By Alex Smith / @alexsmith1982
Nick Griffin's smug, sneering performance on Question Time was met with near unanimous mockery in the BBC studio, from the other panellists and now from the media and political blogosphere.
The BNP leader sweated, ticked and fumbled his way through the show from the start and was clearly out of his comfort zone and out of his depth. He also betrayed his true bigotry in a flurry of ill-considered outbursts - remarks that will negate his assertion that he is "not a Nazi".
Questioned on his views of the Holocaust, he said he does not "have a conviction for Holocaust denial; he made a joke about the KKK's white hoods; he called the BBC "ultra-leftist"; he said Islam "does not fit in with the fundamental values of British society"; he described white people as the "indigenous" British population who faced "genocide"; and found time to crticise homosexual public displays of affection.
Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Robert Winnett and Rosa Prince said:
"Mr Griffin said Islam was not compatible with life in Britain, while describing homosexuals as "creepy". However, he admitted sharing a platform with the Ku Klux Klan, which has carried out racist attacks across America’s Deep South, and defended leaders in the organisation as "non-violent"."
Martin Wilson in the Independent said:
"I don't think he enjoyed it very much. He was visibly shaking from about 15 minutes in. He came across not really as an Oswald Mosley figure, just a bit of a buffoon. He even laughed nervously when Dimbleby asked him if he was a Holocaust denier."
In the Guardian, Sunny Hundal writes:
"He was caught out: flustered, making inane statements and pretending he was being stifled by European law when asked to explain his antisemitic views."
But there is concern that no-one was able to land a killer blow on the BNP last night. In the Times, Matthew Parris writes:
"Nobody dared try what, if it could have been done, would have been the most devastating tactic of all, and perhaps the only tactic that would have done Mr Griffin any real harm: to brush him aside as a small man, enlarged by the anger of his enemies."
There is also concern that in "ganging up" on Griffin, the other pannelists wil have played into the BNP line as a victimised group. Sunny Hundal says:
"Nick Griffin knows this much: it doesn't matter how badly the haters try to expose him – his followers feel under siege enough to ignore all that as part of some massive leftwing conspiracy."
The BNP is reporting that they recieved 15 million hits to their website yesterday and 2,000 new registrations for future membership as a result of their increased publicity this week. I wouldn't be so certain of those statistics - Griffin is, after all, a proven distorter of fact. He even managed to say last night that he and Bonnie Greer "clearly got on well".
But as Greer herself remarked last night, the British people have too much common sense to buy into Griffin's vile message.
Jack Straw gave a largely good account of himself on the panel, and was at one point trending with 90% favourability on Twitter. But the real heroics came from the audience member who said:
"Where do you want me to go? This is my country. I'm part of this country. I was born here, I was educated here. You'd be surprised how many people would have a whip around to buy you a ticket - and your supporters - to go to the South Pole, a colourless landscape that would suit you fine."
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
One small correction: you conclude: " ...and a pretty specific group of educated second generation Arab men who find themselves alienated in Hamburg or Birmingham."
I would replace 'Arab' with 'muslim' (Apropos you're previous comments about how most muslims are not Arabs), as most British muslims hail from the Indian sub-continent rather than from the ME.
As for the degree of the Islamist threat we'll have to - as ever - agree to disagree.
I do agree, however, that until muslim countries (arab or otherwise) reform and cast off their dictatorial/authoritarian, corrupt and poverty-inducing regimes and policies, militant Islam will appear as a panacea to some of the wretched and/or disenfranchised masses.
In Britain the issue of activism is with Pakistanis and to some extent, Bangla Deshis and Kashmiris. Note this is not a religious definition either. There are large Muslim populations in Holland. France and Germany, but if you look at the attitudes and issues, these are much better explained by national background rather than religion: i.e. Morocco, Algeria and Turkey.
Islam as such is such a wide angled lens you begin to lose all definition.
