I’m glad you start your reply (to my reply of your reply to my article) by acknowledging that “this topic arouses passions.” As you will have noticed, it is a topic that not just arouses passions but makes my blood begin to boil, mainly out of sheer frustration that I’m not getting through.

I’m not going to go over  my arguments once again by combing through your article point-by-point, as we are now moving far away from the central issue, which is that the Labour party must renounce its No Platform Policy. I will make a few general comments though based on my reaction to reading your post.

As for some preliminary remarks, I find it nothing more than a little cheeky that you begin by talking about yourself, then proceed to bemoan the fact that I am the one “playing the man rather than the ball” while continuously crying foul and on top of that getting in some digs of your own! I don’t know who you are apart from what I’ve heard on the Internet (about Draper and all that), and you have probably never heard of me because there’s nothing to hear (as far as I am aware) so I think ad hominem attack claims (certainly sounds like you went to Debating Society!) are quite a stretch of the imagination.

I found it especially amusing when you went so far as to call me naive (though I did slate your patronising tendencies, so mud is mud) but I think my favourite “man-not-ball” line goes to “I find this argument quite incoherent I’m afraid.”  Which I may have misinterpreted, it might actually have been a faulty argument, until you finish the paragraph with “That hardly sounds like Einstein.” Thanks for insulting my intelligence there! Bath may not be Manchester, and Modern Languages may not be Law with Politics, but please don’t treat me the way you treat the average voter! “Call me patronising as much as you want.” I will, particularly when I feel like I’m being patronised like when you tell me “You can do better than that.”

One final thing, “No, it’s your ‘realisation’, i.e. your appreciation. Your subjective opinion. It’s an opinion which has been catching on, especially with what seems to be a LabourList campaign to ditch the policy.” One, thanks for reminding me what my opinion is, having only spent about 3000 words on it the past 2 days or so. Two, the “LabourList campaign” is paranoia, because I suspect you are more intelligent than you are leading us to believe, and have actually figured out that we’ve already won (more on that later). If it is an opinion which is catching on, that might suggest that people who used to be in favour of No Platform have realised it is wrong and have changed their mind. It also means that if Anti-No Platformers (Not Pro Platform, note) are writing in, that just reflects the majority opinion and should not be stifled, I’ve already talked about how I perceive your views on democracy, so no need to go into that again. There is no campaign, though I’d gladly set one up, but calling cheat is one of the last resorts for people who are in the wrong and find themselves more and more isolated.

Moving on to arguments now. (You don’t need to worry yourself the above rant, it’s just my impatience).

I said I’m not going to pick apart your points again, mainly because the comments on your articles do it for me, incontrast to the comments on my pieces, which are almost exclusively supportive. There seems to be a democratic majority/minority divide reoccurring.

From “Madasafish”:

Tom said “I’m saying this because I’ve traipsed all over university campuses delivering leaflets in support of this policy”

What have university students to do with Labour voters voting BNP.

Students live a different life from working people and are totally unrepresentative. No wonder your policy is so out of touch with reality in my view.

The Aneurin adds:

A very good question indeed. I’d have thought that spending one’s time traipsing around council estates would be more productive in the fight against the BNP.

Says it all really. In fact, it allows me to bring in a another personal anecdote. In may 2007 the leader of the Youth BNP was a student at Bath, who invited Nick Griffin to speak. Instead of the SU taking a stand either way, for or against No Platform, Griffin was not allowed to speak because “it would disrupt exam time”. The result was that Griffin sat in a pub in town chatting to anybody who cared to listen, instead of just smart-arsed students hurling loaded questions at him.

In a very reactionary way, the following year the SU tried to introduce a No Platform Policy. In a referendum, Bath Students voted AGAINST No Platform in a ratio of 3:1. Voila democracy. Anyway, No Platform at Uni is totally removed from Labour Party No Platform. So let’s have that argument another day.

