It was not what we wanted from a World Cup Final. We knew it was going to be Spanish flair versus Dutch defence. But we wanted a clash of contrasting styles; a great sendoff to the first tournament on African soil. We didn’t want a bloodbath.

A great post from the Fiver on Monday (check out Nigel de Jong’s view of events..) The Fiver has it right: the media reaction has been to turn the game into a giant battle of Good and Evil – Spanish Saints versus Dutch Devils.

Excepting a very lucky Carles Puyol and the Spanish team’s tendency to enthusiastically embrace the global tradition of diving, the portrayal is broadly correct.

Nigel de Jong karate kicks Xabi Alonso

You have the hero: Iniesta – the wonderful artist, his gifted friend Xavi, top marksman Villa and a superb cameo from Fabregas.  On the other side, Holland’s leading leading lights fail to shine: Sneijder plays a bit part; Robben is thwarted.

And then you have Nigel de Jong and Mark van Bommel, in full bloodlust… both  queuing up to play the role of a supervillain.

Johann Cruyff has predictably muscled in. Always a sworn enemy of any vaguely defensive tactics, the Dutch master is appalled by his country’s “very dirty”, anti-football style.

“This ugly, vulgar, hard, hermetic, hardly eye-catching, hardly football style… If with this they got satisfaction, fine, but they lost,” Cruyff opined in Spanish newspaper, El Periodico (English reporting linked above).

Now the world agrees with Cruyff that his protégés have joined the Dark Side, to be defeated by his Barca saviours and Jedi Commander Iniesta.

In the middle all this drama you have English referee Howard Webb – seemingly the right choice – but in the end too afraid of upsetting people to make the right calls. He should have got rid of de Jong and van Bommel in the first half.

But growing up in a Premiership that has been populated by ‘combative midfielders’ like Roy Keane and Robbie Savage, Webb was probably all too aware of the received wisdom that a sending off spoils a game. He’d seen a rash of red cards given in the tournament – some inexplicable ones, as Cahill and Klose will attest. And he didn’t want to spoil the final.

It certainly wasn’t a dire performance. With an unsurprising tinge of patriotism, the British media have given Webb their support. But the international condemnation of the English official has been universal.

My favourite line of the day comes from the Italian daily La Republicca, who calls Howard Webb “A rabbit dressed as a referee.” This calls for a photoshop competition. I’m clueless with this, but some of you are very good. Send any entries to my Facebook page, or email me at nickbishop87@gmail.com. Entries featuring any key player welcome.

Incidentally, French catastrophe Raymond Domenech is always a good candidate for a photoshop. For inspiration, have a look at these pics from a French blog; check out the post called “The Missing Moustache of Raymond Domenech” And of course, there’s always Maradona.

As for the aftermath, Liverpool goalkeeper Pepe Reina features prominently in two rather silly BBC videos I stumbled across. He’s singing on a plane with David Villa and Xavi and, more interestingly, forcing Cesc Fabregas into a Barca shirt. Reina pronounces him ‘the future of Barca and the future of Spain’. Poor old Fabregas looks a little embarrassed.

Send in your tracks for the leaders of our three main parties – just post in the comment section, as before. Meanwhile, see what you make of the Clegg collection. Enjoy.

IRENE CARA – FAME! (I’M GONNA LIVE FOREVER)                              

“Or maybe just for two weeks. Depends if they actually do vote for us…”

CECE PENISTON – FINALLY (IT’S HAPPENED TO ME)

“Yes! They know who I am!

And they’re no longer saying ‘isn’t he the one who shagged loads of women?’ Bloody GQ interview!”

JAMES BROWN – GET UP (I FEEL LIKE BEING A) SEX MACHINE

“Oh, wait…”

DAPHNE & CELESTE – OOH STICK YOU

“Damn. The Lib Dems’ election strategy is rumbled by Daphne and Celeste.” 

WHITNEY HOUSTON – HOW WILL I KNOW (IF THEY REALLY LOVE ME?)  

“ ‘Do they love me? Do they love me not?’ Sing it, Vinnie boy!”

This fearless blogger brings you more cutting edge journalism (ahem). Click here for Brown’s Election 2010 Playlist and Bootleg Clegg.

Can you beat The Dave Tapes? Got any better songs for Cameron? Let me know.

CULTURE CLUB – KARMA CHAMELEON  

MEJA – ALL ‘BOUT THE MONEY  

The Tories show a loose grasp of the economy 

THE KINKS – WELL-RESPECTED MAN
A low blow. Classic song.
 

THE PROPELLERHEADS (FT. SHIRLEY BASSEY) – HISTORY REPEATING 

Remix video (1997). Definitely worth a watch. Great spoof intro.
 

