Labour’s best local election result since 1995 and the Tories’ worst since 1996, yeah, we’ll take that

Ed Miliband in Birmingham yesterday with Birmingham Council Labour Group leader, Sir Albert Bore

That’s right, throughout Friday Labour saw it’s best performance in a local election since 1995 (all in proportion to how many Council elections were up for grabs as last year we gained more but far more were up for grabs). And similarly the Tories saw their worst local election result since 1996 and the Lib Dems now have dropped down below 3,000 councillors for the first time in the party’s existence.

This was a result that exceeded everyone’s expectations on all fronts. With most Tories attempting to spin the result to say we needed around 450 councillor gains to be seen as a success, we only smashed that with 823! When everyone expected Scottish Labour to lose Glasgow City Council we not only fought off a SNP challenge but took control of the council at the expense of the Lib Dems and Tories. When everyone said Labour would only win a slight majority in our very own Birmingham City Council, we smashed all expectations by gaining 20 councillors and winning a 34 seat majority. When it was expected Welsh Labour would fail in taking Cardiff City Council, we defied all predictions by gaining 33 councillors and winning a majority of 17! And we’re very proud of very nearly almost gaining control of the Greater London Assembly, falling short by 1 Assembly member.

This election wasn’t without its disappointments though. BULS’s very own Honourary life Member, Dennis Minnis, was unsuccessful in taking Edgbaston. And biggest of all, huge disappointment at Ken’s defeat. We are all glad Ken did defy most  (but not all, sadly) odds by not letting Boris have a shoe-in election by pushing the margin on the second round to a close 3%. Many Tories see Boris as the next leader and Prime Minister in waiting. “Wiff-waff” may well have edged it in London, don’t expect the country to do the same.

Of course, the results did see successes close to our hearts in BULS. Obviously there was turning Birmingham City Council red, but BULS saw former student of the University of Birmingham, Karen McCarthy, join former BULS Secretary, Brigid Jones, as a Councillor for Selly Oak. Quinton ward, where Grandee Nash played a large hand in, was also successful in electing Caroline Bradley.

All in all, while this was a brilliant result for Labour nationally we have to remember this has happened to opposition parties in the past. Hague, Howard and Kinnock all saw similar successes at mid-term local elections in their time in opposition. This was a much needed boost, not a prelude for the general election. Though it is safe to say, that the media, politicians and the wider public can no longer claim Miliband has no chance at 2015. There’s still a hell of a lot of work to be done, but we now know that we still do have a shot at 2015.

Max

Tribute to Chris Huhne

In light of Chris Huhne’s resignation yesterday as Energy and Climate Change Secretary BULS would like to submit this tribute all in good humour:

Enjoy

Max

Fourth by-election on the trot

That’s right, four by-election victories on the trot. Yes, all these were in Labour held seats, but it’s important how every single one has seen a significant swing towards Labour each time. The results were as follows:

Labour – 12,639 (54.42% up by 10.79%)

Conservative – 6,436 (27.71% down by 6.32%)

Liberal Democrats – 1,364 (5.87 down by 7.87%)

UKIP – 1,276 (5.49& up by 3.45%)

This has seen a 8.6% swing from Tory to Labour, when compared to the last general election which saw a mere 4.8% swing from Labour to Tory. Yes, the turnout was very low, but what do you expect at this time of year?

Either way, great result!

Max

David Miliband

I’ve just got back from the double David Miliband event, and just wanted to write a report.

I thought the crowd during the first part (In Conversation with David Miliband – in the great hall) was fairly tough, there were questions about Palestine, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria and Guantanemo Bay. One of the best questions was “What would you say to David Eastwood about the Browne Review?” and David replied in a very diplomatic manner, ending with the comment that he didn’t think it was “all Professor Eastwood’s fault”. I for one hope that Eastwood noticed the resentment in the room and the general jibes against tuition fees and millionaires.

The second part (The Living Wage Launch with David Miliband) was more relaxed and entertaining. Luke asked a great question about solidarity with potential allies and recognising the real enemy. David replied “kicking Lib Dems is pleasure, kicking Tories is business. Politics is business”. He also highlighted the work of his “Movement for Change”, responding to comments that it seemed similar to the Big Society by stating that society is our turf, we have always been known as socialists not statists, and the Tories are only developing policies to promote society because they are terrified of being known as the “there is no such thing as society” party. I’m sure many of us can see through their Big Society strategy to a purely Thatcherite idealism, and recognise that grass roots activity and community organisation always has been and will remain a Labour policy area.

In conclusion, congratulations to the BULS members who helped to organise the talks, and I hope those who missed out come to the upcoming great events!

Suzy

Clegg is Not For Turning

Yesterday Nick Clegg made a speech to the Liberal Democrat conference which was steadfast and robust in defence of the coalition’s economic policy, despite the depressing evidence this week that the economy isn’t changing course either from its current trajectory of nowhere. He promised there would be no turning back on the cuts and auterity, however many jobs are lost and however many people struggle to make ends meet thanks to the VAT rise and inflation.

Does this sound familar? It should. For although it is right that things never completely run in parallel, it is indeed the case that history may never repeat itself, but it rhymes. It was around this stage in the political and economic cycle – at a party conference – that Margaret Thatcher made the infamous ‘Lady’s not for turning’ speech. Then the UK witnessed riots on the streets, rampant unemployment, a royal wedding, a foreign intervention and a belligerent government hell-bent on destroying the fabric of our society. I barely exaggerate. Even shoulder pads are making something of a comeback in 2011.

However, maybe now is more like 1931, with a prolonged slump looming, a currency mechanism collapsing at the same time as the US economy, a rise in far right extremism and little help for the poor and jobless.We seem to be heading for continued gloom because of the Con Dems’ obsession with cutting the deficit too far and too fast, stifling growth and productivity and making the situation worse for all of us. Although they have won welcome concessions from the Tories on some issues, on the fundamentals Nick Clegg needs to wake up and pull out of this marriage of convenience for the sake of his party in future but also for the country. Just as in 1981 and 1931, ordinary people feel that overall Britain is going in the wrong direction or is in the doldrums – the only thing that would change that elusive yet crucial feeling of a lack of confidence is investment on Keynesian terms to jump-start the economy, a fall in VAT and a slower trimming of the excess we built up saving the banks from collapse. Unfortunately though it seems the Cleggy’s not for turning.

9/11 Ten Years On, Coalition Politics and Blood Donation

9/11 – A Warning from Recent History

For someone of the age of the current crop of Labour Students, it is particularly difficult to believe that it is ten years tomorrow since the lives of millions were changed forever on September 11th, 2001. Most of us were still in primary school at the time, and it is perhaps apt that our generation – one that was constantly told we were growing up too fast – had our innocence of the world around us robbed so suddenly on that bright Tuesday morning. Hearing and seeing the images of the planes hitting the World Trade Center still transfixes all of us, and as much as we might want to look away having seen enough, we can’t quite bring ourselves to stop watching.

However it is our generation – the 9/11 generation – who will be the politicians and headline-makers of the coming years, and if anything good can come of the last decade, it is surely the lesson  that those in power have a responsibility not to overreact when faced with such onslaughts. Our party’s most successful leader (in electoral terms) no doubt had good intentions, but made the grave error of marching the troops gung-ho into an unplanned and illegal war, probably creating a whole new generation of terrorists in the process, while at home him and those around him were complicit in eroding many of the freedoms we were meant to be protecting, including detention without charge and freedom from torture. If the horror of terrorism reaches us again, we must pause and assess the causes before acting. The same rule should apply for other crises, like the riots this summer.

Backbench Tories Have Nothing To Worry About

Today is the final day of the Plaid Cymru autumn conference in Llandudno, north Wales. The outgoing leader, Ieuan Wyn Jones, made his final conference speech yesterday after an electoral drubbing for the nationalist party in the Welsh Assembly elections in May. Unlike in Scotland, where the SNP have been successful, he argued that coalition government in Cardiff Bay (of which Plaid was the junior party) meant Plaid’s achievements in government were smothered by Labour, and that the party was punished by voters for not claiming credit for them.

Aside from the fact that Plaid achieved very little in government in a time of economic turmoil other than a referendum with poor turnout which managed to bore even political anoraks, their experience in coalition should serve as a lesson to Westminster politics. This week Tory backbenchers, angry over law and order, Europe and abortion, moaned that the Lib Dem ‘tail’ was wagging the Tory ‘dog’ and that Nick Clegg was being given too many concessions by the Prime Minister. However come the election in 2015, the Tories will have nothing to worry about, as the voters are likely to give them sole credit for any successes – particularly if the economy picks up (not a given considering Osborne’s slash-and-burn approach) – and they will certainly not be looking to make some sort of permanent alliance with the Lib Dems, contrary to what some commentators are predicting. The coalition dog will probably have his tail docked when the voters are next given a choice.

