A Year of Living Rough.

 

8 months since the Coalition took power from a bankrupt Labour government and the pitch hasn't changed one bit. Still the government claims to be leading the "Good Fight" against a budget deficit created by a one-eyed dour Scotsman. Though the Conservatives have stopped going around promising change and no longer speak critically of the politics of the last 30 years. As that might be a fly in the ointment when the public notice the similarities of the current regime and those we've endured since 1979. The shadow platform of the Lib Dems is now laid bare for all to see, with the consequences visible in plummeting approval ratings. Meanwhile New Labour has found a new leader who strongly resembles a Simpson, which isn't bad considering the Conservative leader looks more like shiny evil than an actual organism. On a more serious note Ed Miliband made positive detours from the lurch to the Right by the Labour Party, which saw Britain being led into wars for oil and gas, but has presented a luke-warm opposition to the Con-Dem Coalition on the cuts and tuition fees.

David Cameron, the harbinger of an austere Dickensian future, has issued a New Year message which begins by reassuring us that he is an optimist when it comes to people, human nature and the future of Britain. Going onto claim that the Prime Minister begins the New Year with the same positive outlook he had back in May. In doing so Cameron displays a caution for negativity, which can be a turn-off for voters, opting for a golden mean of rhetorical prestidigitation. He stresses that if we resolve the "real problem" of British society, namely the budget deficit and the economy, we can be one of the "international success stories of the new decade". Then Cameron reverts to a commonsensical position, "We have been living seriously beyond our means, we have to sort this out. Every sensible person knows this." He then posits that it would be easy to delay the cuts and highlights action (e.g. immediate and savage cuts) as the right course to take. This is a conscious attempt to evoke not only the dark outlook of conservatism but also the "idealistic" side of resolving problems by preserving traditional values, responsibility and order.

Keep in mind that the Conservative Party of today is most definitely Thatcherite, if not hyper-Thatcherite, in character and the only traditional values that matter are the ones established in 1979. Forgot community, civic duty and responsibility. Remember individuality, freedom and self-interest. Private vices equal public benefits, or so they will claim. Buying goods produced in sweat shops is good because it employs children, keeping them from abuse and sexual exploitation (in theory), this is the thinking of the Conservative Party. The Coalition is not lying in claiming to be creating the "Big Society" as a society in which government is small may be one which could be considered "big". Public relations at its best.  We've been sold cuts from the very start of Cameron's term. The long-term aim is small government, where everything from the NHS to the BBC is privately owned and taxes have been cut in half - more like Goldwater Conservatism than Red Toryism.

The Prime Minister goes on to say that "Britain has a really bright future to look forward to. 2011 is going to be a difficult year as we take hard but necessary steps to sort things out. But the actions we are taking are essential, because they are putting our economy and our country on the right path. Together, we can make 2011 the year that Britain gets back on its feet." This is emotive waffle, words typed up to sound nice and reassure the listeners to the insecurity of the path the Cameron ministry is taking this country. Following this waffle Cameron inserts some interesting claims, apparently New Labour racked up the biggest deficit in peace time history. Actually government debt didn't drop below 70% until the late 70s and early 80s under the Irony Lady, before that it was well over 100% for almost 50 years and during that time the welfare state was constructed. He goes on to evoke the widely covered crises in Greece and Ireland, even though we're not in the same situation as either country. Let alone the hypocrisy, David Cameron has backed the bailing out of Irish banks this year and will not doubt do the same during the next financial crisis here.

It becomes evident that Mr Cameron fears the country's credit rating is at stake, that we're facing rising interest rates and falling business confidence, before keenly reiterating that the deficit was inherited from New Labour and Gordon Brown - Labour's John Major. He conveniently forgets to mention that the Irish debt increased following huge austerity measures and that Britain had the lowest debt in proportion to GDP out of the G7 countries. After this Cameron goes on to claim that the Coalition has already "pulled Britain out of that danger zone" through some tough decisions in the Budget Review. At this point the Prime Minister introduces a justification, the ends justify the means, economic growth is predicted to rise from 2011 and even further in 2012. After attributing the growth achieved in 2010 to the Coalition's policies, and not Labour's "imprudent spending", Cameron concludes that we must swallow the Con-Dem prescription of austerity. He then repeats the old Thatcherite mantra "There is no alternative" and claims that it would be irresponsible to avoid cuts.

Following this is a load of noise about intentions, the national interest, aspiration, practicality and not ideology, as well as a reminder that "We're all in this together" before claiming contradictorily that "We want to bring people with us". Some noise about economic dynamism, more bank lending, greater deregulation and greater investment in the "sectors of the future". All of which is so vague no one could oppose them, except the part about deregulation which partly caused the financial crisis. After all this noise, the Prime Minister reminds we the people of the threat of international terrorism and radical Islamism. Noting the recent arrests of terrorist suspects the Prime Minister states this government will give the police the full support and defeat those who threaten our values and way of life. Just like New Labour the Con-Dems are looking to get the public to accept repressive policies - whether it be an attack on civil liberties or the welfare state - by evoking patriotism and advocating defensive violence against an external threat.


