BUCF has once again smashed all records, a month which has seen the debt of the nation double, the arrest of an MP for trying to speak the truth and the US Presidential Election has also seen BUCF beat it’s previous record for amount of hits that we have hit.
From our lovely little image abaove, I am sure you can guess we have gone over 10′000, what an excellent example of the power of the New Media for my presentation tomorrow.
Jimmy McLoughlin is the area chair for Birmingham, Soilhul and Coventry
This is not going to be just any Thatcher rant…. this one is relevant in light of recent weeks events. It is no secret that power in Britain rests almost exclusively with the government of the day, oppositions seek it, governments hoard it. Before Labour came to power their rhetoric defended civil liberty, now they have been in power for over a decade they have acted in such authoritarian ways that the future of civil liberty is being seriously called in to question. It is readily accepted that there has been a ‘Thatcherite’ consensus on economic matters that mean all the three main parties sing from a similar hymnsheet. Despite recent blips that battle is won. But there is one battle that remains to be fought, a battle in which the Conservatives can revive the spectre of Margaret Thatcher to great effect.
This is in the battle for the freedom of the individual. There have been many criticisms levelled at Margaret Thatcher and her methods but one theme consistently supported and respected is Thatchers staunch defence of the liberty of the individual. Thatchers defence of the indvidual over her 11 year premiership is clear, whether it be fighting for the slaves of communism or the people of the far off Falklands, allowing people to buy their own for perhaps the first time, fighting the fat cat union bosses who held the country and indeed their members to ransom, or using the battle of ideas to defeat communism and socialism which had all but bankrupted global economies, Thatcher fought for and defended the liberty of people the world over. Yet her successors have failed to do so with the same vigour.
Under New Labour, which for all its social rhetoric is regarded as our most authoritarian to date, our civil and individual liberties are for perhaps the first time in living memory being seriously called in to question. In October 2006 it was reported that Britain has an estimated five million CCTV cameras, one for every 12 citizens, comprising a fifth of the world’s cameras. Given that Britain occupies only 0.2 per cent of the world’s inhabitable land mass, that is quite an achievement! Add to that the folly of Labour’s identity cards scheme, the 1000 extra MI5 officers, the wildly expansionist plans for a DNA database, the abhorrent arrest of Damian Green MP by 9 counter terrorism police, terror detention without charge to 42 days and a recent decision to allow virtually every public body across the land access to citizens’ telephone records, and a picture is emerging of a state out of control.
However Labour control-freakism doesn’t stop there. Street protests are now frequently banned, and where they do take place, even the most uncontroversial ones are ostentatiously filmed by the police to add to their ‘records’. Countless New Labour Home Secretarys have, among other things, sought to remove sentencing powers from judges; weaken safeguards for those accused of criminal offences; remove the right of jury trial; criminalise asylum seekers; and form a national gendarmerie. Now I am all for strong government but New Labour is blatantly authoritarian bordering on fascism. The worst part is they hide their wicked deeds behind a devalued currency of ’social action’ and ’society’.
The fact is society has gone to the dogs under Labour. Britain is broken and arguably for the first time people are actually beginning to feel scared of the execcessive influence and control this government appears to be taking on our lives. What started off as a ‘New Labour project’ is fast becoming a regime. Cameron and the Conservatives have this government on the ropes, as the latest 15% lead indicates, all we have to do now is show some true Thatcherite conviction and stand up and fight for the liberty and freedom of the individual and we’re on for a landslide. So one post-Thatcher battle remains to be fought between those who value individual rights and those who wish to sacrifice them on the altar of the state. When the hammerstroke of history falls I hope we find ourselves on the right side.
“Let me remind the honourable gentleman that he would not have the freedom of speech which he puts to such execellent use… unless there had been people prepeared to fight for it!”
