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.

'Good news, darling. If there is a mansion tax we've got planning permission to convert the house into a two-bedroomed bungalow'

There has been much debate in the media about whether the Government should introduce a ‘Mansion Tax’ , in particular if this were in exchange for cutting the 50p tax rate. I am merely posting this to stimulate that same debate here on the BUCF blog. Both arguments seem to have support across the whole political spectrum so I expect some difference in opinion even amongst the contributors to this blog.

Overall I think I prefer the Mansion Tax. I believe, probably along with the Treasury, that the 50p tax rate penalises success and encourages many to move their tax affairs abroad in order to avoid it. Also, many people will have taken action, suggested by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, to avoid paying the top rate of tax. It is as yet pretty unclear how much revenue has increased due to this higher rate of tax. The Treasury predicted that this figure should be about £5.3 billion.

There are various forms that a Mansion Tax could take: a national tax on the most expensive properties, a land tax or a new higher band of council tax. An advantage of the latter is that it would force foreigners, residing here and currently not paying income tax, to make a contribution. Some people argue that rich people would object less to a mansion tax compared to paying tax at the 50p rate. The only problem I see with a mansion tax is the point that Boris Johnson has made: it would be unfair on Londoners, given the price of property in the capital.

So, over to you – which is the fairest way to tax Britain’s richest?

HLAD

The budget deficit for this fiscal year to date (April 2011-Jan 2012) was reduced by £15.6 billion, more than the predicted £9 billion, showing the deficit reduction plans have moved ahead of target. 

This committment to this deficit reduction is one of the only things keeping markets confident in the UKs ability to ride out this financial storm.  This confidence ensures that interest rates are kept low, vital for everyone’s ability to rapay personal debt.

Whilst growth is still slow and is predicted to be slow for some time to come, positive signs emerge every day that the UK is on the right path to recovery.  Mortgage leading in up 10%, the motor industry is exporting extremely well to the Chinese market, banks have improved their profitability, and numerous retailers have recorded fantastic growth.

More can be done at this stage.  Far from cutting ‘too far too fast’, the government is not cutting enough!

Further reports have shown that the 50p tax rate is simple not bringing in the necessary funds to the Exchequer.  This needs to be cut, allowing for those earners to utilise their spending power.  Corporation tax could be reduced from 26p to 20p.  Small businesses often work on a very tight budget, and any reduction in costs would allow for a reallocation of funds, either into employing another member of staff (if the red tape wasn’t a crippling factor here), or into new technologies that could lead to essential growth.

Each point leads to a necessary rant about Europe, but I shall leave this to another occassion.  Small businesses really can contribute to the regeneration of our economy, but they are being strangled by the bureaucracy and ludicrous tax burdens placed upon them by Europe.

Time to step up a gear Osborne.

Sophie Shrubsole

Former BUCF President (2010-2011)

What is even more bizarre is the fact that a spokesperson for Ken Livingstone said: ‘Ken is clearly saying the advance of lesbian and gay people into politics is unequivocally a good thing.’ How can what he said be taken in this way?

I am also surprised that Ken hasn’t retracted these comments. In fact he has actually defended his remarks. Of course, this episode has sparked a row, with Tory MPs calling for Ed Miliband to force Livingstone to take his comments back. This seems unlikely.

Most of my gay friends are simply bemused by Livingstone’s error but do we really want this man to be Mayor of London? This has only spurred me on to do all I can to campaign for Boris in the coming months.

HLAD

I suppose it should come as no surprise to anybody that Ken Livingstone should come across as something of a political dinosaur by the year 2012. He is, after all, a man who stubbornly refused to leave the political scene, even as he watched his views become progressively more and more obsolete over the course of thirty years. Remarkably though, even after his woeful performance as London Mayor for eight years and his subsequent defeat to a man who has already achieved greater progress and reform  in the city in less than half that time, today Ken has proven to the world he’s still got plenty more left to give.

By ‘more’, I of course mean more dated, backward, odious viewpoints that are simultaneously fatuous, irrelevant and broadly offensive in modern Britain. Drained and vacuous of any kind of new policy ideas after eight miserable and ineffectual years in City Hall, today Ken treated The New Statesman to a round-tour of some of his personal views and opinions.

On the subject of Thatcher, he described the former prime minister as “Clinically Insane” [in her time in office] and said he would refuse to watch The Iron Lady, saying he, “[does] not want to feel sympathy for her. I feel sympathy for the people whose lives she destroyed.” Naturally, one of her staunchest adversaries was never going to be complimentary. Branding anyone as ‘insane’ with no basis on which to make such a claim is, however, crossing a line even by Ken’s standards.

But it got better. Ken went on to talk about personal matters of his and Boris Johnson’s families. This led into a quip about “…hypocrisy, like some Tory MP denouncing homosexuality while they are indulging in it.” Naturally Ken gave no suggestion to whom, if anyone, he could be referring. One wonders whether this perceived hypocrisy actually happened in the real world or inside his own imagination. However he took this already unusual tone further, saying when pressed on his wording, describing the Tory party as “Riddled with [homosexuality], just like everywhere else is.”

Even ignoring the spectacularly offensive manner in which his comments were worded, this very statement itself is bizarre; why Ken should find it surprising or unusual that gays exist in the Tory party is inconceivable. The Conservative party, like the Labour party, and the rest of the country has moved on a great deal since the 1970s where the rest of his mindset seems still to reside. Why Ken would feel the need to mention that in 21^st century Britain an open and inclusive organisation would have gay members speaks volumes about his attitudes, as does the fact that his turn of phrase clearly fails to suggest he sees this as any kind of positive.

