Like John Major, David Cameron’s has found his European policy needlessly derailed by his own party. Unlike Sir John, a weak Mr Cameron has given his backbenchers almost what they wanted at each stage but ultimately to no avail. Their demands grow larger because it is apparent that a very large part of the Conservative Party do not believe in the European project. They do not have any real sense of the political and economic benefits which accrue to Britain as a result of our involvement in that project. Unlike in Sir John’s day, there is very little genuine debate. The rebels against Mr Cameron’s Queen Speech constituted more than half the Conservative MPs outside of ministerial office and that was after Mr Cameron conceded Conservative backing for private member’s bill in this Parliament enshrining a referendum to take place during or before 2017. With a heavily anti-EU media and their mistaken belief that the recent local election performance of the United Kingdom Independence Party is substantially related to the potency of Europe as an issue, it is unsurprising that the (barely) latent hostility of of Conservative MPs is surging. Yet their behaviour, Mr Cameron’s behaviour in making concessions to them and Nick Clegg’s behaviour for allowing Mr Cameron to do so is manifestly against our interests. Not only does it undermine Mr Cameron’s own plans for renegotiation followed by referendum (a step which at this stage is in itself a sideshow at a time of economic crisis in Europe and Britain), but it infects the Westminster political consensus with an Euroscepticism which is both visceral and lazy in its nature. In light of what effectively constitutes a challenge to Britain remaining in the EU, progressives should be clear the case for our membership in such a way which is clear about the extreme disadvantages which leaving the EU would entail. In the short-term, we keep the debate focused on what matters to people and allow the Conservatives to talk about Europe. Yet to prevent elements of the Left from falling victim to the same obsession which has grown rapidly on the Right, we need to be clear about why Britain’s future in Europe is so important.

Against a background of overwhelming economic benefits connected to continued membership of the European Union, there is no compelling case for British exit. A substantial segment of our foreign direct investment inflows are directly dependent on firms choosing to locate in Britain in order to gain access to the Single Market. In the short-run the Eurozone crisis only increases this tendency by making the United Kingdom a relative safe haven. We have the second most received FDI in the world because we are an attractive location in the EU and our strength in this respect has been one of the main uplifting factors for our wider economy’s productivity in the last few decades. The amount of FDI is partially why the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills estimates that 3.5 million British jobs are related, directly or indirectly, to continued membership of the EU, but it is not all. The Single Market offers a single set of regulations (thereby reducing our firms’ costs, provides the UK’s largest export market and gives the UK an advantage in negotiating trade deals, such as the agreement which Mr Cameron has been persuading the United States to agree with the EU over the last few days. In fact, as the Single Market is not yet complete in the services sector and this is where the UK’s comparative advantage is strongest, Britain should be pushing for closer integration. Estimates suggest that the expansion of the Single Market to cover more services could boost the UK’s GDP by 7%. Why abandon such a golden opportunity? Were the UK to leave the EU, we would compromise the status of London as a leading world financial services centre far more than we would by allowing the EU to impose tighter regulation of our banking industry (when in fact, if we remain in the EU, we can exercise strong influence to prevent the adoption of those measures which are genuinely detrimental to our interests).

Faced with the strength of the economic case for Britain’s membership of the EU, Eurosceptics typically point to the possibilities of a free trade agreement with the EU offering access to the Single Market, like Switzerland, or membership of the European Economic Area, like Norway.Yet a Swiss-style deal makes no sense for Britain when it excludes access to services, precisely where the UK is strongest, and Norway still has to implement those EU regulations applying to the Single Market without getting any voice in deciding them. Different deals could perhaps be negotiated with the other member-states but it is against their interests for Britain to have access to the Single Market without being subject to the same regulatory framework. Having a common set of regulations to reduce costs is fundamental part of the concept of the Single Market, as is the free movement of labour.  Progressives ought to applaud and promote the entrenchment of the EU’s social and employment legislation: this is what many Conservatives are really after. Without the EU, Britain’s commitment to basic workers’ rights would be lower and under more risk during periods of Conservative government. In any case, despite being in the EU, Britain currently has some of the least regulated product and labour markets amongst advanced economies according to the OECD, offering a looser regulatory environment than many countries situated outside the EU, so it is hard to argue that Britain is rendered internationally uncompetitive by being subject to EU regulation. The key thing is that Britain has a voice at the table and uses that voice effectively. Exiting the EU would remove that voice without removing much of the regulation and David Cameron’s bizarre behaviour towards the EU, from his signature decision to take the Conservatives out of the European People’s Party to the manner in which he delivered the so-called veto in December 2011, has consistently jeopardised Britain’s ability to protect its interests.

Beyond the core economic case for continued membership, it is a strategic imperative for the UK’s future as a global power that the European Union remains a successful project and that the UK is a core part of this success. As Tony Blair foresaw, if we exclude our diminishing capacity to support American military operations, the importance of the relationship with Britain to the United States is as a bridge to the rest of Europe. The US needs the UK because we are in the EU and therefore Atlanticists should also be ardently pro-European. It is not an ‘either-or’ choice as many on the Right still like to pretend. This is why Barack Obama intervened to essentially urge David Cameron not to listen to his party and why previous comments from the State Department have poured scorn on the idea of Britain leaving the EU. Outside the EU there is no substantial diplomatic role for Britain in international politics unless we commit to substantially higher defence spending, which is in fact the opposite of the trajectory the Conservative-led Government is setting us on and is unlikely to be reversed. The rise of the BRIC countries makes Europe working together to maintain economic and diplomatic clout essential. When Belgium more with India and the Netherlands trades more with Brazil than we do, claims we need to leave the EU to boost BRIC trade do not make sense. Leaving the EU is not the only way to increase firms’ incentives to build non-EU trading relationships. On current global trends, if Britain is not in the EU, then we would be leaving the world stage and entering an isolationist era. For all people’s jibes, the EU is fundamentally a force for good in world affairs and for the domestic politics of Europe, which have been stabilized by the European project from the days of the European Economic Community to now. Europe would be less liberal and less democratic without the EU. It is in Britain’s interest to be part of this. The general economic benefits, regional policy and continental peace which the EU provide make our national contribution a small price to pay. The EU achieves what it does efficiently, with tougher auditing standards than most national governments and a total payroll (32,666) smaller than that than the number of civil servants employed at the single grade of executive officer in the Department for Work and Pensions alone (41,599). Far from being a monolithic bureaucracy with little practical effect, the EU is a lean organization which boosts economic growth and underpins European political stability.

