Hannah Walton-Hughes
On Friday 17th November, the Nottingham University Conservative Association met at the Beeston Conservative Club for their monthly Port and Policy debating event.
The three motions being discussed were as follows: This House would support the government’s smoking ban, This House believes the UK should stop sending aid to Ukraine, and This House believes Suella Braverman stood up for Britain and should not have been sacked.
Points in favour […] included that less people smoking would reduce the burden on the NHS
Several speakers made points both for and against the smoking motion.
Points in favour of the government’s decision included that less people smoking would reduce the burden on the NHS, due to the fact that smoking is proven to increase people’s risk of diseases such as lung cancer.
The motion was ultimately voted down, however.
The risk of people turning to the black market
Those against the government’s plans argued that it was restricting personal freedom, and would put more pressure on an already strained police force to enforce the law.
Some members also pointed out the risk of people turning to the black market, and buying cigarettes containing substances more dangerous than lead.
The second motion on Ukraine had a majority consensus, both in the debate and the vote – the U.K. should continue to send aid to Ukraine.
Members believed that Vladimir Putin’s victory could prompt other countries to follow the same path
Members pointed out that if Russia succeeds in Ukraine, he won’t stop there, and this would therefore pose a greater threat to the West most widely.
Furthermore, members believed that Vladimir Putin’s victory could prompt other countries to follow the same path, for example China in relation to Taiwan.
Another point made was that by supporting Ukraine, the U.K. will firm up an ally in any potential future wars involving us.
Whilst a few argued for the motion, making the point that whilst Ukraine has a right to defend itself, the U.K. has no direct ties with the country, the motion was rejected overall.
There were many who stood up for her, and said that she represented the silent majority
The third and final motion was related to Suella Braverman, in light of her sacking the previous week.
The outcome was that the house believed she should have been sacked, but there were many who stood up for her, and said that she represented the silent majority of the country, by advocating for policies that most people agree with.
Some members simply did not believe that the Conservative Party had the willpower to solve the immigration problem, and they believed that Rishi Sunak had been the one to block Braverman’s suggestions and ideas.
One member also questioned why, if she was supposedly so unpopular with the public, polling figures went down and not up when Sunak sacked her.
Another allegation made […] was that she is far right
Many members did believe that Sunak was correct to sack her. Some commented that she was useless at her job, and condemned her comments surrounding homelessness, and her accusations of bias within the police force, as well as her previous treatment of sensitive governmental information.
Another allegation made against Braverman was that she is far right, and that lurching a political party to the extremes is not helpful.
Braverman was also accused of exploiting existing divides within the Conservative Party, and breaching collective responsibility.
Despite fierce debate and conflicting views, all three motions were ultimately rejected.
Hannah Walton-Hughes
Featured image courtesy of Sincerely Media via Unsplash. Image license found here. No changes were made to this image.
For more content including Uni News, Reviews, Entertainment, Lifestyle, Features and so much more, follow us on Twitter and Instagram, and like our Facebook page for more articles and information on how to get involved.
To keep up to date with all the latest Impact News, you can also follow us on the Impact News’ Facebook, Instagram and Twitter page.