The BBC completely misjudged the handling of an odious Griffin. Subjecting him to a severe mauling from a liberal elite was an obvious tactical error.
While it no doubt led to many a smug smile around Hampstead’s dinner tables on Friday evening, I suspect that the lads sat around Barnsley’s darts boards just saw a plucky underdog, and we all know how the English feel about those.
If you are taking solace from Griffins performance on QT…. THEN DON’T.
Watch the link below and see how he performs in a more typical arena.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2a6S10cnpE
The issue is simple, Joe Public think immigration is out of control. This is a-political it does not matter if you are left or right. Unless we wake up to deal with REAL perceptions opposition will be our domain.
1) The least we could have hoped for was "No Harm Done" (to the anti bee-n-pee cause. We got better than that. It may have entrenched the views of some bn-pee bigots, but I doubt that it swayed many others across to their views.
2) All those worried that Griffin would be a Le Pen - charming his way forward - can now sleep tight. Griffin got his opportunity to debate with the big boys, and it turns out he's crap. Truly awful performance, and now he's crying like a baby that "Auntie" was nasty all along! A performance like that from any other party leader would raise questions about their suitability as leader.
3) Sayeeda Warsi did very very well. She was the only politico whose presence could be questioned; Huhne was the only LibDem capable of taking on Griffin and Straw the only Labour big gun willing to. There were many Tory big guns that could have been deployed (Heseltine, Michael Howard, Iain Duncan Smith). Warsi started slowly but picked up just as Straw went to pieces on the immigration question, and carried on the momentum. In one respect, you should be grateful that Warsi stuck it to Straw first as it deprived Griffin of any chance of a respectable answer.
4) All the other panelists did well too. Jack Straw made a complete hash on the immigration question. But in fairness he took the argument to NG from the very start, and drew the first insult. For the first half hour he was miles ahead on the ConHome poll on the panelists. To those who despair at his performance; who in your party (a) could have done a better job, and (b) had the guts to go on in the first place?
5) Qudos to NothingBritish.com for the "Stolen Valour" video. No silly attempts at storming the BBC. They quietly created a news story featuring top generals and front line heroes that very effectively exposed the bn-pee's hypocrisy, and set the stage for the first question. And Qudos to LabourList for (at least implicitly) supporting this campaign.
6) Aside from Griffin, the other losers were UAF and Peter Hain. They were wrong to try and stop the broadcast, they can claim no victory. It was Warsi, Straw, Huhne, Greer and the audience that squashed NG.
7) As Tim Montgomerie said on ConHome, the bn-pee won't be beaten in 60 minutes. That said, you (the mainstream parties) took on their only credible voice over 60 minutes and beat him. Now, get out into bn-pee territory and EARN back those votes, LISTEN to the concerns of people in those areas - especially the "non-racist" concerns, and act! You have seven months and counting!
The Tories tried to raise the issues of immigration at the last election and you played the race card and so they backed off double quick. http://g2007.com/wef/toryScum.jpg
Griffin was then able to goose-step his way on to territory vacated by all mainstream politicians, who collectively regard patriotic white working class as bigoted peasants and smear anyone who raises genuine concerns about immigration, however moderately, as a 'racist'
Immigration control is about discriminating on the grounds of nationality and not on the grounds of race.
This problem isn’t going to get any better until you address the concerns of the “white working class bigoted peasants”. or failing that ban then from voting.
Now there’s an idea for you... Purely for their own protection... of course,
We used to have a mechanism to monitor people entering and leaving the UK, whether it worked is another matter. The Tories started closing down the exit count before they lost power in '97, as they couldn't afford it having trashed the economy. But after a major sporting event in Australia, might have been the Olympics, they launched a major search for Africans who hadn't left Australia but they had left - the Aussie immigration system hadn't recorded it correctly. In the UK system immigrants got an arrival number stamped on their passport and on a card filled in by the immigrant, the card went to be put on computer, on exit a similar card was filled in with the same 'arrival number' added. Our immigration people are now rolling out a system where names on flights in and out are given by the carriers to immigration so we can know numbers in/out, but it won't tell us who's here before the system was set up.
