Politics 2015: understanding the outcome

“Hello young man, do you know we’ve soon got an election coming up?”

Ha, thought I, he obviously was unaware of the type of company of I worked for.

“I am.” I said.

“Well can I ask, will you be voting for UKIP? There are many young people like you now joining our party.”

Oh my goodness, I thought. I am being cajoled/ harassed into voting UKIP by a canvasser using nudge theory, on my own doorstep!

“I’m not.” I said, with my arms folded. “I’m really not quite sure why voting for UKIP would be in my interest, indeed for the rest of the country.”

I’ll be honest, I’ve normally got a lot of time for people who go knocking on doors to talk about politics. 

Yes, it’s quite self-serving i.e. they’re just looking for voter intention and data for their own records, but it is quite a task to knock on the majority of doors in a constituency and ask what people care about and dislike.

“Well...” said the man.

If I was guessing, he was in his late sixties. He wore a tweed jacket, had slightly unkempt grey hair, merrily rotund. Overall quite friendly.

“It’s in all our interest because we no longer have control of our borders, we no longer have control to make our own rules. It’s all in done in Brussels now you see.”

Wow, I thought, he’s gone straight for the nuclear argument. He didn’t even ask me how long I’d lived here, where I worked or if I had any particular concerns about the local area.

“So, what do you suggest?” I retorted. “We pull out entirely? I’m all for reforming the place, very much so, but I’ve yet to hear how the transition period would work.”

Then came the numbers. The costs. The statistics. The data.

In the end, it was a case of agreeing to disagree, but here was a UKIP man on our doorstep. That was pretty unheard of in Harrogate. I remember once upon a time seeing them drive around the town centre with a megaphone attached to their car, reeling off number after number. This was in the years after The Referendum Party, when UKIP weren’t even considered to be on the fringes, but quite extreme. Now we’re in a world where they have the UK’s biggest representation within the EU Parliament and are considered to be ‘mainstream’. Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised by his appearance.

Yet, we’re still adjusting to it all. The left look on in glee as the right splinters and the Conservatives are dragged between their traditional base and the election winning centre ground, whereas the right are savouring the shambolic state of centre left politics led by Ed Miliband and his day-to-day issues. While the Lib Dems may have a place in Government after the next election, who’s not to say that power may lie from within the clutches of either Nigel Farage or the SNP’s Nicola Sturgeon, if not in this election, then perhaps 2020.

The leaders' debate 2010.

There are no absolute truths in politics and the shape of the 2015 General election is becoming very interesting and completely unexplainable. A recent poll now puts the Conservatives ahead of the Labour Party by three points, but even in an economic recovery can we expect a Tory majority? Though some cruelly argue that a corpse could have done better against Gordon Brown in the 2010 election, is it likely that Conservatives will be able to maintain all their current seats, as well as gain the 40 or so more needed to gain a majority? The polls suggest it is unlikely.

The loyalty towards Labour’s Ed Miliband appears hollow and more importantly do voters have a real idea of what a Labour-led government would do with almost six months to go? Even the so-called 35% strategy may be pushing it at this rate.

Then there are the Lib Dems. Notoriously entrenched in the seats they hold and formidable grassroots campaigners, another ‘unknown unknown’ in this election is to whether they will be able to hold on to as many seats they forecast. Opinion polls before the 2010 election gave them a healthy 23%, yet they have slumped on average to this Parliament to a mere 7%. Will the public punish them for being part of the Government? Or will they claw on and fight?

The new SNP leader, Nicola Sturgeon

Politicians and commentators often hint at the suggestion that when a General Election comes round and things ultimately get serious, people always revert to the mainstream parties. There is an historic precedence to this and who can disagree with facts. Yet, we don’t have that certainty and politicians are hesitant to jump to a conclusion that there will be a regression to the mean. Call it an end to ‘three party politics’ or as the UKIP MP Douglas Carswell calls it ‘iDemocracy’, times are changing.

What is interesting to see is that the emergence of UKIP and SNP and their subsequent rise is not simply down to the state of affairs from the established parties or a mood of anti-Westminster. Both SNP and UKIP, have successfully used a mixture of old and new campaigning techniques, along with a charismatic and likeable leader, to not only to get themselves recognised, but have a voice at the table. The question for the long-term is whether their campaigning can bring in support, money, votes and ultimately policies.

I did not go away and vote UKIP in the European elections. Yet, I went away and told numerous people that I spoke to one of their campaigners. Politics works in funny ways and until May 7 and the counting thereafter, we may only really have an idea then to what new politics really is.

