Category Archives: National Politics

I opposed Equal Marriage no longer

by bulsonline

Among the two years of Coalition government that Britain has been subjected to there has been little to smile about. There is no need to list the ‘omnishambles’ here, even those who have better things to do with their time than check the tweetings of the political geekery are well versed in just how inept and backward this government’s policies are. Then, all of a sudden, there appeared a ray of hope, a reason to celebrate, perhaps this Cameron fella ain’t so bad after all – he wants to introduce Equal Marriage.

I read with despair the comments of those supportive of Equal Marriage and I wanted to shout: ‘Can you not see the mind-forged manacles of institutionalism that Marriage (in any form) brings?!’. The Gay Liberation Front, nurtured on the campus at LSE in the early 70s was very clear in its view, condemning on page 2 in The Gay Manifesto the ‘archaic and irrational teaching [that] support the family and marriage as the only permitted conditions for sex.’ The Gay Liberation Front’s key theme was anti-assimilation. Gay people were equal, sure, but they were different as well, and as such should play no role in conforming to the ‘archaic’ institutions and cultural practises that made up Britain’s history. It was this direct, ‘in-yer-face’ attitude which makes the GLF so important to Gay history in Britain. The concept of Marriage could play no part in their ‘aim at the abolition of the family.’ (p.9)

I for one oppose marriage. I agree with the GLF when they stated that ‘we will not be freed so long as each succeeding generation is brought up in the same old sexist way in the patriarchal family.’ It would have been hypocritical of me, I believed, to oppose marriage, but be in favour of Equal Marriage.

I then looked to see who also opposed Equal Marriage. I could find nobody that shared my opinion on the fundamentally unjust nature of marriage. Instead it was a collection of knee-jerk Tory MPs (the dusty and offensive Peter Bones of this world) and irrelevant Church Minsters, whose quest to preserve ‘traditional family values’ was little more than thinly veiled homophobia and ignorance. These people seem to advocate human rights, as long as this doesn’t stretch to sexuality equality. And I was not prepared to enter this unholy coalition.

It then dawned on me that my argument was flawed. Basically, I was being an academic elitist, pontificating from the comforts of a university on how ‘blinkered’ everyone was apart from me. (I once heard this described as ‘intellectual masturbation’).

So if gay couples wish to show their love to one another and society at large by entering the traditional institution of marriage then there is absolutely no argument, certainly morally, why this shouldn’t be allowed to happen. Sign me up as a convert. Just don’t expect any Queer Radicals to be heading up the aisle any time soon.

By Dan Harrison, former BULS Chair

Sold short

by Chris Nash

If you plan to exploit vulnerable people through a shameful confidence trick, it is generally best not to shout about it in the national press. Sadly this ProTip was not passed on to a Mr Carl Cooper of CarSmart in Kent. Mr Cooper’s little scam was to predate on those desperately seeking work, and to pay them at the miserly rate of £50 per week. In case you missed that, that’s for a whole weeks work, it’s not even a daily rate. Its £2.50 an hour, below the legal minimum wage and well below a living wage. Thankfully all his victims had the common sense to tell him where to get off – not one of them turned up.

Mr Cooper is a cruel and selfish individual. He has attempted to take advantage of a high unemployment rate to undermine basic working conditions and to exploit desperate people. You might think it unfair to single him out for criticism; he is just one greedy self-serving individual among many.  Maybe I would have dismissed him if it had been just the confidence trick. One obscure tinpot little company out in the sticks barely registers on the global scale of corporate injustice. But because Mr Cooper was outwitted by seven unemployed people he’d so clearly thought beneath him, he decided to launch a smear campaign.

This is why you may have read about Mr Cooper in the gutter press, in the corrupt Murdoch tabloids, in the hate-soaked columns of the Mail, and on the front page of Friday’s Metro (which presumably no unemployed person is expected to read). Bitter at being outwitted by dole scum, he has decided to add to the drip-drip of hateful propaganda against them. I’m going to look specifically at the Sun, that bastion of working class divide-and-rule. Mr Cooper looks bemused around his soulless office, making awkward half eye contact and sporting one of those ‘70s style striped shirts with plain collars that David Steel used to wear. Apparently the hired staff failed to turn up because of rain, not that any evidence or testimony is given to prove this. In all likelihood Mr Cooper plucked it gracefully from his arse. Then the real slurs begin.

A picture worth taking up darts for.

The general assumption made by Mr Cooper is that the potential employees were “work-shy”. In fact, throw in all the tired clichés you can think of. Draw an elegant but oh so two-dimensional caricature if you please. It’s so much easier than genuine analysis – you don’t even need evidence. To quote “Stunned Carl”: “I cannot believe that these layabouts can have such a pathetic attitude to a day’s labour”. The measured tones of a decent chap, I’m sure you’ll agree. For the real reason why not one of the seven did not turn up, Mr Cooper need only look at the pay he was offering. Did it ever occur to him that it isn’t work, or even the specific type of work that people object to, it’s the insulting poverty pay?

£50 a week is well below the poverty line for a single person. Subtract travel costs and its questionable as to whether anyone could afford to remain alive on such a sum. “Even the basic pay for fulfilling the minimum requirements of the work would be double what they could get on Jobseekers Allowance” is Mr Cooper’s justification. With such an evidently poor grasp of basic maths, I could fear for the financial future of his business, if I cared. For comparison the JSA rate for under 25’s is £56 a week. From experience I can say that it’s certainly a struggle keeping the Koi carp pond stocked on 56 quid. Alternatively it’s “too generous” if you agree with Mr Cooper, which I don’t. People are indeed better off on the dole, but in the way that the ‘flu is better than the Black Death.

Would I rather pay people to stay on the dole? Well yes actually, yes I would. As a taxpayer, I would much rather pay to support someone in looking for work on their own terms; work that will be suited to their talents, complement their general well-being, and ideally be of a credit to wider society. I would favour this even more so if the alternative is to force the desperate into an exploitative working relationship with the Carl Coopers of this world, encouraging a race to the bottom for wages in a sweatshop economy. I would see the end of parasitical businesses like CarSmart. What a beautiful irony it would be if Mr Cooper found himself unemployed; would his Just World philosophy survive? Would he continue to think of himself as superior to “those people” when he’s stacking shelves for free in the Darwinian future he encourages?

“The benefit system rewards people for doing nothing” says Carl. No mate, it protects them from abusive scumbags like yourself.

BULS Supporting Michael Chessum to be VPHE of NUS

by edjamesgilbert

Following careful consideration, BULS has decided to support Michael Chessum’s campaign to be VPHE of NUS and we ask Birmingham delegates and Labour students nationally to do the same. We believe that Michael is the most competent candidate, and will achieve the most for students now, and in the future.

He has been the only candidate to continuously fight against the Tories’ fee regime and its further marketisation of our education system. Michael has been instrumental inthe organising of two national demonstrations, mobilising thousands of students across the country. Such demonstrations proved highly successful, gaining the support of Labour Students, and the general student population, nationally.

As Labour students we should be fighting against the current coalition government’s outrageous, and damaging, policies concerning higher education fees and their on-going commitment to severe austerity measures. Education is a public good and, at Birmingham, we believe that education should be universally accessible and publically funded. Michael Chessum is the only candidate for VPHE who we believe shares our values and will fight to defend them.

Furthermore, Michael is the only candidate committed to opposing Theresa May’s regressive and racist visa changes, which will have a detrimental effect on International Students who contribute so much to our higher education institutions and country as a whole.

Michael’s past record shows that he knows when and how to use direct action tactics, whilst his pivotal role in founding NCAFC proves his dedication to fighting the government’s austerity measures.

We need a VP Higher Education that will offer a robust defence against the coalition’s stark attacks on education. We wholeheartedly believe it is time to put factional divides behind us and unite in our support for Chessum, as the candidate most able to deliver.

Catie, Ed, Ellis, Areeq, Alex, Sam and Dan

Chris Grayling to reduce unemployment by One.

by Chris Nash

Chris Grayling, in case you didn’t already know, is the Member of Parliament for Epsom and Ewell, and Minister of State at the Department for Work and Pensions. He is also a lying bastard and has dreadful communication skills. His efforts tackling the worst unemployment among young people in generations have been lacklustre to say the least. He, alongside faux-compassionate conservative Iain Duncan Smith, is the government’s standard bearer for punitive schemes designed to punish and exploit the unemployed. He has used his position of power and privilege to slander and misrepresent the characters and causes of anyone who dares speak against him. When the inequities of his schemes are highlighted, he resorts to spin and bare faced lies. In short, he is an evil, hateful, immoral little man.

Image

The quite excellent Johnny Void documents more fully Grayling and the DWP’s shameful back-story. Today I come to credit Grayling. In between selling our youth as slaves and branding the Archbishop of Canterbury a militant Trotskyite, he has successfully created one new job. Just the one. Here [link].

I know from experience that jobs working for MPs can receive hundreds of applications for a single position. In this case there may be fewer, given what any politically aware unemployed person will know about Grayling. But if Hell itself were looking for part-time bar staff, even Satan might receive CVs from desperate job hunters. When hundreds of people apply for one position, 99% of those are mathematically guaranteed to be unsuccessful. How will Grayling reconcile these masses of doomed applicants with his wider responsibility for policy? Will he realise that his hateful ideology is wrong in blaming individuals for economic circumstances far beyond their control?

