Author Archives:

New dogs, old tricks…

by John Ritchie

Nick Robinson has just reported on News 24 that Geoge Osbourne was unable to deny that he had held discussions with Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska about how a donation could effectively be made to the Conservative Party.

His rivals have already started calling for accountability, one saying “It will dismay a lot of people that his early statements about hardly knowing Oleg Deripaska now turn out to be completely untrue. What on earth is going on here? We need a full disclosure of all his interests.”  Oh no, hold on, that’s Tory Shadow Business Secretary Alan Duncan trying to score some political points in referring to Peter Mandelson.

A Secretary of State for Business courting the attention of a foreign businessman is one thing, but the sheer hypocrisy of criticising it in public whilst doing it in private is quite another…

Lies, damned lies and Tory rhetoric

by John Ritchie

One of the very first posts ever to appear on this now highly-successful blog was my rebuttal of some spurious spin being spouted by BULS’s good friend Praguetory, and the-then Chairman of the-then BUCF.

Well, almost 2 years later, my good comrade Tom Miller drew my attention to this post, which knocks on the head some of the myths being pedalled by our friends who believe everything they read in the Hate Mail.
So compared to the Tories (and our continental neighbours), taxes are actually rather low under Labour.  Shall we move on to the rest of Daniel’s list?

A BULS badge (which gives free entry to most Labour events) will go to anyone who can critique any of Daniel’s economic measures under Labour against a similar period under the Tories.

Chess, anyone?

by John Ritchie

Congratulations to all newly-elected Birmingham City Councillors.  I happened to be browsing through the Birmingham Conservatives website, and found a page containing lovely pictures of all Conservative Birmingham City Councillors, sorted by ward.  I would encourage everyone to go and take a look – it appears not to have been updated with the new councillors yet, but please check back once it has been updated.  Notice anything?

I wonder if any of the Conservative Group plays chess.  Hmmm.

Pragmatism needs to know its place again

by John Ritchie

When Tony Blair famously said “power without principle is barren, but principle without power is futile,” he was setting a mood which has dictated the Labour Party’s attitude to policy-making ever since.  Many of the party’s grassroots at the time called it a sellout on their principles – many more accepted that a degree of pragmatism was needed to make Labour electable again.

There was a degree of pride-swallowing for everyone in the Labour Party back then, and there needs to be a similar degree of pride-swallowing now.  Not in order to capitalise yet more on the middle-England vote that we are so terrified of losing (and are evidently succeeding in so doing), but to understanding what motivates the electorate to vote Labour in the first place.  The electorate stuck with New Labour in the past because it associated strongly with New Labour’s ideology – there was an understanding that New Labour’s policies would only push the middle classes as far as they felt comfortable, but no further, and there was an understanding that the fruits of that prosperity were going to help people at the bottom.  They did.

But what the Brown administration has not yet grasped is that the electorate’s inate understanding of New Labour’s ideology, i.e. that Labour will protect the poorest but not over-burden the rich, never needed renewal, and certainly not in terms of handing tax breaks to the middle-classes whilst risking over-burdening the poor.  What was in deperate need of renewal was an understanding that politicians were motivated less by retaining power and more by retaining our country’s social and economic stability.  Brown, with a solid reputation for both aiming for power and retaining stability, appeared to give the impression that the power was more important than the principle.

Bizarrely, I think the route out of Gordon Brown’s troubles may come in a familiar, yet not often-trumpeted form (at least not in New Labour circles).  Tony Benn once said there are two types of politician – signposts and weathercocks.  Signposts believe in what they believe, and will argue according to their principles.  Weathercocks will dither and wait on the results of opinion polls and focus groups before making a decision on anything.  If you had to classify Brown and Cameron into one of these categories 9 months ago, the result would be fairly obvious – you knew where you stood with Brown, and Cameron was all spin and hair grease.  But the main issues that have completely reversed Brown’s fortunes have been due to his transformation in the eyes of the public from a signpost to a weathercock – the election that never was, inheritance tax, and the 10p tax rate fiasco – all decisions made on the back of perceived public  opinion and political points scoring – all another chip out of Brown’s “signpost.”

What Labour needs now is not to re-connect with middle-England, but to reconnect with the very reasons that made every voter (working-class, middle-class, Scottish, English, men, women or whoever) put a cross next to Labour in 1997, 2001 and 2005 – a belief in promoting fairness, equality and social justice… but never at the expense of stability.  As soon as the public start to notice these “signposts” are pointing towards Labour and Gordon Brown again, we need have no fear about going into the next General Election…

… and sinking David Cameron’s weathercock.

Sucking too hard on your lollipop?

by John Ritchie

I have to say I’ve been quite impressed by the non-partisan tone of some of the discourse in the aftermath of Thursday’s elections, particularly the Mayoral election.  Anyone who has actually been an active candidate or a community campaigner in local elections (as opposed to a party-aparatchik, navel-gazing, prediction-making, strategy-forming “campaigner”) has some appreciation of what we’re all really in this game for.  It’s not to win one over the other side, although that must be how it appears to most.  It is entirely about positively influencing the lives of the people who live in our communities.

In reality, that positive influence can come in many forms, and almost always you can make the impact without needing the Councillor’s allowance or the vote in the council chamber.  I stood for Council last year, and whilst I knew I would make a better councillor than my opponent, I also knew that all was not lost from my defeat.  Running a high profile campaign and being good at doing it almost invariably helps not the politicians, but the electorate.  I left the count last year knowing that by calling my opponent publicly to account with high-profile and aggressive campaigns, I had probably changed the quality of life of hundreds of people in that ward.

The same applies to a number of wards this year, where some results appear to be just completely unjust to anyone with a grasp of either the intellect, capacity to work, or community involvement of the defeated candidate relative to the victor.

But we’ll carry on fighting, remembering that our democratic system trumps it all.  This year hasn’t been “bad,” it’s been disastrous.  What we need now is not idiotic and patronising soundbites about how we’re all going to start “listening” – everyone knows our grassroots campaigners have done exactly that for years – even if the conduit to the leadership for those views has been far from a path of least resistance.  What we need is to remember why we’re doing this in the first place.  If we carry on the fight, you can rest assured that before too long, circumstances will have us back in power locally, but much more importantly, will have us making the positive changes our communities deserve under Labour, and are always left wanting under the Conservatives.

A new Unions policy from the Tories?

by John Ritchie

The Torygraph reports that their political namesake is considering reducing the “power of the unions.”

There’s no real question that this is simple knee-jerk opportunism on the Tories’ part.  We’ve had a teachers’ strike (whose justifications were admittedly dubious) and a strike of chemical workers (whose justifications seem perfectly commendable), and Osborne is trying to craft a winter-of-discontent image of unions holding the country to ransom.  Pathetic, George: and the Daily Mail-style scare tactics aren’t befitting even of the current Tory frontbench.

What is slightly more scary is the tone of this message and the exposure it gives to the Tories’ hypocrisy.  Only this morning, Cameron was telling us how he was only worried for the poor people of the country in opposing the abolition of the 10p tax rate.  Nonsense.  In a climate where the poor are being squeezed whilst the rich are getting better off (one of the legacies of the current government of which I am less proud), workers need the protection of the trades unions – they do not need yet further erosions to their powers.

In another blindening dose of inconsistency, when it comes to the blame game between employer and union, Osbourne believes the unions are to blame and need to be cut down (cf. Grangemouth), yet when it comes to Civil Servants and the employer happens to be Gordon Brown, can you guess who is to blame?

