Peter White: A Disgrace

Although I would totally disagree with it, republicanism has a place in any discussion on the future of the Monarchy. Defenders of our national heritage should have the guile and fortitude to easily argue against any such attack successfully. Yet, derogatory and disgusting attacks on a person unable to defend herself are beyond debate. Unfortunately for the government, Peter White has shown the very ugly face of what I hope is a minority group within the ranks of the Labour Party.

On facebook of all places, Mr White decided to attack the Queen in such a despicable way that already, he has been forced to apologise and his candidacy for Havering council is now up for question. Commenting on a message about the diamond jubilee celebrations occurring in 2012 by Andrew Rosindell MP, Mr White wrote “What is the point of celebrating the Diamond Jubilee of someone who is… a parasite and milks this country for everything she can.”

He went further to say; “Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with a public holiday but lets [sic] have one that means something, rather than celebrating vermin.” I think we now know the calibre of this previous London chairman of Young Labour.

Had Peter White laid out a defendable argument against Her Majesty’s position then perhaps, though most would disagree, we would have listened. Now this disgraceful man has shown his true worth. Let us hope that his sentiments are rejected by the voters next May.

Daniel Cole

G to the Brown

John Major hits the nail on the head!

“Normally in years when you have a good economic record you begin to repay debt to bring the deficit down…since 1999, even in good years with a boom, the debt has risen. Now the boom has gone, we have the debt and we have the problems of the recession adding to that on a daily basis.”

We will remember them

Today, all men and women, of any political allegiance remember the end of the First World War and the men and women who died in that conflict, and every war since. Let us take a minute in our otherwise busy day to think about the sacrifice made for us to live as we do.

 

Daniel Cole

Conservatives and Europe

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Europe has reared its ugly head yet again for the Conservative Party.  With the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, David Cameron’s ‘cast-iron guarantee’ to provide us with a referendum on the treaty is now null and void. Clearly it is ridiculous to have a referndum on it now which would more than likely be at least 6 months after it had come in to force.

There is, I believe, an opportunity here for the Conservatives to push their European agenda; namely to get back many of the powers we have given away. Fraser Nelson has just predicted that in 5-6 years there will be an ‘in or out’ referendum. I think that such a question is too clear cut. Most people fall in the middle and would be unrepresented by such a vote, confused as to how to vote. So there is an opportunity here to be seized.

Talk of a ‘manifesto mandate’ is not adequate in this instance, largely because we must be realistic in acknowledging that many voters are opposed to Labour than supporting the Conservatives. That is another battle we must fight over the next few months. But we are talking here about re-negotiating Britain’s role in Europe, and everyone deserves their voice to be heard loud and clear on this issue. Cameron will also have more leverage in Brussels if he can point to large support not only for him, but for his stance on Europe.

I am at this point reminded of Toby Ziegler castrating Will for coming in with “half a thing” in that I have no real conclusion here. Should there be a referendum, I think yes. But what should the question be? Should it be split in to sections for different powers that we might want to reclaim, or should it be a more general, single, question. There is a balance to be struck here between being specific enough to be useful, and broad enough to cover everything that needs to be covered. Where that balance is found I don’t know. Hopefully someone more important than me is looking for it.

Circles Of Influence

On Friday night I was invited to the launch of the Circles of Influence campaign at the House of Lords. The Circles of Influence is our university’s £60 million fundraising campaign to introduce a host of new projects to the university including “student scholarships, a new music building and innovative research in areas as diverse as healthy ageing, brain injury rehabilitation and personal financial management.” This programme is not just good news for students, staff and alumni but will have a great impact on our city as it brings “life-changing developments both on our historic campus and far beyond.” It was a fantastic evening where the vision for the University of Birmingham was outlined by the Vice- Chancellor.

David Eastwood, the Vice Chancellor of the University of Birmingham and I.

Civil Liberties

James Wallis, third year Political Science student at the University has contributed to us his second article.

Let me start by disclaiming that Civil Liberties are the one area of policy that I am most interested in right now. They’ve taken a battering under Labour throughout the last twelve years. They will struggle to do anything right on this issue in my eyes; Given their record I’m naturally suspicious. Even if you don’t agree with me on that, then perhaps you will agree that as rights go, the right to vote is a pretty important one. Essential, in fact, to the entire idea of a democracy. And so it is with dismay that I read this morning in The Times that the Civil Service have been looking at ways of making elections cheaper, regardless of how it impacts upon the 60 million people in this country who deserve to be given the fullest opportunity to use their vote.

The proposals have since been shot down by Jack Straw who has described them as ’simply unacceptable’, and this is perhaps for your benefit as a reader because it prevents me going on a rant about the subject. However, I feel it actually opens up an even more important point.

The ideas which were being circulated included having fewer polling stations, closing polling stations earlier and replacing polling cards with a call centre. The last one in particular seems utterly ridiculous in that it would cause absolute chaos if you had to phone a call centre before being allowed to vote. The idea of closing polling stations earlier also seems bizarre given that they are threatening not to count the votes until the folowing day. One way or another they’re determined not to work for us.

Had a think tank compiled this report and had it shot down, it would not have worried me unduly. If it had been a leak from an irrelevant Civil Servant again, it would have been excusable. But this report has been seen by those in charge of organising elections and by local government Chief Executives. This raises two important points. Firstly, how could a minister not know about something, which changes something so fundamental to our democracy, being sent our for consultation. And secondly how did no-one object to the plans until it was leaked to The Times? Do the officials, many of whom are un-elected, really care that little about our democracy that they are willing to make it harder for us to vote in order to save what is, in terms of the national budget, peanuts?

I understand that all departments want, or perhaps need, to save money wherever they can because our government has destroyed our national finances. But saving £65 million at the expense of democracy seems utterly ridiculous. Today the Youth Parliament is meeting in the House of Commons. They would be free, which would save even more. Just saying.

Guess the caption

 

An Open Letter to BUCF

Hi, I’m Helen Davies. I’m a 3^rd year Human Biology student and I’ve just applied for PGCE Biology courses. I’m an only child from Surrey who went to a high-ranking independent school. You are probably thinking that I fit the stereotypical view of Tories that the Left subscribes to. And yes, in a way you are correct. At first glance, on paper at least, it seems that I do fit this unfair stereotype.

I have, however, only just joined BUCF despite being at Birmingham for the past 2 years. This, I have to confess, is mainly due to my lack of knowledge of BUCF’s existence due to not paying enough attention to activism on campus. But over the last few years I have had time to develop my own opinions on politics, not necessarily in line with my family’s views, and this year seemed an appropriate time to join the Right cause seeing as the Election is looming – very exciting times!

