A Report of the Second Parliamentary Debate for the 2012/13 SessionThe World Almighty Distributist League in Government

Friday 23rd November 2012

Report prepared by the Clerk to the House, Mr Ross Mitchell,With the assitance of his fellow Clerks, Mr John Mckee, Ms Heather Whiteside, Mr Peter Stewart

and Mr Gavin Todd

The Bill:

The world almighty distributist league, liberating the individual and society from insidious state interference, shall:

1- Abolish state marriage2- End all direct taxation

3- Deregulate the broadcast media

The Crits:

Every speech has been discussed by the Clerks and awarded a mark. Please take on board any suggestions that are made for the future and the Clerks will take notice. Also note that the marks and standard are different for each round and as such you can only compare yourself to others in the round you spoke in. Club leaders should also take note of tips for improvement for individual speakers and seek to assist them in meeting these recommendations. Additionally crits and marks will indicate if the Clerks bench feel that a speaker merits promotion, or in some cases demotion. For the purposes of comparing speeches we will divulge part of the scoring: is better than is better than

The Round of Opening Afternoon

Distribs Hon. Piranha Peticure (Mr Brain McCarthy )FG ++ We felt you had a bold opening to the Distributist Parliamentary, proclaiming that there is in fact very little material poverty and instead focused, as a good libertarian should, on the nature of self-possession, that we are all individual and this drives competition. You laid down an effective challenge to the Tories that will have to be asked yet more as the academic year moves on – where do the Tories get their values from. This was a strong start in Opening Government.

Clause one was similarly steady, as you told the House that marriages are primarily a private issue and that if participants wanted religious ceremonies or church weddings they were welcome to do so but that it was no concern of the state. You proclaimed that morality was private, and the clerks would have liked to see more principled philosophical analysis to at least lay the basis for your club to go on and develop this argument. You rhetorically asked whether you want politicians to be the moral arbiters. Incidentally some clubs probably do so you should avoid asking questions as if they are laden with self-evident premises that the mere uttering of the question is enough to prove your argument. Be more rigorous, Similarly you may need to be responsive to points of information. This is particularly important for a speaker such as yourself who wants to contend for ever greater seniority and since opening government is a particularly unresponsive position on the table. You should seize what chance you get.

You were perhaps strongest on Clause 2 as seems to reflect you personal enthusiasm. You stated, again boldly that direct taxes are an infringement on the sovereignty of the individual. You made the astute observation (doubtlessly swindled from Hayek) that direct taxation is as laying claim to the labour of another. Perhaps the sewage/milk metaphor was not the most poetic or nuanced... never mind some clerks had just eaten lunch! You said that people will have greater incentives if the maxim “I get what I earn” were to hold sway in society. Again here you were challenged on a point of information concerning limited liability from the Tories challenging this very premise which the clerks feel you should have been ready for, but when the answer came was perhaps inadequate. Be careful as well about declaring taxation tantamount to slavery, That might fly in the dark libertarian circles of the Distributist pre-debate, but the house will need more comparative analysis for this to stand.Clause 3 was taken in two parts first in your speech, then all the way throughout the Parliamentary, The clerks are of the opinion that more could have been done here to emphasise which aspect you felt was most central to your philosophy on this clause. Indeed some clarity here could have been more advantageous for your club’s advocacy throughout the day on this clause. You told us that the license fee was an affront to civil liberties, that it constrained free choices about what they can watch, contrasting this with the private sector, You then began the stronger (and probably more important) line of analysis that it is fact impossible for news to be neutral, and that in the status quo this bias is hidden and given an insidious credibility, whereas in the Distributist system biases would be open and transparent, giving greater freedom to the individual. A decent speech.

Tories Hon. Thick of It (Mr Gavin Todd)FG ++ Opening with the “omni-shambles” ad hominem is all very well, but not as good as the Avengers joke.. You opened by claiming that in fact the distribs deny liberties to many. You said that a pre-requisite for enjoying the liberties that society has to offer is that people should feel comfortable and secure in order that they can contract effectively. You said that just as the state might have

subverting influences, so might the market and indeed the rich who are best able to play this market game. You gave the examples of how large corporations are far removed from the needs of communities and is unaccountable, whereas at least the state is democratically accountable. This was a decent and necessary opening to respond to quite a strong Government speech in your round.

For Clause 1 you tell us that marriage brings stability and that the distib view of marriage merely as private contracts doesn’t sufficiently provide for such things as emotional security. This is crucial for the protections of children you tell us, but could perhaps elaborate more giving greater strength to this particular point. You told us the Tories were instituting gay marriage, but unfortunately brought us no real justification as to why this strengthens marriage. There are many arguments that could support this, but they were not brought, to the detriment of the Tories all the way to Closing Evening.

You told us in clause 2 that many are crowded out in a free market system and for a more effective and just economy the state should tax large businesses in order to provide help to small businesses. You then clearly and effectively outlined your model for this clause. You told us a flat tax would mean large businesses would pay more, but that is not necessarily the case (in fact the opposite is probably true). The Tories were lucky not to get picked up on this however and so you got away with it! Clause 3 you told us of the unique ability of the BBC to provide variety (some examples would have helped your case here). You questioned the possible damage done to children exposed to bad things under the Distrib model. We were not convinced by the strength of this point. Also, watch you timing, but not a bad speech.

Whigs Hon. Republican Jelly (Mr Matteo Catanzano)FG ++ This was a reasonable speech, but in future you should have the confidence for a more forceful delivery. You told us the Distribs were removing barriers which was good, but that the did not got he full way and empower individuals with the correct tools. This was a good tact to take to show exactly where the Whigs intended to differ from the Govt in this parliamentary. You told us that individuals need both the state and the market, but in different situations. We needed more fro you however (and indeed the Whig club throughout the day on expanding the idea of “human dignity”. In Clause 1 you explained that the Whigs agreed with the abolition of state marriage but for different reasons. You told us that marriage perpetuates certain norms which can discriminate against groups. Here we needed more detailed explanation however of which norms the Whigs felt needed to be tackled by this measure. For Clause 2 you told us the Whigs would also (somewhat surprisingly) remove direct taxation, but that instead they would levy a hefty 80% inheritance tax on everyone. You gave a number of decent reasons as to why this would create better incentives that direct taxation which can disincentivise people form working. You told us that the “death tax however” is the price we pay for a civilised society. You were questioned by Int Soc, rightly, on why you are giving 20% tax away. This became a more damaging attack as the day went on, however you dealt with it reasonably at the time. For Clause 3 you told us that the media should reflect society and that multiple outlets were the best way to create a freer market with competition, so the Whigs were breaking up media companies with multiple outlets, but that we would keep the BBC, Timing meant the clause was not as developed as it should have been and links between clauses could have been smoother, You clearly have some speaking skill, however when you gain some more confidence your speeches will likely improve greatly.

SNA Hon. Twinset and Pearls (Miss Hannah Gower)FG ++ You have a strong ability to use forceful rhetoric in order to get your point across, never a minus in the GUU Debates Chamber, however this speech lacked from a certain lack of substance which should really be expected in such a senior round. You told us that individuals were shackled by their own human nature and that society is infact about co-existence which is best achieved when people are liberated from such individuality. A affine way to start off an SNA pre-amble, but we require more than just stating premises, some analysis as to, for example, what it is about individuality that people need to be liberated form would have aided your cause. You told us in Clause 1 that marriage gives people alternative allegiances from the state and that all marriages should therefore be banned and broken up, but again we needed more analysis here.

In Clause 2 you almost appropriated the language of Ind Soc, but nevertheless pulled reasonably well the SNA opposition to a consumerist society and that what people really need is provided for. Therefore you intended to levy 100% tax and then create a command economy, centrally managed. Some analysis as to how this command economy would operate and what its primary goals were (production? Provision? Social harmony?) was much needed however. Finally in clause 3 you create a single state broadcaster as we would expect from the SNA. You asserted this would be for the benefit of all society, however when challenged about those in the state who disagree with the SNA line, you failed to answer this effectively. Good style, more substance.

