I opposed Equal Marriage no longer

by bulsonline

Among the two years of Coalition government that Britain has been subjected to there has been little to smile about. There is no need to list the ‘omnishambles’ here, even those who have better things to do with their time than check the tweetings of the political geekery are well versed in just how inept and backward this government’s policies are. Then, all of a sudden, there appeared a ray of hope, a reason to celebrate, perhaps this Cameron fella ain’t so bad after all – he wants to introduce Equal Marriage.

I read with despair the comments of those supportive of Equal Marriage and I wanted to shout: ‘Can you not see the mind-forged manacles of institutionalism that Marriage (in any form) brings?!’. The Gay Liberation Front, nurtured on the campus at LSE in the early 70s was very clear in its view, condemning on page 2 in The Gay Manifesto the ‘archaic and irrational teaching [that] support the family and marriage as the only permitted conditions for sex.’ The Gay Liberation Front’s key theme was anti-assimilation. Gay people were equal, sure, but they were different as well, and as such should play no role in conforming to the ‘archaic’ institutions and cultural practises that made up Britain’s history. It was this direct, ‘in-yer-face’ attitude which makes the GLF so important to Gay history in Britain. The concept of Marriage could play no part in their ‘aim at the abolition of the family.’ (p.9)

I for one oppose marriage. I agree with the GLF when they stated that ‘we will not be freed so long as each succeeding generation is brought up in the same old sexist way in the patriarchal family.’ It would have been hypocritical of me, I believed, to oppose marriage, but be in favour of Equal Marriage.

I then looked to see who also opposed Equal Marriage. I could find nobody that shared my opinion on the fundamentally unjust nature of marriage. Instead it was a collection of knee-jerk Tory MPs (the dusty and offensive Peter Bones of this world) and irrelevant Church Minsters, whose quest to preserve ‘traditional family values’ was little more than thinly veiled homophobia and ignorance. These people seem to advocate human rights, as long as this doesn’t stretch to sexuality equality. And I was not prepared to enter this unholy coalition.

It then dawned on me that my argument was flawed. Basically, I was being an academic elitist, pontificating from the comforts of a university on how ‘blinkered’ everyone was apart from me. (I once heard this described as ‘intellectual masturbation’).

So if gay couples wish to show their love to one another and society at large by entering the traditional institution of marriage then there is absolutely no argument, certainly morally, why this shouldn’t be allowed to happen. Sign me up as a convert. Just don’t expect any Queer Radicals to be heading up the aisle any time soon.

By Dan Harrison, former BULS Chair

Le Changement, C’est Maintentant

by bulsonline

Change, it’s now. The campaign slogan for the new French President will be felt across Europe, and most heavily in Berlin and London. It remains to be seen exactly how the new French President changes Europe, but one thing’s for sure; it’s going to change. Cameron has once again been proven to be behind the curve. After national and local elections in France, Britain, Greece and Germany, people are telling their leaders that they must change tact and get the economies in Europe moving once more.

The election of Francois Hollande will certainly shift the debate in Europe, with how to get growth into our continent now being the primary focus. In his victory speech , the new French President spoke of breaking with austerity, of making a better world for the next generation and how the young will be at the centre of his presidency. Listening to his priorities, it felt in stark contrast with the current situation we are in on this side of the Channel and indeed in many countries throughout Europe.

Throughout his campaign, Hollande also spoke of wanting to unite people, of a dislike of divisiveness. This also tells us something about how President Hollande will lead Europe, on a night when neo-Nazi’s made gains in Greece. Attitudes towards immigration within the EU and the divisiveness they have created have for too long gone unchecked and have only got worse during these times of economic crisis. It’s not just growth that Europe needs, it’s inclusion, unity and, in that most French of words, fraternity.

Cameron, watch out. Change is here.

By Hannah Johnson, BULS Member

 

The Lib Dems, a Tory lurch to the right, UKIP and Europe.

by Alex Swanson

Hopefully, the fantastic election results for Labour on Thursday will mark the point at which the coalition begins to unravel. Indeed, since the election Tory backbenchers such as Nadine Dorries have accused the PM of ‘privileged arrogance and bad manners’ and have allegedly begun discussing a motion of no confidence.

Dorries goes on to claim that “we do not have true conservative values in our party at the moment – we have a predominance of Liberal Democratic values”, a sentiment most grass-roots Liberal Democrats would wholeheartedly disagree with. Can a government which has implemented such draconian cuts really be considered one which has embraced ‘Liberal Democratic values’?

The problem for the Liberal Democrats is that their vote share declined to a measly 16% of the vote, a second year of pain for a party which has traditionally done better in local elections than in general elections. Lib Dem activists fear that the loss of so many councillors may result in the party facing an ‘electoral wipeout’ in 2015. The Liberal Democrats do deserve the rejection by voters due to Clegg’s decision to abandon core Lib Dem positions, such as on tuition fees, and the failure to moderate a government dominated by conservative principles. However, the product of weaker Lib Dems may just be an even stronger Tory party, especially in the south, or worse, a stronger UKIP.

The worry is that the Tories’ declining share of the vote, coupled with the success of smaller parties such as UKIP, which polled 14% of the vote in areas which they contested, could lead to the party making a further lurch to the right in order to win back the more conservative voters won over by UKIP. Calls have been made by MPs such David Davis to abandon progressive elements of the coalition’s policies such as Lords reform and gay marriage in order to give a “more Conservative flavour to the coalition”.

In particular the success of UKIP has the potential to ignite a fight from Tory backbenchers over Europe, and in this regard both the Tory right and UKIP represent a further danger to Britain. With the European elections approaching in 2014, the Tory party could see the increasing popularity of UKIP, who usually perform well in elections to the European Parliament, as a sign they need to adopt a more Eurosceptic approach. Following David Cameron’s recent unwillingness to work with fellow European leaders on solving the Eurozone debt crisis, a more Eurosceptic approach has the potential to further isolate Britain on the periphery of the European project.

Although, the EU has many, many problems, including a clear democratic deficit, it is an institution which ultimately does serve the British interest. In particular, when it comes to the environment, Europe has led the way internationally in agreeing to ambitious emissions targets and unilaterally implementing a tax on aviation.

What Labour needs to do is address the genuine concerns the public have when it comes to the EU. Last week, the former business secretary, Peter Mandelson, called for a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU, due to the fundamental changes in the nature of the EU in the decades since the last referendum on Britain’s relationship with Europe. Such a high-profile call for a referendum by a former Labour minister, should be heeded by the current Labour leadership. The Labour party has the potential to redraw the debate around Europe by taking the initiative and adopting a policy which would show that the party is listening to the millions of people who clearly have issues with Europe. The opportunity to make the case for Europe would expose divisions within the Conservative party over the issue, while also giving the British people a chance to have their say on a changing institution which does have huge implications for the democracy of this country.

A (mostly) referenced version of this post is available at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WcmZYW11nzzWq1OWKVc7s2laxdhHAVJHyp7UsqA4W9Y/edit

By Alex Swanson, BULS Website Editor

What the Parties Need to Do Next

by labourluke

This may turn out to be one of my last blog posts as a Birmingham University Labour Student, before I, like so many others, get tossed on to the proverbial dung heap of youth unemployed in this country, thanks directly to the Coalition government’s economic policies, festering away in the hot summer sun, ignored by the generations who came before us who had it so good.

I think our very own Max has already eloquently and fairly captured Labour’s performance in this week’s mosaic of elections, rightly arguing that although it was a fantastic night for Labour and a bad night for pretty much everyone else, including the media who wound themselves up for a Labour defeat in Glasgow and drubbing in London, we still have a long way to go, and are only at ‘Kinnock levels’ of support at present.

Therefore I will just sum up where I think the main parties should go from here, and although I am in no position whatsoever to know what goes on in the heads of the British voters (all five of them who bothered), I will try tentatively to capture what they may have been thinking.

First of all, the Tories. These guys need to get real – after weeks of headlines about being out of touch, with pasties, grannies and income tax, they see the local election results as a resounding call from the electorate to try and get more out of touch, if that is at all possible. In backbenchers’ post-match analysis  (reliably backed by the Daily Mail) this has varied from House of Lords reform, to equal marriage concerns to a need for fewer wind turbines. They’re even proposing an ‘alternative Queen’s Speech’. As if those who voted against the Tories who were unemployed and couldn’t afford to pay the gas bill, or even had to resort to food banks, weren’t bothered by this, but were damned if they were going to see Lord Sugar get made redundant, or let Adam and Steve down the road get hitched. No, guys, they don’t want YOU redistributing wealth from the most vulnerable to the richest in society, making them pay for the failure of neo-liberal economics.

Next, Labour: We need to be confident in our leader, who may have some work still to do but is a leader who is connecting with people, does have a vision for the future forming in his head, and is capable of heading a talented team of potential ministers. We also must reach out to those who didn’t go out and vote on Thursday, giving them a positive reason to run to the polling booths at 7am to vote Labour – even in the bloody rain. We need a plan for fair, green investment in industry to bring growth and jobs back to the economy. We need to bite our tongues and reach out to the Liberal Democrats, and not be tempted to laugh and cackle at their coming behind penguins and fascists in some wards – this isn’t funny, this is worrying. Everybody knows most of them would rather be in coalition with Labour than the Tories.

What about the Greens? They need to let us steal some of their policies.

And finally, the Lib Dems: Exit the Coalition, stage Left.

Labour’s best local election result since 1995 and the Tories’ worst since 1996, yeah, we’ll take that

by maxattacks

Labour leader Ed Miliband with Labour Group leader Sir Albert Bore

Ed Miliband in Birmingham yesterday with Birmingham Council Labour Group leader, Sir Albert Bore

That’s right, throughout Friday Labour saw it’s best performance in a local election since 1995 (all in proportion to how many Council elections were up for grabs as last year we gained more but far more were up for grabs). And similarly the Tories saw their worst local election result since 1996 and the Lib Dems now have dropped down below 3,000 councillors for the first time in the party’s existence.

This was a result that exceeded everyone’s expectations on all fronts. With most Tories attempting to spin the result to say we needed around 450 councillor gains to be seen as a success, we only smashed that with 823! When everyone expected Scottish Labour to lose Glasgow City Council we not only fought off a SNP challenge but took control of the council at the expense of the Lib Dems and Tories. When everyone said Labour would only win a slight majority in our very own Birmingham City Council, we smashed all expectations by gaining 20 councillors and winning a 34 seat majority. When it was expected Welsh Labour would fail in taking Cardiff City Council, we defied all predictions by gaining 33 councillors and winning a majority of 17! And we’re very proud of very nearly almost gaining control of the Greater London Assembly, falling short by 1 Assembly member.

This election wasn’t without its disappointments though. BULS’s very own Honourary life Member, Dennis Minnis, was unsuccessful in taking Edgbaston. And biggest of all, huge disappointment at Ken’s defeat. We are all glad Ken did defy most  (but not all, sadly) odds by not letting Boris have a shoe-in election by pushing the margin on the second round to a close 3%. Many Tories see Boris as the next leader and Prime Minister in waiting. “Wiff-waff” may well have edged it in London, don’t expect the country to do the same.

Of course, the results did see successes close to our hearts in BULS. Obviously there was turning Birmingham City Council red, but BULS saw former student of the University of Birmingham, Karen McCarthy, join former BULS Secretary, Brigid Jones, as a Councillor for Selly Oak. Quinton ward, where Grandee Nash played a large hand in, was also successful in electing Caroline Bradley.

All in all, while this was a brilliant result for Labour nationally we have to remember this has happened to opposition parties in the past. Hague, Howard and Kinnock all saw similar successes at mid-term local elections in their time in opposition. This was a much needed boost, not a prelude for the general election. Though it is safe to say, that the media, politicians and the wider public can no longer claim Miliband has no chance at 2015. There’s still a hell of a lot of work to be done, but we now know that we still do have a shot at 2015.

Max

Sold short

by Chris Nash

If you plan to exploit vulnerable people through a shameful confidence trick, it is generally best not to shout about it in the national press. Sadly this ProTip was not passed on to a Mr Carl Cooper of CarSmart in Kent. Mr Cooper’s little scam was to predate on those desperately seeking work, and to pay them at the miserly rate of £50 per week. In case you missed that, that’s for a whole weeks work, it’s not even a daily rate. Its £2.50 an hour, below the legal minimum wage and well below a living wage. Thankfully all his victims had the common sense to tell him where to get off – not one of them turned up.

