Brighton debating group's Green "slap down"

First published in News by

A debating society has said they have been given a “slap down” by the Green Party.

The claim comes from Brighton and Hove Debating Society and follows a “rejected” invitation to the Green Party to attend the Society’s next debate – We Have No Faith in the City’s Green Council.

Clive Hamblin, president of the Brighton and Hove Debating Society, said he thought it was about time the Society had a political debate and he was sure the Green Party would attend.

He said: “Our chairman has been chasing them for months. They say we’re picking on them and having a moan. They say they have a by-election coming up and they’re too busy.

“We’ve never quite had a slap down like this from anyone else.”

According to Mr Hamblin, the Green Party declined the Society’s invitation on the grounds that the motion against them was “very biased” and they had conducted research which indicated the Society had members who are “very political”.

Rob Shepherd, member of the executive committee of Brighton and Hove Green Party, said: “We’ve never said they were picking on us.

“When the Society first suggested holding this debate, we agreed that we would take part. However, the East Brighton by-election was then called, which falls two days after the debate.

“We asked them to postpone it for a week or turn it into a by-election event, in which case we’d be happy to attend.”

Mr Shepherd added that it was the first time the Society had proposed a party political motion and this particular motion was a very anti-Green one.

He continued: “They don’t have a reputation for doing anything against any of the other political parties. We have to treat it with care.

“The debate is condemning the Green Party two days before a by-election. We are not refusing to attend, but the timing is not appropriate.”

The Society has been debating for more than 60 years, in topics ranging from moral and political issues to religious, philosophical and sometimes humorous ones.

Recently, they held the motion Screening for Genetic Diseases Is Wrong, in which they invited representatives from the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children.

Mr Hamblin said: “While unfortunate that the local Greens have refused to take part, the debate will take place.”

The debate is on Tuesday, October 16 from 7.45pm at the St John’s Day Centre in Palmiera Square. Entry is £2.

Comments (14)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:27pm Wed 10 Oct 12

BornInBrighton1968 says...

The Greens won't send anybody to debate with this group as a) the Greens know that they'll be out on their ar*se pretty soon and b) there is no one in the party erudite or educated enough to be able to defend their loony Marxist policies...
The Greens won't send anybody to debate with this group as a) the Greens know that they'll be out on their ar*se pretty soon and b) there is no one in the party erudite or educated enough to be able to defend their loony Marxist policies... BornInBrighton1968
  • Score: 0

4:12pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Martha Gunn says...

How can a motion put up for debate be 'very biased'? And how can a political party run away from a debate because the participants are 'very political'? This is vintage and classic Greenspeak.

The truth is that there is now an avalanche of questions and doubts about the bloated claims and distortions of the Green Party.
Where are the council homes it claims to have built?
Just how did it have any influence whatsoever on exam results results this year?
What is the 'city Living Wage' it claims to have introduced?

These issues need interrogating properly and urgently but it seems we are not going to get the chance. Only answer is to vote them out at the earliest opportunity.
How can a motion put up for debate be 'very biased'? And how can a political party run away from a debate because the participants are 'very political'? This is vintage and classic Greenspeak. The truth is that there is now an avalanche of questions and doubts about the bloated claims and distortions of the Green Party. Where are the council homes it claims to have built? Just how did it have any influence whatsoever on exam results results this year? What is the 'city Living Wage' it claims to have introduced? These issues need interrogating properly and urgently but it seems we are not going to get the chance. Only answer is to vote them out at the earliest opportunity. Martha Gunn
  • Score: 0

5:20pm Wed 10 Oct 12

inadaptado says...

Martha Gunn wrote:
How can a motion put up for debate be 'very biased'? And how can a political party run away from a debate because the participants are 'very political'? This is vintage and classic Greenspeak.

The truth is that there is now an avalanche of questions and doubts about the bloated claims and distortions of the Green Party.
Where are the council homes it claims to have built?
Just how did it have any influence whatsoever on exam results results this year?
What is the 'city Living Wage' it claims to have introduced?

These issues need interrogating properly and urgently but it seems we are not going to get the chance. Only answer is to vote them out at the earliest opportunity.
For crying out loud, the debate is called "We have no faith in the City's Green council". In what universe is not that biased?

We get it, you all hate the Greens. Then stop whining and do something instead of blabbing in the comments of a newspaper whose readers agrees with you. Or just please just shut the hell up forever.

