Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

National Walkout Against Fees 24.11.10

shaman75 said:
so what have they changed since the g20 protests?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/25/police-could-lose-public-consent
Click to expand...
They have two modes, softly softly and lets start a riot. Softly softly ran from around mid last year up to 10/11/10; now its back to 'lets start a riot'. Their approach was far more appropriate for a really aggro football crowd than an angry group of young kids. I think they simply lacked the flexibility to understand this was not some bunch of 80s football hooligans, they set out from the outset to trap them in Whitehall street due to its basic urban geography being more containable than parliament square, they intended to kettle from the outset, it was premeditated. They had no plan or even concept of dealing with under aged protesters en masse. For the moment this looks for them like a great exercise in public order containment and to many like they are getting away with it. But I there is the potential for this story to turn anti police in a couple of ways. First up the horse charge, video footage of it turning up the night that Stevens said there was none could be a real story, it echoes Blairs downplaying of the initial de Menzes stories, it was in front of the London assembly and it is linked to a very emotionally charged video. That story should have legs if someone pushes it.

Then there is the mystery van. My head says there is an innocent story behind it, but it really is worth digging into. If it was left in front of the demo then again the met lied and there will be something for elements of the press and the London assembly to have a go at.

If those two stories do break then the fate of many young kids on a cold November night becomes another story that can build on the back of them, especially with the lovable huggable little people trying to protect the police van, collective punishment of the nice kids because of a few bad apples is a story that can run with loads of phone in from angry mothers.

Its there to screw the Met over their thuggishness if the story runs.

In short, the fuckers are to dumb and too agro to deal flexibly with variable types of protest.
 
I was telling my son the other day about how an anti-apartheid demo I was on in the 70's had passed off peacefully whereas all the previous ones had ended in damage(*) and the police commander in charge said on telly afterwards that he'd decided to treat the demonstration with 'kid gloves'.
That's the story really.
Make of it what you will.

(*)I do find it disturbing the police, politicians and press call damaging inanimate objects, e.g. windows, police vans etc. violence.

Violence is against the person surely.

I don't think the A+E departments have been overloaded with casualties.
 
Love how the advent of mobile phones with HD cameras shows the cops to be lying out of their arses to a wider audience.
 
spliff said:
I was telling my son the other day about how an anti-apartheid demo I was on in the 70's had passed off peacefully whereas all the previous ones had ended in damage(*) and the police commander in charge said on telly afterwards that he'd decided to treat the demonstration with 'kid gloves'.
That's the story really.
Make of it what you will.

(*)I do find it disturbing the police, politicians and press call damaging inanimate objects, e.g. windows, police vans etc. violence.

Violence is against the person surely.

I don't think the A+E departments have been overloaded with casualties.
Click to expand...


No Violence has never meant specifically towards a person e.g. It was a Violent sea or He violently smashed the glass.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/violence?view=uk

Pronunciation:/ˈvʌɪəl(ə)ns/
noun
[mass noun]

*
1 behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something:violence erupted in protest marchesdomestic violence against womenthe fear of physical violencescreen violence
*
Lawthe unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force.
*
2 strength of emotion or of a destructive natural force:the violence of her own feelings
 
my 17 daughter was there - although I know she is v capable and I know she wasn't phased by it I will still be using the opportunity to write to police complaints and my mp about it and encouraging her and her friends to do the same

many articulate children attended and their parents may be able to be outraged on their behalf....
there were some v young young people there kept in the cold and dark after all for no reason
 
Moon. See, I'm a bit confused here so help me out. The party line is that they initially opposed an increase in fees but then, on joining the coalition, they realised that the economic situation was so bad that they had to U turn on that promise for the good of the economy. That they inherited an economic situation so bad that they couldn't keep their promise to oppose fee rises. We all had to tighten our belts etc. So if this is the line then it implies that they recognise that tuition fee rises are indeed an attack on the poor but one that is necessary because of the so called "economic crisis.
Click to expand...

