The Final

I feel kind of proud actually. On my update in early/mid February; where I posted my opening speech in the "This House would welcome being governed from the playing fields of Eton," debate; I put Nick Clegg as my customary photo at the speeches side. I am a moderate admirer of Clegg, he seems sensible; even if many of the Liberal Democrat policies simply pander to public opinion(such as the Iraq War, and on the simultaneous embracing of the green economy and rejection of nuclear power). After last weeks elections, which were the first I was able to vote in; he now holds the balance in the forming of a new government. I feel like a political prophet. This has been an interesting development. Most of his discussions have been with Cameron and his lot. Now there is no doubting that Clegg is to the right of his party, but no good can come of this in my opinon. A LibCon alliance may be mathematically desirable, commanding an easy majority as it would; but ideologically destructive. In many cases Liberal Democrat policy is to the left of Labour, a coalition with obvious assholes such as George Osborne would alienate the left of the party. I thought it fitting to put a younger Gordon Brown as my picture here on the day he announced his intentions to step down as party leader. In my opinion, he is by far the most principled and consistent politician of the current three party leaders. Whilst Conservative press (As a side note to this point: out of all newspapers in the UK, ALL of them endorsed the Conservatives apart from the Daily Mirror(Labour) and the Guardian(Liberal Democracts). Well at least as far as I know, correct me if I'm wrong.) tore through and destroyed this man, and with this the fact that he faced the hardest Prime Ministerial term of any man or woman in recent history. Let's face it: the Tories lost. Labour certainly lost, but so did the Conservatives. They received 10m votes this is true, but with all the wind in their sails; they could not oust Labour really and truly. I hope this is a sign of a shifting political demographic, well and truly away from a two-party-pandering system, and to a real representative one. The Liberals need to use this as collateral in any deal they manage to pull.

Well moving on, my last post noted how Davin and I reached the final of the Northern Ireland Schools Debating Competition. This final took place on the 30th April 2010 in the Senate Chamber of the amazing Stormont Parliament Buildings. This building blew me away and it was a real pleasure to get the chance to debate in it. The motion was, "This House would welcome being part of a European Federal State." Davin and I were in our more comfortable position of opposition (having, I felt, seemed a bit squirmish as the proposition in the Semi Finals). Here is more or less what my opening speech said (I am willing to post Davin's speech, but I have no copies of it; plus his own speech was cut completely short by points of information so over half of it was not said.):

