STRANGERS IN OUR OWN LAND

BY AMITS

[Education], [Crime & Punishment], [Housing], [Society & Culture], [British Media], [Health Service], [Environmental], [Transport], [Politicians], [Blair's Legacy]

Maybe you need to have been born in a particular era and be of a certain age to fully appreciate that full extent of the changes that have occurred in Britain over the past 50 years or so. Born in the late 1950's and being raised during the 1960's and the early part of the 70's gives you a whole different perspective on the Britain that we live in today and allows you to realise just how much of the character and behaviour of the nation has fundamentally changed during those 5 decades and not always for the better.

This isn't intended to be one of those idealised comparisons, where the writer believes that everything was better in the past or that we lived in some sort of utopian wonderland, because that simply wasn't the case. During the 1970's for example, Britain was a dire and hateful place to be, with the whole of the nation being held hostage by and subjected to the demands of a small number of politically motivated union leaders, who inflicted power cuts and short-time working on their fellow citizens in order to achieve outrageous pay settlements for their members and political power for themselves. What became commonly known as the "British Disease" very nearly bankrupted the British economy, was thought to have put thousands of workers out of a job and virtually brought the country to the brink of total collapse.

As Britain teetered on the precipice of both social and financial oblivion, the final 2 years of the 1970's marked a pivotal moment in the country's economic, social and political life. The emergence of Margaret Thatcher as the leader of the Conservative party and successor to the less than confrontational Edward Heath was perhaps the most significant factor which helped to drag the country back from the brink of disaster. Unlike many of her political contemporaries, Thatcher was prepared and happy to meet the power of the Trades Unions head on, in a bid to both undermine and finally eliminate the economic stranglehold which the unions had employed against successive governments regardless of their political persuasions. By utilizing the courts, the police and the media as weapons against the might of the unions, Britain's first and only female Prime Minister finally managed to break both the will and the finances of the previously untouchable workers congress.

Having tamed and shackled the most politically disruptive elements within the Trades Union movement, Thatcher's resolve and leadership was further tested and demonstrated during the Falklands crisis, when elements of the Argentine army invaded the small British outpost which is located in the waters of the South Atlantic. By having the will to mobilise a naval taskforce and to confront any international condemnation about Britain's military response, the "Iron Lady" managed to almost single-handedly restore the country's flagging national pride and demonstrating to the world at large, that despite its problems Britain wasn't going to pushed around by anyone. In common with the nation's other great military leader, Winston Spencer Churchill, Margaret Thatcher was almost the perfect leader for the nation at that particular moment in time, but like Churchill failed to recognise her own personal shortcomings and mistakes in other areas of her character. What might well have been a perfect political legacy was soon undone and depending on a persons particular point of view, Thatcher was soon viewed and will often be remembered as either a total heroine or a complete despot.

Successful politicians have a real habit of continuously believing their own publicity, despite the fact that much it may be flawed or completely out of touch with what the bulk of the British electorate feel. They say that absolute power, corrupts absolutely and that is so very often true. The goodwill of the British people is a tenuous gift and is easily squandered by politicians who choose to ignore or be unaware of the public mood. Thatcher chose to play on the massive goodwill of the people by introducing a raft of new legislation which saw the wholesale sell-off of the nations assets, including the mines, the railways and many of the other public utilities, all of which were sold off into private ownership. Although many members of the ordinary general public invested in these previously publicly owned industries and made themselves a relatively handsome profit when they were floated on the Stock Exchange, typically the real winners were the big private investment groups, the banks and the speculators who made a real killing on the privatisation of these former public utilities.

The widespread sell off of the public housing stock was yet another Thatcher scheme which helped to foster a change in public attitudes, supposedly to develop a true "stakeholder" attitude in local communities, regions and within the country generally. Although a good idea in principle, the wholesale disposition of public housing to the tenants that lived in council properties failed to fully address future housing needs or even to anticipate any future escalating house prices. The governments failure to re-invest the revenues from council property sales back into new housing stocks, left Britain entirely at the mercy of private interests, who primary goal is to make money for their shareholders. Although some public money is invested into local Housing Associations, these schemes are still unable to meet the growing need for good quality public housing, which was initially done away with by the Thatcher government.

