King Mongkut and the saving of Thailand's independence and monarchy.

Doesn't look anything like Yul Brunner

David Bassett who taught me South East Asian history at Hull in the early 1980s hated the musical The King and I. Dr Bassett was a mild mannered chap but when we began to look at how Thailand retained its monarchy and its independence, his hackles rose a little and he engaged in a gentle rant about the film's historical inaccuracy and, in particular, its portrayal of Thailand's saviour King Mongkut. The real problem is that the accounts of Anna Leonowens exaggerate her influence on both the King and on his son.

But that's a different story to the one I want to relate. For Mongkut did save Thailand and Thailand's monarchy. And on the day we hear of King Bhumipol's death, it's perhaps worth reflecting on the manner of that salvation. For when the Thais look at their closest neighbours - in Indo-China and in Burma - they see once proud nations that were cast into colonial slavery under the French and British. Moreover they can look more recently at the tragedies of independence for those places - at the impoverishment of Burma under Ne Win's lunatic Burmese Way to Socialism, at the millions dead and displaced by nearly thirty years of war in Vietnam and at the suicidal genocide Pol Pot visited on the Khmer.

Thailand - Siam - avoided this tragedy because it remained independent. And the members of Thailand's parliament stood for nine minutes in silence today because Mongkut saved the monarchy too. Far from the bumbling, lovestruck man of the film, Mongkut was an intelligent, wise, hard-working and effective monarch. Not the first or last victim of American historical revisionism but undoubtedly one of the more egregious cases of rewriting what happened to make it seem down to a Yankee.

In 1855 Mongkut - or rather his ministers led by (my favourite Thai of all) Somdet Chao Phraya Borom Maha Si Suriyawongse - signed a treaty with the Governor of Hong Kong, Sir John Bowring. Because we're western-centric, we usually refer to this as the Bowring Treaty:

Bowring Treaty, (1855), agreement between Siam (Thailand) and Britain that achieved commercial and political aims that earlier British missions had failed to gain and opened up Siam to Western influence and trade.

The treaty lifted many restrictions imposed by Thai kings on foreign trade. It set a 3 percent duty on all imports and permitted British subjects to trade in all Thai ports, to own land near Bangkok, and to move freely about the country.

Again we should appreciate that Mongkut and his advisors knew what was happening elsewhere - in China, in Vietnam and even in India. The Siamese negotiating position was not strong and Mongkut knew he had to arrange some sort of deal or see what had been done to the stronger and richer kingdom of Burma happen to his kingdom. Siam had some leverage from playing the British, French and Dutch off against each other but in the end a deal was concluded with Britain rather than with the corporate interests representing France and the Dutch. Sir John Bowring was an envoy of another monarch allowing Si Suryawong to get him in front of Mongkut so as to conclude the deal:

There shall henceforward be perpetual peace and friendship between Their Majesties the First and Second Kings of Siam and their successors, and Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, and her successors. All British subjects coming to Siam shall receive from the Siamese Government full protection and assistance to enable them to reside in Siam in all security, and trade with every facility, free from oppression or injury on the part of the Siamese; and all Siamese subjects going to an English country shall receive from the British Government the same complete protection and assistance that shall be granted to British subjects by the Government of Siam.

For all that came afterwards, this moment in modern Thai history was central. In principle Siam was the equal of Britain (although everyone involved knew this was something of a conceit) and had kept its freedom at the cost of ending the Royal monopoly of trade, removing tariffs and allowing British - and subsequently through further treaties, American - merchants to operate freely within the kingdom.

So today I know Thailand will, while mourning the passing of King Bhumipol, nod to history and to the time when an earlier wise king secured peace and independence by signing a trade deal with the world's most powerful nation. Thailand is a great country because of Mongkut - it's a shame our view of him is of a bald, buffoon in a 1950s Hollywood musical. Dr Bassett was right, he deserves - and Thailand deserves - much better.

....

...if you're going to leave please don't slam the door on the way out

****

It's Saturday night, we're at one of the barrel-top tables in The George and we get to the moment in the evening when we talk about something other than the day's football results. It's a bit of a ritual - somebody will say, 'perhaps we should talk about something other than football' and we do. And often the topic is political - partly this presents a chance for me to get a gentle ribbing but mostly it provides a sort of half time breather before returning to the travails of Leeds United or the correct pronunciation of Louis van Gaal.

So we talk about the Scottish independence referendum. This isn't a detailed debate - more what d'you think, 'yes' or 'no'? And the consensus is essentially that we'd all rather Scotland didn't pack its bags and leave because, despite all the banter, we rather like the place. But, if Scotland insists on going could they not slam the door on the way out.