I think there are a few reasons why the party has said it can't keep it's promise. I agree there has been an economic argument, that on getting into government the situation is worse then suspected. Now personaly even taking into account notes left from Lyam Byrne saying 'there is no money left' it's a bit hard to stomach that none of the parties knew how bad it was. What I think is that all three of the parties were holding back from telling the public how bad things would be for fear of losing votes. That's a realy tradedgy becuase it meant there was a lack of real debate about what we should cut in the election campaign. I accept the Lib Dems take their share of the blame in not explaining to people how bad it would be.

The party has been clear in the past that a rise in tution fees would impact upon the poorest more than those who could afford to pay it.

That was the excuse for breaking their promise to oppose fee rises right?
But now the line has changed.According to you (and Clegg yesterday) Now the fee rises are no longer unpleasant but necessary. They are now GOOD for the poor. They are progressive. The poor should be thanking him. Which of course raises the question, if the fee rises are so good for the poorest students, why did he initially oppose them?
Click to expand...

The answer to this question lies in what is contained within the proposals, it is true this is a coalition policy that is not the parties own policy as Clegg says:

"It is no secret that the Government’s proposed reform is not the same as the policy my party and I campaigned on. It is taking everybody some time to realize that in a coalition, parties are not always able to deliver on their preferred policy options. This is what coalition means: both partners having to make compromises and neither partner being able to deliver the full programme of a single party government."

The reason he says these proposals are going to be helping the poor is because Lib Dem influence has ensured that there is more to them then a blanket rise in tuition fees. For instance there is an extra £150 Million to help the poorest students go to University, strict regulation to ensure that those Universities that charge £9,000 pa will have to take students from the poorest backgrounds and provide help for them to do so, part-time fees don't have to be paid upfront, people will pay back less a month then they do now an only start paying it back when they have a wage you can actually live on of over £21,000.

It's these important changes that means Clegg says that this will help poorer people whereas a blanket rise would have punished them.

My view is that it was a mistake in the Coalition agreement, but given that we are in a Coalition the party has done a decent job at improving on the proposals. It will be interesting to see how many Lib Dem MPs rebel.
 
moon23 said:
I think there are a few reasons why the party has said it can't keep it's promise. I agree there has been an economic argument, that on getting into government the situation is worse then suspected. Now personaly even taking into account notes left from Lyam Byrne saying 'there is no money left' it's a bit hard to stomach that none of the parties knew how bad it was. What I think is that all three of the parties were holding back from telling the public how bad things would be for fear of losing votes. That's a realy tradedgy becuase it meant there was a lack of real debate about what we should cut in the election campaign. I accept the Lib Dems take their share of the blame in not explaining to people how bad it would be.
Click to expand...

The economic situation turned out to be far better than the lib-dems had imagined - despite the vaunted soothsaying powers of the Cable. This won't wash for any of your parties lies.
 
moon23 said:
The party has been clear in the past that a rise in tution fees would impact upon the poorest more than those who could afford to pay it.



The answer to this question lies in what is contained within the proposals, it is true this is a coalition policy that is not the parties own policy as Clegg says:

"It is no secret that the Government’s proposed reform is not the same as the policy my party and I campaigned on. It is taking everybody some time to realize that in a coalition, parties are not always able to deliver on their preferred policy options. This is what coalition means: both partners having to make compromises and neither partner being able to deliver the full programme of a single party government."

The reason he says these proposals are going to be helping the poor is because Lib Dem influence has ensured that there is more to them then a blanket rise in tuition fees. For instance there is an extra £150 Million to help the poorest students go to University, strict regulation to ensure that those Universities that charge £9,000 pa will have to take students from the poorest backgrounds and provide help for them to do so, part-time fees don't have to be paid upfront, people will pay back less a month then they do now an only start paying it back when they have a wage you can actually live on of over £21,000.

It's these important changes that means Clegg says that this will help poorer people whereas a blanket rise would have punished them.

My view is that it was a mistake in the Coalition agreement, but given that we are in a Coalition the party has done a decent job at improving on the proposals. It will be interesting to see how many Lib Dem MPs rebel.
Click to expand...

