(November 13, 2010 at 9:26 am)Cerrone Wrote: So why is it that when however many million people peacefully demonstrate against something they achieve nothing, and when people do take more vigorous action that they're usually successful in getting what they want?

Revolutions only work if you have enough people pissed off about something. Revolutions fail when not enough people are involved, or when they turn nasty and people start siding with the ruling party rather than you, which is what happened in this case.

Students could have marched peacefully (and the majority did, thankfully), and they could have debated the politicians directly, but because of the actions of the 2,000 or so who decided to show aggression where no aggression was needed. As a result, they have turned the public opinion against them. If you want to campaign for free education, you have to show the public that you are worthy of receiving free education. I'm afraid that most of the public don't think that people who decide to riot and throw fire extinguishers off of buildings deserve to have free education. Remember, it is the public who are ultimately going to have to fund it, and most students I've talked to haven't given that a second thought.

Quote:Don't accuse me of not doing research.. thats such a cliche lol.. yeah the cops were unprepared, and drafted in the army eventually (wow btw) but so what? They were fucking cowards, fuck them, and fuck the pussyassness of the more passive of the students who objected to the sit in.

You have so far failed to provide any evidence to the police being cowards, unless "protecting your fellow officers who are outnumbered and in danger" is some form of cowardice. If it is, then I have obviously been converted to Existentialist's way of thinking, since definitions no longer matter.

Quote:where the citizens displeased with the government start to condemn the citizens who stray from the governments legal guidelines of "peaceful protest".

No, the citizens condemned the students who rioted and attacked police, all in the name of something which they (the citizens) have to pay for (free education). People were living in a dream world under labour, and the level of cuts that we've had to make in order to save the economy have snapped them out, and now people are money conscious again. Hard-earning citizens, unlike students, know exactly what "free education" entails...higher taxes. To them, that isn't worth it.

(November 16, 2010 at 1:38 am)Cerrone Wrote:

(November 15, 2010 at 6:57 pm)theVOID Wrote: People need to realise you either raise taxes or cut spending, because they're the only damn things that are going to affect the deficit in any significant way short to mid term. Why cut spending rather than raise taxes? Because it has both the short/mid term benefits AND a long term benefit in terms of reducing the deficit and increasing economic growth.

And really, borrowing 66% more over 3-7 years, while paying low taxes over the time you are qualified and earning all balances out if not becomes advantageous for the majority of all individuals who will pass their university programmes.

It'd be a start if the government was pressured into spending our taxes on things we actually need rather than wasting it on the kind of ineffective shit that Labour was so famous for over the last 10 tens, that'd be a real start.

I agree, socialism is like going on a shopping spree in a nick-nakcs store... You get boring pointless shit you don't want or need and no chance of making your money back on it. You sound like you should be supporting the government on this one no? They're the ones who are fixing the spending blow outs. It always hurts to throw out the big investments that you've decades on but are bleeding you dry, but it's got to be done. The country just doesn't generate enough GDP to sustain those numbers, not these days with massive socio-economic shifts going on.

Quote:Someone pointed out to me yesterday that regardless of those in "higher education" at university, its just delaying the inevitable unemployment they're going to face when they graduate anyway!

And what's going to fix that problem? Sinking money into one of the most inefficient university systems in terms of cost and results in the western world isn't.

Recovering bad assets and spending on economic growth will work though, but it's not a miracle cure. It takes a significant amount of time and pain to restructure a backwards economy in any scenario, let alone in a shit storm like we've had for the past few years.

Quote:Labour encouraged young people to go into training during their term, now labour are out and those people graduate and they can't find work!

You say that like it would make a fucking difference who was in power right now.

Quote:The typicla government policy is to DELAY anything until the end of their 4 year term to make it look as though they've achieved something by altering the statistics on a short term basis during that time with little regard paid to what happens afterwards.

And that's clearly not happening now is it? Cameron has already planned to cut University funding and what is one of the most massive fumbling bureaucracies in the west, 500,000 jobs are going, but that's fucking nothing compared to the estimated 3 million public jobs since Blair, which isn't surprising when you have idiots like Gordon Brown creating 100,000 state jobs out of nowhere in one foul swoop... Yeah, because useless jobs are going to really help fix unemployment... You'd be better off giving them the money for free and save the cost of getting them an office, pens and paper.

Hey Skipper and Adrian, we need to round up Paladin and A Theist and create a capitalist corner

theVOID: If I could give you more than one kudos for that post, I would.

Bravo! *applauds*

(November 16, 2010 at 11:48 am)Tiberius Wrote: Revolutions only work if you have enough people pissed off about something. Revolutions fail when not enough people are involved, or when they turn nasty and people start siding with the ruling party rather than you, which is what happened in this case.