The problem is that we also know that Scotland - should the vote be 'yes' - has every intention of not only slamming the door but also kicking over the bins and pulling the gate off the hinges. And then coming back the next day to go round the house with little labels saying, 'that's mine, that's mine, I'm having that'. The idea that Alex Salmond would negotiate in good faith is as ridiculous an idea as believing that the moon is made of green cheese or that Newcastle United can win this year's premier league.

Today several thousand people have gathered in Trafalgar Square clasping their flags and slogans to - politely - encourage Scots to stay with the United Kingdom. In doing so, a lot of people who don't have a vote on Thursday about something that will profoundly affect their country are making the point to Scots that, whatever is said about oil, hospitals, bank notes and bagpipes, we really are stronger as a united kingdom.

Sadly an all too typical Scottish nationalist response is this sort of tweet:

Tory toffs gather in London to tell Scotland to get back in their place. #indyref pic.twitter.com/d0mZcL6y4d
— The Yes Man (@KristoferKeane) September 15, 2014

Tory toffs? I had a good look at the picture and saw a lot of ordinary people taking time out after a day at work to urge Scots not to be daft enough to vote for secession. But it suits that nationalist agenda to argue that anyone in a jacket working in London is a 'Tory toff' - a statement only an inch or two away from the related argument that all Tories are English and 'we don't like Tories do we'. And this soon slips into saying that all the English are Tories.

Some argue that it's not England or the English that Salmond and his pals dislike so much but this abstract thing called 'Westminster'. Except that such language is whistle-blowing in the direction of anti-English sentiment - if there is a problem with the sense of entitlement that goes with modern representative government, please don't tell me that it's resolved by moving the location for that sense of entitlement from SW1 to EH1.

In the end I'm with the view of most folk down here. I like Scotland and the Scots, admire the passion for place and the sense of nation but believe secession would be a grave mistake that future generations of Scottish people will come to regret. But if the Scots insist on going, do so quietly without demanding that the country you're leaving gives you everything you have now plus a whole load more. Independence means just that, it means the good and the bad, the tough choices as well as the promises of eternal happiness. What Scotland can't argue for - although this is core to the SNP argument - is for it to have its own apartment, car and wardrobe courtesy of an English sugar daddy.

....

Ludovic Stur and the revival of Yorkshire identity - a nationalist romance

This piece of modernist statuary is a memorial to Ludivic Stur - the words below the monument describe him as 'Slovensky Narodny Buditel'. Roughly translated this means 'Slovak National Revivalist', which describes what Stur did (at least according to the Soviets):

Štúr studied philosophy and philology at the Bratislava Lycée from 1829 to 1833 and at the University of Halle from 1838 to 1840. With J. Hurban and M. M. Hodža, he carried out a reform of the literary language that based the language on the Central Slovak dialect; he organized the cultural and educational society Tatrin. From 1845 to 1848, Štúr published Slovenskje narodňje novini, the first Slovak political newspaper, and a literary supplement, Orol tatrański.

In 1847 and 1848, Štúr was a deputy to the Hungarian Diet. At the Slavic Congress in Prague in 1848 he demanded recognition of the Slavic peoples’ rights to free national and cultural development. He took part in the Prague Uprising of 1848, and in the Revolution of 1848–49 he led the struggle of the Slovaks for national liberation.

But I'm not here to talk about the birth of Slovakian nationalism although it's worth noting that it took over 170 years from Stur's revival of the Slovak language to the creation of the first independent Slovak state. And it's that independence - or the idea of independence - that I'm struck by here. So let's speculate by talking about Yorkshire, remembering while we do just how long it took to realise Stur's Slovakian dream.

Here's something from a Yorkshire regionalist party in the recent European elections:

We would like to take this opportunity to thank the 19017 that put their faith in a different future. We salute you for giving life to Yorkshire First. The fight goes on to convince all parties that the time for change is now. It is time for Yorkshire

Yorkshire has a larger population than Scotland and an economy twice the size of Wales, but with the powers of neither. We support the devolving of powers to the least centralised authority capable of addressing those matters effectively – within Yorkshire, the United Kingdom and Europe. 

We can have a little giggle at such a ridiculous idea - there's never been an independent Yorkshire, this is just some sort of indulgence. Except that this is how such ideas start - with a romantic dream such as Ludovic Stur's idea of Slovakia. I know that the Soviets paint him as some sort of noble revolutionary but the truth was that he was just a man who was steeped in the language and culture of the place he called Slovakia. And in the first instance it is that cultural identity combined with a romantic view of past and future that creates nationalism.

The origins of Scottish and Welsh nationalism don't lie in the dry world of economics or even in the technocratic, ideology-free statism of Alex Salmond. Those origins lie in the myths and legends of these places, in the vaguely remembered events of the past, in a set of wrongs felt unrighted and in the saving of language from extinction. These romantic ideas - the spirit of nation, if you wish it - are what makes separatism a possibility not dry analysis or logic.

