My take on voter apathy amongst young people

Currently voter apathy is high and in young people it is even higher. Less than 50% of 18-24 year olds voted in the 2010 general election and far fewer voted in the recent local elections. After listening to BBC Radio 1’s Newsbeat Exclusive with John Bercow talking to young people about the reasons they don’t vote, I thought I would write this blog on the reasons why I thought this was.

Firstly with the average age of an MP currently being 50, it is no wonder that young people say that politicians don’t represent them purely based upon the huge age differences. The reasons why MPs are older, is a reverse phenomenon of ageism as it is perceived politicians are required to have had a certain number of years’ experience before qualifying to be able to serve in office. This bodes the question, why does having years of life experience make you a suitable MP as surely an MP is there to represent all constituents and not have to had the varying life experiences of all of their constituents. I think it is vitally important that these huge disparities in age are addressed in order to get a more representative House of Commons that can deal with youth issues effectively by using younger MPs more up to date knowledge.

The MPs expenses scandal has also played a huge role with turning off the electorate as a whole however the expenses scandal for many young people will have been the first time many of them have interacted with politics in any way.  As first impressions of the political system are negative this expenses scandal has resulted in a negative portrayal of all, meaning many innocent MPs were tarred with the same brush as other MPs that abused the system.  The vast majority of MPs, who abused the system, have only faced minor punishments, with even those imprisoned facing lenient sentences in comparison to those convicted from the riots last year. An isolated case is where 23 year old Nicolas Robinson was sentenced to 6 months in prison for stealing £3.50 worth of bottled water from LIDL whilst Eric Illsley who fiddled his expenses to the tune of £14,000 received a sentence of merely 12 months. These double standards boasted of pure hypocrisy especially as many politicians came out and demanded harsh sentences for looters and rioters whereas these politicians were part of the same class who had fiddled their expenses. It appeared that there in law there was one rule for politicians and another rule for young people. This surely caused greater apathy between young people and the political class and this lack of trust in politics is another reason why young people choose not to vote.

Coalition politics has also led to a big turn-off of current young voters. The Liberal Democrats undoubtedly wooed first time voters with the promise of a new type of politics and received a large number of votes as a result. However once Lib Dems entered the coalition, this new type of politics didn’t remain with broken promises on VAT, the NHS and most prominently the tripling of tuition fees. When first time voters, results in an outcome where the party they voted for explicitly, results in an outcome where the party they voted for, went against their promises, it tars all politicians with the same brush as not keeping their promises. There are so many young people that say, what’s the point in voting for a manifesto when a party in government will go against this as soon as elected? However this has been a problem for all political parties, coalition politics has made this worse and in particular the impression of a first-time voter of being “lied” could turn off them for voting again.

Another reason why I think young people don’t vote is due to the lack of political education in schools. Citizenship lessons, which are now rarely taught, should help prepare students for the political landscape. In my experience politics is not taught at all so is no surprise when people don’t know their local MP, don’t know the Prime Minister and even accuse Gordon Brown of increasing tuition fees to £9000 (as a counterpart at my sixth form did). In order to address the lack of political involvement from young people, I think it is essential that political education is put at the forefront of an improved citizenship syllabus so young people fell they can get fully involved in the democratic process.

I think these reasons can be summarised into a general mistrust of politicians, how young people feel politicians don’t represent them and the lack of political education in schools. In order to counteract this voter apathy I think it is hugely important that MPs start to reflect the general population in terms of age (not to mention to address the gender imbalance) and it is important that MPs interact with young people on issues that actually affect them. Young people say that political parties and politicians are not interested in them and to some extent this is true, as it appears that governing parties are not as interested in young people as other demographic groups for example the retired. This comes from the fact that because young people don’t come out and vote unlike older people, parties don’t need to tailor their policies for young people as they won’t win votes by doing so as statistically young people vote less than older people. This results in a spiral where young people don’t vote and therefore parties don’t treat them as equal members of the electorate.

