“Why should we have pride in the accidental location of our birth?” – does this mean we can finally tell whichever group happens to be promoting some aspect of their culture were to stick it?

It would be interesting to find out how representative the author of the OP is. I’m guessing: very representative of younger, university educated types. In modern Britain, it’s good to like the BBC and the free health care, but to express solidarity with your fellow countrymen, or, God, forbid, your past, is something that is viewed with a great deal of suspicion. Isn’t that, like, the sort of thing that people who read the Daly Mail do?

However much you hate it or laugh at it, you will never be happy away from it for any length of time. The suet puddings and the red pillar-boxes have entered into your soul. Good or evil, it is yours, you belong to it, and this side the grave you will never get away from the marks that it has given you.

The defeat of fascism in Europe in 1945. I was privileged to know some who took part. Incredible people. That’s what’s ‘Britishness’ means to me and that’s what is important about us despite all our failings before and since. Not the queen. Don’t get worked up.

Regarding Saverin, people rightly said the same about Phil Collins ‘threats’ to leave if Labour got in etc. Shame he never saw it through. I tend to agree, if you don’t want to pay the tax you owe, piss off. And don’t come back.

What’s the point of being ‘British’?

What’s the point of anything? How would you fancy China taking over?

As much as I hate watching it, Ed Balls and George Osborne bickering like children on the Andrew Marr show or Newsnight is quintessentially British. If Greek politicians had done that before they joined the Euro they might not be in the trouble they’re in now.

> But the Queen? No. An anachronistic relic of our feudal past.

I think that one has been shown to be self-collapsing.

I’m still looking for a republican with a credible argument.

OK, I’ll bite. I love being British.

One of the things I love about my country is that it has produced people like EM Forster:

“If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country.”

And Oscar Wilde:

“Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious.”

And George Bernard Shaw:

“The national anthem belongs to the eighteenth century. In it you find us ordering God about to do our political dirty work.”

And Bertrand Russell:

“Patriotism is the willingness to kill and be killed for trivial reasons.”

And David Hume:

“Mankind are, in all ages, caught by the same baits: The same tricks, played over and over again, still trepan them. The heights of popularity and patriotism are still the beaten road to power and tyranny; flattery to treachery; standing armies to arbitrary government; and the glory of God to the temporal interest of the clergy.”

Why don’t you form a political party and stand on a ticket of not having to “love” your country and the Queen is “An anachronistic relic of our feudal past”.

I’ve yet to have any member of any political party stand on my doorstep and campaign on those sentiments – you may even gain a few votes.

This fruitless non-debate perennially crops up. Surely our nation is mature enough to not have to narrowly define itself? Britishness is what Britons want it to be. Spend a few years overseas to find out what it mean to you.

[8] “Why don’t you form a political party and stand on a ticket of not having to “love” your country” – interesting idea, but does the phrase ‘not having to love your country’ sufficiently capture the quintessential element of self loathing?

Vimothy @ 2

but to express solidarity with your fellow countrymen,

What solidarity do I have with people that see the disabled as the enemy?
What solidarity do I have with people who have ‘offshored’ millions of British jobs?
What solidarity do I have with people who think that a fiver an hour is too much for a teenager to earn?

There are people who I baulk at sharing a species with, far less an island. However, I can see how the feeling is mutual because these peope have done everything they to cut themselves from our society, even if they choose to live in this Country’s capital.

It appears that a small elite of the World’s rich feel (rightly) that they can waft across borders without actually being part of any Country. The banker who flies around outside the border for a few hours, rather than pay tax to the Country. The multi million pound business who wants to sell to the British, but has no interest in paying for the roads he uses, or even employing the type of people who he would expect to buy his products. Dyson are quite happy for people to earn twenty grand a year, so long as THEY don’t have to cough up. These parasites are more than happy to reap the rewards of being party to the benefits of ‘Britishness’, just as long as others pay for it.

Oh, and another thing. The British past? Fine, remember the war years and the post war settlement? All quitely being dismantled by people who have ‘forgotten’ the grinding poverty and nass unemployment between the wars. So you cunts waited sixty years to destroy our post war rebirth, and now you want us to feel ‘British’? The same people whose clarion call way ‘every man for himself and fuck those you trample on on the way up’ are asking us all to defend Britishness?

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. If ever we need a large scale conscription, you better hope enough people feel British then.

This perpetual argument about Britishness really is an English thing, I think. It’s pretty damn dull. My advice is to just get on with it, wave whatever flags you like or don’t, without getting all uptight about it.

A & E @ 11

but does the phrase ‘not having to love your country’ sufficiently capture the quintessential element of self loathing?

How much self loathing does it take to say ‘take a wage cut, or I will move your job to China’? These are the type of cunts that hate the British, not those who would rather go down the shops, or down the pub, than wear a plactic union jack hat on the Queen’s jubilee.

This pathetic piece of left/liberal self-loathing by someone apparently educated beyond the level of their intelligence appears just as support for the monarchy reaches a 20-years high:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/the_queens_diamond_jubilee/9275483/Diamond-Jubilee-and-Kate-effect-lead-to-record-support-for-the-monarchy-poll-shows.html

And (for vimothy @2): “even in the 18-24 age group 73 per cent favour the current system, with just 17 per cent wanting a republic and 10 per cent undecided. ”

As for Saverin, democratic government relies on consent of the individual. So a free and liberal society allows people to renounce citizenship and join another society.

And whatever the deficiencies of the UK’s constitution, there can be little doubt that constitutional monarchy is the best system available. Aristotle saw this over 2000 years ago; and the UK, Dutch and Scandinavian systems bear him out. Republics tend to be more prone to corruption – eg political corruption is far worse in France and the US than in the UK, the Netherlands or Scandinavia.

The UK is a conservative country that values its past. The left must learn to work with the grain: or face exclusion from power.

So you dislike a few British people that I suspect most other British people also thoroughly dislike. Why does that fact that a few of us are ‘cunts’ lead on to the fact that Britishness means nothing? You just seem to be airing your political prejudices (that I probably agree with) and linking it to the whole nation as if we all have those less than attractive traits.

As someone above said, spend a few years overseas and you’ll get a better idea. It really is (still) a pretty okay place in comparison. Fascists, for example, get a much rougher deal from us by far than anywhere else I can think of.

See, when I say “getting all uptight about it”, this is more or less what I mean. Calm down and have a Pot Noodle, or something.

I quite like those pink union jacks meself. http://www.pinkjack.com/

This is the sort of left wing navel-gazing and self-loathing that makes most normal people think “WTF”? Thankfully you are in a tiny minority and this has shown no sign of changing for decades or even centuries. National identification and pride is something the billions of people feel all over the world.

Jim,

What an impressive rant!

If you hate the people of Britain so, why do you care if they offshore their jobs or “see disabled people as the enemy”? If you do not hate them, but merely their feckless and abusive–if enlightened and post-human–overlords, what is the basis for your solidarity?

Jim @ 11:

“What solidarity do I have with people that see the disabled as the enemy?
What solidarity do I have with people who have ‘offshored’ millions of British jobs?
What solidarity do I have with people who think that a fiver an hour is too much for a teenager to earn?”

OK, let’s take those separately:

1. No-one in mainstream UK political life sees the disabled as “the enemy”. Grow up. However, given the profligacy of Labour in government, economies must be made; and there is evidence of significant ‘over-claiming’ and of fraud. Reform is overdue. The wealth-producing workers at Ellesmere Port, through responsible trade unionism, have accepted a two-year wage freeze. Meanwhile, the disabled lobby just screams ‘Gimee, gimmee’….

2. What is the alternative to off-shoring? A socialist siege economy with falling living standards? More expensive imports for poorer people because of tariffs to ‘protect’ UK industries

3. We have massive youth unemployment while businesses fear to invest in staff or equipment. So cutting the cost of employing youths will certainly help, all other things being equal.

Meanwhile, Jim, if you hate the UK so much, do emigrate…

I feel pretty good about being British – but then I’ve lived and worked abroad for several years, so I know just how different things can be, and I value many of the things I find here.

As for Saverin, well he was born in Brazil, and took US citizenship at the age of 16 after swearing an oath of alegiance. Then, once he’s got the money, he decides to renounce his US citizenship. It’s the same kind of game that Murdoch played, taking on US citizenship so he could own more US media. Nothing to do with caring about the people or the way of life in a country, just citizenship as a business commodity

Personally I think that treating citizenship of any country in this was is pretty low – even Osama Bin Laden thought that was beyond the pale judging by Sunny’s OP piece the other week.

