The 2nd plan would be to just start building HS2 right away, put an act of parliment through to get around planning issues and turn up at Euston on monday morning with diggers, that’ll soon get the economy going, plus I would also ban Heathrow from having flights to Europe, Heathrow would just become a long haul airport so we could improve connections with emerging markets which business people are moaning about not having, regional airports are more then capable of coping with extra flights to Europe

Ever get tired defending the indefensible? Isn’t there a Better Guild forum that needs trolling?

Either way, its STILL way below the minimum wage, even if £5 an hour is marginally better that £2.50 an hour. Stop trying to split hairs.

Austria – 3.1%
Poland – 4.3%
Finland – 2.9%
Iceland (yes even Iceland) – 3.1%

Now make up what ever excuses you want about these countries, but there have been provided a list of countries from the EU and another of non-EU states. They have both debunked your two anecdotal assertions.

Norway – 1.6%
Switzerland – 1.9%
Macedonia – 3%
Turkey (I include this as they want to be a member of EU) – 7.5%

This is all with the EU average for 2011 being 1.5%. That’s right, these countries are doing better than EU Euro countries and us and you certainly can’t say they don’t trade with EU countries.

Please actually think these things through before you comment on here

And on a side note, its good to labour picking a winning candidate again (Chessum)

The thing is though Areeq, I don’t think there is a defence against the “what about alcohol?” line. You can’t possibly justify an anti-drug education campaign when the entire institution is so actively engaged in tacit endorsement of binge drinking: the hypocrisy would be stunning.

Further, I’m highly unconvinced that the negative effects of both drinking and drug-taking (beyond health detriment to the individual) would be mitigated for solely by reducing that activity. Studies such as this > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2634499.stm < square perfectly with my anecdotal experience, which is that the kind of people who get drunk/stoned and act like dickheads intend to do so irrespective of their level of intoxication, and in the absence of drugs would no doubt find another faux mitigating factor to justify their idiocy.

Starting from the bottom, the most damaging effects of the use of cannabis in selly oak would probably go as far as lining the pockets of other students (primarily) and facilitating the use of the drug in residents houses, with little (or no) backlash on the local community/residents. In terms of the ‘party drugs’ named, it would probably be best to do a bit more research into the physical and emotional effects of these in comparison to alcohol, before writing an article on their short and long term problems. This may be a generalisation, but a club full of drunk students would usually get more violent than one where the majority of circulating drugs are the ones you mentioned.

Addressing the issue of alcohol abuse, one I’m sure many people reading this would use as a point of contention, the overconsumption of alcohol probably has much larger detrimental effects on the local community. Obviously it’s the main drug of choice for most of us, mainly due to its availability and the lack of social stigma that surrounds it, but ultimately it causes the most destructive behaviour, and its the most irresponsibly consumed (I say that with a pinch of salt). I think the long term effects of it have also been overlooked in this article.

Just coming back to the point of the general naive perspective behind this article, it seems that its written more out the principle of illegal activity and the mainstream societal zeitgeist that people are expected to adhere to. It kind of feels like an epitomisation of the voice of ‘the man,’ so to speak. I do agree that education is needed, but more an objective education of the positive and negative effects of legal and illegal drugs, not the typical scare tactics and double standards we’ve come to expect.

As a closing point my recommendation to most people, including the writer, would be to do some proper research into all aspects of drug use, and not to look at the issue though the veil given to you by your parents or government. You may reach the same conclusion, but at least it’ll be one backed up by facts and data rather than the infinitely wise words of the media and business sector.

“A lot of extremist groups and terrorist groups are known to be funded by narcotic drugs trade – another reason right there to tackle the issue.” – by making them legal, you take the power away from criminals, they can be controlled, made safer and taxed. Drug culture in this country isn’t going to go away, it’s time for the gov’t to stop being so stubborn and embrace the benefits of legalisation.