There is a limit to European integration. The trade imbalances created by varying degrees of competitiveness between Germany and the rest of the Eurozone, taken together with the lack of political will to allow unlimited fiscal transfers and the staggering failure of the European Central Bank to act as an effective lender of last resort before the summer and autumn of 2012, have illustrated the dangers in monetary union. The Euro would not be appropriate for Britain. The policy of austerity which is being adopted both in the bailout countries and effectively throughout the Eurozone, pushing France into triple-dip recession yesterday, is unrealistic, counter-productive and socially damaging. Moreover, the closer integration which will be required within the Eurozone to account for their economic crisis and which theoretically is the ultimate expectation for all EU member-states presents the dual challenge of avoiding Britain being left on the outside whilst refusing to surrender further sovereignty (including the ability to have sole discretion over our own fiscal policy). The entire concept of ‘ever-closer union’, removed from and then reinserted to the EU treaty framework, is not one compatible with the political and social vision of the British people, as well as presenting cultural and linguistic problems throughout Europe as a whole. While the staffing of the European Commission is appropriate, there is waste in the Common Agricultural Policy and some structural funds. None of these factors provide a reason to exit the EU or even to substantially renegotiate Britain’s relationship unilaterally.

To do so would be to potentially abandon other aspects of the EU which have an equal and beneficial effect on our interests, such as the European Arrest Warrant, which any party which is genuinely tough on crime should applaud. The key lies in working with other EU member-states cooperatively to achieve reform which is consistent with British interests, which is far from impossible as Angela Merkel’s unexpectedly positive reaction to some of Mr Cameron’s existing interventions establishes. The specifics of how reform, to avoid a two-tier Europe whilst protecting British interests, might be achieved are a more complex question. David Miliband, as on most issues, has offered some of the clearest British thinking on this topic by suggesting that the EU have at its core its founding rules, including the Single Market and its ancillaries, with additional areas where member-states can choose to integrate further, rather than relying on opt-outs and transitional arrangements. This will need development to ensure that it does not become in effect a two-tier Europe, instead offering flexibility for member-states in general, but by addressing the fundamental democratic and economic question marks over the possibilities of some aspects of further EU integration provides a basis for progress. This is what governing parties across Europe should be considering and in some cases are. Unfortunately, the Conservative Party remains obsessed with the prospect of British exit, which is what many (though not Mr Cameron personally) really mean to achieve, from certain members of the Cabinet on down. No one in the Labour Party should not follow them into this hole.

It is a shame that the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats have nothing of substance to say on these questions compared to the internal debate taking place within the Labour Party and the cohesive programme which Mr Miliband has outlined so far. That is the overriding impression which you can take from the Queen’s Speech. Let us look at what Mr Miliband indicates would be in a Labour Queen’s Speech taking place in these circumstances. Six bills squarely focused on rising to the challenge of  boosting growth and reforming our economy. These include genuinely significant legislative changes like reforming the housing market (specifically the private rented sector) to protect tenants’ rights, cutting Value Added Tax temporarily alongside other tax measures (including the reintroduction of the 10p tax), radical action to shift the balance in favour of consumers (especially in the energy and rail markets), introducing a Compulsory Jobs Guarantee (which will be more effective than the Work Programme in tackling the problem of long-term unemployment), the establishment of a British Investment Bank to provide the finance which businesses need as financial services continue to fail to provide credit to small firms and an Immigration Bill to tackle worker exploitation. These bills all go directly to the challenge of creating a fairer and stronger economy. The sad truth, however, is that most of these measures alone is more radical than the totality of what the Conservative-led Government proffers in yesterday’s Queen Speech when it comes to reforming the way our economy works and providing a more sustainable basis for growth. This Queen’s Speech is the final evidence (if any confirmation was needed) that David Cameron lacks any perspective on where he wants to take the United Kingdom. When it comes to long-term strategy, the country is essentially leaderless. This government has nothing at its core except a ‘deficit reduction’ strategy which has actually led to £245bn more borrowing and derailed the recovery which Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling left Britain on in 2010.

