PCC- A Criminal Waste of Time and Money

The British government recently held its first elections for Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs). Those elected to the post have influence over regional police, their staff and priorities. Election turnout for these elections tended to range from 10-20%. It seems unsurprising to me that turnout was so low. But curiously, whilst many in the media similarly predicted this, they largely felt it was due to disillusionment with the political elite and main parties. This may explain part of it, but I feel it was for even more basic reasons than that: 1) lack of awareness and 2) lack of interest. 1) Lack of Awareness: I am widely considered a politically-aware individual amongst my peers, yet I was unaware of when they were being held. So others were also likely to have been unaware of the election date, and probably that the elections were being held at all. 2) Lack of Interest: This is the biggest issue in my book. Vague descriptions were given to the role, and surely there is no need for even more bureaucracy and politicians than there already are. There are already local borough or county councils, parliamentary representatives, assembly members and European parliamentary representatives- surely these elected representatives could spend some time reviewing police work, without electing more politicians. And if this role is felt to be necessary, then why should we stop at elected commissioners for police? Doesn't that then justify commissioners for education, health, transport, the environment... where does it end? All the PCC elections have done is expand an already excessive political elite, feathering the nests of more politicians at a time of cutbacks, to do a job other institutions should already be doing. Moreover, whilst on the surface, more democracy may appear to be better, but in fact too many elections induce voter fatigue- public irritation with too many elections, reducing turnout. It is also expensive, and often represents the interests of a minority of interested voters, with most other voters either disinterested or disillusioned. Also, just because a candidate is most popular with voters doesn't mean they are necessarily most capable of the job. That is not to criticise democracy generally: it is crucial for legitimate, representative government- but to try and elect too many positions usually results in a waste of time and money.

English is the Lingua Franca- good or bad for Britain?

On the surface of it, it is very convenient for the British (and other English-speaking nations), as they can travel much of the world and be understood, as English is the lingua franca. But this also poses problems for the British, an issue highlighted as a consequence of recent government efforts to promote the study of languages in British schools. It is all well and good that the government is encouraging primary and secondary schools to teach French, Spanish and Mandarin. But unless these were the exclusive subjects taught at school, or multiple subjects were taught in these languages, pupils are not going to become fluent. So by the time pupils finish school they will know only a few token phrases- nowhere near enough to get by when travelling. The advantage to countries that include non-native English speakers is that outside of lessons, people are likely to listen to English-speaking music and watch English-speaking films. Moreover, when they travel overseas, due to English being the lingua franca, two people from different nationalities are likely to communicate in English- despite it not being their native language. Meanwhile, a vast majority of Britons are not regularly exposed to foreign languages to this extent, and therefore do not have the shared incentive to learn these languages. As mentioned at the beginning, most Britons are nevertheless still in an advantageous position by being native English speakers. But then again, opportunities are hindered by speaking only one language fluently. For example, consider the allowances that are made in the EU to better ensure a higher proportion of British employees within the EU, an allowance not taken advantage of by many Britons due to their inability to speak a language besides English fluently. There is another drawback to speaking the lingua franca. It means that, whilst a smaller proportion of Britons can take advantage of opportunities elsewhere in the non-English speaking world in terms of work, particularly in other EU countries; meanwhile the far greater proportion of those who are not native English-speakers, but nevertheless have it as a second language, are able to work easily in Anglosphere countries- like Britain. With Britain weathering the economic relatively well, particularly when compared with elsewhere in Europe, many workers from the EU already have a great incentive to use their right as an EU/EEA citizen to work in the UK. Meanwhile the balance of workers entering Britain to work would already be relatively high, precisely because its language is indeed the lingua franca. Thus, as the proportion of EU/EEA workers migrating to Britain is likely to be high already as a relatively economically stable country, the speaking of English in the UK is bound to tip this balance even more, adding further challenges to a country already dealing with an increasing and dense population. Such problems include the availability of housing (when it is not plentiful enough to house a larger population, it drives prices higher, as is currently the case despite the recession), utilities (water, electric and gas resources are spread more thinly amongst a larger population) and public services, such as benefits, healthcare and education (when the government is already dealing with a deficit regarding public spending).