To avoid any scandals Mr Cameron highlights that the threat of Islamist violence is from a minority in the Muslim community. Soon after Cameron ensures that the door for more wars overseas is open by saying "We also need to take action with our international partners (US) abroad." As WikiLeaks has shown we are currently in the grips of another pro-American government, which has no problem with paying £80 billion to replenish American nuclear weapons we're allowed to hold onto and use when Washington gives the order. In the last minute the message descends into pure emotivism, the words were mostly hollowed out for public consumption, like a speech at a fascist rally. The emphasis is on making Britain is a "better, stronger and safer country" which is a meaningless platitude as no one would ever want to make Britain worse, weaker and less safe. The New Year message ends with words crafted by a PR-team "If 2010 is the year we stopped the rot, we can make 2011 the year that Britain gets back on her feet." To the government the public are a bewildered herd to be feared and manipulated, this is the reason behind the rhetoric and the gloss.

The Ballardian State of Nature.

The Noble Savage.
 

In Ballard's High-Rise (1975) we see the professional inhabitants of a luxurious apartment building descend into mayhem and debauchery. It began with wild sectarian parties, then the swimming pools and the school were cut off from the dwellers of the lower levels. Gradually the high-rise becomes more and more cut off from the outside world. As the services of the high-rise begin to break down, a war breaks out between the middle floors and the lower floors. Barricades are put up to keep marauders at bay. Dogs are released into the air-vents and hunted down for food by the tenants. Initially the metaphorical class system of the high-rise degenerates to a stratified array of competing tribes - a war of all against all - and then further to the level of disassociated hunter-gatherers. This is reflected by bizarre rituals of sexual domination, Wilder drifts from floor to floor sleeping with numerous women along the way as Royal creates a sort of "harem" on the 40th floor. 

The protagonists are Robert Laing, Richard Wilder and Anthony Royal, who reside in each of the three segments. Laing is recently divorced and is trained physician who teaches at a medical school, to avoid entering the field of a general practitioner and treating patients. Ironically Laing has found his first "patients" by the end of High-Rise. Wilder works in the television studies and initially tries to produce a documentary on the high-rise. He moves into the high-rise with his wife Helen and two sons, but abandons them to "climb" the building - a metaphor for the meritocrat. Royal is one of the architects of the high-rise, he resides on the 40th floor with his upper-class wife and attempts to cultivate a position of power over the whole building. In these aristocratic pursuits, the polar opposite of Wilder's "ascent", Royal builds an entourage of servants and a "harem" (including Helen Wilder) at the top of the high-rise.


At first the segmented nature of the high-rise is a metaphor for the class system, the first 10 floors are occupied by the lowest earners and represent the proletariat. The top five floors are occupied by the highest earners and most prestigious tenants, like Anthony Royal on the 40th floor, whilst floors 10 to 35 are inhabited by a kind of middle-class. Though the entire building is home to professionals, the kind of people who would be regarded as members of the bourgeoisie, who are brought down to earth as the high-rise seems to unleash primitive behaviours among the tenants. The bourgeois veneer falls away as the characters hold back less and less, from alcohol and parties to sex and violence, as if venturing into a primeval realm where one's true self might be found. Out of the main characters it is Laing who seems to find himself in the chaotic trajectory of life in the high-rise. By the time we are introduced to him, from which point the rest of the story is told in flashback, Laing is content eating dog in his apartment with Alice and Eleanor.


The most vitriolic of Ballard's detractors would claim that his characters remain two-dimensional, lack development, and Ballard's works are totally plot driven. This is ignorant of the way Ballard externalises human experience to the point that the changing setting becomes an extension of the characters. In High-Rise the building itself becomes a revealing extension to the development of characters. For instance, Richard Wilder begins on the second level and ends on the roof of the building. Wilder abandons his wife Helen and sons, locking them inside the apartment, to pursue reaching the 40th floor and a confrontation with Anthony Royal. He gradually becomes a bearded, almost naked, savage in this pursuit. The plans to make a documentary about the high-rise have faded by the novel's conclusion, the camera Wilder carried around with him to shoot the opening for the documentary is reduced to a inanimate object - the purpose of which he no longer understands. Towards the end the graffiti and vandalised walls of the high-rise are in the process of being replenished it would seem, as a new social order emerges.

A War of All against All.

This view of a war of all against all may be Hobbesian, but the wider view is a Rousseauian one. Many of the works of JG Ballard focus on the pathological aspects of Western civilisation, car crashes are eroticised and human beings adapt to life on a traffic island. The social order of a Leviathan idealised by Thomas Hobbes is not found in contemporary society. Instead social decay is  almost omnipresent and at the root of it all is the development of civilisation, specifically the striving towards a social order which would be born from the innovations of science and technology. The high-rise itself is a product of this striving, which is precisely why it is the ideal setting for the story, it is partly the force behind the destruction of the order it is striving for - namely, the primeval desires unleashed within the confines of the high-rise. The capitalist social order is the first to be dissolved in the apartment building, which in turn opens up a void where a new tribalism reigns only for this to fragment into a perpetual war between individuals.


Royal and Pangbourne, a gynaecologist, share the view that the high-rise is a liminoid experience from which a new social order may emerge. In the high-rise the average tenant has entered into a common realm with others, while the identity and status bestowed on them by society is gradually lost. Personal identities as well as relations to others are explored, challenged and decimated to give way for a new set of identities. Near the climax of High-Rise Royal no longer enjoys the life of "zoo-keeper" and identifies more and more with the scavenging gulls, earlier in the novel he even notes that his white safari jacket and greying hair is similar to the feathers of these birds. The transition from "zoo-keeper" to "non-human animal" would not necessarily be a hidden desire to be one of the herd as the gulls are free to fly away. Anthony Royal is passive whereas Richard Wilder is rebellious in his ascent of the building, whereas Robert Laing is the "moderate witness" who survives the vicissitudes which transpire as the social order crumbles.


