h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The BBC are planning to allow the BNP onto Question Time. Is this wise? The BBC claims that it is impartial with it's political coverage and it has a responsibility to allow a democratic party with proven electoral support onto the programme.

Will allowing the BNP onto mainstream tv increase their support? Will their "policies" be exposed and torn to shreds by skilled debaters?

I say let them on and expose them. Their core vote is going to be unaffected whatever happens, but it's important to ensure that those who are considering voting for them know exactly what they are about.

I'm with you, but they had better be prepared to deal with them. There's nothing worse than seeing a poor argument gain favour simply because the opposing side couldn't get their act together.

The best way to give no platform to racists is to address the social and economic problems that get them voted in in the first place.

The mainstream parties need to acknowledge that the formerly industrial and now poverty-stricken towns in Yorkshire and Lancashire are deeply fed. They should get out of their duck houses for once, and engage with the problems they've caused which result in people rejecting them and voting for racists.

Short term they should be given the oxygen of publicity and oxygen is a great antiseptic. Somebody in the Times commented that any skilled 12 year old could out-debate Griffin.

Addressing their core vote is more difficult and raises issues such as multi-racial societies, single race ghettos, globilisation and the errosion of some northern cities industry. Much more difficult.

Found it, Mathew Syed, The Times, Monday September 7th.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6824033.ece

While I agree with you Mrs Zen,I feel that it exposed that undercurrent of opinion that must exsist during the 'good times'. There were plenty of ways to express disatisfaction with the political class, so why choose this one or more to the point how could they? How far did they have to dig to get over what the BNP represent to register a so called protest vote?

Oh, it's clearly tapping in to latent racism Peanut which is there in the good times too. But in the good times it might be a joke in the pub but in the bad times it's destroyed properties and GBH.

Making racism socially unacceptable helps a bit, but the racism will be there, it just won't be voiced.

Likewise, the racism will still be there if the economic problems are addressed, but there'll be less physical experession of it, and fewer racist incidents to fuel future racism on both sides.

It's disenfranchisement and disgust that makes people vote BNP. I have some sympathy with that sense of disenfranchisement and disgust: I've been trying to think up a limerick to spoil my paper with since none of the parties reflect my views.

But let's face it, conditions the Penine towns are dire and need dealing with, regardless of whether there's also racism in amongts the poverty, squallor, lack of services and ASBOs.

I'm sure a limerick thread would get some good suggestions

The problem with the BNP is that their core policies are quite conservative and would make the UK a fairer place for everyone with better schooling, social care etc.

It's the throwing Johnny Foreigner out of the UK and the not so underlying racism that is the issue.

As Mrs Zen said/inferred...*many* people are voting for the BNP because of the 'non-racist' policies because none of the other parties are giving any hope that they will broach the issues.

They should be allowed on Question Time because they do tend to lose it and start with the racist talk.

The problem is I would say the people who are voting BNP but are not racist and *may* stop voting for them if they knew the unsavoury side of the BNP would not be watching Question Time i.e. people on sink estates etc.

I am sure some people may think that if they vote in the BNP they will see their life getting better and if it means a few foreign type people who they don't even know get thrown out of the UK...meh...it's worth it.

I don't think it's worth it...but I'm not in the situation of people who may be forced to move towards the BNP.

Mrs Zen

There's racism there because the Pennine towns have seen the Asian populations grow hugely over the past 50 or so years and the jobs seemingly going to the 'outsiders' so it's no surprise there's racism.

Having been in pubs in Bradford(~1990) with someone who looked Asian the whispers were along the line of another one of em who have taken our jobs etc.

I'm not saying it's right but I can understand why people may feel the way they do whether they are right or wrong about the job situation etc.

A point to consider is that every time the BNP were mentioned on the BBC during the Euro elections, YouGov data showed a rise in their support. There is actually a case for saying the BBC helped the BNP with the result they got.

Not as much as they helped UKIP though

To address the original point, yes I say engage them in debate on a programme like QT. It would be treating the electorate like children who can't be trusted to listen to the arguments, and make up their own minds, to exclude them.

I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Verbal debate is always good surely?

The argument that I have seen against it is that their status as a legal party is on dodgy ground anyway.

