BULS Supporting Michael Chessum to be VPHE of NUS

Following careful consideration, BULS has decided to support Michael Chessum’s campaign to be VPHE of NUS and we ask Birmingham delegates and Labour students nationally to do the same. We believe that Michael is the most competent candidate, and will achieve the most for students now, and in the future.

He has been the only candidate to continuously fight against the Tories’ fee regime and its further marketisation of our education system. Michael has been instrumental inthe organising of two national demonstrations, mobilising thousands of students across the country. Such demonstrations proved highly successful, gaining the support of Labour Students, and the general student population, nationally.

As Labour students we should be fighting against the current coalition government’s outrageous, and damaging, policies concerning higher education fees and their on-going commitment to severe austerity measures. Education is a public good and, at Birmingham, we believe that education should be universally accessible and publically funded. Michael Chessum is the only candidate for VPHE who we believe shares our values and will fight to defend them.

Furthermore, Michael is the only candidate committed to opposing Theresa May’s regressive and racist visa changes, which will have a detrimental effect on International Students who contribute so much to our higher education institutions and country as a whole.

Michael’s past record shows that he knows when and how to use direct action tactics, whilst his pivotal role in founding NCAFC proves his dedication to fighting the government’s austerity measures.

We need a VP Higher Education that will offer a robust defence against the coalition’s stark attacks on education. We wholeheartedly believe it is time to put factional divides behind us and unite in our support for Chessum, as the candidate most able to deliver.

Catie, Ed, Ellis, Areeq, Alex, Sam and Dan

Out of touch

Just tuned in to Woman’s hour and became outraged at views expressed by Lord Digby Jones, (formerly ‘Sir’, formerly ‘Mr’), on the subjects of education and parenting. Jones has developed a proposal of cutting benefits to all parents whose children cannot read, write, count and work a computer by age 14. He went on to say, reassuringly, that these families “will not starve, they will be given food stamps” but will be deprived of monetary benefits as they would, apparently, only be spent on “luxuries” such as cigarettes and alcohol. Stopping families’ benefits wholesale at the drop of a hat seems to be the populist policy de jour, with no concern for the serious effects such measures would have on child poverty, human rights and the development of a lawless underclass.  Aside from the fact that such a proposal would hit migrants and disabled people worst, it is unrealistic and out of touch. Lord Digby Jones turns out to be the former Minister of State for UK Trade & Investment. Perhaps he should confine his opinions to his area of expertise.

I think this is symptomatic of a larger problem. While many of the casual prejudices held against Britain by my aquaintances here in Berlin are amusing, harmless and easily refudated, the stereotype of a British political system in which the monarchy and peers have far too much say is not only damaging, but seems to be turning out to be true.

As a Briton abroad I feel humiliated over Prince Andrew’s gaffes and mood swings, concerned by Prince Charles’ several inappropriate interventions, disappointed as to the lack of progress on Clegg’s House of Lords reform.

It all puts me in mind of an Oscar Wilde quote, spoken by Lord Fermor to his nephew Dorian Gray – “When I was in the Diplomatic, things were much better. But I hear they let them in now by examination. What can you expect? Examinations, sir, are pure humbug from beginning to end. If a man is a gentleman, he knows quite enough, and if he is not a gentleman, whatever he knows is bad for him.”

Suzy

The end of Murdoch’s political monopoly?…Let’s hope so

To be brutally honest, when this whole phone hacking milarky began to come out 6, 9 months ago I really couldn’t care that much. But now, truly, everything has changed. The biggest circulatory newspaper of all time is being dropped, Andy Coulson has been arrested, murder and soldier victim families phones being tapped and quite frankly, the media will never truly be the same again.

