Thank you Labourlist for pointing this out from the night of the local elections:
This is a tweet from Conservative Central Head Quarters (CCHQ) twitter account from the middle of the results night.
Labour had a net-gain of 824 councillors by the next day.
Max
Ed Miliband in Birmingham yesterday with Birmingham Council Labour Group leader, Sir Albert Bore
That’s right, throughout Friday Labour saw it’s best performance in a local election since 1995 (all in proportion to how many Council elections were up for grabs as last year we gained more but far more were up for grabs). And similarly the Tories saw their worst local election result since 1996 and the Lib Dems now have dropped down below 3,000 councillors for the first time in the party’s existence.
This was a result that exceeded everyone’s expectations on all fronts. With most Tories attempting to spin the result to say we needed around 450 councillor gains to be seen as a success, we only smashed that with 823! When everyone expected Scottish Labour to lose Glasgow City Council we not only fought off a SNP challenge but took control of the council at the expense of the Lib Dems and Tories. When everyone said Labour would only win a slight majority in our very own Birmingham City Council, we smashed all expectations by gaining 20 councillors and winning a 34 seat majority. When it was expected Welsh Labour would fail in taking Cardiff City Council, we defied all predictions by gaining 33 councillors and winning a majority of 17! And we’re very proud of very nearly almost gaining control of the Greater London Assembly, falling short by 1 Assembly member.
This election wasn’t without its disappointments though. BULS’s very own Honourary life Member, Dennis Minnis, was unsuccessful in taking Edgbaston. And biggest of all, huge disappointment at Ken’s defeat. We are all glad Ken did defy most (but not all, sadly) odds by not letting Boris have a shoe-in election by pushing the margin on the second round to a close 3%. Many Tories see Boris as the next leader and Prime Minister in waiting. “Wiff-waff” may well have edged it in London, don’t expect the country to do the same.
Of course, the results did see successes close to our hearts in BULS. Obviously there was turning Birmingham City Council red, but BULS saw former student of the University of Birmingham, Karen McCarthy, join former BULS Secretary, Brigid Jones, as a Councillor for Selly Oak. Quinton ward, where Grandee Nash played a large hand in, was also successful in electing Caroline Bradley.
All in all, while this was a brilliant result for Labour nationally we have to remember this has happened to opposition parties in the past. Hague, Howard and Kinnock all saw similar successes at mid-term local elections in their time in opposition. This was a much needed boost, not a prelude for the general election. Though it is safe to say, that the media, politicians and the wider public can no longer claim Miliband has no chance at 2015. There’s still a hell of a lot of work to be done, but we now know that we still do have a shot at 2015.
Max
Following careful consideration, BULS has decided to support Michael Chessum’s campaign to be VPHE of NUS and we ask Birmingham delegates and Labour students nationally to do the same. We believe that Michael is the most competent candidate, and will achieve the most for students now, and in the future.
He has been the only candidate to continuously fight against the Tories’ fee regime and its further marketisation of our education system. Michael has been instrumental inthe organising of two national demonstrations, mobilising thousands of students across the country. Such demonstrations proved highly successful, gaining the support of Labour Students, and the general student population, nationally.
As Labour students we should be fighting against the current coalition government’s outrageous, and damaging, policies concerning higher education fees and their on-going commitment to severe austerity measures. Education is a public good and, at Birmingham, we believe that education should be universally accessible and publically funded. Michael Chessum is the only candidate for VPHE who we believe shares our values and will fight to defend them.
Furthermore, Michael is the only candidate committed to opposing Theresa May’s regressive and racist visa changes, which will have a detrimental effect on International Students who contribute so much to our higher education institutions and country as a whole.
Michael’s past record shows that he knows when and how to use direct action tactics, whilst his pivotal role in founding NCAFC proves his dedication to fighting the government’s austerity measures.
We need a VP Higher Education that will offer a robust defence against the coalition’s stark attacks on education. We wholeheartedly believe it is time to put factional divides behind us and unite in our support for Chessum, as the candidate most able to deliver.
Catie, Ed, Ellis, Areeq, Alex, Sam and Dan
As we all know, the London mayoral election is quickly approaching. The two front-runners, and perhaps the candidates who are of most importance to us Labour lot, are well known: Ken Livingstone, the famous collector of lizards, and Boris Johnson, the living incarnation of a 15th century duke.
However, whilst these candidates have received plenty of media coverage, it remains that others have been pushed into the background. So what I want to – very briefly – highlight, are a couple of local council candidates in Birmingham.
BULS has, in the last year, been very active in the local area. Last year, Edgbaston council candidate Dennis Minnis lost by only 21 votes. This year, he is standing again, and BULS has been behind him 100%. A few weeks ago, a few of us went out on a Saturday to talk to local residents with Dennis. As we were walking down Charlotte Road (not too far from the Vale), Dennis told us that in the early 1990s, he won a large redevelopment fund for the street. Before, he said, there were partially deserted and dilapidated high rise buildings. These tower blocks are now gone, and the street looks entirely different (there’s even a nice playground there, where Catie Garner, our incoming Chair, got very distracted with the shiny swing sets). Dennis is incredibly passionate about his local community, and this is just one example of the astounding work that he has done in the past.
Another candidate who I would like to quickly mention is Elaine Williams, the council candidate for Harborne ward. Unlike Dennis, she has never been a councillor before, but is by no means any less passionate. I met Elaine last October, and have been out campaigning for her ever since. Recently, she wrote in Harbone Local News about the local elections (http://www.harbornenews.com/April2012/index.html). On page 15, she talks about the work she has done in the last few months for Harborne. One point she highlights concerns the sale of the Clock Tower on Harborne High Street, a former local community centre. In short, the grade II listed building was in need of repair, and the local Tories commissioned the erection of scaffolding on the building. Along with James McKay, the only Labour councillor in Harborne, Elaine found through an FOI request that the scaffolding cost around £12,000 a week. They then subsequently found an alternative quote of £2,000 a week, which was ignored by the Tories. Within no time, the debt quickly amounted to around £800,000. Recently, the centre was sold for £100,000, effectively meaning that £700,000 of local taxpayers’ money was lost. As James said in a radio interview, you’d be hard pressed to find a flat for £100,000 in the centre of Harborne, let alone a grade II listed building.
It’s also worth having a look at this – http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/harborne_clock_tower_sale_price?unfold=1 – to see more about the work she’s done regarding the Clock Tower (scandal).
As one of the most talked about issues in Harborne, Elaine has been at the forefront of the debate. Like Dennis, she has been passionate about local issues, and would no doubt do a fantastic job as Harborne’s second Labour councillor.
This is my first blog, and as boring as it might be, I really wanted to highlight this issue. Whilst other political issues like the London mayoral election and the Birmingham Mayoral referendum are at the forefront of the news, dedicated individuals like Dennis and Elaine are hardly talked about. Of course, I’m not surprised, but I wanted this rant to provide some needed attention to our local candidates. It’s easy for these candidates to be lost in the political mix, but with the local elections dawning on Thursday 3rd May, I wanted to quickly show that councillors can make a difference, and that these candidates will make a difference if elected.
By Ed Gilbert, Vice-Chair-elect
That’s right, four by-election victories on the trot. Yes, all these were in Labour held seats, but it’s important how every single one has seen a significant swing towards Labour each time. The results were as follows:
Labour – 12,639 (54.42% up by 10.79%)
Conservative – 6,436 (27.71% down by 6.32%)
Liberal Democrats – 1,364 (5.87 down by 7.87%)
UKIP – 1,276 (5.49& up by 3.45%)
This has seen a 8.6% swing from Tory to Labour, when compared to the last general election which saw a mere 4.8% swing from Labour to Tory. Yes, the turnout was very low, but what do you expect at this time of year?
Either way, great result!
Max
Michael D Higgins and Eamon Gilmore will now go down in History as two of the Irish Labour Party’s electorally successful Politicians. It was announced today that Michael D Higgins is to be elected the 9th President of Ireland receiving almost 40% of the first preference votes. This will make him the first ever Labour Presidential Candidate to have become President without the support of from other parties.
