What puts the "Great" in Great Britain?

'Scuse to my fellow countrymen who probably remember this, but finally found this thanks to Youtube! 

Now, Great Britain has enjoyed a long and storied history, with an empire spanning the whole globe, developed pretty much everything that you hold dear today. Railways, TV's, engineering, the internet, and the humble roll of toilet paper! However, after the War, Britain began a slow decline with the empire fragmenting, and many other nations leapfrogging Britain. Britain is still a major player, but not the top dog any more.

However, Britain is still great because of fabulous nights of comedy. It is something that we can still do well! 2 years ago it was Prince Charles' 60 birthday and a gala programme was laid on, with all monies going to Charles' Prince's Trust. A very worthwhile charity.

Britain may not be up to much, any more (apart from making luxury cars, the internet, programming, and some other top end stuff), but one thing we can do is comedy! A stream of funny people ooze from Britain, and gently wander round the world! A gathering of some of Britain's finest talent was gathered together for this show.

The show itself was compared by the silver haired wonder that is Philip Schofield.

The master of ceremonies was the awesome John Cleese, who is beginning to get on a bit! But still funny!

The first act up was a reasonably new comic, Michael Macintyre. Scottish name, terribly English accent, hugely funny! Not intimidating in any way, and I did love his description of "The Man Drawer!"

Next up, the evergreen Bill Bailey. IF you dont know this guy, then you have been living under a rock. A bit like Bill, actually. A guy who looks a bit like a troll, or Merlin, or a character from Harry Potter. Amazingly musically, etherially funny!

Next up, an interloper from overseas. Robin Williams. Yes, he is American, but still funny, so I dont mind including him in here!

We also saw Rowan Williams back in a Vicar outfit, delivering a sermon in that wonderful deadpan style that has made him so popular, and served him well as the acerbic Blackadder!

 

Stephen K. Amos burst onto the scene in 2001, and his star has risen ever since. Amazingly funny, and has managed to be quite active in campaigning against homophobia and racism.

We also had John Culshaw, an impressionist and comedian. Hugely popular for his ability to mimic many of the worlds famous stars. But probably most famous for his take on the American Precipice, er, President... Then followed by Omid Djalili, the funniest Iranian comic. According to John Cleese.

We also saw appearances from Andrew Sachs, reprising his role as Manuel from Fawlty Towers, with John Cleese as Basil Fawlty.

Amanda Holden and Alistair McGowan had a wonderful sketch as news programme hosts, with Amanda Holden broadcasting news from history, and Alistair McGowan fronting a modern version of the news Amanda talks about, with a comedic twist.

Another interloper, a famous lady from New York, Joan Rivers.

To finish the whole show off, a song known round the world, an example of British comedy at its best, and in many ways, a song most Brits hold dear in their hearts, and follow its advice!

And remember folks, always look on the bright side of life, face the audience with a grin, and head out laughing!

Big idea, little ambition

So, the British government announced that Britain will really join the top table in the world with a real high speed rail line! The sliver that runs from London to the Channel Tunnel does not really count, as only about 6 people actually benefit from it!

And their Grand Plan? A huge plan to benefit the whole nation! A high speed line running from London, to, er, Birmingham...

Talk about lacking ambition! The long term ambition is to split after Birmingham, and run 2 lines up either side of the Pennines, one to Glasgow via Manchester, and the other to Edinburgh via Leeds. Problem is, these plans are ambitions. There is no concrete plan for these, no timetable, no provisions for the cash.

Also, the plan details construction to start in 2017, and completing the line to Birmingham by 2025. 

Now, this may seem like a start, but it is so weak, and lacking in real ambition to be laughable! One of the main arguments is that high speed rail is the most environmentally way to move people round. OK, whilst under construction, it will spew a lot of CO2 into the air. As does building a new road, whilst constructing a new airport has marginally less.

However, where high speed rail really picks up is in competition. high speed rail is comparable to transport by car on CO2, it beats air travel hands down. It is slightly less convenient than car, but on the flip side, it is as comfortable, and less tiring! Also, apart from London City, most airports in the UK are on the outskirts, whilst the train stations are in the city centre.

Journey times for high speed rail would see from London to Manchester would be slashed from the 2 hr 10 min, to 1 hr 20. This is not as quick as plane, as from Manchester to London City is about 45 minutes. However, where the train picks up is on security. When you travel by plane, you have to get to the airport about an hour before the flight, there is the hastle of security, and then faffing round at the other end. In the end, turning a 45 minute flight into a journey time of most likely just over 2 hours. Making a high speed train look pretty attractive!

However, if Labour win the election, then they will follow their weak, half-baked plan.

The Conservatives issued their plan which would be to link Heathrow, Britains busiest airport, to the network, and extend the line in its first stage, from London, to Birmingham, then on to Manchester and Leeds. Their justification is that by doing so, they can take plenty of local flights out of Heathrow, allowing Heathrow to expand internationally, without having to physically expand as dramatically as they want. Cutting CO2 over all. 

This does have a lot of merit, as high speed rail is designed to move people quickly, and more cleanly than air travel. The major rival to rail travel. It will also encourage people out of their cars. Especially on the longer runs from Manchester to London.

