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.

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.

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

Enjoy

Max

Missing BULS  and bored in your Easter Hols already? Well I can announce that you can now make your very own poster in a ‘No to AV’ style.

Have fun!

Max

(Note, the above poster is nearly enough the same as the real ‘No to AV’ posters)

So the eagerly awaited and oh-so exciting AV referendum is now in sight, with Ed Miliband today setting out the Labour leadership’s opinion on one side, and many other Labour MPs and party members saying why they will be rejecting the proposal on the other. It does seem that the party is split down the middle – not a great position for an opposition party reassembling itself after electoral defeat. Incidentally, it is perhaps not the most shining example of ‘new politics’ or maturity when our leader refuses to unite with Nick Clegg because of his new status as Public Enemy Number One – surely there would be less cynicism in the electorate if we as an opposition party took each issue exclusively, instead of pointing the finger at the Tuition Fees Bogeyman.

The arguments for or against the Alternative Vote aside (I’m personally in the ‘Yes’ camp for want of something marginally further down the road to Proportional Representation), what strikes me the most after the disheartening advertising tactics of the ‘No’ camp (I’m sure you’ve seen the baby-in-incubator and soldier billboards) is the lack of interest amongst the wider electorate. Today I asked a friend of mine whether he had yet considered which way he would vote, and the reply was that it would make no difference to the political scene, so why should he bother? I wanted to answer his rebuttal, but found to my horror that I couldn’t. Whether or not we stick with First Past the Post or adopt AV will have little bearing on electoral outcomes on a national scale, only at constituency level (where AV would make elections far more interesting, as those who witnessed the Guild election results will testify), therefore the best we can hope for is the lesser of two evils, while those running for office continue to make vacuous or downright deceptive pledges in their election manifestos e.g. the marketisation of the NHS and tuition fees.

The real question on the ballot paper should not be ‘AV vs FPTP’, nor even the far more deomcratic ‘AV vs FPTP vs AV+ vs STV vs AMS…’, but something which reads less like a mathematical formula and more like a choice between two fundamental democratic frameworks that disillusioned voters can really get their teeth into. We need a choice over whether or not we want to overhaul the House of Lords (a process which has thus far taken a century); whether or not we want to de-throne and de-robe the monarchy; whether or not we want to reduce the stranglehold of the elites over our economy; in short, whether or not we want a new constitution. That is not to say the previous government had a gleaming record on constitutional affairs, although devolution and removal of hereditary peers were a good start. But by throwing a bone for the Lib Dem poodle in the form of a paltry referendum on AV, the Tories have got away with it again, whichever way we vote on May 5th.

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

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

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

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

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

Max

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

One is the fact that, for once, Nick Clegg was in fact right when he called AV a ‘measly little compromise’. Why bother if you’re not going to go the whole hog? I actually don’t think AV will change our ‘culture of politics’ that much, still tending to leave us with a majority Labour or Conservative government, with the Lib Dems maybe being in with more of a shout at entering government  but with other small parties still essentially  not really factoring into it. The Electoral Reform Society has demonstrated how the election would have worked out had it been done under an AV system and, well, the result would have essentially been the same (http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/blog/?p=36) only fewer seat for the Tories and more for Labour and the Lib Dems.

Also, declaring that it will change politics is dangerous as when it doesn’t, politicians will only have disappointed us and it will simply be chalked up as yet another false promise from politicians to the people and do MPs really need another one of those?

Another thing is, well, isn’t the UK already going through enough of a transformation without adding this onto it? This is the main reason I am slightly meh towards it – now is not the time. The main debate is still on the economy and Conservative led cuts, which is where it ought to stay. Right now, people are far more concerned about the state of the economy and how secure their jobs are to be interested in the arguments regarding the way we vote; by the way I’m not saying people can’t cope with it, I’m saying people don’t want to hear it, big difference.

Labour need to be showing that there’s an alternative in the economic argument; we now have a shadow Chancellor that even I can see, being in another country, the Tories are scared of and when the Conservative- led government have already been in power for 9 months (yes it really has been that long …) and are STILL using the argument that problems with the economy are all Labours fault, people will quickly begin to tire of this and want action, looking to Labour to provide new and fresh policies which prove we are on their side, not to a party bickering about the voting system.

