which needs to change.
I'm not for banning religion like Jono, rather I believe in a market of hypotheses where the accurate ones survive and the bad ones don't. Then again, that's probably a bit darwinian for those who think they have a friend sat upstairs, directing our daily lives.

I completely disagree with the comments that Janet Street Porter made regarding outsiders working in this country.

I, along with my husband believe that if you are well enough to work, then you should do so, in order to contribute to the country in which you live.

It is all to easy these days to come to this country and claim all manner of benefits for doing absolutely nothing.

I appreciate that there are genuine cases, but feel that the screening process should be much more vigorous.

I assuming that all the reaction is coming in from television viewers since those of us overseas who rely on the internet were greeted with the 'General Error' message. As usual, the 'More Information' link leads nowhere and as for the 'More information is available at RealNetworks Customer Support Website' - oh no it isn't - it never is.
Keep the blog open. Some of us won't get to see the show until tomorrow.

A man should see the world with his pupils not his disciples!!

we are all talking about prince charlie i say that if anyone wants to come into britian to live they sould respect our customs and our ways (as we do them) how ever complex they may be, in scotland we are tring to intergrate the two religions in schools which is working very well where i live. if anybody dissagrees with our culture and ways they should not live here as i would not move to a country that i do not agree with their customs and ways (religious).

Mr Adonis continued the disgraceful tradition of Government Ministers willing to endure any humiliation by trying to dodge the question as long as they can hang onto their taxpayers-paid salary. Clearly the only qualification for high office in New Labour, as with the last administration, is complete absence of shame, accompanied by thirst for celebrity. What a sad business is the decline and fall of British culture.

Your panel tonight spoke about Prince Charles as being Defender of the Faith. From my recollection of history as taught in schools some 40 years ago, the title Defender of the Faith was a title given by the then Pope to Henry VIII. Hery VIII then went on to start a new faith of which he became the leader. Therefore when the monarch claims to be the Defender of the Faith they are actually the Defender of the Roman Catholic Faith in England. With this in mind obviously British Monarchs defend two branches of Christianity with their vows at coronation.

I personally think that all faiths in Great Britain should be defended by the government and it would be a waste of taxpayers money to have even one more coronation

Frrustraating,

On Iraq, when are the international community going to accept responsibility for their inaction?

After all, why defend the rights of Kurds, women, homosexuals, those of non-religious persuation ; or those who believe in: religious tolerance, freedom of speech, democracy, sexual freedom, freedom of political discourse, the right to legal representation, the right to religious or political protest or debate, (all of whom have been tortured and/or killed under an Iraqi regime) when you can attack Blair and Bush?

Take the easy option why you don’t.

Duped by the propaganda you so much despise.

Shame on you.

I think a couple of these comments are actually about Question Time.

Good news - finally got to watch Newsnight.

Religious education if given at all should be the study of comparitive religion which gives students an opportunity to choose between faiths or indeed none. Faith schools represent an obvious obstacle to such an approach and inevitably channel faith teaching in a single direction. I cannot see that the French model of banning all religious dress and iconography is especially helpful but I do see passing on of religious believe down the generations is a function of the family and not of the education system, which should be secular.

Disestablishment of the C of E. Yes of course there should be. It is nonsense for the head of state of a multi-faith country to be nominal head of any one church and what on earth gives the (literally?) God given right of the Lords Spiritual to sit in the legislature is quite beyond me. Bit of the diplomatic editor's normal beat isn't it?

Rendition - totally monstrous. Any right minded person would want the perpetrators and their political masters to be dragged off to the International Criminal Court, which is of course why the USA refuses to participate in the international judicial process.

Either David Loyn's reporting was honest jounalism seen from another pespective, or it was 'obscene' (Liam Fox) and 'blatant propagada' (Julian Lewis) - it can't be both. Personally, I am with Loyn and the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ but Fox (trust me, I am a doctor) and Lewis (trust me, I am another doctor) seem to share a diagnosis. Doctors of what, by the way?

Missed the papers. Was not going to sit through a rock music item. Save in for Review, Kirsty!

Time to separate the church and the state?
Is the Pope a Catholic?

More seriously, I was astounded to hear the representative from the Muslim school association describe the headscarf requirement at the faith segregated school in Leicester (for that is what it is, isn’t it?) as a non-issue due to the β€˜fact’ that the headscarf is not a religious item but a simply a part of a uniform. This was echoing Lord Adonis’ own clear discomfort and non-answer earlier in the programme.

