Birmingham University Labour Students

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suzy

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.

To be brutally honest, when this whole phone hacking milarky began to come out 6, 9 months ago I really couldn’t care that much. But now, truly, everything has changed. The biggest circulatory newspaper of all time is being dropped, Andy Coulson has been arrested, murder and soldier victim families phones being tapped and quite frankly, the media will never truly be the same again.

So what can we identify and salvage from this wreckage? Well first off to get you in a good mood only Ed Miliband’s finest performance as Labour leader to date by being the first to call for enquiries, the first to call for the axing of the PCC, the first to call for Rebekah Brook’s resignation and the first to demand the transfer of the BSkyB bid to the competition commission. Ultimately, this is a welcome overcoming of fear of the Murdoch empire. Too long has a US-based media tycoon dictated overarching control over Britain. Don’t get me wrong, Labour’s hands are far from clean when it came to dealing with the tycoon master, but this is a major break not just for Labour but for British Politics as one major political force cuts it’s links with the media empire it feared. Miliband despite his fine performance recently has to be careful as already a senior Miliband aid received a “very hostile” threat, not veiled at all, from a News International journalist warning: “You have made it personal about Rebekah, so we’ll make it personal about you.”.

This break for British politics is all very well but it depends on Cameron following suit, which he has so far shown to be unwilling. It is clear that Camero also fears the monopoly and is too entwined in the spider’s web of Murdoch’s empire to truly break free. It was Cameron’s decision to bring in Coulson fresh from News of the World not only in to his team while in opposition but as Director of Communications in No. 10 despite an uneasy background record and he has paid dearly for this judgement. Let’s hope Cameron can make the right decision over the BSkyB deal as this is truly the real prize in all this chaos.

For Murdoch to jettison the very paper that brought him into the British media it seems that he realised the true potential of BSkyB. Newspapers are in decline, the future is the internet and TV. Sky’ revenue is already greater than the BBC’s which combined with his remaining papers would place Murdoch beyond reach of any rival media circles and organisations. With this power he could begin to truly cripple one of Britain’s greatest institutions, the BBC. Any chance that Sky would remain a fully bias free organisation is impossible given Murdoch’s record with the Times, the Sun, the NoW and Fox News over in the USA.

We’ve made our move, it’s time for Cameron to follow suit and do the right thing and remove this poison from British politics once and for all.

Max

The papers today report that Education Secretary Michael Gove is asking school leaders to recruit members of the “wider school community” to take over the job of teachers striking on Thursday, the implication being that it is better for parents and governors to take classes for one day then see the school close. Aside from the bad logic that if the main aim is keeping the school open so as not to incovenience working parents, then there won’t be any parents available to teach Henry VIII’s six wives, this policy demonstrates the Big Society is a means of undermining unionised labour as well as a cover for cuts. The only positive thing that could come of this ludicrous suggestion is that parents who do act as supply teacher on 30th June may get some idea of just how difficult a profession teaching really is.

Further to my blog a few weeks back, “Unite Behind the Unions”, Ed Miliband and Ed Balls are still pandering to the right-wing media by warning the unions that striking would be unwise and counter-productive, while Tony Blair on the BBC’s Politics Show today refused to be drawn on any domestic policy issues, except to say that the unions are small ‘c’ conservatives who should learn to ‘modernise’, whatever that means. But then Blair never pretended to be on their side.

I do not dispute the fact that pensions need to be reformed in line with the ageing population and gender equality, while many in the private sector would be dancing all the way to the bank if they had pension schemes like those of some public servants; nevertheless what is going on at present smacks of the 1980s, and the threats of changes to union legislation mooted by Gove are deeply worrying.

Back in 2008 the Institute of Fiscal Studies concluded that the 2.5% cut in VAT that year was an effective tax-cutting stimulus measure particularly for consumers. Now since the welcome rise in retail spending by 1.1% in April there has been a complete reversal of that fortune with retail spending dropping by 1.4% in May. In the light of the recent figures (yup we can flexible, unlike some) Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls has called on for an emergency tax cut and another repeat of the one off tax on Bankers bonuses to raise £2bn of which most would go towards creating 25,000 affordable homes which is still a pressing problem after a decade of rising house prices.

Now this is quite important as much as I personally am a fan of the two Eds, we do need to create a very very broad economic narrative before the policy review is completed. And this is a good and welcome first step.

Max

Right this had to be cleared up. As you probably know the Telegraph recently published leaked documents on Ed Balls’ role in the Gordon Brown’s camps attempt to oust Blair. It seems from the documents that Balls was a primary agitator in the attempts to demand a leaving date from Blair and presenting Brown as a Prime Minister in waiting……..well is any of this new? Of course not! Will it effect his ability to do his job as Shadow Chancellor? Again, of course not! Will it mean Balls will follow a similar path to his former master, Brown and attempt to oust Ed Miliband? Of course not as unlike Blair and Brown, Balls and Miliband actually ran against each other in the leadership election which was conclusively resolved (if you exclude disgruntled sore-loser supporters of David Miliband). And frankly, Labour is far beyond the petty squabbles of the Blair-Brown and is a largely united force unlike after losing power in the 1950s and 1980s. So all of this is totally irrelevant, we have moved on.

There’s also accusations that Balls alongside Brown ignored warnings and continued spending increases well above inflation and so further created a deficit before the crash of 2008. Come off it! These claims were directed around the year of 2006….when Balls was merely a back-bench MP. Of course you have to remember this is coming from the Telegraph and these claims have jumped on by particularly Michael Gove. This is all very well, but Gove fails to mention that Gideon was committed rigorously to Labour’s spending plans up until the 2008 crash and that on the eve of the 2008 crash Brown had a lower deficit than he had inherited back in 1997 as Chancellor.