Ladies and gentlemen, chairperson, esteemed adjudicators, members of the proposition and of the audience; Davin and I believe that UK involvement in a European Federal State would be monetarily destructive, corrupt in its origins, hostile to national self determination and sovereignty, and adverse to public opinion. We, the opposition, feel that we must first underline that this debate is about the supposed merits of involvement in a Federal Europe for us, and whether or not the UK should abstain from such a federations. The supposed or theoretical implications of such a situation are thus relevant only should they be directly applicable to the UK now, and offer benefits not already available. My argument can be broken down into three headings: firstly, the essentiality of legitimacy, secondly; the confusion surrounding structure and representation, and thirdly; the failings of the Eurozone. Davin will follow on this by depicting the EU as it is now, a network of corruption with a considerable and consistent democratic deficit. Whilst this debate should not focus on the EU, any European Federal State must by definition have been born within the EU, therefore criticisms of this organisation are criticisms of what the birth of a Federal Europe would entail. With this, we WILL show you why UK involvement in a United States of Europe is not ipso facto desirable, and that it should be resisted.
Legitimacy
On legitimacy: the legitimacy of a government is the foundation of its power. An institution is perceived as legitimate if there is approval for it among those subject to its authority. A relevant example of this can be drawn in contemporary America. In the USA there exists fiscal centralisation, ie taxes are given to the federal government and spread across states. By extension, someone paying federal taxes in Philadelphia knows that their tax may spread wealth to the complete other side of the continent. But this is an accepted condition as the American government is supported by the government and is thus legitimate. With this in mind, in the UK now our context is firmly anchored within an electorate which is one of, if not the, most Eurosceptic in the entire supposed European family. This is the fact. Another fact is that the UK electorate will not accept their taxes being spread to a distant Luxembourg. Another fact is that the UK electorate will not accept the ability of a German, a Romanian or a Slovenian to vote in their elections. The proposition have instead joined this auction of hyperbole in glorifying Eurofederalism, and demeaning the pro-European realism Davin and I advocate. The objection to a European Federal State here is that there is no appetite within the UK for it, therefore it is not feasible.
Structure and representation
On structure and representation: there are of course glaring isses within the EU surrounding the unaccountable Commission and the impotent and weak Parliament, now these are two issues Davin will go into in more detail but the basic fact is that there is a basic crisis of EU legitimacy. There is no widely understood or accepted framework of Europe in place. By extension, the heavyweight of change and the abolition of sovereignty that would occur should we be moulded into a Federation need to be met with answers to these questions which I am posing to the proposition: what actual structure would a federal Europe take? How do the proposition justify superseding and complete ignoring public opinion? And how many representatives would the UK have to play the role and do the jobs of the roughly 650 current constituency MPs in the House of Commons? The objection to a European Federal State here lies in the fact that any answers to these questions will be either utopian in tone, or completely unsatisfactory.
The Eurozone
I will now deal with the issue of the monetary and fiscal unionism that would certainly follow should a Federal Europe become a reality with us involved. In the words of Meyer Amschel Rothschild, known as the founding father of Internation Finance, "Give me control of a state's money supply, and I care not who make its laws." The ridiculous claims of prosperity offered by the Euro can indeed now be empirically tested against its actual performance; whereby the credit crunch gave the Euro, its credibility crunch. The propostion are accepting it seems, that the Eurozone's regulation was so frivolously imposed that Greece could simply tell the European Central Bank that their deficit was okay. The proposition are accepting it seems that unemployment has risen year on year since the Euro's inception, but this is okay, as this keeps wages low and private profits high. Never mind it seems, that the Eurozone showed none of this supposed European solidarity, having taken weeks to secure even the ghost of an agreement on Greece. Swiss research group 'Assembly of European Regions' conducted a study on this issue, which concluded that, "European countries which have their own [economic levers] do consistently better than centralised ones." Joining the Eurozone needs to offer some benefits, some advantages. But the fact is, it offers more hindrances and constraints, enforcing a fiscal straightjacket. The objection to a European Federal State here lies in the huge famine of supposed benefits offered by joining this catastrophe.
This is an appeal to reason ladies and gentlemen.
Firstly; a European Federal State would not be legitimate. Any such mass reorganisation of government does indeed need public support.
Secondly, there is no realistic or accepted framework within which the EU can be placed, let alone a European Federal State.
Thirdly, having economic power always comes out on top of having no economic power, which is seemingly what the proposition would rather.
To vote against this motion is a vote for maintaining the credibility of democracy. It is a vote for economic autonomy and against economic despotism. It is a vote for a pro-European realism, instead of utopianism, and tyranny. Ladies and gentlemen, vote against this motion.

Well, coming as Davin and I have, an extremely long way since the student debt debate: we won the competition and are thus the Northern Ireland Schools Debating champions. A huge honour and a privilege, it was an amazing and tough debate, and an amazing night. Thank you to all who came to show support.

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.

The month of January was consumed by A2 modules, getting adjusted back to school and towards the end, another debate. Davin and I were presented with the motion "This house would welcome being governed from the playing fields of Eton" and were positioned in the opposition. Here is a near final draft of what I had wanted to say in my first speech:

Ladies, gentlemen, esteemed adjudicator, members of the proposition and of the audience. Mr Clarke and I vehemently oppose the prospect of being governed from the playing fields of Eton. We, the opposition, understand the motion to be focusing on the prospect of a Conservative election victory come May and evaluate the term 'govern' as the overseeing of this prospective government of continued devolution in Northern Ireland. With this, the values propounded by Mr. Cameron and his entourage of Cameroons is up for scrutiny. Indeed the feeling of desire towards such a prospect reeks of a politically parasitic Anglophilia which we, the opposition, wholly detach ourselves from. I will begin by addressing the issues of our current predicament, the economy, and a possible unwelcome return of sectarian politics. Davin will build on this by dissecting what we are allowed to know of Conservative policy and tell you what these actually mean when the rhetoric is decoded. With this we will show you why neither we, nor you, should welcome being governed from the playing fields of Eton.