You may know me already as I’m now the Vice President of the University’s Welsh Society, was on the SLOBS (Student Life Outside Biosciences) committee last year as 2^nd year rep and represented Human Biology students on the Biosciences Student Staff Liaison Committee as a fresher and also last year as a 2^nd year student.

I’ll give you a brief bit of background information as to why I have developed a keen interest in politics and current affairs. My father, Philip, has worked at the Parliamentary Counsel Office for over 25 years. The lawyers amongst you may know that this Office is responsible for drafting legislation – it underpins the law-making process in this country. So, I have grown up with Dad talking about current affairs, politics and politicians every night at the dinner table. It does get a tad tedious at times but it’s fascinating to know the stories behind the headlines. It’s also interesting to hear my Dad talking to other people about his job as, of course, he should – theoretically at least – remain impartial. Over the past few years he has been responsible for drafting the Finance Bill, which is the basis for both the Pre-Budget Report and the Budget itself. Currently, this isn’t a particularly exciting area as any work he does know will be rendered useless when the Tories return to power. He’s also been involved in legislating for the formation of the Welsh Assembly and for the construction of the New Severn Bridge.

I’ll turn my attention now to the event we’re all waiting for: The General Election. This is particularly exciting for people our age – Generation Y as we’ve been labelled – because a lot of us won’t have been able to vote in a General Election before. For me, it’s all about tactics. Here in Birmingham we have the potential to take a seat from Labour. At home – in Surrey – Labour don’t get a look in so it’s not quite so exciting so I’m going to use my vote here and not at home.

In about 7 months’ time we could actually Be The Change. This is the message we need to spread both locally in and around campus and nationally across all the major British cities. Using Twitter and Facebook to influence young people has got to be a priority. Twitter is especially useful – I’ve learnt so much already about political gossip from following the likes of Tory Bear and Guido Fawkes.

That’s enough of my rambling – need to get some actual uni work done! Please feel free to follow me on Twitter – http://twitter.com/helsdavies89 – and read my personal blog at http://welshsocialchameleon.blogspot.com/

Thanks for reading.

Hels Davies

How to Pay for Excellence

Daniel Cowdrill
Honorary Member & Former Treasurer

Leading research universities are facing a major funding gap. The cost of world-class teaching and research far exceeds government subsidy. This is why the Russell Group are lobbying hard for an increase in the tuition fee. 

Like in 2004 their lobbying looks set to pay dividends. The Government’s review of higher education will report in 2011 and an increase in the fee to £5,000 is the likely recommendation. 

Student groups have cause to be concerned. From 2013 the average student is likely to graduate with a debt of at least £30,000 (excluding living expenses). Furthermore, higher fees will inflate the student loan book and increase the scheme’s service cost. The likely outcome is the phasing out of the rate subsidy on student loans.

There is, however, a more innovative and responsive solution. What if leading universities were free to set their own fees on the condition that they operate a ‘Needs Blind’ admissions policy, by which students are admitted on academic merit alone? Those who require financial support would have their fees and maintenance waived. Students with parents earning less than £50,000 per annum would be entitled to full support with a sliding scale thereafter. The funds would come from university endowments.

This is where we can learn from the American model. The extraordinary performance of U.S universities in global rankings is hardly surprising given their accumulated wealth. Thirty U.S universities have endowments of over $1 billion – Harvard alone has accumulated over $20 billion. In contrast, only Oxford and Cambridge in the U.K have endowments which exceed the one billion mark. 

The key is their autonomy. It has been shown that increased autonomy leads to higher alumni donations. This is because private individuals tend not to support state-aided institutions. Furthermore, over time altruism becomes reciprocal. Alumni who have benefited from bursaries are more likely to donate in the future, and in greater sums.

This is a good option from a number of angles. First, students would be admitted on merit alone and the cost waived. Second, the funding gap would close altogether. And third, universities would be encouraged to replenish their endowments. Under such a system we would avoid a uniform increase in the tuition fee and avoid indebting future generations. 

More broadly, if we are to begin to repair society, we should start by strengthening institutions. Independent, well-endowed universities are the only way that the benefit of world-class teaching and research can be brought to people on the basis of merit and merit alone.

A Fridge Too Far?

            Dawn breaks. As the sun begins to rise to the east, a deathly silence grips the streets of this bleak Northern town. In the veiled shadows of redbrick alleyways lurks a predator, patiently waiting for its next victim to succumb to adolescent insecurity. In the panic-stricken terraces, mothers pray that their child be spared, that they may avert the alluring gaze of its gaunt face, staring persuasively through the sheen of glossy pages. Gok save us! The anorexic terror is upon us! And from Guardian to Mail, the fevered cries ring out: “Will no-one save us from this voracious beast!?”

            Some say it was mere coincidence. Some, an act of God. And some, a skilful move by the Whitbread group to capitalise on the nation’s burgeoning appetite for cheap, sub-standard food. Forsaking all that is wholesome and rejecting the false promises of the twizzler bashing Mr Oliver; I give you your messiah. I give you the Taybarns restaurant.

            Boasting a 34 metre long buffet counter and a vast array of food that could conquer the iron stomach of Michelle McManus, the Taybarns mission statement is conveniently summed up as you enter the door: “Grab a plate, help yourself, help yourself again.” For a meagre £5.99, or £7.99 in the evenings, the discerning Coventry restaurant goer is invited to “Enjoy as much as you like, as many times as you like. All for one fixed price!” While this concept may not sound horrifically unfamiliar to anyone who has sampled the culinary wonders of the Big Wok, there is something startling about the emergence of this “all you an eat” trough that sets it apart from its equally detestable peers. 

Not meaning to belittle those among you with extensive knowledge of the restaurant industry, I shall state that a successful restaurant may serve around 2000 people per week. In its most popular branches, Taybarns serves five times that amount, with total sales in the last six months topping £703,300,000. A further thirty branches will open in the next year, while in contrast; other restaurants are closing at a rate of 100 per month. Playing an interesting game of “Taybarns by numbers”, one notes that a typical branch will roast 6000kg of potatoes, cook 12,800 chickens and grill 122,200 sausages in a single month. “When I come here I pig out. I feel like I have to because there’s such a selection and I don’t want to miss out,” states one happy regular.

