The announcement of a government consultation about nuclear power made the headlines of today’s newspapers. Among fears concerning gas supplies from Russia, nuclear power seems to be back on the agenda.

Yet despite nice words Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Alastair Darling, nothing is set into stone. Planning applications are yet to be granted; protesters are yet to be convinced that their opposition to nuclear power is anything but environmentally friendly, and finally no choices have been made over which type of reactor should be used.

Since decommissioning of the few nuclear power stations we have, has already started, one can perfectly say that the Energy White Paper, is at least five years if not ten years late. The ’dash for gas’ which happened in the nineties, was understandable on a financial point of view, moreover since North Sea supplies were still plentiful, there was a strategic case as well, albeit a very weak one. The case for new nuclear power station was understood during the eighties; despite this nothing happened for much of that decade, and from 1997 Tony Blair’s successive government did absolutely nothing, even if one can argue that Energy is part of the ‘public services’ whom they cherish.

Click here to continue reading…

For Britain (and in contrast to the Orange slogan,) the Future’s Bleak, the Future’s Brown. Blair left this country a legacy alright, but it was certainly not a pleasant or favourable one.

While Gordon Brown will want to give the appearance he has made a clean break with the past and Tony Blair, I fear much of what his government will pursue will be along much the same lines. This has most prominently manifested itself in Mr Brown’s pledge to introduce a package of constitutional change. I’m not sure I like the sound of that, especially if it’s anything even vaguely similar to the previous attempts at meddling Labour have partaken in – which I suspect it is.

Labour’s highly contentious devolution of Scotland and Wales began the now irreversible break up of the Union, which Gordon Brown now rather curiously (and hypocritically) claims to somehow be in favour of protecting. The House of Lords and hereditary peers worked well, and yet Labour entered government and engaged in constitutional vandalism without any clear idea of an end outcome – effectively change for change’s sake. Labour are now going to use their own potentially illegal dealings as an excuse for further reform, and as a measure to head off the Loans-for-Peerages scandal which engulfed Blair’s premiership.

Worse still, perhaps, was that within days of entering office, Labour enacted a law allowing unelected special advisors to give direct orders to civil servants. This lead to a fundamental change in the very nature of the relationship between state and government.

The Chancellor tells us that no challengers were able to run for the leadership because Labour are wholly united in their determination not to return to the past. Does anyone really believe that? In reality, Labour MPs were fearful of a leadership contest that would highlight Labour’s divisions in the eyes of the electorate, and the differences between what they publicly said and privately believed.

I believe that Gordon Brown will be ruthless in any changes he will want to make to this country. Some believe the new Prime Minister will be a relatively easy push-over. I am not so sure.

There has been some recent discussion on David Cameron’s policy to rescind Conservative party support for further Grammar schools. Mr Cameron says the Conservatives will ‘never be taken seriously by parents’ so long as the party backs selection.

There have been a number of justifiably angry squawks from the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail, and an equally numerous number of whinges from Mr Cameron and his supporters who believe that majority of Conservatives should just back down on this issue.

Team Cameron think that because they, along with some unaccountable and nefarious policy group, in their infinite wisdom dreamt up the new policy, they are automatically right and we should not dare to question their judgement.

The Conservative party, which is supposed to be meritocratic, but whose Shadow Cabinet and associated periphery is curiously stuffed full of old Etonians, are effectively denying the academically bright to fulfil their potential and the less able a helping hand. Having said that, Mrs Thatcher, a Grammar school striver of the past, was, along with her previous Conservative governments, one of the main instigators in the decline of the two-tier system – so in part, David Cameron’s policy is merely a continuation of a gradual trend.

Click here to continue reading…

At long last, the light is visible at the end of the tunnel. The shadow of Blair over Britain and the Labour party slowly recedes after what was yet another speech of arguably epic proportions at the end book chapter of a mighty frontline political career – that was, in the end, far overshadowed by spin, incompetence and political decadence.

Today, the curtain falls on a political career that began so full of hope and promise, but ended in failure and despair. The master at work, for perhaps the last time, delivered as memorable a speech as anything made in the prime of his career. He bid farewell to an audience in his constituency of Sedgefield that thunderously applauded as he finally bowed out – but how many of the faces in that crowd wished for him to be gone ‘sooner rather than later?’ The man that brought his party two landslide electoral victories and a third decisive victory only two and a half years ago is soon to be struck off and forced out of office into exile.

In the Conservative party; we might despise Mr Blair and what he has done to our country in ten years of misrule – but we perhaps, and it is hard for many of us to admit, still have some small and barely registerable amount of respect for the abilities of a man who has thwarted us for so long. Clearly there is little love for Anthony Blair left in the Labour party. On June the 27th, he is gone – and all eyes shall turn to the man looming in the shadows, Gordon Brown.

As said yesterday, the controversy sparked by the possible venue of the BNP leader Nick Griffin in Bath, was the reason why an extraordinary meeting was called in today, in Elements. Attendance was very high and the BBC was even here recording the meeting. The fact that a 2/3 voting majority was considered before the meeting, but subsequently dropped, highlighted the fears coming from the Student Union.

Two votes were scheduled on the meeting agenda, the first one about a ‘statement of belief’ condemning the BNP and the second one about the decision of allowing Nick Griffin to speak on campus. In fact no real vote took place as far as the ‘statement of belief’ was concerned, the blue ballot paper provided ended up being unused. Hot debates erupted though, mostly concerning amendments to the statement, with the sentence ‘The BNP is not a viable option for a political vote’ removed from the statement. The amended statement of belief was nevertheless passed without a real vote, a very negotiable measure considering the fact that the statement was written by Adam Laird, the chairman of the Liberal Democrat society in person, in terms of political neutrality no one could have chosen a better writer.