Fight Night: will we see a 2015 live political debate?

For any political anorak, General Election night is one of the few occasions when staying up all night is a must. The exit polls, the swing-o-meter and the live interviews from the count all make for an entertaining night and early morning’s viewing. 2010 was no different and the campaign stands out for two particularly moments. Firstly, Gordon Brown’s cringing faux pas where he labelled off-camera and what he thought was off-mic, a life-long Labour supporter called Gillian Duffy ‘a bigoted woman’. Moments like this occur on every campaign trail, but what was most memorable this time around and completely untested was the live electoral debates.

On three separate occasions, Brown, Cameron and Clegg all duelled in live debates about matters that would sway how the British public would vote. Other Western democracies are used such set-ups, most notably in America, and despite frequent appearances on the likes of the Today programme or The Marr Show, such an event had never been held on British screens. In the context of UK politics, it was a chance for all three parties to gain. Gordon Brown felt that despite Labour’s lacklustre poll rating and the economic backdrop, he had nothing to lose, as well as his utterance that this was ‘no time for a novice’. David Cameron, his closest rival, buoyed by his polling had an opportunity to demonstrate the rebranding of his Conservatism. The dynamics of Britain’s three party system also gave a chance to a widely unknown Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg.

The 2010 debate

And it was Clegg who stole the show. The entire nation ‘agreed with Nick’ and as a consequence, Britain’s third party took 56 seats, down from the 2005 count, but substantial enough to see Britain’s first ‘hung’ Parliament since 1974. For most electoral strategists, there are many reasons to question why the Conservatives did not win an outright majority, but the ‘Clegg-factor’ was substantial enough to sway the ballot towards no overall control. The following five days in May saw the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to join together to form today’s Coalition Government.

To this date, and a General Election less than two years away, there is no agreement in place to whether we will see similar debates in 2015. And even despite Clegg’s performance last time, the question will be whether all three parties would want it to take place. The viewing figures from 2010 were around 10 million. That’s unheard of for political programming and simply cranks up the pressure on all party leaders, but if it has been done before and worked, why would the broadcasters not want to do it again?

And for the leaders, would they really want it to go ahead?

For the Lib Dems and Nick Clegg, history may well hold them hostage. The party remains bullish about its record in government and its ability to hang onto its seats. The Eastleigh by-election demonstrated their ability to win whilst in Government and the party grassroots will be as combative as ever. Yet Mr Clegg is no longer the outsider to the British public and they may well remember his paper promises come the vote next time, even if he puts in a strong broadcast performance. A debate may simply be part of a long drawn out annihilation.

For the Tories, David Cameron has yet to say on-record that he is willing to take part in similar debates, but it is more than likely that political pressure would force him to do so. Many would argue that Cameron remains the party’s biggest asset and that on all occasions when he has been put on the spot, most notably over Europe; he has triumphed and shown his statesman-like qualities. Yet others are quick to blame his 2010 performance for the party’s inability to win the previous vote outright. The continuing rebellion among backbenchers and the irresistable rise of Boris Johnson may put the pressure on Cameron on further. History shows that most leaders do not go onto better their previous vote, for many within the party; it may be another reason why they see it fit to unseat Mr Cameron’s leadership.

And what about Ed Miliband? The leader that to some extent remains an unknown quantity to the British public.  Would a ‘one-nation’ Labour transcend in a live leadership debate? Would voters warm to a Mr Miliband whose performances have become stronger since his rise to party leader in 2010? Or would they be turned off by his personality? His awkwardness and most notably, his political legacy in the Brown Government? Neither he nor Ed Balls have said that Labour overspent in the time in Government, despite Britain having the biggest deficit in the G8. Could a strong message and performance from Cameron and Clegg simply vanquish all rebranding attempts made by Labour?

Is it democratically unfair to ignore the likes of Farage and Salmond?

And what of UKIP or the SNP? Nigel Farage could well see his party storm to success in the 2014 the European elections. Despite no representation in the Commons, would it be unfair to exclude him from some or all of the debates? Or would exclusion only benefit him further and his party’s message? The same could be said of Alex Salmond. Why should the Conservatives, who only have one MP in Scotland, be given such preferential treatment on national broadcast? Who is not to say that the Independence debate in September 2014 could enhance the voice of the SNP in Westminster? Would it be unfair then?

