A is for Apathy

The noes have it, the noes have it. I don't think anyone expected otherwise.

We've put voting reform on the backburner now, possibly for another generation. All because the disgraceful multi-millionaire-funded No to AV campaign spread nothing but lies and disinformation on a massive scale.

AV is not one person one vote! AV means dead soldiers and babies! Losers win under AV! It's not fair! It's too confusing! No-one likes it! Nick Clegg!

The Yes campaign barely addressed these claims, and instead went on a mindless emotional plea, based on more exaggerations.

Referendums are supposed to be times for debate, where we can actually make progress on a subject, and even improve something. But we're going to get our first impressions on the subject from the official camps, because we're the public, we're not electoral reform experts. This is why I can't blame people for repeating the misleading claims.

To preserve a status quo when faced with a genuinely positive reform - you don't educate (that will detract from your cause) - you lie. This puts the reformers on uneven footing. If they lie, the public perceive the reform as a con. So they have to counter the lies and also educate. In these situations the public becomes overwhelmed and will infer the status quo is a simpler option. That's where their vote will go.

What I feel deeply depressed about is how people still suck this stuff up. Don't get me wrong, this doesn't come as a surprise to me, having seen people truly believe that the evil atheist immigrants are causing monthly wheely bin collections.

I've been through university and always been of a scientific nature. I've always been someone who checks things out. If I'm proved wrong on something, I change my opinion to fit the facts. There's no shame in it.

The difference between voting systems is fact. First past the post falls apart when there are more than two candidates: the winner cannot necessarily say "more people voted for me than didn't." AV addresses this, but again it has it shortcomings, in that it reinforces two-party systems and isn't proportional.

Whether we should switch to AV is opinion. Whether you think we should switch to AV or not does not necessarily have a relation to the facts. So when people say that losers win under AV, it's just an opinion - and a wrong one at that.

This is my problem. Why, as a public, we haven't seen through this, is beyond me. We have an amazing resource in the Internet. It takes 5 minutes to verify claims. We haven't done that.

I'm positive that this referendum is designed to induce apathy in the Yes voters. They weren't funded by multi-millionaire Tories, and they now know that money has again prevailed.

I'm feeling pretty apathetic now. I'm not sure what happens next.

Discredited, on Dubious Grounds

Yesterday I blogged about the #march26 demonstration. In this world, things move quickly. 24 hours on, I feel a follow-up is necessary.

Front Pages

Sunday’s front pages were not all entirely about the demonstration – something you may find shocking until you realise the Z-list celebrity-obsessed Daily Star Sunday and News Of The World were writing about Jordan and her cohort. From the front pages, the narrative being pushed indicates the march is being discredited, overshadowed by the violence. Photographs of riot cops in full gear surrounded by an air full of flare smoke sells. It looks like hell. Today’s front pages show (aside from the Evening Standard scaremongering over the Royal Wedding) the issue was not salient. It’s old news.

The press doesn’t have much time to get their opinions out there. They are competing to get articles written which fit their pre-chosen narratives, squeezed through the editing process and out onto the printing presses in time for the morning rush hour. They don’t have the time for detailed analysis – if the issue is dropped by them, it will die quickly. Of course, this is why I like the blogging and tweeting platforms – the discussion can continue.

Boris Alert!

Boris Johnson wrote in the Telegraph (istyosty link) that:

"The sad thing is that in spite of their crocodile tears, Balls and Miliband will feel quietly satisfied by the disorder – a token, they will tell themselves, of the public feeling that is out there to exploit.”

This is nothing but flamebaiting party politics, the “us and them” logic that so often plagues discourse in the media. His views are warped. The event the Leader of the Opposition attended, like 99.996% of the 500,000 protestors, was entirely peaceful. It was a family event. Boris's comments are part of the discredit narrative – and they didn’t go down too well.

