A Flashman in Number 10? Fun at last!

As an ardent fan of the Flashman Papers (and what free thinking non-pc reader couldn't be?) I was surprised to learn that the Labour opposition have nicknamed the UK Prime Minister "Flashman".

What we don't know is whether they refer to the fag-beating cowardly bully of "Tom Brown's Schooldays" or George Macdonald Fraser's reinvention of Harry as a lovable womanising, unscrupulous bounder and downright heartless villain.

As Quentin Letts, the Daily Mail's parliamentary sketch writer has commented, he suspects it's the latter, and far from being an insult, it may rebound on them and give David Cameron a kudos akin to Margaret Thatcher's "Iron Lady" badge, which was originally intended as an insult from the Russians.

I haven't been writing politically on this blog for many months because I'm still euphoric that the old new-labour government was finally dispatched to the opposition benches in the House of Commons. Also, twelve months is still too early in my book to complain about the new kids on the block. For gawd's sake give them a chance, we've just come out of 13 years of misery and incompetence.

As for the Lib-Dems, the other coalition partner, it comes as no surprise that they are the juniors in this relationship, and they are still shell-shocked that they are actually in government. The liberal following are now complaining about the ineffectuality of their leader Nick Clegg, without whose performance during the TV debates a year ago, would not have taken votes from the tories denying Flashman an overall majority. They could have joined Labour, but that would have looked like a stitch up and the country would not have stood for it.

The other alternative was for the Tories to govern by minority, effectively stifled, and making compromises until a new election could be held five months later, when they would hope to gain a majority. That may well have been the better idea in hindsight, especially as the Labour Party was in disarray, and more concerned about throwing out old baggage for new.

So now the Lib-Dems are in power and they are still moaning. They try to punch above their weight, but in essence they are nothing more than a bunch of hypocrites, and as Jose Rizal, the Philippines national hero, once remarked 120 years ago, hypocrisy is a social cancer "noli me tangere", and the Lib-dems are superb exponents of it. (I always try to have a Philippine perspective – although I admit he wasn't referring to the Liberals at the time, even though they have been around just as long!)

All I can say is that if David Cameron is Flashman then Ed Milliband is the pious, misguided and obnoxious Rugby School headteacher Dr Arnold, and  Nick Clegg is non other than Tom (nice but dim) Brown. I know which one gets my vote!

The Big Society….

How big is it and how many will play the game?

"The Big Society" raised it's head during the UK election campaign and like a withering candle was promptly snuffed out. It didn't capture the imagination of the electorate, and although it didn't destroy the Conservative campaign either, it surely dented it, and may have been instrumental in the advent of a coalition government.

The concept has now resurfaced, but what does it mean? Nobody really knows. But it has something to do with the decentralising of government, returning power to local authorities and communities, and giving more control to the citizen.

Critics argue that it is the Big Con, a ploy to cut the debt, and a ruse to reduce the number of public and civil servants by replacing them with a volunteer workforce.

Sections of the electorate have remarked that when they voted for the tories they didn't expect to be doing all the work for them as well.

If the notion that people will be more active and take interest in the community around them, then surely it is a good thing. The culture which has developed over the years, particularly influenced by the last Labour government, is that the state will provide and impact on every area of life. The state became a behemoth that was expected to solve every problem, and created laws to replace common sense, individual responsibility and duty.

Because the power was taken away from the citizen, the citizen likewise chose not to get involved. They would cross the road instead of helping a fellow in distress, they would avoid altercation for fear of being on the wrong side of the law; they would not volunteer in schools, hospitals or charities for being branded as paedophiles or perverts, and they would not spend fees on criminal record checks just to prove they had never done anything wrong, or were a danger to society.

The state was all powerful, and recruited more and more workers to administer the monster. Society became unsociable. The proliferation of "Big Brother"cameras watching every movement, meant that faceless individuals could impose fines with impunity.

The police no longer could exercise discretion by interaction with the public, but became distant, all monitoring, unfeeling state enforcers. They lost their primary purpose and lost the confidence of the very people they served.

Peacock strutting officials like traffic wardens, environmental control officers, noise abatement officers etc were empowered with inflated self-importance with dictatorial powers granted by demigod councils.

Bureaucracy was out of control, and the army of pen-pushers was growing. Something had to change.

It is the change which scares people. But maybe this is the opportunity to restore sanity.

Under the last government thousands of libraries, post offices and pubs disappeared. All of them vital to the cohesion of communities.

If the "Big Society" means that well meaning and experienced people could move in and keep them alive, then surely that is a good thing. Surely its better to have a library manned for two days a week by volunteers, be they retired or unemployed, than to lose them altogether?

I don't buy the negative argument from the unions and others that this is an excuse to get rid of jobs.

