An American in Britain

It’s easy to understand the election of a Member of Parliament (MP) for each constituency. That’s like voting for a Congressman or Senator. But unlike the US, the voters do not choose the Prime Minister (PM). He/she is voted for within their party. Of course, when they go to the polls, the people already have an idea who the party leaders are, and that may influence their vote for their MP. Whereas the US has Congress and the Senate, the UK has the House of Commons and the House of Lords. However, the people only vote for their MP in the House of Commons. The Lords are appointed or inherited.

One of the most notable differences is that the UK has 3 major political parties and various minor ones, some of whom have seats in parliament. The US really only has 2 parties and a load of little, almost invisible, ones. But if you look at the political affiliations of the Congress and Senate, they only belong to the 2 parties. Once in a while, you’ll get someone who decides to call himself an Independent. The party in power makes up their cabinet, just like the US president does. However, the two other parties will make their own ‘shadow cabinets’. It’s an interesting concept and it makes for some heated debate between two or three ministers who are well-versed in their roles. In the US, you have politicians forming committees and one person may be on several committees. Then, you’d have all of them acting as watchdogs for everybody else.

What I’m still trying to learn is how the UK government is tied together. It seems that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have their own parliaments. Is there a UK parliament? Then there are issues about how the UK fits into the EU scheme of things. More to explore from that end. There are still many debates going on about whether the UK should fully integrate into the EU, stay the same, or withdraw. Other questions that have sprung up are, who gets to vote over here? It is just British citizens? There’s some talk that EU residents are allowed to vote. Is that fair? Unfair? There are arguments about ‘taxation without representation’, so it may be that EU residents can vote. Maybe someone out there knows and can enlighten me.

It seems the move to “go paperless” is well and truly under way in Britain. Far more than in the US. Here, it seems to be a small part of a far broader agenda that you can never be far from no matter where you are or what you do: going green, doing your bit for the environment, saving the rainforests, countering climate change, fighting global-warming (or whatever the current in phrase the custard-slingers are bandying about).

Some bills are still sent in paper form, but many companies take bank details over the ‘phone at the time service commences and, unless you specify to the contrary, will proceed to set up a direct debit facility for regular monthly payment. Some companies are so anxious that you adopt this method of payment that they even offer discount incentives for going paperless.

In my experience, the following set up direct debit facilities at sign-up time: British Telecom (phone, internet service), the local government (council tax) and Swinton Insurance (car insurance).

The benefits of this system extend far beyond doing your small bit for the environment. It means you’ll never pay bills late and fewer visits to (and less time standing in line at) the post office. The downside is that it can be easier to lose track of your finances with multiple entities helping themselves to their cut month to month.

Nothing can really prepare you for the life change when you move from one country to another. You can read about different issues that affect your new country, but you cannot really know how different it is until you live there. The only thing I didn’t need to worry about in moving to the UK is the language. Though that may not be entirely true.

British English is definitely different from American English. And I don’t mean just the accent. There are various accents over here, some more easy to understand than others, but that is not very different from the US, is it? And the Brits will tell you that they are the arbiters of the language. Therefore, if you want to speak true English, you will have to follow the British example.

My husband had pointed out some differences when we lived in the US; and he certainly pronounced words differently, such as, ‘garage’ with the emphasis on the first syllable, or ‘depot’ with a short ‘e’. There are many other words that are pronounced differently, and it takes time to get used to hearing them pronounced that way. But after being in Britain for a while, I noticed many other differences. One is the US habit of adding ‘-ing’ to the end of nouns to make them adjectives; for example, ‘drinking’ or ‘shocking’. The Brits would never use them as adjectives, only verbs. Whereas Americans would say that someone has a drinking problem, the English would say a drink problem. Similarly, we hear about shocking news, but the English hear shock news. In the US, we would say that someone goes to school or work, but then add ‘the’ to hospital. Why is that? Here, it’s always ‘to hospital’.