I sincerely hope this latest slip of the tongue is the final nail in the coffin for Ken’s run for the Mayoralty, and indeed for his agonisingly endless political career. In the year of 2012, when the London Mayor will come to represent the face of our capital and our country to the watching world, what we need is a man with some charisma and a grasp of reality, not a spectre from the past, dusting off his old political machine while the eyes of the world are upon him.

Editor

A beer called Top Totty has been banned from the Strangers’ Bar in the House of Commons because its pump plate, featuring a half-naked woman, offended female MPs.

Well how obsurd! This is just another example of the ridiculous PC nature that has been allowed to creep into British society through the cotton wool and bubble wrap treatment that people or groups receive in order that they not be ‘offended’.

Shadow equalities minister Kate Green was left ”disturbed” after seeing the 4 per cent ale’s advertising in the popular parliamentary watering hole and demanded bar staff remove it from sale.  What a silly woman! How has she managed it this far in life if she get’s offended by a few inches of advertising.  Does Mrs Green close her eyes when she opens a newspaper so as to avoid any potential underwear or holiday advertising meeting her sensitive eyes?  Does she only watch the BBC to avoid adverts that might cause her some discomfort as a woman?  The advertising here is meant to be a clever play on words, it is not an explicit or crude visual of a woman – I fail to see what I am meant to be offended by.  

It should be welcomed that regional produce is making its way to the Capital, an area of the country that is often criticsed for being insular.  In any case, a guest beer is exactly that, only served for a certain length of time before being replaced by another.

Check out the pump plate above, are you offended…?

On behalf of the committee, I would like to wish each and every one of our readers a happy, relaxing and enjoyable Christmas and a fantastic start to the new year, when we look forward to building on our successes and seeing BUCF through 2012 stronger than ever. Take care, and we look forward to seeing you soon.

Owen Williams

On Wednesday the biggest Union for train drivers on London’s underground network, ASLEF, voted for strike action on Boxing Day, with another 3 strikes planned for 16^th Jan, 3^rd Feb and 13^th Feb. Bob Crow’s notoriously awkward RMT may soon follow or refuse to cross picket lines, effectively closing London Underground on what is often its busiest day of the year.

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 are also being 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 theLondon’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 also tend to not go on strike that often…Ken Livingstone may blame Boris Johnson for rising tube fares, but in reality it’s his 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.Londonis 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 the 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 and public sector strikes left right and centre it provides the perfect backdrop for causing as much agro as possible. An unashamed and active communist, the likes of Bob Crow 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.

Charlie Winch

This week, for the first time in a long time, thousands of people from across the political spectrum join in celebration of one thing; that David Cameron is in Downing Street. A man who promised there would be no transfer of sovereignty to Brussels without public consultation, and kept his word. A man who promised to put Britain’s national interests first and who, this week, fought our corner in spectacular fashion, taking the world by storm in a display of newfound national assertiveness that shows Britain is back from the brink of bankruptcy, and open for business.

After 13 years of weak negotiation, self-interest and broken promises, many had understandably lost faith in our leaders to come back from Brussels with all our national sovereignty intact, and without the hangover of another pledge broken, or another treaty signed against our will. Gone forever, they thought, were the days of Thatcher ‘handbagging’ EU delegates into a rebate for Britain, worth £2bn a year to us ever since 1984. This week Cameron changed all that, astounding the country in the process

By nearly three-to-one, the public backed the Prime Minister’s decision to veto the proposed bill, and considered his defiant stance to be a sign of Britain’s strength, not of weakness. The majority of the public now say they trust the Prime Minister to look out for Britain’s interests; streets ahead of Miliband or Clegg, both of whom are now overwhelmingly distrusted.

Cameron’s victory over Europe has also put the Conservatives back out in front in the polls, surging an incredible 9 points in one week; a spectacular show of renewed faith in the Prime Minister and our Party.

All this serves to show that the public have no appetite for deeper integration at this time into the EU and the Single Currency experiment; an experiment about which the only questions seem now to be not ‘if’, but ‘when’ and ‘how’ it fails.

Britain meanwhile, despite her lingering difficulties in recovering from a Labour government, walks on by alongside the sinking ship of Europe. Our credit rating is secure once again, unlike those of countries across the EU and beyond, thanks to swift and decisive action by the Chancellor to take Britain from the epicentre of the economic firestorm where we found ourselves by the end of Gordon Brown’s reign of economic destruction, to the comparative safety of its outer fringes.

Skeptics will invariably claim that this will lead to our isolation within Europe, painting a bleak picture of Britain as a limpet clinging desperately to the European Union for economic life-support. This is simply not the case; not only does Britain remain, even today, one of the world’s major exporting nations, the majority of our exports also do not go to Europe, but in fact to our many other trading partners, such as China, India, Japan, and, overwhelmingly, to the United States; our single biggest source of revenue, whose contribution to our economy could no doubt be even larger were we allowed to thrive outside the protectionist bubble of Europe.

Cameron’s action in Europe has not only steered Britain clear of the heart of the unfolding disaster in Europe, but also retained Britain’s national sovereignty, protected her national interests, and restored the nation’s faith in our leadership to do the right thing for our country on the global stage. It’s the best Christmas present Britain could have asked for.

Yesterday, in the second of the Coalition vs BULS football matches, the coalition once again swept to victory.

It was a fairly one sided game with the final score being 7-3 to the coalition.

We’re very happy to retain the (metaphorical) trophy and would like to thank everyone who turned out to play, or just support.

 Harman is once again trying to push forwards a rule within the Labour Party meaning that one of the two ‘top jobs’ within the party should always be filled by a woman. She believes this, along with making sure at least half of the shadow cabinet are female, will make sure they can really be seen as the party of equal opportunity and equality.