There are many legal and broadcasting caveats to take into consideration, as well as the overriding political risks, but it seems implausible to go into 2015, without the prospect of a live leadership debate. As I outlined above, there are extra considerations to be had, but in what will develop into a crucial vote, the question is, who will we agree with this time?

David Cameron: Be bold or blow it.

It is said that the unwritten rule in 10 Downing Street is not to mention to Prime Minister David Cameron why the Conservatives did not win an outright majority in 2010. Going by these standards it may be wise if ever in the Treasury not to mention the 2012 spring budget to George Osborne. Two months have passed since the chancellor delivered his now infamous budget and it has brought the government nothing but negative headlines ever since.

Not only did the Conservatives take a kicking in the recent local elections, but so have many of its ministers. Home Secretary Theresa May managed to get her days wrong when trying to finally deport radical Islamic cleric Abu Qatada, Sayeeda Warsi is the latest politician to be accused of fiddling her expenses. Not to mention the elephant in the room involving the Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt and his relationship with News International.

Happier times...

I suspect the chancellor; also the Conservative’s chief electoral strategist could not have foreseen what was coming around the corner. Far removed was the analysis regarding potential tax revenue increases or a shifting of the ‘Laffer Curve’, but endless reams of front pages calling it a tax break for millionaires and hyperbole over the so-called ‘pasty tax’. This decision was politically bold and one this blog believes to have been correct, but its aftermath has been managed appallingly. At a time of severe economic gloom and pain for many sectors of society, particularly the politically important C1s and C2s, if this change were to be ushered in, it had to be done effectively. This it was not.

As a consequence the Labour party have managed to take a 14-point lead in the polls with their leader Ed Miliband becoming noticeably better in his duels with Cameron at the weekly PMQs. Cameron, who has always ranked higher in approval ratings compared to his party, has also suffered. Probably the most popular Conservative in the country is the London mayor Boris Johnson and beyond that, people may start scratching their heads. The Liberal Democrat’s fortunes faded a long time before.

Theories of so-called ‘midterm blues’ have been thrown about by coalition MPs, but it’s not difficult to see why many already see the rot setting in. Despite the PM and his deputy Clegg renewing their vows in another rose garden moment at a factory in Basildon, the tensions are visible. Relations over Europe and most significantly the ways to see growth in the economy are causing tension.

Many commentators agree that it already appears to be getting to Cameron. He has lost his composure on several occasions of late, mostly during PMQs and particularly to the shadow chancellor Ed Balls. All coalition members are right to criticise Labour’s terrible economic legacy but even after two years of coalition government and a double-dip recession, Cameron is visibly pushing the same tired lines over and over again. It is not good politics and is increasingly starting to appear desperate.

Headache?

The hysteria over comments about whether Cameron and Osborne were ‘too posh’ should not have been given as much coverage as it warranted. The reason is that at any point, politicians are accused of being ‘out of touch’ from those outside the Westminster village. This was a story that overlapped with some of the previous week’s articles, but the trend had already begun.

Stories involving spin and sleaze are always damaging and became chronic in both the Major and New Labour years, but for this government and this leadership the issue that would be most alarming would be accusations of incompetence. This of course was a government coming together in the national interest. Admirers of Cameron’s leadership have always pointed to his ability to look for the practical solutions beyond ideology and his warmness to working with people. Cameron is best when he is bold. Most notably when he used the UK’s veto over the EU fiscal compact and when he famously called Gordon Brown’s bluff in the election that never was in 2008. So why does it appear to be going wrong?

The fact the economy hasn’t grown in 18 months is not helping anybody. The Tories must pure and simply rely on the strength of the economy to win a majority in the next election; and as things stand, that may not happen. The prospect of another hung Parliament and a potential coalition with the Lib Dems is bound to worry many backbenchers. This has inevitably led to questions regarding Cameron and his style of leadership.

A strong theme that emanates from websites such as Conservative Home, is the fact that he is not Mrs Thatcher. Despite being retired from public life and sadly suffering from dementia, Mrs Thatcher is very much the political pin-up for many Tory backbenchers, whereas for Cameron and Osborne, it is more likely to be Tony Blair. They admire Blair’s political intelligence and his ability to win elections, but certainly appear to have ignored his style of presentation.

Fewer special advisors within Number 10 and critically a weak voice from the communications department are making Cameron’s government appear feckless. This government, in only two years, has been radical in its reforms on welfare and education, but its inability to take control over the past two months has made them appear slightly aloof and the poll numbers reflect this.

