The Importance of the Question Time Invite
By Joe Priestley–I’ve been thinking about the seating arrangements for the ‘BNP edition’ of Question Time. No doubt the BBC will have been thinking about it too; hour after hour, meeting after meeting, minutely detailed cost benefit analyses of each permutation of the possible seating arrangements in the search for that arrangement that will show them in the best possible light, the BNP in the worst.
My guess is Chris Hune and Jack Straw to the left of David Dimbleby, Nick Griffin, Sayeeda Warsi, and Bonni Greer to the right, Nick strategically placed between the two ladies. I wonder what the odds are. Not that I think it’ll make any difference, I’m merely employing the kind of thought processes that I imagine the BBC to employ. My thinking is that the BBC is so consumed by its own propaganda that it’ll think that this will somehow faze Nick Griffin and undermine his performance. Then again maybe the BBC is more subtle than I imagine. We’ll see.
But however they organise it, and we know they’ll organise it as best they can to their advantage, which is understandable I suppose, the inescapable fact is that they felt it necessary to invite Nick Griffin to appear on Question Time. Their exact motivation is neither here nor there; the significant thing is that they invited him because they felt it was necessary. They wouldn’t have done it otherwise.
It wasn’t that long ago that the establishment and its lackeys were totally opposed to giving a voice to the likes of Nick Griffin, the BNP, and the people they represent. The stated intention was to “…deny the BNP the oxygen of publicity” and have it wither on the vine. An action they justified on the grounds that ‘the BNP foments race-hate’.
They made all sorts of accusations about the BNP and then denied it the right of reply. They figured bad publicity and censorship would be enough to destroy the party before it got off the ground. They called it ‘denying the BNP the oxygen of publicity’ but they weren’t so much denying it publicity as associating it with bad publicity. This was an entirely negative campaign, the epitome of anti.
But they put the horse before the cart, as they have a habit of doing. The BNP isn’t responsible for people’s concern at the state of the nation as per LibLabCon stewardship; it is a function of it. Denying the party publicity hasn’t stopped its growth; the only way to solve the ‘problem’ of the BNP is to address those issues that cause ethnic Britons to turn to the BNP.
The BNP’s growing influence stems from the party’s increased connectedness with the generally unspoken feeling of the ethnic British population. The party articulates what a growing proportion of the population feels – and one wonders exactly how big a proportion that is now. It’s this that troubles the establishment. After sixty years of ignoring if not actually suppressing ethnic British feeling the establishment is poorly-placed to respond when it begins to stir, as it is now.
Old commies like Peter Hain and Alan Johnson are still living in the ‘no platform for fascists’ days and they’ve put pressure on the BBC to change its mind. They still think that the best way to counter opposition to their ambitions is to silence it. They wail that the BNP is a ‘fascist’ organisation and that therefore it should be denied a voice… and no, they don’t see the irony. The Guardian adopts the same position. On the BNP on Question Time it had this to say: “A racist organisation with a fascist pedigree that rightfully belongs under a stone will be awarded a starring role on the BBC’s flagship political programme. The corporation should not be allowing this mob such a spotlight.” Spoken like true liberals.
But undoubtedly over this past year or so there’s been an observable shift in approach. Even Hain (on Newsnight this week) was forced to accept that the BNP shouldn’t be excluded from all mainstream current affairs programmes, although of course he draws the line at Question Time. And so does our old friend Richard Littlejohn who says, “We are told the programme offers an opportunity to expose the BNP. To whom? The party trawls for supporters among white working class voters… How many of them do you imagine watch something as cerebral as Question Time?”
Question Time, cerebral?
That’s the funniest thing Littlejohn’s written for ages. He was being ironic wasn’t he?
Littlejohn was writing for the benefit of those dozen or so of his readers that don’t yet vote BNP. He makes the assumption that they’re middle class snobs and argues, as a means of dissuading them from sympathising with the BNP (that is with Nick Griffin on Question Time), that the BNP is a working class organisation. Not bothering to disguise his contempt he labels the working class the C2DE’s, a sociology hocus-pocus people category he employs to put the wind up his readers: Vote BNP and you’ll turn into a C2DE. He was hoping snobbery would trump patriotism.
The Times uses similarly crude tactics. It quotes research that allegedly found BNP voters to be some sort of equivalent of American trailer park dwellers. It doesn’t go so far as to use the words trailer trash but it talks down its nose about caravan holidays and working class culture and it too quotes the C2DE category that BNP voters allegedly fall into, presumably to convince itself that as Times readers are supposed to fall into the ABC1 people category they don’t vote BNP. It seems they didn’t count this Times reader.
The BNP transcends class distinction. It is concerned with the altogether more important matter of the welfare of the British people as a whole. As long as there’s movement between the classes social class itself is not an issue. The establishment tries to make it an issue in the hope that it’ll discourage some from supporting the BNP – it’s the old divide and rule trick.
Liberals prefer to ‘not dignify the BNP by engaging it in argument,’ the hard liner favours ‘no platform for fascists’, Daily Telegraph writer and Anglican Priest George Pitcher demands: “Let’s incriminate the BNP – not indulge it with Question Time.” Incriminate? Since when was that a Christian act, Reverend Pitcher?
Significantly the vast majority of on-line comments in response to Pitcher’s article are in opposition to him. This matches a recent Sunday Times YouGov poll that found 63% of the public were in support of the invitation by Question Time to Nick Griffin, with only 23% who were not.
Up until ‘yesterday’ the establishment was making it plain that it wanted nothing to do with the BNP. It made out that the party’s ‘fascism/racism/nazism’ put it beyond the pale. In reality it feared the BNP’s fact-based common sense because all it has is sentiment and wishful thinking. And so until very recently the BNP has been kept waiting at the gate – the establishment didn’t want it to enter the debate.
