Welcome To Birmingham University Labour Students 2015-2016

Welcome To The University Of Birmingham Labour Students Website.

10996001_853127894760640_5340462880809282876_n

We have events every Monday at 6pm & we have campaign sessions with MPs every Sunday at 1pm.

Group photo mock election day

Our Events Include:

  • National Labour Students Events: National Campaign Days & Meet The Shadow Cabinet Events
  • Socials – Bowling / Lazer Quest / ‘Campaign & Curry’ Nights
  • Public Debates – Labour vs Tories Policy Debates
  • ‘Pizza & Policy’ Internal Discussions – This House Believes That…
  • Campaign Days – Campaigns With MPs & Campaign Days With Labour Party Parliamentary Candidates
  • Networking Events – What Kind Of Jobs Are Available In Politics? / How To Get Experience In Politics With MPs & Civil Servants ect.
  • ‘Missing Millions’ Campaign – Encouraging Young People To Register To Vote & Engage In Politics
  • Guest Speakers – Shadow Cabinet Members / Jess Phillips MP / Steve McCabe MP / Gisela Stuart MP / Tom Watson MP / Richard Angell / Jack Dromey MP / Lord Liddle / Lord Hunt / Matthew Doyle

buls w hh10458783_738271372912960_1168180738294075537_n


10882227_778178238922273_2611268623839291131_n

If you would like to join us or be added to the email list please contact us using one of the methods below.

To get in touch by email: labour@guild.bham.ac.uk (this is now our only email address)

You can join our facebook group here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/UoBLabour/
Please like our facebook page here: https://www.facebook.com/BULSonline & follow us on our @bulsonline twitter account

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

Mother’s Day

Mother’s Day is one of those days every year when we think of the role of the women who brought us into the world, and how much they have done and sacrificed for us and our welfare, from when we were a mere collection of cells, to now when we are studying for degrees (some would say our brain cells are perhaps not much more developed than when we were but a collection of cells in some respects). However much progress has been made (albeit painfully slowly) towards equal pay and representation for women in our society, women will always be pressurized to juggle their work and home lives to a greater extent than men.

What worries me is that this noble cause where women rightly have more of a choice in living their lives as they want to live them has created a culture and a mindset where those who choose – actively, rather than subjects of some false consciousness or religious pressure – to stay at home or only work part time to be with the kids as they come home from school, are targeted as a drain on society and the public purse. Housewives (sorry), homemakers, stay-at-home mums: whatever the word we use for them, their work is indeed that – work, which for example produces far more of a social good than the likes of bankers or estate agents or lawyers. Yet it is not categorised as such, and our society does not reward it, it penalizes it.

This is nothing to do with a woman being made to feel guilty for not pursuing her career – of course women should strive for the top echelons of the work pyramid, breaking the glass ceiling and entering the boardrooms; it is nothing to do with sexism – I firmly believe a ‘househusband’ can do the same job, and in our modern age with “all sorts of families” (Mrs. Doubtfire, 1993), including women with higher-paying jobs or same-sex parents, this is increasingly common. However there is a cultural bias against those women who choose to remain at home and work bloody hard to raise a family, often while holding down part-time or volunteering work, and this is reflected in our nation’s appallingly inadequate childcare arrangements.

In other countries – such as Germany with its stronger economy – there are subsidized childcare benefits, or help for mothers. Child tax credits and SureStart centres used to come close to this, but these are being slashed by the Coalition, which prefers to reward bankers, those earning above £150,000 a year, and potentially those who are married as opposed to all parents, co-habiting parents included. Mothers who decide to give up or put their careers on hold are penalised again later as they pick up their state pension, at a time when older people are living in fuel poverty, struggling to finish paying a mortgage and helping their children to get onto the housing ladder or with university tuition. They may even have to bring up another generation, as their children cannot afford childcare for their own sprogs so have to hand them over to the grandparents, who have no recognition or help from the state for helping bring up the politicians, doctors or teachers of tomorrow.

Nowadays, if you’re not contributing to economic growth or paying income tax, you effectively do not exist.  If you are doing your best to balance all of your commitments and bring up well rounded children you are ignored. It is about time mums who choose to stay at home for all or part of the time are recognised and treated with the respect they deserve by our policymakers.

Ageism – The Last Acceptable ‘-ism’?

Ageism is very different to the other ‘-isms’ we try to avoid in today’s supposedly enlightened, tolerant society. Most men will never be female and vice-versa, and we will never truly experience life as another race to the one we were born as. However, barring some sort of untimely death, we will all one day be old. Yet this is the group in society which is perhaps the most vulnerable and ignored.

