The "Sevens" debate

 

 

In stark contrast to Wednesday’s one hour “clash”  between the two party leaders, yesterday’s debate which involved seven of the UK’s major parties was, in spite of lasting one and a half hours, lively, gripping, informative  and, for the most part, honest.

It was unfortunate that the “luck of the draw” placed the Labour and Conservative representatives adjacent to each other (though appropriately on the “far right “ of the line up,) so that Angela Raynor and Penny Mordaunt couldn’t resist taunting, hectoring and over-talking each other.*  M/s Mordaunt in particular  gave  a faithful imitation of her leader’s approach to “discussion.” It was also sad  that    M/s /Raynor, well known for having voted in in favour or nuclear disarmament, now claims to be  right behind Labour’s current “triple lock” policy in favour of it.  Presumably she is lying through her teeth.  No wonder people distrust politicians and become detached from  the democratic process.

 It there was to be a “winner of the evening it was in my view the Green Party’s co-leader, Carla Denyer, who answered questions fluently, clearly and engagingly, and spoke passionately on the importance of prioritising the survival of the planet as a place for human habitation. 

A close second would be the SNP leader, Stephen Flynn, whose bold assertion that we actually need immigrants received a rare round of loud applause from the audience. He wasalso, I think, the only candidate to introduce the “elephant in the room”, BREXIT, which has done so much damage to our reputation and  to Scotland’s economy, (and of course the rest of the UK with the possible exception of Northern Ireland.  I wonder why there was no representative of a Northern Ireland party?)  Mr Flynn also had the courage to scoff at the expensive pretence of the UK’s “independent nuclear deterrent” and argued that its vast cost would be better spent on building up our conventional forces and equipping them properly.

 

 The Plaid Cymru representative Ruhn ap Iorwerth’s contributions were fluent and persuasive, showing how Westminster, dominated as it is with English Conservatives, is insensitive to  and neglectful of the needs of Wales.  Much greater devolution of power, and “levelling up” funding are need if everyone in the Union is to have a fairer deal.

 Daisy Cooper for the Liberal Democrats batted well.   She was challenged about our role in the Coalition put pointed out that our party had fought tooth and nail against the worst excesses of the Tories, and that, without us to restrain them since 2015, they have been demonstrably worse. 

“Student fees” was thrown at her and I wish she had had time to remind the audience that it was Tony Blair’s Labour government that first introduced student  fees, having first  promised not to, then tripled them, having promised not to.  True the Coalition tripled them again but, and it’s a big BUT, unlike Labour’s    fees , which had to be paid “up front”, the present system is of loans which are not a “Debt” in the normal sense, since they don’t have to be paid back unless and until the former student achieves a respectable salary. Sadly there isn’t time in this format to  explore problems in greater depth, but Liberal Democrats like me, who may not have agreed with the policy, should nevertheless be bolder in explaining its advantages over the previous system.  (and the media should stop banging on about “students burdened with debt:” they are not.)

 It was interesting that Nigel Farage’s predictable tirade about immigration received little positive reaction for the audience.  Perhaps “Reform’s” potential supporters don’t turn up to an events like this (or maybe they weren’t invited.)  Farage did, however hit home with the accusation  that there isn’t really much difference between the Labour and Conservative policies.

 The lesson to be learned from this seven-sided debate is that we desperately need proportional representation, so that the views of substantial minorities (yes, including ”Reform”) receive more  serious attention – so much more constructive than the relentless “ding-dong” between Labour and the Conservatives to which First Past the Post condemns us.

·       *Though rather touchingly once the debate was over they  seemed to joke together on friendly terms.  If they can behave decently to each other outside the “arena” why do they feel obliged to fratch like fish-wives in it?