Harman, to give her her due, was elected on arguably her own merit in 1982. However, since 1997 around 50% of Labour women MPs elected have been on an all women shortlist, and now she wants to go one step further and make sure half the shadow cabinet are always female, as well as either the leader or deputy leader of the Labour Party. To do this, goes completely against the principle of equality of opportunity.

How can Labour guarantee that they have the best of their MPs in their cabinet when strict quotas are in place? Some women with less experience will inevitably be promoted to higher positions than their male colleagues who are better qualified for the position, just to meet this quota. This is equally as bad as the discrimination that often occurs in businesses, where less able men are promoted, or given the job, over a women with just as much or more experience, who just happens to be at the age where she may decide to start a family. Both of these cases are discrimination, and neither should be encouraged by the politicians in this country.

If I go into politics in the future, I want to be sure that what I have achieved is because of my skills, experience and personality, not just because I’m female. I don’t want to be part of a quota. I do agree with Harman, the current make up of Parliament does need to change and, in an ideal world; women should make up around 50% of the House of Commons. But that should be done through education, encouraging girls and young women to become more interested and involved in politics and getting rid of the stereotypes surrounding politicians. Positive discrimination is not the answer, it’s just patronising!

 If Harman is successful in achieving these rules and restrictions for the Labour party, then I just hope the Conservatives can find a fairer, more equal and better way of getting more women involved in politics.

Emily Hilditch

The next William Hague? I think  not! Yesterday, after the disappointing performance of Ed Miliband, delegates at the Labour Conference at least had the hope of  a bright future in the form of their new star Rory Weal. The young Rory wowed the conference with a heartfelt speech of how his family was saved from disaster by the Welfare state. He knew how to please the audience, turning on the left-wing rhetoric, claiming that the “welfare state is being ruthlessly ripped apart by a vicious, right-wing Tory-led Government.” Hours after his speech bookmakers were offering odds 25/1 that you would be Labour leader by 2040 and 50/1 that he would be Prime Minister by then. On the high of an ego trip Rory told the media that he would “not rule out” one day being Prime Minister.

However, the hangover from the binge of praise is starting to emerge, and the painful truth that Rory Weal is more of a champagne socialist than a working class hero. His speech invoked images of a struggling family living on the brink of poverty, when in reality Rory is the son of a former multi millionaire property developer. Now it is true that his family lost the majority of their money when his father’s company went bust. However, far from being on the streets poor Rory had to leave his £13000 a year private school and his £950,000 grade II listed house for a selective grammar school and £300,000 semi in Kent. Despite spending his whole life in private education Rory maintains his opposition to selective education attacking it for being divisive, but really it is this ‘divisive’ system which Rory owes everything to, not the welfare state as he claimed in his speech.

Rory’s attempt to appear working class is a real insult to the millions of families struggling to cope through this Autumn of anxiety, as the nation attempts to heal the wounds caused by a decade of Labour misgovernment. It emphasises how out of touch the Labour elite truly are; still dominated by overpaid union hacks and champagne socialists. Contrary to bookmakers odds, I would very surprised if people even know who Rory Weal is by 2040 – by spinning a pack of blatant lies to the nation he has ended his political career before it even began.

Tim Hasker

It all started so well, he made the funniest jokes you can expect a dull man to make, he didn’t dwell on past labour glory nor did he spend half the speech apologising for Labour’s record in government. He sounded like he was on the right path to making, ok not a spectacular speech, but an acceptably strong enough speech to secure his leadership. Then he said the words which I think will haunt him for many years to come;

“And strike a new bargain in our country”

I heard it and thought, must just be a mistake, a bad phrase that slipped through the cracks of speech screening. But he kept on saying it, a total of 13 times – definitely Miliband’s unlucky number. Would somebody please bring Alastair Campbell to save these people from themselves. Tony Blair spent the first year of his leadership cementing the concept of New Labour; it was bold, ambitious, media savvy and smart – the new bargain just sounds ridiculous. On that podium, talking of his new bargain for Britain, it felt like he should be on a bad advert for Costcutter, not trying to convince his party and the nation that he is the next Prime Minister. Michael Foot had the longest suicide note in history, Ed Miliband has got his shopping list.

The content of his ‘alternative’ lacked substance much like his slogan. He did some banker bashing, no surprises there, and then went on to talk about values. Values are all well and good but where are the policies? The answer is, there aren’t any, the Labour leader has no credible alternative, it’s the same old labour, the same old broken policies which avoid dealing with the mess they created. Ed hoped that his laughable excuse for a slogan would get voters excited like they would before a sale. However, the plan flopped and I’ve got a feeling that it won’t be long before Labour supporters are shopping for a new leader.

Tim Hasker

Later today Ed Miliband will address the Labour Party Conference, after what has been a disappointing first year to his leadership. The year since Miliband narrowly beat his brother to become leader has been less than spectacular for Ed; defeat in the AV referendum, annihilation in the Scottish elections, a mediocre performance in the English locals, cabinet choice mistakes (mainly the decision to appoint two complete incompetent shadow chancellors) and now the Unions, the people who put him in power, are starting to question their decision. Moreover, this mornings polls won’t fill Ed with confidence; it places the Conservatives on top, the first time in a year. Further polls highlight that 57% don’t view him as a credible Prime Minister in waiting – the Labour leader needs to change public opinion if his party has any hope of escaping the wilderness.

What then should we expect from Ed Miliband this afternoon? If he is to follow the trend set by his shadow chancellor, he’ll most probably apologise for Labour’s handling of the economy and its failure to properly regulate the banks. However, it’s a bit late for that, it shouldn’t take the Labour Party a year to recognise that an economic recession during their administration is their responsibility – so an apology won’t do much to appease the public. Secondly, he’ll probably try to defend Labour’s record in government, this too would be a mistaken vanity exercise, the public made its mind up on Labour’s record last May – you lost the election.

