I think the governments culture wars may have scored an own goal. Knowing there is very little good news about their actions (economy, NHS, education, police, water, fuel bills, environment, inflation, food banks, to name a few), did the ERG persuade the government to attack Lineker? He certainly seems to have been selected when Lord Sugar was allowed to post against Mick Lynch. Easy target? Left’ish wing football pundit, there would be a short outbirst and everyone would agree with Braverman and Sunal that refugees need to be deported fast.
This is not how it panned out. Firstly Lineker is obviously a much respectec figure amongst his collegues as the come out in sympathy – ruining the schedules for the weekend. Secondly there has been an outcry about the policy proposed by the government which has been stronger than expected. Thirdly the whole concept of freedom of speech – many people are disgusted at the gagging order put forward by the BBC. Fouthly the impariality concept is being questioned, why has Farage been on BBCQT so often, why has the chairman of the BBC funded the CParty? And perhaps more importantly the role of a public service broadcaster and its interaction with the government is being questioned. Surely and respectable journalist should be holding the governmet of the day to account. If the tories have been in power for most of the time recently there may seem to be a perceived bias -they should welcome it. Where are the satirists now days? Would Spitting Image be censored?
Any form of management needs to be questioned and interogated, what ever the level. Governments with a whopping majority need it more than most. Yes the opposition needs interogation too. Avoiding criticism is leading to poor decision making and poor appointmts and policy.
I am not sure Gary Lineker was correct in his use of the analogy of 1930’s Germany, but subsequent events have supported his assertion. The BBC is in disarray, mired in controvercy over appointments and a lack of objectivity by some reporters. Personnally I would rather watch Channel 4 or 5 News – even Sky News seems to be more impartial.
Where does this leave me in the discussions with a friend who thought Lineker was playing into the hands of the government?ERG. Attention would be diverted from energy bills, inflation, and a myriad of other incompetencies. To some extent he is correct, but to all our surprise this has quickly become not just about Lineker, not just about refugees, not even just about the BBC, but about our fundamental freedom of speech. Martin Lewis is bound to be even more outspoken about energy bills soon – he has a regular Radio 5 slot – will they ban him – his comments are certainly not what the government wants to here.
At the end of the day, when the fat lkady sings, it will be about the voters. The rabid anti-refugee cohort will be unaffected or even more strident – who cares! I suspect that the majority of the red wall voters will be also unaffected, although discussions in the pub or club may increase. Somehow Lineker manages to come across as a local lad who made good. He is not ostentacious or claiming privilege – he was in the stands at Leicester on Saturday, not the directors box. Lineker has created a situation where his concern for migrants can be aired. Whilst I am sure that the tories would like this discussion to go for ages, and deflect from other issues, they seem to be staking everything on this one issue and whilst surveys show that maybe 50% or more have sympathy with them, Linekers impact may reduce the importance of the issue (i.e. many will stop and think does he have a point here).
Whilst on refugees – Braverman said, correctly that there were 100 million refugees in the world at present – correct! That they all want to come here is less provable! (75% are still in their own countries). The billions she quotes suggests she knows something about climate change – or she is just bullshitting. However back to 100 million, or even 25 million – surely we have a responsibility to help these people. I will open myself to criticism by saying that many of our actions of the past have made is more responsible for the fate of these people.
Even current climate refugees are partially due to our past excesses. It matters not that we were ignorant about climate change until 1896 – no this is not a typo!
On misdeeds of the past – should we be accountable? My latest thought is that yes – if the current generation has benefitted from past misdemeanours? If someone nurdered your granny and stole a very valuable ring – should the perpertators descendants benefit from the crime – or should they just say sorry (or not) and pocket the cash.