Anarchy in London?

[Sticky Squid]

If they wanted to protest against the Government they should just have gathered people and had them loudly play a very annoying song.

 

[similar.squirrel]

I find it a bit strange that the President of a University [in Ireland, leastways] earns in excess of 200k.

 

[YesIPlayTheBagpipes]

just some protests really.

 

[Worgen]

Yes the wreck of the economy is caused by socialists and not by capitalist bankers giving themselves millions of dollars of pay and then having to be bailed out by the governments you so demonise.

Do me a favor, point out where I said the bankers were pristine? That's a bit off topic, but lets be honest, government programs were enticing the bankers to act in the way they did. Rating programs, the whole community housing acts, giving people loans who could never pay it back because they were in an "under-served" community (e.g. poor enough that they can't pay the loan back) caused a bubble to form.

After people saw just how bad the housing bubble was, they sold their toxic investments to other industries, and the whole thing went kablooie. The banks are at fault for being complicit, but the prime evil in that problem was the government.

you mean a company would game the system to get as much out of it as it could? NOO I refuse to believe it, ITS NOT POSSIBLE!!!!!

No, it wouldn't unless it was forced to. Why would they kill the goose that lays the golden eggs? Banking in America had been stable for nearly a century, and strangely enough, the Great Depression was also a product of government intervention into the market.

Banks act to make a profit in an environment of the economy, destroying it like a ponzi scheme doesn't maximize profits. Government acts only for political purposes, and frankly, almost none of the governing individuals have any experience acting in a real economic business before they're put in charge of the entire economy.

A business will destroy itself in the long run by trying to make as much money as it can quickly, just look at the example that is enron. Enron used creative accounting all over the place to make lots and lots of money quickly but ultimately destroyed itself in doing it, but the main problem was that it made a lot of other companies get onto the me too train. Most of the banks had been stable for a very long time but then the regulations of the industry started to be torn down by the champions of deregulation and eventually banks decided they wanted to get their paws into that fast money pot also.

your right about elected officials not having any experience with that sort of thing when they get elected, its pretty much impossible for them to have an expert level in anything to get elected since to get elected you need to be an expert in getting elected so that kind of prevents expertise in most other fields. But anyway thats actually why we have lobbyists, ideally the lobbyist is there to provide guidance on issues that are related to an industry or social group that the elected official might not know much about, altho in todays world the lobbyist is mostly just a mouth piece for whatever group hired it.

 

[YesIPlayTheBagpipes]

British Politics 101. The Tories (Conservative, right wing, very rich and posh, not as stupid or racist as the American Right wing.) joined in a Coalition with the Liberal Democrats (centre, although recently getting more right wing, relatively posh but not as posh as tories, relativly unimportant till now)
and have started to cut everything (which they were planning to do for years before the meltdown) using the ecnomic crisis as a justification, despite saying the exact opposite during the election. The Lib Dems have been a doormat to all this (despite saying the exact opposite during the election). The Coalition have been Gerrymandering up in Scotland and cutting Labour( left wing, ones who cocked everything up in the first place, althought with a new leader, "Red Ed") held areas, like Liverpool, by 10% whilst cutting Tory areas by less than 1%. Basically the Tories are rich so can afford private schooling and healthcare whilst cutting public-funded Healthcare and Education, meaning less taxes BUT the majority of people cannot afford private services and that is creating friction. there is also fighting within the Coalition and within the Lib Dems as the older generation like Menizes Campbell (former party leader, Olympic Gold Medalist) rebel against the younger leadership who are cow-towing down to the Tories. Scotland is largely unaffected, due to it's own Parliament and Scottish National Party government under Alex Salmond, who may just be a Jedi.

 

[ratman995]

People just don't understand economics especially thugs that riot, the cuts have to be made, even though i believe they are being cut too much in the core areas (Education, Security and Safety and Health) they had to be made. The government has to educate the country about the measures to make sure Britain gets in more debt than post-ww1 germany. So yeah in conclusion the cuts have to made, thugs don't understand and cuts are in the wrong areas.

 

[Wicky_42]

Well they shouldn't have voted for the people they voted for in the first place.

Erm we didn't I voted labour personally and the election was pretty much a 3 way split The Conservative party only got into power because they got support of the Liberal Democrats. They basically took power without the consent of the people. This non-democratic system is why some people want proportional respresentation in this country.