If Ed Miliband wants to rebuild his party’s image he needs to move on, develop a new policy agenda, not old labour or new labour, but Miliband’s labour. If he was smart his conference speech wouldn’t involve apologies or record defences but a new strategy for government. He’s had a year to tory bash and oppose the cuts, it’s about time the public knew what his alternative is. 

Tim Hasker

On Friday, BUCF held a stall at the Societies Fair and signed up lots of new members!

We look forward to meeting everyone properly at our Welcome Drinks on Monday and there will be an opportunity for anyone who missed us at the Fair to sign up then.

No doubt many of you will have shared my frustration over the years in watching the decline of the erstwhile broadsheet and former refuge of good quality print journalism, the Daily Telegraph. Its transformation from quality, comparatively balanced reporting to a broadsheet version of the Daily Mail is nothing new, and its latest serialised diatribe; the “Hands Off Our Land” campaign against planning reforms, is one of many of its increasingly self-righteous crusades, albeit by far the least well written or researched.

A bold extract displayed on the front page a few days ago proclaimed the following;

“The reason [developers] are not building enough houses is that the market has collapsed… It has nothing to do with the planning system.”

Two things are woefully wrong with this quote. Firstly, upon reading the article, we discover that the impartial and unbiased source the Telegraph has chosen for this analysis is none other than the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE). Second is the fact that this makes no economic sense. A shortage of anything, in the absence of some kind of market distortion or government intervention, will lead to an increase in its price, and hence an expansion of supply. If the ‘market has collapsed’; a tenuous statement at best, alluding presumably to a fall in prices as a function of demand, then by very definition there are ‘enough’ houses being built.

While my main point here is about bad quality journalism, the Telegraph might really want to have a long hard think about this crusade. In excess of 1.8 million people are on housing waiting lists right now, housing affordability has dropped by 9% since the 1980s, and housing supply has simply not kept pace with demand in a nation with a growing population and far more people than ever living alone, separating, and living longer, all while demanding larger houses than their parents as a function of economic growth. All the while the vast majority of UK land remains green and unused, and our planning system remains archaic.

I do hope the Telegraph tones down its rhetoric on this soon, lest it be condemned to join the ever growing pile of obstinately change-averse institutions in this country, grinding in the gears of 21^st century progress and reform.

Owen Williams – Editor

Our thoughts and prayers are with all those affected by the tragedy that occurred in the US ten years ago today.

The victims and their families will never be forgotten.

The Prime Minister has found himself as the subject of many of the articles written during the recess and the rank and file members of the Conservative Party have stressed that Cameron must distance himself from anything that could damage the party. In short, they have stated that no person is bigger than the party. Add-in the rumours of recent week that Jeremy Hunt is being prepared to be parachuted into Number 10 after the next General Election in a similar vein to that of the Blair-Brown arrangement of recent years and suddenly the Prime Minister could find himself going to Manchester having to answer a lot more questions about his own position than answering questions on how he intends to implement the second phase of his national rebuilding programme.

Ed Miliband meanwhile, appears to be more popular now than at any point in his near-year in charge of Her Majesty’s Opposition, despite being viewed as “uncharismatic” and “unspiring” by members of the party. A strong display in the final three PMQs before the summer saw Miliband and Labour catapulted into a seven point lead in a YouGov/Sunday Times poll. However as the Labour bandwagon rolls into Liverpool at the very end of September, Labour finds itself just point ahead in the polls and Miliband finds his approval rating back at 52% (YouGov/The Sun – 30.08.11). The strong initial response to the riots has found itself outstripped by overall division that remains in the party as to whether Ed is the right Miliband to challenge David Cameron in 2015.

Yet before the leaders of the two largest parties face their members and the press at Conference, the Deputy Prime Minister brings his ailing Liberal Democrats to Birmingham in mid-September for what is certain to be a turbulent four days. Despite leading the party at the point where it is the most powerful it has been in several decades, Nick Clegg finds himself as unpopular as ever with the membership. Failure to stand-up to the senior coalition partner, coupled with in-house scandals (Huhne’s points and Cable’s constant off-message agenda) have led to a fall in Clegg’s already paltry popularity figures and whispers of a potential, if slightly improbable, leadership challenge in Birmingham. Sixteen months on from the General Election, the Liberal Democrat leader potentially faces the most difficult conference of his tenure.

It would appear therefore, that all three party leaders have a lot to do in the coming two weeks. However,  with the order paper for the first of the two weeks of the post-recess session confirmed, there is little in the way of legislative action that any of the leaders could take. Debates on whether Croydon should gain city-status or whether Spelthorne should get a waste recycling plant are interspersed amongst potentially twenty-three instances of legislation receiving a second reading, none of which are particularly controversial. Instead, it would appear that David Cameron’s best form of attack is defence. By defending his NHS Reform (Amendment) Bill, alongside a strong PMQs performance, defending the strategy in Libya which has received plaudits globally, will see the Prime Minister go to Conference in a strong position. Essentially the ball is in Ed Miliband’s court. A recently leaked Labour Party briefing document suggested a “sustained period of showing DC as a right-wing, traditional Tory, will show that they no longer can claim the centre ground”. It would appear that for now, Miliband’s line of attack will not be to suggest that Cameron and the Conservatives are unfit to govern (as had been a previous allegation laid down) and will instead suggest that the Prime Minister’s own ideology is not what is needed at a time of conflict and economic strife. Yet observers on all sides have been quick to point out that Miliband’s strategy falls short of suggesting solutions to the problems that face the country, in stark contrast to the success Cameron is seen to have achieved when challenging the Labour government eighteen months ago. Whilst a good straight bat by Cameron will see him through until the Christmas period, Miliband will need to attack with flair to prevent his leadership stagnating. As for Nick Clegg, merely standing at the non-strikers end, not running his partner out and practising a few strokes may just see the Deputy Prime Minister survive as the Liberal Democrat leader. All in all, the next two weeks will be more about soundbites and popularity, than suggestions and policies.

