Tired and emotional? Orwell Prize shortlist debate

Orwell Prize shortlist debate: “Are political parties bankrupt?”

The debate is taking place at Canary wharf this evening, and is between journalist Nick Cohen, MP Frank Field, David ‘liberty, but not for gay people’ Davis, and author Douglas Murray, also of the Centre for Social Cohesion. He says the Conservatives lack substance. Our LabourList.org reporter almost choked on his muesli when he worked out that he was sharing a room with Peter Hitchens. It was partly funded by Orwell’s son, Richard Blair. The shortlist for the book prize was announced at the start, as was the longlist for journalism.

The shortlist were: Catherine Bennett, Patrick Cockburn, Peter Hitchens, Donald Macintyre, Peter Oborne, Henry Porter.

For the blog prize, 12 were longlisted; the shortlist was: Alix Mortimer, Andrew Sparrow, Chekov, Iain Dale, Jack Night, Paul Mason. No Labour ones then!?

Sean Maguire introduced the debate. He pondered whether the financial crisis had radically alter the landscape. He mentioned Harriet Harman’s ‘millionaires manifesto’ quip. In our view, this one has staying power.

Nick Cohen starts off. He says that Martin Bright not making the shortlist is a disgrace. He slate Peter Oborne and Peter Hitchens as mediocre, despite their presence, and says that neither take risks, and work for Tory papers. He then goes on to Name a long list of journalists who George Orwell would have hated, Ferdinand Mount being one. He then lays into the BBC, the Guardian and the New Statesman for being a ‘liberal establishment.

Cohen sounds more like a Tory ideologist every day. Peter Hitchens gets in a quip at Nick Cohen, accusing him of being drunk. He says that Cohen is a ‘silly man’ for ‘behaving like this in public’. ‘I’d take a short break’, he says. Cohen continues to criticise the prize for fifteen minutes and is eventually stopped short by a ‘point of order’, which is met with applause.

Murray says that it is obvious that political parties are bankrupt, stating that they are united on being soft on immigration (!) and pro-Europeanism (!). He says it is sure that your taxes will continue to rise. Perhaps after the fall of the night-watchman financial state this is true, but one gets the feeling that Mr Murray is rather too young to remember 90%!

He criticises George Osborne as ‘grossly inexperienced’, and describes the return of Ken Clarke as Osborne being ‘personally bailed out’. He says Geert Wilders should have been brought into the UK. He says that there are some optimistic things to take from recession, and hopes that it ‘makes us serious again as a country’. Perhaps he should tell some of the people losing their jobs that they’re not serious.

Frank Field claims that the world he grew up in is disintegrating. Bob Dylan comes to mind, but he says the country is facing a ‘huge danger’. He says he is annoyed that journalists aren’t covering the House of Commons. He says that the belief on the left that state spending is good is about to collapse, in an attempt to get respect for our currency internationally. He is alarmed at the level of government borrowing, and says he worries aoubt whether or not the government will actually be lent it. He says that the upcoming recession will be horrendous, and attacks Murray for having ‘no idea’ of how bad things could become. He is worried about the mob descending on bankers, and politics moving out onto the streets. He fears the day when the government cannot sell the next tranche of its debt. He says that our institutions cannot respond to the possible collapse of our currency.

Is there enough money internationally to share out? No government has ever raised more than 37% GDP in taxation, but consumers have wanted a spend of arounf 49% traditionally. The conflict between these contradictory demands means that politics could be about to get very interesting.

David Davis says that American reserve currency means that we are much closer to a precipice than the US is. Tax will go up, and spending will go down much faster than anyone predicts. He says industrial relations will become terrible, and says we will now face a wage squeeze. He says there will be a decline in social tolerance, especially around immigration, and says that the government has been ‘all rhetoric, but no action’. He says that this will turn the debate sour. Could it be possible that Davis already has?

He says there will be a rapid increase in government authoritarianism and breaches of the rule of law. He says that governments are encouraging banks to support local business, so protectionism is creping in, but by the back door. This is the end of finance globalisation.

Frank Field ships in and claims that there will be a Tory landslide. Thanks comrade. The media people all agree. A cosy little consensus, no doubt.

Nick Cohen claims that the ideology which began with the fall of the Berlin wall, a ‘Tory world’, will now collapse. ‘It was your world, and it was Labour’s world’, he tells Field. No centre left government has ever presided over one of the booms and busts of capitalism. This should be a time for the left, but New Labour’s timidity in regulating banks and tackling financiers has made that the left is now identified with what are essentially neoliberal policies which caused the crisis.