Checking on Wikipedia reveals a long list - over 100 organisations that in one way or another seek independence or greater autonomy. And there's an association, the European Free Alliance, that brings together about 40 separatist political parties including the UK's Scottish, Cornish and Welsh nationalists. And these movements are making progress - we know of the independence vote in Scotland and may have spotted the recognition of the Cornish as a nation. But there's more - tens of thousands of Basques formed a human chain to call for the Spanish government to grant them an independence vote. There's an ongoing debate in Catalunya where the regional government wants a vote but the national government is trying to prevent this happening. We saw an on-line poll showing overwhelming support for secession of the Veneto from Italy (and the arresting of some separatists in a weird tank incident).

There is no certainty in nationhood or in the boundaries that are drawn to create those nations and we are fools if we believe these things to be either eternal or sacrosanct. Nations only remain nations by consent - where that consent is taken for granted or worse abused then the case for change, which will nearly involve a new nationalism, is made. We look at Europe and see the EU, a sort of Frankenstein's monster version of the Holy Roman Empire filled with unaccountable and distant bureaucrats governed by entitled autocrats who owe their power to patronage rather than the will of Europe's populace. Add in economic collapse on a scale, for Southern Europe especially, not seen since the aftermath of the last world war and we have the recipe from fragmentation, for that cherished multi-culturalism to descend into distrust, blame and the desire to break from the state that led people into this disaster.

I'll finish by coming back to Yorkshire and that sense of identity, the essential first ingredient for nationalism. How many medals did Yorkshire win at the Olympics?

Some say it’s the Yorkshire water. Others say it’s the Yorkshire beer. But Nicola Adams, born and bred in God’s Own County, is in no doubt over the reason for Yorkshire’s stunning success at the Olympic Games.

‘It must be all those Yorkshire puddings,’ she said in the aftermath of her historic boxing gold medal, the first ever won by a woman at an Olympic Games.
 

When Luke Campbell, proud son of Hull, fought his way to a boxing gold medal by defeating Ireland’s John Joe Nevin in the bantamweight final, he took Yorkshire’s medal haul at London 2012 to five golds, one silver and two bronze.

If Yorkshire was a country, as some of its more fanatical supporters might prefer, it would be 15th in the London 2012 medal table, just behind New Zealand but ahead of sporting giants South Africa, Spain and Brazil.

In past Olympics (the ones where we managed to win medals that is) this regionalism was never noted but suddenly, when the Games are back in London, that sense of Yorkshire pride is apparent and rampant. So when Yorkshire coming knocking at Britain's door saying "we want what Scotland's got" it will be a brave government that turns them away.

...

A thought on the end of England

Norman Davies in his 'Vanished Kingdoms' speaks of the impermanence of states and at one point of Britain:

"Having lived a charmed life in the mid-twentieth century, and having held out against the odds in our "Finest Hour", the British risk falling into a state of self-delusion which tells then that their condition is still as fine, that their institutions are above compare, that their country is somehow eternal. The English in particular are blissfully unaware that the disintegration of the United Kingdom began in 1922, and will probably continue; they are less aware of complex identities than are the Welsh, the Scots or the Irish. Hence, if the end does come, it will come as a surprise."

In some ways this observation is a convenience, a way for Davies to make topical a history of places that don't exist any more - the half-forgotten Europe of Burgundia, Litva and Rusyn. But it also reminds us that empires, alliances, unions and nations are fragile, requiring only a little nudge to tip from unity into fragmentation. We can see the obvious examples in Europe today - Catalonia, the Basque country, Venice, Flanders, Scotland. And the break ups of the recent past - Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union.

We should be reminded that modern nations only sustain where people want them to continue. And that simply drawing lines on a map doesn't define a nation if the people within those borders do not wish themselves part of that nation. I spoke recently with a Russian-speaking Jewish Ukrainian whose parting words at the end of a discussion about the situation in that benighted place were; "our home is in the wrong country."

Keith Lowe in 'Savage Continent' describes how a million and more 'ethnic' Germans were, quite literally, marched from their homes in Pomerania because the powers that be had decreed it part of Poland. And how the gap was filled, in part, by Polish Ukrainian-speakers who were uprooted from their homes in the East and scattered across the new part of the nation, banned from speaking their language and forbidden from gathering together.

It may be that these wounds are healed but the scar tissue remains, the memories of wrongs not righted, of what might have been and of what is no longer. And, for all our 'unity', Britain is no different. We have become used to nationalism - the SNP, Plaid Cymru, Mebyon Kernow, the republicans of Ulster, even the English Nationalists. But we don't seem to realise that these are movements that reject Britain, that want to continue the break up that began in 1922.

