I wasn’t go to go to the debate tonight – ‘This House Believes that the Comprehensive System is failing Britain’s Poor’ – since I was wary of my own ability to engage without being totally put off by the attitudes on display. Owen (who hasn’t been mentioned so far, but who is a lovely guy – and not even a Historian! – and a fellow comprehensive believer) encouraged me to come with him, and I did, and I’m glad I did. My understanding is that we lost the actual vote, but that’s not really the important thing.
David Chaytor, a Labour MP, put up the defence of comprehensive schools which I believe in. The opposition also contained a young, prospective Tory MP who – whilst not coming from the same perspective as me – was an eloquent and sincere speaker, and I thank him for proving that belief in comprehensive education isn’t the preserve of some Labour clique. In the bar afterwards, he said he thought I would became a Conservative in later life, on account of not being some ultra-tribal Labour person. I don’t believe he’s right, you might be glad to know, but I accept we can only wait and see. He’s right, of course, that tribal party politics is wrong: people should not vote Labour because of their ‘roots’, and should not pretend that the two-party system genuinely reflects a straight and simple division of views. My only difference with him is that I don’t believe the Tories are the only pragmatic party in British politics anymore: Labour has changed, and can change further, to better represent those of us who are not Conservatives, but do want more than pantomime politics.
Of the people speaking in favour of the motion, the two notable figures were Anthony Seldon and Peter Hitchens. Two very different men, of course. Peter Hitchens, for those of you who don’t have the misfortune to come across him, is a columnist for the Mail on Sunday with pretty strident views. He sees Britain as a country in terminal decline, and comprehensive schools as a terrible betrayal. I even talked to him in the bar afterwards, and it was pretty clear: Peter Hitchens is harking back to a past which simply did not exist, however much he would like to think it did, and he will not change. All around him he sees darkness and terror, and he only matters in the sense that he is widely read and, perhaps to a certain extent, believed. Gosh. I spoke to Peter Hitchens in a bar. It’s an experience, I suppose.
Anthony Seldon is altogether different. A likeable man, he actually prompted my first attempt at public speaking in the Union when I stood up to argue against him. Slightly nervously, I pointed out that he had argued for a broad education, not relentlessly focused on academic goals and exams, and yet in the same speech decided that ‘academic’ children should be selected away from the others at age 14. I sat down, wondering if I had simply babbled, and he turned round to say ‘good point’. Afterwards, we chatted a bit and he admitted he didn’t really believe in the proposition at all. I told him about the Brent-Eton summer school programme, and how I’d much rather bring experienced people in the best private schools – like him – into comprehensives, rather than continue this segregation. Nice guy, and I wish he could be persuaded into arguing for the opposition.
So, that was that. I just wanted to write it down before my memory grew hazy, to be honest, because it was a good night, even if we did lose. As some of you will know, I came back to learn some very sad news, which renders all of the above completely unimportant. I can’t possibly write anything meaningful about it here, but suffice to say: I’m sorry. We’re here for you.
I have to say I think I felt justifiably proud of being at the Cambridge Union Society tonight, attending a recording of The Doha Debates. The motion was ‘This House believes Britain’s role in the Middle East is in terminal decline’, to which – to my surprise – I ended up voting against. This was partly because the speakers in favour seemed to utterly misread the question as having the word ‘positive’ inserted – arguing endlessly that Britain had played a negative role – but of course, missing the point. The speakers against (including, oh shame of shames, Malcolm Rifkind) were not there to argue that Britain’s role hadn’t declined, or that America wasn’t by far and away the most important power. However, do we still have ‘a role’? I believe so.
Anyway, the reason I felt proud of being in Cambridge was, of course, because at the very same moment the Oxford Union was trying to conduct a debate on ‘free speech’ with Nick Griffin and David Irving as invited guests, in the face of some considerable protest. I’ve thought about the two sides to this debate a great deal. It’s surely common currency that these are two repugnant men with repugnant views. But should they be given a platform to be ‘crushed in debate’, as the President of the Union has insisted, or not?