Frank Field asks, after the ‘death of Thatcherism’ hailed by the New Statesman. He thinks we will get Thatcherism. He thinks that the European venture is absurd, and that he has longed for the Euro to go bust. He says he hopes that the Chinese Government does not face an uprising. He worries about future inflation, and condemns it as the most evil way of redistributing wealth. He says he feels out of place, because we are in revolutionary times.

Douglas Murray says we have been a decadent society, and that we are all obese, citing the family who are too fat to work. He then goes on to worry about the ‘fascist’ threat of Islamism. Douglas, I can think of one other public persona who seems intent on painting the west as decadent.

He says it’s a shame that the government is blaming individuals, and that the government is to blame for our current predicament. It is difficult to understand why he thinks public spending is to blame for the crisis. What about sub-prime Douglas?

Nick Cohen chips in about Martin Bright again, condemning the audience for hypocrisy. He says we need journalists who want to build a new country, not Peters Hitchens and Oborne. He sticks up for small business and lays into big business as the cause for our structural flaw. He says that the media have been complicit in the situation, as journalists are beholden to conservatism. He says that retraining people for jobs is no good. We need to build jobs. He keeps interrupting the chair as the chair attempts to cut him off. David Davis lays into PFI as ‘creative accounting’, and says we have all been complicit in upholding it all.

Davis says this is a left wing era, that in which capitalism has failed. We don’t need more regulation or more spending, these will make the problem worse. He says FDR made the depression worse (neglecting to mention that Herbert Hoover let it happen, and failed completely to fix it by standing back).

He lays into previous Tory government for hiding unemployment statistics, and says that the public have no work ethic. The politician who accuses his electors of lazyness is often a popular one. Perhaps he should be made to clean toilets, or work as a nurse?

Frank Field savages him for advocation of ‘living within means’. He says that this is clever language for cutting living standards, but that the Tories don’t want to say that. He agrees however that there is no work ethic, and says that all the jobs have been going to immigrants. Surely this argument is more of a barrier to social cohesion than it is a catalyst? He says that open borders and a welfare state are incompatible, though the obvious retort is that he’s simply not thinking big enough. Perhaps we just need to internationalise our welfare standards? As Nick Cohen, would say, ‘a whole new world’…

Someone from the audience, John Hume, asks why nobody has mentioned Vince Cable. Douglas Murray says hat the Lib Dems are ‘a party you can ignore’, as there is ‘no realistic chance of them getting into power’. Finally we agree with him!

He criticises them for prioritising youth over substance.

Peter Hitchens says he has been subjected to the Jeremy Kyle show! Why are Frank Field and David Davis marginalised by their parties? How long can they stand these ‘useless corpses of parties’.

In response, Frank Field says we need to move to making changes which are ‘major’. Political parties are like gangs. There are leaders, entrance fees, and the like. If you don’t pay the fees you get beaten up and expelled! He is worried that the gang will disintegrate and become nasty.

David Davis says politicians should be about changing history. The problem is that he wants to change it in a brutish direction! He predicts a small Tory majority which will have to listen to backbenchers and the opposition. He says that in any event, his work shows that you don’t need to be on the front bench to make things happen.

Nick Cohen says that the BBC and politicians don’t know what’s going on. HOW CAN YOU APPOINT PETER OBORNE???!!!1. He continues to swear loudly. Oh dear.

After some goading from the crowd and the chair, he moves on.

He says that he has come to like Alistair Darling. He criticises the team around Gordon Brown. He derides political centrism on the left and says that politicians are having trouble adapting to the new radicalism required. We need ways to build a new England. Billy Bragg will not be included, presumably. He removes onto Peter Hitchens again, shouting ‘I despise you’ to the back of the room. He criticises the journalists in the room as ‘useless scummy old people’!

One audience member says that the whole constitution is rotten.

Frank Field says Labour MPs will become hated. David Davis says almost everybody will become hated. The country will be in a profound emotional conflict against itself.

Douglas Murray praises Dutch far-right politician Pim Fortuyn, and says that the electorate has no way of raising a voice for the policies he would have backed. He should learn about how well the BNP vote is taking off in some areas.

And with that, we draw to a merciful close. While Orwell would certainly have approved of the level of outspoken controversy here, one imagines that he would have seen the actual content as quite another matter.

You can find out more about the Orwell Prize here.