THE 2017 GENERAL ELECTION

The television debate yesterday evening between representatives of the Greens (Caroline Lucas), the Liberal Democrats (Tim Farron), UKIP (Paul Nuttall), Labour (Jeremy Corbyn), Plaid Cymru (Leanne Wood), the Tory Party (Amber Rudd), and the SNP (Angus Robertson, who is the SNP leader in the House of Commons) was an inconclusive encounter memorable for three main reasons. Firstly, Theresa May did not show up despite being the Tory Party leader (leaving the Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, to go instead); secondly, the audience was very Left Wing and vocal; and thirdly, as with the first debate but this time even more so, Paul Nuttall was continuously ambushed by the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Liberal Democrats, and the Greens – all of whom displayed aggressive political correctness in an attempt to shut down and demonize dissenting views.

Naturally, immigration was an opportunity for the Lefties to parade their moral superiority. Angus Robertson sneered that the immigration debate 'shamed and demeans us all' and that there was a 'demonizing' of immigrants. Tim Farron spouted a Ponzi argument that there was a need to build more houses rather than to blame immigrants. Caroline Lucas said 'our country is enriched' by free movement and immigration. Paul Nuttall's point that the issue was about government policy was drowned out.

Regarding a question about security, once again Paul Nuttall's points about the need to face up to 'Islamist terrorism', including the need to revoke the passports of jihadists, was swamped by politically correct ideology. Caroline Lucas attacked Paul Nuttall claiming that the Manchester attack was not representative of Islam (Paul Nuttall never claimed it was), and Jeremy Corbyn said that he 'utterly deplore[d]' what Paul Nuttall had said and that we live in 'a multifaith, multicultural society'.

A question on climate change produced a similar response. Paul Nuttall's pointed out how India and China were building coal-fired power stations and how we needed to follow President Trump's lead and put Britain first. This was greeted with a loud wail. Leanne Wood said President Trump had shown 'terrible leadership', while Angus Robertson said he was 'appalled' and condemned President Trump as 'a climate change denier'.

Where Paul Nuttall did score well was on how to fund public services, when he set out how UKIP would cancel the HS2 railway project, cut foreign aid and reduce the Barnett formula. Tim Farron's big idea was 'don't leave the Single Market', while Amber Rudd said that we needed a 'strong economy', as if the present credit binge, low wages, high government spending deficit, and vast balance of trade deficit with the EU were all evidence of a sound economy.

The final question was about leadership, which was an opportunity for jibes about Theresa May's absence: 'the first rule of leadership is to show up'; 'good leaders don't run away from debate'; 'the U-turn Queen' (for example). Paul Nuttall said that we needed to get the Brexit we voted for and that there should be no divorce bill. This provoked Leanne Wood, who demanded if Paul Nuttall would 'pay dues' owed in the event of a 'real divorce', before condemning that we all know of 'rogues like you'. This is a truly astonishing rationale (even if funny). It shows which side Leanne Wood is on, and yet she assumes that the flow of money to Wales from England will continue regardless. One might point out that we also know of women like Leanne Wood, who assume that their shopping trips and their entitlement to a meal ticket for life should continue undisturbed by divorce or their ex-husband's financial circumstances.

During the debate, Jeremy Corbyn told Leanne Wood that the elections were to a UK parliament and that what happened in Wales was a different matter. This is a telling point (which Jeremy Corbyn missed), in that the Scots and Welsh nationalists have their own local parliaments and are then trying to impose their views on the English, who have no representation. There is a coalition of entities who are simply helping themselves to English taxpayers' monies unhindered by any semblance of English democracy. The Westminster parliament is a UK parliament and not an English one, and it is not defending English interests. UKIP is the only party that is now committed to addressing this by advocating an English parliament.

A key lesson of the debate is that UKIP is losing the moral argument. The Greens, the SNP, the Liberal Democrats, and Plaid Cymru are combining to shut down the points made by Paul Nuttall. Then there is Labour. Then there is the BBC audience. This puts UKIP at a disadvantage. But an underlying problem is a failure of policy development by UKIP, who are still inclined to sit on the fence. UKIP cannot properly respond to the attacks on them because their policies are a fudge.

The fight between patriotism and political correctness is the fight between good and evil. It is as clear cut as that.