Osborne, Ross and Brand.

Jimmy McLoughlin, Area Chairman of Birmingham, Coventry and Solihull.

So this evening the news has come through that Russel Brand will resign from the BBC Radio 2 show.

I genuinely believe that this would not have happened if ‘Yachtgate’ hadn’t occured. The BBC at the start of last week launched one of the most intense media houndings I have ever witnessed purely on the basis of allegations. This led to both the Daily Mail and The Sun accusing them of left wing bias, it is unusual for parts of the media to attack one another particularly the BBC.

Both papers in the last two days have made very strong attacks against Brand and Ross, I believe the BBC desperate to try and regain some authority (and therefore have now turned their focus on Mandelson) therefore I believe they have heavily leant on Brand to resign.

Reflections on the Bruges Dinner….

Last night the great and the good of the Tory party gathered in honour of the 20th Anniversary of Lady Thatcher’s Bruges speech. I was one of the privellaged few who escorted Lady T from her government jag to the event. As she appeared at the top of the stairs of the Grovesnor House Hotel’s Ballroom the assembled throng let out a roar of approval. It never ceases to amaze me how grown, often powerful, men and women descend in to quivering wrecks at the sight of the Iron Lady.

Even now 20 years after her ousting, which is increasingly regarded as the biggest mistake the Tory party has made in centuries, she still inspires the same love, respect and affection that she always did. When Lady Thatcher enters a room she is not merely ‘in it’… she owns it. Yet what always strikes me about her is the fact that despite her obvious status and grandure you cannot detect an ounce of pretention, arrogance or sense of self importance. I’ll give you an example.

After a rather hectic procession through the assembled guests she reached me and my guest James, as she spoke to us she asked where we were from, what we were doing… you know the usual, but what suprised me was the fact that when asked by James for a photograph she happily obliged despite obviously having many more people to meet. To add insult to injury James was having difficulty getting his camera to work as he did not want to blind her with the flash! A bit flustered he apologised and said to Lady Thatcher ‘I do apologise’ to which she replied: ‘You’re one of us dear, don’t fret’. (Luckily due to James’s mishap I ended up holding her hand and chatting to her for about 5 minutes! haha)

Aside from the exquisite food, Lord Tebbit delivered a great speech in which he called on the current Tory leader to show some Thatcherite conviction on Europe which was warmly recieved by the hundreds of gathered guests. By the end of the evening it was clear for all to see that Lady Thatcher was fading and as such she was ushered out of the room in one final grand procession. As she left the guests broke out in to raptuous applause, some with tears in their eyes, and finally when she reached the top of the stairs, in typical Thatcher fashion, she turned back to greet her adoring crowd with a wave and a smile.

As she left the crowd, who began to be reffered to as ‘Thatchers groupies’, broke out in to spontanious “TEN MORE YEARS! TEN MORE YEARS! TEN MORE YEARS!” Those words sum the evening up perfectly. The night belonged to Lady Thatcher and she will always occupy a very special place in the hearts of many millions of people in this country and around the world. What a woman.

Beyond a Joke?

Are our moral and social sensitivities so highly strung right now that we as British Citizens, as a people who have taken satire and humor to weird and wonderful places, who listen to radio (and Television) personalities for a laugh, now can’t stand it when they do what is natural, even if it is out of context and perhaps a little unwise? I’m talking of Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand, the BBC presenters / DJ’s who have come under fire recently for their prank phone calls to the actor Andrew Sachs.

I’m well aware this post is some out out of my normal manner of writing an article for this award winning blog, and it may well come back to bite me in the ass one day, but frankly my dear I don’t give a damn. I’m stating my opinion on the subject.

David Davis MP feels fit to state in the Daily Mail that Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand (who both are celebrities of some notoriety already) should be fired for this incident. Director John Beyer of Mediawatch-UK agrees, whilst former BBC Deputy Director, Will Wyatt simply said someone should “take some pain for” the phone calls. Well since right now seems to be the season for reactionary messages coming from every political party, I won’t take Davis’ statement too seriously, and this is exactly the sort of thing Mediawatch-UK was created to make noise about, so I can’t help thinking they’re a little bias.

Both Ross and Brand have sincerely apologised. I have read the transcripts of the phone calls, and they are lewd and sexual in parts, which naturally prompted Sachs’ agent to contact the BBC in protest. He is after all 78, and I can’t imagine any 78 year old, or any one with a granddaughter being happy receiving a similar phone call. Therefore an apology was required, and they were given.

This is the sort of thing they do, for a living, to entertain people, to keep thousands – maybe tens of thousands – employed in the entertainment and media industries in the UK. It requires, in some cases, comic talents and in others frankly downright school-boyish antics occasionally; and yes, sometimes these energies that keep the whole ship of comedy afloat go awry. As they did in this instance. Do we criticise those who satire even our most respected politicians and public figures? Not often. Yet they are only doing what they naturally do for the sake of their livelihoods, which are directly at the expense of others feelings. For the most part Ross and Brand do not do that; it does not take up the most part of their energies doing this sort of thing to people. Normally they simply make people laugh without causing much offence. This time it went wrong, they crossed a line, the end.