SHANIA TWAIN – THAT DON’T IMPRESS ME MUCH  

QUEEN – GOOD OLD-FASHIONED LOVERBOY [ Thanks to Innocent Passerby for the suggestion. Hilarious, but very disturbing.] 

BLUR  – CHARMLESS MAN (A SONG FOR GEORGE OSBORNE) 

MEATLOAF – BAT OUT OF HELL (A SONG FOR MICHAEL HOWARD) 

Now I want to know what would be your heartfelt songs for Gordon, David and Mr Clegg. Tell me and I’ll put up the best ones just for you. Cos I’m nice. Can you come up with some better tunes for the leaders of our three main parties?

Part One Today is election tracks for Mr Gordon Brown. Watch out for more as I uncover we uncover secret playlists for David Cameron and Nick Clegg.

Your suggestions (and links/videos) would be appreciated. Just post in the comment section.

GORDON BROWN’S PLAYLIST 2010

MUSE – TIME IS RUNNING OUT 

; ;

BLUR – NO DISTANCE LEFT TO RUN / COFFEE AND TV

THE CORRS – WHAT CAN I DO (TO MAKE YOU LOVE ME)

Corr! So, so pretty.

LED ZEPPELIN – GOOD TIMES, BAD TIMES / IMMIGRANT SONG (NEW BIGOTED LYRICS BY GILLIAN DUFFY) 

GEORGE MICHAEL – CARELESS WHISPER

ARCTIC MONKEYS – MARDY BUM

Avec daft animation

CAROLE KING WITH JAMES TAYLOR (AKA. P. MANDELSON) – YOU’VE GOT A FRIEND

(WARNING: if this gives you nightmares, watch the Carole King solo version afterwards)

SOFT CELL – TAINTED LOVE (A SONG FOR TONY BLAIR)

Early demo version. Sound is different, but still good. The video is hilarious…

THE HUMAN LEAGUE – DON’T YOU WANT ME

JOHNNY CASH – DON’T MAKE ME GO

Thanks to my cousin, Tom Northam for the suggestion.

Now, it’s over to you….

The spoof article is undoubtedly the best April Fool gag in the UK media.

In an audacious new election strategy, Labour is set to embrace Gordon Brown’s reputation for anger and physical aggression, presenting the prime minister as a hard man, unafraid of confrontation, who is willing to take on David Cameron in “a bare-knuckle fistfight for the future of Britain”, the Guardian has learned

The Guardian has also come up with a great gallery of spoof election posters. It has spawned a series of alternative posters from bored workers waiting for the Easter weekend (view slideshow).

Aside from politics, there is one headline on the page that made me laugh even more. ‘Urinals at Home: Your Responses’. Brilliant. Best headline for ages - Chris Morris would be proud of that. And since it is actually quite a good idea, many readers have been treating the article dead seriously.

And how’s this for a terrifying headline. ‘Go Compare: The Movie‘

 There are also some genuine goodies. An ale drinker embarrassed by the shockingly poor iimage of real beer suggests ways its image might be improved. I do not have a beard – neither do I have an obsession with Tolkien or folk music – yet I love the taste of a good beer. The author gives some short points to transform the industry in his mickey-taking Malt Manifesto.

Happy Easter. I know I should wait until Sunday, but I can’t… so I’m off to gorge on Mini Eggs!

European countries are growing increasingly concerned about rising Islamophobia. The vote was not expected to pass. Yet on a 53% turnout, it passed by a clear margin. Over 57% of voters approved the proposal. Dutch far right parties are now calling for a similar referendum, and many states fear that anti-Muslim feeling could increase.

What is the problem with these simple, graceful mosque towers? Well, it’s clear that there’s nothing to be bothered about. Minarets adorn the top of mosques; sometimes, a call to prayer is made from its balcony (this is already forbidden in Switzerland). There are only four mosques with minarets in the country.

A minaret at a mosque in Serrières, Swtzerland. Photo by Tambako

So how did it all start? Ultra-conservative parties like the SVP started a petition demanding the banning of minarets. In Switzerland, if a petition gains 100,000 signatures, the government has to open a referendum on the issue. Reluctantly, it did.

Moderates were fairly confident the proposal would be rejected. But they got a nasty shock. Now, Article 72 of the Constitution, which deals with religion and the state, will bear a short, sharp phrase: “The construction of minarets is banned.”

Muslims do not need minarets for worship, but the implications of the ban are extremely worrying.  The SVP statement* said the passing of the referendum was a refusal of “the rampant Islamisation of our country” before railing against arranged marriage and Muslim requests for “exemptions from swimming lessons”. Clearly, they are nutters, and they are trying to stoke up anti-Muslim feeling.

