Our blog has been around for quite a while now, we’ve had highs and lows, but what is it actually worth? Should it over-reach and try and contribute to national debates? Should it be a point of contact for students and young people to the labour movement? Or perhaps it should be a place where contributors can highlight news stories that might be of interest from a variety of sources?
I personally think it should be all of these things and more, but I’d be interested to hear what other people think?
Journalists have a huge burden to carry. The overwhelming majority of people will have their views on current events shaped by the magnitude of news programmes, newspapers, magazines, websites and even some - more highbrow - blogs.
So I was particularly dissapointed to read Quentin Letts’ column in the Daily Mail yesterday. Anyone who listened to Wednesday’s debate on expense - of which I was one, due to the absence of cricket - will realise that Mr. Letts has brutally over-exagerated all the business surrounding expenses. He criticises Ann Widdecombe who only said that the media had been playing games with the public over the issue. That’s quite right. The John Lewis list does not exist, and never has, yet the media insist on reporting that MPs have all their furniture paid for from a selection at John Lewis. It’s simply untrue, as Lynne Jones MP (selly oak) pointed out, that she was reimbursed for a very cheap iron bought in Kings Heath. The only expense, in that category, she had asked for since her election in 1992.
If this is the quality of political journalism in our nation’s tabloids - no wonder turnouts are so low and no wonder voter confidence in politics is so strained. I expect the likes of BUCF and Praguetory will support Quentin, but I just think it’s such a shame that we thinks it justified to patronise normal hard-working people in this way.
We’ve all heard of this year’s SATs marking fiasco. We’re constantly told that students are over tested. We all know that schools put overemphasis on training students for the SATs rather than giving them a rounded education. And a lot of us hate league tables.
SATs were meant to be a test of schools, but have become a test of pupils too. Headlines report how students are without results, anxiously waiting; this is completely wrong, the point of SATs was to see how well the school had taught (whether it achieves this or not being dubious), not to be a level of achievement for each child to aspire to. Yes, they are useful for setting pupils, but schools can do that easily through their own tests with far less stress.
Pat McFadden MP gloriously put Mad-Nadine Dorries in her rightful place, rejecting outright her wish to debate abortion and not the important matter of minimum wage enforcement. Here is the exchange:
Mrs. Nadine Dorries (Mid-Bedfordshire) (Con): I hope to be called to speak later as my interests are wide and varied, but for now I ask the Minister to inform me why he feels that this Bill is more important than the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which we should have been debating today?
Mr. McFadden: The House discusses many important issues, and I disagree with the hon. Lady if she feels that it is not important that the House debates minimum wage enforcement and the other subjects the Employment Bill addresses. I am glad we have this opportunity to debate them today.
Mr. McFadden will recieve a BULS salute when we return from our summer hols in September.
To any student living in Selly Oak this is not an outrageous statement, it is however news for the Observer. In particular students are prey to gang initiations. For all the debt students are often seen as far more affluent then the ‘locals’ who they share the community with.
In search of a scoop yesterday, BULS, ventured to Parliament Square after hearing rumours of yet another Boris blunder.
BULS exclusively interviewed a young mother with a crying baby who expressed concern that the new Mayor of London wants to kill her family by refusing to go ahead with plans to pedestranise Parliament Square.
Where Ken Livingstone succeeded Boris has failed. BULS ventured up Whitehall towards Trafalgar Square, a former London death trap, to find a cabbie who informed us that when Ken wanted to pedestranise the area, host to Nelson’s Column, he had complained loudly. However, our friendly cabbie told us, “now it’s quite nice, there aren’t pedestrians running out into the road every five minutes, so the risk of killing someone is rather low.”
The saga of the Parliament Square redevelopment proves Boris to be a ditherer, anti-environment and anti-pedestrian. Almost exactly the opposite of the platform he was elected on.
The Haltemprice and Howden by-election ballot paper makes interesting reading. In the absence of two big mainstream parties, a huge number of independent candidates stood; I wondered how women would fare outside of the normal election environment.
Sadly, only seven of the twenty-six candidates were female. Of these, five were aligned to parties (although these tended to be small and included the Miss Great Britain Party) and two were independent. Contrast this with the nineteen men who stood; fourteen were independent and five had parties, although again given the size of these parties they are probably best counted as independent.
What got me most about the results, however, was that of the seven women standing, six occupied the top positions 2-7 after David Davis. Whether this was due to their being women or that they represented some of the more significant of the small parties is also up for debate- I suspect the latter, but still find it interesting, and somewhat heartening.
Walking around the centre of my hometown yesterday, my friend points out to me two adjacent estate agents which have closed in the last few weeks. It’s all change in the Arndale Centre, too- gone not only is the independent bakery I used to work for, but also the art shop and the card shop. The independent record shop is under threat, and the independent bookshop is on its second “closing down” sale having twice survived the chop. New branches of Starbucks and HMV gleam in other units. Is this economy related?
Browsing the Guardian in the evening, it offers me tips on how to survive having a little less money in my pocket. Having been a student the last few years I suspect there is little they can teach me, and I appear to be right. “Food might still be ok to eat past its sell-by date”, it tells me. Other stating-the-bloody-obvious statements include the idea that I should buy in bulk to save. That’s all very nice, but I can’t afford a car, and don’t fancy carrying a three kilo bag of pasta home from the shops with the rest of my shopping.
