Freedom Society at Exeter: Exploring Free Speech and Political Discourse with Jon McBride

What is the Freedom Society? 

At its core, the Freedom Society is built around a commitment to free speech, freedom of expression, and the exchange of ideas. “Freedom doesn’t have a manifesto or a specific constitution,” explains the current president, Jon McBride. “It’s all fairly up to the president. But the society has always stood for certain principles—freedom of speech, expression, and movement—and creating a space where voices from across the spectrum can be heard.” 

Weekly “Pints and Policy” sessions are central to the society’s activities, offering a mix of casual discussion and thought-provoking talks. Topics range from the political philosophy of Nietzsche to conspiracy theories and current affairs, reflecting the society’s eclectic and intellectually curious nature. “We’ve had everything from someone condensing their dissertation into a 20-minute talk to open debates on contentious issues like immigration,” Jon says. 

While the society is largely political in its objectives, it also emphasises building a sense of community. It offers a forum for like-minded students to connect, socialise, and forge lasting friendships, all within a framework that values individuality and an exchange of ideas.

Job Mcbride and his Journey at The Freedom Society

or Jon McBride, a second-year Mechanical Engineering student and the current president of the Freedom Society, joining wasn’t part of a direct plan but rather the result of a recommendation that piqued his interest. “My brother went to a different university, but he had friends of friends who were involved with Freedom,” he recalls. “When I heard about it, I thought it sounded interesting, so I decided to check it out.” Since becoming a member and later taking on the role of president, Jon has seen the society maintain much of its original format and ethos. “I think it’s largely the same,” he reflects. “One of the things I’ve thought about as president is how to make it evolve, but I’ve tried to keep the format consistent because I don’t see a problem with it. It works.”

Jon’s political journey began in sixth form, where he realised he didn’t align fully with either Labour or the Conservatives. “That was when I started to really pay attention to politics,” he says. “I wanted to be part of something that could challenge the system, even in a small way.” His dissatisfaction with mainstream political parties, particularly the Conservatives, also played a role. “Conservatism as a right-wing ideology is relatively new, historically speaking,” Jon explains. “But the Conservatives have been asleep at the wheel for a long time. A lot of the issues in Britain today can be traced back to their failures.”

Jon’s decision to step into a leadership role was driven by a broader frustration with the state of politics in Britain. “Watching the general incompetence and decline in the political system was a big motivator,” he admits. “I ran uncontested for president, but it wasn’t just about filling the role—it was about wanting to be part of something that could push back against that decline.”

Jon believes the influence of student political societies is more indirect but no less significant. “In theory, a society could march on Whitehall and make a statement, but that’s not really how it works,” he explains. “The real influence comes from spreading ideas. All political movements start as niche or radical concepts. Capitalism, for example, was once a fringe idea.” For Jon, student societies also serve as training grounds for future leaders. “Many powerful people started in university societies,” he notes. “These spaces help develop public speaking skills and the confidence to engage in politics, even if only in small ways.”

He notes that student societies are often spaces where radical or unconventional ideas gain traction. “Young people tend to be more radical, for a number of reasons,” he says. “That’s why societies like Freedom can help shift the Overton window—the range of ideas considered acceptable in public discourse.” Jon points to the rise of both left- and right-wing commentators on social media as evidence of how cultural discourse is evolving. “The Overton window has shifted back slightly in recent years,” he observes. “But you also see laws being passed that limit certain types of speech, which some argue is proof of institutional capture.”

Freedom Society’s role on campus has not been without controversy. “We’ve had a couple of open letters written about us,” Jon says, referencing a particularly contentious talk on fatherlessness that drew criticism from other societies. “That’s just the nature of Freedom—when you push boundaries and introduce challenging ideas, not everyone will agree.” Despite the criticism, Jon sees the society’s impact as largely positive. “Some of the ideas we discussed just a year ago are now part of mainstream discourse,” he notes. “It’s about creating a space where people can explore ideas, even if they’re not widely accepted yet.”

The society also aims to critique both sides of the political spectrum. “We’ve critiqued Labour, the Conservatives, and the establishment as a whole,” Jon explains. “It’s about shaking up the status quo. Political discourse gets stale, and when that happens, people become disenfranchised. Freedom is here to challenge that.”

Accessibility is also a priority for the Freedom Society, with measures in place to ensure that all students can participate. “We conduct risk assessments for every event, and all our speaker events are held on campus, where accessibility needs are met,” Jon says. “Even our ‘Pints and Policy’ sessions are held in venues with accessible entrances.” Jon emphasises that the society is open to everyone, regardless of background or ability. “If anyone has specific needs, they’re encouraged to reach out. We’re more than happy to make accommodations.”

