April Fool’s Day falling on the third day of the UK General Election 2015 campaign is a godsend for political hacks, journalists and comedians. But with political parties, especially Ukip so prone to the unbelievable and public relations disasters anyway, how does one tell Ukip fiction from fact?
These are just some of 13 stories out there about Ukip from the last 24 hours or so, how many can you identify as jokes rather than less funny actual policies?
(3) Ukip wants to cut net migration rates to the UK by 90% from 300,000 to 30,000 a year and will ban immigrant benefits for 5 years.
(4) As part of a tourism initiative and two fingers up to France before the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo, this June, Ukip wants to clean up the Kent coastline, to keep the ‘white’ cliffs of Dover, white. Napoleon had plans to invade the UK.
(5) Ukip officials, including Nigel Farage, comment on secret late-night meeting by Farage to Ed Miliband‘s home, which lasted 3 hours, sources said. Farage corrected Michael Crick, the Channel 4 journalist, that it was actually 5 hours.
(6) Ukip candidate, Jeremy Zeid, resigns after suggesting Barack Obama should be kidnapped by Israel special forces.
(7) Teenagers should not be allowed to vote on a EU referendum since they have been brainwashed by “colouring-in books on the Common Agricultural Policy”.
(8) In any coalition deal with Ukip, Nigel Farage feels the best fit ministerial portfolio for himself would be to develop a Minister for Tourism.
(9) In a vague reference to the Bedroom tax, aka Spare room subsidy, a Ukip candidate has called for a “spare womb tax“. Allegedly, the PPC “went off on one about how we should tax all those women who are failing the UK by not having kids. Especially since all the foreigners coming over here have at least 20 children each.”
(10) Interview on UK Christian broadcaster, Premier Radio, on why Ukip is enjoying a rise in support from Christians ahead of the general election.
(11) Marxist mind benders – “Over the past 30 years they have changed the way we speak and the way we think… I want to see a revolution in this country – a common sense revolution where we begin to say “no thanks” to the Cultural Marxist politically correct mind benders.”
(12) Ukip wants to “cut Britain free from the European human rights regime”.
(13) Ukip would introduce an Australian-style points immigration system and use an X-Factor-like panel with four officials voting on admission to the UK. Each migrant requesting a visa to enter and work here would need approval from at least three of the four officials.
How many Ukip policy jokes did you spot this April Fool’s? Just 4 are outright jokes and 2 are mixed truth and fiction, a full 7 are actual policy statements – but which ones?
Today is the first full working day of the UK General Election 2015 campaign, the MPs are now just prospective Parliamentary candidates but some of Labour’s former MPs are keeping their distance from the immigration mugs in their online shop.
But for a moment, let’s celebrate – we have no MPs! Parliament has prorogued and dissolved. Anarchy in the UK! On a more serious note, the psephologists are number crunching, which we all know means the return of the swingometer and ever so accurate and meaningful poll predictions. Basically the Tories and Labour are neck to neck, but on day one it is Labour who are up to their necks in it.
Other issues from the weekend such as:
Labour’s “no” more borrowing and “yes” more borrowing
Conservative’s no third term for Cameron
Tony Blair’s offer of financial support curse
These were all dead and buried as old news after Labour created ‘better’ bad news!
It was barely an hour into day one of the official election campaigns and already immigration was the number one topic, or at least the mugs in Labour’s shop were.
Labour Anti-immigration mug
#MugGate, as it will no doubt come to be called, is all about Labour‘s Five Pledges, most of which are fairly non-descript and non-specific, but #4 “Controls on Immigration” was what caught everyone’s attention.
Labour have done nothing but apologise for the two things the polls say they are weak on, namely, the economy and immigration – respectively, the Tories and UKIP’s campaign strengths. Or, if like me – an ardent pro-migration and diversity activist, their weaknesses.
There were 500 mugs available, now around 90 – so over 400 bought! Probably by Tories, journalists and people like me thinking these will be worth a fortune on eBay after Labour tries to recall them as a damage limitation exercise.
