Helen Davies’ second guest contribution to the BUCF blog discusses modern methods of communication as the key to persuasion.

Just has a ring to it doesn’t it? Blue is cool, calm and collected. Blue is relaxed without being foolish. Blue reminds you of summer days, the sea and looking up to the sky. A red future would spell danger and we certainly need no more of that.

But the challenge is to make everyone’s favourite colour blue. Complacency could lead to disaster so we need to prepare to fight for what we know this country needs – a shakeup! Confidence without arrogance is what we need.  We must engage the public before the Election. So many people have lost faith in politics and democracy – this is a tragedy. What is even more worrying is that many members of “Generation Y” – my peers – never have cared and don’t see how the result next year will affect them at all. British troops have for many years fought for democracy in other parts of the world and yet many Britons themselves seem to be losing sight of what have the power to vote actually means.

Televised debates? Yes please. Politicians using social networking sites? Yes please. Political podcasts? Definitely. The way forward, in my opinion, is communication. If you asked the average 18 year old who their MP is I reckon the majority would respond with a “don’t know” or, even worse, a “don’t care”. This has got to change! The young people of today are the taxpayers of tomorrow. We have to persuade them to care and to make change happen. Communication technology has leaped forward over the last 10-15 years and we need to exploit the “new media” to reach people who think politics doesn’t affect them.

I’m certainly up for the challenge of engaging and listening to the public and persuading voters to pick the right colour.

Margaret Thatcher came home today when she was invited back to 10 Downing Street to unveil her much delayed official portrait by Richard Stone. Gordon Brown greeted the Iron Lady warmly at the door of Number 10  however a less than sympathetic commentator labelled the meeting as “handbag meets douchebag!”. Inside Number 10 Gordon Brown made a very warm speech paying tribute to Lady Thatcher and her time as Prime Minister. “You were a great leader and I want to thank you for the great service you gave to our country,” he said to the 60 assembled guests. Lady Thatcher now takes her rightful place as one of only 3 Prime Ministers of the 20th century to have individual paintings on permanent display in the state rooms, the other 2 being David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill. Margaret Thatcher truly is an icon of our time and it seems with each day that passes history becomes a little kinder to her and her formidable legacy.

BUCF is paying its own tribute to the Glory Days of Margaret Thatcher tonight with the much anticipated “BUCF goes back to the 80’s” event, full details of which can be found on our Facebook group.

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

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

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

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

Daniel Cole

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

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

Daniel Cole

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for reading.

Hels Davies

Daniel Cowdrill
Honorary Member & Former Treasurer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are what you eat.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daniel Cole

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

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

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

Amil Khan

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

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

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

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

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

Link to MP Statistics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All very useful stuff for any budding activist!

£65 for students includes all this too:

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

Confirmed speakers include:

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

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

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

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

This failure has not only cost us socially…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daniel Cole

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

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

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

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

@ 15:29-

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

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

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

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

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

@ 14:57-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 20:18-

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

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

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

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

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

Gordon Brown makes the best porky pies!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– BUCF Blog Editor, Alex Yaffe

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

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

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

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

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

Amil Khan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“They have had their chance and FAILED!”

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

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

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

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

Daniel Cole

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boris - The sexy new coverboy for Elle magazine

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

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

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

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

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

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

It seems our beloved Unions, specifically the Dave Prentis led outfit known as the TUC – have been wasting more public money discussing high heels this Tuesday.  It would seem to the TUC that employers and employees are not “sensible” enough to decide what is suitable to be worn in the workplace and that Prentis et al are going to make the hard decisions so you don’t have to! Unionista Lorraine Jones, of the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists assures us:

“We are not trying to ban high heels. They are good for glamming up but they are not good for the workplace.”

Heels are not the only item that can be considered ‘not good for the workplace’ by our new fashion overlords.  What about pencil skirts, or skirts in general?  Even ties could lead to injury!  Does anyone else forsee the day when we’re orange-jump-suited up with our National ID card number emblazoned across our chests?

The TUC foresees ‘workplace chic

It’s times like these one realises how important the political world actually is. The influence it has on your lifestyle, your finances, your home, your car, what you eat and now what you wear.  I thought I got out of Iran lucky! Control-freak socialists in this country are thought and fashion police disguised as equality and health and safety officers.

Now lets just get the facts right here.  First of all, high heels are not all stilettos and so the risk of injury or death is not high on all heeled shoes. I know they call them killer heels but that doesn’t mean they actually kill.  Secondly; some of us are actually more comfortable in heels than in flats (and perhaps we need that elevation). This is dependant on your body structure and weight.

But heck, you know what? A liberated individual employee or employer doesn’t even need to explain themselves to Unions.  We can’t tolerate these intervention-obsessed leftists nosing around and finding ways to paint businesses in the corner.  In tough times, enterprise is priority over the use of heels in the workplace.  Something that can be resolved through common sense does not need to be dictated- and even if it does, aren’t the TUC stepping on the Health and Safety Executive’s open-toed Choos, here?

Anyway, as Nadine Dorries MP rightly pointed out on her blog, this is all for the front:

“The TUC need to get real, stop using overtly sexist tactics by discussing women’s stilettos in order to divert attention away from Labour chaos and debate something meaningful: like where has all the money gone?”

