What is the purpose of university? For some it’s sitting a degree, attempting to get the highest mark possible that will boost their future career prospects. Others are desperate to leave home and enjoy the high life of meeting new people, drinking plenty of alcohol and having a rollicking three years. There are, however, people who have a more nuanced position, like myself. I’m at university to do well, but also go out of my comfort zone. Indeed, going to university in itself was a giant leap, a step away from what I am used to.
So how have I broken free of my comfort zone, that blanket of safety and normality I have been so used to over the previous 12 years of education? Well, I’ve had to meet plenty of new people and live with fellow flatmates. Thankfully, they are all wonderful, some of the friendliest people possible and I see the next three years with them as being ones of pure delight. They have such great personalities but also a great love for politics and the academic world; I love the enthusiasm and insight with which they regard the subject. Of course, there have also been the practical tasks like shopping, doing laundry and sorting out my clothing, which I suppose haven’t gone too awfully. Yet a key part of university has to be the societies. On a campus university like Warwick, where it is very easy to get stuck inside the ‘Bubble’, societies are bedrock for meeting people of a similar interest and engaging in the breadth of activities available. I have, as you may expect, joined many varied societies, particularly those that represent my interest in culture, journalism and politics. Strangely enough, these include the Warwick associations for the three main political parties: Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem. How is this possible? In the ‘real world’, someone can only be a member of one party at any one time. However, as these associations are just affiliated to the party, and don’t require you to be full members of the party, there is nothing wrong with being members of all three. At the societies fair before signing up, I made it that that - party political wise - I am fairly apolitical, couldn’t align myself to one group and would therefore be joining all three. It may seem unusual that I’ve chosen to join the main three. Nearly all people who don’t align themselves to any one party just, well, don’t join any of the parties. I chose to be the exception because I am a very political person. As you will know reading this blog, I have views on all kinds of policy matters that could be pinched from a variety of parties. Practically I just can’t stick to a party line if I disagree with it. And there are many things I disagree with each party on. Were I to join a party, I would go beyond being independently minded and just be independent! I also know that each society often has visiting speakers. That was the main crux for joining, especially if the speakers happen to be MPs or other elected representatives. I would love to hear about the task of being an MP, their broad ideology and, if I had enough courage, probe them on an aspect of policy. Along with meeting new people, it would be an excellent way to get out of my comfort zone and hear different ideas. Breaking out of echo chambers where the same views are heard is what university should be about. Surely a visiting Labour MP wouldn’t want to just speak to Labour supporters? Wouldn’t they want to encourage people of all parties and none to hear their perspective and try to win them over? I know I’m an eccentric for doing this, but explaining my multi-party allegiance is far less of a pain than the anguish of not being able to hear an exciting speaker because I wasn’t a member of their society. I have now attended an event run by each of the three parties. They were all very different, had their own style and framework and a variety of support. But one thing I noticed was the devotion every individual had to the party they were a member of. They genuinely believed their party was the best mechanism to transform the UK for the better. That was the main reason I know I’m not party political. I just don’t have that spark for any one movement. Of course I have a spark for values - mainly Enlightenment ideas - enhancing people’s lives but I’ve not yet been persuaded by any of the parties. My first visit was to the Lib Dem society, where a ‘LiberTea’ meet and greet event was held at the local tea shop. They were already in my good books, as a lover of puns, for coming up with the best name ever. All of them were extremely friendly, kind and humble. We sat round two tables, my pot of English breakfast tea to hand, where I learnt rather a lot. The divide between Blairites and Momentum in Labour is often covered within the media. The Lib Dem divide between social liberals (the Charles Kennedy wing) and economic liberals (the Nick Clegg wing) is given less attention. I found it fascinating to learn about the variations in policy and strategy. The Liberal Democrat conference had just taken place when we all met, so they were buoyed by a rather successful few days with their new leader. Discussion inevitably turned to Brexit where the advantages or disadvantages of a ‘Revoke Article 50’ policy were thought out. I’m personally surprised the Lib Dems didn’t support it earlier, given that is their logical position if they wish to ensure the UK definitely remains in the EU. There were some mixed opinions. If I’d been a