Tag Archives: Nick Clegg

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.

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.