Life in the UK Citizens Test

I'd never really given much thought to the 'Life in the UK Citizens Test' up to now. After all, I wouldn't have to sit the test, and there were lots more pressing matters to be considering.

This changed when I heard a speech on immigration from David Cameron, where he said that changes would be made to the test. This was part of a list of promises to get tougher with immigration. Every Government announces this, and every Government fails. Words to the party faithful are easy to give, but everyone should know by now that international law makes it very difficult for those words to be followed by meaningful action.

As I've mentioned before, the European Union does not recognise 'foreigners' within its member nations; everyone is a European, and can travel freely within its borders. The case is different of course for those travelling from other parts of the world. Any immigration policy must also show that it is not discriminatory, which I think is an almost impossible task, as something will almost always discriminate against someone. David Cameron wants to reduce immigration to the "tens of thousands"; I'll not be holding my breath.

Having arrived in the UK, if you wish to become a citizen, and to have a British passport, you have to pass a Citizens Test. This is what David Cameron said about the changes that will be made to the test. "There's a whole chapter in the citizenship handbook on British history but, incredibly, there is no question on British history in the actual test. Instead you'll find questions on the roles and powers of the main institutions of Europe and the benefits system within the UK. So we are going to revise the whole test ... and put British history and culture at the heart of it".

I was now intrigued; what was the test like? So, along with thousands of others, I took an on-line practice test. Actually, over the space of a couple of days I took three different on-line practice tests, but before I give you my results, let me say something in my defence.

I didn't read the Official Handbook beforehand (cost £9.99); I did no other preparation; I've never been very good at tests, and I thought the whole concept was a load of tosh. There were 24 questions in each of the tests, as there is in the final Citizenship Test on the day. In the first test I got 12 questions right; in the second test I got 15 questions right, and in the third test I got 16 questions right. The passmark is getting 18 questions right (75%), so I failed in all three tests. I didn't know enough about life in the UK to be allowed indefinite leave to remain.

All of the tests were based on the Official Practice Citizenship Test documentation, and one of the tests I took was provided by the Guardian on-line, who did point out that the test contained some out of date information. They were right, as on a couple of occasions I found myself arguing with the site, in much the same way as I used to argue with the computer when it refused to let me play a perfectly good chess move. My downfall in the Guardian test was that I didn't know whether in the 1980's the largest immigrant groups were from the West Indies, Ireland, India and Pakistan was true or false. I also didn't know why recruitment centres were set up in the West Indies in the 1950's. I failed to know in what year married women received the right to divorce their husbands. Also I didn't know the number of children and young people up to the age of 19 who were in the UK, or the percentage of people in the 2001 UK census that were Muslims. How many days a year schools must open also defeated me, as did the difference in the hourly rate of pay for men and women. My option to stop young people playing tricks on you at Halloween by turning a water cannon on them was not available, so I failed that as well.

What to make of it all? Candidates for citizenship will need to purchase, and read the Official Handbook, which provides all the information that is required to pass the test. This is where the whole thing is farcical for me. The test is not a test of knowledge, but a test of memory. But isn't that the same with all tests? I'm sorry, but I've always felt that exams/tests only show the ability of someone to absorb lots of information for a given purpose in time - the test. I accept that my view may be coloured by the fact that I'm generally useless at exams, but have always been very good at course work, writing essays or a true form of continual assessment.

So the ability of applicants for citizenship to memorise loads of facts and get at least a score of 18 out of 24, makes them successful. But why does the fact that they know there are 646 parliamentary constituencies, or that Ulster Scots is a dialect spoken in Northern Ireland, or what a quango is, or that Hansard is the official report of the proceedings of Parliament, or when the first census was carried out in the UK, why does this mean that they will make good citizens?  So if David Cameron has his way and British history will be at the heart of the new test, candidates for citizenship will know the date of the Magna Carta; the wives of Henry V111; the battle of Waterloo, and the role of Churchill in the Second World War, but will that make them good citizens? Conversely, as a BBC poll showed that fewer than half of those under 30 in the UK could identify Sir Francis Drake as the key figure in the defeat of the Spanish Armada, or that one third of them did not know that William the Conqueror won the battle of Hastings; does that make them bad citizens? I yield to no one in the appreciation of the importance and value of history, but being a citizen has got to mean a lot more.

