Reports of Osama Bin Laden’s death this week have been cause for celebration and much relief for many around the globe this week. Bin Laden was reported as having been found and killed by US Ground Forces in a mansion in Northern Pakistan this week. The search for the architect of the 9/11 bombings has spanned over 10 years and cost the US thousands and thousands of dollars and manpower in the ‘war on terror’. His vendetta against the West historically transformed US Foreign Policy and international security across the world for over a decade. Bin Laden’s capture ends a tireless search in what President Obama calls ‘A significant achievement for the US’ in the war on terrorism.

Bin Laden’s death raises many questions about the Pakistani government’s involvement with Taliban leaders and their connections with Al Qaeda, something that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had publicly commented on, this time last year. Strained relations between Pakistan and the US will now be thrown into the spotlight, as inquiries will be launched to investigate who has been responsible for concealing Bin Laden’s whereabouts for the entire duration of the manhunt. Although many have been quick to turn Bin Laden’s death into a Republican/Democrat partisan trophy, the fact remains; a impassioned unit of believers now without their leader are quite unlikely to give up on their ‘great commission’ without him. Certainly nurtured by their founder, there is no doubt that over the last decade for it’s insiders, Al Qaeda’s belief system has taken on a life of it’s own. As evidenced by ethnic population waves in Europe, such expressions of jihad and religious extremism are no longer limited to membership with Al Qaeda, having decentralized itself geographically and organizationally. Global Jihad has gained more followers since the turn of the millennium than at any other time previously since the group’s inception; it should shock no-one that Al Qaeda’s motives are not to disband but to simply change tactics. The question remains, how will the West recalibrate it’s plans to defeat Al Qaeda and on a wider scale, extremist terrorism as a whole?

No Americans were killed in this week’s reported mission to capture Bin Laden at the Abottabad compound.

In just a few days EU leaders meet in Hungary for the March 2011 EU summit to discuss a multitude of pressing issues, amongst which concern the Libyan unrest and the ongoing Eurozone recession. Forecasted for discussion by Germany’s deputy finance minister Joerg Assmunsen, will be financial lending programs like the European Financial Stability Facility, which currently require a review on interest rates to assist countries to return to capital markets.  In the wake of the disaster-stricken Japanese market, it goes without saying that European currency would do well to make gain of the volatility of the Yen. Inevitably, Head of the European Central Bank Jean-Claude Trichet will be one of the key influential figures factoring further economic movement for Europe’s 2011 financial agenda. This is a crucial time for Europe and it would certainly seem that Germany, historically Europe’s financial control centre,  holds the keys to the entire continent’s future. And if one person could tilt the decision one way or another, it is Angela Merkel.

Over decades of economic and political change in Europe, Germany has played a centrifugal role in keeping Europe together in spite of it’s differences. The overwhelming fear of a cannibalistic single Euro currency underlies so much of recent European history and for those who have pressed against it, Germany has, until now, actively ensured that economic independence remained an effective counterweight to the introduction of the Euro. The trouble now comes as only 17 of the original 27 leaders will be meeting for the summit, bringing (once again) accuracy of representation into question. One of the most controversial topics the 17 will be discussing is the proposal of a streamlined tax rate, an idea supported by both Sarkozy and Merkel. If these talks are found to be the root cause and foundation of a future unified economic governing body, it could spell trouble for the very countries Germany sought to protect over the Maastricht Treaty.

Germany currently has several cards in it’s hand. As Europe’s cultural, political and economical thermometer, the world looks upon Germany as the forecaster for both unanimous and dissenting shifts in European momentum. It currently stands as the central spokesperson for the failure of 21st century ‘multiculturalism’, a country famous for it’s pragmatic approach. It refuses to bail out weaker countries afflicted by the recession, such as Greece and Portugal. However, on closer inspection it would appear that Germany is also holding a hidden card. One has to question why Merkel has not taken a firmer stand against a summit that does not include representation for all 27 EU countries. Her position of advocacy appears to go against everything Germany has sought to achieve up until now. Britain, whose royal history with Germany has cousined the two countries for centuries, should carefully start to wonder about the actions of it’s bedfellows. Of all countries disadvantaged by a unified economic governing body, Britain stands in the most awkward place, having the most to lose and the most conflicted position to remedy. As the world waits to hear the final outcome of the summit, countries like Britain and Denmark would be well advised to come up with something more substantial than to plan more future vetoes. Irrespective of the opinion of Germany’s voters, Merkel may well wake up too late, something Denmark nor Britain cannot afford to wait around to find out.

