Tag Archives: British politics

Leave them kids alone: On sexualisation

A shorter version of this post is available on Liberal Conspiracy

My four year old sister has a pink pair of plastic high heeled shoes. They are not the type of too-big heels that little girls tottered about in years gone by. They fit her little feet perfectly, and she clops about the house in them. She also has a red scooter that she rides along the street, picking up and collecting the elastic bands that postmen drop on their rounds. I ask her why she does these things (wears the heels, collects the bands). Her answer was the same for both. It’s fun. When my sister wears her pink high heels she isn’t vying for the attention of men or boys. She isn’t sexualising herself. Yet when I first saw her teetering about the house in these heels I panicked.  In my grown up mind, a high heel is a shoe designed to make the leg look elongated and sexually appealing. My instinctive protectiveness towards my sister made me want to snatch away the shoes, to dispose of them, to have her running around in trainers again. I didn’t want anyone looking at my sister like a sex object. But upon more thought, I came to the conclusion that the only person sexualising her was me. By assuming she thinks the same about high heels as my adult brain does, I was thinking of her as a being with a comprehensive understanding of sexual consciousness. She isn’t.

At a recent friend’s family get-together, music was playing, and one six year old got into the spirit by imitating the dance moves she had no doubt seen on TV. She was quickly reprimanded by a fellow party goer who told her not to dance like that, ‘because little girls who dance that way grow up to be whores’. She didn’t understand why she was being told off, and started to cry.

And yesterday on Question Time, Germaine Greer saw fit to brand little girls in sequined Jordan-pink jeans ‘tarts’.

Over the past week, lots of concerned adults have seen fit to speak on behalf of children, caught up in the grasping fear that they are all being sexualised beyond anyone’s control. Amidst all of the arm flailing, hand wringing concerns over the sexualisation of children, there has been some blind confusion about exactly who or what is sexualising them.  Reg Bailey, author of the Department for Education’s review into the issue entitled ‘Letting Children be Children‘, is baffled. In his analysis of this increasingly sexualised society, he finds it hard to pin down any cause, admitting ‘it is far from clear how we arrived at this point’.

Predictably, his much anticipated report was ultimately meaningless, based on emotional unease instead of quantifiable evidence, without even a distinct definition of sexualisation in the first place.  It’s almost depressingly comical to watch commentators and journalists alike repeatedly stumble over and miss the root of this dilemma.

The perspective of this sexualisation is almost philosophical. Many news reports cite worried parents lamenting the loss of their children’s innocence, but I think it’s worth asking- lost innocence in who’s eyes?

Children are not sexualising themselves. Adults are sexualising them by projecting adult morality on to them. More often than not, that adult sexual morality is entrenched in sexist ideals. The sexist ideals floated to the surface when that six year old girl was warned she would grow up into a whore if she continued to dance provocatively. Sexist ideals dictate to us that the way a woman or girl dances must reflect how much sex she has had, or wants. Sexism tells us that women don’t just dance for dancing’s sake- like every other female action and endeavour; it’s orchestrated for the benefit of men. Because after all, isn’t that why we function?

What happens when you project your patriarchal adult moral ideals on to pre-pubescent bodies? The judging starts.  Suddenly little girls are called whores, tarts, sluts.

This sexualisation doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and is indicative of the wider problem of objectification of women’s bodies.  Is it any wonder that these toxic gender roles are filtering down to kids?

They imitate their idols and we shame and punish them for it. The female idols in question are often regarded with disgust for balancing on the knife edge between daring to announce publicly that they have sexual feelings, and exploiting their sexual imagery. Morality crusaders are quick to let us know that sex is all around us, and that sex sells. But that’s a lie. It’s not sex all around us, but the objectification and consequent marginalisation of women’s bodies, commodified into accessory status. But for some strange reason, nobody wants to talk about that. It’s too much of a stretch of the imagination to challenge patriarchy. It’s easier to wail about this sexualisation of our children, all the while colluding in the myth that all of these sexualising factors are immediately permissible once the girl in question turns eighteen.

Regulation and legislation will not fix this. Equality will. Free women from these narrow, suffocating gender-fascist ideals of appearance and behaviour, and the girls will follow.

What did it mean to be a Lib Dem in 2010?

2010 was a fraught year for members of the Liberal Democrat party. On the eve of  last December’s tuition fee vote, I spoke to UCLan graduate and Lib Dem Preston City councillor John Potter about his politics, activism, the trials and tribulations of the past year, and what this means for the party.

How long have you been a member of the Liberal Democrat Party? 

I started as an activist when I was seventeen, and I joined up in 2005.

So you’ve always voted Lib Dem?

Yep, my whole life!

