Wednesday 6th February, 4pm

Dining Rooms, House of Commons

The annual tea party will be held in the House of Commons Dining Rooms from 4pm - 6pm, and we will then go on to the Carlton Club for a drinks reception at 6:30.

It promises to be a fantastic event, and I have received very encouraging response from a number of MPs - more than 30 have already got back to me to say they are coming, including Iain Duncan Smith, Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox, former Party Chairman Michael Ancram, whilst George Osborne and Boris Johnson have said they are likely to be able to make an appearance.

The event is always very popular. Tickets will be £15 for members and £18 for non-members. If you would like to come, email rvs24 ASAP and write a cheque payable to the Cambridge University Conservative Association and deliver it to my pigeon hole at Caius or UMS it to me (R.V. Stewart)

For those of you who are ‘attending’ on the Facebook group, I still need a cheque and email confirmation before I put you down on the list. Tickets will go quickly, on first come first serve basis, so haste is required!

Over at the Adam Smith Institute Blog, Madsen Pirie has been writing a series of common errors. In one sentence he puts a common argument one might encounter, like “Big business only cares about profits.” The blog post then consists of 300-or-so words that systematically demolish the argument.

Pirie’s books in the past have attacked logical fallacies one may encounter, but with this blog series - at 21 and counting - Pirie’s clinical logic takes on a more practical side. The posts read as a veritable tool kit for demolishing the arguments put foward by our anti-libertarian colleagues.

There is a need for this kind of how-to guide: I’m sure all of us have been in a situation where an argument has seemed so flimsy yet we’ve not had the key to disarming it to hand. With this new series of blog posts - and rumour of a book in the offing - I think we can be assured of easier victories in these little arguments!

Sunday 3rd February , 8.30pm

Green Room, Gonville and Caius College

£5 for members, £7 for non members.

If you want to come to our first port and cheese extravaganza, please email rvs24 and deliver cheques to me ASAP by UMS or to my pigeon hole in Caius (R.V. Stewart)

Please make cheques payable to Cambridge University Conservative Association.

Tickets will be given on a first come first serve basis. The Port parties are very popular but numbers are limited by the room size and college rules.

Many of you will have replied to the Facebook event. Please note that you will not be given a space until we have received a cheque or cash for your ticket.

Today: Tuesday 29th January, 8:15pm

Green Room, Gonville & Caius College

We are hosting a drinks party with the Conservative Parliamentary Candidate for Cambridge, Richard Normington, and some of his colleagues. Red and white wine will be served. Entrance Free.

Tomorrow: Wednesday 30th January, 4:30pm

Trinity Parlour, Trinity College

In association with Trinity Politics Society, we welcome Douglas Hurd, Chairman of CUCA in Michaelmas 1951, to offer his reflections on an extensive career at the forefront of domestic politics and diplomacy. Lord Hurd was a former Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary, contender for the leadership of the Conservative Party, and is a biographer of Tory PM Robert Peel. He will be talking on “Robert Peel, David Cameron, and Modern Conservatism”. Entrance is free.

Welcome back to CUCA!

Lent Term 2008 promises to be another fantastic term for CUCA. We have a range of interesting people coming to Cambridge to address the Association, and of course the annual Westminster Tea Party.

The social events are always very well attended, so it’s important to book in advance. We’re also very keen to increase attendance at our speaker meetings this term. Please invite your friends: all our speaker meetings are free to everyone, and just like the various College politics societies you do not have to be a Conservative!

Roland Valentine Stewart
Chairman, Lent 2008

Termcard

Speakers usually stay for dinner with the Committee. If you would like to attend, please ask the Chairman ().

The Chairman’s Gin & Tonic Party

Sunday 20th January, 8:30pm, Green Room, Gonville & Caius College

A fantastic party to start the term. Free for members and those who join on the day, £2 for non-members. No need to reserve a place. If you’re already a member please bring along friends keen to join.

Drinks party with Cambridge City Conservative Association

Tuesday 29th January, 8:15pm, Green Room, Gonville & Caius College

We are hosting a drinks party with the Conservative Parliamentary Candidate for Cambridge, Richard Normington, and some of his colleagues. Red and white wine will be served. Entrance Free.

The Rt. Hon. The Lord Hurd of Westwell

Wednesday 30th January, 4:30pm, Trinity Parlour, Trinity College

In association with Trinity Politics Society, we welcome Douglas Hurd, Chairman of CUCA in Michaelmas 1951, to offer his reflections on an extensive career at the forefront of domestic politics and diplomacy. Lord Hurd was a former Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary, contender for the leadership of the Conservative Party, and is a biographer of Tory PM Robert Peel. He will be talking on “Robert Peel, David Cameron, and Modern Conservatism”. Entrance is free.

Port and Cheese Party I

Sunday 3rd February, 8:30pm, Green Room, Gonville & Caius College

A splendid black tie event, with a fantastic selection of cheeses and plenty of port. An email will be sent out when tickets are first available. This event will sell out quickly, so reserve your place early.

