Guild Elections

I think this blog is going to go into hiatus for the next couple of weeks as members will be really involved in the elections taking place in the Guild.

 

I am currently trying to canvass opinion about the way the guild runs it elections and would be so grateful if you could fill in my short survey about it, I really want to get alot of responses so I can show the guild what people think.  You can find it here.

 

As for buls.org, it is sadly no more.  It has been taken from us, it’s funeral will be announced in the next two weeks but do not fear, in a fortnight or so the BULS blog will resurface dramatically and this will signify the formal handover to the new committee!!

To Publish or Not to Publish…

I don’t know if anybody caught Charlie Falconer on the Today program this morning, but he was giving a spirited defence on why publishing the minutes of the Iraq debate would damage Cabinet Collective Responsibility. I have some sympathy for this position owing to the setting of possible precedence whereby minutes maybe demanded of a discussion by a sitting government on any issue recently debated (barring national security concerns etc). This would totally undermine any aspect of collective responsibility and could intentionally be used by cabinet ministers as a ‘get out clause’ for unpopular issues, which they can show they have argued against.

While I believe that the minutes should be published at some point, the tough question that arises is of how long since the debate can this happen. Perhaps it might be best that no cabinet members serving at the point of the relevant discussion are currently serving in the cabinet at the publication of the minutes. Or maybe we should just abolish collective responsibility and have big brother style cabinet meetings?

Academic Blogging

While it hasn’t quite caught on in the UK as much, the world of Academic Blogging is a treasure trove of information or as Berkeley economist Brad DeLong noted, it acts as an almost Invisible College, which anybody (who has access to the internet) can attend. Be it from Paul Krugmans infamous Conscience of a Liberal to Project Syndicates monthly updates from Joseph Stiglitz to Joschka Fischer.

As far as I’m aware the only daily academic blogger at the University of Birmingham appears to be American Scott Lucas from the American and Canadian Studies Department with Enduring America. However, I’d like to think he wasn’t the only one, does anybody know any other University of Birmingham academic bloggers?

Is having more than two kids selfish?

After an impromptu meeting with our vice-chair elect in the library the other day, I was left wondering whether we should actually feel guilty about having more than two children in our families. I also noticed earlier,  the report that came out from some ‘green’ organisation that it was in fact selfish to have more than two children and more of us should consider having no children at all because of their carbon footprints.

I come from a family of three children, and upon pondering this idea it struck me that if the authors of this report had their way I would not have the younger brother I adore today. What is worth more, him or his carbon footprint? It strikes me as odd that these people would value human life purely in terms of tonnes of prospective CO2 emissions, surely we are worth more than that as humans?

How could this plan be implemented? If it were voluntary surely no-one would follow it unless they valued the environment (in a very tenuous way I might add) more than the life of another child that they could have if they so felt inclined? Would this be an enforced law saying ‘you are not allowed any more children’, through which we lose benefits for children, or get fined, or even more extremely like in China have forced abortions? I would hate to be part of any Neo-Marxist state that implented any of the latter.

It is not the West that are causing world wide population issues, it is developing nations in Africa, South America and parts of Asia. These people rely on their children to support their families, as it is poverty that causes population pressures, not the ‘irresponsible’ people of Western nations choosing out of emotion, not neccessity to have children. The only way to relieve population pressure on the environment is to provide economic support to the people of developing nations so that the people do not need to have so many children, and eventually to aid their development for the prosperity of all.

Positive(?) Discrimination

Sahars recent contribution regarding BULS liberation officers appears to have stirred up much passion and debate over whether such a position is positive or negative toward the general well-being of a society. There are a lot of pertinent issues which have emanated from this debate, one being that of positive discrimination.

So do we have a legal, moral or societal duty to redress historical imbalances that have been perpetuated over time owing to discrimination of one sort or another and how should we go about doing this? Or is this history of racial, class, gender and other such forms of discrimination a thing of the past and we all end up where we are destined to be based on how hard we work?

