Kick ‘anti-racism’ out of football

Spain may have run rings round England on Wednesday - but they’re miles behind the English in the scramble for the moral high ground.

Spanish fans chanted racist abuse during Spain's 1-0 victory, intimating that England's black players were little better than monkeys (a fair description of the whole team on the night, as it happens). And given England’s poor performance, all the talk in the press has been about the chanting instead. The players, appalled by the 'sick señors', were ready to walk off the pitch. 'I don’t think anybody in England or on the England team would have blamed us', said defender Rio Ferdinand. 'The abuse was disgraceful.'

Others called for the Spanish Football Association to be disciplined, while British athletes and officials were quick to use the fracas to criticise Madrid's bid for the 2012 Olympics. All of this is rank hypocrisy, using political correctness as a means of winning battles that would otherwise be lost. England's players were outclassed - and on the face of it, London's Olympic bid will be too.

But before we get all holier-than-thou about racism, we should remember it was England fans who, little more than a year ago, shouted similar abuse at Turkish players. And one of England's leading commentators and former managers, Ron Atkinson, was sacked from his TV job for called a French player a 'lazy nigger'.

But it's not just hypocritical - from a sporting point of view, it's counterproductive. England's players spent the week training in shirts declaring 'Let's Kick Racism Out of Football'. Once it became apparent that England's players could be easily wound up by racial abuse, it was inevitable that many of the Spanish fans would go for the jugular. The essence of being a football fan is to back your team, and demoralise the opposition - especially if they're prepared to give up and walk off as a result.

Far from helping to end such abuse, the furore has guaranteed that England will be getting plenty of stick from now on.

Rio was ready to walk off, The Sun, 19 November 2004

Anti-americanism in America

Two interesting commentaries in the British press today:

Timothy Garton Ash:

I'm getting seriously worried about anti-Americanism. Anti-Americanism in America, that is. Here are just a few of the things that I've heard travelling through blue, ie liberal, America over the two weeks since George Bush won the election. "The truth is, they just are stupid." (A New Yorker, of people in the red, ie conservative, states.) "The snakes." "Fascism." "Christian fascism." "I wanted to make a film about a time when young Americans fought against fascism and not for it." (A producer, explaining why he commissioned a film about the Spanish civil war.)

American blues, Guardian, 18 November 2004

He ends it by calling for a united defence of the enlightenment. In the Guardian, of all places...

...while Gerard Baker gleefully comments on the fate of the liberal policy establishment in Washington

It is not difficult to find people at the State Department who speak with open contempt of Mr Bush and his policies. Outside Manhattan, there was probably nowhere more miserable the day after his re-election in the entire country.

The day of reckoning has arrived for the Bush-hating foreign policy elite, The Times, 18 November 2004

British royalty 'elitist' - shock revelation

A former personal assistant has accused the royal household of being 'elitist, hierarchical', and run on 'Edwardian' lines. Whatever next?

Elaine Day worked as a personal assistant (PA) for Prince Charles for five years. She left Clarence House earlier this year and is now claiming sexual discrimination and unfair dismissal. She had the temerity to ask if PAs with university degrees might eventually be able to train for promotion to the status of private secretary.

A memo written by Prince Charles, and presented to the employment tribunal, expresses his horror at the idea. 'What is wrong with everyone nowadays? Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far beyond their technical capabilities?' writes Charles. 'This is the result of social utopianism which believes humanity can be genetically and socially engineered to contradict the lessons of history.' In other words, it is absolutely fine for the lower orders to work for royalty, as long as they know their place.

That Prince Charles believes this should hardly be a surprise to anyone. The very notion of royalty is that some people are better fitted to high social station simply because of their parentage. This is a backward idea, and anyone remotely interested in political and social progress would want to see the monarchy abolished as soon as possible. In fact, the stupidity of the idea of hereditary superiority is very aptly illustrated by Charles himself. It's a bit rich for him to criticise others for having ideas above their station when he is an intellectual failure whose crass contributions to a variety of public debates, from organic farming to nanotechnology, make you shudder at the thought that one day he will be head of state.

