Nick Griffin on Question Time Page 20

Quote: Timbo @ October 23 2009, 12:39 AM BST

Yes, even he Gateley question was turned round into an attack on the BNP. I would have been interested to hear Griffin's views on the topics of the day, as this would have shown us more about the BNPs ability, or lack thereof, to function as an effective political party.

View original

Precisely.

The left-leaning media are responsible for that - by allowing it to be the let's-get-Nick fest that they undoubtedly wanted, it was a largely fruitless spectacle more suited to a circus sideshow. If they'd kept it to the normal style and given Griffin the level field that all other panellists and parties are week-in, week-out, then we'd have had a proper exposé of his political lunacy. Real shame IMO.

Quote: Aaron @ October 23 2009, 12:53 AM BST

No, you're not reading it correctly. Trafalgar was merely the first example that came to mind when you queried my view earlier. I'm terrible with dates, names, places, anything like that, so I wouldn't expect the exact date, time and geographical location of every battle we've ever been involved with to be ingrained in every Briton's memory.

View original

Fair enough, I retract my earlier comment.

But even basic understanding and knowledge of our past, culture, etc, is sadly lacking.

You may or may not be right. Off the top of my head, I don't think I have any experiences that could inform that argument. However, I'd guess that knowledge of most things is sadly lacking.

Quote: Tim Walker @ October 23 2009, 12:46 AM BST

Really I should have said that voting for Major was embarrassing at the time. Now it seems like a pretty good decision to have made (imagine if the country had been run by Kinnock, the horror!).

Voting Labour in '97 was not an embarrassing thing to have done then, the Conservatives had run out of steam and Labour were promising a lot of good things (very little of which they actually did). I'm ashamed of voting Labour in '97 now because it helped give them such a huge majority, that it meant that they were always going to get three terms in office.

I didn't foresee in '97 just how much Labour would do that I fundamentally disagree with and which I think has done so much damage to both to the country and our international reputation.

Don't know who I'm going to vote for next year. Waiting to hear more on Lisbon, immigration and social policies.

View original

Fair enough. Won't argue with any of that. Although Blair was far too smarmy for my tastes - he never would have received my vote had I been elligible in 1997. (Not sure I'd have voted for Major either, mind.)

Quote: Aaron @ October 23 2009, 1:02 AM BST

If they'd kept it to the normal style and given Griffin the level field that all other panellists and parties are week-in, week-out, then we'd have had a proper exposé of his political lunacy. Real shame IMO.

View original

Bollocks.

Quote: Aaron @ October 23 2009, 1:04 AM BST

Although Blair was far too smarmy - never would have received my vote had I been elligible in 1997.

View original

It amuses me slightly when Labour and the media accuse Cameron of being a lightweight, having no clear policies and having a slightly vague background to his politics.

When we elected Blair pretty much nobody had a clue about him. Where he came from, what he stood for, what he was actually going to do. He got grilled and questioned far less than Cameron. Cameron gets tainted by the fact that he has little-to-no experience in government. Well, Blair had even less. All that was known about him really was that he was a political shape-shifter who was determined to get to the top. His whole political career had been based on changing his position on policies to suit the prevailing wind. Amazing really that he was considered as a serious politician in the first place.

What it really shows was that when a government is finished (as the Conservatives were then and Labour are now) you can pretty much beat them with anyone.

Quote: Aaron @ October 23 2009, 12:27 AM BST

That's the most united the parties have ever been. How often do you watch the show?!

View original

Apologies Aaron, when I said collusion, I meant that they're all playing the politics game - especially when all parties were attacked for the expenses scandal. They have an unwritten collusion between themselves to not broach certain topics and are more interested in the politics of politics then decisions that effect the working man. (in my perception)

Though technically Tory, Lib Dem, Labour are different parties, they all play by the same rules and come out with the same guff on Europe, the economy, immigration, etc.

I've yet to see a previous QT where one politician turns round and calls another politician a 'Nazi'. Hope that clears up my muddled point.

This might've already been mentioned, but what were the "intercepted radio messages", concerning Jews during the Second World War, that Griffin was on about?

Quote: Aaron @ October 23 2009, 12:45 AM BST

Surely the whole basis of his employment and presence on the show, and of any other presenter's on similar shows, is to be impartial and keep order, not join in?

View original

Yes exactly, normally.
As I said, I like it when someone who is normally impartial is so passionate about the subject that they can't help but show an opinion.

Quote: Kevin Murphy @ October 23 2009, 1:06 AM BST

Bollocks.

View original

That is a fair summary of many of your posts, yes.

Forgive me, I don't recall, but were you objeting to his appearing on the show in the first place?

Unless, perhaps, you're a BNP supporter and believe that giving him a fair platform would have allowed him to put across your views correctly?