Yesterday I attended full Council to listen to Cllr Mike Whitby, the Leader of Birmingham City Council, address the Chamber in, what is known as, his State of the City speech. It was a fantastic speech, which really captured the city’s potential while outlining its achievements since the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition was formed in 2005.  Since 2005:

• Birmingham’s CPA results have doubled the number of services rated “good” or better than good, compared to three years ago (out of seven areas rated, 3 were good+ in 2005, 4 last year and 6 this year).
• The Audit Commission described BCC as “weak” in 2004 to “improving well” in 2009.
• The Council’s 4-year-average council tax increase of 1.9% is the lowest of all in the Metropolitan Authorities in the UK.
• BCC savings have been vested into front-line services with now over £182m additional investment in front-line services since 2004.
• BCC have secured £20bn of public and private sector investment for future years…
• …and maintained an unwavering commitment to delivering tight fiscal discipline and improving front-line services.

Now these are just the foundations I’ve mentioned. The world has a lot to look forward to including a reinvigorated New St Station; soon to be a world-class transport gateway creating 10,000 jobs, £2bn of economic impact with a capacity of 52m passengers each year. Birmingham International Airport and Central Library are also on the agenda.

It’s breath-taking how much a Conservative local authority can contribute to the country’s, as well as the city’s, economic well being. Now imagine how much a Conservative government could do! So lets take on the struggle to welcome a Conservative government in the next general election that will in turn give more power back to hard-working local authorities like Birmingham City Council. A win-win situation! ;-)

Pictured: Mike Whitby and Francine Houban at the launch of the library plans.

It was Peter Preston that once said three D’s spell out the legacy of Prime Ministers when leaving office, ‘decay, defeat and disappointment’.  Tony Blair however, a three time general election winner, left on the back of more than a decade at the top, giving a rather  dignified speech to the House of Commons and later the press on his exit.  This I predict will be of great contrast to Mr Brown’s departure, here’s hoping in May 2010. 

Although a Conservative through and through, possibly a stubborn one at that, I am not fool hardy enough to dismiss the achievements of others, even if they did represent the wrong colour of the political spectrum.  Blair dispatched five Conservative leaders whilst we languished in opposition, never really getting as close to winning an election as we should have.  Blair was a champion vote winner, Brown is an unelected leader, a leader suffering several blows to his confidence.  Britain became a nation who no longer worried about her economic stability under the Rt.Hon Tony, something that has come back to haunt us under Gordon.  Preston however is able to continue his praise for Blair.  In an article, he turns to his work on raising the minimum wage, in bringing women into the workplace and helping to ease poverty in its harshest phases.  All of these calls for praise can of course be equally challenged, but that I feel would be missing my point.  These comparisons of former and current Prime Minister have importance to us as Conservatives.

The decay and disappointment of Brown compared to the youthful exuberance of Blair are highlighted to such an extent that we as a Party must thrive upon the downbeat nature of Labour.  For the first time in many years within the Conservative Party, there is a real sense of impeding change and success for us in May of next year.  It is my job as General Election Co-ordinator to channel this excitement and call upon those of you who really wish to see change in this country, and urge support where ever possible.    

Keep a look out for social events and campaigning opportunities!

Soph

2009 has been a nostalgic year for the Conservative Party as we remember Margaret Thatcher’s historic victory in May 1979. In keeping with that tone the Blue Blog has published a piece by renowned Thatcher loyalist Iain Dale in which he remembers the Thatcher years and recalls his memories of her time at the top. Well worth a read.

‘And it is Gordon Brown who has given grounds to believe that today’s British are a cowardly, unprincipled, amoral and duplicitous lot. Because he is all of those. Can he remain in power having been revealed as at least complicit in an atrocious miscarriage of justice and breach of faith? That will be up to the Brits, but on this side of the Atlantic Ocean it is inconceivable that an elected official would have a snowball’s chance after sanctioning an oil-for-terrorist deal’

So reads the New York Daily under the headline ‘Brown the Betrayer’. It seems that the ’special relationship’ isn’t that special at all these days following the election in November last year of Barack Obama who has taken at best a laissez-faire attitude to the transatlantic partnership and as the Americans continue to bemoan the release of convicted murderer Al Megrahi. As you will all be aware by now I believe that Megrahi’s release under the guise of ’compassion’ is not only an insult to the families of those whose recieved no such compassion from the convicted terrorist, but it also flies in the face of a previous pledge by the British government to the Americans that he would serve out his full sentence  in Scotland. It is his release and the duplicitous actions of the British government that have proven to be the straw the broke the camels back. Who can blame the Americans for being livid with the limey’s? After all it is impossible to sustain a relationship, let alone a special one, if one partner can no longer believe what the other one says. However the truth is this relationship hasn’t been all that special for a long time and there are those who would legitimately question whether such a relationship ever existed. I however believe one does or did exist and it is the actions of this government that have compromised it.

So why and how have we come to this impasse?  That is what I am asking you and hope you will respond with suggestions. For my part I believe that in a country like America ‘personality politics’ is everything. John ‘Jack’ Kennedy had it, Ronnie ‘The Gipper’ Reagan had it, William ‘Relations’ Clinton had it, George ‘Dubya’ Bush had it (believe it or not) and Barack ’Messiah’ Obama has it by the bucket load. So what of their British counterparts? Do they have that same style and flair for leadership? Well I’d say its a safe bet that barely 10% of the American population would be able to identify Brown as the British Prime Minister today despite the fact hes made several visits and is the ‘leader’ of their principal ally in the War on Terror. Those in the minority that do recognise him will see him as little more than Tony Blair’s uncharismatic sidekick, one who is ’always the bridesmaid and never the bride’. This American indifference to Gordon ‘Bumbler’ Brown stands in stark contrast to British political titans like Margaret Thatcher and Winston Churchill who are instantly recognised and respected by the Yanks. Even Tony Blair gets a positive reception state side which must really be a smack in the face to Brown.