In the end Royal is shot dead by Wilder, who is in turn killed and cannibalised by the women of the high-rise and Laing is left cooking an Alsatian for the two women barricaded in his apartment with him. After the layers of a social fabric produced by economic relations dissolve in the high-rise, as does the successive stages of tribes and hunter-gatherers, the only remaining order is patriarchal and it is next to breakdown. In killing Royal, Richard Wilder has completed his ascent and in doing so has initiated a paradigm shift so radical that the transition destroys him. The women of Royal's "harem", who are described as Wilder's new mothers, turn their carving knives on Richard Wilder as he reaches the penthouse and strips naked. The raiding parties are led by Helen Wilder, who let Robert Laing live as he appears submissive to Alice and Eleanor - a form of passivity to the new order perhaps. As Laing cooks Royal's favourite dog, a white Alsatian, for Alice and Eleanor he is at peace as he notices that the events of the building are spreading to another apartment block nearby.


Although Rousseau adhered to a conception of the state of nature which was harmonious and individualistic, High-Rise is not purely Rousseauian in themes as Ballard's vision is of a collective and not of individualism. The tenants of the high-rise began as atomised individuals and by the novel's conclusion the building is in transition. The contagious spread of the events in the high-rise to another building nearby represents the beginning of a shift to collectivism devoid of the boundaries propped up in the preceding orders. The confines of the high-rise could not constrain the events in the end. The radical shifts which systematically undermine and breakdown every paradigm to emerge in High-Rise may be driving towards a kind of "zero-point" like the state of nature. A point where divisions of class and sex have been smashed, the heights of subjective freedom, though not realised through the state as that would still require a reliance on scientific and technological innovation. The vision portrayed is anarchic, to say the least, and there are early signs of a radical feminism emerging as the "zero-point".

Angry White Men of the World, Unite!

 

The English Defence League has taken a time out from the campaign of race-baiting against less than 2 million Muslims in Britain, but particularly targeting Asian Muslims, to react to the student demonstrations in their own special way. The leader of the movement is Stephen Yaxley Lennon, who goes by the name of "Tommy Robinson", who attacked the students in a speech this week. The former BNP member and football hooligan accused the students of "living off their dad's fucking bank cards" and not knowing what it means to be working-class. During the speech Mr Yaxley-Lennon issued a threat "The next time the students want to protest in our capital, the English Defence League will be there." This is a part of the EDL new approach of ruining left-wing meetings and denouncing trade unions as "communist", the movement is now engaged in the kind of red-baiting that still goes on across the pond.

The EDL seems to adhere to a vicious brand of evolutionary economics, whereby the strong rise and the weak fall, which is a departure from the traditional third-way economics of distributism. This is in line with the "permissive" aspects of post-modern nationalism, which is why they will claim to be defenders of freedom of speech against political-correctness. The kind of individualism the EDL favours is no doubt subordinate to nationhood. It may be a defence of free-speech but it's really about defending "English values", as if freedom was exclusively British. This extreme economic shift began with the BNP supporting the cuts and putting forward proposal of £200 billion in public spending cuts over a year, which would have decimated the welfare state and devastated the working-class. Though as this new strategy has accelerated the decline of the Party, the BNP have resorted to a vague list of cuts it advocates.

Not only would it appear that the EDL are now running with the stance that the BNP abandoned, but the growth of the League is now partly the cause of the decline of the BNP. The electoralist approach of Nick Griffin is perceived as a failure on the far-right and the EDL is a regression to the street level thuggery. As the EDL were originally just another force to collude with, the League have seized onto the "common cause" of stamping out the British Muslim community. From this there is a kind of unity among neo-Nazis and angry white men in general, but now the EDL is seeking to harden it's right-wing base in it's opposition to student demonstrations and trade unions. At the same time, the EDL has sought to allign itself with the Islamophobic wing of the Tea Party. The new line of the League on cuts might strengthen the link to the Tea Party and the American chickenhawks  who have been on board for taking on Islamism for a long time.

In Fascist ideology the class struggle is typically displaced, the EDL are no different in this sense. The idea of an English working-class is posited against an exploitative left-wing elite who have capitulated to radical Islamists. Notice that neo-fascists have yet to replace European Jewry as a scapegoat which appeals to the upper-classes just as much as it does to the working-classes. To the rich the Jew was a communist and to the poor the Jew was a banker, the virulent anti-Semitism of the Nazis externalised the tension between classes onto a "common enemy" and we all know what happened thereafter. Instead the EDL have to stick to the same line as the BNP have been, that "Islamization" is being imposed as part of a conspiracy between a left-wing media and a liberal elite.


The "intellectual" leadership of the EDL is most certainly National Socialist in character, just as the leadership of the BNP has been since it's emergence in 1982, complete with the same old genocidal intentions. The foot soldiers are typically the standard football thug with just enough brain cells to hate everything foreign. But the base of the BNP and the EDL are not consciously fascist, which is the reason for the carefully maintained veneer of railing against a culture and not a race. Cultural chauvinism is something picked up from the New Right, which focuses on the incompatibility of the culture of a "race" and thereby targets the minority indirectly. Just as old-fashioned racism is making a return, race-related harassment and violence has increased in recent times from 13,000 in 1997 to 53,000 in 2005. 35,000 of which consistuted assault. Now we can see Bruce Forsyth and Jimmy Hill defend the use of slurs such as "Paki" and "nigger".


