If the BBC had organised events in such a way that Griffin came over as charismatic and super-competent, they’d still be getting it in the neck.

That he didn’t clearly wrong-footed the righties, though – it took them at least half a day to formulate their Beeb-bashing excuses and get on-message…

Odd that you don’t link to these right-wing blogs where you claim these objections were voiced. Hardly supports the ‘narrative’ you’re presenting.

I thought the most interesting finding was this (quoted from Anthony Wells):

“The one surprising finding from the News of the World article is that ICM apparently found a third people agreeing with stopping benefits to British-born people from ethnic minorities to pay for them to leave the country. That seems counter-intuitive, after all, if only 10% of people want a stop to immigration, stripping benefits from British people based on their skin colour and paying them to leave would normally be regarded as a lot more extreme, but the News of the World claim ICM found it was three times more popular.”

30% want compulsory repatriation? That can’t be right?

Well it looks like the seeds of this were sown by a somewhat elitist Labour government: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222998/Labour-open-borders-storm-Demands-inquiry-claims-migrants-let-Tories-accused-racism.html

I doubt either the BNP, or any of their policies, would have had much traction had the polar opposite not been implemented. Of course, I would have wholeheartedly supported Labour’s open door policy if it had been accompanied by a tightening up of the welfare state. But as it is, it seems that increased immigration has created some tough challenges and has led to a number of working class people getting in the neck.

Whilst you’re obviously busy conflating BNP and right wing opinion (as usual), the survey shows that the public thinks the Conservatives have the best policies on immigration so I don’t think we need lectures from the left on what the public wants.

Grief! Have you SEEN question 2 in that graphic? 33% of British voters subscribe to THAT? Yech! I find it very hard to believe.

Which leads us straight on to Q3 and the obligation on all sensible parties, of right or left, to start doing something about this perception, pronto. And I don’t mean some damn stupid education campaign, I mean really finding out, from the people who have such a view, what would satisfy them. If it turns out that only public immolation of recently arrived Somalis will do, we have a problem. If it’s adoption of a policy more like those of France, well, maybe we should look at it.

But Sunny, if you’re congratulating yourself on those figures, you’re madder than a march hare. Those figures are appalling, incredible, insane!

“The second predictable response is to play up a ’surge’ in BNP support following the programme.”

I thought it was Peter Hain who was moaning about this. I believe he pointed to the 22% figure.

Looking at some of the other polling figures it doesn’t provide that much comfort for the Left. 54% think there are too many immigrants, 49% opposed to teaching of sexual relationships in schools, 58% seem to have a negative impression of Islam re women, 62% reject the immigration policy of the three main parties (unlikely to be because it’s too harsh). These are the sorts of figures the BNP feeds off of.

Well, let’s be fair – it’s not like the tut-tut right wing want to legitimise the BNP’s policies. It’s more that they’re happy to let Nazis do their dirty work provided it hands them a stick to beat the government, the BBC and the horrible liberals, all of it without besmirching their whiter-than-white anti-racist reputations. Naturally, they abhor the BNP’s racist policies, but that doesn’t mean they’re not above riding on their coattails for political advantage – hell, the current government clearly aren’t above that, as a Google News search for “Woolas” will show.

Which is fairly low, if you think about it. At least BNP voters have the twin excuses of stupidity and prejudice – much of the right wing boo-hoo is coming from calculating political actors who know exactly what they’re doing.

If this was an attempt to align the Right with Griffin’s views – to cast right-wing bloggers, as it were, as racists and holocaust deniers by association with the BNP – it’s a spectacularly poor effort.

Could you provide a sample of blogs to support your claim that so many of us were “up in arms” about “how Nick Griffin was treated?” From what I’ve seen, most of us on the right were every bit as happy to see Griffin exposed as a shambolic moron as every other maintstream political commentator. I’d also be keen to see the data that indicates that, as you assert, “most” of the right “think even exposing [the BNP] on national TV is a step too far”.

Perhaps the poorest part of your post was where you claimed that the BNP’s views are “out of kilter” with the general public, following this assertion with statistics that contradict it – showing that 54% of people think there are too many immigrants, that 62% of people think the mainstream parties do not have credible policies to deal with immigration, and that 58% of people think that Islam treats women as second class citizens.

Given those concerns, be they right or wrong, it is ridiculous to imply that to talk about them is “an attempt by right-wingers to use the BNP and Nick Griffin to push the same agenda.” If we ignore people’s concerns, we will all but push them into Nick Griffin’s arms. People may be misinformed about Islam and unnecessarily bitter about immigration, but that doesn’t mean that we should pretend their concerns don’t matter.

This is a bitter and poorly argued post, hardly worthy of the sort of clear thinking and effective debate that regular readers expect.

Praguetory,

Where, exactly, do you deviate from a BNP line? The folk of Auchtermuchty demand to know.

No Sunny, you’re completely wrong – the right were arguing that emoting rather than debating would drive those who were already likely to be persuaded by the BNP further into their arms. The 74% support for the BBC was for their decision in allowing Griffin onto QT in the first place – if the BBC had treated Griffin like any other guest (irrespective of his loathsome policies) he would have been completely exposed and unable to argue that he was being victimised and so retain his support among the idiots and extremists.

BTW I presume you’re aware that the BNP were elected in the Euro elections on a wave of anti-Labour sentiment rather than on pro-racism sentiment?

