BUCF

Watching the debates, and thinking about how Vince Cable stands no chance of being Chancellor after the election led me to think about the following:

Would a hung Parliament lead to the end of the Liberal Democrats?

I admit, this is a potentially ridiculous idea, and I expect some comments telling me just this, but let me outline my thoughts.

Accept first that there is a hung Parliament, and either Labour or the Conservatives decide to form a coalition rather than run as a minority government.

Next, this coalition government passes legislation to impose proportional representation on Westminster elections, which was part of the agreement of the Liberal Democrats joining the government.

Looking at current polls, ‘others’ are polling anywhere between 21% and 12%. In the same polls, the Liberal Democrats have polled between 12% and 18%, and while they obviously have party organisation to help get voters out, it’s not unrealistic to assume that MPs from ‘others’ would be of a similar number to those of the Liberal Democrats.

Obviously the next leap depends very much on which parties get MPs elected, but the latest breakdown I can find is as follows: SNP 2%: PC 1%: UKIP 5%: BNP 4%: GRN 3%.

No party would ever work with the BNP, and again I don’t see the SNP joining a government in Westminster, but could UKIP and the Green Party offer an alternative.  UKIP could, I imagine, be persuaded to join a Conservative government for most votes, while Plaid Cymru and the Greens have worked with Labour and may be prepared to lend some support to boost either a minority or majority government.

Either way, the role of Liberal Democrats as potential Kingmakers is heavily diluted, as independents and smaller parties gain representation and offer an alternative coalition partner.

I’m aware that this contains a lot of ‘ifs’, and that even if the two original assumptions come true, anything could happen during the next Parliament, but there certainly seems to be an underlying point which is that as a party, they are unlikely to be propelled towards government by such reforms, and stand the chance of becoming one of a number of minor parties.

Ridiculous? Possibly. But perhaps Liberal Democrats are sowing the seeds of their downfall.

Not happy with disgracing them with a lack of equipment and support now Gordon Brown has gone yet another step further and announced that senior Generals, Admirals and Air Marshals are not permitted to travel first class.

All armed forces personnel must now sit in standard class on trains and planes, whatever their rank, under a new rule that has provoked anger across the political parties. Even members of Brown’s own party have finally had enough and are saying so. Denis MacShane, a Labour MP and a former foreign minister said; “Surely there are limits to how much humiliation we impose on senior officers.” Other Members of Parliament from across the political spectrum are also outraged.

I know what many will ask; why should they travel first class in a time of austerity?

Well the answer is pretty obvious:

Firstly, many soldiers have hideous injuries and do not wish to be seen by hundreds in the packed coaches of a train. They do not wish to receive the criticism from members of the public who oppose the war in Afghanistan and seem ready to blame them, and many do not want to be singled out as a soldier for praise or attention.

Secondly, senior officers read and write large amounts of strictly classified material while in transit. They often have to summarise, plan and make notes on confidential documents on trains and planes in order to be time efficient. This cannot be done while in close proximity with members of the public.

Finally, the government’s ‘new plan’ to save money has not been implemented on parliament. Gordon Brown, his ministers and all MPs are still entitled to first-class travel on any form of transport. They are unrestricted on the carriages that they wish to stay in and they are given huge amounts of expenses from which to by the ticket. This is in comparison to the austerity that the senior officers of the British military have already chosen to show off their own backs: Austerity highlighted by the use of cheap ALDI wine and food at senior military dinners.

Labour MP MacShane recently sat next to a major-general from the Irish Guards on a packed train. He was shocked the officer and his colleagues were crammed into the compartment.

“I do not mind how MPs travel or whom they meet on the train, but it is a rum show when a major-general from the Irish Guards has to travel on an off-peak, cheap-day, standard-class return ticket to make modest economies for the military,” he said.

The government as always, hit back with a weak response:

Kevan Jones, a junior defence minister, said the decision “is not intended to humiliate anyone. It is about getting value for money”.
Labour double-standards; I’d like to see a Labour minister driving through IED territory.

Labour Double-Standards!

Daniel Cole

3) Billions on Failed Information Technology

Botched IT projects under the Labour Government have cost the British taxpayer in the region of £26 billion.

The investigation by the British newspaper, the Independent, found that British taxpayers were left saddled with a bill of more than £26 billion for computer systems that have either suffered severe delays, or run over budget, or that have been cancelled altogether. The Independent said that the total cost of Labour’s 10 most notorious IT failures is “equivalent to more than half of the budget for Britain’s schools last year”.
One of the most noteworthy computer failures under Labour has been its £12.7 billion National Programme for IT project (NPfIT) for the NHS. The Independent found that just 160 health organisations out of about 9,000 are using electronic patient records delivered under the scheme!