As a nation teetering on the brink of an “all American” problem, I believe that the emergence of such establishments should be viewed with both alarm and disgust in equal measure. By following the trans-Atlantic model of restaurants such as the “Golden Corral”, which now turns over more than £1bn annually, Taybarns has been able to capitalise on the changing shape of a nation. With ever-growing rates of obesity set to cripple the NHS in the coming decades, the UK’s burgeoning waistline transcends freedom of choice and becomes an issue of state. The growth of Taybarns is but the tip of the iceberg. Beneath the surface lies a frankly appalling attitude towards the way we eat. Amplified by the hardship of recession, we seem to have lost that brief and hopeful zeal that was so epitomised by Jamie and his school dinners. Perhaps it was naïve of me to expect it to last. However, it makes the problem no less real. Given the liberty of unlimited time and space, I could spend hours ranting atop my soap-box about the dangers of embracing the free market and accepting the inevitability of this situation. To hint at a nation of greedy, cultureless, obese and unhealthy individuals would do injustice to the blurb in an encyclopaedic catalogue of disaster…

We must act, and fast. A plethora of solutions have been suggested, with our typically limp-wristed government offering little more than the woefully ineffectual “five a day” campaign. A problem of elephantine proportions traditionally indicates the use of 12-bore assistance, and as we brace ourselves for a grim and debilitated future, I believe that no less extreme a measure should be prescribed. Imposing taxes upon unhealthy foods must undoubtedly form part of the solution. An effort to learn from our enlightened Mediterranean cousins may also play an important role. But how to truly sway the ever-clogged heart of the individual remains a matter for intense debate.

And so, as the newest branch of Taybarns prepares to open nearby, you too, carrying the heavy burden of Britannia’s shield, must think twice before counting out that £5.99.

You are what you eat.

TA – ke back the money!

Recently, all officers, soldiers and instructors of our nation’s reserve military force, were told that their pay and much of their funding was to stop. The grand institution of Britain’s Territorial Army was to be effectively shut down on its 100 year anniversary.

No apologies were made but excuses were muttered by the Prime Minister and defence secretary, about the need for cutbacks. But why? Why did Gordon Brown pose with members of the Territorial Army for photos during the centenary celebrations earlier this year, and then cut all their pay? Why did Brown attempt to pass through such cutbacks without proper public debate, or warning? Why did the former Chancellor blatantly lie to David Cameron during PMQ’s about the situation facing soon-to-be deployed members of the Territorial Army? Because Gordon Brown is a coward, who will attempt to gain any kind of political credit without thought for the consequences.  As the Telegraph writes:

“As a result of the cuts there are a number of training areas that the TA can no longer carry out which some believe could prove dangerous when they deploy on operations. For example soldiers can no longer fire live rounds on the ranges. A TA officer who has fought in Iraq said: “A soldier volunteering for Afghanistan might fire his weapon live for the first time since his basic training five years before just before he deploys.

“The mobilisation package cannot turn a civilian into a soldier or someone who can hardly shoot into a marksman and yet many TA soldiers find themselves in combat roles. An untrained TA solider would be unable to protect himself and those around him.”

Soldiers have also been banned from training in gas chambers for chemical warfare training which means they will not even be able to test if their respirators work.

And they cannot drive their tanks more than nine miles a month for training due to the cost of running the vehicles.

Mark Lancaster, a Tory MP and member of the TA, said: “This is an astonishingly short-sighted measure by the Government that will do nothing but harm to the Territorial Army.”

Now Cameron has said: “It’s crazy that a government which was willing to waste £12bn on a pointless VAT cut won’t spend £20m on making sure that the Territorial Army is kept ready and prepared.”

He said the Prime Minister sent him a letter insisting that reservists will still get their standard pre-deployment training. “But,” Cameron said, “that’s like telling professional football players to rely on pre-match warm-up sessions before going onto the football pitch. The only difference is that we’re talking about volunteer soldiers here – and their football pitch is Afghanistan.

The Prime Minister has ripped the soul out of the Territorial Army, and left a broken body! But even without pay, without proper transport, or funding, our Territorial Army men and women have risen to this new challenge. Stories from around the country, show that these fighting citizens have remained so loyal and steadfast in the face of a Labour’s economic slashing that they remain to train, paying their own way in order to not let their comrades down.

In fact, this show of defiance seems to have shocked Brown. The Prime Minister is now whispering about a U-Turn. The strength of opposition to this dire attack has been so strong and the support from civilians so powerful that Brown has been advised to backtrack as far as he can. Last night, sources suggested ministers at the MoD were preparing to offer significant concession on the issue amid fears that Downing Street was heading towards another public relations disaster, and a Commons motion denouncing the cuts has been signed by nearly 50 MP’s against the government.

Let us all hope and pray that this new Government attempt to save their skin… works, and that the men and women of the British Territorial Army, finally get the funding and support that they deserve.

Daniel Cole

Broken Britain

 

In 1997 John Major handed over to Tony Blair arguably the most benevolent set of economic statistics any incoming government had ever inherited. But as Ken Clarke acknowledged ‘we are set to take over the biggest mess that a Conservative party has ever inherited from a Labour government’ and that does not just mean a country with the worst set of economic circumstances in the G20 but one with the worst social problems.  The term ‘Broken Britain’ is one David Cameron has used regularly since becoming  leader nearly four years ago. In the whole of Western Europe we come last on most aspects of child welfare whether that be poverty levels or how kids rate their lives. This is wholly unacceptable for a country of our tradition, resources and potential and we have to raise the question why Britain finds itself in such a position.

 I firmly believe that a strong family lays the foundation to equip us with the fundamental skills we are able to use in life.  However in recent years the family seems to be spiralling downwards and we now have many ‘dysfunctional families’ which include the fragmented (seperated or divorced couples) and the fatherless. Although this affects every group across the social spectrum, this decline now seems to be more common with the groups who are less advantaged in society. As a consequence children are now likely to feel neglected and grow up without that strong starting base, a situation which can be compared to a house built upon sand. As a result family breakdown is strongly correlated with issues such as high levels of teenage pregnancy and crime. The latter is a serious problem. Two years ago, Fiona Pilkington killed herself and her daughter because they were victims of anti social behaviour caused by groups of people who come from families i have just described. Many families and individuals across the country face similar abuse on a regular basis at the hands of these groups.

As David Cameron has made clear, we can only tackle this problem by addressing the problems of family breakdown. But what can a government actually do? One proposal is to recognise marriage and the importance of interdependence between family members through the tax system by rewarding these groups. Another is to instead of focusing on funding for teenagers to prevent crime and anti social behaviour,  perhaps we should target children when they are much younger as part of a more positively focused effort to radically improve their life chances. Whatever approach is implemented there is no doubting the challenge ahead in fixing ‘Broken Britain’.

Amil Khan

 

How Representative should Parliament be?

James Wallis is a third year Political Science student at the University, who has kindly contributed to us this article.

Today there is a Speakers’ Conference underway in Westminster, which is looking at how we can make Parliament more representative. This is certainly a good thing. The more diverse the interests represented in Parliament, the better our democracy is. I, however, don’t think that they have gone far enough.

