Protesters Attack Car Carrying Prince Charles

[yeahwho]

LONDON (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/world/europe/10britain.html?hp) — Britain’s coalition government survived the most serious challenge yet to its austerity plans on Thursday when Parliament narrowly approved a sharp increase in college fees. But violent student protests in central London, including an attack on a car carrying Prince Charles and his wife, Camilla, to the theater, provided a stark measure of growing public resistance.

The street clashes on Thursday (photos (http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2010/12/09/world/20101210_BRITAIN.html)) raised concerns that the protests could be the template for even wider disturbances in the future, as the spending cuts and expected job losses begin to bite.

Like millions of others who watch millionaires being protected during these recent forced policies being practiced on our populace I am amazed at how meek kids in America are... so far.

That Seger song keeps rolling around in my head as i read about this,

I woke last night to the sound of thunder
How far off I sat and wondered

I know it should be Pete Seeger, but my alcohol damaged brain keeps hummin' Bob Seger.

[Adam]

The issue is not just college fees and the cuts.

A lot who protested voted for Lib Dems and have a mentality of anyone but Tories. But we have typical tories while Lib Dems are supposed to have some influence. If they do, they don't show it as all we see is a perceived bending over of Nick Clegg and its hurting us all like it was our first time to. The people who are doing these cuts did get free education, the people who caused this mess also got free education but its only those who have had nothing to do with crisis that aren't being effected by it.

Uni is not for everyone but the right to be educated is deeply seeded into most of the UK, that right is slowly being taken away and that awful phrase "let the markets dictate" is the excuse. Not everything is a business, a government is still needed, but it needs to be fairer.

[kaiser soze]

wow - this is insane - 1) to go to the theater while this shit is happening and 2) to attack his vehicle.

goes to show how serious this is.

I have one question for all the Universities and colleges and the like - once you raise prices so high that the middle class cannot afford it, don't you think you might go out of business?

Also: If the price goes up, the higher income families might have a better chance at financial aid in the form of grants, right?

Not sure how it works in the UK

[Adam]

I should reason this and have a brief history as I understand it - I'm obviously a wet liberal but I do see other sides of the coin.

Pre-Blair, ie <1997 education was free. But only about 10% of the population went to university - I didn't and I could of been one of the last to a free education, seems stupid I didn't but hindsight is wonderful. I'd of still needed Student Loans tho like you do now. The system changed that they'll be 50% right to higher education but you have to pay fees. Relatively low fees which caused a wave but not a Tsunami. But with adding fees, more people went to uni. Partly because it could be funded better, more courses and because people saw the value in it. Say, pay £3k for a degree but you'll be earning £5k more per year than the people who didn't.

Then if you took the pessimistic view you're saying 50% don't have a right to education because the first 50% do - I don't think it ever fills up but it gets close but the top universities do fill up. So, now when you start allowing fees at different universities to differ or for different courses you get the american system creeping in but there is no reduce in taxes - even idiots can go to uni if their pockets are big enough. Compared to the US, the UK have quite high taxes although lower than most of the EU.

Blair you could say, had the middle ground. When there was only 10% going to uni places were hard to get because you had to be very intelligent to get on the best courses. If you increase those courses then more can go and what you don't have in intelligence you can make up for in money.

So the more you pick at one side of the coin the more weight the other side has to carry. Do we abolish fees like Lib Dems said they would? Or do top them up to make a more fair system the tories think we should do.

I'm a believer in high taxes but good strong infrastructure. The UK doesn't really have that and it makes it all the more bitter that wars are still going on and the massive amounts of money that can be found to prop up a bank.

So as I say, those in government generally got free education and even grants so they didn't have to work and could 'study more', but they had to be intelligent and driven to be there.

You can still get grants today but they won't increase in the % the fees will increase, they'll always be a line where it's too expensive to go to uni but while that line is below the 50% it's still fairer on the majority. But in my opinion it's already too high and that line shouldn't even exist.

[kaiser soze]

some amazing photos from the protests

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/12/london_tuition_fee_protest.html

the first is fucking awesome - Hero Pose!

Do people in the states have any idea what is happening in Europe?

And yes I believe these "students" aren't helping their cause.

[Adam]

I think the new government classification for Students is now "domestic terrorist"

[Bob]

what's up with the horses?

[HAL 9000]

^ Police horses have been used for crowd control in UK for decades - mostly at football matches. If you charge half a dozen horses at a crowd of thugs they part like the red sea, once they are dispersed, you start rounding them up.

