As with the previous debate, the week had not yet finished before the next motion had arrived. The new motion, a far more impressive one, was 'This House would ban the BNP'. Davin and I proposed this motion. This is more or less what I said in my first speech;

Ladies, gentlemen, chairperson, esteemed adjudicators, members of the opposition and of the audience. When dealing with the prospect of banning the British National Party it is first key that we, the proposition, exactly how we understand the term ban. Davin and I would 'ban' the BNP in order that they be prohibited from parliamentary or political activities that involve holding office in European, Council or Westminster seats. We however, are not so naive as to believe that such a ban will result in the dissolution or the disintegration of the so called party, therefore we would offer up key targets for the organisation to meet, such as transparency and real democratic progress, before we would even consider letting them continue their brief unwelcome interference within British politics. As well as this ladies and gentlemen, our government is a democratic one, and a process such as this should be done on a democratic basis, with this in mind, Davin and I would ban the BNP on the back of a plebiscite in line with these ideals. To convince you, that you should vote yes in banning the BNP, I will begin by explaining the historical relevance of political pacifism in the face of Fascist movement, I will then outline illegal activities directly linked to ranks within the BNP, and explain how we cannot allow those who themselves incite and allow violence to be voted into positions of power in this our liberal democracy. Davin will then outline the lies that have been told by the BNP, again and afain, in stark contrast to their actions, thereby dispelling the myth that the BNP is the English right with a human face, or that they are separate, or partitioned, from groups such as Combat 18.

In a 1942 article in address to Indian students, George Orwell wrote, "Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist, this is elementary common sense." Effectively saying that lazy limousine liberalism is anything but an objective middle ground. With this, it is impossible to discuss the relevance of the BNP without making reference to the National Socialist Party of Germany, or the National Fascist Party of Italy. Both of these parties gained leadership within the constraints of democracy at the time, and after about three decades wherein the ideology was put into practice, we now have a situation where Nazism as an ideology is outlawed in Germany, and Fascism is explicitly banned in the Italian constitution. A common position on this issue is that continued BNP publicity will give their abhorrent views mass exposure, and by extension act as a catalyst for a self-made downfall. But ladies and gentlemen, have their ideas not already been disproved? Have their motives not already been exposed? Has their ideology not already fallen victim to all forms of scrutiny? And yet support has grown in proportion to the increase in lies that they have told. The parallels between the basic ideas of Nazism and the BNP are strong; anti-Communism, anti-Semitism, anti-Democracy, racism and bigotry to name the obvious and irrefutable. The truth is, that this ideology of power, and negativity, and oppression, has already been more than quashed in the last century. To vote yes in banning the BNP, you would be putting a further, and vital, extra nail in the Fascist coffin.

In terms of violence, of which the BNP are not only inciters of but partakers in, there can be no doubt, that in BNP stronghold areas, violence increases dramatically around election time, and even moreso if a member gets elected. Statistics obtained from the Freedom of Information act have shwon that in research done in 29 police wards across England, there was an average decline in racially motivated or hate motivated attacks. 8 of these wards though, saw sharp increases. All of these wards have elected BNP members since 2006. At a time where hate crime fell, in other words, the BNP ensured its survival. Now the opposition may very well say that no direct link can be proved between the two, but this would not only be a naive position to hold but one in the face of masses of contradictory evidence. How about David Copeland, the BNP member who planted a nail bomb outside a gay bar, successfully managing to lodge a nail deep into a baby's skull, murdering a pregnant woman and a friend close by. This was his response to the deaths, he said, "My aim was political. It was to cause a racial war in this country. There'd be a backlash from the ethnic minorities, then all the white people would go out, and vote BNP." Or BNP election candidate Robert Cottage, found at his home with the largest amount of potentially explosive chemical materials ever found in Britain, (no doubt) beside a box of BNP leaflets. Does it not matter, that Robert Bennett, noted BNP activist and key distributor of leaflets and propaganda in Oldham, was convicted of the rape of two 17 year old girls? I could go on ladies and gentlemen, but the pattern is the same. These are not just certain things that certain BNP members or certain BNP activists do. Central to these acts is the political platform held by the BNP which both grants them legitimacy and permits these activities. This is certainly true when you consider BNP reaction to these events. Consider BNP Director of Publicity, Mark Collett, who, when questioned on the nail bomber, claimed these events to be not just unavoidable, and inevitable, but to be widely accepted. This is of course the same Mark Collett who praised the AIDS virus saying, "Blacks, drug abusers and gays all have it, so I guess it's not a bad disease," and had this to say on ideology, "National Socialism was the answer for Germany, and our own National Socialism is the only answer for England. We will make it happen." These are the people ladies and gentlemen, that the opposition would rather keep within the political spectrum.