Ind Soc Rt. Hon. Something About Mary (Mr Gavin Tulloch)FG ++ So this speech was certainly improved on the unmitigated disaster of your last appearance before the House, but still can do more to truly show off the skills you’ve developed as a Rt Hon member. You told us society is about improving the lives of all individuals not just those at the top, and that we need co-operation to properly achieve this and in order to truly liberate the state is required. You told us that an “intrinsic humanity” must be central to decision making in order to prevent the market creating victims. This was a decent preamble, though perhaps more analysis on how Ind Soc viewed the state would be advantageous.

For clause 1 you told us that marriage acted against a more equal society as it institutionalises people. Therefore, like the SNA you were banning all forms of marriage. You suggested that marriage was a way of keeping wealth from the poorer in society, but we were unsure how this was the case, More explanation needed here. In the second clause you told us that when oligarchs are allowed to retain power they will continue to aggregate money for themselves, therefore you were going to redistribute all moneies earned above the level of subsistence. This was an intriguing clasue, but you could have done more to tell us what Ind Soc meant by a level of subsistence as the clerks imagine the clubs have differing interpretations of this. You told us that rich people owe society for their wealth and as such should pay proportionately, where as the poor should no longer have to struggle though life.

In clause 3 you told us we must break the rich’s control of media, therefore, like the SNA you are nationalising all media outlets. We really needed more analysis on this clause though. Ultimately a much clearer performance, but with too many assertions and not enough arguments, not too difficult to fix as Opening Afternoon is the most formulaic and easiest to prepare of speeches.

The Round of First Unpointed

Distribs Hon. Colon (Mr David Dutko)F++You began by talking about the role the state should play in a nation and saying that, rather than behaving like a bad parent, it should treat individuals as adults. This tied in quite well to the stuff you had on the nature of society – an aggregate of individuals rather than a web. You then spoke about clause two and tried to explain how taxation helps the state get into your head – this was a bit of a confusing idea, and you probably needed to clarify and analyse it more if you really wanted to use it. That imagery probably wasn’t the best way of getting your point across though. You maybe should have done more analysis on tax meaning you work for the state – why it is relevant and harmful. All in all, room for improvement in terms of clarity and phrasing, but not a bad maiden speech! Welcome to the chamber.

Tories Hon. Bourne Identity (Ryan)F++You tried to engage with the government by talking about a dictatorship of the market instead of politicians and why this was bad. You needed to develop this further but your material on Clause 3, about why media serving sensationalism is poor, was quite interesting. You need to be careful to link clearly from your preamble to your clause – think about what the main idea is in your response to the clause, and try to relate an idea from the preamble to it. We thought you handled answering your early POI well, but be careful of taking a POI too quickly – usually it’s better to get into your stride and plan when you are going to take one. You don’t want everyone immediately distracted from your speech! Some good ideas in this speech: work on developing those, and following a coherent train of thought for the judges next time.

Whigs Hon. Ball Breaker (Ms. Hannah Oros)F++You talked in an interesting way about the meaning of liberty and liberation. You focussed some good attacks on the government, when you told us why liberation is not solely about autonomy, and the SNA, your direct opposition, when you talked about the importance of choice and identity. The material about women struggling to leave marriage and their economic restraints was also interesting and we were pleased to see you bringing individual ideas to the Whig bench instead of just trotting out your line. Next time we feel you should concentrate on improving your delivery. At times your speech seemed a bit overly read from notes. It didn’t prevent us from listening, but it would make your speech better if you tried to restrict your reliance on notes and practice engaging your audience with facial expressions and more open body language. This might feel over the top at first but it will you’re your confidence as well as reception of your speech. In terms of content, an improvement on your first speech! Well done.

SNA Hon. Cracked Cheeks (Gayle)F++You explained why your party think that individuals will be permanently dissatisfied when they solely rely on and act for themselves. We thought you made lots of good attacks on selfishness and the structure of society, engaging very well with the debate as a whole for a maiden speaker. You articulately gave us the idea that choice leads to fear, and fear leads to non-liberty. The link to clause 1 was done well and you were consistent with your ideas throughout the speech. In terms of advice for next time, while you were clear spoken and audible, you could afford to give the chamber a little more variation in presentation and style. We encourage Parliamentary input to be more entertaining that the average IV speech! The clerks’ bench thought your ideas and analysis were good for a maiden speaker, and we look forward to your next speech.

Ind Soc Hon. Velma (Ms. Megan Rhys)F++We quite liked your talk on the preamble, about preventing accumulation of wealth and direct and indirect harms. You took a POI reasonably early, and responded well to it. You talked about the superfluity of state marriage, and why people shouldn’t need endorsement to justify relationships. You could have expanded a little more on this and explained it more in terms of harms. Your analysis about tax benefits and the current nature of marriage relating to money was also good. Try to engage as much as possible with your direct opposition – this allows the clubs to develop their arguments throughout the day and brings new material to the fore. This was a strong speech – we think you could do well in the chamber. Congratulations from the Clerk’s bench on winning the Maidens’ Prize!

The Round of Mid-Afternoon

Distribs Hon. Daddy’s Princess (Mr. Jacob Tomnay)FG + In a dazzling display of rhetoric, you confidently began with an all-encompassing bicycle analogy. Little did we suspect that this analogy would grow to dominate the round of Mid-Afternoon, and that first metaphor was but the beginning few notes of a menacing Jaws soundtrack warning naked beach-babes to get out of the water: sharks a-coming. Having said that, it was a competent metaphor that allowed you to clearly lay out your criticism of the other clubs. You argued the benefits of a world without tax, and the potential therein. You stood your ground against an S.N.A POI; you said that people do not succeed in the Distrib system are those who do not try enough, and this effect will be limited by the absence of safety nets. You attacked the Whigs death tax, pointing out that it could not be enforced. This was a solid point but could do with a little more analysis. Your clause three analysis was solid; the clerks bench like your assertion that the internet provides all the pornography the watershed would block. We know the truth of this statement.If the bicycle analogy returns to terrorize the clerks bench in future parliamentaries, you will share the panicky despair of Oppenheimer as he stared at the atomic bomb he helped create and reflected: ‘Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.’ Recurring metaphor, nuclear bomb: they are essentially the same thing.

Tories Hon. Red Rosette (Mr. Donald McKay)FG + Yay, you continued the bike metaphor. Who would have thought such a banal analogy would have so much life in it? Not the clerk’s bench, that’s for certain. Boy, are our faces red. You argued that the coercive market of the Distribs would stunt choice, a fair point. You linked neatly into clause one by suggesting that there is an onus on the state to provide a structure, in this case a structure for marriage. We liked your assertion that social romantic structure should not be devalued fo economic reasons, as this was a strong point that justifies your parties place in official opposition. With clause two, you began targeting those pesky insidious market interferences that the Distribs were glossing over. This was excellent, but you’ve got to go for the throat and follow this up as far as you can. Otherwise, well done on a great speech. This speech demonstrated that you can more than hold your own in this round.

Whigs Hon. Bloody Mary (Mr. Marvin Karrasch)FG + The great white bike metaphor is pretty much gorging on the beach by this round, thrashing its tail and overturning inflatables, but you showed your considerable talent as a debater by somehow

taking the metaphor further. You gave the bicycle stabilisers. You linked this to your party line, saying that the Whig party will look after you. You launched a firm attack on the S.N. A, pointing out that the group government will still take advantage. You held your own against an IndSoc POI and then kept up the pressure on the S.N.A with yet another attack regarding their clause 2. We like this pit-bull aggression. Next time watch your timing, as you did not get onto clause tree until after the first bell rang. Apart from that though, well done on an energetic and well-reasoned speech.

S.N.A Hon. Belgrano, (Ms. Clare Dackombe)F ++ A fine return to debating, you pushed your party line well; state interference does not have to be dangerous, the S.N.A believes in the whole, not in plurality. This provided you with a good link into clause one, in which you argued the dangers of marriage. We felt this clause could have been developed a bit more; why is marriage specifically destructive to the state? You also took a POI from the Tories, which attacked the S.N.A’s using force to forge a link between the state and its people. Be careful to fully justify your answer to POI’s before moving on; while your answer was quick we do not think it was conclusive enough. Your analysis of clause two was stronger, as you attacked the Whigs Inheritance tax, claiming that it would be easy to avoid. This was a great point, and revealed a considerable weakness in the Whig plan. Well done!

