"A trail of broken promises" (From St Albans & Harpenden Review)

Get involved: send your pictures, video, news & views by texting st albans to 80360, or email us

Blogs RSS Feed

"A trail of broken promises"

7:58pm Friday 10th December 2010

By Eddie Watson »

This article will contain several jokes that will make you laugh out loud. Clear? Good.

Now unless you’ve been living in a cave for the past month or so then you will have heard that tuition fees for University students will be rising. “But what, didn’t Nick Clegg make a promise to in fact get rid of fees altogether throughout his election campaign?!” I hear many cry. Well the answer is obviously yes, they went back on their word. Hard to believe a politician has lied; it’s as rare as finding a rational traffic warden (they do exist, it’s just I’ve never personally met one). Understandably Lib-Dem voters are furious. What is less understandable is the strange nature of the protests venting this anger.

Recently I read an article in our student newspaper wondering why we as Brits don’t engage in violent, revolutionary protest like our continental neighbours do. Well wannabe journalist, you happy now? The argument for such protests is the same that occurred from the Chartist movement to the Suffragettes to the Civil Rights movement in America in the 20th century – violent protests get media attention. Undeniable yes, whether the old homage that ‘any press is good press’ is true or not is a different matter. In this case two demonstrations have turned particularly violent in London and the bill for tuition fees has still been passed; whatever the tactic is, it’s not working. The other choice is peaceful protest, an idea some people like to undertake just to seem more morally upright and make it appear like they have strong principles when they don’t really understand the full implications of the cuts. No offence to all those that do know what they’re talking about, but still, there are a lot of pretentious people going on these demos.

The protests have generally been an awkward juxtaposition of the two strategies. Politicians enjoy peaceful protests because they can say statements such as ‘in a democracy so great as ours isn't amazing how people can show their discontent’ whilst concurrently not having anything to clean up and they can merely shrug it off and hope the dissonance disintegrates in time. This is why peaceful protests don’t work. On the other hand, violent protest gives politicians an excuse to say how ‘this is unacceptable behaviour’. They also aren’t going to want to show the moderate middle class (quite a sizeable chunk of the electorate incidentally) as well as other countries that they are a government willing to succumb to violent protest. This is why violent protests don’t work.

So, in conclusion no kind of protest is ever going to work on a British government; unless protestors go for the French strategy of relentless violence, so much so it causes a revolution and overthrows the establishment. Or of course they could go for the other extreme and peacefully stand on the streets until the politicians are sick of seeing students outside their second homes. Even so, both of these aren’t ideal and unrealistic aims. Whatever your stance, at least the revolutionary spirit of Britain hasn’t disappeared, and that’s something right? We do still love a good scrap.

There is one winner in this however; Ed Miliband. He has the luxury of being able to say how terrible this whole ordeal is and how it is a true blow to democracy. New Labour was anything but perfect for sure nevertheless as members of the opposition now they can milk this dry – more so than James Corden milks his on screen persona dry. Sure it’s pessimistic to say this, but politicians don’t care about election pledges, nor do they probably care about you. The cynic in me (hard to find I know) tells me that all they care about is your vote. Once they have it, you can’t get it back – all you can do is not vote for them next time. Yet they still have plenty of time to irritate you, before eventually winning your trust back with pre-election pledges. Unfortunately for many Lib-Dem voters in the 2010 election it appears they won’t get such a chance until 2015. Pity. Oh and by the way, remember when I said at the beginning that I’d make several jokes that would definitely make you laugh out loud? Yeah? Well I lied. If you have any complaints then go protest or something because I’m sending this out regardless. Clear? Good.

Readers who submit articles must agree to our terms of use. The content is the sole responsibility of the contributor and is unmoderated. But we will react if anything that breaks the rules comes to our attention. If you wish to complain about this article, contact us here

Comments (7)

11:29am Sat 11 Dec 10

Simon Grover says...

A good old rant, Eddie, that covers a number of areas. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at overall, but please note:

1. History is littered with examples of public protest being effective, or at least contributing to change - from Gandhi to the suffragettes.