Any press criticism can be damaging, but it is in the interest of a party, whether political or business to set the record straight. The government needs to get out there on and talk directly to the public. The Conservatives will not win a majority if they fail to make inroads into the north and Cameron and Osborne’s real political legacy will only be judged if they can establish something beyond this Parliament. A reshuffle may help in the short term, but if they are going to win, then they need to be bolder.

Midterm blues: Can Cameron step up?

All governments suffer from mid-term blues, but for the current administration, it appears to be getting worse and worse. Since Chancellor George Osborne’s spring budget, the Conservative party’s poll ratings have fallen to their lowest in eight years.

Beyond the double-dip recession, the government has encountered negative press coverage regarding granny taxes, pasty taxes, charity taxes, caravan taxes and IMF loans. Furthermore, serious questions have been raised over the Home Secretary Teresa May’s inability to deport the hate preacher Abu Qatada and the Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt’s dealings with News International over the BSkyB takeover. It was finally capped off after one Tory backbencher labelled both the Chancellor and Prime Minister David Cameron as ‘two arrogant posh boys who don’t know the price of milk’.

Osborne was recently asked when he last ate a pasty

By all precedents, the government of the day should not be too concerned about ratings half way through a Parliament. In 1981, Margaret Thatcher suffered terrible poll ratings, only 18 months into her tenure. Likewise, Tony Blair and New Labour faced an internal meltdown after the 2000 autumn fuel protests. Both went onto to win comfortably in the ensuing general elections.

As ridiculous as it sounds, the government of the day must also be prepared to take a battering in local and other elections. In 2008, during a recession and the unfolding days of Gordon Brown, New Labour lost the mayoralty election in London, nine councils and 334 councillors. When voters go to the ballot box this week, Labour will expect a host of victories across the country, whereas the Tories and Liberal Democrats should expect a decline in the polls. It is an ongoing exercise of electoral swings and roundabouts.

Strategically, the government’s main concern will be focussed on the next general election, probably in 2015. It is a time when voters truly voice their views on the current administration and whether they deserve another term in office. For the Tories, at this midterm point, the possibility of a majority government looks rather bleak. Despite a raft of radical policies including education and welfare reform, the payback is by no means guaranteed. Not only are they shackled to the electorally unpopular Lib Dems and face a slumping economy, but fundamentally, the Tories are still failing to shake off their image as a party of the rich.

Despite the government’s mission to reduce the size of the state and tackle the burden of a welfare culture, the Labour party constantly harangues the government’s ‘all in this together’ message and the current Cabinet’s composition of millionaires. Introducing reform to the NHS is portrayed as privatisation. Reducing the higher rate of tax from 50p to 45p, though economically sensible, is viewed as a tax break for millionaires, not so wise at a time of wage freezes, high unemployment and high inflation. It should be noted that Labour, still burdened as economically incompetent by the electorate, has yet to announce any of their own policies.

These problems link to the government’s ineffective communication strategy. Not only is the message weak, but it lacks the hard hitters to consistently reaffirm it. Mrs Thatcher’s attack dog was Norman Tebbit, whilst New Labour wasn’t afraid to throw John Prescott or John Reid to fend off the media. Despite the obvious constraints of dealing with a coalition government, even Conservative-only issues such as the current involving Jeremy Hunt lack any high-fliers to defend him. Apparently BBC Newsnight could only find backbencher Jacob Rees-Mogg willing to appear on air. In a world of Twitter and 24-hour news, where opponents have a platform to criticise you immediately, it is important to have lieutenants in place to control the message.

Health Secretary's heckling.

It is twenty years since John Major was elected as Prime Minister in the 1992 election. Amazingly, Major polled over 14 million votes; the highest by any British party leader, even Blair and Thatcher. Perhaps it is more extraordinary when one contends the discontent regarding the poll tax and the effects of the ‘Lawson boom’. Certainly, no leader could expect such a result with the growth in regional parties such as Plaid Cymru and the SNP, but how ascertainable is winning a majority?

A recent poll by the Conservative Home website states that only 23% of party members believe that David Cameron can win a majority in the next election. Cameron is an extremely talented politician and continuously has better poll ratings than his party, not to mention other party leaders. Since his leadership victory in 2005, he has helped the Tories rebrand themselves as greener and more caring. However, no inquiry has taken place as yet to see why the Conservatives did not win an outright majority in the 2010 election. Why was it that a tired and economically-imprudent Labour party managed to hang on to as many seats as they did? According to some sources it is something you dare not speak about when in Number 10.