Our daily lives are punctuated by it, modern businesses depend on it; the average person born within the last 20 years has never known a world without the Internet. Realistically it should come as no surprise to anyone that the Internet is about to reach its full capacity; many have known this for a while.  Yet, when the Internet Address and Naming Agency announced a few weeks ago, that the last seven blocks of addresses would be distributed in February 2011, many were shocked. Naturally, for some in this hand-to-mouth technological age, it’s just a case of, “Sorry—bus is full, another one will be along shortly.” Perhaps so, but for thousands of businesses the world over, this will be a harsh and unforgiving financial lesson in complacency.

Many businesses built on IPv4 (Internet Protocol version 4)—the last version of the Internet the world has been running on for the last four decades—have been aware of the emergence of IPv6 for the last ten years but failed to see the urgency to upgrade. This may have rung true for the first few years, but change is unavoidable; delaying the inevitable past the point of profitability starts to do more harm than good. IPv6 is currently unreadable by thousands of devices designed only for IPv4; the resulting impact will cost businesses thousands of dollars in replacing hardware that will be rendered useless within the next few years. As a consequence, our inability to successfully dispose of hardware waste is about to quadruple on a global scale.

As ugly as it is to imagine and realize that there are hundreds of small, local businesses still running on MS-DOS this side of the millennium, economics and technology are co-dependents for growth.  It only takes the average business owner to consider the approximate profit Apple reaped with the exponential growth of the iPod and it’s evolutionary offspring. Not wishing to fail, major corporations won’t think twice to dig deep to fund the conversion. Many businesses will still risk being prudent and seek to perform difficult reconfiguration procedures to enable old hardware to support IPv6. This further delay will only be of benefit for as long as it takes the cost of new hardware to decrease. Depending on whom you speak to of course; the old mind Vs new mind debate centres on the fact that the ISP have been performing sleight-of-hand tricks between IPv6 and v4 for a while. The fact that the ISP have thus far, successfully used these strategies in the shadow of change, comforts many into believing there is little need for conversion or redevelopment at this stage. Of course, there is the school of thought that those strategies will become more redundant as change brings more sophisticated software to the helm, at which point the question will be whether or not time-poor strategizing will be the most cost effective option.

Acknowledging the past is one thing. Declaring that your past as present is quite another. In this case, you’ve got to hand it to the French. As they bounded forward into the 21st century as a fully secular society, many Christians have protested that France’s zero-tolerance on all religion is an outrageous betrayal of it’s Christian roots. This is not necessarily so. The French have done what few Western countries can boast: create a society where the law makes favour and exception to no other belief system, in the interests of enforcing blanket equality and a standard of normalcy for all. In turn what this has done is to largely drive all religious belief systems underground; Buddhist, Islamic, Hindu, Christian and all. Sociologists have observed in many societies that once a thought system is driven out of public view and underground, rather than disperse, the participating community take on a covert existence. As a result, the religion that is found in France is increasingly less inactive and non-participant. This is one possible commonality which covert French Muslims, Christians and Jews share over their other European counterparts.

By strange paradox, this has kept France’s reverence for the Christian thinking of the previous age, intact and personal. In a nation which does not enforce religious thought (as did the Edwardians and Victorians), people are more inclined to choose their beliefs based on personal conviction. A belief system becomes more tangible when it costs something; those who practice a religion or faith in France now, do so as more of a sacrifice and at their own risk.  As a result the French Christian church of today, are possibly far more passionate about their faith than those of the pre-secular age. Considering that Biblical teaching discourages against apathy and indifference, France have actually done their religious history a favour by offering it a second wind, a second chance to be everything it could never be. One could even argue that this kind of church would identify far closer with the ‘true’ church of Jesus’ day. Rather than declare their historical Judeo-Christian values a perpetuum, by driving the church underground the French have kept it alive. Equally so, all other faiths and religions have benefitted from this rule also. In a surprising counter-balance, it would seem that France have covered all the angles in a way that Britain and America have struggled to.

For the rest who choose not to participate in any such religion or faith, the peace is theirs to know that French law prohibits displays of extremism in the best interests of neutrality. And therein lies the formula; to have the freedom to believe anything one wishes to, anything within the law; for the law is the final word for every man, woman and child. If it’s democracy people are looking for, isn’t this an even pathway to some kind of normalcy in Europe?