Mr Cooper is a cruel and selfish individual. He has attempted to take advantage of a high unemployment rate to undermine basic working conditions and to exploit desperate people. You might think it unfair to single him out for criticism; he is just one greedy self-serving individual among many.  Maybe I would have dismissed him if it had been just the confidence trick. One obscure tinpot little company out in the sticks barely registers on the global scale of corporate injustice. But because Mr Cooper was outwitted by seven unemployed people he’d so clearly thought beneath him, he decided to launch a smear campaign.

This is why you may have read about Mr Cooper in the gutter press, in the corrupt Murdoch tabloids, in the hate-soaked columns of the Mail, and on the front page of Friday’s Metro (which presumably no unemployed person is expected to read). Bitter at being outwitted by dole scum, he has decided to add to the drip-drip of hateful propaganda against them. I’m going to look specifically at the Sun, that bastion of working class divide-and-rule. Mr Cooper looks bemused around his soulless office, making awkward half eye contact and sporting one of those ‘70s style striped shirts with plain collars that David Steel used to wear. Apparently the hired staff failed to turn up because of rain, not that any evidence or testimony is given to prove this. In all likelihood Mr Cooper plucked it gracefully from his arse. Then the real slurs begin.

A picture worth taking up darts for.

The general assumption made by Mr Cooper is that the potential employees were “work-shy”. In fact, throw in all the tired clichés you can think of. Draw an elegant but oh so two-dimensional caricature if you please. It’s so much easier than genuine analysis – you don’t even need evidence. To quote “Stunned Carl”: “I cannot believe that these layabouts can have such a pathetic attitude to a day’s labour”. The measured tones of a decent chap, I’m sure you’ll agree. For the real reason why not one of the seven did not turn up, Mr Cooper need only look at the pay he was offering. Did it ever occur to him that it isn’t work, or even the specific type of work that people object to, it’s the insulting poverty pay?

£50 a week is well below the poverty line for a single person. Subtract travel costs and its questionable as to whether anyone could afford to remain alive on such a sum. “Even the basic pay for fulfilling the minimum requirements of the work would be double what they could get on Jobseekers Allowance” is Mr Cooper’s justification. With such an evidently poor grasp of basic maths, I could fear for the financial future of his business, if I cared. For comparison the JSA rate for under 25’s is £56 a week. From experience I can say that it’s certainly a struggle keeping the Koi carp pond stocked on 56 quid. Alternatively it’s “too generous” if you agree with Mr Cooper, which I don’t. People are indeed better off on the dole, but in the way that the ‘flu is better than the Black Death.

Would I rather pay people to stay on the dole? Well yes actually, yes I would. As a taxpayer, I would much rather pay to support someone in looking for work on their own terms; work that will be suited to their talents, complement their general well-being, and ideally be of a credit to wider society. I would favour this even more so if the alternative is to force the desperate into an exploitative working relationship with the Carl Coopers of this world, encouraging a race to the bottom for wages in a sweatshop economy. I would see the end of parasitical businesses like CarSmart. What a beautiful irony it would be if Mr Cooper found himself unemployed; would his Just World philosophy survive? Would he continue to think of himself as superior to “those people” when he’s stacking shelves for free in the Darwinian future he encourages?

“The benefit system rewards people for doing nothing” says Carl. No mate, it protects them from abusive scumbags like yourself.

BULS Supporting Michael Chessum to be VPHE of NUS

by edjamesgilbert

Following careful consideration, BULS has decided to support Michael Chessum’s campaign to be VPHE of NUS and we ask Birmingham delegates and Labour students nationally to do the same. We believe that Michael is the most competent candidate, and will achieve the most for students now, and in the future.

He has been the only candidate to continuously fight against the Tories’ fee regime and its further marketisation of our education system. Michael has been instrumental inthe organising of two national demonstrations, mobilising thousands of students across the country. Such demonstrations proved highly successful, gaining the support of Labour Students, and the general student population, nationally.

As Labour students we should be fighting against the current coalition government’s outrageous, and damaging, policies concerning higher education fees and their on-going commitment to severe austerity measures. Education is a public good and, at Birmingham, we believe that education should be universally accessible and publically funded. Michael Chessum is the only candidate for VPHE who we believe shares our values and will fight to defend them.

Furthermore, Michael is the only candidate committed to opposing Theresa May’s regressive and racist visa changes, which will have a detrimental effect on International Students who contribute so much to our higher education institutions and country as a whole.

Michael’s past record shows that he knows when and how to use direct action tactics, whilst his pivotal role in founding NCAFC proves his dedication to fighting the government’s austerity measures.

We need a VP Higher Education that will offer a robust defence against the coalition’s stark attacks on education. We wholeheartedly believe it is time to put factional divides behind us and unite in our support for Chessum, as the candidate most able to deliver.

Catie, Ed, Ellis, Areeq, Alex, Sam and Dan

Chris Grayling to reduce unemployment by One.

by Chris Nash

Chris Grayling, in case you didn’t already know, is the Member of Parliament for Epsom and Ewell, and Minister of State at the Department for Work and Pensions. He is also a lying bastard and has dreadful communication skills. His efforts tackling the worst unemployment among young people in generations have been lacklustre to say the least. He, alongside faux-compassionate conservative Iain Duncan Smith, is the government’s standard bearer for punitive schemes designed to punish and exploit the unemployed. He has used his position of power and privilege to slander and misrepresent the characters and causes of anyone who dares speak against him. When the inequities of his schemes are highlighted, he resorts to spin and bare faced lies. In short, he is an evil, hateful, immoral little man.

Image

The quite excellent Johnny Void documents more fully Grayling and the DWP’s shameful back-story. Today I come to credit Grayling. In between selling our youth as slaves and branding the Archbishop of Canterbury a militant Trotskyite, he has successfully created one new job. Just the one. Here [link].

I know from experience that jobs working for MPs can receive hundreds of applications for a single position. In this case there may be fewer, given what any politically aware unemployed person will know about Grayling. But if Hell itself were looking for part-time bar staff, even Satan might receive CVs from desperate job hunters. When hundreds of people apply for one position, 99% of those are mathematically guaranteed to be unsuccessful. How will Grayling reconcile these masses of doomed applicants with his wider responsibility for policy? Will he realise that his hateful ideology is wrong in blaming individuals for economic circumstances far beyond their control?

Here’s an idea. The deadline for this job is not until Monday (23rd). The essential qualifications and requirements are actually very low. Any young person who has passed a handful of GCSEs could, with a minimal amount of on the job training, perform the advertised role. I’m going to apply. You should to. So should everyone who is currently unemployed, and even those who aren’t but who will need a job in the near future. We’re all qualified. Assuming that the position is filled on a loosely meritocratic basis, we should all have a fair chance of consideration.

If, by Monday morning, Grayling’s office inbox is fit to bursting with job applications (“the standard was very high”) then maybe, just maybe, he’ll start to consider the massive competition that exists for even the most basic of jobs. Maybe he’ll begin to appreciate just how many individuals are trapped in limbo by a lack of opportunities. Maybe (and this is a long shot) he’ll cut us some slack, stop using his departmental jackboot to bully and intimidate, and start creating real jobs, beyond making cups of tea in his constituency office.

It won’t take long. Thirty minutes to draft a covering letter, and any good student/graduate job-hunter should have a CV to hand, one that can be appropriately tweaked. Grayling may endorse lying, but I encourage honesty, these should be genuine applications. I could put an example here, but several hundred individual submissions will carry far more weight than a thousand copy and pastes. Apply. Apply now! If you’re really lucky – and I mean really lucky – you might just end up working for the Right Honourable Member.

The ad in full (courtesy of w4mpjobs):

Image

Substance Abuse – Tackling the Real Problems of Selly Oak

by areeqchowdhury

As a Birmingham resident for almost two years now, I can’t help but find that not enough is done to tackle recreational drug use in the city. Although the problem exists in Edgbaston as well as a number of other areas of Birmingham, I am going to talk mainly about Selly Oak, where I currently reside and where a large number of our students live. It is an issue that, I find, has often been overlooked and swept under the carpet rather than being prioritised. For all the highs that can be offered with these substances, there is potential for serious, long-term, negative impacts on your health. In Selly Oak, illegal, recreational drug use is discreet, but widespread. Access to drugs is unbelievably easy and not enough is done to tackle this in our community.

Cannabis use, in particular is quite popular with a lot of students of Edgbaston and Selly Oak, as well as some permanent residents of Selly Oak. But other drugs such as cocaine, ketamine, MCAT, and MDMA are also just a phone-call away. And if that number is engaged? Well there’s about ten other numbers you can try. I guess this blog-post is really a call-to-action for local MPs Steve McCabe and Gisela Stuart, as well as local Councillors, the West Midlands Police, and the University of Birmingham Guild of Students to work together and seriously tackle the issue. Matters such as recycling, burglary, and even poor broadband service are generally prioritised in Selly Oak, and understandably so, but why not drugs?

The negative ramifications that drug use can cause are serious and sometimes irreversible. Whether that be damages to your mental health, your physical health, or even just the increased likelihood of bad things happening when you’re intoxicated, in the long term, substance abuse just isn’t worth it. And financially, take it from an economist, none of this stuff is actually worth the prices that they are sold at; the reason they are priced so high is because they are illegal. The money would be better spent on clothes, books, or even food rather than blindly investing money with questionable characters. A lot of extremist groups and terrorist groups are known to be funded by narcotic drugs trade – another reason right there to tackle the issue.

A lot of people take drugs though in Selly Oak, even people you wouldn’t normally suspect, and it is a very tough problem to tackle, of course it is. However, I am only going to suggest one method for these community powers-at-be to use, and that is to educate students about the negative effects of drugs. In my view, education is often a remedy to a lot of the world’s problems and I think education in this situation could do a great deal of good. Ideally, I would like there to be termly anti-drugs campaign weeks at the University as well as public information campaigns in Selly Oak. A lot of people won’t pay attention, sure, that is to be expected, but even if one or two people are turned away from substance abuse, it would be worth it. As it is now, there simply isn’t enough being done.

This isn’t an exaggeration or an over-dramatisation of the issue, it’s real and it’s happening. I want to make it clear, however, that this isn’t any kind of moral judgement on my behalf, no one is perfect, and I am certainly no angel myself. It is a serious issue in Selly Oak though, and I am positive that the problem is replicated in other areas of Birmingham. In schools, children are educated about these sorts of issues, and rightly so, but at University, where students are most exposed to the problem, there is next to nothing in terms of education and campaigning. Substance abuse can have short-term, medium-term, and long-term negative effects on individuals, and I guess I hope that the local council hopefuls, our Parliament representatives, and our upcoming Guild of Students Officer Team prioritise this issue in the coming years. Even if helps just one person.

By Areeq Chowdhury, Secretary-elect.
@AreeqChowdhury

Keeping the state out of the business of religion, through taxation

by maxattacks

If you’ve taken a nosy around the BBC Website recently you’ll have noticed a video on the imposition of VAT on constructions and repairs for religious institutions and buildings.

Now for those of you who know me personally as an ‘angry atheist’ may start worrying “Oh no, what’s he going to come out with now, destruction of all religious buildings?”. Fear not, while many of you do see that side of me I’m also an ardent secularists. I recognise the right of religious organisations to play a legitimate part in society but I also am opposed to having the state play any part in religious affairs. So this is why we need to tax religious organisations like any other organisation that has an income.

Some of you may have reeled back from such a suggestion, but hear/read me out. To become a legally recognised religion with a tax-exempt status an organisation has jump through a large variety of hoops set by the state. That’s right, the state sets the criteria and by extension determines which organisations are worthy of having tax-exempt statuses. I’m not proposing we take religious rights away from organisations and individuals, rather to take away the privileges granted by the state a select group of institutions based on no sound secular reason.

If you want to ensure true neutrality from the state in regards to religion (aside from a much needed separation of church and state, but that’s a whole other post) no tax-exempt status should be granted to any religious institution and yes even atheist/humanist/secularist groups that may have won a tax-exempt status. Churches are free to continue with any charity work they so wish and I think we can all agree that area will remain tax-exempt but separate from the organisation.

On a more personal note, with the billions upon billions of pounds that go into religious organisations world-wide only to spent on other churches, missionaries and aid to foreign countries which is too often conditioned upon meeting certain religious criteria. This money could be far better spent on real secular matters like schools, hospitals and roads.