Quote: Renegade Carpark @ October 23 2009, 1:13 AM BST

Apologies Aaron, when I said collusion, I meant that they're all playing the politics game - especially when all parties were attacked for the expenses scandal. They have an unwritten collusion between themselves to not broach certain topics and are more interested in the politics of politics then decisions that effect the working man. (in my perception)

Though technically Tory, Lib Dem, Labour are different parties, they all play by the same rules and come out with the same guff on Europe, the economy, immigration, etc.

I've yet to see a previous QT where one politician turns round and calls another politician a 'Nazi'. Hope that clears up my muddled point.

View original

Ah, fair enough then.

Quote: Tim Walker @ October 23 2009, 1:10 AM BST

It amuses me slightly when Labour and the media accuse Cameron of being a lightweight, having no clear policies and having a slightly vague background to his politics.

When we elected Blair pretty much nobody had a clue about him. Where he came from, what he stood for, what he was actually going to do. He got grilled and questioned far less than Cameron. Cameron gets tainted by the fact that he has little-to-no experience in government. Well, Blair had even less. All that was known about him really was that he was a political shape-shifter who was determined to get to the top. His whole political career had been based on changing his position on policies to suit the prevailing wind. Amazing really that he was considered as a serious politician in the first place.

What it really shows was that when a government is finished (as the Conservatives were then and Labour are now) you can pretty much beat them with anyone.

View original

Yeah, that really gets me too. The arguments about Brown being an experienced leader and chancellor, whilst Osborne has none whatsoever are particularly bizarre - AFAIK, El Gordo hadn't been chancellor prior to 1997, and he was given reign (to destroy the country's finances).

Of course, a Conservative politician will always face more scrutiny than a liberal or left one as an innate result of the politics of the media.

Perhaps that makes it all the more impressive, and gives them all the more validity when they do get elected?

Quote: Aaron @ October 23 2009, 1:19 AM BST

That is a fair summary of many of your posts, yes.

Forgive me, I don't recall, but were you objeting to his appearing on the show in the first place?

View original

Nope. Explicitly opposite.

Unless, perhaps, you're a BNP supporter and believe that giving him a fair platform would have allowed him to put across your views correctly?

Nope. I was thinking rather that it's a little bit naive to assume that a level playing field, without people pointing out what a c**t Griffin is, would automatically highlight said c**tishness.

Quote: Aaron @ October 23 2009, 1:25 AM BST

AFAIK, El Gordo hadn't been chancellor prior to 1997, and he was given reign (to destroy the country's finances).

View original

Really? Really? Didn't Brown reside over a rather long period of economic growth?

How much of a c**t he is may not have been pointed out, no. But I care very little about exposing how much of a c**t he may be: it's the sheer idiocy of his party and their policies and beliefs that would and should have been seen. I prefer Policy Politics to Personality Politics.

Quote: Kevin Murphy @ October 23 2009, 1:28 AM BST

Really? Really? Didn't Brown reside over a rather long period of economic growth?

View original

Maxing out the country's credit card is not exactly "economic growth".

Yes, it's very harsh that we forget how well-off the country was when he was Chancellor. Very harsh indeed. I hope Labour remind everyone at the next election just what a brilliant job he did. If only all his brilliant work hadn't been scuppered by this other Brown, you know, the awful Prime Minister who wrecked all his great work.

Quote: Kevin Murphy @ October 23 2009, 1:28 AM BST

Really? Really? Didn't Brown reside over a rather long period of economic growth?

View original

Which has proven to be exactly as I predicted: his growth merely papered over an epic abyss in much the same way that sticks and leaves cover a massive hole dug in the ground of a forest to catch the bad guys. The only growth was to his ego.

Quote: Aaron @ October 23 2009, 1:29 AM BST

How much of a c**t he is may not have been pointed out, no. But I care very little about exposing how much of a c**t he may be: it's the sheer idiocy of his party and their policies and beliefs that would and should have been seen. I prefer Policy Politics to Personality Politics.

View original

Fair do's. Find and Replace.

"I was thinking rather that it's a little bit naive to assume that a level playing field, without people pointing out what a c**t **THE BNP AND ITS POLICIES** is, would automatically highlight said c**tishness."

Quote: Tim Walker @ October 23 2009, 1:10 AM BST

When we elected Blair pretty much nobody had a clue about him. Where he came from, what he stood for, what he was actually going to do. He got grilled and questioned far less than Cameron. Cameron gets tainted by the fact that he has little-to-no experience in government. Well, Blair had even less. All that was known about him really was that he was a political shape-shifter who was determined to get to the top. His whole political career had been based on changing his position on policies to suit the prevailing wind. Amazing really that he was considered as a serious politician in the first place.

View original

Cameron does indeed have experience of government. He was one of Norman Lamont's Special Advisors on Black Wednesday. I think he also came up with the idea for the cones hotline as well. I'll be off now.