Nicktendo Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 Here's an interesting point of discussion... On 22nd of October 2009, Leader of the BNP Nick Griffin will appear on Question Time. The other confirmed guest is Jack Straw (Labour counciller for Blackburn, an area where the BNP support is fairly strong). This signifies a significant u-turn by both the Labour Party and BBC who previously had refused to engage with the BNP, however after their recent electoral success they perhaps feel they cannot ignore them, a view I personally share. So in your view, are the BBC right to let the leader of the BNP have a legitimate platform to speak, despite his obvious views? Should they allow such an inherrently racist orginaisation to promote their views on national television? Does freedom of speech mean they have a right to say whatever they want? I welcome Nick Griffin to Question Time because given the chance to speak and be questioned on the spot (hopefully by some good panel members as well as the audience) will expose him for the person he is. Silencing the BNP and shutting them out is in itself a form of facism and if they were given the chance to open their mouths people would soon realise who they were. It's happened on TV before, Griffin is not an intelligent man and cannot keep up his 'family-friendly' image very consistantly. People who believe what he says and go out and vote for him are clearly openly racist or too stupid/ignorant to see the truth and maybe this will convince some people who have voted in the past that it was a mistake. I am pretty confident that if the BBC cleverly selects the other guests he will make a complete and total tit of himself in front of a few million people. The only thing that could be better than this is if Mark Collett was representing the BNP because he is so stupid, he would be guaranteed to embarrass himself and the BNP. Even Russell Brand made him nearly cry once.
BlueStar Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 (edited) I very much doubt he will "expose" himself. I don't really like Fraser Nelson but he summed it up quite well in The Spectator on Friday http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5364481/question-time-conundrum.thtml I was a panelist on Question Time last night, and it started me thinking about how they will handle the BNP episode – which I expect fairly soon. Make no mistake, a Question Time slot is as big for the BNP as winning seats in Europe. When I was on the campaign trail with them for a cover story in June, I noticed how they would refer to Question Time as a goal – almost as much as getting to Brussels. It represents one thing: the political mainstream. With two MEPs and almost a million voters the BNP have a legitimate claim to that Question Time panel. For them, it is totemic. It will be an historic moment – and one which could work to the BNP’s favour. It is fashionable to claim that the media spotlight will expose Nick Griffin for the racist thug that he is, and that Question Time will be the end of him. Anyone making this argument has no experience of the BNP or understanding of its support. Here are some arguments I’d like to advance… 1. Nick Griffin is not a stupid man. He is a hugely talented debater and got to where he is by being mentally agile. He specialises in sounding reasonable, and portraying his opponents as extremists. This is what he has been doing for twenty years – and, judging by the steady rise of votes, doing it rather well. Mosley’s blackshirts did not come close achieving the mass support that the BNP have now. 2. Westminster politicians don’t know how to debate the BNP. Mostly, they shout ‘racist’ down a microphone – and that’s as close as they get. It's precisely the shrilness of this tactic which drives BNP support. The Westminster system is focused on swing voters in swing seats. The language and priorities of our politics are focused on this tiny 0.5 per cent of the electorate – it’s a huge defect in the system, but is nonetheless how elections are won. The BNP don’t go near swing seats. They prosper in safe seats – the modern-day rotten boroughs where the local MP doesn’t bother to campaign. As a result, perhaps half a dozen of the 630MPs have experience of hand-to-hand combat with the BNP. By that, I mean going on doorsteps to talk to people who are genuinely considering a BNP vote. Jon Cruddas knows. Siobhan McDonagh, too. But in the Cabinet? No chance. 3. The BNP can turn racism accusations to its advantage. Last night, Harriet Harman faced a BNP questioner and she called him racist. She pointed out, righty, that the party has an all-white membership policy. They do, but I suspect they’ll dump it by the time Griffin gets on that Question Time panel because it is the firmest stick with which the Westminster class has to beat him. Then – what? Griffin loves, absolutely loves, to say that when these (hated) Westminster politicians use words like ‘racist’ they are referring to ordinary people being concerned about immigration. The shriller the attack, the wider Griffin’s smile. 4. The BNP also have a hinterland. Question Time will not be one long debate about immigration. People will discuss other policy areas, health, culture etc. Might Griffin be left speechless? My research into the BNP makes me think otherwise. They do have energy and health policies, and much of these involve telling the EU to go to hell. On a personal basis, anyone expecting its candidates to be monsters will be disappointed: the guy I was out campaigning with in June, for example, had spent the previous day in Kew Gardens with his family teaching his kids about plants. Griffin will have spent his career trying to rebut the notion that he’s a skinhead thug. You can bet he has carefully acquired, and learnt to articulate, opinion in all sorts of things. 