So what can we identify and salvage from this wreckage? Well first off to get you in a good mood only Ed Miliband’s finest performance as Labour leader to date by being the first to call for enquiries, the first to call for the axing of the PCC, the first to call for Rebekah Brook’s resignation and the first to demand the transfer of the BSkyB bid to the competition commission. Ultimately, this is a welcome overcoming of fear of the Murdoch empire. Too long has a US-based media tycoon dictated overarching control over Britain. Don’t get me wrong, Labour’s hands are far from clean when it came to dealing with the tycoon master, but this is a major break not just for Labour but for British Politics as one major political force cuts it’s links with the media empire it feared. Miliband despite his fine performance recently has to be careful as already a senior Miliband aid received a “very hostile” threat, not veiled at all, from a News International journalist warning: “You have made it personal about Rebekah, so we’ll make it personal about you.”.

This break for British politics is all very well but it depends on Cameron following suit, which he has so far shown to be unwilling. It is clear that Camero also fears the monopoly and is too entwined in the spider’s web of Murdoch’s empire to truly break free. It was Cameron’s decision to bring in Coulson fresh from News of the World not only in to his team while in opposition but as Director of Communications in No. 10 despite an uneasy background record and he has paid dearly for this judgement. Let’s hope Cameron can make the right decision over the BSkyB deal as this is truly the real prize in all this chaos.

For Murdoch to jettison the very paper that brought him into the British media it seems that he realised the true potential of BSkyB. Newspapers are in decline, the future is the internet and TV. Sky’ revenue is already greater than the BBC’s which combined with his remaining papers would place Murdoch beyond reach of any rival media circles and organisations. With this power he could begin to truly cripple one of Britain’s greatest institutions, the BBC. Any chance that Sky would remain a fully bias free organisation is impossible given Murdoch’s record with the Times, the Sun, the NoW and Fox News over in the USA.

We’ve made our move, it’s time for Cameron to follow suit and do the right thing and remove this poison from British politics once and for all.

Max

A congratulations is in order

Now sorry for the lack of blogging lately, we have all been massively pre-occupied with exams and the like. I myself will commence normal blogging levels after the 3rd June or so.

But anyway, I’m sure everyone in BULS and the wider political spectrum wishes Ed and Justine the very best in their marriage and wish that they have a long and happy life together.

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

Wikileaks

“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” ~ T. Jefferson.

Julian Assange and his colleagues have acted in a brave and selfless way, persisting in outing secretive documents despite smear campaigns and pressure from the highest levels of government.

Even if Wikileaks’ actions achieve nothing in terms of delaying action against North Korea and Iran, a point has been made. The internet is a weapon for transparency and democracy, and governments have never been more accountable.

Another possible consequence is simply increasing the security of intelligence, which can only be a good thing in a world threatened by terrorists.

Suzy

Some actual sound moves from the PM, for once

I’m not going to lie, I personally have not been hit that hard by the recession and by the cuts (yet for the latter). But, credit where credit is due, for once the DC has made some sound moves. Lord Young’s comments are completely out of touch, low interest rates are of little concern for those struggling to make ends meet (or meat, not sure which) on minimum wage or a part of the 2.5 million (ish) unemployed. This incident alone does not equate to DC being out of touch, in fact, this shows humility for once (though I can’t say the same for a lot of everything else he stands for).

Other good news, DC has also decided to take his ‘vanity photographer’ off the Civil Service payroll (although it should not have been on it in the first place, we do welcome the U-turn). Also, we welcome the news of aid to the Irish Republic. They are one of our closest trading partners (and the only country to share a land border with the UK). This is in our, and Europe’s interest to help out Ireland (though I do feel and note the sheer irony and contradiction on part of the Tories in regard to government bailouts, which is effectively happening here given their own abrupt u-turn on the UK’s own bank bail out two years ago). But, don’t forget DC, Ireland is in this mess because they went down the road of austerity measures two years ago, take heed of the warning in our backyard.

Max

More from the Coalition’s prime-time TV critique

I’m beginning to become quite fond of Paul O’Grady now.

