Week 5
“This House believes that the COVID crisis is over”.
Oliver made a very well organised and effective argument that the crisis is over in the UK (at least unless there is a massively different new variant) BUT the consequences / effects of COVID are still being felt. He pointed to the economic effects (supply chains disrupted, especially in China, public transport use in London still down 30% and far more working from home). He explained the Educational effects, especially in the early years. There was a huge negative impact on social interaction, including a reluctance to go out and an inability to understand facial expressions plus an over reliance on technology. Older students are facing a public exam for the first time without prior experience of it, and the negative consequences of grade inflation. COVID worsened the large education gap in the experiences of the rich and the poor.
Also, the Medical / health effects are definitely still a problem. There has been a massive increase in NHS waiting lists because of the backlog created by COVID. There is also the problem of “long COVID”. Oliver thought that many of the problems with queues at airports and delays in issuing passports were primarily due to the consequences of COVID.
Overall, the initial COVID crisis is over in the UK BUT not in China (or North Korea). There is no ongoing UK pandemic – COVID is now just a seasonal disease that can be contained, like a severe flu.
Oliver also pointed out that it can be hard to distinguish between the consequences of COVID and the effects of Brexit or of the war in Ukraine.
Zach passionately argued that the COVID crisis IS over. COVID is now merely a nasty type of flu. The virus is itself becoming less severe in humans, the symptoms cannot easily be distinguished from an ordinary cold. We have successfully developed vaccines and treatments as well as building up natural herd immunity. COVID cannot be eradicated, we simply have to learn to carry on living normally with it in the background. The crisis is OVER but the consequences are still being felt. The UK is opened up, and this is how the rest of the world should be. We should focus on personal freedom. The problem in China is a consequence of an authoritarian society trying to enforce an unreasonable and unachievable policy. We (the UK) are effectively COVID pure. The word crisis refers to the time when there was a high infection rate of a deadly disease. That is no longer the case.
Arthur argued strongly against this. We think that COVID is over but consequently we do less
We have stopped rigorous hand washing and mask wearing and we are socialising more. Consequently there will probably be another outbreak. Restrictions have been abandoned far too soon. The social attitude that COVID is over makes further outbreaks inevitable.
Nico thought that people THINK Covid is over because there is so much less testing than used to be the case, so that we know far less about what is actually going on. Of course the crisis is not over, the medical consequences of Long Covid are unknown. Nico pointed out that in Rome everyone still wears a mask and still have to show their COVID pass to go to any mass venue, such as a restaurant, art gallery, theatre or cinema. There are still some venues in the UK that insist on similar restrictions. We are putting the clinically vulnerable members of our community in an awful position by NOT taking precautions, so that COVID continues to be a mass disease. Masks are there to protect other people, not just to protect yourself.
VOTE
YES (Covid crisis is over) 1 (plus 1 who thought it over in the UK but not globally).
NO 2
Thursday
Anna recognised that COVID will continue to exist, but the crisis is much less severe now that the restrictions are being lifted. Risks this summer are now lower, but there is still likely to be another winter variant that will hit us.
George pointed out that the effects / consequences of COVID continue. For example supply chain inflation / price rises caused by the global disruption to production. Continuing new variations will emerge. We can never truly know if the crisis is over. The symptoms are now confusing and there is much less testing, so we don’t really lnow how widespread the disease is. Many people don’t test because they don’t want to test positive and miss work, losing money they cannot afford.
Lara felt that the COVID crisis will NEVER be over in terms of being caught, because the virus will always continue to circulate in the population and there will always be people liable to catch it. Vaccination only reduces the risk of catching COVID, it does not remove the risk entirely. People are no longer listening to guidance (Lara thought that there would be less oppositions to measures if they were called “guidance” instead of “restrictions”). There is still a psychological crisis, leading to a political crisis. She pointed out that there are clinically vulnerable people living in society, when will their personal crisis be ended? Are they doomed to ever lasting caution? Many people are selfishly NOT following guidance on hand washing, using sanitiser and mask wearing. The lasting effects of COVID, such as depression and loneliness, are still with us.