About Bloody Time

This week the ban on gay and bisexual men giving blood for life in Britain was finally overturned (although you’d be forgiven for not noticing the leap forward because the BBC thought Strictly Come Dancing was more important on the news bulletins that night). This is a triumph that equality campaigners have been working tirelessly for for years, and at last gay men will be able to save lives and help tackle the urgent need for more donors. No more will the official policy imply that gay men cannot be trusted to practice safe sex and ‘probably have HIV’.

Although the ban was only replaced with a one-year time lag since a donor’s last encounter, it is still progress, and puts us more in line with the situation in similar countries.

15 and counting

Just a quick blog before bed (the morning will feature the Republican Presidential Nomination race) and I’d like to thank Planetpmc for pointing out the 15 major U-turns the Tory-led government has had to make in the past year. Enjoy:

1.  NHS Direct ‘not being scrapped’ – http://bit.ly/lAdTjv

2.  Government confirms re-think on school sport funding – http://bit.ly/mtyFFH

3.  Downing Street rejects child milk scheme cut suggestion – http://bbc.in/k1NoGE

4.  Sale of forests in England scrapped – http://bbc.in/jCmqmT

5.  Plans to grant anonymity to rape case defendants scrapped – http://bit.ly/ketJd1

6.  Government backtracks on Bookstart – http://bit.ly/j1AvuP

7.  Housing benefit cap to be postponed until January 2012 – http://bit.ly/iIrrD1

8.  Government admits defeat on immigration target – http://bit.ly/lU5nHV

9.  Military covenant to be enshrined in law after months of criticism – http://bit.ly/mQKfUC

10. UK coastguard station closure plans ‘scaled back’ – http://bbc.in/lE0VHs

11. Government ‘abandons’ plans for weekly rubbish collection – http://bit.ly/mveDsv

12. Cameron tears up Ken Clarke’s “soft” sentencing policies – http://bit.ly/iFGA0a

13. David Cameron denies ‘humiliating U-turn’ on NHS – http://tgr.ph/kryKEU

14. Treasury backtracks on Danny Alexander’s pension reform plan – http://bit.ly/lVocDX

15. Ken Clarke forced to abandon 50% sentence cuts for guilty pleas – http://bit.ly/iz4qZA

Unite Behind The Unions

This week, the ominously-titled Business Secretary, Vince Cable, quickstepped down to Brighton to address the conference of the GMB Union, and calmly warned delegates, in no uncertain terms, that they can either lay back and take the savage cuts from the coalition government or face the consequences, which will take the form of more draconian anti-union legislation than even Maggie could dream of.

The coalition’s plans to pre-empt any upcoming Seasons of Discontent include only allowing official strike action to be valid where over 50 percent of members vote to withdraw their labour. This despite the fact that turnout in May’s AV referendum was only 42 percent; if the rules being drawn up for the unions were applied to that particular plebiscite we would now be going through that shambles of a campaign all over again. Perish the thought.

However over the last twelve months we have come to expect this sort of hypocritical posturing from the government, aimed at punishing the ordinary working man and woman for the 30-year poker game that took place in the City of London. We have even got used to the fact the the Liberal Democrats are happy to do all the dirty work while the Tories get on with the more important matters of screwing up the NHS, the Royal Mail, higher education and so on.

What is most worrying is the deafening silence coming from the Labour party over the last week.

It seems Ed Miliband, frightened by the response of the reactionary media after his speech at the March for the Alternative in Hyde Park earlier this year, has taken cover in the vain hope that all will blow over and the coalition will make itself so unpopular by 2015 that he will be swept to number 10 to save the day. It is not going to blow over. The Con-Dems will continue on their crusade against the public sector in the coming years, and can be forgiven for believing they have no effective opposition – when the only public figure speaking up for public sector workers is the Archbishop of Canterbury, you know Labour is in a bit of a pickle.

It’s time we got over the 1983, defeatist attitude and spoke up for ordinary working people who face falling wages, living standards and an uncertain future. This does not mean retreating into an unelectable, hard-left cocoon; it means not forgetting those who founded the Labour party in the first place over a century ago.

The AV result

First off. I’d like to point that I respect the decision of the people of Britain in a resounding ‘No’ vote to AV. It’s a shame further electoral reform has been buried for a century, but I’m not a Lib Dem so I’ll get over it. But, I would like to explain why ‘No’ won.

The primary reason for a ‘No’ victory was Clegg’s insistence in holding the referendum on the same day as local elections across England, the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Irish Assembly elections. Because of this the people regarded the referendum as one on Clegg rather than a change to the voting system, consequently, due to Clegg’s unpopularity the referendum could have never been won. The coinciding with the local elections was further capitalised on by the ‘No to AV’ campaign, blatantly spreading personal attacks on the Lib Dems and more specifically Clegg himself. Admittedly, I myself am not the Lib Dems biggest fan any more and the ‘Yes’ side was not perfect either in the campaigning, but the Tories completely refusing to discredit the personal attacks which only gave them legitimacy.

This was because the ‘No to AV’ campaign, despite all the publicity of its Labour supporters, was in effect another Tory ‘No to AV’ group and any attempt to deny this is just misguided. The ‘No to AV’ group was 90% funded by Conservative donors and famously in areas of London ‘Labour No to AV’ leaflets had to be withdrawn because of printing at the bottom that read “produced by the Conservative party”. The ‘No to AV’ campaign went even further down the line than merely personal attacks, they also went on a blatant lying spree with famously the £250 million and vote counting machines claim. The reason why we now no this was a blatant lie was because prominent Labour supporter of ‘No to AV’, David Blunket, actually admitted that the £250 million claim was a figure they plucked out of the air. Now while it was a blatant lie (coupled with the “If you vote Yes this baby/soldier will die” lie) it was an effective lie.

This then leads finally onto the effectiveness of the ‘Yes’ campaign which was nothing less than a shambles. There was no coherent and simple message to sell to the British people and their entire campaign group was made up of Lib Dems and a number of charities, with the former being only good at localised, targeted campaigns.

But anyway, electoral reform is now buried for another century, it was good while it lasted, but it’s time to move on.

Max

They Just Don’t Get It

I’ve now returned to Birmingham after a week in which the Coalition managed to look incompetent and shambolic as well as cruel. We’ve had Willetts admitting he is content to see poorer students having to settle for a degree at their local sixth form, rather than enjoying the full university experience; Norman Tebbit joining the near-univeral coalition against the NHS transformation; U-turns on defence spending and health to add to the growing list which includes school sports and buildings, forests, and even the Downing Street cat; and of course Nick Clegg. When he hasn’t been complaining that he is the nation’s ‘punchbag’ or facing criticism from his own son, he has been making some interesting comments about social mobility.

I am not going to slam the Deputy Prime Minister for having had a leg-up from his neighbour (a peer of the realm) in order to get an internship at a bank (it had to be a bank), because I challenge anyone reading this – assuming I have a readership – not to have seized the opportunity in the same way if they were in Nick’s position. A Labour party which wants social justice and equality of opportunity from birth should not be blaming someone for a background thay had no control over, and that even includes Cameron who had someone put a word in from Buck House. However, Clegg’s attempts at addressing the age-old problem of the ‘It’s who you know’ culture were embarrassing, coming at the same time this government is slashing Sure Start centres, EMA, univeristy budgets and allowing socially divisive ‘free’ schools to blossom up and down the country.

I spoke to people this week in the valleys who have Masters’ degrees who have spent over a year unemployed – young people with ambition, drive and what should be a promising career ahead of them. I overheard sixth form students on the bus complaining that they had not been accepted for any of their UCAS choices, despite the prediction of 4 As at A-level. I have personally had difficulty finding summer placements when I am not lucky enough to be able to work unpaid for six months in central London. Nick Clegg’s diagnosis was correct, but there is far more to it than setting an example to almost-bankrupt businesses by paying interns at Lib Dem HQ.

We need a new cultural shift in this country, brought about by government, where the disadvantaged are caught as soon as possible and at every stage of their lives are helped to gain the same opportunities as the better off. This should not involve positive discrimination or handouts, but should involve investment in our young people which other European countries manage while they bail out their neighbours, but we seem to think is unaffordable. A national internship scheme or national bursary programme, complementing investment in careers education (which at the moment is dire) to inform young people that they are just as talented and ambitious as the more privileged, and what opportunities are out there for the taking, is desperately needed. The underlying factors, such as affordable transport, need to be subsidised so someone who lives in the middle of nowhere with no ‘contacts’ can get work experience in a city near them.

