Andy Hawkes

AKA Some thoughts raised by Question Time last night.

What should we make of last nights Question Time appearance by Nick Griffin, head of the controversial BNP?

His appearance on that stage marked a watershed in modern british politics, with mainstream politicians sharing a platform with a man that many consider to be very dangerous indeed, representing as he does an organisation with historic overtones of overt racism, violence, and civil discord.

Despite what its critics will say, the BBC was right to allow Griffin to appear on Question Time.

No matter how odious the majority of the population may find both the BNP and the man himself, he is a democratically elected representative of people in this country and to deny him the opportunity to participate in open, moderated political discussion would have been inappropriate.

In the end the BBC chose to use this opportunity primarily to quiz Griffin on his (oft stated and frequently ridiculous) personal views and those of the party he represents rather than provide him with an open platform to speak on other matters, which would have placed him effectively on a par with his fellow panellists rather than being largely the subject of their inquiry and repudiation.

To frame my own perspective on this issue I should say that I regard the political stance of the BNP to date as being broadly similar to the KKK, that is to say that they aggressively pursue a white-supremacist agenda and favour those of white, Anglo-Saxon descent. I should also say that I find this odious, ill-informed, and laughable in a modern, connected, global era.

Is white right?

Nick Griffin would rather try to position the BNP as a changed organisation, a formerly misguided organisation which is today pursuing a nationalist rather than racist agenda, and favouring strong controls on immigration in the name of slowing the rate of demographic change within the UK as a prudent and considered agenda.

In this area, Griffin did raise an interesting point - namely that the British Isles does historically have an indigenous population, in exactly the same way that, for example, America and Australia do. The difference here is that whilst it is considered completely appropriate to recognise native aboriginal peoples on other continents it is considered racist to apply the same criteria to Britain (or indeed northern Europe), despite the empirical validity of such an assertion.

This has more to do with the desire or need to make moral reparations for the historic misdeeds of our (largely white) ancestors in the era of pan-European imperialism and our accompanying history of enslavement, exploitation, and despoiling of other nations and peoples than it does with the validity of the claim that historically the British Isles have been populated predominantly by pale skinned folk (such as myself).

The question therefore is not whether the demographic makeup of Britain is changing (which it very clearly is), but whether it is changing for the better and whether that change is at an appropriate rate.

Personally I am in favour of immigration and multi-cultural society, but I do have significant concerns about the level of oversight, management and control that have been exercised by successive governments over the last two decades, particularly with regard to the ability of our government to keep an accurate track on levels of legitimate and illegitimate entry to the country, leave to remain, and net migration.

I strongly support a varied and diverse society.

Britain is, at the fundamental level, a piddly little island with accordingly limited space and natural resources positioned just off the coast of a very large and diverse continent, and yet we are a global political and economic powerhouse, playing a role on a par with substantially larger and more populous nations.

We benefit from the skills, experience and knowledge of people from across the globe who seek to benefit from our historical position as an early industrial and economic power whose strength and viability owes much to to the infrastructure built during its (less enlightened) imperial past.

We should recognise, celebrate, and support that strength and diversity but I believe that we should also seek to ensure that the fundamental societal underpinnings that have supported and fostered that position are not undermined at pace by the very success of our nation.

We need to separate the issue of race and discrimination from the issue of immigration before we can engage in useful dialogue on the subject.

The adoption of an Australian-style points-based work visa system is a good start, but until the UK government and civil service learn how to handle large volumes of data without making a complete lash of it and/or losing the data we will be fighting a losing battle - unfortunately it seems that our government is unable to make appropriate or economical use of modern technology at a level that would be considered anything more than utterly incompetent in any corporate environment.

So, did the BNP profit from Nick Griffin appearing on Question Time?

It is entirely possible that they may have achieved a sliver of increased legitimacy due to the public interrogation of Nick Griffin, but it did also highlight a few other issues that are rather more deserving of attention and discussion:

1. The recent electoral success of the BNP owes a lot to “protest votes” caused by dissatisfaction with the mainstream parties - whilst Mr Griffin never said this explicitly he did nod and make affirmative gestures whenever audience members or fellow panellists made this suggestion.
2. Nick Griffin is unable to give a clear and concise account of himself, his beliefs, or those of his party, preferring instead to evade, obfuscate and play the role of the misunderstood and misquoted innocent.
3. Nick Griffin did answer some questions with refreshing honesty, even if the answers did not meet the approval of a diverse, politically engaged, and largely middle-class studio audience - he admitted that he finds the sight of homosexuals kissing “creepy”, and I am sure that other people in the UK feel likewise as acceptance of overt homosexuality is something of a recent societal change, and people take time to adapt to new ideas, concepts, and norms. Discomfort does not necessarily equate to discrimination (although I strongly suspect that in this case it does).
4. The BNP are trying desperately to re-brand themselves as a nationalist but non-racist organisation, but public perception does not yet follow that line and the availability of wide-spread citizen journalism and the existence of youTube and the like help to expose the contradiction between their public facade and the beliefs and actions of its membership.
5. Some real people do agree with the BNP - they may be regarded as a fringe party, a dangerous and racist organisation, or a thinly veiled white-supremacist group, but they do have some public support as borne out by comments on the BBC’s own site - surely the support for the BNP is the real issue that needs to be addressed, not simply its existence.

How do the “mainstream” parties pull back the voters?

The political classes within the UK are at an all-time low when it comes to public perception, and they have got a fight on their hands to regain the confidence of the electorate if they are going to wrestle back control from the likes of the BNP.

I would suggest that this can be achieved in a number of ways:

1. Listen to the electorate - MPs are elected to represent our opinions, desires, and beliefs, not as figureheads elected on a single charter. We expect them to listen to us rather than act on what they imagine we might want them to do (based largely on their own beliefs and opinions).
2. Realise that they are our employees - we pay their salaries and for their expenses, so we have a right to know that our money is being used properly and not exploited. parliament has been an old boys club for too long, and the sooner they realise that transparency and external oversight is the only viable way forward the sooner we can move on.
3. If something goes wrong or is mishandled, admit it. Hold your hands up, apologise if appropriate, explain the issue clearly, and formulate an honest and open plan to rectify or repair any damage done - no-one is infallible, and failure can be handled positively if it is dealt with honestly and with integrity.
4. Deal with issues with clarity and integrity - if there is no smokescreen of spin and deception then the extremists have nothing to hide behind either.

Unfortunately I don’t believe that the short-termism and showy verbal one-upmanhip of the party political system as it currently stands is equiped to achieve much of the above.

A shake up and an honest re-evaluation of our political system in the light of the world today rather than 200 years ago is called for, but I fear it will be a long time coming and that the parties on the margins will continue to pick up motes of support that permit them to continue peddling their biased and biggoted views until that day comes.