BUCF Social Action Update- The Christmas Hamper Project

Since my appointment to the BUCF committee as the Social Action Officer I have been immediately very keen to get the ball rolling and engage in social work for our community. This festive season BUCF re-introduced the Christmas Hamper Project. Last year it was launched for the first time and led my Jimmy McLoughlin whereby the hampers were donated to The Salvation Army. However, this year I took the decision to donate the hampers to St Basils, a Birmingham-based charity that works with homeless young people. I’ve worked with this charity before and also took part in the sleep-out last year. Below is a film about St Basil’s and the important work that they do for Birmingham:

Although there are still some donations pending, I was able to raise funds through generous contributions from fellow Conservatives, family and friendship circles as well as through a carol singing evening. I then got in contact with St Basil’s to find out what the young people would benefit from this season and drew up a shopping list including toiletries for males and females as well as baby necessities. There were three types of hampers for the mothers and their babies, for the young boys and for the young girls. I spent an evening putting the hampers together and with a bit of creativity making them look festive.

On Christmas Eve, I felt like Father Christmas without the white beard as I went delivering the hampers to 4 different hostels spread across the city. Meeting with the staff and young people of this charity was a great opportunity to hear more about their work and the experiences of the young people.

Dominic Fisher and I at the Gillott Road hostel delivering their hamper to staff.

Mother and baby with hamper.

Young boys at Milner Court receive their hampers!

From left: Alex, Bernadette and myself holding the hampers for the young people that Bernadette manages.

Giving is a core element of this festive season and I’m glad that BUCF have fulfilled this obligation but, for my part, charitable contributions are not just for Christmas so I thoroughly look forward to working with St Basils and other charities in the New Year 2009! 

Have a Happy New Year All and Best Wishes for 2009!

Grief in Gaza

I doubt there is anyone who saw the devastation inflicted upon Gaza in recent days and didn’t empathise with those who are living, suffering and grieveing in these appalling circumstances. As with any conflict the price paid in blood is predominantly civilian and what makes this situation even more sad is that it falls upon the festive period - a time which is traditionally meant to represent peace and reconcilliation. Unfortunately this situation reminds us all too actuely of the dangerous world in which we live. Sadly the Arab-Israeli conflict has for the past 60 years pushed the borders of rationality on more times than I care to recall, this situation is no different.

Now it is no secret I am a great defender of the state of Israel. The fundamental problem I have with the Palestinian leadership and Hamas lies in their arrogant and point blank refusal to recognise Israels right to exist and their seeming contempt for human life. However that does not mean that I entirely condone the actions of the Israeli armed forces and government. I recognise the Israelis could show more restraint. I recognise the Palestinians have legitimate grievances. It was indeed Arab land that was partitioned and used to form the state of Israel and if the boot was on the other foot I might be tempted to react with equal passion and anger at the Israeli ‘occupation’ of ‘my’ land. Sadly history is full of ‘injustices’  but I prefer to deal with the world as it is today, not how it was yesterday. Hamas need to recognise it was their land, it isn’t now and ultiamtely never will be. We once had an empire, We don’t now.

The world has moved on. Israel does exist and has done for more than half a century. It has grown in such economic and military strength that any naieve hope of  simply ‘erasing it from history’ are completely out of the question. As it should be. The Israelis have as much of a right to exist as the Palestinians and thus both sides need to realise if they are ever going to achieve peace they need to compromise. Israel has shown it is willing to compromise and has ceded some areas back to Palestinian control. Despite the common critique that it is the Israelis who are the roadblock to reform and peace, I believe the blame for these attrocities lies entirely with the Palestinian militants.

Indeed there are many out there who will blame this crisis entirely on the Israelis based entirely on the casualities. They will claim that Israel has over reacted, that they are bullying and, most gravely of all, mudering innocent Palestinians. Now it is true Israel has a reputation of being intolerant in the face of agression. History has clearly shown  that they aren’t afraid to use force to defend themselves. But I ask you all to remember that that is precisely what they are doing: defending themselves.

The fact remains that if you want someone to blame look to the Palestinian militants who have been bombarding Israel with rockets fire for years. In this situation, as with the war in Lebanon a few years back, much of the world is likely to look upon the violence gripping Gaza and once again assess it simply as a numbers game: How many Palestinians were killed versus how many Israelis? Based on such a crude analysis, one could only assume that Israel is wholly guilty of the charges once again being lobbed against it of acting with disproportionate responses and heavy-handedness. Israel has lost relatively few people through the Palestinian rocket fire whereas the Israeli response as always will yeald a much higher death toll on Palestinians.

The problem with analysing a conflict based on numbers of casulaties and deaths is that it is entirely dismissive of the facts on the ground. Yes, in the years that Palestinian terrorists have been lobbing missiles at Israeli civilian targets, a total of 15-20 Israeli lives have been lost which compared to the number of Palestinian dead could seem a comparatively small number. But this analysis is ignoring the reality that every one of the more than 7,000 rockets fired was launched with the intent to kill, maim and destroy lives. Each had the potential to do just that and it is only sheer luck that forced most of those murderous weapons away from human targets.

