IN YOUR FACE NADINE DORRIES

Those are the estatic words of my friend Dawn, and I think they sum up rather nicely the the conclusion of one of the greatest attacks on womens rights to come before parliament recently. I am so relieved and happy.

The list of who voted how will be very interesting to read tomorrow. Lynne Jones, what a legend, responded to me within half an hour of me emailling her about the bill to assure me she was thinking straight (which if I’d had time to read her website properly I’d have realised she was very much for 24 weeks, its a good site) but I was hugely dissappointed to see other names on the list that voted for a ban on hybrid embryos. Quite surprised by some of them, too.

I am so glad the amendments fell, I have been following the debate on MSN to a few feminist friends as my dodgey internet connection denied me full coverage. Now, to get on with revision…. :)

 

So far so good

My mum just rang me to celebrate the first part of the Embryology Bill going through. I’m putting off revision listening to Radio 4′s coverage, and am so happy to hear the Human-animal embryos and saviour siblings go through… the future is looking a lot brighter for people undergoing terrible, terrible suffering.

Here’s hoping for the rest of it.

Women need 24 weeks for a reason

I stole this headline from the Family Planning Association because it says it all. Regular readers may have noticed I get rather angry about the Human Embryology Bill. I am utterly delighted to see it pass another hurdle tonight, but I am still apprehensive about tomorrows vote on the abortion limit.

MPs from all parties, including most notably David Cameron and Nadine Dorries, are peddaling downright lies that could change forever the lives of the tiny, tiny proportion of women, many of them vulnerable, in abusive relationships or very young, who seek late term abortions and force them to carry their pregnancies to full term against their will. The most recent and fully comprehensive report on the survival of foetuses before 24 weeks has shown there has been no change in the survival rates of a foetus before 24 weeks in the last ten years. NO CHANGE.

Despite this, Nadine Dorries MP, the woman behind this, insists that the report is a “desperate piece of tosh produced by the pro-choice lobby”. I’m sorry, this report, covering not one but sixteen hospitals over ten years, and based on science, something this woman has no understanding of, is made up?  She justifies her claim with the argument “So where has all the money that has been pumped into neo-natal services gone then?” Sweet Jesus. Note she doesn’t allow comments on her website- could she possibly be afraid of being corrected?

I am finding it hard to convey just how angry and sick this woman makes me feel. And David Cameron supports her. When you’re standing at the ballot box at the next election, stop and think how many women they have tried to control. How many children they want to be born into abusive relationships. How many young women they want to have babies forced through their barely developed bodies. How many desperate, terrified women they want to be forced to carry foetuses to full term because of Cameron and Dorries’ selfish, selfish attitudes.

Yes, we have too many abortions. Restricting access is not the answer. Leave these women alone. Respect their choice, one of the hardest they will ever have to make. Respect their rights to live how they want to live. Respect their intelligence by not suggesting they “should have used contraception”, or “shouldn’t have had sex”, or worst of all “should have known sooner”. Women need 24 weeks for a reason. Don’t let these sad deluded people, or the lack of eloquence in this rambling, angry blog, tell you otherwise.

Lobby your MP. Don’t let these people take away women’s rights.

Join up thinking…

I visited the new Wembley Stadium a year ago, but since the rest of my family are there today (COME ON CAMBRIDGE!) I thought I’d take a break from revision to comment on something that really baffled me about it…

Although I was there for an (awesome) Muse gig rather than a sporting match, the arena was built and is meant for sports. So why is the only food on sale there insanely unhealthy? Sports men and women have to eat healthily, healthy lifestyles are meant to be being promoted by the government and schools and just about everyone, so why is it the only food on sale while you sit and watch very fit people running around after a ball is junk food? And what’s with the lack of veggie options?

Join up the thinking, please!  

20 weeks: at least 1 nutter.

A friend alerted me to this article, displaying quite brilliantly what an utter head case the woman spearheading the campaign to bring the abortion limit down to 20 weeks really is.

This woman seems to think that an anaesthetised 21 week foetus can punch through its mother’s womb.

A paralysed baby. With an arm the width of your finger. Punching through a womb.

Sweet Jesus. What other crap about unborn babies is she trying to pedal on the public? The woman in question is Nadine Dorries, who happens to be a Conservative MP. Cameron must be so proud of her.

Youth Parliament debate on the BBC

The National Youth Parliament held a debate in the House of Lords last month, and it was broadcast on BBC Parliament and you can catch it on iPlayer here. The debate was used to decide which three of six motions would constitute their national campaigns for the year. The first of these to be discussed is a campaign to abolish tuition fees.

The speeches and debate are very good and I found them interesting, but I am really quite concerned by some of the mis-information they seem to have come across. One speaker seems to think that she won’t be able to go to university because her parents can’t afford to take out a loan to pay her tution fees. Another quotes tuition fees as being £3000 per term (which they are not yet, at least.) Nobody stands up to correct them. This is really worrying.

Fees aren’t paid back until AFTER you graduate and are earning. Loans are given sperately of loans and living costs. Your parents are expected to top up your living loan to the maximum available; everyone gets between 75 and 100%, and your parents are expected to pay the difference between what you get and the maximum, which is income assessed and somewhere between £0 and £1500. That is all. Your parents don’t pay a penny towards your tuition, and nor do you until you graduate. I am really, really worried that these young people think they’re going to be paying up front.

