Head to Birmingham for a wealth of alternative events, including the latest cult cinema experience.

This April saw alternative arts venue and pub, the Rainbow Warehouse, play host to Birmingham’s inaugural Cinemasters of the Universe event. Celebrating enduring cult classics in a unique underground venue, the event brought together those with a love for lesser known cinematic classics.

Running over the course of five days this cinephile’s dream showcased much loved movies like Labyrinth, This Is Spinal Tap and Night Of The Living Dead. To complement the alternative entertainment was a selection of unusual nibbles including popcorn flavoured with vanilla sugar and Maldon sea salt, and tasty samosas.

Birmingham, city of alternative culture

Put simply, this West Midlands city isn’t shy of a bit of alternative culture. As writer Sally Howard puts it – heavy metal is Birmingham’s greatest cultural export of the past 40 years. The metal scene exploded in Birmingham during the 1960s with Ozzy Osbourne blazing the trail, followed in later years by the likes of Led Zeppelin, Judas Priest and Slade. Today you can catch some of Birmingham’s finest new metal acts at the annual Supersonic Festival or in the many music venues dotted across the city alongside the vast array of Birmingham hotels and restaurants. Catch some live music at the Flapper and Firkin pub at the Cambrian Wharf or the Subside Bar, or see bigger acts perform at the O2 Academy or HMV Institute.

In fact, Birmingham’s calendar is peppered with alternative cultural events. During June fans of alternative and burlesque fashion descend upon the city for the annual Alternative and Burlesque Fair. The full day event features a packed schedule of twisted cabaret, fashion shows and model competitions, as well as over 80 stalls selling all sorts of vintage, rockabilly, steampunk, gothic and Neo-Victoriana wares.

Let’s not forget Goth culture truly came to the fore in Birmingham during the 1990s and today there are plenty of pubs, clubs and shops catering to this subculture too. Visit The Oasis an alternative fashion store that comes complete with its own nail bar and burlesque salon. Head to The Custard Factory for vintage bazaars, music fares and 30 different independent retailers.

Stay on the pulse of Birmingham’s creative community by checking out events listings on sites like Created in Birmingham where you can find out about a plethora of upcoming art exhibitions, spoken word nights and artistic get-togethers.

What’s your favourite part of Birmingham’s alternative scene?

But what is there was a radical alternative that no-one really mentioned?

Now I have no idea how feasible this really is – I just dreamed this up while procrastinating from exam revision…but from a quick google it really doesn’t seem that impossible.

1) Lets leave the EU. We don’t particularly like it, and they don’t particular like us holding them back. If Continental Europe wants to pursue the European project then good on them – and we should wish them luck – but leave us out of it. The EU is a process we do not and should not want to be a part of, regardless of the economic benefits (of which there are many).

2) Join the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Charles de Gaulle said we shouldn’t join the EU because we are Atlanticists, not Europeans. Even Thatcher recommended we join NAFTA at the end of The Downing Street Years. US Senators have suggested it should be relatively easy for us to join if we wanted.

3) In the short-term, sign some sort of EU trade agreement.

4) The US are currently hammering out an US-EU trade agreement. Mexico and Canada have plans in the pipework too. Once we were in NAFTA, and each nation had its own bilateral FTA with the EU, these could be consolidated into one final NAFTA-EU Free Trade Agreement.

Free trade across all of Europe AND with the USA, Canada and Mexico WITHOUT any of the political chains of EU membership. What’s not to like?

BUCF members would overwhelmingly privatise the provision of healthcare in the UK, but all would retain state funding at least for the poorest. The most popular option was a National Health Insurance scheme, where the state funds insurance schemes but all provision is run privately. Next up was the German Bismarkian system, where provision is private and private insurance is mandatory, but the state is willing to provide benefit insurance to the most vulnerable who may not be able to afford their own insurance. Only one member voted to stay with the status quo. Guess who? :) Nobody voted for full privatisation of provision and funding without any exceptions.

Baroness Margaret Hilda Thatcher

1925-2013

May she rest in peace.

The new National Exec is as follows:

Chair: Oliver Cooper
DC Political: Robert Manning
DC Membership: Sarah-Jane Sewell
Best Practice Officer: Ben Corbridge

and as we already knew, the new West Midlands Regional Chairman is Hayden Walmsley.

We look forward to working with the new executive and hope they know they are more than welcome to come to Birmingham whenever they like. In fact we have a few events coming up some may be interested in…..

(Also,  commiserations to our one and only Jasmine Rahman who put in an epic performance and who we are massively proud of! #teamjasmine xoxo)

Of course, there are plenty of cases when perfectly good policy has been dropped by governments purely out of weakness and division within their parties, but as nice as it is when governments appear to run like well-oiled political machines, delivering every policy exactly as planned with impeccable determination so as to deliver a coherent package of policies, it’s difficult to justify forging ahead with legislation which is clearly and self-evidently bad.

In a rare display of humour and charisma from the Milibot, Ed’s opening salvo of PMQs yesterday asking “If there’s anything [the Prime Minister] could organize in a brewery” set the stage for the routine procedure of chastising the government for apparently dropping, or else postponing legislation on  minimum per-unit (alcohol unit, that is) pricing on alcoholic beverages in the United Kingdom. The PM and colleagues hit back quickly to assure the commons and the public that they are still pursuing an end to supposedly cheap alcohol in the near future. A desperate attempt at appearing to retain control. But the truth is, I’ve seldom been so relieved as when I heard this abysmal legislation was sliding out of grasp.

I’ve talked before plenty enough about ‘lazy legislation’, most often under the last government, which seemed to see all problems, however complex as a simple matter of taking the offending articles out of reach of the untrustworthy public. Ban x, tax y, impose restrictions on z. I desperately hoped that a fresh, coalition government would be the perfect people to put an end to this haphazard, slapdash approach to politics and start doing the legwork on getting to the bottom of issues, rather than resorting to a superficial fix to the many deep and ingrained problems this country has.

Having personally been treated to a 12 month EU-funded drinking holiday across Europe (better known as an ERASMUS year of study abroad) last year, spending the year with fellow exchange students from all over the world, varying alcohol pricing and drinking cultures are something with which I’ve become intimately acquainted; for a little bit of rough, anecdotal background, the scandalously low prices for booze in the UK being touted on the news are figures like 60p for a can of lager, £2-3 for a big bottle of cider, and so on. Shocking, right? Well, no. While these may seem low to us, it’s only logical to compare to the rest of the world.

Adelskronen; just 1.49€ for 6 bottles.

In Frankfurt, one of Germany’s most expensive cities and my home for last year, the cheapest half-litre bottle of Pilsner (the ubiquitous lager beer of Germany, and comparatively strong at at least 5-6%) you could find in a non-discounter (analogous to Tesco, Sainsbury’s, etc) would set you back around 30¢ (about 26p). To stump up for an upmarket, well-known brand like Becks or Schöfferhofer, you might have to go as high as 70¢, or 60p. Of course, if this was too much to bear, you could always go down the road to a discount supermarket like Penny Markt or Aldi, where a bargain six-pack of plastic bottles of lager would cost you around 1.49€, or £1.29. Of course, Germany is famous for beer, so this seems hardly surprising, but these kinds of relative prices are consistent with spirits, wine, and all kinds of similar concoctions. Drinks in bars were clearly somewhat more, but finding a club selling beer for 1-2€ was far from uncommon.

Ireland; one of Europe’s most expensive countries to get a drink

Remarkable as these seemed to myself and fellow Brits, these kinds of prices seemed even more astonishing to the Irish students, who were used to frankly exorbitant alcohol prices back home. Not so much however to the eastern Europeans  who were apparently accustomed to even cheaper prices. To the French and other western European students, these were comparatively cheap, but nowhere near as amazing (and refreshing) as they were to the British.[1]

Based on the notion of minimum-pricing legislation then, it follows that us Brits are fairly conservative drinkers, while the Germans are constantly wasted, the French aren’t far behind, and the Irish are as dry as nuns by comparison. …Wait, what?

Even based on crude stereotypes, we all know this is a thousand miles from the truth. While the Germans undoubtedly like a drink, the kind of responsible everyday drinking culture displayed by our western European counterparts in particular is constantly the envy of policymakers in the UK, where the idea of a casual glass of wine with dinner or a foaming wheat beer in the sunshine after work are a far cry from the binge drinking realities of home. [2] The simple fact of the matter is there is little to no clear relationship between crude prices and widespread alcohol problems across countries. Unhealthy drinking, like all forms of ingrained social malaise, comes down to a deep cultural problem.

Drinking because it was too cheap not to?

Upping prices simply fails to address this. Firstly, setting a minimum unit price, which would only affect the cheapest, nastiest, strongest bottles of poison consumed only by the poorest in society makes the lazy and wrong assumption that excessive drinking is something that only affects the poor. This stands in direct contradiction to previous government health warnings and campaigns against routine overconsumption of alcohol among the middle classes. Furthermore, assuming that a marginal increase in price of cheap alcohol is a significant deterrent assumes that these few extra pence would be a real financial burden on those buying the booze. I don’t dispute this in the case of some of these products, but isn’t this rather more alarming? Why are people spending so much, and sometimes beyond their means, to get drunk? If this is true, penalizing these people is not a solution; we need to dig down through detailed research into why people are feeling it necessary or acceptable to drink so much, so often, and try and seek to change this aspect of our culture in the long term. What’s more, alcohol consumption per capita has been going up, rapidly over recent decades. Does this reflect falling drinks prices? Of course not, inflation has exceeded growth for much of this time, and alcohol duty has only been going one way as well.

This kind of nanny-statism is so much bigger a problem than simply not working in the majority of cases. Not only does it detract from any kind of more useful work on solving the underlying issue in society by simply patching the symptoms, but when this kind of legislation fails to have the desired effect or at least with the desired magnitude, as it almost universally does, these ineffective policies simply stay in law, piling up, one on top of the other. Socially, as we become swamped with laws restricting our day-to-day lives and purchases, people progressively begin to stop taking personal responsibility for protecting themselves and making healthy or sensible choices in life wherever a state mandated label, warning, or restriction is absent. “I can’t buy more than 16 Paracetamol at once, but I can buy a tonne and a half of Aspirin? Well that must be safe to consume in unlimited quantities, right?”

This kind of lazy, introverted, island mentality toward government has to stop. There are countries all over the world with similar and different experiences of the issues we face as a nation, all with different approaches and outcomes. It may not be quick or easy, or produce instant media coverage and instant results, but detailed sociological research is needed to solve complex sociological issues. Once we understand the root cause of issues, we can consider a model that works to solve this cause. Which just might turn out to be cheaper, better quality drinks, a lower drinking age for some drinks, and less state interference. Like Germany.

Owen Williams - Publicity and Media Officer 2013/14

He wants to stay until 2020, but will the party let him stay until 2015?

Original post: http://www.dashtory.org/2013/02/is-cameronian-conservatism-under-threat.html

I make no bones about it; I’m not a David Cameron fan. I question his values, his background and at times, even his competence. So therefore, in some ways, I should be relishing the series of disasters which have befallen the parliamentary party over the past six months (and particularly over the past week), for they each undermine his position as party leader. But quite simply, I don’t, for the worst thing this party could face right now is a leadership crisis.

So what are these disasters?

Well, for this week alone, we’ve obviously lost our AAA rating from Moody’s, we’re behind in the polls in Eastleigh, and Lord Ashcroft has chosen to withdraw his funding from the party. Pile this on top of the farce of gay-marriage, growing concern over our position in the EU, our long lasting slump in the polls (recent Labour lead of 15, according to YouGov), the ‘Pleb-gate scandal’, the questionable relationship of our leaders with the media, a generally worsening economic outlook, and you don’t get a very pretty picture at all.