So, yeah. Meh to AV.

By Hannah Johnson, BULS member

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m all for reducing the expense of Parliament, or in fact any government funded institution as long it is not to the detriment of it’s ability to provide the service, except under special circumstances. So originally during the general election campaign last year one of the few things Cameron argued for that I could agree with was cutting the number of MPs by 10%. However, after a few months of thought and all this talk of the “new” politics that I began to have my own doubts over the issue. To establish a “new” politics is not to change the institutions and systems of government (although I’d like to see that as well), but rather the mannerisms, tone and attitude that it is carried out in.

The peak of this was without doubt the expenses scandal, which after years of gradual erosion of trust for politics the public were finally convinced of politics’ corruption and inabilities. However, the expenses scandal was merely just the final heavy straw on years of building perception that MPs were not engaging with their constituents and their general over the top behaviour in the House of Commons. Now don’t get me wrong, their are many MPs that do in fact engage with constituents to voice their opinions and grievances such as, Gisela Stuart in Edgbaston, Steve McCabe in Selly Oak, my own home MP, Lindsay Hoyle in Chorley and I’m sure many more MPs whatever their political party allegiance. But many MPs in safe seats don’t pull their weight.

So to get to the point, cutting MP numbers will actually rather create a “new” politics will result in a more out of touch politics. People need to see their MPs at local events, at local surgery’s and most importantly, on their doorstep and cutting the number is not going to help that one bit.

By Max Ramsay, Vice-Chair-elect

Mainly for the comments, but also because it’s politically significant as long as this country is a kingdom. We wish them all the best.

Suzy

Attendees:

Matt Lamb – VPSAD

Jo Ormond – Student Activities coordinator

Benjamin Mee – Atheists, Agnostics and Humanists

Labour Students – Sam Murphy

United Nations – Anna-Kaisa Polojarvi

Socialist society – Vicky Taylor

Debating society – Rachael Twumasi

Take Back Parliament – Charlotte Galpin

1. 1. VPSAD introduction to his role and miniforums

Matt explained that mini forums are a chance for groups of similar interests to discuss issues, ask questions and be given information from the Guild.

1. 2. Open Forums

Open forums have replaced Guild council and are a less formal way for groups to bring issues/motions/feedback to the VPSAD. Two representatives from each miniforum will be elected to attend Guild Council on behalf of the miniforum

Student Groups:  Thursday 21^st October, at 6.30pm; venue to be confirmed

19^th Guild – 5.30pm,– for any issues relating to the Guild as an organisation and/or building

20^th Education and University– 5.30pm,– for academic issues

21^st Sports– 4.30pm,– for anyone involved in sport, at any level from occasional gym user to club captain.

22^nd Welfare– 4.00pm,– any welfare issues.

1. 3. Challenge VPSAD / Feedback from groups: activities so far/coming up; successes and challenges/issues

Socialist – Focus on Fees and would like as many societies as possible to get involved.  Providing transport to the Education Action Network national conference and rally if anyone wants to join us 31^st October. (Matt also suggested getting in touch with Rob Hunter VPEA about fees campaigns).

UN – Have a yearly theme related to the Millennium Development goals.  Have events for climate event in Mexico and Stop Violence Against Women day.

Take Back Parliament – We’re a new group and we campaign to change the voting system.  At the moment we’re focusing on getting membership and have a couple of events lined up.

(Matt mentioned that the box office space outside Spar is now bookable by student groups and is an ideal place to promote your society / have a bake sale etc.  Book through reception.)

Labour – Have an event planned with Lib Dems, a trip to Brussels for European Parliament.  Want to start a living wage campaign (Take Back Parliament would like to work with Labour on voting reform.)

Atheists, Agnostics and Humanists – Have a screening of The Life of Brian on Thursday, also have events with Aston Humanists and Birmingham Humanists.  Have had some problems with paperwork with uni room bookings – Matt asked for details to be emailed to him so he could follow it up.