Max

This week, the ominously-titled Business Secretary, Vince Cable, quickstepped down to Brighton to address the conference of the GMB Union, and calmly warned delegates, in no uncertain terms, that they can either lay back and take the savage cuts from the coalition government or face the consequences, which will take the form of more draconian anti-union legislation than even Maggie could dream of.

The coalition’s plans to pre-empt any upcoming Seasons of Discontent include only allowing official strike action to be valid where over 50 percent of members vote to withdraw their labour. This despite the fact that turnout in May’s AV referendum was only 42 percent; if the rules being drawn up for the unions were applied to that particular plebiscite we would now be going through that shambles of a campaign all over again. Perish the thought.

However over the last twelve months we have come to expect this sort of hypocritical posturing from the government, aimed at punishing the ordinary working man and woman for the 30-year poker game that took place in the City of London. We have even got used to the fact the the Liberal Democrats are happy to do all the dirty work while the Tories get on with the more important matters of screwing up the NHS, the Royal Mail, higher education and so on.

What is most worrying is the deafening silence coming from the Labour party over the last week.

It seems Ed Miliband, frightened by the response of the reactionary media after his speech at the March for the Alternative in Hyde Park earlier this year, has taken cover in the vain hope that all will blow over and the coalition will make itself so unpopular by 2015 that he will be swept to number 10 to save the day. It is not going to blow over. The Con-Dems will continue on their crusade against the public sector in the coming years, and can be forgiven for believing they have no effective opposition – when the only public figure speaking up for public sector workers is the Archbishop of Canterbury, you know Labour is in a bit of a pickle.

It’s time we got over the 1983, defeatist attitude and spoke up for ordinary working people who face falling wages, living standards and an uncertain future. This does not mean retreating into an unelectable, hard-left cocoon; it means not forgetting those who founded the Labour party in the first place over a century ago.

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.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not the biggest fan of the Head of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, but I do recognise he still know (at the very least) a fair bit about the economy. Now one of the reasons why there has been such little apathy or support for the cuts so far is that the Coalition has been always been able to simply say “Well we are just cleaning up the mess left by the previous Labour government.” which I can say if repeated as often as they do say, does make an impact and it does stick with you. But, that may well about to change.

Although he supports the Coalition’s current policies to cut the deficit (which I’ll disagree with, rightly so), he also over last weekend during the Tory’s spring conference in Wales stated that the real reason for the deficit was in fact not because of the last Labour government. Rather, like what we have been saying for the past two and a half years it was the fault of the banks and more stingingly of all that the action taken to address the financial crisis, in 2008 and 2009, “prevented a repetition of the Great Depression”.

Yes that’s right, the Governor of the Bank of England stated that 1. the deficit is not the fault of the last Labour government and 2. the economic stimulus was the right thing to do. If you’ve watched Question Time result over the last few weeks, the ‘deficit blame game’ is really not working.

Max

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

As I noticed on the BUCF blog today, they have made their position clear on the upcoming referendum, no guesses what side. Now this is the first nation-wide referendum since the 1975 referendum on whether the UK should stay in the EEC, but, BULS officially doesn’t have an opinion on the matter. Now unlike the Lib Dems Youth Society and BUCF, BULS is a far broader church in regards to electoral reform with all forms of voting being supported by individual members, FPTP, AV, AV+ and STV. However, I’m pleased to officially announce that this may well change, as on (probably) the 24th March BULS will have an internal debate and vote on the direction of support for the referendum with “Yes”, “No” and “Neither” being BULS’ final decision on the referendum (ironically using an AV system). This blog is where I’ll put the case for a “Yes” vote for BULS.

One of the great myths of AV is that it fails to produce strong and stable governments. If you look to Australia  and its AV system since 1910 there have been only two hung Parliaments, 1940 and 2010. Comparing this to the UK’s FPTP system where we have had hung Parliaments twice in 1910, 1929, February 1974 and 2010, not to forget almost hung Parliaments in 1950, 1964 and October 1974. While in Canada where they also use FPTP, there are more less permanent hung Parliaments.

The second is that people who vote for minor parties get two votes, which simply fails to acknowledge one of the simple aspects of AV. Candidates who are eliminated also have any first preference votes they received eliminated also. So no, people can’t vote twice.

And thirdly is that AV is not tried and tested unlike FPTP. For those in the “No” camp from the Tory party who fail to remember that AV (or at least a similar form of it) was used in the 2005 leadership election and if FPTP had been used, David Davis would have been elected leader of the Conservative party. AV is also used to elect people in charities, businesses, trade unions and even MPs electing their speaker. Hypocrisy is consequently laid bare for some politicians and political party members who oppose the referendum.

AV represents a change to end tactical voting, MPs appealing to a narrow section of their constituents and wasted votes. I’ll be voting “Yes” on March the 24th and May the 5th, I hope you can do the same on at least the latter.

Max

p.s. This is my 200th blog(!) making ‘Ramsay’s F Word’ the largest single category on the BULS website!

Growth stalling, inflation rising and unemployment rising, for all the Tories comparison themselves and 1979 coming in “to clean up Labour’s mess”, it seems this government more reflects the 1970s than did Labour. Now, in BULS we’re wise enough to recognise that this ‘stagflation’ is not due to the cuts (as they are still yet to take fully effect yet) but rather the ending of Darling’s economic stimulus.

