The BNP on Question Time in retrospect
Well, I’m disappointed it went ahead. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting that Nick Griffin put in a stellar performance. He certainly didn’t. But I never expected him to. That was never the issue. He was always going to look either nasty or idiotic when forced to defend his views. Because his views are nasty and idiotic. That was never in doubt.
There were those who insisted it was actually a good thing that the BNP were appearing. In the comments to my previous piece on this, Joel argues that “it puts his neck closer to the noose so he can hang himself”. And there are many who share this view. He’ll be damned by his own words, they say, so let him speak.
I don’t share that view. Which is not to say it’s wrong. Merely that an appearance on Question Time doesn’t only damn him by his own words. It has other consequences too. Some of which are negative. “The BNP are not being normalised into society by being on Question Time, it’s just having a clown on”, wrote Joel. But I humbly suggest that it’s both. It almost always is. He may indeed have moved a few millimeters closer to the noose. But we tend to hang fascists after they’ve killed a bunch of people.
It’s taken the National Front decades to evolve to the point where their suited representatives now get invited on Question Time. This was never about an overnight bump in the polls, but about how the fascist voice slowly but surely enters everyday political debate. The next decade may well be a fertile breeding ground for fascism. I believe the global economy will begin to absorb the fact that the days of “growth” are coming to an end. I think resource depletion will become a mainstream and frightening idea and even if we succeed in shifting to a sustainable model, the transition period could involve major social upheaval. The kind of environment that the Far Right historically tends to exploit. The very last thing we should be doing as the global economy teeters on the brink is inviting the BNP, and those like them, into mainstream debate.
Just before Question Time last night the BBC News discussed the issue themselves. And the language used very clearly implied that this would be the first of several invites extended to the BNP leader. This very fact… that the BNP leader gets regular invitations to debate with the other parties before an audience of millions… makes it far more likely that Griffin will be replaced sooner or later by someone more effective at the job. And you can pretty much guarantee that by the BNP’s third appearance on Question Time, Dimbleby won’t be dedicating 90% of the show to picking them apart. There’ll be the inevitable couple of “BNP questions”, but otherwise Griffin will get to speak freely on subjects where his views may resonate with millions. I happen to think his positions on the Iraq / Afghanistan wars are fairly sound, for instance, and in that discussion he’ll come across as the sane one compared to the tories and labour. Last night there was one non-BNP question. Next time?
I’m also irritated by how reasonable he made Jack Straw appear. “Contributing to the credibility of Jack Straw” is itself an unforgiveable offence. Both Griffin and the BBC are responsible for that crime against the people.
Overall though, I’m worried that the BBC set a bad precedent last night. It’ll be a long time before we know for sure, but why even take the risk when it comes to fascism?
Griffin will get to speak freely on subjects where his views may resonate with millions
Bring it on. I think it’s entirely appropriate to try and no-platform the BNP, by physical force if necessary, but once they’re through the door we need to let them speak. In the long run, the kind of “when did you stop being a Nazi?” interrogation Griffin got last night isn’t the most effective way of dealing with them. Anyone even vaguely considering voting BNP will already know that people say they’re Nazis – and if they are considering voting BNP, they’ll have decided to ignore it. There’s some nasty stuff not far below the surface of BNP policy on just about any topic you care to name – either that, or an incoherent mess – and that’s what needs to be exposed, I think.
October 23rd, 2009 | 2:30pm
by Phil
There’s some nasty stuff not far below the surface of BNP policy on just about any topic you care to name – either that, or an incoherent mess – and that’s what needs to be exposed, I think.
I couldn’t agree more, Phil. But I don’t think Question Time is an appropriate forum for exposing it. The 5 people discussing 6 topics in one hour format doesn’t allow that kind of analysis. It merely provides a platform for sound-bites.
This is why Bonnie Greer was so disappointing last night, despite a couple of biting remarks. Academics and intellectuals don’t work well in that format. Ideologies like those held by the BNP, however, can flourish in that environment.
I think.
October 23rd, 2009 | 3:14pm
by Jim Bliss
On a minor point, I didn’t say that it was “a good thing” that the BNP were invited onto Question Time, rather that it didn’t matter.