The ability of successive Conservative Governments to turn Britain into a nation of self centred, selfish and acquisitive individuals wasn't simply because of the Thatcher factor alone, although she was a pivotal part of the change. As much as anything it was the near total disintegration of the Labour Party and their complete failure to offer the British public an alternative to Thatcherism. With vivid memories of rubbish overflowing in the street, the dead remaining unburied, and businesses being closed because of power cuts, it was little wonder that the Labour Party became totally unpalatable to the British Public. The final straw though for most people was the sight of the Labour Prime Minister returning from abroad to publicly declare "Crisis? What Crisis?". James Callaghan's apparently public indifference to the squalor in the streets and the potential danger to the public would eventually lead to his party being politically sidelined for the next 20 years and leave the British electorate with no alternative to the much more effective, but completely unrestrained Tory party.

The publics disenchantment with the Labour Party was not helped by its blatant refusal to reform its often outdated and dogmatic approach to government, much of which was still being dictated by far left political ideologists who had managed to infiltrate and hijack many of the party committees and union councils. The later election of the shambling and unattractive Michael Foot as Labour leader did little to improve the party's public image and simply reinforced the view that the party was not only outdated and had very few new ideas. It was also suggested that Foot himself was little more than a puppet for the Trade Union movement and the new, much more aggressive socialist leaders like Derek Hatton who despite only being deputy leader of Liverpool's City Council came to be seen as typical and representative of the national Labour party. It was only when Foot was replaced by a new Labour leader, Neil Kinnock, that the party finally began to address its outdated political philosophy and agenda, as well as expelling the more militant and left wing elements who had previously held sway within the party apparatus. Despite Kinnock's best efforts though, the party remained largely unelectable, victims of an endearing public memory which saw the party as being shambolic and untrustworthy.

The Conservative Party itself, although benefiting directly from Labour's internal struggles, was also beginning to suffer from internal divisions and poor policy decisions, culminating in their rejection of Thatcherism and the ousting of their formidable party leader, who was then replaced by the deeply uninspiring "Grey Man" of British politics, John Major. The introduction of the infamous Poll Tax and the Tory's refusal to accept criticism or indeed personal responsibility made them the most unpopular government in the country's recent history. However, with Labour still seen to be emerging from the years of division and trying to rebuild the publics trust in the party, Major was able to hold power right through to the elections of 1997. The untimely death of Labour leader John Smith, although devastating for the party, proved to be a silver lining for Smith's young successor Tony Blair and he led his reformed "New Labour" party to their first national election victory in 18 years. Now at last the British electorate had a choice.

Sadly for the public that didn't happen, as the defeated Conservative party began to fragment, much as their opponents had done 20 years earlier and dividing along deeply partisan lines. John Major resigned as Tory leader and was soon replaced by the very likeable, but totally unsuitable William Haigh who immediately saddled himself with a number of former cabinet ministers who had been so unpopular with the electorate in the first place. It was not an auspicious start for the new Tory leader and he later compounded his mistake by focusing his efforts in the next general election purely on the future of the national currency, hardly a vote winner at the best of times. Haigh's replacement, the instantly forgettable Ian Duncan Smith, who heralded the attributes of the "Quiet Man" soon became the quietest man in British politics, as he led his party to yet another election defeat. The 3rd Conservative leader to be elected was Michael Howard, possibly one of the most despised public figures of both the Thatcher and Major governments and the man almost guaranteed to lead the party to a third resounding election defeat.

By the time Michael Howard had taken the helm of the extremely rocky Conservative ship, New Labour had managed to become almost as unpopular as John Major's failing government of the late 1990's and yet they still managed to gain a majority in the House of Commons. As with their Conservative counterparts during the late 1970's and early 80's Tony Blair and his cohorts had managed to squander the immense goodwill of the British electorate, caused in part by their constant political spinning of events, including 9/11 and the implicit wrongdoing of a number of their leading party figures, including the notable Peter Mandleson. Once again though, the British public were left with little or no choice in terms of choosing a potential governing party, which was why millions of voters chose to ignore the system altogether and led to one of the lowest recorded electoral turnout's in British history.

As Tony Blair prepares to leave the office of Premier after nearly a decade in power, to be succeeded by his trusty Chancellor Gordon Brown, one suspects that New Labour remains relatively unpopular with a majority of the electorate. The Conservatives have elected their own version of Tony Blair, the fresh-faced and all round nice guy, David Cameron, who has yet to be fully tested in a General Election, but seems to lack that steely resolve which identifies a political heavyweight. Seeming to lack the authority, imagination and political vision which would mark him and his party out as being substantially different from Blair's New Labour, Cameron appears to be missing a massive opportunity to bring his party back from a 10 year trip into the political wilderness. Fortune is said to favour the brave, but the young Tory leader appears to be nothing but a safe pair of hands.