What utter nonsense.

It beggars belief that he attempted to explain away the headscarf as of no more importance than a straw boater or a school cap. These religionists demonstrate again and again why it is essential that they not by let anywhere near the education of our children.

FAITH SCHOOLS:

"About a third of state schools in the UK are faith schools, 600 secondary and 6,400 primary. The vast majority are Christian, with 36 Jewish, seven Muslim and two Sikh schools" [1]

Christian - Catholic
Christian - Church of England
Jewish -
Sikh -
Muslims -

CHRISTIAN - FAITH SCHOOLS:

Now I will stand corrected, but ref Christian schools, not aware that bulk spend undue amount of week day school hours engaged in religious instruction.

I attended a Catholic school (1/5 staff nuns) 1 session of RE a week (45-60 mins max), morning prayers at assembly (1-3 mins), a hymn (3-5 mins) & the occasional mass.

MUSLIM - FAITH SCHOOLS:

Now compare this to a well known British Muslim school - The Institute of Islamic Education, Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, a Tablighi Jamaat institution [2a]

This might be familiar 'school' to some, the veil wearing assistant teacher Aishah Azmi father of Dewsbury father runs it [2b] a Tablighi Jamaat institution - see ofstead report [2c]

Tablighi Jamaat, the secretive Sunni Muslim sect, may be also familiar as the Dewsbury based organisation trying to get permission to build 40-100,000 seater Mega Mosque next to the 2012 Olympics stadium. [2d] [2e]

"The Institute of Islamic Education (Jaamia Talimul Islam) is a well-established darul uloom (Islamic seminary) situated close to the centre of Dewsbury, West Yorkshire. The purpose-built Institute is in the grounds of, and closely connected to the Markazi mosque. It provides full-time education for boys between the ages of 12 and 16 years in Islamic studies. These are taught in the mornings and known as the `madrasah', and some National Curriculum subjects are taught in the afternoon, called the `school'. The aim of the Institute is to train Imams and, or ustaads (Islamic studies teachers) and scholars in order to benefit the communities to which they return. Most students stay on after the age of 16 years to complete the alim (Islamic Studies) course and the hifz course (memorisation of the Qur'an), graduating after seven to nine years. Some graduates return to teach public service…" [2c]

Some relevant stats ref British Muslim communities:
- Number of Muslim Schools 7 Muslim schools in the state sector [1])
- Number of Muslim Schools 100+ private schools [3a]
- Number of Mosques 584 (1999) [3b]
- other useful stats [3b]

Q. how many mosques are associated to schools (like most Christian schools associated to a church)?

Reason I ask, since there are more mosques than Muslims schools, this would seem to indicate more variety (moderate, radical, fringe, fundamentalists, extremist) from which can influence their schools.

"The head of the Ofsted English education inspectorate, David Bell, upset Muslim groups in particular when he criticised some Muslim schools earlier this year for failing to do enough to promote tolerance and harmony between different cultural traditions" [4]

SUMMARY:

Does this imported 'madrasah' type of education [5] with a majority of teaching focused on religion & a lesser amount on National Curriculum, arm the 105+ boys currently studying for a life in main stream society or predetermined life within a cultural enclave based on interpretation of a non indigenous religion *

* all for the next generation of British Muslim clerics to be home trained (rather than the majority coming into the UK armed with foreign interpretation of their religion & little/no English) but it does matter what interpretation of their faith, in what language & how much integration they have with wider society, that will have large influence on their ability to do an effective job outside of any Muslim community/s

I can make the distinction between a Christian seminary or similar [6a] [6b] open to young adults (able to make a free decision) & Muslims 'madrasah' indoctrination of young boys, with little or no free choice for those placed there.

The choice ref state education should not be faith or no faith schools.

Rather it should be does the school do a good job, those that don't get reviewed/helped then if necessary closed.

Reality is faith schools can deliver results [7] & many are oversubscribed, can the same be said for secular ones?

Q. anyone got stats ref truancy, examine results, offending/anti social stats amongst young people depending on whether they attended a faith or non faith school?

Given current cultural impasse, it may be that more Muslim schools get reviewed & therefore closed because they have the most problems in respect to what should be taught & what should be the aim & ethos of such institutions in respect of positively influencing their pupils ref local & national social cohesion, shared cultural norms & values.

