Category Archives: Thoughts of Comrade Nash

Sold short

by 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.

Chris Grayling to reduce unemployment by One.

by 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

George Osborne: Right on Charity

by 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.

Santorum Pulls Out

by Nash

A belated comment from me, because I’ve overdone it on caffeine and can’t sleep. If you hadn’t already heard, Rick Santorum, latest incarnation of the US extreme-right, has suspended his presidential campaign. This is slightly earlier than I had expected; as a political geek and election junkie I’m disappointed. There were so many contestable primaries still to go, with most of New England and the Mid-Atlantic states due on the 24th of this month. Shame on the anti-choice candidate for aborting his campaign and not carrying it to full term!

As far as I can make out, Santorum has two positive qualities. 1) He’s seemingly quite fond of a drink before noon, and 2) he wears those lovely sleeveless jerseys (great for keeping your core body snug while letting your arms and armpits breath!) I liked having an “underdog” candidate in the race, and I was sympathetic to his plight of being massively outspent by the Romney campaign.

Copyright from left: Jim Wilson/The New York Times; Josh Haner/The New York Times; Jim Wilson/The New York Times; Jim Wilson/The New York Times

Not too hot, not too cold. By far his most sensible policy decision.

Then again, I loathe nearly everything that Rick Santorum stands for. There’s far too much for one post, so I shall focus on two prominent issues. Firstly the man is a bigot. He is a homophobic bigot. You cannot justify homophobia, not in the 21st Century, not in a civilised society. Dressing it up as a feigned defence of the “traditional family” cuts no ice; its like saying you don’t want any black kids in your white children’s class because you’re afraid they’ll learn bad habits. You assume there’s a threat and use that to justify your pre-existing bigotry. This should not just be an LGBT concern – if you’re capable of hating one group solely because of something intrinsic to their being, you can just as easily hate another. As a socialist and a social liberal I find it abhorrent.

Before I was a socialist I was already a scientist. Santorum’s second negative trait is his preference for non-evidence based policy. Here is a man who prefers to substitute his own reality. It is not enough to say that he is anti-science; he is anti-fact. From a genuine objectivist point of view, he is anti-reality. Call it creationism or call it intelligent design, it’s still bullshit. Then there’s the Dutch euthanasia epidemic which doesn’t really exist, except in Rick’s head. An oblate spheroidal 4.54 billion year-old Earth? Just a “liberal” media conspiracy. Probably.

Ultimately I suppose I should be glad he’s gone. Unfortunately there was his speech after Wisconsin last week, where analogies were made to the Republican nomination races in ’76 and ’80. Pick the moderate (Ford, ’76) and lose, pick the conservative (Reagan, ’80) and win was the message. Santorum sees this as his ’76, and he’s now positioning himself as nominee heir-designate for 2016. Be afraid. 2016 would be a much better year for him than 2012 could have been. Romney, near certain nominee, faces an incumbent President with decent approval ratings and an improving economy. The precedents aren’t good. But assuming Obama’s re-election, by 2016 the party political pendulum will be swinging the other way. Apart from 1988 the last time a party retained control of the White House into a third term with a non-incumbent candidate was 1928. Santorum will grow more electable not less, especially if a second “moderate” Republican loses to Obama.

On the other hand, as recently six months ago people were still speculating about Palin 2012. Hopefully Santorum will disappear into obscurity. Either way, the 2012 race just became much less interesting, with the next election results worth staying up for being the Big One itself in November.

Don’t assume from any of this that I like Romney. To me he represents an equally insidious hatred, though in a much more subtle flavour. His evil is a delicately refined one, and the more dangerous for it. I’ll deal with him later.

Fixing the Ballot

by 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.

Will there be more upset results on May 3rd?

by Nash

Thursday 3rd May sees local government elections across the country, most importantly for 40 of the 120 Birmingham City Council wards. Currently holding 56 seats, the Labour group stands poised to seize back control after eight years of Tory-Lib Dem rule. A net gain of five councillors will tip the balance; hopefully we win even more.

The mood on the doorstep is promising – those who voted Labour in 2010 and 2011 (and who successfully voted in several new councillors) are staying with us. National-level polls look promising, even with just under four weeks to go. However what is most noticeable is the level of anger directed towards the government, both by our supporters and those of no declared preference. In the latter instance a dislike of the Tories does not mean support for us. Too often I hear the common refrain “They’re both as bad as one another”. This is frequently coupled with “they’re all in it for themselves”, or “there’s no difference between the main parties any more.” Tragically these clichéd anti-political statements are most common in the more deprived areas.

