The Flashman papers.

The role of the media in politics and its use to construct and then ultimately destruct the careers of those in power is well known. For years sketch writers and cartoonists have lampooned the credibility and fallibility of politicians and in reverse speechwriters, spin doctors and political advisors have been hired to lionise their every move and utterance. The cult of personality in electoral politics can be grave or a procession to a Ministerial promotion.

It is particularly interesting to look at the relationship between the three major parties and their own ‘witticisms’ of each other. The age of coalition government has flipped the previous polarities and has increased the forensic detail on policy and partnership, particularly in the Liberal Democrat’s ailing leader Nick Clegg. Clegg, whose election debate performances spun the short-lived craze of ‘Cleggmania’ is now perceived as the manservant to the Bullingdon boy David Cameron. Clegg was previously deemed a fresh faced reformer on the outside, yet a year later his political reputation has been tarnished by his partnership in Government that supposedly quashed his principles. Clegg’s short lived ascendancy and decline, is through a cocktail of his political weakness and the media turning the screw on his every mistake.

Labour leader, Ed Miliband exclaimed that the Prime Minister, David Cameron, was like Harry Paget ‘Flashman’, the ‘hero’ in the George Fraser MacDonald novels. Harry Flashman VC, KCB, KCIE, Legion d’Honneur and so on was a Victorian soldier who was chucked out of Rugby and whose father bought him a commission in the light dragoons. Some say he was a cavalier, cheat, thief and womanising cad – not exceptional talents for a politician to have. Though Flashman was heroic as well, he saved British India, confounded the French and defeated the Su Indians; he even took part in the Charge of the Light Brigade. It is not necessarily a bad portrait to take on. It was the Soviet’s who pejoratively called Mrs Thatcher the ‘Iron Lady’ yet she used this to enhance her personality.

Ed Miliband whose distinguishing features have seen him titled ‘Red Ed’ for his apparent Old Labour views. He has also been toyed because of his inferiority to his bigger brother, former Foreign Secretary, David. The issue with asserting a personality is that it can inevitably lead to parody and typecast. John Major, who came to power after ten years of Mrs Thatcher, was portrayed as the ‘grey man’ for his insipidness. Tony Blair, despite the charisma and personality, is known for his lack of substance too. Playing to the media helps politicians get to where they want to belong but the continuous airbrushing assimilates a portfolio to one of Lord Sugar’s rejects: all talk but utterly hopeless.

It is unfair because politicians are never going to get things right. The age of 24-hour news examines every single angle of a story and grasps every opinion. An apology shows weakness, but defiance can show a lack of sympathy or pure haughtiness. The end of Gordon Brown’s tenure in Downing Street reflected this perfectly. Enoch Powell famously said that ‘All political lives end in failure’ and whilst Cameron and Miliband will continue to play their Punch and Judy politics, Clegg will continue to stand in the background resembling Hamlet’s indecisiveness and retain his position as media/electorate punch bag.

The last fighting Tommy. Remembered

The final British soldier of the Great War passed away this week. Claude Choules, who was 110, died in a nursing home in Australia. He was the final combat troop to see the surrender of the German Imperial Navy and the scuttling of the fleet at Scapa Flow. For a long time, we have counted down a final resting place for this selfless generation to a war that no one wanted to talk about.

The interesting thing about Britain and war is that we seem to revel in all elements of it. Military terminology is laced in sporting adjectives and the Royal Wedding would not have been complete without a flyover from a Hurricane, Lancaster and the Spitfire. The current trend is raising money for cancer and armed forces charities, yet to a great extent Britain, until the Second World War, Britain was quite a pacifistic nation. World War One is inherently apart of that.

Empire was not necessarily conducive towards war-mongering and despite the ugly images of Amritsar, Hola or Palestine, Britain did its very best to keep the peace with few patrolling on the ground. In historical terms, British generals tend to be lionised because victories tended to come by surprise; mainly because our geography saw a greater need in sea power rather than land forces. The likes of Blenheim (Marlborough), Waterloo (Wellington) and El-Alamein (Montgomery) are etched in the nation’s psyche, yet other historical land battles are hard to come by.

Britain has had few, certainly over the past two centuries, army generals as Prime Ministers. The Duke of Wellington (Arthur Wellesley) stands out, yet the greater demands of Parliamentary democracy intertwined with Empire meant that Westminster had less input from military minds. Even Cromwell’s New Model Army was disbanded after it defeated the Charles the First’s loyalists. Compare that to the likes of continental Europe who saw military men dominate domestic politics for a century further.