Max

George Osborne: Right on Charity

by Chris Nash

Never let it be said that I am an unquestioning partisan. George Osborne has attracted a lot of criticism in the past few days for his plans to cap tax relief for charitable donations. Tax relief allows wealthy individuals who donate to registered charities to claim back from the treasury. The Chancellor is proposing to cap the amount of tax-free giving at £50,000, or 25% of a person’s income, whichever figure is the greater. I agree with him.

It is an unusual situation where a Tory chancellor can consider myself as an ally (and the Daily Mail as an enemy). The official reason given by Osborne is that this is a means to reduce tax evasion. If you remember back to the budget, Osborne declared such evasion to be “morally reprehensible”. At the time I expressed deep cynicism about what actions if any would follow such fine words. The charity tax relief cut is a welcome start, even if the limit is still too generous.

What have I got against charity? Consider it like this – under normal circumstances an individual who has been fortunate enough to become a high earner will contribute back to society through taxation. A progressive tax system will endure that the tax rate collects most from those who can most afford it. Revenue raised then goes back into services from which we all individually or collectively benefit. An educated, healthy and contented society then feeds into the entrepreneurs and genuine wealth-creators of the future.

Now consider the tax relief route. The rich individual decides to reduce their tax bill by donating to a registered charity. This could be any such charity of their choice, regardless of size or activity. The charity would be run by its directors and trustees entirely by its own rules and priorities, with little oversight, and no accountability to the general public. Because the donor has claimed tax relief, the funds raised for the treasury are reduced – the state has less to spend on health, education, and other public services. The donor themselves, if wealthy, is probably not affected but the general public will suffer as a result.

The charity tax relief system is effectively a system for the subsidy of charities at the expense of public services. Public services face an immense amount of scrutiny, and they are always accountable to us through our elected representatives. Even the largest and best known charities carry out their activities in relative secrecy. Some charities do nominally “good” work, such as running hostels or after-school tuition. Yet what logic can there be in the treasury subsidising a charity to support a public service, when that same public service only needs support due to treasury spending cuts?

Philanthropy is also strongly anti-democratic.  A donor decides which causes they believe are worthy. They also decide how much to donate and when. Where a charity has a few large donors it has to dance to their tune, to beg. To quote Toynbee and Walker in Unjust Rewards (2008):

we suggested to a major donor that paying more tax might be a better way for the wealthy to pay their dues than random gift-giving. He answered that the state could never spend his money as well as he could. If he gives he can direct it exactly where he wants and oversee what happens to it. Follow this recipe to its natural conclusion and anarchy and plutocracy result.

Charity tax relief allows the wealthy to take money from the tax system – from all of us – and spend it on their private causes; be they decent state substitutes, the idols of privilege, or just delusional make-believe. I applaud Osborne for cutting it.

Will the relief cut seriously reduce donations? That only depends on the true motives of the donors. From the Independent:

Why are charities so fearful that a limit on how much donors can offset against tax will reduce their income? This will only happen if the tax concessions of the past constituted a major – the major? – motivation to give. No limit is being placed on how much anyone may donate, only on what draws tax relief. If big donors are sufficiently committed to their cause, there is nothing to prevent them giving as before. If they don’t, does that not suggest that the tax break was, if not being abused, at least a persuasive consideration?

I am not against charity in itself, but it must never be a substitute for the consistent and equal provision of essential services. Services that only the state can provide fairly and free at point-of-use to all of its citizens. The welfare state was founded by Liberal and Labour governments precisely because the threadbare safety net of charitable provision was never good enough. Cutting the tax relief threshold could mean an actual spending increase for our public services, and in that I agree with George.

Local elections: our candidates

by edjamesgilbert

As we all know, the London mayoral election is quickly approaching. The two front-runners, and perhaps the candidates who are of most importance to us Labour lot, are well known: Ken Livingstone, the famous collector of lizards, and Boris Johnson, the living incarnation of a 15th century duke.

However, whilst these candidates have received plenty of media coverage, it remains that others have been pushed into the background. So what I want to – very briefly – highlight, are a couple of local council candidates in Birmingham.

BULS has, in the last year, been very active in the local area. Last year, Edgbaston council candidate Dennis Minnis lost by only 21 votes. This year, he is standing again, and BULS has been behind him 100%. A few weeks ago, a few of us went out on a Saturday to talk to local residents with Dennis. As we were walking down Charlotte Road (not too far from the Vale), Dennis told us that in the early 1990s, he won a large redevelopment fund for the street. Before, he said, there were partially deserted and dilapidated high rise buildings. These tower blocks are now gone, and the street looks entirely different (there’s even a nice playground there, where Catie Garner, our incoming Chair, got very distracted with the shiny swing sets). Dennis is incredibly passionate about his local community, and this is just one example of the astounding work that he has done in the past.

Another candidate who I would like to quickly mention is Elaine Williams, the council candidate for Harborne ward. Unlike Dennis, she has never been a councillor before, but is by no means any less passionate. I met Elaine last October, and have been out campaigning for her ever since. Recently, she wrote in Harbone Local News about the local elections (http://www.harbornenews.com/April2012/index.html). On page 15, she talks about the work she has done in the last few months for Harborne. One point she highlights concerns the sale of the Clock Tower on Harborne High Street, a former local community centre. In short, the grade II listed building was in need of repair, and the local Tories commissioned the erection of scaffolding on the building. Along with James McKay, the only Labour councillor in Harborne, Elaine found through an FOI request that the scaffolding cost around £12,000 a week. They then subsequently found an alternative quote of £2,000 a week, which was ignored by the Tories. Within no time, the debt quickly amounted to around £800,000. Recently, the centre was sold for £100,000, effectively meaning that £700,000 of local taxpayers’ money was lost. As James said in a radio interview, you’d be hard pressed to find a flat for £100,000 in the centre of Harborne, let alone a grade II listed building.

It’s also worth having a look at this – http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/harborne_clock_tower_sale_price?unfold=1 – to see more about the work she’s done regarding the Clock Tower (scandal). 

As one of the most talked about issues in Harborne, Elaine has been at the forefront of the debate. Like Dennis, she has been passionate about local issues, and would no doubt do a fantastic job as Harborne’s second Labour councillor.

This is my first blog, and as boring as it might be, I really wanted to highlight this issue. Whilst other political issues like the London mayoral election and the Birmingham Mayoral referendum are at the forefront of the news, dedicated individuals like Dennis and Elaine are hardly talked about. Of course, I’m not surprised, but I wanted this rant to provide some needed attention to our local candidates. It’s easy for these candidates to be lost in the political mix, but with the local elections dawning on Thursday 3rd May, I wanted to quickly show that councillors can make a difference, and that these candidates will make a difference if elected.

By Ed Gilbert, Vice-Chair-elect

Santorum Pulls Out

by Chris Nash

A belated comment from me, because I’ve overdone it on caffeine and can’t sleep. If you hadn’t already heard, Rick Santorum, latest incarnation of the US extreme-right, has suspended his presidential campaign. This is slightly earlier than I had expected; as a political geek and election junkie I’m disappointed. There were so many contestable primaries still to go, with most of New England and the Mid-Atlantic states due on the 24th of this month. Shame on the anti-choice candidate for aborting his campaign and not carrying it to full term!

As far as I can make out, Santorum has two positive qualities. 1) He’s seemingly quite fond of a drink before noon, and 2) he wears those lovely sleeveless jerseys (great for keeping your core body snug while letting your arms and armpits breath!) I liked having an “underdog” candidate in the race, and I was sympathetic to his plight of being massively outspent by the Romney campaign.

Copyright from left: Jim Wilson/The New York Times; Josh Haner/The New York Times; Jim Wilson/The New York Times; Jim Wilson/The New York Times

Not too hot, not too cold. By far his most sensible policy decision.

Then again, I loathe nearly everything that Rick Santorum stands for. There’s far too much for one post, so I shall focus on two prominent issues. Firstly the man is a bigot. He is a homophobic bigot. You cannot justify homophobia, not in the 21st Century, not in a civilised society. Dressing it up as a feigned defence of the “traditional family” cuts no ice; its like saying you don’t want any black kids in your white children’s class because you’re afraid they’ll learn bad habits. You assume there’s a threat and use that to justify your pre-existing bigotry. This should not just be an LGBT concern – if you’re capable of hating one group solely because of something intrinsic to their being, you can just as easily hate another. As a socialist and a social liberal I find it abhorrent.

Before I was a socialist I was already a scientist. Santorum’s second negative trait is his preference for non-evidence based policy. Here is a man who prefers to substitute his own reality. It is not enough to say that he is anti-science; he is anti-fact. From a genuine objectivist point of view, he is anti-reality. Call it creationism or call it intelligent design, it’s still bullshit. Then there’s the Dutch euthanasia epidemic which doesn’t really exist, except in Rick’s head. An oblate spheroidal 4.54 billion year-old Earth? Just a “liberal” media conspiracy. Probably.

Ultimately I suppose I should be glad he’s gone. Unfortunately there was his speech after Wisconsin last week, where analogies were made to the Republican nomination races in ’76 and ’80. Pick the moderate (Ford, ’76) and lose, pick the conservative (Reagan, ’80) and win was the message. Santorum sees this as his ’76, and he’s now positioning himself as nominee heir-designate for 2016. Be afraid. 2016 would be a much better year for him than 2012 could have been. Romney, near certain nominee, faces an incumbent President with decent approval ratings and an improving economy. The precedents aren’t good. But assuming Obama’s re-election, by 2016 the party political pendulum will be swinging the other way. Apart from 1988 the last time a party retained control of the White House into a third term with a non-incumbent candidate was 1928. Santorum will grow more electable not less, especially if a second “moderate” Republican loses to Obama.

On the other hand, as recently six months ago people were still speculating about Palin 2012. Hopefully Santorum will disappear into obscurity. Either way, the 2012 race just became much less interesting, with the next election results worth staying up for being the Big One itself in November.

Don’t assume from any of this that I like Romney. To me he represents an equally insidious hatred, though in a much more subtle flavour. His evil is a delicately refined one, and the more dangerous for it. I’ll deal with him later.

Fixing the Ballot

by Chris Nash

Unfortunate rumours come via the Guardian of further plans for central Labour Party meddling in the potential mayoral elections this autumn. It has been suggested that sitting Labour MPs should be barred from seeking a mayoral nomination, even if they resign their seat.

It is bad enough that the NEC has imposed a shortlist system for the nomination, cutting down the choice that will actually go to party members from at least four candidates to only two. It is also underhand that they have suggested sitting MPs should resign if they become a nominee, before they even win a mayoralty. The whole idea behind these various restrictions is to prevent unnecessary by-elections, especially in the wake of Bradford West. It is probably also to ensure that the “right” candidate (from the central party’s perspective) gets the nomination. To me the whole thing stinks of heavy handedness.

The whole point of elected mayors (and police commissioners to an extent) is greater local democracy. Two key words their, “local”, and “democracy”. Arbitrary decisions and rules being handed down by the NEC are neither local or democratic. The field for the nomination should be as open as possible, and that field should be presented to the membership. That is the democratic way. It cannot be right for someone in London to ultimately decide who we in Birmingham have as our mayor for the next 4 years.

The danger here is that, by being heavy handed and trying to force nominations, the NEC risk seriously alienating sitting MPs and CLPs. The NEC and the Labour Party as a whole does not actually have the power to remove sitting MPs – all it can do is expel them from the party, most likely if they persist to run against the “official” candidate. For an MP set on becoming mayor, this offers a simply choice; give up ambitions or leave the party. I can’t imagine a Labour MP actually running as an Independent, yet were it to happen and were a city to find itself with an “Independent Labour” Mayor, then this whole affair would have backfired horribly on the central party. Not only would Labour still face the by-elections it had hoped to avoid, but under the unfavourable circumstances of having just lost a mayoral election to and Independent and having a hostile outgoing MP.

Instead the selections should be made as open as possible, to all Labour candidates who wish two stand. Any further elimination can come when the party membership in a given city fill in their ballot papers. The eventual nominee will be the genuine choice of that city, and not just the preferred placeman of the party machine. Is there a risk that some cities will end up with maverick Labour mayors, who don’t tow the line, who do things their own way, and who embarrass the party leadership in London? Possibly. Should the decision as to whether this happens be entirely down the party membership and the electors in that city? Absolutely.