This blog is really just a rant on all things loosely credit crunch related, so I’ll finish on to another Guardian publication that narked me off. A few weeks ago, they did a series of cut-out-and-keep guides to surviving the “crunch”- one was on raising children. They gave an astronomical figure for the cost of raising a child, followed by a break-down of what this included. It pointed out you could save money by switching to a state school. Was this really the Guardian I was reading? The grand total also included contributions to the child’s tuition fees at University, which is ridiculous as offspring are meant to pay them off themselves, and a full set of driving lessons with a first car thrown in for good measure. What the hell?! Easy way to survive the crunch- make your kids get a bloody part-time job to pay for lessons and cars themselves if they really want them, like most normal kids. Stop spoiling them.
End of rant. I’m off to the cinema to see Mama Mia. Wish me luck. :s
Yes, it’s that long awaited for by-election today in Haltemprice and Howden, and the nation is on the edge of its seat to see who will become their new MP. Will David Davis hold onto the post? Or will it go to one of the other 26 candidates vying for the role? In the absence of any main stream parties, I have gone looking for another candidate to back.
I am interested by Jill Saward, a rape victim and campaigner who has done marvellous work in the past and is against David Davis on the issue of a DNA database (it would undoubtedly drive up rape convictions), and David Bishop, from the Church of the Militant Elvis Party. The socialist in me admires his stance on todays capitalist society (It made Elvis a “fat media joke”). Not so keep on his plan to put cameras in Nick Clegg’s bedroom, though, or to imprison Cherie Blair, so I think he’ll have to come off the short list.
Following on from our recent series on legendary MPs, in which we exposed Nick Palmer to be the comic genius he truly is, I wanted to turn BULS’ attention to Mr. David Clelland. The Labour MP for Tyne Bridge will recieve a full BULS salute when we return to Uni in the Autumn. You may have heard that Mr. Clelland recieved a rather rude letter from a constituent, informing him that he was actually a fascist and was always voting the wrong way, for his party. Mr. Clelland sent back this wonderfully crafted letter to his constituent. I for one know similar people I would like this letter to be sent to and I hope Mr. Clelland won’t mind if I do a little copy and paste job.
Local news has reported to me this lunch time that 16 MPs have signed an EDM calling for a new energy drink, named (but containing no) Cocaine, to be banned. The idea is that it may glamorise cocaine use with youngsters, something I am dubious about.
More importantly though, why won’t Coke, or Coca Cola, which one actually did contain Cocaine and is named after it, be included in this ban? And what about my year three class teacher, Mrs Cocaine?
A Tory peer has hit headlines recently, showing himself to be a racist. In the House of Lords the ignorant and repulsive frontbencher used the phrase; “nigger in the woodpile”. Defending himself he claims the phrase was in common everyday use when he was younger. A man of his age should know better.
Dave Cameron has said we won’t be sacking racists from the Tory benches. It would be good to see him act once in a while on his words of reform and party renewal. Oh well.
Nine intrepid BULS volunteers braved mud, rain, sun, portaloos and Jay-Z, for a second year running at Worthy Farm in Somerset to raise funds. Conditions were blissful compared to last year’s mudbath, and much jolity was had by all. Jay-Z was fricking awesome, his “Fuck Bush” rap raised a cheer amongst BULS volunteers and his glowing endorsement of Barack Obama would have brought a tear to Tom Guise’s eye. It’s a good job Gary Hughes was watching Massive Attack on the Other Stage at the time though…
Photos of the group will be provided as soon as I am reunited with my laptop and camera back in Brum! Until then you’ll have to make do with Amy Winehouse looking a bit drunk.
Like alot of people I’ve been a bit Wimbledon obsessed for the last fortnight, so I really enjoyed learning that John McEnroe - legendary player had a small knock-about with current legend Rafael Nadal. Here’s a good clip of McEnroe doing the second best thing he was good at:
Is it really harsh of someone to suggest that Brooke Kinsella might be using the situation for her own benefit? This wasn’t actually me, but someone on the train this morning sparked an outcry when she made the remark to a friend. Just wanted to throw it out there.
If what Brooke is doing, manages to stop some horrific stabbings in London then all power to her!
I think that campaign slogan is really silly. I don’t want a treasurer who counts (spending all their time looking at the accounts - that’s what auditors do) I want a treasurer who can put in place strong strategies to raise money for our party, that’s what’s vital.
Tom Marley’s special brand of democracy means that only one candidate has been displayed on these pages, that’s why I felt I had to write this post about the reasons I am support Jack Dromey. For those who don’t know anything, like BUCF, the Labour Party actually elects its treasurer, as well as its ruling body the NEC, and that is what we are doing this summer.
One of the reasons I am supporting Jack Dromey is because I don’t actually see what a Mark MacDonald victory would actually do to help the party. I’ve simply not been convinced, and I’ve thought long and hard about this decision - I’m not voting on a whim at all, as I’m sure comrades might try to suggest. Infact I only put my ballot in yesterday, after receiving it on Monday. My decision to support Jack over Mark is down to experience.