On the actual day of protests, when he didn’t have a Torygraph column to fill, this is all he had to say:

This is the same Boris, of course, who Political Scrapbook asserts is prone to violence himself. The well-publicised antics of the Bullingdon Club, an exclusive club of which Boris, Cameron and Osborne were members of, comes to mind.

In an urgent question session, the Home Secretary Theresa May refused three times to comment on Boris’s article, whilst blaming Yvette Cooper (whom raised the question) for her partisan questioning. Of course, more party politics. She also praised the demonstrations of the Countryside Alliance back in 2004. Of course, those didn’t involve a House of Commons invasion, or riot cops attacking protestors. I’ll come back to this question session in a moment. We need a bit of context first.

UK Uncut

The simultaneous protests caused the media a bit of a headache – trying to establish an accurate version of events in real-time is extremely difficult. Whether deliberately or accidentally, the portrayal of the violence with the peaceful occupation of UK Uncut has gifted them with negative attention from both sides. They are also (incorrectly) being attributed as the violent ones. Anthony Painter on Labour List had the following to say:

“How dare they unilaterally decide to conduct their own protest and divert attention from the main event.”

This view, whilst acknowledging UK Uncut were not responsible for the violence, questions why everybody shouldn’t just shuffle around in a queue. People have a right to protest, and this can be expressed in many ways. UK Uncut’s action was targeted not as a diversionary headline-grabber, but as part of a wider-scale response to the government’s claim that there is no alternative to their ideological cuts.

Likewise, Charlie Beckett condemns the timing of UK Uncut’s actions, which may be valid, although the BBC did possess leaflets regarding the situation hours before it happened. They had a chance to get their story straight. Joe Cox argues that UK Uncut partake in frequent occupations – to cherry-pick a particular event without the context of the others is misleading.

The police announced that 201 arrests were made. 145 of these arrests were on non-violent UK Uncut occupiers – 138 of which were charged with aggravated trespass. Shocking footage released by the Guardian shows that UK Uncut’s claim that occupiers were tricked into leaving with promises of not being arrested stand up to what happened in reality. The police have some serious questions to answer.

Eyewitness Reports

Eyewitness reports have been pouring in since the demonstration began. Laurie Penny’s New Statesman post was one of the more popular ones, however has been the source of both valid and unnecessary criticism (check out the comments on her article). Adam Ramsay described his arrest, and Dominic Campbell’s account goes into detail about the events at Trafalgar Square, where Black Bloc protestors became intermingled with other ongoing protests; mentioning the disproportionate police behaviour.

Eyewitness accounts, and I don’t mean to discredit them here, can be subject to hyperbole. They can even claim to see things that didn’t happen, or not see things that did. However, they are useful to get an on-the-ground view of things, and provide some more context for what I want to actually talk about.

More Powers

In the urgent question session, Theresa May said that she is prepared to look at granting more powers to the police. These powers seem to indicate the pre-emptive banning of people from protests, and the power to remove face masks. It will be interesting to see what Fitwatch makes of these powers. It will be additionally interesting to see how these powers stand up to the presumption of innocence and the right to protest. Comparing these powers to laws regarding football hooligans is like comparing apples to oranges: there’s a difference between banning people from football matches and removing their right to protest. In my mind this is reminiscent of sweeping legislation introduced by the Blair Government, such as the Serious And Organised Crime And Police Act 2005, which helped further erode our civil liberties and restricted the conditions upon which we exercise our right to protest. This coming from a Tory-led government who campaigned against Labour’s legacy of civil liberty abuse, and who have already taken positive steps into removing controversial databases (the ID card database). This is an intriguing test for the government.

Conclusion

It’s been a difficult three days to try and consume and analyse the amount of information that’s been streaming onto the internet, in a very fast moving story. I am hoping that a full debate is heard within the House of Commons with a full, independent report relating to the police tactics being on the table. The Met have questions to answer, which, when combined with their seemingly-dubious involvement News of the World phone hacking scandal, brings their credibility into question.

