Any chance of some intelligent debate?

I watched this programme tonight expecting complete bedlam but came to the following conclusions:

Firstly, Question Time was amazing.

(a) Jack Straw proved that he resonates with the rest of this government (and almost all politicians) by not giving a straight answer. This will not go down well with the electorate. Faced with a question that required a simple "Yes" or "No" answer, he waffled on incessantly and avoided giving any sort of direct response whatsoever. No matter what I think of Nick Griffin, I thought that the slight on JS's father was comedy genius.

(b) Baroness Warsi was spot on with almost everything. I was relieved that an ethnic minority audience member posed the question re: immigration policy being out of control. I admired Warsi's stark pragmatism in response.

(c ) Nick Griffin was very clever and to be honest, tonight was probably a triumph for his party. This is what happens when mainstream parties don't have the cojones to deal with issues pertinent to the electorate. He may well get away with the indiscretions of his youth yet.

I also feel that the audience was not balanced. In a normal QT, questions are reasonably generic around the current affairs arena, and bounced around the panel. This seemed like a deliberate attempt to bombard Nick Griffin, which is exactly what he would have wanted (an excuse to play the victim card).

As a final point, am I the only one that doesn't understand organisations like UAF? Surely trying to stifle someone else's right to free speech is fascist in itself? Is modern anti-fascism pro-totalitarian?

I didn't see all of it but in what I did see, I thought NG was exposed for what he is, in spite of the gloss he's trying to paint himself with





(not sure my contribution counts as intelligent debate, sorry )

I don't agree with any party which bases its principles on hatred of others as the BNP appears to do, but I thought Nick Griffin gave a good account of himself, whatever you think of his views. I think it was unfortunate that the whole panel seemed very much against him at all times despite whatever he said (political correctness, perhaps?) including the chairman whose chairmanship should surely remain unbiased, but which often shows leftist traits in each episode.

I agree with you, Solari, that anybody trying to stifle free speech is guilty of fascism and think that double standards are at play.

I think that Jack Straw was an embarassment to his party. Even less of an incentive to vote Labour (not that I am suggesting that I ever have) as they are obviously in denial and unwilling to discuss anything honestly.

Griffin was trying to present himself as "I'm speaking honestly, and do you really trust any politician anyway?"

The BNP have certainly not lost any votes as a result.

As for QT - What was Bonnie Greer doing on a programme of such significance? The panel should have been comprised entirely of respectable political figures, and, dare I suggest it, the audience should have consisted of more political and academic figures, rather than a BBC engineered rent-a-crowd. Paxman should have been drafted in if they were serious.


Thank you for the sanity check. The fact that David Cameron is a supporter of UAF will ensure that I won't vote for him Monster raving loony or whoever is most aligned to my views at the time will get my vote.

In the bit I saw, he was trying to justify why he'd changed his mind over denying the holocaust, and also trying to claim that he's genuinely changed his mind on other issues whereas in actual fact it's the rule change which is forcing his hand. I thought he reeked of hypocrisy

That was quite an awkward moment, but it has been argued/proven that many high profile Labour Politicians (including Blair) have been linked in their youth to the Marxist movement, without so much as an eyebrow being raised as it was so long ago.

People *can* change, but being a cynic, I subscribe to the leopard theory. This is probably not the right way to live life and judge people, but I go by bitter experience

I see what you're saying, and you're almost certainly correct, but I just find the double standards of tolerance extremely irritating. If the media are going to scrutinise politicians, do it across the board.

No matter how much I disagree with one politician, I don't see why one should be singled out above all others.

Perhaps it was a ploy on his part. Perhaps not.

I think it very brave for a politician to admit to having changed their mind over time. How many politicians would admit to that?

I change my mind about things over time as I learn more and evolve as a person, and think that I'm a better person because of that. Do you think exactly the same nowadays as you used to?

I've done some extremely stupid things in my time, and I honestly can't explain why I did them. The fact that NG said the same thing will resonate with many (especially young) people...

Well done to the UAF for giving the BNP so much publicity is all I can say. If they hadn't kicked up such a stink, the media wouldn't have picked up on this, and the whole thing would have gone unnoticed... What a great way to promote social cohesion </sarcasm>

I'd argue that it was the media who kicked up the stink in the first place. How better to get their programmes viewed?

In theory the BBC have no such interest considering that they have no advertising revenue from airing the programme? Unless I am missing something?