I find it hard to get the middle ground between two different peices of propaganda though.. Anti fascists say that it cannot be alegitimate party while they have blocks on certain types of people becoming members. The fact they are a represented, recognised european party suggest they have at the very least squirmed through some loopholes...



I say let em talk, personally, but I agree, if you cant argue competitively with them, then you may as well not bother giving them the opportunity to make you look ridiculous.

The problem is that they will twist things, as all politicians do, to make them look good. Perhaps this is what we deserve for dealing in soundbyte politics for so bleedin long? Perhaps some real conversations would be a good idea instead of 'it's their fault! No! It's their fault!' with ridiculous correlations to back them up...

There's another practical question, which is whether the mainstream parties will have a proper debate, or just compete in the I'm-more-offended-at-sharing-a-stage-with-Fascists-than-you-are stakes.

Gif

At first, your post made me chuckle. Then it made me sad because it's true.

I saw an edition of an awful programme on the BBC called "The Big Questions".
The Unite Against Fascism refused to share a stage with them. Which I found disgusting. They are willing to throw eggs at these people but lack the spine to take a stage and engage their politics.
Freedom of Expression demands that we allow these people to have a party and argue for their ideals. That freedom is dependant on people of opposing views having the intellectual honesty to take the stage and win the argument against them.

Those people in that studio lost the argument with BNP in my view.
They launched petty attacks on the representatives of the BNP whilst the BNP gave calm and considered defences of the principle of free speech.

It disturbs me that those who call themselves liberal would rather combat people like the BNP by criminalising free speech with "Hate Speech" laws rather than win the argument. Posturing and pretending that sharing a stage with these people gives them credibility is a failure.

Indeed, it is *unfortunate* that to be a true democracy we must give them a platform otherwise it's a form of fascism itself. The 'Unite Against Fascism' people can't seem to get the irony...an interview with their 'leader' after the egg throwing was very informative - I have never heard someone being so fascist in their views about getting rid of fascism...brilliant stuff!

I sometimes think the other reason other parties will not debate with the BNP is that, ignoring the racist repatriation stuff, what they are saying they would do is put 'power', and self-worth back in working communities, schools etc which is what other parties should be doing but they have shown that when they say they will they don't. And as I've said before there may well be a lot of people on sink estates who would vote BNP for those reasons and ignore the racist stuff because they'll at least get something better for themselves and as politicians are out for themselves in general why shouldn't they be out for themselves.

>It disturbs me that those who call themselves liberal would rather combat people like the BNP by criminalising free speech with "Hate Speech" laws rather than win the argument.

That assumes Unite Against Fascism is lead by free-speech liberals. According to Wonkypedia, UAF was founded by the distinctly un-liberal SWP and it's main purpose is to organise a united front against fascism in general; I don't think it's ever proclaimed itself a supporter of an absolute position on free speech or in any way a liberal organisation (membership seems to be right across the political spectrum, with the obvious exception of the fascist right).

Having said that, I think your arguments about refusing the engage the BNP in debate making the BNP look good are valid. Although I am sceptical about the worth of out-manouvering the populist right in debate as a way of discrediting them. The English Democrat who was recently elected the Mayor of Doncaster had his half-baked policies picked to pieces by a mere Radio DJ but I doubt that'll affect his poll ratings all that much, these people get votes because they appeal to popular sentiment not because their policies add-up. Ultimately, I think the best way of defeating the BNP is to try and win-back votes from the deprived communities they've made their political stomping ground. And that's going to require the Labour Party, in particular, to get-over its pre-occupation with Middle-Class issues (which, despite what a lot of people think, is a problem which pre-dates Blair).

Zagreb > "That assumes Unite Against Fascism is lead by free-speech liberals."

No. It does not. My post was not about the UAF, they appeared only as example of those who refuse to share a studio with the BNP.
The line you singled out was touching on a concern I have about a section of the more liberal/left/social democratic half of the European political spectrum that criminalises free speech as "Hate Speech" in areas of race and religion, which I see as antithetical to liberal freedoms and a flawed ineffective approach.


Broadly I agree with your later points. I see engaging with the BNP as something that's worth lies in the healthier politics it represents, how effective it is in large part relies on the making the case for the alternatives being offered to BNP supporters in debates with BNP representatives.