Photos: YouTube screengrabs of RT programmes
Show Hide image

How Russia Today divided Westminster

British politicians of all parties have long appeared on the Kremlin channel, now called RT. So why is it only just catching up with them?

For a television channel whose weekly reach is less than that of ITVBe +1, the profile of RT (formerly Russia Today) in the UK is conspicuously high.

The £310,000 it spent on an advertising campaign on London’s transport network – posters carried messages including “Watch RT and find out who we are planning to hack next” and “Beware! A ‘propaganda bullhorn’ is advertising here” – late last year no doubt helped.

One reason for RT’s high profile is its guests. Politicians from both the left and right appear on it or take its money. This is true for obscure, publicity-hungry backbenchers and prominent, on-message frontbenchers.

They do so, the argument goes, in order to deal with a media organisation that doesn’t show deference to “political and economic power”; to speak to constituents who shun “mainstream media”; or to show that they recognise the importance of “alternative” news and information sites.

Labour’s shadow chief secretary to the Treasury Peter Dowd was on the channel last week; the Tory MP and former chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee Crispin Blunt appeared on it in November. The former First Minister of Scotland Alex Salmond hosts a chat show; the Tory MP Daniel Kawczynski has called RT “one of my pet favourite channels”.

The Commons Register of Members’ Financial Interests shows that, in the past two years, MPs including Tory MP and chair of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee David TC Davies, Labour MP Rosie Duffield, and Tory MP and former deputy speaker Nigel Evans have been paid up to £750 an hour to appear.

Other politicians have appeared – including Labour’s shadow justice secretary Richard Burgon and shadow international trade secretary Barry Gardiner – without apparently being paid.

On Sunday, speaking on The Andrew Marr Show, the shadow chancellor John McDonnell said Labour MPs should stop appearing on RT as it “goes beyond objective journalism”. He is right. But quite why this only occurred to him over the weekend is unclear.

RT is a loosely-disguised arm of the Russian state and is its main propaganda outlet in the West. RT’s editorial policy rejects “objectivity”. There are “only approximations of the truth by as many different voices as possible” in the general media, according to Margarita Simonyan, the channel’s editor-in-chief.

Freed from the Manichean shackles of “truth” and “lies”, RT has been found in breach of the broadcasting code by Ofcom for repeated misleading and biased coverage of conflicts in Ukraine and Syria. In 2015, it alleged that BBC had staged a chemical weapons attack by President Assad’s forces in Syria.

Tom Watson, Labour’s deputy leader, has questioned whether the “combination of false or inaccurate stories and the alignment of editorial policy to that of President Putin’s Russian state” means that Britain needs a tougher regulatory regime to deal with RT.

But how does one regulate against a television channel for lying when lying appears to be its raison d'être?

McDonnell’s newly-voiced views have long been shared by some across Parliament. Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, has called on MPs not to “validate and legitimate” RT, while Michael Gove, the Environment Secretary, has queried why frontbenchers are appearing on a “literal Kremlin propaganda channel”.

But the moral obligation to ostracise Russia’s propaganda is not shared by all in Parliament. Nor by Parliament itself; the channel is currently screened in Westminster. 

In her statement in the House of Commons yesterday about the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal, the Prime Minister outlined a “well-established pattern of Russian state aggression” toward the West.

She accused the Kremlin of having engaged in repeated acts of military sabre-rattling and subversion, meddled in elections, hacked governments, and mounted a sustained campaign of cyber-espionage.

Russia also, she acknowledged, practises propaganda – or information warfare. Calls from MPs to boycott RT – or stop it from broadcasting in the country – featured heavily in the discussion that followed.

I know of a number of MPs who have appeared on RT entirely unaware of its close connections to Vladimir Putin’s regime. If RT’s true nature were not obvious prior to this week, however, then it certainly will be from how on. Ignorance is no longer an acceptable excuse, if indeed it ever was, for appearing on the channel.

But it does explain why RT – with its glossy-lipped presenters, and the same cutting-edge graphics and polished studios as other 24-hour news channels – has never been as toxic in Westminster as it should have been.

Perhaps this will change after the poisoning of the Skripals.

