How could they have won

[Deld]

BBC News - Royal car attacked in protest after MPs' fee vote

So, what could they have done to actually sway the minds of the MPs? Anything? I think it would have taken A LOT more people, so much that the police actually feared being overrun for them to have been effective. Forget if you agree with the policy, what would it take in today's society for the masses to prevail?

 

[Punishment]

Tripling fee's is stupid , i would be mad too ... infact i'd be fuming.

 

[Syri]

I'm pretty damn mad over it, I'm at college at the moment, and aiming to start uni next year. It's not exactly good to find that you'll be paying almost 3 times as much, no matter how much they try to gloss it over with "well, we've raised how much you need to earn" and "we've lowered how much you pay a month". What makes it even worse is that I voted for the lib dems, and now they go and piss all over their own pre-election pledge. Why don't they just change their party colours to blue and be done with it?
Main reasons I'm not out there protesting is because I don't really have a viable way to get to London to join in, and I've noticed that protesting very rarely sways the opinions of the government. In a lot of cases, it just seems to make them more stubborn.
Oh, and it's bloody cold out there, don't want to be out protesting in this weather

 

[Moriath]

the miners had more ppl didnt work for them

there was no way of winning without tearing apart the coallition and forcing another election

 

[Billargh]

I'm not going to Uni anymore like, I'll find other methods of getting into my decided career path. Good old Judas Clegg.

 

[Deld]

Labour seemed to reak of opportunism to me trying to gain the student vote whilst I think both parties would accept that cuts are needed. But how can a movement actually get the results they desire, how could they make the MPs call off the vote or all vote agaisn't the issue? Moriath said the miner's had more people but couldn't stop it. If there needs to be a different government in place to avoid the issue after an election this obviously isn't an option. You then have to trust even more what they say pre-election to make sure the ones voted in are going to actually do what they say. As demonstrated by Nick Clegg those pre-election promises mean jack shit and theres no accountability.

They get you because although this is a big deal for students it means nothing to older people as they've been through uni or it doesn't affect them at all. So the only people to protest are those directly affected. If numbers don't matter and violence is only undertaken by the minority and frowned upon by the peaceful demonstrators it seems it's completely pointless to demonstrate. One thing I can say categorically is that a peaceful protest is pointless and will achieve nothing, only make some people sleep better at night to know they stood up for themselves in some way. Man I sound like an anarchist, never realised.

 

[Ch3tan]

Sounds like a hell of a lot of misinformation. Most of those protesting don't understand the fee raises, the papers are irresponsible in their reporting, and people are too stupid to check for themselves.


No personal offence here punishment, but comment's like yours in this thread are what I mean.

 

[Ch3tan]

Labour seemed to reak of opportunism to me trying to gain the student vote whilst I think both parties would accept that cuts are needed. But how can a movement actually get the results they desire, how could they make the MPs call off the vote or all vote agaisn't the issue? Moriath said the miner's had more people but couldn't stop it. If there needs to be a different government in place to avoid the issue after an election this obviously isn't an option. You then have to trust even more what they say pre-election to make sure the ones voted in are going to actually do what they say. As demonstrated by Nick Clegg those pre-election promises mean jack shit and theres no accountability.

They get you because although this is a big deal for students it means nothing to older people as they've been through uni or it doesn't affect them at all. So the only people to protest are those directly affected. If numbers don't matter and violence is only undertaken by the minority and frowned upon by the peaceful demonstrators it seems it's completely pointless to demonstrate. One thing I can say categorically is that a peaceful protest is pointless and will achieve nothing, only make some people sleep better at night to know they stood up for themselves in some way. Man I sound like an anarchist, never realised.

It does mean a lot to older people, those with kids, grandkids etc usually pay for them to go through education.

As with everything, protests in themselves are useless. It's lobbying of local MP's that get's results.

 

[Raven]

Which part of "we have run out of money" do people not understand?

 

[Shagrat]

Which part of "we have run out of money" do people not understand?

this.

and if people actually read what they are doing, a percentage of those in the lowest income brackets will actually be better off for these changes.

yes, its going to hurt some people, but well, tough shit....

Previous administration fucked the economy and it needed fixing. I'd sooner we went through some pain now, than fudged it to keep everyone happy and ended up down a deep hole like Ireland.

 

[ECA]

I'm actually in favour of free education at all levels in principle, practical considerations aside.

That said it makes me lol that Labour of all people are criticising anyone given they promised not to introduce tuition fees in the first place and then did it anyway. How they have the stones to even say anything right now is beyond me.