From Monkeybot 5000:

We are adults. We are your intellectual equals and in many cases your superiors. We do not need you to protect us from the likes of the BNP just in case we’re too stupid to make the right choice when it comes to cast our ballot.

Alun Lloyd:

No platform is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “I’m not listening, lalala!!”. You give them a mystique and aura they don’t deserve. They develop a persecuted persona to wheedle their way in. We need to stand them up in front of everyone and make them say out loud what they believe. Not let them whisper invidiously in corners.

Political Scrapbook:

“The BNP have a right to free speech, but nobody is under any obligation to provide them the means to use it effectively”. Erm, apart from the BBC, who are legally bound obligated to provide political balance. In the 1999 Euro elections UKIP gained three seats – one less than the BNP have now. If the BBC had decided to ‘no platform’ UKIP then they could have had John Birt up in court.

No Platform is an article of faith for many on the left. It’s sad to see people clutching at straws when it is clear that – as a strategy – it isn’t working. The game has changed!

Tristan Pithers:

I can totally understand your anger at the BNP and I share your belief that we have a ‘moral obligation’ to fight against them and their ideology of hate but No Platform is not the way to go. It is regressive and as much the start of a dangerous slippery slope as the election of Brons and Griffin.

Jules Wright:

No it doesn’t tom. prohibition of any sort always fails. i suspect that you simply lack the bottle to take them to task.

Ricki Lake:

Burying our head in the sand wont make the bnp go away , look at it from a voters view , the bnp come on and make a statement witch is riddled with lies ( i know this could apply to all 3 main parties) and no one challenges them then the voter thinks its true and falls under the spell of bnp .

We must ( all parties) debate with them and show the voters the type of nasty and racist party they are .

Hugh Pettit opens another compelling case:

But they’re going to be on TV whether you refuse to share a platform with them or not since they now hold office, as you admit. The only difference with following your logic is that there will be no one there to actually point out that they are a racist party and their policies are underpinned by bigotry.

It links back to my earlier “more on this later” statement. I think the argument is over because the BNP will get their place on Question Time. We might not like it, but if we can’t win through argument then  it says more about us than it does about them.

We should now stop digging this hole because the debate is now a forgone conclusion. Labour can either swallow its pride and get with the program as the Tories and Lib Dems have done, or we can stay sitting at home (much like our voters probably will) while they have the debates without us.

What will you do come the election if the BNP fields a candidate in Woking? Will you take them on as your electorate watches or will you let them forget you exist?

We are baying at the gates Tom. Will you let us eat cake?

PS I think it’s painfully obvious that neither of us is going to back down so we had better end our feud with the non-progressive ”agree to disagree.” If you want to say something else, it would be better if you posted it as a comment here, or better yet send me a message via my contact form. That way we can stop spamming LabourList and LabourHome with our debate that seems to have gone rapidly off topic.

This weekend, I was invited to a “Labour Student’s Key Activists training”. In the email, I spotted something I feel is a trend in Student related organisations:

Please send two or three delegates from your Club, one of whom must be a woman

Bath Labour is a small club in a constituency held by a Liberal Democrat MP and a Tory Council (The Lib Dems recently lost control).

It’s only by some miracle and a brilliant leader that this year Labour Students eclipsed the Lib Dem Society.

The “bring a woman” rule annoys me. It is hard enough to scrape up one delegate to go to something like this, let alone two, not to mention during the summer holidays.

The rule is thus wholly impractical for a club where choice is limited at best. If three gents wanted to go to such an activity, I would be delighted. If I saw two active and enthusiastic male activists in front of me, I would hate to have to turn one a way and send a woman whose interest was lukewarm at best.

That said, I don’t know how well this rule is enforced, I would hope the organisation wouldn’t try to punish a club for sending delegates. It’s very unequal too; if we wanted to send three women, there’s nothing in the rules that state “bring a bloke”.

I use Labour Students and gender equality as anecdotal evidence, but there are many more cases within the National Union of Students.