You're probably right on the indirect front, however... national papers with headlines etc

In a way I think it's excellent that this programme has had such massive publicity. They had it on in the pub around the corner from me. People can make their own minds up. I popped in on my way home from work and there seemed to be a consensus that Jack Straw was an *expletive*. Shame it wasn't done better though, IMO.

Yes I think people's ideologies can evolve, but in NG's case, it seems to be more a "road to Damascus" type conversion, which smacks of political expediency rather than a genuine change of heart and mind.



To paraphrase something which another forum member posted a long time ago... leopards don't want to change their spots, they couldn't do it even if they wanted to, it wouldn't be of any benefit to them if they did, and they probably don't even realise they've got them. I do believe that people can change, most definitely, but I also believe that it suits some people to pretend they've changed and I believe that is the case with NG.



This was one of the reasons why I didn't watch the whole programme - it wasn't balanced and I would have preferred to hear the others' views more.

But of course they want their programmes to be viewed! If they produce programmes which the general populace don't want to see, they run the risk of having their funding (the TV license) removed. Whilst they're not funded by advertising, they still have to be reasonably competitive in terms of attracting viewers in order to try to justify the license fee. Why else show 'Eastenders'?

Griffin is appalling, as is his party. Let's just say that plainly, shall we?

The QT was disappointing, in that I hoped there would be more opportunity for Griffin to condemn himself out of his own mealy mouth. Given the controversy his views properly provoke, it was inevitable that the programme would revolve around BNP-related issues, and this made it hard for Dimbleby to chair; it is unusual for one panel member to be the direct target of many of the questions. If the BBC had filtered out those questions, they would certainly have been biased.

That said, I suspect that the audience was representative of the majority view regarding the BNP; the only unrepresentative thing might be that - according to rumour - the BBC selected some BNP sympathisers to join the audience to protect themselves against accusations of a lack of balance.

I thought Straw was often off-topic, and that Bonnie Greer was the only person who came out of it with much dignity. Never liked her much before; I certainly do now. Just my 2p.

But please don't use words like 'bint' whoever you're talking about; it's not big or clever, just rude.

Perhaps your opinion says more about your cynicism than it does about him?

I've had some significant 'Damascus' experiences in my time which have changed the way I function as a person, and I think I'm much better for them.

I just personally felt that the panel should have been comprised of political alumni (obviously not Jack Straw then! ). She admitted to not knowing much about politics at all, which is simply ridiculous in a broadcast of such magnitude, in my humble opinion. I actually thought she must have been sat next to him in a deliberate attempt to inflame any racist views or prejudices. *shrug*

Given that Griffin is on record - as he accepted on the programme - as saying that one should express offensive views in inoffensive language as a first step to gaining power, Skylark's scepticism (not cynicism, I think) seems justified.

Am I the only person who thinks Dimbleby is frequently a very (leftist) biased chairman?

So is the BBC, but nevermind. I was highly annoyed at one particular question towards the end being brushed under the carpet, which would have given Nick Griffin an opportunity to rant, giving people the opportunity to see what he is really about.

Maybe not cynical, just not naive


As far as I'm concerned, he's odious, full stop, and not really worth any further time - I'm going to bed, nite all!

I agree totally, Solari, and thought the same whilst watching it.

No, I don't think so, but then perhaps Dimbleby's views are closer to mine than they are to yours. As far as the BBC goes, I think on the whole it steers pretty much a middle way. At least, I am not as conscious of bias on -say - R4 or BBC 1, 2 and 4 as I am in some newspapers.

(running the risk of being banned by the moderators before I even get my feet under the table here)

BBC = Beggars (or a similar word!) Broadcasting Communism.

I like to skim over the Times, The Grauniad, The Independent and the FT... then I read between the lines The way QT went tonight was a farce.

The BBC has a definite left swing to it IMO (me being very slightly left-of-centre on the political spectrum overall). Having a family member that works there often is quite insightful

Re Greer - I think it more likely that she was sat next to Griffin just because none of the party reps wanted to - or conclusions would have been drawn if they had picked one party or another. Let's face it, it's not an easy choice for the BBc to make.

Regarding that late question (about immigration) I agree with Solari - I think for the same reasons that Dimbleby should have let it run. I think by that stage he had too many voices in his ear telling him to wrap the programme up, and wanted to get on to a non-BNP question.

BBC communist? Nonsense! I've known enough broadcasters and enough communists to know the difference.

