As the Labour government reaches its 100th day in office this weekend, UK politicians are forced to evaluate the party’s successes and failures. Labour notoriously earned a ‘landslide’ victory in the most recent general election, winning 411 seats. After four weeks of sitting in Parliament, Labour has made plans to improve the NHS and promised to renationalise nearly all passenger rail services within five years. But the party’s proposal of a divisive new smoking policy and their controversial decision to cut the winter fuel payments for pensioners have sparked heated conversation on the topic of individual liberty.
Now more than ever, the Labour government is finding itself under the UK public’s microscope. And students here at York are not estranged from the debate. The York Dialectic Union, led by students, arranged an emergency debate to discuss these controversial points.
The question was phrased as the following:
“This House Believes Labour is off to a Good Start”
Entry poll:
| Proposition | Opposition | Abstain |
| 13 | 28 | 59 |
In support of the proposition, Chair of the University of York Labour Will Mee, spoke first.
He started by summarising the precarious post-Labour economic situation under the Conservative government, emphasising that “our national debt grew the highest since the 1960s at over £2 trillion, with Brits being £10,000 worse off on average, compared with growth rates under Labour.”
“Labour is off to a flying start,” he insisted, “after just four weeks of sitting in Parliament, labour has already delivered for the British people. They have brought in measures to improve the quality of our water, including fines and forcing water companies to pay money back to the people who have lost out.”
In support of the proposition, Mee also emphasised the importance of pragmatism and realistic expectations: “It’s really important that we give Labour the opportunity to deliver…give them the five-year term and then see what they’ve done.”
It was then up to Milo Morrod, Head of Outreach at York Dialectic Union, to fire back from the opposition side. He started by establishing some parameters for the debate, given the framing of the question.
“This is a debate about the Labor government and nothing else,” he said, “it’s not about what they’ve pledged to do. It’s not about what they want to do. It’s about what they’ve done.”
Starmer’s popularity as Prime Minister (or lack thereof) was a key issue of contention throughout the debate.
Morrod argued: “Starmer’s popularity has dropped at the fastest rate of any Prime Minister other than Liz Truss. That’s astonishing. The Ipsos political monitor survey has Starmer falling from +7 in July to -21” in a short matter of weeks.
“Another recent Ipsos poll has 46% of people ‘actively unfavourable’ towards Starmer and 44% ‘actively unfavourable’ towards the chancellor Rachel Reeves,” he continued, “these unfavourability ratings are higher than any of the current conservative leadership candidates. The most recent poll by opinion indicates that only 24% of people approve of the job Starmer is doing and 50% disapprove. This makes his net rating worse than Rishi Sunak’s was, on a party level.”
Adam Helsby, Campaigns and Party Liaison Officer of the University of York Labour and supporter of the statement challenged this point by refuting the idea that polls are a reliable method of determining if a Prime Minister is off to a good start.
He said: “rather than focusing on the polls and possible evidence, we’re actually getting on with the start of work and trying to deliver for working people.”
Morrod challenged this idea again later, by arguing that the UK knows when they’re being taken for a ride. The “post-landslide honeymoon” is well and truly over and the party has demonstrated “incompetence and a lack of planning and control.”
Helsby, for the proposition, brought some new topics to the debate. He commended the government’s response to the Southport riots over the summer, which took place after the fatal stabbing of three young girls at a Taylor-Swift dance class. He argued that this response was marked “by a combination of… law enforcement and careful messaging, which helped restore public order and affirm the government’s authority.”
This point was made even more powerful when Helsby compared Starmer’s reaction to the riots to the then Mayor of London and future Conservative Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, who “didn’t even come back from his own holiday during the 2011 riots.”
Dylan Cassap, Vice-Chair of the University of York Tories, was the last to speak. He focussed largely on Labour’s “oppressive and pub-gorging outdoor smoking ban drive.” He made an impassioned speech against this smoking policy, arguing that it is something that smokers and non-smokers alike should be opposed to. He argued that smoking should still be legal in outdoor public spaces, for the same reason that “sugar, alcohol, fast food” are legal, despite the fact that they also cost the NHS a fortune every year.
He said: “if someone wants to smoke and live in the world where this ban exists, they can’t do it inside. They can’t do it outside the venue. So therefore, they must go out into the streets, but not just outside, because that’s also not allowed under this ban.
“They have to go halfway down the street, and this puts them at risk. If you’re on a late night out and you go for a cigarette, you have to go down halfway down the street…you’re leaving the relative safety of the venue, and you’re putting yourself at risk.”
At the end of the debate, audience members had the opportunity to ask questions to the debating panel. These questions brought up important issues that had not yet been mentioned in the debate, such as the taxing of private school establishments, the UK prison system, climate change and Labour’s reaction to the war in Gaza.
Ultimately, those arguing in support of the proposition won the debate [ Will Mee and Adam Helsby].
Entry poll:
| Proposition | Opposition | Abstain |
| 13 | 28 | 59 |
Exit poll:
| Proposition: | Opposition | Abstain |
| 62 | 23 | 15 |
This free event was York Dialectic Union’s first debate of the year.
Most of the points made were very well-researched and often padded out with witty comments and the odd line of Latin to keep us concentrated. Each speaker was loudly applauded at the end of their speech, and perhaps unlike the traditional Parliamentary-style debating, politeness and civility were upheld by everyone in attendance.
With almost 100 people eagerly watching this student-led debate play out, it’s clear that the traditional academic debate culture is still well and truly alive at York. Many of these watching students will have sat through a full day of lectures prior to this – and it speaks volumes on UK politics that they were still concerned (or perhaps intrigued) enough to stay on campus for this live debate.