Subscribe to the Compass feed
Join the Compass Facebook group
Follow us on Twitter
EVENT
After the election: what next for centre-left politics?
CAMPAIGN
High Pay Commission
PUBLICATION
The Advertising Effect
THINKPIECE
#60 Responses to Recession
No platform for the BNP argues Steve Goodrich
Until recently I had refrained from complaining about Nick Griffin's invite to Question Time. This is because I had naively trusted the BBC and the proposed panellists to expose the BNP's lies for what they are. This trust had obviously been misplaced.
Last Wednesday evening I was informed that Griffin was to be interviewed on Radio 1's Newsbeat. Whilst I'm not an avid fan of the programme I thought it would be interesting to see how they would handle him in front of a young audience. Unfortunately my curiosity quickly turned to shock and then rage.
Throughout the piece I was surprised at how soft the interviewer was being on Griffin. He was allowed to present himself as a moderate and had the cheek to claim credit for reforming the BNP into a ‘respectable' political force. This was a massive misrepresentation and it went unchallenged.
Nick Griffin is a renown holocaust denier, anti-Semite, racist and lifetime neo-Nazi. The BBC's own Panorama programme exposed him as such during its 2001 documentary BNP: Under the Skin . Eight years has not changed decades of hate. Griffin's so-called ‘party reforms' are modelled on moves by the European far-right to make themselves look more respectable. At the same time their core racist values are maintained and peddled on the streets.
I was also distained about Radio 1's woeful ‘engagement' with the BNP youth, ironically titled "BBC members challenged on beliefs" . One of the youths they interviewed was another renown neo-Nazi, Mark Collett. Again the BBC should have known about Collett because it exposed him as a racist in its 2004 programme The Secret Agent . He was also recently charged with incitement to racial hatred, a story that the BBC gave substantial coverage to. Instead of recognising this and preventing Mark from peddling his hate, he was let to waffle on about "pandas" and "sparrows" as if wildlife conservation was some sort of justification for the vile ethnic cleansing he desires.
The comments of Mark, and the self-proclaimed "nationalist songwriter" Joey Smith, were not "challenged" in any substantive way. If the BBC had done its research then they would have been able to ask more challenging questions, such as why Collett denies the holocaust and why he sought to peddle race hate whilst at university in Leeds.
Because of this incompetence I now strongly believe that the BBC should withdraw Griffin's invite to Question Time. I also feel it should apologise to Radio 1 listeners for allowing the BNP to tell outright lies unchallenged. On top of this it should also apologise for its complete lack of research on the subject and for giving the BNP a semblance of respectability; something it certainly does not deserve.
The BNP not only incites racial hatred, they want to see Britain ethnically cleansed of "non-indigenous" peoples. The BBC should be more aware to this fact before giving such an objectionable organisation any air time. Some may think it is liberal and just to let them have their say however there is a line that has to be drawn. The BNP has no interest in freedom of speech, despite their ludicrous claims to champion it. As such I find it impossible to justify giving them a voice when they would so readily take away ours, Britain's tolerant majority.
In response to this abomination I have written a letter of complaint to the BBC. I urge all those who heard this programme to do so to. I would also urge you to ask for the BBC to withdraw its Question Time invite to Griffin. Whilst I recognise the calibre of Question Time panellists is slightly higher than last week's interviewer, I can now see clearly that this is not just about standards of scrutiny.
Like others versed in slick PR jargon, Griffin sticks to scripted soundbites and misleading rhetorical devices. Evidence-based arguments are thrown out of the window and replaced with hearsay, rumour and populist tub-thumping. This is what the BNP thrives on, irrational yet emotively charged propaganda. To try and tackle them in reasoned debate is pointless if they're not playing by the rules of rational deliberation.
Some might see this as an alarmist call to arms or a reactionary and illiberal response to a mere insignificance; however this drip-drip legitimation of the BNP only serves condone their racist filth and further their abhorrent cause.
Steve Goodrich
Want to write an article like this? If you’re a Compass member you can submit your own articles and start your own debates on the Compass debates member’s section, an autonomous space for our members to initiate debate and discuss ideas.
To keep updated on the latest Compass news, please join our mailing list.
Comments
on 27 October 2009, 2:32:54 PM
No doubt if Qt came from Barking and Dagenham, (or for that matter from Morley Town Hall,) the balance of the audience would contain more supporters of the BNP. But as matters stand, any given audience is likely to be anti-BNP; and I would suggest with as much vocal integrity of purpose as we found in the West London Broadcasting House.
For the moment that will do; it holds the line against the BNP. But beyond Qt and all of that, the wider issue of defeating the BNP remains.
on 26 October 2009, 5:41:53 PM
There's life Jim but not as we know it.
Lewis it does exist but in a parallel universe type of way, and tries to fight a political cause with both hands tied behind its back.