Unless you have a database and/or an ID card system you haven't a hope of knowing who's here. Of course when the Tories ran us they ignored the problem, so did the press so it went away.
I believe that first of all we should know how many people are here and have come in the last 5 years. If this isn't possible then it should be. We must count the numbers coming in and out. I find it absurd that we're not already doing it!
Second, we need to have a discussion as to how many people we want to come per year. There needs to be a cap at that number (Tory policy incidently) - if only to prepare public services to cope with the inflow.
Third, we need to decide which kind of people we want. Do we want more muslims in the country? Like I said in a previous post we can't insist on sexual equality only to allow those to enter who do not believe in it. This is what gets BNP supporters upset, the apparent erosion of "British values".
Before anyone cries rascist I think a distinction needs to made. A religion is not a race. Discrimination on the basis of race is wrong, but religion IMO isnt. Religion is a view, an opinion, and if you can't question someone's views then we're in trouble.
For the sake of speed I won't offer more of my views on who should enter. My picking out muslims does not infer an agenda on my part, it was only an example. I could say the same of fundamentalist Christians. Also, maybe we only want uni grads who can offer more, or only those who speak English.
Some people believe that there is a limited amount of wealth/work to share around and if an immigrant comes in there's less to go around. Others believe that work and the economy can be grown and we can all benefit. If you believe the second some immigrants can add to the economy, e.g. that guy who runs Easyjet. I believe immigrants have 'get-up-and-go', otherwise they would have stayed in their own country, just as those British without 'get-up-and-go' stay in their own sink estates. These immigrants add to our economy.
Labour's split between two opposing forces, some want it to restrict immigration, others want more to be allowed. If people only say they don't like Labour's policy how can we know what they would prefer.
I thought Griffin did alright on Question Time, though his bad tempered outbust today seems to suggest he's more of a bovver boy. He wants to portray his party as a reasonable party but I suspect many of his supporters will feel let down if he continues to be nice to those non-whites already here. Some want an ethnically pure nation and they may leave his party if they think he's sold out, or he may just be a con artist - we have to wait and see.
Haven't seen the second half yet.
People in the UK are worried about immigration and I believe this is why the BNP are gaining support and will continue to do so until the mainstream party's have the guts to have a open and honest debate about this issue.
I will not be voting Labour in the GE in fact I will not vote at all (a first for me as I have always voted before) as non of the party's at the moment want to tell the truth.
Now I'm not allowed to comment on the Guardian, because I don't follow their leftist agenda, but I'm pretty sure that the quote was along the lines of "reduction in the increase in immigration", which to me suggests that immigration is still rising year on year, and that they've managed to trim down the increase each year.
Which is hardly amazing stuff.
You lot here like compiling lists of what the best achievements of the last twelve years have been. I put it to you, that in twenty years' time the only thing this government will be remembered for is overseeing the worst depression for over 150 years (at the current rate, we will outshine the 1930s), overseeing rampant corruption and fraud in parliament, and witnessing the rise of the far right due to their inability to reform the immigration system, which is what a sizeable majority in this country want.
Not the minimum wage, not the smoking ban.
The problem is the structure of the electoral system. FPTP means all of the main parties have to gear their policies to a small band of lower middle class swing voters in marginal seats in the urban South East and West Midlands (Essex Man, Mondeo Man, Worcester Woman etc). There is no point pretending either Labour or the Tories can win power by concentrating on the core support in core areas, the two most successful leaders in recent history Thatcher and Blair understood this and reaped the rewards. Foot and Hague didn’t get it and were slaughtered at the Polls.