Max

It keeps getting better

It seems not only is Cameron intent of having aspect of his day recorded vainly through his own personal photographer and cameraman, but apparently this is not enough, so what’s needed? Even more of DC’s chums, in this case, two personal stylists from the Tory party, one for DC and the other for his wife. My my, as I keep saying, how very “old” politics. He’s so focused with airbrushing his image it’s irrelevant what the message is.

Max

“New”, “old”, it’s all the same to this kind of politics

As you may be aware, I’ve always been a somewhat of a critic of the Coalition’s version of “new” politics, often sounding, feeling and looking like much of the “old”. Well he’s some more of it!

We’re all very aware of Cameron’s (DC) “Webcameron” (that bastion link to the plebs), well the woman who organised it along with the Tories personal photographer of DC have both been added to the Civil Service Payroll on a short term contract. Now at times of large austerity, isn’t it a tad unfair and hypocritical that the PM decides to employ quite literally, some of his mates? It’s irrelevant whether they followed Civil Service procedure and code correctly, the message is blatantly clear, austerity for you and new jobs for my chums.

It’s also the fact that when asked about this at PMQs by Miliband, DC replied “engage in the issues”……..you’ll find this is an issue now DC of hypocracy. Yes, fair enough you’ve cut the communications budget, but it still doesn’t excuse your actions. Think DC, people can tell the difference between the “new” and “old” politics.

Max

The unusual conversion of Lauren Booth

Cherie Blair´s sister, the journalist and activist Lauren Booth, has recently converted to Islam. I´ve been following her progress with interest through her articles and interviews.

Her conversion has been one of overwhelming spiritual experience rather than intellectual conviction, but she is slowly working through the Qurán and learning to pray five times a day. She refers to lifestyle changes as a welcome relief, her children are enthusiastic about her new modest dress, her father´s alcoholism makes her more than happy to give up drinking, and her ongoing divorce makes it fairly easy to avoid dating.

Her political interest remain centred in the Freedom for Palestine campaign and in changing the way the West looks at Islamic societies. So it´s a shame that she´s brought feminism into the ring to defend herself against media attacks, because I don´t think she understands much about it.

Leaving aside her jibes about the cultural ignorance of white middle class women and women who consider themselves “liberated” [sic] but spend a long time on their appearance, she declares that most of our ideas about women´s roles in the Middle East and Islam are entirely wrong, and biased media coverage has led to this false image of opression.

While the Bible and Torah, when followed to the letter, result in reduced women´s rights, the Qurán goes further, in condoning disciplinary action towards and a form of ownership over wives. Naturally as an educated wealthy single woman living in a mainly secular society she is unlikely to suffer from any ill effects of these guidelines, but her conversion cannot be regarded as progress for the western woman.

Her impression of equality in the societies she visited fail to convince. She describes with delight her experience of bossy or cheeky behaviour from women as evidence of liberation, in the same way that someone mugged in Edgbaston might talk about moving to Ladywood. Her anecdotal evidence about women students and men who do housework count for nothing as soon as the going gets tough.

In everyday life we don´t notice our freedoms. In most countries rights don´t become obvious until we find ourselves without money, protection or physical strength. As soon as we´re out of our comfort zone it becomes blindingly obvious that without the sexual, legal, human rights that women enjoy in Britain and the social norm of being able to do things alone without suspicion, we are not truly safe, or truly respected.

Suzy

Do the right thing Vince!

*Tenuous analogy coming up*

Just as King Canute (probably) once stood on the beach at Southampton and tried to turn back the tide, so Vince Cable, if he really possesses the social conscience and belief in fairness for which he gets so much credit, will battle this month against the rising tide that threatens to drown Britain in Murdoch-owned media.

News Corporation has proposed to buy up the remaining 60% of Sky in order to gain full control over the company.  As Business Secretary Cable has the mandate to legislate on grounds of free competition, and is being called on to do so by nearly every other British media company, Slaughter & May, and the European Union.

