October 22, 2009
Not the apocalypse, but…
My worst fears about Question Time were not realised. For the most part, Griffin was exposed by the panelists as a vile, lying, holocaust-denying racist and almost everytime he spoke he made himself look worse. Not least because he couldn’t sit still and made Gordon Brown’s smile look normal.
So the sky didn’t fall down, and QT was much better as a format for harming the BNP than I feared it would be. We should be happy about that. But let’s not count our chickens too soon in deciding how much tonight harmed the BNP cause.
During the question about immigration – and whether Labour’s policy on it has fuelled the BNP – it was striking that none of the panelists challenged the dominant right-wing narrative that immigration is out of control, and necessarily bad for Britain. Even Chris Huhne – of the Liberal Democrats! – pandered to the anti-immigration sentiment and tried to out-hardline Griffin.
This is instructive. On immigration, the BNP are mainstream and the other parties dance to their tune for fear of hemorrhaging votes. Make of that what you will.
That Griffin himself came across like a creep and an idiot is to be welcomed…but does it distract from what really matters?
Time will tell.
chris said,
October 23, 2009 at 9:30 am
I too was appalled that the panellists from the three “main” parties spouted right-wing lies about immigration. Doesn’t it say something about the BBC’s notion of “impartiality” that it did not have a supporter of freedom (which is what immigration is) on the programme?
And no-one seemed to point out that tough immigration controls would, in effect, have meant that Bonnie Greer – last night’s least bad panellist – was barred from the country. (Supporters of border controls would, of course reply “we don’t mean the likes of here”. But then, they don’t mean real immigrants at all – just some Daily Mail-fictitious ones).
Grace said,
October 23, 2009 at 10:05 am
I actually don’t think he came across that badly, eg about his opposition to the war in iraq, sometimes he just looked harassed and persecuted
Mads said,
October 23, 2009 at 10:22 am
Hi,
Just watched the programme on youtube, and I agree that it probably is too early to judge how much Question Time damaged BNP. After all potential BNP voters might see things differently, and the fact is that Griffin was more or less constantly cornered and under attack. This will probably fuel theories about the media and politics (the elites!) having an anti-BNP bias, thus “confirming” the BNP’s narrative rather than harming them. People who more or less sympathise with Griffin, or are critical of immigration and multiculturalism, could feel themselves under attack (in the person of Griffin) their concerns not being taken seriously, and thereby driven more towards the BNP.
It’s absolutely no problem for a country to prevent its citizens from marrying whomever they want from foreign countries, though. Denmark effectively did so for several years under the socalled 24-years rule refusing residence permits to to the foreigner if one of the persons in question is under 24 years of age. This was enforced even though it is in clear violation of EU rules/laws – the danish authorities just neglected to inform the involved persons of their rights.
Paul, I’ve realised that it isn’t entirely correct to equate BNP with the Danish Peoples Party. The BNP is clearly more explicitly and overtly racist and extreme. Noone in the danish party would ever think of (publicly) denying the holocaust, and formally it’s not racist although racist remarks tend to creep in in the guise of nationalism. When some of the local (or top party) members utter overtly racist remarks (or, as has been the case with local members, have connections with nazis) they are severely disciplined or excluded from the party.
But maybe the difference is just that the danish party is more professional than the BNP. Griffin certainly has his problems with things he’s been saying, things he now would wish weren’t known to the public.
One thing I didn’t understand though. What’s the deal with Churchill, why is that such an important point?
Grace said,
October 23, 2009 at 10:27 am
http://www.opendemocracy.net/blog/ourkingdom/anthony-barnett/2009/10/23/bbc-bnp-after-the-programme
agreed.
especially scary is the email sent out by the bnp after the programme:
“”I’ve never seen such political bullying on TV in my life.” Just a few of the responses to the long-awaited BBC Question Time with Nick Griffin tonight….the other panellists shared one aim: to rough up Nick Griffin. Most of all though, this wasn’t a proper Question Time at all. The usual format was done away with for the first time in 30 years as the BBC over-compensated for allowing us on by setting things up for a televised lynching. There was nothing about current affairs at all”
Grace said,
October 23, 2009 at 10:34 am
from BBC’s Have Your Say:
“This was not the normal agenda of QT, it was a personal lynching by the LW PC brigade aimed at Mr Griffin personally.”
“This wasn’t Question Time, this was ‘bash the BNP in an orchestrated ambush time’. A missed opportunity to discuss important matters and policy for the various parties.”
“Absolutely pointless, none of the issues affecting the British public were addressed.”
Paul Sagar said,
October 23, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Chris,
Well exactly.
Grace,
I too am concerned. The thing is, don’t the BNP have a point? It wasn’t a normal question time. It was a televised lynching. There could be backlash to this yet. From our side of the fence, he looked like a twit. From his supporters and sympathisers’ side…
Mads,
Yeah, our fascists are pretty inept. Griffin is the best they’ve got and he’s only just succeeded in getting the rest of his party to stop physically attacking minorities and declaring their love of Hitler whilst being secretly filmed. But they are learning, and last night may have been a new dawn for them.
As for Churchill, well he’s part of our national myths, see: most British people don’t believe that Hitler was beaten by millions of Russians in the Red Army, millions of whom died horrible, painful, cold deaths, but by one plucky island led by a man who looked like a bulldog.