Up until the growth figures came out last month I personally very much doubted that the UK would actually slip into a full blown double-dip recession, but rather ‘bump along the bottom’. Since these figures have been produced, I fear there is a very good chance now. If this continues and even if worsens when the cuts bite (which I have a feeling they will do) Labour will have the sad duty of saying “don’t say we didn’t warn you” as throughout the election we campaigned to keep investment in the economy until 2011. But, I hope for the sake of the people of Britain, that day never comes.

Max

It was only very recently brought to my attention that the West Midlands Labour Students region has the honour of welcoming another Labour Students Club to its ranks. The University of Wolverhampton (or Wolverhampton University, not sure which) Labour Students. This brand spanking new society has already received under a 100(!) new members even though only being set up in December. That is nothing less that phenomenal work.

WULS (like BULS, a shortened name) like us has set up their own website (http://wolveslabourstudents.wordpress.com/) which we as the only Labour Students blog to reach the Top 100 Total Politics Labour blogs of 2010 will encourage and nurture. Ultimately, recent ties we have made will help create the great ‘West Midlands Network’ Chair-elect, Dan Harrison, is so keen to create with the already advertising event of an International Women’s day event in early March (me thinks) at Wolverhampton University.

We wish them best of luck and hope to work closely alongside our comrades in Wolverhampton.

Max

As I haven’t blogged in a while, and looming essay deadlines have delayed a number of crudely started blogs, I thought I’d share a picture I took during the 2010 election. My hometown of Eastbourne was considered a fairly safe Tory seat until 2005, when tactical voting turned it into a Tory-Lib Dem marginal. 2010 saw it turn a sickly shade of orange as even more tactical voting brought the Lib Dems narrowly to power. This is exactly the sort of seat where Labour can really hit the Con-Dem coalition in the upcoming council elections. To take seats, or even just to push incumbent candidates close, in areas where Labour was non-existent in 2010, would see a lot of shaky knees in the Liberal Democrats, and the Tories too.

"Jeremy, what do we like again?" "Check the sign dear" "Oh yes; money."

But on a light hearted note, if you want to see just how dispirited local Tories were in Eastbourne, when it became obvious they were going to lose, just look at this photo. They even had to persuade themselves to vote!

Jake

Now, I’m not going to focus on Alan Johnson, Suzy has already dealt with that, but I just like to say he’ll be surely missed from the front-line politics.

Anyway, we move onto Johnson’s successor, Ed Balls. Now to many Tories, they will regard this as a late Christmas present. The well oiled Tory party machine has already been making well-directed attacks towards Gordon Brown’s former chief economic’s adviser and playing at his past which was so intertwined with the Blair-Brown feud. Yes, Balls was a major figure during the feuds, but as a wise Baboon once said “Oh yes, de past can hurt. But the way I see it you can either run from it, or learn from it.” (the wise Baboon being Rafiki from the Lion King……..BULS draws wisdom from many walks of life). Yes, Balls’ part in the feud was far from his finest hour and many of the economic policies did contribute to the financial crisis (will come back to the latter part later). But, this is a time for Balls in particular to shape his own image and reputation. As Shadow Chancellor, with his deep knowledge of economics, he will be able to establish at least a broad thinking idea of Labour’s alternative and most likely rip Gideon to shreds in the process (I particularly like the idea of the latter).

With growth beginning to slow, inflation and unemployment rising, there has been no better time to be an “attack dog”. But the Tory-led Coalition is quick point out the failures of economic policy Labour made. We did make great progress under ‘New’ Labour, but we also made grave mistakes. But, to counter the Tory-party machine, we do need strong responses in order as well as humility about our record. When Cameron (or indeed anyone) criticises Labour failing to regulate the banks, quote back Gideon and Cameron’s years of calling for further de-regulation. And when Cameron claims Labour’s spending caused the deficit, don’t forget to remind them that Conservative spending policies before the 2008 crash would have rigidly stuck to Labour’s. The Tory-lead Coalition’s deceit cannot last forever and hopefully, Ed Balls can dispel the rhetoric as soon as.

Max

A couple of thoughts…

Firstly, I genuinly believe that Johnson´s reasons are personal because he has a good relationship with Mili-E, and there have been no recent big revelations about changes to budget policy that could have worried him enough to resign.

Secondly fears of Balls-Miliband repeat of the Brown-Blair power struggle are groundless and unnecessary. There´s no secret agreement or deal, and having Cooper on the front bench is likely to make the pairing more stable.

Thirdly Miliband has shown brilliant and decisive leadership. Any surprise at his not offering chancellor to his brother is misplaced, David´s made it clear that he does not wish to be a member of the cabinet this term.

Fourthly I´m psyched for a Cooper-May standoff, I´m pretty sure Yvette is going to come victorious out of any tussle.

Suzy

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

2010 has been one hell of a hectic year for Labour, nationally and locally. So here’s my review of the year.

So in early 2010 we began with a very slowly (and I mean slowly) improving position (the polls were very slowly narrowing and Brown was beginning to perform a bit better at PMQs). People were beginning to actually question and analyse Tory policy (much to the latter’s own shock).

But of course, we remember the attempted Coup on Brown (http://bulsonline.org/2010/01/06/coup-dstupid/), the less said about that final attempted revolt the better. But apart from that the majority of the first few months of 2010 were focused upon the Tories incomplete and ill thought out policies which were actually being looked at now (again, much to the Tory’s shock). Unfortunately though, Labour failed to properly capitalise upon DC’s inconsistency over marriage-tax breaks, the level of the cuts and even the Lord Ashcroft scandal, etc.

