The (re-)nationalisation debate
Twice a month, the Great Debaters Club hosts a free public debate on a topical issue dividing public opinion as part of the club’s ‘Debating London’ series.
The date of our next one — 21st Feb — is also the 170th anniversary of the publication of the Communist Manifesto, so we thought we’d pick a topic that would allow us to discuss one of Marx’s core arguments — that Capitalism is doomed to fail — while still being relevant to what people care about today.
Out of a possible four, the topic we chose was nationalisation — or rather the renationalisation of privatised industries. Also, in order to strike a balance between being too vague and too focused on one single industry (like the railways, for example), the motion we set for this debate reads:
‘This House Would nationalise private companies that provide public services’
Why are people talking about this today?
The short answer to that question is because the Labour party under Jeremy Corbyn has made it relevant by pledging to nationalise some of Britain’s biggest industries, including: energy, water, rail and mail.
The longer answer is because of a growing public perception that the privatisation of these industries by the Conservative governments of the 1980s and 1990s has failed. Vocal dis-satisfaction with the cost of rail fares, which have become prohibitively expensive for some people now is perhaps one of the most familiar examples of this as is frustration with the complexity of gas and electricity tariffs, not to mention the cost of energy itself.
What makes these industries special, though, is that the public relies on the services they provide for their most basic entitlements: freedom of movement, the ability to communicate, a stable power supply, and clean running water. A fast and reliable internet connection arguably belongs on that list today too.
Hence, while a broad academic debate about the merits of nationalisation generally may well include industries seen as vital to our success and security as a nation (think telecoms and nuclear for example), the reason most people are debating it today is because of the impact of allowing private companies to provide a service that is seen to be meeting a public need.
As a result, this debate will largely focus on the Labour party’s plans for re-nationalising energy, water, rail, and mail, which can be viewed here.
Debate format and speakers
We believe the best way to understand an idea is to have a go at defending it as if it were your own. This is the premise on which on which the Great Debaters Club is run and it applies to understanding ideas that are complicated or unfamiliar, ideas we passionately disagree with, and ideas that we have taken for granted for so long, we have stopped questioning them.
This is why instead of inviting expert guest speakers to do the debating, we train up our own members to do it themselves, giving them a week to prepare (competitive debaters in Britain’s schools and universities are normally given about 15 minutes, before which they don’t even know what side they’re on), and laying on a mock debate for them to test their arguments and receive feedback before doing it for real in front of a live audience.
Crucially, the debaters cannot pick and choose their position and must defend whichever perspective they are assigned, challenging them to research and explore ideas they disagree with and then defend them in public. In return, we make it clear to the audience that each speaker’s stance may not be their own and part of the fun is finding out afterwards where the speakers really stand and if this experience changed their own opinions on the subject.
The panel itself consists of two teams of three speakers, one to propose the motion and the other to oppose it. The first two debaters on each side are given five minutes apiece to speak uninterrupted before taking questions from the audience, during which both sides are allowed to reply.
After a short break, one of the club’s resident debate judges — experienced debaters who have spoken in or judged competitions in the UK and abroad — offers a short analysis of the cases for and against the motion, after which the floor is given to the audience for the next 20–30 minutes to have their say.
The debate concludes with the closing speeches from each side, delivered by their third speakers, after which the audience are asked to vote. The result of this poll is then compared with the outcome of the vote taken before the debate to measure how many people have changed their mind — in 2017 an average of 20% of audience members switched allegiances in each debate.
Finally, a cross-section of audience members with different voting intentions is recruited for a 10-minute post-debate focus group in which they are asked to sum up what they understood to be the positions of each side and explain who they voted for and why. Their feedback is anonymised and then relayed back to the speakers and fellow club members in a write-up of the debate, so they can incorporate it into their preparations for the next one.
The event as a whole is overseen by the club’s Director, Tony Koutsoumbos, who runs the club’s training programme, convenes the post-debate focus groups and writes up the results, as well as moderating the debate itself.
Attending the (re-)nationalisation debate
The debate will take place on Wednesday 21st February at the Tea House Theatre in Vauxhall, starting at 7 pm and finishing at 9.30 pm.
As part of the club’s year-round Debating London series, this event is free to attend and open to all. However, we ask that you book a place in advance to help us ensure that we do not exceed the capacity of the venue.
You can book your place by completing this short registration form.