 

[Killswitch]

I think people misunderstand the idea of a moderm Democracy. The idea is no longer that everyone has a say as it was in Ancient Greece. And by everyone, I mean rich men and philosophers with rich benefactors.

We choose a party who have interests and ideals that roughly match our own and then we trust them to represent our interests in a very general way. This is skewed somewhat by the desire to be re-elected and cling on to any tiny shred of power and influence at all costs.

Now I think that Nick Clegg and his bunch of sell-out cronies have destroyed the Liberal Democrat party and it wouldn't surprise me one bit to see them poll below political luminaries such as UKIP and the BNP next time around. By entering into a coalition (or the Desperate Power Grab) they've sold out their members and supporters.

That said, there is no way that any amount of public protest could have made a difference here. David Cameron is desperate to be seen as progressive...in fact the entire election campaign seemed to be a "I'm more progressive than you!" willy-waving contest between the leaders. However, students aren't the core Tory voters so they were destined to be sacrificed on the Altar of Progressiveness.

If Nick Clegg and the other Lib Dem elite had come out against the proposal it would have caused an irreparable split in the coalition and could well have led to another General Election at which Clegg and the Lib Dems would have been spanked harder than a screaming child at a "Mothers for Corporal Punishment" rally. The only way for them to keep some semblance of power was to knuckle under (or bend over...pick your analogy).

In a way, the Lib Dem voters shouldn't be too displeased about all this. Once the Coalition of the Damned was agreed, there were two way it could go. Either Clegg kept his promises at any cost, the Coalition split and the Lib Dems lost all their power or he broke some promises but kept others, when it was feasible to do so (ie when Dave C told him it was alright). Would Lib Dem supporters rather have 10% of some power or 100% of no power?

EDIT: of course, none of this addresses whether the increases are a good idea or not. I was lucky to be in the very last group of students who got free education and I'm very grateful for it. If I was started a course next year at a top Uni, I could easily finish it £40,000 in debt. Over the course of a career that might be £1000 a year. For me, that would probably have been a good deal. For others, probably not so much.

It depends a lot I suppose on whether education gets better on the back of these changes. Also, there seem to be no plans to reduce these fees again (or VAT or anything else) once the economy is "fixed". You have to wonder who will end up with the extra money once we've paid all our debts off...

 

[ECA]

I voted lib dem and I don't feel like they sold out/etc, is that a bitter labour voter I hear?

 

[Killswitch]

I voted lib dem and I don't feel like they sold out/etc, is that a bitter labour voter I hear?

I don't vote as I don't believe my views are represented by any party.

It depends how you look at it...they clearly have sold out. They've traded their pledges and principles for a seat at the top table. That's just about the definition of selling out.

Now, what you need to weigh it up against is how much good they can do. If they can push through one of their election pledges for every ten they have to break due to the Coalition agreement, that's still one more than would have happened had they been minority opposition for the millionth year in a row.

I guess for me the question is would they have been more effective as opposition against a minority government than they are as a very junior partner in a majority government. If the Tories had gone it alone, this bill would never have passed. Of course, it's likely that pretty much NO bills would ever have passed and we'd need another election.

 

[Raven]

To look at it another way, they could be seen to have been persuaded into fixing the country instead of spend spend spend regardless, just to keep a bunch of socialists happy

 

[Everz]

Meh, Anarchy rules.

 

[fettoken]

Meh, Anarchy rules.

We don't want a Pvp server in real life now do we?

 

[Raven]

Its not anarchy, its petulant children throwing a wobbler because they aren't getting everything they want

 

[Everz]

Its not anarchy, its petulant children throwing a wobbler because they aren't getting everything they want

I'm half and half on this. We really don't have much complaint rights as next to none of us pay tax, but then on the other hand alot of us can barely afford uni as it is, if these came into place I know i'd be priced out immediately (wouldn't be eligible for the benefits of low income).

 

[Killswitch]

To look at it another way, they could be seen to have been persuaded into fixing the country instead of spend spend spend regardless, just to keep a bunch of socialists happy

Interesting point, but where do you draw the line. If you lend me £500 because I promise I'll pay it back and then I refuse because I was "persuaded" that it would be a better option to spend it on hookers and cocaine, would that be a positive thing? Hell, even if I was "persuaded" to give it to charity for that matter.

