Brunel Labour

Should Student Activism All Be About Protest? by George Bowden

This week, the National Union of Students (NUS) organised a national walk out. This day of action was presented as being a well-coordinated series of protests, the biggest of which was in London. However, on my university campus at Brunel University in West London, it was business as usual. There were no angst-ridden, angry students sticking it to the man. Nor were there organised groups travelling east to Central London. At best, there were murmurs on internet forums, but even those keyboard warriors didn’t manage to leave Facebook to protest on campus.

Many people feel politically active students are far-left anarchists committed to violently protesting against the Government. However, from what I have seen at Brunel and other universities, students from across all disciplines are disenfranchised and apathetic towards politics. Surprisingly, some of my peers who are studying politics seem to be the most apathetic of all.

That is, it seems, until a well-known public figure gets involved. On the same day as the NUS action, Brunel welcomed an impromptu visit from comedian, marathon-junkie and Labour Party activist Eddie Izzard. It was a part of Ken Livingstone’s Mayor of London campaign and was well received by students who eagerly packed the small room to see him.

His audience represented the various political persuasions which are present at Brunel and university campuses across the UK. He handled difficult questions confidently, as keen students put him to the test. In response to a question about his aspirations in politics, Izzard confirmed he would be running for election in the future, much to the delight of the audience. He said: “In 2020, I will be running for Mayor of London or MP… I will run a good campaign, and get in. I want to find out what I can do politically.”

In closing, he gave advice to students, he said: “You can choose what you want to do… Go and vote, be active, no matter what party and give a damn about yourself.”  

For many, being active in student politics means protesting. Of course, legitimate protest is important, it is a legal right. It can help to attract publicity to the cause and works to unite like-minded individuals.  It can produce results too, recently an organised occupy movement at Manchester University helped encourage the adoption of the living wage on its campus.

However, over recent years, protests have left students with a bitter taste in their mouth, an unpalatable connection with orchestrated violence and crime. Some have suggested the disjointed nature of student protests and the factionalism which has gripped campuses across the UK has led students to become weary of getting involved. Is it for these reasons that students don’t want to protest?

Having talked to some of those who stayed on campus on Wednesday, the reason for this is could be more ordinary, a lack publicity. They were simply unaware of any NUS action taking place. Others spoke of a desire to form their own opinions, to develop their stance on issues before launching into protest.

Whatever the reason, instead of being out in force on the streets in Central London protesting about the Government cuts, they were sat in a room engaging with a famous political activist. Does this make them less active, or less motivated?

I don’t think so. Many of those in the room were elected within the Student Union and within the University itself. Some of the students were even elected councillors in local government. If me and my fellow students are going to make a real, impactful difference to the way things work we need to look beyond protest.

I think it is just as effective to begin our activism by seeking election, organising interest groups and finding other ways to bring about change from within. This will ultimately move student activism away from sporadic London-centric protests which are proving difficult to organise and ineffective in motivating students.

George Bowden

Brunel Labour meets @eddieizzard by @Kerri_Prince

It was just an average Tuesday, sitting in a lecture on political science, falling asleep inbetween checking Facebook and Twitter. Then all of a sudden I get a text to go to Student Activities as soon as I could. Turns out that the Labour Party had contacted our Campaigns Officer, Sam Donoghue, telling us that Eddie Izzard was going to be at Brunel in less than 24 hours to talk to us about the Mayoral Elections.

Usually the Students’ Union has a policy that an external speaker requires at least 2 weeks notice otherwise the event can not go ahead. But after appealing to the University, it was clear that we could not turn down Eddie Izzard coming to Brunel and it was given the go ahead. I then called the our local organiser for Mayoral/GLA elections, Sam Matthews, to confirm the details. Eddie was going to come to Brunel at 12:30pm for lunch with Brunel Labour, followed by leafleting outside the Union and then a Q&A with him in the lecture centre that I was asked to Chair.

I usually panic even when it’s a well-prepared and organised event, but because it was so rushed, I didn’t have time to panic. It was ‘be here at this time’, ‘say this’ and ‘do that’. e pA room was booked, security were warned, tables were reserved, Brunel Labour were organised and enthused - all we had to do was wait.

Eddie was supposed to arrive at 12:30 but due to Uxbridge buses not being the best of the lot, he was a bit late. There was also confusion regarding which bus Eddie was on and therefore what side of campus he would get off the bus. So we split up, some of us going to one side of campus, and some of us to the other. Then we waited. Not long afterwards, a U4 pulled into the bus stop and Eddie Izzard got off the bus alongside his organiser. After a short introduction, we made our way into the heart of campus.

