Tag Archives: Liberal Democrats

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 .

Students! Don’t lose your head in all the protest hype

More protests and demonstrations are planned for later this month, which is great.

You may be involved in the planning of something along those lines. Perhaps you’ve even seen this facebook event, that recommends students to ‘walk out of  your school, college or university’ in protest to education cuts. Earlier this week, about 40 Manchester students occupied a university building, demanding to see evidence of accounts that would hopefully detail how cuts would affect them.

Interesting approaches, but before you decide to storm out of your lecture half way through, ask yourself- are the people you’re protesting against really the enemy ?

I hate to paraphrase Cameron, but we really are ‘all in this together’. Students, lecturers, university staff- all of us will be hit badly by HE cuts. Walking out of a lecture will only disrupt a lesson and annoy both your lecturers and  university, neither of whom have any control over higher fees or impending cuts. Manchester students, you probably could have aquired those documents by just asking nicely rather than causing a ruckus. I’d bet any money that Manchester’s finance office don’t want those cuts any more than Manchester’s students do. What’s the point of splitting the cause and targeting people who don’t deserve to be pinpointed? If we’re campaigning for the right to education, what’s the point of walking out of it?

Usually, an employee strike is effective because employees find themselves at a deadlock with an employer  who makes unfair demands. The employer is the enemy. We could strike and walk out of our lectures and lessons, but our lecturers, teachers and universities aren’t the enemy here. They’re facing cuts and difficulties too. Unfortunately, we all are. With these well-intentioned but ultimately blind walkout plans, we’re at risk of losing the message all together.

There’s other ways to handle the 24th. Keep campaigning. Think creatively.

Apologies if No Comment is quickly turning into a HE blog. This is something I feel pretty passionate about. Sooner or later, I’ll resume normal service :)

So- what exactly happened at #Demo2010?

I couldn’t tell you what happened at Millbank yesterday- I wasn’t there. I and other UCLan students were due to catch our coach back to Preston at 3.30pm- in fact, many students had been coached down to London as part of their student unions. None of us had time to hang around in London burning things.

But what of those who did? The condemnation of those students, teenagers and random, trouble seeking strangers who took part in the hours of vandalism and destruction has been widespread. Yes, there were some who had turned up to make trouble, but we should be wary of demonising all the students who turned up to the protest. Attempting to demolish the Conservative Party’s headquarters was too much, but unfortunately, this is a sign of the times.  The political parties who betrayed students were in need of a symbol of discontent, but this was a symbol too far.

Some factions of the mainstream media should be chastised for honing in on the violence of the protest. This kind of reporting obscures the original message of the demonstration, and blurs the very reasons why students were out on the streets. Initial coverage gave the impression that the protest began and ended at Millbank tower- failing to stress that 50,000 plus students marched peacefully.We walked, we danced, we chanted, and approved of each other’s banners and placards. Some people in the crowd formed a conga line that meandered closely to the barriers, only to be pushed aggressively back by police on the scene. This was the only incident of police brutality I witnessed at the event, and it didn’t look very fair to me. Thankfully, as the the day went on, media coverage increased in its balance.

On the morning of the 1oth, news channels were reporting that both students and lecturers planned to march on the streets of London. By 4pm, the same news outlets were reporting that student riots were in full force, with no mention of the peaceful protesters, or the lecturers who were marching beside them.   Nothing was said of the parents that marched for their children or the elderly gentleman outside Westminster who held a placard that read ‘I’m fighting for my grandson’.

The most remarkable fact about yesterday’s demonstration was that, for many who marched, the tuition fee hikes won’t even affect us (with the exception of further education students who were there). We were there to protest about the injustices of the future. Yes, students are angry. We are angry because thousands of students voted Lib Dem, and we’ve been lied to. Disillusion and unrest are spreading fast. Those of us who campaign against tuition fees need to cut the violence and keep up the momentum.

As for those Conservative bloggers who are calling NUS president Aaron Porter to step down from his position- the very idea is ridiculous and counter productive. Neither Porter or the NUS could anticipate double the predicted numbers, or the violence and protests. Vicious criticism of the demo’s organisers reads like Tory propaganda.

Yesterday’s demo was the depiction of frustration and a regrettable explosion of discontent. It’s sad that as students, some of us have had to go to a ridiculous extreme just to be heard. This is what happens when you ignore and betray the people who you were elected to represent.

It’s looking likely that nothing will change. Thanks to the violence and riots, all students have been tarnished by the actions of a few. It’s time to understand their anger.  I’m proud to have taken part in the largest student mobilisation of a generation. Yesterday was of the utmost importance- even if we’re ignored; at least we’ve demonstrated our discontent.