The Death of the ‘Labour Sabb’

by bulsonline

This year, in the Guild of Students Officer elections, for the first time in a very long time there were no ‘Labour’ candidates. Something which has become quite a regularity at students unions across the country is the domination of particular sabbatical officers that are there to simply ‘Bring Labour values of collectivism to campus’. This is not an attack on previous Sabbs who were party members, it’s a critique on the idea of the ‘Labour Sabb’. Which is something that has bugged me greatly since joining the party, so here is a blog to have a good old rant about it…

In November, I attended the annual Labour Students Political Weekend. I thought i’d give it a go. What I will say is that the message I got from NOLS was a very narrow minded one. A one of a one size fits way of thinking, which couldn’t have highlighted how out of touch they are any better. ‘Let’s campaign for Ken in London’ was high on the agenda, while absolutely no mention was made to campaigning locally in other key elections happening this May, including Birmingham. ‘Let’s get as many of you elected onto the NUS and in Unions so you can be our puppets’ was also another common theme of the talks. Or one of my personal favourites, ‘Lets all pretend to talk to our Vice Chancellor and tell them they should pay cleaners more money, which they will then amazingly easily agree to’. The weekend really could have been summarised into those three snippets.

I believe that Labour Students attempt to have too much involvement in Union politics. It’s a well known fact that they ship supporters around the country to illegitimately boost support for their candidates (http://abercourier.com/2012/03/labour-troubles-tarnish-election-campaign/). They also offer training to their candidates and successful elects before they take office, to… well I imagine to tell them the policies to push onto their students. This is not what they should be doing! And this is not what the student movement is all about. Edd Bauer, current VPE at the Guild wrote during his time as EEO about this very issue on his blog, and I think he got it spot on. I’d definitely recommend giving it a read (http://edwardbauereeo.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/leaving-post.html)

I am currently a Labour member and supporter, and that’s fine. I have my ideological beliefs and i’ll never claim to not have them. There is no denying that we all have a position politically, because we all have an opinion. However, the problem arises when you push your party’s policies onto students. Abusing your position as an elected officer to ensure the party you support, and probably want to work for in future years gets a foot in with students on your campus. Sabbatical officers are not there to influence the students they represent. They are there to serve them. They are there to make the time that their students spend at their university as enjoyable as possible. I believe it is that simple.

As you may be aware, I was elected as Vice President (Activities & Development) in those very guild elections just a few short weeks ago. And next year, I will be tasked with helping every single student society at the Guild and I can’t wait to get started. Because it doesn’t matter what your political beliefs are, what matters is that you want to do something and celebrate what you love doing. That is why I ran for it and why I didn’t ever want to run as a ‘Labour Sabb’, because to do so would to betray what I believe is truly important in student politics. Yes, you guessed it, STUDENTS.

So this will be my 3rd and very last blog I post on BULSonline. My membership to the party expires in May and I will be letting it do so. I’m doing this because I simply have to be as neutral as possible. I represent BUCF as much as BULS and to do so whilst being a Labour party member I feel would be unprofessional. I have no idea if I will rejoin after my term in office, I guess it will depend on how the next year goes for the party and for Mr Miliband. And it will most certainly depend on whether the party (and it’s affiliated organisations) can stop being so narrow minded and unaware that a single solution will not solve all their problems.

The next year is crucial for us all, I’m just looking forward to the journey.

@OllieCosentino, Former BULS Secretary

Will there be more upset results on May 3rd?

by Chris Nash

Thursday 3rd May sees local government elections across the country, most importantly for 40 of the 120 Birmingham City Council wards. Currently holding 56 seats, the Labour group stands poised to seize back control after eight years of Tory-Lib Dem rule. A net gain of five councillors will tip the balance; hopefully we win even more.

The mood on the doorstep is promising – those who voted Labour in 2010 and 2011 (and who successfully voted in several new councillors) are staying with us. National-level polls look promising, even with just under four weeks to go. However what is most noticeable is the level of anger directed towards the government, both by our supporters and those of no declared preference. In the latter instance a dislike of the Tories does not mean support for us. Too often I hear the common refrain “They’re both as bad as one another”. This is frequently coupled with “they’re all in it for themselves”, or “there’s no difference between the main parties any more.” Tragically these clichéd anti-political statements are most common in the more deprived areas.

Why? It is true that in government we were perceived as forgetting our traditional base. It is probably true that Labour neglected those less well off while pandering to the already privileged middle classes. Where we did immeasurable good (the minimum wage, proper funding for health and education) people have already adjusted their base levels and forgotten what existed before. Some people simply grew bitter as we failed to live up to high expectations. None of this justifies the intellectual laziness of the anti-politics sentiments, but it perhaps helps to explains them.

In short, just because people are learning anew why so many of us hate the Tories, a Labour vote is not inevitable. There has been enough analysis of the Bradford West result to be sure of that. YouGov’s fortnightly “Best Prime Minister” question shows that while Cameron has dropped to 30% (-8), Ed Miliband has only risen to 19% (+1). The difference has gone to the “don’t knows”. Most striking of all was today’s Survation voter intention poll which puts UKIP joint with the Liberal Democrats on 11%. All three main party leaders have negative approval ratings among the general public. Barring any great enthusiasm for Labour, the May elections could be a good time for the minor party protest vote.

Looking to Birmingham, the Statement of Persons Nominated was released earlier in the week. All three main parties have candidates in every ward. The Greens (for whom I have a fair amount of sympathy) have also put forward 40 candidates. The BNP and UKIP have both put forward 18 candidates each. In addition there are ‘80s throwbacks the Social Democratic Party and the National Front (both with 4). Add to this one Independent, the Socialist Labour Party (2), and general anti-cuts groupings (3 between them). Finally, don’t forget one lonely English Democrat. None of these minor parties currently have any representation in the City Council. Respect, which does, is fielding no candidates, a decision they may now be regretting.

Will any of these minor parties do well on May 3rd? The excellent Political Betting does a good national analysis for this question. Specific toBirmingham, I would imagine not. The vote margins as they currently stand are too large – only someone withGalloway’s personality cult and the publicity of a by-election could achieve the swings needed. Looking at many wards there still exists a two party system straight out of the 1950’s – it genuinely is a “two horse” race in many cases, no matter how infuriately those dodgy bar charts are. Quinton ward last year saw Labour and the Tories win 89% of the vote between them. If I were a partisan I might be glad that we don’t use some fancy preferential voting system – the power of the “wasted vote” is strong indeed.

Will there be Green (or UKIP) councillors in the Council House after May 3rd? My judgement is “No”. On the other hand, I can easily see the minor party vote having a spoiler effect on one or two results. Looking at last year’s Harborne result, the difference between winning Labour candidate and losing Tory was smaller than the total votes won by the Greens. In a two-way fight one could assume that Green voters would favour Labour over Tory, but you can never be certain. Minor parties from left and right could be responsible for many split votes this time around. It might not cost us a majority, but it could cost us seats.

We should never assume that just because voters are anti-Tory, they are pro-us. We are not the only opposition, and we have to earn the trust and support of the electorate, otherwise there could be more Bradford-style upsets in waiting.

A Free Web

by Chris Nash

@PalaeoNash 

Every so often there is a news story absurd enough to make cliched people ask: “Is it April 1st?” This week there was one, it was April 1st, but the story is depressingly real. I refer to government plans to extend the surveillance of our online lives.

While I believe in a strong state, and I certainly trust a democratic state more so that any private company, this represents another unnecessary intrusion into the private lives of us all. I believe that the internet must be totally free; that is as a true anarchy. A “crime” can only exist on the internet where is co-exists in reality (e.g. fraud). It must be a totally free place where ideas can be exchanged and where speech must be entirely free. While this naturally carries risks, I believe these can be better averted through user education rather than through cumbersome regulation. The internet can never be policed to protect the naïve or the over-sensitive from the troll, nor should it be. I realise that this probably sounds a little woolly or idealistic, but I will always favour the optimism of hope in humanity’s better instincts over the pessimistic urge to control and restrict us.

This isn’t just about our ability the watch daft videos of cats, to pointlessly argue the toss in comment sections, or to create weakly satirical memes. Consider how online communication is used to build campaigning and enable activism. Most organised protests will have Facebook events, with wildly optimistic “attending” lists. Debates over the injustices or otherwise of government policies will rage on page walls, or in twitter feeds. Last year saw the (perhaps over-hyped) power of online protest in deposing dictators. Fear those in positions of power who wish to curtail our online freedoms – they are a threat to democracy itself.

I am not talking only of the specific implications of these more recent proposals. They build gradually on the already extensive powers of our police and security forces. If implemented I imagine they will ultimately be another notch on the ratchet towards an authoritarian state. A future Prime Minister, trying to reduce these powers, would no doubt have their ear bent by senior security figures. They would supposedly be so useful in catching the genuine terrorists (who may in any case have been caught though traditional methods). Never mind the “inconvenience” to the ordinary citizen who by now has normalised having their online activity watched. I argue for a free internet, and against all efforts to regulate it, from a point of principle.

Remember ID cards. New Labour was at its worst in its authoritarian spasms. Remember the Tory manifesto of 2010: “Labour have subjectedBritain’s historic freedoms to unprecedented attack. They have trampled on liberties.” Now see that opportunism exposed as another incumbent government threatens the sacred privacy of the individual. To quote inhuman oxygen thief Chris Grayling in 2009 “Too many parts [of the government] have too many powers to snoop on innocent people and that’s really got to change.” This same creature is now involved in the DWP’s outsourcing of databases to India, with the privacy of millions of innocent people being dependent on the integrity of the lowest bidder.

If the Tories believe in freedom it is merely the freedom for the powerful to enslave the rest of us. Labour have barely shed the worst of our authoritarian Blairite heritage. The Liberal Democrats are making very promising noises, but I don’t fancy placing too much faith in them any time soon. Who then will stand up for our online freedoms?

The Bankers’ Budget

by Chris Nash
Nobody would expect a fair budget from George Osborne. The Chancellor was never going to give a budget that benefitted the many over the few, or one that put the realities of everyday life above right-wing economic dogma. Expectations suitably adjusted, we can perhaps take small comfort from the 50p tax band “only” being cut to 45p. Ed Miliband gave a sterling speech in response, and I raise a glass to the intern who wrote the jokes. Professional hacks will be casting their own analysis; what follows is my personal take on some of the details.
 
The Chancellor’s big spin on this budget is that it “rewards work”.  We already know that under-18s are to endure a cut in the minimum wage. In the UK it is possible to work a 40-hour week and still live in poverty. The way to make work pay is, surprisingly enough, to actually make work pay, by implementing a proper living wage. Today we heard no commitment on improving the pay of the low paid. It would be naive to ever expect one from a Tory Chancellor. Increasing the income tax threshold seems reasonable, but not when even the poorest are still hit by VAT, and duty on fuel, alcohol and tobacco. What Osborne gives with one hand, he takes several times over with the other.
 
Projections for economic growth and for a fall in unemployment are welcomed.I only hope they hold true. As far as I am aware the budget made no specific commitments relating to the latter. I fear that further cuts to the Department of Work and Pensions will only result in more inhumane box-ticking and the harassment of the vulnerable. The Government – as ever – has put all its faith in the hands of the wonderful private sector.
 
On the 50p rate, the detail most comprehensively leaked, news was always going to be disappointing. Having endured two years of the government chaffing on about deficit reduction, one could at least have assumed that they intended to maximise tax revenue. Basic maths will tell anyone that a 50p rate will raise more by its presence than its absence (“Laffer Curve” / wishful thinking / pseudoscience aside). Osborne himself stated that the rate raised around £1 billion. To me a lot, to him “next to nothing”. Cutting it will cost £100m. That’s a lot of disabled children who will have to go without.
 
The moral case for the 50p rate is even more clear cut – there can be no reason why someone “earning” in excess of £150,000 per year needs a penny more. Greed can be the only motive, and the one which leads to tax evasion and avoidance. It will be argued that such non-payment means that the tax rate might as well be cut. Just apply this same rational to other crimes such as burglary and murder – “You’re never going to catch every criminal, might as well legalise it!” – to see what a fallacy it is.
 
Tax evasion is “morally repugnant” according to Osborne. It is hard to shake off that dirty feeling that comes from agreeing with him – especially given those are often my own words. Tax evasion, and avoidance, are both morally reprehensible. They are as much a theft from the community as your typical off-licence robbery, in scale perhaps more so. The problem is that Osborne is the last person I would expect to do anything about it. I fear that despite pledges to the contrary, he will be all talk and no trousers. Every spending decision taken thus far by the government has convinced me that it is a government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich.
 