It’s very true that each of these issues has a well formulated rebuttal (usually involving a complex collection of statistics and petty jabs at Labour and the Lib Dems), but rebuttals don’t make headlines. Four word long sentences on political disasters do. An unfortunately, those are often what inform voters.

Can Cameronian conservatism win an outright majority?

What begins to emerge is a rather simple question: Can David Cameron (and his vision of the party) win us a majority in 2015? We must remember we’re talking two years ahead, no party is very strong at the moment, and all manner of events could emerge over the next twenty seven months which could turn our fortunes around. There are numerous uncertainties. But one thing is certain. David Cameron and his vision of the party did not win us a majority in 2010.

I’m now going to take off my Guardian, hang David Cameron from the nearest tree, along with most of the cabinet hat, and put on my pragmatic, keep Labour and the Lib Dems out hat.

Why must we avoid a leadership crisis?

Before I answer that, let’s ask yet another question: Is there any chance of a leadership challenge against Cameron? After all, nobody in the cabinet appears popular/strong enough to mount a coup, and even if this hypothetical new leader did emerge, what exactly could he offer that was different from Cameron?

According to Philip Blonde on Monday’s Newsnight,(the author of Red Tory: How Left and Right have Broken Britain and How we can Fix It, and a man who implicitly supported the Big Society concept back in 2010) there at least ‘four, separate leadership challenges that have been putting together the funding’ to remove Cameron as party leader. I have little idea who exactly these conspirators are (my guess is from backbenchers associated with particular factions of the party), but I do not find it hard to believe that possible careerists with the party are smelling blood, nor that those who genuinely wish to wrestle the controls of the Conservative movement from Cameronian hands for the good of the country are willing to act.

So if I’m so anti-Cameron, why I am also against the idea of a new leader?

Truth be told, I’m not against the idea of a new party leader, but I believe the benefit of any new leader would be greatly outweighed by the cost of an internal party conflict. There are a number of reasons I hold this view.

Does Cameron face a serious stalking horse?

Firstly, there isn’t one clear faction who opposes Cameron. The party isn’t so cleanly divided as it was in the 80’s, with ‘Wets’ and ‘Drys’, nor as Labour was with Blairites and Brownites. This means that considerable party disunity lurks below the surface, and the victory of one faction may agitate the others. Furthermore, no faction has a member in the cabinet strong or willing to challenge Cameron; for example, while it may be far say Chris Grayling and IDS represent the right of the party, IDS would likely be unwilling to assume the leadership again, and Grayling is just that bit too far away from the top job. Therefore, any faction wishing to slip into power will likely lack ministerial calibre members, and it could be expected that a number would be needed, as most of the current batch are Cameronians. On top of this, the boundaries of political factions can be hard enough to determine, with Cameron specifically attempting to dodge issues (such as, until recently, Europe) which would allow for clearer definitions.

Secondly, while are opposition has so far been weak, it is strengthening. Whereas two years ago you could happily joke that Ed Miliband was our ‘secret weapon’, today he presents himself in a far more professional and credible manner. While obviously he has yet to produce a manifesto and his party carries considerable baggage, it would be wrong to continue to casually write him off as a ‘no-hoper’.

Could we have so far underestimated these men?

In the home team, we’ve also got issues. UKIP is seeing its position improve too, and has continued to grow in popularity over the past three years. Question marks exist over its ability to play with the big boys, especially in terms of funding and procedure, but it now provides a new dynamic not yet experienced by the British right; a second party. Therefore, while the enemy is strengthening, the last thing we need is to weaken. Especially when the electorate have enough reasons to question our abilities as it is.

Finally, we’re running up to, what I at least believe, will we one of the most important elections in British history, and potentially pivotal in determining the future of our country. We’re turning our deficit around (admittedly, not at the pace I would like to see), and heading broadly in the right direction. We’re at least attempting to defuse the so-called ‘debt-timebomb’ that could have serious repercussions by the 2030s. Another five years of Labour could worsen the situation considerably, and the damage that the (albeit quietly hinted) populistic neo-Keynesian policies of Ed Balls could wreck is barely worth considering. Three years of Brown has likely give us a disaster it will take a decade or more to rectify.

In this sense, we have a degree of duty to keep Labour out of power. And to this end, we must endeavour to do prepare our party to fight 2015. While I, like many others, feel Cameron’s leadership is poor, I acknowledge that the act of removing him may indeed inflict more harm than retaining him.

We never know; he may even improve.

T. Pike

Firstly, Its worth pointing out I am in favour of both the election of student trustees and the General Meeting being held on an annual level in principle.

However, in practice the Guild and indeed the ReclaimTheGuild group have only showed why such moves are impractical, even dangerous, at present.

There is no point in extending the existing channels of democracy in the Guild when such democracy is already seriously flawed. The priority should be on improving not only contestion for Guild elections but also student turnout BEFORE seeking to create even more elected positions. Voter apathy is rife and the suggested cures will only make it worse.

Elected Student Trustees are a good idea, if they were to be contested by a wide variety of students and elected by a large voter base. But they wont be – as in almost all Guild elections they will be filled with the same old ‘Guildies’ and voted in with tiny mandates.

Similarly, an Annual General Meeting is a sound idea, but we were told this years GM was bought about by a petition of thousands of interested and supportive students. So where were they last time around? Having attended the GM it was almost solely occupied with the same faces from Guild Council meetings. The sheer number of pizzas left over obviously showed turnout was far lower than hoped! Out of 28,000 students, barely a hundred actually turned up. Given the important decisions that were to be made the legitimacy of such a meeting is seriously questionable. The adjournment and now cancellation also begs the question is the Guild even equipped enough to run a meeting under company law? The GM has so far been nothing short of a comical shambles.

The foundations of democracy in the Guild need to be secured before being built upon. This years Officer positions only cement my point even further. The Vice President of DEMOCRACY and resources is only being contested by ONE person, who happens to be good friends with the current VPDR, which while not a problem in itself does bring up possible feelings of cronyism, elitism and a general shut door look to onlookers. You have to ask yourself, why was only one person willing to step up for a job offering £17k?

If the Guild can prove that elected positions can work, can be contested, can be widely voted in and are engaging with the whole student body, then the such motions are the next step, but until then much more groundwork needs to be done.

———————————————-

Charlie Winch

(President – Birmingam University Conservative Future)

President: Charlie Winch

Vice President: Harry Chitty

Treasurer: James Glass

Secretary: Joe Gerrard 

Media & Publicity officer: Owen Williams

Campaigning officer: Tom Pike

Social sec: Alex Craggs 

More details and pictures to follow! 

Hustings for the upcoming national and regional CF elections in March 2013. A wide variety of candidates for all positions will be present to try to win over your vote, take questions, mingle and have a great night out!

Attending candidates (more will be added once confirmed)
Oliver Cooper (Chairman)
James Deighton (Chairman)
Jasmine Rahman (Deputy Chairman Membership)
Ellie Vesey-Thompson (Deputy Chairman Membership)
Hayden Walmsley (West Mids Regional Chair)

Hosted by Birmingham Uni CF (BUCF), whose AGM will take place earlier on in the night, the event will be held in the club house of the prestigious Edgbaston Golf Club, opened in 1937 by Tory Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain.

Birmingham is easily accessible from all over the country, and the venue is within a quick 5-10 min taxi journey from all Birmingham stations, or within 10 minute walk from ‘University’ station. There is ample car-parking space for anyone driving.

Thanks to generous sponsorship by the Birmingham Patrons Club, we are able to offer exclusive use of the ‘Foxglove’ room upstairs, and there will be a decent drinks reception, wine throughout the night, and a bar with members prices. Obviously, for those up for it we will then be hitting up central Birmingham afterwards!

We hope to see CFers from across the West Mids and country there!

(More details to follow)

Do you have more in common with these happy people than you actually realise?

How much power do you have over the running of your country?

A little? A bit? A lot?

Admittedly, it’s rather hard to quantify. But most people would argue that in a democracy, everyone has some power, however slight. Philosophically speaking, every member of the electorate actually has just as must power as any other; one man, one vote.

But although we may be unable to quantify our influence over government, it’s probably fair to say that you’ve more power than your average veiled Saudi woman or goose-stepping North Korean. But I happen to disagree… Or at least believe the influence of your average Briton is virtually negligible.

But if we’ve virtually no power over our government, where does the power lie? And why doesn’t lie with the people?

I shall explain throughout this post, but please do not believe that power resides solely with civil servants and politicians. They are the actors, but others write the scripts. And of course, there’s an audience too, who think the whole show’s being performed just for their benefit. Taking forward this analogy (which I really wish I’d thought of last week…), I’ll discuss the script writers and the audience today, and use this to explain the nature of power in the UK today.

Who’s more powerful? TNCs or world leaders?

I’m going to begin with the writers, who both control the actions of the actors, and watch as members of the audience. They are the interest groups, and range from nationwide trade unions and trans-national corporations to more local associations who campaign on smaller issues. They are the single most powerful body in our society, although the nature of the groups may vary between countries; corporations wield more power in the US that the UK, while trade and labour unions are stronger here.

To understand where they draw their power from, you must appreciate that all humans are principally self-interested. An individual joins an interest group because he believes they have the ability to further his own aims ie. provide him with an advantage for which he will not bear a large cost, but will enjoy a large benefit (or, conversely, prevent others receiving an advantage for which they’ll enjoy a large benefit, but he a large cost). Similarly, a politician or civil servant will only bother listening to one of these groups if they believe doing so will yield a large benefit and small cost, or not doing so will incur a small (if any) benefit and high cost.

Okay, fine, but this principle hardly seems to suggest that interest groups are omnipotent…

Well, the power of any interest groups is dependent upon its ability to benefit or harm a politician or civil servant. Fifty mothers protesting over the closure of an afterschool club won’t cause anywhere near as much political worry as five public sector union bosses promising widespread strike action, for example. And a relatively large and powerful terrorist group, such as the IRA, will lead to more sleepless nights than a group of bearded communists sitting in tents outside St Pauls’.

The ’99%’, or just another marginal interest group trying to get their way?

The most powerful groups are usually those which bankroll political parties, and often their lobbying takes place quietly, behind closed doors and rarely appears in the media. By contrast, the weakest are usually those who are forced to take to the streets with banners, flags and drums. For politicians, giving into such pressure appears to weaken their position, which may lose them more votes than they’d gain from backing the protesters in the first place.

The result is that many politicians are little more than an interest group’s representative at the decision making table. Civil servants, likewise, receive many a kickback for helping to draft legislation in certain ways, subtly benefiting one group over another. It is worth noting that they face less occupation hazard than politicians; groups can do less harm to their careers through public image, because they simply lack one.

So where does this leave the audience; the humble British voter?

He’s placed in a very undesirable position, without even realising it. Firstly, he’s often forced to pay (through tax) for something which benefits a small but powerful minority, but not himself. A clear example is that tax paid by a Brummie is given to Transport for London through a grant by the government, who then gives it tube drivers. The Brummie, like tens of millions of Britons, pays an almost unnoticeable cost for something which he virtually never uses, but which results in a very nice pay-package for a small minority backed by a very powerful interest group. The cost is diffused, but the benefit remains concentrated.

