Cameron: A Man with a Van (with a slogan)

Firstly, I must start off with an apology. I haven't been writing as much as I planned to recently, because I've been away for a few days. Hopefully, I'll be able to write more in the coming weeks and months. Anyway, moving on...

Last week saw large billboard van commissioned by the Home Office warning illegal immigrants to "Go home or face arrest". These vans were trialled in six London boroughs (Ealing, Brent, Hounslow, Redbridge, Barking and Dagenham), not notorious for illegal immigrants. So, what is the motivation behind this campaign?

The slogan could be interpreted in a way that isolates legal immigrants who have a right to live and work here, and could lead to an increase in racially aggravated attacks on ethnic minorities. Whilst this hasn't been proven, or any suggestion of it being made in the national press, it is still worth considering. Likewise, the billboards did make it clear they were targeting illegal immigrants, rather than those legally living in the UK. But, the way that the media has grabbed hold of the story, focussing on the "Go home or face arrest" aspect rather than the illegal immigrant part.

Another motivation of this campaign could be a massive publicity stunt. After the Conservatives' huge failure at the local elections in May 2013, losing 335 councillors (that's 23% of the number held before the elections), mostly to UKIP - perceived to be stronger on immigration - David Cameron wanted his Party to be seen to take a strong stance against UKIP, and against immigration. Reading an article in The Guardian, only a couple of people had seen these moving billboards around the six London boroughs. So, maybe the announcement was only for big publicity, to be seen as been tough on immigration.

This is what I don't like about David Cameron. He always seems to jump on the bandwagon whenever it comes to the major policy areas that matters to the people. He does this whenever it comes to Prime Minister's Questions and he is questioned about the flat-lining economy, he instead turns his blame on Labour saying "Labour got us in to this mess" (I'm assuming that he's just practicing his election campaign motto for 2015!). He jumped on the bandwagon with the Queen's Diamond Jubilee and the London Olympics last year, Andy Murray's Wimbledon success and the birth of the Royal Baby, Prince George this year, and will continue to do so whilst distracting the public's attention from the poor economic state that neither he, nor George Osborne, has helped in his last three years. But, I'm sure come 2015, David Cameron won't care. He'll still say "Don't vote Labour, we'll go back to the mess of 2010!" rather than actually offering a viable alternative! In fairness, Labour aren't much better, as they haven't even suggested an alternative either, but come 2015, Labour should show their cards and their policies.

So, hopefully, the public will see through these vans and these slogans, as either a "call to arms" against illegal immigrants, or as a publicity stunt to show that they aren't going to roll over against UKIP's sudden rise to popularity. Either way, Cameron's jumping again!!

Arise, "Sir" Andy??

So, a Brit has finally won Wimbledon after 77 years of disappointments. Andy Murray, loved by some, and hated by others, beat Novak Djokovic in straight sets on Sunday afternoon to win the Wimbledon trophy, and is the most recent British man to win it since Fred Perry in 1936. This was an amazing achievement. A British man winning a Grand Slam (that is any one from Wimbledon, the French Open, the Australian Open or the US Open) is big news itself. Before Andy Murray, the last British person to win a senior Grand Slam was Fred Perry in 1936 (winning the US Open as well as Wimbledon that year). Then Murray himself broke that record last autumn to win the US Open.

In reaction to his win yesterday, Murray had a full day of media commitments and visits, including a visit to Number 10 Downing Street, where he toasted his victory with none other than Prime Minister David Cameron, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, Leader of the Opposition Ed Miliband and Angus Robertson from the Scottish National Party (Alex Salmond, the leader of the SNP, was busy, probably pre-occupied with hating the English, or something of the like). David Cameron even claimed that Andy Murray should be knighted in celebration of his victory. Now, I'm not taking anything away from Andy Murray, but becoming a Sir for winning a tennis tournament? Seems a bit extravagant. Obviously, Cameron is convinced that trying to distract the public from the flat-lining economy and the poverty that the poorest in our society are currently in because his Government are removing essential benefits from those who need it most, and taxing spare bedrooms in council housing, all whilst claiming that "we're all in this together", will work in getting his party re-elected at the 2015 General Election (rant over!). And, I'm sure when Kate and Wills have their baby during this month at some point, David Cameron will be one of the first to jump on the national happiness bandwagon by encouraging everyone to ignore the economic gloom, and instead be out partying because a future king/queen has just been born.

This hijacking of someone else's achievements for your own self-interests isn't what annoys me most. Its the fact htat Andy Murray has only won Wimbledon. I say "only", as stated previously, a Brit winning a major tennis tournament hasn't happened since before the Second World War, but what I mean is that by all means, he deserves recognition (e.g. an OBE/MBE, or Sports Personality of the Year, or similar), but a knighthood? Isn't that a bit of an over-reaction? Surely if he is knighted, should Olympians from last summer's Olympics and Paralympians be offered the same reward? Greg Rutherford, for winning Gold at the long jump? Mo Farah, for winning double Gold at the 5,000 and 10,000 meters? Or, more widely, the England Cricket team of 2005, who won the Ashes after 20/30 years of not regaining them? (They got MBEs/OBEs, but not knighthoods!) Or Lewis Hamilton, the first British Formula 1 World Champion this millennium? The England Rugby team who won the Rugby World Cup in 2003? The list of British sporting achievements which merit recognition goes on.

