Cat Smith

There are two campaigns being fought in London. The first is the one that is seeing record numbers of people being mobilised in action days and phone banks – and now new campaigning like the Fare Ride. The other is the one the armchair experts like to comment on.

On Saturday London Labour launched its new weekend action days – dividing London into four quarters and funnelling activists into key localities in each of those quarters. Over two hundred people were mobilised into target areas on Saturday in this way.

With YourKen.org http://www.yourken.org/ and the innovative use of text mobilisation London’s campaign is showing that however much it will be outspent by the Tories it intends to out-organise them all the way.

Tuesday sees another stage in London Labour’s campaign offensive.

Next Generation Labour is joining  Fare Ride this Tuesday morning to protest against annual fare rises – and to back Ken Livingstone’s alternative of a fares cut. It will see the official launch of Labour’s fares cut campaign and the start of the work to explain to Londoners how they will benefit from a better way to organise the transport finances.

Hundreds of campaigners will hit the transport system http://labourlist.org/2011/11/now-for-something-completely-different/ on Tuesday, not only leafleting outside stations but going onto the system and talking to Londoners about the cost of their commute. It’s a new, mobile, way to campaign. Next Gen Labour will be helping out on routes across London.

Fares cut supporters will campaign on the transport network and converge with Ken Livingstone towards the end of the morning’s activity. The hashtag will be #fareride

Like Ed Balls’s plan for a VAT cut, Ken’s fares cut will help reduce the pressure on people in tough times and put money back into peoples’ pockets.

Conservative Boris Johnson is committed to above inflation fare rises every year. He has committed the transport business plan to these rises for twenty years. That already means a single bus fare rising 56 per cent under this mayor.

Terrified at the appeal of this simple, clear alternative to years of endless fare rises, Boris Johnson’s Tory advisers are desperately spinning http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/politics/article-24005649-london-would-crumble-under-ken-fares-cuts.do that it will damage investment. But the fact is that every single year Boris Johnson raises more in revenue from Londoners’ fares than his own business plan projections say he will – £728 million this year. This is spare money accumulated by TfL, while Londoners are being hit hard by rises in their fares and living costs. It is not being invested in capital infrastructure or improved services for Londoners. Ken’s proposals will use a proportion of this money to help Londoners during difficult times when families are facing the biggest squeeze in their living standards for a generation.

Not a penny of the fares cut will come from reductions in existing services or cuts to the investment budget.

Fares cut campaigners will be out in force from Eltham to Hounslow Central, Walthamstow to Willesden Green, Finsbury Park to Ealing Broadway, Hammersmith to New Malden, Leyton to Abbey Wood. Every single London borough will see campaigners out spreading the word on rail, tram, bus and tube.

But then there is that second campaign – the one that exists in the blogs and articles of the armchair experts who know little and care less about the issues being debated and the rising levels of activism and campaigning.

Progress has devoted its current cover story not to ‘How Ken can win’ or ‘How to help Ken win’ but ‘Can Ken win?’ Its author, Dan Hodges, has said http://www.leftfutures.org/2011/11/dan-hodges-doesnt-want-ken-to-win-and-wont-vote-for-him/ of the London election: “I don’t care about the politics. I don’t care if Labour wins in London, or if the Tories get a good hiding. All I care about now is that Londoners win in London. I’ll vote Tory. I’ll vote Green. I’ll vote independent. I still hope and pray I’ll be able to vote Labour. But I’m not helping place my city back into the hands of a clapped out revolutionary or an Etonian comic.”

The Tories fear Ken Livingstone in this election because there has never been another Labour politician ever to show any prospect of getting anywhere near Boris Johnson’s poll ratings other than Ken. They need our side to show weakness. Hodges and the rest offer them a small opening, which should be brushed aside by a disciplined Labour side that wants to win. The narrative that Johnson’s right wing campaign supremo Lynton Crosby wants is the one that Progress, http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2011/11/03/can-ken-win/ Dan Hodges and others foster.

The closer we get to the election the more that those who buy-in to the Progress line on London will watch as it races past them. Many Progress readers will baulk at the line they have taken and will ignore them. Thousands will be mobilised, millions will vote. Our job is to contribute by campaigning to win, and to mobilise to make it possible.

We need a mayor who’s on the side of Londoners and offers a fairer deal. That person is Ken Livingstone. We’ll be out campaigning for a fares cut this Tuesday. Join us for a fares cut and help Ken take the case to Londoners.