There are important elections coming up in the devolved nations and local councils in England. Young people should be demanding better from the government and their local councils at the ballot box, and should express their dissatisfaction with the Coalition, which just doesn’t get it.

To AV or not to AV? That’s not the Question…

 

So the eagerly awaited and oh-so exciting AV referendum is now in sight, with Ed Miliband today setting out the Labour leadership’s opinion on one side, and many other Labour MPs and party members saying why they will be rejecting the proposal on the other. It does seem that the party is split down the middle – not a great position for an opposition party reassembling itself after electoral defeat. Incidentally, it is perhaps not the most shining example of ‘new politics’ or maturity when our leader refuses to unite with Nick Clegg because of his new status as Public Enemy Number One – surely there would be less cynicism in the electorate if we as an opposition party took each issue exclusively, instead of pointing the finger at the Tuition Fees Bogeyman.

The arguments for or against the Alternative Vote aside (I’m personally in the ‘Yes’ camp for want of something marginally further down the road to Proportional Representation), what strikes me the most after the disheartening advertising tactics of the ‘No’ camp (I’m sure you’ve seen the baby-in-incubator and soldier billboards) is the lack of interest amongst the wider electorate. Today I asked a friend of mine whether he had yet considered which way he would vote, and the reply was that it would make no difference to the political scene, so why should he bother? I wanted to answer his rebuttal, but found to my horror that I couldn’t. Whether or not we stick with First Past the Post or adopt AV will have little bearing on electoral outcomes on a national scale, only at constituency level (where AV would make elections far more interesting, as those who witnessed the Guild election results will testify), therefore the best we can hope for is the lesser of two evils, while those running for office continue to make vacuous or downright deceptive pledges in their election manifestos e.g. the marketisation of the NHS and tuition fees.

The real question on the ballot paper should not be ‘AV vs FPTP’, nor even the far more deomcratic ‘AV vs FPTP vs AV+ vs STV vs AMS…’, but something which reads less like a mathematical formula and more like a choice between two fundamental democratic frameworks that disillusioned voters can really get their teeth into. We need a choice over whether or not we want to overhaul the House of Lords (a process which has thus far taken a century); whether or not we want to de-throne and de-robe the monarchy; whether or not we want to reduce the stranglehold of the elites over our economy; in short, whether or not we want a new constitution. That is not to say the previous government had a gleaming record on constitutional affairs, although devolution and removal of hereditary peers were a good start. But by throwing a bone for the Lib Dem poodle in the form of a paltry referendum on AV, the Tories have got away with it again, whichever way we vote on May 5th.

Secret recordings revealed

Tape recordings leaked from Whitehall….not sure why they have Obama and Bush as the two protagonists though.

Max

Barnsley result

It was without a doubt Labour was going to win the Barnsley Central by-election, but what wasn’t known was the margin and the performance of the other parties. The results are as follows for those who don’t know:

Labour-60.8% (47.3% in 2010)

UKIP-12.19% (4.7%)

Conservative-8.25% (17.3%)

BNP-6.04% (8.9%)

Independent (Tony Devoy)-5.23% (1.6%)

Liberal Democrat-4.18% (17.3%)

This represents nothing less than a whitewash for the Lib Dems, second place to sixth and losing their deposit is nothing less than humiliating. The Tories fared little better losing around half of their support. Yes, Labour was always going to win this seat, but what we have here is resoundingly bloody brilliant win as public opinion ever so gradually begins to swing against the Coalition.

Max

Beginning to see the light

Like most in BULS, I for one have lost a lot of respect for the Liberal Democrats for numerous reasons. But as of yesterday, some faith has been restored. Nothing short of 90 Liberal Democrat Councillors of which 18 are leaders of local authorities wrote into the Times criticising the Coalition of the pace of the cuts.

Lib Dem Communities Minister Andrew Stunell had the cheek to urge his party members not to “fall out” over “pointless debate”. A “pointless debate”! There is nothing “pointless” about the Governments austerity programme. You may believe it is the right course of action, but this is so far from “pointless”.

This also feeds into a wider reality of Coalition of hypocrisy, the creation of the “Big Society” (however much a nice idea it may be) amongst a deep austerity programme. This is most symbolised in the scrapping of many libraries up and down the country which are bastions of localism.

Today my faith in one section of the Coalition was (ever so) partially restored; the same can probably never be said for the other section.

Max

Lib Dems

FYI:

Lib Dem AGM was held this evening and the results are as follows:

Chair- Will Mieville-Hawkins (carrying on from last year)

Vice-Chair- David Franklin

Secretary- Matthew Key

Treasurer- Oliver Ingamells

BULS hopes to work with the new Lib Dem committee, particularly with the upcoming football tournament.

Guess the caption

As it has been a while (and we haven’t done one on Clegg yet), enjoy.

Max

Tories fail to convince even themselves.

As I haven’t blogged in a while, and looming essay deadlines have delayed a number of crudely started blogs, I thought I’d share a picture I took during the 2010 election. My hometown of Eastbourne was considered a fairly safe Tory seat until 2005, when tactical voting turned it into a Tory-Lib Dem marginal. 2010 saw it turn a sickly shade of orange as even more tactical voting brought the Lib Dems narrowly to power. This is exactly the sort of seat where Labour can really hit the Con-Dem coalition in the upcoming council elections. To take seats, or even just to push incumbent candidates close, in areas where Labour was non-existent in 2010, would see a lot of shaky knees in the Liberal Democrats, and the Tories too.

"Jeremy, what do we like again?" "Check the sign dear" "Oh yes; money."

But on a light hearted note, if you want to see just how dispirited local Tories were in Eastbourne, when it became obvious they were going to lose, just look at this photo. They even had to persuade themselves to vote!

Jake

Uni’s Not For Me

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12324225

It took me a long time to decide which issue to discuss on my first blog for Birmingham University Labour Students, as there are a myriad of things to be angry and anxious about at the moment thanks to the Con-Dem coalition. I pondered the dismantling of the NHS; the upcoming AV referendum and the scrapping of EMA, however an article which popped up on the BBC News website meant it had to be the tuition fees rise and its ramifications – BULS is, after all, a university society.

The latest development in this sorry saga is today’s latest UCAS admissions figures for 2011 entry, the last year before the trebling of fees in many instances alongside the ten per cent rise in salary of our Vice Chancellor. They reveal the stark reality that – despite what the government assures us – people are being turned off the idea of higher education in large numbers, most of whom will undoubtedly be from less privileged backgrounds. In the year that was supposed to be the ‘boom’ year of applications to beat the raising of the threshold in 2012, the number of applications only rose by five per cent, which in comparison with recent years and predicted trends is a sharp decrease in interest in degree courses.

Most disturbing of all was the plummeting of applications to -2 per cent in December, as the protests raged in central London and the heir to the throne’s wife was nudged with a stick. A brief fillip this may have been, but it demonstrates clearly that sixth-formers and school-leavers are seriously reconsidering their futures, weighing up whether it is really worth that much in debt only to come out jobless at the end of it. Just like the growth statistics, the figures are shocking, but not surprising considering the coalition’s arrogance and dogged determination to see through their most regressive and unpopular policies – which affect the poorest hardest – before the public realise what has hit them.

By Luke Jones, Communications Officer-elect

Oldham results

Well the results are in and yes, the most important point of the night, Labour has kept Oldham red. With a 48% turnout (down on May’s 61%) the results are as follows:

Labour – 42.1% of the vote (31.9% in May)

Liberal Democrats – 31.9% (31.6%)

Conservatives – 12.8% (26.4%)

UKIP – 5.8% (3.9%)

BNP – 4.8% (5.7%)

So the first good result you can see (apart from Labour winning) is that the BNP lost its deposit, always a good thing. But without a doubt the most notable result of the night was the complete collapse of the Conservative vote, yes, third parties are always squeezed, especially in by-elections, but not to this extent. A 14% slump in the vote is rather unheard of, leading to a 11% swing from Tory to Labour (a swing I could very easily get used to). It seems that a combination of tactical voting and a half-hearted campaign by CCHQ, despite insistence otherwise, is going to mean DC will have some stuff questions to answered by from his backbenchers.

Also, great to note that Labour’s majority in Oldham (3558) is now higher than it was in 1997, during Labour’s peak.

Max

Oldham thoughts

Given I’m one of BULS’s token few Northerners, I though it would be appropriate to have a blog on the upcoming by-election. Cautious confidence is probably the best way to describe Oldham East and Saddleworth. Already we have seen a number of polls from ICM and Populus showing Labour having a around 17% lead over the Lib Dems (with a surprising slump in support for the Tories). However, another  polling company, Survation, has recorded the Labour leader being 1&(!!). Labour are the bookies favourite to win, but, I cannot stress any less without doubt, not to slacked the momentum. This is the first time in years that the Lib Dems wont be all masterful in by-elections.

