Well, despite all the protests and complaints, it went ahead. Nick Griffin, leader of controversial right wing party the BNP, appeared for the first time on Question Time.
Predictably, the party's exposure to a Nationwide audience provoked outrage as Griffin, although unsurprisingly more subdued than usual (check out this speech made to a group of right-wing extremists in the US: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04QolIvfQEw ) still managed to make a few ludicrous claims such as that if Churchill had been alive today he would be a member of the BNP, which is the focus of the story in The Times today.
While the debates about whether Griffin should have been allowed on Question Time in the first place or whether he will be allowed on again will continue to rage, a new debate will now surely take centre stage, how effective was his performance on the show?
Inevitably the focus of the show was centered on Griffin and his controversial beliefs on issues of race, immigration and multiculturalism. There are two ways to objectively view his performance when it came down to answering questions on these topics.
Number one, Griffin showed a lot of bottle when it came to facing 300 hostile people and was always going to struggle when it came down to answering these questions. He did his best at trying to debate but every time he opened his mouth he was instantly shouted down or had to deal with choruses of boos and jeers from the audience.
Number two, Griffin couldn't hold his own when it came down to intense scrutiny by the panel and audience, choosing to hide himself behind a child-like-veil of 'I didn't do it' when it came down to accounting for his own words, even when he was confronted with video evidence.
Which ever you believe, there is no denying that Griffin can have a case for believing he was treated 'unfairly' as only about 10% of the show was spent discussing his parties policies. The other 90% was (rightly) focused on Griffin attempting to fend off attacks about his personal beliefs and his highly controversial quotes.
The star of the show was undoubtedly David Dimbleby who controlled the show brilliantly. Dimbleby consistently highlighted Griffins shortcomings by pressing him every time he tactically avoided answering questions and he constantly levelled Griffins' own quotes at him and got nothing but consistently nervous and unconvincing responses.
By the end, the audience were essentially ridiculing Griffin. Things were being shouted from all areas of the crowd and people seemed to just get tired of what he had to say. Griffin showed himself to be a nervous and rambly public speaker who tirelessly contradicted himself. However, it is difficult to know how he may have performed when faced with a different audience and a more political line of questioning.
The BNP claim that last night gave them the biggest recruitment drive in their history, with over 3,000 people joining the party. In a poll on the Daily Mail website, 55% of people believe the appearance was a success for Griffin and the BNP.
In this authors opinion, successful or not, Griffin should become a regular guest on Question Time. Maybe then he will get to truly show how much of a politician he ain't and people will soon start to see the real side of him, rather than a slimy yet very clever PR man.
Griffin on Question Time - more harm than good?
Posted by
Matt 'Cliff' Clifford
Friday, 23 October 2009
Labels: bnp , dimbleby , news , nick griffin , question time
0 comments:
Post a Comment