Cruel To Be Kind?: A Smaller Eurozone

Months of austerity cuts and protests have dragged on into years, and despite regular meetings among the European elite on the issue it still appears no closer to being resolved. Whilst half of the Eurozone is enduring radical spending cuts, so drastic that they have encouraged frequent riots, the other half is relatively stable, though increasingly bitter that their responsibly-saved Euros are being spent on countries that are less fiscally-responsible. Moreover, the crisis has had more far-reaching impact, as other developed and developing economies worldwide rely on European custom and investments to prosper, which prolongs global economic turmoil. There is infrequently speculation on the breakup of the Eurozone- and even less frequently on the end of the Eurozone altogether. Whilst I don’t believe the Euro will be eradicated altogether, at present a dramatic change in membership seems to be the best solution to bringing this crisis towards a conclusion. All sides in the Eurozone are currently hampered by shared exchange rates and substantial economic integration and interdependence; a problem which, with hindsight, clearly should have been avoided by greater enforcement of budgetary spending and borrowing in Eurozone member states from the offset. By exceeding the borrowing limits agreed for the Eurozone, member states jeopardise the economic stability of other member states as well as their own. Consequently, it would seem fair if, once a state exceeds those limits for a certain period of time, all Eurozone member states were entitled to a vote on whether that state should be expelled from the Eurozone as a result, with a super-majority passing the decision. Expulsion of fiscally-irresponsible states means that, whilst those states will suffer dramatically in the short-term, in the longer-term, by restoring their own currencies, supply and demand will rebalance their economy quicker than if they try to do so with a shared currency. Currently, Greece is trying to encourage investors' confidence in their weak economy, which uses the strong and expensive currency, the Euro. If Greece had a restored Drachma, it would be cheaper than a Euro, and investors may wish to seize goods in this cheaper currency, and ultimately rebalance the economy. Exclusion of irresponsible states also reduces the burden on those that abide by the rules. A smaller, more efficient Eurozone would benefit those within it by restoring its collective reputation as a reliable investment hub, whilst those economically-weaker states will be able to recover at their own pace, and the prospect of stability and growth should give the world economy a boost. It would also provide Eurozone states with an incentive to abide by the borrowing guidelines, and deter states from joining if they feel they are unable to meet these requirements.

Who decides the "Future of Europe"?

Last week, a group of foreign ministers from 11 different European Union (EU) member states, called the "Future of Europe group", issued a report calling for closer integration between member states, with key points being reference to a European Army and the greater use of "super-majorities" in decision-making (decisions made only with the backing of representatives of a majority of member states and a majority of the EU's population). Whilst there are merits to some of the points agreed in the report, with super-majorities being much fairer and more representative, and the need for greater European clout in economic matters, given how the weak oversight of national budgets has completely undermined the Eurozone's unity and effectiveness, is also crucial if the Euro is to have a future. What is troubling is that a seemingly self-imposed elite group of member states have decided they will direct the EU's "future", rather than including ALL foreign ministers or at least just Eurozone members. There seems to be no logic to the choice of this 11, except perhaps that they mostly represent countries usually favouring further integration. Britain and Ireland are amongst the oldest EU member states (or EEC as it was then) yet have been excluded from contributing to this report. Greece has similarly been in the EU for a long time, and both Greece and Ireland are in the Eurozone, yet have been excluded. Countries such as Britain, Sweden, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Finland have far larger populations and contribute more economically to the EU than Luxembourg, yet the latter is the only one of this list of member states to have an input on Europe's future. If the EU is to get greater respect and legitimacy from all European states, it should extend the fairness that it preaches to what it does in practice.

From GCSEs to English Baccalaureate

British Education Minister, Michael Gove, has decided that the British General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) is no longer an adequate qualification, and is due to replace it with the English Baccalaureate. In practice, rather than representing the culmination of work on coursework (usually essay projects) and modular exams over a two-year period, the focus will be on the final set of exams instead. For me, this is damaging in two key respects: firstly, by saying that the GCSE is inferior and the new qualification is superior undermines the generations of job-seekers today who are armed with GCSEs through no choice of their own. What would have been better was to improve GCSEs and keep their name. Secondly, I do not personally consider an exam-focused replacement as an improvement, given that not everyone deals with exams well (which doesn't make them less intelligent) and a focus on exams means that new generation's qualifications will be based more on memory (through exam revision) and having a good day and good luck with their exam papers, rather than getting the overall evidence of genuine understanding that more staggered and varied examination methods provide. What should be the focus of the government is not examination methods, but the nature of school education in general. The national curriculum needs to focus more on equipping pupils for the real world, including more actual experience in the workplace and skills they can use there, rather than basing education on knowledge, probably over 80% of which is not useful and forgotten by pupils a couple of years after leaving school. Wouldn't a greater understanding of loans, interest rates and mental arithmetic be more useful in maths lessons than algebra and Pythagoras' theorem? Equally, wouldn't perfecting the art of letter-writing be more useful than squeezing in numerous Shakespeare plays? Knowledge is important, but in this more competitive world British pupils need to be better prepared for the world of work than they currently are, a world which generally favours experience over knowledge.

