This year's E3 has a weird, mysterious vibe about it. Nobody really knows what's going down.
The consoles are completely bedded in now, with the XBO catching up to the PS4 in terms of market share and the Wii U predictably shirking away from the fight after it's head start. There's little on the cards for so many major players in the industry this year, however, that it's beginning to feel like we're being played. Either everyone is hiding something from us, or there really is bugger all coming in the next year. Here's a few logical expectations, based on my twisted, cynical mind.
Sony have several exclusives they've yet to show off. Uncharted 4 and Street Fighter V are almost certainties. Sony Santa Monica have also been incredibly quiet lately, and with a God Of War 3 remaster already confirmed you can bet they're still trying to pummel that horse. Forgive me, I loved the earlier games, but the genre has moved on. Sucker Punch are probably working on a new inFamous game. I wouldn't bet against Tony Hawk showing up, knee-pads and all, to flash his creased-up smile and show off the new Pro Skater on the Sony stage either. Bloodborne DLC probably earned itself a cameo with it's strong exclusive sales.
Square Enix have plenty to show off, but their timed exclusivity deal with Microsoft for Tomb Raider means they'll probably be wearing green rosettes this year. Final Fantasy XV is expected, but don't forget the new Deus Ex game; the last one came and went with unspectacular grace despite critical acclaim. There's also Kingdom Hearts 3, Just Cause and Dragon Quest in the works. I'd expect little of the former, a cinematic trailer of the middle and the latter to pop up in Nintendo's conference as part of their 3DS lineup.
Of all the conferences, I expect Microsoft to play it the most safe. They have their own GoW remaster to show off after leaked footage confirmed alpha testing on it was well underway. If I had to bet on Call of Duty appearing somewhere, I'd put it here. Halo 5 is a given following cryptic CGI trailers being shown on TV for months now. Other surprises could include first-party properties that we haven't seen on the new consoles yet (Crackdown, anyone?).
EA will do their thing with sports and shootin'. There'll be some celebrity trotted out to promote Madden or NBA. Kendrick Lamar, probably. Dragon Age's first DLC took a long time coming, so I would assume they have more in the pipeworks to promise. Bioware don't seem ready to show much of Mass Effect 4 yet, so I'd assume cryptic CGI is the best we'll get. Please fucking give us some Mirror's Edge 2 shit though. PLEASE.
Nintendo's big thing this year is Splatoon. Expect it. Zany live multiplayer gameplay! Young people and adults having fun! There has to be more big Wii U announcements coming though: Mario and Zelda are conspicuous by their absence. The 3DS should have a good year with the redesign's release: Dragon Quest, Xenoblade, Final Fantasy and more could get a whirlwind plug.
The world doesn't just expect Fallout 4 from Bethedsa, they're demanding it with such fervour you'd think they were able to squirt it into existence from their pores. So yeah, it's coming, but there'll be plenty of time devoted to their other big hitter. Elder Scrolls Online launches on consoles a week prior so updates and expansions are going to be pledged. With the main series taking a backseat to Fallout for a couple of years, I'd expect a HD re-release of either Oblivion or Skyrim too - it's surely too easy a cow to milk to not, right? We'll get more DOOM, but whether the world cares any longer is another question.
Ubisoft have Ass Creed. They have Rayman. They have Watch Dogs. They have Just Dance. Sequels to all of these things are more certain than the rising of the tides, the continuation of time or the inevitable heat death of the universe.
I can't wait!
Friday, 22 May 2015
Monday, 11 May 2015
Mandleson doesn't just Labour the point, he missed it completely
Since I last wrote, the unthinkable happened. Months of polling proved unanimously inaccurate as the Tories won a majority government at the expense of Ed Milliband and Labour, who suffered a catastrophic landslide of a defeat.
