Wednesday, December 22, 2010
No fees, No cuts, Defend education! National Demonstration – Saturday 29th January
National Demonstration against education cuts, fees and to save EMA – January 29th, assembling at 12noon
The student uprising against the Tory-led assault on the welfare state has been breathtaking.
The vote to treble tuition fees has gone through – but this is not the end.
Savage cuts, higher fees and the scrapping of EMA will have devastating consequences for young people.
Our movement has sent a clear message to the government: we will fight your immoral and illogical cuts. Now we must turn the heat up even more.
The national demonstration on January 29 in London has called by the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts, the Education Activist Network, the University College Union (UCU) and is supported by the Free Education Campaign.
We will be pushing for the NUS to support the demonstration at the NUS NEC emergency meeting in January. The NUS President, Aaron Porter does not currently wish to support the demo.
On the same day there will be a TUC rally and demonstration in Manchester supported by UCU and PCS youth network which we also encourage activists to attend if they cannot make it to London.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Children of the revolution
This article was first published in the Evening Standard on Thursday 16th December 2010.
Student protesters are breaking away from their official union into new, more militant groups. Fresh leaders are emerging and Joshua Neicho has been meeting them.
For a month, we seem to have been cast in a tide of student protest — but not one of the big marches since the invasion of Millbank on November 10 has been organised by the NUS. Into the fray have come a slew of homemade placards and new organisations including the National Campaign against Fees and Cuts (NCFC), the Free Education Campaign, Schools and FE Students against the Cuts, and local equivalents.
“I don’t know how it happened,” says Joana Oliveira Pinto about the NCFC, which was founded in February. “It’s not hegenomic, more like a parliament.”
The London Student Assembly, formed this autumn, convened last Friday to set up a national organisation. Occupations at London universities were carried out by groups independently of their student union leadership.
There is a widespread sense that NUS president Aaron Porter has been weak and has sold out. Politics PhD student and Opendemocracy blogger Guy Aitchison blames him for “forfeiting moral and political leadership” because of his over-the-top condemnation of the Millbank protests and then for “going back on his promise to support the occupations in the most deeply irresponsible way” (he attempted to strike a deal over fees with ministers). A campaign for a vote of no confidence in him is afoot.
“Students organising things on campuses often have been previously active with their student union, or People & Planet, or one of the political parties,” suggests Green/Left campaigner Adam Ramsay. “But they are getting things going themselves in the absence of national leadership, inspired by things happening at other campuses, organising using a procedure of consensus decision-making invented by the anti-globalisation protest movement”.
Specifically, Climate Camp, the annual gathering of youthful green protesters, has supplied a pre-existing network and a non-violent direct action philosophy.
UK Uncut, an anti-tax avoidance protest group which has grabbed headlines for its occupations of Vodafone shops, is seen as an explicit model by campus activists like UCL’s Jon Moses. English undergrad Tom Dillon, stung by political betrayal, describes going from a common room occupation to a UK Uncut flash-mob. “There is an alternative to cuts but politicians are ignoring it”. Online journalist Ellie Mae has been running the group’s protests in Liverpool before handing over the reins as she relocates to London. The target of tax avoidance appeals to her British sense of fair play. “I don’t respond well to big group activities,” she says. “I don’t even see myself as an activist.” She is right behind tuition fees protests — “by any standards, £21,000 is a phenomenal amount” — though for her and many others the abolition of the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) for low-income sixth-formers is even more significant.
Shiv Malik, 29-year-old author of The Jilted Generation, views wryly the debate about whether the protesters are anarchists or socialists. “They are very much Thatcher’s children — they believe in freedom, individualism and have no solid ideology. They are out there for more than education cuts.”
In what Malik brands the “hashtag revolution”, Twitter has been crucial in organising and shaping protests, frustrating police by directing hundreds of people to make a move in a particular direction. New web initiatives have helped assemble petitions and allowed supporters to post footage of independent actions they have embarked on.
The hub of the university occupations were teams on computers co-ordinating a mass lobby of wavering Lib-Dem MPs. But the anti-fees and cuts movement has married the white heat of technology with traditional methods — the open meeting where people come and freely debate; tub-thumping open lectures held by SOAS academics and Goldsmiths students in locations ranging from a bank to the St Pancras concourse. The UCL occupation delighted visitors with the bohemianism of its handmade posters and communal kitchen. Bands and comics have played protest gigs. Josie Long, darling of the indie comedy scene, is an ardent backer of the movement and its “organised, sane, fun” supporters who she feels have been traduced by a hostile media.
Any accusation the movement is narrowly middle-class can be countered by the battle to save the EMA. One of the leading figures in this is James Mills, a young working-class Londoner and Lib-Dem parliamentary researcher who went from tough Gunnersbury School to St Andrews at the same time as Prince William. Meanwhile, many student and graduate activists vouch modestly that school-age protesters have been more positive and creative in their campaigning than they have, spontaneously occupying sixth forms at the risk of exclusion from school. They pay tribute by seeing their protests as part of a duty of care to younger generations which MPs have manifestly failed to show.
Given the electoral arithmetic, commentators tend to see a fees rise as a fait accompli. But the grassroots movement is not discouraged — and has rallied behind protester Jody McIntyre after his harsh treatment on TV. James Haywood of Goldsmiths looks enviously to Rome where protesters have occupied railway tracks, bringing the city to a halt.
Many protesters are clearly in it for the long haul. “I’m 100 per cent committed — I don’t think I could sleep at night if I wasn’t involved,” says Josie Long. Or as graduate student Benjamin Weiss, involved in occupations in London and Cambridge, vows: “We’ve made our presence felt with fees. When it comes to the NHS we will be there too”.
Six Angry Young Men and Women, By Ben Bryant
Pictured above, from top left
James Haywood, 23
Used to want to be an academic, but says that now he can’t afford it. Worked as a butcher for two years before attending Goldsmiths College to study history. He is Campaigns Officer of the Students’ Union there.
Kanja Sesay, 22
Born in Sierra Leone, living through 11 years of civil war and coups d’etat. Came to England in 1999 and studied law and history at Bradford University. He is NUS Black Students’ Officer and a vocal critic of NUS President Aaron Porter.
Sean Rillo Raczka, 28
Activism runs in his family – his grandfather were both trade unionists. He left school at 16 and worked in admin before going to university at 26. He is chair of Birkbeck Students’ Union and NUS NEC Mature Students’ Rep.
Fiona Edwards, 23
Father a builder. Went to Worcester comprehensive, studied politics at Sheffield and became Women’s Officer. Involved in campaigning groups including Free Education Campaign and Student Broad Left.
Marie Leconte, 18
French student from Nantes now at the University of Westminster who attended the UCL occupation.
Jon Moses, 21
Father a geophysicist. Went to private school in Monmouth. Graduated this year from UCL in history. Stalwart of the UCL occupation and member of the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts.
Student protesters are breaking away from their official union into new, more militant groups. Fresh leaders are emerging and Joshua Neicho has been meeting them.
For a month, we seem to have been cast in a tide of student protest — but not one of the big marches since the invasion of Millbank on November 10 has been organised by the NUS. Into the fray have come a slew of homemade placards and new organisations including the National Campaign against Fees and Cuts (NCFC), the Free Education Campaign, Schools and FE Students against the Cuts, and local equivalents.
“I don’t know how it happened,” says Joana Oliveira Pinto about the NCFC, which was founded in February. “It’s not hegenomic, more like a parliament.”
The London Student Assembly, formed this autumn, convened last Friday to set up a national organisation. Occupations at London universities were carried out by groups independently of their student union leadership.
There is a widespread sense that NUS president Aaron Porter has been weak and has sold out. Politics PhD student and Opendemocracy blogger Guy Aitchison blames him for “forfeiting moral and political leadership” because of his over-the-top condemnation of the Millbank protests and then for “going back on his promise to support the occupations in the most deeply irresponsible way” (he attempted to strike a deal over fees with ministers). A campaign for a vote of no confidence in him is afoot.
“Students organising things on campuses often have been previously active with their student union, or People & Planet, or one of the political parties,” suggests Green/Left campaigner Adam Ramsay. “But they are getting things going themselves in the absence of national leadership, inspired by things happening at other campuses, organising using a procedure of consensus decision-making invented by the anti-globalisation protest movement”.
Specifically, Climate Camp, the annual gathering of youthful green protesters, has supplied a pre-existing network and a non-violent direct action philosophy.
UK Uncut, an anti-tax avoidance protest group which has grabbed headlines for its occupations of Vodafone shops, is seen as an explicit model by campus activists like UCL’s Jon Moses. English undergrad Tom Dillon, stung by political betrayal, describes going from a common room occupation to a UK Uncut flash-mob. “There is an alternative to cuts but politicians are ignoring it”. Online journalist Ellie Mae has been running the group’s protests in Liverpool before handing over the reins as she relocates to London. The target of tax avoidance appeals to her British sense of fair play. “I don’t respond well to big group activities,” she says. “I don’t even see myself as an activist.” She is right behind tuition fees protests — “by any standards, £21,000 is a phenomenal amount” — though for her and many others the abolition of the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) for low-income sixth-formers is even more significant.
Shiv Malik, 29-year-old author of The Jilted Generation, views wryly the debate about whether the protesters are anarchists or socialists. “They are very much Thatcher’s children — they believe in freedom, individualism and have no solid ideology. They are out there for more than education cuts.”
In what Malik brands the “hashtag revolution”, Twitter has been crucial in organising and shaping protests, frustrating police by directing hundreds of people to make a move in a particular direction. New web initiatives have helped assemble petitions and allowed supporters to post footage of independent actions they have embarked on.
The hub of the university occupations were teams on computers co-ordinating a mass lobby of wavering Lib-Dem MPs. But the anti-fees and cuts movement has married the white heat of technology with traditional methods — the open meeting where people come and freely debate; tub-thumping open lectures held by SOAS academics and Goldsmiths students in locations ranging from a bank to the St Pancras concourse. The UCL occupation delighted visitors with the bohemianism of its handmade posters and communal kitchen. Bands and comics have played protest gigs. Josie Long, darling of the indie comedy scene, is an ardent backer of the movement and its “organised, sane, fun” supporters who she feels have been traduced by a hostile media.
Any accusation the movement is narrowly middle-class can be countered by the battle to save the EMA. One of the leading figures in this is James Mills, a young working-class Londoner and Lib-Dem parliamentary researcher who went from tough Gunnersbury School to St Andrews at the same time as Prince William. Meanwhile, many student and graduate activists vouch modestly that school-age protesters have been more positive and creative in their campaigning than they have, spontaneously occupying sixth forms at the risk of exclusion from school. They pay tribute by seeing their protests as part of a duty of care to younger generations which MPs have manifestly failed to show.
Given the electoral arithmetic, commentators tend to see a fees rise as a fait accompli. But the grassroots movement is not discouraged — and has rallied behind protester Jody McIntyre after his harsh treatment on TV. James Haywood of Goldsmiths looks enviously to Rome where protesters have occupied railway tracks, bringing the city to a halt.
Many protesters are clearly in it for the long haul. “I’m 100 per cent committed — I don’t think I could sleep at night if I wasn’t involved,” says Josie Long. Or as graduate student Benjamin Weiss, involved in occupations in London and Cambridge, vows: “We’ve made our presence felt with fees. When it comes to the NHS we will be there too”.
Six Angry Young Men and Women, By Ben Bryant
Pictured above, from top left
James Haywood, 23
Used to want to be an academic, but says that now he can’t afford it. Worked as a butcher for two years before attending Goldsmiths College to study history. He is Campaigns Officer of the Students’ Union there.
Kanja Sesay, 22
Born in Sierra Leone, living through 11 years of civil war and coups d’etat. Came to England in 1999 and studied law and history at Bradford University. He is NUS Black Students’ Officer and a vocal critic of NUS President Aaron Porter.
Sean Rillo Raczka, 28
Activism runs in his family – his grandfather were both trade unionists. He left school at 16 and worked in admin before going to university at 26. He is chair of Birkbeck Students’ Union and NUS NEC Mature Students’ Rep.
Fiona Edwards, 23
Father a builder. Went to Worcester comprehensive, studied politics at Sheffield and became Women’s Officer. Involved in campaigning groups including Free Education Campaign and Student Broad Left.
Marie Leconte, 18
French student from Nantes now at the University of Westminster who attended the UCL occupation.
Jon Moses, 21
Father a geophysicist. Went to private school in Monmouth. Graduated this year from UCL in history. Stalwart of the UCL occupation and member of the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Open Letter: Let’s organize together a united conference for free education and against education cuts
Dear friends,
We write to propose a united national conference against education cuts and for free education and to invite student campaigning organisations and occupations to be a co-organiser of this.
Whilst groups and occupations will continue to organize a whole range of local, regional and national activities - which will continue to put the Tory-led government under considerable pressure – we believe that a national, unified conference will strengthen the whole movement. We believe there is considerable enthusiasm amongst students for such an initiative.
The aim would be to have a united national conference in the next academic term organised by all those campaigns, Student Unions and sections of NUS, and occupations that have so successfully organised actions over recent weeks against higher fees and education cuts following the NUS leaderships' failure to build on the successful national demo of November 10.
To this end we believe representatives from all participating groups should meet at a convenient time and place in the week beginning Monday 10th January 2011.
We hope that you will able to participate in this initiative which we believe will facilitate greater collaboration between all those who wish to seriously fight to defend our education.
In solidarity,
Free Education Campaign
We write to propose a united national conference against education cuts and for free education and to invite student campaigning organisations and occupations to be a co-organiser of this.
Whilst groups and occupations will continue to organize a whole range of local, regional and national activities - which will continue to put the Tory-led government under considerable pressure – we believe that a national, unified conference will strengthen the whole movement. We believe there is considerable enthusiasm amongst students for such an initiative.
The aim would be to have a united national conference in the next academic term organised by all those campaigns, Student Unions and sections of NUS, and occupations that have so successfully organised actions over recent weeks against higher fees and education cuts following the NUS leaderships' failure to build on the successful national demo of November 10.
To this end we believe representatives from all participating groups should meet at a convenient time and place in the week beginning Monday 10th January 2011.
We hope that you will able to participate in this initiative which we believe will facilitate greater collaboration between all those who wish to seriously fight to defend our education.
In solidarity,
Free Education Campaign
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
It is time to go Aaron Porter – we need a fighting NUS
Students need a fighting NUS to take on the Tory cuts.
“We the undersigned believe that Aaron Porter should be removed as NUS National President as he is unable to lead the student movement. His failure to call or even back another National Demonstration, his refusal to back up his promises of support for occupations, his weak stance on police brutality and his collusion with the Government in identifying cuts means that he has lost the confidence of the movement.
We call on activists to bring motions to their SUs calling for his removal and an Extraordinary Conference to do so.”
Signed in a personal capacity:
Sean Rillo Raczka, NUS NEC and Chair of Birkbeck SU
Clare Solomon, ULU President
Fiona Edwards, Student Broad Left
Joshi Sachdeo, NUS NEC
Ashok Kumar, LSE Education Officer
Mary Robertston, Free Education Campaign & SOAS Occupier
Javed Anjum Sheikh, NUS NEC
Poggy Murray, NUS Black Student Committee & Liverpool Guild of Students LGBT Officer
To add your name email: seanrillo@hotmail.com
* * * *
MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE IN AARON PORTER
THIS UNION NOTES:
1. That on the 9/12/10 over 30,000 students marched from the University of London Union (ULU) to Parliament in a protest against fees and cuts on the day of the vote to raise tuition fees.
2. That the National Union of Students organised a candlelight vigil and rally in Victoria Embankment with under 1,000 attending.
3. That the NUS NEC, in a proposal made by NUS President Aaron Porter, voted NOT to back the march from ULU.
4. That Aaron Porter stated he was ‘not at all proud’ of the ULU protest.
5. That the co-ordinators of the NUS Rally at Victoria Embankment urged those in attendance to return home immediately afterwards and not to join the protest in Parliament Square.
6. That violent police tactics including kettling, horse charges and the use of batons were deployed by the Met, leaving over 43 protestors injured or hospitalised, including one life threatening injury.
7. That the NUS has not put out an official statement condemning the police violence towards students on the 9th of December, standing up for their right to protest and not be illegally kettled or charged by horses.
8. That Aaron Porter recently visited the UCL Occupation where he stated that the NUS would provide support for those in occupation, as well as calling a National Demonstration on the day of the fees vote.
9. That at the UCL Occupation meeting Aaron Porter admitted that the NUS had been ‘spineless’ and ‘dithering’ in response the student occupations.
10. That Aaron Porter has reneged on both promises mentioned above (8).
THE UNION FURTHER NOTES:
1. That emails leaked to the Daily Telegraph show that the NUS had put models of alternative cuts to Ministers, outlining where cuts could be made to the Higher Education budget without raising tuition fees. These plans included cutting grants to the poorest students, and immediately charging a higher commercial rate on interest on student loans.
2. That the NUS response to this leak is to admit that they had ‘met with ministers and officials to discuss and model various potential impacts of cuts to Higher Education’
THIS UNION BELIEVES:
1. That the National Union of Students should not be in the business of modelling cuts for the ConDem Government or discussing possible ways of cutting grants from the poorest of students.