Why? It is true that in government we were perceived as forgetting our traditional base. It is probably true that Labour neglected those less well off while pandering to the already privileged middle classes. Where we did immeasurable good (the minimum wage, proper funding for health and education) people have already adjusted their base levels and forgotten what existed before. Some people simply grew bitter as we failed to live up to high expectations. None of this justifies the intellectual laziness of the anti-politics sentiments, but it perhaps helps to explains them.

In short, just because people are learning anew why so many of us hate the Tories, a Labour vote is not inevitable. There has been enough analysis of the Bradford West result to be sure of that. YouGov’s fortnightly “Best Prime Minister” question shows that while Cameron has dropped to 30% (-8), Ed Miliband has only risen to 19% (+1). The difference has gone to the “don’t knows”. Most striking of all was today’s Survation voter intention poll which puts UKIP joint with the Liberal Democrats on 11%. All three main party leaders have negative approval ratings among the general public. Barring any great enthusiasm for Labour, the May elections could be a good time for the minor party protest vote.

Looking to Birmingham, the Statement of Persons Nominated was released earlier in the week. All three main parties have candidates in every ward. The Greens (for whom I have a fair amount of sympathy) have also put forward 40 candidates. The BNP and UKIP have both put forward 18 candidates each. In addition there are ‘80s throwbacks the Social Democratic Party and the National Front (both with 4). Add to this one Independent, the Socialist Labour Party (2), and general anti-cuts groupings (3 between them). Finally, don’t forget one lonely English Democrat. None of these minor parties currently have any representation in the City Council. Respect, which does, is fielding no candidates, a decision they may now be regretting.

Will any of these minor parties do well on May 3rd? The excellent Political Betting does a good national analysis for this question. Specific toBirmingham, I would imagine not. The vote margins as they currently stand are too large – only someone withGalloway’s personality cult and the publicity of a by-election could achieve the swings needed. Looking at many wards there still exists a two party system straight out of the 1950’s – it genuinely is a “two horse” race in many cases, no matter how infuriately those dodgy bar charts are. Quinton ward last year saw Labour and the Tories win 89% of the vote between them. If I were a partisan I might be glad that we don’t use some fancy preferential voting system – the power of the “wasted vote” is strong indeed.

Will there be Green (or UKIP) councillors in the Council House after May 3rd? My judgement is “No”. On the other hand, I can easily see the minor party vote having a spoiler effect on one or two results. Looking at last year’s Harborne result, the difference between winning Labour candidate and losing Tory was smaller than the total votes won by the Greens. In a two-way fight one could assume that Green voters would favour Labour over Tory, but you can never be certain. Minor parties from left and right could be responsible for many split votes this time around. It might not cost us a majority, but it could cost us seats.

We should never assume that just because voters are anti-Tory, they are pro-us. We are not the only opposition, and we have to earn the trust and support of the electorate, otherwise there could be more Bradford-style upsets in waiting.

A Free Web

by 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 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

Ich bin ein Trot

by Nash

In the past week the “progressive” mask of the Tory party has all but disintegrated. Once again, boggle-eyed theories of “the enemy within” have been aired. By now most people in the country will be aware of the morally repulsive government scheme that is workfare. Anyone with a heart and a social conscience will be opposing it.

According to Grayling and IDS though, we opponents are just a tiny “unrepresentative” bunch of extremist “trots”. Ah yes, “trots”, meaning trotskyists; because if you can’t counter an argument with logic, reason and facts, then why not descend into slurs, name-calling and ad homninum? I have used the term “trots” in the past to refer to left-wing opponents. It was wrong of me then, being both ignorant and a lazy and knee-jerk form of argument. All in all its use by the government signifies an intellectual unwillingness to engage in the issues.

Yet what can we expect from men who so clearly do not know the difference between right and wrong? Already they have lied through their teeth about the “voluntary” nature of workfare. Government documents are, even now, being fabricated or hidden from official websites. The DWP, as always, peddles its Orwellian propaganda. Everyone who has first hand experience of the Job Centre and these schemes knows that Grayling and IDS are open liars. When brave individuals like Cait Reilly have dared to stand up against workfare, they have been mercilessly slurred and slandered in the Tory press. Now there are threats of a heavy police presence at future workfare protests – presumably to intimidate the vulnerable into compliance.