Whilst the violence on the day has been largely condemned and in the short term may allow the Tories breathing space to go on the offensive again, I believe that the anti-cuts message will percolate through once the cuts start to really kick in. Only time will tell – it’s just a shame we have a government willing to gamble with the lives of millions to find out whether they have the right medicine.

The Narrative Prevails?

Yesterday saw the March 26 demonstrations, a half-a-million strong anti-cuts march across London. The route, organised by the TUC in conjunction with the Met Police, was stuck to by the vast majority of people. It was peaceful, successful, and very well policed.

These protests were advertised as a family-friendly event, and that it was. The police upped their game, allowing Liberty (the legal observers for this event) into their control rooms. The TUC had employed stewards to co-operate with and assist the police. All fine, and commendable behaviour.

The Plot Thickens

Now famously, the BBC cut away from Ed Miliband’s speech to show a group (whom had diverted from the main protest group) deploying hit and run tactics, smashing windows of banks and the Ritz hotel. Sky News did a similar tactic, and the #shameOnBBC and #shameOnSky hashtags quickly did the rounds on Twitter. The nature of 24-hour news means such action was inevitable. Editors at the BBC (and Sky, in theory) must balance the need for a fair, representative coverage events with being the first to break the story. In this case, I think the BBC made an incorrect decision – and they knew it. The BBC were largely fair and representative outside of these ‘breaking news’ events, continually stressing that the ‘Black Bloc’ protestors were an extremely small minority, however, which is worth pointing out here.

When the Black Bloc broke off, suddenly the news coverage was covering two events. This later again became confused with a third simultaneous protest – that of UK Uncut’s occupations of tax-avoiding companies, including a secret occupation. At the speed these events were unfolding, it became difficult for the media to portray and understand what exactly was going on. UK Uncut’s secret occupation turned out to be at Fortnum and Mason. The store was inundated with occupiers. Video footage from the event showed that, from the inside, the occupation was largely peaceful (although no doubt extremely stressful and scary for the shoppers caught in the middle).

In came the riot cops. The entrance was blocked, with many of the UK Uncut activists being photographed, cuffed and arrested. UK Uncut is a peaceful, although sporadic and chaotic movement – a fact many on Twitter defended. Look at previous footage – they don’t destroy, they occupy and educate.

The narrative was blurred even further. The Black Bloc became confused with the UK Uncut activists at Fortnum and Mason, and additionally with the large rave going on at Trafalgar Square, organised as a 24-hour protest by the Education Activist Network. The police made 201 arrests (141 of which were at Fortnum and Masons), although the crowds at Trafalgar Square weren’t cleared until 2:45am.

Protestors I knew managed to break the police lines and escape via Charing Cross station. Others weren’t so lucky and were kept within the containment zone. The police were very often surrounded, and attacked. They also did their fair share of fighting too. Footage shows questionable force used for an arrest that I can’t seem to justify from the context of the video. Policing an operation of such a scale, with such variance is inevitably going to be hard work.

2 Cents

In my (outsider) view, the police didn’t do enough to remove the Black Bloc threat early on. Aerial photographs from the rolling news cameras showed the police attempting action, and retreating. The Black Bloc movement was highly mobile, violent and evidently difficult to police. I have no doubts in my mind their actions were deliberate to avoid being caught in a kettle. Whilst I condemn their actions, it is not them, nor the police who are the real enemies. There was violence on both sides, a riot cop punched a woman in the face live on BBC News. The Police would do well to remember they work for the people, something demonstrated in Wisconsin, where the police joined the protest. Questions will be raised about the kettling tactic again. It does not work.