Anyway, it’s not the tuition fee they should be scared of; £3000 a year is peanuts compared to the University of Birmingham’s new halls, which cost up to an utterly disgusting £5975 per annum. I believe it’s everyday living costs that are the real access issue, not tuition fees. Yes, tuition fees are massive, and yes they are scary and deter far too many people; but you only pay them back when you can afford to. It’s the cost of living that is the real, unreported problem; a student loan is simply not enough. The scare stories about not being able to afford uni are misplaced; much as I hate tuition fees, I’ll worry about them when I come to paying them; right now I’m much more concerned about keeping a roof over my head and food in my cupboard in the short term. Tuition fees do not affect student, only graduates. The cost of living, rent and the woefully inadequate student loan- this is what matters to students.

I love the enthusiasm of the Youth Parliament, and I think their campaign for youth concessions on public transport is fantastic, but it seems an education campaign is needed on what the finanicial issues of student life really are, for the benefit of all prospective students.

It’s just science…

As a science student, I get really incensed when governments and intelligent people ignore scientific evidence and think they know better. Which is (one of the many reasons why) David Cameron and his Daily Mail cronies are wrong, wrong, wrong for wanting to lower the abortion limit AGAINST medical opinion, and why I can’t understand why the government wants to re-re-classify cannabis AGAINST scientific opinion.

What’s the point in pouring millions of pounds into scientific research if it’s just going to get ignored? What is wrong with, once in a while, just trusting scientists? Or is it because the people in charge are all a bunch of history and politics graduates who wouldn’t know an integral from a vector?

Brij means no offence to our other regular blooger and readers, who with the exception of John Ritchie are all studying hard for politics and history-related degrees, which means they are very clever, but probably still don’t know what integrals and vectors are.

I almost spat at the news stand…

My internet connection is being a pile of shit so I can’t upload the front page. But as I collected a copy of the Guardian today, hoping to calm my revision stress by reading articles by people who agree with me, I caught sight of the neighbouring Daily Mail.

“ABORTION: FIGHT TO SAVE 2,500 BABIES EVERY YEAR” is screamed at me.

The first paragraph of the article claims that 2,500 lives would be saved every year. Regular readers will already know my views on this and should probably stop reading here to avoid repetitive boredom.

They. Are. Not. Lives. What the hell about the woman’s life?

It goes onto claim that “Women use abortion as contraception.” If this statement were true, surely it would be a strong case for improving access and education about contraception, not for curtailing access to late abortions for the minority of women, usually in desperate circumstances, who have such late abortions?

And use abortion as contraception? How many women do they think would rather go through an emotionally and physically scarring operation, which the more bigoted members of society will condem them for, multiple times than take a tiny pill once a day, or have an injection once a year, or simply use a condom? The morning after pill is a bloody nightmare to get hold of, and often requires thirty-something quid or a rather personal interview about your sex life, whilst standing in the middle of a crowded pharmacists, to get hold of. Make this easier to get hold of, you will cut abortions. Educate and make contraception more available: you will cut abortions. Leave the law where it is. If there are too many abortions, tackle the reason, don’t cut access.

It was all I could do not to spit at the stack of this bullshit sitting smugly on the newstand.

*brij and her womb sit back and wait for the predictable anti-rights backlash from the usual suspects.*

Go on…

While Marley prophecises and speculates about the future of the Labour party, I thought I’d lightenthe tone with some Bank Holiday fun for our less politically animalistic readers, or those who just need a laugh, with a citizenship test from the BBC. Fifteen questions, three options for each- I got ten.

Lots of it is absolutley bonkers. Having got through “What do you do is you spill someone’s pint? a) prepare for a fight in the car park…” I half expected to find “What is the minimum wage and does it apply to seasonal fruit pickers?” on there.

What did you get- are you more British than me?

Getting the News

Some time between midnight and two, waiting for my mate to come out the loo at the Carling Academy in Birmingham, I finally get some reception on my phone. The internet tells me Boris Johnson is London’s new mayor. My night now with something of a dampner on it, I promptly bump into Kat R of BULS, and share the news. We forlornly drift over to the bar to drown our sorrows and have a couple of shots in Ken’s honour.

I had a feeling all along this would happen, and am sad to be proved right. My Mum, a former Londoner, replied to my forlorn text with “Fuck. Think about emigration.” My Dad followed that up with “At least he’s not mayor of Brum.” Heh- I guess he wasn’t checking the Birmingham election results too closely from little old Eastbourne.

The results are what we always kinda knew would happen, but they’re still a bit of a kick in the gut. A mate from Sheffield rang me yesterday, and couldn’t sound more depressed if someone had died.

Time to move on- to learn, to recharge our batteries and to refresh…

Question Time Gold

Last night’s Question Time Mayoral special had me and The Housemates in stitches. Brian Paddick was a flickering lightbulb- at times he provided some of the best, most cutting lines (usually delightfully aimed at Boris), at others he was more like Team America’s “Matt Damon”, failing to manage a smile the whole hour-long show. Dimbleby brought up everything you hoped he would, Boris was on absolutley top form evading every question thrown at him with his stilted, rambling delivery, and Ken almost made me fall in love.

Favourite Ken moment, re olympics: “no, I don’t care about three weeks of sport- but look at all the money I got us for rebuilding the East End!”

Or perhaps, Paddick’s “This is a shameless attempt to get Lib Dems to vote for you.”

Ken- “Yes, of course it is!”

On the topic of which, I wonder if Boris will live to regret telling BNP supporters he doesn’t want their second preferences?

Paddick’s stance on tactical voting was hilarious, given his party’s long running campaign for electoral reform, and the fact that in my former constituency of Eastbourne it is only through tactical voting they won the council- check out ANY Lib Dem leaflet for the obligitory “vote for us, because the party you actually want can’t win here!” graph.

