With term now well under way, Exeposé Comment‘s Debate Correspondent Fiona Potigny reviews Debating Society‘s Friday night Question Time style debate in which students were invited to engage in open-forum questioning with members of the UK’s prominent political parties.
Unfortunately, Audaye Elesedy, 2014 Green MEP candidate, and Shaun Bailey, former Policy Advisor to David Cameron, were unable to attend due to “personal reasons” and “a boring political engagement” respectively. Nonetheless, their replacements, Kevin Foster, Conservative candidate for Torbay, and Andrew Bell, Press Officer for the South West division of the Green Party, were more than willing to fill their roles.
The evening was split into three sections: Economy, Foreign Policy and Domestic Policy. A question on whether recent figures suggest that the economy has truly “turned the corner” jump-started economic discussions, which led onto talk over the HS2 (the new high-speed railway), and debate – rather, polite disagreement – over nationalisation/privatisation with specific reference to the Royal Mail and the East Coast Line.
“Wine-winning best question of the evening was asked during the Domestic Policy section, and was awarded to the audience member who asked, ‘A successful party must have three main elements: an inspirational leader, a sound manifesto, and realistic policies. Do you truly believe that your party fulfils these criteria?'”
Though Foster naturally disagreed with Ben Bradshaw, Labour MP for Exeter (as if you didn’t already know), who attacked Osborne for “ruining” the 2% growth under Labour, both concurred along with Bell that the government should ensure that the benefits of new growth are felt in all economic backgrounds. Rick Timmis of UKIP expected 2014 to be a “bumpy plateau”, owing to the remaining international debt and 0.7% inflation across the Euro Zone. Dr Darren Schreiber, however, reminded us of reasons to be cheerful according to the “Human Development Index” including the highest percentage of literacy across the globe and more children than ever living past the age of five.
The Foreign Policy section provided opportunity to discuss whether, in retrospect, the present parties are proud of their position on Syria, the potential future relations with Russia, and whether Iran should be viewed as a threat.
The whole panel was concordant in agreeing that it was right not to take military action in Syria, and agreed with Bradshaw that whilst it was a positive development that President Assad had conceded his chemical weapons, one must not lose sight of the ongoing horrific humanitarian crisis. Foster nonetheless made his disdain for Miliband’s discourse on Syria clear, branding it a “clear political game played out in the House of Commons”. On Russia, Dr Schreiber made clear that whilst good relations are useful in terms of commerce, it is essential that Europe asserts itself against its discriminatory laws. Rick Timmis highlighted the important point that both the European and Eurasian Unions are currently vying for control over The Ukraine, and asked how the UK will be represented while these unions struggle. He also was firm in assuring that Iran does not pose a hostile threat owing to the little evidence to support this view, but an economic one due to its abundant oil reserves. Dr Schreiber was positive about the first steps being taken to normalise relations, though Foster warned that we should still be wary of supporting a country known for its primitive legal systems i.e. where stoning and having one’s hand chopped off are legitimate punishments, as well as its human rights abuses, specifically to the LGBTQ community.
Wine-winning best question of the evening was asked during the Domestic Policy section, and was awarded to the audience member who asked: “A successful party must have three main elements: an inspirational leader, a sound manifesto, and realistic policies. Do you truly believe that your party fulfils these criteria?” Whilst the majority of the panel gave an unequivocal “yes” response, Bradshaw stated his belief that Ed Milliband is not yet “polished”, though affirmed his respect for his recent response to the attacking press. For once, it was refreshing to see a politician express something other than mechanical agreement with every aspect of their party.
Throughout the debate, all members of the panel remained calm and unflustered, and even Bell and Foster, who had relatively little time to prepare, put forward some good points and counter-questions. It was surprising (read: disappointing – everyone loves a bit of tension!) that there were surprisingly few disagreements – one can only assume that all were well-trained in the art of PR. In fact, Chair Ellie Binks did not even once have to use her gavel!
Despite being political opposites, Bradshaw and Foster were similar in style. Both were well-informed and made successful use of facts and figures to back their arguments. Any quibbles on stance over a certain issue were fairly implicit, without the forthright disagreement that one would expect in the House of Commons. Despite their impressive statistical connaissance, it cannot be said that they were on the whole particularly engaging speakers, though Bradshaw did capture the audience’s attention when, provoked by discussion of the recent NSA scandal, he related stories of his own run-ins with phone tapping. Foster was a little confusing when stating his whole-hearted support of the Royal Mail sale, yet shrugging off the responsibility by claiming that those who disagree should point the finger at Vince Cable of the Lib Dems rather than the Conservatives. He also raised a few chuckles when claiming “I too use the train often” – a classic “politician tries to relate” moment.
Despite being a member of a further right party, Rick Timms’ arguments seemed more level-headed than the audience might have perhaps expected. In fact, a few audience members could be heard expressing whispered statements of pleasant surprise as to how unexpectedly fair and compassionate his arguments seemed. He justified his distaste for the EU through their imposing of economically-damaging business restrictions, and seemed to win over a good portion of the audience when admitting that apathy and disillusionment led him not to vote until he had children during his 30s, whose futures he wished to better. He was perhaps at his strongest when explaining the government’s need to invest into infrastructure in order to attain assets, though expressing doubt over whether HS2 (the new high-speed railway) is the right investment to make, as well as when he lamented the selling of The Royal Mail for just a third of its value, questioning where we will be economically when government money is spent, and there are no more assets to rely on.
Being the Press Officer and thus not directly affiliated with the political world, one can forgive Andrew Bell for the few responses in which he claimed that he simply did not know – less of a waste of time than a “politician’s answer” (that is to say, no answer, but with plenty of speaking). Bell took a notably different stance than the other panellists on the economy: that the measurement of growth through GDP is “meaningless”. According to him growth should be calculated according to the actual quality of peoples’ lives as opposed to the quantity they earn on average – a fair, but impracticable aspiration, which some might say mirrors certain elements of the Green Party manifesto. That said, he certainly had a good few heads nodding when maintaining that youth unemployment, soaring zero-hour contracts, and pay freezes must all be addressed.
Speaker of the evening award, however, goes to Dr Darren Shreiber. His non-biased presence on the panel was uplifting, and his self-deprecating humour owing to his US citizen status, such as his personal apology for causing the economic meltdown, provided a pleasant injection of laughter into an otherwise serious evening. As an American, he was able to provide useful and illuminating comparisons to the UK, his comparison of the HS2 to a similar implementation in California, which he claimed did not serve to solve problems of overcrowding and continuous traffic jams, for example, whilst his immense knowledge of political science highlighted the triviality in the long-run of certain UK political idiosyncrasies, such as the seeming obsession with privatisation vs. nationalisation.
Did you attend last Friday’s debate? Is this an accurate version of events? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.
exeposedev 