Of course this adds to the great success Irish Labour received in the Irish General Election last May where Eamon Gilmore led Labour to its largest number of seats in the Irish Parliament ever. This meant Labour has entered its 8th time in a Coalition Government where it takes up 8 out of the 20 Cabinet posts.
On behalf of all of us in Birmingham University Labour Students (BULS) I would like to wish our sister party across the Irish Sea a huge congratulations on the results they’ve had this year. And we hope the best is yet to come.
Max
Apart from an amazing visit by the Shadow Policing Minister, Vernon Coaker, BULS played host to a serious of elections for various positions. And the results are as follows:
Women’s Officer-Viki Hemmingway
Fresher’s Officer-Lottie Rowling
Constituency Labour Party (CLP) Liason Officer: Ed Gilbert
Congratulations is in order and comiserations for those who ran against them. We look forward to working with this ‘New Generation’ of BULS.
9/11 – A Warning from Recent History
For someone of the age of the current crop of Labour Students, it is particularly difficult to believe that it is ten years tomorrow since the lives of millions were changed forever on September 11th, 2001. Most of us were still in primary school at the time, and it is perhaps apt that our generation – one that was constantly told we were growing up too fast – had our innocence of the world around us robbed so suddenly on that bright Tuesday morning. Hearing and seeing the images of the planes hitting the World Trade Center still transfixes all of us, and as much as we might want to look away having seen enough, we can’t quite bring ourselves to stop watching.
However it is our generation – the 9/11 generation – who will be the politicians and headline-makers of the coming years, and if anything good can come of the last decade, it is surely the lesson that those in power have a responsibility not to overreact when faced with such onslaughts. Our party’s most successful leader (in electoral terms) no doubt had good intentions, but made the grave error of marching the troops gung-ho into an unplanned and illegal war, probably creating a whole new generation of terrorists in the process, while at home him and those around him were complicit in eroding many of the freedoms we were meant to be protecting, including detention without charge and freedom from torture. If the horror of terrorism reaches us again, we must pause and assess the causes before acting. The same rule should apply for other crises, like the riots this summer.
Backbench Tories Have Nothing To Worry About
Today is the final day of the Plaid Cymru autumn conference in Llandudno, north Wales. The outgoing leader, Ieuan Wyn Jones, made his final conference speech yesterday after an electoral drubbing for the nationalist party in the Welsh Assembly elections in May. Unlike in Scotland, where the SNP have been successful, he argued that coalition government in Cardiff Bay (of which Plaid was the junior party) meant Plaid’s achievements in government were smothered by Labour, and that the party was punished by voters for not claiming credit for them.
Aside from the fact that Plaid achieved very little in government in a time of economic turmoil other than a referendum with poor turnout which managed to bore even political anoraks, their experience in coalition should serve as a lesson to Westminster politics. This week Tory backbenchers, angry over law and order, Europe and abortion, moaned that the Lib Dem ‘tail’ was wagging the Tory ‘dog’ and that Nick Clegg was being given too many concessions by the Prime Minister. However come the election in 2015, the Tories will have nothing to worry about, as the voters are likely to give them sole credit for any successes – particularly if the economy picks up (not a given considering Osborne’s slash-and-burn approach) – and they will certainly not be looking to make some sort of permanent alliance with the Lib Dems, contrary to what some commentators are predicting. The coalition dog will probably have his tail docked when the voters are next given a choice.
About Bloody Time
This week the ban on gay and bisexual men giving blood for life in Britain was finally overturned (although you’d be forgiven for not noticing the leap forward because the BBC thought Strictly Come Dancing was more important on the news bulletins that night). This is a triumph that equality campaigners have been working tirelessly for for years, and at last gay men will be able to save lives and help tackle the urgent need for more donors. No more will the official policy imply that gay men cannot be trusted to practice safe sex and ‘probably have HIV’.
Although the ban was only replaced with a one-year time lag since a donor’s last encounter, it is still progress, and puts us more in line with the situation in similar countries.
As Ed Miliband gathers opinions and considers the future policy direction of the Labour party as part of the Policy Review, there has been much debate recently about whether or not to pursue ‘Blue Labour’, as proposed by the academic and Labour peer Maurice Glasman. Blue Labour, a response to ‘Red Toryism’, aims to put co-operatives and the community at the heart of the lives of ordinary British people, and is a rebuttal of New Labour’s strangling embrace of neo-liberalism, which left swathes of grassroots Labour supporters feeling alienated and ignored by the party leadership.
Glasman has a point, for throughout the history of the ‘people’s party’ there has been a split between liberals, state socialists and those who favour co-operatives and more local organisation – many Labour MPs today are also members of the Co-operative Party, and since its inception at the turn of the twentieth century the Labour movement has been associated with local organisation and mobilisation.
Martin Pugh in his 2009 book “Speak for Britain: A New History of the Labour Party” argues persuasively that the real dilemma for Labour through its history has not been attracting liberal support, but attracting hard-working but low-paid voters from the temptations of the Conservatives: many ordinary working class communities share the Tories’ patriotism; love of the armed forces (many of them have close relatives or friends serving in Afghanistan); desire for home ownership and a tough stance on law and order – why did so many vote for Margaret Thatcher in 1979, read the Daily Mail, and in a few cases drift to more extreme parties through fear of their jobs because of immigration and globalisation? Pugh stresses that when Labour came into being many voters were torn between it and the Tories because of these economic concerns, plus social beliefs like temperance or the role of the Church in schools.
Where Glasman takes the wrong path, in my view, is in his attempt to respond to Cameron’s Big Society by mimicking it and advocating a further retrenchment of the state, along with a return to a 1950s-style focus on the family, the flag, and feminism being almost unheard-of. That’s not ‘Blue Labour’, that’s just conservatism. If we as social democrats want to see equality of provision across the board, we need to expose the Big Society for what it is: a cover for cuts dreamt up by Steve Hilton when the Tories needed to be seen to be shedding the aura of Thatcherism.
If Labour is to win elections again without ditching our principles – to do so would be an insult to people like the families of those killed in Norway – we need to ‘re-connect with the grassroots,’ to use the spin-doctors jargon, by addressing, or at the very least appreciating, the legitimate concerns of the hard-working folk who keep the economy growing and keep money coming into the Exchequer. Instead of Big Society initiatives, we need to take the lead on key issues like housing, providing ample employment for deprived communities and young people generally, and not simply dismissing people’s concerns about migration and welfare dependency. That does not mean leaving the EU, saying we should only have British jobs for British workers, or undertaking humiliating fit-for-work tests like those currently going on under Iain Duncan Smith. It just means listening to those too well-off to be on benefits but on low wages, as well as staying true to proud values like tolerance. If we go some way to pointing out these worries in opposition, whilst criticising the Con-Dems’ unfair cuts, the sought-after swing voters will follow, and we may just wake up to find ourselves in government again.
First off. I’d like to point that I respect the decision of the people of Britain in a resounding ‘No’ vote to AV. It’s a shame further electoral reform has been buried for a century, but I’m not a Lib Dem so I’ll get over it. But, I would like to explain why ‘No’ won.
The primary reason for a ‘No’ victory was Clegg’s insistence in holding the referendum on the same day as local elections across England, the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Irish Assembly elections. Because of this the people regarded the referendum as one on Clegg rather than a change to the voting system, consequently, due to Clegg’s unpopularity the referendum could have never been won. The coinciding with the local elections was further capitalised on by the ‘No to AV’ campaign, blatantly spreading personal attacks on the Lib Dems and more specifically Clegg himself. Admittedly, I myself am not the Lib Dems biggest fan any more and the ‘Yes’ side was not perfect either in the campaigning, but the Tories completely refusing to discredit the personal attacks which only gave them legitimacy.
