Immigration

It's a bad time to be an immigrant, or someone who "looks like" an immigrant. You can't even say the word between California and Croatia without making people nervous. Immigration. A few weeks ago, in a move that sounded strangely familiar, the state of Arizona passed a law dictating that immigrants carry their documents with them at all times. And how will the authorities know they are carrying their documents? Simple: they can demand to see the papers of anyone of whom there is a "reasonable suspicion" of illegality.

Many brits will hear in this law the echos of their own Terrorism Act 2000, section 44 to be precise, which allows the police to stop and search anyone who looks "suspicious." The problem here is what constitutes "suspicious." Personally, I'm suspicious of all white people because they have been and continue to be the perpatrators of the biggest crimes in human history. However, when governments start talking about "suspicious", they are invariably referring to people of my skin tone and hair color, or darker -- immigrant looking people. Of course, racial profiling is illegal, so politicians are making up all kinds of ingenious ways in which to identify a suspicious person. Congressman Brian Bilbray suggesting paying close attention to "the kind of dress you wear". You can see why these white people make me suspicious.

Minorities, racial, ethnic, religious or otherwise, are easy scapegoats in times of crisis. When things begin to go pear-shaped in a country, the first to the chopping block are the ones with funny accents, darker skin, different histories, their own ways of doing things, and Jewish people, who have often embodied all of these things. In the United States, our current whipping boys are Latin Americans, predominantly from Central America and Mexico. In Britain, it is Indians, Pakistanis, Carribbeans and Eastern Europeans. In France it's North Africans. Every wealthy country in the world has its class of undersirable and maybe even subversive, but most definitely 'suspicious', people who they whip mercilessly until the their constituents, bloodlust satisfied, go to sleep at night and dream of a world that has never hear the word "globalisation".

Being "anti-immgrant" is one of the general idealogical banners that the American Right is rallying around because it simultaneously scapegoats a lot of much broader problems while also letting Republican commentators take underhanded digs at President Obama. Bear in mind that many in the Tea Party Movement still doubt Obama's citizenship. And so the fear is amplified exponentially -- not only are immgrants overflowing our borders to steal our jobs and rape our daughters and degrade our way of life, but they have installed another darky in the White House to turn a blind eye to all of it! Mary -- get me my gun.

The words are made up but the sentiments among a certain group of white, working class, traditional-valued, bigoted Americans and the fearmongers who pander to them are very real. Just like the BNP is very real, just like the Swiss People's Party is very real. Now it could be that British culture, cultivated by hundreds of years of homogeneity IS lost and cheapened by immigration, and therefore needs some sort of protection (Tim: I would like to hear your views on this), but my country was built by immigrants, and it is absurd to think that they are simply going to stop coming if we put a couple of laws into place. A law like the one in Arizona does nothing besides legitimize bigotry by the police, which, if you've been keeping track, is not an organization that historically needs excuses to be bigoted.

n n n n n n n n n n n n n n

Well, first of all, there's an easy answer to your query, Ted: immigrants built your country; invading hordes built ours. That Great British Culture the nationalists love to bleat on about - is it Roman? Viking? Celtic? French? Perhaps - and those of a hard right persuasion might need to look away here - it's a multinational blend of all of them, and that's precisely what makes it so 'great' in the first place. After all, our patron saint St George was Turkish, the Queen's half-German and our much-loved national dish is the defiantly untraditional Chicken Tikka Masala - it's not entirely clear what, exactly, our flag-worshipping friends are trying to protect.

What is clear, and Ted already touched on this, is the deeply unpleasant role of racism in all this. Wave-upon-wave of our beloved European conquerers have found themselves quite comfortably accomodated into the myth of an 'indiginous Britain' - it is only when burkas and turbans grace the high street that the hard right really raises it's ugly, shaven head. We've had our tensions with Eastern European migrants, sure - but they are treated more as unwelcome neighbours than the malicious gypsy status reserved for our darker-skinned cousins. It is little surprise that our 'Stop and Search' statistics make for depressing reading; even less of a shock, sadly, that our incoming government has just made it even easier for the police to act on discriminatory sentiment rather than pesky old 'human rights'.

So yes, immigration is hotly, if rarely intelligently, debated on this side of the Atlantic as much as it is on yours. Fear is a powerful weapon, particularly in a recession when jobs are scarce - and as Gordon Brown's infamous encounter with Mrs Duffy revealed, someone different is always the easiest target when communities feel under threat. In my view, this is where good governance should come to the fore: it's their job to protect basic human rights and explain to xenophobes that they are plain wrong. Unfortunately, we choose to make concessions to the racists instead, letting prejudice creep into everyday policing and eroding some of our clearest civil liberties. Last time Stop and Search was enforced in Britain, it led to riots on the streets. If history has taught us one thing, it's that it's clearly no way to keep the peace.