Oh. I somehow had stuck in my brain that (don't ask me how) Liberals promised not to raise these educational fees (WOW you can really tell I am neither English native nor un-tired) and then won the election and raised those fees. But if Conservatives are involved it makes more sense. Hope you have enough natural resources in the UK to be able to afford making education non-accessible to many.

To elaborate a little, back in the early 2000s Labour was elected, promising not to INTRODUCE tuition fees - higher education was free before. The only thing previous generations had to pay for were their accommodation (thus neatly undermining arguments about student's 'entitlement' issues).

By 2004 that same government introduced tuition fees at around £3000. Back-stabbing politicians, right?

Since then, the price has been slowly creeping up, just a few tens of pounds a year.

In 2010's elections the Liberals ran with a promise to CUT tuition fees completely within a couple of years, signing pledges and all that good stuff. They felt secure in these promises because they didn't think they had a chance in hell of gaining political power.

The Conservatives came out of the elections with just about half the seats - enough to allow them to form a government, but they'd be completely hamstrung in Parliament. Labour and the Liberals considered a coalition to form a government by combining, but even then their combined seats wouldn't give them a majority, so the only solid government that could be formed was a Liberal/Conservative coalition. Two ideologically opposed parties, with almost opposite stances on a range of issues, including tuition fees. Which the Liberals conceded on to the Conservative's demands. As they did on most issues.

Basically, the Liberal's student votes, won through a campaign of tuition fee cuts went on to help form a government that those voters actually strongly opposed.

Wonderful example of democracy in action, and should hopefully explain some of the anger in the student protests last year :/

OT: loving how many people assume it's students protesting and that obviously they are all entitled twats. Yay for exercising your democratic right to protest - instantly be considered scum by ignorant prats!

These protests are against the cuts, and of course since it's not students protesting obviously it's not about entitlement -.-U

Honestly, if tax dodging by just a few of the larger corporations was clamped down on all these stupid raising fees and heavy cuts that seriously adversely affect the large bulk of the population could be avoided. But, of course, it's easier to take away stuff from the poor than it is to get the rich to part with any of their wealth. Ironically.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

Alot of people quoted me so I think I should do some sort of blanket response perhaps.

My BA is in History and my BSc is in Information Technology a few days ago I got a job as a web designer and researcher (for the government ironically) so yeah it paid off. I also worked in a supermarket from year 11 in high school (for ease of americans) to 2 years after university. I would have liked to have gone for a phd but unfortunately my dad passed away from cancer quite suddenly during my finals and I slipped a grade, shit happens I guess :/

I think certain things in society should be a given, free healthcare and helping those with good grades to reach thier full potential as just two. My grandma (90) is just as intelligent as me and she was put in a mill from when she was 14 years old I really wouldn't like to go back to those days when truly capitalism was in charge.

People will take advantage of charity but it tends to be the most ignorant who do (the chavs of britain) so how does taking away education help that? We should think as a society, we are all on this planet together and yes people are assholes but surely treating them like crap makes you just as bad.

Oh and my mum went to the marches becuase of job cuts, she lost her job but luckily is old enough to get volutary redundancy some of her friends weren't so lucky. It wasn't about student fees really just so you know.

 

[Wicky_42]

Man, I feel so bad for them. They're going to have to pay for their tuition like I do!

This is what happens when the entitlement mentality is threatened by removal of the teat.

EDIT: I actually do feel sorry for them, though I said that with sarcasm. For years they lived in a world where they were allowed to establish a feeling of entitlement, and now it's been taken away. Probably for their better, but it's a shame that the socialist government programs killed their spirits so much that they feel they MUST have the government nipple to suckle from.

"Derp, I worked sooooo hard so I could pay for my own way, so why shouldn't everyone else?"

I dunno, why don't you ask their parents how much their fees were? Oh, that's right - until 2004 higher education was FREE for EVERYONE who wanted a place, and had been for generations.

Perhaps you should ask those politicians who implemented the tuition fees to pay the same amount of money for the education they had all those years ago - oh wait, by that education they've been able to comfortably pay not only for their own education but also many others' as well through their higher tax band - it's almost as if heavily subsidising higher education leads to a more educated, better paid, economically stronger workforce whose benefits go beyond the cost of educating them in the first place.

