Public Sector Strikes Public Debate – 20th of Jan, 18:30 – 20:00, Arts Main Lecture Theatre

13 01 2012

On 30th November 2011, tens of thousands of people joined rallies around the UK as a public sector strike over pensions disrupted schools, hospitals and other services. About two-thirds of state schools shut, and thousands of hospital operations were postponed, as unions estimated up to two million people went on strike.

The TUC called it “the biggest strike in a generation”. Many argue the strikes were an important display of disobedience against the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition attack on public sector pensions; and that despite government-led propagandizing to the contrary, the strikes were justified. The Conservatives’ pension reforms will mean public sector workers must work longer, pay more and get less at the end of it – and this, following a two-year pay freeze.

The prime minister on the other hand described it as “a damp squib”. Many argue that media coverage of this was irrelevant, and whether or not this was 1926 all over again is to miss the point. They feel having children miss out on school, patients deprived of routine operations and economic damage to the tune of £500million is a serious matter; and that it’s important to look at the context that these proposals are being made in. They feel that country is in a treacherous economic situation – and that we have to make savings if we are to pull through. Public sector pension costs have sky-rocketed as longevity has increased (today the average 60-year-old is living 10 years longer than in the 1970s).

So in the light of this controversy, the Debating Society puts forward the motion
“This House Believes the public sector strikes on 30th November 2011 were justified.”

Proposition:
Rob Lyons – [deputy editor of Spiked political commentary, Law & Psychology graduate, author of “Panic on a Plate: How Society Developed an Eating Disorder”]
Susan Connolly – [European Debating Semi-finalist 2007, Worlds Debating Judge 2010]

Opposition:
Jordan Anderson – [Masters Student in Intelligence and International Security, World Debating Octo-finalist 2012, European Debating Quarter Finalist 2011, 10th best speaker at European Debating Competition 2011]
James Laurenson – [Masters Graduate in Law, Intern at IDEA]

All public debates are sponsored by Allen & Overy LLP. This is the 7th public debate of the academic year.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/
http://twitter.com/UOBdebating
http://www.facebook.com/groups/2207951236/
http://debatingsociety.wordpress.com/
http://www.allenovery.com/AOWEB/Home/AllenOveryHome.aspx?prefLangID=410





Statement from the Debating Society

30 11 2011

Recent speculation on facebook and other forms of social media have led to the necessity of The Debating Society clarifying its position on various events in the last few days. We hope that this statement is able to provide some information that sheds some light on what has happened so far, and specifically explains the position of Debating Society with regard to recent events.

 

On Thursday 24 November Debating Society held, in conjunction with both the Jewish Society and the Friends of Palestine Society, an Israel/Palestine Question-Time event. A lot of work went into the organisation of this event, and we are particularly proud of the effort gone to by our Public Debates Organiser, Lauren Seager, to work with both societies to produce this debate, which was attended by over 300 people.

 

There are, however, two incidents with regards to which we feel the need to clarify our position and reasoning. The first of these is the reaction of the Chair to the question “Is Israel an Apartheid State?” being asked, the reaction being “we can’t have that as a question”. Clarification was given during the debate that talking about such issues was clearly not prohibited, but that “the issue was with the emotivity of the language being used” and that “perhaps more accessible language could be used”.

 

The background to this reaction is that, prior to the event occurring, there were some objections to Ben White selling his book “Israeli Apartheid” after the event. This objection was given on the grounds that the word apartheid in the title of his book and the issue itself was offensive and that as the event was co-hosted by the three socieities, by association this would legitimise the author’s work. The Debating Society was worried, therefore, that use of the word “apartheid” in conjunction with the state of Israel would upset some sections of the audience in a way that other debate surrounding the issue of equality would not.

 

In retrospect, this ought to have been handled differently. Clarification should have been sought from those holding the objection to the sale of Ben White’s book to ascertain whether the use of the word apartheid was problematic only in the context of the sale of that book, or whether it would be problematic in the debate as a whole. However, we as The Debating Society would like to make it clear that our intentions were only ever to provide a forum for the discussion of this sensitive issue in which everyone felt respected, and we therefore took the objections raised before the event very seriously. It is important also to note that the organisers of this event were more cautious, in this instance, of causing offence than is perhaps the case in other debates we host because the issue is so sensitive and events on the issue have been the focus of previous controversy at this university.