THANK YOU!! I have consistently asked people that last question “Why should we have pride in the accidental location of our birth?”.
I always get laughed out of the room, yet none of them can answer the question.

I thought I was out of kilter on this one.

Seemingly not.

More comedy, Sunny.

We love it!

Check this out: Cameron is throwing any chance of European economic recovery to shit just to defend the interests of a couple thousand people (who don’t even get wiped out by this; they simply have to let go a small proportion in taxes)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/18/g8-summit-financial-tax

Enemy of the people.

I think the idea of George Bernard Shaw and Oscar Wilde being British (7 Larry) sort of sums it up????

The UK is a conservative country that values its past. The left must learn to work with the grain: or face exclusion from power.

If only! Unfortunately, in reality the exact opposite is true: the country must learn to work with the left or face exclusion from power.

Britain is the worst place in the world, except for everywhere else I’ve ever visited.

“I have the privilege of being white, heterosexual, middle class, university educated”

Unless you’re a part of the capitalist ruling elite you can’t really be called privileged.

“This move will save Saverin a reported $67 Million in potential taxes after Facebook went public. Some Americans seem to have taken Saverin’s decision to leave as a personally offensive.”

And whatever their reason, do you really think people should be able to change citizenship to escape taxation? And don’t talk about freedom, since this is a freedom that hurts the rest of us!

Republican arguements are great until you get to the process and the person. President Thatcher? President Blair or just some dude who opens hospitals and kiddies playgrounds who everyone’s vaguely heard of but can’t remember where from? Err..no, not so much, thanks. Being British prevents extremes I think, one of the guiding principles being that principles are a little bit rude, ill mannered and frankly a bit too enthusiastic. I think the monarchy, the military and parliament prevent dictatorships by acting as a bulwark against any 1 of them becoming too powerful. Kings have been killed, prime ministers traduced and the generals kept in their place through a 1,000 years of anachronism. I’m Yorkshire more than British and if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

@29 – so you’re against free movement of labour then?

GoE @ 22:

“I have consistently asked people that last question “Why should we have pride in the accidental location of our birth?”. I always get laughed out of the room, yet none of them can answer the question.”

Answer…:

1. Because ‘your’ birth-location is not accidental or contingent:. You are assuming ‘you’ could born elsewhere, like you could be born with different colour eyes. However, if ‘you’ were born elsewhere, you would no longer be ‘you’ (except in the trivial sense where your parents were or might be expatriate). Whether you like it or not, being born into a particular culture shapes – and is a necessary condition of – your identity. ‘You’ do not exist – and so have no identity – outside of space and time. And, however much you may react against it, you are part of the culture into which you were born. That said, western – or at least anglo-saxon – culture is a self-questioning, critical culture – looking for improvements. Regard yourself as such, and rejoice at your good fortune to be born in such a society and at such a time!

2. Furthermore, born into a particular culture and society, you owe some obligations to that society: not only because you owe your identity to that society but also because if everyone thought they had zero social obligations, society would disintegrate. If you have no pride whatsoever in your birth society, you are free to find another more congenial to your tastes. Meanwhile, I hope you are not sponging off the society you so condemn, as that would be hypocritical…

3. I recommend a crash course in political theory…’The Politics’ of Aristotle (possibly the most intelligent person who ever lived, though judge him by his methods more than his conclusions) and de Tocqueville’s ‘Democracy in America’:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Politics-Oxford-Worlds-Classics/dp/0199538735/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1337433426&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Democracy-America-Essays-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140447601/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1337433476&sr=1-1

Liberty is the freedom to be virtuous, and to do anything not specifically proscribed. Equality is the means to liberty, and is never to be confused with mechanical uniformity; it includes the Welfare State, workers’ rights, consumer protection, local government, a strong Parliament, public ownership, and many other things. And fraternity is the means to equality, for example in the form of trade unions, co-operatives, credit unions, mutual guarantee societies and mutual building societies, among numerous that could be cited.

Liberty, equality and fraternity are therefore inseparable from nationhood, a space in which to be unselfish. Thus from family, the nation in miniature, where unselfishness is first learned. And thus from property, each family’s safeguard both against over-mighty commercial interests and against an over-mighty State, therefore requiring to be as widely diffused as possible, and thus the guarantor of liberty as here defined. The family, private property and the State must be protected and promoted on the basis of their common origin and their interdependence, such that the diminution or withering away of any one or two of them can only be the diminution and withering away of all three of them.

All three are embodied by monarchy.

Monarchy also embodies the principle of sheer good fortune, of Divine Providence conferring responsibilities upon the more fortunate towards the less fortunate. It therefore provides an excellent basis for social democracy, as has proved the case in the United Kingdom, in the Old Commonwealth, in Scandinavia and in the Benelux countries. Allegiance to a monarchy is allegiance to an institution embodied by a person, rather than to an ethnicity or an ideology, as the basis of the State.

As Bernie Grant understood, allegiance to this particular monarchy, with its role in the Commonwealth, is a particular inoculation against racialism. No wonder that the National Party abolished it in South Africa, lowering the voting age to that end. No wonder that the Rhodesian regime followed suit, and removed the Union Flag from that of Rhodesia, something that not even the Boers’ revenge republic ever did. No wonder that the BNP wants to abolish the monarchy here. It is not only because, via the “Negroid” Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, the Queen is descended from the part-black royal line of Portugal. It is not even only because, via the part-Moorish Elizabeth of York, the Queen is descended from Muhammad.

Trade unionists and activists peremptorily dismissed an attempt to make the nascent Labour Party anti-monarchist. Theirs was a movement replete with MBEs, OBEs, CBEs, mayoral chains, aldermen’s gowns, and civic services; a movement which proudly provided a high proportion of Peers of the Realm, Knights of the Garter, members of the Order of Merit, and Companions of Honour, who had rejoiced in their middle periods to be Lords Privy Seal, or Comptrollers of Her Majesty’s Household, or so many other such things, in order to deliver the social democratic goods within the parliamentary process in all its ceremony.

Attlee appointed Mountbatten as Viceroy of India, and Mountbatten was also Wilson’s first choice for the new position of Secretary of State for Defence, which he felt obliged to decline only because of his closeness to the Royal Family, no small part of why he had been asked in the first place. The Silver Jubilee was held under the Callaghan Government. The Queen had famously good relations with Wilson and Callaghan, in stark contrast to her famously bad relations with Thatcher, who called her “the sort of person who votes for the SDP” and who sought to usurp her position in public life, using Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers to vilify the Royal Family and giving statutory effect to Murdoch’s desired weakening of constitutional ties between Australia and the United Kingdom. Callaghan threatened to resign as Labour Leader rather than contest a General Election on Tony Benn’s policy of abolishing the House of Lords as that House was constituted in 1980.

John Redwood may dine out on his opposition to the Major Government’s decision to scrap the Royal Yacht, but it was Peter Shore who denounced it at the time, and Shore also supported Canadian against Spanish fishermen not least because Canada and the United Kingdom shared a Head of State. Both on the Royal Yacht and on fisheries, even the Scottish National Party now agrees with him, while recent calls for a new Royal Yacht have been joined by a Labour MP, Kate Hoey. Labour MPs opposed Thatcher’s cutting of Canada’s last tie to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, so opposing for the sake of the Aboriginal peoples and of the French-Canadians, in both cases specifically as Her Majesty’s subjects.

Both King George VI and the Queen Mother were honorary members of the Transport and General Workers’ Union, which the latter accepted from her great friend, Ron Todd, with specific reference to her late husband’s great admiration for Ernest Bevin. The Duke of Edinburgh also enjoys honorary trade union membership, courtesy of the lightermen and stevedores. Bernie Grant vociferously supported the monarchy because of its role in the Commonwealth.

Only a movement of this kind, steeped in royal, parliamentary and municipal pageantry and charity, could preserve and celebrate the pageantry and charity of the City of London while ending its status as a tax haven and as a state within the State, Europe’s last great Medieval republican oligarchy, right where the United Kingdom ought to be. The liberties of the City were granted to a city properly so called, with a full social range of inhabitants and workers. The Crown should explicitly guarantee the hereditary economic and cultural rights of, for example, the Billingsgate fish porters, in the same way as it guaranteed or guarantees those of Aboriginal peoples elsewhere in the Empire and the Commonwealth.

The British national interest is never to be confused with the interest of a separate state, Wall Street’s tax haven, which the Queen may not enter without special permission and where the writ of Parliament does not run, thereby denying its British inhabitants parliamentary as well as municipal democracy, since the legal rights and protections enacted by the House in which they have an elected Member do not extend to them.