Secondly, the voter has virtually no power to decide the outcome of a national election. When an individual votes in the UK, they usually do so out of principle or a feeling of obligation. They do not spend hours analysing party manifestos, consuming bookshelves of philosophical literature, and comparing the relative leadership qualities of each potential Prime Minister and cabinet, as might be appropriate if they were the sole decider on who governed. It’s simply not worth the effort, which comes back to the belief that humans are self-interested. If my vote is going to make such a tiny difference in this election, why is it even worth me voting, let alone bothering to learn about the candidates? Buchannan called this rational ignorance; literally, it’s rational for voters to remain ignorant of politics. Only those who enjoy politics as a hobby or pastime, or feel it is their duty to take an interest, will bother voting.

What this eventually creates is a highly elitist system, in which small interest groups use politicians and civil servants to engineer themselves advantages, and lump the costs onto the ignorant and unsuspecting masses.

In my following post, I will discuss how this system of lobbying and rent-seeking could potentially be broken, should the will for small government be harnessed properly.

“4,329 films were submitted to the 2012 Cannes Film Festival. This blog had 21,000 views in 2012. If each view were a film, this blog would power 5 Film Festivals.”

Click here to see the complete report.

Owen Williams, Vice President

David Cameron and Sir Jeremy Heywood: currently Britain’s second and third most ‘influential’ men, according to GQ Magazine.
One elected. One most certainly not.

So where does power lie in our modern democracy?

There are many theories to power, be they liberal, socialist or otherwise. Many have been developed over centuries of thought, which pick apart the very nature of our society and world order. But of all the theories that I’ve come across, one sticks out more than any other, and it is the reason I hold such strong free-market/anti-state views. It’s called Public Choice theory, but don’t ask me why, because it seems to explain exactly why anyone but ’the public’ has choice today.

Public Choice theory is modern, having only really taken off during the 1960’s, but I believe it grants both a very realistic and very worrying view of Britain’s power structure, and exposes many very deep scars which socialism and Keynesianism unintentionally inflicted on our country. It was heavily developed by the US economist James Buchanan, who won the 1986 Nobel Memorial Prize for his work, and who advised Margaret Thatcher through the Institute for Economic Affairs during the late 1970′s.

Just like capitalism, Public Choice theory is based on two simple assumptions about human nature. Firstly, that humans are principally self-interested. That’s not to say we’re selfish, which is somewhat more immoral, but rather that we will always aim to fulfil our wants and desires, economic or otherwise. Secondly, that humans are rational; when presented with a series of options, we will select whichever makes us the most happy for the least cost. Rational Choice theory, as it is called, has come under substantial intellectual attack in the past, and I don’t personally believe that all humans act completely rationally all the time, but as a model for human behaviour, I’d say it provides a pretty good analysis.

So what does Public Choice theory say about government?

Public Choice theorists take the view that government is a battle ground between two competing types of people: civil servants and politicians. Neither are the friend or foe of the people; they are simply humans, like us, making the same rational and self-interested decisions we would in their shoes.

Civil servants are ultimately interested in their status and lifestyle. To improve their status, they must ensure that whichever department they have control of, whether it be the education department of Pembrokeshire County Council, or the entire civil service itself, has the largest budget and workforce possible. Size equals importance, and they use a wide range of tactics to achieve and vehemently defend both. To improve their lifestyle, they must make contacts, usually with big businesses, the media and other wealthy and powerful groups with vested interests. By providing these groups with what they want, be it a simple cabinet paper or memo, or access to national decision makers, the civil servants receive kickbacks: everything from social events to corporate directorships after leaving the service.

Politicians are interested in fame, and a place in the history books. Key to achieving both is taking and then maintaining political office, and both of these are themselves achieved through positive press coverage, which leads to vote winning. This is often why we see politicians on both sides of the House advocating policies which make little real economic sense, but are strong sound bites. As Thomas Sowell once said ‘The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.’ This isn’t to say that politicians don’t have principles; it’s just that those which get to the top are usually willing to compromise or twist their principles the most, while those which remain ‘ideologically pure’ tend to remain on the fringes and achieve little real change (Ron Paul a regrettably good example). But the very nature of democracy involves many interests coming together in support of one broad goal, and if you can’t compromise, you can’t construct that coalition of support you need to take office.

But the key point to remember about both civil servants and politicians, is that they’ll always argue they are acting in the ‘public interest’. And believe it or not, they’re not always lying. But you can certainly be sure they’re acting in their own personal interests.

For example, a supposedly running joke in the Westminster village is that it was decided to use the construction of Britain’s first motorway to link central London to Yorkshire, along the spine of the country, not because north-south traffic was heaviest here (I believe this was actually the A1, the ‘Great North Road’…) , but because it would run close to many civil servants’ homes in the Home Counties and some of the country’s best shooting grounds.

For whatever reason the M1 was designated the London-Yorkshire motorway, clearly building motorways was in the public interest, but very likely in the personal interest of those whose choose to do it, and exactly where they went in the interest of those who drew the route. After all, what sane man chooses to build Britain’s next nuclear power plant next to his own country house, adjacent to the county landfill site, and across the road from the maximum-security psychiatric hospital? He’s not going to put a motorway through his own back garden.

Later in this series of posts, I will explain what we need to do to limit the actions of these people. But for now, and despite what the video may say, I will ask you not to naively believe that the beast that is the British bureaucracy was gallantly slain by eleven years of Thatcherism. Such an organisation, born from the war, strengthened by a post-war socialist government, and then maintained for forty years by the Keynesian collectivist consensus continues to live today. True, it’s less bold and overt than it might once have been, but it still lurks and it still possesses the power to strangle our economy and our freedom.

My next post will concern the other major players in the political sphere; the virtually powerless common voter, and the sometimes nearly omnipotent interest groups.

In the clip from ‘Yes, Prime Minister’ above, Secretary to the Cabinet, Sir Humphrey Appleby GCB, KBE, MVO, MA (Oxon) dines with former Secretary to the Cabinet, Sir Arnold Robinson GCMG, CVO, MA (Oxon), and discusses the next Prime Minister following the the announcement that the incumbent will be stepping down.

Britain is a democracy, we can all agree on that.

True, it probably could be more democratic, and more meritocratic, but when all said and done, decision makers are accountable to the people. We elect our representatives, they determine, design and pass our laws, and if we don’t like what they’re doing, we ultimately have the power to boot them out. Power lies with the people, and nobody else.

Unrealistic and idealist conceptions are usually to be found on the left, but I’ve written above is often accepted by the right.

On Wednesday, an article appeared in the Telegraph which discussed a list, drawn up by GQ Magazine, of the most influential men in Britain. Top of the list, Boris Johnson, mostly due to his contribution to the Olympic Games, closely followed by David Cameron. You may have thought Dave would’ve trumped Boris, but otherwise that’s not a particularly surprising result. But while the top two men are household names, the third is less so; Sir Jeremy Heywood.

Sir Jeremy Heywood KCB, CVO, is, as you’ve probably guessed by now, Cabinet Secretary.

The third most influential man in this country, ahead of the likes of Michael Gove, Lord Justice Leveson, the Governor of the Bank of England, even No. 10’s Director of Communications, is a humble and somewhat unknown bureaucrat.

But then again, Michael Gove doesn’t have unrestricted access to the Prime Minister; Lord Justice Leveson the power to remove and replace Permanent Secretaries, and even Andrew Cooper can’t write the agenda of Cabinet meetings.

You may be wondering why I’m banging on about this. Moaning about how a small elite influence the running of our country does seem remarkably unconservative. But actually, it isn’t. What I’m going to introduce over my next series of posts (mostly to keep you in suspense, but also to save me from writing War & Peace now) is a theory of power which defines my political views. It’s both a guide to and critique of our current system, but unlike many similar ideas, it does not blame those in the system. They’re not immoral or wrong; they’re just being human.

The fault lies with us, the British people.

A proper understanding of where power truly lies in a modern democracy is necessarily if anything is ever to be changed, and it’s an understanding that anyone who believes in a smaller state must have. Or anyone who wants to write a highly successful political and satirical comedy series.

(original article at http://thebackbencher.co.uk/like-death-and-taxes-you-can-always-count-on-a-tube-strike-at-christmas/)

I wrote a similar article to this almost a year ago to the day, and it seems I can reel the same old rant out again, because like death and taxes, you can always count on a Tube strikes at Christmas!

ASLEF, the biggest Union for tube drivers on London’s underground network, have just voted for strike action on Boxing Day, with another 2 strikes planned for 18th and 25th January. Although not directly involved in the strike action, Bob Crows notoriously militant RMT may refuse to cross ASLEF picket lines, effectively shutting down the tube network on one of the busiest days of the year. It will be the third Boxing Day strike in a row. Arsenal has had to cancel its Boxing Day game again. The West End is expected to loose millions in sales.

Why? Well it’s supposedly over “pay and conditions”. Tube drivers currently earn £45,545 per year, rising to over £52,000 by 2015; a deal brokered to try and stop further strike action. Drivers were also recently offered a bonus (bribe) of around £1,200 for not striking during the Olympics (ie. doing their job). This equates to double the annual salary of a nurse (£25,000) and nearly triple the basic salary of a soldier (£18,000) and puts tube drivers not only on par with earnings of an Army Major but in the higher income tax bracket of 40%, earning over DOUBLE the average UK salary. Not your usual union minions eh? But it gets even better. With a strict 35 hour week and massive 43 days a year leave, tube drivers get what already amounts to one of the best reimbursement packages around.

The specific details in question are over pay for working Boxing day. Despite London Underground (LU) believing the previous pay settlement was in agreement of bank holiday work, ASLEF now demands triple pay and an extra day off in lieu for volunteering to work the shift. That would result in a pay cheque of £366 for a single days work. And is it hard or even necessary work? In reality…No. Almost no qualifications or previous experience are needed to drive a tube train, nor is the training programme long or rigorous. More importantly is the issue of automation of the entire tube system. Do trains even need drivers in the first place? Well considering Copenhagen, Dubai, Hong Kong, Washington, Kuala Lumpur, Tokyo and Kobe all have fully automated metro systems the answer would seem no. Further more even parts of London’s tube system are now computer driven – most notably the entire Docklands Light Railway (or DLR). Automated trains would not only modernise London’s dated transport network but provide hundreds of millions of pounds of savings on wages that could be used to subsidise the soaring cost of public transport in the capital. Of course, computers are also not unionized and tend to not go on strike that often…Ken Livingstone et al may blame Boris Johnson for rising tube fares, but in reality it’s their own union paymasters that are driving up costs.

So what’s the real story behind these strikes? If anything it shows what benefits a truly aggressive union can bring for its members, but at what cost and to whom? Trade Unions in this country are not especially well received on the whole, and the likes of the RMT are nothing short of despised, especially by Londoners. While ASLEF and RMT may try to claim it’s over genuine concerns over pay and conditions, the public overwhelmingly know better. The first answer is simply greed. Bob Crow may hark on and on about how bankers are not paying their way and are hoarding money slowing down the economy, but he himself receives a rather generous £145,000 a year on top of still keeping his council house, while his members earn double the average UK earnings. London is not being held hostage by desperate public sector workers trying to maintain a decent standard of living but by some of its highest earning residents! And this leads on to my final point. The real reason for these strikes is confrontation. Tube drivers don’t need any more money, even Crow knows that. But with a Tory led government, public sector strikes and regular demonstrations on the streets it provides the perfect backdrop for causing as much agro as possible. A self described ‘communist’ and unashamedly militant unionist, Bob Crow and his buddies over in ASLEF HQ have long been brandished the “awkward squad” of union leaders, caring not for the public or even their own members but for the simple satisfaction of feeding their already massively bloated political egos.