Most would probably agree that our society is far from perfect, workplace discrimination still occurs, nepotism is rife in many industries and we still see drastic inequalities between sexes, ethnicities and classes that are statistically significant. However, broad categories perhaps simplify the problem and many post-modernist I’m sure will alert us to the interconnection between these, leading us to ask such questions as: do we give preference to the black, straight, middle class woman over an white, gay, working class man? These are not easy issues to overcome, when we start giving preference to one group over the other it will not only stir up animosity but it may not guarantee that we are even targeting those worst off.

And yet still we are left in a society that broadly speaking, we all wish to be a meritocracy, but is not. If not affirmative action than what? warm words and a reliance on current failing legislation? We still do not live in a nation where everybody is given comparable opportunities to succeed, which damages our moral standing, our economy and our social cohesion. Until a time when everybody is afforded an equal opportunity to succeed in life, the debate will carry on.

Recent blog success!

In the past week and a half we have had over 3,500 hits on our buls.org website! This has been fantastic work from all of you guys getting involved and making some brilliant contributions. The tories have definately helped our cause here, and a special thankyou must be made to a certain Tory MP for taking time out of his busy schedule to enlighten us all with his thoughtful and intuitive contributions.

Keep it up guys!

Zimbabwe: will there be real change?

I took note today that Morgan Tsvangirai had been sworn in as the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe, but will this actually mean anything for his people?

The new PM

Tsvangirai: The new PM

With inflation at meteoric levels, and cholera sweeping through the population, I find it very hard to believe that the new PM will be able to change very much with the Mugabe still casting a shadow over his country.

Surely this appointment is merely symbolic, with Mugabe still mostly in control of the police and armed forces, I cannot see how Tsvangirai’s postion has changed at all after being sworn in. Something more must be done to save these people, but what?

With South Africa claiming this as a victory, there seems to be a worrying consensus that this will be the end of the matter. I am inclined to say “time will tell”, but I am not sure how much time many Zimbabweans have as Mugabe continues his reign of tyranny

A Night Less Ordinary

Today sees the launch of “A Night Less Ordinary”, the free theatre scheme for those young people (under 26) across the country. “A Night Less Ordinary” was announced at Party conference back in September, by Andy Burnham, Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport. Hundreds of theatres nationwide have joined the scheme and approximately 618,000 tickets will be available. Burnham said

“Labour has always believed in making the best in life available to everyone. We all know how a visit to the theatre can be a life-changing experience, and it’s incredibly exciting to imagine our theatres full to bursting point with young people.”

Eddie Izzard and Kevin Spacey have come out in support of the scheme (Insert) Video eddie izzard and kevin spacey ->  Eddie Izzard said

“I think free theatre tickets for young people is a great idea, especially as things are getting tough financially right now. I am very pleased that the Labour Party has launched this scheme for under 26 year olds. We have a great British theatrical tradition and I hope people take advantage of this offer.”

For more information on the scheme please visit: www.anightlessordinary.org.uk

Hollie Jones, BULS member and Guild Vice President Welfare

Sahar Rezazadeh on the reasoning of liberation officers.

I noticed a while back that the BULS committee has four interesting positions that the BUCF committee doesn’t.  I was then prompted to raise the issue more recently on the BUCF blog. So what are these positions that I find unnecessary and almost unpleasant?  Women’s Officer, LGBT Officer, BME Officer and Disabled Students Officer.  The first question that came to mind was what these positions actually entail?  I asked the BME Officer but he didn’t quite explain his role either so I decided that they were pointless positions of segregation for a political society.

Some may jump to conclusions and assume that I am being sexist, homophobic, racist or inconsiderate of people’s varied abilities.  But this is not at all the case since I am a female, ethnic minority with learning difficulties.  Instead my understanding of these positions on the BULS committee is that they are discriminating.  If I were a BULS member, why would I need a special officer for my gender? Why would I need a special officer for my race? Do I need ‘special’ care? Am I less able than a white male?