Whereas it was Margaret Thatcher who launched an the assault on the monarchy, since she scorned the Commonwealth, social cohesion, historical continuity and public Christianity, and called the Queen “the sort of person who votes for the SDP”, arrogating to herself the properly monarchical and royal role on the national and international stages, using her most popular supporting newspaper to vilify the Royal Family, and legislating to pre-empt the courts on both sides of the Atlantic by renouncing the British Parliament’s role in the amendment of the Canadian Constitution, as well as, on the instructions of Rupert Murdoch, to abolish the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to legislate for individual Australian states, to end the British Government’s consultative role in Australian state-level affairs, and to deprive the Queen’s Australian subjects of their right of appeal to Her Majesty in Council.

There is no point in being British – a construct in my view that is useful for describing what it is, an island, but less so for personal identity – I am English and a republican to boot. I also love this country – this is from experience – I have lived here for most of my many years though I do feel a certain nostalgic love for where I was born for no good reason actually.

I’m with you 100%. I am extremely suspicious of the concept of patriotism and think Johnson may have got it right in saying that it was the last refuge of the scoundrel. I refuse to be whipped into hysterical fervour over the Olympics which, in the present circumstances, are nothing more than an obscene waste of money. If people want to run and jump, throw balls about and drive vehicles fast, good for them but I have no interest in watching nor in who wins or loses. I am bemused by the “pride” we are being instructed to have in recreating a ritual, the torch relay, that was invented by the Nazis for the 1936 Olympics. If people want to wave flags, fine, but don’t treat them like holy relics: they are nothing more when it comes down to it than rags on sticks. On the other hand, I am British to the core with a deep love for the land, its history, its art, architecture, literature, drama and music. I’m even interested in the history of this country’s institutions, including the monarchy, but now wish to see that anachronism dispensed with, a complete separation of Church and State and Parliament’s Upper House being fully democratic. I am as moved as the next person when I hear of people committing selfless acts for the common good (but then I would feel that irrespective of the nationalities involved). I am also aware that imperialist Britain did a great deal of harm in its day and that it owes a debt to the countries it plundered and destabilised. I want a Britain that is as cultured and fair-minded as it thinks itself to be but there is a long way to go.

By the way, I scored 14 out of 24 on the citizenship test so I am also unfit to remain

32

‘Liberty, equality and fraternity’ was the cry of the French Revolution as it abolished its absolute monarch for a republic. And just because politicians mouth comments about our monarchy, which they feel represents the views of the masses, doesn’t mean that they, personally, are in favour of a monarchy, likewise, unions. Much of the pomp and ceremony surrounding the royal family is carried-out from tradition, it is not consciously undertaken.

30

When Germany was unified, they chose a constitutional monarch, under this constitution, Germany entered into WW1 and its subsequent sequel WW2, most of the aristocracy also supported Hitler.

Our thousand year history of avoiding invasion and revolution is probably more to do with our apparent unchanging conservativism (note small c) and particular attitudes about a ‘ British culture’ rather than anything specifically to do with the monarchy.

DL @ 33:

“Liberty is the freedom to be virtuous…”

No!!!
LIberty is the freedom to do as one wants, regardless of state decrees or morality, providing one does no harm to others (though the definition of the word ‘harm’ is negotiable).

Jim, @11, is just doing his usual thing, which is to remind us all of his personal saintliness. Self-aggrandisement of this sort is definitely Not Cricket.

[35] how do you square ‘suspicion of patriotism’ with being ‘british to the core’?

Forms of national identity are either universally relevant, or they not – the prefix, british is entirely superfluous, unless some people think britain is different to the rest of the world?

Didn’t John Gray say that after the dissolution of the soviet union nation states were quick to revert to traditional national identities despite the best efforts of the communists to erase them?

“Our thousand year history of avoiding invasion and revolution is probably more to do with our apparent unchanging conservativism (note small c) and particular attitudes about a ‘ British culture’ rather than anything specifically to do with the monarchy”.

I would mostly agree with this, except that the monarchy is part of the “apparent unchanging conservatism”. Our monarchy has been more or less powerless for a significant period. Whilst it has no real power, it remains an obstacle to totalitarian leaders, such as Hitler, Stalin, etc. Putin even.

From what I hear, the younger generation are more relaxed about the monarchy than the middle generation. Those I know give little or no thought to questions of democratic legitimacy and don’t fret about being “subjects”. They simply regard the monarchy as a benign institution that adds to the gaiety of the nation.

40

Point taken, but if over the past thousand years, we had a republic, it would have had the same impact as our monarchy on what is considered ‘Britishness’. It is tradition, which is not consciously analysed, in our every day lives rather than it being ‘good’ in itself.

Liberals and leftists aren’t going to understand nationalism because the former believe that people don’t require a sense of social solidarity (they do) and the latter feel that they should achieve it through their class status (they won’t). For all I’m indifferent to the Queen, unbelieving in the face of the Church of England and uninspired by much of our nation’s history I’d take the modest patriotism of the British over the fervid religious, ethnic and political tribalism that have been the source of so much conflict elsewhere. And, besides, if you don’t think there are distinct if not ubiquitous national characters spend some time around people from a different country. They’d be happy to identify them.

(The first of my sentences is actually a hideous generalisation. A lot of leftists – of the sort of who’d have voted Labour for decades – are extremely patriotic.)

Liberals and leftists aren’t going to understand nationalism because the former believe that people don’t require a sense of social solidarity (they do) and the latter feel that they should achieve it through their class status (they won’t).

Of course it’s very general, but I think this is a neat observation.

An under-appreciated irony is that the provenance of nationalism was the left. 18th century liberals wanted individual nations to have the right of self-determination, while conservatives wanted to preserve empires, confidently predicting that the rise of nationalism would tear Europe to pieces. We’ve certainly learnt a lot since then.

Britishness is one of those identity issues. I don’t really like them as I think they create artificial differences between people.

To me, it means being a UK citizen. Anything else is subjective and not really worth worrying about. I identify more with open minded, decent people. Everything else is just fluff.

“Why should we have pride in the accidental location of our birth?”

Why, I don’t know. Why should you love the people who hapened to conceive you?

37, you are a Thatcherite and a neoconservative. That is never a compliment. In this context, “Tory” would have been. But, as a Thatcherite and a neoconservative, you cannot be one of those.

43, quite so. There is very nearly a proper Labour Party again, but not quite. There will be when it once again makes the single, comprehensive and coherent case for all of the Welfare State, workers’ rights, trade unionism, the co-operative movement and wider mutualism, consumer protection, strong communities, conservation rather than environmentalism, fair taxation, full employment, public ownership, proper local government, a powerful Parliament, the monarchy, the organic Constitution, national sovereignty, civil liberties, the Union, the Commonwealth, the countryside, traditional structures and methods of education, traditional moral and social values, economic patriotism, balanced migration, a realist foreign policy, an unhysterical approach to climate change, and the need for a base of real property for every household from which to resist both over-mighty commercial interests and an over-mighty State.

On that depends, as it depends upon, the patriotism that we need, a patriotism against all comers: the EU or the US, Israel or the Gulf monarchs, China or the Russian oligarchs, money markets or media moguls, separatists or communalists.

#25 Alex Grant

I think the idea of George Bernard Shaw and Oscar Wilde being British (7 Larry) sort of sums it up????

But they were British. As it happens both were born in what is now the Republic of Ireland, it wasn’t that then. And both lived very little of their adult lives there.

Wilde may have had some Irish Nationalist sympathies (if only to keep his Mum quiet) but Shaw seems to have been pretty contemptuous of it.

47

The real Labour party was socialist, albeit an evolutionary socialist party, so, no private ownership of the means of production, no need for trade unions, no monarchy. In fact Marx, but slowly, and as for the state, not powerful, indeed, not present.

Confining the topic purely to nationality, one good reason to be proud of or to celebrate being British is that it’s a highly desirable nationality.

You’ll see a steady stream of Americans at embassies and consulates around the world trying to renounce their citizenship. We can be proud that few feel the need to renounce british citizenship.. Tons of British expats retain their passports. Nobody seeks asylum FROM Britain – quite the reverse. Another reason to feel proud. Say what you like about the uk, it’s a pretty um-oppressive citizenship to hold

49, total rubbish, and the opposite of the truth. Labour was founded to prevent a Communist revolution in this, one of the two countries that Marx himself thought most likely to have one. And it did prevent that. Marxists always and, from their own point of view, justly hated it; that was where the New Labour lot, old campus Marxists from the 1970s, got it from. Those Marxists in it were never of it, and they were only in it to wreck it. In the end, they did.