2. That the NUS National President should keep his promises.
3. That the NUS should organise another National Demo, and officially supporting and coordinating other demonstrations and protest.
4. That the NUS should give practical support to occupations and students affected by police violence.
5. That Aaron Porter, given his failure to assist students & occupation, and to coordinate or support further National Demonstrations against the cuts, and because of his helpful emails to the government, is incapable of leading the student movement.
THIS UNION RESOLVES:
1. That we have no confidence in Aaron Porter as NUS President.
2. To call for an Extraordinary Conference to hear this vote of no confidence.
“We the undersigned believe that Aaron Porter should be removed as NUS National President as he is unable to lead the student movement. His failure to call or even back another National Demonstration, his refusal to back up his promises of support for occupations, his weak stance on police brutality and his collusion with the Government in identifying cuts means that he has lost the confidence of the movement.
We call on activists to bring motions to their SUs calling for his removal and an Extraordinary Conference to do so.”
Signed in a personal capacity:
Sean Rillo Raczka, NUS NEC and Chair of Birkbeck SU
Clare Solomon, ULU President
Fiona Edwards, Student Broad Left
Joshi Sachdeo, NUS NEC
Ashok Kumar, LSE Education Officer
Mary Robertston, Free Education Campaign & SOAS Occupier
Javed Anjum Sheikh, NUS NEC
Poggy Murray, NUS Black Student Committee & Liverpool Guild of Students LGBT Officer
To add your name email: seanrillo@hotmail.com
* * * *
MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE IN AARON PORTER
THIS UNION NOTES:
1. That on the 9/12/10 over 30,000 students marched from the University of London Union (ULU) to Parliament in a protest against fees and cuts on the day of the vote to raise tuition fees.
2. That the National Union of Students organised a candlelight vigil and rally in Victoria Embankment with under 1,000 attending.
3. That the NUS NEC, in a proposal made by NUS President Aaron Porter, voted NOT to back the march from ULU.
4. That Aaron Porter stated he was ‘not at all proud’ of the ULU protest.
5. That the co-ordinators of the NUS Rally at Victoria Embankment urged those in attendance to return home immediately afterwards and not to join the protest in Parliament Square.
6. That violent police tactics including kettling, horse charges and the use of batons were deployed by the Met, leaving over 43 protestors injured or hospitalised, including one life threatening injury.
7. That the NUS has not put out an official statement condemning the police violence towards students on the 9th of December, standing up for their right to protest and not be illegally kettled or charged by horses.
8. That Aaron Porter recently visited the UCL Occupation where he stated that the NUS would provide support for those in occupation, as well as calling a National Demonstration on the day of the fees vote.
9. That at the UCL Occupation meeting Aaron Porter admitted that the NUS had been ‘spineless’ and ‘dithering’ in response the student occupations.
10. That Aaron Porter has reneged on both promises mentioned above (8).
THE UNION FURTHER NOTES:
1. That emails leaked to the Daily Telegraph show that the NUS had put models of alternative cuts to Ministers, outlining where cuts could be made to the Higher Education budget without raising tuition fees. These plans included cutting grants to the poorest students, and immediately charging a higher commercial rate on interest on student loans.
2. That the NUS response to this leak is to admit that they had ‘met with ministers and officials to discuss and model various potential impacts of cuts to Higher Education’
THIS UNION BELIEVES:
1. That the National Union of Students should not be in the business of modelling cuts for the ConDem Government or discussing possible ways of cutting grants from the poorest of students.
2. That the NUS National President should keep his promises.
3. That the NUS should organise another National Demo, and officially supporting and coordinating other demonstrations and protest.
4. That the NUS should give practical support to occupations and students affected by police violence.
5. That Aaron Porter, given his failure to assist students & occupation, and to coordinate or support further National Demonstrations against the cuts, and because of his helpful emails to the government, is incapable of leading the student movement.
THIS UNION RESOLVES:
1. That we have no confidence in Aaron Porter as NUS President.
2. To call for an Extraordinary Conference to hear this vote of no confidence.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
BBC interview: Student Jody McIntyre exposes media campaign to undermine student protest
Student protester Jody McIntyre was dragged from his wheelchair by police during last week’s protest in London in yet another shock display of police violence.
Jody’s interview on the BBC exposes the media campaign to undermine student protest. The clip also reveals the disgusting attempt by the right wing media to present the victims of violence as the perpetrators.
Act now: Call the BBC on 03700 100 222 to complain about the Ben Brown interview with Jody McIntyre. The BBC must respond to every complaint received. Fight the right wing media’s campaign to undermine student protest.
Jody’s interview on the BBC exposes the media campaign to undermine student protest. The clip also reveals the disgusting attempt by the right wing media to present the victims of violence as the perpetrators.
Act now: Call the BBC on 03700 100 222 to complain about the Ben Brown interview with Jody McIntyre. The BBC must respond to every complaint received. Fight the right wing media’s campaign to undermine student protest.
Monday, December 13, 2010
The Day of the Vote – an eyewitness account by Aaron Kiely
By Aaron Kiely, University of Kent Occupation
Firstly, I have to state that I am a member of Labour Party, a candidate in the upcoming local elections, a Committee member of the NUS Black Students’ Campaign and an elected representative of Kent Students’ Union; I would never act in a way to damage the reputation of any of these organisations as I am proud to contribute and participate in them and I am conscious that at this protest I represent all the students who elected me locally, nationally as well as fellow residents in my local Labour Party.
What I witnessed and experienced at Parliament Square was absolutely horrific, and the levels of police brutality and indiscriminate violence were made all the more shocking due to the the fact that a very large proportion of those who attended the march from Malet Street to outside Parliament were young, either Further Education students or school students, and a very visible and large number were Black students.
The protest started absolutely peacefully, and I joined the march at Trafalgar Square and made the short journey to Parliament at around 1:30pm with other Kent students. I made my way to the front of the demonstration and as students were pushing to make their way closer to Parliament, made sure that students that wanted to move to the back were allowed to do so, as well as making sure that people were not being hurt in the push. I think it is important that we demonstrate as close as possible to Parliament as we can, as MPs were in the Palace and hopefully would’ve been able to hear our chants calling for them to not betray students and future generations by voting for the removal of the current cap in favour of variable fees of up to £9,000 a year. The atmosphere was wholly positive, with impressively creatively placards, chants and a real strength of diversity in the Trade Union and Student Union banners, from the CWU, to Unite to LSE, to SOAS Unison to Manchester Met and many others.
After over an hour, after discussing with other friends at the demonstration it was thought that we could pop out for a bite to eat and come back to whatever action is taking place. So at around 2:30 to 3:00pm we went to leave, only to find that we had been ‘kettled’ in by the police and exits were sealed. SOAS University students quickly erected a ‘Kettle Cafe’ where those trapped could get some food and drink. I made it very clear to students from Kent who were going to attend the day that there was a strong likelihood that the police would use the kettling ‘tactic’, and they freely choose to come. For any of those who do not know what kettling is – it is basically where the riot police surround a group of protesters to ‘control the situation’. What is conveniently forgotten in the official description is that kettling often lasts for hours, with some school students having to endure the freezing cold for 9 hours just for being there. It is a collective form of punishment, where those who are kettled, no matter how peaceful or well intentioned are denied access to basic freedoms such as food, water, shelter, the freedom to move as well as access to clean sanitation. This tactic, has come under increased scrutiny, yet it is continually used, when I would argue it acts as a catalyst to anger people and does nothing to ‘control the situation’, instead provoking and setting up an ‘us and them’ scenario between the police and protesters.
We were denied access to the above mentioned rights, despite the police and media portraying that they were available for a combined total of 8 hours on a chilly Winter’s day. A tarpaulin was set up in the form of a cubicle so that men (not women) could urinate on the grass, turning it in to a slurry of mud and piss. I could find no portaloos, nowhere to access food and water and the riot police were not responding to requests for these requirements to be met as well as the basic request to leave the area. It is no wonder why those there were agitated and furious with their treatment by the authorities. Calmly requesting something from a riot police officer is often as productive as drawing blood from a stone as you are deliberately ignored, and sometimes, officers will communicate that they cannot hear what you are saying, despite being able to have conversations freely with nearby officers.
Eventually, the exits were fully manned by riot police, with police on horses charging young students and full riot gear in use, meaning truncheons (a blunt club weapon), specialist helmets and riot shields. I witnessed an officer repeatedly hitting a ‘Robin Hood Tax’ hardhat with his riot shield off the head of a protester and then proceeding to hit him, without the protection of the hardhat once more for good measure. I also witnessed a young, smartly-dressed woman, who could be no older than 16 being hit with a truncheon to the head, to much shock. She posed absolutely no threat, was not being verbally abusive, nor physically threatening, yet she was smashed across the head indiscriminately, her head drooped and she was taken back in to the crowd to be treated by St. John’s Ambulance staff. At one point, many protesters broke through and made it to Whitehall, it looked like we could get out as well and during the several attempts of the crowd to push, with hands in the air the police beat us back violently holding riot shields horizontally and hitting at the crowd. It was at this point I was first hit on the back with a truncheon, having been pushed to the front with my back turned. I did not react, did not say one word of abuse and maintained my composure. The second and third time I was hit with a truncheon across my forearm and shoulder was when I stumbled across a young man whose head had just been cracked open and was gushing with blood. His light-coloured hoody was distinctive against the vivid red of the blood coming from him. Again, I kept my composure and was then kicked with no reason, with my hands in the air, silent, and the kick was so hard that it has left an imprint of the sole of the shoe on my leg. This not only happened to me, but many others, young people as well.
The logical question to ask is ‘how did you get to the front’? ‘Why risk being hit and injured?’ – these are absolutely valid points but I will say this: I am not prepared to stand to the side and watch young students, many from ethnic minorities and particularly young women who perhaps might have of been pushed to the front having their heads cracked open. I would rather it was me than ever having to live with the thought that someone else was seriously injured when I could have taken the hit much better. Seeing young students, who have been kettled, treated inhumanely and stained by their own blood is an appalling sight and something I would never wish anyone to see as it is hugely distressing. The people at that demonstration could’ve been my 19 year old sister protesting against her EMA being cut, or my 15 year old cousin who dreamed of going to University but could never pay off their £9,000 a year fees. I firmly believe that older demonstrators have a duty to protect those who we have encouraged and helped mobilise to protests and there were many more experienced activists helping younger people out. The vast and overwhelming majority of people were armed with words, not weapons, not truncheons, not riot shields and definitely not heavy duty protective clothing and specialist helmets; the brutality of the police at this demonstration has to be exposed for what it is, absolutely despicable.
During the coming hours, students set fire to placards for warmth, shared food and drink as none had been provided and later, SOAS students kindly sprayed disinfectant on my small cut from the riot shield. At around 8:30pm, after much back and forth and conflicting information from non-riot police who had entered the kettle, it was established that we would be released soon. All throughout this, I was polite to every single police officer and I saw none of the ordinary unarmed police officers subjected to any harassment or intimidation. Eventually we were allowed to leave the kettle, escorted across Westminster Bridge following a line of police who were slowly moving back until we stopped at the end of the bridge. We were anticipating that we would then be allowed to disperse in three separate directions, perhaps through a bottleneck, however were treated with silence for an hour. We had been stopped in our tracks. In the cold, dark night, thousands of protesters were held on Westminster Bridge, with no access to toilets or water and were packed like sardines with barely any space to move. It was then announced by the police that there were not enough riot police to handle the departure of those who had been trying to leave for hours. Eventually another hour later at 10:55 pm we were allowed out, in single-file, surrounded by riot police and told that Section 60 was in action and that we should move continuously towards Waterloo Station.
After hours upon hours of being kettled, we were finally free to make our way home. However, it is important to remember that many of us had been booked on coaches which had fixed departure times, so many had to make their own way homes – potentially leaving young members vulnerable as we edge towards midnight in the capital. If students had been allowed to leave, as the vast majority had requested or queued up to do, then this situation could have been entirely avoidable. I wrote this to explain how I experienced the demonstration and to condemn the police-handling of the event as excessive, brutal and unnecessary – kettling has to be stopped as it a violation of basic human rights and does nothing to control the situation, only inflame it.
I have to give a special thanks to Kent Union staff and leadership who managed to get the coach to wait, although it ultimately couldn’t wait enough, as well as their support on Twitter, text messages and calls. It is to be praised and they handled it all very professionally and I thank them for doing what they could in a very difficult situation.
I would also like to thank Zain Sardar, Jonathan Buckner and Andy Hewett who I spent most of the time in the kettle with for their company and support. I would also like to especially thank Maham Hashmi-Khan, from one Black Students’ Committee member to another, as she was exemplary in helping to remove hazards, helping students leave, giving advice and standing witness at the front to the violence inflicted on the demonstrators by the police as well as making sure students were as safe as she could. And a further thanks to all the retweets, all of the messages of support and the calls from so many different people – it made a lot of difference knowing people were working on the outside to pressure the police and spread awareness of what they were doing to us.
The people on that demonstration were not violent or extremist thugs intent on hurting others, the vast majority were peaceful and youthful, yet angry at what the Coalition government are doing. What kind of democracy do we live in, when young people are brutalised by the police outside of Parliament, while inside a government votes through symbolically violent acts which amount to vandalism of hopes and dreams? I will always stand side-by-side with those suffering such huge injustices and I invite you all to come to the next demonstration, which I am sure will be about saving EMA. As although we have lost the vote on the raising of the cap, we are in this struggle for the long haul, and it will take all of us to contribute in whatever way we can, through lobbying, industrial action, vigils, demonstrations and occupations because we have an obligation to leave a better legacy to the next generation, not a worse one.
Aaron Kiely is a Kent Union Ordinary Council Member; NUS Black Students’ Campaign Committee (Open Place); Member of the University of Kent Occupation
Firstly, I have to state that I am a member of Labour Party, a candidate in the upcoming local elections, a Committee member of the NUS Black Students’ Campaign and an elected representative of Kent Students’ Union; I would never act in a way to damage the reputation of any of these organisations as I am proud to contribute and participate in them and I am conscious that at this protest I represent all the students who elected me locally, nationally as well as fellow residents in my local Labour Party.
What I witnessed and experienced at Parliament Square was absolutely horrific, and the levels of police brutality and indiscriminate violence were made all the more shocking due to the the fact that a very large proportion of those who attended the march from Malet Street to outside Parliament were young, either Further Education students or school students, and a very visible and large number were Black students.
The protest started absolutely peacefully, and I joined the march at Trafalgar Square and made the short journey to Parliament at around 1:30pm with other Kent students. I made my way to the front of the demonstration and as students were pushing to make their way closer to Parliament, made sure that students that wanted to move to the back were allowed to do so, as well as making sure that people were not being hurt in the push. I think it is important that we demonstrate as close as possible to Parliament as we can, as MPs were in the Palace and hopefully would’ve been able to hear our chants calling for them to not betray students and future generations by voting for the removal of the current cap in favour of variable fees of up to £9,000 a year. The atmosphere was wholly positive, with impressively creatively placards, chants and a real strength of diversity in the Trade Union and Student Union banners, from the CWU, to Unite to LSE, to SOAS Unison to Manchester Met and many others.
After over an hour, after discussing with other friends at the demonstration it was thought that we could pop out for a bite to eat and come back to whatever action is taking place. So at around 2:30 to 3:00pm we went to leave, only to find that we had been ‘kettled’ in by the police and exits were sealed. SOAS University students quickly erected a ‘Kettle Cafe’ where those trapped could get some food and drink. I made it very clear to students from Kent who were going to attend the day that there was a strong likelihood that the police would use the kettling ‘tactic’, and they freely choose to come. For any of those who do not know what kettling is – it is basically where the riot police surround a group of protesters to ‘control the situation’. What is conveniently forgotten in the official description is that kettling often lasts for hours, with some school students having to endure the freezing cold for 9 hours just for being there. It is a collective form of punishment, where those who are kettled, no matter how peaceful or well intentioned are denied access to basic freedoms such as food, water, shelter, the freedom to move as well as access to clean sanitation. This tactic, has come under increased scrutiny, yet it is continually used, when I would argue it acts as a catalyst to anger people and does nothing to ‘control the situation’, instead provoking and setting up an ‘us and them’ scenario between the police and protesters.
We were denied access to the above mentioned rights, despite the police and media portraying that they were available for a combined total of 8 hours on a chilly Winter’s day. A tarpaulin was set up in the form of a cubicle so that men (not women) could urinate on the grass, turning it in to a slurry of mud and piss. I could find no portaloos, nowhere to access food and water and the riot police were not responding to requests for these requirements to be met as well as the basic request to leave the area. It is no wonder why those there were agitated and furious with their treatment by the authorities. Calmly requesting something from a riot police officer is often as productive as drawing blood from a stone as you are deliberately ignored, and sometimes, officers will communicate that they cannot hear what you are saying, despite being able to have conversations freely with nearby officers.