This was because the ‘No to AV’ campaign, despite all the publicity of its Labour supporters, was in effect another Tory ‘No to AV’ group and any attempt to deny this is just misguided. The ‘No to AV’ group was 90% funded by Conservative donors and famously in areas of London ‘Labour No to AV’ leaflets had to be withdrawn because of printing at the bottom that read “produced by the Conservative party”. The ‘No to AV’ campaign went even further down the line than merely personal attacks, they also went on a blatant lying spree with famously the £250 million and vote counting machines claim. The reason why we now no this was a blatant lie was because prominent Labour supporter of ‘No to AV’, David Blunket, actually admitted that the £250 million claim was a figure they plucked out of the air. Now while it was a blatant lie (coupled with the “If you vote Yes this baby/soldier will die” lie) it was an effective lie.
This then leads finally onto the effectiveness of the ‘Yes’ campaign which was nothing less than a shambles. There was no coherent and simple message to sell to the British people and their entire campaign group was made up of Lib Dems and a number of charities, with the former being only good at localised, targeted campaigns.
But anyway, electoral reform is now buried for another century, it was good while it lasted, but it’s time to move on.
Max
If you’re confused by the title of this blog, my last name is Ramsay, the same as famous Scot, Gordon Ramsay. But anyway to say that the Labour result in Scotland was nothing less than disastrous is completely misplaced. It’s not the fact that we did badly that bothers me personally, it’s rather the fact that around 9 months ago Labour was well placed to re-establish themselves as the largest party in Holyrood.
This is primarily the fault of Ian Gray and without a doubt, he will have to go as leader by the end of the week. But, we must not leave out the Scottish and National Labour party. We were complacent, I know I certainly was, everyone assumed we would easily win back Edinburgh, but we didn’t count on the effectiveness of Salmond’s SNP campaign which did strike a progressive and positive tone. This is in stark contrast to Scottish Labour’s negativity.
If there’s one thing we can learn from Scotland, negative, attacking politics doesn’t work. The only time Labour succeeds electorally (1945, 1964 and 1997 nationally and 1999 in Scotland and Wales) so this is something we will need to replicate nation-wide.
Max
First of all, congratulations to Brigid Jones, the new Councillor for Selly Oak.
It’s been a fascinating night (if a bit slow), and there is still the jaw-dropping news that Britain has rejected the Alternative Vote system amongst an abysmal turnout yet to come, however what is really intriguing is where Labour did not do so well, rather than where it made gains.
Once North Wales has decided it can be bothered to start counting, Labour looks set to make gains in Wales, possibly securing a working majority, while in the local elections in England the Lib Dems have suffered their worst result since the party’s formation – all of these could have been easily predicted 24 hours ago. However, in Scotland, you could be forgiven for thinking Labour is in government and has just announced swingeing cuts or banned tartan by the disappointing result and the triumph of Alex Salmond’s SNP, who have capitalised on their narrow success in 2007. Scotland has traditionally been a Labour country, however this result demonstrates a new confidence and is evidence of maturity among the Scottish electorate – they clearly differentiate between Westminster polls and those to Hollyrood. Although it is premature to say Scotland is on the road to fully endorsing indepedence – as Labour leader Ian Gray learned, Scottish voters have more pressing issues on their minds – it does demonstrate a worrying trend towards ever-further detachment from the rest of the UK, with a completely different political culture with different trends. That pizza-slice analogy Andrew Marr spoke of is becoming more realistic every year.
Meanwhile, what is also worrying is how the Conservatives are getting away with blue murder in the local elections. Their vote has held up, possibly because Tory voters tend to turnout in higher numbers in local polls, possibly because of local issues, but almost certainly because Cameron has cleverly allowed Nick Clegg to become a scapegoat for the Con-Dems’ worst policies. Labour needs to wake up from this, admit we are only at the very start of a long long road to Downing Street, and attack the Tories, instead of reminding everyone about Clegg’s betrayal of the left – the voters don’t need to be reminded of this.
It’s been a good night on balance, but there are some worrying signs in these results (never mind the depressing conservatism and apathy over AV), and there now needs to be a change of strategy at Labour HQ.
Luke
Today you have a chance to achieve two significant outcomes. First, if you believe the First Past The Post voting system no longer works and is completely indefensible then please vote ‘Yes’ in the referendum today for fairer votes and an end to tactical voting and wasted votes. Please do not base the AV referendum on petty party politics of Clegg/Cameron/Miliband. Please leave that for the local elections, the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament elections as that is true place to tell the Coalition that they are cutting too far and too fast and to give you a voice in tough times through the Labour party.
Max
I’ve now returned to Birmingham after a week in which the Coalition managed to look incompetent and shambolic as well as cruel. We’ve had Willetts admitting he is content to see poorer students having to settle for a degree at their local sixth form, rather than enjoying the full university experience; Norman Tebbit joining the near-univeral coalition against the NHS transformation; U-turns on defence spending and health to add to the growing list which includes school sports and buildings, forests, and even the Downing Street cat; and of course Nick Clegg. When he hasn’t been complaining that he is the nation’s ‘punchbag’ or facing criticism from his own son, he has been making some interesting comments about social mobility.
I am not going to slam the Deputy Prime Minister for having had a leg-up from his neighbour (a peer of the realm) in order to get an internship at a bank (it had to be a bank), because I challenge anyone reading this – assuming I have a readership – not to have seized the opportunity in the same way if they were in Nick’s position. A Labour party which wants social justice and equality of opportunity from birth should not be blaming someone for a background thay had no control over, and that even includes Cameron who had someone put a word in from Buck House. However, Clegg’s attempts at addressing the age-old problem of the ‘It’s who you know’ culture were embarrassing, coming at the same time this government is slashing Sure Start centres, EMA, univeristy budgets and allowing socially divisive ’free’ schools to blossom up and down the country.
I spoke to people this week in the valleys who have Masters’ degrees who have spent over a year unemployed – young people with ambition, drive and what should be a promising career ahead of them. I overheard sixth form students on the bus complaining that they had not been accepted for any of their UCAS choices, despite the prediction of 4 As at A-level. I have personally had difficulty finding summer placements when I am not lucky enough to be able to work unpaid for six months in central London. Nick Clegg’s diagnosis was correct, but there is far more to it than setting an example to almost-bankrupt businesses by paying interns at Lib Dem HQ.
We need a new cultural shift in this country, brought about by government, where the disadvantaged are caught as soon as possible and at every stage of their lives are helped to gain the same opportunities as the better off. This should not involve positive discrimination or handouts, but should involve investment in our young people which other European countries manage while they bail out their neighbours, but we seem to think is unaffordable. A national internship scheme or national bursary programme, complementing investment in careers education (which at the moment is dire) to inform young people that they are just as talented and ambitious as the more privileged, and what opportunities are out there for the taking, is desperately needed. The underlying factors, such as affordable transport, need to be subsidised so someone who lives in the middle of nowhere with no ‘contacts’ can get work experience in a city near them.
There are important elections coming up in the devolved nations and local councils in England. Young people should be demanding better from the government and their local councils at the ballot box, and should express their dissatisfaction with the Coalition, which just doesn’t get it.
So the eagerly awaited and oh-so exciting AV referendum is now in sight, with Ed Miliband today setting out the Labour leadership’s opinion on one side, and many other Labour MPs and party members saying why they will be rejecting the proposal on the other. It does seem that the party is split down the middle – not a great position for an opposition party reassembling itself after electoral defeat. Incidentally, it is perhaps not the most shining example of ‘new politics’ or maturity when our leader refuses to unite with Nick Clegg because of his new status as Public Enemy Number One – surely there would be less cynicism in the electorate if we as an opposition party took each issue exclusively, instead of pointing the finger at the Tuition Fees Bogeyman.