The SVP leaders, however, are claiming that the move is not anti-Islamic “This is not against Islam. The minaret is a symbol of political power,” a leading SVP parliamentarian told The Times. The party made heavy use of a statement by the Prime Minister of Turkey, the leader of a conservative Islamist party, who described minarets as “the bayonets of Islam”.

So the SVP set about making posters in red, white and black, showing a burkha-clad woman surrounded by minarets drawn as bayonets. The main message of the image was clear: Islam is a threat. A Guardian editorial points to the added symbolism of red, white and black in Switzerland, suggesting it has connotations of the Nazi swastika.

The SVP’s idea that minarets are political is clearly rubbish. They are a simple architectural feature on a religious building. But they know that the policy is against the European Convention of Human Rights on the grounds of religious discrimination. So they are claiming minarets are “political” to keep their constitutional amendment within the law.

The amendment is likely to be struck off under European law because banning minarets clearly discriminates against a particular religion. But the SVP may have already achieved their goal of increasing anti-Muslim resentment.

———

* SVP is the Swiss People’s Party’s German shorthand name. The SVP statement seen here is the French version. In French speaking areas they are called UDC (Union Democratique du Centre)

Part 2: The press and public – the reaction

Following my post about the Swiss minaret ban, here’s some follow up thoughts on some of the reaction.

Daniel Hannan in the Telegraph says he doesn’t like this particular referendum, but applauds the Swiss system. He says direct democracy like this is great: it makes for a more actively engaged electorate. Others argue that it produces “the tyranny of the majority”. I would agree. If the British people had referenda, capital punishment would be back today.

Some Muslim writers compare the minaret ban with the French furore about the burkha. Tariq Ramadan points towards anti-Islamic feeling in Europe but the French debate is arguably different.

It is true that many people use the burkha to make anti-Islamic statements. It enrages people so much they feel justified in pouring hastily produced bile over Islam.

But at least theoretically, the burkha debate is separate.  This is a discontent with a conservative version of Islam, and a debate about the hotly contested meaning of hijab, the Islamic dress code. It is given added zeal by a particularly French commitment to secularism that, at times, moves from noble ideals to a grubby anti-Islamic reality.

Some secular writers are saying that perhaps the minaret vote is partly a reflection of Swiss society’s discontent with the increasing role of religion in public life. (See Joan Smith in the Guardian).  This is nonsense. If you’re concerned about this, you don’t vote to ban some small towers on a mosque.

The minaret debate has no legitimacy at all. It is simply an excuse to bash Muslims.

Muslims: the new bogeymen

Muslims are the new bogeymen of society, along with asylum seekers. Prejudice is often directed at minority groups, and these two are the 21^st century examples. Once it was acceptable to rail against black people or Jewish people; now it is Muslims and asylum seekers.

Take a look at some of the comments on media articles about the minaret ban. If we try substituting the word “Muslim” for “Jews” or “black people”, we see how horrifying it is.

Those with a jaundiced outlook on the left and right will spew the same predictable comments. They’ll say something like: “Most of the major terrorist threats in the world originate from people who say they are Muslim. So our vitriol against Muslims is justified.” The first sentence may be true. The second sentence is not. The existence of a tiny minority of terrorists does not provide the excuse to bash Muslims, and curb basic religious freedoms. That is just ridiculous. It is against basic democratic values.

But some seem to take leave of their brain and spout forth rubbish. Look at most of the comments in the Times. Or this person commenting on a Telegraph article, who says:

Oh, stop being so analytical!
What a wonderful result, and may the rest of Europe follow as soon as possible!
And not only with minarets as the target

Far right parties look to be winning. Muslims are being portrayed as “the enemy within”. This must stop.

Find out more about the club battling just to survive with £4m debts. The club that’s somehow top of League Two. The club that has the youngest manager in the football league, Eddie Howe, who is just 32.

Read on to find out more. And if you live in the area, come down to watch your local team and see for yourself.

What do you reckon of the superlambanana? Is the Angel of the North a cultural wonder, or just a great towering piece of rubbish? I love it. But what’s your take? Read on and let me know.

The piece was originally intended for Substance magazine. Substance is a current affairs title for young people that I helped produce.  But we couldn’t fit any more copy in the issue.

So readers of this blog get to see it first in another blog exclusive.

The article was originally written during my journalism course at Cardiff. It involves mountains, Welsh people and heroic deeds. Here’s an extract.

In the South Wales Valleys, it seems they like a challenge. The Caerphilly piemakers Peter’s Food are raising huge amounts of money for charities, but not just through raffles and tombolas. They’ve sent six piemen to scale the highest peaks in England, Scotland and Wales. Click here to read more…

Keep your eyes open for more of my articles on this blog. Check the Blog Exclusives page.

