Whilst walking through my university campus the other day, I stumbled upon a crumpled up leaflet on the floor entitled 'Labour Students'. It turns out - as I began to read - that crumpled and on the floor was an extremely befitting state for it. As I read the pamphlet, it was confirmed in my mind that Labour's problems do not just rest with the incumbent ministers; they are deeply imbedded and are filtering down to the grassroots members.

The leaflet gleefully told of how 96% of Conservative parliamentary candidates for the next general election would "not protect international development" from cuts. They followed this with a spiteful soundbite to the effect of "they may have changed their logo, but they're still the same old party".

Now, forgive me if I'm wrong, but there is a degree of consensus surrounding the need for public cuts over the next few years. The Conservatives have already safeguarded the NHS, and both parties have acknowledged that sectors will need cutting back. If we take this as a given, then why on Earth would we form a protective ring around the area of international development? Laudible though it is to help though in a less fortunate state of affairs, it is undoubtedly a luxury. It should be paid into when possible, but where is the logic in shielding it from the same cuts that all other sectors must experience?

Why not education? Defence? Home affairs? Transport? The environment? Surely if we are to protect a particular department, any of these (particularly the first three) should be immunised first. There is something that the Labour Student movement fails to realise; it is a fundamental error or judgement, and it exposes what really is a bitter party's only true attack line: smear. The crucial mistake they are making is to recognise that:

Sensibility is not akin to callousness. Pragmatism is not malice.

If the nation were, in 2006, a man on £75k a year giving £5k to charity and, when the financial crisis hit found his bonus taken away thus leaving him on £40k a year, nobody would criticise him for choosing to cut his charitable contribution to £2k. He would be seen as perfectly reasonable; he doesn't have to donate and, after all, he has his childrens' education, his car and his property to pay for.

So why, I would love to know, is it cold-hearted when it is on a national level? It is simply more of Labour's tireless negative campaigning. It characterised their literature leading up to the European elections and, it seems, it shall remain the trend leading into the general election next Spring. What's worse is that this negative approach to attracting voters has reached the young party members; prepare for lots more in the future.