So, in brief, your reply is that yes, we're attacking the poorest students with these proposals, but we have to. You didn't and you don't. But you're going to.

I've yet to see a single piece of evidence that these pathetic and minuscule softening packages came from the lib-dems either. The major effect of these tuition fee rise will be w/c kids not going to university - these worthless packages won't go near them. Not i think there's any sense in your logic that yes, i'm going to attack you but i'm going to buy a box of lollipops and give them to someone else to make things better. You don't realise how lucky you students are that we're going to do this

The simple fact is there is no need for tuition fees at all, never mind rises.

'As the sixth-largest economy in the world, Britain can easily afford to fund free higher education through general taxation. In public expenditure terms, the UK currently spends just 0.7 per cent of its GDP on higher education, a lower level than France (1.2 per cent), Germany (0.9 per cent), Canada (1.5 per cent), Poland (0.9 per cent) and Sweden (1.4 per cent). Even the United States, where students make a considerable private contribution, spends 1 per cent of its GDP on higher education – 0.3 per cent more than the UK does.'
 
Christ that was one hell of a mealy mouthed answer, moon. Do you actually work for the Lib Dems? Maybe you should consider a job with them. You've just basically said it's perfectly ok for a political party to lie to the electorate so they don't lose votes, but then it's ok because now they're in power they're telling the truth. You wonder why people are fucking furious and don't "engage in the democratic process" as you put it?

You don't seem to be concerned with the tripling of student debt because "Oh it's ok, they can pay back less a month or only pay back when they earn over £21k" so it's acceptable to cripple people with around £60 grand of debt, plus mortgage debt, personal credit debt and a rising tax burden to pay for the gambling debts of this generation in power and to put out, or at least curtail, the raging environmental fire they've started? "Why not consolidate all your debt into one, easy to manage payment" there's another career option for you, moon, starring in those sort of adverts.

You and your party are frauds, complete and utter frauds.
 
moon23 said:
The party has been clear in the past that a rise in tution fees would impact upon the poorest more than those who could afford to pay it.



The reason he says these proposals are going to be helping the poor is because Lib Dem influence has ensured that there is more to them then a blanket rise in tuition fees. For instance there is an extra £150 Million to help the poorest students go to University, strict regulation to ensure that those Universities that charge £9,000 pa will have to take students from the poorest backgrounds and provide help for them to do so, part-time fees don't have to be paid upfront, people will pay back less a month then they do now an only start paying it back when they have a wage you can actually live on of over £21,000.

It's these important changes that means Clegg says that this will help poorer people whereas a blanket rise would have punished them.

l.
Click to expand...


Sorry but this is dishonest. Clegg initially opposed ALL FEE RISES. Now we are told that the proposals are not merely not as bad as the initial Tory proposals (because of Lib dem moves to amend them) We are told that the proposals themselves are in the interests of poor students. Clegg was on TV yesterday patronising the demonstrators and telling them to read the proposals because they will find they are GOOD FOR THE POOREST students. So again this begs the question, Why, if these proposals are so great, didn't the Lib dems advocate them before the election. They could have. They didn't. They did the opposite. They promised to oppose them. They lied
 
Butchers.
So, in brief, your reply is that yes, we're attacking the poorest students with these proposals, but we have to. You didn't and you don't. But you're going to.
Click to expand...

Well yes but they are not even saying that are they. That was the line. Now they are spinning this lie that the proposals are actually in the interests of the poor.. They are trying to have it both ways. There is a huge contradiction in their argument here. On the one hand they are forced to attack the poor but anyway they are not attacking the poor. They are giving to the poor. Clegg has turned into robin fucking hood. . In fact it is Christmas. The poorest students shouldn't be demonstrating. They should be holding street parties to thank Clegg for his kindness.
 
moon23 said:
I think there are a few reasons why the party has said it can't keep it's promise. I agree there has been an economic argument, that on getting into government the situation is worse then suspected. Now personaly even taking into account notes left from Lyam Byrne saying 'there is no money left' it's a bit hard to stomach that none of the parties knew how bad it was. What I think is that all three of the parties were holding back from telling the public how bad things would be for fear of losing votes. That's a realy tradedgy becuase it meant there was a lack of real debate about what we should cut in the election campaign. I accept the Lib Dems take their share of the blame in not explaining to people how bad it would be.