The base of the EDL is no different than any other far-right group, it consists mostly of working-class men who have been dispossessed over the last 30 years and have legitimate grievances. The working-class has been neglected and it's grievances have been ignored by the establishment. Unemployment and stagnant wages being a serious concern. The line of the reactionary press is that the markets are efficient and produce enough jobs for all people. From this view the only explanation for unemployment is that the jobless are lazy scum or that their jobs have been "stolen" by foreigners. It's assumed that the system is perfect and has only been disrupted by "meddlesome entities" (e.g. foreigners and scroungers). When actually the case is that the markets are inefficient and don't provide jobs for all. Enter the EDL, who take advantage of a source of untapped rage and acknowledge the grievances by offering ways of restoring order - e.g. cutting off all benefits and putting a stop to Muslim immigration.

The malicious defence of authority and the erosion of welfare liberalism for the sake of "social order" is partly about solidifying a ultra-rightist base, it appeals to the bourgeois sectors of society. Equally it is about the long-term future of the EDL, whether or not it is intended to be. The end of the welfare state does have the potential to enlarge and intensify support for far-right groups, as would a double-dip recession. As it would ensure the kind of conditions that produce and sustain groups like the EDL, e.g. high unemployment, stagnant wages and greater inequality. Though it is possible that this manoeuvre will drive away working-class support for the League, as opposition to the cuts could increase rapidly as demonstrated by the student protests. Hopefully the EDL will find itself outnumbered by going down this route.

Month X.

For the Love of Democracy.

After a month of protest by students across the nation the proposals were rammed through Parliament thanks to just over 20 MPs. None of whom are worth naming, as they will no doubt die having accomplished nothing in life, now it's left to the Lords. The 30,000 that came out to demonstrate across London on December 9th were irrelevant and had no role to play in the decision. As are the thousands who demonstrated in the weeks leading up to the vote, that began with over 50,000 on November 10th and peaked at 130,000 on November 24th. For that reason the decision was obscenely undemocratic. If the Orange Book Liberals cared about democracy they would immediately resign and end this coalition government. This is not the defeat of a grass-roots movement, as it was only passed by the skin of it's bollocks thanks to the spontaneity and ingenuity of the protesters. It is a sign that the movement must go further and a solid block of resistance is needed to undermine the cuts agenda.

The most vulgar elements of the media have latched onto the more chaotic scenes in Parliament Square to demonise the protesters and the student movement as a whole. The coverage focused on David Gilmour's lad swinging from a Union Jack on the Cenotaph and the non-event of the Royal Rolls getting a new paint-job. Even though 44 protesters were injured, compared with 12 police officers (one of which fell off of his horse), the right-wing media prefers to focus on the "crimes" of the rabble and the need for greater police powers. Never mind Alfie Meadows who needed emergency brain-surgery after being beaten with a baton. Never mind Jody McIntyre who was assaulted and thrown from his wheelchair, more than once, before being dragged to the pavement. Never mind young girls being beaten in the streets by officers of the law. We're the animals, we're the feral mob, because one of us urinated on Churchill's statue and swung from the Cenotaph.

After these demonstrations the notion that the police are just civil servants and are working to protect citizens has been decimated. In the mayhem in Parliament Square the police were not civil servants to the public but armed tools of the state. Though a cynic would say that we all knew what the police were before, the kettling and beating of teenagers only affirmed it. At a deeper level the state apparatus of liberal democracy can be seen to be breaking down. The Conservatives have no real democratic mandate to rule as a majority government, which is effectively is going on because of the support of the Liberal Democrats. The government needed the police to suppress the demonstrations, thus dragging disabled bloggers through the street and charging on students is necessary for the sake of "order". So the government can refuse to listen to our demands and write off all opposition as unrealistic, "There is no alternative" is the mantra as it was under Margaret Thatcher.

The Impossible?

Even though public spending on higher education is 0.7% of GDP and government debt is 70% of GDP. If you are in favour of deficit reduction putting the burden on students for the sake of cutting the deficit by 0.7% is hardly worth it. Especially when it has the potential to deter students from pursuing higher education and the fulfilling life that might be led as a result of it. Though if you consider that debt was 260% of GDP just after World War II you might start to question whether or not any of these cuts are necessary. It was austere policies based on liberal economic theories which led to and exacerbated the Crash of 1929, which in turn led to the Great Depression. The debt is not a crisis but a problem that can be dealt with over time by boosting economic growth which will increase tax-revenues. It is taxes that are the key to the current predicament, as public spending became unsustainable due to a collapse in tax-revenues during the recession.
 
Cutting public spending will only lead to a negative multiplier effect and pull the rug from under the feet of all reliant on the state - except the very rich who benefit from a slack tax-system. For every job lost in the public sector one could easily be lost in the private sector, as the two are interdependent and the economy has been mixed for decades. The impact of these cuts on our society could be dire in the long-term. For instance the systematic erosion of the welfare state will create a coercive welfare-to-work system dominated by private interests and a decrepit training scheme. At the same time the growth of the private sector is meagre and the Coalition needs a serious policy to create jobs. Instead of a serious policy the Con-Dems are cutting national insurance to reward businesses for hiring the unemployed, but these subsidised jobs will be at the minimum wage and will most likely drive down wages across the workforce.

Of course, most people who go to university will earn far more than the minimum wage which begs the question "Why should a postman pay for your university education?" Because a greater access to education is beneficial to society, greater access to education leads to greater freedom for all. The UK spends less than the US and Poland on higher education, Sweden spends 1.4% of it's GDP on higher education and has far better results than our system. Science and maths have been prioritised in this country because there is high demand, in finance, for workers skilled in those areas. This is part of the financialisation of the economy, which is currently being intensified. There are no signs are serious regulations and taxes being levied on the banking sector anytime soon. There is not going to be a serious crackdown on tax-evasion and avoidance, let alone white-collar crime. At the same time the abandonment of capital investment, e.g. building and modernising schools and hospitals, could result in greater job losses in construction.