A few specific comparisons are possible and informative. Mr Cameron’s Consumer Rights Bill will extend protection to cover ‘faulty apps’, a reasonable enough change in itself. Mr Miliband’s Consumers Bill would force energy suppliers to pass on falls in the wholesale price of energy, place all those aged 75 on energy companies cheapest tariff, put strict caps on all fare rises, guarantee passengers the cheapest ticket for their journey and cap pension scheme charges at a maximum of 1%. Which of these proposals is going to make a bigger difference to the living standards of the British people? While changing the state pension system (inter alia, linking a review of the retirement age to life expectancy, without considering varying life expectancy between different segments of the population), Mr Cameron completely ignores the problems in the private pensions system, unlike Labour’s approach. The Immigration Bill allows another comparison. Rather than dealing with the problems which public concern about immigration really reflect, namely housing, wages and local services (regarding all of which Mr Cameron’s Queen’s Speech has nothing to say), Mr Cameron creates additional regulatory burdens on businesses to check employees and tenants’ immigration status. In itself, this may well be a reasonable requirement, but it runs contrary to Mr Cameron’s rhetoric about reducing business regulation and it is hard to see what it adds to existing statute without being accompanied by an enforcement mechanism enabling checks (that is to say, as David Blunkett pointed out, identity cards). Mr Miliband’s bill by contrast would focus specifically on the issue of migrant workers being paid less than the National Minimum Wage, which is exploitative of the workers concerned and has adverse labour market impacts for everyone, addressing a root cause of discontent over immigration. The Care Bill Mr Cameron offers is based on a cap which, as has previously been discussed, is simply too high to be remotely effective in addressing the cost of social care (less effective for some than the previous Labour’s Personal Care at Home Act 2010, which the Tories repealed). Whereas Labour’s Finance Bill would have offered a one-year national insurance holiday to small firms taking on new workers, Mr Cameron is simply going to give all employers an allowance of £2,000. This means that Labour’s National Insurance plan provides a major incentive for firms to take on extra workers. Mr Cameron’s plan does not and merely adds to already large business cash flows (which remain unspent given the weakness of consumption demand). Which approach is more likely to reduce unemployment? All these comparisons are telling.

However, specific comparisons are difficult. This is because, in terms of the economic programme outlined, Mr Cameron lacks the vision to present alternatives to what Mr Miliband proposes and instead offers nothing. Nothing on banking, when the Conservative-led Government’s proposed regulatory framework has been dubbed too weak by the Banking Commission and the banks are failing to lend to small firms. Mr Miliband would create a statutory British Investment Bank and a regional banking system. The latter idea is particularly important because regional banks will be closer to local businesses rather than merely being a central state institution. There is nothing to do this in the Government’s programme and Vince Cable’s existing laughable substitute for a British Business Bank, a ‘bank’ with insufficient capital to lend properly, is left dawdling on while publicly owned banks refuse to lend. This is a pathetic outcome but apparently one which Mr Cameron is prepared to tolerate. Likewise, despite the fact that the private rented sector offers unaffordable rents (which are driving housing benefit up) and some less than scrupulous landlords, there was no action equivalent to Labour’s plan to establish a national register of landlords in Mr Cameron’s Queen’s Speech. By refusing to contemplate reform of the housing market and banking sector Mr Cameron fails to address or even acknowledge problems in core components of the British economy which will affect everyone’s living standards. It is true that there were some individually positive measures in the Queen’s Speech, such as the decision to make forced marriage a criminal offence and the Government’s high speed rail plans. There were also some individually ill-thought out measures: the Defence Reform Bill seeks to strengthen the reserves, the Government having kept back on the Regular Army, effectively asking people to the job of soldiers without offering them a wholesome livelihood (there is no apparent military as opposed to financial reason to shift towards the increased use of reservists). Yet the fundamental problem is that there is just no vision associated with the Queen’s Speech. It does not rise to the scale of the economic challenge which Britain is facing. Except to economic misery, it seems the Conservatives are taking the country nowhere.

Coming from the Rhondda, daughter of a miner, I have always been Labour. Being at Oxford brought home the inequality however, not just between the two areas but within Oxford itself on opposite sides of Magdalen Bridge. People in Oxford just like in the Rhondda were struggling with the failed policies of Thatcherism. Today we still see the legacy of that unbalanced neo-liberalism and I believe one way of challenging that way of running our world is in the European Union.

What will be the biggest challenge facing the Labour Party heading into the 2014 European elections?

Labour and our sister parties across Europe have fought hard for a Europe that unites to protect ordinary people in their work and in their lives. Making that case for a social Europe is the biggest challenge.

How can the Party of European Socialists help advance Labour’s values in Britain and across the EU?

It already has. The measures we have fought for from rights and protections in the work place to anti-discrimination legislation advance Labour values. The challenge now is to come together to deliver a radical alternative to austerity, a compelling vision of what we would do to build a fairer and more equal society, standing against the neo-liberal race to the bottom and offering hope of a better future to people here in Britain and across Europe.

How critical do you judge the EU’s ‘democratic deficit’ to be, and what, if anything, can we do about it?

Working with women threatened with redundancy whilst on maternity leave brings home just how relevant the EU is and the positive impact it has on people across Britain. We won in bringing in the legislation to protect, but didn’t make the case at home. We need as a party to fight the argument for a social Europe much more coherently and consistency.

What do you think to the current government’s approach towards Europe? Are Cameron’s recent manoeuvres likely to amount to substantial changes in the UK’s relationship with the EU, or are they more indicative of a political fudge?

Cameron is certainly not helping Britain; his approach is a political fudge to stave off internal rebellion and leaves us isolated with no allies. We shouldn’t underestimate the challenge though of the right wing who want to revert to a merely economic union. We need to clearly articulate our alternative with confidence and passion.

The truth is that people are angry about falling living standards but that anger is entirely misdirected. The government and their allies in the right wing media have quite successfully shifted the blame for our economic woes away from the government and the financial sector and on to the poorest and most vulnerable people in society. We are told that our country’s problems stem from the fact that the benefits bill is too large. That the two and a half million unemployed people are ‘choosing’ not to get jobs and happily living off the state whilst the rest of the population go to work and subsidise them. Today’s Daily Mail headline seeks to blame the awful actions of Mick Philpott on the fact that he was claiming benefits, tarring an entire group of people with the same brush. The messages coming from the media are not isolated ones, they are part of a fundamental assault on the values that underpin the welfare state.