Ruby argued that COVID is now very different from COVID of two years ago. We are now a much freer society than we were,so in that sense the crisis is over. However, the after effects continue to be felt in the UK, and COVID is still a real problem elsewhere in the world (eg in China). The UK still has to deal with the consequences of a combination of problems, a perfect storm of COVID plus BREXIT plus WAR in Ukraine and each is impacting on the consequences of the others.
Aidan recognised that COVID will always continue to exist and cannot be eradicated. There will always be the risk of a new variant. There is only a crisis when there are restrictions. It will take time, but eventually the consequences will be overcome world wide.
Tosca insisted on context. Did the question mean the crisis in the UK or the world wide crisis? Also, how does one define the word “crisis”? Tosca argued that the crisis would be over when COVID has become a much less threatening illness than other illnesses.
Amelle agreed that restrictions are over, but pointed out that COVID still exists. Next week we could be in lock down again. The illness is still here, so the crisis is still here. The current consequences are part of the crisis.
Aoife was keen for the world to prepare for a further outbreak. COVID has been a huge wake-up call so we must be much better prepared for the next crisis. COVID continues to exist, and to evolve.
Juliette pointed out that there are still many in the UK wearing masks. Many are worried. The crisis is NOT over.
Max summed up by questioning what is meant by a crisis. Is it the actual outbreak and associated restrictions or is it largely generated by excessive media hype or is it the longer term consequences of the disease outbreak? Max argued that the crisis ws the universal concern about COVID in the UK, not just the people dying of the disease but also the total impact of the diseases on society. There is bound to be a long term, long lasting impact of the COVID crisis and we need to go beyond our very short term, media driven view.
VOTE
YES (crisis over) 0
NO 12
Week 4
“This House welcomes the takeover of TWITTER by Elon Musk as it is likely to lead to fewer restrictions on tweet content and freedom of speech”.
Oliver thought that a line should be drawn somewhere, there should not be a complete content free for all. The more extreme content should be banned, but NOT political opinion. Elon thinks that far too many views are censored / constrained. Some constraints are needed, but not as many as there are at present. Elon is a very controversial and excessively omnipresent person already. Should “mad extremists” be allowed to control what everyone else sees and thinks? Twitter did take down Trump’s account, but Elon says this was a mistake that he would reverse. Clearly, inciting violence should be banned but “inciting hate” is much more nuanced. The UK police have recently been criticised for recording “non crime hate incidents” which can be disclosed to potential employers. This is definitely a grey area, not clearly define one way or another. There are clearly dangers in private ownership, with a danger of a conflict of interest and of a monopoly on social media. The political Left is more associated with attacks on freedom of speech than is the political right. Oliver thought that Twitter should be re sold as a PLC with more equitable shareholdings that prevent an individual from dominating the company. Elon Musk knows that he needs to be careful to comply with existing law. It would be good to see more public control, but there is no need for more constraints.
Alex thought that it would be GOOD to have less restriction / moderation of content. He called for a free market of ideas and expression of views. However, he did recognise the danger of private ownership of a large social media platform leading to exploitation. He agreed with Oliver, it would be bad for one person to have control over ALL social media. It could lead to manipulation of people. The problem is the danger of an echo chamber where users risk confirmation bias, where extreme views are reinforced because of an algorithm. Therefore, Alex called for a limit on the % of sectoral control any one person or company can have. An alternative would be for the ownership to be in a blind trust, so that the owner can have NO influence over editorial policy. There is a clear danger of future mergers and acquisitions. Elon Musk will be constrained by existing competition and content law, and he is unlikely to be very extreme.