Revolutionary.

It has been said that the resurgence of student radicalism has surpassed the militancy of 1968 when enormous student demonstrations rushed across the West. Although the student movement in this country has not come close to the French movement of '68, that almost toppled the government, in terms of spontaneity the movement is greater. It took over many years for serious opposition to Vietnam and de Gaulle to emerge. It is a misconception that today people are less radical and activism is less common than it was in the 1960s. The 2003 invasion of Iraq faced tremendous opposition even before it was launched, the millions of people who demonstrated against the war in London is a testament to the progress made since Vietnam. Today demonstrations often pre-empt the opposed policy, that is true in the case of the Iraq war as well as the cuts to education and raising of tuition fees.

Students can be seen as a barometer for the pressures and tensions building up in society. This is the reason that the 1960s student movement had such a massive impact in France and across the West. Though the cultural revolution of the 60s led to calls for sexual and gender liberation, a shift towards greater freedoms and rights, some of which has since been assimilated into the dominant ideology in the form of cheap hedonism. The radicalism which emerged against the Coalition has not instigated a cultural revolution, it could be a sign of things to come and a revolutionary shake up of the establishment is well overdue in this country. But it's difficult to say what the legacy of this movement will be. It is only in retrospect that we can look back at the 60s as the source of the individualistic tendencies that would be seized upon by the Thatcherites in the 1980s. So it is possible that we are entering a new phase in British politics.

The student movement is quite varied and somewhat schismatic, you can find yourself marching alongside communists and liberals, there is no one leader and no solid ideology. This is appropriate as the student body consists of all classes and is in a liminal state of transition. Thus, the body is fluid and has volatile potential. In another sense the students are mostly devoid of political baggage, though the conditions in society have disposed many of us to cynicism and pessimism. It is difficult to say what will come of this movement. But what we can learn from the 1960s is that student movements cannot win alone. France was brought to the brink of revolution in 1968 before the movement was defused and the government made massive concessions. Those concessions would not have been made if it weren't for the invaluable role the general strike played, as students do not have access to economic power. A movement to defend the welfare state is needed.

Who said "Aye" to Raising Tuition Fees?

This is a list of all the MPs who voted "aye" to raise tuition fees, including the slim amount of Lib Dems who voted for the proposal. You may notice some prominent names here and even your own MP. If you're concerned with what is happening to our society you should act, even if it is just a letter or an email to the MP. There have been numerous demonstrations in recent weeks and there will be more to come in 2011 no doubt. Feel free to join us on the streets against this morally bankrupt government and help cut the democratic deficit. The format for emails being alexanderd@parliament.uk to take Danny Alexander as an example. First up are the Liberal Democrats who were vital in squeezing this proposal through Parliament.

Danny Alexander

Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey

LDem

aye

Norman Baker

Lewes

LDem

aye

Alan Beith

Berwick-upon-Tweed

LDem

aye

Gordon Birtwistle

Burnley

LDem

aye

Tom Brake

Carshalton and Wallington

LDem

aye

Jeremy Browne

Taunton Deane

LDem

aye

Malcolm Bruce

Gordon

LDem

aye

Paul Burstow

Sutton and Cheam

LDem

aye

Vincent Cable

Twickenham

LDem

aye

Alistair Carmichael

Orkney and Shetland

LDem

aye

Nicholas Clegg

Sheffield, Hallam

LDem

aye

Edward Davey

Kingston and Surbiton

LDem

aye

Lynne Featherstone

Hornsey and Wood Green

LDem

aye

Don Foster

Bath

LDem

aye

Stephen Gilbert

St Austell and Newquay

LDem

aye

Duncan Hames

Chippenham

LDem

aye

Nick Harvey

North Devon

LDem

aye

David Heath

Somerton and Frome

LDem

aye

John Hemming

Birmingham, Yardley

LDem

aye

Mark Hunter

Cheadle

LDem

tellaye

Norman Lamb

North Norfolk

LDem

aye

David Laws

Yeovil

LDem

aye

Michael Moore

Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk

LDem

aye

Andrew Stunell

Hazel Grove

LDem

aye

Jo Swinson

East Dunbartonshire

LDem

aye

Sarah Teather

Brent Central

LDem

aye

David Ward

Bradford East

LDem

aye

Steve Webb

Thornbury and Yate

LDem

aye

Here are the names of Liberals who voted against the proposals:
Annette Brooke
(Dorset Mid and Poole North)
Sir Menzies Campbell (Fife North East)
Michael Crockart (Edinburgh West)
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale)
Andrew George (St Ives)
Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South)
Julian Huppert (Cambridge)
Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber)
John Leech (Manchester Withington)
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne)
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North-West)
John Pugh (Southport)
Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute)
Dan Rogerson (Cornwall North)
Bob Russell (Colchester)
Adrian Sanders (Torbay)
Ian Swales (Redcar)
Mark Williams (Ceredigion)
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire)
Jenny Willott (Cardiff Central)
Simon Wright (Norwich South)

Lib Dem Abstainers: Lorely Burt (Solihull), Martin Horwood (Cheltenham), Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark), Chris Huhne (Eastleigh), Tessa Munt (Wells), Sir Robert Smith (Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine), John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) and Stephen Williams (Bristol West). Note that Huhne and Horwood would have voted in favour of the proposals but were unable to make it to Parliament.

