2024 General Election Preview

I've been putting off a review of election leaflets because... we simply haven't had any to review. Labour are the only party to get in touch. We have had three leaflets from them. So my traditional review of pre-election literature feels like a waste of time this time.

All we got...

Technically we are in a newish constituency because the boundaries have been redrawn. The net result of this is that the number of parliamentary seats in Wales has reduced from 40 to 32. That means we get 20% fewer politicians.

The irony is that Labour's central message is "Change", except, as Cathy pointed out, all we've ever had here in Grangetown is Labour. Real change here would mean voting in an MP from any other party!

Unfortunately we don't get the option of voting for an official Plaid Cymru candidate this time. Plaid announced they were withdrawing support for their candidate because of anti-semitic tweets just after the cut off date to get a replacement in (more details in this report, which includes details of the tweets). This isn't the first time Plaid have had a candidate with a dodgy track record on social media in our constituency. It's a real shame this has happened again because I wanted to vote for them.

Other people I've talked to have had lots of leaflets. I have noticed a major difference between a Labour leaflet posted through my mum's door and the ones we have received. The leaflet delivered in Shrewsbury was this:

Yes, actually a Labour leaflet!

In contrast, the Labour leaflets we have received have not featured this 'Stop the Boats' messaging. I strongly suspect that is because Shrewsbury's population is 97% white and skews towards older people, and the profiling experts would assume that means they will respond positively to anti-immigrant rhetoric. (My mum didn't!)

Meanwhile where we live is the most multicultural community in Wales. This is reflected in the (possibly photoshopped) picture of Labour supporters with our incumbent MP on his leaflet. 

I find that the most cynical aspect of this - the blatant racist 'Stop the Boats' rhetoric is bad enough, but Labour don't even have the guts to stand by their racism in communities that are more likely to be offended by it.

I am completely repelled by the leaflet that was delivered to my mum's. I've written before how my grandmother moved to Britain when she was 19 and how both she, and my mum, experienced racism. One day I will blog about my experience as a five year-old refugee - and how my family were given a 30 minute warning to pack everything and head to the nearest border. It happened while we lived in Africa and it has taken me years to properly grasp what was going on and come to terms with how much danger we were in. 

I wouldn't wish the experience of racist abuse or being a refugee on anyone. But you shouldn't have had to have experienced those things to have empathy and compassion for people in that situation. The way the people crossing the channel in small boats are monsterised and treated as less than human by the media and the right wing parties is sickening. And now Labour are doing it too. 

This is a deal-breaker for me. Labour are pandering to racists - and doing it dishonestly at that, by saying racist things to get racists to vote for them and then being careful not to mention it in other communities. The duplicity in that makes them completely unpalatable. 

Book of the Month - Malcolm X speaks his truth

I've just finished reading The Autobiography of Malcolm X, which was published in 1965, shortly after his violent death, by Alex Haley, the journalist to whom Malcolm narrated his life story. 

The version I read (pictured) was the 2007 edition. It included a short introduction by Gary Younge, which didn't really add much (and included a weird shoehorned in reference to footballer Zinedine Zidane). Alex Haley's Foreword on the other hand, was a riveting piece of biography and explained the process by which he collated the details of Malcolm X's life including the many sessions where he took notes as Malcom talked. 

My knowledge of Malcolm X before I read this was embarrassingly paltry. I knew he was involved in the civil rights movement (although it turns out he was actually quite critical of much of it) and that he had been killed relatively young. If pushed, I might have remembered the link with the Nation of Islam although I knew absolutely nothing about that movement. 

I feel grateful that Malcolm X took the time to share his life story. He doesn't hold back in detailing his failures and mistakes. His early life as a hustler, drug dealer and burglar in Boston and then in Harlem, New York, is a source of sorrow and shame to him. However, he also clearly sees how those experiences gave him some useful skills and experience that he put to use in later life as a Minister in the Nation of Islam and as a spokesperson for the movement. 

I have read a lot of conversion testimonies by people who have left behind lives of gutter crime, being transformed in some way by an encounter with Christianity. This is the first time I have read a testimony of someone converting into a different religion. But the mechanic is the same - discovering a sense of purpose, an internal renewal and change in moral outlook, a 'calling' to serve and a passionate tendency to take things to an extreme. 