The NUS is the home of misinterpreted solutions to social problems. The Guardian noted a few racist incidents within the system, but they might be isolated examples.

I believe in representation where representation counts. The “Womens’ Officer” should be a “Gender Equality Officer” just as much as the “Black Students’ officer” should be a “Racial Equality Officer” in striving for fairness and equality (I assume that is the intention based on my own political motivations).

I don’t believe in equality type representation on every level of an organisation, I don’t think there needs to be a “Woman’s Rep” on the finance committee. (In fact, better not have one; they’d spend all the money on shoes. Ho ho!)

The problem with student organisations is so often those good intentions don’t meet with good policies, so the diagnosis becomes warped through the misinterpretation.

It’s political correctness gone mad, don’t-cha-know!

(I didn’t even get to mention Harriet Harman. Sorry.)

Students’ Union Policy Resolves:
1. All Students’ Union Meetings, where buffet food is provided, should have a 60% – 40% vegetarian – meat (and fish) offering.

I’m not sure where they got the 60:40 figure from, but even if it’s true that “Meat products have a significantly higher carbon footprint than vegetarian food” you will still have to raise cattle for things like cheese and even the milk that might go into bread, so they’ll still be producing methane. You’ll need eggs as well, and I don’t think they come from eggplants! The initiative is made in the name of the worthy cause of environmentalism, but I would be interested to find out what the ratio was before this vital policy was drafted, consulted, redrafted, debated and passed.

Though it looks like I’ll never know since, in a later meeting, they decided to get rid of sandwiches all together: (my emphasis added)

Student’s Union Council Notes:
That at present a number of internal meetings, including Academic Council and Union Council, are provided with sandwiches.
That these sandwiches have been a point of previous internal discussion regarding reducing costs and green issues.

Student’s Union Council Believes:
That these sandwiches are provided both as an incentive to attend meetings otherwise held over lunch times, and as a reward to those who volunteer their time to participate in these meetings.
That such meetings should not need to be incentivised in such a way.

Student’s Union Council Resolves:
To discontinue providing sandwiches or similar catering at all union meetings.

However, councillors need not fear. If they are REALLY hungry, “under certain circumstances it may be appropriate to provide sandwiches” so all the bases are covered. I can see why MPs’ expenses are so carefully discussed. Although it doesn’t state whether the options will be fairly balanced 60:40 meat:vegetarian, I’m not sure the original policy applies in said circumstances.

This is too funny to be an accident; we really are 40 years away from May 1968.

A lot of coffee retailers (excluding, inexplicably, Starbucks) have a simple system called the “Coffee Loyalty Card”. To encourage customers to return to that store several times, they give you a card and you collect a stamp. When all the spaces opn the card are filled up, your next drink is free.

Parade Bar has such a system. On it is clearly written:

Buy 9 hot drinks and get your 10th FREE!

There are no “terms and conditions” on the card, and none on their website. Why, therefore, was I asked to pay for this:

This is a large latte with cinnamon syrup, whipped cream and miniature marshmallows. Normally I never get the extras (I actually like the coffee) but I wanted to get the most out of the free drink. Disgusting, I agree, but it wasn’t just the sugar that made me feel sick; I had collected my 9 stamps like a faithful idiot, only to have the “large latte” part of that long list of extras included as “free 10th hot drink”. The rest, apparently, “didn’t count”. I don’t quite understand how “extras” do not count as part of a hot drink in parade bar. No where does it mention that “extras are not included in the offer.” I just want to warn people now.

My immediate reaction was surprise and alarm. I thought about asking the woman serving me to take the marshmallow/cream/syrup out, instead, I drank it. (Mainly with a spoon).

It wasn’t even that good.

President: I’m glad to say I predicted this one: even down to the places! As I wrote in my Campaign Analysis, I noted DOT was the centrist candidate; not too committee and CV based, but not to focused on comedy either.

Hope my advice helped (particularly if it had an effect)!

