|
Post by Neko Bazu on Sept 28, 2009 17:25:40 GMT -1
Those of you who follow the news will know that, at present, there is a big outcry over the fact that the BBC have decided to allow Nick Griffin, the leader of the far-right BNP, to appear on Question Time. The general vein of the protestors' complaints, albeit not in these exact words, is that the BNP are racist scumbags who don't deserve the publicity and who certainly shouldn't be allowed anywhere near parliament, much less given a chance of gaining a seat. The BNP's growing number of supporters, on the other hand, counter that they're not racist (merely interested first and foremost in the rights and well-being of British people), and that in a healthy democracy their voices are just as valid as anyone else's. A look at the BNP's policies certainly shows that their views could be considered extreme, though whether or not those are outright racist isn't the issue, for me. As far as I can see it, both sides' arguments highlight the exact reasons that the BNP should be allowed on Question Time. Let's assume, for a moment, that the BNP's supporters are right - the BNP aren't racist. There is, therefore, no reason they shouldn't be allowed to join in on a political talk show and express their views. So very well; let them on. Let us assume now that the protestors are right - that the British National Party might as well be called the British Nazi Party; that they're hysterical white supremacists who'll only be happy when our green isles are free from all that foreign scum that pervades our shores. Isn't that all the more reason to let their views be heard by the public? The BNP recently claimed two of our European Parliamentary seats; the media alleged at the time that the main reason behind this was that disaffected voters wanted to vote for "somebody else" and the BNP (and UKIP) managed to win those votes. If we look more closely at the figures involved, though, the true picture becomes clearer - the BNP only saw a 1.3% gain overall; instead, most of the other parties simply experienced a huge downturn in voter numbers (though some, such as the Conservatives, took a higher percentage due to lower voter turnout). People don't become racist overnight. People who would never vote for the BNP because of their racist ideology will never vote for the BNP, even as a protest vote. This leaves two other schools; those who would vote for the BNP because of their racist ideology, and those who vote for the BNP as a protest vote who either don't mind the ideology or perhaps don't entirely realise what they're voting for. (The latter group probably found their numbers swelled notably by the media's hysterical reporting, ironicially. If you tell people "This group are bad for the system!" and people want to show their dissatisfaction with the system, who do you think they're going to vote for?) In the case of the first two groups, things will never change. Die-hard BNP opposers will never vote for them; die-hard supporters will always vote for them. That key third group, though, is exactly the group that need this TV appearance. Let the BNP make their appearance, I say. If they are hysterical racists, this will become apparent very quickly, and the media will have a ton of quotes to repeat ad nauseum until everyone with the slightest sniff of an interest in the next general election (due within 9 months, btw) sees the BNP being thoroughly discredited. If, on the other hand, they have genuinely worthwhile policies that could help, the public should be allowed to hear them and decide for themselves. Likewise, the mainstream parties who already have a huge headstart in terms of funding, safe seats, coverage etc should take the opportunity to show us for themselves that their policies are better than the BNP's. This, after all, is supposed to be how a democracy works, no? (I should note that I have no faith in nuLabour achieving this, mind, and that the Tories and Lib Dems haven't said they'll appear on the show, but this doesn't change the crux of my argument.) Besides all the above, whether they appear on the show or not, the BNP will continue to exist - ignoring the 'problem' won't make it go away. Challenge it head-on, discredit it, defeat it, show it isn't the way. Sticking your head in the sand will only provide them with more fuel - which they took advantage of to great effect in the EU elections. History doesn't have to repeat itself.