All of this is evident in Malcolm X's description of his conversion to the idiosyncratic brand of "Islam" practiced by the Nation. He explains the Nation's teachings, many of which don't really hold up to serious examination. Although, in fairness, the idea that white "devils" were created as an act of rebellion against Allah is only as ridiculous on the surface as any other religious fables. As with all such stories, they represented a deeper truth - believable to Malcolm because of the brutal reality of growing up black in a deeply racist society where oppression for people with his colour skin was baked into the natural order. 

Reading his account of his early years, it seems inevitable he ended up as a street hustler. After his father was (apparently) murdered by white racists, his mother was driven into an asylum after having her children removed by social workers. Malcolm X is put in his place by school teachers who tell him to aim for a career "suitable" for black people rather than pursuing his idea of being a lawyer. He returns to that several times in his story - it was clearly a source of resentment for most of his life. Justifiably. 

The surprising element of his story is not that he ended up in prison. Where the story takes a turn is his 'rescue' by the Nation of Islam. When he leaves prison he rapidly ascends the hierarchy of the organisation, aggressively proselytising in the black community and founding mosques in cities across the USA. 

His success meant he eventually grew too big for the Nation and its founder, Elijah Muhammad, to deal with. Malcolm's rejection by the man he credited as his saviour left a deep psychological scar on him. It happened only a couple of years before his death and it's widely believed he was killed by members of the Nation on the orders of their leader. 

Following his departure from the Nation, Malcolm went on a Hajj to Mecca and travelled in Africa, seeking to improve the cause of black Americans by promoting brotherhood with Africans. This was in the heyday of post-colonial liberation for African countries. There is a tangible sense of hope that Africa was a rising power in Malcolm's descriptions of his travels. Sadly, that hope hasn't materialised in the sixty years since his death. 

His description of the Hajj, the joyfulness of the pilgrimage experience and the brotherhood he experienced with his fellow Muslim believers, is very compelling. It is the experience of a true believer deepening his faith, seeing the hand of God at work in every little circumstance. As very recent events in his life, this part of his story is obviously still hugely significant - he talks as if it is the culmination of his life journey. Which, tragically, it was.

Reading his life in his own words, it's hard not to like Malcolm X even if his opinions and attitudes have dated. His view of women, generally, is unenlightened, although he was in awe of his half sister, Ella. The Nation had very strict views on gender roles, which he absorbed uncritically as they aligned with his street hustler viewpoint that women weren't to be trusted. He also makes some sweeping comments about Jews even while claiming he's not being anti-Semitic.

However, Malcolm X would probably say I don't have a right to cast judgement on him, as a white man far removed from the context he lived in. I'd happily concede that. There is a comment he makes towards the end of his story that resonated with me:

"I'm for truth, no matter who tells it. I'm for justice, no matter who is for or against."

I felt I was reading a lot of truth in what Malcolm X narrated to his autobiography's author. 

The book ends with Malcolm presciently saying he expected to die young and violently. I felt sad as it seemed he had just reached a point where he had managed to outgrow the limiting half-truths of the Nation, and was embarking on a much more wide-ranging mission. He had moved through hatred of white people to a mature sense that while whiteness itself was still a huge problem, there was hope for white people as individuals - and indeed many were sincere in wanting to end racism. 

It has left me wondering what he might have achieved if he had been able to explore those ideas more fully.

Whataboutery and moral equivalency - weapons in the war on truth part 3

This is my third post in a row about whataboutery. I've previously written about 'moral equivalency' and how whatabouterists try to deflect criticism by criticising the critics. But sometimes whatabouterists stray into bold new territory. Today's quality whataboutery came on yet another post on Facebook about Dominic Cummings.

A friend shared a story from someone who had been in a very similar position to Dominic Cummings but had followed the quarantine rules. It was difficult for that person to follow the rules, but it was the right thing to do. They were justifiably annoyed that Dominic Cummings had ignored the quarantine rules and potentially exposed a lot of other people to Coronavirus.

The very first comment on the shared post included the phrase "What about..." It's a textbook start for some whataboutery, and then it kicked into an unexpected direction. Here's the post.

In case you can't read the reply, here it is a bit bigger.

