The Oxford Union voted that it has confidence in this government. The annual motion “This House Has No Confidence in His Majesty’s Government” saw 116 voting against and 71 voting for last night. Prior to the debate, President Ebrahim Osman Mowafy passed sweeping rules changes with an emotional speech, followed by a long standing ovation and some objections.
Before the main event, the chamber voted against the emergency motion “This House Would Vote for Donald Trump”. The debate, more relaxed and jovial, featured the comment, “does democracy matter? Maybe” and a heated argument between a married couple with opposing stances.
After guest speakers for the night entered the chamber, the room fell silent to hear from Osman-Mowafy, who rather tellingly began saying “business might get messy”. Private and public business must be held right before the main event, and members will vote on motions proposed by the Committee. The Press Officer told Cherwell to “strap in for the drama”.
Osman-Mowafy then began an emotional speech about his experience being disqualified from the presidency by election tribunal, and later reinstated after 17 Officers threatened resignation. He told the chamber that “you shouldn’t have to dress a certain way, be a certain way, to be a member of this Society”, voice wavering, and pausing for a moment to wipe his eyes. After his speech, the chamber erupted in a standing ovation that lasted for two minutes.
The proposed changes were voted on without hearing unfriendly objections, causing member Lyle Hopkins to walk out with a shout “you don’t know what you’re voting for!” Despite a notice posted by the Returning Officer attempting to strike down the changes, the chamber voted in favour. The guest speakers sat uncomfortably for the half-hour drama.
The main debate (finally) got under way. Opening for the proposition was Chief Operating Officer Karma Gad from Mansfield College. She “roasted” an opposition speaker, former Conservative MP Rt. Hon. Tobias Ellwood VR, for being on the wrong side of the debate floor. Dramatics ensue as Ellwood stands for a point of information, correcting Gad that he was arguing against his party because the Conservatives were in power when he accepted the offer to speak, and the Union wouldn’t let him switch sides – ironic, given Union hacks’ tendency to do just that.
Opening for the opposition was Standing Committee member Anya Trofimova from St. Johns College. Trofimova went straight for the jugular, “roasting” proposition speaker Conservative MP Rt. Hon. Richard Holden by hoping his loyalty to his side of the debate “extends further than his loyalty to the North East” – referencing the MP’s controversial “parachute” election when he moved 250 miles south to Basildon and Billericay right before the 2024 General Election. Holden, perhaps used to the theatrics of parliament, sighed and found something fascinating about the ceiling.
The debate continued with a proposition speech from Chair of Consultative Committee Noah Robson from Christ Church College. A clear and compelling speaker, he compared Chancellor Rachel Reeves’s inaugural speech, which referenced a budgetary “black hole” left by the preceding government, as similar to former Chancellor George Osborne’s speech in 2010 following the defeat of Labour. He continued by arguing that whichever government is in power, we get the same net negative result.
Next up in opposition was Labour MP Kevin Bonavia, who, before speaking, stood in awkward silence as some fifty debate goers shuffled out of the chamber. Besides a stumbling joke about Liz Truss’ short premiership, the speech was again a boilerplate Labour manifesto retelling – despite a point of information about whether Labour’s victory was simply a result of tactical voting, adeptly handled and relatively unanswered.
Proposition speaker Conservative MP Dame Harriett Baldwin spoke next, accusing Labour’s cuts to the winter fuel allowance for “cruelly chilling” our elderly. On a point of information about the Rwanda bill, Baldwin said that “I don’t think anyone in this chamber has been to Rwanda” but that “I have visited the accommodation [that migrants would’ve used] and it is very agreeable”. The chamber erupted into laughter. She finished with reference to Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s acceptance of gifts, saying that “this is the type of corruption you would see from a banana republic.”
Opposition speaker Labour MP Calvin Bailey MBE was next, opening by calling himself “from one of those banana republics” and made reference to the standards on his chest as proof of his credentials. Bailey seemed to read his prepared speech word-for-word, starting his final remarks with “my conclusion” as if it were a heading on his paper.
Next up, Conservative MP Richard Holden began his speech clutching notes on House of Commons paper, as if it were prepared on the debate floor itself – and it sounded like that, too. The Government “dropped the ball on House of Lord reform” and “took a knee to the Chinese Communist Party”, he said, followed by accusing Starmer of getting “backstage tickets for Tay-Tay [sic] in exchange for blue lights”.
The final speaker, Ellwood, commented on the number of people still leaving the chamber, saying that he “was expecting the janitor to come in soon”. He sought to butter up the crowd by arguing that “it is clear why there are so many prime ministers from Oxford”, pleasing the hacks who no doubt have such aspirations. He followed by taking the audience on a trip around the world, referencing Greece, Ukraine, and a “massive bum fight” between Russia and China. Despite the argument, or lack thereof, he spoke confidently and well to the audience as if a seasoned Union veteran.
Editors’ note: Commentary herein represents the opinion of the reporter, not of Cherwell.