Then, of course, there are all the swear words and other pejoratives. I remember reading about Bono calling Chris Martin a ‘w@%&#!’. I had no idea what that was all about and had to ask my father-in-law. He laughed and said I must know what that is. He started to spell it out and my mother-in-law finished it. I just looked at them and asked what a ‘wanker’ was. Though I didn’t get a direct answer, I was led to believe it was a male anatomy. Other terms that seem completely inoffensive to me, such as golliwogs and Pakis, are considered pejoratives over here. I guess that just points to differences in culture.

There is also a fondness for acronyms over here. That’s not to say the US does not have its own acronyms. Perhaps, I have been so used to the ones used in the US that it doesn’t seem unusual to me over there. Whereas, the acronyms here are new to me. I don’t know. But it does seem that acronyms are used on signs and if you have no idea what it is to begin with, you wouldn’t know if it was what you were looking for.

What something may be called in the US may not be the accepted term over here, even if it’s understood. For example, instead of asking for a bathroom or restroom, it would be easier to ask for a toilet or water closet (WC). Better yet, ask for a McDonald’s.

So, even though we use the same language, so to speak, there are variations on that language. Some would argue that’s what makes the English language so rich, while others may bemoan the deterioration of English as spoken in other countries. At least, wars won’t be fought over it.

Yesterday, Oxford and Cambridge announced their teams for this year’s boat race on the Thames, to take place on Sunday 29th March.

We plan to be among the 250 000 people who line the Thames rooting for their favourite of the ancient universities. (Hopefully from Chiswisk Bridge as a victorious Cambridge boat crosses the line!)

Traditionally, Americans seem to be more aware of Oxford than Cambridge and root for them accordingly. And with 4 Americans (and no less than 5 Olympians) in the boat it’s likely to be the same this year.

Cambridge have named 1 American, 2 Australians and the rest of the contingent British, 5 of whom were in the losing boat last year.

I’ll be rooting for Cambridge who I tip to beat the heavily favoured, Olympian-laden Oxford boat.

It is great to know that as a foreigner, there are places to go for advice. Of course, there is always the American Embassy for some big issues, but you don’t want to have to go to London every time you need advice on everyday matters. In Britain, that’s what the Citizen’s Advice Bureau (CAB) is for.

There is a CAB in every town and it is essentially run by volunteers trained to give information to ordinary everyday folks. The CABs serve only residents within their county boundaries. Some places require appointments, while others are exclusively run on a “first come, first served” walk-in basis. You can get information about how and where to find a doctor, what you need to know about getting your license, how to resolve disputes, issues with your landlord, etc.

In recent years, with the increased rate in immigration, the CAB has turned into a stopping point for immigrants to get information on how to get benefits and other issues related to living and working in the UK. From the leaflets, posters and other advice on view, it seems the CAB deal a lot with immigration issues. The other big area that the CAB seem to focus on is discrimination – of all kinds, sexual, racial, sexual orientation, etc.

I don’t think there is an equivalent institution in the US, although you can get some information through your Town Hall. The CAB is distinct from the Town Hall as it can provide semi-legal advice. If the volunteer does not have the answers readily, he/she can look in their database for the relevant information or point you in the right direction. It is a wonderful and reliable service, even if you might have to wait for an hour before being seen. Any newcomer to England should be aware of this invaluable institution.

This is a follow up to a previous post about the peculiarly British phenomenon known as TV licensing.  Several readers were decent enough point out answers to questions raised in that post, for which I am grateful.

In the light of ITV’s recent announcement that they will be laying off 600 employees in reaction to falling profits and asset depreciation, I felt I had to comment on another bizarre offshoot of the whole TV licensing situation in the UK.

My understanding is that a TV license is required in order to watch or record any live TV.  That’s any live TV.  So, no matter whether you watch ITV or Channel 4 or Sky or BBC1 on a TV then you must own a TV license.

