Support NeoGAF

[radioheadrule83]

The protesters seem to have been seen and heard quite a bit :lol

But you still bitch.

He's right though. Protest and civil disobedience aren't anything of the sort if it is tightly controlled. And although I blame fringe elements for the violence yesterday, I do question whether the police strategy is sound... box them in for hours with no facilities and rush them with horses and batons when they get pissed off about it? Keep them away from the buildings and stop them from running riot, sure, but don't keep them prisoner and agitate them...

I mean, I honestly don't know why the Churchill monument wasn't safely boxed off considering its been targetted before, I don't know why they were allowed so close to buildings, I don't know how they mobilised such a strongly armed force so quickly if they were expecting it to go peacefully... I don't think they did expect it to, actually. The tactics just seem like they might be wrong to me. I acknowledge plenty of people at the protest were being twats, but considering who has the power and the weaponry in this situation, I still find these pictures kind of unsettling:

And I don't know if this has been posted yet, but its quite chilling if true:

Schoolboy warned by police over picket plan at David Cameron's office
Nicky Wishart, 12, told he faced arrest if public disorder ensued and armed officers would be present
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/10/schoolboy-quizzed-cameron-office-picket

Speaking to the Guardian, Nicky Wishart said: "In my lesson, [a school secretary] came and said my head of year wanted to talk to me. She was in her office with a police officer who wanted to talk to me about the protest. He said, 'if a riot breaks out we will arrest people and if anything happens you will get arrested because you are the organiser'.

"He said even if I didn't turn up I would be arrested and he also said that if David Cameron was in, his armed officers will be there 'so if anything out of line happens ...' and then he stopped."

 

[Salazar]

He's right though. Protest and civil disobedience aren't anything of the sort if it is tightly controlled.

I don't see it as remotely the duty of the state to accede to a group's civil disobedience.

I don't find pictures of armed and mounted police unsettling. I find idiots lobbing bricks and the like - who make the horses and the batons necessary - unsettling.

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

The protesters seem to have been seen and heard quite a bit :lol

But you still bitch.

Oh, you mean seen and heard through the lens of the Daily Mail who paint all protestors as (and I quote) "a mob of snarling students". That's right... all protestors are rabid student thugs who probably would have been shot dead if not for the restraint shown by our brave and noble policemen and women.

Did you notice David Cameron only came out once the overprivileged inbred cretins we call the monarchy had their bulletproof car covered in paint? OH THE HORROR!

On the Today programme this morning, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner was defending the police handling of yesterday's student protests.

When asked about the idiotic attack by protesters on the car carrying the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall, he praised the "restraint" of the firearms officers who were there.

The implication appeared to be that, but for this "restraint", the protesters would have properly been shot dead. The Commissioner furthermore described the restraint of his officers generally, not by reference to the officers following training, policies and procedures, but in terms which meant he could commend the officers' moral qualities.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/12/police-officers-protesters

 

[Salazar]

Oh, you mean seen and heard through the lens of the Daily Mail

By people who read the Daily Mail. There are other newspapers, other tv channels, other radio stations. Who are you accusing of being culpably narrow-minded ?

 

[Gallbaro]

This is awesome.

I love it when a bunch of people demanding other people give them money get their asses kicked. :lol


The caption in my head for the pictures is "Get the rotten children."

 

[f0rk]

Mega-derp. Oooh no, policemen in black with shields and helmets. They should let protesters go where they want :lol

Yeah protecting important locations = keeping 1-2000 people on a bridge for hours.

 

[scotcheggz]

I don't see it as remotely the duty of the state to accede to a group's civil disobedience.

I don't find pictures of armed and mounted police unsettling. I find idiots lobbing bricks and the like - who make the horses and the batons necessary - unsettling.

You don't find it remotely unsettling to see images of men clad in heavy armor with shields, swinging solid metal poles at young people in winter coats and wooly hats?

Chuck a brick at a tank and it will bounce off, get run over by said tank and it's gonna fuckin hurt. Radioheadrule pretty much said everything I would say, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Salazar]

Yeah protecting important locations = keeping 1-2000 people on a bridge for hours.