As for New Labour. It is interesting to look at the various areas of British life which are supposed to be the determining factors by which we the electorate choose our political representatives and how they are supposed to have been improved over the past decade. What follows is simply my own views and opinions on Tony Blair's political legacy and whether or not New Labour's tenure has actually improved people's lives or not.

1. Education:

Schools today are little more than education factories, turning out thousands of supposedly highly qualified pupils who have little understanding of or interest in Britain's native culture or of its turbulent past. The state of Britain's schools is best indicated by a 14 year old who didn't know who Adolph Hitler or Benito Mussolini were and had not studied anything to do with Britain's part in the 2nd World War or its more extensive history. How about the 16 year old who had not heard of Oliver Cromwell or the Anglo Saxon king of Wessex Alfred the Great, little wonder then that young people have little knowledge of or pride in their native country and its historical background.

Even traditional methods of learning like the "times tables" and basic literacy skills like learning the alphabet seem to have been dropped in favour of the much more elaborate and over-hyped synthetic phonics and phonetics, or individual learning plans for 6 and 7 year olds. Is it the growth of and over reliance on new technology that dictates that children don't need to know about basic multiplication, long division or even adding up? If young people don't know how to deal with the basics, then how do they expect to deal with the much more complex mathematics that life will inevitably throw at them. It is some sort of educational system that boasts about its successes, when a large number of its students cannot spell everyday words correctly or indeed add up, without the need for a calculator or a computer spell checker. 

There is an old saying which states that "if it ain't broke, then don't fix it". Sadly for us, the Labour government of Tony Blair has proved to be a party of "dedicated fixers" who cannot help but change and fuss with systems, structures and institutions that have been successfully serving the country for decades. Modern day politicians are masters of the media "sound bite" and believe that often heavily adjusted facts and figures tell us everything we need to know about a particular subject, which they clearly don't. The fact that 80 or 90% of school leavers are achieving A & B's in their final exam results means very little if they've managed to plagiarise much of their work from the internet during home study periods and which has then helped to form part of their overall marks.  

Additionally, it should come as little surprise that poor classroom discipline and pupil engagement, particularly amongst the lowest achieving students is commonplace, given that a number of teachers are not that much older or experienced than the young people that they're actually teaching. If real "life" skills or experience were mandatory requirements for those wishing to educate the nation's youngest and most impressionable citizens, then the British educational system would undoubtedly fall apart almost immediately. With the "know little" brigade teaching the "Know nothing" pupil's it is little wonder that corporate bodies like the CBI are more than concerned about the abilities of their future workforce, given that they haven't got the time or resources to teach new recruits the Maths and English skills they should have been taught in school.

The abandonment of centralised control over schools, along with the individual interpretation and implementation of a National Curriculum by Head Teachers and School Governors seems to have added to an already confused situation. The British educational system which has been fundamentally restructured by New Labour is no longer about teaching, but is almost purely about numbers and targets. As is the case with a number of further education courses, failure is often far more difficult than success, especially when pupils and students are being so heavily guided and coached towards achieving the "right" solutions. Having recently helped someone to produce work for a teaching certificate course it soon became fairly obvious that failure was almost impossible, unless the student in question chose not to produce any work at all or failed to turn up for lessons. Where is the real value or use in such a qualification, which is given as opposed to being earned?

It's also worth remembering, that because of Tony Blair's government, education is as much about compulsion, as it is about choice. Whereas at one time students could choose or were nominated to sit final examinations, nowadays most schools insist that all students sit exams, irrespective of their abilities or their likelihood to succeed. Even those pupils who would happily leave school with no formal qualifications are now compelled to sit exams they have no ability or interest in, or see their parents being charged a fee for their non-attendance. The very fact that ALL PUPILS are forced to sit final exams must surely undermine the whole testing process, unless of course it once again points to a system which doesn't permit failure and where even the very worst student can achieve some sort of success. The basic problem with such a slanted and unrepresentative system is that it's both unsustainable and unrealistic. Instead of improving the students skills, all the schools and government have really done is to double the width of the goalposts, allowing everyone to think that they're a winner, when in reality that simply isn't true. New Labour's much vaunted manifesto slogan of "Education, Education, Education" was all very well, but the electorate should have been asking "Will our children be able to spell it?"     