I am against workfare because I believe in a fair days pay for a fair days work. I oppose businesses exploiting the free labour of the unemployed. I oppose the unemployed being punished for economic circumstances beyond their control. I oppose undermining the wages of paid employees by working for free. I oppose already rich individuals and shareholders profiting from forced and unpaid labour.

According to Grayling and IDS, all this makes me an “extremist” and a “trot”. This being so, all hail Comrade Trotsky!

By Chris Nash

Birmingham Riots: A personal view

by 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

The Armchair Politicians of Redbrick

by Nash

As the recently concluded Guild Officer elections fade to a happy memory, you may be inclined to turn to an opinion piece [http://www.redbrickpaper.co.uk/2011/03/after-the-campaign-the-friction-within/] published in today’s Redbrick. Journalist Joe Jervis gives his assessment of the election results and the composition of the new team.

But in an otherwise almost passable piece, a gross slander is committed against many of my friends and colleagues. Jervis alludes to the success of former BULS Chair Dora Meredith in being elected Guild President last year, and the role many BULS members played in that victory – yet barely a breath later BULS are written off as lazy and ineffective campaigners:

“However, this year lackadaisical campaigning [without vigour, interest or determination] from the BULS contributed to losses for its respective candidates in every position.”

I’m prepared to overlook the lazy research in referencing us as “the BULS”. I’m prepared to overlook the pompous use of “lackadaisical” and the needless showing off it implies. What I will not stand for is seeing my fellow BULS members declared to be half-arsed campaigners. Many BULS members worked their arses off for two weeks on the campaign trail; for Emma, James, Rachael and I. They stood to gain very little other than the satisfaction of a good campaign and of supporting the right policies and ideas.

In all their door knocking, leafleting, lecture shouting and banner waving; Oli, Catie, Luke, Max, James, Jake and many others besides were the exact antonym of lackadaisical (whatever that may be). They have all been insulted by this unsubstantiated slur from a misinformed hack.

Further to all of this, what Jervis overlooks is the simple fact that Guild Officer Election candidates run as individuals, not as party candidates. We may have met through BULS, but we campaigned together as friends; and it was out of friendship, not blind party loyalty that many in BULS joined us as campaigners. Labour Party members campaigned alongside non-members. Party affiliation is utterly irrelevant in an election where it is the wellbeing of all your fellow students and your student union that is at stake.

I take full personal responsibility for my own defeat. My own reluctance to adopt a cheap gimmick, and my preference for speaking with people on the doorstep instead of shouting at them on campus, were both far bigger factors in the loss than any perceived idleness on the part of my team. To make scapegoats of BULS as a whole or of any individual member would be dishonest, petty and vindictive. I would not contemplate even the slightest ingratitude against my campaigners, even though our efforts were in vain.

I concede that this blog may read as a bit of a rant, but when people I know to have worked bloody hard for me are slagged off by someone who not there and whose critiques are without citation; I tend to get slightly irate. From Mr Jervis I request an apology and a retraction of this pathetic accusation against us all.

By Chris Nash, BULS member and former VPDR candidate

How to lose a PM in 30 days

by Nash

Observing recent political events in West Island from across the ditch, I have been struck by both the swiftness and the apparent brutality of Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s removal by his own party in favour of his second-in-command Julia Gillard. The justification for his removal apparently a decline in Labor support in the polls during an election year; for which he as leader was deemed responsible. To a UK political observer the initial comparison is inevitable (and Martin Kettle at the Guardian milks it for all its worth).

But UK Labour is not Australian Labor, and we should be glad of this. Firstly Australian Labor is institutionally factionalised in a way which makes Blairite-Brownite “rifts” look like trivial squabbles over soccer team affiliation. Rudd had no core faction behind him, hence when the challenge came they swung behind Gillard. In addition, Rudd had probably alienated the powerful union factors with miner membership though his proposals for a new supertax on mining profits. The plan to reinvest these profits to the benefit of all Australians is in principle a sound idea, but one which threatened the interests of mine workers. Consequent hostile advertising from this sector likely cost a few points in the opinion polls and encouraged Rudd’s colleagues (with union backing) to act. Some of us in English circles may smile wryly at the thought that there is somewhere in the west where miners can still bring down a PM.

