I wasn't able to make it to this Thursday's debate on withdrawing from Afghanistan, but guest blogger Jacob Donovan did, and had this to say:

Union debates are always a bit hit and miss. After scouring Wikipedia and inviting every person in the UK, and sometimes the Western World, who has ever made a pronouncement on the subject at hand you often get quite an odd mix of characters, many of whom are about as expert on the subject as Paris Hilton is on the war in Iraq.  With a lineup that included General Sir Richard Dannatt and a former advisor to President Kennedy this debate looked set to be somewhat different. Unfortunately, on the whole, it wasn’t.

The debate was opened by Hassan Ali (Secretary’s Committee ChCh), who had very little charisma. After waffling on about the usual insider Union “banter” Mr Ali made a series of specious, unfounded comments that were designed more to shock then inform. They did neither, proof that the continuing Union practice by some Presidents of giving paper speeches to aspiring Union politicians they want to support who have no public speaking ability or interest in the topic at hand needs to change. Maybe when the hacks concerned realise that making a fool of yourself in front of the electorate doesn’t actually get you elected, it will.

Bob Blizzard, a Labour MP and Foreign Policy expert was, on the other hand, an excellent choice. He carefully outlined the differences between the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, highlighting the need for victory and the advances made by coalition troops in Afghanistan, and created a platform for what could have been an excellent debate. But, alas, the proposition quickly descended into a series of bizarre analogies countered by an Opposition who seemed stuck in the type of jingoistic assertions that Kipling would’ve been proud of. Most surprising was the rather lacklustre performance by the star attraction, General Dannatt, a man for whom most in the chamber had the utmost respect as a soldier, but who seemed a little uncomfortable in his new role as Tory Defence supremo. The General would probably have been a lot more interesting as an individual speaker.

The motion eventually fell by a margin of over 200 votes, a result that probably had more to do with the titles and pedigree of the Opposition then the arguments raised. This was a shame, as with a slightly better start this could well have been a much more entertaining and interesting debate.

Comments

R.M

25th January at 8.27am

x

I came away from the debate v impressed. The 1st and 3rd speakers for proposition were excellent & Danatt (sp?) was not underwhelming, only subtle. Sounds like a blog from an anti union blogger who wanted the debate to be bad and was gonna write along these lines anyway.

Emily

27th January at 4.06am

x

Disagree - Dannatt was great. Agree - that Hassan guy was awful. I almost left then, which would have been a shame as he was a bad start to what turned out to be quite a good and varied debate.

D.

29th January at 7.46pm

x

Why this fervent anti-Union attitude is festering all over the place is inexplicable. Whatever you think of its internal politics, it brings its members incredible world-class speakers and fascinating debates. It is embarrassing to see a blogger describe a good speaker because of the points they made, highlighting the presence of a bias of opinion, and then slagging off the rest for style.

Josh

2nd February at 7.59pm

x

I agree with some of what you said. The fact that Hassan was changed from the proposition to opposition was key in his lack of lustre. Forsyth was disappointing, speaking of pointless jingoism. However, the reason it fell was due to the failure of the proposition to combat the key issue: what happens if we pull out now. It was a one-sided debate from a logical point of view.