Also, it’s a major buzzkill

As far as I can make out from HMRC’s website http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/charities/tax/recognition.htm The setup is that being a “charity for tax purposes” is a special status applied for on top of basically being a charity. I think it probably boils down to whether any individual charity has applied to HMRC for that status. I’ll see if I can find a list somewhere that might indicate the sort of charities that includes.

I’m also not entirely clear, is it only registered charities they can donate to? What about organisations with ‘charitable status’ like private schools and some trust funds?

I’d be interested for the sources of this article to be published as you’ve made some fairly bold assertions; for instance, that ” A lot of extremist groups and terrorist groups are known to be funded by narcotic drugs trade”.

The implication of the article is that drug usage is occuring in a significant minority / majority of students. I wonder if the author has done any research into actual drug use?

To tackle the last point, this article is an overdramatisation of the issue. At least, it is until you can back up your points with actual evidence rather than facts which, unless referenced, seem to have been plucked from the ether!

I’ll refer you to this excellent article for further reading: http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus1714/Estimating_drug_harms.pdf

I’d direct you in particular to Table 5 and Figure 3. I hope they will prove insightful.

is that what you meant to say..?

The second thing to consider is that these articles, just like this blog, are subjective. Comment-based media in its very essence is subjective, therefore meaning that we should always be cautious when making comprehensive judgements.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Birmingham+Post+Comment%3A+A+failing+service+or+a+vote+for+the+unknown.-a083474711
“a calamitous spiral of debt and imcompetence” – Birmingham Post

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Council+homes+handover+'only+way+to+fund+repairs'+The+Labour…-a091532884
“Birmingham’s rotting local authority housing” Birmingham Post

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/look-who%E2%80%99s-laughing-now/6503990.article
“Birmingham’s housing department was a national joke.” Inside Housing

Firstly myself, Ollie and the regular writers are amazed at the attention this one post has gained. This blog has declined a lot (in terms of hits at least) since its glory days. Usually we average a mere 20 to 30 hits a day. This post alone has had 630 since it was published last night. Consequently the readership is much wider than was imagined. A lot of what is said in Ollie’s post is related to Birmingham, and to our Guild’s political history. Readers from outside will most likely be unfamiliar with this context and are at risk of misinterpretation.

Ollie’s point, if I can condense it to a single sentence, is about the philosophy of a Sabbatical officer – who they serve, and more importantly, why a given candidate should be elected. When he refers to a “Labour Sabb” he means the idea that NOLs or university branches should aim to win Union offices for Labour, as if they were some sort of glittering prize to collect, that Labour candidates should be elected because they are Labour. Certainly in the past at Birmingham we used to make election jokes of the “Labour GAIN” variety, but very few of us actually took this seriously. We are probably all familiar with the cynical reference to “a mangy dog with a red rosette” being electable in a safe seat. I don’t believe that we should elect Labour Sabbs for the sake of having Labour Sabbs. It is tribalism at its worst.

What Ollie is NOT referring to when he says “Labour Sabb” is the many many Sabbatical Officers who have been Party members. @jakelambertonline beats me to it in reference to the legendary figures that were Tom Marley, Brigid Jones, and Tom Guise (coincidently those who first launched this blog to prominence). There are of course others, both here previously in Birmingham, and as @Tom Follett, @gusbaker and @Talia Akhtar say across the country. Ollie is specifically arguing against the flavour of tribalism that says a Labour Sabb should always be elected over any other candidate. He is not criticising any individual Labour Sabb past or present.

It is worth noting that of the feedback I have seen for this post (in these comments and elsewhere), it has been positively received by neutral/independent individuals. Above me, by @wheelybarrow and @yeebles. To quote @wheelybarrow:

“This year at NUS conference, Labour students will be out in force, campaigning for and voting for fellow labour students… Not because they are the best candidates, purely and simply because they’re labour!”

