On behalf of the committee, I would like to wish each and every one of our readers a happy, relaxing and enjoyable Christmas and a fantastic start to the new year, when we look forward to building on our successes and seeing BUCF through 2012 stronger than ever. Take care, and we look forward to seeing you soon.

Owen Williams

On Wednesday the biggest Union for train drivers on London’s underground network, ASLEF, voted for strike action on Boxing Day, with another 3 strikes planned for 16^th Jan, 3^rd Feb and 13^th Feb. Bob Crow’s notoriously awkward RMT may soon follow or refuse to cross picket lines, effectively closing London Underground on what is often its busiest day of the year.

Why? Well it’s supposedly over “pay and conditions”. Tube drivers currently earn £45,545 per year, rising to over £52,000 by 2015; a deal brokered to try and stop further strike action. Drivers are also being offered a bonus (bribe) of around £1,200 for not striking during the Olympics (ie. doing their job). This equates to double the annual salary of a nurse (£25,000) and nearly triple the basic salary of a soldier (£18,000) and puts tube drivers not only on par with earnings of an Army Major but in the higher income tax bracket of 40%, earning over DOUBLE the average UK salary. Not your usual union minions eh? But it gets even better. With a strict 35 hour week and massive 43 days a year leave, tube drivers get what already amounts to one of the best reimbursement packages around.

The specific details in question are over pay for working Boxing day. Despite London Underground (LU) believing the previous pay settlement was in agreement of bank holiday work, ASLEF now demands triple pay and an extra day off in lieu for volunteering to work the shift. That would result in a pay cheque of £366 for a single days work. And is it hard or even necessary work? In reality…No. Almost no qualifications or previous experience are needed to drive a tube train, nor is the training programme long or rigorous. More importantly is the issue of automation of the entire tube system. Do trains even need drivers in the first place? Well considering Copenhagen, Dubai, Hong Kong, Washington, Kuala Lumpur, Tokyo and Kobe all have fully automated metro systems the answer would seem no. Further more even parts of theLondon’s tube system are now computer driven, most notably the entire Docklands Light Railway or DLR. Automated trains would not only modernise London’s dated transport network but provide hundreds of millions of pounds of savings on wages that could be used to subsidise the soaring cost of public transport in the Capital. Of course, computers also tend to not go on strike that often…Ken Livingstone may blame Boris Johnson for rising tube fares, but in reality it’s his own union paymasters that are driving up costs.

So what’s the real story behind these strikes? If anything it shows what benefits a truly aggressive union can bring for its members, but at what cost and to whom? Trade Unions in this country are not especially well received on the whole, and the likes of the RMT are nothing short of despised, especially by Londoners. While ASLEF and RMT may try to claim it’s over genuine concerns over pay and conditions, the public overwhelmingly know better. The first answer is simply greed. Bob Crow may hark on and on about how bankers are not paying their way and are hoarding money slowing down the economy, but he himself receives a rather generous £145,000 a year on top of still keeping his council house, while his members earn double the average UK earnings.Londonis not being held hostage by desperate public sector workers trying to maintain a decent standard of living but by some of its highest earning residents! And this leads on to the final point. The real reason for these strikes is confrontation. Tube drivers don’t need any more money, even Crow knows that. But with a Tory led government and public sector strikes left right and centre it provides the perfect backdrop for causing as much agro as possible. An unashamed and active communist, the likes of Bob Crow have long been brandished the “awkward squad” of union leaders, caring not for the public or even their own members but for the simple satisfaction of feeding their already massively bloated political egos.

Charlie Winch

This week, for the first time in a long time, thousands of people from across the political spectrum join in celebration of one thing; that David Cameron is in Downing Street. A man who promised there would be no transfer of sovereignty to Brussels without public consultation, and kept his word. A man who promised to put Britain’s national interests first and who, this week, fought our corner in spectacular fashion, taking the world by storm in a display of newfound national assertiveness that shows Britain is back from the brink of bankruptcy, and open for business.

After 13 years of weak negotiation, self-interest and broken promises, many had understandably lost faith in our leaders to come back from Brussels with all our national sovereignty intact, and without the hangover of another pledge broken, or another treaty signed against our will. Gone forever, they thought, were the days of Thatcher ‘handbagging’ EU delegates into a rebate for Britain, worth £2bn a year to us ever since 1984. This week Cameron changed all that, astounding the country in the process

By nearly three-to-one, the public backed the Prime Minister’s decision to veto the proposed bill, and considered his defiant stance to be a sign of Britain’s strength, not of weakness. The majority of the public now say they trust the Prime Minister to look out for Britain’s interests; streets ahead of Miliband or Clegg, both of whom are now overwhelmingly distrusted.

Cameron’s victory over Europe has also put the Conservatives back out in front in the polls, surging an incredible 9 points in one week; a spectacular show of renewed faith in the Prime Minister and our Party.

All this serves to show that the public have no appetite for deeper integration at this time into the EU and the Single Currency experiment; an experiment about which the only questions seem now to be not ‘if’, but ‘when’ and ‘how’ it fails.

Britain meanwhile, despite her lingering difficulties in recovering from a Labour government, walks on by alongside the sinking ship of Europe. Our credit rating is secure once again, unlike those of countries across the EU and beyond, thanks to swift and decisive action by the Chancellor to take Britain from the epicentre of the economic firestorm where we found ourselves by the end of Gordon Brown’s reign of economic destruction, to the comparative safety of its outer fringes.

Skeptics will invariably claim that this will lead to our isolation within Europe, painting a bleak picture of Britain as a limpet clinging desperately to the European Union for economic life-support. This is simply not the case; not only does Britain remain, even today, one of the world’s major exporting nations, the majority of our exports also do not go to Europe, but in fact to our many other trading partners, such as China, India, Japan, and, overwhelmingly, to the United States; our single biggest source of revenue, whose contribution to our economy could no doubt be even larger were we allowed to thrive outside the protectionist bubble of Europe.

Cameron’s action in Europe has not only steered Britain clear of the heart of the unfolding disaster in Europe, but also retained Britain’s national sovereignty, protected her national interests, and restored the nation’s faith in our leadership to do the right thing for our country on the global stage. It’s the best Christmas present Britain could have asked for.

Yesterday, in the second of the Coalition vs BULS football matches, the coalition once again swept to victory.

It was a fairly one sided game with the final score being 7-3 to the coalition.

We’re very happy to retain the (metaphorical) trophy and would like to thank everyone who turned out to play, or just support.

 Harman is once again trying to push forwards a rule within the Labour Party meaning that one of the two ‘top jobs’ within the party should always be filled by a woman. She believes this, along with making sure at least half of the shadow cabinet are female, will make sure they can really be seen as the party of equal opportunity and equality.

Harman, to give her her due, was elected on arguably her own merit in 1982. However, since 1997 around 50% of Labour women MPs elected have been on an all women shortlist, and now she wants to go one step further and make sure half the shadow cabinet are always female, as well as either the leader or deputy leader of the Labour Party. To do this, goes completely against the principle of equality of opportunity.

How can Labour guarantee that they have the best of their MPs in their cabinet when strict quotas are in place? Some women with less experience will inevitably be promoted to higher positions than their male colleagues who are better qualified for the position, just to meet this quota. This is equally as bad as the discrimination that often occurs in businesses, where less able men are promoted, or given the job, over a women with just as much or more experience, who just happens to be at the age where she may decide to start a family. Both of these cases are discrimination, and neither should be encouraged by the politicians in this country.

If I go into politics in the future, I want to be sure that what I have achieved is because of my skills, experience and personality, not just because I’m female. I don’t want to be part of a quota. I do agree with Harman, the current make up of Parliament does need to change and, in an ideal world; women should make up around 50% of the House of Commons. But that should be done through education, encouraging girls and young women to become more interested and involved in politics and getting rid of the stereotypes surrounding politicians. Positive discrimination is not the answer, it’s just patronising!