Anti-Immigration Rhetoric
The criticisms that Labour were using not just Tory immigration rhetoric but UKIP’s were all over Twitter and the several Labour MPs including Sadiq Khan and Chuka Umunna said they wouldn’t buy one either. Another Labour MP, Diane Abbott, called them “shameful”. and an “embarrassment“, and the “real problem is that immigration controls are one of our 5 pledges at all”:
This shameful mug is an embarrassment. But real problem is that immigration controls are one of our 5 pledges at all pic.twitter.com/4xslD22Gcm
Paul Bernal in a blog post, somewhat inevitably called “Storm in a Tea Cup“, drew attention to what he thought could have been five better pledges by Labour. I doubt anyone is calling for completely open borders, but to make immigration controls a leading campaign pledge, is neither Old Labour nor New Labour but some kind of aping of the Right and the perception that immigration is one of the biggest public fears. It may well be, but if so why not take the high ground and make the positive economic and cultural case for immigration to the people. Don’t make it a race to the bottom and sink to the level of UKIP.
Renowned socialist and Guardian journalist, Owen Jones, called them “Farage wannabe mugs”, calling on Labour to give the people “hope”, rather than fuelling immigrant hate:
“Fancy a brew in my ‘Controls for immigration mug’?”. Seriously, Labour. Scrap your Farage wannabe mugs and give people some bloody hope
Last November, Ed Miliband announced plans to ban EU migrant benefits for 2 years, and a week later David Cameron responded by saying he would bar them for 4 years! Of course Nigel Farage would never let them in, in the first place by leaving the EU, although he would no doubt remain married to his German wife.
Election Campaign Merchandise
Another thing that surprised me was seeing how commercial the whole fundraising and marketing angle of the campaigns were. I did not know that each party except George Galloway’s Respect Party had an online shop and election merchandise.
The Green Party have rushed out a “Standing up for migrants” response to Labour mug within hours:
“Last week Labour released their “controlling immigration” mug. Here at The Green Party we believe in standing up for migrants’ rights. If you share the belief that we must all work together for the common good, join us in drinking from this mug! N.B. Exact design TBC. Coming soon”
The LibDem mug can’t actually be searched for on their website because all searches must contain at least 4 characters, which rules out “mug”! Although if you search for “mugs” you’ll be steered towards the only search result, a customised mug with your favourite LibDem MP, MEP or Lord on it! Browse by category and you’ll find the other 18 mugs on offer. Lesson – don’t let the LibDems build the next Government website!
There’s also an “I’m a counsellor” mug in the Welsh products section. I always thought that counsellors counseled whereas councillors stood for office, even in Wales.
The Tories have an illustration in their kitchen shop of mugs but no mugs for sale, hastily removed, perhaps, after Labour #MugGate? Though, for the price of Labour’s mug £5 you could buy “36 Blue cupcake cases“. By far the largest section of their online shop contains 23 Maggie memorabilia items. Many of the items elsewhere in the shop, including the baby clothing department, are actually green and not blue. Get in quick with your “Future Prime Minister” bib to replace David Cameron in the Parliament after next…
Labour are also selling replica posters from 1945 “Labour for Him/Her” with 70 year old campaign messages.
Future economic policies could perhaps be gleaned from the online shop Party political pricing. Labour and Green mugs are £5, SNP £6, the LibDems, “we won’t cut as much as Labour or Tory”, £7.50, and the Tory mugs were no doubt scrapped during the austerity cuts or vetoed by George Osborne. Plaid Cymru are positively encouraging migration to Wales as they are only charging £3!
The Political is Personal
David Cameron has said that the political is more than just personal, it is “national”, and made the campaign trail a straight choice between the Churchill-Cameron strong man or Ed “two kitchens” Miliband chaos.
So one of the very things that turns people off politics, is back to centre stage – personality politics. The soundbites are more about the Cameron v Miliband, than Conservative v Labour. Whilst Labour are fairly solid, repeated polls suggest that Miliband has the lowest approval rating of all the party leaders. Whether level-pegging or just ahead Labour would win more seats because of our demographic electoral system, however they are likely to fall short of a majority.
Whilst the USA has its Tea Party, here in the UK, in 6 weeks time, it will likely be a case of choosing which coalition set of mugs to form the next Government, and which get sold off on eBay at Poundland prices.