Young people may say they are not interested in politics but when politicians discuss issues with them, young people inherently are political without necessarily thinking of themselves as party political. However it is important that all political parties and institutions take this youth disengagement in politics seriously so that we can truly say we have a better democracy where the majority of young people choose to vote.

My NUS National Conference Report 2012

Background/Before Conference
I was elected as one of five representatives following the elections in March (as well as UBU president: Gus Baker) to attend NUS Conference in Sheffield alongside delegates from higher education (HE) and further education (FE) institutions across the England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The remainder of the delegates that were sent from Bristol were Chris and Dom (UBU Sabbatical Officers) and Jo and Georgina.In my manifesto that I was elected upon; I stood on an anti-tuition fees platform, increasing support for all students and also increasing the transparency of the NUS. The majority of people I spoke to when campaigning only knew the NUS from the discount card. This needs to change and hopefully this report will help to do that.

Elections
President
1.      Kanja Sesay – commitment to free higher education as stated in my manifesto as well as he emphasised the important role liberation (LGBT, Black, Disability) plays in the student movement


2.      Ed Marsh – impressed in the hustings that went on late into Tuesday night, arguing the case against a graduate tax and the promise of the first year fee free as a first measure to reduce fees overall.

Elected: Liam Burns (current NUS president for a second term)

Vice-President: Higher Education
1.      Michael Chessum – against tuition fees as my manifesto pledged I would do, against the government white paper to marketise/privatise our universities and his call for equality and liberation to be at the heart of the student movement

2.      Rachael Wenstone – proposal of a better funding arrangement for postgrad students, and also for part-time and mature students (my manifesto highlighted the importance of supporting all students)

Elected: Rachel Wenstone

Vice-President: Further Education
Unable to vote as HE delegate

Elected: Toni Pearce (current VP: HE for a second year)

Vice-President: Union Development
1.      Luke Young – commitment to activist training to develop our unions to be a campaigning force for good on campus. Also a commitment to end all-male panels at NUS. Equal opportunity to get involved with student activities, giving financial support to low-income students


2.      Vicki Baars – support for student unions and students to attend a national demonstration against FE and HE cuts and fees. Allow training to activists to be as inclusive as possibly e.g. online and into FE colleges. Also make the argument of education as a public good.

Elected: Vicki Baars

Vice-President: Welfare
1.      Pete Mercer – will campaign against the government who are cutting student support for vulnerable students. Also lobby for funding arrangements for postgrads. The need for greater liberation

Elected: Pete Mercer (current VP: Welfare for a second year)

Vice-President: Society and Citizenship
1.      Dannie Grufferty – commit to get at least 20 FE and HE institutions paying the Living Wage, campaign against unpaid internships, campaign not to prohibit student protests on campuses, launch a campaign to ban kettling, help to develop community organising network amongst student unions

Elected: Dannie Grufferty (current VP: Soc and Cit)

NUS Block of 15
1.      Lizi Gray (FE)
2.      Jamil Keating (FE)
3.      Caroline Dangerfield (HE)
4.      Matt Stanley (FE)
5.      Emma Meehan (HE)
6.      Michael Chessum (HE)
7.      Georgina Bavetta (HE)
8.      Furqan Naeem (HE)
9.      Mark Sewards (HE)
10.  Jamie Woodcock (HE)

Elected (places reserved for FE): Jamil Keating, Joe Vinson, Surya Prakash-Bhatta, Matt Stanley, Roshni JoshiElected: Alex Causton-Ronaldston, Michael Chessum, Caroline Dangerfield, Reni Eddo-Lodge, Jake Kitchener, Emma Meehan, Aidan Mersh, Mark Sewards, Mike Williamson, Jamie Woodcock

Motions
There were many motions and amendments voted upon at conference. I will explain the way I voted and the reasons behind this on some of the key motions brought up at conference. To discuss my whole voting record or to see the way I voted on other motions please email tp1122@bristol.ac.uk

Don’t Just Widen Participation – Deepen Participation (501) – Voted FOR
This motion called on NUS to research barriers WP students faced and to secure funding for student unions to remove financial barriers that may prevent students from partaking in extra-curricular activities.I believe it is priority of the NUS to pursue ever increasing widening participation schemes allowing students who may not usually access further and higher education to maximise their potential in education so I voted for this motion.