I guess so. Of course, a situation in which some muppets are trashing anything they can get their hands on tends to make most places important locations.

 

[Gallbaro]

You don't find it remotely unsettling to see images of men clad in heavy armor with shields, swinging solid metal poles at young people in winter coats and wooly hats?

Chuck a brick at a tank and it will bounce off, get run over by said tank and it's gonna fuckin hurt. Radioheadrule pretty much said everything I would say, so I'll leave it at that.

Well tell the kids to stop acting like spoiled brats.

 

[Salazar]

You don't find it remotely unsettling to see images of men clad in heavy armor with shields, swinging solid metal poles at young people in winter coats and wooly hats?

Chuck a brick at a tank and it will bounce off, get run over by said tank and it's gonna fuckin hurt. Radioheadrule pretty much said everything I would say, so I'll leave it at that.

I don't find photographs of such intrinsically unsettling. I need context to be appalled. And winter woollens don't necessarily mean you are an unthreatening individual.

Show me the tanks. I'm genuinely intrigued.

 

[Moobabe]

Well tell the kids to stop acting like spoiled brats.

That's the issue here? I'm glad there's such a void of political understanding here.

I don't find photographs of such intrinsically unsettling. I need context to be appalled. And winter woollens don't necessarily mean you are an unthreatening individual.

Show me the tanks. I'm genuinely intrigued.

So every single individual suffering police brutality were "threatening individuals"?

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

By people who read the Daily Mail. There are other newspapers, other tv channels, other radio stations. Who are you accusing of being culpably narrow-minded ?

I'm only highlighting the Daily Mail because it is fun to do so but really the media's portrayal of this whole situation is incredibly warped.

If you portray one group as being violent good for nothing thugs based on the actions of a few (which happened at the beginning) then that's only going to polarise people's opinions and create division. Once that happens then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and the entire group does become violent because they feel under attack from all sides.

The handling of this situation is beyond stupid. They began to treat them like hooligans and now that's what they're ending up with... an entire generation fueled by self-righteous rage who will grow up despising the conservatives and the liberal democrats. It's certainly one way to alienate future voters.

 

[Salazar]

I'm only highlighting the Daily Mail because it is fun to do so but really the media's portrayal of this whole situation is incredibly warped.

I think there probably is a disproportionate focus on the violence, but I don't see how you could reasonably expect otherwise. TV and tabloids are hardwired to amplify those kinds of things.

So every single individual suffering police brutality were "threatening individuals"?

I didn't say or even strongly suggest that they were. Not that it matters. Carry on.

 

[Moobabe]

I didn't say or even strongly suggest that they were. Not that it matters. Carry on.

And winter woollens don't necessarily mean you are an unthreatening individual.

The same way that having winter woollens doesn't necessarily mean you are a threatening individual right? So is the police violence that we've seen ALL reactionary to targets who are deemed "threatening"? Or can we at least agree that some police officers may have been indiscriminate in their violence? Or is it easier if we blame student entirely?

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

Boxing in angry protestors and wondering why they're becoming violent is like cornering a wounded animal, poking it with sticks and asking why it bit you.

 

[Salazar]

The same way that having winter woollens doesn't necessarily mean you are a threatening individual right? So is the police violence that we've seen ALL reactionary to targets who are deemed "threatening"? Or can we at least agree that some police officers may have been indiscriminate in their violence? Or is it easier if we blame student entirely?

:lol :lol

All I am saying - and if you bother to read patiently you might even agree - is that looking at a photograph of a policeman menacing someone in an overcoat or with gloves or a beanie on is not adequate information from which to deduce that unjustified or disproportionate force or action is being exercised.

This seems a significant point in a thread where people are getting worked up into a tizzy by the sight of rows of police shields, as if symmetry were a token of brutalism.

I sense that you want me to mount an absolutist defence of police conduct. I'm obviously not going to.

 

[scotcheggz]

I don't find photographs of such intrinsically unsettling. I need context to be appalled. And winter woollens don't necessarily mean you are an unthreatening individual.