Glad I'm not going mad, but if that were the case, it should have been steered away much earlier on. If you're going to run this kind of panel, get it over with early?

I actually thought that the late question was probably one of the most valid of the evening - I will be shocked if the press don't pick up on this. I was hoping that it would lead on to: "so how do we get the feckless benefit generation to start taking up the slack once we stop letting the immigrants in?". Would have been interesting as I'm sure there are plenty of state-dependent NuLab voters out there...

In all honesty, I despise the BNP and Nick Griffin for him saying that the holocaust wasn't real, when we all know it was.

I think the horrible unravelling truth that Britiain are merely thinking that the BNP can solve the solutions they want is codswallop.

We need a system like Australia and points.

We can't just "close the bridge" and send everyone away. But we can ask questions.

I think it's disgraceful for him to also be prejudice against Islam, as it isn't the religion he is "favour" of, that's extremist and is contradictory to some of the things that Islam stands for.

I'm off to bed

Vote Monster Raving Loony!

What's the problem there? Marxism is a valid (if rather theoretical) political doctrine. Many left wingers (and others besides) have dabbled in the extremes of their beliefs at one time or another. That bears no comparison to "holocaust denial" which is simply showing ones stupidity or extreme prejudice by choosing to ignore the documented facts.

I have swung over a period of many years from Marxist/Totskyist (callow youth) to Thatcherite (high tax paying home owning company director) to Liberal (middle aged, cynical acceptance).

Anyhow back to QT. I didn't think was a good edition. What they should have done is stick to normal topics and see how NG would respond to real politics rather than just turning it into a bash BNP show. It wasn't terribly illuminating, though I did think NG did come across as a bit of a buffoon.



I think he was a bit "over emotional" but then I can see how NG would wind him up quite badly.

It's often the non-politicians who come out of QT best. I sometimes wonder if THEY should be running the country. I too have often been a bit irritated by her but last night her contributions were spot on.


There is usually (always?) a non-politician on the panel. Good thing too.


Yes I'm sure that's exactly what the current Government think when they put up a minister to go on Newsnight.

Spot on. I'd liked to have seen some questions on unions, handling of the economy, Europe & foreign policy etc.. I honestly don't think the BNP would be fit to govern - surely it would have made sense to try to discredit the party as a whole based on their ineptitude rather than focusing on race issues and one man.

People like an underdog, and I get the idea that the NG bashing may have actually been counter-productive to some extent. I'm half expecting another announcement about "record donations" in the next few hours.



I personally think that Straw proved himself to be pathologically incapable of providing a straight answer. There must be something in the water at Westminster as it seems to be a common affliction in that area.



I'll plead ignorance as I watch QT infrequently, I'd liked to have seen someone like a high profile political commentator parachuted in instead.

I think Warsi came out of last night very well. She was very eloquent and wasn't afraid to get stuck in. Thumbs up from me.

How did that audience member get away with calling NG "d*ck"? He should have had his question withdrawn IMO. Why were so many people unable to compose themselves when speaking? I also found it irritating when people just made statements instead of asking questions.

[quote name='pushpull' date='Oct 23 2009, 09:40 AM' post='887311']

Am I the only person who thinks Dimbleby is frequently a very (leftist) biased chairman?
[/quote]
So is the BBC, but nevermind.
[/quote]
Yes I'm sure that's exactly what the current Government think when they put up a minister to go on Newsnight.
[/quote]

Thank goodness for Newsnight. Not a Dimbleby in sight.

Absolutely. I want to have her babies!


They might have a temporary blip as a result, but I still remain unconvinced. To pick up on one example, NG said that Muslims advocate stoning women to death for adultery. I'm not denying that there are extremists out there who do, but the Muslims I've met and worked with have no time for such views.


At the risk of horrific stereotyping of my own, there were certainly some likely-looking BNP members in the audience.

Let's face it, though, if a party is known for just one view, and is led by someone as controversial as Nick Griffin, it's a given that the majority of questions will focus on that party's view.