 If Harman is successful in achieving these rules and restrictions for the Labour party, then I just hope the Conservatives can find a fairer, more equal and better way of getting more women involved in politics.

Emily Hilditch

The next William Hague? I think  not! Yesterday, after the disappointing performance of Ed Miliband, delegates at the Labour Conference at least had the hope of  a bright future in the form of their new star Rory Weal. The young Rory wowed the conference with a heartfelt speech of how his family was saved from disaster by the Welfare state. He knew how to please the audience, turning on the left-wing rhetoric, claiming that the “welfare state is being ruthlessly ripped apart by a vicious, right-wing Tory-led Government.” Hours after his speech bookmakers were offering odds 25/1 that you would be Labour leader by 2040 and 50/1 that he would be Prime Minister by then. On the high of an ego trip Rory told the media that he would “not rule out” one day being Prime Minister.

However, the hangover from the binge of praise is starting to emerge, and the painful truth that Rory Weal is more of a champagne socialist than a working class hero. His speech invoked images of a struggling family living on the brink of poverty, when in reality Rory is the son of a former multi millionaire property developer. Now it is true that his family lost the majority of their money when his father’s company went bust. However, far from being on the streets poor Rory had to leave his £13000 a year private school and his £950,000 grade II listed house for a selective grammar school and £300,000 semi in Kent. Despite spending his whole life in private education Rory maintains his opposition to selective education attacking it for being divisive, but really it is this ‘divisive’ system which Rory owes everything to, not the welfare state as he claimed in his speech.

Rory’s attempt to appear working class is a real insult to the millions of families struggling to cope through this Autumn of anxiety, as the nation attempts to heal the wounds caused by a decade of Labour misgovernment. It emphasises how out of touch the Labour elite truly are; still dominated by overpaid union hacks and champagne socialists. Contrary to bookmakers odds, I would very surprised if people even know who Rory Weal is by 2040 – by spinning a pack of blatant lies to the nation he has ended his political career before it even began.

Tim Hasker

It all started so well, he made the funniest jokes you can expect a dull man to make, he didn’t dwell on past labour glory nor did he spend half the speech apologising for Labour’s record in government. He sounded like he was on the right path to making, ok not a spectacular speech, but an acceptably strong enough speech to secure his leadership. Then he said the words which I think will haunt him for many years to come;

“And strike a new bargain in our country”

I heard it and thought, must just be a mistake, a bad phrase that slipped through the cracks of speech screening. But he kept on saying it, a total of 13 times – definitely Miliband’s unlucky number. Would somebody please bring Alastair Campbell to save these people from themselves. Tony Blair spent the first year of his leadership cementing the concept of New Labour; it was bold, ambitious, media savvy and smart – the new bargain just sounds ridiculous. On that podium, talking of his new bargain for Britain, it felt like he should be on a bad advert for Costcutter, not trying to convince his party and the nation that he is the next Prime Minister. Michael Foot had the longest suicide note in history, Ed Miliband has got his shopping list.

The content of his ‘alternative’ lacked substance much like his slogan. He did some banker bashing, no surprises there, and then went on to talk about values. Values are all well and good but where are the policies? The answer is, there aren’t any, the Labour leader has no credible alternative, it’s the same old labour, the same old broken policies which avoid dealing with the mess they created. Ed hoped that his laughable excuse for a slogan would get voters excited like they would before a sale. However, the plan flopped and I’ve got a feeling that it won’t be long before Labour supporters are shopping for a new leader.

Tim Hasker

Later today Ed Miliband will address the Labour Party Conference, after what has been a disappointing first year to his leadership. The year since Miliband narrowly beat his brother to become leader has been less than spectacular for Ed; defeat in the AV referendum, annihilation in the Scottish elections, a mediocre performance in the English locals, cabinet choice mistakes (mainly the decision to appoint two complete incompetent shadow chancellors) and now the Unions, the people who put him in power, are starting to question their decision. Moreover, this mornings polls won’t fill Ed with confidence; it places the Conservatives on top, the first time in a year. Further polls highlight that 57% don’t view him as a credible Prime Minister in waiting – the Labour leader needs to change public opinion if his party has any hope of escaping the wilderness.

What then should we expect from Ed Miliband this afternoon? If he is to follow the trend set by his shadow chancellor, he’ll most probably apologise for Labour’s handling of the economy and its failure to properly regulate the banks. However, it’s a bit late for that, it shouldn’t take the Labour Party a year to recognise that an economic recession during their administration is their responsibility – so an apology won’t do much to appease the public. Secondly, he’ll probably try to defend Labour’s record in government, this too would be a mistaken vanity exercise, the public made its mind up on Labour’s record last May – you lost the election.

If Ed Miliband wants to rebuild his party’s image he needs to move on, develop a new policy agenda, not old labour or new labour, but Miliband’s labour. If he was smart his conference speech wouldn’t involve apologies or record defences but a new strategy for government. He’s had a year to tory bash and oppose the cuts, it’s about time the public knew what his alternative is. 

Tim Hasker

On Friday, BUCF held a stall at the Societies Fair and signed up lots of new members!

We look forward to meeting everyone properly at our Welcome Drinks on Monday and there will be an opportunity for anyone who missed us at the Fair to sign up then.

No doubt many of you will have shared my frustration over the years in watching the decline of the erstwhile broadsheet and former refuge of good quality print journalism, the Daily Telegraph. Its transformation from quality, comparatively balanced reporting to a broadsheet version of the Daily Mail is nothing new, and its latest serialised diatribe; the “Hands Off Our Land” campaign against planning reforms, is one of many of its increasingly self-righteous crusades, albeit by far the least well written or researched.

A bold extract displayed on the front page a few days ago proclaimed the following;

“The reason [developers] are not building enough houses is that the market has collapsed… It has nothing to do with the planning system.”

Two things are woefully wrong with this quote. Firstly, upon reading the article, we discover that the impartial and unbiased source the Telegraph has chosen for this analysis is none other than the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE). Second is the fact that this makes no economic sense. A shortage of anything, in the absence of some kind of market distortion or government intervention, will lead to an increase in its price, and hence an expansion of supply. If the ‘market has collapsed’; a tenuous statement at best, alluding presumably to a fall in prices as a function of demand, then by very definition there are ‘enough’ houses being built.

While my main point here is about bad quality journalism, the Telegraph might really want to have a long hard think about this crusade. In excess of 1.8 million people are on housing waiting lists right now, housing affordability has dropped by 9% since the 1980s, and housing supply has simply not kept pace with demand in a nation with a growing population and far more people than ever living alone, separating, and living longer, all while demanding larger houses than their parents as a function of economic growth. All the while the vast majority of UK land remains green and unused, and our planning system remains archaic.

I do hope the Telegraph tones down its rhetoric on this soon, lest it be condemned to join the ever growing pile of obstinately change-averse institutions in this country, grinding in the gears of 21^st century progress and reform.

Owen Williams – Editor

Our thoughts and prayers are with all those affected by the tragedy that occurred in the US ten years ago today.

The victims and their families will never be forgotten.

The Prime Minister has found himself as the subject of many of the articles written during the recess and the rank and file members of the Conservative Party have stressed that Cameron must distance himself from anything that could damage the party. In short, they have stated that no person is bigger than the party. Add-in the rumours of recent week that Jeremy Hunt is being prepared to be parachuted into Number 10 after the next General Election in a similar vein to that of the Blair-Brown arrangement of recent years and suddenly the Prime Minister could find himself going to Manchester having to answer a lot more questions about his own position than answering questions on how he intends to implement the second phase of his national rebuilding programme.

Ed Miliband meanwhile, appears to be more popular now than at any point in his near-year in charge of Her Majesty’s Opposition, despite being viewed as “uncharismatic” and “unspiring” by members of the party. A strong display in the final three PMQs before the summer saw Miliband and Labour catapulted into a seven point lead in a YouGov/Sunday Times poll. However as the Labour bandwagon rolls into Liverpool at the very end of September, Labour finds itself just point ahead in the polls and Miliband finds his approval rating back at 52% (YouGov/The Sun – 30.08.11). The strong initial response to the riots has found itself outstripped by overall division that remains in the party as to whether Ed is the right Miliband to challenge David Cameron in 2015.