It is also much easier to stage a coup when only MPs have a say in their party’s choice of leader. Much of the action happened overnight in this time zone – talk of speculation coming around midnight followed by the news of Rudd’s resignation when I woke up on the floor the next morning. By teatime Gillard was meeting the Governor-General. Had Milliband, D. ever followed through on his many threats to stick the knife in we’d have gone through the whole nominations, campaigning, and membership ballots palaver. Arguably this grants the incumbent a significant advantage, but if it saves us the undignified spectacle of a brutal internal coup whilst being notionally more democratic then I for one am grateful.

Rudd had been in office for just under two and a half years, after a landslide victory in ’07. He had brought the Labor party back into power after 13 years of opposition. He’d initially taken a bold stand on global warming in a country with a deeply sceptical (and Murdoch-tainted) media, and at least attempted to redress historical grievances with the indigenous peoples. Until a matter of months ago he had polled as the 2nd most popular Australian PM in history – now he becomes the only to be ousted from office in a single term. 3-year term limits mean that an election was likely before the end of this year; with a change at the top it will likely come about even sooner (as Gillard herself has stated). We shall see if the Labor party’s gamble pays off. If it does, there may well be many a forlorn “what-if?” in the Milliband camp (though Labor’s defeat is not as likely, let alone as certain, as ours appeared in ‘09). I’m not sure which reflects worse on a party – regicide against a successful election winner, or the prospect of changing leaders twice in one term. “Unelected Prime Minister” rhetoric is disingenuous yet potent amongst the electorate, especially when there is very little to hide the naked ambition of those who make it to the top. I’ve seen identity politics used already to justify the outcome; a seemingly desperate spin. On this note it may be worth considering the success of other welsh redheaded Labo(u)r leaders.

I’m glad this undignified spectacle never befell Gordon. Rudd gave a gracious albeit tearful resignation speech, worth watching if only for his parting joke of “I’m still Prime Minister for another 30 minutes… I’m no longer leader of the Labor Party but I am Prime Minister… anything could happen folks”. To an outsider he seems a decent, honourable and principled man – I only hope his party don’t wind up regretting what they’ve done.

Comrade Nash

- BULS Southern Hemisphere correspondent

Class Warfare by another Name

by Nash

This weeks Mail on Sunday has brought to light allegations (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231774/Camerons-bid-toff-Tories-backfires-candidate-tells-leader-I-like-double-barrelled-name.html) that Tory HQ (or more exactly Mr. David Cameron) is urging prospective parliamentary candidates with more aristocratic names to drop or change them for the election next year. The case mentioned is that of Ms. Annunziata Rees-Mogg, PPC for Somerton and Frome, who was asked by Dave to change her name to the more prole-friendly “Nancy Mogg”. While Ms. Rees-Mogg is known to her friends as “Nancy” (understandably), she has so far refused to budge on the matter, as indeed has her brother Jacob Rees-Mogg (PPC, Somerset NE).

Good for her I say. The inverse snobbery utilised by some Labour campaigns in the past (see Crewe and Nantwich, byelection) is nothing but a shameful perpetuation of old Class Warfare tactics in my view. I would argue that most voters have more intelligence than to back or spurn a candidate on the basis of name alone. If either of the young Rees-Moggs are overly privileged or out of touch, that will speak for itself through words and deeds come the campaign. There will be many reasons for the good folk of Somerset not to vote Tory in 2010 – a candidate having a fancy name or being well spoken should not be among them.

What do the good folks of BULS think? Is a posh name fair game for attack? Should Labour be wary of a successful “de-toff” campaign by Mr. Cameron?

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

Kiwi Republicanism

by Nash

I’m speaking to you as a former royalist. That’s right, whilst down here in one of Her Majesty’s many Dominions, I’ve gone over to the over side. This blog has seen royalist v. republican rents before – normally crashed by the Tories ad their charming loyalist sentiments, with Comrade Guise leading the charge for the revolution. Ah… the memories.. But i’m coming at it with a kiwi slant. Oh yes.

Why? Well having been long torn on the Republic issue (emotionally drawn to royalty – but with no logical or rational justification for being so), republicanism down ‘ere seemed a different matter. What’s the big deal I figured – It’s not as if you’re the ones who have to pay for them – and you only have to see them every couple of years. Republicanism isn’t as big here in NZ as it has been in Australia. For a long time it has been kept off the political agenda by more pressing issues (as is always the case with any constitutional reform; see Lords, House of.).