Discussing the Decline of Britain: 

Understanding Britain’s Challenges: The Economic Realities of Stagnation

Often framed as a nation in long-term decline, Britain has faced sluggish economic growth, stagnating wages, and deteriorating public services in recent decades. Jon approaches this question with an analytical lens, pinpointing structural and policy failures that have compounded over time, particularly since the 2008 financial crisis. “The UK’s GDP per capita has effectively stagnated since 2008,” he explains. “We are essentially no better off than we were 15 years ago. That’s an extremely worrying trend.” He notes that this stagnation is not unique to Britain—France and Germany have faced similar economic malaise—but argues that the UK’s situation is particularly self-inflicted.

One of the key issues, Jon believes, lies in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis and the response of British banks. “Post-2008, lending to businesses in the UK initially recovered by 2010 but then fell sharply and never returned to pre-crisis levels,” he says. “This is in stark contrast to the US, where credit markets bottomed out in 2012 but rebounded by 2016. The UK imposed stricter capital and liquidity requirements on banks, which limited their ability to extend credit to the private sector. Meanwhile, the US allowed credit to flow more freely, particularly through regional banks.” As a result, Jon explains, UK banks diverted capital away from private investment and into government bonds, starving businesses—especially smaller firms—of the funding necessary to grow and innovate. “It made borrowing more expensive and stifled productivity. If you look at the bell curve of firm productivity in Britain, we have a large cluster of low-productivity firms, fewer highly productive companies compared to some of our European counterparts, and a long tail of underperforming businesses dragging down the average.”

Energy costs, another major factor, are significantly higher in the UK than in competitor economies. “British businesses pay four times as much for energy as their US counterparts,” Jon points out. “And while France has also faced productivity stagnation, their energy prices remain much lower, particularly due to a more efficient approach to nuclear power.” The high cost of energy, combined with restrictive planning laws dating back to the Industrial Redistribution Act of 1948, has made it more difficult for businesses to expand and thrive in the UK.

Another critical issue, according to Jon, is the overqualification of the British workforce. “We have one of the most overqualified labour forces in the world—37% of UK workers report being in jobs they are overqualified for. Degree inflation is rampant, and a 2:2 from a British university holds almost no economic value anymore. It just leaves people saddled with £45,000 in debt.” He attributes this to policies introduced by Tony Blair, who sought to push 50% of young people into higher education. “The economic idea was to create a highly mobile, highly educated workforce. But what actually happened was an oversaturation of non-STEM degrees, while rising house prices reduced mobility, and a lack of investment post-2008 meant there weren’t enough high-paying jobs to go around.”

Britain’s struggles with infrastructure investment further exacerbate the problem. “We don’t build enough. Our nuclear power plants cost five times as much as in South Korea, largely due to excessive regulatory overreach. Projects like Hinkley Point balloon in cost and face endless delays. This is a fundamental problem of institutional sclerosis.”

Jon also criticises the government’s approach to Net Zero, arguing that decarbonising the grid has been handled poorly. “I believe in man-made climate change, of course. But if decarbonisation means that energy prices quadruple and people fall into poverty, then they will be less climate-conscious, not more.”

Ultimately, Jon believes that the UK needs to become a more attractive place for business and investment. “We need to cut corporate taxes, reduce red tape, and make it easier to build. Our stock market is uncompetitive, more companies are delisting, and we aren’t seeing enough IPOs. The barriers to growth need to be dismantled.”

The Crisis of Trust in UK Institutions

Trust in UK institutions—whether Parliament, the monarchy, or the media—has eroded significantly in recent years. Jon sees this as both a national issue and part of a global crisis. “Over the past year, almost every incumbent government has suffered a major setback. The Tories lost here, Germany’s coalition is in turmoil, France is facing parliamentary upheaval, and Trudeau is deeply unpopular in Canada.” The erosion of public trust stems from a growing sense of political unresponsiveness and a disconnect between governing elites and the general population. This sentiment has been particularly evident in Britain, where concerns over immigration have consistently been ignored. “For 20 years, every poll has shown that the British public wants lower immigration. Instead, we’ve seen the largest rise in immigration in our history over the past five years. People feel like no one in power is actually listening to them.”

Beyond immigration, media institutions, particularly the BBC, have faced criticism for failing to accurately reflect public sentiment. This has contributed to the rise of alternative media sources, as people seek outlets that align with their perspectives. The mainstream media’s decline in influence, coupled with widespread disillusionment with traditional political parties, has fuelled a broader crisis in democratic engagement. Jon suggests that unless these institutions make a concerted effort to reconnect with the public, political instability and populist movements will continue to gain traction.

Britain’s Role in a Multipolar World

With the global political landscape shifting towards multipolarity, Jon is sceptical about Britain’s ability to maintain its relevance. “Short-term, we are in a deep hole. The government is borrowing at unsustainable levels, and people still want more spending and lower taxes. Something has to give.” He argues that Britain must make difficult choices to regain economic and political stability, particularly as it competes with larger powers like the US, EU, and China.