So, we’re all in this together – apart from the bankers, politicians….and tube drivers!

Charlie Winch (media & publicity)

On behalf of the committee, we would like to wish all our members and readers a merry Christmas and a happy New Year! 2013 will be a cracking year for BUCF with some awesome events planned – stay tuned!

Norwegian mass-murderer Anders Behring Breivik; do relaxed gun-laws really result in more massacres and gun-crime?

In my previous post on this matter, I made a hopefully convincing case against the barrage of calls from the American left for further gun-restriction legislation. My argument was based very much on the position that limiting the access to firearms that criminals possess will not stop their crimes, and by disarming their law-abiding citizens, the US government risks making them that much more vulnerable to gun-crime in the first place.

In this post, I want to examine the impact that allowing Britons, just like you and me, to purchase handguns would have. I will say straight up that despite being a libertarian, I am not convinced the British population would be any safer armed that it is currently. However, I do want shattered the illusion that as a society we are somehow a shrine to gun-control, that we don’t witness mass-murders in schools, and that it’s very difficult to get your hands on guns. For one thing, anyone who knows me personally will probably appreciate that I could use a British Army light support weapon when I was seventeen, and a modified SA80 two years before that. It’s really not that difficult to get your hands on an assault rifle or worse in the UK…

You may be wondering what I mean when I say ‘illusion’. It’s fact, surely? The USA has a homicide rate of about 4.2 persons per 100,000 of the population; the UK just 1.2. The UK has a gun-murder rate of just 0.04 (suicide by firearm is actually higher, at 0.17). The USA: 3.7.  I could carry on quoting UK-US gun and crime stats for this entire post.

I won’t, but it serves as an important tenant or our illusion. Often when we consider the liberalisation of gun laws, we only compare ourselves to the USA. We don’t tend to look at other countries and societies, some closer to home than others, which still grant the same relative access to guns as the US allows, but has crime figures far more close to our own.

A Colt AR15 semi-automatic assault rifle, closely related to the M4 Carbine employed by the US military. This weapons is a commonly owned MSSA worldwide, and a variant was used by Lanza in the Sandy Hook massacre.

New Zealand, for example, is not too dissimilar culturally to the UK. Except for its gun laws, where it’s possible to gain a licence from the police to own and use a category of firearm specifically named ‘Military-Style-Semi-Automatic’, although this is usually only granted to sportsmen. Providing you’re a member of a sports club and attend regularly, pistols can also be obtained easily enough. Logically, with this easy of access to firearms, you’d expect a high murder rate. In reality, New Zealand’s murder rate is only 0.9, to our 1.2. Firearm related murders are admittedly higher than own, at 0.17, but nowhere in the region of the US.

In Norway, there are some limitations on the number of guns of a certain calibre you may own, and how you must store them, but it’s still relatively easy to purchase semi-automatic rifles and pistols (you must join a hunting or sports club and pass a test, but that’s it). The weapons Anders Behring Breivik used in his attacks last year were all obtained perfectly legally. But if we compare homicide rates, the UK is again 1.2, but Norway is just 0.6.  Gun-murder rates? The UK: 0.04. Norway: 0.04.

These figures demonstrate a point I made in my first post; that the US has a number of serious social issues which impact their gun and crime stats. This makes it a bad example for us to compare ourselves against, because they are anomalous. Furthermore, Norway and New Zealand alone demonstrate how easy it is to purchase firearms, which then could conceivably be used in a murder, or even a shooting spree. Yet, remarkably, these kinds of event tend to happen rarely. It’s therefore wrong for us to draw such a strong correlation between relatively relaxed gun laws and high murder rates. It just too simplistic; there are a far wider range of factors which should be considered (such as the diagnosis and treatment of the mentally ill, for one thing).

Fine, so the US isn’t a great example to base our presumptions on. But what about massacres in the UK? Raoul Moat didn’t kill that many people, did he?

Thomas Hamilton murdered 18 schoolchildren in Dunblane, Scotland on 13 March 1996.

Well, in 1987, a Michael Ryan took a pistol, an M1 Carbine and a Chinese copy of the AK47 to 32 people in Hungerford, killing 17 of them, including his own mother. In response, the government tightened gun legislation, limiting the ownership of semi-automatic weapons. But then in 1996, a Thomas Hamilton took four pistols into Dunblane Primary School shot 33 people, killing 18 of them. Again, the government tightened gun legislation. Then in 2010, as I expect many of you will recall, Derrick Bird hit at total of 24 people with shotgun and hunting rifle rounds in Cumbria, killing 13.

The reason I raise these instances is to demonstrate that despite having some of the toughest gun laws in the world, we as country are not immune to such massacres to the degree we’d like to believe. This demonstrates that strict gun laws do not necessarily mean school children aren’t killed by guns in their own classrooms, and that if you are determined to carry out a mass murder, you’ll use what tools are available to you. Legislating against guns doesn’t stop the desire to kill in potential mass murderers; proper treatment in a psychiatric hospital does that.

So what of gun ownership in the UK? Firstly, I don’t believe anyone needs a weapon in the UK simply for the purpose of self-defence. If our murder rate was considerably higher, possibly, but definitely not today.

Should you have to pass a psychiatric assessment before receiving a shotgun licence?

But I see nothing wrong in relaxing gun controls for sports and hunting. If you’re a member of a club, and have gone through a proper criminal and psychiatric evaluation by the police (and continue to do so, say, once every three years), I see no reason why the state should limit your access to firearms. Ultimately, the state limits our ability to wield weapons because we may use them to commit murder, and thus remove the natural right to life another citizen possesses, being philosophical about it. But if we can adequately demonstrate that that is not our intention, I see no problem. Many of my friends already have shotgun licences as it is, and no psychiatric assessment is required for those, I believe. And when I was trained on weapons as a cadet, nobody sat me or anyone else in front of a doctor. Yet if I wanted to commit mass murder, I had access to live ammunition when I shot on ranges, and the kinds of bullet the Army are using to kill Talibs right now. The reality is that thousands of teenagers, not just in cadet forces, shoot on ranges in the UK each year, and don’t start gunning down dozens of people the moment they get the chance. The same applies to adults.

Which demonstrates that the vast majority of people who use firearms in the UK fully appreciate their destructive power, and act responsibly with them.  We don’t need the state to limit what we can use; we need the state to treat those that are mentally ill (especially seeing as the state provides nationalised healthcare), and lock up those who want to attempt murder.

In conclusion, legalising guns doesn’t cause murder; people commit murder. And criminalising guns, doesn’t stop people wanting to commit murder. They’ll just find a different way of doing it.

A .40 Glock 24 handgun; the tool of a cold-blooded killer, or the ultimate check on government?

Guns. Firearms. ‘Heaters’. Whatever name they’re given, whatever shape or size they come in, whatever calibre round they fire, they are simply tools whose ultimate purpose is to maim grievously, and if necessary, to kill whatever is in their path. But hey, we all know what guns are, don’t we? Terrible, horrific devices, responsible for the tragedies of Sandy Hook and Columbine, along with so many other despicable crimes committed each day. And the only way to prevent such crimes? Legislation. And so, as we have seen this weekend, the political battlelines are drawn.

If you want tighter US gun-control, you’re a responsible and rational person, who truly understands the impact such weapons can have on the lives of others. If you don’t want tighter gun control, you’re a crazed and emotion yokel, who’s happy to see children murdered at the hands of psychopaths, so long as you can bring home a machine-gunned elk carcass every Sunday, and have its head stuffed and mounted in your trophy room by Thursday. That, or in Miami’s import-export business.

In the coming weeks, I do believe the US is about to get a visit from the left-wing travelling salesman. His fantastic, must-have, ‘however-did-I-live-without-it?!’ product: a medicine bottle of ‘Legislation: Scientifically proven to cure all social ailments, from a failing economy to a pesky unfavourable press, and even poverty and world hunger!’

Personally, I believe legislation cures very few problems, but then I am a libertarian. What I essentially want to discuss in this post and my next, is how access to guns is not the true cause of US violent crime and mass homicides, and that any legislation will simply treat the symptom of that cause, rather than deal with the cause itself. But I also want to look at why the UK may consider liberalising its current gun laws, and why your ability to own a pistol, or even a rifle, may not be to the eternal detriment of British society.

Firstly, why won’t legislation be the magic cure?

How much crime do guns really cause?

Ultimately, to believe that US violent crime rates will fall considerably simply by controlling who can buy a gun, or what kind of gun, or how much ammunition for that gun, is just naïve. If I’m an enraged wannabe murder, not having access to a firearm is unlikely to deter me. I still want to kill the bastard (how dare he do that to my sister!?), so I’ll just find another way, or another tool of killing. If I’m a desperate druggy, who needs to mug an unsuspecting passer-by to get my next fix, I’ll similarly find another substitute for a gun. Replica firearms, such as $5 airsoft pistol, and a dark alley will suit my intentions perfectly. And if I work for a gang in LA or a ‘family’ in New York, I will likely still be able to get hold of gun regardless of the law (teenagers in South London manage it all the time.)

To tackle violent crime in any country, we have to appreciate the social factors that push people into committing this type of crime. What made the bloke in the first example so angry that he wanted to commit murder? Was he mentally unstable? Should he have been undergoing treatment? The druggy; why was he addicted? How did his life fall so badly apart that he turned to drugs? Who failed to spot the signs and help? Who’s still failing to spot the signs now and help him today? And why did our gangster join his gang? Or the soldier join his family? Or, as increasingly occurring, the Russian immigrant join his brotherhood?

Serious crime is committed by those who society has failed, and limiting their ability to commit violent crime will not limit their desire to actually commit it in the first place.

Furthermore, what risk would the US public be facing if gun-ownership was limited considerably? A US citizen, I believe a resident of Newtown, was interviewed by BBC news yesterday, and made an interesting point. He said that he fully comprehends the damage that guns can do, and never wants to use his own, but that he keeps it with him for that one moment where he has to use it. In a country where anyone has the right to wield potentially lethal force, I don’t really believe it’s wrong to be able to defend yourself from others who also wield it.

Not so long ago, I was speaking to a chap who held a similar position as our fellow from Newtown. He’d lived in southern state (I believe Texas) for a number of years, and where it was perfectly legal for anyone to carry a concealed handgun. Rather unsurprisingly, there was very little violent crime.

While that is admittedly anecdotal, it does serve to prove a point. If everybody is similarly armed (or perceived to be), all but the most hardened organised criminal will be unwilling to risk using a firearm on somebody else. It is the same principle behind nuclear weapons: ‘we have nuclear weapons, so that we they never use their nuclear weapons on us.’ It brutally pragmatic.

This leads on to the chief concern, which is that while gun-control will be observed by law-abiding citizens, it won’t be given such respect by those who wish to use guns for less legitimate activities. What legislation is therefore in effect doing is limiting the ability of potential victims to defend themselves, and thus making them more vulnerable to criminal aggression in the first place.

Would you be proud to own a gun?

What also must be remembered is the importance of guns in US culture and history. It often seems absurd to us that the US has chosen to entrench the of citizens to right to bear arms in their constitution, but actually that principle originates from one great British mind. John Locke (1632-1704) developed the principle that government should be rule by consent, and this led to the US founding fathers’ belief in the right to rebellion. They held that a US citizen had the right to rebel against a government which did not act in the common interest, and that by owning firearms, citizens had not just the right, but the ability, to rebel. This was seen to be the ultimate check on dictatorial government.