The party has been clear in the past that a rise in tution fees would impact upon the poorest more than those who could afford to pay it.



The answer to this question lies in what is contained within the proposals, it is true this is a coalition policy that is not the parties own policy as Clegg says:

"It is no secret that the Government’s proposed reform is not the same as the policy my party and I campaigned on. It is taking everybody some time to realize that in a coalition, parties are not always able to deliver on their preferred policy options. This is what coalition means: both partners having to make compromises and neither partner being able to deliver the full programme of a single party government."

The reason he says these proposals are going to be helping the poor is because Lib Dem influence has ensured that there is more to them then a blanket rise in tuition fees. For instance there is an extra £150 Million to help the poorest students go to University, strict regulation to ensure that those Universities that charge £9,000 pa will have to take students from the poorest backgrounds and provide help for them to do so, part-time fees don't have to be paid upfront, people will pay back less a month then they do now an only start paying it back when they have a wage you can actually live on of over £21,000.

It's these important changes that means Clegg says that this will help poorer people whereas a blanket rise would have punished them.

My view is that it was a mistake in the Coalition agreement, but given that we are in a Coalition the party has done a decent job at improving on the proposals. It will be interesting to see how many Lib Dem MPs rebel.
Click to expand...

Bullshit, lies and naked contempt for the electorate.
 
moon23 said:
I think there are a few reasons why the party has said it can't keep it's promise. I agree there has been an economic argument, that on getting into government the situation is worse then suspected. Now personaly even taking into account notes left from Lyam Byrne saying 'there is no money left' it's a bit hard to stomach that none of the parties knew how bad it was. What I think is that all three of the parties were holding back from telling the public how bad things would be for fear of losing votes. That's a realy tradedgy becuase it meant there was a lack of real debate about what we should cut in the election campaign. I accept the Lib Dems take their share of the blame in not explaining to people how bad it would be.

The party has been clear in the past that a rise in tution fees would impact upon the poorest more than those who could afford to pay it.



The answer to this question lies in what is contained within the proposals, it is true this is a coalition policy that is not the parties own policy as Clegg says:

"It is no secret that the Government’s proposed reform is not the same as the policy my party and I campaigned on. It is taking everybody some time to realize that in a coalition, parties are not always able to deliver on their preferred policy options. This is what coalition means: both partners having to make compromises and neither partner being able to deliver the full programme of a single party government."

The reason he says these proposals are going to be helping the poor is because Lib Dem influence has ensured that there is more to them then a blanket rise in tuition fees. For instance there is an extra £150 Million to help the poorest students go to University, strict regulation to ensure that those Universities that charge £9,000 pa will have to take students from the poorest backgrounds and provide help for them to do so, part-time fees don't have to be paid upfront, people will pay back less a month then they do now an only start paying it back when they have a wage you can actually live on of over £21,000.

It's these important changes that means Clegg says that this will help poorer people whereas a blanket rise would have punished them.

My view is that it was a mistake in the Coalition agreement, but given that we are in a Coalition the party has done a decent job at improving on the proposals. It will be interesting to see how many Lib Dem MPs rebel.
Click to expand...
i don't often agree with harriet harman, but she made the good point that the government, of which your nefandous party is a part, have declared the deficit will be dealt with by 2014. the 100% withdrawal of funding for arts, humanities and social sciences is a permanent thing. the new arrangements for 'student financial support' will only be a couple of years old by the time the deficit's gone. it's bugger all to do with necessity, this is a deliberate decision to prevent large sections of the population having the chance to enter university.
 
dylans said:
Well yes but they are not even saying that are they. That was the line. Now they are spinning this lie that the proposals are actually in the interests of the poor.. They are trying to have it both ways. There is a huge contradiction in their argument here. On the one hand they are forced to attack the poor but anyway they are not attacking the poor. They are giving to the poor. Clegg has turned into robin fucking hood. . In fact it is Christmas. The poorest students shouldn't be demonstrating. They should be holding street parties to thank Clegg for his kindness.
Click to expand...

