The debate took place close to the two year anniversary of the Manchester Arena attack
The first section of the debate was on Terrorism and Home Affairs. Allen was called to speak first.
“Well, you look at the President's foreign policy positions. Failing to stand up to a hard-right -Russian government that thinks it can poison people on British soil. Attlee and Bevin helped found NATO – Ed Miliband and those around him can't stop the most amateur of terrorist attacks. And Senator May's plans do nothing to address the real challenge of fighting terrorism. Instead, her platform contains worrying measures that are unnecessary and attack individual freedoms. Senator May poses a serious threat to the civil liberties of innocent people. I am an internationalist. This is at the heart of who I am, it flows through everything we do. I believe in tearing down walls, not building them. I believe in working together through multilateral organisations, not standing alone. To tackle terrorism, we need to ensure that the Commonwealth is at the table, achieving consensus internationally. “I am determined to combat terrorism and support action that will keep Britain safe.”
Allen struggled to give a unique pitch considering her outsider status, there was very little in terms of policy offer different from Vince Cable or Ed Miliband, promising to track down on terror whilst protecting civil liberties, considering Allen was polling last she needed something more to keep her campaign relevant.
Despite being an outsider, Allen gave a fairly bog-standard response
Ed Miliband was next in line to speak.
“The thoughts of everyone are with the families and loved ones of the innocent people who lost their lives to terrorism. The people want to put victims first and put community safety first. We can't avoid asking tough questions in general about Senator May's plan to cut more than 10,000 police officers. This would bring chaos to our police system and lead to more assaults on officers. Senator May wants to privatise and break up our probation services, which is looking after 300,000 people across our country. We can't do security on the cheap. That is exactly what Senator May's plan aims to do. Prime Minister Thornberry and I will continue to invest in our police and prisons, Senator May wants to privatise them, it's really as simple as that.”
Miliband refused to be distracted by the minor candidates, focusing his energy on May
Miliband new terrorism and security was a major achillies heel for his campaign, and a major boon to May’s. So he switched the narrative, talking about May’s austerity spending plans and their impact on national security.
Gerard Batten interjected
“Mr President, you say you want to put victims of terrorism first, yet you refused to support my bill in the Senate which called for a terrorism memorial day. We are coming up to the anniversary of the Manchester Arena attack and the murder of Lee Rigby, we must have a day to honour them. Over many years we have experienced a growing toll of victims of senseless acts of terrorism from different perpetrators. It would be fitting to remember all the victims on the same day. The day should be used to focus our minds on the practical measures that need to be taken to combat terrorism. Remembering these people is of no use unless there is a resolve to tackle the causes of terrorism. I am the only person on this stage brave enough to say the cause of terrorism is ideology, whether it's the Islamist ideology of ISIS, or the socialist ideology of the IRA. Unless politicians start calling out these murderous ideologies for what they are, terrorism will never stop.”
Again, Batten surprised many by his debate performance, his call for a terrorism memorial day was difficult to argue with and masked many of his more extreme statements, being the most radical person on the stage Batten was able to say pretty much whatever he wanted, and let the press coverage roll in.
In many ways Batten was outshining Farage
At this point May decided to step in.
“Well of course my thoughts and prayers are with the victims of terrorism, but I will act Senator Batten. We all saw the bravery of our emergency services and the incredible resilience of the British people. The overriding job of the President is to protect us. That's why my plan actually calls to recruit 30,000 new police officers, that's why my plan will increase counter-terrorism funding by a third. Within a week of taking office, I will toughen up sentencing for violent criminals. Under President Miliband, we are seeing criminals being released automatically half-way through their sentence. I will change that law. What I can tell you is, I will always back the police and the security services with the resources and the powers they need to keep us safe.”
May was fighting on her home turf when it came to terrorism
May was clearly in her comfort zone when talking about security and she gave a strong speech, directly addressing the points raised by Miliband, discussing a detailed plan to combat holes in Britain's security apparatus.
Bartley spoke next.
“Senator May, the way to prevent and detect terrorist offences is with a community working alongside the police in a cooperative way. Your plan will alienate minority communities and push them away from the police. We do need intelligence-led, stronger policing in the community. I've been in the cabinet, I know police cuts were real, if you cut police, then they don't have time to work out in the community. When it comes to prisoners who are vulnerable we need to have proper rehabilitation for them in President. It's no good leaving people to fester for long in an overcrowded prison system, we need real education and real rehabilitation. Those are the things we need to be funding more of, as well as real policing in the community that doesn't alienate people.”
Bartley didn't have much impact on this section of the debate
Bartley’s interjection appeals to Green voters well by talking about community policing and relations. But he failed to break the image of the Greens as fluffy but well-meaning hippies, he had tried to challenge May and failed.
It was now Vince Cable’s turn to speak.
“No terrorist should be released without being properly assessed whether they still pose a risk to the public. Clearly, tough questions need to be asked and we need to learn lessons. We shouldn't use terrorist atrocities as a pretence for draconian changes in the law. Prevention and challenge can degenerate into surveillance or at the very least the fear of surveillance. If schools are required to report on ‘extreme’ attitudes by pupils like Senator May's plan would require the obvious consequence is suspicion and students will be less willing to debate ideas. I am told that this is already happening with fear among children that they may be put ‘on a list’. There are similar fears of GP’s having to break patient confidentiality. Anything which encourages secretive behaviour is more likely to help terrorism than hinder it. When people like Senator May say they want to expand their own power in the name of public safety, that makes me very worried indeed.”
Cable went after May but his blows didn't land
Cable gave a principled, liberal speech, moving the question away from security to one of freedom and surveillance. Cables insinuation that extremism in young people could be “debated” away was widely criticised in the press and his attack on May failed to stick.
Farage was the last called for this segment.
“We all express our condolences, but nobody apologises. The liberal elite has given us a ridiculous sentencing system. I don't care whether terrorists are jailed for six years or twelve years. If you've committed mass murder, you're not an ordinary criminal, you have the virus of jihadism. These people should never ever be let out of prison unless we're absolutely convinced they do not have the jihadi virus. But of course, political correctness stops us from doing this. The President has been very very weak on sentencing over the last five years, just as the Conservatives have been.”
Farage too struggled on an issue that he should’ve been very comfortable with, he railed against the liberal elite and political correctness but failed to name a concrete policy of his own that would stop terrorist atrocities.
Farage struggled to articulate what his new Brexit Alliance stood for
"To what extent did national security play a role in the 2019 Presidental Election? (30 Marks)" - A Level Politics Exam (2019)