So what would my approach be to these positions?  I would have them removed because I don’t think a political society on campus needs such positions.  I understand that there are similar roles at guild level and I would not necessarily oppose them at that level since I think that other students with disabilities and LGBT students are the one’s who should decide whether those positions are helpful for them.  For example, it may be that on guild level the DS role helps to support students with disabilities to become more involved in student life.  However, in the case of the Women’s Officer and BME Officer at guild level I can speak for myself and say that I do not advocate them and struggle to see their relevance.

At this point I’d like to thank Tom Guise for offering me the opportunity to make a post on the blog, very kind of you. I’d also like to add that, thankfully, it’s not just my opinion that matters so I’d like to hear from everyone else too…

Sahar is Social Action Officer for Birmingham University Conservative Future

What is a Union for?

Disclaimer:   This post is all about trade unions, not student unions you guild lovers!

TUs have been pretty much screwed over the last 30 years.  In 1979 their numbers were at a peak of 13.5 million.  Remember this is during the winter of discontent so lots of union activity.  They now have about 7 million.  So a small proportion of workers.  Unions, to survive, have been forced to merge.  We have had the first ‘super-union’ in Unite come into existence.

Ok so the purpose of this is a simple discussion for unionists and non-unionists alike.  There are two options for Unions to survive;

1) Become more conciliatory and offer a much better individualised service for members in focussing their efforts on one-to-one negotiations on a case by case procedure.

or;

2) Become more overt and aggressive in highlighting the growing gap in power between employers and employees.  Organise more active participation and start posing a real threat to employers in the hope they start acting on concerns on a large scale.

 

Discuss……….

The great GM debate

Pippa Calver: Trying to be controversial Number2 Officer

Don’t worry, I’m not intentionally starting another GM debate, search GM for the previous discussion, although it would be great to get it going again. What I want to discuss is how GM and nuclear seems to have almost been accepted as the way forward by our generation apart from the fringe ‘militant greenies’ that have been previously spoken about. So why is this?

1) do we trust the current government to do the right thing for us?

2) do people just not care either way?

3) does the media and big business play a role in ‘public risk acceptance’ or risky scenarios?

4) is it because we in fact we now have higher faith in science to save the day?

5) or are we scared of looking like a militant greenie therefore to be cool and technological we just agree its needed?

cough (GM is evil)

Dan says:

This is what the chair of BUCF has to say to say on the ‘Golligate’ scandal:

“I find the use of the word golliwog as offensive as ‘pr*ck’ ‘tw*t’ ‘bast**d’ ‘wank*r’ ‘k**bhead’ and all other terms of offence which are regularly tossed about between friends. Ive lost count of the terms of abuse that ive heard thrown between friends…. all in jest usually.”

quoted from “In defence of Carol Thatcher’ comments section at http://www.bucf.co.uk/

I’m not sure I agree with this…


At what price a house?

The following is from Pippa Calver, Guild Ethical and Environmental Officer and BULS Vice-Chair Elect

Speaking recently to my grandparents and being told I should start to put some money aside for a deposit on a house fund I realised how differently the generations see property. I replied by saying that I’m not sure where I’ll be getting a job and don’t plan to buy a house until I am in a career enjoy and perhaps have views to start a family. I was met with shock. At the moment I see a house and mortgage as a big swinging ball and chain holding me down in one place, hindering my job possibilities because I don’t have freedom of movement, applying financial pressures and stopping me having a career break and travelling. this leads me to two questions………

1) Am I alone in my opinions?

2) Is it possible to do well in life without ever purchasing a house?

Labour MP joins call for cheaper halls fees!

BULS Guild correspondent Hollie Jones has provided us with the inside scoop that our good friend Steve McCabe MP has joined us students in our quest for affordable halls accommodation. In a letter to our very own Vice Chancellor Prof. Michael Sterling, he says

“Providing high quality accommodation in Halls of Residence is commendable but it is important that this accommodation is affordable for the whole student population and that there is maximum consultation with the students to ensure that what’s on offer is meeting their needs.”