5. The BNP thrive on distrust of Westminster. We all know what Question Time audiences think of MPs expenses – and of dissembling politicians in general. This, far more than any race-related issue, is what drives BNP support. It is the closest thing voters can do, electorally, to throwing a stone into the window of Westminster. So Griffin will talk about immigration, but will major on how all parties are the same and none to be trusted. This is a theme which resonates with viewers at home. 6. Who will control the Question Time audience? Last night, when this BNP guy asked a question, the audience started on him before anyone from the panel did. How will they react to Griffin? Even if the panel sharpen their wits and carefully calibrate their argument, Griffin may provoke from the floor the shrill attacks he is seeking. Ideally, some trust fund girl standing up and screaming ‘racist pig’ at him – thereby representing the voice of the liberal elite whom the BNP claim to stand athwart. Even better, some dreadlocked hard-left activist throwing something. Question Time do not search their audiences, and the anti-fascist groups are quite adept at infiltration. If I were them, I’d leave far more than the usual hour before going on air. 7. Who should the parties put up? I’d reckon David Davis for the Tories – because he’s tough and amiable. Gove is, perhaps, the best debater. For Labour, it has got to be Jon Cruddas. If Labour put up Phil Woolas or someone who has supposed rank, then Griffin will mop up. Would the gentle, affable Bonnie Greer be the best foil for Griffin – or would her American accent reinforce her immigrant status? Does Shami Chakrabati, who is so good at besting Home Secretaries, have the combat skills required to get the better of Griffin? The non-politico slot (filled by me last night, David Starkey next week) is the only chance to get someone who is not white on the panel. This will discomfit Griffin – he’s use to talking to white people about brown people. Edited September 29, 2009 by BlueStar
danny Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 So in your view, are the BBC right to let the leader of the BNP have a legitimate platform to speak, despite his obvious views? Should they allow such an inherrently racist orginaisation to promote their views on national television? Does freedom of speech mean they have a right to say whatever they want? Right first of i just want to say im not going to discuss my personal views as to what i said i would once do in regards to the BNP. I changed my mind due to a couple of factors and it dosent need to be dragged out in another thread. The first point. The BBC have a duty to allow him to speak. As long as he dosent say anything illegal (which i doubt he will) then there isnt an argument to stop him in a free democracy. Again it might be inherrently racist party but it has a legal front. And is 'quite' well supported. They cant stop a legitamtate party from saying its piece. As long as its all legal. No the freedom of speach does not give them the right to say what they think. If it did they would say far far worse than what they do now.
Chris the great Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 The first point. The BBC have a duty to allow him to speak. As long as he dosent say anything illegal (which i doubt he will) then there isnt an argument to stop him in a free democracy. Again it might be inherrently racist party but it has a legal front. And is 'quite' well supported. They cant stop a legitamtate party from saying its piece. As long as its all legal. No the freedom of speach does not give them the right to say what they think. If it did they would say far far worse than what they do now. i agree. as much as id like to de-phalus the guy with a cheese grater, he has freedom of speech so can speak. really though, any one who is, or would consider voting for the BNP isnt going to be watching question time are they? two pints of lager and a paket of crisps will be on!
Fierce_LiNk Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 That link Bluestar posted was pretty good. It speaks a lot of sense. I'm quite interested in seeing exactly what happens and how Nick Griffin handles the pressure. He loves being in the spotlight, and all eyes will be on him. If he stirs up a fuss, I don't think he'll be too sad about that. It all really depends on the issues that get discussed, and the opposition who face him. I've got a feeling it'll be a good watch.
Platty Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 It will be interesting indeed. Hopefully they'll discuss issues like Employment, Education, Economy, Energy, Health, Defence and Housing to which I believe Mr Griffin's policies will be pulled to pieces. We all know he can spout his party's immigration policies well and that's what attracts some people in certain areas to vote for the party. But what of all the other issues?? Hopefully it will open peoples eyes to the kind of party they are and the fact that they wouldn't have the first clue about running a country let alone Britain. I'm glad Jack Straw is going on but I would have preferred the lyrical Labour mastermind of Miliband.
danny Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 We all know he can spout his party's immigration policies well and that's what attracts some people in certain areas to vote for the party. But what of all the other issues?? Hopefully it will open peoples eyes to the kind of party they are and the fact that they wouldn't have the first clue about running a country let alone Britain. Labour have just cuffed it as they went along for 12 years proving you dont need a clue lol.
jayseven Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 That's totally true and not stupid at all.
Zell Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 I saw Nick Griffin on Newsnight once. Despite Paxman's many attempts to ridicule him, he was actually quite composed and was prepared for many of the questions, a better speaker than a lot of MPs. Of course for most intelligent viewers, it was easy to spot his bigotry. This should be quite intriguing to say the least.
Wesley Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 This whole thing will probably go in the BNPs favour... what's the betting they have some proper fucked up looking audience members?
