UMCF’s Part in the National Campaign

I’ll be posting my own views on the budget at some point over the next few days, but for now I’ll let our actions do all the talking. UMCF joined in a nationwide campaign against Labour’s disgraceful budget. Our patch was Piccadilly Gardens, and although some of our activists (notably the ladies) had left by the time the picture was taken, everybody was in good spirits, especially given the wonderful April evening.

The Leaflet (courtesy of ConHome and The Young Conservative)

Guest Post: You’re in the wrong party!

This post comes from our good friends over at Manchester Metropolitan University CF. It’s written by their Chairman Andy Hartley and the original can be found here.

 

You’re in the wrong party!

Something I get told on a regular basis by a number of my friends is that I’m a member of the wrong political party.

Granted I come from a single parent family and a socio-economic group of C2, plus my mum is on a low wage (she works in textiles, skilled but low paid). I am also fairly socially liberal and a self confessed wet (although I believe in small government as I will explain later); or to be more contemporary in that context, I’m a believer in One Nation Conservatism.

If I was American then I’d currently be supporting the Democrats, and would have certainly voted for Obama; although I’m more than likely to be a floating voter usually.

I understand the value and usefulness of collectivism, however I’m not a fan of trade unions, or more correctly, certain trade unions.

All that aside though, the major reason for my membership of the conservatives over Labour or any other political party is the ideal of realising an aspiration, without having to jump through hoops or finding there’s a penalty when I get there.

Under today’s Labour government you are penalised for; living with a partner, earning between (about) £5,500 and £18,000 a year, wanting to buy a house costing just over £250,000 (and then the inheritance tax you’ll have to pay to pass it onto your children when you die), buying a car two years ago with average to high CO₂ emissions (rather than in the future), and not being very good at filling in forms!

Now I understand the theory behind redistribution of wealth. The idea is a sound one, except in the 21st century it’s very easy to avoid paying so much tax, by moving to another country with a lower tax rate! If the planned increase in income tax (to 45%) for those earning over £150,000 takes place, then what you end up with is some people who earn over £150,000 not paying any UK tax because they’ve become ex-pats. You can’t redistribute wealth that isn’t there. It’s much better to close loopholes for those who pay less tax then their cleaners and chase those that use creative accounting (obviously proper accounting that is perfectly legal and above board isn’t a problem).

Parents don’t need to be told how to raise their children. If they did then everyone would be up a creek that rhymes with Brit. They do need support, advice and guidance, but the nanny state that Labour have created means that parents are expected to raise their children in a pre-set way. You’re not allowed to clip your child around the ear or give them a short sharp slap on the wrist any more. Such a sanitised society means that some children don’t have the discipline or respect that they should.

Why is the state intervening in almost everything we do? Humans learn by making mistakes, but slapping a compliance form on individual tasks is diminishing people’s ability to judge right from wrong. Risk should be judged beforehand and controlled, in the same way the scouts have to before an adventurous activity; in almost all circumstances, the activity should go ahead with the inherent risk accepted. The problem is we are become so risk-averse that children are growing up without the necessary life skills to see that risk for themselves. It’s ridiculous thatadventurous activities aren’t allowed to happen because someone might get hurt; like boys playing rugby at school!

Enough of my whining for the moment, let me talk about collectivism in the context of students unions. It is important when leading, or carrying out the duties of, any union to show a collective front; one message, not a confused message; otherwise you don’t get anywhere. Whilst in the meeting to decide your policy, however, that is the time for you to speak your mind and voice any reservations you have with a proposals. Furthermore, you should make your own mind up rather than vote in a particular way because you’ve been told to by someone else.

Once the decision has been made though, everything changes. Whatever your views beforehand, it’s imperative that you accept the collective responsibility of the policy that has been created. Much like a whip in the House of Commons, you should keep with what your union has agreed; there are only so many rebels an organisation can deal with, and if you are seen to be divided then you won’t be taken seriously. In my role as Vice President (Welfare) of MMUnion next year, this will be my philosophy.

I’m not, however, going to tell students what to do, what to think, or what to say. It is for individual students to make individual choices. If they want to march for free education then I’m not going to stop them joining a demonstration.

Returning to my membership of the Conservative Party; as you can see above, I’ve put myself on the left of the party, more or less the only MP that is further left is Ken Clarke. I believe in compromise and tolerance. I’m open to the idea that the Tories can sometimes get it wrong, and Labour get it right. It was right, for example, that the government took shares in the banks when public money was used to bail them out.

It is these values of social, liberal conservatism that have shaped who I am. I see the strength in unity but reject the authoritarian stance of the Labour party. None of this, however, will affect my role as a student union officer.

JR

10% more out of touch

People say that politicians are out of touch? I think that the 10% pay rise demanded by teachers shows a far worse case of being out of touch than the comparatively meagre pay rise afforded to MPs. The teachers union NUT has demanded at 10% rise or a 3,000 Pound rise whichever one is greater. Their alleged reason for this is that teachers are going abroad because of the low pay. But is that really the case?