This could be a chance for the Lib Dems to claw back a bit of credibility by sticking to their guns. The pre-coalition speeches of Clegg and Huhne on millionaire tax avoiders and the phone-tapping scandal suggest that the party’s core would agree with Cable’s views of laissez-faire capitalism killing competition by creating monopoly. On the other hand it’s sure to cause further coalition cracks, considering The Sun’s and the News of the World’s powerful pro-Tory stance, as well as Cameron’s links with Andy Coulson.

It’ll take a brave politician to do it since, as Neil Kinnock discovered to his cost, making an enemy out of News Corporation is not going to win you any elections.

Suzy

National fame

During the Freshers Stall none other than Dan Harrison, our very own Fresher’s Officer (till next Wednesday) was interviewed by radio 4 on the “Beyond Westminster” programme http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00v698v/Beyond_Westminster_09_10_2010/ . You will find he is interviewed 4.50 into the programme and clearly gave the most direct answer to the question the reporter. While the Lib Dem Chair and BUC”F” Vice-Chair skirted around and failed to answer the question on whether, ideology of left or right means something to people of our age. Good on you Dan!

Max

Modern bullying, homophobia and self-esteem among the young

Tyler Clementi – the victim of murder? Involuntary manslaughter? His own low self esteem, thin skin and inability to take a joke? Gravity?

Livestreamed by his room mate from a hidden camera, Tyler was exposed on the internet having sex with another man. His subsequent suicide, declared in his final facebook status, is a tragedy for him, for his family and for our generation. The media is labelling this as just another instance of cyber bullying, but the perpetrator could get several years in prison.

So what’s the problem here? The easy access to publicity that makes total humiliation simple? The latent homophobia that made it an even better scoop for his room mate? Or original low self esteem and a feeling of isolation that affects so many freshers and other young people? Our generation needs to prove that we’re better than this.

Suzy

It`s all relative

Yesterday evening an unknown man was buzzed into our building, entered our apartment through the door we often leave open and offered my flatmate money for sex. After a clear refusal in Turkish, English and Spanish, a violent struggle and threats to call the police he eventually went home, and we were left feeling terrified and dirty.  

The consensus about the event among my Turkish friends is as follows: that it is known in the neighbourhood that our apartment is occupied by young foreign women, who are probably not Muslim and definitely without the support of a large family bent on avenging insults to its women. Our brothers, fathers and uncles are far away, and we probably act like the American women in gossip magazines anyway, so will welcome advances. And if we don`t like it we can go back to where we came from.

Other things I find difficult to adjust to in İstanbul are the poor record on women`s liberation, the high birthrates, the tradition of the hostess never sitting down during a meal but continuing to serve throughout, the constant and indiscriminate leering by men of all ages and the incredible statistic that only 10% of Turkish women are in employment.   

It all makes the Ed/Yvette leadership issue look very, very trivial.

Suzy

Before we miss the sparkly bandwagon…

Stephanie Meyer`s Twilight Saga, heaven knows, gets its fair bit of exposure. Precisely because of this I want to give it some space on our own venerable blog. The amount of impressionable people worldwide hopelessly in love with its characters or  ideas make it worth taking seriously.

The “twilight is sexist” debate can be argued convincingly from either side. While Bella replaces her absent mother in exclusively performing traditionally female chores for her father, suffers from a lack of professional ambition in terms of a career outside the home, is perpetually in need of rescuing and puts up with an emotionally abusive boyfriend who also supervises her every move 24/7, bruises her during sex and prevents her from seeing her friends; there is plenty of objectification of the male characters to counterbalance it, from lingering descriptions of male beauty in the books to many many minutes dedicated to the sight of muscly topless men in the films. By the fourth book Bella is strong enough to stand up for herself, and becomes a protector instead of a victim, albeit mainly in the role of a wife and mother. Also the author, screenplay writer and director are all women, the audience is predominantly female and there is some attempt at a reversal of the Adam and Eve story in terms of who is tempting whom into sexual maturity.

So much for gender.

What I`m concerned with is the heteronormativity of it all.