Yet before the leaders of the two largest parties face their members and the press at Conference, the Deputy Prime Minister brings his ailing Liberal Democrats to Birmingham in mid-September for what is certain to be a turbulent four days. Despite leading the party at the point where it is the most powerful it has been in several decades, Nick Clegg finds himself as unpopular as ever with the membership. Failure to stand-up to the senior coalition partner, coupled with in-house scandals (Huhne’s points and Cable’s constant off-message agenda) have led to a fall in Clegg’s already paltry popularity figures and whispers of a potential, if slightly improbable, leadership challenge in Birmingham. Sixteen months on from the General Election, the Liberal Democrat leader potentially faces the most difficult conference of his tenure.

It would appear therefore, that all three party leaders have a lot to do in the coming two weeks. However,  with the order paper for the first of the two weeks of the post-recess session confirmed, there is little in the way of legislative action that any of the leaders could take. Debates on whether Croydon should gain city-status or whether Spelthorne should get a waste recycling plant are interspersed amongst potentially twenty-three instances of legislation receiving a second reading, none of which are particularly controversial. Instead, it would appear that David Cameron’s best form of attack is defence. By defending his NHS Reform (Amendment) Bill, alongside a strong PMQs performance, defending the strategy in Libya which has received plaudits globally, will see the Prime Minister go to Conference in a strong position. Essentially the ball is in Ed Miliband’s court. A recently leaked Labour Party briefing document suggested a “sustained period of showing DC as a right-wing, traditional Tory, will show that they no longer can claim the centre ground”. It would appear that for now, Miliband’s line of attack will not be to suggest that Cameron and the Conservatives are unfit to govern (as had been a previous allegation laid down) and will instead suggest that the Prime Minister’s own ideology is not what is needed at a time of conflict and economic strife. Yet observers on all sides have been quick to point out that Miliband’s strategy falls short of suggesting solutions to the problems that face the country, in stark contrast to the success Cameron is seen to have achieved when challenging the Labour government eighteen months ago. Whilst a good straight bat by Cameron will see him through until the Christmas period, Miliband will need to attack with flair to prevent his leadership stagnating. As for Nick Clegg, merely standing at the non-strikers end, not running his partner out and practising a few strokes may just see the Deputy Prime Minister survive as the Liberal Democrat leader. All in all, the next two weeks will be more about soundbites and popularity, than suggestions and policies.

Lots has already been going on behind the scenes since the last AGM to streamline and improve the way BUCF manages its services, and the updates you can see today are the first visible stage of these changes. In addition to a smart, updated look for the site, we will be aiming to bring together all the strands of BUCF’s online presence in one place; right here.

Our award-winning blog won’t be going anywhere, and will continue to provide insightful analysis from our team of authors. In addition to this, we are pleased to announce the BUCF twitter feed has been revived at @BirminghamUniCF, offering a fantastic way to get in touch with the committee quickly and easily, as well as keeping you up to date with what we’re up to.

Our merchandise store; unique among CF branches, is still going strong, and we’ll be adding a range of new products in time for the new year. We’ve also placed a link straight into the store from the homepage of this site to keep everything together.

Underpinning all of these changes is a complete overhaul to the way we handle email communication in BUCF, so that however you decide to contact us, you should be assured of a quick response from the committee.

The final stage of our changes will be to bring together both parts of our website, old and new, to give you all the information you need on BUCF structure, history, committee, news and events in one place, alongside the blog and online shop at www.bucf.co.uk, creating a new home for the society on the web.

We’re excited about the changes and how they will improve the way we do things online. If you have any feedback at all on what you’ve seen so far or what we’ve got planned, just leave a comment on this post. We look forward to hearing what you think!

I am pleased finally to be able to share with you an updated version of the video shown to members at the AGM, summing up some of the achievements and successes of the society and of the outgoing committee over the past 12 months.

I hope everyone on the new committee is pleased with their new positions and I for one am looking forward to getting started on an exciting new year. I’d also like to say a personal thanks to everyone on the 2010-11 committee, for all of the hard work put into making the society what it is, and for the fantastic times working with you this past year. I’m sure you will be an inspiration to all of the new committee going into the future.

Owen Williams

Four generations of BUCF Presidents

Last night, BUCF held its AGM, bringing to an end a fantastic year for BUCF. I have been involved with BUCF since my first year, and served on the committee for two years – it has been a privilege to be your Vice President over the last year. There are many reasons why BUCF is a success, but ultimately it is because we are all good friends. I would like to thank outgoing President Sophie Shrubsole for all the hard she has done for the society and thank the rest of the committee, it has been an honour to work with you. The emotion of last night emphasises how much BUCF means to us all. However, a new dawn has begun and congratulations to the BUCF Committee 2011-2012

President – Rosie Anne Hatch

Vice President – Emily Hilditch

Secretary – Christopher James

Treasurer – Edward Trafford

Publicity Officer – Owen V. Williams

The future is bright for BUCF and this young,vibrant, new committee will, I’m sure, take our great society to new heights. Best of luck to you all.

Tim Hasker

BUCF Vice-President (External)

2010-2011

This morning, the German coalition government announced a change in policy to decommission all German nuclear power plants in the next ten years, which currently provide around a quarter of the power Germany’s 81 million residents require.

This comes in the ‘wake’ of the Fukushima nuclear incident, where a geological phenomenon of unprecedented magnitude and tragically unfortunate timing and location led to an earthquake and tsunami of a scale inconceivable to the designers of one of Japan’s oldest nuclear stations, resulting in the most comprehensive failure of not only primary cooling systems, but their backup generators, the backups of these backups in the form of three of the four seawater pumps available as a last resort, and destruction of the infrastructure around the plant to bring in yet more backups and repair equipment. The results of this cataclysmic chain of incredibly unlikely combined failures, apart from injuries to workers from the earthquake and conventional explosion itself, were a four-day check-up in hospital for two site workers, (who had been wading ankle deep in cooling water from the reactor), a death toll of zero, and, as of now, and a negligible environmental impact, with no risk to human health.

Nevertheless, the borderline-hysterical media coverage of the incident spread fear and ignorance far further than the radioactivity carried away from Japan, and today sees the announcement of a policy which can only lead to greater dependence on Russian gas oligarchs, less stable and secure supply of energy, higher prices and, I should venture, poorer safety performance than that of Germany’s fleet of relatively modern, well managed reactors.

However, this retrograde policy cuts much deeper than merely its direct, perverse effects on European energy.

By making this announcement, German politicians are pandering to the disastrous combination of a fearmongering anti-nuclear lobby and public ignorance about nuclear power, rather than governing in the national interest, using scientific, rational logic. Indeed, far from merely failing to improve the quality of life of its citizens, it is actively endangering it. This constitutes nothing short of a dereliction of the duty of the state to govern in the best interest of its people, using the best scientific information available, rather than following the prevailing public fervour.

This must not continue. Already British MPs have stood up in parliament with similar sentiments – one MP asked angrily; “What will the Prime Minister do to prevent a Welsh Fukushima?” …to prevent the nuclear industry from withstanding a geological catastrophe in Wales on the scale of Tōhoku without a single fatality? Seems like something we’d be aspiring to, not preventing, although only in a parallel universe where the statistical probability of a Tsunami in mid-wales was anything other than zero.

It’s important to recognise the situation in Britain is far, far bleaker with regards to energy than Germany, even now. Procrastination and indecision by previous governments ever since Thatcher leave Britain in the situation that if we do nothing, by 2016 the lights will go out. We are ever more dependent on the power imported under the channel from France to provide the actual electricity we need whilst our windmills; broadly decorative in terms of providing power; either sit idle or else draw power from the national grid. This ongoing bailout of our hopeless energy policy is of course only possible thanks to France’s extensive network of nuclear stations, providing 79% of its power cleanly, safely, and with negligible carbon emissions, allowing it to export more power than any other nation on earth. It is too late for new Nuclear power in the UK to fill this void now, but the tragedy in Germany underscores the importance that we are never, ever led astray by ignorance and over-zealous lobby groups, over science, reason, and pragmatism.