STOP PRESS: Jeremy Clarkson and Top Gear team to return
But on Amazon Prime online video streaming in 2016 not the BBC. Meanwhile Top Gear will return to the BBC but with a different team. The schadenfreude is palpable as the BBC reports on their own loss of a profitable though oft inappropriate franchise.
In an Amazon statement, Jeremy Clarkson said:
“I feel like I’ve climbed out of a biplane and into a spaceship.”
Richard Hammond quipped:
“Amazon? Oh yes. I have already been there. I got bitten by a bullet ant.”
James May saw the perhaps double irony:
“We have become part of the new age of smart TV. Ironic, isn’t it?”
BBC suspends Top Gear’s Jeremy Clarkson amid mass Change.org petition
Whatever the “fracas” and nature of petulant millionaire star twat Jeremy Clarkson‘s “interaction” with a BBC producer, there’s nothing like a Top Gear fiasco (one of many over the years) to get the nation raging along with over 1 million signatories on a Change.org petition delivered this week by self-propelled big gun, aka tank (probably the slowest vehicle to appear in relation to Top Gear), to BBC HQ. It is just such a shame that this is what energises us and not more significant world matters.
Clarkson hinted that he was on the way out and had no fear, now that the internal inquiry is over – though not published, in berating his BBC bosses with a f*** laden foul-mouthed tirade at their idiocy at potentially ruining the Top Gear formula.
Diverse Top Gear Replacements
Suggestions to replace him have included Sue Perkins, Julian Clary, and Alan Partridge. Whilst they are all comedians, at least Perkins would not be sexist (towards women at least), neither she nor Clary would be homophobic, and any of Partridge’s foreign jokes would be obvious parody and satire. Other comedians who’ve appeared in the Star in a Reasonably Priced Car race around the Top Gear test track have included Eddie Izzard, Omid Djalili, and Sanjeev Bhaskar – all of whom would counter the alleged racism of the show.
Having Ellen MacArthur, Jennifer Saunders, or Jodie Kidd, on as the fastest women on the track would prove it doesn’t need 3 blokey blokes to present it – although that is the formula to date, and a politically correct presenter team would be as bad as the minimum female comedienne to be included on all panel shows which smacks of tokenism and harms female comedians standing in their own right.
Top Gear Matters to the BBC
Forget the impending General Election, Islamic State, Boko Haram, austerity crisis, the real serious issues of the day are the state of England cricket team – actually, that is pretty bad – and Clarkson’s latest open mouth (insert foot, boot, and massive car) bad boy laddish humour, allegedly watched by an audience almost equally split between men and women (60:40).
Top Gear, Clarkson, and his 4.63m twitter followers, are the BBC’s greatest export (yes, bigger than Doctor Who), greatest that is in financial rather than cultural terms. Bedder 6, as the anonymous company is called, helps to draw in £150m a year for BBC Worldwide from Top Gear from 150-350m viewers across 170 countries and spin-offs.
Top Gear’s Political Incorrectness
In the last 3 years Top Gear and Clarkson have scaled new heights of profitability and popularity – apparently it is 30x more likely to be tweeted about by Ukip voters -and yet, simultaneously, ploughed new depths of political incorrectness.
Just this week it was announced that in December Top Gear had somehow been cleared by the BBC of using “pikey” in a derogatory manner, to the utter dismay of representatives of Traveller communities.
The show is often no-holds-barred macho-masculine pub banter comedy that has comprised insults around race, nationality, sex, and disability. Just read some of Clarkson’s own attempts to be positive about women and yet explain the lack of female representation on the show itself:
“if one presenter on a show is a blonde-haired, blue-eyed heterosexual boy, the other must be a black Muslim lesbian. Chalk and cheese, they reckon, works. But here we have Top Gear setting new records after six years using cheese and cheese. It confuses them… Unlike furious thin-lipped feminists, I tend not to draw distinctions between men and women, apart from in bed where you really do need to spot the differences. At work, girls are just people.”
Conservative MP Maria Miller, has offered support for Clarkson, despite her being a former Disability, Women and Equality Minister. Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s The World at One, she said:
“The BBC needs to be better at managing its talent … there are other organisations that have to deal with larger-than-life characters…[he] is…a legend, not just in this country, but around the world.”
Legends, however, are extinct people, like the dinosaurs, something that Clarkson himself, in his column in The Sun, admits to being.