What is Labour’s response? The party’s decision to abstain on the workfare bill provoked fury among party activists, and quite rightly. Why should unemployed people be made to work for large companies for free or risk losing their benefits when they are completing tasks which people are normally paid to do? It amounts to the state paying the wages of private sector staff, a situation which I cannot understand either Labour or the Conservatives supporting. Labour must expose the coalition government’s assault on the most vulnerable people in society, highlighting the bedroom tax, the cut to legal aid provisions and proposals to cut the minimum wage in real terms.

We should be explaining the true reasons the welfare bill is so high and providing a positive solution of how to deal with it. We need to explain that the reason why there are so many people on benefits is not because it is a desirable lifestyle or a choice, but that the government’s economic policies have kept two and a half million people out of work and it is time for a change of course. That the housing benefit bill is effectively a subsidy to private landlords and can only be brought down by investment in affordable housing both in state and private sector. Not only would it help to solve the housing crisis we have in this country but it would also give a substantial boost to the construction industry, creating jobs up and down the country and getting people off benefits at the same time.

Labour are frequently lambasted in the media for not having a viable set of pitches to offer as an alternative to the coalition, yet it is the fear of this very media within the top ranks of the party that prevent us from establishing a credible alternative. The idea that adopting the approach outlined above would result in a system that is ‘soft on scroungers’ is absurd- it would put people into work and boost the economy whilst being the right long term decision for the country. The trouble is the high level of misinformation about the benefit system among the British public, something which was admitted by the journalist and former Conservative adviser Danny Finkelstein on Newsnight last night. This is fuelled by sections of the media which take isolated incidents of benefit fraud and present them as the tip of the iceberg, whilst failing to mention the high levels of tax avoidance which the cost the country millions of pounds each year. Labour should not seek to make policy based on popular misconceptions but should push for a change in economic direction to alleviate the problem of unemployment in Britain.

The context to all this, the tragedy of April Fools’ against the selfless compassion of Easter, is the substantial onset of the Government’s reforms to the welfare state.  Today, market forces will be fully reintroduced to British healthcare for the first time since 1948.  Inflation-linked benefits will be ended in favour of a 1% rise over the next three years (meaning real terms cuts).  The so-called ‘bedroom tax’ will be implemented, with Labour estimating that 19 out of 20 affected households will not be eligible for alternative properties in their area, so depleted is our nation’s stock of social housing.  Against this, Saturday will herald a cut in taxes for the richest people in our country, providing an average tax cut of £100,000 for millionaires.  Even as the Government touts a rising tax-free threshold as evidence that it is not a ‘Government for the rich’, the threshold for the 40% tax rate will fall, dragging more people into the upper band of tax.  The poorest in our society are forced out of their home, portrayed as enemies of the state and as degenerates.  The ‘squeezed middle’ undergo the most sustained attack on living standards since the 1980s.  For those at the top, however, the soaring value of assets and remuneration packages, in conjunction with tax cuts, means they’ve never had it so good.

If our aim is liberalism, the small state and the emasculation of government, Labour’s feeble response is understandable.  If, on the contrary, we really concern ourselves with social justice, with democracy (representing the whole nation’s interests, rather than the special interests), then we need to take the lead.  Merely following public opinion leaves Labour in thrall to the whims of opinion creators.  Such characters are not universally malign (indeed, the religious groups cited above offer an example of those with whom Labour can work to advance the cause of social justice).  The New Jerusalem of the post-war Labour Government has been captured and transformed.  It is decadent and adrift.  To restore it to former glories, relevant to the challenges of the twenty first century, we have to make the case for why these values are relevant.  We have to appeal to solidarity, to justice, and to the merit of collective action (what, after all, is the state, is not a vehicle of collective action?).

John Harris’ opinion piece in today’s Guardian questions why it is that the Left cannot face the public’s distaste for welfare.  The recent debacle over Labour’s abstention from the workfare bill shows that even a social democratic party cannot be an effective Opposition to ideological neo-liberals without a clear explanation of what the problem is and where the solution lies.  If we lack this, there is no point denying the label of ‘Tory-lite’.  There is, as ever, an alternative: Labour should make an effort to counter popular misconceptions about the welfare state; it should then bolster reciprocity in the system.  If we want positive social institutions, we have to advance a positive case for their existence.  The case of the welfare system, especially for those on out-of-work benefits, is particularly interesting given the elephant in the room: the absence of full employment.  This is what the current system was predicated on.  Tory statecraft developed a winning formula by eroding this base, introducing institutional problems with the welfare system, then repeatedly exploiting them for political gain.  Labour has done nothing but consolidate the Tory position.  This has to change, either by readopting the goal of full employment or else fundamentally redesigning the value system and stated aims of our welfare system.  Neither will be easy, but nothing worth having is.

I’m aware that there’s a lot going on in this article, and for the lack of focus I apologise.  Hopefully, some of those who read this will question my philosophical view of the state, my potentially naïve view of proper political leadership, or my views of the desirability of the welfare state.  Such debate should be welcomed.  I would only caution, yet again, that we seek to frame debates positively in terms of social justice and genuine progressive values.  Buying into the debates propagated by the Right means immediately giving them a rhetorical and ideological advantage, as they define the effective rules of the game.

Section 1: Title of Document and Name of Club

1. The title of this document shall be the Constitution of the Oxford University Labour Club.

2. The name of the club shall be the Oxford University Labour Club, henceforth to be referred to as OULC in this document.

Section 2: Aims and Objects

3. The objects of OULC shall be: 1) to educate, agitate and organise in furtherance of Labour ideals and objectives; 2) the election of candidates in accordance with our ideals and objectives; 3) to campaign for improvements for the students and residents of the city and university of Oxford, wider society and the world.

Section 3: Membership

4. Full membership of OULC shall be open to all individuals who are members of the University and the associated bodies designated by the Rules Committee (e.g. Ruskin and Plater colleges), subject to the provisions of Articles 5 and 9 below.

