So the students are revolting.
Or rather, since I can never do anything on time, the students *have* revolted, and lots of people are very upset about violence and smashed windows and thin blue lines and, oh shock, their credibility. The problem with the Monday, Wednesday, Friday format is that realistically, it isn't working so well in response to changing news stories, which have been quite interesting over the last few days. I am planning on slapping down my thoughts on Phil Woolas, or more to the point, having a go at Harriet Harman and Ian Duncan Smith's proposed 18th Century Cure. Slavery hasn't been this in-vogue for about two-hundred years. Topping that, something vaguely intelligent about the role of political violence will have to follow, obviously, since everyone seems a bit preturbed that something got set on fire and some windows are going to have to be replaced. Then again, as was pointed out to me by a good friend of mine, how much Poll Tax do you pay?
But all that's gone out of the window a bit since the events in London on Wednesday. Here's the deal.
About 52,000 students wandered down to London, and while it was no means a majority, a good lot of them decided that Millbank Tower was fair game for a demonstration. Can't say I blame them, what with it being the Tory Party's not-so-secret evil volcano lair. Anyway, if you've watched the news you probably know the rest. Or rather, know the version of events that everyone likes to talk about. Deplorable violence and undermining the cause. But is this really the case?
First, lets have a crack at Aaron Porter, president of the NUS. This Guardian article does a fairly reasonable job of summing up Aaron. He's from a great line of NUS presidents turn mainstream politicians, particularly labour ones, which means his attitude towards social change is about as determined as my attitude toward cleaning the kitchen, which is nothing more than a mild indifference.
"Meanwhile, the president of the National Union of Students did the media rounds. Aaron Porter is 25; he stood for the office as an independent, but is a member of the Labour party, whose dress code – the Nick Robinson-esque glasses are a good example – rather suggests that he's destined for a career in mainstream politics. Certainly, if you fancy being a high-ranking Labour MP, clambering to the top of the NUS isn't a bad move at all. His predecessors have included Jack Straw, Charles Clarke, the current shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy, and Phil Woolas, the MP last week suspended from office for making misleading claims in the course of the last election campaign – all of which highlights the fact that NUS presidents are not exactly renowned for being what the French call enragés.
And so it proved. "Let me be clear," he told yet another camera. "I absolutely condemn the actions of a small minority who have used violent means to hijack the protest . . . if some people think it's appropriate to use violence, it's a total disgrace, and they have completely hijacked this opportunity to make a serious point." In his own way, he was endorsing the view that was subsequently splashed over the front page of yesterday's Daily Mail: "Anarchists spark violence as 50,000 take to streets over student fees – HIJACKING OF A VERY MIDDLE CLASS PROTEST".
So to be honest, I don't really think whatever Porter says has any weight. Rather, I prefer the version of events offered by a member of Whitechapel Anarchists, which stated on BBC news that had there been no violence but more a happy, clappy, socially acceptable sing along, who would have really cared?
What happened was not a well planned, provoked act of random violence. Instead, what we saw was a lot of really angry people milling around a bit miffed with the general idea that Millbank Tower was a good place to make a point. The idea of hijacking and masked Anarchists hell bent on provoking widespread civil disorder are typical of mainstream media sensationalism. If the crowd had realistically been in an uncontrollable rage with a general killing mood, I'm pretty sure there would have been more than broken windows. Outnumbering the fifteen coppers by about 200 to one, they could have - in no uncertain terms - torn them to pieces and David Cameron would have been paying tribute to some flag draped coffins.
And when you think about it, they have every reason to be angry. The Question Time panel was humourously asked "How many tuition fees did the commentators pay", to which the collection of nodding-heads-in-suits with frankly delusional opinions looked genuinely upset, until Dimbleby came to the rescue by selecting a more acceptable question, freeing them from any admission of guilt when the answer was unequivically "none". So with the axing of some maintenance payments, driving more economically challenged students out of the running, and treblling the tuition fee cap, you would be angry. Who'd like to scrimp and save to buy a new car, and as soon as you make you're first repayment it suddenly becomes apparent that the goalposts have changed, and the car is no longer £10,000, it's £30,000. Try that on for size, only the person buying the car has now also lost their job - like us lucky graduates who can't find work - because someone else messed up, and on top of that, any aspirations the car buyer had regarding their future were suddenly made uncertain at best.
How do you like them apples?
So there is genuine anger, and trying to tell people that it's ok because we've moved the repayment cap up from £15K to £21K isn't really a solution anyway. It is of no consequence. Mathematically, you should tripple the repayment cap to £45K anyway, if the Tory ideal of 'fairness' holds any weight, which it doesn't, but still, upping the repayment cap isn't a good idea anyway, it is the opposite of a good idea. Hypothetically, a student is now in three times as much debt as the ones who graduated before, but now they have to find an even better job before they can clear their debts, all the while a staggering amount of interest is building up, pretty much ensuring economic servitute for the rest of their natural lives.
Even more strange than the idea that upping the repayment cap somehow makes things better, is the fact that the Daily Mirror actually have a decent article for a change. So I'll treat ya. Here it is.
Of course, the protest/riot was not without its idiots, like the bloke who lobbed a fire-extinguisher off the top of a building, but hey, there were a lot of them. Someone is going to make a bad judgement call, but it doesn't really mean that everyone there was intent on actual grevious murder. Infact, realistically, the protest wasn't violent at all. Violence is always seen as an inherently bad thing, which I don't believe is right, but still. It wasn't violent. Some windows got broken. If you want staggering amounts of violence, play Gears of War for thirty-seconds. Broken glass has nothing on what real violence is, and if and when real violence is doled out by an angry mob who are hacked off with the way things are, believe me, burning placards will be tame.
As for undermining credibility, we've already seen exactly what 'credibility' Aaron Porter and Teresa May and all the other objectioners have. People are waking up to a ruined country run by a complete set of soulless bastards. I've sometimes thought that out of all the dystopian futures portayed in film and television, its the real one that's probably the worst, because a book can't take your job, your hope or your future. Real life isn't so kind. So if its credibility that people want, I suggest smashing more windows. After all, would we even be talking about this if 52,000 people hadn't have gotten hacked off?
No comments:
Post a Comment