Douglas Murray was brilliant as usual, and as someone else has pointed out, a New Statesman debate was bound to get a leftist outcome.

A compelling, persuasive and eloquent case against wikileaks and in my opinion easily the least nauseating speech I've ever heard from Douglas Murray. Actually I quite enjoyed it. It doesn't in my view defeat the proposition as a whole. Plenty of valid points well made but I think the vacuum of sources of pertinent information to the public gives rise to imperfect organisations such as wikileaks to attempt to fill the void. Personally I've always been sceptical of wikileaks. Also yes Douglas we can throw out governments however we need to replace them with another that is not very different at all.

God it gets worse (8.10) - Assange starts droning on loudly like a teenage demagogue.

I'm not a fan of Murray's at all but if Assange can't see what a hypocritical disgrace it is to prevent Murray from having his turn, he's even more of a fool than I thought. Take a note, you nutjob!

I was astonished by Douglas Murray, who I had partly gone to see for his usually intelligent comments. It became very clear that Douglas Murray actually had no argument whatsoever other than "who do you think you are" and "I'm jealous of Assange's popularity". In truth, what I witnessed was an astonishing hissy fit of jealousy and resentment that somebody was getting more attention than Douglas Murray. For those who have not watched the whole session and who weren't there, they should know that points of order from each side were allowed, and that most speakers were interrupted at some point in such a valid way, so don't rush to condemn anybody who attempted to do the same to Murray. That is the format of this debate. That he wouldn't let anybody have their point of order until Assange right at the end was even more disturbing.

What many of you didn't see was Murray's disgraceful act of hostility against the audience when he swept his hand across us all when Assange was leaving the room because of his curfew (which Murray seemed to object to for some bizarre reason), and described us as "fawning".

I had great respect for Douglas Murray before this evening, and looked forward to having my opinion challenged by him, even possibly swayed. Instead I witnessed some bizarre rant of resentment, the third failure of the evening to actually even to begin to debate the motion specifically, and a man who completely let himself down by his deeply personal jealous of Julian Assange.

On the contrary, in Assange I witnessed a rational speaker, somebody who addressed the motion head on and didn't evade it, a calm considered response and a man who despite considerable personal attacks did not stoop so low as to reciprocate.

And it is for that reason, not the "fawning" ignorance of the audience Mr Murray, that the audience erupted in applause for Julian Assange.