At some point or other, we’ve all thrown our hands up in disbelief and cried, “What’s happening to this country?!” or “The world’s gone mad.” A lot of British people have just given up trying to follow what’s happening to Britain anymore. People can barely keep track of where we were as a country last month, let alone 2 years ago; how on earth we ended up with this law or that reform; why every few weeks or so, we wake up in a different society governed by different rules. Over the last 5 years, change has happened to Britain fast; in dramatic leaps, and over a very short space of time. There has been nothing gradual about the last 5 years and frankly, it’s been exhausting to watch. It’s no wonder the British have become numb to politics.

The problem is this. Being disinterested in politics doesn’t make you stupid. Being disinterested in politics does make you underinformed and ill-equipped for disaster. Ask any British person what’s happening to their country and the simple response from your average joe is, “Everything’s changed so quickly.” Ask where Britain is going and you’ll get either a roll of the eyes, a resigned sigh or a shrug. The apathy has set in deeply and many are immovable from it.

There are just 10 days to go til the next UK General Election. A lot of people are sick to the back teeth with party political propaganda all over the TV and can’t wait til it’s all over. And so for some, my enthusiasm for voting is over the top. They couldn’t be more wrong. If ever Britain needed a hardcore election it’s now.

There have been two televised debates between Brown (Labour), Cameron (Tory) and Clegg (Lib Dem) covering domestic policy and international affairs; the last will be on economy and taxes. This is something we’ve never done before and taking prime advantage of the public’s political apathy, are the tabloids. The media are delirious with opportunity as the work comes easy; sensationalist headlines, spoof campaigns, repetitive soundbites and salacious stories of corruption pour out, emotionally whipping people up into a sudden frenzy of divisive opinion. The clock is ticking and thus far, opinion polls have fluctuated erratically across Britain like a rollercoaster. While the media have everything to gain from swaying the public, once the election is over, the media will be onto their next catch while the public are lumped with the consequences of a bad choice. So how does a tired, languid and fed-up Britain know what the right choice really is?

The truth is that this comes down to the lesser of three evils.

As current PM, Gordon Brown represents the vote to increase ‘free’ handouts for the ‘unfortunate’ public, ‘free’ benefits to keep people smiling and happy (even though everyone knows there’s no such thing as a completely ‘free’ benefit), with a general greater reliance on widespread government control over everything. Essentially speaking, Brown’s manifesto will keep Britain as a slave to tax increases (which, by the way, is how Labour pays for all your ‘freedom’ passes and ‘free’ this and that). His idea is to reinforce a nanny state which is completely dependent on the government for absolutely everything. (That’ll work for the politically lazy who can’t be bothered with reading the small print, “so long as Big Brother doesn’t do anything nasty” like, deny the public a right to fight a reform before it becomes a law–which, of course, Big Brother will.) Lest we forget–Brown never actually wanted the role of PM when he was forced into the position by default of Blair’s resignation in 2007. In following his Labour advisors, he frankly hasn’t the foggiest idea of why he’s made the promises he has, nor how on earth he will execute them, financially nor strategically. Despite appearances and his talk of us hoping in the ‘experienced party’, Brown knows deep down how his last 3 years of service has reviled many. His plea for the public to vote Labour smacks of, “I know I screwed up, I’m sorry, I promise I won’t do it again.” Anyone with a rebellious child knows there’s only so many times you can believe that line as gospel.

Despite appearing to be the ‘refreshingly different’ speaker of the three, Nick Clegg is the opportunist of the traditional ‘conflict’ between the Conservative Party and the Labour Party. His appeal is less of a strategic one and more of an emotional one, whispering to the listener, “You don’t have to watch these two fight it out for another age–pick me. I’m someone else altogether and after all, isn’t it “different” that you’ve been looking for all along?” Clegg’s approach is an unveiled, intentional play on the public’s distrust in previous Tory/Labour governments; an assistant to the aforementioned media circus. If you’ve been won over by his Mr. Straight Talker speeches, read the Liberal Democrat manifesto first. For the first plan of his inexperienced party, Clegg wants to “fix” the problem of Britain’s 900,000 illegal immigrants by ‘forgiving’ them for breaking the law with an amnesty to “stay in the country, work without being a criminal and we’ll reward you with citizenship.” What’s terribly wrong with that? Oh, only the consequences. Only a nice and easy, brand spanking new loophole for the next wave of illegal immigrants to make a fresh attempt on Britain’s borders. And apparently our citizenship is no sacred thing to Clegg, since he wants to give it away to any old Tom for practically nothing. If “Politically Correct Britain” is driving you up the wall, Clegg isn’t your man for that either: the Liberal Democrats’ central goal of making Britain more EU-centric will further weaken our economy, our say in what Brussels can lord over us and their ‘environmentally friendly’ banner smacks of more restrictive rules about good old carbon emissions and crying over polar bears, that have left us the laughing stock of the world driving revolting electric cars.

