The discussion seems to have come to a halt. The issue has not been resolved properly.
It seems clear that the Left is uncomfortable and uneasy about arguing and debating this issue.
Why should that be?
Meanwhile I will persist in asking Martyn Rosen to supply the evidence for his allegations

On the Armenian Genocide none of the deniers Duncan names are in any way significant figures in their parties.

And under Weyman Bennett UAF has increasingly become an SWP front and their alleged attitude here is of a piece with the general infantile left denial of Islamist anti-semitism.

FWIW if it does turn out that the one Labour PPC out of 600 that you name does deny or justify the Armenian Genocide then I will be even less inclined to schlep up to Hemel Hempstead to canvass for them and will gladly support any campaign you start to have the NEC remove them from the candidates list.

Holocaust denial is however a central part of neo-nazi ideology and and is a key wedge issue for separating them from the great mass of voters who may well share the BNP's stated views on immigration but don't for the most part have swastika flags and Wehrmacht recruiting posters on their bedroom walls.

Can you really not see that distinction?

Thank you Steve Goodrich. Unfortunately you simply say you do not approve of the denial of the Armenian genocide. But would you call for the removal of those who have either refused to condemn the genocide, or deny it or stay silent when questioned?
I am not accusing you of hypocrisy for the sake of it but because you are specifically condemning the BNP but not other groups who are denying a historical fact. IF the denialof hte Holocaust is racist then so is the denial of the Armenian genocide.In which one and a half million people were either killed deliberately or allowed to die deliberately

Do you condemn those Turks resident in Britain who have intimidated Armenian activits who have highlighted the genocideof 1915. Why has been no demand for action to be taken against such groups?

Here are some Turkish origin councillors and candidates who have refused to condemn the genocide.
Ayfer Orhan Labour PPC candidate for Hemel Hempsted and previously Cambridgeshire NOrth East.
Cllr Nilgun Canver who was number 8 on the Labour Euro list for London. She has also sought Parliamentarty selection.
Former Labour ,now Lib Dem, Cllr Meral Ece who is Nick Clegg's adviser on ethnic issues. She has only said 'that discussing the issue would give comfort to racists'.
Will you call for the suspension of these councillors and candidates until this is clarified? Yes or no?

The director of the National Assembly Against Racism is Milena Buyum who is a close associate of Weyman Bennett,secretary of Unite Against Fascism. Buyum has refused to condemn the genocide or condemn those who deny it. Could this be because Buyum is Turkish?
Unite Against Fascism has also refused to make a statement on the subject. This is on the basis that they 'have no position on events abroad'. So why do they constantly mention the Holocaust?

Will you now call for the resignation of Milena Buyum from the National Assembly Against Racism? And the disaffilation of organisations from NAAR until this is clarified.? Will you condemn UAF for not condemning the genocide. ANd will you call for left groups to disaffiliate from UAF until this is clarified?
Yes or no?

Well said Salfordgal. You took the words out of my mouth. So much easier for the 'Left' to shout racism and stop any debate on immigration than to face difficult issues.
Meanwhile of course there has been no response from Martyn Rosen on his allegations of 'anti semitism'.
It is is quite simple. Seeking victim status is contemptible.

"It is important to understand that the REAL appeal of the BNP is their "policy" on immigration, in other words their RACISM."

The trouble with this up-the-sleeve and sleight-of-hand conflation of immigration and racism, a trick so commonly used by those who purport to be of the left to evade the very real problems posed by long-term, large-scale immigration for locals in the markets for labour and housing is, quite simply, for many once-core Labour voters, a self-fulfilling prophecy from which the BNP has derived great benefit in this year's elections.