Lots has already been going on behind the scenes since the last AGM to streamline and improve the way BUCF manages its services, and the updates you can see today are the first visible stage of these changes. In addition to a smart, updated look for the site, we will be aiming to bring together all the strands of BUCF’s online presence in one place; right here.

Our award-winning blog won’t be going anywhere, and will continue to provide insightful analysis from our team of authors. In addition to this, we are pleased to announce the BUCF twitter feed has been revived at @BirminghamUniCF, offering a fantastic way to get in touch with the committee quickly and easily, as well as keeping you up to date with what we’re up to.

Our merchandise store; unique among CF branches, is still going strong, and we’ll be adding a range of new products in time for the new year. We’ve also placed a link straight into the store from the homepage of this site to keep everything together.

Underpinning all of these changes is a complete overhaul to the way we handle email communication in BUCF, so that however you decide to contact us, you should be assured of a quick response from the committee.

The final stage of our changes will be to bring together both parts of our website, old and new, to give you all the information you need on BUCF structure, history, committee, news and events in one place, alongside the blog and online shop at www.bucf.co.uk, creating a new home for the society on the web.

We’re excited about the changes and how they will improve the way we do things online. If you have any feedback at all on what you’ve seen so far or what we’ve got planned, just leave a comment on this post. We look forward to hearing what you think!

I am pleased finally to be able to share with you an updated version of the video shown to members at the AGM, summing up some of the achievements and successes of the society and of the outgoing committee over the past 12 months.

I hope everyone on the new committee is pleased with their new positions and I for one am looking forward to getting started on an exciting new year. I’d also like to say a personal thanks to everyone on the 2010-11 committee, for all of the hard work put into making the society what it is, and for the fantastic times working with you this past year. I’m sure you will be an inspiration to all of the new committee going into the future.

Owen Williams

Four generations of BUCF Presidents

Last night, BUCF held its AGM, bringing to an end a fantastic year for BUCF. I have been involved with BUCF since my first year, and served on the committee for two years – it has been a privilege to be your Vice President over the last year. There are many reasons why BUCF is a success, but ultimately it is because we are all good friends. I would like to thank outgoing President Sophie Shrubsole for all the hard she has done for the society and thank the rest of the committee, it has been an honour to work with you. The emotion of last night emphasises how much BUCF means to us all. However, a new dawn has begun and congratulations to the BUCF Committee 2011-2012

President – Rosie Anne Hatch

Vice President – Emily Hilditch

Secretary – Christopher James

Treasurer – Edward Trafford

Publicity Officer – Owen V. Williams

The future is bright for BUCF and this young,vibrant, new committee will, I’m sure, take our great society to new heights. Best of luck to you all.

Tim Hasker

BUCF Vice-President (External)

2010-2011

This morning, the German coalition government announced a change in policy to decommission all German nuclear power plants in the next ten years, which currently provide around a quarter of the power Germany’s 81 million residents require.

This comes in the ‘wake’ of the Fukushima nuclear incident, where a geological phenomenon of unprecedented magnitude and tragically unfortunate timing and location led to an earthquake and tsunami of a scale inconceivable to the designers of one of Japan’s oldest nuclear stations, resulting in the most comprehensive failure of not only primary cooling systems, but their backup generators, the backups of these backups in the form of three of the four seawater pumps available as a last resort, and destruction of the infrastructure around the plant to bring in yet more backups and repair equipment. The results of this cataclysmic chain of incredibly unlikely combined failures, apart from injuries to workers from the earthquake and conventional explosion itself, were a four-day check-up in hospital for two site workers, (who had been wading ankle deep in cooling water from the reactor), a death toll of zero, and, as of now, and a negligible environmental impact, with no risk to human health.

Nevertheless, the borderline-hysterical media coverage of the incident spread fear and ignorance far further than the radioactivity carried away from Japan, and today sees the announcement of a policy which can only lead to greater dependence on Russian gas oligarchs, less stable and secure supply of energy, higher prices and, I should venture, poorer safety performance than that of Germany’s fleet of relatively modern, well managed reactors.

However, this retrograde policy cuts much deeper than merely its direct, perverse effects on European energy.

By making this announcement, German politicians are pandering to the disastrous combination of a fearmongering anti-nuclear lobby and public ignorance about nuclear power, rather than governing in the national interest, using scientific, rational logic. Indeed, far from merely failing to improve the quality of life of its citizens, it is actively endangering it. This constitutes nothing short of a dereliction of the duty of the state to govern in the best interest of its people, using the best scientific information available, rather than following the prevailing public fervour.

This must not continue. Already British MPs have stood up in parliament with similar sentiments – one MP asked angrily; “What will the Prime Minister do to prevent a Welsh Fukushima?” …to prevent the nuclear industry from withstanding a geological catastrophe in Wales on the scale of Tōhoku without a single fatality? Seems like something we’d be aspiring to, not preventing, although only in a parallel universe where the statistical probability of a Tsunami in mid-wales was anything other than zero.