On November 28th 1990 the world watched in disbelief as Margaret Thatcher, a woman whos grip on power seemed so unshakable, left Downing Street with tears in her eyes. The Iron Lady had been toppled in the most unceremonious of fashions and she left behind a party at war with itself, a war with which we are only just coming to terms. As Ken Clarke, one of her bitterest opponents at the time said many years later ‘If I was doing an academic thesis I would say that the problems the Conservative party have faced in the last decade come from the fall of Margaret Thatcher and the circumstances’. Clarke and many of those who pushed her from power now, in hindsight, recognise it was a disastorous mistake which would result in a decade of opposition and infighting. Her fall left a bitterness and poison within the party that we have still failed to come to terms with.
But ultimately today is Thatchers day and a time to look back and reflect on the end of a remarkable premiership. And nothing became Margaret Thatcher’s prime ministership more than her leaving of it. The last big performance of her premiership, delivered on the 23rd November, was a commanding one; a dying aria that played to a packed and enchanted House. Few have commanded the same intrigue, the same love and indeed the same hatred as Margaret Thatcher. Yet few have left office with such innumerable accomplishments to their name.
The first woman leader of the opposition, the first woman Prime Minister, the longest serving Prime Minister since Salisbury, 3 general election victories including 2 landslides, record lows of inflation, record share and property ownership, a revolutionary figure who transformed Britain’s stagnant economy, tamed the unions, fought for the people of the Falklands, contributed to ending the Cold War and re-established Britain as a world power again. These are but a few of Margaret Thatchers accomplishments and they like her failings are part of her life and record. You can love or loathe Margaret Thatcher but you cannot be indifferent to her. Today marks a momentous day in Britains political history. 18 years to the day after she left office she is regarded by many millions of people as Britains greatest ever peacetime Prime Minister and her name still looms large over British political debate. But ultimately, despite the ravings of her dilluded detractors, Thatchers legacy is clear: She saved the nation and redefined the paradigms of political debate.
I and many others within the party and indeed the country were, are and will ever remain utterly devoted to her for the courage and conviction she showed during some of the darkest and most trying times in our history. Her message and her reforms were tough and sadly greatness and controversy will always go hand in hand. Abaraham Lincoln paid for doing what was right for his country with his life, Thatcher has paid for it with her reputation in some parts of the country but history has proven her right. That is enough. Today we mark the passing of an extraordinary chapter in British political history determined to remember and respect a most remarkable woman.
I have thought long and hard about how I can express my anger and frustration at the current economic situation in the UK and the ridiculous plans ‘our government’ have put forward to sort it out. I have always felt that they would lead this country to economic ruin in true, not New, Labour tradition and am even more confident of that fact today. However as always I looked to history to help me find a way to express my opinion on this situation and once again found wisdom and support in the words of my favourite US President: Ronald Reagan. The video below was delivered on the day of Reagans first inaguration. I would advise everyone to listen to the speech and pay heed to the implict warnings it contains which are never more apt than today.
Once again New Labour are breaking their own rules. This time the target is their own pledge “not to raise the basic or top rate of income tax” which went into not just one, but three successive manifestos and survived the transition from Tony Blair to Gordon Brown. In his pre budget report Darling is expected to announce a new 45p income tax rate on those earning more than £150,000 a year which will undoubtedly ruffle a few feathers. Furthermore he will announce a fiscal stimulus of up to £20 billion which will be subsidised by you guessed it: higher public borrowing. By increasing state borrowing from 70 to £120billion to rescue the economy from the downturn, as well as breaking his long-held vows on not increasing income tax, Brown and Darling have torn up their own rule book once again to stake their political future on their economic leadership, which at best is oppourtunist.
I believe this latest stunt shows he has been taking one to many lessons from Barack Obama. New Labour once prided itself on embracing the wealthy and the middle classes, indeed in many ways their ‘Prawn cocktail’ offensive which wooed City Fat Cats was why they won the 1997 election, however now, watching Obama win a landslide promising to tax the rich to kingdom come, Brown is tearing up his own rules for the sake of his political future. What makes me believe that this is nothing more than an electoral stunt is because by aiming his tax hikes at the rich the Tories are faced with a starke choice: defend the rich and risk being labelled elitist (when really all we want to do is reward not penalise success!) or back it and risk alienating a large swathe of middle england, the wealthy and their own backbenches and grassroots. Furthermore this extra tax burden would not come in to play until 2010 which is likely to be the year of the election. Very clever Mr Brown.