For me, it’s not about service to the party - both candidates have excellent Labour credentials and tick all the right boxes for me. It’s about experience. Jack has been involved in the finances of large scale organisations for a number of years now. As a trained barrister, I’m just not sure what Mark can give to the position. Jack, famously took his Union out of the red and made it profitable again. So we’ve seen him deliver, and yes maybe progress has been slow in the Labour Party, but we’ve had an easy ride so far. We’ve never had to worry about finances up until now, as donors leave our movement when the polls go bad - that’s not Jack’s fault at all. We need someone with a track record, experience and the ability to make tough decisions. I searched, but just could not get that from Mark at all.
In this rather crucical time, what is needed is staying on the straight and narrow and to ensure that we don’t do anything to further de-stabilise the situation. I’m sorry if this dissapoints some people, but the decision we are making will directly affect our party’s ability to fight a next general election, so I’ve chosen to stick with someone who knows the job. It’s not the time to ask questions and naval gaze, it’s the time to hunker down and fight for our lives!
For the NEC i supported: Ellie Reeves, Sonika Nirwal, Peter Wheeler, Peter Kenyon, Deborah Gardiner and Mohammad Ali.
The Guardian, helpfully, reports to us that a new ICM poll sees British people placing the environment above the economy as a national priority. Whilst I am naturally scepticle about polls, it makes for interesting reading.
As previously thought, it shows that more women, 55% believe the environment to be more important, with the male species at 49%.
Rather upsettingly, it says that only 19% of people would choose to spend more for an environmentally sound product.
Deco, one of the world’s greatest midfielders will be coming to the West Bromwich Albion ground next season. This is ofcourse, as a Chelsea player, and will surely feature in the squad that visits the blackcountry on November 15th. Did I nearly have you there?
In other news, Martin Albrecthsen has snubbed the Baggies to join Derby on a free-transfer. As the chair of BULS, I hope to make a small band of merry labour activists into hardcore Albion fans and so I will endeavour to keep readers of the blog up-to-date with news relating to the transfer market!!
My dissertation is going to be studying inequality in the workplace, and the nature of the modern day division of labour. So it was incredibly helpful to see that our Harriet has launched a scathing attack on working inequality by publishing the new Equality Bill.
There are currently nine major pieces of discrimination legislation and over 100 statutory instruments setting out connected rules and regulations. This amounts to more than 2500 pages of guidance and statutory codes of practice. The Equality Bill will replace all the tangled web of confusion, so that those who benefit from the law, and those who need to comply with it, can really see its meaning.
But, let’s look at what is really contained within the Bill. It will introduce a new Equality Duty upon the public sector. At present, there are three equality duties which have required public authorities to tackle discrimination and promote equality for race, disability and gender. The new duty will bring together those three and extend it to cover gender reassignment, age, sexual orientation and religion or belief. (So when my Sainsbury’s line-manager criticises my socialism, I’ll be able to cite the new equality duty!)
However, equality cannot be properly tackled if it remains hidden. Public bodies will comply with the equality duty by reporting on, gender pay, ethnic minority employment and disability employment. Secrecy clauses, banning people discussing their own pay, will be banned themselves. A new “kite-mark” will be introduced to demonstrate the effectiveness of equal pay audits in closing the gender pay gap.
What has hit the headlines recently, has been moves to further positive action. This means that employers will now be forced to take into account the under-representation of certain groups in their sector, when looking at like-for-like candidates. The use of all-women shortlists in Parliamentary selections is also being extended to 2030, something Brigid Jones may have something to say about.
What this Bill has done already is prove, once again, that Labour is the party of equality, from challenging disability discrimination and to tackling the pay gap, to fighting racism and introducing civil partnerships - Labour has always been at the forefront of progress. I for one, if you’ve not already guessed, am really excited about this particular piece of legislation.
“The NHS review by Health Minister Lord Darzi will pledge to move on from successful attempts to cut waiting lists to improving the treatment of patients, expanding GP surgeries’ opening hours and publishing hospitals’ death rates from surgery so that patients can choose where they want to be treated.”
Now millions of pounds worth of life-saving drugs will be fast tracked to NHS patients. This will accompany a new NHS constitution enshrining the rights of the patient.
These are the issues that matter. While the Labour Party is talking about the institutions that the British people hold dear (and I’m not talking about the Queen) it will always be relevant. Unlike some of the more specious debates our detractors would draw us into.
At the annual conference of the Townswomen’s Guild next week the subject of prostitution and brothels will be addressed. Previously this blog has struck out with a fairly liberal social agenda. On this issue it will be no different.
I am pleased that the Townswomen’s Guild recognised an important thing about many women who choose to become sex workers. Often they are exploited and forced into that line of work for lack of any other opportunities.
As Sue Smith points out: “These girls have got to be protected, they have got to be able to get access to healthcare.”
Sex workers, of both genders, are often very vulnerable. This makes them prey to exploitation.
The answer is not to ‘crack down’ with ‘harsh measures’ in order to please the Daily Mail. Brothels have always and probably will always exist. On top of this, I’m not entirely sure what right the state has in this regard to prohibit the activities of two consenting adults, even if a crude financial transaction takes place between the two (or more) participants. The only argument in favour of banning prostitution/brothels I can think of is on the grounds of declining morals in society etc…
If the sex trade was wholesale brought into legitimacy it would allow many key issues to be addressed. First and foremost the premises the business is carried out would be licensed to ensure it was safe for those working there. Secondly all employees would be entitled to the minimum wage. Also, the government would be in a position to regulate licenses for sex workers to arrest the spread of STIs.
