Thursday, 27 November 2008
Wednesday, 26 November 2008
Dolly digs in...
Peston Peston Peston...
Robert Peston seemed close to tears this evening on the Six O'Clock News on the BBC. He kept pausing, looking down and seemed close to tears - "For those of us who grew up on pick n'mix, this is a very sad day." Tory Bear doesn't recall him being so upset when announcing Citygroup job losses, in fact he was positively revelling in it. He stated that thousands of Woolworths job losses will effect the "real" people rather than mythical fat cat bankers.
The value of money...
Just incase you missed it...
Good on yesterday's Times for sticking it to Brown with this wounding cartoon on the front page:
Lovely tie darling...
Tuesday, 25 November 2008
Brown cancels Christmas
Labour have done it again - the remix
Apologies for the light blogging today, here's why:
Osborne sticking it to Labour and a bit of trance... spread it around!
What we should be doing...
Monday, 24 November 2008
Wicked whispers...
WTF?
TB was rather surprised to find out he had been added to the
Quote of the Day...
Tough competition today... Darling had some corkers but the prize really must go to Christian May:
Cigarettes and alcohol
TB sadly missed this afternoon's fun of games around the Pre Budget Report. Having now got home to SkyNews it is clear to see that this sham tactic will soon unravel. Labour today announced their long term election strategy that will culminate in Brown going to the country in spring 2010 having fobbed off and bribed voters with gimmicks and cheques here and there. He might as well just post £20 pound notes instead of election material. Labour's frenzied and desperate struggle to remain in power will wound this nation at a critical time and don't for one second believe that the Brown and co are in this for the good of the country. The leaks and briefings before today were specifically designed to knock the Tories of course and try make George Osborne slip up. He survived though and put up a good response to this farce.
Probably the worst chancellor in the world...
Just spotted this on
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Because you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."
Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got one dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that is how our tax system works.
The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up any more. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
Sunday, 23 November 2008
Ahh Bristo...
TB would like to wish him the best of luck...
Saturday, 22 November 2008
Lord Foulkes to run for Rector
That's more like it...
CONSERVATIVES 42% (-1)
LABOUR 31% (+1)
LIB DEMS 19% (+1)
ICM reports an 11% Tory lead
What second honeymoon was that Mr Brown?
Promoted and Published on Behalf of Tory Bear
More Regional Coordinator rumours circulating, TB wasn't going to print the one about Dan Patterson signing off emails already as "Yorkshire Regional" as couldn't get secondary verification but seems the CF's blogging minx has
Wrong though apparently.
Saturday night in...
TB is exhausted after a hard day of leafleting some very high student tenement buildings, up and down the stairs all day. Just watching the X-Factor and having a quiet one tonight but a couple of things have caught his eye...
Reaction to the BNP membership leak...
One member takes the news particularly badly:
Friday, 21 November 2008
It's a tenner...
TB gear...
New t-shirt designs are up on the
Support our troops
YBF exists to directly combat this kind of left wing issue politics. The military are a proud and vital part of our country, and at a time when the are overstretched and poorly treat by the Government, they need all the support they can get back home. Students’ Unions that are trying to pass these motions should be ashamed of themselves.
YOU can help. If your university is trying to pass such motions, or if you know of campuses where this is going on, contact YBF immediately. Email Christian (christian@ybf.org.uk) and YBF can swing into action with its unique combination of resources, supporters and campaign experience. Don’t let them get away with it.
Exclusive: Regional Coordinators
The CF press release after the last meeting confirmed that Regional Coordinators would be in place by 1st December. No reference to how they were being selected or how to apply for the position was included, or subsequently explained. Except to a certain chosen few it seems.
Thursday, 20 November 2008
Sam sees the light...
NUS Debate: Guest Post
Every few years a half-hearted attempt is made to gain NUS delegates, or to put up a Conservative candidate for NUS president. This year it appears to be Owen Meredith who is pushing the age old 'don't let down the students' line. I loved your freshers campaign Owen, it was excellent, but on this, you're wrong.
Your argument rests on the premise that those who advocate leaving the NUS to its own devises are somehow letting down students by doing so. We wouldn't walk away from the country you say, so why should we walk away from students? We wouldn't walk away from the country for one simple reason, it is worth saving.