Owen Williams

MIT Nuclear Science and Engineering Department – web.mit.edu/nse
E.ON

Well, the people have spoken, and they have said a resounding NO! The British people in their wisdom have decided to keep the fair system of one person, one vote, rejecting the ridiculous Alternative Vote system. 69% voted no to the unfair system, and with this no brings, thankfully, an end to the debate on electoral reform for at least a generation.

The result of the AV referendum was no surprise, however, the locals were. Common sense prevailed as the Conservatives held their council positions, gaining seats across England. Labour, however, performed poorly, gaining less seats than William Hague did in 1999 during the honeymoon of Tony Blair and New Labour. With Labour shrinking back to their heartland in the North and an embarrassing failure in Scotland – the leadership ability of Ed Miliband has taken a serious blow.

In Scotland – the SNP and Alex Salmond achieved the first majority in the history of the devolved Scottish Parliament. Labour and Ed Miliband were hoping to do well in Scotland, but failed to make progress loosing 7 seats, while the SNP won a majority with 69 seats. The Scottish result is interesting; not only does it show a huge rejection of Miliband’s leadership, but the first SNP majority government also raises the question of a probable referendum on independence.

It has been a good night for the Conservatives; the Tories held their ground across the country and as a result David Cameron stands as a stronger Prime Minister, as the country supports our agenda for government. Principally, sorting out the economic mess left by Labour and getting Britain moving forward again. However, more importantly, tonight has been a tremendous victory for democracy, the people have spoken and now we must respect their decision! 

Tim Hasker

Polling day has arrived; don’t forget to vote NO to AV, let us keep the fair system of one person, one vote – and don’t forget to vote Conservative in the local elections. In Birmingham the Conservative led council is making the necessary tough decisions while protecting frontline services. Labour councils are purposefully attacking frontline services up and down the country. Don’t let Labour do to our councils what they did to the country. Vote Conservative; and if you live in Selly Oak vote for our very own Owen Williams; who would make a brilliant local voice for not only students, but all the residents of Selly Oak. So get out there, vote Conservative, and more importantly vote NO to AV!

Yesterday the Country and the World came together to watch Prince William and Catherine Middleton get married. With parties happening up and down the land, BUCF joined in on the celebrations, where bunting and champagne were in abundance. All of us in BUCF would like to join the World in congratulating Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and hope they have many happy years together.

BUCF Committee

Could Ed Miliband’s political career get any duller?  He is now so utterly boring and useless, that even cleavage gets more coverage in the news than he does!

So despite the fact that according to the BBC and all our favourite left wing media we are all going to loose valuable public services which will thus impinge upon our health, education and personal security, there is in fact a whole host of positive and encouraging news stemming from the economy, that only goes to show that things are starting to get better!

High street sales have risen far sharply than expected, prompting a whole days coverage from the BBC!  Industrial output and exports has dramatically increased, but alas this was deemed only worthy of half a days coverage by the British Broadcasting Cuts Corporation.

Food prices have fallen encouraging an increase in sales, and even the royal wedding has prompted an increase in spending.

Perhaps even more importantly however, is the simple but overlooked fact that public spending this year is 5.1% higher than last years.  This is a sign of things to come, if only we were told a little more of this positive news!

Sophie

President

Yesterday, the European Commission asked member states for a 4.9% increase in the EU budget. This increase, well above EU inflation at 3%, has already been met with resistance from the UK Government. And so it should be.

At a time when most major EU countries are implementing huge budget cuts it is frankly cheeky of Europe to demand such a huge increase. Clearly the EU has missed the mood of austerity that has swept through its member states and seems to think it can carry on spending us all further into debt.

The claim that the EU has done all it can to reduce spending can only be met with the insistence that it try harder and do more. Ourselves and other member states simply cannot go on limitlessly funding the EU’s inefficiency and corruption.

The increase Europe is asking for would burden Britain with an additional £680 million, bringing our total contributions to over £10 billion. When the whole of the nation is tightening its belts and bowing to the austerity measures necessary to get the country’s finances back on track can we really justify what works out at £400 per household being thrown at the EU? I’m quite sure most people would rather welcome that money to help their families out during these difficult times.

George Osborne is right to assert that the UK is not prepared to accept this increase. The Government should pull out all the stops to halt the EU spending train in its tracks and a tough negotiating stance is needed to ensure that the Europe stops taking advantage of us and other nations. It is high time we demanded a little more respect from Brussels than we are currently afforded.

Rosie Hatch

Once the voice of disillusioned former Labour supporters, all Gillian Duffy’s staged encounter with Nick Clegg this morning shows is that she’s become another puppet for the Miliband camp, says Harry Cole

When Rochdale pensioner Mrs Duffy went out to get a pint of milk on the 29 April last year, little did she know that her simple probing would encapsulate, in a word, what media commentaters and pundits had been trying to explain for all the years that Gordon Brown was at the forefront of British politics.

Brown’s spiteful dismissal of Duffy as a “bigot” confirmed what many had known for years, but had been unable to proof comprehensively – that the Brown the public saw, with his awkward, unnerving attempt at a smile and his wonky tie, was not the same mobile phone-throwing, venomous, raging operator who had been flailing around behind closed doors for the best part of a decade.

The power of the Mrs Duffy phenomenon was the element of surprise. She caught not only Brown, but Labour and the media, off guard. Gordon tried to get “Gillian” to come outside with him after an hour of begging and groveling apologies, but it was too late, the damage was done. The prime minister had been unmasked.

Fast forward a year and Mrs Duffy has tackled another politician. It appears she has struck again on her way to the shops, but what good fortune for this lady to bump into two such high profile types in the space of just twelve months. This politico isn’t quite as unpopular or loathed as Gordon, but then he hasn’t had the same amount of time to drive the country at full speed into a brick wall.

Strangely though Nick Clegg didn’t look very surprised to come face to face with the only famous resident of Rochdale (besides John Peel, that is)  when he rocked up in the town. There was Mrs Duffy waiting, ready to pounce. The BBC News Channel knew to cut over immediately. There were TV cameras and paps everywhere. How did they know what was about to happen?

How Clegg knew depends on your political colours, but he didn’t call her a racist or lie to her face and he certainly didn’t slag her off the second she was out of earshot. He may have been a little patronising, but he proved why he and not Gordon Brown is the one arriving in Rochdale in limos these days. However, at the end of the day it’s irrelevant how he did as it was not real. We did not learn an unexpected truth here, Mrs Duffy was neutered. Her line of questioning was remarkably similar to what Labour have been saying in the last few weeks. Had someone briefed her? Mrs Duffy certainly had a mischievous twinkle in her eye throughout the meeting. The whole plan was completely transparent. Just look how happy she was when Miliband won the leadership. Was her role as an attack weapon discussed at subsequent meetings?

It seems that in just a year Mrs Duffy has gone from being a thorn in the side of the Labour Party and the final nail in the coffin of their 2010 campaign, to their darling and a spin-bomb for Tom Baldwin to deploy for a quick morning headline hit. But the power of Mrs Duffy has gone. Once she represented a silent majority of working class people who felt that Labour had let them down. Now that she is just another Miliband apparatchik pushing focused group lines she falls flat.

Mrs Duffy was real. Mrs Duffy was anti-politics. Labour’s attempt to capture a weakness and throw it back into their enemy’s face hs left a one-time political phenomenon dead in the water.

Harry Cole

It’s been a hard time for them as they’ve learned to work on real-world policy, and they have certainly paid dearly, with their party now slightly less popular than Satan himself, and the public now agreeing with David Cameron that Nick Clegg is indeed “the biggest joke in politics”.