When these new fees get tripled just 6 years after their introduced, who do these students think they are getting pissed? I mean, it's not like they voted for a party that promised to abolish them and then teamed up with an ideologically opposite party to triple them, right? OH WAIT, it's exactly like that.

Of course, your knee-jerk response to the mention of protests being "Entitled students derp" just shows how well that self-paid education is doing for you, what with this being 500,000 normal members of the populace protesting against the government's campaign of cuts to jobs, spending, pensions, support etc whilst allowing major corporations to dodge the vast majority of the taxes that they should be paying.

 

[Magikarp]

I think violent protestors should be shot. It might be a bit extreme, but a coin covered firework could easily blind or kill a policeman who isn't wearing a riot helmet.

 

[Erja_Perttu]

I think violent protestors should be shot. It might be a bit extreme, but a coin covered firework could easily blind or kill a policeman who isn't wearing a riot helmet.

That's a bit extreme, but I agree in some respects about the shooting. That's why I think they should bring back rubber bullets. They hurt like hell and help immobilize people who wouldn't think twice about injuring a police officer. It's sort of a 'treat other as they'd treat you' idea.

I don't know much about politics, but I know what happens in town councils. I've sat in meetings about planning permission for building where twenty guys in suits all sit around grumbling to themselves, debating whether to allow regeneration in a poor factory area should be allowed to take place because one manhole might infringe on a public road and that means they'll have to get the highways agency involved, meaning another meeting with a different twenty guys in suits grumbling about whether the substation will be on public property so there's another meeting...

When the government cuts some of that shit out, then I'll listen to what they've got to say about cutting healthcare.

So I support the protesters. There's a lot of things not getting trimmed that could use it a damned sight more than frontline services.

 

[balanovich]

"Demonstrators swarm central London to protest spending cuts"

You don't spend enough money on us so we are going to break shit!!!!
...
Then you'll have to pay for the damage and have even less money for us!!!
YEAH!, We the people rule !


Why are people so stupid?

Not how it went at all, well done. You, the person, are so stupid.

See it as a caricature of event or a satire.

I wasn't commenting on how things went. I was merely pointing out the idiocy/irony in the fact that most in protest against governmental spending there is violence and vandalism, which ends up costing a lot.

I know that the violence always comes from a small minority. But since its about that minority that the newspaper talk, it makes an interesting contrast.

The next time you want to call someone an idiot, make sure you don't do it in an even stupider way.

 

[Nmil-ek]

Yes the wreck of the economy is caused by socialists and not by capitalist bankers giving themselves millions of dollars of pay and then having to be bailed out by the governments you so demonise.

Do me a favor, point out where I said the bankers were pristine? That's a bit off topic, but lets be honest, government programs were enticing the bankers to act in the way they did. Rating programs, the whole community housing acts, giving people loans who could never pay it back because they were in an "under-served" community (e.g. poor enough that they can't pay the loan back) caused a bubble to form.

After people saw just how bad the housing bubble was, they sold their toxic investments to other industries, and the whole thing went kablooie. The banks are at fault for being complicit, but the prime evil in that problem was the government.

you mean a company would game the system to get as much out of it as it could? NOO I refuse to believe it, ITS NOT POSSIBLE!!!!!

No, it wouldn't unless it was forced to. Why would they kill the goose that lays the golden eggs? Banking in America had been stable for nearly a century, and strangely enough, the Great Depression was also a product of government intervention into the market.

Banks act to make a profit in an environment of the economy, destroying it like a ponzi scheme doesn't maximize profits. Government acts only for political purposes, and frankly, almost none of the governing individuals have any experience acting in a real economic business before they're put in charge of the entire economy.

Banks do CEO's who issue the orders don't give a flying shit if the company they work for goes under thanks to rediculous shareholder laws they make out multi millionares in bonuses anyway.

And no it was not the government if anything it was a complete and utter lack of regulation and foresight. Or do we want to ignore the derivatives debt thats larger than the entire global GDP banks racked up?

The governments wars hurt us no doubt but not enough to turn the system into a complete funny money game.

 

[Magikarp]

I think violent protestors should be shot. It might be a bit extreme, but a coin covered firework could easily blind or kill a policeman who isn't wearing a riot helmet.