The arguments for or against the Alternative Vote aside (I’m personally in the ‘Yes’ camp for want of something marginally further down the road to Proportional Representation), what strikes me the most after the disheartening advertising tactics of the ‘No’ camp (I’m sure you’ve seen the baby-in-incubator and soldier billboards) is the lack of interest amongst the wider electorate. Today I asked a friend of mine whether he had yet considered which way he would vote, and the reply was that it would make no difference to the political scene, so why should he bother? I wanted to answer his rebuttal, but found to my horror that I couldn’t. Whether or not we stick with First Past the Post or adopt AV will have little bearing on electoral outcomes on a national scale, only at constituency level (where AV would make elections far more interesting, as those who witnessed the Guild election results will testify), therefore the best we can hope for is the lesser of two evils, while those running for office continue to make vacuous or downright deceptive pledges in their election manifestos e.g. the marketisation of the NHS and tuition fees.
The real question on the ballot paper should not be ‘AV vs FPTP’, nor even the far more deomcratic ‘AV vs FPTP vs AV+ vs STV vs AMS…’, but something which reads less like a mathematical formula and more like a choice between two fundamental democratic frameworks that disillusioned voters can really get their teeth into. We need a choice over whether or not we want to overhaul the House of Lords (a process which has thus far taken a century); whether or not we want to de-throne and de-robe the monarchy; whether or not we want to reduce the stranglehold of the elites over our economy; in short, whether or not we want a new constitution. That is not to say the previous government had a gleaming record on constitutional affairs, although devolution and removal of hereditary peers were a good start. But by throwing a bone for the Lib Dem poodle in the form of a paltry referendum on AV, the Tories have got away with it again, whichever way we vote on May 5th.
It was without a doubt Labour was going to win the Barnsley Central by-election, but what wasn’t known was the margin and the performance of the other parties. The results are as follows for those who don’t know:
Labour-60.8% (47.3% in 2010)
UKIP-12.19% (4.7%)
Conservative-8.25% (17.3%)
BNP-6.04% (8.9%)
Independent (Tony Devoy)-5.23% (1.6%)
Liberal Democrat-4.18% (17.3%)
This represents nothing less than a whitewash for the Lib Dems, second place to sixth and losing their deposit is nothing less than humiliating. The Tories fared little better losing around half of their support. Yes, Labour was always going to win this seat, but what we have here is resoundingly bloody brilliant win as public opinion ever so gradually begins to swing against the Coalition.
Max
Well the results are in and yes, the most important point of the night, Labour has kept Oldham red. With a 48% turnout (down on May’s 61%) the results are as follows:
Labour – 42.1% of the vote (31.9% in May)
Liberal Democrats – 31.9% (31.6%)
Conservatives – 12.8% (26.4%)
UKIP – 5.8% (3.9%)
BNP – 4.8% (5.7%)
So the first good result you can see (apart from Labour winning) is that the BNP lost its deposit, always a good thing. But without a doubt the most notable result of the night was the complete collapse of the Conservative vote, yes, third parties are always squeezed, especially in by-elections, but not to this extent. A 14% slump in the vote is rather unheard of, leading to a 11% swing from Tory to Labour (a swing I could very easily get used to). It seems that a combination of tactical voting and a half-hearted campaign by CCHQ, despite insistence otherwise, is going to mean DC will have some stuff questions to answered by from his backbenchers.
Also, great to note that Labour’s majority in Oldham (3558) is now higher than it was in 1997, during Labour’s peak.
Max
Given I’m one of BULS’s token few Northerners, I though it would be appropriate to have a blog on the upcoming by-election. Cautious confidence is probably the best way to describe Oldham East and Saddleworth. Already we have seen a number of polls from ICM and Populus showing Labour having a around 17% lead over the Lib Dems (with a surprising slump in support for the Tories). However, another polling company, Survation, has recorded the Labour leader being 1&(!!). Labour are the bookies favourite to win, but, I cannot stress any less without doubt, not to slacked the momentum. This is the first time in years that the Lib Dems wont be all masterful in by-elections.
Throughout the entire campaign the Lib Dem candidate and Cleggy have been emphasising that this by-election is about selecting a new local MP. I’d have to agree that this is what it ought to be about, but since when have by-elections ever been about local issues?
Max
The University of Kent has tonight voted down a suggestion to abolish the Men’s Officer on the Union’s strong team.
The official NUS women’s movement has a problem with this.
The point of liberation positions is that those who are normally under-represented get a chance to be heard. In the case of women’s officer it’s also about promoting sexual equality, disproving stereotypes and encouraging a post-structuralist view of gender. It’s an issue of mutual respect.
Men’s Unions formed within the NUS have typically been reactionary irreverent organisations, including one that included “playing pool and drinking beer” among its written aims.
With LGBTQ organisations doing a brilliant job at representing the gay, bisexual and transgender men out there, it seems unnecessary to require a separate men’s officer. All we can hope is that the elected man will work with the women’s officer to promote gender equality.
Suzy
Some questions for BULS, since I can’t ask y’all in the flesh…
Was the Rally to Restore Sanity a waste of time when people should have been spending their time campaigning on actual issues such as the conflict in Afghanistan?
Can the Tea Party movement be separated from misogyny and islamophobia?
Is the Tea Party movement grass roots in any credible way?
What will happen to the economy if the Democrats lose control of the House?
Is the Guardian perpetrating a witchhunt against O´Donnell?
To what extent has “I`m just like you” come to mean “I`m ignorant, naive and gullible” and “common sense” come to mean “the literal word of the Bible” in middle America?
Which pose a greater threat to the US – Christian extremists or Muslim extremists?
And finally…
How much will Obama have to compromise following the shift in power?
Suzy
Autumn 2010 Campaigning and Political miniforum minutes 19.10.10
Attendees:
Matt Lamb – VPSAD
Jo Ormond – Student Activities coordinator
Benjamin Mee – Atheists, Agnostics and Humanists
Labour Students – Sam Murphy
United Nations – Anna-Kaisa Polojarvi
Socialist society – Vicky Taylor
Debating society – Rachael Twumasi
Take Back Parliament – Charlotte Galpin
Matt explained that mini forums are a chance for groups of similar interests to discuss issues, ask questions and be given information from the Guild.
Open forums have replaced Guild council and are a less formal way for groups to bring issues/motions/feedback to the VPSAD. Two representatives from each miniforum will be elected to attend Guild Council on behalf of the miniforum
Student Groups: Thursday 21st October, at 6.30pm; venue to be confirmed
19th Guild – 5.30pm,– for any issues relating to the Guild as an organisation and/or building
20th Education and University– 5.30pm,– for academic issues
21st Sports– 4.30pm,– for anyone involved in sport, at any level from occasional gym user to club captain.
22nd Welfare– 4.00pm,– any welfare issues.
Socialist – Focus on Fees and would like as many societies as possible to get involved. Providing transport to the Education Action Network national conference and rally if anyone wants to join us 31st October. (Matt also suggested getting in touch with Rob Hunter VPEA about fees campaigns).
UN – Have a yearly theme related to the Millennium Development goals. Have events for climate event in Mexico and Stop Violence Against Women day.
Take Back Parliament – We’re a new group and we campaign to change the voting system. At the moment we’re focusing on getting membership and have a couple of events lined up.
(Matt mentioned that the box office space outside Spar is now bookable by student groups and is an ideal place to promote your society / have a bake sale etc. Book through reception.)
Labour – Have an event planned with Lib Dems, a trip to Brussels for European Parliament. Want to start a living wage campaign (Take Back Parliament would like to work with Labour on voting reform.)
Atheists, Agnostics and Humanists – Have a screening of The Life of Brian on Thursday, also have events with Aston Humanists and Birmingham Humanists. Have had some problems with paperwork with uni room bookings – Matt asked for details to be emailed to him so he could follow it up.
Debating – Had a public debate on the day of the Browne review. Also have a debate on Thursday ‘This House would abolish the Monarchy’. Also have debates coming up on Afghanistan and God. Please email us with any suggestions for debates that you would like.
Standing candidates:
Anna-Kaisa Polojarvi
Sam Murphy
Rachel Twumais
RON
Brief summary of speeches:
Anna
Sam
Rachael
Sam Murphy and Rachael Twumasi elected
Anna – a what’s on calendar on the website with everything that’s going on across campus would be really good
Matt – I am on the working group to rebuild website and this is definitely something we want. We are also trying to get some temporary measures in place.