Yes there are different definitions of democracy but once those norms are agreed by law or custom then they have to be respected regardless of the result. It is l ike the rule of law.
We are all opposed to a right wing or Tory government being elected but once it is we have to accept the democratic result.
By the way Martyn Rosen posing as a democrat may not convince everybody.A refusal to debate is precisely what is anti democratic. Rosen of course has been unablet o substantiate his allegations of 'anti semitism' made recently. He has therefore refused to debate an important point. This time he uses the word racist and then announces that he would not debate with anybody who is racist. As defined by Rosen.Therefore according to Rosen no democrat should debate with anybody who categorised as racist or antisemitic as defined by Rosen. Therefore Rosen is demanding extra democratic powers to decide who can be debated with. This of course suits Rosen who can make allegations of anti semitism or racism without the evidence to substantitate them.
His defence of democracy would appear to be a sham.
Martyn further states that all BNP voters are racist and that the appeal racist because of immigration. Therefore according to Rosen, anybody who opposes uncontrolled immigration is racist. I suggest he consults more widely before coming to this peculiar view.
I am strongly opposed to uncontrolled immigration and support the deportation of illegal entrants and their dependants. And furthermore so do most Labour voters. For that reason I make not the slightest apology for my.view.
Rosen has a predictable knee jerk reaction equating 'race' and immigration. He claims that 5-10% are racist because they oppose immigration. HE might find that over 80% of voters are opposed to uncontrolled immigration. This fact alone would 'legitimise the BNP' by Rosens's own argument..If most voters are 'racist' according to Rosen then the BNP i sin the mainstream
Meanwhiel we are stillwaiting for evidence about Rosen's allegatiosnof 'anti semitism'

"...because the BNP incites racial hatred it contravenes liberal and socialist democratic norms of behaviour e.g. their freedom of speech encourages racial segregation/violence, which in turn contravenes the principle of universal human equality. As such it should not participate in the “democratic” process."

An intoxicating brew indeed. But two questions: first, when does "express", "refer to", "recognise", "mention", "take note of", "have an honest opinion", shade off into "incite" and , presumably, thought crime"?

And second, didn't Robespierre pinpoint early on the tension which arises when an attempt to realise "the principle of universal human equality" through the "democratic" process is made, and didn't he rightly believe a military dictatorship to be the likeliest outcome?

Just a couple of stray thoughts over my muesli.

Griffin is a racist, and I suspect that privately he would be proud to bear the title. His views would better be unheard by young people, those of simple minds, and those of similar views (the rest can cope with his views quite adequately, and might benefit from hearing them) but there is no democratic way of preventing young people or racists from hearing Griffin's views.

I personally find his views highly offensive, rather like observing people urinating in public, so I shall exercise my democratic choice by not watching the edition of Question Time in which Griffin appears. If sufficient people did that, the BBC would note the drop in viewing figures and not repeat the exercise.

The notion that the far right is bound to benefit from general popular disillusion with politics is false. The beneficiaries would be any politically minded groups who are outside the Westminster power centre, which SHOULD include the Green Party and Independents, but that doesn't seem (yet) to have happened.

It is important to understand that the REAL appeal of the BNP is their "policy" on immigration, in other words their RACISM. I think that many people here are wishful in their thinking that only a tiny minority of the population are actually RACIST, and that the BNP is somehow GULLING people into accepting their racist policies by presenting themselves as anti-establishment and reasonable.

I believe that most people who vote BNP quite clearly understand for whom and for what they are voting. So we have a good idea of how many people that is - something between 5 and 10% of the population, which seems to accord with my personal experience.

I meet racists at my golf club, in bus queues, and on websites. I'll spend an amount of time trying to persuade them away from their prejudices, but on those occasions that I find my efforts to be falling on stony ground I just ignore them. I find that racists desperately seek to find agreement, that they NEED to feel that they're not alone in their views.

I would love to see the panellists and audience on Question Time simply IGNORING Nick Griffin totally. Let him say his piece, listen in silence, and then continue as if he hadn't spoken. Sadly, that won't happen.

But if we are to choose between invoking police-state regulations to ban Griffin frorm speaking in public, or allowing him to appear, then I fall on the side of Jonathon Hawkes. Racism needs to be confronted, not swept under a carpet. Of course that is a high-risk strategy, but then racism is a high-risk evil.