It reads as follows:

"Think it's time to move on. Starter is a hypocrite and CANNOT be trusted. What about the French escorting migrants to British eaters and dumping there? Where it the new coverage over this - nowhere and the media wiggle to be the best at destroying someone it goes over their pathetic agenda." [sic]

I told you it was quality whataboutery. It was clearly typed in a hurry by someone in a rush to tick lots of boxes. "Time to move on." they say. I have a lot to say about that phrase. It's the catchphrase of an authoritarian person who does not want to be held to account for their actions. (That's a future blog post right there.)

By "Starter", they actually mean Starmer, as in Keir Starmer, the leader of the Labour party. Apparently he "CANNOT be trusted". The use of CAPS is beloved of whatabouterists. But who said anything about Starmer? This, again, is an attempt to bring the "other side" in and pretend this is only a political argument. It was heartening to see that subsequent commenters just ignored this libellous comment and avoided the trap of defending Starmer. That's not the subject in hand and the distraction was ignored.

Then we get the "What about...?" Just to clarify, they mean migrants being escorted to British waters, not to British eaters. E and W are easy keys to mix up when you're keen to get your comment in. I thought I'd best explain, just in case you were worried about cannibalism.

I have no idea what relevance the French navy's actions have to the discussion at hand. It's a classic example of an attempt at derailment and deflection - let's talk about another issue! Why isn't that news?

And they're still not finished. This is a real kitchen sink job - everything is going in! As we saw in my previous post, the actions of the media are criticised. They are trying to destroy Dominic Cummings in pursuit of "their pathetic agenda". Again, no acknowledgment that none of this would have happened if Dominic Cummings had not broken quarantine law, or had resigned when the story broke. No, this is all the media's fault. Blame-shifting is an important aspect of whataboutery.

In my previous posts I've blacked out the names of the people making the posts. I almost didn't bother with this one because they sound like a racist and I think people should own their shit when it comes to that sort of thing. But I'm nice. However, I did reply to him, as follows.

"[To Name] I agree it's disgusting that migrants aren't helped safely ashore and cared for. More should be done for them. They shouldn't just be dumped."

They haven't responded to that. That's probably because whatabouterists aren't actually looking for a sensible debate on the points they ask 'what about' about. They just throw stuff into the mixer to confuse the conversation and obscure the point of it. I wasn't expecting a response and did it mainly for my own amusement, and also because I like pushing the buttons of people who blame all the ills of society on immigration.

I'm concluding this mini-series of blog posts about whataboutery here. I suspect we will continue to see a lot of it on social media in the coming months though.

Animation review: Kung Fu Panda 3 and Zootropolis

In the last few days I've seen Kung Fu Panda 3 and Zootropolis. Both were pretty solid animated films with some surprisingly mature themes. This post includes minor spoilers.

Don't upset the Dragon Warrior

Kung Fu Panda 3 pretty much continues where the second one left off, with Po meeting his real panda father who was a post-credits reveal at the end of Kung Fu Panda 2. The plot is split between Po discovering his panda heritage while also having to fight a new baddy – General Kai, who has returned from the Spirit Realm to steal the chi life force of the living.

For fans of the first film, Ugwe, the turtle who chose Po as the Dragon Warrior is back. I always liked Ugwe. The animation is top drawer, especially a sequence with an elemental dragon towards the end. There are also lots of very cute baby pandas.

If I was a bit critical I’d say the members of the panda tribe were a bit overdone in being goofily clumsy and fat. It was funny at first, but there is only so many time you can see someone bouncing off a massive panda tummy in slow motion and still laugh at it.

The more mature storyline is the conflict between Po’s panda dad and his adoptive goose dad, who has raised Po ever since he discovered him in a box of radishes. I think it covered the difficulty faced by foster fathers and birth fathers quite sympathetically, even if it resolves it more neatly and quickly than things like this get resolved outside animated films. What is telling is that both panda and goose want to see Po happy, and that enables them to get over their differences. Po ends up with two dads, instead of replacing one. That’s a very positive message.

Zootropolis (called Zootopia everywhere else besides the UK) is the latest Disney film. I really enjoyed it. The plot is a nod to police movies and unlikely buddy movies – a rabbit, Judy Hopps, becomes the first bunny to become a police officer in the city of Zootropolis but struggles to be accepted because of her status as a prey species. She teams up with a streetwise fox, Nick Wilde, in an ‘unnatural’ partnership between a predator and prey species to solve a missing persons case that turns out to be much bigger than she first realised.