Which BNP policies precisely is the right “legitimising”.

And who exactly is saying that “we must listen to the BNP”?

The most that people are saying is that we must listen to those people who are drifting away from Labour (mostly) towards the BNP.

Fact is most people (62% accoridng to your figures) don’t believe the main parties have any credibility wrt immigration.

And most people do not want the UK population to rise to 70million…

9 – I’m sure Sunny has filed this in his ‘all Tories are evil’ folder.

The only people I recall objecting to Griffin being on QT were Sunny’s illiberal fellow travellers camped outside BBC offices up and down the country fired with the patronising belief that vast swathes of the country will be receptive to Griffin’s ‘Scargill with racism’ rhetoric. Probably projecting.

@11 – I refer you to my first comment.

14, Neil

“If the BBC had organised events in such a way that Griffin came over as charismatic and super-competent, they’d still be getting it in the neck.”

Yes – but if they had treated him as neutral there’d be no hysteria to distract from the revealing of his true beliefs.

Sunny, you’d better inform James Macintyre that he is a right-winger (sorry, right-whinger – hilarious!), as he seems to have the same concerns with QT that you are so critical of.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/public-accounts/2009/10/bbc-griffin-bnp-question-news

“Yes – but if they had treated him as neutral there’d be no hysteria to distract from the revealing of his true beliefs.”

Utter rot. They’d have been castigated for treating him as neutral, and we’d be hearing an awful lot more of the old ‘BNP=left-wing=BBC’ trope.

“The second predictable response is to play up a ’surge’ in BNP support following the programme.”

You quote the Torygraph.
How about the Grauniad?

“The British National party will receive a pre-general election boost in the opinion polls, ministers fear, after more than 8 million people watched the far-right leader Nick Griffin’s appearance on Question Time on Thursday evening.

As the party claimed that a record 3,000 people had registered to join its ranks in the biggest recruitment night in its history, Lord Mandelson warned that Griffin’s exposure would produce “a bubble in the opinion polls for the BNP”. He reflected fears across the mainstream political spectrum that the BNP had received a once-in-a-generation PR opportunity.
…

When asked how they would vote in an election tomorrow, the proportion backing the BNP stood at 3%, up from 2% a month ago.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/23/bnp-poll-boost-question-time

You then allude to opinion polls attempting to “back up” your point.
However, you actually state:

“… just 6% of people thought the BNP had the right policies to sort out Britain’s problems.”

[Incidentally, only twice this number supported the Lib Dem policies.]

And also that 9% of the public view the BNP positively.

Whilst condemning “right-whingers” for playing up a rise in support from the 2% that might otherwise be expected?

You then say:

“And there’s this, showing how out-of-kilter BNP views are with the general public.”

This, in fact, shows quite the reverse.

A majority believe there are “too many immigrants” in the country,
A majority believe the mainstream parties “have no credible policies on immigration”,
Almost half think “children should not learn about sexual relationships in primary schools”,
Almost half think the white working classes have been “abandoned”,
Almost 60% think the Islamic faith treats women as “second-class citizens”,

And, shockingly:

Almost 30% would put the interests of the white British community before anyone else living here,
A third would support a policy of taking all benefits from ethnic minorities and using the money to fund ‘voluntary’ repatriation,
Two thirds think that immigrants get favourable housing and state benefits,

I find this incredibly scary.

The above statements might not all be (quite) as extreme as some of the BNPs messages, but they are far more in line with Griffin’s stated beliefs than those of any of the main parties.

And you think this data indicates that the BNP is out of touch? That it doesn’t speak, at least on some level, a populist message?

“Following Question Time public opinion shifted in favour of the BBC’s decision, with 74% thinking it was right decision to make, and only 11% wrong.

So the public overwhelmingly approved of the way the BBC handled the BNP on Question Time. Reading right-wing blogs however you’d think the entire country was up in arms over how Nick Griffin was treated.”

@11 is correct – the 74% figure refers to the decision to allow Griffin onto Question Time and not to the “ambush” (or whatever you want to call it) that followed.

I think you know this, and I therefore find it incredible that you proceed to link the result of the poll with Griffin’s treatment on the show.

“BNP leader Nick Griffin has complained that he was the victim of a “lynch mob” when he made his controversial appearance on the BBC’s flagship political discussion programme Question Time.

But what did voters make of it in Barking and Dagenham, an area where disenchanted white working class voters have been increasingly turning to the BNP?

Everyone I spoke to outside Dagenham Heathway tube station thought the BBC had been right to invite Mr Griffin on to the programme – but even those who did not share his political views felt he had been victimised, to a certain extent.”

The above, not from a “right-wing blog”, but a BBC roving reporter.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8322626.stm

Your article is appalling and displays all the journalistic integrity of the most notorious right-wing bloggers that you decry.

Sunny thinks that

a) The BBC was right to treat people differently and was supported by public opinion.
b) As a result of QT, BNP will not receive a fillup on the polls
c) People who cast doubt on the above are BNP sympathisers

Re a), Sunny’s evidence does not support his assertion and there is plenty of evidence of disquiet across the political spectrum. Re b), it’s too early to say.

c) is a pathetic attempt to poison the well. Nonetheless, it’s always nice to see Sunny being taken apart in the comments.

cjcjc,

To you too.

Where, exactly, do you deviate from a BNP line? The folk of Auchtermuchty demand to know.