Students on the other hand are a transient bunch. Sure they're worth saving, but what are students? Their priorities have changed from activism to getting a good degree and then a good job. Most are at University for three years, in that time there isn't a great deal of opportunity to cement large scale changes at their University. You get one year to find out what the hell is going on, another year to realise that you can do something about it, and the final year to try and do it. One year is not enough time to effect massive change. Speak to anybody who got involved in student bodies across the country and they will tell you where the real power in their Union lay, with the managers. They are there for the long term, seeing students come and go. They set the boundaries and the scope of what can and can't be done in your term. It's the reality of the situation.
The point of contesting an election is to gain power. Tell me (because I really don't know), what on earth does the NUS actually have real power over? (All they seem to do at the moment is 'campaign' for a series of minority groups, commission silly polls and hit their head against the wall of tuition fees).
Lets say for a moment that you had control of the NUS. What would you do? What good would it do the country? Or for that matter what good would it really do for students? The NUS is an irrelevance. For all the blood, sweat, toil and tears, what actual power would you be gaining? Can you control individual Uni's? No. Can you set policy? Yes, but what is the point if you have no ability to put it into action? It's worse than that though, remember that it's the Nation UNION of Students. It would be a bit like the Conservative Party trying to get more activists as members of UNITE, or the NUT. There are plenty of Conservatives in these organisations, teachers are advised to join for example, but there is no call to try and take them over. Why not? Because there is no point. There must be a place for the leftists to have their fun. Do read
Simon Smith, the disgruntled anti-Semite, decided that the BNP was “being managed as a state safety valve”, and some might argue that every society could do with a legitimate far-right group to channel the activities of those who hate foreigners. Some may ask, doesn't every good country need a Nazi party? Just so long as it has absolutely no influence and does absolutely nothing is my answer.”
Doesn't every country need a group of naive young people who believe that Marx was right? Or that Che Guevara is an appropriate pin-up for your wall, and Livingstone is a living god? Just so long as it has absolutely no influence and does absolutely nothing.
The NUS I think most would agree fills this roll valiantly. Let's imagine for one final time the idea of a Conservative controlled NUS. Where would all the young left wing nutcases go for their communal fix? Out on the campaign trail, under the 'respectable' guise of the Labour party. Many already do, why on earth would we want to encourage more to do so?
NUS debate: Guest Post
We should first dispense with the notion that the NUS is some EU clone. It is not. The NUS has virtually no ability to dictate the policy of individual unions, and acts instead as an umbrella organisation to represent their interests. It bears closer resemblance to the LGA than Brussels. The idea that it is "bloated" is also a myth; in the past few years the organisation has undergone drastic efficiency drives and downsizing to balance its budget, to the point where they sold off their headquarters building. It has a budget far smaller than some of the unions it represents.
Far from being a mere collection of unwashed, unshaven, oppositionalist placard-wavers keen on demonstrating about whatever it is trendy to be against this month, the NUS performs roles that are vital to many student unions. It provides training and a forum for sabbatical officers to share ideas that many individual unions simply could not afford. Through NUSSL and NUS Extra it helps provide services to and discounts to unions and their members.
When those on the Right are organised, we have successes. It may surprise some to learn that the NUS has had two CF members on their executive in recent memory. We don't know if we could get more on because we haven't tried. When the Right are on top of their brief and in command of the facts, we are able to make valuable contributions to the debate. The fact that our ideas are neither the empty rhetoric of the left, nor the stereotype expected of the right, gives us a distinct advantage in discussions.
Though the idea that a CF defeat in the NUS would affect our party's standing in a general election is absurd, there is the genuine possibility of the NUS becoming the focus of future opposition to a Conservative government on education policy. The only way to reduce such knee-jerk automatic hostility is to have people inside the Union making the case for such policy. Even if the NUS retains a left-wing slant, which it will for the forseeable future, better that their ideas encounter stiff opposition than the unanimous approval of an audience unaware of any alternative.
It has always been something of a bogeyman to demonise the NUS as the front group of a band of revolutionary Trotskyites. Though disproportionately represented, they still remain in a minority. That minority is shrinking year on year, as witnessed at the last annual conference, where they suffered a major rout from the NEC. A vast swathe of delegates belong to no faction whatsoever, and are willing to vote on the merits of the argument. We owe it to them, as well as the students we represent, to make that argument.
The idea that we should spend more time and effort organising and campaigning on campuses is indeed a laudable one, but it does not come at the exclusion of conservatives organising for and within the NUS. Part of the reason the hard left are disproportionately represented is because on many campuses they run the strongest campaigns. Were CF members to offer organised, sustained, issue-focused opposition we could reap similar rewards. The divisive politics of the hard-left are off-putting for many students. We are in an excellent position to offer a viable alternative.
