It seems to be one, big problem...

Both on this blog and the national UK news alike, immigration has been raised as one of the main national issues. And, combined with the national finances (and the consequences of problems with the national finances, being higher taxes, spending cuts, and the threat posed by the growing cost of national debt), they probably cover at least some of the main concerns of all British people right now.

Recently, I have come to the conclusion (whether rightly or not) that the two issues of precarious national finances and excessive immigration are linked by one, big problem: misuse of the welfare state. The concept behind the British welfare state, and the good it has achieved over the decades, are something I take pride in. However, whilst it has long been known (and is a problem with most systems created to provide support, I'm sure) that there are those who exploit the welfare state when they don't really need its help, the amount of people relying on the welfare state has grown significantly in the twenty-first century, and particularly since Covid. But the impression given of the increase seems excessive- and, surely, there can't be so many people incapable of working who are claiming that that's the case. Nevertheless, despite politicians repeatedly talking of clamping down on misuse of the system, welfare costs remain vast, and seemingly ever-growing numbers of people use it to sustain their way of life- both rightly and wrongly. People relying on the welfare state to live have two significant consequences on the UK, which link to those two major national issues originally mentioned. People relying on the welfare state cost a lot of money (the last I saw: the biggest single expense the UK government has), which then has to be funded through a combination of high taxes, spending cuts in other areas, and/or increased government borrowing, which means debt repayments in turn require even more tax increases/spending cuts. Then there is a double hit, because people are not only receiving money to fund their lifestyle, but they are then not contributing money to the state to cover their costs. 

This loss of income from potential workers relying on the welfare state is recouped not only from other workers already in the country, but also taxes from new immigrant workers- who the government and businesses alike have come to rely on to fill the vacancies left in the job market by the growing number of people receiving an income from the welfare state instead of a job. 

The impression you get is that, rather than focusing on really getting to the bottom of the ballooning welfare state and people dependent on it; politicians, civil servants, and doctors instead find it easier to allow this to continue uninterrupted, given the effort of investigating all cases, and the threat of legal action when people contest that they are deserving of welfare support for health reasons (rightly or wrongly). So, over recent decades, we have seen governments of all political parties just sustain this system through growing taxes, cutting spending, and/or borrowing more money, to the detriment of the country. Then, with the gaps in the workforce, instead of focusing on cultivating the British workforce to fill gaps in the labour market, it is cheaper and easier for governments and businesses to import those with the required skills from abroad. As a result, twenty-first century Britain has consistently seen net migration in the hundreds of thousands of people, despite repeated promises by governments to bring these numbers down. And the impact of this has been seen widely across the country, in terms of strain on the national infrastructure (not least housing supplies that can't keep up with the demand, most sharply felt in the southeast of England) and the integrity of communities. It is widely felt that this was a leading factor in the decision of the vote in favour of Brexit almost a decade ago.

So, rather than take the difficult steps to review the welfare state and clamp down on those not entitled to use it, governments instead seem to continue to rely on the short-term fixes to the issues an overwhelming welfare state creates: harmful, short term economic management, and large scale immigration. Until a government decides to seriously address this issue, I fear that dubious national finances and heated debates on immigration will continue to be overwhelming characteristics of modern Britain.

Widespread Ignorance (it's not just them- but us as well!)

 It's maybe a trend seen across the developed world now, but I can see it in Britain at least. Society seems very divided and, while there have always been political/tribal differences, these divisions appear to be more deeply entrenched now thanks to the modern media. For Brits (or others around the world, if they can also relate) may assume this is a criticism directed at the opposite view to themselves- but there is a good chance that I direct this at you IN ADDITION TO not INSEAD of them. 

As I said, while there have always been political differences, people had in the past at least been unified by accessing news from a very limited number of sources, be it newspapers, television, or news websites. This limited number, and the stated aim of the BBC to be a neutral news source, meant more commonality of sources of news, meaning that, whilst people would still have differences of opinion, those opinions would be based upon mostly consistent facts. Over recent years though, there has become a plethora of news sources, with the likes of YouTube, Twitter, and podcasts becoming a lot more popular in addition to (and maybe instead of) the original sources. And these new sources unquestionably have benefits: they can allow you to focus on more niche news stories that interest and concern you. However, they have drawbacks that concern me: when absorbing news from these alternative sources, they have a tendency to be under far less regulation and scrutiny for accuracy, and they can also cherry-pick facts and focus on subjective opinions instead of more objective facts. 

As a consequence of the above, I feel that, instead of a majority of people taking their news from the same or similar sources, and basing their opinions on largely the same facts; an increasing number are instead focusing on niche sources that have a specific outlook and clear bias, and seem set to reinforce existing opinions, rather than paying much (if any) attention to alternative viewpoints. Seeing different stories and a range of opinions can feed our own, and inform them, rather than encourage us to become increasingly more narrow minded. For example: the British politicians, Jeremy Corbyn and Nigel Farage. Many readers may think one of these figures is always right and the other always wrong (or almost always) and take the view that, whoever supports the other politician is ignorant. People who sympathise with Corbyn may write-off Farage supporters as racists, while Farage supporters may mock Corbyn backers as not being in touch with the real world. 

It is perfectly fine and natural for there to be differences of opinion but, in a democracy, we should respect all opinions (including those we don't share) and, whilst we may disagree to varying strengths, we should at least try to see where those of other opinions are coming from, rather than just writing them off as ignorant in some way. And it seems healthier to me to, instead of having a black and white view, where something is either purely right or wrong, or good or bad, actually looking for merits in both sides- even if you do clearly have leanings one way or the other. After all, compromise is a major part of democracy: it is unlikely that a politician or political party exactly reflects your views, so you have to compromise and support who you agree with most. To conclude: think of where you get your news from, how much you are receiving objective facts from it (rather than being fed specific, biased opinions), and if you are genuinely exposed to a range of points of view, so that you really are well-informed in your opinions.

Royal Round-up: 2024

The European countries' royals annually reviewed are as follows, with the key developments over the year outlined afterwards:

Existing hereditary monarchies: Great Britain, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Spain, Monaco. 

Former monarchies: Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, Serbia, Montenegro, Austria, Germany, Italy, Portugal, France.  

King Charles III of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is diagnosed with cancer, a diagnosis which, unusually for a British royal, he is quick to share with the public. His duties and engagements will be scaled back as a consequence while he receives treatment.

At the age of 87, King Harald V of Norway becomes the oldest reigning monarch in over 1000 years of Norwegian royal history.

The abdication of Queen Margrethe II of Denmark leads to the accession of her son and heir, the new King Frederik X of Denmark.

The claimant, recognised by monarchists as King Pavlos II of Greece, successfully has the Greek citizenship of himself and his family reinstated, having been stripped of this in 1994.

The claimant, recognised by monarchists as King Leka II of the Albanians, divorces from Elia Zaharia.

Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg delegates some of his powers to his son and heir, Prince Guillaume, who consequently becomes Regent of Luxembourg. Grand Duke Henri later also announces his intention to abdicate in 2025.

The death of the claimant, recognised by monarchists as King Victor Emmanuel IV of Italy, leads to his claim being inherited by his son, recognised by monarchists as King Emanuele Filiberto I of Italy.

Soon after arriving in Valencia to visit those affected by floods, King Felipe VI of Spain and other visiting senior figures are harangued by members of the public and have mud thrown at them, as a sign of anger with their country’s response to the floods.