Prince Charles stuck in 'Edwardian' era, Daily Telegraph, 17 November 2004

Colin Powell: nobody's peacenik

Why is the anti-war movement so upset about the resignation of a man who declared his plan for the Iraqi army was to "kill it"?

'Colin Powell, the lone dove, quits' says the Independent. 'Hawks to rule White House roost,' declares the Australian, anticipating the appointment of Condoleezza Rice as his replacement. The tone of all the discussion is that Powell was one of the 'good guys', a lone restraining voice against the warmongering neo-conservatives in the White House.

But while Powell's style may have differed a little from others in the administration, his sole concern was the unambiguous pursuit of American interests, whatever they were deemed to be. The 'Powell Doctrine' may be summarised as follows: use force as a last resort, make it overwhelming and disproportionate to the enemy's forces, get public support, and have an exit strategy. Powell's views were coloured by the reaction to America's defeat in Vietnam, but they were not intended as any kind of anti-war strategy. Rather, his ideas were about ensuring that when wars were fought, all the necessary conditions were present for speedy victory.

So, he explained his strategy towards the Iraqi army before the first Gulf War in 1991 as, 'First we're going to cut it off, then we're going to kill it.' More recently, this meant that he was happy to act as Bush's frontman presenting the dubious evidence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to the United Nations - but he was less happy that the Coalition forces didn't invade with the overwhelming firepower that might have been used in earlier conflicts.

What is really noteworthy in this discussion is not the office politics in the White House but the fact that many of those who are anti-war now seem to regard Powell as some sort of an ally - all this following on from the liberal support for John Kerry, the hawkish veteran picked by the Democrats so that they wouldn't look soft. Isn't it time that those who claim to oppose Western intervention in Iraq and elsewhere stood up for themselves rather than relying on such dubious friends?

Military strategy: Powell Doctrine, PBS

Colin Powell, the lone dove, quits, Independent, 16 November 2004

Powell never the dove admirers imagined, Globe and Mail, 16 November 2004

Boris Johnson: you read it here first

On Friday, I wrote that Boris Johnson was not long for the Tory front bench, being far too colourful for that drab lot. And by Saturday night, he'd been sacked.

What does puzzle me a little is: why the fuss? He was the spokesman on arts, culture and sport - hardly the most high-profile of positions. He's never made a decisive political intervention in his life. In fact, his main claim to wider public fame is being made to look like a bumbling idiot on Have I Got News For You. In fact, this quote from the BBC report is absolutely typical of him:

'He answered reporters' questions after having problems opening his front door, which somebody had apparently locked from inside.'

(I once saw Johnson in the Waitrose car park in Holloway Road, London, failing miserably to get into his own car. Probably left the keys in the supermarket...)

What he does represent is the celebrity end of politics, a self-parody of a politician, which chimes with the anti-political mood of the day. What Boris Johnson actually stands for... who knows.

BBC NEWS | Politics | Boris denies 'misleading' leader

Labour 'must avoid fear campaign'

The perverse logic of David Blunkett: 'we want to win an election based on hope, not fear, but knowing that you don't give people hope by dismissing their fears'.

So, a government that has spent seven years stoking fear will now deliver a campaign based on 'hope' - that is, the hope that they can alleviate those fears. So, we'll have a variety of authoritarian measures like ID cards foisted upon us on the basis that our fears will then end and we can talk about positive stuff like... saving foxes or summat.

BBC NEWS | Politics | Labour 'must avoid fear campaign'

Woke up this mornin', got the election blues

I'm no fan of George Bush. I hate the war in Iraq (although it has ended the sanctions - nobody seemed nearly so concerned at the previous decade of misery heaped on the Iraqis). I have his illiberal views. I'm all for gay marriage, abortion rights and stem cell research. But there was nothing worth celebrating in John Kerry's platform. And I must confess to a degree of schadenfreude watching British liberals suffering.