The Conservative Party are no angels either. The Thatcher years have such a bad reputation in Britain; a synonym for ideological betrayal. Cameron’s identification with Thatcher’s views have made him a target for criticism, largely because of Thatcher’s allegiance with liberalism in the face of traditional Tory politics. The current Conservative Party were involved in the Parliamentary Expenses Scandal of 2009 which damaged their appeal as a ‘clean politics’ party. Cameron has echoed Obama’s winning formula with the headline “Vote For Change”, producing further skepticism from traditional Tory supporters who take issue with what that represents, given the consequences America is facing having voted for a liberal president under such a slogan. In a modern multi-cultural Britain where the idea of social class has become more and more fragmented, the current public have less of an affinity with the traditional British class structure, which have been a fundamental skeleton to previous Tory politics. Cameron’s manifesto is Eurosceptic which could easily cause internal conflict through Britain’s membership in the EU and the huge number of Europeans living in Britain. Cameron has not guaranteed that taxes will be lowered which the public views as a grey area.

What the British public need to realise over the next 10 days is that the direction Britain has been going in has not been working up until now. This popularity contest will get us nowhere: we need facts and facts can only be found in party manifestos. Comparing manifestos only, both Labour and the Liberal Democrats are only walking us in that direction faster; under the guise that this direction is the only way, any other way is “backwards” and your only choice is simply who you want to walk with. This is completely untrue and a giant deception. With this to mind, the Conservative Party are the lesser of the three evils. Currently this is the only party which has a focus on managing the country’s current problems whilst minimizing the side effects that could create future problems. Having a cap on immigration is one such policy. The consequences of this reform are minimal compared with Clegg and Brown’s solutions which would quickly compound the problem. Exacting a punishable consequence for residents and citizens who are able to work but don’t want to is another. This hardline on benefits will inject vigour into a reluctant nation that’s been used to getting freebies for over a decade; a far cry from the ‘spare the rod, spoil the child’ attitude Labour and the Lib Dems exude. Cameron’s idea of putting 16-yr old British boys back into mandatory National Service is a champion idea; it’s a hard line but a vision with a long term benefit. Whether or not Cameron will deliver on his promises, only time will tell. But any fool will tell you that when a country loses it’s identity and roots, it loses it’s way. Let’s hope The Conservative Party’s promise to bring our identity back is worth voting for.

“America just caught up with the rest of the world. Now everyone gets free healthcare! Why are they so angry?”

“I thought you were supposed to provide for the poor. Why are people against the Bill?”

“Wait–I’m confused. Didn’t Obama just do a good thing?”

The British can’t see what the fuss is all about and it’s really not their fault–America’s non-stop party squabbling is not helping. Barack Obama signed the US healthcare bill as law, the entire country went into a rage and if you’re not American, you probably don’t understand why…

BECAUSE nobody is explaining ANY of it properly.

Let’s break this down, nice and simple.

The United States government has never paid for health care. Never–in it’s entire life. Why? Because it’s not in The U.S Constitution, the foundational legal doc for America’s existence. In the name of freedom and independence, The Constitution encourages taking total personal responsibility for oneself (health care and all). Well, the first people to take advantage of that freedom were health insurance companies–the ‘shops’ of healthcare, if you like. Americans ‘shop’ for the best doctor or dentist, they always have; they’ve never known any other way. Gradually, health insurance companies became competitive. If someone couldn’t afford to shop, the government wouldn’t pay for you but they’d help you try to get ‘discounts’, so you wouldn’t stop trying to afford shopping.