Although it may sound ridiculous in modern politics, the only currency a politician has is his honesty and trustworthiness. Those are the products he tries to sell in an election. You will notice that despite the persuasion from the Tories during the election, Nick Clegg wasn't convinced that the Lib Dem policies were wrong until he had both feet firmly into the carpet under his new desk in the Deputy PMs office.

Perhaps if Clegg had come out and said "we were wrong, our policies were wrong and I've been convinced of this" and then offered to resign, it would look a bit different.

 

[Killswitch]

Its not anarchy, its petulant children throwing a wobbler because they aren't getting everything they want

That's a very negative way of looking at it, almost veering into strawman territory.

It's young adults, some of whom are probably spoiled, petulant and downright bastards, throwing a "wobbler" because they think that they are being unfairly targeted and being asked to shoulder an unrealistic increase in costs in order to fund or protect other interests.

I'm sure the same financial goals could be achieved by sticking 15p on a pint of beer, packet of fags or litre of petrol. I'm also pretty sure it could be achieved by pulling out of overseas conflicts, increasing taxes on high earners or melting bankers down to make luxury soap. At least education is pretty much universally good. Smokers and drinkers cost the NHS a LOT of money and driving is downright dangerous!

Although it's popular to rag on them, the future of our increasingly knowledge-based economy is going to be these students. The government seems to expect the private sector to drive future growth while at the same time looking to choke off the supply of university-educated talent through punitive charges.

I'm still not saying they're wrong to charge the fees, but I can see where the students are coming from.

 

[Raven]

I disagree, our economy needs practically trained people IT, finance, doctors etc etc. Media studies and the usual pointless courses are useless and only serve to help generate money for the university. The people on these courses will most probably end up either unemployed with some sort of false sense of being owed something or they will end up working in Tesco. Having a 2.2 in sociology from the university of craptown will get you precisely nowhere except 3 years behind on the job market.

Most of the things you list will also be affected by budget cuts or tax increases so I don't see why students shouldn't be the same. We quite literately do not have a pot to piss in thanks to labour, everybody will have to do their bit or we truly will be fucked. I have to pay more tax in one way or another and I would rather see that money go towards reducing the deficit, not to go towards some teenagers 3 year post college jolly.

 

[Killswitch]

As I understand it, the loans to cover the fees will be funded by the taxpayer. If the students taking the less-useful courses never get jobs that pay over £21000 (or whatever it is) then we'll be stuck. The country borrows at 5-6% and is going to make these loans at less than that and will have to write off a large amount.

Of course, there is also some intrinsic value in passing a degree beyond what you learn. I don't think I've ever used a single thing I learned in my 4-year Comp Sci degree, but the discipline and the general "learning how to learn" thing has stood me in good stead for the first 10 years of my IT career.

I'm not saying I disagree with any specific point you make. I'd be tempted to make a multiple-tier system where fees are capped based on the choice of course, a bit like some countries do with immigration. Base it on expected income and need for the job. I'd expect to see nursing students pay less than surgical students but I'd like to see both pay less than a liberal arts major.

It seems sensible that the amount the state invests in a person should be proportional to the amount we expect them to pay back to us in taxes and in contributions to communities.

Problem with something like that is there are so many grey areas. Political science? History? Sociology? Even art has a value and while we don't need artists, they are nice to have around.

Also "reducing the deficit" is a short-term measure, useless by itself. We have no problem at all borrowing enough money to fund our current spending levels, although that might change in the future. We need to reduce the indebtedness of our society, encourage private sector growth, remain competitive in high-tech industries and reduce the size of the welfare state.

I don't see any of those goals being served by putting students off going to university, saddling the ones that DO go with massive debt and reducing the pool of university-trained employees in the UK such that we become less attractive to the types of business we need in the UK to provide growth.

 

[Deld]

Can anyone remember a time where a protest or demonstration actually did anything? Actually any kind of protest achieveing anything. Peaceful protests do nothing at all except force the issue to be debated and maybe the opposition will come out backing the protestors as to appear that if they were in power they would not carry out said action but isn't this all rhetoric, its the fact they're not in power that allows them to side with protestors. Lib Dems were the student party pre-election, get in power and don't give a fuck as they're in power not opposition so can do whatever the fuck they want aslong as they and the tories can manage a majority vote. There's no fairness then with a pre-election manifesto, an opposition pary just agreeing for future votes, you may not agree with this issue, I for one think that there needs to be cuts and agree that going to uni actually needs to mean something, but what about the next issue, can the public ever actually change anything?