Striking was not the right way to tackle the issue, he said, adding that the “real culprit” was Gordon Brown.  By that reasoning, who was to blame for the miners strikes of the 80s?

… the unions, I guess.

‘I am a sex addict’, says Tory donor

by John Ritchie

 

From today’s Independent:

Lord Laidlaw, the multimillionaire Tory donor, has pledged a £1m donation to an addiction charity after a Sunday newspaper published lurid claims about his addiction to sex.

The Monaco-based peer admitted his lifelong problem after the News of the World claimed he had held sex parties with prostitutes. In a letter to the newspaper, Lord Laidlaw, who has given more than £3m to the Conservatives and paid £25,000 to Boris Johnson’s mayoral campaign, said he had been “fighting sexual addiction for my whole adult life”. He said he was seeking “expert help” and plans to give £1m to a British addiction charity.

Lord Laidlaw said: “Sexual addiction is comparable to other, better-known addictions such as drug, alcohol and gambling. There is no cure for it and self-help is rarely successful.”

Dawn Butler, a Labour vice-chairman, condemned the peer’s actions.

She said: “If they have any respect for the women of this country, I hope David Cameron and Boris Johnson will return the millions of pounds they have been given by Lord Laidlaw or hand over the money to a charity helping abused women. That would send the right signal that his behaviour is unacceptable.”

I have to say, I’m with Dawn on this one.

Dick Knowles

by John Ritchie

Sir Dick Knowles, former Labour leader of Birmingham City Council, died yesterday at the age of 90.
 
Dick was leader of the Labour Group from 1984 to 1993, and brought in many of the changes which saw Birmingham get back on its feet and feel the sense of pride in itself that many regarded as lacking throughout the country but especially in Birmingham during the mid 1980s.  Dick took over the leadership of the council at a time when much of the country and especially areas like Birmingham were on their knees, with average unemployment throughout the city of 25%, rising to 50% in some wards.  Despite a lack of support from the Thatcher government, the Labour administration, under Dick’s leadership, pushed forward plans for the ICC, undoubtedly planting the seed for the vast regeneration that Birmingham City Centre has enjoyed over the last 10-15 years.
 
Dick lived with his wife, Anne, in Bartley Green, the Birmingham City Council ward for which I was candidate last year.  Even at the age of 90, Dick’s drive and enthusiasm never ceased to amaze me.  He and Anne embodied what it means to me to be a member of the Labour Party – the true spirit of comradeship, and the tremendous will to fight against the nasty side of politics that we see all too often in Birmingham.  Even at the age of 90, Dick could still stuff envelopes faster than I could deliver them.
 
As a true comrade (who would address you as such, and never flinch when you returned the compliment, as so many of today’s Labour Party members might), Dick will be sadly missed, and Birmingham University Labour Students conveys its most deepest sympathies to Anne and the family.

Who’s really lost the whip?

by John Ritchie

Listening to the Today programme this morning, I heard prominent Tory donor Stuart Wheeler rant about how the new EU Treaty was a disgrace, and how he was presenting a case to the High Court in order to have the Commons debate withheld.  One thing to note here is another example of how right-wing lunatics believe they can simply pour money into having the decisions of a democratic legislature overturned (cf. the hunting lobby, in attempting to argue in court that the Hunting Act was illegal, or even Brian Soutar, in pouring hundreds of thousands of pounds into a botched “referendum” on keeping the disgusting and homophobic Section 28, as well as donating huge sums of money to Labour’s opponents).

But back to my point, *Mr* Wheeler (he was at pains to point out DC hadn’t recommended him for a gong) was asked whether he thought disgraced Tory MP Derek Conway should have the whip removed (in light of DC’s refusal to remove it yesterday).  Well, Mr Wheeler insisted that if he were responsible, he would remove the whip.

Amazingly (well, about as amazingly as night follows day), DC has now come out and removed the whip from Mr Conway.  Which reminded me of this article in The Times.

Makes you wonder who’s really holding the whip…

Hooray Henry…

by John Ritchie

Rosalind Ryan writes an interesting article in the Guardian, referring to an interview with young Henry Conway (see right – you know, Derek’s the MP’s lad, the one who did a bit of work for his old man – no not Freddy, he’s the one who has already been exposed and caused Dad to be suspended from his job for a few weeks – Henry is Freddy’s older brother).

Well, according the The Guardian, which cites the interview in the Torygraph, Henry said “I can’t afford to buy a £2,000 suit – at the moment I stick to £500 jackets – but when I can, I will.”

Hmmm – I wonder whether Henry thanked daddy, or the Great British Taxpayer for that matter, when he got his new suit?

(Hilarious) Torygraph article here.

Exclusive – Speed Date Hijack?

by John Ritchie

Rumours were circulating Guild circles last night that this year’s famous Refreshers Fair will not go as smoothly as planned, after rumours that members of Conservative Future on campus were looking to hijack the now famous speed dating event.

A source close to a senior Conservative Future member has told BULSInside (the new investigative journal of BULS) that Conservative Future members are planning a coup at the Speed Dating Society, with a view to having the event moved to a local old peoples’ home this year.

The revelations come amid a number of blog posts appearing on the Conservative Future blog, appearing to worship various octogenarians to a degree that a number of Guild members have called “just plain sick.”  In a bizarre twist, the CF source allegedly stated “there seems to be no stopping the idea now, it’s just gained that critical momentum.  They were even talking about trying to get Cilla Black in to host it, but weren’t sure if they could get their speaker approval form in on time.”  Cilla (pictured) is a prominent Tory supporter.

BULSInside were unable to contact any members of the CF committee last night, and Cilla’s office was unable to comment.  A senior BULS member said “we have nothing against CF members worshipping whoever they please in their own time.  Indeed, a number of excellent politicians remain very active well into their eighties and some are deserving of praise.  These allegations do appear to put a more sinister spin on what we already saw as a developing problem within CF, however.”

cilla.jpg 

Well, chuck, you chose number one, and that’s our Betty and she’s from Windsor! Come out Betty!

All a question of perception?

by John Ritchie

Former Chair of BULS, John Ritchie, has finished his Christmas shopping, and turns his attention back to real life…

Rather than try to be clever and write my feelings on this issue in some pathetic work of satire, I wanted to write this blog, which will hopefully start a conversation on how best to take forward the issue of Labour Students governance.  I don’t expect this all to be a public conversation, in fact, I would prefer most of it went on inside the organisation than on public forums like this.  The last thing any political organisation needs is to wash its dirty linen in public, but I hope this can go some way to progressing to a reasonable consensus in our organisation.

I have met some of the most committed, principled and hardworking people I know from my time in Labour Students.  They stand for equality, solidarity, democracy, social justice and every thing else I hold close to my own heart.  They are aggressively defensive of their views, and they are views that brought me into the Labour Party 8 years ago, and will keep me in the Labour Party.  Labour Students have fought for the interests of all students on campuses across the country, whether it be in driving forward liberation campaigns, campaigning against the marketisation of higher education, or, as important as any of those, getting progressive Labour Members of Parliament elected.

