Home

TheSinner.net

Student Occupation of Parliament Hall

This message board is for discussing anything in any way remotely connected with St Andrews, the University or just anything you want. Welcome!

Re: Student Occupation of Parliament Hall

Postby Mumbler on Thu Dec 09, 2010 11:36 am

DACrowe,

I am not part of the occupation movement. I support it from afar, and haven't spoken to anyone who has taken part in it. Ergo you should not take me as the de facto voice of the occupation. And considering the issues you mention, it would seem that you are confusing me with FergusNeville. I only made one point: This is an important step in a series of reforms that have been implemented by Conservative and Labour governments since the 1980s and aim at the privatization of higher education. This government is using the so-called financial crisis to cut short democratic debates around this issue. It therefore appears perfectly legitimate that citizens would use direct action to show their disapproval and make their voice heard. Although St Andrews is not directly concerned by the fees, or at least not in the short run, its reputation makes it a potentially influential voice in this debate, therefore it makes even more sense that people should be occupying Parliament Hall.

And, once again, although I disapprove of the measure, I do not think that the existing system constitutes an adequate answer to the massification of higher education that has taken place since the 1960s. But that calls for more democratic debate, not for oligarchic decisions.
Mumbler
 

Re: Student Occupation of Parliament Hall

Postby Guest on Thu Dec 09, 2010 11:25 pm

In responce to non-british supporting the cause ... If a person is straight, should they not fight for gay rights? ... I see a similar argument here.

This happened in a meeting once I was attending. I was thinking of joining scouts, but the constitution bit that you sign pretty much says you have to believe in God (as in the scout promise or something which states you support him ... wasn't really listening :S). One of the people there said, well I'm christian so that doesn't affect me, and then signed not thinking any more on the matter. Another person was athiest, but just brushed it over. I'm gay AND I do believe in God too, however I didn't sign. One of those things that isn't a major issue, and you do get non-believers in scouts ect, but the fact that it's still written there and someone brushed it over because it didn't affect them slightly bothered me ...
Guest
 

Re: Student Occupation of Parliament Hall

Postby RedCelt69 on Fri Dec 10, 2010 3:16 am

Guest wrote:One of those things that isn't a major issue, and you do get non-believers in scouts ect, but the fact that it's still written there and someone brushed it over because it didn't affect them slightly bothered me ...

Imagine, if you will, that you're on holiday somewhere in Africa. You're slightly off the beaten-track and, the social anthropologist (or nosey tourist) in you causes you to visit a tribal village.

A festivity is taking place, whereby the villager's fertility gods are asked to provide the right amount of sun/rain for the coming year's crops. You are encouraged to join in the fun. You dance as best you can, mimicking what the villagers are doing.

You've added a little footnote to your holiday that you can tell your friends about in the coming years - whilst boring them with your photographs.

Now. Did you have a bit of fun, or did you heartily follow the instructions of the people in the funny costumes, taking it all on board - and adjusting how you deal with the world (including the continuation of the practices you partook in)?

To me, that's what it's like being in a church. The people in the funny clothing can do all of their strange practices - and everyone around me can truly believe in everything that is said and done. To me, 2 people are legally married or the body of someone I knew is relocated to a graveyard/crematorium furnace. It doesn't mean that I'm in their club... and it shouldn't stop someone from joining the scouts - if they think that the villagers are happy with the pretence.
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: Student Occupation of Parliament Hall

Postby Distant on Sat Dec 11, 2010 7:30 pm

macgamer wrote:This is an interesting leak from the NUS:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/un ... rants.html

'In one email to the department’s officials, dated Oct 1, Mr Porter suggested that £800 million should be “deducted from the grants pot” over four years. That would cut total spending on grants by 61 per cent. Mr Porter also proposed the “introduction of a real rate of interest” for student loans.'

I don't see how cutting grants helps to widen the access to university for the poorest. The government's proposals seem much fairer by comparison.


That would be because the NUS is not really interested in what is actually best for future students but what they can claim they "achieved."

