Port & Policy Speeches

Below is a series of speeches given by Emperor Adam I at Port and Policy, the flagship debating event of the University of Birmingham Conservative Society. They are mostly opening or closing speeches. Adam regularly represented the University of Birmingham Liberal Democrats at the event for over four years, attaining something of a reputation. He would often act as a nominal "Chief Whip" for his society, and was effectively the custodian of the traditional Liberal benches (to the Speaker's right, nearest to the bar).

On National Service

28th February 2018, Bournbrook & Selly Oak Social Club

Thank you Mr. Speaker,

We live in what most people can agree is a free country, with democracy, a market economy, and equal rights for all people. I am going to begin by asserting that the reintroduction of National Service in any form would seriously throw into question this notion that Great Britain is a truly free country.

Conscription was first introduced in response to grave national emergencies, these being the two World Wars. It is quite clear that we are not presently in a state of national emergency, so a military National Service similar to that which operated in the past is unnecessary. Indeed, a military national service during peacetime would be economically counter-productive as it would remove young people from the labour pool. Based on this, I am going to assume that most of the points that will be raised in this debate will be about some sort of civilian national service, designed with the intention of aiding the economy. Whilst this may seem to be a more logical version of national service, I wish to explain why this, too, is not an appropriate measure in modern Britain.

Compulsory national service would be a grave violation of our individual rights as adult citizens of this country. As a liberal, I shudder at the thought that the state might presume to tell me, a person who has committed no crime against my fellow citizens, where to go and what to do. Furthermore, whilst a programme like national service may be in the interests of some young people, particularly those who are struggling to find work elsewhere, I cannot begin for a moment to imagine that this would apply to the majority of young people. For most of us, national service would be an unwelcome distraction from our own aspirations. I am sure that some will make the argument that we have a duty to the state, who might find my attitude selfish, but I shall point out that we already have a name for our duty to the state: it's called taxes.

Certainly, one possible implementation of national service is one which offers a range of options, each catered towards a particular field. This creates the illusion of a more liberal system, but even then it would only hinder many young people, for one simple reason. Do you really believe that national service will offer as wide a range of options as are available through higher education and apprenticeships? And would the experience gained through national service be on a similar level of quality to the alternatives? If the answer to either of those questions is no, then national service will only hold young people back.

Mr. Speaker, it amuses me somewhat that there are people who believe in the virtues of the free market who yet argue for national service. Market freedoms aren't just about the regulations that apply to corporations. Much more so, we, as members of the labour force, are also participants in the free market and I believe that we can only achieve our full potential as individuals without the state telling us what is best for us. I think that the notion of national service is insulting towards young people and I therefore encourage the House to vote against the motion.

On Civil Liberties

25th October 2018, Bournbrook & Selly Oak Social Club

Thank you Madam Speaker,

I imagine that this debate will be more about abstract principles than concrete policies, so I'm sure the House will permit me to be rhetorical.

It is often said that the first priority of the state is the safety of its citizens, and this is true. At the same time, as a society, we expect a high degree of freedom. These two principles are not incompatible. A society can have both, provided it is willing to incur the expense of having to allocate more resources to public safety and law enforcement.

It may be tempting to sacrifice certain civil liberties if it means we can address terrorism and organised crime more cheaply and efficiently. But every time we do this, we erode the individual freedoms which are the bedrock of our civilisation. Rights such as free speech don't make us weaker, they make us stronger. The government should trust its citizens. We should be treated like adults, not like children. We're supposed to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Taking away the freedoms of everyone because of a tiny minority is like putting the whole class in detention because one kid is misbehaving.

And so I will argue what I have argued multiple times in the past at Port and Policy, which is that the police don't need more powers, they need more resources. The police have been seriously under-funded by this government. We need more police officers on patrol, better trained police, better police technology, and more community support officers. Surrendering our rights is the easy way out but it is not the right thing to do.

I urge the House to support the motion.

