Given all the hype that the BBC had managed to generate by endlessly trailing the appearance of the BNP leader and member of the European Parliament Nick Griffin the event itself was a somewhat damp squib I thought. I assumed it would be a relatively normal show, and that Griffin and indeed the BNP would be shown to be somewhat one dimensional and generally lacking in any sensible policies.

Sadly because it turned out to be Question Time:BNP I think it became very much the PR coup that some feared and clearly the BNP hoped for. Firstly the chair in the form of the venerable David Dimbleby allowed both Jack Straw and Sayeeda Warsi what practically amounted to opening speeches. This certainly isn’t a feature of a “usual” show, and I winced because I could already see the “ambush” counter-argument gaining ground.

The fact that he looked “sweaty and evasive” could be I’m afraid a charge levelled at many politicians. Griffin looked to me like somewhat of a comedy piñata, which would have been fine if this had been something unimportant like the Jerry Springer show. But this was an opportunity for scrutiny and dissection of policy and viewpoint, for me that opportunity was utterly squandered.

Today is the start of the final political party conference (of those that I care about anyway) before the coming election. I’m interested in politics, and I’m certainly affected by politics but I still haven’t entirely resolved whether becoming in some way actively involved is a good idea.

I guess the issue I have is the more invested you get in something, so the more likely you are to get screwed by it. You call it pessimistic, I call it realistic.

Surprisingly for me, I don’t jet have a fully-formed opinion on the release of al-Megrahi. The very fact that there has been so much controversy over the conviction in the first place gives pause for thought. When even some of the relatives of the victims aren’t convinced it doesn’t look good. It did seem rather at the time that he’d been provided as a sacrificial lamb, to enable Libya to rebuild links to the west.

Firstly the idea that it was on purely compassionate grounds is demonstrably bunk. Politicians don’t do controversial things without clear and direct payback. There was no doubt the release was controversial, you only need to look at the way that most politicians have been conspicuously quiet for the last week. The idea that Scotland took this decision alone, without consultation with Westminster is also laughable; there’s no doubt in my mind conversations took place, and probably FOI requests will find emails too.

The sudden dropping of the appeal against the conviction is obviously timely. Quite likely the key quid pro quo in finally seeing al-Megrahi freed. The gain I presume is that the government get to keep buried whatever dirty laundry the appeal would have unearthed.

Those that died, died we can’t un-ring that particular bell. We are already trading with Libya, as are the Americans so their indignation is somewhat two-faced. I don’t like the idea that we’re making business deals off the back of all this, but rumour suggests that’s exactly what is happening. The pragmatist in me says why not. I still don’t feel happy with where I find myself intellectually with this situation, so I’ll probably return to this at a later date.

I don’t often discuss politics on my blog, but I couldn’t resist today; partly because I’m genuinely interested in the topic and partly because it offered an irresistible opportunity for a little Photoshopping (although I feel rather tabloid for giving into the urge!).

Various news outlets are reporting today that the government has made a very rapid about turn on the issue of “illegal file-sharing”. The Digital Britain report took a reasonably measured approach to the issue of illegal file-sharing, giving OFCOM the job of implementing measures to educate and persuade users of the negative effects of their actions and measuring the success in terms of diminished illegal activities. OFCOM was given until 2012 to monitor the situation and decide if further technological barriers were needed, obviously culture doesn’t change overnight. So why is the government suddenly trumpeting the idea of cutting off file-sharers?

Let’s first set out some undisputed facts. Peter Mandelson has dinner at the Corfu villa of the Rothschild family with David Geffen. Peter Mandelson then instructs his civil servants to toughen up the proposals on illegal file-sharing.

Peter Mandelson disputes that any conversation about piracy or file-sharing occurred. So this is a man whose remit includes the “Digital Britain” strategy talking to a man whose primary source of income is the media industry. We are seriously expected to believe these me didn’t discuss piracy?

What really annoys me is the way politicians such as Mandelson are content to make statements without any regard to the credulity of their claims. Governments should not only be above board, they should be seen to be above board. Mandelson seems to positively revel in scandal and controversy, he clearly has a giant god complex and a belief that he’s above the law both literally and figuratively.

The only scant consolation is that this pernicious little weasel will be very much out of a job in the next 12 months, which only lends credibility to the idea that he’d prostrate himself for anyone with power and money that could help him when his political capital is finally extinguished.

Sadly it seems again that the British public have decided bothering to cast a vote is just too onerous a task for most of them. A combination of low turnout and the proportional make-up of the European Union elections make for an interesting mix of winning candidates.

The candidate that has so far garnered by far the most column inches since the election is Nick Griffin of the BNP. Many have expressed their displeasure that what they describe as a fascist party has gotten elected, but it seems to me that their ire should be directed towards the electorate and indeed the system.

Now I happen to this there is some merit in proportional representation as a concept and to blame it would be I think incorrect. Clearly, assuming no fraud, you only get elected by either persuading the electorate to vote for you, or providing a palatable alternative when a vote for any other party is undesirable.

I know surprisingly little about the policies of the BNP as do I suspect the majority of the British public, we only really have the media sound bites to go on. I think rather than so many mainstream political organisations trying to isolate the BNP, they should engage them directly. Cite their literature accurately and factually, debate their stated policies in person wherever possible. Only then will the public be able to decide.

I won’t get into the complexities of my political ideology, but I will say I’m very much of a social liberal. So it’s pretty safe to say that I’m likely to disagree with the vast bulk of the BNP’s policies; in fact I’d be pretty galled to discover we have any common ground at all.

Well today I did find myself agreeing with the BNP on one point, they were treated appallingly today. This government has enacted legislation making protesting outside Parliament illegal and yet we have from media reports some 50 to 100 protesters carrying placards only metres from the Houses of Parliament assaulting a legally elected member of the European Union with eggs. Imagine if the politician concerned were a member of the current Labour party, the police would be all over the incident and the perpetrators would be in custody exceedingly quickly. If that seeming inconsistency doesn’t bother you, think again because it really should.

I don’t want to see the BNP in power in any capacity from what little I know of their policies, but it seems to me if you believe in protesting against politicians then there are at least 900,000 voters who deserve similar treatment.

For me I think Voltaire said it best: “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”

The whole issue of MP’s expenses rumbles on in the media, and I have to say I’m both amused and infuriated about their responses. I love the fact that quite a number are huffing and puffing indignantly, quite obviously ignorant that their denials look like weasel words at best. A certain, I can’t remember who it was, MP actually tried the “We don’t have the levels of corruption as other countries” defence.

Sadly I suspect the biggest change to come out of this whole affair will simply be that the expenses regime will just become even more opaque. Turkeys won’t vote for Christmas, and these particular turkeys won’t vote for a pay cut. So I expect either a pay rise to encompass the current expenses, which is a wholly spurious solution because the expenses were never a part of their compensation any more than allowable sick days should be considered part of your annual holiday allowance. Alternatively we’ll see fixed allowances, which again is a bad deal for the tax payer.

Oh, and I almost forgot the laughable hypocrisy that is calling in the police to investigate the source of the “so called” leaks. Personally I’d like to shake that man or woman by the hand, they’ve done a great public service. Frankly if they ever were to present anyone to a court I can’t think of a more blatant example of “in the public interest”. It’s all a very sad and underhanded attempt to divert the media attention away from the real story. Thankfully for once the media isn’t being so easily duped, I just hope they are as thorough when it comes to reporting the eventual “solution”.