“The fact is that you can sign as many petitions as you like and call on the support of politicians from all sides, but the day must come when you have to wave goodbye to the big monsters and move on… I think it’s fair to say that nature made a mistake when it invented the dinosaur. It was too big, too violent. So one day, all the dinosaurs died and now, many years later, no one mourns their passing. These big, imposing creatures have no place in a world which has moved on.”
Does this mean that Clarkson should go the way of the dinosaurs and gas-guzzling cars? That a petition to reinstate him is as pointless as one to bring back Terry Pratchett – however, wonderful a tribute to the latter author?
Change.org Petition to #BringBackClarkson
A record making petition on Change.org had accelerated to nearly 600,000 signatures in barely a day (now over 1,112,000), easily eclipsing more political or ethical campaigns such as the pardon for 49,000 gay men prosecuted in the UK for acts now considered legal. The site’s popularity is such that I could not even get on to it to check the count at 10pm Wednesday night, as it was down with an “Error 502 Bad Gateway” , unless that was some political ploy due to the embarrassment of its success. Well it’s back now, seemingly the site is crashing under Clarkson’s popularity, and advocating the “Freedom to fracas” and with comments including:
“I pay my TV license to ensure that irreverent people can express themselves. If you become boarding [sic] and politically correct, you may disappear BBC.” and “A minority of over sensitive people should not ruin one of Britons [sic] favourite shows.”
I wouldn’t call allegedly hitting a producer over a lack of hot food and xenophobically referencing his Irish nationality, an act of irreverence nor suspending someone for that act, “over sensitive”. That the two most popular comments both had spelling mistakes should not lead anyone to any stereotypical conclusion. They were probably texting whilst driving their fast cars!
BBC Public Service Priorities
As a public service broadcaster with essentially a tax or compulsory licence fee, the BBC’s priorities should not be mere entertainment or subsidised insults.
It is remarkable that the trending twitterati are more interested in #BringBackClarkson than the all but forgotten #BringBackOurGirls. Viewers are more interested in bringing back fast cars and coarse humour than in rescuing Boko Haram kidnapped girls in Nigeria, ending FGM, freeing imprisoned journalists or teen suicides – campaigns that are now in the shadow of “a bit of a knob”, as co-presenter James May describes Jeremy Clarkson. Multiple petitions calling on the BBC to sack him have also launched, although you can be sure they won’t race to half-a-million signatures so fast, they’ve barely reached a 1000.
Be the Change.org Petitions to get behind
Some campaigns have reached a million signatures, but never so fast. For instance, a million people worldwide signed to save Meriam Ibrahim, the Sudanese woman sentenced to death for apostasy. Nearly as many called for the release of Iranian woman, Ghoncheh Ghavami, jailed for attending a volleyball match.
“You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” – Mahatma Gandhi
HuffPost has drawn up a list of better campaigns to get behind, though not the most important ones it could have got behind, perhaps. Why not:
“Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.” – Barack Obama
The limits of Satire, Comedy & Humour
In my past I’ve enjoyed Top Gear, some of the banter and car challenges, but I’ve squirmed at the sexist racist humour Humour is one thing, the question is whether it’s actually deeply held bigotry disguised as humour, or an ever-so clever parody of “UKIP white van man racism” – which will no doubt be seen as offensive to white van men. The thing about satire and parody is that they often fail, as with Comedy Central’s Colbert Report on race and trans issues, when delivered by people in the majority who’ve not experienced prejudice, whereas the Kumars making fun of being Indian is.
What makes the parody both unlikely and unbelievable is that either Clarkson is a bigot or he maintains the persona off-screen as well. To Clarkson, even his suspension is just another joke, despite knowing he was on his last warning.
I’ve done stand-up comedy myself, and made it a rule to only insult and offend myself, not others – although I can’t stop some still choosing to take offence.
Top Gear‘s humour is pub or front room banter, the kind you use when you think nobody is watching – but there are tens, if not hundreds, of millions that are.
And this is the “British values” we should be so proud of exporting? I’m all for freedom of speech, but allegedly hitting your employer’s staff, insulting other nations, and expecting to not only get away with it but get paid millions for it?