Labour Students does not suffer from a bankruptcy of morals, or from ignorance of equality, democracy, social justice and solidarity.  Labour Students’ biggest problem is one of perception.  This isn’t a problem of our external image, but one of how we perceive each other within the organisation.  I proposed a motion to last year’s Labour Students conference, which was an attempt to open our organisation up to its members, and drive forward the organisation in terms of both participation and engagement.  Politics is widely criticised for being hollow on principles and action, but all spin and smokescreen in how politicians will allow themselves to be perceived.  Bizarrely, Labour Students is the exact opposite – we work hard, we campaign hard, we get things done… but we’re generally seen as a set of corrupt and cliquey bastards.  I don’t accept that.  But I do accept, in fact would assert, that Labour Students could be so much better than it currently is, and much of that could be solved if we smashed some of the unwarranted perceptions that go with the organisation.  The only serious rebuttal to my motion last year was that the governance of Labour Students cannot be reformed by one club.  I accepted this, and was delighted that, when my motion fell by 3 votes, I was promised the start of a governance reform process by the end of that sabbatical term.

To start this process, we need to understand why we have this crisis of perception, and we need to remove the barriers that exist between our members, in order to drive the process forward.  Everyone in Labour Students, like it or not, is a politician, with values that they want to defend.  As a politician, I know that my gut reaction when someone attacks me, my principles, or what I stand for is to defend my stance and then attack my opponent’s.  Which is what happens in most internal policy matters within Labour Students.  It happened during the most recent governance debate, and I admit part of that was my fault.  But if we all paused for a moment to realise what it is we’re fighting for – i.e. exactly the same thing – I think there would be less need to resort to this muscle-flexing.  Politically, NOLS and then Labour Students has never been so consistent – I could chose a few minor celebrities from the Labour Students Exec, NUS group, “loyalist” clubs and “rebel” clubs, and not find a thing to disagree on most policy issues.  We don’t have whacko trots any more, we have differing views on how to drive our movement and beliefs forward.  To hear a significant number of prominent clubs talking about disaffiliating from a great organisation like Labour Students, just because of a lack of trust in procedures, but with no disagreement on principles, is completely terrifying to me.

I could go on writing another thousand words on this without having to think about it, but I’ll try to wrap up by suggesting what I think we need to do.  Let’s take immediate steps to put our organisation beyond criticism (albeit unjustified and entirely imagined, but still perceived – and it is the perception that is causing the rot):

1. There was a suggestion that the priority ballot at Council was rigged.  I don’t believe this for a moment.  But, the priority ballot should be conducted by the steering committee.  I understand it was not.  Moreover, the constitution requires the steering committee to be elected every year at conference.  It was not.  Let’s elect a steering committee in line with the constitution, and use it properly.

2.  Let’s see if there is a feeling in National Committee for the “committee position” to be stated.  If not, let’s just waive it, until the constitution can be changed.

3.  Issue a copy of the constitution to club chairs at the start of each year.  It’ll take 2 minutes to email, and will get rid of that criticism.  PS.  Last year’s national secretary, Kiran, supplied me with a copy as soon as I asked for it – I’m sure this year’s will do the same.

4.  Get rid of the idea that “office-approved” candidates get preferential treatment and access to information.  This might encourage more competition in elections.  This was the ethos behind my idea of distributing manifestoes directly to members, but if we cannot do that, perhaps we can supply them to club chairs or something similar.

There are many more issues that I think need resolved, but we can get there by doing just one thing – having a no holds barred conversation on governance within Labour Students.  Some ideas will be crazy, some will be unworkable, but some will be fantastic, and if I know my comrades within Labour Students well enough, they will be dominated by the latter.  Start the conversation, involve everyone who wants to take part – including National Committee, NUS group, “loyal” clubs, “rebel” clubs, and let’s see what we come up with.  At the end of the day, we’ll have lots of ideas that we can fairly and squarely vote on, and put this rotting and divisive issue to bed once and for all.

It has been commented widely that “democracy is improving in Labour Students.”  Democracy is not a relative measure, except for in systems that have opposition to it.  We know what democracy looks like, and it is a simple and absolute measure.

Let’s get this boring (yet essential) procedural stuff out of the way as soon as possible, and move our organisation and its people forward towards what we’re actually best at – campaigning for a fairer, more democratic, equal and socially just society.  We’ll get there not by changing pieces of paper, or the minutes of the last meeting, but by hard work and strong campaigning – but to get to that, let’s put some of those issues to bed.

John Ritchie is former Chair of BULS.

Imagine…

by John Ritchie

Imagine a country whose judiciary is elected on an annual basis by members from across that country.  Sound sensible?  Well, it may sound wonderful to the democrats among us.  But imagine for another moment that the laws of this country are locked away for no one, apart from the country’s executive, to see.  In fact, it is the country’s executive who control the elections to the judiciary.  Imagine that the leaders decided to cancel the last judicial elections because they did not like the candidate, and simply allowed the previous judiciary another term in office.

To add to this, the leaders of the country decided to ignore a few of their own laws when allowing the next set of leaders to be elected.  The process was rife with irregularities, but still the old leaders ensured their successors were elected with ease, and without any intervention from the very friendly judiciary.  The electoral roll is maintained by the executive, and is available for consultation only by people who the executive see fit to view it.  This proves very useful to some “friendly” citizens standing for election, but absolutely disastrous to those citizens who are not friends with the executive.

We’re not talking about a huge country here – its population has been dwindling of late, and looks set to dwindle even more, but most of its citizens are very hard working people, and are absolutely determined to see their country succeed.  But the trouble is that they are subject to rules they are just not aware of, and as the leaders become more and more despotic, the citizens are becoming more and more scared that things just might get completely out of hand.  There aren’t many ways out of this for citizens – they can either move out of the country that they love and would fight for, or they need to work their way up the ladder in the hope that they may, one day, become a leader.  Some try their hand at changing the system to a more democratic one, but they are usually castigated – despite being very proud and some of the hardest working and successful people in their country.

The worrying thing is that no imagination is needed – these are only some of the terrible things actually going on in this country right now.  I take a particular interest in mentioning it on this blog, because a number of citizens of this country are members of BULS, and made me aware of their plight after a brief visit to their country last weekend.

I suggest we really cannot let this continue, and we must change this country for the better, before all of its citizens leave.  Indeed, if there is a real mood for changing things for the better, perhaps we can make the biggest step possible towards ensuring the issue is resolved…

Propose it as a Labour Students priority campaign.

John Ritchie is former Chair of BULS

Some lines should never be crossed

by John Ritchie

Having recently consulted a lawyer over a practical issue closely related to the hot-topic of Freedom of Speech, I was extremely relieved to find that I am covered by a number of fundamental protections under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR – pictured in all its splendour) and the Human Rights Act.  Under Article 10 of the former, I have a right to freedom of expression.  This means, amongst other things, that if I wish to express what I think is wrong with the world, I can express that without fear of repercussions.  It also means, thankfully, that if I consider someone else acting in a deplorable and abhorrent way, I may express my disdain of this, providing that expression is not both untrue and defamatory.

Looking at the ECHR, its articles protect me in a number of ways, not least in a right to life, liberty, security, fair trial, private life, thought, conscience and religion and to protest.  The ECHR, amongst other things, also prohibits the death penalty, torture and slavery.  The ECHR was enshrined in UK law by Labour under the Human Rights Act 1998, which the Conservatives are currently promising to repeal, should they form a government.

The rights that are afforded me under this convention are, in my humble opinion, truly wonderful, and I find it upsetting that my fellow comrades want to cherry-pick parts of it that seem convenient to their particular cause at some particular time.  We already have controls on Freedom of Speech, prescribed by law, and these have been articulately outlined in another comment.  The most recent post on this issue says “if we let the likes of the BNP spread their views to the Oxford Union they may just appear to becoming mainstream. They are not mainstream and we shouldn’t let them be.”  I concur.  But why should we do this by eroding the fundamental principles we should be protecting.

