NUS national protest against the cuts 10.11.10 [London]

[where to]

It raises valid questions about the coverage of very significant, but peaceful, protest about issues by the media and the notice taken of them by politicians. They should be held up to scrutiny as to why people feel the need to commit serious disorder to gain meaningful attention.

and in the meantime? (because they can be scrutinised all you want, its not going to change fuck all. we know who owns and controls the media and what their objectives are. reporting on boring protests which they don't support isn't part of their agenda and never will be).

 

[revol68]

and in the meantime? (because they can be scrutinised all you want, its not going to change fuck all. we know who owns and controls the media and what their objectives are. reporting on boring protests which they don't support isn't part of their agenda and never will be).

Write to your MP, vote in the next election etc etc.

Whatever you do don't do anything illegal that would be WRONG!

 

[moon23]

It raises valid questions about the coverage of very significant, but peaceful, protest about issues by the media and the notice taken of them by politicians. They should be held up to scrutiny as to why people feel the need to commit serious disorder to gain meaningful attention.

Quite, there needs to be more debate within the media about whether they focus enough on peaceful forms of protests. Politicians also have to consider whether one consequence of not listening to peaceful protest is that forms of protest will get more violent.

What worries me is that so many people think this is a legitimate form of political engagement, perhaps in this day and age people are just not prepared to commit the time to joining a party and actually having to have serious debates about issues. Instead they just want to keep shouting and having a tantrum until they get their own way.

These student protests are very different from say anti-war, suffragettes or black civil rights. They are essentially motivated largely by self-interest. They think they shouldn’t have to cover the cost of their own education directly but rather it should be shouldered collectively.

 

[ymu]

I think it will have some traction e.g. with Sky news picking up on Urban and the Facebook groups. Face it they won't need much evidence to confirm what they are looking to confirm. Of course there were some organised people there, you could see some flags and masks. There would have been some student trot groups about as well.

Sky couldn't find anything better than this thread to quote - a thread which is full of disparaging remarks about students and very much not an attempt to organise them. Any serious journalist looking to run that story themselves would soon realise that there was nothing behind it. It's a 10 second google, ffs! Journalists can be shit, but they're not all that sloppy.

 

[moon23]

Write to your MP, vote in the next election etc etc.

Whatever you do don't do anything illegal that would be WRONG!

You don't get immediate results from writing to an MP or voting, it takes a significant amount of time and effort to build a political movement through legitmate means. I fear you would rather turn to violence as a means to your own political ends.

 

[moon23]

Sky couldn't find anything better than this thread to quote - a thread which is full of disparaging remarks about students and very much not an attempt to organise them. Any serious journalist looking to run that story themselves would soon realise that there was nothing behind it. It's a 10 second google, ffs! Journalists can be shit, but they're not all that sloppy.

I agree it's not much, but that's all Sky need to create their narrative.

 

[revol68]

Quite, there needs to be more debate within the media about whether they focus enough on peaceful forms of protests. Politicians also have to consider whether one consequence of not listening to peaceful protest is that forms of protest will get more violent.

What worries me is that so many people think this is a legitimate form of political engagement, perhaps in this day and age people are just not prepared to commit the time to joining a party and actually having to have serious debates about issues. Instead they just want to keep shouting and having a tantrum until they get their own way.

These student protests are very different from say anti-war, suffragettes or black civil rights. They are essentially motivated largely by self-interest. They think they shouldn’t have to cover the cost of their own education directly but rather it should be shouldered collectively.

actually fuckwit it was the people who sacked the Tory HQ who were making the pint that the fee's issue is only a small part of the wider cuts. Infact Sky News even read out a press release from a group occupying the roof who stated they stand in solidarity with all public sector workers, the disabled and those on benefits who are being attacked by these cuts.

I'd imagine the sort of ruthlessly self interested prick who is only concerned for their own being above all else doesn't go risking arrest smashing up Tory HQ, they were most likely back on the buses with their packed lunch and weak lemon drink.

 

[ymu]

I agree it's not much, but that's all Sky need to create their narrative.

Since when did anyone take Sky seriously though? If the BBC run with it ... then we have the perfect opportunity to expose the lazy hacks for what they are.

 

[revol68]

You don't get immediate results from writing to an MP or voting, it takes a significant amount of time and effort to build a political movement through legitmate means. I fear you would rather turn to violence as a means to your own political ends.

it never changes anything you cretin.

I get the impression your happy to see families evicted onto the streets, the unemployed being unable to feed themselves or their kids and the marketisation of university education, not to mention thousands of Iraqi's and Afghans slaughtered before you'd ever get off your smug sanctimonious arse and actually do something.

 

[moon23]

Interesting articule here, lot's of good points. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that for 54.2% of students this will equate to 9% a year being taken from earnings over £21,000 for 30 years after graduate. It is really a form of graduate tax. It's fair in the sense that those working class people on low incomes who didn't go to University don't have to contribute to those who benefit from it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/07/scrap-tuition-fees-we-have

 

[moon23]

Since when did anyone take Sky seriously though? If the BBC run with it ... then we have the perfect opportunity to expose the lazy hacks for what they are.