Today, however, it seems to have become too much even for Clegg himself to bear, as he appears to have forgotten the past year altogether and entered some kind of state of denial about the whole experience, retreating to his old style of shouting the first nice sounding idea that passes through his bewildered brain. Today he unveiled his latest quest to end what he calls the ‘who you know culture’, saying people shouldn’t be advantaged because they or their parents “met somebody at the tennis club or the golf club”.

Super. I wonder how this is to be achieved. Perhaps a nationwide ban on discussing all matters to do with work, or study, or life. Perhaps everyone in the country in a position of hiring staff or offering internships needs to be barricaded in their office at night. Or maybe Nick is suggesting running a complete background check for every job, internship, and study placement that no applicant has ever met anyone who has had a conversation with someone in any way related to the company – by which time the company would have gone bankrupt, and you would have grown old and died. Of course, being more serious about this, as always, he makes a perfectly valid ideological point, that it is unfortunate that those who lack certain connections by complete chance are less likely to get certain jobs. But I’m afraid this is nothing short of the fundamental nature of human existence – we meet people who know people who do things. It spans the entire course of your life, from getting cool field trips in primary school because someone’s dad worked for an interesting company, to hearing about a job opportunity before anyone else because you met someone in the know. This has always been the case in every aspect of life, and can never be changed one iota, no matter how much you may or may not wish it to be so.

Once upon a time this may have been an insightful little comment from the far end of the commons opposition benches from Nick Clegg, general-purpose Liberal MP. But from Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, I’m afraid it just comes across as vacuous, meaningless, and deeply irrelevant.

The eagerly anticipated Coalition vs. Labour match, kicked off at 5.15 in Selly Park last Thursday, but one vital ingredient was missing.  The Liberal Democrats failed to turn up at all, leaving the evenings event in doubt.  Kindly some independent players stepped up to play alongside BUCF members.

The first half was a cracking display of enthusiasm and some special skill from Ed Robinson, BUCF successfully coming in at the break 2-0 up, a dominant performance displayed throughout.

BULS put on the pressure with a goal just after the game resumed, but President Shrubsole who had come on for the second half, scored after only a few minutes, taking in a pass from Ed Robinson and poking home to make the score line 3-1.

Another BUCF goal restored our dominance.  A Labour goal reflected a good game  and time was drawing in for yet another Tory Victory!  Somehow extra time amounted to another 10-15 minutes as Labour tried to string out the match and indeed, extra extra extra time afforded BULS another goal.  BUCF were just too strong however, and the game finished 4-3.

Thanks to the Labour society for organising the event, and a special thanks to the BUCF players, Ed Robinson, Ed Newland and Alasdair Johnstone.

I wonder what challenge shall be laid down for BUCF next?

Sophie

President

Saturday in London saw 250,000 people gather to march against the Government’s cuts to public services, interestingly the same number of people that marched against the proposal to ban fox hunting – that’s always a good precedent to follow!

Whilst the majority of the day was attended by peaceful but misguided protesters, once again certain parts of the Capital were wrecked by mindless thugs, acting under the guise of anarchists, anti capitalist and anti globalisation groups!  I’m yet to be convinced that anyone can be anti-globalist, particularly those the BBC filmed smashing up shops and cash machines.  They did after all have clothing on, were using objects as weapons, had used transport to get to their locations, and had to feed themselves to build up all that destructive energy.  Anti-globalisation then chaps?

It is about time that Home Secretary Theresa May grant greater powers to the police so that they can tackle these thugs more effectively.  At the moment, the Police are simply damned if they do and damned if they don’t, thus clear and simple legislation as to appropriate but strong action, must be laid down. These scenes cannot continue and  a ban on protesters covering their faces would be a good start!

Sophie

President

I’ve just watched the soi-disant “March for the Alternative” snaking its way across London. It is clear enough, from the banners and slogans, what the protesters are against: spending restraint, open markets, private enterprise, property rights, free contract, Tories, bankers and Nick Clegg. Fair enough. But what are they for?

Their website suggests that they think the answer to our debt crisis is more spending. In fact, they don’t think we have much of a debt crisis. They want higher taxes, particularly for the rich, whom they expect to wait around meekly to be fleeced. And they insist that higher state expenditure (”investment”) will create more jobs. Why so half-hearted, comrades? Why not go all the way, nationalise every business, place every adult on the state payroll and confiscate all income? By your logic, it would surely make Britain the most prosperous country on Earth.

I can’t imagine what prompted Labour leaders to get involved with this madness, but I suspect that they have just added a couple of years to their spell in Opposition. Ed Miliband, sounding almost reasonable compared to the official demands of the marchers, says that he would halve the deficit over this Parliament instead of eliminating it altogether. Let’s leave aside, for a moment, whether the Coalition’s proposals really would bring us back to surplus over five years – a prospect which strikes me as optimistic. The truth is that, as yet, there haven’t been any net cuts. Every month since the general election has seen rises in taxation, spending and borrowing.

Ministers hope to close the deficit by allowing the private sector to grow faster than the public. In other words, although the state will end up being smaller as a percentage of GDP, it will be larger in absolute terms. To be clear, then, Labour isn’t proposing to cut spending more slowly than the Coalition, but to increase it more quickly.

After “No Cuts!” the marchers’ favourite slogan was “Fairness!” Alright, then. How about parity between public and private sector pay? Or job security? Or pensions? How about being fair to our children, whom we have freighted with a debt unprecedented in peacetime? How about being fair to the boy who leaves school at 16 and starts paying taxes to subsidise the one who goes to university? How about being fair to the unemployed, whom firms cannot afford to hire because of the social protection enjoyed by existing employees?

The protesters might have engaged in a serious argument by identifying alternative spending reductions.  Instead, they have decided to indulge their penchant for empty, futile, self-righteous indignation.

On Monday BUCF became the first CF in the country to launch its very own online shop, packed full with a range of BUCF merchandise.

Thanks to the handy work of Owen Williams our publicity officer, we’ve got a great lineup of gear for you, from hoodies and t-shirts bearing the BUCF logo, to some fantastic tory slogan t-shirts and accessories. Plus, until April 4th we can offer you £10 off any purchase you make above £50, using voucher code SPRING2011 – so why stop at one hoodie?  Any suggestions for other products will be gratefully received, as BUCF seeks to extend its prowess as one the leading young Conservative groups.

Follow the link and get buying!

Sophie

President

The Prime Minister has revealed today at PMQs, that the town of Wootton Bassett will be bestowed with the title of ‘Royal’ in recognition of its efforts to honour the UK’s fallen soldiers.

The recommendation was made to the Queen by Cameron, to salute the people of the Wiltshire town, that has seen more than 150 repatriations since 2007, and who continue to signify the deep seated feeling of pride, admiration and above all gratitude that this country has for the armed force.

Sophie

President

Election campaigning for Guild positions swept campus and all student areas imaginable, but after two weeks of bright colours to vulgar for morning lectures, inventive costumes and the standard random names, finally eight sabatical officers and other Guild positions were appointed.

Well done to all those that took part and congratulations to those that won.

For the first time in more years than I have knowledge of, the Guild shall be headed up by a Conservative Student, Mark Harrop.

Mark served on BUCFs committee from 2009-2010 as marketing officer, helping to create events for the society.  It shall be interesting to see if he is able, or willing in this environment, to put a more central and balanced slant on the way the Guild operates.  It was also nice to see other Conservative students running for Guild positions, clearly highlighting, that whilst Universities are known for their left leaning persuasions, there are plenty of Tories out there too!

Sophie

President

Such a scheme overlooks the fiscal difficulties that the country faces, and more worrying that such a scheme overlooks the crowding out of public investors who would invest regardless of the conditions imposed by the government. If everyone is given an equal share regardless of whether they want or will use the shares then some of the capital will be wasted – stakeholders will not use the capital they are given, they will forget they neither have the shares nor reap the rewards that the share of the company offers. People would rather receive a real monetary gain rather than abstract shares.