* sign up for the #fareride on Ken Livingstone’s website here: http://www.kenlivingstone.com/farescampaigning

Next Generation Labour

This week a 27 year old man, Dale Burns, from Barrow-in-Furness died after being shot with a Taser by police. A story like this in a newspaper would usually catch my attention, but being a similar age and from the same town it really jumped out at me. I didn’t know Mr Burns but I know a lot of my friends knew him well and they are very upset as a result.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission are currently investigating the death and until they report it is impossible to say with any confidence what may have happened or whether the use of Taser was in keeping with international human rights and police guidelines, however both the Mirror and the Telegraph report Dale was shot at least three times by the Taser. One shot sends 50,000 volts of electricity through the body and usually results in the person collapsing on the floor and losing control of bodily functions. Goodness knows what three shots do to a person, but within 2 hours Dale had been pronounced dead.

The United Nations has expressed concern that use of Tasers may amount to torture, and Amnesty International has reported cases where they believe that their use amounted to “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment which is absolutely prohibited under international law”. Amnesty International takes a clear position on the use of Tasers and records incidents of death where they are used, they claim they can kill and should only be used in life or death situations. Their findings from the USA show there has been more than 450 people killed since 2001 after they were struck by a Taser. Here in Britain Tasers are used less regularly and the last Taser-related death investigated by the IPCC was in 2006, although in this case it was found that the victim had heart problems, his family still dispute this.

I’ve been left shaken by this story from my home town and feel uncomfortable living in a society where a Taser is a conventional piece of police equipment because it will always be tempting for police to use it when situations become difficult. There are times when it is necessary and I would not go so far as to ban them for police because there are situations when it can be useful. I’m just shocked that one man alone in his flat was a situation which needed a Taser. I will be interested to read the IPCC report into the incident and I hope this tragedy is not played out ever again. My thoughts go out to Dale’s family, two children and his friends at what is clearly a difficult time for them all.

Since the election last year, the party has quite rightly been engaging in an important debate about how it can win again.

This has seen the strand known as Blue Labour emerge, Progress becoming increasingly active with seminars and conferences and numerous other organisations engaging in policy debates both online and across the country.

Next Generation Labour has been established to contribute to this important discussion – from, at times, a different perspective.

It is essential that the correct lessons are drawn from the 2010 general election defeat.

The prize for getting this right is enormous – defeating the Tories at the earliest possible opportunity so that the destruction they are wreaking on people’s lives, communities and public services as well as the wider economy is limited to just one term.

This is a huge challenge. As Ed Miliband told a recent National Policy Forum meeting:

“To go from losing a majority at one election to regaining a majority at the next is something that no political party has achieved for a generation. And the challenge is greater because our starting point is the aftermath of one of our heaviest election defeats.”

To win again, we first need to assess where we went wrong.

The starting point has to be to acknowledge that it was under a New Labour policy agenda that we lost 5m votes from 1997 – with 4m of these under Tony Blair.

Furthermore, as Shadow Minister Jon Trickett showed in his analysis of the votes lost between 1997 and 2010:

“Labour’s support broke down among all social groups, but that the greatest levels of decline were among social classes C2, D and E. These groups – manual workers and welfare dependants – make up almost half of the population and a much greater element of Labour’s support. Their importance to the coalition of support Labour needs to win can be seen from the fact that 50 per cent or more of these groups backed us during our 1997 landslide.”

In short, Labour’s broad coalition of supporters was whittled away.

Importantly though, these voters did not, in the main, go to the right.

Whilst Labour lost 5m between 1997 and 2010, the Tories only won 1m from 1997.

More than 1.6m went to the Liberal Democrats who sought to reach out to progressive voters on issues such as Iraq, students fees, civil liberties and many other issues.

Whilst many other former Labour voters and Labour identifiers decided not to turn out and vote at all, no doubt feeling abandoned by our party.

Despite Labour’s falling support following the deepest recession in decades, the Tories could only win 36%, the lowest ever result for the Tories when they have then gone on to form the government.

Current polls show the Tories only attracting a similar level of support.

So there is a large section of the electorate who do not back the Tories from which Labour can forge a winning alliance.

But to reach out to these voters, we have to take the fight to the Tories showing the public that Labour offers a radically different alternative. Ceding ground to the Tories on cuts or on social issues as some in the party have advocated is clearly not the way forward.

Ed Miliband’s recent strong attack at PMQs against a flummoxed Cameron on how the Tory cuts will hit cancer sufferers was a clear example of how Labour will protect the majority, not punish the poorest.