Debating – Had a public debate on the day of the Browne review.  Also have a debate on Thursday ‘This House would abolish the Monarchy’.  Also have debates coming up on Afghanistan and God.  Please email us with any suggestions for debates that you would like.

1. 4. Know Your World promotion; need replies by Fri 22^nd.

1. 5. Get Involved (brief mention, not in detail, initial sign-up for interest

1. 6. Guild Council elections

Standing candidates:

Anna-Kaisa Polojarvi

Sam Murphy

Rachel Twumais

RON

Brief summary of speeches:

Anna

• Have experience of attending Guild Council and good perspective of what’s going on.
• Feel that the new system will improve the way Guild Council runs
• Believes it is very important to have representation at GC
• Not running just to fill my CV – we need to raise issues concerning our groups
• Will ensure good communication between groups
• Also recognise there will be differences of opinion between C&P groups

Sam

• Believe GC should expand to deal with campus wide issues
• I am transparent, open, amiable, not scared to represent the needs of the miniforum
• Experience of councils: local council and campaigning and representation

Rachael

• Good at putting forward what people want done
• Have responded to feedback from members within own society
• Have experience of attending GC and have drafted a motion
• Able to take a neutral stance

Sam Murphy and Rachael Twumasi elected

1. 7. Any other business/comments

Anna – a what’s on calendar on the website with everything that’s going on across campus would be really good

Matt – I am on the working group to rebuild website and this is definitely something we want.  We are also trying to get some temporary measures in place.

The First Minister for the Scottish Parliament, Alex Salmond, has published a draft bill for a referendum on Scottish independence. Voters will have the choice between greater powers or keeping the statues-quo and independence or staying apart of the UK.

Don’t get me wrong, I do believe if Scotland can economically survive on its own and the Government wants to push through a referendum on independence fair enough, that’s for the Scottish people to decide. But, this should only come when we are clearly out of the woods

Max

In the wake of the expenses scandal, all the major parties claimed they would re-invent British politics. Here is one such action that well frankly, is quite brilliant. Electoral reform by changing the old FPTP system to an AV system. Now personally I think this is a brilliant idea, to sum it up quite simply, the new system will not only retain MP’s strong links to their constituencies but they will for the first time all achieve over 50% of the vote (sort of) through a system preference making, vis-a-vis (that’s probably not the right context but hey, lol) better representation.

While the Lib Dems welcomed this is as a start (which is fair enough) the Tory’s were the helpful selves again with Conservative chairman Eric Pickles said, “Gordon Brown avoided a leadership election, bottled a general election and now wants to fiddle the electoral system,” (yawn).

Max

What do we think?

Max

But regardless of whether one believes in the institution of Monarchy, or in the hereditary principle at all, what swings it for myself is the idea that choosing ones own head of state is a fundamental part of nationhood. Her Majesty may be Queen of New Zealand, but she is not a New Zealander – nor is a monarch of the Windsor line ever likely to be so. SO I’m a New Zealand republican – whilst remaining undecided in the Motherland. For those prone to yelling “traitor” (I often do, it’s rather fun) here’s another fact to sway you: All immigrants to NZ, including those from the UK, are required to take an oath of allegiance to the Queen as part of becoming a citizen. As a natural-born UK citizen, I have never had to do anything remotely similar to this – not even a reasonable pledge of allegiance to the nation, or to the state, a la USA. It seems somewhat bizarre that were I to repatriate myself halfway across the globe I should have to swear allegiance to one institution I thought I’d left behind.
 
Despite any banterous and wholly good-natured put downs I may engage in, New Zealand is no longer a colony. It seems entirely appropriate for it to take the final step into full-fledged nationhood that  is choosing its own head of state. For an issue that would have left me confused and torn back home, here it seems simple as.
 
The website of New Zealand Republic can be found http://www.republic.org.nz/. There is also an obligatory Facebook

Comrade Nash, BULS member (in exile, NZ).

