Death of the Despatch Box

Drinking, Dinner-ing, and Debating in St Andrews

“A group of people go to the pub and get drunk,” said Spike McGrath, Appreciator of Real Ale for the St Andrews Conservative and Unionist Association (STAUCA). McGrath was describing STAUCA’s Thatcher Thursdays. Despite the name, Thatcher Thursdays rarely include discussions on British politics. 

If you’re a St Andrews student looking for a place to discuss the grand ideas of our day, you’ll find that your options are wide, varied, and very boozy. On weekday nights, a bar tucked away above Mitchell’s, the crowded cellar of Aikman’s, and cramped student flats all set the stage for debates on pressing questions: should we discourage nationalism? Are single people unfulfilled? And ye or nay? Is it okay to stream Kanye’s music? I interviewed members of the Carnegie Club, The 1984, St Andrews Labour, and STAUCA to find out if placing alcohol, unstructured debate, and St Andrews students in the same room was the secret to great discourse.

“I think if I had to describe the setting, it would be cigarettes, wine, and some jazz,” said Juan De Grazia, Head of Communications of the Carnegie Club, to describe the club’s dinner debates. With just sixteen members, the Carnegie club recruits students through a four-month-long process of application forms and drink receptions. “I would say what we look for, if you had to cull it down to one word, would be esoteric,” De Grazia said. “You need to have an edge,” added Henry Wilson-Litt, Carnegie’s Treasurer. 

Members of the Carnegie Club host dinner debates at their flats. “We'll try to sit around one big table and sometimes we’ll have to squeeze in,” explained Elisabeth Van Meer, the club’s Head of Philanthropy. It’s like any other potluck — except you’re expected to prepare “the same way you would prepare for a formal debate”. Conversation is guided by a prompt but largely unstructured. With a small group of just sixteen people, De Grazia describes an intimate setting, which is still “focused” — a chance to have lively debate but also “disconnect from the bulls**t of the real world”.

“You would think that not having a large group restricts the amount of perspectives coming in, but because we all try to be very diverse and varied in our thought, everyone gets to say something,” said de Grazia. He defended the exclusivity of the club. “No one is silent, which can happen a lot of the time if you just have it open to everyone.”

The 1984 creates a similar space for unstructured debate with one primary difference — their debates are open to the entire student body. Alma de la Tournelle, a second-year, is a regular attendee at the 1984’s bi-weekly discussions at The Hide. She was intimidated her first time, taking a seat in the large circle of chairs set up for attendees. The topic was read out, followed by 40 seconds of silence where “nobody wanted to throw themselves in”. As the session progressed, people countered each other faster and she got less worried about intervening. “The first time I spoke I turned bright red. The third time I spoke it was easier.”

De la Tournelle’s contributions were on Leonard Cohen and metal music — a reflection of her interests. For her, “the way you grew up, the way your parents teach you, your experiences — whether that’s feeling insecure in a country or knowing that a certain economic system works” — are central to the way you contribute to debate. At Carnegie, Van Meer describes a space where members are free to express the perspectives they come in with. “Being diversely politically doesn't mean we're apolitical [...] We are very political,” De Grazia said. “I think apolitical implies that we don't discuss politics.”

In contrast to Carnegie, de la Tournelle emphasises the value of spaces where everybody is “legitimate enough to speak. If you cap it at a number of people and have a long selection process, you already filter out what kind of discourse you’re going to get at the table.”

St Andrews Labour Society hosts pub nights with a similar aim: creating a space where anyone can speak. Jaiveer Chadda, incoming Chair of the society, describes the value of an informal setting with people “who at the end of the day won't really care what your opinion is”. The pub setting helps to “lower inhibitions and let the juices flow”. It gives people who aren't usually confident speakers a chance to speak in an environment that's “a little bit more casual and a little bit safer”.

Each group accommodates a wide range of topics. Wilson-Litt described his favourite debate as one on paternalism and the psychology of fatherhood. Carnegie also has “more grounded” topics, de Grazia added, like the ethics of voting. 

At Labour’s pub nights, topics in the news will often guide conversation. “With the speed of the news cycle, it's usually pretty obvious to see what we're going to be talking about,” said Chadda. “We'll just start shooting the s**t about it.”

Chadda recalled a suggestion to debate the restoration of the British Empire. “We vetoed that, on the idea that that's not something that should be debated.” “If somebody would suggest ‘should trans people have rights?’, we would not debate that.” He describes these topics as ones “that are so obvious it should not be up for debate”.

In the case of STAUCA, the committee also avoids potentially controversial topics. “We’re conscientious of what the society looks like on paper,” George Smedley, Chief Whip, said. The committee is cautious to make sure they’re not “getting into the newspaper for some horrific reason”. “We’re also not there to have people fall out or to have really big arguments about British politics,” Smedley explained. Their debates are geared towards a more lighthearted conversation — “a laugh and a joke really”. At their semesterly joint debates with Labour, they set one general motion, one current motion, and one “jokey” motion. “It’s rare that you would have an ideologue going up and talking.” For example, the Labour-Conservative debate this semester had no motions about the current government.

Without the rigid structure of formal debate, Chadda describes the Labour-Conservative debate as a good chance to let the speaker’s personality shine through. With structured debate it becomes about “how great of a parliamentarian you are or how great of a speaker you are”. With informal debates, though, “it's more real life.” It's about thinking on your feet, having to counter somebody's argument as they say it. As a result, things get heated. “There are people screaming at each other by the end of the night. There's tons of alcohol, and it really is a lot of fun.”

Illustration by Elizabeth Lang