Here’s an idea. The deadline for this job is not until Monday (23rd). The essential qualifications and requirements are actually very low. Any young person who has passed a handful of GCSEs could, with a minimal amount of on the job training, perform the advertised role. I’m going to apply. You should to. So should everyone who is currently unemployed, and even those who aren’t but who will need a job in the near future. We’re all qualified. Assuming that the position is filled on a loosely meritocratic basis, we should all have a fair chance of consideration.

If, by Monday morning, Grayling’s office inbox is fit to bursting with job applications (“the standard was very high”) then maybe, just maybe, he’ll start to consider the massive competition that exists for even the most basic of jobs. Maybe he’ll begin to appreciate just how many individuals are trapped in limbo by a lack of opportunities. Maybe (and this is a long shot) he’ll cut us some slack, stop using his departmental jackboot to bully and intimidate, and start creating real jobs, beyond making cups of tea in his constituency office.

It won’t take long. Thirty minutes to draft a covering letter, and any good student/graduate job-hunter should have a CV to hand, one that can be appropriately tweaked. Grayling may endorse lying, but I encourage honesty, these should be genuine applications. I could put an example here, but several hundred individual submissions will carry far more weight than a thousand copy and pastes. Apply. Apply now! If you’re really lucky – and I mean really lucky – you might just end up working for the Right Honourable Member.

The ad in full (courtesy of w4mpjobs):

Image

Keeping the state out of the business of religion, through taxation

by maxattacks

If you’ve taken a nosy around the BBC Website recently you’ll have noticed a video on the imposition of VAT on constructions and repairs for religious institutions and buildings.

Now for those of you who know me personally as an ‘angry atheist’ may start worrying “Oh no, what’s he going to come out with now, destruction of all religious buildings?”. Fear not, while many of you do see that side of me I’m also an ardent secularists. I recognise the right of religious organisations to play a legitimate part in society but I also am opposed to having the state play any part in religious affairs. So this is why we need to tax religious organisations like any other organisation that has an income.

Some of you may have reeled back from such a suggestion, but hear/read me out. To become a legally recognised religion with a tax-exempt status an organisation has jump through a large variety of hoops set by the state. That’s right, the state sets the criteria and by extension determines which organisations are worthy of having tax-exempt statuses. I’m not proposing we take religious rights away from organisations and individuals, rather to take away the privileges granted by the state a select group of institutions based on no sound secular reason.

If you want to ensure true neutrality from the state in regards to religion (aside from a much needed separation of church and state, but that’s a whole other post) no tax-exempt status should be granted to any religious institution and yes even atheist/humanist/secularist groups that may have won a tax-exempt status. Churches are free to continue with any charity work they so wish and I think we can all agree that area will remain tax-exempt but separate from the organisation.

On a more personal note, with the billions upon billions of pounds that go into religious organisations world-wide only to spent on other churches, missionaries and aid to foreign countries which is too often conditioned upon meeting certain religious criteria. This money could be far better spent on real secular matters like schools, hospitals and roads.

Max

George Osborne: Right on Charity

by Chris Nash

Never let it be said that I am an unquestioning partisan. George Osborne has attracted a lot of criticism in the past few days for his plans to cap tax relief for charitable donations. Tax relief allows wealthy individuals who donate to registered charities to claim back from the treasury. The Chancellor is proposing to cap the amount of tax-free giving at £50,000, or 25% of a person’s income, whichever figure is the greater. I agree with him.

It is an unusual situation where a Tory chancellor can consider myself as an ally (and the Daily Mail as an enemy). The official reason given by Osborne is that this is a means to reduce tax evasion. If you remember back to the budget, Osborne declared such evasion to be “morally reprehensible”. At the time I expressed deep cynicism about what actions if any would follow such fine words. The charity tax relief cut is a welcome start, even if the limit is still too generous.

What have I got against charity? Consider it like this – under normal circumstances an individual who has been fortunate enough to become a high earner will contribute back to society through taxation. A progressive tax system will endure that the tax rate collects most from those who can most afford it. Revenue raised then goes back into services from which we all individually or collectively benefit. An educated, healthy and contented society then feeds into the entrepreneurs and genuine wealth-creators of the future.

Now consider the tax relief route. The rich individual decides to reduce their tax bill by donating to a registered charity. This could be any such charity of their choice, regardless of size or activity. The charity would be run by its directors and trustees entirely by its own rules and priorities, with little oversight, and no accountability to the general public. Because the donor has claimed tax relief, the funds raised for the treasury are reduced – the state has less to spend on health, education, and other public services. The donor themselves, if wealthy, is probably not affected but the general public will suffer as a result.

The charity tax relief system is effectively a system for the subsidy of charities at the expense of public services. Public services face an immense amount of scrutiny, and they are always accountable to us through our elected representatives. Even the largest and best known charities carry out their activities in relative secrecy. Some charities do nominally “good” work, such as running hostels or after-school tuition. Yet what logic can there be in the treasury subsidising a charity to support a public service, when that same public service only needs support due to treasury spending cuts?

Philanthropy is also strongly anti-democratic.  A donor decides which causes they believe are worthy. They also decide how much to donate and when. Where a charity has a few large donors it has to dance to their tune, to beg. To quote Toynbee and Walker in Unjust Rewards (2008):

we suggested to a major donor that paying more tax might be a better way for the wealthy to pay their dues than random gift-giving. He answered that the state could never spend his money as well as he could. If he gives he can direct it exactly where he wants and oversee what happens to it. Follow this recipe to its natural conclusion and anarchy and plutocracy result.

Charity tax relief allows the wealthy to take money from the tax system – from all of us – and spend it on their private causes; be they decent state substitutes, the idols of privilege, or just delusional make-believe. I applaud Osborne for cutting it.

Will the relief cut seriously reduce donations? That only depends on the true motives of the donors. From the Independent:

Why are charities so fearful that a limit on how much donors can offset against tax will reduce their income? This will only happen if the tax concessions of the past constituted a major – the major? – motivation to give. No limit is being placed on how much anyone may donate, only on what draws tax relief. If big donors are sufficiently committed to their cause, there is nothing to prevent them giving as before. If they don’t, does that not suggest that the tax break was, if not being abused, at least a persuasive consideration?

I am not against charity in itself, but it must never be a substitute for the consistent and equal provision of essential services. Services that only the state can provide fairly and free at point-of-use to all of its citizens. The welfare state was founded by Liberal and Labour governments precisely because the threadbare safety net of charitable provision was never good enough. Cutting the tax relief threshold could mean an actual spending increase for our public services, and in that I agree with George.

Fixing the Ballot

by Chris Nash

Unfortunate rumours come via the Guardian of further plans for central Labour Party meddling in the potential mayoral elections this autumn. It has been suggested that sitting Labour MPs should be barred from seeking a mayoral nomination, even if they resign their seat.

It is bad enough that the NEC has imposed a shortlist system for the nomination, cutting down the choice that will actually go to party members from at least four candidates to only two. It is also underhand that they have suggested sitting MPs should resign if they become a nominee, before they even win a mayoralty. The whole idea behind these various restrictions is to prevent unnecessary by-elections, especially in the wake of Bradford West. It is probably also to ensure that the “right” candidate (from the central party’s perspective) gets the nomination. To me the whole thing stinks of heavy handedness.

The whole point of elected mayors (and police commissioners to an extent) is greater local democracy. Two key words their, “local”, and “democracy”. Arbitrary decisions and rules being handed down by the NEC are neither local or democratic. The field for the nomination should be as open as possible, and that field should be presented to the membership. That is the democratic way. It cannot be right for someone in London to ultimately decide who we in Birmingham have as our mayor for the next 4 years.

The danger here is that, by being heavy handed and trying to force nominations, the NEC risk seriously alienating sitting MPs and CLPs. The NEC and the Labour Party as a whole does not actually have the power to remove sitting MPs – all it can do is expel them from the party, most likely if they persist to run against the “official” candidate. For an MP set on becoming mayor, this offers a simply choice; give up ambitions or leave the party. I can’t imagine a Labour MP actually running as an Independent, yet were it to happen and were a city to find itself with an “Independent Labour” Mayor, then this whole affair would have backfired horribly on the central party. Not only would Labour still face the by-elections it had hoped to avoid, but under the unfavourable circumstances of having just lost a mayoral election to and Independent and having a hostile outgoing MP.

Instead the selections should be made as open as possible, to all Labour candidates who wish two stand. Any further elimination can come when the party membership in a given city fill in their ballot papers. The eventual nominee will be the genuine choice of that city, and not just the preferred placeman of the party machine. Is there a risk that some cities will end up with maverick Labour mayors, who don’t tow the line, who do things their own way, and who embarrass the party leadership in London? Possibly. Should the decision as to whether this happens be entirely down the party membership and the electors in that city? Absolutely.

A Free Web

by Chris Nash

@PalaeoNash 

Every so often there is a news story absurd enough to make cliched people ask: “Is it April 1st?” This week there was one, it was April 1st, but the story is depressingly real. I refer to government plans to extend the surveillance of our online lives.

While I believe in a strong state, and I certainly trust a democratic state more so that any private company, this represents another unnecessary intrusion into the private lives of us all. I believe that the internet must be totally free; that is as a true anarchy. A “crime” can only exist on the internet where is co-exists in reality (e.g. fraud). It must be a totally free place where ideas can be exchanged and where speech must be entirely free. While this naturally carries risks, I believe these can be better averted through user education rather than through cumbersome regulation. The internet can never be policed to protect the naïve or the over-sensitive from the troll, nor should it be. I realise that this probably sounds a little woolly or idealistic, but I will always favour the optimism of hope in humanity’s better instincts over the pessimistic urge to control and restrict us.