Max

For the financially disadvantaged: – a savings gateway

For young people: – the ambitious aim of eradicating child poverty by 2020 will be enshrined in law, in order to force the incoming government to protect Britain’s youth at all costs.
                          – the widening of access to apprenticships
                          – early action for poorly performing schools

For minorities: – representation and respect for example through kosher and halal options of meals on wheels
                      – increase in positive action and closing the gender pay gap

For the sick: – further improvements to Labour’s NHS

For us all: – greater access and openess through strengthening local governments, constitutional reform and increasing the transparency of party donations
               – security from the whims of banking elites through greater government control

I know who I’ll be voting for.

Suzy

As the Guardian reports, the Government is ready to propose significant electoral changes, allowing polling stations to open on weekends and people to have a second vote.  It would be interesting to see some data on whether an alternative voting system would actually significantly alter the make up of the commons, votes would be redistributed until one candidate has over 50% so I’m guessing it would only be affective in marginal seats.   

This is a really important issue for me and many others, the House of Lords, in particular, needs some urgent reforms.  The Government are apparently proposing to elect the upper-chamber by using proportional voting.  An excellent idea that should have happened years ago.

The problem with constitution reform is that Labour attempts to represent the voice of progress and the Tories the voice of the status quo.  Labour has constantly allowed its radical proposals to be watered down by Tories in both chambers and opt to create large-scale commissions to investigate the issue.  We don’t want commissions or committees anymore, we need some positive results, if we really want the public to trust politicians again lets get serious about constitutional reform before it’s too late.

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

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

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

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

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

The one practical purpose she serves is to support with her authority the exercise of power by the Government, elected by us. She performs no constitutional safeguard as some people mistakenly believe – she cannot object to legislation. In short she is a waste of space and money.

The fact that the monarchy is part of our tradition as a nation should not deter us from seeking the demise of the institution, after all a brief look at the people that have occupied the throne should serve to prove that it is wide open to abuse and can become a vehicle for reactionary ideas. I have a far better way of how our new democracy should be organised.

Let us take a look at the Republic of Ireland. They have a President who is little more than a ribbon-cutter (much like our ‘Liz), and they serve a term of 7 years. The formal powers and functions of the President are prescribed in the Irish codified Constitution. The President, who does not have an executive or policy role, exercises his or her powers on the advice of the Government.

There are some specific instances where the President has an absolute discretion, such as in referring a Bill to the Supreme Court for a judgment on its constitutionality. The President appoints the Prime Minister on the recommendation of the Houses of Parliament. This is where my view of our new democracy differs, which would look like this:

The make up of the Commons would remain the same, a new upper-chamber, a Senate would be created. Senators will be elected on a regional basis, bringing their numbers down to about 350 or even fewer. Someone who has been a member of a political party may not stand for the Senate although former members of pressure groups may do so. We would need to give the Senate real powers, not to mention a good salary, for instance Senators, unlike Peers, will be allowed to introduce private members’ bills. To be nominated to stand, Senators would need approval of 5 regional MPs as well as a certain number of individuals, schools, churches and other local institutions. They would have to be over the age of 35 and would serve the same 7 year term as our new President.

A nomination for President will occur every 7 years, after the election of our new Senators. They will need nominations from 50% of the Upper-chamber and 50% of the Commons. They would have no political barriers as the Senators do, except a President should be over 45 years old. This would be ideal in that a former Prime Minister or MP could stand for the Presidency. A President’s term (they can only serve one) would overlap with Parliament’s and so you could have a former Tory MP or PM presiding over a Labour Government. Unlike monarchs the President will have freedom of speech and their expertise could come in handy when a Government faces tough decisions. That is perhaps their main purpose, to act as an advisory figure to new, young Governments. Remember how almost no one in the 1997 Government had any previous experience – how on Earth did they know how to manage the Civil Service?

It is at this moment that I should probably add, that this is in no way Labour Party policy lest I be expelled – or worse, censured by my comrades on the committee.  (the author is currently sitting on two censures for his ludicrous views and would be booted off the committee under BULS “3 strikes and you’re out” rule – he is being considered for a commendation for this article, however – Ed)

Posted by Tom Guise, BULS Freshers Officer