Britain

On Loyalty and Anzac Biscuits

Samuel Hooper2 Comments

The British coalition government continues to act in an entirely clueless and dysfunctional way when it comes to planning the events to commemorate the upcoming centenary of the First World War. In addition to beginning a pointless and unnecessary argument about why the war was fought, the government has seemingly now decided that it will be beneficial to snub Australia and New Zealand by minimising the contribution that they made to the Allied war effort.

Apparently Australia and New Zealand don't count.
Apparently Australia and New Zealand don’t count.

The Telegraph reports:

The latest row follows a briefing to Australian journalists by Whitehall officials that no events were being planned to mark their country’s contribution and that internal discussions on the plans do not mention Australia or New Zealand. The briefing disclosed, instead, that officials were concentrating on promoting the role played by so-called New Commonwealth countries, those which achieved independence since 1945.

The countries singled out for promotion were India, Bangladesh and Nigeria, along with other west African nations. The reports state that this is to promote “community cohesion” in the UK.

This is unacceptable.

It’s one thing to foolishly overlook an arcane point when conducting international diplomacy, but that is not what we are talking about here. It seems instead that the government has taken a deliberate decision to snub two of our closest allies and Commonwealth partners, and then to brief the precise details of this snubbing to the press. A greater diplomatic faux-pas and insult to our friends can scarcely be imagined.

16,000 Australians and 18,000 New Zealanders gave their lives in support of the Allied cause in World War 1. This, to me, is not a contribution of blood and treasure that can justifiably be overlooked for any reason.

Let us compare this brazen ingratitude and ignorance on the part of some within the British government with the words of the Australian Minister for Defence at the outbreak of war in 1914:

“Australia will recognise that she is not merely a fair-weather partner of the Empire, but a competent member in all circumstances.”

And the Leader of the Opposition, Andrew Fisher:

“Should the worst happen, after everything has been done that honour will permit, Australians will stand beside the mother country to help defend her to our last man and our last shilling.”

And, most poignantly, the Treasurer, Sir John Forest:

“If Britain goes to her Armageddon, we will go with her. Our fate and hers, for good or ill, are as woven threads.”

If it is the honest view of the British government that social cohesion in our country is so bad that we now need to snub some of our closest friends and allies in order to curry favour with any particular group for the ominous and opaque purpose of “community cohesion” then we should all be a lot more worried about the true state of our nation.

As a long-time lover of Anzac biscuits and someone who cares deeply about Britain’s international relations and wants to see Britain nurture its relationships with proven and time-tested allies, especially those with whom we share such obvious historical and cultural bonds, I hope that a swift apology and a 180 degree U-turn on this foolish and gravely insulting stance to be quickly and publicly forthcoming from the government.

Given the government’s recent ability to shoot itself in the foot, however, I hold out limited hope.

Happy Gibraltar National Day!

Samuel Hooper1 Comment

Rather than continuing their futile and unwanted efforts to pick off British territories close to their shores, perhaps certain countries should be focusing on more pressing domestic problems much closer to home (a 27% unemployment rate, for example)… Should it not tell these countries and their jingoistic leaders something that despite the potential benefits (and lack of future harassment) that could come from being governed by the country closest to their shores, the Gibraltarians and Falklanders overwhelmingly choose to associate with Britain? That should make certain leaders extreme pause for thought, not go running to the UN.

Why Britannia Rules

Samuel Hooper4 Comments
Clearly just a big old pile of rubbish, if today's media naysayers are to be believed.
Clearly just a big old pile of rubbish, if today’s media naysayers are to be believed

 

We are at that point in the eternal cycle again. Something bad is afoot in the world, the United States of America pricked up its ears and made noises about military intervention, and the world turned to look at Britain to see whether we would leap on board too. And to begin with, everything was proceeding according to the long-established formula. The Prime Minister made the usual belligerent noises, condemned the atrocities taking place (in Syria this time, in case anyone was sitting this round out) and urged the United States to take a strong stance, with the obvious implication that Britain would occupy her usual place in the co-pilot seat.

But then something unusual and unscripted happened – the Prime Minister was manoeuvred into seeking approval from Parliament. MPs, annoyed at being called back from their summer vacations, wary of government intelligence in the wake of Iraq and, as always, looking to protect their own political hides, voted against authorising UK military action. Scandal! Or actually, just democracy working as it should.

And now, all anyone can talk about is how much this foolhardy decision must have diminished us as country, about how we have deteriorated and declined as a nation, and will continue to do so, and how everything is wretched and terrible and how awfully embarrassing it must be for our political leaders to have to represent Britain abroad when Zimbabwe and Somalia are clearly so much better.

