I'm still mulling over what to make of the QT appearence and what impact I think it will have - I reckon at present I have mixed feelings:
Due to the vast publicity surrounding it - the protests outside, debates in the press about whether it should have been allowed, etc - it was never going to an 'ordinary' edition of QT, whether the BBC wanted it to be or not.
But having said that, to an extent I agree with the points gumdrops and others have said - they devoted too much time to the BNP alone, the audience and panel seemed very chummy with each other (though I think there were a few BNP supporters there, I remember Griffin getting scattered applause for some responses, along with angry/shocked reaction to this from the rest of the crowd), and whilst the other political guests controlled the debate well and came over very confidently, a lot of the points they made seemed like empty moralising which prob wouldn't win over the unconverted.
So I can easily see Griffin and the BNP being able to spin the appearence, at least to their own members and present supporters, as a stich-up, and as more evidence that the established parties are scared of the BNP, that the BNP are the only real alternative to the liberal, PC elite, etc etc.
(I'm in two minds as to what to make of the 3 party members seeming to try and outdo each other at being tough on immigration, btw. I think it was a real attempt to address their neglected voting base, the previous letting down of which is obv a factor in the rise in BNP support. But it already worries me that in doing so, they could cede too much ground to the BNP positions and gradually allow them into the mainstream political discourse).
But having said all that, I think it's unarguable that Griffin came over really badly for the vast majority of the show: giving evasive answers to any questions on the controversial areas of BNP policy and strategy, and saying a fair ammount of things that just didn't make any sense and bordered on conspiracy theory (the way he presented himself in front of the camera wont't have helped him either, all the nervous laughter and agitated body-language, it kind of kills the idea of him as a master debater and commanding politician).
And all of this will have really helped, I think, in putting off any 'floating voters' watching who might have been considering voting for the BNP or otherwise supporting them (and it's this sort of sector of the electorate turning to the BNP that is among the biggest worries to me and others).
The panelists could have forced the pressure even further, for sure, by pressing for an answer on what exactly the repatriation policy would entail, amongst other things. Also, I do have to agree with sloane that Griffin was at his best dealing with the question on Islam, in terms of appearing confident and giving a reasonably coherent answer. This is obviously an area where he/they have worked at putting together a superficially sensible-sounding public line, which is worrying. But overall, there did seem to be some benefits to having the party put under public scrutiny and debate like that, rather than just being left to spew out propaganda unchecked.
)