Right to Protest on Campus (510) – Voted FOR
This motion called on the NUS to condemn legal action taken by universities who want to prevent students from peacefully campaigning and to train student unions to work with students to protest effectively.I believe it is a fundamental right that students should be allowed to peacefully protest against their university and the NUS should protect students when universities try to stop this, therefore I voted for the motion.For the same reasons I voted for Motion 402: Defend the Right to Protest

Free Education in FE (203) – Voted FOR
This motion argued that the NUS should campaign against the introduction of fees and loans into further education and to aim to reinstate free first level 2 and 3 qualifications for allI believe that both FE and HE should be free as the country and the individual both benefit from individuals becoming more educated so should be seen as a public good and therefore I voted in favour of the motion. This motion included amendments arguing that FE should be free at all levels and the NUS should run a campaign demanding no to FE fees, stopping cuts to courses and the immediate re-instatement of EMA which I also voted in favour of.

Lifelong Learning (204) – Voted FOR
This links to the previous motion, arguing that there should be universal access to level 2 and level 3 qualifications which I believe the furthering an individual’s education and potential at any age of their life is a fundamental right.

Public Role of Higher Education (302) – Voted FOR
This motion argued the NUS needed to research the social and economic benefits of higher education in wider society and to promote the value of higher education in the local community and need for higher education to be a public good. Amendments included the need to win public guarantees with political parties to reinvest funding in HE, develop links with trade unions advocate the value of education and the need for the NUS to lobby universities to be the drive of social mobility: all of which I voted in favour of.

Access and Admissions (304) – Voted FOR
The motion called on the NUS to lobby for a post-results application system to universities, to lobby institutions to use contextual data in admissions and to further the work done to widen participation.I believe a post-results application system will be a fairer way of applying to university taking into consideration actual rather than predicted results and contextual offers allow students from poorer backgrounds to get into university based upon their potential therefore I voted in favour of the motion.

Higher Education Bill (305) – Voted FOR
This motion condemns the use of profit in the education sector, the privatisation and sell-off of our education, calls for the student movement to work with the trade union movement and other allies to raise the profile of this. It also calls for NUS to oppose private providers in the education sector and oppose outsourcing of teaching activitiesI believe education is a public good and should be argued for within wider society, and the private sector should not have a role in the further and higher education sector therefore I voted in favour of the motion.Amongst the amendments for this motion, there was a call for a National Demonstration in the autumn term 2012 which I voted in favour of. I voted in favour because I believe the government is callously and ideologically attacking further and higher education and young people through the introduction of FE fees, tripling of HE tuition fees, cutting of the EMA, cuts to teaching grants and high interest rates on student debt. I believe that the only way that students will have their voice heard by the government is through a mass demonstration combining both HE and FE students. Other amendments included opposing the White Paper for fees in higher education and support a national campaign against it which I did vote for however I voted against an indefinite national student strike if the HE bill is passed.

Support for Students Taking a Year from Study (606) – Voted FOR
This motion calls for greater information provision and information retention detailing the differing experiences of students taking a year from study. It also called for Student Finance to provide greater support and information for these students considering taking a year from study.I believe in supporting all students financially and socially so students are given the full details so can make a properly informed decision when deciding whether to take a year from study so I voted for this motion.

Password Protection (704) – Voted FOR
This motion highlighted that the NUS Connect website is password protected, deterring many activists and students getting fully involved with democracy within the NUS. Part of my manifesto pledge was to increase transparency in the NUS so a small change such as removing this password protection would help students know more about the NUS’ role so I voted in favour of this motion.