In the world of Twilight borderline inter-species sexuality, necrophilia, paedophilia and sado-masochism are allowable and more or less practised. Nothing is off limits but the same sex. Werewolves undergo a process of “imprinting” when they find their soulmate, and whenever it is discussed the subject is represented as “he” and the object as “she”. Vampires never seem to bite a human of the same gender, and following in the footsteps of Buffy there is a certain devotion developed towards to the one who changed you. There is no exploration of sexual identity, all the characters are introduced in ready-made boy-girl pairings, in fact there is no possibility, in this world of societal outcasts, counter-culture and misunderstood teenagers, of any LGBT experience.

Suzy

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

Philippa Stroud

Firstly I’d like to thank BULS for electing me to the post of director of social media. Otherwise I would never have joined Twitter and therefore never have been made aware of who Philippa Stroud is and what she stands for. 36 hours after the story broke on the front page of the Observer all other major papers (apart from the Telegraph which played it down) and even the BBC have maintained a deafening silence on the issue. Ken Livingstone raised the issue on the Daily Politics show and was hushed up by the presenters.

But it’s been trending #1 on Uk twitter for 24 hours, the facebook event “Lets help Philippa Stroud get better” has 62 members and the facebook group “If Cameron cares an ounce about LGBT people, he’ll sack Philippa Stroud” has 1,544 members and counting.

This is big news, and it’s simply not being reported by the Murdoch press. The silence of the BBC, to whom, according to Stonewall UK the LGBT community contribute £190 million annually in license fees on this issue is shameful.

So what has Philippa Stroud done?

Having stood as a Conservative PPC in Ladywood Birmingham in 2005 she is now standing for Sutton and Cheam in South London. In 1989 she founded the King’s Arms Project – a Christian night shelter offering counselling to drug addicts, alcoholics, and LGBT people. She believed homosexuality was caused by demons, and could be cured by prayer and exorcism.

There has been no statement of apology or explanation from the Conservative party or David Cameron, Philippa Stroud herself having issued a statement which leaves lots of questions unanswered: “I make no apology for being a committed Christian. However, it is categorically untrue that I believe homosexuality to be an illness and I am deeply offended that The Observer has suggested otherwise. I have spent 20 years working with disturbed people who society have turned their back on and are not often supported by state agencies; drug addicts, alcoholics, the mentally ill and the homeless that I and my charitable friends in the public sector have tried to help over the years. The idea that I am prejudiced against gay people is both false and insulting.”

She refused to comment on whether she believes LGBT people can be cured by the power of prayer, and whether she includes them under her definition of “disturbed people” or the “mentally ill”. She may not be prejudiced against the LGBT community in that she would treat them the same as anyone else suffering from demon possession, but is clearly not pro-liberation.

As a member of the New Frontiers Church of which her husband is a minister she has also pledged to: “be subservient to the wishes of my husband in all things” and submit to “male servant leadership and joyful female submission” – a remarkable attitude for a prospective female MP. I wonder what her views on abortion, same-sex civil partnerships and LGBT adoption are?  And when it became OK for the state and religion to cross over in this manner?

For a full briefing of the recent LGBT gaffes committed by the Tories see http://issacgreaves.eu/attackoftheclones/

The public have a right to demand proper coverage, proper investigation and a proper apology or some heads on plates. Instead we have 768 google hits for Gillian Duffy , and only 9 for Philippa Stroud.

My only comfort is that she probably won’t get elected because the constituency in which she’s standing has a strong and popular Lib Dem MP Paul Burstow who is standing for re-election.

Suzy

Round 3

I would’ve blogged on this sooner, but been busy lately. Well the final debate went rather well. Being held in the Aston Webb building at the very University of Birmingham meant that many BULS members were interviewed by news companies on TV and radio, including BBC West Midlands, Sky News (shudder) and famously a group of us had one with Channel 4 (unfortunately, only 20 seconds and only Michael Brownlee and James Arnold spoke in it).