Evidently those students were very uninformed then. Its symptomatic of the way society here is that people disregard the wisdom behind the concept of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and because of that it's no wonder nobody achieves anything in terms of political activism or basic organisation.

(November 16, 2010 at 11:48 am)Tiberius Wrote: Students could have marched peacefully (and the majority did, thankfully), and they could have debated the politicians directly, but because of the actions of the 2,000 or so who decided to show aggression where no aggression was needed. As a result, they have turned the public opinion against them.

Do whaaat? What member of the public is against them? Everyone i've spoken to -aside from armchair critics on the internet- agrees with the students, applauded them for their efforts and mentioned how the government and police were bastards who deserve whatever they get pelted with.. be it eggs, fire extinquishers or bags of medical waste..

I think you meant to say Adrian, that the MEDIA is trying to influence public opinion against them, as the media are puppets of puppets and so on.

(November 16, 2010 at 11:48 am)Tiberius Wrote: If you want to campaign for free education, you have to show the public that you are worthy of receiving free education. I'm afraid that most of the public don't think that people who decide to riot and throw fire extinguishers off of buildings deserve to have free education.

Quite personally, it seems that each generation has to find out for themselves that peaceful protest is ineffective and seem to need education on the subject. You're under some delusion if you think peaceful protest has ever achieved anything; look at the massive anti-war demonstrations in london for a recent example, then look back through history and see how every single attempt has proved to be completely useless. Perhaps with the exception of Ghandi of course, but even with Ghandi- like Malcolm X and MLK- Ghandi was the more attractive option when politicians where eventually forced to choose a side BECAUSE of rioting Indians in the colonies attacking british soldiers. It's not as simple as making a decision as to which tactic is more effective- peace or violence- the crucial point is that "violent" action forces the people in power to do something because the don't understand "peace" as you or I do, they take "peace" to mean pacified and harmless i.e not worth paying attention to anymore.

(November 16, 2010 at 4:04 pm)theVOID Wrote: I agree, socialism is like going on a shopping spree in a nick-nakcs store... You get boring pointless shit you don't want or need and no chance of making your money back on it. You sound like you should be supporting the government on this one no? They're the ones who are fixing the spending blow outs. It always hurts to throw out the big investments that you've decades on but are bleeding you dry, but it's got to be done. The country just doesn't generate enough GDP to sustain those numbers, not these days with massive socio-economic shifts going on.

Supporting them doesnt even come into the equation, they're wasteful and incompetant and undeserving of the power they've -through no actual merit- accumulated. I'd say however, that to save our tax money they could stop dropping bombs in the middle east, stop sending poorly equiped soldiers out to get blown up in the middle east, and stop investing billions in the nuclear weapons program which is probably the most useless thing our little nation has got. Then with the trillions saved there we could reform the education system (most crucially), rebuild our energy plants to something which doesnt rely on external trade then let the rest of it fall nicely into place.

(November 16, 2010 at 4:04 pm)theVOID Wrote: You say that like it would make a fucking difference who was in power right now.

Well there you go, certianly the three parties need hauling out of parliament by a meathook through the nose.

Actually i'm personally more inclined to do what Cromwell did and just take over by force, then hand over power to reformed local citizen councils that're actually comprised of people instead of politicians, and having a new "government" existing only in a vanguard capacity.

(November 17, 2010 at 10:46 am)Cerrone Wrote: Do whaaat? What member of the public is against them? Everyone i've spoken to -aside from armchair critics on the internet- agrees with the students, applauded them for their efforts and mentioned how the government and police were bastards who deserve whatever they get pelted with.. be it eggs, fire extinquishers or bags of medical waste..I think you meant to say Adrian, that the MEDIA is trying to influence public opinion against them, as the media are puppets of puppets and so on.

Really Cerrone?

I'm a student, my friends are students, many of us support the motivations behind the 'protest' and the right to protest.

However, sine the riots even the Student population is slightly disheartened. Not because of how they were treated, No, because of how a minority of their number devalued the entire affair.

Me and Adrian may disagree about the implementation of these methods BUT he is spot on the money when he says that what those few did was inexcusable.

Also, many of the people I've spoken to since the event have shown the same turn away from the student cause. Is this because of the media portrayl? Possibly. The overwhelming opinion however, is that those activities were wrong and as such the publics view of this issue has changed.