Ind Soc Hon. False Prophet, (Mr. Elliot Porter)F ++ You came in strong, saying that the poor man does not have the resources to be free. You laid on some firm attacks on the government, using a shark tank metaphor and some coercive market chat. Speaking of sharks, we had thought the circling bike analogy created by Daddys princess had left this round. Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water, you mentioned Steve Jobs. Steve Jobs! Fair enough, it was a very solid point; not everyone is going to end up like Bill gates or Steve Jobs. But the clerks bench grow weary of Steve chat, so next time, use another billionaire There was some confusion in this speech as you appeared to introduce a new mechanism element to clause three. This should not happen; all speeches must be consistent with your opening afternoon speech. Next time, make sure your points are coherent and consistent with the beginning of the parli.

The Round of Second Unpointed

Distribs Hon. Jim’s Girl (Ms. Suzi Martin)F ++ Opening with an attack on the Official Opposition was a strong start to your speech, although it could’ve done with being a little more than the accusation that had already been brought by previous speakers from your club, originality is appreciated by the Clerks, it’s a long day after all. Unfortunately, this followed by a statement that the Distribs don’t like interference was really all we got from you on the pre-amble, you could do with spending a bit more time here upon your return.Coming on to Clause 3 you brought us some good material about how the bill brings more freedom to journalists, as well as why the decisions of the Director General at the BBC and other such editorial decisions simply concern what makes the news in what order is in itself bias. A little more time spent on why the ‘myth’ of due impartiality is what allows for state control of the media would’ve been excellent. Your last couple of points, concerning the Beeb’s recent mistakes and the monetary aspects relating to the BBC, felt a bit rushed, like you had too much material to fit into the time, you’d be better off dropping things you won’t have time to analyse fully in exchange for better analysis on what you’d already brought. A confident debut, welcome to the House!

Tories Hon. Guess Who (Mr. Jacob Eves)F ++ Your pre-amble discussion consisted largely of an attack on the contradiction in the Distrib line concerning when they think the state should intervene and when it shouldn’t. This was an important attack for Off. Opp. to make, so well done on making it. We could have done with a little more discussion of what the Tories’ pre-amble was though, pre-amble shouldn’t just be attack, there should be some constructive material. Moving on to Clause 1 you began by re-iterating the Tory belief that marriage was fundamental to a stable society, however unpointed speeches are were we expect beliefs like this to be substantiated and given some more analysis, which didn’t really happen in your speech. Concerning a POI about polygamy, you gave the same slightly weak response your club gave all day, this wasn’t the first time your club had been given this POI, you should probably realise therefore that your current response to it isn’t good enough and some new thinking might be helpful. Your discussion on rationality was good, as well as your attack concerning the insidious influence the Government were introducing by bringing economics into marriage. Overall, this was a sound maiden speech, congratulations.

Whigs Hon. Semi-casual (Mr. Cameron Harris)F ++ Firstly, every speech of the day must contain discussion of the pre-amble. It is the only thing that we insist everybody talk about, but that’s because it’s important and each clubs basic philosophy needs all the time it can get to be fully explained and analysed. So next time, talk about the pre-amble.Your discussion of Clause 3 was fairly good however. You justified well how the Whigs’ model would bring pluralism to the media and why this was important to stop a select few media moguls running all the media. You also did well to point out why moguls were bad due to their influence on voting patterns. You answered a POI about why your model of private media ownership was better than the status quo well: the more owners you have, the more plurality there is. We noticed you had fairly extensive notes, this didn’t help you because you ended up reading them rather than speaking to the chamber which is a lot more persuasive, it also meant you had a bit too much material so you got onto talking about the BBC a little too late.Well done on becoming an Honourable Member of the House, we hope your name reminds you that there is a dress code to be followed for next time.

SNA Hon. Yes, Sir (Ms. Paige Barclay)F ++ This was a very good speech which bodes well for promotion. Your pre-amble material was some very good analysis of what the SNA stand for and why they stand for it, the unstitching of society being a good and nicely restrained use of metaphor to make your ideas clear. The idea of antagonism was also very well dealt with. Your response to a Tory POI concerning aspiration could have done with being a little more substantial though.Your link into clause 2 was very nice and you talked about the clause excellently. Talking about tax as means of connection between the state and citizens, and in particular saying that that connection goes in both directions was a lovely bit of analysis that grounded the SNA’s ideas nicely. You also brought the government in well by telling us that in an SNA state your status in society would not be determined by the market. We could have done with you telling us what was important about that being the case. Lastly, some mention of the Whigs the club directly opposite you would very much have gone amiss.An excellent second speech, we look forward greatly to your next.

Ind Soc Hon. Mr. Smith (Ms. Aileen Baxter)F ++ Your discussion of the pre-amble was good, although it could’ve done with bit more explicit distinction from the SNA line, your mention of competition being unfair was a start towards this at least. You didn’t really answer the POI you got about how your ideals would change, for the worse, the way people would perform their roles in society, make sure you’re prepared for POIs.Moving on to Clause 2 you linked it nicely to your pre-amble by saying that tax was the key to redistribution (you talked about keys a lot, the word began to lose meaning) and so you need to tax to have any hope of reforming society, this was good. You then began to talk about someone called Mr. Smith. This confused us, please try not to confuse us, it doesn’t help you. Lastly, you talked about how terrible corporations are and that you would run them out of town. That is quite a drastic proposal, so drastic it really needed a lot more justification than you gave us, particularly on why corporations are bad. This did however aloe you to finish neatly on a direct clash with the Government benches by saying that state interference is essential to a good society, although again you began to sound a little SNA like. Well done on your first speech, overall it was solid, but you could do with a little more justification of your club’s line, rather than just a reiteration of it.

The Round of Closing Afternoon

Ind Soc Hon. Gap Yaaah (Mr Nathan Paulson)FG ++ This was a commanding, amusing and philosophically astute speech, helping you to mark out a presence in the Chamber. You launched a devastating attack on the Government premise that the Distrib position was one of some sort of ideological neutrality except to maximise freedom, by pointing out their reliance on property rights give them an ideology and certain norms which are themselves subversive and imply the type of life that the govt wants you to live. This caused damage to govt line which they ultimately did not recover from on this particular front and the Clerks gave you credit for this.

On clause 1 you showed the continued hypocrisy of the Government in being against state coercion, but not against the coercion created by such bodies as religious organisations, which can be very profound given as a child you have no choice which tradition to grow up in. Clause 2 was similarly well executed, talking about how even under direct taxation the individual can still “own the self”. One thing to say however, if you or any other member is foolish enough to bring (actually quite well paid) bin men up as the paragon of the economically deprived in comparison to the doctor, the Clerks will take a dim view, It happens too often. Clause 3 was good, but ultimately you ran out of time and this affected this speech you entering into perhaps the top tier of speeches we occasionally see in the Chamber. More links between clauses as well. Also, your accent is hilarious.

SNA Hon. Dog Kebab (Mr Duncan Crowe) FG ++ This speech maintained the excellent standard set in this round by the member for Gap Yaaah. You correctly pointed to the dearth in analysis by Government speakers on what they meant by incentives, and suggested that a powerful incentive could be more than merely monetary, but “love of society”. You defended the accountability of the SNA by saying this could exost between experts, although we thought more elaboration could be helpful here. You told us how many valuable things in society exist out with the market, such as language, culture etc. A good point.

In clause 1 you pointed to how marriage is unequal and in a legal sense its often little more than a cash-cow for lawyers (perhaps more analysis and less assertion here). On clause 2 you explained well that the market is a coercive force, whereas tax can tie all of society together (some examples here would have been fruitful).You told us how the market can undervalue certain things and dealt with the POI put to you fairly well.