It may be humorous, but some of the jokes around the notoriously ageist BBC’s choice of old-time crooner Engelbert Humperdinck to represent the UK at Eurovision have masked some alarming underlying currents of ageism and ridicule which are common in today’s media and discourse but usually pass unnoticed. Some of them have been about dementia and Alzheimer’s. There has also been serious criticism that he has been chosen, arguing that he should get out of the way and allow young talent to fluorish. People in the public eye who dare to continue in their career beyond 65 get sniffed at, despite still having the energy and drive to continue working. Why should he crawl into some care home and age quietly, with no fuss?

This brings us onto the more unnerving aspects of ageism in today’s society. The care system in England is a disgrace. Almost on a weekly basis there are reports of neglect and abuse in care homes up and down the country, with some staff accusing patients of “attention seeking” for desperately needing help to relieve themselves, children and grandchildren never visiting them, and pensioners still at home never getting out of bed because if they did they would freeze, as they cannot afford to put the heating on and pay the bills to the six main lecherous price-fixing gas companies (who are the real drain on our society). Meanwhile people are forced to sell their homes or inheritances to pay for their parents’ care because they receive little or no help from the government. Never mind inheritance tax, what about the low and middle income people who receive nothing from their parents because they have to give it to a private organisation which may or may not treat their loved ones with dignity and respect?

The state machine also picks on the elderly because they are vulnerable, in the same way that they pick on the young, the unemployed and the disabled. While the heads of top banks avoid paying tax altogether or manipulate it so they only pay the lower corporation tax, and Osborne no doubt prepares to justify lowering the 50p top rate in the Budget, ordinary retired pensioners are being routinely harassed to pay back money handed to them by mistake, without having it explained to them that it doesn’t have to be in a lump sum. I know a 93-year-old lady who took the trouble to write a letter asking why her winter fuel allowance was being slashed, and all she got back was a letter saying there is no money left and why doesn’t she ‘go online’ to find out more. Now there are many tech-savvy elderly people out there, but I don’t know many nonagenarians who served in the war who have a Gmail account and Facebook profile.

We live in ‘tough times’, as they keep ramming down our throats, and money doesn’t grow on trees. Yet times were harder in the 1940s austerity period and they managed to establish the National Health Service. Instead of spending money on the implementation of the Health and Social Care Bill (a laughable title for the effective privatisation that awaits us), why not set some aside for the eventual creation of a National Care Service for the elderly, or at least a free service for the poorest old people? Andy Burnham called for one in 2010, and now sadly Labour, in its’ attempt to appear economically competent, has gone quiet on the proposal. Yet it can be done.

It’s about time the elderly who don’t need patronising were allowed to continue living their lives to the full, and it’s about time those who no longer can do so without help are treated like human beings, and not a burden on the public purse which should die quietly.

The Iron Lady gives history a good handbagging

I could have written a blog post today about the exciting announcement regarding HS2 (in my view a worthy investment), or Ed Miliband’s speech about Labour being the party “for all times, not just bad times”, but instead I thought it would be much more fun to review the Iron Lady, out now in cinemas.

It’s a terrific irony that this film is funded by the UK Arts Council and National Lottery funding, not only because the former is being slashed by the Coalition’s Thatcherite scythe, but also because it would have been a more accurate representation of recent history if they had put 49 potential scenarios in the 1980s down on as many balls, and let Camelot or Guinevere decide the rest.

Seriously – Labour hat off – this was a noble attempt at capturing the spirit of one of Britain’s most prominent prime ministers; Meryl Streep’s impersonation of The Lady Who Was Not For Turning had me once or twice shivering in my seat, with her every mannerism and facial expression noted and re-enacted, along with that deep commanding voice the PR gurus told Mrs. Thatcher to adopt. Right up to the closing scenes, it displayed her dogged determination accurately, and managed to humanize her and generate sympathy towards her when she steadfastly refused to accept that her mind was beginning to unravel. Anyone who knows anything about Alzheimer’s, what it must be like to be elderly and lonely, and the denial of grief would appreciate this side of the film.

However, this was the problem: it could have been about any old lady looking back on her life and missing her husband (although this aspect was slightly unsettling and disturbing at times). The historical dimension to the film went beyond playing with history to deliver a message and artistic licence, almost to the point where you wondered if the film had been written by Tory publicists. The focus was entirely on Thatcher’s ‘Glorious’ moments and ‘triumphs’, mostly over men, for example her selection and early life, the Falklands war and the 1979 election. There was some fleeting real footage of the miner’s strike and the poll tax riots, and the entire period 1982 to 1990 was dealt with in approximately ninety seconds. At one point, I was appalled to see a shot of her dancing with Nelson Mandela. I expected it to focus primarily on her as an individual by the title, however there was not even a passing reference to the unemployment of the period, Thatcher’s response to the emergence of AIDS, the Westland affair, section 28, the clashes with the NUJ, Ken Livingstone and Liverpool Council…

This was not a documentary, and films are supposed to paint splashes of black and white over what was in reality only differing shades of grey. Even her deepest detractors have to admit that she had some leadership qualities (albeit perhaps without much idea of compromise), that she was – is – only human and was doing what she thought was right. However members of BULS who want to see this in the cinemas soon may find themselves wincing and cringing at many stages in this film.  