Show me the tanks. I'm genuinely intrigued.

Fair enough, I suppose that is where we differ. Regardless of the context, I find those images to be ugly.

I do agree winter woollens might not mean you're a threatening individual, but I also don't think they're half as threatening as the armour wearing, truncheon swinging police. I understand that that's the point, but surely the truncheons don't need to be swung about quite so haphazardly to deter the majority of protesters? I watched them swing them around like the were made of flowers and fairy dust on the BBC live feed last night and it was terrifying. As radioheadrule pointed out earlier, the police Ballsed up with a lot of things, kettling people into the wrong places and agitating them. What did they expect? A scared crowd is hardly going to sit down and relax.

I should point out that on saying this, I do think the police must have been having a nightmare and the position they were in must have been hugely difficult, but you cant just stove peoples heads in because things are getting difficult.

 

[Moobabe]

All I am saying - and if you bother to read patiently you might even agree - is that looking at a photograph of a policeman menacing someone in an overcoat or with gloves or a beanie on is not adequate information from which to deduce that unjustified or disproportionate force or action is being exercised.

I sense that you want me to mount an absolutist defence of police conduct. I'm obviously not going to.

I do agree that you can't deduce whether or not the police are using disproportionate force based on the images that we've seen - but I don't see how you could argue the opposite - there's nothing in those photos to suggest that the protesters deserved what we can see in those pictures.

And no - I don't want you to mount a defence of the police force - though of course you'd like me to argue that it would be impossible to do so

 

[Salazar]

We have briefly but comprehensively established the limitations of photography as a foundation for ethical judgement.

 

[Moobabe]

We have briefly but comprehensively established the limitations of photography as a foundation for ethical judgement.

It would seem so - though I'm SURE, well I hope, that we can both agree that its the manipulation of these photos that leads to the kind of hyperbole from BOTH sides.

 

[D4Danger]

late but...

Oh, fuck you, random person:

I hope the police beat the shit out of this guy.

 

[Avyrocky]

Whats the point of peaceful protests?

The Iraq war protests for example everyone marched shouting out slogans, holding placards etc etc... Nothing was done. The country still went to war and what was the end result? Scores of Iraqi's, British and American soldiers dead for what? BULLSHIT...

At least with this if the government are going to raise the fees you might as well smash up the place and take some hostages...

 

[Spirit of Jazz]

Whats the point of peaceful protests?

The Iraq war protests for example everyone marched shouting out slogans, holding placards etc etc... Nothing was done. The country still went to war and what was the end result? Scores of Iraqi's, British and American soldiers dead for what? BULLSHIT...

At least with this if the government are going to raise the fees you might as well smash up the place and take some hostages...

Wise words, peaceful protests have in no way contributed to some of the largest social revolutions in the last 100 years or so.

Whilst you can argue the protests over these events is ineffective. "smashing up the place and taking hostages" isn't exactly going to help your cause or achieve anything. Why not take action against the government/universities directly and instead try to arrange a nation-wide boycott and see how they respond to that instead?

Though I guess doing something that would take a little effort, at least more than it takes to act like a cunt for a day.

Also well done British police for responding to 2009 G-20 kettling idiocy and upping the anti with horse rushes. Managing to make a national embarrassment of yourselves and then handling the same issues a year later with an even stupider strategy sure takes some doing.

 

[Avyrocky]

Wise words, peaceful protests have in no way contributed to some of the largest social revolutions in the last 100 years or so.

Whilst you can argue the protests over these events is ineffective. "smashing up the place and taking hostages" isn't exactly going to help your cause or achieve anything. Why not take action against the government/universities directly and instead try to arrange a nation-wide boycott and see how they respond to that instead?

Though I guess doing something that would take a little effort, at least more than it takes to act like a cunt for a day.

Also well done British police for responding to 2009 G-20 kettling idiocy and upping the anti with horse rushes. Managing to make a national embarrassment of yourselves and then handling the same issues a year later with an even stupider strategy sure takes some doing.

Boycott what?