Clause 3, as is too often the case in this parliamentary, was too little discussed. You talked about how large corporations act in their self-interest. More responsiveness to the Whig club was much required in this speech however, instead of merely concentrating on the Govt. Some better tactical positioning and understanding the procedural burdens of your club’s position on the table would do you yet more credit. More of this in future, bodes well for promotion to yet more senior rounds.

Whigs Hon. Resource Tapper (Mr Marc Fryer)FG + You opened with a much needed and effective attack on the SNA, ending what was a poverty of engagement between the two clubs throughout the afternoon. You said that contrary to their claims they would not unite society, but cause dissent within the SNA’s opponents. You had a solid preamble talking about “human dignity” and “human nature”. You said that human dignity was the freedom to pursue your own identity, but that crucial to this was state enablement and assistance. You told us the market creates aspiration which is also crucial to this. A decent preamble.

In clause 1 you defended private marriages saying that the ability of two people to commit to each other was essential. At the same time you placed emphasis on the promotion of plurality – this is an important [plank of the Whig argument here which you really left underdeveloped. In clause 2 you again turned to aspiration as said that without direct taxation this woud be maximised, A stronger response to points of information will need to be shown in future to help you progress to more senior rounds effectively.

Clause 3 however was largely lost and suffered from poor timing. Also, remember to end your speech with more vigour and maybe even rhetoric. A decent speech, better timing will put your speeches up considerably in the estimation of the Clerks.

Tories Hon. Minster Without Portflio (Mr Graeme Cowie)FG + This was a good and eloquent speech, which would benefit from less reliance on pre-prepared notes and too much reading out, although this did not impact massively on the quality of the speech. You opened by lambasting the Disrtibs for believing that insidious influences only emanate from the state. You say that there is a crucial first plank of society and that is the ability to interact. You told us that not everyone needs to be in the same starting point, but what is crucial is that skills and the ability to achieve are acquired. In Clause 1 you accused the Disrtibs of reducing marriage to a mere economic contract. You said that marriage is more important to society than just a set of economic calculations between two people. What we really needed here was a tie in then to the Whigs gay marriage provisions and some arguments to back it up. We didn’t quite get that from your speech however.

Clause 2 was well done; you discussed how companies are given aid by such means a limited liability provisions, you discussed how companies benefit from a well educated workforce, provided for by taxation and you also advocated for the Tory flat tax solution. Like clause 1 however there was insufficient argumentation for your own solutions, with greater discussion of a flat tax much needed. In clause 3 you discussed the importance of the market place of ideas (that old cliché that will never die) and how it operates like other markets. You said that like those other

markets, there are times when we must restrict in order to safeguard values the market does not account for. Good effort.

Distribs Hon. Hezbollah (Miss Heather Whiteside)FG + You begin by espousing the idea that the market is is the best mechanism for responding to the demands of the individual. You said that the market evolves to meet these needs – perhaps a description or example would have been illustrative here. Good link into clause 1 where you say that by abolishing state approved marriage you encourage individuals to place value in what they themselves consider most fitting, this was quite good. You said in response to the SNA that if someone wants to place their faith in a church completely then that is their choice.Clause 2 was problematic in that it was so abstract as to be part of the preamble and not a concrete discussion of the Distrib aims in abolishing direct taxation. You said the state encourages waste, which is very relevant, but again an example might have underlined your point and grounded the clause. In clause 3 you reiterated the Distrib line of the afternoon that we should promote no value above others, and instead people should seek their own ideas in a market. This failed to tackle the important Ind Soc attack that an emphasis on property rights does promote certain values however. Some decent points, more examples in future will back up your analysis and make it more compelling.

The Round of Opening Evening

Distribs Rt. Hon. No Woman No Cry (Callum MacMaster)FG ++ This was a good speech for the standard of the round however as we are sure you know, not quite as impressive as the same speech you gave last time. Nonetheless the clerks bench were impressed by a speech that ranked among the highest we saw all day. You began with a strong attack on the Tories position that government should represent people by pointing out that it can hardly be representing people if it seeks to change them in subtle ways. This was an interesting slant on their argument that they didn't really respond to all day. You then told us that when the state begins to promote interac-tion or seeks to change something then it prevents interactions happening between citizens. One thing we would perhaps have liked to have seen in your preamble was more of a response to some of the attacks the Distib line that we saw in the round of Closing Afternoon. For example the idea that the government was actually influencing people by saying that a free market individualist ap-proach is the best option, or that the market itself can insidiously coerce people. These were valid points that you could have begun to deal with. Perhaps next time focus the speech a little bit more around some of the pertinent points of Closing Afternoon, whist still moving the debate on as you did. You attacked the Opposition well in clause 1, rather than developing the Government line which was strong by this point, and so tactically wise. You asked them what happens under their model when someone wants to opt out of the state model and define marriage for themselves. In Clause 2 you attempted to move the debate on by pointing out that tax was about our relationship with the state and so about much more than simply raising revenue and incentivising work. Instead you argued it was about principles of ownership and being able to take control of your own life. Your analysis on Clause 3 was a bit underwhelming compared to your previous points - you told us about how the BBC was killing off the media by preventing newspapers making profits in the broadcast market. Perhaps this simply reflected the slightly confused nature of this clause - was it about ownership or content? Overall a strong speech - the Clerks Bench look forward to more of the same this year!

Tories Rt. Hon. Creeper (Mr. David Edwards)FG ++ This was a solid performance for opposition, even if at points we felt your analysis on the clauses stopped short. Your analysis on the Distrib preamble was exceptionally strong and continued some of the attacks that we had begun to see towards the end of the afternoon that were particularly ef-fective. You began however by telling us that the Distribs had failed to tell us how liberty was actu-ally facilitated, in that people need some kind of means to even access that liberty. You then pointed out that under their model the rich are more likely to control society and use their resources to co-erce people in equally, if not more insidious ways than the state does. You also explained that the Distribs still insidiously project values under their system such as private property and self interest. These were attacks that set the tone for the evening and as such demonstrated the importance of you choosing this line of attack. You told us in clause 1 that marriage was a useful tool for integrating people into society and that it can act as a useful protection for children. We think you wisely moved on from the Tory clause on gay marriage here and instead focussed on attacking the Govern-ment. Your analysis on clause 2 directly responded to No Woman No Cry which was good. You pointed out that tax indeed was about more than simply raising money and that it is a recognition of the relationship between the state and the individual. However you then attempted to answer some of the attacks the Tories had received on clause 3 - namely why they distinguished between broad-cast media and print media when it came to partiality. Unfortunately your answer didn't really con-clude that matter and so we needed much more on this. The Clerks bench thoroughly enjoyed this speech!

Whigs Rt. Hon. Property Ladder (Mr. John Mckee)FG ++ This speech was good, however at points left the Clerks bench cringing a bit. The metaphor at the start about being hung drawn and quartered was neither funny or particularly relevant- even if we know your idol is William Wallace and so perhaps it was a reference to him? Once we got over that however, you gave a particularly good take on the preamble. You began by telling us that there are things that we value out with the market like love and that it becomes difficult to express value on these things when we view them through simple market norms. The example of the prison was ex-cellent here in demonstrating where society and the market can clearly be at odds with each other. Your analysis on clause 1 was the strongest that we had from the Whig benches all day and really explained their position. You told us that marriage does oppress people by attaching normative val-ues and creating roles. This clearly is a gender issue. In clause 2 you then moved into attacking the SNA which was good by pointing out that they don't really address people's needs at all when they ignore what people want. You then tired to explain that Inheritance tax disincentives tax avoidance, which any accountant or lawyer will tell you is patently untrue. On Clause 3 you only left yourself 23 seconds which clearly wasn't enough given the Whigs had quite a strong response clause.

While you have made a start by putting a timer in front of you, the next step is to look at it occa-sionally and we will take it from there. On another note, as much as the Clerks enjoy listening you, we would appreciate the acceptance of a point of information next time! Overall this was a good speech and would be improved by just a bit of tightening on the technical side as you very well know!