The origins of World War One are often manifested in the Congress of Vienna, a century earlier that did not prevent all wars (Crimean, Franco-Prussian) but negated all out continental war. This was the first war that Britain legally enforced enlistment. This was common in Germany and France, yet Britain, who tended to avoid European affairs, finally asked its men to enrol. We now know, the pageantry and patriotism became blurred and much of Europe was converted into blood lands. The massacres and suffering decimated a generation and inflicted the vivid horrors of mechanical war to the ordinary.

People like Choules, and those that have gone before him, did not revel in their situation. To them it was pure and simply about duty. World War Two is frequently embedded in our national psyche because we did not see the wide scale human suffering across Europe. We remember the likes of Coventry and HMS Hood, and those who died. However, we do not lament the struggle of the Blitz, Dunkirk or the Battle of Britain. These are scorched in our memories as times of community and celebration. World War Two was an occasion when we emerged from the dark perils of solitude to emerge as victors. World War One was intolerable, unimaginable and suffering. The fighting was not brave because no one entirely knew what would ensue. Inevitably, men were slaughtered and families destroyed. The Great War should never be deemed as a grey conflict that preceded the heroism and gallantry of World War Two, it was a story in itself. Choules, was part of a generation of men that went over the top with the uncertainty of what would happen. The tragedy of the Great War was not the diplomacy and politics that happened after, it was the slaughter on the Somme, Passchendaele and Verdun. We should all remember that.

Kant and Osama.

I had an interesting thought after the manhunt and then eventual death of Al-Qaeda’s Osama Bin Laden. Many philosophy students will be familiar with the ‘ticking bomb’ scenario; an idea of whether it is right to torture someone who holds information that could prevent a bomb or weapon of mass destruction from detonating, saving many lives but compromising morals. Information is still unravelling from the operation and the US government is deciding whether it is in the public interest for some of it to become known. We are told that knowledge of Bin Laden’s compound was obtained through the monitoring of a courier, but who knows whether this information came from another source?

The utilitarian view that everything should be done in the greater good is extremely plausible and favourable in most scenarios; but most countries hold dear the founding notions of Habeas Corpus and not torturing citizens. Kant’s argument, the categorical imperative, pushed the notion that people are ends in themselves; they cannot be used as means. For example, in a war, it is morally wrong to shell an area if you think an enemy may be hiding there, but kill a few innocent people instead, the sacrifice of the few for the many is necessary - is morally incompatible.

Theories always sound grand on paper and often seem inflexible when discussed in open debate. Would countries and citizens deem the utilitarian approach that punishment of the innocent can be justified if the majority benefit, if Osama’s whereabouts had been obtained by torture and he was on the verge of planning another 9/11? Would this contravene national morality? Or can laws and rights be absolute? These were questions America asked itself in the aftermath of September 2001 and after Sunday it may tip the balance that it made the right decision.

In the name of Osama.

So Osama is dead, hiding in a small provincial town in the heart of Pakistan, his last moments were dealt with by a team of US Navy Seals. The rapture across America is understandable and the vast majority of world leaders have welcomed the news of bin Laden’s death. There are a few things to take away with his passing. Firstly, one of the most iconic men of the twenty-first century is gone. The pictures and videos that followed 9/11 showed a man uttering strong hate and revenge, yet remaining calm and unflustered throughout. We have been led to believe that he has been residing within caves and the parochial uplands of Pakistan. Yet despite the infrequent nature of his media appearances this revolutionary became more iconic than the likes of Che Guevara. The world underestimated the man's reverence and his ability to unite under one organisation.

Previously, America had fought enemies within countries and regions. Even the Communist ideology could be sourced to the Kremlin in Moscow or Castro in Havana. Al Qaeda was an enemy confronting American interests all around the world and yet its leaders could not be sourced to one specific location (Bin Laden spent years in Sudan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and his final residence Pakistan). This distorted omnipresence fooled Pentagon hawks into believing all terrorist groups prescribed as ‘enemies of America’ were off shoots of Al Qaeda. Militant Islamic groups such as Hezbollah or Hamas were tarred with the same brush yet their cause was ingrained in a deeper nationalist cause much like the IRA. This made the ‘War on Terror’ became amorphous and tactically unwinnable.

