The British Are Coming!

In the normal way the universe does these sorts of things, I’m having soft power and cultural diplomacy thrown at me from every angle. So, as the law dictates, I have to write about it! It's probably just because I’m thinking about it so I’m seeing it more but still.

It started a couple of months ago on the Metro in Rome…

I saw a poster advertising English language lessons offered by The British Council. This pleased me to some extent as a couple of years before I had seen American-English lessons advertised on the Parisian Métro - yes, I take a lot of trains - and then that was it, I thought no more of it during my trip.

And then a few weeks ago, I heard a broadcast on the wonderful BBC Radio 4 which brought The British Council (BC) crashing back into my mind. The programme was called “Analysis: Cultural Diplomacy”. It discussed two projects funded by the Foreign Office of HM Government of the United Kingdom: the BBC World Service and the British Council. The purpose of these two institutions? “To promote Western liberal values [and] British values”.

Both of these are independently run, the World Service (WS) has “editoral autonomy” and the BC decides how it does what it does. However, they must clear their “objectives, priorities and targets” with the Foreign Secretary, currently William Hague.

The British Council was set up in 1934 by Sir Reginald Rex Leeper under the guise of “cultural propaganda”, a phrase which I'm sure the BC would now like to eschew, now preferring “cultural relations”. The WS was originally the Empire Service and broadcast, unsurprisingly to the British Empire. The WS has branched out and now broadcasts all over the globe, especially to those countries whose media outlets are influenced by their governments; this allows impartial news coverage as well as helping to bring about political change.

It is this last point which can be quite contentious; it can be seen as British and Western meddling. The BC in Iran were even forced to shut down their operations.

As the WS helps with the freedom of the press, the BC helps in educating people, especially in English, and shows forms of British culture, through art and noted people thoughout history, such as William Shakespeare. It is in this way that the main role of these institutions is to sell 'UK plc'. A job done, rightly or wrongly, by many others, such as the Royal Family, the Armed Forces and even Harry Potter.

One thing both of these institutions have gone to great lengths to stress over the years is their independence from the government, something which they have struggled with, especially in Iran. However, with the funding of the WS moving in 2014 from the Foreign Office to the licence fee payers - i.e. the British public - this may become easier for them to say...

My American readers should have no trouble with the week's title. I'll post the prize ;)

Much of this is based on information taken and quoted from the BBC here.

London's Burning, London's Burning! Fire, Fire! Fire, Fire!

As violence rolled across our Capital city, chilling words were uttered by an LBC listener from Sydney, “London, the world is watching.”

Groups of youths and adults rolled through London's streets for four nights, attacking shops and setting buildings and cars ablaze. The reason? An alleged drug dealer was shot by police. That's what purportedly started this horrific event. A man, Mark Duggan, was shot in Tottenham. The locals protested and marched on the local police station on Saturday night and the mayhem spread from there.

For Londoners, we suffered the worst of it on Monday 8th August, 2011, with police overwhelmed by the sheer number of ‘disaffected’ youths. Thankfully, the fourth night, 9th August, stayed mostly quiet in London, with minor disturbances reported in Canning Town, Crouch End, Highgate and Muswell Hill.

Saturday night alone, £100 million of damage was done. With the economy in as much trouble as it is, this is disastrous. Homes, family businesses and lives were destroyed. A furniture shop in Croydon, Reeves’ Corner, stood for over a century, it survived two world wars. And it was destroyed by its own community. These monsters destroyed the lives of those whom they live with with their brutality.

Now, let's get political: Should the Prime Minister, David Cameron, have returned sooner? That's debatable. What was there that he could have done to stop this? Very little, I would say. It was the job of the police to get the situation under control, which they eventually did. The furore of these monsters had to burn out, as did shops, cars and homes. Had Mr. Cameron returned earlier, it would have heightened the sense of emergency. As would calling in the army. As would declaring a 'state of emergency'.