That said, I also disagree with the new style of protesting brought in by the Blair Government – that of shuffling down a pre-arranged route in an orderly queue. That’s why there were simultaneous protests, each in solidarity over the government’s cuts. The protestors have a right to protest. With hindsight, it is clear that smashed windows and graffiti mean nothing to heavily-insured multinational conglomerations – although the images last. These images will (but shouldn’t) detract from the TUC’s message. They do not detract from the sheer anger people from all demographics are expressing towards the Tory’s purely ideological cuts.

Of course, the course of events has put the alternative message back on the defensive. Yesterday, the Tories could only muster Francis Maude and Matthew Sinclair to defend the establishment on BBC News. Francis Maude warned we should be wary of placing the blame for the deficit on one person, whilst in the same sentence blaming it on Gordon Brown. Am I back in May 2010?! Matthew Sinclair, head of the TaxPayer’s Alliance (a supposedly neutral pressure group, but in reality a group of out-of-touch Tory rent-a-quotes) belittled the protest, calling it a folly and out of touch with the vast majority of the public.

The strategy undertaken by the Tories is to claim there is no alternative to their cuts. Yesterday, this argument was shattered. Whilst political parties and unions are still devising their concrete alternatives, hundreds of thousands showed that there is another way. Whilst initial news reports indicate the Government don’t intend to change their course of action, I believe that change is in the air. As the new tax year starts and the brunt of the cuts begins to bite, more and more people will lose their jobs. More and more will become poorer, watching big businesses get richer as starving the beast reduces their taxes. This anger will surely be felt at the ballot box, but public opinion goes further than that. The Government will no doubt be aware of a growing movement against them. They’re only adding fuel to the fire.

For those who say protest doesn’t work, I direct you to the civil rights movement, and to the revolutions in the Middle East. To those who say protest doesn’t work in this country, I direct you to the poll tax riots, to the Suffragettes. The 26th of March march was bigger than the poll tax riots. Protesting is in our nature.

AV Referendum: Yes or No, But Don’t Abstain!

The Alternate Vote system is currently used by Scottish and Northern Ireland by-elections, although you may be more accustomed to its workings in the Labour leadership contest. Londoners use an offspring of the AV (Instant Runoff) system called the Supplementary Vote to elect the Mayor of London. On May 5th, a referendum will be held, asking the following question:

“At present, the UK uses the ‘first past the post’ system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the “alternative vote” system be used instead?”

The campaigns have kicked off, with the polls showing that it’s still pretty neck and neck.

I’m Voting Yes

Looking at the election data from the 2010 General Election, notice the following:

• Conservatives, 36%, 307 seats won.
• Labour, 29%, 258 seats won.
• Liberal Democrats, 23%, 57 seats won.

The first thing I notice is that the difference between 23% and 29% is 201 seats. The Conservatives have the major power advantage in the Coalition Government, outranking Lib Dems by over 5:1. It is for this reason that Labour have recently been calling the government Tory-led. To look at why this is happening, it is important to understand that Labour has traditionally held strong vote shares in urban constituencies; the opposite being true for the Conservatives. Looking at the proportional map on the BBC site I linked to above highlights this for the 2010 data. The Lib Dem support is more spread out, meaning that it translates less of its vote share into seats. This is why I believe that a proportional system is needed.

But wait, AV isn’t PR! You’re right - it’s not. The No2AV campaign, when they’re not releasing misleading statistics and publishing offensive and plain incorrect adverts, make the point that people are only using this referendum as a springboard to change the voting system to some Proportional Representation system (there are many). I think that is quite a reasonable statement actually.

The process of evolution involves making small, incremental changes, which over a longer period time constitute a larger-scale change. The phrase “Rome was not built in a day” comes to mind. The AV voting system is certainly not proportional, but it means that in any constituency the person elected can command an actual majority (i.e over 50%).

