Gary Lineker, ex-footballer, chip salesman and man with a Twitter account. Image: Tina Tiller; photo: Getty
Gary Lineker, ex-footballer, chip salesman and man with a Twitter account. Image: Tina Tiller; photo: Getty

PoliticsMarch 13, 2023

Gary Lineker, a ‘Nazi’ tweet, and BBC impartiality – Britain’s latest crisis, explained

Gary Lineker, ex-footballer, chip salesman and man with a Twitter account. Image: Tina Tiller; photo: Getty
Gary Lineker, ex-footballer, chip salesman and man with a Twitter account. Image: Tina Tiller; photo: Getty

The football broadcaster was suspended over a post on asylum seeker policy, sparking an almighty row over impartiality and a worker revolt.  What’s it all about, and what does it have in common with the Rob Campbell drama in NZ?

Amid Britain’s endless piñata of psychodrama, who cares about some football broadcaster?

Though it might not have the immediate gobsmacking impact of, say, the Liz Truss meltdown or the humiliating leak of 100,000 WhatsApp messages from former health secretary Matt Hancock, the tremors of the Gary Lineker saga sit above some major political and cultural faultlines: most acutely, the Conservative government’s asylum seeker policies and deep-seated divisions within politics and the media about BBC bias. 

What happened?

In the middle of last week, Gary Lineker, long a critic of what he considers inhumane government response to those seeking asylum in Britain, compared the latest government policy on this blue-touch-paper issue in UK politics and media to policies in 1930s Nazi Germany. This was the tweet:

Was that really the tweet?

Apologies. No. (But Leicester did win and he did present in his undies, fwiw.) In the tweet, which proved again Godwin’s law, he called the government asylum plan “an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s”.

What is the policy? 

The “stop the boats” pledge by Rishi Sunak’s government – in large part modelled on the Australian example – would seek to halt would-be migrants travelling across the channel and send them back to their home country or, if that wasn’t possible, a third country, likely Rwanda. He is right about the UK’s refugee intake. While the number of people arriving in boats has increased, it has been often exaggerated, with home secretary Suella Braverman, for instance, suggesting “billions of people” might be thinking about it.

Back up the bus. Who’s Gary Lineker?

A former England footballer, turned potato chip salesman. A perma-bronzed, ageless Adonis, Lineker has been the host of Match of the Day since the last millennium. He’s also reportedly the best paid presenter at the state broadcaster, pocketing more than NZ $2.5m a year.  

What is Match of the Day – a football highlights show?

Yes, but more than that, it’s a kind of national institution, beaming highlights, match interviews and punditry from the day’s top-flight football into lounges across Britain since the 60s. You know the one: da da-da daaa da-da da-da-da da-da da-da da-da.

So what happened with the tweet?

Following an outcry from many, including Conservative politicians and right-leaning media, the BBC on Saturday deemed Lineker’s “recent social media activity to be a breach of our guidelines”, and that he had “stepped down” until they could agree on how he’d manage his tweeting and so on. He hadn’t stepped down, however; he’d been stood down, or suspended. 

Then what?

Match of the Day pundits including human god Ian Wright and former footballer Alan Shearer announced they wouldn’t be taking part in the show that night, either, in solidarity. Then the match commentators said they were out, too. And players indicated they’d not be participating. A bunch of people across BBC sports TV and radio similarly “stepped down”. Match of the Day screened at a dramatically truncated 20 minutes, with no commentary and no studio mortar. It amounted, said media across the board, to a “revolt”. 

So did Lineker breach guidelines?

That’s not a simple matter. The “impartiality” guidelines have been tightened lately to stress “extra responsibility” for those with a high profile but remain ambiguous. That would not be so were Lineker a news presenter or political journalist, of course. As it is, he is not even a staff member, but a freelance contributor. 

Following his suspension, screeds of examples of BBC contributors, employed on a similar basis to Lineker, expressing sharp political views were unearthed, including the pronouncements of Apprentice host Alan Sugar (eg tweeted a pic of Jeremy Corbyn sitting alongside Adolf Hitler) and Jeremy Clarkson (many instances, including declaring striking workers should be “shot in front of their families” at the time he was Top Gear presenter).

‘If you regularly enjoy The Spinoff, and want it to continue, become a member today.’
Toby Manhire
— Editor-at-large

And Lineker hadn’t been airing his views on TV, had he?

Well, he did at least once: in introducing the BBC coverage of the last World Cup, in Qatar. He heavily criticised Fifa and questioned the host’s human rights record. The difference was that was at least tacitly approved by the BBC and the political consensus in Britain. Turns out human rights records are fair game abroad, but not at home. 

How does it fit into the wider controversy about the BBC and impartiality?

Many in the Conservative Party, echoed and emboldened by newspapers such as the Daily Mail, the Sun and the Daily Telegraph, have long inveighed against and demanded the defunding of the BBC in response to what they claim is a pro-Labour bias.