On the actual debate itself, while I personally think Brown didn’t do AS well as last week. On the upside though, there were two locations for watching the debate on campus, Joe’s Bar (where BUCF were giving out their goody bags, despite not actually being allowed to do) and a screen on the Rugby Pitch and there was a hugely ANTI-Cameron feeling with a HIGHLY pro-Brown and to a lesser extent pro-Clegg feeling. And my Brown did well; Clegg was still spouting his criticisms of Brown and Cameron as the “other two” and the “old parties” which while worked in the first debate is a huge bore and turn off in the debate and Cameron completely failed to justify why he would give a £200,000 give a way to the 3000 richest families while cutting child tax credits for those earning £20,000 a year.

Also, Brown was interviewed by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight and he did extremely well I personally think. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8655562.stm

Max

15 Minutes

BULS was on the news following the unveiling of the new posters in Birmingham, Ladywood constituency.

We met and shook hands with much of the cabinet. Tom Duffy even got a thumbs up from the dark lord Mandy himself.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007mplc

Skip to 2 minutes 40 seconds in.

Gotta remember tho – it’s not all about grabbing the headlines and meeting the most powerful people in Britain. The hard graft starts now! And we’re back out on the doorstep. 6 days people!

Suzy

Brown and ‘Bigots’

As someone on the BBC website said regarding the ‘Bigoted woman’ comment:

“My guess is that 9 out of 10 politicians say things like Mr Brown said once they believe they no longer on air.

We say that we want politicians to be more honest and say what they really believe, but they all know that if they did so, they would never win an election. Politicians are immersed in politics and have a much deeper understanding than the average member of the public, and almost all must be frustrated on occasions, by the naivety of the some members of the public, especially those that rely on the “red top” press for their information.”

—

Absolutely.

It was an embarassing outburst but I think all of the leaders will have said something unpleasant about people they have met in this campaign. The only difference is that they have not been caught.

Can I ask why people are surprised about a politician saying one thing about someone then another the next minute? A Politician, two faced? Fancy that! Next you will be telling me the world is spherical… Hardly news really is it? It comes with the job, and is sometimes, quite frankly necessary. Do you expect Gordon Brown or David Cameron or Nick Clegg to say what they really think next time they meet an Iranian leader or the head of some banana republic with no human rights? No, of course not. They all have to act smooth and cozy up to people, pretending they like them when in reality they dislike and disdain them, and this almost certainly applies to the public as much as other leaders.

 As any experienced political canvasser will tell you, you often encounter people on the doorstep who are, quite frankly, idiots. But no political canvasser ever tells them. In fact, how often does a canvasser stand and talk to someone, feigning to agree or listen to them despite long before thinking that they know absolutely nothing. I would wager, more often than they care to admit.

Gordon Brown is almost certainly no different to Clegg and Cameron in that regard. The only difference is, he got caught doing it.

May I ask how often do some of these very journalists who are now criticising Brown write about the general public in a way that is condescending and demeaning whether talking about reality tv shows, football crowds or voter apathy? I very rarely see these people apologising for things they say, yet Brown does and is still jumped on for it.

To these people who say that Brown can’t stand people who have a different opinion to himself can I ask: who genuinely doesn’t resent other people having different opinions to them? We all do, even if only a little bit. It’s a perfectly human reaction. The difference with Brown is, he gets more emotional about it than other people do, and, again, he got caught. If Gordon Brown could not work or cope with people of a different opinion to himself, I don’t think he would have got anywhere in politics or anywhere else for that matter.

Hence I believe it was the outburst of a tired, man who is low on confidence and who was frustrated at not being able to talk to someone as he wanted to and who thought he would look bad as a result. It does not justify what he said about the lady at all, and he absolutely should have apologised for it, but it can explain it.