The opposition, and increasingly the media, may very well siphon their BNP interpretation through soft, fact free, context free information. We often hear that the BNP is a 'legal, elected party'. Elected, yes, though legality, no, as Orwell would say, this is elementary common sense. Do I even need to point out that we should not allow overt and bigoted anti-Semites, anti-Islamites, anti-Democrats and anti-Liberalists with one hand to climb to political legitimacy, and with the other stir hate based propaganda? Is it not clear, that this party stand against all the common factors used in their defense. They are not for tolerance, yet plead it. They are not for freedom of speech, yet manipulate it. They are not for democracy, yet manoeuvre through it. It is a fact, ladies and gentlemen, that the truth can be divisive on issues such as these, and if this division means that such a party are told that they are not democratic, then we should all breath a sigh of relief. Vote for this motion, and with this show that you too would ban the BNP, unless they change their face, and not just their mask.

Due to continued pleading, petty pleading at that, and incessant begging, Davin has made me type up his speech on this. To reach the wider readership I can only assume...But here is more or less what he said:

Ladies and Gentlemen, esteemed chairperson, members of the opposition. I would like to ask you all to cast your minds back into history. Now keep going until the last time society thought to itself, "Oh yeah, remember that ultra-right-wing-racist party we were going to ban? Well it's a good thing we didn't, because they turned out to be amazing!" Now if you're still searching, it's because such an example does not exist. Such an example does not exist because anytime an organisation of the same ilk as the BNP has been allowed a political platform, be it the Fascists in Italy or the National Socialists in Germany, they have used democracy, to destroy democracy.

We have listened already to an opposition who claim to be defending democracy. Maybe this is why they have found it so difficult to address the fact that we would ban the BNP in a truly democratic way; we would let the people decide on the basis of a plebiscite. Furthermore, our counterpart's dangerous idealism not only glibly brushes off a lesson that history has taught us so many times but also threatens to tear down the principle it seeks to protect. Whether or not good intentions lay behind the opposition's argument is irrelevant, the fact is that they are dangerously flawed.

[Here rebuttals to specific arguments used by the opposition would have been said].

...We have heard today, that in a democracy, a party such as the BNP cannot be banned. However, this is untrue. As Conor has already outlined, by law a party can be banned for misleading its electorate in terms of policy simply to win votes.

In a bid to gain power the BNP has apparently 'changed its face' - although 99% of the party's faces are still white. Nick Griffin publicly claims to have revamped the organisation into a centre-right party who's dogmatic and racist beliefs have been eliminated in favour of a 'real mandate'. By eliminated, good old Nick must have meant, "eliminated from public perception...but we still really hate black people." Vast amounts of evidence have been compiled to show that, despite what is publicly said, the intentions and beliefs of the party elite have not changed. What we have therefore, is a core of backward and often violent party leadership, which is lying to the public as to the nature of their party in order to gain votes.

At the height of Griffin's claims that the BNP were now this cuddly, acceptable party, a senior member of the organisation become disillusioned, saying that, "the party are hiding behind a political name. They have not changed in 20 years, despite what is publicly said. Their mandate is still one of racism, hatred and violence." This man, Andy Sikes, worked with the BBC to compile video evidence, contrasting what the electorate are told, with the true intentions of the BNP.

Some of you may remember Question Time a few months ago in which Nick Griffin claimed to, "never have encouraged, nor incited violence." Yet at a members-only conference Mr Sikes told Mr Griffin that holding a public meeting in one particular anti-BNP area could incite violence. To this Mr Griffin replied, "Great! If we get a riot out of it we'll walk the election." It is part of the BNP's tactic to incite racial violence and then use the hatred created to recruit votes.

In terms of immigrants, the party manifesto states that it is, "not militant in our approach to multiculturalism, but concerned with dealing with the issue in a constitutional way." However this does not sound like the approach of council candidate Dave Midgely, who repeatedly harassed a local Asian restaurant by putting dog faeces through their letterbox. It may be noteworthy as well that over two thirds of the BNP's candidates for the last election had criminal convictions concerning racist activities.