BULS salutes Steve for showing solidarity in the good fight!

A response to Comrade Nash & Pippa: The Sen-sible solution

In the spirit of Amartya Sen I wanted to respond to Comrade Nash and Pippa with their earlier thoughts on population growth.

I want to pick up where the controversy ‘rears its ugly head’ as you aptly put it. When you talk about these vast hordes in Africa and Asia you don’t seem to take into account the relative share of the global population. So as 63.7% of the worlds population in 1950 was from Asia/Africa, which rose to 71.2% in 1990 and is estimated to reach roughly 78.5% in 2050. This would mean that by 2050 Africa/Asias share of the worlds population would just be reverting to what it was in 1650. In fact the only reason why Europe/North America grew as a greater proportion of the worlds population was owing to the Industrial Revolution. This means that prior to Industrialisation when we might be able to view things as ‘all things being equal,’ the population levels resembled what they are becoming rather than what they are now. This leads us to believe that the population growth is merely a case of the worlds share of population ‘righting’ itself.

We must also take into account that the rate of world population growth is declining overall with its rate of growth falling from 2.2% per year between 1970 and 1980 to 1.7% from 1980 to 1992. It further likely that this will level off in the future.

You then talk about Chinas One Child policy as possibly being a solution, when there are far better solutions and policies than the one child solution, which hasn’t even been proven to be effective and diverts money from policies that are. The best solution to general population growth I would argue is development. When we look closer at India and China we can see an example of this. While in general education levels in India are lower than China, in those places in India that have a comparable levels of health and education the population growth is less than that in China. The low levels do not require state coercion. There are a number of reasons why those places in India grow less (womens education etc) but it still shows that the One Child Policy is not the answer.

When we look at which countries have the highest levels of population growth it is those least developed in sub-Saharan Africa, (with 3-4% increases) and that in those countries that are experiencing higher development rates such as India and China they have a declining growth rate, this also the case in Latin America.

In relation to Pippas Malthus-esq point, I would argue that he was wrong 200 years ago and the ideas are likely to be wrong today. Firstly we find that in general there is a growth of food production (per person as well as total) so this idea that we are running out of food is a fallacy.

In fact as well as having a growth in food production while the prices are cheap (relatively speaking when we compare it to the past – inc when Malthus was alive) and the incentive to grow thereby being less, we also see that much of the growth in food production is from areas that have a high (absolute) population growth, so we see that the per capita food production rose by 39% in China and roughly 23% in India.

This tends to lead us to the conclusion that those areas that do experience famine tend to be as a result of wider political and economic structures and have little bearing on whether people are having babies or not.

It’s a shame that it’s had to lose its apostrophe…

How wonderfully amused I was to learn today of the existence of the Apostrophe Protection Society!

Tory commentators love to pull us up on our grammar on this here blog, in fact after Thatcher I’ll wager its their second favourite thing to comment on. How aghast they must have been to note that their own Tory council leaders here in Brum are ditching that beloved bastion of the educated!

I know you guys aren’t that well acquainted with the Guild but if you want to start up a uni branch of the APS you only need twenty members, I can help with the forms if you like: just get in touch.

Speaking of education, I was most interested in the new Tory ad that informs us the UK is now 24th in the world at maths, (not sure what kind or level of maths as it didn’t specify), behind both Canada and Korea. Last time I checked Korea was in fact two separate political entities, North and South Korea; where pray does the UK come in the world geography championships? I personally am wondering why I ought to be surprised that both these places have reasonable education systems, but would like to congratulate them both all the same.

tory-poster

Wen will we learn: Thoughts on China, overpopulation and shoes

Given that I have never found snow in winter by any means newsworthy, only two stories have really attracted my attention this week. The first occurred on Monday in Cambridge when some self-righteous dipstick took it upon himself to lob a shoe at the Chinese premier Wen Jiabao, in addition to objectively assessing him a “dictator”. Presumably a more civilised form of protest was beyond the man, as indeed was devising one that was remotely original. – Further proof perhaps that our home-grown extremists and fringe groups look increasingly towards the Middle East for guidance.