It certainly appears that teachers are moving abroad. But is this really down to the low pay? The average pay for teachers is 33,000 Pounds. This, together with public sector pensions and the far longer holidays afforded to teachers, seems to be high enough in order to be able to perform a job which, although difficult, is no more difficult than others of a similar pay grade in the private sector.

So why are teachers moving abroad? It seems that a far more reasonable explanation for the movement of these teachers might be the excessive target setting and the large amount of top down testing that takes place in this country. Add this to a letigious mindset that prevents teachers from taking any action to stop their being attacked or harrassed, and it is understandable that teachers might want a change of culture.

But a 10% pay increase? Come off it.

‘Elf and Safety anyone?

Once in a while I get round to working in a proper job. I recently spied this poster in my workplace:

So…I decided to check out this wonderful Health and safety website that the poster advertised. I’m not too sure how many of my fellow minimum wage workers will do so, but I thought it might be worth a laugh. Sure enough, it’s easy enough to strike gold in the wonderful world of health and safety. The highlight? An entire webpage devoted to HOW TO USE A LADDER.

Now I’m SORRY, but no matter HOW BADLY Labour is educating the new generation of workers, there is NO WAY that people need four pages of advice on how to check that a ladder is safe.

 
THE EMPLOYER’S GUIDE

Great, I feel enlightened. But what if I’m an employer? Can the Ladder executive help me? Why YES, it CAN! Not only does the Health and Safety Executive have an “Employers Guide” on Ladder Safety, but it also provides an awesome “toolbox talk on leaning ladder and stepladder safety“. (See below)

 


 

Now all of this might not bother me that much if I didn’t know that somewhere in the Health and Safety Executive there’s an Executive Director who’s being paid more than 100,000 pounds a year to come up with this kind of crap. This is the ultimate example of the nanny state going to far, the paradigm of piss-taking. Why do I pay 20% taxes on the minimum wage for people to be employed to tell employers how to look out for the people they employ?

Get real, Labour, then go away. And leave us alone.

 

 

 
Interested? Want more? Here are further references:

Why we have a banking crisis (and why more regulation of mortgages won’t help us)

It seems that most people were completely caught off guard by the financial crisis and had initially been completely confused over why it occurred. But more recently we have seen several theories being thrown around by politicians. I’ll just mention two quite basic theories and why I agree or disagree with them.

Theory 1: I like to call this theory the ‘Gordon Brown theory’ of why things went wrong. People in America borrowed too much and their bankers weren’t careful enough which caused a financial crisis and a credit crunch which means that British banks can’t lend because of the problems created in America.

Theory 2: I like to call this one ‘the theory that’s perhaps a bit closer to the truth’. It was given a brief mention by Stephen Nickell in this month’s Prospect magazine. He said that rather than British banks lending their money “unwisely” to foreign banks and doing dodgy dealings,

…in fact, British Bank lending was relatively prudent…The real mistake made by British banks was that their treasury departments took their reserves and invested them in assets which turned out to be unsafe, illiquid or more or less worthless. The consequence was that a lot of these reserves were lost. On top of this many domestic and foreign holders of capital…withdrew their deposits. With a lower level of reserves and lower deposits, the British banks had to cut their loans and continue to do so.

 

Evaluating the theories:

Well, let us deal first with the “Gordon Brown” theory. It’s clear from the outset that there are several views in here that it’s impossible to reconcile with reality. The first problem with this theory is that reality tells us that the British banks had as much to do with dodgy mortgages as the American banks. But furthermore, the supposition that British banks begs the question of why well balanced and well regulated institutions would suddenly collapse? Surely a ‘global credit crisis’ in a well regulated system would mean that the banks would have some small problems dealing with overseas markets, but would have no problems domestically. But our evidence clearly shows a bubble has burst in Britain as well as the US, so we can toss that theory aside.

Next we move on to the Steven Nickell theory. Now we have to bear in mind that he was on the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee and therefore has a vested interest in saying that things were fine with the way banks were lending money. However his point about bank reserves is an interesting one to make, though it doesn’t explain away the whole problem. There is probably an element of overzealous lending coupled with bad regulation of bank reserves. However both were necessary in order to make a banking crisis possible.

So what’s the way out of this mess? Tighter regulation of lending seems to be a popular proposal. Tighter regulation of bonuses is even more popular. But in the end, just a little nudge by the regulator in the case of over lending and a tight regulation of reserve assets would be sufficient to stop something similar happening again.

While it’s popular to bash bankers at the moment, we must not forget that we have had good lives and have seen our standard of living rise as a result of the self-regulation of the city. We must learn from mistakes in this financial crisis and move on. Overkill on regulation will only make us poorer in the long run.