Other costly IT blunders under Labour include:

1) The £7.1 billion Defence Information Infrastructure (DII) – This project is running more than £180 million over budget and is 18 months late.

2) The £5 billion National Identity Scheme – originally budgeted at £3 billion but costs have risen as opposition continues – Now set to be scrapped!

3) The £400 million Libra system (for magistrates’ courts) – Originally budgeted at £146 million, but ‘complications’ meant that costs have now risen to more than £400 million.

4) The GCHQ “box move” of technology was initially costed at £41 million – costs have now spiralled to more than £300 million.

5) Costs for the National Offender Management Information System (C-Nomis) doubled to more than £600 million and it was abandoned in 2007, with £155 million already spent. The Public Accounts Committee described it as “a shambles” and a “prime example of how not to develop a project”.

6) The Government has quietly abandoned its Benefit Processing Replacement Programme, but only after spending £106 million on it.

7) The Prism IT project to link 200 offices of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) around the world initially cost £54 million, but delays meant that costs have ballooned to £88.5 million.

8) The Shared Services Centre at the Department for Transport to integrate the human resources and financial services now costs £81 million, a failure in management that the Public Accounts Committee described as a display of “stupendous incompetence”.

And the list goes on

Labour Incompetence.

2) The Golden Blunder

Gathered around a table in one of the Bank of England’s grand meeting rooms, the select group of Britain’s top gold traders could not believe what they were being told. Gordon Brown had decided to sell off more than half of the country’s centuries-old gold reserves and the chancellor was intending to announce his plan later that day.

It was May 1999 and the gold price had stagnated for much of the decade. The traders present warned that Brown, who was not at the meeting, could barely have chosen a worse moment. In the room, just behind the governor’s main office, they cautioned that gold traditionally moved in decades-long cycles and that the price was likely to increase. They added that even if the sale were to go ahead, the timings and amounts should not be announced, as the gold price would plunge.

“The timing of the decision was ludicrous. We told them you are going to push the gold price down before you sell,” said Peter Fava, then head of precious metal dealing at HSBC who was present at the meeting. “We thought it was a disastrous decision; we couldn’t understand it. We brought up a lot of potential problems at the meeting.” Martin Stokes, former vice-president at JP Morgan, who was also present, said: “I was surprised they had chosen the auction method. It indicated they did not have a real understanding of the gold market.”

According to other sources, however, Bank of England officials told those present they had “little say” about what was going to happen and that they were “doing what they were told”. This was a decision made by Brown and his inner circle, who appeared uninterested in their expert advice.

Eight years on, the price of gold has almost trebled and the loss to the taxpayer has been calculated by one leading firm of accountants at more than £2 billion. The decision to sell 400 tons of gold is seen in City circles as a financial bungle worse than “Black Wednesday.”

Labour Failure

Its been 13 years since Labour were swept to an amazing victory. The country had voted for change and it was well received. However, those 13 years have been full of controversy and shocking failure. In a short series, let’s remember how this country has been destroyed:

1) The Ecclestone Affair

In 1997 Ecclestone was involved in a political controversy over the Labour Party’s policy on tobacco sponsorship. Labour had pledged to ban tobacco advertising in its manifesto ahead of its 1997 General Election victory, supporting a proposed European Union Directive banning tobacco advertising and sponsorship.

At this time all leading Formula One Teams carried significant branding from tobacco brands such as Rothmans, Benson and Hedges, West, Marlboro and Mild Seven. The Labour Party’s stance on banning tobacco advertising was reinforced following the election by forceful statements from the Health Secretary Frank Dobson and Minister for Public Health Tessa Jowell.

Ecclestone appealed ‘over Jowell’s head’ to Jonathan Powell, Tony Blair’s chief of staff, who arranged a meeting with Blair. Ecclestone and Mosley, both Labour Party donors, met Blair on 16 October 1997, where Mosley argued:
“Motor racing was a world class industry which put Britain at the hi-tech edge. Deprived of tobacco money, Formula One would move abroad at the loss of 50,000 jobs, 150,000 part-time jobs and £900 million of exports.”

On 4 November the “fiercely anti-tobacco Jowell” argued in Brussels for an exemption for Formula One. Media attention initially focused on Labour bending its principles for a “glamour sport” and on the “false trail” of Jowell’s husband’s links to Benetton.

On 6 November correspondents from three newspapers inquired whether Labour had received any donations from Ecclestone; he had donated £1 million in January 1997. On 11 November Labour promised to return the money on the advice of Sir Patrick Neill.