This isn’t just about our ability the watch daft videos of cats, to pointlessly argue the toss in comment sections, or to create weakly satirical memes. Consider how online communication is used to build campaigning and enable activism. Most organised protests will have Facebook events, with wildly optimistic “attending” lists. Debates over the injustices or otherwise of government policies will rage on page walls, or in twitter feeds. Last year saw the (perhaps over-hyped) power of online protest in deposing dictators. Fear those in positions of power who wish to curtail our online freedoms – they are a threat to democracy itself.

I am not talking only of the specific implications of these more recent proposals. They build gradually on the already extensive powers of our police and security forces. If implemented I imagine they will ultimately be another notch on the ratchet towards an authoritarian state. A future Prime Minister, trying to reduce these powers, would no doubt have their ear bent by senior security figures. They would supposedly be so useful in catching the genuine terrorists (who may in any case have been caught though traditional methods). Never mind the “inconvenience” to the ordinary citizen who by now has normalised having their online activity watched. I argue for a free internet, and against all efforts to regulate it, from a point of principle.

Remember ID cards. New Labour was at its worst in its authoritarian spasms. Remember the Tory manifesto of 2010: “Labour have subjectedBritain’s historic freedoms to unprecedented attack. They have trampled on liberties.” Now see that opportunism exposed as another incumbent government threatens the sacred privacy of the individual. To quote inhuman oxygen thief Chris Grayling in 2009 “Too many parts [of the government] have too many powers to snoop on innocent people and that’s really got to change.” This same creature is now involved in the DWP’s outsourcing of databases to India, with the privacy of millions of innocent people being dependent on the integrity of the lowest bidder.

If the Tories believe in freedom it is merely the freedom for the powerful to enslave the rest of us. Labour have barely shed the worst of our authoritarian Blairite heritage. The Liberal Democrats are making very promising noises, but I don’t fancy placing too much faith in them any time soon. Who then will stand up for our online freedoms?

The Bankers’ Budget

by Chris Nash
Nobody would expect a fair budget from George Osborne. The Chancellor was never going to give a budget that benefitted the many over the few, or one that put the realities of everyday life above right-wing economic dogma. Expectations suitably adjusted, we can perhaps take small comfort from the 50p tax band “only” being cut to 45p. Ed Miliband gave a sterling speech in response, and I raise a glass to the intern who wrote the jokes. Professional hacks will be casting their own analysis; what follows is my personal take on some of the details.
 
The Chancellor’s big spin on this budget is that it “rewards work”.  We already know that under-18s are to endure a cut in the minimum wage. In the UK it is possible to work a 40-hour week and still live in poverty. The way to make work pay is, surprisingly enough, to actually make work pay, by implementing a proper living wage. Today we heard no commitment on improving the pay of the low paid. It would be naive to ever expect one from a Tory Chancellor. Increasing the income tax threshold seems reasonable, but not when even the poorest are still hit by VAT, and duty on fuel, alcohol and tobacco. What Osborne gives with one hand, he takes several times over with the other.
 
Projections for economic growth and for a fall in unemployment are welcomed.I only hope they hold true. As far as I am aware the budget made no specific commitments relating to the latter. I fear that further cuts to the Department of Work and Pensions will only result in more inhumane box-ticking and the harassment of the vulnerable. The Government – as ever – has put all its faith in the hands of the wonderful private sector.
 
On the 50p rate, the detail most comprehensively leaked, news was always going to be disappointing. Having endured two years of the government chaffing on about deficit reduction, one could at least have assumed that they intended to maximise tax revenue. Basic maths will tell anyone that a 50p rate will raise more by its presence than its absence (“Laffer Curve” / wishful thinking / pseudoscience aside). Osborne himself stated that the rate raised around £1 billion. To me a lot, to him “next to nothing”. Cutting it will cost £100m. That’s a lot of disabled children who will have to go without.
 
The moral case for the 50p rate is even more clear cut – there can be no reason why someone “earning” in excess of £150,000 per year needs a penny more. Greed can be the only motive, and the one which leads to tax evasion and avoidance. It will be argued that such non-payment means that the tax rate might as well be cut. Just apply this same rational to other crimes such as burglary and murder – “You’re never going to catch every criminal, might as well legalise it!” – to see what a fallacy it is.
 
Tax evasion is “morally repugnant” according to Osborne. It is hard to shake off that dirty feeling that comes from agreeing with him – especially given those are often my own words. Tax evasion, and avoidance, are both morally reprehensible. They are as much a theft from the community as your typical off-licence robbery, in scale perhaps more so. The problem is that Osborne is the last person I would expect to do anything about it. I fear that despite pledges to the contrary, he will be all talk and no trousers. Every spending decision taken thus far by the government has convinced me that it is a government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich.
 
Miliband’s best line came when he challenged the government front bench to admit who among them personally benefit from the budget. Furthermore it is worth considering how many prominent Tory donors will also benefit. Such borderline conflict of interest makes a mockery of democracy – and will certainly not be reported in the Tory press. The headlines will trumpet crumbs from the rich men’s table, and ignore the widening inequality that will be a direct result of Osborne’s decisions.
 
Labour should commit to restoring the 50p band, and to actually getting serious on tax fraud, just as we should commit to renationalising the NHS. Anything less will be to continue to concede to the rightward drift of our national political discourse.
By Chris Nash

The Future of LGBT Labour

by maxattacks

I joined the Labour Party in 2008. This was before I was prepared to accept my sexuality. I have now come to realise that it was joining the Labour Party, and learning of all of Labour’s achievements in Government in striving for sexual equality that helped me on my way in accepting myself. Being proudly gay and proudly a member of the Labour Party can and should be mutually reinforcing. I will always be thankful to Labour for this.

Whilst we can look back proudly on all Labour achieved in equality – and there is no need to list these here – ending legislative homophobia is not the same as ending homophobia engrained in society. Top-down measures can only work so far. Greater acceptance of homosexuality as being ‘equal but different’ to heterosexuality can only be achieved through increased exposure of what it is to be gay, i.e., being capable of loving someone of the same sex. At its most basic this can include couples walking down the street holding hands. Unfortunately, we are not yet at a stage where this simple statement of homosexuality is uncontroversial. There is still a need for gay couples to act as pioneers. I can speak from experience that some members of society are not ready to witness such sights.

Labour is at its best when fighting for the rights of minorities within society, championing the fundamental need for equality. However, whilst I am well aware that homophobia remains an issue, the greatest issue of inequality relates to income. The lack of equal opportunity in the world of work adversely affects women, the BME community and disabled people more than it does the LGBT community. With this in mind, the LGBT Labour needs to rally round and support those who also fall under the umbrella term ‘minority’. Liberation Campaigns and caucuses are vital in recognising and celebrating our differences (note the very discourse of the word ‘Pride’ in our annual Pride Marches, and the rightful presence of Labour at these marches), but our shared difficulties and experiences need to be at the forefront of our campaigns.

This is, I believe, should be the next step of LGBT Labour in Britain, standing up for the voiceless in society, speaking for those adversely affected by the Government’s draconian and ill-balanced cuts. Even if we do not self-define as members of a particular caucus, Labour needs to unite and continue the fight for equal opportunity for all.

By Dan Harrison, Outgoing BULS Chair

I’m sorry but “political” reasons?

by maxattacks

20.01.12: Martin Rowson on union opposition to the health and social care bill

Andrew Lansley recently showed a prime example of how not win your case by describing the ever growing opposition to his NHS reforms as being motivated by “political” reasons.

I’m sorry but “political” reasons? The British Medical Association (BMA), Royal College of GPs, Royal College of Nurses, the Conservative dominated Commons Health Select Committee and Norman frigging Tebbit all oppose the reforms, which will open up the NHS to EU competition law, for “political” reasons? These are not organisations (with the exception of the latter obviously) that sit from the outside and attempt to vaguely analyse the inner workings of the NHS. No, these are organisations that deal with the inner workings of the NHS every single day. They know how it works. They know what will be detrimental. And they are the ones that will know that these reforms will fundamentally destroy the NHS.

Cameron said it himself, no top down reorganisations of the NHS. Now drop this bill!

Max

Growth and all that jazz

by maxattacks

Chris Riddell's Observer comment cartoon 15.08.10

Sorry for the break in blogging, we’re trying to up the ante this year

Probably the most pressing of all news items is the recent dismal growth figures. Over a year ago when Cameron and Osborne claimed we were “Out of the woods” and “Out of the danger zone”. How very wrong they were. With the final quarter of 2011 seeing a contraction of 0.2% this then means that in the last 15 months since Osborne’s Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) in October 2010, we’ve had a massive 0.3% of growth. Cameron then has the audacity to blame the recent growth figures on the Euro crisis. Well I’m sorry, the UK economy has been stagnating long before the crisis began to effect.

Cameron you said it yourself, “I take full responsibility for everything that happens in the economy.” then take responsibility and change course!

Max

Angry atheist rants

by maxattacks

As I approach my role as Vice-Chair of Birmingham University Labour Students (BULS) by keeping religion and my position in BULS totally separate. So, this post you’ll be reading from BULS member and atheist Max Ramsay, rather than BULS Vice-Chair Max Ramsay.

Ancient copies of the King James Bible are carried during a procession at Westminster Abbey to mark its 400th anniversary. Photograph: Chris Jackson/AFP/Getty Images

Today David Cameron declared “Britain is a Christian country and we should not be afraid to say so” and “that the Bible has helped to give Britain a set of values and morals which make Britain what it is today.”.