That is not personal .. its practical.

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1]
[2a]
[2b]
[2c]
[2d]
[2e]
[3a]
[3b]
[4]
[5]
[6a]
[6b]
[7]

Am I the only one who is getting increasingly annoyed at the special attention paid to faith and religion in society? Why should Charles' coronation give any consideration to any religion, let alone all religion? What about all those hundreds and thousands of subjects who contribute to the financial, commercial and political success of this country and who do not have a faith, because they are rational and refuse to live their life by supersticion and ritual. If the ceremony will take in religion, why not sport? why shouldnt Charles swear to rule in the interest of all Man Utd fans, gunners, magpies etc. why? because sport is completely irrelevant to politics, and religion should be too. If people want to follow a religion, thats fine, but it should be a completely private matter, and something which should be completely seperate from the state.

RE Faith schools in general, JPseudonym #20 in particular

"Kirsty Wark just doesn't get it about faith schools. She appears to think that abolishing faith schools will bring communities together. Maybe she should go to Bradford to see how segregation works in practice."[#20]

The point about abolishing faith schools is not that it would bring communities together but that it may slow down, stop or even reverse an increasing trend for them to grow apart. Faith schools enhance the latter. Integration is not helped by faith schools, it is hindered. That integration may not be happening in the first place is another point altogether and not one that will be addressed by debating faith schools.

I grew up in a school (abroad) where one hour of religious education a week was compulsory but the school itself was not linked to any particular faith: those who, or whose parents, preferred a religious education went to their respective Catholic, Protestant, Anglican, Muslim, and Greek/Russian Orthodox classes (I may have forgotten others), and those of no particular affiliation took classes entitled, vaguely, as 'Ethics'.

Once you have a school that is specifically linked to a particular faith you either preclude the ability of individuals who do not wish to partake in that faith to be allowed to express their views freely or you grant exemptions for the non- or alternative-believers in which case you might as well have no particular affiliation for the school as a whole.

7 & 16 Thats the way to do it !

vikingar are you employed by newsnight? cus I think they should give you a job.

I watched the programme with great interest last night and have just one thing to say. That is that whether or not Church and State should work together is clearly commented on by Jesus in the Bible for those who wish to check for themselves. Believers should be 'no part of the World' as Jesus was 'no part of the World'. The main reason Jesus was executed was because he would not play the political pawn for the religious leaders of the day. He stated his kingdom was 'no part of the world' and when the people tried to make him a king (for their own reasons) he refused. Religion (as most people think of it - especially the major faiths) has ridden the back of the political system throughout history for their own ends and continues to create havoc and cause warfare. This situation will be brought to it's end by God himself (as prophesied in the book of Revelation - "Babylon the Great" is false religion, the "Wild Beast" being the world's political powers) and the process is already underway!

The case against faith schools is not nearly as clear-cut as many secularists (especially those of the fundamentalist Dawkinsite tendency) believe. In my opinion, people are entitled to want their children educated within an ethos of which they approve (provided that ethos isn't damaging to others or to society as a whole). It is better that their wishes are met within the state system, where the nature of the education being offered is more available for public scrutiny.

The argument that faith schools are likely to produce citizens less than fitted for a modern secular society is flawed. I was educated in the 1960s by a Catholic teaching order, the De La Salle Brothers. On the whole (along with Catholic lay teachers) they provided a liberal, humane and disciplined educational environment for their charges.

I see little difference between the intellectual and moral education that I presume most faith schools aim for and what should be the ambition of every non-faith school, except that the former seek to underpin their practices by reference to Divine ordinance. I may be wrong, but my feeling is that faith schools (and in particular Muslim schools) are less likely to share what seems to be fast becoming the established view of education: the efficient turning out of information-saturated (but often under-educated), super-competitive economic units.

Richard Dawkins may be an inspirational proselytizer for the wonders of biology, but his obsession with God's non-existence is leading him and his disciples up a blind alley. In the realms of public discourse and political choice, the real lines of battle are not those that separate religious believers from non-believers, but those that separate believers in what I would simplify for the moment as social democratic (or even socialist) values and practices and those who oppose them.