S.N.A Hon. Spitting Cobra (Mr. Peter Stewart)FG ++ It was great to see you giving this speech, particularly given you were the only non Right Honour-able member in this round. Despite that you held your corner and even flanked a couple of them in some respects. You began well by directly attacking the Whigs which tactically was exactly what you needed to do in this speech. You pointed out that someone in need doesn't just require some ob-scure notion of dignity - they need much more than that. However you then took a POI which was

much too early to take one in this round - save them for the clauses. This meant that the preamble was perhaps not quite as well developed as it could have been so maybe spend a bit more time on it next time. You started clause 1 by attacking the Government line by pointing out that even if state recognition for marriage was removed, people are still going to engage in it until you change societ-al attitudes. You also pointed out that this would also still apply to the abuse of women that the Whigs claimed existed in marriage. This was a solid restatement of the reason behind the SNA line and helped to demonstrate why it was one of the. It's relevant response clauses in this debate. In clause 2 you told us that the market does not always reward real progress and gave us the slightly odd example of Katy Price. We think that you were actually getting at something interesting here that would have tied in well with the SNA line. This was the concept that the market gives into short term whimsical needs of man rather than actual progress that may require though choices by Gov-ernment. Next time perhaps try develop your analysis that little bit further. Your discussion on clause 3 was also good. You pointed out how much of a propaganda tool the private media is and that private companies will always have vested interests that they will try and propagate through it. You then said that such an important tool should not simply be sold off to the highest bidder and that actually the state would benefit from harnessing it. You and your club leader should be pleased with this speech- you are clearly progressing well and just need to work on making your speeches a bit slicker and trying to develop that analysis as far as possible.

Ind. Soc. Rt. Hon. Sole Candidate (Mr. Christopher Sibbald)FG ++ This was a disappointing speech, not necessarily because of its content, but because we have come to expect much better from you. Indeed calling for your own demotion at the end didn't exactly help... Despite that, where you had thought about the debate and read your line you actually gave us some good points. Your preamble started by attacking the fact that the Distribs ignore human rela-tionships and that society is about much more than the individuals in it. You pointed out that there is no society at all when sections such as the poor are completely shut out. You began clause 1 by pointing out that marriage imposes an ideology on people. However you then starting attacking reli-gion and the current situation regarding the Church of England. The Religion angle on clause 1 was completely new to us from Ind Soc and so we don't know if this was something you decided to pur-sue or whether it was in the line. Ether way it felt out of place in opening evening. Additionally it did not feel like it really engaged the debate that was taking place up the table. In clause 2 you talked about how we should equalise wealth, which of course fitted well with the Ind Soc line but to be totally honest felt a bit tired and basic for this clause. Other clubs had begun talking about own-ership and how tax defines our relationship to the state but you focussed on essentially rolling out the standard Ind Soc line here. You then unfortunately left only a minute to talk about clause 3 and pointed out that with purely private media we lose a lot of regional news. This wasn't a particularly insightful point and we really need a lot more principled analysis in this level of speech. We aren't going to dress it up - this speech was far short of the quality of this round. We know you can do bet-ter and hope that you put a bit more effort in next time rather than relegating yourself to the benches!

The Round of Third Unpointed

Distribs Hon. Anonymous Guy (Mr Peter Tierney)F + You tried to talk about the circle of dependency and the importance of innovation, but we were a little let down by the lack of authority you showed in your round- as a more experienced speaker, we expect you to assert your greater knowledge of parliamentary debating and the level of understanding necessary for doing well in the chamber. We didn’t think you brought enough new analysis from your club- even though the stuff about the market bringing different views to the fore was fine, you needed to do more with it and put your own stamp on it. Next time, try to command

the chamber with your voice and a bit more flair, if you can. We’re sure you have more to bring us than this speech implied!

Tories Hon. Princess Silva (Johan Lindberg)F ++ Congratulations on an adapted parliamentary name, and on facilitating what was possibly the most entertaining POI of the Parliamentary (“Are you or are you not a Bond villain?!”). Javier Bardem aside, you talked about the nature of the market and why it is driven by short term interests. You tried to appeal using the example of healthcare – why should only the most affluent have access? Be careful not to use ideas which are too big for the example, and not to make your examples too rhetorical without carefully analysing them. You tried to link this to why the Distribs will have problems with corporate dominance – well done for engaging with the opposition, but careful not to mischaracterise or undermine your own philosophy – the Tories are not totally anti-companies. You held your own quite well in the fairly raucous chamber – even people who regularly take down MI6 agents struggle with David Tait. Work on tying your ideas together and linking your points, and you should do better next time.

Whigs Hon. Smack My PM Up (Mr. Max Schroeder)F ++ You tried to make this analogy about breathing and choice, the idea that you don’t consciously make every decision about your life. This wasn’t entirely unsuccessful, and you levelled some good attacks on the SNA when you compared your club’s facilitation of choice to the SNA’s caveat being forced down individuals’ throats. Your link from your preamble to your stuff on Clause 1, about non-state marriages being discriminated against, could have been more coherent – it would have been better had the new analysis followed on from ideas in the first section of the speech. You took a POI later on but we felt you didn’t really answer this – it’s important to try to fully understand your line so you can destroy these attacks when you get them later in the evening. Not bad on the whole, but we think you can give us more next time.

SNA Hon. Sing For Your Supper (Mr. Callum MacInnes)F ++ You began by talking about the Distrib presumption that state interference is evil and asking us why they believe this. In talking about clause 2, you tried to explain that people make harmful choices when they spend their own money. You discussed the nature of the state as more than just a sum of individuals, and told us that people can get more back from the state than they give under an SNA model. While these were relevant, and some of it quite good, you need to make your ideas more logical and coherent in their process, so it doesn’t seem just like ideas being thrown into the chamber. Try to link them together where there are gaps in fluency, and make more attacks on your direct opposition. Being tossed from a cosy QM into a rowdy after-dinner Parliamentary is quite a challenge (and probably a culture shock) which you took to quite well. We welcome you to GUU debating!

Ind Soc Hon. Lady Hamlet (Ms. Ciorstan Blake)F ++ Calling the government bill a fairy tale is an assertive way to start a speech. You spoke about the minority market having control over the majority, and this being unfair. This wasn’t terrible, but it was repetition of what other Ind Soc speakers had already told us, and it wasn’t explained to us in a new level of depth, given what the Distrib speakers had brought about why engagement with the market is more direct and accessible than other feedback systems. You needed to respond more to the POI – we felt the response was a little shallow. You talked a little about why those with power don’t respond to the views of others, but you should link this more clearly to your own club’s philosophy. It’s easy to fall into the trap of espousing that communists think “people are all equal”

but it’s much more convincing for us to hear new responses to the arguments that we’ve heard. Not a bad speech, but we await your next one for the aforementioned improvements.

The Round of Mid Evening

Distribs Hon. Neville Longbottom (Mr. Fraser McGowan) FG + This was a good speech. We expect at POI to be taken in a mid speech, so please take one next time. It was good of you to set out a clear line as to when the Distribs think that state intervention is OK: when liberties hurt others. You also told us that the state isn’t there to provide happiness, but simply a means to it, this sounds very nice, and is a good declaration of Distrib philosophy, but it could’ve done with an explanation of why that is (or should be) the role of the state. Also, your suggestion that competition creates co-operation sounded counter-intuitive enough that it could’ve done with a bit more analysis. You opened your discussion of Clause 2 by telling us that taxation is extortion, with reference to a dictionary definition of the latter. That wasn’t really convincing, if anything the dictionary quoting worked against you, it made it sound very much like your argument was one of semantics, which isn’t very persuasive. We feel you were striving for a deeper argument about the right to retain wealth that you have earned but you burdened that argument with an odd initial claim. Although, the point about how the state ought to be bound by the same rules as society is was very interesting.You came onto Clause 3 late, which meant that you didn’t have any substantial analysis on it. All you really got out was that the state relying on state funding was bad. We’d heard this before, so it didn’t really make an impact. We’re sure what you had to say on it, had you had the time, would’ve been very nice.