That's a bit extreme, but I agree in some respects about the shooting. That's why I think they should bring back rubber bullets. They hurt like hell and help immobilize people who wouldn't think twice about injuring a police officer. It's sort of a 'treat other as they'd treat you' idea.

I don't know much about politics, but I know what happens in town councils. I've sat in meetings about planning permission for building where twenty guys in suits all sit around grumbling to themselves, debating whether to allow regeneration in a poor factory area should be allowed to take place because one manhole might infringe on a public road and that means they'll have to get the highways agency involved, meaning another meeting with a different twenty guys in suits grumbling about whether the substation will be on public property so there's another meeting...

When the government cuts some of that shit out, then I'll listen to what they've got to say about cutting healthcare.

So I support the protesters. There's a lot of things not getting trimmed that could use it a damned sight more than frontline services.

I know what you mean. Every decision seems to go through so many meetings that nothing ever gets done. And I do agree with the peaceful protesters, but it really pisses me off when someone is hitting a policeman with a baseball bat because he doesn't agree with the government.

 

[lostzombies.com]

People just don't understand economics especially thugs that riot, the cuts have to be made, even though i believe they are being cut too much in the core areas (Education, Security and Safety and Health) they had to be made. The government has to educate the country about the measures to make sure Britain gets in more debt than post-ww1 germany. So yeah in conclusion the cuts have to made, thugs don't understand and cuts are in the wrong areas.

First sensible post I have seen, thank you Sir.

The cuts have to be made otherwise within a year or two UK PLC would collapse and we would be in the same situation as Greece, possibly worse. It's not nice but in terms of public services we still have it far better than most countries eg the US. It will most likely be at least a decade before we are back 'in profit' but it's the only option left to us.

Notice why the only people at the protest were TUC members. Middle England is fully aware of the needs for the cuts. Labour as a political force is essentially dead for a long,long time so people have to learn to deal with the situation.

The NHS is still the same
Education is still the same
Defense and Offensive capabilities are essentially the same
Police will get rid of the laughable PCSOs
We still give a huge amount of aid to countries in need.

Nothing is any different apart from all departments are being squeezed to cut out the waste and become more effective. For example the MOD spend £40 Billion on refurbishing their offices under labour. That kind of waste (8 new Elizabeth class aircraft carries worth) won't be allowed to happen again.

The cuts may pinch slighty but the country will come out of it stronger and more efficient. As opposed to the only other outcome of not having these measures; a complete collapse of the economy and financial structure then being shacked to a IMF loan to keep the country afloat, the size of which will make the current defecit and debt seem tiny.

---------------------
edit-
NO these protests were not about student fees people! Everyone can still go to whatever university their grades enable them to join. Under the new measures you would only pay back the fees when you actually start to earn over £20k a year. E.g if you go to oxford (£9k per year) and come out of it without a job, you don;t have top pay back a penny.

You would have thought as students these people would have at least read the policy changes..

 

[Erja_Perttu]

I think violent protestors should be shot. It might be a bit extreme, but a coin covered firework could easily blind or kill a policeman who isn't wearing a riot helmet.

That's a bit extreme, but I agree in some respects about the shooting. That's why I think they should bring back rubber bullets. They hurt like hell and help immobilize people who wouldn't think twice about injuring a police officer. It's sort of a 'treat other as they'd treat you' idea.

I don't know much about politics, but I know what happens in town councils. I've sat in meetings about planning permission for building where twenty guys in suits all sit around grumbling to themselves, debating whether to allow regeneration in a poor factory area should be allowed to take place because one manhole might infringe on a public road and that means they'll have to get the highways agency involved, meaning another meeting with a different twenty guys in suits grumbling about whether the substation will be on public property so there's another meeting...

When the government cuts some of that shit out, then I'll listen to what they've got to say about cutting healthcare.

So I support the protesters. There's a lot of things not getting trimmed that could use it a damned sight more than frontline services.

I know what you mean. Every decision seems to go through so many meetings that nothing ever gets done. And I do agree with the peaceful protesters, but it really pisses me off when someone is hitting a policeman with a baseball bat because he doesn't agree with the government.

I don't think most of the guys doing the hitting with baseball bats are protesters though, I think they're mostly just opportunistic thieves. Why would people opposing spending cuts want to criminalise themselves by looting Topshop and a few banks?