Wait, this isn't the Number 8 bus...

There were some good jokes along the way. The scene in the DMV run by sloths was no less funnier for being one of the extended trailers for the film, and Flash the sloth pops up again later in the movie in a moment that really made me laugh out loud. There is also an very nice homage to the Godfather as well. The animation is really outstanding, particularly when Judy sits in the observation car of the train taking her to Zootropolis and we see the city, with its different climate zones revealed one after the other. That whole sequence knocks most science fiction movies out of the park for the level of detail and wonder.

The big plot theme here is the relationship between predator and prey species in a clever parallel to racial tensions in the human world. With predators seemingly falling victim to their ‘biology’ and going savage, the prey species are being urged to take action. It’s no accident that one of the more prominent prey politicians has a hairpiece reminiscent of Donald Trump. The assertion that ‘we outnumber them ten to one’ and therefore need to crush them to protect ourselves from them is a bit like the anti-Muslim rhetoric you sometimes hear. Removing a predator cheetah (who is only really a danger to doughnuts) from the front desk of the police station because the powers that be feel as a predator he doesn’t project the right image, really rams the point home about stereotyping.  (Even if the love of doughnuts is in its own way also a stereotype.)

So, Zootropolis has a very deep theme and an important message. It also boasts a fine meta joke - Alan Tudyk voices the thief Duke Weaselton, who is a weasel. In Frozen he voices the Duke of Weaselton. When he is welcomed at Arendel castle as the Duke of Weaselton, he issues a correction and says it's Wesselton. In Zootropolis his name is mispronounced and he corrects it to Weaselton. I doubt any kids will even get the link, but that’s the sort of thing I quite enjoy.

Ratings:

Kung Fu Panda 3: 7.5/10

Zootropolis: 9/10

I will be voting to stay in the EU and here are some reasons why...

On a message board I was part of a discussion about the upcoming EU referendum that spilled out of a person explaining why he voted UKIP. His reason was that "I think national sovereignty is the defining issue of our generation."

I asked him why. I had to ask him several times before he came out with "I don't like them telling us what to do." Or in other words, I don't like being told what to do by foreigners. Apparently it's OK to be told what to do by people who were born or who live in this country and definitely don't have your best interests at heart unless you're a millionaire or a member of the Eton old boys network, because at least they aren't foreign!

Putting aside the basic racism of that point of view for one moment, does it really make sense? The UK is one of the powerhouse economies of Europe. It's got a lot of people and it should have a lot of say and a lot of sway in Europe as a result. I can see tiny countries like Belgium and Denmark deciding they don't want to be pushed around any more, but the UK is big enough to be among the big hitters. The fact that we don't feel we are is more to do with the ineptitude of our leaders than anything else.

Let's be honest if we put Merkel up against Cameron, only a true-blue rosetted moron would seriously bet against Merkel. I'd question whether Cameron could hold his own against any premier from one of the big European countries, and most of the smaller ones. He's a political lightweight and that's why the UK has floundered in Europe in the five or so years he's been in charge.

In fact, the only reason a referendum is in the offing is because Cameron lacked faith in himself. It was a sop to the euro-sceptic Tories to stop them defecting to UKIP and everyone thought the parliament was heading towards coalition government again. No way Cameron would ally with UKIP if they returned any MPs (which in the end they effectively didn't, because their one MP was a Tory who switched sides in a bacon-saving move), and any other party wouldn't want a referendum, so Cameron knew it was a promise he would never have to follow up on. Unless the unthinkable happened and he won an outright majority. Oops.

Well, sometimes if you don't back your own horse in the race you end up looking like a chump.

Cameron doesn't want a 'Brexit'. (Yes, the British Exit has it's own bastardised nickname now.) Of course he doesn't. It would be a disaster for the main financiers of the Conservative party and the home counties core voting districts. Economically, the uncertainty would damage the stock market, trading agreements would be torn up and we would no longer be a key player in a very good team. We would be one against many and we would be owned by China within a generation - their trading post on the edge of Europe, a bit like we used to use Hong Kong.

