This may turn out to be one of my last blog posts as a Birmingham University Labour Student, before I, like so many others, get tossed on to the proverbial dung heap of youth unemployed in this country, thanks directly to the Coalition government’s economic policies, festering away in the hot summer sun, ignored by the generations who came before us who had it so good.

I think our very own Max has already eloquently and fairly captured Labour’s performance in this week’s mosaic of elections, rightly arguing that although it was a fantastic night for Labour and a bad night for pretty much everyone else, including the media who wound themselves up for a Labour defeat in Glasgow and drubbing in London, we still have a long way to go, and are only at ‘Kinnock levels’ of support at present.

Therefore I will just sum up where I think the main parties should go from here, and although I am in no position whatsoever to know what goes on in the heads of the British voters (all five of them who bothered), I will try tentatively to capture what they may have been thinking.

First of all, the Tories. These guys need to get real – after weeks of headlines about being out of touch, with pasties, grannies and income tax, they see the local election results as a resounding call from the electorate to try and get more out of touch, if that is at all possible. In backbenchers’ post-match analysis  (reliably backed by the Daily Mail) this has varied from House of Lords reform, to equal marriage concerns to a need for fewer wind turbines. They’re even proposing an ‘alternative Queen’s Speech’. As if those who voted against the Tories who were unemployed and couldn’t afford to pay the gas bill, or even had to resort to food banks, weren’t bothered by this, but were damned if they were going to see Lord Sugar get made redundant, or let Adam and Steve down the road get hitched. No, guys, they don’t want YOU redistributing wealth from the most vulnerable to the richest in society, making them pay for the failure of neo-liberal economics.

Next, Labour: We need to be confident in our leader, who may have some work still to do but is a leader who is connecting with people, does have a vision for the future forming in his head, and is capable of heading a talented team of potential ministers. We also must reach out to those who didn’t go out and vote on Thursday, giving them a positive reason to run to the polling booths at 7am to vote Labour – even in the bloody rain. We need a plan for fair, green investment in industry to bring growth and jobs back to the economy. We need to bite our tongues and reach out to the Liberal Democrats, and not be tempted to laugh and cackle at their coming behind penguins and fascists in some wards – this isn’t funny, this is worrying. Everybody knows most of them would rather be in coalition with Labour than the Tories.

What about the Greens? They need to let us steal some of their policies.

And finally, the Lib Dems: Exit the Coalition, stage Left.

Mother’s Day is one of those days every year when we think of the role of the women who brought us into the world, and how much they have done and sacrificed for us and our welfare, from when we were a mere collection of cells, to now when we are studying for degrees (some would say our brain cells are perhaps not much more developed than when we were but a collection of cells in some respects). However much progress has been made (albeit painfully slowly) towards equal pay and representation for women in our society, women will always be pressurized to juggle their work and home lives to a greater extent than men.

What worries me is that this noble cause where women rightly have more of a choice in living their lives as they want to live them has created a culture and a mindset where those who choose – actively, rather than subjects of some false consciousness or religious pressure – to stay at home or only work part time to be with the kids as they come home from school, are targeted as a drain on society and the public purse. Housewives (sorry), homemakers, stay-at-home mums: whatever the word we use for them, their work is indeed that – work, which for example produces far more of a social good than the likes of bankers or estate agents or lawyers. Yet it is not categorised as such, and our society does not reward it, it penalizes it.

This is nothing to do with a woman being made to feel guilty for not pursuing her career – of course women should strive for the top echelons of the work pyramid, breaking the glass ceiling and entering the boardrooms; it is nothing to do with sexism – I firmly believe a ‘househusband’ can do the same job, and in our modern age with “all sorts of families” (Mrs. Doubtfire, 1993), including women with higher-paying jobs or same-sex parents, this is increasingly common. However there is a cultural bias against those women who choose to remain at home and work bloody hard to raise a family, often while holding down part-time or volunteering work, and this is reflected in our nation’s appallingly inadequate childcare arrangements.

