This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/12/brand-farage-pound-shop-enoch-entertaining-stupid

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
When Farage the ‘pound shop Enoch Powell’ got a taste of the firebrand When Farage the ‘pound shop Enoch Powell’ got a taste of the firebrand
(4 days later)
If a vital part of politicians’ armoury is a grasp of memorable invective, then Russell Brand has passed the qualifying hurdle. In a tetchy BBC Question Time encounter with Ukip’s Nigel Farage, it was Brand who produced the zinger, with the jibe that his opponent was “a pound-shop Enoch Powell”. If a vital part of politicians’ armoury is a grasp of memorable invective, then Russell Brand has passed the qualifying hurdle. In a tetchy BBC Question Time encounter with Ukip’s Nigel Farage, it was Brand who produced the zinger, with the jibe that his opponent was “a pound-shop Enoch Powell”.
If Farage was tempted to reply that his opponent trades in a cut-price political rhetoric that reduces debate to a bewildering brew of slogans, tautologies and clap-lines, he chose instead to occupy the argumentative high ground – or as close as Ukippers get to it.If Farage was tempted to reply that his opponent trades in a cut-price political rhetoric that reduces debate to a bewildering brew of slogans, tautologies and clap-lines, he chose instead to occupy the argumentative high ground – or as close as Ukippers get to it.
Like many coarse broadsides, Brand’s contained some uneasy truths, both for Farage and his assailant. The late Powell was many things; sage, visionary, polymath and political one-man band, whose “rivers of blood” speech was deemed so troublesome by the moderate Edward Heath that he promptly sacked Powell. But he also raised a question that mainstream politicians have dodged for several decades since – and has come home to haunt them in fraught times when the financial crash, ensuing austerity and rise in the global flows of labour give tensions about immigration particular saliency.Like many coarse broadsides, Brand’s contained some uneasy truths, both for Farage and his assailant. The late Powell was many things; sage, visionary, polymath and political one-man band, whose “rivers of blood” speech was deemed so troublesome by the moderate Edward Heath that he promptly sacked Powell. But he also raised a question that mainstream politicians have dodged for several decades since – and has come home to haunt them in fraught times when the financial crash, ensuing austerity and rise in the global flows of labour give tensions about immigration particular saliency.
The reason that Powellism captured the attention of many who were neither racist nor wholly opposed to immigration, but uneasy about the questions of integration that it posed, was that both centre-left and right parties fudged the discussion and continued to do so, usually by trying to couch in technocratic arguments what voters felt was about cultural or emotional responses.The reason that Powellism captured the attention of many who were neither racist nor wholly opposed to immigration, but uneasy about the questions of integration that it posed, was that both centre-left and right parties fudged the discussion and continued to do so, usually by trying to couch in technocratic arguments what voters felt was about cultural or emotional responses.
I say this as someone who defends the deeply unfashionable principle that modern societies benefit from immigration more than they lose and that a vital part of Anglo-Saxon liberalism, both economic and attitudinal, is bound up in a commitment to openness. But it is politically daft not to see that immigration has an impact on public services, which are often too inflexibly organised and funded to accommodate sudden influxes. The mainstream parties have yet to square that circle convincingly, which makes a cut-price Farage an expensive liability for the Conservatives – and he is capable of doing damage to the left, too.I say this as someone who defends the deeply unfashionable principle that modern societies benefit from immigration more than they lose and that a vital part of Anglo-Saxon liberalism, both economic and attitudinal, is bound up in a commitment to openness. But it is politically daft not to see that immigration has an impact on public services, which are often too inflexibly organised and funded to accommodate sudden influxes. The mainstream parties have yet to square that circle convincingly, which makes a cut-price Farage an expensive liability for the Conservatives – and he is capable of doing damage to the left, too.
Failing to engage with such reasonable worries has not been a happy strategy. It produced the shock byelection defeat of Labour in Smethwick in 1964, which reminded Labour that many of its natural supporters felt alienated on the issue. If today’s fears are, thankfully, less couched in the nasty rhetoric of racism, they are still acutely felt. Thus Farage has little to fear from the Brand offensive, which has more chance of acting as a dog whistle to those tempted by a whiff of Powellism than it has of damaging him. Failing to engage with such reasonable worries has not been a happy strategy. It produced the shock defeat of Labour in Smethwick in 1964, which reminded Labour that many of its natural supporters felt alienated on the issue. If today’s fears are, thankfully, less couched in the nasty rhetoric of racism, they are still acutely felt. Thus Farage has little to fear from the Brand offensive, which has more chance of acting as a dog whistle to those tempted by a whiff of Powellism than it has of damaging him.