And yet almost overnight we find ourselves in a position where we’re enjoying the brouhaha that Nick Griffin’s Question Time invite has created. What’s happened?
The good Reverend George Pitcher thinks the BBC made a mistake in inviting Nick Griffin, but he says that “The conventional wisdom in metropolitan media circles about BNP leader Nick Griffin’s appearance on BBC1’s Question Time on Thursday night runs something like this: it’s as well for the BNP to be allowed a platform in our public discourse so that they can be exposed for the nasty, racist pieces of work that they are.” Can that really be the case?
Is it really now conventional wisdom in media circles that the BNP should be given a platform, if only so that it can be opposed? When did this conversion take place?
Adding weight to Pitcher’s claim Sunday Times columnist Martin Ivens writes, “The BNP won’t go away if we ignore it.” He thinks the BNP should be allowed its say, “Exposure to the full glare of publicity shows the shallowness of the party’s talent and its bizarre policies.” Bring it on!
After denying the BNP the ‘oxygen of publicity’ for so long they now want to expose it to publicity’s full glare – isn’t that what they call a ‘u’ turn? What’s brought about this metropolitan media circles’ change of heart. Where’s their new-found courage come from?
Previously they shied away from debate now they’re talking tough. Martin Ivens has no time for those who “…would rather engage in ritual abuse of the BNP or, equally uselessly, pretend it isn’t there” instead of meeting it head on. And it’s not just a media thing. Some politicians have indicated they too ‘sort of’ go along with the idea of the BNP appearing on Question Time and are acting like the debate’s been a long time coming – though of course they’ll be out of harms way and observing proceedings from behind the skirts of Ms Warsi and Ms Greer.
The BBC’s tried to make it look like they’re in charge of the situation; like they made the decision to invite Nick Griffin when really they had no choice. The longer they put it off, the more foolish they appeared. The ‘no platform’ argument is redundant – the BNP already has a platform whether the establishment likes it or not. The idea, obviously, is to construct a platform for the BNP in order that it can be knocked off it, but so what? That’s politics isn’t it? Why should the BNP be afraid of that?
The BBC explains Nick Griffin’s appearance on Question Time as a function of his status as MEP together with the million votes the party received in the Euro elections. Which is fair enough I suppose. The Times says Nick Griffin’s invite “…is the result of mainstream parties’ refusal to address immigration.” And with the exception of the BBC that’s the spin most other establishment mouthpieces are putting on it.
It reminds me of those not infrequent occasions when an MP sticks his head above the parapet and says, wearing his sincere face, ‘It’s time for an honest debate on immigration.’ MP Margaret Hodge has just done it, again. In the wake of Nick Griffin’s invite she made another of her frequent calls for “…an honest discussion about migration;” ‘migrants’ not ‘immigrants’ you’ll note. I wonder if she’s being honest with us. She continued: “If we don’t tackle perceived unfairness we are (encouraging) people to vote BNP.” She just can’t help it, can she? She talks of the perception of unfairness (of the state towards ethnic Brits) as being the problem rather than the unfairness itself. She concludes with a defiant, “We should welcome migration.”
Simon Heffer plays the same sort of game, “Why has the BNP been allowed to pander to the worries of the country without serious competition from the mainstream parties?” Why indeed? And why has there been no serious competition from mainstream columnists Mr Heffer? Frank Field is a master of the art: He fears “…people think parliament is ignoring the issue,” ah yes, if only they could be taught to think otherwise.
Let’s get this straight: Mainstream politicians and media and every arm of the state haven’t ‘neglected’ to address the immigration issue, they went out of their way to make it a non-issue. They refused to address it and did their damnedest to prevent anyone else from addressing it.
But such is its importance it was never going to go away.
Nick Griffin’s appearance on Question Time is an indication of the growing realisation amongst ethnic Briton’s of the importance of the immigration issue. The establishment has tried to keep it under wraps but it’s now out in the open it struggles to know what stand to make. They can no longer deny it but if they act on it they go against everything they’ve been espousing these past 60 years or so.
Maybe they think Question Time will undo the BNP and take the pressure off them, but it’s hard to imagine their reasoning. Nick Griffin has had a tough political apprenticeship. He’s been the establishment bogeyman for years and he’s has had everything including the kitchen sink thrown at him in interviews and he’s come through the roughest joust unscathed. There are numerous clips of him on TV and no doubt every one has been scrutinised in the search for chinks in his armour; I’ll wager they struggled to find one. And then there’s his openness, common sense and honesty. How will they prevent that from coming across?
Writing in the Independent Stephen Glover says “Some argue that it is a good thing for Mr Griffin to be put on the spot since the nastiness and extremeness of his views will be exposed. I hope so, but I wouldn’t be certain. Mr Griffin, who is by no means stupid, is adept at concealing the dark side of the BNP, and appearing almost reasonable.” Well he would say that wouldn’t he? But the ‘nastiness and extremeness’ isn’t there and it’s Nick Griffin’s opponents who’ll have to work hardest to conceal their ‘dark side’. But Glover makes an interesting point about the possibility of it backfiring.
No doubt they’re acutely aware of the risk (from their point of view) of Nick Griffin enhancing his reputation and that of the BNP. But they were between a rock and a hard place and they were in danger of losing face if they continued to exclude the BNP’s point of view. They’re in trouble and this is beginning to look like an exercise in damage limitation.
When interviewed on TV news recently Mr Griffin played down the importance of his question time appearance. Certainly the detail of it will fade from most people’s memories but the invitation itself has real and lasting significance. It is recognition, grudgingly given, that the BNP has a point and it confirms for people the legitimacy of their concern about immigration. That is massive.