Now, I’d like to point out that I respect everyone’s right to have whatever faith they so wish. But, to be quite honest, Cameron really hasn’t read much of the King James’ Bible if he believes this is the case.

Now the first point is something seemingly imported from the USA. Given that a poll in 2004 conducted by the BBC showed that 39% of the UK population did not believe in God. That’s right, today we’re anything but a Christian nation, we’re a secular nation.

You may say, “Oh, but we were founded upon Christian ideals and it has played a such a vital part in history in the last few centuries.”. Really?! If we did derive our morals and values from the bible we’d still find acceptable;

  1. General slaughters (I Chronicles 20:3, Judges 8:10 and Deuteronomy 3:6-7)
  2. Burying victims alive (Numbers 16:32-35)
  3. Killing unbelievers (Deuteronomy 13:5, 13:6, 13:8-9 and 13:15)
  4. Genocides (II Chronicles 14:9 and 14:12 and II Samuel 12:31)
  5. Raping (Isaiah 13:15-16)
  6. Slavery (Exodus 21:2-6 and 21:20-21, Leviticus 25:44-46 and 1 Peter 2:18-21)
  7. White supremacy (Romulus 12:1-3 and 12:19-21 and Philipians 3:18)
  8. Jewish Persecution (Matthew 27: 22 and 27:25, John 7:1 and 8:44, Acts 7:51-52 and 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15)
  9. Women’s persecution (Leviticus 15:19-21 and 18:19, Proverbs 21:19, Corinthians 11:3 and 14:34-35, Ephesians 5:22-24 and Timothy 2:12-15)
  10. Justify physical punishment of children (Leviticus 20:9, Psalm 127:3, Proverbs 13:24, 22:6, 22:15 and 23:12-14)
  11. Homophobia (Leviticus 20:13 and 18:22, Deuteronomy 23:17-18, Romans 1:24 and 1:26-27 and Corinthians 6:9-10)
  12. Oppose medical science (Acts 15:29, James 5:13-15 and Matthew 9:2-8)
  13. To justify war (Exodus 15:3, Deuteronomy 20:4 and 1 Timothy 4:18)

Now can Cameron really claim that we were founded upon these values? That we derive our morals and values from the bible? And that we’re still a Christian nation? Again, while I respect people’s right to believe this, it is quite clear that what binds us and gives us true sense of values is secular enlightened thinking.

Max

Fourth by-election on the trot

by maxattacks

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

We hate to say we told you so

by maxattacks

28.11.11 Martin Rowson

Today we saw Gideon (George Osborne) unveil his first ever Autumn Statement (last year it was a Comprehensive Spending Review) which used to be Brown and then Darling’s Pre-Budget Report, although it’s still the same thing more or less.

What we saw today was a Chancellor willing to blame everyone except himself for his own failures. Gideon may claim as much as he likes that the growing crisis in the Eurozone may have put a dent in its works, but that would just be disingenuous as it’s not at that stage to truly have an impact on a non-Eurozone country such as the UK.

But in a nutshell what we had is:

  1. Growth forecasts for UK economy cut 0.9% this year and 0.7% next year (And we all know you can’t truly get the deficit down without growth)
  2. Borrowing forecasts revised up – an extra £111bn to be borrowed over five years (This was the one thing they set about to do, this was the be all and end all test of the Coalition and they are set to fail upon it)
  3. Pay cap of 1% for public sector workers once two-year pay freeze ends (Which is really going to encourage consumer confidence and spending, the true engine of economic growth)
  4. Unemployment to rise from 8.1% this year to 8.7% next year and more public sector jobs forecast to go – 710,000 over five years (Again, nothing new there)
  5. Credit easing and numerous infrastructure projects (I will welcome these, but it’s rather ironic after 18 months of austerity mantra)
  6. January rise in regulated rail fares to be capped at 6.2%, not 8.2% (While this is certainly better but as a semi-regular rail user, this needs to be below RPI, 5%, we already have the most expensive rail fares in Europe)
  7. Doubling of free childcare places for deprived two-year-olds to 260,000 in England (The one true policy I’m sure we can all get behind)
  8. 3p fuel duty rise due in January to be delayed or frozen (Which is still entirely negated with the rise in VAT in January)
  9. Bank levy to be increased (Which is all very well but not when you remember this is balanced out with the cut in Corporation Tax)

So essentially, we have growth being revised down for the fourth time in 18 months and borrowing expected to be £111 billion higher in 2015.

So when Gideon said “we are out of the danger zone.” around a year ago I didn’t think we’d get around to us saying “we told you so” so soon.

Max

#godisgove and #torybible

by maxattacks

#godisgove and #torybible are to hashtags on twitter which have both appeared in recent days in the wake of Michael Gove’s decision to issue a King James edition of the bible to every state school in England. Now I’m not going to get into the whole inappropriateness of this act (If you know me well enough you’d remember I’m a massive atheist, but, I like to keep my role as BULS’s Vice-Chair totally separate from religion). But here according to LabourList are the top 10 best tweets featuring those hashtags.

Enjoy:

@4harrisons - And Cameron said “let there be growth” but lo! There was no growth

@mattedbrooke – And God said, “why have you eaten from the forbidden tree?” And Adam said, “we inherited this fruit from the labour government”

@ChrisBryantMP – Faith, hope and charity – have now been abolished as they were unproductive

@politic_animal – And on the seventh day he would have liked to have rested, but the government had opted out of the Working Time Directive

@lethandrel – And the lame were made to walk and the blind to see – well, according to the new assessments ….

@johnprescott – Blessed are the coalition for they shall inherit from and blame the last government

@cllr_robbins – Blessed are the freeschoolmakers: for they shall be called the children of Gove

@MatofKilburnia – And Lot’s wife was turned into a pillar of salt, which Gove did putteth in school dinners & lo Jamie Oliver was displeased

@GoodmotherMobbs – And the lepers were ‘cured’; as ATOS found them fit for work

@evilflea – And then He createth all of the beasts and the animals, excepteth the cat, which he did not make up.

Max

An Englishman’s Home is… beyond his wildest dreams

by labourluke

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.

3 million, I wouldn’t rule it out

by maxattacks

Yesterday we saw a good sign in the economy that inflation had fallen from 5.2% to 5%. We welcome it but it’s still not good enough, especially when Eurozone inflation has remained at a reasonable 3%. It seems however, this is rather irrelevant with the news released today by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) where unemployment has risen to 2.62 million from July to September.

That’s right, the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer who over a year ago claimed “we were out of the woods” now had the audacity to have one of their Ministers for Work and Pensions, Chris Grayling, claim that ”What we’ve seen over the last quarter has been the real impact of the crisis in the eurozone”. That’s right, they’re blaming their old punch bag, Europe. Don’t get me wrong, the crisis in the Eurozone is severe, but it in now way at a stage to make a real impact on unemployment figures, especially in a non-Euro state.

With the number of people claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance rising to 1.6 million by 5,300. The highest number of women out of work since February 1988 at 1.09 million rising by 43,000. Youth unemployment breaking the 1 million mark at 1.02 million with a rising by 67,000 and the unemployment rate of 8.3% being the highest since 1996 and the total number of unemployed people the highest since 1994, it’s about time Cameron and Gideon took another look at their plan.

Max

The pressure mounts

by maxattacks

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.
So Gideon, even though we know you wont, please take heed of the recommendations. Simply living in the nostalgia of a failed plan of the early 1980s wont guarantee success. And Miliband and Balls, these recommendations should be the essence of your policy review, take them on board!
Max

Sex education malarkey

by maxattacks

I think most of us can agree that sex education has an important role to play in public schools. But to what level of importance would you say it is?

To Conservative MP, Andrea Leadsom, it seems not very. Let’s put this into context. In England and Wales sex education is not a compulsory subject for public schools (I know for one that I personally received nothing at my High School) and that parents are allowed to “opt out” their child if the school does teach it. And you wonder why we have the highest teenage pregnancy rates in Europe.

Anyway, back to Andrea Leadsom. It seems she believes that parents should have to “opt in” their children to sex education classes and that current sex education books are “inappropriate”. This is while a report published by Ofsted last year pointed out that a quarter of schools in England are not providing good enough lessons about sex, relationships and health.  At the same time new research in the last couple of weeks provided information that “81% of 14 to 18-year-olds said their information came from the internet, the television and their friends.” and “one in four pupils do not have any sexual and relationship education in school.“.

Now some may say that abstinence only sex education is the only sound and “moral” way forward. But when we analyse this claim, it’s quite apparent that this argument is not grounded in research and facts. The Council of Scientific Affairs states that ”Current research findings do not support the position that the abstinence-only approach to sexuality education is effective in delaying the onset of intercourse.”.

I have already done a similar post on sex education before. But the point still stands, we need more not less sex education. If we truly want to tackle STDs, teenage pregnancies and yes, even abortions (again look to my previous post and subsequent comments regarding abortions) we need sound and effective sex education with no “opt-outs” for pushy and insecure parents.

So please Leadson, could the education system have some more.

Max

That Old Chestnut

by labourluke

David Cameron has a nerve. Not only has he U-turned over his pledge in opposition to hold a referendum over the UK’s terms of membership of the European Union, but today he had the temerity to force Nicolas Sarkozy to back down and accept his presence at key Eurozone talks to try to deal with the Greek debt crisis on Wednesday.