Most of whatever progress we've made as political and social beings in this country has been inspired by the ways in which countless generations of our forbears interpreted the New Testament. For Dawkins to think of patronizing the heirs to this tradition for their deludedness, instead of seeing them as potential allies in the never-ending fight for a decent society is regrettable, to say the least. If he and others (such as the otherwise excellent Polly Toynbee) were to dismount from their anti-theological high horses for a while, they would have a better chance of understanding the connection between the cultural meanings of the religious revivals (particularly Islamic and evangelical Christian) they so deprecate and what many believers (especially among the idealistic young) have come to regard as liberal secularism's bastard offspring: selfish individualism and vacuous consumerism.

Re: The Good the Bad & the Queen

Yesssssssssss!!! That's it then. The Tooth Fairy's put the money on 'Stewball' - the plaque reads: "From the Stable of Good Ole Joan".

If you want a religion, by all means have one. If you want your children to share your religion, by all means try to convince them - by reasoning with them, and without the element of fear or punishment - it's the right one. But the only religion that should have place in schools is that which is taught objectively, a careful and sensitive explanation of the tenets and associated behaviour rules of each generally-recognized religion in the world today - plus the same for the agnostic and atheist positions. Schools should not be mis-treated by being turned into propaganda-shops

Taliban: Media have to show all sides of a conflict - however difficult and dangerous. Everything should be put in context - but no censorship.

Religion: Children, indeed all citizens, should be taught what is right and what is wrong, what is acceptable and what is not. Traditionally it was the role of religion to provide this kind of points of reference. Our society, thanks God, is moving away from bigotry - and we should resist by attempts to push us back in the dark ages - whatever the religion involved.

Charles: British pageantry is great, don't change it. A multifaith service would be ridiculous - and I am neither British, or a protestant.

In common with many of those who have commented above, I am concerned at the way that more faith-based schools seem to be springing up in Britain, some via the backdoor of privately-sponsored Academies such as Emmanuel College in Gateshead.
By all means teach comparitive religion - it is a part of all our heritages - but don't indoctrinate, and make it clear that having no faith is an acceptable option.
I was disturbed by the Bishop's reference to "children of all faiths". If he had said "children of all political persuasions", there would be an outcry, and rightly so; children should not be labelled with the beliefs of their parents. Society, and by extension schools, should be encouraging them to reach their own conclusions about the world, based on evidence and reason.

Great Britain has been a Christian country for hundreds of years, with the Sovereign as Head of the Church of England. This country has for the last few hundred years been a source of refuge to the persecuted, & until the sudden surge of moslems, people lived in reasonable harmony & mutual respect. No other group has ever demanded that the host country change its life style to accomodate them, the various communities being free to send their children to state or faith schools. It would be a pity to yield to political correctness and cowardliness and change something which has served as a beacon of hope. It is these values, after all, which have encouraged the continual influx of newcomers to settle here. Do we want to recreate the very places they were so eager to vacate?

Great Britain has been a Christian country for hundreds of years, with the Sovereign as Head of the Church of England. This country has for the last few hundred years been a source of refuge to the persecuted, & until the sudden surge of moslems, people lived in reasonable harmony & mutual respect. No other group has ever demanded that the host country change its life style to accomodate them, the various communities being free to send their children to state or faith schools. It would be a tragedy if we allowed political correctness and moral cowardice to destroy what has worked for so long. Do we want to recreate here on UK soil the very countries which these newcomers were so eager to vacate?

Considering how it’s 2006, I was surprised to hear Kirsty the presenter repeatedly mention the phrase β€œcelebrating diversity”; I felt like I was in a time warp from a few years ago. Has Kirsty been living in a cave over the last 2 years? The doctrine of β€œcelebrating diversity” is well past its sell by date and is what has got Britain into this mess that we’re in today.

I have lived and worked in Afghanistan for 4 years now. Your report was one of the best pieces of journalism on Afghanistan that I have seen over that period. The Taliban (whatever that means) have committed or condoned some hideous crimes, but to say that it is 'obscene' to report their words and thoughts is a huge mistake. Not because they will ever convince me, but because it contributes to a broader undrestanding of the movement and of Afghanistan. If it is wrong for the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ to talk with the Taliban, is it also wrong for NATO to be negotiating with them (as is currently happening on both sides of the Afghanistan/Pakistan border)?

