The BBC, perhaps in an attempt to revive its flagging popular debate show, is going to give Nick Griffin a platform on a future show, "in the interests of impartiality". The BNP, after all, are now a political party with 2 MEPs that around 1m people voted for at the last European elections.

Big questions raised. Many people are simply outraged; others are saying that to deny the BNP this opportunity (which would be offered without a shrug to other fringe parties like UKIP, or the Greens) would simply provide them with more of the very fuel they've been using to stoke their fires in the first place.

What do you think? At what point do defenders of democracy have to give ground to those very parties who would seek to deny democracy, when they are gaining popular, and possibly subversive, momentum? Allow them a platform and risk raising their support, or deny them that platform and by doing so leave open the obvious criticism that those "defending democracy" are the ones acting wholly contrary to that belief?

For me, I think they have to be allowed on. In fact, it’s a brilliant chance for a politician of stature to really take them to school. It’s more likely a New Labour shill will be made to look like a craven chump.

And I know this isn’t really the place, but I’m still smarting about an article on the Quietus about the BNP’s success in the Euros that reckoned they’d won a seat in the North East. They didn’t. I did try to register to comment, but it didn’t work, which is probably a relief to readers of that fine new institution.

It's an intriguing question. The BNP has a constituency; it would not be democratic to deny them equal access. But I wonder to what extent the BBC would exercise discretion if a jihadist political party were to gain enough electoral support to expect inclusion in debates on the public broadcaster.

Quite simply, anyone interested in democracy has to stop this from happening, including disrupting the programme if it goes ahead.

I'd want it to go ahead, provided they had quality spokespeople from other parties and civil society, rather than soundbite muppets, and no showbiz mascot, but is that down to those parties to put candidates forward or the BBC to invite them?

We live by the sword and die by the sword when it comes to democracy, ultimately. The BNP are a vile political party but, setting aside the obvious emotional and intellectual reasons why I believe they should be denied a place on the panel, I can't see any reasons for excluding them that wouldn't make the BBC's position a hypocritical one. The BNP will themselves be delighted with this level of debate surrounding their prospective appearance on the programme. It pushes them onto the agenda in households and regions where normally they wouldn't get a mention. It's a win-win scenario for the bastards: grant them a place and they gain a soapbox on the national broadcasting service to disseminate their views; deny them a place and they get to accuse their opponents of undemocratic acts and hypocrisy.

There's no easy solution to an issue like this so the best option would probably be to allow them to speak and gradually give them enough rope to hang themselves with. Their fundamental beliefs would be considered repugnant by the majority of viewers so you just have to trust in the intelligence of the audience. There is always the worry that the representative they send will turn out to be a savvy, insidious political mastermind who might engineer a "You know, this guy might be onto something here..." moment but that's a risk that has to be taken.

Andrew Brons was already on the Sunday morning discussion thing, so this is the next logical step.

I think it was Felicity who said how support for them grew when they were allowed on TV to be contraversial. So there are strong reasons not to want that.

But I don't think it's about democracy. Revolutionary socialists aren't democrats.

Well...
a) I was taking on the argument in the terms it was launched (i.e. it would be only democratic to allow them on)

and b) Revolutionary Socialists are democratic. I believe in extending democracy from a once-every-5-years token pretence to every domain of life.

In narrow terms of "it'll expose them/the audience's intelligence etc " I would refer you to the French example-there was no possible evidence that giving a minority figure like Le Pen airtime in the 80s 'to expose him' had any effect other than to make him respectable and extend his reach into popular opinion.

It doesn't work like that, certainly not in times of recession and crisis in mainstream politics.

It's a question where pure principle ought to take precedence over possible after-effects.

They have to be allowed on.

I'm not saying you're wrong about socialism/democracy or making an argument of equivalence for socialism/fascism, but I think the argument's going to be very awkward to sustain about long term democracy at some unspecified time. Stalin had long enough and wasn't very democratic, yet I don't think a Stalinist would have been denied a place on the Question Time panel.

France is a very persuausive example, to be avoided at all costs. Don't know quite how to express that though.

There is genuine akwardness from New Labour about the EU and immigration, to use the two most obvious BNP cards. They aren't going to come out and demolish the BNP from a liberal/left position because they've never had one. It will be very easy for the BNP to look good.

G.Man wants a hyphen wrote:
It's an intriguing question. The BNP has a constituency; it would not be democratic to deny them equal access. But I wonder to what extent the BBC would exercise discretion if a jihadist political party were to gain enough electoral support to expect inclusion in debates on the public broadcaster.

Worryingly, I find myself in agreement with Herr G-man.
Though I reckon there are more racists in Britain than people in favour of any jihad(direct action v.Israel?), currently....

Rogin the Armchair Fan wrote:
The BBC, perhaps in an attempt to revive its flagging popular debate show

Is Question Time really flagging? I've not read or heard anything about declining ratings (then again, I'm not a UK resident so I don't suppose it's the kind of thing I would hear about in conversation).

It's (almost) always been a late-night niche show, and with the greater choice of podcasts, regional variants, satellite synications etc. etc. does it really matter if the audience is only 1,000,0000 instead of 1,500,000 (or whatever, I don't follow ABC ratings closely)?

I'd let Griffin or Brons on.

CV, far from being the old-style direct political debating show it used to be, where the likes of Tony Benn, Roy Jenkins and Norman Tebbitt would keep Sir Robin Day's audience enthralled with their verbal sparring about the issues of the day, they've resorted over the last couple of years to "spicing things up" by inviting the likes of Germaine Greer, JK Rowling, Jamie Oliver or Jeremy Clarkson along, to add in their "voice of the people" type views. I don't think it's about ratings, per se, as much as keeping the show in the headlines, at a time when the beeb is increasingly seen as an expensive irrelevance by the mainstream parties; not a great position for the publicly-funded broadcaster to be in, when all parties have cutting back "non-essential public services" right at the top of their agendas.

