Editorial Issue 11: Tory Soc 'sinks' to new lows

Adapted image courtesy of Lisa-S, Shutterstock & UCL’s Conservative Society

On 22nd January, members of the UCL and KCL Conservative societies were invited to an evening of port-drinking, coupled with debates on whether the UK should “invade Yemen” and “sink the boats”. The advertisement was posted to Instagram, taken down and rephrased to “this House would send the boats back”, and then deleted altogether.

Image courtesy of UCL’s Conservative Society

While London Universities’ Conservatives insisted that nobody was “seriously suggesting sinking the boats”, UCL Labour Society condemned the event as going “beyond the realm of constructive debate” in a statement posted to their Instagram. On 26th January, the UCL Students’ Union shared that they had suspended UCL’s Conservative Society ahead of a “full investigation in line with [their] disciplinary procedures”.

Beyond UCL, the event caught the attention of the societies’ beloved Conservative Party, who were unsympathetic: a spokesperson for the Conservative Campaign Headquarters said the post “is obviously not acceptable, and we will be asking the student groups to remove this and cancel the event”. Media outlets including The Telegraph and The Sun also picked up the story.

The societies’ Port and Policy event is held biweekly, encouraging members to discuss and debate a variety of socioeconomic policies. Previous motions have included allowing fracking, abolishing minimum wage, and defunding the BBC.

Attendance is free and often in collaboration with KCL or LSE Tories, who generously provide the port. Interested parties are asked to come prepared with policy points, because after pre-prepared five-minute speeches for both sides are read, the floor is opened up for debate. Every Instagram post announcing Port and Policy clarifies: “the event will operate strictly off the record, under Chatham House rules.”

Leaked audio obtained by Pi Online reveals how the “off the record” environment inhibits any possibility for constructive debate. Any genuine intellectual discussion or structured argumentation is almost unintelligible underneath the riotous shouts, laughter, and banging.

A source close to the issue described these debates as “out-of-body experiences”, permeated by a “frat boy atmosphere.” The society’s president is the sole moderator - unless he wants to join in, in which case the secretary takes over; so there are no ‘adults’ present. Even when “proper points” are made, the real fun is yelling: “it’s more an excuse to let the inner animal loose.”

Here, port comes before policy: sat in black tie dress, furnished with free booze, and left completely unsupervised, tragedy is funny, devastating human loss reduced to a punchline. In these “port-fuelled” shouting matches, the goal is to provoke the biggest reaction, not address ongoing policy issues.

This is not the first time the Conservative Society has come under fire for Port and Policy: last year, Pi reported on a highly controversial motion to reinstate the British Empire – admittedly, raised by KCL Tories. Clearly, this is a pattern of behaviour, and reflects a bigger problem within committee leadership. Perhaps the biggest issue is the belief that they won’t get caught: the consistent emphasis on “Chatham House rules” implies members recognise how problematic their attitudes are, but think themselves immune from any consequences.

It is not inherently problematic for a political society to debate controversial issues – these issues should be discussed, and debates (when respectfully conducted) are an essential democratic forum that enhances policymaking. However, at its core, the Conservative Society’s trademark “Port and Policy” debates preclude the delicacy and consideration necessary to approach any point of contention – much less topics as nuanced as invading Yemen and religious tolerance.

Instead, these debates twist pertinence into absurd and fanatical extremes which serve no purpose but to stir controversy for the sake of it. A motion to ‘sink the boats’ does not require political awareness, knowledge, or policymaking skills – it is void of substance, reasoning and basic moral awareness.

No matter the ideology, the art of debate relies on an ability to think critically, counter assumptions, apply evidence, offer normative analysis and define an outcome. The recordings show that UCL’s Tories are incapable of reaching this level of competence within its debates, and hence resorts to sensationalised discourse as an alternative.

UCL’s Conservative Society affiliate themselves with their namesake’s established reputation, yet fail to provide any engagement that puts forward ideas and values that could serve a real purpose in the political arena. Instead, this label allows them to articulate extremist, unsupported ideas with rhetorical capacities, but not an ounce of intellectual knowledge.

Whilst this might be the topic of lively debate over a glass of port, for many individuals it is an awful reality. One wonders whether this proposed debate would have included the images of the two-year-old boy who drowned after two boats carrying refugees capsized in 2015, or covered the stories of each of the 27 people who died in 2021 after their boat capsized in the channel.

Image courtesy of UCLove, Facebook

There is no world in which ongoing human rights violations are subject for intellectual debate, especially one that sensationalises and dehumanises the issue rather than construct tangible policy solutions. For them to be guilty of the same offence two years in a row is proof that they do not take policymaking seriously and must be held accountable for the long-term.

On UCLove, UCL’s anonymous confessions Facebook page, a submission reads; “Why are we being villainized? Admins are censoring UCL Tory soc cause of bias…We will continue to submit posts about this until you give us our side of the story.” Pi Online has reached out several times to different contact points at UCL’s Conservative society to no response. Considering the society’s silence and removal of the original post, it isn’t so far-fetched to recommend that UCL’s Tories are in need of reflection and a deep Spring-clean.

Port, anyone?