While media reports give the impression of a battle being fought between two sides- Israel’s army and Palestinian terrorists, let it be clear that Israel’s only objective in this campaign is to defend her citizens. There are no militants in the Israeli coast towns such as Sderot- no people launching missiles at Gaza or threatening holy war against Muslims or the Palestinian population. Quite the contrary, the people whose homes and lives are being destroyed by Kassam rockets are unassuming family men and women. They are children who often have little comprehension why their school days are being constantly interrupted by the horrific sounds of a shrill siren warning them that they have less than fifteen seconds to reach safety. These are the targets of the Hamas and Fatah terrorists- nothing more and nothing less: The innocent.

The Palestinian militants are the ‘wreckers in our midst’. They seek to use bully boy tactics to provoke Israel in to response. And make no qualms of this: Israel will respond. She has the sovereign right to defend her people against unprovoked aggression and terrorism. Hamas and its militant terrorists know that by provoking Israel the response will yield Palestinian casualties. Grief, poverty and destruction pushes people toward extremism. So who will the Palestinians turn to? The answer is simple: Hamas. These terrorists have no desire for peace with Israel. They have no desire for compromise. All they desire is to wipe Israel off the map and take back ‘their’ land. Well the fact is the world has changed. It isn’t ‘their’ land anymore. Just as America isn’t ours.

There can be no disputing that the continuing loss of innocent life is painful and deeply regrettable. Yet, as we experience a situation where one side is waging a campaign of terror and murder and the other is simply fighting to defend her citizens, the world must look beyond the hard numbers and look at the hard realities. Israel has the right…no… duty, to defend herself and her people from those whose only political ambition is to kill and destroy. We must, albeit with a heavy heart, show them our approval in their fight.

United Europe?! EU Must be joking!

First off I do hope all readers had an eventful and enjoyable Christmas.. I know I certainly did! I have decided today to write about an issue close to my heart: Europe. As I write this I am sitting at our ‘2nd home’ on the outskirts of Amsterdam (so the location for a blog such as this couldn’t be better) Its bloody cold yet the sun is shining. The frost I feel accurately represents Britains relationship with Europe. Now the common catchphrases of the left include “All Tories are racist and hate Europe”, “Tories have never wanted to play a part in Europe” and “Tories hate Europeans”. None of which are true. Conservatives have always had what I would refer to as a respectful suspicion of closer European Integration that encroaches on the United Kingdom, but ultimately have never been opposed to the idea of a United Europe… for Europeans. Chruchill as far back as 1930 stated:

Every step that tends to make Europe more prosperous and more peaceful is conductive to British interests however we have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe but not of it. We are linked, but not comprised. We are interested and assosciated, but not absorbed

I agree with him. Britain enjoys a unique geographical position which in turn gives us unique strengths. We lay between 3 interlocking circles – those of the Commonwealth, the Anglo-America relationship and Europe. Thus the argument that Britain needs to take a great role within Europe “or get left behind” I feel is hollow. Britain in truth will never get ‘left behind’. If we did pull out of the European Union then it would be of no great detriment to us. Do you really think the Europeans wouldn’t trade with us? Do you feel our diplomatic relations would deteriorate? Because I certainly don’t. Quite the contrary. It is very rare I say this… but I feel General Charles De Galle who so opposed Britains entry summed up why Britains role in Europe will never be constructive:

England is… insular, maritime, linked through its trade, markets and food supply to very diverse and often very different countries. Its activities are essentially industrial and commercial and only slightly agricultural. It has… very marked and origional customs and traditions. In short, the nature, structure and economic context of England differ profoundly from those of other states of the Continent… It is foreseeable that the cohesion of all its members, who would be very numerous and very diverse, would not hold for long and that in the end there would appear a colossal Atlantic Community under American dependence and leadership which would soon completely swallow up the European Community.

De Gaulle was half right: Britain is different. No matter how cooperative British politicians try to be toward Europe we find ourselves consistently at odds with them. Even when Blair became Prime Minister he strived for closer relations with Europe but as history has shown even with the best of intentions his policy fell by the waist side. There remain certain irreconcillable differences between the British and the Europeans and as far as I am concerned this latest treaty (Lisbon) is a clear indication as to why Britain has gone as far as it can go with the EU. The time will come in the non too distant future where we will have to decide whether we wish to remain a part of it any longer and the more time passes the more I realise my vote would be to pull out all together.

Britain has missed the Euro-train, which incidently is not a bad thing, as much of Europe is too closely integrated for Britain ever to play a major role anymore. Much of Europe, even Ireland, now have the Euro as their curency. We do not and thank god for that. I believe that Britains future in Europe will now be determined by our response to that skulking question: Should we join the Euro? If the answer is no as I suspect it will be then we have to seriously question our future in Europe. We will reject the Euro because Britain can and will prosper without the single currency and without being a part of the EU. The British business cycle is far more in harmony with the US than Europe. Unlike Europe Britain is a major oil producer. Much of our trade is with non European countries. However perhaps the biggest load of hogwash as to why we need a single currency is the argument that not being a part of one would inhibit free trade. NAFTA ring any bells?

