Nick Clegg came under renewed pressure over his tuition fees u-turn at Prime Minister's Questions today as 50,000 students marched on parliament in the biggest protest against the government since it came to power. However, violent scenes at Millbank Tower, home of the Conservative party, cast a pall over the demonstration.
Nick Clegg came under renewed pressure over his tuition fees u-turn at Prime Minister’s Questions today as 50,000 students marched on parliament in the biggest protest against the government since it came to power. However, violent scenes at Millbank Tower, home of the Conservative party, cast a pall over the demonstration.
National Union of Students president Aaron Porter “absolutely condemned” the violence, telling BBC News it was “not part of our plan” and the “actions of others who have come on to our march”, adding: “A minority have sought to undermine us.”
Porter also tweeted:
“Proud of the 50,000 students who have come to protest peacefully. Shame on those who are here to cause trouble.”
In addition, there was a sit down and occupation on the streets surrounding parliament; again, as with the violence at Millbank, nothing to do with the NUS – as seen in a video from Socialist Worker which clearly shows an NUS steward urging students to stand up.
Earlier, Mr Clegg was asked 12 times about fees at PMQs, failing to answer questions about the cuts to university teaching grants, described by Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman as “staggering”. She accused the deputy prime minister of “pulling the plug on public funding and putting the cost on students”.
Last week, Left Foot Forward reported on the likely abolition of teaching grants to 24 UK universities, including the LSE and SOAS, following universities minister David Willetts’s admission that state funding funding of arts, humanities and social sciences degrees would be scrapped.
This morning, the University and College Union revealed the cost of studying for a degree would double by 2012, while a survey of student teachers by the National Union of Teachers has shown that four-fifths found it difficult to make ends meet as a student – with 41 per cent finding it “very difficult”. Only 2.6 per cent of those polled support the plans to cut university teaching budgets.
NUT general secretary Christine Blower said:
“No amount of window dressing can take away from the fact that the coalition Government’s proposals for raising tuition fees will result in generations of young people being denied access to a university education on the grounds that they, or their families cannot countenance the debts with which they will be saddled.
“If higher education becomes the preserve of the wealthy it will be to the detriment of society. Ministers need to think again if we are to avoid shortfalls in recruitment to teacher training in the future.”
Update 4:15
To add to the visage of a man under siege, Nick Clegg announced he was pulling out of his visit to Oxford University next week, following in the footsteps of Vince Cable, who infamously cancelled his planned visit to Oxford last month, citing “police advice” – a claim disputed by the police. The Liberal Democrat leader said he had pulled our “due to an unfortunate diary clash”.
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
32 Responses to “Clegg under fire over fees as violence mars student protest”
Anon E Mouse
Chris – Public forum. People watching. You telling lies and smearing people. Sound familiar?
Chris let’s take it SLOWLY, bit by bit from what I’ve said, then everyone can see your lies and smearing exposed. Where was what I said here rebutted?
NOT THE CONTENT OF WHAT I SAID PLEASE – “THE REBUTTAL” YOU REFER TO. Where is that – Link: https://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/11/what-channel-4-got-wrong/
Where I said: “In this public forum can you please explain where the information in the final paragraph comes from:
“The safety of GM food is unproven. On the contrary, there is sufficient scientific evidence to suggest it is unsafe. GM food can potentially give rise to a range of health problems, including: food allergies, chronic toxic effects, infections from bacteria that have developed resistance to antibiotics, rendering those infections untreatable; and possible ailments including cancers, some of which are yet difficult or impossible to predict because of the present state of risk assessment and food safety tests”
There was certainly NO EVIDENCE for any of those claims even today yet that was a decade ago and the end of your link where Greenpeace state:
“To say that African countries adopted policies on advice from Greenpeace and other environment groups is wrong. African governments decide these things for themselves”
Well if the African government didn’t know any better about how safe GM is and at the time they didn’t, what were they to do?
Without ANY evidence that GM foods were harmful Greenpeace added it’s name to a letter that advised an ignorant government that it was a political American idea to potentially kill their people with dangerous foods.
And with the connivance of Friends Of The Earth (but not the innocents who live on it) the people continued to starve to death.
Well done Joss – I bet you had your organic muesli this morning. Ten years ago those wretched people in Zambia didn’t… ”
Well? Where is the rebuttal you refer to. PLEASE do not respond to the comments above, just show me the rebuttal.
Anon E Mouse
Chris – Public forum. People watching. You telling lies and smearing people. Sound familiar?
Regarding Miliband’s property status, this is from The Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/ed-miliband/8039829/Red-Ed-Miliband-lives-in-1.6m-house-after-shrewd-property-moves.html
Which bit has “my angle” on it – I didn’t write this article…
Well?
Anon E Mouse
Chris – Public forum. People watching. You telling lies and smearing people. Sound familiar?
Chris – You said “LOL, imitation is flattering mousey but your not going to catch me out like I caught you out with Huhne’s quote on nuclear power – have you actually visited the libdem website yet?”
As I remember and pointed out to you that quote was pre Coalition government from 2007 in fact – how was that catching me out?
It was you using out of date information to try to make a point where you were wrong again…
Have you joined the Lib Dems yet Chris or are the winners too intelligent for you?
Anon E Mouse
Chris – Public forum. People watching. You telling lies and smearing people. Sound familiar?
Chris – You said “Your the one who lies and smears commentators. And your not in a public forum, nobody knows your name.”
Two things Chris. Firstly the forum is public irrespective of my status and secondly how does my identity affect the validity or otherwise of my comments?
Unless of course your intention is to try a typical Labour smear…
Chris
Oh dear mousey, you’ve had a major relapse. Its long armed jacket and nappy time for you again, won’t you reconsider the lobotomy.
I can’t really be bothered to reply in detail but I will say that i. Greenpeace repudiated the accusation about US food aid containing GM ii. Your own telegraph link supports me as it clearly shows Ed didn’t make a million on property deals and that his wife owns their home. iii. The quote which caught you out and showed you are not actually a libdem was from 2009 and was libdem policy during the election.
“Two things Chris. Firstly the forum is public irrespective of my status and secondly how does my identity affect the validity or otherwise of my comments?”
Your identity, or lack of one, affects the validity of your comments because you claim to be something, a former labourite libdem, when your posts reveal a shocking lack of knowledge about libdem policies. And your use of tory press releases as source material leads me to believe you aren’t what you claim to be.
What was the topic again?