Nigel Farage should have a Commons pass

On Friday, Iain Dale blogged about the fact that Nigel Farage, the outgoing leader of UKIP and MEP has been complaining that his Palace of Westminster pass has been removed. The Westminster authorities have decided to remove the privilege from all MEPs. They claim it is to "save resources" but there is a very strong suspicion that the move is to ensure that the two elected BNP MEPs cannot have passes.

Iain says:

I have to say I have never quite understood why MEPs had passes to the building in the first place, so I can't get as excited as Nigel Farage about this.

I disagree with Iain here and fully back Nigel Farage. I think Iain should be getting excited about this. The authorities have taken away a privilege from all MEPs apparently in order to ensure lack of access for two of them. Whether you like the EU or not it is surely right that we make it easy for our elected European legislators to liaise with our elected MPs? This measure will make that more difficult.

As I have said about the BNP before, when the debate was raging about whether Nick Griffin should be allowed on BBC Question Time, they have elected MEPs. From this, certain things flow in a democracy. The Westminster authorities may think they are doing the right thing but they are making a mistake.

How many more rules are they going to change to affect two specific MEPs but also cause problems for the remaining 70 who are not fascists?

PS: I have also noticed that quite a few of the comments on Iain's post seem to agree with me.

James Forsyth highights problem with our electoral system

John Pienaar's guest on his 5 Live political podcast this week was James Forsyth, the new political editor of The Spectator (it is still accessible here for a few days). The discussion was about BBC Question Time, Nick Griffin and the BNP and James made a number of what I thought were good points about the programme and how it played out.

What caught my ear most though was when he highlighted what he perceives as a major reason why the BNP has increased in popularity. It is a short section from about 9 minutes in for about 20 seconds:

A colleague of mine went out canvassing with them (the BNP) recently and he said it is amazing to talk to people on the doorsteps who are voting for the BNP and they are voting because they haven't seen a politician because they live in a seat that is so safe for the Labour Party that no-one's been there for 20 years. That's what we've got to, you know, politicians have to realise that they can't take votes for granted.

I suspect the point that James was trying to make here is of a one with lots of right-wing commentators and bloggers who are constantly trying to make the point that the BNP is growing due to Labour's failures. Of course what he has inadvertently highlighted is one of the huge problems with our current First Past the Post electoral system. In areas that are very safe Labour, or Conservative or any other party, there is no real incentive for politicians of either the incumbent party or realistically main opposition parties to focus their efforts there. This is not being defeatist, it is being realistic. Parties are bound to target their resources where they think they can make the most difference and under our current system that is in the marginal seats and wards. This produces situations where people are effectively disenfranchised.

The political voids that this then creates can be filled by parties like the BNP who can step in and as they are the only voice that is being heard make council gains before the Labour and other parties who have sluggish or non-existent local party infrastructure even know what has hit them.

So James highlights a very real problem but makes no attempt to define how to resolve it, just a plaintive cry that "politicians cannot take these votes for granted". The reality is that the current situation will perpetuate. The weakness is systemic and even if the bigger parties plug the voids in a few areas, the BNP can just move into other areas. The solution is to remove the safe seats and wards by reforming the electoral system to make every vote count.

James didn't say this though and from what I can tell The Spectator's editorial line does not favour electoral reform either. I would therefore be interested to hear what alternative practical steps he thinks can be taken to avoid from what I can tell is an inevitable consequence of our existing system.

Nick Griffin on BBC Question Time - the verdict, #bbcqt

Well that was quite a mad evening. The BBC Question Time Live Chat on here was the best attended ever for the one that included Nick Griffin.

I do not think Griffin came across well at all. He tied himself up in knots a few times and faced with the quotes of things he had said before ended up all over the place trying to justify and/or distance himself from them. He also seemed to be trying to laugh along when comments were made against him which for me did not work.

However, I am bound to think all of this given how different my politics are from his. I do think though that he will not have come across well generally out there in the country. There was too much evasion and frankly he actually sounded too much like the sort of politician, not answering the questions properly that people are often turned off by.

On the Live Chat there was a feeling that the show was too dominated by him and questions about his policies. I agree with this although it was inevitable I suppose given the build up and hype. Also, I suspect many of the questions submitted by the audience were about this and the purpose of the show is to reflect what the audience want to ask about. I still think the producers should have made sure at least half the programme was dedicated to non-BNP stuff though. As it was only the Jan Moir issue was raised outside of Griffin-centric questions. What about the postal strike? What about Afghanistan?

I still think the BBC were right to have Griffin on and I suspect they will again at some point, after all he is going to be an MEP for 5 years. However next time they should think a little bit more carefully about how they structure it.

Yes, Griffin and his views are widely reviled but to allow the show to become dominated by him in this way makes him and his views seem more important than they really are.

The BBC are right to have Nick Griffin on Question Time

I think the BBC are right to have invited the British National Party leader Nick Griffin onto Question Time this evening. He is the leader and an elected MEP of a party that got 6% of the vote at the most recent European elections. To deny him a place on one of their shows would be to single out the BNP for special treatment and as my namesake Mark Thompson (the director general of the BBC) points out in a Guardian article today, it would be to expect political censorship of this kind to be outsourced to the BBC. That is not their job.

I have written before about why I think the policy of "No platform" is a mistake. As I said previously, my view is that you win debates and arguments by taking on your opponents, not by banning them from the debating arena. That way allows them to claim political martyrdom. Darrell Goodliffe also has a good blogpost about this here today.

I have read some blog posts and commentary that have expressed the concern that Nick Griffin might not actually come out all that badly. He might even do quite well in the forum of Question Time where populist rhetoric and soundbites sometimes get applause. I am afraid my response to this is that yes, it is possible that he doesn't go down dreadfully as me and I suspect most other people would like. It cannot be guaranteed that it will play out like we hope but again that is no reason to ban him from the show. It is the job of the fellow panelists and the members of the audience who oppose what the BNP stand for to take him on. Beyond that, we cannot control the outcome. That is democracy.

For those who are interested, I will be running my regular BBC Question Time Live Chat on this blog from 10:30 pm this evening.

Would the BNP "No Platform" this?

Peter Black AM draws our attention to a very interesting suggestion from a correspondent to The Guardian yesterday regarding the BNP's appearance on BBC's Question Time:

If the BBC is to invite the BNP on to Question Time, might I suggest that the other political parties all send non-white Britons to represent their point of view, to further emphasise how extreme is the BNP view of the country. Also, it is likely that the BNP would in turn "refuse to share a platform" with such people.

Andy Hunter

Hull

Peter thinks this is well worth a try and I am inclined to agree. The question is as Andy asks, if this was what was on the table, would Griffin "No Platform" the idea?

Eggs

Pelting the BNP Leader Nick Griffin with eggs is not the way forward. It just makes him look like the victim of an angry mob and will elicit sympathy for him.

Far better to engage them in debate and expose their policies for what they really are, hate filled, incoherent and nonsensical.

There has been a good debate on this going on on Charlotte's blog here today.