Whilst the infraction was off-air, it is no less abusive of workplace colleagues and bullying, despite it not being part of an aired programme. According to The Mirror, he called Oisin Tymon:
“a “lazy, Irish c***” before splitting his lip with a punch that left the 36-year-old with blood running down his face and needing treatment in A&E, the BBC investigation will be told.”
Hitting is not humour, and nor was it his first public punch up. If the rest of the show is very clever parody like Alan Partridge or Comedy Central, then it does not work. It is very hard to successfully satire racism, sexism, ableism and homophobia, all of which have appeared on Top Gear. All the more so when it fuels the white male entitlement patriarchy rather than challenges it.
“Top Gear is an escapist post modern light comedy entertainment show; the vital ingredients being Clarkson, May, Hammond and cars will keep it on the Beeb for a while to come.”
Apart from what may be a short-lived 2011 prediction of its long-term longevity, I beg to differ. Their lives on and off the screen are making stereotypical jokes, setting chauvinist poor role models, and should not be the BBC’s best export. The fact that it is popular in human rights violating China and Putin’s Russia should not be a cause for celebration if it encourages their sexism, xenophobia, and homophobia, rather than challenges it.
“If you don’t like something, change it. If you can’t change it, change your attitude.” – Maya Angelou
Jeremy Clarkson – change your attitude, everyone else sign some petitions and be the change! If we are evolved at all, it is time the politically incorrect (such a polite term for sexist racist ableist homophobes) dinosaurs died out.
The Labour Party Shadow Cabinet Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has promised today to clamp down on immigration, yet a year ago, said Labour will not enter an “arms race of rhetoric on immigration” … yet does. What is more, she clearly believes in recycling as half of today’s speech on immigration is 13 months old.
In the polls Labour is barely a few points ahead of the Conservatives, despite their expenses debacle over Maria Miller, and is little more trusted than the Tories. Nobody trusts the Lib-Dems for having gone to bed with the Tory government in coalition leaving Nigel Farage and the further right UKIP free to wipe the floor with Nick Clegg in the TV political debates, that Labour and Conservative leaders refused to partake in. Politics and politicians are back to an all time low. So to resurrect trust, they pick an ‘easy’ subject, soft target – immigration, one on which UKIP do well at the polls, in order to gain political traction and voter empathy. If only it were not the wrong policy, feeding on fears and not hopes, as with Clegg and Farage’s clash in the televised EU debate. Polls show UKIP on 25-29% for the European elections.
It’s also bad timing as Britain’s first Asian male, of Pakistani immigrant parents, whose father worked hard as a bus driver, so that he could become Chase Manhattan Bank’s youngest VP at 25, becomes Equalities Minister in the Government. So as someone of ‘immigrant stock’ gets to the top, Labour complain about non-graduate immigration, the very parentage from which Sajid Javid emerged.
It is another form of class discrimination to have Australian-styled points systems for immigration, to only allow in highly skilled and qualified foreigners, and to turn away low-skilled desperate working class migrants – not very socialist.
She told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that “exploitation attracted low-skilled migrants, when the UK should actually be trying to attract university graduates.”
Labour allegedly got it badly wrong on immigration in their last decade in power, as Cooper admits today, again, “the last Labour government got things wrong on immigration”, and that they were committed to reintroducing full exit checks at UK borders, previously scrapped by the Labour when they were last in government. Not an apology as such, and not really necessary, if, like me, you believe in immigration, multiculturalism and healthy workplace competition.
Protectionist policies are actually very nationalistic and counter globalisation and international aid. People willing to enter this country at their own expense to take on low paid jobs, to literally “get on a bike” – to coin a phrase that when last said by a Tory minister, didn’t go down well – to find a job, even if in another country, should be praised not pariahed.
Socialism only for one’s own country is a nationalistic self-interest. Worldwide betterment and welfare of all would embrace anyone working to feed their family. So long as decent minimum wage controls are in place to prevent employer exploitation then a fair wage is on offer to anyone willing and able to take the job. British people should already have a natural advantage due to their location, education, and own-language fluency – should, I say, but may not due to poor education, training, mobility, motivation etc. There is no need or ethical basis to protect ‘our own’ over ‘immigrant’ competition. To do so, rubbishes the ethics of socialism and international welfare in the name of national interest – for which, read, political self-interest, a phrase that David Cameron has also repeated today, “Britain’s National Interest”, which apparently “sum up everything we are about in Europe.”