It is easy to ‘blame’ Labour but where are the Tories in the North?, why do they make no attempt to reap the rewards of disillusionment with Labour? simple there is no benefit in it as they will win few seats there. In fact they get more votes by demonising the White working class as scroungers and the architects of Broken Britain, as this plays well in the marginals they need to win.
It can be done, I lived many years in Bermondsey where because there had been a by-election Simon Hughes picks up the anti-Labour vote, if it was not for him would be a safe labour seat with a large BNP vote (it used to house the BNPs headquarters in the early 1990s).
The only real solution is to make every vote count with some form of Proportional representation. A system where even in a landslide year (1997) 70% of seats remain with the same party will always produce pockets of disaffected voters.
I good point well made. Lets not forget though that the BNP was only elected using a PR system. In FPTP they don't stand a chance.
I believe it to be predominatly a Labour problem because NuLab as cynically taken their core vote for granted for years and have left them with no-one to represent them. No party could represent everyone - nor would you want them to. It will be the Tories that wipe them out though as Thatcher did to the National Front. I believe what BNP supporters want is some patriotism from their leaders and the removal of multicultural relativism we have now.
I'll give you an example. We preach against discrimination on the basis of faith and discrimination on the basis of sex. Yet (as Griffin pointed out) the Koran specifically discriminates against women. You can't have both, you either chastise Islam or go without sexual equality. In reality what we have is a pandering to everyone and ignore these difficulties. The BNP see it black and white (excuse the pun) and people respect that - as repugnant as their other views are.
Griffin mentioned that the Koran sanctions stoning women to death. But so does the Torah - does that mean we don't let any jewish people in?
The reason Islam is used as it is by some muslims is to do with unscrupulous clerics and illiteracy among rural populations in Asia and Africa. I realise this might seem pedantic, but I think it's important.
What the BNP's accounts of the Koran tend to gloss over is that it shares a huge amount with Christianity and Judaism, being as they are an Abrahamic faith.
Most muslims, however, do truly believe that the Koran is the word of Allah as transcribed by Muhammad.
Until Islam has a Reformation we are stuck with one fifth of the world believing this.
Interesting point about 'reformation' in Islam. I think Thomas Friedman (who I otherwise quite admire) was pushing this five or six years ago. I used to believe him, but the reality is that Islam was much more tolerant of other religions pre-reformation, than Christianity. Indeed, Islam's democratic anti priestly premises (power to the Ummah) makes reformation pretty irrelevant. Having been in Egypt recently, and hopefully off to Israel and Jordan soon, my main inclination is to agree with B Bendle who puts it down to poverty, social inequality, and the bizarre distorting effects of the oil economy. Only 20 per cent of Muslims are Arab. 60 per cent live in Asia. Maybe we should back off this theological obsession.
Griffin has just found a new populist scapegoat. I stand by my statement of several months ago that Islamophobia is the new culturally acceptable 21st century equivalent of Anti Semitism
I see you mention Thomas Friedman, have you read Longitudes and Attitudes and if so what did you think of it?
I think you are right, there seems to be a lot of pent up hatred lookiing for direction and the flavour of the month is Islam.
Islam has a long and varied history that encompasses both periods of tolerance and periods of repression. A good and informative read is 'The Ornament of the World: How Muslims, Jews, and Christians Created a Culture of Tolerance in Medieval Spain' by Maria Rosa Menocal.
For a more contemporary view of (mainly non-Arab Islam) see V.S. Naipul's 'Among the Believers' and 'Beyond Belief'.
Ironically, the Golden Age of Islamic Al-Andalusia (i.e. Spain) was brought down not so much by the Catholics of Castile than by the fundamentalist Berbers who scorned the 'soft decadence' of their more enlightened co-religionist, and destroyed the fine civilisation that had been developed there over hundreds of years.
I have to disagree, however, with your statement that "Islamophobia is the new culturally acceptable 21st century equivalent of Anti Semitism". While muslims can indeed be a convenient bogey-man for all manner of bigots, the threat posed by militant fundamentalist Islamist is real.