Duncan, I hope you would agree that any genocide should not be condoned. I certainly do not condone Turkey’s denial of history and would not support someone as a candidate if they denied such an atrocity. I fail to see how I have succumbed to hypocrisy.

Angela mentioned something interesting, suggesting the no platform position of an anti-racist is at odds with those of a democrat. This, of course is a problem of definition. If we are to say that to be a democrat we must accept the contributions of everyone then the no platform position would seem anti-democratic. You could say, however, that because the BNP incites racial hatred it contravenes liberal and socialist democratic norms of behaviour e.g. their freedom of speech encourages racial segregation/violence, which in turn contravenes the principle of universal human equality. As such it should not participate in the “democratic” process.

Presumably we all have a problem with British democracy as it stands, otherwise we wouldn’t be here, however that doesn’t necessarily mean we all share the same conception of what a democratic alternative would look like. Angela, I would be interested to hear more about your conception of democracy as there does need to be an open debate about it. Democracy is such a contested term and yet it is thrown about willy-nilly by pundits, politicians and commentators alike. Because of its misuse and ambiguity, I have almost come to the conclusion that it is a redundant term. This might need tackling on another post/article however I think it is still relevant enough to the original topic.

Steve Goodrich is guilty of serious hypocrisy. He has a political viewpoint but objects to others having a different position. So he is concerned with the denial of the Holocaust which is fair enough. But what about the denial of the Armenian genocide on 1915 in which one and a half million Armenians were slaughtered?
It is a crime to mention it in Turkey but it has also been DENIED by Turkish origin candidates and others who are in the Labour Party and Lib Dems.
So should they also be denied a platform ? OR are 'they different' somehow? DOes he accept or condemn the denial of the Armenian genocide? Yes or no?
Does he think that a person who denies the genocide can bea candiate fora democratic party? Yes or no?
I will await his reply and come back with some other questions which cannot be avoided by Steve Goodich.

"To what extent should we tolerate the intolerant ? If a debate is democratic who should be allowed to participate, anybody ? Even those who, by reputation and practice, are known to be anti-democratic ? Democracy is not just a theory, it is a way of life. Do we tolerate those who threaten our way of life and, indeed, the actual lives of some of our fellow citizens ?"

No brainer. Yes we do, right up until the point where Section 4 of the Public Order Act, 1986, is contravened.

I used to beleive in democracy. Gary McKinnon - the autistic hacker - has today run out of options under the anti terror legislation under the British legal system. Every one knows he has no connection to terrorism but somehow the truth doesn't seem to matter and unless he now goes to Europe to save him he will be extradited to the US and join all the other people with mental disability in their prisons. Where is the democracy in that?

Now I'm a compassionate conservative I can't wait for compassionate Dave to take over and go back to patrician wisdom with a heart. We need less democracy and more old style kings.

I thought the Arch Bish was brilliant in his sermon today telling Tony Blair that he might not have been right to go to war. I might find religion next.

"Don't we muddle through somehow & look for the least worst option?"

To offer the BNP the oxygen of censorship is NOT the least worst option. Offering to share as many of our platforms as is possible with them so that BNP members have the opportunity to debate all of the political issues which concern electors and their families with us, and decrying them whenever they choose not to publicly engage with us is the very best option of all. And why should we accept anything less than the best?

To what extent should we tolerate the intolerant ? If a debate is democratic who should be allowed to participate, anybody ? Even those who, by reputation and practice, are known to be anti-democratic ? Democracy is not just a theory, it is a way of life. Do we tolerate those who threaten our way of life and, indeed, the actual lives of some of our fellow citizens ?

You can argue this on the basis of what is considered to be expedient,of course, but that is largely a matter of opinion, since we can't know the short-term or long-term outcome of supping with the devil.