An outcry is unnecessary and serious reprimands are unwarranted. With all due respect to Sachs,’ his 23 year old granddaughter (who is certainly no child, and judging from photographs, someone not afraid to demonstrate her sexual allure) and those 1,500 who have complained to the BBC, this is being blown out of proportion. Pranks of this nature, on this scale, do not deserve to get anyone fired.

The Visigoths are not coming over the seventh hill . . . lets learn to take a f*cking joke.

Bruges 20 Years on

On 20th September 1988 (just  few months after my birth to give you a historical perspective!) the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher delivered an epic speech to the College of Europe in which she outlined a positive vision of a wider, decentralised and democratic Europe. She attacked the Europe of Delors and in the process reinvented Euroscepticism as an intellectually powerful and popular movement across the political spectrum.

With chilling accuracy she predicted the stark choice facing Britain with which we have wrestled since. Should Britain be part of a centralised, unaccountable federal Europe or should we use our influence to help create a Europe of independent, freely trading, cooperating nation states? Margaret Thatcher opted for the latter choice and her vision was supported by the British people. Tonight I will be attending an event hosted by the Bruges group in central London to commemorate that momentous speech.

The guests of honour tonight will be Baroness Thatcher herself, Norman Tebbit and President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic who will speak via video link. Lady Thatcher is held in great esteem by millions of people across Eastern Europe who credit her with freeing them from the shackles of communism. In many ways she acted as the mediator between Presidents Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev which ultimately avoided disaster. Reagan later said in his memoirs that it was Thatcher who first began to bring down the Iron Curtain by persuading Ronald Reagan that Gorbachev was someone who could be trusted.

David Cameron is likely to come under increased pressure to state his position on the issue of Europe. In his speech Norman Tebbit will say: “I hope that the Conservative Party will set out a negotiating brief that the next Conservative government will take to Brussels early in its next term, and that it would, within two years of the next election, present to the British people the outcome of its negotiations. Then, in a referendum, the British people would decide whether to accept what was on offer – or simply to leave the union. We cannot drift on as we have been. It is not fair either to the British people or to the European Union. We need to show Thatcherite courage and determination to lead the country along that path.”

Czech President Vaclav Klaus will also address the event and will state ”The marching towards an ever-closer union must be reversed. We need to continue fighting vigorously for the goals outlined in the Bruges Speech, just as Lady Thatcher always has.” In her speech Thatcher declared: “We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them re-imposed at a European level, with a European super state exercising a new dominance from Brussels.” I sincerely hope that Cameron will take note of the issue and state his full position even if it stands at odds with the majority of his party and the country. After all it is better to take a side and fight for it than sit on the fence.

Reflections of Berkshire

At the weekend I travelled to the lovely setting of Wellington College in Berkshire, for one of the most enjoyable political events of the year. The Young Briton Foundation every October host their political training conference. It is simply an outstanding event which I thoroughly enjoy going to year in year out.

 

The range of speakers that attend is absolutely amazing, this year we were treated to parliamentarians such as John Whittingdale OBE, Ed Vaizey, Nigel Evans, Eric Pickles, David Davis, Douglas Carswell and the very impressive Iain Duncan-Smith. Unlike a normal conference or event though you actually get an opportunity to engage with the guest speakers afterwards and get to grill them on a more personable level.

 

In addition, YBF also introduce the attendees to a much wider political movement which is not that easy to come across if you don’t know it is there. For example we were treated to seminars from the TaxPayer’s Alliance, Alan Mendoza from the Henry Jackson Society (who are putting on an event with the head of USA Homeland Security this week) and of course there is also a strong contingent of media training led by TVs own Iain Dale.

 

Throughout the week I will try and attempt to post some of the things I learnt from the week with particular highlights.

 

I will levae you with a clear theme that ran through the whole weekend. If we want to learn and how to get on and win, going to YBF events for youngsters is clearly the way forward, I learn so much every year from going, and their experience is invaluable.

 

Ps. I would like to thank Donal, Christian and all the hard working staff at Welington College for putting on a truly remarkable weekend.

A first (and last) time for everything….

Thats right… for the first time in my ‘public life’ I agree with Peter Mandelson. Mandelson recently made his return to front line politics, in an attempt to save Gordon Browns skin, as Baron Mandelson of Foy and Hartlepool (theyre just giving the bloody titles away!). However despite the fact I want to retch everytime I see him I agree with his statement today that Labour must not use the financial crisis as an excuse to revive its economic policies of the early 1980s.

