The difference between an MP with bottle and one without
Friday, February 3, 2012 at 10:00 Over the years I have NEVER rejected an invitation to take part in a public debate.
If the organisers are hostile to my views, so much the better. It's a lot more fun.
There's a much bigger buzz to be had from addressing a potentially awkward audience. Less pressure too because fighting your corner in an adversarial situation is quite enjoyable in a masochistic sort of way.
Preaching to the converted, on the other hand, is boring and nerve-wracking at the same time because there's so much more to lose if you don't deliver.
In 2010, at a Voices of Freedom debate on Big Brother style surveillance, speakers included Philip Davies MP. Now Philip has libertarian tendencies on many issues (including smoking) but surveillance isn't one of them.
He agreed to take part knowing that he was going to be given a hard time and he wasn't disappointed. Alex Deane, former director of Big Brother Watch, was particularly harsh, but after the event Philip confided that he enjoyed every minute of it.
I knew what he meant. It's a great feeling to be in a debate, sticking to your guns while the overwhelming majority of people are firmly against you. In my experience you earn respect if only for turning up!
Sadly, tobacco control advocates are especially feeble when it comes to engaging with the opposition, even when THEY have challenged US to "rise to the debate".
There's another part to this story that I will reveal shortly.
Here's a clue: it involves someone called Stephen Williams. You may have heard of him ...
Reader Comments (1)
Am I spoiling things by guessing that he's refused to publicly debate on plain packaging? He's also gone all quiet on his own blog thread on plain packaging. Don't think he's been heard of since, I dunno, comment 623 ;)