What I suggest is similar to the approach that the Conservative Government used in the 1980’s with the approach used to privatise British industries such as British Telecom. People would be invited to buy shares at discounted rates, in order to encourage the public to take up ownership whilst creating billions for the public purse. People who decide to invest in the scheme could buy as many, up to ceiling, or as few shares as they wish knowing that the value of the shares would increase – due to being offered at a discounted rate to the public. These people would be investing in the public owned banks because they desired and chose to do so.

The money generated from the sale could then be used to generate a one off fiscal stimulus or paying off a fraction of our debt burden thus reducing our interest payments. The second approach would help in paying off our structural debt, but also the deficit as interest payments are reduced. We should not return to the mantra of spending money we simply cannot afford to, and any policy decisions made should reflect the long term stability and health of our fiscal policy.

Matt Harley, Conservative Staff

I thought I would bring our readers attention to the following article on the BBC News website. In the article the BBC states that Chancellor George Osborne’s austerity agenda has recieved the enthusiastic backing of US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner who told the BBC that he was “very impressed, as just one man looking from a distance, at the basic strategy that he’s adopted”. Crucially, and this is something the Coalition have been trying to hammer home like a broken record, Mr Geithner explicitly acknowledged that the Chancellor had been handed “problems not created by this government”. The Chancellors approach is admittedly markedly different to the approach currently being pursued in the US however Geithner correctly pointed out that the UK’s deficit position was worse than that of the US and is one of only two G20 countries which expects its deficit to rise, not fall, this year. In my opinion this dispells Labours myth that they had nothing to do with racking up the deficit because whilst the rest of the G20, who were also severely hit by the banking crisis, expect their deficits to fall this year ours will continue to rise. The fact is noone, not even Maggie Thatcher, wants to enter office and start “slashing and burning”. What possible political or popular capital can there be in making people lives more difficult? But we know now, as we knew in Mrs Thatchers day, that delaying the inevitable is not a credible option and will only lead to further misery and heartache in the future. Our economy is in a real mess, none of which can be attributed to the Colaition however much Labour might spin the statistics, and Im pleased that the US Treasury Secretary has correctly identified the Coalitions tough austerity programme as the only credible alternative to get this country back in to strong and sustainable growth.

For too long this country, under Conservative and Labour governments have shied away from facing up to the huge benefits culture that has developed within our society.  That is to say, that for millions in Britain, the welfare system has provided a benefits package that has enabled individuals and families to claim and receive money to support them to such an extent that going to work has not been necessary.

Whilst the Conservative Party and the Coalition Government will continue to support the welfare system, providing for those in need whilst searching for a job, or for those unable to work due to illness or disability, it is no longer acceptable to expect the state to provide for those that have continued to claim benefits unnecessarily.

The proposed ‘make work pay’ system faces this problem squarely in the face, and is something I have wanted to see for years.  The idea is that a universal credit would be paid as one lump sum, but that those who continually refuse work would face a reduction and even cessation of their benefits.  Not only will this encourage communities to see that employment is important, (as in many areas being on the dole has become the norm and expected), but it should alleviate the grumbles of millions in Britain, fed up of seeing taxes spent on those that simply don’t deserve them!  Our reforms will end the absurdity of a system where people too often get rewarded for doing the wrong thing, and those who strive to do the best by their families get penalised.

Whilst for once I actually agree with RedEd, that jobs need to be there in the first place, if the Labour Party try to suggest that this proposal is anything other than progressive and a good idea, their vested interests will surely be laid bare for all to see.

I had the pleasure of meeting Iain Duncan Smith and was astounded at how totally committed he is to making real change and tackling the problem of poverty in Britain.  He is the right man to oversee Conservative policy in this field, and I hope more than anything that this proposal makes in through the House.

Sophie

BUCF President

An interesting article in the Guardian was brought to my attention today which seems to confirm that which we already suspected; Labour are making politically motivated council cuts. Figures released by the GMB clearly show that Labour councils are shedding on average 50% more posts than Conservative and Lib Dem authorities. Labour authorities have issued on average 745 job “at-risk” notifications, compared with 498 and 414 respectively from Tory and Lib Dem councils. The research shows that in total Tory councils have issued 49,774 post reduction notifications – 37.7% of the total cuts, which is lower than expected as the party controls 52% of all councils. By contrast, Labour-controlled councils have issued 39,787 notifications, 30% of the total, while the party controls only 16% of all councils. Lib Dem controlled councils have issued 8,339 – 6.3% of the total when the party runs 7.9% of all authorities. Of course Labour have attempted to wriggle out of this trying to justify it by the fact that Labour runs more large unitary authorities and the Tories lots of small district councils, meaning the average cut per council is warped, however upon closer analysis taking this fact in to account, the Guardian also identified that by almost every other analysis Labour still are cutting faster and deeper than Tory councils. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out that more job losses equals higher unemployment and gives a smug self righteous Labour Party the perfect opportunity to berate Cameron for his return to the high unemployment of the 1980′s and further bolster their partys poll ratings. If 13 years of Labour government taught us nothing else, it taught us that Labour will do anything to present the image they want and Im pleased that the Guardian and others have brought Labours deception to the publics awareness.

Tonight MPs overwhelmingly voted to keep the ban on prisoners having the right to vote; the motion was won with a majority of 212 with only 22 MPs voting against it. Once again it has fallen on a Conservative Government to send a clear message to the EU; that Britain is no longer prepared to be pushed around and have our sovereignty questioned. The motion was led by senior back bencher and former leadership contender David Davis, however, it recently received the support of the Prime Minister who urged MPs to vote for the motion.

The Commons vote is not the end of this matter and Ministers stress that they are now potentially facing a constitutional crisis; with their ‘international obligations’ on one side and their duty to respect the sovereignty of our parliament on the other. Those in favour of giving criminals the vote argue that Britain cannot pick and choose which parts of the European Convention on Human Rights we obide by, which I suppose is true. However, for me this is just further evidence that a universal concept of human rights is unachievable; to any sensible Briton the idea of giving criminals the vote is repulsive. Voting is a civil liberty, the purpose of prisons is; of course to rehabilitate prisoners but it is also a punishment, your freedom is taken and with that, your right to vote as well. No argument, prisoners don’t deserve the right to vote; once they have served their debt to society yes, but until then no!

Which does the Government cherish more; our obligations as an EU member and signatory of the ECHR or the sovereignty of our parliament? In my opinion the latter should always be the priority of the government. This votes for prisoners issue is just the latest in a long line of problems to come from Europe; all of which prove that the EU doesn’t represent our values or our interests and therefore is definitely not for us.

Tim Hasker

The Hollywood News is reporting the very first image of Meryl Streep as former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the forthcoming Hollywood movie “The Iron Lady”.

The film tells the compelling story of Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, a woman who smashed through the barriers of gender and class to be heard in a male-dominated world. The story concerns power and the price that is paid for power, and is a surprising and intimate portrait of an extraordinary and complex woman.

“The prospect of exploring the swathe cut through history by this remarkable woman is a daunting and exciting challenge. I am trying to approach the role with as much zeal, fervour and attention to detail as the real Lady Thatcher possesses – I can only hope my stamina will begin to approach her own!” Meryl Streep said.

The Iron Lady stars Meryl Streep as Lady Thatcher and Jim Broadbent as Denis Thatcher. Their young selves are played by Alexandra Roach and Harry Lloyd. The rest of the cast of family and friends, politicians and advisers, is made up of the very best of British acting talent, including: Olivia Colman, Nicholas Farrell, Susan Brown, Roger Allam, Anthony Head, Julian Wadham, Pip Torrens, Nick Dunning, Richard E Grant, David Westhead, Angus Wright and John Sessions.