Because Churchill is identified as the “defeater of Fascism in Europe”, British people think it outrageous for a fascist party to try to appropriate him. Of course, from a Danish perspective where it’s just obvious that Churchill wasn’t the sole reasons Hitler didn’t win the war, it all seems very peculiar. But when you consider things like our “Battle of Britain” myth about how we stood alone (which, to be fair, for a while we did) and then defeated Germany (which is tosh; Stalin and the Americans did), how we completely over-look the fact that Churchill was a treacherous bastard who switched parties twice, was a terrible military strategist (only Hitler was worse, it seems), a drunkard and quite an unpleasant elitist, it should seem less surprising.
Sorry couldn’t stop and talk before. Having my usual Friday rush-rush-rush stress.
Bearded Socialist said,
October 23, 2009 at 1:43 pm
I thought Straw and Warsi had a good debate about immigration, but overall none of them really tackled a big issue, which is that people buy the myth that English people have been made into second-class citizens.
The BNP thrive on the idea of a conspiracy, that X, Y and Z are conspiring against X, Y, and Z (the indigenous British in this case).
It’s a shame that immigration is not tackled and then it takes the BNP getting 1 million votes before it enters mainstream debate, and then most of the show is about it.
Griffin showed himself as a far-right nasty-man who relies on the idea of this conspiracy, but the issues which force people into his grubby paws were not properly addressed. Straw tried, and I thought did pretty well all night, but didn’t make the case forcefully enough. People need to know that it’s ok to feel proud to be British without being labelled racist, which is something the Tories have traditionally done far better than Labour. Due, I think, to our more bleeding heart liberal wing (including me to some extent).
Griffin’s a right winger, so I don’t like him. But if enough people shun pride in their origins (e.g. being British), there is a vacuum created into which the likes of Griffin step.
Grace said,
October 23, 2009 at 2:19 pm
“It wasn’t a normal question time. It was a televised lynching. There could be backlash to this yet.” exactly!
i’m not sure what people from “our side of the fence” think is particularly relevant to judging whether our fears about QT have been realised. because what were our fears? that BNP support would increase as people watch the show/get exposed to BNP publicity and like Griffin and his message, “we’re different from the nasty political class, we speak for ordinary people”. (well i can’t speak for you but that’s how i felt anyway). now people on our side of the fence would *never* get swayed by QT, so almost by definition we’re scared about the response of people the other side of the fence.
think the perhaps bullying behaviour of the other panellists/audience may meant that my fears are realised – trying to make him a pariah. also speaking for “the people” where other parties are silent – only clear opposer of the war on iraq on the panel, don’t have the figures but i expect most people now think it was a mistake.
anecodal evidence: my mum thought griffin came across well, esp. compared to the mega-waffly jack straw + idiotic bonnie greer. also a boy i know said “the bnp are the only party that stands up for christian values” after watching.
David Weber said,
October 23, 2009 at 2:22 pm
I was disappointed with Warsi on immigration — towards the end she was basically flatly denying anything Straw said, without engaging constructively. Huhne, too, surprisingly got his facts wrong re: enlargement; the UK didn’t accept freedom of movement from all newly accessed countries, we’re in fact still opting out for Romania and Bulgaria, and compared to other pre-enlargement countries, we’re in fact only more liberal in our EU migration policies than France and Germany, and even Italy is opting out for less time, for those two countries, than we are.
Straw got better as the question progressed, but his start was incredibly rambling. His policy angle was probably the best, very pragmatic, an argument based upon how conditions developed rather than any dogma. Annoyingly, this will probably mean his response went down least well.
David Weber said,
October 23, 2009 at 2:24 pm
“only clear opposer of the war on iraq on the panel”
You’re forgetting Huhne.
David Weber said,
October 23, 2009 at 2:26 pm
“also a boy i know said “the bnp are the only party that stands up for christian values” after watching.”
I hope someone enlightened him about Christian values.
Also, how was Bonnie Greer idiotic? She was the only panellist to be consistently good all of the way through, pretty much — not really overextending beyond her knowledge and consistently exposing Griffin’s grasp upon basic history as completely awful. Granted, her response to the question about the Mail was a little irritating, but it hardly reckons.
Bearded Socialist said,
October 23, 2009 at 2:35 pm
If Griffin is the only one with Christian values, that boy needs some real educating.
Greer’s answer to the Mail question was a good one. They can publish what they want. Although Moir should be brought to book for her loose use of facts
David Weber said,
October 23, 2009 at 6:27 pm
“Greer’s answer to the Mail question was a good one. They can publish what they want.”
The question wasn’t about censorship, though, it was about whether they should have published — editorial responsibility. It wasn’t “should we have a duty to stop the mail from publishing”.
Incidentally, everyone’s focused on the fact that Dimbleby used it to probe Griffin over his views on homosexuals, but no-one seems to mention the same treatment was applied to Warsi.
Bearded Socialist said,
October 23, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Good point on the latter Mr Weber.
In terms of editorial responsibility you’re right, but then following that logic the Daily Mail should be out of business tomorrow morning. Which would be a great thing. Just about every piece is nasty and factually inaccurate. There was a horrible piece about people on incapacity benefit but no one picked up on it, for example
links for 2009-10-23 « Rumblegumption said,
October 24, 2009 at 1:36 am
[...] Not the apocalypse, but… « Bad Conscience [...]
David Weber said,
October 27, 2009 at 12:19 pm
“There was a horrible piece about people on incapacity benefit but no one picked up on it, for example”
No, I confess that due to the Mail’s nature, I don’t make a habit of scanning its pages all that often. Do you have a link?
Bearded Socialist said,
October 27, 2009 at 2:49 pm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218873/Benefits-wrecked-British-work-ethic-new-study-claims.html
read it and weep. Or at least rage