Ladies and gentlemen, Davin and I do not want to appear politically apologetic for the Labour government, but too often is it the case that the opinion of the people is formed purely from the recent negative come election time. We are all so disilusioned that the positives are shaded over and forgotton. But it is important to give credence, when it is due, to where Labour have succeeded. Such as the lowering of crime levels by a third, the drastically improving education system, more students than oever, the disability discrimination act, devolution here in Northern Ireland, civil partnerships, record levels of child benefit, the minimum wage, the first ever climate change act, to name but a few from a Gordon Brown speech in '09. Our disillusionment overshadows these major steps. The Labour government though, it cannot be denied, have faced the global economic crash, the expenses scandal, the fumblingly poor handling of Gulf warfare, and a debatably sluggish response to green issues. We hear this in every speech from Dave Cameron, they are in fact, his main electoral push. What we don't hear though, is whether there was Tory disapproval of Labour's laissez faire economic approach during boom years. What we don't hear though, is of the continued support of the Conservatives for Gulf warfare. What we don't hear though, is that the party of Green scepticism, is the Conservative party. My point being ladies and gentlemen, is that we don't hear solutions, only criticisms. Because of this, the Conservatives appear both empty of oppositional ideas and organisationally hollow. David Cameron's youth, intelligence, Etonian plausibility, and career drivin politics seem starkly devoid of political or personal substance for which to even justify the possiblity of an electoral victory.

Focusing on the economy, it is oft debated that Labour have driven us and the world into a bleak and dark economic dystopia, wherein they secretly plot to drive us deeper into it through evil public spending. With that in mind you would assume that the Conservatives have a consistent and coherent ecomic policy, lauded by economists of all stripes as the saviour of the free market. This is simply not true. Davin will speak in detail about more intricate economic plausibilities under the Cameroons but the key point being made is that the deficit needs to be cut, and cut soon, whether or not the 0.1%GDP growth really is enough to dignify the stagnation of public funding, in order to reduce this deficit. David Cameron does not care, it seems, that this model is firmly rejected by most if not all major world economies and in fact China, who did the polar opposite and pumped continuous funds into the economy, came out of their recession quickest and strongest. They are now arguably the world's strongest economy alongside the USA. On this important question of consistency, I will describe a brief Tory timeline. In 2005, when George Osborne first become Shadow Chancellor, he endorsed flat taxes, which was dropped because even it was too right wing a policy. At a conference in '06, the Tories said there was simply no scope for tax cuts, and Mr. Cameron endorsed Labour's new spending plans. At the very next conference, tax cuts became the Tory defining policy, and Cameron denounced these same spending plans. Last summer the Tories tonally implied swingeing public spending cuts, but only last week Cameron squirmishly said that 'only a start' could be made to said cuts during year one of an Etonite parliament. The only pattern here ladies and gentlemen, is the distinct lack of one. If this sycophantic Toryism is what it means to be governed from the playing fields of Eton, it is no basis by which to agree with the motion in question.

On the issue of sectarian politics, how can the proposition stand on this podium and glibly indicate, with the sort of atrabilious and arrogant reciprocal self-righteousness which sadly is commonplace for their assumed position, that our newest Eton-bred embodiment, Dave, could produce progress? The truth lies starkly anti-thetical to this claim. Having already made an electoral alliance with the UUP, the Conservatives have shacked up with the DUP. Cameron has not denied accusations of wanting to create a pan-unionist front if the event of a hung parliament requires it. This is obviously, unless your political naivity is matched only by your refusal of political objectivity, a move of power grabbing pragmatism, rooted in the detached pathological competitiveness of his Eton days. We, the opposition, deem this as a possible external imposition of sectarian partisan politics, which we do not have time for, unlike the proposition.