I understand that there has got to be some gauge for acceptance into the country, and apart from the ability to speak, or the willingness to learn the language of the country, surely one of the important considerations should be what positive contribution can someone make to life in the UK? But what do I know? I'm not suitable for citizenship myself, as I failed the test - three times.

If you want to finish with a laugh - and god knows that I do, then click here and read some of the alternative questions Twitter users have come up with. I think that one of favourites is;

When does the DFS sale come to an end?

• When hell freezes over
• At the end of the year
• In the next 7 days

"We're all in this Together"

I must warn you now that this post is going to be a rant. It's been building up for months, and I've just come across the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back.

What possibly can have triggered this reaction in one so normally phlegmatic? For many, it won't seem much, as they will be unaffected by it. For millions of others, particularly pensioners, it will be yet another nail in their coffin.

My attention was drawn to the Government's 'DirectGov' web site, and the information contained there that this year, the Winter Fuel Payment will be reduced by at least 20% (though this was quietly mentioned as part of this years budget apparently, but I missed that). I'll explain my fury at this piece of social injustice as we proceed, but for now, let's put it in the context of David Cameron's persistent declaration that, "We're all in this together". The cartoon above underlines the crass stupidity of this statement, and is an insult to the thinking man and woman in the street. There's a bit of history to this statement from David Cameron.

In the Conservative Party Conference of October 2009, the last year of being in Opposition, he said to the faithful that he wouldn't make promises that he couldn't keep, but that "We will get through this together". He also told the tear-jerking story of two pensioners, concluding with, "Pensioners don't want pity. They just want to know that if they've lived responsibly, they'll be looked after in their old age". In 2010, the party Conference slogan was "We're all in this together". And at the 2011 party Conference, Cameron repeated, "We are all in this together". So the phrase has history, and gives the impression that we are one nation, standing together, suffering together for a better future. But it is a lie to say that we are all in this together. Some are up to their ankles in it; others their knees; others their waist; still others their necks, while many are in it over their heads. The worst off are pensioners and the low paid.

A Familiar Image

If I happen to mention personal matters, it will simply be for illustrative purposes, and not to draw attention to my situation, as there are millions of people far worse off than I am.

I could draw attention to the plight of many in our society, but I'm going to stick with one group - the pensioners. Many pensioners are of course reasonably well off; they've done well in life, and good luck to them. The majority however, are in a totally different situation.

I said that the trigger for my ire was the reduction in this years Winter Fuel Payment (WFP). For those who meet the age qualifications, this is a payment received in November or December each year; it is non-taxable, and is not means-tested, meaning that as long as you meet the age-related requirements, you get the payment, no matter what your income is. So the pensioners living solely on state benefits get the same amount as the eligible millionaire. In the last year of the Labour Government, they increased the WFP to £250, and to £400 for those over 80 years of age. The Coalition Government in their first year agreed to keep the amounts the same. This coming winter however will see the amounts change.

For the over 60's, the payment will drop from £250 to £200 (a reduction of 20%), and for the over 80's, the payment will drop from £400 to £300 (a reduction of 25%). This however is not simply a discussion on pure economics; it is one about life and death. The picture above is not designed for emotional blackmail; it is the harsh reality in the lives of millions of pensioners - having enough money to heat their homes. The Pensioners Coalition says that since the winter of 2007, over "300,000 pensioners have died during the winter months because of cold-related illnesses". Winter Fuel Payments are all that stands in the way of many more people dying. It cannot be underestimated how important this winter payment is, and reducing it now, gives lie to Cameron's pre-election promise to pensioners that under the Conservatives, "they'll be looked after in their old age". This reduction in WFP's of 20% - 25% is a gross piece of social injustice, as it comes at the same time of soaring fuel bills in the UK.