Praguetory,

Answer the question why don’t you? I cannot, at this moment in time, see a sliver of difference between you and the BNP. Could you please explain where that difference lies?

And why are you a Prague Tory anyway?

Another ex-pat perhaps.

I have to say, this is fun: Whenever I point out someone toeing the line, another one pops up toeing the line. You know, I’d have an awful lot more respect for our tory chums if one of them – just one – could deviate from this hastily-constructed script.

The second question is quite ambiguous, poorly worded and easy to misinterpret. I imagine many people wanted to stop all benefits to recent migrants and/or asylum seekers and/or “illegal immigrants”, explaining the high figure.

What on earth are you talking about?

Inasmuch as I take a “line” I take the “balanced migration” (Frank Field) line.

Perhaps he is a secret BNP supporter?

cjcjc,

If that was directed at me, it ought to be as plain as the nose on your face. Explain to the assembled audience just what distinctions there are between you and the BNP. It is not as self evident as you’d like to think.

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5519

Methinks Sunny’s attempt to conflate the “Right” with the BNP is an example of the “go completely overboard” tactic.

What – because I don’t want the population to grow to 70 million?

To what else are you referring?

@26 – yes, indeed!

@22 – what, in particular, is fun?

You seem to derive great enjoyment from the mindless spamming of the same ludicrous message: that anyone who is remotely critical of the way in which Griffin-gate was handled must obviously be a right-wing lunatic, seeking only to justify the worst excesses of fascism…

Whilst I have no desire to get into a “holier-than-thou” contest about it, I’m willing to bet that my own political views place me further to the left than 95% of the posters on this board.

Why is it unacceptable to challenge the apparent orthodoxy of Sunny’s ‘liberal’ views? Why does this make me your “Tory chum”?

As many others have pointed out, large sections of the mainstream media have raised questions about how the show was managed – not to mention the popular feeling on the issue, which was so expertly misrepresented in the article…

What is the optimum population, cjcjc?

@28 – touchy, aren’t you, considering I never referred to you in any way whatsoever?

Also, I never said what you’ve accused me of saying. Perhaps you should pay more attention to the ‘comment by’ line above each comment?

You tell me.

But it’s lower than 70 million.

“But it’s lower than 70 million.”

Why?

Well it looks like the seeds of this were sown by a somewhat elitist Labour government:

Nick – do I really have to write a fisk of that stupid article? Thought you were smarter.

PragueTory: wait,. you want to me to highlight right-wingers getting annoyed at how the BNP was treated? it’s everywhere!

I was on Sky News with JAmes Cleverly who said we should talk to them about their views on the postal strike.
have a look at ConHome and Spectator and Iain Dale for more examples of whinging about people ganging up on Griffin.

Why not?
Do you believe there is no limit??

Just answer the question, why <70 million?

There's a good boy.

33 – Yes, but Sunny that’s not because they want to give Nick Griffin a cuddle and a cup of tea. It’s because they think that it might have been counter productive to have treated QT as a four-way pile on against a stupid chubby bigot. As someone said:

The Question Time panel sounded formulaic and perfunctory, emptied of force by sheer repetition.

I would probably pass Nick Griffin’s aboriginal test. But, for the first time, the stupidity and lack of generosity of this angry man became a personal affront.

And I began to object to the programme’s single dimension of synthetic anger. Griffin is, of course, hopelessly weak on nasty things he has said in the past and, equally, he must be called to account, as he was, mostly by fluent condemnations from the audience.

But I wanted the defeat to be more subtle. I wanted the questions to be more various. I once asked a BNP councillor in Burnley whether there was a racial angle on the question of the frequency of bin collections. He wasn’t sure there was, really.

The sheer uselessness of Griffin’s political categories for explaining health reform or the Copenhagen summit would have been plain.

And he’s the frighteningly right wing Phil Collins (of Labour spin doctory rather than shonky drumming fame).

What you really are failing to grasp is that, for once, mainstream left and right are united in a common goal: how to smash the BNP as an electoral force. Disagreement over the methods of achieving this does not imply that either side ‘supports’ the BNP, and implying that it does makes you look silly. Implying that James Cleverly is sympathetic to the BNP is even more ridiculous than you usually are.

It’s because they think that it might have been counter productive to have treated QT as a four-way pile on against a stupid chubby bigot.

But it’s a silly argument as I’ve said above. You cant put someone like that on a panel and pretend everything is ok. It normalises him.

And secondly, it wasn’t counter-productive, was it? And yet right-wingers are trying to push that meme through polls.

So my point stands.

Phil collins may be many things, but he ain’t left wing.

@30 – by referring to “Tory chums” who never “deviate” from a “hastily-constructed script” / “righties” being “on message”, you do rather tar everyone with the same brush. (Everyone who dares to challenge this apparent liberal orthodoxy…)

@33 – and, as I have pointed out, the BBC website:

“… even those who did not share his views felt he had been victimised, to a certain extent.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8322626.stm

Clearly this doesn’t count, as it doesn’t fit the tin foil hat, right-wing conspiracy theory nonsense you’ve been peddling.

@33 – PragueTory: wait,. you want to me to highlight right-wingers getting annoyed at how the BNP was treated? it’s everywhere! I was on Sky News with JAmes Cleverly who said we should talk to them about their views on the postal strike. have a look at ConHome and Spectator and Iain Dale for more examples of whinging about people ganging up on Griffin.

