The most striking thing about this result is how thin the mandate is for what sounds, on paper, like an easy patriotic gesture. Reacquainting the public with "traditional British courtesies" through a government media drive carried the day, but only just, on 74 votes to 63 — hardly the rout you might expect for a policy that could be sold as costless and unobjectionable.
The Yes case, such as it was, rested on a story of cultural erosion rather than a defence of state messaging itself. The chamber's top-rated Yes argument framed it as a response to demographic change since the war, warning that "recent arrivals unfamiliar with the norms of behavior develop codes of behavior that may conflict with norms established over many centuries," and proposing "a centrally controlled programme of civil orientation delivered by media" as the remedy. A second Yes voice went further, arguing immigration has "diluted indigenous community values" in ways "actively promoted by recent governments" — a case built on cultural anxiety more than any confidence in Whitehall's competence to run it.
The No side, rating its arguments more highly than Yes did its own, attacked the premise from two directions. The most respected line in the whole debate was blunt distrust of the messenger: "It is not the government's job to engage in social engineering in this way, and the current government certainly can't be trusted to." Another voter mocked the practical absurdity — "Office of bowing and curtesying. Lessons in opening doors" — while a third pointed out the redundancy, noting "the citizenship curriculum, schools and the BBC already do this, to no avail," and that what's actually missing is enforcement, not messaging.
The split maps neatly onto a familiar fault line in British politics — the tension between "British values" as a schools-and-citizenship framework already embedded in policy since the 2000s, and scepticism, sharpened by rows over free speech and state overreach, about ministers moralising to the public through the airwaves.
That the highest-rated argument in the chamber was the one warning government off the project, yet Yes still won, suggests this vote was carried less by persuasion than by a mood the debate itself never quite resolved.
5 Opinions
It is not the government's job to engage in social engineering in this way, and the current government certainly can't be trusted to.
Increased immigration in recent years has undoubtedly changed the community culture in many parts of the country, particularly big/inner cities - just walk down many high streets to see the evidence for yourself. This change inevitably dilutes indigenous community values and behaviours, and has been actively promoted by recent governments. So, while a return to the primacy of British values is desperately needed, it is unlikely to be an objective for the current government.
British society has changed significantly since WW2 and traditional values of courtesy and respect have seemingly declined so that recent arrivals unfamiliar with the norms of behavior develop codes of behavior that may conflict with norms established over many centuries. Whilst some of these behaviours may be beneficial a centrally controlled programme of civil orientation delivered by media, perhaps similar to public information films might offer a way to provide guidance.
The citizenship curriculum, schools and the BBC already do this, to no avail. What's missing is police enforcement eg for public nuisance offences. That's all some people understand.
What ! Office of bowing and curtesying. Lessons in opening doors. My word