Walking through campus, wearing our Labour rosettes, quite a few people stopped to look at Eddie, whispering among themselves whether or not it was actually Eddie Izzard. Due to the short notice, we set up a Facebook event the night before, leading to some people thinking it was a hoax despite us assuring them that Eddie Izzard was coming to campus. We took Eddie to the Student Union where he met the rest of Brunel Labour and we stopped for some lunch. 

Throughout lunch, we discussed various topics such as Eddie’s plans for the future, his marathons, gay equality, the Labour Party, the Conservatives and Boris Jonhson. I was nibbling at my Tikka Masala, close to throwing up with nerves (and I was only Chairing the Q&A!). Half an hour later, we started to make our way to the lecture centre for the Q&A with Brunel Students. There lecture room was full (there’s a first time for everything) with people waiting to see Eddie. He walked to the front of the room, all eyes on him and he made a joke about it feeling like a lecture. I introduced myself to the crowd as being Kerri Prince, Chair of Brunel Labour but I felt Eddie didn’t need introducing! After a few simple instructions about turning off phones, running when there’s a fire and to inform everyone that we were filming the event, I welcomed Eddie to speak.

For fifteen minutes, he spoke about why it’s important to be involved in politics and that the people in the room are the ones who care, who will make a difference in this world. He wasn’t overly party political and was quick to take questions on anything. He was asked questions by students about where he wants to go with his career (he intends to run for Mayor of London in 8 years!), whether it’s true he was late finishing his marathons because he was waiting for his camera crew (true!) and his perspective on the Monarchy (he wants to put them all up for election - keeping it in the family but letting us vote !). A lot of questions, answers and laughs later, it was approaching 3pm and we had to wrap things up. He was also asked what he wants to be remembered for (doing a gig in French!) and closed with a short speech about how we have to get involved to change things. A round of applause erupted after he had finished and students piled to the front to get him to sign their Eddie Izzard DVD’s and get photos with him. After a very successful event, Eddie made his way to Uxbridge with some members of Brunel Labour to hand out leaflets about Ken and his Fare Deal. 

Despite it being very last minute, it was a great success and we would welcome Eddie back at any time. Students are generally apathetic when it comes to politics but Eddie did what many politicians seem unable to do - he got students to listen to him. He made it relevant. He got them laughing. A great visit, a great person and a great event. 

Should we be selecting at the age of 11? by @Kerri_Prince

In some areas of the country, the 11+ is still used. The 11+ is a test given to those in the last year of primary education consisting of verbal and non-verbal reasoning, maths and English. Should we be testing young children at this stage? Arguably, yes – it will put those who pass the test into a Grammar School where there will be smaller classes, ‘better teachers’ and better facilities. Taking away the distraction that disruptive students bring, these academically able children are put in a position to achieve their best. Some may look upon this as being a great system – why shouldn’t those with the ability to do well, do just that? The 11+ is a test, a competition. What happens in a competition? Someone has to lose. It’s great for those who pass the test and go to a Grammar school, where they will have top facilities and equipment – but what about those who fail the test, are labelled as ‘stupid’ and go to the local comprehensive? The labelling theory argues that if you attach a label to somebody then they will take on that label as a result. Failing the 11+ and going to the comprehensive school, whilst all your friends go off to the Grammar is only going to put into your head that you’re stupid and cannot achieve. Some students mature later than others, so being tested at 11 only benefits those who have already academically matured.

I did the 11+, I passed the 11+, but there were no places at the Grammar school so I had to go to the comprehensive. They didn’t care when I asked for more work in class because I was rushing ahead, desperate to work my brain. They simply shrugged me off and told me to stay in time with the rest of the class. I was labelled as being stupid. Students need encouragement, support from teachers, constant working to show that despite how you do in a test at the age of 11, it doesn’t determine the rest of your school life. It wasn’t until I complained to my mum just after Christmas that I wasn’t being worked enough. We used to have spelling tests at home for ‘fun’ when I was younger, my mum constantly encouraging my siblings and I to work harder and strive to be better. My mum went to my school, spoke to the head teacher who agreed to take a look at my work and get reports from my teachers. The conclusion was that I should be moved up to the Grammar school. The two schools liaised with each other and eventually I moved schools. Some may see this as a good thing. It was, in terms of academia. But I had to leave my friends behind. I had to walk into a new building, meet new teachers and hardest of all – make new friends. By this time it was approaching the end of the academic year and everybody had already made their friends – I was just an outsider. Not only that, but I was behind in every subject. I wasn’t pushed enough in my last school and now I had so much work to catch up only to be on a level playing field. The upside of the school is that the facilities were so much better. They even had their own swimming pool and a proper drama stage – two of my favourite things when I was 11. But I still found it incredibly hard to make friends. Some will argue that you’re at school to learn, not to make friends – but having friends it what makes school so enjoyable. I was an outsider for quite a while, lost contact with my friends from my previous school so I spent the summer holidays alone without any friends. That kind of things can really bring a child down. At that age, you care about acceptance so much and not getting it can have a drastic effect on other aspects of your life. I even bunked school as a result of having no friends. It wasn’t easy.