In the end, I am opposed. Speaking at the Oxford Union is not some ordinary right of free speech – it is a privilege extended to those judged worthy to make a useful contribution. David Irving is liar: a man who falsifies evidence to further his anti-semitic views, and not an academic. Nick Griffin is simply a leader of a bunch of thugs with some limited media skills. They aren’t intelligent, thoughtful voices to bring to a debate on the important issue of free speech. It would have actually been better to debate them on their very policies, rather than elevate them into authorities on a subject they are not qualified to speak on.
Furthermore, we live in an age where both David Irving and Nick Griffin are perfectly able to publish their message – via the Internet, for one – in a legal manner which is open to all to access, if they wish to do so. Inviting them to the Oxford Union simply seems a publicity stunt which was ill-considered, and for which those responsible are now genuinely obliged to press ahead with rather than make martyrs out of these men. Perhaps this is true: perhaps to row back at a late stage would have only made a bad situation worse. But they should never have been invited in the first place.
Almost done! Just need to print out my 8th and final weekly essay and hand it in this afternoon before I’m free of reading and work. I’ve got supervision tomorrow of course, tutorial and DoS meetings, and lectures until they finish on Wednesday, but I’ve still now got almost a full week until I go home on Sunday morning to wind down. Hurrah for short, intense Cambridge terms!
Something which I seem to have neglected to mention thus far is student newspapers. We have two: Varsity, and The Cambridge Student. Put simply, I prefer TCS, though that’s mainly because its editorial tone doesn’t smack of snobbishness. However, their interview with Richard La Ruina is amusing me at the minute, partly because the interviewer (Ed Cumming – the same one who annoyed me early on with his ridiculous comment pieces) seems enthralled by this ‘professional pick-up artist’ and talks about ‘girls’ in the same way one might talk about an intriguing yet rare species of wildlife. My particular favourite bit would be this:
“Given that you can get with any girl, do you have any particular type?”
“Not too specific. I like tall, slim and curvy with blue or green eyes. Latvian, Swedish and Brazilian girls all have looks that I like.”
This high life is taking is toll though: he’s “become very fussy and it is difficult to feel as emotional or excited”. Still hasn’t stopped him from “kissing hundreds” and sleeping with “about 50” women in the past 18 months though! (Question: who measures things in 18 month periods? That’s quite unnatural isn’t it? Have you ever referred to ‘the past 18 months’ of your life?)
Oh, Ed and Richard, Richard and Ed: run off together?
Anyway, I’ll get back to getting this essay handed in shall I? 
I went to this exceptionally geeky talk on the history of the Tube last night. Perhaps unsurprisingly those who did show up seemed to be from North London (can’t think why… ) which means certain key words or phrases: ‘Ken Livingstone’, ‘Jubilee line’, ‘Silverlink’ get everyone nodding or shaking their heads in unison. My justification for going, by the way, was that it was my night off but after a (lovely!) pub meal together most people had to go back and answer the demands of essay writing. So what else could I do, really? 
Readers of Willesden’s local press (that’s all three of you then!) might be tremendously excited to know that a photo of me in a grey hoodie – not sure if that was on message or not – might be working its way to you as part of an Access promotion for people who went on a shadowing scheme and are now volunteering to be shadowed themselves. I did note the rather uninspiring lack of ethnic diversity in the group photo, but hey, I’ve just been brought up to follow the now rather clichéd idea that these things should always be balanced. To be fair, I was also much more concerned by the terrible strain on my knees when having to crouch down in the front row of a group shot! I can’t remember if RV ever exacted such horrible cruelty on its subjects, but I hope not
Let’s liven up this rather uninteresting post with a photo of a drunkard:
A drunkard!
As the fancy widget on the right now indicates: more on Facebook!
Helen on It’s (waiting) time.: “Fabulous news, congratulations to you both! X” Jun 8, 21:51
