Why did the Oxford Union rescind my invitation to speak in a debate?

The ‘last bastion of free speech’ seemed ultra-keen to have me along – until something changed

The Oxford Union (Wikimedia Commons / US Department of State)

It isn’t every day you receive a letter from the Oxford Union – which describes itself as ‘the world’s foremost debating society and last bastion of free speech’ – inviting you to take part in a debate. But that’s what happened to me back in March.

I’d visited the university previously to take part in a political discussion at Balliol College, and I had also spoken in a debate at the Cambridge Union. But this was another level of prestige. A bit like being asked to deliver a speech at a high society wedding.

The letter bore the signature of none other than the president of the union herself, one Anita Okunde. Ms Okunde hoped her letter found me well and was writing to invite me to speak at the union on the motion: ‘This house believes Labour has failed the working class.’

There was a comment about this being among the ‘most pressing questions of our time’, accompanied by references to Tony Blair, the metropolitan elites, clause IV, Labour’s traditional base, that sort of thing.

‘As a trade unionist, writer, and vocal advocate for the working-class community, your critiques of Labour’s shift away from its traditional base have sparked widespread debate. Your insights into the party’s disconnect from blue-collar voters and the rise of cultural and economic grievances would provide a compelling argument in favour of the motion.’

All very flattering. It seemed the union was anxious to secure my attendance.

A number of dates throughout May and June were proposed. ‘Please do let me know which dates would be convenient for you,’ wrote the president, before rounding off with ‘I sincerely hope we will be able to welcome you to Oxford’.

So, after mulling it over for a few minutes, I decided to accept. While it is true that I am myself a longstanding Labour member – something I intended to state openly during the debate – it is also undeniable that I had argued publicly and vociferously over many years, not least in my book Despised, that my party had lost touch with its traditional heartlands – principally as a result of its embrace of hardcore economic and social liberalism - and that radical surgery was required if we were to reconnect with these places. Thus, it would have seemed a bit gutless to duck out of the debate.

So I confirmed my acceptance (advising that I was available on all the suggested dates) and, after receiving a prompt acknowledgement of the same, sat back and looked forward to again visiting the city of dreaming spires.

Several weeks passed without further contact. So I sent a polite email to the officer who had forwarded the president’s letter to me. Was the debate still going ahead? I asked. No reply. A bit odd, I thought. But doubtless they will drop me a line when the date was finalised.

A couple of weeks after that, on 14 May to be precise, I got a tip-off that the debate was scheduled for the following evening. That couldn’t be right. Had I missed an email or text notification, or something? I checked all my recent messages. Nothing. Had I misunderstood the original letter from the union’s president? Perhaps I had read too much into it, and she had merely made a tentative enquiry, sounding me out, but with no guarantee that I would make the final cut.

I read the letter again. It was as clear as day – a formal invitation, nicely personalised and on official notepaper, to speak in the debate. There was nothing to misunderstand.

With that, I called the officer who had forwarded the invitation and later acknowledged my acceptance. I introduced myself and said that I had been invited to speak in a debate which appeared to be taking place in less than 24 hours, yet I had not received any formal notification of the arrangements. What was going on?

Cue an awkward silence followed by a bit of spluttering. It was obvious immediately that the invitation no longer stood. I asked why I was now disinvited after the union had seemed so determined to have me attend, and was it not discourteous in the extreme to not even inform me that my presence was no longer required?

The officer muttered various excuses, including an absurd and untrue suggestion that in writing her letter the president had merely been seeking an ‘expression of interest’ from me. I have republished the president’s letter below, so people can judge for themselves the validity of that claim.

We ended the conversation. Out of interest, I searched out the programme for the event to see which speakers had been chosen to put the case, in my stead, that Labour had failed the working class. There were two. The first was a thirtysomething Oxford-educated political researcher turned member of the Welsh parliament; the second a Tory peer and hedge fund manager. I promise I am not kidding. The union had decided that these two individuals – I mean them no personal disrespect – were better placed to speak about the betrayal of the working class over a firefighter and trade unionist from Dagenham who had written and spoken extensively on that very topic. Talk about ruling class condescension!

I do not know why my invitation was rescinded. But I have my suspicions. It is true that many woke radicals and modern progressives – among whom the student class is well represented – find my traditional leftist opinions objectionable, bless their little cotton socks. I have certainly not held back when it comes to articulating views which five minutes ago were entirely mainstream but are now regarded by the new authoritarians as unsayable. For example, I have regularly committed the heresies of criticising the pro-trans and pro-DEI movements for their extremist demands and zealotry. Did activists from these movements put pressure on the union to pull my invitation? I can’t be sure. But the union certainly has form for that sort of thing. Another critic of the trans movement, Graham Linehan, was disinvited by the union after being asked to give a talk on – ironically enough – cancel culture! And the conservative Catholic William Donohue had his invitation rescinded after agreeing to take part in a debate. So maybe, like those chaps, I was just too ‘controversial’ for the union.

C'est la vie. I would have appreciated the opportunity to impart my views to the next generation of leaders. But there we are; I hold no grudge.

I know who I’ll be supporting in the next boat race, mind.

---

A reminder that you can follow me on ‘X’: @PaulEmbery