Tories Hon. Doggy Bowl (Mr. Ross Kernohan)F ++ You began strongly with a good attack on the Government by telling us that if you aren’t equipped with the skills you need to interact in a certain society you cannot feel free in it and that under the Distribs’ model of society lots of people would be in that position. You also called the Distribs on their inconsistency in terms of the role of the state compared to that of the market. You attacked them on this well, but this attack had already come out of your club, by this point in the day that attack needs to evolve a little, which we don’t feel it did in your speech. Your discussion of Clause 1 was good, pointing out that marriage is something very different to other kinds of interactions in society and should be treated as such. Although the point about marriage bringing stability once again felt repetitive, your point concerning happy parents having happy children was good, it needed to be analysed further though to fully avoid sounding a little luvvy. Nicely linking into Clause 3 you told us we also need to have a solidity of fact in our society. You also said you would accept a level of bias but that it should be limited, which again was a little repetitive of earlier speeches from your clubs, at this stage we really need a bit more why you would do certain things. You finished strongly though telling us that the BBC can interact in the private sector, which was very important and also that people need accurate information to act well. This was strong stuff. A little more analysis and a little less repetition next time will go a long way.

Whigs Hon. Basil Fawlty (Miss. Molly McGrady)F ++ Your pre-amble chat, like a lot of the Whig club, was buzzword-y. You mentioned human dignity, but didn’t really tell us what that was or why it was being damaged by other clubs and how you were upholding it, you just said it was nice. The result was that exactly what the pre-amble was became muddled, by Mid Evening of the Second Parliamentary, the pre-amble should not be muddled. Concerning Clause 1 you talked strongly about how state recognition of marriage is exclusionary, saying that it prejudices one kind of relationship over all others, this was well said.

What was very good on your clause 1 discussion was how it cements gender roles that you don’t agree with and that you feel undermines society. This was good stuff. You took a POI from a man who was referring to himself as the Big Dog at the time, in which he accused your club of being the sexist ones, you answered this, but not incredibly well. You came onto Clause 3 late, a recurring theme of the day, so didn’t manage to add a lot. You said that the Director General of the BBC was unaccountable unlike Rupert Murdoch, for example. We’re not hugely convinced by this, it needed a lot more explaining, for which you required improved timing. A little more talk about the SNA would’ve been good. A nice speech though.

SNA Hon. Unmade Bed (Ms. Alice Belfield)F ++ Concerning the pre-amble, you told us that in a society with freedoms and liberties we were tying people down with their own selfishness, this was standard SNA stuff, so at this point in the day we would’ve liked to hear a little more, but it was solid nonetheless.On Clause 1 you clashed nicely with the Whig club telling us they had no rationale for banning marriage as the patriarchies would still exist, marriage was not the only thing that particular element of society stemmed from. You also dealt well with a POI saying that state marriage perpetuates gender norms, by saying that those norms still exist even if you remove one form of perpetuation. You needed more constructive material about your own case on Clause 1 though, just rebuttal isn’t enough. You could also have done with a better link into Clause 3. You told us that if people cannot currently recognise bias, how could they possibly have the skills to run the media? This was a nice point and a fresher way of looking at the SNA’s motivations for controlling the media themselves. Although, it appeared mildly contradictory to then say that bias was actually a good thing and could harnessed for the good of society, but ultimately those two points just about worked, maybe make the nuances between them a little clearer. Your remark about the SNA being the “great provider” seemed a little canned, and just a bit out of place amongst what had been fairly sound argumentation. A fairly solid speech. Well done.

Ind Soc Hon. Two for Tuesdays (Mr. Paddy Baxter)F + This was neither a great speech, nor particularly funny.You were warned last time about the unparliamentary language and were told to save it for later. Part of Parliamentaries is the humour and wit, however this speech did neither and was at points offensive. On one particular occasion in this speech your standards slipped further and you made it abundantly clear that you “don’t care”. Yes, the Chamber should be home to challenging rhetoric and, yes, that can be near the knuckle, but you cannot overly offend Members of the House and secondly then say you don’t care that you have. There was some salient analysis in your speech, unfortunately it didn’t really matter. The Clerks were very dissapointed – we know you can be funny and appreciate what it can potentially bring to the chamber – just keep out anything that might properly offend people. For example use of the word “Gay” in a derogative way. Perhaps your style would be more suited to the Round of Fourth Unpointed.

The Round of Fourth Unpointed

Distribs Hon. Second Amendment, (Ms. Sarah MacDonald)F ++ You began well with a salute to the party line; individuals should pursue personal liberty and the proposed bill will lead to this. You attacked marriage vigorously, claiming that it establishes bloodlines, hierarchy and division. You used this to defend your party’s decision to remove state marriage. You then defended yourself against a POI asking why you did not abolish the entire institution of marriage by pointing out that the Distribs do not care what the individual chooses to

do, and that this is liberty. These are all good points, but don’t forget to justify them fully. Other parties will not always accept the negative connotations of certain concepts. Why are bloodlines and hierarchy a problem, for example? You have a good style and a honey voice that makes Mary Poppins sound like a tavern wench; justify your points a bit more and you will go far. Welcome to parliamentaries!

Tories Hon. Milk Snatcher (Ms. Ruth Hogg)F ++ Well done on a fine return to parliamentary debating. You began with a great attack on the Distrib preamble, asking how they can see individuals as liberated when they are exposed to market influences. Living up to your namesake, you described how the state must sometimes act as a coercer to give its people a sense of purpose. You also clarified that society is a complex web of groups and individuals, a strong point that attacked the oversimplification of the other clubs of the house. Next time, be aware of your timing. The first bell had rang before you starting taking about your clause, and by then it was too late to take a POI. Talking about clauses overtime does not give you much room for development, and a POI demonstrates your ability to think on your feet. Your arguments are strong; handle your timing better and the Tories have gained a great speaker!

Whigs Hon. War Horse, (Mr. Max Sefton)F ++ Fourth unpointed can be a tough round, as traditionally everyone is drunk and therefore rowdy. Including the clerks. The way to do this is keep your points clear and well-justified. You handled the crowd well (including some aggressive old hacks!) and raised some good points. You called for rational thought and attacked both the Tories and the S.N.A. You talked about freedom from coercion, defending your party line. You undermined the S.N.A clause two by pointing out that complete tax killed the incentive to work hard. These were good points, but be careful not to get bogged down with buzz words! Tipsy clerks like solid analysis, not abstract philosophy. Remember that and life is good!

S.N.A Hon. Middle Earth (Mr. Oliver Milne)FG + If this round was a dark and terribly powerful magic ring, you managed to throw it into Mount Doom, even if you did drop it a few times. You kept the attacks coming thick and fast, and clarified an important point. This was when the Whigs POI asked the difference between the S.N.A and IndSoc values; you argued that the IndSoc base their values on class, the S.N.A focus on welfare. You failed to define what a social covenant; be sure to fully clarify everything you say in future parliamentaries. You link into your chosen clause was a bit clumsy and jarring, but this is easy to remedy. You raised some great points and used real world examples of Fox News and PBS to explain how media pluralism is a bad thing. Well Done!

Ind. Soc Hon. You Drink or you Die (Mr. Joseph Sutherland)F ++ Well you flirted with the Prime Minister. That was an unusual tactic, although not unheard of, and Francesca is certainly very pretty compared to the rest of the verbose Calibans that populate the Parliamentary community. In any case, it proved you have confidence, and we like that. Regarding your actual speech, it was fairly solid. You held your own against a POI firmly enough, and raised the important point that the Distrib system would allow a lucky few to prosper while most struggled fruitlessly. You then veered wildly off point and led a version of the President of the Union song. After that, you calmly returned to a concluding point attacking the free market. Fair dos, it’s a belting tune, but not very relevant. Our advice is to be slightly less ADHD. Welcome to debates!

