Democracy in Britain, land of sheep!

Last Thursday we Brits were given the perfect opportunity to change the political landscape of this potentially great country... and collectively we squandered that chance. So, what the hell happened?

I guess my first clue should have been postings on Facebook made by several of my friends.

The first would have been one chap who, although he liked the idea of changing from the first-past-the-post system, had come to the conclusion that it would make it easier for tactical voters to get their way and so had decided to vote NO to the proposed Alternative Vote system.

The second would have been several other people who were quite vocal in their opinion that the "common people" were wasting their time by voting and that even suggesting it was a good idea to vote was an insult.

So, that's it then. Democracy in Great Britain is officially dead... or is it?

I did actually consider suggesting to those who were so vocally abusive to the democratic process that perhaps they might want to consider relocating to, say, Libya, Iran, Saudi Arabia or somewhere similar... but thought better of it.

There seems to be some comfort in the fact that the Scottish people voted overwhelmingly for the Scottish National Party to run their own parliament; this is quite a significant event since the leader of the Scottish National Party has always been quite vocal about his intention to offer the Scots a vote on independence. If such a vote goes ahead I would wholeheartedly support independence for that part of the country as it would act as a demonstration for the rest of us that political change is indeed possible via the ballot box.

Indeed, it might be interesting to see where independence might lead Scotland with regard to a number of issues I hold close to my heart - working with the European Union, the Euro, rejecting the monarchy, having a written constitution and completing implementation of the International System of Units (otherwise known as the Metric System). Ireland, who gained independence from the UK in the 1920's have embraced all of these with no ill effects and it seems logical that Scotland could do much the same.

For now though Britain remains much the same as it was last week. A country stuck in the past, seemingly happier to be seen as a museum or a monument to Victorian times and the British Empire rather than a forward-thinking and modern democracy, part of the real world.

I sit and watch as more friends and colleagues emigrate to Australia, New Zealand and Canada and I wonder at which point I will eventually admit that the only way forward is to leave the land of my birth to live and work in a more progressive nation.

Democracy is at work in Britain... or is it?

In the wake of the spectacle put on by the highly undemocratic monarchy before the last weekend us Brits have been given an opportunity to vote for a significant change in the way our government is elected, if the "yes" vote wins it will mean the end to the First-past-the-post system that this country has used for centuries as it will be replaced by what is known as "Alternative Vote" where we will be allowed to indicate a second choice of candidate during elections.

However, as I sit here on the day of the referendum I have to wonder if there will actually be any change. The first (and so far only response) to my posting on Facebook is a friend who has already voted "no". As with the recent royal wedding I'm coming around to the idea that my long standing opinion that the people of my home country are able to make intelligent and informed decisions may be flawed. I'm getting to the point where I may have to admit that while my generation had an education based on being able to think for ourselves and look at all the evidence before making an important decision, the younger generation seems to have succumbed to the combined brainwashing of the last Labour government and the tabloid press; the dominance of last Friday's fawn-fest and the recent death of Bin Laden seem to have played into the hands of the two major political parties, the real issues behind the need for change in Britain have been largely hidden from the electorate with the result that those who can be bothered going to vote will probably decide to stick with the existing system.

It's ironic that a country so opposed to change voted "yes" in this country's last referendum that took us into what was then known as the EEC... and to this day there is a vocal minority who claim that people weren't given a proper choice in the matter and that we should leave the EU.

While I support the "yes" campaign and suspect that "no" will win, I stand to be pleasantly surprised when the result is announced.

What will you be doing this Friday?

Well, here in Great Britain (or the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland if you prefer) we have been granted an extra bank holiday (public holiday for those of you not from these islands). Some of you may ask why? Well... it seems that there are a couple of rich kids who are getting married, the groom's dad and grandparents are considered quite important in some circles and so our government have decided to give us all a day off work. What's more, that same government have agreed to pay for a big chunk of the festivities.

Put like that it sounds quite absurd doesn't it, however if you turn on the TV or read the newspapers you'll be well aware that the groom is the second in line to the throne and this wedding is apparently a source of joy and celebration for the nation. Good British subjects are expected to put up the bunting and party in the streets to celebrate their nuptials.

A growing number of Brits are starting to wake up and smell the coffee though. Although it is the British way to maintain the status quo there are many who at the time of the death of Diana Spencer started to question the nations love affair with the monarchy; in fact it has been said that during the days after that event Britain came closer to becoming a republic than at any time since the times of Oliver Cromwell. The image of royalty hasn't been particularly good in recent years with some sectors of the press actually starting to question the ludicrously lavish lifestyle of the British royal family and one organisation, Republic (www.republic.org.uk), are seeing an increase in their membership.