Recently, Chloe Smith was elected as MP for Norwich North. She is now the ‘Baby of the House’, at the tender age of 27. Most, if not all, members of BUCF will be of voting age, and yet we have no representation, and I will have none for another six years. At the other end of the scale, there are only 14 MPs over the age of 70, and yet this is a huge proportion of our society with substantially different needs to many other demographics. So why is no-one calling for these two age groups to be given better representation? The elderly are generally regarded as the most likely to vote and the young are ignored as apathetic. Maybe some representation would help. Perhaps we should go back to having constituencies for Universities, but then we would have far too many MPs. Instead, perhaps interest groups should have a seat. For example the National Union of Students, or a charity which helps the elderly. But how far would this go, and how would you form political parties from these groups, let alone a coherent government?

The other problem is what background an MP should have. Should they have been in the military and showed patriotism, or been lawyers so they understand the legislation. Should they have worked in the voluntary sector or in big business? Should they have worked 9-5 jobs their entire life like most of the population, or should they be used to going home at 11pm. Surely we need teachers and doctors to be represented. But which constituency is represented by a teacher and which by a doctor? Why bother having elections at all, when we could just appoint people so that we have represented all the elements of society. Except they wouldn’t actually represent anybody.

My point here is that we should, of course, encourage people from all backgrounds to stand for Parliament. However I don’t believe that any MP will represent my interests exactly, unless I am that MP. So it doesn’t matter to me whether my MP is male or female, gay or straight, young or old. We live in a representative democracy, and surely the most important quality an MP can have is the ability to represent our views.

Link to MP Statistics

A moment to seize

I read in the news today that Welsh Secretary Peter Hain has written to the BBC Director General Mark Thompson in attempt to get this Thursday’s Question Time stopped, in which controversial BNP leader Nick Griffin will guest on the panel. Although the reasons for why Mr Hain wants the BNP leader removed from the panel are perfectly reasonable and connect to the legality of the British National Party. This is because of the recent High Court verdict that their membership selection policy breaks Racial Discrimination laws. In my opinion if Nick Griffin is removed from the panel for this Thursday’s Question Time a brilliant opportunity to expose the BNP for the disgusting racists that they are would have been lost.

 

Many who agree with Mr Hain, argue that by giving Nick Griffin a place on the BBC’s flagship political show we are consequently not only legitimising his party but also allowing him to indoctrinate viewers by giving him a platform in which to express his views. However, I believe it would be far more dangerous not to give Nick Griffin a place on Question Time in the long term. The BNP are not going to go away if we simply ignore them and pretend that they are not making political progress. Surely the fact they got two MEPs in the June European Elections emphasises a worrying shift in the political attitudes of certain British citizens. If the BNP are not addressed now this problem will only get worse and the success which they experienced in June could be replicated next June at the General Election.

 

This is a moment to seize, the Conservatives and the other mainstream parties have the perfect opportunity to do considerable damage to the image of the BNP. By allowing Nick Griffin on Question time we can show the British public that the BNP are not a viable alternative by highlighting the obvious problems with their ideology. However, on the other hand if we prevent Nick Griffin from coming on Question Time, it is possible that members of the public curious about the BNP will wish to learn more by looking at their website. This would expose the general public to the propaganda of the BNP without the contributions of opposing viewpoints. Therefore, if we do not allow Nick Griffin and other controversial figures on panel shows such as Question Time there is the possibility that we are actually aiding the growth of racists like Nick Griffin.

 

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”

 

Not allowing Nick Griffin on Question Time and subsequently not questioning his policies in open forum, would be doing nothing and that can only end badly for Great Britain.

YBF 6th Activist Training Conference

The Young Briton’s Foundation (YBF) are holding their 6th Activist Training Conference weekend from Friday 23 October to Sunday 25 October at Wellington College, Berkshire.

http://www.ybf.org.uk/2009/10/10/conference-maybe-over-but-ybf6-is-only-just-around-the-corner/

This year’s YBF Conference will be much more interactive, with students working closely with mentors as they discuss how to handle a political war-game over the course of the weekend. Students will also get the chance to devise campaign strategy and design campaign materials, debate issues with conservative movement leaders and hone campaigning skills in readiness for the general election next year.

All very useful stuff for any budding activist!

£65 for students includes all this too:

* Tuition & Course Materials
* YBF6 Delegate Pack
* Accommodation in Wellington College
* Ticket to the 3rd Annual Eric Forth Memorial Dinner
* Ticket to the 6th Annual Margaret Thatcher Reception & Dinner
* Cooked Hangover Cure Breakfasts on Saturday & Sunday
* Free YBF Merchandise including posters, frisbees, pens

Confirmed speakers include:

Eric Pickles MP, Conservative Party Chairman

Daniel Hannan MEP, Co-Author of The Plan

Rt Hon Lord Forsyth, Former Secretary of State for Scotland

Gerald Howarth MP, Shadow Defence Minister

Andrew Rosindell MP, Shadow Home Office Minister

Greg Hands MP, Shadow Treasury Minister

Paul Goodman MP, Shadow Local Government Minister

Douglas Carswell MP, Co-Author of The Plan

Paul Staines, Guido Fawkes

Iain Dale, Blogger & Publisher

Jonathan Isaby, ConservativeHome

Nick Wood, Former CCHQ Head of Communications

Matthew Elliott, TaxPayers’ Alliance

Douglas Murray, Centre for Social Cohesion

Simon Richards, Freedom Association

Alan Mendoza, Henry Jackson Society

Russell Walters, Conservative Way Forward

Peter Whittle, New Culture Forum

• Eric Pickles MP, Conservative Party Chairman
• Daniel Hannan MEP, Co-Author of The Plan
• Rt Hon Lord Forsyth, Former Secretary of State for Scotland
• Gerald Howarth MP, Shadow Defence Minister
• Andrew Rosindell MP, Shadow Home Office Minister
• Greg Hands MP, Shadow Treasury Minister
• Paul Goodman MP, Shadow Local Government Minister
• Douglas Carswell MP, Co-Author of The Plan
• Paul Staines, Guido Fawkes
• Iain Dale, Blogger & Publisher
• Jonathan Isaby, Conservative Home
• Nick Wood, Former CCHQ Head of Communications
• Matthew Elliott, TaxPayers’ Alliance
• Douglas Murray, Centre for Social Cohesion
• Simon Richards, Freedom Association
• Alan Mendoza, Henry Jackson Society
• Russell Walters, Conservative Way Forward
• Peter Whittle, New Culture Forum

Book your place at http://www.ybf.org.uk/events-conferences/ybf6/ybf-6.

Labour Has Failed (Part 3)

Labour has failed! They have failed to improve or make more efficient; our schools, our National Health Service, our police force, the civil service, the welfare state or our prisons. They have failed our heroic troops and service personal that this government sent to foreign fields under a false mandate. Labour has failed Britain’s nurses, her doctors, her policemen and women, her students, her businessmen, her workers, and her soldiers. They have failed Britain’s teachers, wardens, professors and researchers. They have failed our builders, our plumbers, our electricians and our architects.