2012 – Will it be a Good Year for Animal Welfare?

How many of us will be making New Year’s resolutions to pay more attention to the welfare of animals we eat and the wildlife in our countryside? 

On 1st January 2012, the EU-wide ban on selling eggs from battery farms will come into force. Although in other EU nations (including the land of le Coq, France), the ban will hardly be rigorously enforced because they don’t seem to care that much for EU laws and haven’t yet made the necessary alterations to farms and cages, and the new, larger ‘enriched cages’ which will be used to supply our biggest supermarkets with eggs are not exactly a massive liberation for hens, it is nevertheless a step in the right direction, and an expression in law that we should not be tolerating these cruel means of achieving ‘efficiency’ in food production.

Unfortunately, however, this change will come at the same time as renewed calls for a repeal of the Hunting Ban. On Boxing Day, the Agriculture Minister, Jim Paice, suggested as much by arguing that the act is ‘unworkable’ and difficult to enforce. Although sadly this is in many respects the case, and it would be naive to say that the ban ended the inhumane and uncivilised ‘sport’ of fox hunting completely, it is still an expression of disapproval which should remain on the statute books for ever if we are to carry on calling ourselves an ‘animal loving nation’.

The visit by long-term animal rights campaigner and shadow minister Chris Williamson to BULS last term reminded us that the fight for even the most basic animal welfare is far from over, and that 2012 can only be a good year for animal welfare if we go out and fight against the vested interests of the food industry and those who seek a return of legalised fox hunting, in government and elsewhere. Just because a law has pitfalls and loopholes, that does not mean that the fundamentals behind it are not right, and that we cannot aim to tighten it and increase the number of prosecutions in future.

2012 need not be the year that the cause of animal rights takes a giant leap backwards.

An Englishman’s Home is… beyond his wildest dreams

For some reason, going back into the mists of time, the British people have an obsession with private home ownership, even though most of us should technically never be able to afford one without borrowing. In Continental Europe, people are far more satisfied to rent, either from private landlords or more ‘trustworthy’ institutions – maybe there is some correlation between these statistics and the lower levels of stress and dissatisfaction there compared to the UK.

Nevertheless, we are where we are, and there is no going back on the ‘Right to Buy’ scheme introduced by Margaret Thatcher in 1981 however much we might want to reverse it (indeed, many of us may actually agree with it, being as it was extremely popular with the low paid, who for the first time had a stake in their council homes and some sense of freedom, however delusional). What we have now is a housing crisis coming at the worst possible time, during a dire economic climate caused by sub-prime mortgages themselves.

Tensions over housing and its’ availability have an effect on many areas of life, including levels of antagonism towards immigrants, the environment, growth, inequality in our cities, personal debt, and of course the Daily Mail and Daily Express front pages. We need to deal with this timebomb if we are to stem a rise in far-right politics and avoid a lost generation of young people. However, worryingly this government is going about it completely the wrong way.

Not only has it made squatting illegal when there are more empty properties than there are homeless people in this country, but it has appallingly placed a cap on housing benefit, effectively pricing the poor out of our capital city and entire swathes of the country – those parts of the country which have job vacancies. The government is slashing the public sector and saddling young people who go to university with ever higher debt, meaning their chances of even being able to look forward to putting down a deposit are negligible.

What our housing market needs is a Keynesian-style investment in house building and construction; not only would this lower house prices for first-time buyers, but it would also ease tensions in the community and increase demand in the economy generally, leading to growth and the beginning of the end of the deficit that the ConDems love to remind us about so much. As a bonus, it would even lead to a return of Location Location Location to our TV screens. Gordon Brown’s plan before the proverbial shit hit the fan in 2007 was to build 3 million new homes – we need this sort of commitment now, coupled with a healthy proliferation of 1940s-inspired New Towns (hopefully better designed than the likes of Milton Keynes) and more social housing. Today’s announcement from Cameron and Clegg about guaranteeing 95% mortgages may look like a repetition of exactly what went wrong in the first place, but should not be dismissed entirely, as it is the taxpayer, not the banks, helping first-time buyers, and there is real potential for an increase in demand as a result.

However it goes nowhere near far enough. If we can’t get people to fall out of love with the owner-occupier dream, then we need to build, build, build, spending more money in the short term to get us out of the mess in the long term.