5. Associate membership, on a yearly basis, shall be open to anyone who is not a full-time student at the University, subject to the provisions of Article 9 below, and subject to the Rules Committee regulations stating that: “the number of non-University members must be limited to 20% of a club’s total membership.”

6. The rates charged for subscriptions for full members and for associate members shall be decided termly by the OULC Executive.

7. Honorary membership of OULC shall be bestowed on any individual whose name has been proposed for that honour, if a General Meeting of OULC approves this gesture.

8. Voting rights at meetings of OULC shall be confined to paid-up full members of the Club except the TGM where voting rights shall be confined to those people who are paid-up full members of the Club by midday, Friday of 6th week of that term. People become paid-up full members of the Club once the Treasurer has received both a valid membership form and the full membership fee.

9. A member may be expelled from OULC if a two-thirds majority of a General Meeting judges him or her to have acted contrary to the aims or interests of OULC or the Labour Party. The member whose expulsion is being proposed must, for reasons of natural justice, be informed of the reasons for tabling a motion of expulsion at the Executive meeting before the General Meeting at which the motion is to be discussed. He or she should be given at least 24 hours notice in writing of the time and venue of this Executive meeting. Any member who is expelled from OULC by a General Meeting shall have the right of appeal to the Senior Member of the Club.

Section 4: The Executive

10. The Executive of OULC shall consist of the following posts: Chair (or Chair and Deputy Chair), Chair Elect (or Chair Elect and Deputy Chair Elect), Women’s Officer, Women’s Officer Elect, Treasurer, Membership Officer, Campaigns and External Links Officer, Secretary, Publicity Officer and Social Secretary, as well as a Senior Member, who shall be appointed by the rest of the Executive, and a Freshers’ Representative to serve in Michaelmas Term only.

11. Of the executive positions that are not Co-Chair, Co-Chair elect, Women’s Officer or Women’s officer-elect, one position shall be reserved for those who self-identify as women.
(i) The position reserved for a woman will rotate in the following order (reverse alphabetical order):
Social Secretary, Secretary, Publicity Officer, Membership Officer (Treasurer-elect), Campaigns and External Links Officer
(ii) The position reserved for a woman will be announced to all members at least a week in advance of the TGM, in the email sent round notifying all members of the TGM.
(iii) If any new positions are added to the constitution, these will be added to the list of positions above.
(iv) At the TGM, the Chair will invite self-identifying women to stand for the specified position. They must wait for one minute after opening nominations. If after this, no women stand, then the position may be opened up to all members.

12. No person shall hold more than one post on the Executive excepting positions elect. No person shall be elected to more than 3 consecutive positions, excepting positions-elect. No person shall hold an Executive position and the corresponding position-elect simultaneously.

13. No more than one individual may be responsible for the club to the Proctors and any other university regulatory bodies, subject to the regulations of the rules committee. This individual shall always be the Chair.

14. The Executive shall be elected at Termly General Meetings under secret ballot using the Single Transferable Vote method. The Chair (or Chair and Deputy Chair) shall appoint the Returning Officer(s).  Freshers’ Representatives will be elected at the Trinity Term TGM.

15. Anyone standing for Chair (or Chair and Deputy Chair) must submit a manifesto to the Secretary beforehand. Manifestos will be circulated to all members.

16. Candidates for the position of Chair (or Chair and Deputy Chair) must serve on at least one term’s Executive before being eligible to stand for the position of Chair (or Chair and Deputy Chair).

17. When standing for the position of Chair (or Chair and Deputy Chair), candidates shall be required to make a hustings speech of no longer than five minutes and shall then be required to answer questions.

18. When candidates are standing for a position other than Chair (or Chair and Deputy Chair), they shall be required to make a hustings speech of no longer than 3 minutes and shall then be required to answer questions.

19. The period of questioning candidates will be brought to a close after the follow time period

(i) 15 minutes per candidate (including pairs) standing for chair

(i) 5 minutes per candidate standing for any other election

when there are no remaining questions, or at the discretion of the returning officers whichever is the sooner

20. The Returning Officer shall undertake to announce the result of elections for positions before the election for the next position is held

21. RON (re-open nominations) shall be a candidate in every election. If RON wins, then a new election for the post in question shall be held as soon as is practicable.

22. The Returning Officer(s) shall undertake vote counting for elections. The exception shall be for the Women’s Officer election when, if there is no female Returning Officer, the administration of the election shall be undertaken by the previous Women’s Officer.

23. In the event of a tie in an election, the winner shall be the candidate with the most first preferences. If this is not sufficient to separate them, then the election shall be decided by the toss of a coin administered by the Returning Officer

24. The Executive shall be elected to office for the duration of one term, except for the Chair (or Chair and Deputy Chair) and the Women’s Officer who shall be elected for two terms – as Chair Elect (or Chair Elect and Deputy Chair Elect) and Women’s Officer Elect respectively.

25. Executive meetings shall be held regularly throughout the term.

26. The Chair (or Chair and Deputy Chair) of OULC shall have the following duties and responsibilities:

(a) To co-ordinate the activities of OULC.

(b) To chair meetings of the Executive and General Meetings.

(c) To invite external speakers to speak at meetings of the Club and to organise other activities which would further the aims, objectives, interests and goals of OULC.

(d) At the Club’s events, to deliver a report on the Club’s activities to the Club, and to take questions posed by members of the Club.

(e) The Chair alone shall have responsibility for representing the Club in dealings with the Proctors and other University authorities.

(f) To organise one political skills training event in their term open to all members of the club

(g) To regularly meet and liaise with the Women’s officer in order to fulfil the above aims

(h) To do all other tasks necessary for the smooth functioning of OULC.

