Individual Responsibility

The individual is central to the American system. In the UK, it's the group. Two examples of the power of groups in the UK is the education system and the political system. Being that the general election is tomorrow, I thought I'd explain the way it works for Americans.

Each constituency elects an MP to Parliament in Westminster. It's a standard majority vote, or "first past the post" as it's called here. The MPs then go to Parliament and the political party with the most MPs gets to be the Government and choose the Prime Minister and his cabinet. The other parties get to be "shadow" cabinet members. There are "front bench" and "back bench" MPs; the back bench MPs are considered less important and don't get as much say in things. During speeches in Parliament, it is quite traditional to have the MPs cheer or boo or do that standard RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE thing.

What this system means is that the people do not elect the Prime Minister. They elect a political party, and that party chooses the Prime Minister from their ranks. There are many political parties in the UK, but the biggest are Labour, Conservative (Tory), and Liberal Democrats (Lib Dem). Outside of that are the regional parties of Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) and the Welsh Plaid Cymru. There are also the Green Party, the UK Independence Party (UKIP), the British Nationalist Party (BNP), the Libertarian Party, the Socialist Unionist or whatever party, and historically the Raving Loony Party. So it's not like the people have no choice in the matter. But this variety has somehow or another led to what is called "strategic voting". As I was told in 2000, "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush", in the General Election various parties are asking the public to vote strategically. "A vote for Lib Dem is a vote for Labour" or in different constituencies "A vote for Lib Dem is a vote for Tory". They have their safe constituencies much like the Republicans can count on Texas and the Democrats can count on, um, who can the Democrats count on? Washington State? I dunno.

But I reiterate: people do not elect MPs, they elect a party. The MPs have almost no personal responsibility to their constituency: they almost invariably tow the party line. The MP is merely a cog in the big wheel of the party, run by God only knows whom. And so the people have no recourse of action if they think their MP sucks. People must consider the values not of the individual who is running for MP, but only the values of the party they are voting for. And choosing the Prime Minister? Not the public's job. So the debates on TV by the leaders of the big three parties defeated the purpose: while political goals will be the party's line, the personal charisma, integrity, and general bearing of the leader himself may not be the same as the MP the public will elect in that constituency. Thus, the public has no need to vote for an MP with any sort of sense of personal responsibility. For someone to say "I am honest and I will only think of you, my constituency, first" wouldn't work and wouldn't happen.

So personal responsibility is not necessary in UK politics. And then they wonder why there was the big expenses scandal. Be aware, America, if the ridiculous party politics continue, you could go down the British path, leading to people voting for parties not politicians and being unable to hold politicians accountable. Be selfish, be demanding, and ask for congressmen and congresswomen you trust and believe in. Person, not party.

The power of the group also continues into the education system. In the US, in most places, you have primary school, middle school (or junior high), and high school. Once in high school, your transcript for all four years will be considered by colleges and universities, usually in conjunction with a standardized test like the ACT or SAT and probably some essays. But in high school, all four years count. Every class is a piece of the GPA that will let you into some college or university. Sure primary school and middle school aren't as important, but there's always that possibility that if you are exceptionally bright you may be pushed forward or if you're exceptionally not bright, held back a year. Maybe it isn't used often, but it's there. A child is able to fail or succeed, and they hold their future in their four years of high school.

This isn't the case in the UK. The educational system is in two stages: primary school and secondary school. (I've known some Brits to get particularly snippy about referring to college or university as "school".) Some 30 years ago or so, it used to be that there was an exam at age 11 (the end of primary school) that would determine if the child got sent to a grammar school where they would complete O-level exams, or if they would be sent to the lesser state secondary schools. From what I've been told, this single exam at age 11 would decide your fate, as students from the lesser secondary schools would never get the same level of qualification as the students from the grammar schools. Typically this was along class lines: you were more likely to go to a grammar school if you were wealthy and the converse. But there was still a chance that a student could be from a poor background but work really hard and pass the 11+ exam to get into a good grammar school. You could still fail or succeed.

The duel system was done away with in the 70's. There are still "selective" private schools, much like the private schools in the US, which I would assume are likewise quite expensive and usually reserved for the wealthiest of children. Students now take A-levels instead of O-levels. These exams, taken on a number of subjects like the O-levels, are what gets the student into university. A quick look at the University of Edinburgh undergraduate admissions for English Literature shows that the main qualifications needed for getting into the degree are the number of A-levels (or Scottish SQA equivalent) and the score on them. So the classwork doesn't count. Only the exams matter.

This may be the reason that there are even fewer push-forward of hold-backs in the UK than there are in the US. At least anecdotally, it's unheard of to tell a primary student to repeat a grade. Or skip a grade. You progress at the same rate as everyone else, regardless of ability. (Note the case of Alexander Faludy who was the youngest Cambridge undergraduate student in almost 200 years.) But why care? It's not the classes that matter, it's the exams. You could potentially fuck around until the age of 15 but then pass the exams and not worry. Where is the personal responsibility in that? Personal responsibility is just like any other skill: use it or lose it. And regardless of whether you think passing an exam show personal responsibility or not, where is the university consideration of the whole rather than the part? This is, I must say a problem in American higher education with too much  weight being given to the SATs, but at least things aren't so bad that GPA's aren't recognised.

Stay alert, America. Think about the UK, and remember, "there but for the grace of God go I". Learn from the British. We owe them a lot (like our English language!), but we should not duplicate their mistakes.

The NHS, on the other hand, that could use replication.