Although I am probably a little more radical then the Townswomen’s Guild I am pleased they are addressing the issue of sex workers and brothels seriously.
Strange headline? After months of sabre-rattling one might be forgiven for thinking so. However, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both appeared today in Unity the smallest town in New Hampshire, whose democrats were split evenly for both candidates in the primary. Could this first joint appearance be the beginning of the Democratic ticket some of us have been dreaming of?
Probably not, as the case may be, it seems that Obama has offered to pay off Clinton’s debts in exchange for access to her donor base, which has been relatively steadfast. If only the Labour Party could come to an agreement with notable figures, rather than offering tennis games or lunches with them.
The boys over at BUCF have very kindly asked for our verdict on the premiership of Gordon Brown one year on. I will not deny this is a very challenging time being a Labour member and supporter. I remember watching the Leadership Conference being held in Manchester and at that time there was hope and ambition, now the party seems resigned to loosing in 2010.
Many commentators have gone back to ‘the election that never was’. I said then it would be advantageous for Brown to go to the polls sooner rather then later. Instead Brown lost his momentum and became a victim to the media sharks. In the space of a couple of weeks he went from flirting with the most right wing of the Tory press to being derided by those in the media who should have been his closest allies. He lost his USP, the steady head that had guided the country to its longest period of economic growth. Dropping the ball on this issue of the election seemingly confirmed everything his critics said. He didn’t like making decisions and he wasn’t a natural leader. It has been difficult for Brown to fight back from this.
One year on it is not all doom and gloom, it is important to not forget the good things that the government has done since Brown became prime minister. The education leaving age has been increased to 18, ensuring that more young people will get the skill that they need. We also have a government that is committed to a ’green revolution’ with the aim of making Britain a world leader in renewable energy. Finally we have the government’s enduring commitment to ending child poverty. This months figures on child poverty were disappointing though the government still remains committed to eradicating this stain on society.
Now to take the bull by the horns. I am yet to hear with regards to Northern Rock how the government could have handled the situation differently. Lost data discs and proxy donors aside the major issue that Brown took a hit on was the 10p tax rate abolition. On the doorstep very few people would raise the former, the latter however seemed to demonstrate that the government wasn’t on the side of working people.
The question to pose is where to go now. James Purnell’s recent speech was promising for its critique of the current Conservative Party. It will not suffice though to exclusively expend our effort attempting to breakdown the Tory position. In short we have to promise the electorate more. No party can rest on its success. We have to provide the next set of answers to the questions of the 21st century. That remains the challenge for Labour.
The result in Henley this morning was incredibly disappointing for the Labour Party. Richard McKenzie trailed fifth behind both the Greens and the BNP. His 1,066 votes amounted to less then 5% and he surprisingly lost his deposit. I do have to agree with what David Semple says on Though Cowards Flinch. Rhetoric from the Tories has reached unreasonable levels. This by-election last night was not a vote by the UK electorate and the likes of Grayling should not pretend it is a clear message for Gordon Brown.
BBC News, which I have on in the background, seem to be keen to pin the blame for this result on Brown. Let’s not forget the lay of the land in Henley. We have an electorate that are naturally hostile to the Labour Party. New Labour never won Henley after all. There was a popular outgoing MP in Boris Johnson. It is often said you either love him of loath him, I would suspect he gets proportionally more love in Henley. On top of this we have the economic difficulties of rising food and fuel costs, the credit crunch and uncertainty about the economy. Add to this the record leads that Cameron and the Tories have been notching up in recent polls and you realise you shouldn’t be surprised by last nights result.
On this I think it is worth paying tribute to the activists who undoubtedly worked their socks of in this by-election. Unfortunately this just wasn’t going to be our time.
There’s a new campaign from The Co-operative Party called the ‘the People’s Railway.’ The big idea is to give power to the passengers. In fact the campaign is very in-keeping with a general co-operative philosophy:
Co-operative and mutual structures deliver organisations that act in our interests. If we are to get the rail network the British public want and need, Network Rail needs to be run in a way that guarantees us real power – not just a pretence.
The campaign argues that Network Rail needs to be more accountable to its members, the people who use the service day in and out. As a genuine mutual venture the members would have the power to elect governor representatives to a Members’ Council. Importantly Network Rail would be structured to give the passengers a voice. Network Rail is certainly in need of reform. According to an article on Labourhome if Network Rail was as efficient as the European average, through the savings an extra 1,000 coaches a year could be put on the tracks.
Now is the time to take action for change on our railways. Take action here.
It’s all been a bit quiet on the blog lately, so I thought I’d fill in with some of what BULS has been up to.
Last week saw the end of term, and informal end of term drinks were enjoyed by many in Joes, our Guild’s bar. All this week members have been putting out leaflets in Selly Oak (a big thank-you to all those who helped) and also Tyburn Ward in Erdington. Campaigning opportunities abound over the summer, with by-elections coming up in Redditch and other places…
This Wednesday a team from BULS will be heading off to Glastonbury to pull pints and raise club funds. Forecast is dry for Wednesday and Thursday, wet for Friday but here’s hoping. Nothing can be as bad as the mudbath we wallowed in last year. We’ll be back on Monday morning so watch out for reports and photos… later in the summer we will also be hitting Reading.