27. The Chair Elect (or Chair Elect and Deputy Chair Elect) of OULC shall have the following responsibilities:

(a) To undertake all tasks necessary to prepare for their period as Chair (or Chair and Deputy Chair).

(b) To do other duties required of them by the Chair (or Chair and Deputy Chair).

28. The Secretary of OULC shall have the following responsibilities:

(a) To keep minutes of Termly General Meetings, General Meetings and meetings of the Executive, subject to other provisions in this Constitution.

(b) To produce publicity for speaker meetings, events and other activities organised by the club.

(c) To work with the Chair (or Chair and Deputy Chair) to ensure the OULC constitution and standing orders document and the OULC policy book are kept up to date.

(d) To serve as the IT Officer in liaising with the university’s computing services

(e) To do other duties required of them by the Chair (or Chair and Deputy Chair).

29. The Treasurer of OULC shall have the following responsibilities:

(a) To keep a record of expenditure and of income accruing to OULC.

(b) To keep expenditure within control on behalf of OULC.

(c) To strive to augment the income of OULC, through seeking sponsorship and donations.

(d) To do other duties required of them by the Chair (or Chair and Deputy Chair).

30. The Membership Officer of OULC shall have the following responsibilities:

(a) Have primary responsibility for processing membership forms and collecting membership fees.

(b) To maintain an up-to-date membership list, and in the event of changes, to distribute to the Chair (or Chair and Deputy Chair) to enable the e-mail list to be updated.

(c) To be responsible for alumni relations, including, but not limited to:

(i) the maintenance of the alumni list and correspondence with alumni in order to expand it and update contact details

(ii) to liaise with interested alumni about possible donations to the club or events they may be able to organise

(iii) to maintain a ‘Friends of OULC’ group to keep alumni up to date with what the club is doing

(d) Endeavour to become a signatory to all accounts that fall under the responsibility of Treasurer by the end of 8^th week of the term in which they were elected.

(e) To do other duties required of them by the Chair (or Chair and Deputy Chair).

31. The Publicity Officer of OULC shall have the following responsibilities:

(a) The maintenance and production of articles for the Look Left blog on the OULC website

(b) The production and circulation of a termly Look Left PDF containing articles from the blog and other appropriate content

(c) The maintenance and updating of the Twitter and Facebook accounts to reflect the activities of the club

(d) The use of appropriate media forms to publicise the club and club events

(e) To do other duties required of them by the Chair (or Chair and Deputy Chair)

(f) To serve as the IT Officer in liaising with the university’s computing services

32. The Women’s Officer of OULC shall have the following responsibilities:

(a) To represent the women members of OULC.

(b) To strive to increase female membership of OULC.

(c) To strive to increase the level of women’s political representation, activism and involvement in OULC and in the other collective institutions of the University.

(d) To chair women’s caucus events.

(e) To invite external speakers to speak at meetings hosted by the women’s caucus and to organise other activities which would further the aims, objectives, interests, and goals of OULC

(f) To regularly meet and liaise with Chair (or chair and deputy chair) in order to fulfil the above aims.

33. The Women’s Officer-Elect shall have the following responsibilities:

(a) To represent the women members of OULC.

(b) To minute Women’s Caucuses.

(c) To undertake other duties asked of her by the Chair (or Chair and Deputy Chair), the Women’s Officer, and Women’s Caucus.

34. The Campaigns and External Links Officer shall have the following responsibilities:

(a) To attend and run campaign sessions for the Labour Party, both locally and nationally, including at least weekly canvassing sessions during term.

(b) To promote and publicise campaigns that further the aims and objects of OULC that are being organised by external organisations.

(c) To do other duties required of them by the Chair (or Chair and Deputy Chair).

35. The Social Secretary shall have the following responsibilities:

(a) To organise social events and to propose ideas for social events to the Executive.

(b) To ensure that social events are publicised.

(c) To do other duties required of them by the Chair (or Chair and Deputy Chair).

36. The Freshers’ Representative shall have the following responsibilities:

(a) To liaise with Freshers in Michaelmas Term, helping the Executive in events related to the OULC stall at Freshers’ Fair.

(b) To organise Fresher-only events, in conjunction with other relevant members of the Executive.

(c) To act as a point of contact for Freshers

37. A member of the Executive must be a member of the Labour Party, unless they are ineligible for membership of the Party on the grounds of not being a UK citizen.

38. In the event of the death, resignation or dismissal of a member of the Executive, a by-election shall be held when appropriate to select a new holder for that post.

39. A member of the Executive may be dismissed by a vote of no confidence if it felt he or she is not carrying out their constitutional duties. To be carried, such a motion of no confidence requires two-thirds support at a General Meeting. Following the passage of the motion, a by-election shall be held as outlined in Article 35 above.

Section 5: General Meetings

40. General Meetings shall be the decision-making body of OULC.

41. At least two General Meetings must be held during each term, of which one will be the Termly General Meeting (see below)

42. Members of OULC should be informed of the date of General Meetings at least seven days beforehand, and the time and place of General Meetings at least 24 hours beforehand.

43. General Meetings shall elect all delegates sent by OULC to outside bodies and organisations. Any such elections shall be held by a secret ballot.

44. General Meetings shall have the power to pass constitutional amendments, in accordance with the procedure laid out later on in this constitution.

45. Members of the club will have the ability to scrutinise financial transactions at General Meetings.

46. A General Meeting must be quorate. Quorum for a General Meeting shall be 15 full members of OULC or one-fifth of total OULC membership (whichever is the lower.)

