D-Day

Civitas, 9 December 2010

Students are hitting the streets again today, for the climax of protests against the tuition fee hike. Despite their cries, you can bet good money that the Bill will pass, with some estimating a decent seized majority of 20-40 in favour of the fees rise. In light of this inevitability, what is the legacy of these protests and what do they mean for the Liberal Democrats? As far as most of the protestors are concerned, the Lib Dems’ U-turn is a political betrayal and as a result future voters may develop an unhealthy case of premature cynicism.

The tuition fee protests are highly interesting, not just due to the arguments the protestors have used, but because of where the protests have been focused. The average slogan is not aimed at Cameron, or indeed the Tories, but Nick ‘at the time I thought I could do it’ Clegg. The Conservatives’ masterstroke has been to sit back and watch the Lib Dems attract all the protestors’ ire like moths to a flame. The Lib Dems have done nothing to help themselves – Vince Cable’s confused ponderings on abstaining from the vote on the Bill he is bringing to the House, then committing to it again are baffling arch-gaffs.

The Tories might have demanded that tuition fees rise (to a maximum of £9,000), but they are escaping the majority of the anger about the rise. Of course, the Millbank Tower incident was nasty, but it was more abstract than the anger that has been focused on Clegg personally – there are chants aplenty along the lines of: ‘shame on you for turning blue’. Most of these ‘Cleg chants’ are far more expletive and violent. When engaging in the classic protestor pastime of burning effigies, it is Clegg’s smiling face going up in flames, not Cameron’s.

The reasons for this frustration with Clegg are obvious, but the predicting the inevitability of his U-turn, less so. Student votes have been the main fodder for the Lib Dems for as long as the party has existed. Conveniently, until the last election, the party never held power and therefore avoided showing itself as no less fallible than the others. This suited a generation of students with high political hopes and ideological daydreams who backed the party as a protest vote.

Interestingly, Clegg now thinks preventing a tuition fee rise is unavoidable and necessary, but if he harboured anything like these thoughts when he made his fateful pledge against tuition fee rises, this says a lot about what his view of his party’s chances of getting into government were.

Fast forward to today and those who voted for the Lib Dems, perhaps with naïve expectations, see something very different: broken election promises are one thing, but from a newcomer to government with an erstwhile adored leader, this was not expected.  As a result, the consequences would always be greater. This may be standard political manoeuvring within Westminster but for those outside the ‘Westminster bubble’, this time feeling is personal: it amounts to betrayal.

It would not be much of an overstatement to suggest that an entire generation of voters has been disillusioned. Moreover, these are the youngest voters, many of whom will carry their newly found cynicism with them for the rest of their electoral lives. Many will be struck down with terminal apathy, others afflicted with deep seated resentment.

Given that the 2010 election only inspired a dire 65.1% to vote, this is a disaster. The youngest have been found to be the least likely to vote as it is, 18-24 year olds  were half as likely to vote compare to the  over 65s. If voter apathy is carried by the current students through their lives, the knock-on effects from this could be a worrying legacy the Lib Dems will not want to leave behind.

At the time of the Coalition’s formation, Mervyn King warned that once cuts were made, the victor would be left unelectable for a generation. With two original victors it is now fairly clear who the victim will be.