Finally, they have failed Britain’s voters. They promised positive change in 1997, 2001 and 2005, and they have not provided. They promised better services and we have not received them. They promised a safer Britain, and instead the Home Secretary now has to walk with protection. This is failure on a grand and appalling scale.

This failure has not only cost us socially…

The Economy: We know the situation is dire. We have seen and heard about the economy’s morose condition. In fact, almost every day, we receive yet more bad news about our national debt, the rising level of unemployment and rising prices.

If we are to believe Gordon Brown, Labour is not to blame. If we are to listen to Brown, we might assume that he has “saved the world.” If we are to believe Alistair Darling; the whole world is suffering, and in fact, Britain was and is one of the best prepared countries to ride out this depression. They are wrong.

Britain is in trouble and Labour under Gordon Brown is worsening not helping the situation. As George Osborne said in his conference speech, in Britain today:

• One in five young people cannot find work
• One pound in every four the state spends goes straight on the national debt
• More of our taxes go on paying the interest on that debt than on educating our children or defending our country.

Our level of national debt is enormous! As of earlier this year, our dept level rests at a figure of around £800.8 billion! UK national dept is now expected to hit 75% of British GDP by 2013! This is awful!

It now costs the UK economy £75 billion to deal with the extra red tape and bureaucracy that this government has created. That is 1/15 of the money (£5 billion) that Brown lost us through his thoughtless sale of our gold reserves. That is many times more than the quickly rising unemployment levels that this country is facing due to Labour’s inadequacies (2.4 million) and this is much MUCH more than the government spends on our armed services. (£32 billion)

Brown said the times of boom and bust were over and yet now we are in one of the deepest ‘busts’ in our history. Where have the ideals of Prime Ministerial responsibility gone? You have failed us Labour and Gordon Brown. Call the election that you dithered on two years ago, and allow the British people to show you how they feel about Labour’s failure!

Part 1 – http://bucf.wordpress.com/2009/08/20/labour-has-failed-part-1/

Part 2 – http://bucf.wordpress.com/2009/08/30/labour-has-failed-part-2/

Daniel Cole

Live from Conference 2009

BUCF Chair, Sahar Rezazadeh is blogging live from the Conservative Party Conference this week. Watch this space for updates.

@ 00:36 on 9/10/09- I got back from Manchester about an hour ago and here is a taster of some gifts I bought for my committee who have been working so hard ever since we took up our roles in May. I really appreciate their support and enthusiasm, and we, as a team, look forward to doing our utmost for the Conservative cause.

@ 17.12- I’ve really enjoyed this year’s conference. It’s been a great experience and has helped boost the morale of candidates particularly so that they will enter the election on good grounds ready to go that extra mile to serve the people of this great nation.

@ 16:11- The Leader’s speech brings the conference to a close but delegates, candidates and MPs including the shadow cabinet members are still about taking questions from the media while posing for the cameras. I have just seen George Osborne give a live piece to Sky News.

@ 15:29-

David Cameron and wife leave the auditorium after his speech welcomed by a crowd of media representatives.

@ 15:07- “This Party is the Party of the NHS, today, tomorrow, always!”- DC

@ 15:02- “We must stop treating adults like children and children like adults!”- DC

@ 14:59- DC attacks the incompetent Labour government and receives a whopping standing ovation. Wow, loved it! Go DC!

@ 14:58- David Cameron pays tribute to the fantastic work of Iain Duncan Smith in the Centre for Social Justice.

@ 14:57-

@ 14:44- Ken Clarke looks tired, I think he had a late night at the Tory Reform Group reception last night. :p

@ 14.42- David Cameron sends out an intellectual message by recognising the Labour Party’s achievements! One would never hear that from a Labour leader…

@ 14.39- “Politics is about we not I”- DC

@ 14:34- A massive standing ovation for the armed forces!

@ 14:28- I’m sitting in the Exhibition area watching David Cameron’s speech! The Party morale is high!

@ 11:08 on 8/10/09- The internet connection in Manchester Central is very slow unfortunately. Yesterday, I spent a bit of the afternoon visiting various stands that I hadn’t been to and engaging with exhibitors. The representation is diverse and that adds a whole new dimension to the conference experience and gives delegates the opportunity to learn more about groups from all interests or with various concerns. From the Conservative Friends of Turkey who offer you Turkish Delight on your visit to the NSPCC where one can find out how to take an active role to support vulnerable children.

Then in the evening, David Cameron came to visit the Birmingham stand which was greatly received as his time at conference is always rationed! It was lovely to meet him in person and he was as delightful as I had imagined.

Myself, David Cameron and Mike Whitby at the Birmingham stand.

@ 15.24- I got back from Radcliffe Centre earlier, having done my fair share of work, before attending the Birmingham fringe meeting on the Big City Plan.

Vic-Tory against Boredom from Gordon...Brown!

@ 10:01 on 7/10/09- This year’s Conference Social Action Project is to renovate Radcliffe Girls and Boys Club into a vibrant centre for young people. Party members have been busy since Monday getting their hands dirty and today there will be a community festival for the launching of the newly designed centre and that’s where I will be this morning!

@ 20:18-

@ 20:07- David Willets, too, is fed up of the negative potrayal of young people in the media! According to Willets, generational mixing is increasingly limited and this feeds the unfair stereotypes developed by one generation about another. 

@ 20:02- The panel are now taking questions. Any questions?

@ 19:42- I’m currently sitting in a fringe event organised by the Bow Group on ‘The Challenges of Young People Today’ with David Willets, Shadow Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills and David Goodhart, the Editor of Prospect Magazine. It’s a very inciteful discussion on the ways in which adults and young people can engage with eacho other through trust in order to benefit both generations. It is widely agreed that young people are facing greater challenges today than the previous generation.

I attended the Conservative Friends of Israel earlier with His Execellency Ron Prosor, the Ambassador of Israel, Dr Liam Fox MP, Shadow Secretary for Defence and James Clappison MP. There was a really good turnout and as usual some good food for thought.

@ 13:23- I just came across a witty food stall! Enjoy:

Gordon Brown makes the best porky pies!

@ 12.53- There are over 100 exhibitors at the conference this year so I think I will need some good hours to check them out before attending fringe meetings and events later in the afternoon. I’ve spent far too much time on the Birmingham stand this morning, with valid reason of course but now it’s time to explore! The exhibitors come from the private and public sector and are political or commercial or just social. There is also a Market Place behind the exhibition area which is convenient for any quick shopping in the security zone.