 

[Salazar]

Change of pace, if not of subject:

RSA Animate speech by Ken Robinson on educational paradigms.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U&feature=player_embedded#!

Watch it, folks. These things are superb.

 

[Xun]

late but...



I hope the police beat the shit out of this guy.

It's David Gilmours son apparently! :lol

Also I wish the media would shut the fuck up about the royals being attacked, it's irritating.

 

[Avyrocky]

Change of pace, if not of subject:

RSA Animate speech by Ken Robinson on educational paradigms.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U&feature=player_embedded#!

Watch it, folks. These things are superb.

Great pull! That was fantastic...

 

[Salazar]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/8194766/Anarchist-groups-threaten-to-target-Royal-Wedding.html

The nutter element hijack continues.

 

[Starwolf_UK]

That part specifically is worrying, because it seems like

1) You will just be bleeding money out for ages, if they're only taking the money above the threshold. Much more will end up accruing
2) They punish you (in a different way) for making more, and they are actively discouraging you from making voluntary payments earlier because of the progressive interest rate

Vince Cable insists the system is progressive and fair because the rich will pay back the most.

Shame the erm, commons reports (I think I got the name wrong you can find them on the web somewhere) which MPs are supposed to read to base their vote on (it was quite difficult when the latest revision was Wednesday night) quite clearly show that as a percentage of lifetime earnings people about the middle/upper middle are those that pay the most.

They also showed that despite Oxford and Cambridge getting twice the money per student from the government (to spend it on really short term times so their world-class researchers can do research) their widening participation schemes have been terrible. And presumably still would be when they charge £9000 a year (despite going above £6000 meaning you have to improve). Maybe the tax would be better off with them privatized, only problem with these fees being what somewhere wants to charge is it'll give a perception of certain places being rubbish or a rip-off or it'll lead to people effectively paying for the University name on the end of their degree.

 

[Chinner]

urgh what have you guys done to my thread

 

[Salazar]

urgh what have you guys done to my thread

Violent protest is your only option, Chinner.

 

[Lear]

Vince Cable insists the system is progressive and fair because the rich will pay back the most.

Shame the erm, commons reports (I think I got the name wrong you can find them on the web somewhere) which MPs are supposed to read to base their vote on (it was quite difficult when the latest revision was Wednesday night) quite clearly show that as a percentage of lifetime earnings people about the middle/upper middle are those that pay the most.

They also showed that despite Oxford and Cambridge getting twice the money per student from the government (to spend it on really short term times so their world-class researchers can do research) their widening participation schemes have been terrible. And presumably still would be when they charge £9000 a year (despite going above £6000 meaning you have to improve). Maybe the tax would be better off with them privatized, only problem with these fees being what somewhere wants to charge is it'll give a perception of certain places being rubbish or a rip-off or it'll lead to people effectively paying for the University name on the end of their degree.

Ok so I've just found what you're talking about (they're all here if anyone wants to read - you're looking for the Library briefing notes) and there's not much to suggest that Oxford and Cambridge's widening participation schemes are 'terrible'. Perhaps try reading this response to a recent article in the Guardian which attacked Oxford for a supposedly poor record on widening participation. Also, hereis Oxford repsonse to the article. (It's worth noting that the original article is just wrong on the facts. They claim that Merton hasn't accepted a single black student in the past 5 years, which is just false. I've met a black guy who went to Merton in the last 5 years. He almost definitely wasn't a figment of my imagination.) I'm getting a bit sick of people attacking Oxford for reflecting wider social problems. Yes, there are a disproportionate number of students here who went to private school but that's because state education is largely shite. And also, the proportion of state school educated students at Oxford (54%) is in line with proportion of applicants, so you can't claim that Oxford discriminates against those from state schools.

Bit of a rant, but I've been fairly heavily involved with access and widening participation stuff and shit like this pisses me off. It just perpetuates untrue myths that Oxford is some dreadful place where you're not allowed in unless you're white, rich and privately educated.