2. It is completely understandable why students, and others, are protesting about tuition fees. The bill, now an act, is a cynical political choice as well as being a complete betrayal by all those Lib Dems who personally promised to vote against.

3. Ed Miliband is not a winner here. Labour brought tuition fees in in the first place. NB. Greens are now the only English party is favour of free education.

4. Voters don't have to wait till 2015 to register their disaffection with the Lib Dems. They can do it at the local elections in May. Any local councillor who stays a member of that party and campaigns with their colours deserves the wrath of voters.

A good old rant, Eddie, that covers a number of areas. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at overall, but please note: 1. History is littered with examples of public protest being effective, or at least contributing to change - from Gandhi to the suffragettes. 2. It is completely understandable why students, and others, are protesting about tuition fees. The bill, now an act, is a cynical political choice as well as being a complete betrayal by all those Lib Dems who personally promised to vote against. 3. Ed Miliband is not a winner here. Labour brought tuition fees in in the first place. NB. Greens are now the only English party is favour of free education. 4. Voters don't have to wait till 2015 to register their disaffection with the Lib Dems. They can do it at the local elections in May. Any local councillor who stays a member of that party and campaigns with their colours deserves the wrath of voters. Simon Grover

Score: 0
Like
Dislike

1:42pm Sat 11 Dec 10

Eddie Watson says...

I do acknowledge some public protests can certainly be effective, it's just in Britain they are very few and far between. Of course people have a right to protest, the point I'm trying to get at is that there is no unified strategy in these demonstrations. Some are going purely to stir up trouble whilst others are peaceful yet getting scarce media and political attention. Obviously they can show their discontent with the local elections in May, but I doubt it will disrupt the coalition government too much. However I would encourage people to vote and show their discontent regardless.

Score: 0
Like
Dislike

9:45pm Sat 11 Dec 10

tonyl says...

A good example of political opportunism from Simon .
He is correct in saying that people have the chance to give a firm message to the Lib Dems next May , as what happens locally will be felt by their national party .
We have however seen what happens when people give their vote to a small unelectable party who can issue pledges to win votes , but who dont themselves believe they will ever be in a position to justify what they are saying .
Dont make that same mistake by wasting a vote on the Greens . My advice is to join one of the two main political parties who will ever be in that position to make these descisions and then work hard within that party to influence them in your way of thinking .
The only other alternative is to follow the majority and moan about 'them' .

A good example of political opportunism from Simon . He is correct in saying that people have the chance to give a firm message to the Lib Dems next May , as what happens locally will be felt by their national party . We have however seen what happens when people give their vote to a small unelectable party who can issue pledges to win votes , but who dont themselves believe they will ever be in a position to justify what they are saying . Dont make that same mistake by wasting a vote on the Greens . My advice is to join one of the two main political parties who will ever be in that position to make these descisions and then work hard within that party to influence them in your way of thinking . The only other alternative is to follow the majority and moan about 'them' . tonyl

Score: 0
Like
Dislike

1:24am Sun 12 Dec 10

Simon Grover says...

tonyl, in what sense is voting Green a 'wasted vote'? What do you mean 'unelectable'? Greens have 100+ councillors. The party is more distinct than ever as the 'big three' become almost indistinguishable from each other. 'Main parties'? In 2008 in St Albans district Greens moved ahead of Labour in 18 out of 20 wards.
I believe that Greens have great ideas for local (and national) government. If it's political opportunism to point out that the collapse of the Lib Dems makes the Greens even more attractive, then I'm guilty as charged!

tonyl, in what sense is voting Green a 'wasted vote'? What do you mean 'unelectable'? Greens have 100+ councillors. The party is more distinct than ever as the 'big three' become almost indistinguishable from each other. 'Main parties'? In 2008 in St Albans district Greens moved ahead of Labour in 18 out of 20 wards. I believe that Greens have great ideas for local (and national) government. If it's political opportunism to point out that the collapse of the Lib Dems makes the Greens even more attractive, then I'm guilty as charged! Simon Grover

Score: 0
Like
Dislike

12:59pm Sun 12 Dec 10

busbee says...

I think that Ed Miliband recognises that some of what Tony Blair did was mistaken.