In the past the BNP have also outlined their vague but nonetheless hilarious policy towards Ireland. Saying that they intend to, "end sectarianism by stopping immigration," which is obviously the route of the problem! Yet Mr Sikes met with the man who drafted this elaborate policy, and whilst probing him on the holes in his logic, this senior member admitted that the BNP had no real concern for Northern Ireland, as it, "isn't as infested with non-whites as the rest of the UK." The policy was up largely to boost the organisation's image as a viable party.

Centre to this debate however is race. At the start of this year the BNP launched a series of pamphlets around England which claimed, "we are no longer a racist." Skin heads and pit bull owners aside, the electorate seems to agree. In a recent poll, 60% of voters in BNP stronghold areas stated that they didn't think the BNP was a racist party. This may be because they have never been to a senior BNP meeting, such as the one Andy Sikes helped to film. At one of these meetings MP-in-the-making Stuart Williams was asked what his dream as. He replied, "My dream is to have a transit van with a million bullets. I'd just pull up outside the mosques on Friday afternoon when they're all getting out and slaughter them." Nick Griffin applauded this.

It may seem like common knowledge that the BNP aren't the bastion of the ethnic minority, but sure this is as far as their hostility extends? In terms of parliament, the BNP manifesto warmly states that the organisation looks forward to, "peaceful and progressive competition with the Left." What it doesn't mention, is that countless senior members of the party visit the website 'Redwatch' which lists pictures and home addresses of thousands of Liberal activists. When the BNP's rising star Mark Collett was asked in private what it was about, he described it as a, "hit list of reds who need twatting."

Just like this house, the public deserves to know what they are voting for before they do so. The argument we continue to hear; that it 'doesn't matter what the party thinks because they are still representing people's opinions' is tore to shreds by the fact that what people are being told the party believes, and what it actually believes, are two very different things! I'm sure much of the BNP's following would disintegrate had they been at the party conference where their founder John Tyndall, described Africans, all Africans, as, "festers of voodoo, cannibalism, witchcraft and AIDS."

Until such a time as the organisation ceases the illegal activities Conor discussed, and ceases its blatant misleading of the people, the BNP must be banned. Members of the house, the final nail in this swastika-shaped coffin comes from Nick Griffin himself. In 2007 this now acceptable politician shared a platform with former leader of the Klu Klux Klan David Duke at a rally. As he spoke to the crowd he said, "Do not believe what you hear over the coming years. No matter what we say or do in public to manoeuvre ourselves into power, our aim remains the same. We have not changed our face, we are simply wearing a mask."

An extremely difficult debate as it progressed. Neither of us would have felt cheated had we of lost as it was extremely close. We did win though and now have advanced to the final of the competition.

Before the last debate had time to sink in Davin and I were confronted with our next motion. Unmistakably dry, 'This House believes that funding the 2012 Olympics at the expense of culture, arts, and heritage represents poor value for money.' Adding to this, we for the first time were told to propose the motion, a venture neither of us had ever done before. This gave us more scope of manipulation over the motion, but as it turned out, the motion itself was in and of itself narrow enough to ensure that our power was limited. The debate took place on 2nd March 2010 and here is roughly what I said:

Ladies, gentlemen, esteemed adjudicators, members of the opposition, and of the audience. Davin and I believe with conviction that the inept and muddled funding of the 2012 Olympics will give birth to a situation which will be hugely detrimental, both economically and socially, to our culture, arts and heritage. We, the proposition, define the key terms of the motion as such; we first understand the term 'arts, culture and heritage' to be focusing on the 56 million people in the UK outside of the English capital, and the cultural, artistic and heritages based initiatives which will be directly affected, outside of London. The term 'value for money' is understood to be relating to the social, as well as the economic implications of the Olympic investments. I will begin by shedding light on the economic atrocities that have both preceded and will succeed the games, and explain why outside of London, culture, arts and heritage will suffer financial famine. Davin will then build on this by explaining why the only legacy the games are likely to leave us, is from the burnished glow of politicians' and organisers' collective ego.