UK Election Special: The Results

So...you were so liberal you decided not to vote for stodgy old Labour and instead put in a vote for the fresh faced Lib Dems? Oops, you've just elected the Conservatives. Welcome to Hell, you granola-crunching, organic, free-range, bio-diesel swilling piece of biodegradable yuppie trash. This whole thing is giving me bad Bush v Gore 2000predecessor, squared off against a middle-of-the-road conservative, and just enough lefties defected to the third party (an owl-faced man named Ralph Nadir who represented the Green Party) as a matter of principle to give the conservative the win. If you have read a newspaper in the last ten years, you can see that those idealistic liberals really proved a point, just not the one they were hoping for.

Unlike what you may have learned when you were twelve, the point of voting isn't to win, it's not to lose. No candidate is going to be everything you want in a politician. In order to get elected, he or she has to represent, or seem to represent, a lot of different people, including, and this one is above all, themselves. This means that our job as voters is to choose the best of a pretty raunchy bunch of characters, whether they are named Brown, Cameron, Clegg, Bush, Gore or Obama. Of course, you can complain, but bear in mind that some groups of voters, like American blacks, had to spend about two hundred years in the land of the free before they got their 'first black president', which, ironically, was what Toni Morrison called Bill Clinton. I suppose, then, that the real lesson to be learned from elections on both sides of the pond is that, unless a third party could actually run away with the election, voting for them is just going to hurt your cause. flashbacks. As you may or may not recall, Al Gore, a slightly 'boring' candidate widely considered to be more of a supporting actor to a much more popular and charismatic, but wildly untrustworthy,

n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n

As alliances go, it's about as unholy as caviar and ketchup. At each other's throats two weeks ago, backslapping their way into Number 10 today: whatever the fallout in the future, Britain's newest comedy duo have, for now at least, completely reconfigured the political landscape of our country. Liberal Democrats are supposed to be dwell in the tree-hugging realms of the left. Conservatives stack their chips in the gated communities on the right. Now the stockbroker and the hippy have joined hands and frolicked into power together, with Jeeves and Wooster gleefully at the helm. Who knew?

On closer analysis, it shouldn't really be the surprise that it is. Grassroots Liberal Democrats may be up in arms - and the steady flow of supporters defecting to Labour suggests trouble ahead - but, as we've discussed before, behind the headline-grabbing single-issue policies, the manifestos of both parties are dominated by a shared distrust of big government; their central philosophies are, in fact, perhaps the closest in parliament. However, what interests me more is the personal side. Why was Clegg, an expensively-educated child of privilege, far happier to go into an alliance with David Cameron, an, er, expensively-educated child of privilege, than he was with Brown, the clunking Scottish social democrat?

Forgive my cycnicism - but what this smacks of to me is that peculiarly British quality of 'being clubbable'. Cameron and Clegg ooze charm. Watching them together is a lesson in the smooth social confidence afforded by an expensive education in the UK - and in many ways, this is the grease that runs the country. We may not have lords and ladies any more, but the upper reaches of British society - be it judges, doctors or politicians - are still dominated by children of privelege, and it is in this very world that our new joint-leaders were born to thrive. It's one big club, and both Cameron and Clegg are perfectly schooled in shaking the right hands, playing by the rules and tipping the doorman on the way out. You can picture them discussing cricket, wine and their long-established ancestral roots; Brown, meanwhile, loved football, porridge and the finer points of Keynesian economics. He never stood a chance; he didn't have any 'chat'. There may have their differences, but when it came to the crunch, Clegg went with what he knew: family, class and the old school tie.

UK Election Special: A Very American Election..

So that was that: four straight weeks of frenzied electioneering over and done with, one tense night at party headquarters across the capital to go. As the British public heads to the polls, a brief pause to reflect on one of the more striking aspects of the campaign: just how American it all felt. Granted, we don't drag things out as long as you guys, and, yes, we actually count our votes by hand when they come in. But this year more then ever, the emphasis has been on personality as much as politics - it's almost as though we are electing a president. We've had televised debates for the first time ever. The battle to claim Obama has been both ludicrous and hard-fought. Every third word spoken seems to have been 'change'. The media have played a colossal role. It's like the quaint British electoral system decided to switch off the wireless and join the 21st Century - and as ever, when it comes to modernity, we're more than happy to follow your lead.