So what do all these leaders; Thatcher, Blair, Churchill have in common? Well aside from the fact that their respective tenures are seen as ‘golden ages’ for the ‘Special Relationship’, the fact they all share some form of ‘conservative’ philosophy and a flair for personality politics; all of them were convincing leaders of Britain and commanding figures on the world stage. Americans respond to charismatic ‘conviction’ politicians like them and therefore it is no suprise that the relationship is at its strongest when politicians of their mould stride the world stage on Britains behalf. Brown and Britain as a whole however are seen as a bit of a world joke today and therefore it is my belief that the ’special relationship’ will only remain strong so long as we have a leader and not a lame duck in Downing Street. Someone who champions our interests with charisma and conviction.

Thatcher handbagged her way in to the heart and minds of the American people, Churchill commanded their respect with his British bulldog attitude and Blair won their praise for his strength and support in the wake of attrocity and terrror. Brown however at best has won their sympathy and at worst their ridicule as much as John Major did following Thatcher. However unlike Major the American’s ridicule and bewliderment at how such a ‘vanilla figure’ can follow someone like Blair, has now turned to fury and anger as the assumption that Megrahi’s release was linked to a trade deal with Britain takes hold in Washington. Therefore with the release of Megrahi in the name of trade, the collapse of the reputation of the City of London in the wake of the economic crisis, Britains increasingly subservient attitude toward the encroaching EU and its gradually reducing role in the War on Terror, one has to ask what Britain has to offer the Americans other than rain and royalty? Speaking as a British citizen and a fierce advocate of the transatlantic alliance I believe its high time Britain pulled its socks up and elected a leader with whom the Americans ‘can do business’. I sincerely hope and believe Cameron is that leader.

So what do you think? Why has the relationship failed is it salavagable? Is Cameron the man to salvage it?

New Labour have done it again. Following on from Dan Cole’s great articles slamming New Labour and its catalogue of failings I wish to raise another key and topical failing of the New Labour regime: that of basic principle. In simple terms it is my belief that New Labour are completely and utterly devoid of principle. Now that may seem a sensationalist claim to make and indeed I do not doubt that those at the grassroots of the Labour movement have principles and convictions. After all they are the ones who work hard for the Labour party and its traditional values, they are the ones who take the flack from the people on the doorstep and desperately try to patch up the hull as the ship sinks due to the reckless course navagated by its captain. But the fact remains that their work and their principles are not reflected in those whom they elected to lead them.

The release of convicted murderer and Lockerbie terrorist Abdelbaset Al Megrahi is testament to how low this government will go for the sake of their own political future and commercial interest. Just last week Peter Mandleson, that thing your mother warned you about, slammed suggestions that the government had in any way acted in the release of Megrahi for commercial reasons and to give his denials the air of plausibility he even acted offended and outraged by the insinuation.”How very dare you!” indeed. Of course new documents have been leaked in recent days which clearly show that the government was involved in the release of Megrahi and commercial concerns were never off the negotiating table. In fact according to Saif Gaddafi, the Libyan dictator’s son, it was a trade agreement with Libya and BP worth an estimated £15bn which was the key  factor in the deal done to secure Megrahis release.

Even if you ignore Gadaffi’s testimony and the swathes of evidence to support it, one very telling point about all of this is the fact that whilst the government might slam suggestions they were involved and whilst they might ‘deplore’ the scenes which greeted the murderer home, they have yet to comment as to whether they believe he should have been released in the first place. Of course their excuse is that they didn’t want to be seen to be influencing the decision of a devolved administration. But the truth is that Labour ministers in London argue with Edinburgh on an almost daily basis, over matters as mundane as the council tax and who’s to pay for a new Forth Road Bridge so why not on such an important issue as the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing and the murder of over 200 people? The fact remains that the grand architecht of this deal was not Brown, nor dare I say it was it Mandleson, it was one Tony Blair. He was the one who struck the ‘deal in the desert’ in 2007 with Libyan dictator Gadaffi as part of the ‘thawing of relations’ and left it as part of his inheritance package, along with a crippled economy, to Brown and his bunch before swanning off in to the sunset and it is upon his shoulder responsibility for this outrage lays.

Stuart Hall once said that New Labour is a hybrid regime composed of two strands; the social democratic and the neo-liberal with the neo-liberal acting as the dominant. In other words economic concerns will always come before anything else for New Labour. Detractors on the left would claims that this is the result of the Thatcher revolution and that New Labour is merely the heir to Thatcher and Thatcherism’s legacy of profit before people and money before morals. In actual fact Thatcherism was more principled than that and Thatcher herself derided Libya as a ‘menace’ and consented to its bombing by Reagan in the late 1980’s. This New Labour regime is a warped variant of Thatcherism completely unprincipled in nature with its only motivation to make as much money as possible and hold on to power by what ever means at whatever cost.

In truth what rankles me most about this situation is the irony of it. Its not neccessarily the governments double handedness, trickery or duplicity, after 10 years were used to all that. Its the irony of the fact that when men and women of the British armed forces fight and die daily in foreign fields all in the name of fighting terror, when the government asks the British people to agree to restrictions on our liberties and invasions of our privacy, when it urges us to understand the bitter toll of young lives lost fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan as a ‘neccessary evil for a greater good’, we are somehow meant to accept that one of the worst terrorists in history should go home after serving a mere eight years, simply because he is unwell?