Fundamentally, the idea of organised national representation for students is a good one. We cannot simply keep out of the organisation that does that because we disagree with its current policies. Conservatism, if it means anything, is about working within flawed systems to reform them, rather than seeking to overthrow them in a utopian fantasy or fit of pique. A new rival to the NUS isn't going to come along. Education policy is currently severely flawed; we have to remain in the NUS to explain why, and how we would improve it. We have to remain in to make sure that left-wing dogma does not go unchallenged. Above all, we must remain in because to leave would be to silence ourselves.
Wednesday, 19 November 2008
'ello ello' ello'... again.
Now TB isn't one to jump to conclusions but he can't think of many reasons why the the Conservative Future consititution would have been removed from the Party website unless someone didn't want members reading it. Are some of these changes coming up perhaps a little...ummm... unconstitutional.
NUS - Guest Post - Owen Meredith
Continuing with the NUS debate, after a very amusing chat in the
And then there were five...
In a strongly
Tuesday, 18 November 2008
Snap snap snap...
One possibly rogue poll today has the Tories ahead by just 3% but as far as TB understands from various contacts in marginal seats, the private polling undertaken by the Party is still looking good where it matters.
Bring it on.
Exec meeting minutes released...
You can now read the "full" minutes of Saturday's meeting of the Conservative Future national executive
Keeping with today's theme of debate around the NUS, this watered down line of what was actually discussed caught TB's eye:
"NME discuss possible NUS President candidates but rejected the idea of supporting those candidates. NME agreed to field official Conservative candidates at NUS national elections, and begin a process of application and approval of candidates immediately."
So do you think you have the NUS-Factor?
Warning!
Citizens of Cardiff, Bristol, Swansea, Edinburgh and Glasgow in November, Leeds, Huddersfield and Sheffield in December, Peterborough, Leicester, Liverpool, Manchester, Nottingham, Birmingham and Newcastle in January and Plymouth, Portsmouth and London in February beware!
Residents can expect a darkening of the skies, earthquakes and spontaneous playing of the Carmina Burana on the radio as some form of early warning system to detect the Dark Lord approaching. Citizens of these fine cities are advised to take cover in a prepared bunker, or failing that under a desk or the kitchen table. Under no circumstances should the Dark Lord be approached as there is extreme danger of death, (both actual and political.)
Local councils and police will be issuing emergency statements on this matter in due course but in the mean time citizens are advised to stay vigilant and report any unusual activity in any of the above cities to the authorities immediately. To find out the location of your nearest shelter contact your local police station.
Never a man to mince his words...
TB wants to kick start the debate about Conservative Future and the roll it should play within the NUS. Further to some NUS conference fall out last week, this post by
"The National Union of Students: A memorandum to Conservative Future:
Word reaches me that the perennial chestnut of engagement or disengagement with the National Union of Students is being earnestly discussed by the Conservative Future National Management Executive. While the majority of CF activists nationwide want little, if anything, to do with the NUS there remains a handful of misguided NUSophiles who seem to think that it is in CF's - and the Conservative Party's - interests to spend time, money and effort on attempting to wrest control of the NUS from the hands of ideologically driven leftists.
The NUS is, to most students, an expensive irrelevance. It is a playground for those who seek aggrandisement and who wish to pontificate on national and international affairs on behalf of hundreds of thousands of disinterested and apathetic students in whose name they purport to speak.
Rather than focusing their efforts on fighting (and in all probability losing) NUS elections in the Spring, it would surely make far more sense for CF activists on our campuses to focus on taking power in their own students' unions and using that position to deliver real and valuable change to their fellow students. Many universities are, of course, in key marginal constituencies. Were overtly Conservative sabbaticals and officers to manage their own students' unions effectively and on budget, the Conservative Party stands to reap the rewards locally and nationally.
Those who bleat that by engaging with the NUS they might change its direction and worldview are as deluded as Europhiles who think that by placing Britain at "the heart of Europe" we will somehow reverse the inexorable tide of EU federalism. History shows this to be a false hope. The comparisons between the NUS and the EU are stark. The same cry that Eurosceptics shout should likewise be shouted from the rooftops of every campus of every university that has the misfortune of still being affiliated to the bloated, politically correct and rabid NUS...
Better Off Out."
If you feel you have something to say on the matter then send Tory Bear 3-400 words and you might just see it here.
A reworking of a classic...
Interesting and little known
In Dave we trust...