To many Britons, guns are indeed terrible tools, but to Americans, they represent freedom; the freedom to defend yourself against an attacker, but also against tyrannical governance. I suppose it could be similar to the US perception of the Queen; to them, and unelected head of state is archaic and highly undemocratic, but to us, the monarchy is a part of our national identity.

So, in the coming weeks and months, I do hope that the left-wing reactionaries make little ground, because I truly see little good coming of gun-control. I hope you do too.

In my following post, I will discuss the case for more liberal gun-laws in the UK, along with our current, and surprisingly easy access to them already.

Campus Reform UK – a breath of fresh air into student politics!

Born out of the great halls of Cambridge University last week at the annual Young Britons Foundation Activist Training Conference, a new campaign has been launched to scrutinize and expose waste and scandal withing the UK’s Student Unions.

Campus Reform UK was launched this week to compile all the “waste, inefficiency, incompetence, political bias and general chaos rife in all Student Unions”. Hopefully it will help to highlight some of the madness that goes on within the closed halls of the higher echelons of SU’s, most notably by the small left wing cliques that dominate them.

Our own Guild of Students itself has not escaped criticism recently – this article was just published on the Guild Councils attempt to pass an anti-capitalism motion which thankfully was withdrawn. http://www.campusreformuk.com/2012/12/12/birmingham-guild-capitalism-is-not-for-the-benefit-of-students/

You can follow Campus Reform UK on Twitter at https://twitter.com/CampusReformUK and on facebook at https://www.facebook.com/CampusReformUk and online at http://www.campusreformuk.com/

The Political Compass adds a new edge to the traditional ‘right v left’ debate, adding an authoritarian v libertarian aspect as well. It’s not perfect – some of the questions are heavily loaded towards a certain answer being given but it makes for an interesting comparison none the less.

I’ll let you analyse each of the scores yourself – if there is anything you think is worth commenting on then go for it..

BUCF’s results;

A decent spread of results showing we are indeed a broad church / big tent party. All on the right (sound!) but with quite a few on the libertarian side reflecting what I see as the apparent resurgence of libertarianism and classical liberalism within Conservative Future and the national conservative youth movement as a whole, especially compared to the parliamentary party.

Birmingham University Labour Students

University of Birmingham Liberal Democrats

Birmingham Broad Left Society

Freedom Society

(Hopefully I’ll add in a few other scores if and when they come)

Make of it what you wish!

Charlie Winch (BUCF Media & Publicity)

Twitter – @ce_winch

all the YBF9 delegates

This weekend 10 members of BUCF hit up Churchill College Cambridge for the ninth Annual Young Britons’ Foundation Activist Training Conference. With amazing speakers, great food and enough wine to take out a small army I’m sure many of us will be returning!

The 48 hour event included talks from

Steve Baker MP;
The genius political consultant Peter Botting;
Graham Brady MP;
Rory Broomfield of the Freedom Association;
Conor Burns MP;
David Canzini, formerly campaigns director for the Conservative Party;
Emmar Carr of Big Brother Watch;
James Cleverly AM;
Alex Deane;
Matthew Elliott of the tpa
Shane Greer;
Robert Halfon MP and his colleague Paul Abbott;
Jonathan Isaby of The TaxPayers’ Alliance;
Raheem Kassam of The Commentator blog;
Christian May, formerly of YBF;
Cllr Paul Osborn;
Lord Parkinson;
Eric Pickles MP;
Cllr Greg Smith of Hammersmith and City Council;
Lord Tebbit;
Andre Walker of the Trade Union Reform Campaign;                                                        Tim Montgomerie – ConservativeHome

BUCF hopes to be working with YBF in the future for a number of on and off campus events.

Sound!

We – the conservatives, and indeed the right in general – are often described as the “nasty” guys in politics. That is far too simplistic a generalization…

Some of the collective “left wing”, in its usual egotistical arrogance, indiscriminately demonize entire groups of people for having alternate political viewpoints without remorse. And they are all too often overtly aggressive in doing so.

Often in debates, on our campus only a few weeks ago for example, the left are the ones to heckle, shout, abuse, laugh and insult those they disagree with. Conversely, we as the right, are usually quite timid and passive in listening to others views regardless of if we agree with them or not.

This week part of the left showed its true colours; Firstly the NUS Vice-President for Union Development, Vicki Baars, advocated chants calling for Tories and LibDems to be burnt on bonfires at last weeks flop of a demo. Today, Labour run Rotherham council snatch foster kids from perfectly good parents simply because of their membership of UKIP. Bigotry. Other examples are easy to find – some call for a party to celebrate the death of Maggie Thatcher. Having watched “ToryBoyTheMovie” last week it was also disturbing to hear of an account of labour activists burning an effigy of the local Tory leaders recently deceased husband in front of her during election time! That is heartless cruelty and nothing short of it. One only has to think back a year or so to the scenes outside Millbank to remember the sheer thuggery of part of the left.

We must agree to disagree with them, but when necessary expose some on the fringes as the bigots they truly are.

[disclaimer - obviously this only applies to some on the left, just as it equally does to some on the right. My point is left does not equal "nice" whilst right equals "nasty". That is far too simplistic a generalization, but one people far too often take for granted]

Jacob Rees-Mogg MP; Do politicians’ social backgrounds really matter in today’s society?

So it’s Halloween, that lovely time of year when all things nasty and scary rear their heads for all to see.  But the great thing about Halloween is that they disappear back to the dusty confines of the guest-room wardrobe one day later. Unfortunately, Labour’s 12-point lead, while being both very nasty and scary (for both our party and country), seems somewhat less inclined to do this.  With their greatest lead over us so far this Parliament, according to today’s YouGov poll, how do we…

… turn the tide?

In my previous posts on this topic, I discussed our party’s polling history, as well as the two issues (the economy and Europe) which we need to get right if we are to perform well in 2015. Today, I’m going to discuss a problem which lies at the heart of our party, and yet we Conservatives seem very unwilling to tackle: our blue blood. But more importantly, why this one issue may make it virtually impossible for us to get Dave back into Number 10 again.

So, we’re back to this old boring debate again. Does someone’s education really matter in the 21^st century? Is it really that important if David Cameron went to Eton, and then Oxford? Surely we’ve overcome the dogma of class by now? It’s where someone’s going, which matters, isn’t it? Not where they’ve come from…

Whatever your view on the topic, I believe it’s one of the single most important issues in the British political arena today. As the fallout from Andrew Mitchell’s supposed Freudian slip has shown, coupled with George Osborne’s cut of the 50p tax, and Iain Duncan Smith’s rather unpopular reorganisation of the welfare system, we have the image as a party of the rich, the wealthy middle classes, who have little interest in the plight of the ordinary man in tough times. What’s worse, is that we’re actually perceived as a party which is trying to brush over and even cover up this aspect of our character; an aspect which still lurks below the surface, and which embarrassingly reappears from time to time. Our party’s image is not good, at all.

Fine, the background of our cabinet ministers is not our greatest selling point. But it’s a bit far to say it will cost us an election, isn’t it?

I don’t think so.

With many of the problems our government faces, it has a plan to solve them. This demonstrates not only an acceptance of the existence of a problem, and a willingness to overcome it, but also a set of policies which can be tweaked and altered to ensure that the problem is dealt with effectively, and in a popular manner.  We can apply this to the economy, to Europe, to education and the NHS. Virtually any problem. And this is what the electorate wants to see; effective action to get Britain back on her feet.

But the image of our party is different. The electorate can see the problem; I can see the problem. I hope that you can see the problem. But the party cannot afford to see the problem, even if, deep down, it knows it’s there. Why not? Because the private schooled and Oxbridge educated dominate our heart; it has become systemic amongst the top echelon. We’d need turkeys to vote for Christmas if there was ever to be change.

So the party doesn’t accept that there’s a problem, so it has no plan to solve it. This shows the electorate we believe that there is no problem, we have no willingness to overcome it (if it even exists in the first place…), and we have no policies to deal with it.

How will this cost us the 2015 election?

Firstly, by being totally out of touch with the British people. Again, according to YouGov polls right through this parliament, 46-53% of the electorate have consistently believed we appeal to only one section of society, rather than to the whole country. By comparison, Labour’s highest score on the same question was just 24%, and that was two years ago. By not addressing this problem, we’re demonstrating to the British people that we don’t see what they do. And you can’t be much more out of touch than that.

Secondly, we’re in very tough economic times, which despite what the left are saying, we’re all paying for. But that doesn’t change the fact that some very wealthy and very well educated men in Westminster are making decisions which will cost those at the bottom our society very heavily indeed. And today, this approach to economics forms the heart of the political discussion worldwide. It’s THE issue of our generation, and while economically we may be getting it right, politically, we’re getting it very wrong.

Broadly, what I’m saying is that I see where the left and Labour are coming from. But I disagree with them; I think they brush over our successes, and blow our failures out of proportion. However, too few of the electorate disagree with them, as the polls clearly show. We can no longer stick our fingers in our ears, our heads in the sand (as hard as that may be with our finger simultaneously in our ears…) and pretend that our rich party image is not a problem. Because doing so will cost us power, and condemn our country to the Labour party, and a future of yet more unsustainable spending and decline.

So how do we solve this problem? Well, when I first began writing this blog post, that’s what I thought I’d be able to tell you by the end. But after these two hours in front of my laptop, I feel there may be no real way to turn the tide, at least not in the short-term. In my opinion, our party has a cancer, which it developed from the collapse of the British meritocracy in the 1970’s*. We can play with other policies, and try to compensate. Hope that by getting right on Europe and the economy, that the electorate will turn a blind eye to our image. But ultimately, we need to cure the cancer, not treat it with apathy and let it become worse.

But first, we’ll have to accept it exists.

* I highly recommend a viewing of Andrew Neil’s Posh and Posher: Why Public Schoolboys Run Britain. It’s widely available online.

Firstly – how is austerity not working? Unemployment has fallen for another consecutive month. Youth unemployment fell as well. In fact employment is now at an all time HIGH. Inflation is down dramatically since the coalition came into government. Borrowing figures are falling. Our credit rating has remained at top levels when other European nations saw theirs fall. Confidence in markets has remained roughly in tact – the same cant be said for France where the recently elected Socialist Hollande has caused a chaotic panic amongst investors and business leaders. The UK is on the mend. Austerity isn’t a button you can press for instant results. It takes time. Come 2015 we can judge this governments economic record. I’m confident it wont be as poor as the TUC claim.

Secondly, why the hell was Ted Millington, wait-whats-his-name?!? Ed Milliband there? Addressing a crowd carrying “end all cuts” signs when he himself said Labour would follow through with most of the coalitions spending cuts appears to me like he is protesting against…..himself.

Thirdly, what is this alternative? Tax the rich more? Well, that reminds me of a story my Dad emailed me the other week;

Bar Stool Economics ~ our tax system explained

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100 and If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.)

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your
daily beer by $20.” so drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected…They would still drink for free…But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’…They realized
that $20 divided by six is $3.33…But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer..So,
the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $50 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before…And the first four continued to drink for free…But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,”declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,” but he got $9!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got nine times more than I!” “That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man.
“Why should he get $9 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him.

But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important.

They didn’t have enough money between all
of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being
wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Either way the rally never found that elusive magic money tree and much to the disappointment of bewildered revolutionaries aimlessly walking the streets of Whitehall the government stands another day.

I fail to see what Saturday achieved (bar a colossal policing bill…)

Charlie Winch

(Media & Publicity)

So how do we get this on the front page of the Telegraph in 2015?