NAFTA, comprising the US, Canada and Mexico, works perfectly well without a single currency and Britain can too. Further more, despite initial gloomy predictions, the City of London since the birth of the Euro, has thrived and dominated the Euro trade. This is mainly because of the business friendly tax and regulatory regime which exists in Britain despite, not because of, the EU. To add to this Britain is was and will remain the most popular destination in the EU for foreign investment with its share rising for 25% to 27%, almost double that of France and three times that of Germany. So what is the point of this you may ask? Well the point is the facts outweight the fiction. Britain can and will succeed with or without Europe. If Europe wants to become a superstate let them. But we don’t have to be a part of it.

To become a superstate each member will have to surrender what makes them distinct as a nation. To join such a body would be in my eyes tantamount to admitting defeat: They cannot compete effectively on their own and thus must ‘pal up’ in order to prosper. Britain can compete on her own and our independence will be of benefit not detriment to our relations with our European counterparts. Ultimately they are as sick as we are of Britain being the “European stumbling block’. We are an obstacle to them as much as they are an imposition to us. In this day an age war on the continent is all but unimaginable. Britains relations with Europe will not drastically sour and Britains economy would not suffer if we were to opt out of the EU altogether. I think its time we realised Britain and the EU is a match made in hell. We’re just too different. For both our sakes we need to make a clean break.

Merry Christmas

 

“Might see something you’re not used to, welcome too . . .”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sean Kingston, singing about Jamaica, finishes that sentence with “the slums.”

I welcome you dear reader, to my mind, which in the early hours of this cold Albertan morning is thinking about the M.Phil research of Daniel Cowdrill. He aims to show that political ‘Parties have always had to adapt to changing circumstances.’ I agree, and what is more, with this article I will offer for consideration a theory that profound change and transformation (i.e. the rise of Thatcher) often happens under the influence of an external force. No man is an Island.

The rapper Sean Kingston’s comparison of “paradise” (Western owned tourist resorts) with the “slums” (economically deprived, predominantly Black ‘shanty’ neighborhoods) brings me neatly to the profound disparities between Europe and the Middle East as described by Edward Said in his 1978 work Orientalism. Not to the rough and tumble of his arguments, but to the deeper undercurrent discussed in this work and others; the ‘asymmetrical relationship between self and other’ (Jorn Rusen, Western Historical Thinking; an intercultural debate, 2002, Pg. 2). A litany of “them” and “us” related phrases springs to mind. However I wrote this with more than platitudes and rap lyrics in my head.

Martin Bernal in his monumental 1987 work Black Athena provides a flood of evidence, analysis and arguments in support of the ‘Revised Ancient Model.’ An intellectual framework to be used in the assessment of evidence which furthers our understanding of Ancient Greece. He argues in volume I that European academia since the 1700’s worked to erode any connection between Ancient Greece, Egypt and Phoenicia. Europe, whilst undergoing economic, cultural, military and political expansion required a sturdy, a ‘pure’ intellectual framework which would justify the colonisation of North Africa and the Middle East, as well as other regions of the world. The Egyptians and Phoenicians were already wealthy, powerful and prominent when Ancient Greece was in its infancy. Bernal uses archaeology, carbon dating, mythology, etymology, linguistics, religious studies, and documentary evidence (Herodotus and Homer made no secret of the Egyptian origins of much of Greek culture) to demonstrate the ‘diffusionism’ between Africa, the Middle East and Greece.

Ancient Greece was therefore not an innocent child of Europe, but the innovative and attentive student of its older Near Eastern tutors. Herakles (son of Zeus), for example, can actually trace his lineage to the image of the ‘great hunter’ as far back as 20,000 BP (before present); the legend of Gilgamesh at Uruk; several Twelfth Dynasty Pharaohs of Egypt (known for their irrigation projects); and various interconnected cults and gods of Thebes, on the Nile.  That is a summary of just one of hundreds of examples.

After reading Fernand Braudel’s famous work The Mediterranean, the theory of Ancient ‘diffusionism’ seems more obvious than shocking. It would be like Canada denying the U.S, British and French influences on its culture, political systems and economy. I believe similar arguments can be used with just as much ease with regards to Europe’s influence on America, and vica-versa.

The works of Braudel and Bernal may seem elementary or revolutionary, depending on your point of view. A larger more established force, within easy reach of a smaller weaker force, should easily be able to exert political, economic and cultural influences on said force. The ‘Ancient Model’ which explained the effects of the larger cultures (Egypt, etc.) upon the smaller (Greece) was also  elementary, until European scholars turned it on its head.

There are times when the more obvious solution should not be disregarded due to the virtue of its simplicity. I propose this applies equally to the study of Thatcher, and the Conservative party in general, as much as it does to Ancient Greek studies. This should be applied in academia and politics more often.

By Dominic Tarn.

Brown Tory Shock…

Anyone who takes any interest in politics will be aware that for years Tony Blair was accused of being a closet Tory. The fact that his father was a Conservative, he had a very privellaged upbringing, his point blank refusal to deny his admiration for Lady Thatcher and his savaging of Labours precious Clause IV upon becoming leader all added to the ‘Tory Blair’ tag.