Did you have a ‘click’ moment when you decided you identified with the party?

Well, I’ve always been liberal, so have my mum and dad. They never told us, but they read The Independent, and watched Channel 4 news- a bit of a giveaway! The thing that really got me active was the war in Iraq. I’d finished uni [John graduated from UCLan in 2004] and I wanted something to do- I wanted to get active in the community, and Iraq seemed the perfect reason to get involved, because I was so angry about it.

You’re one of the youngest councillors on Preston Council. My research tells me you’ve stood for election twice now-

-Four times actually! Fourth time lucky, it was.

Four times? Wow, my bad! Did you find standing for election daunting, being so young?

I didn’t stand for election at first. I had a go at helping out, coordinating, handing out leaflets and stuff like that. Not really, no. You have a few nerves about whether people will take you seriously because you’re young. But once you get out there and get on the street, you find people are happy just to have someone different, a bit of fresh blood. People like the fact that you’re young and you’re energetic and you care about something.

Now that you represent Cadley, what sort of stuff do you get up to as a councillor?

The most surprising thing I found was that you very rarely need to go into town hall. There are various committees you can go on to, but the most important thing is being there for your voters- your constituents. I’m usually doing some sort of case work every night. Last night I was in a meeting about leisure centres. I’m actually very busy and that’s not including getting out case work letters, or leaflets, or things like that, that can make you a good councillor.

What’s been your highest achievement since you were elected?

To tell you the truth, it’s been a quiet period. I’ve sorted out a new gritting route which runs past sheltered accommodation. I’ve got a pavement resurfaced. The big stuff is happening in the next few months. That’s when we get our settlement from the government on how much money we’re not getting now, and how much we’ll have to cut. From now up until the budget in February, it really is crunch time. There will be very serious decisions that will have to be made, that is where I will earn my stripes as a councillor.

Would you say there have been any low points since your election?

Not really, no. Local politics is quite strange; it’s not as cut and thrust as national politics. You get your head down, and you do your work. I apply myself and make sure I get out there. If someone’s got a problem I make sure I go round to their door as quickly as I can. I’ll have a chat to them in person, get hold of whatever the issue is, and get it resolved. I’ll let them know about it as much as possible. You should never be really quiet, as a councillor, because if you are, you’re probably not doing as much as you should.

It’s been an interesting year for the Liberal Democrats.  One of the pivotal moments for the Lib Dems was those historical televised debates. How do you think the Lib Dems came off in them?

I think they were absolutely vital. Having been quite an active campaigner, everyone knew that it was a big chance for the Lib Dems. The problem that the Lib Dems have always suffered is that nobody knew what we stood for. Obviously, we know what we stand for, but we need to get that message across the nation, to areas that didn’t know. It gave us a primetime seat in front of millions of voters who had never even looked at the Lib Dems before. Nick Clegg did very well on them, and there was ‘Cleggmania’ that subsequently came from it. He offered something different to Labour and the Tories. Locally, we prove that in Cadley all the time. On a national level, that was the first time for us, and it was very exciting. I remember watching the first one, and we had a debate party- there was twelve of us, enjoying a beer and watching it. For the second one, I was working down south, and I was driving up listening to it on the radio. I thought ‘Nick Clegg’s done well here’ – as soon as the review started coming in saying he’d done well on the second one as well it was incredibly exciting for me as a campaigner and as a Lib Dem.

You’ve touched upon the fact that it was around this time public opinion really began to change regarding the Lib Dems. What was the feeling amongst yourself and other Liberal Democrat Party members?

Well, obviously, we were ecstatic. Seeing the Liberal Democrats 32% in the polls, ahead of the Tories and Labour was incredible. In my heart of hearts, I went to talk to one of the North West campaigners and I said that with every bounce there has to be a come down. It was when there was an initial feeling of ‘oh right! They’re the Lib Dems’ started to take off, I recognised that it was a honeymoon period and wouldn’t last forever. It was an incredibly exciting time, but it didn’t quite hold out to polling day. That was a shame. There was a general opinion that the Lib Dens my go down to about 40, that we would be squeezed by the Tory resurgence in the south west. But for us to only loose five seats, and actually holding off Tories in some seats was quite a success for us. We would have loved to have had 100 MPs, but we got a million more votes.  A million more votes, but five less seats. It shows the crookedness of our electoral system if anything!

And so the coalition government was formed. Were you watching the live coverage?

I was glued to it! Twitter, Facebook, radio, TV, it was really exciting. I’ve just bought David Laws’ book about his inside account and I’m looking forward to reading that.

What were your thoughts on the Lib Dems teaming up with the Conservatives?