The current wedding seems to have been well orchestrated as a massive PR stunt for the monarchy and indeed there will be street parties. TV and radio coverage isn't being skimped on. Shops, pubs and other public places are putting up the bunting and cashing in on this event. However a growing number of people have seen the other side of this event. Ok so we're all being bribed with a day off work... but what about those who work as contractors or temps who are paid by the hour? What about small businesses who have been brow-beaten by their staff into closing down for the day so they can sit in front of their TV and drink beer for the day? What about the cost to manufacturing industry who will be closing down production lines for an extra day despite international orders that need to be filled? What about the cost to the tax payer of providing policing and other security; the cost of the participation of the armed forces who are already stretched to the limits by long term campaigns in the middle east and the new conflict in Libya? More to the point, why has the supposedly democratic government of this country agreed to foot even part of the bill so that the grandson of arguably one of the richest women in this country can have a lavish wedding?

In a time when we as a nation are being asked to tighten our belts and are being hit by tax increases and cut backs in order to pay the country's debts, going ahead and spending the nation's money on this wedding is quite frankly an insult to the people of this country.

What's more, part of the "establishment" has even said it will act against protests against the event. Although most people in Britain who regard themselves republicans are decent, law abiding, employed people, they are being portrayed by some sectors as anarchists and trouble makers, even comparing some of the "not the royal wedding" street parties as similar to recent civil actions that resulted in violence and criminal damage. Although obviously some will try to hijack peaceful protest I can see that on Saturday that the blame for any trouble will be firmly placed in our laps.

The thing is that we only want one thing... and that is to separate the monarchy from the day to day business of running our country. We want our head of state to be elected and not chosen by fate of birth. We want our government to be elected, not appointed by whoever happens to be running the show on a given day. We want an opportunity to hire and fire those who run our country democratically, not have them foisted on us because it's always been done that way. Is this too much to ask? The world has many very successful republics - and yes, a few despotic ones too - but I'm sure we could all point at monarchies who have been the same over the centuries. Just because ours works today it doesn't mean it will still work tomorrow!

So, what will I be doing this Friday?

Well... my rubbish is usually collected on Friday so first I'll be putting my bins out for collection. Since it is a public holiday I will probably have a lay in before heading to town and meet friends for lunch/coffee, if the iPad I want is in stock I'll probably go and buy that in the afternoon and will probably settle down for the evening with a DVD. I will try and have as normal a day as I possibly can.

What I will NOT be doing is sitting like a sheep watching a couple of rich kids getting married and I will NOT be participating in any form of celebration and I seriously doubt I will be watching much TV.

So what will you be doing?

Patiotism?

In the wake of the World Cup the number of white flags with red crosses seems to have gone down a bit... which given some of the pre-tournament rhetoric does raise some interesting questions.

One of the things I recall hearing most of several weeks ago was that people thought that they were going to be asked not to display the flag. It seemed that my most patriotic countrymen (and women) were most upset that the police, shop assistants and pub owners would deprive them of being able to display the cross of St George in all it's glory just in case it offended the many foreigners in their midst.

The real problem is though, that unlike some of our neighbours we're not really a flag flying country. If you go to France, Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands, the USA and Canada you will see their

respective flags flown everywhere; town halls, schools, offices, shops, even from people's houses or on poles in their front yards. However you hardly seem to see any of that here. So, why not?

I guess the first question is which flag! The name of our country is officially "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and as such has a flag of it's own, the Union Flag (not the Union Jack as is often thought). However this flag was for a while back in the `70s and `80s the symbol used by the skinheads. Seen then by many as a either racist, repugnant, or both, the Union Flag became a symbol of everything that made our country bad. Even now openly racist groups such as the British National Party wrap themselves in this cozy banner and as a consequence most good Brits don't really want to be seen to associate themselves with it - unless there is some special event on. Even then, some still don't want to be associated with this flag as it represents institutions they don't believe in - such as the union for Scots and the Irish, the royal family in the case of republicans... there are probably many more reasons.

England, Wales and Scotland all have their own with long and sometimes bloody histories. Northern Ireland has it's own too but again feeling towards this flag probably depends on your political leanings (I know very little about this and don't want to get involved in any arguments about it...). In all fairness you probably see the Scottish and Welsh flags flown in their respective countries than you seem to here in England.

This brings me back to the English flag though and my main gripes about it's use. Ok, so my personal politics is anti-monarchy. I also see it as laughable that people don't approve of a European Union but are quite happy to live in a badly-balanced union called the UK. So, if I were going to fly a flag it would be the red and white St Georges cross every time. When asked my nationality I am always English not British. So, it really bugs me when the only time that people in my country decide that they want to fly the flag, no matter what, is when the football is on. If it's that important then these people should be happy to fly the flag no matter what. It's unfortunate that an Englishman's home is NOT his castle and that planning permission is required otherwise I'd happily fly the flag out front of my house.