Now I’m not going to lie, despite not exactly being an expert at election campaigns, Labour’s performance in the 2010 campaign was not exactly brilliant. Admittedly, we  didn’t have an Ashcroft of our own, but a daily press conference chaired by Peter Mandelson is not a way to woo the public. Moving onto the leadership debates, apart from the first one, Brown’s performances could have been much worse. He undoubtedly was the most policy detailed, but unfortunately, you need more than sound policy to win Televised debates.

The result that followed was no where near as anyone might have expected a year or two ago. Don’t be deluded though, in terms of share of the vote, Labour’s result was far from satisfactory, with our second worse result since the 1920s. In terms of seats we didn’t do too badly though. But, given that a year or two ago we were literally facing oblivion on a Tory 1997 scale (regularly behind in the polls by 20%+ in 2008 and 10%+ leads in 2009) was nothing less than a complete and utter failure on the part of the Conservatives. Labour locally also managed to retain Selly Oak and most surprising of all, Edgbaston, much to everyone shock (including my own if I’m being honest). Labour also made significant gains in the local elections nationally and slashing the Tory-Lib Dem Coalition in Birmingham Council to a wafer thin majority.

But ultimately, we couldn’t hold onto power, the numbers didn’t add up and the Lib Dems had already decided that they were moving to the Tories. And so ended 13 years of ‘New’ Labour. But, life had to move on and so began the process to replace Gordon Brown. I’m not going to lie, to the wider public, the election wasn’t the most inspiring and enthralling one ever seen and I personally had no love for any of the candidates at the start.

Of course, we all know what happened next. Probably one of the biggest political upsets of the past few years. After being tipped as Brown’s obvious future successor, David Miliband or Miliband the Elder, was pipped by his brother at what seemed to be the final post (quite literally, Miliband the younger became favourite on the very last day). This seems what happens when you underestimate Miliband the younger, you in the end regret you ever did. One of the definite features of Miliband the elder not winning was that the era ‘New’ Labour was finally brought to a close with most notably the Iraq war being deemed wrong. Of course, there has been apparent glee from the Tory ranks that ‘Red-Ed’ is a godsend. But, as mentioned before, be careful not to underestimate your opponents.

But of course, what now you may ask? Without a shred of doubt, Labour does need to formalise a coherent and well though out plan for it’s vision. But, we should be careful not to make the mistakes DC made when he became Tory leader. While DC did a lot to detoxify the image of the Conservative party (hug a hoody, huskies in Norway, etc), he very much failed to change the nature of the Conservative party, which ultimately cost him a landslide victory. Consequently, it’s the long and apparently slow road of renewal for Labour. But come 2015, get ready for the real change and the true optimists of British politics!

Max

It’s always easy to kick someone when they’re down. We all know it and we’ve all done it, metaphorically. Before, it was Gordon Brown and before that it could be argued it was John Prescott. But it seems now it’s the Lib Dems, or more specifically, Nick Clegg (Cleggy). And yes, the 90% of the population (approximately) agree with the “kicking”. Like John Denham (Shadow Business Secretary and now boss of former-BULS Chair, Tom Guise, well done on the job), we should rise above this natural instinct to further lambast Lib Dem MPs and supporters and resist being a “tribal” party. For this is what the true “new” politics, rising above petty point scoring and reaching out to disenchanted voters and MPs in a hope to win them round. On Thursday, the Lib Dem elite threw away any chance of being progressive. With 70% of Lib Dem party members regarding themselves to be on the left, this could not be a more opportune time build a broad progressive church to argue against the real enemy (so to speak).

Now that optimistic note is out of the way, I can now return to being generally p****d off with the government on the whole. How better than to point out cuts to the number of coastguard control centres. A report recently stated that half of the 19 centres could close. That’s right, half of the centres!! The necessity for deep cuts can be argued for (though I’d have to disagree), but cuts to services that literally save lives is downright disgraceful. These centres probably save hundreds of lives every year in some of the harshest conditions known to man (and woman) kind. So to almost half the number of centres is nothing less than a travesty.

I only hope to god that the Coalition rethinks this particular policy.

Max

Great news (well, I think it is personally)! Alan Johnson has decided he will now support a graduate tax. Not only does this mean that Labour can no longer be accused of being disarray over higher education funding, but it means we are presenting the true progressive alternative on higher education funding. A tax that charges more the more you earn, rather than the flat rate level of interest under the proposed system and one that isn’t at completely extortionate levels of £9k a year. Hopefully, this could be the stepping stone to the scrapping of fees entirely in the (hopefully not to distant) future.

And now for the bad news. If you’re not aware already, Educational Maintenance Allowance (EMA) and the Aim Higher Programme are both being scrapped. Now whatever your views on the proposals on the trebling of fees, I will admit, however much I disagree with them, it is an arguable position. But, scrapping EMA and Aim Higher!? These are two bastions of social mobility. Yes I know EMA for one isn’t without its flaws, but to completely scrap it is completely indefensible. When the department that runs EMA messed up a few years ago when I was at College, hundreds of thousands of students nationwide struggle to makes ends meet (really need to look that saying up, could be “meat”) when it came to paper, books, etc or even simply making their way into college.

To put the bad news into context. Even Birmingham University’s Vice-Chancellor, Professor David Eastwood, who was on the Browne committee arguing for higher fees, said at a debate last night that scrapping EMA and Aim Higher was a disgraceful decision. It is an area that has had little coverage given the over-hanging shadow of the tuition fees debate, but it is easily just as important.