This season the Conservative Future Social Action Network has re-introduced the Christmas Hamper Project, which was successfully launched for the first time last year. The project looks closer to home and gives those people who are less fortunate a special Christmas. This is our way of making a charitable contribution to our local community as well as keeping the needy in our thoughts and prayers during this holy season. So how does it work? Well it’s simple yet highly effective, Anastasia Beaumont-Bott (the CFSAN National Coordinator) would like us to fill up hampers with all sorts of goodies and donate them either to the Salvation Army or to an organisation of our choice.
I want to bring the project to Birmingham again this year so that as well as showing our commitment to the community, we can begin to make long-lasting relationships with local charities who carry a great burden, especially during this festive season and the difficult economic times. Last year Jimmy McLoughlin led the project in Birmingham successfully and donated the hampers to the Salvation Army, as did the other CF branches, however this year we will personally donate the hampers to a local charity.
I’ve chosen to donate the hampers to St Basils, which is a local charity that works with young people who have been forced to leave home because of various pressures. These young people become homeless and in many ways lifeless. St Basils helps to give the young people hope in order to find their ways in life by taking them off the streets and changing their lives forever. It is so heart-rending that these young people have to face such hard times when they should be enjoying their childhood or teenage years and spending Christmas alongside their families. But we can be their families this Christmas by giving them a special gift and with it love and hope for the future ahead of them. For more information about St Basils I would urge you to visit their website on www.stbasils.org.uk.
There are a host of decisions that we need to make before we undergo this project but if we plan our time efficiently we can certainly get the project completed within a week. This means that I am asking for dedication and commitment from the BUCF members who will choose to be on the team.
So…now it is over to you! If you are keen to be involved in this project please contact me as soon as you can so that I can finalise names and numbers, and then we shall proceed. I am really looking forward to working on this project and I hope to hear from you soon!
The Conservative Party has, in recent years, made ‘Social Action Projects’ a key priority in keeping with their compassionate Conservative agenda. BUCF has always prided itself on keeping abreast of developments within the political and social world and it is in this light that we have decided to create the role of ‘Social Action Officer’ on the BUCF committee. The role of the Social Action Officer, as the title suggests, is to liase with the BUCF Local Officer, local assosciations and the BUCF Committee to encourage BUCF’s active participation in any social action projects that are presented to us.
I am delighted to announce that this role will be fulfilled by BUCF member and local Conservative activist Sahar Rezazadeh. Sahar is a keen, popular and committed activist for the Conservative party and I know she will be a fine addition to the committee. Sahar has published this short bio for our readers to get to know her a bit better which will shortly be added to the Committee page. I wish Sahar the best of luck and I know the committee and the members will look forward to her exciting new ideas.
Sahar is currently in her second year of Political Science. Her loyalty to the Conservative cause started at the age of 12 as the Conservative candidate in the school mock elections. In 2006, Sahar was elected as one of the five Members of the UK Youth Parliament for Birmingham. As a result, she went on to dedicate tremendous time to youth issues and is now an inspiration for young people to become more actively involved in their communities. Sahar has worked with many charities and organisations in the past including Save the Children, St Basils, Peace Child International and the UPF to mention but a few. She wants to ensure that BUCF is the most active branch in leading on Social Action Projects because ‘everything starts at the grass-roots’
Last night I ventured up Oak Hill Tree Road, to listen to a Birmingham post graduate student, who along with studying the intricacies of Chemistry (couldn’t do it at GCSE let alone postgrad!) gives small seminars to tomorrow’s entrepreneurs.
The discussion was on Wikinomics, which is a book that was launched in 2006, it is based on four main ideas Openness, Peering, Sharing, and Acting Globally.
The word wiki originates from the Hawaiian word for fast (see learn some everything day don’t you!?)
Essentially the idea is the biggest latest companies share a huge amount of their information, we go to use their products to share our ideas.
Examples include; google, facebook, ebay, Amazon and well I guess even WordPress!!