|
|
|
Post by PASTIE on Sept 28, 2009 18:38:43 GMT -1
In lots of ways I agree with you. In an ideal world they would be allowed on and exposed for what they are. My concern is that they have "evolved" from skinheads and jackboots into an altogether more media savvy suit wearing entity that has gained subtlety that their nutter forefathers lacked. This, coupled with the naive stupidity of the Daily Mail/Sun reading public makes them all the more dangerous. Just as in the election results, the fault lies not in the existence of the BNP but in the susceptibility of sections of society to fall for them. That this is so exposes so many bigger issues about our democracy and the nature of information and knowledge that our electorate have. Win the media battle and you win the war; policy is secondary, opinion a personal thing best hidden from view. In the pantomime that this can become then the bad guy may gain some popularity. I think that they should be there but I hope that they are up against politicians and an audience with the wit and principle to tear them to shreds. Have a look at this - I came across this little piece a few years ago and am struck by how subtle sinister can be: www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTrr7vnKOEMAlso, you would hope that anybody intent on being a mainstream party would as a minimum aspire to basic standards of decency (not that our current mob have been shining examples). The Redwatch site is an interesting example - it has been changed so that you have to agree a disclaimer now, but the Guardian ran an interesting article earlier this year: www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/oct/04/news.g2
|
|
|
Post by Imp on Sept 28, 2009 18:48:26 GMT -1
According to the BBC, Jack Straw is Labour's man on the panel for this particular programme.It'll be interesting to see how the 'non-political' panellist fares, indeed who they select. Ian Hislop can be quite direct but who esle would we like to see pull Nick Griffin's policieds apart or make him look like a clown?
|
|
keanosbeard
Non League Player (someone crap, like Boston)
Posts: 63
|
Post by keanosbeard on Sept 28, 2009 19:03:39 GMT -1
This would be a good show to have someone like Shami Chakrabarti on the panel again, to give a "balanced view".
I have mixed feelings frankly about giving such an extremist party air-time, after all would the authorities take kindly to having a Al Qaida "politician" taking part? But then again, as a democracy what should we fear by giving everyone their chance to air their views?
The bit that troubles me however, is the parallels between the potential rise of the BNP and the actually rise of Hitler's Nazi party. They came into power, quietly in many respects, in much the same way, by telling "middle" Germany what they wanted to hear; that is, too many foreigners taking their jobs; too many layabouts and spongers; not enough discipline; promising to bring the economy back under control.
Back in the early 1930 the Nazi party, although extreme, also said out loud the things that normal, middle-of-the-road Germans were quietly saying in their front rooms.
After all, even today, much of "middle" England (whatever that really is) is basically retiscent about speaking out loud in public of their fears believing they could be branded racist or homophobic etc. Question: Is it really racist to state, that this small island with a population of 60+ million is becoming overcrowded and immigration should be more tightly controlled? In many area of life, that statement could well be taken as racist rather than as an honest, if incorrect, statement of belief by someone.
Where do I stand personlly? Does anyone really care? Well either way, on this occasion I would go ahead and let Mr Griffin have his 15 minutes of fame on QT . . . but I can't help fearing that he and his cronies are potentially very dangerous to the future well-being of this country.
|
|
|
Post by Neko Bazu on Sept 28, 2009 19:05:14 GMT -1
The article's 2006, not earlier this year, but it's a real eye-opener regardless, and a good indication of what certain right-wing elements (though by no means all) are willing to stoop to. That that sort of behaviour is more suited to Hitler's nazis than modern-day politics, though, and only adds weight to the 'British Nazi Party' line. As for their media subtlety; I did remark on this to a friend not so long ago. Have a look at their written manifesto and, while certainly extreme in places, there are elements which I can very easily see resonating with voters, especially in the current political climate: "The liberal fixation with the 'rights' of criminals must be replaced by concern for the rights of victims, and the right of innocent people not to become victims."
"We will revitalise the Health Service by boosting staff and bed numbers, slashing unnecessary bureaucracy and by addressing the root cause of low recruitment and retention - low pay."
"We reject the idea that Britain must forever be obliged to subsidise the incompetence and corruption of Third World states by supplying them with financial aid. [...] The billions of pounds saved every year by [witholding foreign aid] will also be reallocated to vital services in Britain."
"The British people invented modern Parliamentary democracy. Yet in recent years the British people have been denied their democratic rights. On issue after issue, the views of the majority of British people have been ignored and overridden by a Politically Correct 'elite' which thinks it knows best."In those cases, though, they've had time to sit down and carefully word everything. The Question Time audience and panel, however, generally tend to be very savvy, and I'm sure if anything is to be picked up on, they will - and I've no doubt whatsoever that they will be going in there with the sole intention of catching Nick Griffin out. He has slipped in the past; I daresay he will again. As I said, I think the right thing regardless is to let Nick on there and let the people see for themselves and make a decision based on this - I realise it could work in his favour, but if that's what the people want... Well, that's democracy for you, and I'll support it 'til something better comes along. Neko for Glorious Leader. Neko for Glorious Leader! And yes, that video is a very good example of how (dangerously?) subtle the BNP can be...