The committee are busy planning an exciting program of events for the coming term. Otherwise, stay tuned for more blogs and anything random we might be up to over the summer!
Now I am sure this is not news to most of you though events surrounding the Rise Festival will certainly provide amusement.
Firstly Boris scraps the biggest anti-racism event in Europe. But then it turns out he actually knows nothing about the actual decision he supposedly made. This really calls into question who the real mayor of London is.
But then we always knew Boris wasn’t going to be mayor. Any reasonable person should have realised they were not just getting Boris but a coterie or right-wing staffers who were going to do exactly these sort of things.
He was still quite funny on Have I Got News for You, shame for London though.
UPDATE: Check out the clip of Boris screwing up here - Detail isn’t as important as delivery apparently. That sounds like crap.
Posted on 19 June, 2008 by Birmingham University Labour Students
Ministers are preparing to open the way for genetically modified crops to be grown in Britain on the grounds they could help combat the global food crisis according to the Independent.
What happened to eating in season food?
To cutting down on meat?
To growing at home?
To wasting less food?
To eating food that grows in our climate?
To reducing our reliance on globalisation and trying to become a little self-sufficient as a country?
If there is a mono-culture of genetically identical or similar crops in a large area and a virus evolves, or a quick weather change occurs that affects the whole crop in the same way, the crop could be wiped out.
Then what do we do?
Salt tolerant GM crops will be amazing to secure grain in areas where there is a local food crisis and land has been previously degraded by bad farming techniques over the years and the salt concentration is too high for normal crops. Drought resistant GM crops will also help thousands in areas where droughts are affecting the food production. Both of these will lead to better soil in the future.
What type of GM crops will be used in England?
There is no proof on the affect of GM crops on the environment, human health and health of all other organisms.
What do others think?
(Pippa Calver is the Guild’s Ethical and Environmental Officer and a Labour Student.)
Posted on 17 June, 2008 by Birmingham University Labour Students
At last night’s Guild Council:
Tom Guise, Labour Students: BUCF, one of our most popular and sucessful societies, has disaffiliated from the Guild. Do you think it is a sad indictment on the Guild that they were turned away by buracracy and paperwork?
Vice President Student Activities and Development: No I don’t. Turning up to a few Guild Councils isn’t much to ask. The paperwork is minimal, there are ways around doing risk assesments for everything. One hundred and sixty other groups all manage it, and if they had a problem they were always welcome to come and talk to me or any member of student development staff- they’d have sat with them and worked through it til it was sorted out…
In 2003, me and two angry friends went to London to protest at George Bush’s state visit to the UK. With 100,000 others we marched through the capital- the atmosphere was sensational, and the queue of protesters took almost two hours to leave Malet Street. Bush had been in power two years and we didn’t want him wellcomed on our soil. We hadn’t been able to get to the anti war protests, so watching the giant effigy of him being toppled, just like the one of Saddam Hussein had been months earlier, was magical.
Contrast this with last week, as Bush made his farewell stop-off at number ten. The crowd was diminished to two thousand. I wasn’t there, but the anger still was. Why so few, after he’d had another five years to accumulate crimes? I suppose before it was a protest not just against what he had done, but what he might still go on to do. This time round, he was on the way out- there is little left for him to taint, his work is almost done. A protest against what has already happened, long after the event and without hope of changing it, is a lot less passionate than one about what might be. Guantanamo is still full. Iraq is still a mess. Aid agencies still suffer from the funds he cut them; Americans still go without health care and gay and lesbian couples still face a president who doesn’t want them to have equal rights.
But his presidency has dragged on and on. The shock of the new is gone, the contrast between him and his predecessor fading into memory. And hence, gone is the passion of those people who waved placards and shouted, took days off work, school and college to take to the streets. He is old news, and it’s too late to change anything. People are looking forward now, to his successor. He is old news.
It’s easy to get a bit disheartened as a Labour Party member in these times of low poll ratings and disappointing policy. But a good dose of Compass Conference yesterday cheered me up and restored my confidence in the party’s future.
I’ve been a member of Compass for about six months but this was the first event I attended. The conference format was refreshing; opening and closing speeches were followed by q&a sessions, and in between these were seminars and a Question Time style debate. We weren’t being talked at, and there was no adversarial atmosphere or polarised debate- it was all very open and easy to take part in. The discussion was intelligent and constructive.
The two seminars I chose, from a list of about thirty, were on the topics of schooling and electoral reform. The overarching theme of the conference was equality, and the schooling session, led by Melissa Benn, contained almost exclusively advocates of a wholly comprehensive system. The electoral reform session was interesting- its a cause I believe very much in, but finding a system that suits Britain and convincing any government to go with it is going to be a challenge.
Rousing speeches were given by Polly Toynbee, Jon Cruddas and Ed Miliband, amongst others. Harriet Harman gave a disappointing delivery on all women shortlists, but otherwise there was barely a view given that day that I could disagree with. It was heartening to hear everyone bursting with ideas for future policy and direction- my only worry is that it will all fall on deaf ears further up the party hirachy. If Labour could be bold enough now to take some of the ideas from that day- there were enough Government ministers there listening- and run with them in the next Queen’s speech, I reckon our fortunes could take a turn… and what excuse is there for not doing so? We have so little left to lose and potentially not much time left to make a real difference!