As the story in today’s Sunday Times suggests, ethnic minority voters are still wary to vote Tory. In fact, only 16% voted Conservative in the last election. This should be concerning because beyond the fact that this population is set to make of a fifth of the electorate by 2050, many of the party’s traditional pro-business and pro-family policies should attract these voters, not deter them. It highlights not what the party represents but what it says and looks like. There are few Tory MPs from ethnic minority backgrounds and we certainly don’t hear from them. It is the same in regards to the north. Maybe besides Eric Pickles, we rarely hear any northern accents. The party’s policy agenda has been impressive, yet it tends to be the same old faces that we hear from.

More talented politicians from different backgrounds like Paul Uppal MP

Maybe it is possible to over analyse these things, particularly halfway through an election cycle and when things look slightly unfavourable. As Norman Tebbit says, “if suspected terrorists were being kicked out, taxes and unemployment were going down and pay going up, it wouldn’t matter if it was being reported that the Prime Minister liked to lay in the baths full of champagne drinking Chateau Laffite, after a hard day’s hunting on one of Rebekah Brooks’s horses, the public wouldn’t give a damn.” Probably true as well.

If Cameron fails to win the next election, no matter how popular and reforming he may be, he will always be held in a lower regard. Certainly lower than Thatcher, most likely Major and perpetually compared to Heath.  It will not be Osborne stepping up, but one Boris Johnson.

Goodbye guru: Steve Hilton leaves

After a week of headlines questioning whether the Prime Minister David Cameron rode Rebekah Brookes’s ex-police horse, the Prime Minister may be looking to the Cheltenham Festival for a change in fortunes both nationally and within his own party.

The departure of Steve Hilton, the chief of strategy and the so-called architect of Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ comes as a blow at a decisive time. Hilton, a former advertising executive and a long time friend of the PM, is taking a year sabbatical to California to teach at Stanford University. He has stated that he does intend to return to the post before the next general election. Should Cameron be worried and does Hilton’s departure open growing concerns?

Hilton arriving for work.

Over the past few months, the coalition government has seen a dip in fortunes in the press and politically. The Labour party have managed to castigate, successfully, the government’s Health & Social bill and much more focus is being placed on the lack of growth in the British economy. A couple of months ago, Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, was certain to win the Mayoral elections in May, now polls show him to be neck and neck with Labour’s candidate Ken Livingstone.

Since coming to power in May 2010, the coalition government have managed to pass through a great deal of radical policy. In education, the academies bill has given schools the potential to govern themselves and just last week the House of Lords passed the welfare bill that caps benefits at £26,000 per household. The localism bill plans to give further powers away from Whitehall.

Yet, Hilton’s departure shows the growing frustration from within Number 10. Mr Cameron and his aides appear now to be managing every policy decision, far from the style of government they had planned when they first arrived. The Prime Minister has had to intervene on numerous policy initiatives including: public owned forests, wild animals in circuses, the EU, but most notably the health bill and the economy.

Hilton’s plans for the ‘Big Society’ and less red tape for businesses appear to have been put to one side. There are growing frustrations of the Liberal Democrats and their often bizarre requests to delay legislation. Only last week in Cabinet, the Business Secretary Vince Cable was supposedly rebuked for the lack of growth policies coming out of his department. Not to mention the Deputy Prime Minister’s attempts to reform the House of Lords. At the same time, Cameron has to deal with a growing unrest from his backbenchers, who feel policy is being hijacked by the Lib Dems. Prime Minister’s Questions have repeatedly seen cheeky questions of whether Clegg is a ‘goodie’ or ‘baddie’ or why certain Lib Dem ministers have not voted for government bills.

This day-to-day reactionary politics appears to have been the reason why Hilton has left for now. His departure leaves Cameron without another key advisor, a year after Andy Coulson’s decision to leave. For now, Cameron will be glad to see the Health bill finally pushed through the House of Lords and a reshuffle in the spring may allow him to clean up some of his flagging departments. Ultimately, a return to growth and a re-election for Boris would be better than a 100-1 outsider in the Gold Cup.

                                                                                                                                                     

Party politics - wooing the delegates

As we reach the final week of the party conference season with the Tories in Manchester. It has given us an opportunity to assess the speeches from the leaders of the three main political parties and listen to their thoughts on important issues such as the economy, jobs and education. Yet as David Cameron takes the main stage to address Tory delegates, questions will be asked on how important the speech really is and whether the party conference season adds any policy ammunition to the Government of the day or whether it is just plain and simply a talking shop for leading figures to allay members’ fears.