Cameron and Clegg are naturally more appealing and better at dealing with ordinary members of the public in a way that Gordon Brown is not. I think Gordon knows he is not good at that sort of thing and so I think that is why his campaign previously was focused on him in more controlled circumstances. I think the debates have shown he can win arguments, but he struggles to win debates, because he is not necessarily the warmest or most congenial of people. I think when he is with people of a different opinion, he is not good at off the cuff debates and in discussions with people. He is better with facts and figures in hand persuading people by the force of argument and by substance. Cameron and Clegg win hands down on charisma and people skills. But being congenial and good with people is not the only aspect to being a good leader.

I think he acted the way he did because it was a situation which he is not comfortable in and which he as a result felt nervous about. He then, for whatever reason, assume dit had gone badly because he knows it is not his strength. Hence where the outburst came from.

To use an example from the world of sport, Sir Alex Ferguson (and Brian Clough) both have been reported as having severe problems in expressing their opinions and acting in haste when angry. They are, however, two of the most successful managers in history. To use the example of history Winston Churchill had terrible anger problems, disagreed with people left right and centre and hated people who disagreed with him. He is also widely reputed to have treated his staff terribly. He was also naturally shy, stammered, had a lisp and did, on occasion, fall out with members of the public. Adolf Hitler bought his staff flowers and cake and was regarded as a kindly boss. He was one of the most brilliant speakers the world has ever seen and was beloved by virtually all who came across him to the extent that many of his closest aides continued to worship him after his death and died for him.

That is what I am trying to highlight. There is more to a leader than how they are with the public and with their staff. There is their principles, their judgement and their politics and that is what I hope people will judge them on.

By Sean Woodcock

A nightmare on your street

Labour’s first attack ad of the campaign with three poignant points: Scrapping most child tax credits and baby bonds and what I personally find disgusting, scrapping your right to see a cancer specialist within two weeks.

Max

Round 2

Last night saw the second ever televised Leaders Debate which was held in Bristol on Sky News. What can be said that from the polls it was a tight result with most putting Clegg narrowly ahead. However, a more specific ICM poll that asked ‘Who would you consider the best potential PM of the three?’  put Brown at 35%, Cameron 33% and Clegg 26%. Brown is also regarded the most decisive figure at 38%, Cameron on 33% and Clegg 25%. Finally, Brown again is regarded as the most respected global figure on 44%, Cameron on 34% and Clegg on 20%, so quite evidently a definite improvement on Brown’s performance.

Personally, Clegg did perform well but unlike the first debate he never had the opportunity to distance himself from the other two and come across as the only one answering the questions. This is clearly due to both Brown and Cameron learning from their mistakes from the last debate. Again, the less said about Cameron the better, he literally re-wrote his manifesto when it came to eye tests, but also if you were to ever watch Cameron at any campaign event he does (while obviously lacking substance) have a way with connecting with the audience, but over the last two debates he has completely failed to use this strength.

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

The Doctor’s most fearsome and terrifying foe yet….Mrs Thatcher

Something I found on the BBC website about Dr Who in the late 1980s showing a slight political bias against Maggie and while this is not allowed under BBC impartiality rules, personally, fair enough on Sylvester McCoy (7th Doctor)!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8518011.stm

Max

‘Broken Society’ an excuse to batter Britain.

I do not like to use isolated incidents for point scoring. So I think David Cameron’s use of the Doncaster killings is no better than populist electioneering. Tony Blair used the Bulger killings in a similar way. Not to say that these killings are not newsworthy. Truly they are horrific. But the reason that they are newsworthy must surely be because they are so shocking? If our society was broken, to the extent that David Cameron says, why would this sort of incident not occur more often. But if we take the Bulger killing in Liverpool and this latest one in Doncaster, we can see that the killings took place in similar areas. Liverpool, in 1993, was a wreckage of a place slowly struggling out of the depressing circumstances of the 1980s when its main industries were closed, communities uprooted and many families livelihoods threatened. Type into google ‘the Toxteth riots’ for an indication of how bad it was. In 1993 then, Liverpool was a down and out place, not the resurgent and confident city that it has began to be rebuilt into in recent years. Doncaster similarly is an area that had its main industry (mining) torn out from under it in the 1980s. It has had similar problems with unemployment, uprooted communities and crime. Hence we see the parallels between the two places.

