Students

[tobyaw]

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.

Comments

[tobyaw]

I think the conclusion I draw is that organising protests is a fool’s game. The NUS organisers couldn’t control the miscreants, and the police appear to have been ill-prepared and “hands-off” in their approach.

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.

[makyo.livejournal.com]

I think the conclusion I draw is that organising protests is a fool’s game.
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.

[tobyaw]

I have to vehemently disagree with your comment “If they won't listen, then sometimes you have to shout a bit louder.”

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.

[ggreig]

Shouting loudly's fine. It's when they start throwing things...

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.

[makyo.livejournal.com]

What, so we should all just shut up until 2015? The point of representative democracy is that we elect someone to represent us, and they're supposed to take our wishes into account all the time, not just once every four or five years. There's a tendency for those who work in Westminster to forget that the rest of the country exists, and they need to be reminded occasionally.

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.

[tobyaw]

What, so we should all just shut up until 2015?

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.

[makyo.livejournal.com]

MPs interact with their constituents through surgeries.
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?

[tobyaw]

Yup, lobbyists are evil!

[makyo.livejournal.com]

Some of them are, certainly, but some of them manage to persuade government to introduce or amend legislation in a sensible way. Abi and some of her colleagues, for example, managed to get the last Housing and Regeneration Bill amended to provide stronger consumer rights for tenants of private landlords. The peer they went to see was able to stand up and say "look, all of the main housing research charities and organisations, the people who actually know about this stuff, agree that this is what should be done", and the government accepted the argument and amended the bill accordingly.

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?

[ggreig]

My experience of that is getting in return the form letter that has obviously been sent to everyone who raised this issue, and doesn't address the points I raised. I understand the utility of form letters and don't object to them in principle, but they're a fruitless exercise if they don't deal with the points raised; and in that case it's not balanced dialogue, it's the brush-off.