Union Mass Debate Is A Load Of Wank
"ILL PREPARED AND passionless," was amongst the verdicts on the Union's latest No Confidence debate, held last Thursday.
The annual debate, entitled "This house has no confidence in Her Majesty's government", was advertised as featuring Ann Widdecombe, Baroness Young and David Heathcoat-Amory in proposition with Hilary Benn, Sion Simon and Shaun Woodward opposing.
But on the day of the debate, it was revealed that Ms Widdecombe - for many the evening's main attraction - had unexpectedly pulled out and would not be appearing. There was much speculation that the reason for her no show was due to pressure from Conservative Central Office, after the controversy surrounding her now discredited drugs policy. Whatever the reason, numerous disappointed punters walked out of the debate before the show even got under way.
Those who stayed were not unanimously impressed with the quality of the remaining debaters and their arguments. One student debating expert who attended said: "The proposition was conceited and passionless. On the other side Kirsty McNeill was ill-prepared and damaged the government side, although the puerile jibes made by the proposition did not help her case. Hilary Benn was impressive but passionless while Sion Simon had all of the passion but none of the argument." He went on: "The floor speakers were uninspired and dragged the entire debate down to a semantic argument about the meaning of the word 'confidence'."
The Oxford Student relayed these comments to Union President Richard Silcock, who was adamant in saying that it was an "extremely good debate" and that all speakers were very pleased.
"I wouldn't quite call it ill-prepared when the speakers knew about the debate three months beforehand," he declared. When asked about Ms Widdecombe's cancellation, he merely commented: "we must be realistic about these things." He felt that the debate was better without her because "she would have attracted attention away from the debate." He did not try to find a replacement.
The content of the debate was not the only thing that led to dissatisfaction. Despite the fact that it was a ticketed event - due to new fire regulations - members had to queue for over half an hour before they could enter the chamber. Even then many ended up on the galleries - felt by some spectators to be packed in excess of what would be safe.
Meanwhile some attendees on the floor had reserved seats and seemed to have plenty of room for their lavish ball gowns and eveningwear.
Union press secretary Daniel Johnson, when informed of these claims, said: "The queues were an error on our part. I can't comment on why the galleries were overfilled, but I can say that guests of the Union got reserved seats." Johnson declined to explain what differentiated these guests from the actual members, as all the tickets were supposedly identical.
Silcock, meanwhile, said that there have always have been queues at the Union and that people may have been waiting for a long time because of a new doorman who did not fully understand the regulations.
Although the evening was well-attended, there are nevertheless members who hope that the standard of the debate - and seating conditions - will be improved before they attend any more events. Silcock promised to look into the issue, but it remains to be seen whether any changes will be made.
19th Oct 2000