In other countries – such as Germany with its stronger economy – there are subsidized childcare benefits, or help for mothers. Child tax credits and SureStart centres used to come close to this, but these are being slashed by the Coalition, which prefers to reward bankers, those earning above £150,000 a year, and potentially those who are married as opposed to all parents, co-habiting parents included. Mothers who decide to give up or put their careers on hold are penalised again later as they pick up their state pension, at a time when older people are living in fuel poverty, struggling to finish paying a mortgage and helping their children to get onto the housing ladder or with university tuition. They may even have to bring up another generation, as their children cannot afford childcare for their own sprogs so have to hand them over to the grandparents, who have no recognition or help from the state for helping bring up the politicians, doctors or teachers of tomorrow.

Nowadays, if you’re not contributing to economic growth or paying income tax, you effectively do not exist.  If you are doing your best to balance all of your commitments and bring up well rounded children you are ignored. It is about time mums who choose to stay at home for all or part of the time are recognised and treated with the respect they deserve by our policymakers.

Ageism is very different to the other ‘-isms’ we try to avoid in today’s supposedly enlightened, tolerant society. Most men will never be female and vice-versa, and we will never truly experience life as another race to the one we were born as. However, barring some sort of untimely death, we will all one day be old. Yet this is the group in society which is perhaps the most vulnerable and ignored.

It may be humorous, but some of the jokes around the notoriously ageist BBC’s choice of old-time crooner Engelbert Humperdinck to represent the UK at Eurovision have masked some alarming underlying currents of ageism and ridicule which are common in today’s media and discourse but usually pass unnoticed. Some of them have been about dementia and Alzheimer’s. There has also been serious criticism that he has been chosen, arguing that he should get out of the way and allow young talent to fluorish. People in the public eye who dare to continue in their career beyond 65 get sniffed at, despite still having the energy and drive to continue working. Why should he crawl into some care home and age quietly, with no fuss?

This brings us onto the more unnerving aspects of ageism in today’s society. The care system in England is a disgrace. Almost on a weekly basis there are reports of neglect and abuse in care homes up and down the country, with some staff accusing patients of “attention seeking” for desperately needing help to relieve themselves, children and grandchildren never visiting them, and pensioners still at home never getting out of bed because if they did they would freeze, as they cannot afford to put the heating on and pay the bills to the six main lecherous price-fixing gas companies (who are the real drain on our society). Meanwhile people are forced to sell their homes or inheritances to pay for their parents’ care because they receive little or no help from the government. Never mind inheritance tax, what about the low and middle income people who receive nothing from their parents because they have to give it to a private organisation which may or may not treat their loved ones with dignity and respect?

The state machine also picks on the elderly because they are vulnerable, in the same way that they pick on the young, the unemployed and the disabled. While the heads of top banks avoid paying tax altogether or manipulate it so they only pay the lower corporation tax, and Osborne no doubt prepares to justify lowering the 50p top rate in the Budget, ordinary retired pensioners are being routinely harassed to pay back money handed to them by mistake, without having it explained to them that it doesn’t have to be in a lump sum. I know a 93-year-old lady who took the trouble to write a letter asking why her winter fuel allowance was being slashed, and all she got back was a letter saying there is no money left and why doesn’t she ‘go online’ to find out more. Now there are many tech-savvy elderly people out there, but I don’t know many nonagenarians who served in the war who have a Gmail account and Facebook profile.

We live in ‘tough times’, as they keep ramming down our throats, and money doesn’t grow on trees. Yet times were harder in the 1940s austerity period and they managed to establish the National Health Service. Instead of spending money on the implementation of the Health and Social Care Bill (a laughable title for the effective privatisation that awaits us), why not set some aside for the eventual creation of a National Care Service for the elderly, or at least a free service for the poorest old people? Andy Burnham called for one in 2010, and now sadly Labour, in its’ attempt to appear economically competent, has gone quiet on the proposal. Yet it can be done.

It’s about time the elderly who don’t need patronising were allowed to continue living their lives to the full, and it’s about time those who no longer can do so without help are treated like human beings, and not a burden on the public purse which should die quietly.

I could have written a blog post today about the exciting announcement regarding HS2 (in my view a worthy investment), or Ed Miliband’s speech about Labour being the party “for all times, not just bad times”, but instead I thought it would be much more fun to review the Iron Lady, out now in cinemas.