Madness? …. Welcome to the logic of Labour.

The black hole deepens and darkens and yet the Labour party, who resides in its apex, is showing no sign of recovery.  Let me divulge further:

Health:  Labour promised under Tony Blair to totally reshape and reform the British Health System. Far too late, Gordon Brown stated that he would act where Blair had failed. Under both premiers, Labour has failed the National Health Service, which their predecessors created and nourished. Reform has stalled, and though investment has increased, standards have not. As has been the case with the education department, Labour has funded the NHS blindly without direction; so much so that civil servants have been given greater pay rises than doctors and nurses.In March, it was revealed that Directors of NHS trusts received above average pay rises last year of 6.4%, yet nurses received only just above 2%. There are obvious problems with this system.

There is also terrible physical evidence of Labour’s failed investment; that of hospital infections. MRSA rates in hospitals quadrupled between 1997 and 2005, and the number of related deaths jumped during the same time. This at a moment when the government were investing heavily; yet even as the government attempted to ‘clean up’ they added heaps of new regulations which restricted the duties and roles of those who could have helped.

Yet as if this was not enough, one of Labour’s greatest errors was the vastly expensive nationalised computer system that they are still completing. The system was supposed to link 30,000 GP’s with 500 hospitals, providing NHS staff with the medical details of 50,000 patients at every stage of their diagnosis, treatment and discharge. Yet more than a decade after work on it begun, it is still not completed. It has now cost £12.7 billion and there is no sign of the cost levelling out. Moreover, though the NHS is currently forecasting a completion date of 2014-15, four years later than originally planned, MPs said even this revised schedule looks over-optimistic: A true sign of Labour’s sheer incompetence. Tony Blair’s quote, “24 hours to save the NHS” has turned into 10 years and still going.

Defence: The Labour Party has asked too much and done too little! Men and women who join our armed forces know that there is the possibility, however small that they will risk their lives for their Queen and country. But this knowledge is part of a contract. The other side of which states that the government and country should provide these troops with the equipment and medical services that they deserve. Labour has broken this contract. They have sent our troops off to war, on dubious terms, without the support, equipment or pay that they require and deserve.

Many have felt the need to speak out, but the government have knocked them down. When the recently retired head of the army General Richard Dannatt criticised the government for not providing the equipment that was needed, a smear campaign began. Lord Foulkes a Labour Peer tabled a motion to release the expenses of Sir Richard to try and make him look wasteful and Labour ministers started to argue that the head of the army was losing his grip. None of them were able to tarnish him. His expenses were miniscule and his record was impeccable.How typical of a Labour Government to hit out at a brave soldier who raises concerns, in order to gain political clout. Disgraceful!

But not only this, the government, and especially Gordon Brown has stated that the armed forces are getting all the equipment that they need! The troops would disagree, and so would the terrible toll that both Iraq and Afghanistan have inflicted. Labour has a despicable record on defence, and their lies and slander campaigns are a sign of their desperation.

To be continued…

Daniel Cole

First of all may I start off by expressing how honoured I am to have been asked to do a guest post on the BUCF blog. Since starting college nearly two years ago I have followed the blog closely on a regular basis and look forward to joining the society upon my arrival at University.

Without going into every reason, I will briefly highlight two of the many reasons I will be joining BUCF as oppose to the other political societies and the importance of electing a Conservative government. In this year’s budget, the government broke a key manifesto pledge by introducing a new 50p tax rate for those earning £150,000. The move was not only more evidence of the contradiction which has become familiar with this administration but signalled the return of Socialism. Picking on a small group of people is not the basis of a tax policy. Today it was revealed that an astonishing 5 million people have never worked under Labour, yet those who do work are denied a fair return for their efforts by a tax system which penalises successful achievement.

Yes there are people who have tried to find employment but have been unsuccessful and have had no other option but to turn to benefits for financial support. But for a very long time, before the recession even started we have had in place a culture where people now choose the easy option of remaining on benefits instead of trying to find work as the generous amounts of welfare funded by the hardworking British taxpayer allows them to live on these benefits.

Labour has failed to reform the welfare state and a change of attitude amongst these ‘welfare ghettos’ can only be achieved through a change of attitude from a Conservative government. One of the fundamental reasons I made the decision to become a Conservative was I believe we the people should tell the government what to do, not the other way round. We now seem to have more rules, more regulations and more taxes than ever. Slowly over the past 12 years this government has not only taken more of our money, but more of our options and most importantly more of our freedom. I firmly believe that as government intervention contracts, liberty expands and this freedom cannot be attained under Labour. We have reached a stage where Labour are so out of touch with reality.

In comparison with the government’s policies, the Conservative proposals are far superior and what Labour call ‘radical’ is in fact right and what they call ‘dangerous’ is desperately needed. What our country needs is a rediscovery of our values which have been lost this past decade. For most of the 20th century the Conservative Party was the dominant political force in Britain, even when for short periods it was in opposition. And I firmly believe that once again it will be the Conservative Party who will take the bold steps necessary to reverse the customary decline Britain heads towards at the end of Labour governments.

Amil Khan

*Hattip Donal Blaney

We at BUCF are proud to announce that our blog has recieved over 200,000 views. Our thanks to past members, committees, presidents and viewers for helping us achieve this. Look to us for continued, new and updated Conservative opinion.