MONARCHIES V REPUBLICS IN EUROPE

As an article written by a monarchist, this will clearly be biased in favour of monarchies over republics. I am also mindful of the recent scandal regarding King Juan Carlos of Spain and his elephant hunting in Africa. Nevertheless, this year I cannot help but notice that, so far (King Juan Carlos aside) 2012 seems to be shaping up as a year of strength for monarchy and weakness for republicanism in Europe. In Europe, the Danish have celebrated 40 years of service from their Queen Margrethe II, whilst Britain and the Commonwealth have celebrated the 60 year Diamond Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II. Such celebrations have brought great happiness, optimism and community spirit in times of difficulty. In contrast, this year the presidents of Germany, Hungary and Romania have been compelled to stand down as their respective country's leaders due to various scandals. Germany's Christian Wulff resigned after a scandal relating to loans; Hungary's Pal Schmitt stepped down after a plagiarism scandal relating to his degree; and Romania's Traian Basescu has also been suspended due to disputes over his use of power. When talking to some Europeans from republics (and other republicans in general) about why they tend to disregard monarchy, they tend to say two things: monarchy is expensive and monarchy is outdated. As I said in my last article, monarchies have the potential to earn more money than they cost, and governments can control spending on the monarchy depending on the health of state finances. Meanwhile, saying something is "outdated" is hardly a good reason: just because something is newer doesn't mean it is better. Moreover, whilst on the surface it would seem better to have as many offices elected as possible, in reality this only really seems necessary in terms of the upper house of the legislature and the head of government in terms of shaping policy and laws, but elsewhere can lead to electoral fatigue and populism. Appointed officials tend to have more experience and practical knowledge, hence their appointment, whilst the advantages of a hereditary constitutional monarch were highlighted in my last article. Consider the advantages to monarchy highlighted in this article and my last, and the dignity and optimism associated with constitutional monarchies contrasts markedly with the instability and embarrassment caused by the aforementioned presidents this year. Whilst Europe experiences hard times, it relies on its leaders more than ever to provide moral leadership, support and optimism- something which the age-old monarchies seem to be achieving more effectively than their presidential counterparts in Europe.

CONGRATULATIONS TO HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN FOR SIXTY YEARS OF SERVICE

This week there have been Diamond Jubilee celebrations in the UK, the Commonwealth and beyond, marking sixty years since Queen Elizabeth II came to the throne of the UK and her other realms. Whilst three hundred years ago, many monarchs could take their positions for granted; today all institutions are under the relentless scrutiny of 24-hour media- and the monarchy is no exception. I will therefore explain the value of constitutional monarchy; dispel the many myths of monarchy's costs- including the view that royals are simply paid by the public to wave from car windows and carriages, and therefore have no importance.

In the UK the monarchy is important in six key ways: culture, charity, celebrations, advice, democratic safeguard and meeting international leaders.