The second story, seemingly unrelated (though I’ll do my best to shoehorn) comes from a statement from Jonathon Porritt– a man I once had the pleasure of receiving an award from – who chairs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission. He has called for serious global measures to curb population growth in an attempt to tackle climate change. In addition to making some very valid points about the need for personal responsibility in procreation, he also criticises a number of ecological pressure groups for their apparent hypocrisy on the issue:

“Many organisations think it is not part of their… You [friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, etc] are betraying your members by refusing to address population issues and you are doing it for the wrong reasons because you think it is too controversial”

Controversial? He’s not wrong there. Barely skimming through the list of comments on the related Times online page could tell me that. A large number come from serial breeders in the US who have littered the planet with numerous (presumably) like-minded offspring. More often than not god(s) or scripture are invoked as justification for such recklessness. Despite all this, the US isn’t really the problem; whilst their disproportionate use of natural resources and consumption per head is nothing to shout about, natural population growth has pretty much evened off. Same goes for most of Europe.

So here’s where the real controversy rears its ugly head. What to do about the vast hordes of Africa, Latin America and Asia? Whilst discussing this may ring the distant alarm bells of xenophobic and even racialism, cold hard facts are that the enormous increase in global population from less than 1 billion in 1900 to over 6.7 billion today (and potentially up to 9 billion by 2050) predominantly comes from precisely these regions.

Now call me cynical, but I know that even suggesting that this growth is a significant global problem puts me at the risk of attack from all sorts of agitators. Labels like Eurocentrist, Neo-colonialist, and even racist would no doubt be applied (and consequently devalued) to any economist or ecologist who seriously proposed large scale cuts (“Population reduction”) in third world population growth.

So this is where China comes in. Twenty-nice years ago, the Chinese government made what was, in my view, one of the most difficult governmental decisions ever made; they introduced the One Child Policy. Now I personally have numerous criticisms of the Bejing regime; but on this issue I believe they draw a lot of unwarranted attacks. Someone famous (I forget who) once said that government is about the “choice between the unpalatable and the disastrous”. The One Child Policy was an ultimate last resort for China; a last ditch attempt to avoid the population explosions and famines which have dogged the nation’s history.I’m not proposing anything so “draconian” for sub-Saharan Africa quite yet, but it’s worth noting that if humanity doesn’t take steps to limit our numbers, nature will do the job herself.

as the Tories once argued that it is not necessarily racist to discuss immigration, I will argue that it is neither racist, nor an infringement of human rights to talk about population. And it is a discussion that needs to start soon.

Comrade Chris Nash, BULS Controversey Officer

At least Clarkson isn’t as stupid as Dale

It is good news that Clarkson had the guts to apologise after his ‘One eyed Scottish idiot’ remark when filming in Australia. I assume becuase the Brand/Ross affair got completely out of hand, after a certain newspaper decided to get all high and mighty, he made the correct decision to retract his statement, fair play to him.

On the other hand, Iain Dale is a completely different kettle of fish. I am sure that most of us agree, even the Tories among us, that his defence of Carol (daren’t mention her surname) was completely unnecassary. Surely it must be time for him to say ‘sorry I was wrong, lets just get over this’? No-one can defend the use of the term ‘golliwog’ no matter what the context, it is wholely derogatory and bigoted to even consider this an acceptable term in today’s British society.

Conrade Nash: Thoughts on the Eco Warriors

“If Antarctica is melting – we have just 3 days to eat all the penguins”

Dear old Comrade Guise has been saying for some time that he’d quite like it if more folk would write for this blog; and given my quite spectacular knack of insulting, offending, annoying, and generally filling up the BULS inbox, I thought I’d give it a bash. After long and careful (5 minutes) consideration as to my target, I figured I’d go for those I like to refer to as the Eco-Warriors.

