On Thursday night, BNP leader Nick Griffin will appear on the BBC's leading current affairs programme "Question Time", an appearance that has provoked much anger and debate.

Griffin is no stranger to the airwaves or TV screens, regularly appearing this week alone after four leading former generals attacked his party for using military imagery as part of its campaigning

But to some politicians, including Home Secretary Alan Johnson and Cabinet minister Peter Hain, the BBC's decision to allow him on Question Time was totally wrong, giving a much higher profile platform to Griffin and his far-right views.

They also say that a recent court decision to order the BNP to open up its membership to non-whites meant the party broke race relations laws and was therefore unlawful.

One academic has said that a similar TV appearance by French far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen in the 1980s led to a huge increase in support for his Front National party, generating concern that Question Time will do the same for Griffin.

There is no doubt that support for the far-right is growing in Britain at the moment, although it remains very much at the fringes of mainstream politics. The BNP has dozens of councillors across the country, a seat in the London Assembly and most notably won two seats in European Parliamentary elections earlier this year.

BBC bosses argue that for that reason it is only right that Griffin is invited onto the flagship politcal show to answer questions about his party. They say it is for parliament and not for the broadcaster to censor political parties.

However former London mayor Ken Livingstone has warned that the BBC would bear moral responsibility for any rise in racial attacks, saying the presence of the BNP always led to a rise in such incidents.

Community relations experts have also expressed fear about the impact a rising far-right will have, especially in the run-up to what is predicted to be a tense election. However many say that trying to muzzle the BNP was counter-productive, and that the group should be challenged head on.

"I think we've got to have a more sophisticated approach to the far right where we do use reasoned arguments to defeat them because there's no doubt in my mind that those reasoned arguments will work," said Ted Cantle, who led the government's review into the 2001 race riots for which the far-right was held partly responsible.

"I do feel they have to be taken on and defeated in the public eye. For the most part, their arguments are completely ridiculous and people have to see them for what they are," he told Reuters. He said the unwelcome truth for mainstream politicians was that there was a "grain of truth" in some of the things the BNP said, and censoring them gave the impression this was being covered up.

However the Unite Against Fascism group said the BNP should not be treated like any ordinary political party because its views were racist (it campaigns for a halt to immigration, voluntary repatriation of immigrants and Britain's withdrawal from the European Union).

"Griffin isn't interested in impressing people with his arguments - he just wants to build the BNP by using Question Time as a platform to whip up race hatred and bigotry," the group says.

Griffin himself says the "hysterical" furore over his appearance has already been a shot in the arm to his party. "I thank the political class and their allies for being so stupid," he told the Times. "Thank you, Auntie."

Reuters UK will be live blogging Griffin's appearance on Question Time at 22.35 BST.

This is a busy week for the British National Party (BNP).

Today it was warned to stop using military imagery in its campaign material. A group of former military leaders accused the BNP, which has used photographs of spitfire fighter planes and Winston Churchill, of hijacking Britain's history for their own "dubious ends."

The distinguished generals said this tarnished the reputation of the armed forces and called on them to "cease and desist."

Meanwhile, the BNP's membership list has been leaked again. The names and addresses of thousands of members was posted on Wikileaks, a website that allows information to be published anonymously. BNP leader Nick Griffin said the list was a "malicious forgery."

Most controversially of all, Griffin is scheduled to appear on BBC's Question Time this Thursday evening. The decision to give the BNP a seat on the panel has angered some people, who feel they should not be given a platform to air their extreme views on issues such as immigration.

However, despite calls from Welsh Secretary Peter Hain to have Griffin dropped on the grounds that the party “is not lawfully constituted”, Director General Mark Thompson defended the BBC position of due impartiality. He said: "If there were to be any election –- local or national –- tomorrow, the BNP would still be able to field candidates.”

Do you think the BNP should be stopped from using military imagery to promote its policies? Is there a danger the armed forces will be tainted by this association with the far-right? Do you agree with the BBC's decision to invite Nick Griffin to appear on Question Time?

Question Time will be broadcast on BBC1 at 10.35pm this Thursday and we will be live blogging throughout the programme.

- Justin Fisher is Professor of Political Science and Director of the Magna Carta Institute at Brunel University. The opinions expressed are his own. -

It’s fair to say that the results of the European elections in Britain were something of a shock. Of course, it was evident that Labour was going to do badly and the BNP’s success in winning its first European seats did not come entirely out of the blue. But the collapse of Labour’s vote exceeded what most had predicted, and the realisation that the BNP now has 2 of the UK’s 72 MEPs is more dramatic than the possibility that it might occur.