David Davis resigned earlier, amongst a fog of confusion. Why on earth has he done it? He has risked his entire career based on a whim, a flippant response to losing a vote. Cameron has distanced himself from it, describing it as “his campaign” and “his personal choice”. The story has been shifted from last nights vote to David Davis’ lunacy.
What a waste of public money this will be, all for an exercise in vanity. It is already surely won, as the Lib Dems will field no candidate. DD double checked this with Nick Clegg last night, before making his final decision. It is a shambolic disrespect of Parliament’s ability to make a decision.
The Tories have been thrown into complete dissarray after their first major policy test and they have Davis to thank for it. Whilst many voters will respect it, many will view his decision as a meaningless exercise in vanity and a collosal waste of money.
The Labour Party may yet boycott this stunt, which I think would be quite a decent idea. Expose Davis for the clown that he really is, and vow never to make a mockery of the democratic process. DD is the one playing games, let him have his fun whilst we get on with Government.
To satisfy Jack Matthew: David Davis has resigned and will contest the by-election he is triggering as part of a campaign on 42 days detention.
Cameron has sought to distance himself from this flippant reaction and the Lib Dems have decided to stab the local party in the back by not offering a candidate.
Not much of a surprise, but the Labour Party has literally JUST confirmed that Ray Collins will be the new General Secretary. He’s a proper trade unionist and current assistant general secretary of the T&G branch of UNITE. He will begin work on the 1st August.
Our less liberal counterparts, Birmingham University Conservative Future, announced today that they plan to leave the Guild of Students. Since they have decied to disable comments on this issue, I have decided to write a blog on it here. I hope they won’t be too offended.
Their decision to leave saddens me, although it does not surprise me. Conservatism does not lend itself naturally to unionism, but the decision to disaffiliate seems to me unfortunate as it is based on what I believe to be a severe misconception of the nature of the Guild.
The first reason given is
Last week the previous chairman Theo Lomas informed me that BUCF had been given a stark ultimatum: play a more active role in farcical Guild politics or be de-recognised.
Every student group at the Guild is required to send one representative to each meeting of Guild Council. This is a body of elected students which meets eight times a year to debate and create Guild policy and to scrutinise the work of the executive committee. The complaint to BUCF would have been made on account of their failure to send either a representative or apologies to a significant number of meetings. While there is a debate to be had over whether societies should be required to do this, if BUCF had a problem they could have very easily proposed a motion to change it. Or they could have taken the BULS route- we have simply sent apologies to the last few meetings.
The next assertion made in the post is
It is my opinion and the opinion of much of the student body that the Guild is far too cliquey and is filled with power hungry and self righteous individuals who claim mandates of a pitiful portion of the University electorate.
This debate has been had many times on both blogs, and I doubt this will be the last. My question: if BUCF is as involved in Guild politics as they previously asserted, how on earth would they have been around enough to discover this? There is a perception amoungst many of a clique, and this is a real shame. The reality is that a lot of us who attend Guild Council get along. We have similar interests, we are all there for the same reason and naturally, we are friendly people who chat to the people next to us in meetings and in Joe’s afterwards. We tend to get along. Whatever people may perceive, the existance of a closed circle is a lie. People come, people go, people get involved, that’s it. It’s a really sad misconception and it always makes me sad that people are put off by it; and that some are too stubborn to come along and see what it’s really like.
I’m not going to go over any of the same old tired arguments again. But today I went along to Guild Council training. I’ve been on it two years now, but I thought I’d pop my head in to see what they were getting up to. There were loads of first time Guild Councillors there. The ones I spoke to were all enthusiastic, all wanted to learn how to get things done, and all had things they wanted to change. Many complained about the Guild in many ways, be it lack of communication from the Guild and their Guild Councillors, a lack of information on how the Guild operates or a specific issue, like fairtrade food or better facilities for students. They learnt how to write and propose motions, how to communicate with their constituents and how to engage in debate at a Guild Council meeting. They learnt how to scrutinise the Executive committee on what they’d been up to and how to change things. It was really positive and I left early, feeling really enthusiastic about the new intake of Councillors.
It’s a shame BUCF have decided not to be part of this new wave and to jump ship. I have always believed you have to be in something to change it. BUCF will acheive very little by disaffiliating, expecially not the change they long to see- nor will they be able to redress their prejudices from the outside. They will also lose their Fresher’s Fair stall, grant money, the right to use rooms and Guild facilities, and any right to vote to change the things they so despise. So long, guys. And good luck.
BULS members worked up a tan today in Selly Oak, door knocking with Steve McCabe MP, Cllr Mike Leddy and may others from the constituency. A beautiful and productive day.
It is fair to say this has been a broadly Obama-supporting blog. There is no reason though why Clinton shouldn’t be on the Democratic ticket.
She is head and shoulders above any other Democrat figure in appealing to voters, in particular her ability to connect with blue-collar workers could be vital to Obama.
This move in uniting the Democrat Party would mean they would be practically unbeatable in November, would it not?
UPDATE: Tom Harris makes some important points about Hillary Clinton.
The University of Birmingham Debating Society has followed BULS and BUCF into the blogosphere. BULS welcomes them with open arms. I have added the prestigious society to our blogroll, check it out here.