Reactions in the Labour camp were swift, with Milliband resigning at around midday on Friday, with over a dozen seats yet to declare. It has now gone from swift to utterly chaotic. The leaderless party is at a twenty-year low in terms of influence and popularity. New contenders are already puffing their chests out and making their names known in media appearances - Chuka Ummuna, Liz Kendall, Tristram Hunt and (my personal choice of the current favourites) David Lammy.
Along with the new faces have come the old. Lords and Peers pouring out of the woodwork from all corners to lament the current state of the world around them. Amongst them was Tony Blair's own personal Grand Moff Tarkin, Peter Mandleson. Mandleson declared to Andrew Marr that Labour "had gone back to the 80's", becoming far too left-wing and abandoning the good work he and Blair did in 1997, changing Labour from an outside force into the biggest Labour majority of all time.
Mandleson's claim that Labour needs to lurch back towards the right wing shows a complete lack of understanding of why Labour lost so badly, however. The perception of Ed Milliband being a left-wing radical was absolute nonsense, successfully proliferated by the media despite Milliband himself being part of Mandleson's New Labour treasury in 1997.
The political leanings of a new leader don't matter, because it's the media that make or break them. If David Milliband had won the leadership contest all those years ago, we wouldn't have seen half as much personal nastiness and outright lies told in the press in order to destroy his character and deny him any chance of public popularity as a leader. Labour must pick the right person before the right policies. Milliband was painted as a dweeb, a man who probably wouldn't have been there if not for an old-fashioned leadership system, elected by Old Labour cronies to spite Blair's legacy. The next Labour leader has to cast off the old-new Labour dichotomy, and stand for progressiveness above all. Of the current favourites for the role listed above, only one is a white male - an encouraging sign of the increasing awareness within the party that Labour simply didn't offer a clear alternative to the Tories to win votes this year.
Mandleson's claim that the party needs to dive towards centrist values is incredibly stupid. Typically centrist constituencies, such as those in the Southwest, are usually a straight fight between Tory and Lib Dems. Labour lost the election not just because of their weakness, but because of the Lib Dem's weakness too. If the Lib Dems hadn't lost over 45 seats, there'd be no majority Government. Attempting to turn Labour into Lib Dem v2.0 wouldn't be worth it, because I haven't even gotten to the most important reason Labour did so poorly yet.
SCOTLAND. Everyone is talking about it like their ADHD nephew. "Oh god, she's running wild that one. Poor Aunt Kelso, she's being trodden on left right and centre. God help us if she grows any bigger and more willful. Whatever will we do?" The SNP won 56 of 59 seats in their country. Labour, who have been safe and sound there for decades, are left with one seat North of Hadrian's Wall.
The South continues to misunderstand why Scotland voted in the SNP in such a landslide. The media are keen to push this divide as "a surge in nationalism", a sudden fuck you to the English from a nation that voted to stay sisters with it just a year ago. Don't be misled. The SNP stand for much more than nationalism. They stand for a proper Scottish voice.
Scotland has always been Labour because Scotland are a nation of grinders. The weather is worse, and the culture is different. Grand, historic manual industries like fishing and mining make their economy tick, as opposed to the twinkling financial skyscrapers of London. It's completely logical that they require a different political position to us waxed and shiny Southerners. So why, when the party just lost a shitload of seats there, is Mandleson suggesting that Labour needs to become less appealing to the Scots by looking more like the Tories again?
Scotland didn't vote for the SNP because of nationalism, they voted SNP because the Labour party couldn't deliver a clear message for working-class people. They couldn't promise that they'd stop austerity, the spending and welfare cuts that have hit so many of the poorest so hard. They were in favour of Trident, Britain's needless, expensive nuclear weapons that are docked dangerously on Scottish waters. They couldn't promise action on the EU - not just an in/out referendum, but working with the EU on fishing and production law to make Scotland as productive as possible. Most of all, they couldn't promise that Scotland would be given a culturally representative voice in Westminster.