I have seen the rhetoric of “those who died in the holocaust didn’t die because their arguments were not as good,” used twice in this short debate.  It is absolutely true, but that doesn’t make it remotely relevant.  The reason over 6 million people died in the holocaust was precisely because Hitler’s regime (and for some of the time, the German people) did not observe the fundamental principles which would have prevented it.

I’d like to conclude by going slightly Lennonist (note the spelling).  Imagine, for just a moment, that rather than expend our energy in protesting against free speech when we don’t like what’s being said, we promote to the hilt the very principles espoused by the ECHR (see above), to the extent that our citizens appreciate them and we take them for granted as easily as we do our right to breathe.  Would we need to get into a paranoid frenzy over disgusting scum like Griffin and Irving?  Would we have seen the rise to Nazism in Germany in the late 20s/early 30s?  Would we have even had the circumstances which ultimately resulted in that?

I think next time we go out to fight against something, we should spend a little bit of our time considering just what we’re fighting for.

Some reflections on a fiasco…

by John Ritchie

I think the recent election speculation has reflected badly on our party, and I’m disappointed that we have lacked the political nouse to see this was always going to happen.  When Jim Callaghan marched all his horses and all his men up to the top of the hill, just to march them back down again, he didn’t think the continual joking and speculation over an election would reflect badly on him.  It did.  For the rest of his premiership, many saw him as being the PM who shyed away from the challenge of an election.  Will Brown be seen as the same?

Well, the electorate will be the ultimate judge on that matter, but the events of recent weeks has been a rude awakening for those rallying themselves around Project Brown.  Before party conference season and the hysteria of election fever amongst politicos, the party leaders stood as follows: Brown – sound judgement, resolute, commanding, stoic and in control (I’m sure you can fill in some examples); Cameron – dithering, panicking, out of touch, unable to set direction; Ming – irrelevant.  We can be fairly sure that these adjectives still apply to their respective owners today, but given the recent chronology of events – where (in their simplest form) the Labour Party set a challenge, the Tories responded with a bit of right-wing populism on immigration, taxation and spending, and Labour then went scurrying away again – you really must wonder whose bright idea the election was anyway.

Quite apart from the political argument for an election, I believe calling an election would have been a constitutional disgrace, and that is not designed to be praise for the election backtracking, more criticism for it ever being considered in the first place.  We would have been able to reasonably go into an election if we had a difficult balance in the House of Commons, but a governing party with a majority of over 60 cannot reasonably go to the polls based only on opinion polls.

Now election speculation has subsided, and with any luck those scurrying around “advising” Brown have lost a bit of face, let’s hope we can turn back to Brown and see him run the country in the way he has over the last few months.  What does the future hold?  The Tories will be buoyed up in their (undoubtedly false) belief that lurching right equals a poll lead, and carry on moving to the naturally-bigotted, exclusive, right-wing agenda that their grass roots so crave.  That will undoubtedly result in their implosion over the coming 2 years.  We may also, however, see the Ashcroft effect, of the Tories ploughing obscene amounts of money into key marginal seats, as we have seen in areas like Birmingham Edgbaston.

As Labour supporters, believing in a fairer, equal and more just society, we are fully aware that the Tories are still extremely light on policy, and when push comes to shove, they will return to policies that will result in a more divisive society.  As Labour supporters, we know what we need to do – carry on the good fight.

PS.  If you would indeed like to carry on the good fight against the forces of evil, please drop us an email on labour@bugs.bham.ac.uk

Hands up for a poll…

by John Ritchie

I’m excited at the prospect of a General Election, I’m just slightly clueless as to why we really need one now.  I’ve poked fun at various Tory friends, in reminding them that as recently as last week that they appear to have gone very quiet about the election they were demanding Brown call to get his mandate.  Although the more sane-minded of them are unlikely to be demanding an election, even in light of recent poll gains for the Tories, I’m really at a loss as to why Brown would want to call one now.

With no requirement to hold an election until mid-2010, the main reason you would expect Brown would want to call an election is to significantly increase his majority.  But we have a majority of almost 70, a figure that I imagine any political leader in modern history would be delighted with.  Another reason would be that Brown is concerned that future economic performance in the next 18 months will make a late election unwinnable (a passing reference to which was made by Brown’s right-hand man in the cabinet, Ed Balls, in suggesting one needs to make an assessment of where the “risk lies” – in an early or late election).

I’m sitting in my cosy flat in Aberdeen writing this blog, and I really have to wonder what impact an autumn election will have on the Labour vote.  It is well accepted in politics that the Tory vote will come out come hell or high water… the Labour vote, well, doesn’t.  If polls are being published today that show Labour and the Tories running neck and neck, I would be as disinclined to call a General Election as I would be to believe that all the fist clenching and “bring it on” chanting by Cameron this week was sincere.  It is dark up here by 6:30 in the evening – I imagine it will be dark by 5pm on November 1st/8th.  Add the weather to that, and I’m not convinced we’re likely to see as much of our expected share of the vote run to the polls, especially in Scotland, where Labour’s grip has not been nearly as tight as one would expect in recent times.

At the end of the day, I’m confident (as are the bookies, which is always a good sign) that the public will vote for a strong leader, standing on a strong record.  I’m delighted by today’s news that the polls are tightening between Labour and the Tories, which can result in one of two things: either Brown will lose his appetite for an election, having just flushed out the Tory’s only winning policy in recent memory, and we’ll all be happy that there won’t be the election that everyone is pretending they want but no one really wants; or we’ll go to the polls, but the public won’t go thinking a Labour victory is a done deal – something which should motivate our fine electorate to vote, and finally consign Conservatism – whether Neo-liberal, Compassionate, Caring, or just down-right evil – to the trash heap of history forever.

Welcome back! Now, “take the plunge…”

by John Ritchie

Oh how I miss thee, Birmingham. A Freshers’ Week has come and gone and, for the first time in nine years (yeah, nine), I’ve not seen a bit of it. I gather from the new committee that Freshers has been a great success yet again this year, building on the huge success of previous years.

This is also the first Labour Party Conference I’ve missed in recent years, but I made a point of watching the coverage on BBC Parliament (like the true saddo that I am). I’d have to say the 2nd best speech of the conference was made by Quentin Davies (the best speech award was won jointly by Gordon Brown and BULS Vice-chair, Lucy Seymour-Smith). I found it quite amusing, perhaps primarily because Comrade Quentin does come across as a typical crazy old Tory, and you’re never really quite sure whether or not you heard him say “tally ho old chap” after his last sentence. This made his speech even more amusing in that it almost came across as a self-deprecating critique of “Compassionate Conservatism,” as taught by David Cameron. I’m not sure many Labour members in the audience were quite ready to be preached on the virtues of Democratic Socialism by Comrade Quentin, but regardless of that, his speech really did hit the nail on the head…

He accused David Cameron of having made a “Faustian pact with his own extremists” on Europe, he hailed Gordon as a man “of sound judgement” and accused Cameron of doing “such consistently foolish and superficial and transparently contradictory things,” on schools and tax and spending.