Miliband’s best line came when he challenged the government front bench to admit who among them personally benefit from the budget. Furthermore it is worth considering how many prominent Tory donors will also benefit. Such borderline conflict of interest makes a mockery of democracy – and will certainly not be reported in the Tory press. The headlines will trumpet crumbs from the rich men’s table, and ignore the widening inequality that will be a direct result of Osborne’s decisions.
 
Labour should commit to restoring the 50p band, and to actually getting serious on tax fraud, just as we should commit to renationalising the NHS. Anything less will be to continue to concede to the rightward drift of our national political discourse.
By Chris Nash

Mother’s Day

by labourluke

Mother’s Day is one of those days every year when we think of the role of the women who brought us into the world, and how much they have done and sacrificed for us and our welfare, from when we were a mere collection of cells, to now when we are studying for degrees (some would say our brain cells are perhaps not much more developed than when we were but a collection of cells in some respects). However much progress has been made (albeit painfully slowly) towards equal pay and representation for women in our society, women will always be pressurized to juggle their work and home lives to a greater extent than men.

What worries me is that this noble cause where women rightly have more of a choice in living their lives as they want to live them has created a culture and a mindset where those who choose – actively, rather than subjects of some false consciousness or religious pressure – to stay at home or only work part time to be with the kids as they come home from school, are targeted as a drain on society and the public purse. Housewives (sorry), homemakers, stay-at-home mums: whatever the word we use for them, their work is indeed that – work, which for example produces far more of a social good than the likes of bankers or estate agents or lawyers. Yet it is not categorised as such, and our society does not reward it, it penalizes it.

This is nothing to do with a woman being made to feel guilty for not pursuing her career – of course women should strive for the top echelons of the work pyramid, breaking the glass ceiling and entering the boardrooms; it is nothing to do with sexism – I firmly believe a ‘househusband’ can do the same job, and in our modern age with “all sorts of families” (Mrs. Doubtfire, 1993), including women with higher-paying jobs or same-sex parents, this is increasingly common. However there is a cultural bias against those women who choose to remain at home and work bloody hard to raise a family, often while holding down part-time or volunteering work, and this is reflected in our nation’s appallingly inadequate childcare arrangements.

In other countries – such as Germany with its stronger economy – there are subsidized childcare benefits, or help for mothers. Child tax credits and SureStart centres used to come close to this, but these are being slashed by the Coalition, which prefers to reward bankers, those earning above £150,000 a year, and potentially those who are married as opposed to all parents, co-habiting parents included. Mothers who decide to give up or put their careers on hold are penalised again later as they pick up their state pension, at a time when older people are living in fuel poverty, struggling to finish paying a mortgage and helping their children to get onto the housing ladder or with university tuition. They may even have to bring up another generation, as their children cannot afford childcare for their own sprogs so have to hand them over to the grandparents, who have no recognition or help from the state for helping bring up the politicians, doctors or teachers of tomorrow.

Nowadays, if you’re not contributing to economic growth or paying income tax, you effectively do not exist.  If you are doing your best to balance all of your commitments and bring up well rounded children you are ignored. It is about time mums who choose to stay at home for all or part of the time are recognised and treated with the respect they deserve by our policymakers.

Ageism – The Last Acceptable ‘-ism’?

by labourluke

Ageism is very different to the other ‘-isms’ we try to avoid in today’s supposedly enlightened, tolerant society. Most men will never be female and vice-versa, and we will never truly experience life as another race to the one we were born as. However, barring some sort of untimely death, we will all one day be old. Yet this is the group in society which is perhaps the most vulnerable and ignored.

It may be humorous, but some of the jokes around the notoriously ageist BBC’s choice of old-time crooner Engelbert Humperdinck to represent the UK at Eurovision have masked some alarming underlying currents of ageism and ridicule which are common in today’s media and discourse but usually pass unnoticed. Some of them have been about dementia and Alzheimer’s. There has also been serious criticism that he has been chosen, arguing that he should get out of the way and allow young talent to fluorish. People in the public eye who dare to continue in their career beyond 65 get sniffed at, despite still having the energy and drive to continue working. Why should he crawl into some care home and age quietly, with no fuss?

This brings us onto the more unnerving aspects of ageism in today’s society. The care system in England is a disgrace. Almost on a weekly basis there are reports of neglect and abuse in care homes up and down the country, with some staff accusing patients of “attention seeking” for desperately needing help to relieve themselves, children and grandchildren never visiting them, and pensioners still at home never getting out of bed because if they did they would freeze, as they cannot afford to put the heating on and pay the bills to the six main lecherous price-fixing gas companies (who are the real drain on our society). Meanwhile people are forced to sell their homes or inheritances to pay for their parents’ care because they receive little or no help from the government. Never mind inheritance tax, what about the low and middle income people who receive nothing from their parents because they have to give it to a private organisation which may or may not treat their loved ones with dignity and respect?

The state machine also picks on the elderly because they are vulnerable, in the same way that they pick on the young, the unemployed and the disabled. While the heads of top banks avoid paying tax altogether or manipulate it so they only pay the lower corporation tax, and Osborne no doubt prepares to justify lowering the 50p top rate in the Budget, ordinary retired pensioners are being routinely harassed to pay back money handed to them by mistake, without having it explained to them that it doesn’t have to be in a lump sum. I know a 93-year-old lady who took the trouble to write a letter asking why her winter fuel allowance was being slashed, and all she got back was a letter saying there is no money left and why doesn’t she ‘go online’ to find out more. Now there are many tech-savvy elderly people out there, but I don’t know many nonagenarians who served in the war who have a Gmail account and Facebook profile.

We live in ‘tough times’, as they keep ramming down our throats, and money doesn’t grow on trees. Yet times were harder in the 1940s austerity period and they managed to establish the National Health Service. Instead of spending money on the implementation of the Health and Social Care Bill (a laughable title for the effective privatisation that awaits us), why not set some aside for the eventual creation of a National Care Service for the elderly, or at least a free service for the poorest old people? Andy Burnham called for one in 2010, and now sadly Labour, in its’ attempt to appear economically competent, has gone quiet on the proposal. Yet it can be done.

It’s about time the elderly who don’t need patronising were allowed to continue living their lives to the full, and it’s about time those who no longer can do so without help are treated like human beings, and not a burden on the public purse which should die quietly.

The Future of LGBT Labour

by maxattacks

I joined the Labour Party in 2008. This was before I was prepared to accept my sexuality. I have now come to realise that it was joining the Labour Party, and learning of all of Labour’s achievements in Government in striving for sexual equality that helped me on my way in accepting myself. Being proudly gay and proudly a member of the Labour Party can and should be mutually reinforcing. I will always be thankful to Labour for this.

Whilst we can look back proudly on all Labour achieved in equality – and there is no need to list these here – ending legislative homophobia is not the same as ending homophobia engrained in society. Top-down measures can only work so far. Greater acceptance of homosexuality as being ‘equal but different’ to heterosexuality can only be achieved through increased exposure of what it is to be gay, i.e., being capable of loving someone of the same sex. At its most basic this can include couples walking down the street holding hands. Unfortunately, we are not yet at a stage where this simple statement of homosexuality is uncontroversial. There is still a need for gay couples to act as pioneers. I can speak from experience that some members of society are not ready to witness such sights.

Labour is at its best when fighting for the rights of minorities within society, championing the fundamental need for equality. However, whilst I am well aware that homophobia remains an issue, the greatest issue of inequality relates to income. The lack of equal opportunity in the world of work adversely affects women, the BME community and disabled people more than it does the LGBT community. With this in mind, the LGBT Labour needs to rally round and support those who also fall under the umbrella term ‘minority’. Liberation Campaigns and caucuses are vital in recognising and celebrating our differences (note the very discourse of the word ‘Pride’ in our annual Pride Marches, and the rightful presence of Labour at these marches), but our shared difficulties and experiences need to be at the forefront of our campaigns.

This is, I believe, should be the next step of LGBT Labour in Britain, standing up for the voiceless in society, speaking for those adversely affected by the Government’s draconian and ill-balanced cuts. Even if we do not self-define as members of a particular caucus, Labour needs to unite and continue the fight for equal opportunity for all.

By Dan Harrison, Outgoing BULS Chair

Ich bin ein Trot

by Chris Nash

In the past week the “progressive” mask of the Tory party has all but disintegrated. Once again, boggle-eyed theories of “the enemy within” have been aired. By now most people in the country will be aware of the morally repulsive government scheme that is workfare. Anyone with a heart and a social conscience will be opposing it.

According to Grayling and IDS though, we opponents are just a tiny “unrepresentative” bunch of extremist “trots”. Ah yes, “trots”, meaning trotskyists; because if you can’t counter an argument with logic, reason and facts, then why not descend into slurs, name-calling and ad homninum? I have used the term “trots” in the past to refer to left-wing opponents. It was wrong of me then, being both ignorant and a lazy and knee-jerk form of argument. All in all its use by the government signifies an intellectual unwillingness to engage in the issues.

Yet what can we expect from men who so clearly do not know the difference between right and wrong? Already they have lied through their teeth about the “voluntary” nature of workfare. Government documents are, even now, being fabricated or hidden from official websites. The DWP, as always, peddles its Orwellian propaganda. Everyone who has first hand experience of the Job Centre and these schemes knows that Grayling and IDS are open liars. When brave individuals like Cait Reilly have dared to stand up against workfare, they have been mercilessly slurred and slandered in the Tory press. Now there are threats of a heavy police presence at future workfare protests – presumably to intimidate the vulnerable into compliance.

I am against workfare because I believe in a fair days pay for a fair days work. I oppose businesses exploiting the free labour of the unemployed. I oppose the unemployed being punished for economic circumstances beyond their control. I oppose undermining the wages of paid employees by working for free. I oppose already rich individuals and shareholders profiting from forced and unpaid labour.

According to Grayling and IDS, all this makes me an “extremist” and a “trot”. This being so, all hail Comrade Trotsky!

By Chris Nash

BULS AGM 2012

by maxattacks

Today saw BULS’s 2012 Annual General Meeting (AGM) with most of the positions up for grabs. And the results are as follows for the new committee-elect:

Chair – Catie Garner

Vice-Chair – Ed Gilbert

Secretary – Areeq Chowdhury

Treasurer – Ellis Stacey

Website Editor – Alex Swanson

Communications Officer – Sam Faulding

This represents the beginning of the end for what I’d like to call, the ‘General Election generation’ of BULS. The last contingent of the BULS society who still remembers the day the final Leader’s debate came to campus, the day we met the Cabinet (shame he didn’t shake my hand) and the day we watched Giesla Stuart win Edgbaston in Joe’s Bar on results night.

I wish the new committee-elect all the best and hope they will be a progressive force for good and a committee based on consensus and mutual trust and respect.

By Max Ramsay, outgoing Vice-Chair

What’s happening across the Ocean?

by maxattacks

Great news y’all (may as well get in the spirit of this post) America has seen its fifth consecutive month of falling unemployment; down by 8.5% to 8.3% with 243,000 jobs being created. Coupled with growth figures from last week showing a rise of 2.8% in GDP in the final quarter of 2011 (1% higher growth on the previous quarter) it’s becoming increasingly apparent that America’s strategy of economic stimulus is comparatively buoyant when next to Europe’s strategy of austerity. Yes, unemployment levels are higher than here in the UK (for now at least), but that’s primarily because of the USA’s private sector economy focus (when compared to our economy at least) and some of the weakest employment protection laws in the world.

What is beginning to emerge is that Europe’s (and more specifically, the UK’s) austerity programmes are not working. If you make too harsh a cuts to the public sector you’ll also damage the private sector as numerous contracts are arranged between the two sectors. That’s right, they’re intertwined, you attack one part too harshly it will have a knock on effect on the other.

It is hugely unlikely Cameron, Clegg and Osborne will take notice of Obama’s successes. But at least the American people hopefully will this November.

Max

I’m sorry but “political” reasons?

by maxattacks

20.01.12: Martin Rowson on union opposition to the health and social care bill

Andrew Lansley recently showed a prime example of how not win your case by describing the ever growing opposition to his NHS reforms as being motivated by “political” reasons.

