Is David Cameron a Toff

[Ridgley]

Sally Bercow launches an attack on David Cameron saying he is a toff and out of touch is she right. My own personal thoughts are that tend to be the Tory party in general but he is a little better then is predecessors Iron Jaw and feeling, uncaring Margret milk snatcher.

[womanofdulwich]

Sally Bercow is in no position to speak - she is kind of un hinged herself.

[Marmora Man]

Ridgley: The Drawing Room is I quote "a place for discussion about serious issues and current affairs, moderated by a chairperson".

I don't think your OP meets the criteria - perhaps in the Lounge, but even then it's a passing comment of no discernible value and no insight.

[Loz]

Everyone is 'out of touch' with most other sections of society that they do not belong to. Why pick on the 'toffs'?

[????]

Is DC a toff? Probably by most people's definition -does that matter? Only to inverted snobs surely

As I've said before, given that the only two actually anything near working class PMs this country has had (Major and Heath)were both Tories and the modern Labour party in parliament has the narrowest band of representation (practically all middle class Public Sector workers/unison officials with asmattering of Journalists or lawyers - or from Traditional Labour 'aristocracy' (and pretty posh), Millibands, Mandlesons, Benns, Harmans) then the tories as toffs is just left wing propoganda and reflects your own prejudices Ridgley. I'll dig out the occupation figures of MPs again if the latest has yet been published - I think you'll find that Labour and the Lib Dems has a far less broad church than the tories. The tories even have an ex-miner.

[????]

And whilst we are on representation, it still bugs me no end that we've only 650 MPs and 24 million households and yet the Harpersons household and the Coopers/Balls household get two each....at least the Milliband brothers don't speak to each other nowadays. All these people will no doubt happily drone on and on and on about the need for our Parliament to be more representative of the 'people'.... lefty hypocrites shocker!

Infact Harman has the cheek to drone on about Woman only lists before shoehorning her husband into a safe Labour seat.

[HAL9000]

Talking of representation - is this a PC elephant in the Drawing Room or an interesting anomaly worthy of discussion?:

Sabbah Report

Jews are 8 times over-represented in UK parliament

by Stuart Littlewood on May 22, 2010

The Jewish Chronicle has published a list of Jewish MPs in Britain's parliament. It names 24 - Conservatives 12, Labour 10 and Liberal Democrats 2. ...

The Jewish population in the UK is 280,000 or 0.46%. There are 650 seats in the House of Commons so, as a proportion, Jewish entitlement is only 3 seats.

With 24 seats they are 8 times over-represented. Which means, of course, that other groups must be under-represented, including Muslims.

The UK's Muslim population is 2.4 million or 3.93%. Their proportional entitlement is 25 seats but they have only 8 - a serious shortfall. If Muslims were over-represented to the same extent as the Jews (i.e. 8 times) they'd have 200 seats.

 

[Jeremy]

Isn't this really another thread about social mobility... you'll find that in a lot of areas, privately-educated, Oxbridge alumni often rise to the top. Not an ideal situation by any means - but that doesn't mean Cameron is not qualified to do his job.

Hal's point is also the same basic social mobility question. If you look at the representation of Jewish pupils in private schools, you'd quite possibly find a similar story.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

I'm slightly peturbed by the use of the word 'entitlement' used by HAL. An MP is elected to represent everyone in his area, not just his own kith and kin.

[HAL9000]

I think the author of the quoted article could have written "proportional share" rather than "proportional entitlement," to more accurately convey what he meant to imply.

[DJKillaQueen]

Does it matter though what faith someone is? Aren't church and state supposed to be seperate in the UK anyway?

I don't think it really matters what background an MP holds as long as they are the best person for the job. It is, for me, a job that requires more interest in the greater good than the self - and that is were I think a lot of present day MPs fail us. Historically though, it is individuals from the upper classes whom have supported social struggle and protest by the masses, who have then facilitated social change within government. In recent decades there has been a shift away from intellectuals in parliament, to lawyers and economists, and that I think has had the biggest impact in the calibre of person now involved at that level in government.