Scottish Power has led the way with gas and electricity price rises well above the rate of inflation, and others will follow suit. But it's all so different in other countries.  The map above graphically shows the difference between the UK and other European countries. While gas and electricity prices in the UK are expected to rise by an average 18% and 11% respectively, other European countries are capping their prices.

A Sunday Mirror investigation has found that in France, electricity bills have gone up 3%, and gas by 0%. In Spain, electricity firms have been banned from raising prices by more than 1.5%, with gas at 0%. In Germany, gas price rises are being held at 11%, and electricity at 0%. In Italy, both gas and electricity are held at 0% increase. It should be noted that the big energy companies such as Scottish Power, npower, E.ON and EDF are all owned by foreign firms from Spain, Germany and France. Together they supply energy to around 11 million households in the UK (according to the latest 2008 figures from the ONS, there are about 21.7 million households in the UK). UK energy watchdogs fear that foreign-owned energy firms are pushing up our bills to subsidise their own countries. The energy firms of course deny this.

astronomical increases, while countries like France, Germany, Spain and Italy have Governments that control them? The price comparison web site Energyhelpline.com has said, "UK consumers will want to know why the Government or regulator Ofgem hasn't done more". Quite right. To make matters even worse, David Orr says of these price increases in the UK, "These hikes will leave the most vulnerable with a stark choice between heating and eating. Yet the Coalition is planning to remove the energy regulator's duty to protect low-income customers and abolish their champion Consumer Focus. Instead of scrapping the only protection customers have, we should regulate energy prices like the rest of Europe".

Yes, the choice for many pensioners in 2011/2012 will be between heating and eating. This is just not good enough in the United Kingdom of the 21st Century, and is a shame on our so-called civilised society. To add to these fuel cost increases, think of the pensioners on Pension Credit and in receipt of Housing Benefit. This year, my Pension Credit went up by about 4% (around £5 a week), and next April my Housing Benefit will be reduced by about 8.2% (around £9 a week). This means that for rent alone I'll have to find another £39 a month, given that the rent doesn't go up, on top of £100 a month paid to top-up my Housing Benefit. Food prices are also going through the roof, and I can only be grateful for the free travel pass for local buses. At least we can get around for nothing. Those fortunate enough to have a little savings are seeing interest at 0.5%, which means that they can look forward to 50 pence interest paid on £100 in the bank. Break out the champagne someone.

The net financial situation for most pensioners is a deficit one, and this is a despicable thing. But, who the hell cares? Cameron was right on one thing in 2009, "Pensioners don't want pity". We do however want dignity, the ability to pay our bills, and have a reasonable standard of living. We don't want to have to decide, Heat or Eat? It's certainly time that the Government stopped letting privatised energy companies call the shots. Take a stand Mr Cameron, for it's the poorest in the land who end up paying.

For those politicians, leaders and others who like to spout the Bible at every opportunity, perhaps you would do well to be reminded of the story of the widow's mite. You can read it here.

Wootton Bassett Repatriation

Wootton Bassett High Street

Last night I watched the BBC 1 documentary called 'Wootton Bassett - The Town That Remembers', which looked at the way the town has honoured the war dead. I knew that it would upset me, and sure enough it did. It was an extremely moving piece of television, and being the old softy that I am under the surface, I spent the whole programme dabbing my eyes with my handkerchief. The programme was focusing on the living, but all I could really think about were the dead.

As many of you are probably aware, Wootton Bassett is a small market town in Wiltshire, with a population of just over 11,000. It started to come to prominence in April 2007 when the residents began to solemnly and quietly stand at the side of the road to pay their respects to the war dead, who's coffins were passing through the town on their way from RAF Lyneham. The bodies of fallen soldiers arrived at the air base, and were driven through Wootton Bassett on their way to the mortuary at the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford.