Party politics in Britain no longer holds ideological differences that embattled a generation of politicians. Throughout the 1950s and up until the mid 1980s, it was easy to determine where each party lay and where their votes came from. The Americanisation of democracy and the revolution in electoral communications has meant that politicians are now under scrutiny for every move they make on 24-hour news. They also have to contend with an all-encompassing comment vanguard, who have a brigade of Twitter and Facebook followers. No longer are the views of Benedict Brogan or Nigel Lawson restricted to the inside sheets of the broadsheets, they are blogged, retweeted and then cited by other commentators. Politics is truly a pervasive sport.

So how powerful are the party members and how influential are they in dictating policy for their leaders? I would suggest not very. Politicians have always had political/policy advisors surrounding them and the constituent base was always the barometer to assess what the grassroots were feeling. Mrs Thatcher’s neo liberal ideas came through the Centre of Policy Studies founded by her policy guru Keith Joseph. New Labour formed under the stewardship of Alastair Campbell – a former tabloid political editor, Peter Mandelson – a television producer and Philip Gould – a pollster who had worked in American politics. David Cameron had a background in public relations, Gordon Brown did not. It is necessary for a modern day leader to be surrounded by a coterie of special advisors (spads), spin-doctors, pollsters and all other sorts of political professionals. Policies develop through focus groups, intellects and advisors, not the hoi polloi. Even the atmosphere surrounding the recent Liberal Democrat conference, a party notorious for its grass roots, was distinctly corporate rather than village hall.

The main reason is the growth of the swing vote. People no longer are associated with the local Conservative or Labour club, for reasons of time, family and changing habits. The local association’s main role is the fundraising for elections and the selection of candidates. Besides support, perhaps the most important thing they provide is information. They identify for whom an individual or family is likely to vote and trends within a community, age group or gender. Democracy is a set of ideas and values, but electoral politics is about getting more people to vote for you on polling day. Looking and sounding respectable and trusting is the best way to get their vote.

So the Conservative conference, according to figures from Conservative Home (the digital home of Tories), shows that 10 per cent of members dislike the Coalition and two-thirds believe that David Cameron has given too many powers away to the Lib Dems. Unsurprising results, you would expect. As it goes, much of the substance from the conference yesterday involved traditional Tory thinking, tackling illegal immigration and repatriating powers from Brussels. Yet for the Tories, particularly David Cameron and George Osborne, the real issues do not lie regarding the Lib Dems asserting themselves or showing the Government to be more compassionate to female voters (they do matter), it ultimately comes down to the economy.

Most Conservatives are concerned about the jobs and taxes and believe the rate of cuts needs to hasten before the burden is placed on businesses. They also believe that any future amendments of EU treaties should provide the UK with an opportunity to repatriate powers from Brussels, but let’s be fair, if slightly trite, you could put a blue brick on stage and most Conservatives would vote for it. David Cameron and his cabinet colleagues are aware of the ramblings on Europe, the Human Rights Act and the difficulty in winning the female vote but he and his advisors will be more aware that if he doesn’t get the economy right then come 2015 they could all be out of a job.

Tuition Fees: This is Government

So the vote for tuition fees went the way of the Coalition Government. From 2013, students in England could potentially be paying up to £9,000 per year. Ignoring the anger on the streets and the mindless acts of violence by the protesters, the political games were extremely engaging and provoking. The Liberal Democrats, the junior partner within the coalition, abandoned their election pledge not to increase tuition fees.

Many will argue that free higher education should be a right and that society gains as a whole from having highly-skilled graduates. Yet, it is unaffordable and by having more and more students entering further education, it is causing a greater strain for the state to burden.

Perhaps this is what the Liberal Democrats have come to realise. From a party that within the past twenty years has been well-liked and input many policy pledges, it is learning that Government is far from comfortable and idealistic. Yes, it is difficult not to sympathise with the MPs who abstained or voted against the legislation, but we must commend the members that voted with the Government. Nick Clegg, who is sure to face criticism from party members. He has shouldered a massive amount of pressure for the coalition and David Cameron should be acknowledging.

It is obvious the policy will not always please everyone, particularly if Welsh and Scottish students are unaffected. But perhaps the leadership shown by Mr Clegg will be a realisation to Liberal Democrat members what politics is about and that the next few years will be tough.