I worry that far too many people do take it seriously. To be fair I was watching Sky for the footage as they were going the extra mile milk every ounce of excitement from it.

 

[revol68]

there we go, the loyal opposition pushing the agenda of the rich.

Also you overlook the effect of marketisation and the production of a two tier education system. If you think things will stop with this increase in fees you are as big an idiot as those who thought the introduction of tuition fees would be the end of it over 10 years ago.

 

[moon23]

it never changes anything you cretin.

I get the impression your happy to see families evicted onto the streets, the unemployed being unable to feed themselves or their kids and the marketisation of university education, not to mention thousands of Iraqi's and Afghans slaughtered before you'd ever get off your smug sanctimonious arse and actually do something.

How would you even know what I have or haven't done?

 

[moon23]

there we go, the loyal opposition pushing the agenda of the rich.

Also you overlook the effect of marketisation and the production of a two tier education system. If you think things will stop with this increase in fees you are as big an idiot as those who thought the introduction of tuition fees would be the end of it over 10 years ago.

We allready have a two tier education system, only now those on the lower tier are being miss-sold.

 

[revol68]

How would you even know what I have or haven't done?

well since you are arguing that direct action, occupation and property damage are not appropriate forms of political engagement I'm assuming you would have little time for those who did such things in defence of the working class, be they here or in Iraq.

like I keep saying you are the loyal opposition, you say you are opposed to things but aren't prepared to do what it takes to actually stop them, instead you watch attack after attack on the working class by the rich and console yourself with the fact you are a good honest liberal. It's the kind of attitude only afforded to either the idiotic (which I don't think you are) or the very comfortable who are never on the sharp end of the attacks.

 

[pk]

aye and your mates would shoot it in the head 6 times for being a bit swarthy and you'd be straight on here to justify it.

Not often I'd agree with revol68, but he's hit the nail on the head right here.

Detective Boy, you used to be useful. Not anymore.

 

[moon23]

actually fuckwit it was the people who sacked the Tory HQ who were making the pint that the fee's issue is only a small part of the wider cuts. Infact Sky News even read out a press release from a group occupying the roof who stated they stand in solidarity with all public sector workers, the disabled and those on benefits who are being attacked by these cuts.

I'd imagine the sort of ruthlessly self interested prick who is only concerned for their own being above all else doesn't go risking arrest smashing up Tory HQ, they were most likely back on the buses with their packed lunch and weak lemon drink.

Anyone with half a brain can see that smashing up the political headquarters of a democratic party within a western democracy is not a very sensible course of action. There is nothing self-interested about the vast majority of protestors who had their say in a reasonable manner. We are not talking about people fighting against a tyranny or denied democratic participation. We are discussing modest cuts resulting from a global crisis and a major sovereign debt problem and whether those who benefit from education should pay for it or whether the public as a collective whole should pay for it.

 

[detective-boy]

Isn't it about time you develop a semblance of a fucking mind and made an actual decision about what is right and wrong rather than what is legal?

You cannot have a society in which right and wrong can properly be defined without a sound understanding of what is legal. The role of the law (and especially it's independence) in our society is absolutely central. I suggest you go and study some constitutional law ...

 

[detective-boy]

'inside' does now come under aggravated trespass.

Thanks. Could have gone either way on case law and I haven't had the need to read up on it since the ASB Act took "open air" out.

 

[moon23]

well since you are arguing that direct action, occupation and property damage are not appropriate forms of political engagement I'm assuming you would have little time for those who did such things in defence of the working class, be they here or in Iraq.

They are not appropriate forms of political engagement when political avenues are open to pursue. I think for instance in opposition dictatorship occupation they are valid.

I suspect you would not be so happy if the EDL were the ones storming Millbank.

 

[detective-boy]

Any chance of answering my post about developing something resembling a fucking heart and mind and deciding on the actual rights and wrongs in the dispute over the cuts rather than mouthing off legalistic bullshit?

I think the proposed changes to university fees, and much else, are wrong. Just because I don't post about my views on political issues you shouldn't assume what my views are, or that I have none.

 

[revol68]

The problem is you believe in democracy like a naive fuckwit.

You imagine these cuts are a necessary evil as we are all in this big democratic society together equally. We aren't and these cuts are a form of class warfare, the democratic institutions are fuck all but the managing and executive wings of capitalism and thankfully more and more people are copping on to this fact whilst idiot liberals like you do your best to paper over the gaping cracks with pathetic hand wringing.

A million people marched against the war on Iraq and still the slaughter went a head, what use if the rule of law there, what use is the supposed democratic institutions?

Democracy is a sham, a mask for class rule.

 

[ymu]

Interesting articule here, lot's of good points. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that for 54.2% of students this will equate to 9% a year being taken from earnings over £21,000 for 30 years after graduate. It is really a form of graduate tax. It's fair in the sense that those working class people on low incomes who didn't go to University don't have to contribute to those who benefit from it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/07/scrap-tuition-fees-we-have

I did a thread where the calculations came out at 3% per year with a graduate tax (although I was suggesting adding this to employer's NI contributions - same numbers apply).