The anti-semitic fables of ritualised, blood-sucking Jews planning world domination were just that: fables. Alas, the trail of death and destruction left by Islamic militants from NYC to Algeria to Delhi to the Philippines is all too real. We ignore - or belittle it - at our peril.
I hope you enjoyed your visit to Egypt (I've been there a couple of times and have had amazing experiences and met wonderful people). Have fun in Israel and Jordan. (I hope to visit both again in the spring - I must 'do' Petra at dawn before I croak).
I take the point that, in reality, the bogeyman summoned up by anti-semitism last century was not capable of all the atrocities ascribed to it. The Jew was both high capitalist and communist commissar. The right demonised Jews for being secret agents of cosmpolitanism, decadence and Bolshevism, whereas the left blamed them for all the depredations of High Capitalism. Of course, there are some anti semites around who say that the dangers were real, and their prophecies have been fulfilled. But even with the Irgun and a few other groups in Palestine, there was no armed conspiracy to terrorise on anything like the scale or malevolence of Al Qaeda.
But here's the big difference. Jews constitute a global population of around 6 million. There are a billion Muslims in the world. The Salafist fundamentalists comprise a tiny extreme band of Sunni Wahabism - a fraction of a fraction. I forget the latest estimates, but active membership of Muslim terror groups numbers in the tens of thousands. It doesn't take much mathematics to work out that, with a billion followers, the threat of armed jihadists can be both real, and yet not represent Islam anymore than David Koresh represents Christianity.
So it comes down to this. You think the dangers of 'underestimating' Islamic terrorism are paramount. I hold a converse opinion that 'over estimating' the Islamic nature of that terrorism is much more dangerous still. It plays right into the terrorists hands. Their main aim to topple governments in Muslim countries. Their main war is more with the rest of the Islam than the west. By generalising about Islam, by tarnishing by association many thousands of different forms of that faith, we do Bin Laden's job for him, and recruit more self destructive young men, and make the mainstream Islamic populations of the world aware that their faith demonises them in our eyes. Bush and Cheney's mad overreactions to 9/11 (specifically the invasion of another totally unconnected Islamic country) will go down in my opinion as a bigger blunder than Vietnam.
We have recognised the danger of Islamic fundamentalism in the last eight years. But we've gone too f ar. We've increased the peril to ourselves and others by making sweeping generalities about a religious identity which, in most cases, was something which quite happily sat with the national or ethnic identity of an Indonesian or Jordanian or Bosnian. We've gone too far in our own apocalyptic theological rhetoric. Time to scale it down, look beyond the Neocon abstractions, to the real people we encounter, either as friend, stranger or foe.
If we look at it this way, the real threat is not Islam. It's the combination of vast Saudi funding, the tribal politics of the North West frontier, Yemen and Kashmir, and a pretty specific group of educated second generation Arab men who find themselves alienated in Hamburg or Birmingham.
For them, Islam is an excuse for their anger and disaffection, just as it is for Bin Laden.
That gives thousands of uncontrolled clerics and scholars a massive hold on massice numbers.
The Koran specifies that women should have equal rights in law, property and self-expression. It seems to me that the trouble is that too few muslims can read this for themselves.
Perhaps that literacy will bring a reformation, although it also has to be said that the West's actions in many respects are driving the fundamentalists.
"Mr Griffin claims the normal format of Thursday's programme was changed and it should not have been held in London."
"In a press conference on Friday, the BNP leader said he would be making an official complaint to the BBC about the programme, saying its normal format had been "twisted" so that it focused solely on his views."
"He challenged the BBC to ask him on the show again and to allow a wider range of subjects to be discussed"
As well as this, they are playing into the BNPs hands by ignoring their main issue - immigration. Jack Straw has no policy, none. He couldn't articulate why this country needed immigrants - except to fight fascism 70 years ago! No mention of an aging population, flagging public services or lack of effective Labour. So many things could have been said but none were.