It’s a terrific irony that this film is funded by the UK Arts Council and National Lottery funding, not only because the former is being slashed by the Coalition’s Thatcherite scythe, but also because it would have been a more accurate representation of recent history if they had put 49 potential scenarios in the 1980s down on as many balls, and let Camelot or Guinevere decide the rest.

Seriously – Labour hat off – this was a noble attempt at capturing the spirit of one of Britain’s most prominent prime ministers; Meryl Streep’s impersonation of The Lady Who Was Not For Turning had me once or twice shivering in my seat, with her every mannerism and facial expression noted and re-enacted, along with that deep commanding voice the PR gurus told Mrs. Thatcher to adopt. Right up to the closing scenes, it displayed her dogged determination accurately, and managed to humanize her and generate sympathy towards her when she steadfastly refused to accept that her mind was beginning to unravel. Anyone who knows anything about Alzheimer’s, what it must be like to be elderly and lonely, and the denial of grief would appreciate this side of the film.

However, this was the problem: it could have been about any old lady looking back on her life and missing her husband (although this aspect was slightly unsettling and disturbing at times). The historical dimension to the film went beyond playing with history to deliver a message and artistic licence, almost to the point where you wondered if the film had been written by Tory publicists. The focus was entirely on Thatcher’s ‘Glorious’ moments and ‘triumphs’, mostly over men, for example her selection and early life, the Falklands war and the 1979 election. There was some fleeting real footage of the miner’s strike and the poll tax riots, and the entire period 1982 to 1990 was dealt with in approximately ninety seconds. At one point, I was appalled to see a shot of her dancing with Nelson Mandela. I expected it to focus primarily on her as an individual by the title, however there was not even a passing reference to the unemployment of the period, Thatcher’s response to the emergence of AIDS, the Westland affair, section 28, the clashes with the NUJ, Ken Livingstone and Liverpool Council…

This was not a documentary, and films are supposed to paint splashes of black and white over what was in reality only differing shades of grey. Even her deepest detractors have to admit that she had some leadership qualities (albeit perhaps without much idea of compromise), that she was – is – only human and was doing what she thought was right. However members of BULS who want to see this in the cinemas soon may find themselves wincing and cringing at many stages in this film.  

How many of us will be making New Year’s resolutions to pay more attention to the welfare of animals we eat and the wildlife in our countryside? 

On 1st January 2012, the EU-wide ban on selling eggs from battery farms will come into force. Although in other EU nations (including the land of le Coq, France), the ban will hardly be rigorously enforced because they don’t seem to care that much for EU laws and haven’t yet made the necessary alterations to farms and cages, and the new, larger ‘enriched cages’ which will be used to supply our biggest supermarkets with eggs are not exactly a massive liberation for hens, it is nevertheless a step in the right direction, and an expression in law that we should not be tolerating these cruel means of achieving ‘efficiency’ in food production.

Unfortunately, however, this change will come at the same time as renewed calls for a repeal of the Hunting Ban. On Boxing Day, the Agriculture Minister, Jim Paice, suggested as much by arguing that the act is ‘unworkable’ and difficult to enforce. Although sadly this is in many respects the case, and it would be naive to say that the ban ended the inhumane and uncivilised ‘sport’ of fox hunting completely, it is still an expression of disapproval which should remain on the statute books for ever if we are to carry on calling ourselves an ‘animal loving nation’.

The visit by long-term animal rights campaigner and shadow minister Chris Williamson to BULS last term reminded us that the fight for even the most basic animal welfare is far from over, and that 2012 can only be a good year for animal welfare if we go out and fight against the vested interests of the food industry and those who seek a return of legalised fox hunting, in government and elsewhere. Just because a law has pitfalls and loopholes, that does not mean that the fundamentals behind it are not right, and that we cannot aim to tighten it and increase the number of prosecutions in future.

2012 need not be the year that the cause of animal rights takes a giant leap backwards.

So much for the government constantly pandering to the grey vote because only the elderly turn out at elections. I made my weekly phone call home earlier today to find a set of anxious parents worried about how they are going to pay the bills this winter. If it turns out to be as icy as last year’s, they are going to be in trouble, they said. The reason? Not an overspend on needless festive gifts, or even the artificial and inflated energy prices, but a Chancellor who said ‘We are all in this together.’

