J Lo joins Beyonce and Maria Carey in lineup of dictator divas

They've all sung to some of the world's most unpleasant dictators.

A report by the Human Rights Foundation has estimated that Jennifer Lopez has earned £6.6 m singing for some of the world's most unpleasant dictators and crooked industrialists — including at Turkmenistan's Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov's birthday party (try saying that after a couple of toasts in his honour) last month. 

J Lo's publicist later said that she would have never performed had she realised there were "human rights issues of any kind" — which strikes me as rather unlikely. Even if the star herself was too busy shopping for her latest diamante leotard, surely someone in her famously sizeable entourage would have time to flick through Human Rights Watch's reporting on Turkmenistan which describes it.

She's not the only pop diva happy to play for thugs, dictators and criminals for cash, however. Beyonce famously earned $1 m playing for Gaddafi's son Mutassim (which she later said she donated to Haiti). Mariah Carey also accepted money from Libya's ruling family as did, moving on to pop stars more generally, Usher, Nelly Furtardo, Lionel Ritchie and 50 Cent.

I don't buy the often used argument that music stars didn't realise that their presidential patrons abused human rights. Nor do I think that donating these earnings to charity after a public backlash makes everything OK again.

Sting's defiant response to his £1- £2m pay cheque from the Uzbek president's daughter Gulnara Karimova — he argued that he didn't believe in cultural boycotts as they only make closed regimes more insular — was self-serving and arrogant. The people who benefited from Sting's generous cultural exchange were the elite guests of the presidents daughter. Does he imagine they will be so inspired by 'Fields of Gold' that they will spontaneously lift controls on homegrown artists and journalists? 

Given these pop star payrolls, stunts like biting the head off a bat don't seem so bad after all — except that Black Sabbath (including bat-eating Ozzy Osbourne) performed for South Africa's apartheid regime, too.

This piece first appeared on Spears Magazine

Photograph: Getty Images

Sophie McBain is a freelance writer based in Cairo. She was previously an assistant editor at the New Statesman. She is on Twitter as @SEMcBain.

Dan Kitwood/Getty
Show Hide image

I believe only Yvette Cooper has the breadth of support to beat Jeremy Corbyn

All the recent polling suggests Andy Burnham is losing more votes than anyone else to Jeremy Corbyn, says Diana Johnson MP.

Tom Blenkinsop MP on the New Statesman website today says he is giving his second preference to Andy Burnham as he thinks that Andy has the best chance of beating Jeremy.

This is on the basis that if Yvette goes out first all her second preferences will swing behind Andy, whereas if Andy goes out first then his second preferences, due to the broad alliance he has created behind his campaign, will all or largely switch to the other male candidate, Jeremy.

Let's take a deep breath and try and think through what will be the effect of preferential voting in the Labour leadership.

First of all, it is very difficult to know how second preferences will switch. From my telephone canvassing there is some rather interesting voting going on, but I don't accept that Tom’s analysis is correct. I have certainly picked up growing support for Yvette in recent weeks.

In fact you can argue the reverse of Tom’s analysis is true – Andy has moved further away from the centre and, as a result, his pitch to those like Tom who are supporting Liz first is now narrower. As a result, Yvette is more likely to pick up those second preferences.

Stats from the Yvette For Labour team show Yvette picking up the majority of second preferences from all candidates – from the Progress wing supporting Liz to the softer left fans of Jeremy – and Andy's supporters too. Their figures show many undecideds opting for Yvette as their first preference, as well as others choosing to switch their first preference to Yvette from one of the other candidates. It's for this reason I still believe only Yvette has the breadth of support to beat Jeremy and then to go on to win in 2020.

It's interesting that Andy has not been willing to make it clear that second preferences should go to Yvette or Liz. Yvette has been very clear that she would encourage second preferences to be for Andy or Liz.

Having watched Andy on Sky's Murnaghan show this morning, he categorically states that Labour will not get beyond first base with the electorate at a general election if we are not economically credible and that fundamentally Jeremy's economic plans do not add up. So, I am unsure why Andy is so unwilling to be clear on second preferences.

All the recent polling suggests Andy is losing more votes than anyone else to Jeremy. He trails fourth in London – where a huge proportion of our electorate is based.

So I would urge Tom to reflect more widely on who is best placed to provide the strongest opposition to the Tories, appeal to the widest group of voters and reach out to the communities we need to win back. I believe that this has to be Yvette.

The Newsnight focus group a few days ago showed that Yvette is best placed to win back those former Labour voters we will need in 2020.

Labour will pay a massive price if we ignore this.

Diana Johnson is the Labour MP for Hull North.