Anyone following British television or print media’s coverage of the G20 summit currently taking place in St Petersburg, or the international response to the British parliamentary vote in general, will have been treated to a parade of insecure, snivelling, sometimes self-righteous commentators solemnly telling us that the special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom has been dealt a death blow, that Britain’s international credibility is in tatters, that we are the laughing stock of the world and that there is little left for our nation to do but limp out to a desolate spot in the north Atlantic and sink ourselves.

What nonsense.

Britain doesn’t sit at the big table because we dutifully follow the United States from one armed conflict to the next. That is not – repeat not – the reason. We sit at the big table because of the hundreds of countries in the world, our economy remains the seventh largest, and one of even fewer lynchpins of the global economy. Many of the world’s greatest inventions and finest companies originated and are based on our shores. Our capital city is the capital city of the world, an indispensable hub for global finance, commerce and culture.

We are a declared nuclear power, and possess one of five permanent, veto-wielding seats on the United Nations Security Council. Our military and intelligence gathering organisations are integrated with their sister organisations in the United States to a degree that no other nation can claim. Our armed forces (despite unwise government cutbacks) are among the most well trained, powerful and deployable in the world, and our country fields one of only three blue water navies to command the oceans.

British popular music, art, literature, film, television and all forms of culture enjoy a popularity and international cultural hegemony second only to the United States. Our people are industrious, friendly, stoic and tolerant. We invented the English language and yes, we speak it better than our transatlantic cousins.

That is why Britain matters, is respected, and is a force to be reckoned with. Not because we go along with Plan X or Plan Y to come floating out of the halls of Washington DC. Sometimes I find myself aghast at the need to remind my compatriots of these simple facts.

 

Did growing up in unionised, socialist, pre-Thatcher, pre-1979 Britain so affect and wound the collective psyche of our political leaders, journalists and commentariat class that they will disregard these manifold blessings and benefits – attributes that any country would be proud to possess – at the mere sight of a negative headline in an American newspaper or an off-the-cuff remark by a junior American administration official? For shame.

If nervous, wet politicians and journalists want to wring their hands and fret because John Kerry called France the oldest ally of the United States (a historical, verifiable fact rather than a poke in the eyes of the British), so be it. But recall that President Obama, speaking from the Rose Garden of the White House, correctly referred to the United Kingdom as America’s closest ally. Because it is demonstrably true, has been for years, and will continue to be so.

 

The bottom line is this: Britain can afford to sit out a round or two of military intervention now and then, and with so many other countries in the world who profess to care about human rights, we don’t always have to be the ones spilling the blood and treasure in their defence. Britain is a strong, enduring nation, and does not need to prove this fact to the world by getting actively involved in every military conflict, all the while dividing our population and depleting our treasury. America will not stop taking our calls because we sit out this particular action in Syria.

And since when did an expression of British democracy in action – our elected House of Commons voting “no” to a government motion authorising military action – become something to be ashamed of, or to apologise for? Do those people who fret that Britain’s non-participation will be the end of our global prestige really think that bombing sovereign nations at will without consulting the people is more worthy of respect than consulting the people, and holding back when the peoples’ representatives enforce their will?

I do not care to live in their mental version of Britain. Whilst I ache for a written constitution for the United Kingdom and clearly delineated separation of powers, this parliamentary debate, on the whole, was a moment to be proud of.

 

It concerns me that even our Prime Minister has difficulty articulating the virtues of Britain and making a robust defence when pressed by interviewers who detect political blood in the water and incorrectly perceive our standing in the world as being diminished whenever we are not in lock-step with the United States. It often seems that all David Cameron can do in response to these interview ambushes is stare at his feet and mumble about how many times a day he speaks to Barack Obama, when what he should be doing is reciting a lusty, more eloquently written version of this very article.

We are British. We are a great country. Our economy may still be in the toilet, and we may be governed at present by dilettantish non-entities in the mode of David Cameron, George Osborne and Nick Clegg, but these things shall pass. And when they do, Britain will still be a great country.

Here’s a closing thought: the world might respect Britain a lot more if we showed ourselves more respect for who we are, what we have done and what we can do as a nation.

On Drive-Thru ATMs And Stale Tortillas

Samuel Hooper5 Comments

Drive Thru ATM

 

I read an interesting piece by Peter Foster in today’s Daily Telegraph, titled “The quaintness of America, the backwards superpower”.

The basic gist of the article (written, it should be acknowledged, by a self-confessed admirer of the US) is that while America remains the world’s preeminent economic and military power, in some areas it lags behind the rest of the “modernised” world. He goes on to give several examples of this backwardness, citing the prevalence banking cheques as a payment method, the widespread existence of ATM fees, the use of imperial measurement units, the state of the roads, and – perhaps most shockingly of all – the continued use of corks rather than screwcaps by the American wine industry.