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).

Wen will we learn: Thoughts on China, overpopulation and shoes

by Nash

Given that I have never found snow in winter by any means newsworthy, only two stories have really attracted my attention this week. The first occurred on Monday in Cambridge when some self-righteous dipstick took it upon himself to lob a shoe at the Chinese premier Wen Jiabao, in addition to objectively assessing him a “dictator”. Presumably a more civilised form of protest was beyond the man, as indeed was devising one that was remotely original. – Further proof perhaps that our home-grown extremists and fringe groups look increasingly towards the Middle East for guidance.

The second story, seemingly unrelated (though I’ll do my best to shoehorn) comes from a statement from Jonathon Porritt– a man I once had the pleasure of receiving an award from – who chairs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission. He has called for serious global measures to curb population growth in an attempt to tackle climate change. In addition to making some very valid points about the need for personal responsibility in procreation, he also criticises a number of ecological pressure groups for their apparent hypocrisy on the issue:

“Many organisations think it is not part of their… You [friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, etc] are betraying your members by refusing to address population issues and you are doing it for the wrong reasons because you think it is too controversial”

Controversial? He’s not wrong there. Barely skimming through the list of comments on the related Times online page could tell me that. A large number come from serial breeders in the US who have littered the planet with numerous (presumably) like-minded offspring. More often than not god(s) or scripture are invoked as justification for such recklessness. Despite all this, the US isn’t really the problem; whilst their disproportionate use of natural resources and consumption per head is nothing to shout about, natural population growth has pretty much evened off. Same goes for most of Europe.

So here’s where the real controversy rears its ugly head. What to do about the vast hordes of Africa, Latin America and Asia? Whilst discussing this may ring the distant alarm bells of xenophobic and even racialism, cold hard facts are that the enormous increase in global population from less than 1 billion in 1900 to over 6.7 billion today (and potentially up to 9 billion by 2050) predominantly comes from precisely these regions.

Now call me cynical, but I know that even suggesting that this growth is a significant global problem puts me at the risk of attack from all sorts of agitators. Labels like Eurocentrist, Neo-colonialist, and even racist would no doubt be applied (and consequently devalued) to any economist or ecologist who seriously proposed large scale cuts (“Population reduction”) in third world population growth.

So this is where China comes in. Twenty-nice years ago, the Chinese government made what was, in my view, one of the most difficult governmental decisions ever made; they introduced the One Child Policy. Now I personally have numerous criticisms of the Bejing regime; but on this issue I believe they draw a lot of unwarranted attacks. Someone famous (I forget who) once said that government is about the “choice between the unpalatable and the disastrous”. The One Child Policy was an ultimate last resort for China; a last ditch attempt to avoid the population explosions and famines which have dogged the nation’s history.I’m not proposing anything so “draconian” for sub-Saharan Africa quite yet, but it’s worth noting that if humanity doesn’t take steps to limit our numbers, nature will do the job herself.

as the Tories once argued that it is not necessarily racist to discuss immigration, I will argue that it is neither racist, nor an infringement of human rights to talk about population. And it is a discussion that needs to start soon.

Comrade Chris Nash, BULS Controversey Officer

Conrade Nash: Thoughts on the Eco Warriors

by Nash

“If Antarctica is melting – we have just 3 days to eat all the penguins”

Dear old Comrade Guise has been saying for some time that he’d quite like it if more folk would write for this blog; and given my quite spectacular knack of insulting, offending, annoying, and generally filling up the BULS inbox, I thought I’d give it a bash. After long and careful (5 minutes) consideration as to my target, I figured I’d go for those I like to refer to as the Eco-Warriors.

First let’s get one thing straight; before the legions of St. Al Gore hyperventilate, I’m not out to deny the bleeding obvious, our readership are too intelligent (just) for me to do that. My objections lie not so much with the motivation and the facts behind the Green Agenda, but with the methods and the mentality of many of those who attach themselves to it. I don’t think I’d be alone in saying that it seems to me that the green movement contains the highest proportion of nutjobs and loonies this side of Riyadh.