Ladies and gentlemen, we can't go on like this. We can't go on making a scapegoat out of our current government who have, since 1997, brought us here in the North of Ireland as close as we have been to political independance than would have seemed plausible only a generation ago. We can't go on placing sole blame for our economic woes on a government whose opposition raised no qualms themselves. Most of all though, we can't go on looking to David Cameron as a plausible solution. We may be very sorry come May if the proposition get what they propose. Ladies and gentlemen, vote against this motion, this house would not welcome being governed from the playing fields of Eton.

Davin and I won the debate and somehow have now advanced to the quarter finals of the competition.

Delayed.

In what is an echo of a previous excuse, no writing due to debating commitments stands as the famine of this blog limps along. In the same competition as the one previously noted, Davin and I debated the motion 'This House rejects the use of nuclear power as a solution to the energy crisis' - we opposed this motion. The speech was as follows;

Ladies, gentlemen, esteemed adjudicator, members of the proposition and of the audience. Mr. Clarke and I strongly advocate that nuclear power not be disregarded as part of the solution to our oncoming energy crisis. Not only do we vehemently criticise the naive position of the proposition, and the consequential beliefs by pure association, but we also accuse them of illogical, alarmist and biased ideas. To justify this I will first focus on the current coal, natural gas and oil situations with their nuclear answers, followed by the questions of nuclear waste and nuclear proliferation. Mr. Clarke will then further expound on this by addressing some seemingly forgotten facts of the so called renewable energy sources, again with their relative nuclear answers, followed by exploring our ever increasing understanding and improvement of the fission process. He will then finish with the always fragile topic of terrorism.

Commonly held assumption one; radiation from Nuclear Power Plants is infinitely worse for your health than current CO2 emissions. Ladies and gentlemen, in the course of this debate alone each person here will be struck by roughly 60 million particles of this same type of radiation. And this is lauded simply as ’background radiation’ - because it has no discernable affects. For someone living close to a nuclear plant, their radiation exposure goes up by 1%. The reality is, for a given amount of energy produced, coal ash, for example, is far more radioactive than nuclear radiation. This is because the quantity of coal ash is literally millions of times greater. If the skull and cross-bone dangers of radiation card is to be played, I ask you to cast your eye on the abundantly present coal industry we currently face. Therefore, this argument is a non-starter.

Commonly held assumption two; this is nuclear technology, and it can explode! Ladies and gentlemen, this statement is founded on zero evidence other than the attendance of the word nuclear. Mr. Clarke is going to go into further detail about how nuclear power plants are extremely safe in his speech but a key point to be made is that the uranium enriched in nuclear plants cannot explode, it is not even nearly weapons grade. But, if this argument is to be allowed - consider a natural gas tanker - which transports natural gas cooled and liquefied to around -160 degrees Celsius overseas in an extremely expensive and extremely fragile procedure. These glorified thermos flasks have the explosive potential of a hydrogen bomb. Why do the proposition not speak out about the deadly killing potential of such a device, which harbours on our ports regularly? The paradoxical hyprocritical double standard is obvious for all to see.

The third assumption I will address is the propounded ‘unsolved problem’ of nuclear waste. Nuclear waste comes in what are called spent fuel rods. Of which only 5% is ‘high-level waste’ ie stuff that is actually debatably dangerous. Debatable because when controlled, parts are also be used for medical purposes. The other 95% is the same uranium you dig out of the earth, and countries such as France and Canada recycle parts of this to extract energy from the waste.

To put the scale of nuclear waste into perspective, if ALL the electricity you will ever use in your lifetime were to come from nuclear, the waste would fill a coke can. In contrast, in one day a coal plant (1 GW) uses 8,000 tonnes of coal, translating into 19,000 tonnes of CO2 with no containment method, pumped into our breathing air. Many often hark and scowl at the proposal that nuclear waste be stored for a thousand years, but compare this to solid wastes through coal burning, such as arsenic and chromium - these don’t have ‘half-lives’ and cannot be stored until it is safe, they last forever. And there is no conceivable way to isolate waste that pumps out roughly three tonnes of ash per second. Nuclear waste, to the contrary, is extremely controllable and myths of green goo seeping into our drinking water is only propounded by the anti-nuclear priesthood. Is it not logical that the waste from our energy be stored rather than littered into our air? Taking France as an example. In a 50 year period, the most nuclear intensive country in the world has all their waste stored in one room, in 50 years.