Eventually, the exits were fully manned by riot police, with police on horses charging young students and full riot gear in use, meaning truncheons (a blunt club weapon), specialist helmets and riot shields. I witnessed an officer repeatedly hitting a ‘Robin Hood Tax’ hardhat with his riot shield off the head of a protester and then proceeding to hit him, without the protection of the hardhat once more for good measure. I also witnessed a young, smartly-dressed woman, who could be no older than 16 being hit with a truncheon to the head, to much shock. She posed absolutely no threat, was not being verbally abusive, nor physically threatening, yet she was smashed across the head indiscriminately, her head drooped and she was taken back in to the crowd to be treated by St. John’s Ambulance staff. At one point, many protesters broke through and made it to Whitehall, it looked like we could get out as well and during the several attempts of the crowd to push, with hands in the air the police beat us back violently holding riot shields horizontally and hitting at the crowd. It was at this point I was first hit on the back with a truncheon, having been pushed to the front with my back turned. I did not react, did not say one word of abuse and maintained my composure. The second and third time I was hit with a truncheon across my forearm and shoulder was when I stumbled across a young man whose head had just been cracked open and was gushing with blood. His light-coloured hoody was distinctive against the vivid red of the blood coming from him. Again, I kept my composure and was then kicked with no reason, with my hands in the air, silent, and the kick was so hard that it has left an imprint of the sole of the shoe on my leg. This not only happened to me, but many others, young people as well.
The logical question to ask is ‘how did you get to the front’? ‘Why risk being hit and injured?’ – these are absolutely valid points but I will say this: I am not prepared to stand to the side and watch young students, many from ethnic minorities and particularly young women who perhaps might have of been pushed to the front having their heads cracked open. I would rather it was me than ever having to live with the thought that someone else was seriously injured when I could have taken the hit much better. Seeing young students, who have been kettled, treated inhumanely and stained by their own blood is an appalling sight and something I would never wish anyone to see as it is hugely distressing. The people at that demonstration could’ve been my 19 year old sister protesting against her EMA being cut, or my 15 year old cousin who dreamed of going to University but could never pay off their £9,000 a year fees. I firmly believe that older demonstrators have a duty to protect those who we have encouraged and helped mobilise to protests and there were many more experienced activists helping younger people out. The vast and overwhelming majority of people were armed with words, not weapons, not truncheons, not riot shields and definitely not heavy duty protective clothing and specialist helmets; the brutality of the police at this demonstration has to be exposed for what it is, absolutely despicable.
During the coming hours, students set fire to placards for warmth, shared food and drink as none had been provided and later, SOAS students kindly sprayed disinfectant on my small cut from the riot shield. At around 8:30pm, after much back and forth and conflicting information from non-riot police who had entered the kettle, it was established that we would be released soon. All throughout this, I was polite to every single police officer and I saw none of the ordinary unarmed police officers subjected to any harassment or intimidation. Eventually we were allowed to leave the kettle, escorted across Westminster Bridge following a line of police who were slowly moving back until we stopped at the end of the bridge. We were anticipating that we would then be allowed to disperse in three separate directions, perhaps through a bottleneck, however were treated with silence for an hour. We had been stopped in our tracks. In the cold, dark night, thousands of protesters were held on Westminster Bridge, with no access to toilets or water and were packed like sardines with barely any space to move. It was then announced by the police that there were not enough riot police to handle the departure of those who had been trying to leave for hours. Eventually another hour later at 10:55 pm we were allowed out, in single-file, surrounded by riot police and told that Section 60 was in action and that we should move continuously towards Waterloo Station.
After hours upon hours of being kettled, we were finally free to make our way home. However, it is important to remember that many of us had been booked on coaches which had fixed departure times, so many had to make their own way homes – potentially leaving young members vulnerable as we edge towards midnight in the capital. If students had been allowed to leave, as the vast majority had requested or queued up to do, then this situation could have been entirely avoidable. I wrote this to explain how I experienced the demonstration and to condemn the police-handling of the event as excessive, brutal and unnecessary – kettling has to be stopped as it a violation of basic human rights and does nothing to control the situation, only inflame it.
I have to give a special thanks to Kent Union staff and leadership who managed to get the coach to wait, although it ultimately couldn’t wait enough, as well as their support on Twitter, text messages and calls. It is to be praised and they handled it all very professionally and I thank them for doing what they could in a very difficult situation.
I would also like to thank Zain Sardar, Jonathan Buckner and Andy Hewett who I spent most of the time in the kettle with for their company and support. I would also like to especially thank Maham Hashmi-Khan, from one Black Students’ Committee member to another, as she was exemplary in helping to remove hazards, helping students leave, giving advice and standing witness at the front to the violence inflicted on the demonstrators by the police as well as making sure students were as safe as she could. And a further thanks to all the retweets, all of the messages of support and the calls from so many different people – it made a lot of difference knowing people were working on the outside to pressure the police and spread awareness of what they were doing to us.
The people on that demonstration were not violent or extremist thugs intent on hurting others, the vast majority were peaceful and youthful, yet angry at what the Coalition government are doing. What kind of democracy do we live in, when young people are brutalised by the police outside of Parliament, while inside a government votes through symbolically violent acts which amount to vandalism of hopes and dreams? I will always stand side-by-side with those suffering such huge injustices and I invite you all to come to the next demonstration, which I am sure will be about saving EMA. As although we have lost the vote on the raising of the cap, we are in this struggle for the long haul, and it will take all of us to contribute in whatever way we can, through lobbying, industrial action, vigils, demonstrations and occupations because we have an obligation to leave a better legacy to the next generation, not a worse one.
Aaron Kiely is a Kent Union Ordinary Council Member; NUS Black Students’ Campaign Committee (Open Place); Member of the University of Kent Occupation
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Justice For Alfie Meadows
Alfie Meadows is a 20-year-old student from Middlesex who attended the tuition fees protest in central London on the 9th of December 2010.
He was beaten on the head with a police truncheon causing bleeding on the brain, as he attempted to leave the police kettle outside Parliament.
The mother of Alfie has described how police officers objected to her son being treated – with brain surgery – at the first hospital he was taken to. Only after the intervention of an ambulance worker did Alfie receive urgent medical treatment for the stroke he suffered after receiving his injury. The ambulance worker said, “If he hadn’t, Alfie would have been transferred and he could have died.”
Alfie has thankfully survived.
The Internal Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has opened an investigation into the case and are appealing for help.
We support all campaigns to bring about justice for Alfie Meadows – those responsible for attacking him must be brought to justice. This should take place alongside a full investigation into the utterly appalling police violence and brutality against young protesters which took place on Thursday – and on student protests earlier this month.
The London Student Assembly Press Conference from Friday 10th December:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mvnz__bTgYA&feature=player_embedded
He was beaten on the head with a police truncheon causing bleeding on the brain, as he attempted to leave the police kettle outside Parliament.
The mother of Alfie has described how police officers objected to her son being treated – with brain surgery – at the first hospital he was taken to. Only after the intervention of an ambulance worker did Alfie receive urgent medical treatment for the stroke he suffered after receiving his injury. The ambulance worker said, “If he hadn’t, Alfie would have been transferred and he could have died.”
Alfie has thankfully survived.
The Internal Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has opened an investigation into the case and are appealing for help.
We support all campaigns to bring about justice for Alfie Meadows – those responsible for attacking him must be brought to justice. This should take place alongside a full investigation into the utterly appalling police violence and brutality against young protesters which took place on Thursday – and on student protests earlier this month.
The London Student Assembly Press Conference from Friday 10th December:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mvnz__bTgYA&feature=player_embedded
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Teenagers charged by police horses outside Parliament whilst MPs vote away their future
Scenes of disgusting police violence & brutality against protesters played out on the streets outside Parliament in the bitter cold on Thursday. At the same time the Tories rammed through legislation to treble tuition fees - with the decisive support of half of the Lib Dem MPs.
The National Union of Students shamefully refused to organise a national demonstration of the day of the vote and has gone on the condemn the protest of tens of thousands that was organised by ULU and London Region UCU instead. The NUS also has failed to condemn the police brutality and violence against student protesters.
The University College Union (UCU) has issued the following statement about the protest on 9th December:
"The coalition government have won a vote but lost the argument over tuition fees.
Once again the democratic deficit in British society has been revealed as being as wide as ever.
The government that does not have a mandate for cuts and has ministers who were elected on the basis of opposition to tuition fee rises should be ashamed of themselves for ignoring the wishes of the overwhelming majority.
UCU is committed to non-violence but no-one should be shocked at the rage that young people showed at the betrayal of election promises and at their protest against cuts in EMA benefits and the raising of tuition fees.
UCU condemns the brutal attacks on our young people by riot police and calls for a TUC and public inquiry into police tactics.
UCU today reaffirms its wholehearted commitment to continue to defend education for all and calls upon the trade union movement to actively support legitimate forms of student protest."
The National Union of Students shamefully refused to organise a national demonstration of the day of the vote and has gone on the condemn the protest of tens of thousands that was organised by ULU and London Region UCU instead. The NUS also has failed to condemn the police brutality and violence against student protesters.
The University College Union (UCU) has issued the following statement about the protest on 9th December:
"The coalition government have won a vote but lost the argument over tuition fees.
Once again the democratic deficit in British society has been revealed as being as wide as ever.
The government that does not have a mandate for cuts and has ministers who were elected on the basis of opposition to tuition fee rises should be ashamed of themselves for ignoring the wishes of the overwhelming majority.
UCU is committed to non-violence but no-one should be shocked at the rage that young people showed at the betrayal of election promises and at their protest against cuts in EMA benefits and the raising of tuition fees.
UCU condemns the brutal attacks on our young people by riot police and calls for a TUC and public inquiry into police tactics.
UCU today reaffirms its wholehearted commitment to continue to defend education for all and calls upon the trade union movement to actively support legitimate forms of student protest."
Labels:
nus,
police brutality,
student protests,
tuition fees,
UCU
Friday, December 3, 2010
Conference cancellation underlines unpopularity of Lib Dems fees policy
Friday 3rd December
London Liberal Democrats today faced the ignominy of having to cancel their prestigious annual London conference after two venues cancelled their booking to hold their conference on Saturday 4th December 2010.
Initially planned for Haverstock School in Camden, the head teacher refused permission to the Lib Dems to hold it at the school after demonstrators against the tuition fees rise and the abolition of Educational Maintenance Grant organised a protest at the school.
Two hours later, after advertising a new venue on their website, the Lib Dems were forced to accept that their toxic reputation meant that they would have to cancel their London conference when the second venue pulled out.
Protest organizer Fiona Edwards, of the Free Education Campaign, said:
“We now have 6 days to save our education. It is not too late for the Lib Dems to keep the promise they made to students that they would reject higher fees.
A free market in fees is a Tory policy cooked up by the heirs of Thatcher and the Lib Dems should not go along with it.”
Notes to Editor
1. This peaceful protest was being organized by the Free Education Campaign and supported by a range of organizations including the NUS Black Students’ Campaign, NUS LGBT Campaign, Compass Youth and others.
2. For all press enquiries contact Free Education Campaign Secretary Fiona Edwards on 07900922766. Email: freeeducationcampaign@gmail.com
The Free Education Campaign’s blog: http://freeeducationcampaign.blogspot.com
Twitter: @free_edcampaign
London Liberal Democrats today faced the ignominy of having to cancel their prestigious annual London conference after two venues cancelled their booking to hold their conference on Saturday 4th December 2010.
Initially planned for Haverstock School in Camden, the head teacher refused permission to the Lib Dems to hold it at the school after demonstrators against the tuition fees rise and the abolition of Educational Maintenance Grant organised a protest at the school.
Two hours later, after advertising a new venue on their website, the Lib Dems were forced to accept that their toxic reputation meant that they would have to cancel their London conference when the second venue pulled out.
Protest organizer Fiona Edwards, of the Free Education Campaign, said:
“We now have 6 days to save our education. It is not too late for the Lib Dems to keep the promise they made to students that they would reject higher fees.
A free market in fees is a Tory policy cooked up by the heirs of Thatcher and the Lib Dems should not go along with it.”
Notes to Editor
1. This peaceful protest was being organized by the Free Education Campaign and supported by a range of organizations including the NUS Black Students’ Campaign, NUS LGBT Campaign, Compass Youth and others.
2. For all press enquiries contact Free Education Campaign Secretary Fiona Edwards on 07900922766. Email: freeeducationcampaign@gmail.com
The Free Education Campaign’s blog: http://freeeducationcampaign.blogspot.com
Twitter: @free_edcampaign
Student protest threat forces out Lib Dem meeting
Report taken from the BBC website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11911705
By Sean Coughlan - BBC News education correspondent
Threats of a student protest this weekend have forced a Liberal Democrat conference to abandon its planned venue in London.
The party's London MPs were to have met at a north London school on Saturday, but the head teacher has now cancelled the booking.
Head teacher of Haverstock School, John Dowd, said the risks from the protest were too great.
The Liberal Democrats say the meeting will now go ahead at another location.
Mr Dowd said it was clear from protest websites that there was going to be a demonstration against the Liberal Democrat MPs meeting at the school and he thought that it posed too great a risk.
Occupations
Fiona Edwards, speaking for the Free Education Campaign protest, said: "The cancellation of the venue for the conference is yet another sign of the deep unpopularity of the Liberal Democrats' policy on fees and is hugely embarrassing for the party."
The vote by MPs on whether to raise university fees in England to an upper limit of £9,000 will be held next week and a number of protests have been announced.
Liberal Democrats have become particular targets for student protests as their MPs had given students a signed pledge that they would vote against any increase in fees.
There has been a wave of protests and occupations in universities, against the fee increase and plans to cut public funding for many arts and humanities courses.
Students at the London School of Economics say there are now 400 people taking part in an occupation.
This weekend students are planning talks which will link the current wave of unrest with the protests of the 1960s - in which students at the London School of Economics played an iconic role.
'Desperately concerned'
There are also occupations taking place in universities including University College London, SOAS, Newcastle, King's College London, Leeds, Sheffield and Cambridge.
On Friday, the National Union of Students has sought to broaden the protest against fees by encouraging parents and families to write to MPs.
"Over the past few weeks I have been contacted by a great number of parents who are desperately concerned about how their children will be affected," says NUS president, Aaron Porter.
By Sean Coughlan - BBC News education correspondent
Threats of a student protest this weekend have forced a Liberal Democrat conference to abandon its planned venue in London.
The party's London MPs were to have met at a north London school on Saturday, but the head teacher has now cancelled the booking.
Head teacher of Haverstock School, John Dowd, said the risks from the protest were too great.
The Liberal Democrats say the meeting will now go ahead at another location.
Mr Dowd said it was clear from protest websites that there was going to be a demonstration against the Liberal Democrat MPs meeting at the school and he thought that it posed too great a risk.
Occupations
Fiona Edwards, speaking for the Free Education Campaign protest, said: "The cancellation of the venue for the conference is yet another sign of the deep unpopularity of the Liberal Democrats' policy on fees and is hugely embarrassing for the party."
The vote by MPs on whether to raise university fees in England to an upper limit of £9,000 will be held next week and a number of protests have been announced.
Liberal Democrats have become particular targets for student protests as their MPs had given students a signed pledge that they would vote against any increase in fees.
There has been a wave of protests and occupations in universities, against the fee increase and plans to cut public funding for many arts and humanities courses.
Students at the London School of Economics say there are now 400 people taking part in an occupation.
This weekend students are planning talks which will link the current wave of unrest with the protests of the 1960s - in which students at the London School of Economics played an iconic role.
'Desperately concerned'
There are also occupations taking place in universities including University College London, SOAS, Newcastle, King's College London, Leeds, Sheffield and Cambridge.
On Friday, the National Union of Students has sought to broaden the protest against fees by encouraging parents and families to write to MPs.
"Over the past few weeks I have been contacted by a great number of parents who are desperately concerned about how their children will be affected," says NUS president, Aaron Porter.
Press release: Lib Dems Can Run - But Never Hide
For Immediate Release
Friday 3rd December
Students, parents and public sector workers will demonstrate outside the hastily rearranged London Liberal Dem Conference tomorrow, Saturday 4th December 2010. The Liberal Democrats have been forced into rearranging their high profile London conference as a direct result of planned protests at the original venue that forced the venue to cancel the conference booking because it did not want to be associated with the Liberal Democrats Conference at this time.
Fiona Edwards, spokesperson for the Free Education Campaign, which was organising the protest said:
“No matter where the Liberal Democrats hold there meetings, conference and surgeries, they will face the anger and resentment of a generation who they have lied to.
The message we have for the Lib Dem MPs is that it is not too late to keep your promise.
A free market in fees is a Tory policy cooked up by the heirs of Thatcher and the Lib Dems should not go along with it.”
Notes to Editor
1. Protest outside London Lib Dem Conference – Saturday 4th December
Assemble 12noon – 3pm
Royal Horticultural Halls in Vincent Square, Greycoat Street London SW1P 2QD
Nearest tube Nearest tubes: St James Park; Westminster and Victoria
2. This peaceful protest is organized by the Free Education Campaign and supported by a range of organizations including the NUS Black Students’ Campaign, NUS LGBT Campaign, Compass Youth and others.
3. It is part of ongoing student campaign that has focused on pressuring the Liberal Democrats MPs to keep their pre-election promise to vote against higher tuition fees on Thursday 9th December.