The idea that even a slow-motion Marxist party could ever have won a British General Election, or even have acquired a mass membership and any numerically significant body of support in Britain, has been perfectly preposterous at least since Labour appeared on the scene. That was the point of it. The Victorian and Edwardian Methodist chapels founded and built a Marxist party, aided by the Catholic working class? I hardly think so.

There is a single, comprehensive and coherent case for all of the Welfare State, workers’ rights, trade unionism, the co-operative movement and wider mutualism, consumer protection, strong communities, conservation rather than environmentalism, fair taxation, full employment, public ownership, proper local government, a powerful Parliament, the monarchy, the organic Constitution, national sovereignty, civil liberties, the Union, the Commonwealth, the countryside, traditional structures and methods of education, traditional moral and social values, economic patriotism, balanced migration, a realist foreign policy, an unhysterical approach to climate change, and the need for a base of real property for every household from which to resist both over-mighty commercial interests and an over-mighty State.

When Labour makes that case again, then Labour will be Labour again. The local election results indicate that the country is crying out for that to happen.

51

Totally agree, Fabian socialism did not want a revolution (Marx was an evolutionist as well as a revolutionist) and I don’t dispute that Labour were responsible for many social changes which, at the time, helped the working class.
But this was socialist ideas implemented on a capitalist base

The real problem here is that you don’t understand that capitalism and socialism are different economic systems, Marx suggested that capitalism will eventually fail and the working-class would take over (they would, in one stroke become the owners) Fabians believed that this would be too fast and complex industrial societies needed to educate all for this particular task. The tortoise is one symbol of Fabianism, – slow move towards socialism.

I also believe that the Labour Party probably did prevent a revolution, it certainly shielded the working-class from the worst market outcomes, whether this is good or bad will depend on your politics.

I like the idea of a Britain, an umbrella under which various parts of these islands can come together, united. Symbols aren’t necessarily bad things, it’s how they get used that’s always going to be the problem. Perhaps, more than that, it’s what they actually stand for.

We’ve a political elite desperate to divide and conquer, pit neighbour against neighbour, region against region and even country against country. Throw in a smattering of people of various ethnicities and beliefs wanting to undermine any cohesion from within and it’s a mess.

You honestly think being British means a love of the BBC (useless, biased broadcaster) and the NHS (which kills people who don’t have a choice where to go for healthcare), yet at the same time make sneery comments about the Queen, who is venerated by the overwhelming majority of the British people, and tell us we have no right to be proud to be British.

You are part of the smug middle-class leftist minority intent on pulling Britain back. The vast majority of the British are proud to be British and, no, we don’t put Union Flags on our front lawn but then again, not being ostentatious, possessing quiet reserve – that’s part of being British too. The likes of you will never understand and the sooner you emigrate, the better.

Um, but isn’t it actually terribly British, bordering on being a stereotypical trait to agonise about patriotism,national identity etc.
In that respect your piece is terribly British.
Actually, what you’ve done is confuse those who most loudly proclaim themselves as “British” with their flag-waving monarchism, conservatism and fruit-loopery, with actually just being British. You know, just being, doing,getting by as best you can, not making a bleddin’ song and dance about it. In fact a strong case can be made that last Night of the Prommers, right-wing Tories etc aren’t very British,no matter how loudly they shout about it, because their very act of being so blatant and in-your-face about national identity is real outlying behaviour.

54

I wonder if you are aware of the choices which existed before the NHS, but never mind, the monarchs and royal family were OK.

@ 22

“Why should we have pride in the accidental location of our birth?”

Well I don’t know about you (but I have my suspicions) but my birth was not accidental and nor was the location.

Adam Wilcox: “I scored 13 out of a possible 24. The pass mark was 75% and according to the Life in the UK Test, I have “insufficient knowledge of the English language or of life in the UK to remain”.

Deirdre Shaw: “By the way, I scored 14 out of 24 on the citizenship test so I am also unfit to remain … ”

—-

It just means really that you haven’t got the first clue about the country you choose to slag off. It just proves this silly, immature little rant is rooted in pure ignorance.

If you want to know the ‘point’ of being British, try being a woman (or even a young boy) in countries like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.

Try waiting for government protection from murder, rape and slavery in Sudan or Somalia.

Try experiencing some real class divide in India and what actual poverty looks and feels like.

Try voicing this type of opinion in China or North Korea.

@ 58 Nicky

“It just means really that you haven’t got the first clue about the country you choose to slag off. It just proves this silly, immature little rant is rooted in pure ignorance.”

A statement that proves that you don’t know what “proves” means. All it actually proves is that his knowlege on a certain set of questions determined by an individual or group is just over 50%. And this is bearing in mind that the Guardian may have cherry-picked questions to make the overall test seem weird.

Who are you, I, the test creator or anyone else to say what are the most important things to know about Britain? How much is the test skewed based on the participant’s age, politics, location or personal interests? Does it, for example, give you points for knowing the name of a long-dead king, but not for knowing NHS policy on drug triage? Because I suspect the first would be more likely to appear on the test, but the second is far more useful for a modern citizen.

It’s like that test they did awhile back to see how many people had a good set of “essential life skills”, probably designed to show that they didn’t. One question was “can you cook a scrambled egg?” I can’t. I prefer them boiled, fried or in an omelette. I can cook a good range of foods for someone of my age, but because I don’t know how to scramble an egg – which the test-maker arbitrarily chose as a guide to cooking skill – I basically get marked down as “not able to feed myself” on that point at least. It’s very silly.

I think this is an ecxellent piece.

An ex-Pat Brit, I do still hang on to my British Passport, probably because I belong to a certain generation who can remember the big blue impressive ones and long for their return, perhaps because I like to hedge my bets a bit.

I’m actually more proud of my adopted Dutchness, if there is such a thing. I have learned their calmness and reasonableness even if I still struggle with the language.

My half Indian son had no teasing about being a ‘Paki’ here and both my boys have no hint of chavness and are rather cool young men, hard to rile – not very British at all.

I think it’s possible to both love and ignore you Britishness according to the occasion, much as in the same way I drop my posh accent when amidst stroppy non-posh-sounding people when in England.

Sometimes it’s good to be a Limey – quite often it’s rather embarrassing.

[60] ‘My half Indian son had no teasing about being a ‘Paki’ here and both my boys have no hint of chavness and are rather cool young men, hard to rile – not very British at all’ – a land free of racism and chavs, sounds great.

But, in the spirit of the OP, whats the point of the Dutch?

@ 58 Chaise Guevara

“A statement that proves that you don’t know what “proves” means.”

What utter rubbish.

But not surprising coming from someone who proudly proclaims they cannot even scramble an egg, despite the actual procedure being given away in the name.

“All it actually proves is that his knowlege on a certain set of questions determined by an individual or group is just over 50%.”

Not at all, it proves that the people who fail this test know very little about the organisation, demographics, popular culture and current affairs of this country and can’t be bothered to find out.

The questions just on that excerpt demands a working knowledge of how democratic processes work here. Extremely important information for perspective citizens to absorb and obey. Why? I would point to Tower Hamlets as an example.

And this is bearing in mind that the Guardian may have cherry-picked questions to make the overall test seem weird.

I would guarantee that was the motive, nasty rag as it is.

“Who are you, I, the test creator or anyone else to say what are the most important things to know about Britain?”

Again, what utter rubbish.

British people have every right to decide what is the most important aspects of British grounding they want to ensure is tested. And British people elected those who put the test in place.

I wonder if the Rochdale (and many other) grooming gangs had any idea of basic British values and laws before they were permitted into the UK.

@ 58 Chaise Guevara

Also, I notice you declined to comment on the substantive part of my post:

The examples of why being British is actually quite a desirable thing when compared to the quality of life of many other nations.

I wonder if the Rochdale (and many other) grooming gangs had any idea of basic British values and laws before they were permitted into the UK.

Given the home-born and raised grooming gangs, I’d go with yes, they were.

63

Quality of life isn’t the same as national identity, if it were true, there would be quite a large number of Chinese and Indian people without a sense of identity.
In reality, different areas of the UK are likely to produce a different set of ideals which gives those populations ‘an identity’.

Vimothy @ 19

If you hate the people of Britain

You see this is rather typical of the Right Wing strutting little bigots that I hate. I do not hate the ‘people of Britain’ and nowhere can you find anything that suggests that. However, being a typical Tory means you are forced to turn what I said into something that you wish I have said. I hate the concept that being British means we should kow-tow to a small elite of overlords that dictate what does and what does not constitute Britishness. I owe you cunts nothing and the fact you happen to have been born on the same island as I was does not afford you some kind of loyalty or ‘solidarity’. I am quite happy for you to feel the same way towards me as I do towards you. Not a problem, either way.