bit more daring, I would have mentioned my personal support for the Withdrawal Agreement as the best solution out of a bad bunch. I assumed that policy was non-existent within the party, so was curious to hear that some people, other than independent Lib Dem MP Stephen Lloyd, did once support Theresa May’s deal. Debate then moved onto comparing membership cards, which I discovered have pictures of former Liberal Democrat leaders on. It was a really pleasant afternoon with fine tea and company. The Labour event I attended was the first of what they call their ‘Labour Chats’, where a certain policy area is discussed. This as a concept really pleased me, partially because the meetings go on for an hour. Far too often in our soundbite headline culture an issue doesn’t get a chance to breath and be discussed in depth. That was not the case on this occasion, where climate change was discussed with a particular focus on Labour’s policies and response. Everyone was sat in a circle, introduced themselves with their preferred gender pronouns before the discussion commenced. A broad question would be raised and people would have a chance to response. Like the Lib Dem event, the people speaking clearly had a great interest in their party and its policies. They had done their research and knew what Labour stood for. There were clear discussions of a Green New Deal - something I should get round to reading - which is based off Roosevelt’s New Deal to restart the American economy after the Great Depression. Arguments were made about wealth taxes (which personally I support) of 2 to 5% which could generate, according to their arguments, billions for tackling climate change. There were more radical propositions like campaigning against economic growth altogether and a rejection of Western industrialisation over the last two centuries. While I didn’t make a contribution, it was fascinating to listen and think about this policy in a different way. I would have made a few points, again, had I had more courage. Firstly, I associate the industrial revolution with the age of Enlightenment, so to reject the revolution in full seems anti-modernist and somewhat against human progress. I was pleased to hear green technologies were in development and that Labour plan to give them to developing economies, as I believe they should be able to prosper, growth and eradicate absolute poverty like the Global North. The question is to what extent these southern nations should become dependent on the West for green technology instead of making it themselves. There were again more issues about individual choices against state regulation: should the state enforce a meat/flying tax or should individuals be encouraged, but ultimately have free choice, over what they eat and where they go. This just shows the benefits of joining the different societies. It got my mind thinking and made me challenge issues in a different way. I wouldn’t have given as much attention to climate change or the various debates within the movement without attending that session. It would have been interesting to hear more about the Extinction Rebellion protests and the extent to which they supported their strategy. I was pleased the session ended with complete opposition to eco-fascism, something elements of the deep green movement have a danger of falling into when they complain about environmental refugees, worry about global population and oppose foreign aid. Whatever the disagreements in the room, it was pleasing to end on a moment of consensus. Only a couple of hours later I was at a Conservative event. It was as if the parties had arranged among themselves when to time their gatherings. They had heavily advertised the free pizza that would be available as well as episodes of ‘The Thick of It’ that were up for grabs. However, there was also a canvassing strategy session. Understandably, they didn’t want their plans to be leaked to the other parties, so, after one episode, I voluntarily sat outside reading my magazine while they discussed tactics. They were all perfectly friendly and fine with me being a member, which meant there was no problem whatsoever. I have no intention of going canvassing with any party, so I had no reason to be present during those discussions. Members of the group told me they had also joined the other party associations, but were ‘True Blue Tories.’ Afterwards I somehow found myself reading Ed Balls’ Wikipedia entry, who was Labour’s Shadow Chancellor between 2011 and 2015. I read that, at Oxford, he joined the Liberal Club and Conservative Association, despite knowing his loyalties were with Labour. Following my return, many laughs were had, much pizza was consumed and that rather political evening concluded nicely. Signing up to the societies and attending was definitely a step outside my comfort zone. At every session I attended, I’m sure there were multiple things I disagree with each member on. But I would hope to disagree well, shake hands at the end of the discussion and part on good terms. Politics should be intense and involve wide ranging, sometimes uncomfortable discussion. But it needn’t be vile or personal. I look forward to attending future sessions for all three parties as I continue to muse how to vote at a future election. There may be one rather sooner than we think…
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Author:Noah enjoys writing a blog and drinking tea Archives
September 2022
Categories
All
|