It was stressed to us that this is the way to move forward, it seems like a bit of a fusion between capitalism and socialism. Everyone makes a profit type of ideal.
I think perhaps the wikipedia page on wikinomics sums the book up and the ideas best when it quotes Choice Magazine and says ‘perhaps it presents an optimistic overview of successful collaborations and business ventures’ and ‘more consideration [to] the darker sides of human motivation’
It certainly was a very interesting talk and promoted quite a few ideas in my head. I will perhaps at a later date go into explaining the intricacies at a later date.
Thank you to the guys at BuildEnterprise for putting this on. It was there first event, the idea of the company is to try and get young entrepreneurs meeting from a young age. It definitely was a fascinating experience and one which has provoked a few thoughts!
Jimmy McLoughlin – Area Chairman of Birmingham, Coventry and Solihull.
It just doesn’t fit does it? The Republic of Britain? The Republic of England? These titles seem neither plausable nor desirable. Last week, with the 60th brithday of Prince Charles, the role of the Monarchy and its future was once again thrown to the fore. In response to an official picture published by BUCF to mark the day the esteemed chair of BULS, Tom Guise, came forth and dismissed the monarchy as irrelevant and claimed that as a nation we do not need it. I disagree with this absurd notion for reasons I shall put forth.
Impartiality – It is one of the great strengths of the current British system of government, that we retain an impartial and long serving Head of State. A Head of State who posesses little ‘real’ power but commands more respect, loyalty, affection and intrigue than any other Head of State in the world. Our monarch is a Head of State that can work with and advise any and every goverment elected by the people regardless of party affiliation. Sometimes I have to keep remindinng Republicans not everything has to be about greed and power as they seem to think. A Head of State doesn’t have to be constitutionally powerful to have power.
Experience and Advice - We know that whatever government we elect we will always have a Head of State willing to work with the government of the day and one who brings to bear a formidable breadth of experience which is vital when you face certain global and domestic challenges.What ever the challenge you can be sure that they have seen it and faced it before. They have been privy to sensistive information and have conversed directly with the Prime Minister of the day who handled said crisis. This kinf od indepth insider knowledge is vital. What is even more important is you, as Prime Minister, can be candid even frank with the monarch sure in the knowledge what you say will never pass beyond the 4 walls. You can let the immense burden of government off your chest and tell the Head of State exactly what is going on in the country without fear of what you say being splurged to the press.
Continuity – In times of crisis, or in a world that seems to be changing daily and not always for the better. It is reassuring to know that we have a Head of State who has occupied the same throne for decades. Its almost as if the monarchy is our reminder of better days gone by, a farmiliar point of reference to which we can all rally round in times of national triumph or tradgedy. That is what a Head of State should be, something or someone we can all get behind regardless of political preference, gender, religion, wealth, colour or creed. Someone we can united behind as British people. Anyone can wield power, very few can bring us together as a nation.
Image – Whatever you may think of our monarchy it does have an image second to none on the world stage. The Queen attracts larger crowds and generates more excitement and intrigue than any other Head of State in the world. Now Barack Obama has been thrown around a bit lately as an example of another Head of State that can match if not beat the Queen, but let me remind everyone Tony Blair once possessed that same kind of glitz and glamour, the difference with the monarchy is that its glitz, glamour and intrigue is tried and tested. The Queen has commanded the same kind of excitement and respect for 56 years and Im sure will continue to do so for a long time to come.
No Alternative – The most fundamental point as to why we need the monarchy is this: what is the alternative? A Republic? Oh great another overly powerful, overly ambitious, self seeking unpopular politician at the helm. Republicans can ramble on as much as they like but the overwhelming majority of this nation,latest estimate 80%, would not dream about giving politicians any more power at the minute, they can barely manage what they have! Poll after poll suggests that whilst they may disagree with the notion of ‘inherited status’ they agree that there is no desirable or viable alternative.
To sum up I will say this… Democracy is a fine thing. If our monarchy in anyway infringed our democracy I would be all for its modernisation. It doesn’t. What it is, is a system that is tried and tested and whats more is it constant which cannot be underestimated. Republicans by and large have a vested and selfish interest in power, greed and centralisation. They fail to see the benefits of this unqiue institution because it is pretty much constitutionally powerless. They fail to see that the love, respect, intrigue and affection it inspires is real power. Real power isn’t about what you can do, its about what you do with what you’ve got.