The Chancellor’s return, however, did inject some much needed mirth, with many mockingly saying “Don’t worry, George Osborne’s coming back!”

What infuriates me, is the social workers, the youth workers, going on television, the radio, and saying that it’s because of government cuts, youth programmes being cancelled. My youth group was cut, all but closed, yet I wasn’t out there terrorising these people. Nor were any other of its members. They were the ones out there yesterday, today, cleaning up the streets after this travesty. These people may have hard lives, they may be bored on hot summer’s nights but that is no excuse.

In Croydon, Enfield, Lewisham and Southall, groups of residents banded together to protect their communities. They stood up to thugs and protected their homes and families. That is part of the beauty of London. That is what makes me proud to be British.

Carnage was wrought in: Bethnal Green, Birmingham, Bristol, Brixton, Bromley, Camden, Clapham, Croydon, Ealing, East Ham, Enfield, Hackney, Islington, Kensington High Street, Liverpool, Manchester, Notting Hill, Nottingham, Oxford Circus, Peckham, Poinders End, Salford, Sloane Square, Tottenham, Waltham Forest, West Bromwich and Woolwich. There may be more that I have missed, however, I hope not.

Minor trouble was reported and quickly stopped in Glasgow, I believe, but was quickly averted. The Scottish police said they were ready to help if their English counterparts needed it. Luckily, the trouble stayed, for the most part, in England and did not spread to other parts of the U.K..

My thoughts are with those areas outside of London still affected, those who woke up to chaos, those in anyway harmed by this carnage. And with our wonderful Policemen.

This week’s title, somewhat childish. Although, my six year old niece didn’t know it. Also a bit flippant. The prizes are getting better though.

Reformation or Deformation? Evolution or Revolution?

The Liberal Democrats have often been the forerunners in advocating political reform and could even be seen as the more republican of the three main parties - rightly or wrongly - so it is no wonder that the latest plan to destabilise and devalue our Parliamentary system and our country was put forward by the leader of that party.

A draft bill was proposed by the deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, a few weeks ago proposing to reform the House of Lords. This bill proposed 15 year fixed terms, starting in 2015, of an 80% elected upper chamber, more than halving the total number of peers to 300 full time members elected through proportional representation.

The glaring problems in this draft bill may expose, I fear, not only the folly of the Lib Dems, but of the whole government.

Expense: At the moment, members of the House of Lords get paid only for when they sit in the house. (There are a few exceptions, such as The Lord Speaker). I believe this is £300 per day they sit out of a total 142 [sic]. In all my years of watching BBC Parliament the only times I have seen the House full have been the state opening of Parliament. Now compare that amount to 300 full time paid 'Senators'. The cost seems somewhat higher in my mind. But, what's a little more taxes - at a time when Europe is in financial ruin - if we'll have 'greater democracy'?

Fixed Term: 15 year fixed term. After which, they are unable to run for office again. If they are good at their job, we lose them permanently. If they are shoddy, corrupt &c we are stuck with them for 15 years, with no way of recalling them. Is this Mr. Clegg's idea of democracy?

Powers: Currently, the main role of the upper chamber is to scrutinise and amend legislature. Sort of like proofreaders before a book is published. I don't mean to cause offence with that comparison, we are lucky enough to currently have a House of Lords that is made up of incredibly intelligent men and women who know considerable amounts in their fields. However, if members were elected, surely that would give them some sort of mandate? Surely they would start to demand more powers?
AND
They would be politicians! Do we need any more career politicians? We would surely lose the expertise that currently resides in the House of Lords.

Supremacy of The Other Place: Presently, the elected House of Commons has more power than the Lords, would this not detract from that? If you have 300 men and women elected to the upper house for a term three times the length of that of the other place would they not consider themselves the more supreme?

Despite Mr. Clegg's insistence that this would not happen, how would it not? In America they have standoffs between The Senate and the House of Representatives, which is why there is a President, to supposedly prevent this. Is this the next step? My saying the Lib Dems are in favour of a republic isn't sounding so dramatic, is it?