Was I the only one who got very cross with NG's continued use of "English" to describe the UK population? I'm BRITISH (not pure English - a mixture of English and Welsh grandparentage), and apparently I have German roots further down the family tree as well. Send me back from where I came, as I'm obviously not indigenous

I think the BBC should have played this with a straight bat. The whole programme was a witch-hunt against Griffin. He now has the opportunity to claim the programme was biased, and he wasn't given a fair chance to explain his views. If they had filtered out some of the more emotional statements and personal attacks, and concentrated on the key political issues of the day (of which race was always gioing to be a major one), I think Griffin would have been exposed as someone whose views are groundless and lacking in substance. As it was, they set out to do this, rather than let Griffin do it for himself. It is this intention that weakens the anti-BNP argument.

I'll have to see if I can find it to watch on the PC - fell asleep last night (before QT, not because of it).

Strangely, I was in M&S yesterday with my sister and I don't know what was in our pile of food that made the cashier speak up, but she suddenly said 'Question Time's going to be interesting tonight' - we agreed and then walked away wondering from which point of view she was telling us that

I agree - highlighted when Jack Straw waffled on about nothing when asked if the BNP's recent successes were down to Labour's failure to address issues with immigration policy.

If the whole immigration system wasn't such a shambles, and the mainstream parties actually tackled this and other important issues, there wouldn't be this kind of unrest within the populace and the BNP would be irrelevant.

The big 3 just seem to skirt around things when asked - I think they are terrified of offending anyone and losing votes.

A handful of politicians are brave, honest, outstanding people, and I admire them.

The majority are the scum of the earth.


Former radical Jack Straw is a real disappointment. He is not a murderous dictator, so I can't call him the worst sort of politician - but he has become a miserable, weasely, duplicitous toady for his party. You would never rely on him to take a stand on any moral grounds - if you could ever find out what he stands for at all.

If we exclude the massive global problems of wasteful resource use, destruction of ecosystems, and overpopulation, then the main problems for the people of Britain are not the ones the media and the politicians would like you to be worried about (terrorism, drugs, paedophiles, immigration, the economy).

What we should be worried about are the destruction of liberties and freedoms that took a thousand years to establish, and rapidly increasing state control of more and more aspects of our lives. Those and political correctness.

It is happening throughout the world, but faster in Britain than the rest of Europe, or Canada, or Australia/New Zealand. Can't speak for the USA as I have not been there for several years, but it does not look good from over here.

I sometimes think that Britain is being used an experiment to see just how much our political masters can get away with in an advanced Western "democracy" .

I thought it was brave of the BBC to give air time to a person like that. I wouldn't trust him for one second. He and his party are an insult to everything that we stand for, a bunch of lying, thieving, hypocritical scumbags!!

But enough about Jack Straw.

As for the BNP, it's getting noticed more these days simply because people are so sick of the other parties. I'm convinced that most people vote for the BNP as a form of protest, not because they really want the party in power.



I vaguely remember when Blair was incredibly anti-EU! He even said something once about the idea of a President of Europe being complete anathema to him.

Now look! Waiting in the twilight, biding his time, keeping his mouth wisely shut until the Lisbon Treaty is ratified and he gets the job!

Don't ya just love politics?

Steve

I fail to see why anyone can think that Nick Griffin came across well last night. He was visibly shaking and laughing at inappropriate comments - he looked like a wreck. I've just heard a soundbite from him on Classic FM news where he was commenting on how last night's audience were full of his critics. He said something along the lines of:

That audience is from a city that is no longer British. One hundred thousand Londoners leave London every year because they are fed up with the gloriousness of the multicultural society. (the last part said with a sarcastic tone).

I've got no time for someone with his views (racism, homophobia etc). It's no wonder the audience and other panellists weren't giving him a chance because they probably felt exactly the same. I can see the argument that everyone should be treated fairly but you can hardly expect someone with views like his and who has said the things he has to go on a programme like that and not be given a hard time. The audience are going to want to have a go at him - he is a nasty person, and from the BBC's point of view they can hardly be seen to be supporting someone like him, so that is probably why it was so focused on him and his ridiculous excuse for a political party - and in my opinion anyone who bothers to vote for them is just as bad as them.

Incidentally I thought that the Lib Dem guy came across well and Bonnie was very amusing.

Lucid

The problem with the words 'rascist' and 'multicultural society' are that they are used so often but nobody ever stops to think deeply about what they really mean.

In my opinion, the word rascist has been used far too often to stop discussions about immigration, integration etc in its tracks. Honestly, if you talk to people, most are not rascist at all, but genuinely concerned for the future of their way of life that appears to be changing without anyone asking their opinion.

If we are to make any progress, we have to spend time discussing these issues and that's the problem! How?