September 11th and the casualties across the Eastern seaboard of American will always be remembered. The calculated and horrifying death toll will be etched in the minds of the people going to work on that Tuesday morning. This was only the awakening, attacks in Bali, Madrid and London spread the terror to other big metropolitan areas. It changed the relationship between citizens and governments and between faiths and neighbourhoods.

When the world comes to judge the legacy of bin Laden and his ideology, perhaps most people will forget the deaths inflicted not on infidels, but on ordinary Muslims. Al Qaeda saw itself as a liberator from Western decadence and puppet regimes in the Middle East, yet tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of people have been slain in Pakistan, Indonesia and ultimately Iraq in the name of Al Qaeda and Islam. Whether Bin Laden ceased to become a protagonist or figurehead in recent years is possibly true, but it is fair to assess that his impact was huge, in terms of lives, not successes.

The question no one can answer is whether his death will draw a line under the continuous violence in the name of ‘Islam’ or whether the Arab Spring will evolve into a bloc of freely democratic and legitimate Arab nations? The latter would perhaps be a worthy resolution for all those innocent men, women and children who died under his stewardship. It will certainly not be the end of Al-Qaeda.

John Sullivan - a tribute.

British TV, film and radio is still revered and despite the amount of American imports filling our schedules, it is still commercially successful all around the globe. ‘The King’s Speech’ was dominant at this year’s Oscar ceremony and TV formats like ‘Masterchef’ and ‘Come Dine with Me’ have been sold to various countries around the world. The Guardian recently wrote that we are currently living in a golden-era of British documentaries; BBC 2’s Brian Cox’s ‘Wonders of the Universe’ to the Palme D’Or winning investigative film ‘Mugabe and the White African’.

Comedy has changed recently and we are besieged with a cult of stand up comedians hosting panel shows and having their own road show series. Sitcoms have changed with society and the BBC’s decision to cancel ‘My Family’ after 11 series reflects the changing nature of audiences and pressures on writers in this modern age. The passing of John Sullivan marked the end of an era and certainly a great loss to British television viewers.

Sullivan, who died last week at the age of 64, is best known as the writer of Citizen Smith, Just Good Friends and probably most notoriously Only Fools and Horses. One of the most successful British sitcoms of all times it followed the story of Derek ‘Del Boy’ Trotter and his younger brother Rodney as they lived and worked in South London, chasing their fortune. As the series evolved more characters were introduced, the Trotters found love and in the 1996 final trilogy they achieved their ambition, unknowingly, to become 'millionaires'.

Sullivan not only changed the lexicon of the English language, but helped change how we watch TV as a family. The sharpness of his scripts translates to hours of laughter, bewilderment and emotion. He introduced sketches that had happened in real life and often waited years for the appropriate moment. Successful comedies survive through good writing, good acting and originality. Many TV comedies produced today are pressurised into demanding alternative shows that can fill the airwaves for 26 weeks of the year. Sullivan grew up in age of four television channels and the demands from audience weren’t as hostile. He still managed to attract tens of millions of viewers, something most comedians would dream of. We are lucky this allowed him to exploit the rich vein of comedy flowing through his mind.

People criticised Sullivan when the Trotters were brought out of their retirement to film three more episodes and in retrospect most fans will agree that the 1996 ending was the ideal resolution for the boys from Nelson Mandela House. However; it was the nation’s fondness and love for the capricious dealings of Del Boy, Rodney and Uncle Albert, not to mention the musings of Trigger and company. Sullivan’s impeccable talent stemmed from his own input and he did not work in a factory with script writers churning out episode after episode. In an age of DVD box set consumption it would be unwise to miss out on a man who made millions laugh, cry and add ‘Cushty’ to the English language. Bonjour Pedro.

Old Firm: The Queen's eleven, maybe.

Despite the prospects of an independent Scotland and the hope its politicians desire, the decline of Scottish football is all too evident. Ten to fifteen years ago there was talk of allowing Glasgow Celtic and Rangers to play in the English Premier League. Both sides had terrific squads, stadium and support. Many believed they would be equals when it came to competing against England's best. Yet, the lack of prosperity and heavy debt burdens left many of Scotland's historically big clubs unable to compete financially against other European clubs and has seen a real decline in the quality of football.