Look out towards the end for the question, “If Blair was champagne and caviar, while Brown is porridge, what is your leadership style?”… Ken is fruit and veg of course, ‘cos it’s good for you and good for the environment :)

Boris? After much stumbling and evasion, he decided he was like “the difference between a brand of cornflakes that is very cheap, and one that is just the same but grossly overpriced.” Er, that would be like nothing, then?

You can relive the fun on iPlayerKen Livingstone

Brown listens

Delighted to see Brown announce plans to compensate low earners and the childless today.

Disgusted to see Cameron harping on as if his party’s policies would have done anything better for low earners. In PMQs today he is full of criticism for the PM changing his mind, and no retort to any of the points about his party’s stance on tax credits or rates. All he talks about is personal digs about Brown being weak; all Brown talks about is policy. I know which impresses me more.

A tale of two parties

It’s not an easy time to be in the Labour Party right now.

I spent yesterday afternoon sticking leaflets through Selly Oak’s letter boxes. I was on my own, but it was nice to have a break from revision and I love helping in my local area.

I spent the early afternoon at a women’s event in Birmingham, aimed at inspiring women, particuarly from BME backgrounds, to get involved in politics. Well done to those who put it together; it was full of women who have achieved and women who want to achieve, with a sprinkling of men who would like to help women achieve, and will hopefully be the first step on a road to a better future for the women chronically under represented in the host ward.

I spent the late afternoon in Bartley Green, sticking leaflets through letter boxes. Despite it not being the nicest of days there were six of us on the streets, and we got through a good lot of walks; the candidate there, BULS’s own Tom Guise, has been working tirelessly there all week, and my friends brought tales of their campaigning exploits at home and in Quinton too.

So then we go to the pub afterwards, and the conversation turns to the ten pence tax row. A friend says she was canvassing that morning, and it was all people could talk about. Usual die-hard Labour supporters,  telling her they had been let down; Labour-certain and Labour-maybes, now Labour-nos. The blogs are full of similar stories. The papers tell of mass discontent. Alaistair Darling was (char) grilled by Andrew Marr this morning, and couldn’t explain how low earning single people were getting a fair deal. I can’t understand why my Labour party is doing this- I am baffled, and so, so disappointed.

This goes deeper than past disagreements; the Iraq war and top up fees had their detractors, but this goes right into the core of the Labour ideology (James Purnell could not be more wrong, he might be so but true members are not “ideologically neutral”). As another friend commented, older voters vote for us because they were brought up on our values and know what they’re meant to be; young voters just don’t see us as having those core principals. And no wonder, if this is all we have to show them.

The rally I went to today, the campaigning I’ve done this week, the enthusiasm of the real members, the people on the ground, is being blown away by what’s going on at the centre of the party; policies that are impossible to have any real input into, that betray our principles, are being churned out at an accelerating pace. The central coure is out of step with almost every member I have come across. A year ago I was excited at the prospect of Brown taking over, but now more often than not when I see him on the news the question rings in my mind- what the hell is he doing? 

The press keep talking about the party being in trouble. Here on the ground, where the real campaigners and real members are, we’re doing alright. We still work hard, we still believe in the same core values. It’s the centre where things are kicking off. In my mind there are two parties, the small elite centre who come up with the policy and get all the attention and the outer rim, the real people. The two right now feel almost entirely disconnected. We are like a ring around their Saturn. It’s like we’re two different Labour parties, existing simultaneously but almost entirely separately.

My only consolation in this is that as I live on less than five grand a year, I won’t be financially affected by the new tax band. What I wish voters would do is put that central Saturn out of their minds on May 1st. Right now, they don’t speak for us; they have so little to do with local government. Vote for the real members, the real candidates, the real people who have put in so much hard work all across the country just to try to make every day living in our home communities that bit better. Vote for the campaigners who go out in the sleet and the snow and the rain (yes BULS have been out in all three this year), vote for the members who sit in their branch meetings and scrutinise planning applications and take action on graffiti and litter, vote for the people on the ground who can make a real difference to your local area. Don’t let shit central government policies let us down- the two Labour parties have a lot to do to reconnect, to sort themselves out. The thick smog of discontent across the divide suggests it won’t be like this for long… until then, don’t punish one for the other’s mistakes.

Prove it!

The BBC reports that in future mediums and psychics may have to “prove they are genuine” in order to comply with new consumer protection laws.

Wow. Is this the beginning of an atheists utopia or are they being unfairly discriminated against?

Nationalism on every scale… Where shall we stop?

Having attracted the interest of some English nationalists earlier this week, I thought I’d blog about some of the other forms of nationalism around in the UK at the moment. 

Right now we don’t have any parties calling for a united Europe that I’m aware of, unless groupings within the EU, such as European Socialists count. On an, erm, national level, we have the British National Party, hoping for a united Britain exclusively for the British indiginous population, however they might be defined. We have UKIP, oft dubbed the middle class BNP, calling also for Britain to get out of Europe and restrict its borders.

Then we step down a level. The United Kingdom consists of four constituent… countries? regions? sub-nations?… each boasting it’s own nationalist party. These tend to be less racist or concerned with immigration, calling instead for independent governance. Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party hold seats in their respective assemblies and parliaments. Ireland provides an interesting variation, as various nationalist groups exist in the Northern Ireland Assembly representing both pro UK and pro united Ireland views. The English Democrats campaign for a parliament of England’s own.

But here we can step down yet another level. What about the groups calling for Cornish independance? What about Government plans to create regional assemblies? At what level do we stop and realise that if we keep dividing we’re going to have nothing left?