I've never heard of Michelle McManus, hate irn bru and never watch STV, so can't help you there i'm afraid. As ever what has this got to do with the BNP debate. Why not start a debate on scotland and invite David Starkey or Kelvin McKenzie to contribute. We can really pile in and have some fun, anyway just of to have some deep fried pizza while singing "roamin in the gloamin" bye.
on 26 October 2009, 4:08:58 PM
but shouldn't they have a platform on Michelle McManus'
show on STV sponsored by Irn Bru?Maybe with Jean Krankie.
Jim Murphy could make a surprise guest appearance,unless the
audience are hand picked toffs from big houses in the Trossachs.
Michelle could open with the Zevon song describing the collapse
of the main Scottish banks,"I had the money but the money was spent-
"I had the credit but it all got lent-
"I had the assets but they made me pay-
{Fred the Shred} ~ "Then I had the sense to be on my way!"
Say what you will Brian,the Scottish Labour Party does not not exist.
on 26 October 2009, 3:32:48 PM
It was an audience typical of west London (admittedly without the toffs) and, therefore, atypical of the country. The BBC's management got the publicity it sought for defending both freedom of speech and its public service role, and two thirds of us had our prejudices about immigration reinforced, and the remaining third or so had an opportunity to develop a few. The only thing that can be said in its favour is that, after a mere four or five decades, we might possibly - just ever so possibly - be in on the start of a sensible political debate on immigration which should have happened in the immediate aftermath of WWII. Or the 1950s. Or the 1960s. Or anytime since. Or not, if the panel's responses are anything to go by.
on 26 October 2009, 12:56:42 PM
on 25 October 2009, 11:37:40 PM
As I said earlier on this thread: "Griffin's performance can only improve after this or the BNP will quickly find a more charismatic spokesperson to play the TV game on its behalf. But next time around, the BNP representative will start out as the underdog with their target demographic firmly on their side from the off."
Wonderful show, though, with everybody performing as their own most embarrassing caricature. Maybe they'll issue the transcript in a Deluxe Manga Edition. Who knows what goes through the petty, the ultra petty, post-aspirational minds of those jumped up and dumbed down middle-class mini-Creosus' at the top of the BBC, each with one directionless hand on the tiller of the Beeb with the other utterly focused and highly directed hand tightly holding the Beeb's budgets and, consequently, whatever evidence which may exist to show how little they deserve their farcically diy salaries and bonuses?
on 25 October 2009, 9:02:52 PM
on 25 October 2009, 8:06:39 PM
Lewis, might have known that any mention of SNP, scots, devolution, kilts, haggis, red hair,
porridge and the like, would get you out of the tappis bar like a red rag to el torro.
Still does'nt answer the fact that Ian Gray is an irrelevance as are scottish labour. adios.
on 25 October 2009, 6:30:31 PM
How can you claim that Scotland has it easier when STV presents Michelle McManus as the Dimbleby figure on a show sponsored by the makers of Irn Bru?
The only comparison was the eternally irritating Grayson Perry on "Have I Got News For You" arrayed as his supposed alter ego.We have strayed a long way from gorgeous Danny La Rue,the laser sharp Lily Savage,and the comfortable Old Mother Riley.Even Christopher Biggins would avert his eyes.
As for political cross dressing the SNP here is referred to as "El Fumo" because getting to its real agenda is like nailing smoke to a wall.At least Iain Gray was elected by hundreds of thousands Scots voters;it says so on his web site.
on 25 October 2009, 6:12:58 PM
However this 'national identity' is being forced on all of us - and not just the working class. So their feeling of alienation is economic in cause and not essentially connected to the 'liberal' (sic) elites' desire for 'political correctness.' And the BNP are trying to force even more stringent ways of
qualification for rights and protection etc.
Like you I reject this attempt to dictate to who I am - or who I should be. However, this has nothing to do with the welcome fact that many of this elite are not racist, homophobic or misogynistic. They have enough bad points without these extra prejudices.
on 25 October 2009, 5:26:58 PM
Well, neither do I because that's not what I said. Most conspiracies are casual and ill-thought through and, quite probably, not fully intentional (which is why it's such an effective charge for the Crown when levelled against people whose behaviour has otherwise not produced anything of evidential value. However...).
What I do believe is that, as part of its publc service remit , the Beeb thought it had to include the BNP in Question Time (and quite right too). It then decided on a completely atypical setup for the programme in which Griffin would be extremely unlikely to shine and, hopefully, do him a great deal of damage - at least according to the ever dimmer lights of a Beeb "leadership" more interested in discovering new truths about the new media than in coming to terms with the old media's long established truths.
Griffin certainly didn't shine by any absolute measure I can think of, but then he didn't need to. Relative to a bullying and abusive audience, panel and chair, embarrassingly eager to show their contempt for him and his ideas, he did shine by default.
Somehow, the cretins of the Beeb pyrrhically turned Griffin into a figure of sympathy and gave him the most basic kind of political victory. It didn't really help when the rest of the panel struggled to answer come up with an intelligible response to a question on immigration other than to say that immigration and race are very different issues (although their body language demonstrated that they all saw a linkage, with Griffin deep, deep, deep in his comfort zone and the rest dissembling uncomfortably).
