A little too much doom-mongering there, methinks.

That fewer people have dining rooms is hardly one of the signs of the apocalypse, heralding in the end of society as we know it. Besides, just because there isn't a specific walled-in room called the "dining room" hardly precludes the end of sitting down at a table for dinner, after all.

We've always had an "open plan" living/dining room. The dining table and chairs are in one half, and the armchairs, sofa and TV is in the other. We still sit down for family meals, and do so every day, and have for as long as I can remember. I don't know why people don't - but it's not down to knocking the wall to the dining room through.

Just that the dining room as a separated and segmented room is a dying breed really means little. It isn't necessary to have a separate room just for eating in. And it certainly isn't the serious problem that seems to be suggested.

Britain is a nation of monarchists, with 80% wanting Britain to retain it's monarchy. I am not in the slightest bit surprised by this, as the monarchy is on the whole well-regarded by the people of Britain.

Also, the monarchy is a good thing for this country, as it keeps a constant and recognisable national figurehead. It also keeps us away from the need for a President, which would either (a) require a complete and unnecessary reorganisation of our entire political system to fit the idea of a Head of State with powers in, or (b) be a completely and utterly pointless position. Neither of these would, in my opinion, be a good idea.

For at least the foreseeable future, if not far far beyond that, there will be a monarchy in Britain. They are far too embedded into the very fabric of this nation to be removed.

Source: BBC

Hell yes! We should celebrate British history. Not all of it is as great, pretty, and morally righteous as we may wish, be we should showcase it anyway. History is essential to the modern world. It made us what and who we are. Through history we learn lessons, and understand the reasons behind the way the world works.

British history is our history. The history of our nation. What made us who we are. We should have a museum of British history to remind us - and the world - of our history, of our role in making the world what it is. Of course it isn't all great but I think that, overall, Britain's role in world history has been positive.

We should have a museum of British history to remind us both of what our nation has done right and wrong in the past, and how we have developed into the nation we are today. After all, it's not like we would have to struggle to fill it!

Apparently in less than a decade, Britain's population will reach 65 million, 71 million by 2031 and 77 million by 2051. Because we're all going to be living longer and having more kids, along with an increase in immigration.

Which is a bit of surprise, really, since I thought we were all going to kill ourselves by eating too much and becoming obese, smoking too much, or drinking too much. Or all three together. Not including everything else that is apparently going to kill us, such as climbing ladders or playing conkers.

Obviously either that's a load of bollocks, based on "intelligent guesses", or this population projection is. I suppose they could be banking on the NHS becoming good enough to save us all after we almost kill ourselves with our eating, drinking and smoking - but I don't think there's enough money in the world to do that with the NHS in it's current state.

Source and Image: BBC

Why oh why do some members of the party think that it is a good idea to start in-fighting? It doesn't help anyone except the Labour Party. Michael Ancram is attacking Cameron for "trashing" it's Thatcherite past, and writes a column in the Telegraph under the title "Tories must not be ashamed of their history". Of course we shouldn't. I don't think anyone has ever said that we are, or should be. But neither does that mean that we should copy it now. Every era has it's own politics. Thatcher and her policies were right for her time. But that time ended probably about two decades ago. Not along after I was born, in fact. Iain Dale writes:

That they should. Ancram, and other political dinosaurs like him, should exit stage left. They are stuck in the rut of politics of the past. They don't understand the political realities of modern Britain.

On this topic, I agree completely with Dizzy and Caroline Hunt, who writes:
This sort of in-fighting and semi-defections doesn't help the Conservative Party at all in actually
doing the job we want them to.

As I wrote before, it is fine - and beneficial - to disagree on bits and pieces, such as on particular policies, over political strategies etc. But by in-fighting we harm no-one but ourselves. We all have the same very basic core beliefs and ideas - that is why we are all members of the Conservative Party. There are always going to be differences of opinion within large political parties. It comes from the nature of having lots of opinionated people together. To win, and to be able to enact them, we have to cast aside, or at least not shout about, our differences but stress the things we do agree on and work together to achieve them.

The political dinosaurs need to be asked some very simple questions, with yes or no answers:

Do you support the Conservative Party? Yes/No

Do you want the Conservative Party to win the next general election? Yes/No

If they answer yes to both of the questions above, then this is what they should do: Put a sock in it. Support David Cameron and the Shadow Cabinet in what they do and say. If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.

Sources: The Telegraph, BBC

Yet another example of an outpouring of grief taken into absurdity with the inclusion of celebrities:

Yes, it is tragic when someone - anyone - dies, but they do so every day. People, even 11-year-old boys, die every day and in every way.