The blog has yet to officially launch, but we are very much excited. UBDS boasts about being the home of independent thinking on campus, ofcourse in BULS we deplore such activities for fear they may lead to members straying too far off “the line”!
This week, having the luxury of time to read now that my exams are over, I finished One of Us by Melissa Benn. Focussing on two interlinked families and two rising stars of New Labour, it charts their fortunes from 1971 to just after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. A fantastic book and well worth a read.
Iraq was a hugely divisive issue and it’s interesting to see it being used as a significant part of so many new novels set at the time.
One of our esteemed colleagues in BULS recently said to me that there was little point in going campaigning for an election we’ve already lost.
Tomorrow BULS will be heading to Erdington, where we face significant challenges over the next two years, it is a seat the Tories will find ever more attractive now that they hold 4 of the 12 council seats, one being Lib Dem. A little over 3 years ago the Labour Party could boast holding all council represenatives and ofcourse its Member of Parliament. The Tories have also, effectively made Kingstanding and Tyburn three-horse races, these were previously thought of as safe-labour wards. Erdington constituency has clearly moved into the marginal, and that is a prospect that has put fear into the minds of CLP members. That fear though, thankfully, has been transformed into determination and it is promising to see that the general election campaign and the local election campaign has already begun in earnest.
BULS will be getting to know Erdington very well, as we will in other key seats. So the attitude expressed by one of our colleagues was bitterly dissapointing, but it’s by no means their fault. There is a distinct lack of morale in the party, it’s quite blatant. Yet, it is that attitude that hands the Tories a victory, I don’t know any conservatives who believe it is in their hands just not. So surely it is ours to lose.
The party has large national problems, but that’s not for us to theorise and gossip about. Locally we members need to be on the ground, in communities talking to people about their concerns because it’s what we do best, not navel-gazing. Let’s get off our backsides and get out and spread our positive message about social justice and economic prosperity. The best way we serve our party is by delivering on the ground, not by wallowing in self-pity and anguishing over defeat.
BULS will be meeting outside the Guild tomorrow at 10.30am for anyone I’ve managed to guilt into attendance.
Staying up last night to watch the concession speech from Clinton, it was shocking that she should put herself before the needs of the Democratic Party. Under no circumstances should a candidate stay in when they know their opponent is the presumptive nominee.
Looking ahead to November, I am going to predict a Democrat landslide.
According to the latest polls Obama is consistently polling ahead of McCain nationally. He also puts a lot of other Republican states into play. Survey USA predicts that, not only will Obama win, but states like Texas, North Carolina, Nebraska and Missouri are in the contest.
McCain came out of the primary season early though he has not used this time to develop a coherent message. Listening to his speech last night from New Orleans I was struck by how he could not build a positive theme and instead attempted to claim Barack was ‘not change we could believe in.’ These negative attacks were not well recieved on CNN - he would be wise to change tact quickly.
McCain will also be tarnished by his association with Bush, whose approval ratings are incredibly low. McCain will profess that he is a different man from Bush though their association will be an unrelenting message from the Democrat campaign. It is more then likely that this will be mud that sticks.
The Cowfield has picked up on this drinking issue I am relentlessly plugging. WIth some pertinent research he raises some important points though in other areas I would disagree.
Firstly is the assertion that ‘if only we could give young people other things to do on a Friday and Saturday night they wouldn’t turn to drink.’ Granted we could provide more youth facilities to take kids of the street. However, I don’t believe they are the golden bullet to youth crime which so many politicians assert they are. If you are alienated from society and revert to crime to fund a drug habit you are not going to be straightened out by a game of table tennis. At the same time those young people who are 16+ and want to go to bars and clubs often feel that they have grow out the various ‘youth distractions’. They no longer want to play their Playstations - they want to go out - and that is why is strategy for ‘alternative amusements’ will fail.
Taking young people off the streets and letting them into pubs is not a defeatist approach, it is a brave one. Take the government’s latest attempts to crack down on parents who buy their kids alcohol - this is a populist policy which no one in their right mind can expect to work. The public love right-wing measures where you inevitable ‘clamp down’ on something. This doesn’t mean though that they are effective.
Also it is cited that 75% of young people who drink “admitted to either getting violent or into trouble as a result of drinking.” Well I must admit that I will probably be joining the 3/4 of young people who do what is natural. The same question asked to 18-21 year olds would provide a similar result. Getting into a little bit of trouble when you first start drinking is part of the process through which you mature and learn to drink socially.
If it is a question of the long term then the nations aim in combatting ‘binge drinking UK’ has to be for a more relaxed drinking culture on the streets. We have to change the way people view alcohol, attempt to dispel the idea that you should go out to get lashed/wasted/destroyed/wankered etc and instead emphasise it is a social affair to enjoy in moderation. However, while we ‘clamp-down’, use strict enforcement measures and tough language we will never achieve the latter. There is often talk of creating a Continental drinking culture in the UK. This will not come about by the methods of the Daily Mail. Let’s hope the government can be brave and start to do what is effective.
I am not talking about the streets, I am in fact talking about the Houses of Parliament. It is well known that there has in the past been a heavy drinking culture in the legislature.
“The heavy drinking culture survived the first few years of New Labour’s term in office.
Most major votes were held after 10pm until the new millennium, which meant that MPs would hang around getting gently sloshed in Westminster’s numerous bars as they waited to vote.