@ 12:14- George Osborne is fed up of the “feckless iresponsibility” demonstarted in the past 12 years by the Labour Government but Britain has a choice to bring better change. Listen in here.

@ 10:12- The Birmingham stand is looking good, and difficult to miss as you walk into the Exhibition area. Here check it out:

The 'Global City with a Local Heart' is one of the first stands that capture the eye as you walk into the Exhibition area.

From Left: Myself, Oliver Cooper from Keep Right Online and Iain Taylor, Commercial Director of Marketing Birmingham.

@ 9.09 on 6/10/09- It’s raining outside which means I can use my new umbrella!

Last night, I ended the evening at a private reception with Caroline Spelman MP Shadow Secretary for Communities and Local Government along with the Leader of Birmingham City Council, Cllr Mike Whitby and the Leader of Manchester City Council, Cllr Richard Leese. Caroline Spelman reaffirmed the Conservative calll for distribution of power to local councils and the grass roots. Real change where it’s needed!

@ 18:41- The National Union of Students welcome the Tory pledge to secure 10,000 university places.

@ 18:21- Listening to some fascinating findings presented by the Chairman of Reed, James Reed,  which suggest that mindset is more important than working skills and that education needs to mentally train young people to be ambitious and motivated. Any questions?

@ 17:57- I’m now at the fringe event on Youth Unemployment.

@ 17:24- Francis Maude proposed radical plans earlier today in order to reform the civil service which will help restore responsibility and accountability back into government and ensure a ‘more for less’ practice is implemented.

@ 17:00- Sitting in a fringe event on ‘The Age of Responsibility’ hosted by the think tank Reform with Francis Maude MP. It began with some great finger food! Hehe! A significant issue since the Labour Party’s nanny state has been detrimental to individual responsibility in recent years and we all know what political and economic irresponsibility can do…

@ 15:26- David Cameron ’60 million people resting on our shoulders, we must not let Britain down!”

@ 15:05- I met our very own Andrew Mitchell MP earlier who said “Conference is going great, just listening to a brilliant speech by Kenneth Clarke which has a tremendous contrast to what we heard coming from the Labour Party conference last week”.

I will be attending a fringe event on ‘Youth Unemployment: A lost generation?’ with speakers including Rt Hon Kenneth Clarke QC MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Business and Wes Streeting, NUS President. If anyone has questions that they would like me to raise for them here, feel free to post a comment and let me know.

@ 14:11 on 5/10/09 – Feed started, watch this space!

– BUCF Blog Editor, Alex Yaffe

President Blair?!

Amil Khan is a new member of BUCF, having joined in the last two weeks. He has however, already posted on bucf.co.uk and we look forward to more in the future

If the last Labourite edition of The Sun was a huge blow for Gordon Brown, there is no doubt that the next day’s Daily Mail would do little to comfort him as it has been revealed that a certain Tony Blair is on the verge of becoming the first permanent President of Europe.

If the news is concern for Conservatives just imagine the intolerable anguish the Prime Minister must be feeling right now, particularly as it was his decision to break a key manifesto pledge by not holding a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty that will have resulted in the creation of President Blair. Yet another broken promise from this government to add to their ever growing list of failures. If the post is to be occupied by Blair it would further diminish the status of a Prime Minister who is leader only in name. Reverted back to being overshadowed by a man he spent years plotting against for a job in which he has perfomed disastourously to say the least, Gordon Brown has every right to be worried…..but so does the country.

The Conservatives have always been determined to take it upon themselves that it is their duty to retain the power and influence of the House of Commons rather than to hand over power to the EU. With President Blair at the helm the role of national government would be reduced and accountability and democracy severely weakened, as he would enjoy considerable power.

We have already had the misfortune of experiencing what Blair can do with such power but earlier this week Czech senators opposing the Lisbon Treaty filed a complaint against it with the country’s constitutional court. This could delay the ratification of the treaty for another couple of months in which the general election will be held. It is clear that the British people will say no to one unelected leader and the Conservatives would hold a referendum in which the British people would say no to another unelected leader.

Amil Khan

The Sun Rises In a Blue Sky

Should we be happy to receive the support of the Sun newspaper? A paper that appears to follow the political trend and that supported the New Labour governments of 1997, 2001 and 2005. The paper that famously stated “The Sun Supports Blair” and that strengthened in its support for Labour over the following four years.

The answer is YES. The Newspaper’s motivations can be questioned and the reasoning behind such a swing can be exaggerated but in reality this move is a telltale symbol of the death of Labour. Many will suggest that it is a populist move. That it is an effort on the part of the Sun’s editors to gain support from the future party in power. Yet today in its pages, the newspaper reveals diabolical evidence to support its move from the red to the blue.

“Labour failed on schools…four in 10 kids leave [school] … unable to read, write or add up properly.”

“Labour failed on health spending billions on… managers instead of on frontline care.”

“Labour failed on immigration… opening the borders without any regard to the consequences.”

“Labour failed … children. Britain is officially the worst country in the developed world in which to grow up.”

“Labour failed our troops… leaving them to die through chronic under-funding and the shambolic leadership of dismal defence secretaries.

Just as The Sun states: “Labour’s driving ambition has not been to improve Britain. It has been to retain power at all costs – with no lie judged too great in its ruthless and relentless self-promotion”

“They have had their chance and FAILED!”

Emma Morton states that “over the past 12 years the NHS has become like a giant supermarket.” She is so right. Service has dropped, illnesses developed in hospital have boomed and we are charged to visit our families and friends. Healthcare has not been this dire for fifty years.

As George Pascoe-Watson points out, Brown’s speech yesterday suggested that Labour would build a new world. Yet that is a definitive admission that New Labour “has failed to change Britain for the better after 12 years” under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

The literature to support The Sun’s change in allegiance is staggering, and instead of asking ‘why The Sun has switched its support to the Conservatives?’ perhaps we should query ‘why did they not move sooner?’

This is yet another sign of the growing support that David Cameron’s Conservatives are gaining from a tired and frustrated country. This is another sign that even national institutions like The Sun cannot stand by and ignore the destruction that Labour is inflicting on this once great nation. This is another sign of the dire standing that Labour has achieved for itself. And finally, this is another sign… no another endorsement! to the truth that the Conservative leadership can put the great back into Great Britain.

Daniel Cole

Time for some pragmatic support for freedom?

Richard Waite is currently reading Law at the University and has previously completeted a degree in Philosophy and Political Economy at the University of Exeter. As one of our veteran members, he has made an ongoing contribution to the society and continues to do so. In his most recent contribution, Richard takes us through some of the issues surrounding liberty in speech and publications.