|
|
|
Post by Neko Bazu on Sept 28, 2009 19:07:49 GMT -1
According to the BBC, Jack Straw is Labour's man on the panel for this particular programme.It'll be interesting to see how the 'non-political' panellist fares, indeed who they select. Ian Hislop can be quite direct but who esle would we like to see pull Nick Griffin's policieds apart or make him look like a clown? Hearing that really did fill me with despair. Couldn't they have found someone better? Kelvin Hopkins would've done a fine job, I'm sure... Hislop would have a field day with Griffin, I think ;D Beyond that, David Mitchell can be very cutting too...
|
|
|
Post by Imp on Sept 28, 2009 19:21:16 GMT -1
Yeah, I was thinking David Mitchell too! He really would make him look moronic! I think I'm with you on this Neko, and I (possibly a tad naively) have enough faith of the majority of people in this country to feel that the evils of tha past are still too raw and recent for us to go down that path again. I'd rather hear the words from Nick Griifin than via the hysterical reporting of the tabloids.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Sept 28, 2009 19:33:05 GMT -1
Will this be on Thursday's QT?
|
|
|
Post by Imp on Sept 28, 2009 19:37:41 GMT -1
Some time late October...22nd?
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Sept 28, 2009 19:43:30 GMT -1
Ahh will have to make a note to not forget then! Blast you Sky+ TV Guide which only gives a one week schedule! *shakes fist at Sky+ box*
|
|
|
Post by Neko Bazu on Sept 28, 2009 20:28:47 GMT -1
This amused me...
|
|
|
Post by ITFC Dudette6 on Sept 28, 2009 20:40:32 GMT -1
When I first heard this story I thought it was a good idea, because I believed that Griffin would be 'ripped' into by the Question Time audience, and David Dimbleby is experienced enough to know when to say enough is enough. Considering the fact this is seen as a state that gives the "freedom of speech" and the BBC is supposed to have no political bias, as well as the fact interest in the minor parties has been increased due to the distrust in the major parties, it could be seen as 'fair' to allow him to express the view of his party.
I'm just hoping that the British public are intelligent enough to realise that Griffin really is an awful person, no matter what poker face he puts on on the television.
|
|
|
Post by ITFC Dudette6 on Sept 28, 2009 20:41:22 GMT -1
This amused me... That makes me really want Ian Hislop to be on the panel and sat next to him...
|
|
|
Post by PASTIE on Sept 28, 2009 20:42:04 GMT -1
This would be a good show to have someone like Shami Chakrabarti on the panel again, to give a "balanced view". I have mixed feelings frankly about giving such an extremist party air-time, after all would the authorities take kindly to having a Al Qaida "politician" taking part? But then again, as a democracy what should we fear by giving everyone their chance to air their views? The bit that troubles me however, is the parallels between the potential rise of the BNP and the actually rise of Hitler's Nazi party. They came into power, quietly in many respects, in much the same way, by telling "middle" Germany what they wanted to hear; that is, too many foreigners taking their jobs; too many layabouts and spongers; not enough discipline; promising to bring the economy back under control. Back in the early 1930 the Nazi party, although extreme, also said out loud the things that normal, middle-of-the-road Germans were quietly saying in their front rooms. After all, even today, much of "middle" England (whatever that really is) is basically retiscent about speaking out loud in public of their fears believing they could be branded racist or homophobic etc. Question: Is it really racist to state, that this small island with a population of 60+ million is becoming overcrowded and immigration should be more tightly controlled? In many area of life, that statement could well be taken as racist rather than as an honest, if incorrect, statement of belief by someone. Where do I stand personlly? Does anyone really care? Well either way, on this occasion I would go ahead and let Mr Griffin have his 15 minutes of fame on QT . . . but I can't help fearing that he and his cronies are potentially very dangerous to the future well-being of this country. You are, my friend, most welcome to these boards. I cannot tell you the time you have also just saved me with the phrase "if incorrect"! Well said on all counts.
|
|
|
Post by PASTIE on Sept 28, 2009 20:46:32 GMT -1
The article's 2006, not earlier this year, but it's a real eye-opener regardless, and a good indication of what certain right-wing elements (though by no means all) are willing to stoop to. That that sort of behaviour is more suited to Hitler's nazis than modern-day politics, though, and only adds weight to the 'British Nazi Party' line. As for their media subtlety; I did remark on this to a friend not so long ago. Have a look at their written manifesto and, while certainly extreme in places, there are elements which I can very easily see resonating with voters, especially in the current political climate: "The liberal fixation with the 'rights' of criminals must be replaced by concern for the rights of victims, and the right of innocent people not to become victims."