Comrade Quentin concluded by asking Tory MPs to “take the plunge” and come over to a party who has a real sense of direction, and is the natural home of real one nation Conservatives. So, as a former chair of BULS, I just want to stretch out the same hand that Quentin has. Not just to Tory MPs (though I’m sure they’d be most welcome), but to members of other political societies at Birmingham who are seriously considering where their politics are. I think there’s a very good chance we’ll have a General Election within the next 6-8 weeks, but almost a certainty that we’ll have one before the end of this academic year. Who would you feel comfortable campaigning for? I’m not suggesting you should join Labour just because we’re going to win, but rather because you believe we deserve to.

I know that recent times have shown a Conservative Club at Birmingham which has diverted almost entirely from the former common cause of hatred and bigotry and a more logical belief in the best routes to social and economic justice. Well, ask yourself, as logically as you will, who is best placed to provide that justice?

Whether you’re a former Tory, LibDem (and I’ve had informal discussions with prominent Tory and LibDem students about “taking the plunge” even before Blair left), now really is the time to think what you’re fighting for and fighting for what you think. In BULS, you’ll find a welcoming society, committed to equality, democracy and social justice, and one that knows the best way to go about this is by looking out for its members and fighting for what is important, both locally and nationally.

So, whether you’re a former Tory or former Libdem, final year postgrad or first year undergrad, politics expert or no idea about politics other than having some idea of how you want to see the world, come and join us. Phone Tom on 07825 687 974 or email us on labour@bugs.bham.ac.uk – we might even take you out for an obscenely cheap curry for your troubles.

John Ritchie is former Chair of BULS and is currently lobbying for the creation of a Highlands Officer

Vote Blue, Go into disarray

by John Ritchie

The opinion polls since late 2005 must have rocked most Labour Party members – we wondered whether the public were really being sucked in by Cameron. Surely not? I knew – we knew – Cameron’s rhetoric was meaningless. The rebranding of the Conservative Party was precisely that; it carried no real directional change to the party and no sign of its ruling elite taking any time to persuade the grassroots that their policies were the only way to return the party to power, as Blair had done in 1994.

Where did that leave us? We had an electorate who were desperate for a government they could trust, but didn’t like either of the options. Were they to trust Blair and his associated baggage of the Iraq war, or were they to trust Cameron’s Conservatives, who were then new, fresh-faced, and hadn’t put a foot wrong? It was the latter, of course, but that was not because the public were enthused by Cameron, more they thought (to quote the mantra any campaigner hears repeatedly on the doorstep) “he’s the best of a bad bunch.” The Tories were very careful to not put a foot wrong too, by keeping any controversial policies well under their hat.

But the events of recent weeks have finally flushed them out. The prospect of Gordon Brown’s arrival as PM, and the realisation that they could no longer get away with the all-fur-coat-and-no-knickers approach of avoiding controversy by avoiding policy, the Tories’ flagships sailed out. We’ve seen the Tories’ new thinking on grammar schools, or rather the leadership’s means of trying to drag its bigoted grass roots (and even front-benches) into the 21st century; we’ve seen Dave fly off to Africa whilst the country (and not least his own constituency) was under feet of water; we’ve seen backbenchers defect to Labour and others call for Dave’s resignation; we’ve even seen very important donors withdraw their support, citing Cameron’s “arrogant, old Etonian” style of leadership, exemplified in his ignoring the party’s wishes and imposing a puppet candidate for the Ealing Southall by-election: following that up with lots of appearances on the campaign trail, and just to show Brown how weak Labour is in the aftermath of the Tories’ win, change the party’s name on the ballot paper to “David Cameron’s Conservatives.” Oh dear.

Almost predictably, Cameron hasn’t been able to stand the heat for long, and his response has been exactly as you’d expect from the old-Etonian who spearheaded the 2005 General Election manifesto in asking “are you thinking what we’re thinking?” Not quite content at the public’s unequivocal answer to that, enter none other than Mr John Deadwood Redwood. Cringeworthy images of him singing the Welsh national anthem aside, was there ever any question what a former right-wing member of Thatcher’s government would come up with? It would seem Conservatism is only Compassionate as long as the polls allow it to be. Yesterday’s report did nothing more than just lightly scratch the surface to expose what we all knew was lying beneath: fundamental cuts to hard-fought protections for working people and consumers from which Hague and Howard would have shied away because they were too right-wing and Europhobic. The tag-line, as Daily Mail-esque as one could imagine, was “saving businesses billions by cutting red tape,” not “removal of health and safety and working time regulations to protect workers.” Shame, shame, shame.

We can be delighted about one thing: the public are starting to see the political spectrum open up for what it is, and for how each party will govern. Gordon Brown and Labour for firm resoluteness in times of crisis, real constitutional reform that will bring decision-making closer to the people, and a commitment to equality and social justice. David Cameron selling a product that was rotten at least 15 years ago, but a product for which he’s been frantically and constantly changing the sell by date, without thinking what’s happening to the product inside…

I’m glad we finally got our first taste.

Getting your priorities right

by John Ritchie

The Times reports David Cameron has reshuffled his shadow cabinet, putting terror as a “top priority.” Dave has appointed Dame Pauline Neville-Jones, a former chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee and political director of the Foreign Office, who “recently attacked the strategy of winning ‘hearts and minds’ in the Muslim community through representative bodies.” Hmmm – I wonder what the opposition strategy will be, and whether it needs a headline-grabbing appointment to form it.

But then apparently Brown is surging ahead in the polls, and it is clear the government are handling the current threat of terrorist attacks commendably – it does make you wonder what’s really motivating Dave’s reshuffle.  I’m sure quite sure that despite the attempted headline-grabbing reshuffle, the next set of polls will show that the public are in fact thinking what Gordon’s thinking.

Dave’s got more than his grammar to worry about

by John Ritchie

Who said the Tories don’t have a policy to stand on? Well, I did… until just a few weeks ago when Dave came out with a new flagship, this time designed to progress the educational needs of our youngsters. Was it some radical new reform to secondary education? Abolish A-levels? Perhaps Dave is looking at removing top-up fees and heading for universal grants for all? No… instead, the Tories are looking to radically change education policy by keeping it exactly the same as it is. It’s no to expansion of grammar schools, and yes to expanding City Academies. Hasn’t someone else already thought of this?

Apparently, backbench Tory MPs have been warning Dave that he risks losing grassroots support over the issue. The press have decided this is Dave’s “Clause IV” moment, which will determine whether he has his party united behind his new liberal woolly Compassionate Conservatism. What complete nonsense. Blair stood before the Labour Party in the mid-90s with a renewed agenda for real and lasting change, without compromising on the Party’s principles of social justice. Being a party (right from the grass roots to the architects of the New Labour “project”) that had a moral and social compass, we followed. Where did it get us? Some will feed us with notions that the country has gone down the pan under Blair, but I’m not sure even the most hardened of Daily Mail readers believe that.

Therein lies the big issue that Dave hasn’t really thought through yet. The grassroots of the Tory party don’t have the moral or social compass that will guide them through what are touted as “tough measures.” On an issue as elementary as the expansion of grammar schools, the Tories are typically falling apart, with the “Compassionate Conservative” elite leading the party where it believes liberal middle-England want it to go. The Tory grassroots (and even most of the backbenchers – not to forget one of the frontbenchers) are being directed in the way they always have… with their wonderfully-bigoted views of social and economic division and exclusion.

At least they’ll have someone to blame after the next General Election.