The Winter Fuel Allowance, introduced by Gordon Brown, has been a lifeline to pensioners in fuel poverty up and down the country, and it is now being cut from £250 to £200 for the over 60s, and from £400 to £300 for the over 80s (these are the payments for those claiming pension credit, but the picture is just as severe for the slightly better-off pensioner too). Can you imagine what the reaction would be if this percentage cut was given to MPs? Or grants for new businesses? The only similar stinging cutbacks have been given to students, with tuition fees and EMA. It is indefensible, especially at a time like this, when Britain’s elderly – who have been paying taxes all their lives – are being encouraged to stay at home rather than go into care homes because their children have to re-mortgage their homes to pay for the costs, and are being told they can be treated at home rather than in hospitals thanks to NHS cuts and privatisation, to then simultaneously force them to ration their heating to only a few hours a week.

I have neighbours who are vulnerable and in their nineties, who told me they assumed there had been a mistake in their payment, and phoned up to query this only to be told by an unsympathetic call centre drone that their payments had been slashed, and that they should have noticed this when Osborne made his budget statement back in April. Oh yes, because of course all 90-year-olds are fully aware of the nation’s fiscal and benefits arrangements at every given turn. Why was there not at least a leafleting or information campaign to warn them of this change so they could save up to pay for what should be essential, and, if I had my way, provided by the state, instead of six greedy price-fixing profiteering firms?

When I said that this was a scandal and they should protest to their MP, their attitude was one of resignation and quiet despair. They didn’t feel there was any point, as there was a deficit to be paid off and they would just have to get by.

This Con-Dem coalition never ceases to amaze me, not just at how callous they are towards the most vulnerable in our society, but also because they get away with it.

Luke

Congratulation to Ed Miliband and his partner Justine, who were married today. Or as the Mail put it ‘finally found the time to wed the mother of his two children’. Ed’s leadership has taken something of a beating in the media and in Westminster circles, especially since the local and devolved election results. Today, however, I’m writing in support of Ed’s leadership, at least to an extent.

I must first admit Ed was not my first choice for the leadership job, I supported Andy Burnham and I still believe we would have performed far better under his leadership in the local elections. Burnham recognised in his leadership campaign that the London-centric approach of the Party has led to a significant and dangerous degeneration of CLP’s outside the major cities, where it is far harder to maintain a vibrant and involving political atmosphere. Far more needs to be done to encourage and support Labour members across Britain to become active and encourage others to be active. That’s another story.

As most now (finally) recognise, the leadership have failed to land any convincing blows on Cameron and his Tories,  who have happily taunted like John Cleese’s frenchman in The Holy Grail from behind their Lib Dem flavoured Star Wars defence system. The shadow cabinet need to find a way to puncture this insulating Chris Huhne balloon, and to capitalise on the evident chaos within the coalition. They’ve had more gaffes in the last few months than we managed in the entire Brown premiership. That is a role for the shadow cabinet, especially in the areas where they clearly have far more competence than their opposite numbers. Think Balls v Osborne, Cooper v May, Burnham v Gove.

Ed, on the other hand, should keep doing what he’s doing. His leadership style has been characterised by his honesty, forthrightness, clarity and lack of showmanship. Polling has supported the idea that Ed is developing a reputation for honesty, when he talks people feel they can trust him. PMQ’s has been the best expression of this. Faced with a public school bully, short on facts, ideas, or manners, Ed has done his job, representing the opposition to scrutinise and criticise the coalition, without resorting the ad hominum attacks that the public hate.

I hope it stays that way, despite advisors worrying about the polls. It may not be good for the party right now, but it’s good for politics. The personal vitriol that the media thrives on goes a long way to alienating people from the bunch of middle class rich boys squabbling in a big palace. It may take some time for the media to adjust, but I hope Ed sticks to his guns. I accept this must be balanced with a strategy across the shadow cabinet to beat the coalition and Ed will need to improve to show he can beat the Tories as well as win our trust.

He should talk about how the coalition are hurting ordinary people, and outline a Labour vision for the future, but deal with issues and policy, not with personalities. The public will thank him for it.