However what may suprises readers to know is that Gordon Brown, a man seen as ‘more Labour’ than Blair, is in fact from Tory stock too. Gordon Brown’s godmother and relative has revealed that  she is a committed Tory, just like virtually everyone else on Gordon Brown’s beloved mother’s side of the family. In fact they have been staunch Tories for generations.

Indeed, Brown’s late uncle, Gordon Souter, was chairman of the local Conservative association and provost (mayor) of the 1,600-population village for 10 years. He ran the family building and general goods business – John Souter Ltd – which was founded by his father in 1898 and employed up to 70 people, the biggest employer in the village. And with delicious irony, Gordon Brown was even named after him.

As Mrs Riddel, daughter of Gordon Souter and for many years a working director of the family firm, says: “My father was a staunch Tory – oh my goodness yes, a really staunch Tory. We were all brought up to be Tory and we still are – my husband’s family is also Tory. Jessie [Gordon Brown's mother] was a Tory too.”

Therefore perhaps Gordon Browns political Tory traits are not all that suprising….

In Support of Social Action.

I am no stranger to ’social action,’ or volunteering, as I normally call it, and would like to offer here some thoughts with regards to Anastasia Beaumont-Bott’s article on the CF National Executive Blog (executive.cfbranch.com/2008/12/18/social-action-and-conservative-future/). In April 2007 The Independent (26/ 4/ 07, Education, Pg. 8) described volunteering as suddenly being ‘cool,’ because of its new prominence in politics and education. In Britain and the U.S. the voluntary or Third sector has seen enormous growth in the last decade.

The Labour Government has run some successful initiatives (Millennium Volunteers Award, V20 Initiative), thrown some money at it, and set up the Office of the Third Sector in order to assist volunteers and charities. Companies of all sizes now encourage their employers to take part in voluntary work, as do schools, colleges, and Universities all across the country. For example, University College London set up the Voluntary Services Unit in 2005 under Vice Provost  (Education) Michael Worton, in coordination with UCL Union, and since then their members have gone no where but up, their staff and budget has increased year on year, and their success has been trumpeted far beyond Gordon Street. Just recently two UCL students and the UCLU Debating Society received Higher Education Volunteering Awards. I notice that Birmingham University Guild has also dedicated some of its resources to voluntary initiatives.

The fact that the Conservative Future Social Action Network (CFSAN: cfsan.blogspot.com/) is an initiative by this very vibrant section of this party is neither here nor there, in my opinion. In no uncertain terms is what I have just said some sort of objection to either the establishment of CFSAN, or even to Anastasia’s article, but I am simply echoing words of mine published on uclunion.org in 2007. (I wish CFSAN every success). In my opinion, voluntary work is not something to be turned into a political football for either party to score brownie points with (which is what I think Anastasia meant with:  ‘Social Action is more than just words on a political election leaflet’).

The Conservative Party has been involved in social action for a lot longer and much more extensively than Labour because this party (or older embodiments with similar ideologies, from which it takes its lineage) is much older, and many of its current and former patrons are wealthier, generally speaking. This party has long held true to the values of individual rather than State responsibilities, which fits in nicely with the thinking behind Philanthropy and voluntary work. Hence this parties natural support of such policies under David Cameron MP.

In short I am saying that ideological and political support (backed up by the necessary organisation and finances) is a wonderful thing, and such support is not to be discouraged, but wherever it is coming from and whoever is giving it does not matter nearly as much as what is accomplished. The work, and its results, benefit both yourself and the people (or environment) you set out to assist. I can testify how truly satisfying it can be to chop down a tree, cut through some undergrowth, or see a finished boardwalk (raised path, often over water) after a long day of laboring for an Environmental Charity. The more people who volunteer in our society, the better the supportive infrastructure, the more the UK (and the planet) can gain from charitable work. So lets forget about the political merits and just go out there and get our hands dirty.

By Dominic Tarn.

Image courtesy of The Independent, 26/ 4/ 07, Education, Pg. 8; and UCL Union VSU.

Why we can’t trust the federalists….

I have just read an article which frankly boils my blood and shows clearly why we Eurosceptics need to ‘beef up the banter’ against the European federalists in the coming months and I urge you all to read it. Now I have been a good boy this year and the EU has only had one or two blog lashings from me, however before the year is out I want to have one more pop at the federalists that lurk in Brussels whom I feel will pose a further threat to us in the coming years.

The EU, like New Labour, has descended as far as I can see in to a form of ‘post Democracy’ befitting films such as ‘V for Vandetta’. They use patronising tactics, rhetoric and blatant abuses of democracy to get their way regardless of public will. Now many will find this view extreme but I ask you to look at the facts. The EU Constitution was democratically rejected by the French and the Dutch in 2005 and assuming we were given a vote the British would have rejected it to.

Why then if it was rejected was it forced back upon us under a different name? A few months ago you might recall the Irish rejected one of the biggest assaults on national sovereignty seen in recent years and a mere recycle of the old abandoned constitution: The Lisbon Treaty. Unfortunately we never got the chance to have our say and voice our displeasure and the few that did once again rejected it. Instead we had it forced upon us by a government which, to add insult to injury, had previously pledged to give us a vote on it but soon backtracked once elected for a third term.