 

Further, there was some alarm with regards to the EUMC definition of anti-semitism, which a Guild Council motion passed last year as a guiding document when considering cases of anti-semitism. It was a cause of worry that potentially, under the terms within this document, discussion arising from the issue of apartheid could result in anti-semitic statements being said; as a result of which The Debating Society may face problems.

 

The second issue is one that has been raised on the Better Guild forum. The Debating Society would like to make the following clarifications:

 

  1. We were aware of the situation that is mentioned by Carmen Castrillon on the Better Guild forum. We would have preferred to take, in the first instance, less public action that, we feel, would have been more likely to lead to a friendly resolution for all. Such action would have included (but not been limited to) asking all the individuals involved for a specific description of the events that occurred subsequent to the Israel/Palestine Question-Time and attempting to resolve matters informally. If such conversations had led to a problem that we felt needed to be addressed more formally, we would have been prepared to do so.
  2. The Debating Society is, at present, not in possession of the full information necessary to act further with regards to the claims made, and would like to speak to individuals involved before committing itself to further action. Steps are being taken to meet with these individuals.
  3. The Debating Society is committed to the protection of all individuals that attend and volunteer at its events. Consequently, if The Debating Society feels that it has sufficient confirmation of inappropriate actions that negatively impact upon such volunteers, it will support those volunteers in any proceedings they wish to take.




Israel / Palestine Question Time

21 11 2011

 

Thursday 24th November, 19:00=21:30, Avon Room (University Centre)

The most anticipated debate of the year has finally arrived! The University of Birmingham Debating Society presents “Israel & Palestine Question Time Debate” in conjunction with Jsoc and Friends of Palestine!

From 7:00pm-7:45pm there’ll be a drinks reception in the foyer of the avon room, (non-alcoholic drinks will also be served) and then we shall progress to the debate, 7:45pm-9:30pm.

The panelists:

Palestine:
Ben White – a freelance journalist and writer specialising in Palestine/Israel
Dr Victor Kattan – Program Director of Al-Shabaka, the Palestinian policy network and was a Teaching Fellow at the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at SOAS
Jeremy Corbyn MP – Pro-palestian Labour MP for Islington North

Israel:
Professor Alan Johnson – a member of Labour Friends of Israel, Director and Senior Research Fellow at Britain Israel Research and Communications Centre.
David Hirsh – teacher in the Sociology Department at Goldsmiths College, University of London, winner of the British Sociological Association Philip Abrams Prize for the best first book in sociology in 2004.
Lorna Fitzsimons – chief executive of Bicom, the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre.

Tickets are £2 and will be sold by myself/other debating committee members in Joe’s bar on:

Wednesday 23rd Nov from 4:30-6pm
and we will also sell on the door on the evening but please note that we only have capacity in the Avon room for 400 people, so make sure you get a ticket before they run out!

The first question presented will be “How might effective sustainable negotiation between Israel and Palestine be realised? What do you suggest as the most realistic, equitable solution digestible by all?”

The other 3 questions will be selected from the audience; so if you have a question please email it to: debating@guild.bham.ac.uk and we will notify you if your question has been selected. Times for emailing questions is now open and will close on 20th November!

All public debates are sponsored by Alllen & Overy LLP.

http://www.facebook.com/groups/2207951236/
http://debatingsociety.wordpress.com/
http://twitter.com/#!/UOBdebating
http://www.facebook.com/bhamjsoc
http://www.facebook.com/PalestineSociety
www.allenovery.com/





Capitalism Public Debate

1 11 2011

 

Society – the way people are generally accustomed, organised, and interact with each other. Often this is taken as something which just “is” that can never be changed, either radically or gradually.

We live in a predominantly capitalist world – an economic system characterized by private ownership and control over the means of production. The distribution of goods and services and their prices are mainly determined by competition in a free market. Under such a system, the primary job of government is to protect private property, enforce contracts and ensure the rule of law. Such a system is often blamed by the Left for social class divides and the economic gap between the rich and the poor.

Meanwhile, the global economic crisis has raised some important questions about the way our world continues to function both economically and politically; and many academics question whether there could be another way, another successful way of governing the world as we know it.

Therefore in conjunction with the Broad Left Society, the Debating Society puts forward the motion, “THB this form of capitalism has failed and needs replacing”.

Proposition:
Dr David Bailey – Lecturer in Political Science and International Relations
Leander Jones – Undergraduate in Political Science, Member of Broad Left Society

Opposition:
Professor Colin Thain – Head of Political Science and International Relations
Dr Matthew Szeto Chak Hin – Junior Doctor of Medicine for NHS, previous Vice-President of the Debating Society

Click here for the facebook event page.