I’m sorry but “political” reasons? The British Medical Association (BMA), Royal College of GPs, Royal College of Nurses, the Conservative dominated Commons Health Select Committee and Norman frigging Tebbit all oppose the reforms, which will open up the NHS to EU competition law, for “political” reasons? These are not organisations (with the exception of the latter obviously) that sit from the outside and attempt to vaguely analyse the inner workings of the NHS. No, these are organisations that deal with the inner workings of the NHS every single day. They know how it works. They know what will be detrimental. And they are the ones that will know that these reforms will fundamentally destroy the NHS.

Cameron said it himself, no top down reorganisations of the NHS. Now drop this bill!

Max

Growth and all that jazz

by maxattacks

Chris Riddell's Observer comment cartoon 15.08.10

Sorry for the break in blogging, we’re trying to up the ante this year

Probably the most pressing of all news items is the recent dismal growth figures. Over a year ago when Cameron and Osborne claimed we were “Out of the woods” and “Out of the danger zone”. How very wrong they were. With the final quarter of 2011 seeing a contraction of 0.2% this then means that in the last 15 months since Osborne’s Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) in October 2010, we’ve had a massive 0.3% of growth. Cameron then has the audacity to blame the recent growth figures on the Euro crisis. Well I’m sorry, the UK economy has been stagnating long before the crisis began to effect.

Cameron you said it yourself, “I take full responsibility for everything that happens in the economy.” then take responsibility and change course!

Max

AGM 2012

by maxattacks

Now confirmed to be Wednesday 22nd February 3-5pm (unless there’s any change), every Committee position bar Fresher’s Officer and CLP Liason Officer will be up for grabs. This will be held in the Guild Council Chambers.

Everyone is encouraged to stand for any position and please feel free to contact us at committee@bulsonline.org if you have any questions. We would recommend writing a short speech to read and if anyone wants flyers or manifestos printing then send them to the BULS account and we’ll sort it. However, this is optional and we would want to reiterate that we encourage anyone to stand and get more involved! If you can’t physically  make the meeting and wish to stand for a position, email us at the above email address and someone will read it out on your behalf.

Preliminary position descriptions:

Chair

The chair liases with the National Organisation of Labour Students as well as the Guild of Students.  Organises events and chairs committee meetings and full member meetings.  Organises speakers and writes speaker-request forms.

The Chair is a financial signatory on the clubs accounts.

Vice-chair

Assists chair in organising events. Organises transport for all events necessary, eg. Trains to national events. Assumes duties of the chair if the chair is temporarily unable to carry out his or her duties or if a complaint is made against them until it is resolved.

The Vice-chair is a financial signatory on the clubs accounts.

Secretary

This Secretary takes charge of the organisational side of the club and, along with other members of the committee, helps to organise events.  Assumes duties of the chair if the chair and vice-chair are temporarily unable to carry out their duties or if a complaint is made against them until it is resolved. Also writes the minutes for full member meetings and committee meetings.  Writes the risk assessments for events.

The Secretary is also a financial signatory on the club’s accounts.

Treasurer

Has full-responsibility for the management of accounts.  Decides on levels of subsidies when appropriate.  Organises fundraising and Workers Beer Company summer work.

The Treasurer is a financial signatory on the clubs accounts.

Communications Officer

Writes weekly email, to be sent to all members.  Uploads member email address onto email account at start of term (with assistance if needed).

Website Editor

Has editorial responsibility over the website; http://www.bulsonline.org also jointly responsible for updating the pages on the website along with the Communications Officer.

Women’s Officer

Elected in a seperate caucus (i.e. chosen by Women only). The Women’s Officer has the job of liaising the views and grievances of all Women of the BULS ot the committee. The Women’s officer is also encouraged to organise campaigns on women’s issues such as eqaulity in the workplace, maternity leave, etc.

Black and Ethnic Minorities (BEM) Officer

Elected in a seperate caucus (i.e. chosen by Black and Ethnic Minorities only). The BEM’s Officer has the job of liaising the views and grievances of all Black and Ethnic Minorities of the BULS ot the committee. The BEM’s Officer is also encouraged to organise campaigns on Black and Ethnic Minority issues such as rascism, equality, etc.

LGBTQ Officer

Elected in a seperate caucus (i.e. chosen by LGBTQs only). The LGBTQ’s Officer has the job of liaising the views and grievances of all LGBTQ of the BULS ot the committee. The LGBTQ Officer is also encouraged to organise campaigns on LGBTQ issues such as discrimination, right to marry same sex marriages, etc.

Disabled Officer

Elected in a seperate caucus (i.e. chosen by Disabled only). The Disabled Officer has the job of liaising the views and grievances of all Disabled members of the BULS ot the committee. The Disabled Officer is also encouraged to organise campaigns on Disabled issues such as discrimination, etc.

The Iron Lady gives history a good handbagging

by labourluke

I could have written a blog post today about the exciting announcement regarding HS2 (in my view a worthy investment), or Ed Miliband’s speech about Labour being the party “for all times, not just bad times”, but instead I thought it would be much more fun to review the Iron Lady, out now in cinemas.

It’s a terrific irony that this film is funded by the UK Arts Council and National Lottery funding, not only because the former is being slashed by the Coalition’s Thatcherite scythe, but also because it would have been a more accurate representation of recent history if they had put 49 potential scenarios in the 1980s down on as many balls, and let Camelot or Guinevere decide the rest.

Seriously – Labour hat off – this was a noble attempt at capturing the spirit of one of Britain’s most prominent prime ministers; Meryl Streep’s impersonation of The Lady Who Was Not For Turning had me once or twice shivering in my seat, with her every mannerism and facial expression noted and re-enacted, along with that deep commanding voice the PR gurus told Mrs. Thatcher to adopt. Right up to the closing scenes, it displayed her dogged determination accurately, and managed to humanize her and generate sympathy towards her when she steadfastly refused to accept that her mind was beginning to unravel. Anyone who knows anything about Alzheimer’s, what it must be like to be elderly and lonely, and the denial of grief would appreciate this side of the film.

However, this was the problem: it could have been about any old lady looking back on her life and missing her husband (although this aspect was slightly unsettling and disturbing at times). The historical dimension to the film went beyond playing with history to deliver a message and artistic licence, almost to the point where you wondered if the film had been written by Tory publicists. The focus was entirely on Thatcher’s ‘Glorious’ moments and ‘triumphs’, mostly over men, for example her selection and early life, the Falklands war and the 1979 election. There was some fleeting real footage of the miner’s strike and the poll tax riots, and the entire period 1982 to 1990 was dealt with in approximately ninety seconds. At one point, I was appalled to see a shot of her dancing with Nelson Mandela. I expected it to focus primarily on her as an individual by the title, however there was not even a passing reference to the unemployment of the period, Thatcher’s response to the emergence of AIDS, the Westland affair, section 28, the clashes with the NUJ, Ken Livingstone and Liverpool Council…

This was not a documentary, and films are supposed to paint splashes of black and white over what was in reality only differing shades of grey. Even her deepest detractors have to admit that she had some leadership qualities (albeit perhaps without much idea of compromise), that she was – is – only human and was doing what she thought was right. However members of BULS who want to see this in the cinemas soon may find themselves wincing and cringing at many stages in this film.  

Happy 5th Birthday BULS Blog!

by maxattacks

5 years ago today former BULS Chair, John Richtie published the very first post on Birmingham University Labour Students’ (BULS) blog.

5 years, 992 posts, 3,940 comments, 138,862 views, 16 regular contributing authors and 3 Total Politics Blog Awards later the BULS blog has never been stronger. The BULS blog was originally set up in response to our Tory opposites in BUCF way back at the tail end of 2006. It’s now safe to say we’ve long since overtaken our rivals. BULS has also branched out onto twitter and become prominent amongst fellow Labour Student societies (and even recently Guild Council).

So here’s to another great 5 years and huge thank you to everyone who has ever contributed, commented or hell even viewed the BULS blog. Things can indeed only get better.

2012 – Will it be a Good Year for Animal Welfare?

by labourluke

How many of us will be making New Year’s resolutions to pay more attention to the welfare of animals we eat and the wildlife in our countryside? 

On 1st January 2012, the EU-wide ban on selling eggs from battery farms will come into force. Although in other EU nations (including the land of le Coq, France), the ban will hardly be rigorously enforced because they don’t seem to care that much for EU laws and haven’t yet made the necessary alterations to farms and cages, and the new, larger ‘enriched cages’ which will be used to supply our biggest supermarkets with eggs are not exactly a massive liberation for hens, it is nevertheless a step in the right direction, and an expression in law that we should not be tolerating these cruel means of achieving ‘efficiency’ in food production.

Unfortunately, however, this change will come at the same time as renewed calls for a repeal of the Hunting Ban. On Boxing Day, the Agriculture Minister, Jim Paice, suggested as much by arguing that the act is ‘unworkable’ and difficult to enforce. Although sadly this is in many respects the case, and it would be naive to say that the ban ended the inhumane and uncivilised ‘sport’ of fox hunting completely, it is still an expression of disapproval which should remain on the statute books for ever if we are to carry on calling ourselves an ‘animal loving nation’.

The visit by long-term animal rights campaigner and shadow minister Chris Williamson to BULS last term reminded us that the fight for even the most basic animal welfare is far from over, and that 2012 can only be a good year for animal welfare if we go out and fight against the vested interests of the food industry and those who seek a return of legalised fox hunting, in government and elsewhere. Just because a law has pitfalls and loopholes, that does not mean that the fundamentals behind it are not right, and that we cannot aim to tighten it and increase the number of prosecutions in future.

2012 need not be the year that the cause of animal rights takes a giant leap backwards.

Merry Christmas from BULS

by maxattacks

On behalf of Birmingham University Labour Students (BULS), we would like to wish you all a very enjoyable and merry Christmas regardless of party affiliation. BULS has come a long long way in 2011, let’s hope we can build upon those successes in 2012.

By Max Ramsay, BULS Vice-Chair

Angry atheist rants

by maxattacks

As I approach my role as Vice-Chair of Birmingham University Labour Students (BULS) by keeping religion and my position in BULS totally separate. So, this post you’ll be reading from BULS member and atheist Max Ramsay, rather than BULS Vice-Chair Max Ramsay.

Ancient copies of the King James Bible are carried during a procession at Westminster Abbey to mark its 400th anniversary. Photograph: Chris Jackson/AFP/Getty Images

Today David Cameron declared “Britain is a Christian country and we should not be afraid to say so” and “that the Bible has helped to give Britain a set of values and morals which make Britain what it is today.”.

Now, I’d like to point out that I respect everyone’s right to have whatever faith they so wish. But, to be quite honest, Cameron really hasn’t read much of the King James’ Bible if he believes this is the case.

Now the first point is something seemingly imported from the USA. Given that a poll in 2004 conducted by the BBC showed that 39% of the UK population did not believe in God. That’s right, today we’re anything but a Christian nation, we’re a secular nation.

You may say, “Oh, but we were founded upon Christian ideals and it has played a such a vital part in history in the last few centuries.”. Really?! If we did derive our morals and values from the bible we’d still find acceptable;

  1. General slaughters (I Chronicles 20:3, Judges 8:10 and Deuteronomy 3:6-7)
  2. Burying victims alive (Numbers 16:32-35)
  3. Killing unbelievers (Deuteronomy 13:5, 13:6, 13:8-9 and 13:15)
  4. Genocides (II Chronicles 14:9 and 14:12 and II Samuel 12:31)
  5. Raping (Isaiah 13:15-16)
  6. Slavery (Exodus 21:2-6 and 21:20-21, Leviticus 25:44-46 and 1 Peter 2:18-21)
  7. White supremacy (Romulus 12:1-3 and 12:19-21 and Philipians 3:18)
  8. Jewish Persecution (Matthew 27: 22 and 27:25, John 7:1 and 8:44, Acts 7:51-52 and 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15)
  9. Women’s persecution (Leviticus 15:19-21 and 18:19, Proverbs 21:19, Corinthians 11:3 and 14:34-35, Ephesians 5:22-24 and Timothy 2:12-15)
  10. Justify physical punishment of children (Leviticus 20:9, Psalm 127:3, Proverbs 13:24, 22:6, 22:15 and 23:12-14)
  11. Homophobia (Leviticus 20:13 and 18:22, Deuteronomy 23:17-18, Romans 1:24 and 1:26-27 and Corinthians 6:9-10)
  12. Oppose medical science (Acts 15:29, James 5:13-15 and Matthew 9:2-8)
  13. To justify war (Exodus 15:3, Deuteronomy 20:4 and 1 Timothy 4:18)

Now can Cameron really claim that we were founded upon these values? That we derive our morals and values from the bible? And that we’re still a Christian nation? Again, while I respect people’s right to believe this, it is quite clear that what binds us and gives us true sense of values is secular enlightened thinking.