The Round of Closing Evening

Ind. Soc Hon. Paisley Junkie (Mr. David Lockhart)FG ++ This was a reasonable speech from this position and the clerks bench understand how frustrating it can be sitting at the bottom of the table all day! However we felt that it struggled because of the fact that the Ind Soc line had been ignored throughout a lot of the day. Despite that there is no doubt that you did pretty well with what you had. You began by telling us that liberation requires the freeing of society. You told us that the market by its nature encourages competition which will always perpetu-ate insidious behaviour. This was tactically a wise place to start given on the market Ind Soc are at polar opposites to the Distribs. You then told us that if we believe in market norms the we accept in-sidious values automatically to a large extent. Perhaps another way that you could have developed this would have been to follow some of the analysis that the Hon. Member for Gay Yaaaah gave use- namely that the Distribs still insidiously interfere by setting private property as the default sys-tem for society. You then told us that under the Distribs model of capitalism, a minority of people would monopolise all of societies wealth. This was a good attack as it basically says, even if you ac-cept capitalism, the Distirb model is a particularly harmful type. Your analysis in clause 1 was a bit confused as half of it focussed on the harms that religion perpetuates, and the other half focussed on how it facilitates social structures. A good tip for the future is to really narrow your line of attack when it comes to leaders speech. Pick one line of attack that you think is strongest and really spend more time analysing it. In this case for example that would mean picking only one of the two lines you gave us. Because of that you didn't really have enough time to focus your attack in clause 1. Your point about how marriage divides people in society was interesting and is probably a good re-sponse if we get a similar clause on this throughout the year. For matters regarding religion or mar-riage the Clerks bench would very much recommend reading "On the Jewish Question" by Marx. You began to hint at it here and could come in use later in the year. Your analysis on clause 2 was much better. You told us that society should be the ultimate end for society and that individuals have a vested interest in paying tax as ultimately it builds a better society that they are a part of. We also particularly enjoyed the attack on the Dstribs that the majority of them will probably not do well un-der society in comparison to those on the front bench. This is the stuff that the best parliamentary speeches are made of - using funny, relevant examples to underline a point yet not detracting from the analysis. Unfortunately on clause 3 you only left yourself a minute and so were only able to briefly tell us that the Distribs will basically allow the rich to project their views onto everyone. You should be pleased with this speech, just note your timings next time and maybe take a more tactical approach when planning what really needs to be said in the speech.

S.N.A Rt Hon Clive Stafford Smith (Ms. Fiona Bowen)G – – This was a passionate speech and a good reminder to the Chamber as to why you are a member of the Club of Right Honourables. You began your speech by telling us that people are not rational and that they need to learn from their mistakes. This opening didn't feel completely relevant and perhaps a slight extension of your last Closing Evening speech...However you then continued with a fairly devastating attack on then government by pointing out that even though markets can respond to people in some areas, they can coerce in others. This acted to highlight the slightly rose tinted per-spective that the Distribs have on the free market. You then also pointed out that the Distribs still impose a moral position upon people through perpetuating individualism and the pursuit of private wealth. You also attacked the Whigs well by mocking their buzz word of the day of "human dignity". While it certainly over-simplified their position, it definitely touched a nerve. In clause 1 you landed a successful attack on marriage in that it acts to carve up society. You told us that the Whigs also miss the point as the real problem is necessarily the legal recognition of marriage, but societal norms. This points out that all of their analysis about gender norms will still continue unless

they totally ban marriage as the SNA do. Well done. In clause 2 you also understood that this debate was not really about raising revenue and the size of the state, but rather what tax says about our re-lationship with the state. You told us that it is about more than an economic transaction and it defines our essentially inferiority to a large state. Keep this up throughout the year- really look bey-ond the rhetoric of a debate and attempt to understand the real principles in contention. Unfortu-nately as with all of the other club leaders you only got to clause 3 on your last minute. You did be-gin to tell us that a privatised media begins to devaluate the state which sounded like it was going to be interesting, but obviously we didn't get it all. A great effort and we are sure there is more to come!

Whigs Hon. Where's The Wally (Mr Michael Gray)G – – This speech was definitely an improvement on your last and was a decent effort. You began well by explaining exactly where the Whigs sat philosophically in this debate. You pointed out that liberty is important to the Whigs, however unlike the Distribs you recognise that social liberty is a pre-requis-ite. You then moved onto attack the SNA which was wise by saying that they only care about state coercion and that they mischaracterise people as weak. You then placed this position in the context of the Distrib bill by saying that minimal state intervention was also harmful as it left people be-hind. This was a nice way of distinguishing your club as well as attacking the position 4 club. We still feel that a bit more of the Whig preamble could have been explicit here to make your philo-sophy as clear as possible. You began clause 1 by attacking the SNA and pointing out that they were harming relationships. Another good point you raised was that they hadn't outlined where they get their philosophy from in how they actually dictate relationships. You didn't however respond to their criticism of your clause in that societal gender norms will still exist even of you don't recog-nise marriage. Next time remember to listen out to criticisms that are made of your line that you may need to come back to rather than letting them lie. In clause 2 however we felt that you spent too much time defending the mechanics of your policy rather than getting into the philosophy and attacking the other clubs. You told us that the policy works by not removing incentives to work hard but at the same time being fair. You then received a POI about the situation where a multi million-aire passes on several millions giving their child a much better chance at life than the children of poor couples. You weren't really able to answer this question, simply telling us that your clause was not perfect. As with the other club leaders, you only got onto clause 3 with a minute to spare which was unfortunate given the Whigs had a good policy on this clause. You told us that people can con-trol information if they own the media but weren't able to develop it much beyond that. You should be pleased with this speech. You clearly understood your role on the table well and structured your speech around it. For next time we need a bit more philosophical justification of the Whig philo-sophy.

Tories Hon.Convener of The Night (Mr. Paul Baird)G – – This speech is the second most important that we will see you give this year and it was a strong ef-fort. By this point a lot of the Tory response clauses had been lost and it made sense to make a much stronger attack on the Government. This speech brought out weaknesses in the Government philo-sophy, even if certain clauses were left standing at the end of it. You began by telling us that the Distribs ignore access and positive liberty. However we had heard this quite a lot, particularly from previous Closing Evening speakers and so we really needed you to distinguish yourself from them a bit more. However you then began to attack the Distrib faith in the market which was much stronger and we felt was what the Tories should have focussed on much more, given positive liberty is much more the grounds of other clubs. You told us that people cannot have true liberty when the market is allowed to completely coerce them. This was a good attack that was never really responded to. You pointed out that people need to feel represented in society and that the market would effectively ig-nore them if they were coerced out of it by a lack of resources which was also good. You then told

us that this was important because people need to be able to self define and that this can only come about when they are not completely coerced by the market. Perhaps at this point we could have done with a bit more explanation of how the state can coerce society to protect it from the market, as this was largely asserted. We were told that private actors can take decisions that insidiously af-fect others and that is why the state steps in, however this was all a bit too abstract and we needed some concrete examples to illustrate your point. You did however point out that there is a role for the state in facilitating access to the market which otherwise would leave people closed out, which began to tell us why the Tories believed in a larger state than the Distribs. You also concluded your preamble with the effective attack that the Distribs still impose values on people through construct-ing a market using competition laws etc and so they cannot claim that they effectively leave society free from state interference. This was a particularly weak aspect of the Government line and you were wise to raise it again. Unfortunately we felt that all day the Tories had lost on clause 1 and this showed through your analysis on it. You told us about how marriage was about much more than an economic contract, however this did not really address the attack that you had received, namely why this contract can only have value through state recognition. The point of information that you received about polygamy also really required an answer by this point and we didn't get one. There answers that can be made to this question such as the way it leads to women having lesser rights etc, but all you said was that it was not the same as marriage for two people. If you believe the state should impose a certain type of relationship on people, we really needed much stronger justification for it. Your analysis was much stronger on clause 2 and you recognised that this debate was about the the relationship between citizens and the state. You told us that people have a moral duty to give back to society and tax is a way of recognising this. You also pointed out that the market will fail to provide vital services that facilitate access such as health care which began to address the other as-pect of this clause - the fact that the size of the state was being vastly reduced. Finally you pointed out that a larger state was needed as it is able to represent society to a much wider degree than the market could, tying this clause in nicely to your preamble analysis. You also then left yourself plenty of time for clause 3 which demonstrated you are much more disciplined when it comes to timing than your other club leaders. You began your attack by pointing out that under the status quo, we are able to objectively identify harms in the media such as defamation or misleading pieces of information. You then compared this to the fact that the Distribs also objectively identify harms in property law, such as intimidation or defaulting on contracts. This was a good attack and also poin-ted out that the Distribs are not simply allowing society to completely define itself. You then began a good attack on networks by pointing out that they simply pander to certain demographics in order to make a profit. Perhaps at this point we could have done with a bit more analysis on the import-ance of the media. For example tying it back to positive liberty and saying that people require ob-jective, impartial media in order to rationally vote on issues. This would have made your response about the BBC seem much more relevant as well as it is an example of the state prescribing a min-imum standard in order to facilitate access to a market. Overall we were pleased with this speech. Keep to your strict timing in future speeches and remember to tie everything back to the preamble as much as possible.