Last week, the story that dominated the sporting headlines was the attempted nail bomb posted to Celtic manager Neil Lennon. Lennon, a Catholic from Northern Ireland is no stranger to controversy. He retired from international football after receiving death threats from Loyalist groups when he was captain of Northern Ireland. Recently he had graffiti laced upon the wall opposite his home calling for his death. (Unfortunately the artist wrote R.P.I instead of R.I.P – whether it was a reference to the Retail Price Index or dyslexia we’ll never know). Lennon is a character who courts animosity. He revealed in a recent interview that he got into a fight near his home in Glasgow with two medical students, whilst his girlfriend looked on. Something you may expect of youth players but not high profile managers.

Lennon took his seat yesterday in the final Old Firm fixture of the season in a match that takes precedence for the Scottish game. Yet since the Good Friday Agreement and general integration between Catholics and Protestants, do the whole religious undertones really mean anything anymore or does it breathe life into a league that appears banal compared to yesteryear?

Sectarian hate is nothing new, the game used to be a ceremony for fans to violently belittle each other. It was said that religion in Northern Ireland was something never mentioned on the street, yet the Celtic Rangers match was the occasion for exalting your religious bigotry. Songs about the IRA, the Queen and Bobby Sands were all too common. Mo Johnston, the first Catholic player to play for Rangers (or openly Catholic) had previously played for Celtic and made the sign of cross towards Rangers fans during a match (His dad was a Rangers fan and a Protestant). Graeme Souness had tried to sign Ian Rush, a Welsh Catholic, when he was manager in the late 1980s and Mark Hateley was viewed with suspicion from fans because he was married to a Catholic. It all seems quite pathetic now, but this was at a time of daily violence in the Ulster and perceived discrimination of Catholics in everyday society. The Rangers chairman David Murray saw introducing Catholics as a way of making money from sponsorship and investment.

Watching the match yesterday, particularly because of the Lennon incident, the atmosphere was boisterous as expected but it still lacked visible quality on the pitch. The tricolored Irish flag and the Union Jacks decorating the terraces (probably not in anticipation of the Royal Wedding), plus chants of ‘God Save the Queen’ did nothing to alleviate potential rest. No doubt Rangers fans thought the referee was a ‘Feinian’ after his dubious penalty decision. Yet there were few talking points otherwise in this humourless game.

Like most football derbies, there is history, as well as hate. The Easter Sunday clash marked 95 years since the ‘Easter Rising’ at the Dublin Post Office and the subsequent executions of those involved. For Real Madrid and Barcelona, there is the political battle of federalism and Catalonia. Ajax Amsterdam and Rotterdam’s Feyenoord clash over the difference between their cultural and industrial hearts. Real Sociedad and Athletic Bilbao in the Basque region of Spain both used to have transfer policies that did not permit the signing of non-Basque players, these have now been relaxed in recent years like the violence in that region. Football does move with the times, even England have a more continental outlook to the game than previously. It is the fan culture that loves to look back; it is the history that makes them and the club. Changing stadiums or signing players are important issues and nothing to be taken lightly. Arsenal fans voiced their disgust when the club issued a white away kit, colour of their rival's Tottenham. History is indicative of the future.

Perhaps the bellicose of yesterday’s match hides the decline of the Scottish game in general. Matches are worth winning, but they are definitely never worth dying for. Traditions are for keeping.

The risks they take - war reporting

Journalism can be a despised profession and the recent ‘phone hacking’ from the News of the World reflects why journalists are often deemed as likeable as politicians and lawyers. Yet, the death on Thursday of the British journalist Tim Hetherington in Misrata, Libya reflects a perspective and approach that many people neglect and take advantage of. Journalists, particularly those embedded with troops or reporting in war zones are often seen as adrenaline junkies and taking gambits to seize a story or a career opportunity, but most of the time this is not the case. Reporting in war zones to make ‘the first draft of history’ is enterprising but harrowing as its content can show people at a nadir in their lives. Violence, mortars and perpetual gunfire are all hazards of the job and it entails specialist survival training to deal with unexpected events like kidnapping or roadblocks.

There are some unhealthy aspects of journalism that have crept in of late. Sensationalism, pervasive press releases and dry stories. I remember dispatches from a journalist in Afghanistan reporting with the Parachute Regiment in the deathly heat of Helmand. The immense fire power from the Taliban and the near annihilation of a platoon not only showed the courage of the soldiers but the eloquence and intrepid reporting showed the risks the troops faced. Without journalism how would we know this? Tim Hetherington’s death is a tragedy and brings to the world’s attention what is happening to ordinary Libyans. His death has grabbed the headlines, which I’m sure he would never have wished, but it doesn’t highlight journalists being gagged, imprisoned or murdered for their profession.