All political parties have various wings, and the Lib Dems are no different. We have the social liberals, on the left of the party. Most people would say that we have more in common with Labour than with the Conservatives. The amount of our manifesto that is in that coalition document was incredibly encouraging for Lib Dems. Some members who had fought the Tories their whole lives and who can’t think of anything worse will never like it, and still don’t like it. People get tribal with their politics, and they were never going to like it. I think the party did very well in letting us know as members what was going on. We’re the only party I know that spent their money putting on a special conference after the coalition document had been released where members from across the country could go and have their say, and were asked ‘are you happy with this?’ No other party would do that, but the Lib Dems take pride in the fact that whether it’s a lowly councillor or party activist like me, right up to Nick Clegg, we all had a say. I think it was 95% of us that were in favour of it.  I believe in coalition politics. Compromise isn’t a bad word. There are 22 coalitions in Europe. The last peace time coalition was in the 1920s. We have to get used to it. Some people are very uneasy about coalition, but if we get the voting system we’ve always wanted, PR [proportional representation], that more or less ensures coalition for life. It makes it virtually impossible for one party to get a majority. It’s nothing new. We were in coalition with Labour for eight years in Scotland. Labour are currently in coalition with the Welsh nationals in Wales.  Even more astonishingly, Labour are in coalition with the Conservatives in Cumbria county council. This is nothing new for people in local government and devolved government. But I can understand why people are wondering why we can’t do everything we said we could do.

Let’s fast forward a few fateful months. The tuition fees debate started gaining momentum during the summer, and is still going. During the election at UCLan, the Student Left Network held a debate where a representative from the three main parties came in talk to us, and we were told that free tuition was one of the Liberal Democrats’ core policies.  When the debate started to rear its head, what were your opinions on it, and what are they now?

Nothing’s changed, technically. Free tuition fees are still a bench mark of Lib Dem policy. We’re not able to deliver it in this government. We wouldn’t be able to deliver it if it was us and Labour in government, because neither Labour nor the Conservatives want free tuition fees. We’ve only got 57 MPs. If we had 320 MPs, there would be no tuition fees in six year time. The Lib Dems have a federal policy committee, and that’s still our policy. Some Lib Dems don’t believe that, but the party does, as a whole. The membership all get to vote when we go to conference. We have these debates, and it’s still a major Lib Dem policy. Coalition is give and take. It wouldn’t have mattered if it was Labour, Tory, or a rainbow coalition- no one was going to give us the tuition fees.

It was reported yesterday that 17 Lib Dem ministers in parliament will be voting for a rise in tuition fees. What sort of knock on effect to you feel that that will have on the party?

I think most people understand that there’s a ministerial responsibility when you’re in government. There’s a collective responsibility to represent the government. This is why someone like Tim Farron, who’s just become our party president, says Nick Clegg has to represent the government as well as the Lib Dems, so that issue is going to be squeezed. Having someone like Tim Farron as a non-ministerial president of the Lib Dems has been vitally important. He’s been the voice of the Lib Dems outside of the government. I graduated in 2004, and it shouldn’t detract from the fact that this policy is a vast improvement from what I went through. I remember starting every term, going into university with a cheque worth £1000. That’s not happening now, and no upfront fees are a massive improvement. Not to mention the 40% of part time students that will pay no upfront fees. The cost of paying fees is now dramatically lower as well. It’s down to £7 a month for someone on £21,000 a year. I wouldn’t be paying anything [if the new policy was in place when I went to UCLan].

Finally, what are your thoughts on the caricature of Nick Clegg in the press, especially amongst the student population? He’s gone from Mr Reasonable to Mr Nasty in a matter of six months.

I think it’s exactly what you said- a caricature. He’s the face of the Lib Dems as part of the coalition. It wouldn’t matter if it was Nick Clegg or Bob Russell, the very left wing backbencher. It wouldn’t matter who it was, they’d get tarred with that same brush. He’s almost like a scapegoat for every policy that’s more conservative than ours. Nick Clegg has become the face of that. Rightly or wrongly, you do lose a bit of your identity in coalition. I actually think he’s doing a pretty good job. There is a collective responsibility when you’re in government, and it’s for people like me, and local MPs to make sure we look for the Lib Dem view as well. It’s too easy being in opposition, and that’s what Labour is doing now. What would they do instead? As Ed Miliband said, they have a blank page. If Labour start giving us alternatives, then things might get interesting. But at the moment, they’re not. At the moment there’s the coalition way, and no other way, because there’s no opposition in Britain.

Originally written for Pluto Online .