John Ritchie is Chair of BULS

The Bede by-election – a victory for who?

by John Ritchie

Last week’s dismal weather meant many people took Thursday as a welcome day off work. The returning officer in the Bede ward of Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council was not quite so generous to her staff, however, and I spent most of the afternoon and evening with a few other BULS diehards campaigning in the Bede by-election.

Bede was won by Labour in the last local elections by a tight margin in a straight-fight between Labour and the Tories. This time, however, seven candidates stood nominated, including Labour, Conservatives, LibDems, UKIP and the BNP. I must admit that I thought this looked quite troublesome for us – whereas in the past, the only protest vote against Labour was for the Conservatives, electors in Bede had another 5 boxes in which to put their cross this time. The most worrying of those was the extreme-right and fascist BNP. Despite the absolute polarisation in policy, increases in the BNP vote are often associated with disaffected Labour voters. I have often found this notion quite upsetting – to imagine that anyone who once may have believed in the principles of progressive and democratic socialism would subscribe to the BNP’s abhorrent principles of hate is quite honestly beyond me.

Thankfully, however, it was beyond the comprehension of most of the electorate in Bede. Labour won by a similar margin to the 2006 local elections, but this time with the BNP in 2nd place. The Conservatives came a very poor 3rd. This had to make me wonder about the electoral dynamics in the current political climate. The major swing in this election was not from Labour, but from the Conservatives – a huge 29.5% swing from Conservative to BNP.

Which begs the question, how much of the recent (though thankfully, limited) success of the BNP is really down to disaffected Labour voters, and how much of it is down to the neo-fascists who previously felt very comfortable in the Conservatives, beginning to doubt Cameron’s ability to represent their abhorrent views? I do wonder whether Cameron’s attempt to mimic Blair and occupy the centre-ground will annihilate the Conservatives’ grassroots right-wing vote.

The results of the Bede by-election can be found here.

 John Ritchie is BULS Chair

Bullseye? How to engage students in politics…

by John Ritchie

One of my members recently reminded me of a quote by Henry Kissinger, that, “University politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small.” The member was standing to be delegate to a student conference, so naturally dismissed the statement, but it did get me thinking about what we should do with our student political movement.

I was a student before I became a member of the Labour Party, but I was a member of the Labour Party long before I ever became interested in student politics. Even when I did become involved in student politics, I saw it as my mission (perhaps not quite so Kissingeresque) to get the message out to students that they should be concentrating on forming a positive and progressively socialist agenda for the country, not necessarily spending their time shouting about typical “student” issues. I had no interest (and must say I still have none) of using my self-perceived status in the student movement to climb the greasy pole of party politics – it is this mindset that often gives student politics its proverbially-bad name.

The old mindset is one that I still find difficult to dismiss, however. I have met many, many committed people in the student movement, whose fight on behalf of their fellow students and those who have yet to follow is commendable. There is, of course, the others who are more intent in either forging their own political career, or simply gaining some glory for themselves. The one thing that appears to unite many from both groups is their blinkeredness to other political issues, the issues that affect “real people” outside the education system, or even people who are in the education system but are not necessarily being effectively represented by a system which is undoubtedly biased towards Redbrick Universities and against colleges and other universities.

But exactly what do we do about this problem? The reason any decent person becomes involved in politics is surely because they see something wrong going on around them. Groups form because their members share a common goal (as is the case with BULS), or perhaps just because their members are part of a similar social grouping (it is rumoured that Conservative Future, for example, are attempting to convert the entire membership of Darts Clubs at some Redbrick Universities to Conservative Future clubs by hijacking their committees). The principal reason is, of course, that people mobilise against a perceived injustice or wrong – it’s why millions protested against both the Poll Tax and the Iraq War. But the question still remains for students – what are the issues that should be resonating across campuses? Should we be restricting ourselves to moaning about top-up fees, or should we be out campaigning against things affecting real people? Should students be concentrating on trying to narrow the gap between the rich and poor and fighting for the vulnerable in our society? Or is it right that we don’t let our campaigns extend beyond parochial self-interest? Perhaps it’s enough to restrict the politics of the real world to a giggle over the latest Daily Mail columns after a tough game of darts?

Campaigning in Birmingham University’s Executive Elections is happening over the coming few weeks, and the issues that candidates campaign on will obviously determine their success. It will be very interesting to see which, if any, candidates decide to base their campaigns at least partly on issues that aren’t perceived as directly affecting their campus electorate.

John Ritchie is Chair of BULS

Birmingham City Council debate costs £588 million per minute

by John Ritchie

Leader of the Labour Group on Birmingham City Council led a massive walkout of last night’s Birmingham City Council meeting, The Stirrer reports today. Sir Albert Bore (pictured right) led a walkout of all opposition members after a debate calling for the withdrawal of British troops in Iraq was limited to a mere eight and a half minutes.

The exiting Labour group was joined by Respect councillor, Salma Yaqoob, who commented that she had never seen debate stopped in such a way. The councillor for Sparkbrook went on to say “we have discussions that just go on and on about far less serious subjects when they go into all the minutiae, but with this one they missed the chance to send out a powerful message on behalf of all the people of Birmingham.”

Birmingham City Council is currently run by a Tory-Lib Dem coalition.

Council Deputy Leader, Lib Dem Paul Tilsley later blamed Labour members for dragging out a previous debate on post offices (proudly advertised on Conservative councillor Deirdre Alden’s blog as being proposed by her), and explained “it’s our duty to protect the interests of the people of Birmingham and so far £5bn has been spent on the war. That’s £50 for every man, woman and child in the city.” I can’t work out Cllr Tilsley’s arithmetic, but I’ve got a simple bit of my own – if the war has cost £5bn and Birmingham City Council cannot spend more than 8½ minutes discussing it, that values the time of our good councillors at £588 million a minute… it’s no wonder Brummies don’t think they’re getting value for money out of the council.

The Deputy Leader went on to state his disgust at the people of Birmingham being left to pay for an “illegal war” based on a “bogus agenda…” yet objected to any more than 8½ minutes being allocated. You’d be forgiven for thinking that the Tory-Lib Dem pact at Birmingham don’t want to engage in a debate over Iraq – I sincerely hope the electors of Birmingham won’t be so forgiving when they try to re-open the debate with some one-sided propaganda against Birmingham’s Labour Group in the run-up to the May elections.

John Ritchie is Chair of BULS

Fight for equality has a familiar enemy

by John Ritchie

It was over 30 years ago that Wilson’s Labour Government introduced the Sex Discrimination Act, making it unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of sex in employment, vocational training, education, and in the provision and sale of goods and services. A landmark piece of legislation. But has it lived up to its promises?

The Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) recently reported that only 10% of directors of the UK’s FTSE 100 firms are women, and only one in five members of parliament are female. The latter statistic is very interesting, especially to those, like myself, involved in politics and in campaigning to return people to parliament. The report goes on to estimate that it would need up to 200 years to attain gender equality in Parliament. The EOC explicitly calls for all political parties to take positive action before the next election to improve women’s representation in Parliament. The Parliament Website backs up the EOC’s claim, showing that only 126 of 646 members of the House of Commons are female. Drilling down the figures does not fill me with as much pride as I would have hoped in my own party – only 27% of the Parliamentary Labour Party is female. I don’t find this surprising, however – I feel the “older” Labour Party has much to do in order to even get close to gender parity.