Griffin's performance can only improve after this or the BNP will quickly find a more charismatic spokesperson to play the TV game on its behalf. But next time around, the BNP representative will start out as the underdog with their target demographic firmly on their side from the off. But, straying back to the point, and as Brutus had good cause to note, most conspiracies end up as bodged jobs anyway because the actor does not have complete control over the audience's perception of the illusion on offer. I think David Ogilvy may well have said that about something at some point or other.
on 25 October 2009, 4:48:19 PM
The BBC had no interest in making Griffin look bad. They new perfectly well that the panel and audience would do that. That said, they have reason to be concerned about the way the panel and Dimbleby conducted themselves.
They need of course to deal with the elite response after the event. The ever spiteful and reactionary Dennis McShane sums up the BBC dilemma. “ BNP 4. BBC 0.” The Griffin role in Qt will play into the hands of those in the LP, Tory Party and Lib Dems who want to gradually dismantle and privatise the BBC.
on 25 October 2009, 3:40:42 PM
Mercifully this is not normal practice and so they had absolutely no idea how to do this and they made a pigs ear of it by looking like a lot of bullies in a play ground.
on 25 October 2009, 1:52:57 PM
But that is light years from the charge of conspiracy, which you seek to make. Griffin of course claims that ‘the extreme Left’ controls the BBC.
Griffin was not set up. The establishment mob on the panel whose politics and policies have created the conditions for BNP advance were put to shame by the reasoned anti-BNP stance of an audience much more representave of society than were the panel. Moreover, they conducted themselves with far more self-respect than did Griffin and his fellow politicians. If the BNP appear on Qt again, the ‘new labour’ Tory and Lib Dem representatives will not be able to get away with their antics a second time. In addition, the audience exposed Griffin as not just politically objectionable, but as an unpleasant idiot. In the future it must be likely that Griffin will be more careful about what he says. If this proves to be so, the anti-BNP panel members are going to have to be a great deal less self-indulgent than they were last Thursday.
It is undoubtedly the case that the white working class have been stigmatised by those with influence in economy and society as racists. Those doing the stigmatising are usually working class themselves, frequently white and have done marginally better than most workers out of the redistribution upwards which has underpinned the economic changes of the last 30 years. The great majority of the white working class are not racist. Part of the assumption that they are racist, (particularly the implicit parts of that assumption,) are part of the attempt by the beneficiaries of the neo-liberal consensus to destroy socialist politics and to equate class with the what Tory Lib Dem and ‘new labour’ ideologists mean when they talk of ‘the underclass.’
on 25 October 2009, 11:39:16 AM
Immigration has got to be debated, as well as chronic social housing shortages and lack of opportunity and unemployment. Low wage economy and cheap labour is also to blame here, no matter how much bluster there is from Straw etc. Free markets always require a large pool of labour to pursue supply and demand. Unskilled and semi skilled workers tend to be particularly exploited by this system. Labour as a party need to engage with working people again, and get back to what they actually once stood for. The consequences of not doing so is a very dangerous route indeed.
on 25 October 2009, 11:35:24 AM
It is political correctness that says that my original community does not have a name to use. So any choices I make to celebrate it or give it up are constrained. I think you are right to identify this as imposed by the middle class governing class who after empire felt superior and hop happily between cosmopolitan elite and English country.
But I wasn't born middle class and I don't trust them and I don't play by their rules. What works for them doesn't work for me. I want a name.
And on that QT program any name that was suggested was ruled out by cogniscenti for reasons I couldn't follow and don't believe were honest. I want a name and then I can choose to celebrate it and think of myself as different from the newer communities or give it up and think of myself as cosmopolitan. Probably a bit of both liek everyone else. But I want the choice. Everyone else has the choice.
My whole life experience tells me that suppressing something ends in tears.
on 25 October 2009, 11:02:33 AM
As an agnostic southern socialist I don't fit in too well. I used to put defiant Vote Labour posters in my windows, but it's not a very defiant thing to do anymore. I still chat to people, even if I don't know anything about their cultural background.
on 25 October 2009, 10:52:36 AM
No, what I said is that it was planned to do him political harm - which by any definition makes it a conspiracy. On a medium like TV that the message which got across is that Griffin was set up but, unfortunately, it was set up for overkill which for Griffin's target demographic, white working class voters unimpressed with any party's stance on immigration and lack any concept of an English (ie, white working class) solidarity was the most obvious statement of how things really are in this country.
What was interesting about the broadcast was that we had the three main parties suddenly agreeing that we should not confuse immigration and race after they've spent more than four decades of deliberately conflating the two in order to undermine the white working class's most fundamental economic argument against immigration with the accusation of racism. But that's more than four decades too late for many of those whose lives have been destroyed by the deliberate creation of unfair competition by the import of cheap labour in the the unskilled and semi-skilled labour markets.
Even more interesting is that it's really only when immigration began to make an impact on skilled and professional workers over the last decade that our expenses driven politicos have begun to make the distinction between immigration and racism.
on 25 October 2009, 10:52:06 AM
I'm really try to point out that identity is not only complicated but is about
culture and not colour. I'm not saying how anyone should celebrate it but
know that a party that wants to ban mixed race marriages etc has a lot to say how everyone on these islands should behave and conduct themselves. And I oppose this with all my strength.
