the great class divide

Australia_animal_warning_sign.jpgI am finding myself in an increasingly intriguing position in life, in that I've started to feel a bit like an alien in my own land.

It's my own fault, of course. It's a kind of karmetic payback for going to England and forgetting to come home. For raising pommie children, losing my accent and saying Yog-et instead of Yo-gert.

It's not the people that I feel out of odds with - they are the same old generous, leathery populace that was here when I left - with the addition here and there of more sun hats and UV t-shirts on the beaches. Plus half of china appears to have moved in too. Oh, and less safari suits on businessmen. But still the wonderful shorts and long socks ensem that the old duffers wear as Sunday best wandering near the local RSL club.

It's time. It's the weathering and erosion of things that I know. The inevitable changes the time brings. When you live through change, it's invisible to you. But when you are somewhere else, then come back - the changes seem insurmountable. Almost an affront. How dare they change things on me!

A small part of it is how much the streets that I grew up on have grown. It's like they got together and planned to rebuild everything I knew so that  I'd get totally lost when I next came home. Where there were once two laned roads, now six land highways roar past. Highways that ping $4.99 out of your bank account everytime you zoom under a metal scaffolding bridging the road from side to side. I see hints and remnants of roads gone by as exits loom and pass.

Is Sydney turning into one giant daisy chain of roads?

It feels familiar and at the same time futuristically alien. Like a really sunny trip through a time machine.

Another part of it is how different the newer houses look. I was pleased - in an anti progress sort of way - to see some fibro houses still standing as squat ugly reminders of a yesteryear that had "70" in the year. But so many of those are being gobbled up by massive tributes to vulgarity that look like the owners want to be unseemingly intimate with their neighbours. What happened to having a side entrance to the house?

Before living in the UK I'd never really taken notice of the style or architectural history (short though it is) of Australian buildings. It's almost as if I went searching for meaning, beyond the basic "I wanted one, so I built one. Mate."

But these massive new houses have no soul. There is one near here that is so big, it apparently hs its own indoor pool AND tennis court. Does the occupant wish to avoid all other human contact? Because if so, that is NOT the australian way I grew up with.

Surely that's not changed?

When we finally move here from London it will be like going from one extreme to the absolute other. From our tiny postage stamp sized terrace to the taj mahal. But knowing our luck, the dollar will have become so almighty, that we'll end up in a house smaller than our English one.

I have found that living away from Australia has given me the opportunity to look back at my country in a more objective way when it comes to certain things. For example, as I came to love the English victorian houses, I started to look critically at the architecture styles in Sydney. I need a house that has character. I've now decided that the kind of house I want to live in will be the classic federation style of house, squat brick with a semi enclosed front patio that wraps from front to side. I am not 100% sure if that's federation, or slightly later, but I plan to find out. They look cool and shady, as it's essential to grow wisteria over the front.

They also make me think of my grandmother - who didn't live at all in that style of house, but seems to suit the era. My grandparents lived in a sun drenched brick house built by my grandfather. It always felt cool and dark inside. Actually when it did warm up, it was apparently hard to cool down again. But my memories of it are always cool. My grandfather chose the bricks for the front of the house specially - he couldn't afford to build the whole house from them, so chose more standard ones for the back. It broke my heart to hear that after he died the house was painted white. Who paints bricks? Dickheads. I can never drive down that street again, because I just don't ever want to see his house ruined like that.

More than houses, more than roads - the things that make me feel out of place are the empty holes left by the trademarks of my youth. Brandnames, habits, tv shows, sayings - all have moved on to the future leaving me slightly off balance. Some of them I can't even remember well enough to name, but I seem to be aware of the holes left behind.

It's such a shame that Grace Bros was sucked up into Myers, leaving my husband with no opportunity to make jokes about decrepid old men and underwear. I can't think of Myers as the same store.

My parents sold the house of my childhood and moved into a duplex (how english!). It's filled with the furniture of my youth, but it's not home. It does have a lot of gum trees around it though, which is good.

But at least the vegemite is still here. (Wasn't it supposed to be replaced with "Aussiemite" or something? Thank God they didn't do that to me!)

Long live Vegemite.

Oh and by the way - I never really did like barbecue'd prawns. That Paul Hogen has a lot to answer for!

So I am going to go off and practise saying G'day a lot.

G'day!

 

 

A right royal cockup

filed under: the great class divide
queen
She don't fancy him much neither...
My father-in-law hates the royal family with a passion. He's about as anti royal as you can get. In fact, it's not hate - it's far stronger than that. He despises them. They make him roil, and probably give him indigestion more than uncooked sprouts. He's as likely to sit down and listen to the queen's speech at christmas as he is about to publish a book on his favourite lingerie and how he loves iPhone apps.