Can the proposition really be telling us that nuclear energy, a huge branch of scientific technology, be disregarded whilst we wait it out, during which time coal plants continue to make our air unfit to breath, during which time we continue to rely on corrupt political regimes for our energy, during which time price volatility for energy fluctuates in the rising pattern it has in the past decade, until comparably inefficient and unreliable renewable energy is optimised? Even then it would not be enough. Therefore, this is not good enough! I remind the audience that we, the opposition, are not cancelling out renewable technology, but we are advocating that nuclear is the greenest alternative to coal, natural gas and oil that can support the base load of our growing electricity consumption as countries such as China and India continue to grow, and they can do this reliably, comparatively cheaply, and are not temperamental.

On the issue of nuclear weaponry, I simply ask the proposition what their supposed plan would be for the decommissioning of nuclear weapons. Whilst enriching uranium to weapons grade is extremely difficult, using it for fuel is simple. As an example, half of the nuclear energy used by the USA comes from the decommissioning of outdated Cold War Russian warheads, without which, they would still be a threat to us all. No other technology is so strongly an advocate of nuclear non-proliferation than nuclear energy.

Ladies and gentlemen, the proposition have signed their subscription and joined this auction of hyperbole and credulity surrounding nuclear energy propagated falsely by the mass media. They are putting illogical principles before facts in an aprioristic style. We must polemicise our way out of this religious type taboo where it is blasphemic to correlate nuclear with progress and good. The point is ladies and gentlemen, not that non-renewable energy sources are bad, or even that renewable energy sources are inadequate, but that the very criticisms of nuclear energy are ill-founded, propagandist tripe used to manipulate your interpretations of the technology. And we, the opposition, ONLY ask you to not disregard it completely, to fit it into the equation somewhere, as the proposition refuse to do, in our own energy crisis. Thank you.

The debate took place on the 15th December and Davin and I defeated the motion and advanced to the next round.

Neglectful update on 12/11/09

Having neglected the lonely chronicling of my own thoughts I felt it necessary to update this after well over two weeks of avoidance. Indeed I can claim excuse in the fact that a lot of my recent time was completely consumed by preparation for the first round of the 'Northern Ireland Schools Debating Competition' in which my good friend Davin, and I, opposed the motion, "This House believes Student Debt is a fair price to pay for an education." Here is a near final draft of what my speech was(having discarded the tangible final version after the debate itself);