On 17 November Blair apologised for his government’s mishandling of the affair and stated “the decision to exempt Formula One from tobacco sponsorship was taken two weeks later. It was in response to fears that Britain might lose the industry overseas to Asian countries who were bidding for it.”

In 2008, the year after Blair stepped down as Prime Minister, internal Downing Street memos revealed that in fact the decision had been made at the time of the meeting, and not two weeks later as Blair stated in Parliament.

Labour Lies

The expenses scandal, corruption, an exodus from parliament expected; these past few months have been quite dramatic. The public have never been so animated about politics; everywhere I go people seem to be talking about what is wrong, what needs changing; even my students in the east end of London are talking about politics. It is clear something is happening. Thank goodness our politicians are listening, we hear constant calls for power redistribution, a real English (slow) revolution.

“POWER TO THE PEOPLE!” is their rallying cry. They are even willing to change the laws to get this; elected police chiefs, parent controlled schools and patient controlled hospitals. En masse we will all soon be involved in committees delivering our services and Tower Hamlet’s council even had an evening where people could vote to decide where money was spent and saved. Well fair enough – I don’t have time here to debate whether these are good policies or not but I wish to highlight one major point: These changes have nothing to do with political reform.

The public are angry at MPs and Lords, not their local headmaster or nurse. What is needed is a more fundamental shift in power away from Westminster, away from the party structures and away from the unelected quangos. We need caucuses in each constituency where the local people can elect who they want to stand to face the election; this would enable local people more of a chance. The local party structures are one of the most effective strangle holds on local democracy.

We need a system where any local person who wants to, can realistically get to become the MP without having to spend a 5 year apprenticeship brown-nosing at a conference in a deprived seaside town. We need to abolish unelected agencies which spend public money and have no clear means for being held to account, such as the highways agency. Fundamentally we need to ensure that those who hold executive power are always and solely there through election. This means ending now the loop hole which allows appointed peers to be co opted into the cabinet- notably Lords Adonis and Mandelson who wield massive power without election.

The public are not disengaged, they are disenfranchised and politicians need to stop hiding behind the idea that the people aren’t interested. They are – they’re angry and they want change. People will vote when they can see that it has real influence. We need a more direct democracy where power is firmly located with the people, and not a dictatorship which flirts with democracy every 4 years when it’s a bit drunk. Parliament needs to lead this change by sorting out its own structures before it devolves power within the public service. “Noses out of the trough gentlemen the party is over” the people are calling. Heed the lessons of the winter palace.

Former BUCF Vice Chairman – Ryan Castle

With the date of the General Election expected to be announced by Gordon Brown 14 days from now, there is no doubt that many vulnerable Labour MP’s (which are many) will resort to running a dirty campaign to hang on to their seat.  With no policies of substance and a record of being the worst government in history this isn’t very surprising. Labour haven’t been afraid to use negative campaigning in the past with Derek Draper and Damian McBride involved in the infamous ’smeargate’ scandal.

In Birmingham’s most marginal seat, it seems as if the MP with her back against the wall and fast running out of ideas has also adopted this approach: http://www.birminghampost.net/news/politics-news/2010/03/21/twitter-message-sparks-fiery-election-battle-in-edgbaston-65233-26080790/. I must say it’s a shame when politicians slump to such a low and begin to make outrageous and incorrect claims about their opponent in the face of defeat. However the Conservatives are prepared to deal with such tactics and know that by focusing their campaign on the strength of their policy, the talent of the Shadow Cabinet and the theme of change they will succeed in winning the seats they require.

Amil Khan

Statistics released yesterday show that official unemployment in the UK fell by 33,000 in the last quater of 2009 to 2.45million leaving the UK jobless rate at 7.8%. Party politics aside we should all be delighted when we hear that unemployment in the UK has fallen and in normal circumstances I would be, however as is typical of this government behind the official figures lies a much darker reality. Official unemployment may well stand at 2.45million, which is still high for the post war period, but there are many other job market statistics which are not taken in to account and paint a very different picture. For example:

1. Official figures from the Office for National Statistics show that 8.16 million people are now classed as “economically inactive” which means that they are not able or willing to look for work. Combine this with the official national unemployment rate and Britain has a jobless population of over 10 million. The worst rate since the ONS records began in 1971.
2. The official figures fail to take in to account the growing New Labour phenomenon; “the underemployed”. These are people who are technically economically active and are in work however they do not work enough hours to meet their economic needs. An example of the “underemployed” could be someone who works 17 hours a week – too much to claim JSA but too little to meet their financial commitments encouraging a culture of debt. Official statistics from the ONS show that nearly 3 million people in the UK are “underemployed” – more than the overnall unemployment rate. Combine this with the total 10 million+ jobless rate and the state of Britains employment market is actually incredibly poor.