Public Debate: Prisoners’ Right to Vote

11 10 2011

Arts building – 18.30-20.00 – 20th of October

In April 2001, the British High Court rejected a case brought by John Hirst, a man serving a life sentence for manslaughter, who argued that the ban on prisoners voting was incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. In March 2004, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the British government was in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights; the European Court’s Grand Chamber rejected the British government’s appeal in October 2005.

Organisations such as Liberty and The Prison Reform Trust have campaigned for years to give prisoners the right to vote in general elections, arguing that we should respect the human rights of prisoners and should infringe upon their liberty as little as possible, except for the protection of the public. Denying prisoners the right to vote does not protect the public and is therefore an unwarranted infringement upon the human rights of prisoners.

Others that oppose this view argue that people who have been sent to prison are rightly condemned to “civic death”: they are shut away not only to protect society, but also to symbolise society’s disgust at their acts. Those who offend against the common good of society should have no right to contribute to the governance of society. They can only be readmitted to society, both physically and in terms of their rights, when they have made amends to society by serving their sentence.

Therefore in light of this controversy, the Debating Society puts forward the motion: “This House Believes prisoners should have the right to vote”

Proposition:
Lorely Burt – Liberal Democrat MP for Solihull
Juliet Lyon – Director of Prison Reform Trust UK and Secretary General of Penal Reform International

Opposition:
Steve McCabe – Labour MP for Selly Oak
Dr Tim Black – Writer for Spiked (independent online political commentary)

As always, prizes will be given for the best audience speeches!





Riot Public Debate

23 09 2011

06 October · 18:30 – 20:00

Arts Main Lecture Theatre

 

On 6th August 2011 riots erupted in Tottenham with police cars, a bus and shops being set on fire following a protest demanding justice over the fatal police shooting of Mark Duggan. In the week following riots broke out in Birmingham, Croydon, Manchester, Gloucester, Bristol, Hackney and many others; causing damage to small and large businesses alike.

While reactions and emotions ran rampant filling twitter, facebook and all the tabloids and broadsheets focusing on the events; all had varying opinions on why the rioting was occurring and spreading through copycat riots.

The Government’s response was to call the acts “criminality, pure and simple” and that offenders would “feel the full force of the law”. David Cameron’s speech argued that parts of society were “broken” and that Britain needed some big society-led moral renewal.

Ed Miliband however took the differing approach by arguing that to explain the behaviour is not to excuse it; he wanted to look at the link between the rioting problems and the current economic situation.

With the Right blaming culture and the Left blaming the lack of opportunity and hope; in a society that has experienced vast spending cuts and faces even deeper ones, the Debating Society puts forward the motion “This house believes that the government should share the blame for the August riots in English cities”.

Propostion:
Dr Peter Kerr – Senior Lecturer in Political Science and International Studies
Chris Williamson – Labour MP for Derby North, Shadow Minister for Communities and Local Government

Opposition:
Chris James – Secretary for Birmingham University Conservative Future
Andrew Bridgen – Conservative MP for North West Leicestershire

As always, prizes will be given for the 3 best audience speeches!

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2207951236

 





A Little Refresh…

7 04 2011

Hello everyone,

You’ll notice that we’ve done some updating around here. As well as usual information (dates, events etc.), we’ve made a bigger change to our calendar. It is now not only more extensive, but now has hyper-links to all of the events listed, including Facebook events for all of the public debates. This should make it easier to organise your debate-centric life! We’ve also done a similar thing to the public debates page.

If anyone has any thoughts on how to make this site better, all suggestions are welcome! Email us at debating@guild.bham.ac.uk or go directly to our marketing officer Rory.

See you after the break!

Rory Scott,
Marketing Officer, UBDS





World Rankings

13 12 2010

According to the World Debating blog based on the last five World Debating Championships, the University of Birmingham Debating Society is currently 96th best Debating Society in the World.





Steve McCabe Speaks To Students About The Cuts

6 12 2010

Steve McCabe, who featured in our candidate debate just two days before the BBC election debate with the Prime Ministerial candidates, recently returned to our University to speak out on the tuition fees cap and the cuts in general.

Steve told students it is “not good enough for Lib Dem MPs to abstain from voting [on the cuts].” He referred to the pledges signed by many MPs and made clear his views on the need for those who signed them to respect them as “solemn, binding, unequivocal” promises, not merely tools to gain “cheap votes” from students.