2. Crime & Punishment:

In a society where "real money" or "cash" is a rapidly disappearing feature, New Labour's apparent dedication to the idea of on-the-spot fines to address people's anti-social or loutish behaviour is not only laughable, but will undoubtedly prove to be highly ineffective in the long run. If it were their own money that wrongdoers were being forced to pay out, then no doubt it might prove to be an effective sanction, but in a country where most people live their entire lives on credit or some sort of virtual income, then where is the real penalty?   

We appear to have become an over liberal society where direct punishment or any sort of reparation is frowned upon and is largely seen as being unfair to the wrongdoer themselves. Consequently, career criminals and young offenders particularly believe that they have little to fear from the state or indeed the local community, because there are few if any real penalties which can be used to address their anti-social behaviour. With ASBO's widely regarded as a "badge of honour" and electronic tagging either incorrectly monitored or relatively easy to breach, then exactly what sort of penalty or punishment do they represent?

The "apologists" answer of course is that prison sentences offer no deterrent to either the young or the career criminal and that how a nation treats its criminals is a reflection of the society itself. That might be true if the only purpose of "locking people up" was simply designed as some form of state retribution for a particular action or crime. But prison sentences should be regarded as something more important than retaliation, they should be seen as guaranteeing the publics security and wellbeing, by ensuring that a wrongdoer is isolated from the citizenry that he or she has chosen to prey upon or transgress against. "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" was a commonly used slogan designed to reassure the electorate that our political elite knew how to fully protect the nation from its criminal classes, but in reality was nothing more than political rhetoric and yet another "sound bite".

Unlike personal or political opinions, right or wrong in terms of criminality is pretty much a black and white issue. If you steal someone else's possessions, their freedom or their life, then you're guilty of breaching society's rules on what we consider to be right or wrong and you should expect to suffer the consequence of your actions. Under successive Labour and earlier Conservative governments Britain has steadily learned to almost absolve certain criminals of their civic responsibilities, principally young offenders who regularly break the law by stealing and driving away cars, vandalising their local amenities and terrorising their own communities and neighbourhoods. Because of our country's more "liberal" and tolerant approach to its widespread anti-social behaviour it isn't unusual to find teenagers who have been found guilty of a string of criminal offences and yet remain unregulated and unchallenged.

State absolution for those that fail to accept personal responsibility for their own behaviour has been added to by the virtual criminalising of both parental and social discipline, which is often fundamental to a well ordered society. Playing on the fear and idea that constructive discipline is little more than physical abuse, the liberal minority within Britain has managed to convince an easy to lead and eager to please Labour government that statutory regulations are required to determine how British children are treated by their own parents. Thanks largely to these invisible and unelected bodies, many parents are reluctant to apply any sort of physical discipline to their wayward children for fear of being arrested and prosecuted by our own elected authorities. With little to fear from their own parents, is it any wonder that Britain's children and teenagers have no formal bulwark to their increasingly outlandish behaviour and consequently behave as they like.

If the often fractious and rebellious behaviour of Britain's teenagers was the bulk of our country's criminal problems, then none of us would have to worry that much, if at all. Sadly, the advent of both national and international religious militancy, illustrated by the bombings of New York, Madrid and London, has helped to distract and divert resources from the more mundane law enforcement areas of policing to the covert world of counter-terrorism and high profile protection of airports, embassies and government buildings. With greater police resources given over to combating potential threats from inside and outside Britain, it is little wonder that "Bobbies on the beat" who should normally be dealing with mainstream criminality have become a relatively scarce sight on the streets of our towns and cities. To cover this absence of real police officers, local and national authorities have sought to replace them with CCTV systems or in some cases Community Wardens. Now thought to be the most heavily monitored society in the world, Britain is said to have in excess of 4m camera's overseeing the way we live our day-to-day lives and regarded by some as the embodiment of George Orwell's fictional "Big Brother" state. 