Throughout the entire campaign the Lib Dem candidate and Cleggy have been emphasising that this by-election is about selecting a new local MP. I’d have to agree that this is what it ought to be about, but since when have by-elections ever been about local issues?

Max

Doesn’t it seem that everything happens when you’re away

Sorry on behalf on all of the bulsonline team for the lack of activity lately. The end of term shenanigans have kept us all busy these past few weeks and I personally have been away in Edinburgh for the past few days.

Anyway, first thing on my blogging list to write about is, yes you guessed it, the Cable incident. In some ways, like potentially many Lib Dem grass-root members, I’m quite glad that Cable is fighting his own corner for the Lib Dems (it sure is a better alternative to the other option). In some respects, I can sympathise with Cable. Like I said on the whole Mervyn King incident via the wikileaks, people often let slip their own personal view points, we are human after all. However, that is where my sympathy stops. A Business Secretary has to rule on each case on the facts and evidence, you can’t go in with a pre-existing views. This applies to every case, despite the idea that “declaring war on Mr Murdoch” is something I very strongly sympathise with. It is a direct breach of the ministerial code and should result in nothing less than resignation. This is where the double standards come in.

I’ve always been rather sceptical about the Coalition claiming to “come together in the national interest” (naturally). But, it certainly seems in this one case that what happened was that DC’s decision not to sack Cable was in the Coalition’s interest rather than “the nation’s interest”. It’s blatantly clear, if this had been a Tory Minister, they would have been left out to dry long ago. What is also interesting is that Cable described the Coalition as “Maoist”, given that he believed they were trying to push through too many radical changes at once, many of which he disagreed with. Which neatly leads onto the next event I missed.

Apart from taping Cable’s views on the Coalition, the Daily Telegraph also recorded Scottish Secretary Michael Moore, Business Minister Ed Davey and Pensions Minister Steve Webb doubts over the Coalition’s claim to “fairness”. They criticised Child Tax Credit reforms and the Trebling of fees. Now rather than criticising the Lib Dems as a whole for supporting these measures, we should be working to encourage not only Lib Dem MPs, but party members and voters to think again about the Coalition and whether it is truly taking the right direction (although with the latter part, little needs to be done there). This is why I welcome Ed Miliband’s move to start calling the Coalition a “Conservative-led Coalition”. Also, I welcome (more or less) the reduction party membership fees for Young Labour members (15-27…ish) from the already ridiculously low £1 to 1p(!!). I know if Labour wants to increase membership amongst the younger generations sound policies are far more important, but you can’t say it wont help a bit.

Finally, on a completely different note. Yet even more genuine change has come to America. The old “don’t ask don’t tell” policy on banning gay people in the armed forces in the USA has finally, been repealed! Now some may say this won’t be good for the army as it’ll stir up homophobia, but if it is stirred up because of this at least it’s tackling homophobia. Consequently, because of this logic, not repealing this ban would have meant homophobia culture would have gone unchecked and unchallenged in the US armed forces.

Overall though, a rather good few days….shame I missed it all.

Max

Hey Burt!

Last week, in a slight moment of procrastination I decided to email one of the local Lib Dem MPs. Lorely Burt had claimed to be wavering on the tuition fee vote so I thought it wouldn’t hurt to try and give her a push. Clearly, I wasted my time as she in the end decided to abstain on the all so crucial vote on Thursday. When I heard the news I wasn’t happy. She said in a letter to the guild of students last week that she did not agree with the proposals. So why could she not do the decent thing? Why could she not honour her promise she made to the NUS, the student population and future generations of children when she felt this way?

Even worse was the other local Lib Dem MP, John Hemming. The man who is not exactly whiter than white has proven this even more so by voting WITH the government to push through the rise of fees to £9000. Now, just a few days before the vote, a group of students from this University decided to occupy and shut down his office in Yardley. And his response, on national radio…  was to blame those individuals for now wanting to vote FOR the rise. When I first heard this, I thought he can’t be serious! But it would once again seem that he was. It is absolutely shameful.

Because I don’t think he ever had any intention of not voting against or even abstaining in the vote. And so to blame his decision on this minority of students, well it just doesn’t wash with me and I’m sure it doesn’t with you. It stinks of deceit and distaste.

For two MPs who don’t exactly have the largest of majorities, and find themselves not too far away from 3 large universities including our own, I find it ridiculous that they had the audacity to take this action. I wouldn’t mind having a bet that both of them will have a fight to keep their seats at the next election. That is if Hemming hasn’t turned blue by then…

Oliver Cosentino, BULS Member

Coastguards and Lib Dems

It’s always easy to kick someone when they’re down. We all know it and we’ve all done it, metaphorically. Before, it was Gordon Brown and before that it could be argued it was John Prescott. But it seems now it’s the Lib Dems, or more specifically, Nick Clegg (Cleggy). And yes, the 90% of the population (approximately) agree with the “kicking”. Like John Denham (Shadow Business Secretary and now boss of former-BULS Chair, Tom Guise, well done on the job), we should rise above this natural instinct to further lambast Lib Dem MPs and supporters and resist being a “tribal” party. For this is what the true “new” politics, rising above petty point scoring and reaching out to disenchanted voters and MPs in a hope to win them round. On Thursday, the Lib Dem elite threw away any chance of being progressive. With 70% of Lib Dem party members regarding themselves to be on the left, this could not be a more opportune time build a broad progressive church to argue against the real enemy (so to speak).

Now that optimistic note is out of the way, I can now return to being generally p****d off with the government on the whole. How better than to point out cuts to the number of coastguard control centres. A report recently stated that half of the 19 centres could close. That’s right, half of the centres!! The necessity for deep cuts can be argued for (though I’d have to disagree), but cuts to services that literally save lives is downright disgraceful. These centres probably save hundreds of lives every year in some of the harshest conditions known to man (and woman) kind. So to almost half the number of centres is nothing less than a travesty.

I only hope to god that the Coalition rethinks this particular policy.

Max

I told you we were the new party of students

As you may remember, following Vince Cable dropping a potential graduate tax, I claimed that Labour must become the new party of students. Well it seems the students agree. Yougov recently published a poll specifically for students on their voting intentions (http://www.today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/YG-Archives-Pol-ST-Students-261110.pdf) and well, it’s one hell of a swing.

In May the figures were amongst students Lib Dems-45%, Labour-24%, Conservatives-21% and others-10%. As of the survey between the 16th-19th November, the new figures are, Lib Dems-15%(-30%), Labour-42%(+18%), Conservatives-26%(+5%) and others-17%(+7%). So that’s right, the Lib Dems have been pushed into a miserable third place amongst students, -30% in the space of 6 months still shocks me though.

Yougov also asked a poll on government approval, which came to a net approval of -64%. 80% of students thought it was wrong for the Lib Dems to go back on their pledge and also 78% of students oppose the trebling of tuition fees to £9000 a year.

These figures are good for Labour, but we certainly should not take them for granted. And let us hope Labour’s policy review produces a graduate tax so we can retain our place as the new champions for students.

Max

Fees, fees and more fees

Would you pay £9k a year to go to University? I would’ve had serious doubts about coming to Birmingham University if that was the case then. Now many reading this may turn around and say “but didn’t Labour treble tuition fees?”, “didn’t Labour start the Browne report?”. Did we do those things, yes. Am I going to blog here and defend them, absolutely not.

However, it is now irrelevant what happened ten years ago, what matters now is what happens, well, now and in the immediate and long-term future. And what we’re seeing is the trebling of fees (more or less) to create the most expensive state University system in the world!! (Given the likes of the USA’s Universities are in the private not state sector).

Shame, shame on you Cleggy. We all know it’s tempting to say whatever you want when you’re the third party and have no chance of winning power. But given everyone knew that the most likely outcome of the general election was going to be a hung Parliament there was every chance you would have to compromise on this policy. A cast iron guarantee for the abolition of tuition fees was a ridiculously stupid given the context of the election. Don’t worry, I want tuition fees scrapped in the long term as much as any average student (favouring a Graduate tax in the meantime), but don’t even attempt to justify or pitifully dress this hike as “progressive”.

Finally, shame on you the Conservative party for forcing the Lib Dems and more importantly, future students into this. You rightly once opposed tuition fees, where has that once fleeting soul disappeared to?

Max

“Clegg Covers” and his real desert island disc

Ok, I realise that I am lowering the tone of the fair-minded, considered and erudite blog before I even begin, and possibly embarrassing everybody by my bad rhyming and song choice, but we’re students people! Plus #CleggCovers is a big meme and suggestions have been rolling in from all sorts of young Labour bigwigs. So yeah, bear with 🙂

Mr. Brightside by the Killers rewritten

VERSE

Coming up in the polls and I was doing just fine

Put my honour on hold, it’s coalition time

Got myself in a fix, guess gold and blue shouldn’t mix

It’s the new politics, it’s the new politics

It’s the spending review, and we’re cutting like hell

Is that bulls**t you hear? Is that bullsh**t you smell?

