Well done Lawrence Fox!

As soon as people accuse someone of being 'far right' you know they're trying to cause outrage and indignation. What were Hitler and the Nazis if they were not 'far right'?

Calling some one 'Far right' merely means that the poster disagrees with them. Comparing them with the Nazis, means the poster strongly disagrees and cannot think of anything nastier to say. It makes the poster feel good as well. Virtue signalling.

There's actually a discussion to be had there Chestnut. It depends on the interpretation of "far right". "Nazi" is a short form of National Socialist. Some would argue that Nazism was for and was supported by the people and was, therefore, democratic. (BTW "democracy" is another misunderstood term, which has been hi-jacked for a specific purpose).

I cringe when I read "far right" used as a label because it really isn't a term with a single definition. I also cringe when I see "Marxist" thrown about as an insult because most people don't understand what Marx was all about, despite the various interpretations since Marx's death. I cringe even more when I see terms such as "cultural Marxism" and "left-wing Nazis" (!). What on earth are they supposed to describe?

MY personal feeling is that there should be serious discussions about racism and what it actually is and how it affects people - and, more importantly, what can or should be done.

There's an agenda that white males are discriminated against, which I find risible. In the UK white males have had the upper hand forever and they don't like their authority being challenged and usurped, so they're fighting back.

However, Question Time, which has become a forum for various "plants" and second rate panellists isn't the place to have a serious discussion. I rarely watch it these days because it seems to be all about entertainment rather than a place for serious debate.

Laurence Fox isn't an expert on anything. He behaved like a petulant child auditioning for a local drama club play. My guess is he was chosen because the producers knew he would stimulate what has subsequently happened. I don't think social media and people shouting at each other and hurling insults is the kind of debate which is needed.

It seems to me that the far right label is attached to anyone who opposes left leaning orthodoxies. Do we have secret police who routinely round up people for expressing a dissenting view? Although with that in mind, I do remember a young mother, apropos of a Twitter spat, misgendered a transwoman and was subsequently accused of a "hate crime" taken away and locked up for a night. So it seems the wrong terminolgy can land you in hot water..........not sure those grounds would align with far right doctrine though. "Dictatorship anyone" to quote another poster, but in a different context of course!

Very well said M0nica, succinctly put and accurate.

TerriBull Sadly, the level of intellectual debate isn't very high and people are reduced to flinging fairly meaningless insults. It works both ways, with people being labelled "lefties" (as you have just done) or commies or Marxists, etc.

Unfortunately, genuine issues become forgotten as each side becomes more interested in proving they are "right" and winning.

Apologies! You didn't call people "lefties" (I'm reading something else on the same subject). However, you accused people with "left leaning orthodoxies" of using labels. My point is that people with "right leaning orthodoxies" do the same thing.

People with entrenched orthodoxies don't generally contribute anything to rational debate.

growstuff You mean comments like “Your argument is ridiculous” that you made to me when I tried to put a point of view.

Or maybe refusing to acknowledge when you stated categorically I was wrong, but actually you were wrong. I awaited your acknowledgement of that. Still waiting,

Is that more being more interested in winning than engaging in genuine debate?

growstuff there’s been discussions on here for days on racism. It’s gone on and on ad nauseam and frankly most posters views are so entrenched it’s unlikely anyone will change their mind. Typically anyone that sees racism everywhere reacts wildly to anyone that disagrees. The LF debacle perfectly illustrates this. He gave his opinion. He didn't believe the treatment of MM was down to racism. He objected to any criticism of a person of colour being called racism. He was also asked which of the Labour candidates he thought was best for the job. After answering, Keir Starmer, he became frustrated when SC asked why he didn’t choose one of the women. Since then he’s had death threats etc.
He was correct when saying talking about his white privilege is racist. Calling someone gammon is racist. The frustration he exhibited is felt by many. Being pulled up on every little thing (why not one of the women?), being hectored, lectured and told you’re a racist, sexist and ever ist inbetween is so draining and frankly boring. It wouldn’t be so bad if there wasn’t so much hypocrisy. An OP on another thread calks Priti Patel ugly because she is conservative. The same person thinks criticism of MM is racist. What is the point of anymore discussion on racism?

Growstuff,I think it's entirely reasonable to say "some" people with left leaning inclinations, at certain times label those who don't share their point of view as the "far right", but equally so do those on the right, as you say "Marxist" and "lefties" all terms used in a pejorative way. Lets face it, if GN is a microcosm of society, it happens all the time, Twitter I imagine is far worse.

