Port, Policy and Prejudice: An Evening with the Young Tories
Jacob Winter, Senior Staff Writer
BA Politics and International Relations
For those unaware, port is a type of fortified wine originating from the city of Porto, in Portugal. Fortified wine is a wine in which another alcohol, usually brandy, is added. It’s generally sweet, and often served with dessert.
Port and Policy, on the other hand, is where a bunch of student conservatives get together, and in the words of Oxford University’s Cherwell newspaper, “LARP as ultra-conservatives”, fueled by the sweet fortified beverage and bark at each other. Oxford University Conservative Association’s Port and Policy meetings have inspired similar styled events in other universities, including in SOAS’ neighbouring university UCL. In his quest to send me undercover in increasingly awkward, frustrating situations the Editor-in-Chief of the Spirit decided I ought to go and become a Tory for an evening.
SOAS, as many of you will know, doesn’t have a Conservative Association. That is not to say we don’t have a right-wing student body, for all of SOAS’ reputation as a super radical university the actual activities of its radical left only encompass a reasonably small percentage of the overall students and our famous alumni include more Enoch Powells than Walter Rodneys. Having on occasion made the mistake of sitting in the JCR next to several young men who have made me feel as if I’d accidentally enrolled on an Andrew Tate Hustlers University course, I was not particularly expecting the University of London’s Tory Society meeting (with representatives from KCL, UCL, Imperial, Queen Mary and LSE) to be anything other than an exercise in boring conservatism. I was expecting far more passionate defences of parish councils and fox hunting than anything.
So, on the third of October, I donned my finest black polo shirt and ink-stained jeans (I thought that was me looking smart) and I headed down to the Medical Science building at UCL. The debate topics for this Port and Policy were “This House would Abolish Speed Limits” and “This House would Cede Northern Ireland.” Entering, I realised I wasn’t at all prepared. Everyone was wearing suits ,or dressed like Jeremy Clarkson, and talking in accents that made me feel closer to an extra in The Crown than an investigative journalist. I sat down, and the room went from 6 attendees to 60 in less than 10 minutes. Realising the chatting people were staring at me, I decided to make some conversation. The first two people I spoke to, a student at LSE and a student at KCL, were pleasant enough, asking their opinions on the upcoming Tory leadership election, I learnt that these two newcomers (one from Surrey, the other from West London,) were Tory moderates, and supporters of Tugendhat and Cleverly respectively. This was beginning to confirm my suspicions that I was going to have a deeply boring evening surrounded by people who’s politics were only 10 degrees to the right of Keir Starmer.
Ah, but fear not, things soon went rightward. I sat down at the front (I was invited by one of the Tory freshers to sit with them), and immediately the tone of the meeting was set. Already tanked up on port, the beginning of the debate “This House would Abolish Speed Limits” was opened with the proposing side claiming that anyone who adheres to speed limits was a freedom-hating communist. These arguments were clearly made in jest, and as a freedom hating communist myself I am ambivalent to the issues of speed limits. The opposing side was reasonably boring, banging on about health and safety or something. The jokes were crude, (lots of tongue-in-cheek defences of drink-driving) and certainly amused the boozed-up crowd of 18 year olds. But then, when it came to “second arguments”, the opposition side stood up and with a straight face argued that anyone who does not follow speed limits who comes from a different country ought to be deported. They argued that “Anglo-Saxon culture” involved laws around speed limits, and as Anglo-Saxon culture was the most superior culture of all, those who can’t follow those laws should be deported. Immediately the proposing side countered, claiming that speeding tickets are funding luxury hotels for illegal immigrants. The chair of the event immediately looked slightly alarmed .
It should be worth noting at this juncture that student conservative societies are terrified of journalists infiltrating their events. The KCL Conservative Association, one of the largest in the country, was exposed by our friends at ROAR News for supporting motions such as invading Yemen, sinking boats carrying refugees, reinstating the British Empire, as well as hosting events involving the use of armbands showing the logo of Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists. When I asked a KCL Tory about this, near the beginning of the event, they told me the rather milquetoast question of abolishing speed limits (less so on ceding Northern Ireland, but we’ll get to that) was directly chosen to avoid such controversy. ‘Journalist’ was used as an insult during the debate, and we were all informed that any recording or photos of any variety would result in our expulsion from the event. Similarly there were clear attempts to shut up people saying incriminating things, not out of disagreement but out of worry it may get reported on.
The next debate managed to exceed the first in just about every respect. One speaker argued against the motion “Britain should cede Northern Ireland”. His speech was interrupted by two sectarian songs. Firstly “the billy boys”, banned from football stadia, which includes the lyrics, “We’re up to our knees in Fenian blood” (The Fenian brotherhood was the political ancestor of the Irish Republican Army). This speaker was also interrupted by members of the audience singing “bring back the Black and Tans”. The Black and Tans were the constables of the Royal Ulster Constabulary during the Irish War of Independence. They were primarily British veterans of the First World War, and were famously violent in their repression of Irish Republicans. At some point even the King and Oswald Mosley (while he was still a Conservative MP, before his turn to fascism) condemned their actions. Attendees at the event also praised the UVF and the UDA, two banned paramilitary organisations who between them claimed at least 1000 lives during the Northern Irish War of Independence, often known as “The Troubles”.
Ireland was similarly condemned by others as a progressive hellhole which legalised gay marriage (a bad thing, apparently?) and recognised a State of Palestine. It was also declared by another attendee, to cheers, that the Irish deserved their oppression at the hands of the British Empire. Another figure argued that Northern Ireland should be unified with the rest of Ireland, under the British crown, arguing for a restoration of imperial British rule (admittedly for the reasons of paying less tax on Guinness). So, what was the Conservative argument against ceding Northern Ireland? A principled Conservative stance regarding protecting the Union in Great Britain, while ceding a territory that no longer wanted to be a part of it? No, instead it was arguing that to save the loyal Unionists in Northern Ireland from the evil Labour government, we must instead grant the aforementioned paramilitaries, the UVF and the UDA, complete control over the 6 counties, to protect themselves and the protestant Unionist community.
Anti-Irish racism may seem remarkably silly, but we shouldn’t forget exactly what it is these young Tories are defending. Ireland was one of Britain’s first colonies, and even if we are to exclude the deaths from the Potato famine, which many argue was a genocide instigated by the British, the crimes the British committed in Ireland are astounding. Whether it be the 1920 Croke Park Massacre, The Bachelors Walk Massacre, the Land Wars, or Bloody Sunday in the North, where British Paratroopers killed 14 peaceful demonstrators, the apologia and celebration of British rule in Ireland is astounding. And even if this was tongue-in-cheek, it shouldn’t be treated any differently than tongue-in-cheek remarks about the Bengal Famine, or the British concentration camps in Kenya and South Africa.
But more than just the outstanding racism on behalf of these extremist Tories, it was more sad than anything. In effect, it was a competition as to who can be the most right wing. Although SOAS may have many issues in its student body, we can at least all be somewhat pleased we don’t have a cohort of faux-aristocrat reactionaries getting boozed up and screaming about genocide.
University College London Conservative Society and King’s College London were both approached for a comment, they both declined to provide one.