Congrats Dear Leader

Jake

On Wednesday 9nd March at an open meeting, BULS held a vote as to whether we as a society should support both the UCU in any future strike action and also the two Guild Council motions relating to the issue (8a & 8b) that went to Guild Council on Tuesday 15th March 2011.

A unanimus result in favour of YES was reached and for that reason BULS fully supports the YES campaign in the Guild of Students Referendum that is currently taking place regarding the Guild’s postion and future strike action by the UCU.

We are fully aware that this is a very late declaration but this is largely down to being unaware that we as a society of the Guild of Students were able to openly support a side (which is different to usual Guild election rules).

If you havent voted yet in the referendum, we urge you to vote YES to both questions to ensure that the union movement at this University is cemented by the Guild standing side by side with our lecturers and other teaching staff in their grieviences with the University of Birmingham. The case of the UCU members can only be strengthened by assistance and support from the Guild and this will only happen with a YES vote! Finally a vote for YES is just as much in the interests of students as it is for UCU members. We need well paid and well respected professionals teaching us and helping us through our degree studies. If we have a disgruntled workforce at Birmingham, there is the possibility that teaching standards will drop. And in turn, OUR overall learning experience may suffer in the long run.

For more information on the YES campaign, please visit: http://goo.gl/i30YF

And in the interest of fairness, more information on the NO campaign can be found here: http://goo.gl/bbzsL

Voting is done at my.bham and closes at 4pm today! And remember BULS says YES in the Guild Referendum 2011!

From the BULS Committee

As Chair of Birmingham University Labour Students (BULS), I was disappointed to read Joe Jervis’ biased and misinformed article on the ‘lackadaisical’ efforts of BULS during the recent Guild Elections campaign.

As I am sure Joe is aware, Guild regulation rules that there cannot be any BULS candidates for Guild positions, only candidates who also happen to be members of BULS. This therefore means that it is impossible for BULS to have in any way ‘failed’ to win the election.

It is also true that many BULS members, including myself, were out in force during the Guild campaign, spending many an hour knocking on doors in Selly Oak and the Vale. BULS members campaigned for many candidates, including those with other political persuasions, and were not blinkered by party politics.

Whilst it was a disappointing night for BULS, this was not a reflection of the hard work and commitment many members put into the campaign.

I wish the new Guild Officer team the very best, and whilst I struggle to understand Mark Harrop’s decision to vote Tory based on ‘foreign policy and environmental issues’, I sincerely hope that he follows on in the good work Dora Meredith has done for students at this University.

By Daniel Harrison, BULS Chair

I suppose I just wanted to share some thoughts about the royal family and it’s relation to modern Britain brought about by the engagement of Prince William and Kate Middleton. Unsurprisingly excited, the Express and Mail gushed about the possibility of another “people’s princess”. There was even talk of how the rise of a “commoner” to the giddy heights of Queen-to-be demonstrated our “classless society”.

Nonsense. Kate is the product of Marlborough College, a £30,000 a year boarding school. The truth is that this a world away from the life experiences of the majority of people. A school colleague of Kate’s, Clarissa Sebag-Montefiore, claims that such lavish schooling doesn’t make people any less like the ordinary chap at your bog standard comprehensive. ‘Like other teenagers, Marlburians…experimented with Drugs, absconded on Saturday nights to go clubbing, smoked, had sex, and snuck spirits into the school by pouring them into shampoo bottles’. Well thank goodness for that! It’s good to know they’ve experienced the harsh realities of a pauper’s existence!

It has also emerged that Prince Charles has received £667,000 from the Ministry of Justice for the privilege of keeping Dartmoor prison on his land, and £677,000 from the Ministry of Defence for allowing the army onto his land for training. I’m appalled that Charles is getting this massive pay out, especially with massive cuts tearing apart the public sector and hitting the private sector too.

Now I’m no ardent republican. I have no problem with having a monarchy, although I’m not convinced by the idea that they are a good value investment for the country. I think tourists would be even more likely to visit the UK if they could actually get into some of the Queens palaces. But when nothing is safe from the vicious Tory cuts can we really justify hand outs to the Royals?

Jake Lambert

That post is pretty long >

So for those of you with more curiosity than time:

Philippa Stroud, a Tory PPC, has been accused of Christian extremism and homophobia following claims she tried to “pray away the gay” of vulnerable LGBT people.