Those of us who have been relentlessly arguing for remain, have been labelled constantly by some here as 'left wingers' - without knowing anything about the reality.

Priti Patel is named 'ugly' not because of her looks, but because of her cold and hard mind and heart when dealing with the fate of immigrants (mostly legal and contributing hard to our society) - when she is the child of double immigrants- who never di go 'back home' when things got tough in the country where they made a fortune- but to the UK. And yet as not a zilch of empathy.

I can see you were alluding to your perception of Priti Patel's nature, Jura, but I can't help thinking if such a play on words were used in another context to malign a woman of colour, you would be one of the first to call it out.

jura2 what is the relevance of her parents making a fortune in another country, and and being double immigrants unless it's racism ( conscious or otherwise)?

“Ugly” Patel is a play on words of her name Priti.

Nothing to do with a cold hard mind.

Maybe racist but not necessarily. A play on people’s names is fairly common across the board.

It achieves nothing though, in terms of debate.

First, a disclaimer: I gave up watching Question Time years ago.

Having said that, I assume that when someone is invited to appear on the panel, it is in the expectation that they will comment on all the issues raised. I also assume that if the
panel is to be representative of the population as a whole, it will include a middle class white male. So,it seems entirely reasonable to me that LF should have commented on the Sussexes (or whatever they are now permitted to call themselves).

By some accounts he came across as a bit like the Nazi sympathiser he once played in Foyle's War, and to say we are not a racist country is pretty meaningless: racism in various forms crops up everywhere (you should hear what a Chinese acquaintance of mine says about the Indians). But I would agree with him that his background does not automatically disqualify him from holding or expressing opinions on matters of which he has no direct personal experience; such a rule would hit a number of Gransnetters, I suspect, probably including myself.

tickingbird As I wrote, I don't think places such as GN or any other social media are the places for intelligent, rational debate. They're sounding boards for populist screeching and it's blatantly obvious that people haven't really thought about definitions and aren't willing to discuss them. Many people just repeat what they've heard or read if it confirms their own bias. Unfortunately, most current affairs TV programmes and the traditional media have become the same.

Jura di you believe the UK should have a system like Switzerland, where you live, with quotas, language fluency and other requirements?

Or would you prefer Switzerland to have a more open policy?

Thank you growstuff for reinforcing my point! It's pointless.

I agree with you to an extent grumppa. There's nothing wrong with having a "layperson" on QT. However, Fox behaved like an overdramatic spoilt "luvvie". He didn't expand on or explain his views. Having read many of his subsequent tweets and read the transcript of his interviews, he seems to be well-known for holding very right-wing views, which I didn't know previously, but I bet the QT producers did. I wouldn't mind betting he was selected as a poster boy for controversial views.

PS. I utterly condemn the death threats he's apparently receiving. I really do wish there were an appetite and platform for rational, reasoned, pragmatic debate. I really dislike this polarisation and aggression.

tickingbird I live in hope! Very occasionally, it's possible to have informed debate on GN. Ironically, I find it's more likely on Twitter by "following" certain people whose views I respect (from all sides of debates).

I also look forward to the uni vacations when I can discuss politics properly with my son, who's currently finishing off his degree in politics and economics .

BTW Terribull I don't think GN is a microcosm of a society. It has a very limited membership.

On Twitter, you can choose whom you follow. Of course, that means that some people only follow people whose views correspond with their own. Personally, I follow people who make their points intelligently wherever they are on the political or social spectrum.

Programmes like QT and its radio equivalent (precursor?) Any Questions. are interesting because they show what the woman and man 'on the street' are thinking about the issues of the day.

The panel was always made up of 'experts', or at least people with a knowledge of the subjects under discussion, but lately that has been watered down, and we have been subjected to 'celebrities' giving their uninformed points of view.

Fine, up to a point - the majority of people in the audience are uninformed, and it is their opinion that we are listening to (and the lines between opinion, fact and educated guess have become very blurred over the past decade or so); but in this case we had an expert in the audience talking to an actor with no expertise in the subject beyond lived experience.

Arguably, his lived experience is somewhat rarified, and puts him outside of the 'norm', but that is the nature of QT. I think the combination of the idea that all opinions are of equal value and merit (tell that to a patient in a surgery ward) and the morphing of QT from news to entertainment has made this sort of thing inevitable.

Personally, I think that LF is an entitled pillock, and that he has done his reputation no favours, but that's just my opinion, which is worth no more nor less than anyone else's on the matter.

Very well said Doodledog and it's my opinion too that LF is a pillock.