I support the "Big Society" because there will be no excuse for welfare benefit couch potatoes to sit on their arses doing nothing. I support it because there are thousands of people who are unable to find a job but still want the chance to contribute to society and be active.

I support it because there is an untapped resource of qualified people whose skills are going to waste which can be utilised in their community. I support it because it will set examples to those who don't want to do anything.

Yes it will have a rocky passage, but the alternative was the status quo, or God forbid, five more years of Labour.

That is a prospect that would have finished Great Britain for good.

Stand up and be counted….

The UK television party leader debates are far more exciting than their US equivalents. Having been highly suspicious of the merits of this novelty in British politics, they certainly give value for money.

As I've said before, I consider them to be nothing more than a media entertainment exercise and fear that the electorate will vote on presentation over policy. This was demonstrated last week by the sudden national favour of Nick Clegg. The LibDem leader scored overwhelming points over his rivals due to style and continues to a degree after the second debate.

An advantage of having a blog is the ability to express an opinion globally. Whether it has any influence is academic. I make my position very clear. Whilst I divide my time between two very different countries I am British born and bred.

That birthright means much to me. It says that my nation has been the principle architect of the modern world from the extraction of Spanish world dominance in the sixteen century through to the industrial revolution, technological advancement, the implementation of democracy and parliamentary systems, the defence of a way of life against tyranny, the dominance of English as a language and the tolerance of other nations and peoples in an ever changing world.

It is the belief that the United Kingdom has been a force for good where trade and democracy succeeded over facist and dictatorial exploitation. Many would argue that the British were the arbiters of that statement, but few could argue that the fundamental Victorian values were for the best intentions regardless of the often misguided philanthropy engendered.

The class system needed change, yet it was the very essence of the trade union movement, long before the advent of a Socialist or Labour party which fuelled workers rights. Socialism grew out of a desire for change, and after World War II, the old order was rejected – it was a time for change.

The pendulum swung too far, and the dream to provide for all created a free-for-all. The welfare state and universal free heathcare was a bold vision and the post war Attlee Government delivered the dream.

They could not have envisaged the abuse or bottomless pit where lurked a dragon which was always hungry, nor that it would create a dependant culture which believed that the state will always provide. Nor contemplated that the welfare state would account for billions of pounds to sustain year on year.

Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit, Income Support, Child Benefit, Childrens Tax Credits, Incapacity Benefits et al can all be given to a family to the tune of at least £1500 per month tax free – more than can be achieved through honest basic employment. The benefit culture encourages irresponsibility, more children, and a mindset that expects the state to provide. The children grow up in that culture and so the cycle continues.

You see, I want a country which protects and provides for the less fortunate. I want a country which can stand proud and give opportunities and encouragement to the young. I want a country that my children are proud to belong to. I want a country which will not kowtow or be subservient to aggressive nations. I want a country which will instill pride in their subjects regardless of their race, ethnicity, creed or religion. I want a country which will not be lead but leads. I want a country which says to its citizens that you should stand proud and give more than you take, and above all I want a country which is strong and holds dear to its history.

Which party will do that? I suspect there is only one – and thats the one which will get my vote on May 6th, 2010.

The Marmite Election

My daughter (at university seeking a BA hons in Education) has been invited to shadow a prospective parliamentary candidate for our London constituency. Apparently she has been vociferous in her criticism of him on his website, remarking on his poor performance (in her opinion) as a ward councillor.

I wouldn't say he was ineffectual, its just that his priorities are at odds with hers. There has been some banter back and forth with emails, and now that he is his official party's candidate (no names no pack drill – but one of the big three) he is keen to demonstrate his policies and show her the hard work he will be doing on the hustings.

I think she baited him by implying that she intended to enter politics and could do a damn sight better job. This clearly riled him and he suggested that perhaps she should be a councillor first before she attempted to attain the lofty heights of Parliament.

I think he's got a fair chance of toppling the current incumbent, and I admire his bravery. Not because he's seeking election in a cutthroat business, but because he's prepared to be accompanied for two long days with a volatile and highly critical individual. He's taking a big risk.

My daughter is a bit like Marmite – you either love it or hate it. But I'm biased because I'm very fond of Marmite. But even I can only spread it thinly on toast in the mornings. Eating it all day, for all its packed with vitamins and goodness, could be very challenging.

It puts me in a quandary because he doesn't represent the party of my choice, and yet I think he would make a good MP. I've never been one for tactical voting, and I've only got one vote. There's a lot at stake in this UK election – I value my vote and my right to it has been achieved through the sweat and tears of my ancestors.

I abhor people who say they are not going to vote because they can't be bothered or say there is no point – to me it is the epitome of idle ignorance.

Eat Marmite, you may not like the taste, but you'll feel better afterwards. That's what voting is all about!