The other challenge to Cameron, Miliband and Clegg and anyone who hopes to step into their shoes, is that the quarrel between the two firebrands reflects inchoate though powerful undercurrents. At a time when such arguments are complex and unpalatable, they are free to offer entertaining and yet stupid solutions. Farage can complain that immigration, rather than poor transport solutions, makes him late for appointments stuck on overcrowded motorways and conclude that a shortage of GP capacity is the product of incomers.The other challenge to Cameron, Miliband and Clegg and anyone who hopes to step into their shoes, is that the quarrel between the two firebrands reflects inchoate though powerful undercurrents. At a time when such arguments are complex and unpalatable, they are free to offer entertaining and yet stupid solutions. Farage can complain that immigration, rather than poor transport solutions, makes him late for appointments stuck on overcrowded motorways and conclude that a shortage of GP capacity is the product of incomers.
Conversely, Brand wants to fund the shortfall in public finances by attacking a relatively small number of bankers for their bonuses and some vaguely conceived elites (obviously excluding those in the entertainment business or who are allergic to being asked about tax arrangements governing their homes).Conversely, Brand wants to fund the shortfall in public finances by attacking a relatively small number of bankers for their bonuses and some vaguely conceived elites (obviously excluding those in the entertainment business or who are allergic to being asked about tax arrangements governing their homes).
Both channel aggression beneath their cheery exteriors. Farage has done extremely well out of the system he professes to loathe: a public schoolboy and banker rebranded as rebel. Brand’s dislike of being challenged together with him taking a lead role in a masked Halloween march, which edged protest towards sinister disruption, tell their own story. A fundamental requirement of both is a lack of interest in economic realities. The appeal of each is that they offer an easy-peasy solution, which will prevent us doing the hard stuff of working out how Britain deals with the tendency of modern, technologically-driven economies to exacerbate the gap between rich and poor and a fall in the value of wages shared across the western economies.Both channel aggression beneath their cheery exteriors. Farage has done extremely well out of the system he professes to loathe: a public schoolboy and banker rebranded as rebel. Brand’s dislike of being challenged together with him taking a lead role in a masked Halloween march, which edged protest towards sinister disruption, tell their own story. A fundamental requirement of both is a lack of interest in economic realities. The appeal of each is that they offer an easy-peasy solution, which will prevent us doing the hard stuff of working out how Britain deals with the tendency of modern, technologically-driven economies to exacerbate the gap between rich and poor and a fall in the value of wages shared across the western economies.
What they share is that they signal trouble for political incumbents, and not just when it comes to vagaries of electoral arithmetic in 2015. They also highlight a generational clash that feels fiercer than it has done since the 1960s. Brand’s arguments (I use the word loosely), appeal to the young who feel angry and disenfranchised at the growth that fed their parents’ prosperity and which is eaten away by low wages, the hollowing out of middle-class jobs and high house prices. Farage chimes with older voters, ill at ease with social liberalism, changing societies and an interconnected, interdependent economies.What they share is that they signal trouble for political incumbents, and not just when it comes to vagaries of electoral arithmetic in 2015. They also highlight a generational clash that feels fiercer than it has done since the 1960s. Brand’s arguments (I use the word loosely), appeal to the young who feel angry and disenfranchised at the growth that fed their parents’ prosperity and which is eaten away by low wages, the hollowing out of middle-class jobs and high house prices. Farage chimes with older voters, ill at ease with social liberalism, changing societies and an interconnected, interdependent economies.
Neither has durable answers. Both are good at making grievances resonate, aided by the fact that their conventional opponents are frankly dull. Aside from the still untested Boris Johnson and Alex Salmond, none of the main parties boasts major players combining popular appeal with serious intent. The Brand-Farage duopoly of nonsense occupies the vacuum.Neither has durable answers. Both are good at making grievances resonate, aided by the fact that their conventional opponents are frankly dull. Aside from the still untested Boris Johnson and Alex Salmond, none of the main parties boasts major players combining popular appeal with serious intent. The Brand-Farage duopoly of nonsense occupies the vacuum.
These two are more similar than they care to think: lords of modern misrule, without a clue about the way forward. Enjoy the show: and a plague on both their houses.These two are more similar than they care to think: lords of modern misrule, without a clue about the way forward. Enjoy the show: and a plague on both their houses.
• This article was amended on 16 December 2014. An earlier version said Labour unexpectedly lost a byelection in Smethwick in 1964. The result came in the 1964 general election.