The SNP offered all of that, and more. Lord Mandleson, with all respect, is wrong. Labour doesn't need to lurch further to the right. It needs to lurch further to the left. Because as Scotland has shown, having an actual alternative that actually fights for your rights in Parliament is much more likely to win votes than having no alternatives to the status quo at all.
Thursday, 7 May 2015
30 reasons why you should vote for Rebecca Harris
- Rebecca Harris has no opinion on Marmite, "Oh I dunno, I think it's okay on toast. But I'm a mustard girl."
- Rebecca Harris owns a copy of Queen's greatest hits and has had it in her hi-fi since 2003
- Rebecca Harris goes to her son's sunday league matches and doesn't cheer because she's embarrassed she'll cheer at the wrong time.
- Rebecca Harris didn't "get" Blur OR Oasis, but she pretended to like them both anyway.
- Rebecca Harris always takes her shoes off when she comes into your house, even if she's just dropping a birthday card round.
- Rebecca Harris apologises for being early to the school parent's evening
- Rebecca Harris stops you as you go to wash the car, "hold on a second lovely, let me check the forecast before you do that".
- Rebecca Harris doesn't understand why dogs and cats can't just eat the same food. "It all smells the same, doesn't it?"
- Rebecca Harris apologises to the rug after tripping over it.
- Rebecca Harris always refers to supermarket cashiers by their name when she thanks them, unaware that this unnerves them every time.
- Rebecca Harris replies "thanks, you too" when waiters wish her a pleasant meal.
- Rebecca Harris doesn't like spiders, but didn't complain when she got a tarantula for her 11th birthday because she thought her dad might just take it outside and kill it.
- Rebecca Harris' favourite curry is chicken korma.
- Rebecca Harris shreiks "I'M IN HERE" when someone tries to push open the cubicle in the pub loo, even though it's locked.
- Rebecca Harris always found Ed Norton more attractive than Brad Pitt in the film Fight Club.
- Rebecca Harris always orders rum and raisin flavour ice cream in Rossi, then always makes the same joke, "I better not eat this too quickly!"
- Rebecca Harris hasn't seen Mean Girls, but she always pretends she has whenever people post quotes from it on Twitter.
- Rebecca Harris doesn't trust e-mail, "how can you prove your message got there if a postman didn't see it?"
- Rebecca Harris phones in to vote on the X Factor final, but ONLY the final.
- Rebecca Harris started writing a screenplay about a down-on-her-luck PR agent who falls for a celebrity client, but she never got around to finishing it.
- Rebecca Harris always wants a coffee at the end of her dinner out, but doesn't order one because her friends want to leave.
- Rebecca Harris thinks Jack Whitehall is "cute, but a bit overbearing".
- Rebecca Harris gets stood up, but decides to complete all her planned date activities solo anyway.
- Rebecca Harris doesn't believe in astrology, but still checks the Mystic Meg column daily for some reason.
- Rebecca Harris found the plot of Lord Of The Rings "okay I suppose... A little far-fetched."
- Rebecca Harris hates how many notifications she gets, but doesn't know how you turn them off.
- Rebecca Harris carries a pack of Rivita biscuits in her bag at all times, "just in case".
- Rebecca Harris talks to herself as she leaves the house, "okay so I've got my phone, keys, purse... Let's go!"
- Rebecca Harris thought Picasso was alive before Da Vinci, "but this one is much nicer. Look at the state of the nose on that other one!"
- Rebecca Harris thought the hair on her default Sims character was a really nice colour, actually.
Wednesday, 6 May 2015
The peasant's guide to what the fuck is going to happen on Friday
David Cameron and Ed Milliband have spent the last couple of months campaigning for your vote on a completely false premise.
They both made a rather desperate presumption that their party would command an overall majority in the Commons after the general election. They were wrong. As the polls have shown for some time, the Conservatives and Labour Party are almost neck-and-neck, and look set to win just under 35% of the national vote each. For those who aren't quite familiar with our system of Government (and you would be forgiven - it's ridiculously archaic, unwritten and complex), here's a quick lowdown of the basics.