It's not just presentation, either. Britain is locked in a fierce battle over taxation and the state, with a Conservative victory likely to pull the UK closer to a US-style capitalist system than ever before. Labour, the traditional party of the working classes, has had the rug pulled from underneath it, with the decline of British manufacturing demolishing their core vote. In its place, every man must stand for himself - and, as the upper classes are also shrinking, material wealth is increasingly the only measure of success. The so-called 'special relationship' may be over, but Britain's place in the new world order is already halfway across the Atlantic - whether we keep right on paddling remains to be seen. Given how unsuccessful we usually are at being American, however - take the British film industry for one - it might be wise to pack a lifejacket just to be safe...

UK Election Special: Gordon Brown & The Labour Party

And so we come to Gordon Brown. Stalin one minute. Mr Bean the next, the bedraggled Prime Minister has lurched uncomfortably in front of the baying public for months, like a punch-drunk boxer crying out for the final blow – but still he stands. One of British politics' greatest survivors, Brown has withstood countless coups from within his own party, savage personal attacks from a bloodthirsty media, accusations of bullying and even a budget-crippling worldwide recession to somehow make it to May 6th. Now, for the first time as Prime Minister, he faces the public – and undoubtedly his greatest challenge yet.

It is remarkable, given the depths to which Brown's popularity has plummeted, to reminisce over just how rosy things were at the beginning of his tenure. With the public supposedly sick to the back teeth of the glitz and spin of the Blair years, Brown was ushered in as the perfect antidote: dour, fiercely intelligent and thoroughly uninterested in personal appearance, his arrival was acclaimed as the end of personality politics in the UK. As the months have worn on, however, it seems the British public has gradually changed it's mind – and when the first X Factor Election arrived, Brown was found seriously wanting compared to newer, more exciting choices. Chuck in the credit crunch, the continued erosion of the working class communities which form Labour's base vote, and the natural desire for something new after 13 years of the same government, and Brown looks to be toast – even if the latest polls suggest our bizarre electoral system may see him clinging to power by the tips of his fingernails in 48 hours time.

Of course, Brown's problems are not just to do with presentation: loyal Labour supporters have been leaving in droves since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began, while Brown's cuddly relationship with City bankers – New Labour were, famously, 'very comfortable with some people becoming filthy rich' – has alienated the left yet further. But there is no doubt that his lack of media savvy is a critical problem. When among friends, he can be a formidable performer, expressing populist left-leaning principals with fire and vigour; when exposed to the wider public, it all too often goes horribly, horribly wrong. On the one hand, this is the man who inspired world leaders to follow his interventionist lead in the banking crisis and took a £20,000 pay cut upon becoming Prime Minister – on the other, this is the monster who savaged a little old lady from Rotherham who was just out to do a bit of shopping. If he had more successfully sold the public one view, rather than being consistently shown as the other, he may well have been sleeping a little easier tonight as the public prepares to go to the polls and deliver its final verdict. Sleep tight, Gordon; it should all be over soon.

n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n

There is a famous scene from Mel Gibson's epic kitsch storm, The Passion of the Christ, in which Jim Caviezel,gets the sweet hell flogged out of him for about five minutes. It's like a long music video, but in aramaic and latin, without music, and with more blood. Midway through, Jesus takes a knee, the punishment appears to be over and the audience -- including the isrealites on screan (but excluding ol' Judas who's lurking in the backround) -- breathes a sigh of relief. But no! Mel Gibson's friends love the punishment, especially if its semi-nude and from behind! Jimbo stands back up and submits to another two minutes of good old fashion scourging.

I bring this up because watching Gordon Brown try to save his sinking ship has been a lot like watching Gibson's Jesus, complete with slightly fucked up face, get flaggelated for an unconscionable period of time. It has been mercifully shorter, but no less cringe inducing. Every time you think he has hit rock bottom and it's safe to take a breath and stop watching, he stands up, brushes himself off, and motions for more.

It's obvious from watching every movie that Mel Gibson has ever even breathed near, that he is a man who likes to be punished. Well, Gordon Brown makes that slavering nut job look like a cub scout. He is the most hated man in Britain since Beckham was sent off and still he won't step down.