Sport: No surprises here; I was dead on. Brand recognition and Incumbents advantage. 

Welfare: Substance beat style here. It was close, but I got it wrong.

Education: A little surprised there. I thought the winner’s campaign was a lot weaker than that of the other candidate. It’s likely the posters alone weren’t really the deciding factor. 

Don’t have any comments on Comms or Activities, I didn’t pay any attention to them and they were all surprisingly low-key campaigns.

I’m not necessarily backing these people (again and again, I tell you I’m neutral.)

A few picks, in no particular order:

“Dan the Man”: A great all around campaign, a little bit low key, meaning that I haven’t seen him running around the parade. The greatness of this campaign is in its strategy. “We deserve to see our exam papers.” He’s focused on one issue; it’s clear, it’s simple, and the fact that its is so focused means his message is direct and uncluttered. Very good.

“Pick Rick”: The best slogan in my opinion. “Pick Rick. He Cares” is all I’d need the Welfare person to do. Dressing up as Superman all day gets some points, too.

Captain Scarlett: Goes around dressed as Captain Scarlett. Easy to spot as well. Will the international and younger students get the reference?

Santa for Sport: Going for re-election and even using the same posters. There’s an old saying in politics that there are only four sentences that reall matter. One of them is “Let us finish the job.” Points for consistency, and using brand recognition techniques.

The following generated quite a bit of controversy, which I don’t really understand. (Why go into politics if you can’t handle some constructive criticism?) Nevertheless, I’ve decided to exercise my right to freedom of expression and repost my analysis. Unfortunately, it is probably too late for the candidates to use my feedback to their advantage. 

My final point, is that even though Friday is the last day, turnout is still very low. That means there’s a whole load of Undecideds out there waiting to be converted. You should push really hard on the last day, believe me, it makes all the difference. 

P.S. Thanks to the commentator who said “Also, why not stand up for yourself? The original article had nothing wrong with it – apart from being quite boring (obviously). If any of the candidates complained about it then, frankly, they are pathetic. Are they men or mice, or what??!” anonymously. 

It’s election week at the University of Bath. The Studens’ Union is going through the annual process of electing the new Sabbatical Officers. As the campaign ends this Friday (20th March 2009), and there are no YouGov polls available, I’m going to analyse the campaigns to see how well an effective campaign affects voting intention, and hopefully offer some advice for future candidates.

I want to stress that I am not commenting on the candidates in any way, as I have no preferences or affiliation with any of them. It’s nothing personal; I am merely using my political experience to look at what makes a good professional campaign, regardless of who will or ‘should’ win. I’m not talking policy, I talking about how campaigns are run.

 Candidate One

I’d call this the “Ipod” campaign, or maybe David Cameron. Overall, it looks very sleek  and modern, but there may be a lack of substance.

Strengths:

• Very stylish, instead of a “Vote for me because I want to improve things” he has adopted more of a business advertisingcampaign. the “VOTE” with the logo in the middle of the O looks very 21st century.
• Run on the basis of “generally a nice guy” which appeals to everybody, particulalrly those who are easily swayed. You might call him the centrist candidate.
• His manifesto is based on being the centrist, he mentions he’s been involved in activities, but doesn’t say which ones exactly. (Sporty students are less likely to vote for someone who ran the chess society, for example).
• In the PPB, he’s the only candidate who is wearing his campaign-branded T-Shirt! Good being on message.

Weaknesses:

• The campaign might be a little mystic and ambiguous for students. The DOT logo is good, but there is nothing to back it up, no detail.
• The manifesto is generally unspectacular and commits only to maintaining positive things and trying to get rid of negative things. However, there is a good and new idea of a subscription service, which he should exploit to the maximum.
• Clearly a nice guy, but is that it?
• A great speculation-raising campaign for a product, but might not resonate on a political field.

Advice: Show them what you’re made of! You have the art nailed down perfectly, and a good image, you just need to convince the “reason focused” people.