4. For all press enquiries contact Free Education Campaign Secretary Fiona Edwards on 07900922766. Email: freeeducationcampaign@gmail.com
The Free Education Campaign’s blog: http://freeeducationcampaign.blogspot.com
Twitter: @free_edcampaign
Friday 3rd December
Students, parents and public sector workers will demonstrate outside the hastily rearranged London Liberal Dem Conference tomorrow, Saturday 4th December 2010. The Liberal Democrats have been forced into rearranging their high profile London conference as a direct result of planned protests at the original venue that forced the venue to cancel the conference booking because it did not want to be associated with the Liberal Democrats Conference at this time.
Fiona Edwards, spokesperson for the Free Education Campaign, which was organising the protest said:
“No matter where the Liberal Democrats hold there meetings, conference and surgeries, they will face the anger and resentment of a generation who they have lied to.
The message we have for the Lib Dem MPs is that it is not too late to keep your promise.
A free market in fees is a Tory policy cooked up by the heirs of Thatcher and the Lib Dems should not go along with it.”
Notes to Editor
1. Protest outside London Lib Dem Conference – Saturday 4th December
Assemble 12noon – 3pm
Royal Horticultural Halls in Vincent Square, Greycoat Street London SW1P 2QD
Nearest tube Nearest tubes: St James Park; Westminster and Victoria
2. This peaceful protest is organized by the Free Education Campaign and supported by a range of organizations including the NUS Black Students’ Campaign, NUS LGBT Campaign, Compass Youth and others.
3. It is part of ongoing student campaign that has focused on pressuring the Liberal Democrats MPs to keep their pre-election promise to vote against higher tuition fees on Thursday 9th December.
4. For all press enquiries contact Free Education Campaign Secretary Fiona Edwards on 07900922766. Email: freeeducationcampaign@gmail.com
The Free Education Campaign’s blog: http://freeeducationcampaign.blogspot.com
Twitter: @free_edcampaign
Press Release: Student protest forces Lib Dem's London Conference Venue to be cancelled at eleventh hour
For Immediate Release
Friday 3rd December 2010
Students preparing to protest outside the Lib Dem London Conference on Saturday have caused the venue to cancel the booking at the eleventh hour
In just a few days, more than 1200 students had signed up via Facebook to the protest planned for tomorrow.
According to the police, as a result of the protest the venue has now said it does not want to be associated with the Liberal Democrats Conference at this time.
If the Liberal Democrats find another venue for the conference the student protest will go ahead.
Fiona Edwards, spokesperson for the Free Education Campaign, which was organising the protest said:
“The cancellation of the venue for the conference is yet another sign of the deep unpopularity of the Liberal Democrats policy on fees and is hugely embarrassing for the party.
It is not too late for them to keep the promise they made to students that they would reject higher fees.
A free market in fees is a Tory policy cooked up by the heirs of Thatcher and the Lib Dems should not go along with it."
Notes to Editor
1. The peaceful protest was organized by the Free Education Campaign and supported by a range of organizations including the NUS Black Students’ Campaign, NUS LGBT Campaign and Compass Youth.
2. It is part of ongoing student campaign that has focused on pressuring the Liberal Democrats MPs to keep their pre-election promise to vote against higher tuition fees on Thursday 9th December.
3. For all press enquiries contact Free Education Campaign Secretary Fiona Edwards on 07900922766. Email: freeeducationcampaign@gmail.com
The Free Education Campaign’s blog: http://freeeducationcampaign.blogspot.com
Twitter: @free_edcampaign
Friday 3rd December 2010
Students preparing to protest outside the Lib Dem London Conference on Saturday have caused the venue to cancel the booking at the eleventh hour
In just a few days, more than 1200 students had signed up via Facebook to the protest planned for tomorrow.
According to the police, as a result of the protest the venue has now said it does not want to be associated with the Liberal Democrats Conference at this time.
If the Liberal Democrats find another venue for the conference the student protest will go ahead.
Fiona Edwards, spokesperson for the Free Education Campaign, which was organising the protest said:
“The cancellation of the venue for the conference is yet another sign of the deep unpopularity of the Liberal Democrats policy on fees and is hugely embarrassing for the party.
It is not too late for them to keep the promise they made to students that they would reject higher fees.
A free market in fees is a Tory policy cooked up by the heirs of Thatcher and the Lib Dems should not go along with it."
Notes to Editor
1. The peaceful protest was organized by the Free Education Campaign and supported by a range of organizations including the NUS Black Students’ Campaign, NUS LGBT Campaign and Compass Youth.
2. It is part of ongoing student campaign that has focused on pressuring the Liberal Democrats MPs to keep their pre-election promise to vote against higher tuition fees on Thursday 9th December.
3. For all press enquiries contact Free Education Campaign Secretary Fiona Edwards on 07900922766. Email: freeeducationcampaign@gmail.com
The Free Education Campaign’s blog: http://freeeducationcampaign.blogspot.com
Twitter: @free_edcampaign
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Kanja Sesay’s letter to Aaron Porter: NUS should organise national protest against fees
Kanja Sesay, NUS Black Students’ Officer, has just sent the following letter to the NUS President, Aaron Porter.
He urges all student activists and student leaders to join him in urging the NUS President to go the extra mile to organise a national demonstration next Thursday – and as such lead a united fight against the government’s disastrous policies.
The Free Education Campaign fully supports Kanja’s letter – other student leaders and activists should join his call. Email Aaron at aaron.porter@nus.org.uk
Dear Aaron,
With one week to go until the parliamentary vote on tuition fees takes place I write to urge you to step up our campaigning on a national level in a way which will mobilise the deep anger and opposition to the government’s proposal.
I welcome NUS’ recent move to work with the UCU to organise the following:
* Protests at universities across the country on the day prior to the student funding vote in Parliament
* Mass lobby of MPs on the day itself followed by a rally in Westminster
* A ‘candlelit’ vigil during the evening of the vote with 9,000 ‘candles’ to represent potential fees
In addition to these initiatives I urge you call another national demonstration on Thursday 9th December - the day of the vote. We have the potential to mobilise many tens of thousands of students, lecturers and the wider public to demonstrate their opposition to £9,000 fees. I believe at this crucial stage in the campaign NUS must do all it can to facilitate such a mobilisation.
I propose NUS organises a march from Trafalgar Square to Parliament on the day of the vote.
I have submitted an emergency motion to the NUS NEC meeting this Monday calling for another national demonstration. I hope we can count on your support as NUS President.
In unity,
Kanja Sesay
NUS Black Students’ Officer
Kanja.sesay@nus.org.uk
He urges all student activists and student leaders to join him in urging the NUS President to go the extra mile to organise a national demonstration next Thursday – and as such lead a united fight against the government’s disastrous policies.
The Free Education Campaign fully supports Kanja’s letter – other student leaders and activists should join his call. Email Aaron at aaron.porter@nus.org.uk
Dear Aaron,
With one week to go until the parliamentary vote on tuition fees takes place I write to urge you to step up our campaigning on a national level in a way which will mobilise the deep anger and opposition to the government’s proposal.
I welcome NUS’ recent move to work with the UCU to organise the following:
* Protests at universities across the country on the day prior to the student funding vote in Parliament
* Mass lobby of MPs on the day itself followed by a rally in Westminster
* A ‘candlelit’ vigil during the evening of the vote with 9,000 ‘candles’ to represent potential fees
In addition to these initiatives I urge you call another national demonstration on Thursday 9th December - the day of the vote. We have the potential to mobilise many tens of thousands of students, lecturers and the wider public to demonstrate their opposition to £9,000 fees. I believe at this crucial stage in the campaign NUS must do all it can to facilitate such a mobilisation.
I propose NUS organises a march from Trafalgar Square to Parliament on the day of the vote.
I have submitted an emergency motion to the NUS NEC meeting this Monday calling for another national demonstration. I hope we can count on your support as NUS President.
In unity,
Kanja Sesay
NUS Black Students’ Officer
Kanja.sesay@nus.org.uk
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
A week to save our education – student occupations show the way!
With just one week to go until the Parliamentary vote – there is not much time left to put maximum pressure on MPs to vote down £9,000 fees.
The student occupiers have shown the way forward for our movement over the past couple of weeks with an inspirational wave of direct action that has swept the country.
SOAS students sparked off the wave and have since been host to a number of high profile visitors, including Ken Livingstone, Tariq Ali, Mark Steel and Baby Shambles over the past week and a half. Today the occupation voted to continue the sit-in despite pressure from the University to end their protest.
At a London College just down the road from SOAS, students at UCL have led a particularly dynamic occupation. Earlier this week they also led a flashmob protest outside Top Shop’s flagship store on Oxford Street. The protest highlighted the billions evaded by big business every year through tax avoidance– billions which should be spent funding education and our vital public services. You can watch how the protest went online here: http://bit.ly/g0iiMy.
The students at Cardiff University have staged similar actions – occupying banks across the city as well as their campus.
Alongside organising flashmobs, discussions and such like the UCL occupiers have also boldly challenged other occupations to a “dance-off.” They performed their very impressive routine last week - which can be viewed online here: http://bit.ly/hyolva. Student occupiers at Brighton have taken up UCL’s challenge. Their dance routine can be seen here http://bit.ly/hG6xiy.
Up north in Sheffield, following a massive march on Nick Clegg’s constituency office students occupied the University of Sheffield for the second time in a week. Their demands include support for the principle of free education – this demand that can also be found in the Lib Dem General Election manifesto.
The fight back in Yorkshire is very strong indeed with over 100 Leeds students spending a full week in occupation so far. Their blog is a must read – it includes great updates from the Leeds campaign alongside news from the occupations across the country: http://occupiedleeds.wordpress.com.
Meanwhile in the midlands Nottingham students are continuing their occupation despite the university turning the heating off in this cold weather to force them to leave. The Nottingham occupiers are organising an impressive programme of alternative education, film screenings and workshops – including a talk from a Venezuelan activist who discussed the exciting social progress in Venezuela where education is now free thanks to Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian revolution.
Students at the UCL School of Fine Art braved the elements today and organised a life drawing class outside the Slade occupation in the freezing cold!
OxBridge students are also leading the way against the government’s regressive and elitist proposals. In Oxford over 100 protesters from the city’s universities, colleges and schools staged a sit-in in Oxford University’s iconic Bodleian Library. At the same time students occupying Cambridge University have received 260 messages of support from Cambridge academics. This video report documenting the start of the Cambridge occupation is well worth a look: http://bit.ly/g94kIU.
The right wing media have continued to attack student protesters – including those occupying. The slogan for the Manchester University occupation is a good response to such critics: “If you cut our education we go into occupation”. Like so many of the occupations Manchester’s peaceful sit-in has attracted an impressive array of supporters - including Trade Unions, academics, campaigners and politicians.
The occupiers at Newcastle University have organised one of the most impressive banners drops in the history of banner drops – scaling one the city’s bridges to drop their ‘OCCUPATION – NO FEES –NO CUTS’ banner. Check out the photo here: http://ncluniocc.blogspot.com/2010/11/blog-post.html.
Similarly impressive actions, talks, publicity stunts and campaigns have been led by student occupations across the country including Edinburgh, London South Bank, University of the West of England Bristol, Roehampton, Royal Holloway, Birmingham, St. Andrews, Kingston, Strathclyde, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Falmouth University, UEL and Kings College London.
There is no doubt that this wave of direct action has had a fantastic impact and provided vital publicity to the campaign against higher fees and education cuts.
As the campaign to defeat the Tory proposal of higher fees reaches its final stages now is the time to really turn the pressure on MPs – more action – including university occupations - is needed.
Lib Dems in particular need to feel the pressure – they should not go along with this Tory agenda and instead keep their pre-election promise to vote against the fee hike.
The protest outside the Lib Dem London Conference at the weekend – the last weekend ahead of the vote - is a key opportunity.
Protest outside London Lib Dem Conference – Saturday 4th December
Assemble 12noon
Haverstock School, Haverstock Hill, London NW3 2BQ
Nearest tube Chalk Farm
MAP: http://bit.ly/ejufKa
Please invite your friends to the facebook event: http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/event.php?eid=148974651817209
Mobilising tens of thousands of students for next week’s NUS/UCU actions, including on the day of the vote itself will also be vital – more on these coming soon.
The student occupiers have shown the way forward for our movement over the past couple of weeks with an inspirational wave of direct action that has swept the country.
SOAS students sparked off the wave and have since been host to a number of high profile visitors, including Ken Livingstone, Tariq Ali, Mark Steel and Baby Shambles over the past week and a half. Today the occupation voted to continue the sit-in despite pressure from the University to end their protest.
At a London College just down the road from SOAS, students at UCL have led a particularly dynamic occupation. Earlier this week they also led a flashmob protest outside Top Shop’s flagship store on Oxford Street. The protest highlighted the billions evaded by big business every year through tax avoidance– billions which should be spent funding education and our vital public services. You can watch how the protest went online here: http://bit.ly/g0iiMy.
The students at Cardiff University have staged similar actions – occupying banks across the city as well as their campus.
Alongside organising flashmobs, discussions and such like the UCL occupiers have also boldly challenged other occupations to a “dance-off.” They performed their very impressive routine last week - which can be viewed online here: http://bit.ly/hyolva. Student occupiers at Brighton have taken up UCL’s challenge. Their dance routine can be seen here http://bit.ly/hG6xiy.
Up north in Sheffield, following a massive march on Nick Clegg’s constituency office students occupied the University of Sheffield for the second time in a week. Their demands include support for the principle of free education – this demand that can also be found in the Lib Dem General Election manifesto.
The fight back in Yorkshire is very strong indeed with over 100 Leeds students spending a full week in occupation so far. Their blog is a must read – it includes great updates from the Leeds campaign alongside news from the occupations across the country: http://occupiedleeds.wordpress.com.
Meanwhile in the midlands Nottingham students are continuing their occupation despite the university turning the heating off in this cold weather to force them to leave. The Nottingham occupiers are organising an impressive programme of alternative education, film screenings and workshops – including a talk from a Venezuelan activist who discussed the exciting social progress in Venezuela where education is now free thanks to Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian revolution.
Students at the UCL School of Fine Art braved the elements today and organised a life drawing class outside the Slade occupation in the freezing cold!
OxBridge students are also leading the way against the government’s regressive and elitist proposals. In Oxford over 100 protesters from the city’s universities, colleges and schools staged a sit-in in Oxford University’s iconic Bodleian Library. At the same time students occupying Cambridge University have received 260 messages of support from Cambridge academics. This video report documenting the start of the Cambridge occupation is well worth a look: http://bit.ly/g94kIU.
The right wing media have continued to attack student protesters – including those occupying. The slogan for the Manchester University occupation is a good response to such critics: “If you cut our education we go into occupation”. Like so many of the occupations Manchester’s peaceful sit-in has attracted an impressive array of supporters - including Trade Unions, academics, campaigners and politicians.
The occupiers at Newcastle University have organised one of the most impressive banners drops in the history of banner drops – scaling one the city’s bridges to drop their ‘OCCUPATION – NO FEES –NO CUTS’ banner. Check out the photo here: http://ncluniocc.blogspot.com/2010/11/blog-post.html.
Similarly impressive actions, talks, publicity stunts and campaigns have been led by student occupations across the country including Edinburgh, London South Bank, University of the West of England Bristol, Roehampton, Royal Holloway, Birmingham, St. Andrews, Kingston, Strathclyde, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Falmouth University, UEL and Kings College London.
There is no doubt that this wave of direct action has had a fantastic impact and provided vital publicity to the campaign against higher fees and education cuts.
As the campaign to defeat the Tory proposal of higher fees reaches its final stages now is the time to really turn the pressure on MPs – more action – including university occupations - is needed.
Lib Dems in particular need to feel the pressure – they should not go along with this Tory agenda and instead keep their pre-election promise to vote against the fee hike.
The protest outside the Lib Dem London Conference at the weekend – the last weekend ahead of the vote - is a key opportunity.
Protest outside London Lib Dem Conference – Saturday 4th December
Assemble 12noon
Haverstock School, Haverstock Hill, London NW3 2BQ
Nearest tube Chalk Farm
MAP: http://bit.ly/ejufKa
Please invite your friends to the facebook event: http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/event.php?eid=148974651817209
Mobilising tens of thousands of students for next week’s NUS/UCU actions, including on the day of the vote itself will also be vital – more on these coming soon.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Students turn up fees pressure on Lib Dems with protest at London Lib Dem conference on 4th December
Press release
Tuesday 30th November 2010
Students will turn up the pressure even further on the Liberal Democrats this weekend with a protest outside the party’s London Conference.
The protest, organised by the Free Education Campaign, comes on the back of today’s second national day of protest and the wave of occupations taking place across the country against higher fees.
The peaceful protest outside the Lib Dem's London Conference is part of the national campaigning that is focussing on the Liberal Democrats MPs to not break their pre-election promise to vote down higher fees.
The pressure on the Liberal Democrats is already causing deep divisions with more than 100 of the Party’s parliamentary candidates petitioning Nick Clegg to oppose government plans to raise tuition fees in England to avoid pushing the party “back in the political wilderness.”
Fiona Edwards, spokesperson for the Free Education Campaign, said:
"Student anger is especially directed at the Liberal Democrats given their pre-election promise to vote against any fee hike.
This protest will send a loud message to the Lib Dem that students expect them to honour the pledge they made to students in May.
Without Lib Dem support, these higher fees cannot get through Parliament.
