Peter Hain and the BNP

Whenever I hear political debates, I normally end up being very glad I'm not a politician. It's not only the childish way such debates are often conducted, but also something more fundamental - I rarely have strong instincts for what should be done to solve any given problem, because I often can't make my mind up about the value of different proposals. So my gut response to politicians is much more on the level of personality than policy and in this I have one overriding conviction, that politicians should be honest. Needless to say, this ends up being rather frustrating.

The latest irritation for me was Peter Hain's letter to the BBC asking them not to allow the British National Party's leader, Nick Griffin, to appear on the debate show Question Time. For any who don't know, the BNP is a far right group proposing, among other things, repatriation of non-white foreigners (whether voluntary or forced is not entirely clear). Personally, I think the attempt to deny any publicity to such groups is completely counter-productive: people will still have these beliefs regardless of whether or not they are publicly expressed and I'd have thought it would be much more sensible to engage them in debate than try to silence them: that simply entrenches them in their views and allows them to take on the role of martyr. However, what really irritated me about Peter Hain's letter was his assertion that the BNP should be barred from the programme not because their views were repugnant (an argument which the government has been pressing to the BBC for weeks) but because their party constitution was found in court to be illegal due to a bar on non-whites membership. In Hain's opinion that makes them an 'unlawful party' and so ineligible to appear on Question Time. Given that the BNP has agreed to amend its constitution, I find Hain's stance very objectionable because I doubt he really believes in his own argument: if he did, then surely he would be pressing for the existing BNP councillors and two MEPs to be immediately be stripped of their responsibilities. Instead, it looks like an attempt on his part to use dubious legal grounds to silence the BNP. In so doing he makes himself appear foolish as well as giving perfect propaganda for the BNP - 'Look how afraid the government are of us."

On the same day I heard Peter Hain's comments I also heard a radio interview with Nick Griffin and he did something rather shocking: he answered all the questions directly. I don't remember the last time I heard that from a politician and I think there's an important lesson here. Politicians often talk about the need to reconnect with voters but invariably mess it up because they simply can't talk directly to the public. They appeared terrified of saying anything which might be misconstrued or used against them in the future. Those unafraid of giving forthright or controversial opinions, as Tony Benn was, are extremely few. The reasons for this are probably complex, but certainly involve the depressing habit of the print and broadcast media to exaggerate any minor controversy to the point of absurdity; in this climate, one can have sympathy for politicians wary of damaging not only their own reputation but also that of their party. Nevertheless, this timidity leaves a gaping hole in the political landscape that politicians like Nick Griffin could easily take advantage of, particularly on a highly-charged issue like immigration. Simply put, it is part of human nature to be selfish, and views like "Britain is for the British" will always be around. To deny this, as the main parties appear to do, leaves the BNP and their ilk to attract people who think, "No-one else is acknowledging how I feel about all these foreigners". Furthermore, there is something attractive about honesty, even if one disagrees with the opinions being expressed, and I suspect this is part of the reason that mainstream politicians are afraid of the BNP gaining in public exposure: they fear the BNP's ability not only to articulate the baser aspects of public opinion, but to attract those disillusioned by the constant double-speak coming from government and opposition alike. If mainstream parties don't have the courage to learn to speak plainly to us about difficult issues, then I think they are by default promoting the BNP's kind of divisive rhetoric which can only be damaging to our society.