Letting all of you down, know you used to agree

This is Cameron town, and I’m his mini-me

BRIDGE

Then, promises get broken

Watch me squirm

Melting away like yellow snow

Our manifesto

CHORUS

Growing doubts

Kids and women losing out

Disregard all kinds of proof

Student fees are through the roof

But that’s how it has to be

Osborne’s at the treasury

All your hopes and dreams have died

You’ve just been Cleggified.

Suzy

The end is nigh

So here it is, after over 5 months of build up, the spending review is here, of course we don’t know everything that Gideon is going to cut yet (and I’m not going to cover the spending review fully, Kieran said he would do that). Average spending cuts of 25% to most Whitehall departments (with some suffering 40%) over 4 years and around 500,000 job losses over that same period (which the private sector will magically pick up after).

The Coalition has for a long period constantly lambasted the public that the scale and speed of these cuts “is necessary and unavoidable” and yes admittedly we’ve been stuck in a leadership election but it’s now our job to say, “No! There is always an alternative”. The Coalition has often used the comparison between a household budget and that of the structural deficit, and in this case we should do the same (bear with me), as when a family goes into debt, yes they need to balance the books but you never see a house do everything they can to reduce the debt as quickly as they possibly can by selling the furniture, the kitchen, the TV, etc until you leave the house completely bare.

Even though I sincerely doubt it, I do hope the Lib Dems will have softened the blow Gideon is going to make, but again, hugely unlikely.

Max

Education is essential

The sharp prospect of the governmental chopping blade is a frightful thing, but its something we will all endure. Whether the coalition are right to cut so deep, so quickly, is a matter that can be debated for ages, but the unsavoury realisation is that it is going to happen and we are powerless to stop it. However I believe the one department that should be protected more so than others, is education.

We all realise that in order to maintain our proud position on the international stage as a hub of potential, promise and initiative, we need to sort our finances out. Yet within this lies the problem of why reducing the reach of the state’s monetary arm especially in education is counterproductive. Education is the bedrock of social mobility, the generation of new ideas, and the advancement of understanding. So reducing the finance it receives, reduces its importance in the eyes of young people, and starves them of realising not only their full potential, but that of our nation.

In today’s news a leaked source suggested that there could be funding cuts of up to £4.2 billion for universities in the next Spending Review. A few days ago Lord Browne’s report suggested that education will now become a prospect for the wealthier classes. And the threat of many universities caving in is one which has gathered speed. Politicians scrap over the definition of fairness, this isn’t fair- this is placing education on a pedestal and kicking the less well off further into the wilderness.

Kieran

Brilliant Vince

Am I missing something here? Vince Cable is a lauded financial genius who has lectured in economics, worked as an economics advisor, written books about economics, and is generally credited for having predicted the credit crisis in Britain. Pretty watertight experience and skills comprised there, you might think.

Equally, he is the lauded champion of students, signing the NUS Vote For Students pledge himself with alacrity and encouraging other MPs to sign it, promising to abolish tuition fees and repeatedly asserting that his party’s budget proposals were comprehensive, well thought out and realistic, he has now literally U-turned and declared that the party will not be voting for the cap after all.

So what went wrong? Could there have been a miscalculation? Or simply dishonesty? He is quoted as having said that he has changed his position because “We are not in an ideal world.”

Clearly.

Suzy

Why it still matters

The month is April 2010. The location is Joe’s Bar in the Guild. A lively debate is taking place over four pints of beer.

“So you’re trying to tell me that the Conservatives are anti-poor, anti-gay, anti-women, anti-public services.”

“Basically, yeah.”

“Well then you’re full of **** because I heard Cameron’s speech on the NHS and he says he’s gonna protect it! They haven’t mentioned anything about punishing the poor either, you’re just making that up, cos we’re all in this together. And they have gay front-benchers, and JUST in case you’ve forgotten Thatcher was a woman.”

How many times have we experienced this rebuttal? This battle for hearts and minds, with us hungover in scruffy jeans on one side and Cameron’s big air-brushed face on the other?

And how many people came back to us over the following months and said “Mate, I’m sorry, if I’d known they were gonna cut my cousin’s benefits I wouldn’t have voted for them.”

But by then it’s too late. We need a shorthand, to unpick all the rhetoric, all the speeches, all the elaborate policies with questionable motives. Left and Right.

To say that a party is right wing is to know its history. Its history of opposing measures for the greater equality of gender, race and sexuality. Its financial backers in big business, its think tanks and advisers comprising the bigoted, the religiously extreme, the regressive. Its instincts to offload responsibility, make a profit, and favour choice over health and happiness. How it will respond in a crisis, where its priorities will lie, what it wants to achieve and the kind of country it’ll leave behind as its legacy.

Right wing and left wing speak for themselves.

And once you understand the divide you can read between the lines of speeches, because you know the place they are coming from in the first place. Ed Miliband declaring that he’s not in the pockets of Unite isn’t going to scare the Unions because they also know that they share a common, left wing, goal with Ed to defend workers against cuts. Whereas Cameron promising not to include the NHS in his cuts was a plea to those old enough to remember the last Tory government for another chance.

Right wing and left wing are more important than election promises. Years after everyone has forgotten that speech that leader made at conference the backbone of the party is still the same, and will react to each new problem in an essentially typical way. Giving credit to the Tories for cutting child benefit for the relatively wealthy is to silently acknowledge that it’s a surprise, that it’s essentially out of character, that it’s even a little bit left wing, because the true right-wing instinct would be to just scrap it altogether.

But that would make them unelectable.

Suzy

The new party of students

“I feel sorry for the Lib Dems now as they are completely rendundant”-Dan Harrison on Radio 4. As of an hour ago I couldn’t agree more. Vice Cable has now dropped his graduate tax plans for England. The once cherished held belief of nearly all Lib Dems, the abolition of Tuition fees has all but evaporated. It is now Labour’s job to pick up this mantle and now become the true party of students as we now campaign for a graduate tax (and hopefully one day, in the not too distant future, the abolition of tuition fees).

Max

It’s short-sighted to slam the lib dems now

Let’s be clear this is a Conservative lead government implementing predominately Tory policy bar a few half-hearted attempts at Lib Dem fig leaves, such as the referendum on AV. Recently there has been a lot of anti Lib Dem rhetoric thrown about by the Labour leadership candidates, especially by Ed Miliband who I support incidentally. This kind of rhetoric against the Lib Dems in government, in my opinion is short sighted, too tribal and ignores the true architects of the cuts regime: the Tories.

It will get a loud cheer from the Labour party faithful and applause from the gallery but anti liberal democrat rhetoric places the Labour party in permanent opposition if it continues on this path. As a party we have to be ready to talk and work with other parties on the left as most of the wider public now like coalitions and politicians working together. Of course as a party we should focus on winning a majority at the next general election but after such a heavy defeat in the spring and the way this has election panned out I believe that will be difficult to achieve in only one term. However we should be ready, unlike in May, for a coalition government, we should be looking to work with the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party and others on the pluralistic left to make sure a Tory government is a thing of the past. With a progressive alliance we can place the Tory’s in opposition indefinitely.

As well as Labour swallowing its tribal instincts, this kind of politics is very much dependant on the electoral system. I would be in favour of a more proportional system possibly in the form of AV+ however this is not on the referendum ballot paper although I hear Caroline Lucas is mounting an amendment to add it on. Despite the A.V referendum being placed alongside the gerrymandering of constituencies in the same bill, the next leader, whoever it is, should campaign for a ‘yes’ vote. The alternative vote would make coalitions governments more likely and be a step in the right direction to making parliament more representative and go a way to gaining lost trust in the political system. In May as a Labour party we should show the public we are grown up politicians, ready to be an effective opposition but more importantly a credible government. That means as Martin Kettle states in his draft Labour leader speech in Friday’s Guardian, and I paraphrase ‘I will stand shoulder to shoulder with Nick Clegg on this issue’

Come May 2015 the electoral map will look very different, and a Lab-Lib coalition might be very much on the cards. The Labour party has to swallow its tribal instincts and be ready for coalition. Coalitions are here to stay; the country and the labour party can’t afford to be prevented from going into government because it can’t accept a pluralistic vision of politics. Labour needs to not retreat into the introverted tribalism that has marked some of the last five years of power. To avoid a prolonged spell in the wilderness, Labour must look to the wider public and move to a more pluralistic form of doing politics.