Under First Past The Post, the majority wins. Consider the Cardiff North constituency, which in the 2010 election voted as follows:

• Conservative – 37.5%
• Labour – 37.1%
• Liberal Democrat – 18.3%
• Others – 7.1%

The Conservatives won with a majority of 0.4%. In FPTP that’s a seat to the Tories, even though 62.5% of the constituency did not vote for Jonathan Evans. It’s hard to predict what the results would have been under any other voting system (and be dubious of anyone who tries!), but regardless, it is clear that FPTP is not giving us “strong, stable governments”, but the illusion of such.

That is why I will be voting yes – sure, it’s not the voting system I want, but it’s miles better than what we’ve got.

The Real Message: Get Out and Vote!

Regardless of your voting intentions, whether you agree with me, or David Allen Green’s New Statesman post on why he’s voting no; please vote. Don’t abstain. National-level referendums are rare, and they’re a chance for your own voice to be heard in Parliament, regardless of which party ‘represents’ your constituency. Don’t just join the #mehtoAV crowd, please use this opportunity. This referendum will affect the future of our Parliament. If we all abstained then we’d never get a referendum again (that’ll piss of the right-wingers who want a referendum on Europe!).

And hey, if Yes wins, you can still vote FPTP style under AV .

It's Your House - Keep It In Order!

This is a quick post about Guido Fawkes' recent outburst on Laurie Penny.

I don't care which side is wrong or right. Nor do I care what sexual orientation Ms Penny is of, nor do I condone the bullying of her in the comments section and on Twitter. If somebody is wrong on something (and I'm not saying she is), then this is to be discussed with intelligent discourse, not hate mail.

Bullying is not "the new racist" (as some commenter claims). They're both nasty things which you simply shouldn't be doing in 2011. I thought we'd pretty much accepted that? One commenter even suggests that as the comments are anonymous (mostly) then it's not bullying.

Even threats to have her hung are still floating high up in the comments thread.

Guido may or may not share the opinions of his readers. The issue that I take is that, as the moderator of his site, it is his responsibility to keep his own 'house' in order. If he can't do this because of the volume of comments - he should reconsider his comments policy. To quote Guido's own website:

"The comments policy is arbitrary and inconsistent. Bear in mind hundreds of thousands of comments get made every year. There is a vague ad hominem offensiveness level that merits deletion as well"

Why, when he's running a Wordpress instance, he hasn't got a report comments plugin (of which many are available for free) is beyond me. Why do death threats and hate based upon an irrelevant sexual orientation count as above his "offensiveness" threshold? If he simply can't be bothered to do some proactive moderation (removing the anonymity of commenters would significantly reduce this workload - a simple step to a larger cleanup that hasn't been taken) - then he is advocating their views by proxy, by allowing his site to play host to them. Absolving himself of guilt by saying he might not moderate just shows idiocy, and the fact that his house is very untidy; metaphorically speaking. Or - he agrees with them. It's got to be laziness or agreement somewhere down the line; both are not desirable traits in this context.

Another commenter said that "if you don't like it - then leave". I'd like to introduce Kenneth Tong - whom Johann Hari has already demolished for publishing on Twitter that "hunger hurts but starving works". A follow-up email explained why criticism on the internet can stick. Once you've seen it, it can do a considerable amount of damage. Only with the gift of foresight could an "if you don't like it - then leave" system work - and even then it doesn't resolve the absolution of guilt of the twat who made the comment in the first place.

Politics does not need to take such a childish attitude and bring out the worst in people. Especially when people can hide behind anonymous comments on blogs with admins who can't be bothered to remove the stupid amounts of hate and trolling on their website.

Grow up.

Questions Raised About the Browne Report

The Browne Report, the framework responsible for the new tuition legislation being rushed through Parliament, has been brought into question.

Read it in full.

The main claim is that most of the research money was spent on one opinion poll. The comments on the article seem to describe the situation brilliantly.

Of course, not all of the Browne Report is being implemented. Universities can charge up to triple the current rate rather than unlimited (oh thank you, kind Government!). However, it is pretty obvious this has not been thought through, both by those involved in the creation of the report and by the MPs who decided to vote ‘yes’.