But the economic meltdown that would ensue following a Brexit and the destruction of the stock market aren't really my reasons for staying in the EU. I'm not a fan of the money-making-money empire of Mammon so I won't mourn its passing, even if it's a hard time to live through.

My reasons are simpler. Here's one: we haven't had a major war in Western Europe for over seventy years now. I think the EU has played some part in that. When you are sitting down working out ways to work more closely together, there is less likelihood of people gunning up and prepping for war.

Seventy years war-free on our continent is pretty much unheard of and we have all reaped the benefit. We are the richest generation ever with luxuries and technology which our forefathers could only dream of. Yes, that has made us hated in the parts of the world we could describe as the 'have nots', which brings it's own ethical considerations into play, but most people in the UK have a standard of living that would be unheard of in previous generations. When you aren't spending money on bombs and then using those bombs to blow things up, you can achieve a great deal as a group of countries.

I think that's a good reason to stay in the EU.

Then there is the way money is spent. I know it makes no sense for the UK to contribute to European funds and then claim the money back to spend in poor areas, just like it makes no sense to take tax off poor working people and then pay them benefits to limit the impact of poverty. But that process of Euro funding has really helped in parts of the UK that I call 'not-London'.

Just about every major infrastructure project in South Wales - from fast, safe roads to the lovely Cardiff Bay developments to the new Swansea Marina - has been funded by European money. Yes, it's our money they are giving back to us, but that's the point, it's coming back to us. London governments are very good at spending money in London and even when they don't, it's money spent in the provinces to benefit London (HS2 anyone?).

The EU has made the redistribution of wealth easier and better. Do we think a London government would have bothered revitalising Cardiff Bay? No, of course not. They were happy to hoover up the cash when the valleys were exporting coal by the shipload, but it was Euro money and Euro laws that cleaned up the toxic effects of mining and helped turn Cardiff into the snazzy happening place it is today. And the same is true of many regional cities in England.

And then there's the third thing, the real big reason. Being part of the EU protects us from extremist governments back home. This is the plus side of 'them' telling 'us' what to do. It prevents 'us' from doing something stupid by voting for an evil government.

I've been reading my Grandad's memoir recently and he wrote about how he was caned at school for speaking Welsh. This was less than a century ago, when the British government was still pursuing an educational policy that aimed to eradicate the Welsh language. It worked in my family. My Grandad stopped speaking Welsh and that was lost.

No EU government could do that now. It would be considered a breach of a child's human rights to beat them for not speaking the 'correct' language. I don't really think a UK government would want to pursue a policy of suppression, but let's say they did. Inside the EU, they can't. Outside the EU they can.

We have to careful with politicians. We know they say one thing to get elected then do another when they are. Cameron and his cronies never mentioned austerity in the run up to 2010. One of Cameron's big promises was 'No top down reorganisations of the NHS'. That was nixed just a year after entering coalition government.

So politicians lie. They tell half-truths or no-truths and they get elected and then they can do what they want. Unless there are checks. Unless there are balances. The EU is one of the best checks and balances we have and I don't want to lose that. I don't want to be at the mercy of a Westminster government as the highest authority in the land, just in case...

So there's three reasons:

1. it's a check on wanton destruction through war, 
2. it redistributes some of the wealth to where it is really needed, 
3. and it puts limits on our national government, which is a good thing if you really think about it.

On the other side there is a nebulous 'I don't like foreigners telling me what to say' proto-racism that calls itself a desire for 'national sovereignty'. But patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. I would like the UK to be bigger, better, more inclusive and safer - I think that's a patriotic statement - and I think that would happen inside the EU rather than outside it.

Incidentally, if you disagree with me you can say so. If you hate the EU, you can say so. You have complete freedom of speech. Do you know why? Well, it's not a British law that gives you freedom of speech. It's because you are in the EU.

And so to a last question. The guy on the message board kept complaining that no one gave reasons to stay in the EU, except I did and he didn't acknowledge them or reply to them. He also didn't answer my other questions, which included this: What law, if any, passed by the EU has directly harmed or damaged you?

I have yet to hear anyone from the 'Brexit' campaign actually answer that.