3. Housing:

Both the most recent Labour government and the preceding Conservative administrations have helped to reinstate the position and widespread acceptability of "private landlords" within the UK housing market. There appears to be a slow and inexorable drift towards the low quality, high density housing which was such a feature of Britain during the first half of the 20th Century and which was supposedly swept away during the social house building tide of the late 1950's and early 60's. The advent and large scale development of buy-to-let schemes which can allow certain individuals to own hundreds of privately owned properties, which they then let to some of society's poorest family's, whilst at the same time accruing value within an artificially booming housing market raises the spectre of the "slum" landlords who were  effectively put out of business by the affordable, well constructed community housing of the mid 20th Century. Although at first glance the idea of such landlords existing in modern Britain may appear to be fanciful and unlikely, but given that we are witnessing an increasing rise in the number of privately owned properties which are being used to accommodate migrant workers, who often live in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions, then isn't that fairly reminiscent of the tenements which we were proud to rid ourselves of.

Thanks to the Thatcher government of the late 1970's and early 80's Britain's social housing stocks were sold off as part of the "private ownership" agenda which was a major feature of her government. The ability of tenants to buy and personally own their homes was a scheme to be publicly applauded, but the failure to re-invest the revenue from such sales back into the social housing stock was a glaring oversight which has had a massively negative effect in the long term. Since that public sell off, local authorities have relied almost exclusively on private developers and housing associations to meet the growing need for such public accommodation, a role they have singularly failed to meet. Also, national government that would normally finance and provide low cost social housing in Britain, is unlikely to undermine the booming private sector which is exclusively feeding the expansion of the country's national economy, by building thousands of low cost homes for its poorest citizens.     

It has been reported that Britain currently requires around 400,000 new homes every year just to meet current housing needs which UK developers are unlikely to meet, as this would fundamentally undermine the existing market and have a negative effect by causing lower house prices and a decrease in their own company profits. This failure of private developers to provide high quality, affordable properties has been compounded by the lack of suitable building sites, particularly those "brown field" sites which at one time were plentiful in and around city centres and suburban spaces. If existing green belt land were to be used for new housing developments then it has been argued that would have an adverse effect both on the English countryside itself and on people's overall quality of life. Although a potential solution to this, might be to compel the national supermarket chains to release their reserves of "land banks" on which they hope to build even more stores and allow social housing developers to build homes on these instead. More supermarkets, we don't need, more good quality, low cost social housing, we definitely do.

Another effect of Britain's artificial and unsustainable housing sector is the way in which national developers have begun to deliberately "engineer" particular communities, not to bring about social improvement, but solely to improve their own company's profit margins. The construction of "gated" communities, the introduction of private homeowner co-operatives, the widespread "colonisation" of Britain's rural and picturesque areas by the well-heeled, all help to manipulate and alter the social, political and economic fabric of these newly developed areas. If a political party were to reconstruct the local population in such a deliberate way they would be accused of "jerry-mandering", but where a private developer does it, then it's just good business.       

It seems that the days when a house was simply a home have long gone and most people regard their property as little more than a disposable asset, which will ultimately guarantee their future retirement. Future housing markets may well have to rely on an extended mortgage scheme which allows people to buy a property over a much longer period than the current 25 years. Alternatively, mortgages may well become long term family debts that are passed from one generation to another.

4. Society & Culture:

It has been reported that Britain is currently spending something in the region of £100m for translation services within the Health & Welfare, Police and Immigration sectors and has been suggested as a major reason for new migrants refusing to or being unable to learn and speak English. It is hard to imagine any other country in the world being prepared to spend such resources in helping migrants to avoid learning a language which will help them access information, services and aid integration.

Immigration charities and groups have suggested that because Britain is now multi cultural that we should also be multi lingual and that more should be spent on such services. However, if language represents the heart of a nation then any further deterioration of our native tongue would not only cause greater resentment but would certainly act against the idea of better integration or social cohesion. Only in Britain could such a bizarre suggestion even be contemplated. The very idea that a native tongue should be supplanted or diminished by any number of foreign languages would be "laughed out of town" by any other country in the world, except of course in super tolerant Britain!! 

There is a mood and a belief within the native community that positive discrimination is undermining the British way of life. One recent survey suggested that 60% of those questioned believed that Britain's open door policy to immigration has now gone too far and such large scale immigration now represents a threat to future community relations. Although there is very little prospect of Enoch Powell's vision of "blood in the street" actually occurring, even the most tolerant society has a "tipping point", where the perceived extremism of one community can cause a reciprocal reaction in the other, even the most tolerant.