I think the in your face patriotism in the US is a bit naff and least desirable trait in that country. Moreover, it is quite bizarre the way that almost the entire US media promote the US first theme. With few exceptions the US media is a huge benign propaganda machine. The reaction of even the sane Americans when some study comes out measuring something and the US is placed about 33rd or thereabouts is always the same. They immediately attack the methods of the study because it must be disconcerting to hear that you are 33rd when the propaganda machine constantly tells you that you are number one. Why the need for the OTT overt nationalism and patriotism? I think it is because there is really no such thing as ‘America’. There are literally thousands of different America’s all hugely diverse and separated by great geographical differences. Rural Tennessee feels like a different planet compared to the Pacific North West rather than being part of a whole coherent nation state. Without the OTT patriotism and propaganda binding the diverse regions together the country would likely split up into smaller regions. It will eventually but that is a different story. That is why I think the promotion of patriotism and it is promoted is so strong and it all feels a bit oppressive to British eyes.

Unique national characteristics seems such an absurd thing to believe. It hardly seems likely that the location of birth and culture they grew up in can endow a person with unique attributes that are down to a geographical area. That is what we are saying when we speak about British values or American values. No one else has those values and one must be born in that unique geographical location to possess them. That would be absurd and unique national values must be absurd. However, I always find it funny how all the leaders at European summits accurately conform to their respective national stereotype. Could anyone ever have mistaken Berlusconi for a German Chancellor? Probably says something deep about the type of leaders electorates choose.

Having an affinity to a homeland or culture is perfectly normal. I see nothing wrong with that type of patriotism, as opposed to the we are the greatest and we hate all our neighbours ugly patriotism. Whilst I do not believe that the British possess characteristics that no one else has. The way British institutions have been able to adapt and manage change and resolve internal conflict relatively peacefully for the past quarter of a millennium is something to be proud of compared to most of the world. For a relatively small nation state the British Isles really are quite diverse and most other places would have seen more bloodshed. It is no coincidence that the parts of the world who copied British institutions are some of the best places to live. We are not perfect and lots of things about the British nation state needs to change. Scotland wants more control over her own affairs and lots of areas in England would benefit from London decentralising. The thing we can be proud of is that we will be able to manage that change and resolve those conflicts without bombing and shooting each other.

TONE @ 20

1. No-one in mainstream UK political life sees the disabled as “the enemy”.

What, not even the nasty little cunt that wrote:

Meanwhile, the disabled lobby just screams ‘Gimee, gimmee’….

No, the disabled are not the enemy. Not to the digusting excuse for a human being that that wrote that.

2. What is the alternative to off-shoring?
while businesses fear to invest in staff

Er, these businesses invest in staff every day of the week. They happen to invest in Polish, German Indian and Chinese youth at the drop of a hat. They invest in people that they believe they can produce better profits. They owe solidarity to profit, not the ‘British’.

Now if that is your motive for investing, fair enough, but don’t start blubbing about ‘Britishness’ and patriotism and the like. Cunts like you value money above all else. Take it from me, the there is NOTHING wrong with that and if that that is the sole determination for whether or not something is worthwhile, then that is fine too, but for fuck’s sake do the rest of us the common curtsey of desisting from ramming this long dead concept of ‘patriotism’ down our throats.

Meanwhile, Jim, if you hate the UK so much, do emigrate…

This is all above your comprehension, is it? None of the concepts register with you, do they? It is the half-witted and hyper critical jingoism I am complaining about, not the ‘British people’ or its fine institutions.

It is generally you cunts that threaten and actually leave. It is people like you that off shore your earning to avoid paying British taxes. It is cunts like you that fuck off at the drop of a hat.

Again, if that is how you feel, fine, but it is not the Left that desert the Country it is the Right that normally do that.

SM @ 15

Why does that fact that a few of us are ‘cunts’ lead on to the fact that Britishness means nothing?

No, what matters is the fact that most of the people who spout of about ‘Britishness’ appear to be self-serving, greedy cunts that drone on and on about Britishness leads me to think that this type of Jingoistic nonsense is wrong.

Look at the type of people who are acting as apologists for this type of shite, on this very thread; They are simply unable to accept that a dislike of this type flag waving attention seeking crap is what we are complain about, not the people who live here.

What is the point of ‘being British if it doesn’t mean defending British people who happens to be disabled? Further up this thread, somebody asks would we like the Chinese to ‘take over’? However, it is not the Left that demand that we adopt Chinese versions of health cover/working conditions/welfare provisions, is it? It isn’t the Left that defend off shoring BRITISH jobs, is it?

No, of course it fucking isn’t because that is the Right’s job. It is the Right that demand we work for lower wages accept less services and die if we cannot afford health cover or starve when we are unemployed.

@ 64. Cylux

“Given the home-born and raised grooming gangs, I’d go with yes, they were”

Perhaps you’d care to furnish some examples and some examples of how widespread they are?

And for good measure, perhaps you could also furnish some examples of how the police haven’t done their duty in respect of these gangs because of fear of being called names?

@ 65. jojo

Quality of life isn’t the same as national identity …

That is rather the whole point: A nation is an expression of its peoples, its traditions and its culture.

For all its faults, the UK is head and shoulders above many, many other nations on this planet in terms of protections and freedoms. As a nation and as a culture, just those few examples I gave have no home in these isles in 2012.

How did it get that way if not for its people?

@ 69. Jim

What outcome do you think ‘Operation Sealion’ might have had were it not for the “self-serving, greedy cunts that drone on and on about Britishness”?

@70 Well, hat tip to Flyingrodent for these two links:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/8035680.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11569283

And for good measure, perhaps you could also furnish some examples of how the police haven’t done their duty in respect of these gangs because of fear of being called names?

Frankly, given how the police and CPS usually treat girls & women from the underclass who have been raped, i.e. astonishingly shite, – if you actually then believe the cock and bull story about ‘political correctness gone mad’ they concocted to cover their arse, you’re a credulous halfwit.

@ 62 Nicky

“What utter rubbish. ”

Easy to say so. Let’s see your working. How, exactly, does the OP’s score on the test “prove” what you claim? Not imply, or vaguely suggest, but prove.

“But not surprising coming from someone who proudly proclaims they cannot even scramble an egg, despite the actual procedure being given away in the name.”

Do you cook? Because funnily enough the name of an item is not the same thing as a full list of instructions for cooking it. For example, a fried egg is fried – clue’s in the name! So does that mean you can do whatever you want as long as you fry it? Maybe put it uncracked in a dry wok and leave it on full blast while you go out for a couple of hours? No, that would be stupid. There are a number of methods and all of them are more complex than “to make fried egg, fry the egg”.

I’m not proud of not knowing, BTW, you made that up. I just have no need to know. If I has a guest for breakfast who wanted scrambled egg I would ask my girlfriend how to cook them, or google it.

“Not at all, it proves that the people who fail this test know very little about the organisation, demographics, popular culture and current affairs of this country and can’t be bothered to find out.”

Again, let’s see you explain why.

“The questions just on that excerpt demands a working knowledge of how democratic processes work here. Extremely important information for perspective citizens to absorb and obey.”

No they don’t. A few of them are important, like the question about the CV. Others are historical nuggets that may be interesting but are hardly required knowledge for a citizen – I don’t see what’s so vitally important about knowing when the first census was taken, for example. Others are important but the sort of thing you would look up online if they applied to you. And in one question, the one about Halloween, all four responses are technically correct, showing what a genius the test-designer must be.

I highly doubt you would have answered them all correctly. I can’t test it as obviously you could just Google the responses.

“Why? I would point to Tower Hamlets as an example.”

And I shall point to the tree outside my window as a counterexample! See how silly it is to make vague statements without explaining your reasoning? I’m expecting this to be along the lines of “not knowing when the first census was taken is a root cause of all social problems in the UK”, but let’s hear it in your words.

“I would guarantee that was the motive, nasty rag as it is.”

So you think the selection was biased but you’ll still accept the results of a test based on that selection?

“Again, what utter rubbish.

British people have every right to decide what is the most important aspects of British grounding they want to ensure is tested. And British people elected those who put the test in place. ”

Yes, but I evidently disagree with you about what is important, and you disagree with the person next to you (probably), and so on. So “ask a random Brit what they think” is not going to get a definitive answer.