Now the dust has settled, however, it’s worth reflecting a little on what the results may tell us about the future for British politics. The first point is that performances in European elections have rarely been a solid predictor of subsequent general election performance - especially since the introduction of a proportional representation voting system in 1999 (the 1994 elections are perhaps the sole exception).

Take 1989, for example, when the new Liberal Democrat party came a distant fourth behind the Greens. In the subsequent general election, the Liberal Democrats performed reasonably well, whilst the Greens fell back. And, in 1999 and 2004, the Conservatives beat Labour into second place. Yet Labour won both subsequent elections comfortably.

European elections are very different from General Elections, then. First, despite their clear importance, voters do not take them nearly as seriously as national elections.

Second, the electoral system allows smaller parties to perform much better than they would under the system used for Westminster elections. Thirdly, and linked very much to the first two, there is a clear appeal for parties such as UKIP given that these elections are about the very things that they oppose. All in all, European elections are much more multi-party affairs than Westminster ones. And as a consequence, extrapolating clues about the next general election can be hazardous.

But these elections may matter more than previous ones for three reasons. First, the results confirm that that Britain has a very strong Euro-sceptic core amongst its electorate – nearly 27 percent of those who voted in Britain, cast their ballot for one of the several anti-European parties. And, of course, UKIP claimed second place in terms of vote share and joint second (with Labour) in terms of seats. Given the opportunity that European elections afford the voters, this Euro-sceptic support cannot simply be dismissed as protest votes.

Secondly, and notwithstanding the points above, the elections have nevertheless confirmed the problems that Labour faces. Labour’s poll ratings, of course, have been poor for some time, as has been the party’s performance in local elections. But the European elections are the only truly nationwide contests other than the General Elections. So whilst local elections and polls have suggested that Labour is in a bad way, these election results have certainly confirmed the depth of the party’s problems, including a collapse in Labour’s vote in core areas such as the North West, the North East and Wales.

The collapse wasn’t uniform – in London, for example, the fall was a relatively modest 3.5 percent - but all in all, a near 7 percent fall in Labour’s vote share and a 12 percent gap between them and the Conservatives does not bode well, given that the caveats of a second order election and the effects of proportional representation also apply to the other main parties.

Thirdly, the election of two MEPs from the BNP confirms the party’s growing electoral status. Of course, the BNP have elected representatives elsewhere at local government level as well as one member of the Greater London Assembly (GLA). But these are the first on the national stage. The support for the BNP is significantly lower than for far-right parties in other parts of Europe.

However, British politics has successfully resisted the electoral advance of such parties for many years, so the effect is still significant. And the consequences may be far-reaching. It may first harden resistance amongst the political elite against proportional representation. Somewhat surprisingly, the election of a BNP member of the GLA under a form of PR (the additional member system) did not create much of a stir. But this, combined with the European elections – held under closed list PR - reveals one of the apparent advantages of first-past-the post at Westminster – it helps exclude extremists.

So while the Prime Minister has indicated that there should be a review of the electoral system, early reports suggest that the Alternative Vote (AV) is preferred. AV is not a form of PR – it is majoritarian, requiring only that the winner of a constituency secures more that 50 percent of preferences (it is very similar to the system used to elect the London Mayor).

So the election of the two BNP MEPs may have sounded the death knell for PR at Westminster for the time being. After all, who wants to argue for a system that could more readily see the election of BNP MPs?

The other implication of the BNP’s success may, paradoxically, help Labour. The BNP’s electoral successes came in Labour’s heartlands and have provided a huge wake-up call. Labour supporters and waverers might be less concerned if voters switched to the Liberal Democrats or the Greens through a desire to protest against the government. But voting BNP is a wholly different proposition.

So, the alarm with which the BNP success was greeted could well have a galvanizing effect on those instinctively closer to Labour. Coupled with the distinct possibility of the Conservatives winning the next General Election, we may just see Labour’s vote improved through a desire to avoid the alternative, since despite the clear importance of the EU, it remains the case that General Elections are the ones where the stakes are highest.

- James Graham is the Campaigns and Communications Manager of Unlock Democracy The opinions expressed are his own. -

The rise of the far right in Britain is not a sign that people are flirting with fascism but a signal that disengagement has reached a crisis point.

The BNP’s rise has been slow but relentless over a 20-year period. The big turning point was actually the 2001 general election when Nick Griffin got 16 percent of the vote in the Oldham West constituency following a series of riots around the north of England. In 2003, they became the second largest party in Burnley, a trick they repeated in Barking and Dagenham in 2006 and Stoke on Trent in 2008. The election of Richard Barnbrook to the Greater London Assembly last year made it clear that they were in the running to make gains in the European Elections. If anything, the big surprise is that their gains were as limited as they were.

