This is your religion.

I don't really have an opinion on the Royal Family. Because I don't know them. And I don't really have an opinion on monarchy either. Because what does it matter if we pay a whole lot of money to a family or to a president and everything surrounding a president.

I don't know the numbers and I don't really care enough to look it up or to engage with them when I see them, but I'm pretty sure the monarchy is a pretty good source of income both in the UK and in Sweden. So many tourists love them. And so many residents do, too. So I don't see the point in disliking the system.

However. I heard a segment on Swedish radio the other day. The title is 'can Sweden really have a queen with Downs syndrome.' But that's not what it was about (imagine...), but it discussed the fact that people are born into a royal family and we don't have a choice - however they have a choice on whether to remain royals or not. But what they also brought up, which I've never really thought about, is that they are not allowed to change their religion. Ignoring family constraints for a minute; they are the only people in Sweden who do not have this freedom. Isn't that awful? To be able to change their religion they'd have to abdicate their royalty (or whatever the terminology might be!)

And it's not about the religions themselves, it's the lack of freedom to choose for yourself, to follow your own heart. I wonder if they'd be allowed to be gay and on the throne?

X marks the spot.

We took a walk to the polling station in the drizzle last night. It was a lovely night, and as old as this sounds I have to say it - we've been needing some rain.

Being a dirty foreigner, I didn't get to vote in the AV referendum. Which I suppose makes sense, as I can't vote in the general elections here - so obviously I couldn't possibly have an input on how these should be done. Luckily, Mike's views aren't a million miles from my own so I feel like I've had half a vote, at any rate. Kinda like I had half a vote in the general election last year, and that turned out to be a useful one... But anyway.

I do get to vote in the local council elections though, which I quite like doing. I had a strategy this time around: I decided not to vote for any party who has put reams of leaflets through my door. I wanted to put a sign on the door to that effect but wasn't allowed - but perhaps this blind approach is more effective?

So, that meant no Labour and no Lib Dems. One or two leaflets would have been ok, but... I really wish I'd saved them all, to be able to give an accurate picture of the ridiculous amount of paper wasted on rehashing the same information ('Tories can't win here!' seemed to be a favourite... not exactly telling me much about the party).

I can fully understand why they do it. Any vote they can sway by churning out leaflet after leaflet is another vote in their favour. And I fully support them distributing information materials. But when it's the same information over and over, when it's photos of the same guys in the exact same pose over and over, when it's trying to insinuate that more leaflets = more activity in the area = better party, or when they send us separate letters - one addressed to me, one to Mike, in separate envelopes, through the same door... I'm less inclined to give them my vote. Why? Waste of paper.

Ok, I know not everyone has easy access to the internet. And I know not everyone has the inclanataion to go look up what the different parties stand for (reading status updates on Facebook does not count, I'm sorry to say). And I know not everyone cares that this much paper is wasted (I'm not exactly the most environmentally conscious person but... seriously. Next time I'll save the leaflets and show you!). But what's wrong with producing one or two good quality (content-wise, I mean) leaflets, and trust that your party's policies are sound enough to persuade the doubters?

The party I ended up voting for didn't put anything through my door. Which was lucky, cos it was the party I was planning to vote for anyway. They won't win, but maybe they'll inspire some to be a tad greener.

Reasons why I love the UK.

1. People are so friendly. Even though they drive me to absolute distraction sometimes with their chit-chattering on buses and their 'loves' and 'sweethearts' it's kinda nice that people connect (the shallowness of it all is immaterial).

2. That we can have a wonderful summer and as soon as there's a week of rain people claim we've 'not had a summer at all'. This may in fact not be specific to the UK but I'm counting it.

3. Tall dark-haired men with Yorkshire accents. I don't need to say anything more on that. (Ok, more like 'general northern' but doesn't sound as lovely)

4. Tacky seaside resorts such as Blackpool or Scarborough and wishing I could have seen them in their hayday (heyday? I could google the spelling here but I won't).

5. Agatha Christie.

6. Lemsip. Although I'm told Panodil do a version in Sweden?

7. People speaking English. English is nice.

8. Accents I still can't understand. Having to ask people to spell their names and being asked to spell mine. Surname, that is. They're usually ok with Julia (apart from when I get called Julie...)


I'm sure there are more reasons. I'll come back to this.

How beneficial.

I've just had an interesting conversation with my sister.

I was telling her about the cut in child benefits for people earning £44k or more per year. And how some people are outraged. And how other people seem to think it's the best thing since sliced cheese. Or whatever.

We're both so Swedish -

we concluded that by doing this, they're turning this into a benefit rather than money towards the child. In the long run, won't this turn into another stigmatised benefit where higher earners moan that people ('scroungers') take our tax money... blablabla.

I'm not saying I'm for or against this cut. I can absolutely see why a country/government trying to cut down on spending is choosing this option. But what is interesting about this is people's attitude towards benefits.

From our (blonde and oh-so blue eyed) Swedish perspective, it's an ideological issue more than anything else. It's not just about benefits to those who struggle - it's about a welfare country, where the welfare is fair. That doesn't necessarily just mean that those who are poor get benefits chucked at them. Nor does it mean that those who pay more tax in get more of the perks. It just means that some benefits/tax credits/whatever you choose to call them are for everyone, regardless of background or 'class' (I hate that term but that's for another day).

It's the same with student grants/loans. No matter your background or financial family situation, everyone in Sweden is entitled to the same amounts. Child benefits works the same way in Sweden. Families who struggle may be entitled to more - but I don't think that's labelled in the same way; it's part of the circumstances on which your benefits are based I guess.

I don't know. This goes back to a blog post I wrote a while ago about growing up 'well off' and being made to feel inferior because of it in this country.

We're all just people after all and when something becomes a stigma it's not the right way to go about it. And that's my reservation about these plans to cut child benefits for high earners.

Having said that, perhaps the general stigma surrounding benefits is where we need to focus first of all, before we worry about a money-saving scheme like this one will create more of it... Maybe I've got it all backwards.