Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
If they go ahead on question time?
I say Richard herring, George Galloway, Tony Benn
but i would also like someone not so obviously left-wing
I don't really see how it is that some left-wing ideologue is best placed to take on the BNP in a debate. Anyone with half a brain will do.
And it would make the counter-arguments more credible if they came from a source that the floating voters won't dismiss as a 'typical leftie'
The BNP have been desperately trying to gain that working class ground so it would be more interesting.
Someone very left wing will just look really soppy and wet next to him. You need someone so Tory he'd think Griffin was scum even if he wasn't a racist cunt
are holding a no platform stance, coz they know that is the best way to battle fascism, so that won't happen. and soppy & wet? not all left wingers are vegetarian hippies! Bob Crow, probably one of the most well known left leaning people in Britain, is a bloody bloke!
To clarify: I don't think Bob Crow is a cunt because he's left-leaning or an authority figure. I think he's a cunt because he is a cunt.
But we digress...
He came across as much less of a cunt than I expected.
The "no platform stance" is all well and good but, assuming Question Time give them a platform, it's a bit pointless and unproductive to stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la, this isn't happening".
we're going to stop Griffin from entering the building.
b) And you'll play directly into Griffin's hands by allowing him to claim the UAF are undemocratic bullies who refuse to engage with issues and instead try to silence debate.
You remain in your anarchistic state of fighting capitalism and fascism! You quite clearly know more than historical fact.
Is this guy for real?
I'm buggered if I know what he's gpoing on about here. I've absolutely no idea what historical facts he's referring to. I think it may be unrelated to or a misconstruction of actual history though.
shows that the best way to fight fascism is through direct action. If you look at Le-Pen in France he was not challenged with direct action adn this enablled him to build a popular movement, with a 'respectable' fact. Now the French National Front is one of the most powerful parties in France.
Nazi Germany: No movement direct movement against them until it was too late, and instead the left movement turned against itself with the KPD calling the SPD "fascists" instead of centering their attentions on the NSDAP.
Britain 1970's and 1930's: Direct action and fighting in the streets meant that the fascist organisations were demoralised and defeated. This is the same tactic we should be taking against the BNP.
Especially as you could argue that you're using a form of inductive logic of assuming what's true in those three cases is true of all cases and also assuming that the link in all three cases is whether direct action was or was not taken, when countless other factors could explain why there was a rise in Fascism in France and Germany but not in Britain.
To be honest I think the far more important difference between Britain in the 1930s/1970s and Germany in the 1930s is that conditions improved before a mass of people turned to extremism. Don't get me wrong - the Anti-Fascists played their part in the 1970s but ultimately it was fact that most people's lives never got so bad they got so desperate as to be extremists that was the key differential in my view. This is a matter of conjecture though.
Plus you could argue that all the direction action of the 1970s achieved was to push the extremism under the surface and into the cracks of society meaning it wasn't tackled until all of a sudden now it's appeared as a seemingly more mainstream proposition in the form of the BNP.
There are direct links in the cases that direct action won. Italy, Germany and France had little or no direct action at the beginning of the fascist movements, and Britain had a distinctive and strong direct movement against the Fascist in both 1930's and 70's.
The conditions in Germany never improved, to be honest. Inflation went down, but the 6m that were put in State schemes were on worse money than they were before the Nazi took charge.
Of course on your point of pushing it underground, I agree with you on that, but I'd say it's better to keep on defeating fascism every couple of decades than allowing a big, frightening Fascist movement to grow in power and influence to the point were it is invincible to defeat.
street fighting and violent confrontations between fascists and communists in Germany were a huge contributary factor in creating a climate whereby it was thought that making Hitler Chancellor was a good idea.
much of the fighting was done in working class districts that were distinctly anti-fascist. much of the voting power for the nazi's were the rural areas. If the SDP and KPD had united they could have made a coalition government but that was the soviet union's fault it never happened.