He certainly had an opportunity to make a big impact. He had the chance on national TV to spin a false impression that he was a credible politician. And I think he blew it. He was, after all, spectacularly rubbish.

Yes, the media are beginning to say that Griffin might succeed in playing the victim of a supposedly over-aggressive panel. The Telegraph are reporting a poll that they say suggests “one in five would consider voting for the BNP”. But I don’t think many more people will actually vote for them. Even if they were silly enough to feel sorry for him and/or harbour some nasty views, he came across as too nasty and too incompetent to consider voting for when they get to the polls.

In an earlier post about BNP henchman Richard Barnbrook, I wondered whether giving the BNP a public platform would lead to a worrying surge of support for the party. On the evidence of their leader’s performance, I needn’t have worried.

Griffin could not hide from his track record of making thoroughly disgusting statements And he could not deny that the rebranding of the BNP  is a sham. His statements were quoted word for word. Such as the time when Griffin talked to an audience of Ku Klux Klan about selling far right ideas with nice, fluffy buzzwords. At a KKK meeting in America, Griffin had said:

Once we’re in a position where we control the British broadcasting media, then perhaps one day the British people might change their mind and say, ‘yes, every last one must go’. But if you hold that out as your sole aim to start with, you’re not going to get anywhere. So, instead of talking about racial purity, we talk about identity.

When faced with quotes like this, Griffin simply said he’d been misquoted, or that he hadn’t said it at all. Not a good defence when the video is available on YouTube.

One of the best comments online came from The Guardian’s Charlie Brooker, who said: “Soon Griffin will be claiming he was misquoted by himself.”

In summary, Griffin was exposed for the horrible fool that he is.

Griffin’s response is to try to play the victim. He says the format of Question Time was changed to focus solely on the BNP. In his view, not all of the questions should have been about “what a nasty man I am” and more about the issues of the day.

That’s like Osama Bin Laden saying, “People shouldn’t focus on the fact that I have orchestrated a campaign of mass terrorism. If they talk to me about climate change or the Olympics, they’ll realise I’m quite a reasonable fellow.”

But if I imagine Griffin talking about the recession, for example, I can’t imagine him giving a reasonable response. I feared he might beforehand. But after seeing his blustering, he’d probably fail dismally at that too.

But the buffoon ploughs on. He says the audience were like a “lynch mob” and the other panellists were in all out attack mode.

Some respondents on the BBC News website, and presumably not all of them are BNP supporters, are actually feeling that Griffin might have been unfairly treated. Even some of his critics are saying that the panellists were too harsh. A respondent using the name Zydeco writes that the “panel… had no intention of debating the issues, but merely to [sic.] attack Griffin personally.”

But Jack Straw, Chris Huhne, Bonnie Greer and Sayeeda Warsi were not hurling random insults. They were using Griffin’s own words to expose his hateful creed. And they did a fairly good job at this part.

But the panellists did not always cover themselves in glory. When it came to immigration, they pandered to the ultra-conservative consensus.  As the New Statesman columnist James Macintyre puts it, the panellists almost “met Griffin halfway on immigration.”

Jack Straw repeatedly talked about the  “problems” posed by immigration without ever defining what the problem was. He talked about accepting people’s fears around immigration without saying why they were justified.

He then moved seamlessly and incongruously on to asylum, hailing that the number of people seeking asylum was down. He did not say why that was good. Was it good because he somehow believed there were fewer people being persecuted? I suspect not. It was simply good because there were fewer people coming to the UK.

Sayeeda Warsi, the Conservative spokesman for Community Cohesion, tripped up, claiming that people feel the “pace of change has been too bad…” before quickly correcting herself to say “too fast.” But why is change necessarily bad? What’s more, they talk as if this supposedly bad change only occurred in the last fifty years, when Britain’s population has always been constantly evolving.

If mainstream politicians are talking like this, it is a small victory for the BNP. Not because these anti-immigration views are in anyway fascist, but because mainstream politicians are unquestionably accepting that immigrants are a burden. They might realise the positive side of immigration, but they do not question the consensus about the negatives. This part was, you might think depressingly predictable.

Less predictable was the fact that Griffin could be exposed quite so easily as the racist bastard that he is. Nor was it so predictable that he would be so useless at projecting a more moderate image. And then prove both his racism and uselessness by claiming that the London audience was biased because the capital has been “ethnically cleansed”. He failed again.

A headline in The Independent sums it up. “The BBC gave Griffin was the oxygen of publicity. And he choked.”