There may even be a case for Chris Froome to be knighted, if he wins the Tour de France (which, as a side point, I really hope he does). After all, Bradley Wiggins won it last year and was knighted, so shouldn't Chris Froome should as well? Well, no. Here, I think, lies the point of knighthoods. Bradley Wiggins is the most decorated British Olympian of all time, and that was the real reason why he was knighted. Not taking anything away from his Tour de France win (because I can barely ride a bike for 20 miles, let alone 200 miles, in a day, and then doing it for three straight weeks as fast as you possibly could go... wow!), but he has been winning and being successful for the past 14 years (since his first medal in the 1998 Commonwealth Games). Sir Steve Redgrave is a similar case - he won medals in five consecutive Olympic Games from 1988 until 2000 including 5 Gold Medals. That just proves he is not a one-hit-wonder. Sir Chris Hoy is exactly the same (6 Golds and 1 Silver across 12 years). Not taking anything away from Andy Murray (I am not one of those people who loathe him), I support knighting him, if he deserves it. If, in ten years time, he has won everything there is to win on the tennis world stage, and has been world number 1, and maintained his current level of success well in to the latter stages of his career, then sure, those achievements should be recognised. However, if (and I really don't wish this is the case) he returns to his pattern of getting to semi-finals but losing to the big three of Rafa Nadal, Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic, then, in my opinion, he should not be knighted.

So, "Arise, Sir Andy"?? Hopefully in a decade's time, when he has achieved all that there is to achieve in the world of tennis, but the time is not right. Yet.

Nigel Farage: All Voice and No Ideas?

Yesterday morning, I heard Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) being interviewed by Victoria Derbyshire on BBC Radio 5Live (the programme of which is available to listen to on the BBC iPlayer website). Thinking that it was strange for the leader of what has been considered as a protest party appearing on big-time radio, I listened closely, assuming what I believe most people think: that UKIP is a far-right party, which differs from the British Nazi National Party only by being a little less racist. But listening to Farage more and more, it started to dawn on me that this man could perform in confrontational interviews. Victoria Derbyshire wasn't one to sit on the fence, and attacked Farage on his economic policies, claiming they don't add up, but Farage vehemently defended his policies. I haven't heard much from Farage (I'm not one who supports right-wing politics), other than Farage's own attack on the President of the European Union, Herman van Rompuy (well worth a look on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dranqFntNgo), but after the discussion on the radio this morning, where he also fielded questions from callers, I think he came out rather well.

He has energy that both David Cameron and Ed Miliband lack (imagine him laying into either the PM or the Leader of the Opposition at Prime Ministers Questions!), and even if his political beliefs leave a lot to be desired, as a political character, I can see a lot of people voting for him, even if it as a so-called "protest vote" against the Big Three of the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats. This was obvious in the May 2013 Council Elections, where in previous Local Elections, UKIP have done poorly (admittedly, because few UKIP councillors stood for election), but this time round, they won 147 council seats, up from the 8 they had from those councils last time they were up for election (which was 2009, incidentally). This gain of 1737% is a huge jump on four years ago, and is the best result for a party outside of the Big Three since the Second World War.

The problem that faces the so-called "clowns", "loonies" and "fruit-cakes" as David Cameron and other members of his Cabinet have described UKIP, is the public perception of themselves. People see them as closet-racists, convinced that if they come to power, UKIP will force out anyone who does not fit the criteria of being "British": i.e. white, middle-class, born in Britain, like cricket, drink tea etc. If UKIP have any chance of gaining power, Middle England is unlikely to vote for them, for the same reason people don't vote for the BNP: perceived racism is bad. So, I suppose the real reason why Nigel Farage appeared on prime-time radio yesterday morning was to try to dispel that very label. To show people that they are a viable party which is legitimate, and not just the protest vote that the Lib Dems were before they got in to coalition with the Conservatives. I think a lot will depend on the next two years. If the economy is in a significantly better state than it is now, or if Ed Miliband becomes a stronger leader than he is now, and rebrands himself to appeal to voters, then UKIP's influence in 2015 will be little, if not none. If, however, the economy continues to flat-line, and Miliband continues to be the weak leader, both of the Labour Party and at PMQs, then Nigel Farage's party may have influence in the form of a couple of seats in the House of Commons. A lot, it seems, rests on the next two years. Farage may find he has a voice after all.

From the Archive: A Gerneration Inspired?

From the Archive: First published 14th August 2012

So, that’s it. The curtain has fallen on arguably the greatest show on Earth, and definitely on the greatest sporting show in the world. London 2012 has seen Team GB winning more gold medals since over 100 years ago. And the spectacle of hosting the Games has led to patriotism and pride raging across society. In a recent BBC poll, 80% of people asked believed that hosting the Games had made people more proud to be British.

This is understandable. I went to the Olympic Park on a couple of occasions, and I rubbed shoulders with many Brits, as well as other nationalities. In Park Live, a big screen, showing live feeds of the ongoing sports, a sense of national pride swelled the area. When Beth Tweddle won her bronze medal in the Uneven Bars, the whole park erupted with cheers and Union Flags being waved all over the place. Just imagine it during coverage of Sir Chris Hoy’s Keirin race where he took gold!

However, as is the British way, there is always that feeling of returning to a sense of normality. The morning after the night before. In that BBC poll, 54% of people questioned thought that the effect that the Games had had on the UK would be short-lived. This should be a major worry for the big-wigs. This national identity found within the last couple of months with both the Olympics and the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee should be sustained and should live long within the hearts of the British people, to the Commonwealth Games in 2014, to the World Cup of the same year, and even to the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio.

Sebastian Coe promised to “inspire a generation”, encourage today’s children to be tomorrow’s Victoria Pendleton, Rebecca Adlington or Greg Rutherford. But, this tagline should also be used to encourage this generation to have the same sense of national pride now, and long after the show has moved on.