Max

The Institute for Government yesterday published what they regarded to be “the most successful policy intervention since 1980″ (http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/pdfs/PSA_survey_results.pdf). So what are the top five you may ask, well I’m pleased to say three out of the top five are directly and solely the result of the last Labour government.

1. The minimum wage
2. Devolution
3. Privatisation
4. Northern Ireland Peace Process (this began under the Thatcher/Major governments but was finished under Labour, so obviously can’t take full credit)
5. Sure start

It’s good to know Labour had a large positive and successful impact despite all it’s flaws over the past thirteen years.

Max

As you may remember, following Vince Cable dropping a potential graduate tax, I claimed that Labour must become the new party of students. Well it seems the students agree. Yougov recently published a poll specifically for students on their voting intentions (http://www.today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/YG-Archives-Pol-ST-Students-261110.pdf) and well, it’s one hell of a swing.

In May the figures were amongst students Lib Dems-45%, Labour-24%, Conservatives-21% and others-10%. As of the survey between the 16th-19th November, the new figures are, Lib Dems-15%(-30%), Labour-42%(+18%), Conservatives-26%(+5%) and others-17%(+7%). So that’s right, the Lib Dems have been pushed into a miserable third place amongst students, -30% in the space of 6 months still shocks me though.

Yougov also asked a poll on government approval, which came to a net approval of -64%. 80% of students thought it was wrong for the Lib Dems to go back on their pledge and also 78% of students oppose the trebling of tuition fees to £9000 a year.

These figures are good for Labour, but we certainly should not take them for granted. And let us hope Labour’s policy review produces a graduate tax so we can retain our place as the new champions for students.

Max

I’m sat in the main auditorium at this year’s Labour Conference at Manchester Central waiting for Ed Miliband to come out and do his first question and answer session as leader of the Labour party. I look around me and it’s not the sight I expected to see. Coming to conference as a new member, I guess I didn’t know really what to expect, in truth, but I got the impression that it wasn’t the place for ordinary members to come to: everyone is in suits! And there was certainly nobody I could see below the age of 25 – quite odd considering I’d been invited by Young Labour as a new member to come along and meet Ed Miliband at some point during the day.

I ignored this feeling and shortly Ed made his way onto the stage with comedian, actor, mad man (for running 43 marathons in 50 days) Eddie Izzard! Now I’d found out were all the young members are, they were all on stage sat behind Ed and Ed. And this turned out to be the theme of the session. It was about grassroots labour for Mili E.

I’m aware that there has been some criticism of Ed in last month or so (and not just from the usual right-wing press may I say!) focused on his lack of voice and of a true alternative to the coalitions devastating cuts. At conference, however, I could tell he knew what he was doing. He understands the task in hand and has a rough idea of how to succeed in it. What he might be lacking is the specific ideas.

And this isn’t a bad thing. I’ll tell you why…

After the Q&A, Ed came along to a room to the side of the hall where 100 new young members had gathered. Also there was the general secretary, Ray Collins. After a short speech by Ed, he dug straight in and wanted to hear our opinions. That simple. He wanted us to highlight the issues young members have. A lot was discussed and as each idea was discussed it felt like real progress was happening right there.

We need a leader that listens. We need a party that listens. Because I think listening became the main factor in the election defeat. Gordon just wasn’t able to listen. If your government doesn’t listen then you aren’t going to vote for them again. Nick and Dave fooled people by saying that they were going to listen to them. People bought it. But now it appears they lied about this (shock much?).

We need members that can shape this party and determine which way it goes. If everything goes to plan, we will win the next general election. It won’t just be Ed that wins the next general election, it will be the unity of the members.

We need to join together and throw out the ‘new labour’ arguments. Every one of us has a slightly different view on past affairs and even current ones. We are never going to agree on everything but let’s agree on the values we share: the ones that protect every member of society; the ones that insure fairness! Because that’s why I joined the party in May.

I don’t think this branding of ‘Red Ed’ is going to stick. I’m personally hoping he’s going to become ‘The People’s Ed’. The leader that actually listens. And I think that’s all we need him to be. Because we can do the rest…

And if it does all start at grassroots level, then it all starts at BULS as well!

I know I’m ready for the fight, are you?

Oliver Cosentino, BULS Member

Ever heard of the website called “LabourList”? No, (forgive me if you have) well it is a grass-roots website, in which nearly all Labour members can contribute to and is essentially the BULS’ website’s “big daddy” and a true bench mark for all Labour affiliated blogs (yes, even the mighty BULS blog is humbled by it’s activity and quality). We should have a link somewhere, but in case you can’t find it- http://www.labourlist.org/

Anyway, a recent survey was published (http://www.labourlist.org/labour-divided-over-av-state-of-the-party—november-2010) on Labour members views on what route the party should take next. The biggest divisive issue had to be support for the AV referendum (42%-against, 33%-for). The next closest issue that divided as much would have to be whether to have primaries to select Labour candidates (for-47%, against-35%) in which I can easily say, isn’t the biggest issue facing the UK.

Although, there were a number of policy areas that Labour members were presented with on whether they would like Labour to pursue more closely. Topping the polls with 78.7% agreement, was taking a harder line on tax avoidance and evasion, which I think is brilliant. Too long has the media focused on “benefit scroungers” which in comparison is a tiny fraction to what the UK looses through tax avoidance and evasion. Also high on the list came rebuilding Labour’s reputation on the economy (64.4%), a National Care Service (62.6% and probably my personal favourite on the list) and making the robin hood tax a reality (61.1%). Coming near the bottom saw online referendums (18.5%), shake up of secondary education, teaching by ability rather than age (21.1%) and employee ownership (31.4%, a mild disappointment personally).