Inextricably linked to these new waves of immigration and ongoing world events is the question and practice of religious tolerance within the UK. For most of the 20th Century Britain has been widely regarded as a highly secular society and the 30 years of Northern Ireland's latest confrontation between the Protestant and Roman Catholic paramilitary groups have helped to reinforce the idea that politics and religion do not mix that well. It is perhaps fortunate that Britain isn't a religious society and that most of it's citizens are indifferent to the subject generally. Had their been an extreme Christian, Catholic or Protestant leaning within the country then it is entirely likely that a greater degree of religious intolerance would have been raised against some of the emerging less temperate religions that now exist within the country.    

Liberal thinkers, political lobbyists and well placed self interest groups seem to be driving the political agenda within Britain and are often regarded as being representative of the nations wider political and social views, which of course they generally aren't. New Labour seem to have been particularly adept at promoting seemingly inconsequential issues and bringing them to the forefront of British life, regardless of the actual need for them.   

The pervasive authority of the ever expanding European Union is yet another factor which is increasingly affecting the day to day habits and customs of British life, including the adoption of new EU regulations like the Human Rights Act. Despite the rejection of a new community charter by the electorates of at least 2 of its leading members, certain supporters of this hugely expensive and inefficient union seem bound and determined to foist even greater European legislation and interference on the member states and its people's, regardless of whether they want them or not. 

The UK is now commonly regarded by other countries as being populated by beer swigging television addicts who are fascinated by the lives and behaviour of so-called "celebrities". There seems to be a common perception that everyone in Britain wants to become like their own favourite celebrity and the seemingly unchecked explosion of cheap, lightweight reality television programmes like X-Factor, Big Brother and Celebrity "this & that" simply helps to reinforce this ill informed international view. 

Because politicians, celebrities and other leading public figures often refuse to take personal responsibility for their actions, it is little wonder that everyday people and especially the young adopt a similar attitude to their own behaviour. It is not uncommon nowadays for a small number of the country's leading footballers to regularly behave in an aggressive and violent manner towards their sporting opponents and in full view of the thousands of supporters, plus the millions that see the events through their television screens. Is it any wonder that young, impressionable minds see such poor behaviour and consider it to be both correct and acceptable and then carry it into their own daily lives?

Where at one time an adulterous Cabinet Minister would be forced to resign, or an incompetent one would be sacked by the Prime Minister, now we seem to have inherited or developed a culture where both Politician and Public Servant alike absolutely refuse to do what was once the right thing. If our leading citizens refuse to do the right thing, then is it any surprise when such irresponsible and selfish behaviour becomes endemic in everyday life. Any suggestion that the 600 or so individuals who inhabit the House of Commons are somehow elite or the best the nation can muster would be a mistaken one. The fact that we have a fairly rigid two party electoral system would tend to argue that the opposite is true and that many MP's wouldn't be out of place wearing a white woolly coat and bleating incessantly. The distinct lack of independent politicians within the Westminster village endorses the view that personal ability will always come a poor second to party ties and political comradeship.        

5. British Media:

The UK media has become dominated by cheap, low quality programming by the main terrestrial broadcasters who commonly find a relatively popular format and over-exploit it. The new fad for "reality" television series like X-Factor, I'm a Celebrity and Big Brother are typical of this new genre, which deliberately avoid any opportunity or possibility of educating or informing the audience, but choose instead to endorse and promote the idea that such facile rubbish is both entertaining and important.

It is a clear indictment of our modern society that large numbers of our citizens are thought to be glued to their TV's on a regular basis and seem to be enthralled by the spectacle of a group minor celebrities living in the jungle and eating all sorts of highly unpleasant things and having to undertake a series of what appear to be pointless tasks. Then of course there's the riveting sight of a similar group of desperate wannabe's living in a house-cum-television studio whose every move, comment and habit is scrutinised and analysed by those millions of viewers who are sad enough to be watching them. Our nation's seemingly new and growing fascination with this intensely intrusive remote observation of people's habits and behaviour in a completely false environment and one which can only really be compared to scientists studying a specimen, but without the loftier altruistic purpose.

To suggest that such programming is public entertainment is a really tenuous claim, given that such shows often create artificial situations that are fundamentally designed to illicit real and extreme emotions or events. Real entertainment should not have to rely almost exclusively on the manipulation or humiliation of those that are participating in the show, simply to make the watching audience engage with the basic concept. But then, maybe the whole purpose of such shows is not really about the participants themselves, but is about the remote audience and making them feel superior to the contestants, as well as supposedly empowering them to participate in the decision making process.