BUCF Committee

Labour has failed. They have sunk into the black hole of the political world, and all attempts at clawing their way out have met with public exasperation. The government’s record on poverty, social mobility, education, health, defence, and the economy has been demolished and the bare bones of New Labour are now evident. Let me divulge:

Poverty: By May of this year, ministers were forced to admit that they had all but abandoned Labour’s “historic” and headline grabbing promise to halve child poverty by next year. This admission came as the official, yet still possibly doctored figures revealed that the number of people in Britain living in poverty had risen to 11 million; a rise of almost 300,000 since 2006. The figures painted a bleak picture. In the Independent, Theresa May, the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, said the promise to halve child poverty was one of many Mr Brown had failed to deliver. “It is a tragedy that the number of children falling into the poverty cycle is continuing to rise,” she said. “The Government needs to wake up and get a grip of this problem. We must tackle the root causes of poverty, such as educational failure, family breakdown, drug abuse, indebtedness and crime.” This the government has not done.

Social Mobility: Even with initiatives such as a two grade advantage for poorer children in exams and one of the biggest rises in state welfare this country has seen, social mobility has decreased. The ease by which children and adults can move to a higher pay grade has declined, and in fact, unemployment is now higher than it was during any time in the 1990s. The Times reports that; in 1999 Tony Blair told the Labour Conference: “If we are in politics for one thing, it is to make sure that all children are given the best chance in life.” A decade on, the Government has had to admit that billions of pounds of investment in nurseries and schools and on training has failed to bridge the class divide, and that social mobility in Britain has stalled.

Jeff Randall’s article in the Telegraph in July summed up Labour’s social mobility failure: “No matter which way progressive educationalists spin it, the horror before them is unavoidable. Despite abolishing grammar schools, dumbing down GCSEs and A-levels (to create the illusion of rising standards in state schools)…bullying our best universities into accepting state-school students with below-par grades, social mobility is in retreat.”

Education: Where to start! In 1997 we heard the now cliché line; “education, education, education!” Many thought that the new Labour Party would look after and strengthen the British education system. How wrong they were. Labour introduced numeracy and literacy hours in order to reduce the decline in primary school maths and English levels. Teachers attacked the policy, head-teachers belittled it and the public knew better than to think it would be a success. All were right. This year, Labour finally admitted that its extremely centralised control of schools does not work.

Now, as the Guardian reports; one by one, the totems of Labour’s disastrous education policies are being dismantled. Jenni Russell in a Guardian article in June states that Labour’s education department, with its centralising and controlling instincts would have been applauded in a soviet state!

There is no doubt that the government has poured money into education. Billions of extra pounds have been diverted from the economy to boost standards and improve the flagging education system. Yet it has done nothing. The government has had no clear strategy on how to spend it, and on where to use it, thus it has had no impact. Moreover, we hear this week that the number of NEETS (those not in Education, Employment, or Training) has increased greatly. Now more teenagers are dropping out of school or college without a job then when Labour came to power. Now nearly 1 in 10, 16-18 year olds are classified as NEETS.

Now as Labour try to grab more headlines with new education policy, Michael Gove, the Conservative education spokesman, points out that they are a “combination of unfunded commitments, re-announcements, and policies that aren’t even supported by their own Ministers.”

To be continued…

Daniel Cole

Today, a grim milestone has been reached. The British nation has now lost 200 of her best and bravest to the war in Afganistan. The figure was reached by the loss of a soldier of the 2nd Battalion, The Royal Welsh, who died of his injuries in our very own Selly Oak hospital. Let us take a minute to remember these men and women who have given their lives for their country.

Daniel Cole

Imagine my delight when I heard Dan Hannan was back in the news? Ever the eager beaver where Mr Hannan is concerned, I was like a giddy school kid waiting for the page to load and yearning to see what words of wisdom he had to impart this time. When the page finally loaded I couldn’t have been more disappointed. I was gobsmacked to see Dan has launched a scathing atack on the NHS claiming that he “wouldn’t wish it on anyone”. His comments came in response to news that the Republicans have launched television adverts slamming the NHS as ‘evil’ ’socialist’ and even ‘Orwellian’. I usually find myself entirely in sync with my Republican colleagues but on this occasion I couldn’t be more opposed to their sensationalist suggestions.  The fact is that the medical care in America, the same care Mr Hannan endorses, is horrificly unequal. People with life threatening illnesses often find themselves unable to cover the cost of their healthcare and thus severely compromise their recovery. This only adds to the individuals sense of distress and fear not just physically but mentally, after all is there any point getting beter if youve had to sell almost everything you own to pay for it?!

Esitmates claim that there are 47 million Americans without health insurance and many millions who suffer unneccessarily. I passionately believe that when it comes to healthcare the people have a universal right to have it provided for them, in large part, by their government. Having experienced the horrific expense of the American healthcare system first hand, where a mere ambulance call out can cost upwards of $400, I know that the NHS, whilst flawed and poorly administrated, is an invaluable institution that all Conservatives should strive to protect. After all our job as Conservatives is to conserve that which we as a nation cherish and believe to be an irreplacable part of our national fabric. The NHS is part of that fabric. It is an institution that emmerged out of the ruins of war ravaged Britain and breathed new life in to our struggling people. It survived the wreckless Labour government that led us to the Winter of Discontent and even emmerged relatively untouched from the ravages of the Thatcher revolution. Indeed in Thatchers timeless words “The NHS is safe in our hands”.