1) Culture: looking at the history of the British Isles, there are relatively few and short periods in which there has been no monarch. This close bond between monarchy and the UK over the centuries has meant that they have inevitably shaped each other. Whilst the Census carried out across the UK last year can trace its roots to the Domesday Book of King William I (the Conqueror); under the Kings John and Henry III we saw the early development of parliamentary power and restrictions on monarchical absolutism, as well as the initial structure of what would form the world-famous landmark of the Houses of Parliament in Westminster; King Edward III's Order of the Garter marked the importance royal rewards and pageantry would continue to play in the relationship between monarchy and subjects; the Church of England's establishment under King Henry VIII; the establishment of the Union Jack and coat of arms under King James I of England /VI of Scotland; the first Prime Minister, Sir Robert Walpole, served under King George I of Great Britain and Ireland; the onset of modern British democracy with the First Reform Act under King William IV; the spread of British global influence, as well as economic and urban development, symbolised by Queen Victoria; as well as the wartime morale boosts provided by Kings George V and VI during the First and Second World Wars respectively. As well as history, there is the role of monarchy in other aspects of British life, from the many historical plays of William Shakespeare, to the prominence of the monarchy in British film-making in modern times. For centuries, royals have appeared on our coins, given royal appointments to everyday products in the UK, and developed and preserved great castles, palaces, parks and gardens across the country. Without the monarchy, surely the decline in British influence since the Second World War would have been intensified; had the country become another anonymous republic, led by another anonymous, suited politician, who would have attracted even less attention on the world stage. Moreover, the monarchy is one of the few remaining links that really seems to bind the Commonwealth together, continuing to highlight the ongoing cultural similarities between Britain and the likes of Australia, Canada, India, Belize and many others. Were it not for the monarchy, the historic and cultural ties between Britain and these other states would probably have been completely neglected.

2) Charity: the monarchy is able to speak for those who have no (electoral) voice. This not only refers to causes relating to the environment and wildlife, but also the homeless and young people. Politicians only really need to consider the main interests of those who can vote to stay in power, but the monarchy's lack of obligation to follow popular opinion, empowers them to shape it to some extent. The royal family are patrons of many charities in the UK and abroad, with Prince Charles (heir to the throne) already a long-term and influential activist on behalf of environmental issues, and founder of the Prince's Trust, which helps vulnerable young people engage with the modern world more effectively and enhance their prospects. Meanwhile, Prince William (second-in-line to the throne) slept rough for a night to highlight homelessness in the UK. Thus the monarchy engages with the voluntary, philanthropic sector to fill the vacuums which the state sector rarely ventures into. Were the monarch to be replaced by an elected head of state, they would once again concern themselves with swing voters in marginal constituencies, as all politicians do, rather than the broader society and national issues.

3) Celebrations: over the short term and long term, the monarchy is involved with many national events. These include the annual events such as the New Year's Honours, Easter Service, the Trooping of the Colour in the summer, War Remembrance services in November, then the Queen's/King's speech at Christmas. Not only does the monarch lead the country in celebrations and commemorations, but does so without the negative party and political associations politicians have. For example, a President Thatcher or Cameron may have been greeted with hostility by those they were honouring, as the person to be honoured may have directly or indirectly suffered as a result of jobs cuts. Similarly, a President Blair may have encouraged scorn leading a Remembrance service, because he led the UK into the dubious Iraq War. Lacking political involvement, the monarch lacks such controversial ties, inviting only some scorn from a minority due to the institution of monarchy (often relating to money, etc, which will be addressed later) but not by due the actions of the monarch personally. Thus events are untainted by the national figurehead's involvement. Although the UK tends to lack regular mass celebrations, this is more than compensated for by the relatively infrequent royal events, such as weddings, coronations and jubilees, which are carried out with great efficiency and spectacle to amaze people worldwide. On a smaller scale, such events bring communities together, whilst regular royal visits across the UK mean that areas that may lack electoral strategic importance, and therefore tend to be avoided by elected leaders, are far more likely to enjoy a royal visit.

4) Advice: compared with elected politicians, royals have a unique perspective on government and issues. Whilst politicians tend to require certain personality traits and a certain outlook to get to where they are, this is not the case for monarchs. These similarities are likely to narrow politicians' outlook in some respects; where as royals, due to the hereditary nature of monarchy, can approach their role with a variety of personalities and opinions, which can offer politicians a different perspective. Moreover, the inheritance of generations of political experience, along with the lifelong presence of royals within the establishment, mean their opinions are often insightful, based on substantial experience. Monarchs' lack of political ambition means they can also offer politicians opinions free from party bias and self-motivated ambition. Combined with this is the awareness that the more stable the country is, the more secure the monarchy's position is; so it is in the monarch's interest to share views based on the national interest.

5) Democratic Safeguard: ironically (given the institution's undemocratic nature) hereditary monarchy exists above political trends, providing continuity and stability, particularly crucial during times when extremists are growing in influence. Were the monarch given a completely, morally-objectionable law to grant assent to, the monarch would be expected to reject it, thus removing legitimacy from an extremist's actions. It is in the monarch's interest to resist extremism, based on the experiences of those who haven't: consider the dissolution of the Italian and Greek monarchies after their Kings consented to dictatorial rule. The monarchy represents long-term interests, not short-term trends.

