I always loved the ideal of nonviolent direct action. The trouble is; there has never been much for me to protest about. Throughout my university education, it was a relatively smooth ride, there were times where I was frustrated by Labours decisions and grumbled about them in the student union over a very cheap pint, but clearly not enough for me to go hammering the doors down and waving a placard. I am a self confessed armchair activist because I know, for a certainty that no matter how much protesting and shouting, nothing will change. The vast majority on protest marches walk away, sulking in the rain about how they want to make a difference, and that they aren’t taken “seriously”. I’d rather spare myself of this misery, self pity and soaking, and just moan about it to anyone who will listen in the comfort of my own home.
Despite never partaking in protests, I do feel that it is an appropriate, if usually useless way of showing disappointment against the governments idiotic decisions. The recent London protests about the rise of the tuition fees should be applauded. A 50,000 strong crowd descended into London, knowing that something has to be done, even if it wont change a thing. Of course, this protest was intended as a relatively calm demonstration of people’s anger at the coalition government’s decision to hike university fees upwards of £9000 a year.
I missed out on a free university education by one year. Prior to 1998 more or less anyone could attend university without having to incur student debt and loans. Of course, I wasn’t deterred by having to get into debt to fund my education, it was for me a necessary evil. I needed to get out of my hometown and experience life away from the shackles of my parents. Should students be angry at this price hike, considering how much it can cost to fund a university education in places like the United States? Compared to our American cousins, £9000 a year tuition fees are chump change. Also consider that university fees have not risen with the rate of inflation. They were the same when I was at university as they are now. We are talking 11 years! Maybe the increase shouldn’t surprise anyone, but it’s the principality that stings.
I can understand the anger, of the 35 people that were arrested by rioting. A small minority of anarchists that echoed the feelings of anyone currently studying, but were too afraid of being arrested. Although I don’t condone this type of violence, I do feel that on this occasion it felt like a euphoric uprising against the tyrannical and dickensian nature of the tory government. I don’t agree with the method of the madness, but I understand the ideological mindset of smashing the conservative HQ. Pure, animalistic anger at not only the Conservatives, but the Liberal Democrats backstabbing, bait and switch tactic to gain votes.
It is a given that the Conservative government want university education to be elitist. At the start of their reign a clever and sneaky cut in university funding provided them with the foundations. With university funding cut, this meant they had to offer less places, so only students with the best grades can get enrolled. To recoup some money, university fees are then increased, forcing the poor and statistically (and stereotypically) less able out of the equation. The have simultaneously coupled this with the introduction of mandatory education until the age of 18, starting in 2012, the same year that the university fees increase. Making school leavers who want to go into employment no choice but to attend an educational establishment for another two years, regardless of if they want to or not. This will then drive down unemployment statistics in time for the next election. It’s a sly temporary fix and a vote winner. Of course, the shades of grey in between the black and white clearly show it’s only introduced because the jobs are not there for school leavers because of the recession, but as long as it keeps them off benefits, why should they care? When the reluctant students come out of college, it will be 2014 after the next election. Forget if the students don’t get jobs when they leave college, if the conservatives don’t win in the next election, it becomes someone else’s problem.
The liberal democrats haven’t had a chance in parliament for decades; Nick Clegg stated in the Lib Dem manifesto that he wanted to see no hike in tuition fees if he was in power. Certainly a bold and ambitious selling tactic for the millions of students that voted for him. He was the British version of Barak Obama, albeit significantly less charismatic and dynamic. But the only candidate that appeared on the surface to actually care. Now he is David Cameron’s puppet, he knowingly stabbed those millions of voters in the back to stay in number 10.
There is an other side to this coin however. The condem governments manifesto on the student tuition fees debacle was recently picked apart on breakfast television. Nick Clegg himself stated that the tuition fees are not payable immediately, merely added to the student loan in which the student applies. Upon graduating the students don’t pay the fees back until they are earning £20,000 a year so graduates only pay back when they can afford to do so. Graduates from disadvantaged backgrounds pay less back a month and there is a progressive interest rate for all. If this is true, an average student of graduating will owe the student loans company approx. £37,500. This is more than double what I incurred during my three years of university loans and bank overdrafts. The difference is, graduates from my generation had to pay back when they earn £15,000. Not a huge difference, granted, but the principle of getting that much in debt by the age of 21 is frankly terrifying. I balked at the notion of eventually having to pay back my graduate debt and struggle to get on the housing market because of it. If the average graduate does have over 30k debt, we are going to end up in a society where only the rich go to university, or students study in Europe, where the education is arguably better, cheaper and the government gives more of an incentive.
All this taken into consideration can the riots be justified?
I’m on the fence about this. I can understand the anger, but in reality it has done students no favours. Perhaps even, set them back 20 years. It has taken students a long time to shake the perceived public opinion of them being lazy, sponging layabouts. I think the general public will be sympathetic to the cause, but not the solution. Despite not liking the monarchy, I’m fairly sure that getting Camilla and Prince Charles involved was slightly moronic also.
The conservative government sold their campaign on fixing broken Britain. If anything they have just made the cracks larger and deeper.