If the Lib Dems break their promise, then students will be clear for years to come which party is to blame for higher fees and a lifetime of debt."
Notes to Editor
1. Protest outside London Lib Dem Conference – Saturday 4th December
Assemble 12noon Haverstock School, Haverstock Hill, London NW3 2BQ
Nearest tube Chalk Farm MAP: http://bit.ly/ejufKa
2. The London Lib Dem MPs are:
• Vince Cable
• Simon Hughes
• Sarah Teather
• Paul Burstow
• Tom Brake
• Edward Davey
• Lynne Featherstone
3. A facebook event has been set up to mobilise students and young people to the protest: http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/event.php?eid=148974651817209
4. For all press enquiries contact Free Education Campaign
Email: freeeducationcampaign@gmail.com
Twitter: @free_edcampaign
Tuesday 30th November 2010
Students will turn up the pressure even further on the Liberal Democrats this weekend with a protest outside the party’s London Conference.
The protest, organised by the Free Education Campaign, comes on the back of today’s second national day of protest and the wave of occupations taking place across the country against higher fees.
The peaceful protest outside the Lib Dem's London Conference is part of the national campaigning that is focussing on the Liberal Democrats MPs to not break their pre-election promise to vote down higher fees.
The pressure on the Liberal Democrats is already causing deep divisions with more than 100 of the Party’s parliamentary candidates petitioning Nick Clegg to oppose government plans to raise tuition fees in England to avoid pushing the party “back in the political wilderness.”
Fiona Edwards, spokesperson for the Free Education Campaign, said:
"Student anger is especially directed at the Liberal Democrats given their pre-election promise to vote against any fee hike.
This protest will send a loud message to the Lib Dem that students expect them to honour the pledge they made to students in May.
Without Lib Dem support, these higher fees cannot get through Parliament.
If the Lib Dems break their promise, then students will be clear for years to come which party is to blame for higher fees and a lifetime of debt."
Notes to Editor
1. Protest outside London Lib Dem Conference – Saturday 4th December
Assemble 12noon Haverstock School, Haverstock Hill, London NW3 2BQ
Nearest tube Chalk Farm MAP: http://bit.ly/ejufKa
2. The London Lib Dem MPs are:
• Vince Cable
• Simon Hughes
• Sarah Teather
• Paul Burstow
• Tom Brake
• Edward Davey
• Lynne Featherstone
3. A facebook event has been set up to mobilise students and young people to the protest: http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/event.php?eid=148974651817209
4. For all press enquiries contact Free Education Campaign
Email: freeeducationcampaign@gmail.com
Twitter: @free_edcampaign
Stop the Fees Rise – protest at London Lib Dem Conference – 4th December
As the campaign to defeat higher fees reaches its final stages now is the time to really turn the pressure on MPs.
Lib Dems in particular need to feel the pressure – especially given their plans to break their pre-election promise to vote against any fee hike.
Protest outside London Lib Dem Conference – Saturday 4th December
Assemble 12noon
Haverstock School, Haverstock Hill, London NW3 2BQ
Nearest tube Chalk Farm
MAP: http://bit.ly/ejufKa
We are calling this peaceful protest outside the Lib Dem London Conference to demand that all London Lib Dem MPs vote against higher fees.
The London Lib Dem MPs are:
• Vince Cable
• Simon Hughes
• Sarah Teather
• Paul Burstow
• Tom Brake
• Edward Davey
• Lynne Featherstone
We hope this protest will encourage the MPs listed above to honour the pledge they made to students in May.
The rebellion within the Lib Dems has already begun with more than 100 of the Party’s parliamentary candidates petitioning Nick Clegg to oppose government plans to raise tuition fees in England to avoid pushing the party “back in the political wilderness.”
The vote on fees will be taking place within the next three weeks – this is a key opportunity to put pressure on the Lib Dems – please invite all your friends to the facebook event: http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/event.php?eid=148974651817209
For more information or to help publicise the protest email: freeeducationcampaign@gmail.com
Lib Dems in particular need to feel the pressure – especially given their plans to break their pre-election promise to vote against any fee hike.
Protest outside London Lib Dem Conference – Saturday 4th December
Assemble 12noon
Haverstock School, Haverstock Hill, London NW3 2BQ
Nearest tube Chalk Farm
MAP: http://bit.ly/ejufKa
We are calling this peaceful protest outside the Lib Dem London Conference to demand that all London Lib Dem MPs vote against higher fees.
The London Lib Dem MPs are:
• Vince Cable
• Simon Hughes
• Sarah Teather
• Paul Burstow
• Tom Brake
• Edward Davey
• Lynne Featherstone
We hope this protest will encourage the MPs listed above to honour the pledge they made to students in May.
The rebellion within the Lib Dems has already begun with more than 100 of the Party’s parliamentary candidates petitioning Nick Clegg to oppose government plans to raise tuition fees in England to avoid pushing the party “back in the political wilderness.”
The vote on fees will be taking place within the next three weeks – this is a key opportunity to put pressure on the Lib Dems – please invite all your friends to the facebook event: http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/event.php?eid=148974651817209
For more information or to help publicise the protest email: freeeducationcampaign@gmail.com
Monday, November 29, 2010
Will NUS call another national demonstration?
Yesterday the NUS President, Aaron Porter, made the welcome move to publicly support the student wave of occupations and tomorrow’s national day of action against the ConDem plans to attack students with higher fees and education cuts. He made this announcement when he visited the UCL occupation: http://ucloccupation.wordpress.com/
On his Presidential blog this morning Porter went further and announced, “the NUS will be organising a national day of action and a lobby of Parliament” in the run up to the vote in Parliament. Again, this is a welcome move and good way to build on the fantastic success of the NUS/UCU national demonstration on 10th November – which was the biggest student mobilisation for decades.
What NUS also needs to do – alongside this - is call another national demonstration, preferably on the weekend ahead of vote (taking place before Christmas).
Another national demonstration is the best way to maximise the impact of this growing movement against higher fees and savage education cuts. And a demo on a weekend will mean that students and lecturers can be joined by parents, past students, the broader trade union and progressive movement and all those who wish to see the next generation have the opportunity to access a university education.
Given the anger that exists across all sections of society to £9,000 fees - a national demo has the potential to mobilise hundreds of thousands of people. Such an initiative would place enormous pressure on MPs – particularly those Lib Dems who signed a pledge before the General Election to vote against any increase in fees. For these reasons another national demo is clearly the way forward for the movement.
The only question that remains: will NUS call another national demonstration?
On his Presidential blog this morning Porter went further and announced, “the NUS will be organising a national day of action and a lobby of Parliament” in the run up to the vote in Parliament. Again, this is a welcome move and good way to build on the fantastic success of the NUS/UCU national demonstration on 10th November – which was the biggest student mobilisation for decades.
What NUS also needs to do – alongside this - is call another national demonstration, preferably on the weekend ahead of vote (taking place before Christmas).
Another national demonstration is the best way to maximise the impact of this growing movement against higher fees and savage education cuts. And a demo on a weekend will mean that students and lecturers can be joined by parents, past students, the broader trade union and progressive movement and all those who wish to see the next generation have the opportunity to access a university education.
Given the anger that exists across all sections of society to £9,000 fees - a national demo has the potential to mobilise hundreds of thousands of people. Such an initiative would place enormous pressure on MPs – particularly those Lib Dems who signed a pledge before the General Election to vote against any increase in fees. For these reasons another national demo is clearly the way forward for the movement.
The only question that remains: will NUS call another national demonstration?
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Students turn up the heat on the ConDems: Thousands protest, walkout and occupy against fees and cuts!
More than 100,000 school, college and university students took to the streets yesterday to protest against the ConDem plans to increase tuition fees, savagely cut teaching budgets and scrap EMAs.
The day was truly inspiring and real escalation in the fight back to defend education for generations to come.
Thousands of students walked out of their schools in protest – for them the fee hike represents not just an outrageous policy but also a looming reality, which if introduced, will directly threaten their opportunities to go to university.
200 sixth-formers from Camden School for girls wrote to their teachers explaining the reasons why they walked out of their lessons to join the protests. Their message clearly articulates what is at stake.
They said: “As proud products of state education, we know how important it is that education remains equally accessible to all, and does not descend into a free market where one’s chances of getting into a good university are based not on ability, but on ability to pay.”
They added, “Some of us are unlikely to apply at all if the government go ahead with raising the cap to £9,000… We hope you understand our belief that if we do not act now, and act decisively, our futures, and those of all future Camdeners, could be under threat.”
Yesterday in towns and cities across Britain masses of young people acted decisively to defend the future of education. Thousands marched from London, to Manchester, to Leeds to Sheffield and beyond.
A wave of university occupations – starting with SOAS on Monday and now joined by Brighton, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Leeds, London South Bank, Manchester, Newcastle, Oxford, Plymouth, Roehampton, Royal Holloway, Sheffield, UCL, UEL, UWE – has also swept the country.
In Nick Clegg’s seat over 3,000 students marched into the city centre causing the police to close main roads. Following the march, around 100 students occupied lecture theatres at the University of Sheffield. The occupation voted to demand free education and an end to cuts in higher education funding. It also stated its general opposition to economically illiterate Tory led cuts to public services.
Over 150 students are currently occupying the University College London – with hundreds of people already signing their petition online.
Students at Birmingham University occupied the Aston Webb building and have called upon the University Vice-Chancellor who shamefully supports higher fees to resign.
This is just a snap shot of what was an absolutely inspiring day.
Best of luck to all the students in occupation!
We need to build on this momentum.
The next day of action next Tuesday (30th November) is the next key opportunity to demonstrate our anger against higher fees and education cuts.
The day was truly inspiring and real escalation in the fight back to defend education for generations to come.
Thousands of students walked out of their schools in protest – for them the fee hike represents not just an outrageous policy but also a looming reality, which if introduced, will directly threaten their opportunities to go to university.
200 sixth-formers from Camden School for girls wrote to their teachers explaining the reasons why they walked out of their lessons to join the protests. Their message clearly articulates what is at stake.
They said: “As proud products of state education, we know how important it is that education remains equally accessible to all, and does not descend into a free market where one’s chances of getting into a good university are based not on ability, but on ability to pay.”
They added, “Some of us are unlikely to apply at all if the government go ahead with raising the cap to £9,000… We hope you understand our belief that if we do not act now, and act decisively, our futures, and those of all future Camdeners, could be under threat.”
Yesterday in towns and cities across Britain masses of young people acted decisively to defend the future of education. Thousands marched from London, to Manchester, to Leeds to Sheffield and beyond.
A wave of university occupations – starting with SOAS on Monday and now joined by Brighton, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Leeds, London South Bank, Manchester, Newcastle, Oxford, Plymouth, Roehampton, Royal Holloway, Sheffield, UCL, UEL, UWE – has also swept the country.
In Nick Clegg’s seat over 3,000 students marched into the city centre causing the police to close main roads. Following the march, around 100 students occupied lecture theatres at the University of Sheffield. The occupation voted to demand free education and an end to cuts in higher education funding. It also stated its general opposition to economically illiterate Tory led cuts to public services.
Over 150 students are currently occupying the University College London – with hundreds of people already signing their petition online.
Students at Birmingham University occupied the Aston Webb building and have called upon the University Vice-Chancellor who shamefully supports higher fees to resign.
This is just a snap shot of what was an absolutely inspiring day.
Best of luck to all the students in occupation!
We need to build on this momentum.
The next day of action next Tuesday (30th November) is the next key opportunity to demonstrate our anger against higher fees and education cuts.
Students need another national demo against higher fees – the NUS Black Students’ Campaign will organise it
Ahead of the student day of action on Wednesday 24th November against the government’s deep education cuts and plans to dramatically increase tuition fees, NUS Black Students’ Officer Kanja Sesay announced that the Black Students’ Campaign will organise a national protest alongside other student groups, outside Parliament ahead of the vote in the Commons if the NUS does not do so.
Kanja Sesay, NUS Black Students’ Officer said:
“On the 10th November tens of thousands of students marched outside Parliament in opposition to the government’s plans to treble tuition fees and implement savage education cuts. It proved that young people are willing to fight against this vicious assault on our future. We must unite and build on this momentum.
“The NUS should be central to organising another national demonstration on the weekend before the vote in Parliament. Mobilising tens of thousands of students, lecturers, parents and the wider public is the most effective way of putting maximum pressure on MPs – especially those Lib Dems who said they’d oppose fees – to vote against the government’s plan to kick away the ladder of opportunity for generations to come.”
Kanja added:
“If the NUS refuses to take the initiative, the Black Students’ Campaign will take the lead and join with other student groups to organise a national, peaceful protest outside Parliament.”
Kanja Sesay, NUS Black Students’ Officer said:
“On the 10th November tens of thousands of students marched outside Parliament in opposition to the government’s plans to treble tuition fees and implement savage education cuts. It proved that young people are willing to fight against this vicious assault on our future. We must unite and build on this momentum.
“The NUS should be central to organising another national demonstration on the weekend before the vote in Parliament. Mobilising tens of thousands of students, lecturers, parents and the wider public is the most effective way of putting maximum pressure on MPs – especially those Lib Dems who said they’d oppose fees – to vote against the government’s plan to kick away the ladder of opportunity for generations to come.”
Kanja added:
“If the NUS refuses to take the initiative, the Black Students’ Campaign will take the lead and join with other student groups to organise a national, peaceful protest outside Parliament.”
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
UNITE TO FIGHT FEES: THE CASE FOR ANOTHER NATIONAL DEMONSTRATION
Fiona Edwards from the Free Education Campaign makes the case for another national demo
With a vote in parliament likely to take place before Christmas we seriously need to turn the heat up on the ConDem government to defeat higher fees of £9,000.
The last demonstration on 10th November was an outstanding success and a turning point in the campaigns against the government’s enormous cuts agenda. With at least 52,000 angry protesters taking to the streets, the demo was by far the largest student mobilisation for decades - and much bigger than any of the demonstrations against the introduction of top-up fees in 2004. More than anything else it proved that tens of thousands of young people are prepared to fight the coalition government's reactionary agenda of austerity.
Building on this success is absolutely vital. Another national demonstration against the government's proposals, preferably on the weekend before the parliamentary vote must be absolutely central to our campaigning strategy moving forward.
In addition to another massive demonstration, we need to keep up constant campaigning over the coming weeks. Petitions, occupations, sit-ins, other non-violent direct action, lobbying and other creative methods are necessary to create the momentum we need to defeat the government's illegitimate and reactionary proposals to increase fees. It is excellent that students across the country will be taking such action on Wednesday 24th November. The activists at Goldsmiths, Sussex, SOAS and Manchester that have already peacefully occupied their campuses in opposition to the ConDem government are an inspiration to us all.
However, we must learn the lessons of the last demonstration. Acts of violence and vandalism undermine our movement, playing into the hands of the right wing who seek to weaken all demonstrations and resistance to the cuts. These acts risk having the impact of reducing the size of our future demonstrations as people mobilise in smaller numbers than they otherwise would have in order to avoid getting into a confrontation with the police.
Also young, inexperienced activists are now at risk of receiving heavy penalties – potentially long prison sentences – as the vicious media witch-hunt against those involved continues.
Of course, following the protests there has been an absurd media storm about the vandalism at Tory HQ. Much more attention has been give to shattered windows than the damage the Tories’ policies will inflict upon young people. This is clearly not really about broken windows or the foolish acts of inexperienced individuals – but about putting the maximum pressure on NUS and others not to call further actions. We must not cede to this agenda which seeks to discredit and demonise student protest against fees and distract attention away from the central issue: the government's disastrous policies.
We have the potential to build a mass movement that includes hundreds of thousands - potentially millions - of people against higher fees and savage cuts. All of our efforts must be channeled into making this possibility a reality.
Another national demonstration ahead of the vote is the most effective way to maximise the anger and opposition of an entire generation. A demo at the weekend will mean that students and lecturers can be joined by tens of thousands of parents, past students and all those who wish to see the next generation have the opportunity to fulfill their potential by accessing a university education.
Join the campaign to call upon the NUS NEC to organise second national demonstration by passing Student Broad Left’s model motion in your Students' Union. The model motion can be found here: http://studentbroadleft.org.uk/2010/11/fight-fees-we-need-another-national-demo/
With a vote in parliament likely to take place before Christmas we seriously need to turn the heat up on the ConDem government to defeat higher fees of £9,000.
The last demonstration on 10th November was an outstanding success and a turning point in the campaigns against the government’s enormous cuts agenda. With at least 52,000 angry protesters taking to the streets, the demo was by far the largest student mobilisation for decades - and much bigger than any of the demonstrations against the introduction of top-up fees in 2004. More than anything else it proved that tens of thousands of young people are prepared to fight the coalition government's reactionary agenda of austerity.
Building on this success is absolutely vital. Another national demonstration against the government's proposals, preferably on the weekend before the parliamentary vote must be absolutely central to our campaigning strategy moving forward.
In addition to another massive demonstration, we need to keep up constant campaigning over the coming weeks. Petitions, occupations, sit-ins, other non-violent direct action, lobbying and other creative methods are necessary to create the momentum we need to defeat the government's illegitimate and reactionary proposals to increase fees. It is excellent that students across the country will be taking such action on Wednesday 24th November. The activists at Goldsmiths, Sussex, SOAS and Manchester that have already peacefully occupied their campuses in opposition to the ConDem government are an inspiration to us all.