The month is April 2010. The location is Joe’s Bar in the Guild. A lively debate is taking place over four pints of beer.
“So you’re trying to tell me that the Conservatives are anti-poor, anti-gay, anti-women, anti-public services.”
“Basically, yeah.”
“Well then you’re full of **** because I heard Cameron’s speech on the NHS and he says he’s gonna protect it! They haven’t mentioned anything about punishing the poor either, you’re just making that up, cos we’re all in this together. And they have gay front-benchers, and JUST in case you’ve forgotten Thatcher was a woman.”
How many times have we experienced this rebuttal? This battle for hearts and minds, with us hungover in scruffy jeans on one side and Cameron’s big air-brushed face on the other?
And how many people came back to us over the following months and said “Mate, I’m sorry, if I’d known they were gonna cut my cousin’s benefits I wouldn’t have voted for them.”
But by then it’s too late. We need a shorthand, to unpick all the rhetoric, all the speeches, all the elaborate policies with questionable motives. Left and Right.
To say that a party is right wing is to know its history. Its history of opposing measures for the greater equality of gender, race and sexuality. Its financial backers in big business, its think tanks and advisers comprising the bigoted, the religiously extreme, the regressive. Its instincts to offload responsibility, make a profit, and favour choice over health and happiness. How it will respond in a crisis, where its priorities will lie, what it wants to achieve and the kind of country it’ll leave behind as its legacy.
Right wing and left wing speak for themselves.
And once you understand the divide you can read between the lines of speeches, because you know the place they are coming from in the first place. Ed Miliband declaring that he’s not in the pockets of Unite isn’t going to scare the Unions because they also know that they share a common, left wing, goal with Ed to defend workers against cuts. Whereas Cameron promising not to include the NHS in his cuts was a plea to those old enough to remember the last Tory government for another chance.
Right wing and left wing are more important than election promises. Years after everyone has forgotten that speech that leader made at conference the backbone of the party is still the same, and will react to each new problem in an essentially typical way. Giving credit to the Tories for cutting child benefit for the relatively wealthy is to silently acknowledge that it’s a surprise, that it’s essentially out of character, that it’s even a little bit left wing, because the true right-wing instinct would be to just scrap it altogether.
But that would make them unelectable.
Suzy
Let’s be clear this is a Conservative lead government implementing predominately Tory policy bar a few half-hearted attempts at Lib Dem fig leaves, such as the referendum on AV. Recently there has been a lot of anti Lib Dem rhetoric thrown about by the Labour leadership candidates, especially by Ed Miliband who I support incidentally. This kind of rhetoric against the Lib Dems in government, in my opinion is short sighted, too tribal and ignores the true architects of the cuts regime: the Tories.
It will get a loud cheer from the Labour party faithful and applause from the gallery but anti liberal democrat rhetoric places the Labour party in permanent opposition if it continues on this path. As a party we have to be ready to talk and work with other parties on the left as most of the wider public now like coalitions and politicians working together. Of course as a party we should focus on winning a majority at the next general election but after such a heavy defeat in the spring and the way this has election panned out I believe that will be difficult to achieve in only one term. However we should be ready, unlike in May, for a coalition government, we should be looking to work with the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party and others on the pluralistic left to make sure a Tory government is a thing of the past. With a progressive alliance we can place the Tory’s in opposition indefinitely.
As well as Labour swallowing its tribal instincts, this kind of politics is very much dependant on the electoral system. I would be in favour of a more proportional system possibly in the form of AV+ however this is not on the referendum ballot paper although I hear Caroline Lucas is mounting an amendment to add it on. Despite the A.V referendum being placed alongside the gerrymandering of constituencies in the same bill, the next leader, whoever it is, should campaign for a ‘yes’ vote. The alternative vote would make coalitions governments more likely and be a step in the right direction to making parliament more representative and go a way to gaining lost trust in the political system. In May as a Labour party we should show the public we are grown up politicians, ready to be an effective opposition but more importantly a credible government. That means as Martin Kettle states in his draft Labour leader speech in Friday’s Guardian, and I paraphrase ‘I will stand shoulder to shoulder with Nick Clegg on this issue’
Come May 2015 the electoral map will look very different, and a Lab-Lib coalition might be very much on the cards. The Labour party has to swallow its tribal instincts and be ready for coalition. Coalitions are here to stay; the country and the labour party can’t afford to be prevented from going into government because it can’t accept a pluralistic vision of politics. Labour needs to not retreat into the introverted tribalism that has marked some of the last five years of power. To avoid a prolonged spell in the wilderness, Labour must look to the wider public and move to a more pluralistic form of doing politics.
Sam Murphy @Murphys_Law19
Student and Labour party activist, South Staffordshire District council candidate in May.
“Oh, who would ever wanna be King?” Chris Martin of Coldplay wailed out over the Labour conference after Ed Miliband’s acceptance speech as the new leader of our party. And as his elder brother David may now testify, he has a point. After creeping home thanks to our system for electing the leader (the Alternative Vote, which we will probably have to sell to the wider electorate in a referendum), Ed arguably has a far more difficult task ahead of him than his brother would have had, thanks to our hostile media which takes the Blair view that only “a millimetre to the left of new Labour” would spell doom for our electoral prospects.
However, if he is savvy and true to his instincts, Ed can reconcile the interests of working people who face losing their jobs in the eye-watering Con-Dem cuts and charm the “squeezed middle” voters (according to the BBC this week, a wage of £78,000 per annum is somehow middle class) by using the charge that “it was the unions wot won it” to his advantage. If it was indeed the unions who pushed Ed over the fifty per cent threshold rather than there merely being a majority of Labour members who would have preferred him to David – as was the case, when second preferences for the other defeated candidates are accounted for – then Ed can rightly say that the unions cannot rebel against the line he is taking, because they backed him above everyone else after all. This would allow him to present himself as a credible alternative to the coalition; a mature politician who appreciates that there needs to be cuts and it is wrong to oppose for its own sake, but that the way the coalition is going about them is appallingly unfair and regressive in the extreme.
As for the shadow cabinet, it would be a shame and a disaster for the country if recent history were allowed to repeat itself and we ended up with another feud at the top of the party, where the man who assumed he was headed for the top job was usurped at the last minute by a charismatic young contender. I hope that David can stay in the shadow cabinet and serve under his brother, as he is clearly talented and formidable. I hope his backers can live with that and keep quiet.
However, enough post-match analysis. After all, there are jobs and livelihoods at stake; there is a realistic prospect of a market in universities; the NHS is being practically privatised and the police is about to be run by partial and elected commissioners, in an ideological crusade against the welfare state and a sense of community. It is imperative, more than it has ever been since the 1980s, that Labour unites as a party – not old, not new, not next, not anything – and goes on to win the next election. It has the leader, with charm, insight and a sense of social justice; it has the unions on side, most of whom appreciate that strikes unless absolutely necessary get us nowhere; it has an increasing membership and of course the Liberal Democrats, who make life much easier for us by spitting in the face of most of their core supporters. We must not pander to the media and their absurd analysis of “Red Ed” and fraternal hatred, and instead pander to the people.
Luke Jones
Soundbites from BULS members on leadership:
Ken Livingstone wants to push through money-making and environmental reforms that local councils across the country could benefit from.
I don`t live in London, so I don`t care as long as the mayor is Labour. (thanks Ben)
Oona King is a faux labour, über Blairite, war supporting opportunist. And being a Blairite IS a bad thing because he`s a war criminal and didn`t stay true to Labour`s values.
King is the Labour of the future, Ken is the past. Blair never lost an election, and you can`t get anywhere on ideology alone (see: the 1980s). Also let`s wait for the report to conclude on whether or not he`s a criminal.
Blair had a time and place, but now the public want a fresh, more ideological Labour. Go Ed Miliband!