Earlier this week, I wrote of the popularity problem our party currently faces, especially in comparison to the opposition and the line up they offer. I believe it appropriate to thank all those who commented on my first ever blog post, and to simply note that I expected a slightly more Tory-aligned readership, which led to some of my bolder comments (not that critique by the Vice Chairman of Birmingham University Labour Students isn’t welcomed!). In future, I will happily respond to comments, but I won’t engage in a long-winded, Jolitics-style debate over a broad range of issues, so please do not try to drag me into one.

So the question today:

How do we make our comeback?

For me, three are three key issues which we have to get right: Europe, the economy, and our party image. If we can nail all three, I believe we can ensure a majority, and a comfortable one at that, in 2015. So how do we tackle each one?

Firstly, Europe. Before we leap in ham-fisted, lest us not forget the problems that this institution inflicted our party in the 1990’s. We don’t want to campaign on a strong anti-EU platform, only for it to split the party and thus present a totally divided image to the electorate. We must maintain party unity, as much as the European situation makes our blood boil.

However, as an ardent Eurosceptic myself, I do believe it is time for a referendum. But before I’m savaged as being wholly contradictory, do hear me out. Promising a referendum on our membership does not mean we have to campaign on a strongly Eurosceptic note. I actually believe it might be the best way to manage the growing tension in our party over the issue, especially if we allow members of our party to campaign for either side, in a similar manner to Labour in the AV referendum. In the interests of democracy, we shall let the British people decide.

Furthermore, by promising a referendum outright (rather than the constant subtle hints we’re hearing now), we should be able to tackle the UKIP problem, which will benefit our party in no less than three ways. Firstly, we will attract considerable one-off support from current UKIP voters; if they really want a UK out of the EU, rather than to just protest against us, they’ll choose a choose a party which actually has a chance of getting into government and bringing about a referendum. Secondly, it will limit the number of marginal seats we lose due to splits in the right-wing vote. And thirdly, if the British people do choose to leave the EU, it may just finish off Farage and his party, or at least reduce them considerably in size, influence, and disruption. This said, many UKIPers have other problems with our party, not just its simple hot-cold Euroscepticism, which we may need to address.

Now, the economy… I think the party’s problem is not our policies, but our communication of the facts.  No matter how much mud the left throw at Osborne (tax cuts for millionaires, pasties and grannies, robbing the poor so the rich can have more…), it doesn’t change the fact that unemployment is falling, and that we nearly have the levels of employment seen at the height of the last boom. Our 10 year-bond yields are also remaining at a nice 1.9% (rather than 5.5% seen in 2007), sending a strong message to global investors (FDI into the UK rose 7% in 2011, according to the UN).

Our problem is getting this message out to the electorate. The British economy is definitely going in the right direction, we’re recovering, but the people don’t know it. And this poor communication and public relations is what I’ll be covering in my third post on our fight-back. Along with the issue of gay-marriage, our image as the party of the middle-class toffs, and the number of blunders the Parliamentary party have got into the habit of making. And can we draw any lessons from good ‘ole Mrs T?

Please feel free to comment; I did manage to wash the blood out from last week. Just about.

With Conference coming so soon after the reshuffle, I was interested to see how the likes of Grant Shapps, Jeremy Hunt and the other new appointees would do in their first major speeches since taking on new roles. Of those I saw, I was most impressed with the new Party Chairman. As a speaker, Grant Shapps is confident and quite engaging – despite bearing an uncanny resemblance to Tony Blair – and so I look forward to seeing what he can bring to the table in the run-up to the General Election and how voters react to him.

My personal highlight of Conference wasn’t the PM, or Boris, but William Hague. He’s a brilliant orator and struck the balance well between content, entertainment and the Disraeli references that were littered throughout so many speeches. Hague seems a universally popular figure within the Party, particularly among ladies of a certain age. I was sat near several enthusiastic Haguettes on Sunday afternoon and I almost felt as though I were at a Tom Jones concert in the 1970s. It was also fantastic to see the Foreign Secretary welcomed as the Honorary President of CF, especially because he was Party leader at the time of its founding.

The fringe event I was most looking forward to was the one run by the Adam Smith Institute on the Monday of Conference. I’m a big fan of their work – even if my university lecturers aren’t – so I was keen to take advantage of an event outside of London. Unfortunately, I got there late so I was one of those listening from the corridor ‘hungry for the narcotic blast of high-grade, free-market rhetorical cocaine’. Frankly, the turnout was testament to their fantastic work and the brilliant speakers, including Daniel Hannan.

Boris mania well and truly took over on Tuesday. There was a real buzz around the ICC and inside Symphony Hall. His speech was, as ever, entertaining, with the brilliant cleaning analogy, SoHo heckles and a vociferous round of applause for Ken Livingstone. Whether or not he’ll be the next leader of the Party, Boris Johnson is an asset to the Conservative Party and we are lucky to have a politician who is so well-liked. I also enjoyed Michael Gove’s speech. I know he’s not universally popular, but he’s one of my favourite members of the Cabinet. Besides, his new glasses are fab. In the evening we hosted an event with Warwick University and the Student Tory Reform Group, which was pretty successful. There was a good turn-out and it was great to catch up with BUCFers past and present.

Wednesday’s programme, culminating in the PM’s speech, was really enjoyable. Those of you who follow me on Twitter (if you don’t, you can do @LauraH7320) will know that I’m something of an Andy Murray fan – I apologise for being unable to get through an online posting without mentioning him – so I was pleased to see him feature in a beautiful Olympic montage that preceded Lord Coe’s speech. Lord Coe received the most enthusiastic ovation of the Conference and I am quite certain that should he decide to run for London Mayor he will be well-supported by both the Party and the electorate. I also enjoyed Mayor Bloomberg’s speech; I think it’s fantastic that the Mayor of one of the world’s most important and dynamic cities is a Conservative ally.

The media really built up Cameron’s speech. There were numerous articles claiming that this was his last chance to rescue his leadership and get the Party back on side etc etc. I think he delivered an excellent speech, using his own personal experiences to discuss attitudes to disability and the culture of aspiration he wants to create. I personally liked the themes of ‘aspiration nation’ and ‘spreading privilege’. After all, don’t we all want something better for ourselves and our children, whether you’re an Etonian or not? I think this was David Cameron at his best, passionate and statesman-like. More of the same please.

Ed Miliband, Current Leader of the Labour Party.  Photograph: David Levene Photograph: David Levene

For the past two years, this man and his photograph have struck hope and optimism in to the hearts of Conservative circles nationwide. Ed Miliband, the man who rose to lead his party with such Machiavellian efficiency, who happily slotted a knife between his brother’s shoulder blades and manipulated the union vote, once appeared to have all the Prime Ministerial appeal of Mr Bean. And with Yvette Cooper and Ed Balls quietly scheming in the background, the TUC constantly banging the public sector drum, and a horrendous fiscal reputation as a party, Mr Miliband originally looked set to be nothing more than another Michael Foot or Hugh Gaitskell; a footnote in history.

But after three weeks of party conferences, big speeches, and general PR rhetoric, the fact of the matter remains the same; according to a YouGov poll performed on 14^th October, 43% of the British electorate would still rather see Milibean, the Labour party and Teddy in Number 10 over ourselves. And whereas his socialist vision of One Nation conservatism may not have taken off in the same respect as New Labour once did, he might just have shaken off his reputation as the “Tories’ secret weapon”.

Could ‘Red’ Ed be far more than a mere historical footnote?

But is this something we should even be worried about? We are in the mid-term of an austerity administration, after all, and a particularly tough one at that. Shouldn’t we expect to be unpopular, especially when we’re tackling the mountain of debt left to us by Gordon Brown and his now oh-so popular cronies? Surely our slight dip in the poles will rectify itself before 2015?

To put it bluntly, yes, this is something we should be worried about. If the electorate weren’t willing to grant us an outright mandate and a majority in 2010, even after the most unpopular Prime Minister since Neville Chamberlain, we’ve got even more work to convince them this time around.

Let’s look at history. How did another initially unpopular Conservative Prime Minister manage thirty years ago?

Mrs Thatcher found herself in far worse times, poll-wise, during the early 1980’s. According to MORI, after receiving 45% of the popular vote in the 1979 general election, she’d reached our current rating of 33% by December 1980. But the ratings continued to fall, to just 27% by September 1981. Only a war over a handful of certain islands in the South Atlantic was able to lift the party out of its rut, nearby doubling the figures to 51% by June 1982. Quite the turnaround. But how does the current party shape up?

We polled 36% of the vote in May 2010, certainly not as well as Margaret managed, but we made it to 40% by June 2011. However, ever since then we’ve seen our support slowly dwindle, despite a brief 7% increase in December 2011 following Cameron’s veto of treaty change at the EU summit. As I’ve mentioned before, we now sit at 33%, having recovered from a low of 30% this September.

Yes, those are a bunch of nice statistics, I hear you say (or rather think), but what can we actually learn from them? Well, firstly, that it’s possible for our party to make a comeback, from as little as 27%, to convincingly prevail in the next three elections. Secondly, that a hard line towards Europe may be the key to winning back voters, a considerable number of whom have slipped to away to UKIP. And thirdly, an invasion and occupation of British sovereign territory by a military dictatorship, in complete contravention of international law, followed by an astounding victory against tremendous odds nearly eight-thousand miles away from the UK, despite the territory in question being virtually useless and simply a relic of our long-gone colonial days, is very popular indeed!

So it’s possible. But how do we do it?

That, I will speak of in my next post. And it won’t involve fighting a war (conventional or class).

FYI – for anyone at party conference this comming week, make sure to attend the Social Action Fringe event!

This week 658,000 16 year olds received their GCSE results. For the first time since these exams were introduced the number of exams passed at grades A*-C has decreased. As someone who works in secondary education, I do not share the fury many teachers are directing at Michael Gove.

Whether or not political pressure was put on exam boards to downgrade GCSEs, this needed to happen. So many pupils are gaining the best grades at GCSE that the qualification itself is being devalued. Here are this year’s figures from BBC News:

When speaking to the BBC, Gove stressed, ”The decision about where to set grade boundaries is made by exam boards. If you take English, then yes the number of As and A*s has fallen but the number of Bs has increased. The number of Cs has fallen and the number of Ds has increased. And that is the result of the independent judgements made by exam boards entirely free from any political pressure.”

While I can see that many teachers think these results make their hard work appear useless, I think the threat from some headteachers of legal action is ridiculous. The truth is our education system is not improving, as the results over the past 23 years from 1988 to 2011 may suggest. Comprehensive state education is woefully inadequate; it tries to be everything to all people. It is no coincidence that the schools with the best results in the country are either independent or grammar schools.

Something much more radical than downgrading GCSEs is needed to sort out our education system. After all, we’re gambling with pupils’ futures.

The backlash against Gove due to only a 0.4% decrease in results has overshadowed the real news: that many teenagers have still done exceptionally well. Congratulations to them.

HLAD

Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, is arguably the Coalition’s most radical minister. His free-schools project arguably its most radical reform. The next step in this education revolution is simple: free schools must be allowed to be run on a for-profit basis.

The Institute of Economic affairs recently released a report named “The Profit Motive in Education: Continuing the Revolution” in which the case for the introduction of the profit motive in the free school project was outlined. It deemed the profit motive a must if the reforms are to succeed.

The notion of profit making free schools seems far too controversial for most, but it shouldn’t be. Free Schools are run independently from local councils but are still funded by the taxpayer (and thus free to attend). They are in effect free independent schools, but are currently not allowed to make a profit. Opposition to any sort of profit motive has been made my many trade unions and perhaps most importantly by Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister. But the addition of the profit motive would not be unique to Britain.