The discussion about University’s decision to allow Nick Griffin to come was, very heated to say the least. Three sides clearly emerged in the room, with a good proportion of members coming from the homosexual (the politically incorrect word for LGBT) group, another in favour of letting Nick Griffin come on the basis of freedom of speech and final one of mostly neutral students more concerned by the potential disruptions to exams. A representative from the homosexual group said that, ‘our group voted unanimously against the University’s decision, on the basis that the safe space policy is violated’. If they felt that threatened, then instead of making such a fuss about Nick Griffin visit, they should just simply stay at home. I also doubt that such an opposition would have occurred, if a radical Muslim cleric most of whom simply think that homosexuals should be burnt at the stake, had decided to make a speech here in Bath. Same remark as well, for someone like George Galloway.

Click here to continue reading…

Yesterday, Warwick and Breckland, the final two councils yet to conclude their counts, returned their results and brought an end to the English local elections.

In total, the Conservative party took 41% of the vote and gained an extra nine hundred and eleven councillors across England, which was substantially more than had been projected. At the same time Labour dropped five hundred and five seats and the Liberal Democrats suffered a humiliating loss of two hundred and forty six seats.

In Bath, the Lib Dems lost three seats overall while the Conservatives gained a total of five. Labour made a net loss of just one and two independents lost their seats. Therefore, the Conservatives are now the largest group on the council, though they do ran in just two seats short of an overall majority and thus Bath & North-East Somerset remains in No Overall Control.

Click here to continue reading…

Just recently, the University of Bath, received a request for the Leader of the British National Party, Nick Griffin, to speak at an event on campus. Nick Griffin is scheduled to arrive on the 14th of May; just six days time – and this announcement has already sparked a somewhat heated debate in certain circles.

The Bath University Secretary, Mark Humphriss, recently sent out an internal news item saying that the meeting would go ahead as planned, as the University of Bath website claims that:

So far as is reasonably practicable, no premises of the University shall be denied to any individual or body of persons on any grounds connected with the beliefs or views of that individual or of that body, or the policy or objectives of that body.

This seems a perfectly good and sensible policy to me, however, there has been much dissension among, what could ostensibly labelled as the authoritarian liberal-left of the student and university body. The three campus trade unions, UCU, Unison and Amicus have jointly released a document stating:

We are extremely disappointed that the University has made this decision, as we do not think it is a freedom of speech issue, but a freedom from harassment issue.

Though they have said they will peacefully protest against the BNP meeting and will not actively try to stop it, I think this gives a good insight into their general mindset. I wonder though, would these Unions have been protesting so profusely; or indeed at all, if for example an archaic Communist such as Hugo Chavez wished to speak at a similar event?

In addition, the useless Bath Student Union even went as far as to call an ‘extraordinary meeting’ to discuss the proposal in detail, in the Elements Bar (any excuse,) and numerous Bath students have signed up to a number of the now seemingly obligatory and pointless facebook groups that never achieve anything except to further inflate the egos of their creators.

Click here to continue reading…

The University of Bath is part of the Bath & North-East Somerset council ward of Bathwick. Recently, Chris Dawson, administrator for the newly launched Bathwick Hill Community site, emailed us to tell us about his online initiative and about how students could get involved.

Mr Dawson hopes that as many people as possible will register on the site and take part in local activities and events. We have added a link to the sidebar of our website and we hope this website will play its part in helping to bridge the divide between University students and the long-term residents of Bathwick.

Yesterday, on May 4th 2007 I met one of the few living people whom warrant my veneration, for today Boris Johnson attended a Conservative meeting in Bath.

Several of my peers and aquaintences were sceptical about whether his speech would be of any relevance whatsoever, and even after his appearance some were left with the presiding belief that he was a ‘bumbling idiot’, but to those of us who take Mr Johnson as seriously as his intellect deserves, we were not disappointed.

Whilst talking about more national issues than many expected, baring in mind the council elections were held only a day previously, Mr Johnson produced such fine statements (albeit paraphrased) as “Tony Blair is doing his farewell tour on an open top submarine” and when mentioning Bath Conservative PPC Fabian Ritcher, pronouncing himself as the “president of the Fabian Society”. When talking about the stupidity of regulation on booster seats, Boris claimed that people of his age did not come to any harm without such pointless regulation, accentuating his point that such trivial matters should be at the discretion of parents.

Although clearly in a hurry, Johnson was doubtlessly in fine form; talking to his loyal supporters seemed to flow from his heart as effortlessly as the Latin prose that he spouted to the audience. When shaking his hand I was able to splurt out in the utmost sycophancy: “It’s an honour to meet you sir”, only to hear the response “yes yes, an honour to meet you”.

And so Bath CF left, myself personally feeling slightly bemused but altogether overjoyed after an afternoon that we won’t forget in a long while.

Now that the results of the elections from all over Britain are known, the time has come to draw some conclusions.

With approximately 41% of the votes, it is fair to say that the Conservative Party is the winner of the local elections which took place in England. No less than 38 new councils are now under control, including some like Chester, Blackpool and East Riding of Yorkshire. Other prominent councils won, include Dover and Plymouth in the south. Overall the number of Conservative Party councillors is up by 875, a very good result considering the target of 600 extra seats set by some.

Click here to continue reading…