First let’s get one thing straight; before the legions of St. Al Gore hyperventilate, I’m not out to deny the bleeding obvious, our readership are too intelligent (just) for me to do that. My objections lie not so much with the motivation and the facts behind the Green Agenda, but with the methods and the mentality of many of those who attach themselves to it. I don’t think I’d be alone in saying that it seems to me that the green movement contains the highest proportion of nutjobs and loonies this side of Riyadh.

I could be referring to the ongoing Heathrow expansion farce here. I’m not, but if I were it would be the most topical in a long list of examples of eco-self righteousness. This is the main point of my argument – the actions undertaken by members and organisations within the green movement are carried out with the greatest possible amount of preaching and sanctimonious self-martyring imaginable – one where parallels are found only within religious extremism. For its many faults, I’d say Britain has some pretty damn fine representative structures – not perfect you could argue – but functional. For democracy to be worth anything citizens need to have equal representation; MPs are after all obliged to represent all their constituents regardless of which way they voted. Just because a citizen believes that their opinions are more valid or accurate than everybody else’s, doesn’t entitle them to any more representation, or to a greater say in the legislative process than anyone else.

An example I’d like to use is one I first read about many months ago. Freight trains are used to transport coal to Britain’s many (comparatively advanced) coal-fired power stations. Naturally a bunch of hippies decided they weren’t having this, though rather than follow correct procedure by writing to their MP – or maybe even voting in an election – they took matters into their own hands. They managed to stop a train en route, and having boarded and effectively hijacked it, proceeded to unload the contents there and then (without I might add, any concern for the mess they were making or the poor sod who’d have to clean it up). The issue was resolved when the police “talked them down”. Personally I’d have preferred to have seen their bodies dragged from the site, but you can’t have it all.

There are many other examples like this; from Greenpeace obstructing perfectly legal and legitimate whaling activity in the South Atlantic, to the eco’s with a boycott-fetish on campus, with everything in between; including I might add, the publicity-seeking d-list celebs in Heathrow. What is worst about all this, for me, is that I’m aware of the facts. I’ve read the literature; I’m familiar with a lot of the issues. When there is a strong militant faction within any organisation – who aren’t interested in discussion, who take matters into their own hands, and who arrogantly believe their opinions to be the only ones which are valid – is it surprising when many members of the general public take the reactionary stance that global warming is a mere fiction invented to con us? Hostility inspires suspicion.

Militants will always do their cause more harm than good – and it is always they who cannot see it. If well meaning greens want to save the planet,then they should do it by taking ordinary people into account – talk with them, not to them – rather than treating them like idiots, evil nature killers, or both. Don’t forget; its their planet too.

Angry emails to the usual address, thanks.

The dark side of snow

The snow on my street has turned into sheet ice. Thick, solid ice. Half the neighbourhood is covered it. Half the neighbourhood is also on an incline, making walking frankly terrifying. I have taken to wearing wellies in the vain hope it will make walking easier. So far I have narrowly avoided falling flat on my arse/face, but I know some of my friends have not been so fortunate. If I’m slipping and sliding all over the place it must be hell for those slightly less physically able.

So as my housemate pointed out the other night, where on Earth is the grit? Why haven’t our roads been gritted and why is there nothing to grit our pavements with? Who exactly is in charge of all this? I guess that’s a council issue…

British Jobs for British Workers

The strikes at the Lindsey oil refinery, in Lincolnshire, feel like an important mood indicator of the country. There is anger about companies possibly illegally hiring workers from certain countries mixed with economic insecurity. This makes the strikes completely understandable. It is how they are bringing back Brown’s ill-advised phrase ‘British Jobs for British workers’ that is worrying. Fearing for your job will bring out a lot of things. Anger at those you may take your job is certainly understandable. As is the desire to demand for action that’ll protect your job. Brown’s phrase acknowledged these sentiments in 2007, before there was a recession and before people has so much to fear. The problem is that now people will be pushing for action. Action that will mean protectionism. Strikes in France have called for this already and clauses in Obama’s stimulus package include measures such as only buying American tools. Such actions are only going to make economic circumstances worse everywhere, see the Depression-era ‘beggar thy neighbour’ policies to see the best indictment of protectionism. Brown has to be brave and stand up to such sentiment.