Under the Conservatives, which has led government for 13 years, there have been moves to reform the funding model. Recent controversy has surrounded the appointment of Richard Sharp as BBC chair, after it was reported in January that he had helped arrange a loan to Boris Johnson just weeks before the then prime minister recommended him for the role. 

BBC director general Tim Davie, meanwhile, was appointed in 2020 on a mandate of ensuring impartiality at the broadcaster. His own impartiality has been questioned by some, however, given he once stood for local government as a Conservative.

The episode fed also into disquiet about what many see as a BBC that has become increasingly anxious about upsetting the government, as in the report – denied by the corporation – that it had decided not to screen on a flagship channel an episode of a David Attenborough series on British wildlife because its depiction of destruction to the natural world risked a “rightwing backlash”.

What does it have to do with New Zealand’s Rob Campbell?

The man who resigned as Te Whatu Ora chair the other day after criticising centre-right policy will at very least be watching the Lineker episode with some interest. 

How similar are they?

Apart from the footballing, bronzedness and pay packet, they both faced questions about whether they’d been sufficiently impartial as public employees. But have been unapologetic. For Campbell, however, the difference is that the code of conduct for crown entity board members is pretty clear – absent a pledge not to repeat his Linkedin polemics, it was game over.

What happens next for Lineker?

Davie has said he is in “listening mode”, while there are reports of Lineker indicating a resolution is likely within 24 hours. But even if Lineker and Match of the Day resume normal transmission, the pressure on the director general and the chair will only grow, while the spotlight on the government policy for asylum seekers beams more intensely. 

What did the people say?

Polling suggests they’re with the potato chips salesman.

Keep going!
Image: Tina Tiller
Image: Tina Tiller

PoliticsMarch 13, 2023

Fine, I will fight Chlöe Swarbrick

Image: Tina Tiller
Image: Tina Tiller

The MP challenged Madeleine Chapman to a ‘one outs’ two years ago. The Spinoff editor gladly accepts.

Chlöe Swarbrick is looking for a fight. The Auckland Central MP’s team has been asking seemingly every female political reporter in the country to step into the ring for Fight for Life but no one will take up the challenge.

Claire Trevett asked Swarbrick if she would ever participate in the charity boxing event and Swarbrick said yes, but no one would agree to fight her. Trevett reported: “It’s understood Swarbrick’s preferred partner was Newstalk ZB’s Heather du Plessis-Allan, while others approached to tackle Swarbrick included broadcast journalists Tova O’Brien and Jessica Mutch-McKay. All declined.”

Of course they all declined! Each of those women is about 10 years older than Swarbrick and none, as far as I know, has any recent experience in fighting or general athletic competition. As far as build goes, none match well with Swarbrick. If she hadn’t just had a baby, Jenna Lynch would be a good match up from the press gallery. But outside of all of that, I will fight Chlöe Swarbrick if she wants to fight someone so badly.

(Note: I don’t believe any politician actually wants to take part in Fight for Life, but it’s an easy win to challenge people who you know won’t be a fair fight so you can then say that no one wants to fight you.)

I will fight Swarbrick not because I am ready to fight anyone (and six weeks is not even close to enough time to go from my current shape to a fighting shape) but because Swarbrick already challenged me. In November 2020 while extremely sleep deprived, I made a meme. Just a silly little meme, about which politicians I thought I could beat in a fight and which ones I thought would beat me.

The meme led to a lot of discoveries – most notably, that Paul Goldsmith is a 2nd dan black belt in tae kwon do. It also angered some who believed they had been underestimated. Swarbrick, who I had placed broadly in the “fair fight” region, was particularly miffed. “Madeleine,” she wrote, “I have seven years of karate and two years of Muay Thai exp. One outs.” Firstly, it is very funny to me when someone lists their fitness credentials. Secondly, either Swarbrick has added six months of muay thai experience in the past two years or she has started to inflate her fighting history. Thirdly, saying “one outs” is absolutely a challenge. So I accepted. “Fight for Life 2021” is what I responded with, only to be met with seven years of silence.

And now here we are and Swarbrick claims no one will fight her. So I will. Would it be a fair fight? Honestly, I have no idea. I am taller than her (I think) and probably 20kg heavier. If I were fit I would back myself confidently, but I am not and Swarbrick appears to be reasonably healthy. We are also exactly the same age and it’s always good to fight people your own age. But we can’t forget her seven years of karate and 2-2.5 years of muay thai experience whereas I have taken exactly two Les Mills boxing classes in my life. Luckily for both of us, the card for Fight for Life 2023 is already locked so all of these challenges are just posturing. But Swarbrick intends to be in parliament next year too. I don’t doubt that she would know how to fight and I am certain she would take it seriously. I have a habit of being “too intense” when it comes to physical challenges so at the very least, if we fought it would not be a half-hearted affair.

Why not make this official?

Fight for Life 2024: Chlöe Swarbrick vs Madeleine Chapman.