"We will revitalise the Health Service by boosting staff and bed numbers, slashing unnecessary bureaucracy and by addressing the root cause of low recruitment and retention - low pay."
"We reject the idea that Britain must forever be obliged to subsidise the incompetence and corruption of Third World states by supplying them with financial aid. [...] The billions of pounds saved every year by [witholding foreign aid] will also be reallocated to vital services in Britain."
"The British people invented modern Parliamentary democracy. Yet in recent years the British people have been denied their democratic rights. On issue after issue, the views of the majority of British people have been ignored and overridden by a Politically Correct 'elite' which thinks it knows best."In those cases, though, they've had time to sit down and carefully word everything. The Question Time audience and panel, however, generally tend to be very savvy, and I'm sure if anything is to be picked up on, they will - and I've no doubt whatsoever that they will be going in there with the sole intention of catching Nick Griffin out. He has slipped in the past; I daresay he will again. As I said, I think the right thing regardless is to let Nick on there and let the people see for themselves and make a decision based on this - I realise it could work in his favour, but if that's what the people want... Well, that's democracy for you, and I'll support it 'til something better comes along. Neko for Glorious Leader. Neko for Glorious Leader! And yes, that video is a very good example of how (dangerously?) subtle the BNP can be... Apologies - I came across it earlier this year. I went to see a Billy Bragg concert and he was talking about the BNP complaining about having their names and addressed trawled across the internet by a dissident member and he pointed out the existence of redwatch so I came home and looked it up. Back then you coudl also view the pages. I've also read the BNP's webpages - i think you shoudl know what everybody is about before you pass judgement - and I agree that the wording of it all is fascinating. They even advocate the use of sustainable, locally sourced food in schools; it just happens to provide by accident a means of not providing meals for other cultures. It is full of "sanity" masking other intentions.
|
|
|
Post by PASTIE on Sept 28, 2009 20:52:22 GMT -1
Yeah, I was thinking David Mitchell too! He really would make him look moronic! I think I'm with you on this Neko, and I (possibly a tad naively) have enough faith of the majority of people in this country to feel that the evils of tha past are still too raw and recent for us to go down that path again. I'd rather hear the words from Nick Griifin than via the hysterical reporting of the tabloids. The trouble is that a comedian would make it seem populist yet trivial. In many ways it would need a credible politician from the right, a conventional Tory if you like, one that the likes of me may not agree with but whose intentions are honourable (hard to think of one off the top of my head). A leftist satirist would provoke a slanging match and would allow Griffin to posture himself as the struggling but genuine politician being bullied by entertainers who have nothing constructive to offer. I'd hope for a more compelling presence from Labour than Jack Straw, but as a minimum I'd like some cross party coherence to set them as outside conventional politics. On reflection, whilst he may be a nasty little man in many ways, I'd be curious to see William Hague have a go at him; he is sharp, intelligent, probably at heart reasonably moralistic (as a comparative term) and with the interests of the Tory Party at heart who will need to distance themselves from the BNP. Will be compelling viewing, whenever it is. Bet few politicians are queueing up for the gig though.
|
|
|
Post by CHOPPER READ on Oct 11, 2009 19:08:09 GMT -1
I bet Abdul felt a right [c]unt after voting for the BNP only to find it didn't stand for Britain Needs Pakis.
|
|
|
Post by Neko Bazu on Oct 11, 2009 19:37:38 GMT -1
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Oct 11, 2009 19:43:57 GMT -1
Oooh I saw that article too! I do believe it will be the 22nd October when they'll be on Question Time.
|
|
|
Post by HURLOCK on Oct 20, 2009 11:52:35 GMT -1
I am looking forward to this
|
|