The idea though, that any such audience participation is either requested or encouraged for the sake of fairness or equality is a thoroughly flawed suggestion however. Any and all such shows are fundamentally revenue generators which are designed to make money for the broadcasters and the fact that viewers can actively involve themselves with the programme is simply related to that income generating. If such shows were required to offer a toll free phone number for audience participation then most, if not all, of these television reality shows would disappear tomorrow.

It would be wrong to suggest that the seemingly endless procession of these cheap to make, money spinning TV shows are the only examples of degenerating standards within the British media industry. Many of the daily "red top" papers which are published in Britain are little better than "comics" with an adult flavour and most tend to offer their readers a particularly slanted viewpoint on the major events that take place both at home and abroad. As in earlier times, the actual ownership of a newspaper or a media group can directly affect the amount and kind of information which is reported to and put before the general public. The very idea that we live in a country with a "FREE PRESS" is a fallacy, if you realise and accept that most regional or national newspapers are owned and controlled by a small number of privately owned media groups. Often classed as "King makers", the likes of Hearst, Beaverbrook and Murdoch have all held a unique position within our society, that of an unelected, unaccountable media tycoon who hold immense power and can actually determine the success or failure of political parties or even individual politicians.

One of the reasons why the Labour Party failed to succeed during the 1980's and 1990's was that a number of Britain's daily newspapers were fundamentally opposed to the very ethos of the party and their open hostility to Labour was often purely as a result of their owners personal antipathy. It has been suggested that Labour only finally succeeded in winning a British General Election in 1997, after Tony Blair won the backing of the media mogul Rupert Murdoch, whose "Sun" newspaper had been vociferous detractors of the party in earlier times.   

6. Health Service:

Formerly regarded as the world's leading healthcare system, the British National Health Service has seen both its status and performance dramatically decline in the past in the past 3 decades or so, principally as a result of the creeping privatisation which was first initiated by the Thatcher government of the late 1970's and early 80's. Although the much rumoured total sell-off of the health service has never been attempted by any British administration, private commercial interests have managed to gain a tentative foothold in most hospitals. Outside of direct front-line services which the tax payer continues to maintain, ancillary sectors such as cleaning, maintenance, entertainment, car-parking, etc. have all been turned over to the private sector, often with mixed results.    

Despite the increased levels of public resources which have been spent on the NHS over these 3 decades, much of this investment is perceived to have been used to fund additional administrators, managers, PPI and PFI schemes, as well as new and expensive drug treatments, many of which are supplied by foreign owned companies. MRSA and other sometimes fatal hospital infections, which were virtually unheard of years ago, are now commonly regarded as being symptomatic of a failing healthcare system, which despite having billions of pounds spent on it, cannot even get the most basic hygiene procedures right.

Although New Labour has pumped billions into the National Health Service during its 10 years in office, typically it has initiated a range of largely unachievable and unsustainable performance targets which are sometimes only met by the hospital or clinic "cheating" the system or falsifying their figures in order to meet the government's demands. 

7. Environment:

There is a public perception that Britain is getting dirtier and less tidy due to increased levels of littering and fly tipping. Much of this illegal tipping is a direct result of the increased cost of formal disposition of industrial waste, partly caused by the reducing numbers of legal landfills within the UK.

The rising levels of household rubbish generated within Britain is largely because of the increasing consumption of pre-packed highly processed foods much of which is purchased from the main supermarket groups. The gradual disappearance of High Street retailers including greengrocers, butchers, etc who traditionally did not use packing or plastics has only added to a dramatic upsurge in the amount of rubbish being generated 

8. Transport:

Despite the manifesto promises of both major parties, neither has managed to establish an effective, affordable and integrated national transport system within the UK. Regardless of the millions of pounds of both public and private investment which has been put into the transport system it remains a largely unreliable, dirty, overcrowded and highly expensive alternative to the private motor car.

Despite the promises of both national parties, Britain continues to be delayed and choked by the millions of motor vehicles which travel daily throughout our country, their drivers and owners left with little choice but to bear the steadily increasing financial, environmental and personal costs, which this particular form of transport forces them to accept. You don't have to be the "sharpest tool in the box" to figure out that the quickest, easiest, cheapest and most comfortable way to travel within mainland Britain, is often by car. Until such time as the private transport companies are forced to consider other factors, rather than profitability and financial subsidies, there is little chance that the public transport services will ever fully meet the needs of the British traveller.