All I asked for was a link – clearly beyond you. You’ve set up a false dichotomy by suggesting that either you agree wholeheartedly with how the BBC handled Griffin or you support the BNP.

When people talk about immigration you debate race, when people talk about the EU, you debate Europe.

This is transparent and weak rhetoric.

I don’t think it was counter-productive to let the audience (in which BNP supporters were disproportionately represented compared to their tiny presence in the actual population) ask the questions they wanted to ask. Whatever happened, Griffin was going to claim he was ganged-up-on.

What is counter-productive, though, is this attempt to claim right-wingers, including cjcjc, are just milder versions of the BNP. They’re not. The BNP are fascists. They are Nazis. Cjcjc, for all his faults, clearly isn’t. If we’re going to argue for no platform policies based on the fact the BNP aren’t just a more extreme version of the Tories, they’re qualitatively different and don’t belong in the same political spectrum as everyone else, we can’t then argue that the Tories, Tim Worstall, Cjcjc etc are just less extreme versions of the Tories. That’s trying to have your cake and eat it.

On the 70m question, let’s not forget that in 1965 the forerunner to the ONS predicted that the population would be 75m in the year 2000, which was picked on by, amongst others, Enoch Powell. So maybe we shouldn’t take the prediction at face value.

@38 – what’s talk of “this apparent liberal orthodoxy” other than an attempt to tar people with the same brush, then?

But it’s a silly argument as I’ve said above. You cant put someone like that on a panel and pretend everything is ok. It normalises him.

And secondly, it wasn’t counter-productive, was it? And yet right-wingers are trying to push that meme through polls.

You may disagree with it, but it’s not silly. If he’s not fit to be on QT, don’t put him on QT. If you end up having to change the entire format of a programme to accommodate him, it’s indicative that it’s the wrong programme for him to be on.

And secondly, that appears to be a matter of disagreement as well doesn’t it? You have people like notorious right winger Peter Hain and hardline rightist Ken Livingstone saying that it gave the BNP an unwarranted boost, while you have neo-cons like David Aaronovitch saying the opposite.

You are trying to force this into a ‘right wingers (like James Cleverly) secretly sympathise with the BNP’ argument. They don’t. They merely differ from you on the best ways to oppose them.

@41 – “apparent liberal orthodoxy” is dripping with sarcasm, in case you didn’t bother to read any of my posts. I am challenging Sunny’s viewpoint and myself possess a left-liberal bias.

Were your words meant to be deeply ironic, or just offensive?

@39 – “You’ve set up a false dichotomy by suggesting that either you agree wholeheartedly with how the BBC handled Griffin or you support the BNP.”

I agree entirely.

Yes, although sadly not that difficult to predict. It’s hard to tell whether he’s joking or not about the 30m figure, given that he doesn’t seem to be joking in the first half of his post.

Neil – I don’t generally answer people who address me as they would a dog.

What is it about the internet that makes people so rude, or perhaps you are as rude in real ife?

PS I am not a “Tory”

Hard to judge on this without seeing more detailed polling (presumably ICM and YouGov will release in a few days). That said, a couple of comments:

1. It would have been good to have had opinion pollsters ask ‘before’ and ‘after’ questions about some of these issues, to measure the impact of Question Time. The polling doesn’t suggest a significant change in overall support or positive/negative attitudes.

It would also be good if the polling could be broken down to confirm whether (as other polls suggest) the BNP is the most disliked political party amongst white working class voters – this would help to counter their spin that they are championing the white working class.

2. The BNP spin that they were unfairly treated on Question Time has received a much more favourable hearing from the media than any other political party which has tried the stunt of whining after their leader got humiliated on telly would have got. There was probably a failure on the part of the spin teams of the anti-fascist parties in letting the BNP recover the media narrative by the weekend.

3. If we are going to give the BNP other opportunities to appear on the telly, the aim should be to plan how to make sure that they are damaged as much as possible by it.

[35] Neil – 70 million may be an arbitrary figure but many of us fear the impact such a high number will have on public services, and by extension the effect on our everyday life (irrespective of the % made up by migrants).

For example, a reputable Labour MP has already suggested that competition for housing, especially amongst those on low pay, will radicalise political opinion
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23385979-social-housing-shortage-feeding-political-extremism.do

Of course, decent school places remain a perennial problem
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7896792.stm

Before long we will have a million with dementia – who will look after them?
http://www.cardi.ie/?q=news/morethan1millionbritonswillsufferfromdementiawithin20yearsstudyclaims

While 300,000 cannot obtain proper access to palliative care
http://www.ncpc.org.uk/download/PalliativeCareManifesto.pdf

Wasn’t it John Gray who said it won’t be very long before future wars will boil down to a fight over resources?

PT, here’s a few:
http://jamescleverly.blogspot.com/2009/10/bnp-and-question-time.html
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5468113/one-in-five-would-consider-voting-for-the-bnp.thtml

cjcjc,

70 million. Immigration. BNP like conflation.

Try answering.

@47 – “or perhaps you are as rude in real life?”

I tend to think answering a question with another question is quite rude.

Now stop being such a sensitive flower and answer the fucking question: Why <70 million?

There seems to be a slightly schizophrenic attitude on display here.