And while Simon Jenkins writes with a smile on his face in speaking of Yorkshire identity - how far away are we from its political manifestation?

I am sure Yorkshire's self-confidence has no need of a "cultural leg-up" from the Council of Europe. I doubt its people even regard themselves as a "minority" where it matters, which is in Yorkshire. But when it is payback for decades of London centralisation, their time may come. Then, who could deny "country" status to a proud land with the same population as Scotland, nearly twice that of Wales and 10 times that of Cornwall?

We should watch Yorkshire this year. It needs only another twist of the centralising screw from Cameron and Miliband. It needs only the emergence of a Yorkshire Alex Salmond and perhaps a cup final or county championship victory. Unthinkable thoughts may then stir in the noble Yorkshire breast.

Go to a rock concert in the county and you might hear this gentle chant at some point: "Yorkshire, Yorkshire". This isn't a nationalist exhortation but an exclamation of identity. But it is a very short step from the latter to the former.

Norman Davies believes Britain will break up - is breaking up (as is Spain, as is Italy) - not because of some innate failing but because that's what nations do. They tire, become inward-looking, obsessed with past glories and what might have been. And the world from before the nation wakes again, flags are cherished, new ones invented and flown with pride and before you know it Yorkshire - or Lancashire, or London -  becomes more important than England. And then England dies.

....

God gave us small hearts - the rebirth of nationalism

****

For most of my life the 'direction of travel' (as the trendy term goes) has been towards supranationalism, towards the idea of economic blocs and even the merger of states to produce a still bigger state. In some ways this was an understandable reaction to forty years of 'cold war', to a geopolitical contest between giant states - the USSR and the USA.

So we created our own union - just as did nations in South East Asia and South America. Pushing aside all the fine words and grand statements, these blocs were comfort blankets for smaller nations in a world of power bloc politics. The politicians would point out that the EU 'prevented' another war in Europe (it's all right folks, I know this is a pretty drastic rewriting of history but that's what politicians do) and allowed us to 'compete' with the USA, with the old Warsaw Pact and with China.

Petty nationalisms - the grumbles of Catalans, Venetians, Scots and Flemings about being subsumed into a larger identity - were disparaged. Either dismissed as rose-tinted nostalgia, indulged as sweet romanticism or condemned as fascism. The great future was deeper and closer union, an inevitable journey towards a New Europe free from the old tyranny of nationalism. Only a few nationalisms, the violent ones in Ireland and the Basque country, stirred us into action but this was simply to police the problem rather than find a solution.

Today Venetians are heading to the polls to decide whether to pursue secession from Italy, to recreate the old Venetian Republic (or at least the bits of it that still remain in Italy - we forget that a fair old chunk is now in Slovenia and Croatia). Although today's vote isn't binding on the Italian government, it would be hard to see how greater autonomy cannot follow if the vote matches the opinion polls showing 65% support for the idea across the Veneto.

We are approaching a vote on Scottish independence, there will be a similar poll in Catalonia and probably one in Galicia. And places like Corsica and Sardinia have active independence movements. At its recent conference, the UK's Liberal Democrats came out in support of devolved powers - the first step on the road to independence - for Cornwall.

Those petty nationalisms that the grand Europeans sneered at have become a new politics in Europe. One that threatens not just the EU but the nations that make up the EU - Spain, Italy, the UK, Belgium. And we can no longer simply dismiss the politics of nationalism as the work of a few lunatics.

For me there are two things driving these changes - the first one is economic, expressed here by a Venetian:

"Venetians not only want out of Italy, but we also want out of the euro, the EU and Nato," said Raffaele Serafini, another pro-independence activist

The EU - and most of all, the Euro - has completely failed places like Italy. The hope that Europe would free Italy from the corrupt institutions it inherited from Fascism was dashed as those institutions - the creatures of the corporate state - became the vehicles of the commission's control.

But there's also a romantic notion here, the idea that those old and smaller places are places with which we can identify, that we can love. And that, as Venice did before and small nations - Switzerland, Norway, Singapore, Iceland - do today, such love engenders success through trade, through business rather than through the idea of the big stick implied by the economics of the power bloc.

Above all it's about the size of our hearts:

GOD gave all men all earth to love,
But since our hearts are small,
Ordained for each one spot should prove
Belovèd over all;
That, as He watched Creation’s birth,
So we, in godlike mood,
May of our love create our earth
And see that it is good. 

....

Independence? And why not!

****

They tell o' lands wi' brighter skies,
Where freedom's voices ne're rang;
Gie me the hills where Ossian lies,
And Coila's minstrel sang,
That ken na to be free.
Then Scotland's right, and Scotland's might,
And Scotland's hills for me;"
I'll drink a cup to Scotland yet,
Wi' a' the honours three!