Candidate Two
A very original and interesting campaign; humour is great, but you don’t want the campaign to become a joke. I’d probably call this a right-wing campaign*, but it’s strength is in it’s message.

Strengths:

• This campaign is very effective, but might be misdirected. It’s clear that he likes his pies, and he likes his beer. The most effective thing in this campaign that beats all the others no question is the fact that it has strategy. I know instantly that he is going to focus his presidency on getting better and cheaper bars and social facilities.
• His manifesto reflects this, which gives him a coherent campaign, which puts him far ahead of the rest.
• Good humour. It’s important to remember this isn’t an election for the President of the world. We don’t need anyone with megaphones yelling “Solidarity, comrades!”

Weaknesses:

• Clearly a candidate that appeals to the clubbing types. This populism, however, pigeon-holes him and restricts his electability to the base.
• It’s always good to be humourous about politics, but the campaign does risk becomeing a joke in itself. I remember hearing about a campaign based on the fact that the candidate was fat, he didn’t win, and was forever known as “the fat guy.”
• The campaign video was… risky… walking about from side to side, props and so on. I think the campaign needs some credibility, of which the manifesto has some.
• I suppose it’s very similar to the Sarah Palin campaign; clear, but focuses to much on “core voters”.

Advice: People need to be able to take you seriously. You need to show voters that you’re focused on the job, and that you’re going to be found in the office and not the bar! Don’t rely on the clubbers to sweep you to power, broaden your electorate.

Candidate Three
The “safe bet” candidate, since he spends a lot of his manfiesto (which sounds like a CV and Cover letter)  talking about his various activites, but it’s a bit of an uninspiring campaign that needs direction, but a good video.

Strengths:

• Uses his personal experience a lot, so voters know he’s a safe bet
• Decent website, though not advertised so much
• Comes across very well in the video, by a long way, shows he’s got some good policy ideas as well
• Straighforward logo with the coloured stripes. Echos American style banners.
• Goes above and beyond: I even received a leaflet through my letterbox in Oldfield Park.

Weakness:

• Maybe goes on a bit too much about committees
• No message or theme. Seems like a paper candidate because the campaign hasn’t distinguished him from the other candidates.
• Continuity: “I will increase good things and decrease bad things” like everyone else would.
• Uses bureaucratic words like “review, work with, liaise, consult” rather than actions.

Advice: Distinguish yourself! Clearly a good all-around candidate, but you’ve got to show that. The campaign is incoherent because there are too many ideas; Start with a gimmick, then build on it. I’ve seen you around, but I don’t know what you’re all about. Also, don’t be so sensitive to criticism.

Candidate Four
Probably the best professional campaign in my view. The extra-campaigning activities show that you really want the job and will take it seriously. I’d probably call it a Gordon Brown campaign.

Strengths:

• Impressive use of technology. Twitter and Facebook are fine, but the website really gives you some credibility and gets your message across.
• A good slogan that fits well with the campaign
• Smart use of banners, though need some tweaking “Running Late?” as buses arrive on campus is VERY GOOD because the message is tailored, but ” X can sort it out” might be better as “X can fix it.” or “Leave it to X.”

Weaknesses:

• Definitely got the issues identified, in a more original way than the others, in a well written manifesto, but what are the solutions?
• For someone so involved in media, I’d imagine campaign videos would be better rehearsed, but at least they’re there. (Double points if the cameras are borrowed from CTV!)
• Explain what you actually want to do, again, needs “one message”.
• Maybe a little bit too elitist? From the CV, I bet most people involved in the Union is on your side, but what of the silent majority?

Advice: Don’t get stuck in the Gordon Brown type of campaign. Experience is good, but change is a more powerful message. If you’re set on running with experience, you need to show how your going to use it, and not that you’re just going to keep things ticking as they are.

 That said, I wish all the candidates the best of luck, and hope they appreciated my feedback! (Though they didn’t ask for it!)  

