Album six, track 6

My friends, often on the other side of the table in my real life, are thinking about the possibility of perhaps considering the idea that it would not be such a bad thing if some time, maybe, in due course, they would be doing a good thing if they were to think about getting together.

Would this be a good idea? What is providing the impetus? Should right-thinking men and women quake in their boots or should we welcome the notion with open arms?

I'm hesitant to comment, and even more so to come down on the idea, to be frank, since it is very likely that whatever I say will be taken as too negative by half and make some aspects of my quotidian existence less tolerable.

But then, when have I ever worried about people misinterpreting me and getting offended by what I write? The people who want to have an excuse to dump on me will do so whatever I write and the people who understand what I'm writing and not get offended won't get offended (duh).

So, would it be a good idea? Frankly, I don't know. Anything that protects the vulnerable elements of society is a good thing but would the protection this particular marriage creates actually achieve anything more than has been achieved already or will the resulting conglomeration become a breeding ground for egos and egomania?

I've managed around 240 words without actually writing what it is I'm on about and I think I'll go on for a bit, just to irritate you. Something else the unification (hint, there) will give rise to is comment from those with a socio-political bent.

Such folk might, for instance, wonder why, especially since a substantial protagonist has said that he's dreamed about this for nigh-on 22 years, it hasn't happened before, especially since about 10 or so years ago, the climate was very similar to that which obtains today. Such socio-political commentators might ask, mayhap, why the drawing together didn't happen then, when there was just as much reason as there is now for it to happen.

What is different in 2008 from what it was in 1997 or whenever? See, you got another hint there - pity you aren't reading this in real time, because I'd be able to offer the ineffable prize of a mention in despatches to the first person to get what the heck I'm on about.

OK, so I'll get to the point. I'm wondering whether a Trades Union Council or Congress or Federation or whatever would be a good idea, broadly speaking, or not. I'm also wondering how come such notions only ever occur to the brothers when there's a Nationalist government in power (to be honest, since that's been the case virtually for the last 20-odd years, it would be difficult for it not to have been the case, but you see what I mean).

From my longer-than-I-care-to-remember experience of watching the unions in action over the years, I suspect that not much will be added to their power to look after their members' interests if they were to get together in the way that is being proposed.

That's no reason not to get together, of course, though it would be interesting to see how, for instance, University lecturers, who, by definition, know it all (I'm only slightly teasing them) would get on with leaders of the big unions, who, by definition, think they know it all (again, only slightly...).

And then there's the danger - clear and present, if I might borrow from Tom Clancy (was it him?) - that very early on in the fun and games, postures will be struck and positions taken that will result in the whole mighty edifice coming crashing down, a bit like what happened to that Samson fellow when Tom Jones' bird (or was it Humperdinck's?) gave him a hair cut.

So there you have it. Should the unions get themselves into bed with each other? The reference in the title (track six of the sixth Strawbs album, according to Google) says it all, I suppose.

I promised to mention this next point, though it's a complete and utter non sequitur. A new acquaintance of mine, a clerical gentleman, was seeking to help a terminally-ill person cash a government cheque. These cheques are marked "only", as many people know, and quite rightly, since it's a measure to prevent abuse.

Banks, also quite rightly, have their rules and procedures.

The net result was that the cheque couldn't be cashed unless a proper power of attorney was executed, which, in the circumstances, was not a practical solution. I'm not saying that the banks shouldn't be rigorous but I sometimes hanker for the days when a branch manager had a bit more leeway and could authorise departures from the strict norm.

The computer says no too often.

imbocca@gmail.com, www.timesofmalta.com/blogs