For a start I think we have to be grown-up and take a firm line of law and order. If you go to Saudi Arabia, you obey the laws or don't go. When I went to France, I didn't demand a CofE education, English lessons, a UK association in my work place. It's a question of respect.

If I suddenly became supreme ruler tomorrow, with the power to do what I wanted, I would declare everyone from yesterday 12 noon to be British and subject to British laws, no sharia, no judaic, nitz. (you either accept it, campaign peacefully for change, or leave) no religion or religious symbols allowed in schools (this should be a private matter), no state aid to churches, mosques etc, no use of the words 'black, 'white' to describe people, ban the Black Police Federation immediately (it's rascist, abuses its powers and besides, why isn't there a white association - and where do Asians fit in?), enforce the hate-crime laws completely fairly with no exceptions for ethnicity, remove most CCTV and fund extra police on the beat, and....

Okay, rant over.

Steve

... to QT. I didn't think was a good edition. What they should have done is stick to normal topics and see how NG would respond to real politics rather than just turning it into a bash BNP show.

Yes. A missed opportunity. I was disappointed - the studio audience was unbalanced and the chairman not exactly impartial.

And I thought Jack Straw got away with murder; he represents a failed government, and on any other edition of QT he'd have been given h3ll because of its dismal record. And here he was able to be on the other side of the fence and was able to attack, barely needing to defend himself - yuk.

I have some sympathy with your views, but I'd rather we were a little more tolerant of individual differences.

I've watched the bits of the show that I missed on iPlayer, I still don't think NG came across well, and I'm glad to see that the people interviewed in my region for local television had nothing good to say about him (albeit we don't know how the clips were selected).

However, in one part of the show, NG mentioned about guided walks in the Lake District being cancelled because they were only attended by white people. This claim was shouted down by all the panel as being a lie. I'm loathe to agree with NG, but actually it's true. It was about four years ago - I first saw it in our regional paper and a friend of mine who lives in the Lake District confirmed it. Because the guided walks were primarily attended by middle-aged, middle-class white people, the National Parks Authority decided to stop them in order to direct funds to attract ethnic and other minority groups. There was such an outcry that they had to rescind their decision (and I gather from reading articles just now that they received private sponsorship). It's political correctness like this that makes people angry, and gives the BNP a straw to clutch on to. I thought it was interesting that all the panel thought it was such a crazy notion that NG must have made it up. Since there is no let-up in the daftness of our governing bodies where political correctness is concerned, I wouldn't be surprised if the BNP continues to make headway in the elections, regrettable though that is.

There are lots of articles online confirming the Lake District controversy - here's one of them.

But I'm extremely tolerant!

Everybody should be treated with respect, no matter which instrument they play!



....though I'm not sure about viola players.


Steve

I watched this for a while, but got fed up of the altered format. It was just to knock the BNP........maybe a worthy cause, but boring to watch. He looked shifty around the eyes (NG that is), and anyone who can stand shoulder to shoulder with the KKK must be barking.
The audience was unbalanced ( read that how you will ), and the questions were not broad enough.
However, I am worried that the BNP will get votes because of the shambles our immigration policy is in, and the fact that people can pour into the country when unemployment is so high.
Bev.

I'd agree there, I know people that voted UKIP for this reason. This happened the last time that Chirac was voted in - he was up against Jean-Marie Le Pen (France's broad equivalent of Mr Griffin) in the final round and ultimately won with a huge victory but the protest was noted.




Agreed. Total separation of church and state is 100% necessary. I find the things that my 8 year old sister is taught in school as fact to be disgusting (creationism, etc. etc.). Federations for minorities within an organisation are ridiculous too. They shouldn't be necessary, never mind upheld. Gah. I'm moving to the moon.

I went to a CofE school, and while I didn't buy into the whole religion thing, it didn't do a bad job of instilling morals (I know this is the parents' job but this is in addition). I still live by the "do unto others" ethos and don't think it actually did me any harm.

Creationism as fact is a bit crazy though, that wasn't going on when I were a nipper (or not that I remember). Are they teaching the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory too to balance things out?

I read this morning in the Metro that the BBC may allow NG back on to QT again. What with all the talk about giving someone enough rope to hang themselves, perhaps they'll actually let him speak uninterrupted next time round

On the lighter side of politics, I was reading the Monster Raving Loony Party's Manifesto...

http://www.loonyparty.com/index.php?page=m...estoproposals-1