As for democracy, it’s an imperfect system that we use to improve political accountability and at least try to ensure that policy vaguely reflects public opinion. What it is not is a system that ensures that our leader’s point of view is a perfectly weighted average of the opinions of the electorate. I don’t think my MP set out their personal definition of true Britishness when I voted for him, and it wouldn’t have been top of my agenda if he had (unless it was really awful).

“I wonder if the Rochdale (and many other) grooming gangs had any idea of basic British values and laws before they were permitted into the UK.”

You wonder. Which means you don’t know. Let’s assume they didn’t (were they all first-gen immigrants, by the way?). If so, I could point you to any number of homegrown serious criminals who were brought up surrounded by British values, and yet somehow still managed to commit terrible crimes. Harold Shipman, for example. Anecdotes are not compelling evidence, especially when you don’t even know if the anecdotes are true, only “wonder” about them.

@ Nicky

“Also, I notice you declined to comment on the substantive part of my post: ”

Because I agreed with it. Obviously living in Britain is better than living in many other parts of the world. I only take issue with your attempt to ad hom the author (and incidentally, the author probably didn’t write the headline. Liberal Conspiracy’s editor, Sunny, normally writes the headlines, and they’re often dreadful like this one).

61. the a&e charge nurse

The point of being Dutch is that they are the most pragmatic, generourous, kind and reasonable people (without religous overtones) I have encountered on what parts of the planet I have inhabited over the years.

It can be tedious, but very little gets done here without ‘sitting around the table’ and having some very adult conversation and non-aggressive debate. As far as I know they are the only society to try and put Socrates into a formula for repairing society. (Socratic Dialogue Movment).

If you fall on hard times, they treat you kindly and with respect, as a client – not like a piece of shit (I’m talking dole/pension related matters). The Social Services can be trusted and they treat you extremely well in jail.

Largely unflappable, we don’t have much road rage and we are closing jails for lack of prisioners. There is no nannyism, i.e. we are considered, as adults, capable of deciding what we want to smoke and eat and the canals are not flanked by health-and-safety barriers, we are regarded as adult enough to see that the road has stopped and the water has begun.

E. stinky U. rules do their best to change us here and there are of course areas which need to improve.

I had one baby in England and one here – had there been a third I would have come back home to have it because they are STINGY when it comes to pain relief. Otherwise I’ve few complaints in 23 years.

Oh! and Mass Flouridation of the water was banned ages ago (one of the reasons I raised my kids here).

Oh – yes, I do own a pair of clogs, fabulous all weather footwear and very hard to wear out.

The overall kindness of the Dutch and the way they helped me when a large dollop of shit hit my fan has made me love them more than my own. My Dutch drama would most definitely have been a British crisis.

Of course, the difference in attitudes over euthinasia is another good reason to love Dutchness. I don’t want to be left hanging around what with overpopulation and the possibility of not enough morphine to go around – I shall want to go through the gentle door before then.

I’d fight for my Dutchness, not so sure I’d bother so fervently for my Britishness. Actually – I am descended from the French Hugenot protestants and may have a drop of jew too. Yet, coming from Ascot, I look and sound quintessentially British. All fascinating, but not worth even a squabble, let alone the vitriol these debates often seem to engender.

Maybe we need to use the capacity of current global access to each other and get rid of all the ‘-Ishnesses’ which seperate us and create a Globalishness which will unite humanity.

(I was also a NHS nurse btw Hi!)

Frankly, given how the police and CPS usually treat girls & women from the underclass who have been raped, i.e. astonishingly shite, – if you actually then believe the cock and bull story about ‘political correctness gone mad’ they concocted to cover their arse, you’re a credulous halfwit.

Who said that the police concocted the story about political correctness, and who said that it “covers their arse” in any case? I don’t think either of those statements is true.

If the police didn’t investigate the cases because the victims were white and the perpetrators were Asian, then this is no different in principle to the police not investigating because the victims were Asian and the perpetrators were white. It’s very obviously a failing and not an excuse.

Which is why I have trouble imagining that the police would be offering this up as a reason for their failure to investigate.

@ 72. Cylux

“Well, hat tip to Flyingrodent for these two links … “

Presumably meaning that these examples had to be really searched for as they are so isolated and rare.

Despite your apparent delight in presenting them, they are not evidence of a widespread cultural problem as with all the grooming cases al la Rochdale.

” … if you actually then believe the cock and bull story about ‘political correctness gone mad’ they concocted to cover their arse … “

And how does this piece of fiction explain the confirmation of people like Mohammed Shafiq? The comments of people such as Sayeeda Warsi or Trevor Philips?

Or that the police and CPS actually DENY that fears of being labelled ‘racist’ prevented them from doing their jobs.

Or that those accusations actually came from Muslims, MP’s and ex-police who were involved in these cases?

” … you’re a credulous halfwit.”

Oh contraire …

@ 73. Chaise Guevara

“Do you cook? Because funnily enough the name of an item is not the same thing as a full list of instructions for cooking it. For example, a fried egg is fried – clue’s in the name! So does that mean you can do whatever you want as long as you fry it? Maybe put it uncracked in a dry wok and leave it on full blast while you go out for a couple of hours? No, that would be stupid.”

Good grief! Really?

With your very last statement you went and answered your own rather silly attempts at trying to smudge over the bleeding obvious. What a waste of time!!

“Again, let’s see you explain why.”

Because they failed the test. Good grief.

“No they don’t. A few of them are important … “

Well, you see, the way exams work is that they test knowledge over a range of modules, and then points are then weighted across those modules,

This means that some questions can be answered incorrectly, even in the same module, without eliciting a fail.

It is in this way that we fairly test a persons broad grasp of the subject matter to an acceptable threshold.

Good grief.

“And I shall point to the tree outside my window as a counterexample! See how silly it is to make vague statements without explaining your reasoning?”

Again: Good grief! Really? This is very surreal.

If you do not know what has been happening in Tower Hamlets in respect of the abuse of democratic processes despite such widespread coverage then it would be best to do some research rather then employ your rather odd relativist logic.

“Yes, but I evidently disagree with you about what is important, and you disagree with the person next to you (probably), and so on. So “ask a random Brit what they think” is not going to get a definitive answer.”

That is why we don’t ask everyone what they want in exams: We appoint boards to do so.

The people that appointed the boards to do so, were in turn appointed by us.

“As for democracy, it’s an imperfect system that we use to improve political accountability … “

Still, somewhat better then the system currently employed in Somalia, Sudan, China, Saudi Arabia ….

“You wonder. Which means you don’t know.”

Oh look, there’s that rather odd relativist logic again.

Good grief.

“(were they all first-gen immigrants, by the way?)”

Hardly. Why don’t you research before you comment if your comment is based upon such nonsense?

And besides, what it does it mean to be ‘multi-cultural’?

“I could point you to any number of homegrown serious criminals who were brought up surrounded by British values, and yet somehow still managed to commit terrible crimes. Harold Shipman, for example.”

That rather odd relativist logic again. Good grief.

Harold Shipman was a sociopathic individual, not a widespread cultural problem connected to crime.

Nicky @ 71

A different era, Nicky. Few of the young men comming onto the beaches on D day would have sold the British down the river to the highest bidder the way the modern Tories did.

Though of course they and millions of their fellow Countrymen did vote the Labour Party and the biggest reforms that this Country has ever seen into existence. And with good reason too.

Jim,

It can’t be much fun being so angry–I hope you feel better soon.

You’ll find, when you get better, that you can make a lot more sense of what people say to you. When you’re not constantly spitting and raging, actual communication will become possible–you know, conversations. They’re part of what makes life worth living.

For example, a less angry person might have actually read what I wrote, which was:

IF you hate your fellow Britons, why do you care what they do to one another? And IF you only hate a small subset for the way they treat the majority, what is the basis of your solidarity with that majority?

@77

Presumably meaning that these examples had to be really searched for as they are so isolated and rare.

Naa, he just recently had a post up on this very site featuring them.

Despite your apparent delight in presenting them, they are not evidence of a widespread cultural problem as with all the grooming cases al la Rochdale.

Well the point you made which I was responding too was “I wonder if the Rochdale (and many other) grooming gangs had any idea of basic British values and laws before they were permitted into the UK.” so the fact that homegrown grooming rings exist kinda pisses all over the idea that grooming girls is a unique problem posed by immigrants.

And how does this piece of fiction explain the confirmation of people like Mohammed Shafiq? The comments of people such as Sayeeda Warsi or Trevor Philips?

Or that the police and CPS actually DENY that fears of being labelled ‘racist’ prevented them from doing their jobs.