But there are a number of things to note about this. First of all, their success under Nick Griffin has been rooted in successfully presenting themselves as a non-racist and non-fascist party. Their deep fascist and Nazi links are apparent to anyone who does a bit of research but they have become adept at presenting themselves on the doorstep as something else.

In this respect they have been helped a lot by the relentless pace of 24-hour news. All the evidence suggests that an openly fascist party would continue to get nowhere in the UK. It may not seem much, but we should be consoled at least that the extremists will have to operate by stealth for the foreseeable future if they wish to continue to make progress.

Secondly, the party’s success is rooted in naked opportunism. Wherever there is a political vacuum, the BNP have rushed in. Burnley in 2003 is an excellent example of that, with both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats failing to field candidates in 6 out of 15 wards. Their campaigns are rooted in their ability to exploit local issues and incorporate a narrative about immigration, victimhood, fear and resentment. Often these are based on the most outrageous lies - Richard Barnbrook for example has recently been caught making up three murders in Barking and Dagenham. But of course, by the time they get found out the damage has already been done.

Thirdly, they have yet to gain a sustainable foothold of power. Burnley, seen by some as a pariah council in 2003, is now controlled by the Liberal Democrats with a rump BNP group in fourth place. The BNP saw both their total votes and share of the vote fall this year compared to the London Assembly election last year, despite a much reduced turnout which should have been helpful to them. Their record in local government is lamentable. It would seem that for whatever reason people are voting for the party, for a substantial number of them once is enough.

Proportional representation has been criticised for helping get the BNP elected to the European Parliament. This is ridiculous: all proportional systems do is better reflect public opinion. A mature democracy must confront extremism, not brush it under the carpet. Furthermore, their rise throughout the past decade has been helped by the iniquities of the first past the post (FPTP) system. In Barking and Dagenham for example, they got more councillors elected than the Conservatives despite receiving fewer votes. There is no question that the uncompetitive nature of FPTP has been useful to them.

It is shocking that the BNP now has two out of the 72 UK MEPs but they will remain marginalised in Brussels. The real scandal however is the very real power they have been seizing for years in local government by exploiting the often-undemocratic nature of the FPTP system. If mainstream politicians have now woken up to the threat of the far-right, this is what they need to be concentrating upon.

- Richard Whitaker is a lecturer in European politics at the University of Leicester, UK. The opinions expressed are his own. -

Europe rarely features highly in European election campaigns in Britain. In the 2004 campaign the word Euro more often than not referred to a football tournament rather than the single currency. And for at least two reasons, we shouldn’t expect European integration to be much discussed.

First, parties have little incentive to campaign on Europe because it features a long way down the list of issues British voters consider important, well behind Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s leadership, expenses, the economy, immigration and crime. Second, to the extent that parties are internally divided on the question of how far Europe should go, they are less likely to push the issue up the agenda.

In the current campaign we might have expected what little talk there was about Europe to cover the Lisbon Treaty on which the Conservatives, in contrast to the two other main parties, have called for a referendum, and the question of whether Britain should remain a member of the EU amid calls from Eurosceptic parties on the right and left, for us to withdraw from the organisation.

While Lisbon and EU membership have been mentioned, the reality is that discussion of Europe seems to have featured even less than the low level we might have predicted. Such is the domination of the campaign by the issue of MPs’ allowances that most of the main parties’ European Election Broadcasts – a place where they have the opportunity to talk specifically about European issues - made little or no mention of Europe.

Perhaps the paucity of talk about European integration would matter little if there was nothing at stake. But, like it or not, the European Parliament’s (EP) legislative powers have greatly increased over recent years such that it is now heavily involved in the regulation of the EU’s single market.

The balance of power in the EP matters between those favouring greater control of markets and those preferring deregulation. The outcome of the EP elections will also have an effect on the choice of European Commission President, who will have to be approved by the Parliament before taking office.

The polls suggest that the big parties are likely to suffer on June 4th with minor parties doing much better than they would in general elections. Small parties doing well at EP elections is nothing new. UKIP came third last time around winning 12 seats and 16 percent of the vote.

Governing parties normally do badly at European elections but if Labour were to drop below 22 percent they would beat their own record for the lowest score by a governing party in a European election in Britain. Many of the smaller parties take an anti-EU stance, especially those likely to win seats in the election (UKIP and possibly the BNP).

So if we look simply at the results this time around, the expected victory for the Conservatives and the votes for small parties may send a largely Eurosceptic message from the UK to Brussels.

This is fine, if that’s how the electorate feels, and we have plenty of polling evidence that the British electorate is comparatively Eurosceptic. But crucially, for many voters the decision will have been made not on issues of European integration and EU membership, but on the question of MPs’ expenses.