The deep chill of Thursday evening was off-set by a heated debate between local politicians from across the party spectrum in a Question time style debate in Park building, chaired by Morys
Ireland
and hosted by the Labour student’s society. The panel consisted of Councillor Gerald Vernon-Jackson a member of the Liberal Democrats and leader of Portsmouth City Council, alongside Labour MP for Portsmouth North Sarah Mc-Carthy-Fry MP, UKIP member Steve Harris, Respect candidate John Molyneux, Tim Dawes of the Green Party and Nick Chaffey Socialist Party regional coordinater and trade unionist. The topics covered included the role of local government in combatting climate change, wheather immigration is a strain or a benefit to the economy and should there have been a vote over the recent EU Lisbon treaty. This is the first time that so many political figures have agreed to form a panel at a student meeting. The 20,000 students studying at this University make up over 10% of the local voting population, a sizable portion of the electorate, sizable enougth to win an election if it could be won over.
When discussing the role of local government in fighting climate change both incumerbant politicians focused discussion on initiatives taken on a local level, such as efforts to persuade Portsmouth drivers to take public transportation, at one point Counciller Vernon-Jackson alluded to plans for a tram system in Portsmouth. Steve Harris the UKIP spokesman took the contreoversial stance to deny the existance of climate change, denouncing enviromentalism as “a new religion.” Nick Chaffy, the Socialist Party spokesman questioned the privatisation polices of local services, which places climate change in the hands of the free market. John Molinuex denied that climate change could be solved in Portsmouth and called for the audience to examine the wider picture, in response Tim Dawes called for the audience and panel alike to “think globally, but act locally”, agreeing that the world scernario must be kept in mind but people can act on a personal and local level. Whilst as I member of the Socialist Party myself I may be accused of bias but I stand by my opinion that Nick Chaffy and Tim Dawes proved themselves to be the best of the speakers, through the strength and reason of their arguments as well as their oratory style, an opinion that was confirmed as the chair moved on to the second question, the impact of immigration on the economy.
Steve Harris of UKIP lived up to his political sterotype by denouncing immigration as a drain on the national resources, claiming that the freedom of movement inside the European Union was the main cause of the problem. Harris stated that in tower hamlets election ballot papers were printed in sixty nine languages, citing this as an absurdity of multi-cultural Britain. In strong contrast John Molinuex, whose party calls for completely open borders with no restrictions on immigration, argued that the economic arguments for and against immigration were irrelevant compared to the cultural and human values. Surely, Molinuex argued, if a school child can speak or understand 21 languages “this is a magnificent thing.” Both Counciller Vernon-Jackson and Sarah Mcarthy-Fry attempted to occupy the tricky centre ground by claiming that offical reports showed that immigration was both a drain on, and symataniously a benefit to the economy. Vernon-Jackson described his own family as being immigrants from France, refering to the 17th century flight of the huguenots from across the channel. The counciller stated that whilst the 69 language ballot paper and the 21 languages spoken in a local school were great testaments to modern Britain, both had administrative costs, costs which were often not covered by government. Once again Tim Dawes and Nick Chaffy provided the voice of reason. Dawes recalled the story of his friend Hector Lopez, an artist who claimed political asylum in Britain in 1974 after being tourtured by the Chillian government. Dawes stated that Britain could be prond that it had provided a home to such a man but questioned wheather such a story would be possible today with the Labour government’s current policy on extradition and rendition. Nick Chaffy rejected the argument that the backlash against immigration was entirely manufactured by the media but pointed towards wages of British tradesmen, such as plumbers and bricklayers, which were falling due to competition from migrant workers. Chaffy was clear to state that this was not the fault of the immigrant workforce and that both British and migrant workers need to stand together to have equal pay at high union standards. He also rejected the nationalistic and exenphobic arguments of UKIP declaring that all european workers have more in common then divides them.
When the chair posed the third question, on the recent treaty of Lisbon some members of the panel and the audience failed to recognise the line between personalities and politics as members of the audience supporting the Respect candidate twice criticised the lack of questions regarding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This came only days after the same candidate criticised organisers of the UPSU “Activist Academy” for not being given a prominant enougth platform. As a member of the Socialist Party I believe the War is an important issue,yet I recognise it is not the only issue and I applaude the Labour Students who organised the event. It is important to remember that it is the first time students have been given the opportunity to hold their local representatives to account, but with the growing importance of the student vote, it probably won’t be the last.