What’s more I don’t know about the rest of you but the concept of a President Gordon Brown stumbling on to the world stage… his hair and tie askew… the democratically elected President of the British people… scares the shit out of me. Give me the Queen, with her dignity, eloquence, stature and style anyday over that bumbling oaf. Aside from all their immense contributions to national life they bring to bear an invaluable bit of glitz and glamour to an otherwise gloomy nation. If we lose that which makes us distinct as a nation we become indistinct and I hope that in years to come when the future of the monarchy may come in to serious question, people will remember that fact.
(I defy anyone to watch the video below in full and not got a lump in the back of your throat!)
While Gordon Brown focuses on the international causes of the recession and the international solutions, he shouldn’t be allowed off the hook at home. We were told, were we not, that there would be “no return to boom and bust”? Yet ‘boom and bust’ is exactly what the Government has presided over.
It was this Government that sat by and allowed Northern Rock to take out massive credit lines to US banks and offer 125% mortgages. Even as fifty US mortgage lenders filed for bankruptcy over 2006/2007, the Government here did nothing, despite the UK market’s exposure.
Brown failed to take seriously a report published by the IMF in March 2007, which forewarned about the UK’s specific vulnerability. Crucially, the report warned about the mortgage sector’s dependence on the wholesale market, and concluded that “given growing cross-country linkages, global risks are particularly important to the UK financial system, more for their potential severity than for their likelihood of being realised.”
Meanwhile analysts were sounding the alarm bells. Christopher Wood, chief strategist at CLSA, warned that ”Some institutions have been behaving like leveraged speculators rather than banks… The UK economy is heading for a sharp shock. It just remains to be seen how bad.”
Warnings unheeded, Northern Rock’s subsequent nationalisation increased the UK national debt to 43.4% of GDP, breaking the government’s own fiscal rules and almost taking us back to the level of debt in 1997. This year could also show the biggest annual government defecit since records began, in excess of the £51 billion racked up in 1993.
The UK banking crisis, precipitated by ineffective regulation and compounded by the collapse of Northern Rock, has resulted in a credit squeeze that is seriously effecting unemployment levels, now the highest since 1997 and rising.
-
In response to the ‘bust’ that wasn’t supposed to happen but did, the Government may opt for a Keynesian spending spree. However the Conservatives are right to urge caution given the immense strain that the public finances are under.
When one adds about £40-50 billion for the nationalisation of Bradford and Bingley, £50 billion in recapitalisation packages, plus the payment of compensation to Icelandic bank depositors, we come to a national debt in excess of £700 billion, or 50% of GDP. We have not seen a figure this big since the last Labour government was forced to borrow from the IMF in 1977.
Given this, we should perhaps avoid a large scale fiscal stimulus. Big cyclical tax cuts or spending increases now would undermine stability and growth later on. David Cameron’s short -term, targeted tax cuts are probably required, or maybe a temporary reduction in VAT to increase consumer demand. Other than this, the Bank of England’s sharp cut in interest rates will stimulate growth over the medium term. However, throwing cash all over the place is not what to do.
The BBC has revealed that Barack Obama’s new not so secret code name is Renegade.
They also say . . . Previous code names have included: Passkey for President Gerald Ford; Rawhide for President Ronald Reagan; Deacon for President Jimmy Carter; and Angler for Vice-President Dick Cheney.
So as a bit of fun who can come up with a code name for:
This will shock many of our readers however I must break my silence on this issue: I do not believe tax cuts are the answer to the current crisis. Lately it seems like the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberals are at pains to be seen as the tax cutters… Cameron proposed slashing National Insurance for all employers who hire someone who has been out of work for three years, the Liberals are proposing to slash 4p from the basic rate of income tax while Gordon Brown used his Downing Street press conference to pledge a significant tax cut in the autumn budget statement due to be made next week.