[Ridgley]

I am not prejudices towards toffs ??? I just said it tends to be in the Tory party more than the others another?s so wind your Tory neck in!

[HAL9000]

Does it matter though what faith someone is?

At some level, it must do, surely? Imagine the consequences of an English parliament top heavy with Scientologists or Taliban or Lubavitchers? Britain boasts its own, unique, autocephalous, state-sponsored religion - it is a nation founded upon Christian principles.

Aren't church and state supposed to be separate in the UK anyway?

Er... hardly. The Head of State is also Head of the Anglican Church - and 'Defender of the Faith'.

Personally, I cannot foresee a time when parliament hosts 200 Muslim MPs? But the same proportion of Jews is unremarkable, apparently?

Why is it that the indigenous population cannot find someone with a common heritage worthy of their vote? Do they really have such little faith in their own leadership capabilities?

[????]

Ridgley Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I am not prejudices towards toffs ??? I just said

> it tends to be in the Tory party more than the

> others another?s so wind your Tory neck in!

I am not a Tory - how about starting a thread with some analyis or facts or idea development rather than a simplistic charichature from the Daily Worker if you don't want to get pulled up for it.

[Huguenot]

No HAL9000, it's not statistically valid - the numbers are all too small.

There is no equivalence between 24 Jewish MPs and 200 Muslim ones. One is a numerical point of interest, the other is a decisive minority.

By that logic we should be talking about the possible consequence of having 2,400 non Muslim or Jewish MPs.

ermmmm... right?

Anyway, let it go - you're only sh*t stirring for tarot, everyone else will ignore this conversation.

[Ridgley]

First of all ??? my thread is solely on a remark that Sally Bercow said I just wanted to know other points of views that is the facts. You decided that I am prejudice against toffs because I mention my opinions on Margret Thatcher.

[????]

My own personal thoughts are that tend to be the Tory party in general but

[Ridgley]

My own personal thoughts are that tend to be the Tory party in general but

-------------------------------

Does not make me prejudice ???

[HAL9000]

Are people really unable to discuss the religious demographics of their own parliamentary representatives for fear of uttering the "J" word? That would be an appalling situation, in my view.

Some things need to be discussed openly. For example, if the majority wishes to avoid being dragged into a yet another Middle Eastern war (with Iran, this time) or imposing sanctions on potential new trading partners (such as any of the new Arab democracies that some might perceive as anti-Zionist).

If a Jew or a Muslim or a Christian stands for parliament then voters should be able to discuss their religious persuasion as freely as they can discuss whether they are toffs ? there can be no democracy without freedom of speech.

Personally, I?d only ever vote for an atheist or an agnostic - as long as s/he wasn?t a toffee-nosed palooka.

[DaveR]

Nobody is not discussing it for fear of anything. You point out that Jews are over-represented in parliament. As others have observed, that's likely to be consequence of Jews being over-represented in the professions and social strata that tend to supply our MPs. I any event, this is only an issue if, as a consequence, decisions are made that are in the 'Jewish interest' rather than the national interest i.e. Jewish MPs are representing Jews, not their constituents and party. That prospect seems a little far-fetched, particularly when there isn't really a single Jewish interest at all. For example, opposition to anti-semitism is not the unique preserve of Jews, and opposition to Zionism (of the more extreme variety) is not the unique preserve of non-Jews.

That's the serious answer.

"Why is it that the indigenous population cannot find someone with a common heritage worthy of their vote? Do they really have such little faith in their own leadership capabilities?"

There is no serious answer to this, because once you start talking about the 'indigenous population' and 'common heritage' you put youself firmly in the camp of the EDL/NF/whatever other bunch of idiots are currently holding the banner for brutish and ignorant fascists. Whether you like it or not, I'm afraid.