Here are the few Conservatives who rebelled from the party-line:
Philip Davies (Shipley)
David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden)
Julian Lewis (New Forest East)
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley)
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole)
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood)

Now here are the Tories voting almost unanimously for higher tuition fees and cuts for higher education. But they couldn't have done it without the Liberals.

Nigel Adams

Selby and Ainsty

Con

aye

Adam Afriyie

Windsor

Con

aye

Peter Aldous

Waveney

Con

aye

David Amess

Southend West

Con

aye

Stuart Andrew

Pudsey

Con

aye

James Arbuthnot

North East Hampshire

Con

aye

Richard Bacon

South Norfolk

Con

aye

Louise Bagshawe

Corby

Con

aye

Steven Baker

Wycombe

Con

aye

Tony Baldry

Banbury

Con

aye

Harriett Baldwin

West Worcestershire

Con

aye

Stephen Barclay

North East Cambridgeshire

Con

aye

Gregory Barker

Bexhill and Battle

Con

aye

John Baron

Basildon and Billericay

Con

aye

Gavin Barwell

Croydon Central

Con

aye

Guto Bebb

Aberconwy

Con

aye

Henry Bellingham

North West Norfolk

Con

aye

Richard Benyon

Newbury

Con

aye

Paul Beresford

Mole Valley

Con

aye

Jake Berry

Rossendale and Darwen

Con

aye

Andrew Bingham

High Peak

Con

aye

Brian Binley

Northampton South

Con

aye

Bob Blackman

Harrow East

Con

aye

Nicola Blackwood

Oxford West and Abingdon

Con

aye

Crispin Blunt

Reigate

Con

aye

Nicholas Boles

Grantham and Stamford

Con

aye

Peter Bone

Wellingborough

Con

aye

Peter Bottomley

Worthing West

Con

aye

Karen Bradley

Staffordshire Moorlands

Con

aye

Graham Brady

Altrincham and Sale West

Con

aye

Angie Bray

Ealing Central and Acton

Con

aye

Julian Brazier

Canterbury

Con

aye

Andrew Bridgen

North West Leicestershire

Con

aye

Steve Brine

Winchester

Con

aye

James Brokenshire

Old Bexley and Sidcup

Con

aye

Fiona Bruce

Congleton

Con

aye

Robert Buckland

South Swindon

Con

aye

Aidan Burley

Cannock Chase

Con

aye

Conor Burns

Bournemouth West

Con

aye

Simon Burns

Chelmsford

Con

aye

David Burrowes

Enfield, Southgate

Con

aye

Alistair Burt

North East Bedfordshire

Con

aye

Dan Byles

North Warwickshire

Con

aye

Alun Cairns

Vale of Glamorgan

Con

aye

David Cameron

Witney

Con

aye

Neil Carmichael

Stroud

Con

aye

Douglas Carswell

Clacton

Con

aye

William Cash

Stone

Con

aye

Rehman Chishti

Gillingham and Rainham

Con

aye

Christopher Chope

Christchurch

Con

aye

James Clappison

Hertsmere

Con

aye

Greg Clark

Tunbridge Wells

Con

aye

Kenneth Clarke

Rushcliffe

Con

aye

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

The Cotswolds

Con

aye

Therese Coffey

Suffolk Coastal

Con

aye

Damian Collins

Folkestone and Hythe

Con

aye

Oliver Colvile

Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport

Con

aye

Geoffrey Cox

Torridge and West Devon

Con

aye

Stephen Crabb

Preseli Pembrokeshire

Con

aye

David Davies

Monmouth

Con

aye

Glyn Davies

Montgomeryshire

Con

aye

Nick de Bois

Enfield North

Con

aye

Caroline Dinenage

Gosport

Con

aye

Jonathan Djanogly

Huntingdon

Con

aye

Stephen Dorrell

Charnwood

Con

aye

Nadine Dorries

Mid Bedfordshire

Con

aye

Jackie Doyle-Price

Thurrock

Con

aye

Richard Drax

South Dorset

Con

aye

James Duddridge

Rochford and Southend East

Con

aye

Alan Duncan

Rutland and Melton

Con

aye

Iain Duncan Smith

Chingford and Woodford Green

Con

aye

Philip Dunne

Ludlow

Con

tellaye

Michael Ellis

Northampton North

Con

aye

Jane Ellison

Battersea

Con

aye

Tobias Ellwood

Bournemouth East

Con

aye

Charlie Elphicke

Dover

Con

aye

George Eustice

Camborne and Redruth

Con

aye

Graham Evans

Weaver Vale

Con

aye

Jonathan Evans

Cardiff North

Con

aye

David Evennett

Bexleyheath and Crayford

Con

aye

Michael Fabricant

Lichfield

Con

aye

Michael Fallon

Sevenoaks

Con

aye

Mark Field

Cities of London and Westminster

Con

aye

Liam Fox

North Somerset

Con

aye

Mark Francois

Rayleigh and Wickford

Con

aye

George Freeman

Mid Norfolk

Con

aye

Mike Freer

Finchley and Golders Green

Con

aye

Lorraine Fullbrook

South Ribble

Con

aye

Richard Fuller

Bedford

Con

aye

Roger Gale

North Thanet

Con

aye

Edward Garnier

Harborough

Con

aye

Mark Garnier

Wyre Forest

Con

aye

David Gauke

South West Hertfordshire

Con

aye

Nick Gibb

Bognor Regis and Littlehampton

Con

aye

Cheryl Gillan

Chesham and Amersham

Con

aye

John Glen

Salisbury

Con

aye

Zac Goldsmith

Richmond Park

Con

aye

Robert Goodwill

Scarborough and Whitby

Con

aye

Michael Gove

Surrey Heath

Con

aye

Richard Graham

Gloucester

Con

aye

Helen Grant

Maidstone and The Weald

Con

aye

James Gray

North Wiltshire

Con

aye

Chris Grayling

Epsom and Ewell

Con

aye

Damian Green

Ashford

Con

aye

Justine Greening

Putney

Con

aye

Dominic Grieve

Beaconsfield

Con

aye

Andrew Griffiths

Burton

Con

aye

Ben Gummer

Ipswich

Con

aye

Sam Gyimah

East Surrey

Con

aye

William Hague

Richmond (Yorks)