6) Meeting International Leaders: for similar reasons as references to the honours system above under "celebrations"; the apolitical, non-controversial nature of the monarchy means that an international leader's reputation is not jeopardised by association with a constitutional monarch. The monarch can be conveyed as all things to all leaders: a leader of liberal democracy, yet also conservative tradition. Again, the wealth of experience monarchs have to offer also arms them with cultural understanding and long-term connections with countries and leaders that politicians, with four or five year-long electoral terms, cannot match. The monarch's unique position as head of state, not only of Britain but several other Commonwealth Realms, and not to mention head of the even more numerous group of countries within the Commonwealth as a whole, means they have cultural significance to a wider range of people worldwide. The monarch's respectful stance towards other cultures across the world also sets a good example, and endears the monarch and consequently their realms towards the countries they visit.

Given the above, the monarchy has played, and will continue to play, an important role in my country and others.

Urban Myth: The monarchy is a drain on public money, which would be more valued if spent in other areas during this economically difficult times.

Reality: The monarchy's income from palaces and property, as well as the indirect tourist appeal of an ongoing monarchy, outweighs what the monarchy takes to cover its costs- so the monarchy is effectively a profitable nationalised institution, not a drain on public resources. Were it to be abolished, the government would not receive the direct income in can currently take from royal property, and there would be a decline in interest in monarchy-associated institutions, not to mention the other tangible benefits listed above.

Urban Myth: The monarchy is an anachronistic and undemocratic institution, which embarrasses the modern democratic values of Britain and other Commonwealth Realms.

Reality: Just because something is newer doesn't make it better. Consider the many failed and unstable systems that have arisen then fallen during the twentieth century, let alone before and after; whilst the strengths of monarchy are still clear to see, even in the twenty-first century. Monarchies like the Commonwealth Realms and the constitutional monarchies of Western Europe tend to have a far greater record of defending democracy and liberalism than elsewhere in Europe- let alone the rest of the world. As was mentioned in my fifth point above, the monarchy helps defend democracy. Meanwhile, voting for all key roles sounds good in theory, but isn't necessarily so popular/effective in practice. The consistent popularity of the monarchy in opinion polls is far stronger than our elected prime ministers and other politicians, while turnout for the European Parliament can be so minimal that it's accurate representation of the public seems dubious. Plus, it should be needless to say that not all influential figures, besides the monarchy, are elected- with judges providing a good example. Judges have great influence based on their experience, not popularity- like the monarchy.

Urban Myth: There's no point in having a monarchy because they don't have any real power, do anything, or make a difference.

Reality: Reread this message if you haven't worked out this answer!

SYMPATHY WITH HISPANIC COUNTRIES DURING RECESSION

I would like to express particular sympathy for Spain and several other Hispanic countries with the news of Spanish companies being nationalised in South America. I sympathise with Spain, in the sense that the country has already been suffering due to the economic crisis, so it could do without its lucrative overseas businesses being seized and nationalised at this difficult time. Having said this, I can sympathise with Argentina (Falklands aside) and Bolivia in wanting to nationalise these companies, following a similar train of thought as my last post. It is understandable that a country would rather have control of, and keep profits from, its own resources. However, I can foresee a negative consequence of this being that international companies may fear making further investments in South America, due to the greater risk that their investments may similarly be lost because they are nationalised. Though it is better for countries to produce their own wealth, at times of difficulty all income is valuable- and overseas investment in your country is one of them.

ONGOING SALES OF BRITISH BUSINESSES

News today of the sale of the British cereal company Weetabix to Chinese company Bright Food marks yet another sale of a successful, long-established British company being sold off to international companies. Whilst in the short-term it demonstrates an interest in, and the value of, the British economy; in the long-term it can have several negative effects. When owned by a company outside of the UK, the is arguably a greater risk that operations could be completely removed from the UK- jeopardising hundreds of British jobs for certain communities. It also dwindles the impact the British government can have on the company so that it assists national interests, and in cultural terms also represents a loss for the country. Weetabix is the latest of many companies to be sold off, including Abbey National (now owned by a Spanish company), Cadbury (now owned by an American company) and EMI record company (also now owned by an American company.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM

It's been a topic that has now dragged on for over 100 years in the UK. There is a broad consensus that the UK's second legislative chamber, the House of Lords, is in need of reform to become more representative, but how this should be achieved has not yet been agreed upon. Proposals generally debate whether a completely elected chamber should be the goal- but then what would differentiate it from the House of Commons to justify its existence, and ensure that one House has more clout than the other?