I'm struggling here. My major concern is the inadequacy of the platforms in the challenge they offered, as appeared to be the concern of Steve Goodrich. From a parental PoV, I wouldn't deny a platform but with something as toxic as bnp politics would rather restrict it to the kind where mum &/or dad could stick their oar in. Their very controversial nature does set them apart from most other parties & any platform they are given really ought to be up to the task of challenging them properly. Less than that is another form of censorship that allows them to present a "pretty" & acceptable political face. A mask that hides what's hideous beneath - & which some (again, the one I know, who is damn good at not being drawn out despite many many attempts) are very good at maintaining. Yes, it's "watershed" style censorship, but that's of a nature that doesn't really deny young people access. Is it likely to be a view shared by other parents? Is it also perhaps better that some, whose parents may be among their supporters, hear such views robustly challenged? And that would be my personal "egocentric"(!) opinion, not wanting to see their ranks swell - but others may feel similarly. It may not be particularly laudable, or edifying, but how much of what anybody does or thinks actually is? Don't we muddle through somehow & look for the least worst option?

Steve Goodrich does not make an argument other than his opinion as an anti-racist.
He has to choose between being an anti racist and being an anti democrat. Will post more about this but meanwhile Compass should make its own position clear as it is also arguing for better democratic structures which reflect political pluralism.

"Being a political creature, I'm sure he would have liked to influence the politics of young people around him. Wouldn't you think so?"

But isn't influencing other people's politics why you've posted on this thread? Who knows how many young people who's politics have been distorted by the rants and musings of, say, Stan Rosenthal, after stumbling on to the Compass website?

Whatever you may say, though, I can't help but see your original post as anything other than a plea for a highly selective form of political censorship (and which, in reality, only makes that which is censored all the more attractive to the young and impressionable). How else to interpret your casual assertion that "What is more inappropriate is for the BBC to use programming aimed at a largely very young & vulnerable underage audience to provide a platform for what we all know to be a vile political gang ("party" & bnp just don't go together), & which they know is a very unchallenging forum"?

And from what you say, it strikes me that you are a lot less concerned about the effect exposure to the BNP's policies will have on your kids than the effect it may have on other people's BBC viewing children which is not, I believe, a particularly laudable motive for censorship.

Firstly the BBC is under no statutory duty to keep QT balanced politically - it does so because it finds its good TV and maximises conflict.

The Radio 4 version is rather laxer in this regard and accordingly does occasionally shed rather more light than heat.

Given the general moral degeneration of the media class in recent years I suspect this decision has more to do with the producer's assumption that a good ding dong fight between Griffin and anyone else that they put up will be good for ratings.

However given the likely poor quality of the sort of people (Ben Bradshaw? Margaret Beckett? Eric Pickles?) Griffin will end up sharing the panel with I am by no means convinced that he would 'lose' such a fight - and all he has to do to win is convince a few more of those people who are already largely in agreement with him to vote for him.

If he puts on a suit, looks semi-sane and avoids actually calling for mass murder he'll easily achieve this objective.

If we had decent politicians all three main parties would agree not to put up anyone to such a panel - I can't remember John Tyndall or Martin Webster ever making it onto QT back in the days of Thatcher, Kinnock and Steel for instance.

Salfordgal: The relevance? Not really much. My son & his friends rented a house on the same street some years ago. They were neighbours. Being a political creature, I'm sure he would have liked to influence the politics of young people around him. Wouldn't you think so? I don't/didn't "push" my own opinions on my son, this came up in conversation years after the fact.