But I am encouraged. One thing that the Labour Party and its members have done is begin to change the culture of the organisation. In areas of the party where a change in culture does not manage to permeate, the Labour Party has strict rules to ensure gender balance. This is seen in all areas from elections to the party’s national committees to selection of local government candidates. Indeed, seats being vacated for the next election are automatically subject to an all-women shortlist unless exempted by the party’s ruling executive committee. But of course this isn’t good enough; in fact, positive discrimination is certainly not a long-term solution to this (or any) problem. The real solution must be in changing the culture. Encouragingly, this change is most noticeable in the youth and student wings of the party. Labour Students appoints a national women’s officer, and the vast majority of clubs (including BULS) have separate liberation officers for a number of campaigns, including Women’s, BME, LGBT and Disabled Students. Of course there is more to be done, and of course discrimination against women can become most pronounced not when they are at university, but when they are pressured to sacrifice their career for family life, but I am proud that the Labour movement is leading the way in this uphill struggle for women and all under-represented groups.

It is no coincidence that BULS, with its stated commitment to equality, has over 100 members and that almost exactly half of them are women. Although I know it’s nothing more than a small step forward, I’m delighted that Labour clubs up and down the country are holding events like the “Ladies in Red” event, which was pioneered by BULS in 2005, and which was held for a second time at the end of last year.

Compare this to the other political parties. Less than 9% of Tories in the House of Commons are female. This is completely shameful, although unsurprising given the abhorrent core values and attitude to equality of the grassroots members of the Conservative Party. I would perhaps be less critical if I saw the youth and student wings of the opposition parties try to become more representative. They do not. Many Conservative Future groups that I have encountered base their “successes” on being a drinking club with a ruling committee – usually well educated with some right-wing Daily Mail-fuelled banter, but occasionally nothing more than a front for some other macho-fuelled club. You can guess the gender composition of these groups – often substantiated in photos of their “successful events.” Trying to find a woman is like trying to play a particularly sick game of Where’s Wally.

It all boils down to something very simple, however – for a more equal society, trust not those who talk the talk, but those who walk the walk. Cameron’s Tories are not proving themselves to be any different in substance from their pre-1970s incarnations in terms of welcoming women and other under-represented groups.

I proudly stand for the values of equality, democracy and social justice, and will continue to strive for gender equality. I have every hope of that goal being met in the House of Commons long before the EOC’s 200 year estimate –

That depends, of course, on the Tories and their 91% of male MPs being quelled.

 John Ritchie is Chair of BULS

“Setting” the real education agenda

by John Ritchie

The IPPR recently suggested that national testing at ages 11 and 14 should be scrapped and replaced with a system that concentrates less on training pupils to pass a test and more on improving their reading, writing and maths skills.  They go on to recommend a system whereby pupils who are at risk of leaving primary school with deficient skills in the 3Rs should undergo a more intensive program of teaching and support.

My personal educational experiences, along with perhaps my own limited experience as a school governor lead me to sympathise with this view.  There is little doubt that we must have some assessment structures in our education system to allow school pupils to aim for qualifications and to take those on to future employment or tertiary education, but spending time training pupils to pass tests at such a young age is ridiculous.  I was probably one of the last generations to escape large-scale national testing, and almost all of the tests I did before university were in the last 3 years of my secondary schooling – my overriding memory of study in those years was not of useful learning, but of exam preparation, and working out how best to get the best mark in exams.  My techniques never left me throughout my university education and I feel I perhaps had a less conducive education overall because of it.  To imagine that this system is infiltrating the early key stages and much younger primary school children is truly frightening.

I have no problem with the idea of personalised learning that has been proposed in the recent 2020 vision report, which seems to effectively promote the idea of “setting,” whereby students are taught in classes of similar ability.  I am encouraged that this government proposal has attracted the support of the Tories.  It must be ensured, however, that “setting” does not conflict with the overwhelming need for the secondary education system to be a comprehensive one.  The continued use of grammar schools is divisive and does not have widespread public support, despite the almost-arbitrary selection of polling data by right-wing think tanks like the CPS.  I suppose the comprehensive debate is one for another post, but as long as we have socially divisive systems like the eleven plus, and as long as there is a danger of the system of “setting” going down the slippery slope towards and beyond ”streaming” (where pupils stay in similar ability groups for all lessons, not being sorted by ability for each subject), then we have a danger of our education system widening many of the social disparities that this government has narrowed in recent years.

John Ritchie is Chair of BULS

How about a fairly simple new year’s resolution?

by John Ritchie

Someone once said “there are three kinds of lie – lies, damned lies, and statistics,” and I considered this theme at some length in my last blog, highlighting the Tories selective use (or even simple complete creation) of crime figures. Now, although I don’t intend to use all of my articles on this blog to respond to articles by the Tories, it seems they have failed to learn very much from my last piece.

Today’s BUCF blog congratulates the councillor for Edgbaston, Deirdre Alden, for being named one of “three West Midlands Politicians of the Year” on the political news website “The Stirrer.” Clicking on one of the links supplied leads one through to Deirdre Alden’s own site, where Deirdre congratulates herself at great length for being named, apparently alongside Tom Watson MP and John Hemming MP, as “West Midlands Politicians of the Year.”

However, a quick click through to the Stirrer article tells a completely different story, where Deirdre indeed earns a special mention along with three Labour MPs and one Liberal Democrat MP. The only award, however, goes to the Lib Dem MP, John Hemming, for his fight for parents wrongly accused of harming their children – a very deserving campaign, I’m sure. Mr Hemming, in fact, is the only “Politician of the Year,” Deirdre gets “praise where it’s due,” from which she has apparently managed to crown herself.

This does make me wonder whether someone is clutching at straws for political accolades. Not doubting the integrity or editorial judgement of “The Stirrer” for a moment, I do have to wonder whether the prospective parliamentary candidate for Edgbaston is really so desperate to be sitting on the green benches that she needs to make up stories in order to reach the lofty heights of John Hemming. I wish Deirdre all the best in matching Mr Hemming’s unenviable reputation, although I’m thinking that having to proclaim oneself winner of a website award that has not even been given to you, and in this grandiose fashion, might not be behaviour so becoming of a Member of Parliament.

Having said that, I recall being told that the Tory PPC for Edgbaston is a prolific writer of fiction.

John Ritchie is Chair of BULS

78.96% of Tory bloggers need to check their statistics

by John Ritchie

In British Parliamentary-style debating, a point made by your opposition, regardless of how outlandish or inaccurate it may be, will stand unless you rebut it. I have some sympathy with this rule, as all too often in political debate, parties will make claims and spout rhetoric in the hope that the opposition won’t check the facts. This is very often the case in political campaigns, and is a method that has been employed by the Liberal Democrats for years. The problem perhaps stems from the need for a political campaign to be constantly on the offensive – it is seen as a weakness to be back-footed by your opponents – you need to have your own material. But the need for a good soundbite is never conducive to the debate that we need in order to hammer out the real issues, and expose the spin.

I have had a number of crime figures thrown at me recently on the BUCF blog which have, directly or otherwise, challenged me to respond, whether due to their selectivity and so misrepresentation, or just complete inaccuracy. Let us start with Iron Mike’s article, where he states:

“violent crime has DOUBLED under this government.”