(Oh and just for the record, I went to a fairly dreadful state comp)

 

[Salazar]

Bit of a rant, but I've been fairly heavily involved with access events and shit like this pisses me off. It just perpetuates untrue myths that Oxford is some dreadful place where you're not allowed in unless you're white, rich and privately educated.

And we've come some distance from the additional requirements to be male and Anglican.

 

[travisbickle]

Also I wish the media would shut the fuck up about the royals being attacked, it's irritating.

The Royals were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and I'd say they got away pretty lightly. At the G20 protests Ian Tomlinson was in the wrong place at the wrong time and was murdered by the police!

 

[blazinglord]

The guy on the Centaph by the way, according to today's newspapers, is the son of Charlie Gilmour of Pink Floyd (worth £78 million) who funnily enough, is completely unaffected by student loans. Champagne socialists do make me chuckle. Alas, even though he was part of the mob that attacked Prince Charles' car, he hasn't been arrested. Whereas all those poor working class sods who probably are seriously worried [out of ignorance] by the proposed changes will now have criminal records barring them from getting very far in their lives.

The editorial in the Guardian today was interesting reading. It came down much harsher on the protesters than I thought they would have, and suggested that disorder only benefits right-wing parties who are seen as naturally tough on law and order. Which probably explains Cameron's tough stance yesterday. No doubt about it, the protests were a complete PR disaster for the students, and yet apparently there is another one planned for Monday. Any lingering sympathy for the students will probably evaporate by then. Even my girlfriend and left-leaning friends who were very much sympathetic to the protests have completely turned against them now.

 

[Mecha_Infantry]

The guy on the Centaph by the way, according to today's newspapers, is the son of Charlie Gilmour of Pink Floyd (worth £78 million) who funnily enough, is completely unaffected by student loans

. Champagne socialists do make me chuckle. Alas, even though he was part of the mob that attacked Prince Charles' car, he hasn't been arrested. Whereas all those poor working class sods who probably are seriously worried [out of ignorance] by the proposed changes will now have criminal records barring them from getting very far in their lives.
.

 

[Xun]

The guy on the Centaph by the way, according to today's newspapers, is the son of David Gilmour of Pink Floyd (worth £78 million) who funnily enough, is completely unaffected by student loans. Champagne socialists do make me chuckle. Alas, even though he was part of the mob that attacked Prince Charles' car, he hasn't been arrested. Whereas all those poor working class sods who probably are seriously worried [out of ignorance] by the proposed changes will now have criminal records barring them from getting very far in their lives.

The editorial in the Guardian today was interesting reading. It came down much harsher on the protesters than I thought they would have, and suggested that disorder only benefits right-wing parties who are seen as naturally tough on law and order. Which probably explains Cameron's tough stance yesterday. No doubt about it, the protests were a complete PR disaster for the students, and yet apparently there is another one planned for Monday. Any lingering sympathy for the students will probably evaporate by then. Even my girlfriend and left-leaning friends who were very much sympathetic to the protests have completely turned against them now.

Fixed.

 

[blazinglord]

Really? Comparing an increase in tuition fees with years of oppression and civil rights abuses? A university education isn't a right. It's a privilege. Black people being treated equally is a moral right. Plus Martin Luther King made a point of non-violent protests. The scenes we saw on Thursday was anything but. Think again, and then come back with something better.

 

[gerg]

Really? Comparing an increase in tuition fees with years of oppression and civil rights abuses? A university education isn't a right. It's a privilege. Black people being treated equally is a moral right. Plus Martin Luther King made a point of non-violent protests. The scenes we saw on Thursday was anything but. Think again, and then come back with something better.

The point isn't to do with the semantic distinction between "right" and "privilege", and what qualifies as which.

The picture was used against someone laughing at "champagne socialists", as in people who campaign for something which does not directly affect them (irrespective of whether or not what they campaigning for is a right or a privilege). The picture highlighting a white person marching with members of the civil rights movement shows that, actually, there may be worth to fighting for something which you don't really need.

Edit: So, in conclusion, "LOL champagne socialist I want REAL comrades to fight my cause!" just seems, well... short-sighted. If what you're fighting for is worth fighting for you shouldn't care whether or not people who aren't as affected join your cause.