Her views on women’s liberation have also been called into question due to her church’s advice for “joyful female submission” in marriage.

The tories and the media are all congratulating themselves on how well it’s all been hushed up. If you don’t believe me google “Gillian Duffy” and see how many hits come up, then google “Philippa Stroud”.

#RightWingMediaFail

We’re a party with big ideas. We care about the important things. We’re down to earth and have our finger on the pulse more than any other party. We’re out on the doorstep and people are saying “thanks for what you’ve done so far.”

On the doorstep I’ve had rude people, angry people, disillusioned people and apathetic people. But I’ve also had lots of smiles and responses “nice one with the hospitals and schools” or “I voted for Thatcher cos she was a woman, but I’ve since realised that Labour are the only party actually putting women out there” or “I know what it’s like to be on the dole so I’m not about to vote for Tory cuts”.

Gordon’s right, the polls aren’t everything and honeymoons fade. We’ve got the solid experience to move Britain forward.

It’s all to play for!

I’d like to take this oppotunity to announce our newest addition to labour students, twitter! You can now follow us at twitter.com/bulsonline, we’ll be updating it with blog activity, labour news and random bits and pieces. Hope you find it useful. Feedback to jxl963@bham.ac.uk

Joshua

The opprobrious scandal surrounding the issue of athlete Caster Semenya’s gender is raises bigger questions about the role of gender in our society and in my opinion reinforces the shockingly regressive views of the world media.

Primarily it makes us question whether we are examining solely a person’s biological sex, or combination of this and their gender when we assess to which “category” people fit when looking at sport. If, as I am under the impression, we assess sex only, we are surely faced with innumerable problems. For example, the Confederation of African Football’s gender testing ahead of next year’s African Women’s Championship will be using the sole definition of a woman as: someone who is menstruating. This, as you can imagine is highly problematic, especially when dealing with athletes who probably take medical aids to help them maintain peak fitness…  If we assess only biological sex it forces questions such as to which category do women with genetic conditions like androgen insensitivity syndrome (meaning that women can have male chromosomes which would not give them any athletic advantages) fit into? Surely its hugely unethical to exclude people from sport on the basis of something which they have no control over. Unfortunately however, this is precisely what appears to be happening at the moment.

Whatever Semenya’s “biological sex” is “proved” to be, and whatever this means for her future sporting career, much can be learned from this scandal. Sport must question the importance of gender and society as a whole must reflect on the consequences of so rapidly humiliating such a young individual. Indeed, everyone seems to have overlooked the fact that this girl is a mere 18-year-old…as if competing on the world stage isn’t scary enough at any age, being faced with this sort of scrutiny must be hugely distressful. I literally cannot imagine being faced with the grossly offensive headlines such as the Sun’s “Mum backs ’800m and 2 veg’ star…The fact that other papers such as the Guardian seem to have “jumped on the bandwagon” and plastered her face over their front pages is massively disappointing. Furthermore the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) must reflect on their utter failure in not protecting this athlete. It is a disgrace that this information has been released before the results have been proven, even worse that there was discussion even before she had competed in the final.

My biggest hang-up with this issue is that I can’t imagine that this would ever happen to a man. Obviously in sport as men are usually more physically capable there would be very little motive for a woman to pose as a man and therefore I can’t imagine anyone being accused of it. However, it is the principle. I am embarrassed that such a humiliation has been allowed to occur. Frankly one can only admire the strength that Semenya has shown throughout the scandal.

The general-election campaign is getting underway now.  Birmingham Young Labour are beginning a massive push forward to win back our city and keep Birmingham constituencies red.  BULS must surely follow suit.  Every weekend and many evenings there are campaigning sessions taking place in various parts of the city.  If you want to get Sir Albert Bore’s emails about when and where these take place then drop me your email; tom_guise@hotmail.com

Here’s my early pitch for the election campaign theme song, lets hope head-office read this blog and take my advice.  Although if you believe the guys over on the radish then we at BULS are in constant contact with head office.