9. Politicians:

Hidden away in the Palace of Westminster and obviously visible only to Britain's elected representatives is a secret contract which every member of the House of Commons and House of Lords has to sign and adhere to, requiring them to "Leave their Commonsense at the door". It seems that we can often trust our politicians to take the most indirect and haphazard route to solve what is often a simple problem. Though quite why we should be surprised at that is unknown, given that those who typically enter into local or national politics are no better or worse that the average man in the street. There is often a common misconception that political figures are somehow more gifted or able than their fellow citizens, which they quite clearly are not. Often these "career" politician are just as stupid, dishonest, lazy and uninformed as the rest of us mere mortals, yet we continue to believe that they are brighter, more honest, harder working and better informed than the mass of the population which they represent.   

Britain is not best served by a two party system, simply because it relies so heavily on both parties being effective and reasonably popular, which often isn't the case. We seem to have gone from fairly regular one term governments to the other extreme, where either Labour or Conservative administrations hold power for 3 or 4 terms and not because they are the best party of government. The Conservatives remained in power for 18 years, simply because the Labour party during those years was completely in disarray and for the past 10 years we have had that same situation repeated, only this time with the Conservatives apparently unelectable. The British political system seems to be almost exclusively based on an inefficient and outdated adversarial approach to issues, rather than what is actually best for the country and its people.

The obvious public apathy which demonstrates itself at most elections is a testament to the failure of the mainstream political parties within Britain and shouldn't always be regarded as pure indifference on the part of the electorate. The very fact that it would be hard to pass a cigarette paper between the policies of the 2 main political parties, is entirely due to the fact that none of our leading politicians are willing to take risks. Manifesto's and party policies seem to be written and discussed in isolation to the rest of the country and only by people with like-minded attitudes and opinions.

National politics has become dominated by and centred around the personalities of the individual parties, rather than the individual policies that they're offering to the country. How often nowadays do we see a political spokesman refuse to answer a question that's put to them. How often do we see a minister or politician caught out in an immoral or outrageous act, but they still refuse to stand down or resign. It is little wonder that many voters see politicians as little more than self serving opportunists who will tell a bare-faced lie, just so long as it keeps them in power and on the political gravy train.

The recent news story regarding Gordon Brown's offer of a Cabinet post to the Liberal Democrat peer, Paddy Ashdown perhaps typifies the common attitude amongst politicians of all persuasions, that "if we can't play by my rules, then I'm not going to play at all". Bearing in mind that the Liberal party has not played a real part in national government for close on 100 years, one would have expected them to have grasped such an offer with both hands. The British people largely believe in and would welcome consensus amongst the political parties, allowing them all to work towards common goals and mutual benefits, what a shame that political dogma and personal ambitions seem to get in the way of those truly democratic aims.  

10. Blair's Legacy

The rich have got richer and the poor have got poorer

Thousands of British citizens have been denied the opportunity to purchase their own home, because of New Labour's decision to allow the private sector to dominate the housing market. The "gold rush" that is the buy-to-let sector is little more than a largely unregulated money spinner for investors and speculators, who benefit from high rents, low taxes and increasing property prices.

Britain's burgeoning economy has led to the highest ever levels of personal debt in living memory, much of which has been built on the over

Britain's economy and social services becoming swamped by rising tide of immigrants

Increasing levels of hospital acquired illnesses, including MRSA

Breakdown in criminal services, prisoners released, perceived or real lack of deterrents

British involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan has made our country a target for terrorists

Environment being damaged by road building, coastal erosion, poor waste management

Greater intrusion and interference by EU in everyday British life eg Human Rights Act

Decreasing level of voter involvement in elections leading to undemocratic and unrepresentative government

Personal freedoms infringed eg CCTV, Speed Cameras, etc

Country run on "spin" rather than substance

National life has been infiltrated and contaminated by "globalisation" of media, business, etc

DOES YOUR LAND OR PROPERTY CONTAIN HIDDEN, LOST OR UNDISCOVERED TREASURES? CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION

Produced and maintained by Phillip E Jones @ Mobile 07756 693258 Text: 07914 189032

Mail Contact: 3 Riverside Park, Sealand, Deeside, Flintshire, CH5 2JR