Max

Fourth by-election on the trot

by maxattacks

That’s right, four by-election victories on the trot. Yes, all these were in Labour held seats, but it’s important how every single one has seen a significant swing towards Labour each time. The results were as follows:

Labour – 12,639 (54.42% up by 10.79%)

Conservative – 6,436 (27.71% down by 6.32%)

Liberal Democrats – 1,364 (5.87 down by 7.87%)

UKIP – 1,276 (5.49& up by 3.45%)

This has seen a 8.6% swing from Tory to Labour, when compared to the last general election which saw a mere 4.8% swing from Labour to Tory. Yes, the turnout was very low, but what do you expect at this time of year?

Either way, great result!

Max

Going too far on multiple fronts

by maxattacks

Birmingham University successfully obtained a high court injunction to ban 'occupation-style' protests. Photograph: Martin Bache/Alamy

This isn’t exactly fresh news but it may not surprise you that the University of Birmingham have never been one for true free speech. Now it seems they’ve taken it one step too far with the recent high-court injunction banning all occupation style protests on the entirety of campus.

This is a move that has been described as “aggressive and censorious” as criticisms have been voiced by Liberty, Amnesty International, the NUS, University of Birmingham Liberal Democrat’s Chair, Will Mieville-Hawkins and the University of Birmingham’s apparently sole UKIP member, Dave Glenwright (that’s right, this s**t just got real).

Now, there are without a doubt members of BULS who don’t support the aims of many of those in occupations throughout campus. There are many more who don’t agree with methods used by those occupying (occupying a shed at North Gate, really?). But I’m sure many BULS members will oppose the University’s crack down on free speech and expression.

Putting this aside, it turns out the University of Birmingham’s Vice-Chancellor (VC), David Eastwood, has awarded himself yet another obscene pay rise from £392k to £419k a year…plus all the added bonuses (free chauffeur, house, etc). That’s right, while lecturers, cleaners and lower management staff are having a real-term cut in pay and having drastic changes to their pension plans  forced upon them. It seems our VC seems it acceptable to award himself the largest VC salary in the country.

Now you may say he deserves it, which is something I got into a debate with a BUCF member around six months ago. This may or may not be true (though I personally doubt it) but if you believe the VC deserves a substantial pay rise because of the “good work he does”, then you have to apply the same rule for lower paid staff on campus. And personally I believe the cleaners, the lecturers and the lower management have also done a good job and deserve the same rewards.

So David Eastwood and University of Birmingham higher management, take a long hard think. Because this time, you’ve taken it too far.

Max

The old fetish

by maxattacks

Chris Riddell 11 December 2011

Friday was the day the old fetish returned. The day Cameron delved into nostalgia. And the day he set Britain at odds not only with the other 26 EU member states, but rationality itself.

What we saw on Friday was a Prime Minister with his hands tied by dogmatic backbench MPs. But not to worry, it seems Cameron had unveiled his all powerful ‘veto’. The only problem with this is that it’s not a true veto of any sorts. Negotiations will still be ongoing, the remaining 26 EU states will still formulate an agreement and Britain will not be present to have any say in the talks.

This is catastrophic failure for Cameron who has severed any attempts to help salvage the Euro which is not only in the EU’s interest but vital in Britain’s interests. In the words of a Facebook update by my own brother:

“Tory lol. Blame the economic problems on the Euro crisis, then veto the plan to save it knowing full well that the the EU will cut you out and essentially get rid of any say you have in determining the future of Europe, and by extension, Britain“

Some may call it Bulldog spirit, I’d like to call it naively dogmatic.

Max

We hate to say we told you so

by maxattacks

28.11.11 Martin Rowson

Today we saw Gideon (George Osborne) unveil his first ever Autumn Statement (last year it was a Comprehensive Spending Review) which used to be Brown and then Darling’s Pre-Budget Report, although it’s still the same thing more or less.

What we saw today was a Chancellor willing to blame everyone except himself for his own failures. Gideon may claim as much as he likes that the growing crisis in the Eurozone may have put a dent in its works, but that would just be disingenuous as it’s not at that stage to truly have an impact on a non-Eurozone country such as the UK.

But in a nutshell what we had is:

  1. Growth forecasts for UK economy cut 0.9% this year and 0.7% next year (And we all know you can’t truly get the deficit down without growth)
  2. Borrowing forecasts revised up – an extra £111bn to be borrowed over five years (This was the one thing they set about to do, this was the be all and end all test of the Coalition and they are set to fail upon it)
  3. Pay cap of 1% for public sector workers once two-year pay freeze ends (Which is really going to encourage consumer confidence and spending, the true engine of economic growth)
  4. Unemployment to rise from 8.1% this year to 8.7% next year and more public sector jobs forecast to go – 710,000 over five years (Again, nothing new there)
  5. Credit easing and numerous infrastructure projects (I will welcome these, but it’s rather ironic after 18 months of austerity mantra)
  6. January rise in regulated rail fares to be capped at 6.2%, not 8.2% (While this is certainly better but as a semi-regular rail user, this needs to be below RPI, 5%, we already have the most expensive rail fares in Europe)
  7. Doubling of free childcare places for deprived two-year-olds to 260,000 in England (The one true policy I’m sure we can all get behind)
  8. 3p fuel duty rise due in January to be delayed or frozen (Which is still entirely negated with the rise in VAT in January)
  9. Bank levy to be increased (Which is all very well but not when you remember this is balanced out with the cut in Corporation Tax)

So essentially, we have growth being revised down for the fourth time in 18 months and borrowing expected to be £111 billion higher in 2015.

So when Gideon said “we are out of the danger zone.” around a year ago I didn’t think we’d get around to us saying “we told you so” so soon.

Max

#godisgove and #torybible

by maxattacks

#godisgove and #torybible are to hashtags on twitter which have both appeared in recent days in the wake of Michael Gove’s decision to issue a King James edition of the bible to every state school in England. Now I’m not going to get into the whole inappropriateness of this act (If you know me well enough you’d remember I’m a massive atheist, but, I like to keep my role as BULS’s Vice-Chair totally separate from religion). But here according to LabourList are the top 10 best tweets featuring those hashtags.

Enjoy:

@4harrisons - And Cameron said “let there be growth” but lo! There was no growth

@mattedbrooke – And God said, “why have you eaten from the forbidden tree?” And Adam said, “we inherited this fruit from the labour government”

@ChrisBryantMP – Faith, hope and charity – have now been abolished as they were unproductive

@politic_animal – And on the seventh day he would have liked to have rested, but the government had opted out of the Working Time Directive

@lethandrel – And the lame were made to walk and the blind to see – well, according to the new assessments ….

@johnprescott – Blessed are the coalition for they shall inherit from and blame the last government

@cllr_robbins – Blessed are the freeschoolmakers: for they shall be called the children of Gove

@MatofKilburnia – And Lot’s wife was turned into a pillar of salt, which Gove did putteth in school dinners & lo Jamie Oliver was displeased

@GoodmotherMobbs – And the lepers were ‘cured’; as ATOS found them fit for work

@evilflea – And then He createth all of the beasts and the animals, excepteth the cat, which he did not make up.

Max

BULS goes back to its founder

by maxattacks

It seems the case for a low pay kitemark has been widened to include co-founder and former co-Chair of BULS, Richard Angell. Richard now works as the Deputy Director of Progress and recently published a post on the national Labour Students website.

So please take a look at the case he is making.

An Englishman’s Home is… beyond his wildest dreams

by labourluke

For some reason, going back into the mists of time, the British people have an obsession with private home ownership, even though most of us should technically never be able to afford one without borrowing. In Continental Europe, people are far more satisfied to rent, either from private landlords or more ‘trustworthy’ institutions – maybe there is some correlation between these statistics and the lower levels of stress and dissatisfaction there compared to the UK.

Nevertheless, we are where we are, and there is no going back on the ‘Right to Buy’ scheme introduced by Margaret Thatcher in 1981 however much we might want to reverse it (indeed, many of us may actually agree with it, being as it was extremely popular with the low paid, who for the first time had a stake in their council homes and some sense of freedom, however delusional). What we have now is a housing crisis coming at the worst possible time, during a dire economic climate caused by sub-prime mortgages themselves.

Tensions over housing and its’ availability have an effect on many areas of life, including levels of antagonism towards immigrants, the environment, growth, inequality in our cities, personal debt, and of course the Daily Mail and Daily Express front pages. We need to deal with this timebomb if we are to stem a rise in far-right politics and avoid a lost generation of young people. However, worryingly this government is going about it completely the wrong way.

Not only has it made squatting illegal when there are more empty properties than there are homeless people in this country, but it has appallingly placed a cap on housing benefit, effectively pricing the poor out of our capital city and entire swathes of the country – those parts of the country which have job vacancies. The government is slashing the public sector and saddling young people who go to university with ever higher debt, meaning their chances of even being able to look forward to putting down a deposit are negligible.

What our housing market needs is a Keynesian-style investment in house building and construction; not only would this lower house prices for first-time buyers, but it would also ease tensions in the community and increase demand in the economy generally, leading to growth and the beginning of the end of the deficit that the ConDems love to remind us about so much. As a bonus, it would even lead to a return of Location Location Location to our TV screens. Gordon Brown’s plan before the proverbial shit hit the fan in 2007 was to build 3 million new homes – we need this sort of commitment now, coupled with a healthy proliferation of 1940s-inspired New Towns (hopefully better designed than the likes of Milton Keynes) and more social housing. Today’s announcement from Cameron and Clegg about guaranteeing 95% mortgages may look like a repetition of exactly what went wrong in the first place, but should not be dismissed entirely, as it is the taxpayer, not the banks, helping first-time buyers, and there is real potential for an increase in demand as a result.

However it goes nowhere near far enough. If we can’t get people to fall out of love with the owner-occupier dream, then we need to build, build, build, spending more money in the short term to get us out of the mess in the long term.

3 million, I wouldn’t rule it out

by maxattacks

Yesterday we saw a good sign in the economy that inflation had fallen from 5.2% to 5%. We welcome it but it’s still not good enough, especially when Eurozone inflation has remained at a reasonable 3%. It seems however, this is rather irrelevant with the news released today by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) where unemployment has risen to 2.62 million from July to September.

That’s right, the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer who over a year ago claimed “we were out of the woods” now had the audacity to have one of their Ministers for Work and Pensions, Chris Grayling, claim that ”What we’ve seen over the last quarter has been the real impact of the crisis in the eurozone”. That’s right, they’re blaming their old punch bag, Europe. Don’t get me wrong, the crisis in the Eurozone is severe, but it in now way at a stage to make a real impact on unemployment figures, especially in a non-Euro state.

With the number of people claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance rising to 1.6 million by 5,300. The highest number of women out of work since February 1988 at 1.09 million rising by 43,000. Youth unemployment breaking the 1 million mark at 1.02 million with a rising by 67,000 and the unemployment rate of 8.3% being the highest since 1996 and the total number of unemployed people the highest since 1994, it’s about time Cameron and Gideon took another look at their plan.

Max

Lest we forget

by maxattacks

“…So shall we honour war?
and shall we now praise troubled men?
Or shall we remember what war is
and give true meaning
to “Never again” ?”-David Roberts

“…My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori.”-Wilfred Owen

Lest we forget.

Max

A Freezing Future

by labourluke

So much for the government constantly pandering to the grey vote because only the elderly turn out at elections. I made my weekly phone call home earlier today to find a set of anxious parents worried about how they are going to pay the bills this winter. If it turns out to be as icy as last year’s, they are going to be in trouble, they said. The reason? Not an overspend on needless festive gifts, or even the artificial and inflated energy prices, but a Chancellor who said ‘We are all in this together.’