We operate on a "First Past The Post" system. It's the simplest electoral system out there, and has survived so long because the two biggest parties absolutely love it for the advantages it gives them over smaller, marginal parties. In your constituency, the candidate who gets the most votes becomes MP. Votes for any other candidate, or votes for the candidate that wins that exceed the amount needed to win, are completely redundant and count for nothing. WOO! Combine this with political parties altering voting boundaries for their own benefit, and this is why we end up with scenarios such as this:
Think of it as a system of "the winner takes it all" - your constituency could cast 1000 votes for Labour, 1000 votes for UKIP and 1001 for the Conservatives, and the result will be a single Tory MP, even though two out of every three voters in the area didn't want one. It's easy to understand, and keeps minority parties out: this is why the nation voted to keep it in a 2011 referendum, when the BNP extremists were still fashionable and the cowardly Lib Dems had sapped the public's faith in minority parties.
So that's how your MP is elected, but what about the Government? Who becomes Prime Minister is decided in a much more complex fashion.
Our Government is formed from prominent MPs of any party that can command a majority (having more MPs than all the other parties combined) in the House of Commons. Traditionally, having this majority was necessary because if your party cannot outvote all the others, they're going to table a vote of no confidence as soon as they can at the start of the next Parliament and oust you.
In 2010, we saw something different. Neither Labour nor Conservatives won an overall majority (which is about 324 MPs, I think), so they then bargained with the Lib Dems to form a coalition. The two parties formally pledge to work together, vote together on key issues and share Government offices. By adding Lib Dem MPs to Tory MPs, you have over 324 and therefore a majority to govern.
For some reason, the main parties bloody hated coalition Government. Who would've thought political parties would be so opposed to compromise and not getting everything their own way, eh? Ed Milliband has flat out refused to enter coalition with the SNP. The Conservatives have said the same. The Lib Dems, desperate to cling on to the little power they have, are selling themselves as the party of coalition, and have publicly slutted themselves out to every party except the SNP and UKIP.
So if, after the election, the parties CAN'T form a formal coalition, what happens? Do we have another election? Does the country crumble and Downing Street get demolished? Unfortunately not - we have a whole series of uncodified, archaic rules that nobody really knows what to do with in this situation.
It's possible for Governments to operate without a minority on an informal "supply" agreement with other parties. For example, the Tories could do this with the Lib Dems or UKIP. They'd form a minority Tory Government, but would be blackmailed to keep the supporting parties happy through their policies by the threat of a no confidence vote.
We could see a bizzare situation in which the Tories and Lib Dems actually just refuse to leave Downing Street. If there's no majority, and parties cannot form a coalition, the previous Government can basically put it's boots up on the desk and go "well if you lot can't get anything better sorted out, we'll just stay here then". The previous Tory-Lib Dem government would remain in place until the other parties formed some kind of coalition or agreement that was fit for the task. As the Cabinet rules state:
A vote of no confidence can be tabled at any time in Parliament. If over half of the House of Commons votes against the current Government, the Prime Minister must immediately ask the Queen to dissolve Parliament and call another general election. This is why having a majority is so important.
So guys, make sure you vote with all your will on Thursday. God fucking forbid we have to sit through another one of these shitty elections in 2015.
They both made a rather desperate presumption that their party would command an overall majority in the Commons after the general election. They were wrong. As the polls have shown for some time, the Conservatives and Labour Party are almost neck-and-neck, and look set to win just under 35% of the national vote each. For those who aren't quite familiar with our system of Government (and you would be forgiven - it's ridiculously archaic, unwritten and complex), here's a quick lowdown of the basics.