Similarly, given that the economy is key issue on which Labour needs to win the debate, Ed Balls’ recent LSE speech was a huge step forward in shaping a clear economic alternative that can help shift the argument away from the Tories’ chosen ground that cuts are necessary. He exposed the Tory lie that there is no alternative by outlining a package – cutting VAT to stimulate the economy and investing in jobs and houses through a windfall tax on bankers – that would boost growth and employment and in turn tackle the deficit as government tax income would rise and benefits paid out would fall.

Such a head on rejection of the ideologically driven Tory agenda on health and the economy is certainly a refreshing alternative to those former Labour ministers chirping from the sidelines about how Labour should accept Tory reforms to the NHS (including from individuals now sitting on the boards of private health companies) or giving the Tories cover on public sector pensions.

Outlining clear progressive alternatives to the Tories reactionary polices is the key to Labour success over the next period.

Next Generation Labour’s blog site will be a forum to put forward such policies. Make sure you contribute.

Brian Haw had more political conviction and principles than many of the ‘honourable’ members who walked past his protest camp over the past 10 years. His belief that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were illegal, immoral and should end led him to make a huge sacrifice to commit 10 years camped outside in Parliament Square. His contribution to standing up for those who are abused by global powers is so much bigger than giving up a Saturday to go on a Stop The War march, as much as a commitment as that is.

We all have a responsibility to stand up against injustice, suffering and poverty. Brian took this seriously, and led by his Christian faith he lived out that mantra. The times I talked with him, or tried to talk to him, he was not always the easiest person to get along with. Constantly under threat from politicians trying to remove him and police arrests, who could blame his suspicion? I delivered him parcels which could not be sent via the standard postal system. It was the small things like that, as well as the obvious separation from his wife and seven children, which showed his commitment to a cause he truly believed in.

For a decade, politicians tried to avoid looking at Brian’s constant reminder in Parliament Square of the consequences of their actions. His camp was a visible reminder of the thousands of innocent people who lost their lives as a result of UK foreign policy over the past decade. Every time an MP votes it has an impact on real people’s lives, both at home and abroad.

Rest in peace Brian, you were an inspiration to us all and a conscience for our politicians.

With recent days showing the obsession from some with undermining Ed Miliband, I am proud to be leading the launch of a new network of younger Labour Party members, pledging to support the party in moving on from New Labour. Initiated by the majority of Compass Youth Committee who resigned following Compass’ decision to become a cross-party body, the network will contribute to the thinking and campaigning necessary to see Labour swiftly return to power.

Next Generation Labour are stressing the need for coordination amongst centre-left voices in the party. We see as a priority the creation of a platform that can reach out not only to the five million voters Labour lost between 1997 and 2010 – four million of which were lost by 2005 – but to our younger generation who are experiencing the impact of a Tory-led government for the first time. With one in five young people unemployed, tuition fees trebled and EMA slashed, our generation has become all too aware of the serious damage the Tory-led government is inflicting.

Many young party members took great hope from the election of Ed Miliband. But we know that a strong and united party is essential to see his post-New Labour agenda – endorsed by members through his victory – followed through.

Labour are at a cross roads, with some seemingly determined to repeat the errors of the past. A number of critics continue to advocate economic neo-liberalism and triangulation, whilst others advocate a backward step to pre-1945 welfare provision, social conservatism and concessions to racism. These must not be the only voices in the debate over our party’s future – neither vision advocates the progressive centre-left politics, capable of fulfilling the historic aims of the Labour Party. We continue to believe we must be ‘for the many, not the few’ to make modern Britain a fairer, more prosperous and sustainable country where no person or group is ever left behind.

I hope all who agree with our statement will take this opportunity to get involved – sign up on our website for more info. Our founding statement is as follows:

Next Generation Labour:

Now more than ever, we need to ensure that the next general election sees the return of a Labour government.

The Tories are using their return to power to unleash an unprecedented and ideologically-driven attack on our communities and the life chances of millions. The Tories cut, slash and burn agenda is leaving 1 in 5 young people unemployed, will drive down living standards for most and hits the most vulnerable hardest whilst protecting the wealthiest.

But to win again, Labour needs to need understand the reasons why we lost and offer an alternative.

We believe that Ed Miliband was right to say we must learn why five million people stopped voting Labour during the 13 years we were in power. The loss of these voters lay behind the general election defeat; it was certainly not a resurgent Tory party, which was unable to even form a majority government on its own.