If you're anti-militarism, why would you support a soldier for president?

If Bush is anti-science, so are many of Kerry's supporters who support Kyoto and environmentalist action even though it is backward-looking and anti-progress.

If Bush is so terrible, why would you support Kerry who had little distinctive to say?

We've heard so many complaints about the lack of democracy in America - but calling Bush a moron is no substitute for political argument, and calling his supporters morons is as anti-democratic as anything Bush has done. 'Let the people decide - as long as they choose correctly' seems to be the argument.

Having said this, here are some classic over-the-top, emotional statements after Bush's victory.

Dismally, people asked each other how long they had stayed up the night before. "Until 4.30am," said my friend Jim. "Long enough to start crying like a girl."

A friend in New York wrote: "The one consolation that people are clinging to is that he will fuck things up so badly in the next four years that the Democrats will move back into favour. That's if we still have a world." People in the city, he said, were wondering, "How we are going to survive the next four years. Unbelievable."

If we still have a world? If we survive? Some historical perspective, please!

"Ach," says Oliver James, the clinical psychologist. "I was too depressed to even speak this morning. I thought of my late mother, who read Mein Kampf when it came out in the 1930s and thought, 'Why doesn't anyone see where this is leading?'"

That's the trouble with liberals - just about everything is going to end the world: driving cars, killer bugs, right-wing presidents... Get over yourselves!

What we need is some hard-nosed politics to defend rationality, equality and freedom, not a bunch of therapy cases.

Guardian Unlimited | US elections 2004 | Woke up this mornin', got the election blues

Opportunist of the Year

Charles Kennedy's anti-war stance won him the top prize at the Spectator's parliamentary awards.

Spectator editor Boris Johnson presented the Lib Dem leader with his award saying, 'It is hard to deny that his initial political decision [to oppose the war] appears on the face of it to have been vindicated'. But Kennedy never said he opposed the war - at least, not beforehand. He only demanded that the invasion get the seal of approval from the United Nations. Either he was being dishonest, in that he really was anti-war but didn't have the nerve to say so, or he was being opportunist, trying to appeal to the anti-war movement without actually being anti-war.

Then again, given the cynical public view of our elected representatives, perhaps 'Politican of the Year' is an appropriate title for such doublespeak.

Meanwhile, media observers at last night's ceremony have been much amused by the banter between Johnson, who is also the Conservative's shadow culture spokesman, and Michael Howard, his party leader. 'I had no idea, when I appointed you, that you would take to your duties with quite such aplomb!' said Howard. 'You were keen to make your mark with the City of Culture. You wanted the people of Liverpool to get to know you better, and you have succeeded beyond my wildest expectations!' - before proceeding with much 'witty' innuendo about Johnson's love life. Some suggest there may not be a long-term future for the colourful Johnson on Howard's drab Tory front bench.

What odds on him scooping an award himself in 12 months time: Ex-politician of the Year?

Carry on up the Tories, Guardian, 12 November 2004

They voted for Bush... because they didn't know better?

Wave upon wave of commentary describes the election victory of George Bush as a symptom of the stupidity or ignorance of voters. This is jaw-droppingly arrogant when you consider how little political difference there was between the candidates. But if you tell people that to vote for one candidate rather than other is stupid, you are as likely as not to provoke a backlash.

Thankfully, Michael Moore is here to tell us the truth so that we so foolishly missed before: "Fifty-one percent of the American people lacked information [in this election]," Moore said, announcing a sequel to Fahrenshite 9/11. "We want to educate and enlighten them. They weren't told the truth."

BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Film | Moore to make Fahrenheit sequel

The thin blue direct line

David Blunkett has announced changes to the way Britain is policed. But is it wise for the police to treat the public as customers?