Is Griffin a pathetic dribbling idiot?
In which case there is surely nothing to fear from his media appearances.

Or is he an attractive articluator of otherwise unatttactive opinions?
In which case his appearance are to be feared/opposed/stage-managed.

What cannot be denied is that the QT format (and possibly the audience) was stacked against him.
That may be justified; it may not.
I’m not especially complaining about it myself.
But let’s not pretend it didn’t happen or that it might have been counterproductive.

If he’s not fit to be on QT, don’t put him on QT. If you end up having to change the entire format of a programme to accommodate him, it’s indicative that it’s the wrong programme for him to be on.

Hain and I and others argued he shouldn’t be on QT for that reason so I’m not being hypocritical.

The format wasn’t changed – it has happened like this before:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/10/nick_griffin_on_question_time.html

They merely differ from you on the best ways to oppose them.

This isn’t about opposing the BNP – most people do. This is about attempts to use the BNP to push that very same agenda through anyway.

Please see my last point. I never said these people supported the BNP. It’s like the Daily Express saying it hates the BNP and then next day running an editorial saying ‘Muslims WANT TO KILL YOU AND TAKE YOUR house!” etc etc

Because England, London especially, is too fucking crowded as it is.

BNP like conflation? So is that what you’re accusing Frank Field of as well.
Fuck off.

Oh look, I can swear as well.
What a big boy am I!

FrankFisher @ 44,

I think there are other aspects of the BNP that Norman Tebbit would quite admire.

What about corporal punishment for petty criminals, capital punishment – read death, etc, etc.

“Because England, London especially, is too fucking crowded as it is.”

What deep analysis. Why don’t you make it 69,999 by fucking off yourself?

Confession time. They thought we’d got away with it, but Sunny’s rumbled them. The entire right-wing blogosphere has been engaged in concerted campaign to spin Griffin’s appearance on QT in his favour. I’ve got the email to prove it.

Conservative Central Office has been supplying us with the crib notes on how to attack the BBC and fretting over possible BNP advances.

Even now whilst the edifice is falling apart, the evil Tories are continuing their fascist campaign by pointing out similar concerns raised by Hain, Collins and McIntyre.

No platform for racists, no platform for anyone apart from Sunny.

“Why don’t you make it 69,999 by fucking off yourself”

Wow – that’s profound. You’re really showing me up.

Well, perhaps you could enlighten me as to whether you think there is any limit?

Or can you only ask questions rather than answer them?

[50] @47 – “or perhaps you are as rude in real life?” ……….. eh?

I tend to think answering a question with another question is quite rude – who asked a question?

Now stop being such a sensitive flower and answer the fucking question: Why <70 million – because the problems faced by public services (and by extension, the wider community) are unlikely to be improved by an additional 10 million souls.
I mean how many lanes is the M25 going to end up with? – it already takes 3 days to get from London to the Kent coast as it is.

@56 – amusing, but I prefer cock-up theory: Your instinctive urge to bash the Beeb has unintended consequences.

cjcjc – why <70 million? Your move.

@58 – I didn’t think I needed to make those points as they appear quite clear, which is why I used the shorthand “too fucking crowded”

I assume Neil thinks the M25 can be widened indefinitely.

So it’s all about the width of a motorway… Wow. Is there an economist in the house? I think someone’s just dropped a bollock.

[63] perhaps metaphors upset you, Neal?

Follow the links [47] if you can only think in concrete terms.

Bad metaphors do, yes. But really my argument isn’t with you. I just find it odd when right-wingers go all zero-sum and start saying there are limits to growth. It smacks of dishonesty.

cjcjc @ 53,

I don’t think I have sworn at you, at least not on this thread. Although the temptation is always there.

I don’t even know who Frank Field actually is. Is he some sort of famous Labour politician or something? Do you get special text messages from him to tell you what to say?

Whilst London may be a tad overcrowded, there are lots of empty spaces around. Policy should not be defined by London.

Anyway, apart from telling me to fuck off, you appear incapable of telling me quite what your policy differences are from the BNP. You could make a start on the question of population size.

How, for instance, do you intend to control it?

By 2010 5 million are predicted to be on council house waiting lists. Carrying on regardless and adding to the population is of course the obvious policy response.

[65] How, for instance, do you intend to control it? – an important question and one that becomes almost impossible to answer without being accused of all sorts of things (racist, etc).

I suspect that it might be answered (in time) when certain social and economic realities associated with a mismatch between demand, and available resources, reach some sort of critical tipping point.

I am willing to accept I might be wrong but it is a worry.

Do we have to fill all the empty spaces around us with people?

Do you guys not have a basic understanding of ecology or the fine balance between population and resources – one of which is space. Its like saying that the Kruger National Park is huge therefore there should be millions of cheetahs however each cheetah needs a minimum area for their territory so the space holds much less then can physically fit in. In case you don’t realise – we are an animal of sorts and follow these rules (obviously to a lesser extent!)

The majority of people in the UK are saying we are full up – they must feel somewhat uncomfortable – are you telling me they are wrong and you are right?

Umm…Sunny argues long and loud that the BNP should be “no platformed”.

Right whingers suggest that sunlight is the best disinfectant.

BNP is platformed and the change in the opinion polls is: still only 2 or 3% of the country support the one eyed fascist thug.

This shows that Sunny’s insistence on no platforming is correct.

Have I actually got that logic right there?