Criticism and caution over the government statistics has come in thick and fast with most if not all leading economists warning that the UK employment figures are misleading and the job market is much more fragile than the government care to admit. Dr John Philpott, chief economic adviser at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, said: “The latest unemployment figures show that conditions in the UK labour market remain extremely weak and indicate that talk of the jobless rate having already peaked is premature. Moreover, separate analysis by the ONS showing that 2.8 million UK workers are ‘underemployed’ shows that the headline jobless figures provide only a partial account of the full impact of the recession on the UK workforce.”

Now there will be people out there who will claim that the Conservatives are just making party political points. This is not the case – we are merely stating the facts however uncomfortable they may be, much as we did when Gordon Brown arrogantly declared “we have abolished boom and bust”. It was unpopular to say it then but we told the truth when we said it was impossible to abolish boom and bust or as Margaret Thatcher put it; ”you can’t buck the market”. Now in the wake of one of the worst economic recessions ever and with the job market in such a dire state we can ask the question with confidence- who was right? Labour are propping up this economy with borrowed funds meaning it is on borrowed time. Eventually cuts will have to be made, eventually this debt will have to be repaid and eventually we will feel the full force of Labours economic mismanagement.

So yes official unemployment has fallen but as ever with this government the rhetoric defies the reality. We are only being told half the story.

Reading the Telegraph this morning I was shocked to see a story entitled “Nick Clegg: How Margaret Thatcher inspires me”. At first I thought April Fools day had come early but soon I realised that it was a genuine story with potentially important political implications. In an interview with The Spectator Nick Clegg admitted that at university he had been far more radical and opposed almost everything the Thatcher government was doing (typical student). But Clegg claimed that time had taught him a few lessons and with the wisdom of age he conceded that Margaret Thatcher had been right about many things. He stated; “I’m 43 now. I was at university at the height of the Thatcher revolution and I recognise now something I did not at the time: that her victory over a vested interest, the trade unions, was immensely significant. I don’t want to be churlish: that was an immensely important visceral battle for how Britain is governed.”

So why does this matter? Well it matters for one of two reasons – the first is that it is potentially a direct appeal to traditional middle class Tory voters, some of whom are disillusioned with some aspects of the “Cameron project” and who still hold Maggie in almost godlike status, and the other more likely option is that he is sending a warning to Gordon Brown that Lib Dem support for Labour in the event of a hung parliament is far from guarenteed. If the polls are to be believed then Nick Clegg could well prove to be the ”king-maker” in the aftermath of the next election and given Cleggs endorsement of Thatcher and Thatcherite economics – economics he claims the Lib Dems are closer to than the Tories, Cameron could well have an ally in Clegg.

Either way I’m pleased because it seems that Mrs Thatcher has scored a political hat-trick – the Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative leaderships have all now publicly recognised the importance of her revolution and the largely positive effect it has had on Britain - a far cry from the fantasy and fiction that poisoned her reputation at the time. The latest endorsement confirms what we already suspected; Maggie, like Churchill before her, has become a national figure rather than a party political figure. Her legacy belongs to no political party but to the British nation as a whole and that to me is a positive development.

Last night, BUCF were fortunate enough to be invited to Stoke on Trent to have dinner with the great ex-Prime Minister Sir John Major. The event which was organised to raise money for the local PPC’s in Staffordshire was extremely successful and what was especially uplifting, was the fact that a majority of the audience of over 100 people were in their teens or 20’s.

This is just another sign of the rising support that the Conservative Party is receiving from the Britain’s young people who, having had lived a majority of their lives under the defunct, inept and deceitful Labour governments of Blair and Brown have now chosen the ‘Party of Change’ in 2010.

Sir John spoke in depth to members of BUCF and was especially interested in their campaigning achievements and their charity fund-raising, such as for Help4Heroes.

The ex-Prime Minister also gave an extremely rousing speech to the whole audience which was greatly received. He spoke of the need for change in Britain, his immense confidence in Cameron’s leadership, and his opinion of Labour’s dire 13 years in government.

Finally he ended the evening by highlighting the fact that; “a party which makes the wrong decisions, on the most important choices, at every opportunity should never have the chance to govern” and that is why we need to work hard throughout Britain to rid ourselves of this despicable Labour government.

BUCF thanks the members of the Conservative Party in Staffordshire for inviting us to meet with John Major and for giving us the opportunity to listen to a man who knows only too well how important it is to have the Conservative Party in Government.