Last of all though, what the hell is this flag with the word "ENGLAND" scrawled across the middle of the horizontal red stripe? It certainly isn't the flag of England as any true Englishman (or woman) would know. Please, if you have one, take it down, throw it away and get a proper one!

So, is democracy working in Britain?

We awake today to the first full day for nearly 3 years with an elected prime minister. Before the socialists of the country start to complain that "more people voted against him" let me just remind everybody about the way it currently works.

1. David Cameron was democratically elected as the representative for his constituency.

2. He was democratically elected as leader of the Conservative party.

3. The Conservative party won more parliamentary seats in the general election than any other single party.

So, he doesn't have a majority... but then the point that has been argued in recent decades is that, particularly in our 3-party system, first past the post isn't fair. Well, at the end of the day, what has happened now in the fledgling coalition is that we'll get a chance to see what a modern government can achieve when two parties sit down and work through their differences in order to do the best for our country. Many people are moaning... some are scaremongering... but at the end of the day what has happened these last 2 weeks may actually be good for our country in the longer term.

But I did start with the word "democracy" and I'm afraid that's where my real gripe begins. As I sat watching the ongoings on TV last night I once again started to feel disgusted at one major aspect of our country's political system - the power wielded by persons who have never been subject to democratic process. I was actually sickened by the fact that some old woman in a big house in London is apparently the only person who could accept Gordon Brown's resignation and the only person who could appoint David Cameron as his replacement. Am I the only one who found it laughable that the official process is still referred to as the "kissing of hands"?

Wasn't it the people of this country who voted for the government and isn't it really our (we, the people) choice that matters?

Well, we now have the dual benefit of a Conservative government that will be firm with our economy and a Liberal Democrat component which has hopefully negotiated a way forward for the democratic process, a major modernisation is long overdue.

1. We still have a second tier of government which is made up of both the left overs of the old hereditary system along with "the great and the good" appointed by previous governments. The undemocratic House of Lords still continues to second guess laws drawn up by our democratically elected representatives in the House of Commons and that really must change. We should demand a fully elected second chamber.

2. Once our new laws have been drawn up we still have the indignity of the monarch having to sign it off before it becomes law. This is all wrong! Ok, so Queen Liz seems to sign on the dotted line... but what about Charlie when he takes the throne? He's shown himself to be anything other than politically impartial and what happens when he refuses to sign a bill? No single person should have this power unless they have been democratically elected for a fixed term of office.

3. The fixed term is also something that needs to change. Under current rules a government can stay in place for up to 5 years but they can call an election long before that based on approval ratings in the polls. In the news this morning it sounds as though the system might be changed to force a fixed 5-year term which would be good but I do believe that we should perhaps look towards the American system whereby the man at the top can only govern for 2 terms before having to hand over to somebody new.

Reform needs to happen at other levels of government too. First of all there is the disparity in regional government. If you live in Scotland you have your own parliament, Northern Ireland and Wales have assemblies, all of which can make actual change within their regions. What do those of us in England have? Nothing! I'm not saying that the other three regions should lose their improved political environment... on the contrary, England should get it's own regional assembly and then all four of those bodies should get the same powers!

Then at local level, we still seem to have no checks and balances. Local councils get elected by a relatively low number of votes and those elected run rough-shod over everybody for years to follow with no oversight. We need a proper mayor in all regions. Not this silly "Lord Mayor" who is nothing more than an appointed councillor who is appointed and then turns up at supermarket openings and sports event with a silly chain around his neck, I'm talking about an elected mayor who would have the responsibility for overseeing regional government and signing off on decisions made by councils - acting as a last line of defence against some of the dafter decisions made.

Then we need an end to quangos... in fact, any body with an appointed leader. Any organisation that has a real effect on our day-to-day life should have an ELECTED head, this in my mind means bodies like the police. If that's impractical then the appointee should at least be vetted and approved by an elected committee.

So, will we get any closer to a proper democracy in the next 5 years? I suspect there will be change but there won't be much of it... we'll see!

So, who are we going to vote for?

If you're British it hopefully won't have escaped your notice that we have a general election tomorrow... and given the current political landscape this seems to be to be the hardest choice I'll have ever had in the ballot box and, if the pundits are to be believed, probably the closest result since the 1970's. The problem seems to be that all of the main parties seem to be doing nothing more than producing soundbites and spin but not tackling the real problems that have been forced on us by many years of mis-management.

First of all there seems to be a lot of people who seem to think that immigration and the EU are the big issues and that they need to be dealt with harshly... in other words, stopping them in their tracks. What people don't seem to understand though is that throughout Britain's history we've relied on immigrants, today more because of the growing laziness of the British public. Yes, the Poles, the Czechs and the Slovakians are taking jobs but these are no different to those being taken by the Carribean and Indian workers who came to Britain in past decades, the big difference is that these people were clearly willing to get off their collective butts and go where the work is whereas Brits seem quite content to sit on theirs and complain they can't get jobs because the "immigrants" have taken them. If we had no immigration we'd still have the same jobless situation, we'd just have more stuff that didn't get done because Brits are too "proud" to do the menial stuff for low wages!