It has stood the test of time, weathered revolution and war and has become an integral part of the British political tradition. We as Conservatives must promise to protect it. I am not going to be so arrogant as to comment on how the American system should progress and reform because frankly I do not know enough and I recognise the fact that universal healthcare would be much more expensive and difficult to implement under the US system of government. But one thing I am sure of is that where our NHS is attacked I and many other Conservatives will fight back and say “Hands off our NHS!”.  At the most basic and fundamental level my defence of the NHS stems from my passsionate belief in the inailiable right of every individual to life. In a nation as wealthy and privellaged as ours I believe we have a moral duty to provide free if not massively subsidised healthcare (and thus right to life) to all our people blind to background, wealth or status. What we should be talking about is how to reform and revive this invaluable institution.

Economics, as well as foreign policy matters are the two key areas in which I focus the bulk of my studies. It was of no surprise then that once again the country is only getting worse economically. In a report that has now been published, unemployment especially for young people is set to rise yet again. Now this does not mean however, which I have seen a lot of this summer break is that university returners cannot get a part time job, these statistics are for young people who have been put off going to university for fear of debt.  This report suggests that nearly one in six 18 to 24 year olds are unable to get work due to a lack of training provided for by the government. Now this for me brings up several key points again on why 11 years of a Labour government has damaged this country like no other government ever has. Firstly University, the government wanted to achieve 50% of school leavers to attend university, but then realised they could not fund this and hence double shot themselves in the foot by introducing top-up fees as if normal student debt was not enough. I personally do not mind paying for something if I get my monies worth; however the National Student Survey which this year had a record number of participants showed that nearly 10% of graduates felt that aspects of their course were either very poor or unacceptable which is an increase from last year and has been doing since the creation of the survey in 2003, So Labour you charge students so much and yet do not deliver. Secondly to unemployment, Education, Education, Education is a slogan that has become infamous for what is a dead government. If the government actually applied what it set to do and promised the people of this country then maybe more young people could find work, however with a lot of Labour policy I am yet to see this materialise and cannot help but think that Labour simply hope this will fade away. Finally to combine the both, we are in a recession as we all know and a lot of this has to do with market powers (Google it if you are not sure) which acts uninfluenced and where normal national governments find it hard to influence the economy. However with over £1 Trillion now been put into the world economy in a joint effort by the international community, IMF, ECB, BoE, World Bank and Federal Reserve and a further £50 billion of quantitive easing (where governments pump money into an economy in order to ‘soften the blow’ of recession) and interest rates left on hold at a record low, all I can wonder is where is this money coming from and is it actually having any effect, would market forces have worked better, I believe so. This government has zero excuse and no leg to stand on when it comes to the multiple failures it has had on this country, student debt highest with falling satisfaction rates, young people unemployment rising and government debt that any party, most likely the Conservatives who win the next election will be burdened with, and that party will have to make the real hard decisions for what is best for this country. Any sane person, political, economic or the ‘mondeo man’ will know and are shouting from the rooftops, call that election, let the people decide and in my eyes let a real party who can make those tough decisions take power and get this country back moving again, for too long have I seen this great country crumble under the 11 years of failure by what is now a dead government.

Mark Harrop

Yet again “Lord” Mandelson has reached the headlines, and once again it is due to another of his worryingly absurd ideas. As part of its plan to increase social mobility, the government is testing the water with a number of policy initiatives, mostly based on changes to the education system; the most absurd of which, were it implemented would grant ‘poorer’ young adults a two grade advantage over those who were better off. This would in theory, allow students from a disadvantaged background to pass more easily into a university education. Once again, the sentiment is correct, but the method is mad.

It is important that universities do not pick pupils due to their background, but it is crazy to suggest that those who fail to attain good grades should be put in front of those who do, just to increase the government’s social mobility stats. Katie Ivens, of the campaign for real education said the plan was positive discrimination, though where the “positive” aspect of discrimination can be found, I will never know. Ivens went on to say that this new initiative “… is not fair on those who study hard [and] it is not fair on the schools that actually produce a good quality education.” Too true! Why can’t the government of “education, education, education” find a better way to educate our children, than by social engineering?

Why can’t this government who have continually spent billions of extra pounds every year on education, achieve their internally set targets (without rewording them first)? Why can’t this Labour government accept that promoting failure and penalising success is not only a flawed plan, but it is also one that sends out the worst of messages in a recession.

Finally why can’t the government recognize that its own record on social mobility is atrocious, and that holding back bright students in order to “level” the playing field is absurd? Our schools should be the best in the world, our pupils the most motivated, and the education provided in Britain should be internationally recognised. This was once the case, and under a Conservative government, hopefully this image will once again be recognised. However, the way that the Labour government is driving it into the ground, in a year’s time, there might not be much left to salvage: except for a failure driven, bureaucracy led mess of failed targets and failed students.

Daniel Cole

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00lrh90

I was casually watching television the other night when I came across what I consider to be a very abnormal tv programme. But after hearing a conversation on the bus the other day, maybe it isn’t so strange. But the one question that popped into my mind was: when did it become normal for 14, yes 14, year old girls to consider having sex, let alone trying for a baby? The aim of the tv programme was to convince two girls that it wasn’t a wise decision to have a baby at such an early age – but I really cannot understand why they want one so early anyway! Are they at a school where sex education, and safe sex are not taught? Or is a baby “must have item of 2009″. The overall outcome of the programme was that they decided they didn’t want a baby just yet and perhaps they should wait a bit longer – however a conversation i overheard, of girls around 15, said they didn’t care they simply wanted a baby so that they could be seen as “the popular kids at school” and not to go off onto a completely other topic but one of them said she simply wanted a baby so she could get money and not have to work! To me education of safe sex and of the world have been missed by some teenage girls in this country. And how is it that we live in a country where if you get pregnant your first thought is, “when can i get my money from the government?”