Side note: Members of the House of Lords no longer have to refer to the Commons as "The Other Place." It is a sad day.

Eighty Percent Elected: Why 80%? Is it an attempt to not seem too radical? Is it because within that 20% is some expertise that would be lost through elections? I can make no sense of it, personally. It's 100% or 0%. 80% doesn't work with the proposed overhaul.

Proportional Representation: As mentioned in "By Jove I Think He's Got It!" (4th July 2011), the Liberals won, through devolution and coalition, PR in the rest of the U.K. Is this just a feeble attempt by this party to gain what the public rejected in May 2011?

I am unable to see any benefits of this bill, other than it purportedly being more "democratic." With democracy working as well as it is now, I'm not sure I'm too eager for much more.

After the failed attempt to replace the "First Past The Post" voting system with the "Alternative Vote", the Liberal Democrats, and more specifically, Nick Clegg, need a political 'win' from being in the Coalition. This proposal is little more than a vote-mongering, political point scoring attempt made by a party that needs to curry favour with their supporters after the betrayal with student fees. I'm glad it seems as unpopular with MPs as it does with Peers.

On the Governement's e-petitions website, there is a proposal to scrap this plan. Please click here to sign.

Any guesses for the title? Prizes, as always, are not very good.

Edited 14/11/11

By Jove I think He's Got It!

At the constant behest (of my inexplicable mind), I have striven to find the find the inner workings of The United Kingdom after the devolution movement at the end of the last century. For the few of you that are interested, I will now reveal what information I have gleaned; although, I am sure that my translation will be wholly incorrect. 
At the end of the nineties, referenda were held across three countries within the U.K.: Scotland, Wales and Ireland on a devolved parliament, assembly and The Good Friday Agreement. As present circumstance indicates, the answer was a "Yes" to all three. In Scotland it was a resounding 74.03%. In Ireland, a similarly high result was garnered, 71.12%. The Welsh vote, however, was far closer, with 50.3% a win of just 0.6%!
These votes caused a First Minister to rise up in Northern Ireland and Scotland and a First Secretary in Wales. Wales and Northern Ireland have Assemblies rather than a parliament, although the workings are much the same.

In setting out the devolved powers, Scotland was given 73 MSPs, Wales 60 Assembly Members and Northern Ireland 108. What is notable in this is that, for a least a small portion of these members, proportional representation is used. This was forced into place in Scotland and Wales by Liberal Democrats working with Labour, who was against it in both instances. Also of note, in the first set of elections in Scotland no constituency members from the Conservative Party were elected with FPTP yet 18 were with PR. In Wales eight were with PR and one with FPTP.

The allocation of power to Holyrood (Scotland's political base) was done so by detailing the powers retained by The U.K. Parliament whereas in Wales the powers given were listed. This was most probably done in this way as The Welsh Assembly, not having a distinct legal system, had less of an allocation of power than Scotland.
The Leaders of these political institutions are all required to obtain The Royal Assent (The Queen signs off on all legislation).

With the rise of devolved powers, it is no surprise that a very important question was asked, this, known as the "West Lothian Question", was asked by Scottish MP (not MSP) Tom Daylle. He asked why happenings in England should be decided on by the 119 MPs at Westminster not representing English constituencies. Rightly so. However, the issue is not so clear cut as it may seem. These 119 MPs sit at Westminster to represent their constituents in matters concerning The U.K. As such, these lovely Members of Parliament decided to not vote on any issue effecting solely England. Thus, a temporary solution.


As I grow tired, I will decease and desist. I will also ignore all the errors that this is riddled with.
All statistics are copied from "Devolution in Britain Today", a book which I have used, to some extent, to understand our great nation. I apologise for any mistakes and would be delighted to have them brought to my attention.