As we have come to know all too well after 11 years, there is a vast gulf between the rhetoric and reality when it comes to New Labour. They, like the EU, seem to delight in patronising and molly coddling us. Telling us something is good for us without giving us a chance to decide for ourselves whether it is or isn’t. That isnt democracy and represents a real danger to us and our democracy which as one commentator put it is ‘already on life support’ after 10 years of Labour abuse.

The Lisbon Treaty is in all intents and purposes the blue print for a Federal Europe and the way it is being force fed to us, regardless of public opinion, is a blatant assault on democracy. I also feel that by accepting this treaty certain other member states are surrendering their national sovereignty far too cheaply and as such we are expected to follow suit. But to be honest I am not entirely suprised. Now I mean no disrespect to the individual citizens of the countries concerned but as far as I can see certain leaders of EU member states concept of democracy is questionable.

Lest we forget that Spain, Germany, France, Italy and the entire Eastern Bloc have all in recent years been subject to fascist, communist or totalitarian rule. It can therefore be argued that they aren’t all that used to democracy and national sovereignty and thus are none too fussed when it is signed away on a whim. Well I for one will not follow suit nor will I back a treaty or a government which coerces me to do so.

The British are proud of their democracy (at least we were), we are proud of our national identity (at least we were), and to be frank we are strong enough economically without Europe propping us up (at least we were) to stand on our own two feet. The problem is Labour have systematically weakened all the things that made us distinct, proud, independent and strong as a nation which I fear could mean we are forced in to line with Europe against public will.

You may think that is a tad extreme. Perhaps it is, moderation has never been my strong point! But this situation is getting extreme. When democratic votes are discredited, when leaders refuse to honour promises they made to their people, when we are forced to fall in to line, when the sceptics are ridiculed and silenced by the euro-fanatics (as is shown in the article linked above) then we are in an extreme situation which requires extreme opposition.

Now Tories for many years have been afraid to talk openly about Europe for fear of how it will go down. In the early 90’s, whilst I believe we were right to see the dangers that we might have to face in the future, our attacks on European federalism were too premptive as the EU’s ambitions were yet to be realised. Now  however, our opposition at that time I feel can be seen as prophetic. Unfortunately at the time it meant we were forced in to submission on the issue for the next decade, allowing the federalists too much room to manoeuver.

I am confident that today the British people can see the ambitions of the Brussels Bureaucrats and are ready to listen to our opposition once again. They are fed up with the blatant bully boy tactics being deployed by New Labour and Europe and I am confident that they will shortly be crying out for us to stand firm against a federal European Superstate with the same passion of the late 80’s and early 90’s.

Now to clarfiy I believe we are a long way off being drawn in to a ‘death match’ between the sceptics and the federalists, nor do I forsee a federal European superstate anytime soon, however I am fearful that one day we may be forced in to such a clash as we may sign away too much. For now we have one more foe to vanquish: The Lisbon Treaty.

I am hopeful that the Irish will be given one more chance to stick the final nail in the coffin and reject that barren piece of propaganda which isn’t worth the paper its printed on. Otherwise I am fearful we will have it officially imposed on us and only then will we realise what we have signed away. Whats that old saying? You don’t know what you’ve got until its gone? Well I hope never to find out.

ACADEMIES : The Future of Education?

That seems to the the consensus. For the last century at least every government has attempted to improve our nations education system in some way. Prior to that it was up to private enterprise, the Church, and endowments from wealthy patrons. Now the Academy model produces schools which are a hybrid of those two methods of providing education, and they are working. Our current government got the ball rolling, and according a Conservative Policy Green Paper (No. 1) this party admires the way ‘they [Academies] succeed in areas of real disadvantage.’

The Conservatives plan to ‘radically build on existing academy legislation,’ with the hope of (through the Building for Schools Fund [BSF]) creating 220,000 more school places (Pg. 40, Policy Paper Np. 1). That would be a smart move. The London Borough of Hackney has risen from 16th to 5th in the Value Added Rankings in London, in part thanks to an Academy School. PWC reports commissioned annually by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) since 2003 confirm a noticeable ‘Academy “effect”‘ on pupils performance, behavior, and aspirations. PWC also notes ‘the rate of improvement in academies is . . . often significantly greater, than the corresponding improvements in similar schools’ (Pg. 82, July 2007 report). The BBC reports that by January 2009 there will be 134 academies open across the UK.

Education Minister, Ed Balls wants schools “fit for the future,” and announced recently that approximately 45 universities are to sponsor academies. Liverpool University opened one in 2006, and so did the University of West England (along with Bristol City FC) in Bristol. So why is UCL’s planned academy in Camden, a deprived Borough of London, causing such a controversy, and is it warranted?

Opposition is coming from several sources and is strong enough to have sent UCL (represented by Vice Provost Michael Worton) to Court. Those UCL students so inclined submitted a motion to UCL Union’s AGM, which won some support. The National Union of Teachers has raised some concerns. The Diocese of London submitted a petition backed up with 1,900 signatures expressing interest in running the proposed academy. The Church operates 147 schools in London. The most vocal comes from within the left of the Labour Party (when Camden Council was Labour it rebuffed UCL’s advances), and from the Camden branch of the Campaign for State Education, who’s Vice Chair is Fiona Millar, a former UCL student and partner of Alastair Campbell.