My personal view is that the House of Lords should be based on a very original concept, with its membership composed of three types of lords/peers: Peoples' Peers, Life Peers and Society Peers.

Peoples' Peers: These would be elected through proportional representation on a UK-wide basis. So if 38% of votes for Peoples' Peers were for the Labour party, approximately 38% of the Peoples' Peers would come from this party. If 8% of votes came from UKIP then they would receive approximately 8% of the House of Lords' Peoples' Peers. As many smaller parties, and their supporters, complain that the First Past the Post System excludes them in the House of Commons, then not only would the House of Lords give them a chance for representation, but would also allow them to establish themselves as credible parties to lead the country and perhaps boost their success in General Elections. They could serve 7-year-long terms (without term limits, as term limits remove the incentive of working hard for the next election)

Life Peers: These would be appointed by the government on the basis of great service to the country in some respect. For example, it is likely that not only former Prime Ministers and high-ranking Civil Servants would be appointed, but also influential inventors, entrepreneurs, scientists and athletes would similarly be appointed for a life-long term (unless their position is revoked due to a scandal).

Society Peers: These would be representatives of various organisations within the UK, thus representing the public in a new and different way. Whilst representatives in the House of Commons reflect the areas people live in, Society Peers would reflect aspects of peoples' lives. So Society Peers could represent religions, causal pressure groups, employers, trade unions and other organisations which include a minimum quota of members, e.g. at least 100,000. Thus representatives of the Church of England, Trades Union Congress and the National Health Service would have seats as Society Peers. The basis of their election/appointment could be decided by the organisations they represent.

I believe this would represent British public opinion in new and original ways, offering even more of the diverse experiences and perspectives of members that the current House of Lords is already praised for today. Its unique configuration would justify its existence and avoid challenging the House of Commons, which it would by sharing a system that is too similar.

The current system doesn't really cause any problems for the public, but there is certainly room for improvement. However, if we're going to bother reforming the House of Lords, let's make it worth doing!

GALLOWAY ON THE FALKLANDS

Controversial Respect MP George Galloway recently made some interesting points regarding the Falkland Islands. Initially sceptical, I was surprised to find that he offered an alternative, yet rational respective on the Falkland Islands' future. Mr Galloway highlighted how the Falklands issue undermines Britain's valuable economic ties, not only with Argentina, but much of Latin America in the short-term. He also drew attention to how the global balance of power is shifting, meaning a repeat of the British victory in the Falklands War in 1982 is becoming increasingly unlikely in the face of a stronger and more united Latin America. Meanwhile support from the USA and EU is likely to be less straightforward for Britain in this scenario.

I believe Galloway's suggestion of bribing Falkland Islanders to relocate to Britain to placate Argentina would be humiliating for Britain, and unfair to the Islanders who would be forced to change their lifestyles due to the whims of politicians. However, his alternative idea of making more compromises and cooperation with Argentina over the Falklands seems much more pragmatic. As the issue of oil around the Falklands seems to have motivated the recent resurgence in tensions, perhaps it would be sensible to negotiate a share of the profits with Argentina, and maybe greater cooperation between Argentina and Britain when Falklands policies are likely to affect Argentina. This would sensibly alleviate tensions with Argentina, and improve Britain's ties with Latin America- and without humiliating Britain on the world stage. What remains awkward however is any concession of sovereignty, with Argentina wanting to make the Falklands part of their country; whilst the Islanders themselves want to remain entirely British, which seem to be mutually exclusive objectives. Hopefully the aforementioned compromises would be enough, though maybe some arrangement to demonstrate shared official control would be more accommodating, with an Argentine Governor working in partnership with the British Governor of the Islands.

PROPOSALS TO IMPLEMENT FAR-REACHING PRIVATISATION OF BRITISH ROADS

As the British government searches for new ways to reduce government debt and boost the economy, their sights have turned to Britain's roads. Already, there are several examples of privately-controlled roads and infrastructure in the UK, e.g. numerous British bridges require a toll to cross. However, there are suggestions that this would be a far more widespread phenomenon with Britain's roads.