If you want to bemoan the fact that white English people don't celebrate their roots - then blame our Celtic and Anglo-Saxon ancestors for giving up their beliefs and religion for an imported hotch potch of Middle Eastern superstition. Or possibly blame those who used such violence to persecute the Heathen religion here in the 7th century (just look at the law codes of the Kings Ine and Wihtrid of Wessex and Kent for clear evidence of this oppression).
And what about those people who don't want to be constrained by the rituals and ceremonies conducted by their ancestors from a 1,000 a go whether they are Chinese, Scottish or whatever? Customs can be a form of tyranny that everyone should be free to choose to follow or not and not feel pressurised to out of a feeling of 'patriotic' or group coercion.
Rather than the slant you give my views in the quote above - I think it is far more a case that majority gropus tend to feel more secure so have to stress their 'identity' less than those who are more insecure, so it isn't just about 'protection' or 'pressure' from above. People are still choosing their own actions here.
I don't doubt there is a small minority of white English people who feel threatened - although I think the underlying cause is economic and social uncertainty - which has nothing to do with colour or culture. But not for the first time such an insecure mindset has turned to a form of reassurance based in myth. But if you look closer at this 'identity - it isn't supported by historical or factual evidence. So in the long run it won't help those wielding it to attempt to deal with the real world.
on 25 October 2009, 10:13:37 AM
But who do I say I am? I don't have a name for it. The Hindus talk about their identity in a way that counter poises it to mine. They know I am English from way back. They assume that I have a similar community. But I don't. The ex ArchBishop is trying to claim me this morning as a Christian. No thanks.
I would like to start by having a name for my identity that is clearer than white other. My son came out of a consultation with a GP and when I asked him what was said he said he couldn't answer the questions. It transpired he couldn't find an ethnic identity on the list. Every cabinet minister tells you he is descended from some immigrant somewhere in his family's past. But he never gives a name to the rest of his heritage which is usually the main part of his heritage. This nonsense has to stop.
The US let people be this American and that American. You can drop it and water it down as it disappears or you can proudly cling to it. Lots of callers to radio stations claim to be African Carribean British, British Muslim. What can I claim to be? I don't want to be defined by not being in any other group. I don't want to be defined by skin colour. It's not much to ask.
on 25 October 2009, 9:25:46 AM
I watched a TV programme recently which insisted that we are all Africans. I like that idea.
on 24 October 2009, 11:57:03 PM
No doubt those making any decision about BNP participation in the future are at the very least as personally and ethically opposed to the BNP as any other liberally inclined runner with the establishment elites can be expected to be. Personally I hope that the likely groundswell of popular objection to BNP MEPs appearing on AQ will be enough to make the BBC withdraw any proposal to bring Griffin or Brons on to the AQ panel; if indeed they make such a proposal. At all events, David Dimbleby’s stewardship of Question Time will make it harder, (given the typical AQ venue and audience,) for the BBC to back down if they do invite either BNP MEP on to the Any Questions panel.
SG you assert the fact of a conspiracy against Nick Griffin, but you educe no evidence or argument that it was a conspiracy other than to say that his participation on the Qt panel was planned.
Whilst I share your appreciation of some of the middle-classes and their domestic arrangements as you describe them; on the matter of English, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish distinctiveness, Jon puts the case that needs to be put against the position held by both Frances and yourself.
on 24 October 2009, 11:14:47 PM
Other groups continue to celebrate their roots any way. What you are saying is we are greater in numbers and perhaps in other ways so all other groups are under threat and have to be protected and their identity celebrated but not ours. We are different from other cultures. I don't like the implications. Sounds like a kind of superiority. We are just a bunch of people who lived on an island for 1000 years and want to honour and celebrate our identity like every else.
on 24 October 2009, 8:31:33 PM
Just because a conspiracy is unutterably stupid and has gone (utterly predictably) pear-shaped doesn't make it any less of a conspiracy. It was obviously planned - and, therefore, by any definition, a plot (albeit, half-arsed to a degree beyond the conceptual reach of the white working class, aka Labour's core vote oop nawth) - to do great political harm to Nick Griffin. Still, it does go to show thar just because a stupid elite is an eite doesn't make it any less stupid.
A combination of crass incomprehension and bungling incompetence also made it very obvious why David Dimbleby never got either of the BBC's top jobs. Unsafe hands and much too inclined to pander to clapped out pols peddling the same old line on the benefits of immigration and diversity, et al, and how we should welcome the extinction of a distinctly English, Welsh, Irish or Scottish working class identity like some outmoded aspect of Caliban ever so likely to become inconvenient to the middleclases who wish to save on their house cleaning bills, et al. Anyway, I'm with frances on this one.
on 24 October 2009, 8:29:39 PM
The first people to arrive here may have been say 17,000 years ago but a lot of white people have arrived here since 500 AD and many more did so far more recently. The term 'indiginous' is completely wrong in this context.