Or that those accusations actually came from Muslims, MP’s and ex-police who were involved in these cases?

I won’t re-hash the very long debates that went on in this thread here, but I remain unsurprised that right-wing politicos managed to find a way for it all to be the ‘liberal guardianista’s’ fault.

@76

Which is why I have trouble imagining that the police would be offering this up as a reason for their failure to investigate.

The CPS knows full well the chances of what a successful conviction are when the victim in question belongs to the social class that the police deals with ‘in a professional capacity’, one of the inherent flaws with the Jury system unfortunately. Hence why we ended up needing 10 or so of the 40-odd abused to testify to finally bring the bastards to book. It’s already a well tread trope that ‘criminal-coddling liberals’ have tied the police’s arms behind their back, so diving into that narrative shifts the blame nicely.

[75] “Maybe we need to use the capacity of current global access to each other and get rid of all the ‘-Ishnesses’ which seperate us and create a Globalishness which will unite humanity” – isn’t it Fukuyama who argues in “The End of History?” that liberal western democracy represents an endpoint in the battle of ideologies?

If you agree with this analysis countries like Holland epitomise the sort of culture the rest of the world will ultimately come to resemble?

Personally I have doubts, not least because of long standing assumptions underpinning the main theisms – but the tenor of this piece is not so much about identifying the good things we grew up with, but rather the gratuitous nature of celebrating what amounts to no more than accident of geography.

Flags, street parties, or supporting a particular olympics team are all cast as sublimated forms of nationalism, and such a gauche form of affiliation can sometimes upset the liberal mindset?

@ 81. Cylux

“Naa, he just recently had a post up on this very site featuring them.”

So you will have no problem posting lots of other examples then?

” … so the fact that homegrown grooming rings exist kinda pisses all over the idea that grooming girls is a unique problem posed by immigrants … “

Your own narrative. Or strawman. Whichever.

I said it was a cultural problem – as did Warsi, Shafiq etc.

But interestingly, you clearly haven’t even bothered to read either of the ‘examples’ you so gleefully posted:

The first entirely unrelated example relates to the abuse of baby and toddler boys – not girls, as you state – (including by the chief executive of LGBT Youth Scotland) whilst the second also relates to the abuse of babies and toddlers.

Neither relates to grooming as babies and toddlers are incapable of being groomed.

Neither indicates anything other then rare and isolated collusions of perversion.

Whereas we know from the Rochdale case and others like it, we know from people within the communities brave enough to speak out, we know from people dealing with the communities brave enough to speak out that the deliberate grooming of young white girls is a cultural issue and we know it is widespread too.

Not a rare and isolated incidence.

“I won’t re-hash the very long debates that went on in this thread here, but I remain unsurprised that right-wing politicos managed to find a way for it all to be the ‘liberal guardianista’s’ fault.”

Well, seeing as you like to bandy around absolutist labels, I guess its only fair if I do.

You are a liar. You are lying through your teeth. You are completely dishonest.

The police and the CPS have said NO such thing – they have not ‘concocted a cock and bull story about ‘political correctness gone mad’ to cover their arse.’

They have said the complete opposite. They have denied it.

You have made this up entirely.

So what is the point of being British?

Nationality is a primary relationship that helps to define us as social beings. To say that, “I am British”, is to place oneself in a system of mutual interdependencies with other people for whom that statement is also true. The nation is a community that shares a common good. Citizens of the nation have duties, promoting the common good, and rights that derive from it.

That is the “point” of being British–to belong to a society, your own particular society, to depend on it and to fulfill your obligations to it. To ask, “what is the point of being British” is like asking, “what is the point of belonging to my family”, or, “what is the point of having my friends”. Which is to say, it is to fundamentally miss the point.

Being British isn’t a piece of technology, like a can-opener. The purpose of society proceeds from our basic humanity. It should be obvious to all who are not Stirnerite / Thatcherite post-human psychos–not in a rational, technological sense, but in a deeper sense. Just because you cannot rationalise and articulate exactly why you would rather be with others than alone, doesn’t mean it is stupid to want to be others, or to promote, defend and celebrate that bond.

Vimothy @ 80

IF you hate your fellow Britons,

Typical Tory scum, attempting to twist what I have said. However, you must be able to see that decent, normal people can look back at what I said.

I hate the sub human Tories. The type of Tory scum that are always banging on about ‘Britishness’ while showing contempt for the very idea.

I share this island with sixty million people. Fair enough. I have very little in common with some of them, fair enough. My views are diametrically opposed to some of them, again, fair enough, because we all manage to rub along, more or less.

However, I am told that ‘we’ should feel some kind of solidarity with people who I share very little common threads with. I am expected to feel a sense of ‘commonality’ with people whose views I find completely repugnant. People who go out of their way to deliberately alienate great swathes of the population. People who describe fellow human beings as ‘parasites’, just because they happen to work in the public sector for example. I have never worked in the public sector in my life, yet I am supposed to hate people who do? I am supposed to scapegoat them, the unemployed, the disabled, the mentally ill or any other group of people who the supposedly ‘Patriotic’ among us single out for odium.

There seems to be a curious overlap between those who decry the lack of ‘patriotism’ and those who want to reduce this Country to little more than a seething mass of individuals, bent on destroying one another. Those people who appear to take great delight in pitting one group against another in classic divide and rule tactics. The type of people who single out the low paid, the unemployed, the public sector, the disabled, those accused of crime against the unfairly sacked at work or whoever also demand that we unite in a common bond. Well I share nothing with the average Tory, because for all the talk of ‘Britishness’ I see a bunch of bastards who have slavishly followed the cult of a foreign ideology, the Republican Party of America than anything I recognise to be ‘British’. British? I wouldn’t piss on them if they were on fire.

What do I have, in any meaningful sense, in common with Cameron, Clegg or Osborne of the tens of thousands of people like them across the Country? Fuck all. I have more in common with Italian, French and Greeks workers at the wrong end of austerity cuts, imposed on us by a small elite. I have more in common with a Syrian or Egyptian who took part in the Arab spring. I have far more in common with an elderly American couple who join in with the ‘occupy wall street’ movement. I have far more in common with and unemployed disabled person because, who knows? I could be diagnosed with an incurable, chronic illness and ruthlessly sacked by my employer at any time in the near future. I could be sacked and replaced by a younger, fitter person once I reach fifty and recieve nothing in return. Wo is drawing up such plans? The vermin, who I share ‘common values’ with, that’s who.

If that happens no piece of union jack plastic tat is going to save me then, is it? Nor will any of the Tory vermin fight my corner either, for that matter.

To be fair to Cameron, he has more in common with the Russian oligarchies, American Tycoons and oil sheiks and the rich elite who owe allegiance to no one save themselves.

@ 79. Jim

“A different era, Nicky.”

Not so Jim, as the hundreds of dead and thousands of wounded British soldiers over just the past decade so clearly demonstrate.

You may not agree with their deployments (and I don’t) but you cannot fault the exact same bravery, devotion to duty and loyalty to their country as those who stormed the beaches at Normandy.

Jim,

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/If-then

Hope this helps.

@83 Whatevers http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=28456 but carry on with your ‘no true Scotsman’ skit. If it makes you feel better believing that ‘the British’ wouldn’t carry out such abuses, by all means you believe that.

[85] ‘However, I am told that ‘we’ should feel some kind of solidarity with people who I share very little common threads with. I am expected to feel a sense of ‘commonality’ with people whose views I find completely repugnant’ – the point of this piece not so much about forcing people to buy into national identity but saying they are wrong if they do so because such affiliations are no more than an accident of geography.

Apparently we should be asking ‘what the union jack stands for’ – but in my view such rhetorical questions could be directed at any flag (unless britain is the exception to the rule).

I take your point about identifying with international workers – it’s a beautiful thought, but one undermined by the realities of the market – pit worker against worker, divide and rule – it’s the oldest trick in the book
http://www.workersliberty.org/node/8229

@ 78 Nicky

“Good grief! Really? ”

So you admit I’m right?

“With your very last statement you went and answered your own rather silly attempts at trying to smudge over the bleeding obvious. What a waste of time!!”

Um, no. While I wouldn’t try to scramble an egg like that, I don’t have sufficient information from the name to know EXACTLY how to cook it. If you knew the term “fried egg” and had also seen people frying eggs in films, you still might end up burning it in the pan. You seem to have admitted this but are still trying to point-score off it, which is rather foolish.

“Because they failed the test. Good grief.”

So failing the test shows they don’t know enough about Britain because they failed the test? This is something we call “circular logic”. It doesn’t work. So do you have any actual explanaiton for your claims? What a surprise!