The EPP, the EU Party group for centre-right parties remains the largest group in the EU Parliament.  So you might immediately think it would be quite a good group to be a part of.  Not so for one little scamp, young David Cameron believes he’s better than the most influential group of MEPs in Europe.  He’s decided (a long time ago no less) to set-up his own little group.

Now, it’s important to keep this in context.  During the Tory 2005 leadership election, the front-runner was David Davis, a bit of a EU-sceptic.  Liam Fox was also doing well.  There was an EU-sceptic consensus if you like amongst all candidates (except Ken Clarke).  So Cameron was faced with the difficulty of looking like an inexperienced candidate in a field of people who shared similar core beliefs, not the most likely of winners.  There was no serious difference, thus Cameron had to reach out to the Euro-sceptic wing of his party in a new way.  He did this by pledging (I know he made a pledge!!) to leave the mainstream group and form a new euro-sceptic one.  Conservatives heap praise on the man for his brave and decisive decision but do not be fooled, it was an opportunistic and cynical ploy for Cameron to cease power of his party, and it shows the basis of any policy pledges he has made since, and will make in the future.  He is an opportunistic and pragmatic politician who will do anything to grab power.

I’ll let you judge for yourselves on the party’s he wishes to join with, it has within it the Czech Civic Democratic Party and the Polish Law and Justice Party.  Put them through Wikipedia and come up with your own view of how appropriate it is for them to be closely associated with one of our mainstream political parties.  Chris Patten acknowledges the move as a bad idea that will reduce Britain’s long-term influence in the EU, and an MEP in the South-East, Caroline Jackson stood down over the issue.

The move was a success, in terms that it won Cameron the leadership with much help from some ridiculously biased press coverage towards him.  Yet it must be held has his biggest mistake by all involved in the Tory party, and now he faces the battle of actually seeing if he can build the group.  You could be in for the treat of seeing his biggest U-turn yet, but one thing is for sure, we must continually monitor what this group gets up to and put the spotlight on it as much as possible.

DO YOU?

Norman Tebbit once gave me a really cross look and I genuinely shivered, I felt like death himself was preparing to give the finger.  Anywho, old Tebbit has given me a couple of laughs in this interview that sums up all that is wrong with the media of today.  Leave the man alone…stop trying to force politicians into saying things they don’t want to.

The Home Secretary came to visit BULS last week.  Having such a high-profile guest was a complete coup for organisers Dora and Louise, you’re new chair and womens officer.  Well done to them.  I had intended to allow them to write up their thoughts of the event, they wished to wait till the end of exams.  Yet, the Tories have decided to get rather immature indeed and their attitude is shocking.

Dora had the intention of making this event public and at time of writing emails to departments to advertise recieved a call from the Home Secretary’s Private Office informing her not to make the event public.  Dora called me and I agreed with her that the only course of action was to make it open just to BULS members.  In fact, since that decision was made several requests for attendance were recieved and granted, so we had a couple of tories, a socialist worker and a few others attending who were not members.  Unfortunately, news of this could only be made by word of mouth.  We also made it clear that people could join on the evening, this opportunity was taken up by about 2-4 people, essentially we charged for entry as it was a clever way to limit numbers.

The Home Secretary has the exact same security level as the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.  Making the event public was simply not an option and would, in my understanding, had led to the entire Guild building being shut down, searched and probably closed for the duration.  I think on balance, allowing a select few in to the room was best.

I, Dora, Louise and the rest of the committee new and old accept the upset this may have caused.  It is a shame we were not allowed to make the event public, yet security of people in the room, in the building and the Home Secretary herself is a prime concern for all involved.  We’re grateful that the University and the Guild accomodated this special event and I am immensely proud of Dora and Louise and their professionalism and organisation.  Rather than a point of debate, of which there were numerous in the meeting, notably on trident, this was a matter of security.

On a side note, David Lammy, Minister for Higher Education visited the Guild last month in an event that was invitation only.  This event was organised by the Guild and has recieved no attention by the double-standard Tories who are criticising BULS.  If the Tories are ever in power and invite top security-level ministers to the Guild, I would hope that members of BULS would have the maturity and common sense not to snipe and cause petty argument on matters of security.