The Angles and other Germanic people who came did so largely through trade and violence. And if you wanted to point the decendants out you could start with those such as I with blue or grey eyes. (At least the so called ethnic minorities were invited).
The poor of this country have suffered so badly largely because indentity politics have trumped the more diffcult politics of redistribution. And yet the BNP's reaction is to make identity politics even more pervasive and absurd.
If white working class people have been undercut - it's equally true that the immigrants brought in were being exploited and underpaid to the same degree. If English history has been rewritten (and I'm a hisorian) then this is nothing compared to the nonsense peddaled by the BNP.
It is up to English people (and remember Griffin is Welsh) to decide our own identity. My wish is that this should be done in a tolerant and as egalitarian way as possible and we have had a long tradition of this including the Levellers and Godwin in our past etc. Identity isn't static but is ever evolving.
And for the majority of English people - racism has no part. Just watch the England football team in South Africa next summer. A team full of black and mixed race talent, will be watched by more English people than the numner of so called 'British' people who watched Griffin on Question Time.
on 24 October 2009, 5:46:45 PM
You saw the scorn poured on indiginous or native English by everyone especially the American. The whole of English history is being re written to celebrate its diversity. Whereas every other group is allowed to celebrate the distinctive elements of their cultural history and their roots.
In 100 years time the Chinese will still be having Chinese New Year in London. People like to keep their history. We'll all be a lot healthier if we stick to the truth and allow the cultural identity of everyone to flourish. And that means everyone.
on 24 October 2009, 4:56:10 PM
There is far too much a tendency by those on the left to vaguley refer to the white working class etc as if such a complex and diverse opinions of so many millions of people can be summed up. It is absurd.
Only 8 million people could be bothered to watch a political programme which was incredibly contentious. More watched X factor and many amnay more used to watch Miss World in the 70s. Politics is increasingly becoming the preserve of the 'anorak' obsessive and professional and more and more people are finding more interesting things to do.
This is the real threat to 'our' democracy - as an increasingly Corporatist State is run by business interests which overlap with those of the political 'representatives.' As political parties lose their influence many people working class or otherwise will turn to private Organisations to look after their interests, whether they are legal or illegal.
on 24 October 2009, 4:46:12 PM
This time the atmosphere of hostility towards the Leader was palpable. There was no pretext of impartiality from the Chair. the smell of blood was overwhelming.It was almost like a Rugby League match.
How can the BBC justify such an event on the grounds of free speech ? It was a pantomime with old Nick as the villain. The boos and hisses from the audience were terrifying. How much free speech do the BBC imagine we will have if the BNP ever came to power ?
on 24 October 2009, 4:33:36 PM
The ????? working class have lost their political representation. Now they have no name. When I fill in an ethnic monitoring form I have to tick - white other. That's the only option. I always feel as if I don't exist. I don't know what name is acceptable to describe myself.
If every other group wants to celebrate and express their identity why would we be the only group on the planet who aren't allowed to?
If you don't like Nick Griffin - address the problems he majors on. Give the ???? people a name, an identity and some political representation back.
Today 20% of people said they would vote BNP and 50% said they wanted a name and a cultural identity. Just because he's the only politician expressing this doesn't make it wrong.
Someone has to find a word for us. Either we all express our identites or we all give it up. It's actually very superior to be the group with no name.
on 24 October 2009, 3:04:42 PM
The BBC was right to invite Griffin. Right because as we move towards a more authoritarian society whose economic and social policies are increasing neo-liberal and mediated to The Many by competing elites of Stakeholder Democrats from the likes of Proffessor Rutherford through to any Tory MP of choice, the BBC policy that parties with a clearly determined minimum level of electoral support should have a BBC platform from time to time, is worth defending. At one and the sme time, if that BBC principle is to be breached it should be done because the Corporation has no option but to give in to popular pressure---to the sort of public demonstrations we saw in the streets, in Broadcasting House and in such progressive media as we have.As part of this same process the legal challenges fronted by Peter Hain and others to stop Griffin appearing on Qt played a usful role even though they failed.
But the BBC should not ban Griffin simply to please a disgraced rightwing political class as represented by the Labour, Tory and Lib Dem representatives. If such a decision were confined in effect to elite self interest, the prospects for democratic class based social change would be reduced to nil.
The BBC was not guilty of conspiracy. Would that charge be made I wonder, if the the various manifestations of public anti-BNP pressure had been sucessful?- Quite probably. But let’s scupper this ‘Nick Griffin the victim bandwagan,’ before parts of the democratic political Right and their media, jump aboard. The BBC did not incite hatred against Griffin; not dirctly, not indirectly. Dimbleby was boorish, braying and self centred. A competent and more thoughtful Chair of the Panel, would not have served Griffin so well. But that is something completely different.
on 24 October 2009, 2:26:47 PM
The fact that this was orchestrated by people and not their so called representatives is not to be derided - why would anyone rational expect the warmongering Straw to do the job? Much better that people should talk fo themesleves.