Cameron has finally hit the nail on the head this morning and offered a clear and precise narrative of Labour's failings on the economy and what the Conservatives would do about it. No more ridiculous ideas of matching Labour spending plans. Tory governments come to power at times of dire economic need and they a voted in to pick up the pieces left by Labour. It's what we do and hence why it has been so vital that we get our economic policy into gear.
Following
"Spending restraint under Conservatives, tax rises under Labour"
Bingo!
Monday, 17 November 2008
An unusual drinking companion...
He also agreed with TB during the question and answer session that it would be Ed Balls everyone would like to see suffer the Michael Portillo 1997 moment of the next election. Balls represents everything wrong and stale with this current government and TB is disgusted that as Children's Minister he had to be
Oh well back to the dissertation...
ToryTV
Check it out!
Peterkin offers his two cents...
*Whichever is sooner.
The fall out continues...
It seems that there is some concern over what will be contained in the minutes of Saturday's meeting and what we mere mortals will be allowed to know. Either way it seems one exec member was particularly concerned with the direction that CF is taking -“It is undemocratic for this executive, which was elected to serve a maximum of 15 months under the constitution, to vote to extend that term. This is an indefinite extension until sometime after the general election which may be as late as May 2010. This would mean a potential 2 and
While others are upset that the options presented to the NME by Chairman Michael Rock were rather blunt, either scrap one member-one-vote or not have an election for another 18 months, Christian May the Deputy Chair was jolly as ever when he spoke to Tory Bear: "The pure focus of Conservative Future should not be on internal politics but getting a Conservative Government elected and to that end I am delighted that the exec have supported these reforms and that we can now focus our efforts entirely on getting match fit for whenever Gordon Brown has the bottle to go to the country."
You spin me round round baby round round. Apparently the NUS campaign ideas aren't as straight forward as intended either.
In simple English...
OK then... so it seems that the NME have voted to keep themselves in the job until 2010 potentially. While this may seem like an extreme step, it must be considered that the last NME ran for over 18 months and if there is an election in May, this regime would still serve for less time.
However there is a very real possibility that the next General Election will not be in 2009, but in May 2010, making the current NME have control for over 2 years. As far as Tory Bear can tell the executive voted on this course of action 5 to 1.
To be fair to the NME they weren't exactly presented with many options, it was either this or subscribe to a ridiculous electoral college system of branch chairman and their mates electing the national chair. The NME have saved CF democracy for the time being but TB understands that they were told the party wasn't going to fund another CF election before the General. In order to keep one-member-one-vote, the reforms would have to be kicked into the long grass. As far as TB can tell some members of the NME were not aware that the current statement put out by the CF press machine would be quite so extreme. It now seems to TB that the reforms have been snuck in through the back door.
While TB wouldn't question for a second the idea that CF should be ready for the General Election at any moment, Conservative Future has to be an organisation with everyone on board, and this sentiment is particularly vital with it's elected leaders. The current NME have had their fair share of problems, seen resignations, bitching and briefing against each other. Are we ready for anthor two years of this? Apparently these moves are in the best interest of the organisation, but will the membership really buy this stance?
To TB this doesn't look like a press release that has been drawn up over night but something that has been prepared and ready to go for some time...
Ummmm. So this is the press release:
Reforms to the national organisation:
Who will make up the new National Executive?
With the local and European elections timetabled for
The NME is united on this issue and looks forward to delivering a
Under the agreement passed by the NME at the meeting on 15th
12 Regional Chairmen (RCs) appointed under section 8 of the
Their primary roles will be:
To co-ordinate branch development, regional campaigning,
To support CF branches within their regions. T
As a body:
To assist with the handover to the Regional Chairmen.
To provide support to the Regional Chairmen, Area Chairmen
Hold the Regional Chairmen to account
All Area Chairmen to stay on and work with the Regional Chairmen
August 2009:
The NME will vote on the future roles of Area Chairmen following feedback from the membership. The NME will then be disbanded and the 12 Regional Chairmen will become the National Executive.
Elections will be held for all the national positions.
In the coming weeks we will publish more specific information on the future roles for each level of the national organisation. If you have any comments or questions on this announcement then please contact one of the NME. Contact details for us, and a ‘post’ for comments, can be found on the Exec blog.
Sunday, 16 November 2008
Something's going on...
Seems the reform issue has been settled, in a way. It also seems a decision on a course of action with the NUS has been established. TB reckons that the full and frank debate about CF and the NUS he has been calling for might just happen now.