Suzy
I write this, as you all by now are probaby well aware, as a left of centre, card carrying member of the Labour party. And I write this because I am, quite frankly, sick of fellow minded folks trusting this diabolical rag despite it being a paper that is inconsistent, hypocritical and simply, makes no sense whatsoever. Let me take the liberty to explain this to you.
This is, after all, a paper, that after years of supporting the Labour Party decided a week before the last election to support the Liberal Democrats. This it did citing as its motive the Liberal Democrats support for proportional representation (P.R). Yet immediately after the formation of the Con-Dem coalition, some ten days later, this ‘news’paper decides to renounce that support.
That to me does not make sense. Firstly and most simplistically, why drop a party immediately after it gains power for the first time in 60 years, just because it goes into coalition with a party you don’t like. Moreover, The Guardian’s switch is more staggering considering its support for PR (which as I said earlier, was the reason it publically gave for switching its allegiance from Labour to the Lib Dems.) Proportional Representation almost universally leads to the formation of coalitions, so for The Guardian to declare its support for the Lib Dems because of their support for PR, then weeks later to renounce that support because of the Lib Dems going into a coalition, which would be more, not less, likely to occur with PR, is frankly bonkers logic. If the Guardian’s support for the Lib Dems was based on them winning the election outright then it did so contrary to the vast majority of the evidence from polls, most political analysis and was reliant upon a swing that was unlikely even to the most ardent and politically naive Liberal Democrat.
I say this not because I am annoyed at the Guardian switching its support from Labour to the Lib Dems. That genuinely is not my problem. My problem is that the Guardian is repeatedly held up and used by members of the Labour Party or people on the left or in the centre as this beacon for sensible left of centre reporting and analysis. But in reality, this paper is just as unprincipled and flippy floppy in its nature, as any of the red tops or Murdoch press engine. But at least the red tops do not pretend to be sensible.
I don’t like the coalition. I dislike most of its policies, I don’t trust its underlying (largely Conservative) principles and I also don’t believe it is actually as stable and unified in purpose and compromise as is said (though I do not, myself, think this will become apparent for a number of years). But these are politically based, and I would argue very rational reservations for the coalition. My reasoning, even if you do not agree with it, is consistent. The Guardian’s scepticism of the coalition is not sound, consistent or based on anything other than rather politically naive and ill-considered malice. Yet despite this people on the left continue to quote it and rely upon it ad nauseum, believing, as I said, it to be a principled and consistent proponent of the ‘progressive’ wing of politics.
So I implore any self-respecting left or centrist person with an interest in political journalism which is not sensationalist but fair, sensible not senseless, to read the Independent, not the Guardian. Even the Telegraph, though a right-wing paper with which I have many disagreements, is at least consistent and sensible in what it says, even if I disagree with it. If you want a challenge, rather than mindless spouting, read that. But do not quote the Guardian pretending that it is anything other than TWADDLE!
By Sean Woodcock
In BULS, we’re mature enough to dole out criticism and praise where it is due and with the recent release of Lord Mandelson’s Memoirs “The Third Man”, it seems both are present here to one of the founding architectures of ‘New’ Labour. As business secretary, I personally believe Mandy did a brilliant job, the car scrappage scheme was one of the most successful parts of the economic stimulus package brought in after the wake of the financial crisis. His emphasis on a new high tech industries and manufacturing and his ardent support of the Regional Development Agency were just what the country needed in times of economic hardship.
However, Brown’s former adviser Charlie Whelan said “Peter ran the worst general campaign in Labour’s history,” Whelan told the Sunday Telegraph, “Nobody knew what the message was at all. It was a disaster from beginning to end.”. In this instance, how right he was. Now admittedly, I haven’t paid much attention to previous election campaigns, but the 2010 campaign was abysmal. Yes, we were just emerging from a recession and had a leader with a “radio face”, but frankly the campaign did not help. The press-conferences completely lacked any excitement and it seemed Brown was held back by Mandy. The latter we know given Brown’s firebrand speech near the end of the campaign, after Mandy was relinquished of some duties.
To be frank, there was no clear message, let us hope this is not the case in 2015.
Max
Recently elected to the new constituency of South Luxton and Wetfield, Jim Garner is the latest candidate to join the Labour leadership race.
He’s running a hi-tech grass-roots campaign, with a website, twitter and facebook groups already up and running.
Jim brushes aside those who question his maturity and experience, saying that he is “Secretary of State for Understanding Normal People in the Cabinet of Life”.
Without criticising the others who are running he declares himself to be the “choice candidate”, on friendly terms with Ed Balls but disagreeing with David Miliband over favourite snacks.
Thanks to Jim the contest should be getting a whole lot more interesting.
Suzy
The new ConDem cabinet is 26% female. I didn’t really expect any better, especially since Gordon Brown’s cabinet after the expenses cull was reduced to the same poor proportions.
But why are no women running for the Labour leadership?
Yvette Cooper recently stated her intention not to stand due to the demands of juggling such a responsible job with the demands of a young family of three children.
Q. Where is the father of these children?
A. Running for leadership
I think the women in the party could learn a thing or two from BULS, and especially from Louise, Dora, Pippa and Brigid. Maybe things will change when we get to Westminster in a couple of years time!
In the meantime, I’ll not be supporting Ed Balls.
Suzy
Bowing to the judgement of the electorate, and in a dignified and timely manner, Gordon Brown has resigned as PM. As he refused to back a candidate for the Party leadership, so he refused to mention Clegg or Cameron, instead telling the waiting cameras how much he has enjoyed the opportunity to do good that his job has offered, and how much he’s looking forward to focussing on being a husband and father.
BULS pays tribute to his many years of devoted service, his economic prowess and his honest and heartfelt efforts to improve the lot of the British people and the world’s poorest.
As for the new coalition government, my feelings are summed up in this pithy poem:
Roses are red,
Labour are too
We were right when we warned them
Vote yellow get blue
But here’s to making the most of opposition. Here’s to laughing in the face of compromise and putting our Labour values first. Here’s to spending more time and effort in constituencies and local government. Here’s to doing everything we can to make this time count. And here’s to getting back in as soon as the electorate deems us worthy.
Suzy
Labour had 191 women PPCs prior to this election, which has translated into 81 women MPs – 31% of Labour MPs.
For comparison:
Labour had 101 women MPs in 1997, 24% of the total.
And the tories in 2010?
48 women MPs. 15% of the total.
Labour have also provided parliament with its first 3 muslim women MPs – Rushanara Ali of Bethnal Green and Bow, Yasmin Qureshi of Bolton South East and Shabana Mahmood of our very own Birmingham Ladywood!
And 12 other black or ethnic minority MPs – Diane Abbott kept Hackney North and Stoke Newington, Keith Vaz kept Leicester East, Marsha Singh of Bradford West, Sharma Virendra of Ealing Southall, Gavin Shuker of Luton South, Khalid Mahmood of our own Birmingham Perry Barr, the great David Lammy of Tottenham, Sadiq Khan of “yes we Khan” fame and Tooting, Mark Hendrick of Preston, Anas Sarwar of Glasgow Central, Chuka Umunna of Streatham and Dr Chinyelu Susan Onwurah of Newcastle Central.
That’s 5.8% of Labour MPs. We’re almost there on representation, at least as regards sex and ethnicity!
So proud to be Labour. Our party prioritises equality. You can’t say fairer than that.
Suzy
Last night saw many BULS members watching the results as they came in the new Joe’s Bar. Whatever you thought of the results, it was a great atmosphere. BUCF were nowhere to be found, but it was heard they were in a Suite in the Radisson Hotel, down with the students of course.
Anyways, the results were rather mixed as BULS members were met with as many disappointments as well as reliefs. Unfortunately, the likes of Jacqui Smith, Charles Clark and that Labour is no longer the single largest party were disappointments, but the fact that no seat in Birmingham turned blue and the likes of Ed Balls didn’t lose his seat is a huge conciliation. Yes, it’s not Labour best night but with so many local MPs staying red and given 9 months ago the Tories were heading for a landslide meant that this hung Parliament was a huge improvement.