Despite the fact I like nothing more than watching Labour unravel and tear itself apart, I do believe in the interests of the country that neither of the main parties should advocate state intervention or socialism, the likes of which we saw in the Labour manifestos of the early 80’s which resulted in Thatcher battering Labour 3 times. Mandelson’s comments bare striking resemblance to a debate held on this very website as to whether ‘Thatcherism is dead’.

I concluded, as Mandelson did, that Thatcherism and free market economics was here for the long haul and the notion that any of the mainstream parties should reject it is beyond irrational. Mandelson summed up that the current situation was bad but not long term and dismissed any notion that free market economics was dead as ‘absurd’.

Haider Gay Shock

I, and Conservative Austria, was shocked to discover today that the late leader of the far right Alliance for the Future of Austria, Jorg Haider, was in fact in a long term gay relationship… despite being a married father of two. Stefan Petzner – the 27-year-old who recently replaced Haider as leader of the right wing Alliance for the Future of Austria and has often appeared in tears on television since his death – effectively outed himself as the deceased’s gay lover while being interviewed on an Austrian radio breakfast show.

“I had to go to him. I had to go to him,” Mr Petzner said in his highly emotional interview as he recalled how he rushed to the hospital where the dead body of 58-year-old Haider was lying after his fatal crash in early October. Admitting that he felt a “magnetic attraction” for Haider, whom he met five years ago while working as a cosmetics reporter, Mr Petzner insisted: “We had a relationship that went far beyond friendship. Jörg and I were connected by something truly special. He was the man of my life.”

Mr Petzner has since been dismissed from his new position after revealing the affair. Haiders death in a drink and drive crash earlier this month sent shockwaves around Austria. His funeral was lavish and almost like a ‘heros funeral’. This revelation, which had long been suspected, will send further shockwaves around a deeply conservative country.

The home stretch…

We now enter the home stretch of the keenly anticipated American election, after a race in which the polls have gone up and down more times than Gordon Browns jaw. Now the result looks pretty clear: Obama’s bagged it. There is an air of euphoria surrounding Obamassiah and his supporters which begs one simple question: why are you suprised?! I can’t understand why people are acting as if he has had such a fight on his hands to win this election and why he has done soooo well to secure this victory. It was always his.

For the past two years if not more the next election (2008) was seen as the Democrats to lose. The consensus amongst many commentators up until last year was that Mickey Mouse could be on the Democratic ticket and still walk in to the White House in January 2009. All the conditions for victory are there: popular charismatic candidate, an adoring media, a broken economy, collapsing housing market, two unpopular wars, soaring national debt, battered international reputation and most important of all, their nominee is on the opposing side to one of the most unpopular Presidents in US history.

The Democrats should have had it all… but what many Dems miss is the fact that their ‘messiah’ and the self professed ’chosen one’ nearly buggered it all up. Up until a month ago John McCain for the first time took a sustained and credible lead in the polls. At a time when the Democrats should have been leagues ahead and picking all but picking out the drapes for the Oval Office, the Maverick of the Senate came out fighting and the chosen one was on the ropes. It is in that light that there is nothing spectacular about the ‘Obama victory’ if and when it happens.

Yes hes black… whoopdeedoo, personally I am more impressed with the fact he won the nomination than the Presidency. The nomination battle was a real fight, the actual election should and always was going to be a walkover for the Democratic nominee whom ever it was. So in that light I find it more impressive to be the first black nominee for President rather than the first black President.

I do think the actual result will be closer than many think for a plethora of reasons I shall happily go in to should anyone wish but ultimately I believe the result will be the same: Obama will get it. Having said this I will still fight for McCain in the last ditch. He is the better candidate, Obama is the better salesman. Although there is light for the Conservatives at the end of the tunnel because looking at his plans and the crumbling economy he inherits I believe he will be a one term wonder which will ultimately lead to President Palin 2012 who can clear up his mess in the way the Iron Lady did: with one hell of a tough tonic! whoop whoop!

So no I don’t find it amazing he won it… I find it amazing there was a credible belief he could lose it.

Thatcherism: Alive and Kicking!

It has become fashionable of late to blame Thatcher and her successors economics for the current downturn and as such there has been a rush to herald the premature ‘death of Thatcherism’. Such sentiments are unmittigated nonsense and nothing more than an overreaction. It is true we are facing the worst economic downturn of recent memory. The banks are falling back under government control where they ought never to be, inverstors are ‘going wobbly’ and consumer confidence is at an all time low. It is tempting in such times of crisis to have a policy ’revolution’ of sorts. To distance ourselves from pre established norms and conventions that led us down the percieved ’road to ruin’. But the fact remains, in the words of Thatcher herself: there is no alternative.

