Nick Clegg visited Bath last Friday - one of the Lib Dems’ few safe seats - for a public question and answer session. The Guildhall audience dominated by students, it was bound to be heated, but the vocal and rowdy audience obviously took Clegg by surprise - not his typical image of heritage city Bath, I imagine!
Firstly, the bravery of a serving cabinet member to do this is refreshing. It brings politics out of the proverbial smoky back rooms and even more importantly, out of Westminster village. There is little better to get people involved in politics. That said, it cannot be looked past that this may well all be for show.
So his actual response? I was somewhat disappointed by the questions asked. Although on all essential subjects, none were asked in a challenging way, and his answers were predictable. The tuition fees betrayal? His “progressive” plans to enable lower economic entry barriers were quoted. Terrible conjunction of constituency boundaries and alternative vote bills? “I’m fixing British politics”. Massive issues such as the misplaced priorities displayed in legislating for the rise in tuition fees months before a (yet to appear) new solid system of aid to entry was created were not addressed in the slightest.
To give credit to the man, his staunch defence of democratic values was impressive and his mentions of new projects interested me greatly. The Green Investment Bank (another long promised project yet to appear!) was only touched upon, but if it receives suitable government capital investment, it could be an excellent system to promote investment in the urgently required renewable energy and sustainable transport infrastructure. His excitement at prospect of reforming the House of Lords (“something that has been discussed for over 150 years”) was distinctly visible. How this comes to fruition will be of interest, but whether he succeeds or not it will be a mighty legacy for him.
I found him interesting and engaging, if not enlightening, and I was disappointed to miss the opportunity to ask him a question myself. Whether any of this allows Don Foster to keep his largely student-supported seat at the next general election is something for which we will have to wait and see.
Today enjoyed a particularly peaceful tuition fees protest in my beautiful hometown of Bath - as quaint as the city itself - but have been more interested ultimately in what went on elsewhere. Here, the police were fine. Ten police officers watched 50 - 100 young people as we chanted and waved banners at the general direction of noone in particular, having been moved from outside the main council building. The police spent more time buying their tea than doing the kettling themselves.
What happened elsewhere. There have been unconfirmed reports of the use of tasers in Brighton, in Bristol police repeatedly used heavy handed tactics - if nothing particularly damaging -, and in London many were arrested merely for being in Trafalgar Square, having ‘not complied with a dispersal order’. The Met’s excuse? The ‘protesters arrived early’.
Ultimately protesters ran rings around the police - the scenes in London looked like a game of British bulldog - and all the protests had learned to avoid being kettled they had to move quickly. The game of cat and mouse goes on.
The thing that worries me most is the police’s inability to deal with larger groups of people. As soon as more than a couple of hundred people convene, the assumption is that a melee will start without intervention. In fact usually the intervention is the catalyst for the melee. The use of things such as Forward Intelligence Teams - gangs of policemen and protests that film protesters so they can be identified and targeted at a later date - are second guessing protesters, and shows the lack of trust in the British public. (n.b. check out ‘FIT Watch’ for great work countering and informing about these people, and also for to the minute updates from people actually in the protests)
The police are essential, and do a wonderful job - as they did today in Bath - but the tactics when dealing with larger groups of protests need serious revision.
No matter whether you oppose or favour students paying £9000/year for education on the basis of ethics, the economic arguments against the tuition fee rises seem to have been ignored. Giving up on the concept of affordable higher education is argument enough to kill the tuition fee rises for me, but other people need more convincing.
The government’s argument for this is the same old story - to cut the deficit, to reduce public debt. Public debt needs tackling, undeniably, especially as it is unfair to leave the next generations in power with its burden - but this is being done in an ineffective manner. The government saying the availability of cheap student loans only payable once you earn £21 000 mean social mobility will not be reduced by the fee rises. Therefore if each person pays £3000 more to go to uni and the government pays £3000 less, £3000 of debt is merely being shifted per person from government to individual.
Why is this a problem? Government debt is backed against public owned land, industries, assets and the long-standing good reputation of Great Britain as a whole - seemingly quite securely. Student debt is backed against the future of an individual. I think you’ll agree that one seems hugely preferable to the other.
As well as becoming more of a burden on future adult generations than less, this personal debt will remain with people for life - at the very least for many elections to come. This is the only plus side - perhaps it will prevent many future Conservative governments as people have massive debts as a reminder of where they went wrong in the past.
