Politics
Polanski gets the Kuenssberg treatment, poor chap
Over the weekend, on 28 February, BBC News published an article about how Zack Polanski and Nigel Farage are actually quite similar. If you think about it. Honest.
The Laura Kuenssberg-penned ‘in-depth’ article ran with the headline:
Polanski and Farage don’t agree. But they have more in common than you might think.
Any long-time readers or, indeed, casual observers will know that we at the Canary aren’t exactly massive fans of Kuenssberg. You know, what with her being a mouthpiece for lowest-common-denominator state propaganda and all. However, this article in particular really did take the absolute piss.
Let’s take a read, shall we?
Poor Polanski gets the Kuenssberg treatment
Kuenssberg starts off strong in her introduction, setting the tone for the piece:
Before you scream, burst out laughing, or think I have lost my marbles, of course, there are very big differences between them.
The Greens talk about a climate emergency. Reform UK calls the government green plans, “net stupid zero”.
Are we genuinely saying ‘a climate emergency now? I wonder which climate emergency he’s talking about? Might the overwhelming scientific consensus back him up in talking about it?
We then move on to one of the key parts of Kuenssberg’s argument:
Both parties have been growing incredibly quickly, attracting thousands upon thousands of new members.
In an era when many members of the public are sick of politicians, they are both doing something right, and pulling people in.
They’re… both successful leaders for alternative parties. My Lord, the BBC is really bringing out the big guns. This is the kind of insightful political analysis I don’t pay my TV license for.
Shock links of politics and media
We really get into the thick of it when Kuenssberg notices that politics and the media are closely related:
Having seen them both with members of the public, not just in the TV studio or in Parliament, both men appear to enjoy campaigning. […]
Conveniently for the politicians (and not true for all), they both appear to rather like the attention.
They are both nimble on social media, and their parties spend huge amounts of time and effort on making sure their feeds are pumped full of fresh content.
Sure, I suppose not all politicians enjoy the limelight. However, manipulating that media attention is what being a politician… is. They’ve also learned to do it on the computer, in a way that was only invented three decades ago. Admittedly, that’s fairly quick, in political terms.
Sordid pasts
Both politicians also have histories with other parties:
Both Farage and Polanski like to be seen as disrupters, intent on shaking things up.
But it’s worth remembering they both have histories with other political parties that go back some years.
Once upon a time, Nigel Farage was a Conservative, although he disputes whether he was offered a safe Tory seat or, as others recall, went on the hunt for one.
Zack Polanski wanted to stand as a Lib Dem MP, and was cross when he wasn’t put forward.
See now, this is an interesting point. It’s a shame it wasn’t really enough to create an article without a bunch of pointless filler.
It’s also a shame that Kuenssberg didn’t manage to examine that Farage (and most of his party) came from the same establishment party he’s now criticising. Oh, and then the ruinous UKIP after that, and then the Brexit Party (before the name-change).
Meanwhile, Polanski is at least trying to be an alternative voice – even as part of a bunch of wet Lib Dems.
The apocalypse and immigrants: basically the same
However, it’s when we get to the causes behind the Greens and Reform that Kuenssberg really hits a new low:
And while they’ve both been rapidly building new political forces, they’ve both been based on old architecture that grew out of a single cause.
Again, the Green’s ‘single cause’ is preventing global annihilation. That’s a pretty big one, if you ask me – global, even. Meanwhile, Reform’s (and UKIP’s) centerpiece policies have always revolved around immigrant-bashing.
These two things are not even in the same league.
Beyond that, Kuenssberg tries to equate Reform’s repeated racism and Islamophobia with the Greens statements of fact:
And both Reform and the Greens are willing to push the conventions of what traditional UK politicians would find acceptable – or what they believe would make them electable. […]
That might be Reform talking about wanting a return to what they describe as the UK’s “Judaeo Christian heritage”, one of their MPs Sarah Pochin complaining about TV adverts being “full of black people, full of Asian people”, or focusing on grooming gangs at the start of last year. […]
For Polanski, it’s talking about legalising and regulating hard drugs, or speaking out against Israel’s military action in Gaza, and accusing Labour of being “complicit in genocide”.
So, both parties are handling sensitive issues, are they? On the right, we have some absolute bile about there being too many brown faces on telly. Oh, and hammering the racist conflation of organised rape with migrant communities. Meanwhile, Reform’s treasurer was busy palling around with Epstein.
And on the left, we have… policies based on solid evidence that drug legalisation and regulation will save lives. Then, there’s also the simple acknowledgement that Israel is committing genocide, and Labour are complicit.
These are facts. Unfortunately, BBC News hasn’t really been bothering with facts in recent years, has it?
We sign off with a final damning indictment:
But Nigel Farage and Zack Polanski have one last thing in common: they are not out to just compete alongside their traditional rivals.
It might sound a stretch, but both say they intend to replace them for good.
Knock me down with a fucking feather, would you?
Featured image via the Canary