BULS can also draw comfort from Wales where Labour only lost a handful of seats, in Scotland Labour’s share of the vote even rose by 3%, loosing not a single seat and containing the Tories to their sole seat and Labour has marge large gains in the local elections that were held on the same day.
In other words, disappointing but it could have been far worse.
Max
This is it, the final crunch…and push. If you wish to secure the recovery, protect frontline services and clean up politics, vote Labour. If you want dangerous dogma to cause a double dip recession, a DIY public service system and a slashing of the schools budget and police numbers, then vote Tory. So please today, don’t be swayed by flashy posters and airbrushed leaders, vote for substance and experience with Labour and together we can fight for your future.
Max
Firstly I’d like to thank BULS for electing me to the post of director of social media. Otherwise I would never have joined Twitter and therefore never have been made aware of who Philippa Stroud is and what she stands for. 36 hours after the story broke on the front page of the Observer all other major papers (apart from the Telegraph which played it down) and even the BBC have maintained a deafening silence on the issue. Ken Livingstone raised the issue on the Daily Politics show and was hushed up by the presenters.
But it’s been trending #1 on Uk twitter for 24 hours, the facebook event “Lets help Philippa Stroud get better” has 62 members and the facebook group “If Cameron cares an ounce about LGBT people, he’ll sack Philippa Stroud” has 1,544 members and counting.
This is big news, and it’s simply not being reported by the Murdoch press. The silence of the BBC, to whom, according to Stonewall UK the LGBT community contribute £190 million annually in license fees on this issue is shameful.
So what has Philippa Stroud done?
Having stood as a Conservative PPC in Ladywood Birmingham in 2005 she is now standing for Sutton and Cheam in South London. In 1989 she founded the King’s Arms Project – a Christian night shelter offering counselling to drug addicts, alcoholics, and LGBT people. She believed homosexuality was caused by demons, and could be cured by prayer and exorcism.
There has been no statement of apology or explanation from the Conservative party or David Cameron, Philippa Stroud herself having issued a statement which leaves lots of questions unanswered: ”I make no apology for being a committed Christian. However, it is categorically untrue that I believe homosexuality to be an illness and I am deeply offended that The Observer has suggested otherwise. I have spent 20 years working with disturbed people who society have turned their back on and are not often supported by state agencies; drug addicts, alcoholics, the mentally ill and the homeless that I and my charitable friends in the public sector have tried to help over the years. The idea that I am prejudiced against gay people is both false and insulting.“
She refused to comment on whether she believes LGBT people can be cured by the power of prayer, and whether she includes them under her definition of “disturbed people” or the “mentally ill”. She may not be prejudiced against the LGBT community in that she would treat them the same as anyone else suffering from demon possession, but is clearly not pro-liberation.
As a member of the New Frontiers Church of which her husband is a minister she has also pledged to: “be subservient to the wishes of my husband in all things” and submit to “male servant leadership and joyful female submission” – a remarkable attitude for a prospective female MP. I wonder what her views on abortion, same-sex civil partnerships and LGBT adoption are? And when it became OK for the state and religion to cross over in this manner?
For a full briefing of the recent LGBT gaffes committed by the Tories see http://issacgreaves.eu/attackoftheclones/
The public have a right to demand proper coverage, proper investigation and a proper apology or some heads on plates. Instead we have 768 google hits for Gillian Duffy , and only 9 for Philippa Stroud.
My only comfort is that she probably won’t get elected because the constituency in which she’s standing has a strong and popular Lib Dem MP Paul Burstow who is standing for re-election.
Suzy
I would’ve blogged on this sooner, but been busy lately. Well the final debate went rather well. Being held in the Aston Webb building at the very University of Birmingham meant that many BULS members were interviewed by news companies on TV and radio, including BBC West Midlands, Sky News (shudder) and famously a group of us had one with Channel 4 (unfortunately, only 20 seconds and only Michael Brownlee and James Arnold spoke in it).
On the actual debate itself, while I personally think Brown didn’t do AS well as last week. On the upside though, there were two locations for watching the debate on campus, Joe’s Bar (where BUCF were giving out their goody bags, despite not actually being allowed to do) and a screen on the Rugby Pitch and there was a hugely ANTI-Cameron feeling with a HIGHLY pro-Brown and to a lesser extent pro-Clegg feeling. And my Brown did well; Clegg was still spouting his criticisms of Brown and Cameron as the “other two” and the “old parties” which while worked in the first debate is a huge bore and turn off in the debate and Cameron completely failed to justify why he would give a £200,000 give a way to the 3000 richest families while cutting child tax credits for those earning £20,000 a year.
Also, Brown was interviewed by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight and he did extremely well I personally think. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8655562.stm
Max
BULS was on the news following the unveiling of the new posters in Birmingham, Ladywood constituency.
We met and shook hands with much of the cabinet. Tom Duffy even got a thumbs up from the dark lord Mandy himself.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007mplc
Skip to 2 minutes 40 seconds in.
Gotta remember tho – it’s not all about grabbing the headlines and meeting the most powerful people in Britain. The hard graft starts now! And we’re back out on the doorstep. 6 days people!
Suzy
Borrowed from the Audacity of Pope:
http://www.youtube.com/user/AudacityPope#p/u/8/lDs-WyaQNRo
Brilliant.
Good effort today BULS – 35 door to door contacts and many more leaflets out in Edgbaston, some real troopers (Kieran, Max and Luke I’m looking at you) stayed til the bitter end on the phone! Well done everyone!
Lucky we’ve all got election fever given this weather 
Suzy
As someone on the BBC website said regarding the ‘Bigoted woman’ comment:
“My guess is that 9 out of 10 politicians say things like Mr Brown said once they believe they no longer on air.
We say that we want politicians to be more honest and say what they really believe, but they all know that if they did so, they would never win an election. Politicians are immersed in politics and have a much deeper understanding than the average member of the public, and almost all must be frustrated on occasions, by the naivety of the some members of the public, especially those that rely on the “red top” press for their information.”
—
Absolutely.
It was an embarassing outburst but I think all of the leaders will have said something unpleasant about people they have met in this campaign. The only difference is that they have not been caught.
Can I ask why people are surprised about a politician saying one thing about someone then another the next minute? A Politician, two faced? Fancy that! Next you will be telling me the world is spherical… Hardly news really is it? It comes with the job, and is sometimes, quite frankly necessary. Do you expect Gordon Brown or David Cameron or Nick Clegg to say what they really think next time they meet an Iranian leader or the head of some banana republic with no human rights? No, of course not. They all have to act smooth and cozy up to people, pretending they like them when in reality they dislike and disdain them, and this almost certainly applies to the public as much as other leaders.
As any experienced political canvasser will tell you, you often encounter people on the doorstep who are, quite frankly, idiots. But no political canvasser ever tells them. In fact, how often does a canvasser stand and talk to someone, feigning to agree or listen to them despite long before thinking that they know absolutely nothing. I would wager, more often than they care to admit.
Gordon Brown is almost certainly no different to Clegg and Cameron in that regard. The only difference is, he got caught doing it.
May I ask how often do some of these very journalists who are now criticising Brown write about the general public in a way that is condescending and demeaning whether talking about reality tv shows, football crowds or voter apathy? I very rarely see these people apologising for things they say, yet Brown does and is still jumped on for it.
To these people who say that Brown can’t stand people who have a different opinion to himself can I ask: who genuinely doesn’t resent other people having different opinions to them? We all do, even if only a little bit. It’s a perfectly human reaction. The difference with Brown is, he gets more emotional about it than other people do, and, again, he got caught. If Gordon Brown could not work or cope with people of a different opinion to himself, I don’t think he would have got anywhere in politics or anywhere else for that matter.