I think this would be a very bad and unpopular idea for two reasons. Firstly, when drivers are stopped to pay for the tolls, it may only take 30 seconds, but it's long enough to cause long traffic jams, hindering commuters' progress on the roads. It strikes me that the prolonging of a journey would also have an environmental impact.

Secondly, there are frustrating costs involved: if this is implemented, I can foresee that, as roads would not be completely owned by the private or public sectors, that the public would be charged twice to travel on roads: once for road tax, then again at the tolls. To try and lessen the blow, I can imagine that they would reduce road tax temporarily, but that would rise again in the future; while tolls would also continue to rise, without accountability to the public to prevent it.

We do need to raise more money, but this is not a good idea. Please think again!

THREAT OF UNITE STRIKE DURING LONDON OLYMPICS

The Unite Union, one of the UK's largest trade unions, is threatening to go on strike during the London 2012 Olympics. So they are threatening to undermine what looks like will be one of few occasions for nationwide celebration at the moment, and bring further doom and gloom when we already have enough of that! Not believing the British public are suffering enough with economic concerns and a constant flow of bad news; they want to humiliate Britain on the world stage during one of the few optimistic occasions currently featuring on the evening news- I'm sure the public will be very sympathetic, as they are considering spoiling an event they have paid millions for and have eagerly awaited for several years. And this by people who, in this day and age, are relatively fortunate to have jobs in the first place. If they're not happy with their jobs, I'm confident there are many unemployed across the country who would happily swap places.

I don't oppose protests if they are peaceful and don't punish the public- but they often manage to tick at least one of these boxes. These are often disputes between a union and the government or an employer; yet the general public are the ones who are punished the most. It is a shame they plan to blackmail Britain during a once-in-a-lifetime experience for many people.

ABDELBASET AL-MEGRAHI STILL GOING...

Three years on since his release on compassionate grounds, and Mr Al-Megrahi seems set to outlive many of us, despite only apparently having months, if not weeks, to live on his release. Known as the "Lockerbie bomber", he was imprisoned for coordinating an act of terrorism in 1988 when a plane was detonated in mid-flight, killing innocent passengers aboard, as well as those killed when the plane crashed in Lockerbie, Scotland. It's shameful in the first place that a man responsible for the deaths of many innocent people should be released for political reasons, under the facade of 'compassion'- the man who clearly displayed none during the execution of innocent people. To add insult to injury, he was given a hero's welcome back in Libya and has even outlived the leader, Colonal Gaddafi, who greeted him on his return.

It seems wrong that a man guilty of such terrible crimes should experience generous treatment for political reasons, when others committing lesser crimes have been punished more, all on public display for the families of his victims to see.

ARGENTINA'S CLAIMS THAT BRITAIN HAS NUCLEAR SUBMARINES PATROLLING THE FALKLANDS

Argentina's silliness about the Falklands never ceases to amaze me. This year the Argentine president and government have frequently criticised Britain on her maintenance of the Falkland Islands and military presence there. These criticisms are foolish for a number of reasons. Firstly, the last time Britain de-militarised the Falkland Islands (in 1982) General Galtieri invaded the Islands, so it's not a good idea for us to de-militarise when the Argentine military seem poised to attack them when the next opportunity arises- for the sake of national prestige. Secondly, Argentina has lobbied Latin American countries, including Brazil and Uruguay, to stop ships flying the Falkands' flag from docking at their ports- which was an act of belligerence in the first place. Thirdly, why would Britain want to send nuclear weapons to the Falklands- we're not going to start any wars or conflicts, because the Falklands are currently safe; and Britain has no interest in starting any conflicts with Latin American states, so it wouldn't make any sense.

Fourthly, and most importantly, are the principles of the claims Britain and Argentina have to them. On the surface, it seems absurd that Britain controls these islands on the other side of the world, and just off of the Argentine coast. However, what is important is not the Islands' geography but demography. The people living on the Islands now are of British descent, and consequently want to remain under British influence and protection. If the Islanders were campaigning to become part of Argentina, then the Argentine government's claims would be legitimate, and we should in that situation hold a referendum on the Islands' control- then cede sovereignty if they vote to join Argentina. But this isn't going to happen any time soon, as the Islanders clearly want to remain under the British government. The Islands have been occupied by the British for approaching 200 years, so it wouldn't be right for the Argentine government to displace families who have firmly entrenched roots there and have no wish to leave. If we took on the argument that the British were not the indigenous population of the Islands, so they should go back to Britain (even though generations of Islanders have never been to Britain in the first place), then where do we draw the line as to who different countries' indigenous populations are? Most of the Argentines themselves would have to leave their own country because, just as Falkland Islanders are of British descent, Argentines are of Spanish descent, with Argentina being a Spanish colony until approximately 200 years ago.