There is already a country who champions the free-school project. Almost 11% of its children are educated in free schools and of them around 64% in for profit institutions. So where is this evil capitalist profit-over-people basket-case? Sweden, and its success is largely attributable to the ability of for-profit operators to run schools.

The important thing is this; that a great education is provided free of charge at the point of use and funded by the taxpayer. As to who provides that education, then the case is open. Monopolies are never good for results, and the state having a total monopoly over education is no different. Tony Blair’s New Labour threw billions at education but to little prevail. Educational standards are widely viewed as having slid over recent decades. Sweden on the other-hand has witnessed an overhaul of its state education system, bringing better results at a more cost effective rate. The Free-School project offers to do the same in the UK. But it needs modification. Without the introduction of the profit motive it may remain mealy a minor tweak, confined to affluent communities where parents have enough free time to commit to volunteer. Profit-making Free Schools would have an incentive to offer an alternative to the worst state schools, giving children an opportunity to escape the failing state system and get a good education. It would be a win in terms of both educational attainment and government finances (and of course for the business making a nice profit!).

You can read the IEA’s report for free at: http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/The%20Profit%20Motive%20in%20Education%20-%20Continuing%20the%20Revolution.pdf

Charlie Winch

BUCF Media & Publicity Officer

https://twitter.com/ce_winch

Seven years ago we had an extension built and I distinctly remember my Dad withdrawing the maximum amount of money from cashpoints on consecutive days in order to get enough cash together for each instalment. My parents paid in cash because this is how the builder asked to be paid. If anyone is “morally wrong”, surely it is the builder, not my parents. It is true that my parents also saved money; builders charge less if they will be paid cash in hand.

However, as I said in my post about Jimmy Carr, I don’t think that avoiding tax is immoral. We’d all do it if we could. Critics have accused the Government of being “unnecessarily moralistic” and I have to say that I tend to agree with this assessment.

In these tough economic times, people will want to save money in any way they can, and who can blame them?

HLAD

Last night some Mole Valley, Epsom & Ewell CF committee members went to an event at the HG Wells Centre in Woking. The two special guest speakers were Dan Hannan MEP and Tim Montgomerie, founder of arguably the most influential Tory blog, Conservative Home.

Although the event was titled, “Can Conservatives win on Europe?” this topic was not discussed to a great extent. I was quite pleased by this as I’m not a fan of Europe. It is however clear that Hannan would welcome an in-out referendum.

The main point that I drew from the evening was that the Conservative Party needs to re-brand itself before the 2015 election campaign. We’ve lost the moral high-ground. The Tory party is not viewed as the party for ordinary people. As my father said earlier, “they’re for toffs”.

What we need to emphasise is what I’m going to call “three pillar Conservatism”. Here is an important statistic: if families stay together, work and educate themselves they have a 96% chance of avoiding poverty. Family, work, education. These are the three things that we, as Conservatives, stand for and we need to make this clear to the electorate.

It’s a long road to 2015 and there is a lot of work to be done. I haven’t yet lost hope of winning an outright majority but if this dream is to be realised we need to lay the foundations now.

HLAD

Yesterday the coalition suffered its greatest rebellion since it came to power when 91 Tory MPs opposed plans to elect 80% of members of the House of Lords.

The Lib Dems have warned that if Tory MPs fail to deliver this key part of the coalition deal then they may not back plans to change constituency boundaries that would benefit Conservatives.

The Government still won the vote with a majority of 338 but only after scrapping a vote to limit the time for debating the Bill to 10 days.

The key points of the House of Lords reform plans are:

• Reducing the number of members from 826 to 450
• 80% of members to be elected
• The remaining 20% would be appointed by an Appointments Committee on a non-party basis
• Peers would serve a non-renewable 15-year term
• Reducing the number of bishops from 26 to 12
• Members would not have the title “Lord” or “Baroness”

The Tory rebels included David Davis, Nadine Dorries, Zac Goldsmith, Louise Mensch, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Sir Malcolm Rifkind.

26 Labour MPs joined the rebellion, including Margaret Beckett, David Blunkett and Kate Hoey.

HLAD

Last week David Cameron picked out Jimmy Carr as one of 1000 people using the K2 tax scheme by branding Carr’s tax arrangement as “morally wrong”. The K2 scheme is based in Jersey and is understood to protect £168m from HMRC every year, with Carr as its largest beneficiary. HMRC is now investigating the scheme but there is no suggestion that the comedian’s actions are illegal. Is Cameron right? Is tax avoidance morally wrong?

Jimmy Carr made the following statement on Twitter after Cameron’s revelation:

I appreciate as a comedian, people will expect me to ‘make light’ of this situation, but I’m not going to in this statement as this is obviously a serious matter. I met with a financial advisor and he said to me “Do you want to pay less tax? It’s totally legal”. I said “Yes”. I now realise I’ve made a terrible error of judgement. Although I’ve been advised the K2 tax scheme is entirely legal, and has been fully disclosed to HMRC, I’m no longer involved in it and will in future conduct my financial affairs much more responsibly. Apologies to everyone.

I think that although people have been very quick to judge Carr, many would find it difficult to resist such a scheme if their accountant offered it to them. Carr let the panelists on 8 Out Of 10 Cats mock his predicament and did so with good humour.

I would argue that we should not blame people like Jimmy Carr – most people would pay less tax if they could. It is the system that should be blamed for allowing legal loopholes to develop. Having said that, if the K2 scheme is shut down, no doubt another scheme will pop up exploiting a different loophole.

It also emerged this week that Gary Barlow and two other members of Take That have invested over £26m in a music industry investment scheme believed to be another way of avoiding tax. However their lawyers have stated that they still pay a significant amount of tax. Again, the scheme they are involved with is totally legal.

Although I said that we should not blame these individuals it is disappointing that Gary Barlow, who has been greasing round the Royal Family in recent months, is avoiding paying the tax that pays for the monarchy. Jimmy Carr also took part in the Diamond Jubilee Concert.

I think Cameron went a bit far saying that what Carr did was immoral. He is on dodgy ground because many Tory party donors are involved in similar schemes. His and George Osborne’s priority now should be to close up these loopholes so these schemes are no longer a legal option.

HLAD

Following on from my last post, I think it’s fantastic that the Falkland Islands are getting a referendum on whether they want to remain part of the UK. As a journo in the Evening Standard said this week, it’s high time a similar privilege was afforded to the people of Britain: a straightforward EU in-out referendum.

The recent crisis in Europe has caused widespread relief in this country that we didn’t venture into the Euro. We need to reconsider our membership of the European Union and the people should make the decision as the implications of being a member affect us all.

HLAD

Admittedly I didn’t know that some Welsh Patagonians fought for Argentina in the Falklands War but I still think that this is pretty outrageous. Does Argentina not remember Simon Weston and Sir Galahad?

I’m looking forward to the resounding ‘yes’ vote when the Falklands has its referendum on remaining part of this country.

HLAD

Sunday saw 1000 boats take to the Thames in the biggest flotilla the capital has seen in the past 300 years. Unfortunately the weather was pretty appalling but it didn’t dampen the spirits of the 1 million spectators who lined the river or watched the events unfold on big screens throughout the city. It was quite a sight to behold although the BBC left a lot to be desired. A personal highlight of the commentary was when Tess Daly said, ” The Queen is a big part of this.” Well obviously, Tess – it’s her Diamond Jubilee! It was great to see the senior Royals on the impressive barge although they did look a bit wet and miserable at times. The Duchess of Cambridge was looking fantastic as usual. I have to admit to having a bit of a girl crush on her. I love her hair and her always perfect fashion choices.

The concert on Monday was excellent, I thought. Gary Barlow should be very proud of the spectacle he organised. Having said that, however, I’m not sure it was quite the Queen’s cup of tea. But it was something for the whole nation to enjoy. Robbie Williams kicked the concert off brilliantly and I thought Jessie J sang excellently. Madness on the roof of Buckingham Palace was spectacular, particularly the projections on the facade. There were a few letdowns of course: Cheryl Cole showed again that in fact she can’t sing and I was underwhelmed by Paul McCartney if I’m honest. The fireworks at the end were fantastic as was the performance of Gary Barlow and Andrew Lloyd Webber’s Jubilee song, “Sing”.

Tuesday was a much more sober affair with the Thanksgiving service in the morning followed by lunch at the Palace of Westminster, carriage ride to Buckingham Palace and then the fly past with some of the Royals on the balcony. Then later the Queen’s Jubilee message was broadcast. The decision to have only the Queen, Charles and Camilla, Will and Kate and Harry on the balcony was interesting in my opinion. I predict a slimming down of the Royal Family in the coming years. Another example of this was seen on Sunday as Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie were not included on the Spirit of Chartwell along with the senior Royals.

The whole weekend has been very enjoyable, and it was great that it coincided with my birthday. The country seems to have pulled together to celebrate how the Queen has served the UK and the Commonwealth so marvellously for the past 60 years. There is only one more thing for me to say at the end of this weekend of festivities: God Save The Queen!

HLAD

I’ve taken the title of this blog from The Independent’s headline on May 31st. The government have said that the public will not sympathise with the BMA over their decision to strike next month due to changes to doctors’ pensions. The government is right. There has been a media backlash against doctors, who have voted to strike for the first time since 1975.

I’m unashamedly against any industrial action, ever. It’s counter-productive in my opinion. And for doctors to strike is totally immoral, unreasonable and irresponsible. I really don’t see what the fuss is about. Doctors, particularly GPs, are vastly over paid as it is and while I appreciate it’s not nice to have your pension tampered with, they will still be getting a generous package. I don’t think a very high percentage of the general public will be sympathetic towards doctors given that £53,000 is still a large sum of money, although admittedly a big decrease from the average consultant’s salary.

Despite my hatred of striking, when I become a teacher I intend to join a union – probably not the NUT – just for peace of mind and protection. Having said that I’m not a fan of the unions. I find it outrageous that people like teachers and nurses can work up to 5 days a week for their union while still getting paid for the day job that some haven’t actually been to for years. Last night I met a man involved with trade union reform and this is one of the issues he’s addressing – very encouraging.

It’s such a shame that doctors have felt it necessary to strike on June 21st. This country is on its knees so spending cannot and must not continue as the Left wants it to.

Everyone’s feeling the pinch and doctors need to realise they’ve been having it far too good for far too long.

HLAD

Last month the National Union of Teachers voted to fight against government proposals to introduce regional pay for teachers. Teachers in London are currently paid more than teachers anywhere else (£4000-5000 more per annum), so why is it so unreasonable to suggest that teachers in Surrey – one of the most expensive areas of the country – should be paid more than teachers living and working in the North East or South Wales, where the cost of living is so much cheaper?

Back when I was in Swansea, all the Biology trainees and our tutor had a discussion about the prospect of regional pay and the general consensus was that it was a preposterous idea. I suppose because most of the group lived in an area where pay would be less made them more inclined to think that it was a bad idea.

Nick Clegg has denounced plans to introduce regional pay by saying that he would reject any action that would the exacerbate the divide between the North and the South. This looks set to be another test for the coalition as Michael Gove calls for the scrapping of national pay rates for the teaching profession.

The Department for Education has argued that in some areas, such as in the North East, East Midlands and the South West, it’s easier to hire staff inferring that teachers’ salaries in these areas could, theoretically, be less. This would leave other more expensive areas to pay larger salaries in order to attract staff.

Many people would think that I’m all for regional pay because I live in Surrey but this is not the case. I don’t think it’s fair that teachers in cheaper areas of the country end up having more disposable income than those living in more expensive parts when they’re doing exactly the same job. In the private sector  regional pay is a given so why can the same not be said for the public sector?