Sam Murphy @Murphys_Law19

Student and Labour party activist, South Staffordshire District council candidate in May.

Osborne’s vision for the future

Contrary to the pre-election promises of both the Tories and the LibDems that child benefits were not to be called into question, they are now to be cut to all those individuals earning over the 40% tax rate. Obviously these middle to high earners won’t miss the hundreds or thousands of pounds they should have been entitled to as much as lower earners. This child benefits cut is therefore “not as bad as it could have been”, as opposed to those that will follow it, which I fear will be bad, worse and ugly.

While this policy compares favourably with Victorian conservatism, when the lower classes were discouraged from having children in order to leave greater space and resources for the “better quality” middle class offspring, it doesn’t show much of a departure fro recent Tory policy. It still manages to hit women hardest, especially by discriminating against single mothers. The massive loophole meanwhile, maintained for purposes of “simplicity”, allows for high earning couples to benefit, as long as each partner earns less than 44 thousand alone.

It also leaves the coalition sending the public yet another mixed message – marriage is good, raising children is bad. I’d be excited to find out the rest of Gideon’s plans for our families, if I wasn’t too busy quaking in my boots.

Suzy

An inevitable outcome, but, not an inevitable result

In tomorrow’s Sun is published a significant result for the Labour party. For the first time in three years the Labour party is ahead in the polls http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2814 at Lab-40%, Con-39%, LD-12%. Yes, it is the tiniest of margins and yes it may be even a freak poll, but it is as significant as the Coalition’s approval ratings slipping into negative for the first time and the public disapproving of the Government’s austerity measures for also the first time last month.

However, do not get complacent! While we may be ahead in the polls a large amount over the next five years, it is certainly no guarantee of victory. Just look at Thatcher’s first term in office, hugely unpopular for most of her term and then went onto win a landslide (though admittedly it is unlikely the Coalition will have any Falkands War to help save them). Labour must be the clear, viable alternative to the Coalition, or else who knows how big the “Big Society” will be or how long will the new age of austerity last as nothing in Politics is inevitable or definite.

Max

That didn’t take long

I know it’s a bit late but it’s worth noting that that last week the coalition’s approval ratings entered negative for the first time yet (-2, 39 approve, 41 disapprove) in a YouGov Daily Tracker poll (http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2786). Admittedly this may be a fluke result and also there are evidently a lot of “don’t knows”.  But, given the government have still yet to enact any spending cuts, things are going to get very bad, electorally, for the coalition soon. It’s safe to say this is a rather quick fall from grace and probably the first of many many more negative ratings to come.

Max

Middle Britain

It is regarded as the key electoral necessity to winning any general election. Ever since the mid-1980s, “Middle Britain” has been the focus point for most political parties. “Middle Britain” was certainly the focus of ‘New’ Labour throughout its existence, 1997 and 2001 were victories brought upon this wave. Now this does lead onto somewhere if you bear with me….in this case the Labour leadership contest.As George (BULS Treasurer) pointed out in a previous post, the race is indeed between the two Miliband brothers each of which are offering different alternatives on what the Labour party should reach out to. D. Miliband has argued for this aforementioned “Middle Britain” pointing out the lack of Labour seats in the south outside London, while E. Miliband has proposed to reach out to a centre-left coalition. Out of the two, it is D. Miliband that has David Cameron (DC) the most worried http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/aug/27/cameron-david-miliband-labour-leadership. 

However, since 1997 Labour has lost 5 million voters, but only a million to the Tories, the rest didn’t bother to vote, turned to minor parties or primarily, the Liberal Democrats. What happened in the 2010 general election was that Labour allowed the Lib Dems to represent (and in some cases even become) the radical left/progressives of British politics. While yes, this ethos has been quite destroyed by the coalition with Cleggy abandoning near enough all the policies the Lib Dems stood for at the election, but, there were many areas where people turned to them due to an apparent progressive dominance. Primarily, ID cards, scrapping SATS, scrapping Trident, opposing Iraq War and raising the tax threshold to £10k (which is a policy Labour should’ve introduced years ago). 

Logically (almost), it can be seen that Britain does retain a left leaning tendency, while certainly not socialist or social democratic, but rather Britain can be seen as at least on the whole, progressive. Logically (again), it is E. Miliband’s form of electoral base that would be best suited to bringing back those 4 million voters who left Labour for the Lib Dems and apathy. 

Max

Need we say more…

Boy George (Osborne), DC (Cameron) and Cleggy have all ardently claimed that the recent “emergency budget” was hardwired into being a “progressive” budget and that the poor would be shielded from the upcoming years of austerity and that in the words of DC, “we are all in this together”…….what he forgot to add was “…unless you’re rich but you’re particularly in if you’re poor”.

A recent report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), Britain’s leading independent tax organisations completely destroyed the coalitions claims that the budget is “progressive” but rather describing it as “clearly regressive as, on average, they hit the poorest households more than those in the upper middle of the income distribution in cash, let alone percentage, terms.”. Yes, you read the quote correctly; it hits the poorest harder in cash never mind percentage terms!

The IFS also said the poorest 10% of families would lose over 5% of their income as a result of the budget compared with a loss of less than 1% for non-pensioner households without children in the richest 10% of households. It added that the budget contrasted with the “progressive” plans for 2010-14 inherited from Labour, under which the richest 10% of households bore the brunt of the cuts.

Leaving aside whether it is a right or wrong descision to attempt to remove the structural deficit within 5 years, I can assure you know that the coalition will turn round and you use one of the oldest tricks in the books, blame the predecessors. Well let me say, don’t you even dare, don’t even dare, this is now totally the coalition’s doing. This is what happens when you have severe changes to housing benefit, disability allowances, tax credits and a deficit reduction plan that is totally out of balance in terms of cuts to taxation.

We all knew the Tories where bulling when DC stated that “we are all in this together” and that the Lib Dems had sold themselves out on economic policy, but now we have conclusive proof from a well respected independent body, all we can say now is, need we say more…

Max

Why nobody, not even on the left, should read the Guardian

I write this, as you all by now are probaby well aware, as a left of centre, card carrying member of the Labour party. And I write this because I am, quite frankly, sick of fellow minded folks trusting this diabolical rag despite it being a paper that is inconsistent, hypocritical and simply, makes no sense whatsoever. Let me take the liberty to explain this to you.

This is, after all, a paper, that after years of supporting the Labour Party decided a week before the last election to support the Liberal Democrats. This it did citing as its motive the Liberal Democrats support for proportional representation (P.R). Yet immediately after the formation of the Con-Dem coalition, some ten days later, this ‘news’paper decides to renounce that support.

That to me does not make sense. Firstly and most simplistically, why drop a party immediately after it gains power for the first time in 60 years, just because it goes into coalition with a party you don’t like. Moreover, The Guardian’s switch is more staggering considering its support for PR (which as I said earlier, was the reason it publically gave for switching its allegiance from Labour to the Lib Dems.) Proportional Representation almost universally leads to the formation of coalitions, so for The Guardian to declare its support for the Lib Dems because of their support for PR, then weeks later to renounce that support because of the Lib Dems going into a coalition, which would be more, not less, likely to occur with PR, is frankly bonkers logic. If the Guardian’s support for the Lib Dems was based on them winning the election outright then it did so contrary to the vast majority of the evidence from polls, most political analysis and was reliant upon a swing that was unlikely even to the most ardent and politically naive Liberal Democrat.

I say this not because I am annoyed at the Guardian switching its support from Labour to the Lib Dems. That genuinely is not my problem. My problem is that the Guardian is repeatedly held up and used by members of the Labour Party or people on the left or in the centre as this beacon for sensible left of centre reporting and analysis. But in reality, this paper is just as unprincipled and flippy floppy in its nature, as any of the red tops or Murdoch press engine. But at least the red tops do not pretend to be sensible.

I don’t like the coalition. I dislike most of its policies, I don’t trust its underlying (largely Conservative) principles and I also don’t believe it is actually as stable and unified in purpose and compromise as is said (though I do not, myself, think this will become apparent for a number of years). But these are politically based, and I would argue very rational reservations for the coalition. My reasoning, even if you do not agree with it, is consistent. The Guardian’s scepticism of the coalition is not sound, consistent or based on anything other than rather politically naive and ill-considered malice. Yet despite this people on the left continue to quote it and rely upon it ad nauseum, believing, as I said, it to be a principled and consistent proponent of the ‘progressive’ wing of politics.

So I implore any self-respecting left or centrist person with an interest in political journalism which is not sensationalist but fair, sensible not senseless, to read the Independent, not the Guardian. Even the Telegraph, though a right-wing paper with which I have many disagreements, is at least consistent and sensible in what it says, even if I disagree with it. If you want a challenge, rather than mindless spouting, read that. But do not quote the Guardian pretending that it is anything other than TWADDLE!