Diary of a disadvantaged student: starting below zero

Recently, much has been made of disadvantaged students in the press. I’m not ashamed to say I’m one of them- currently, I receive the maximum maintence loan and grant payments from the student loans company. I received £60 combined from each parent on the very first day of uni, and made my own way from there.

I’m in the third year of my degree, and have landed myself a comfortable part time job in the student union, working 13 hours a week. Thanks to the student loans company, I could splash out on a new laptop, pay rent and buy textbooks at the start of term. Thanks to my job, I can do my food shopping. I’m more fortunate than some- I’ve friends with maxed out credit cards as well as the student loan, living off sales they’ve made on eBay.

Some argue that it’s possible for the average student to live comfortably off the maitenence grant and loan for three month stints at a time. There’s some truth in this- when I first moved to uni, the loan was the most money I’d ever been in possession of. Some of us went a bit mad. But now we’re in third year, we’ve all sobered up, and as we edge closer to the end of the student bubble, we’re starting to face up to the prospect of starting life below zero. By this, I’m referring to the debt that we accrue whilst at uni- the debts that’ll loom over our heads before and after we reach the £15,000 threshold to start making payments, as well as the student overdraft that we’ll spend our graduate summer paying off.

Last week, my university society took part in a debate with Conservative Futures. They argued that different fees for different courses will ‘increase flexibility’ for students. Positive talk of these plans are, put simply, incredulous. Quite the contrary – these plans will leave us disadvantaged types stuck. The idea of choosing a degree based on price rather than passion is elitist in the extreme. Forget social mobility. The level playing ground will be the bumpiest course yet.

I came to uni primarily because I’d had a taste of the minimum wage life, and I didn’t want to live it forever. I can only speak for myself when I talk of an overwhelming fear of working towards nothing- but I’m sure there’s some students who feel the same. We’re all too aware of the prospect of being spat out into a job market with no space for us.

This Wednesday, students will march in central London to protest about the proposed rise in tutition fees. We won’t just be marching for ourselves- the fee increase won’t affect us just yet, that’ll take place in 2012.

We’ll be marching because we’re angry that graduate unemployement is the highest it’s been for 17 years. We’ll be marching in indignation and disgust at the fact the the very same people who promise us that ‘we’re all in this together’ benefited quite nicely from their own free higher education – lest we forget, at least in England, tution fees were only introduced 12 years ago. We’ll be marching because when we do attempt to break into our fields of interest, there’s a high chance we’ll be exploited by companies who expect graduates to work for free (endearingly called interships) for any time spanning from six months to a year, with no guarantee of a job at the end of the tunnel.  We’ll be marching for our younger sisters and brothers- for all teenagers, whose university aspirations are becoming less and less likely.  We’ll be marching because the coalition’s ‘fair’ rhetoric isn’t washing with us.

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.

Hands up if you feel betrayed!

In light of our new Conservative universities minister, Mr David Willets, branding university students ‘a burden on the taxpayer’, it was only a matter of time before the tuition fees debate reared its ugly head again. As soon as the Conservatives chose to form an alliance with the Liberal Democrats rather than forming a minority government, it was glaringly obvious that both political parties’ opposing stances on university tuition fees would not sit well with one another- so much so that, to avoid division in the new coalition, the Lib Dems have been allowed to chose to abstain from voting for against the issue in parliament. Convenient, once you consider the long standing Liberal Democrat stance on the abolition of higher education tuition fees.

On the campaign trail, both Nick Clegg and Vince Cable signed an NUS pledge vowing to vote against a rise in tuition fees if they were elected into parliament. It was this core value that drew a lot of previously apolitical students into politics, and gave us an incentive to go out and vote- a policy that directly affected us. In stark contrast, the Conservatives remained sketchy on their stance on tuition fees throughout the general election campaign. When asked, representatives from the party told student voters that they wouldn’t comment on whether they’d raise tuition fees until they’d examined the results of a review into the state of fees. Again, rather conveniently, those results will not be released until long after May 6th (it’s been reported that the results of the review will be available some time in the autumn). Willets spoke about the current loan system, commenting that it was ‘unsustainable’- and many students felt the sting of the overwhelmed system last academic year when thousands of us received late payments of our student loans. His remarks are the strongest indication yet of a rise in tuition fees.

The phrase Con/Dem Nation emerged as a trending topic on the social networking website, Twitter, after Britain’s new coalition government was slowly and painfully announced. Funny as the phrase was at the time, Cameron’s savage spending cuts have revealed the flippant phrase to ring uncomfortably true.