Repatriation flights, as they are called, will cease to land at RAF Lyneham from about September 2011, as the air base is due to close in 2012. All flights we be transferred to RAF Brize Norton, which is in Carterton, about 22 miles west of Oxford. It is unlikely that we will see many more days as we have in Wootton Bassett, as the route from RAF Brize Norton to the mortuary in Oxford does not pass through any towns or villages. Some residents apparently will not be too disappointed about this, as they feel it has become too much of a media event, and has attracted what they call "grief tourists". These views may well be in the minority, and though the programme revealed that there was perhaps more organisation needed than I would have at first thought, the dignified respect for those who had died, and the support given to grieving families will be missed. One side effect of these days is that it helps to keep in the public eye, the constant death toll as a result of war, and without it, we might just be left with hearing a brief statement from the Prime Minister at the beginning of Prime Minister's Question Time every week - an altogether more limited audience.

Wootton Bassett

I'll come to my feelings about war in a moment, but the harsh reality is that we are engaged in wars, and as a result of the inevitable deaths that occur, Wootton Bassett residents should be remembered for their dignified actions.

It seems that the Queen agrees, as she has conferred on the town the name Royal, so from later this year the town will be known as Royal Wootton Bassett. I have no idea what this means, or whether there are any perks associated with it, and to be honest, I haven't enough interest in the subject to look it up.

Did you know though that there are only two other towns in England that are Royal towns? They are Royal Leamington Spa (given the title in 1838) and Royal Tunbridge Wells (given the title in 1909). Also, never one to miss an opportunity to mention Wales, Caernarvon in Wales is a royal town of a different kind. "The Royal Town of Caernarvon" was made a Royal Borough by the Queen in 1963, and was allowed to retain the honour when it ceased to be a borough in 1974. Not quite in the same league that one I think.

That's the niceties over with. Repatriation happens because of dead soldiers. Dead soldiers happen because of war. War happens because someone decides to make that decision. In the last ten years, we have gone to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. So that you know where I stand, I opposed going to war in both countries. We went into Iraq in March 2003, to deal with Saddam Hussein's 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' - which we never found. Tony Blair, at the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq War was unrepentant, saying that going into Iraq had, "Made the world a safer place". This is highly questionable, and it has yet to be shown that the dossier in support of the war was not doctored. In other words, some people lied. Since March 2003, when we went to war, 189 British soldiers have been killed. More of that later.

We went to war in Afghanistan in October 2001, to destroy the Taliban; make it harder for Al-Qaeda, so making the world a safer place. Last month the 364th British soldier was killed. David Cameron said to Channel 4 news, "We are paying a high price for keeping our country safe, for making our world a safer place. We should keep asking why we're there and how long we must be there. The truth is we're there because the Afghans are not yet ready to keep their own country safe and to keep terrorists and terrorist training camps out of their country. That's why we have to be there. But as soon as they're able to take care and take security for their own country, that is when we can leave".

A former British forces commander in Afghanistan, commenting when the 300th death had been reached, said, "The death rate in Afghanistan seems shocking. But casualties are a brutal reality of all wars. And compared to many previous conflicts the figures in this nine year campaign are low. In the Falklands we lost over 250 troops in under three months. Almost 700 British soldiers were killed during the three years of the Korean War. And on average, 178 died every single day in the six years of the second world war. Even in the Northern Ireland police action, in 1972 alone we had as many killed as in the bloodiest year in Helmand". So that's all right then. Tragic as it is, it's not as bad as previous conflicts. Sorry, this is pathetic.