We operate on a "First Past The Post" system. It's the simplest electoral system out there, and has survived so long because the two biggest parties absolutely love it for the advantages it gives them over smaller, marginal parties. In your constituency, the candidate who gets the most votes becomes MP. Votes for any other candidate, or votes for the candidate that wins that exceed the amount needed to win, are completely redundant and count for nothing. WOO! Combine this with political parties altering voting boundaries for their own benefit, and this is why we end up with scenarios such as this:
So that's how your MP is elected, but what about the Government? Who becomes Prime Minister is decided in a much more complex fashion.
Our Government is formed from prominent MPs of any party that can command a majority (having more MPs than all the other parties combined) in the House of Commons. Traditionally, having this majority was necessary because if your party cannot outvote all the others, they're going to table a vote of no confidence as soon as they can at the start of the next Parliament and oust you.
In 2010, we saw something different. Neither Labour nor Conservatives won an overall majority (which is about 324 MPs, I think), so they then bargained with the Lib Dems to form a coalition. The two parties formally pledge to work together, vote together on key issues and share Government offices. By adding Lib Dem MPs to Tory MPs, you have over 324 and therefore a majority to govern.
For some reason, the main parties bloody hated coalition Government. Who would've thought political parties would be so opposed to compromise and not getting everything their own way, eh? Ed Milliband has flat out refused to enter coalition with the SNP. The Conservatives have said the same. The Lib Dems, desperate to cling on to the little power they have, are selling themselves as the party of coalition, and have publicly slutted themselves out to every party except the SNP and UKIP.
So if, after the election, the parties CAN'T form a formal coalition, what happens? Do we have another election? Does the country crumble and Downing Street get demolished? Unfortunately not - we have a whole series of uncodified, archaic rules that nobody really knows what to do with in this situation.
It's possible for Governments to operate without a minority on an informal "supply" agreement with other parties. For example, the Tories could do this with the Lib Dems or UKIP. They'd form a minority Tory Government, but would be blackmailed to keep the supporting parties happy through their policies by the threat of a no confidence vote.
We could see a bizzare situation in which the Tories and Lib Dems actually just refuse to leave Downing Street. If there's no majority, and parties cannot form a coalition, the previous Government can basically put it's boots up on the desk and go "well if you lot can't get anything better sorted out, we'll just stay here then". The previous Tory-Lib Dem government would remain in place until the other parties formed some kind of coalition or agreement that was fit for the task. As the Cabinet rules state:
Where an election does not result in an overall majority for a single party, the incumbent government remains in office unless and until the Prime Minister tenders his or her resignation and the Government’s resignation to the Sovereign. An incumbent government is entitled to wait until the new Parliament has met to see if it can command the confidence of the House of Commons, but is expected to resign if it becomes clear that it is unlikely to be able to command that confidence and there is a clear alternative.So it's possible, depending on election results, that the ConDems could just sit in the cabinet office and watch how things pan out, and leave the pressure on Ed Milliband to try and form a better Government without the support of the Lib Dems or SNP.
A vote of no confidence can be tabled at any time in Parliament. If over half of the House of Commons votes against the current Government, the Prime Minister must immediately ask the Queen to dissolve Parliament and call another general election. This is why having a majority is so important.
So guys, make sure you vote with all your will on Thursday. God fucking forbid we have to sit through another one of these shitty elections in 2015.
Tuesday, 5 May 2015
On UKIP and popular perception
The meteoric rise of UKIP, along with the rapid increase in the politics of blame and fear, might have met their match at the worst possible time.
A couple of months ago, it seemed like Nigel Farage was unstoppable. He'd taken part in his first televised debate, on which opinion polls ranked him as at least a close competitor to the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition. Not bad for a party with just two MPs (both Tory defectors). Remember in 2010, when the Lib Dems were heralded as the second coming, the force that would shatter the two-party paradigm? The Lib Dems are a century old. UKIP were polling lower than the BNP five years ago.