I have had zero involvement in the NUS. Whether this assertion is true or not, it is a common perception of NOLS that rings true among our critics. As I’ve said already, this sort of factional promotion is something I’m glad we don’t have at Birmingham. It is also worth noting that Ollie’s election opponent was one of the first to praise this post.

Regarding the more negative response from individuals within NOLs, including suggestions that this blog should not have posted a critical article; all I will say is that this is a free and open platform, predominately but not exclusively for BULS members. I can think of no good reason to censor an opinion piece that outlines an entirely personal philosophy about elected union representatives. To say we shouldn’t have published it simply because it criticizes NOLS betrays a nasty authoritarian streak.

To address individual comments:

@Tom Follett – I hope I’ve already covered the distinction between Sabbs who are Labour members and the idea of the “Labour Sabbs” (as defined above). Myself and Ollie obviously have no problem with the former. It is the latter, the idea of Labour candidate = always good vs. non-Labour candidate = always bad, which we are glad to be rid of.

@gusbaker – I’m afraid you’ve missed the point. None of us doubt your commitment to Bristol SU, or your sincerity. But how would you feel if you had ran as an Independent on those same policies, in a union with a strong Conservative Future branch. Imagine that every year that CF branch ran a slate for all of the union positions, and that the slate won based on factional support and overwhelming organisational strength, irrespective of the talents or policies of the individual candidates? How would you feel if they then proclaimed that they had won those elections “for CF”? How would you feel if a candidate’s affiliation was seen to matter more than their character or policies?

@Hannah Lane – It is not necessary, but I gather Ollie prefers it that way given the nature of his role. His position is not a political or campaigning one, and it involves helping student groups from across the political spectrum, so I imagine there are advantages to being more impartial.

@Gary Barlow – Max has already given sufficient response to your ill-informed comment. All I will add is that actually a lot of us do have a “personal allegiance” to (or as most people call it, “are friends with”) Ollie. This most often transcends party politics and was true of his campaign team. Nobody who helped him get elected has been “Stab[bed]… in the back”. I seriously question how much you actually know of the 2012 Guild Elections, or of Ollie’s campaign?

@wheelybarrow – thanks for your support and tweets. As I have said, it is clear that the perceptions of Labour Students that Ollie has highlighted are more widespread than some people will admit. Please don’t become too cynical though – some of us actually believe in plurality! 

@yeebles – Ultimately it comes down to a Sabb’s priorities and loyalties; are they primarily to their union, or to a national organisation? As you say, in Ollie’s new role there are significant benefits to being non-partisan.

@Talia Akhtar – If I haven’t made it quite clear already, Ollie is not talking about the type of Sabbs you think he is “insulting.” He is clearly critiquing the idea of a being a Labour Sabb for the sake of being a Labour Sabb. If anyone wants to feel insulted, then it should be the tribalists who push the interests of their own faction above all else.

@Tom Miller – briefly, the University of Birmingham Guild of Students has election rules which forbid non-students from campaigning in Guild elections. If you are not a member of the Guild of Students you cannot vote in their elections. If you cannot vote, you cannot campaign. Thus it would indeed be “illegitimate” and against the rules if Labour Students were to bus in their campaigners on behalf of one of “their” candidates. In fact, this rule exists to prevent this very thing from happening and to ensure a level playing field for all candidates. Bluntly, if it isn’t your union, it isn’t your business.

(finally) @jakelambertononline – I don’t get it, nobody seems interested in the implications of minor party vote share in marginal council wards? I hope I’ve covered the distinction between genuinely good Labour sabbs and advocating factional voting fodder. As Ollie himself says: “This is not an attack on previous Sabbs who were party members, it’s a critique on the idea of the ‘Labour Sabb’.” I agree with every word of your final paragraph though.