Some of us feel allegience to the town we were born in, some to the county, such as Cornwall. Others to the region of the UK, labelling themselves a southerner or a northerner, and others to England or Britain as a whole. Yet more living in the UK might feel more European than British, and then there are people who feel more part of the Commonwelth, and those who consider themselves world citizens. If you are “nationalist” in any sense, be it for a country, region or any particular place, you have to ask yourself, at what point do we stop dividing?

I would love to see the BNP, UKIP, English Dems, Plaid Cymru, SNP, Cornish nationalists and any other group thrown into a room to thrash this out- maybe some sort of bizzarre Question Time. Could get messy, though.

Random statistics: Crime and cars

0.5 % of the UK population will die in a car accident.

Figures out today show that 0.7 % of Glaswegians were crime victims last year.

It’s 0.6 % in New York.

While the BBC finds that distressing, I found that rather reassuring. Given that most of us don’t think twice about climbing into a car, the fact that the chances of becoming a crime victim are roughly the same as dying in a car should surely set a lot of people at ease… or maybe it should have them diving for the trains and busses, depending which way you look at it.

Scottish Parliament- not just a pretty facade

I’ve just got back from a trip to Scotland, which included an excursion to the stunning Scottish Parliament. I actually didn’t know much about it before, and hadn’t fully appreciated how much policy it has control over. A few things struck me about the smoothness of its operation compared to the mess that is the Westminster system- the policy making process is so much more measured and stremlined, and the PR system Scottish Parliamentjust left me deeply envious.

But what really got me was how much control they had over every day life- and how socially progressive they were. Free education! Free prescriptions for students! These mere slogans for students in England, far off dreams that countless speeches at NUS conference told us were so unattainable weren’t worth fighting for- Scotland has them! Obviously I am vastly oversimplifying here and politics isn’t quite that rosy north of the border, but I left feeling a little hard done by for having been born in the wrong part of the country. Maybe it’s because I grew up on the South Coast of England, but until this weekend I’d never actually considered England, Scotland, Wales and NI to be anothing more than regions of the UK. But seeing how much autonomy the Scots have over these issues, and how differently people and students get treated by the same government simply for being born onto a different patch of the land it governs, has left me for the first time ever feeling English (and not proudly so). Whereas before I’d seen the SNP as being a bit nuts, I can kinda now see what they’re getting at. If we’re all going to get treated differently, have different systems of decision making and have hugely different experiences in life, why should we feel British?

The systems of power in this country (the UK) are a mess. (I probably sound a bit thick for having only just realised this, but it’s just not something that I’ve never really considered- I’m far more interested in policy than process.) I can’t help but feel a bit screwed over by the present system. I’m not about to go handing in my membership card and joining the English Democrats, but we need equal and fair representation for all UK citizens: right now, we just don’t have it.

It’s official: Immirants don’t queue jump

Some interesting figures were published this week by the Equality and Human Rights comission with regards to council housing and immigrants. I quote the facts as published in the Birmingham Post:

  • New migrants make up three per cent of the total population but account for less than two per cent of the population in council housing.
  • Nine in ten people living in council houses are UK born.
  • Council houses are given to 11 per cent of new migrants, 17 per cent of UK-born residents and 18 per cent of foreign-born UK residents.
  • Migrants tend to benefit from social housing after they have been settled for several years in the UK and become British citizens.

In my little perfect world, the tabloids that scream untruths about the issue would be forced to publish as many front pages with these facts as they have ones filled with unresearched xenophobia…

20p too far?

Now three Birmingham MPs, Sion Simon, Gisela Stewart and Lynne Jones, have declared the 20p starting rate on income tax a step too far… that’s a fair cross section of MPs, from regular rebel to usual loyalist.

While the theory goes that this will be offset by tax breaks, it is claimed the poorest will be badly hit… knowing sod all about economics, I’m not going to try to analyse it further.

View from the floor

As Tom Guise mentioned earlier this week, I am indeed fresh back from my first proper NUS conference. It was quite a spectacle.

It was interesting to see where the big debates fell. While the issues of governance and education attracted long, passionate debate, with the same people arguing against the same people again and again, issues of welfare and “strong and active unions” attracted no such controversey. The politics was agressive- the same tired rhetoric was trotted (heh) out again and again by both sides, and the bitching about the “right wing new labourites” who apparently run the NUS (how ironic) was constant. Factions were evident by the rainbow of t-shirts being worn for various candidates/sides of the governance debate, but not being in recipt of any of the thick field of text messages flying around the room I was ignorant to what was really going on beneath the surface.

I was thoroughly dissappointed, although not surprised by the pathetic and undemocratic efforts to filibuster controversial motions off the agenda (by various factions); I was bored of the constant bitchiness between groups and the long, laborious processes of getting things done; and I was amused by the wonderful irony of seeing a room full of Labour Students upset at the failure of the much needed governance review, having visciously shot down such reforms in their own group only a year previously. My frustration at the failure of the governance review grew as the conference went on and I was treated to more and more glowing examples of the ineffectiveness of the organisation.

Overall, I left feeling I had changed little. Yes, some excellent people were elected- Wes Streeting, Ed Marsh, Susan Nash and Hollie Williams in particular. Yes, we got a lovely set of policy outlining of the kind of things we ought to be fighting for. But with the failure of reform, nothing particuarly momentus happened. What I took away from Blackpool is the knowledge that the NUS has been left in a safe set of hands, with a clear vision of what it ought to work towards…

That, and a hangover.

My, what a pretty lady!

 I was in year five at the time of the 1997 election, and our class were asked to put up hands to show who’d they’d vote for if they could. All the class, save myself and two others, picked the Conservatives. When asked why, one true blue baby (who incidentally is still a Tory) replied that Tony Blair was ugly.