As for the EU... wake up folks, it's the 21st century. As a nation we need to forge closer ties with the rest of the world, not reject them out of hand because "it's not British" and "we should rule ourselves". Ok, so the EU is not perfect, but it is working and despite what the tabloid press tell us on a daily basis Britain does have a big say in what the EU decides and our economy gets a great deal from membership!

So, on that basis the UKIP and BNP are non starters... although I would never put my X in the box of either of these jingoistic parties - and the leaflet that the BNP dropped through my door showing a photo of their leader alongside Winston Churchill was just sickening. I do hope the Churchill family take action for this slur against one of this country's greatest leaders!

So then we have the economy. One thing that strikes me is that transport and energy are a major part of how our country operates and growing taxation on road users in the name of dubious climate change science in recent years has been slowly bringing our country to it's knees. Everything we use from food to computers has to be delivered somehow as do the raw materials for our factories and the finished goods, all have to get to the customer. Rising costs of transportation are leading to increased costs. Employees are asking for more money to cover their own transport costs. Gas and electricity are more expensive too which just adds insult to injury. The result of this? Companies struggling, rising unemployment, increased taxation required in order to pay for the aftermath.

Are any of the three remaining parties going to deal with this? No! The Labour incumbents seem intent on more of the same, the Liberal Democrats want to do more of this in the name of the environment and the Conservatives... they've spent several years telling us they'll do right by the driver but can we really see that happening come Friday morning?

Then there's constitutional reform. How is it that in the 21st century that Britain is still not a proper democracy? We have an unwritten constitution, an unelected head of state in a position of potentially unlimited power, an upper house of parliament that is still made up of those who have been appointed by the government of the day and then many aspects of government managed by unelected groups called "quango's". Are any of the main parties interested in fixing this? Will the turkeys vote for Christmas? I think not!

So, who do we vote for? If we vote Lib Dem en masse we're likely to find ourselves with a hung parliament and a repeat of the 1970's... which, for those who remember it, went quite badly. Voting Labour just gives us more of the same which is ever increasing taxation and not a lot else. The Conservatives seem to have lost their way and seem to spend much of their time trying to re-capture the right wing vote from the Eurosceptic brigade (so, full circle and back to the UKIP and BNP now... who will NEVER get my vote so they may as well stop trying).

Britain goes to the polls tomorrow, I really don't know what direction I'll be taking but I do get the feeling that the Britain that we'll have come the next election probably won't be much better than the one we have now.

The Pound and the Euro

It seems that today the British Pound has just about reached parity with the Euro... and is still pretty weak against the US Dollar. Given that I've spent 3 out of the last 5 weeks either in the Euro-zone or the USA this means that I've spent more money than I would have done this time last year and am pretty pissed at the die-hard little-Englanders who continue to prevent Britain from moving forward in the world.

I was, however, heartened to read an article at the BBC News website that speaks of a town in Sweden who are to become a "Euro-City" despite their country's refusal to join the Euro (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7798060.stm) and wondered how long it might be before the rest of Sweden, Denmark and Britain see sense.

Clearly this is not the right time for Britain to join the Euro, the exchange rate is currently so bad that it would make little sense (except for other Europeans) but in my mind the case for joining is as strong as ever. As our banks still collect the loose change from our accounts every time we use a debit card to buy from our Euro-zone neighbours (either on-line or in-country) and as visitors to the UK (often in transit) don't spend their loose change because it's the wrong currency we, both personally and a nation, continue to suffer.

If we had joined the Euro in the first wave, back in 2002, I have no doubt we would have been better off today. The British Pound was a strong currency in it's own right, such as the German Mark was, and joining the Euro at that stage would have fixed a good, solid rate between us and our largest trading partners helping our industry plan years in advance without having to account for currency fluctuations. The strength of the Pound would have also added to the strength of the new currency... strength in numbers you might say, or united we stand. In any case, if Britain was now part of the Euro then the weakness against the US Dollar might not be quite as bad for us, in fact we may have even added to the strength of the Euro since it's inception.

But no, we had to stick with the Pound. And now we have foreign companies either moving out of the UK or not bothering in the first place; we have businesses going to the wall (granted, some because they weren't particularly good in the first place); we have less money in our pockets to spend at those businesses that are still in business and their prices will rise given many of their products are imported from the Euro-zone!

I'll leave this entry with a quote from a Swede who would be happy to drop his country's own currency and it's much the same as my opinion:

"I'm a very proud Swede and none of my identity or pride is in the Swedish crown. It's in other, more important, stuff."