Daniel Cole

Michael Foot one of the most iconic British politicians of the last century and the man who is largely remembered for leading the Labour Party to electoral catostrophe against Margaret Thatcher in 1983, has died.  Speaking candidly I can say that on a political level Foot espoused almost everything I despise and I believe he would have been a disaster for the country had he defeated Thatcher in 1983, having said that on a personal level I can say that I admired his conviction and principles greatly. I have always admired anyone with a political conviction, whatever it may be, and have said on many occasions that I would rather debate with a staunch socialist than someone who “can’t be bothered” with politics. He was a man who stood up for what he believed in and despite the media ridicule he endured, Foot was above all else a very humble man - a fact which left him uncomfortable and unprepared for the harsh reality of life on the frontbench.

The truth is that Michael Foot was unsuited for front line politics, he was far more at home and at his best on the backbenches where he could speak his mind, rather than as leader where he was hemmed around by official policy lines which he was compelled to adhere to. His catastrophic electoral defeat of 1983 still serves as his political epitaph but I believe that this fails to take in to account a lifetime of principle and service - principle which led him to decline a life peerage and seat in the House of Lords and was not just confined to his socialist politics. Indeed Michael Foots principle extended beyond party policy in the sense that he wasn’t afraid to cross party lines and support opponents if he felt it was for the good of the nation. For example he was heavily criticised by the left for supporting the Falklands campaign, which helped regain some of Mrs Thatcher’s falling popularity ahead of the 1983 General Election, but in doing so he once again put his principles above personal or political considerations. That is how I will remember him; as a skilled and principled political opponent but an opponent none the less.

I know this entry is a little bit late but I thought a look back at last weeks excitement was needed, in light of the speech given my David Cameron today.

Last saturday members of BUCF attended a rally against Gordon Brown as he launched his laughable “A future fair for all” campaign. The rally was a massive success and actually resulted in passers-by joining the protest, highlighting the strength of support the Conservative cause has from the British public.

The impact which we had was furthered by the presence of the British Press, we made it onto Sky News, BBC News, ITN, Channel Four News and we were also mentioned on a number of internet blogs most notably Guido Fawkes.  

We definitely took Labour by surprise, so much so that when Gordon Brown left they had to organise supporters to drown out our protest, this was a futile attempt and it was us who drowned them out.

The fight is really starting to kick off now! With the protest last week, the campaign workshop yesterday and the inspirational speech delivered by Cameron today, a desire for change is in the air. BUCF is ready for the general election, so bring it on and let us give Britain the change it wants and needs!

Tim Hasker

BUCF hosted a successful campaign workshop for members yesterday and here, Douglas Groves, gives us an account of the day.

On Saturday, February 27th, BUCF hosted a campaign workshop at the Old Joint Stock Theatre pub, featuring a presentation on political blogging by Yasin Akgun, Founder, Administrator and Chief Editor of “The Conservative Blog,” a talk by Councillor Deidre Alden, Conservative PPC for Edgbaston on the fundamentals of political campaigning and the electoral process, and a discussion between members on the future direction of the society.

Yasin Akgun gave a presentation on political blogging. He highlighted the importance of maintaining an online presence, and how this was important in the running of a successful political campaign. This was enshrined by his “10 Commandments of Political Blogging,” which outlined the basic etiquette needed to run an effective online political blog. As the candidate for BUCF Blog Editor, I felt that Yasin’s presentation was excellent, and provided individuals with a unique insight into this rapidly expanding area of political activity.

Our second speaker for the day was Deidre Alden, Conservative Parliamentary candidate for Edgbaston. Deidre spoke about the fundamentals of campaigning, and the electoral process. She highlighted the importance of canvassing in identifying voting patterns among individual roads and neighbourhoods. In addition, Deidre gave an excellent summary of the workings of the electoral process, stating her opposition towards the expansion of postal ballots, due to severe flaws in the system. In the run-up to a general election that marks a critical juncture in Britain’s future, BUCF is fully committed towards helping both Deidre Alden, and the main target seats in Birmingham to ensure a Conservative Party victory come Election Day.

Our final activity of the day was a focus group, that gave participants the opportunity to have their say about the society, and how it could be improved. Overall, participants were pleased with the activeness of the society, particularly in the run up to the general election. Participants called for a greater breadth of political activities by the society, including more focus groups, political debates, and greater interaction with the Labour and Liberal Democrat societies in the University of Birmingham. I concur fully with these views, and agree that our political background should not be forgotten, particularly in the run up to the general election.

Overall, it was a highly productive day for the members of BUCF, which engaged members effectively, establishing a clear direction for the society to take, and which highlighted the importance of campaigning in the run up to the general election, both on the Internet, and at a grassroots level. With a combination of a greater online presence, and a broader, more frequent range of political activities, I believe that BUCF can enhance its already substantial reputation, as a visible, politically active branch of Conservative Future.