It seemed like nothing could stand in UKIP's way. They have taken advantage of the perfect storm that's been brewing for fifteen years: economic uncertainty, disastrous foreign policy and growing divisions between class, race, and cultures. The media gave UKIP every available platform, sensing an opportunity to proliferate fear and danger. These concepts keep the public buying newspapers daily much more effectively than sunshine and happiness, after all. There must have been some intense conversations in the boardrooms of Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem offices, hushed whispers of the threat this new kid on the block was posing to the cosy way of life these three parties (especially the first two) had enjoyed.
Return to the present day, however, and it seems as though UKIP are flagging at the crucial late stage of the election campaign. Outside of the Daily Express, whose owner recently donated £1.3m to the party, the media has deserted UKIP. Paper talk now surrounds the SNP, who the media have realised pose a realer threat to the establishment than Nigel Farage ever did. Farage has gone from ever-present to barely-there, blaming his own health for a drop in personal appearances.
I live in a Conservative semi-marginal seat that's one of UKIP's biggest election targets. In my five minute commute from home to work, I counted over 20 purple signs and billboards. Leaflets and lettering from the party come through my letterbox in an amount greater than all other parties combined. Farage has paid multiple, personal visits to my hometown for photo ops and publicity appearances. The amount of money and effort they have put into winning this seat must be staggering.
And yet, as someone who sees snapshots of local opinion day in, day out on Facebook posts and pages, popular opinion in this most heavily-targeted of constituencies seems to be on the wane.
Support for them hasn't vanished, by all means. There are still the loyal band of followers that have changed their profile pictures to purple propaganda and never fail to "like" each others' comments. While the hardcore support is valuable to parties, helping them maintain a presence by trumpeting propaganda without any money or effort on their part, they alone do not win elections. UKIP need to convince more undecided voters to pledge allegiance, and on the evidence I've seen in my constituency, they have some way to go.
Political debates on a local Facebook group once swayed between rampant nationalism and a feeling that UKIP should at least stand for something new in Parliament. There was a near-unanimous hatred of asylum seekers, immigrants and the EU. It peaked at about April 23rd; St George's Day, the patron saint of England (as well as agricultural workers, Greece, sheep, skin diseases and the Brazilian football team Corinthians). My timeline filled with nationalist "pride" that manifested itself not through a proud love of the English spirit and heritage, but through a nasty disgust for every other culture that had the guts to enjoy a different way of life. Pictures of bacon butties, a beautifully English snack, were given a sinister subtext with the caption "SHARE THIS IF YOU DON'T CARE WHO IT OFFENDS". In true English fashion, the nation celebrated it's own culture by making a wanking gesture two inches from the face of every other.
It makes me profoundly sad, because there's no reason why April 23rd shouldn't be a cause for celebration. England (and the rest of the United Kingdom) is a nation of resilient, world-leading people. We've been through world domination and world wars, and punched light years above our weight in terms of contribution to world culture, sport and economics from the middle ages to present day. There's plenty to love about Britain, yet people insisted on telling foreigners to fuck off instead.
The point where the popular politics of fear and blame began to stumble, in my opinion, came after the two massive humanitarian disasters that have occurred recently. Sorry, one isn't a "humanitarian disaster". It's a "migrant crisis": the catchy name the media coined to turn 30,000 desperate individuals drowning off the shores of Africa in the last year into a palatable political stick with which to beat the population. These poor souls are fleeing for their lives from Syria, Libya and neighbouring countries - countries we, the West, turned to a destabilised wreck through our catastrophic foreign policy. Women and children perished in their thousands in the stormy Med waters, and continue to do so.
The initial reaction was predictable given the incendiary name the media gave the disaster. Comments on Facebook ranged from half-hearted empathy to a few die-hards who seemed actively pleased all of these people were dead. Politicians of all parties used it as a vile attempt to score points. Ed Milliband provided the biggest hypocrisy of the campaign, pinning blame for the deaths on David Cameron's foreign policy when his potential cabinet contains members of the despicable Blair administration whose own foreign policy wreaked havoc on half the globe and started the fire of destabilisation that brought about this mess.