It is fair to say that the film has generated some concerns not least among Thatchers friends and family about the fact the film will show Lady Thatcher, who is still idolised by millions, as a frail figure in the grip of dementia reflecting with regret on certain aspects of her life. Meryls co-star Jim Broadbent has sought to allay fears however and claims the film will not be “a hatchet job” on Baroness Thatcher. However the film pans out I think we can all agree the resemblence is striking and if Meryl’s career is anything to go by and whatever your opinion of Mrs Thatcher, this film will certainly be one to watch.

My own personal Tory highlights over the last 18 months are almost exclusively down to Sophie and BUCF as a whole: raising money for Help for Heroes, the Big SleepOut, BUCF Christmas party, 80s night in Reflex, leafleting in Bourneville, Election night in the Radisson, the ongoing bizarre soap opera that is Guild politics, dinner with MPs David Davis and Chris Kelly, Pub Golf & Subway City…. I could go on.

So congratulations, Soph, for leading BUCF to new heights – you truly live up to our University’s Latin motto :)

Oh, and Happy 21st! Glad you had a good time (as far as you’re aware!)

Tory Love,

HLAD

100 years ago today, a man was born who would go on to become, in my opinion, the very greatest contemporary President of the United States; a true world statesman, moved by the most honourable values and conviction of perhaps any world leader in the past century.

In his 8 year tenure as the 40th US President spanning the best part of the 1980s, much like his counterpart across the pond in Downing Street, he transformed a country reeling  from the political instability and economic turmoil of the 1970s into the powerful, dynamic, resilient nation that would be the America the world knew and admired for nearly three decades. He told us that in times of economic crisis, government is not the solution to the problem, but that ‘government is the problem’, a philosophy which led to lower inflation, higher employment, and stronger growth than America had seen since the post-war boom.

This triumph of Reaganomics was far from his only great achievement. His passionate pursuit of libertarianism rolled back the frontiers of the federal government unlike under any other administration, cutting wasteful spending and heavy handed regulation to allow business to flourish and personal freedoms to thrive, all under a blanket of lower taxes for almost every citizen.

In his second term in office, from 1985-1989, however it was his foreign policy brilliance that shone most brightly. By opening the lines of communication with Gorbachev from the middle of the decade, he paved a new way for America and the Soviet Union to climb down from the Cold War without ever needing to concede any kind of victory to Communism, encouraging oppressed citizens behind the Iron Curtain to continue yearning for freedom, and urging the Soviet Union to tear down the Berlin Wall. By 1988, the INF treaty had been signed, bilateral arms reduction was well underway, and Gorbachev was withdrawing Soviet troops from Eastern Europe and Afghanistan. The Cold War that had left the world minutes from potential annihilation for nearly 40 years,was finally coming to an end.

Of course, his statesmanship on the world stage came with the support of undoubtedly the closest ‘special relationship’ between the US and Britain of any administration. The common ideology, purpose, and dynamism shared between Thatcher and Reagan allowed our two countries to grow together for the better, as both leaders battled the common foes of Socialism and the economic chaos it brings. It was a relationship that even Bush and Blair could only partly aspire to emulate, and which Obama tragically seems bent on obliterating, given recent events.

The legacy of Ronald Reagan is one of a triumph of liberty over tyranny, of freedom over big government, of Libertarianism over Socialism, of the importance of close allies, and the power of free enterprise. These are all lessons Obama would do well to learn, as more spending brings more debt, more unemployment, and more economic misery. I believe there’s hope for the future though; After all, it takes a Carter to get a Reagan.

Long may his memory live on.

Owen Williams

BUCF Publicity Officer

In response to a comment I saw on a previous blog that said ‘oh, so you met Ann Widdecombe and went to Brussels for 4 days, how out of touch you are’, I thought I’d just spell out how active BUCF has been since May.

So that all can read this and take it in effectively, perhaps a list format might be appropriate and helpful!

Since the new committee took over in May, we have met with:

Margaret Thatcher

David Cameron

Theresa May

Ian Duncan Smith

Ken Clark

Baroness Sayeeda Warsi

Tim Loughton MP

David Davis MP

Chris Kelly MP

Chloe Smith MP

Chris Grayling MP

Douglas Carswell MP

Sajid Javid MP

Karen Lumley MP

Dan Hannan MEP

Jacqueline Foster MEP

Ann Widdecombe

Lord Ashcroft

BUCF also campaigned tirelessly throughout the General Election in numerous seats, many of which were to turn blue.

I can proudly say also, that we have held 16 social events in this time too, as well as a fantastic 4 day trip to Brussels.  In addition to this, we have attended 3 Annual Dinners, linked up with Birmingham Conservative Future, City Branch Conservatives, Yorkshire and Humber CF and the City of Liverpool CF.

So in essence, clearly some societies know how to have a good time, and provide their members with a range of events and opportunities.  Perhaps other societies would like to look at BUCFs track record before making comments about our activity.

Sophie

BUCF President

On Monday, I attended a Professional Studies lecture and seminar about equal opportunities in schools (for those who don’t know, since leaving Brum I have become a trainee teacher). Having done the readings beforehand and listening to the lecture it became clear that over the past 25 years social mobility has declined enormously. This, will of course not be news to most of you.

This week also saw the launch of the BBC “Great British Class Survey” – https://www.bbc.co.uk/labuk/experiments/class/ – into whether class still matters in modern Britain. My view is that it does but that this is a complete and utter shame. I took the survey – it takes about 15 mins – and instead of telling you what class you are, the results tell you what aspect of your life (culture, money, and social networks) have the greatest influence on how you get on in the world. It in fact asks you to define your own class – I personally feel that I’m middle middle class (as opposed to lower middle class for example). I don’t see why they had to divide middle class but there we are. Some of you may disagree with me given what you know about me but there we are. Apparently my cultural range is broader than 90% of the UK and therefore is my highest category (I scored 100 out of 100 in this area). This suggests, according to the survey, that my social network is likely to be very diverse – which it is. I think this in turns means I potentially have  more influence.

On Thursday at 9pm on BBC2 Andrew Neill of This Week fame presented a programme entitled “Posh and Posher: Why Public School Boys Run Britain” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00y37gk/Posh_and_Posher_Why_Public_School_Boys_Run_Britain/). I have, as you may know, commented on this issue before but the programme was most informative and insightful but also in parts quite depressing. A Scottish girl sitting her Highers in a state school felt that there was no possibility of someone like her being able to go to Oxbridge, or indeed enter the world of politics. This is desperately sad given that the word “politics” is derived from the Greek for “citizen”. David Davis, a self-proclaimed working class Tory, was featured in the show and the point he made was that nowadays someone from his background was less likely to end up where he is now. I can of course draw parallels here to my own father who almost certainly would not have ended up drafting this country’s legislation in Whitehall had he be born say 25-30 years later. A group of BUCF members/supporters went to a dinner last night where David Davis was the guest speaker, hence the relevance to this society.

Why Do Public School Boys Run Britain?

So before people are quick to criticise the number of privately and/or Oxbridge-educated MPs I urge them to think about the reasons why people from these backgrounds perhaps may be better equipped to hold office. When I was at school, we had a strong debating team which competed against other (mainly private) schools in the area – I was not on the debating team, my interest in politics hadn’t developed fully back then. I know that debating and EYP are being more and more encouraged in the state sector but certainly 5 years ago these competitions were dominated by independent schools, certainly where I’m from. As always, I do not seek to offend anyone with my comments and I am not suggesting that only privately-educated people should be in positions of power – I know how some remarks on this blog can be misinterpreted. I simply mean that at schools like Westminster, in particular, politics is thrust upon the pupils, whether they like it or not.

We need to get our young people from all backgrounds interested in politics  - I don’t care which party they agree with as long as they have an informed opinion. I feel this will be a great challenge for people of my generation  -  to spark an interest in the minds of the next.

HLAD

Yesterday myself and other members of BUCF joined Conservative members from around the country to attend the re-launch of the Conservative Policy Forum. The event was chaired by the Conservative Party Co-Chairman Baroness Warsi, who BUCF were able to meet after the event, and attended by high-ranking Members of the Government such as the Rt Hon. Oliver Letwin. Not to mention the various members of the voluntary party who make the Conservatives the successful political organisation we are.