In one respect Scotland voting on independence is none of my business. I'm not Scottish. I don't live in Scotland. And I rather dislike the whining politics of the Scottish National Party.

But I am however fascinated by the idea of independence and self-determination. And what exactly defines a nation. I believe that the debate is important since it's about identity and origin as much as it's about government, currency and economics.

Some Scottish people who - mostly for economic reasons - have left to live and work elsewhere have complained that they are somehow excluded from this great event, from the chance to decide whether that place they left should be independent.

This is one view of nation, the idea that it is defined by ethnicity, that even though you go to the other side of the world, you remain part of the Scottish nation. This is the nationalism that plays to the gallery of ethnicity, that hates the English merely for being English and that celebrates hatred or bitterness. If this is the reason for independence, it is a frightening message and one that should be rejected. If the USA proves anything by its existence then it is that ethnicity isn't the definition of nation.

I've heard Scottish people complain that they are somehow victims - oppressed by the English (or "London" as many Nats put it). Here the argument is that, had Scotland not been wedded to its larger southern neighbour, life would have been so much better. Sometimes this is about oil but often it harks back to a more distant past with echoes of absentee landlords, crofters thrown from their homes and posh voiced masters. All then seen through a weird prism of 1970s factory and pit closures to create a position that demands independence to free Scotland from its English oppressors.

As with the ethnic definition of nation, the idea of independence being justified on the basis of victimhood is a false argument. Is Scotland uniquely oppressed - compared to other places, to Cornwall, to the North East or even Essex? To justify independence on these grounds is to believe that Scotland was oppressed because it is Scotland - this, even if you accept the fact of oppression (which I don't really), is manifestly untrue. More importantly this defines Scottishness - the reason for independence - on the basis of what it isn't not what it is.

The third argument we hear is one of economics. The Scottish government published a vast work describing the economic case for independence. That government - led by the advocates of independence - had to make this case because it knows that a fair proportion of Scots really aren't fussed one way or the other. But they will vote in their own self-interest - if independence makes me richer then I'm off to vote for it and pronto!

Again this is a pretty weak argument and not just because many of the assertions made (about economic growth, about banking and currency and about the role of government) are open to challenge. The real thing with economics is that, quite frankly, we haven't a clue one way or the other. And, since we can't construct a controlled experiment, we'll never know the truth or otherwise of that economic argument.

These three arguments -  I see them as central to the case being made by the SNP - are all wrong. Playing the ethnic card is quite simply racist. Crying victim is to make out that Scots are uniquely hard done by, which is something of an insult to all those successful Scots in every walk of life. And relying on economics for your case simply leads to games of fruitless statistical tennis and policy snooker.

But there's another argument. The real argument. It's emotional, instinctive - visceral even. It's the idea of belonging to something, looking out the window at those hills, smiling and thinking "this is Scotland". It's not the anti-Englishness that gives us "Flower of Scotland" but a deeper, truer attachment to the place - whether it's the East End of Glasgow or the heather covered hills of Sutherland.

It's the idea of Scotland in that quote from Henry Scott Riddell's 'Scotland Yet' - not about some idea of superiority, certainly no hatred or dislike, just a message of pride, joy and love for the place. And the nation - that thing we try to define with grand words - is all those who share those emotions, that association.

When Kipling wrote about men having small hearts it was about these feelings - we cannot love everywhere and we cannot expect everyone to love the place we love. But we can share that love with those who do and that is nationhood. No government, no kings, no lords, no oil, no First Minister. Just people placing their boots in the soil and saying "this is my country and I'll work with you to make it better".

If you want independence for reason of blood, for reason of hatred or for reason of greed then you deserve to lose. But if you want independence for pride, joy and love of the place that is Scotland then - for what it's worth - you have my blessing and I wish you well.

....

Tennis and politics...

****

We all sat - the whole party full - cheering on Andy Murray (not that our cries will have reached Wimbledon from Bradford) as he became the first British winner of the men's singles there for 77 years. And it was brilliant as a great bonus to our celebration of Margaret Polak's 90th birthday.

Funnily enough no-one mentioned how this might affect the coming referendum on Scottish independence. Nobody made the grumpy reference to Murray supporting Scotland and whatever team is playing England. No-one sought to claim that all this sporting triumph would give David Cameron a boost in the polls. Indeed no reference to the political significance of Murray's victory was made at all.

And there's a reason for this - great those Andy's win might be, it has absolutely no political significance and no political effect at all. Not a jot.