(November 17, 2010 at 10:46 am)Cerrone Wrote: Quite personally, it seems that each generation has to find out for themselves that peaceful protest is ineffective and seem to need education on the subject. You're under some delusion if you think peaceful protest has ever achieved anything; look at the massive anti-war demonstrations in london for a recent example, then look back through history and see how every single attempt has proved to be completely useless. Perhaps with the exception of Ghandi of course, but even with Ghandi- like Malcolm X and MLK- Ghandi was the more attractive option when politicians where eventually forced to choose a side BECAUSE of rioting Indians in the colonies attacking british soldiers. It's not as simple as making a decision as to which tactic is more effective- peace or violence- the crucial point is that "violent" action forces the people in power to do something because the don't understand "peace" as you or I do, they take "peace" to mean pacified and harmless i.e not worth paying attention to anymore.

So your contention is that the student body should, if they care enough, start rioting, killing, vandalising at whim? In order to force those in power to the table?

Obviously your view of activism is confined to the great struggles of history. In fact the zeitgeist is changing, the majority want peacefull protests and political action to acheive their goals. It is the anarchist few who delay this process by disrupting the efforts of others.

I believe peaceful process and political pressure, if resolutely applied for a worthy cause is more than enough to sway public opinion and in doing so; achieve your goals.

(November 17, 2010 at 10:46 am)Cerrone Wrote: Well there you go, certianly the three parties need hauling out of parliament by a meathook through the nose.

Actually i'm personally more inclined to do what Cromwell did and just take over by force, then hand over power to reformed local citizen councils that're actually comprised of people instead of politicians, and having a new "government" existing only in a vanguard capacity.

Because it ended so well for Cromwell?

Cheers

Sam

(November 17, 2010 at 11:05 am)Sam Wrote: I'm a student, my friends are students, many of us support the motivations behind the 'protest' and the right to protest.

However, sine the riots even the Student population is slightly disheartened. Not because of how they were treated, No, because of how a minority of their number devalued the entire affair.

Then you and you're friends are part of the problem, not the solution. Your narrowminded attempts to prove how civilised you can be only allows yourselves to be used as tools and door mats for anybody who decides to push you around, because you aren't going to do anything to defend yourselves and you rely on the power of remote government and police to protect yourself.. and if they decide not to help you, then you're fucked.

(November 17, 2010 at 11:05 am)Sam Wrote: Me and Adrian may disagree about the implementation of these methods BUT he is spot on the money when he says that what those few did was inexcusable.

Why you little worm you.. lolz

(November 17, 2010 at 11:05 am)Sam Wrote: Also, many of the people I've spoken to since the event have shown the same turn away from the student cause. Is this because of the media portrayl? Possibly. The overwhelming opinion however, is that those activities were wrong and as such the publics view of this issue has changed.

Possibly? Try "obviously". Not everyone is so dumb downed to the point that they take the media seriously, but it's the case that if you bombard everybody with enough anti-whatever propaganda for a prolonged period of time they'll eventually start to beleive it. Look at how so many americans hate muslims now, or how they hated the communists at one time.

To be honest though, students and younger generations are a slightly different case when it comes to the media- it's not simply that they believe something when it's pushed on them, quite the opposite sometimes, they're young impressionable people who want to have a world view, but the only place they go to "research the facts" are from facets of the media, so the eventually fall for the same bullshit that other people do. My advice would be, as always, gain some perspective about what you're talking about before asserting your right to an opinion.

(November 17, 2010 at 11:05 am)Sam Wrote: Obviously your view of activism is confined to the great struggles of history. In fact the zeitgeist is changing, the majority want peacefull protests and political action to acheive their goals. It is the anarchist few who delay this process by disrupting the efforts of others.

Confined to the great struggles of history? Hmm! I'd say that your view of activism is confined to the last 20 years, whereas my view draws from experiences over the last 200,000 years of our entire human history.. and historically peaceful protest achieves nothing by itself, which is why historically peaceful protest tends to evolve into direct action and then revolution.

But you guys are afraid of taking direct action, and you're damn sure to diseffected to consider revolution, and the policitians know this. They take comfort in the fact that you guys won't do anything, so they let you march and wave your banners for a day and they continue going about their business for the next year regardless of anything you did.

(November 17, 2010 at 11:05 am)Sam Wrote: Because it ended so well for Cromwell?

Oh god no, he was a complete bastard. But he had the balls to take a squad of soldiers and storm parliament, good for him!


Cheers angel

(November 17, 2010 at 11:36 am)Cerrone Wrote: My advice would be, as always, gain some perspective about what you're talking about before asserting your right to an opinion.

Practice what you preach Cerrone.

...and whilst you're at it, stop calling people names.

(November 17, 2010 at 11:44 am)Tiberius Wrote: Practice what you preach Cerrone.

Oh I do, believe me. I wouldn't open my mouth... or tip tap on the keyboard if I wasn't.

Then perhaps you should not make the assumption that other people's opinions are somehow "wrong", without providing any evidence to back up such an assertion.