The Conservative Policy Forum is the big society in action, members will have the chance to comment on government policy, present and future. Not only will a ministerial response be issued to these comments they will also form the foundations for the 2015 Manifesto. However, this is not just for party members the Conservative Policy Forum is open to anyone interested in government policies to have their say.

Over the next few weeks BUCF will be setting up its own Policy Forum, and information on our first forum event will be released soon, so watch this space. Its your party, your government so join in and have your say!

Tim Hasker

The University and Guild of Students chose to mark this occasion with a large meeting in the Guild attended by a wide variety of students from diverse backgrounds and inviting two speakers, survivors of the Holocaust and Rwandan genocide.

Unfortunately this was not the only place on campus the Holocaust was being discussed this day. The Birmingham Friends of Palestine Society, and their guest Mike Prysner, sought to not only draw parallels between the nature of Gaza as a concentration camp, but indeed to suggest that the Jewish state of Israel is indeed filling the role of the Nazis. This is certainly not a new assertion, much like the many nations across the world where the ‘Elders of Zion’ is seen as being a key text, this hateful statement has reached a level of mainstream consciousness unthinkable in generations gone by.

We are increasingly seeing a separatist part of university. They are extremists, their choice of speakers and rhetoric marks them clearly out as such. Over my time at University many of us have witnessed firsthand the hateful, homophobic, racist and deranged supporters and spokespeople of Hamas and Hezbollah given raucous applause by my fellow students. On this occasion on Wednesday, Prysner himself was quoted by and attendee as saying:

“I think that history will not just remember these people as fools but really in the context of other atrocities we’ve seen in particular that the Nazis waged during the Holocaust. I think you really can draw an equals sign between what was done there in Germany and what is done to the people in Gaza”

I do not wish to dwell on this dark occasion, marring it further. But instead I would like to go back to an event two years ago where I first hand experienced this new hate and ignorance spreading across our University.

It was this same time of year in 2009 that in response to escalated conflict in Israel and the disputed territories, many students of all manner of backgrounds took to the main quad carrying both Israeli and Palestinian flags, campaigning for not only a two state solution in the Levantine Middle East, but indeed for the sanctity of race relations on our own campus. This was an unprecedented example of solidarity and it sought the chance to establish a new consensus. We stood singing songs such as ‘Salaam (Od Yavo Shalom Aleinu)’, a Hebrew and Arabic collaboration which has become a symbol of what can be achieved by collaboration rather than conflict.

However above us on the small terrace surrounding the Arts Building stood a far greater number. Carrying imitation blood drenched placards, and symbols of their chosen ideologies. The screeching cry of chants reverberated around the quad and off the red bricks of Campus. They loudly proclaimed their desire for the liberation of ‘Palestine’ and for the destruction of Israel. Their favourite chant ‘Palestine shall be free, from the river to the sea’ demanding a territory larger any Palestinian Authority negotiator has ever called for and eliminating Israel, clearly setting them above the mainstream.

On this side stood in collaboration, a collection of people disinterested in mainstream politics and rhetoric. They may be described in many ways, but seeking to avoid emotive language, I shall refer to them merely as extremists. They were members of Socialist movements who believe in the destruction of our world, Anarchists who set themselves apart from society, and a large number of Islamist students, radicalised away from their original faith and towards a politicised movement constantly at war with the civilisation of the West.

It is the nature of University of Birmingham politics that there needs to be at least two sides to every single discussion or conflict. The Guild or one of its hegemonic institutions, such as the debating society, mediate between and declare a victor who no one truly supports. However in this case there was a pluralistic movement pushing not only for the widely supported effort needed to end the Middle Eastern conflict, but indeed looking for solidarity on this campus. They were quashed on this day by the rhetoric of hatred.

To discuss the Holocaust and the contemporary situation in Israel is indeed to open a modern day Pandora’s Box. So many ignorant people on both sides of the conflict seek this emotional heritage to draw fast conclusions without merit. I will say only this, the millions who died did so as a result of blind extremist hatred, this was not merely the action of an elite, but indeed came from the general population, only by remembering this event and keeping it in popular consciousness can one truly hope to prevent its repeat.

Adam Jenner

BUCF VP

BUCF is not alone in these beliefs there are numerous other societies and individuals who feel that the Guild has gone on a massive power trip. For example, a friend of mine (not a BUCF member) described the Guild Sab team as “intimidating”. Many however, have asked me not to mention their names or the societies they represent fearing the potential backlash from the Guild. I have also been made aware that members of the Guild team sit and google “The Guild of Students” to see whether anyone is writing critical remarks. So if anyone from the Guild officer team is reading this, firstly, Hello and secondly, ”intimidating” is that really the reputation you want?

Elections; the Guild loves a good election, whether it be RA, Sabbatical, Guild Council or society AGMs. Now the sensible option would be to have one coherent policy on voting, but remember the Guild is a union and such a plan would be too easy Instead we have one rule for an election and one rule for another. An example of which would be the hypocrisy over AGMs. Last year BUCF were forced to hold an AGM due to the resignation of our secretary, according to Guild regulations we were required to have 1/3 of our membership present to make the AGM legitimate in the eyes of the Guild. However, the Guild Sabbatical team can get elected on 3% of the student population; is that representative or fair?

Still on the subject of AGMs, the Birmingham University Labour Students or BULS had their AGM this evening, in what I believe to be an entirely uncontested election (at least according to their blog). During the AGM we tried to have last January to replace one member of the committee, we decided that because we planned to have our AGM in May we would all stand in the same position and we ended up being uncontested. We were subsequently told by the powers that be that such a move would be undemocratic and we were threatened with derecognition, will the same happen to BULS, I doubt it! I would like to point out that the AGM during which this year’s BUCF committee was elected, every position was contested. However, on behalf of all of us at BUCF I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the new BULS committee on their hard-fought election victory!

We can only hope that this year’s committee makes more of an impact than last year’s; BULS and the Lib Dems seem to have truly entered the political wilderness on campus since the start of the academic year. While BUCF have met Lady Thatcher, Ann Widdecombe, Prime Minister David Cameron, held a Conference event attended by a cabinet minister, gone on a 4 day trip to Brussels and attended numerous Tory functions, the other political societies have disappeared. When we do attempt to hold a joint event, the response is either non-existent or apathetic, and then there was the encounter myself and President Sophie Shrubsole had this afternoon when we were told by BULS member that “BUCF can all go Fuck off and die” – charming!

Anyway back to the Guild around a month or two ago I read an interesting article in Redbrick, critiquing the Guild, I was surprised to find it so far back in the paper, probably a coincidence. The subject was the student protests in London, the one which the Guild funded students to go down and protest against the rise in tuition fees. I was shocked to discover that the Guild through President Dora Meredith (former chairwoman of BULS) had asked numerous trade unions with known affiliation with the Labour Party for money to help fund a protest against a Conservative/Lib Dem Government. The Guild denies any wrong doing. However, lets look at it another way shall we, lets say the situation was different, we have a Guild President who used to be President of BUCF and they had asked one of Lord Ashcroft’s trust funds for money to protest against a Labour Government. I wonder how quickly BULS and the Socialist Workers would be up in arms? I feel I should also mention that the Guild refused to support the protest on campus held by university staff members against the cuts, but why? Why support a protest in London that ends in violence but not a peaceful one on campus? The logic escapes me.

These are not isolated events and there are many more which I have not mentioned at the request of those involved. If anyone from the Guild team does read this, before they act, remember  its our guild, we the students pay for it and therefore we are entitled to our opinion. To close I think Voltaire’s remarks are appropriate; “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.”

Tim Hasker

Just wanted to use the BUCF blog as a platform to pay our respects for one of Britain’s greatest actresses Susannah York, who died on Sunday at the age of 72.

The picture above is taken from her role as Section Officer Maggie Harvey, in the Battle of Britain.

Sophie