However, we must learn the lessons of the last demonstration. Acts of violence and vandalism undermine our movement, playing into the hands of the right wing who seek to weaken all demonstrations and resistance to the cuts. These acts risk having the impact of reducing the size of our future demonstrations as people mobilise in smaller numbers than they otherwise would have in order to avoid getting into a confrontation with the police.
Also young, inexperienced activists are now at risk of receiving heavy penalties – potentially long prison sentences – as the vicious media witch-hunt against those involved continues.
Of course, following the protests there has been an absurd media storm about the vandalism at Tory HQ. Much more attention has been give to shattered windows than the damage the Tories’ policies will inflict upon young people. This is clearly not really about broken windows or the foolish acts of inexperienced individuals – but about putting the maximum pressure on NUS and others not to call further actions. We must not cede to this agenda which seeks to discredit and demonise student protest against fees and distract attention away from the central issue: the government's disastrous policies.
We have the potential to build a mass movement that includes hundreds of thousands - potentially millions - of people against higher fees and savage cuts. All of our efforts must be channeled into making this possibility a reality.
Another national demonstration ahead of the vote is the most effective way to maximise the anger and opposition of an entire generation. A demo at the weekend will mean that students and lecturers can be joined by tens of thousands of parents, past students and all those who wish to see the next generation have the opportunity to fulfill their potential by accessing a university education.
Join the campaign to call upon the NUS NEC to organise second national demonstration by passing Student Broad Left’s model motion in your Students' Union. The model motion can be found here: http://studentbroadleft.org.uk/2010/11/fight-fees-we-need-another-national-demo/
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Investment in education is key to reducing the deficit
This article first appeared in the New Statesman on 20th October 2010: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/10/higher-education-government
By Sally Hunt, General Sec of UCU and Michael Burke
One of the strangest claims in the current debate on education is that raising student fees will enable British universities to compete internationally. If we take just the "elite" universities, this is already happening -- four out of the world's top 20 universities are British.
As ever, the devil is in the detail. If you sift closely through the Browne review, you will see that he recommends that no extra resources are made available for higher education, with the increase in fees designed to replace the withdrawal of funds from central government.
If the government follows Browne's advice, the chronic underfunding of higher education will deepen and Britain will fall further behind our economic competitors. In the space of eight years, the UK has gone from having the third highest graduation rate among industrialised countries to languishing in 15th place, according to the latest OECD survey.
This irrational approach mirrors the economic debate, which has become dominated by the Budget deficit. However, the deficit is a symptom of the current economic crisis, not its cause. And cutting spending will depress activity further, which will depress tax revenues and lead to deficit widening.
Education can and must be allowed to play a leading role in any revival. However, for that to happen, the government needs to follow the advice of the OECD, which recently recommended increasing investment in higher education to create jobs and raise tax revenues.
Annual spending on higher education in Britain is £23bn, for which the Treasury gets back an estimated return of £60bn. This arises from a variety sources including jobs, exports, innovation, royalties and so on. There is also a long-term economic benefit, which is slightly harder to measure, that comes from a more highly educated and productive population.
That £60bn is a return on investment and highlights the madness of cutting spending on higher education. Spending cuts will lose jobs, exports and innovation.
The cuts are all made in the name of being fiscally responsible, getting the deficit under control and not living beyond our means -- the economic saws of Thatcherism. But not only will the economy suffer as a result of education cuts, government finances will actually deteriorate as result.
This arises from two effects. First, taxes will fall as a result of a weaker economy. Second, spending will end up higher as the government is forced to shell out millions in welfare payments to those denied education places and made redundant from university jobs, including teachers and clerical, cleaning and catering staff.
If we look closely, the government's economics simply do not add up. A £1bn cut in spending on higher education leads to £2.6bn in decreased activity. This decrease in activity leads to both lower tax revenues and higher government spending, as mentioned above.
The same process also operates in reverse -- an increase of investment in higher education will produce a positive net return to government finances through increased activity and the higher tax revenues and lower welfare payments that flow from it. Every £1bn increase in investment in this sector would produce a positive return to government finances, which could be used either to reduce the deficit or to fund further much needed investment, for an even greater return.
Sally Hunt is general secretary of the University and College Union and Michael Burke is a former Senior International Economist for Citibank London.
By Sally Hunt, General Sec of UCU and Michael Burke
One of the strangest claims in the current debate on education is that raising student fees will enable British universities to compete internationally. If we take just the "elite" universities, this is already happening -- four out of the world's top 20 universities are British.
As ever, the devil is in the detail. If you sift closely through the Browne review, you will see that he recommends that no extra resources are made available for higher education, with the increase in fees designed to replace the withdrawal of funds from central government.
If the government follows Browne's advice, the chronic underfunding of higher education will deepen and Britain will fall further behind our economic competitors. In the space of eight years, the UK has gone from having the third highest graduation rate among industrialised countries to languishing in 15th place, according to the latest OECD survey.
This irrational approach mirrors the economic debate, which has become dominated by the Budget deficit. However, the deficit is a symptom of the current economic crisis, not its cause. And cutting spending will depress activity further, which will depress tax revenues and lead to deficit widening.
Education can and must be allowed to play a leading role in any revival. However, for that to happen, the government needs to follow the advice of the OECD, which recently recommended increasing investment in higher education to create jobs and raise tax revenues.
Annual spending on higher education in Britain is £23bn, for which the Treasury gets back an estimated return of £60bn. This arises from a variety sources including jobs, exports, innovation, royalties and so on. There is also a long-term economic benefit, which is slightly harder to measure, that comes from a more highly educated and productive population.
That £60bn is a return on investment and highlights the madness of cutting spending on higher education. Spending cuts will lose jobs, exports and innovation.
The cuts are all made in the name of being fiscally responsible, getting the deficit under control and not living beyond our means -- the economic saws of Thatcherism. But not only will the economy suffer as a result of education cuts, government finances will actually deteriorate as result.
This arises from two effects. First, taxes will fall as a result of a weaker economy. Second, spending will end up higher as the government is forced to shell out millions in welfare payments to those denied education places and made redundant from university jobs, including teachers and clerical, cleaning and catering staff.
If we look closely, the government's economics simply do not add up. A £1bn cut in spending on higher education leads to £2.6bn in decreased activity. This decrease in activity leads to both lower tax revenues and higher government spending, as mentioned above.
The same process also operates in reverse -- an increase of investment in higher education will produce a positive net return to government finances through increased activity and the higher tax revenues and lower welfare payments that flow from it. Every £1bn increase in investment in this sector would produce a positive return to government finances, which could be used either to reduce the deficit or to fund further much needed investment, for an even greater return.
Sally Hunt is general secretary of the University and College Union and Michael Burke is a former Senior International Economist for Citibank London.
A short-sighted approach to university funds
This article first appeared in the Morning Star on Saturday 16th October 2010: http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/96445
By Fiona Edwards
Politicians who benefited from a free university education are now planning to kick away the ladder of opportunity for generations to come.
Earlier this week the coalition government welcomed Lord Browne's proposals to introduce a free market in higher education.
The plans represent a double assault on students - tuition fees are set to more than double to £7,000 per year and commercial interest rates will be introduced on student loans.
Lecturers' union UCU general secretary Sally Hunt summarised the report well.
"Browne's proposals would make our public degrees the most expensive in the world. At an enormous cost of between £40,000 and £70,000 for one child's education, it would be the final nail in the coffin for an affordable university degree for many ordinary families."
Student debt already tops £23,000. Increasing the burden on students and their families is completely absurd.
Before the general election all Liberal Democrat MPs signed the National Union of Students' pledge to vote against any increase in tuition fees.
In order to justify the Lib Dems' sharp U-turn on student funding, Business Secretary Vince Cable played the old Thatcherite card that there is no alternative because of the state of the public finances.
"My own party consistently opposed graduate contributions," he told the Commons. "But in the current economic climate we accept that the policy is simply no longer feasible."
Missing from his argument has been the central role higher education could play both in reviving the economy now and in promoting long-term prosperity and growth in the future.
Shadow business secretary John Denham hit the nail on the head with his rebuttal to Cable on Tuesday, saying: "Higher education is important not just for individual graduates but for growth, prosperity, job creation and our ability to succeed in a competitive world."
Nobel prize-winning economist and former head of the World Bank Professor Joseph E Stiglitz has also pointed out that we need "investments in technology, education and infrastructure ... such spending will stimulate the economy and create jobs in the short run and promote growth and debt reduction in the long run."
A briefing by the Free Education Campaign produced earlier this year pointed out that the previous government's figures reveal the immediate economic benefits that investing in higher education reaps.
The £23 billion spent each year on higher education, funded from both the public and private sectors, produces an economic return of £60bn, arising from a variety of sources including jobs, exports, innovation and so on.
That means for every pound invested in higher education, the economy expands by £2.60.
Treasury models indicate that half of this - around £1.30 - comes back in tax revenue, giving the government extra income on each pound to pay off the national debt or invest in other public services.
The latest evidence from the OECD suggests the return from investing in higher education is key to economic revival. The OECD Education At A Glance 2010 report stated: "Governments should expand tertiary studies to boost jobs and tax revenues."
It explained how the return would be much bigger than the original outlay.
"Even after taking account of the cost to the public exchequer of financing degree courses, higher tax revenues and social contributions from people with university degrees make tertiary education a good long-term investment."
The report shows that the gains are even higher in the UK, with up to a 382 per cent return.
Yet alongside the attack on students, Browne has made the assumption that there will be a huge reduction in state investment in higher education by cutting university teaching budgets by 80 per cent.
This failure to invest is going to exacerbate the serious problem of Britain falling behind other countries with regards to the number of graduates it is producing.
The UK is already plummeting down the graduate league table and is now below the OECD average for graduation rates. In 2000 it was a world leader, 9 percentage points above average.
Failing to invest will also deny thousands the opportunity to go to university, regardless of their ability. There is a real danger of creating a "lost generation" of young people, left behind without the necessary skills which will blight their future for decades.
The caricature conjured up by some that higher education is about academics sitting loftily in their ivory towers is far removed from the real role higher education plays - invigorating the British economy.
It needs to be invested in. The rewards will include tackling the national debt in the short term - and ensuring Britain has a highly skilled, high-growth economy in the long term.
Fiona Edwards is secretary of the Free Education Campaign.
The Free Education Campaign will be addressing a session at the Progressive Students conference called "Organising to challenge the cuts consensus: No to higher fees - invest in education." The session will take place from 10.30am to noon, Saturday October 23 at Birkbeck College, London. Other speakers to address the conference throughout the day include Ken Livingstone, Diane Abbott, Salma Yaqoob, Adrian Ramsay, Kate Hudson and Billy Hayes. The conference takes place from 10.30am-6pm. For further details visit www.progressivestudents.co.uk
By Fiona Edwards
Politicians who benefited from a free university education are now planning to kick away the ladder of opportunity for generations to come.
Earlier this week the coalition government welcomed Lord Browne's proposals to introduce a free market in higher education.
The plans represent a double assault on students - tuition fees are set to more than double to £7,000 per year and commercial interest rates will be introduced on student loans.
Lecturers' union UCU general secretary Sally Hunt summarised the report well.
"Browne's proposals would make our public degrees the most expensive in the world. At an enormous cost of between £40,000 and £70,000 for one child's education, it would be the final nail in the coffin for an affordable university degree for many ordinary families."
Student debt already tops £23,000. Increasing the burden on students and their families is completely absurd.
Before the general election all Liberal Democrat MPs signed the National Union of Students' pledge to vote against any increase in tuition fees.
In order to justify the Lib Dems' sharp U-turn on student funding, Business Secretary Vince Cable played the old Thatcherite card that there is no alternative because of the state of the public finances.
"My own party consistently opposed graduate contributions," he told the Commons. "But in the current economic climate we accept that the policy is simply no longer feasible."
Missing from his argument has been the central role higher education could play both in reviving the economy now and in promoting long-term prosperity and growth in the future.
Shadow business secretary John Denham hit the nail on the head with his rebuttal to Cable on Tuesday, saying: "Higher education is important not just for individual graduates but for growth, prosperity, job creation and our ability to succeed in a competitive world."
Nobel prize-winning economist and former head of the World Bank Professor Joseph E Stiglitz has also pointed out that we need "investments in technology, education and infrastructure ... such spending will stimulate the economy and create jobs in the short run and promote growth and debt reduction in the long run."
A briefing by the Free Education Campaign produced earlier this year pointed out that the previous government's figures reveal the immediate economic benefits that investing in higher education reaps.
The £23 billion spent each year on higher education, funded from both the public and private sectors, produces an economic return of £60bn, arising from a variety of sources including jobs, exports, innovation and so on.
That means for every pound invested in higher education, the economy expands by £2.60.
Treasury models indicate that half of this - around £1.30 - comes back in tax revenue, giving the government extra income on each pound to pay off the national debt or invest in other public services.
The latest evidence from the OECD suggests the return from investing in higher education is key to economic revival. The OECD Education At A Glance 2010 report stated: "Governments should expand tertiary studies to boost jobs and tax revenues."
It explained how the return would be much bigger than the original outlay.
"Even after taking account of the cost to the public exchequer of financing degree courses, higher tax revenues and social contributions from people with university degrees make tertiary education a good long-term investment."
The report shows that the gains are even higher in the UK, with up to a 382 per cent return.
Yet alongside the attack on students, Browne has made the assumption that there will be a huge reduction in state investment in higher education by cutting university teaching budgets by 80 per cent.
This failure to invest is going to exacerbate the serious problem of Britain falling behind other countries with regards to the number of graduates it is producing.
The UK is already plummeting down the graduate league table and is now below the OECD average for graduation rates. In 2000 it was a world leader, 9 percentage points above average.
Failing to invest will also deny thousands the opportunity to go to university, regardless of their ability. There is a real danger of creating a "lost generation" of young people, left behind without the necessary skills which will blight their future for decades.
The caricature conjured up by some that higher education is about academics sitting loftily in their ivory towers is far removed from the real role higher education plays - invigorating the British economy.
It needs to be invested in. The rewards will include tackling the national debt in the short term - and ensuring Britain has a highly skilled, high-growth economy in the long term.
Fiona Edwards is secretary of the Free Education Campaign.
The Free Education Campaign will be addressing a session at the Progressive Students conference called "Organising to challenge the cuts consensus: No to higher fees - invest in education." The session will take place from 10.30am to noon, Saturday October 23 at Birkbeck College, London. Other speakers to address the conference throughout the day include Ken Livingstone, Diane Abbott, Salma Yaqoob, Adrian Ramsay, Kate Hudson and Billy Hayes. The conference takes place from 10.30am-6pm. For further details visit www.progressivestudents.co.uk
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Don’t turn your back on universities, Vince – invest in them to tackle the deficit
Fiona Edwards of the Free Education Campaign has written the following guest article for Left Foot Forward - the top left wing blog in Britain. Find the original here: http://bit.ly/9e6YzA
In order to justify the Liberal Democrats sharp u-turn on student funding Vince Cable played the old Thatcherite card that there is no alternative because of the state of the public finances.
He told the Commons:
“My own party consistently opposed graduate contributions, but in the current economic climate we accept that the policy is simply no longer feasible.”
But missing from his argument has been the central role higher education could play both in reviving the economy now and in promoting long term prosperity and growth in the future.
John Denham hit the nail on the head with his rebuttal to Cable yesterday saying:
“Higher education is important not just for individual graduates but for growth, prosperity, job creation and our ability to succeed in a competitive world.”
As Nobel prize-winning economist and former head of the World Bank, Professor Joseph E. Stiglitz has also pointed out:
“{We need} investments in technology, education and infrastructure… such spending will stimulate the economy and create jobs in the short run and promote growth and debt reduction in the long run.”
A briefing by the Free Education Campaign produced earlier this year pointed out that the previous government’s figures illustrate that investing in higher education reaps significant immediate economic benefits.
It revealed that the £23 billion spent each year on higher education, funded from both the public and private sectors, produces an economic return of £60bn, arising from a variety of sources including jobs, exports, innovation and so on.
That means for every one pound invested in higher education, the economy expands by £2.60. Treasury models indicate that half of this – around £1.30 – comes back in tax revenue, giving the government extra income on each pound invested to pay off the national debt or invest in other public services.
The latest evidence from the OECD suggests the return from investing in higher education is key to economic revival. The OECD Education at a Glance 2010 report recently stated "Governments should expand tertiary studies to boost jobs and tax revenues."
It explained how the return would be much bigger then the original outlay:
"Even after taking account of the cost to the public exchequer of financing degree courses, higher tax revenues and social contributions from people with university degrees make tertiary education a good long-term investment.
Net of the cost of degree courses, the long-term gain to the public exchequer averages $US 86,000 in OECD countries, almost three times the amount of public investment per student in tertiary education. Overall returns are even larger, as many benefits of education are not directly reflected in tax income (Table A8.4)."
The report shows that the gains are even higher in the UK, with up to a 382% return.
Yet alongside the double whammy attack on students – through plans to abolish the cap on tuition fees and introduce commercial interest rates on student loans – Browne has made the assumption that there will be a huge reduction in state investment in higher education by cutting university teaching budgets by 80%.