Now perhaps we can forgive Peter Foster his perspective based on the fact that his biography states that he is “the Telegraph’s US Editor based in Washington DC. He moved to America in January 2012 after three years based in Beijing…”

I have also spent time in Beijing, and would certainly agree that if you stick to the glitzy, brand-new parts of the city (as you would likely do when covering “the rise of China”) and you are able to successfully block out the people riding rickshaws along the side of the motorways, then yes, parts of America are likely to lose some of their gleam by comparison. However, the litany of complaints about America, and the fact that the US is singled out, makes me wonder when was the last time the author spent any time in his home country.

In America, if you want to do some banking in a hurry, you can go through the drive-through ATM in almost any town. No parking on double yellow lines, sprinting to the ATM in the rain and hoping that your car hasn’t been towed by the time you withdraw your cash, as is the case in Britain.

In America, there are more drive-through restaurants, pharmacies, (rather dubiously) liquor stores, drive-by trash cans and any number of other modern conveniences that mean you don’t have to leave your car to conduct normal business. You can probably argue about whether this is a good or a bad thing, but the Americans certainly have one over on us in this sphere.

And when the time comes to refuel your car, the chances are that you can pay at the pump in America. Remember that handy invention? I think they tried to introduce it in Britain in a few places, and then the machines broke, were never fixed, and have been covered over with signs, poorly written in felt tip pen, telling you to pay inside and join the long line of other people in the convenience store. Truly the way of the future.

There is a picture at the top of the article showing Buzz Aldrin saluting the US flag on the surface of the moon, with the caption “Sure, they can do this, but they can’t work out how to pay for stuff with a debit card”. Seriously? Mr. Foster, are we even from the same country? I can’t count the number of times I have gone to a fast food restaurant, or the cinema, or any number of other places in Britain only to be told “the credit card machine is broken, cash only, sorry” by some dead-eyed employee. Again, there is usually also a badly-written sign informing me of the same fact, carefully tucked away where it is almost impossible to see when placing your order. In America, I can wave my McDonald’s card at the little sensor at the drive-through window and it automatically debits my bank account. Nice.

And let’s look at consumer goods and food. If I buy a loaf of bread from the supermarket in Britain, it is sealed with a little sticky strip of plastic which loses its adhesive qualities after about two uses, after which time you either have to try tying the plastic bag and squashing the bread in the process, or leaving it to go stale. In America, the same loaf of bread comes with a little trusty wire device that keeps on working until long after the bread has been consumed. If I buy a pack of tortillas in Britain – well, first of all, they will look and taste terrible, because decent Mexican food cannot be had in this country for love or money. But secondly, the tortillas will be kept in a sealed plastic vacuum pack, which, once punctured with a knife to access the tortillas, cannot be resealed. The result, once again, is stale tortillas. In America, the same tortillas actually taste good, and come in a ziplog bag so that you can reseal them.

Stale tortillas, British-style. Yum.

 

I opened this pack two days ago, and I could use the remaining tortillas inside as an effective lethal weapon in a pinch. And yes, I could have bought my own zip-lock bag to preserve them, but the point is that I shouldn’t have to!

Oh, and say you want to buy your loaf of bread and your tortillas and it happens to be after 6pm on a Sunday. Good luck finding somewhere that is open in Britain. Sunday trading laws, sorry. In America, I would just nip to Target. Or Wal-Mart. Or one of the many other stores where they have correctly interpreted the phrase “Open 24 Hours” to mean “we don’t leave our stations at 5pm on a Sunday and go home to watch TV, and if you haven’t had the chance to do your grocery shopping yet, well that’s just tough luck”.

Mr. Foster also takes exception to American cable TV, finding the online channel guides to be very confusing compared to “the standard Sky TV menus that most English readers will be familiar with”. Well, shock horror, a country of 300+ million people has lots of regional and national cable/satellite TV providers, rather than the Sky/Virgin duopoly that exists in Britain. Yes, in America the providers may go to war with the content providers sometimes, meaning that you lose your favourite channel from the airwaves for a couple of months while they stare each other down, which is hardly ideal. But at least the American consumers have choice. We still think that’s a good thing in Britain even if we don’t practice it ourselves, right?

I could go on. At one point I thought about starting a blog that focused exclusively on the many ways in which British consumers are shortchanged and under-served compared to their American counterparts. The point is that it works both ways. Britain and America both come across as rather tired and shabby if you have spent a lot of time in the glitzy new developments of Beijing and Shanghai. But I don’t know many people who would willingly up sticks and leave to go there, for all the tea and Mag-Lev trains in China.

And in conclusion – well, I don’t actually have time to write a conclusion. It’s 4pm on a Sunday afternoon and I haven’t done my grocery shopping yet, giving me 45 minutes to run into town, throw some badly-packaged food into my shopping cart and get in line at the checkout.