Running Blog #3: The Final Lap

Just three weeks to go before I line up for a 10km run through the streets of Manchester: The Bupa Great Manchester Run.

Today I got my runner number (29926) and info pack from the Great Run people. I'll be setting off at 11:20am in the pink wave.

Come down and support me if you can, and don't forget to sponsor me as I'm running for Christie's cancer treatment centre in Withington, Manchester. My target is £1,000 and currently I'm only about 10% of the way there.

Please, please sponsor me at http://www.justgiving.com/jrgreatmancrun/

Don't forget to gift aid your donation if you're a UK taxpayer, or will be a taxpayer this year (for all you students graduating this year).

JR

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 that adventurous 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

Conference Report

Blackpool was the setting (as usual) for the National Union of Students' Annual Conference. Three days of drinking, debating, campaigning, voting and ... er, drinking. Here are some of the highlights, and lowlights, of this year's conference.

The entertainment kicked off at 1:12pm (late, of course) on Tuesday afternoon, and after the usual pleasantries the debate started with the Education zone. As you might expect, the big debate was over our education funding policy. Yet again the argument over free education was brought from the hard left. I've already blogged my views (this time last year). Conference voted to reaffirm our commitment to "Bin the Broke and Broken Funding System" (i.e. change the way education is funded; or failing that, keep the cap on tuition fees).

Those of you who have been to NUS conference will know about the guillotine; for everyone else, you should be aware that there's only so much time for policy debate at conference, so each group of policies (or zone) is given an amount of time in which to have debate. You can extend that time by a delegate challenging the guillotine and conference then voting in favour of the extension by a two-thirds majority. There was a number of challenges to the guillotine throughout the conference, but I was the only one to extend it successfully. My claim to fame for Conference 2009! I was also the first to challenge, which might also have something to do with it.

Then there was the issue of card votes. I should explain that this is probably only interesting for NUS hacks, but there was a motion to abolish the card vote (where the delegation leaders vote of behalf of all their members by casting a number of votes equal to the number of full time equivalent students at their institution). Just for fun, some delegate leaders decided to ask for a card vote on the vote to abolish card votes. Unfortunately not enough delegate leaders agreed, so we went to a normal vote, and the motion was passed. Card votes are no more!

Obviously such a card vote happening would have been a really bad idea (apparently they're close to living hell), but the idea was really funny! Take a look at a video of the best bit. The people in shot are members of the national executive committee who wanted to get to the bar before 2am (and therefore didn't want a card vote)!

Day two saw the full time executive elections, or as I like to call them, the forgone conclusions! All the non-mad candidates won by a country mile. Wes Streeting was re-elected as President with 81% of the vote! See the election results.

Wednesday night is when the bulk of delegates find themselves in Flares nightclub. This is where I took my one and only photo whilst in Blackpool. It's of me and Block of 12 executive member (and block of 15 candidate) Ed Marsh.

As you can see, Ed and I are sporting a huge amount of stickers for block of 15 candidates, the election for which was on the following morning. I'm not saying that the only reason for going to Flares is to campaign for election, but it's certainly high on the agenda!

As some of you already know, I was supporting Benjamin Gray for the block. Ben was a independent candidate, but a member of Conservative Future and all round nice guy. Unfortunately he didn't get enough votes to be elected, but there was a few things to take out of it.

Firstly, Tory is no longer a dirty word around the NUS. Quite obviously the hard left despise conservatives, and Labour Students aren't the biggest fan of CF; but, as Benjamin Gray writes:

The response of delegates who knew I was Conservative Future-affiliated was not hostility, but curiosity, and in some cases outright support. In private many believe that the Conservatives are going to form the next government, and want to know what we would offer them. They also want CF involved so that they can have a means of making their case directly to the party.

Not only that, but Wes Streeting was quoted (by himself) as saying in a fringe event ...

We need more Tories on the NEC!

... which seems to back up Mr Gray's claim.

As it happens, there won't be any members of CF on next year's NEC, but whose fault is that? Undoubtedly it's the fault of CF themselves. One person can't run a campaign to be elected at NUS, they have to have backing, either from a faction or a small army of friends and assorted others.

Even then it's very hard; Dom Passfield failed to get elected to the block this year, and that's after running a very good campaign. He was a genuine independent candidate, and had a dozen or so people campaigning for him, but if he was in a faction then he'd have a much greater chance of being elected. My conclusion, as I have always believed, is that Conservative Future should organise within NUS.

Back to the conference itself; the last day will be remembered for the censure of Rob Owen and Hind Hassan for their outragous actions at NUS Extraordinary Conference 2 in January. They tried to defend their actions by arguing that people were trying to silence the radical left. In reality they weren't prepared to apologise for what was an unaccessible protest and did nothing to promote their cause. If they had apologised for their actions, which as officers of the national union they should have realised were unacceptable, then I'm confident that conference would have avoided their censure.

Finally, what a powerful leaving speech from the outgoing (and last ever) National Treasurer, Dave Lewis. He has put a copy of the text on facebook, but that doesn't put into context the passion and emotions displayed to those present, especially when he talked about losing his best friend at the age of 19. Hopefully you can read his note on facebook, even if you aren't his friend. If not then maybe he'll post it on his blog in the near future, and if he does I'll update this story with the link.

Well, that was Conference 2009. Please let me know what you think, especially about the issues surrounding CF within NUS.

JR