I think there are definitely some people who were protesting violently, I can understand the protesters occupying the Ritz (understand, but not identify with or condone) because that's a symbol of wealth and excess. But the people looting shops and attacking police officers just sound like they're using the protest as a diversion so they can steal things.

 

[TheGuiggleMonster]

Basically there is a large budget defecit of several dozen billion GBP per year that the government needs to make up for by borrowing money off countries with stronger economies. The new Conservative government are cutting public spending so that the future of Britain won't have to pay back ridiculously large sums of money. People don't want the government to stop providing public services/welfare so they protested. The protests aren't actually that bad though.

The amount of money Britain owes the rest of the world is so much that each person would have to pay £40,000. The average person earns between £25,000 and £30,000 per year. If we pay it slowly than the interest will increase and we will have to pay more.

Government spending cuts are a good thing. It's just silly that the budeget defecit has grown so much.

 

[Trivun]

I remember those protests, I'm saying that there were protests going on today that were related to Government spending cuts in general. This isn't a student protest.

Oh fucking Nora! Sorry, completely got the wrong end of the stick. I missed the news on that. But after a quick look around it comes apparent that it was probably worse than the student riots a few months ago. Again, sorry.
Shit. Well. There ya go, OP.

Man, I feel so bad for them. They're going to have to pay for their tuition like I do!

This is what happens when the entitlement mentality is threatened by removal of the teat.

EDIT: I actually do feel sorry for them, though I said that with sarcasm. For years they lived in a world where they were allowed to establish a feeling of entitlement, and now it's been taken away. Probably for their better, but it's a shame that the socialist government programs killed their spirits so much that they feel they MUST have the government nipple to suckle from.

Actually, we paid tuition into university beforehand, it's not been suddenly established, it's just been suddenly raised so that many can't get into university now and it's likely they can't. Perhaps we didn't pay as much as you did, but it's on the same par as someone suddenly raising your tuitions and many of the people who wanted to go needing to abandon their dreams for the time being until they get the right cash together. Our colleges are free but otherwise that's it for additional education. At least, I thought that was what you were getting at, might be wrong, if I am, sorry, I'm exhausted and will be heading back to bed soon enough not to misread things and get myself in trouble.

I pay 100% of my costs, at a private college. No grants, no loans, no government funding to the school. Everything out of pocket, busting my ass at work to afford it. I know I'm a bit callous to all of it, but it's not without warrant.

Here in the UK we also pay our entire costs. However, because most people can't afford to pay up front, the government gives us a loan, which we then pay back over time after we finish university. The protests about tuition fees aren't that we have to pay, it's that the costs have tripled for most universities this year thanks to something called the 'Browne Report', which is basically aimed at looking at ways to cut costs in higher education. The controversy also stems from the fact that not a single member of the current government paid tuition fees when they were at university, because the system was different and higher education was free, and yet they feel justified in making the next generation pay up to £9000 per year (the former fee, which I pay, was £3000 per year), which is risking making university education something only the upper-classes can afford.

Regardless, the tuition fee protests were all a few months ago. The stuff that happened yesterday was something else, called March for the Alternative. Simply put, the idea is that the government are making massive cuts to public spending on all fronts, things like the military, education, healthcare, all sorts of things. However, they aren't taking steps to reduce costs in places where money goes to waste, and are still spending massive amounts on frankly useless things, while cutting things like the number of nurses in hospitals or police officers on the streets. Thus yesterday's march in London was for that, trying to get the government to look at alternative measures of cutting costs to reduce the budget deficit, one that will do less harm to people in the UK.

Also, the OP's title is pretty suggestive, and wrongly so. The protests yesterday were PEACEFUL. The actual protest itself was something that happened in Hyde Park, in central London, after the march itself, and was made up of people from all walks of life, and all different professions, including but not limited to students (my student union sent a coach down with members of our leadership along with students, I wanted to go too but sadly I had to work that evening). The 'anarchy' that people describe was a completely seperate group who weren't affiliated with the protesters at all, and kicked off in a completely different location, Trafalgar Square. Those people were described by the police themselves, and the BBC, as well as journalists who were also protesting (such as New Statesman's Laurie Penny), as being people who specifically wanted to commit criminal acts and used the protests as an excuse. They were a tiny minority who didn't have anything to do with the actual protest.