The way that a few of these are picked up and exploited - by the media, politicians, and general public - can really be quite sickening. Why does Rhys deserve more than any other 11-year-old whose life is brutally cut short? Why does the search of Madeleine McCann get so much more media attention than many of the other missing children? The same question can be asked about all of the other media stories of this ilk - Damilola Taylor, Stephen Lawrence, et al. The answer is the same for all of them - nothing makes them more deserving. The only difference is that their deaths/disappearances got into the news.

This outpouring of, and wallowing in, grief just revolts me. Yes it is tragic. but where is the traditional British stiff upper lip? What happened to grieving in private and getting on with your life? Especially when you didn't even know the deceased.

Source: BBC

Why are they all that surprised? What did they expect for crying out loud? Stonehenge is just a big pile of rocks - what makes it interesting is how long ago it was built. Just look at the size of those rocks and think how much work it must have been to get them there! Think about the exactness of it as a calendar in an age where life was ruled by nature, unlike today. When I visited Stonehenge a month or so ago [when the picture above was taken - yes, that's me (it's not the best picture)], I didn't expect much more than a pile of rocks, because that is precisely what it is. One thing they did need to do was provide an indent in the rope barrier for photo-taking, so that it makes it easier and prevents huge jams.

The problem is the way in which these sites are over-hyped in glossy brochures and the like means that they are inevitably going to be anti-climactic. Most of these are just old monuments. It is their history that makes them interesting. Also, since these are the mainstream, high-profile tourist attractions, they are inevitably going to be crowded. It's the very nature of mass tourism.

It isn't that the tourist sights are disappointing in themselves, it's that people expect more than there is ever going to be. Stonehenge is just an ancient pile of rocks in an interesting formation, the Eiffel Tower is just a metal tower in the middle of Paris, the Angel of the North is just a huge metal statue, and the Diana Memorial is just an open gutter. What more can you expect from these things?!

Source: BBC

Chavs, described in the urban dictionary as a "sub species of human," among other things, such as a "burdon [sic] on society" are the young of those who tend to live their lives on the dole, and wear clothes such as Burberry to mark them out from the crowd.

I personally love the idea of the "chav hunt" video. It's brilliant! Such a great comparison between traditional and modern Britain. Showing huntsmen on horseback hunting down chavs, the video, made by alumni from a Scottish public school, was on YouTube but has since been removed - but is available to watch via the BBC. It is very very clever and also extremely funny. It is neither offensive or any more immature than most comedy programmes that dominate the TV schedules nowadays. In fact, I find shows such as My Family more offensive and immature than this video - and we pay for that through the TV licence!

Nobody, bar chavs, likes chavs. It is generally considered an extremely damning insult to refer to someone as a chav. They are the new underclass in the UK - more through their own efforts than anyone else's, too, since they tend not to work or contribute to society in any way.

I am also, apparently 27% chav [via Ordovicious].

UPDATE: Caroline Hunt has a different angle and the full video.

Before they arrive in Britain, Chinese students picture Britain as the country reflected in classics such as Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, where men wear top hats and ladies take tea. Instead, they land in a place of chavs and drunken students.

"England is a land where ladies take tea and men wear top hats, Chinese students believe before coming to Britain.
The reality, they discover, is a far cry from the world of Jane Austen. While older people are friendly and polite and laws are respected, Chinese students claim that they have often been attacked in the streets and are seen as “cash cows” by larger universities seeking to make money...
One of the most astonishing findings was that most Chinese students relied on the classics and word of mouth to inform themselves about Britain..." (The Times)

Reality is a bit different to classic literature, especially in modern Britain. No longer does Mr Darcy exist - he has been replaced by the fat man in a football shirt.

What is most surprising about this story is that they has not done research into what Britain is now, otherwise they would hardly have expected a land of top hats and cucumber sandwiches, but rather football shirts and lager. It is closer to a nation of Vicky Pollards than Mr Darcys.

Of course I'm over-egging this a bit - modern Britain isn't really all that bad - but we do need to acknowledge the bad bits. Chavs and fat, middle-aged men in football shirts should be first against the wall come the revolution...

Source: The Times

MPs should be allowed to take BlackBerries into the Chamber in the House of Commons - and use them, says a report from the Commons modernisation committee, headed by Commons Leader Jack Straw.

"MPs are likely to be allowed to bring BlackBerrys into the Commons chamber for the first time so that they can check and send e-mails as they wait to speak in debates.
It comes after a revolt by MPs against Commons rules that require them to sit for up to six hours on the back benches before they are called to make a speech.
Younger MPs, particularly the new generation of women elected in 2005, protested that their time spent waiting to speak in the chamber was wasted because of a convention barring MPs from using handheld devices." (The Times)

Quite frankly, it is a long overdue modernisation. In fact, I would go further and say that MPs should also be allowed to take laptops in. That way, MPs can continue doing constituency and other work whilst aiding in holding the government to account.