Expression that we find offensive must be permitted for our society to be called free. Such a statement should be self-evident. This freedom isn’t necessarily an absolute, an inflammatory speech made in front of an angry mob may be a very different thing to the same speech made in more considered circumstances.  Context as much as content matters when it comes to conveying ideas, however we should be supremely sceptical about any attempt to try to prohibit the content itself.

A lot of the debate is currently around hate speech and the extent to which it should be prohibited. I’d argue that prohibition is not only ideologically wrong but also unnecessary and worse, entirely counter productive. However that’s not what this posts really about. There are two just as serious ways in which our ability to express ourselves is limited that have been highlighted recently.

First in this short list of shame are our libel laws. Individuals, professions and companies should all have recourse to the law to protect themselves from defamation.  Whether its libel or slander the freedom to make speech doesn’t excuse oneself from the results of what is said.  This protection can also have undesirable consequences. The so-called chilling effect whereby fear of being taken to court stifles speech before it is made, the cost both personal and financial of defending oneself can be enough to silence all but the most determined commentator.

To some extent this is as unfortunate as it is unavoidable; justice oughtn’t be sidelined because it costs time and money. Instead we should do all we can to minimise or ameliorate the impact upon speech that isn’t defamatory. At the moment the opposite appears to be the case; the chilling effect is more akin to permafrost.

Guardian Journalist Ben Goldacre recounts in one chapter of his rather excellent book “Bad Science” how he was brought before the courts for questioning the efficacy of vitamins as a treatment for aids (the chapter is available online for those that are interested). Defending this case cost in excess of £500,000 before it was dropped. Journalist Simon Singh MBE is currently being sued by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) for questioning the treatment its members provide. I’ve no expertise or insight into the truth of these claims and this isn’t a critique of alternative medicine. Rather I suggest that neither of these men should have had the accusations against them entertained as a matter of principle.

Both of these men have respected backgrounds in science and whilst this doesn’t make them infallible we should appreciate their contributions and their right to speak freely on the subjects about which they are experts just as we would respect the rights of their detractors to do likewise. Are we to tolerate a position where those advocating science and reason are to be pursued through the courts rather than through the journals that exist to debate answer such issues? The burden of proof should be upon the accuser not the accused and only where advice being given is demonstrably wrong should a legal issue arise.

Equally shameful are the outmoded regulations requiring impartiality in broadcasting. Impartiality is more of a conceptual than practical possibility. There may be degrees of partiality but all programming is developed within a particular cultural framework and it is inevitable that this will reflect certain preferences and assumptions over others. Even if all news were to consist of nothing more than the presentation of facts there would be a debate over which facts should be presented and how, and that still wouldn’t address partiality found in drama’s or other programming. Even the relevant section of the broadcasting code speaks of ‘due’ impartiality, ‘due’ being used to modify the meaning of impartiality to include notions of appropriateness.

The fact that impartiality is difficult isn’t in itself a reason to abandon it any more than we abandon the NHS on learning that over time mortality will always reach 100% (although it is something that some of the ‘spend ever more’ brigade might ponder).  Instead I say this to show that in embracing a plurality of competing views we wouldn’t be foregoing anything we currently have. Nor would we be loosing journalistic integrity or ethics; many news sources on-line and in print have editorial slants and it is entirely to the benefit of our society. In the same way that I can choose to read the Guardian or the Telegraph so I should be able to choose to watch Fox News or the BBC.

In a world where there were only 4 television stations means to moderate their ability to support a partisan position were not only justified but also quite necessary. That world is now consigned to history. There are 999 channels on my Sky Box including those devoted to all manner of niche and trivial interests, more than enough to support channels targeted at people with specific political preferences.  People in the UK are incredibly savvy and intelligent and it is to our shame that we are not trusted to freely choose what we watch and it infantilises us as individuals.

Welcome to Freshers from BUCF

I would first like to welcome, on behalf of BUCF, all those who are new to the society, or returning. I look forward, with great anticipation; to meeting you all soon as well as finding out about your own ideas and opinions regarding the issues of the day.

A great first day at the societies fair as a record number has already been officially signed up. This was helped by the wonderful weather as it shone over the (last minute) outdoor stand along with the presence of Deirdre Alden the candidate for Edgbaston at the General Election. She was kind enough to add to the array freebies for the new members.

The stand almost did not go ahead as a breakdown in communication with the Guild almost cost us the most important opportunity of the year to recruit and get our message across. But thanks to the hard work of some committee members and members of staff at the Guild we were able to make our presence know to newcomers and others throughout the University.

 As it stood at the end of the day there were a good number of fully registered members. Furthermore the conservatives received interest from more people than ever. This is irrefutable proof of the strength and importance of conservatives at the University and will be of great comfort to those Birmingham candidates standing in the General Election. The achievement is greater still as Birmingham and the University are rationally very strong Labour areas.

However, the society and the Party should not assume that the hard work is now finished as they must endeavour to keep those who have joined convinced that they are supporting the right party and ideals. Nonetheless I am confident that committee team will be able to deliver a wide range of  interesting and engaging activities which will keep this new influx of feshers, not just interested in Conservatism but, politically active.

Disintegration

Aaron Hugh Ellis is reading History at the University of Bristol and is the former VP of the Bristol University branch of Conservative Future. In this generous guest post Aaron outlines his concerns for the future of British politics and captures the contemporary issues facing our modern democracy.

‘The dangers we have to fear may roughly be summed up in the single word – disintegration’, Lord Salisbury wrote in 1883. ‘It menaces us in the most subtle and the most glaring forms.’

Uneasiness permeates our society, a vague feeling of dislocation and insecurity, which can roughly be summed up in the single word ‘disintegration’. It is the end to which we sense being driven by the defective working of our political machinery, the public temper of our time, as well as our deteriorating environment. The process of disintegration has occurred in the last twelve years but its pace quickened over the last twelve months. It has been accelerated through the potent combination of an inept government with an irresponsible leadership, the dreary expenses scandal and an unintelligent partisanship that forthcoming elections encourage. A society where all interests are equal is mutating into one where all interests are selfishly pursued, and the institutions which sustain the balance-of-interests in our society decay as their cultures are undermined both from within and without. We sense the power of the dreary, the pedestrian, the pompous, the respectable and the unimaginative and see the triumph of its adherents.

The disintegration of the last twelve years has resulted from a poor understanding by politicians and their opinion-makers of the British political system. A millennium of perpetual conflict between vying groups and factions produced a settlement where all interests in society are equal, not people. The physical manifestation of this settlement is Parliament, which condensed as fighting between the factions moved from the battlefield to the ballot-box in the 18^th Century. Its virtue lies not only in the communal ‘inclusiveness’ but also the guarantee of mutual security. All interests within society are represented and each group has an influence on the country’s laws. By limiting our aims and moderating our actions, we not only preserve our opponents but also ourselves. We are a ‘commonwealth’, and the cohesion of society is sustained through each of us taking two steps forward and one step back – a handy philosophy if approaching a precipice.