Con

aye

Robert Halfon

Harlow

Con

aye

Philip Hammond

Runnymede and Weybridge

Con

aye

Stephen Hammond

Wimbledon

Con

aye

Matthew Hancock

West Suffolk

Con

aye

Greg Hands

Chelsea and Fulham

Con

aye

Mark Harper

Forest of Dean

Con

aye

Richard Harrington

Watford

Con

aye

Rebecca Harris

Castle Point

Con

aye

Simon Hart

Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire

Con

aye

Alan Haselhurst

Saffron Walden

Con

aye

John Hayes

South Holland and The Deepings

Con

aye

Oliver Heald

North East Hertfordshire

Con

aye

Chris Heaton-Harris

Daventry

Con

aye

Gordon Henderson

Sittingbourne and Sheppey

Con

aye

Charles Hendry

Wealden

Con

aye

Nick Herbert

Arundel and South Downs

Con

aye

Damian Hinds

East Hampshire

Con

aye

Mark Hoban

Fareham

Con

aye

George Hollingbery

Meon Valley

Con

aye

Philip Hollobone

Kettering

Con

aye

Adam Holloway

Gravesham

Con

aye

Kris Hopkins

Keighley

Con

aye

Gerald Howarth

Aldershot

Con

aye

John Howell

Henley

Con

aye

Jeremy Hunt

South West Surrey

Con

aye

Nick Hurd

Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner

Con

aye

Stewart Jackson

Peterborough

Con

aye

Margot James

Stourbridge

Con

aye

Sajid Javid

Bromsgrove

Con

aye

Bernard Jenkin

Harwich and North Essex

Con

aye

Gareth Johnson

Dartford

Con

aye

Jo Johnson

Orpington

Con

aye

Andrew Jones

Harrogate and Knaresborough

Con

aye

David Jones

Clwyd West

Con

aye

Marcus Jones

Nuneaton

Con

aye

Daniel Kawczynski

Shrewsbury and Atcham

Con

aye

Chris Kelly

Dudley South

Con

aye

Simon Kirby

Brighton, Kemptown

Con

aye

Greg Knight

East Yorkshire

Con

aye

Kwasi Kwarteng

Spelthorne

Con

aye

Eleanor Laing

Epping Forest

Con

aye

Mark Lancaster

Milton Keynes North

Con

aye

Andrew Lansley

South Cambridgeshire

Con

aye

Pauline Latham

Mid Derbyshire

Con

aye

Andrea Leadsom

South Northamptonshire

Con

aye

Jessica Lee

Erewash

Con

aye

Phillip Lee

Bracknell

Con

aye

Jeremy Lefroy

Stafford

Con

aye

Edward Leigh

Gainsborough

Con

aye

Charlotte Leslie

Bristol North West

Con

aye

Oliver Letwin

West Dorset

Con

aye

Brandon Lewis

Great Yarmouth

Con

aye

Ian Liddell-Grainger

Bridgwater and West Somerset

Con

aye

David Lidington

Aylesbury

Con

aye

Peter Lilley

Hitchin and Harpenden

Con

aye

Jack Lopresti

Filton and Bradley Stoke

Con

aye

Jonathan Lord

Woking

Con

aye

Tim Loughton

East Worthing and Shoreham

Con

aye

Peter Luff

Mid Worcestershire

Con

aye

Karen Lumley

Redditch

Con

aye

Mary Macleod

Brentford and Isleworth

Con

aye

Anne Main

St Albans

Con

aye

Francis Maude

Horsham

Con

aye

Theresa May

Maidenhead

Con

aye

Paul Maynard

Blackpool North and Cleveleys

Con

aye

Karl McCartney

Lincoln

Con

aye

Anne McIntosh

Thirsk and Malton

Con

aye

Patrick McLoughlin

Derbyshire Dales

Con

aye

Stephen McPartland

Stevenage

Con

aye

Esther McVey

Wirral West

Con

aye

Mark Menzies

Fylde

Con

aye

Patrick Mercer

Newark

Con

aye

Stephen Metcalfe

South Basildon and East Thurrock

Con

aye

Maria Miller

Basingstoke

Con

aye

Nigel Mills

Amber Valley

Con

aye

Anne Milton

Guildford

Con

aye

Andrew Mitchell

Sutton Coldfield

Con

aye

Penny Mordaunt

Portsmouth North

Con

aye

Nicky Morgan

Loughborough

Con

aye

Anne-Marie Morris

Newton Abbot

Con

aye

David Morris

Morecambe and Lunesdale

Con

aye

James Morris

Halesowen and Rowley Regis

Con

aye

Stephen Mosley

City of Chester

Con

aye

David Mowat

Warrington South

Con

aye

David Mundell

Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale

Con

aye

Sheryll Murray

South East Cornwall

Con

aye

Andrew Murrison

South West Wiltshire

Con

aye

Bob Neill

Bromley and Chislehurst

Con

aye

Brooks Newmark

Braintree

Con

aye

Sarah Newton

Truro and Falmouth

Con

aye

Caroline Nokes

Romsey and Southampton North

Con

aye

Jesse Norman