Whilst in normal circumstances I would whole heartedly endorse tax cuts, after all we have been taxed more under this government than any other in British history and substantial cuts need to be made in due course, however these are not normal circumstances. The most pressing question in my mind, and a question that has been picked up by some commentators, is where is this money for these cuts coming from? Now to be fair out of all the proposed plans Camerons is the only viable and realistic one. Surpise suprise. However I disagree that even his plan will be of any real long term benefit to the economy.
However what concerns me most is the fact that Gordon Brown has indicated that any ‘financial stimulus’ would not automatically mean a cut in state expenditure to compensate. What planet does this man live on?! Has he learned nothing from this crisis?! So if hes going to cut taxes… and hes not going to alter government spending levels… where is the money coming from?… oh yes… MORE BORROWING! Gordon Browns economic incomptence has never been clearer. After taxing and spending taxing and spending and contributing to bring the British economy to its knees… hes going to try to get us out of the mess… by borrowing and spending. He just doesn’t learn does he?
In 1979 Margaret Thatcher inherited a crippled and bankrupt economy from Labour. In order to revive it she had to raise taxes, this policy whilst initially unpopular worked and the rest is history. Her tough decisions, which on the surface stand at odds with traditional Tory tax cut rhetoric, needed to happen if we were to stand any chance of economic recovery. Gordon Brown needs to take a long hard look at history. Britain and the wider worlds finances are not an endless pot. You cannot buy friends. If you are the conviction politician you say you are you will take a lesson from real conviction politicians like Thatcher. You won’t do what is popular, you will do what is neccessary. Tax cuts funded by even more borrowing is not the answer.
‘We used to think that you could spend your way out of a recession and increase employment by cutting taxes and boosting government spending. I tell you in all candour that that option no longer exists’ Former Prime Minister James Callaghan
BUCF Local Officer Dom Fisher has just informed us that he recently bumped into a post-graduate student (Scott Charlesworth) from Birmingham Uni who informed him that he has received funding for developing a hub for tomorrow’s entrepreneurs. Apparently Scott is hosting a series of free events in the Bohemia Café Bistro in Selly Oak which may be of interest to our readers. ‘Build Enterprise’ holds monthly events on business and economic matters with the next meeting being held at the Bohemia Cafe Bistro (23 Oak Tree Lane, opposite Blockbuster) on Monday 17th November entitled: wikinomincs – The future of business. These events are free and include a buffet, however the organisers do ask that you sign up in advance so they know how many to expect. All those who do wish to attend should email: events@buildenterprise.co.uk or alternatively should visit the website for further information.
Before todays Prime Ministers Questions I looked at Gordon Brown as a shrewd but ultimately manipulative political operator who would sell his soul for political advancement, however today after his outrageous behaviour in regard to Camerons legitimate concerns regarding the ‘Baby P’ case, I realise just how cynical and contemptible our Prime Minister and his party really are.
After finding myself moved and intrigued by Camerons legitimate concern regarding the appalling Baby P case, I found myself filled with a new emotion following Gordon Brown’s typically elusive responses: rage. This rage resulted in me shouting obscentities at the TV screen particularly after he accused Cameron of playing party politics over this harrowing issue.
The fact is that this case higghlights just how contemptable and incompetent Labour really are. The Labour controlled Haringey Council is the local authority in charge of the ‘Baby P’ case and Cameron rightly attacked it and its procedures because it was the authority responsible for the care of Baby P, who died in brutal circumstances despite 60 visits by health and social care workers over an eight-month period.
What makes this situation even more important was the fact that it comes so soon after another disastorous failure on the part of the same authority which resulted in the unneccessary death of Victoria Climbie. To add insult to injury it is doubtful if any justice will be served as the head of the investigation in to the latest failure is none other than Sharon Shoesmith, the chairwoman of the Haringey safeguarding children board. So somehow she is expected to investigate and criticise her own department impartially?!
Cameron was entirely right to focus on this issue as it ties in perfectly with his social policy which encourages more responsibility and accountability. However as is typical with the Labour government responsibility and accountibility are not first and foremost on their agenda. It is them not us who are playing party politics and it is them who should be duly ashamed of themselves and their MP’s abhorrent behaviour today.