About 4 million more people watched the irritating X Factor - so anyone who thinks this Question Time edition was a watershed is just believing the media hype. As Frances has pointed out - far more pressing issues like the dismantling of our Welfare State are taking place while this irrelevant 'freakshow' momentarily catches people's attention.
on 23 October 2009, 10:15:57 PM
I would also suggest that if the usual criteria were not used, the BBC was guilty of conspiring to incite hatred and contempt against Nick Griffin, with implications for the maintenance of public order, for both short-term promotional and longer-term political purposes, and these points in themselves are worthy of investigation by the both the Trustees and the Metropolitan Police.
on 23 October 2009, 8:12:57 PM
The panel and David Dimbleby were not up to the task. They were a braying self interested establishment mob with the self centred Dimbleby wanting the panel to attack Griffin one at a time rather than all at once.
The audience by contrast opposed Griffin with passion and integrity. The People, at least as represented by the audience, showed the BNP for what it is. That audience did more to expose and contribute to the defeat of the Fascist Right than the panel of neo-liberal jobsworths have done from their corrupt Parliament.
Jack Straw was particularly poor. As well he might be given that the economic and social policies of the last 12 years have done so much to create the divisions between and within the white and black working class, which the BNP have been able to exploit.
Before the broadcast, a young woman was filmed being dragged on her back across the foyer of Broadcasting House. Yet she continued with great political spirit to remonstrate with the BBC and to attack the BNP. Who ever she is, I hope someone identifies her and asks her to appear as a panellist on Question Time. By contrast to this splendid young woman last night, what did we have this morning on the Today programme? Three repulsive right-wingers wheeled on to politically preen themselves using their elite objections to the BNP as an excuse to get media time for themselves: a former editor of the Sun; the Labour neo-con MP Denis McShane and the smug David Arronovich. These three men have never done anything but push Labour further and further to the Right, have politically pissed on working class people and belched at the neo-liberal trough since before Blair.
on 23 October 2009, 3:50:49 PM
SG this could well be true only time and another relevant election will tell. However my main points are that by abandoning working class people to their fate. New labour has actually caused this move to the extreme right in some quarters. Also immigration has got to be debated even by the left, it is obviously a large issue in the UK.
I doubt if Griffin will ever appear on question time again, i suspect it will be channel 4 news next. Or if he is really brave newsnight or the today programme.
on 23 October 2009, 2:04:30 PM
I think we probably saw the same programme last night, and I reviewed just over an hour ago but from a slightly different perspective than you, Brian. Most white working class males (for want of a better means of categorisation) saw some poor sod being unremittingly picked on by the panel, the chair and the audience. The more he tried to answer the more he was talked and shouted over, which is a common, and feared, white working class male (and female, for that matter) experience. Nick Griffin was also held to a much higher standard of - again, for want of a better term - dissimulation than we have come to expect on a Thursday night.
This perspective suggests, sadly, that the producers of Question Time blew it by deliberately choosing to structure the programme as a bear pit where the middle class can get their kicks. Marshall Mcluhan famously said that "the medium is the message". Last night's message may well have supplied comfort to the bien pensants amongst us by confirming their prejudices, and not comfort at all to the white working class as it also confirmed their prejudices and provided them, as well as Question Time, with a real focus. My guess is that the outcomes of this programme for the BNP, in terms of membership, electoral support and political credibility, will be far greater than Nick Griffin could have hope for in his wildest dreams.
Can you imagine how different it would have been if the BBC had treated last night's programme as just another edition from the provinces with an audience asking the usual run of questions of the usual bunch of dissembling windbags? Nick Griffin on the punctuality of Virgin Trains, the impact of the postal strike on small business, or expenses fiddles in the European parliament? Not so entertaining for the middle classes, perhaps, and a much less clear message for Nick Griffin's target demographic, but a lot more responsible approach for a public broadcaster to adopt.
Anyway, I bet Griffin's really pleased that he's now able to make a formal complaint to the BBC's Trustees and keep the good times rolling.
on 23 October 2009, 1:24:07 PM
The passed 12 years of " whatever posters want to call the Labour Party " has seen the biggest rises in social exclusion & wealth inequality coupled with an almost ceaseless attack on those unable to work through social blindness that will leave future historians probably labelling this period as " The actual death of the Welfare State ".
There ARE no excuses .... the only hope for many will be real meltdown which can only lead to a re-construction on a more equitable basis , with the government's first priority redefined in tablets of stone .... to protect it's own citizens from the ravishes of the free market !
on 23 October 2009, 12:05:11 PM
Until there is a real debate over immigration policy, and that does include us on the left, there is a window of opportunity for the BNP.
Labour must engage with working class people again, address unemployment, lack of opportunity and housing issues. Thus isolating the far right from this recruitment ground.
on 18 October 2009, 10:39:28 PM
I couldn't figure out the significance of this pretty esoteric comment in a Compass debate on the BNP. And then, googling away as is my wont, I came upon astonishing coincidence of dates. As so much else seems to be, Armenian-Turkish relations are like London buses: a seemingly endless wait and then along come three at once. And relations between the two countries is conflicted, not least on whether the deaths of considerable numbers of Armenians, as the Ottomon state faced what it rightly believed tobe an existential threat, were genocidal - which implies intent and the systematic implementation of a deliberate policy with clearly genocidal outcomes - or not just a messy sequence of events in which a lot of people, Armenians and others, lost their lives most cruelly as the Ottoman empire was dismembered by internal conflict and external enemies. Difficult issues at any time, but let's look at a recent chronology of events.