Once again, only one year into the new government, a Conservative prime minister is becoming about as stable on Europe as Edwina Currie is on her feet. We all know deep down he is a staunch Euro-sceptic, so why doesn’t he have the guts to come out and be frank with the British people, and say that he would love us to turn our backs on our continental partners, but that he also loves us to lecture and patronise them on economic policy, despite the fact that UK growth is anaemic at best, and backwards at worst, thanks to his policies.

A referendum on EU membership now would of course be absurd, but having called for one in opposition, the PM should stick to his guns and create a disunited and discredited government, and do us all a favour by breaking up the coalition and triggering a general election. You can’t have your bun and eat it, and you can’t be half in, half out, of the EU – leaving the Eurozone (or more accurately, Germany) to do all the hard work and then turning up to talks this week to act as one of the key players while facing a referendum proposal at home from your own backbenchers is hypocritical and downright embarrassing for Britain.

It was Ed Miliband, incidentally, who called on Cameron to give up his trip Down Under and attend the meeting, therefore whether or not you agree that Cameron has a right to be there, it is clear that the Labour leader is ahead of the curve on this one, as he was on phone hacking and as he was at PMQs this week.

It might sound like a cheap shot from the comforts of opposition – and we all know Blair and Brown disagreed over the Euro – however it is clear that yet again the Tories are divided over Europe. Europhile or Europhobe, this is one of the few reliable constants of the European project.

We told you so

by maxattacks

Going to use a bit of the Brigid Jones BULS blog formula this morning.

It turns out there’s going to be the biggest drop in middle-income families incomes since the 1970s and so pushing 600,000 more children into poverty according to the IFS. This is while Gideon (George) Osborne has announced a £840 million tax break for multinationals using tax heavens while it turns out the amount of tax money lost in the FTSE 100 by tax avoidance is estimated to be £18bn. So much for the cuts being “progressive”.

To insult to misery, it turns out public sector job losses will 50% higher than originally predicted. So much for Cameron’s pre-election claim that any Minister who came to him with front-line public sector cuts would be told to go back and have a rethink.

Max

The expectation

by maxattacks

After Gideon’s (Osborne’s) low-key and rather dull speech at the Tory Conference today where he claimed his economic plan to be working and even, dare I say it, “flexible”. I’d like to draw attention to the only aspect of Gideon’s plan that has so far proved to be “flexible”, the growth expectations  by the IMF over the last 6 months or so, curtsey of LabourList:

IMF osborne effect.JPG

The fact is, the CBI, the IMF and now even some Tory backbenchers and Chairs of Treasury select committees have called for a plan for growth or at least attempts to stimulate it. Like we said a few weeks ago, a temporary cut in VAT would be a huge stimulus as pointed out by the IFS.

It seems Gideon was only really to parade the the low interest rates in his speech, but with the abysmal growth over the last year or so, it seems we may have a rise in interest rates regardless if growth doesn’t pick up.

So please Gideon, think again.

Max

Priorities please

by maxattacks

It was announced yesterday (I think) that the UK has rejected a call by the EU to implement a financial tax of a mere 0.01% on bank transactions which could raise £50 billion a year.

I’d like to draw your attention to a video posted on this blog before about the absurdity of the Coalition decision to oppose the so-called ‘robin-tax hood’.

Enjoy

Max

 

Clegg is Not For Turning

by labourluke

Yesterday Nick Clegg made a speech to the Liberal Democrat conference which was steadfast and robust in defence of the coalition’s economic policy, despite the depressing evidence this week that the economy isn’t changing course either from its current trajectory of nowhere. He promised there would be no turning back on the cuts and auterity, however many jobs are lost and however many people struggle to make ends meet thanks to the VAT rise and inflation.

Does this sound familar? It should. For although it is right that things never completely run in parallel, it is indeed the case that history may never repeat itself, but it rhymes. It was around this stage in the political and economic cycle – at a party conference – that Margaret Thatcher made the infamous ‘Lady’s not for turning’ speech. Then the UK witnessed riots on the streets, rampant unemployment, a royal wedding, a foreign intervention and a belligerent government hell-bent on destroying the fabric of our society. I barely exaggerate. Even shoulder pads are making something of a comeback in 2011.

However, maybe now is more like 1931, with a prolonged slump looming, a currency mechanism collapsing at the same time as the US economy, a rise in far right extremism and little help for the poor and jobless.We seem to be heading for continued gloom because of the Con Dems’ obsession with cutting the deficit too far and too fast, stifling growth and productivity and making the situation worse for all of us. Although they have won welcome concessions from the Tories on some issues, on the fundamentals Nick Clegg needs to wake up and pull out of this marriage of convenience for the sake of his party in future but also for the country. Just as in 1981 and 1931, ordinary people feel that overall Britain is going in the wrong direction or is in the doldrums - the only thing that would change that elusive yet crucial feeling of a lack of confidence is investment on Keynesian terms to jump-start the economy, a fall in VAT and a slower trimming of the excess we built up saving the banks from collapse. Unfortunately though it seems the Cleggy’s not for turning.

Living Wage Campaign

by maxattacks

We won’t be able to post a full blog for a few nights given most of us are preparing for the Societies fare tomorrow and Friday. So we’d like to quickly share National Labour Students new campaign for a Living Wage. Like the minimum wage, it’s such a small act that can achieve so so much. I’m sure most in BULS can and will support this brilliant new campaign.

Max

A rich man’s toy

by maxattacks

Do you know how much it costs to get from Selly Oak train station while I’m down in Birmingham for University to get back home to Chorley train station (a journey of around two and a half hours either way)? £29.25. Now this is of course bought (advance fares and all that) about a month in advance and with a student railcard which grants a third off fairs.

To cut to the chase, the UK has the most expensive rail fares in Europe with an additional 8% rise expected for next year. The UK is the only country in Europe to have a privatised rail industry. We subsidise the rail industry far more now in real terms than we did when it was nationalised. And we subsidise Virgin Rail alone £1.4 billion. Now in regards to the last point, I fail to see why Richard Branson should receive a penny of British tax payers money (not trying to sound too populistic).

Now for those who say, oh, but the quality of service is far superior to our European counterparts. Really?! For a start only yesterday Network Rail was warned on punctuality by the Office of Rail Regulation. And I have spent too many over-crowded train journeys on a Friday lunch time on a train from Birmingham New Street to Manchester Picadilly or Preston to say that the capacity is sorted.

Solution? Re-nationalise. We’ve been tampering with the system for around two decades. If it doesn’t work, move on and try something different. And I can assure you, this isn’t working.

It’s not often I agree with a Tory Minister, but Phillip Hammond is right when he says trains are now a rich man’s toy.

Max

9/11 Ten Years On, Coalition Politics and Blood Donation

by labourluke

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.

Screw tax cuts to the rich. The 20% VAT should go!

by maxattacks

Our opposites in BUCF have today signalled the call for an idea which has been floating around for a few years now. Scrapping the 50p tax rate for those earning over £150,000 a year. Now this is all very well, I think everyone can agree that governments ought to do their best to keep taxation as low as they can depending on the expenditure, but to say “Getting rid of the 50p tax is not a tax break for the rich, but a common sense policy to stimulate growth and encourage positivity in investment.” is something I’m going to have disagree with BUCF’s former-President.

Keeping interests rates low and cutting taxes for “entrepreneurs” may be all very well, but it counts for nothing if there’s no expenditure from the general population. This is what’s happening now, with the greatest squeeze on household finances for two years due to rising inflation, benefit cuts and of course the regressive rise in VAT (which heavily contributed to the rise in inflation), it is no wonder retail sales, construction and growth expectations are down.

Now of course, this post is completely leaving aside the fact that the 50% tax band will raise an additional £12.6 billion over five years according to Treasury figures . The real point of this post is why not cut VAT again instead? The IFS itself said that this was an effective stimulus for consumer spending (the real power of growth) when VAT was briefly cut to 15% in 2009.

And also, on a more simplistic note, to cut taxes for the rich, and yes millionaires as well, at a time when household incomes are being squeezed is nothing less than insulting for those struggling to pay the bills.

Max

Abortion and sex education facts

by maxattacks

In the light of Nadine Dorries’ plans to require “independent” organisation to consult with pregnant women, I’d like to point out the true facts of abortion and sex education in the UK and across the world. These are facts that the religious “independent” organisations seem to ignore and the same for many in the so-called Conservative Christian Fellowship.

Here are some facts about abortion and sex education.