On High Speed 2

24th October 2019, Bournbrook & Selly Oak Social Club

Thank you, Mr. Speaker,

I am sure, when we've been crammed into an overcrowded carriage running an hour or more late, having paid upwards of a hundred pounds for the privilege, we've all at some point had the same thought. The trains in this country are a joke.

These days, we like to talk about “Global Britain”. But compared to the AGVs of France and the bullet trains of Japan, our railways are a national embarrassment.

It's popular to advocate nationalisation or some other such restructuring of the railway operators as a sort of magic bullet that will fix everything. But the problem is much deeper and more fundamental than that. It is twofold: the first thing the government should do is to increase its subsidies, but that's a topic for another time. The second problem lies with the locomotives and the carriages, with the track, the viaducts and tunnels and junctions, with the station platforms and the signals. And it's a simple question of supply and demand: there are too many passengers and not enough trains.

The fact of the matter is that most of Britain is reliant on Victorian-era railway infrastructure which seriously contrains capacity. You can't make the trains any faster because the lines aren't designed for it, you can't fit any more trains on the line because it would be unsafe, you can't make the trains longer without rebuilding every platform, and you can't make the carriages any bigger without rebuilding everything.

We've tried tinkering at the edges for decades, at immense cost to the taxpayer, but there has been little substantial improvement. High-speed rail is the only viable option when it comes to increasing capacity. By taking long-distance intercity trains off the old main lines, they no longer have to slow down for commuter trains, and as such you can run many more of them per day.

I will not pretend that this will not cost a significant sum. It will. The argument I will not accept, however, is that this money would be better spent elsewhere, for example on local services in the North. Why not both? There is undoubtedly a need to improve local services too. Because the budget deficit in day-to-day terms has been greatly reduced, we can afford big infrastructure projects with capital investment; if we are indeed to leave the EU, this is exactly the sort of thing we will need to stimulate the economy. For sure this will increase the national debt over the next decade, but the dividends over the next century would be huge.

Mr. Speaker, this motion is about making our country fit for the 21st century. I urge the House to support the motion.

On Immigration

6th February 2020, Bournbrook & Selly Oak Social Club

Thank you Mr. Speaker, and I think I'm one of the only people tonight to call you that; honestly, the young people nowadays have no respect.

If anything, given the likely economic conditions post leaving the single market, ironically immigration should be increased. There is a lot of talk now about post-Brexit Britain being some sort of new global superpower, but many forget that one of the most important factors in a nation's economic and indeed military power is population. The birth rate remains low for various reasons that are beyond the scope of this debate, and so we need immigration. As others have pointed out, statistics have shown that immigrants tend to contribute more in taxes - so the blame needs to be on this Tory government, for not investing that tax money on infrastructure. Instead they have cynically laid the blame for the strain on our public services on hard-working immigrants who we need now more than ever.

On liberty in a pandemic

24th June 2021, Bournbrook & Selly Oak Social Club

Thank you, Mr. Speaker,

Obviously over the past fifteen months, we have suffered great hits to individual liberty. The experience has been terrible - traumatic even - so it is natural to wonder whether this could have been handled with fewer sacrifices being made.

The answer to that is undoubtedly yes. This government has mishandled the pandemic since day one, and we have spent months longer in lockdown as a consequence. But a person arguing against this motion must formulate a pandemic response which does not significantly affect personal liberty in any way.

Countries like New Zealand are often cited as an example - they closed their borders early, and as a result have enjoyed domestic freedom throughout the pandemic. Undoubtedly much preferable to our situation. But the heavy restrictions on international travel are nonetheless a major restriction on personal liberty. Not just for travellers, but for those working in the tourism industry who have been unable to conduct their business for a year due to a lack of customers.

And then there is the libertarian approach. Let the virus rip until we reach herd immunity. This was famously the plan of our government until it became clear that lockdown was unavoidable. No lockdown, no restrictions. Is that freedom? Depending on your definition, maybe. But we now know that this would crushed the NHS and resulted in a death toll several times larger than the current, already devastating, figure.