HLAD

The Queen’s Diamond Jubilee celebrations really kicked off at Windsor Castle today with a pageant involving over 2,500 soldiers, sailors and airmen and airwomen. In addition to all the service personnel, an estimated 20,000 members of the public lined the streets of Windsor to celebrate the Queen’s 60 years on the throne.

The musical celebration was led by six military bands and began with an RAF flypast involving nine Typhoon jets in a diamond formation (below). It culminated at a specially built arena in the grounds of the royal estate (above).

This country is the best in the world at pageantry and pomp. The armed forces tribute today was truly impressive and very stirring. I’ve always been very patriotic but I think any British citizen watching today’s spectacle would have been extremely proud to be British.

Today’s celebrations come after a new poll by Ipsos MORI shows that support for the monarchy is at a 20-year high. Only 13% of the population are in favour of living in a republic while in 2005 this figure was almost twice as high. Before the Royal Wedding last year 75% of those surveyed supported the monarchy but a combination of the “Kate effect” and the Diamond Jubilee celebrations has pushed this figure up to 80%. Support for the Queen is highest amongst the over 55s, with 88% being in favour. However, even in the 18-24 age group 73% want to remain subjects of the Queen. Ipsos MORI believe that the increased coverage of the Royal Family over the past year has significantly contributed to this surge in their popularity.

Although the Jubilee celebrations officially started in March with the commencement of a UK tour by the Queen which will continue until the end of July, today saw the start of the major events. I’m terribly excited about the Diamond Jubilee weekend in a couple of weeks’ time, particularly as my birthday falls on a Bank Holiday. The Queen will be coming my local area on Saturday 2^nd June when she attends the Epsom Derby and I’m hoping to get to the Thames on Sunday 3^rd to see the flotilla. I was disappointed not to get tickets to the Jubilee concert outside Buckingham Palace on the Monday, organised by the lovely Gary Barlow but I’ll be having my own celebrations at home instead.

I think it’s extraordinary that our Queen is the second longest-reigning monarch in British history, second only to Queen Victoria who managed 63 years and 216 days. I’m almost certain that in 3 and a half years’ time Queen Elizabeth II will become this country’s longest-serving monarch.

God Save the Queen!

HLAD

What options are there to resolving the deep problems facing our party, how can we become electable again? I suppose we could just shrug it off, its mid-term blues – every party in government goes through them, and if we had a hundred seat majority I might agree with this conclusion. However, this is not the case, action needs to be taken to address this while we still can. Some factions within the party believe we should retreat to the right, championing traditional conservative values and standing on a eurosceptic soap box. This knee-jerk reaction would achieve nothing, the average person doesn’t want to see a back to basics Tory Party, they’re more concerned with job security, fuel prices and fearing their children will not have the same opportunities they had. The real problem is that we haven’t modernised; Cameron’s modernisation was a PR exercise of political evasion; he focused on media tactics, personality attacks and reminding us every five minutes that it’s Labour’s fault. Whether this is true or not no longer matters, people don’t care what did, they want to know what Cameron plans to do about it. I keep on hearing my conservative friends complaining that they want a true Tory PM – I want a pragmatic PM and I want conservatism and pragmatism to be two sides of the same coin.

The different route I feel we need to take on the journey to 2015 would compliment austerity with growth, while dropping some of our unnecessary reforms. For example, the NHS debacle has already cost £3bn and raises by £1m on average everyday, very few want this change and the money could most definitely be better spent improving NHS facilities rather than bureaucracy. The same can be said of Lord reforms and elected mayors; costly, unnecessary and I wouldn’t say unwanted, I feel the public is apathetic towards these issues far more concerned, quite rightly, with the economy.

Growth in the economy is key to victory in 2015 and to get growth we need to be more actively encouraging business. As a party with the values we claim to hold, I have never understood why we always raise VAT. Its damaging to small businesses and discourages the public from spending, an immediate cut to VAT will help our fragile retail market recover. Further incentives in corporation tax and national insurance should be used to help new businesses, the whole of the UK should be an enterprise zone; with the rest of Europe turning to socialism Britain has a unique opportunity to become the Hong Kong of Europe.

However, the state will have to get involved with some sort of stimulus packet. Investment in public infrastructure would create the necessary temporary jobs while the private sector recovers. Moreover, education needs to better equip students to compete in a global market returning to vocational courses and real apprenticeships. And finally the Conservatives should once again be the party of small business, the focus of our economy needs to be entrepreneurs not monopolies.

Our government currently believes that cutting alone is enough, however the double-dip recession and rising unemployment proves that further action is needed and Thursday’s election result confirms the public agree. Election victory in 2015 is not impossible; not only has Labour got a huge challenge to return to government, let us remember 20 years ago the Tories recovered from Poll Tax to receive the largest popular mandate in electoral history. The need for change is clear, both for the party and the country, however, the real question is whether Cameron will act, or will a change in direction also require a change in leader?

Tim Hasker

BUCF Vice President 2010-2011

HLAD

George Osborne has stated that Alistair Darling’s Labour plan before the election was for spending cuts only £2bn smaller than the £16bn he was proposing for 2011-12. Furthermore, as John Rentoul of the Independent pointed out, ‘the Tories want to cut the deficit by 69 per cent in five years; Labour wanted to cut by 50 per cent in four.’ Since the parties have moved politically closer to battle for Britain’s more central, ‘swing’ voters, it could easily be argued that there is actually very little difference between the parties and their plans, and the “too far, too fast” slogan is little more than a political stunt to gain cheap, opportunistic votes.

There has been, during Ed Miliband’s reign over Labour, mounting calls for him to state his own economic plan. So far, his leadership seems to be characterised by general statements aimed at opposing every government proposal for political points, with little idea of how to tackle the potentially catastrophic issues that face our country in the future. We do, however, now have the ‘5 Point Plan’ for ‘jobs and growth’ (and more debt), a rather pragmatically named phrase that does sound attractive to a country trying to cope with the burden caused by Labour’s years of over-spending. Cutting VAT; taxing banks; a National Insurance Tax break: these all sound rather attractive on the face of it, but they are simply not feasible in the current situation.

The facts are simple: anyone knows that a person, much like a government, cannot indefinitely spend money they do not have. As unpleasant as it sounds, we need to acknowledge that we need to tighten our belts and spend less. It is not ideal, but it is necessary. Labour’s leaders, students that went to Oxford and are undeniably clever, seem naïve and illogical when they suggest spending even more, which will inevitably make the long-term consequences even worse. It is simple logic that spending more, when in debt, will make the situation even worse. The short-term, introspective policies of Ed Miliband’s party seem, to many, to be nothing more that insubstantial, pragmatic and opportunistic ways to conjure support for an unsupportable leader.

Ashley Kirk
BUCF Campaigning Officer 2012-2013 

To find out about all future interpartisan events, join the Lab/Con/Lib Facebook group to keep updated.

http://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/428482350513579/

We look forward to meeting lots of new Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour students at Birmingham next year!

Emily

President of BUCF

This blog post is a response to an article entitled, “Politics: An unscientific business”, in The Biologist, the Society of Biology magazine. In it a clinical scientist voices his ‘concerns about scientific illiteracy among politicians and the Government’s unwillingness to listen to the experts.’ It is an unfortunate fact that Parliament now has the lowest number of MPs with a scientific background than it has had for several decades. In addition to this, scientific understanding among the remaining MPs is generally inadequate.

I remember feeling outraged when the previous Government rejected the advice of its drug advisors and sacked Prof. David Nutt after he publicly disagreed with their policies. The coalition meanwhile has removed the need for scientists to sit on such a committee at all!

It is a shame that repeated questioning of ministers has brought to light that evidence-based clinical practice plays no part in the Government’s NHS reforms.

Education also suffers due to insufficient consideration for science when policy-making. Successive governments have sought to expand faith schools when many of these have been teaching creationism as science. However, on a positive note, the Department for Education has announced that free schools will not be allowed to do this.

Les Rose FSB (Fellow of the Society of Biology, not a the Russian security service!) goes on to ask whether arts and humanities graduates have any grasp of objective evidence. These are typically the specialisms of politicians and civil servants. As a former member of the Biomedical Sciences Committee of the Society of Biology, Mr Rose realised that while scientists’ advice to politicians may be valid, this may be watered down by civil servants before it reaches politicians.

Mr Rose ends with a criticism of us scientists – that we shouldn’t be surprised if we’re unhappy with the way politicians deal with scientific issues if we haven’t bothered to engage with them.

On a personal note, when I was a member of Conservative Future branches both in Birmingham and Swansea, I was one of a very small minority of scientists in the ranks. I’m not sure why scientists in general do not seem to want to get involved with politics, but I think it is a great shame because we certainly do have a lot to offer.

HLAD

In today’s budget, the Chancellor unveiled what we were all expecting, and what many were demanding; a change to the top rate of income tax paid in Britain. This was a hugely distortionary tax, which, by various estimates raised either a marginal sum, or, as many studies suggested, lost the UK up to £500m in tax revenue each year due to its effects on tax avoidance and severe damage dealt to the UK economy by pushing businesses and top earners overseas, or worse, by discouraging aspiration to strive for higher earnings and productivity.

All things considered, there seem few arguments to support the introduction of such a tax in the first place; one of the highest tax rates in Europe, introduced in a time of poor economic performance when tax relief for those producing the most wealth in the economy could have shored up the recovery. But of course, to consider such an argument belies the fact that the introduction of this tax rate had nothing whatsoever to do with business, the economy, or indeed, the well-being of Britain. No, this was of course one of Labour’s crowning examples of sheer brazen self-interest and disregard for the people who elected them. A political time bomb set to embarrass the Conservatives, whatever the cost to the millions who foot the bill, directly or indirectly.

It is therefore no surprise to see them so well prepared to dust off their briefing notes on how to bash the Tories for reforming the tax. “A budget for millionaires” they cry. “Tax breaks for the rich” they moan. “An unfair budget from the same old Tories” they carp. Frankly, I’d imagine Miliband was feeling the pressure upon him, realising the time had finally come to deliver the pre-planned attack, most likely drafted by Mandelson himself before they even introduced the tax; it’d be like Cameron reading a dusty old reply scribbled down by Thatcher.

Labour clung to power in our country for 13 years, or to be more precise, 4,754 days, during which they managed to put even some of their more outrageous and disastrous plans into motion. Seems remarkable then, given taxing the wealthy seems so important to them now, that they let 4,713 days pass before introducing the 50p rate; just 6 weeks before they were kicked out of office. Like the notes left behind in the treasury office, the old food left in the Downing Street fridges, and the £1.3 trillion debt legacy on the public accounts, the 50p tax bracket was just another part of the rotten mess Labour left behind in Whitehall for us to clean up, and it’s about time. Good riddance.

BUCF Committees past and present, with members old and new, at the BUCF AGM 2012.

The night was a fantastic celebration of the successes of the past year, while looking forward to the next with the election of a new committee for 2012-13.

The night began at the Old Joint Stock pub in Birmingham, where the society met for drinks and conducted the formal election of the new committee, with outgoing BUCF secretary, Christopher James, chairing the meeting. Afterwards the night moved on to the Mailbox and ultimately Broad Street, and we were honoured with the presence of a whole host of previous members and committee of the society, including the majority of the 2010-11 team who returned to celebrate with us and reminisce.

I’m sure the whole society will join in congratulating the new committee on their successful election, and thanking the outgoing team for all their hard work over the past 12 months.

Details of the new committee can now be found on the committee page.