Anyway, I do agree that getting communities out to protest anti-Fascist protests is a good move. I wouldn't dispute that and would probably go.
It's more the PR disasters like egging Nick Griffin in front of the media or potentially trying to physically stopping him enter the Newsnight studio that I think just make the UAF look like an aggressive mob of bullies to the majority of the population.
I'm sure you're joking really but in the event that you actually think they way you appear to: you are precisely the problem when it comes to the BNP and their publicity. It is precisely people like you who inhibit any discussion over actual matters of politics and policies by turning every debate that the BNP could be made to look exceedingly silly at into a discussion solely about the BNP's right to exist and have a democratic platform.
People in the rural districts would have been aware of the fighting in the cities.
Plus it was the threat of more severe Communist direct action that allowed Hitler to get the two thirds of the government vote he needed to suspend the constitution, link the power of the Head of Govt. with the Power of the Head of State and secure enough control to impose a dictatorship.
a) The people in the rural areas would have been aware what was going on in the cities. It could easily have impacted on the voting.
b) It was fear of Communist Direct action (exaggerated, of course, by the Nazis but a realistic enough proposition to be credible) that got Hitler the two thirds of the vote from Parliament he needed to suspend the consitution and institute a dictatorship.
It's nonsense to say there was no direct action against the Nazis in the 20s and 30s because there was.
Things were so bad the Reichstag got burned down and, although it seems likely the Nazis did it, it was plausible to blame it on Communists. Things must have escalated pretty badly for burning government buildings to be plausible.
And there was a fuckload of fighting between Communists and Fascists in the 1930s so where does this "no direct action" thing come from.
Plus, going onto the last paragraph, surely the fact the BNP that's emerged 20 years after Fascism was pushed underground is bigger and more popular than the movements of the 1970s shows that pushing it underground can help it to grow in power.
I can't help thinking that, like the direct action of 1930s Communists gave the Nazis the mandate to claim society was under threat from unelected violent thugs and consolidate their support by fear, the UAF's direct action can backfire in a similar way.
The UAF's direct action in Westminster the day after the Euro election is probably the best PR coup the BNP have had in months and handed them a chance to claim they're persecuted and under siege. I can't help thinking Direct Action will ultimately strengten rather than weaken the BNP.
Ultimately the first thing the UAF and the left need to take on the BNP is recognise they are very different to the extremists of the 1970s and the same parallels don't apply. The BNP are smart, politically-savvy and know how to use the media to their advantage. The direct action of the 1970s and 1930s was countering force with stronger force, and made perfect sense. Nowadays it's not force we're up against and the more violent we (i.e. he left) are, the more the BNP will spin it against us and use it to their advantage.
But, Germany is an entirely different culture from Britain. I think that people in Britain are intelligent, unlike many people say, and recognise Fascism/Nazism = Bad. I've done around a dozen stalls on petitions and selling tickets to protests against the BNP and the majority of people have been passionate about stopping the BNP, and only a very small minority have been pro-BNP.
But, I'd still stand by UAF and SWP in the best way to stand against the BNP is by not giving them a platform to spout their views. There is a decent booklet by Alex Calinicous (What is Racism?) that I found basic, but informative on the best way to combat the BNP, even though it is a little dated, it's content is still useful.
Pretty racist, dude.
Also: passionately anti-BNP signing anti-BNP petitions? WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGH IT???
both before and after the war.
Either he's a troll, and a pretty amusing one, or he's yer classic teenage radical stereotype who can bray on about dialectical materialism until the cows come home but doesn't have clue about the real world.
I don't really care which. It's all good.
So it was Labour I was thinking of.
Oh please God pick Hague
(I don't think Cameron is God)
perhaps Jeremy Paxman
or perhaps John Humphreys or Snow, but I'm not sure how they'd stand up in that sort of situation.
I'm referring to Paxman, NOT Cameron
Is it the first in the new season?
you belong with such luminaries?