This sounds sadistic to the British. Why? Because the British government cut out all this ‘shopping’ business: it promised to pay for health care–no shopping or competition involved. In Britain there’s only government-funded hospitals, government doctor’s surgeries (offices) and government ambulances. (Unless you’ve chosen to pay private insurance.) Nobody in Britain remembers life before the NHS because the ‘pay-for-a-doctor-or-die-in-the-street’-method, was considered primitive and inhumane. Since 1946 the NHS is how it’s ‘always’ been. The biggest disadvantage of the NHS is that you can’t buy a ‘better’ doctor–you just take what you’re given. But if everyone else in the country is also at that disadvantage then, none of us will ever know or want any different, right?

From day one, Britain and America’s models have been as different as chalk and cheese. This is the first difference between our countries that nobody bothers to explain.

The only universal healthcare America has, is what the British would consider ‘discount’ schemes. These are Medicaid, which covers low income families and Medicare, for over 65′s and the disabled. Medicare is 100% federally-funded/managed; Medicaid is 50% state-funded, 50% federally-funded and 100% state-managed. Medicare is an automatic entitlement (i.e you grow old, you claim it), Medicaid is determined by eligibility (i.e show proof of income, we’ll decide if you pay all/part of the fee). Both are in trouble. Why? Because the Health Insurance companies are getting more expensive. Medicare is claimed by fewer people these days, but it is also bankrupt because insurance companies are expensive ; approximately 4 people’s taxes pay for 1 person’s Medicare. Medicaid is also increasingly expensive because states charge high premiums for revenue, making it inaccessible anyway. Neither work.

Still with me at this point?

So what do you think happened? There are an estimated 308 million Americans to provide for. They’re all fed up with the greedy health insurance companies. The government’s ‘help’ programs are failing. Everything’s been badly managed and has spiralled out of control. Then along came Barack Obama.

Of all the changes Obama promised to make during his presidential campaign, healthcare reform was the biggest. To quote: “I’ll make our government open and transparent…No more secrecy, that’s the commitment I’ll make to you as president. And when there’s a bill that ends up on my desk as president, you the public, will have 5 days to look online and find out what’s in it before I sign it, so that you know what your government’s doing…and you can decide whether your representative’s actually representing you.” Now that sounded like change we could all believe in. Inspirational stuff.

Except when he became president, he did the exact opposite of all these things.

Last year a healthcare reform bill 1500 pages long was written, in obscure legal jargon, which an average man cannot read nor understand. In November 2009, this bill was hurried through the House of Representatives without the public getting to read it. On Sunday 21st March 2010, the House voted 219-212 and Obama signed the bill as law. The public were only given 36 hours to read it online.

The American public, even some of Obama’s staunch supporters, were furious. Every step of the way.

To pay for the new reform, the Obama administration says it is taking $500 million from Medicare. Hold on, isn’t Medicare bankrupt? That’s right–it’s a hollow wall. As a result of this bill, health insurance companies are raising their rates and collecting federal funding at the same time. Hold on, aren’t health insurance companies already rich from overcharging people? That’s right–they’re still the controllers of health care. The reform doesn’t take effect for 3 years. The total predicted spending costs are currently at $2.5 trillion. Hold on, didn’t Obama say he would cut people’s taxes to help recover from the recession? Yes, that’s what he said. America’s national debt is already past $700 million and the country is still in a recession.  This can only mean one thing: the American people would have to pay for it…all.

As a friend of mine said, “…He put out a bill that most people can’t stomach in this economic climate…He tried to do too much all in one go.”

To think that the health care reform bill has created one problem, is wrong. It creates several separate problems. The country has gone berserk and torn itself down the middle because many Americans are fiercely against any sort of government dependency. Many believe that a move like this bill, is an enormous and dangerous step backwards. America’s emancipation from British rule was to abolish government dependency, establishing an American government which would represent and preside over the people, not provide. Because once upon a time, a British government once said it would provide for it’s American colony…it robbed them instead. America never forgot that.

And that dear friends, is what all the fuss, is all about.

London can’t leave anything alone for 5 minutes. I knew this next visit would be no exception and I wasn’t looking forward to it.

I’d expected London to have moved on, the way it predictably does: more stupid rules enforced, more stupid prices. But for the first time in my life I didn’t feel like I was ‘home’ at all. The city seemed completely alien. Everything I’d held dear to me about London had been removed. The recession had seen many restaurants and stores closed down. But old, historical buildings completely demolished for no reason? Historical spots, totally redesigned? Hotels, refurbishing the crap out of themselves til every trace of history was gone? Last century’s historical artwork stripped away from Tube station walls…to be replaced with plain white tiles? One question sat on my face for two weeks. Why?