  1. Each year, 20 million abortions take place in unsafe conditions and as a consequence, an estimated 80,000 women die
  2. Late abortions are extremely rare but necessary – less than 1 per cent are carried out after 22 weeks
  3. Abortion is very safe in Britain and is one of the most commonly performed gynaecological procedures. Complications are extremely rare; carrying a pregnancy to term is more risky.
  4. Contrary to assertions by the anti-choice lobby, medical research consistently shows that women who have had an abortion have no greater risk of breast cancer than those who have not.
  5. One in five of all pregnancies ends in a natural abortion.
  6. Abortion laws in the UK are more restrictive than in almost every other European country, where abortion on request is legal in the first three months of pregnancy
  7. Sex education is not a compulsory module in secondary schools in England and Wales
  8. Studies have shown that comparisons between countries where abortion is legal and illegal that they have almost no difference in the actual level of abortions that take place, the only difference being, it’s far more dangerous in the illegal countries
Now, for those who oppose abortion more often than not (particularly amongst religious circles) believe that only abstinence only sex education works.
Well let’s exam these claims:
  1. “Abstinence-only-until-marriage works.”-The Council of Scientific Affairs states that ”Current research findings do not support the position that the abstinence-only approach to sexuality education is effective in delaying the onset of intercourse.”
  2. “Sex education encourages students to become sexually active at younger ages.”-The World Health Organization reviewed evaluations of 47 programs in the United States and other countries. In 15 studies, sex and HIV/AIDS education neither increased nor decreased sexual activity and rates of pregnancy and STI. However, in 17 studies, HIV and/or sex education delayed the onset of sexual activity, reduced the number of sexual partners, and/or reduced unplanned pregnancy and STI rates.
  3. “Teaching students about contraception encourages sexual activity and increases the chance of teenage pregnancy.”-Expert panels that have studied this issue have concluded that comprehensive sex and HIV/AIDS education programs and condom availability programs do not increase sexual activity and can be effective in reducing high-risk sexual behaviors among adolescents.
  4. “Contraceptives fail so frequently that we should only teach teens to abstain.”-Modern contraceptives are highly effective. The percent of women experiencing pregnancy within one year ranges from 0.03 percent using Depo-Provera to nine percent using the cervical cap ( with perfect use). Even imperfect use protects women far better than does using no protection. Rates of pregnancy with imperfect use range from 0.03 percent using Depo-Provera to 21 percent using the female condom compared to 85 percent of women using no protection.
  5. “Contraceptives do not protect against HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.”-Other than total sexual abstinence, only condoms currently provide significant protection against HIV and other STIs. That is why good programs educate students about the importance of condoms.
  6. “Condoms have a high failure rate.”-The National Institutes of Health (NIH) confirms that condoms are very effective in affording protection against HIV and unwanted pregnancy. The NIH also reports that laboratory studies show that condoms can afford good protection against discharge diseases, such as gonorrhea, chlamydia, and trichomoniasis.
Think about that Department of Health.
Max

Danger, Danger – High Voltage

by labourluke

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-14553613 

Yesterday a young man in his prime died needlessly following an incident with the police where a Taser gun was allegedly used by officers. The case has been referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. It would be premature for me to claim that police had been unreasonable in this case or to cast aspersions on Dale Burns, however the case has led to calls for a rethink over the use of Tasers by Amnesty International, and I echo their sentiments.

This is not the first time someone has died suspiciously not long after being subject to a Taser ‘shock’, yet still this and the previous government have both ordered their wider usage to please the ‘hang-em-and-flog-em’ brigade – no doubt they will be used more extensively as a method of crowd control following the riots. If police leaders can question politicians’ orders to use water cannon and rubber bullets where needed, citing Britain’s century-and-a-half long tradition of unarmed community policing, then why have they not criticised the authorisation of these brutal weapons? Anyone who has seen a video clip on Youtube where someone has volunteered to receive the shock treatment will tell you that it does not look pleasant.

Police officers are only human beings who can overreact like ordinary citizens, and in many public order situations can fear for their lives. However these weapons have not only been used against armed assailants but also when carrying out routine arrests on the most unthreatening of suspects, and in the US it has even been reported that sick and bored police have been ‘testing out’ their device on farm animals to pass the time. These weapons are lethal and do not discriminate between those bent on harming others and innocent bystanders caught in the wrong place at the wrong time; they do not ask questions. There are millions of people walking along Britain’s streets with heart problems – what if one of these went on a legitimate peaceful protest which turned violent and were Tasered trying to restore calm or quickly leave the scene?

Since the tragic cases of John Charles de Menezes and Ian Tomlinson, the tuition fees protests and following the riots of this month, police are in an unenviable position where they don’t know whether they are being too harsh or too soft in the heat of the moment. Despite this, however, the monstrous Taser should have no place on our streets.

Ignorance Is Not Bliss

by labourluke

There’s been a tsunami wave of comment and opinion about ignorance and what to do about the riots in the last week, most of which has been speculative and, in some cases, downright prejudiced (I am of course referring to David Starkey). However what I want to shed some light on is the ignorance that I see every day surrounding disability and conditions that inflict millions of people.

I was on a bus this week where an elderly lady got on with a walking stick and was clearly unsteady on her feet. When she struggled to find her bus pass and got into bother, the bus driver continued to harass her, demanding that she either produce her card, pay or get off the bus. There was tutting and sighing from other passengers, and I even heard the word ‘drunk’ whispered by several people. It was 10.30 in the morning, and although regrettably some people do start drinking early in the day in areas like mine when they’d be better off doing something constructive, I think this woman would have had a tough job getting plastered this quickly.

The lady was not drunk as it turned out, but she had Huntington’s Disease, as another lady pointed out to me as she helped her with her heavy bags. Huntington’s Disease is an hereditary neurodegenerative disorder affecting muscle control which only begins to take effect in middle age, and leads eventually to dementia and in many cases untimely death. The bus driver in question was not a bad man, and was only in his twenties; he was probably concerned about losing his job if someone got away with not having their pass. However it struck me that this lady, who had a perfectly intelligent and coherent conversation with another passenger before she struggled off the bus, undoubtedly has to put up with this ordeal every time she leaves the house, with people commenting and assuming and speculating whenever she goes shopping or to visit relatives.

Why are we not educated about conditions such as this? Why do people with diseases or conditions that are not self-inflicted have to put up with social stigma and embarrassment every day by people who are not discriminatory, but are completely oblivious to the existence of the disease they cannot escape? It’ll never happen in the current climate of cuts, but I believe we should make our children attend compulsory awareness classes, not in school as the curriculum is already stretched, but outside, perhaps in the summer holidays, alongside first aid and financial management tutorials. Ideally it would inform people of ‘invisible’ conditions such as autism and tackle the taboos surrounding common illnesses like cancer. Perhaps then people’s lives would be less of a struggle and allowances would be made for the disabled by other members of the public. If the classes were to take place at 16 it would probably be more of a benefit for society as a whole than national service or leaving young people on the street; it may also encourage more volunteering, which will go some way towards creating a big society and boost young people’s employability at the same time.

Birmingham Riots: A personal view

by Chris Nash

It seems I picked a bad week to break with my “current affairs” abstinence. I’m thoroughly sick of the news. I’m sick of the politics. I don’t care who’s on holiday and who isn’t. I don’t care who’s coming back, and who said what about who. I don’t believe that one event can make a crisis. I don’t believe that the riots are the fault of any one person, or of any one policy. They are not an argument against police funding cuts, nor against EMA cuts. They are not an excuse for pointing fingers, or for scoring points.

I despair for humanity. We may only have about sixty years left, but is there really need to accelerate it? Why? Why is that happening to my people?

Ask yourself this; why aren’t you rioting?

How alienated and desperate would you have to be to smash up your own town? How limited would your life prospects have to be for looting to be worth the risk? What if the only “legitimate” channels appear to have failed you, and your parents before you.

I argue for compassion, and for understanding. But for mere quirks of fate – the circumstances into which I was born, and those which followed –  I could have been one of those rioting and looting tonight. Comfortable people don’t riot. People with decent jobs, and stable incomes, and education, and quality housing; these people do not riot. The triggers may be recent, but the root causes go back decades.

I know many, perhaps most, will disagree. So little is known for certain. So many are eager to fit narratives. Some will blame “mindless thugs”, and resort to comfortable stereotypes; where facts are bent to fit theories. These are the easy answers, the lazy unthinking reactions. Blame the troublemakers. Blame the degenerates. Blame the chav.

I have more faith in humanity than that. Maybe I’m misguided, but I would much rather be wrong than I would unnecessarily condemn. We must all of us ask ourselves “Why?”

By Chris Nash, former BULS member

Let’s keep barbarity out of the judicial system

by maxattacks

The ‘Big Society’ has taken another step in its programme. However, this isn’t taking over local services or starting your own school, but something far far easier. E-petitions have come to the UK. There a number of funky e-petitions floating around (re-nationalise railways, legalise cannabis, remove the ban on gay blood donations, etc) and of course, ahem, less funky (referendum on leaving the EU, end mass immigration, etc). But, one really has caused a storm which briefly had the most e-signatures, restore capital punishment. Thankfully, the petition to retain the ban on capital punishment has quickly overtaken its rival (11,983 to 6,470).

This feeds into a wider issue. The fact that significant proportion of the population do want the barbaric death penalty. For one, the death penalty is a completely ineffective deterrent as famously seen between the varying states in the USA where studies have shown it makes no difference. But the idea of the death penalty has much simpler flaw. Two wrongs don’t make a right and yes, I would regard an execution as murder in itself. It is completely regardless of whether the state rubber stamps the warrant, a life has been taken by the venom of revenge.

So I please urge you to sign the e-petition supporting the ban on capital punishment, for the sake of civilisation.

Max

Why Turn Blue When Just ‘Labour’ Will Do?

by labourluke

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.

All things economic

by maxattacks

Sorry for the lack of blogging in the past couple of weeks, I myself have been working almost full-time with a work-placement on the side. Anyway, I’d like to focus on two of the biggest economic updates in a news dominated by the ongoing phone hacking scandal. The up coming growth figures for Tuesday and the situation over the debt talks in the USA.

First off, who needs a plan B, right? Judging by what is being said by the likes of the National Institute for Economic and Social Research (NIESR) this stubbornness is not quite paying off. The GDP growth figures are mainly regarded as the be and end all test for a government’s economic credibility. To meet budget forecasts for growth this year the UK will need 0.8% of that well needed boost. What the NIESR is predicting the Office for National Statistics to actually say is that the UK has grown by a mere 0.1% with some City forecasts predicting a contraction.