VOTE:
No (not a good move for Musk to take over Twitter) 1
Yes 1
Thursday
Lara emphasised the importance of taking ownership of what you have said – if you did not mean it you should not have said it. Elon Musk is an innovator, but he is now losing contact with reality. He has too much power and is NOT a responsible owner of a major social media platform. Twitter needs constraints. Collective opinion should decide on what is unacceptable, Twitter should be owned in common, and controlled by laws, not by a particular individual. Musk should not be allowed to buy Twitter. The current constraints are justified – Trump was only banned after his repeated tweets led directly to multiple deaths. Twitter should not be under the private ownership of anyone, and constraints are essential. Microaggressions should not be taken to heart and bans should be limited to truly serious offences, we tend to get upset too easily. The genuinely unacceptable should be banned; but rudeness and thoughtlessness should NOT be made illegal.
Mr Keddie pointed out that this links to the concept of “Non Crime Hate Incidents” where the police take a record of people who have said legal things, about which someone has subsequently complained.
Jacob argued that Freedom of Speech should not be seen as a binary concept. Yes, there should be legal constraints on what can be posted, BUT it could be dangerously misused by a repressive authoritarian dictatorship. It should NOT be the job of a “moderator” to tell other people what they are allowed to think / say.
Max pointed out that Hate speech is a crime, and felt that the concept of “microaggressions” is mistaken, people are too willing to take offence. If banned, the right wing will simply find an alternative social media outlet. Only a tiny minority actually abuse their power to comment. It is impossible to understand why people attack others with such hostility on line, but they do, and freedom of speech on Twitter was abused and rightly needs to be controlled by both national governments and by the editorial board.
Amelle argued that Elon Musk was buying Twitter to promote is own views. She thought that he should NOT have complete editorial control. There should be legal limits. Mere wealth does not make you a responsible owner.
Tosca argued that Twitter should remain in public control. It is a public forum that needs to be regulated with clearer and stricter rules than there are now, not fewer rules. The general public should be able to control what is available on Twitter – BUT who are the general public?
Lara responded – rather radically – that the general Public are those NOT in power.
Vote Yes: 0
No: 6 (overwhelmingly opposed to Musk!)
BUT the takeover would be OK if Musk had no editorial influence
Week 3
This House thinks that transgender people should be allowed to compete in all categories of competitive sport, according to their self-defined identity.
Nico thought that how transgender athletes should be treated should depend on the sport involved. Some sports are more physical than others, even non contact ones (such as athletics and rowing). He acknowledged the potential for emotional harm to trans people who are not being fully accepted into their preferred personal identity, but felt that this is outweighed by the unfairness of female athletes being defeated by bigger, stronger trans rivals who grew up physiologically advantaged as males.
Arthur agreed that there should not be a competition in which being Trans confers a competitive advantage. The problem does not apply when a woman transitions to a man. Such a person CAN fairly compete in male sports because they would have no biological advantage, but should not be allowed to compete in female sports because of the drugs taken to raise their testosterone levels.
Zachary thought that in many sports (such as boxing, rugby, athletics), athletes should be confined to competing under their birth gender (biological sex).
Oliver said that there IS a distinction to be made between biological sex and your gender identity. People should be free to choose their gender but there are good reasons to distinguish on sex (such as changing rooms and toilet areas). There is a clear logic behind biological separation in competitive sports. In all toher areas, Trans people should be free to choose how they identify. Women CAN compete equally with men in some competitive sports, such as equestrianism (horse riding/ racing) or Formula 1 (so why is there a separate competition for women drivers?)
Alex thought that trans people should be able to compete with their self identifying sex peers in “non muscle” sports where there is no advantage to be derived from your Trans status. Therefore not being treated the same in boxing or wrestling, but equality in chess, Esports and equestrianism. The rights of Trans women should NOT be set in opposition to the rights of all biological women.
Kiki originally thought that biological sex should determine what categories an athlete can complete in. She now thinks that a woman who is transgender (as a man) should be allowed to compete alongside others of the same identifying sex BUT must undergo surgery and drugs therapy to remove any physiological advantage. It is different for trans women (biologically male). Self identification is not enough for fair competition.