Afghanistan Tribes People

What of the people of Afghanistan? How involved are they in the decisions made affecting their country. It is said that about 90% of the opium produced in the world comes from Afghanistan. This must be destroyed so that the 'drugs problem' around the world can be dealt with. But for most people living in the rural tribal heartlands this is their only source of income. What will replace it? The answer is? It seems that nobody knows. If destruction of opium fields is a policy, then it has patently failed, for reports state that since the war began in 2001, there has been a 150% increase in Afghan opium production.

A searching Blog, written by Alex Thompson, Chief Correspondent at Channel 4 News, at the time of the 300th British soldier to die says, "You will no doubt hear and read a lot today, an awful lot today, from Englishmen intent on saying that the war in Afghanistan is going well. You will hear almost nothing from Afghans. And Afghans, thanks to NATO and the Taliban/resistance/insurgents (delete as applicable to your own personal prejudice) are getting wiped out and injured far, far more than any foreign soldier or insurgent mujaheddin. Which is rather a shame. Because tragic though the 300th British dead soldier/marine is, it is the Afghan people for whom we are fighting we are told, and the Afghan people who remain resolutely ignored in what is being forced upon them and their land from the foreign occupation (and it is that for many of them, let's not beat about the bush) and their largely hated, corrupt president, downwards through the various levels of corruption and kleptocracy. All of this, by a military force which keeps telling the Afghan people that it wants to get out and run home as fast as it feasibly can".

Lest you be mistaken, this Blog is not about war in general; it is about the justification for going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and of our continued presence there. In my simple view, the case for going in the first place, and for staying in the second has not been made, and Wootten Bassett repatriations are a stark reminder of that. Let me conclude this Blog with a comment about the cost of war, both in monetary, and in human terms.

Monetary Cost

• Iraq War - this had cost the UK £8 billion. In addition, the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War, up to March 2010 cost £2,237,700 (official Government figures), and as another year has gone by, you can double that. Security to allow Tony Blair's first attendance at the Chilcot inquiry cost the police £273,000, and a similar amount for his second appearance (Met figures).
• Afghanistan War - up to the latest figures, this has cost £12 billion, and rising every day. In an age when we are reducing the Government deficit, our reduced benefits, pensions, jobs and services are paying for us to continue with the war.

Human Cost

Let's not be parochial here and only concern ourselves with our own country. Many others have suffered greatly. I've trawled the Internet sites that specifically catalogue the human cost of war, particularly those sites that try to verify every statistic. The figures are frightening, and not what you hear talked about. These are figures provided as of 3rd May 2011.

Casualties in Iraq

• Iraqi troops killed = 30,000
• Iraqi troops seriously injured = 90,000
• Iraqi civilians killed = 864,531
• Iraqi civilians seriously injured = 1,556,156
• US troops killed = 4,414
• US troops seriously injured = 31,882
• Other coalition troops killed = 318 (UK 189)
• Other coalition troops seriously injured = 2,296
• Contractors killed = 933
• Contractors seriously injured = 10,569
• Journalists killed = 142
• Total killed in Iraq = 900,338
• Total injured in Iraq = 1,690,903

Casualties in Afghanistan

• Afghan troops killed = 8,587
• Afghan troops seriously injured = 25,761
• Afghan civilians killed = 8,813
• Afghan civilians seriously injured = 15,863
• US troops killed = 1,140
• US troops seriously injured = 3,420
• Other coalition troops killed = 772 (UK 364)
• Other coalition troops seriously injured = 2,316 (UK 388)
• Contractors killed = 298
• Contractors seriously injured = 2,428
• Journalists killed = 19
• Total killed in Afghanistan = 19,629
• Total injured in Afghanistan = 48,644

So, is it all worth it? Not to me it isn't. Let me conclude with words from a 94 year old war veteran, connected with the Wootton Bassett British Legion, and who was part of the BBC documentary.

"The saddest thing is that these soldiers should not be there in Afghanistan. I don't believe they are defending our country. This war is not our own - we should not be going into another nation, another culture, like this".