Immigration – balanced migration.

Otherwise no control required, unless something dramatic happens to the tendency exhibited by all rich developed European nations for the fertility rate to fall to/below replacement level.

Or… Innovation in the way we feed and house people. That’s what economists usually say, isn’t it? Look – there’s Tim Worstall. Ask him.

“The BNP’s Question Time appearance has led to two predictable responses from the right” – neither of which you have provided a credible link to. What did you do; Go down the local conservative club and ask a few of the old guys propping up the bar what they thought?

“So the public overwhelmingly approved of the way the BBC handled the BNP on Question Time. Reading right-wing blogs however you’d think the entire country was up in arms over how Nick Griffin was treated.”

Again, links please. Otherwise it just looks as though you’re presenting your opinion as fact.

Less living space – brilliant!

Smaller schools, hospitals, roads, trains too perhaps?

Neil, you are a genius.

cjcjc – look up the word ‘innovation’ in the dictionary of your choice, then try again.

What housing innovations do you have in mind precisely?

65 – I suspect he’s being reluctant to discuss the differences between Tory and BNP policies, because doing so with someone who evidently has virtually no knowledge of British politics would be a complete waste of everybody’s time.

Neil, there is only so much to innovate – taller buildings, smaller rooms, shrinking ourselves, living on the moon?

All noble persuits – but not for those of us who like living on earth in comfortable homes knowing that cheetahs are around because they have the space they need.

“there is only so much to innovate”

That’s neo-classical economics buggered, then.

What a pity.

Innovation in the way we feed and house people.

C’mon Neil tell us how to do it – the world has been waiting for you

@52 – Sunny has linked to a Conservative politician, James Cleverly. When James wrote;

“The BBC treated Nick Griffin and the BNP as a special case, they are not special they’re just crap.”

Sunny argues that James was ‘attempting to legitimise BNP policies’. Sunny would tell you the moon was made of cheese if helped his story along.

77 – Still a fair way to go though. We’re not that crowded yet in absolute terms – lower density than places like Holland or Belgium, much less the small islands/city states like Macau or Hong Kong. We could continue the pattern we are already doing: more urban sprawl, more apartment living, smaller houses, higher housing density.

On the other hand, the UK population overwhelmingly don’t want to live in smaller houses, let alone flats. They also prefer their schools and hospitals and other local services to be smaller. So, on that basis, we either need to change our immigration policies or our cultural attitude towards housing. Neither of those options looks easy.

Sunny is spot on when he says that the right are whinging about Nick Griffin getting picked on. “The BBC lynch mob proved BNP leader Nick Griffin’s best recruiters” is a headline in The Sunday Times for a terrible article by Minette Marin. There was an editorial in The Daily Mail on similar lines. Great post here about the right-wing press legitimising the BNP http://enemiesofreason.blogspot.com/2009/10/hmm-remember-this.html

PragueTory – clearly you can’t comprehend the difference between someone agreeing with the BNP, and someone who wants to agrees with many of their policies anyway.

For example, see your idol Tim Montgomerie:

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2009/09/it-is-important-we-confront-the-bnp-but-also-that-we-take-away-their-issues.html

As for the country being “full up” – Enoch Powell too said that 40 years ago.

The point isn’t the numbers but how we manage them and deal with them. The poor people of this country, some of them hurt by immigration, would be hurt by international trade and globalisation anyway even if immigration was stopped. So the tears for the working class are just crocodile tears by Tories.

Also, I’m assuming the right includes the Daily Mail, which has been on a desperate anti-BBC rant since QT. See their latest gaffe here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/mediamonkeyblog/2009/oct/26/question-time-daily-mail-nick-griffin

“clearly you can’t comprehend the difference between someone agreeing with the BNP, and someone who wants to agrees with many of their policies anyway.”

No. Clearly you can’t comprehend. The BNP’s policy platform has more in common with the agenda pushed by those on the left of Labour Party (like you Sunny). See http://praguetory.blogspot.com/2007/01/incredible-candidate-for-labour-leader.html

“The point isn’t the numbers but how we manage them and deal with them.”

If you manage and deal with them poorly (see council house waiting list), the point IS the numbers.

“The poor people of this country, some of them hurt by immigration, would be hurt by international trade and globalisation anyway even if immigration was stopped.”

Of course I would argue that trade and globalisation helps the poorest in the West. Of course, if we had more of open trade (i.e. Scrap the CAP) there would be a transfer of wealth from relatively rich EU-based farmers to relatively poor food consumers and poor non-EU farmers. Something you oppose?

By the way, I note that you seem to be arguing that the poor are hurt by immigration (tut tut – legitimising the BNP?), but that their objections aren’t valid. Way to win people over.

“So the tears for the working class are just crocodile tears by Tories.”

The point of the article – start with conclusion, work backwards to evidence. File under ‘All Tories are evil’.

For clarity, on the grounds that Labour can’t manage immigration effectively, I share the view that the numbers should be controlled. If a Tory government put together a suite of policies which manage immigration effectively, (e.g. policies that address the housing shortage) I will review my position.

PragueTory – before you fall off the deep end of wingnuttery with your BNP=left-wing sillyness, I suggest you read this post by Alex Massie on immigration:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie/5470066/yes-lets-talk-about-immigration.thtml

It’s about the only sensibly thing I’ve read on immigration by right-wingers.