P.S. I didn't vote them and I don't give a **** if they leave or stay. I'm just sick of your constant moaning.
[quote][p][bold]Martha Gunn[/bold] wrote: How can a motion put up for debate be 'very biased'? And how can a political party run away from a debate because the participants are 'very political'? This is vintage and classic Greenspeak. The truth is that there is now an avalanche of questions and doubts about the bloated claims and distortions of the Green Party. Where are the council homes it claims to have built? Just how did it have any influence whatsoever on exam results results this year? What is the 'city Living Wage' it claims to have introduced? These issues need interrogating properly and urgently but it seems we are not going to get the chance. Only answer is to vote them out at the earliest opportunity.[/p][/quote]For crying out loud, the debate is called "We have no faith in the City's Green council". In what universe is not that biased? We get it, you all hate the Greens. Then stop whining and do something instead of blabbing in the comments of a newspaper whose readers agrees with you. Or just please just shut the hell up forever. P.S. I didn't vote them and I don't give a **** if they leave or stay. I'm just sick of your constant moaning. inadaptado
  • Score: 0

6:00pm Wed 10 Oct 12

leobrighton says...

Obviously the debating society has a political agenda and deserve to be dismissed as a bunch of idiots
Obviously the debating society has a political agenda and deserve to be dismissed as a bunch of idiots leobrighton
  • Score: 0

6:38pm Wed 10 Oct 12

saveHOVE says...

Pity Mr. Shepherd did not describe the reasons for non-participation better. Sack him!

The 18th October election is the reason! All political parties are in what is termed 'purdah' and forbidden to do quite a lot really.

They would have no reason to refuse after the 18th.
Pity Mr. Shepherd did not describe the reasons for non-participation better. Sack him! The 18th October election is the reason! All political parties are in what is termed 'purdah' and forbidden to do quite a lot really. They would have no reason to refuse after the 18th. saveHOVE
  • Score: 0

7:18pm Wed 10 Oct 12

PorkBoat says...

Maybe they could ask a few uncomfortable questions about the i360. No one else seems to care that the council has allowed a gigantic fraud to take place under our noses. I'd like to know why the £14 million "loan" was allowed when the financial figures are quite clearly pure horse...manure. Maybe The Argus would like to start asking questions, like a real newspaper should.
Maybe they could ask a few uncomfortable questions about the i360. No one else seems to care that the council has allowed a gigantic fraud to take place under our noses. I'd like to know why the £14 million "loan" was allowed when the financial figures are quite clearly pure horse...manure. Maybe The Argus would like to start asking questions, like a real newspaper should. PorkBoat
  • Score: 0

7:48pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

For goodness sake, if your are in politics you have to face difficult questions and take on your opponents.
They really are finished as a serious party.
For goodness sake, if your are in politics you have to face difficult questions and take on your opponents. They really are finished as a serious party. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

8:04pm Wed 10 Oct 12

clearbluesky says...

Two days before the 2005 Council elections the Greens held a public debate about some eco nonsense and invited the other political parties. The other parties could either pause their campaigning just before an election, or refuse the invitation and be publicly condemned by the Greens for not attending. Clever political move. Glad to see the tables have been turned on the Greens who have been a disaster for this city.
Two days before the 2005 Council elections the Greens held a public debate about some eco nonsense and invited the other political parties. The other parties could either pause their campaigning just before an election, or refuse the invitation and be publicly condemned by the Greens for not attending. Clever political move. Glad to see the tables have been turned on the Greens who have been a disaster for this city. clearbluesky
  • Score: 0

8:18pm Wed 10 Oct 12

HJarrs says...

Oooh the mock outrage of it all. I suppose we can expect more biased non-stories from the Argus in the run up to the by-election.

I wouldn't have a problem if they also had debates for "We Have No Faith in the City’s Labour councillors and Conservative councillors", which would be fair.
Oooh the mock outrage of it all. I suppose we can expect more biased non-stories from the Argus in the run up to the by-election. I wouldn't have a problem if they also had debates for "We Have No Faith in the City’s Labour councillors and Conservative councillors", which would be fair. HJarrs
  • Score: 0

10:52pm Wed 10 Oct 12

leobrighton says...

Its the Labour and Conservative councillors who decided to land us with the Green administration therefore they should be getting the blame
Its the Labour and Conservative councillors who decided to land us with the Green administration therefore they should be getting the blame leobrighton
  • Score: 0

11:19pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

HJarrs, I think the mere fact that Labour and the Tories didn't get elected to control the council was a clear vote of no confidence.
The issue here is the refusal to debate "why the voters should have confidence in the Green Party at this time."
These debates are quite common during any political calendar but I have to say it's quite unusual for any party to decline, particualry when you are a party under siege, but maybe they are now retreating so much they can't be bothered and have surrendered.
I can't see any of them being re-elected. One can only assume that it's every man for himself and they are focussing on their own wards in the hope of getting re-elected as individuals because as a party, there's little hope for re-election, although the opposition have also retreated so it's an odd situation.
Has anyone seen Gill Mitchell or Theobald lead a challenge lately?
HJarrs, I think the mere fact that Labour and the Tories didn't get elected to control the council was a clear vote of no confidence. The issue here is the refusal to debate "why the voters should have confidence in the Green Party at this time." These debates are quite common during any political calendar but I have to say it's quite unusual for any party to decline, particualry when you are a party under siege, but maybe they are now retreating so much they can't be bothered and have surrendered. I can't see any of them being re-elected. One can only assume that it's every man for himself and they are focussing on their own wards in the hope of getting re-elected as individuals because as a party, there's little hope for re-election, although the opposition have also retreated so it's an odd situation. Has anyone seen Gill Mitchell or Theobald lead a challenge lately? Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

