'I decided to take the existing test. I scored 17 out of 24, which means I failed. Narrowly. The pass mark is 75 per cent (that is, 18 and above). Every member of the New Statesman editorial team – writers, editors, sub-editors, bloggers – I asked to take the test online also failed. Miserably. (The person with the lowest score in the office got nine. She shall remain nameless.)'

Yes but do you think that the others were perhaps treating the whole exercise ironically in that typical 'we don't give a piss' attitude we know and so love? Also, perhaps they wanted to give you some ammo for your story?

'Those who are less educated and less well off, however, struggle [with the test].'

So does this mean that you (who failed the test) are less educated than...what precisely? And can the same not be said for the whole NS office?

But on the whole you are right. The concept of the test is a joke; its justification is too; and the way it is being excuted is a farce.

It's a shame. I remember they gave the test to random British people from different backgrounds, and 90% of them failed. I think there should only be common sense questions.

Roger, from Dining Solutions Direct

As someone who had to take this test on my way to British Citizenship, and a historian by education, there is one question which doesn't seem to feature at all. I studied for the test, sort of, the night before taking it, I completed it in 5 minutes (multiple choice testing is useless for determining grasp of the information learnt), and scored 24 out of 24. My question is this, does the fact that I knew every answer to the test mean that I subscribe to British values now? In my case, the answer is mostly yes, being a white South African, there is a lot of shared values between our two nations when it comes to people of European descent in any case, but being an atheist, I don't share Michael Gove's enthusiasm for Bibles in schools, nor do I see much sense in the Queen being the head of the Church of England. Do I lose points now for not being British? How does Theresa May intend for me knowing the answers to the test to somehow convince me that I should subscribe to the notion of a state church? The test can't do that in the absence of a mechanism for coercing me into embracing christianity and the validity of a state church. Let's take it a step further and create a hypothetical scenario whereby I not only reject the notion of christianity as a state church, but I reject the notion of a country not based on say, the writings of Mani. Am I qoing to stop promoting that idea simply because I 'understand' Britishness? Again, in the absence of a mechanism for coercing me to do so, the test does nothing do further my embracing of Britishness. So, my question is this, what is the point of the test really?

Mehdi touches on that point in his article, the test is supposed to weed out those who are not comfortable with speaking English, or those who are not 'smart' learners. In principle, I have no objection to any government promoting the concept that people who move to a different country should at least learn the language, it's a very practical idea too. But this idea too falls short of making people more British. I spoke English fluently before I came to the UK, did that mean I was somehow more British before coming here? No. Why then, should learning English once in the UK, change a person's approach to being British? It doesn't. As an aside, can we really say that the people who failed the test because of language or cognitive barriers are the ones we really want to keep out? What if some of these people came here because they truly believe in the values of this country? We'll never know, but we do know that it raises another obvious failure in the concept of applying this test.

People who do not want to integrate or do not want to give up their own identity will not in the slightest be encouraged to do so by learning English or passing a very stupid and elementary test. This is a stupid idea and has been since Labour introduced it.

Instead of reminding people of how different Britishness is from their immigrant culture, the government should encourage people to participate in community projects where people can get to know each other on a more human level to see how much they actually have in common. One doesn't get to know other people by reading about immigratant stories in the tabloid press or being told how decadent the local folk are behind the safety of a local religious community. But being cynical about the human race, I don't think this will happen, our fear of the 'outsiders' and our subjective reverance of our own heritage are too great obstacles for us to ever fully integrate with others. And for this, everyone of us who does not want to make the effort to get to know each other beyond what we read in the press, is responsible.

Interesting points however I fail to see why someone should request to come to this country without proving that they are committed to not only living in Britain but contributing to Britain and learning the language is the very least a prospective citizen should be expected to do. The questions themselves are almost secondary, though I do agree that perhaps more thought should be given to questions relating to Britain today than general knowledge history (though someone coming to Britain should at least be able to cover the 'highlights').

As for the rather daft remark about everyone should have to take it, Why? For better or worse the British Citizen was born in Britain, we have nothing to prove. As with prospective immigrants here if we want to go elsewhere in the world then we too would have to demonstrate our willingness to adapt to another culture and way of doing things.

The test is far from perfect and shouldn't be the sole determiner of whether someone can remain in Britain but I think it has a place, however if there is a better way of doing this what is it? How can someone prove they are committed to the culture and future of Britain (and I don't think just turning up is quite enough) and that they will contribute to society.

"Consider the following passage"

I considered it. It seems spot on to me. What is your point? Why does it not surprise me by the way that the entire NS editorial team failed the test? I am glad to see however that your article is about as popular as school porridge in the summer holidays.

"For many indigenous peoples in Africa, the Indian subcontinent, and elsewhere, the British empire often brought more regular, acceptable and impartial systems of law and order than many had experienced under their own rulers, or under alien rulers other than Europeans . . . Public health, peace and access to education can mean more to ordinary people than precisely who are their rulers."

Well, that 's true. The people of Rhodesia werea lot better off under the white man than they are under Mugabe.