Once the division bells stopped ringing many MPs would hang around till midnight, with a hard core heading off to Soho to drink through the night.”
It must be said that since later sittings have been abolished there number of MPs becoming tired and emotional has declined.
Added to the blogroll is The Tory Troll- a blogger from SE London who takes particular joy in criticising Richard Barnbrook, the BNP GLA member, and Boris. This site seems to be doing what very few Labour blogs achieve - real scrutiny of the Tories and the right in general.
So having given my thoughts below on why I binge drink, we then have the issue of why those under eighteen do it.
It can be accidental- when you pour a measure yourself you don’t know how much is in it. But in a pub situation, you always know you have 25 or 50 ml of spirit in a drink with a mixer.
Drinking outside of a pub there’s not always someone to tell you when to stop- but in a pub the bar staff must by law refuse you if they think you’ve had too much.
As I said before, a lot of people binge drink because it’s fun- so to stop us doing it we need a safer alternative. Young people can be anti-social and dangerous if drinking on the street- so put them in a controlled environment. Like a pub.
For some young people its glamarous to emulate adults and drink. So make it less glamorous by making it legal. (On the flipside, for some adults it’s a show of manliness and adulthood to keep up with your mates, to have that extra pint, to “show you can handle your drink”. Let people into pubs younger, and it suddenly looks a lot less macho.)
The problem is not that young people drink, its how much they drink and the manner in which they do it. So sort that out- let them into the pub.
The government and media are obsessed with the fact that people binge drink, but what annoys me is the lack of thought into why people binge drink.
First let’s clarify: the BBC quotes the government that binge drinking is more than eight units in a session, six for a woman. Since this equates to three pints for me, I therefore binge drink on a regular basis. Last night, for example.
Last night I was in a nice pub with some course mates, celebrating the end of their exams (mine having concluded a week previously). Over the space of four hours I had three pints of nice-tasting ales and bitters. I did not feel drunk, did nothing teribly outragous and had a pleasent evening. Contrast this with another end-of-year celebration earlier in the week where I consumed half a bottle of wine over a meal, two flirtinis at home (we were watching the Mighty Boosh), and a large number of vile vodka-lemonades at Snobs (a sweaty and cheap nightclub, for those not from Birimingham). I got home safely, had a good laugh and slept off my hangover the next morning.
Both these are incidences of binge-drinking. One more rowdy than the other, but neither caused any inconvenience to me or those around me. Sure it’s not great for my body, but that’s my choice-having been made well aware of the risks by numerous government adverts, I considered them and chose to ignore them, deeming this OK so long as the only person getting harmed is myself. What is wrong with me choosing to spend my evenings like this? Why did I in the fist place?
Sometimes I binge drink without meaning to, like in the pub example. But sometimes, like in the club examble, I do it intentionally, because its just fun. Don’t shoot me- it’s true. Everyone gets a bit tipsy, a bit more relaxed, your mates who don’t normally dance start dancing, someone does something stupid and you all have a good laugh about it, you’re friendly with everyone, everyone’s in a good mood. It’s unwinding and relaxing after a dull day at work or a stressful stint of exams. Provided you don’t overdo it, the worst you’ll suffer in return for this fun in the short term is a hangover. It’s a fair trade and one most of us are willing to make.
So how is the government going to deter me from engaging in drinking of this form? Well if there was a less dangerous drug I could legally take that would be as sociable and fun, I’d switch to that instead, but there isn’t a legal one I’m aware of yet. Higher prices might deter me from going out to a club more often, but then I’d have to find something to do instead- and that would still probably cost money- bowling is both dull and bizzarrely expensive, the cinema isn’t exactly sociable, and just staying in with your mates isn’t always an option (particuarly for those who live with their parents). The health risks, as I said, are well publicised and I am well aware of them. So what’s going to deter me from getting a bit drunk with my mates to celebrate someting, or just to relax and have a laugh? I’m honestly not sure, actually. And as for the new wave of measures to combat binge drinking commented on by BULS earlier this weekend, I can’t see how they’re going to tackle the reasons other people binge drink either.
Bill Rammell is calling on students and staff to challenge extremism on their campuses. This will also involve a ’series of roadshows’ aimed at tackling those who advocate terrorism.
“The initiative is the clearest sign yet that ministers are becoming increasingly concerned at how a small band of extremists within the further education system are helping to radicalise Muslims.”
Addressing this issue is always like walking a tight-rope. The vast majority of Muslims on any campus are law-abiding individuals who reject fundamentalism. On the other hand the student community should not ignore the disaffection of the tiny minority of students (of all backgrounds) who embrace a terrorist mindset.
The strength of a student union is its collective outlook. Any demonisation of a minority undermines that solidarity. So we should challenge any fundamentalism on our campus, Muslim or otherwise. Though this should be done by being inclusive, promoting dialogue between different faith groups and bringing students from different communities together.
At the annual conference of the Townswomen’s Guild next week the 
Ministers are preparing to open the way for genetically modified crops to be grown in Britain on the grounds they could help combat the global food crisis according to the 
is still full. Iraq is still a mess. Aid agencies still suffer from the funds he cut them; Americans still go without health care and gay and lesbian couples still face a president who doesn’t want them to have equal rights.