The rest of it is apologia for the BNP (oh boohoo, support for them is increasing so we should do what the BNP advocate).

but that their objections aren’t valid
you have some serious reading comprehension problem. I said the Tories crying tears for working class people, claiming that stopping immigration will somehow help people, is a joke.

In terms of policy advice on the Tim M link you’ve posted (where you suggest that we will find a BNP policy agenda), Tim suggests

1. be more patriotic,
2. toughen up immigration policies,
3. give the British people a real choice on Europe,
4. clean up the political expenses system and
5. deliver transformational help for poorer communities in Britain who are being left behind

If these are ‘BNP policies’ I presume you support relaxing immigration policies (despite your assertion upthread that immigration hurts the poor), giving us no choice on Europe, not cleaning up expenses and not giving help to poorer communities.

I guess that your knee-jerk opposition saves on thinking, but it’s not coherent.

Hey PragueTwat,

Isn’t about time you updated your moniker to reflect your current station in life?

Say something like ‘CallCentreTory’ or ‘AmbulanceChasingTory’ or maybe ‘HamsHallBusinessParkTory’..

87 – I tend to agree with Alex Massie on this (although he’s another that makes a mockery of the view that ‘the right-wing’ is a coherent political bloc). But then I’m not overly concerned about the rise of the BNP as it stands either, because I think that it’s largely a function of the current unpopularity of the Labour Government. The tail end of Labour Governments has led to a seemingly alarming rise in extemist parties before – and I think it’s for the same reason.

Regardless of the endless and pointless wrangles about the BNP being right-wing or left-wing, it is incontestable that they are trying to sell themselves as both an anti-establishment party and, explicitly, as ‘the Labour Party your father voted for’. The Labour Party, as an unpopular Government, is not able to capitalise on the anti-establishment mood, and it’s also vulnerable to the attack that ‘the party’s given up on people like me’. This is also John Rentoul’s analysis:

The BNP is Labour’s creature; its supporters are working-class voters who feel that they have been let down by a Labour government. BNP success is a measure of Labour’s failure; of the collapse of the New Labour coalition of the white working class and the liberal middle class.

In 1997, the BNP won 0.1% of the national vote – what’s that going to be next year? In opposition, Labour will quickly rediscover their anti-establishment voice – the one that they maintained through the 80s and 90s into Government. When they don’t have to make the difficult decisions that Government entails, they will be more able to utter the comforting platitudes that make people feel they are being listened to.

[83] As for the country being “full up” – Enoch Powell too said that 40 years ago.

Its NOT just about numbers, it’s about quality of life as well.
Obviously two adults with two children, say, could probably manage in a 2-bedroom council flat, assuming they were not one of the millions still on a local authority waiting list, but this would hardly be conducive to the kind of living space that teenagers benefit from (or a grotty counterpart in the private sector).

Climate change was hardly on the agenda 40 years ago – overpopulation will increasingly come to dominate politics, in my view, especially if have an unforeseen food or energy crises.

Hmm, question 3 in that poll is not a question that can legitamately be voted on, anymore than one can vote on which planet is nearest to the sun.

All it can do is survey people’s correct or incorrect knowledge of the situation.

[83] incidentally Powell’s ‘rivers of blood’ speech was not addressing the issue of overpopulation, per se – it was about the adverse effects (as he saw them) of multi-culturalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_Blood_speech

Such underhanded tactics are little more than a lazy attempt to taint this issue with racist undertones – spend a bit of time with teachers, nurses, social workers, housing officers, etc – they will all tell you that services could be improved if demand could somehow be lessened – surely not all of them are ‘Powellites’?

I am the first to admit that I have no pat answer to this thorny issue – but as far as I can tell neither does anybody else?

Shorter right wing blogbags, then…

We must counter the BNP’s racist, hysterical fearmongering by stemming the tidal wave of foreigners that threatens to swamp the country, choke our cities and overwhelm our public services. Also, let’s be nicer to Nick Griffin than those awful lefties were.

I hold out the honest possibility that this counts as “practical politics for dealing with a genuine crisis,” although it looks far more like “shitty politics for turning Nazi bullshit into electoral gold”. Readers can decide for themselves what proportion of each is involved, I suppose.

“Readers can decide for themselves what proportion of each is involved”

They’ll have to guess, because they sure as hell won’t get a straight answer if they do bother asking.

Neil. Optimum population. 40-50M. S England is in danger of water shortages. Even when sewage is treated the rivers neeed to be large enought to take effluent. As we cannot dump sewage at sea disposal is a major problem. Even if recycling greatly increases, there is a shortage of landfills, especially S England. Increase in density of traffic increases fumes. Construction requires sand, gravel, crushed rock and cement which comes from quarries. Human activity causes pollution to surface and groundwater. Loss of rural habitats reduces wildlife- very few otters in S England due to stress of surface waters. Building more homes in green belt causes pollution, reduces rainfall recharge to ground and often causes rapid run leading to floods.

Infrastructure beginning to creak in many densely populated areas Birmingham, Manchester, etc, etc. High density of population means cost of buying land for new infrastrcture v expensive. This is main reasoin why buying land for CTRL through S England was far more expensive than buying land for high speed rail link in N France, where land is cheap. The buying of land for high speed rail link from London to Manchester and Scotland will be major part of total cost. More people means the need for more power generation which will probably require the construction of nuclear power stations. Wind power is unlikely to be able to keep the lights on and there is insufficient R and D on wave power.