Abstain

You can read the full debate online. The results from the first House of Commons Vote on these proposals are as follows:

Yes: 323 No: 302

The results show that 6 Conservative MPs and 21 Liberal Democrat MPs rebelled, whilst 2 Conservatives and 8 Lib Dems abstained. This resulted in a cut of the government’s majority to 21, although it is hardly going to stay at that level.

Given the situation – how unpopular this, how biased the report is, the cries for more evidence – the option to abstain is not a get-out-of-jail card for any MP who tries to pull that trick. When you’re not sure of something, don’t walk out of the vote, vote no. It really is that clear. I suspect the whips were encouraging the indecisive to abstain rather than vote no (as is the LibDem’s prerogative in this particular vote).

More Protests

All this whilst outside there was widespread anger. The protests had spilled onto Parliament Square (although you couldn’t hear anything from inside Parliament), there were outbreaks of violence and the Camilla got poked with a stick. Read Laurie Penny’s account of her time in the Parliament Square kettle, if you can.

Of course, the media turned this into widespread OMGZ, forgetting some of the earlier names they had called Camilla. This further detracted from what was again a largely peaceful, nationwide protest. Although once again I believe the real anger that is on show at the heart of these protests is something the media will not be able to percolate. Having the complete definition of privilege drive through the middle of a protest against ideological cuts manifested that anger in a way that will hit home for many people.

Later that night, the police decided to employ their good old kettling technique again. This time on Westminster Bridge. Look at that picture. Clearly this is not an appropriate amount of space to squeeze that many people into, yet for the police this is fine. This caused a senior doctor to come out and say this could have caused some serious damage on a Hillsborough scale. If somebody had fallen off that bridge…

End Result

The end result is the same old. We were promised this and that by this party and that party. New new new, get rid of the old. Change not indecision. Blah blah blah. Broken promises and everything stays the same. Of course the government weren’t going to be defeated on this one, but a widespread, nationwide campaign of disruption helped cut the government’s majority and stirred up memories of large-scale demonstrations from the last time the Tories were in power.

The media tried to dismantle this, they have too much to lose going against the government now, and they couldn’t break the protestors. The police tried to dismantle this, and they couldn’t break the protestors – they kept coming back.

I’m a firm believer in gradients of change. These plans aren’t the end of the world, nor are they the worst possible situation. However they are the start of something horrible, and once that snowball has been pushed down the hill… well, let’s just say that’s how the apparent need for cuts myth percolated into everybody’s minds. These campaigns, which will no doubt be joined by teachers, doctors and nurses, and even police officers in months to come as cuts deepen, all form part of an anti-cut movement which is going to define a generation.

Remember Remember

… The 23rd of April 2010.

David Cameron went on record:

"We have absolutely no plans to raise VAT. Our first budget is all about recognising we need to get spending under control rather than putting up tax."

The Conservatives were saying that a VAT rise is an unacceptable tax on the poor *.

Previously they had published the following on their website:

During the election, remember the Lib Dems running this poster?

Now

Today, the VAT has risen to 20% under a Coalition government of Conservative and Lib Dem MPs. Funny that.

Footnotes

* Be slightly wary of the figures, they're from the Tax Payer's Alliance, who are known to do a good old bit of twisting. This doesn't distract from the fact that Conservative Home were talking about a VAT rise hitting the poorest hardest.

Those Bloody Students!

For the third time this month, the students of the country took to the streets to protest the educational 'reforms' proposed by the Coalition Government. Students are largely upset at the prospect of paying up to £9,000 per year in tuition fees as a response to the The Browne Report. The typical ill-informed, knee-jerk response goes along the lines of:

"I pay my bloody taxes for these bloody students to sit on their arses doing nothing at second-class universities, only for them to end up scanning my shopping!"

There's more to it than that. A lot more. This post will only attempt to scratch the surface on the web of lies and spin which have resulted in the protests.