8:01am Thu 11 Oct 12

HJarrs says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
HJarrs, I think the mere fact that Labour and the Tories didn't get elected to control the council was a clear vote of no confidence. The issue here is the refusal to debate "why the voters should have confidence in the Green Party at this time." These debates are quite common during any political calendar but I have to say it's quite unusual for any party to decline, particualry when you are a party under siege, but maybe they are now retreating so much they can't be bothered and have surrendered. I can't see any of them being re-elected. One can only assume that it's every man for himself and they are focussing on their own wards in the hope of getting re-elected as individuals because as a party, there's little hope for re-election, although the opposition have also retreated so it's an odd situation. Has anyone seen Gill Mitchell or Theobald lead a challenge lately?
So lets get this right. The Green Party only is supposed to take out some prominent people from a by-election campaign to have a jolly evening of naval gazing at a debating society? How ridiculous.

If you also read the article, the Green Party spokesman said...“We asked them to postpone it for a week or turn it into a by-election event, in which case we’d be happy to attend.”

So, hardly a refusal, but the avoidance of a clear fit-up.

As for your Gill Mitchell and Theobold, as correctly posted above, they put the minority Greens into power. In these circumstances it is to the Green Parties credit that the council functions as such a political split could easily lead to deadlock, still that passes you by. It would appear that Labour and Conservative parties clearly are backing many of the policies that they, you and others are so quick to condemn.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: HJarrs, I think the mere fact that Labour and the Tories didn't get elected to control the council was a clear vote of no confidence. The issue here is the refusal to debate "why the voters should have confidence in the Green Party at this time." These debates are quite common during any political calendar but I have to say it's quite unusual for any party to decline, particualry when you are a party under siege, but maybe they are now retreating so much they can't be bothered and have surrendered. I can't see any of them being re-elected. One can only assume that it's every man for himself and they are focussing on their own wards in the hope of getting re-elected as individuals because as a party, there's little hope for re-election, although the opposition have also retreated so it's an odd situation. Has anyone seen Gill Mitchell or Theobald lead a challenge lately?[/p][/quote]So lets get this right. The Green Party only is supposed to take out some prominent people from a by-election campaign to have a jolly evening of naval gazing at a debating society? How ridiculous. If you also read the article, the Green Party spokesman said...“We asked them to postpone it for a week or turn it into a by-election event, in which case we’d be happy to attend.” So, hardly a refusal, but the avoidance of a clear fit-up. As for your Gill Mitchell and Theobold, as correctly posted above, they put the minority Greens into power. In these circumstances it is to the Green Parties credit that the council functions as such a political split could easily lead to deadlock, still that passes you by. It would appear that Labour and Conservative parties clearly are backing many of the policies that they, you and others are so quick to condemn. HJarrs
  • Score: 0

8:16am Thu 11 Oct 12

Dealing with idiots says...

Jason and the astronauts never engage in debate, even with their own members. No dissent is tolerated and those who do are sidelined. However they are not all sandle wearing lentilloids and the one to watch is Alex Phillips. Definately has her eye on the Kitcat crown ( which does not fit him anyway ) and seems more pragmatic than dogmatic.
Jason and the astronauts never engage in debate, even with their own members. No dissent is tolerated and those who do are sidelined. However they are not all sandle wearing lentilloids and the one to watch is Alex Phillips. Definately has her eye on the Kitcat crown ( which does not fit him anyway ) and seems more pragmatic than dogmatic. Dealing with idiots
  • Score: 0

10:28am Thu 11 Oct 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Exactly HJarrs, the Greens got voted in as a vote of no confidence in the other parties and that's why it's been a disaster because people failed to look at who they were voting for.
Now we have a party of extreme, mixed views, with eco tagged on the end.
They wont be re-elected and it could be a disaster for future Green councillors and Caroline Lucas.
Exactly HJarrs, the Greens got voted in as a vote of no confidence in the other parties and that's why it's been a disaster because people failed to look at who they were voting for. Now we have a party of extreme, mixed views, with eco tagged on the end. They wont be re-elected and it could be a disaster for future Green councillors and Caroline Lucas. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree