FT loses its motherloving mind with ill-advised rap-themed front page opinion piece

"Stay Middling And Retire Disappointed"

The FT has an incredible front-page opinion piece today. The print version has the headline "G-Dawg splashes out tax cuts like P Diddy with Dom Pérignon in his blingiest giveaway". Really:

The actual piece – which I so wanted to just cut and paste, because, wow - has more:

George Osborne could reinvent himself as a rapper if politics loses its appeal. He sprinkled his Budget – sorry “Autumn Statement” – with shout-outs to his posse (the MPs for Hereford, Burnley and Thurrock)… Giving back to his homies, the chancellor splashed out with tax cuts like P Diddy dispensing Dom Pérignon to a thirsty entourage…

Mr Osborne also talked up the soljaz on the street, if the small businesses who are the backbone of our nation may be described thus…

Having laid claim to the business ‘hood

– A short break here to point out that marvellously, even when writing in faux-hip-hop slang, the FT style guide still insists on a leading apostrophe in the word "hood" –

Having laid claim to the business ‘hood, G-Dawg was free to pursue his beef with its most disrespected inhabitants: the banks…

For [small businesses], life is currently a case of Stay Middling And Retire Disappointed rather than Get Rich Or Die Tryin’.

As an art form, rap is loud, but lacking in substance.

– A second parenthetical to point out that that sentence was the pull quote of the entire piece –

That was the problem with Mr Osborne’s Autumn Statement too… To critics, Mr Osborne still resembles Boy George more than 50 Cent.

Wow.

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Europe's elections show why liberals should avoid fatalism

France, Germany and the Netherlands suggest there is nothing inevitable about the right's advance.

Humans are unavoidably pattern-seeking creatures. We give meaning to disparate events where little or none may exist. So it is with Brexit and Donald Trump. The proximity of these results led to declarations of liberalism's demise. After decades of progress, the tide was said to have unavoidably turned.

Every election is now treated as another round in the great duel between libralism and populism. In the Netherlands, the perennial nativist Geert Wilders was gifted outsize attention in the belief that he could surf the Brexit-Trump wave to victory. Yet far from triumphing, the Freedom Party finished a distant second, increasing its seats total to 20 (four fewer than in 2010). Wilders' defeat was always more likely than not (and he would have been unable to form a government) but global events gifted him an aura of invincibility.

In France, for several years, Marine Le Pen has been likely to make the final round of the next presidential election. But it was only after Brexit and Trump's election that she was widely seen as a potential victor. As in 2002, the front républicain is likely to defeat the Front National. The winner, however, will not be a conservative but a liberal. According to the post-Trump narrative, Emmanuel Macron's rise should have been impossible. But his surge (albeit one that has left him tied with Le Pen in the first round) suggests liberalism is in better health than suggested.

In Germany, where the far-right Alternative für Deutschland was said to be remorselessly advancing, politics is returning to traditional two-party combat. The election of Martin Schulz has transformed the SPD's fortunes to the point where it could form the next government. As some Labour MPs resign themselves to perpeutal opposition, they could be forgiven for noting what a difference a new leader can make.

2016 will be forever remembered as the year of Brexit and Trump. Yet both events could conceivably have happened in liberalism's supposed heyday. The UK has long been the EU's most reluctant member and, having not joined the euro or the Schengen Zone, already had one foot outside the door. In the US, the conditions for the election of a Trump-like figure have been in place for decades. For all this, Leave only narrowly won and Hillary Clinton won three million more votes than her opponent. Liberalism is neither as weak as it is now thought, nor as strong as it was once thought.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.