2010- the year that mattered to students

A year ago, I couldn’t tell you what was going on in the world of politics, but I could tell you who was snogging/marrying/avoiding who on Eastenders. This year, I’ve been thrown into the stuff head first.  I’m not sure of the exact point when I pricked up my ears and began taking a keen interest in politics, but a vague interest intensified ten-fold  just before all the pomp and circumstance of the general election. At uni I joined a society, found a bunch of like minded people and vented about the world’s injustices until the small hours.

In regards to politics, 2010 was the year that catastrophically let young people down. Ed Miliband and the Labour party’s 1p membership offer isn’t quite enough to entice us into party politics. The leaders debates earlier this year were exciting and infused a breath of fresh air into politics. Even then there was pressure to choose a camp and stick with it, but now many young political people I know keep themselves deliberately and cautiously unaligned. We watch, we observe, and we comment. We teeter on the edge, but we don’t dare take the plunge into a particular political party- not  just yet.

During those historical televised debates, there was an uncharacteristic swell of optimism amongst students, and facebook birthed a thousand and one pro Lib Dem groups. Everyone agreed with Nick. But, just as we’d been warned by the world weary generation before us, reasonable, amiable Nick Cleg proved himself not to be trusted. That blanket of disillusion found itself comfortably wrapped around our shoulders again.

In 2010, young people learnt about politics the hard way. This is truly a case of once bitten, twice shy.  Now, Miliband’s attempt to persuade sceptical young people to join the Labour Party just reeks party political broken promises. Whilst Labour has opportunistically jumped on anti-fees bandwagon, they were the party to introduce top up fees in 2003. We haven’t forgotten.

Contrary to popular opinion, we’re not naïve, and we’re certainly not expecting to get everything that we campaign for. The purpose of November 10th , and the subsequent student protests, was to get someone to listen and someone, anyone, to take us seriously. We descended upon Westminster in our droves. Tons of us had never been to a protest before, didn’t know how they worked or what actually happened in them. Bustling in the heart of those crowds was defiance, optimism and drive- as well as the belief that united, we could take on the world.

Then we were all kettled. Police brutality reared its ugly head. Fellow protesters were dragged out of their wheelchairs and others endured serious injuries from the end of a totalitarian police baton.  Initially, the mainstream media didn’t seem to care much for  the kettled and beaten- instead, much was made over accusations that protesters may or may not have poked Charles and Camilla with a stick. Students sloped home, bruised, battered, and near defeat, wondering if that was what democracy looked like.

2010 was also the year when young people learnt that the media was not always on our side. After a good few years of being demonised and portrayed as hoodies, hoodlums and generally apathetic, we naively expected praise as we all found a cause we believed in. Being part of a united cause was (and still is) truly liberating. We didn’t expect everyone to agree with us, but we had significant support from parents and lecturers alike, and that provided an element of buoyancy.

In Preston, I and 150 others started the 12 hour round trip to London and back by coach to join in with the first student demo. After a day of peaceful and fun protesting, the long journey back was met with distressed calls from worried parents. We were fine, but the press coverage wasn’t. And so sparked a debate regarding what was ‘newsworthy’ and what wasn’t- it seemed the majority of those marching peacefully weren’t as interesting as those who smashed up Tory HQ.  We got so much negative press that we had to take our activism on campus, explaining to our fellow students in unions and lecture halls just why protesting was significant. The debate raged on and students were so concerned that consequential meetings actually pondered the idea of protest PR. Public approval plummeted, and there were days that I had to convince myself that this was in fact the right thing to do. There were a couple of Orwellian moments – after watching countless videos from mobile phones and reading first-hand accounts, I’d stumble across a right leaning article or interview and think ‘maybe it is the students inciting this violence…!’

Student protestors quickly learnt which news outlets to trust and which ones to dismiss. We carried on protesting both online and off, still to fierce opposition – one Tory blogger informed me that myself and my ‘scummy student comrades’ deserved to be ‘tear gassed’.

In 2010, social media leapfrogged traditional media outlets. If you were keen to get involved with a protest, or curious to get an inside look at any occupation happening across the country, Twitter held the answers. We lacked strong leadership- NUS president Aaron Porter was excellent at representing students, but as soon as he was questioned on the  violence of November 10th, he was less so. Whilst some students poured vitriol on his dithering and planned to unseat him, others looked on in dismay as they foresaw the student movement veering towards damaging splits. Porter worked incredibly hard, and there were weeks when it felt like he was on every screen and in every newspaper, ferociously defending us. However, he needed to act quickly when occupations began cropping up all over the country. Those occupying students needed his support, and, by his own admission, he was reluctant to give it. It wasn’t in his job description to visit occupations, but with the passion he had reserved for the BBC , you’d think he would have backed any incident of peaceful student protest straight away.