However, the BBC take all the proceeds from the TV license.  So we have a very unique, anti-competitive situation where if you want to watch only Sky (as many people do), or even only ITV, then legally you must subsidize its principal UK competitor.  Is this fair market competition?

How has this situation remained unchallenged in the law courts for so long?  Perhaps there is something about the British psyche I have yet to fathom.

We were almost in an accident today. Why? Because the other driver decided to go around a parked truck without even stopping to assess the safety of the move. He came around the bend, found the truck in his way and decided he wanted to get around, not even bothering to take into account that we were approaching on the opposite side. We had barely enough time to react and both cars were forced to stop before he could squeeze through, with us backing up a bit.

With the stringent driving test in this country, I am surprised to find so many reckless drivers. Is it because they are so used to the cramped conditions that they feel somewhat complacent about safety? So often, people disregard the right-of-way rules that exist and insist on getting through first. We are always on the defense while we are driving. Though that should always be the case when driving, some people out there only know about being on the offense. Which necessitates us being more vigilant.

The roads in Britain are narrow, even without comparing them to the US. Because it is an old country, with construction already complete in most areas, these roads cannot be widened any further. They are rendered even more narrow when there are parked cars on the side. It can be very dangerous because the leftover space cannot always accommodate two vehicles. Usually, one side will give way to the other to avoid an accident. The person will signal for the other to proceed in such cases. But when one decides he will take the right-of-way without considering anyone else, he is asking for an accident to happen.

One of the reasons we decided to move to the UK was for our children to get a better education. At least, that was our intention. Has it turned out the way we expected? Well….. Let’s just say the jury’s still out on that one. We’re considering letting them take the CAT this year, to see how they compare to last year, when they were home-schooled in the US.

We chose the school based on Ofsted reports, even though two headteachers sort of pooh-pahed the whole thing. As it turned out, the Ofsted reports were completely unreliable, as I’ll explain later. The school is OK – it is not terrible. However, it does not seem that academically superior in any way to the school they had previously attended in the US.

I especially oppose this notion of combining classes of different levels. For some of those mixed classes, it was based on their birthdays. The older kids of one year combined with the younger kids of the next year. We had been told that the kids were taught based on their ability, not on their age. Yet, when you combine a classroom like this, how are you distinguishing them based on their ability. Does that mean that our daughter, who is a younger member in her class, will be moved to the mixed class where she will be with the older kids from next year’s class? From what I’ve seen of these mixed-classes, one of which our other daughter is in, all the students are taught the same material but given work based on their school year level or ability (I don’t know which criteria is really used). Our older daughter seems to be doing work she has done in previous years of schooling and which our younger daughter is already familiar with.

Our goal is to get them into academically strong schools to give them an edge for the future. But are the schools living up to our expectations? Even the natives complain. There have been so many changes in the way kids are taught nowadays (it’s exactly the same complaint in the US). We were told to look up Ofsted reports to determine which schools are good. We have since determined that Ofsted does not reflect on a school’s academic performance in any way. They are an organization that is focused on children’s welfare. Not only do they give reports on schools and daycares, they are also involved with social services for child welfare. Therefore, their ratings of schools are based on how well the schools offer support to children of all backgrounds. It is a social report. A good or positive Ofsted report does not equate to an outstanding school. Neither does a bad or negative Ofsted report reflect a bad school. Lesson learned.

We’ll see this year through and have them take some tests at the end to determine where they’re at. At the moment, we cannot afford to send them to private schools, so we’ll have to look at other options.

Well, I figured out how to input a foreign address into the TaxCut Online version.  You had to go back to a previous page and mark that you have a foreign address in order for it to adjust the form.  Sorry, my mistake.  However, if that was the case, they should have included that into their answer rather than tell the user that they can accept a foreign address and don’t tell you how.

Anyhow, it looks like we’ll be able to file online for free this year.  Same with the state tax – but we have been able to file that for free in previous years.