Written by Amy O’Donoghue
On 26th November, students representing five different UK political parties took part in LSE Government Society’s annual debate. Labour, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Greens, and for the first time, Reform, took to the floor in a multi-party debate on the economy, immigration, and the environment. Scores of students attended as spectators. Labour was declared the winner at the end.
Dissent quickly began to dominate the atmosphere, with the academic chair describing the inclusion of Reform as “platforming fascists”, much to the chagrin of their debaters.
The first debate topic was the economy. The discussion focused on taxation and debt, with one party’s candidate stating that we should not be afraid to borrow to spend in order to fix the economic failures of neoliberalism. He was then described as a “fanatic fool” by another debater, who advocated cutting various taxes including VAT.
Another party’s representative began his speech by proclaiming that, “if you’re lying in bed in your council house with 15 kids, you just won the lottery”, with the Budget that had been announced by Reeves on the same day. His comment was later criticised by another representative as offensive.
A debater advocated “tearing up the EU regulatory rulebook”, and stopping the use of hotels to house asylum seekers to cut spending. He also claimed another party inflicted “Bond-level wickedry” on the country, by implementing the biggest tax burden in a generation—a sentiment somewhat shared by a different party’s debater. She also highlighted some of the measures that had been announced in the Budget such as the mansion tax, and the end of the two-child benefit cap, arguing these were beneficial steps towards a fairer and more efficient economy.
Another debater posited that the rest of the parties were speaking in rhetoric and not facts, alleging that their party were the only ones who weren’t deferring to populism. He argued for trade agreements with Europe, claiming the absence of such agreements are currently costing the UK £90 billion a year. Additionally, he suggested that legalising cannabis would be a useful way to raise tax revenue.
The second round of debate focused on energy and the environment. This round began with one debater claiming they were the only party who could save the country from the “apocalyptic nightmare” of climate change. He advocated ensuring green transition without facilitating wars, which he alleged other parties were apologists for. He later accused one party of being tied to Russia through donations. That party’s representative responded that the party has only received an insignificant amount of money from Russian donors.
Their party went on to oppose renewable energy projects, call the other speakers communists, and repeatedly deny the existence of climate change, claiming that the UK currently spends £40 billion pounds a year on an issue that “doesn’t really exist”.
A debater from another party highlighted that theirs was committed to net zero by 2045 (sooner than any other party), and stated that green transition would create hundreds of thousands of jobs. She also posited that “every pound invested in renewables is one less sent to Russia”.
Another party representative focused on the idea that all the other parties were ignoring the impending threat of climate change in favour of short-term factors, proclaiming that theirs was the only party who acknowledged medium-term demands. She reiterated that not doing enough now only increases costs in the future, and affirmed that their party would integrate the green sector, and invest in renewables. The issue of their policy on nuclear energy was also addressed, with the speaker diverging from the official party line by supporting the use of nuclear energy, and reminding the audience that under the one-member one-vote system of their party, their nuclear policy could feasibly change.
The final round of debate was centred on immigration. A chain of insults such as “communist” and “closeted Islamist” were launched from a debater, towards both his opponents and the academic chair (who is meant to be neutral), for his supposed partiality. He argued for the introduction of deportation centres, a six-month deportation window, and the repeal of the ECHR.
Another party’s debater began by acknowledging the benefits of migration, and then went on to argue that the Rwanda relocation scheme could still succeed if the planes were allowed to take off.
Another party’s debater argued that the other parties fail to recognise the threat of climate change that is displacing people and driving migration. He also criticised the “cultural obsession” he believed was evident in one party’s “closeted Islamist” remark and affirmed that Britain’s multiculturalism is its strength. Referring to a speech by Enoch Powell that Keir Starmer controversially referenced this year, the debater declared that looking at the Thames, he sees “not a river of blood, just a heavily polluted river”. Another debater later responded that the “island of strangers” risk is real, and net migration has brought about a social cohesion problem in the UK. He was met with booing from the audience.
One debater pointed out that immigration has increased since Brexit. Another speaker closed the debate, arguing that diversity is a strength, that racial minorities in the UK must be protected, and that their party is taking adequate steps to stop small boat crossings, noting that in the past week, no crossings have occurred.
The atmosphere at the debate was raucous, with consistent heckling and shouting throughout the event. Some students in attendance expressed surprise to The Beaver at the perceived organisational failures, referring to the rowdy nature of the event and the apparent failure of the chair to be neutral. The insults that were thrown around by some of the speakers were also a matter of contention. One attendee at the event told The Beaver that a “derogatory and offensive comment” was “thrown” at her from one of the debaters, and that neither the chair nor the committee did anything despite hearing it.
Labour was declared the winner of the debate through a vote taken at the end, with one of their speakers winning best individual debater. Audience members were also asked who they would vote for were there a General Election tomorrow, with Labour winning again.
When contacted for comment, LSE Government Society told the Beaver:
“LSE Government Society acknowledges the concerns raised about the chairing of the debate that took place on the 26th of November. This is something we are taking seriously and are looking into, alongside our various stakeholders. LSE has clear policies regarding how events should be conducted, and as a society, we followed all of these. The chair was briefed before the event. We condemn all disrespectful language and behaviour.”
An LSE spokesperson said:
“We are in contact with the LSE Government Society and Department of Government about the debate in question and understand they are looking into concerns raised about the chairing of the event.
“Hateful language of any kind has no place at LSE and is totally unacceptable. We all have a responsibility to treat others with respect and dignity at all times and the School takes any reports of hateful language extremely seriously. We encourage any students or staff who have experienced or witnessed such behaviour to get in touch via one of our many channels, such as Report and Support.”
