Wake up sheeple! Alex Jones goes tonto on the Sunday Politics

The shock jock rants about Bilderberg on the BBC's flagship political show.

I was lucky enough to get a ringside seat for this, so I thought it deserved to be shared with a wider audience.

The BBC's Sunday Politics - on which I appear as part of the political panel - invited Alex Jones on to discuss whether the Bilderberg meeting of politicians and business leaders really was as sinister as it's been painted. Opposite him was David Aaronovitch, author of the enjoyable book Voodoo Histories, which dismantles some of the last century's most persistent conspiracy theories.

The video is worth watching for a) David Aaronovitch's mild question that if Alex Jones knows all this top secret truth, and is still alive, does that mean that it's all bollocks or is Jones part of the conspiracy? and b) Andrew Neil's closing "we've got an idiot on the show!".

Jones didn't quite tell us "sheeple" to wake up, but he did suggest that the Euro was a Nazi plot, and that the current lobbying scandals were a distraction from the real problem (ie Bilderberg). If you're tempted to dismiss Jones as a fringe crank, it's sobering to remember that he claims more than two million listeners for his radio show, and more than 250 million views for his YouTube videos.

While in the studio, Jones also filmed the day's political guest, Ed Balls, on his phone, and has since promised that the footage will appear on his website. He also filmed Aaronovitch taking off his powder while saying something about fluoride that I didn't catch. 

This was Andrew Neil's on-air reaction:

It was certainly great telly, even if I don't think we learned anything about Bilderberg. And if all this is beneath you, may I suggest you read my colleague George's excellent dissection of the interview with Ed Balls, which also featured on the show

Alex Jones and David Aaronovitch on the Sunday Politics.

Helen Lewis is deputy editor of the New Statesman. She has presented BBC Radio 4’s Week in Westminster and is a regular panellist on BBC1’s Sunday Politics.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.