I could be referring to the ongoing Heathrow expansion farce here. I’m not, but if I were it would be the most topical in a long list of examples of eco-self righteousness. This is the main point of my argument – the actions undertaken by members and organisations within the green movement are carried out with the greatest possible amount of preaching and sanctimonious self-martyring imaginable – one where parallels are found only within religious extremism. For its many faults, I’d say Britain has some pretty damn fine representative structures – not perfect you could argue – but functional. For democracy to be worth anything citizens need to have equal representation; MPs are after all obliged to represent all their constituents regardless of which way they voted. Just because a citizen believes that their opinions are more valid or accurate than everybody else’s, doesn’t entitle them to any more representation, or to a greater say in the legislative process than anyone else.

An example I’d like to use is one I first read about many months ago. Freight trains are used to transport coal to Britain’s many (comparatively advanced) coal-fired power stations. Naturally a bunch of hippies decided they weren’t having this, though rather than follow correct procedure by writing to their MP – or maybe even voting in an election – they took matters into their own hands. They managed to stop a train en route, and having boarded and effectively hijacked it, proceeded to unload the contents there and then (without I might add, any concern for the mess they were making or the poor sod who’d have to clean it up). The issue was resolved when the police “talked them down”. Personally I’d have preferred to have seen their bodies dragged from the site, but you can’t have it all.

There are many other examples like this; from Greenpeace obstructing perfectly legal and legitimate whaling activity in the South Atlantic, to the eco’s with a boycott-fetish on campus, with everything in between; including I might add, the publicity-seeking d-list celebs in Heathrow. What is worst about all this, for me, is that I’m aware of the facts. I’ve read the literature; I’m familiar with a lot of the issues. When there is a strong militant faction within any organisation – who aren’t interested in discussion, who take matters into their own hands, and who arrogantly believe their opinions to be the only ones which are valid – is it surprising when many members of the general public take the reactionary stance that global warming is a mere fiction invented to con us? Hostility inspires suspicion.

Militants will always do their cause more harm than good – and it is always they who cannot see it. If well meaning greens want to save the planet,then they should do it by taking ordinary people into account – talk with them, not to them – rather than treating them like idiots, evil nature killers, or both. Don’t forget; its their planet too.

Angry emails to the usual address, thanks.

Thoughts of comrade Nash – Why our Guild needs the Tories.

by Nash

Last semester, Comrade Guise gallantly came out in favour of the University of Birmingham branch of Conservative Future. While I applauded his decision at the time, and still do, dear Tom has since expressed some mild guilt/regret over the matter. The title of this post is fairly provocative, and rightly so. It is my firm believe that our Dear Leader was right in his decision, and that BUCF are an essential part of our Union.

To me, valid political discourse requires a plurality; a spectrum of ideas if you prefer. Student movements and Unions across the country have gotten a bad reputation in the past because of their political classes – and rightly so in my opinion. I count myself lucky in that our Uni has a reasonably moderate composition within its political class – not quite the loony leftie stereotype I would imagine existing elsewhere. I have many, many reasons for strongly disagreeing with the views of those on the far left, reasons I won’t go into right now, but it is not this which fuels my unease. Far left student politicians are not representative of the student body, and it angers me when they act as if they are. Whether it is the mad “Anti-war (but only if it is a war started by or involving the US; we’ll let the Arabs get on with killing and oppressing each other)” brigade; or the eco-warriors who disagree with coal-fuelled power stationsa – but rather than go through the correct representative process, would rather take matters into their own hands and board a delivery train, committing trespass, piracy, theft and (ironically) make a large mess in the process; the self righteous zeal of these people infuriates me.

Truth be told, the Far Left of student politics are extremists in their own way. They are unrepresentative of the vast majority of the student body, and their ideological agenda as unwelcome to the general populace as [ insert witty analogy ]. They are the true enemy to which my ambiguous title refers.

And this is where BUCF comes in. With them, the political spectrum is balanced. Labour Students on the centre-left, CF on the centre-right, with extremists rightly banished to either end. Take away BUCF, and pretty soon you’ll find you have a spectrum where the “Left” is actually the Socialists, Respect, and other nutjob fringe groups. The “Right” would effectively be Labour Students. Your “Moderates” under this scenario would not really be that moderate at all.