The fact of the matter is ‘Thatcherism’ (for want of a better word) is built around one core concept: that the market should be free and that private ownership is preferrable to state control. The markets have been free… but ultimately not free enough. This current financial crisis should be understood not as a failure of free-market economic theory and Thatcherism but as its vindication. The U.S. government in particular has perverted the wisdom of the free market by encouraging banks to make loans that no rational actor would make. Furthermore the market ’players’ took the risks they did because they held a reasonable expectation of a government bailout should things get hairy. They were right. Therefore the problem, in this view, is not that the markets were free but that they weren’t free enough and they were making rash and unsustainable judgements.

The truth is that it is not capitalism that has caused this economic downturn, but state intervention. Specifically, it was the decision by national central banks, above all the Fed, the Bank of Japan and the pesky European Central Bank, to hold interest rates too low for too long. That was a political decision, not a market one, and therein lies the root of the problems we are facing. The free market needs to be free… not free-ish. Unscrupulous politicians, particularly on the now gloating left, can always win applause by attacking globalisation and free market economics when the going gets tough. Yet the fact remains that every alternative to free trade has failed. Capitalism has winners and losers; but, overall, it has made the world happier, wealthier and more free than ever before.

Open, free markets in short are the solution not the problem and it is in that light that ‘Thatcherism’ will never cease to be relevant. The current temporary panic, and it is temporary, has caused wild swings in global stock markets. During a panic, logic is set aside and emotions rule. One of these emotions is fear, a strong and often irrational feeling which even more often causes bad judgment. It is undeniable that the free market and its actors are inherantly flawed however it is equally undeiable that free markets have produced record growth and provided its proponents with unprecedented, predominantly uninterrupted, prosperity for the better part of 3 decades. At the risk of stoking the fire I almost, and I emphasise almost, believe it would have been better to let some institutions collapse as a punishment for their woeful inadequacies and poor judgements that missed the fundamental message of the free market: let it be free.

“There is no alternative”

Is Thatcherism dead?

Daniel Cowdrill

It took a severe financial crisis to do it, but ‘Thatcherism’ is losing its grip on the nation’s body politic. 

If this financial crisis is as bad as the experts suggest, then future histories of Thatcherism may date the Conservative ideology from approximately 1964 to 2008.

From the failure of Alec Douglas-Home in 1964 to the triumph of Margaret Thatcher in 1979, Thatcherism was on the ascendency. From 1979 to 1990 it was on the offensive. From 1990 to 2008 it became the consensus. And thereafter it was forced onto the defensive.

Plunging share prices, Nationalisation, contracting world trade, rising unemployment, collective guilt and moral outrage, are pushing Thatcherism back. ‘Property Ownership’, privatization, market deregulation and the credit boom, all look a bit inappropriate these days, maybe even culpable. 

This may be overly dramatic. The damage done to the Thatcherite edifice is yet to be surveyed. However, if we assume the worst where does it leave the Conservative Party?

Broadly speaking, I agree with the view that British Conservatism possesses four possible reflexes. For any political geeks reading, it might be fun for you to pick which Tory reflex or combination of reflexes you might employ if you were David Cameron…

There are three ‘defensive’ reflexes: 1) Resist, 2) Take a timely concession to avoid more extreme measures, 3) Adopt the opposition’s policies on the basis that you can implement them better.

There is also one ‘offensive’ option: To devise an entirely new scheme of ideas to force the opposition back on the defensive. 

My own conclusion is this.  The offensive option of ‘devising an entirely new scheme of ideas’ is impossible. This takes intellectual articulation and public support, and at the moment both are moving against us. Alternatively, to ‘Resist’ looks like snipping from the side-lines and risks emphasising the fact that the government are at least doing something. To ‘adopt the opposition’s policies on the basis that we can implement them better’ is more plausible. However, to give ‘timely concessions’ may in turn give us the political influence to moderate government policy. An example of these might be Cameron’s proposal to temporarily support struggling businesses.

Either-way, we should be prepared for defensive politics. No longer are the voters ‘all Thatcherites now’.

Quote of the Day.

‘John McCain has led a biblical life, and just like his namesake Cain, he is not afraid to go negative on a brother’.

Off with his head!

A Scottish Labour councillor has launched a tirade of abuse at the Queen and the Royal Family. Renfewshire Council member Terry Kelly (sounds like a bloody stage name) launched the tirade in an online article entitled ‘The Queen was in her counting house counting her money’ (Catchy title… for a 3 year old). His rant has been labelled ‘unaccpetable’ by Labour party officials who are considering disciplinary action against the leftie councillor. Kelly claimed:

• Britain would be better off if the Royal family were murdered
• Described the Royals as a bunch of ‘parasite halfwits’
• Claimed Princess Anne looks and acts like a bulldog chewing a wasp
• Lampooned Princes William and Harry as the ‘Chuckle Brothers’
• Claimed the brother use both hands to find their arse!
• Branded the Queen a ’sectarian racist’ and ‘puppet’

Labour often criticise the Tories and claim that our ‘progressive’ front bench is in fact a cover for the traditionalist backbenchers and grassroots that ‘control the party’. Well I think it is plain to see that Labour are in fact guilty of a similar charge. Only the difference is while our backbenches are harmless loyalists, their backbenches and grassroots are filled with radical left wing anarachists completely out of touch with public feeling and plot rebellion and revolution! 