VOTE
Yes (Trans athletes should be able to compete without restraints) 2
No 4
Thursday
Lara argued that transgender athletes should NOT be allowed to compete against other women. If you are biologically male, but identify as female, you will still have a BIG physiological advantage over those born biologically female. Obviously, there are some sports where this physiological advantage is irrelevant. Sex is what you are biologically born as, whereas gender is how you self identify. Intersex exists, but is very rare.
Tosca was entirely happy with gender neural bathrooms and with people generally being free to choose (male, female, gender neutral, non-binary) as they choose BUT, from a purely practical point of view, there are a few instances where biologically born Men identifying as Trans Women need to stick to the sex assigned to them at birth as far as competitive sports are concerned. It is not realistic to run separate “transgender” competitive events in most competitive sports. We need to encourage biologically born women to participate more in sports.
Ruby wanted to take account of the feelings of individuals who would feel excluded, but the unpopular fact is that biologically born men are physiologically stronger and have a mechanical advantage. We need to think of the rights of ALL biologically born female athletes as well as the rights of Trans individuals. Trans women should never be allowed to compete biologically born females (to be fair, this was only when Mr Keddie pushed her into this line of argument).
VOTE
Yes (Trans should be free to take equal part in sports) 0
No 3
Week 2:
This House thinks that the cost of petrol, electricity and gas should be reduced by Government intervention.
Mr Keddie began by explaining the cost of living crisis, the huge increase in energy costs caused by a combination of recovering demand after COVID, Green energy policies, and the war in Ukraine reducing supplies of Russian oil and gas.
Oliver argued that the massive increase in heating / lighting / fuel costs is a clear example of market failure. It is also proof that we are deluding ourselves about the implications of “green” energy policy. Globalisation is clearly dangerous when relying on the cheapest supplier has so obviously led to threats to security of supply. We say that we are ready for a green change, but clearly we are not ready to be short of gas. We are NOT ready to stop fossil fuel dependency. Climate change policy is intended to be gradual and is NOT ready for this pace of change. We still don’t have enough “green” infrastructure. The combination of three crises – COVID; Ukraine and Climate change have created a “perfect storm” which we are NOT ready for. It is unclear if the government can afford to intervene. It is also unclear if the government SHOULD intervene – after all we want to reduce our dependence on fossil fuel. This is all a massive cut to our living standards. Surely the government could set a one off “windfall” tax on the increased profits of big oil companies.
Zachary argued that fuel prices should be lowered for public transport. He thought that the Conservatives are taxing too much and are not spending enough on climate improvements. The Government should lower taxes (and consequently lower the price) of fuel and electricity. We need a short term focus on our temporarily high fuel prices. Prices are too high in the short term and we need to suspend climate change policies in the short term, until our fuel prices return to normal, and then we can reapply our climate change policies, because it is morally right to do so.
Nico argued that part of the higher fuel costs are caused by the higher costs of distribution due to BREXIT. Government climate change policy is just sputing dates, it is not meaningful. The Conservative party is too concerned with money and market prices and should instead focus on the climate change emergency. The Conservative government should stop making laws which perpetuate inequality. They should focus on reducing inequality. We should want high fuel prices, as a way to move more rapidly to being carbon neutral and resolving long term climate change. We should take a longer term view, rather than merely reacting to short term high fuel prices.
Arthur argued that the Government SHOULD intervene to bring down prices because electricity is essential and it is rapidly becoming unaffordable.
VOTE: YES (government should intervene) 2
NO 2
Thursday
Ruby argued that it is GOOD to use less petrol for climate change reasons. It is morally wrong to use Russian oil and gas as it undermines Western economic sanctions against Russia and helps to fund Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. It is good to encourage all of us to be ecologically aware, to save energy and “go Green”. Whilst good in the long term, it is clearly NOT good for the poor in the short term that fuel prices have risen so fast. However, we should all walk more, which is good for our health and also cuts our energy use, which is good for the environment. Most uses of petrol are actually optional and should be actively discouraged by government policy. There should be more focus on local activities and less travelling, which would improve our air quality and reduce noise pollution.