It’s important to recognise the situation in Britain is far, far bleaker with regards to energy than Germany, even now. Procrastination and indecision by previous governments ever since Thatcher leave Britain in the situation that if we do nothing, by 2016 the lights will go out. We are ever more dependent on the power imported under the channel from France to provide the actual electricity we need whilst our windmills; broadly decorative in terms of providing power; either sit idle or else draw power from the national grid. This ongoing bailout of our hopeless energy policy is of course only possible thanks to France’s extensive network of nuclear stations, providing 79% of its power cleanly, safely, and with negligible carbon emissions, allowing it to export more power than any other nation on earth. It is too late for new Nuclear power in the UK to fill this void now, but the tragedy in Germany underscores the importance that we are never, ever led astray by ignorance and over-zealous lobby groups, over science, reason, and pragmatism.

Owen Williams

MIT Nuclear Science and Engineering Department – web.mit.edu/nse
E.ON

Well, the people have spoken, and they have said a resounding NO! The British people in their wisdom have decided to keep the fair system of one person, one vote, rejecting the ridiculous Alternative Vote system. 69% voted no to the unfair system, and with this no brings, thankfully, an end to the debate on electoral reform for at least a generation.

The result of the AV referendum was no surprise, however, the locals were. Common sense prevailed as the Conservatives held their council positions, gaining seats across England. Labour, however, performed poorly, gaining less seats than William Hague did in 1999 during the honeymoon of Tony Blair and New Labour. With Labour shrinking back to their heartland in the North and an embarrassing failure in Scotland – the leadership ability of Ed Miliband has taken a serious blow.

In Scotland – the SNP and Alex Salmond achieved the first majority in the history of the devolved Scottish Parliament. Labour and Ed Miliband were hoping to do well in Scotland, but failed to make progress loosing 7 seats, while the SNP won a majority with 69 seats. The Scottish result is interesting; not only does it show a huge rejection of Miliband’s leadership, but the first SNP majority government also raises the question of a probable referendum on independence.

It has been a good night for the Conservatives; the Tories held their ground across the country and as a result David Cameron stands as a stronger Prime Minister, as the country supports our agenda for government. Principally, sorting out the economic mess left by Labour and getting Britain moving forward again. However, more importantly, tonight has been a tremendous victory for democracy, the people have spoken and now we must respect their decision! 

Tim Hasker

Polling day has arrived; don’t forget to vote NO to AV, let us keep the fair system of one person, one vote – and don’t forget to vote Conservative in the local elections. In Birmingham the Conservative led council is making the necessary tough decisions while protecting frontline services. Labour councils are purposefully attacking frontline services up and down the country. Don’t let Labour do to our councils what they did to the country. Vote Conservative; and if you live in Selly Oak vote for our very own Owen Williams; who would make a brilliant local voice for not only students, but all the residents of Selly Oak. So get out there, vote Conservative, and more importantly vote NO to AV!

Yesterday the Country and the World came together to watch Prince William and Catherine Middleton get married. With parties happening up and down the land, BUCF joined in on the celebrations, where bunting and champagne were in abundance. All of us in BUCF would like to join the World in congratulating Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and hope they have many happy years together.

BUCF Committee

Could Ed Miliband’s political career get any duller?  He is now so utterly boring and useless, that even cleavage gets more coverage in the news than he does!

So despite the fact that according to the BBC and all our favourite left wing media we are all going to loose valuable public services which will thus impinge upon our health, education and personal security, there is in fact a whole host of positive and encouraging news stemming from the economy, that only goes to show that things are starting to get better!

High street sales have risen far sharply than expected, prompting a whole days coverage from the BBC!  Industrial output and exports has dramatically increased, but alas this was deemed only worthy of half a days coverage by the British Broadcasting Cuts Corporation.

Food prices have fallen encouraging an increase in sales, and even the royal wedding has prompted an increase in spending.

Perhaps even more importantly however, is the simple but overlooked fact that public spending this year is 5.1% higher than last years.  This is a sign of things to come, if only we were told a little more of this positive news!

Sophie

President

Yesterday, the European Commission asked member states for a 4.9% increase in the EU budget. This increase, well above EU inflation at 3%, has already been met with resistance from the UK Government. And so it should be.

At a time when most major EU countries are implementing huge budget cuts it is frankly cheeky of Europe to demand such a huge increase. Clearly the EU has missed the mood of austerity that has swept through its member states and seems to think it can carry on spending us all further into debt.

The claim that the EU has done all it can to reduce spending can only be met with the insistence that it try harder and do more. Ourselves and other member states simply cannot go on limitlessly funding the EU’s inefficiency and corruption.

The increase Europe is asking for would burden Britain with an additional £680 million, bringing our total contributions to over £10 billion. When the whole of the nation is tightening its belts and bowing to the austerity measures necessary to get the country’s finances back on track can we really justify what works out at £400 per household being thrown at the EU? I’m quite sure most people would rather welcome that money to help their families out during these difficult times.

George Osborne is right to assert that the UK is not prepared to accept this increase. The Government should pull out all the stops to halt the EU spending train in its tracks and a tough negotiating stance is needed to ensure that the Europe stops taking advantage of us and other nations. It is high time we demanded a little more respect from Brussels than we are currently afforded.

Rosie Hatch

Once the voice of disillusioned former Labour supporters, all Gillian Duffy’s staged encounter with Nick Clegg this morning shows is that she’s become another puppet for the Miliband camp, says Harry Cole

When Rochdale pensioner Mrs Duffy went out to get a pint of milk on the 29 April last year, little did she know that her simple probing would encapsulate, in a word, what media commentaters and pundits had been trying to explain for all the years that Gordon Brown was at the forefront of British politics.

Brown’s spiteful dismissal of Duffy as a “bigot” confirmed what many had known for years, but had been unable to proof comprehensively – that the Brown the public saw, with his awkward, unnerving attempt at a smile and his wonky tie, was not the same mobile phone-throwing, venomous, raging operator who had been flailing around behind closed doors for the best part of a decade.