No doubt this is now longer than the original post, but there were some misunderstandings that really needed clearing up. More importantly, this post needs to be seen in the context that it mostly refers to the situation as seen from Birmingham Guild of Students. It may or may not be applicable anywhere else. Also please bear in mind that by Ollie’s own admission it is a “good old rant.” Nobody should be too offended by a personal opinion. We believe in freedom of speech here (see http://bulsonline.org/contributing/) and we will also gladly publish a full response blog, if anyone wants to make the case for factional control of student unions.

Finally, thank you to the many people who have read, shared and commented in the last 24 hours. Opinions and interpretations expressed in this comment are entirely my own, I do not speak for BULS or in any official student, union, or political capacity.

Chris Nash

I really do not understand why you have to give up your membership to be a sabatical member? Should my MP give up their membership of the Labour Party when we elected him? No. Don’t be so ridiculous. The fact you suggest you will wait to see election results on whether you renew or not is pathetic and says more about you then the party.

You didn’t stand with Labour backing or as Labour sabb. So why on earth do you have the audacity to claim their death? Grow up!

Ollie’s argument just doesn’t add up, and shows he has no experience of the Labour Sabbs that were in place during my time at Birmingham. They weren’t “just” there to espouse their political ideals. They were hard working student representatives. Brigid Jones, Tom Marley, Tom Guise, Dora Meredith, no-one could with any plausibility suggest any of those ‘labour sabbs’ were anything but advocates for the student body. I believe standing openly as a Labour Sabb is the choice of the individual, but in fact is a good way of showing the values that you take with you into office, one’s that I hope Ollie’s still shows even after his membership lapses. That’s how politics works. People don’t vote for Labour candidates because they know them personally (usually), but because their values, passions, and priorities are likely to align with that voters.

Otherwise what the hell do we vote on? “Ooh, that’s a pretty face/slogan/costume – she’s got my vote”

There are some half baked criticisms of labour students in there, some of which are valid, and there are huge issues with the National Organisation of Labour Students, not least the cliquey nature of it, reflected by its failure to campaign in places like Birmingham, but the major thrust of the blog is unfortunately nonsense.

As I always asserted during my two terms as BULS secretary, I couldn’t give a hoot and a half about student politics really, as I felt community campaign was more worthwhile, but I agree that has changed since the fees increase and the failure to translate that into more student power on campus. But Sabb Officers do quite important jobs for students, and the best ones I’ve seen have been Labour Sabbs. Committed advocates for students, but with policies that reflect their Labour values that I can fully support

“I believe that Labour Students attempt to have too much involvement in Union politics. It’s a well known fact that they ship supporters around the country to illegitimately boost support for their candidates”

How on earth is having the clout to build a nationwide organisation ‘illegitimate’?

Also your assertions about the way Labour Students are trained is categorically incorrect. They aren’t fed propaganda and told to shove it down every students throat. They are taught about campaigning and about the NUS and how we can promote fairness in our unions.

We ran a successful campaign at Manchester which focused purely on issues that effected all students. You can check Nick’s manifesto if you don’t believe me.

Just because they are Labour Students doesn’t make them blind to wider issues.

So don’t be so insulting.

The training Labour Students get

Also, being free from political motivations means that your agenda is a real student agenda and your students are clear that the decisions you make are based upon your beliefs. So I applaud you from lapsing your membership to show your impartiality. I don’t think that this is a necessity for all Sabbs, there should just be more room for transparency and accountability across unions.

I have been a Students Officer for 2 years in Hull and have an independent political viewpoint. I represent students through strong and active student representation and high quality evidence and research on what students views are… Not on what Ed Milliband tells me to…

This year at NUS conference, Labour students will be out in force, campaigning for and voting for fellow labour students… Not because they are the best candidates, purely and simply because they’re labour! It acts as a real barrier for people like me to get involved and leaves a large segment of the student movement completely disenfranchised…

I’m no puppet, but the same values that motivate me to believe in the power of collectivism within the Labour Party motivate me within the Students’ Union. I’ve spent my year standing up for the poorest students and fighting for Widening Participation (see here http://www.ubu.org.uk/news/article/UBU/Bristol-un-cut-as-University-Brings-Back-Bursaries/)

There’s nothing unprofessional about having beliefs. Abandoning them at the door to a political institution is simply bizarre, as are your silly attacks on Labour Students.