Overview
At national conference, there was a heavy dominance of sabbatical officers at times feeling like that the NUS actually stands for the National Union of Sabbatical Officers. Although their expertise in issues such as higher education policy and the running of unions is extremely useful in the functioning of the NUS, the main positions in NUS are mostly filled by former sabbatical officers most who could have possibly completed another degree since leaving university. Do they represent student’s interests now? It would be interesting to find out the percentage of students and percentage of sabbatical officers that attended conference. However sabbatical officers mostly ran for positions so could be a reason why I felt like sabbatical officers were dominant.

The biggest thing that came out of my time at conference, was the amount of procedural motions that were put forward (no I didn’t really know what they were until I arrived either) meaning that a lot of time was wasted discussing the democratic procedures of conference rather than the policies that everyone came to discuss. In addition to that there were a large number of amendments made to motions which seemed to waste time. Although it is vital that we get motions correct at times it felt like people were using amendments to make an impromptu motion.

Also there was not enough time to discuss motions that was proposed by unions, who spent a lot of time writing and preparing them which ultimately didn’t get heard. Although the priority ballot was meant to ensure that those with the most interest were debated, most never got heard (even those at the top of the ballot) as recommendations from zone committees were discussed before. For example in the Education Zone no ordinary motions were discussed meaning that students didn’t have the opportunity to put their case forward in front of National Conference for important issues such as Security in Colleges and the future funding arrangements of higher education, which will all now be handed over to the NEC to discuss and vote upon.Although in this overview I have focused on negative aspects of the conference (mainly concerning the procedures rather than what was actually discussed), on the whole it was a great experience and privilege to represent the Bristol student body on a national level. Influencing NUS policy for the forthcoming year and electing representatives highlighted the important role that the NUS plays in the student movement. It is important that Bristol plays a key role in the NUS as when students combine as a national force, we can achieve far more than we can as a union on our own. That’s why it is vitally important that Bristol and the NUS as a whole supports the National Demo that was mandated by conference, takes as many students as we can to campaign against this government’s attack on FE and HE as a public good. However I think over the next year it is imperative that the NUS engages more with the student body to ensure that students know the NUS does so much more than just get them 10% off in River Island!

To discuss any of this report and my experience at NUS National Conference feel free to email me at tp1122@bristol.ac.uk

My Endorsement of Helen Holland for Bristol Labour Mayoral Candidate

After attending the Bristol Labour Students Mayoral Hustings I have decided that (if I could) I would be voting for Helen Holland for our Labour candidate.

These are my personal opinions and not representative of Bristol Labour Students.

I believe Helen is the right candidate to win the mayoral election for Bristol. With her experience (as former council leader) in local politics she has a huge wealth of experience of the city and understands how an elected mayor can unlock the amazing potential of the city.

Helen realises that Bristol’s public transport is poor (due to unreliable services and increasingly high fares) which impacts upon many Bristolians lives on a daily basis. She has an ambitious vision for Bristol’s public transport system.  She wants to develop an oyster-style integrated travelcard incorporating bus, train and ferry in order to get the very best deal for Bristolians.

Helen places the importance of young people at the forefront of her campaign. As a former teacher and councillor for one of the most deprived wards in the city she acknowledges the disparities in schools and life opportunities seen across the city. Helen will strive to end the huge disparities in life chances seen between communities in Bristol.

As a young person living in the city and a student, I am convinced that Helen will deliver for young people and students alike.  Her stance against unpaid internships, in favour of the expansion of student bursaries and apprenticeships and the need to tackle the growing problem of youth and graduate employment demonstrates how she can connect and win for young people across Bristol.