I suspect that's actually what some of the more detached lib-dems think has been happening for the last few weeks.
 
i've just been thinking about the amount of money most people will have to borrow to get through uni... it isn't just the 9 grand a year is it? that's just fees. most people will need to borrow around 3 grand a year just to cover rent, and will likely max out their student overdraft (another 3 thousand over the three years?). that's not unrealistic is it? I reckon most people would still have to work quite a few hours on top to make ends meet even on that.

so a conservative estimate for three years at uni in a fairly inexpensive town is looking at nigh on £40,000. my mortgage isn't that much more than that...
 
moon23 said:
I think there are a few reasons why the party has said it can't keep it's promise. I agree there has been an economic argument, that on getting into government the situation is worse then suspected. Now personaly even taking into account notes left from Lyam Byrne saying 'there is no money left' it's a bit hard to stomach that none of the parties knew how bad it was. What I think is that all three of the parties were holding back from telling the public how bad things would be for fear of losing votes. That's a realy tradedgy becuase it meant there was a lack of real debate about what we should cut in the election campaign. I accept the Lib Dems take their share of the blame in not explaining to people how bad it would be.

The party has been clear in the past that a rise in tution fees would impact upon the poorest more than those who could afford to pay it.



The answer to this question lies in what is contained within the proposals, it is true this is a coalition policy that is not the parties own policy as Clegg says:

"It is no secret that the Government’s proposed reform is not the same as the policy my party and I campaigned on. It is taking everybody some time to realize that in a coalition, parties are not always able to deliver on their preferred policy options. This is what coalition means: both partners having to make compromises and neither partner being able to deliver the full programme of a single party government."

The reason he says these proposals are going to be helping the poor is because Lib Dem influence has ensured that there is more to them then a blanket rise in tuition fees. For instance there is an extra £150 Million to help the poorest students go to University, strict regulation to ensure that those Universities that charge £9,000 pa will have to take students from the poorest backgrounds and provide help for them to do so, part-time fees don't have to be paid upfront, people will pay back less a month then they do now an only start paying it back when they have a wage you can actually live on of over £21,000.

It's these important changes that means Clegg says that this will help poorer people whereas a blanket rise would have punished them.

My view is that it was a mistake in the Coalition agreement, but given that we are in a Coalition the party has done a decent job at improving on the proposals. It will be interesting to see how many Lib Dem MPs rebel.
Click to expand...


So basically you're saying.
Oops! Our manifesto is useless cos we didn't know what we talking about, so now we going to do the opposite of everything you voted for us for and actually, it's probably for the best anyway, so forget anything we said before...erm...
Click to expand...
 
killer b said:
i've just been thinking about the amount of money most people will have to borrow to get through uni... it isn't just the 9 grand a year is it? that's just fees. most people will need to borrow around 3 grand a year just to cover rent, and will likely max out their student overdraft (another 3 thousand over the three years?). that's not unrealistic is it? I reckon most people would still have to work quite a few hours on top to make ends meet even on that.

so a conservative estimate for three years at uni in a fairly inexpensive town is looking at nigh on £40,000. my mortgage isn't that much more than that...
Click to expand...

...and apparently its a "good thing" that ex-students will paying that off for even longer according to the Lib Dems. Debt for Life, it's good for the poor...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

zedr
Actions Against Immigration Raids and the Hostile Environment
Replies
20
Views
2K
zedr
zedr
frogwoman
Protest against lockdowns
Replies
1
Views
501
frogwoman
frogwoman
ska invita
Legal challenges against the establishment
Replies
12
Views
887
kabbes
K
spitfire
Protest against Cost of Living Sat 12th Feb 1pm
Replies
9
Views
901
hitmouse
hitmouse
Serge Forward
Actions against the policing bill
41 42 43 44 45
Replies
1K
Views
68K
hitmouse
hitmouse
Back
Top Bottom