Dishainesty

Tweet I didn't see Question Time; any knowledge I have of the programme is based solely on news reports and what other bloggers have to say on the matter.

It was always going to be a bit of a 'no win' situation for the Beeb. They have been criticised for including Griffin; but they could equally have been open to criticism if they chose to ignore the fact that the BNP did actually win two seats in the European elections. And they've been criticised for the format - but I suspect that they would also have been criticised had they not adopted the approach which they chose.

Blaming the broadcasters is something of an easy way out, it seems to me, and I think that Hain in particular has been very unfair in his criticism. The BBC weren't to blame for the fact that sufficient numbers of people voted for the BNP to gain them two MEPs. The BBC have to operate within a legal framework laid down for them - by politicians - and expecting them to decide which political parties are allowed a platform and which are not is giving them a degree of power which does not belong to broadcasters.

Political parties have to operate within a legal framework as well - and that framework is also decided by the politicians. So, when a political party which is legal and registered under the law wins seats in a democratic election, I can't see how a broadcaster which is bound by statute to political impartiality was left with a lot of choice.

Politicians such as Hain may find the BBC an easy target - but they as a government have laid down the framework within which both parties and broadcasters operate. If the lawmakers consider that the law cannot be used to prevent an organisation like the BNP from operating, on what basis do they expect the BBC to do the job for them? Blaming someone else is just dishonesty.

Debasing the currency

Tweet When words are over-used and mis-used in politics in order to either insult opponents or attempt to blacken them by associating them with certain ideas or actions, it ends up debasing the words themselves. The result is that the words become less powerful when they are really needed and relevant.

Two examples which immediately spring to mind are 'fascist' and 'racist'. Far too many have used the term 'Fascist' as little more than a term of abuse for anyone with right wing views. I'll admit to not having been able to find an entirely satisfactory definition of the term itself, although it's derived from the Italian word which Mussolini and his supporters used to describe what passed for their political philosophy, of course.

Were the Nazis also fascists? They may have shared a certain amount of their political philosophy, but I'm not convinced that 'National Socialism' and 'Fascism' are truly the same thing. And merely having been 'on the same side' in a war doesn’t make them the same thing. There's a danger of over-simplification of history.

Plaid have suffered for many years from the attempt of some in the Labour Party to associate the term with our party. Some of them seem to have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to 'prove' some sort of link between Saunders Lewis and other early Plaid figures on the one hand and Nazi Germany on the other, as though that somehow, even if it were true, can honestly be used to taint Plaid Cymru today.

(Not all Labour people take the same line on this issue, however; I don't want to fall into the same trap of tarring everyone with the same brush. I particularly liked this analysis by Adam Higgitt).

Racist is another word which has been used as a term of political abuse - and again, sadly, there have been people in the Labour Party keen to hurl the term at Plaid, usually when it comes to issues connected with the Welsh language.

The objective of this approach to politics is to use negative labels as a substitute for debate, when we should really be debating the substance.

The problem is that this abuse of the words has debased the currency of the language of politics to such an extent that the accusation can be all too easily ignored. The election of two MEPs from the BNP to represent these islands in the EU highlights the need, surely, for more precision in the use of language in politics, and for moving away from simply hurling labels at each other.

I note already that some have taken to referring to the BNP on every occasion as fascists and racists, and I have a concern that some of this is, again, more to do with labelling and insult than hard political fact. I'm not sure whether or not they are fascists. I don't think that they have any thought through ideology at all; and I'm not convinced that being an apologist for some of the horrendous actions of the Nazis is enough to justify the use of the term.

Racists, anti-Semitists, and holocaust-deniers, however, they undoubtedly are, as their own statements on a number of occasions clearly demonstrate.

Their arguments are dangerous and need to be countered. But they need to be countered by reasoned argument and persuasion of the electors who have been or are likely to be attracted into voting for them. Using words as terms of abuse hasn't worked to date, and it's unlikely to work in future.