I didn’t watch it myself. I was uninterested. However, I have just had a look at scattered minutes on iPlayer. What a joke. A lot of people getting worked up over a guy with a dodgy eye and a bad tie coming out with farcically dated racism. First, people should feel sorry for the guy for being born as him. Second, that audience, and you two, should be asking yourselves isn’t there anything more intelligent to get your knickers in a twist over.
Welcome back to blogging Jim!
October 24th, 2009 | 12:03am
by Joel
The saddest thing isn’t the BNPery – rather, it was the sight of mainstream, mostly-nominally-liberal politicians wittering on about ‘very real concerns’ on immigration and the importance of tightening up controls. Making immigration harder *means* the BNP have won, even if they themselves remain marginalised oafs fit only for pie-throwing.
October 24th, 2009 | 10:52am
by john b
Septicisle is good on the above.
October 24th, 2009 | 10:57am
by john b
Jim, i think you were dead right to be worried in advance about Griffin getting to hold forth on the issues of the day. That would indeed normalise the BNP. But that’s not what happened.
In fact, it was more like what you said needed to happen, that people were told in advance they were about to listen to fascists (Jerry Dammers on the 10 o clock news!), then normal discussion was suspended as the fascist was taken apart.
And you can’t credibly base a continued complaint on the idea that Griffin will get on normal Question Time because of something you feel was implied in a single news report.
The real problem with the programme was, as John B says above, that all of the Big Three parties were falling over each other to be ‘tough on immigration’. It’s they and their newspapers who’ve created this atmosphere of xenophobia thanks to the discourse around terrorism and asylum. The tory on QT criticised the use of the phrase ‘bogus asylum seeker’, a piece of language patented by William Hague when he was leader.
Which brings me to the missed point of it all. As Gary Younge said, ‘having inflated racism’s political currency, New Labour vacated the electoral market so that others with a more ostentatious style might more freely spend it’.
As I always find myself saying when people are worked up over far-right groups – and as Chicken Yogurt pointed out – who actually causes the most racist suffering, Nick Griffin or Gordon Brown? Who is responsible for the most racial harassment on the streets and killings of people of colour, the BNP or the police?
October 27th, 2009 | 1:26pm
by merrick
Hey Joel. Thanks for the welcome back. I hope all’s well back in the ‘stow? Apologies for (slightly) misrepresenting you. Agreed, you didn’t say it was “a good thing” (though others have done, in the “Good! He’ll damn himself with his own words” sense). I was simply using your “neck closer to the noose” analogy to characterise that general position. I didn’t mean to put words in your mouth.
Second, that audience, and you two, should be asking yourselves isn’t there anything more intelligent to get your knickers in a twist over.
Well, I’m not sure how twisted my knickers are. Having said that, I do think the rise of neo-fascism and racist ideologies is one of the things that a person can get justifiably incensed over. We can argue about whether or not Griffin’s appearance represents such a rise (or the continuance of one), but if you feel that it does, then in my view it’s a legitimate knicker-twister of a situation.
John and Merrick, the performance of the other parties was indeed problematic on the immigration issue. Not one of them decided to actively oppose the BNP’s position and argue the merits of immigration. Instead their responses were of the “yes, but…” variety. Pretty shameful all in all.
Where I disagree though, Merrick, is where you suggest:
And you can’t credibly base a continued complaint on the idea that Griffin will get on normal Question Time because of something you feel was implied in a single news report.
Actually, yes I can. The news report featured the director general of the BBC claiming that a failure to invite the BNP onto the programme would amount to “censorship”. He said that it would be wrong to “deny parity” to the BNP and argued that as Question Time was “a key democratic forum” that the invitation to the BNP represented a defence of “the public’s right to hear the full range of political perspectives”.
Once those statements are made, then the BBC will have great difficulty in retracting them. Once the BBC themselves are framing the issue in such a way, it is perfectly credible to expect further invitations. Indeed, with the BBC having claimed that it is a free speech / censorship issue, it becomes impossible for them not to invite the BNP back periodically. And, I’d argue, it also becomes impossible for them to deny the BNP the opportunity to take part in the more regular Question Time format.
If anyone’s been damned by their own words here, I fear it may be the BBC.
I agree 100% with your last paragraphs and the fact that it’s not the BNP, but rather it’s the mainstream adoption of repressive policies that are the problem. But the gradual normalisation of the BNP is both a symptom of, and a positive reinforcement to, that tendency.
October 27th, 2009 | 3:45pm
by Jim Bliss