It has been quite a while since I last watched Question Time, for viewing the programme makes for a highly predictable and unsatisfying experience. The panellists, even if they happen not to be politicians, tend to trot out responses that can be anticipated well in advance, and the specially selected audience fulfils the formulaic role of fielding approved questions and providing the type of applause desired by the producer. So, it was somewhat against my better judgement that I decided to view the latest programme on iplayer this evening, not having wished to deprive myself of sleep last night. The honorary non-politicians in this episode proved to be John Lydon and Dominic Lawson, the former presumably invited onto the programme as some sort of ‘jubilee’ curio, given his unofficial role in the Silver Jubilee of 1977.
There may be those who view the affluent LA tax exile Lydon as some sort of ‘rebel’, but not suffering from such a delusion myself, I anticipated a predictable performance from Lydon, and this is what we received. As performances go, it was not very entertaining, and it was a struggle to keep viewing. The faces and the voices may vary from week to week on Question Time, but the song remains the same. Lydon’s presence was to prove no exception, with his first utterance – “A parliamentary committee cannot be trusted!” – being intoned and delivered in embarrassing pantomime fashion, setting the scene for the remainder of the programme; “I don’t know anything at all,” he continued. Quite. Dominic Lawson could be seen looking on with an air of resigned disapproval.
What was his opinion on the new citizenship test? What was his view of Britishness? Was it an unorthodox view? Hardly. Lydon trotted out the most stultifyingly conformist and ‘on-message’ definition imaginable:
A complete understanding of your love your of neighbour, your culture, your country and the inclusion of all religious, race, creeds and colours and philosophies. We are an island culture. We always have been and we must keep our shore open. This is what improves us. Hello, I’m a classic example of mix and match. Hello England!
He followed up with the question: “Please, can you give one [i.e. a citizenship test] to the people that are already here?” Predictable? Yes.
Once upon a time he may have screamed about ‘Anarchy in the UK’, but nowadays it would seem that he is rather more in favour of ‘diversity’ than ‘anarchy’, which in some respects could be seen as near synonyms, but it is unlikely that this is the sense in which he wished his ‘celebratory’ remark regarding this word to be taken.
The least disengaging section of the programme consisted of Louise Mensch’s drugs confessional, during which many members of the audience gurned with disgust (whether genuine or feigned it was hard to discern) as she recounted the negative psychological impact that using unspecified Class A drugs had had upon her. Normally, I don’t have any time for Mensch, but for the couple of minutes during which she spoke upon this theme, she did something unusual for a politician: spoke honestly and from direct experience. Lydon however, predictably made some rather juvenile points about the issue, implying that there was a conspiracy (not involving lizards on this occasion) to cover up the ‘truth’ about drugs.
Irrespective of the positions held by the panellists upon the status of illicit drugs, to criminalise individuals for abusing such substances is wrong, not because I would wish to condone or encourage such usage, but because the abuse of such substances should be dealt with as a matter of public health and education. Rehabilitation is the right approach, not punishment. Criminalising drug users is akin to criminalising those who attempt suicide or self-harm: essentially inhumane.
The Snettisham Torque: superior quality to John Lydon's
He really was a tedious old bore....as he has always been.ReplyDelete
He was. It struck me as a bit rich that a self-obsessed tax exile should see it fit to lecture us as to how our country should be.Delete
He is a fraud like all pop singers and is married to an heiress and lives in New York.ReplyDelete
I think he lives in Los Angeles, where he's done so for many years. He is also married to an heiress though, as you point out.Delete
I'm surprised that he managed to fit 'us' in, in-between making margarine adverts and having his Volvo serviced...ReplyDelete
God Save The Queen.
'Country Life' won't be too pleased with his services if he's given you the impression that their butter is margarine. Is his Volvo playing up then Laurie?Delete
Might I warn you and your new party to keep the fastidious prig and pedant Andrew Emmerson at bay? He is making a lot of enemies for the new party and lowering the standing of Andrew Brons by his petty and argumentative posts on the British Democracy Forum.ReplyDelete
He is constantly arguing with people who would support the new party and driving them away. If any want to check he uses the screen name Simon de Montfort.Delete
Thank you both for your observations. His hostility is known. It is a shame that those who have nothing positive to say tend to be the most vociferous. What, after all, has he forwarded by way of constructive suggestions?Delete
I will be posting more on positive developments before the month is out, and apologies are due on my part for not having written anything on this theme for quite a while. However, the pressures of work will abate shortly, allowing for some key tasks to be completed.
Question Time is a programme I haven't watched for some time, because as you said it's so predictable and staged. Infact it was rather infuriating to say the least listening to the ridiculous pontifications from the panel of not so esteemed panelists and select audience.ReplyDelete
I would be interested in the new party you are proposing, something needs to be done the state of the nationalist cause is dire at the moment......and at such an opportune time for the cause. Interestingly, on the Nationalist Unity Forum Andrew Brons is decrying any new party and it's chances whilst the rump BNP is still in existence, saying splinter parties never succeed whilst the parent party exists, well that isn't true he conveniently forgets that the BNP itself was a breakaway party from the National Front.
It will be hard to establish a new party but it is possible to succeed with the right policies (95% BNP policies IMHO were good), right people, and presentation.
Time is short and our country needs a positive message of hope!
I know that Andrew Brons is of the opinion that a new party cannot succeed whilst its 'parent' still exists, but the fact is, I have never belonged to any political party. For me, the BNP is not therefore a 'parent party', and what those of us who advocate this approach are proposing, is something distinctive and new, which will not be encumbered by any of the negative baggage of the BNP. Moreover, it will not be limited by the narrow preoccupations of UKIP (EU withdrawal), the English Democrats (an English parliament) and the BFP (countering Islamisation).Delete
Of course, it will appeal to decent BNP members and supporters, and they are welcome to join and become involved, just as are individuals who have traditionally supported other parties, but now find themselves marginalised and neglected thanks to the globalist agenda of all of those who deem themselves to belong to the ‘mainstream’. It is these ‘mainstream’ parties that are the true extremists for pursuing such anti-democratic disempowering policies; it will be a task of the new party to revitalise people, with not just a sense of hope, but the genuine prospect of bringing about fundamental democratic change rooted in the core interests of our people: peace, prosperity, security and recognition of our right to national self-determination. It is our belief that these goals and views represent the genuine mainstream of British public opinion; the mainstream that has been dammed up and held back. It is our intent to remove this dam, and unblock the natural course of politics that has been for so long stopped up in our country. You, and anyone else who happens to share our views and cause, is more than welcome to become involved. We do not subscribe to a doctrine of fatalistic apathy and defeatism, for such a perspective leads to one outcome alone: failure. It is not our intent to fail. Why should we?