PowerSwitch

No, not about bad behaviour...

We've talked on here before about how the generation now leaving school is going to be rather miffed by the world they're emerging into (empty pension funds, f***ed up democracy, f***ed up planet, etc...)

This week we've seen UK Uncut, a viral protest group initiated by 10 under-25s in a London pub. Now Anonymous, whose spokesman is 22, standing up (albeit covertly) to support Wikileaks.

The 30-50 age bracket have shown ourselves to be spineless, greedy lemmings, so it's quite heartening to see that there is some fight, and an imagination and intelligence in these young people to maybe make a difference.

I think it's a good thing, but I wonder if they understand the big picture. I can understand why they are revolting against not having opportunities their parents had. On it's own though, I don't think that's enough. Unless they understand the 30-50 generation (I like that as I'm not in it ) is probably the last generation that can live like that, and that they need to be campaigning for a different way of life where they are valued. Campaigning to maintain BAU so they can have some of it, will lead to trouble.

luckily I am just past that 30-50 group, but it is that middle age group which has driven us toward the edge, although owing to my work I have no pension as well. 30 years ago I was more interested in getting involved in practical conservation work, but maybe I should have turned my attention to the political side. I am now much more interested and passionate about the environment and how I can help sort it out for my children.

Yes, I’ve been surprised.

I think mostly it comes from a general feeling of unfairness and a sense that an older generation has failed. There's also a growing understanding that the system is creaking badly and bits are falling off. Buying a house, going to university or finding a decent job must look like mountainous tasks.

I haven’t heard many solutions offered (not that I’ve got any either) or heard expressed a "big picture" or an ideology; though that might develop. It may soon begin to dawn that there has been a very long party; unfortunately they missed it and will now have to help clean up and pay the bills. Alas, all future parties are strictly verboten.

Switching off the TV/iPod and protesting is, in itself, likely to be a radicalising process.

The young people are protesting, by and large, not to change the system but to preserve the current status quo.

The fact is that with the peak in conventional oil production globally and the coming peaks in natural gas and coal in the coming decades, things will become tougher going forward.

That means some painful changes as we shift into the structures of scarcity industrialism and 3 billion BRIC consumers join the global party of Industrial Civilisation.

Contrary to some here, I don't think we are facing collapse within the next 5 years but there is no doubt that we are generally shifting from abudance to scarcity in terms of credit, debt, oil, base metals, PM, food, water and many other things.

All this means that everything we do - in the West - has to become leaner and frankly meaner if we are to compete with the Asian Tigers, the emerging superpowers like China, India and Brazil and yes this includes higher education.

Either fees go up or there is a massive cull in places for British students at our higher unis. There is no alternative. Students will have to adjust to this new world.

Morally and ethically I can't see much difference between the attitudes of the 30-50 age group and the younger cohort, both desire a consumerist, pleasant and confortable standard of living. So don't beat yourself up about it. Every generation would have taken the same advantages as you.

JohnB wrote:I think it's a good thing, but I wonder if they understand the big picture.

I've been quite closely involved in the student protests over the last month. It's been an interesting experience, jumping through the hoops of Student Union politics, formulating arguments and demands. Ultimately though the general level of understanding of the big picture is really pretty poor in my opinion.

I don't have a lot of faith today's student population to drive change or significantly influence policy.

clv101 wrote:

JohnB wrote:I think it's a good thing, but I wonder if they understand the big picture.

I've been quite closely involved in the student protests over the last month. It's been an interesting experience, jumping through the hoops of Student Union politics, formulating arguments and demands. Ultimately though the general level of understanding of the big picture is really pretty poor in my opinion.

I don't have a lot of faith today's student population to drive change or significantly influence policy.

What are your general verdict based on your experiences so far?

I think your general verdict is the subject, not your experiences.

I don't have a lot of faith today's student population to drive change or significantly influence policy.

In my day we had the Angry Brigade cooking up bombs in their Essex University hall of residence.

The police hardly ever went on some campuses.

Certainly the "Do you have a TV license?" snoops wouldn't have got out without major bruises or worse.

For the last few decades students have become soft - but maybe that is changing.

Seems police are busy kettling again in London right now according to tweets but this from a couple of hours ago.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/201 ... es-protest

A lot of figures get talked about. Such as the £38000 per year it costs to keep a single person in prison, but noone talks about the costs of alternatives to university. If those at university were not there, but employed, then it might cost a lot more than the money paid out to students at university.
This was actually the tactic used by University Lectures back in 1978 to get their claim for a rise in pay to match similar staff at Polytechnics. If the students were not given their degrees, then the students would become unemployed, putting up the unemployment figures by an unacceptable amount.
Since then there has been a progressive transition from Polytechnic to University and the associated additional cost of grants and student loans. Prior to this it was only University students who were guaranteed grants.
Compared to further education such as that provided at Universities, millions are spent on frivalous courses given to unemployed yougsters who haven't gone onto further education.
And the final straw is the amount of money still being given to politicians and high level management in local and national government.
It might be said that these students are fighting to keep some of the things they expect, but that is what the politicians have been promising them for past 20 years. They have been backing the want want more culture as it keeps the people happy. They have created this group, and it is now biting back. So much has been promised, and so little delivered.

I feel I must interfer with some facts...

Any university or college will be able to charge a graduate contribution of up to £6,000.
In exceptional cases, universities will be able to charge higher contributions, up to a limit of £9,000, subject to meeting much tougher conditions on widening participation and fair access.
For the first time, part-time students will be entitled to a loan and no longer forced to pay up-front costs, so long as they are studying for at least one third of their time.
A new £150m National Scholarships Programme will be targeted at bright potential students from poor backgrounds. It will guarantee students benefits such as a free first year or foundation year.
Students from families with incomes of up to £25,000 will be entitled to a more generous student maintenance grant of up to £3,250.
In order to make the system financially sustainable, a real rate of interest will be charged on loan repayments, but with a progressive taper. For graduates earning below £21,000, there will be no real rate of interest applied to their loan.


£9,000 is a ceiling, not a floor, and its a second ceiling at that.
The vast majority of the poor these people claim to represent will be BETTER OFF under the new system.

It costs $60,000 a year to attend a good US college, and most of those are 4 year courses.
If £18,000/£27,000 of debt will overwhelm your earning power after Uni, I'm afraid I'd have to ask why your going.
Should I, who didnt go to uni, pay higher taxes to fund a three year piss up for someone who will get a three two (they do exist) in Gender Studies from Bolton Institute and end up working a minimum wage job in a clothes shop?
Why?

The three most recent blog entries by Paul Mason suggests that it is not university students but 6th form students who are really the force behind the protests yesterday, and they "don't care". What that means, I have no idea (and I've no idea about dubstep either, though my colleagues have just educated me about Slipknot and maggots, so perhaps I'm getting there),


Peter (one of the 30 - 50s).

I heard analysis on Radio 4 by an economist who said the vast majority of Universities would raise fees to £9000 because they make more money that way than the cost of a few bursary enrolments.

Also the government had seriously overestimated the future income potential for the current batch of students. Their figures were based on graduates ultimately earning £100,000 in today's money. That figure is totally unrealistic even if we assume BAU.

This will cost the government more money than it saves. The only thing is, it puts the debt slave tag on huge numbers of young people, so that the government can turn the screws on them later.

RalphW wrote:Their figures were based on graduates ultimately earning £100,000 in today's money. That figure is totally unrealistic even if we assume BAU.

That must be something like the top 1 or 2% of income earners in this country...and they're projecting that 50% of the population will reach that?


Peter.