Ref: #33

Is the JPseudonym2 who appears to be asking for measures to be taken 'to integrate Muslims with the wider community', the same JPseudonym2 who on another site once asked 'What gives anyone the right to despise Nazism?'

Is this a Pauline conversion for the modern age, or not?

Anne (post #35), you seem to conveniently forget the problems that the UK has had with Catholicism in the past, not to mention that the British Empire colonized about one third of the world at one point not always peacefully.

In the current atmosphere of demagoguery I don't think there's any chance of so-called political correctness having much influence.

Ref JPseudonym #39

A mighty fine Torygraph article.

Will Beebs illiberal echelons & minions ignore such bang on commentary or be moved to think again about the presumptions & agendas of their clique?

Certain types in the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ can only remain out of step with public opinion for so long, given the real & tangible threats our nation & society enduring daily.

The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ risks undermining popular consensus & support amongst British Society (the true source of its strength) if they remain in denial of the issues & causes which mainstream society deem pressing & paramount.

btw - such cliques are not elected but self appointed & its not far from indulgent myopic 'right on' self justification of arguments & causes to such to metamorphosise into divisive cabals, representing nothing but their eschewed view of the world (not inhabited by the rest of the mainstream).

If that does not move them, how many of the Beebs ' right on' brigade think they will find gainful employment in a largely privatised ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ & how many of their liberal agendas will they be able to pursue through their work? ….. clue look to Sky, CBS, NBC, CNN etc :)

After all there are only so many jobs at The Guardian & The Independent … unless you want to slum it at The Daily Star, The Mirror or god forbid …. The Socialist Worker.

vikingar

Church, Monarchy, and State should be completely separate, and hopefully one day we can be mature enough to live without the first two

Ref: Vikingar #41

At the last election New Labour and the Liberal Democrats together won more than twice the number of seats as the Conservatives, polling 57% of the votes cast against 32% for their main rival.

Even allowing for the fact that a proportion of Labour voters would have voted for the party on the basis of its penchant for throwing illiberal bones to the tabloid Rottweilers, it's nothing short of amazing that you can extract from the psephological evidence (not to mention all the other kinds available) sufficient fuel to keep afloat your fantasy that yours and JPseudonym's are the representative voices of mainstream British society.

As the Conservative party leadership has belatedly recognized, the political views of the British people as a whole, expressed across a wide range of subjects, do not suggest a country pining for noticeably right-of-centre solutions to its problems. As Polly Toynbee reminds us each time she takes New Labour to task for its latest gratuitous piece of illiberalism, the majority of the British people share a broadly social democratic vision of the good society. The election result indicates as much; it also indicates that the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ, which you accuse of elitism (among other sins), is almost certainly closer to the mainstream than you are.

Ref JPseudonym #45

Nice post :)

vikingar

Ref Deoradh #43

"Church, Monarchy, and State should be completely separate, and hopefully one day we can be mature enough to live without the first two"

Hopefully the distinct minority of passionate liberal left / left will be realistic to acknowledge majority in the UK largely happy with all three (esp first two) *

* despite all repeated failed annual attempts by individuals & unelected pressure groups of that order/faith (via 'liberal' press)

Reality, the United Kingdoms mainstream society has its roots firmly in centre & centre right beliefs, a capitalist system, monarchy, church, state & institutions & a love & respect of this nations history (wart n all).

Not the 'right on' agenda, PC'ism & the failed notions multiculturalism (& all that meant) of the left *

* too often hating this country history & society, disregarding its political, economic & social traditions, cultural norms & shared values. Viewing such as nothing more than annoyingly inconsequential to their desire to pursue a socialist societal narnia (but forgetting that they cannot secure the necessary electoral support to legitimacy & openly affect such change ...so it pursues such change by stealth).

Hay Ho :)

vikingar

Ref Flyingbolt #44

Rather more than a few bones old chap …. its the whole political skeleton.:)

DENIAL & REALITY:

Talk about being in denial, its like interpreting the 'Retreat from Moscow' as a sign of victory & strength in terms of distance covered.

You argue like Militant Labour took office on a wave of electoral support & validation by the British electorate.

To date Labour spent 19 years changing in opposition & 11 years in government metamorphosing into New Labour (but a transformation in serious difficulty even after 30 years).

But appreciate your efforts to shore up & promote unworkable liberal left policy & poor delivery as success.

New Labour * is more Tory in essence than The Conservatives ever where under Mrs Thatcher.