By Sean Woodcock

Poor poor Vince

I was watching question time last Thursday (yes I know this might be a bit late) and was pained to see none other than Vince Cable (the only Liberal Democrat I have a great degree of respect for) being effectively made to eat his own words from the general election campaign. It was quite clear that he hated every moment on the show and half of what he said he obviously did not personally believe.

Now the coalition was the best option open for the Liberal Democrats after the election, better to influence events on the inside than shout from the sidelines. But, one of their major failings is that they have for the time being, failed to give the coalition a distinct progressive edge. They failed to shift the burden of the Tory cuts onto the rich but rather onto the poor as argued by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fuk%2F2010%2Fjun%2F23%2Fbudget-welfare-poor-ifs-report&h=94854p2-JAX6pOiaLB95ROte4HA and humiliatingly had to u-turn over a rise of VAT which topped the Tories era of austerity.

These failures are being noticed by the electorate, with support in a YouGov poll on the 5th May at a high 28%, while on the 25th June it was shown to have been decimated to a mere 16%. Another poll showed that 48% of people who voted for the Liberal Democrats at the last election are less inclined to do so again, primarily over the rise in VAT.

The future doesn’t look bright for Vince and his fellow Liberal Democrats, if the coalition does succeed the Tories will gain credit, being the dominant partner and if it fails, the Liberal Democrats will never again be able to regard themselves as a progressive force.

Max

The axe falls

Today saw George Osborne’s first ever budget as Chancellor in which Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats showed how much they had sold themselves out. Despite accusing Cameron of threatening to raise VAT with a re-run of the famous Tory poster of “Labour’s tax bombshell” have now agreed with their coalition partners to indeed raise VAT to 20% in which the house was in uproar! The thing with the VAT is that it is generic, it targets no specific group, so in other words, rather than taxing higher earners, it is those on middle to lower incomes who will suffer from this “tax bombshell”. Here is a rundown of the main aspects of the budget:

1. VAT will rise from 17.5% to 20% from January 4, 2011 (already touched upon but still rather ironic)
2. Councils which propose low council tax increases will be offered extra funds to allow them to freeze the tax for one year from April 2011 (would be great if we had the money)
3. Capital Gains Tax remains at 18% for low and middle-income savers but from midnight, higher rate taxpayers will pay 28% (now that I can agree with)
4. The capital gains tax “entrepreneurs relief” rate of 10% on the first £2m of gains will be extended to the first £5m (frankly if they earn that much they deserve a level of taxation, especially now)
5. No raise to alcohol, cigarettes and fuel (pity it wasn’t raised on cigarettes)
6. Low income families will get more Child Tax Credit – the amount per child will rise by £150 above the rate of inflation next year (again, I can agree with that)
7. Sure Start maternity grant will be restricted to the first child (kind of stupid, better have it the other way around as you will have more mouths to feed)
8. Corporation Tax will be cut next year to 27%, and by 1% annually for the next three years, until it reaches 24% (should be raised for bigger businesses in my eyes)
9. Average real terms budget cuts of 25% over four years – except for health and international aid (there goes my local bobby and half of the state sector teachers
10. Personal income tax allowance to be increased by £1,000 in April to £7,475 – worth £170 a year to basic rate taxpayers (the sole thing in this budget I would commend, obviously the Lib Dems managed to get A concession out).

VAT rise which will hit the poorest hardest and corporation tax cuts…….in the words of J. K. Rowling, “I’ve never voted Tory before, and they keep reminding me why.”

Max

Lawsgate – some thoughts

Paraphrased from a facebook conversation between Sean Woodcock and Oliver Jackson:

SW: Whilst I can sympathise with him having issues regarding his Catholic family it does not justify using taxpayers money to hide his sexuality. I don’t think he did it out of greed (he is already a millionaire) and I don’t think it necessarily makes him a bad person. But what he did was wrong and he absolutely deserved to go. Not to mention that he was naive to assume that he would not be found out for it.

OJ: He was one of the best men for the job, and his transgression was not by any stretch of the imagination the most serious offence in the whole sorry episode of the expenses scandal. “Had he been just another MP, his position would surely have been secure. Sympathy for the awkwardness he clearly felt about his sexuality would have overridden anger at the breach of the rules.” However, he had an exceptionally important position in the new government, a government wishing to at least be seen to be breaking away from the “old politics” in a position that would necessitate him having to explain harsh and deeply divisive austerity measures where not a shade of scandal can be had.

The other issue of course is the Telegraph itself, a newspaper not particularly interested in the public good but in sensationalism, controversy and making the greatest possible profits. If they had any significant level of decency they would not have published the story. But of course with the self serving Press Complaints Commission (we should have learned by now that self regulation doesn’t work!) there is no chance of even the beginnings of a discussion into whether or not the story should have been allowed. A story that came dangerously close to forcing a man out of his job because he felt himself unable to reveal his sexuality. The fact that people are still forced to think this way is a highly disturbing indictment on our society, though that is a slightly separate issue. His privacy has been shattered and he’s been pushed out of the highest position of his life for which was eminently qualified for. And for what? Very little good has come out of all of this. And why now? Why didn’t the Telegraph reveal Laws’ expenses with all the rest a year ago? I sense malevolent intent here…

SW: The only party that claimed to be whiter than white during the election were the Liberal Democrats, as David Cameron (in one of his highlights) told Clegg off for in the TV debates. It is not ideal that he came out in this way, but he has been living with this man for over 5 years. I would argue that if David Laws had made the (admittedly difficult) decision to come out earlier, then this issue would not have arisen. It shows poor judgement on his part. I also think a lot of gay people will find it insulting to hear a politician justifying doing something improper by saying he did it because of difficulty regarding coming out. This is not about homosexuality or homophobia and should not be made out to be an issue as such. I feel that he is being unfairly lauded as massive loss to the country despite the fact that up until 18 days ago he was a virtual unknown in a fairly minor (in terms of Parliamentary influence) political party.
When you stand for power, you do not lose a right to privacy, but you at the same time must expect that you will be under public scrutiny. In assuming that he would not be, he was at best naive. His defence, also confuses me – ‘My motive throughout has not been to maximise profit but to protect our privacy”
If he had followed procedure, he would not have been outed in the way he has been by the Telegraph. It is as simple as that. At the end of the day, you can’t avoid the conclusion that without the fraudulent claim, there would have been no story.

Silver lining

Some good news, bar the local election results. In the past 24 hours or so, some 3,000 people have joined the Labour party, so much so that the website actually crashed for a brief while! I’m suspecting quite a lot of disenchanted Lib Dems were among them.

Max

History in the making…

Last night saw history in the making in British politics, the first ever televised leaders debate was held on ITV. The main focus of the debate was on domestic affairs covering immigration, cleaning up politics, crime, education and the NHS.

Now in terms of answering the questions, connecting with audience (whether in studio or at home) and expressing his views, the debate was easily won by Nick Clegg. It would have been highly surprising if Brown had won on those particular areas, given his ‘radio face’. However, when it came to substance and detail, Brown was the clear winner as reflected on the likes of Facebook and Question that followed the debate on BBC1 and simply the fact that detail is Brown’s strength.

The less said about Dave the better who mentioned his token ‘black person’ friend, regarded China as dangerous as Iran and completely failed to answer Brown’s questions on comittment to spending on law and order and education.

The next debate is to be held on Thursday the 22nd April on Sky News, which will focus upon International Affairs. I personally will be looking forward to watching Dave receive questions on his allies in the European Parliament.

Max

‘snooping state’

Now personally, I don’t particularly mind the Lib Dems, except when it comes to civil liberties, as unfortunately they are as insecure as the Tories. Nick Clegg’s speech in London said he wanted the people to “to take their privacy back” against ID cards, DNA databases and CCTV cameras. Now I’ve done a similar rant on this in a previous blog but that was restrained to the DNA database, but really come on Clegg(y), I accept there is somewhat of an argument behind ID cards but he’s kinda forgetting they’re intended for foreign nationals.

CCTV cameras hardly ‘invade your privacy’, they’re in the streets to keep an eye out for criminals, they’re not exactly in your houses are they as well that would be a breach of privacy, but people can’t stand it not knowing who’s watching you at the other end, i.e. fear of the unknown. And finally, DNA databases, the biggest insecurity of them all, I’m all for the state to keep a record of everyone’s DNA from birth as what they going to do? Take mine find out I’ve got hay fever then send me a bunch of flowers?

Rant over

Max

Lib Dem AGM

Breaking news!

The UB Lib Dems have held their AGM not too long ago, the only result we have heard about is that of their Chair, first year Will Miéville-Hawkins beating RON (who gets around a lot) into second place. To be fair, the Lib Dems are going to be a lot more vocal, with an actually active blog and the distinct possibility of a hung parliament, this is going to be an important year for UB Lib Dems.