“Well, you see, the way exams work is that they test knowledge over a range of modules, and then points are then weighted across those modules,

This means that some questions can be answered incorrectly, even in the same module, without eliciting a fail. ”

Is that how this test works? Because it sounds more like a set of questions with a simple pass rate. Even if it does, so what? Most of the questions are arbitrary and not very relevant to modern life in the UK.

“It is in this way that we fairly test a persons broad grasp of the subject matter to an acceptable threshold.

Good grief. ”

You need to stop letting “good grief” stand in for cogent argument. It’s kinda funny, because it makes you sound like a sitcom character, but ultimately not very productive.

“Again: Good grief! Really? This is very surreal. ”

See?

“If you do not know what has been happening in Tower Hamlets in respect of the abuse of democratic processes despite such widespread coverage then it would be best to do some research rather then employ your rather odd relativist logic.”

I am aware of the goings-on. I want to see you draw the dots between that and your conclusion, so I don’t straw man you. You don’t really get this “show your working” concept, do you? I suppose that’s a good defence mechanism when you’re in the habit of jumping to wild conclusions and then refusing to sanity-check them.

“That is why we don’t ask everyone what they want in exams: We appoint boards to do so.

The people that appointed the boards to do so, were in turn appointed by us.”

I’ve explained this already. Try addressing my response instead of just repeating what you said last time.

“Still, somewhat better then the system currently employed in Somalia, Sudan, China, Saudi Arabia ….”

Yes? So what? Do you agree or disagree that the prime minister or government is not a perfect representation of public opinion on all matters? I love the way how you think you can dodge a point but whittering on about something different.

“Oh look, there’s that rather odd relativist logic again.”

I don’t think that word means what you think it means. If you wonder, you must not know. That’s not relativist logic, it’s just logic. The two states are not compatible.

“Good grief. ”

I feel like you’re building up to a chorus at this point.

“Hardly. Why don’t you research before you comment if your comment is based upon such nonsense?”

My comment is not based upon a question asked in passing. Indeed if you were paying attention you’ll see I drew no conclusions from the first-gen question at all.

But speaking of bad research, you said: ““I wonder if the Rochdale (and many other) grooming gangs had any idea of basic British values and laws before they were permitted into the UK.” And yet now you’re telling me many of them are British-born, and hence were not “allowed into the UK” at all! Whoops, dropped the ball there, didn’t you?

“And besides, what it does it mean to be ‘multi-cultural’? ”

You mean for an individual or a society?

“That rather odd relativist logic again. Good grief.”

There’s an echo in here.

“Harold Shipman was a sociopathic individual, not a widespread cultural problem connected to crime.”

Of course not. He was one man. As was each individual groomer. Add up all the native-born murderers and rapists and you’ve got a widespread problem. Whether it’s “cultural” is pretty much in the eye of the beholder: in most cases (leaving aside people messed up enough to get an insanity verdict on trial) you’re likely to have a mix of cultural and individual traits leading up to people’s decision to commit violent crimes.

For some reason, there are people who like to blame it all on individuals in white Brits and culture in Asians. These are often the same people who think that British Asian people who were born in this country were “allowed into it”. Know anyone like that?

@ 88 Cylux

“Whatevers but carry on with your ‘no true Scotsman’ skit. ”

It is a rather good one, isn’t it? I’ve watched the goalposts moved so far by our (new?) angry right-winger that we’re probably playing cricket at this point.

I have some random disjointed thoughts to share if I may.

“The concept of being British exists only in the imagination of the English”, a Scottish friend of mine told me a few years ago, and for a good while I went a long with that thought. But now I would add the caveat “…and the children of immigrants.” Because what is very noticeable among friends and acquaintances of African or South Asian heritage is that as much as they identify with a western identity at all, it is very much British rather than English.

**

I lived in Amsterdam for 23 years; there are broadly two types of English person resident in there. First is the type that has a ridiculously romantic view of England, which to them is a paradise of good customer service, old-fashioned good manners, quaint country pubs and green cricket fields. Then there is the type that view England as hell on Earth, the entire nation being one giant dysfunctional council estate, riddled with heroin addicts and sponging asylum seekers. If you try to tell them the truth is somewhere between the two extremes, both types will get defensive and shouty, and start splashing spittle into your bier.

**

My wife (an American) will shortly take the citizenship exam, having forked out nearly a thousand quid for the privilege. The study book, is really the most ridiculous load of old nonsense I have ever read, and like the writer I too failed the Guardian mock exam, in my case even more catastrophically. So my wife will shortly pass the exam and be the only member of the family who knows how to claim disability benefits, or how many Lords there are.

**

It’s a shame the far Right have hijacked patriotism, but despite Billy Bragg’s noble efforts, hijacked it they have. That’s just another reason I feel queasy about patriotism. More than anything else, I identify patriotism with the twin evils of nationalism and racism. It just seems so unnecessary to me, really? What IS the point of patriotism?

My boys have British and American passports but consider themselves to be Dutch. It would be nice if they grew up in a world where it didn’t make a damn difference.

The defeat of fascism in Europe in 1945. I was privileged to know some who took part. Incredible people

Mrs A asks

Was that the Red Army Sparty ?

After all they ‘ripped the guts out of the German Army’ according to Mr Churchill.

Not only that but they raped many German women to death in the disgraceful sacking of Berlin.

Is that who Sparty talks about Abdul ?

Don’t seem incredible to me. All too credible in fact.

Hush I say to Mrs A.. Human beings can’t stand too much reality ( T S Elliott)

Peace

@ 88. Cylux

You lied through your teeth and got caught out lying; and your strawman was easily blown over.

There is no point in bothering with you, as you clearly have no integrity whatsoever.

@ 90. Chaise Guevara

And there is no point in bothering with you either. You are clearly not the full shilling and just as dishonest to boot.

I am afraid you wasted your time with that lengthy post: I couldn’t be bothered to even go past the first sentence after reading the last set of surreal nonsense, including that bizarre story about people not knowing to crack an egg before they fry it unless they are told.

Reams of idiotic, childish verbosity all in a an idiotic childish attempt to deflect from the fact that only an idiot wouldn’t know that scrambling eggs was the requisite technique for scrambled eggs.

And yes, you must crack the eggs first.

Good grief.

@94

And how does this piece of fiction explain the confirmation of people like Mohammed Shafiq? The comments of people such as Sayeeda Warsi or Trevor Philips?

Or that the police and CPS actually DENY that fears of being labelled ‘racist’ prevented them from doing their jobs.

Or that those accusations actually came from Muslims, MP’s and ex-police who were involved in these cases?

So your contention is that the police and CPS are lying there then? They can’t all be telling the truth, either the police are lying, or their accusers are mistaken. Which is it?

A&E @89

I take your point about identifying with international workers – it’s a beautiful thought, but one undermined by the realities of the market – pit worker against worker, divide and rule – it’s the oldest trick in the book

I think you miss my point. I have more in common with working class people around the World than I do with Tory posh boys who have no clue about the real world, but that does not make say, a Chinese worker, my ally.

In the same way, looking at it pragmatically, the US economic conscript in Iraq has far more in common with his opposite number in the Taliban, than he does with the people who sent him over there, but they are still mortal enemies.

@ 94

“I am afraid you wasted your time with that lengthy post”

Evidently. Next time I’ll limit myself to words of two syllables or less and make sure I restrict myself to a paragraph so your brain doesn’t overheat. Long words? Sensible arguments? Can’t be having with that! Good grief!

@Nicky #58:

It just means really that you haven’t got the first clue about the country you choose to slag off. It just proves this silly, immature little rant is rooted in pure ignorance.

OK, then; in which year did married women get the right to divorce their husband? I’m sure that this is a fact that you keep at your fingertips, given your obvious in-depth knowledge about the UK.

@Nicky #71 & 86:

What outcome do you think ‘Operation Sealion’ might have had were it not for the “self-serving, greedy cunts that drone on and on about Britishness”?

You may not agree with their deployments (and I don’t) but you cannot fault the exact same bravery, devotion to duty and loyalty to their country as those who stormed the beaches at Normandy.

“Operation Sealion”? “Normandy”? No passport for you, if you can’t tell the difference between an aborted attempt by Nazi Germany to invade the UK (Operation Seeloewe), and the successful invasion of Europe via the beaches of Normandy by the Western Allies (Operation Overlord).

I would like to Visit England someday to tour Buckingham Palace and watch the Royal family in Parade I like drinking T winnings Tea everyday with cookies in the afternoon after lunch.