The frenzy over Carla Sarkozy’s dazzling beauty and elegance and the absence of coverage of Nicolas and Gordon’s discussions and agreements is evidence to me that the tabloid press maintains the political maturity of a ten-year-old.

All women shortlists: a quick fix to a big problem

 Tom Marley’s latest post raised the controversial issue of the all-minority-shortlist. Many of the arguments around it relate also to one of my pet hates: the all-women shortlist. Expressing a dislike of the shortlist often provokes shock and shaken heads in Labour circles, but in my experience the vast majority of women I meet are against them. In our last BULS women’s caucus, a unanimous vote was carried against a proposal by some male members to introduce positive discrimination for our committee positions. Why?

There is, after all, a strong case for all women shortlists (AWS). The argument goes that women are less likely to be selected than men because of underlying prejudice; that they are less likely to put themselves forward for seats due to natural timidity/the intimidation of entering a male dominated environment; that childcare commitments and other caring roles make them unable to devote the time needed to get selected. The all-women-shortlist has greatly increased the number of women in parliament, and this is hailed at Labour gatherings as one of our great achievements. But it is something I find myself unable to be proud of. I believe that all women shortlists are a quick fix to a big problem, and that they trick us into thinking we have sorted out inequality.

There is, as I outlined above, a vast landscape of reasons that women just don’t make it into elected positions. But I don’t believe that forcing us to pick women is the answer. The first and foremost reason is that it undermines the position of any woman selected. No matter how qualified, no matter how worthy a candidate she is, it can never be proven that she was best for the job because she did not win a fair contest. Now while it can be argued that in am inherently sexist society a fair contest is impossible, my experience of talking to voters of both sexes tells me that in the eyes of the electorate, the woman who won by AWS is not as trusted or accepted as one that won an open selection.

The greatest fallacy of the AWS, however, is that it does nothing to address the reasons for women being under represented in the first place. If childcare is the issue, we need to address both the provision of it, the timing of meetings so that they do not clash with home commitments, and most importantly the culture of women taking the childcare burden instead of men. If it is the male dominated environment that is the issue, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy; but having separate womens support networks set up, such as the Birmingham Labour Women’s Forum, or offering training in public speaking, can go a long way towards building confidence amongst women and give them a stronger support base for any problems they may encounter. If it is the prejudice of men that is the issue, it must be tackled by example; by proving our capabilities, and proving wrong those who doubt us.

The AWS tackles none of these issues. I believe it fuels resentment amongst men; and worst of all, it can give women the impression that the only seats worth applying for are AWS. The under representation of women is a huge problem, and the AWS has indeed ensured that women are better represented. At a BULS event a year ago, Sylvia Heale MP told members how parliament had become much more woman-friendly since the 1997 influx, and I applaud this- however while it has made life easier for those already in parliament and made it a more attractive position for women to hold, it hasn’t tackled the aforementioned problems.

There are two things we have to change to tackle gender inequality; mens perception and treatment of women, and women’s perception and treatment of themselves. The AWS doesn’t help either. It is a poor means to a laudable end, and something I would like to see abolished so that we can get on with sorting out the real issues at hand.

Humanity in the Embryology Bill

 The row over the Human Embryology Bill has angered me into breaking my month long blogging hiatus.

This bill is one of the most exciting and dramatic to come before parliament in recent times. If passed, it will allow gay and lesbian couples to have children of their own; it will allow the lives of children suffering terminal conditions to be saved; it will become a shimmering beacon of hope to those suffering from terrible, debilitating, life threatening conditions. Three astonishing achievements past generations have only dreamed of.

There are a few things we, or more specifically a small number of MPs, will have to come to terms with first.

The first is the notion that children can function normally and grow up happily without heterosexual parents; that homosexual couples can love a child and provide it with the same life chances despite their orientation.

The second question is whether it is acceptable to create a human life to save another. There are conditions faced by children that can sometimes only be helped if a sibling is born, without the condition and with the right genes to provide cells that can help the original child. Is it right to select one unconscious, unthinking foetus over another, to be developed and to be born, to be loved by its parents and have every chance in life that the rest of us do- and in making this choice, to save the life of another child?

The final question is one that has been misrepresented, twisted by certain church leaders and misunderstood by so many. It is not one of creating human-animal hybrids; it is one of housing human DNA inside the empty shell of an egg provided by an animal for a period of six days, and then, once experiments have been conducted, destroying it.

Are these three things acceptable? To my mind, yes. To the minds of a number of religious leaders and MPs, no. The media reports that the MPs opposing the Human Embryology Bill are largely Catholic. I am a staunch atheist, but I spent five years in a CofE school being taught of Christianity, and I think in that time I just about got the gist of it. What I have been taught of Christianity, from the believers, vicars and such who lead our daily assemblies and the countless New Testament stories we were required to study, is that Christianity is about giving a shit about other people; about putting others before yourself, no matter what, and about making the world a better place. I cannot see how any of the three questions I have raised, if given an affirmative answer, would contravene this. All would bring an end to suffering and bring untold joy to millions of people, at absolutely no cost to anything but <insert Catholic MP’s name>’s nagging sense of doubt that they might not make it to heaven.

No monster hybrids would be created; surely the pig insulin given to diabetics and the corpses people shove into their bodies in the name of food are no worse? No child would suffer because they were selected over another embryo; on the contrary, lives and suffering will be spared. No child would grow up a moral delinquent from having same-sex parents; there are far worse happily married heterosexual parents out there.

If the Catholics have got it right and God both exists and wants us to oppose this bill, then Christianity is clearly not the bastion of neighborliness and love that I was taught about. I’m disappointed that a free vote was even needed and sincerely hope that when MPs do “vote with their conscience”, it will be in the ecstatic knowledge that they are saving bringing joy to millions at no cost to any other.