[HAL9000]

I would ask the same question if voters had chosen a Scientologist to represent them.

Why does any culturally coherent group choose a representative from a radically different culture with different values and ideals? Such things happen, it is a valid anthropological question: Peru elected a Japanese president and the US elected a half-Kenyan president.

It seems acceptable to acknowledge the existence of 'indigenous populations' and 'common heritages' within the various European countries ? a matter of active discussion today on a nearby thread. Britain even has laws that discriminate against royal marriages to Catholics.

But whenever the Jews are mentioned ? the EDL and the NF are invariably invoked.

It is almost a Pavlovian reflex.

I see little difference between (practicing) Jews, Muslims, Christians and Scientologists - they are all deluded in my opinion - I would not trust any of them to represent my best interests. I think all of them can be relied upon to pursue their own religiously motivated agendas. YMMV ? that?s what democracy is all about.

Frankly, I am surprised that you've played the anti-Semitism/fascist card - it's all in your imagination.

[DJKillaQueen]

Imagine the consequences of an English parliament top heavy with Scientologists or Taliban

I take your point but we are not in a part of the world where that is likely to happen.

The Head of State is also Head of the Anglican Church - and 'Defender of the Faith

I assume we are talking about the Queen here.....who never uses her constitutional power to overrule parliament...so it's kind of meaningless, beyond defining a dominent religious culture.

Why is it that the indigenous population cannot find someone with a common heritage worthy of their vote?

Like Dave says, this is something we'd expect to hear from a nationalist party. What on earth is an indigenous population anyway? Is it not enough to be born and educated here? Because many Jewish people are. Obviously, I too would never vote for someone who used politics to further religious aims....but it is also possible to seperate the two. Many MPs do that.

[HAL9000]

I too would never vote for someone who used politics to further religious aims.

You have hit the nail on the head. Ignoring legislation against anti-Semitism and other self-interest issues, which are, frankly, predictable and understandable? MPs who practice Talmudic Judaism have a hidden religious agenda.

Judaism is predicated upon the idea that God chose the Jews to impose upon the gentiles the justice and morality embodied within the Seven Noahide Laws.

In Judaism, the most sublime aspiration is the performance of mitzvot (commandments) through observance of the Law.

They consider that to be their raison d'?tre. That is why they seek out positions of influence within the country?s highest legislature (i.e. parliament) and in the courts, where they have become deeply entrenched in the administration of justice over the gentiles.

In order to become parliamentary lawmakers, they have to petition for the votes of the public, mostly white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants who usually know little or nothing about Talmudic Judaism.

I have never seen a candidate campaign openly as a religious Jew. Usually, they promote themselves as ordinary secular citizens ? often even denying, disguising or obfuscating their religious identity. Such practices amount to outright deception, in my view.

In a religious sense, a Jewish MP is not serving the community; he or she is performing a personal mitzvah - an act of worship.

I wonder how many people would vote for an MP who is a practicing Jew if they were aware of his or her religious aims and ambitions? Not many, I would wager.

------------------------------------------

The Jews Relief Act of 1858 was enacted so that Jews could become Members of Parliament, they formerly having refused to swear an oath ?upon the true faith of a Christian.?

[Marmora Man]

Hal9000 - What utter tosh. Worthy only of ignoring and warning friends to avoid your ranting.

[Huguenot]

Any individual may have a personal agenda when campaigning for office.

Your claims are unreasonable at three levels: to single out the Jews, to assume that they are religiously conservative, to assume that they are willing to exploit office to further a religious agenda.

The projection of destructive, illicit and covert agendas upon Jews in order to socially exclude them is an unpleasant habit of many centuries, and your accusation is made particularly repugnant by suggesting that if there is no evidence of wrongdoing, this is only because Jews have hidden it.

You effectively make them guilty of perfidy by birth and disregard any evidence to the contrary.

There is no more validity to your approach than a mediaeval witch hunt, and it deserves no more credit.