The English of London have endured much oppression. The London they knew in 1998 was gone by 2001. The London of 2001 had vanished by 2005. The London my husband knew when he moved there in 2005 was unrecognizable by 2008. And there is no longer any evidence of the London I left in 2009, compared with the London I saw in 2010. If you’ve read George Orwell’s ’1984′, you’ll be familiar with the idea and process of reinventing a city over and over again so that it no longer has a past. Orwell wrote his political book in 1949; the chilling irony is that he couldn’t have predicted that Oceania’s London would actually become modern London in 2010. Like some sort of a sick joke, this reinvention has been going on for years.

Let me make one thing clear at this point: this extremity isn’t common across Europe. Obviously if you’re boasting economic growth, a city consequently seeks to reflect this with architectural and structural improvement. But total out-and-out historical erosion? I’ll happily walk my entire backside off and see a whole city in a day; for three years in a row I flew to Frankfurt, Germany to do this each Christmas. By comparison, Frankfurt has remained the same city I have visited every single year. I stayed in Paris in 1990, 2005 and again in 2006. Architecturally it has remained the very same Paris the entire time. From 1992-2006, my annual two-week summer vacation was in The Algarve, Portugal. Their biggest change in fourteen years? A new highway and a few more bars added to the high street. Nowhere in Europe has destroyed it’s history like London has.

For Londoners fed up with this non-stop change of ‘tearing down, rebuilding, destroying, rebuilding’, the city just gets worse every year. The constant daily flow of mass immigration into the city and the resulting strained services, wear down London’s tolerant attitudes and fray an already threadbare patience. Squashed and confined into a smaller space every single day to make way for the exotic flood of foreigners and their cultures, the London of ‘quaint English ways’ and ‘glorious unfathomable history’ has become harder to find. Many Americans I’ve met, genuinely think this ‘royal’ version of London still exists and no fool will reveal how dark the city’s really become. They’ll just sing to you that you “have to know which nook and cranny to find it in, that’s all!” Of course, since the ‘average’ American tourist has little idea of where the truly English things of London still exist, many arrive to face rude people; overcrowding, filth and stink, bad hygiene, poor transport. They return home in disgust, reporting stories that sound more like a backpacking trip through Bombay.

I now understand why British expats say they could never return. Someone who’d emigrated from London in 1984 couldn’t possibly return to the London of 2010. Even someone who’d left in 2005 would find today’s London alien. My point is less to do with assimilation to an adopted country and more that there’s not much left to return for. Our government is bent on taking the city away from it’s natives a chunk at a time, each month. All that remains are friends and family, and it just so happens that many of my close friends are also planning to leave the city. One for Australia, another for Baton Rouge, another for Atlanta, their reasons; all the same: London has nothing left to offer. Living there has made them poorer financially, physically, mentally and spiritually.

The solution? Stop going back to London altogether? Many expats already have. It’s not an easy decision to make. But if you’re a settled expat with good friends and in-laws, there’s not really much competition I’m afraid. I told my parents that London was becoming too painful for me to stomach. A tear rolled out of my mother’s eye; she understood. My dad reprimanded me for dishonouring my roots and mocked my adaptations. In my heart, I knew he was bitter that their only option was to stay in this stressful city or emigrate back to his homeland, Thailand. At their age, they have little choice but to stay.

I’ll leave you with a happy story. On my last day in London I saw the Van Gogh exhibition at the Royal Academy on Piccadilly. The paintings and sketches were incredible, profound and awe-inspiring; the letters contemplative and visionary. But what struck me were the visitors. They were all old English people. Even the few young people who’d come were English. I remembered how London’s exhibitions would once cater to those who appreciated the art of ‘The Old World”. Queuing with these old English people in the windy 15th century forecourt, was music to my ears. I hungrily eavesdropped on their quintessential, quiet English chatter.“Only a few more people to go! We’ll be warm yet!” “Gracious, that wind’s awfully chilly, would you like to borrow my gloves dear? I’ve brought another pair just in case…” “Could do with a cup of tea right now! Not long before we’re inside!” The exchange of smiles and jovial comments sent warm electrical signals through my brain: these were the voices of the England I grew up in, an England I remembered fondly.