Credits to KRO

A man gets struck in traffic near parliament.

He asks a police officer what the hold-up is, and is told: “The Prime Minister is so depressed about the UK’s debt that he’s stopped his car and is threatening to douse himself with petrol and set himself alight.”

“What are you going to do?” asks the man.

“We’re putting together a collection for him,” says the officer.

“How much have you got?” asks the man.

“About 40 gallons,” says the officer.

A national memorial is finally to be held to commemorate the generation of men that fell in the First World War, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said, an announcement made after the sad news that the last British survivor of trench warfare, Harry Patch, had passed away.

I have been and will always be a supporter of any memorial or event that honours the sacrifices made by so many men and women of course, but it is about time that the First World War had a platform for remembrance of its own. Why is this important? So much of what is translated to the public about the First World War through the media is incorrect, perhaps I am hopeful that a dedicated memorial will spark a sense of needing to provide accurate and revised information. For example, to my horror, the BBC seem consistently incapable of delivering correct information about the First World War. Whilst reporting about the death of Mr Patch, who played his part in the Battle of Passchendaele in 1917, the Corporation promptly ran clips of men going over the top at the Somme, and then made the geographical error of placing Passchendaele in France! In addition to this, the BBC continue to claim that on the first day of the Somme, 60,000 men were butchered, showing their incapability to differentiate between casualties and fatalities, once more encouraging the thought that British generals were incompetent murderers.

Not that long ago, Government ministers claimed that too much of historical focus within schools was placed on the World Wars, but if simple information can be got wrong by the nations biggest broadcaster, how much is really being taught in our schools, and at what accuracy?

By an exasperated historian!

Sophie
General Election Coordinator

Just an idea:

Not necessarily a new thought, but on that appears to have lost support in this challenging economic time. Raise taxes on food classed as “fast” and on products that have extremely high rates of sugar and salt content. Use the money, directly, to enable lower taxes on fruit, vegetables and lean meat. These new tax revinues should only be used to lower taxes on good fresh food. Shouts of injustice and unfairness over making cheap food more expensive can be consoled by the rise of cheap and healthy meals and food plans from our supermarkets, green-grocers and butchers. Just an idea.

The BBC on the 24^th of February of this year announced that “The UK is seeing an explosion in diabetes linked to obesity rates”… and poor diet. The report that it was quoting from; The Journal of Epistemology and Community Health Report, suggests that rates of diabetes are increasing faster  in the United Kingdom than they are in the USA, “where prevalence of the disease is already one of the highest in the world.” The report goes further to suggest that poor diet and related factors such as obesity were the primary causes of this steep rise.

If you were to work out the finances of this rise, and the impact that the disease is having on our national healthcare system you would find that the NHS spends almost £1 million an hour treating the disease, around 10% of its yearly budget.  A government spokesman speaking about the issue suggests that this funding allowed more people suffering the disease to get the support, advice and treatment required to prevent or delay complications.

This of course is a necessity. The NHS would not by a true healthcare system if it did not provide such services, however Anne Milton, the Shadow Health Minister suggests that “…we need to see proactive policies which look to reduce obesity” and improve diet, rather than policies that “simply treat the effects of it.”

Another paragraph and another diet related illness; this time heart disease. This is by far the UK’s biggest killer: In 2002 heart disease caused 39% of the deaths in the United Kingdom, and killed just under 238,000 people. (Source; British Heart Foundation)It is very important to remember the human cost of this disease, more than one third of fatalities in Britain are a direct result of HD, and thus almost everyone will know or have known a sufferer, some more than others. However on a rather cold, economic note, the disease costs the national healthcare system over £1.7 billion a year.

Moreover, the British Heart Foundation suggests that the majority of economic costs from the disease “fall outside healthcare and are due to illness and death in those of working age and the economic effects of their families and friends who care for them.” (In 2006, production losses due to heart disease cost the UK an estimated £8.6 billion)

Both diseases have direct links to poor diet and obesity, and can be helped and prevented by better eating habits and better exercise. As long ago as 1994, a government report stated that a reduction in fat and sodium intake and an increase in lean meat, vegetables and fruit could seriously lower the potency of both Heart Disease and Diabetes so why has so little been done? A few policies led by the Conservative Party such as a rebalance of the tax system, might just be the first of many steps in combating not only an expensive range of preventable illnesses but also the awful grief and unhappiness that follow them.

Daniel Cole

I am someone who likes to look for the best things in people, not the worst, whether this be professionally or in friendship etc.

This blog is one I have been meaning to get out onto the keyboard for a while but something else has always propped up.

The subject for my blog this week is how all young people are being tarred with the same brush over a wide range of issues. This blog may sound like I have a chip on my shoulder and to be honest with you all, I think I do.

We today live in a society where the media has a very powerful hold on how information can be portrayed to the public. This can be via the TV, newspapers, Radio, Internet, on mobile phones and MP3 Players. The media having such easy access to a large number of people, this then makes me angry when young people as whole are portrayed in the wrong light.