With the monarchy riding high in the popularity stakes (currently 80% approval) I am confident that no-one will take this malcontents rant seriously. There has already been an outpour of public anger in Scotland which has forced the Labour party to take action on the matter. I believe that Kelly needs to be held to account for his words. Personally I hope they take him to the tower and have owf with his head however I don’t think that is realistic as the monarchy is indeed a 21st century institution, instead I certainly hope he is relieved of his duties as a councillor. He has sinced backtracked and claimed helplessly ‘It as a joookkkeeee’

Also I find this mildly amusing… he claims by ridding the country of the monarchy ‘Britain will catch up with the 21st century’… well judging by his photo its not the monarchy that needs to get in the 21st century!

A Question of Tuition Fees?

This is something we as students should take an interest in, but I am finding it difficult quantifying exactly how we, as members of the Conservative Futures movement, should do that. Which leaves me wondering; what is our opinion on this subject?

I am not merely asking for an opinion; for in a moment I will state the reason I am writing this article, the context and background of my opinion, and then what I believe with regards tuition fees

A London Student article (ULU’s Independent Student Newspaper: http://www.london-student.net/2008/10/07/mega-fees/) stated recently that the Conservative Higher Education Minister, Rob Wilson, approached NUS President Wes Streeting and VP Higher Education, Aaron Porter at the Party Conference and asked them what they thought of a plan to increase fees amongst Russell Group Universities. This proposal is remarkably similar to one that London Student reported the Policy Exchange to be working on, alongside LSE Professor Julian Le Grand (the man ‘widely viewed as the architect of top up fees’) and Anna Fazackerley, the Director of education think tank AGORA.

This as yet unpublished proposal seeks effectively to create a British ‘Ivy League,’ making the top universities private, potentially allowing them to charge up to £20,000 a year for tuition. Double what they are currently charging overseas students.

If this is true, then quite surprisingly I find myself appalled at the notion, and I will go into more detail as to why. However I find myself surprised to be appalled because I do not oppose top up fees, or even the proposed potential increase (£5,000 to £10,000), unlike the NUS, who vehemently detest the idea of such a move. Last year I had had NUS Officer Training, which gave me the benefit of knowing the rhetoric and the reasons behind the rhetoric.

However, a British ‘Ivy League’ (consisting of Oxford, Cambridge, the larger University of London colleges – UCL, KCL, Imperial, LSE etc., and a handful of others) would be, in my opinion, a step in the wrong direction.

Fees will have to be increased come 2010, regardless of the stance of the financially precarious NUS. I don’t believe it will be the end of accessibility, because as Malcolm Grant (Provost of UCL) said in a recent Guardian article, there will be “safeguards to protect less well-off students”. UCL for example (placed 7th Globally according to the Times Higher Education Supplement - QS World Ranking) is a university which has to cater for 20,000 students and cover the cost of 8,500 staff, as well as support a £1.4bn estate in central London. Its income is approximately £600 million. Its expenditure, I can accurately state, is a little higher than that. Oxford however is reporting a “grave deficit”, according to the university’s Vice-Chancellor, John Hood.

Now we ought to remember that fees are not the only source of revenue for UK or US universities. Much of the income for UK universities comes from organisations such as the Higher Education Funding Council (HEFC), from revenue generated by business spin offs and investments, from donations and alumni, and also from the tax payers; the government. The rest (normally about 30% for the larger universities) comes from fees. The US however has the donations, alumni & endowments income stream down to an art form. Some such as Stanford University have huge endowment funds, worth $17bn (£8.5bn), which makes UCL’s target to raise a further £600 million, using the ‘American model’ look like an exercise in getting spare change.

Universities should be innovative when it comes to finding funding sources, and efficient when it comes to using that money, running themselves, and delivering their services; whether it be world class research and innovation, or teaching to undergraduate and postgraduate students. That is how the market system does, and will continue to work best for universities in the UK. But to suggest fees should be raised to the ‘Ivy League’ level would make the best universities exclusive to only the very wealthy and overseas students, deterring many “hardworking and talented students” from the UK who wouldn’t want to be saddled with huge levels of debt (Quote from Chris Kidman, Head of Sixth Form at St Aidan’s, a comprehensive school in Harrogate, North Yorkshire, in the London Student article of 7th October 2008). This would not only stifle diversity at the universities themselves, but could also have the disastrous adverse effect of lowering standards across further education Colleges, since A level students might no longer see themselves as viable candidates, on cost alone, for our top universities.

Our universities need the money, so regardless of NUS opposition, I hope they raise fees (to a reasonable level), otherwise due to lack of funds they could slip slowly into mediocrity; but lets not raise fees so high that we close the doors of opportunity to British students, thereby draining our universities of an eager, vital and innovative group of people.