However some in the party seem determined to repeat the old errors. Some continue to advocate economic neoliberalism and triangulation, whilst others advocate a backward step to pre-1945 welfare provision, social conservatism and concessions to racism.

As younger Labour Party members we believe the Party must move on from such thinking.

We grew up with a Labour government and saw the improvements in the health service, the new schools and early years provision. We recognise Labour’s increased investment and spending on public services was the right thing to take forward our country. We are proud of the minimum wage, the EMA and the equalities agenda that Labour advanced. But for so many of our generation, Labour became a party of the establishment. It failed to ensure growth was shared fairly enough – whilst the very wealthiest got ever richer; it raised tuition fees, pursued war, attacked civil liberties and let immigration be demonised.

To win, Labour must be willing to articulate a modern left politics and reconnect with the coalition of supporters it lost and the vast majority opposed to the Tories’ reactionary agenda. The same people who are most under threat from the Tories reactionary agenda include those we must win back to Labour: young people, ordinary working people, the most deprived and impoverished, ethnic minorities and women. A positive agenda from Labour that protects people’s living standards, defends public services against further Tory onslaughts, builds a green economy, champions equality for all and a just and peaceful foreign policy can help us do this.

Tens of thousands have already joined the Labour Party, rebuilding a winning alliance under Ed Miliband’s leadership, including many younger people who worry their future is being sold off to pay for the mistakes of the ‘buy-now, pay-later’ generation.

As the next generation of Labour supporters, we want Labour to tackle the Tories and their reactionary politics head on and offer truly progressive alternatives. As younger members we want to see Labour re-elected at the earliest opportunity and believe this requires a progressive programme that can deliver social justice.

Report back from Cat Smith, Islington North CLP Youth Officer

Young Labour is meant to meet once every two years, this time the conference in Glasgow was merged with Labour Students’ Conference which I felt diluted it and placed too strong an emphasis on Higher Education issues and very little was said of young trade unionists or the alarmingly high rate of youth unemployment. The new national committee was elected before the conference began properly, and elections were held by 1 minute speeches and no questions allowed and a vote by first past the post (contravening Labour Party rules) before the Conference started – so in isolation of any political context.

Two years ago in Gillingham saw the biannual conference democratically elect the first Chair of the organisation, Sam Tarry. However despite not meeting for two years Conference was denied space on the agenda which had been drawn up in isolation from the Committee by Party Staff in HQ to hold Sam to account. He has been a good Chair and done as much as he could to break down the barriers that are structurally in place denying young members autonomy; however in Glasgow young members were once again denied the opportunity to hold an outgoing committee to account. The majority of the committee did not even attend the conference as they were denied ex-officio passes and were too old to attend as delegates.

Young Labour is not allowed to make any policy and the agenda for the weekend was a procession of MPs, MSP and councillors (none of them eligible to be YOUNG Labour!) talking to us. In the opportunities there were for contributions from the floor there were calls for democracy in Young Labour and on the Sunday I called a “Discussion for Democracy” and put pressure on the organisers of the conference to get a policy session on Young Labour democracy as part of the Sunday afternoon in conference. This was well-attended by delegates and there are some clear demands from young members for autonomy, democracy, policy making powers, staff support, accountability from officers and for Young Labour to be allowed to meet more than 1 or 2 days once every 2 years.

The new committee will have their work cut out for them as the central Party continues to deny Young Labour a website (despite professional web designers being on last year’s committee and they were willing to do this for free), they were censored in any emails they wanted to send out to  young members. Young Labour continues to have no dedicated staff support from the Labour Party, although this has been promised by Ed Miliband so there is an optimism things could get better.

As the Islington North delegate I spoke out against the suppression of young members views, demanded policy making powers and generally agitated for the ‘new generation’ to be given the freedom to express itself.

Membership of Compass is open to all but voting restricted to Labour Party members or people eligible to be members of the Labour Party. However, the question is being put at a special general meeting in February allow Compass members who are in other parties, including Liberal Democrats, to vote within Compass.

Compass was founded as an organisation to give new direction to Labour. Many joined when they saw the space it was opening up on the centre-left of the Labour Party. Compass, although specifically focused on Labour, was not afraid to have dialogue with other political parties in areas where there was some cross-over.

The current debate over Compass membership and voting rights is a distraction from the real issues facing both the country and the Labour Party. As the cuts start to bite and Ed Miliband is establishing himself as a leader, Compass should not be naval gazing and seeking to build stronger links with the other parties who support the cuts and attack Ed. With the Liberal Democrats propping up a Tory-lead Government, supporting their cuts, it is time to show that Labour is the UK’s progressive political party.