Ken sums it up

Flicking through the channels over a late lunch, I caught Ken Clarke on BBC parliament summing up (I thought quite nicely) why he thought each party had an unjustifiable position on having an EU referendum.

His points were:

  •  The Tories had failed to explain how this needed a referendum when none of the ones they had signed did;
  •  Labour had failed to explain how this was different from the treaty they had promised a referendum on;
  •  The Lib Dems just didn’t have an opinion, and didn’t have a good reason for not having one (having listened to their spokeswoman minutes earlier on another channel, I couldn’t make head or tail of it either.)

He seemed as bored of it all as I am.

A classic example of an Etonian

 Maragert Hodge thinks the Proms are “divisive”; David Cameron, meanwhile, reckons that the Proms are alright. He cites her as being a classic example of a Labour politician not really getting some of the things that people like to do to celebrate culture and identity and a great British institution.”

 I feel the urge to cite Cameron as being the classic example of someone who went to Eton. Why on Earth would I want to watch the Proms? I can’t play a musical instrument, I have never had lessons at school in classical music, and despite my mother’s best efforts to get me into it I find most of it a dull intrusion upon my eardrums,  in much the same way I am sure Mr Cameron would find most of the things in my CD collection.

 The Proms are no more a bastion of British culture to me than a night out in a club would be to him. I’ve got to agree with Ms Hodge on this one.

Sometimes I really hate territorial politics

 A potentially controversial statement; allow me to explain.

 In student politics, more specifically elections to union or guild executives, the usual system of having one official candidate from each party does not apply. For the second year running, there are two BULS members running for our Guild presidency. Also, both the candidates for Vice President Welfare are Labour Party members. For many other positions, there are no Labour members on the ballot paper. This makes it impossible to pick candidates along party lines- something I would refrain from doing anyway in non-party political elections.

 Picking candidates based on religion also is a shit reason to pick people. I am an atheist, and I was raised in a Christian based society and educated in a CofE school, but would still happily elect a Muslim, Jew, Bhuddist etc over an atheist or a Christian if I thought they would do a better job. I would never, ever expect someone to support me in a student election just because I carried a party membership card, came from a particular religious background, because of my gender, sexuality or the colour of my skin, and I think to do so shows a severe weakness of argument and character.

 I know an awful lot of people will disagree with me very strongly on this, and some will think I am having a dig at particular people- I really, really am not. I just can’t help but get frustrated sometimes though at the rubbish reasons a lot of people use to choose who to vote for. It should be about who can deliver the best policies, and nothing else.

What does ten quid buy you?

I have never had to pay council tax, and recently had to investigate it for some friends. I don’t think the way that the amount to pay is decided is fair, and I’ve read tons of letters to papers and tabloid front pages moaning about how it was going up and up. So I figured out how much a couple living in an mid rate Birmingham house would pay, expecting it to be shocked and appauled…

It came to about £10 a week each.

Ten quid? For police, fire service, street lighting, rubbish collection, roads, pest control, schools, parks, libraries, sports centers… two hours of minimum wage?

I realise that figure is subsidised etc etc, but that sounds like a bargain to me.

John crosses yet another line

Flicking through the Birmingham Post today, I came across some colourful quotes from one of BULS’s more blogged-about councillors, John Lines.

 Of asylum seekers, he remarked:

“Some scallywag, some scumbag can jump on the back of a lorry, come over under the tunnel and never expect to do a day’s work in his (expletive deleted) life. And if he’s been here for a time waiting for a decision we give him automatic British citizenship. The world’s gone (expletive deleted) mad.”

 The local government Standards Board is investigating the statement, for councillors are expected to keep to a code of conduct, which involves having respect for other people. Apparently Lines was later to issue an apology of sorts, saying that the word “scumbag” was perhaps a bit strong. Does that mean that these asylum seekers, who have fled some of the worst horrors imaginable to get here, are still “scallywags”, then?

Election Eve

 Tomorrow morning at 9am, campaigning for this years Guild Executive elections kicks off, and for those of us involved in campaign teams or running for election, tomorrow marks the official start of two insanely busy weeks. At times it’s going to be fun, stressful, cold, and emotional.

 I still can’t believe some of the key sabbatical posts are unopposed- a friend at another Uni expressed astonishment when I told him, asking where were the socialists, the Respect candidates, the Tories to run against them? The answer is I guess we’re just not that radical here at Birmingham- these groups just don’t dominate our union politics like they do elsewhere. What says the most to me about the nature of Birmingham is that probably the biggest faction (if it can be called such) on our Guild council is the Paintball society. Birmingham has a reputation as being a bit conservative (small c), but to me it just seems a-political. When compared to other unions on this, I think we are very lucky. Candidates here are sometimes Labour-esque or People&Planet-y, but so much more revolves around the personal differences than off-the-shelf ideologies.

  This is what makes campaigning in these elections so refreshing. While a number of BULS members are standing for positions, it could hardly be called party-political. I am about to surrender my next two weeks of spare time to campaign for a friend who isn’t in the Labour party and strongly disagrees with me on a ton of issues, but to me, all that is irrelevant- I firmly believe he is the best person for the position he’s going for and will make a real and hugely positive difference for students, and that’s all that matters to me. It makes a lovely change from Labour Party campaigning, not because I don’t love spending cold Sundays shoving leaflets through letterboxes, but because each candidate is standing on a personal set of goals and values rather than toeing the same old party line. This is campaigning for a person, not a party, and for specific jobs, rather than general representatives, and this is what makes it special.