I’m not going to accompany this with the usual “oh it taints all parties” or “sack the worse offenders” or “look what that Tory millionaire claimed for!”  I personally don’t care.  I know a fair bit about the allowances system and I can completely understand where the likes of Jack Straw and Douglas Hogg are coming from.  Hogg, for example, put in a full list of his home expenses but didn’t actually claim for specific things, he merely wanted to be completely open about what was being done on his home.

Here’s two people I think have it right;

Lord Foulkes who attacked the media onslaught against our democracy and Stephen Fry who spoke with complete common sense.

The media and by in large the public need to get over it.  The politicians need to stop tip-toeing around the issue, all 3 leaders are guilty of trying to make themselves emerge in the best possible light.  Get yourselves sat down together and come up with a workable solution.  Here’s two ideas for sake of argument;

1) The House of Commons buys a stock of 600 (I forget how many London MPs there are) or so properties in London which are maintained by the Commons authorities.  Centrally administered = completely above board.  If not doing this then at the very least ban MPs from making a profit on second homes and if this is unworkable then atleast have the taxpayer re-imbursed for the cost of the mortgage.

2) Employ a much larger staff in the Fees Office to actually look in detail at all the claims.  At the moment there are about 6 people working in there.  More staff means more time can be spent scrutinizing individual claims.

MPs need to realise that the real issue is the additional costs allowance, looking at staff admin in the House of Commons is a waste of time, the problem outside the village is the ACA.  Get realistic people!

Thought I would draw your attention to Prescott’s campaign against a bill put forward by the Tory MP Christopher Chope and signed by 10 other Tory MPs, which would allow employers to pay their employees under the minimum wage if the employee agrees.

http://wageconcern.com/

Feel free to sign the petition against the bill on the website.

oh and for balance

The Labour Party launched, a few weeks ago, a new interactive tool allowing any member the chance to contact voters from their own living room.

I didn’t look at it until now but it’s simply amazing.  All you do is go onto the members area of the website, log in, click on the link, choose a target seat in your region, and phone away.  With cheap deals on landline calls it could actually be cheaper than doing it in a grotty office somewhere!  I will certainly be using it as I have free landline calls anytime.

Click on the make a call button, dial the number on your phone, and the voter ID script comes up in front of you with easy click buttons so the data is inputted instantly on the local party’s database!!  Check it out!

Wes Streeting, friend of BULS, has entered the blogosphere!! We at BULS are very excited to read more of his political offerings and are very encouraged to see this post demonstrating why the media have it so wrong on Hazel Blears’ article in this mornings Observer.

Wes is also President of the NUS, (but this is his personal blog) and will be attending a debate this Wednesday in the Guild about the current state of Higher Education.  He’ll be going head to head with our new vice-chancellor Mr. Eastwood.  The event is free and unless I’m completely wrong it starts at 6pm in the Guild Council Chambers.

Wes has been added to our links.

Colleagues may have heard about a leaked manual from the BNP.  This is the same manual in which the BNP say to their members they shouldn’t have shaved heads and wear suits to look presentable.

I think the article speaks for itself.  There’s also an interview with Nick Griffen to listen to.

We have at present a plethora of programmes and news items dedicated to the recession, what caused it, how bad it is and who’s to blame.  That’s fine, I can’t complain about that.

But how about a few equally well publicised programmes about how to deal with the recession.  Where to find jobs, interview tips, money saving strategies etc etc.

This came to my mind when I watched last weeks Panorama on Woolworths.

Appearence means nothing.  Susan Boyle made the audience and judges of Britain’s Got Talent look stupid after they were incredibly rude to her.  Anywho, watch it if you haven’t already.

25.7 million views at time of writing.

Q. What did Jesus say to his twelve apostles as he was nailed to the cross?

A. Don’t you bastards touch my Easter eggs, I’ll be back on Monday!

A happy bank holiday weekend to all our readers, with comradely love from BULS. x

The digital switchover may have started, but not all of the UK is covered by freeview yet. In fact, not all the UK even gets channel 5; much of the South East, still only gets four channels, but still has to pay a full TV licence. Rubbish.

Documentary on Channel 4 a couple of weeks ago exposes the truth behind Boris Johnson’s Mayoralty of London. Watch, listen and be embarrassed for what he has done to London.

Time for an official poll!