Cutting the money from the money from the grats pot and commercial rates of loans would have a far more severe impact on the affordability of univeristy. But Aaron Porter's sights are set on the 2015 election when he runs a a Labour candidate, he will tell every one how he "fought the cuts" to "help the poor" while behind the scenes he was arguing to remove their grants and charge them commercial rates of interest.
Distant
 

Re: Student Occupation of Parliament Hall

Postby DACrowe on Mon Dec 13, 2010 5:41 pm

Mumbler wrote:DACrowe,

I am not part of the occupation movement. I support it from afar, and haven't spoken to anyone who has taken part in it. Ergo you should not take me as the de facto voice of the occupation. And considering the issues you mention, it would seem that you are confusing me with FergusNeville. I only made one point: This is an important step in a series of reforms that have been implemented by Conservative and Labour governments since the 1980s and aim at the privatization of higher education. This government is using the so-called financial crisis to cut short democratic debates around this issue. It therefore appears perfectly legitimate that citizens would use direct action to show their disapproval and make their voice heard. Although St Andrews is not directly concerned by the fees, or at least not in the short run, its reputation makes it a potentially influential voice in this debate, therefore it makes even more sense that people should be occupying Parliament Hall.

And, once again, although I disapprove of the measure, I do not think that the existing system constitutes an adequate answer to the massification of higher education that has taken place since the 1960s. But that calls for more democratic debate, not for oligarchic decisions.


As... if I didn't make clear above is I think sufficiently well known on the Sinner... as might be expected I'm in full agreement with you on marketisation. However the question wasn't whether education was to be free or whether it was to be funded by tuition fees but rather whether it was to be funded through tuition fees using the regressive system Labour left in place with lower caps or the more progressive system Vince Cable got the Conservatives to agree to with higher caps. Speaking as someone who's followed the argument from the inception and read the Browne report, the IFS reports on the policy (which appear to vindicate the 'progressive' claim) and the vast majority of the media coverage... I'm still not sure which I think is, in the final analysis 'better'. I naturally respect Ming's decision to vote against it, but there is a tragedy of the commons situation here in which that wasn't an option all - especially the cabinet minister - LibDem MPs could have taken without risking the coalition. In any event, the point is that we agree on that point I'm just unconvinced that the occupation of Lower Parliament Hall is a particularly (on indeed, at all) effective means to have put pressure on anyone relevant. If they want to support the SA's attempts to get the University to engage in more consultation with the student representatives that's great, but you do that by making a convincing case to the powers that be. Ironically the more irrational and out-of-touch-with-political-realities (who makes what decisions, what their motives are - the university isn't run by evil people seeking to destory education) the University believes 'the students' as a body the less likely it is they are to take seriously the need for consultation. We want the university to respect the fact that the likes of Siena and Owen are highly intelligent and capable people with a mandate from the student body who are able to offer objective and level headed assessments on difficult decisions the university might need to take about funding from a perspective the administration might have overlooked or not be aware of.

@Distant - Aaron Porter strikes me as a less trustworthy version of Wes Streeting. I'm just surprised there could be such a person. You have it spot on the problematic 'vested interests' most NUS Presidents suffer from. In the case of Wes I do think it impacted his ability to fight for the student case against Labour when they introduced top-up fees. I don't know whether, had Aaron's life projects been otherwise, he would have handled the student protests etc differently - I can't imagine he would have so I don't see it as being too much of an issue here.

RedCelt wrote:It doesn't mean that I'm in their club... and it shouldn't stop someone from joining the scouts - if they think that the villagers are happy with the pretence.


I think we've discovered somewhere that your and my atheism fundamentally differs. I'm just not a metaphysical quietist - I think it's a matter of empirical fact whether religious practitioners are realists or anti-realists about their religious claims and the vast majority of them appear to be realists (with honourable exceptions who I admire like Don Cupitt). That being the case it seems problematic for me to join them in religious observances (a) because I'm also a realist about those claims and believe them to be false, so it would be an act of dishonesty, (b) that by seeing me engage in the practice someone else might take me to be endorsing its truth (or efficacy in the case of rain dances) and in so doing come to have their own adherence strengthened, which seems morally problematic if I think those beliefs are harmful and (c) it seems morally unattractive to engage in a practice in the notion that the people engaged in it are simple folk who don't know any better and I can just play along - it's no less patronising (and... what I believe continentalists call 'I-thouism' or something) for me to do it to Scots Calvinists than it would be to do it to the bushmen of the kalahari. Don't get me wrong - I'm pragmatic enough tor realise there's a time and a place and maybe even (following David Runciman) than it might be acceptable or even obligatory for elected political representatives to play along with the institutions - but while I'm not a Kantian it does seem I've a pro-tanto obligation not to lie to people about my beliefs and not to fail to say something if I think they're mistaken and it does seem that's what I'd be doing if I acted as you described.
DACrowe
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 7:49 pm