Regardless of UCL being ranked in the top 10 universities in the world, their promise that it ‘will NOT be a selective school’ and that it will ‘follow Camdens’ guidelines . . . as closely as possible,’ everyone still seems upset. The same happened in Bristol and Liverpool, but the opposition melted once those academies were opened.

The same could happen in this case, given the immense academic and organisational support UCL will be able to give to the Academy, and the ways in which that will help the students. The real concern the opponents to this have is that there was no open competition. UCL is in a strong position to get what it wants in Camden; it is the largest employer and tax payer, and in terms of academic strength (in London) it is only rivaled by Imperial College, Kings, and the LSE. None of them are in Camden, and UCL’s success in its partnership with City and Islington College demonstrates how effectively it can diffuse its style of education and ethos to other academic establishments. In Sydney, Australia, UCL is opening another division of itself. Islington, Australia, and now Camden.

It is in its own backyard where opposition is the loudest. This definitely seems illogical. I support competition, but in this instance, where there really is no one else who can do (in this Borough) what UCL can do, a competition really would be a wasteful and prolonged exercise to either generate the same – or a worse – result.   That certainly would not benefit pupils in the area. I simply wish that the High Court sees the logic in this view as well. Academies are the way forward, even in Camden.

By Dominic Tarn.

Guild Council: A Review

Last night myself and Dan went to the Guild of Students to try to defend the society and halt any de-recognition procedures. A week ago Dan was informed that BUCF faced de-recognition again. As you will understand we were furious about this as we had little if any indication from the Guild that derecognition procedures were imminent. We were therefore determined to put our case forward and defend the society from being booted out of the Guild.

Despite Dan’s personal beliefs regarding Guild Politics he delivered a passionate defence of the societys role within the Guild and defended what he termed ‘its natural right’ to be a part of the Guild. His speech was incredibly well recieved prompting a prolonged, spontanious round of applause. However the real task he had to face down occured when he agreed to take questions from the floor. The questions were harsh, direct and often unjust reminding us all too clearly that there is a great deal of hostility to the Tories within Guild Council.

Reagrdless Dan kept his cool and for every question that was thrown at him he responded clearly and confidently. He empahsised his commitment to the society playing an active role in the Guild in coming months and appealed to their better nature by explaining just what  a difficult task he has had since becoming President in trying to turn the society around from its long slope in to terminal decline. This was again warmly recieved.

Finally it was time for the vote and after the attempted mauling he had recieved during the questions from the floor part of the debate it is fair to say he was not confident of victory. However when the results came forward, 66%-34%, it showed clear support for the society and the President who again recieved a round of applause.

I know I speak for Dan and the whole committee when I say we are delighted that this potentially lethal situation for the society has been dealt with so efficiently. I also want to thank, on behalf of the whole committee, the Labour society for the support that they have shown in recent days and their efforts to ensure BUCF remain a part of the Guild.

Relations between the two socieites are stronger than they have been in many years.  Although there remains vast ideological gaps between the two, gaps which will encourage healthy debate, we are confident that both chairs, both committees and both socieites as a whole are determined to ensure these cordial relations continue. We will be updating you all regarding our ‘joint events’ which will occur in the New Year. All of which promise to be exciting. 

The moment just after the results came in and the applause it recieved was caught on ‘candid camera’…

 

Carol singing for charity!

Holly, myself and our rosy cheeks and noses after our door-to-door carol singing fundraiser.

Myself and Holly Ferrari- a fellow BUCF member and student of European Studies- got back tonight from a carol singing evening to raise funds for our social action project this season. I want to thank Holly for joining me this evening in a fantastically interesting experience since both of us were new to door-to-door carol singing. Despite our sore throats, unwell feelings and the cold weather, I think we performed very well and raised great funds from generous Harborne residents as well as making our personal contribution too!

BREAKING NEWS

BUCF President Dan O’Doherty and Vice President John Hefford have attended Guild Council and defeated a motion which called for BUCF’s de-recognition. After a series of heated exchanges between council members and President DO’D the motion was defeated 66% – 33%. More to follow…

The Theatre of Gays

Former BUCF Treasurer Daniel Cowdrill delivers his assessment in the University Newspaper on  what it means to be gay and ‘conservative’ about it…

Of the gay sub catagories that exist within the ‘gay community’ I tend to be described as ‘straight acting’. This means that I refuse to prance down Hurst street swinging my manbag screaming ‘I’m free!’, nor do I have any particular fondness for Starbucks, Ralph Lauren, Gin & Tonic, Waitrose, Nicky Clark, Desperate Housewives, or the Audi TT.

 

Ergo, it’s obvious. I must be fundamentally insecure about my sexuality, crushed by the weight of suburbia, the Roman Catholic Church, Margaret Thatcher, and every other thinkable instrument of homosexual repression. In order to emancipate myself I must increase my ‘campness’ The logic being that surely the more expressive I am the more sexually secure I am?