The BNP's vote will rise after this, and this is not the fault of anyone but Labour.
Indeed.
In the past, abject failure might have been met with some contrition or even resignation.
These days, one's political career is more important. Got to keep the snout at the trough for as long as possible. No doubt we'll see Jack in the Lords after the election next year when he is turfed out by the BNP in Blackburn.
And he wonders why people won't be voting for him.
He really was the biggest loser of last night's circus show.
Possibly, yes. But at least you might got a bit more balance in the programme from members of the public who support the BNP.
Or do you just want to ignore them and hope they'll go away?
All last night served was to show that a highly mixed cosmpolitan London audience are not BNP supporters.
I could have told you that for half the fuss.
Labour is effectively saying to those people (and there are many) who are expressing concern on this subject `shut up, you're a racist, everything's OK, immigration is good for the country'. Now if immigration was one of your top concerns (and polls show that it is for a majority) would you vote Labour?
Ignoring this subject, and shouting at the BNP, is not going to work. What I notice in Barnsley is that whereas people would not say publicly that they would vote BNP, a few years ago, now they will say so with a high degree of `go on, challenge me about it'. Jack Straw's performance last night pushes them further towards the BNP.
I suspect two things from last night - that some of the panel knew the questions in advance, and that the audience was hand picked. It didn't look good.
I'm from Barnsley and agree re the people being a bit confrontational about voting BNP now - I'd even have to include a family member in that to be honest. But I thought Griffin came across so badly, and seemed quite thick, that he'll make it easier to challenge people on it.
Having said that, I agree re the audience. The trouble is the senior people in the London media has no idea how smug and detached they seem when presenting their images of modern Britain. They wouldn't even understand the point.
London is very cosmpolitan and tolerant compared with other areas of the country (it hasn't always been so). The BNP has two MEPs elected in the North, so pardon me for saying that it would have been different, but it clearly would.
Ignore it if you like, but the electoral figures speak for themselves.
I think this was defiantly the wrong decision by the BBC and I think next time it will be worse because the show will not be about him and he will be answering questions as a politician not defending his record.
On the question of immigration I think all the politicians started from the wrong point instead of arguing about their control or - lack there of – over the immigration system they should have taken on the paradigm that there is something wrong with immigration it is only by taking on this debate that we will truly challenge the BNP.
Thankfully Griffin wasn't sufficiently calm, smart or quick-witted to take the opportunity. It might give him a basis to complain he wasn't given a fair chance, but people who were not committed either way will conclude that even when he was, he rather hung himself (the "I can't explain why I used to say those things" moment comes to mind.)
Those who think Griffen a dumb racist homophobic nutcase (that includes me) will still think the same.
Those who see him as an outsider who represents their views (and don't realise he goes a whole lot further in private) on immigration etc. will still think the same.
The fact remains and I know this is a very touchy subject for LL, that might even get this post blocked, a significant % of the population regard certain groups within Islam of holding views and beliefs that are not compatilbe with British values of democracy, freedom of speech, equality and a secular rule of law.
Until people in the Labour party (becuase the BNP is largely a problem in Labour areas) accept there is a real issue amongst the white working class about immigration and muslim fundamentalism then the Griffins of this world will stick around.
I expect hat if this post gets through there will be much criticism and insults and a rush to defend Islam, immigrants and ethnic minorities and rightly so because the vast majority of that religion and groups are more British than Griffin himself in their acceptance of what "BRitish" actually means.
The problem though is the fingers in the ears type approach of a lot on the left that results in:
* a refusal to see the probem with the fundamentalist side of Islam
* a refusal to recognise that large scale immigration requires public services funded to cope with the increase of demand
* no action to further cohesion betweeen immigants and the indigenous population
Time for the left to wake up and stop it's unquestioning love affair with all aspects of Islam and understand unlimited immigration is not what the electorate want.
That's the only way you really will defeat Griffin and his like.