Anyway, this season's editors have apparently decided to add in the apparently needed "spice" by inviting contributions from the more controversial fringe elements of British politics, Nick Griffin being this year's obvious headline-maker. G-Man's point about a jihadist being invited onto the show might yet prove to be foresight rather than jest.

Felicity, I guess so wrote:
Quite simply, anyone interested in democracy has to stop this from happening, including disrupting the programme if it goes ahead.

But surely this would just allow them to say "You can't win a debate against us, so you have to protest to stop the truth coming out"?

I'd happily have them on. And would very much hope that each of the big three parties were able to nominate their best debater to show them up for what they are.

Or better than that, a well versed representative from either the Campaign for Racial Equality or the Muslim Council of Britain, or a similarly placed organisation.

CarnivorousVulgaris wrote:
Rogin the Armchair Fan wrote:
The BBC, perhaps in an attempt to revive its flagging popular debate show

Is Question Time really flagging? I've not read or heard anything about declining ratings (then again, I'm not a UK resident so I don't suppose it's the kind of thing I would hear about in conversation).

The 14 May 2009 edition of Question Time saw it record its highest viewing figures in its 30 year run, of 3.8 million, over the MPs' expenses row, with audience members heckling guest panellists Minzies Campbell and Margaret Beckett. This figure was a million more than usual, and surpassed the figure of 3.4 million recorded in 2003 for the declaration of the war on Iraq.

The BBC should have the balls to exclude the BNP on the grounds that the latter's constitution enshrines discrimation, if not in fact promoting outright criminal activity. They have much place on national TV as the Raping Women Party.

Rogin the Armchair Fan wrote:
CV, far from being the old-style direct political debating show it used to be, where the likes of Tony Benn, Roy Jenkins and Norman Tebbitt would keep Sir Robin Day's audience enthralled with their verbal sparring about the issues of the day, they've resorted over the last couple of years to "spicing things up" by inviting the likes of Germaine Greer, JK Rowling, Jamie Oliver or Jeremy Clarkson along, to add in their "voice of the people" type views. I don't think it's about ratings, per se, as much as keeping the show in the headlines, at a time when the beeb is increasingly seen as an expensive irrelevance by the mainstream parties; not a great position for the publicly-funded broadcaster to be in, when all parties have cutting back "non-essential public services" right at the top of their agendas.

This has been happening since the addition of the fifth guest in 1999 (although there was almost always a non "party-political" guest filling the fourth chair for the twenty years prior to that). It's an obvious attempt at inclusivity (and less annoying than the please text/mail/twitter us your views of recent years) and a reaction to the lessening of respect towards politicians. It's also probably a reaction to the blandness of most governement and shadow ministers.

Sometimes it works though, some of the best stints on the panel I have ever seen have been from people like Auberon Waugh (pre-1999) or Ian Hislop.

Ric Bailey, BBC's Political Adviser and former Question Time Editor, explains the BBC's position

Ric Bailey wrote:
The news that Question Time is likely to invite the BNP's Nick Griffin to be a panellist at some stage has set off a keen debate in the newspapers and among politicians. Of course, Mr Griffin has been on many other BBC programmes, including the Andrew Marr Show during the summer - so why is an appearance on Question Time front-page news?

It's true there is something different. For a start, panellists, whether they are party politicians or not, are being given a platform to share their views with the audience on a broad range of subjects. That's not quite the same as, say, an interview on Today or Newsnight, where an interviewer pursues a particular line of questioning, usually on a specific issue.

But that is not to say that politicians, when they appear on Question Time, or other debating programmes such as Any Questions on Radio 4, are not being subjected to the tough level of scrutiny which is central to BBC journalism. Ask any cabinet minister - a Conservative in the mid-90s, one from Labour more recently - and they'll tell you that it's often there, with an engaged and passionate audience, where you find out just how well thought through are your policies and views.

Sitting on a panel is also different because it usually involves more interaction with other politicians - and this is where the newspaper stories are particularly interesting. It's said that Labour is reviewing its stance of not sharing a platform with the BNP. All the other parties are having to come to terms with the fact that the BNP won two seats in the recent European election, giving them representation at a national level for the first time.

For the BBC, it's quite straightforward. "Due impartiality" means we have to take account of the political context when we're making editorial judgements, day in day out. There isn't one single formula which applies in all circumstances. So how do we decide what are appropriate levels of airtime for the different political parties? Our starting point for that judgement - though not the only factor - is how real people vote in real elections.

Measuring impartiality is less about mathematics and more about good judgement - but let's just look at the maths for a moment. In the recent European election, the BNP won more than 6% of the vote across Britain - approaching a million people. In some regions it was close to 10%. Like the Greens, they now have two MEPs - far fewer than UKIP - but they also have over 50 local councillors - fewer than the Greens, many more than UKIP.

Ever since UKIP and the Greens won representation at a national level, they have appeared from time to time on Question Time. Inviting the BNP onto the panel would be a continuation of the approach which recognises that the level of electoral support is a relevant factor in making these judgements.

The BBC could not apply different standards to different parties because of their particular policies. That would be a breach of our charter, challengeable in the courts.

But it's not fear of the lawyers or lobbying from the BNP themselves which would prompt an invitation to Nick Griffin. Impartiality is at the core of the BBC's journalism and this is a normal part of the process of constantly asking ourselves how we should be defining that impartiality in a changing political environment.