Come back tomorrow for more information, it's been like trying to get blood out of stone tonight and seems all the NME members have been sworn to secrecy over what was discussed yesterday. Must be something big or fishy going on...
Come back tomorrow for more details...
Incidentally TB had his most hits ever today... not a particularly big news day and a Sunday. Very odd.
CF and the NUS
NUS Extraordinary Conference November 2008 & 'Voluntary Student Unionism'
Quite unexpectedly, I found myself travelling to another NUS conference earlier this week, my fourth in less than two years. Now representing the College of Law of England and Wales, I attended mainly to see where the new constitution, arising from the earlier constitutional review, was now going after its defeat at National Conference last Easter.
For those unfamiliar with my previous writings on NUS matters or the constitutional review, the sum of it is this. Like most dysfunctional, pointless, irrelevant organisations, the NUS has become increasingly introverted recently, arguing more and more about petty personal politics (yes, I’m looking at you, access breaks…). As part of this, the main dividing line in the organisation (I use the term advisedly) is between those who want to keep the old constitution and those who want a new one. Rather pathetic really. The former group, the ‘radicals’, consist of the sort of people who only crawl out of the woodwork at NUS conferences – the most unpalatable, absurd, and ridiculously left-wing dogmatists in the country. Actually, many of them are not even of this country, but uber-lefties shipped in from Columbia, and other fashionable South American backpacker destinations. The bulk of the latter group are only marginally better, many being overtly careerist Labour Party hacks (vis NEC). A bare few of us would identify ourselves anywhere on the right side of political centrism.Extraordinary Conference this time round (less than 12 months since the last one) was convened in lovely Wolverhampton, one of the treasures of Staffordshire. Fortunately, registration was much faster than in Leicester, but events did not start until two and a half hours after the hall opened. I spent the half hour I was waiting around reading up on the changes made to the proposals from last time. I was thoroughly disappointed to find substantial concessions – several pages of them in fact, from the retention of National Conference, to lesser professional oversight of finances. The new ‘new constitution’ is a watered down, half hearted, remake. A bit like a film sequel – except in this case, the original was never on general release! There is none of the edge and boldness found in the earlier, discarded version. The chance to do something a bit adventurous has gone, it seems. New NUS President Wes Streeting in fact openly stated “We’ve compromised”, but in doing so, he has *been* compromised. Aside from the massive concessions, I was also struck by the substantive increase in the managerialism of the register of language in conference documents. References to ‘stakeholders’, ‘priority objectives’, and so on was everywhere. This is the language of puff, not of reality. It emphasises the organisational pointlessness of the NUS. A third observation is the rather less refined political stage management of the new administration. I have commented in previous notes on the level of perfection to which President Tumelty brought this fine art at conference time. Her successor, it seems, needs practise. The parade of nodding heads on the NEC platform was more embarrassing than it was supportive. Also to note, Dave Lewis’ (National Treasurer) sense of style has gone out of the window, inveterate radical and ‘Res-pec’ faction leader, Rob Owen is getting plumper, and all the other conference delegates are getting younger. Very depressing!
I was too put off by the sweeping compromises made to the radicals and the unusually slow pace of debate (up to amendment 3 of 15 by 2:30pm) to stay to the bitter end, so left before the traffic around the West Midlands metropolis of Greater Birmingham got bad. I am informed by a comrade-in-arms from UEA that the motion passed, as expected. But it really was a Pyrrhic Victory. The will to make a real break with the past and start anew with NUS has gone, felled by that crucial 1% margin at National Conference last year. In all honesty, I have ceased to really care. I probably did get a little swept up with the heady momentum of promised, long awaited change last year, but I am now resolutely returned to my prior opinion that NUS is an utterly defunct, nasty, and unhealthy organism long past its sell-by date and ripe for everything short of execution and burial.