This is the first blog by Mo Danyal Shaid, BULS Treasurer

Unionism lives on…

This week in France, there were widespread walkouts as over 1,000,000 workers decided to strike over their government’s handling of the economic downturn. French unemployment is due to hit 10% early next year, and the French seem a bit ticked off about it. At least workers still have a say in their country I guess, even though the strikes seem to have not caused a complete shutdown as the unions were predicting…

Chris Blewitt, BULS website editor-elect

Obama, the womens champion

Hollie Jones, BULS member and Guild of Students Vice President Welfare, giver her first blog

Days after the 36th anniversary of Roe vs Wade and less than a week into his presidency, it is refreshing to learn that Barack Obama has decided to join the ping pong politics of the Mexico City policy. On Friday, President Obama overturned the controversial ban on U.S. support to international aid groups that provide abortion services around the world. The result is a victory for women globally and enables NGOs to once again equip women with information about contraception and family planning, with organisations working in developing countries benefiting particularly from the policy reversal. It’s great that Obama has taken such a progressive step. Throughout his presidential campaign, Obama balanced his support for a woman’s right to choose with his commitment to reduce the number of abortions. Lets hope that Fridays ruling is the first of a number of steps he takes fulfilling this mandate.

The final straw

Praguetory accused me somewhere of being obsessed with Obama.  Since just before the primaries I’ve probably written 10 maybe at most 15 blogs about the President.  I am in awe of the man and it is a topic of interest for me and hopefully others.  However, I have just looked at the BUCF blog and seen yet ANOTHER post on Thatcher. 

These are the same people who try and intimidate us by saying we shouldn’t bring up examples of the past tory administration when debating them.  I say this; I will stop doing that, when they stopped being obsessed by the root of much evil and get over it.  She has gone, she has expried, she has ceased to be!!  How many blogs on Blair have we written since he resigned?  Maybe one or two, certainly not one or two a month. 

So I’ve challenged myself, I will link here to all the thatcher themed blogs from BUCF since the start of this year, that’s a little over a month; here we go.

http://bucf.wordpress.com/2009/02/03/frostnixon/

http://bucf.wordpress.com/2009/02/01/lessons-of-1979/

http://bucf.wordpress.com/2009/01/10/why-the-party-still-loves-maggie/

http://bucf.wordpress.com/2009/01/06/thatcher-back-in-downing-street/

http://bucf.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/sir-alan-walters-dies/

http://bucf.wordpress.com/2009/01/03/camerons-challenge/

That’s 6.  In one month.  A month where Israel invaded the Gaza Strip, Obama became President, Britain entered recession, dissertation drafts were handed in and there were not one, not two but three protests on campus.  In that month the BUCF team felt it pertinent and important enough to write 6 blogs on some woman who was Prime Minister nearly 20 years ago.

So praguetory, don’t ever suggest I’m obsessed with someone who is current a world leader, when your own lot are obsessed with the past!

So what if I read the Telegraph?

Friends,

I have dismayed comrades in recent weeks by confessing to having bought, read and enjoyed atleast three copies of the Telegraph. I promise you, if you don’t read the opinions then you’re fine. Anyway saw this in the letters on January 29th and thought I would share it with you;

Am I a chav?

“Sir – I see from your article (January 27) about a company providing ‘chav-free’ holidays that chavs are likely to have names such as Shannon and Tiffany, while the middle classes have names like Michael and Lucy. Where does this leave me?”

Michael Shannon

Ferndown, Dorset.

I don’t want to judge Mr. Shannon, but it seems if Tories have a sense of humour.