The power of the Mrs Duffy phenomenon was the element of surprise. She caught not only Brown, but Labour and the media, off guard. Gordon tried to get “Gillian” to come outside with him after an hour of begging and groveling apologies, but it was too late, the damage was done. The prime minister had been unmasked.

Fast forward a year and Mrs Duffy has tackled another politician. It appears she has struck again on her way to the shops, but what good fortune for this lady to bump into two such high profile types in the space of just twelve months. This politico isn’t quite as unpopular or loathed as Gordon, but then he hasn’t had the same amount of time to drive the country at full speed into a brick wall.

Strangely though Nick Clegg didn’t look very surprised to come face to face with the only famous resident of Rochdale (besides John Peel, that is)  when he rocked up in the town. There was Mrs Duffy waiting, ready to pounce. The BBC News Channel knew to cut over immediately. There were TV cameras and paps everywhere. How did they know what was about to happen?

How Clegg knew depends on your political colours, but he didn’t call her a racist or lie to her face and he certainly didn’t slag her off the second she was out of earshot. He may have been a little patronising, but he proved why he and not Gordon Brown is the one arriving in Rochdale in limos these days. However, at the end of the day it’s irrelevant how he did as it was not real. We did not learn an unexpected truth here, Mrs Duffy was neutered. Her line of questioning was remarkably similar to what Labour have been saying in the last few weeks. Had someone briefed her? Mrs Duffy certainly had a mischievous twinkle in her eye throughout the meeting. The whole plan was completely transparent. Just look how happy she was when Miliband won the leadership. Was her role as an attack weapon discussed at subsequent meetings?

It seems that in just a year Mrs Duffy has gone from being a thorn in the side of the Labour Party and the final nail in the coffin of their 2010 campaign, to their darling and a spin-bomb for Tom Baldwin to deploy for a quick morning headline hit. But the power of Mrs Duffy has gone. Once she represented a silent majority of working class people who felt that Labour had let them down. Now that she is just another Miliband apparatchik pushing focused group lines she falls flat.

Mrs Duffy was real. Mrs Duffy was anti-politics. Labour’s attempt to capture a weakness and throw it back into their enemy’s face hs left a one-time political phenomenon dead in the water.

Harry Cole

It’s been a hard time for them as they’ve learned to work on real-world policy, and they have certainly paid dearly, with their party now slightly less popular than Satan himself, and the public now agreeing with David Cameron that Nick Clegg is indeed “the biggest joke in politics”.

Today, however, it seems to have become too much even for Clegg himself to bear, as he appears to have forgotten the past year altogether and entered some kind of state of denial about the whole experience, retreating to his old style of shouting the first nice sounding idea that passes through his bewildered brain. Today he unveiled his latest quest to end what he calls the ‘who you know culture’, saying people shouldn’t be advantaged because they or their parents “met somebody at the tennis club or the golf club”.

Super. I wonder how this is to be achieved. Perhaps a nationwide ban on discussing all matters to do with work, or study, or life. Perhaps everyone in the country in a position of hiring staff or offering internships needs to be barricaded in their office at night. Or maybe Nick is suggesting running a complete background check for every job, internship, and study placement that no applicant has ever met anyone who has had a conversation with someone in any way related to the company – by which time the company would have gone bankrupt, and you would have grown old and died. Of course, being more serious about this, as always, he makes a perfectly valid ideological point, that it is unfortunate that those who lack certain connections by complete chance are less likely to get certain jobs. But I’m afraid this is nothing short of the fundamental nature of human existence – we meet people who know people who do things. It spans the entire course of your life, from getting cool field trips in primary school because someone’s dad worked for an interesting company, to hearing about a job opportunity before anyone else because you met someone in the know. This has always been the case in every aspect of life, and can never be changed one iota, no matter how much you may or may not wish it to be so.

Once upon a time this may have been an insightful little comment from the far end of the commons opposition benches from Nick Clegg, general-purpose Liberal MP. But from Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, I’m afraid it just comes across as vacuous, meaningless, and deeply irrelevant.

The eagerly anticipated Coalition vs. Labour match, kicked off at 5.15 in Selly Park last Thursday, but one vital ingredient was missing.  The Liberal Democrats failed to turn up at all, leaving the evenings event in doubt.  Kindly some independent players stepped up to play alongside BUCF members.

The first half was a cracking display of enthusiasm and some special skill from Ed Robinson, BUCF successfully coming in at the break 2-0 up, a dominant performance displayed throughout.

BULS put on the pressure with a goal just after the game resumed, but President Shrubsole who had come on for the second half, scored after only a few minutes, taking in a pass from Ed Robinson and poking home to make the score line 3-1.

Another BUCF goal restored our dominance.  A Labour goal reflected a good game  and time was drawing in for yet another Tory Victory!  Somehow extra time amounted to another 10-15 minutes as Labour tried to string out the match and indeed, extra extra extra time afforded BULS another goal.  BUCF were just too strong however, and the game finished 4-3.

Thanks to the Labour society for organising the event, and a special thanks to the BUCF players, Ed Robinson, Ed Newland and Alasdair Johnstone.

I wonder what challenge shall be laid down for BUCF next?

Sophie

President

Saturday in London saw 250,000 people gather to march against the Government’s cuts to public services, interestingly the same number of people that marched against the proposal to ban fox hunting – that’s always a good precedent to follow!

Whilst the majority of the day was attended by peaceful but misguided protesters, once again certain parts of the Capital were wrecked by mindless thugs, acting under the guise of anarchists, anti capitalist and anti globalisation groups!  I’m yet to be convinced that anyone can be anti-globalist, particularly those the BBC filmed smashing up shops and cash machines.  They did after all have clothing on, were using objects as weapons, had used transport to get to their locations, and had to feed themselves to build up all that destructive energy.  Anti-globalisation then chaps?

