Thoughts on Question Time with Nick Griffin et al

I've tried not to read any of the other commentaries before writing a few notes on what I thought of question time. I think this is one of those occasions where your view on events can become very coloured by the spin someone else puts on it.

Here are a few points:

• This was lynch mob Question Time. All the questions where aimed at Nick Griffin, and the chair didn't even try to have a normal debate. Some of the questions were good - I especially liked the man who asked where do you expect me to go and live.
• Clearly the key panellists and chairman went in armed with their killer facts that their researchers were sure Griffin couldn't answer. That's all well and good, but in many ways very dry.
• On balance Jack Straw had a good night. His voice was quivering at the start and his set point speech at the beginning was a bit cheesy, but in general he did well - except for the attempt to smear the right of centre by accusing the BNP of being right wing and the old Labour tactic to close down all debate of invoking their smears about Enoch Powell. ( It worth remembering that Labour's refusal to allow debate on immigration - and indeed to control it - has lead to the BNP rise in the first place, and mostly from their voters ).
• Baroness Warsi did okay. She was most impressive savaging Jack Straw however.
• Chris Huhne just continues to give the impression that he's a bit of a thug himself.
• Bonnie Greer was very much in charge and seemed to hold a strange sort of authority over Griffin, that I'm sure he will hate himself for. She put her point across very effectively, though I didn't like the US knee jerk response on the KKK which moved to close debate rather than tackle and defeat a point.
• Nick Griffin hardly got a word in. The Audience was over overwhelmingly hostile, as was the panel and the chairman.
• The no platform and fascist anti-free speech mob will be feeling just a little silly this morning. This was no BNP triumph and many people will have been reminded of why we despise the BNP. So you leftie thugs it turns out free speech and democracy can be trusted - I hope you've learnt your lesson.

But, but but ....

We didn't learn much. It certainly wasn't fair - if any other party leader had been treated in the way Griffin was their would be uproar this morning ( as a thought experiment put the leader of the Green party in his place and see if it makes sense ).

Also I doubt it has had any impact on the BNPs supporters. The West London audience aren't BNP supporting anyway. They will have seen a monstering by people who never answered the questions that the BNP provides answers for them on*. The story of the establishment all being untied against us will be perpetuated ( I'd like to call it a myth, but quite frankly after last night I can't ).

This was an exercise in exercising democracy and free speech against the forces of oppression ( lead for Labour by Peter Hain ). It has shown Home Office funding for some of the more violent protest groups. But we have learnt little.

Certainly their was no attempt to engage the BNP on policy - or more correctly for question time to allow the BNP to put its policies for issues for comparison against the policies of other parties and commentators. And that's what needs to happen.

So it will all have to be done again, because that's what's needed to take support away from the BNP.

What did you think ? I'm off to read some of the other comments in the blogsphere and press.

* With the exception of immigration, which Baroness Warsi was especially good on.

Update: Here's the question I'm left with. Why did 943,598 people vote BNP at the Euro elections ? Peronally I think you'll find few of them see themselves as racist ( and if they are why vote BNP at only these elections and not the previous ones ).

We - the mainstream parties - need to properly engage with these people and understand the message they are sending by voting for a party that many of them would probably admit is odious.

A few Labour MP's have understood there's an issue - John Cruddas, Margaret Hodge, Frank Field come to mind. But all we get from all three main parities is generalisations and often a flat denial that peoples experiences are genuine or valid. This is a very dangerous situation to leave to fester.

Further Update:

Apparently Question Time got 7.8million viewers last night - three times the usual number. It shows the interests and perhaps concern in the general public. ( Even a few die hard leftie no-platformers were tuned in - yes Tom I mean you ).

Are Labour using the BNP to scare its voters back ?

It occurs to me that there has been far too much protesting about Nick Griffin being on QT. Most of it from the left and their thugs in the various anti fascist organisations ( yes they're as anti democratic and worrying as the BNP is itself ).

Then we had Peter Hain making sure the subject occupied 2-3 days of prime media coverage this week.

Nick Griffin thinks they've all been idiots providing him free publicity, but I see a darker and more sinister explanation - one that the Labour have form for - of negative campaigning combined with trying to frighten and bully people into supporting them.

The Stop the BNP message works well for Labour with the ethnic groups they lost because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They can bribe the white working class nearer the election - if they can make it sound credible after so many years of broken promises.