Since 1997, however, the settlement has gradually disintegrated as the institutions which sustain society have been undermined both from within and without. The cause is best termed as ‘totalism’: factions pursuing total aims rather than limited ones at the expense of their opponents whom they try to destroy, disguising their dislike with a moral or legalistic gloss. It begun with the New Labour Government attempting to reform institutions it saw as antiquated but upsetting the balance-of-interests. ‘The most fundamental problem in politics,’ Kissinger has written, ‘…is not the control of wickedness but the limitation of righteousness.’ A result of the righteous totalism of New Labour was other interest groups adopting similarly total aims, motivated by the righteous hatred which fights for survival produce. Things fell apart; our institutions could not hold.

Disintegrating institutions led to the decay in their cultures, most notably Parliament. As the purpose of institutions became unclear, and politics characterized by factionalism and hate, there has been an influx of ‘professionals’ who identify public good with personal advancement. Those ‘professionals’ in active politics resemble the character of Widmerpool from Anthony Powell’s ‘Dance to the Music of Time’, pursuing power at any cost but disarming suspicion by being incredibly dull. They are staffed by cherubic aides and interns who soil their dalmatics trying to climb up the greasy pole. This decay in the cultures of our institutions was blindingly encouraged by a mixture of uninformed or ill-experienced pedagogues, prophets and newspaper columnists (for there is no one more stupid and more opinionated than teachers, preachers or journalists…) As a result, the best lacked all conviction, while the worst were full of passionate intensity.

The expenses scandal to some extent exposed this decayed culture, but the restive Puritanism that it roused and the fear it created in politicians led not to the rehabilitation of our institutions but their further destruction. People saw them as the problem and not the cultures that had grown up with their gradual disintegration. The ‘professional’ culture was strengthened, not weakened by measures such as punishing second-jobs. Yet this doesn’t matter to the dreary, the pedestrian, the pompous, the respectable and the unimaginative whose power has grew bit by bit over the last twelve years but now dominate since the scandal. So our sustaining institutions continue to disintegrate, and those who oppose this process fearfully wonder what rough beast slouches towards Westminster to be born?

One would think this is the time for Conservatism, but the Tory Party is as affected by the decay as any other institution. The current Leadership are arguably the best educated and most cerebral since 1945. ‘Cameronism’, if it exists, embodies this idea of ‘equality of interests’ added with the intellectual and humanitarian traditions which extends far back through our history. But like their postwar forebears, they seem intellectually timid; committed enough to defend Conservatism, too afraid to put it on the offensive. They are anxious about appearing the smartest kid in the class, which gives our opponents the opportunity to fill the vacuum in ideas and use our timidity to strong-arm us into conniving in the decay of society’s institutions.

‘The idea that the convictions of politicians are never stable,’ continued Salisbury, ‘that under adequate pressure every resistance will give way, every political profession will be obsequiously recast, is fatal to the existence of either confidence or respect. Neither trust nor fear will, in the long run, be inspired by a school of statesman who, whatever else they may sacrifice, never sacrifice themselves.’

LFW 2009

A little excerpt from the Telegraph. It seems that our feet are safe in the hands of Boris :D

Boris - The sexy new coverboy for Elle magazine

“The 25th London Fashion Week opened yesterday with the city’s mayor, Boris Johnson, in his newest incarnation as style icon. Fresh from his appearance on the cover of Elle magazine, he threw down the gauntlet to the TUC with a special message of support for Blahnik babes and Louboutin lovers: “Let me promise you, as long as I have anything to do with this city and this government, there will be no ban on high heels.”

Johnson was sporting his version of “global chic”: the Beijing-made navy suit that he wore for the handover of the Olympic flag, when he committed the sartorial faux-pas of leaving the jacket unbuttoned, together with a made-in-China tie, a Marks & Spencer shirt and a pair of shoes from Church’s.

Fashion is not necessarily about politics, but blue is certainly one of the colours of the moment. For the next week, Somerset House – British fashion’s new HQ – will be bathed in “Congo blue” come sunset, as will the National Theatre and County Hall across the river.”

Labour’s Equality Enigma

It has recently been brought to my attention that the Equalities Office (don’t even get me started on that one) have published a factsheet celebrating women in power and all the great female barrier breakers of British politics got a mention… save one: Baroness Thatcher. I found it completely astonishing that a list celebrating women in power omitted to mention by name the most successful and powerful female politician in modern British history. A woman who became the first and to date only woman to lead a British political party. A woman who went on to lead her country in to war based on principle and win. A woman who became the longest serving Prime Minister in 150 years and a woman who gave her name to a whole generation of politics and politicians. Yet in the warped world of Labour this great standard bearer for equality and women in politics, a woman who broke every barrier and needed no special privilege or ‘category’ to get to the top, does not deserve a mention on their little list. Why? Because shes not ‘one of them’. Thats the thing about Labour and its vision of equality, they only treat you with equality and fairness if you think the way they think. If you believe in what they believe. That is why Labour can never understand equality let alone be its champion.

Labour’s ”Equality” agenda is not a matter of ‘fairness’ as they like to claim. It is a gigantic, bureaucratic organisation of ideological coercion, promoting grievance, imposing cost and attacking businesses, charities, schools. As one commentator put it “It is the long march of activists who, frustrated that they could seemingly no longer nationalise businesses, have made it their task to nationalise people.” We have in Labour a government who aren’t content with wrecking our free economy they now seek to wreck our free society. Whether its refusing to allow Gurkhas who fought and died for this country to settle here, whether its pursuing legislation that can lock us up with out charge for weeks, whether is drowning us and our public services in red tape, whether its presiding over the biggest rise in income inequality in modern history, whether its watching and monitoring our every move on CCTV, whether its trying to store all our DNA and personal information on databases and ID cards or whether its imposing ‘positive discrimination’ on to us, Labour have set true equality in Britain back a generation. 

The truth is that if you want true equality in this country you have to vote for its real champion. A party whos fundamental ideology is to have faith and trust in the people. A party that believes that people and not politicians know how best to live their own lives and spend their own money. A party that uses the government machine to give power back to the people, not take it away. A party that encourages and protects the rights of the people and defends them fiercely from aggressors. A party that doesn’t tell you what to think or what to say. A party that elected a woman to lead it not on patronising ’positive discrimination’ but on personal merit. A party that elected the first jew to lead a British political party. A party that understands true equality as it accepts the fact that it is an inevitable part of life that we are all unequal and a party that stands up for every British citizen regardless of class colour or creed. That party is the Conservative Party and its champion was Margaret Thatcher and David Cameron is a man of her mould. (Whos name was ommitted from Labours little list) :