* yep, surely its still the liberal left / left dominance at the delivery end, but in policy such have steadily been ousted, over last two terms of New Labour government

LIBERAL LEFT FAILURE:

As we enter the 21st Century the abject failure of 30-40+ years of wishful encroaching liberal left policy in respect to societal issues (education, health, public order, society & culture) have come crashing home.

Even with new brand its still old Tax & Spend, throwing more money into unreformed areas struggling to deliver against poorly thought out ideas will not solve the problem.

British Society has always been centre & centre right, it ain't Left - our history, society & institutions (church, monarchy & politics) & cultural norms & common shared common values are testimony to that.

As always - a free laugh at expense of the 'Left' as they try another attempt to rework society & then we universally stop laughing as we all suffer at the realisation of their ineptitude in delivering against unworkable fantasy.

Polly 'in denial' Toynbee et al can write eloquently & accurately, but like too many others is off message in too many areas (current cultural impasse & threats to the UK a good example) as are far too many who class themselves as 'liberal left' [1a] [1b] [1c] [1d] [1e]

In seeking too dream up, promote & impose the notion of change on everyone, they themselves have forgotten how to adapt & change.

CONCEPTS & CONSERVATIVES:

Yep, the Conservative are changing again in the same way that New Labour had to change, but hopefully with more success.

The change for both has been traditionally right ** is essence, with liberal concepts.

** today's centre, was yesterdays centre right.

Softer concepts regarding society, environment, rights & democracy are at their heart inclusive concepts open to all parties to adopt or reject.

They are not the preserve or for exclusive domination by - radicals, extremists & dreamers.

As the nature of opportunities & threats change, those organisation & political parties who survive, adapt & change.

Those who do not …. the litany of failed socialist & communist societies & economies are also testimony to that…. become extinct.

The dying embers of socialism in Europe, who still bear the brand name, but promote a product which is changing (just look to France's impasse as their economies outstrip their desires & wishes about society).

Whilst the rise of socialism in some parts of the world (esp south america) is fuelled & paid for by the joint economic miracles of fossil fuels & capitalism, not an economic & social revolution brought about by socialist revolution & ideas about alternatives markets & means of production.

SUMMARY:

The word liberal has been steadily high jacked.

If someone of the stature & competence of Churchill was adopt it … anyone can .. Its not in essence a dirty word.

Liberal [2] & Libertine [3] concepts are workable but which have been overly dominated & abused by the left for too long - whose interpretation are not far too off from literal version of anarchy.

The concept of conservatism is yet again changing - it never stood still (though admittedly treads water at times).

We liberal conservatives are back in vogue (truth is we never went away, just never emphasised the first concept sufficiently).

In the Left's fantasy wet political dream - their Hungarian Revolution moment ……. is never far away.

In reality ... buy SimCity (experiment away in the virtual world) ... & keep on waiting :)

Tried & tested conservative & capitalist values keep the fridge full, the economy going & the electricity on *

* but how we achieve such is fluid & will change.

'right on' interference about how people & communities relate to each other & the state within society & how we deliver against policies have negatively impacted us all.

vikingar

[1a]
[1b]
[1c]
[1d]
[1e]
[2]
[3]

Ref: JPseudonym #45

I agree with you to this extent: 'angry young white men' have indeed largely been hung out to dry by Westminster politicians, whose negligence in this respect has encouraged the opportunists of the BNP to scurry like rats towards the smell of alienation.

The 'charismatic' fascist figure has been tried before in this country, without success. Far from sweeping all before him, Oswald Moseley was left wishing he could replace the real British people with a fantasy 'volk'. You seem to have similar hankerings.

I find it interesting that a far from 'mainstream' wish for the rise of a right-wing demagogue should receive a commendatory 'nice post' from 'liberal conservative' Vikingar. Something not quite as it seems, perhaps?

Ref: Vikingar #48

More desiccated computerspeak in the service of a farrago of cultural and historical ignorance.

The British people have struggled for many centuries to wrest from the powerful grip of their rulers the rights and freedoms that have issued in the 'cultural norms & common shared values' to which you refer.