With a General Election having to take place within the next 14 weeks and the Conservative lead narrowing in the opinion polls, speculation has once again started about whether Gordon Brown will call an early election after the Tory spring forum in Brighton. It was of course during another Conservative conference in the Autumn of 2007 that many people anticipated the Prime Minister to call a snap election only for him to bottle it; a characteristic which has gone on to epitomise a man who after nearly 3 years in office has demonstrated that he is ‘As spineless as a Jellyfish’.

The Tories and Labour will be focusing on past victories from two decades ago in the run up to the campaign. Back in 1992 an unelected Prime Minister was seeking to win his party an unprecedented fourth term on the back of some of the worst local council results the party had seen. The country was in recession, unemployment was rising and the government were still unpopular for introducing the Poll tax which contributed to the downfall of Margaret Thatcher. Fast forward 18 years and you have another unelected Prime Minister aiming to win his party a fourth term on the back of disastrous results in the European elections. The country has just come out one of the deepest recessions for over 70 years with many economists speculating that we may in fact have a double slip recession.

However the reason why it is impossible for Gordon Brown to achieve the same feat as John Major did was the economic crisis Britain faced in the early 1990s was not caused by that government but was in fact the result of a global recession. In 1992 the electorate realised that there was only one party which could steer them out of that recession and they were proved right as we had the longest period of economic growth this country has ever seen. A decade later, Britain has suffered the longest recession in its history and of any other country in the G20 due to the irresponsible management of our economy by the man who boasted that he had ended ‘Boom and Bust’. And it is for this reason, plus the fact that Labour have demonstrated they are unable to come up with the radical and neccessary policies this country needs, that contrary to what the polls predict Gordon Brown will lose the election.

On the other hand David Cameron will be looking to replicate Labour’s landslide victory in 1997. A young leader who had modernised and rejuvinated his party was up against a weak Prime Minister, in charge of a government which had been in power for far too long. The mood in the country was similar to how it is now; people were desperate for change and realised that the only way they could achieve this was through a new government. However the difference is that in 1997 the public rather unknowingly opted for change for the worse whilst in 2010 people will opt for change for the better.

Amil Khan

Following on from my previous post,  David Willetts has been promoting his book in which he suggests that the ‘Baby Boomer’ generation are too well off, and need to give some money to people in their twenties who need help starting off. Given that this is not Conservative Party Policy, it is not a critique of the Party, far from it given that David Cameron has pledged to cut the deficit and to closely examine the budgets of nearly all government departments. Given that all three parties have yet to put forward precise economic policies however, for fear of Labour copying them I suppose, it seems a worthy subject of debate.

Personally, I can’t find anything to argee with in this policy. Yes, house prices are high, but when I buy a house I don’t want it to be because of a government grant. Yes, there is a pensions crisis on the horizon and how we fund our pensions certainly needs to be looked at. But asking someone who has worked, and is now retired or nearing retirement, to help me out is, in my opinion, an outrageous idea.

One contributor to the debate suggested enforcing the Lib Dem Policy of a Mansion Tax on all properties. The man was clearly an extremist Lib Dem (if such a thing exists), and the idea that everyone is both cash and property rich is ridiculous. The result would be a property crash and thousands being forced to sell their homes. Not for my benefit, thankyou.

Given the current campaign being waged to oppose Labour’s ‘Death Tax’, this idea seems to run counter intuitive to it. We should be encouraging personal responsibility and an efficient state which has the ability to help those in need. We should not be asking other citizens to give us their savings to fix the government’s self-inflicted problems.

I don’t know exactly how much is wasted by the government, but I know that in 2005 Michael Howard identified £35 billion worth of savings in Whitehall from efficiency savings alone, and we’ve endured a recession since then. I know that tax from cigarettes raises over £10 billion, but the NHS spends only £2 billion treating smoke related diseases. I know we have a huge deficit, but an even larger government. I believe that there is an opportunity  to create a smaller, more efficient government, which costs less and can still provide the welfare state, defence and a strong economy. No politician has yet come up with a policy to cut the deficit which seems fair, reasonable and feasible; but for this void conservative principles seem to be perfectly suited.

As the General Election nears, the debate over how best to energize the British economy will, surely, grow and grow.  I admit that I personally have no answers, but I’m sick of hearing people suggest ideas which are, frankly, ridiculous.

Let’s begin by noting that today Barclay’s Bank posted profits of £11.6 billion, despite not taking a penny of public money, refusing in fact, to take it. And yet people are still criticising them for being profitable and contributing to the economy. Given that the financial services industry contributes 9% of GDP, we should be more supportive of banks who have got it right, at no cost to us, and without whom all the spending plans dreamt up by the left would be in tatters.