It is about time that Home Secretary Theresa May grant greater powers to the police so that they can tackle these thugs more effectively.  At the moment, the Police are simply damned if they do and damned if they don’t, thus clear and simple legislation as to appropriate but strong action, must be laid down. These scenes cannot continue and  a ban on protesters covering their faces would be a good start!

Sophie

President

I’ve just watched the soi-disant “March for the Alternative” snaking its way across London. It is clear enough, from the banners and slogans, what the protesters are against: spending restraint, open markets, private enterprise, property rights, free contract, Tories, bankers and Nick Clegg. Fair enough. But what are they for?

Their website suggests that they think the answer to our debt crisis is more spending. In fact, they don’t think we have much of a debt crisis. They want higher taxes, particularly for the rich, whom they expect to wait around meekly to be fleeced. And they insist that higher state expenditure (”investment”) will create more jobs. Why so half-hearted, comrades? Why not go all the way, nationalise every business, place every adult on the state payroll and confiscate all income? By your logic, it would surely make Britain the most prosperous country on Earth.

I can’t imagine what prompted Labour leaders to get involved with this madness, but I suspect that they have just added a couple of years to their spell in Opposition. Ed Miliband, sounding almost reasonable compared to the official demands of the marchers, says that he would halve the deficit over this Parliament instead of eliminating it altogether. Let’s leave aside, for a moment, whether the Coalition’s proposals really would bring us back to surplus over five years – a prospect which strikes me as optimistic. The truth is that, as yet, there haven’t been any net cuts. Every month since the general election has seen rises in taxation, spending and borrowing.

Ministers hope to close the deficit by allowing the private sector to grow faster than the public. In other words, although the state will end up being smaller as a percentage of GDP, it will be larger in absolute terms. To be clear, then, Labour isn’t proposing to cut spending more slowly than the Coalition, but to increase it more quickly.

After “No Cuts!” the marchers’ favourite slogan was “Fairness!” Alright, then. How about parity between public and private sector pay? Or job security? Or pensions? How about being fair to our children, whom we have freighted with a debt unprecedented in peacetime? How about being fair to the boy who leaves school at 16 and starts paying taxes to subsidise the one who goes to university? How about being fair to the unemployed, whom firms cannot afford to hire because of the social protection enjoyed by existing employees?

The protesters might have engaged in a serious argument by identifying alternative spending reductions.  Instead, they have decided to indulge their penchant for empty, futile, self-righteous indignation.

On Monday BUCF became the first CF in the country to launch its very own online shop, packed full with a range of BUCF merchandise.

Thanks to the handy work of Owen Williams our publicity officer, we’ve got a great lineup of gear for you, from hoodies and t-shirts bearing the BUCF logo, to some fantastic tory slogan t-shirts and accessories. Plus, until April 4th we can offer you £10 off any purchase you make above £50, using voucher code SPRING2011 – so why stop at one hoodie?  Any suggestions for other products will be gratefully received, as BUCF seeks to extend its prowess as one the leading young Conservative groups.

Follow the link and get buying!

Sophie

President

The Prime Minister has revealed today at PMQs, that the town of Wootton Bassett will be bestowed with the title of ‘Royal’ in recognition of its efforts to honour the UK’s fallen soldiers.

The recommendation was made to the Queen by Cameron, to salute the people of the Wiltshire town, that has seen more than 150 repatriations since 2007, and who continue to signify the deep seated feeling of pride, admiration and above all gratitude that this country has for the armed force.

Sophie

President

Election campaigning for Guild positions swept campus and all student areas imaginable, but after two weeks of bright colours to vulgar for morning lectures, inventive costumes and the standard random names, finally eight sabatical officers and other Guild positions were appointed.

Well done to all those that took part and congratulations to those that won.

For the first time in more years than I have knowledge of, the Guild shall be headed up by a Conservative Student, Mark Harrop.

Mark served on BUCFs committee from 2009-2010 as marketing officer, helping to create events for the society.  It shall be interesting to see if he is able, or willing in this environment, to put a more central and balanced slant on the way the Guild operates.  It was also nice to see other Conservative students running for Guild positions, clearly highlighting, that whilst Universities are known for their left leaning persuasions, there are plenty of Tories out there too!

Sophie

President

Such a scheme overlooks the fiscal difficulties that the country faces, and more worrying that such a scheme overlooks the crowding out of public investors who would invest regardless of the conditions imposed by the government. If everyone is given an equal share regardless of whether they want or will use the shares then some of the capital will be wasted – stakeholders will not use the capital they are given, they will forget they neither have the shares nor reap the rewards that the share of the company offers. People would rather receive a real monetary gain rather than abstract shares.

What I suggest is similar to the approach that the Conservative Government used in the 1980’s with the approach used to privatise British industries such as British Telecom. People would be invited to buy shares at discounted rates, in order to encourage the public to take up ownership whilst creating billions for the public purse. People who decide to invest in the scheme could buy as many, up to ceiling, or as few shares as they wish knowing that the value of the shares would increase – due to being offered at a discounted rate to the public. These people would be investing in the public owned banks because they desired and chose to do so.

The money generated from the sale could then be used to generate a one off fiscal stimulus or paying off a fraction of our debt burden thus reducing our interest payments. The second approach would help in paying off our structural debt, but also the deficit as interest payments are reduced. We should not return to the mantra of spending money we simply cannot afford to, and any policy decisions made should reflect the long term stability and health of our fiscal policy.

Matt Harley, Conservative Staff