What to make of these figures then? Well one I missed out was that, Ed Miliband, Harriet Harman and the rest of the Shadow Cabinet are still relatively supported (Miliband a mere 12% think he’s doing a poor job, 72.9% think Harman is doing a good job, etc). Also, 65.3% of Labour members believe Labour should adopt an alternative economic model and plan to that of the Coalition’s, which is certainly imperative. Well, it seems that what Labour members want a detailed and clear plan to take on the Coalition (rather than make the mistake of making yourself to vague like Cameron did, which cost him a majority) and an emphasis on what traditionally Labour does best. Taking on the social injustices of the abusive rich in our society and our great compassion, with the hopeful creation of an institution to rival the work of the NHS, a National Care Service.

Max

And wow, my first somewhat optimistic blog in a while. Forgive me, still adjusting to my first ever government that on the whole I’m generally p***ed off with.

“OH SHUT UP!!” are the words I shouted at my laptop screen upon seeing this article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11719438. No, not at Harriet Harman, but at the ludicrously stupid Labour MPs, calling on her to resign after the events of former MP and Minister, Woolas’ expulsion from the Commons.

Harman disowned Woolas for an extremely good reason, he lied, not only that but knowingly, directly to his own constituents whose votes he was trying to win over. If we are trying to represent the true “new” politics, it’s vital that we do not tolerate the “old” and all the negativity and petty points scoring that came with it. Woolas’ decision was his own and yes the Tories may have lied and exaggerated themselves (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11614602), but as the old saying goes, two wrongs don’t make a right. We certainly do not have to stoop to their level.

Max

Osborne announced £81 billion reduction in public expenditure

As George Osborne ploughed through the list of ‘efficiency savings’, it seemed as though he struggled to iterate what he was orchestrating. Almost with a guilty conscience, he reached for his glass of water after every departmental shrinkage plan. The monetary arm of the state is no longer the source of promise that has rescued those trapped on the peripheries of society, it has now turned away. With this it has put the futures of a generation at risk:

• It has forced those who work so diligently to offset their well-earned retirement plans, by increasing the retirement age. This is compounded by a further £3.5 billion worth of contributions that have to be made by public sector workers for their pension schemes.
• The departmental cuts total £46 billion, including 27% from local government, 29% from the environment and 23% from the Home Office.
• It has taken a further £50 a week from those who genuinely claim incapacity benefit, and has stripped another £7 billion from the Welfare budget (the equivalent of £1000 a year from 7 million families) on top of the £11 billion cuts announced previously. Those depending on tax credits and housing benefits will now get a significant amount less or nothing at all.
• 40% cut in Higher Education- stifling the chances of many innovative and bright young people to excel in the world of academia. My thoughts on this are in a previous blog written recently.
• The Ministry of Defence will face an 8% reduction in funding which equates to the loss of 42,000 army personnel or civil servant jobs over the next five years.
• He announced that the commitment to the renovation and new building of social housing will be cut by 60% over the next four years.

The list is endless. To take £81 billion out of the budget through depreciating government spending in the vital services and help that our society necessitates over the next four years is without question showing a complete disregard for the poorest and most vulnerable in society. It is widening the gulf between the top of the social ladder and the bottom, and it recklessly diminishes the future prospects of those not even born yet. And as the Tory backbenchers praised and cheered their man’s vast Spending Review it got me thinking- this ties in with traditional and recurring Tory principles- to hold the poorest at arm’s length, and let the rich get richer.

Kieran

When David Cameron (DC) and Nick Clegg (Cleggy) first had their first press conference in the No. 10 garden last May, they urged the reporters there and the wider public that this is the new politics, “co-operation in the national interest.” which no one can deny is not a good thing. But, a new politics that breaks with the past is a politics that leaves behind the petty point scoring and squabbling of the House of Commons that has plagued most notably PMQs since the late 1960s and particularly since the 1980s.

This is something DC failed to demonstrate today in (Ed Miliband’s very first) PMQs as the Coalition’s new politics often very much looked, sounded and seemed like the old. After five years of complaining that his predecessors did NOT answer the vast majority of his questions, DC seemed very unable to answer Ed Miliband’s questions on Child Benefit. What seemed to happen in the end was DC questioning Miliband on his own policies to which quite rightly he didn’t answer to (to simple fact that this is Prime Ministers Questions) instead brilliantly replying “I may be new to this game, but if I remember rightly it’s my job to ask the questions.”.

Ed Miliband was at least trying to break this mould, let’s only hope the Coalition follows suit.

Max

‘We should be the people not just campaigning at elections but campaigning in every town, every city and every village for the things that matter to people there – because that’s the best way we have of reconnecting with people.’ Theses are Ed Miliband’s words at a recent question and answer session at the Labour party conference. After attending London Citizens five day training course in community organising, I feel have the versatile skills to make this rhetoric a reality. After an intensive weeks course I have realised the importance and power of relationships, within and outside of an institution. The Labour party has lost its covenant with the people; it’s lost the public relationship that is imperative to win elections but more importantly to be the real party of the people. The public does not trust in the Labour party anymore and this can only be cured when we create better relational power between the Labour party and communities. As an institution we have been more worried about the spelling of names in the minutes than the stories and experiences which hold us together. The Labour party was born out of civil society and now it needs to move back into communities, away from the bureaucratic institution it has become. After experiencing first hand the power of community organising at an assembly in Tower Hamlets, the Labour party has to trust its membership again but that trust needs to be reciprocated with a hunger from local parties, to work together and build relational power with other institutions. This change has already began, Movement for Change in a very short space of time has achieved a huge amount, training 1000 community organisers in four months however it will take much longer to reorganise the party into a movement again. We need a party based on being in relationship with each rather than being focused on bureaucratic tasks. Furthermore the Labour party must look to work together with friends in the local mosque, synagogue and trade union branch. This does not mean moving to the left, it means moving back into the communities that created the Labour party. It means being a party of action for local people in local areas, not just a meeting point for its members.