Instead of the rather nasty dismissive put-down, am I in the wrong to attempt to raise my children to understand that they are part of a diverse society, that people who don't look or do as they do belong just as much? Not so easy when there's very few around locally, radio & tv were important - black on black, eastern eye, Darcus Howe's Devils Advocate, out on Tuesday, etc, back in the 80s. Primary age range at that time. Just to provide a broader perspective than sport or music. If you remember. & they were quite good. Instead of just slating me, what's your view on how young peoples' opinions develop? Should we leave them in a vacuum to be filled by the likes of you? I certainly didn't style myself as "better". Or an "opinion gatekeeper. I'm a mum. I haven't been either the best or the worst. I made the assumption only that I'm at least partially responsible for trying to ensure my kids broader knowledge of their own compatriots in this instance. Surely that enables them to shape a more informed opinion of their own. Your condescending & patronising sneering suggests you think yourself so much better. I'm glad I don't know you if that's how you express yourself.

Jonathon, I am in broad agreement with you however there are a number of issues on which we diverge. Until recently I believed that Griffin should be allowed to attend QT. I thought, like you, that having him subjected to scrutiny would show him up for the bigoted racist he is. There are however a number of problems with this.

The first is that we’re assuming the fellow panelists are up the job. Jack Straw’s name has been put forward, which inspires little confidence. His presence would also give ammunition to Griffin’s rhetorical arsenal. Being challenged by someone complicit in isolating all those disillusioned Labour voters won’t necessarily win them back. Ironically it may further the BNP mythology that they are the radical outsiders, or underdogs, faced by the full force of a closed and disconnected establishment.

I also recognise that a substantial proportion of those who vote for the BNP do so out of protest rather than bigotry. From my perspective this would suggest that for these protests to be represented on such a programme as QT, there should be an anti-establishment figure who is not bigoted or racist i.e. not Griffin. This may seem counter-intuitive for some however it is essential to examine the underlying motives for this act of protest. As Jonathon rightly points out, to claim that all protest voters who vote BNP are racist is ludicrous. Therefore it seems even more ludicrous to suggest that these votes somehow justify a racist representing them on national television. I propose Dennis Skinner for QT!

Again I agree with Jonathon that the BNP has failed miserably on a number of occasions when it has been elected into positions of office. Barnbrook is only the most recent example. BNP councillors Roger Roberts (Kirklees) and James Lloyd (Sandwell) were both kicked off their councils for failing to attend a single meeting within six months [1], whilst Angela Clarke (Bradford) [2] resigned after a poor record of attendance. In 2005 Dan Kelley resigned from Barking & Dagenham council after only eight months because he was out of his depth. Shortly before he resigned he told a local news paper, “There’s meetings that go right over my head and there’s little point in me being there.” [3]

Whilst the incompetence of local councillors and GLA members inspires some confidence in anti-fascists this can be over-egged. As I briefly mentioned Griffin has been particularly astute at changing his image, his rhetoric and his style just like his counterparts in France. Administrative competence in this sense is an irrelevance, as his performance on QT will only be measured by soundbites and rhetorical devices. He has become well versed in the kind of slick PR jargon we so despise in career politicians.

The difference however is that he is ultimately forwarding an agenda that is hell-bent on purging the UK from non-indigenous peoples. Just because his intentions have been sugar-coated by rhetoric doesn’t mean that he is not a racist. How many times have we heard New Labour ministers talking about “efficiency savings” and “labour market flexibility” when in reality they mean ‘job cuts’ and ‘bending to the will of the market, irrelevant of the consequences’? We are all too ready to get worked up about mainstream political spin, yet when it comes to an outsider who regularly spins holocaust denial somehow that’s acceptable. I fail to see the logic in this.

In response to the martyrdom allegations, there are a number of different groups who claim martyrdom at the hands of the state and the establishment, yet this doesn’t seem to benefit them politically. It would be interesting to see some cold, hard evidence on this front rather than speculating on what is increasingly becoming another myth surrounding the BNP.

I hope this has elaborated on my reasoning and satisfies some of your concerns. Of course we may have differences of opinion, which is welcome within a tolerant society, however I still feel that Griffin’s right to free speech is outweighed by the damage his rhetoric may cause. This is of course an intolerance of intolerance (a paradox I admit) however I feel the logical premise on which this perspective is based is just.