Amelle argued that electric cars are far too expensive, much more expensive than petrol ones. Ordinary people cannot afford the higher oil and gas prices, some cannot even afford to heat their homes. The government should act to reduce the price, and can afford to do this because it should economise elsewhere, making savings so that it can afford to cut the tax on petrol, thereby reducing the price of petrol.
Anna suggested that short term action should be taken to lower high prices NOW, and then we should continue with our anti climate change policy afterwards. Therefore we should suspend climate change policy for 6 months, OR we should subsidise poorer people to compensate them for higher petrol prices. Public transport is a public good and we should encourage greater use of it. Full buses are efficient buses.
Tosca agreed with the long term benefits of getting used to higher fuel prices. Equally, the poorest do clearly need help. There is a long term benefit for the individual and for society if we all insulate our homes and save energy.
Lara thought that spending money on reducing oil and gas prices would involve cuts to other vital services. She favoured a one off windfall tax on oil companies making massive profits.
Max favoured temporarily lowering energy prices and targeted Government aid to help the poorest (those on benefits and the lowest paid). However, he recognised that taxes are already very high.
VOTE
Yes 4 (so there SHOULD be Government action BUT it should be carefully targeted to help those most in need).
No 2
Week 1:
This House thinks that there is no significant moral difference between a speeding fine and getting a police fine for breaking COVID regulations (party gate)
Zachary thought that there IS a significant moral difference. In the case of Covid regulations, moral leadership is crucial. The Prime Minister did understand the rules, he wrote them. He cannot claim to be unaware of what the rules were. He simply thought that the rules should not apply to him. He cannot evade responsibility on this issue. Breaking Covid rules is definitely worse than driving at 24mph in a 20mph zone (but is it worse than driving at 80mph in a 20mph zone?) Covid rules affected all aspects of life, far more invasively than do speeding restrictions, making it even more important to set a moral example. Johnson was himself in intensive care and must understand the importance of what he was ordering everyone else to do. The infectiousness of Covid makes breaking the regulations more serious than speeding because of the exponential rapid spread of the disease. In particular, Johnson was personally associated with each phase of the Covid rules and he does not have the same personal association with spreeding fines or speed limits. The vast majority DID follow the rules for Covid (and also the rules on speeding).
Nico agreed that there is a moral difference between breaking Covid regulations and speeding, and that the PM must accept personal responsibility. Johnson is personally associated with massively disruptive and invasive Covid laws, which he then ignored. Very strict rules are introduced and enforced for a reason. In contrast, speeding rules are not very restrictive and can easily be obeyed. We should all follow rules to help each other.
Arthur thought that a minor Covid breach (such as mask accidentally below nose) is not so bad. However, he was convinced by Zach that a Covid breach IS worse than speeding.
Max thought that breaking Covid rules was morally worse than speeding because it could have a very widespread consequence through spreading infection. It is not acceptable to appear to apologise whilst at the same time excusing and explaining away his police fine as a minor, technical breach.
Anna emphasised that not all speeding offences are equally bad (eg 23mph in a 20 mph zone on an open road in the early morning is not as bad as 80mph in a 20mph zone in the rain when school children are walking home). That said, Johnson ought to have known better, and is demonstrating a clear sense of entitlement and a lack of responsibility. Even worse is his persistent denial and covering up. He has sacked many of his own staff for doing less than he has done himself.
Lara emphasised the moral leadership expected from the PM. There is definitely a big difference between “work” and “party”. Ordinary people are fully aware of the difference and there is huge anger at Johnson’s excuses.
Tosca thought that it is easy to break a speed limit by accident. It is not adequate to “not realise that a party was a party”. Johnson is simply a liar. He is undermining his own rules by acknowledging legal liability whilst simultaneously minimising his guilt and trying to defend / justify his own conduct. The PM is the one who sets the tone and decides what is and is not reasonable. He cannot blame others.
VOTE
Agree 0
Disagree 7
Bad news for Boris and his Conservative defenders!