Sam Murphy

Labour Party activist and South Staffordshire district council candidate in May

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

Well the results are in for the Shadow Cabinet and to be fair, the appointments have had their surprises. Former Home, Health and Education Secretary Alan Johnson is to take the role as Shadow Chancellor. Now I doubt many were expecting this move from Ed, but if you think about it logically, it is rather a good move. Johnson regards himself as a loyalist by nature (so wont cause much in the way of infighting the Blair-Brown era saw) and given he was a strong supporter of Miliband the Elder during the Leadership campaign this appointment by Ed keeps to his word that he wishes to use all areas of Labour whoever they supported. This also has the added bonus of “balancing” the Shadow Cabinet out as there’s certainly no way anyone is going to call Johnson “Red”, despite being a former Trade Union leader. And to anyone who says Johnson can’t possibly apart of Ed’s “new generation”, think again and remember the “new generation” is not defined by age, but rather your mindset.

Here’s the full Shadow Cabinet results:

Leader of the Opposition: Ed Miliband

Deputy Leader and Shadow Secretary of State for International Development: Harriet Harman

Shadow Chancellor: Alan Johnson

Shadow Foreign Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities: Yvette Cooper

Shadow Home Secretary: Ed Balls

Chief Whip: Rosie Winterton

Shadow Education Secretary: Andy Burnham

Shadow Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary (with responsibility for political and constitutional reform): Sadiq Khan

Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary: Douglas Alexander

Shadow Business Secretary: John Denham

Shadow Health Secretary: John Healey

Shadow Secretary Communities and Local Government Secretary: Caroline Flint

Shadow Defence Secretary: Jim Murphy

Shadow Energy and Climate Change Secretary: Meg Hillier

Shadow Commons Leader: Hilary Benn

Shadow Transport Secretary: Maria Eagle

Shadow Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary: Mary Creagh

Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury: Angela Eagle

Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary: Shaun Woodward

Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland: Ann McKechin

Shadow Welsh Secretary: Peter Hain

Shadow Culture, Media and Sport Secretary: Ivan Lewis

Shadow Lords Leader: Baroness Royall of Blaisdon

Shadow Olympics Minister: Tessa Jowell

Shadow Cabinet Office Minister: Liam Byrne

Lords Chief Whip: Lord Bassam of Brighton

Shadow Attorney-General: Baroness Scotland

(Note the red to point out that we are all “Reds” as I know I certainly wouldn’t whant a “Blue” or “Yellow” Shadow Member of the Cabinet……and the simple fact that “Red” Ed isn’t insulting at all but rather, quite funny that many in the likes of BUC”F” think it is)

Max

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.

“We are all in this together” is the famous six worded sentence announced by George Osborne at the time of the emergency budget. However, this declaration has taken yet another blow. Despite the budget already being proved to hit women, ethnic minorities and the north disproportionally more, it is now revealed that the Scotland’s, Wales’ and Northern Ireland’s First, Deputy and Finance Ministers also concur that we are indeed not all in this together. An extract from the joint statement can be found here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-11493001 and so proves that no, it isn’t Labour in denial over the figures, in this declaration we have the DUP, Sinn Fein, SNP and Plaid Cymru as well. And no, they aren’t doing this to gain popularity with a “tussle” with the government in London; they are doing this because what the Coalition is doing in regards to the structural deficit is in fact not in the national interest. But rather a backdrop for ideological dogma, as placed extremely well by the columnist Polly Toynbee, “Blue ideology comes well disguised at a time when all cuts, however extreme, can be disguised as necessity.”.

This is also reflected recently on the daily politics show recently where it was revealed that since David Cameron became leader in 2005 Tory party membership has dropped by a third(!) in the space of five years, yes Labour’s dropped throughout 13 years in government, but this is something quite phenomenal and while in opposition too. This is in direct contrast to Labour membership which has shot up since May 6^th with what I’m proud to announce, 65 new fully fledged members of BULS at the fresher’s stall and a further 150 added to the emailing list.

Max

In tomorrow’s Sun is published a significant result for the Labour party. For the first time in three years the Labour party is ahead in the polls http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2814 at Lab-40%, Con-39%, LD-12%. Yes, it is the tiniest of margins and yes it may be even a freak poll, but it is as significant as the Coalition’s approval ratings slipping into negative for the first time and the public disapproving of the Government’s austerity measures for also the first time last month.

However, do not get complacent! While we may be ahead in the polls a large amount over the next five years, it is certainly no guarantee of victory. Just look at Thatcher’s first term in office, hugely unpopular for most of her term and then went onto win a landslide (though admittedly it is unlikely the Coalition will have any Falkands War to help save them). Labour must be the clear, viable alternative to the Coalition, or else who knows how big the “Big Society” will be or how long will the new age of austerity last as nothing in Politics is inevitable or definite.