The day we found out he was alive was genuinely one of the happiest days I've ever had.
called Dickie Davis..but it's not the same one!
I wish I'd have had Dickiepedia at school.
"In the early 1990s, Dickie suffered a stroke, which forced him to give up his work on Classic FM, but eventually made a good recovery. In the mid 1990s he fronted "Dickie Davies' Sporting Heroes" and "Bobby Charlton's football scrapbook" for British Sky Broadcasting."
I don't know.
Hague would be cool.
And Christopher Hitchens.
any decent destruction of Griffin's arguments will be lost in the air of utter twattery that galloway emits...
so as to avoid confrontation and damage to his party in the eyes of the public.
The Ghost of Rod Hull
Hacksaw Jim Duggan
Lucian Freud (RIP)
The Four Horse Men of the Apocolypse and
How about you?
I want him to get on there and say NICK GRIFFIN DOESN'T CARE ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE
you are the inrelevance who harks back to the swivel-eyed socialism of the grim 70s, more like
incoherent and flippant and unengaged in anything. i swear he started every point with "well, i know nothing about this subject"
Was it at that point that you realised you were watching a SINGER IN A BAND talking about politics?
and pretty much everyone i know (not the scummy ones, obviously) could have been better and more informed than him, and i'm 21.
i thought he was at least a bit informed and able to you know... talk. and discuss.
Funny how your heroes always tend to be crap on talk panels
The day Lee Chapman makes an arse of himself on Question Time is going to be a very hard day for me to take.
is especially bad at them!
and at least articulate
will self would alienate the non-student, non-former student section of viewers
jarvis cocker is a buffoon - he really does demonstrate fully why most musicians and actors should just not do anything other than their job
He still wrote I Spy
Tariq Ali can kiss my grits.
disguised as Yasmin Alibhai-Brown.
"I think our gains in the European elections show that..."
failing that, Malcolm Tucker!
Cameron, Haig, David Mitchel, and maybe Merton (Mrs(Aherne) or Paul(to help sucker him into revealing more about his opinions)
who to debate with the BNP, but how to stop the BNP getting publicity. BNP being on a television programme that airs to millions will only allow their movement to grow and become stronger - something we all don't want.
"The only way to remove the cancer of Nazism is to deny it the chance to be a vehicle for the growing anger at the economic crisis. That means we must starve it of the publicity it craves."
not jonathan ross
...could you stop posting crap like this, please?
Not you. :)
'Tyranny' would be dangerous if it was being carried out by a singular, centralised leader, but the UAF is a grass roots organisation set up to stop Fascist movement in Britain. If we want to get rid of the BNP, which I presume you wish for, the most efficent way to carry this out is through a violent and direct resistance, other diplomatic ways have failed (see: France, Germany and Italy)
And it's a pretty stupid admission of defeat given the battle's a very winnable one.
The majority of struggles in the past have been won by violent and direct action. You keep going along in your diplomatic views for every fight you come against and you'll soon find yourself undone. The fight against fascism, in context, means you need violence to smash the movement, I quoted Hitler in a previous thread, and basically, he sums up what the Left wing need to do to smash a Fascist movement, but Russia took up a popular front movement.
Ultimately violence only has its place when the ideological arguments are lost and, even then, it's only a solution to restore power enough to re-engage the ideological arguments.
Ultimately if you never tackle the ideological arguments the popular support continues to grow, even if the explicit powerbase is constrained. Which means the ideas will continue to grow on the underground to a point where you have to fight them again in the future and it's a much bigger battle.
At the moment we have an ideological and popular support advantage over the BNP. It's essential we maintain that.
Yet again, you show that there are new grounds of ignorance for people to discover. You are one of the most misguided people I have ever come across. Fuck off.
no-one will care, but he is kinda right
But i find it annoying when he is dismissed as a crank.
Ignoring the celebrity and self-promotion, and his parliamentary misdemeanours - he is extremely articulate and direct in debate, and i back his views on the war 100%
he has a massive porn collection as well! you didn't hear this from me...
