HARBEN LETS HL Fashion Show Preview - The Founder

6
News
The Founder | Thursday 11 March 2010
Pre-election debate: MPs, journalists and
the Royal Holloway Debating Society
Alexandra Sanson
& Fiona Redding
The Independent Live! Pre-Election
Debate took place on February 3rd
2010, and three members of the
Royal Holloway Debating Society
attended in order to participate in
the political discussions which are
reaching their climax in the run-up
to the general elections. Although
no date has been officially set for
the general elections, there is a legal
requirement for polling stations
to be open before June 2010. Politicians
and journalists formed the
panel, which was presided over by
Steve Richards, the Independent’s
chief political commentator. The
MPs were Charles Clarke, Labour
MP for Norwich South and former
Home Secretary, and Chris Huhne,
Liberal Democrat MP for Eastleigh.
They were joined by Independent
columnists Yasmin Alibhai-Brown
and Michael Brown; the latter is a
former Conservative MP.
The debate opened with each of
the panellists offering their opinions
about the British economy, society
and globalisation. Charles Clarke
expressed concerns that there had
been an “insufficient assessment”
of globalisation. His primary focus
was the economy, stressing how
the finance sector needed to be reevaluated
in light of “utility” versus
“casino” banking; he called for
“less centralised government” and
greater transparency of the tax system.
The issue of centralised and
local government became a theme
throughout his speech, as he elaborated
on public services reorienting
their focus to the consumer’s needs,
or the “patient, pupil and parent”. In
response to green issues, he noted
that society needs to undergo drastic
“changes in behaviour”, in tandem
with energy and transport policies.
Clarke reflected that “we have
to be more dependent on ourselves
and our local communities.”
Michael Brown offered a disparaging
overview of the Conservative
party’s shortcomings, commenting
that the Tories are always liable to
“snatch defeat from the jaws of victory”.
Just a few months ago Brown
was sure that David Cameron would
“sleep-walk” his way into parliament;
now, however, he does not
believe that the Conservatives will
be elected with an overall majority.
He says that the Conservative’s
economic policies are “unclear” and
“confused”. Despite this, the Labour
party are deeply unpopular amongst
the British public, with 72% of the
general public indicated in a recent
poll that they do not want another
Labour government. In Brown’s
view, Cameron does not appreciate
what being the leader of a country
means, he simply fancies himself as
the Prime Minister.
In Yasmin Alibhai-Brown’s view,
Britain should “never again be taken
to war on a false premise”, alluding
to the Iraq Inquiry currently taking
place. Alibhai-Brown offered a
characteristically metaphor-laden
diatribe against “double standards”,
saying that we have all “got to live by
the same rules”. She talked about the
“imperialist gene”, apparently written
into our DNA, which we must
get over in order to face the “Muslim
question”. Tensions became evident
in her speech however, when
she followed her previous argument
with the idea that the British government
had “gone too far” in liberalising
society, and that this was the
cause of increased fundamentalism.
The final speaker, Chris Huhne,
followed Clarke in making the
economy the primary focus of his
speech. He spoke of the need to
reinvent the economy in light of
advances in renewable energy, calling
for a “green revolution”. This
issue, he emphasised, needs to be
driven by policy change rather than
technology and business demands.
Huhne commented that society
is still “deeply unfair”, but he was
quick to point out that the increase
in the gap between rich and poor
has not happened as fast as it did
under the Conservative government
of the 1980s. Huhne was particularly
vocal in calling for less of the
“lumbering traditional central government”,
devolving powers to local
authorities and constituencies. He
noted that the UK has the most centralised
government in the EU, with
94 pence of every £1 going through
Whitehall, compared to an EU average
of approx. 50%.
After the panellists had given their
speeches, the debate was opened out
to the floor and audience members
invited to ask their own questions.
We asked of all the panellists “Why
is it that no political party will be
drawn into the debate surrounding
tuition fees?” The response that we
received was a little less than illuminating.
Chris Huhne restated the
standard Liberal Democrat line that
his party is committed to “free education”
for all, and that he thought it
“basic and sensible” that we should
uphold this fundamental principle.
He quickly qualified this with the
observation that “fiscal constraints”
prevent this from being possible.
Charles Clarke, who was a key proponent
in passing the legislation for
top-up fees, reiterated the argument
that “nothing in life is free”. Somebody
“needs to pay” so it seems fair
that the individual user pays for that
service, given that they themselves
benefit. In Clarke’s view the standard
loan should not be means tested,
since what a student’s parents earn is
irrelevant once you are over 18 years
of age. It seems that the choice has
been made to prioritise funding for
the government’s “Sure Start” policy,
rather than higher education.
“The Debt Question” was raised
by several people, specifically with
regard to what measures the panellists
thought would be most effective
in solving the UK’s debt problem.
Charles Clarke called for an increase
in taxes, “not cuts in public spending”;
he stressed that we must discourage
spending in the domestic
sphere, and called for greater “regulations
for private lending”. Michael
Brown vehemently opposed Clarke’s
arguments, remarking that there
must be “nasty, vicious cuts…that
will hurt the people”, that “there is
no way of escaping pain”, and that
we had better start now or else the
situation will only get worse. Chris
Huhne argued that we do not just
need to increase taxes and make
spending cuts: we need “the third
ingredient” growth. He used the
metaphor of a “lost generation” to
illustrate the danger of plummeting
self-esteem in a financially depressed
period, as witnessed during
the 1980s.
Another theme of considerable
concern to members of the general
public was a complete ‘disillusionment
with politics’: how will MPs
engage with their constituencies
and the electorate in order to combat
the increased apathy that voters
feel in the wake of the ongoing
expenses scandal and the Chilcot
Inquiry? Electoral reform seems
particularly pertinent in light of
the fact that 40% of all constituencies
have never changed hands since
WWII. Michael Brown restated his
argument that “David Cameron
simply wants to be Prime minister”
and that the Conservative party
are “scared of their own shadow”.
In Brown’s view, it is a shame that
the Conservatives will not coherently
state their views on reform of
the financial sector, since all voters
have clear – and often united - views
about regulating the industry and
the bankers.
When polled, the majority at the
pre-election debate thought that
there would be a hung parliament,
and the majority wanted a hung
parliament. A hung parliament occurs
when there is no clear majority
in the House of Commons; the last
time there was a hung parliament
in the UK was 1974, and before
that 1929. Charles Clarke, a staunch
anti-Brownite, suggested that a new
Labour leader would have a good
chance of winning a majority. Yasmin
Alibhai-Brown called for a
“new kind of party”, adding that a
hung parliament was the most preferable
outcome of the general election.
Chris Huhne rather unsurprisingly
remarked that people always
underestimate the Liberal Democrats.
Brown closed the debate by
remarking that the Tories will most
likely “stumble into office with a
narrow majority.”