The following exchange at question time yesterday was quite extraordinary. Firstly hearing the Liberal Democrat Minister telling the Conservative Lord Lawson that
“We will restore rights to non-violent protest”, left Lord Lawson’s face a picture to behold!
More importantly and much more seriously the minister failed to deal with the central question of the right of Parliamentarians to access the Houses of Parliament. This is not just about a right to work. It is more fundamental. It is a long time since Parliamentarians in Britain were prevented from attending but precisely because of the importance of that crucial occasion in the years of the civil war we have insisted that Parliamentarians must be allowed access. The budding dictator needs to be able to stop a Parliament sitting and what better method then directing a hostile crowd to block the nation’s representatives from attending?
It is this crucial balance between the right of peaceful protest and the essential defence of the rights of representatives and legislators to take their seats and debate, vote and decide the nation’s affairs that is so important.
I am hoping to get an emergency question down to make sure we clarify what has always been assumed to be the case. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/101209-0001.htm#10120945000752
I seem to remember the minister being unable to recollect seeing Lord Lawson on the protest march he attended which surprises me as they often see each other on the march of time.
“quite extraordinary” seems an understatement. I heard Wallace of Saltaire’s answers last night with disbelief.
While I agree with almost all you say what you say the idea there is a balance between the right of parliament to function and people to protest is absurd. Parliamentarians’ must be able to attend above and before the right to protest, this is a democracy and the mob aren’t representing the demos!
From personal experience I can tell you that it was possible to get in, even when the police were donning their riot gear and heading for the Square, although it did involve a lot more walking than originally expected. I did get warned by a policeman close to Parliament that it might be better to forget my appointment and head the other way, but having made all that effort I wasn’t going to give up a mere hundred yards from my goal. The staff at Black Rod’s entrance were helpful, so thanks to them.
Of course, if the protesters manage to prevent their MPs from gaining access to the building then there wouldn’t be anyone for them to lobby.
Is there a problem with the balance of peaceful protest and access to Parliament?
More likely, problems with access are due to one of more failures in the volume of protesters, the route, policing issues, and the organisers of a protest.
Parliamentarians knew the NUS protest would be a difficult day for them and should have made arrangements to get in early and be kettled for the evening in the relative warmth and comfort that the Palace provides.
My sympathy for the student demos in London has been exhausted, too. The Prez of the NUS should get a grip on this or go.
It`s not just about the £9000 per annum.
“Over the next four years there will be a 60 per cent real terms reduction in education capital spending.”
http://www.education.gov.uk/b0068570/the-importance-of-teaching/school-funding/value-for-money
Those at colleges between 16-18 have also lost EMA which was an imperative part of their lives. That`s a £30 per week cut parents, poor parents will bear the brunt of.
The Labour party put the cut to HE funding at 80%. Courses will be cut to save money, my 15 year old is due to start a Beauty Course at college next year, will it be cut ? Will parents have to find more money or will our sons and daughters simply sit at home because there will be no jobs for the vast amount of poor 16-18 year olds ?
There was a large representation of young 15-18 year college kids at the demo yesterday, kids from the Eastend from impoverished backgrounds. One interviewed stated quite clearly ” We might as well go and deal drugs on the street now”.
Don`t get fobbed off by the Tory spiel, it is young poor kids who will pay the price. The Tories state a 60% reduction, Labour 80% whichever way who will pay the price ? The way to stop people running amok, from committing crime, from going bad is education. Can our society really afford that amount of education reduction ?
crucial balance between the right of peaceful protest
Is there ever a balance between the right to peaceful protest, and anything else, except unlawful peaceful protest?
Does peaceful protest not always come first?
Sounds as though it was far from peaceful.
The Protesters were herded to Parliament Square where they found themselves blocked by barricades, nowhere else to go. They were not shepherded away toward anywhere else. Once penned in the brutality the Police shone through. Watch the video 3:42 the brutal use of batons, the charge of the mounted Polics 3:22
The only thing that kept Members from Parliament were the Police.
I have to agree – the students were, by and large, peaceful. The only people causing trouble were a select few, probably anarchists and people who were there specifically to make trouble, but the police kettled everyone, including many minors. I am appalled by this practice and hope that it is declared incompatible with human rights at the ECHR.
Sorry video link :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/paulmason/2010/12/9122010_dubstep_rebellion_-_br.html
Of course, the other side of the coin is that if Parliamentarians are too insulated from the real world then they’ll lose touch with the people they are supposed to represent. Getting inconvenienced by the police occasionally reminds those in Westminster of the experience of other residents of the country, and if you happen to encounter a particularly unhelpful PC, well that happens in the real world occasionally too.
It’s a bit like IPSA, about the only quango to have widespread support amongst the general public because it lets Westminster experience the sort of irritating and petty form-filling and rules that you all manage to impose on the rest of us.
Further:
The reason for the discrepancy in what Labour & Conservatives state is the reduction to education funding is this.
The Government is cutting overall funding for education by 60% but primary & secondary schools budgets have been protected to a degree. This means more cuts will be made in the Higher Education sector, Labour states this will mean an 80% cut to HE.
If we also take into account that the school leaving age is due to rise to 18, I believe within 18 months, where are schools going to find the extra cash for the teachers, extra classrooms and equipment ?
Whichever way you look at this a 60% cut to education is possibly the worst and biggest cut of all.
An 80% cut to higher education will mean the loss of numerous courses, the Government intend for HE to concentrate on Science & Math. This will be an appalling loss to our Nation as education slips, it WILL hit the poorest harder as courses will only be available to those who can afford to privately fund them.
The problem for all those who oppose the cuts is simple. The government is spending 30% more than it takes in taxes.
You have to ask if you will tolerate the tax rises?
If you’re in favour of tax rises, my first question, how much extra did you pay HMRC last year, voluntarily? I’ll bet it was zero.
So the question is cuts.
Why not start with the Lords? There is 600 billion available, at least over the next 5 years.
I do agree with you, Lord BLagger, in regards tot he core problem beign that the Government spends mroe htan it makes. A wise man lives within his Budget, and a fool lives off Credit. In the end, all Debts must be repaid somehow, and it is always best to avoid them wheneve rpossible, but the modern Western Democracies seem to have forgotten this and built enormous debts for themselves o finance unnessisary Governmnt.
It seems Modernity has caues us, in the name of our pursuit of a mroe rational and logical society, to forego reason and logic in the name of an ideal which we then so lable, and we htink the old ways inferior becausethey are old, an the new as Progress even when it seems to cause such adverse effects.
With a parliament like this, who needs a dictatorship?