no ifs, no buts, no education cuts

I chose to protest Thursday, instead of going to my classes. As yet I've missed every demo because I've been worried about missing valuable learning time, but this was the big one. So it wasn't just an excuse to bunk-off school, as numerous claim. I felt it was immensely important to contribute.

At around 9 years of age, my mother had a boyfriend who introduced us to Rhythms of Resistance, a london-based samba band. We've played with RoR, as well as other samba bands, on and off every since.

If I've understood correctly, Sambatage are a relatively new group formed of SOAS students. Because RoR is a little dead at the moment, some are joining in with their gigs instead.

The day started at ULU, at around midday. We listened to and cheered speakers from universities and trade unions, then proceeded to march and play. I had not a clue where we were heading, but the crowd moved towards Parliament Square and we arrived there at around 2pm. I didn't know then I would be there for another 7 hours.

Riot police were lined up circling the square, mostly staring blankly refusing to answer questions. A couple proceeded to rant about graffitists encouraging violence, and that anyone still there after the results were announced were either condoning violence or were the perpetrators. To anyone who saw how they behaved this is laughable. I personally did not witness any actual violence by protesters towards police, and several instances of the police towards us.

Immediately after the result announcement, people started backing away from the fences (with the police behind) with the intention of charging at them. However, other supporters of peaceful protest, including my friends and I, nervously blocked the way. There was then a long debate over the effectiveness of different methods of direct action that went a bit like:

"They're just doing their job"

"So were the Nazi guards"

"That's a ridiculous analogy"

"That policeman knocked my mate over without any possible justification"

"But violence is not the answer"

etc.

Nothing happened eventually.

We went to warm up by fires and sat on statues, made conversation, ate Raph's banana bread and finished Olivia's tea. Occasionally we sought out the samba noise and joined them for a few songs.

Coming up to 9pm we were told by the police at one corner of the square that they were letting people out at the opposite corner. By this time, we were numb with cold, hungry and really needing the loo. When we got to the other corner, noone was being let out but apparently they were "shortly" (it was always shortly) going to be at the next corner. We were directed every which way again and again. Eventually we actually moved at 9pm on the dot, Big Ben ringing, towards Westminster Bridge. We sung 'Wish Me Luck As You Wave Me Goodbye' and happily informed some police their shields were upside-down (later we discovered the left-handed ones have to do this). Little did we know, we were still being kettled, except now whilst moving.

Before the bridge we noticed a tiny path the police hadn't thought of, and we could have squeezed through it, but I hesitated. A few went through, and I reckoned we could make it but the man directly in front was confronted by the sudden appearance of a policeman, who reacted pretty badly at being outsmarted. I was so glad we didn't take the chance.

So we were then on the bridge, moving very slowly indeed, whilst chanting and swapping rumours. Then we stopped. We didn't move again until 10pm, on the dot, Big Ben ringing. Then we stopped again. Riot police in full gear were sitting on boats below us, provoking one hilarious man to start a trend of shouting 'stop spending our money on useless fucking boats' at them. 'Laser Boy', as we called him, someone who had come fully equipped with a green laser pointer, joined in by pointing it at them.

The students around us declared:

'Thursday night's the best night for TV"

"I've missed Misfits now!"

"And Never Mind The Buzzcocks!"

"And Question Time!"

I found it comforting that I was at least freezing to death with people that liked the same programmes as I did.

The funny man shouted 'come closer so we can pee on your heads, we really need to pee' (honestly, it was very funny at the time), which prompted the guy next to me to crouch down and do it through a clover-shaped hole in the bridge. Then he shamefully stood up and apologised. I was just jealous as I had been needing to go since that morning.

Another guy said he was a tourist, that he knew there was a protest and thought he'd have a look. Unfortunately, he came in the Square at precisely the wrong moment.

Nearing 11pm, I got ready to move again (we'd figured out that this was happening every hour). People we re getting out apparently, but so slowly that we were stuck for another half an hour. When we finally were face to face with the police we realised we were among the last on the Bridge. No idea how exactly that happened.

I couldn't feel my legs and couldn't quite believe I was walking (although very strangely). Olivia and Raph shouted 'FREEDOM!' as we got on to the road, only for someone to reply 'You're not free mate'.

Incredibly exhausted and aching all over, I found the tube station eventually (some entrances were closed) and got talking to some nice guys that were surprised to hear I'd only just been let out. They had escaped an hour ago and gone to the pub.

When I checked the BBC News site, I couldn't believe it. The only headline was about poor Camilla and Charles, and any hidden stories of the protest strongly emphasised the few injured police. Nothing to be seen of the WestminterBridgegate, or the riot police charging at us (some on horses). The reporting has been incredibly biased, very much expected of course from the Daily Mail & co, but the BBC!

BoJo was said to be "appalled by the scenes of violence this evening... It is an insult to our democracy". Gobsmacked. It was the police's unnecessary violence and kettling that was an insult to democracy.

I do think kettling is wrong, it antagonises and it's unethical. Most people just wanted to go to the pub; the kettling was actually prolonging the protest. And what about our civil rights - freedom of assembly?

"Why are we being punished for protesting?" we shouted.

The day in (albeit bad) pictures:

Unison, SOAS

a speaker on malet street

many helicopters..

the balloon

'How can I afford Hogwarts now? First Dobby dies, now this?!'

wtf

blurry pic of The Famous Pink Stormtrooper

a much better pic of The Pink Stormtrooper (via www.totalpolitics.com)

pretty big fire started, amazing amount of black smoke

a red flare

everyone gets the shit scared out of them as police charge

Is it right to charge tuition fees?