The same principle applies with Britain, Spain and Gibraltar too. And it's a great shame. Spain is a fellow member of the EU, and Argentina is a powerful economy, so Britain, as a large economy in the EU, could have had a very mutually beneficial friendship with these states, but has been undermined by silly debates over sovereignty of very small islands. I can't see those of British descent in Gibraltar and the Falklands all emigrating any time soon, so for the sake of diplomacy and constructive relations, Spain and Argentina should accept the reality; start afresh with Britain; and in turn Britain should also be gracious enough to turn over a new leaf.

Start as I mean to go on...

Hello Readers,

I'm not sure if anyone will take any interest in this blog whatsoever, but it saves my poor Facebook friends and family from my rantings on British and world politics today! Whenever something in the news gets the cogs in my mind turning, I'll share what I'm thinking here. You may think I'm right, you may think it's codswallop, but as long you spend at least some time thinking about issues in the UK and beyond- I've achieved my goal!


Firstly- BRITAIN'S VETO ON THE EUROPEAN TREATY, INSPIRED BY THE FINANCIAL TRANSACTION TAX

I'd like to begin this new blog for this (relatively) new year by congratulating the Prime Minister, David Cameron, on what I consider to be a great act that should benefit not only Britain, but set a precedent that could also benefit the European Union in the long-term. Mr Cameron's primary objection to a new European treaty was the idea of a new tax on the finance sector. At the moment, it's quite fashionable to criticise the finance sector for causing the current recession. In my opinion however, the world's economic problems are the result of two major issues: the actions of investment bankers is undoubtedly one, but the other main issue is debt accumulated by various governments around the world. The two issues have combined caused prolonged economic issues. So it doesn't seem right to focus public anger on the finance sector alone, when governments seem to have just as much to answer for.

Secondly, punishing the finance sector can be counter-productive, particularly in Britain, where (if I've heard rightly) the finance sector represents about 10% of the country's economic output, meaning it produces £1 in every £10 earned in this country. Therefore, by punishing the finance sector, we could jeopardise that 10% of our income, at a time when the economy is already vulnerable. A new exclusively-European tax on the finance sector would thus undermine Europe's finance sector, damaging Britain disproportionately due to that sector's importance here.

Thus, by vetoing this proposal, Cameron has deterred such a damaging tax on Britain, which would also affect the rest of Europe. Whilst it would satisfy some public desire to punish the finance sector for its contribution to the recession, and would also add some money to European government finances, I believe the negatives would outweigh the positives. As Mr Cameron has said, if this were a global financial transaction tax, then it would be less damaging. This is because, if a financial tax were imposed only on Europe, then it would provide the major banks of Europe with a big incentive to emigrate from Europe to the likes of the USA or the Far East. Given the economic instability of Europe at the moment, and stronger short and long-term growth outside Europe, banks would probably not need too much encouragement to leave.

If a financial transactions tax is imposed across Europe, I think it would be like the turkeys voting for Christmas: Europeans would give wealth-producing financiers a good reason to boost other economies elsewhere around the world- at Europe's expense.

DOWNGRADING OF FRANCE'S CREDIT RATING

Though I'm not usually an advocate of Schadenfreude, I'm willing to make an exception as France's credit rating has been downgraded. I may eat these words if Britain later this year is also downgraded, but I'm grateful that France has experienced it at least. I never used to be an advocate of traditional British hostility towards the French, but comments from leading Frenchmen last year changed my mind. When Britain vetoed the proposed European treaty at the end of last year, and there was then talk of a downgrade of France's credit rating; instead of setting an apparently "good example" by demonstrating European solidarity when Britain seemed to divide it, French leaders and the leader of the French central bank instead said that Britain's economy was in worse shape than France's, so our credit rating should be downgraded instead! So much for European unity: recommending one of their fellow European Union members for a downgrade! Now that France's rating has been downgraded, even though Europe's problems tend to affect us too, I can't help feeling a little chuffed at the news anyway!