One glorious idea is a ‘Robin Hood’ or ‘Tobin’ Tax, which they hope will raise £400 billion, or half of the total profits for the global banking system. Leaving aside that unless all governments agreed to this banks would probably leave, and frankly if someone wanted to take half of my post-tax earnings so would I, the idea is ridiculous, and not only because it misrepresents the Robin Hood story.

In the same way that creating a 50% rate will almost inevitably lead to fewer people paying the top rate of tax, and therefore a decrease in tax income for the government, taxing the banks who are responsible for such a large share of GDP will ultimately lead to their contribution decreasing. The government needs to take a large share of the blame for the mess which this country finds itself in. We are saddled with debt, and they have no strategy for changing that, except for kicking the banks while they’re down. Without them, however, the British economy is going to take an extraordinarily long time to recover.

This doesn’t mean that reform isn’t necessary, it is, in particular the Bank of England, the Financial Services Authority and the Treasury need to find a way of collaborating rather than blaming each other and solving nothing. I’m not entirely convinced that forcing the banks to divide is a good idea, but in the short term it might allow the publicly owned share of each bank to be sold profitably.

Like it or not, thanks to the work of Margaret Thatcher, this country relies heavily on the financial sector. The sooner we can sell our stake at a profit, reducing the deficit, and allow this major GDP contributor to return to its leading position in the global economy, the better off Britain will be.

Thirty five years ago today Margaret Thatcher was embarking on her first day as leader of the Conservative Party – the first of what would be nearly 6000 days at the helm of our party and our country. Whatever your personal opinion of Mrs Thatcher and her time in office, her influence on all the major political parties is undoubted and her impact on the country and the world as a whole is unquestionable. Jim Callaghan once said “The further you travel away from the UK the more admired she is”. This may well have been the case in “crisis what crisis” Callaghan’s day – after all Matron Margaret was giving the country some tough tonic to swallow– but today you won’t have to look far from home to find a revised and decidedly positive opinion of the Iron Lady. She is increasingly regarded as the benchmark of British Politics as hers is a name synonymous with strong, decisive and principled leadership – a far cry from the current state of affairs. So yes thirty five years may well have passed and there are those out there who would question whether she matters at all today, but as far as I am concerned her example is timeless. David Cameron and the Conservative leadership as a whole, given the gargantuan task they will face if and when they form a government, would do well to listen and learn from this courageous and timeless leader.

As a follow-up to my earlier blog, I thought I would say a few words about the Asylum debate which was held on Tuesday. It was a fascinating and heated debate which brought to light many questions on a misunderstood system. Furthermore, there was the upsetting first hand account of what it is like to be seeking an Asylum in this country from Ellen Bote and Almamy Taal. I would like to congratulate STAR for the organisation of this event and look forward to attending their future events.

The BUCF were there in force to support Jo Barker (PPC for Hall Green and on the Party’s Human Rights Commission). I believe that we did extremely well in the debate and Jo was the only politician on the panel to give solid policy and actually answer the questions the audience asked. She talked in detail of our plans to decrease the period in which Asylum seekers cannot apply for work and increase the legal aid provided. By the sounds of the Liberal Democrat representative we won him over, who welcomed Jo’s comments and the stance of the Conservative Party. Moreover, he did not spell confidence for the Lib Dem’s performance in the approaching General Election, stating that they should “face reality” about a Conservative victory and will be “lucky to increase our seats by more than five”.

As for labour, one word sums up their performance…embarrassing! Not only could the governing party of this country not be bothered to send someone who knows what they are talking about, the person they did send doesn’t even know the difference between Asylum Seekers and Immigrants. It was truly shocking. Throughout the debate Labour emphasised how ill-equipped a Labour Government is to tackle the issues and problems of the current Asylum System. A person who advocates British Jobs for British Workers and argues that Asylum Seekers should be ”grateful” that they are here is not qualified to take part in this debate. And this more importantly highlights how out of touch New Labour has become! 

By the end of it I think even the Labour representative realised how wrong the Labour Government has got it, when it comes to Asylum Seeker Policy stating that he wasn’t “going to sit here and defend it”.

A huge thank you to everyone at BUCF who helped us raise the sum of £856.67 for the military charity Help4Heroes. It was a great fund-raising effort and the money will not be wasted. Every penny will go to help our military heroes recover from the mental and physical injuries that they suffer while fighting for our freedom.

