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.