This however doesn't stop the usual bunch of daft pundits doing just that - making ridiculous political claims on the basis of this victory:

Here's Toby Young:

However Alex Salmond tries to spin this – and pulling out the Saltire was a cheap stunt – it is a victory for the Union and not for Scottish independence. Cameron is just past the half way point in his premiership but he's now at least one set up against Ed Miliband and on course for victory.

Well no, not really, Toby. It's rather a win for a young man from Scotland who has spent most of his life seeking to be the best tennis player on the planet. It has nothing to do with the Union or Independence and his winning is not likely to make it more or less likely that the Conservatives will win the next election.

Others were in there two - ex-pat, ex-MP Louise Mensch was no surprise in all this and was joined by assorted wannabe political commentors.

The truth is that sport doesn't need politics but politics needs sport. And sport should resist!

...

Conservative things...

I’m a Conservative – a bit like Iggy Pop’s a conservative. I don’t see the need to change things that don’t need changing, I think that most of the time people can get on with each other and with their lives without the need for the state’s guiding hand and I believe that the place we’re from and the place we choose to settle shapes who we are and encapsulates our values, our culture if you will.

I look across Yorkshire’s green hills, listen to the birds singing and look at those things seeming timeless – the beer, the food, the walls and trees, the rounded vowels and, above all, that view that this land is ours to cherish. To understand what it means to be conservative, you have to grasp that this is everyone’s.

James Delingpole – who probably isn’t a conservative – writes today in his usual polemical manner about the Conservative Party’s predicament:

...the Conservative party in Britain is in dire, dire trouble. And the root of this malaise is precisely this mix of snooty remoteness, intellectual woolliness and odious wetness exhibited by senior party figures like Oliver Wetwin.

And it’s true – Oliver Letwin, for all his Etonian grandeur, his haughty braininess and his riches, isn’t a conservative.  But the party’s predicament isn’t down to the Letwins of this world – it’s down to us losing touch with the core of our vote. People who are not the scions of fine families, have at best a tenuous connection to the world of merchant banking or the city and whose connection with fine houses comes from trips to visit them using our National Trust membership.

Last May, my party won seats because ordinary working people started to vote Tory again – among the snobbish elite voting Tory was only acceptable if one knew the candidate or their views were suitably “liberal”. Knocking on two-thirds of professional and managerial voters used to plump for Tory candidates back in the 1970s and 1980s – last year we struggled to 39% of such folk.

By contrast, 37% of the skilled working class – all those men in white vans, those plumbers, chippies and lathe turners – voted Conservative in 2010. Men and women looking for that idea of aspiration, self-reliance and independence that conservatives offer. People for whom the simple sense of place – of village, town or city, county and nation – helps define who they are and who care little for the obsessions of those with the cash to indulge in fine thoughts.

In Bingley Rural – five villages in the South Pennines – there aren’t many millionaires. The roads aren’t cluttered with flash cars, we don’t have fancy wine bars or posh boutiques, the merchant banker is most definitely a foreign beast – but we are pretty conservative. We like the place as it is, we like the features of the villages, the pubs, the farm shops, the butcher, we enjoy the company of neighbours and friends and we want to work. We love the setting and the country around us.

What we ask of our government is pretty simple – protection from crime, good schools and skilled doctors, helping keep the place clean, maintaining the roads, pavements and parks, providing support – when needed – to those in need and preserving the good things about the places. We don’t ask for lectures about “climate change”, about drinking and smoking, what kind of car we drive or holiday we take.

When I knock on doors and talk to local folk, they don’t ask me about the carbon footprint of Easyjet or the need to ban booze advertising. People don’t mention ‘gross national happiness’ or the equalities agenda. What they ask is why the pubs are going bust, how expensive basic staples – food and fuel - have got, how they never see a copper and why their son can’t afford a house in the village.

Simple, easy-to-understand things concerned with the place we live, with keeping it nice, with making it better – conservative things.

....

How the self-appointed enforcers of the big state are killing Big Society at birth

I want to agree with Julian Dobson. I really do.  For most of the time he understands what Big Society is about. But then he goes and spoils it:

We are already starting to see a big society gathering momentum in response to the cuts. It is coming from campaigns against library closures, to save schemes like Bookstart, to persuade giant corporations to pay their taxes.

This isn’t Big Society. This isn’t reclaiming the independence of communities. This isn’t progress towards a mutual, co-operative, voluntary society. It is instead a sad reminiscence – people campaigning for government from somewhere else, for others to pay for that government. It is almost a repeat of the squadristi enforcing the laws, running the trains and manning the tax offices – because “if the government won’t do it, then we will.”

The worrying thing in all this isn’t the upsurge in activism – we should welcome that – but that this is activism in defence of the state. UK Uncut and others have become the self-appointed enforcers of big government – and are tearing down any hope of a ‘Big Society’ since that revolts against the over mighty state they support.

