Author Archive

It is often difficult to convince people to attend amateur dramatics. The prospect of stumbled lines and monosyllabic delivery is not a big draw. However, every now and again there is an anomaly that becomes a reminder for why one does attend. Waiting For Lefty is this anomaly, and despite being performed entirely by students, is a truly captivating and enthralling production.

The play follows the social dynamics of a workers association in the face of low wages and potential job cuts, attempting to analyse the circumstances and emotions that lead workers to strike. While the play is too short to fully achieve this, the audience are presented with some beautifully acted scenes that continue to resonate after the final curtain has been drawn.

Sid’s (Folarin Akinmade) relationship with Florrie (Lucie Walker-Davies) is on the edge, as is Joe’s (Martin Leonard) marriage to Edna (Faye Merralls). The interactions within each of these relationships are impressive in their ability to draw in the audience.

While the cast is without a weak link, the performance of Akinmade stands out as exemplary. His portrayal of Sid is dynamic in its ability to capture both the light-hearted front of his character and the painful, angry emotion that lies beneath.

Such strong performances from the whole cast serve to overpower the more dubious aspects of the production. An originally American play, the students from Kings College London have made a slightly muddled attempt to fit the script into a British setting. Set in the 1930’s it is difficult to accurately ally the script to history and much of what is presented is more reminiscent of Britain in the 1980’s. Well, it would be if it wasn’t for the emphasis being on taxi drivers threatening to strike.

However, as previously mentioned, these details are subsidiary to the quality of the performance and do not stop Waiting For Lefty from being well worth seeing, even when lined up against professional competition.

Waiting For Lefty is produced and performed by The King’s Players, a Drama Society at Kings College London.

The government has announced that former BP Chief Executive Lord Browne of Madingley will lead the panel set to review student tuition fees.

The Chair of British Youth Council’s (BYC) Board of Trustees, Rajay Naik, will join the panel as a student voice.

The group will conduct a review into student tuition fees and higher education funding. According to a government website, they have been tasked with “making recommendations to Government on the future of fees policy and financial support for full and part-time undergraduate and postgraduate students.”

Lord Mandelson, Business Secretary, said that the review will consider, “all who would be affected by any changes, including current and potential students.”

Yesterday the National Union of Students (NUS) warned Government against a “cosy stitch-up” on fees, citing research carried out by YouGov on more than 2000 adults in Britain suggesting that 52% think that the forthcoming review should consider abolishing top-up fees.

This research also showed that 71% of the general public thought that there should be a student representative on the review panel.

Commenting on the appointment of Naik, Wes Streeting, NUS President, said: “NUS is pleased that the Government has listened to our calls for a student voice to be included on this panel. It is vitally important that this member is not sidetracked by business and university interests.”

Naik will be joined on the panel by; Peter Sands, Chief Executive of Standard Chartered PLC; Julia King, former Principal of Engineering at Imperial College and now Vice-Chancellor of Aston University; Professor David Eastwood, Former Chief Executive of the Higher Education Funding Council for England and now Vice-Chancellor of the University of Birmingham; Diane Coyle, BBC Trustee and visiting professor at the University of Manchester; Sir Michael Barber, head of McKinsey’s Global Education Practice.

The review is expected to take into account the goal of widening participation, affordability and the desirability of a simplification of the student support system.

Mandelson added: “Variable tuition fees provide institutions with a secure income stream worth £1.3bn, helping to sustain the long-term financial health and viability of the sector.  Since they were introduced student numbers have continued to rise, along with the numbers coming from lower-income backgrounds.”

However, NUS were less convinced, saying that there is a “real danger” that the review could leave some students “priced out of more prestigious universities”.

“This would be a disaster for UK higher education and must not be allowed to happen,” Streeting added.

The findings of the review will not be published until after the next general election.

Sally Hunt, UCU General Secretary, warned that the timing of the review mustn’t allow MP’s to avoid discussing issues around student funding.

“Despite the review’s timetable, all the parties must clearly state their fee policies to ensure that students and their parents can make an informed choice at the ballot box.

“Failure to do so will deny the general public a voice on the debate on the future of university funding. The review needs to be allowed to be properly conducted with the relevant voices, particular those of academics and students, heard on the core group.”

Stephen Williams, Liberal Democrat university spokesman, said: “This review is nothing but a conspiracy between Labour and the Tories designed to keep plans to hike up tuition fees off the agenda until after the general election.”

Public opinion is against raising the cap on tuition fees, according to a poll by the National Union of Students (NUS).

The results of the poll come just before the government is due to announce the details of its review of tuition fees tomorrow (9th November).

Of the 2,152 adults in Britain that were surveyed, 52% think that the forthcoming review should consider abolishing top-up fees and finding another alternative, while only 12% think the review should consider raising the cap.

In light of the poll’s results, Wes Streeting, President of NUS, said: “This poll shows that the public will not stand for a cosy stitch-up on university fees. At a time of economic crisis, when many hard working families are struggling to support their offspring through university, a hike in fees is the last thing we need.”

In addition, 71% of those surveyed want to see students represented within the core review group, while only 30% think businesses should be represented.

These results contradict repeated announcements made by Business Secretary Peter Mandelson that, after students, businesses are “the key clients of the higher skills system.”

These comments were re-enforced by the recent publication of the government framework document for higher education, entitled ‘Higher Ambitions: The Future of Universities in a Knowledge Economy’, which emphasises the increasing role of businesses in university funding and governance.

The NUS supports the results of their poll and wants to see student representation within the core fees-review group.

Streeting said: “Students are already leaving university with record levels of debt, and it would be totally unacceptable to fill the panel with people who are either Government patsies or predisposed to higher fees.

“Little over a month ago, the CBI called for a rise in fees, and polls have found that most university vice-chancellors would like to charge students £5,000 or more a year. Left to their own devices, behind closed doors, these two groups would only come to one conclusion: that students and their families should be bled dry for their own financial benefit.”

The University and College Union (UCU) support the NUS call for student representation.

Sally Hunt, UCU General Secretary, said: “The review needs to be allowed to be properly conducted with the relevant voices, particularly those of academics and students, on the core group.”

The poll also found that 81% of respondents thought that the review group meeting should be held in public.