Section 6: Women’s Caucus

47. Women’s caucus must host at least four events per term:

(i)     One of which will take place prior to the commencement of the TGM in order to allow the women members to elect women’s officer

(ii)   to organise one political skills training event in their term open to women only

(iii) to organise a speaker event on behalf of the Women’s Caucus

(iv)  a social event of some form

48. Women’s caucus may host events that are open to all members of the club as well as events that are open to only those members who self-identify as female, the latter to include TGM and women’s political skills training events.

49. Members of Women’s Caucus should be informed of the time and place of Women’s Caucuses at least 24 hours beforehand. The Women’s Officer and Women’s Officer Elect shall be responsible for the distributions of such notifications and for the distribution of any agenda for the meeting.

50. Women’s Caucus shall elect all delegates sent by OULC to outside women’s bodies and organisations, and all nominations for women-only positions. Any such elections shall be held by a secret ballot.

Section 7: Termly General Meetings

51. A Termly General Meeting shall be held in the last week of each Full Term.

52. At least 48 hours notice of the time and location of the Termly General Meeting should be given to members of OULC.

53. The quorum for a Termly General Meeting shall be 20 full members of OULC or one-fifth of total OULC membership (whichever is the lower.)

54. A Termly General Meeting shall be empowered to elect members of the Executive, in accordance with Articles 14 to 22.

Section 8: Finances

55. The Executive shall have control over the finances of OULC.

56. The Treasurer shall give regular reports to the Executive as to the current state of OULC’s finances. He or she shall be responsible for all expenditure, subject to the wishes of General Meetings.

57. As stated in Article 27(a), the Treasurer shall keep an accounts book.

This accounts book shall be open to any member to inspect.

58. At the Termly General Meeting at the end of his term of office, the Treasurer shall present a statement of accounts for ratification by the Meeting.

Section 9: Relations with External Organisations

59. OULC shall be affiliated to the local and regional Labour and Co-operative parties.

60. The Executive shall be responsible for maintaining links with these local party organisations and with attending all their relevant meetings if possible.

61. Affiliation to Labour Students shall be subject to a yearly debate and vote, to be held in 5^th Week of Hilary Term. The vote shall require a simple majority with a quorum of 15 to pass.

62.

(a) In accordance with the provisions of Article 58, General Meetings of OULC shall elect delegates to attend Labour Students’ conferences.

(b) Those delegates shall be under a duty to vote in accordance with OULC policy where OULC has a clear policy on an issue.

(c) After attendance at any Conferences or National Councils of Labour Students, the delegates shall make a report to a General Meeting about their activities there if one is asked for.

(d) General Meetings of OULC shall exercise all other powers flowing to OULC through our affiliation (e.g., nominating candidates for offices in Labour Students and putting motions forward for debate at Conferences of the organisation).

63. A General Meeting shall have the power, if a majority of those present and voting agree, to affiliate OULC to any group that it feels furthers the aims of objects of OULC, the Labour Party or the wider Labour Movement.

Section 10: Socialist Anthems

64. ‘The Red Flag’ shall be sung at the John Smith Memorial Dinner and the close of the TGM.

65. Where appropriate, other socialist anthems shall sung at other OULC events.

66. What constitutes ‘a socialist anthem’ will be at the discretion of the Chair (or Chair and Deputy Chair).

Section 11: Policy Forums

67. Policy Forums shall be the policy-making body of OULC.

68. Any full member of OULC may propose or vote on policy.

69. Policy shall be advocated using the appropriate national forums.

70. All policies shall lapse at the end of the academic year in which they are passed, unless a longer expiration date is set within the policy.

71. Policy shall be debated and voted on in the same forum it is brought.

72. Policy shall be debated, in a form to be decided at the discretion of the Chair with the consent of the attending members, and then decided by a vote, the manner of which shall be at the discretion of the Chair with the consent of members.

73. Policy shall be published on the website until it lapses.

Section 12: Amendments to this Constitution

74. This Constitution may be amended in accordance with the following

procedure:

(a) A motion proposing a constitutional amendment must receive the support of a simple majority at a quorate General Meeting.

(b) That motion is then to be presented in an identical form to another General Meeting and must, once again, be passed by a simple majority of those present and voting.

(c) ‘that the motion was submitted at least 24 hours before the GM’

(d) ‘If the motion meets conditions (a), (b) and (c) above then it shall be deemed to have been carried and shall come into effect immediately’

75. If a motion proposing an amendment to this Constitution fails to meet the criteria laid down in Article 72, then it is deemed to have failed to gain ratification. In that case, the same amendment may not be submitted for consideration to a General Meeting until the next full term has elapsed.

Section 13: Miscellaneous provisions

76. Nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to be in violation of University statutes or regulations. The club shall be administered at all times in accordance with the regulations for University clubs and societies as published in The Proctors’ and Assessor’s Memorandum. The activities of the Club will at all times be conducted in accordance with the following university policies and codes of practice in force from time to time: Integrated Equality Policy, Code of Practice on Harassment and Bullying, and Code of Practice on Freedom of Speech.

77. Interpretation of this Constitution shall be:

(a) The responsibility of the Chair (or Chair and Deputy Chair) of OULC in the period in between General Meetings

(b) The responsibility of the individual designated as Chair of an individual General Meeting (or Termly General Meeting) during the period in which that meeting is in session.

78. The Secretary shall correct typographical and stylistic errors in the Constitution with the aid of the Chair (or Chair and Deputy Chair) and the Executive.

Section 14: Suspension

79.   In the event of a general election; the successful election of Labour candidates shall take priority over all other constitutional obligations, save Termly General Meetings.