Labour may well lose some working class votes but remember, Guy, that west Yorks and east Lancashire have strong Tory traditions - seats like Pendle and Halifax often go with the winning party, and not all of the voters attracted to the BNP are ex-Labour. There are a fair few working class Tories amongst their number ( a Kirklees councillor Roger Roberts was a Tory councillor a few years back)
The Left should not go down a route which is inimical to their values
Jack Straw had a very well written answer for a question that "came from the audience".
Which begs the question - who were the audience?
Nobody likes a bullying session, which is what this was. If the BBC had the courage and tenacity to hold this event in the North, we would have seen a different story, but no it's "fingers-in-ears and hope the electorate is stupid enough to vote Labour or Tory again" time.
Why would it be so different if it were in the North? Are we all supposed to be all white BNP sympathizers up here or something who would have given Griffin an easy time?
If you want to change these peoples minds then you need to speak to them directly, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get across with your analogy.
Having said that, you make a good point re how "local" the audience was. The BNP has plenty of support in East London, and it's not a long journey from there along the central line to White City
Keep it going, complete meltdown of the main parties is the only thing you'll achieve.
I am sure that if UAF had its way, the BNP would have no voice, despite representing 1 million people in the European Parliament.
I think that is the biggest disgrace of all I saw last night, as usual the left only believes in free speech when it suits them - when others use it to express countering opinions, we see the roots of Stalin and Mao coming out. Suppression.
"Nick Griffin's smug, sneering performance on Question Time was met with near unanimous mockery in the BBC studio"
This is not surprising, as it was a hand-picked audience, all on one side, and the location of West London was deliberately chosen for this reason.
To see some balance, we should perhaps travel to the BNP's constituencies in the north, to understand why people vote for them.
That would require non-partisanship from the BBC, and they have clearly proven they cannot do that.
it doesn't matter a tuppeny damn what a liberal media, the chattering classes or the comfy politocracy thinks. what matters is how this QT played in burnley. or bradford. or barking. or dagenham. and i suggest that in the areas where the BNP has traction, people will have just seen a man deliberately beasted by the BBC, an establishment panel and a loaded audience. griffin was evasive, slippery, weird and very uncomfortable, but the BBC has just created an underdog. an anti-establishment underdog. a politically-incorrect, anti-establishment underdog.
counterproductive.
however, the delicious irony was seeing jack straw being taken articulately to task over labour's abject immigration failures by a stylish, polite and very dapper african-caribbean gent. good on yer fella. there's a 21st century brit for you. plus he immediately made me want a pinstriped bespoke suit after a committed lifetime of t-shirts and denim thus far.
The whole programme comprised only of loaded questions to attack Griffin. Yes - we all KNOW that the BNP is a racist, anti-Islami, anti-Semetic, homophobic organisation.
Griffin should have been treated as a regular panel member with the usual wide-ranging questions on the issues of the day - Afghanistan, Lisbon Treaty, MP expenses row. Surely that would have exposed the BNP as having no coherent thoughts about any policies other than immigration?
I'm not interested in what Griffin thinks about immigration etc. I already know. I want to hear what his thoughts are about the mainstream issues as well.
The BBC, media and the audience played right into his hands. He had anticipated every question and I thought it was remarkable how he kept his cool when the entire room was shouting and laughing at him.
By all means let the BBC have a BNP-bashing programme. Just don't bastardise the Question Time format to achieve that.
I reckon the programme was a huge BBC own-goal.
Would be surprised if the BNP claim of new members is actually true, think it's more damage limitation and trying to save face. After Griffin's comments on the Holocaust, KKK, Islam etc I can't see how anybody new would want to join up.
Think Straw fumbled a bit on the immigration question, just don't think he was expecting it, but overall thought he was great and got some good points in.
Audience were brilliant at times.