As i’m sure you know there are a wide variety of views within the Labour party (which is a blessing as well as a curse). The same applies to Sabbs. Most (not all) of the ones I’ve met are intelligent people with their own views and their own reasons for running. The same values which leads them to believe that they can best represent students also leads them to be a member of the Labour party.

Maybe your experiences have been different than mine but I think you’re unfairly slating perfectly intelligent and ethical Labour students just because they publicly declare their values.

However, as is sort of suggested in the article, what strikes me most of all (although doesn’t surprise me) is what wasn’t in the budget, rather than what was in it. We knew that the top rate of tax was likely to be cut at some point during this Parliament. Alastair Darling himself said, when Chancellor, that the 50p tax rate was a temporary measure. And like it or not, there are strong economic arguments for lowering the tax rate, however (equally) strong the social justice argument is in favour of retaining the 50p rate. But the OBR report does say that there was a lot of ‘income shifting’ in tax year prior to the rate coming into force, costing the taxman billions of pounds. Having said all that it does strike a big blow to those at the end of the income spectrum; millionaires receiving a big gift in 2013, whilst those on the minimum wage (those over 21 years old at least) receive an increase of wait for it….11p an hour! A pittance.

But to be fair to the coalition moves to close loopholes and increase the personal allowance ought to be welcome, although the latter policy is not flawless. It should be merely the first steps to improving the lives of those at the lower end of the income scale.

But as I initially said, it is worrying that the Chancellor is merely banking on the economic growth resulting from essentially tax rate tweaking (the corporation tax reduction to 22p in 2014) i.e. supply side policy, which considering the figures for economic growth since the last election have been poor is surprising, and shows that the coalition government really is committed to ‘Plan A’. I think it would have been desirable to see a government trying to invest in its people; major infrastructure projects, widening participation for internships, apprentices and training skills for our young people – these aren’t expenditures, as many Conservatives will say – these are investments in our country! Britain also needs an industrial policy. Yes we need a competitive tax system, which gives people/businesses an incentive to come and set up shop here, but what the likes of India, Brazil, Japan, South Korea, just to mention a few is industrial policies. Government needs to work with business to help our economy evolve and compete with the emerging market economies.

And on a more social justice note – a living wage is certainly needed, not just for the over 21s, but for all employees and interns. This would provide people’s lives with more meaning. The personal income tax allowance should be welcomed, but does not help those in part time work, or pensioners.

So while not everything mentioned in the today’s budget was bad, there certainly wasn’t much to suggest that we’ll be powering to 3% growth over the next few years. Unfortunately for all of us, it merely looks like those most privileged in our society will be gaining the most £££, and not the regular person in the street.

Let’s hope that Labour can provide a good, credible alternative to the coalition. It will do well not to indulge in petty political point scoring, address the actual economic issues and give those disillusioned with politics a reason to vote in 2015.

Far from being the “greenest government ever”, Osborne has given the green light to fracking in Lancashire, extra road building (which only the rich will be able to pay for), and an extension of airports in the south east. There was absolutely nothing in this budget aimed at getting growth by investing in new green technologies and infrastructure – a colossal wasted opportunity. There were tax breaks for oil and pharmaceuticals, but nothing for manufacturing, the only area of our economy which has been growing of late and the area which is helping the German and US economies out of the quagmire.

Relief for council tax paid by veterans may be welcome, but there was no mention of the idea floated by Liberal Democrats (oh yes) recently that students might have to start paying it. There was also of course an announcement of further cuts to the budget for welfare, children and the disabled. Millionaires’ Budget indeed.