 All the best, to all the candidates…

BULS Quote of the Week: The Audacity of Words

Tom Marley- “I’m gonna buy Obama’s book tomorrow!” 

Me- “Er, what does audacity acutally mean?”

Tom Marley- “Dunno. Sounds good, though.”

For the benefit of Tom, our friends at dictionary.com define audacity as

 Audacity (aw-das-i-tee) -noun, plural -ties.

1. Boldness or daring, esp. with confident or arrogant disregard for personal safety, conventional thought, or other restrictions.
2. Effrontery or insolence; shameless boldness: His questioner’s audacity shocked the lecturer.
3. Usually, audacities. audacious acts or statements.

Girl’s Night Out

 Last Friday I embarked on what is for me a very rare event. Me and two female friends went for a girl’s night out.

 Dressed fairly modestly by the standards of our peers, in boots, jeans and not-too-low tops, we set out down our road, on a mission to visit the cashpoint, a pub, and a club.

 We had barely been on the main road a minute when a guy stopped us. In his twenties, he asked us if the Guild was open that evening, if we were going and if he could get tickets. We explained it wasn’t a club night, but he kept asking where we were off to. I politely told him to sod off and we continued on the remaining ten meter stretch to the cash point.

 At the cashpoint, we attracted more attention. A drunk man told me and my two friends in turn that we were attractive. We turned away from him to attend to the traffic lights next to us, only for a car to go past full of lads honking their horn and shouting at us. 

 Finally across the road, we eventually made it into a pub. On entry an older male punter came up to investigate us before giving up and sitting down again. The barman was very friendly, and we got served very quickly despite it being busy- he even set out stools for us around the bar and kept coming back to see if we wanted more drinks. (The rest of the night was fun but largely irrelevant to this post.)

 The point of this story is this. It was lovely to be treated so well in the pub- but I have never been treated that well when I’ve been out with guys. All the attention and leering men in the street, I have never encountered when out with the guys. Being a woman I’ve of course experienced all this before when out with the girls, but the sheer volume of it in such a short space of time that night left me gaping. When the guys were at home the world was a different place- my friends and I were seen differently, were treated differently, and it was very, very disconcerting.

 I was drawn into another debate tonight on the nature and practicalities and need for women’s liberation campaigns (of the nature practiced by Labour Students, NUS and the University of Birmingham Guild of Students). I found myself defending the existence of the campaigns on the basis of underepresentation and pay discrepancies, to a friend who sees no need for such campaigns as she considers herself equal to men in mindset and opportunity. I’ve never considered myself any less worthy of anything because of my gender, and on reflection over the long discussion it occurred to me that there were two things we needed to fix: men’s perception and treatment of women, and women’s perceptions and treatment of themselves. I shared that little story above because it is the clearest most recent reminder I’ve had of the first of those two points- of how an awful lot of men see women. That brief walk to my local pub was unpleasant and unsettling and a pertinent reminder that we’ve got a lot to fix.

Rent hikes cut deep- for some of us

 It’s house hunting season here in Selly Oak, and The Housemates and I are on the prowl. Having spent the last two years enjoying good value accomodation (I live in a spacious and modern house for £55 ppw) we are breaking up and downsizing, and having surveyed some cheap dumps over the last few days, my group looks almost certain to face a rent hike.

 This is going to hurt. Or at least, it will hurt some of us. For this is where we come to the big chip on my shoulder/grudge against the system; some will have their rent paid for them by their parents. There is nothing wrong with parents doing this, but there is My room in halls- cosy!something very, very wrong with the loan and grant systems for failing to take this into account.

 Allow me to blind you with figures for a minute. My rent comes to £2860 per year. My loan, meanwhile, is £3627. This means my rent takes up 79% of my loan. It has been worse; in my first year in halls rent far exceeded my loan. For me, and thousands of other students, our parents cannot or will not pay us full rent; we must pay it ourselves, from this loan. Those whose parents chip in the full amount for them are left with almost five times more money in their pocket.

 It’s hard to write this article without sounding jealous or “bleeding heart”ish. But the effect to me is plain. I have many friends who pay their own rent who have admitted to me that they shy away from nights out and socialising to save on funds. It also follows that those of greater means are going to be the ones living in the more expensive homes, further socially segregating us. (This has happened to my housemates this year, with the two of greatest income having chosen to spend next year in a more expensive flat together, which includes parking spaces for their cars.) I am looking at rents of £65 a week and wincing- it’s only ten pounds more a week, but it’s really, really going to hurt. And I am luckier than some, in that while my parents don’t pay my rent they still top up my income to the amount of the maximum income assessed loan.

 There are only two solutions to this; either grants and loans go up, or rent goes down. A mate and I were setting the world to rights one afternoon, and decided that in the case of the former, we’d like to see a separate rentMy room in Selly Oak! loan be made available to those who want it. This would be much in the same way that a tuition fee loan is only granted if you ask for it; you still have the option to pay it upfront, and your housing contract would determine how much you got. I couldn’t give a toss about being saddled with debt for the rest of my life if  don’t have the money to put a roof over my head for the next year.

 What shocked me most when starting at university was the cost of hall fees. According to the manifesto of one of this year’s NUS Welfare Officer candidates, only 12% of university of University of Birmingham accomodation has rent equal to a base rate student loan.  This is absolutley astonishing. In my first year I scraped by on a bursary awarded to me on the basis of my A-Level grades, not my income; had I achieved lesser grades I simply don’t know what I would have done.

 Why is rent, both private and Univerity so high, why are student loans not sufficient to cover it, and when will the system take into account rent and whether students or parents will pay it when awarding grants and loan extensions?