Recently, Will Self spoke on the possibility of abstaining from arts, culture and heritage. He suggested removing all aspects of pictures, drawings, music, books, television, film, radio, newspapers, magazines, internet, museums and listed buildings from our lives. I say this ladies and gentlemen because this is the scope of culture, arts and heritage, and to stagnate funding for a number of these and focus on the Olympics we feel, cannot be justified. Of course, in economically frail times such as these financial leadership must be robust. But have we seen such leadership under Tessa Jowell, the Labour MP who is in charge of directing Olympic funding? In 2005 the first Olympic budget was announced, it amounted to £2.3bn to cover all costs, two years later this was revised, the new figure somehow came out at £9.3bn. When questioned on this discrepancy, Jowell had this to say, "How was I supposed to know we had to take into account VAT, security, and a contingency?" This contemptuous response was added to when recently she was reported to have said that she, "wished" London had never gone for the Olympics at all.

One of the main sources of funding for arts, culture and heritage comes from the Lottery, wherein 28p from each pound is spent on 'good causes'. The Olympic Lottery Distributor is now one of the bodies that receives this money. Aside from this though, the Olympics are already hoovering money from almost every economic orifice; council tax in London, central government taxation, their own specially created lottery, but here we see that it is actually siphoning off the vital source of funding for arts, culture and heritage UK wide at the grass roots. Ladies and gentlemen in 2007 alone this resulted in a 35% budget cut for arts, culture and heritage.

Surely though, there is an Olympic answer? Well, it is the Cultural Olympiad. This pathetic body, set up to celebrate British culture, have hijacked it, and are squeezing it into south-east England. The Scottish National Party's Culture, Media and Sports spokesperson, Peter Wishart, had this to say after Tessa Jowell revealed that out of about 1200 Olympiad projects, 7 were in Scotland, "There has been a blatant attempt to leave Scotland out in the cold when it comes to cultural legacy. It's high time those behind the London Olympics started to live up to their promise that this event would benefit the whole of the UK and not just the south-east of England."

We, the proposition, also want to bring light on the social implications of hosting the Olympics for the homeless. In Vancouver between 2003 and 2009 homeless rates went up by 370% due to the displacement of social housing on Olympic venue sites, not accounting for the street clean up that took place in the latter half of last year. This is not isolated, the 2007 Fair Play for Housing report listing large figures in previous Olympics. Seoul in 1988 displaced 750,000 homeless, whilst Beijing tallied 1.5mn. I say this because ladies and gentlemen, this is part of what you the taxpayer pay for as part of the Olympic package.

Key to this motion though ladies and gentlemen, do the Olympics in and of themselves represent good value for money? Or is £6bn of central government taxation just too steep an investment for a four week display of men and women running in circles and playing in sandpits? To return again to Tessa Jowell, who said the Olympics will, "address some of the key issues our nation faces, health, social inclusion, educational motivation, and fighting crime!" Whilst it is telling that arts, culture and heritage were not mentioned here, is there any truth to these claims? The only real research done on this topic was in Australia, between 1985 and 2002. Indeed in the year after the Sydney Olympics seven Olympic sports did indeed receive a small increase in participation, whilst nine declined. Indeed the report concluded that, "the most substantial sport participation related event...was an increase in live and television spectating." The net result was therefore, less sport, and more TV. The report went on to echo a 2007 report by the Culture, Media and Sport committee which concluded that, "the Olympics are by no means a guaranteed economic investment." To use one example, did Greece's Olympic choice bolster their economy into being able to bear the oncoming harsh economic climate, or did the olympic sized hangover they are still experiencing mean that the Olympics are one of the reasons for it?

In conclusion ladies and gentlemen, value for money, a key term to this motion, is measurable, with the so called three E's of economy, efficiency, and effectiveness. On the branch of economy, under Tessa Jowell it appears obvious that the economic situation is in disarray, victim to false promises and corporate nepotism. On efficiency, the Aquatic centre, to take just one example, has spiralled into a pipedream project. The emblem of soaring costs that it is, shows glaring inefficiencies. On effectiveness, the government have openly admitted that the Olympics alone can have no lasting effect, stating that legacy can only be aspired to with the Olympics as a bit part player in a wider governmental scheme, how can it really deemed effective alone? It cannot. Ladies and gentlemen, vote for this motion, this house is fervent in its belief that funding the Olympics at the expense of culture, arts and heritage represents atrocious value for money.

Without doubt the toughest debate yet, Davin and I won the debate and have now advanced to the semi finals.