That was pretty cool. It inspired me to make sure I said please and thank you for the entire day.
and I had a few too few crossbows on me that week.
i support his background of over 30 years in politics working on issues around social justice.
he's refreshing amongst a sea of careerist faceless graduates.
Are we going with this?
he's not exactly whiter than white.
i'll shoosh now.
When you say you back his views on the war 100%, does this include his cuddling up to Saddam Hussein or merely his utter failure to address the tyranny of Saddam Hussein's rule and how to tackle tyranny without warfare and instead playing down that issue 'cos it didn't fit in with his political views?
that his work in Iraq very much revolved around an end to human rights violations and the need for sanctions, without resorting to war.
so yes i agree with that.
We're talking about a regime that killed people, gassed people, raped people, tortured people, imprisoned trade unionists and political opponents etc. I think we can safely knock that on the head right now.
If Galloway opposed sanctions and opposed war, what solution did he propose? Sit back and let Saddam Hussein fuck over his own people appears to be the only option left.
But the point is that none of this is related to the arguments Galloway is/was making. On balance I was and remain anti-war. I just also really object to Galloway's style of over-simplifying a complicated issue.
My argument is i'm in favour of the Galloway approach of diplomacy, to try and get Iraq, the UN and governments talking. I don't he should be villified for this, whether you agree with the war or not.
I'm a pacifist though, and we can get into a minefield of the real reasons for war and who sold weapons to who.
Perhaps you should tell George Galloway that?
Given his "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability" speech he clearly missed the memo on that one.
I'm not convinced Galloway was the only one attempting to find a diplomatic solution to Iraq. I've no problem with that in theory but the main problem I have with Galloway is that he seemed to rule out all possible action of any kind to deal with the Iraqi regime and tried to play down the extent of their tyranny and play up the tyranny of the US in a way that pretty much invalides him as the neutral peacemaker you seem to be trying to make him out to be.
i don't think i know enough to continue with the debate, and i've kind of been shot down.
is that when Crossrail was being debated in Parliament, a project that would have a massive effect on his constituents in Bethnal Green, he was in the Big Brother house pretending to be a cat.
You're on the internet
By people who know more about something than i do.
What about Clegg or Lucas? You'd think they'd make a decent fist of it
Ah. I hear he went to Cambridge - whack him in!
Will Self is a good shout. Chris Morris as a "secret" character would be interesting (like when he was on that talk show ages ago)
Maxster / Sargeydan
Sargeydan: "BNP baad. I jizzed on my fingers"
infact he should be on it every week
definitely NOT that Amnesty bint who is the worst PR person they could ever have chosen
knowing the BBC they will 100% make sure that they have all the ethnic minorities covered to appease anyone who thinks the BNP shouldn't be getting the airtime, which will probably result in an epic backfire cos they'll get shappi khorsandi and Frank Bruno who won't have any facts to dispute the BNP's stupid claims and will come across badly and fail in what the show should be about, which is completely destroying every myth about asylum seekers, immigration, etc. Ideally we need someone there who has read every BNP leaflet and has done masses of research and can dispute all their lies, unquestioned.
Jesus is right. She's a PR disaster.
being buggered with a strap-on in the Manumission Hotel while having liquid LSD dropped in her eyes.
that young Lib Dem lady with the big face
George Galloway might be a bit too full on, but seeing him and griffin battling wits is definitely something i'd want to see at some point.
not the girl from Liberty (but the BBC would definitely 100% get her in)
Definitely. He is intelligent and likeable and that can't be said of many of the suggestions above.
He would make Griffin seem moronic without needing to invoke the indulgent, evangelical self-righteousness of Galloway.