Re: Student Occupation of Parliament Hall

Postby Mumbler on Thu Dec 16, 2010 10:36 pm

DACrowe,

"'I'm just unconvinced that the occupation of Lower Parliament Hall is a particularly (on indeed, at all) effective means to have put pressure on anyone relevant. If they want to support the SA's attempts to get the University to engage in more consultation with the student representatives that's great, but you do that by making a convincing case to the powers that be. Ironically the more irrational and out-of-touch-with-political-realities (who makes what decisions, what their motives are - the university isn't run by evil people seeking to destory education) the University believes 'the students' as a body the less likely it is they are to take seriously the need for consultation."

Democracy is rarely obtained by making "a convincing case to the powers that be". Unless that "onvincing case" involves people occupying buildings, threatening to go on strike etc. Did you know that College Gate has unilaterally taken the decision to increase the fees for part-time student by 40%? Neither the teaching body nor the student body were informed until after the decision was taken. And remember the decision to fire language senior tutors, and how it was taken in the middle of the summer so as to avoid any strong opposition. "Making a convincing case" does not work because they have no interest in having us informed or participating in their decision. But they are mistaken if they think that anyone can rule like this, and the occupation of Parliament Hall is a direct result of this culture of secrecy. Responding to an occupation by a confrontational attitude (locking people up without food or heating?!) will only make their next action stronger.
Mumbler
 

Re: Student Occupation of Parliament Hall

Postby macgamer on Fri Dec 17, 2010 9:59 am

Mumbler wrote: Responding to an occupation by a confrontational attitude (locking people up without food or heating?!) will only make their next action stronger.

The 'occupatorz' do not own the building so why should the owner supply you with light and heat when it is isn't being used with the permission of the owner?

Any direct action should be do within the laws of the land, unless you consider abiding by a particular law goes against your conscience. However respect for private property should be one that is mutually upheld.
"Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision."
- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908
macgamer
User avatar
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:08 pm

Re: Student Occupation of Parliament Hall

Postby Haunted on Fri Dec 17, 2010 1:16 pm

Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man's original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion
Genesis 19:4-8
Haunted
User avatar
 
Posts: 3171
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:05 am

Re: Student Occupation of Parliament Hall

Postby macgamer on Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:33 am

Haunted wrote:Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man's original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion

Or his original sin :P
"Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision."
- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908
macgamer
User avatar
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:08 pm

Re: Student Occupation of Parliament Hall

Postby Practical on Mon Dec 20, 2010 10:14 pm

Maybe instead of occupying buildings they should be studying to get better marks and looking for jobs and internships

I dunno... just a suggestion that people are in control of their own destinies, not the government
Practical
 

Re: Student Occupation of Parliament Hall

Postby Haunted on Tue Dec 21, 2010 5:17 pm

macgamer wrote:
Haunted wrote:Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man's original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion

Or his original sin :P


I would argue that still comes under 'disobedience and rebellion'
Genesis 19:4-8
Haunted
User avatar
 
Posts: 3171
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:05 am

Re: Student Occupation of Parliament Hall

Postby Distant on Sun Jan 09, 2011 9:21 am

Mumbler wrote:DACrowe,

Democracy is rarely obtained by making "a convincing case to the powers that be". Unless that "onvincing case" involves people occupying buildings, threatening to go on strike etc.


Are you sugesting the UK is not a democracy? Did someone abolish the 2015 election while I wasn't looking?

If that is the case I don't think occupying a university building on south street will be sufficient to return the country to a representative democracy.

But then again perhaps you don't understand what democracy is and you think it is you getting what you want?

The Labour and Conservative parties both promissed to implement the Brown review, the UK population gave both of these parties a large proportion of the vote. The Liberal Democrats who opposed fees at the election watered down the Brown review (capping fees at 9K etc).

If you are arguing for "Democracy" then that would involve implementing the Brown review in full (unlimited fees etc).

But if you accept that you are not protesting the lack of democracy but that you disagree with the democratically elected government's higher education funding policy then a protest is still not likley to achieve anything but at least you look less ignorant.
Distant
 

Previous

Return to The Sinner's Main Board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

cron