“Uncomradely Behaviour”

This story caught my eye, for three reasons.

 1) Gisela Stewart

 2) The use of the term “uncomradely behaviour”- awesome!! I love the way we members are all vague “colleagues” or “friends” (when Tom Geese is not around), and the moment anyone does anything wrong suddenly we are supposed to be close knit ”comrades” again.

 3) Their giant inflatable ballot box kinda dwarfs the Guild’s big green vote sign.

What makes three thousand people take to the streets?

 Because I am not at all bitter about being stuck in my house with an exam in the morning and no one to watch Super Tuesday coverage with, I am going to blog about something entirely un-Super Tuesday related.

 So, yeah, three thousand people. That’s how many council staff flooded Birmingham’s Victoria Square today in protest over the new pay scheme being introduced by Birmingham city council. The issue seems to be a tricky one; while the pay shake-up is designed to bring balance to the gender pay gap by valuing male and female jobs equally (hurrah) allegations abound that it will not in fact achieve that. Also, and highly significantly, many staff are set to lose life-changing amounts (up to twelve grand in some cases).

 The issue has been dogged with controversy, not least the binmen pay deal, which was accepted against union advice. It has also been alleged that the council has long since spent the money set aside to neutralise the pay cuts on other things.

 What has really interested me here is the position of the unions. As the Birmingham Post points out, less than 1/4 of members voted in the strike ballot and the binmen rejected union advice… Still, three thousand people took to the streets today.

 Which is the number needed for a quorate referendum in my own union this week, the Guild of Students. I wonder how this union will fare? Since there is no money at stake here I fear far less well… but I hope I’m wrong.

It’s six twenty am

And I have been up for god knows how long, doing impossibly ridiculous questions about superconductors for a deadline tomorrow (today, bugger).

It’s just occurred to me it’s going to be a busy week- Super Tuesday is on, er Tuesday (I want to stay up but I have a class test the next morning! This is RUBBISH, it would never happen in the politics department!)

Also all this week the Guild of Students at the University of Birmingham will be waiting nervously for the results of the referendum on the new constitution to roll in- this will prove something of an acid test for student apathy as we battle to reach quoracy of 2800andsomething … what’s that I hear you say, we need one vote every 155 seconds for the next five days straight? Youch…

 …We also have the BULS nomination meeting for Labour Studentsy stuff (on Weds from 7-9, gc chambers), and of course on Saturday the First Annual Selly Oak Branch Labour Party Curry Evening to look forward to…

Right, enough blogging, back to my NIS junctions. *sigh*. I think dawn might break soon…

Bin men get raw deal?

 The bin-men of Birmingham have dismayed unions by voting to accept a £8000 a year pay rise, which coupled with the cancellation of bonusses means in real terms a £2000 a year cut.

 The Labour group on the Council had accused the Tory administration of “holding a gun to their heads” over the pay deal, and it has been suggested that the bin-men had voted to “cut their losses”. The Tory administration meanwhile believes the workers have “seen sense” in accepting reformed working practices, which come with the deal.

 There have been anonymous (and entirely unconfirmed) suggestions that the pay ballot was somewhat dodgey… we’ll have to wait and see if anything comes of that or if it’s just disgruntled rumour.

 This is all part of the ongoing row over the council workers pay shake up, which will see thousands of council staff walk out on Tuesday in protest over pay cuts…

Eastbourne MP Arrested On Suspicion of Assault

Eastbourne MP Nigel Waterson, the man who has been labelled the “UK’s most homophobic MP“, the man who is a close friend of David Cameron, the man who is proud to belong to societies that ban females, the man I loath so much I have campaigned for the lib dems in the vain hope it will oust him, has been arrested on suspicion of assault.

 Let’s hope he isn’t going to follow in the footsteps of Birmingham councillor John Lines and actually turn out to be guilty… or have the whip removed from him like Derek Conway… that would be embarrasing for Cameron, two in a week!!

Byrne of many talents

In all the commotion over Hain and Watson, we forgot to mention on the blog local MP Liam Byrne, who this weekend received his third ministerial portfolio. As well as a constituency MP, Minister for immigration and the West Midlands, he will now be a Minister of the Treasury too.

The Tories were already upset about him having more than one role and are predictably miffed at him gaining a third, although Byrne insists he can cope- and that “it is good news for the Midlands to have a Minister with a hotline to the Chancellor”.

Clearly he is highly thought of and a hard worker- It sounds like hell to me, but if he can cope with all those roles then congratulations and good luck to him!

Hain backs down, press go nuts

Peter Hain has resigned his cabinet post while the Met investigate donations to his deputy leadership campaign. He is topping the news bulletins and has been in the spotlight for the last few weeks, slated by the press and opposition: not for any radical or controversial policy, not for any achievements, not for sending troops to war or for declaring that straight couples were better than gay couples, not for denying essential education and training to thousands of students, not for announcing falling crime figures, but a banal administrative error.

 I can’t help but find this insanely frustrating.

Random Round-up

 A few news stories interested me today and I’m bored of revision, so here they are.

 Firstly, the Commons motion calling for an end to automatic male succession to the throne- I don’t know whether to like it from a feminist point of view or rubbish it as a republican.

 Next, the government promising lots and lots of money for more cycling proficiency lessons. I can’t remember anything I learnt when I took the course, but it’s a cheery initiative all the same.

 Returning briefly to the no-platform debate, someone from the University of Birmingham comments on it in this BBC article…

 And finally, because I am a geek at heart, I was happy to see some good news about physics for a change.

(Oh and something really bad happened with the money markets, but because I don’t actually have any money I didn’t take much notice. I’m sure someone smarter than me will patiently explain it to me some time.)