The British Crime Survey begs to differ with Mike, however. In fact, the data on the Home Office Crime Statistics website appears to indicate a huge fall in violent crime since 1997. Another Labour success, I’d say. Mike goes on to say:

“In particular, with the most serious offence- homicide (murder and manslaughter), the number of crimes that have been committed since 1997 has risen by a quarter”

Let’s go back to the Crime Statistics, which show – wait for it – no change in the number of homicides between 1997/98 and 2005/06. In fact, there is a caveat to the data, stating that the figures for 2005/06 were skewed due to the 52 victims of the London bombings. Discounting these victims, there is a significant decrease in homicides from 1997, but in any case it is difficult to see where any increase could come from, let alone a 25% increase. Perhaps Mike has taken his figures from a better or more independent source than the Home Office – the National Daily Mail Crime Figures, perhaps?

The next gauntlet laid down was from prolific Tory blogger, praguetory, who said:

“John R – here’s a selective figure for you. Throughout the whole of the UK robberies with knives rose by 72% last year.”

Praguetory appears to have gleaned his figures from this BBC article. Rather than peeling off the most convenient figure from the article or simply copying the article’s soundbite verbatim, let’s look at the full range of statistics that accompany the article (I’ve put the party of government in square brackets to assist your analysis of whose policies might be succeeding here):

Violent crime in 1995 4,256,000 [Conservative]
Violent crime 2005/6 2,420,000 [Labour]

Interesting – a 43% decrease in violent crime between the last Tory and current Labour governments.

Violent crime involving knives in 1995 340,480 [Conservative]
Violent crime involving knives 2005/6 169,400 [Labour]

This isn’t going well for the Conservatives – more than a 50% drop in violent crime involving knives! Of course the 72% increase in robberies with knives that was originally referred to accounts for only 17,730 of the total violent crimes committed in 2005/06 – or less than one percent of all violent crimes. Not that impressive in my mind any more – but a good negative headline/soundbite when you need it.

praguetory goes on…

“And it’s not just us Tories having a moan. On a recent return to Brum several non-Tories said to me that they can’t recall there ever being as many shootings and knifings in Birmingham as has been reported as late. Can’t wait for you defence of the government on your rejuvenated blog.”

Well, here it is. The Tories can attempt to slate the government’s law and order policies in blind opposition (and without any of their own), and choose to selectively glean figures to suit the matter in hand. A look at the figures from the British Crime Survey tell the real story. This selective gleaning of figures and misreporting helps to do nothing other than cause a mood of panic amongst the public and create a false perception of a crime problem greater than is actually the case. Very much in the interests of an opposition party to create this impression, but certainly not in the interests of community cohesion – but I suppose the Tories never cared much for that. So yes, there may be a perception of an increase in crime which may well prompt people to say there is a big problem – but I think the reasons for that have less to do with the government and more to do with the Tories and their cronies in the right-wing press.

In your reference to Birmingham, as a candidate in the City Council Elections in Birmingham next year, I can see how council policies have a significant effect on community crime levels, not least in the ward I am fighting to represent. You can criticise the government for national crime trends, but local crime needs to be, to a great extent, the responsibility of the local authority and its policies. In answer to your point, therefore, I suggest you have a think about who was in control of Birmingham City Council a few years ago, when things were apparently better, and who has been in control “of late.”

I’ll let you fill in the square brackets yourself this time… good luck.

John Ritchie is Chair of BULS

Memoirs of a bleeding-heart socialist

by John Ritchie

Finding myself in the middle of the season of goodwill, and perhaps having a little more free time on my hands than I do usually, I thought it only right that I should have a read of the BUCF blog. I’ve generally formed the opinion in the past that spending my time reading the inane semi-political ramblings of such has-beens (or never-will-bes) as Deirdre Alden and her team of little Monday-Clubbers is a waste of my time, but reading that the site has supposedly had over 8000 hits makes me wonder whether BUCF are doing something right.

Top of the blog was an article written by my dear political adversary and ex-BUCF Chair, Mike O’Rourke. Mike’s article was an apparent attempt to attack Tony Blair’s “tough on the causes of crime” mantra – it ranted in a way that would make a Daily Mail editor proud (at least for content and selection). Mike starts by telling us of some stories of violent crimes that have touched him over the last few weeks, and I have to say that these stories touched me in a similar way. Where I thought we differed was in our apportionment of blame for this violent crime-ridden society that he portrayed and of which these crimes were apparently indicative. But reading more into the article made me realise I may be on a similar wavelength to my old adversary after all: it made me think of the story of my old friend, who I shall call Jim.

Jim was born in the early 1980s and brought up in a council estate in a strong mining area of Scotland. The people of that area were a proud and hardworking lot – crime was low, and there was a genuine respect for community in Jim’s town. It was similar to many such industrially-dependent areas across the country. Unfortunately, however, things conspired against poor Jim, his family and his fellow proud town people. The government of the day were doing a thoroughly poor job of managing the economy – it resulted in decimation of the mining industry and annihilated the community.Jim remembers the Prime Minister of the day saying there was no such thing as society, and he was beginning to agree, given what he saw happen around him. He also recalls a man called Mr Tebbit coming on TV and telling everyone how his own father “got on his bike and found a job” when he was unemployed. The following day, little Jim looked out of his window and saw all the unemployed people on their bikes (they didn’t have a limousine driving behind them to carry their briefcases), but the unemployed people just cycled and cycled and couldn’t find any jobs. Young Jim realised however, that the levels of unemployment being in excess of 3 million was probably due to the government’s disastrous economic management. Everyone around had no option but to claim benefits to keep their families alive. The sense of pride that sustained the community for decades disappeared over a matter of months – the sense of community had gone and with it came a noticeable erosion of respect.A few years on, just when everyone thought it couldn’t get any worse, Jim watched TV as a gentleman calling himself the Chancellor walked out with a young man called Cameron on a wet Wednesday in 1992 and told the country his government had again mismanaged the UK economy. No one was really sure what this would mean, until young Jim’s family and the people living around him were unable to pay their mortgages because of huge mortgage rates, which reached 15% during the late 80s and were consistently above 10% into the early 90s. People were losing their homes and being forced into derisory living conditions. This, combined with the terrible rates of unemployment, served only to intensify the problems in Jim’s community. The proud and happy community seemed to become increasingly desperate and the lowering in living standards was accompanied by an increase in crime and anti-social behaviour.

Jim will never forget what the policies of that government did to him and his family. He’ll never forget all the terrible people involved. He still remembers that young man called Cameron, who was on TV with the Chancellor in 1992, and helped write the Conservative party’s manifesto for the 2005 General Election. That manifesto listed lots of spending cuts, all of which would run Jim’s community into levels of deprivation he hadn’t seen since the last time the young man Cameron’s party were in power.

This annihilation of these communities seems to fit in nicely with many of Mike’s suggestions as reasons for the increase in violent crime – breakdown in family, drugs and solvent abuse, lowering educational attainment amongst sections of that community, etc. I cannot imagine Jim’s community is too different to (in fact, is probably better than) most inner-city areas whose character and respect is still deficient as a result of the Tory years – perhaps even comparable to the Moss Side Estate, which is the example Mike considers. Of course, and as ever, the argument given by Mike is based on such a pathetically selective use of statistics that it doesn’t stand up to much rigour of debate, but I shall be delighted to fight that in a future blog.

For the time being, take heed of the story of Jim (whose adventures I’m sure will be continued soon – you need to hear about what has improved under the Labour government in Jim’s area – goodness knows where his community would be if the Tories had continued, or if they return) – it serves to remind us that there is only one way to be tough on crime, and that still is to be tough on the causes of crime. The best way to stay tough on the causes of crime?

To keep the Tories out of power.

John Ritchie is Chair of BULS