In These Austere Times

Oh Nick Clegg. Does anyone else feel a bit sad when they look at him these days? He looks a broken man, tired and conflicted. I would feel sorry for him, after the buzz of the 2010 election, to suffer such a drastic shift in popularity. In reality, it is far more fitting to feel sorry for all the students who voted for him, under the promise of free higher education and a fresh take on politics. What they got, instead, were education cuts, benefit cuts, tax increase and having to suffer Clegg trying to squirm himself out of allegations that he has sold out his voters and his party. A Conservative- Liberal Democrat is unnatural, incompatible and unplausible. From the beginning, the only way in which the coalition would work would be if one party dominated, obviously the Conservatives, and the other shuffled alongside reluctantly, putting a brave face on things.

The recent suggested heavy cuts to benefits to those under 25 have been dressed up using fancy language, and I am surprised to hear that the Coalition's main argument for introducing all their harsh cuts is still to point out how bad Labour did it. According to Nick Clegg...
"Welfare needs to become an engine of mobility, changing people's lives for the better, rather than a giant cheque written by the State to compensate the poor for their predicament"
 It's all OK to use phrases such as 'engine of mobility' when it comes to cutting left, right and centre. I think it is also important to establish that there is no 'giant cheque' written by the State for this purpose. If you are under 25 and sign on, you will receive £50 a week, if you are over 25 you will receive £60, a real treat. Cuts to benefits would be easier to swallow if funding was instead put into making jobs available, and providing people with training.

A Happier Marriage

 "We will be simplifying the current Byzantine benefits system and providing real incentives for people to move off benefits and into work".
Of course there are those who abuse the benefits system, but what of those who genuinely need it? Most people need no more of an incentive than providing for their families to get a job. This claim that people 'don't want' jobs is made whilst everyday we are confronted with figures of high unemployment, there are less jobs out there. Many young people have families by the time they are 25, are they expected to live with their parents forever? Who is to say that their parents can afford to keep them for so long? As far as I can see, prospects for young people who come from a low income family are as follows:

1. Instead of GCSEs, you will be sitting archaic O Levels, in which English Literature exams are about memorising the text rather than your ability to think critically.
2. After your O Levels, you will receive no financial assistance, such as EMA, to attend college. Even though you are expected to purchase books and fund your own travel costs.
3. If you make it through sixth form or college, good luck getting into University as it will cost you £9,000 a year, that's triple what those a year older than you have paid. Oh and you won't get loans to cover the whole cost of tuition, so be prepared to conjure up £6,000.
4. You can try and get a part time job whilst you study, but don't be hopeful as unemployment rates are high. Everyone wants experience- but where to get it?
5. You have completed your degree, well done, but what now? If you are exceedingly lucky you will find a job which utilises your degree and has a handsome salary- great! In reality, though, you better move back home and try and get a bar job.
6. So you want to start a family? Hmm, well, you won't be getting any housing benefit and house prices are sky rocketing, but the bar you work in is cutting back on hours because of what- increased tax on alcohol?

 To me, Nick Clegg is not the real villain, he has just been dragged along for the ride. He is, however, an example of how values and promises can be left behind to get a spot on Downing Street. Meanwhile our Labour leader is uncharismatic and, frankly, a bit of a geek. In Labour's golden era, Tony Blair was a refreshing face, a young, likeable family man. The leader of a party shouldn't be elected because of their specific politics, compared on a microscale to the other candidate, they should be elected as leader because of their skills as a frontman/frontwoman, because that is what they are. No one goes to the circus to see a subdued and awkward ringmaster.

Osborne's Tony Montana approach to cuts: 'BRR CUTS CUTS CUTS CUTS CUTS POW POW!'

Here we can conclude that politics is but a depressing and frustrating game. The roundabout of cuts, slashes and bullshit goes on and on. A new day, a new proposal for everybody to get fired up over, everybody to disagree on.