So, as Yvette Cooper claims, if Labour win, they would make the exploitation of migrant workers a crime, I wonder if she is protecting their political interest rather than the welfare of migrant workers, who in the same breath she would restrict the numbers of, which is not protecting them. The real aim is to reassure British voters that they will not have undue competition for their jobs and hence Labour votes. But even Patrick Wintour in the Guardian sees the proposal as “legally fraught … giving the state greater control over the setting of wages in the private sector above and beyond the minimum wage.”
It is already illegal to exploit migrant workers, it is just hard to enforce, and workers are unlikely to complain for fear of losing their jobs, or not knowing their rights. So Labour is not bringing in anything new, just tinkering for political gain and to reverse their reputation on immigration.
Her measures are nothing new, and the current Government are already “doubling the maximum fine for employers found using illegal workers … a four-fold increase in fines for firms not paying the minimum wage and increased penalties for landlords housing migrants in illegal premises.” Blatant employment of substantial illegal immigrant workers already merits potential jail terms of up to two years and unlimited fines.
Yvette Cooper also said, “When people go to work in other countries in Europe they don’t expect to be able to claim benefits as soon as they arrive and likewise, I don’t think people should expect to when they come here,” – that could have been said just as easily by a Tory or UKIP spokesperson. The current rhetoric on immigration is knee-jerk political fear that it will cost them votes unless they at least ‘sound’ tough on immigration, and the causes of immigration.
Yet Cooper kept harping on about not having:
“an arms race in rhetoric, but practical policies instead”
“But we won’t enter an arms race ofrhetoric on immigration – and we hope the Prime Minister won’t either. That’s not honest, or good for Britain.”
It seems to be her favourite soundbite of the moment, if a moment can last over a year. Today, according to the Guardian she was planning to attack the approach of UKIP, saying that having simplistic solutions:
“ramps up the rhetoric, raises false promises and expectations, undermines trust and confidence, and creates division and hostility …”
“We won’t engage in an arms race ofrhetoric, and we reject the divisive politics of the right that promotes hostility instead of building consensus .”
“We will never compete in an arms race of rhetoric. We will never conduct the debate in way that whips up tensions and hostility.”
Last year, in the same speech, she accused the current Government of being:
“engaged in a frenzy of briefing and rhetoric“
and ended by saying:
“It means no rhetorical arms race, just sensible and practical proposals…”
So, all that has changed is proposals have become policies, yet the rhetoric remains the same.
Take, for instance, last December, when Yvette was still on the same song in an article she wrote in the Daily Mirror that the Government’s ministers’ had:
“ramped up rhetoric looks more like panic than plan. Instead of chasing headlines that increase concern and hostility, David Cameron should concentrate on sensible policies to help. Labour won’t join in a Dutch auction of tough language that helps no one.”
Yet that is all Cooper’s words are, “tough language”, allegedly in response to having “listened and learned”. Rather, it is all politicians fearing the rise of UKIP and losing the moral and media battle on immigration. They are listening to the polls and not their political principles, afraid of losing the next election not of making a better world for us all to live in, one with a great multicultural Britain, without racism, prejudice and phobias of several kinds.
Cooper also chooses some strange examples and stereotypes in her speech, suggesting that immigration has given us “Trinidadians on our hospital wards” and that the Norman Conquest was immigration not invasion!
Despite some of the highest levels of immigration in Europe we also have one of the lowest unemployment figures and now the highest growth figures of all Western developed economies. So, clearly, immigration is good for us. We should not forget that over 2.2 million Brits have emigrated to Europe alone from our shores. It is time to end the “arms race of rhetoric” over immigration, by Labour, Tory, and UKIP, combatants and to start seeing immigration and multiculturalism as a blessing to British society, adding to its richness and diversity. Nobody is selling the positives of healthy immigration.
This is an edited, updated version of an article I first published here. I’ve previously written about the scaremongering over Romanian and Bulgarian immigration and the positive benefits of immigration and multiculturalism since migrants are less likely to claim benefits, more likely to contribute fiscally and 99% come here for work, education and family, not for the alleged welfare benefits.