 

[Wrestlemania]

Really? Comparing an increase in tuition fees with years of oppression and civil rights abuses? A university education isn't a right. It's a privilege. Black people being treated equally is a moral right. Plus Martin Luther King made a point of non-violent protests. The scenes we saw on Thursday was anything but. Think again, and then come back with something better.

Why should it be a privilege?

 

[blazinglord]

The point isn't to do with the semantic distinction between "right" and "privilege", and what qualifies as which.

The picture was used against someone laughing at "champagne socialists", as in people who campaign for something which does not directly affect them (irrespective of whether or not what they campaigning for is a right or a privilege). The picture highlighting a white person marching with members of the civil rights movement shows that, actually, there may be worth to fighting for something which you don't really need.

I stand corrected. But I don't think the participation of Gilmour has helped the students' cause at all. I was merely sympathising with the poor students who are unlucky enough to have lawyers to get them out of trouble like a Gilmour does, and the use of their dad's PR firm to publicise a mea culpa. It is also clear that the participation of Gilmour is superficial at best, for him it was a day out and a chance to take LSD and wreck havoc. So I remain by my original implication that his motivations were not entirely altruistic.

Why should it be a privilege?

Because a degree should be earned. It is an opportunity to further your education, but it isn't a necessity. At the age of 18, you are an adult. The state has no duty to hold your hands for another three years. Nor should the taxpayer, a majority of whom are non-graduates, have to pay for degrees.

 

[gerg]

I stand corrected. But I don't think the participation of Gilmour has helped the students' cause at all. I was merely sympathising with the poor students who are unlucky enough to have lawyers to get them out of trouble like a Gilmour does, and the use of their dad's PR firm to publicise a mea culpa. It is also clear that the participation of Gilmour is superficial at best, for him it was a day out and a chance to take LSD and wreck havoc. So I remain by my original implication that his motivations were not entirely altruistic.

I have no doubt that Gilmour may not have cared much for the matter at hand while he was protesting. I have no doubt that he may very well not care at all.

Nevertheless, disregarding all so-called "champagne socialists" seems a bit hasty (as do many generalisations).

 

[Wrestlemania]

I stand corrected. But I don't think the participation of Gilmour has helped the students' cause at all. I was merely sympathising with the poor students who are unlucky enough to have lawyers to get them out of trouble like a Gilmour does, and the use of their dad's PR firm to publicise a mea culpa. It is also clear that the participation of Gilmour is superficial at best, for him it was a day out and a chance to take LSD and wreck havoc. So I remain by my original implication that his motivations were not entirely altruistic.


Because a degree should be earned. It is an opportunity to further your education, but it isn't a necessity. At the age of 18, you are an adult. The state has no duty to hold your hands for another three years. Nor should the taxpayer, a majority of whom are non-graduates, have to pay for degrees.

I didn't say degrees should be a right, I said going to university should be. And that doesn't mean everyone who wants to gets in, it just means every who wants to go is given the opportunity without cost barriers which mean those who come from low income families aren't even being given a chance to earn their degree.
Also, everyone benefits from a better educated society, everyone. Their tax money absolutely should go towards tertiary education, the cost of which is something like 0.7% (I think) of GDP. 0.7%! That is absolutely nothing to fund a society in which absolutely anyone can enter into further education without financial barriers.

 

[Mecha_Infantry]

The picture was used against someone laughing at "champagne socialists", as in people who campaign for something which does not directly affect them (irrespective of whether or not what they campaigning for is a right or a privilege). The picture highlighting a white person marching with members of the civil rights movement shows that, actually, there may be worth to fighting for something which you don't really need.

I'm glad you understood

Just incase no one else did, many a white person marched for civil rights movements. Not to mention men who marched for women's rights

 

[nib95]

Fuck this coalition. And fuck Lib Dems and their heinous betrayal. More people should have voted Labour like I did. This increased tuition fee's malarkey is outrageous!! Heck I paid £1350 a year and even then I thought it was too much. Many uni's you're paying for shit all.