While much of the discussion has focused on the idea of getting 'bobbies on the beat', the underlying premise of the new proposals is to change the nature of the relationship between police and public. Instead of a 'police force', imposing legal sanction on the public as necessary and commanding respect, there has been a steady trend over a number of years towards the idea of a 'police service' who not only have to catch criminals but answer the phone promptly and stick to their appointments.

'We won't put up with the situation where people cannot get through [to call centres], they are frustrated when they do, where people have not been trained to prioritise, where they do not actually give people a clear idea of what's going to take place,' said Blunkett. This only reveals how little legitimacy the police and government feel they have now. The police are widely seen to have failed in their stated purpose - to protect the public and private property. Unable to lay down the law, the authorities are now trying to connect with us, as if acknowledging our hardships and being seen to try their best is an adequate substitute for tackling crime. The police are thus reinventing themselves as just another service industry.

When the Automobile Association (AA) advertised itself as 'the fourth emergency service', it caused considerable controversy. But now it's the police advertising themselves as 'little different from the AA'.

Blunkett unveils policing plans, BBC News, 9 November 2004

Regional assemblies: auf wiedersehen, pet

If Geordies don't want New Labour's regional assemblies, no-one does.

Figures announced on Thursday night showed that 78 per cent had voted 'no' to the proposed assembly, with 22 per cent in favour. The north-east was the first to hold a referendum on the grounds that it was the most likely to agree to the plans - but the tactic backfired spectacularly.

'The North East public have answered in an emphatic way. I am a democrat and I accept that,' said deputy prime minister John Prescott who was in charge of the regional assembly campaign and whose own feeble reputation took another blow. John Elliott of the North East Says No campaign told the BBC, 'I would rather John Prescott has two weeks' embarrassment than us be saddled with a £25m white elephant.'

The idea of regional assemblies was to try to reconnect with the people by bringing government closer to them. But the problem is not that decisions are made in Westminster rather than Newcastle - rather, it is that none of the people making the decisions has any vision for how society could be made better or, in fact, substantially different. As a result, politicians appear as a self-serving group of people who never do anything for 'ordinary' people. Creating regional assemblies just adds another layer - as similar initiatives in Scotland, Wales and London have only too clear demonstrated.

In fact, the cynicism towards politicians is so great almost any political initiative at the moment is likely to be rejected because no-one believes that politicians have our best interests at heart. Still, perhaps the government can take comfort from the relatively high turnout: 48 per cent. Perhaps at last they've found something we can all unite around: hating the government.

North East votes 'no' to assembly, BBC News, 5 November 2004

Free speech: a comic turn

When British comedian Jeremy Hardy suggested that British National Party (BNP) members and voters be shot, he was only being ironic - right?

Hardy made the comment on his BBC Radio 4 programme 'Jeremy Hardy Speaks to the Nation'. The comment was sufficiently embarrassing for Radio 4 to issue an apology. But while Hardy may not be a violent man, he has been one of the most high-profile supporters of the Anti-Nazi League, who have campaigned on the slogan 'No platform for fascists' - including the BNP. After a protest against the Edinburgh University lecturer Chris Brand, he described free speech as 'liberal rot'.

So, he must be pretty annoyed that Burnley Council, now with six BNP councillors, has responded to his Radio 4 comments by cancelling a show Hardy was due to do at the council-owned Mechanics Theatre. Mick Cartledge, Burnley's director of community services, said in a press release: 'We recognise Mr Hardy's right to voice his sometimes controversial views and the role of satire in his act. However, as a result of his comments, we do not the feel the event will be a night of comedy, and that the performance has the potential to be disruptive. The Council has a duty of care to both its staff and customers and as a result the performance has been cancelled.'

Burnley's decision is censorship, pure and simple. If they really recognised his right to be controversial, they would not have banned the show. But will Hardy be complaining about this denial of his rights? That really would be ironic.

Comic's show is axed after protest from BNP, Burnley Today, 29 October 2004