The poor Scot couldn't catch a break with a drift net and a baby pool full of cyanide. Imagine you are on a relaxing walk through Rochdale (however unlikely that may be) when you get ambushed by a rabid pensioner raving about Eastern Europeans flocking to britain. You deal with her as best you can, allay her fears of the great Eastern threat, shake her hand, kiss her grandchild, and get the hell out of Dodge wondering why you got into politics in the first place. Once you think you are in private, how would you describe said woman? Even if I were feeling charitable, I would have called her a lot more than 'bigoted.' That's not a value judgement, that's not even a disparaging comment. That is the dead on, ugly truth. In fact, there is no better description for that woman than what the Prime Minister called her. But he'll be scourged for it, and we'll all keep watching, up until the final agonizing moments where he is nailed to the cross. At this point, the only thing i can figure that keeps him going is his love of the pain.

UK Election Special: David Cameron & The Conservatives

What to do when your party is widely despised, tainted by a toxic legacy of heartless spending cuts and vote-sapping sleaze? Simple: get a new PR boss. Better still, elect one as leader - which is precisely what the Conservatives have done in David Cameron. Now, five years after taking over at Tory Towers, the former director of communications at Carlton Television stands on the verge of power, having altered every aspect of his party's appearance, from the ethnic make-up of their parliamentary candidates to the Conservative logo itself. But, image aside, is the right-of-centre party really any different - can a conservative ever truly change?

There can be no doubt that Cameron has dragged much of his party closer to the middle ground, on the surface at least. We are told to 'vote blue to go green', with xenophobia toned down and the environment talked up in its place; the 'blue rinse brigade' are gradually being phased out, with all-female and all-ethnic minority candidate lists redressing the previous imbalance in the ranks; and 'the Big Society' is in, in an implicit attempt to distance the party from Thatcher and win back votes among working class communities. Cameron has youth on his side, too - and, regardless of his politics, his energy and confident campaigning style have breathed new life into a party which was, frankly, closer to the Jurassic period than modern Britain before his arrival. It is an impressive feat, not least because his famously privileged background is far from a natural vote-winner in a country still obsessed with class. And yet the Tories are still not home and dry in the electoral race; and, despite the smooth Etonian's best efforts, the stale whiff of the past refuses to drift away.

The first scent of trouble came with the Ashcroft scandal, dangerously exposing the party's reliance on tax-dodging billionaires for campaign funds. The next dogshit in the roses was some ill-advised comments on homosexuality from senior Tory Chris Grayling, which led to a dramatic slump in the party's hard-fought share of the pink vote. The Tories also took some heavy hits in the furore over MP's expenses, with one of their fold claiming £1600 of taxpayers' money for a duck house on his estate, and another caught on camera suggesting that politicians were 'treated like shit' on £60,000 a year. Even the media savvy Cameron has been caught out, with a disastrous interview with Gay Times exposing the discomfort behind his liberal veneer. Suspicions rightly remain among the electorate that this is more of the same - and each new crack in the glass diminishes trust further. The Tories traditionally have a strong support base among the elderly and upper classes, and can expect a decent turnout on polling day. But, disappointingly for Cameron, this looks like all they are going to get - floating voters are queuing up to join Nick Clegg, and current opinion polls have the Tories hovering at a similar level to where they were in 2005. Cameron has failed to seal the deal with the electorate: he now has under a week in which to do it.

n n n n n n n n n n n n n n

A party leader who used to be in PR...that's a match made in political heaven and inked in blood by the devil. Americans love to drop the old saying: "you've got to be in it to win it!" From what I can tell, David Cameron is doing his best to prove that wrong. Clegg has got something to prove, Brown has got a lot to answer for, but Cameron? Cameron just has to keep shouting "Broken Britiain" while pointing at his opponents and hope that no one thinks too hard about how, exactly, one goes about being a "progressive conservative".

And that's where being a PR guy comes in. Public Relations isn't about giving people what they want, its about convincing them that you can give them what they want. So you invent catchy terms that mean very little but are packed with positive connotation -- like "progressive conservative" which can either mean that you are everything to everyone or nothing to anyone due to the mathematical rule stating that one positive and one negative equal zero.

That term reminds me of another one that we heard about ten years ago in the US -- Compassionate Conservative. Although not exactly a contradiction in terms, the alarms bells should start jingling any time politicians feel the need to to preface their affiliations with an overtly positive adjective, because it usually means that even they don't believe they have been very nice in the past. These curious word associations rarely bring anything good either. There were enough Americans who actually believed in the concept of a "Compassionate Conservative" to elect one to be our President in 2000. Eight years, two wars, and one world economic recession later, most of us realized that we had been badly duped. Which isn't to say that, if the Tories are elected, David Cameron would "bush" his whole term(s). In fact, despite having read a fair bit about all three parties in the last week, I don't really have any idea WHAT Cameron would do if he were elected. Which might be exactly what he wants.