On October 10, 2009 in Zurich the Armenian government signed the Armenia-Turkey Protocols, a provision of which stipulates the establishment of a research commission "to study the two country's historical grievances, which requires ratification by the parliaments of both countries to take effect.. The protocols as a whole are an attempt by the two governments to normalise Armenian-Turkish relations and the conflicting interpretations of the events leading up to the events of 1915, and subsequently.
Go forward a few days to “October 16, “Im Tirtzu” Israeli movement held protest action near the Turkish Embassy in Israel. The movement activists organized an improvised display of photographs on Armenian Genocide and called on Turkish government to recognize the fact of “Armenian Holocaust” in Ottoman Empire. Im Tirtzu movement was founded by Israeli Universities’ students after the Second Lebanese war. The movement is aimed at enforcement and restoration of Zionist values in Israeli society.
“The protest was held in the context of Israeli-Turkish relations’ deterioration.”
(://news.am/en/news/6770.html, or google “Protest to recognise Genocide in Israel”
And back a month: “Earlier this week, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the lead author of the Armenian Genocide Resolution, expressed “serious concerns about some provisions of the protocols,” stating that: “In particular, I was deeply disappointed to see that the protocols call for the creation of an historical commission to review the events of 1915-23. This is a thoroughly discredited idea; there is no dispute among scholars that the Armenian people were the subject of genocide during the waning days of the Ottoman Empire and an historical commission is another effort to obfuscate the truth.”
“Schiff went on to state that “True reconciliation between the Armenian and Turkish peoples will occur when Turkey acknowledges the genocide that was committed by the Ottoman Empire against Armenians from 1915-23.””
(://www.hairenik.com/weekly/2009/09/08/armenian-caucus-voices-concerns-over-armenia-turkey-protocols/)
I think we can see why the term “Armenian genocide denier” has suddenly raised its head again, not as praise for scepticism, but as an attack on the attempt to develop a process which may make possible, over time, a shared truth, which may not fit the preconceptions of the Armenian diaspora, or some groups in Armenia, nor indeed the Turkish state.
Strange how many fingers seem to feel they have a right to be in the pie in one way or another, heh? As frances says, "But often both past glories and atrocities are used to promote one side in continuing conflicts and that makes me want to object and even deny". You and me, both.
on 18 October 2009, 10:36:40 PM
I couldn't figure out the significance of this pretty esoteric comment in a Compass debate on the BNP. And then, googling away as is my wont, I came upon astonishing coincidence of dates. As so much else seems to be, Armenian-Turkish relations are like London buses: a seemingly endless wait and then along come three at once. And relations between the two countries is conflicted, not least on whether the deaths of considerable numbers of Armenians, as the Ottomon state faced what it rightly believed tobe an existential threat, were genocidal - which implies intent and the systematic implementation of a deliberate policy - or not just a messy sequence of events in which a lot of people, Armenians and others, lost their lives most cruelly as the Ottoman empire was dismembered by internal forces and external forces. Difficult issues at any time, but let's look at a recent chronology of events.
On October 10, 2009 in Zurich the Armenian government signed the Armenia-Turkey Protocols, a provision of which stipulates the establishment of a research commission "to study the two country's historical grievances, which requires ratification by the parliaments of both countries to take effect.. The protocols as a whole are an attempt by the two governments to normalise Armenian-Turkish relations and the conflicting interpretations of the events leading up to the events of 1915, and subsequently.
Go forward a few days to “October 16, “Im Tirtzu” Israeli movement held protest action near the Turkish Embassy in Israel. The movement activists organized an improvised display of photographs on Armenian Genocide and called on Turkish government to recognize the fact of “Armenian Holocaust” in Ottoman Empire. Im Tirtzu movement was founded by Israeli Universities’ students after the Second Lebanese war. The movement is aimed at enforcement and restoration of Zionist values in Israeli society.
“The protest was held in the context of Israeli-Turkish relations’ deterioration.”
(://news.am/en/news/6770.html, or google “Protest to recognise Genocide in Israel”
And back a month: “Earlier this week, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the lead author of the Armenian Genocide Resolution, expressed “serious concerns about some provisions of the protocols,” stating that: “In particular, I was deeply disappointed to see that the protocols call for the creation of an historical commission to review the events of 1915-23. This is a thoroughly discredited idea; there is no dispute among scholars that the Armenian people were the subject of genocide during the waning days of the Ottoman Empire and an historical commission is another effort to obfuscate the truth.”
“Schiff went on to state that “True reconciliation between the Armenian and Turkish peoples will occur when Turkey acknowledges the genocide that was committed by the Ottoman Empire against Armenians from 1915-23.””