The Prime Minister

Distribs The Rt. Hon Foreign Correspondent (Ms. Francesca Ruddy)G – – As the second prime ministerial speech that the chamber has seen this year, you definitely met the standard that had already been set. You laid out a well structured pre amble and went on to give very solid justification as to why a lot of your clauses were still standing at the end of the day. Des-pite this we did feel that there were a few attacks on the Disrtib line that you either failed to notice or simply ignored. You began your preamble by immediately attacking the Tories, that while stylist-ically is not the best tone to set for this speech, was nonetheless very effective. You asked how far was too far for the Tory Government, which highlighted a flaw in their approach all day. You then

moved onto defending why negative liberty was the only type of liberty that the state should pursue, which felt very responsive based on what the other club leaders had said. You did tell us that it was because the state had finite resources, which isn't really a good answer in the world of Parliament-ary debating! However you then began to talk about how the individual is the irreducible unit in so-ciety and that in order to facilitate the positive liberty of one person, that necessarily required re-moving the liberty of someone else through the confiscation of their property. You then moved onto an attack on values by questioning where Tory values actually come from. This is a legitimate at-tack to make on them at this point, however reminded the Clerks bench that it was also your burden to tell us where Distrib values came from. Particularly when we had heard all day how you set up a system of private property, individualism and the pursuit of profit. These are still values that your state projects onto people and we really needed a lot more justification as to why it is legitimate to influence people into living by these rules, but it is illegitimate for say the Whigs to influence people into living more equally. Later you did tell us that these are the values you pursue as they are not actually the state imposing values, but rather simply an extension of liberty. However we didn't necessarily accept that liberty starts as a default position from the individual and couldn't for ex-ample be from groups. You then finally accepted a point of information from the Rt. Hon Member for Pocket Nelson asking you what society was, which you failed to answer. At this point it was clear that he was trying to get a rise from you, and it would have been much more prime ministerial to ignore irritating distractions down the benches. You then began to attempt to define what insidi-ous state interference was which was good given we felt there hadn't really been enough discussion of it over the day. You told us that it was a kind of influence that subtly began to change the way people think, in a way that wasn't obvious and so made it much harder for them to notice and ques-tion that interference. This was a strong attack on the Tory point about their state simply represent-ing people, and perhaps this piece of analysis would have been a bit stronger if you had explicitly made this connection. However then you received a point of information that we felt highlighted the second of two flaws that you failed to answer. You were asked about how the market can be insidi-ous, and the question made reference to clause 3. You then proceeded to talk about clause 3, rather than realising that it was put there simply to illustrate the point about the market. We felt that all day members had been pointing out how the market can insidiously coerce people in often more damaging ways than the state can. We felt that you had justified the benefits of the market, but failed to answer this point. You then did however land some good attacks on the Tory reliance on the state and its responsiveness. You pointed out that the market allows for daily interactions on a small scale that really has an impact on how people live their lives, rather than simply casting a vote in the ballot box once every five years. You then moved onto clause 1, which was undoubtedly your strongest clause of the day.You began by telling us that marriage was important for lots of people as the Tories suggested, however that does not necessarily mean that it needs to be recognised by the state. You then received a point of information from the Tory benches about how it was important for the protection of family. You answered well by pointing out that it only protects one version of the family which was an excellent answer and a point they could not respond to. This then de-veloped into a more sustained attack on their policy. You pointed out that they were essentially dic-tating one form of marriage without really justifying where their values came from, or even where their objective justification for that model came from. You then completely destroyed some of the attacks you had received about the rights of children. This was really a straw man as children will always be protected by the state regardless of marriage. The actual concern of your policy was the dilution of spousal rights, however this was not really the attack made on your bill. You then moved onto clause 2 by attempting to argue that indirect taxation was a choice. While clearly it is to an ex-tent in that you choose to buy cheaper consumables and so pay less tax overall, we really questioned just how much of a choice it is. You then developed the more principled analysis about how direct taxation was essentially forced labour as your work is taken from you and given to others. We felt that although this analysis did fit in well with the pre-amble, it was perhaps a bit extreme and could do with less blunt analysis if it is continued in future debates. This was especially true when you then said that it was akin to slavery, which none of the Clerks bought. You then gave an excellent

answer to a point of information from the leader of the Independent Socialists. You essentially de-fended money by pointing out that while it was not perfect,it was a way of placing concrete values on people and allows society to actually measure values rather than having it imposed by the state. We did however think that on this clause you should have addressed the Tory point that the Govern-ment gives companies protections through limited liability and therefore they owe some kind of duty in taxation. You then began clause 3 with another attack on the Tories which was tactically wise. You pointed out that they still hadn't justified why impartiality was a requirement only of broadcasters and not other outlets of media. This was something they missed and it helped that you again pointed this out to the chamber. We also liked how you viewed this clause from a slightly dif-ferent perspective to some of your earlier speakers rather than simply collating their analysis. You examined the effect that this would have on the individual in that it would encourage them to take responsibility for seeking out their own views more as they would not longer simply assume that they could trust everything that the broadcast media told them. You pointed out that under the status quo people simply believe what the BBC tells them, despite it having a clearly pro-establishment bias. We did think however that you could have done without the subsequent section on how the print media was dying. It made the clause feel confused and seem like it was attempting to fix sev-eral, very different problems. Finally we felt that you could have done with a bit more peroration. While your timing was excellent, the speech did feel like it lacked the build up to a conclusion that we usually expect from the Prime Minister.

This was a well delivered speech despite the occasional shot comings. You kept the chamber's atten-tion and gave strong justification for your bill. A speech that we are sure future Prime Ministers will remember and learn from. Welcome to the Club of Right Honourables!

General Feedback on the Second Parliamentary

The Chamber welcomed a further nine Maiden speakers, who all spoke excellently. We also had an “old hacks” round with the intention of demonstrating to newer speakers, a higher standard of

speech. Unfortunately this largely did not live up to said expectations.

Attendance was not as strong for this Parliamentary. Club leaders are reminded that this has an impact on marks as well as adding to the atmosphere of the debate. Please keep up both recruitment

and retention of new speakers.

Would all Clubs continue to keep in mind the importance of your position on the table. This is especially important for positions 3 &4. We really did not get enough clash from either club in this debate with the exception of the Round of Closing Evening. Please remind junior speakers to tailor

their speeches aroud their position.

POI's both offered and received were far too low. The Official Opposition should have been up on their feet more than they were, even if they felt that the Government were not taking their points.

Table position should also be kept in mind when deciding where to accept a POI from. The Independent Socialists should be congratulated on beating the S.NA on POI count.

The Clerks would also like to thank Hon. Red Rossette (Mr. Donald Mackay) for his efforts as Dialectic Macer. He continues to show commitment to the role and massively assists in the smooth

running of the debate.

The Maidens’ PrizeThe Maidens’ Prize for the Second Parliamentary was awarded to Hon. Velma (Ms Megan Rhys)

from the benches of the Independent Socialists. Many congratulations.

The Third ParliamentaryThe House is in recess until the Third Parliamentary at which Her Majesty's Loyal Tory Club will

be in Government. To be held on Friday 25th January 2013.

Signed,

Mr Ross Mitchell

Clerk to the House 2012/13