From the Civil War of the C17th to the C19th and early C20th campaigns for universal suffrage and education and freedom from the worst aspects of economic exploitation, on to the post-World War Two welfare settlement, these struggles, often inspired by interpretations of the New Testament, have been, by any definition, of the 'Left'. In contrast, the history of the Tory party has been, until fairly recently, one of sustained resistance to most of the things that even C21st 'liberal conservatives' would be likely to use as benchmarks for a modern, civilized society. In this context, too, the histories of those other pillars of modern British conservatism, the monarchy and the Anglican Church, are almost equally unedifying.

The Britain you claim to be seeing is the product of severe cultural astigmatism.

Incidentally, only a political illiterate could imagine that the 'liberal/left', usually demonised by certain kinds of conservative for its 'statist' excesses, would be equally drawn to the delights of a 'literal version of anarchy'.

Ref: JPseudonym #45

I agree with you to this extent: 'angry young white men' have indeed largely been hung out to dry by Westminster politicians, whose negligence in this respect has encouraged the opportunists of the BNP to scurry like rats towards the smell of alienation.

The 'charismatic' fascist figure has been tried before in this country, without success. Far from sweeping all before him, Oswald Moseley was left wishing he could replace the real British people with a fantasy 'volk'. You seem to have similar hankerings.

I find it interesting that a far from 'mainstream' wish for the rise of a right-wing demagogue should receive a commendatory 'nice post' from 'liberal conservative' Vikingar. Something not quite as it seems, perhaps?

Ref: Vikingar #48

More desiccated computerspeak in the service of a farrago of cultural and historical ignorance.

The British people have struggled for many centuries to wrest from the powerful grip of their rulers the rights and freedoms that have issued in the 'cultural norms & common shared values' to which you refer.

From the Civil War of the C17th to the C19th and early C20th campaigns for universal suffrage and education and freedom from the worst aspects of economic exploitation, on to the post-World War Two welfare settlement, these struggles, often inspired by interpretations of the New Testament, have been, by any definition, of the 'Left'. In contrast, the history of the Tory party has been, until fairly recently, one of sustained resistance to most of the things that even C21st 'liberal conservatives' would be likely to use as benchmarks for a modern, civilized society. In this context, too, the histories of those other pillars of modern British conservatism, the monarchy and the Anglican Church, are almost equally unedifying.

The Britain you claim to be seeing is the product of severe cultural astigmatism.

Incidentally, only a political illiterate could imagine that the 'liberal/left', usually demonised by certain kinds of conservative for its 'statist' excesses, would be equally drawn to the delights of a 'literal version of anarchy'.

Ref Flyingbolt #49

"Incidentally, only a political illiterate could imagine that the 'liberal/left', usually demonised by certain kinds of conservative for its 'statist' excesses, would be equally drawn to the delights of a 'literal version of anarchy'."

Feel free to misread & misunderstand the points I am trying to make (whether you relate, agree/disagree or not).

But it does not reflect well on your attempts at 'commentary' too intentionally misquote me :(

Ref my #48 … "Liberal [2] & Libertine [3] concepts are workable but which have been overly dominated & abused by the left for too long - whose interpretation are not far too off from literal version of anarchy"

Clearly stated the left not the liberal left ….. matey boy …. or should I say comrade?

Rolling back the frontiers & boundaries of established societal norms v securing greater freedoms for individual expression & rights, applied to all but also to those without ability & means for self control … is a form of anarchy (as many of the left well know & despite this still actively pursue) [1]

They have multi agendas & roll on from one issue to the next etc.

btw - happy to credit a good post when I read it, but that does not mean I necessarily agree & endorse with every tenet & sentiment of such a post :)

When you get round to making one [2] more than happy to acknowledge & applaud such :)

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1]
[2]

JPseudonym #51

If it's important to you that Pym Fortuyn isn't perceived as having 'far right' views, it wasn't very sensible placing him in the company of Le Pen and Griffin, was it?

You're not above a spot of Pavlovian name-calling yourself, I see. However, I'm happy to leave it to those with the requisite intelligence to determine whether there's anything specifically 'Marxist', or indeed 'rabid', about what I've been saying.

Comrade Flyingbolt

So the headscarf can now be compulsory school uniform in the UK for girls of other (and no) religious beliefs? Does the same go for leg covering? And the intending future king still wishes to take an oath to defend all religions, but not the right to have none? Even though the international law is that freedom of religion is also freedom to have no religion. Where are the defenders of those who are traditionally oppressed by religions? They seem to have evaporated.