Now don’t get me wrong, here in BULS we are capable of recognising that the Chancellor (Gideon) can not control every aspect of the economy. The rise in oil and food prices and the growing concern over the Eurozone crisis aren’t the greatest assets ever. In fact, the idea of austerity does have the vague potential to work, as seen in Canada in the 90s and in the UK in the 80s. But these are totally dependant upon favourable economic circumstances in neighbouring nations such as Europe and the USA. Sadly though, we currently don’t have those circumstances. We don’t have secure and confident markets in Europe and the USA and this is something Gideon totally fails to grasp. Cutting spending to reduce the deficit is all very well but once again, it’s pointless without growth to fuel this deficit reduction and with average pay rising at 2.3% and inflation at 4.2% (thank you VAT hike) this recovery is still far from certain.

Turning our attention over across the Atlantic it seems Federal government has seen a roadblock to progress because of dogged stubbornness with Republican House Speaker John Boehner walking out on a crucial debt talks with Senate leaders and the White House. Now anyone who’s studied the US governmental and political structure will always recognise that it is a system based upon compromise. With an increasingly ideologically driven Republican based House of Representatives, Obama has had to make drastic compromises in the name of reaching a deal for the good of America.

The President has already pledged to double his cuts particularly in the area of medicare which many supporters (such as myself) are completely aghast at, with $650bn of extra cuts pledged recently. Either way, this is a man who will attempt to build the bridge with his conservative law-makers. Sadly, it takes two to build a bridge and this is not what we are seeing from the Republican end of the river who refuse to raise any taxes (I thought they were rather keen on deficit reduction?). The Republicans have increasingly gone down the road of stubbornness in the past few years, but now it’s time to walk the walk as well as talk the talk as they put aside ideological differences. Sadly, given the ever increasing grip of the Tea Party, I doubt this much needed maturity will happen any time soon.

Max

The end of Murdoch’s political monopoly?…Let’s hope so

by maxattacks

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 civil rights movement of our time

by maxattacks

Just a quick blog this morning, another will be done on the pension reforms, hopefully, this evening. But anyway, I’m sure you’re probably aware of New York legalising same-sex marriages. Now this is nothing less than a triumph against the forces of bigotry, especially since this had to be pushed through a Republican state Senate but also New York is the third largest American state, so you can tell this was a big target set by the gay rights movements.

You only have to look at what was being spouted out by anti-equality campaigners such as National Organisation for Marriage (NOM) to see that what they were saying was nothing less than vile. While NOM has been veiling its true views behind a smokescreen of claims about the “Government redefinition of marriage”. At the very least, their grass-roots have portrayed the movements true views upon the lines of the usual “it’s wrong and an affront to the family” and simply spouting religious lines and hatred. It’s the sad truth that the NOM is primarily made up Roman Catholics and Christian Evangelicals both of whom spout such vile and hate. And it’s always the case that the establishment, particularly the establishment of bigotry which stands in the way of true justice and equality, throughout history. And this is what is happening in the USA today.

This is why I believe gay rights is the USA’s civil rights movement of our time. But this is a massive step in the right direction and who knows, at this rate Martin Luther King’s dream may come true one day.

Max

Gove Could Learn A Lesson or Two

by labourluke

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.

Something I think we can all agree upon

by maxattacks

Animals, particularly wild ones, have always provided humans with entertainment since the time of Ancient Rome. Lions, Tigers, Roosters, Bears and Elephants, you name it, we’ve exploited them for our pleasure. There has been a long road for the last 200 years or so of the ending of such sports and spectacles. Of course, progress is slow, as you will always get those who take great pleasure in elevating themselves above the animal world in attempt to feel a sense self-importance (in which I found a few individuals on facebook doing).

The motion passed by Parliament does not end the use of circus animals, but it now forces the government to propose legislation on this issue. I am extremely satisfied with the cross party support for this cause. Circus animals are on the whole not treated well (despite the claims of a handful deluded individuals) simply because in captivity they could never have the freedom to roam that a wild animal truly needs.

And for those who say the ‘circus is just not the same without animals’, please don’t ever approach any issue with such a backward looking view.

Max

The art of the U-turn

by maxattacks

We’re all very aware of the Tory-led Coalition’s spree of u-turns which numbers around 15. Naturally then it was a matter of time before Cameron would attempt to spin what had been going on. Yesterday in a press conference Cameron claimed that a u-turn (although under this government they have regarded them as “policy rethinks”) was a “sign of strength”. Now in part, I agree with that sentiment. It is far better to consider alternative views and opinions and it is not a sign of weakness if you genuinely change your mind or if the evidence shows other-wise to your own beliefs in the long-run.

However, it’s far far better to get it right first time round. We all know this government is Maoist in terms of the speed of reform and this has clearly been shown through the sheer number of u-turns. Things are not thought out and the public will eventually catch on. It’s all very well to be a “listening government”, but I believe it’s far better to listen before you are made to.

We’ve come along way from the “lady’s not for turning”.

Max

15 and counting

by maxattacks

Just a quick blog before bed (the morning will feature the Republican Presidential Nomination race) and I’d like to thank Planetpmc for pointing out the 15 major U-turns the Tory-led government has had to make in the past year. Enjoy:

1.  NHS Direct ‘not being scrapped’ - http://bit.ly/lAdTjv

2.  Government confirms re-think on school sport funding - http://bit.ly/mtyFFH

3.  Downing Street rejects child milk scheme cut suggestion - http://bbc.in/k1NoGE

4.  Sale of forests in England scrapped - http://bbc.in/jCmqmT

5.  Plans to grant anonymity to rape case defendants scrapped - http://bit.ly/ketJd1

6.  Government backtracks on Bookstart - http://bit.ly/j1AvuP

7.  Housing benefit cap to be postponed until January 2012 - http://bit.ly/iIrrD1

8.  Government admits defeat on immigration target - http://bit.ly/lU5nHV

9.  Military covenant to be enshrined in law after months of criticism - http://bit.ly/mQKfUC

10. UK coastguard station closure plans ‘scaled back’ - http://bbc.in/lE0VHs

11. Government ‘abandons’ plans for weekly rubbish collection - http://bit.ly/mveDsv

12. Cameron tears up Ken Clarke’s “soft” sentencing policies - http://bit.ly/iFGA0a

13. David Cameron denies ‘humiliating U-turn’ on NHS - http://tgr.ph/kryKEU

14. Treasury backtracks on Danny Alexander’s pension reform plan - http://bit.ly/lVocDX

15. Ken Clarke forced to abandon 50% sentence cuts for guilty pleas - http://bit.ly/iz4qZA

The Euro Takes A Pounding

by labourluke

The single currency was once such a contentious issue; only a decade ago it seemed likely that the UK would be joining the Eurozone. What happened? Today, Jack Straw predicted that the Euro will indeed fail following the inevitable defaulting by Greece of its sovereign debt, leading to a return to those old holiday favourites like the Drachma. As the media keeps reminding us ominously, despite our not being part of the monetary union, a collapse of the Euro would have a devastating effect on our economy, because of the global nature of our trade regime and our over-reliance on our closest neighbours for exports. This begs the question that if we cannot escape the effects of these sorts of economic crises in a globalised world, is it not time to become more unified to prevent the two-track system we have at the moment, where richer nations are being forced to bail out those in trouble?

I am no economist, yet if I learned anything from my second-year Interwar Economy course (between lapses into and out of a coma), it is that the attempt to ‘force’ currencies of varying strengths to use the same interest rates as part of the Gold Standard was in hindsight a fairly disastrous decision, without some sort of accompanying political union where individual nations have the same tax-and-spending and trade regimes – like BULS members’ attitudes to musical theatre, it seems we can only be either completely pro or completely anti EU. Given that Labour is a progressive party, and that in today’s global economy an insular economic nationalism is unthinkable (we have no industry for that), is it not the time to at least ‘float’ the idea of some sort of European federal state, if we are to keep the post-war dream alive?

This idea may be too much for many people to swallow, and the media will never accept it, but do we really have any realistic alternative when we are competing with economies like China and India? We cannot afford to let the European ideal crumble on the back of this financial crisis.

Luke

1926 and all that

by maxattacks

The 1926 General Strike was a tipping point in industrial relations and Trade Union laws with only the 1980s to rival it. But ultimately, it was rather unsuccessful. Now don’t get me wrong, strikes can work, but this was at an era when strikes could truly make an impact. So for Unison to claim it will unleash strikes on the scale of 1926 is rather worrying. Please don’t think I disagree with the outrage of the Unions and their members but not only do they not know the failed history of that event but strikes really do not have the same resonance and power they once had (thank you Maggie….) in this day and age.

I agree that automatically shifting the retirement age to 66 and then pledging to negotiate is nothing less of a disgrace on the  part of the Coalition. But, Ed Balls on the Andrew Marr programme this morning was certainly right in one respect, this is a trap. Many of the Tory right revel in the “glory” of fighting an enemy and to Gideon Osborne, this is indeed a perfect distraction from a flagging economy. So please, make sure public support is on your side before such widespread actions are taken and try your best to negotiate as too often the powerful use the powerless to distract the public from the former’s incompetence and corruption, don’t let the same happen to you and be wary.