MoogleViper Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 I don't get why everyone cries about the BNP getting a bit of support. There are far too many foreign and non-white citizens in the country for the BNP to ever get into power.
Wesley Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 That was a very witty comment, sir. I presume it was a joke. I take in good faith. The reason why I'm unsure is because yesterday a friend who I thought was awesome is a BNP supporter. Odd. In all seriousness, the BNP got less votes this last election than before. So... maybe the main parties need to work out why people are voting for lots of different smaller parties than them. It's not like everyone is flocking to the BNP, just away from them (main parties).
The fish Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 Labour have just cuffed it as they went along for 12 years proving you dont need a clue lol. Fuck me, The Daily Mail's here! I think it should be interesting, I saw the Newsnight Zell mentioned - this should be a good 'un.
danny Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 Fuck me, The Daily Mail's here! Yeah heaven forbid anyone would have an opinion. I have never been a daily mail reader just have first hand experience of labours very poor governance and i dont like it thats all.
jayseven Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 So long as you remember that it's just your opinion and not fact, then nobody gives a crap.
danny Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 So long as you remember that it's just your opinion and not fact, then nobody gives a crap. Well clearly you do. Giving up your time to make two posts about it. I would say over the last 12 years its pritty well documented that labour have fucked things up on a large scale. So yes opinioon is part of it. But its an opinion based on fact.
Pyxis Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 Sounds like an attempt to boost ratings by manipulating peoples' emotions.
Haden Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 Well clearly you do. Giving up your time to make two posts about it. I would say over the last 12 years its pritty well documented that labour have fucked things up on a large scale. So yes opinioon is part of it. But its an opinion based on fact. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8279701.stm While the vid is obviously some spin I believe Labour had done a lot of good compared to where we were before hand with Major. As for the topic Im all for it. BNP policies are stupid and should be exposed I mean In the long run, we wish to end the conflict in Ireland by welcoming Eire as well as Ulster as equal partners in a federation of the nations of the British Isles. haha good luck with that!
EEVILMURRAY Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 Simply put, bring it on. I may not watch it, but I'm sure it will make for interesting viewings.
danny Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8279701.stm While the vid is obviously some spin I believe Labour had done a lot of good compared to where we were before hand with Major. Gordon Brown has insisted Labour is "not done yet" did he really say this with a stright face? Who is he trying to kid? I mean really that is the glass is half full taken to the max. Thi time next year David cameron will be the PM and Gordon Brown will not be the head of labour.
jayseven Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 Well clearly you do. Giving up your time to make two posts about it. I would say over the last 12 years its pritty well documented that labour have fucked things up on a large scale. So yes opinioon is part of it. But its an opinion based on fact. Let's not debate about who's wasting their time the most, eh? http://www.elthamlabour.org.uk/whats_the_labour_government_ever_done_for_us Yes, it's a labour website so they're going to be picky with which facts they want to present, but honestly it's quite an impressive list of things (which you won't read). What I'm most unhappy with (besides the war-o) is the reduction of civil liberties. How about you?
danny Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 Well clearly my main concerns are with the wars. Not the fact we went to war. Just the fact they feel fit to send lads to die in equipment not fit for purpose. And probably even more so than that the shit treatment lads get when they come back with bits missing etc. Although a lot of this has been put right due to the charity of the general public. Just the fact help for heros exists is a joke and the labour pargty should hang there head sin shame. Also the compleate failure to make any real decissions after the one to go to war. And just to plod along as its easier than to either pull out or commit properly. Away from the wars. The fact they have totally failed to get a grip on chav scum. Both in the fact that benefits are out of control and the fact that the courts are way to easy on council estate scum bags who constanly commit crime. Also the country is far far far to PC.
The fish Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 Thi time next year David cameron will be the PM and Gordon Brown will not be the head of labour. Don't be so sure, the way it's looking at the moment, there may just be, for the first time in the UK, and hung parliament, as Labour's core is still strong, the Conservatives are strong, but in this day and age they appear to many a little backwards, and amongst ex-Labour supporters, Cameron is either the Messiah Reincarnate or the Spawn of Satan. As such, the Lib Dem's support is growing steadily - whilst they'll never win a General Election out right, they have, if the result is a hung parliament, the chance to be Kingmakers, as I dare say Labour and the Conservatives would never form a coalition.
Paj! Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 I saw Nick Griffin on Newsnight once. Despite Paxman's many attempts to ridicule him, he was actually quite composed and was prepared for many of the questions, a better speaker than a lot of MPs. Of course for most intelligent viewers, it was easy to spot his bigotry. This should be quite intriguing to say the least. I remember seeing him on something newsy, and as you say, he's a great speaker, and if you just saw the screen from far away, with the volume down, he comes across as quite amiable/appealing as MP's go. Then you listen to what he says. This isn't a good thing though. People are more likely to fall under his spell.
Recommended Posts