Increase in value of land in Ireland over last 15 years greatly increased the cost of building new motorways which were required.

For all those who attacked Sunny for not giving examples of right wingers attempting to legitimise BNP policies, here’s Ali Miraj on CentreRight.com:

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2009/10/ali-miraj-who-in-parliament-speaks-for-the-white-working-classthe-question-time-debacle-will-boost-t.html

He agrees with Griffin that Question Time was a ‘lynch mob’, asserts that the BNP speak for the white working class, and repeats their spin about ‘uncontrolled immigration’.

[98] immigration IS uncontrolled in the sense that the UK must allow migrants from any EU state to work and settle here if they choose.

Now there is a bigger argument about identity, the meaning of state borders, etc but the net effect is a population that currently tips 60 million, with projections of another 10 million by 2030 – 45% of the increase will be associated with a difference in migration and immigration according to some reports.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/oct/21/uk-population-data-ons

I feel apprehensive about how schools, hospitals, roads, housing, etc, will cope with these numbers – but maybe others, like Neil, feel 70 million is still not enough, and the UK would be an even better place to live if only we could attract more people to come here?

Only time will tell, I guess?

“like Neil”

Sigh. Was the sarcasm really that subtle?

Well, fuck me for a bigoted nationalist, but Francophile as I am, I don’t really like the idea of France (population rising) and Germany (maybe falling, depends on level of Turkish immigration) each having twice Britain’s population in a few decades – anymore than I like the idea of Europe as a disparate collection of little Luxembourgeois museums with a few elderly visitors, sitting on the edge of world affairs while what really matters is decided in the G2.

OK, Britain does have high population density and the Dutch, who are in an even narrower boat, are going spare about it. My own bugbear is bloody Prescott, with his insistence that south-east towns zone great swathes of new housing, irrespective of how much overdevelopment their councils have encouraged in previous years. Do it up north, Prezza. There’s space, regenerate the infrastructure and get some (gasp) manufacturing industry going, rather than creating a pool of unemployables down south in the hope that they’ll one day find some job in ‘services’.

There has to be a ‘good fit’ population size, which would be a shifting target based on current age pyramids, skill balances, sectorial shortfalls, inflation prospects. Surely it’s not beyond our technocrats to calculate it … though that would be the Home Office, wouldn’t it (gulp).

I doubt they’d tell us what that target was, anyway, be it a Labour or a Toty administration.

this debate clearly needs to move off the issue of immigration and on to the issue of investment, support and infrastructure. It’s needed to for years in fact

Lee – agreed. But apparently the Tories have a coherent immigration policy. Can’t wait for them to get a reality check when they hit govt.

incidentally Powell’s ‘rivers of blood’ speech was not addressing the issue of overpopulation

I wasn’t referring to that specifically, but people and him were saying 40 years ago Britain was full up and its culture was being destroyed and the black man would subjugate white people etc etc. My point was that this rhetoric is not new.

Tim J: This is also John Rentoul’s analysis

Rentoul, the man who still pines for Tony Blair, yes? Perhaps you should listen to people who mine the polling data rather than overpaid newspaper columnists:

http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2009/10/25/where-are-the-bnp-votes-coming-from/

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6886620.ece

“The BBC said that it was delighted with the outcome of Question Time last night, insisting that the decision to change the format of the show to focus almost entirely upon Nick Griffin had humiliated the British National Party leader.

But the reaction from viewers suggested that the gamble had not been a complete success, with many of the audience writing on internet messageboards that they felt the programme was one-sided and allowed Mr Griffin to claim that he had been victimised.

Four out of the five questions the panel were asked directly related to the BNP, with the fifth focusing on Jan Moir, the Daily Mail columnist, who attracted more than 20,000 complaints for a piece about Stephen Gately, the deceased Boyzone singer.”

I don’t think it is just right-wingers who are interested in what the BBC were up to here. I have been studying how the audience was selected, the crib-sheet they were given and what they were told by programme makers before the show. Of course I am unlikely to see the briefing papers that the Chairman and most panel members were given containing ways to attack Nick Griffin. That’s a shame. My conclusion is that the show format was altered to be partisan and biased. You may argue that was justified but can we all accept at least that this was the case.

103 – the politicalbetting analysis has been that most BNP voters did not vote at all in the last election, but those that did were twice as likely to vote for Labour as any other party. They are also twice as likely to have been brought up in Labour households than Conservative ones. Voters, in other words, who generally dislike all mainstream parties, but are historically closer to the Labour Party than any other.

Hence my description of how the BNP is trying simultaneously to mine ‘anti-establishment’ and ‘old-fashioned Labour party’ support. So perhaps you should either read what I said more closely, or understand the material you link to better?

Incidentally – John Rentoul is indeed a Blairite. I don’t know if you remember this, but Blair was leader of the Labour Party? Just as Phil Collins was a member of the party and one of Blair’s speech-writers. Your dismissal of them as right wing implies an ever-shrinking Labour tent. More a pup-tent than a marquee perhaps.

105 – “… perhaps you should either read what I said more closely, or understand the material you link to better?”

This is Sunny’s classic: “here is a link that has very little to do with anything I’ve said but whose mere mention completely refutes [insert argument here]“.

I thought your reasoning was sound.