[1] Hope not hate website
[2] Searchlight magazine
[3] Hope not hate website

P.S. sorry for the lack of specific links however this is because of the editorial policy on comments

"Salfordgal: "hypocrisy and self-interested censorship radiated by the likes of" me? How exactly?"

Well, and not to put too fine a point on it, Carole, from thence onwards your response can best be summed up as an excellent and compellingly egocentric justification of "hypocrisy and self interested censorship". Interesting that you make the point that your son has "shared a joint" with your amiable fascist MEP, though. It'll probably take me at least a week to figure out the relevance of that one - from fumes to fascism in one easy step or, perhaps, vice versa? Who knows?

Salfordgal: "hypocrisy and self-interested censorship radiated by the likes of" me? How exactly? If I have a 12 or 13yr old & I care about the varied influences on them, & what opinions they may form, am I supposed to leave it to others who consider themselves somehow "qualified" to do so? I'm not saying no platform. I'd prefer a challenging platform. My town is as pale as you can get, & one of the bnp MEPs is from here. I'm even acquainted with him. My son has even (though he loathes the politics - thank heavens) shared a joint with the bu**er. If I hadn't been keeping an ear to the ground, maybe his beliefs would be different - but he'd already formed them by that stage. The man comes across as incredibly amiable in a personal capacity, despite having been a fascist since HIS boyhood - NOTE.

I agree that the BNP should be allowed more debates on TV, the more scrutiny of their racist neo nazi views in public the better.
Many a politician has came unstuck on question time, especially recently, Yvette Cooper did last night.I agree that some programmes can be easy touches, radio 1 newsbeat is not actually like a Jeremy Paxman or John Humphrys interview.
As is going on ITVs good morning programme
a particular favourite of Gordon Brown's.

I cannot agree with Steve Goodrich and his demand that Question TIme should be re-arranged.
I largely agree with Jonathan Hawkes. The bbc has a public responsibility
to reflect the views and opinions of all significant sectors of society. That like it or not ,includes the BNP.
Allegations have to be substantiated and Goodrich has not done this and nor have a number of others who have made allegations without backing uy them up.


There is a more important democratic issue. Compass, which Goodrich supports, is arguing for electoral reform. One of the principles of such reform is that it will better reflect popular opinion.
It is like free speech. You have to take all of it not jus the bits you like.

Goodrich is not presenting a democratic argument and that is why it should be wholly rejected.

'It's a sad day when right-wing thugs can claim the moral high ground.'

We live in sad times. It's a sad day when David Cameron can say 'we will look after people who are very sick and can't work' and leaps straight to the moral high ground on welfare reform - because NewLabour being recent converts to 'bash the poor' don't have the patrician instincts to moderate their poor bashing and remember that millionaires on expenses kicking the sick look bad and sick benefit was invented to protect not torment the sick.

I'm also in complete agreement with the comments below that marginalising the BNP gives them the opportunity to portray themselves as martyrs silenced for telling the truth! It's a sad day when right-wing thugs can claim the moral high ground.

"What is more inappropriate is for the BBC to use programming aimed at a largely very young & vulnerable underage audience to provide a platform for what we all know to be a vile political gang ("party" & bnp just don't go together), & which they know is a very unchallenging forum."

I think young people don't like being patronised much by their elders and self-styled betters and would-be opinion gatekeepers, and their social antennae detect hypocrisy and self-interested censorship radiated by the likes of you, Carole, just as quickly as they can sus out the BNP and how best to use it to their own advantage, whether it's to shock mum and dad, or to wind up what they see as the equally useless Tory bums and the NuLab stiffs by taking the wrong kind of interest in the BNP deadlegs. And, of course, some might end up agreeing with them, and even more might not. So you can count me in with Jonathon and Robert on this one.

The author of this piece demonstrates the kind of intolerant, wrong-headed knee-jerk reaction to the BNP that does the left no favours.