 

But this is wrong-headed. You may say that behaving like Alan Carr is who you are, but this is not the case. Being gay is not a package that comes with accessories like tight jeans, a pocket book of sexual innuendo, and a pink cow boy hat. All these things associated with gay men are a socially constructed stereotype that society and the gay community construct for their own mutual convenience.

 

‘Campness’ (for want of a better word) is tribal. Camp allows other camp men to know you’re gay, and the rest of society to know that you are too. Camp characteristics make it easy for yourself and everyone else to put you away in a neat box, where you can be accounted for, monitored, patronised and humiliated. This is not to charge gay people with the blame, it is merely to acknowledge their complicity in their own alienation.

 

As far as society is concerned it is as much my job to be camp, as it is for a woman to stay in the kitchen. The Women’s Liberation movement was correct in observing that such stereotypes were the very chains of female repression. At least Woman’s Lib can be credited with moving society’s perception of women on a bit. The gay movement has done nothing but render their own suppression.

 

And incidentally, its not just gay people who are repressed by stereotype. Their conformity is matched by the conformity of straight people. Maybe a group of straight blokes who are currently down the pub after going to the football, should question their horizons just as much as a group of camp gays should question theirs’. However, the fact that they rarely do, perpetuates their stereotypes and draws others in.

 

By rejecting some forms of ‘campness’ you can assert your agency and move beyond the structural stereotype of yourself. And this isn’t necessarily denying yourself, for this would be to assume that your camp characteristics are genetic and unique to you. In fact, much of them are socially constructed in the form of inherited prejudices and acquired values. So why not unconstruct yourself?

As for me, I am not ‘straight-acting’. This is an intellectually weak and abusive phrase that simultaneously suggests that I am inwardly insecure about my sexuality and outwardly in denial. In other words, my life is an act simply because I don’t conform to the societal stereotype of what a gay man is supposed to be. I think this is unfair and wrong. It’s not me who is acting.

New Labour, New Danger

Over recent weeks I have had a number of people, who admittedly aren’t the most politically active, say to me that for the first time they are actually beginning to feel something is seriously wrong with this country and the way it is being governed. As far as they and indeed many others of us are concerned this country is moving ever closer to totalitarianism, and films such as ‘V for Vandetta’ could well be seen as documentaries.

Whilst I do not believe Britains transition in to a totalitarian dictatorship can or willl be achieved in the next few years, I do believe that crucial precedents are being set which can be used and abused by future governments. Now I am all for defence of the realm. I am all for strong government. But the issue is where to draw the line. Labour fail to see this line and have crossed it on a number of occasions.

The detention of opposition MP’s, its desire to keep tabs on the people through national ID cards or DNA databases, the support of policies such as phone tapping and detention without charge and even their action in the banking crisis leads me and many others to believe that under this government we are heading for a totalitarian regime in the non too distant future. Many of you will be wondering how on earth the economic crisis highlights this governments interfering, totalitarian, bullying nature, well I shall attempt to tell you.

The government has been infuriated by the banks’ unwillingness to lend money readily (even though it was lending money too readily that got them into so much trouble in the first place), so what does the government do? They threaten to take them over. They use the language of moral outrage to justify the threat of nationalisation: the banks are behaving “selfishly” and “irresponsibly” by refusing to offer easier credit (even though it was also “selfish” and irresponsible” of them to offer credit that was too easy)

Such a nationalisation of the banking system constitues nothing less than the true Marxist dream of “seizing the commanding heights of the economy” and taking control of the means of production. And since financial services are now Britain’s most important industry, taking over the banks could be understood as achieving the chief communist goal of taking that vital “ownership of the means of production”.

But no one is going to put it quite like that. The language of all this is terribly important. The Labour stooges of course use the most attractive words, such as “fair” and “progressive” in which to package their repeated attacks on personal freedom and private responsibility. They take even more control of our lives under the guise of ‘national security’. This is where this government is dangerous. In its use of fluffy language to justify totalitarian acts. They are like the wolves in the sheeps colthing. I am fast coming to the conclusion that if we don’t win the next election this country is in serious trouble.

Heres a tip Gordon: Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-four is a novel… not an instruction manual.

A Rumour flying around . . .

We have all seen the climate change protesters today at Stanstead. ToryBear has been following the story closely today as one could say he has more interest than most.

Apparently there is a rumour flying around that one of the protesters flew from Edinurgh to attend the protests, surely not true??

View From China – What can we learn from recent scandals?

Former BUCF V.P Ryan Castle speaks from deep inside Commie Country and asesses the current situation in Britain….

 

It seems all I can read about in the news is the baby P horror, even languishing in a commie dictatorship I have been able to have a full access to this story. It comes combined with the conviction of Ms Mathews this week.

 

What does this say about our society? It seems the two party leaders have got their party colours confused. David Cameron speaks of a broken society, whilst Mr Purnell the Pensions secretary talks of it being about individual responsibility. What a quagmire of views! Well which one is it?!?

 

Well of course being a historian I like abit of both sides, David is right to talk about ills in society, but wrong to talk about family breakdown, I am not sure the Mathew’s clan could be considered a family to break. The poor children are a result of numerous fathers and were born I suspect to gain the money the government gives. This I feel comes from a complete lack of social mobility afforded in our society presently. Parents, Schools and the Media fail to raise aspirations at best and at worst demonise children from an early age.

