It's a bit pathetic of the BNP to play the "victim" card. Yes, it was a circus and it didn't follow the usual QT format - but what the hell did they expect? Boo bloody hoo for them if the audience didn't ask the questions they wanted to be asked - Griffin had the opportunity to give good answers and he fumbled it, he only has himself to blame for that.
So I think it's fair to say that it's not the propaganda victory they wanted - but I still think the precedent thing will help them in the longer term.
It may have been the most expedient thing for them to do, it doesn't stop it being pathetic in my opinion.I dont think it was pathetic at all of the BNP to play the victim card. It was clearly the best tactic and complaining about the undoubted bias was a good move for them.
This was not a good performance by a politician hoping to reach a wider audience. He was given ample opportunity to say his piece after each question but he was unable to enunciate his own policies. His reaction was more like a started rabbit staring into the headlights.You say Griffin had the chance to give good answers and fumbled it...Are you sure? What answers do you think he should have given?
Which he failed to do... http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/25/nick-griffin-question-time-bnpHe had to on one hand keep the core support happy
and on the other de-toxify the brand to potential supporters.
If the poll of 22% of people considering voting BNP is to be believed he must have given one of the political displays of the century...
theres two questions to consider here
1. is britain ripe for change and people frustrated?
and
2. is nick griffin a good leader? (as in charismatic speaker)
the answers to those will tell you.
It may have been the most expedient thing for them to do, it doesn't stop it being pathetic in my opinion.
This was not a good performance by a politician hoping to reach a wider audience. He was given ample opportunity to say his piece after each question but he was unable to enunciate his own policies. His reaction was more like a started rabbit staring into the headlights.
Which he failed to do... http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/25/nick-griffin-question-time-bnp
Even some of their own supporters can work out that it wasn't a good performance, such as this one: "It's almost like Nick went on expecting a normal episode of Question Time, it was always going to be a hatchet job and he should have been fully prepared for questions relating to his past. This lack of preparedness left him open to attack and flustered when asked to provide a reply."
That's a big "IF"! The result said that 22% might consider it, 75% wouldn't vote BNP under any circumstances and the remainder were don't knows.
Knowing the way that YouGov do their political polls, it's likely that options were given from definitely no to definitely yes, with variables introduced. For example "Would you consider voting BNP?" a) definitely not; b) if they removed their objections to immigration and non-whites; c) if they accepted all people born here as British citizens with equal rights etc. You get the picture, hopefully. In a nutshell, a YouGov poll doesn't mean jack shit unless you've seen the actual survey rather than a journalist's rehash of the press release. A simple 22% saying they would consider doesn't really cover it. Do you think they will achieve 22% at the next election?
I've just moved back down to London after five years in a remote Yorkshire town that has allegedly had its population almost doubled in that time due mainly to migration from Eastern Europe, so yes I'm all too aware of how unpopular mass migration is in parts of the UK.Have you any idea of just how unpopular mass migration is in the UK?
either the population of the village doubled while you were there or it didn't. surely you noticed if there was such a drastic change in the number of people there?I've just moved back down to London after five years in a remote Yorkshire town that has allegedly had its population almost doubled in that time due mainly to migration from Eastern Europe
either the population of the village doubled while you were there or it didn't. surely you noticed if there was such a drastic change in the number of people there?
I was there for a little longer than five years, having moved up in 2003. I say "allegedly" because I can't be certain of the accuracy of the figures. The 10,000 dates back to the 2001 census and it was about 13,000 in 2004 according to the ONS. I can't remember the source for the local rag claim for the most recent figure (about 20,000). And no, that isn't quite double, I was going by the old figure of 10,000.
There are certainly visible signs of major expansion, especially in terms of house-building. There are lots of new-build developments where I can truthfully say "I remember when all this were fields". So there is at least some truth to the population expanding there and there are plenty of bilingual English-Polish signs at the doctor's surgery, council offices, supermarkets etc and you certainly hear Polish being spoken in Tescos etc, so some of this expansion is due to immigration. There have been one or two minor skirmishes between locals and Polish migrants.
The BNP put up five candidates there in the local elections in June, each getting between 8 and 10.5% of the vote.
I grew up in a small town in South Wales, which doubled in size while I lived there. When I go back now, I can point to many different places that used to be fields.
It wasn't Poles that were moving there, though. Is it expansion that people dislike, or just the funny foreigners?
I first became aware of it when a DJ I got to know in the town told me of a fracas between a group of locals and a group of Poles. I was quite oblivious to the tensions that had been going on under my nose up until then. But increasingly I got to hear the usual "they're taking our jobs, they're only here for the benefits, they're living eight to a house etc etc" stuff.
What are you suggesting?
Unless anyone can think of a reason why it would suit the Labour Party to raise the profile of the BNP, nothing. I just can't get over how they managed to fudge a recorded program in such a hideous fashion.
Curious that a government known for its control freakery when it comes to all matters media related, allowed their state broadcaster to make such a fudge of the issue and picked Jack Straw, of all people, to represent them.
I've just moved back down to London after five years in a remote Yorkshire town that has allegedly had its population almost doubled in that time due mainly to migration from Eastern Europe, so yes I'm all too aware of how unpopular mass migration is in parts of the UK.
See my "addendum" to my post above for the rest of what I think about Griffin's performance.
But regardless of whether Griffin's QT performance was good or bad, I think the revelations of this former Labour adviser will help the BNP big time: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...K-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html
He defended the policy, saying mass immigration has "enriched" Britain, and made London a more attractive and cosmopolitan place.
Curious that a government known for its control freakery when it comes to all matters media related, allowed their state broadcaster to make such a fudge of the issue and picked Jack Straw, of all people, to represent them.
A great incisive political comment by pickmans again.....Everybodys favourite anarcho snob.....
he can't help himself.he can't help himself.
Blackburn ( where hes MP) used to be a bit of a fash stronghold i think in the early 70s they were the first town to have a fascist cllr....
rmp3 is a goodf lad .. agree with you more than him on a lot of stuff, but too many unneccessary comments like this on urbanA great incisive political comment by RMP3 again.....Everybody's least favourite socialist shitfer
YouGov voting intentions, bnp +1%.
National party. Had two seats one held by John Kingsley Read. Their other councillor was disqualified for election irregularities. Pretty poor performance in elections.