The interesting question is whether Tony B would have introduced 3k tuition fees if he thought they'd have to be increased to 9k?

Labour says that's because there's been an 80% funding cut. Does Simon Grover really intend to increase funding of Higher Education by a multiple of 5, as he promises, or perhaps he's promising a multiple of 10 which is what might be needed to revert to the situation pre-tuition fees?

I think that Ed Miliband recognises that some of what Tony Blair did was mistaken. The interesting question is whether Tony B would have introduced 3k tuition fees if he thought they'd have to be increased to 9k? Labour says that's because there's been an 80% funding cut. Does Simon Grover really intend to increase funding of Higher Education by a multiple of 5, as he promises, or perhaps he's promising a multiple of 10 which is what might be needed to revert to the situation pre-tuition fees? busbee

Score: 0
Like
Dislike

2:34pm Sun 12 Dec 10

Simon Grover says...

The question is who should pay for the costs of higher education - students or society? On the one hand some students will eventually benefit financially from their degrees, but many will also be put off by the thought of massive debt. On the other, society benefits from people getting a higher education, most immediately those companies that hire freshly-trained minds.

The principle at stake is that access to higher education should be through academic ability, not financial standing.

Caroline Lucas MP recently commented on the funding question: "There are alternative ways to fund education, including a more progressive taxation system. For example, a business education tax levied on the top 4% of UK companies, as proposed by the University and Colleges Union, would require business to pay its fair share for the substantial benefits it receives from higher education.

"Raising corporation tax to the G7 average would generate enough annually to abolish tuition fees, and increase UK investment in higher education to the average for other comparable countries, while leaving 96% of companies in the UK unaffected by the change, and still leaving the UK's main corporation tax below that of France, Japan and the US."

The question is who should pay for the costs of higher education - students or society? On the one hand some students will eventually benefit financially from their degrees, but many will also be put off by the thought of massive debt. On the other, society benefits from people getting a higher education, most immediately those companies that hire freshly-trained minds. The principle at stake is that access to higher education should be through academic ability, not financial standing. Caroline Lucas MP recently commented on the funding question: "There are alternative ways to fund education, including a more progressive taxation system. For example, a business education tax levied on the top 4% of UK companies, as proposed by the University and Colleges Union, would require business to pay its fair share for the substantial benefits it receives from higher education. "Raising corporation tax to the G7 average would generate enough annually to abolish tuition fees, and increase UK investment in higher education to the average for other comparable countries, while leaving 96% of companies in the UK unaffected by the change, and still leaving the UK's main corporation tax below that of France, Japan and the US." Simon Grover

Score: 0
Like
Dislike

6:37pm Sun 12 Dec 10

busbee says...

The French are far from happy with their current level of taxation on business. Japan and the US are not directly comparable.

Some Labour politicians think that the 50% HR tax should be retained indefinitely, and this would certainly be a more effective way of paying for Higher Education, and a very fair one too, as it would tax those graduates who benefit the most, including the ones that never paid a penny for their tuition.

The Condem scheme encourages graduates to leave the country once their income approaches the threshold; the Labour 150k threshold is one which exists in many other states, but NO other country charges Higher Rates on 21k as is proposed by the Coalition.

You'd have to be a very green PLC Finance Director not to split your company in two the moment it approached the Green 4% top tier.

Fiscal Policy does have to have an element of credibility in it. Even the Coalition recognized that there was no point in raising CGT to 40%, but settled for 28%.

The French are far from happy with their current level of taxation on business. Japan and the US are not directly comparable. Some Labour politicians think that the 50% HR tax should be retained indefinitely, and this would certainly be a more effective way of paying for Higher Education, and a very fair one too, as it would tax those graduates who benefit the most, including the ones that never paid a penny for their tuition. The Condem scheme encourages graduates to leave the country once their income approaches the threshold; the Labour 150k threshold is one which exists in many other states, but NO other country charges Higher Rates on 21k as is proposed by the Coalition. You'd have to be a very green PLC Finance Director not to split your company in two the moment it approached the Green 4% top tier. Fiscal Policy does have to have an element of credibility in it. Even the Coalition recognized that there was no point in raising CGT to 40%, but settled for 28%. busbee