Clearly there are problems when crimes such as the Bulger and Doncaster killings take place. As I said, I think it is unfair for anyone, Labour or Conservative, to use one crime for political purposes. Just as I think attributing such crimes to a “broken society” as Mr Cameron does, when these killings have taken place in communities that have been broken by a Conservative government, which David Cameron largely intends on reciprocating, and whose leader Mrs Thatcher stated “There is no such thing as society.” The angry public reaction to these killings, suggests, in my view, that while there is certainly evidence of problems within our society, it is very much in existence and is still far from broken.

 

Sean Woodcock, BULS Member

An Unessecary Sour Pill to Swallow

Firstly, let me make myself clear. I am not one for silencing the BNP. While I agree with the sentiments of the Anti-Nazi League, I cannot endorse many of their methods or more extreme forms of protest. People should have the right to protest outside the meetings of any political party or public organisation that they do not agree with but I have no time for any form of violence or intimidation regardless of the end to which they are employed. To misquote the great French philosopher Voltaire “I may not agree with what you say but I will fight for your right to say it.”

The problem with the invitation for the leader of the British National Party, Nick Griffin to appear on Question Time, is that it is totally disproportionate to the influence held by this political party.
If we take the results of the last General Election into account, the BNP gained less than 200,000 votes. Less than 0.5% of all votes cast. At the European Election in the summer of this year, they gained two seats and according to the BBC, 6.2% of votes. This may seem huge but these figures do not include Northern Ireland. With the two republican parties in Northern Ireland registering 200,000 votes, when added to the Unionist vote of another 200,000, this significantly reduces this figure. In 2004, the BNP registered 4.9%, again ignoring Northern Ireland. Thus their vote percentage rose 1.3%. This hardly represents a major bump, especially considering that there were 2 million fewer votes cast in 2009 than in 2004, thus more than 10% fewer votes, with Labour in particular suffering from voter apathy and disaffection. Thus, with all this in mind, we can see that a major shift in attitudes to the BNP is far from proven. A smaller percentage of votes than the Green Party not to mention, UKIP, Labour, the Lib Dems and the Conservative Party. Yet where on Question Time is Caroline Lucas, Leader of the Green Party? She appeared once before the European elections, however, there are no plans for her to return. Her previous appearance prior to that was in 2005. The Green Party gained more votes than the BNP at a national level, in 2005, and at a european level in 2004 as well as this year as I have stated. Alongside that, the BNP have no MPs at Westminster, unlike Respect, the SNP, Plaid Cymru,the DUP,the SDLP, the UUCP and Plaid Cymru.

Let me make this clear, I have no problem with members of smaller parties being invited onto Question Time, especially when those minor parties command a fair degree of popular support e.g. UKIP who despite having no MPs at Westminster command respectable figures at elections, with 15% support this year. Members of minor parties often make valid points which the representatives of the larger parties often do not. Though I do not agree with their central policy position, Nigel Farage of UKIP, is an eloquent and sharp member of the political establishment and his insights are often incisive and accurate. By the same token, other members of the political elite are given rather more credence and publicity than they merit, for example George Galloway (who ridiculously described Saddam Hussein as a “brave” man.) I am merely arguing that the BNP, by being invited onto Question Time, are being credited with more political influence than they actually possess, which I feel is dangerous.

Now that the BNP have been invited onto the show, it cannot be rescinded as this would give the party a martyr-complex. I do, however, think that there is no basis for inviting this party in the first place.
The only possible explanation, and one that I hope has no foundation in truth, is that this is a cynical ploy to improve ratings by talking up what remains an extremely small and insignificant little party that is, purely because of its ideology, given the air of publicity.
It is thus irresponsible and wholly inappropriate of the BBC to have issued this invitation to Nick Griffin.

By Sean Woodcock