The BNP are a marginal political force without any representation in the house of commons and a limited presence in the European parliament and local councils.

Granted, their base of support has expanded in recent years but this is because of the convergence of the mainstream parties on the centre ground and the pursuit of middle England by New Labour. In short this right-ward turn has left a space for right-wing thugs to exploit. This is the problem that needs addressing not an ignorant assertion that the BNP shouldn't be allowed a voice.

By all means give them a voice and dispute their arguments! But if you want to understand why they've become more of an electoral force and do something about it then Labour needs to reconnect with marginalised people living in poor communities rather than taking them for granted!

What is more inappropriate is for the BBC to use programming aimed at a largely very young & vulnerable underage audience to provide a platform for what we all know to be a vile political gang ("party" & bnp just don't go together), & which they know is a very unchallenging forum. Don't they acknowledge a responsibility to parents who are unlikely to be present every minute a young person is listening? A parent could challenge or explain where an anodyne presenter would not.

I agree with Jonathon about the serious consequences of the No Platform policy and New Labour.

II didn’t hear the Radio 1 interview, but I’ve no reason to doubt the authors description of the shallow level of questioning – it would seem to be par for the course on radio one, whether they are interviewing Nick Griffin or Christine Aguilera.

But to use that as a reason to oppose the BNP appearing on Question Time? They are two very different programmes Steve, as you admit yourself. You mention concern about the ‘legitimisation’ of the BNP – however, to ignore the BNP completely, to simply denounce them as ‘illegitimate’, which has been the prevailing approach for the last two decades has had serious (unintended) consequences

It has allowed the BNP to self mythologise themselves. They have, in their own minds and the people who support them, become the face of good old fashioned common sense – defenders of free speech, lancers of the boil of political correctness – this, as we can all agree, is nonsense and very dangerous nonsense at that. However, with little to no media scrutiny of their policy agenda and no questioning of the few elected representatives they do have, they have been allowed to continue painting themselves as the ‘radical outsiders’ ready to meet a gap that the mainstream parties will not. This, in these times of widespread disillusionment with the mainstream political process, is a potentially powerful position for the BNP to be in. It needs to be challenged.

Recent polling on BNP voters has shown that less than 50% of those who vote for them actually hold what you might be described as the stereotypical BNP worldview. They aren’t racist, they are disillusioned – mostly with Labour. The Labour Party has failed to deliver on its promises to its own core votes. Labour lost 4 million votes between 2001 and 2005. In the 10 years after 1997, Labour lost half of its members. A proportion of these were gratefully received by the BNP. Labour will never get these votes back if it continues to tell these people that their votes (and by definition, the reasons for them voting the way they have) have no ‘legitimacy’. Labour needs to understand why it has lost these votes and present the progressive case for concerns raised by this section of the electorate.


Where the BNP have engaged in the mainstream political process, they have failed spectacularly. I give you the example of BNP London Assembly member, Richard Barnbrook. His main contribution to his role on Barking and Dagenham council has been to make continued comments seriously misrepresenting the facts and statistics about "racial" crime in the council chamber. He was also censured by the GLA Standards Sub-Committee for a breach of the Code of Conduct after he made "totally false" claims in a video that there had been three racial murders in his ward. The complainant noted that this was "an absolute lie". I expect the voters of Barking and Dagenham will give their verdict on how he has represented them at the next election. Is Barnbrook a unique type of idiot in the BNP, or could we reasonably expect that they would all follow a similar path? It shows that when they are brought into the political mainstream, the BNP wilt and do nothing for the people that voted for them. Again, this needs to be highlighted, not hidden away.

I don’t particularly like the idea of Nick Griffins mug looking out at my from my TV screen. But to you only defeat ignorance, bigotry and sheer inept political performance by challenging it and bringing it out into the open where it can be exposed for what it is. We have no reason to fear Nick Griffin appearing on Question Time, in fact we should welcome the opportunity to expose these clowns for exactly who they are, and what they get up to when they get power.