For me, this is why I'm a liberal, not a libertarian. Freedom is meaningless if there is no functioning society to enjoy it in, and a strong health system is central to that.

And then there is the matter of death. A permanent, irreversible destruction of personal liberty. And therein is my argument. Pandemics cause death, it is as simple as that. We may have our notions of freedom, but nature doesn't care. We can only await with anticipation the return of the liberties we deserve.

On no confidence in Her Majesty's Government

9th December 2021, Bournbrook & Selly Oak Social Club

Mr. Speaker,

We need to ask ourselves what the point of this government is.

It was elected to implement Brexit. On the surface this was done, but the issue of Northern Ireland remains as intractable as it was three years ago. Meanwhile the supposed benefits of Brexit are nowhere to be seen. There has been no post-Brexit trading bonanza, and the record-breaking ambulance waiting times show the notorious £350 million a week for the NHS to be the scam that it always was.

Instead, this government's record is defined by Covid, and on that it fails abysmally. It can talk up the vaccine rollout all it wants, but that is just the bare minimum. Meanwhile, we have seen care homes, at the beginning of the pandemic, left unprotected, resulting in thousands of unnecessary deaths. We saw kids' futures thrown into chaos by a dodgy grading algorithm. And we have seen over £30 billion wasted on a test and trace system which didn't work.

And this really brings me to the core of my argument. I don't want to preach to the choir, so I will address the Conservative benches directly. Conservatism is supposed to be about fiscal prudence, but what is fiscally prudent about wasting £30 billion? Conservatism is supposed to be about family values, but we don't even know how many children the Prime Minister has. Conservatism is supposed to be about law and order, and as much as the government can brag about merely bringing back the ten thousand police officers they cut ten years ago, or launch theatrical and hypocritical anti-drugs campaigns, this government has broken the law time and time again. Whether that's illegally proroguing Parliament, whether that's Matt Hancock's unlawful Covid contracts, or whether it's the shameful lockdown-breaking parties in 10 Downing Street. Is this the party of law and order? Is a party of law and order crippling judicial review and the Human Rights Act?

If you are really a conservative, in what way does this government represent your values? They have proven time and time again that they represent no principles apart from their own self-interest. Anybody can see that this government fundamentally exists to allow Boris Johnson to fulfil his wannabe Churchill fantasy whilst his mates get rich at the public expense.

I understand the Tory instict to band together in times of crisis. But Boris Johnson's government is no more in your interest than it is in mine. Think about what this corrupt government really represents, and please vote for this motion.

On the cost of living crisis

25th March 2022, Bournbrook & Selly Oak Social Club

Mr. Speaker,

It is my belief that the government is not necessarily responsible for inflation caused by the invasion of Ukraine, Covid aftershocks et cetera. However, it has exacerbated the situation to the point that I would say it is ultimately responsible.

The government had a chance to address this crisis in its Spring Statement on Wednesday by taking radical action. Instead it chose to tinker around the edges and to cynically withhold the more potent tools at its disposal until an election year instead of using them when people need it - now. Analysis has shown that the poorest in society will be hit the hardest, as is always the case when living standards drop, and raising the National Insurance threshold means very little when benefits are not rising in line with inflation. Cutting petrol duties for those with Land Rovers means nothing to those who are forced to commute on absurdly priced trains which only get more expensive every year.

This cost of living crisis is just the logical conclusion of years of public policy which takes from the young and the poor and gives to the old and the rich. It is less trickle-down economics, more a kind of sucking-up economics, where any notion of a disposable income for the working classes is quickly absorbed by the landlords, by the energy companies and, yes, by the government. This country is at war with its working youth, damaging at every turn the fair deal which is supposed to exist between the rulers and the governed, and that, Mr. Speaker, is the reason we are in this crisis.