At a time when other nations are funding Higher Education, the UK government proposes that students studying in England and Wales. At a time when the rest of Europe is putting more money into HE, we in the UK are withdrawing funding , cutting university spending by 40%, and thereby turning education into a privilege, rather than a right.
When tuition fees were announced and introduced in 1997, there was very little issue it seemed, and certainly nothing like the anger that we have seen today. Just a disparate coordinated protest, small, but across several cities. However, that, it seems, effectively had the argument in favour of fees won, such that now we're simply negotiating on the price, rather than arguing for or against the principle of fees at all. This is a problem - we need to get the argument back on track if this battle can be won.
Of course, this is a fight not just for students, or over Universities, but part of the wider battle against the 'austerity measures' in general. This need to be seen in the context of the wider cuts, falling disproportionately on the have-nots, and allowing the haves to keep their money, doge their taxes and use their surplus to pay for the best hospital treatment, schooling for their kids and, of course, university education for the their kids. The rich kids get the best opportunities, and become the next generation of rich adults, whilst the poor get stuck in poor dead-end jobs, unable to get themselves out of poverty - the gap widens.
I was on the protests in both my local University city and in London when the top-up fees (then up to £3,000 per year) were first proposed in 2005. I made the same argument then that the focus needs to change to argue against all fee-charging. This was largely ignored, and the consequence of this is clear for all to see now - £9,000 a year, or at least £27,000 of debt for each and every graduate entering their first job at 21 years of age. That is fo course if there are any job available for them.
So, it's easy to see why a large minority of students decided to convert their anger to violence on the streets on London today. Civil disobedience has always been a treasured pillar of freedom of expression, and one which I myself have utilised, occupying a university department overnight and a council building for approximately two hours, as well as stopping traffic in the name of anti-fees and anti-war demonstrations. IDirect action and civil disobedience in Paris in May 1968 (see books on the left) almost led to the toppling of Charles de Gaulle's government and could have completely changed the world - there is of course a reason why many on the Left still talk about and debate it. I have to say therefore that I wholeheartedly support the actions of the students today.
There are though, two other main issues that have come out of today, both in the way that this has been reported in the media. On the whole, the news that I have seen (primarily reports on BBC News 24, Sky News Channel and the Guardian Website, but all have used terms like relating to the "hijack", of the demonstration or the "violence" that has marred the occasion. As this video will show, the invasion of Tory HQ at Millbank Tower was hardly violent - more a few people walking in chanting slogans.
Of course, this is a fight not just for students, or over Universities, but part of the wider battle against the 'austerity measures' in general. This need to be seen in the context of the wider cuts, falling disproportionately on the have-nots, and allowing the haves to keep their money, doge their taxes and use their surplus to pay for the best hospital treatment, schooling for their kids and, of course, university education for the their kids. The rich kids get the best opportunities, and become the next generation of rich adults, whilst the poor get stuck in poor dead-end jobs, unable to get themselves out of poverty - the gap widens.
I was on the protests in both my local University city and in London when the top-up fees (then up to £3,000 per year) were first proposed in 2005. I made the same argument then that the focus needs to change to argue against all fee-charging. This was largely ignored, and the consequence of this is clear for all to see now - £9,000 a year, or at least £27,000 of debt for each and every graduate entering their first job at 21 years of age. That is fo course if there are any job available for them.
So, it's easy to see why a large minority of students decided to convert their anger to violence on the streets on London today. Civil disobedience has always been a treasured pillar of freedom of expression, and one which I myself have utilised, occupying a university department overnight and a council building for approximately two hours, as well as stopping traffic in the name of anti-fees and anti-war demonstrations. IDirect action and civil disobedience in Paris in May 1968 (see books on the left) almost led to the toppling of Charles de Gaulle's government and could have completely changed the world - there is of course a reason why many on the Left still talk about and debate it. I have to say therefore that I wholeheartedly support the actions of the students today.
There are though, two other main issues that have come out of today, both in the way that this has been reported in the media. On the whole, the news that I have seen (primarily reports on BBC News 24, Sky News Channel and the Guardian Website, but all have used terms like relating to the "hijack", of the demonstration or the "violence" that has marred the occasion. As this video will show, the invasion of Tory HQ at Millbank Tower was hardly violent - more a few people walking in chanting slogans.
As for hijacking, well I believe that as I have done, these are simply people who have made the links to the wider anti-LibCon agenda.
The other issue, to my mind, is of the police reaction. BBC News reporters have been seen asking representative of the Met whether they were properly prepared. "Surely", they are saying "You ought to have known that they march was passing Conservative HQ, and station additional officers here?" Well, the fact is, this is in LONDON. Practically every building is a major building and potential target! Their route (reproduced here in Google maps) goes down Whitehall, passing the Cabinet Office, Downing Street, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Treasury, and ending at the Tate, in addition to a whole host of other important state and civic buildings. Stationing officers at every building is surely not feasible, and I feel that given the circumstances, the police did really quite well. better handle it the way they have done, then have another potential Ian Tomlinson on their hands.
No comments:
Post a Comment