No one party can ever have the monopoly of good ideas, but Compass’s priority is to ensure the Labour Party becomes the changed party we have all worked for. As a young member of the Party I have no expectations of what things should be like for us in opposition, this might be no bad thing. It seems to me that this is a perfect opportunity to look at the broader left, build coalitions with those who were disaffected and left Labour during our time in Government and to bring in those who have never seen Labour as their political home.

The Compass Youth Committee voted to support the current membership arrangements within Compass feeling this outweighed any benefits of opening up voting to members of other political parties. Compass’s strength has been to provide a coherent voice for the mainstream of the party membership. We therefore believe it should continue to focus its work on building new ideas within the Labour Party.

Regardless of attempts to rewrite history now Compass is seen as a Labour Party orientated organisation because of the actions they have taken. It was right to ballot members and support Ed Miliband in the Labour Party leadership, and it is right that Compass staff speak to local Labour Parties up and down the country. These activities are a great way of promoting the organisation’s slogan; “direction for the democratic left”. Compass has already played an influential and useful role within Labour from Jon Cruddas’s bid for Deputy Leadership in 2007 to the recent NEC elections, and party conference decisions. We have built up too much to throw away.

Ed Miliband’s leadership campaign gave voice to, and has helped popularise further, many of the issues Compass has campaigned on in recent years. We are finding strong support for our ‘Compass-style’ politics around the Living Wage, a Graduate Tax and the building of the good society. Now is the time to support and campaign with Labour.

As young voters we have been particularly let down by the betrayal by the Liberal Democrats on top-up-fees, and many of us never had any faith in the Tories anyway. So those of us involved in Party politics have seen Labour as the sole mainstream progressive party left in British politics. To open our membership to members of other parties would mean Compass loses credibility within Labour. It will weaken Compass’ ability to play a full role in internal elections, policy debates and much more and would inevitability see Compass failing to support Labour in many local and council elections.

On their website Compass describes its purpose as “building a bridge to the 200,000 or so people who have left the Labour Party and to many more who have never joined”. At a time when membership of the Labour Party is increasing, especially from young people, it would appear that Compass’s aims are being fulfilled. So it seems a peculiar time to make a move away from the Labour Party.

It is right that Compass should promote policies and support the Party which most reflects the democratic left beliefs of the organisation. That party is the Labour Party. Any move to change internal membership now would be seen as a hostile move towards Labour and Ed Miliband. Compass should look to the new activists – sixth formers, university students, community campaigners, trades unionists and progressives – the 50,000 new Labour members and the millions still to engage in party politics to join in our work. They have joined Labour as the only mainstream progressive party in British politics. They share our politics and they want Labour to represent and campaign for them.

Labour has moved towards Compass’s values and we must ensure Labour challenges the Tory agenda – Compass has a key role to play in making that happen.

This article was published in Tribune magazine 22 January 2011

Catherine Hakim argues on Conservative Home that the Conservative Party should ignore ‘discredited feminist myths’ and declares the ‘gender war is over’. Indeed if this was true I would join her in celebrating gender equality, but I’m simply not convinced.

The Conservative Party has been quick off the mark to disregard equality legislation the consequences of which are financially hurting women already. I could cite reams and reams of statistics about the gender pay gap, the glass ceiling, women’s pay after children, sex discrimination and harassment in the workplace, the lack of women on the boards of business etc… but on this occasion I don’t need to. You need look no further than the Government’s slash and burn emergency budget rushed in just 50 days after the election.

It is widely reported that the impact of the cuts will disproportionately impact on women. The Fawcett Society were quick to highlight that women would bear almost three quarters of the cuts and took the Government to the High Court last month seeking a judicial review on the grounds there was impact assessment of how the cuts would effect women. They have been backed up by The Women’s Budget Group who published a report in December 2010 that showed how cuts to public services affected different groups. It found that lone parents, the vast majority of whom are women, and single female pensioners were the hardest hit, losing services equivalent to 18.5% and 12% of their respective incomes. Overall, single women lose 60% more than single men. In court the Government admitted they had not carried out an assessment of how the budget would impact on women and men, something they’ve described as ‘regrettable’.

While it is disappointing there was not a judicial review granted of the budget, it was pleasing the government and the country heard that budgetary decisions are not above equality law. The court agreed that the government’s economic processes need to be looked at again. This decision is a credit to the Labour Government’s commitment to equality legislation. Catherine Hakim argues that this legislation is not helpful, well perhaps not helpful if you are a Conservative Government, but if you’re an ordinary woman on the street, a single mother or a single woman pensioner I would argue it is very helpful!

