I’m slightly gobsmacked. Last night, I went to a debate on the motion “The House of Windsor is falling down (and we should let it)”. And the voting seemed to ignore the arguments of the speakers.
These events are always reasonably light-hearted. Serious points jostle with jokes – and I’m definitely no critic of that. What I found so weird was the way the debaters divided in to reason vs emotion.
Speakers included: Dr Piers Brendon, Professor Roy Greenslade, Roy Hattersley, Peter Hitchens, Penny Junor and The Rt Hon The Lord St John of Fawsley, PC. (Biographies here)
Those for the motion argued “rationally”. They attacked 3 ideas: that the institution of the Royals encouraged closed government, that they encouraged obsequiousness, and that they had no place in a forward looking meritocracy. (They said it more eloquently than that!)
Those against argued “emotionally”. They attacked 3 people: the motion proponents. They made fast quips, jokes, and made remarks which, while high in what a gardener I once knew called “emulsional content”, had very little relevance to the motion. They got the most applause from the crowd.
Voting time came. We’d been told before that out of the c300 people there, views before the debate were (roughly):
For – 100; Against – 150; Abstain – 60
After the arguments (rational and emotional) the results were:
For – 60; Against – 270; Abstain – 20
Now I was an abstainer initially. I prefer to see which side gives the better argument. And then I voted for. Those are my cards, that’s the table so to speak. But I am at a loss over how to explain the swing to topple the motion.
The key ingredients to beating the argument seemed to be: judge the audience, make them laugh, say a few highly-charged jingoistic remarks, and belittle the opposition.
I’m with you Charlie Brown. Good grief.