Then December 9th came- the big one, the day of the tuition fee vote. Students who opposed the proposals were out on the streets of London, and those who couldn’t be there due to distance or circumstance were glued to their television and laptop screens. I was in the latter camp, watching what didn’t really look like democracy play out in slow motion in my bedroom. Whilst ministers were debating the issue in the House of Commons, thousands upon thousands of young people- as well as those who supported us -were behind the (metaphorical as well as physical) barriers. As the TV switched from scenes in green and cosy parliament to scenes depicting crowds of people being kettled in the cold, those members of parliament (regardless of whether they were arguing for or against the rise) couldn’t look more detached from reality if they tried.

As 2010 wraps up to an icy close, the student movement is gaining momentum and although the vote has been passed, dissent and discontent are still rife. The tuition fee debacle has given us all a taste of political activism that we needed. This year mattered, and 2011, the year when the cuts will begin to bite, will matter even more so.

The English Defence League in Preston- a personal account

‘Apathy and evil. The two work hand in hand. They are the same, really…. Evil wills it. Apathy allows it. Evil hates the innocent and the defenceless most of all. Apathy doesn’t care as long as it’s not personally inconvenienced.’ – JAKE THOENE

What do you do when an organisation of racists turn up on your doorstep, arguing for their ‘democratic right to protest’?

If you’re one of the people who didn’t turn up to counter protest the racist EDL in Preston city centre today, then not much. The English Defence League are an organisation who routinely band together to spew race hate on the streets of England .  They hijack the St George’s flag and the Union Jack to make their point, in turn subverting the symbolism, giving the flags a whole new meaning.  In my opinion, when they turn up to your city, strong anti-fascist opposition is needed. For want of a better phrase- when racists are involved, you’re either for or against them.  I and other UCLan students turned out to counter protest this morning because we felt that we had to take a stand.

When I woke up this morning, I had a quick glance over the regular social networking websites. Some planning to attend the counter demo were angry and excited, ready to vent. Some statuses were those of keen journalism students, anticipating a significant news story in their university town. Others were just plain scared. I on the other hand, felt none of those things. It was an overwhelming sadness that settled itself around my shoulders early this morning. Sad at the fact that we even have to oppose racism in this day and age. Sad at the fact that these people felt the need to stir up tension in a city with a good race relations record. Sad at the fact that I had to warn my brown friends to be careful on the streets. These people seek to oppress and divide, and it almost felt like the liberation movements I eagerly learnt about all those years ago amounted to absolutely nothing.

Of course, in the face of far right extremism, a defeatist attitude amounts to nothing. So it was with a heavy heart that I trudged onto campus with a few friends to our designated meeting point, incredibly grateful for those who turned out to take a stand against such virulent, racist views. There were roughly 20 of us from UCLan altogether, and I was proud of those of us who were there.

On reaching Preston city centre, we were greeted with live music, but that didn’t hide the fact that we were pretty much penned in by barriers for our own safety. Thanks to police restrictions, the anti-fascist side of the demonstration had exactly one hour to speak and play live music in the hope of celebrating multiculturalism, before we were asked to disperse.

One hour of anti-fascist action on a day where racists rampaging through the city felt like a proverbial drop in the ocean. It was freezing cold, but I was glad I was there. Myself and a friend broke off from the crowd, darted through the back roads, and positioned ourselves in the middle of the waning English Defence League crowd. There were points when I couldn’t determine if I was shivering, or shaking in anger. The youth of some of those protestors was the most chilling factor of the day- predominantly white, predominantly male; some looked like early teens, some looked like children, whilst others were nearing their thirties. There were numerous reports of the EDL setting off smoke bombs, throwing fireworks and fighting each other. Clutching cans of alcohol; they wrapped themselves in St George’s flags and Union Jacks.

There was a strange, uneasy atmosphere in Preston today. Since moving to the city to study, I can safely say the number of racist comments I’ve had to suffer has been minimal.  And I’m not even the EDL’s main target. But today, an invisible, suffocating feeling of fear blanketed the streets. It was easy to feel intimidated by groups of white men with black scarves covering their mouths and concealing their identities.

Sometime I think we live in an upside down world- a world where a person holding a sign that proclaims ‘peace and love’ is asked if they’re ‘looking for trouble’ by the police. This happened to a friend of mine who was asked to drop the placard before walking past the pub that the EDL congregated in this morning. He was warned by a representative from the same police force that allowed an organisation spreading race hate to march in a diverse city in the first place. Of course, there’s the safety factor- you could argue that we were penned in for our own safety, that my friend had to drop his placard for his own safety, and that my university’s student union didn’t promote the counter protest for student safety. But I often think that if we keep ourselves paralysed in fear, our good intentions will be rendered inert. Doing anything you can to take a stand is infinitely better than doing nothing at all.