We have woken up, we’ve taken to the streets, marching, demonstrating, petitioning, blogging, tweeting and campaigning against the rise in higher education fees. We are also angry about the shift of our education system from public goods toward private goods.

The marketisation of schools and universities started in the 1980s and has never been stopped even by the Labour Government. We look at the possibility of variable fees leading to profit coming before people and the ‘bargain basement’ universities keeping less well off students separate from the well off in the ‘luxury’ universities and reinforcing class barriers.

Success, as the new common sense would have it, could only be achieved through competition, between institutions for the best scholars and students and between students themselves. The pressure becomes almost unbearable – the right nursery begets the right primary, which paves the way for the right secondary and then the right university – leading ultimately to the right, that is best paid, job. Along the way those who can’t stand the pace are weeded out and those who can are tutored, coaxed and coached by parents who are only doing their duty as they help burn out those who they love the most. Mental illness amongst our young people reaches inexorable heights.

Students are showing maturity beyond their years. They know this is not just about them and they cannot win any lone concessions on fees without wider support and consensus. Why would they want to ‘win’ and see others lose out still further? They understand what solidarity means. That is why campaigns like UK Uncut which links corporate tax avoidance to the rebalancing of our depleted public finances is critical both morally and practically. If one company, Arcadia, paid its tax return in full, then HE could be securely funded. But they are allowed to escape their responsibility to society. It means knowing that Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) is critical for hundreds thousands of youngsters who may never get to university and that cleaners on their campuses should be paid a living wage.

We want to help create an educational sphere where it is the value of learning that matters not its price. It is about the protection and extension of a precious public realm where we know each other not as consumers and competitors but as citizens and co-operators. The driving force of education should be creating the capacity for self-organisation. We want society to enjoy the annual harvest of enquiring, critical and free minds – not the production of hard, cold, calculating machines.

Many of our parents’ generation recoil at the horror of passing on a world to our generation that is worse than the one handed to them. What is happening is wrong and we all must say so in every legal and peaceful way we can – in parliament, in the media, in the all sites of education and on the streets.

My generation in England was told if we spent tens of thousands of pounds on our education we would have access to a globalised workplace with opportunities like no other generation before us. All that happens is we graduate with tens of thousands of pounds of debt and go into a jobs market where the earnings gap is wider between young and old than it ever has been. We are expected to work for free as interns for long periods. It’s harder for us to find work than it was for our parents – much harder. And that was before the credit crunch. The work we do find is likely to be temporary, part time, and badly paid. That is assuming we get jobs. The credit crunch has disproportionately impacted the young more than any previous recession. Youth unemployment is at the highest for a generation. With a lack of jobs for young people and with 19.3% youth unemployment we graduate with few employment prospects. Between August and November 2010, employment among 16-24 year olds fell 0.8%, while it increased for all other age groups. Our generation are the poor, the in-debt and the jobless. We were sold a lie about our future, that lie continues.

When it comes to fees the flow towards university privatisation becomes inexorable. But Scotland and Wales that something different is not just desirable but feasible.

Young people believed Nick Clegg when he said he would abolish tuition fees. The result of the u-turn and the massive increase in fees has shattered the little faith we placed in politicians. We expected it from the Tories, but we had no idea Nick Clegg would sell out our future faster than Ticketmaster sold out of Justin Bieber tickets.

With a tiny majority of just 21, the Coalition government got its new fees policy through the Commons. This wasn’t without impassioned speeches from members of all political parties and ministers’ resignations. The feeling amongst the students and young people has been one naturally of disappointment but also of a call “what next?”. We are looking for leadership from the National Union of Students but there has been a lack of that in recent weeks with NUS President, Aaron Porter u-turning on his support for student occupations and direct action more than the Liberal Democrat MPs have on their position on student fees.

Our only hope for a fairer education funding system now lies with the Bill being stopped by the House of Lords or a future Labour government under Ed Miliband introducing a graduate tax. All these things will take time and I worry will not come soon enough for the angry and upset young people I met on today’s protest. This combination of cuts to public services and higher tuition fees have been catalysts for a young generation, who are angry about our way of doing politics and won’t forgive Nick Clegg and his Liberal Democrats for selling them out. With the right leadership my generation can be a force for good, and a strong force for resistance against the cuts agenda.

This article was originally published in Chartist magazine January 2011.