Hereford and South Herefordshire

Con

aye

David Nuttall

Bury North

Con

aye

Stephen O'Brien

Eddisbury

Con

aye

Matthew Offord

Hendon

Con

aye

Eric Ollerenshaw

Lancaster and Fleetwood

Con

aye

Guy Opperman

Hexham

Con

aye

George Osborne

Tatton

Con

aye

Richard Ottaway

Croydon South

Con

aye

James Paice

South East Cambridgeshire

Con

aye

Neil Parish

Tiverton and Honiton

Con

aye

Priti Patel

Witham

Con

aye

Owen Paterson

North Shropshire

Con

aye

Mark Pawsey

Rugby

Con

aye

Michael Penning

Hemel Hempstead

Con

aye

John Penrose

Weston-Super-Mare

Con

aye

Claire Perry

Devizes

Con

aye

Stephen Phillips

Sleaford and North Hykeham

Con

aye

Eric Pickles

Brentwood and Ongar

Con

aye

Christopher Pincher

Tamworth

Con

aye

Daniel Poulter

Central Suffolk and North Ipswich

Con

aye

Mark Prisk

Hertford and Stortford

Con

aye

Mark Pritchard

The Wrekin

Con

aye

Dominic Raab

Esher and Walton

Con

aye

John Randall

Uxbridge and South Ruislip

Con

aye

John Redwood

Wokingham

Con

aye

Jacob Rees-Mogg

North East Somerset

Con

aye

Simon Reevell

Dewsbury

Con

aye

Malcolm Rifkind

Kensington

Con

aye

Andrew Robathan

South Leicestershire

Con

aye

Hugh Robertson

Faversham and Mid Kent

Con

aye

Laurence Robertson

Tewkesbury

Con

aye

Andrew Rosindell

Romford

Con

aye

Amber Rudd

Hastings and Rye

Con

aye

David Ruffley

Bury St Edmunds

Con

aye

David Rutley

Macclesfield

Con

aye

Laura Sandys

South Thanet

Con

aye

Andrew Selous

South West Bedfordshire

Con

aye

Grant Shapps

Welwyn Hatfield

Con

aye

Alok Sharma

Reading West

Con

aye

Alec Shelbrooke

Elmet and Rothwell

Con

aye

Richard Shepherd

Aldridge-Brownhills

Con

aye

Mark Simmonds

Boston and Skegness

Con

aye

Keith Simpson

Broadland

Con

aye

Chris Skidmore

Kingswood

Con

aye

Chloe Smith

Norwich North

Con

aye

Henry Smith

Crawley

Con

aye

Julian Smith

Skipton and Ripon

Con

aye

Nicholas Soames

Mid Sussex

Con

aye

Anna Soubry

Broxtowe

Con

aye

Caroline Spelman

Meriden

Con

aye

Mark Spencer

Sherwood

Con

aye

John Stanley

Tonbridge and Malling

Con

aye

Andrew Stephenson

Pendle

Con

aye

John Stevenson

Carlisle

Con

aye

Bob Stewart

Beckenham

Con

aye

Iain Stewart

Milton Keynes South

Con

aye

Rory Stewart

Penrith and The Border

Con

aye

Gary Streeter

South West Devon

Con

aye

Mel Stride

Central Devon

Con

aye

Graham Stuart

Beverley and Holderness

Con

aye

Julian Sturdy

York Outer

Con

aye

Desmond Swayne

New Forest West

Con

aye

Hugo Swire

East Devon

Con

aye

Robert Syms

Poole

Con

aye

Peter Tapsell

Louth and Horncastle

Con

aye

Edward Timpson

Crewe and Nantwich

Con

aye

Justin Tomlinson

North Swindon

Con

aye

David Tredinnick

Bosworth

Con

aye

Elizabeth Truss

South West Norfolk

Con

aye

Andrew Turner

Isle of Wight

Con

aye

Andrew Tyrie

Chichester

Con

aye

Paul Uppal

Wolverhampton South West

Con

aye

Edward Vaizey

Wantage

Con

aye

Shailesh Vara

North West Cambridgeshire

Con

aye

Martin Vickers

Cleethorpes

Con

aye

Theresa Villiers

Chipping Barnet

Con

aye

Charles Walker

Broxbourne

Con

aye

Robin Walker

Worcester

Con

aye

Ben Wallace

Wyre and Preston North

Con

aye

Robert Walter

North Dorset

Con

aye

Angela Watkinson

Hornchurch and Upminster

Con

aye

Mike Weatherley

Hove

Con

aye

James Wharton

Stockton South

Con

aye

Heather Wheeler

South Derbyshire

Con

aye

Chris White

Warwick and Leamington

Con

aye

Craig Whittaker

Calder Valley

Con

aye

John Whittingdale

Maldon

Con

aye

Bill Wiggin

North Herefordshire

Con

aye

David Willetts

Havant

Con

aye

Gavin Williamson

South Staffordshire

Con

aye

Rob Wilson

Reading East

Con

aye

Sarah Wollaston

Totnes

Con

aye

Jeremy Wright

Kenilworth and Southam

Con

aye

Tim Yeo

South Suffolk

Con

aye

George Young

North West Hampshire

Con

aye

Nadhim Zahawi

Stratford-on-Avon

Con

aye