*By “left” and “right” I’m not talking about party politics. It’s a different scale: On the Left you have candidates who like to run on their experience. On the Right you have the more “fun-loving” students. Nothing nasty intended.

On Page 10 last issue of Impact, dated 25th of February 2008, we were greatly displeased by some of the comments made by Darien Jay, Vice Chair of Bath CF, in the article headlined “Bath’s Conservative Future Visit Parliament”.

While the content of the article was of no concern, in fact, we congratulate the society for staging the visit; but the article itself raised several red flags. The first is that, leaving understandably biased commentary aside (e.g “Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister’s saviour”), was that while talking of Parliament, Jay wrote, “Such a building, so steeped in tradition and adorned with placards representing British military success serves to stir up national pride in even the most liberal of Britons”.

There are evidently two key grievances with this sentence alone. The first pertains to the phrase “most liberal of Britons” and the second regards the issue of “military success”.

Essentially, it is nothing short of disgraceful on the part of the Conservatives to suggest that citizens who identify themselves as ‘liberal’ are not normally proud of the nation. This is a callous attack directed towards not only us of the Labour Society (and indeed the Liberal Democrat Society), but a huge section of the public yet unaffiliated with a particular party. To imply that Liberalism is somehow deliberately regressive is entirely ridiculous. To us Labourites, it is clear that each political party, despite its differences in philosophy and policy, does not wish to damage Britain. We want what is best for the country, we believe in a long-term strategy rather than opportunism, and we would welcome cross-party agreement and invite the Conservatives to issue an apology.

Furthermore, suggesting “British military success” is the most forceful trigger of ‘national pride’ is redundant and a perfect example of old-fashioned Toryism. It is unspecific which successes were mentioned, but it is likely to be the Napoleonic War, which ended 194 years ago, the Second World War, which ended over 60 years ago, or the Falklands War, which ended 26 years ago. Such nostalgia is superfluous and outdated; we should be going forward, not back. For all the claims of modernisation, it seems old Thatcherite nationalism is still alive and well.

Harking back to the days of the Empire is no example of ‘national pride’; a patriot loves his country, a nationalist hates everyone else’s, and stubborn celebration of crushing other nations is completely and utterly small-minded.

First, in terms of the affiliation with the National Union of Students, the Bath Student’s Union has had its membership fee decreased from £56,000 to £33,000. Whether this will result in a budget surplus this year and what will be done with this extra money has yet to be discussed.

It was stressed during the meeting that the responsibility of managing funds gained from membership fees is exclusively at the discretion of the respective societies. No capital gained from these fees will go to fund a different society.

One issue that was raised during the questions was that the cash machine in Norwood, at the foot of the stairs to the Plug Bar is often empty and unable to dispense any money. While no direct solution was forthcoming, the Union explained that filling the ATM is now the duty of the bank that runs the machine, Alliance & Leicester, and it is no longer a prerogative of the Students’ Union. In practice, the cash machine is supposed to alert the company when its cash levels fall below a certain level. The SU declared that the current response to this problem is unacceptable and the issue will be sorted as soon as possible.

A key concern at the meeting was that, at present, The University of Bath’s Library card does not feature the official NUS logo insignia, and as such is sometimes not accepted for student discounts. The Union attributed the complexities of the matter to the fault of the retailers, as recently the NUS has scrapped the traditional NUS Card for “NUS Extra” meaning that this is the only way to get an NUS discount. Any generic student deals, i.e. not exclusive to the NUS, should be available upon presentation of a library card, which proves the bearer is a student. However, the lack of an official NUS logo on Bath’s card has led some outlets to be sceptical of its authenticity. The Bath SU doubts that this will change though, as it is likely that the NUS wishes to ensure that the Extra card is the only way to get NUS discounts.

While the SU was unable to announce many clear solutions to the issues raised, the overall sentiment seems to be that the Union will do everything in its power to ensure that every matter will be investigated fully.