One of the most pressing issues is the sustainability of public spending. The NHS and pensions are among the biggest financial burdens, and Jon contends that reforms are necessary to avoid fiscal collapse. “The current triple-lock pension system is unsustainable. We should move to a double lock, tying pension increases to wage growth rather than inflation.” He also points to inefficiencies in the NHS, where bureaucratic bloat and increasing demand have strained resources. “The NHS is treated almost like a national religion. People don’t want to hear that reforms are needed, but wait times are increasing, inefficiencies are growing, and we lack middle management where it’s actually needed.”

Brexit’s Role in Britain’s Decline

Jon is critical of how Brexit has been handled, arguing that it was an opportunity squandered by poor governance. “It could have been an opportunity, but it was catastrophically mismanaged. The government panicked when EU research grants dried up and threw open the doors to international students to keep universities afloat. That led to a surge in low-skilled immigration and the proliferation of low-quality degrees designed just to issue graduate visas.”

Beyond immigration, Brexit has failed to provide Britain with a coherent foreign policy direction. “The revolving door of prime ministers, each with no clear vision, has left Britain floundering. Labour is now focused almost entirely on domestic economic concerns, while foreign policy has been left adrift.” Without a strategic vision for Britain’s role in global politics, the nation risks becoming increasingly peripheral in key international affairs.

Gender Equality and Social Policy

On social issues, Jon is cautious about government intervention. “Of course, the government should promote gender equality. But we need to be careful—equality of opportunity is essential, but equality of outcome is another matter entirely.” He warns against policies that prioritise quotas over merit, arguing that well-intended efforts can sometimes lead to unintended consequences.

Jon is particularly critical of how the government has handled gender-based violence. “The grooming gang scandals showed that the government prioritises maintaining peace along ethnic lines over tackling systemic issues like violence against women. The policing crisis is a major factor—corruption and inefficiencies have left women and vulnerable groups at greater risk.” Without meaningful reform in law enforcement, he believes that issues of gender-based violence will continue to be inadequately addressed.

Britain’s Identity Crisis: A Colonial Past and Modern Role

Finally, Jon addresses Britain’s perceived identity crisis, which some argue has hindered its progress. “The left-wing narrative of colonial history is often historically illiterate. The reality is that colonialism did not make Britain rich—it was, in fact, a financial burden. That doesn’t excuse the atrocities committed, but endlessly dwelling on past crimes isn’t productive.” He acknowledges the importance of historical awareness but cautions against allowing national guilt to dictate contemporary policy.

Jon argues that Britain needs to move beyond debates over its imperial past and focus on policies that will shape its future. The nation’s decline, he contends, is not due to historical legacies but rather to stagnation in economic and political decision-making. “We need to build more, invest more, and cut through the institutional red tape that is strangling growth. The country has immense potential, but it needs a radical shift in direction.” Without such changes, Britain risks cementing its place as a declining power rather than reclaiming its role as a dynamic global player.

The Future of the Society

Looking to the year ahead, the society is determined to expand its presence on campus by creating more opportunities for engagement. A key goal is increasing membership through a variety of events that cater to a wide range of interests. Social gatherings like pub crawls and events such as “Pint and Policy” will remain central to their strategy, providing an environment where students can discuss political ideas and challenge each other’s views. Additionally, there are plans to collaborate with other political societies, including Labour and the Greens, to foster a spirit of constructive debate across ideological lines. This approach seeks to address the growing polarisation among students and demonstrate that individuals with differing beliefs can engage respectfully and productively.

For students who may be hesitant to join due to preconceived notions about the society, there is a conscious effort to soften its image. The Freedom Society recognises that it has sometimes been perceived as overly intense or unwelcoming, but it aims to counter this by emphasising inclusivity and openness. The focus is on creating a space where students feel comfortable sharing their opinions without fear of judgment. Events are designed to be as much about building friendships and camaraderie as they are about discussing policy or debating ideas. 

In terms of its legacy, the society aspires to leave a lasting impact on the University of Exeter by championing the principles of free speech and critical thinking. It aims to challenge students to think deeply about their beliefs and to engage with perspectives they might not encounter elsewhere. By standing up for truth and encouraging rigorous intellectual debate, the society hopes to shape a campus culture that values open dialogue and mutual respect. This enduring commitment to fostering meaningful discussions and breaking down barriers will, they hope, define the society’s role at the university for years to come.

To find out more about the University of Exeter Freedom Society, please follow this link to see their page on the Exeter Student Guild Website: https://my.exeterguild.com/groups/7XTM9/freedom-society

Or check out their Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freedomexeter/

* The Witness Journal’s Senior Editors, Veronika Parfjonova and Emily Hone, conducted interviews with all of the societies that were willing to participate as part of a feature series to showcase political party societies at the University of Exeter*