Films about the struggle - comparing Selma and Suffragette

Selma is about the civil rights actions of Martin Luther King and his supporters in the town of Selma, Alabama. I saw it earlier this year and it has stayed with me as a powerful movie about a very unsavoury aspect of the American psyche - ingrained institutional racism.

This past week I saw Suffragette, a new film about the suffragette movement that campaigned for equal voting status for women, and wider equality in society.

Both films are naturally sympathetic to the cause of equality, and are filmed mainly from the point of view of the campaigners. Both are about giving an oppressed group in society the same level of rights as the oppressing group, and the actions of the oppressors to preserve their privilege.

What is different is the course taken. An interesting aspect to the film, Selma, is that it could not use any of Dr King's original speeches. They are all copyrighted, so the film-makers had to create ersatz copies of them, capturing the gist and thrust rather than re-voicing one of the most well-known voices of a generation. But one thing that came through time and again was the repudiation of violence, despite the brutal and terrible violence meted out by the racist police force and white redneck citizens. Dr King was arrested and humiliated, threatened and harassed, but stood firm in his commitment to the path of non-violence.

The suffragettes, as captured in the eponymous movie, spent 50 years campaigning for equality using peaceful means. However, the movie captures a time when they had given up on hope of a peaceful recourse and had turned to violence, including blowing up the Prime Minister's summer home that was under construction. They had an interesting approach to violence, targeting property, from breaking shop windows to destroying post boxes to disrupt lines of communication, rather than people. Their ultimate assault on property was against the King, with a suffragette taking down the King's race horse in the Epsom Derby, in a fatal encounter that was captured on newsreel film and became sensational.

While Selma is a study of staying true to your principles despite intense provocation, with some characters talked down from the brink of violence, Suffragette is a movie about how ordinary people can be radicalised by the struggle. The heroine, Maud, goes from a downtrodden, abused worker in a hellish laundry to an anarchist bomber over the course of the movie. It would be interesting to see the reception for this exact same plotline if it was contemporary and the lead character was a Muslim.

But this was all a long time ago and the suffragettes won, and so we assume it was all OK. And yet my Grandma in law was born when women still didn't have the vote and she is still alive. This wasn't that long ago, and the actions of the suffragettes would be branded terrorism today. Similarly, the civil rights marchers 'won', although events in Ferguson last year and the #BlackLivesMatter campaign seem to show there is a way to go for white America.

What Selma left me with, and what Suffragette has reinforced, is a sense that I'm not sure what my struggle would be. There does not seem to be an obvious cause like women's rights or racial equality. (At least not to the same degree; I know we aren't there yet.) Maybe I should count myself lucky to not live in an era and a society where I am called to put my body on the line and risk a baton to the head for my beliefs in justice and equality for all. My worry is that I am living in that era and society but I have somehow missed the call.

I also don't know what my breaking point would be. If Dr King had lived and led the movement for 50 years and had got nowhere, would he have finally given in to endorsing violence as Emmeline Pankhurst did? How long would I remain true to pacifist principles? What provocation would I endure?

These are big questions. I'm grateful to the movie-makers for making me ask them.

What would a UKIP Britain look like?

UKIP are making the news. Putting aside all the more outlandish elements – like the major donor who thinks it should be illegal for women to wear trousers, or the councillor who thinks there’s a causal link between gay marriages and flooding, or the guy who thinks we should euthanize babies with Down’s Syndrome (these are all real things – Google them) – there is a chance of electoral success in 2015.

Certainly, what UKIP has done is drive an increasingly hostile political narrative around immigration. The way immigration is reported and the way immigrants are written about in the press is almost entirely negative. It’s as if wanting to live somewhere else is criminally immoral and anyone wanting to move overseas is a black-hearted monster. Which I guess is bad news for the one and half million British-born people sunning it up in Spain.

I have a stake in the immigration debate because my Grandmother was an immigrant. She met and married my Granddad while he was on active service during the war – getting married in 1945 before the war ended. She gave birth to my Mum just after coming to this country, in January 1946.

It was a difficult time to be an immigrant. Being Scandinavian, Grandma had an accent that sounded a bit German to many people. Many men had been killed in the war, so there was an imbalance in society meaning many women were unlikely to meet and marry someone. So there was resentment of a foreigner marrying a man, when men generally were in short supply. (My Grandma was told this.)