80. The ‘election campaign’ shall be defined as the six weeks before an announced date.

Annex One: Elections of Chair and Deputy Chair

1.         (a). The Chair and Deputy Chair must be elected at the same Termly General Meeting, save in the event of a by-election for either position;

(b) The Chair and Deputy Chair must run on a slate together;

(c) The Chair and Deputy Chair will have absolutely equal status under the     Constitution, save for the Chair’s special responsibilities as outlined in Article 24(e);

(d) In the case of one person running solo on a slate to be Chair of the Club, if the aforementioned candidate is elected Chair Elect, there shall be no corresponding Deputy Chair Elect or Deputy Chair during the two terms in which the candidate serves, respectively.

More concerned with attacking the bureaucracy of Brussels, the supposed lunacy of the European Convention on Human rights, and beginning to question more and more, the ability of David Cameron, Conservative activists are missing the glaringly obvious: the party that churned out electoral victories for the majority of the 20^th Century has not won an election for 20 years.

These Tories are making a habit of looking past the obvious. Voters do not care about Europe, they do not care about the European Court of Human Rights, and Cameron continues to outpoll Ed Miliband in approval ratings. What they cannot currently look beyond however is the Tories posh-boy image.  The latest YouGov poll on 14^th March gave Labour a 12% lead over the Tories (and it was as high as 14% on the 12^th). If they don’t start appealing to the ‘little guy’ Conservative soon, they don’t stand a chance in 2015.

All David Cameron has to do is open up the history books, filled with successful Tory election campaign after successful Tory election campaign. One doesn’t have to look too hard to see how the Tories have in the past shed the image of privilege that so hampers them today. Ed Miliband has hijacked the Disraeli, ‘One Nation’ example, but more recent campaigns teach the same lessons. The election of 1959 is a prime example. Admittedly, the context was different. The economy had begun to improve as Macmillan took the helm from the growingly unpopular Eden. However, the election can still be credibly held up as a Tory master class in attracting the ‘little guy’.

The campaign was launched in June 1957 with the Tories 7% behind Labour, and was carefully planned from the outset by Chief Publicity officer of the party, Roland Simms alongside Colman, Prentice and Varley PR company. It expertly depicted the Tory party, led by Eton and Oxford educated Macmillan (who had replaced the Eton and Oxford educated Eden) as the party of the common man. They launched a series of adverts from autumn 1957 onwards entitled ‘The Conservatives are the Party of the Whole Country’, whilst also disseminating photos in national newspapers, photos of working class men in working class papers alongside the caption ‘You’re looking at a Conservative’.

These methods may seem primitive and contrived, but what election campaign literature isn’t? The fact is they worked. A Gallup poll in March 1959 found that only 17% of people associated the Conservative Party with privilege. Four years earlier that figure had been 27%. The Tories went on to win the 1959 election with a 5.6% lead over Labour. Obviously, one cannot unequivocally prove that its ‘little guy conservatism’ campaign made all the difference, but electoral experts Butler and Stokes are quick to point out that “the government’s popularity was at its peak when the cumulative effect of the party’s £468,000 advertising campaign might have been expected to show results”.

We may still argue about how successful the campaign was, but one cannot doubt that Macmillan’s Tories made it a central objective to reach out to middle and low income voters. Cameron is currently prevented from doing so. A flimsy attempt was made with his recent speech at the Party’s spring conference. “We want people to climb up through their own efforts, yes, but in order to climb up they need the ladder to be there in the first place, the family that nurtures them, the school that inspires them, the opportunities there for them,” he said. “Great Conservatives down the generations have put those ladders in place: when Churchill invented the labour exchanges that helped people into work, when Macmillan built new homes, when Thatcher fired up enterprise so people could start their own businesses…..We are building an aspiration nation, a country where it’s not who you know or where you’re from but who you are and where you’re determined to go”

Talk is cheap. The Tory Bennites within the ranks of the party, as George Eaton calls them, are at present so consumed by their habitual irritations, so pre-occupied by  their age old complaints, that such an emphasis on an ‘aspiration nation’ is by no means at the forefront of their minds. The Tories will not be able to shed their posh-boy image and appeal to lower and middle income voters until they shed their futile preoccupations with Europe, the Human Rights Act and Cameron’s leadership. So great is their obsession with these old gripes, the Tories are preventing a modernisation that would start to eradicate their posh-boy image.

Jon in need of some One Nation Pro Plus

Thursday morning saw five OULC members traverse the South of England on a Homeric odyssey to the heart of Nadine Dorrieshire: Bedford, to hear Ed Miliband give a speech on the economy (joined by Ed Balls, proving that two Eds are better than one.) Getting up at 5:30 was a struggle, but off we headed on the magnificent First Great Western service (soon to be One Nation Rail if Tom Adams gets his way) to London. After a very long breakfast later in which Aled demolished two Pret baguettes we were en route to Bedford.

Good red seats

Upon arriving at the Apprenticeship centre we swiftly took advantage of the One Nation lemonade and watched an excellent speech, with Ed Miliband discussing a return of the 10p tax rate, declaring his intention for a technological baccalaureate, and continuing his bromance withEd Balls, all of course with lashings of One Nation chat. Sam, due to his height, was stage managed with spectacular efficiency by the TV people. After the speech, Aled then promptly chatted up a Welsh taxi driver and we headed back to the station with perfect One Nation timing.

After a One Nation pub lunch at O’Neills with David regaling us with tales of regality and wit, we swiftly returned to Oxford, with Jon in need of some One Nation pro plus before his half 4 tute.

All in all, an epic OULC road trip.

Remember everyone, on Saturday 23rd February (that’s 6th week), we will be hosting a night of stand-up and sketch comedy from 7.30pm until 9pm. Performing will be a number of student comics as well as the Oxford Imps! The venue is the Wig & Pen (what used to be Copa) on George Street, opposite the theatre. So please come along, grab a drink from the bar, and enjoy a night of comedy in aid of a brilliant cause, Oxfordshire Mind.

One Nation taxi chat.