By Dominic Tarn.

Give Bankers ASBO’s then all of our problems will be solved.

No seriously this is what the trade unions are suggesting here.

I mean it is just crazy isn’t it? Absolutely crazy, brings a whole new meaning to the word Loony Left.

Only Unions can seriously think it would be a good idea to have higher unemployment!?!?

McCain’s Stance on Health of the Mother

I am aware that this post will go against the normal grain of the blog, being pro-Republican. However after watching the recent debate, some things did stick in my throat more than usual. So I’d like to take this small oppertunity to write a letter to the Republican candidate:

 

Dear McCain,

Please refrain from using airquotes when you refer to the health of a Mother. It’s offensive and I find it slightly disgusting. I also suggest you acquire a uterus before making such bold statements about the apparent ‘extreme pro-choice’.

Yours, Laura.

British Banking Nationalisation?

RIP or get well soon? Let me give you a personal perspective.At the age of 26 in 2001, I arrived in the Czech Republic for a two year secondment with Deloitte. On my first day there, an American boss pulled me into his office to tell me the lay of the land. Amongst other things, he informed me that, in his opinion, the Czech government’s woeful/criminal (?) management of the banking sector had cost every taxpayer the equivalent of a year’s salary.

During the 1990s the Czech government had ‘liberalised’ the banking sector without actually privatising it, therein blocking necessary modernisation of the bloated banks and resulting in (ahem) leniency for politically favoured customers. Naturally, this situation eventually led to a pretty nasty banking/currency crisis in 97/8 followed by several “Austerity” budgets.

Fortunately, the Czech Republic did take firm action to restore confidence in the banking sector – ringfencing distressed assets and selling off the large state-owned banks to reputable foreign banks. On a personal level, it was a great opportunity for me as I worked closely with some of these banks attempting to change the organisational culture and develop the skill set to compete in the free market. At the micro level, here are some of the measures the newly private banks took to improve their efficiency.

- Zero-based budgets (i.e. budgets that are based on what needs to be done rather than what was spent last year)
- Staff training on credit management to improve credit decisions, credit valuation and Workout effectiveness.
- Removed time-servers/blockers
- Encouraged entrepreneurial thinking and customer focus
- Changed back office functions from cost centres to profit centres.
- Improved financial reporting
- Enhanced management information (e.g. KPI suites etc)

Look at the Czech Republic’s economic growth data series

1997 0.3%
1998 -2.3%
1999 0.5%
2000 3.6%
2001 2.5%
2002 1.9%
2003 3.6%
2004 4.5%
2005 6.4%
2006 6.4%
2007 6.5%

One of the main lessons I learnt from my first work experience in Czech was that a properly functioning capital market/banking sector is a pre-requisite for a strong economy – almost more important than anything else. This is why when our government takes major stakes in the four major UK banks (apart from the worrying implications/unintended consequences for the rest of the UK banking sector), immediately I want to hear about the states’ exit/re-privatisation strategy. I haven’t heard a thing. People may like to read and learn from this report. If there is an appetite to get the UK back on its feet it may become very relevant in the nearish future.

The Young Conservative

 

 

I linked briefly to this new website the other day. I really would encourage all those in the young conservative movement to give it a regular read. It is not slavish in its party views, and therefore proviodes a very clear aspect of what a little ‘c’ conservative stands for. It is great to see this website gathering pace and addressing this and offering a variety of features from interviews and pieces of advice. Too often young politico’s are lost in party politics, and it is enormously fresh for a website to devote itself more to ideology than to party lines.

I ask you to give it a read AT WWW.THEYOUNGCONSERVATIVE.CO.UK

Quote of the Day

“To govern is to choose. To appear to be unable to choose is to appear to be unable to govern”

Fmr. Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson

Buckaroo economics

Daniel Cowdrill

I get the feeling that this particular horse has bolted. I talk of course not of an actual horse, but of the financial crisis.

As banks lose confidence in one another and credit is tightened, world demand has started to fall sharply. This means overproduction and mass unemployment. 

Adam Smith very elequently described this process way back in 1776:

“When the quantity brought to market exceeds the effectual demand, it cannot be all sold to those who are willing to pay the whole value of rent, wages, and profit, which must be paid in order to bring it thither…  If at any time it [supply] exceeds the effectual demand, some of the component parts of its price must be paid below their natural rate… If it is wages… the interest of the labourers… will prompt them to withdraw a part of their labour or stock from this employment.” 

In other words, people get made redundant. 

We are beginning to see Smith’s process working its way through. The Economist tells us that the price of raw materials and shipping costs are falling. For example, since the summer the price of steel has fallen by 20-70%, alongside other base metals like Copper and aluminum. Key measures for shipping commodity prices are down such as the Baltic Dry Index, down 85% since May. 

