UK Politics

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

enoch powell made a very racist anti-immigration speech in the 50's or 60's (cant remember which), citing that 'rivers of blood would flow' if the uk allowed immigrants from africa, the carribean or asia, that would be the reference to

an important gain there for Darkie Power.

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Is anyone else disgusted about the Daily Mail setting the political agenda?

Yes, but I don't think it's more disgusting than the Sun setting the agenda for the 1997 election...


Douglas-Home was PM from 1963-4, Enoch Powell made his 'Rivers of Blood' speech in 1968.

[Janny]

Originally Posted by sun-star

Yes, but I don't think it's more disgusting than the Sun setting the agenda for the 1997 election...

Was that the occasion when it switched allegence at the last moment from Tory to Labour, but still claimed in a headline 'IT WAS THE SUN THAT WON IT'?

[The Gaffer]

Indeed. They also claimed to have scuppered Kinnock in '92 and probably invented the wheel and ladies' bosoms as well. However, in 97 I think it was more the case of them spotting a trend rather than setting it.

It's an apposite time to recall Powell's brand of racist paranoia. It was the late 60s, and he predicted the country being overrun by people of all manner of non-white colours by the mid 80s. If you do a Google search for the terms you'll find a transcript on the National Front web site (surprise surprise).

In reply to your question, J, I was rather hoping we'd seen the back of Campbell. I have to say that I did rather agree with his "accidental" words to the BBC and often find myself thinking the same thing when I watch or read political journalism. Unfortunately, what he really meant was "cover something I have told you to cover" and not actually "something important".

Anyone going to vote Loony?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

nope, not looney, either LCA, green or lib dem, depending who's running for bridgwater

[The Gaffer]

Who/what are LCA?

The Loonies have never been the same since Screaming Lord Sutch passed on.

[sun-star]

Don't they have a cat as their leader now?

[Janny]

Good (and completely unrelated) new, sun-star! [/prof voice]

According to documents recently released by the Russians, the Soviet Union was prepared to biologically destroy western Europe.

Okay, so that's not directly good... but on the list of UK targets a certain University of Oxford appeared and a certain light blue university did not...

British targets

[sun-star]

Oh This is good news because...?

[Janny]

Because the dark blues are far more important than the light blues.

George : What do you think it's a bomb ?
Jerry : It's not totally impossible.
George : Oh the ego on you.
Jerry : Why can't I be bombable?
George : Who's going to bomb you? An airline for all the stupid little peanut
jokes?
Jerry : I suppose you think your bombable.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Who/what are LCA?

The Loonies have never been the same since Screaming Lord Sutch passed on.

LCA = legalise cannabis alliance
they don't have many candidates, but they are growing,
and they hold a number of seats in local councils

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by Janny

Because the dark blues are far more important than the light blues.

George : What do you think it's a bomb ?
Jerry : It's not totally impossible.
George : Oh the ego on you.
Jerry : Why can't I be bombable?
George : Who's going to bomb you? An airline for all the stupid little peanut
jokes?
Jerry : I suppose you think your bombable.

Well, if I'm in company with Seinfeld, that's OK.

I suppose it was because Cambridge had all those Soviet spies

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

LCA = legalise cannabis alliance
they don't have many candidates, but they are growing,
and they hold a number of seats in local councils

You mean they can actually be arsed to get out of bed to register themselves as candidates?

Presumably there were so many Soviet agents already at Cambridge that they didn't want to take out their own guys.

[inked]

CoE politics? Any commentary on this?

Snubbed television presenter calls Rowan Williams 'theologically opaque' and 'scared of schism' after his refusal to take part in modern morality show
By Elizabeth Day
(Filed: Sunday Telegraph 13/02/2005)

Jon Snow, the Channel 4 news presenter, has accused the Archbishop of Canterbury of "running scared" of public debate and claimed that he was afraid of adopting a forthright stance on key moral issues for fear of causing discord within the Church of England.

