What you see …ain’t what you get.

I, along with about eight million others watched “Question Time” on Thursday evening. I’m not quite sure what I expected to see but the billing and the “Will they won’t they,” hype ensured that I would be glued to the telly in anticipation of what might happen. I suppose I had an image of an embarrassed Nick Griffin being taken to task by intelligent questioning, comment, observation and argument. Or conversely a triumphant Nick Griffin surprising everyone by scoring points off embarrassed, more established, politicians by giving acceptable explanations for his beliefs and policies; maybe even some clever argument from an audience that really did want to hear what those on the panel had to say.
 
In the event none of these things happened. Griffin was a poor speaker, at times almost incoherent, the other members of the panel wasted precious time with torrents of words to say very little that hadn’t been said better a thousand times before, and the audience, most of whom had come with their minds firmly closed to all but slogans and half remembered extracts from political speeches, cheered and shouted their support for almost every derogatory remark directed at Griffin or his party, instead of listening and debating. Even the Chairman, usually so sure and impartial was clearly not at his best, actually introducing one of the women on the panel as “The most powerful Moslem woman in the country”. Why did he need to use that description? Has he ever introduced any other woman as the most powerful Jewish woman or Christian or Hindu? I doubt it. The whole was a disappointing hour that could and should have been enlightening and wasn’t. It set me to thinking about perceptions.
 
A long time ago I was told by a much cleverer man than me that there are three sides to every argument, your side, their side, and the truth. That’s all very well when you are dealing with established facts, but what happens when you are confronted not by reasoned argument or debate but by a perception or an image created by a cleverly constructed PR or marketing plan? Such a plan will be supported by half truths and fabrications designed to ‘prove’ a point. But when challenged with facts these perceptions don’t stand up to examination. What happens?… Well, that’s simple you find another extract from another speech that gives the perception some sort of credence and shout down or prevent your opponent from speaking.
 
In recent times I’ve heard all sorts of quotes from a widely differing range of speeches used to win a point in a debate. Classic examples came out on Thursday. Inevitably reference to Enoch Powell and his “Rivers of Blood” comment, a fraction of a speech that I will bet no one apart perhaps from the Chairman and maybe one or two of the panel or audience had ever read in full. No need to, that phrase is enough to create an image of a racist, no more need be said. Hitler and Moseley were trotted out as examples of what could happen if the Griffin brand of politics caught hold. These and many other slogans and tired old political phrases were screamed or shouted from an audience that was so biased and unwilling to listen even to the established politicians that it rendered the whole hour pointless.
 
In debates and arguments elsewhere I have heard Harold Wilson’ comment about the value of “The pound in your pocket” invoked to prove duplicity, Harold MacMillan’s “Winds of change” speech used as an example of farsightedness, and to demonstrate incompetence Jim Callaghan’s remark “Crisis what crisis?” is used. And how many people really know the detail or objectives of Margaret Thatcher’s “Council Tax?” It’s often cited, especially by younger voters, as an attempt to impose an unfair tax that was rejected by the electorate, despite the fact that it has been imposed by a different government anyway, but in a different guise. They are all images or perceptions created by extracts from speeches, comment or off the cuff remarks. All if examined closely are shown to be just a small part of something that in it’s entirety generally means something quite different from the perception left by the context in which the quoted extract is made.
 
So it was on Thursday, cliché after cliché, talk as long as you can, say as little as you can. It seemed to escape the notice of all those on the panel that Nick Griffin’s opinions and views were not his own. He may agree with them but he didn’t invent them. He has listened to the comments, views and opinions of those in the areas he has had some success in, and whether what he heard was a reflection of reality or just an unfounded perception, he has merely regurgitated them. Whether or not the views, opinions and comments are true is not the point. That is what those people think is true, that is their perception of a current situation in their part of the UK. He has taken their comments and presented them in such a way as to make them appear factual. Meanwhile the other parties still squabble amongst themselves and show how little they understand or take into account either the facts or perceptions of those they seek to represent. Is it any wonder that the electorate believe that what you see ain’t what you get?