Tory concerns over leaders' TV debates grow

Brown has most to gain from television debates

When I suggested a couple of weeks ago that Gordon Brown had much to gain from televised debates between the party leaders, many disagreed. But over at ConservativeHome, Tim Montgomerie reflects some of the fears inside Tory circles:

My concern about these debates is very simple. The Conservatives have too much to lose when we are comfortably ahead in the opinion polls and therefore have to be very careful about the formats we are willing to accept. I hope . . . Team Cameron is insisting on just one or two debates.

The initial consensus was that the articulate and suave Cameron would emerge victorious from the debates, but there is a growing belief that Brown's forensic attention to detail could overwhelm the Tory leader. It is particularly significant that the Conservatives are opposed to policy-based debates on the economy, public services and foreign affairs.

The damage that policy scrutiny can do to the Tories was shown when gay support for the party fell by 17 per cent after its alliance with homophobic European parties received greater exposure.

Montgomerie also repeats his call for Nick Clegg to be excluded from "one of the debates" -- a demand which, particularly in the run-up to a possible hung parliament, broadcasters should reject. Chris Huhne is justified in complaining today about the persistent media bias against the Lib Dems:

Even where Labour and Conservative views are nearly identical -- such as on crime, Afghanistan or Iraq -- news organisations evidently feel they can eliminate the Liberal Democrat viewpoint in the interests of simple, adversarial debate. The idea that there might be more than two points of view in an argument is normal in other European democracies, but not here.

Reporters even refer to "both parties" or "both main parties" as if we were still in the Fifties-style two-party system, which is deeply insulting to voters who do not live in Labour-Conservative battlegrounds. Forty per cent of parliamentary seats have the Liberal Democrats in first or second place.

Leaders' debates should be designed to ameliorate this injustice, not reinforce it.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Show Hide image

Why a group of Brunel students walked out on Katie Hopkins instead of no-platforming her

"We silently walked out because Ms Hopkins has the right to speak, but we also have the right to express our discontent."

Earlier this week, columnist and all-round provocateur Katie Hopkins turned up to Brunel University to join a panel in debating whether the welfare state has a place in 2015. No prizes for guessing her stance on this particular issue

But as Hopkins began her speech, something odd happened. Around 50 students stood up and left, leaving the hall half-empty.

Here's the video:

As soon as Hopkins begins speaking, some students stand up with their backs to the panelists. Then, they all leave - as the nonplussed chair asks them to "please return to their seats". 

The walk-out was, in fact, pre-planned by the student union as an act of protest against Hopkins' appearance at an event held as part of the University's 50th anniversary celebrations. 

Ali Milani, the Brunel Student Union president, says he and other students knew the walk-out would "start a conversation" around no-platforming on campuses, but as he points out, "What is often overlooked (either purposely or as a result of the fanfare) is that the conversation at no point has been about banning Ms Hopkins from speaking on campus, or denying her right to speak."

Instead, students who found her appearance at the welfare debate "incongruous" and "distasteful" simply left the room: "We silently walked out because Ms Hopkins has the right to speak, but we also have the right to express our discontent."

Milani praised the student body for treading the line between freedom of speech and expressing their distaste at Brunel's decision: 

"They have respectfully voiced their antagonism at the decision of their institution, but also . . . proven their commitment to free of speech and freedom of expression."

The protest was an apt way to dodge the issues of free speech surrounding no-platforming, while rejecting Hopkins' views. A walk-out symbolises the fact that we aren't obliged to listen to people like Hopkins. She is free to speak, of course, albeit to empty chairs. 

Barbara Speed is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman and a staff writer at CityMetric.