This failure to invest is going to aggravate the serious problem of Britain falling behind other countries with regards to the number of graduates it is producing.
The UK is already plummeting down the graduate league table and is now below the OECD average for graduation rates. In 2000 it was a world leader, nine percentage points above average.
The caricature conjured up by some that higher education is about academics sitting loftily in their ivory towers is far removed from the real role higher education plays: invigorating the British economy. It needs to be invested in. The rewards will include tackling the national debt in the short term – and ensuring Britain has a highly skilled, high growth economy in the long term.
In order to justify the Liberal Democrats sharp u-turn on student funding Vince Cable played the old Thatcherite card that there is no alternative because of the state of the public finances.
He told the Commons:
“My own party consistently opposed graduate contributions, but in the current economic climate we accept that the policy is simply no longer feasible.”
But missing from his argument has been the central role higher education could play both in reviving the economy now and in promoting long term prosperity and growth in the future.
John Denham hit the nail on the head with his rebuttal to Cable yesterday saying:
“Higher education is important not just for individual graduates but for growth, prosperity, job creation and our ability to succeed in a competitive world.”
As Nobel prize-winning economist and former head of the World Bank, Professor Joseph E. Stiglitz has also pointed out:
“{We need} investments in technology, education and infrastructure… such spending will stimulate the economy and create jobs in the short run and promote growth and debt reduction in the long run.”
A briefing by the Free Education Campaign produced earlier this year pointed out that the previous government’s figures illustrate that investing in higher education reaps significant immediate economic benefits.
It revealed that the £23 billion spent each year on higher education, funded from both the public and private sectors, produces an economic return of £60bn, arising from a variety of sources including jobs, exports, innovation and so on.
That means for every one pound invested in higher education, the economy expands by £2.60. Treasury models indicate that half of this – around £1.30 – comes back in tax revenue, giving the government extra income on each pound invested to pay off the national debt or invest in other public services.
The latest evidence from the OECD suggests the return from investing in higher education is key to economic revival. The OECD Education at a Glance 2010 report recently stated "Governments should expand tertiary studies to boost jobs and tax revenues."
It explained how the return would be much bigger then the original outlay:
"Even after taking account of the cost to the public exchequer of financing degree courses, higher tax revenues and social contributions from people with university degrees make tertiary education a good long-term investment.
Net of the cost of degree courses, the long-term gain to the public exchequer averages $US 86,000 in OECD countries, almost three times the amount of public investment per student in tertiary education. Overall returns are even larger, as many benefits of education are not directly reflected in tax income (Table A8.4)."
The report shows that the gains are even higher in the UK, with up to a 382% return.
Yet alongside the double whammy attack on students – through plans to abolish the cap on tuition fees and introduce commercial interest rates on student loans – Browne has made the assumption that there will be a huge reduction in state investment in higher education by cutting university teaching budgets by 80%.
This failure to invest is going to aggravate the serious problem of Britain falling behind other countries with regards to the number of graduates it is producing.
The UK is already plummeting down the graduate league table and is now below the OECD average for graduation rates. In 2000 it was a world leader, nine percentage points above average.
The caricature conjured up by some that higher education is about academics sitting loftily in their ivory towers is far removed from the real role higher education plays: invigorating the British economy. It needs to be invested in. The rewards will include tackling the national debt in the short term – and ensuring Britain has a highly skilled, high growth economy in the long term.
London will be hit hard by student fees hike
This was originally published by Progressive London: http://bit.ly/9sezO1
Commenting on the government’s welcome of the Browne review into Higher Education funding, Ken Livingstone said:
“The higher cost of living in London means that students graduating from their degrees will be hit even harder here than elsewhere.
“The government talks about the need to reduce the national debt, despite the damage its approach will mean to the economy, but has no hesitation in ratcheting up graduate debt. The government is going to make students pay for an economic situation that bankers, not students, created.
“This policy will deter poorer students and squeeze very hard those on middle incomes once they have graduated.
“If the government imposes this policy it will have a particularly severe impact in London, which has the largest student population in the country and where those graduates already contending with the higher cost of living in London would be saddled with debt repayments at the same time as they struggle to make ends meet. Trying to pay for the cost of a flat is already hard enough for most graduates in London – now repayments on even bigger tuition debts will be hanging over them too.
“Boris Johnson has been silent on the Browne review today despite the particularly sharp impact the government’s approach would have on London. The mayor has time to write his £250,000-a-year Telegraph column every week but not to comment on behalf of families and students who will have to contend with even higher costs as a result of his Parliamentary colleagues’ attack on middle and lower income people.”
Commenting on the government’s welcome of the Browne review into Higher Education funding, Ken Livingstone said:
“The higher cost of living in London means that students graduating from their degrees will be hit even harder here than elsewhere.
“The government talks about the need to reduce the national debt, despite the damage its approach will mean to the economy, but has no hesitation in ratcheting up graduate debt. The government is going to make students pay for an economic situation that bankers, not students, created.
“This policy will deter poorer students and squeeze very hard those on middle incomes once they have graduated.
“If the government imposes this policy it will have a particularly severe impact in London, which has the largest student population in the country and where those graduates already contending with the higher cost of living in London would be saddled with debt repayments at the same time as they struggle to make ends meet. Trying to pay for the cost of a flat is already hard enough for most graduates in London – now repayments on even bigger tuition debts will be hanging over them too.
“Boris Johnson has been silent on the Browne review today despite the particularly sharp impact the government’s approach would have on London. The mayor has time to write his £250,000-a-year Telegraph column every week but not to comment on behalf of families and students who will have to contend with even higher costs as a result of his Parliamentary colleagues’ attack on middle and lower income people.”
Alternatives to higher fees: Guardian letter from Sally Hunt
Yesterday the Guardian published the following excellent letter from Sally Hunt, General Secretary of the University and College Union:
A graduate tax is not the only alternative to higher student fees (A graduate tax won't happen but tuition fees can be fairer, 11 October). There are benefits to us all from public investment in our universities. For every £1 spent on higher education, the economy gets £2.50 back.
Our economic future depends on the quality of education our citizens have, yet politicians paint potential students as middle-class scroungers rather than as future higher-rate taxpayers. Even before the latest cuts, state investment in the UK was 10% below that of the US.
For the third time in a decade, it seems the main parties are misjudging the public mood on university funding – whether Vince Cable and Nick Clegg call the system a fee, a loan or a tax is immaterial to students and families, who already face a mountain of debt. A very modest increase in the UK's corporation tax rates to the G7 average would raise enough revenue to abolish tuition fees. Big business benefits massively from the plentiful supply of graduates, as does our economy, and should make a contribution.
Education is a right, not a privilege, and our country's future needs the talents of all, not just those with the deepest pockets and sharpest elbows.
A graduate tax is not the only alternative to higher student fees (A graduate tax won't happen but tuition fees can be fairer, 11 October). There are benefits to us all from public investment in our universities. For every £1 spent on higher education, the economy gets £2.50 back.
Our economic future depends on the quality of education our citizens have, yet politicians paint potential students as middle-class scroungers rather than as future higher-rate taxpayers. Even before the latest cuts, state investment in the UK was 10% below that of the US.
For the third time in a decade, it seems the main parties are misjudging the public mood on university funding – whether Vince Cable and Nick Clegg call the system a fee, a loan or a tax is immaterial to students and families, who already face a mountain of debt. A very modest increase in the UK's corporation tax rates to the G7 average would raise enough revenue to abolish tuition fees. Big business benefits massively from the plentiful supply of graduates, as does our economy, and should make a contribution.
Education is a right, not a privilege, and our country's future needs the talents of all, not just those with the deepest pockets and sharpest elbows.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
DOUBLE WHAMMY ATTACK ON FUTURE STUDENTS!
“Lord Browne has launched a double assault on students with his proposal to abolish the cap on tuition fees and introduce commercial interest rates on student loans. Taken together these measures will result in students paying tens of thousands of pounds more for a university education.
If introduced these proposals will be a disaster for students, society and the economy. Instead of denying people the opportunity to go to university the government should increase investment in higher education because a highly skilled workforce is the key to Britain’s future economic prosperity.”
Free Education Campaign
THE UCU HAVE SLAMMED THE REPORT
Commenting on the report, UCU general secretary, Sally Hunt, said: "This is a savage attack on what a university is and what it can offer to all students - not just those with deep pockets - as it effectively privatises the cost of higher education from state to family.
Browne's proposals would make our public degrees the most expensive in the world. At an enormous cost of between £40,000 and £70,000 for one child's education, it would be the final nail in the coffin for an affordable university degree for many ordinary families.
As a result of this creation of a market for student places, we would see departments and universities close and a devastating effect on the curriculum as only so-called priority courses survive. It would become almost impossible to develop courses in new areas of knowledge without directly perceived economic benefit. If enacted, these proposals will weaken our position as a global knowledge centre."
THE NUS HAVE SLAMMED THE REPORT
Commenting on the release of the review, Aaron Porter, NUS President said:
"If adopted, Lord Browne's review would hand universities a blank cheque and force the next generation to pick up the tab for devastating cuts to higher education. The only thing students and their families would stand to gain from higher fees would be higher debts.
A market in course prices between universities would increasingly pressure on students to make decisions based on cost rather than academic ability or ambition. Those already feeling the pinch will clearly be unwilling to take such a gamble and face being priced out of the universities that would opt to charge sky-high fees.
There is no clear assurance that a hike in fees would improve student choice or quality and the evidence since fees tripled four years ago shows that neither student satisfaction nor quality has improved. Universities have not made the case for what they would do with more.
Any graduate contributions to universities should be determined by earnings in the real world after graduation, not fixed prices based on unreliable and misleading guesswork about average salaries."
If introduced these proposals will be a disaster for students, society and the economy. Instead of denying people the opportunity to go to university the government should increase investment in higher education because a highly skilled workforce is the key to Britain’s future economic prosperity.”
Free Education Campaign
THE UCU HAVE SLAMMED THE REPORT
Commenting on the report, UCU general secretary, Sally Hunt, said: "This is a savage attack on what a university is and what it can offer to all students - not just those with deep pockets - as it effectively privatises the cost of higher education from state to family.
Browne's proposals would make our public degrees the most expensive in the world. At an enormous cost of between £40,000 and £70,000 for one child's education, it would be the final nail in the coffin for an affordable university degree for many ordinary families.
As a result of this creation of a market for student places, we would see departments and universities close and a devastating effect on the curriculum as only so-called priority courses survive. It would become almost impossible to develop courses in new areas of knowledge without directly perceived economic benefit. If enacted, these proposals will weaken our position as a global knowledge centre."
THE NUS HAVE SLAMMED THE REPORT
Commenting on the release of the review, Aaron Porter, NUS President said:
"If adopted, Lord Browne's review would hand universities a blank cheque and force the next generation to pick up the tab for devastating cuts to higher education. The only thing students and their families would stand to gain from higher fees would be higher debts.
A market in course prices between universities would increasingly pressure on students to make decisions based on cost rather than academic ability or ambition. Those already feeling the pinch will clearly be unwilling to take such a gamble and face being priced out of the universities that would opt to charge sky-high fees.
There is no clear assurance that a hike in fees would improve student choice or quality and the evidence since fees tripled four years ago shows that neither student satisfaction nor quality has improved. Universities have not made the case for what they would do with more.
Any graduate contributions to universities should be determined by earnings in the real world after graduation, not fixed prices based on unreliable and misleading guesswork about average salaries."
Student leaders warn against more debt
A letter from a broad range of leading student representatives – including several NUS Officers and executive members – says the debate over the future of higher education funding should not focus solely on how to make students pay more.
The letter was first published by Liberal Conspiracy: http://bit.ly/9uCfdl
It comes ahead of tomorrow’s Browne Education Funding Review recommendations.
The letter
A government review into university funding will soon make its recommendations.
So far the debate has been totally one sided – focusing almost exclusively on how to make people pay even more for receiving a university education. Some in the Coalition government favour making people pay more through a graduate tax whilst others back higher fees of up to £7,000 per year.
With student debt already averaging £23,000, the idea that the cost of a university degree should increase further is absurd.
There are progressive alternatives to funding higher education which would tackle student debt and help Britain create the highly skilled economy it needs – rather than slipping further down international league tables of university participation as it currently is.
To this end, we welcome the UCU’s contribution to the debate, proposing that tuition fees be replaced by an increase in corporation tax.
We demand that the Coalition government uses the review to reduce the burden on students – not as an opportunity to increase these costs.”
Signed
Kanja Sesay, NUS Black Students’ Officer
Vicki Baars, NUS LGBT Officer
Fiona Edwards, Free Education Campaign
Joshi Sachdeo, NUS National Executive Council (NEC)
Rebecca Sawbrigde, Disabled Students’ Rep, NUS NEC
Sean Rillo Raczka, NUS NEC
Neelam Rose, NUS Black Students’ Committee
Cameron Tait, President of the University of Sussex SU
Helen Wakeford, President of University of Glamorgan Union
Kristy Wallace, President of University of Exeter SU, Cornwall Campus
Rosie Tressler, Women’s Officer, Nottingham University
Greg Brown, Environment & Ethics Officer of University College London Union
Aaron Kiely, NUS Black Students’ Committee
Beth Evans, NUS LGBT Campaign
Laura Ions, Communications Officer of Swansea Metropolitan University
Muhammad Sadi, Vice-President, London Metropolitan University Students’ Union
Dan Morgan, Campaigns Officer for Swansea Metropolitan University
Claire Flanagan, Vice President of University of Ulster Student Union
Jonathan Holmes, Liberation Officer, University of Lincoln Students’ Union
Sam Middlewood, Vice President of Brunel University Students Union
Andy McGowan, Funding Officer of Cambridge University Students’ Union
Mensur Burhan, Vice President Welfare and Students’ Rights, London South Bank University Student Union
Emma Wilson, Vice President Education & Welfare of University of Plymouth Students’ Union
Sol Schonfield, Communications Officer of the University of Sussex SU
Elaine Griffiths, Welfare Officer of Coleg Morgannwg
Rosanna Robinson, NUS Black Students’ Campaign, Further Education Representative
Zoe Scandrett, Women’s Officer of Kent University Union
Liam Walker, Student Life Officer of University of Cumbria SU
Oli Luton, Healthcare Integration Officer of Cardiff Students Union
The letter was first published by Liberal Conspiracy: http://bit.ly/9uCfdl
It comes ahead of tomorrow’s Browne Education Funding Review recommendations.
The letter
A government review into university funding will soon make its recommendations.
So far the debate has been totally one sided – focusing almost exclusively on how to make people pay even more for receiving a university education. Some in the Coalition government favour making people pay more through a graduate tax whilst others back higher fees of up to £7,000 per year.
With student debt already averaging £23,000, the idea that the cost of a university degree should increase further is absurd.
There are progressive alternatives to funding higher education which would tackle student debt and help Britain create the highly skilled economy it needs – rather than slipping further down international league tables of university participation as it currently is.
To this end, we welcome the UCU’s contribution to the debate, proposing that tuition fees be replaced by an increase in corporation tax.
We demand that the Coalition government uses the review to reduce the burden on students – not as an opportunity to increase these costs.”
Signed
Kanja Sesay, NUS Black Students’ Officer
Vicki Baars, NUS LGBT Officer
Fiona Edwards, Free Education Campaign
Joshi Sachdeo, NUS National Executive Council (NEC)
Rebecca Sawbrigde, Disabled Students’ Rep, NUS NEC
Sean Rillo Raczka, NUS NEC
Neelam Rose, NUS Black Students’ Committee
Cameron Tait, President of the University of Sussex SU
Helen Wakeford, President of University of Glamorgan Union
Kristy Wallace, President of University of Exeter SU, Cornwall Campus
Rosie Tressler, Women’s Officer, Nottingham University
Greg Brown, Environment & Ethics Officer of University College London Union
Aaron Kiely, NUS Black Students’ Committee
Beth Evans, NUS LGBT Campaign
Laura Ions, Communications Officer of Swansea Metropolitan University
Muhammad Sadi, Vice-President, London Metropolitan University Students’ Union
Dan Morgan, Campaigns Officer for Swansea Metropolitan University
Claire Flanagan, Vice President of University of Ulster Student Union
Jonathan Holmes, Liberation Officer, University of Lincoln Students’ Union
Sam Middlewood, Vice President of Brunel University Students Union
Andy McGowan, Funding Officer of Cambridge University Students’ Union
Mensur Burhan, Vice President Welfare and Students’ Rights, London South Bank University Student Union
Emma Wilson, Vice President Education & Welfare of University of Plymouth Students’ Union
Sol Schonfield, Communications Officer of the University of Sussex SU
Elaine Griffiths, Welfare Officer of Coleg Morgannwg
Rosanna Robinson, NUS Black Students’ Campaign, Further Education Representative
Zoe Scandrett, Women’s Officer of Kent University Union
Liam Walker, Student Life Officer of University of Cumbria SU
Oli Luton, Healthcare Integration Officer of Cardiff Students Union
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Opposing higher student charges – add your name to the statement
Please find below a statement signed by a number of leading student representatives.
Add your name to the statement by emailing freeeducationcampaign@gmail.com
OPPOSING HIGHER STUDENT CHARGES
A government review into university funding will soon make its recommendations.