Inside, the exhibition was crowded. Used to the impatient shoving and pushing, I braced myself as we huddled in silently to peer curiously at the work. To my amazement, I heard quiet little apologies as the people moved from wall to wall: “Pardon me, while I get out of your way…” “Sorry dear, excuse me-”  “May I?…Thank you.” “Oops. Ever so sorry–” “No, no–I was just moving so you could get in here to see. Come on, shuffle in.” My mouth hung open. I hadn’t heard such politeness since I was an adolescent. I’d thought it was now obsolete. My heart then sank with disappointment, knowing this little capsule of history would end the minute they dissipated into the street. These precious English would scurry back to the safety of their opulent homes and leave me to the maddening crowds once more. Ah! but for a moment, I had caught a glimpse of the good old London I missed so very much! Milking the moment for every drop I could savour, I tried very hard not to leave the museum once I’d seen the exhibition.

Walking out of the exhibition and into the crowds of central London, I considered the little glow I’d taken out with me and Van Gogh’s own words. “There may be a great fire in our hearts, yet no one ever comes to warm himself at it, and the passers-by see only a wisp of smoke.”

Since the early 1970′s, Britain has seen a steady decrease in the open expression of patriotism, particularly in England. It is not by chance that this coincides with mass immigration. What doesn’t help matters is that most of us are generally aware of the troubled history of the 1970′s skinhead supporters of the National Front, who were the last outpouring of Union Jack-wavers. Expressions of pride in our country are limited these days; mostly to football or rugby matches, where we seem, to our American and Asian neighbours, slightly deranged about our passion for these sports. Alas, the firey passion they are witnessing is not just for the Beautiful Game itself; it is the direct consequence of what happens when some 83,000 Britons are given the freedom to simultaneously uncork the highly pressurized bottle of patriotic expression. What our neighbours don’t know, is that it is now considered an oddity, perhaps even a silent act of aggression, to see a Union Jack flown outside a home in 21st century Britain.

This is in stark contrast to the American attitude towards patriotism. Americans never need an excuse to show national pride. An American flag stands, outside pretty much every home in the U.S. Everywhere you turn, it seems, the national flag is emblazoned on absolutely every blank surface. Arriving tourists are often amazed to find themselves bombarded with this bizarre, American ‘obsession’ with the Stars and Stripes, making it’s way into every holiday photograph, cutting into their line of sight with every blink. Businesses, cars, trucks, shop fronts and windows of all manner are flamboyantly and often, outrageously adorned with it. Most of the time this is done completely in spite of the hatred expressed toward America. Day and night, American marches and other such patriotic music, pours out of classical music radio stations; at deafening decibels in every university, college or national sports game. Sung over and over again like a broken record at schools the country over, the American national anthem is now one of the most recognised patriotic songs in the world.

However, as a result of the negative image patriotism has in Britain, the tendency has been to frequently look down upon the bold, loud American display of patriotism as false and showy, aggressive and insensitively hostile to foreigners on their soil. Honestly speaking, I think neither extreme serves well. A country’s governance shouldn’t go to the ridiculous heights of banning it’s brave military from wearing it’s khakis or citizens from waving the flag; nor should it go to the absurdity of making it federal law to face the flag, hand over heart and sing where both song and flag are in the same room. I do, however believe that Britain can learn a little from the Americans in the face of adversity. It is good and fitting that every British citizen should, in the face of politically correct discouragement, fly either the Union Jack or the English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish flag, as a mark of recognition and respect for the freedoms their soil has earned them.

An ethnically diverse London has earned me friends with people of hundreds of different nationalities. I am curious to hear people’s views on what you believe patriotism means to you. Bring into consideration the entire mixed bag: your ethnic origins, country of birth and your country of residence, because often, these are not always the same thing or place.

We make no secret of our disgust these days, when it comes to our opinion of modern Britain. So few are the patriotic of British soil, that anyone daring to utter a few hopeful musings is quickly shot down with a range of political and social artillery. We point to the miserable, grey sky and declare, “Look at it! Who wants to live in this dump?!” We squirm our way off of packed public transport and exhort, “What a hole this place has turned into. England’s become no better than a third-world country!” Time and time again, I’ve witnessed the speed at which the jolly advocate of the homeland, will mournfully give way to the protagonists of pragmatism (say that with your mouth full). Whether down the pub or over coffee, with a “Yeah, I s’pose you’re right…” we’ve fast turned ourselves into a grumbling, unbelieving people. Why have Britain’s people chosen the solitary route of cynicism, in the advent of modernity?