I have no longer any time to write on either of my blogs (or have any kind of social life), so I am henceforth going to occasionally post essays I have done for school. It's lazy, yes. But maybe someone will be interested?

“University tuition fees are political dynamite” starts the Economist’s article, before vehemently launching an attack on those protesting the coalition government’s latest reform. The Economist declares that British universities need increased funding to increase supply as “demand for higher education is booming around the world”. In other words, ‘all these poor people have high aspirations, what are we going to do about it?’

There is currently a shortage: effective demand is higher than supply. The government’s initiative would produce a rationing effect - as price increases, demand decreases (some consumers leave the market). The higher price acts as a signal to producers of this particular service, higher education, and presents an incentive to maximise supply (and profit). However, “universities would also lose out” asserts the writer, although only if subsidies are taken away. This remains to be seen, but, if correct, Ed Miliband’s claim would be justified: that the higher fees would “plug the gaps created by its programme of cuts” instead of benefiting universities.

The author further argues that, of all the Lib Dems, only “one backbencher” is openly opposing the recommended rise in fees. Yet after a glance at Twitter, I can affirm that Tim Farron, John Leech, Stephen Williams, Gordon Birtwistle and John Hemming are some of the other MPs ready to vote against the legislation. Clearly, this attempt to demean the “Lib Dem mutiny” is founded on hyperbole.

Tony Blair, the Prime Minister at the time of the introduction of tuition fees in 1998, approaches the subject in his memoirs imploring the reader to sympathise with him. He emphasises how “fiercely contested” his attempt to make a “change in the modern world” was. Did you know it “almost led to my resignation”? Aw, diddums.

Like other controversial times during Blair’s career, he expresses his admiration for the US and idolises their competitive education system. David Blunkett’s worries over lower-ranking universities are described by the former Labour leader as “a typical egalitarian muddle”. Trivialising equality is a speciality of Blair’s.

He acknowledges the 2001 “manifesto commitment not to allow top-up fees” yet dismisses its relevance. The commitment had sparked controversy when the new top-up fees were put forth in 2006, under the same government who had previously asserted “We have no plans to introduce University top-up fees”. This is reminiscent of the now notorious photograph of Nick Clegg proudly showing his signature beneath the promise “I pledge to vote against any increase in fees”.

Once the author arrives at the actual issue and morality of tuition fees after much gabbling, he justifies the policy by putting particular strain on how much it would help universities, albeit mentioning “And poor students would get real and significant help.” (almost as an afterthought). In my view, siding with firms instead of consumers is not very left-wing; this is a prime example of Blair leading the Labour Party whilst keeping his affection for Thatcher firmly in mind. As he writes, “if Labour was to govern for significant periods, it had to be as a party of the future-orientated centre ground” – put differently, ‘I’m not a leftie, please like me’.

The Tories have never made any promises not to increase tuition fees and consequently are not constrained by their manifesto, unlike the Lib Dems. Presumably this stems from the fact the latter party assumed they could ensure rainbows would really be made of skittles, without ever having to come close to implementing these policies. They would not be in the firing line, they would be able to vote however they liked.

The Conservative manifesto states that, in power, they would “enrich students’ lives”. A little ironic, although upon further reading it is revealed this would only be done by improving the quality of teaching, not their financial situations. To do this enriching, they affirmed they would “consider carefully” (or simply agree with) Lord Browne’s review, which had not so far been released.

Menzies Campbell and Charles Kennedy, Clegg’s predecessors, have both expressed their concerns over the Lib Dems’ betrayal – as well as Liberal Youth’s chairman. The Liberal Democrats seem to be divided over the issue as some prioritise their morals, others their newfound friendships with the Tories.

The Labour leader communicated his opinions on the matter as far back as June, advocating a graduate tax in an article for the Guardian. Miliband wrote he would “bin tuition fees” altogether, instead opting for a payment “between 0.25% and 2% of their income” over 20 years. However, perpetually rising numbers of foreign students are coming to England for their advanced education. You cannot devolve taxation, can you Mr Miliband?

On this note, it is vital to bring up the subject of the anomalies of devolved Britain. Welsh and Northern Irish fees are presently the same as English fees. On the other hand, the year 2000 brought an end to tuition fees in Scotland. The Scottish are now able to attend their universities free of charge at the British taxpayers’ expense. Furthermore, foreigners from the EU can acquire degrees in Scotland free of charge, unlike the English. In the current economic climate, during these times of austerity, surely the situation has to adapt.

I will most likely want to eventually possess a degree in a subject that interests me, such as English or Politics. I am fortunate in having grandparents who pay half of my current fees and a mother who works hard to make up the rest of the bill. Of course, I will also have to take out a loan for accommodation, living expenses, etc. As someone whose principal foible is stressing over the most minute nuisances, one of my worst fears is being in debt, and this is a certainty with even higher tuition fees. Assuming there will be a cap on the fees, as assured by Nick Clegg earlier this week, I will personally not be put at such a disadvantage though. Be that as it may, I know students that would be and, on a more selfish level, I would prefer to expect a wide range of backgrounds in all universities. After all, I will go there to gain experience and I suspect this rise in fees would jeopardise that.