 

The UN has said Britain has some of the most negative views of teenagers of developed countries and primary schools are expelling 5 year olds, what chance do they have? We must not engender failure before they even start. Perhaps then if given self worth and hope for a better future, they would not get pregnant at 14 it is a long and hard journey to heel these ills. With the collapse of faith there is little guidance available for teenagers in such topics. These are things society can do, encourage success, support changing failure in children and punish it in adulthood.

 

However we must not lose sight as Mr Purnell says of the individual, I refer to the individual not as he does to calm the cries of other benefit seekers to not be tarred with the same brush as some misguided commentators have said Cameron has, but to talk about how Labour has infact emasculated the individual to such an extent that we as a whole allow these atrocities to happen. If Labour had not allowed a culture of fear to be created in Britain perhaps a neighbour or nosey parker may have intervened earlier or alerted the authorities of the true extent.

 

 We cannot expect social services to be the eyes and ears in every community. They can at best visit, a neighbour perhaps can see all the time. In a world where teachers fear to hug a crying child, or a nurse to comfort an ill patient because of the greedy lawyer and even greedier sort of person who claims, we cannot be surprised at our collective individual failure to act.

 

Mrs Mathews, and the mother or baby P are both individually horrific, abominations to the natural order, but we must ask ourselves, is our negative image of children stifling their development into proper adults, and are these actions not a symptom of a collective failure of individuals to stand up for what is right, and not to bow under NuLab beaurecratic, politically correct, CRB checked hysteria. 

 

PS: BUCF is inaccessible to me in China, therefore I cannot reply to comment, but if you feel strongly post them on my facebook!

Obama-rama continues….

When will Barack Obama’s pronouncements start to be subject to the same scrutiny as other politicians? The first paragraph of this article is a perfect example of how the meeja allows him to present himself and his policies as all things to all men.

Unconditional Support:
“US President-elect Barack Obama says he will not allow the country’s car industry to collapse,

Conditional Support:
but any state help must come with strict conditions.

See article here

Cameron: Im a passionate Unionist

Today David Cameron is addressing the Ulster Unionists annual conference in Belfast. In a speech he is due to deliver to delegates Cameron is expected to explicitly outline his commitment to ‘the United Kingdom’ rather than just England. Cameron will say that he is ‘no little Englander’ and he is determined to be a Prime Minister that represents the whole of the United Kingdom and not just England.

Talks between the Conservatives and the Unionists have been going on since July and both parties have agreed in principle to select joint candidates in next year’s European elections and at forthcoming Westminster elections. Both parties have been keen to stress that this move is not a ‘merger’ but rather a partnership that would offer new political oppourtunity to voters.

Lately I have been impressed with Camerons ‘tough talk’ on issues such as the economy and the arrest of Damian Green and am further impressed by his determination to represent the whole of the United Kingdom and not just England by highlighting his commitment to the union. I believe that whilst the people of Northern Ireland wish to remain a part of the United Kingdom we have a duty to represent and defend them.

Currently they do wish to remain part of the UK and as such the Conservative party should ‘bring them on board’ as there are many ideological/political areas of common ground between the two. This latest speech just shows that Cameron really is a Prime Minister in waiting and when he does become PM he will be a PM for the United Kingdom and not just England.

Ideology and the Conservative Party

Daniel Cowdrill

 

Ian Gilmour claimed that the Conservative Party is not an ideology. Instead others have argued that Conservatives are essentially pragmatic. This widely-held view has precluded research into Conservative ideology, leaving us with only a vague idea. 

 

However, I think the current recession gives us some pointers. In response to the financial crisis David Cameron has pledged to reduce the rate of public spending growth. However, this positioning can’t simply be put down to Tory pragmatism. To oppose a fiscal stimulus just as the economy enters a recession is a major political gamble. As a strategy it has advantages, but it is not supremely pragmatic.

Quote of the Day

“I must say, Im surprised Brown didn’t say the police raid began in America!”

DO’D – BUCF President

BUCF Backs Green!

BUCF backs and donates the days blogging to Damian Green MP and all those who believe in freedom from this Stalinesque/Grotesque government. Also our readers might be interested on a little something Guido Fawkes and Donal Blaney have picked up on… Could it be? The Prime Minister confessing to “procuring misconduct in pubic office”? I assume the police will be on their way to Downing Street… although having said that it wouldn’t be the first time police have come knocking on the door of Number 10 under this government! The word ‘Sleazeballs’ doesn’t quite cover it…

Obama confirms Clinton

After beating her to the Democratic nomination, snubbing her as his running mate and keeping her hanging on for a position in his cabinet, President-Elect Barack Obama has finally put the old girl out of her misery. Hillary Clinton has just been confirmed as Obama’s choice for Secretary of State. I am confident that Clinton will be a powerful addition to the team, however I also believe she will be a live wire who will in many ways persue her own agenda on the international stage Im sure even upstaging her boss at times. Either way the worst kept secret of the transition period has been outed: The next US Secretary of State will be Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Not in my Name . . .