The key difference is that there is no interest with a graduate tax. Just as NI is PAYG, so is a graduate tax - this year's tax pays for this year's students.

You can't dress this up as fair. It's not. It can be done much cheaper and in a way that actively encourages those from poorer backgrounds to go to university whilst actively discouraging those who are destined to earn a fortune regardless of qualifications.

It's just not defensible that a graduate going into the City will be able to pay off their entire loan with their first year's bonus, when graduates in the public sector will be paying out 9% of their incomes for most of their working lives.

The majority of graduates in the UK are employed by the public sector (26% vs 6%, and the public sector is about 30% of jobs). Their employer has paid for their training - why should they have to pay it back? They're already accepting significantly lower wages than they could get in the private sector, with few of the perks that used to make that worthwhile. This just makes it even harder for the public sector to recruit and retain talent because it will make it virtually impossible for many people to stay in the public sector - student loan repayment of 9%, pay freezes, pension contributions increasing.

Doctors will manage. Police will manage. They're both obscenely highly paid in public sector terms. Nurses won't manage (it is now compulsory for nurses to have a degree). Teachers won't manage. Social workers won't manage. Researchers won't manage. Administrators won't manage.

I don't know if you believe half the shit you spout, but if you've got an ounce of humanity left in you, do some actual research into what this will do to us as an economy. Look at Cameron's trade delegation to China, look at the US call centres competing on price with Indian call centres, the pay deflation for the bottom 90% in the West whilst workers in ASEAN are receiving record pay rises and rudimentary welfare states, and and see if you can work out where we're headed.

 

[moon23]

You cannot have a society in which right and wrong can properly be defined without a sound understanding of what is legal. The role of the law (and especially it's independence) in our society is absolutely central. I suggest you go and study some constitutional law ...

I don't he/she grasps the point of legal independence. Your adherence to upholding the law and understanding it is seen as a partisan act rather than say being a servant of the legislative body that is democratically elected (albeit not yet with the great new AV system)

 

[revol68]

They are not appropriate forms of political engagement when political avenues are open to pursue. I think for instance in opposition dictatorship occupation they are valid.

I suspect you would not be so happy if the EDL were the ones storming Millbank.

What like voting for a party opposed to the fee's...

that worked out well.

Only a cynic or a cretin believes in the sham of bourgeois democracy, I'm still at odds as to what one of those you are.

 

[revol68]

I don't he/she grasps the point of legal independence. Your adherence to upholding the law and understanding it is seen as a partisan act rather than say being a servant of the legislative body that is democratically elected (albeit not yet with the great new AV system)

It is a partisan act, the legal system is not neutral it reflects and upholds the values and needs of the ruling classes or more specifically capitalism.

I think it's you that doesn't grasp the class basis of society.

 

[ymu]

These are the calculations from the other thread.

It's very hard to get an average, but HEFCE figures suggest that it costs about £7,300/year to educate the average student. Let's call it £25k per student before living costs.

They can't live on thin air, so let's add £5k/year for living expenses.

£40k. Let's call it £1k/year over a 40 year career. Some careers will be longer than this, but some degrees take more than three years and some graduates do more than one degree (only the first one is paid for by this system or the systems the politicians are arguing about). And it keeps the numbers easy for a back-of-the-envelope look at the figures.

I'm not going to worry about interest because this year's employer contributions will pay for this year's students, just as this year's NI pays for this year's pensions.

So the employers need to pay around an extra £1k per year in employer's NI contributions for graduate employees. The mean graduate salary is currently around £32k. So that's an extra 3% on employers' NI (from 12.8% to 15.8%). University overheads are up to 46%, so let's use this figure to guesstimate that it would increase the total cost of employing a graduate by 2% [=3/(100+46)].

This would have the effect of depressing graduate wages, so the graduates themselves would pay a part of these costs. They earn an average of about £100k (after tax) more than non-graduates over a lifetime, or about £2500/year. They'd lose about £20k of this if the costs of the extra NI ended up split 50/50 between them and the employer.

 

[detective-boy]

no his concern is about policing the protests it says nothing about whether he thinks the protesters are right to oppose this wave of attacks on the working class?

Actually it says everything about my view of the role of protest in society, and how we, as a society should approach it, whether or not I (or any other individual) actually supports any particular cause. I absolutely believe in the right of freedoms of speech, association, etc. that combine to provide the freedom to protest. I believe that that should be lawful protest (primarily because of the impact it has on individuals when serious criminal offences are involved). But there should certainly be tolerance (by society) of minor criminal acts in the course of protest. And I would include broken windows, grafitti, etc. in that, certainly on State buildings.

 

[revol68]

Go read some Marx and join us in the 19th century at least, though there is something rather charmingly quaint about you and Detective Boys wide eyed belief in Parliamentary Democracy and the legal system.

It's the economy stupid.

 

[detective-boy]

in this particular case DB posted a very balanced and reasoned view and you just screamed abuse

It's how it usually starts. What I actually post usually gets lost in the spittle ...