A vision of this very process was helpfully provided by Angus MacFarland, the President of NUS Australia who provided ‘fraternal greetings’. He looked like a reasonable person, but after a few sentences of his address at the start of conference, it became apparent he was merely another left-wing basket case. In some ways it is heartening to know some things never change – like NUS spending students’ money on flying other loony-lefties around the world and giving them free tours of the so-called ‘student movement’ in the UK (N.B. *THERE ISN’T ONE*). MacFarland spoke initially of the “outrage” that Australian students had been made to pay a little of their own tuition fees at university. Lord forbid that Australian students should pay for goods and services like everyone else! In MacFarland’s words “You had Margaret Thatcher, the US had Ronald Reagan, we had John Howard…[who led] a rampantly conservative and neo-liberal government.” He described these three like a triad of pure evil, nefariously pulling the strings of the ‘global system’ (which Marxists so love to theorise over) to the ruin and destruction of all civilisation. I personally take great pleasure from the knowledge that in a hundred years time Thatcher and Reagan will be remembered as two cold war warriors who defended the freedom of the west, threw out the rot of socialism at home, and defeated abroad the communist machine which had taken over 100 million human lives in the twentieth century. Soppy neo-leftists like Blair and Australian PM Kevin Rudd meanwhile will have as their only legacies meddling items of constitutional change and bloated, inefficient bureaucracies.
Most intriguingly, MacFarland spoke passionately about issue of ‘voluntary student unionism’. Legislation of this description was passed in Australia in the twilight years of the last Liberal Party government, changing Student Unions from ‘opt-out’ organisations which students much actively seek to leave if they so wish, to ‘opt-in’ ones which students must actively seek to join. This brought Australian student unionism into the 21st century, and in line with other forms of unionism, primarily in trade. Comparable legislation is desperately needed in the UK, where the vast majority of students are unwittingly members and tacit supporters of political bodies which often hold positions very much at odds with the majority. This, more than any constitutional change in the NUS itself, would herald a new era in student life.
MacFarland criticised the policy principally on the basis that it contravened the ‘collegiate’ atmosphere of university – that it negated the ‘collectivism’ and shared spirit of university life. This is a clear fallacy. Student unionism is perhaps the main barrier to collegiality, which flows not from divisive, politicised, disconnected, and amorphous student unions, but from relational bonds of scholarship, academic endeavour, and learning between all members of a college, whether student or lecturer, professor, or chancellor. Student unions are incarnations of opposition to, and headstrong rebellion against, natural order and constitute a distracting alternative focus of loyalty and belonging in university communities. I have long held this to be the case and was very pleased to hear from the incensed MacFarland that a third of Oz SUs went under in the first year of this legislation.
I have thought a little on how this legislation would be introduced in the UK and this seems a fitting place to expand on the matter. Clearly, we can learn from what seems to have been a bit of a bungled process in Australia. Firstly, universities could easily take over the administration and funding of student activities (clubs, societies, and so on), retaining, with the assent of both parties, most of the existing staff who currently work for SUs. In competitive arenas, students would play in teams and individually wholly for the honour of their university once again, not for the dubious prestige of their student union. Moreover, participation in college activities would be more freely available to other members of the community, further fostering the ideal of true collegiality. Second, colleges and universities could easily fulfil more commercial functions on campus, with bars and shops – perhaps retaining student boards or forums to oversee and advise on management issues. Third, for the sake of tradition and continuity, a directly elected student president could be retained by institutions, with a set index-linked pay from the university, whilst systems of course and faculty representation could seamlessly be taken entirely in-house. The abolition of de facto opt-out student unions would be complete. Students would be free, like all free people, to join unions should they so choose. Such optional unions would be the continuing members of the NUS, but would be much reduced in scale and purpose from their present overblown proportions, especially at the larger universities and would at last be truly representational, containing as members only those who have made a conscious decision to be party to them. Consequently, NUS’ income would be all but discontinued, forcing it to become a very different animal. It is possible that it would also gain competitors in a truly free market for effective national student representation.
Despite my…er…constructive criticism, I would still recommend NUS conference to those who want, for whatever reason, to observe rampant leftism at its very best. Truly, it is good for little else than as such a menagerie.
Can we launch a coup please?
Saturday, 15 November 2008
Naming and shaming...
"Imagine if you were a PPC in a tough seat (Labour majority of just under 14,000) and local residents came to you to ask you to help them shut down a pub in the area which was frequented by criminal elements and used as a forum from which to sell drugs. You’d say absolutely, wouldn’t you?
Well that’s exactly what a London PPC did when local residents in the constituency approached him about a notorious bar/drug den, to ask if he would represent them in the bar’s upcoming licence review. And, thanks to the overwhelming evidence against the bar, it was shut down.
Quite the victory for the local PPC and certainly something you’d expect him to shout about, right? Surprisingly though, no leaflet to voters announcing the victory was sent. Why? Oh, because the local association demanded that nothing be sent out in case… wait for it… it upset the criminals! No really.
Nothing like a candidate who sticks by his convictions."Well unfortunately for the Croydon North Association and PPC