(Cost: £5 for members; £7 for non-members.)

Westminster Tea Party

Wednesday 6th February, Terrace Dining Room A, Houses of Parliament, 4-6pm.

Join us for our annual trip to Westminster to meet Conservative MPs. Last year 35 students attended. This is followed by a drinks reception at the Carlton Club until 8pm.

(Cost: £15 members; £18 non-members.)

Simon Heffer

Wednesday 13th February, time and venue TBC

We are joined by Simon Heffer, political columnist for the Daily Telegraph, biographer of Enoch Powell, and leading Cameron Critic, to discuss where the Tories are going wrong.

The Rt. Hon. Michael Howard QC, MP

Tuesday 19th February, time and venue TBC

President of CUCA Michael Howard returns to Cambridge to offer his thoughts on the party, the leadership, and the challenges that lie ahead in the run up to the next general election. Michael Howard is a former Leader of the Conservative Party and former Home Secretary.

Port and Cheese Party II

Sunday 24th February, 8:30pm, Green Room, Gonville & Caius College

For the many who return, and for those who missed the first. As with the first, an email will be sent out when tickets are on sale. Remember, book early to avoid disappointment: places are limited!

(Cost: £5 for members, £7 for non-members.)

The Chairman’s Dinner

Thursday 6th March, 7pm, Queens’ College Old Hall

A superb white/black tie dinner in the majestic Old Hall at Queens to celebrate the Chairman’s term of office in style. Check the website for details nearer the time. Special Guest: TBC.

More speakers to be confirmed

We are currently trying to find dates for the following speakers to visit: Michael Gove, the Earl of Onslow, Adam Afriyie and General the Lord Guthrie.

CUCA Policy Pub Meets

We hold policy discussion meetings over a few drinks in the pub several times a term. If you would like to suggest a topic to discuss, please email the Vice-Chairman (). Information about these events will be published on the website in due course.

This article was originally published in The Cambridge Student.

“Britain is full” is a phrase associated with xenophobes, but it shouldn’t be.

Britain has a population of over 60 million people. Imagine Britain with a population of 100m. Or 200m. This would be the eventual long term result of Labour’s perpetual population growth policy. It is inevitable if the population continues to grow.

We would be much better off with a population even lower than it is now, for three main reasons: house prices, the environment and space.

Everyone needs somewhere to live, and are forced to pay whatever it takes. A roof doesn’t have many substitutes. Space is finite, and houses can’t be built fast enough. As a result, more and more houses will be split into flats, because this will always be more profitable. When houses are built, this is partly on previously green land. New accommodation is smaller, less pleasant and more expensive. House prices will continue to rise faster than inflation and wages unless the population stops growing, and high house prices hit poor people the most. A population much lower than the number of houses there are would cause house prices to plummet. Excess land could be used for better things, to benefit the population. Without an increasing population, houses can be passed on to the next generation, so people wouldn’t have to spend most of their lives working to pay off a mortgage.

Want to halve the pollution caused by people living in Britain? Halve the population. This has the advantage of reducing pollution around the world, such as pollution from production in China caused by our consumption. It’s an environmental policy that doesn’t just encourage us to export pollution. The Optimum Population Trust believes that the earth may only be able to support 3 billion people in the long run, so the UK’s sustainable population is 30 million or lower. This would reduce our GDP (by half, of course), but there is no reason to believe it would reduce the measure that matters: GDP per capita.

A halved population would also just be more pleasant. Nowadays, there is less space in cities and less space in the countryside. Transport congestion is just one of the effects of a increasing population. What would Britain be like with a population density more like France? Nice.

So how do we go about reducing our population without resorting to coercion? We must act now. All delay makes it harder to reach 30m (this is a very long-term policy). I do not advocate forcing anyone to do anything: Sanjay Gandhi’s 1977 forcible sterilisation of the poor in India was an infringement of liberty, and backfired by causing a long-lasting resentment of family planning policies. We mustn’t get so focused on reaching the target that we are willing to do anything to get there.

Promote family planning and birth control. Promote abortion: make them as easy as possible to get.
Get rid of child benefit: phase it out over 18 years and nine months. People who have already had children should continue to receive it, but all new births should not. Child credit makes it easier to afford children, and tips the balance for some people when deciding whether to have children or not. This policy has the added benefit of increasing the proportion of children being born into happier circumstances.

Net emigration. UK population growth from births is predicted to peak around 2020. In the meantime, we can reduce the population by making sure that emigration is more than immigration. This shouldn’t be difficult: in 2006, 400,000 people emigrated, but almost 600,000 immigrated. We can just cap immigration at 350,000, and implement a points system to get the most skilled immigrants.

It is sometimes argued that immigrants do not affect the environment because they do not increase the number of people on earth. However, immigration reduces the pressure on other countries to reduce their populations, so ultimately encourages population growth. There are other advantages to a lower population anyway.

