![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Students
Student tuition fees was the big issue in English politics today. Clegg defended his position at PMQs, while the NUS marched outside. There was potential to damage the coalition, particularly with the politically opportunist change of heart on fees by Labour.
But then it all went wrong for the students: the protests descended into violence and confrontation, and the news channels were filled with students expressing astonishing levels of entitlement. Students justifying their bully-boy tactics made for pretty unpleasant listening. I felt great sympathy for the people working in the Millbank Tower and at 30 Millbank, and in the surrounding area.
The students' message appeared to be that they want taxpayers to give them money, and if they don't, violence will follow. Isn't that a protection racket?
What a nasty bunch.
But then it all went wrong for the students: the protests descended into violence and confrontation, and the news channels were filled with students expressing astonishing levels of entitlement. Students justifying their bully-boy tactics made for pretty unpleasant listening. I felt great sympathy for the people working in the Millbank Tower and at 30 Millbank, and in the surrounding area.
The students' message appeared to be that they want taxpayers to give them money, and if they don't, violence will follow. Isn't that a protection racket?
What a nasty bunch.
no subject
What student budget? One of the many things that students and academics are cross about is that the Browne report recommended that funding for teaching in all but a few subjects (science, engineering, and possibly but not definitely mathematics) cease entirely, the costs to be paid by the students themselves via a two- or three-fold increase in tuition fees.
no subject
no subject
I'm not entirely sure what the NUS organisers could have been expected to do. Marshalling 50,000 people is a nontrivial exercise, and if a small number of troublemakers are intent on doing bad things, then there's a limit to what the organisers can reasonably do. At what point do you, as a marshal, forcibly restrain someone who seems to be getting out of hand? What if there's only one of you within range of five such protesters?
The alternative is to say "OK, we're not going to organise an official protest", at which point you're not really representing the interests of your members any more. Or you can say "we're not organising an official protest, but if people wanted to pop down to London on, say, 10 November, then that's up to them" which would be even less responsible.
It's all very well laying the responsibility at the feet of the NUS, and I'm certainly not saying that there weren't failings in the way they handled things (because there clearly were), but it's not clear to me what they could reasonably have done to prevent a small group of determined militants going crazy.
no subject
The NUS must bear some responsibility for creating a situation that could only lead to bad behaviour. I would suggest they were naive at best, and possibly complicit in the events that unfolded. Listening to interviews on the news during the afternoon, there were plenty of otherwise reasonable-sounding students who appeared to think that the illegal behaviour was entirely justified.
no subject
Oh yes, it's certainly not something I'd take responsibility for. But sometimes it's necessary. There's been a tendency over the last few decades for politicians to try to insulate themselves from the people they're supposed to represent. If they won't listen, then sometimes you have to shout a bit louder. It doesn't always work, but it's still a sign of a healthy modern democratic society that it happens from time to time.
there were plenty of otherwise reasonable-sounding students who appeared to think that the illegal behaviour was entirely justified.
There's quite a difference between saying that you approve of Tory HQ having its windows smashed, and actually doing it. I'm opposed to almost all violence, and even I can't muster very much sympathy in this case.
And as another friend of mine has remarked, the damage done is several orders of magnitude less than that being perpetrated on the UK education system. A few broken windows, overturned chairs and a bit of burning cardboard is relatively easily sorted out; an already chronically underfunded university sector being pared even closer to the bone (or in some cases the marrow) could take decades to fully recover.
no subject
We have a system of representative democracy, with all of its checks and balances. For a minority to try to subvert that by shouting loudly is absolutely, fundamentally, wrong.
no subject
But seriously, I agree with you. Criminal actions are wrong. Unfortunately, sometimes they're productive. Peaceful protests against the poll tax in Scotland didn't achieve political change. Riots in England did; or that was certainly how things appeared. I would rather it had been the other way around.
no subject
Also, right now we have a government that nobody voted for, composed of people who are all in breach of at least some of their manifesto commitments (even more than usual). Their legitimacy is somewhat shaky, and I think it's entirely ok for people to say "hang on, most of us didn't want you to do this, and in fact you promised you weren't going to, so could you perhaps stop it now?".
Anyway, it's always been the case that certain minority groups have more influence than others. A director of an FTSE-100 company, for example, has far more access to the ears of government than, say, a teacher, nurse, plumber, taxi driver or other non-millionaire. For those of us who aren't already on first-name terms with the PM, maybe taking to the streets is the only realistic option we have.
no subject
Of course not! MPs interact with their constituents through surgeries. Writing or talking to one’s elected representative is the way to influence the democratic process between elections.
50,000 angry students on a single-issue protest offer no opportunity for balanced dialogue. There is no big picture. They should be ignored for the sake of democracy.
no subject
I've written to my MP on a number of occasions, and even been to see him in person once. At no point in any of these interactions did he seriously address any of the issues I raised. Can I really be blamed for my scepticism?
There is no big picture.
On the contrary, there's a very large picture. One that is being studiously ignored by most of our elected representatives.
Also, I don't see how you can say 50,000 angry students should be ignored for the sake of democracy, but one person writing a letter to their MP should be heeded. They're just slightly different methods of raising issues with our representatives. Abi, as part of her job, lobbies MPs, ministers and peers about housing-related issues. Is she subverting the democratic process?
no subject
no subject
It's certainly a problem when someone like David Geffen invites Peter Mandelson over to his luxury yacht for a chat about copyright protection, because you then have a single person, not even a British citizen, having undue influence over the legislative process.
But for the most part, lobbying is really just people who have an opinion (often a highly informed and evidence-based opinion) presenting their case in an organised way. There's nothing stopping any of us writing to a peer or MP (although only our constituency MP is obliged to respond). At what point does it start being (evil) lobbying?
no subject
no subject
But even if the student is paying fees, who is really paying? Why we are, well in the short term. The student is getting a loan, backed by the government as a very low interest rate, so it is government debt. I think it is really just a physiological difference in whether the future debt is tied to the individual or to the country as a whole.
no subject
My view, for reasons described elsewhere in this thread, is that all subjects are useful in some way, to somebody. Business studies, for example, would be utterly useless for me, in the sense that I wouldn't get anything much out of it, I wouldn't do very well at it, and it wouldn't enhance my life or career prospects noticeably. But there are people for whom it would be tremendously useful, possibly springboarding them into a lucrative career of some sort, or perhaps just giving them various mental tools that will enable them to interact with the world in a manner beneficial to themselves and/or everyone else.
Similarly, I've got a tremendous amount out of studying mathematics and computer science, both in career terms (I've been paid to do both at various points over the past fifteen years) and also in how I look at the world. But there are others for whom university-level mathematics wouldn't be any use. Maybe some of those would get more benefit from studying ancient history, modern French literature, or theology.
Yes, there are certain subjects that have a more obvious benefit to the short- and longer-term economic and social health of the country, and this is why the proposed £1bn cuts to the scientific research budget would have been a criminally stupid idea (and why even just freezing the budget isn't entirely sensible). But I think it's important not to be swayed by the kind of rhetoric that regards non-science disciplines as "hobby subjects", because all of them have value to some people, and thereby to the country in general.
who is really paying? Why we are
I don't see any reasonable alternative, I'm afraid. And to be honest, there are few more deserving things that money could be spent on. Tax breaks for big corporations? Nuclear weapons that we can never use?