This fall in demand, of which these figures only allow a snap-shot, is starting to create unemployment as businesses cut production. Figures released yesterday show unemployment here in the UK up 164,000 in the three months up to the end of August. By Christmas the number of unemployed is projected to reach 2 million, and by 2010 some analysts predict unemployment will reach some 3 million. 

This horse has certainly bolted, leaving politicians looking a lot like by-standers.

Nancy Reagan Hospitalised

Nancy Reagan is in hospital after a fall at her Bel Air mansion. The Former First Lady and wife of President Ronald Reagan fell and shattered her pelvis after twisting her leg in the night. Now whilst I do not approve of using Mrs Reagan’s accident for political purposes I do feel that McCain could invoke the memory of her husbannd as a timely reminder of the Reagan legacy in his final debate with Barack Obama. Tonight is do or die for McCain if he has any chance of reviving his campaign, however given the state of the economy I think that ship has now sailed, he has to pull out all the big guns and Reagan is one of them.

McCain will obviously make reference to the ‘GOP Sweetheart’ Mrs Reagan and wish her a speedy recovery but I believe he should go one further by reminding the Americans of the problems Reagan faced when he came in to office, the questions about his age that dogged his candidacy etc and remind Americans how he ultimately overcame them to become perhaps the greatest President America has ever seen. Either way BUCF wishes Mrs Reagan a quick recovery and John McCain all the luck in the world as he faces off with Obama for one final time before the election.

A Conservative Victory . . .

In Canada. I am conveying this to you as the UK wakes up, and Canada (where I currently am) is going to sleep, or over in Toronto and Ottawa, after a challenging and energetic election, where most people already are asleep.

The Conservative Party led by Stephen Harper had a total of $19,999,230.62 in order to win re-election from the 33 million people of this vast country, a budget slightly smaller than the parties two main rivals – the Liberals and National Democrat Party (NDP). Canada has 308 seats in its House of Commons, and the Conservatives won 143. Not a majority, for which they would need 155, but certainly an improvement on their previous minority of 127 seats. The Liberals, lead by the French-Canadian, Stephen Dion, only won 77, down from 95. They were the leading party of Canada, until ousted in 2006 during a time of scandal. The people clearly don’t seem to be able to trust them, especially now in this time of economic difficulty.

Bloc Quebecois (a party which only fields candidates in the still fiercely independent Province of Quebec) appeared likely to get 49 seats, the NDP 37 and independent candidates 2.

According to Fred Langan in Toronto, a Daily Telegraph correspondent, the ‘Conservatives feel they will be able to act as if they are majority, since none of the opposition parties will defeat the government and bring on another election.’ It is also unlikely that the Canadian commitment in Afghanistan alongside it’s NATO allies will change due to this election.

For the economy the Conservatives being in power is definitely seen to be good news. The election campaigns seemed focused around “the kitchen table” and the way families will have to cope in the new economic climate, and clearly families and voters put their trust back in Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, and the budget surplus he stressed (created largely by the oil fields of Alberta, the largely Conservative Province Harper comes from) Canada is riding on. Although Canada’s growth rates are not as impressive as the UK, it should be noted, being that they are only 1.25% according to the OECD, compared to Britain’s 2.3%.

The environmental lobbies will see this as less welcome news, since a Carbon Tax being successfully deployed in British Columbia (the Province next to Alberta, containing the City of Vancouver, where the election trails ended, four time zones from the capital, in some of the most hotly contested electoral ridings) will probably not be rolled out to the rest of the country, due to the Conservative’s opposition to it in the election campaign.

For Stephan Dion, the french speaking Liberal Candidate, this is even more of a disaster. This is the lowest percentage of the vote his party has ever won, which was the incumbent party for many years, and therefore his leadership is likely to be challenged in the coming weeks. There was a lot of childish mud-slinging in the election, especially from the Liberals (though the Conservatives, NDP and Green Party weren’t much better), and clearly it didn’t prove effective for the once powerful party. North American elections make those in Europe look like the model of decorum and intellect. Though, with the exception of Sarah Palin, I would have to say the the US campaigns are conducted with much more grace and skill than the Canadian campaigns. It helps that they have much more money and man-power.

Let’s hope this bodes well for the UK. The first G7 country to go to the polls since the start of the financial downturn, and they turn (or rather, remain, but increase) Conservative.

By Dominic Tarn.

***FORMER BUCF MEMBER CAUGHT IN GUARDIAN EXPOSE***

Ok, the headline is a little dramatised a little.

However, active BUCF members will recognise former BUCF Vice President Andy Dunbar, has been caught reading a copy of the Financial Times in The Guardian’s photographic essay of Conservative Party Conference a few weeks ago.

At first it is difficult to recognise Andy, but his I love Birmingham Lanyard and his trademark umbrella clearly give him away.

See the rest of the photos here.

