David Miliband, the MP for South Shields, visited campus earlier today to take part in a conversation and Q&A event hosted by the Politics Department. The event took place in the National Science Learning Centre behind the Harry Fairhurst Building, with the 291-seat auditorium filling out completely some half-an-hour before the scheduled start time.
The talk was split into two parts: first, an informal interview took place between Miliband and Dr Nick Ritchie from the Politics Department. Questions drew on Miliband’s experience as Foreign Secretary, focusing on international issues like the rise of China, Iran’s nuclear proliferation and the eurozone crisis.
Following this, the session was opened up to the floor, and questions were asked about national and regional concerns. Around 100 more people, who arrived too late to fit in the lecture theatre, watched the event via video link in an adjacent room. They were able to write down questions for Miliband, the man who just missed becoming the next leader of the Labour party, from outside, and incidentally opted for more pressing and personal questions. Answering, Miliband said that he thought he had done the right thing to resign from the shadow cabinet, and that he was still focused on making a change, though now at a grassroots level.
Speaking of the event afterwards, Labour Club Chair Rhiân Davies told Vision: “I think that it’s great that so many people are still interested in what David has to say even though he no longer participates in front-line politics.
“He’s always a great speaker who not only entertains his audiences, be they Labour or a mix of partisan and non-partisan backgrounds, but who will always leave them with some imaginative and candid ideas about the current state of international affairs and British politics. David also mentioned his fervent support of the Labour Students’ Living Wage campaign which UYLC have undertaken as their main on-campus campaign, which was really encouraging.”
Third-year Economics student Pete Spence commented: “David showed that he was the stronger brother today, but his tendency to avoid key economic questions, and instead attacking peripheral points, was telling.”