It was as the initial reaction simmered down that rational viewpoints began to emerge, those concerned more with the human cost than the economic and political one. An EU resolution passed in an attempt to save some of the fleeing migrants, and news of this was shared frantically by those few fanatics with the purple profile pictures. "Look at this!" they screamed into their keyboards, "I for one would like to know where they're going to stay!?" another asked rhetorically. They were in for an unpleasant surprise. Comments slowed to a crawl, with the majority expressing solemnity rather than righteous anger, an understanding that sometimes the politics no longer matters.
UKIP got it's platform and support by convincing us all that the immigrant threat was loud, co-ordinated and intent on taking advantage of our prosperous nation. The pictures of dead children being dragged from Italian beaches that played on our TV screens proved otherwise. The immigrant threat is desperate, panicked and doing whatever they can to cling onto an existence that was already more miserable than anyone able to read this will understand.
Maybe I'm wrong about UKIP in this constituency. Maybe their supporters have just adopted collective radio silence until their political views will be seen as less disrespectful, although that seems unlikely, given how opposed many of them are to the politically correct ideal of being nice to people. By Friday, UKIP could've taken this Parliamentary seat by a landslide (although the latest polls suggest a moderate challenge to the Tory incumbent is about as good as they're going to get).
On the face of it, though, UKIP have been thwarted by the wrath of God himself. Natural disasters have brought concepts such as immigration and asylum - things the English public are told are bad for us daily, but precious few of us have any experience with - a new, humane face. And maybe, if we're lucky, the politics of blame and fear will no longer drive us all.
A couple of months ago, it seemed like Nigel Farage was unstoppable. He'd taken part in his first televised debate, on which opinion polls ranked him as at least a close competitor to the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition. Not bad for a party with just two MPs (both Tory defectors). Remember in 2010, when the Lib Dems were heralded as the second coming, the force that would shatter the two-party paradigm? The Lib Dems are a century old. UKIP were polling lower than the BNP five years ago.
It seemed like nothing could stand in UKIP's way. They have taken advantage of the perfect storm that's been brewing for fifteen years: economic uncertainty, disastrous foreign policy and growing divisions between class, race, and cultures. The media gave UKIP every available platform, sensing an opportunity to proliferate fear and danger. These concepts keep the public buying newspapers daily much more effectively than sunshine and happiness, after all. There must have been some intense conversations in the boardrooms of Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem offices, hushed whispers of the threat this new kid on the block was posing to the cosy way of life these three parties (especially the first two) had enjoyed.
Return to the present day, however, and it seems as though UKIP are flagging at the crucial late stage of the election campaign. Outside of the Daily Express, whose owner recently donated £1.3m to the party, the media has deserted UKIP. Paper talk now surrounds the SNP, who the media have realised pose a realer threat to the establishment than Nigel Farage ever did. Farage has gone from ever-present to barely-there, blaming his own health for a drop in personal appearances.
I live in a Conservative semi-marginal seat that's one of UKIP's biggest election targets. In my five minute commute from home to work, I counted over 20 purple signs and billboards. Leaflets and lettering from the party come through my letterbox in an amount greater than all other parties combined. Farage has paid multiple, personal visits to my hometown for photo ops and publicity appearances. The amount of money and effort they have put into winning this seat must be staggering.
And yet, as someone who sees snapshots of local opinion day in, day out on Facebook posts and pages, popular opinion in this most heavily-targeted of constituencies seems to be on the wane.
Support for them hasn't vanished, by all means. There are still the loyal band of followers that have changed their profile pictures to purple propaganda and never fail to "like" each others' comments. While the hardcore support is valuable to parties, helping them maintain a presence by trumpeting propaganda without any money or effort on their part, they alone do not win elections. UKIP need to convince more undecided voters to pledge allegiance, and on the evidence I've seen in my constituency, they have some way to go.