It is great for BUCF members to keep in touch and even more of a pleasure to see them exceeding in the world after life at University.

Andy is certainly no exception to this rule, having graduated last year with a degree in Law he now is devoting his time to improving the city of Birmingham by working in City Council Leader, Mike Whitby’s office.

Obama & Bush

The Obama campaign has unfairly levelled accusations throughout the election season that a John McCain presidency would amount to a Bush third term. Now whilst I deplore scare tactics such as this which defy reality, I believe it is time to look at the links between Obama and Bush and see whether or not Obama is the ‘fresh start’ his campaign claims he will be. Whilst there are a number of areas of agreement between Bush and Obama I am going to focus on a few in particular: The Economy, Gay Marraige, Off shore drilling, National Security FISA and Guns.

The Economy- despite being a fierce critic of Bush’s economic record and using it to his campaigns benefit, Obama actually voted forall of Bush’s budgets which included tax cuts and over 19 spending bills. Similarly Bush has consistently pushed for drilling offshore in order to help the ailing economy and reduce dependency on foreign oil. Obama, who until recently opposed it, now says he’s for it. In Nashville, Tennessee, he told an audience: “We’re going to have to explore new ways to get more oil, and that includes offshore drilling”

Gay Marriage- Obama and Bush agree that marriage is and should remain between a man and a woman. As far back as 2004, Obama said: “Gays should not marry.” And in a Senate debate, he said: “I agree with most Americans, with Democrats and Republicans, with Vice President Cheney, with over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage, as they always have, should be left to the states. Personally, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman” So if gays were hoping Obama would be more supportive of their cause than McCain… think again!

National Security and FISA- Again despite his rhetoric of living under Bush’s ‘big brother’ state, Obama voted yes on preauthorizing the much ballyhooed Patriot Act, as sought by the Bush administration. Similarly the Senate bill (FISA) that rewrote intelligence laws to grant immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in the wiretapping program was supported by Obama despite his initial opposition. In regards to FISA:

Bush said “This vital intelligence bill will allow our national security professionals to quickly and effectively monitor the plans of terrorists outside the United States, while respecting the liberties of the American people.” 

Obama said ”Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike while respecting the rule of law and liberties of the American people”

Sound farmiliar?! All in all it is quite plain to see that Obama’s campaign rhetoric does not stand up to his Capitol Hill record. The point is no one knows what they are getting with Barack Obama. He is untried, untested, a talker not a do-er and I would rather, in these uncertain times, have someone who has the experience, has the courage and has the record to steer America and the world through these uncertain times. People say they want change. They will get it with John McCain, but with Obama its all talk. McCains record clearly shows he can reach across the aisle, he opposed Bush on a number of issues and both he and his running mate have outed corruption in their own parties. Sadly I feel Obama will win for one reason: the economy.

Politicians are hardly innocent…

Daniel Cowdrill

To get an idea of where the current crisis of capitalism started life, simply type ”Subprime+bank+Chapter 11″ into an American news search engine. Having done this you should discover about 50 medium sized mortgage lenders who were forced to file for bankruptcy between August 2006 and August 2007. Many of these had been lending money to subprime borrowers, that is, people with a higher chance of defaulting on their re-payments. One such bank was American Home mortgages (AHM) which filed for bankruptcy in August 2007 after their own creditors started to demand their money back. 

However, we should be circumspect about blaming greedy, fat-cat executives. In fact this band of mortgage lenders were encouraged to lend to subprime borrowers by politicians, no less. 

To cut a long story short, The Community Re-investment Act (1977) put a stop to banks making lending decisions that would prejudice the subprime sector. And in 1995, the Act was streamlined to make it easier for subprime borrowers to prove their credit-worthiness, such as attending credit-counselling sessions. 

So, banks were legislatively encouraged to prime the subprime pump, and the liabilities were relayed up the banking chain. On the top of a very shaky pile, JPMorgan and Chase, Credit Suisse, Bank of America, Lehman Brother’s and Freddie Mac were all exposed to the failure of mortgage lenders like AHM. This is not to mention the UK’s Northern Rock which had borrowed heavily from American financial markets.

Consequently, to blame greedy bankers entirely would be an incomplete verdict. If one traces the current financial crisis back it has politician’s grubby fingerprints all over it.

Iron Lady turns 83

Today Former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher celebrates her 83rd Birthday. So to mark the occasion BUCF, renowned for its unswering loyalty to the Iron Lady, is devoting the days blogging entirely to her (well… whats new!? :P) The videos below were taken 25 years ago today to mark Lady Thatcher’s 58th Birthday. The first video in particular highlights the humanity and kindness that runs through the core of Mrs Thatcher, something which didn’t always come across so easily politically but was well documented privately. On behalf of everyone at BUCF and many millions of people around the world: Happy Brithday Lady Thatcher and we all wish you many more happy returns of the day!

The second part of the video can be found here