Snow, who is the son of a Church of England bishop, said that Dr Rowan Williams had "failed to engage" with the public since his appointment in 2002, was "theologically opaque" and was "living in fear of schism".

The comments were made to The Telegraph after the Archbishop refused to take part in a forthcoming Channel 4 programme on the relevance to the modern world of The Ten Commandments.

The two-hour Saturday-night special, called The New Ten Commandments, is presented by Snow and incorporates contributions from all of the major faith groups in the UK, including Dr Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi, the Most Rev Peter Smith, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cardiff, and Dr Indarjit Singh, the director of the UK Network of Sikh Organisations. Eventually the Rt Rev Richard Chartres, the Bishop of London, agreed to represent the Church of England on the programme, but Snow said that "the real pitch was to get the Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the Church" and that he was "stunned" at Dr Williams's refusal.

Snow had made several personal requests to the Archbishop and to his press secretary, the Rev Jonathan Jennings, all of which were turned down.

"The extraordinary thing is that one of the four terrestrial channels is devoting that much time to such a good issue - the core of anybody's belief - and the established Church wasn't engaged," Mr Snow said.

"I think he [the Archbishop] is running scared. They've just utterly gone to ground for fear of upsetting either one or other wing of the Church, I suspect. I mean they're obviously living in fear of schism.

"We were told that Rowan Williams would be a great breath of fresh air but he has simply failed to engage. He seems to be running scared of all press and I've yet to see a proper interview with him that isn't full of theologically opaque statements.

"My father was a bishop [of Whitby] so I know something about the inner workings of the Church of England and I must say that the Chief Rabbi, the cardinal, the head of the Muslim Association were all incredibly keen.

"We made very many calls months and months ahead of the programme and they didn't want to touch it with a barge pole. It wasn't that he couldn't do it or anything because we gave him four months' warning.

"The point was the Catholic Church leapt to it immediately. They said, who would you like, what sort of a voice would you like? Whereas the Church of England was looking for every which way not to do it."

Mr Jennings strongly rejected Snow's criticisms yesterday. "It is absolute nonsense to claim that the Archbishop's decision to decline this particular request should be cast as he, or the Church of England, running scared of public debate," he said.

"Not every request that is made can be accepted and the fact that a very senior Church of England bishop is making a contribution to the programme seriously undermines these criticisms. "The simple truth is that, although the project was an excellent one with much to commend it, a number of things occurred during our discussions with the production company which caused us to lose confidence in the process.

"The Archbishop of Canterbury has done a great deal of engagement with the media since his appointment; the fact that he chooses his own agenda has sometimes proved a stumbling block for those who want to dictate what he should do and say."

The New Ten Commandments, to be aired on February 26, polled 65,000 people across the UK to find out which of the original commandments they felt were still relevant to living a moral life in the modern world. The programme will reveal a new set of 20 commandments, as voted for by the public.

Only three of the original 10 - "Thou shalt not commit adultery", "Honour thy father and mother" and "Thou shalt not steal" - make it into the new set, which includes "Protect the environment", "Be true to yourself" and "Look after your health".

Voters in Scotland turned out to be both the most sinful (with nine per cent declaring themselves sinners) and the most saintly in the UK, with 15 per cent of the vote obeying nine or 10 of the original commandments.

The Scottish also claimed to be the most honest area of Britain, with 72 per cent of people claiming that they did not lie, compared with 65 per cent in London. Only 59 per cent of under-30s thought one should be honest, compared with 74 per cent of the over-50s.

Fifty per cent of women consider themselves more saintly than men, while over twice as many men as women ignore all of The Ten Commandments. Fifty-six per cent of men and 57 per cent of women agreed that abortion was justifiable.

Dr Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi and one of the programme's contributors, said: "The new top 20 are very good indeed. They show that we still, as a society, have a strong moral sense, and the new entries are sound, sane and serious. My own addition would be: never act without role reversal, without first imagining yourself in the other person's place. People are more aware of the need for an ethical code nowadays because we are faced with so many new and intractable problems and because the world is changing faster than at any time in the past. In uncharted territory, you need a compass."