A world of contradictions: a quick dissection of the English Defence League

With the English Defence League gearing up to march in my university town on the 27th of November, I thought I’d look into their ideologies. In the past I’ve dismissed the growing street movement as a bunch of lunatics, but with numbers of the EDL growing as the BNP fall apart, I’ve done some digging to see if there’s any truth in their statements. Founded in 2009, the League facebook page already has over 40, 000 fans- can all of these people be wrong?

Here are four hotly discussed EDL topics.

1. Vehement dislike of the use of halal meat.

Excuse my ignorance, but I don’t understand this obsession. All forms of animal slaughter for human consumption are cruel- halal or not. If it bothers these people so much, they should just convert to vegetarianism rather than using halal meat as a flimsy excuse to justify their Islamophobia. If they’re this passionate about animal rights, they shouldn’t be eating meat, full stop. Media hysterics -such as this article from the Daily Mail – only act as catalysts, fuelling the fire to a one sided debate that needs to be discussed in its entirety.

2. Absolutely, definitely not racist.

The EDL don’t seem to understand the notion of nationalism- as well as pushing the message ‘black and white unite’ on their propaganda, many of the members argue that there’s a difference between racism and patriotism. The OED defines nationalism as ‘an extreme form of patriotism marked by a feeling of superiority over other countries.’ There’s your middle ground. Unfortunately, whilst hijacking the St George’s flag to emphasise their racist viewpoints, they’ve inadvertently (or, perhaps deliberately) changed the meaning of the symbol. Now, I don’t know about you, but screaming ‘we hate pakis‘ at a protest sounds pretty racist to me.

3. Fighting for women’s liberation

Here’s another cause mercilessly hijacked by the English Defence League. As they get involved with the burqa debate, it seems they involve themselves in anything remotely to do with Muslim culture- any excuse for racism. The EDL often refer to the burqa as oppressive symbol, and hijack the women’s rights movement as part of their racist arguments. It’s an interesting and nuanced issue, because burqa bans are always shovelled under the umbrella of religious debate, when in actual fact burqa bans are a thinly veiled attack on women, their bodies, and how they choose to dress themselves. The French government have inadvertently dictated what women should wear- not men. To force Muslim women to take off their burqas or hijabs is just as oppressive as forcing women to wear them. Thus, it makes sense that more women are wearing it as an act of defiance, as well as for religious reasons.  The EDL’s protests aren’t about feminism; instead, it’s just another excuse to be racist. If these people were feminists, they’d campaign abouta lot more than this single issue. I could write about this all day, but Laurie Penny sums it up quite nicely.

4. Labelling everyone who disagrees with their ideology as lefty Marxist/communist scum

Reading these diatribes got me wondering how many EDL members have actually read the communist manifesto- as their cries of communism sound very similar to right wing America’s disdain for the political ideology.  The first slip up is labelling those who oppose the EDL as lefties- during his election campaign, David Cameron said ‘The EDL are terrible people, we would always keep these groups under review and if we needed to ban them, we would ban them or any groups which incite hatred’. Last time I checked, Cameron was the leader of the Conservative Party. Using Marxism and communism (political ideologies that the EDL don’t understand) as an insult isn’t the best idea. Those of us who label the EDL ‘racist’ are qualified to do so as we actually understand what racism is, and why it isn’t very good. Anyone who’s read Marx would probably think that the EDL, a predominantly working class movement (not that I’m looking my nose down at that fact, I’m working class too) would sympathise with what the manifesto has to say.

Nietzsche once said ‘Insanity in individuals is something rare – but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.‘

Looks like he was right.

The future’s bleak, the future’s blue: the reality of higher education cuts

Snapshot from a 2008 student protest in Dublin

If you’re studying a degree anchored in the arts, humanities or social sciences, prepare to rip up your text books- because according to the coalition government, your degree is worthless. As a result of the comprehensive spending review, English universities are facing a 40% cut in central government funding. Courses including but not limited to science, medicine and technology will continue to receive funding, whilst it’s looking likely that degrees in the arts, humanities and social will have all of their state funding cut, leaving these courses to be paid for in their entirety by the students who take them.

After universities minister David Willets branded students ‘a burden on the taxpayer’ in June, the implementation of Lord Browne’s higher education review, whilst depressing, shouldn’t come as a surprise.

Arts and humanities subjects are sometimes viewed as pointless pursuits- and any student reading one of these subjects at university will be able to instantly recall divulging their degree of choice to a listener who has responded with something along the lines ‘well…there’s more useful things to be studying’. Perhaps I speak as a bitter humanities student- but there are thousands upon thousands of us, and we are none too pleased.