Having the ability to do other work whilst waiting to speak in a debate would also allow MPs to increase their efficiency and give us, the British taxpayers, better value for money. Instead of sitting on the green benches for hours with little or nothing that they can do, having the opportunity to do other work, such as answering constituents' emails.

Britain is a modern nation, and it is really about time that our democratic institutions begin to reflect this. The Welsh Assembly has full-blown computers in for AMs their Chamber [the monitors of which can be seen from above by the public - and it's not always work they're doing on them] and they have far less legislative power and attendant responsibility than Westminster MPs. Of course, precautions would have to be taken with the noise that such equipment makes, but that should really be a minor effect, especially if silent "rubber keyboards" like those on the Welsh Assembly computers were used.

Some of the other ideas put forward by the committee are good ones, such as time limits on speeches and a weekly 90 minute long topical debate, at which:

"[f]rontbench spokesmen would have only 10 minutes to speak... and backbenchers 3 minutes. In longer debates, frontbenchers should be allowed to speak for up to 20 minutes, with an extra minute for every question they take from another MP, up to 15." (The Times)

This would mean that debates move along faster and more swiftly, enable more MPs to speak, and mean that arguments would have to be concise.

When you look at the House of Commons, it really does appear to have an old and out-dated manner of working, especially compared to other modern legislative chambers. The nature of democracy is changing and moving online to a far greater extent, and far faster, than it has ever moved before. Social networking, blogging, and similar online political activities are taking off - and our elected representatives need to be able to keep up with it.

As an aside, it is, however, amusing that the Commons is moving towards using BlackBerries in the Chamber as French government officials are told not use BlackBerries amid fears of spying.

Sources: The Times, BBC, The Telegraph

Facebook is a social-networking site, on which there are millions of people. Most of these are students or "young people" but the numbers of the oldies is growing...

"Leading "social network" sites such as MySpace and Facebook, which once left adults baffled, are reporting a huge influx of members who are longer in the tooth.
Facebook, which began life as a site for students to talk to each other and exchange news and photographs, threw its doors open nine months ago to the rest of the world. Last week, the site reported that more than half of its members are now non-students, with membership growing fastest among the over-25s." (The Telegraph)

That so many Facebook members are no longer students isn't that much of a surprise - as a large number leave university every year. And neither is the fact that membership is growing fastest among the over-25s, as most of those under 25 who will join already are members.

But there is an inter-generational battle going on, especially between members of the same family, with one person saying: "My college-age daughter indicated she would rather torch her computer than give me access to her page." I am again not particularly surprised about it, though I can't really see the point of not making parents with a Facebook profile a "friend". You can, after all, give "limited profiles" which restrict the information on your page that can be viewed by that person. One young Facebook user says: "Everyone in the whole world thinks it's super creepy when adults have Facebooks." Except they don't. It's only creepy if they try to be "down with the kids" while they do it.

Facebook has evolved into a very useful tool beyond it's original purpose, I'm sure. I keep up with my brothers more through Facebook than any other means - partially at least because we all still nominally live at "home" [even though I am currently the three of us only one not there]. I would be happy for my parents to join Facebook - I just don't know what possible use they could have of it, since none of their friends are likely to have profiles. I would probably give them only limited access, however. There are some things that it is best for parents not to know or see.

Facebook is a modern phenomena. There are groups for everything - even one for Readers of Iain Dale's Diary now [and I'm a member of the group]. It has evolved way beyond it's original premise, and has taken on a life of it's own. It is certainly no longer just for the kids.

Source: The Telegraph

Language is as language does. It is not possible to have a definitive dictionary because language is a product of society and culture, and thus changes and adapts. The row over the Big Brother contestant being evicted for using a "racially offensive word". The word she used was "nigger", and provoked no offended response from the black housemate to whom she had spoken. She said that the word was "a friendly term" where she came from and that "I really didn't mean it offensively." And she almost certainly didn't. The problem is that language adapts, the way in which language - and specifically that word - has changed massively.

Language is also defined by context - the sentence in which words are used, the way in which the word is spoken, to whom it is being said, the time, and the place. Words have different meanings to different people. A prime example of the problem is language can be shown in the use of the word "gay". What does it mean: Happy? Homosexual? "Bad" or "lame"? It means all of the above. How do you know which meaning is intended? Through the context. Let's take another example - the word "liberal". If someone told you "I'm a liberal" what would they mean? Would they mean that they are a classic liberal, a social liberal, a libertarian, or an American "liberal"? There is no way of knowing except through the context.

