Roger Knapman and Damian Hockney at the Cambridge Union

Sealion · 14-10-2005, 01:26 PM

Just to correct a few mistakes in other posts. I was there in the chamber and spoke in the debate.

I saw no evidence that Erasmus students swung the result to the opposition side. Cambridge experienced a fifteen percent swing to the Liberal Democrats at the last general election, and much of that will be the idealistic and Euroignorant student vote; there is no need to blame the foreigners for this defeat.

In proposition were Hockney, Eston and Taylor; opposition were O'Grady, Howitt and Rammell.

Sir Teddy Taylor, Damian Hockney and Jeremy O'Grady were by far the most effective speakers, but none shone particularly.

Bill Rammell MP (a government minister) was competent, and was the most generous in allowing interventions (the formalised heckling the Cambridge Union has adopted on the model of the UK Parliament) after all he must be used to it from his day job. Sadly one or two of the interventions seemed to go over his head. Intriguingly, at the conclusion of his speech, he tracked the words of Anatole Kaletsky in yesterday's Times; a previous Europhile speaker at the Cambridge Union a year or two ago (a backbench Tory MP) had plagiarised a long stretch of a Guardian article about Suez and Atlanticism; I don't know whether all speakers do this but it's weird.

Richard Howitt MEP was patronising and condescending, and was attacked for it. The main thrust of his argument was ad hominem tu quoque: don't vote with the proposition, because some of their friends have had links with the BNP, and racists tend to favour their side of the argument. This isn't factually incorrect: he wasn't saying "because racists are on the proposition's side, it logically follows that the proposition is wrong", but the emotional impact was that anti-racists should favour his side.

Patrick Eston was not an effective speaker; this may just be inexperience, and he drew attention to the fact that this was his first public engagement as leader of Veritas. The House seemed to take pity on him and not intervene too harshly. He was very gracious and politely received, but he didn't advance the proposition's cause effectively. He also managed to get the name of the debating society wrong.

O'Grady (I think he's in publishing like Hockney) was effective, positive and warm, and basically saw the whole debate in microeconomic and game theoretical terms: prisoner's dilemma, externalising costs, public international goods, and so on. He ran very badly out of time (a source of shared amusement with Hockney). His public international goods argument is a dangerous one and we need to get to the bottom of how validly it may be applied to the EU, an EFTA-like body, the WTO and a world-government. Hopefully it only favours a utopian fully-fledged world-government, otherwise it will be harder to resist.

Hockney was quite similar in demeanour to O'Grady: obviously friendly and very keen to get INTO phpbb_the spirit of debate; he was well-received. His speech also ran out of time, and was attacked on the grounds that the national governments suffer from corruption and fraud and waste and so on as well, which given how he'd been making his points was fair enough.

Sir Teddy gave a rehash of his previous speech on the EU at the Cambridge Union; it was perfectly polished and effective. The proposition's problem was they all said the same thing: the EU is undemocratic and suffers from multifarious abuses. They never talked enough about the economic costs and benefits, and duplicated each other far too much.

The Cambridge Union, as opposed to the Oxford Union, has a tradition of celebrity speakers cancelling at the last minute, and Roger Knapman's absence should be regarded as typical for a CUS speaker, though I hold no brief for or against him or the Cambridge Union Society.

mkpdavies · 14-10-2005, 01:33 PM

Thanks for the overview.

Shame UKIP couldn't even send a replacement for Knapman, hardly inspiring the cause is it.

14-10-2005, 02:15 PM

Perhaps Roger Knapman wasn't well enough to attend?

Christina

mkpdavies · 14-10-2005, 02:25 PM

If so, we should have sent a replacement. You don't get invited to things like this everyday.

Anthony Butcher · 15-10-2005, 01:26 AM

I have been informed that Roger sent advance notice that he would be unable to attend, and offered a replacement. This was turned down because there was also a missing speaker from the other side.

mkpdavies · 15-10-2005, 07:07 AM

Good. No big deal then.

brian lee · 16-10-2005, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

Good. No big deal then.

No. Bad. According to the posting by Sealion; an ex MP, an ex member of UKIP and the Leader of Veritas were there, as was the Eastern Region's best known MEP(Labour). UKIP needs to get its message across to young up and coming students who are interested in careers in politics.

Anthony Butcher · 16-10-2005, 12:27 AM

I believe that it was the university that turned down our representative (Katy Davies) not the other way around.

Percentage · 16-10-2005, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony Butcher

I believe that it was the university that turned down our representative (Katy Davies) not the other way around.

How old is Katy Davies?