Steve spoke of how Tuition fees were introduced by the Labour government to increase access and not to save money, and how the ConDem plans to scrap 80% of university funding whilst increasing tuition fees achieves an entirely different goal, which funnily enough is not in line with the Browne Review which was written based on the notion of the current tripartite system of funding remaining in place: that is government funding; university alumni and research funding; and tuition fees, and not based upon cuts falling on us. Mention was made of the many economists who have spoken against the cuts, pointing out that our knowledge and services based economy needs more graduates now than ever before and that we are the only economy of our kind making these sorts of student funding arrangements… apart than Romania. That shining beacon of economic success.

So who will suffer? Steve pointed to the patterns in the cuts and stated the answer, “everyone.” Those at the bottom are unlikely to even get to the stage of considering University education with AIM Higher, the social mobility facilitating body being scrapped and EMA grants for students from low income backgrounds going with it. Those in the middle who won’t be eligible for the bursaries and scholarships (dangled as a claim to help the few lower income students who, without AIM higher support, manage to achieve A-Levels at all) so parents will find the burden of their children’s education solely on their shoulders and will have to play an unfair lottery game in deciding who goes to uni if they have multiple children. And those at the top? Well without the wealth of graduates that current employers have to chose from, where will those who have seemed to benefit from the cuts go to hire workers? Will the brightest and best even stay in our country when other nations offer better incentives to study at their universities? Will our students perform to the best of their abilities with so much money riding on each exam? Will the next generation have the opportunity to develop into the highly skilled, highly analytical thinkers that our economy has come to rely on? Economists have forecasted a lag in our tertiary industries, the very sectors holding our economy up if the cap increase goes ahead.

A call to action of bombarding MPs with letters, phone calls and emails up until the vote this Thursday was recommended by McCabe. One MP he suggested students should relentlessly target is Lorely Burt, who ironically had spoken on the same issue in the same room at one of our public debates just a few months before Steve said this, and has since decided that although she is against the fees increase, she will not be voting in accordance with her beliefs.

It was suggested by Steve that the cuts in all sectors were an old Tory tactic , a nation divided in unease, with some worrying about tuition fees, others housing and others their jobs, will be a nation divided against each other and not one which feels they are “all in this together.” Thatcher targeted the Miners; Cameron seems to have targeted everyone who didn’t vote for him. This belief is backed up by the fact that the deficit will, according to Tory top dogs, be wiped by 2015…yet the tuition fee increase will not take effect until 2013, when the economy is expected to be more or less stabilised, the lack of economic sense here suggests there is a hidden agenda behind the cuts.

Much of what Steve argued is compelling, the ConDem claim that there isn’t enough money in our coffers doesn’t hold up considering we are not in as much debt as we were when the NHS was set up after WW2, and our economy vastly improved despite increased public spending at this time. Methinks the cuts are due to the conservative ideology that the state should be small and the coalition lack of concern for those affected, in changing the tenets of our nation.

Rachael Twumasi





Coalition Betrayal Destroys Chagos Dreams

30 11 2010

The depths of coalition betrayal, their broken promises, stretch far below the higher education cuts. The Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition has backtracked on the pre-election promises made to the Chagos Islanders. To explain the injustice of this decision, let me tell you a story.
Many miles away, in the glittering Indian Ocean, lie some sixty islands. They reflect the island paradises of legend: palm trees wave in the breeze; turtles bury eggs in the soft sandy beaches. Once, these islands were populated by the Chagos islanders. They fished in the bountiful seas and lived and traded in small tight-knit communities.

One day, this all changed. In the 60s, while the Cold War simmered, the USA cast its nets for a naval base in the area. The British Government (who “owned” the Chagos Islands as part of their colonisation of Mauritius – an island which gained independence from the British in 1968) leased the largest island, Diego Garcia to the Americans, who accepted on the condition that the island was uninhabited. And so, the first of many atrocities began.

Britain now simply lied. The government of the day claimed that the Chagos islanders were simply passing labourers with no right of abode. One senior Foreign Office official described them as “mere Tarzans and Men Fridays”, a horrific denial of the humanity of some 2000 people, some of whom were the fifth generation in their family to be born to the island. Passing labourers indeed.