Liberating society from the constricting, suffocating comfort blanket of centralised state direction was never going to be easy. But advocates of local action like Julian – with their talk of moving “from a centralised, controlling big society to a distributed, cooperative society” – diverge from that objective when they speak of what government should do:

The message to government, meanwhile, is that it’s time to stop lecturing us about your vision of a big society and start engaging on our territory. Come and talk to the public servants who are being made redundant. Speak to the service users who are losing facilities they rely on. Listen to the people who are struggling to make ends meet, worrying about debt, who don’t know what future their children will have.

How will listening to groups who have the simple objective of stopping government withdrawing from provision so community can take over make a Big Society happen? Do people like Julian not appreciate that while community activists, charities and organisers bemoan the cuts, the private service sector – firms like SERCO, Carillion and A4e – are seeing opportunity?

Where are the groups talking to local government about how youth services can be transferred to voluntary sector provision, how community groups can manage libraries, how regulatory services like planning and pollution control can be delivered by social enterprise? Why are activists sitting in shops rather than taking over libraries? How are individual people – those who want something to happen in their street, their village, their back yard – being supported by experienced activists to get on and do that thing rather than being pointed at mere protest?

I am disappointed – cross that destruction from UK Uncut has pushed aside construction from Big Society. That the only solution activists can think of is to yell at government – to hold out the begging bowl, to tug a little harder at the benevolent trouser leg of the state and to tie ourselves ever more tightly to nanny’s apron strings.

There was a time when I hoped that Big Society would give these people the permission to act positively – to build societies fitted to localities, to take control of our places again and to grow out of the need for the grand schemes of centralised government.

It seems I was wrong. Activists want the central, controlling state – which means having the Big Society killed at its birth.

....

For heaven's sake leave us alone! A comment on choice, freedom and independence.

It struck me yesterday (while listening to the righteous discuss licensing and other matters at Council) that the idea of free choice, of personal responsibility and our autonomy as individual persons is a minority viewpoint among the political class. By way of example:

1. We debated whether the Director of Children’s Services should be consulted when the private sector wished to develop a children’s home. By the end of the debate I was convinced that the Director of Children’s Services should have no such right – by all means that individual can make representations in the same manner as any other person, put granting the developer's primary competitor (and also supplier) an privileged position is wrong. Yet we voted for such a privilege – it’s for the children, you see.

2. During this debate the matter of free schools arose - mostly so the Labour speaker could get over a pretty lame political point. And when the matter of planning leniency for new schools was mentioned a ripple of applause went round the chamber. I was shocked to see Conservative Councillors applauding an attack on the extension of choice and the reduction of bureaucracy.

3. In a different debate – one on ‘child poverty’ – the Labour speaker again mentioned free schools and academies. And her problem was that these schools reduced the Council’s budget – after all the money goes to the schools not the bureaucrats. Independence, autonomy and freedom were attacked because it meant the Council bureaucrats could not direct and control .

4. So much for debates at Council and onto a wider debate – this time the NHS. A doctor speaks and the gist of her comment is that patients don’t want choice and only ask for it when service is poor. This was compounded – according to the doctor – by the choice being between private and public providers. As I understand her view it was that we shouldn't get choice in healthcare because the public sector aren’t as good at it as the private sector! And the private sector is nasty because it makes a profit. This from someone who profits from the NHS to the tune of £100,000 or more.

5. And then we have the ‘drinking is bad’ debate – the lies and nonsense intended to reduce the access to drink for poor people. The underlying context of this is that old-fashioned middle class busybody view that the poor aren’t bright enough to make their own decisions about their own lives – they must be nudged, shoved and browbeaten into following the strictures of their public sector masters. I guess that talking strangely, listening to cacophonous base-heavy music and appearing on Jeremy Kyle’s daytime show provides the basis for this argument. Well it won’t do – if they want to wreck their lives with drink, fags and drugs that’s (most of the time) their business, innit!

I will not despair but will carry on making the sensible, usually evidence-based arguments that freedom, choice and independence – autonomy as is explained by Anna Raccoon – are the best route to a civilised, happy and successful society. When we’re free we work harder, we play better and we work out means to deal with out differences – all without the need for a political master race to direct our every childish action.

I do not understand why the political class so despise freedom – or rather freedom for other people to make their own successes and failures. And why appeals to authoritarian and draconian reactions – be it on immigration, crime or the economy – get such popular support. Maybe wiser heads might help?

....

On sheep...

Sheep. Trotting along dutifully behind whoever heads for the gap in the fence. Proferring received wisdom as if we'd just thought of it yesterday. Following blindly the latest fad or fashion, unthinking, unquestioning - assuming that the crowd is right.