Truth is if anyone is playing party politics it is Brown. Perhaps someone had a guilty conscience? Perhaps he realised that it is the contemptable social indifference of the Labour party that has led to these circumstances to arise… perhaps he ‘jumped before he was pushed’ before Cameron exposed the fact that it was a Labour led council that allowed this travesty to happen… again.
David Cameron has seemingly taken a swipe at the policies of Margaret Thatcher’s government today, without actually directly naming the Former Premier herself. Cameron appeared to repudiate past Conservative government approaches to unemployment by claiming that a Conservative government of today and tomorrow would not ’stand by and do nothing’ as unemployment rose.
In a clever and typically charismatic speech Cameron identified the fact the even as an economy recovers, the recovery process for those who were left unemployed by the recession takes much longer. He claimed “We know from past experience that when people are laid off in a recession, the impact often lasts past the slump, even into recovery. Cyclical unemployment becomes structural unemployment. There’s a clever term for this – hysteresis – but at its heart it’s a very human story.”
I am unsuprised that Cameron has called the Thatcher government to account for its ‘laisez faire’ attitude to unemployment, after all it is popular to do so. However fundamentally he is playing a very shrewd political game which needs to be understood. By claiming unemployment will be one of his top priorities he is tapping in to the concious of the electorate and painting a very positive, distinctly individual image of himself.
On the one hand his comments today mark a clear break from the party’s Thatcherite past, without going so far as to criticise the Lady herself who is even now held in enormously high regard by grass roots Tories and Shadow Ministers alike, whilst on the other hand his message ties in perfectly to his core campaign message of social responsibility and renewal. The fact remains that many Britons feel that Britain has ‘gone to the dogs’ under New Labour and yearn for the kind of radical social revolution Cameron promises.
I must admit on a purely personal level I do not believe it is the governments primary job to ensure unemployment remains low. I believe that that is up to the individual, the free market and the employers. I believe a governments job is to foster and encourage capitalism, free trade, commerce and investment whilst ensuring taxes, inflation and state intervention remain low. Moderate unemployment for me is more often than not a neccessary evil to be endured to see these primary objectives achieved.
Having said this I do understand and support Camerons desire to move beyond our past and present our future to the public. We have to show that we can adapt our policies to suit the problems which face us now the way we faced them then. Cameron must make Britains broken society his number one priority. He, like Thatcher, needs to take tough decisions to ensure that he can enact his ’social revolution’ the way she enacted her economic one… even if that means bashing the policies of his party predecessors.
I’m aware this isn’t strictly political, and strays slightly from the recent theme of blogs, but forgive me. It’s something I am fairly annoyed about.
A few days ago The Daily Mail posted a hideous article by Liz Jones on why women shouldn’t get tattoos. She delicately and profoundly talks about them as ‘tramp stamps’, saying such utterly ridiculous things as:
“They are a mark of temporary insanity, instantly turning the classiest, chicest woman into trailer trash. Not for nothing are they known as ‘tramp stamps’.”
Yes Liz. As women’s greatest goal and biggest achievement is to look classy and chic.
By the way, the picture at the top happens to by my own ‘tramp stamp’, and one of 5 I have, all very dear to me.
My main issue with this article is firstly, that Liz Jones obviously and vocally find tattoos on women hideous and distasteful, yet she does not mention once her opinion of tattoos on men. Clearly she thinks women’s duty is to look pretty and proper whilst men may do whatever they wish to their body.
Secondly, her main problem for the increasing number of people with tattoos is making them a fashion statement rather than an ‘act of rebellion’. Which presumes the only reason someone would have a tattoo would be to rebel. Not to, say, commemorate an important time in their life, or an important person, to remind themselves of the journeys and experiences they’ve been through, or infact for any other reason because it’s their own bloody body.
Whose business is it if a woman tattoos herself? We have no obligation to society to be ‘chic’ or ‘classy’.
Posted by BUCF Editor 
Posted by BUCF Editor 
Posted by BUCF Editor 