Hence I believe it was the outburst of a tired, man who is low on confidence and who was frustrated at not being able to talk to someone as he wanted to and who thought he would look bad as a result. It does not justify what he said about the lady at all, and he absolutely should have apologised for it, but it can explain it.
Cameron and Clegg are naturally more appealing and better at dealing with ordinary members of the public in a way that Gordon Brown is not. I think Gordon knows he is not good at that sort of thing and so I think that is why his campaign previously was focused on him in more controlled circumstances. I think the debates have shown he can win arguments, but he struggles to win debates, because he is not necessarily the warmest or most congenial of people. I think when he is with people of a different opinion, he is not good at off the cuff debates and in discussions with people. He is better with facts and figures in hand persuading people by the force of argument and by substance. Cameron and Clegg win hands down on charisma and people skills. But being congenial and good with people is not the only aspect to being a good leader.
I think he acted the way he did because it was a situation which he is not comfortable in and which he as a result felt nervous about. He then, for whatever reason, assume dit had gone badly because he knows it is not his strength. Hence where the outburst came from.
To use an example from the world of sport, Sir Alex Ferguson (and Brian Clough) both have been reported as having severe problems in expressing their opinions and acting in haste when angry. They are, however, two of the most successful managers in history. To use the example of history Winston Churchill had terrible anger problems, disagreed with people left right and centre and hated people who disagreed with him. He is also widely reputed to have treated his staff terribly. He was also naturally shy, stammered, had a lisp and did, on occasion, fall out with members of the public. Adolf Hitler bought his staff flowers and cake and was regarded as a kindly boss. He was one of the most brilliant speakers the world has ever seen and was beloved by virtually all who came across him to the extent that many of his closest aides continued to worship him after his death and died for him.
That is what I am trying to highlight. There is more to a leader than how they are with the public and with their staff. There is their principles, their judgement and their politics and that is what I hope people will judge them on.
By Sean Woodcock
Labour’s first attack ad of the campaign with three poignant points: Scrapping most child tax credits and baby bonds and what I personally find disgusting, scrapping your right to see a cancer specialist within two weeks.
Max
Last night saw the second ever televised Leaders Debate which was held in Bristol on Sky News. What can be said that from the polls it was a tight result with most putting Clegg narrowly ahead. However, a more specific ICM poll that asked ‘Who would you consider the best potential PM of the three?’ put Brown at 35%, Cameron 33% and Clegg 26%. Brown is also regarded the most decisive figure at 38%, Cameron on 33% and Clegg 25%. Finally, Brown again is regarded as the most respected global figure on 44%, Cameron on 34% and Clegg on 20%, so quite evidently a definite improvement on Brown’s performance.
Personally, Clegg did perform well but unlike the first debate he never had the opportunity to distance himself from the other two and come across as the only one answering the questions. This is clearly due to both Brown and Cameron learning from their mistakes from the last debate. Again, the less said about Cameron the better, he literally re-wrote his manifesto when it came to eye tests, but also if you were to ever watch Cameron at any campaign event he does (while obviously lacking substance) have a way with connecting with the audience, but over the last two debates he has completely failed to use this strength.
Max
Last night saw history in the making in British politics, the first ever televised leaders debate was held on ITV. The main focus of the debate was on domestic affairs covering immigration, cleaning up politics, crime, education and the NHS.
Now in terms of answering the questions, connecting with audience (whether in studio or at home) and expressing his views, the debate was easily won by Nick Clegg. It would have been highly surprising if Brown had won on those particular areas, given his ‘radio face’. However, when it came to substance and detail, Brown was the clear winner as reflected on the likes of Facebook and Question that followed the debate on BBC1 and simply the fact that detail is Brown’s strength.
The less said about Dave the better who mentioned his token ‘black person’ friend, regarded China as dangerous as Iran and completely failed to answer Brown’s questions on comittment to spending on law and order and education.
The next debate is to be held on Thursday the 22nd April on Sky News, which will focus upon International Affairs. I personally will be looking forward to watching Dave receive questions on his allies in the European Parliament.
Max
For the newbies and the forgetful:
- The Midlands is historically the main battle-ground of the general election, many of the constituencies are swing seats.
- You, yes YOU! Are probably living in either the Edgbaston or Selly Oak constituencies right now!
- This election is likely to prove very tough for Gisela Stuart, who is campaigning for her fourth term in a traditionally Tory area
- UofB’s very own Brigid Jones is campaigning hard for election as a local councillor in Selly Oak
- Steve Mccabe is the other big name to be watching people! PPC for Selly Oak 
- If you can spare time for any of these wondeful candidates then do it! Voter canvassing and leaflet delivering is going on at this very moment!
- Only 23 days to go til the election!
Let’s go fourth!
The new Labour party manifesto video. Almost as good as http://bulsonline.org/2010/03/11/the-worlds-greatest-political-party-broadcast/ me thinks.
Max
This is Labour’s first party election broadcast of the 2010 general election. Now while I think the message may be a tad on the negative (don’t change at such a fragile moment, which is fair enough though) but does reflect how effectively the collective efforts that have been implemented across the world, supported by most economists and major independent financial bodies (such as the IMF and the CBI) where seemingly opposed by the likes of the Conservatives in such a crucial time. Judgement is a fundamental aspect of government and in the words of Alistair Darling on George Osborne in an interview in the Guardian not too long ago (more or less), “George’s judgement is rather poor. You would have thought a shadow Chancellor would get something right.”
Max
Today, PM Gordon Brown went to see HM Queen Elizabeth II to request a dissolution of Parliament which she consented to. So begins probably the most important election in a generation. Substance will be pitted against style and judgement against opportunism. Personally, I found it rather fitting that Brown announced the election alongside his cabinet stating he is “not a team of one, but one of a team.” which is in stark contrast to Dave’s oh so modest posters of his airbrushed self.
This has to be one of the most exciting times to be a Labour activist. BULS I can tell is keen to get stuck in with many key constituencies in the West Midlands. Our two local candidates are Giesla Stuart (Edgbaston) and Steve McCabe (Selly Oak).
There are few BULS members still in Brum so if you ever want to help out with BULS just email into committee@bulsonline.org or if you can’t, get out there and get involved in your local CLP!
Max
Found probably on youtube the funniest and most ridiculous party political broadcast ever. But oh so brilliant!
Max
As this article shows (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7054655.ece), polling in the key marginal seats is essentially, neck and neck with occasionally Labour pulling ahead to a o.6% margin, while this is certainly not much it is far better than it was about 6 months ago.
But what has gone wrong for the Tories, throughout most of 2009 they were often polling around a 15% lead, this has been drastically slashed to around 6% now and because the FPTP system heavily favours Labour (the great irony of Tory opposition to the proposed AV system) it would mean the Tories would only just be the largest party in a hung Parliament by 3 or so seats. There are a number of reasons I believe for this decline:
Obviously, these past 2 months for Dave have not been his best, Ashcroft non-dom revelation, changing tack on spending cuts, 3 times getting the statistics wrong (crime, teenage pregnancy rates and the number of votes cast at the last election). But, I personally think there is one simple reason, they have got complacent, the Tories believe they will be able to just waltz into No. 10 and in doing so have not made the policies bomb-proof (so to speak) for when the spotlight was turned upon them. Back in 1997, New Labour feared Major and the government and so they ran a highly tight campaign, not leaving room for error. This is the Tory’s greatest failure, underestimating Labour.
Max
Well, it’s begun, for Labour now at least. The slogan “A future fair for all” has come under criticisms that it’s a recycled slogan, but well if you come from the right, “A year for change” is certainly not linked to anything any other political candidate has used in the past oh let’s say…2 years.
A number of BULS made the trip to Coventry to see Brown make his speech (it’s also been heard good old former BUC”F” president DOD was there to heckle the PM) in which undoubtedly they will come back with a greater resolve, particularly given the recent poll narrowing. Brown also said Labour’s “secret weapon” would be its “beliefs” and the election would be won not on “who has the best PR” but on “values”, well hopefully this will be the case as we are certainly the PR “underdogs”.
Max