So far the debate has been totally one sided – focusing almost exclusively on how to make people pay even more for receiving a university education.
Some in the Coalition government favour making people pay more through a graduate tax whilst others back higher fees of up to £7,000 per year.
With student debt already averaging £23,000, the idea that the cost of a university degree should increase further is absurd.
There are progressive alternatives to funding higher education which would tackle student debt and help Britain create the highly skilled economy it needs – rather than slipping further down international league tables of university participation as it currently is. To this end, we welcome the UCU’s contribution to the debate, proposing that tuition fees be replaced by an increase in corporation tax.
We demand that the Coalition government uses the review to reduce the burden on students – not as an opportunity to increase these costs.
Initial signatories include:
Kanja Sesay, NUS Black Students' Officer
Vicki Baars, NUS LGBT Officer
Joshi Sachdeo, NUS NEC
Rebecca Sawbrigde, Disabled Students' Rep, NUS NEC
Sean Rillo Raczka, NUS NEC
Neelam Rose, NUS Black Students' Committee
Cameron Tait, President of the University of Sussex SU
Fiona Edwards, Free Education Campaign
Aaron Kiely, NUS Black Students' Committee
Sol Schonfield, Communications Officer of the University of Sussex SU
Add your name to the statement by emailing freeeducationcampaign@gmail.com
OPPOSING HIGHER STUDENT CHARGES
A government review into university funding will soon make its recommendations.
So far the debate has been totally one sided – focusing almost exclusively on how to make people pay even more for receiving a university education.
Some in the Coalition government favour making people pay more through a graduate tax whilst others back higher fees of up to £7,000 per year.
With student debt already averaging £23,000, the idea that the cost of a university degree should increase further is absurd.
There are progressive alternatives to funding higher education which would tackle student debt and help Britain create the highly skilled economy it needs – rather than slipping further down international league tables of university participation as it currently is. To this end, we welcome the UCU’s contribution to the debate, proposing that tuition fees be replaced by an increase in corporation tax.
We demand that the Coalition government uses the review to reduce the burden on students – not as an opportunity to increase these costs.
Initial signatories include:
Kanja Sesay, NUS Black Students' Officer
Vicki Baars, NUS LGBT Officer
Joshi Sachdeo, NUS NEC
Rebecca Sawbrigde, Disabled Students' Rep, NUS NEC
Sean Rillo Raczka, NUS NEC
Neelam Rose, NUS Black Students' Committee
Cameron Tait, President of the University of Sussex SU
Fiona Edwards, Free Education Campaign
Aaron Kiely, NUS Black Students' Committee
Sol Schonfield, Communications Officer of the University of Sussex SU
Monday, August 16, 2010
UCU say the cost of a university degree "would rocket" under graduate tax system
In research published last week, the UCU have argued that a graduate tax will increase the burden on students. Their findings suggest that key workers, such as teachers nurses and doctors, could pay considerably more under a graduate tax than they do currently. You can access the full report here.
UCU's findings further demonstrate that the NUS leadership's decision to support a graduate tax is not in the interests of students.
UCU's findings further demonstrate that the NUS leadership's decision to support a graduate tax is not in the interests of students.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
NUS wastes opportunity to defend students in Browne Review submission
By Sam Browse, Sheffield University
Last month, the NUS President, Aaron Porter, was invited to present students’ case to the Browne Review of higher education funding – alongside representatives from universities, government, business and others including the Universities and Colleges Union (UCU).
This was a key opportunity for the student movement to influence the debate over whether or not the financial burden on university students should be lowered or increased. At a time when Vice Chancellors and big business are aggressively lobbying for higher fees of £7,000, it was crucial that the NUS President clearly articulated a strong defence of students to those responsible for recommending changes to the higher education funding system. Sadly, this opportunity was completely wasted. You can watch Aaron Porter’s presentation online here.
The submission of NUS to the funding review – the Funding our Future blueprint – calls for a graduate tax. Far from being the ‘holistic vision’ Porter claims the NUS blueprint to be, it argues that the HE funding gap should be bridged by one source – students. Notably, the NUS leadership boasts of the increased student contribution their graduate tax would entail (Funding our Future blueprint, p.4). The NUS wants students to pay more, not less, for their education.
This was reflected in Porter’s verbal evidence to the review panel. When the NUS President was asked ‘what should students expect if the cost of education to the student rises’ instead of stridently defending students from an increase in fees, he emphasized universities providing a better ‘deal’ for students through skills and employability training and greater course choices.
In a recent Observer article, Porter said ‘there are some that think we should stick to the principled position of free education. But if vice-chancellors expect us to stand on the outside waving placards they are sorely mistaken’. This argument bares little relation to reality given the fact that the UCU - an organization representing university and college lecturers across the country - supports the abolition of all tuition fees.
The position of NUS is put into stark relief when compared to that of the UCU, outlined by the general secretary, Sally Hunt, as part of the same review process. Hunt rightly points out that the UK spends 10% less than the global average of its GDP on its HE sector. She said: ‘UK employers spend just 1.3% of total labour costs on education and training – 24% less than the EU average of 1.6%’. Comparatively, she argues, British business has ‘a good deal’.
Hunt argues that one of the main barriers to delivering a quality HE system is under funding. The immediate question is how to bridge the funding gap. Contrary to Porter, who says that ‘[NUS] don’t necessarily believe the structure of the funding system should be a driver to quality’, she suggests that the tuition fee system is ‘highly inefficient’ as well as ‘socially inequitable and politically unpopular’.
Instead, the UCU propose raising the main rate of corporation tax from 28p, to the G7 average of 32.87p. Conversely, NUS propose increasing the levy on students. The difference is quite remarkable given NUS’s aim to protect the interests of its membership.
The corporate sector’s comparatively small contribution to the cost of higher education suggests that NUS’s proposal to increase the cost to students is hardly ‘fair and proportionate’, as is claimed in the evidence to the review. We need a strong, principled alliance inside and outside NUS to provide an alternative to the leadership’s regressive funding blueprint. Contrary to NUS’s current position, we should join the UCU in explicitly calling for increased public investment in a free higher education system.
Last month, the NUS President, Aaron Porter, was invited to present students’ case to the Browne Review of higher education funding – alongside representatives from universities, government, business and others including the Universities and Colleges Union (UCU).
This was a key opportunity for the student movement to influence the debate over whether or not the financial burden on university students should be lowered or increased. At a time when Vice Chancellors and big business are aggressively lobbying for higher fees of £7,000, it was crucial that the NUS President clearly articulated a strong defence of students to those responsible for recommending changes to the higher education funding system. Sadly, this opportunity was completely wasted. You can watch Aaron Porter’s presentation online here.
The submission of NUS to the funding review – the Funding our Future blueprint – calls for a graduate tax. Far from being the ‘holistic vision’ Porter claims the NUS blueprint to be, it argues that the HE funding gap should be bridged by one source – students. Notably, the NUS leadership boasts of the increased student contribution their graduate tax would entail (Funding our Future blueprint, p.4). The NUS wants students to pay more, not less, for their education.
This was reflected in Porter’s verbal evidence to the review panel. When the NUS President was asked ‘what should students expect if the cost of education to the student rises’ instead of stridently defending students from an increase in fees, he emphasized universities providing a better ‘deal’ for students through skills and employability training and greater course choices.
In a recent Observer article, Porter said ‘there are some that think we should stick to the principled position of free education. But if vice-chancellors expect us to stand on the outside waving placards they are sorely mistaken’. This argument bares little relation to reality given the fact that the UCU - an organization representing university and college lecturers across the country - supports the abolition of all tuition fees.
The position of NUS is put into stark relief when compared to that of the UCU, outlined by the general secretary, Sally Hunt, as part of the same review process. Hunt rightly points out that the UK spends 10% less than the global average of its GDP on its HE sector. She said: ‘UK employers spend just 1.3% of total labour costs on education and training – 24% less than the EU average of 1.6%’. Comparatively, she argues, British business has ‘a good deal’.
Hunt argues that one of the main barriers to delivering a quality HE system is under funding. The immediate question is how to bridge the funding gap. Contrary to Porter, who says that ‘[NUS] don’t necessarily believe the structure of the funding system should be a driver to quality’, she suggests that the tuition fee system is ‘highly inefficient’ as well as ‘socially inequitable and politically unpopular’.
Instead, the UCU propose raising the main rate of corporation tax from 28p, to the G7 average of 32.87p. Conversely, NUS propose increasing the levy on students. The difference is quite remarkable given NUS’s aim to protect the interests of its membership.
The corporate sector’s comparatively small contribution to the cost of higher education suggests that NUS’s proposal to increase the cost to students is hardly ‘fair and proportionate’, as is claimed in the evidence to the review. We need a strong, principled alliance inside and outside NUS to provide an alternative to the leadership’s regressive funding blueprint. Contrary to NUS’s current position, we should join the UCU in explicitly calling for increased public investment in a free higher education system.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Universities need investment not cuts
Universities need investment not cuts. Raising student charges - through higher fees or a graduate tax - will neither solve the university funding crisis nor widen the access to higher education the wider economy needs.
Check out Bellavia Ribeiro-Addy's Guardian Comment is free piece:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/12/universities-need-investment-not-cuts
Check out Bellavia Ribeiro-Addy's Guardian Comment is free piece:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/12/universities-need-investment-not-cuts
NUS should focus on reducing the burden on students – not increasing it
Students today demanded that NUS calls for reductions in the costs of going to university and end its' support for even higher student charges.
Kanja Sesay, NUS Black Students’ Officer alongside Fiona Edwards, Secretary of the Free Education Campaign said:
“In recent days student funding has been at the top of the political agenda.
Sadly the debate has been totally one sided - focusing almost exclusively on how to make people pay even more for a university education.
On the one hand, Vince Cable seems to favour making people pay more through a graduate tax, whilst others in the government seem to back higher fees.
With student debt already soaring to £23,000, the idea that students should pay even more is absurd.
We need a serious debate about reducing the burden on students – not one looking at the best ways to increase the costs.
NUS needs to lead this debate. Instead it has ‘welcomed’ Vince Cable’s backing for a graduate tax to replace student top-up fees. This is totally the wrong path to be going down and it needs to change tack.”
Kanja Sesay, NUS Black Students’ Officer alongside Fiona Edwards, Secretary of the Free Education Campaign said:
“In recent days student funding has been at the top of the political agenda.
Sadly the debate has been totally one sided - focusing almost exclusively on how to make people pay even more for a university education.
On the one hand, Vince Cable seems to favour making people pay more through a graduate tax, whilst others in the government seem to back higher fees.
With student debt already soaring to £23,000, the idea that students should pay even more is absurd.
We need a serious debate about reducing the burden on students – not one looking at the best ways to increase the costs.
NUS needs to lead this debate. Instead it has ‘welcomed’ Vince Cable’s backing for a graduate tax to replace student top-up fees. This is totally the wrong path to be going down and it needs to change tack.”
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Free Education Campaign’s Immediate Response to Vince Cable’s Call for a Graduate Tax
Today Vince Cable has said that the Coalition government is looking at charging students more for higher education via a graduate tax.
Any system that sees higher charges should be opposed.
The Free Education Campaign agrees with UCU response that new plans for university funding should be judged on whether they “increase the overall cost of getting an education or reduce it.”
We also share the UCU’s view that Cable’s moves to support a graduate tax instead of fees are “an exercise in rebranding.”
In making clear opposition to a graduate tax that burdens students with even higher debts the Free Education Campaign believes it is important to note that:
• Since 1998 – the year tuition fees were first introduced - the UK participation rate for higher education fell from 7th in the OECD countries to 15th. That is the dismal record of charging students for higher education since 1998.
• Since the introduction of top up fees in 2004 despite there being an increase in the number of people attending university the number of people from poorer areas attending has dropped by 0.3% (figures from 2008).
• The current failing system is already some form of gradate tax, as Vince Cable rightly points out. Students currently pay back their fees upon graduate (though they can choose to pay in advance if they desire). The Student Loan Company “expect students to repay 9% of annual income over £15,000.” This effectively means that graduates currently pay a higher tax rate because they went to university.
• A Graduate Tax could result in the unjust and ridiculous situation where graduates on lower incomes pay a higher rate of tax than higher earners who happened not to have attended university.
• It undermines the basic principle that it is those most able to pay who should contribute most to public services. Instead it is a step down a dangerous path towards a "user pays" principle which could also be applied to other public services.
• David Willetts recently remarked that university students are “a burden on the taxpayer”, ignoring the net contribution universities make to the economy. Far from a burden, the higher education sector as a whole is of huge economic benefit to Britain. According to the previous government the £23 billion annually invested in higher education produced an economic return of £60 billion. In addition to this immediate return there are also long term benefits through higher productivity and a more skilled population. Ways that restrict access - as charging students even more would - will only undermine this.
• Greater state investment in free higher education would be good for students, society and the economy. The ongoing review into higher education funding should recommend lowering the financial burden on students, not increasing it.
Any system that sees higher charges should be opposed.
The Free Education Campaign agrees with UCU response that new plans for university funding should be judged on whether they “increase the overall cost of getting an education or reduce it.”
We also share the UCU’s view that Cable’s moves to support a graduate tax instead of fees are “an exercise in rebranding.”
In making clear opposition to a graduate tax that burdens students with even higher debts the Free Education Campaign believes it is important to note that:
• Since 1998 – the year tuition fees were first introduced - the UK participation rate for higher education fell from 7th in the OECD countries to 15th. That is the dismal record of charging students for higher education since 1998.
• Since the introduction of top up fees in 2004 despite there being an increase in the number of people attending university the number of people from poorer areas attending has dropped by 0.3% (figures from 2008).
• The current failing system is already some form of gradate tax, as Vince Cable rightly points out. Students currently pay back their fees upon graduate (though they can choose to pay in advance if they desire). The Student Loan Company “expect students to repay 9% of annual income over £15,000.” This effectively means that graduates currently pay a higher tax rate because they went to university.
• A Graduate Tax could result in the unjust and ridiculous situation where graduates on lower incomes pay a higher rate of tax than higher earners who happened not to have attended university.
• It undermines the basic principle that it is those most able to pay who should contribute most to public services. Instead it is a step down a dangerous path towards a "user pays" principle which could also be applied to other public services.
• David Willetts recently remarked that university students are “a burden on the taxpayer”, ignoring the net contribution universities make to the economy. Far from a burden, the higher education sector as a whole is of huge economic benefit to Britain. According to the previous government the £23 billion annually invested in higher education produced an economic return of £60 billion. In addition to this immediate return there are also long term benefits through higher productivity and a more skilled population. Ways that restrict access - as charging students even more would - will only undermine this.
• Greater state investment in free higher education would be good for students, society and the economy. The ongoing review into higher education funding should recommend lowering the financial burden on students, not increasing it.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
United for Education – Investment not Cuts!
A broad coalition of education unions have united to defend education against the brutal assault the coalition government is carrying out.
The National Union of Students has taken the welcomed step to join forces with the ATL, EIS, GMB, UCU, UNITE and UNISON in the United for Education coalition.
United for Education has launched a petition which has thousands of signatures:
“We the undersigned note that the new government is planning further cuts to public spending at a time when the sector has suffered cuts of hundreds of millions of pounds leading to the loss of thousands of jobs and placing tens of thousands more at risk.
We further note that for the first time in decades our education sector is shrinking and a generation will be locked out of the education system.
We believe that education is a gateway to aspiration and a condition of future prosperity, and we urge the government to emulate those countries who are investing in education to combat the recession.
We therefore support the United for Education coalition's call to stop the cuts in colleges and universities and to return to proper investment in the interests of our communities and our future prosperity.”
You can sign the petition here:http://bit.ly/c0cwmF.
The coalition has also tabled an Early Day Motion which rejects the idea of lifting the cap on student top-up fees and points out that investment in education, rather than cuts, will ensure a skilled workforce to aid economic recovery. You can read the EDM, including which MPs have signed it here:http://bit.ly/9Yx9yg.
47 MPs have signed up so far – now is the time to lobby our MPs asking them to sign up too.
The National Union of Students has taken the welcomed step to join forces with the ATL, EIS, GMB, UCU, UNITE and UNISON in the United for Education coalition.
United for Education has launched a petition which has thousands of signatures:
“We the undersigned note that the new government is planning further cuts to public spending at a time when the sector has suffered cuts of hundreds of millions of pounds leading to the loss of thousands of jobs and placing tens of thousands more at risk.
We further note that for the first time in decades our education sector is shrinking and a generation will be locked out of the education system.
We believe that education is a gateway to aspiration and a condition of future prosperity, and we urge the government to emulate those countries who are investing in education to combat the recession.
We therefore support the United for Education coalition's call to stop the cuts in colleges and universities and to return to proper investment in the interests of our communities and our future prosperity.”
You can sign the petition here:http://bit.ly/c0cwmF.
The coalition has also tabled an Early Day Motion which rejects the idea of lifting the cap on student top-up fees and points out that investment in education, rather than cuts, will ensure a skilled workforce to aid economic recovery. You can read the EDM, including which MPs have signed it here:http://bit.ly/9Yx9yg.
47 MPs have signed up so far – now is the time to lobby our MPs asking them to sign up too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)