Political debates on a local Facebook group once swayed between rampant nationalism and a feeling that UKIP should at least stand for something new in Parliament. There was a near-unanimous hatred of asylum seekers, immigrants and the EU. It peaked at about April 23rd; St George's Day, the patron saint of England (as well as agricultural workers, Greece, sheep, skin diseases and the Brazilian football team Corinthians). My timeline filled with nationalist "pride" that manifested itself not through a proud love of the English spirit and heritage, but through a nasty disgust for every other culture that had the guts to enjoy a different way of life. Pictures of bacon butties, a beautifully English snack, were given a sinister subtext with the caption "SHARE THIS IF YOU DON'T CARE WHO IT OFFENDS". In true English fashion, the nation celebrated it's own culture by making a wanking gesture two inches from the face of every other.
It makes me profoundly sad, because there's no reason why April 23rd shouldn't be a cause for celebration. England (and the rest of the United Kingdom) is a nation of resilient, world-leading people. We've been through world domination and world wars, and punched light years above our weight in terms of contribution to world culture, sport and economics from the middle ages to present day. There's plenty to love about Britain, yet people insisted on telling foreigners to fuck off instead.
The point where the popular politics of fear and blame began to stumble, in my opinion, came after the two massive humanitarian disasters that have occurred recently. Sorry, one isn't a "humanitarian disaster". It's a "migrant crisis": the catchy name the media coined to turn 30,000 desperate individuals drowning off the shores of Africa in the last year into a palatable political stick with which to beat the population. These poor souls are fleeing for their lives from Syria, Libya and neighbouring countries - countries we, the West, turned to a destabilised wreck through our catastrophic foreign policy. Women and children perished in their thousands in the stormy Med waters, and continue to do so.
The initial reaction was predictable given the incendiary name the media gave the disaster. Comments on Facebook ranged from half-hearted empathy to a few die-hards who seemed actively pleased all of these people were dead. Politicians of all parties used it as a vile attempt to score points. Ed Milliband provided the biggest hypocrisy of the campaign, pinning blame for the deaths on David Cameron's foreign policy when his potential cabinet contains members of the despicable Blair administration whose own foreign policy wreaked havoc on half the globe and started the fire of destabilisation that brought about this mess.
It was as the initial reaction simmered down that rational viewpoints began to emerge, those concerned more with the human cost than the economic and political one. An EU resolution passed in an attempt to save some of the fleeing migrants, and news of this was shared frantically by those few fanatics with the purple profile pictures. "Look at this!" they screamed into their keyboards, "I for one would like to know where they're going to stay!?" another asked rhetorically. They were in for an unpleasant surprise. Comments slowed to a crawl, with the majority expressing solemnity rather than righteous anger, an understanding that sometimes the politics no longer matters.
UKIP got it's platform and support by convincing us all that the immigrant threat was loud, co-ordinated and intent on taking advantage of our prosperous nation. The pictures of dead children being dragged from Italian beaches that played on our TV screens proved otherwise. The immigrant threat is desperate, panicked and doing whatever they can to cling onto an existence that was already more miserable than anyone able to read this will understand.
Maybe I'm wrong about UKIP in this constituency. Maybe their supporters have just adopted collective radio silence until their political views will be seen as less disrespectful, although that seems unlikely, given how opposed many of them are to the politically correct ideal of being nice to people. By Friday, UKIP could've taken this Parliamentary seat by a landslide (although the latest polls suggest a moderate challenge to the Tory incumbent is about as good as they're going to get).
On the face of it, though, UKIP have been thwarted by the wrath of God himself. Natural disasters have brought concepts such as immigration and asylum - things the English public are told are bad for us daily, but precious few of us have any experience with - a new, humane face. And maybe, if we're lucky, the politics of blame and fear will no longer drive us all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)