It seems that some politicians always manage to live up to the image of being difficult- in this case it's in the shape of Leighton Andrews, New Labour candidate for the Rhondda, who has commented on BBC election guidlines.
Once the Assembly has been dissolved for an election, all candidates, whether they have been AM's for the last 4 years or not must be labelled 'candidates', and ministers must be 'spokespeople.' Leighton Andrews said of the matter- 'I think what they are creating is a sort of real world and a BBC world in the real world we are AMs, talking to constituents, holding surgeries.' His comment is a little confusing, but basically hints that the policy is uncalled for.
Personally I do not think that there needs to be a debate on this. When the Assembly has been dissolved, AM's are candidates like everyone else, and shouldn't be treated any differently. This safeguards the BBC's impartiality, and our ability to assess all candidates on a level footing.
What interests me more as an election issue is that the BBC must give an equal platform to the main political parties during interviews and news stories from now until the election. This must have annoyed Leighton Andrews during the Burberry protest on Friday, as other parties were given a chance to air their opinions on the closure. Other parties that perhaps haven't commented before, or whose views have not been broadcast to a large majority of the population via the BBC.
Is there an argument that this practise should be implemented all year round? There may be, but I am sure that it would create much tension amongst AM's and political parties alike, especially in the context of the BNP. I do not sit easy with the idea of debating with the BNP for example, or giving them coverage on TV. Nevertheless, in the next few weeks all political parties will have to decide whether or not they share a platform with them, or take part in discussions with this blatantly racist party.
I have heard rumours that South Wales Central list candidates have taken the stance not to share a platform with the BNP during the election. Does this only serve to push the BNP underground, and confirm their anti- establishment arguments, or should this party be refused a platform as is the view of the organisation Unite and Searchlight?
I would be very interested in hearing well thought out comments on this pressing issue.
8 comments:
Well Bethan, I and all my familly and friends will be voting for the B.N.P. who seem to be the only party to put the British People first. However that aside,l would be interested in hearing what your thoughts are on giving the BNP a platform?
Are you for or against free speech?
No platform. There's no room in any democratic system for a political party that preaches hate and would gladly use intimidation and violence to get their way.
Giving the BNP any sort of platform will legitimise their actions. Freedom of speech shouild only apply to thoes who believe in freedom of speech.
I think with the BNP that there has been the opinion that if you ignore them then they may go away. It doesn't seem to have worked.
Perhaps it's better to challenge them at every opportunity. The Stop the BNP site details how uneffective they are when elected.
I think that the only way to defeat the hate preached by the BNP to is to subject it to the same intense scrutiny of its policies and values that occurs with other parties. Searchlight do a great job of this, denying the BNP any public platform is the wrong way to go about things, exposing their hate filled beliefs is the way forward.
This is a hard one. I don't want to share a platform with a racist party, who is seeking to divide society, who undermines the equal rights of others, who incites hatred. I understand why people say that we should share a platform with them, and I don't think that we should 'argue' over this, but discuss it sensibly.
If I am faced with the question of sharing a platform with the BNP during the election, I will really have to think long and hard, as I do not agree with it in principle.
I can totally understand your principled dilemma, i just think ignoring or allowing the BNP to ride the 'anti-establishment' wave might be counter productive...Can you not mention the BNP in your speech and indicate your disdain? what are the rules on such things?
Is refusing to share a platform surmountable to ignoring the BNP? I'm not so sure.
As with criticising policies of other parties, I am sure that one would be able to refer to the BNP in a speech, it's whether or not one would be comfortable doing that.
on the initial part of candidates and what nots....as i understand it current AM's are allowed to be refered to as AM's up until midnight on May 2nd. Unlike in Westminster where an MP loses the title as the election is called an AM is an AM until the election day.
Post a Comment