Ladies, gentlemen, esteemed adjudicator, members of the proposition and of the audience, not only is it inherently obvious that for the vast majority of graduating university students today and for the foreseeable future, that their prospective debt ailments dominate their lives, career options and indeed happiness, but it is also the conviction of Davin and I that the system in place is an intrinsically corrupt, class based and chasm creating one. I will begin by outlining the failings of this unfair system and then focus on the misleading tales of post-graduate prosperity. Davin will then follow by focusing on how our government have failed to improve social mobility and the economy to the extent where this can really be deemed a fair price.
Let us primarily take into account the student loan system in and of itself, which the proposition have so stoutly defended as a beacon for social mobility, the emancipator of class struggle, leading to the educational liberation of minds from lower middle class families, is this the case? Certainly not. Whilst the proposition would have us believe that this infallible system works as an ironing board in the quest for a productive, intelligent and broad society, I pose that whilst our government has displayed a screen of supposed commitment to this issue, that after over a decade since Labour introduced the means-tested system and with it, imposed the idea of University fees upon us, that higher education is still dominated by white, upper and upper middle class students. Why is it the case that students from the richest 2% of households dominate the top universities? Why is it the case that they are twice as likely to go to university at all? Why is it the case that the poorest 25% of households make up less than 6.3% in these universities? The answer, ladies and gentleman, lies firstly in the fundamentally flawed Student Loans Company, the red brick stumbling block on the hazy road that is a University education.
Hazy because we, the opposition, think it illogical to suppose that it is a ‘fair price’ that students be fed the propaganda of the equality interests of student loans. Let us realise that student loans are not earmarked by a fixed interest rate, indeed it is a variable one that is more often than not in line with the Retail Price Index inflation figure. The example I propose is that a student who leaves University with a general degree, which has no direct career path, for example strikes lucky and finds a job at a starting wage of £17,000 per annum, now compare this to a student who graduates what I will call a ’platinum’ degree(which falls under the banner of Law, Medicine, Actuary and so on), this student will have more job opportunities and will of course earn more money when he/she acquires this job, and will pay off their loan in bigger instalments than the other student, in proportion to what each earns. With the addition of interest rates though, we have a system which punishes those on lower wages, since the student with a general degree is paying in smaller instalments, the interest builds up and over time they end up paying off more money to the Student Loans Company than the graduate who did a higher powered degree and earns a substantially greater amount of money. This is simply prejudiced and unjust.
The proposition will no doubt enlighten us on how students have to be aware of the interest added on to their loans, but what incentive is it, to take out a loan that can be at a similar level to some of the best fixed rate mortgages currently available? The best rate that new borrowers can hope for is 3.98% in a mortgage, while students in the past couple of years have had to deal with interest rates as high as 4.8%. How can it be justified that the average student in Newcastle for example, should he/she take out a loan each year to cover simply their tuition fees starting a three year degree, will have just under £10,000 of debt once they graduate. This figure may be harrowing but it is also kind, as it does not take into account possible loans for maintenance fees, which is just as much of a reality as loans for tuition fees are, using the proposition‘s logic. This is not fair, when just a few miles north, Scottish students have the opportunity to attain third level education free of charge. Let me also clarify, that since the Labour government refuse to pay tuition fees, that any English, Welsh or Northern Irish student who goes to Scotland does have to pay fees. The proposition believe this to be fair?
It is not in the nature of our argument to suggest that all third level education should be free, or indeed that third level education is a birth right. But the government simply aren’t rewarding the academic excellence of students who show the capability and capacity to excel, they are turning University education into a yearned for right, instead of an earned one.
What then, of the argument of the job market? The housing market? Surely, you would assume, graduates, having been sold University as a route to employability, are flourishing and will be the cogs, pulleys and gears to pull us out of our current economic depression? Indeed I would claim that the antithesis is harder to falsify. ‘Out of school and on the dole’ is the latest cry from students as they face a harsh job market simply trying to economise. It is believed that after the class of 2009 graduated, under 25 unemployment hit the one million mark. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development released figures that nearly half of employers had no plans to recruit graduates in the summer just past. meaning one in ten of the class of 2009 will be unemployed as a result. Ladies and gentlemen we are faced with a lost generation, the class of 2009 were the first set of students to leave University with unprecedented levels of debt, and the job market has been slashed by roughly 25% amidst extremely optimistic and unctuous predictions at the time in which the fees were bumped to around three thousand pounds per year. They graduate to find very few jobs in the market. They could not join the First Time Buyer market during the boom because the prices were too high, and now the Student Loans Company have made it clear that there are plans to give their credit files to banks, so any missed payment on the student loan system will show up as a black X beside their name, making a mortgage near impossible for graduates when also taking into consideration the mortgage rates. I will say it again, somehow the are trying to tell us, that this is fair?
It is a sad state of affairs ladies and gentlemen, there is no doubting that Universities are economically driven, but at increasing rates the economic benefits which they offer are limited. Ladies and gentlemen student debt is not a fair price to pay for an education.

Suffice to say, we won the debate by an anorexic margin of one point. Though simply by not being embarrassed on a public stage such as that was a small victory in itself for me. I am now sick of the very topic of student debt, let alone prepared to face it once this school year ends.