A quick note on who Help4Heroes are:

Help for Heroes was founded by Bryn and Emma Parry in October 2007 out of a desire to help the wounded Servicemen and women returning from Afghanistan and Iraq. The message of the charity is simple: They are strictly non political and non critical; they simply want to help. H4H believe that anyone who volunteers to serve in time of war, knowing that they may risk all, is a hero. These are ordinary people doing extraordinary things and some of them are living with the consequences of their service for life. H4H may not be able to prevent our soldiers from being wounded, but together theycan help them get better.

Daniel Cole

Before I start I would like to emphasise that this is my personal opinion and does not represent the views of the Conservative Party, also I would like to apologise for the rant I am about to have.

Now that is done with I can begin, the issue which I am discussing today is Asylum Seekers and Britain’s apparent ’soft touch’ towards them. I think it is staggering how people can claim that Britain is a soft touch on Asylum Seekers. In the preparation of my dissertation (which is on the delicate issue of perceptions of refugees and Asylum seekers in the UK) I have discovered that the majority of people have a misinformed view about Britain’s policy towards Asylum Seekers, arguing that we let too many in and that once here they have a free ride. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I would like to tell many of you out there who may not be aware of the complex policies Britain currently has on Asylum Seekers, in the hope to disprove the ’soft touch’ argument. For example, in 1996 the Asylum and Immigration Act denied certain classes of asylum applicants access to social security and legal aid (surely access to legal aid is a basic human right), this was introduced to remove an incentive for many seeking asylum. Furthermore, the Immigration Act of 2005, now states that anyone who wishes to seek asylum in this country has to get a visa from the country which they are leaving. How outrageous is this? Lets take as an example, an MDC activist from Zimbabwe who needs to leave out of fear for his life, to get an asylum in Britain he would have to get a visa from Robert Mugabe’s Government; the very people that are trying to kill him!

Is it just me or does this sound ridiculous? However, it hasn’t always been like this. Before the turn of the last century Britain was regarded as a place which refugees could easily come to and feel welcome. This is half of the problem, people argue that refugees are a burden, many of these refugees are highly trained and want to work. The law however, limits their ability to do this. For example, in the first year of living in the UK a successful asylum applicant cannot apply for a job (due to further processing in their application). Moreover, they are only eligible for 25% of the benefits which a British unemployed citizen could apply for, this works to around £20 per week. Crime is inevitable under such a system!

To make the situation worse, asylum seekers are never located usually anywhere south of Birmingham. This subsequently means that they are placed in areas of low unemployment and high racial tension resulting in dangerous consequences for our communities. I am not saying that there is not an immigration problem nor a problem with bogus asylum seekers. All of these are real problems and issues which need to be resolved. However, our policies (and this is a national not partisan problem, these often cruel rules span all parties) could be said to have broken basic human rights and denied access to people trying to escape genuine hardship.

The Government would argue that harsher restriction policies are needed to cope with the economic demands of asylum seekers. Why not use them, they want to work, the majority of them came here to give not take. Finally, although the economic burden is a reasonable argument, could it be argued that in preventing economic burden we have in fact betrayed the values previous Britons have fought and died for in Two World Wars and countless other wars? And more importantly can you put a price on someone’s life?

Monday 11th January saw the launch of the new Geneva Call Centre in Coleshill, Birmingham with Party Chairman Eric Pickles cutting the ribbon and kick starting the West Midlands new addition to the campaign.

The event was attended by CFers from across the West Midlands, and proved to be another fine example of how CF supports the Party whenever needed.

Members of staff at the call centre delivered great speeches, and we all left feeling greatly enthused about the difference that can be made. CF will continue to assist at the Call Centre right up until the election.

I thought I would share what I believe to be an iconic picture. Prince William’s recent visit to New Zealand and Australia was, for me, the first time I’ve really seen him as a King in waiting. This iconic picture was taken in Australia’s Government House and it catches a pensive Prince William momentarily lost in thought, gazing toward his Grandmother’s vacant throne, no doubt pondering the destiny that awaits him. But beneath all the pomp and the pageantry there remain dark clouds on the blue blood’s horizon. The Republican movement is gathering pace in Australia and it is not entirely radical to suggest that when Her Majesty dies, so too will the British Monarchy’s role in Australia.

The truth is that the individual, the Queen, is held in more regard than the institution, the Monarchy, and without her it is doubtful that it will continue given the current strength of the Republican movement. Having said this much of the Australian press, even the Republican leaning publications, have concluded that Prince William’s visit was a roaring success and a tremendous boost for the Royal Family’s prospects in Australia. So the questions remain; will ”Prince Charmings” offensive be enough to resist the Republican tide? Would his succession to his grandmothers throne prove to be the saving grace for the Monarchy in Australia? Or is this all part of a grand farewell by the Royals to the Australians they hold in such high regard? Only time will tell…