I don’t understand why we need grammar schools and why we need selection. Streaming does just as good a job at helping those who need the push and those who aren’t as academically able. After year 9, I moved to London where the 11+ hadn’t been in use for years. I went to a state school in North London and it was the best school I had been to. There were people from all backgrounds, those who were more creative and those who strived to be the best in Maths and Science. But it worked. Being in a classroom with those who were more able than I was helped me. I then strived to do just as well as they were doing. This school prided itself on value added rather than grade outcome. They took into consideration the ability of students when they came to the school in Year 7 and then measured it against the outcome of their grades. That school, a non-selective and multicultural school, has one of the best value added scores in the country. The school took the strengths of students and developed them, making them brilliant at what they do. At the same time, encouraging them to work harder in the subjects that they weren’t doing so well in, with free booster classes for those who needed it. The school had great facilities too, a stage and their own swimming pool, even their own indoor sports hall. Tennis courts, basketball courts, plenty of computer rooms, smaller classes, great teachers – and this is a state school. The upside of streaming is that if you work harder, you’re able to move up a set where you will be pushed harder according to your needs. You don’t have to move school in order to be pushed harder.

Grammar schools aren’t needed. All they do is take the most academically able, push them harder and get the right results. That shouldn’t be what school is about. School should be about teaching, not testing. Because of a strict curriculum, the teacher may not be able to use their own teaching methods. I’m a firm believer in a good state school for every child, every school should be up to the standard of my third secondary school, and strive to do even better. Stop taking away money from comprehensives to funnel into the grammars, spend the money where it is needed and where it will benefit all. I have experienced those three kinds of school and I’ve seen the difference. I want to see creative, intelligent, open-minded, critical and enthusiastic young adults – not robots who learn to remember information just to put it down in an essay at the end of the year. That’s not teaching.

This article is by Kerri Prince and can also be found at http://brunel-vanguard.blogspot.com/2012/01/kerri-princes-blogs.html

Downsides of Positive Discrimination by @Kerri_Prince

Brunel Labour Meets Ken! - by @SamDonoghue

For Ken Livingstone, ‘a third remarkable comeback would confirm his status as the most successful left-wing politician of his generation’ according to the New Statesman. The magazine conducted an interview with the Labour Party’s mayoral candidate for their February 13th edition. Last Saturday a group from Brunel Labour, including myself, went to see Ken deliver his keynote speech at the TUC Congress building, for what he called a ‘manifesto meeting’; a chance for Ken to unveil policy and ideas, and for the audience to question him and put forth their own ideas.

He talked on a number of key issues like the economy, LGBT rights, the NHS and the environment; claiming that London has the worst air quality of any major city in the EU, that he wants to save the NHS from the Tories, rather than having to rebuild it, he would invest in infrastructure to deliver a vibrant London economy, where unemployment is higher than the national average, and he would continue to champion and celebrate LGBT rights, criticising Mayor Boris Johnson for cancelling Pride events at City Hall. However, Ken’s campaign focuses on three main issues, the three most striking issues he believes are affecting Londoners today; Crime, Housing and Transport costs.   

Mr Johnson, under pressure, in a separate interview, from interviewer Nick Ferrari, admitted he had cut 1,700 police since March 2010, whilst at the same time, according to the Metropolitan Police, serious violent crime, such a robbery, rape and knife crime have all risen. Whilst Ken admitted there is also a correlation between the economic situation and the rise in crime, he has promised to reverse Boris’s police cuts. The former Mayor also stressed the need for an ambitious house-building programme to address shortages; no houses should be build that will not be fit to live in ten years down the line.  Finally in what Ken is calling his ‘Fare deal’ he promised to use two-thirds of the huge operating surplus Transport for London have built up to cut fares, which have risen above inflation, with the average Londoner is now paying an extra 25% more on transport, under Boris Johnson.

The New Statesman claimed that until recently, nobody believed Boris Johnson would not win a second term as Mayor of London. But Boris’s campaign is clearly faltering. The last two polls conducted have produced very close and different results. If Ken does win, he is in no doubt that London will be a better place, and neither am I.

Submission by Sam Donoghue