Nick griffin

As far as the BNP is concerned, Nick Griffin has already won this Question Time debate. It’s not about whether he does badly or well – he simply wins from the publicity. He’s been on Channel Four news, got an interview in today’s Times, all will be splashed all across the tabloids tomorrow – and that’s before we consider the Question Time slot itself. Then, he will win because, as we emphasise in the leader of this week’s magazine, millions watch Question Time. For every 50 people who think he disgraced himself, there may be only one person who thinks he might have a point. But, for Griffin, that will be enough. To compound the issue, the panel are pitching themselves at the different audiences.

Hardly a day passes without Nick Griffin cosying up to a poster of Churchill and the Few. Valour provides potent nationalist imagery, but Griffin has no right to it – as his distinctly ambiguous stance on the Ghurkhas’ residency rights makes clear. This morning, senior officers, in conjunction with Nothing British, condemned Griffin’s opportunism:   ‘We, the undersigned, are increasingly concerned that the reputation of Britain’s Armed Services is being tarnished by political extremists who are attempting to appropriate it for their own dubious ends. We deplore this trend for two reasons.

Up to now, MEPs can use Westminster’s facilities; but, yesterday, Nick Brown tabled a deplorable motion in the House of Commons - to ban Nick Griffin from parliament. Just in case there were any doubt, Andrew Dismore spelled it out, saying Brown's motion would "mean that the newly elected British National Party members would not be allowed to get into this place. Most Members are of the view that that should be the case." I bet they are. But why? Whose fault is it that Griffin was elected in the first place? As I argued in the News of the World a while ago: if I had my way, I'd base Griffin in Westminster so MPs would see his smug face walking past them every day.