Dr Andrew Foxall is Director of the Russia and Eurasia Studies Centre at The Henry Jackson Society, a London-based international affairs think-tank

Show Hide image

I’ll miss the youthful thrill of Claire’s Accessories – but the tween Mecca refused to grow up

From an adolescent rite of passage to struggling to stay open: how the tackiest shop on the high street lost its shine.

The first day I was allowed to go into “town” (hailing from rural Essex, that’s the local shopping centre, not London) with a friend – unsupervised by a parent – was a real cornerstone of my childhood.

We were 13, and looking back, we had neither mobile phones nor contingency plans, and my mum must have been sat at home for the entire two hours scared shitless, waiting for when she could pick me up again (by the Odeon carpark, 3pm sharp).

Finally free from the constraints of traipsing around department stores bound by the shackles of an adult, my friend and I had the most grown-up afternoon we could imagine; Starbucks Frappuccinos (size: tall – we weren’t made of money), taking pictures on a pink digital camera in the H&M changing rooms, and finally, making a beeline for tween Mecca: Claire’s Accessories.

As a beauty journalist, I’m pretty sure Saturdays spent running amok among the diamante earrings, bow hairbands and fluffy notebooks had an influence on my career path.

I spent hours poring over every rack of clip-on earrings, getting high on the fumes of strawberry lipbalm and the alcohol used to clean freshly pierced toddlers’ ears.

Their slogan, “Where getting ready is half the fun”, still rings true for me ten years on, as I stand on the edge of dancefloors, bored and waiting until my peers are suitably drunk to call it a night, yet revelling in just how great my painstakingly applied false lashes look.

The slogan on a Claire's receipt. Photo: Flickr

On Monday, Claire’s Accessories US filed for bankruptcy, after they were lumbered with insurmountable debts since being taken over by Apollo Global Management in 2007. Many of the US-based stores are closing. While the future of Claire’s in the UK looks uncertain, it may be the next high street retailer – suffering from the surge of online shopping – to follow in Toys R Us’ footsteps.

As much as I hate to say it, this is unsurprising, considering Claire’s commitment to remain the tackiest retailer on the high street.

With the huge rise of interest in beauty from younger age groups – credit where credit’s due, YouTube – Claire’s has remained steadfast in its core belief in taffeta, rhinestone and glitter.

In my local Superdrug (parallel to the Claire’s Accessories, a few doors down from the McDonald’s where we would sit, sans purchase, maxed out after our Lipsmacker and bath bomb-filled jaunt), there are signs plastered all over the new Makeup Revolution concealer stand: “ENQUIRE WITH STAFF FOR STOCK”. A group of young girls nervously designate one among them to do the enquiring.

Such is the popularity of the three-week-old concealer, made infamous by YouTube videos entitled things like “I CANNOT BELIEVE THIS CONCEALER!” and “FULL COVERAGE AND £4!!!”, no stock is on display for fear of shoplifters.

The concealer is cheap, available on the high street, comparable to high-end brands and favoured by popular YouTube “beauty gurus”, giving young girls a portal into “adult life”, with Happy Meal money.

It’s unlikely 13-year-olds even own eye bags large enough to warrant a full coverage concealer, but they’re savvy enough to know that they can now get good quality makeup and accessories, without going any higher than Claire’s price points.

They have naturally outgrown a retailer that refuses to grow with them; it’s simply not sustainable on Claire’s part to sell babyish items to a market who no longer want babyish things.

Adulthood is catching up with this new breed of teenagers faster than ever, and they’ve decided it’s time to put away childish things.

Tweenagers of 2018 won’t miss Claire’s Accessories if it goes. The boarded-up purple signage would leave craters in shopping centre walls soon to be filled with the burgundy sheen of a new Pret.

But I will. Maybe not constantly – it’s not as if Primark has stopped selling jersey dresses, or Topshop their Joni jeans – it’ll be more of a slow burn. I’ll mourn the loss of Claire’s the next time a pang of nostalgia for blue-frosted shadow hits me, or when it’s Halloween eve and I realise I’m bereft of a pair of cat ears. But when the time comes, there’s always Amazon Prime.

Amelia Perrin is a freelance beauty and lifestyle journalist.