The way in which language is used also changes very very fast - even at just 22, I use words and meanings in a vastly different way to secondary school children now. I even use words and meanings differently to my younger brother, who is 19. Only a three year age difference, yet the interpretations of language has shifted slightly. So just think how huge the difference is between people who decide which words are "acceptable", who are mostly in their 40s and 50s, and the teenagers who are expected to follow the rules that they have no part in making. If you think this isn't right, just look [or think back to] a generation or two above you. Think how your parents and grandparents talk or talked, and compare it with your own. There will be big differences.

Thus no dictionary can ever be definitive, and no definition of a word can ever be completely static, as language evolves constantly. The reason we have areas where one word is completely unacceptable and another where it is a "friendly term" is because society is divided along age lines. So what can we do? Nothing, except look at the context of word usage before handing out condemnations.

Dizzy also has an excellent piece on language here.

This story just keeps on going and going and going! How long has it been now? Bloody ages. I just don't understand why it keeps on top of the news. Yes, it's sad. Yes, I feel sorry for the McCanns. But I did not and do not know them, and I am bored of this story and the lengths to which they are going to keep it in the headlines., such as this latest idea, to have a "Madeleine Day":

"THE PARENTS of Madeleine McCann are planning an international day of events and appeals featuring world leaders, pop stars and well known athletes.
Gerry and Kate McCann, whose four-year-old daughter vanished from their holiday apartment on Portugal’s Algarve coast a month ago, want to keep her disappearance in the public eye with a “Madeleine Day”.
They plan to ask Sir Elton John, David Beckham and former US president Bill Clinton to help. They have approached JK Rowling about distributing bookmarks featuring a picture of Madeleine with her next Harry Potter book." (The Times)

No, no, just no. This is ridiculous. At first it was fine - the media choose to latch onto these kinds of stories every now and then, and then soon move on - but now, especially with the way in which Madeleine's parents are going on, visiting the Pope etc., it is absurd. I just don't understand why it is in the news so much and so constantly . And I certainly don't want to find her picture in my copy of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.

This entire story is typical of a modern angst-obsessed Britain. And it is horrific to look on my country acting like this. Even the way in which people reacted (and still react) to Diana's death, of which I'm certainly not a fan, is far more acceptable than the way in which they are acting to Madeleine's abduction. Her parents are typical of the way in which much of modern Britain reacts, as well, refusing to blame themselves at all ["We have never subconsciously or consciously thought it was [Madeleine's mother] Kate’s fault, or it’s my fault. It’s not our fault."] despite the fact that they left their children alone in their holiday home while they went to a restaurant to have a meal. Whilst it isn't their fault, per se, they did leave their children alone for no better reason than to have a meal!

The way in which it has been dealt with by the media, celebrities, et al, is just ridiculous, wrong, and in many ways quite sickening. We should no more have a "Madeleine Day" than a "Sarah's Law". And any person - celebrity or not - who believes that we should lowers themselves hugely in my eyes. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of missing children out there [as is being ably demonstrated by Ellee Seymour at the moment*] and so to put one on a pedestal like this is just wrong.

* Although I personally hope she doesn't keep doing it for too much longer, as I find her politics posts far more interesting.

Source: The Times - article 1, article 2

"MINISTERS are considering new laws to give women a right to breastfeed their babies in public and take statutory breaks at work to suckle their infants...
It would become an offence for anyone to stop a woman from breastfeeding in public, a change that has already been enacted in Scotland. It follows complaints from mothers that they have been accused of indecency and barred from breastfeeding when they have attempted to do so in public.
Employers would also have to allow mothers to take breaks each working day to breast feed." (The Times)

Whilst mothers should be able to breast feed their babies for the six months recommended World Health Organisation, I think it would be a big mistake to make this into a "right".

Mothers who want to breastfeed in public should be circumspect about it, as I am sure the vast majority are, but it does depend on the situation. Whenever possible, they should, and I am sure most would prefer to, go somewhere private to breastfeed. There should not be a "right" to breast feed in public, but an acceptance that it is all right to do so if no alternative provision is available.

Breastfeeding at work should not be a "right" either. All employees are entitled to 26 weeks (about six months) of 'Ordinary Maternity Leave' which can thus cover the large part of the recommended time spent breast feeding. Employees should be understanding of new mothers and provide the opportunity for breastfeeding or for expressing milk. But having it as a "right" simply opens the door for ridiculousness. Providing time for women to breast feed should be encouraged in employers, but not required by law.

Breastfeeding is something that new mothers should be encouraged to do, but it should be be a "right" of either the mother or the baby. Alternatives exist, and they should be used when the opportunity for breastfeeding is not available. It would be best if instead of making breastfeeding in public a "right", more provision was made for new mothers to go somewhere private and do it instead.

Source: The Times