Max

And who says we don’t have policies

by maxattacks

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

The IMF and economists

by maxattacks

A week ago certain sections of the blogosphere, Facebook and Twitter were filled with gleeful comments about the IMF’s decision to renew its support for the Tory-led Coalition’s austerity measures. This is all fine and dandy, but you first have to look at the significance of the IMF in the world today, which if you look at is a rather poor showing. Yes, traditionally it’s held a high position in international finance, but that literally means or provides nothing (as is the case with “tradition” as a concept). But what we have learnt is that IMF in recent years has had long history badly misinformed perceptions on austerity programmes and the social impact they have which has been clearly the case of African Third World countries where the IMF’s record has been shockingly bad. The IMF has also been blamed for the economic crash in Argentina in 2001 while, most notably of all, the IMF back in 2008/9 backed Ireland’s austerity programme. So naturally, IMF enorsment means very little to me.

On the other hand, what has become apparent (but barely been covered by the BBC) is that a long string of economists that originally back Gideon’s austerity have wisely changed their opinions given the recently poor growth and inflation figures. These professionals are willing to change their minds in the light of new evidence and figures, it’s a shame Gideon is too stubborn to follow suit.

Max

No confidence

by maxattacks

This is just a quick post before bed (IMF, economists and the wider economy tomorrow, don’t worry). But unless I have been completely mislead, the Universities Minister, David Willetts has suffered a motion of ‘No confidence’ against him in Guild Council today.

Oh no! Not the University of Birmingham Guild of Students (ever so slightly sarcastically) you might say. But, do not underestimate the power of collective action. Moves against Willetts are happening all over the county with even his former University tutor following suit. So here we have it, a year into the Tory-lead Coalition and already two Ministers of suffered votes of ‘No confidence’ from influential organisations (correct me if I’m wrong on that particular point) with Willetts soon to follow.

It seems Vince Cable was right, the Coalition is clearly being too Moaist.

Max

Something we can agree upon

by maxattacks

It’s not exactly a secret that us in BULS have our, ahem, tad differences with David Cameron. But I personally like to make a point of mentioning areas and events we can agree on (and that is a rather event) and Cameron’s defence of the safeguarding of the international aid spending against the own right of his party particularly that of Defence Secretary, Liam Fox. Never should we balance the books on the back of the poorest people in the world, it is morally wrong and completely unjustifiable. To say other wise is a completely vile idea particularly when Liam Fox advocates this simply as ‘common sense’ which is nothing less than disgusting.

I also welcome Cameron’s pledge for immunisation 243 million children to keep with the millennium development child mortality goal. Far, far too often are third world deaths completely and utterly preventable and especially by such quick and easy means.

We should not be afraid to accept our similarities when they arise and so on this exceptionally rare occasion (and I mean exceptionally rare), thank you Cameron.

Max

Old news

by maxattacks

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

The Chav is the word.

by maxattacks

First off, incredibly sorry for the lack of blogging lately. Exams and all that are finally over for nearly of all of us in BULS so normal blogging is now commencing.

Anyway, sorry if you’re not her biggest fan but Poly Toynbee did probably a brilliant article on the rise of the Chav. She points out that this in fact a derogatory term, a term of class-hate and despite the hate it ensues it is an acceptable word unlike other hate terms such as “paki”, “nigger” and “faggot”. Now this disregard for the supposed “under-class” has been going on for around thirty years unchecked (thank you Maggie) and is probably best symbolised through the rise of the “benefit-scrounger”. But benefit fraud is a major threat to society isn’t it though? No, the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) latest figures shows that benefit fraud (including so-called “benefit scrounging”) costs the tax payers £1.6 billion. Now not only does this merely account to 0.7% of the benefits bill but it is literally a drop in the ocean compared to the estimated £70 billion which is lost each year through tax avoidance (mainly through the financial sector). It’s only when you realise this that it becomes apparent that despite what the Daily Mail and Express and the Jeremy Kyle show might say it, “benefit scroungers” are the very least of our worries.

So when ever you hear the word Chav being used please don’t accept the term and be critical as yes, there has always been a problem with benefit fraud throughout the Welfare state’s history. But when it becomes apparent that the problems have been shifted on to a comparatively non-issue, you know we’ve got deeper problems.

Max

Unite Behind The Unions

by labourluke

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.

You know what they say about blokes with big guns

by maxattacks

Hey ho! Just a quick blog as a break from revision (how committed am I!).

Anyways, today was announced that the Trident renewal is to go ahead, which if you know me well enough is the biggest waste of money since Chelsea bought Torres for £50 million (still only scored a single goal for those who are not that football literate). This is not the Cold-war era; there are no two major rival super-powers. And for those who claim that we cannot know the future, well if you distrust the future, if you treat nation-states with suspicion, then distrust and suspicion is what you’ll receive.

Yes, the nuclear arms have acted as a deterrent for now, but you know what’s a far far better deterrent? Not having the means to deter either side in the first place. Here’s another way of putting it, I’ve never had crack cocaine for breakfast, one because I would never take crack cocaine, but more importantly, I don’t keep it in my fridge. Equally, my slaves have never initiated a violent and bloody uprising by simply not having slaves.  It’s like a deterrent, only safer and a hell of a lot cheaper.

One problem I also have with the whole deterrent idea is that if one nation does launch its missiles, there’s no one all. If one side launches their missiles, what will you gain by indiscriminately achieve by killing millions of people you’ve never met?

Trident is political not military tool as expressed by most high ranking Generals. And you know what they say about blokes with big guns…….I’ll leave those thoughts with you.

Max

The AV result

by maxattacks

02.05.2011: Martin Rowson on the electoral reform vote

First off. I’d like to point that I respect the decision of the people of Britain in a resounding ‘No’ vote to AV. It’s a shame further electoral reform has been buried for a century, but I’m not a Lib Dem so I’ll get over it. But, I would like to explain why ‘No’ won.

The primary reason for a ‘No’ victory was Clegg’s insistence in holding the referendum on the same day as local elections across England, the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Irish Assembly elections. Because of this the people regarded the referendum as one on Clegg rather than a change to the voting system, consequently, due to Clegg’s unpopularity the referendum could have never been won. The coinciding with the local elections was further capitalised on by the ‘No to AV’ campaign, blatantly spreading personal attacks on the Lib Dems and more specifically Clegg himself. Admittedly, I myself am not the Lib Dems biggest fan any more and the ‘Yes’ side was not perfect either in the campaigning, but the Tories completely refusing to discredit the personal attacks which only gave them legitimacy.

This was because the ‘No to AV’ campaign, despite all the publicity of its Labour supporters, was in effect another Tory ‘No to AV’ group and any attempt to deny this is just misguided. The ‘No to AV’ group was 90% funded by Conservative donors and famously in areas of London ‘Labour No to AV’ leaflets had to be withdrawn because of printing at the bottom that read “produced by the Conservative party”. The ‘No to AV’ campaign went even further down the line than merely personal attacks, they also went on a blatant lying spree with famously the £250 million and vote counting machines claim. The reason why we now no this was a blatant lie was because prominent Labour supporter of ‘No to AV’, David Blunket, actually admitted that the £250 million claim was a figure they plucked out of the air. Now while it was a blatant lie (coupled with the “If you vote Yes this baby/soldier will die” lie) it was an effective lie.

This then leads finally onto the effectiveness of the ‘Yes’ campaign which was nothing less than a shambles. There was no coherent and simple message to sell to the British people and their entire campaign group was made up of Lib Dems and a number of charities, with the former being only good at localised, targeted campaigns.

But anyway, electoral reform is now buried for another century, it was good while it lasted, but it’s time to move on.

Max

Elections – A Glass Half Empty View

by labourluke

First of all, congratulations to Brigid Jones, the new Councillor for Selly Oak.

It’s been a fascinating night (if a bit slow), and there is still the jaw-dropping news that Britain has rejected the Alternative Vote system amongst an abysmal turnout yet to come, however what is really intriguing is where Labour did not do so well, rather than where it made gains.

Once North Wales has decided it can be bothered to start counting, Labour looks set to make gains in Wales, possibly securing a working majority, while in the local elections in England the Lib Dems have suffered their worst result since the party’s formation – all of these could have been easily predicted 24 hours ago. However, in Scotland, you could be forgiven for thinking Labour is in government and has just announced swingeing cuts or banned tartan by the disappointing result and the triumph of Alex Salmond’s SNP, who have capitalised on their narrow success in 2007. Scotland has traditionally been a Labour country, however this result demonstrates a new confidence and is evidence of maturity among the Scottish electorate – they clearly differentiate between Westminster polls and those to Hollyrood. Although it is premature to say Scotland is on the road to fully endorsing indepedence – as Labour leader Ian Gray learned, Scottish voters have more pressing issues on their minds – it does demonstrate a worrying trend towards ever-further detachment from the rest of the UK, with a completely different political culture with different trends. That  pizza-slice analogy Andrew Marr spoke of is becoming more realistic every year.

Meanwhile, what is also worrying is how the Conservatives are getting away with blue murder in the local elections. Their vote has held up, possibly because Tory voters tend to turnout in higher numbers in local polls, possibly because of local issues, but almost certainly because Cameron has cleverly allowed Nick Clegg to become a scapegoat for the Con-Dems’ worst policies. Labour needs to wake up from this, admit we are only at the very start of a long long road to Downing Street, and attack the Tories, instead of reminding everyone about Clegg’s betrayal of the left – the voters don’t need to be reminded of this.

It’s been a good night on balance, but there are some worrying signs in these results (never mind the depressing conservatism and apathy over AV), and there now needs to be a change of strategy at Labour HQ.

Luke