He would ruin those bitches
Celeb: Frank Skinner (maybe David Mitchell)
Lab: Tony Benn
Con: Ken Clarke
Lib: Chris Huhne (or Paddy Ashdown)
I'd say all of those are able to get their ideas across to folk without getting the publics backs up before they've said more than 2 words, unlike Shami Chakrabarti (too self righteous, however correct she may be), Will Self (possibly too abrasive), George Galloway (ditto), Most Lab MPs (meh), Most Con MPs (meh)...
Would probably resonate with the BNP-centric public more.
then surely Prince Phillip should be in there too
the celebs would be willing to face up to Griffin, expose his crazy notions, and the general BNP-leaning populace would take more notice than if the same function had been performed by the usual Question Time lot.
I don't care about whether she is bothered about some cross-eyed twat fascist; I want to read a Nick Griffin diary in the Guardian. Shame she is married.
I cannot see the BBC plumping for a comedy figure, perhaps someone that belongs to an ethnic minority group (as long as they aren't the doyenne of The Wright Stuff - I'm looking at you Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and Dr David Bull).
pick the bones out of that one
& Stella Tennant
I probably can't stand galloway as much as i can't stand griffin!
He's a pretty smart guy in interviews - that's the most dangerous thing about him. If people go on there and think they can be complacent and not prepared to argue their ground there's a real chance he could come out on top. They need damn good debaters with well-researched facts but it's important goes on there accepts that Griffin'll be calm under pressure and know his arguments well and be prepared to counter that.
Mind you, I think the sharpest thing the BBC could do is invite somebody else from the BNP on there instead of Griffin. Get someone like Mark Collett on and the BNP'll be torn to shreds in less than 5 minutes.
A man who pretended to be a cat on national television. He's an insect.
William Hague please.
He'd be my Tory choice for sure.
"you are a fundamentally racist party
you are a fundamentally racist party
you are a fundamentally racist party
you are a fundamentally racist party
you are a fundamentally racist party"
like any of the token lefties will.
would be good.
you need someone nice on the surface with the mind of a complete bastard. cameron definitely.
who's john denham by the way? i'm not aware of him outside of the you tube clips i just watched. have i missed much?
The Virgin EPG said it was gonna be This Week at 23:35.
So I watched the second half of Gregory's Girl and stayed up for it, only to be greeted with some Panorama bull on swine flu. This Week's not on until next week, apparently.
but what's the use in proetesting his presence on the show? He won't exactly speaking to people with an open mind to his cause anyway. Surely it's at least slightly helpful to the anti-facist among us that he will be presumably ripped to pieces on tv.
Quite disappointed by it.
Also is this this week or next?
Sadly it will probably give QT there biggest rating in years.
It's a chance for the UK to see how utterly feeble and flawed the BNPs policies are.
It will also be pleasing to see how ineffectual Nick Griffin is when faced with reasoned debate, as opposed to when he's able to preach to a bunch of rabid, knuckle dragging half-wits.
but I fear that's not what will happen and like most good debates everyone will come away that bit more entrenched their views.
Still, hope I'm wrong.
I think he will end up appealing to an older middle class generation who think the tories have gone soft.
Also I have a feeling someone like the ANL will start an on air protest trying to silence him which will probably just make them look bad.
because i reckon it's far more likely that someon crackpot in the audience or one of the panel kicks off and ends up making him look like a victim
that the victim mentality will potentially generate sympathy.
In other news: On JEzza Vine on R2 today, they were talking about some race related issue or other, and how in some parts of some towns (or whatever), the "white population" is less than 50%. So "the white, indiginous population, is in the minority".
Which not-so-neatly sidesteps the issues of A) foreign white folk and B) indigenous non-white folk, whilst also lumping all non-white folk together as a homogenous grouping, as if "they" (non-white folk, indigenous, or otherwise) are cosied up together and out to get "us" (indigenous white-folk), or something.
It's this kind of feeble-minded poor grasp of the basic facts of the matter that the BNP will try to seize upon, but needs to be addressed from the off.
No need for any elaborate explanations, just keep it simple, and give Griffin plenty of rope to hang himself with.