The rise to £3k was just about acceptable, but this £9k bollocks is insanity and will have droves of poor being stuck in debt up to their eye balls. If they even decide to go anymore that is.

So what's the debt work out to then?

£9k x3 plus Student loan for living at another £7.5k a year? £49.5k? And that's not even considering retakes or courses that require a fourth year. It really is astounding that they put this through. No wonder the reaction has been excessive and often violent.

 

[J Tourettes]

Fuck this coalition. And fuck Lib Dems and their heinous betrayal. More people should have voted Labour like I did. This increased tuition fee's malarkey is outrageous!! Heck I paid £1350 a year and even then I thought it was too much. Many uni's you're paying for shit all.

The rise to £3k was just about acceptable, but this £9k bollocks is insanity and will have droves of poor being stuck in debt up to their eye balls. If they even decide to go anymore that is.

So what's the debt work out to then?

£9k x3 plus Student loan for living at another £7.5k a year? £49.5k? And that's not even considering retakes or courses that require a fourth year. It really is astounding that they put this through. No wonder the reaction has been excessive and often violent.

I'm sure Labour, the party that introduced tuition fees and commissioned the Browne report, wouldn't have put through a rise.

 

[Parl]

Fuck this coalition. And fuck Lib Dems and their heinous betrayal.

Lib Dems didn't win the election. Asking them why all of their policies aren't going through is like asking Labour why all of their policies aren't going through. Everybody lost, which means inevitable compromise (even if the Tories went with a minority government). Even then, I'd prefer an MP to go with a good policy over sticking to a bad one, even if it is breaking a commitment - the overriding commitment is the commitment to the long-term public good, and sticking to a bad policy breaks that commitment.

Free tuition is wonderful, but with an uncertain future, it's fair to ask those earning good money from their degrees to pay a little back into the system.

More people should have voted Labour like I did.

I'm sure Labour would have done something similar as they introduced the fees in the first place, and that was actually breaking a manifesto commitment and they won the election.

The rise to £3k was just about acceptable, but this £9k bollocks is insanity and will have droves of poor being stuck in debt up to their eye balls.

Does this imply that this debt would be a huge psychological burden for poor university graduates? You seem to be equating a typical debt from a proactive, sometimes aggressive, private company wanting your monies even if you have none, giving you the crushing feeling you could lose your belongings or home, with a student loan that only wants small portions of your money when you're earning over £21k, and then when you've got no monies again, they want no monies, and it's automatically deducted anyway, so (except self-employment) you would never even have the inconvenience of the effort and self-control to pay the debt.

For the purposes of argument, it's essentially a tax on graduate income, that you stop paying once you've paid off your contribution towards your higher education, and don't pay when you're not benefiting from it.

So what's the debt work out to then?

£30k-£38k. You can't get a student loan of £7.5k, half of it would be a non-repayable grant. If you're the very poorest before uni, considerably less would have to be repaid, on many occasions, you'd only have to pay for 1 year - even if your degree puts you on well above average income, you'd have to make a very small contribution towards your degree than the taxpayer in this situation.

It really is astounding that they put this through. No wonder the reaction has been excessive and often violent.

I've seen way too many placards saying things like "education not just for the rich" and even ones that directly state that this new system is shutting off those in poor families from higher education. Which is incorrect, and people who protest without researching should be ashamed of potentially scaring people from university when there's no cost to students, rich or poor, and only ever a cost to graduates, and when they're earning good money.

 

[Zenith]

Lib Dem support drops by 50%

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...-lose-half-their-voters-at-next-election.html

 

[Mr. Sam]

Ho-ho-holy shit! I mean, a survey of 2,000 people five years before the next general election isn't entirely conclusive but there'll be a big drop-off and it won't surprise anyone. It's a shame, too, because I don't think Clegg and Cable are traitorous Disney villains; they've just made a gross political misstep. Maybe if they'd forced the Conservatives to form a minority government and offered informal support.

 

[louis89]

Does anyone else Google 'neogaf rabbits' to get to this thread?