I - on the other hand - quite like the whole "kingdom" thing. It's true I also like books in which good kings and queens vanquish dragons and live in fantastical castles with their magical advisors, but I don't think that this necessarily precludes me from making an unbiased opinion on the relevance of royalty.

But I'd never get involved in an argument about whether or not the royals were group of puppet heads, a national drain on the taxpayers resources and whatever else he wants to postulate - or not - since I simply didn't and couldn't know what the facts where.

I don't think you should argue your corner without a few facts for moral support, do you?

Today, while reading the daily mail I came across an article by Robert Hardman called The queen a parasite? No, a penny pinching paragon which was about exactly this subject, which I read with some interest. That was - after I'd read the one about the how we all despise Kate Price, which is something I may blog about later. If I can be bothered. After all - even if I don't like her, it's still attention in some form, and that's exactly what she craves.

So back to the queen.

Get my father-in-law lubricated with enough red wine (about 1 glass) and he'll happily lay into the royal family for any number of reasons, starting with their german heritage. We might want to just skip that point before I get sued for something - and if not sued, maybe had war declared on. Which wouldn't work out for my schedule as I am booked up until after christmas.

His biggest bugbear about the Royals is the amount of money that they cost the taxpayer. According to the independent, this cost is 69p per person in 2009. The total being set at £41.5 million for the 2008/09 financial year. And this doesn't include security.

Sound a lot? Of course it does! I am pretty sure I can buy New Zealand for that amount. Or at the very least Vanuatu. Which I would probably do, just so I could turn it back into the "New Hebrides", so that my very old beach towel wouldn't be so confusing.

One point made in the article that I was reading today was that part of that cost is £15.5 million for building maintenance. Now, not long ago, the queen asked for a grant for repairs and maintenance, and was turned down due to the cost of the 2012 Olympics. I bet she had a right royal hissy fit at that. One might ladder one's tight's in anger.

Apparently a £32 million backlog of essential repairs has built up at both Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle, including rewiring Buckingham Palace, replacing the roof at both properties, removing potentially dangerous asbestos from Buckingham Palace and redecorating most of the State Rooms at Buckingham Palace for what will be the first time since the Queen came to the throne in 1952.

So are we to imagine that if we did away with the Royals - chucked them on their ear - that we'd be saving £15.5 million at least in maintenance, and protecting ourselves from the further cost of actually fixing stuff? (Sounds a bit like the tube really - always fixing stuff as it breaks, but never before.)

Well consider this - France chucked their king out and still spend millions a year upkeeping Versailles. And since the state own Buckingham and Windsor Palace in the first place, having taken the crown land for the nation back in 1760, there is little thought that those costs would disappear unless they were all sold off to private investors. And that really is a nasty thought. Can you think of anything less classy than turning Buckingham Palace into the next Ally Pally?

Although I have to admit, the yankee doodles - from whom tourism is worth about 20% of the overall UK tourism revenue (which in 2008 was nearly £115 billion) would probably still come to the UK if the monachy had gone - if they could stay at "Casa Buckingham Palace". Especially if there was a big pool with waterslides joining up the fountain out the front. And if they built a casino with a really big buffet - hey, they'd never even need to leave!

But it still sounds like a bad idea. And don't forget - those crown estates generated over £226.5 million net income for the year ending March 2009. And that goes to the state. You'd think with that kind of profit they could afford to buy a few tins of magnolia and a hire a Polish builder and son!

What of the other costs? £9.9 million went on salaries, £1.5 million on administration, housekeeping and furnishings took £700,000, ceremonial functions £400,000, £1.1 million on catering and hospitality, and £600,000 on the garden parties (which were attended by 50,000 people). These are figures I've found in various places, so I would take their exactness with a pinch of salt. But they are illustrative. 

The alternative to having a queen is a president, right? Which would be cheaper you'd think? Well, why don't you have a little google and find out what the presedential inauguration for Barack Obama cost? And that was taxpayer's money.

But when it comes down to it, the problems with the Royals has nothing to do with money. That's only an excuse people give for hating them. My father-in-law doesn't need to stick with the financial aspect (he is, after all - an accountant, so it's his first love). He will move onto his second point, which is that they are a complete waste of space. This argument is never substantiated with any actual reasons for that, other than vitriolic spitting. 

It seems to me that they have a lot more integrity than the MP's whose appalling lack of care for their countrymen have seen them making the taxpayer foot the bill for their moats being cleaned. 

So right or wrong, I like the queen, I like having a royal family, and I really wish someone would drown all the MPs in that moat.

I am also open to any crown titles that might be on offer. Please send to the leaning shed, back of Kent.

the great class divide: Monthly Archives

Archives

Directories

Social Commentary Humor Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Personal Blogs Blog Directory
humour blogs & blog posts





Find Me Elsewhere

Photoblog

View all photoblog