Awaiting the angry shouts of “Tory sympathiser”, or even “Traitor” with glee, I should probably admit that I consider myself to be a moderate and “centre-leaning” (if that is possible). This, I would argue, being a position occupied by the vast majority of students – far more than the combined membership of all the loony-left and eco-warrior groups. I for one wouldn’t be ashamed to admit that I may have views more in common with some in the Conservative Party than with members of my own – In fact, I’d be pretty concerned were that not the case. I should probably stress at this moment that I am definitely not a Conservative (at time of writing), and my acquaintances would hopefully agree. I cannot be alone in recognising the role that BUCF can play in ensuring a healthy and pluralist democracy – at least in the Guild of Students. Conservative Future are not our enemies; when it comes to preserving democracy, they are our friends.

Chris Nash is Satelite Sites Officer in the Guild and writes here in a personal capacity.

Biphobia and Why the world needs to catch up.

by Nash

Blog by Chris Nash – BULS’ LGBTQ Officer

 

Ok, I don’t usually blog, it isn’t my thing. But here goes.

Sometimes we forget what an enlightened bubble we live in at University. To me, students seem to be at lest 10 years ahead of the rest of society. The concept of overly left-wing students may be just a stereotype, but at least we can be certain that we are by definition more educated than the general population. With education comes tolerance. Let me tell you a story;

There is a girl I know who recently come out as a Bisexual. I’ve known her for some time now, and as her most trusted friend she chose to come out to me and me alone. Unfortunately she isn’t a student, she’s still in further education, and when the news got out it wasn’t pretty. She has been abused, both verbally and physically, by people she considered friends; people who’s attitude is undeniably both homophobic and biphobic.

But for me that isn’t the worst bit. Having endured the abuse, she contacted a member of the academic staff to report the incident. Their response was less than desirable; ‘it’s your fault because it was your choice to be that way’ is the gist of it. This is unacceptable, just bloody unacceptable. At this university, we are lucky enough to have an anti-harassment policy which is suitably severe, but I don’t know what it is that I’m most pissed off with – the fact that an FE institution could have such a lax policy, or the fact that such absurd beliefs exist in the outside world. Naturally I intend to support my friend in getting those responsible held to account – even though personally I’d like to kill the fascist bastards. Right now, I’m just incredible grateful that I live in the enlightened world of academia.

Cheers,

Chris Nash

Homophobia is HATE

by Nash

The biggest event of last week’s (this year’s, even) social calendar for Birmingham students was of course the annual ‘Homophobia is Gay’ bar crawl; a fantastically organised event full of lovely people – many of whom will probably be staying clear of me for a bit. It is a truly deserving cause; I think we can all agree. Sadly, this fine event couldn’t happen without one minor incident. I don’t wish to blow it out of proportion, but I think it demonstrates just why we need this kind of thing.

To get from Joe’s Bar to Reflex, we took a bus. There is no bus that can rival a gay bus. But we weren’t the only passengers; partway there a small group of youths – commonly referred to as chavs – made to leave. Naturally we were all wearing the lovely event T-shirts, proudly displaying our anti hate-crime credentials. One of the youths felt obliged to shout something along the lines of “Dirty Queers”. Not wishing to fault his powers of observation, I find this sort of behaviour completely unacceptable – as did the rest of our party who made this quite clear. Without wishing to bore you with details, I will say that something of a shouting match took place. Just before leaving, one of the youths stuck his unwelcome head back up to the top deck and spat at one of our number.

Her response was reasonable given the circumstances. I do not know why he felt this was a) necessary, or b) acceptable. Maybe he felt insulted by the fact that she wouldn’t want to sleep with him? (She was heterosexual, as were many of us, but I don’t think that would make any difference, he was an ugly bastard). Now normally I would laugh at irony, but this just left me feeling sick. Resisting the urge to gas the scumbag, even I lean to the right at times; I started to question why this sort of thing should have happened.

What doesn’t help is the fact that society in general still sees this kind of thing as acceptable, maybe not the spitting, but the homophobia behind it. These young people, must have picked up these attitudes somewhere, hate must be planted. Their parents maybe? Their friends? What doesn’t help is the lack of action being taken to stop it at its source. This sort of hate crime should be treated with zero-tolerance from an early age. Schools – all schools, especially ‘faith’ schools – should be the arena for this. Only by informing children that all forms of hate crime are wrong, from an early age, can we prevent them from turning into the hideous creatures I saw last night. Homophobia is as evil as racism or sexism, that is what the campaign is all about, and that is what we need to teach society!

Thanks

(many thanks to the LGBTQ and Liberal Democrat societies, and others, for organising such a fab event!)