A brilliant, vibrant demonstration marred only by some poor organisation, weak political leadership and the media thinking that someone smashing a window is the equivalent of a riot.
- This was originally one large post. However, there were so many issues to cover, I've decided to split into two (and it's still massive). For more on tactics and where next for the student movement, see the next post.
As I'm sure you would have heard by now, on Wednesday over 52,000 students and lecturers marched through London against proposed cuts to education and the increasing of the level of tuition fees to up to £9000 a year. As a bit of a serial lefty, this was definitely one of the biggest, most vibrant demos I've seen in a long while, with a lot of energy reflecting the outright anger of young people at the Coalition's plans for higher education. The mood was militant, with home made placards and banners galore alongside a strong turnout from lecturers and workers wielding their UCU equivalents. Also of note, a not insignificant amount of trade union banners were scattered throughout the march.
As for the political content and message of the demo, it was definitely mixed. From what I've heard, there are differences in the political line between the NUS and the UCU, which is leading to some tensions. On the one hand, the lecturers union UCU is fighting back against cuts to education, both colleges and universities, whilst calling for free education in support of students. The Labour Party led National Union of Students (NUS) on the other hand is calling not to raise the cap on tuition fees, whilst half heartedly arguing for a graduate tax. This was reflected in the rally at the end of the march (in fairness, I didn't catch all of it) which consisted mainly of “Raising tuition fees is bad” and the “Lib Dems lied to us”, with very little on what to do next or linking up with the wider anti cuts movement. This is because the leadership's ties to Labour Party mean they aren't against cuts to education funding nor for the abolishing of tuition fees. Nor do they want to remind students that it was in fact the Labour Party who introduced fees, increased them, want to increase them further still whilst making massive cuts to education funding. Thankfully, this definitely was not the mood of the demo or of students themselves. Judging by the chants, the anger and the placards, many are already making the links with their lecturers and teachers, not content to just fight back against tuition fee rises, but against cuts to EMA, their institutions and generally to public sector cuts. This is a mood that the NUS cannot control and if they continue to try and ignore them, will only serve to weaken their own position (and their future career prospects).
Another serious problem was the clear lack of organisation. The stewarding was almost non-existent and those there were completely unequipped to handle their roles, partly leading to the events that happened later at Milibank (see below). A demo that was meant to take about an hour turned into about four as it was held up by some students blocking the road in a sit down protest outside parliament. Instead of walking around them or trying to move them on, the stewards just looked on wistfully whilst the demo grinded to a halt. This led to only a small percentage actually getting to the rally at the end (not that they really missed out) and even if they did, there was clearly no room for anyone to see what was going on as the area was clearly too small for even a few thousand.
This lack of organisation on the day may have been down to the fact that even up to the day before the NUS were still thinking 15,000 (the police were briefing that they expected even less, even accusing the NUS of inflating figures). This is partly down to the leadership's disconnect from its membership (in part down to many of its officers being open careerists and hacks, an issue made worse by its new constitution consolidating union officers dominance over student participation in the union). It was quite clear that when some student unions were booking five to six coaches at a time and selling out tickets for transport in days that this wasn't some run of the mill march. Though few predicated 50k, it was easily going to be 25-30,000 plus. Another factor may have been that the current leadership have little experience of organising demos or coordinating mass movements. Some have gone further to say that the NUS may have purposely tried to play down the demo and not organise it, though this sounds a bit too much even for them. Regardless, one thing was clear: the NUS leadership were forced to call this demo in response to mass student anger and if they didn't call something, someone else might of.
One of the major other features was that a lot of the home made placards and sentiment were anti Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems. Before the election, the Lib Dems had promised to abolish tuition fees as a key campaign promise and part of positioning themselves as a Labour alternative, clearly courting the youth and student vote. However, the moment they even tasted power, this policy will dropped alongside so many others. Surprisingly, all those students who voted for them on this basis are a bit cheesed off. If this demo was saying anything, it was surely that the Lib Dems are a party finished amongst this generation of young people. How this issue plays out internally amongst the Lib Dems will be interesting in itself, though given that at there latest conference, the discontent was limited.
Finally, I have to mention the big who-har around Milibank. Of course, I couldn't write a report of the demo without mentioning this, which has driven the media into a blood frenzy. From the media's coverage of this demonstration, you would have thought it was a riot. Really? I've seen bigger bar brawls. A couple of hundred throwing sticks made of balsa wood, a few flares and fire extinguisher really isn't a riot. Though the initial occupation was definitely led by a minority of student anarchists, it would be lying to say a lot of ordinary students weren't involved. This was clearly a reflection of the genuine anger students felt and given the opportunity to vent where police and stewards did nothing whilst a hoard of photographers egged them on, many took it. Though not a conducive tactic to building a wider mass movement, nor one that is effective in isolation, I imagine a lot of workers and students gave a smile when they saw the Tory HQ being smashed up. As a side note, given such an obvious target as well, one does have to ask the question as to why there was no police presence? Considering you can't get near a Starbucks on most demos, the Tory HQ should have really been a no-brainer.
Either way, this incident is but a distraction from the bigger movement and is an attempt to belittle students and divide us. So what next? With such a massive potential movement, how is the campaign to be taken forward? So far all the NUS leadership can do is condemn the Milibank incident and call for students to unseat Lib Dems (which indirectly means vote Labour). With the 24th of November called for as a day of action and the next focus to fight back, we will see just what students are thinking: that we need to have a meeting with our MP like the NUS tell us too, or for strikes, occupations and demos? Time will tell.....
No comments:
Post a Comment