Today we have new words for sheep-like behaviour, words that make it seem terribly clever, awfully trendy - terms like "crowd sourcing" and "the wisdom of crowds". We've convinced ourselves that we can replace our critical facilities with opinion polling, focus groups, surveys and questionnaires. We can count references or word frequency and pretend that somehow this gives a profound insight into deeper truths. We replace thinking with counting.

Sheep. Bleating about safety, security, the comfort of groupthink, the blanket of conformity. We pretend we're oh so radical when, in truth, we're just tagging along with the crowd. Whether it's the latest political fad, the newest music or the trendiest film, our behaviour is to snuggle up to the big crowd.

And, if we stand alone? Proudly saying we won't flock? What happens? Ah, yes - that flock gets together attacks us, condemns us for difference. The flock may even break off from doing down another flock long enough to cast the lone ram out into the wilderness or worse still to pen that independent beast up safely away from any corruption that might come from actually thinking differently.

Sheep. Thoughtless, careless and lost without the flock around them. I think sheep would want "fair votes".

....

A thought on morality (inspired by St Trinian's)

***

Am surprisingly cheered by the moral message of “St Trinian’s: the Treasure of the Frittons”. But first this isn’t a film review – those turgid think pieces about, what is in the final assessment, just a piece of ephemeral entertainment. However, the central message – captured by the lyrics of the St Trinian’s song, “Defenders of Anarchy” (sung for our delectation by Cheryl, Kimberley and co):

Check out our battle cry
A song to terrify
No one can stand in our way

We are the best, so screw the rest
We do as we damn well please
Until the end
St Trinian’s
Defenders of anarchy

So scam all the toffs, the neeks and the freaks
Blackmail the goths, the slappers and the geeks
And if they complain, we’ll do it all again
We do as we damn well please

As for the chavs, the emos and their mates
To torment the slags, we offer special rates
And if they complain, we’ll do it all again
Defenders of anarchy

We are the best, so screw the rest
We do as we damn well please
Until the end
St Trinian’s
Defenders of anarchy

ST TRINIAN’S!

I live in hope that this uplifting moral message – independence, honesty and self-interest to the fore – gets more attention in our schools. It’s certainly better than the mealy-mouth, politically correct, wimpish moral code promoted by our current authorities!!

...

Independence for Yorkshire (excepts from the future archive)

The recent announcement of "London-style powers" for Yorkshire (presumably without a "Boris-like" leader) comes close to the announcement of plans for a referendum on Scottish independence.

And lo, within the future archive of the Heckmondwyke Clarion I found this:

Yorkshire will publish its white paper on the constitutional future for the Broad Acres, paving the way for an independence referendum.

Leader of the Yorkshire Nationalist Party (YNP) Arnold Postlesthwaite said Yorkshire must be independent to meet its full economic potential. However, the YNP does not have enough support from opposition parties to stage a referendum in 2010 but will proceed regardless.

The white paper, to be launched on Yorkshire Day will set out independence as its favoured option. Three other possible scenarios for Yorkshire's future are contained in the white paper: no change in the present set-up; more powers, as recommended by the Hussein Commission review of devolution; and a major transfer of responsibilities from Westminster

Speaking at its launch in York, Mr Postlesthwaite said: "It's time for the people to have their say on Yorkshire's future. The debate in Yorkshire politics is no longer between change or no change - it's about the kind of change we seek and the right of the people to choose their future in a free and fair referendum."

The content of the referendum ballot paper will not be revealed until the Referendum Bill is published early next year. Mr Postlesthwaite has expressed a preference for a single question on independence, but said he was willing to consider including another option on devolving more powers to the County.

Yorkshire’s Labour leader Steve Pitman insisted his party did not fear a referendum, but called for the idea to be dropped and to focus on more immediate concerns, such as the imminent wiping out of Labour in Yorkshire.

"We should not be distracting ourselves with a referendum, with a question which we don't even know what it is, with options we don't even know what they are," he said. "It could cost anything up to £12m - that's public resources which could be put to far better use protecting Labour’s vested interests."

Deputy leader of the Yorkshire Conservatives, Sir Myner Broadacres-Cash, added: "The worst possible time to be having a referendum is when people are concentrating on the far more important task which is how we deal with Labour's recession and get rid of socialists and greens. That is what we should be focusing on now not wasting our time on constitutional navel-gazing."

Support for the referendum seems increasingly unlikely, after Yorkshire Liberal Democrat leader Dr Nick Spottiswood recently made a rare decision.

"I think we should concentrate on the issues we are responsible for - of course make the arguments for strengthening Yorkshire and making it more accountable to our people," said Dr Spottiswood. "That's where we should be not on this obsession with independence that Mr Postlesthwaite and the rest of his party have."

The debate continues....

....