My Mum has told me that when she was little the other mums in her village wouldn’t let their children play with her. For no other reason than her mum (my Gran) was foreign.

These days we would call that racist. And rightly so, because it was.

But that racism is what I think of when I hear Nigel Farage braying on about immigrants. The narratives we listen to shape our thought patterns. If we really believe the wicked foreigners are after our jobs and our women and our comfortable lifestyles; if we think they are criminals and thieves, then that will shape how we respond to them.

Racism is subtle. We can easily find ourselves agreeing with comments like the one Nigel Farage made about not wanting to live next door to a family of Romanians. And the next thing is you’re not allowing your kids to play with their kids for no other reason than because you are racist.

And that’s what I think a UKIP Britain would look like. It’s sad so many people seem to think that would be a better place to live. I hoped people were better than that.

Frankie Boyle's sort of toys?

A few weeks ago comedian Frankie Boyle (who seems to grow less funny with every passing month) caused a nasty sort of stir when he used various racist slurs in one of his routines. One of those words was 'Paki'.

Given that 'Paki' is considered quite an offensive term, I'm not sure who really thought up the names for these Disney characters...

The potential for miscommunication is immense.

"Where's Billy?"

"Oh, he's up in his room playing with a little Paki..."

You can't be black and Welsh, according to Cardiff Council

Or any other skintone, apart from white, at least according to the 'Community Engagement form' I just filled in for them.

The categories for ethnic background only included 'Welsh' in the white section.

Sorry, my non-vanilla amigos. The best you can be, according to the form, is 'British'.

When the self-editing process fails

You may find this hard to believe given half the things I say, but I do have a 'self-editing' mode. I often bite back the really stupid/insensitive/crude/banal things that pop into my head. Today I was a witness when someone else's mouth was running faster than their self-editor.

We were in a meeting where a manager was outlining a new process, which seems great. "However," he said, "the only nigg-" and then he stopped and put his hand to his mouth.

He could have rescued it and said "ul" - 'the only niggle', but that wasn't what he was going to say and we all knew it, especially when, after a shocked one-second-that-felt-like-an-eternity pause he said, embarrasedly, "in the woodpile, is..." and explained the drawback to the system.

To his credit he looked very red in the face and he did catch himself. And he was willing to admit that he had almost said something pitifully medieval that could cause offence. But it was still one of those nasty surprises that left us all sitting there wondering whether we had really heard what we had heard.

There never were many rascialist analogies in the English language. 'Nigger in the woodpile' was one of the few, although my Dad says he remembers his mother asking for 'Nigger Brown' cotton in a haberdashers when he was small. It was the official colour, named that by the manufacturer. When people complain about the passing of the good old days they forget the latent institutionalised racism.

But what do you do when someone casts around for an analogy and begins to use a bad one without thinking? Do you take offence? Do you make a formal complaint? Do you have a quiet word? Do you laugh out of sheer shock and embarrassment? Or do you do what my friend Ross did and ask loudly "Who says we're a white, middle-class organisation then?"

Vaguely racist

We've had the first of the European election leaflets through the door. One is the usual incredibly negative tirade against Labour and the Tories from the "friendly, moderate" (il)Liberal Democrats. The Welsh Liberal Democrat campaigns are always the most negative.

But the other leaflet, from the UK Independence Party (UKIP) was more disturbing. They have one aim - to quit the EU - but it's the way they go about it that is troubling me. Two 'facts' are included on their leaflet. Firstly, "1 in 7 prisoners in the UK are foreigners", followed by "Romanians committed 1,080 crimes in London in 2008".

No context, no defining information. What crimes are we talking about here? Are we talking about Romanian women smuggled into Britain and co-erced into prostitution? Are we talking drug-dealing? Both those crimes require a market. Who is the bigger criminal - the seller or the buyer (who is also breaking the law)?

And on a broader reach - it's said that periods of economic crisis usually give impetus to racist movements. It looks like one political party is happy to stir up racist sentiments in the hope of winning votes.

Bill Bailey ~ Tinselworm

BB on David Beckham moving to LA Galaxy: "It's a bit like Adolf Hitler turning up at a BNP meeting in Tiverton."

"Ar, well, mister Hitler, your far right views are a bit out of our league, but you're very welcome!"

I'd write more but I'm feeling rough with the man flu.