My fear is that the run from Birmingham will not be as successful as the government hopes. It is so close to London already that flying is not really an option, and close enough for people to easily drive. As the distance from London increases, the car gets less attractive as people look to switching to the plane. However, once high speed rail links their city, and offers comparable times, people will ditch their cars, and move from the highly pollutant planes and move onto the railway.

The Lib Dems have announced an even bigger plan! Following through with a plan similar to the Conservatives for high speed rail, but also by withdrawing £3bn from the roads and ploughing that into the rest of the rail network to upgrade the rest of it at the same time!

It is such a shame that the government has chosen such a weak plan. I live in Japan, and get to ride the Joetsu Shinkansen to Tokyo. This is great! I get to blast along at 150mph on a line that is about 30% longer than the line from Manchester to London. Also, I ride on a train that has 800 seats, and 1 trainset has over 1000! It is unbelievable!

Not only that, but the Japanese government built the whole line. Not half of it. But all of it. In 1 go! Even though its cost proved to be really high! They decided that it was worthwhile boring tunnels through the Japanese Alps because it would link Niigata with the capital city. It would prove wider economic benefits, environmental benefits, and social benefits as well.

The Japanese government is willing to pony up the massive amounts of money upfront for a Shinkansen line, as they know that they will, in the long run, benefit from higher taxes generated by the increase in business along the line. Also, it helps that the government is willing to carry debt for much longer than most western governments are willing for.

It can be done, as long as the government is willing to go for it! Just dont vote Labour...

The Great Debate

Well, as of right now, it looks like Prime Minister Gordon Brown will head to the Queen to ask for an election on May 6th. This has been the rumoured date for a very long time now.

However, this is not the thing that got me to write this. What has, is the proposal to hold a televised debate. This has been a thorny issue for a long time. It was difficult for Parliament to decide on the structure of the debates.

The first of all, the fact that Britain does not use a Presidential style system of government, where we all get to vote for the President, a la the US and France, but we get to vote for a local representative who campaigns on a party platform. The biggest party is then invited by the Queen to form a government. Formally, she does not have to listen to the voters choice, but woe betide her should she choose to ignore it! Makes it hard to really say a Prime Ministerial debate rather silly, since most of the people in the country cant actually vote for the guy!

Second,with American politics, it is easy to find the candidates, since there are only 2 parties. However, in the UK, we have many parties that make up our politics. Some sit in the House of Commons, others sit in the House of Lords, others sit in the devolved parliaments. Some sit in all! So, how on earth do we pick who is represented in the debates!

Well, the TV companies, the BBC, Sky, and ITV decided to get round all this by linking up together, and organising the debates themselves. I think this was a great idea. It settles many arguments, as it is something the TV companies do, rather than leaving it to Parliament to organise. They just decided to do it! It also means they get to set the rules.

The TV companies have arbitrarily set the rules. This has caused some grief, but at the end of the day, it is their event. They have organised these debates, and invited the people they wanted. Stating that if the people they invited did not show, they would leave the chair open and not in use. Probably to embarrass the person involved.

What they decided to do was to bring in the 3 leaders of the parties that have a direct impact in the lives of the vast majority of the population. So, that is Gordon Brown of Labour, Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats, and David Cameron of the Conservatives. It is the Conservatives through their link with the UUP in Northern Ireland who do genuinely reach across all the home nations, whilst the others are involved in politics in 3 out of the 4.

However, this has irked the SNP in Scotland, and Plaid Cymru in Wales, both of whom play significant roles in the political lives of Scotland, and Wales, and have complained vociferously about their nations politics being shunted into the sidelines with their non-admittance into these debates. Their argument is that by excluding them, the political voice of Wales and Scotland is diminished.

They have appealed to the BBC trust, acknowledging that they cannot force Sky and ITV to amend their debates. They have also proposed a 4th debate run by the BBC including them along with the main UK parties.

Except, in my view, the main parties have a point. The TV companies have included the leaders of the three main UK-wide parties only. Other UK-wide parties are not included, such as the Greens, or UK Independence, and thankfully, the BNP. Also, if the TV companies include Plaid and the SNP, does that not diminish the English voters? After all, we get to watch 3 people we get to (indirectly) vote for, whilst voters in Wales and Scotland get to pick from all 5!

These debates are supposed to cross the UK, and cover UK related issues. This means that they will talk about issues that the British Government will discuss and debate. And these three leaders are the ones who will lead that debate. The SNP and Plaid, because they only operate in one of the four home nations will NEVER be in a position to lead those UK-wide debates. If we end up with a hung parliament, then yes, they will have a greater voice, and be able to influence the decision making process, but they will not be able to dictate policy. 

Also, why should the English, who make up 80% of the electorate in the UK, be forced to listen to 2 people spout on about how hard done by their constituents are, when they have absolutely no impact on their lives! It is hugely irritating!

All I can say is, well done to the TV companies for proposing this, and dont cave in now to these two shouty little men who want to have their cake, eat it, and nick from the English as well! After all, as it stands, despite making up the bulk of the UK, England is horrendously under-represented in government!