To sustain this lie, Britain continued: the second atrocity was a series of acts so horrific that it is impossible to understand how those in office managed to justify it, either institutionally or personally. Without warning, the islanders were told they must leave their homes. Those abroad at the time, having been offered a free holiday to Mauritius by the British government, were simply barred from returning, leaving them stranded in foreign nations without their families, let alone such possessions as they owned. Those on the Chagos Islands themselves were rounded up: where they fled to the outer islands armed men came with boats to force them to leave. The islanders were packed off to neighbouring Mauritius and the Seychelles: some were under duress, and some were under the false illusion that they were going to islands with conditions similar to their own, where their way of life could at least continue as it always had done.

The British officers proceeded to “clear” the islands with ruthless efficiency. Homes were destroyed; pets and livestock were gassed and burnt. One Chagos islander describes that day:
“Our dogs, around 1,500 of them, were stacked and forced into a big building. All doors and windows were closed. We then saw two jeeps approach the building and back up in such a way as to bring their exhaust pipes as close as possible to a door; the British and American officers managed to connect the exhaust pipes of the vehicles to inside the building; they then left the vehicles’ engines running and went away… Pretty soon, we heard the dogs starting to cry, then scream painfully. It was one of the hardest scenes ever. The American and British officers failed to realise that people of African origin i.e.: the Chagossians, could naturally have pets and fall in love with them. We too considered our pets as members of our family; as much as would be hard today for a white family to suffer its dog being gas chambered, it was equally hard for us there. Our children cried so much in pain and sorrow and we all cried. This is still fresh in our minds.”

The horror did not stop there. Crammed onto boats too small for the number of islanders evicted, many fell ill on the journey, and in tales reminiscent of the slave ships of the 19th century, those who died were thrown overboard, to the screams of their families.
Having survived this harrowing journey, the islanders were abandoned at Port Louis, in Mauritius. They were given no support, no land, no education or housing, but merely left to fend for themselves and build their own shacks and beg on the streets. Lacking in education and facing discrimination at the hands of the local population, the islanders suffered, and continue to suffer.
And so began their quest: they asked not for what they deserved, but merely to be afforded the basic rights that any person should have access to. Life, freedom, food and shelter. Twenty years after abandoning them in the slums, the British Government offered each Chagossian the sum of about $1000. They took thumbprints ostensibly as acknowledgment of the receipt of the money, however, even in this apparent benevolence, the British were perpetuating their oppression of these people. The desperate and poorly educated Chagossians were being coerced into putting their thumns to a legal document renouncing their right of return to the Chagos Islands.

Five court rulings have declared the illegality of the action of the British government, and upheld the Chagossians right of return. The government has countered these with a so called “feasibility study” conducted in 2002, which claimed that the conditions on the Chagos islands render it unfit for human habitation, because of the risk of earthquakes and flooding. However, this seems like a thinly veiled lie, given the presence of a military base on the largest island, and the happy survival of the islanders on the Chagos Islands for many generations prior to their eviction. The government also, in 2004, issued a secret “royal order” banning anyone from setting foot on the islands.

Before the election, things began to look hopeful at last for this long-neglected community. William Hague (then Shadow Foreign Secretary) and Nick Clegg supported the return of the islanders to their home. Hague committed to a “fair settlement” (at the very least, compensation for the islanders) with the islanders “placed at the heart of any decisions taken about their homeland”, whilst Clegg’s office wrote that:
“[the] Liberal Democrats take the view that removing the Chagossians in the 1960s was a scandalous decision and this Government has continued to mistreat these people. They have done so in the face of opposition from the UN. Regardless of the legal arguments, Nick and the Liberal Democrats believe that the Government has a moral responsibility to allow these people to at last return home.

We have actively supported their cause in the past and we will continue to aid their campaign to see justice done. We have been appalled that the government has wasted time, money and effort defending the indefensible.”

With the rise to power of the coalition government, it appeared that finally justice would be done. However, in the last month Hague has betrayed these promises, saying that, “when you go into it in detail, it is quite hard to hold out the prospect of a fundamental change of policy, so I do not want to raise any hopes of that…In the light of what I have seen so far, we will be maintaining the position that we have taken on proceedings in the European Court”.

In other words, this coalition government is as firmly in the pocket of American interests as the government of 40 years ago, and the Chagos islanders are once more going to be denied their homes and rights. The depths of the injustices perpetrated over what is now almost half a century go so deep that I could not plumb them in their entirety in this article, and they cry ‘liar’ to the supposition that we live in a civilised, liberal society with a common humanity that stretches around the globe. On this, the coalition really has betrayed their promises, and here, an entire nation really is destroyed.

Amanda Moorghen

For more information, or to support the islanders, please visit http://www.chagossupport.org.uk/








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.