Max

Took their time

BULS and BUCF have had their blogs/websites since near the end of 2006 and have proved vital in cross-party discussions (sorta). Fast forward over 3 years down the line, University of Birmingham Liberal Democrats have FINALLY followed suit (sorta). It literally is just a blog and nothing else but it’s certainly better than nothing.

http://bhamlibdems.livejournal.com/

Max

A new politics?

In the wake of the expenses scandal, all the major parties claimed they would re-invent British politics. Here is one such action that well frankly, is quite brilliant. Electoral reform by changing the old FPTP system to an AV system. Now personally I think this is a brilliant idea, to sum it up quite simply, the new system will not only retain MP’s strong links to their constituencies but they will for the first time all achieve over 50% of the vote (sort of) through a system preference making, vis-a-vis (that’s probably not the right context but hey, lol) better representation.

While the Lib Dems welcomed this is as a start (which is fair enough) the Tory’s were the helpful selves again with Conservative chairman Eric Pickles said, “Gordon Brown avoided a leadership election, bottled a general election and now wants to fiddle the electoral system,” (yawn).

Max

Good ol’ Nick

 

Recent talks of what the Lib Dems would do in the event of a hung Parliament have got me thinking, what would we allow the Lib Dems in the event of a minority Labour Government following the general election next spring? Cetainly there will be greater and faster constitutional reform (as the Tories would probably not grant that part) and Nick Clegg and Vince Cable (at least) will be given Cabinet positions. But what else? Cameron’s claims that the two parties are more similar than ever is obviously utter rubbish really, I don’t mind the Lib Dems too much and cetainly think we are closer to them ideologically than the Tories.

So, what else do you think would they want in return for their support?

Max

So it begins….well for some

Within a few days I know at least the Conservatives will be firing up their campaign for the 2010 election. There will be soon a vast forray of PR and soundbites from the blue camp, nothing new there. But we need to remember, as always, that this is a mask, despite pledges of NHS cash boost for most deprived areas and a “War Cabinet” (which pointed out by the Culture Secretary Ben Bradshaw, would be rather pointless as Ministers often inform their shadows of events), there is always the same Tory party as also argued by  Liberal Democrat frontbencher Danny Alexander who said Mr Cameron “needs to be honest with people about his real priorities rather than simply parroting lines from spin doctors”.

How do we know this? Yes, there’s all the contradictory policies like the cartoon shows, but there is also the clear fact that, there never was any internal party upheval when “change” was implemented to the Conservative and Unionist Party, no internal struggles between the old and new factions. So take heed of this, only constant reminders can help the British public see though the smokescreen of PR.

Max

Televised debates

After a while of talks and speculation, a deal has finally been brokered between the three major parties and three broadcasting companies. The three party leaders will battle it out over a series of three broadcasts. The first is to be on ITV, hosted by Alastair Stewart, the second on Sky, hosted by Adam Boulton and the third and final debte will be on BBC, hosted by David Dimbleby.

Now clearly this is a golden chance to re-present politics to the increasingly bitter and disalusioned public. This being clearly something new to the British public will have I’m guessing, at least 10 million watching (well for the first and third debates anyway). There will also hopefully be the SNP and Plaid Cymru participating in the respective regional debates of Scotland and Wales with one also being held in Northeren Ireland.

I personally hope, that unlike in PMQs, where obviously the questions are directed at the PM, the British public will question Cameron on his policies (if he has enough for an hour and a half debate, which I sincerly doubt) and show that the Tories haven’t changed and that a change of logo and slogon doesn’t mean a change of mindset.

Max

Labour win in Glasgow NE

The official results read as follows:

Labour – 12,231 votes (59.39%)

SNP – 4,120 votes (20%)

Tory – 1,075 votes (5.22%)

BNP – 1,013 votes (4.92%)

Solidarity – 794 votes (3.86%)

Lib Dems – 474 votes (2.30%)

Total votes cast – 20,595

Despite the worst turnout in a Scottish by-election ever, this result leaves me with the feeling that we aren’t totally done yet. I think this by-election at least gives us some hope in bonnie Scotland where the SNP seem to be crumbling away and the Tories are failing to make in-roads.

What have they ever done for us?

Britain has long been thought of as a country of no-hopers.  Our national football teams are widely unsuccessful for instance, we flop at Eurovision, and more recently, Terminal 5.  So it might be pertinant to point out that Britain’s favourite no-hopers, the Liberal Democrats, were 20 years ago this month after a fractitious alliance with the SDP and in a cloud of confusion that has covered them in fog for two decades.

 

Despite their claims that we have a three-party system, we do not, so in what way does having the Lib Dems benefit our nation?  The next Government will be Labour or Tory, they attempt to breathe some life into their party by claiming that the next election will bring a hung-parliament of which they will be a key-player.  I very much doubt their parliamentary party could be a key-player in anything, that doesn’t involve navel gazing.

Fin

I never wanted a referendum anyway. but at least now its over.  The Government defeated a Tory amendment to put the EU Bill to referendum with a comfortable margin.

Interesting that both Gisela Stuart (whips love her, Birmingham Edgbaston) and Lynne Jones (whips hate her, Birmingham Selly Oak) both joined up on this one.  Roger Godsiff in Birmingham Sparkbrook also voted for a referendum.  Divisions run very deep, it seems.

It will come back to haunt me, I am sure, but I bet that the local elections in May will revolve heavily around a national vote on a European Treaty.  Nothing like opportunistic opposition parties to make one simple vote about something completely unrelated.  See above for details.

And in a final point, it looks like the Lib Dems have imploded/exploded.  William Hague made an amazing point, captured by Simon Hoggart.  Clegg said that Eurosceptics lacked the ‘cojones’ to take a referendum on EU membership to the electorate.  Hague replied that, in light of the Lib Dem leaders inability to enforce a whip across less people than the average rugby club, he mocked that ‘these unfortunate objects are now to be found, impaled on a distant fence.’  I do like a bit of Hague, now and then.

Homophobia is HATE

The biggest event of last week’s (this year’s, even) social calendar for Birmingham students was of course the annual ‘Homophobia is Gay’ bar crawl; a fantastically organised event full of lovely people – many of whom will probably be staying clear of me for a bit. It is a truly deserving cause; I think we can all agree. Sadly, this fine event couldn’t happen without one minor incident. I don’t wish to blow it out of proportion, but I think it demonstrates just why we need this kind of thing.

To get from Joe’s Bar to Reflex, we took a bus. There is no bus that can rival a gay bus. But we weren’t the only passengers; partway there a small group of youths – commonly referred to as chavs – made to leave. Naturally we were all wearing the lovely event T-shirts, proudly displaying our anti hate-crime credentials. One of the youths felt obliged to shout something along the lines of “Dirty Queers”. Not wishing to fault his powers of observation, I find this sort of behaviour completely unacceptable – as did the rest of our party who made this quite clear. Without wishing to bore you with details, I will say that something of a shouting match took place. Just before leaving, one of the youths stuck his unwelcome head back up to the top deck and spat at one of our number.

Her response was reasonable given the circumstances. I do not know why he felt this was a) necessary, or b) acceptable. Maybe he felt insulted by the fact that she wouldn’t want to sleep with him? (She was heterosexual, as were many of us, but I don’t think that would make any difference, he was an ugly bastard). Now normally I would laugh at irony, but this just left me feeling sick. Resisting the urge to gas the scumbag, even I lean to the right at times; I started to question why this sort of thing should have happened.

What doesn’t help is the fact that society in general still sees this kind of thing as acceptable, maybe not the spitting, but the homophobia behind it. These young people, must have picked up these attitudes somewhere, hate must be planted. Their parents maybe? Their friends? What doesn’t help is the lack of action being taken to stop it at its source. This sort of hate crime should be treated with zero-tolerance from an early age. Schools – all schools, especially ‘faith’ schools – should be the arena for this. Only by informing children that all forms of hate crime are wrong, from an early age, can we prevent them from turning into the hideous creatures I saw last night. Homophobia is as evil as racism or sexism, that is what the campaign is all about, and that is what we need to teach society!

Thanks

(many thanks to the LGBTQ and Liberal Democrat societies, and others, for organising such a fab event!)

Random Lib Dem Related Blog

 Browsing the BBC site, I count eight possible contenders for Lib Dem leader… one is female… she has the longest odds. *Sigh*

 Glancing at our own blog stats, I count four searches for Vince Cable that led back to our blog. These include “vince cable+jewish”, “vince cable jew jewish”, and “vince cable jew”.

 This is not the first time we’ve received hits of this nature… it does intrigue me.