I think Labour are actually finding an aspect of all this very useful indeed and may even have fanned the blames of this debate deliberately ( either that or Griffin is right about Hain et al ). Think about it, Labour the party of the media Grid letting a story build up due to actions of a senior figure of the party - I think thats unlikely to be chance.

Its the sort of deeply irresponsible party before country type of behaviour we have grown used to from Labour.

PS My guess is this will be one of the most watched Question Times ever - largely due to the actions of the Labour party and its anti-free speech allies.

As I've said elsewhere the panellists had better have done their home work because Nick Griffin is a slippery so and so and will be very hard to skewer. Those who think you can just turn out and say your a racist and win the argument are in for a shock.

The stakes are high tonight. Lets hope someone gets Nick Griffin below the water line.

Watch David Starkey - Man on fire

I got back from an evening's trip out to a school open evening ( more on which later ) to see Question Time just starting. Like watching footballers come out you look at the line up.

Ben Bradshaw - Labour loyalist, but usually a safe pair of hands.
Somebody sitting next to him I haven't heard of ( Dambisa Moyo ) - who surprises with measured comments and intelligence - only beacuse sitting next to Ben Bradshaw I assume she'd been added as another leftie.
Chat show Charlie - who is always happiest laying into the Tories
Tereasa May ( oh no - why do the BBC keep wheeling here out, oh hold on I understand ).
David Starkey (Standard issue slightly mad conservative to remind the audience, I imagine the BBC editors thinking, what a Tory administration would really be like.)


But hold on one minute - David Starkey caught the mood. ( Even though as ever the audience was packed with the usual Socialist Worker Green revolutionary over Tattooed stereo types ).

Surely they will tire of his habit of taking far too much time to answer the question I thought ? But not tonight - the public wants blood and David Starkey is just the man to make sure its Labour's and Ben Bradshaw's they're going to get.

It was a tour de force and well worth watching again here.

He accuses the Gordon Brown of having a childish temper, No 10 of being all about spin and lies and being just straight unbelievable ( about 17 mins in ) and it just gets better.

The ugly mood on question time - and those looking to exploit the mob

Just watched the moved forward question time, and as you might expect the mood is ugly.

As you would expect William Hague was interrupted by lengthy prepared quotes from the chair - but its the BBC and that's what we expect from a David Dimbleby.

But what's really frightening is how all the various interest groups are lining up to take advantage of the current chaos, and how the BBC is busy trying to encourage them.

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown ( who strikes me as one of the most confused people ever to appear on the national media ) has a schizophrenic problem that she knows Labour are responsible for the current mess, but can't abide the idea of a Conservative Govt. So she talks up the Lib Dems ( not that its necessary with the shameless political angling by Red Vince Cable on tap next door).

The left can see defeat coming down on them, but they still hold the levers of power. The BBC with its left wing staff and left wing sympathies is keen to do anything it can to prevent a Conservative victory, even if that means talking up independents. The guardianista commentators pray for a hung parliament. Anything to stop the economy being saved from the car crash Gordon Brown has so carefully engineered for it - which must surely lead to oppressive and irreversible socialism if the crisis allowed to develop as they wish.

The clear a present danger is that the guardianistas get their hung and neutered parliament devoted to constitutional navel gazing whilst our sovereignty goes to Brussels and our economy down the drain.

These are dangerous times.

PS I noticed that the programme finished with Ben Bradshaw and various others calling for a new House of Lords ( with professional politicians, not those who have served our country in many sphere's of life appointed)- but the issue of professional politicians never came up. Vince Cable mentioned fix term parliaments, but not terms limits for MPs. Odd that ...

Well said sir !

There have been a number of posts about this week Question Time, which I'm part way through listening and watching now.

A gentleman has just proposed that Ministers should be qualified for the jobs they hold ( his photo is below, I didn't catch his name ).

You know he has a good point ....

In the US, where the executive is separate from the legislature, they can appoint people who actually know something about the department they manage and are generally well qualified and capable.

In the UK we have an ever shrinking pool of MPs with any experience of business or the outside world and a government that has clearly just failed.

It would mean a shake up of the constitution, but it might be needed. ( There is a way round this inn the UK with the house of Lords, but Lords now rarely become important - unless they are political types like Lord Mandelmort ).