Can we blame ourselves? Or are there real grounds for this growing anti-patriotic feeling? We’ve all heard the saying, “Misery loves company.” Perhaps so. Unfortunately for the British, who’ve adopted this moniker when it comes to talking about their own country, this hasn’t really bred the type of ‘company’ or ‘togetherness’ that lasts longer than a pot of tea and a plate of biscuits. Admit it: when our whinging is done and the tea mugs are dry, in all truth, the cynicism we so stubbornly celebrate as the “essence de la Britannia’, leaves a rather ugly residue on our lives. It’s a sober thought that makes us shifty and uncomfortable. Being cynical all the time, is a heavy weight to carry–yet nobody likes to dwell on that. The distance to the pub for alcoholic relief is shorter than the distance to a change of attitude. At least that’s been the reasoning in Britain for the last few centuries. But what brought us to this point in the first place? The unease with the country started with a trickle. Whole books can be written in response to this question; I hope to deliver a summary.

Here’s an illustration for you. There was a grand era of my life in 1996 where I had an ‘enlightenment’ about why we call it The Beautiful Game. Suddenly you couldn’t tear me away from Match of The Day. I became a complete and utter football fanatic for the next 3 years of my life; I lived, breathed and ate the game. And there was a lot to shout about; the 1990′s were an incredible time for British football. It was the era of our homegrown: Ryan Giggs, Paul Gascoigne, Matthew Le Tissier, Glenn Hoddle, Roy Keane, Robbie Fowler, David Beckham, Gary Lineker, Alan Shearer, Teddy Sheringham, Ian Wright and the discovery of one Michael Owen. Some of the greatest local players in footballing history took to the British pitch during this decade. Then someone had the bright spark of heavier investments in international transfers. One by one they came, dazzling the stadiums with their incredible performances: Ruud Gullit, Roberto Baggio, Gianfranco Zola, David Ginola, Dennis Bergkamp, Johan Cruyff, Ole Gunnar Solskjær,  Zinedine Zidane, Eric Cantona, Emile Djorkaeff, Marcel Desailly….the frenzied crowds cheered, but they had no idea what had just begun. The chipmunks had already started chewing away at the foot of this enormous, old oak tree. The buying abroad did not stop there; more and more club profits were earned in this manner and as more of these football greats took to their retirement posts, Britain was completely deficient in homegrown talent to replace them. Some enthusiasts would call me a flake, but I fell out of love with football when the British football game became unrecognizable. Few attempts at local recovery did little to stem the flow of the international presence on British fields. The whole country was saturated, our national clubs were fretting. We had sold away our game, our heritage.

What’s left for Britain to be proud of, locally? As with football, so followed cricket and rugby. Following a post-WW2 habit of employing immigrants to boost the economy, Britain has long been in the business of giving away it’s national treasures in one big estate garage sale. The benefits of multi-culturalism, ethnic diversity and foreign tolerance, are outweighed by the losses that our centuries’ forefathers worked so hard to maintain. Some might respond, “Well it’s just like the Royal Family; hardly a huge loss when tradition has little purpose these days.” But is this really what it’s has boiled down to, celebrating erosion too? I can’t help but look at the growing rubbish dumps filled with VHS players, mobile phones, 4:3 televisions, car scraps made of plastic and ask if modernity really has as much to offer as age-old British tradition that was made to last. Where has our national pride gone? Sold! to the gentleman in the first row with the Gucci tie and Ferragamo shoes.

A proposed solution, if any. Don’t prepare for death by putting the kettle on and inviting everyone round for another whingefest. Misery doesn’t love company, it’s isolating. Every new wave starts with a few pigeon steps: we British must get off our backsides and consciously decide to support local efforts. Don’t do it to be a quirk, do it because you’re tired of complaining about how rubbish at everything your country is. Decide to be discerning about your consumer habits: instead of whinging that there’s nothing British to be proud about, make a point of buying British. I’m not exactly the first to say it, but this will never catch on if we sit around waiting for each other, nor if we begrudge the point as being a wasted, pathetic effort. This country is it’s own worst enemy because we wait for others to do the passionate town-crying for us. Make no excuse: this is YOUR country. Take responsibility for your own patch of grass, because nobody came and took the “Great” out of Britain, we handed it to them with our apathy!