Alex McKee · 16-10-2005, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Percentage

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony Butcher

I believe that it was the university that turned down our representative (Katy Davies) not the other way around.

How old is Katy Davies?

Twenty-something I think.

14-10-2005, 01:33 PM	#22 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,182 Party: Libertarian Party	Thanks for the overview. Shame UKIP couldn't even send a replacement for Knapman, hardly inspiring the cause is it. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

14-10-2005, 02:25 PM	#24 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,182 Party: Libertarian Party	If so, we should have sent a replacement. You don't get invited to things like this everyday. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

15-10-2005, 07:07 AM	#26 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,182 Party: Libertarian Party	Good. No big deal then. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

14-10-2005, 01:26 PM	#21 (permalink)
Sealion Newbie Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 3	Just to correct a few mistakes in other posts. I was there in the chamber and spoke in the debate. I saw no evidence that Erasmus students swung the result to the opposition side. Cambridge experienced a fifteen percent swing to the Liberal Democrats at the last general election, and much of that will be the idealistic and Euroignorant student vote; there is no need to blame the foreigners for this defeat. In proposition were Hockney, Eston and Taylor; opposition were O'Grady, Howitt and Rammell. Sir Teddy Taylor, Damian Hockney and Jeremy O'Grady were by far the most effective speakers, but none shone particularly. Bill Rammell MP (a government minister) was competent, and was the most generous in allowing interventions (the formalised heckling the Cambridge Union has adopted on the model of the UK Parliament) after all he must be used to it from his day job. Sadly one or two of the interventions seemed to go over his head. Intriguingly, at the conclusion of his speech, he tracked the words of Anatole Kaletsky in yesterday's Times; a previous Europhile speaker at the Cambridge Union a year or two ago (a backbench Tory MP) had plagiarised a long stretch of a Guardian article about Suez and Atlanticism; I don't know whether all speakers do this but it's weird. Richard Howitt MEP was patronising and condescending, and was attacked for it. The main thrust of his argument was ad hominem tu quoque: don't vote with the proposition, because some of their friends have had links with the BNP, and racists tend to favour their side of the argument. This isn't factually incorrect: he wasn't saying "because racists are on the proposition's side, it logically follows that the proposition is wrong", but the emotional impact was that anti-racists should favour his side. Patrick Eston was not an effective speaker; this may just be inexperience, and he drew attention to the fact that this was his first public engagement as leader of Veritas. The House seemed to take pity on him and not intervene too harshly. He was very gracious and politely received, but he didn't advance the proposition's cause effectively. He also managed to get the name of the debating society wrong. O'Grady (I think he's in publishing like Hockney) was effective, positive and warm, and basically saw the whole debate in microeconomic and game theoretical terms: prisoner's dilemma, externalising costs, public international goods, and so on. He ran very badly out of time (a source of shared amusement with Hockney). His public international goods argument is a dangerous one and we need to get to the bottom of how validly it may be applied to the EU, an EFTA-like body, the WTO and a world-government. Hopefully it only favours a utopian fully-fledged world-government, otherwise it will be harder to resist. Hockney was quite similar in demeanour to O'Grady: obviously friendly and very keen to get INTO phpbb_the spirit of debate; he was well-received. His speech also ran out of time, and was attacked on the grounds that the national governments suffer from corruption and fraud and waste and so on as well, which given how he'd been making his points was fair enough. Sir Teddy gave a rehash of his previous speech on the EU at the Cambridge Union; it was perfectly polished and effective. The proposition's problem was they all said the same thing: the EU is undemocratic and suffers from multifarious abuses. They never talked enough about the economic costs and benefits, and duplicated each other far too much. The Cambridge Union, as opposed to the Oxford Union, has a tradition of celebrity speakers cancelling at the last minute, and Roger Knapman's absence should be regarded as typical for a CUS speaker, though I hold no brief for or against him or the Cambridge Union Society.

14-10-2005, 02:15 PM	#23 (permalink)
Guest Posts: n/a	Perhaps Roger Knapman wasn't well enough to attend? Christina

15-10-2005, 01:26 AM	#25 (permalink)
Anthony Butcher Administrator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Long Ashton, Bristol Posts: 10,208 Party: None	I have been informed that Roger sent advance notice that he would be unable to attend, and offered a replacement. This was turned down because there was also a missing speaker from the other side.

16-10-2005, 12:27 AM	#28 (permalink)
Anthony Butcher Administrator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Long Ashton, Bristol Posts: 10,208 Party: None	I believe that it was the university that turned down our representative (Katy Davies) not the other way around.