She also supports the living wage and says that Bristol needs to build new quality council and social housing to deal with the problem the city faces from a lack of affordable housing. She cites the need for a comprehensive plan for Bristol incorporating the private sector, public sector, voluntary organisations, trade unions and education providers to provide an integrated city that works for everyone in Bristol not just the few.

Helen as mayor would have the ability to inspire people and the experience to maximise the potential of our already great city. I believe that if Helen was elected to be Labour’s candidate she would have the ability to reach out to the widest possible range of voters and would campaign for every last vote in order to get Bristol a Labour mayor.  For a local candidate who has the experience of delivering for Bristolians, the ability to empower people and who will deliver a better Bristol which works for all, I would urge you to vote for Helen to be Labour’s candidate for Mayor.

My take on why Labour lost Bradford West

Looking from the outside into Bradford West I’m going to give the reasons why I think Labour went down to a damaging defeat in this by-election. In a week where Labour has seen its highest polling lead over the Conservatives for years, as they led the polls by 10% 3 days running, it would seem that Labour presumed that victory was in their sight. With the Tories being Labour’s closest challengers at the last election in the constituency and the Tories having had a disastrous week: delivering the Millionaires budget, cash for access row, the pasty tax and presiding over the fuel debacle, it seemed even more of a foregone conclusion than it previously might have done that Labour would win the by-election.

Did this mean that Labour took the by-election too weakly? Not really, Ed Miliband alongside other prominent Labour MPs and shadow cabinet members all visited Bradford West showing their support for Labour candidate Imran Hussain. Moving onto Hussain. He was a local candidate, as a councillor in the Toller ward of the city and had been deputy leader of the Bradford city council since 2010. Being a local, well-known candidate alongside Labour riding high in the polls, Bradford West seemed destined to elect another Labour MP. So how did it all go wrong?

Of course George Galloway is a politician that divides people, some love him for his brutal honesty (often not associated with traditional politicians) and others hate him. However if it wasn’t for George Galloway, Labour would not have lost. No one can argue that it wasn’t the Respect party that won it for him. They wouldn’t have even figured in the top three, if Galloway hadn’t put his candidacy forward. Galloway clearly campaigned about being a “parliamentarian” rather than a councillor – a clear dig at Hussain.  Galloway’s election strategy was a clear anti-war message rather than focusing too much on local issues. The anti-Iraq war stance alongside his message to bring the troops home from Afghanistan and his opposition against any future war in Iran were all clear vote winners for not only the big Muslim electorate but also for the rest of the electorate including the white working class vote. Due to Galloway’s massive margin of victory it would be wrong to say that (as people are) that Galloway only courted the Muslim vote, rather he took wide support.

A straight talking politician such as Galloway and his anti-war election strategy seemed to have mobilised a large number of first-time voters. Although we are unlikely to know this for sure, it seems that Respect got a lot of votes from people who hadn’t gone out and voted in 2010 (if before at all). The major parties (if we still call the Lib Dems that) failed to get their vote out, because the parties and their supporters (wrongly) assumed that this seat would be easily held by the Labour Party. This is seen that the turnout fell, expected in a by-election and also the major parties share of the vote fell sharply (over 20% in both Labour and the Tories vote share)

Finally local issues may have also played a role in the election defeat for Labour. A Labour administration serving Bradford City Council saw languishing schools performance throughout the city, which was picked up by Galloway as well as the “hole in the city centre” – meaning the undeveloped area in the centre where Westfield were meant to be developing a shopping centre. Galloway argued that Bradford West needed an outsider to change that. This is likely to have hit a nerve and further reduced backing for Imran Hussain (being a councillor at present) from the electorate with voters asking, why Labour hadn’t done anything earlier whilst they were running the council.

Galloway knew the message he needed to get across, who to get it across too and how to get it across. This is something that Labour clearly failed to do and was the reason that Labour failed to hold Bradford West.  Labour can’t simply take the vote from voters in Northern cities for granted; they need to give voters something to vote for rather than just an anti-Tory argument, which seems all too prevalent at times.