That’s just those of us who are lucky enough to be studying for a degree. Would be students are now finding themselves in a dire situation- with some reconsidering their university bound aspirations altogether. Tony Blair’s New Labour emphasis on ‘education, education, education’, and the party’s 50% promise of young people into higher education somewhat diluted the concept. In terms of higher education opportunities, young people have gone from a fruitful land of plenty to a sparse, dry desert- this year, over 200,000 people were rejected from university places as higher education institutions responded to record numbers of applicants with a hiatus on places.

For a while now, university has been billed as a rite of passage – a place to grow, learn and change. But with these cuts to higher education funding, one can’t help but suspect that these changes aren’t being made in favour of the universities or students themselves, but rather in the favour of the companies waiting in the wings to employ graduates. Leaving the arts, humanities and social sciences to stagnate is dangerous, and has the potential to transform England’s universities into two tier, Dickensian graduate machines.

Young people, it’s time to scrunch up your hopes and dreams and chuck them in the bin. With the cuts hitting women twice as hard as men, the comprehensive spending review appears to hark back to that old adage- women and children first. If you take the time to sift your way through all the deficit talk, and dodge the increasingly patronising credit card debt analogies of the people in power, you’ll eventually discover the facts under the layers and layers of rhetoric.  If you’re not too convinced by Clegg and Cameron’s constant and insistent reassurances to the general public that these cuts are both progressive and fair, and you raise an eyebrow at the phrase ‘we’re all in this together’, you are not alone.

News of the comprehensive spending review has hit the general public like a torrential downpour of rain – one we were all expecting since the weather man’s gloomy forecast on Wednesday 12th May.

At the moment, it looks like the nation is quite content with standing miserably on the pavement – getting hopelessly, thoroughly drenched. We’re British, and we’ll put up with it. We knew these cuts were coming, and despite disparate news of the odd dissenting voice or organized protest, the majority of those affected are suffering silently. However, just across the channel tunnel, the population of France are rejecting their imminent downfall. They’re donning raincoats and heavy duty wellington boots in the form of mass protests and street riots in response to Sarkozy’s proposal to increase the French national retirement age by two years.

Far more change in happening to us in the UK, and it looks like the next four years are going to be very difficult indeed. In response to the largest ever cuts to public spending to affect my generation, I think it’s time we made more of a fuss.

The thorny issue of positive discrimination

At the recent Liberal Democrat conference, the thorny issue of positive discrimination reared its divisive head. The majority of party members voted against using positive discrimination when short listing MP candidates. The reasoning behind the decision was clear- positive discrimination is still discrimination, and discrimination is wrong. Unfortunately, the reality of the issue isn’t that black and white (if you’ll excuse the pun). Take a look at the demographics of the country’s current three party system. Those with a keen eye will notice that the Liberal Democrats- on looks alone- are the party that stick out as the least representative of modern Britain. The Lib Dems have a total of zero non-white members of parliament, and just 6 out of the party’s 57 MPs are female. Based on these facts alone, the party’s discussion on positive discrimination, or affirmative action, or whatever you choose to call it, seems apt. The debate appears reflective of the Liberal Democrat party’s liberal, egalitarian and progressive values that they so pride themselves on.

A headline from the Daily Star

So why did they decide against it? From what I can glean from the Lib Dem conference, the majority of party members aligned themselves with the sentiment that candidates should only be short listed for positions on merit, and never on racial grounds. The merit argument is a strong one, and I’ll admit little more than a year ago, it’s one I argued fiercely. But take a look at the past century- just 50 years ago; negative discrimination was in full force. It would be blindingly short sighted of me to suggest that positive discrimination is completely necessary without taking into account the fact that it breeds resentment amongst those who aren’t on the receiving end.

The party conference used around an interesting term for the non-white population of the UK- BAME, an acronym for the phrase ‘black and minority ethic’. Every so often boundaries change, and groups find themselves being redefined. The labels aren’t too liberating, and neither is constant redefinition. But I digress.

Sometimes it feels like us BAME types just can’t catch a break. Suggest positive discrimination to address this skewed ethnicity imbalance and it’s deemed unfair. Then, when a BAME candidate steps up to the fore and decides to stand for a position on merit grounds alone, critics become distressed, wave their arms in the air and scream tokenism. Just look at the flurry of concerned attention that surrounded Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, Diane Abbott, when she announced she was standing in the Labour leadership election. She didn’t win, but the fact that a black woman stood at all sent a clear message to ethnic minority communities that the Labour party represents them as well. Even the Conservatives, a party with a pretty bad track record on race issues, woke up to the aching need for diversity a few years ago- prominent Conservative from BAME communities are emerging, and cabinet minister and party chairperson Baroness Warsi proves this.

