I got this facebook message
What are your thoughts on these student protestors? I don't really understand what they are doing - they just seem to be trashing things and demanding 'free' education. I suspect you have more sympathy with them than I do. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to why they feel it is acceptable to do what they're doing?
I'm glad you asked! I can't speak for all protestors, or the anti-cuts movement as a whole, but I can tell you why I'm in support of the protests. You've asked a few questions really, disguised as one. Firstly there's the issue of the rise in tuition fees, and the cuts to university funding (and to public services as a whole). Secondly there's the concept of free education, which you seem to object to on ideological grounds. Then there's the question of property damage and confrontations with the police.
I don't know if you've read the Browne Review, which is being used as a justification for £9000 a year tuition fees and (most importantly) a £3bn reduction in university teaching budgets, but here it is, should you care to have a look at it:
http://hereview.independent.gov.uk/hereview/report/
The Browne Review makes a series of dubious assumptions, the most worrying being that education would work best as a commodity at the mercy of free market principles, with students playing the role of consumers. The dangers of this approach are set out really well in this article, which I *highly recommend* reading, if only to get a grasp of both sides of the debate:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n21/stefan-collini/brownes-gamble
I don't know why you don't believe in free education, but personally I think education is a basic right, along with healthcare. But, even if you don't accept that, a recession is exactly the time to be investing in the economy, as an educated workforce is an essential economic asset. On average, the economy directly benefits by about £40 000 for each graduate (in taxes paid etc). This more than covers the amount being demanded in tuition fees.
Also, the money being saved by slashing teaching budgets could easily be found elsewhere. For a start, £70bn is evaded in tax each year, and £25bn is avoided by big corporations due to legal loopholes in the tax system. Another £25bn simply went uncollected last year. The government should be seeking to recover this unpaid tax, by locating tax evaders and making it much more difficult to avoid tax by going offshore etc. At present, they're doing the exact opposite, not least by cutting jobs in HM Revenue and Customs, which is making matters worse.
This is a good pamphlet about cutting public services in general during the recession:
http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/campaigns/campaign-resources/there-is-an-alternative-the-case-against-cuts-in-public-spending.cfm
Finally, you questioned the wisdom of protestors smashing things. Personally, I care a lot less about a few incidents of property damage than I do about demolishing essential public services, to the detriment of our economy and the futures of millions of young people. I do feel that lobbing bricks at policemen probably isn't the wisest of actions, but I also believe it's undeniable that much of the violence at the protests was incited and exacerbated by police tactics. The march went off route because the police wouldn't approve a route that included Parliament Square, which is obviously where protestors (quite rightly) felt they should be making themselves heard. The police shouldn't have a right to obstruct people's right to peaceful protest, they shouldn't be able to illegally detain peaceful protestors (of which there were thousands) for hours without food or water, and they shouldn't be charging kids with horses. Many many more protestors ended up in hospital than police did. I know girls who were punched in the face by policemen, and one girl who had her arm broken. I'm sure you've heard about Alfie Meadows, who ended up in hospital having emergency brain surgery after being hit on the head with a baton. There's plenty of footage online of protestors being beaten for no reason, charged with shields when they can't get away, and crushed in kettles when all they wanted to do was leave. Also see the video I posted of Jody McIntyre, who has cerebral palsy, being pulled from his wheelchair by police and dragged across the road.
The media is focusing on violent protestors and almost completely avoiding the fact that thousands of peaceful protestors were subjected to state-sanctioned violence. The reason that many people take steps to actively resist the police is that they object to living in a police state, where police officers can and will attack members of the public without good reason, and to being subjected to unreasonable force when participating in justified public acts of dissent.
Remember that radical social change only comes about by virtue of the direct action of small groups of people. Women only got the vote following the efforts of the Suffragettes, who carried small hammers in their handbags to carry out property damage. As Emmeline Pankhurst said, "The argument of the broken window pane in the most valuable argument in modern politics."
I'm glad you asked! I can't speak for all protestors, or the anti-cuts movement as a whole, but I can tell you why I'm in support of the protests. You've asked a few questions really, disguised as one. Firstly there's the issue of the rise in tuition fees, and the cuts to university funding (and to public services as a whole). Secondly there's the concept of free education, which you seem to object to on ideological grounds. Then there's the question of property damage and confrontations with the police.
I don't know if you've read the Browne Review, which is being used as a justification for £9000 a year tuition fees and (most importantly) a £3bn reduction in university teaching budgets, but here it is, should you care to have a look at it:
http://hereview.independent.gov.uk/hereview/report/
The Browne Review makes a series of dubious assumptions, the most worrying being that education would work best as a commodity at the mercy of free market principles, with students playing the role of consumers. The dangers of this approach are set out really well in this article, which I *highly recommend* reading, if only to get a grasp of both sides of the debate:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n21/stefan-collini/brownes-gamble
I don't know why you don't believe in free education, but personally I think education is a basic right, along with healthcare. But, even if you don't accept that, a recession is exactly the time to be investing in the economy, as an educated workforce is an essential economic asset. On average, the economy directly benefits by about £40 000 for each graduate (in taxes paid etc). This more than covers the amount being demanded in tuition fees.
Also, the money being saved by slashing teaching budgets could easily be found elsewhere. For a start, £70bn is evaded in tax each year, and £25bn is avoided by big corporations due to legal loopholes in the tax system. Another £25bn simply went uncollected last year. The government should be seeking to recover this unpaid tax, by locating tax evaders and making it much more difficult to avoid tax by going offshore etc. At present, they're doing the exact opposite, not least by cutting jobs in HM Revenue and Customs, which is making matters worse.
This is a good pamphlet about cutting public services in general during the recession:
http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/campaigns/campaign-resources/there-is-an-alternative-the-case-against-cuts-in-public-spending.cfm
Finally, you questioned the wisdom of protestors smashing things. Personally, I care a lot less about a few incidents of property damage than I do about demolishing essential public services, to the detriment of our economy and the futures of millions of young people. I do feel that lobbing bricks at policemen probably isn't the wisest of actions, but I also believe it's undeniable that much of the violence at the protests was incited and exacerbated by police tactics. The march went off route because the police wouldn't approve a route that included Parliament Square, which is obviously where protestors (quite rightly) felt they should be making themselves heard. The police shouldn't have a right to obstruct people's right to peaceful protest, they shouldn't be able to illegally detain peaceful protestors (of which there were thousands) for hours without food or water, and they shouldn't be charging kids with horses. Many many more protestors ended up in hospital than police did. I know girls who were punched in the face by policemen, and one girl who had her arm broken. I'm sure you've heard about Alfie Meadows, who ended up in hospital having emergency brain surgery after being hit on the head with a baton. There's plenty of footage online of protestors being beaten for no reason, charged with shields when they can't get away, and crushed in kettles when all they wanted to do was leave. Also see the video I posted of Jody McIntyre, who has cerebral palsy, being pulled from his wheelchair by police and dragged across the road.
The media is focusing on violent protestors and almost completely avoiding the fact that thousands of peaceful protestors were subjected to state-sanctioned violence. The reason that many people take steps to actively resist the police is that they object to living in a police state, where police officers can and will attack members of the public without good reason, and to being subjected to unreasonable force when participating in justified public acts of dissent.
Remember that radical social change only comes about by virtue of the direct action of small groups of people. Women only got the vote following the efforts of the Suffragettes, who carried small hammers in their handbags to carry out property damage. As Emmeline Pankhurst said, "The argument of the broken window pane in the most valuable argument in modern politics."