Well, probably not among the genteel, left wing social groups or academic environs. But I'll bet the membership secretary of the BNP is having his best day ever as thousands of disenfranchised Labour voters heard a man on prime time television express the views they hold that they dare not reveal for fear of arrest.
The audience was only "brilliant" if you think that the stage-managed selection of hand-picked figures from BNP hate targets was a clever idea. What would have been brilliant would have been the Jewish guy asking whether Griffin really thought our army generals should be hung or the Asian gentleman enquiring what the BNP would do about improving law and order.
Instead both questioners were portrayed as predictable stereotypes - "Yarmulka-Wearing Jewish Youth Attacks BNP for Holocaust Denial".
What next? "Bear Found Defecating in Woods".
Of course the cynical amongst is may feel that there is an alternative motive.
"Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser
Labour threw open Britain's borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a "truly multicultural" country, a former Government adviser has revealed."
"The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html
It isn't going to go away, the elephant in the room just keeps growing.
So it would have been better for the youth to stay at home and shut up, to forget that 6 million of his anscestors were systematically murdered, and let Nick Griffin pretend it didn't happen?
You want any more stories about how the BBC engineered this from beginning to end as to be public 'execution' of Griffin rather than a a serious and non-partisan current affairs programme?
Screw Griffin. But screw the BBC and Dimbleby for cynical political and populist manipulation. And Jaqui Smith on Question time next week? Give me a break. You may as well put them all in tight pants and spandex and have Bruce Forsyth chairing proceedings.
Robin Day is spinning.
Point - missed.
I was very upset about the comments on his father which were quite rightly pointed out as not relevant. Another sign of the pathetic nature of the BNP
Just another thought , I heard on the tv last night (this week ) i think ,that it would have been better if it had been the party leaders faceing QT with Mr Griffin .
ricki
Straw was pathetic, and the fact that he wasn't roundly booed for his spineless refusal to admit there is a problem with immigration gave an insight into why the crowd were really there.
It should have taken place further North, and the only panel member I'd have kept would have been Greer.
1. Nick Griffin came across as what he is: devious, slippery, squalid distorter of facts and beholder of crackpot racial theories. So no surprise there.
2. Ganging up on Griffin - by panel, moderator and audience - was fun, but may, I fear, prove to be counterproductive. The urban, liberal, multi-ethnic audience was totally unrepresentative of the UK, and this would have been noted by viewers - and will not have played well will the BNPs target demographic: the discontented, working class, ex-labour voting, white, English.
3. The issues that need addressing (immigration, multiculturalism and rising militant Islamism) were barely discussed. These issues will continue to fester and grow BNP support unless dealt with.
4) Jack Straw's denial the government's responsibility for the lack of a coherent and effective immigration policy was dishonest and self-humiliating. (He was rightly shredded by the panel and the multi-ethnic audience).
5) Allowing the representative of a political party that gained 6% of the national vote to participate in a television show did not bring about the end of the world. 'Anti-Fascists', and others opposed to free speech, have been proven to be as wrong-headed and biased as their ideological opponents.
Those who incline towards the BNP (my area had one of the highest BNP votes in the country), will have picked up on the fact that the audience looked hand picked. That will be a huge irritant as it emphasises and reinforces the feeling of `we're being ignored'. Still think the programme should have been held in a working class northern town.
The two points where Griffin had traction were immigration and corruption among MPs of all parties. As Labour cannot defend or recover from the former, and this entire Parliament is tainted by the latter, then the BNP will continue to have traction until the election. However, a new Government and intake of MPs will remove much of that, which will leave only the prejudice and cultural issues - these were the contentions most vigorously rejected last night, tho it would have been different in Barnsley.
The location seems an insoluble issue; sure have it in Burnley, or Keighley or Bradford but then wouldn't that be equally unfair and biased - and also inflammatory?
I thought the two women where very good , Jack straw and Chris hune where trying to shout eachother down , Each side will claim victory we can only hope the voters do have common sense to see them as the real nasty party .
ricki