The Winter Fuel Allowance, introduced by Gordon Brown, has been a lifeline to pensioners in fuel poverty up and down the country, and it is now being cut from £250 to £200 for the over 60s, and from £400 to £300 for the over 80s (these are the payments for those claiming pension credit, but the picture is just as severe for the slightly better-off pensioner too). Can you imagine what the reaction would be if this percentage cut was given to MPs? Or grants for new businesses? The only similar stinging cutbacks have been given to students, with tuition fees and EMA. It is indefensible, especially at a time like this, when Britain’s elderly – who have been paying taxes all their lives – are being encouraged to stay at home rather than go into care homes because their children have to re-mortgage their homes to pay for the costs, and are being told they can be treated at home rather than in hospitals thanks to NHS cuts and privatisation, to then simultaneously force them to ration their heating to only a few hours a week.

I have neighbours who are vulnerable and in their nineties, who told me they assumed there had been a mistake in their payment, and phoned up to query this only to be told by an unsympathetic call centre drone that their payments had been slashed, and that they should have noticed this when Osborne made his budget statement back in April. Oh yes, because of course all 90-year-olds are fully aware of the nation’s fiscal and benefits arrangements at every given turn. Why was there not at least a leafleting or information campaign to warn them of this change so they could save up to pay for what should be essential, and, if I had my way, provided by the state, instead of six greedy price-fixing profiteering firms?

When I said that this was a scandal and they should protest to their MP, their attitude was one of resignation and quiet despair. They didn’t feel there was any point, as there was a deficit to be paid off and they would just have to get by.

This Con-Dem coalition never ceases to amaze me, not just at how callous they are towards the most vulnerable in our society, but also because they get away with it.

Luke

A great year for Irish Labour

by maxattacks

Michael D Higgins, of the Irish Labour party, is set to be confirmed as Ireland's ninth president. Photograph: Julien Behal/PA

Michael D Higgins and Eamon Gilmore will now go down in History as two of the Irish Labour Party’s electorally successful Politicians. It was announced today that Michael D Higgins is to be elected the 9th President of Ireland receiving almost 40% of the first preference votes. This will make him the first ever Labour Presidential Candidate to have become President without the support of from other parties.

Of course this adds to the great success Irish Labour received in the Irish General Election last May where Eamon Gilmore led Labour to its largest number of seats in the Irish Parliament ever. This meant Labour has entered its 8th time in a Coalition Government where it takes up 8 out of the 20 Cabinet posts.

On behalf of all of us in Birmingham University Labour Students (BULS) I would like to wish our sister party across the Irish Sea a huge congratulations on the results they’ve had this year. And we hope the best is yet to come.

Max

Speech for David Miliband event

by maxattacks

The Dear Leader has requested that his speech from David Miliband’s launch for the Living Wage Campaign at the University of Birmingham from the 28th October be published:

Hello and welcome to Birmingham University Labour Students launch of the Living Wage Campaign with David Miliband. I’m Daniel and I’m Chair of Birmingham University Labour Students.

Many of us in this room are members of National Labour Students, and I hope many others are soon to become members. I believe that National Labour Students are a really important wing of the Labour Party; in mobilising for Labour at elections, hosting national events and workshops, but most importantly National Labour Students proud history of campaigning, against the extortionate rise in tuition fees, in the liberation campaigns, fighting for the rights of women, disabled students, LGBT students and BAME students, rights that other students may take for granted. And now in the Living Wage Campaign, taking place on campuses across the country in Kent, Cambridge, Leeds and Leicester, and today starting here in Birmingham.

The Living Wage is the minimum hourly rate someone has to earn to afford everyday basics like housing, food, childcare. A wage as the name suggests, that you can live on, not merely exist.

In London the current rate is £8.30 an hour. In Birmingham the current rate is £7.20.  £7.20 is a target that is not only morally right, but financially achievable.

I am proud to be a member of a party who when in office introduced the National Minimum Wage. This was a huge step. The Tories said it was economically unsound. It wasn’t. The Tories said it would cost jobs. It didn’t. The same arguments are made against the Living Wage.

It is great to see in the room…

Now, I know David doesn’t need much of an introduction. David was elected to Parliament for South Shields in 2001, and in 2006 was Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs where he oversaw the Climate Change Bill, before becoming the Foreign Secretary in 2007. But more important than that, Political Top Trumps gives him a ‘fanciability’ of 84.

Boys and Girls, David Miliband.

The pressure mounts

by maxattacks

With inflation around 5%, consumer confidence falling for four months on the trot, business confidence falling to a two year low, growth flat-lining in the past 9 months and growth expectations themselves being cut, you would have thought Gideon (George) Osborne would think things could not get any worse.

Well apparently they can. It seems 100 leading economists have written into the Observer to tell Gideon to adopt a plan B. Now while letters like this have been done in the past, the difference being that this time it has an alternative outline. It’s an alternative Miliband and Balls should take head to:

  1. An immediate halt to cuts, to protect jobs in the public sector. (Although I wouldn’t not cut entirely, for one, I’d cut the renewal of Trident).
  2. A new round of quantitative easing but the money wouldn’t go to the banks. Rather to finance a “Green New Deal” to create thousands of new jobs.
  3. Benefit increases to put money into the pockets of those on lower and middle incomes and give a boost to spending.
  4. A financial transaction tax to raise funds from the City to pay for investment in transport, energy and house building. (Robin Hood Tax anyone?)
  5. Introduce a truly progressive tax system so that those at the bottom don’t face the greatest burden proportionately (Or simply having the rich pay their taxes will be a start)
  6. Introduce a tax on land value to increase revenue and reduce the possibility of another debt-fuelled housing price boom.
  7. Copy South Korea and China’s model of state assistance for industry by creating a British investment bank. (Something that Lord Mandelson was beginning to champion in the last year of the Labour Government)
  8. Invest in transport and infrastructure to create jobs, but also to encourage people out of their cars and into trains or on to bicycles
  9. Judge the economy not on whether there is growth in GDP, but on a new catch-all criterion that takes into account the desire for minimal unemployment, and for work-life balance, economic and social stability, and job satisfaction.
So Gideon, even though we know you wont, please take heed of the recommendations. Simply living in the nostalgia of a failed plan of the early 1980s wont guarantee success. And Miliband and Balls, these recommendations should be the essence of your policy review, take them on board!
Max

David Miliband

by suzannahrobinson

I’ve just got back from the double David Miliband event, and just wanted to write a report.

I thought the crowd during the first part (In Conversation with David Miliband – in the great hall) was fairly tough, there were questions about Palestine, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria and Guantanemo Bay. One of the best questions was “What would you say to David Eastwood about the Browne Review?” and David replied in a very diplomatic manner, ending with the comment that he didn’t think it was “all Professor Eastwood’s fault”. I for one hope that Eastwood noticed the resentment in the room and the general jibes against tuition fees and millionaires.

The second part (The Living Wage Launch with David Miliband) was more relaxed and entertaining. Luke asked a great question about solidarity with potential allies and recognising the real enemy. David replied “kicking Lib Dems is pleasure, kicking Tories is business. Politics is business”. He also highlighted the work of his “Movement for Change”, responding to comments that it seemed similar to the Big Society by stating that society is our turf, we have always been known as socialists not statists, and the Tories are only developing policies to promote society because they are terrified of being known as the “there is no such thing as society” party. I’m sure many of us can see through their Big Society strategy to a purely Thatcherite idealism, and recognise that grass roots activity and community organisation always has been and will remain a Labour policy area.

In conclusion, congratulations to the BULS members who helped to organise the talks, and I hope those who missed out come to the upcoming great events!

Suzy

Sex education malarkey

by maxattacks

I think most of us can agree that sex education has an important role to play in public schools. But to what level of importance would you say it is?

To Conservative MP, Andrea Leadsom, it seems not very. Let’s put this into context. In England and Wales sex education is not a compulsory subject for public schools (I know for one that I personally received nothing at my High School) and that parents are allowed to “opt out” their child if the school does teach it. And you wonder why we have the highest teenage pregnancy rates in Europe.

Anyway, back to Andrea Leadsom. It seems she believes that parents should have to “opt in” their children to sex education classes and that current sex education books are “inappropriate”. This is while a report published by Ofsted last year pointed out that a quarter of schools in England are not providing good enough lessons about sex, relationships and health.  At the same time new research in the last couple of weeks provided information that “81% of 14 to 18-year-olds said their information came from the internet, the television and their friends.” and “one in four pupils do not have any sexual and relationship education in school.“.

Now some may say that abstinence only sex education is the only sound and “moral” way forward. But when we analyse this claim, it’s quite apparent that this argument is not grounded in research and facts. The Council of Scientific Affairs states that ”Current research findings do not support the position that the abstinence-only approach to sexuality education is effective in delaying the onset of intercourse.”.

I have already done a similar post on sex education before. But the point still stands, we need more not less sex education. If we truly want to tackle STDs, teenage pregnancies and yes, even abortions (again look to my previous post and subsequent comments regarding abortions) we need sound and effective sex education with no “opt-outs” for pushy and insecure parents.

So please Leadson, could the education system have some more.

Max

That Old Chestnut

by labourluke

David Cameron has a nerve. Not only has he U-turned over his pledge in opposition to hold a referendum over the UK’s terms of membership of the European Union, but today he had the temerity to force Nicolas Sarkozy to back down and accept his presence at key Eurozone talks to try to deal with the Greek debt crisis on Wednesday.

Once again, only one year into the new government, a Conservative prime minister is becoming about as stable on Europe as Edwina Currie is on her feet. We all know deep down he is a staunch Euro-sceptic, so why doesn’t he have the guts to come out and be frank with the British people, and say that he would love us to turn our backs on our continental partners, but that he also loves us to lecture and patronise them on economic policy, despite the fact that UK growth is anaemic at best, and backwards at worst, thanks to his policies.

A referendum on EU membership now would of course be absurd, but having called for one in opposition, the PM should stick to his guns and create a disunited and discredited government, and do us all a favour by breaking up the coalition and triggering a general election. You can’t have your bun and eat it, and you can’t be half in, half out, of the EU – leaving the Eurozone (or more accurately, Germany) to do all the hard work and then turning up to talks this week to act as one of the key players while facing a referendum proposal at home from your own backbenchers is hypocritical and downright embarrassing for Britain.

It was Ed Miliband, incidentally, who called on Cameron to give up his trip Down Under and attend the meeting, therefore whether or not you agree that Cameron has a right to be there, it is clear that the Labour leader is ahead of the curve on this one, as he was on phone hacking and as he was at PMQs this week.

It might sound like a cheap shot from the comforts of opposition – and we all know Blair and Brown disagreed over the Euro – however it is clear that yet again the Tories are divided over Europe. Europhile or Europhobe, this is one of the few reliable constants of the European project.

We told you so

by maxattacks

Going to use a bit of the Brigid Jones BULS blog formula this morning.

It turns out there’s going to be the biggest drop in middle-income families incomes since the 1970s and so pushing 600,000 more children into poverty according to the IFS. This is while Gideon (George) Osborne has announced a £840 million tax break for multinationals using tax heavens while it turns out the amount of tax money lost in the FTSE 100 by tax avoidance is estimated to be £18bn. So much for the cuts being “progressive”.

To insult to misery, it turns out public sector job losses will 50% higher than originally predicted. So much for Cameron’s pre-election claim that any Minister who came to him with front-line public sector cuts would be told to go back and have a rethink.

Max

Sex is not the enemy

by suzannahrobinson

David Cameron is set to announce a new set of proposals for child-proofing the internet. A new opt-in scheme to be unveiled today would have internet providers blocking access to pornographic material to all but those users who request it. Clearly children, some teenagers and even adults can be shocked and upset by explicit imagery.

I don’t think we should run (seek to understand exotic acts and complex power games) before we can walk (understand a basic ideal of sex between adults who respect each other). But wouldn’t it be nice if the government were to replace one (misleading, fantasy-based) source of sex information with another (safe, inclusive) source?

The classically repressed British are living proof that ignoring sex does not make STIs or unwanted pregnancy go away. Only proper education, support networks and open adult discussion can do that.

I think we have some things to learn from our friends down under: http://www.sexparty.org.au/index.php/policies

Suzy

Election results

by maxattacks

Apart from an amazing visit by the Shadow Policing Minister, Vernon Coaker, BULS played host to a serious of elections for various positions. And the results are as follows:

Women’s Officer-Viki Hemmingway

Fresher’s Officer-Lottie Rowling

Constituency Labour Party (CLP) Liason Officer: Ed Gilbert

Congratulations is in order and comiserations for those who ran against them. We look forward to working with this ‘New Generation’ of BULS.