The Rev John Roberts, the general secretary of the Lord's Day Observance Society, was dismissive of the programme's findings. "I have enough of a struggle living by the original Ten Commandments, let alone adding another 10," he said. "This sort of thing is just an illogical modern trend to make faith easier but living a Christian life in this kind of world is never easy."

• Channel 4's The New Ten Commandments will air at 7pm on February 26

[sun-star]

You're really on an article binge today, aren't you?

I think that programme sounds gimmicky and stupid and Rowan Williams is better off out of it. I have a lot of respect for him - I attended a study day in Canterbury which he led (on St John of the Cross) and he was exceptionally intelligent, eloquent, insightful and charming. I can't imagine why he attracts so much criticism.

But I'm not an Anglican, so it's not really my problem

[inked]

Hey, can I help that news happens and that it all came out over the dates 2/10 to 2/13/05? And that it is relevant to numerous threads on the 'Moot?

You might note Sun-star that I did craft my hot seat opening for the "Why You Believe" thread and was therefore behind in accessing my usual sources. Which goes far to explain my "binge" .

It does intrigue me that the attitude to religion in politics in GB and the EU is that it shouldn't be considered (unless one is a believer specifically questioned on the EU level and denied the right to serve on that answer alone, if the reports were correct) and then the pundits decry the force of religious belief in American politics. Does that strike you as Janus-faced (no reference to anyone on the 'Moot, of course )?

As to not being Anglican, , this was a public forum discourse. I do not assess the allegations as true, merely ask for input. Seems the Romans did get involved, or did I misunderstand?

And you of all persons, denying John Donne? I am shocked!

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by inked

It does intrigue me that the attitude to religion in politics in GB and the EU is that it shouldn't be considered (unless one is a believer specifically questioned on the EU level and denied the right to serve on that answer alone, if the reports were correct) and then the pundits decry the force of religious belief in American politics. Does that strike you as Janus-faced (no reference to anyone on the 'Moot, of course )?

That completely contradicts the two articles you posted in the other thread. You were complaining there that people were trying to force religion out of American life. Seems to me that the situation is exactly the same in the US and the EU.

As to not being Anglican, , this was a public forum discourse. I do not assess the allegations as true, merely ask for input. Seems the Romans did get involved, or did I misunderstand?

The 'Romans' did get involved, which is of course up to them. You wanted input on 'CofE politics', which seems to me to be properly the concern of Anglicans - so I was just pointing out that I don't speak as one who's really affected. Why did you post it in this thread, anyway?

[inked]

Originally Posted by sun-star

That completely contradicts the two articles you posted in the other thread. You were complaining there that people were trying to force religion out of American life. Seems to me that the situation is exactly the same in the US and the EU.

I was noting attacks on free speech in the public square. Free speech in the public square being one issue congruent to GB, the EU and the USA. It struck me as similar exclusion from the public squares of all three, and all propounded on the basis of avoidance of religious discourse. Perhaps I erred.

Originally Posted by sun-star

The 'Romans' did get involved, which is of course up to them. You wanted input on 'CofE politics', which seems to me to be properly the concern of Anglicans - so I was just pointing out that I don't speak as one who's really affected. Why did you post it in this thread, anyway?

Seemed the appropriate place for the ABC and THE GUARDIAN and the political significance, if any, of the material. If wrong, ignore and hear my "mea culpa". Would I then get, if indicated, absolution?

[sun-star]

I don't see how it could have any political significance, but you never know.

On another topic - what do you guys think about Ken Livingstone being censured by the London Assembly? I don't quite understand why they have the power to censure him - aren't the mayor and assembly separate bodies?

[The Gaffer]

I suppose it depends what they mean by "censure". It seems that the assembly "asked" him to withdraw his remarks but has no power to force him to do anything.