Positive discrimination is an emotive issue. Black and minority ethic candidates are never going to take kindly to being offered highly paid professions with race grounds seen as a priority that presides over merit in response to a need to fill a ridiculous quota. It’s offensive. But until we see a more diverse representation in those jobs, it’s necessary.

The fact of the matter is, society has not yet reached that much revered, idealistic point in history where every human being is solely valued on their merit. The aesthetic demographics of a political party are everything and nothing- it shouldn’t matter, but it does.  That’s not to say that everyone discriminates- plenty of people don’t, but labels still exist , which is why employee application forms have the optional equal opportunities section tacked on to them. We as a society are still ticking boxes, still attempting to fill quotas, still striving to redress the balance.

Before we can preach the merit argument, the remnants of institutional racism in the wider context of general discrimination need to be addressed, and consequently abolished. Some Liberal Democrats have cited a lack of BAME party supporters and members, let alone MP candidates. Until there are representatives from those communities in higher up positions, the problem will prevail. As a short term solution, positive discrimination, whilst radical, is a viable choice.

Are politicians real people?


As the general election campaigns lumber on, more and more analysis is concentrated on the political party leaders- who, if you didn’t know by now, are Nick Clegg, David Cameron and Gordon Brown.

You’d be forgiven for assuming that we’re just voting for one man, with no sniff of a political party behind him. General elections come around every four years, and the intensive scrutiny attributed to the party leaders verge on the absurd. Lets put their policies to one side, and focus on the party leaders’ shameless attempts to be adored by the electorate.

They’re everywhere! You can’t turn on your TV, browse iPlayer or even glance at the newspapers in Morrisons without being greeted by the enlarged grinning- or gurning- face of Clegg, Cameron or Brown.

Their political caricatures are either idolised or despised. Just take a look at the countless facebook groups derived from the recent bout of Cleggmania, as well as the vehement anti Tory groups. The televised debates, whilst reaching more of the electorate than ever before, also, unfortunately, have the potential to become a bit of a pantomime.

We want our party leaders to be genuine. Straight after the debates, Clegg, Brown and Cameron’s body language, communication skills and use of rhetoric are picked apart by psychologists and advertising executives. Cameron looked straight into the camera? Bad. Clegg remembered someone’s name? How personable of him!

They’re bending over backwards to please us, and it’s pretty hilarious to watch. During the first election debate we witnessed cringe worthy lines – ‘You can’t airbrush your policies like you airbrush your posters’. They sounded so rehearsed; you had to wonder if these men were putting on a carefully composed act. Which begs the question- are politicians real people?

It can’t be denied that the televised debates have allowed for an even closer scrutiny. Now their body language, the way the look at the camera, the fact that they can recall names, facts and figures, their facial features, the likeability of their face, their appearance, their wives, their pasts, their teenage years, their choice of clothing, the political persuasions of their families- all of these are picked apart, analysed and laid bare for the public to make an ‘informed’ decision.

It’s hard to know just what to believe anymore. What thick skin these men must have- at first glance it seems that they are vulnerable, ready to be crucified by the sharp, stabbing words of the press. What do we even want from our politicians? Time and time again they are accused of being untrustworthy multi faceted crooks, out of touch with the people they are supposed to be representing. So they indulge themselves in reality TV shows like Channel Four’s Big Brother and Tower Block of Commons, in attempts to reach their voters.

What do we even want from these men? Logic suggests that Cameron, Clegg and Brown must know that they’re under scrutiny to the point of caricature. The whole point of democracy is placing power momentarily in the hands of the state’s people. That concept becomes a bit undermined if we decide against voting for so and so simply because he’s got an annoying face.

It’s no surprise that political parties choose their leaders carefully. The stereotype of a typical politician- grey man in a grey suit with grey hair- has turned the youth vote off in the past. We want our politicians to be relatable, friendly, and just like us- which is probably why such a furore has been made of David Cameron’s upper class, Etonian education.  They strive to by liked by the electorate- which is why every televised debate, interview, and party political broadcast is peppered with anecdotes about the time they met someone just like you. They’ll try to prove that they’re not that different at all.

I suppose the big question is do personalities actually matter in politics? The obvious answer is yes- but to what extent? Of course, no one wants a horrible person running their country. But politicians are not television presenters. It’s been said that people don’t believe in ideas- rather, they believe in people who believe in ideas. It’s true that a concept has the potential to become a lot more likeable (or distasteful) once a policy can be anchored to a face. Otherwise, these ideas have a tendency to take on a life of their own.