Max

Ed Miliband, former Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and MP for Doncaster North has been elected leader of the Labour Party and is now also leader of the Official (and truly only) Opposition. I’d be lying if I didn’t say the media mobbing Ed and also seeing him make his victory speech was rather surreal and even a bit odd (though not in any bad way). His victory was won by the narrowest of margins, 1.3%(!) over his brother, but whatever the system and whatever the margin, a victory is still a victory and is now vital that despite whoever you wanted leader, we all  back him.

Special commiserations for his brother, for being tipped for the last three years as the obvious successor to Brown and then to come so close must be almost heart breaking, but he was mature (and loving) enough to claim that “this is Ed’s day”, so I do hope he can keep his role as Shadow Foreign Secretary.

One thing I did notice, was the apparent glee from the Tory ranks. Apparently, Ed is somehow a return to the 1980s, a “Red Ed” and handing the Coalition electoral success on a platter. Really? For one Ed served Gordon Brown for 13 years as a policy adviser, he’s certainly a far flung from the militancy from that era. And also, they underestimate him at their own peril, hell; 3 years ago barely anyone had even heard of Ed, to turn everything around against all expectations (and his own brother) are something to be taken seriously.

It’s safe to say “New” Labour is truly at end, it is time for Labour to move on from the Blair-Brown era and let the new progressive era dawn very soon. Now bring on the real change and 2015!

Max

At 4.15pm on Saturday the 25th September 2010, the Labour party will have a new leader. They will be someone who will have to take on the Con-Dem coalition and lead the party back to government. Irrelevant to whoever you wanted to be Labour leader out of Abbott, Burnham, Balls, Miliband and Miliband, it is vital that we all rally behind whoever wins (though the bookies are now favouring Miliband the Younger), as what ever differences you may have with them, they can be nothing compared to those with DC, Gideon and Cleggy. And if you’re really sad, they’ve even set up at countdown for announcement of the results http://www2.labour.org.uk/leadership-countdown …..as you do.

Max

Yesterday saw the sending out ballot papers to all Labour MPs, MEPs, Party Members and affiliated Society Members. Who will it be as Labour’s next leader, Abbott, Balls, Burnham, Miliband the Elder or Miliband the Younger? This blog is not here to suggest who you should vote for *cough* Ed Miliband *cough*, but rather to think long and hard, as we are now the sole progressive party with any chance of power in Britain (the Lib Dems are now a bigger sell out than “New” Labour with the coalition agreement and the Tories….well, just ask the IFS) and your vote will count to shaping the future of true British progressiveness (if that’s even a word).

Max

It is regarded as the key electoral necessity to winning any general election. Ever since the mid-1980s, “Middle Britain” has been the focus point for most political parties. “Middle Britain” was certainly the focus of ‘New’ Labour throughout its existence, 1997 and 2001 were victories brought upon this wave. Now this does lead onto somewhere if you bear with me….in this case the Labour leadership contest.As George (BULS Treasurer) pointed out in a previous post, the race is indeed between the two Miliband brothers each of which are offering different alternatives on what the Labour party should reach out to. D. Miliband has argued for this aforementioned “Middle Britain” pointing out the lack of Labour seats in the south outside London, while E. Miliband has proposed to reach out to a centre-left coalition. Out of the two, it is D. Miliband that has David Cameron (DC) the most worried http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/aug/27/cameron-david-miliband-labour-leadership. 

However, since 1997 Labour has lost 5 million voters, but only a million to the Tories, the rest didn’t bother to vote, turned to minor parties or primarily, the Liberal Democrats. What happened in the 2010 general election was that Labour allowed the Lib Dems to represent (and in some cases even become) the radical left/progressives of British politics. While yes, this ethos has been quite destroyed by the coalition with Cleggy abandoning near enough all the policies the Lib Dems stood for at the election, but, there were many areas where people turned to them due to an apparent progressive dominance. Primarily, ID cards, scrapping SATS, scrapping Trident, opposing Iraq War and raising the tax threshold to £10k (which is a policy Labour should’ve introduced years ago). 

Logically (almost), it can be seen that Britain does retain a left leaning tendency, while certainly not socialist or social democratic, but rather Britain can be seen as at least on the whole, progressive. Logically (again), it is E. Miliband’s form of electoral base that would be best suited to bringing back those 4 million voters who left Labour for the Lib Dems and apathy. 

Max

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

In the second quarter of 2010 the UK economy grew by 1.1%. This is clearly the result of the actions taken by the Labour government in their final months and it would’ve been higher were it not for the Volcanic Ash cloud.

However, to say “oh, economy already back on track, it’s clearly secure to swiftly slash the deficit” is wrong! The Chancellor, Boy George, summed it up himself “Today’s figures show the private sector contributing all but 0.1% of the growth in the second quarter,” which consequently means that if you are going to “cut” your way out of the deficit that remaining 1% is going to disappear rather quickly. Add this to the fact that most economists are saying that the recovery is not secured meaning that to savage public services rather than a carefully planned programmed to halve the deficit in 4 years would plunge the country back into deep recession and this time, there will be no plan B.

Max

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

David Miliband said the ‘New’ Labour era is over. This may well be true and I know a few BULS members are glad of it, but we shall never forget ‘New’ Labour’s achievements and should never fail to build upon them, so I’ll leave you with a section from Gordon Brown’s final conference speech.

Max

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

Some good news, bar the local election results. In the past 24 hours or so, some 3,000 people have joined the Labour party, so much so that the website actually crashed for a brief while! I’m suspecting quite a lot of disenchanted Lib Dems were among them.

Max

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

A firebrand speech by Brown, it’s been a while in the making but bar the heckler, it’s bloody brilliant

Max