First, the Benefits

I should point out some of the positives that the report brings to the table, for there are two sides to every story, and most of the time both bring worthwhile additions:

• The lowest bracket of repayment is suggested to be raised from £15,000 to £21,000. 89.1% of graduates currently earn over £22,000, according to Prospects.
• Part-time students will get extra support. This is something long overdue, and is especially beneficial to working, single-mother students whom have it hard enough already.
• The tiered system can potentially go a long way into making sure people contribute what they are supposed to.
• No up-front payments have been suggested. If implemented this would massively decrease the number of poorer students who could afford to attend university (although I still remain confident the Government will say they cannot afford to loan the full amount in an attempt to reduce their long-term shortfall).

Criticisms of the Browne Report

In a letter to the Telegraph, senior academics from across the country criticised the Browne Report and proposed an alternate method which has been well received and suggested elsewhere: a Public Commission. They argue the Browne Report is rushed, will be likewise rushed into Parliament, and poorly-implemented at that. Concerns of the Higher Education Policy Institute, that the long-term costs of this are ignored (we'll be waiting for a return on each now-higher student loan for a longer period of time) are echoed. The idea that the market can dictate courses through a supply and demand model is challenged. The The Guardian has concerns this will hit universities hard. The Welsh Assembly is willing to absorb some of the price rises to tuition fees.

Fib Dems

The Liberal Democrats, despite their pre-election pledges, have seemingly abandoned their principles in the presence of power. They have faced a lot of criticism during the protests, especially Nick Clegg. So much in fact they are on a PR (read "damage limitation") campaign to say that they are considering making sure their pledges to oppose increases in tuition fees are met by abstaining from voting. That act is not congruent to the promise, and will not go down will amongst the public. Interestingly, if our Deputy PM and Business Secretary (whom is also the Secretary of State responsible for universities) abstain, what does that say about a government whose upper echelons can’t even agree? No confidence comes to mind.

The Kyriarchy

The idea that devastating austerity measures are justified by the belief that the private sector will pick up the debris from a systematic mass public sector redundancy program, in order to recover from a recession caused by risk-taking bankers (who knew the Government would carry the burden of their risks and bail them out, of course); whom themselves operate as if it’s business as usual – has been widely rejected.

At a time like this, where we should be investing to stimulate growth rather than disproportionately hitting the poorest with ideologically-driven cuts, we should also be investing in education. Education has the ability to break all boundaries. The Browne Report is a miscalculated step to reducing government spend in the short-term, whilst ignoring the cost to the funds in the long-term; representing a major shift on a gradient towards America’s education model, where the kyriarchy keeps itself afloat at a disregard to the rest of society.

Where can this money come from? The tax avoiders, of course! Reports are circulating that Sir Philip Green, the boss of Topshop, paid his wife in Monaco a dividend of over £1 billion in order to avoid a massive tax. Protesters have voiced concern about this by demonstrating outside the Oxford Street Topshop branch. UKUncut claim this tax avoidance alone could pay for 32,000 students at £9,000 per year. Vodafone, whose antics in the tax field were first exposed by Private Eye, have been the victims of a series of protests across the country. Vodafone’s response was to close their shops, deny they are not tax dodgers (their £6 billion bill was 'settled' by agreeing to pay 1/6^th of that). Channel 4 has suggested that Osborne, our chancellor, has questions to answer about his tax status.

That money could be used towards education. Or allow the kyriarchy to continue its privileged dominance over society. We're all in this together.

Show Your Support!

Support is coming in from all sides. Paul O’Grady and even Noam Chomsky have come out in support of the protests and occupations respectively.

Support the protesters! Support the occupations! Ignore the media lies about them being thugs, these are our future doctors and lawyers fighting for what matters for society. The Tories cheer cuts, the students hold lectures.

Coming Soon

How a supposedly democratic and free country responds to peaceful protests.