I recently saw a BBC video on young holiday makers in Zante and how they are ‘killing the island’ and that drastic measures have to be taken to curb this. Now last summer I went to Zante with 23 other friends from college. We had an amazing time, a safe time and will always remember how good that island and its people made our summers be. We got to know a lot of people over there and everyone was the same as us, out there with mates to have a good time, yes drink, dance and stay up till the early hours but noone was there on the intent of making trouble. This annoys me how the small majority, and locals agree, spoil it by doing something silly or stupid which is then thrusted into the media spotlight to make all young holiday makers look like wild animals.

This media protraction then is reflected when youngsters get home. Young adults are then looked down upon, being seen as unruly and dangerous when the majority of us have good educations, go to university or have a job, want to make something of our lives, but yes like to have a good time. It is the people that do not have this and are the trouble like all societies have which are then used as a stereotype. Many a time I have had to defend myself and my principles to older members of society and show them that I and nor are my friends like that and in fact that it is plain arrogant by older people to think this. Maturity is made when one takes the time to discover, not judge.

This can also be seen in many other aspects of a young persons life such as the way they dress, if they drive, what music they listen to etc. One example I find funny was that I was once at home in Blackburn and had been to the gym, now normally I swear smart clothes and look presentable, but on this day I had been to the gym and looked rough, as I was walking to my car in tracksuit bottoms and a sports shirt, I noticed that older people actually avoided walking by me, maybe for fear of being mugged or because I smelt! Now when I am dressed normally, no such thing happens. I think that is an insight that the society that we live in needs to be totally re-evaluated in how we look at each other, not to judge a book by its cover, look for the great things that young people do, the great things that they hope to achieve.

One last thought I would like to put to people is that older people should not be so quick to judge young people, as it will be those young people who will be caring for their aging population in future years.

This is a very vague blog by myself although I feel I have got the general message across. I appreciate any insight or comments you may have. In your eyes I may be wrong, but this is my opinion.

Mark Harrop

Representation and Campaigns Officer

BUCF

Yesterday I spoke to a high-flying school-leaver who has some time on his hands before he begins Birmingham University. Like his friends, he is having no luck securing a summer job. Over the last year, the rate of unemployment for youngest adults has rocketed from 11.9% to 17.3%.The Economist notes that the spike in youth unemployment may be aggravated by the national minimum wage.

Meanwhile, Birmingham University Labour Students are campaigning to equalise the national minimum wage for people in the 18-22 age bracket. How will their campaign help somebody who wants to work so he can save for university but can’t even find a job? It would appear that the next generation of Labourites are as out of touch as the current lot.

Dominic Fisher – Local Officer

This was recently brought to my attention by the Young Conservative website which I believe touches upon a very important issue in a way that students can easily relate to. The next time you encounter someone on your campus who believes confiscatory tax levels are okay, try this on them, courtesy on the Young America’s Foundation. They visited a campus and asked students to sign a petition ‘redistributing grade point averages’. The British equivalent would be to ask your fellow students to donate a part of their latest essay mark or exam grade to students who hadn’t worked hard or otherwise were failing. Oddly, none of the usually leftist students found redistribution so attractive when it was something they’d worked hard for…”

There has been a lot of talking of Labour mishandling of the defence industry and the armed services on here of late. But what has been missed out is not only the oldest service, but the only one capable of taking upon itself the roles of the other two. I refer of course the Royal Navy.

     There was a time when the Royal Navy was the most powerful force in the world, it was what kept the Germans from invading in both world wars and proved its power as late as 1983. When Maggie decided to retake the Falklands it was the Royal Navy which permitted us to fight a war on the far side of the planet. However such aspirations may soon become a thing of the past.

    It was the 1966 defence paper under Wilson’s labour government which led to the cancelation of the Royal Navy’s last attempt at full size aircraft carriers. This in turn led to the collapse of British deployments ‘east of Suez’ in support of British interests. Now the situation is even worse with the spendthrift attitude of Brown’s government towards the armed forces.

    The extreme left wing Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), suggests that the government should scrap nearly every defence procurement project that is currently around. First on their list is the new carrier replacement program (CVF), and the controversial Trident replacement. Without these projects however the UK would not only become less capable to fight future wars but would be relegated to insignificance. No longer would the UK be able to be a major player in international relations or even a major player in Europe. It would instead join the long list of nations with their glorious and proudest moments behind them.

    With the Trident programme in mind, we must remind ourselves that we are in an increasingly hostile world, rouge states such as North Korea are beginning to build up nuclear arsenals and Iran is not only holding British citizens hostage, but indeed perpetuating a bizarre and twisted rhetoric which serves only to confirm their role as a the greatest danger to world peace, soon to be nuclear armed. Why then must we reduce our already limited capabilities even further?

    There are many that might see such projects to be a poor use of public money. But one must keep in mind not only the value of possessing such military capability on a global level. But also the economic benefit that this would do to our nation. British shipyards have been forsaken since the second world. These industrial forges which created some of the greatest manmade objects the world has ever seen, from the Dreadnought class ships of the First World War to the insurmountable luxury of the great transoceanic liners. They have been the lifeblood of many working class cities and towns. It was economic investment in these shipyards which help rise Britain out of the great depression and have the potential to do the same now.

     However they are relegated to putting together wind turbines and oil rigs. Even Britain’s civil flagship the Queen Mary 2 was built in Chantiers de Atlantique on the Atlantic coast of France. Would it not be sensible when in the middle of an economic downturn to actually start creating and sustaining jobs? Not failing to mention creating a skill base in a world where the great challenges can only be overcome with engineering and scientific expertise. Instead this current Labour government does not consider the long term; it only considers quick fixes to the problems which they contributed to in the first place.

Adam Jenner, Events Officer