I am not sure where I stand on this issue, I benefited from free university education (I needed a loan to pay living expenses which I pay back on an extremely generous basis). I think that a lot of people go to university for 'the experience' and do courses which are frankly not worth the tax payers investment. And that is what this is, going to university is not a human right, but at the same time a society should be aware that investing in the education of it's academic elite will produce long term benefits to that society that exceed the benefit.

Fundamentally, I think everyone should have the chance to go to university, regardless of background or wealth, but that I do think that in the long term, the student should pay. Fundamentally, if the degree does not increase your salary enough to make paying for it trivial, then it was a waste of time going, and the tax payer should not be paying for bad investments.

I am not that familiar with the proposed fee rises, but as I understand it, you only pay back the fees in the future once your salary hits a certain level. On that basis, no one should be excluded from university by their wealth or lack of wealth.

[Bob]

Fundamentally, if the degree does not increase your salary enough to make paying for it trivial, then it was a waste of time going, and the tax payer should not be paying for bad investments.

a waste of money perhaps, but aren't there other factors involved in deciding whether it's a waste of time?

[HAL 9000]

I mean if you look at it as the taxpayer effectively sponsoring an individual through university - the taxpayer should only do that if it makes financial sense, if the individual will add to the overall economy (through tax and innovation etc). There are lots of reasons why an individual might want to go to university other than making a net contribution to national GDP (personal development, new experiences etc), but perhaps this should be at the individuals expense rather than the tax payers (as in the US).

This is what I mean by higher education not being a human right, I am very happy as a taxpayer to pay for healthcare (for example) which does not represent a financially effective investment, because I believe in universal healthcare as a right.

The important thing is that money should never be a barrier for people who want to go to university to work hard and create new chances for themselves, which is why I agree that individuals should pay more, but only later, once their degree has got them onto a career path that allows them to pay. If someone gets a degree, but they find that this does not translate into higher earnings (including people who may want to work in the charitable sector) then these people should not have to pay back

[Adam]

In a society like the UK's we need the state to sponsor us at many stages, keeping us alive with free health care, getting us into work with free education, having a large public sector and have a good welfare state to keep the country ticking over where not many go to bed hungry at night. It's never gonna be equal to each and everyone of us, some will start work at 16 and carry on paying taxes with no health problems until they are 80 years old then die, never asked for anything. They'll be others who are deemed to be taking the piss and just push out babies and claim welfare until they die and so will their children. But look at the roots, did they have an amazing upbringing? Did the opportunity for a bright child from the very bottom of the pile have a chance to pull themselves out and go to Oxbridge or was there a financial barrier they couldn't get over?

If you ignore the latter then the problem gets worse, if you don't reward the former (like with pensions), they'll start voting tory to make the problem. That is what you've gotta balance. If said child did get that chance then we have one more person in 20 years time paying 40% tax for the next 40 years along with having some of the top talent from here. And it'll compound to attract even more top talent here.

If you look at UKs recent history, we don't have natural resource in plentiful supply and we now import more energy than export (we didn't in the 90s). That has to be worry. We can't be germany (make the best cars in the world) or the USA (a belief like the american dream), or South Korea (technologically advanced with cheap next door labour in China). In the UK we have excellent higher education, leading the world in science and the progress on a fairly fair religious and liberal society, like the fact we can have a government where all the top jobs don't have to go to god fearing jesus freaks. I don't see that at all in america and it'd be a major issue if someone in the american government wasn't that. The notoriously fickle and aggressive British media didn't even blink when Clegg said he doesn't really believe in god. That to me is progress - we have some of the best progressive thinkers in the world, lets use that.

Each country is a different culture, it's wrong to think we can do it all or follow someone else model. Our best bet is to invest in the future, some may leave to other places for cheaper tax after being educated, some may come over like they do now, get educated, get a good job and be paying the high taxes, start a family and carry on the tradition. No matter where you put the money you're betting against something else not working. Students believe that education is the way forward and so do a lot of others.

I looked at a Daily Mail poll other day asking if you still supported students - it was about 65% yes, right after a article about how students are yobs. It was weighted to have a negative effect, but even a right wing paper such as the Mail can have a readership that isn't voting as the government wants, it points to a problem in the governments direction.

Having said all that tho, the government may get it right, prove us all wrong. I've changed my mind on issues in the past, it can happen again.