Increasing population is the biggest issue facing the world and Britain today. For some reason, mentioning this seems to be taboo amongst Labour and the Liberal Democrats. David Cameron recently broke this with a speech “The challenges of a growing population” (29th October 2007). It will be interesting to see whether the Conservatives will do what needs to be done.

Officers

CHAIRMAN: Roland Valentine Stewart
(Gonville and Caius College)

VICE-CHAIRMAN: Murali Vadivelu
(St John’s College)

JUNIOR TREASURER: Joshua Sutton
(Christ’s College)

CAMPAIGNS OFFICER: Henry Walton
(Magdalene College)

SECRETARY: Hugo Hadlow
(St John’s College)

REGISTRAR: Laura Phelps
(Homerton College)

Committee

Mike Morley
(Trinity College)

Shamir Shah
(Downing College)

James Sharpe
(Fitzwilliam College)

Charlotte Phelps
(Trinity Hall)

With the recent European Reform Treaty, it is topical to consider the nature of, and the justification for the European Union. The central point to make here is that whatever justification for the EU that is given, it is either false or not worth it. Indeed, the EU is detrimental to the prosperity of many countries in the world.

The primary reason for the creation of a pan-European economic and, subsequently political, organisation was to ensure greater integration, especially between France and Germany, in order to ensure that war would never again divide the continent. In this respect, if the EU has done anything at all to help, it has been entirely successful. However, would anyone argue that there is still work to be done? Are the Gauls and Aryans primed and ready to battle it out for supremacy as soon as the mystical shroud of political federation, as provided by the EU, is lifted? This may seem trite, but there is a serious point: since even before the creation of a European Community, its work has been done. War between France and Germany was not made obsolete by a form of coalition in the 1950s, but by the destruction and inhumanity of World War Two. As such, Europhiles have always sought new and elaborate justifications for the EU, almost all of which are false.

Rather than repeat thousands of other articles on the same subject and list the different justifications propounded in support of the EU only to refute them, I shall look at one function of the EU and the associated argument in favour of its existence. This is to re-distribute wealth through development aid from wealthier European nations to those that are less developed and to open up their trade markets in order to raise their GDP and living standards. One can argue that Britain itself benefited from this very principle when it was the sick man of Europe before the economic reforms of Margaret Thatcher. However, this great benefit of the EU is undermined by the nature of the Union itself, thereby eradicating any intrinsic benefit derived from redistribution. These problems are: global issues, immigration, and centralisation.

Through the EU, we deal only with the problems on our small continent. In contrast, it is beyond our Eurocentric world that the majority of unacceptable crises can be found. Of course, one can argue that the EU can function as an effective aid organisation to the world. However, this is not possible when the EU implements protectionist economic sanctions. The EU is an oppressive economic bloc, limiting free trade (as well as the scope for fair trade) in order to maintain its economic dominance at the expense of developing world economies. For example, every year the EU destroys tonnes of food in order to keep prices high. Moreover, market competition from outside the EU is restricted. It is only through trade (be it free, fair or otherwise) that individual producers and countries can hope to gain the wealth necessary to prosper.

What is more, when we look at the free movement of people within Europe, we see that aid within the EU is similarly undermined. This is because immigration within the EU removes the population needed for economic growth from the countries that seek development. Those in favour of immigration in Britain tend to point to the (supposed) vast economic benefit migrants bring to our shores. However, paradoxically, are we not being selfish when we call for more immigrants? This is because it impedes growth in the countries these people are leaving. Instead, we privilege our own prosperity above that of other people in the world. As such, those left behind are also left behind in terms of living standards and the opportunity in order to improve their quality of life compared with those living in Britain.

The centralised and authoritarian nature of the EU also undermines the development aid given to less economically developed member states. This is because the terms of this aid is dictated by the western European countries that dominate the EU through majority voting. In this way, the historical and cultural development of the country receiving aid is neglected, and, effectively, suppressed. As such, the benefit of that development aid is undermined. For example, a policy that suits the British economy, dominated by the private sector, may not be suitably implemented on the continent where the social economy is more prevalent. The best initiatives have to take the historical and cultural milieu of a nation into account. This cannot be achieved at a pan-European level.

In conclusion, the European Union’s aim to help development in less economically developed member states is admirable and justifiable. However, the framework within which it is conducted does not work. First, it undermines global development through economic restrictions. Second, development within the EU is undermined by free immigration. And third, derived from its centralised and authoritarian nature, the terms of aid to other countries is dictated by the major European powers, which may not suit the historical and cultural development of the recipient country. As such, one may wonder whether this noble aim of the EU is worth it considering the adverse consequences.

Of course, there are many other arguments in favour of the EU. Examples include better trade between European countries, regulatory consistency, and a political power to counteract the hegemony of the United States of America. However, these arguments seem to suffer from the same problem as that given above: they fail to justify the creation of an additional and cripplingly expensive layer of bureaucracy, whose aims are undermined by its very nature. However, that is for another article to discuss.