The title is a dig at myself for taking so long in educating myself in this area. Of course, any guesses as to its origins are pleasing with the standard prizes being offered. Au revoir. 

Children of the Revolution

“Do you think Scotland should remain part of The United Kingdom?”

That is one of the questions being proposed for a possible referendum on Scottish independence. Alex Salmond, First Minister of Scotland and leader of the SNP (Scottish National Party), spent weeks attacking the previous Scottish Parliament in Holyrood for not giving the Scottish people what they apparently wanted: a referendum on the Country’s place within the U.K.

Mr. Salmond is thought (by me) to be going to push for complete financial independence first, possible through a referendum, followed by a referendum on complete independence. Meanwhile, he may attempt to increase public resentment of its position within the U.K. Despite Scottish patriotism and nationalism being far greater than in England, for which they are greatly lauded (again, by me), I’m disinclined to believe that the vast majority of the Scots would want to abandon the rest of us. And not simply for financial reasons, which many that either fear or are angered by further devolution purport, for I am sure that our Scottish neighbours would be able to settle their affairs without the English and Welsh. Their public services may bear the brunt of the loss of income, or perhaps all university would cease to be subsidised, which I’m sure would please many of the jealous below the Antonine Wall. But, we, and I include Wales and Northern Ireland in this, have a greatly interweaving history; one fraught, at times, with tension and strife, yet at others we have been the greatest of Allies and have worked hand in hand throughout our pasts. A problem Mr. Salmond faces, despite the occasional Scot feeling ‘British’ rather than Scottish, is they are not legally binding, as with referenda in England. As such, if a vote for independence is accrued in a referendum, he would still face the hefty task of getting it through the Scottish parliament. And if he were to fail in that? Well, let’s just say I wouldn’t fancy a bunch of angry Scots after me.

What I fear in the splitting of the U.K. is to some extent the financial futures of Scotland and England, but also, in a world of constant change, economic instability, emerging superpowers in the east, nuclear weaponry becoming available to even more countries and an ever-increasing, all consuming E.U. (more to the come on the European Union shortly). I truly believe that we would fare far better united, for divided we are far smaller, weaker and insignificant than we already are.

And perhaps far more worrying than all of that; where would we be without the greatest Scottish institutions? Scotch eggs, whisky, kilts, the English Middle classes becoming Scottish at their weddings ad possibly the most important: Scotch Mist. That, I fear most of all.

Why does this feel so exceptionally cruel?

In 2009 in the UK

51 10-19 year olds killed

270 fatal stabbings

773 murders

5706 suicides

17343 guns used in crimes

Does anyone care? I certainly think fewer and fewer people do. Is this just a list of numbers? Maybe that's the problem...

Merry Christmas Maggie Thatcher!

Some Misconceptions of Conservatives Actions:

Damn that Margaret Thatcher! Margaret Thatcher Milk Snatcher! That’s what you’re thinking isn’t it? Probably not as you’re most probably not in your thirties. Quick summary? Margaret Thatcher, as Secretary of State for Education and Science, faced cuts imposed on her by Edward Heath the Prime Minister between 1970 and 1974. Committed to educating children, she stopped giving milk to those aged between seven and eleven years. I know that’s a little bit mean and if I’m honest I did miss having milk when I was in year 3. BUT this received a high level of opposition from Baroness Thatcher behind closed doors (it’s bad to speak out against your party leader, especially in the Tory Party).

Personally, I think it’s better to not have free milk in exchange for a better education.

Have a lil look at this if you want to know more.

David Cameron promised to have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. However, due to the ratification of the treaty a referendum would have been ineffectual and pointless. What’s that you say, David Cameron went back on his promise?! A politician went back on a promise? Never!

Well it seems David Cameron must be cut from different cloth then as he promised he would call a referendum IF the treaty had not been ratified by all 27 member states ergo, no lie. Don’t believe me? Proof from the BBC

P.S. Don't forget to guess where the title's from :)