(://www.hairenik.com/weekly/2009/09/08/armenian-caucus-voices-concerns-over-armenia-turkey-protocols/)
I think we can see why the term “Armenian genocide denier” has suddenly raised its head again, not as praise for scepticism, but as an attack on the attempt to develop a process which may make possible, over time, a shared truth, which may not fit the preconceptions of the Armenian diaspora, or some groups in Armenia, nor indeed the Turkish state.
Strange how many fingers seem to feel they have a right to be in the pie in one way or another, heh? As frances says, "But often both past glories and atrocities are used to promote one side in continuing conflicts and that makes me want to object and even deny". You and me, both.
on 18 October 2009, 2:49:19 PM
I think the only possible implication we can draw from this statement is that, like the English in Ireland, the Turkish government killed many thousands of Armenians but stopped well short of genocide. Which is, I suspect - and without even bothering to google - the position of the every Turkish government since the events in question. Hmmm...
on 18 October 2009, 12:27:14 PM
Wars themselves are bad things and make it much more likely that atrocities will take place. Condemn the people that war monger in to wars in the first place - not those that commit atrocities way down the line when all humanity has long since disappeared and judgement has gone. Blessed are the peace makers.
But a lot of people glorify wars. I don't mind being told to condemn atrocities if it is by a neutral person and genuinely part of wanting to condemn all violence and learn how to find non violent solutions.
But often both past glories and atrocities are used to promote one side in continuing conflicts and that makes me want to object and even deny.
on 18 October 2009, 11:27:54 AM
Regarding the BNP, there would not be much left if they dropped "racism and anti-muslim nonsense". The BNP website is very unpleasant despite attempts to appear moderate, so I agree that the BNP does not have a right to free speech in all cases. However, we need to accept that No Platform has not stopped BNP members being elected to the European Parliament, London Assembly and local councils. They should be allowed to make idiots of themselves in public and hopefully they will be voted out next time. This is a pragmatic view that may change after Griffin's appearance on Question Time.
on 17 October 2009, 11:04:42 PM
The leader of the National Assembly Against Racism refuses to comment on the Armenian genocide. Just think about it.
Roger you state that Holocaust denial isa central part of Nazi ideology. Well Armenian genocide denial is a central part of Turkish nationalist ideology. They use terms like 'resettlement' to describe the tragedy.
You are also complicit in the silence if you do not condemn this.
on 16 October 2009, 5:12:55 PM
"The only way we can make Labour better and worth supporting is to keep saying how bad it is to try and improve it. some Compass people think it is all about the war in Iraq. It is not. It is about EVERYTHING. Sometimes I think it would be better to dump Labour and its disgusting election debts and start again from scratch. I know that if the BNP dropped its all its stupid racism and anti Muslim nonsense and became positive about established minority communties in England its other policies would become a lot more attractive to all working class familiies."
I suspect that the BNP's highly positive climbdown on ethnicity will have a significant effect on where Labour's ex-core working class voters park what would otherwise be a completely useless vote in the May elections. Perhaps this has been Nick Griffin's strategy all along... Who knows? Who really, really knows?
on 16 October 2009, 4:52:58 PM
I know this will be repeated up and down the country due to a disanfranchised white working class, that has been abandoned.
Unemployment, cheap labour, low wage economy, immigration and lack of social housing are all factors here.
While labour are still entrenched in the centre right and without a traditional grassroots. Only the wealthy, big business, bankers and corporates will be the real winners. The question is, how many of the rest will move to the extreme right or left? i'm sure Brown and Cameron are already contemplating the answer.
on 16 October 2009, 12:12:38 PM
But no longer. The lack of current democracy in the Labour Party comes directly from the fear of non righteous take over. Similarly FPTP is designed to cut out parties like the BNP.
How frightened are we of extremeists right and left? How far do you need to distort democracy for the fear of them?
on 16 October 2009, 11:47:41 AM
But if I had to watch it (let alone take it seriously) I would want the vile Griffin to ponder the following. The BNP has a very large amount of over 35 white males who support them - a demographic not known for its under representation in power across the UK in business and politics.
No matter what racist and populist motives he has - why should anyone look past the point that this is yet another Party which is run by white middle aged men?
Angela - anyone who is really left knows that economic democracy (or the lack of it) has to be introduced to all our benefit - everything else is just cosmetic tinkering, so fundamental to the cause of the 'centre' or 'soft' left. How this done is both controversial and divisive, but still as necessary as ever.
on 15 October 2009, 9:39:34 PM
Any suggestions.
And can we get back to the item under discsussion?
on 13 October 2009, 2:50:10 PM
Does anyone know if the BNP has a position on any of the events occasioned by the collapse of the Ottoman Empire? Perhaps a member of the audience will give Nick Griffin the opportunity to enlighten us on Question Time.
on 13 October 2009, 11:58:37 AM
How would you know Anglela?
Hardly anyone 'left' posts or writes articles on this site - so the view of the 'left' (if there is one) is not being represented here for you or anyone else to comment on!
Leave a comment