Dai Cameroid has stated that all those who caused damage in the latest riots should be caught and dealt with most severely. Well, yes they should. Defacing statues, abusing a cenotaph, setting fire to things, that is not a demonstration. That is a tantrum.
What are they demonstrating about? The fees they believe will deny them university places. No, they won't. Nobody pays a penny up front. Nobody pays anything back until they are earning £21,000 a year and if you earn that much, you're not poor. You can still go to university as a pauper, get a bursary to help you out, and none of it, including fees, is repayable until you're earning £21,000 a year.
Ah, but what if you leave university and never earn that much? How do you repay the debt then? Simple. You don't. If, thirty years later, you're still not earning enough to start repayments, the debt is written off. You owe nothing.
Vandalism, violence, arson, and for what? Nothing at all. Nobody will ever have to find nine thousand pounds before they set foot in a university. Nobody will have to turn up with identification and a clean credit card. If you sign up for a course in organic knitting or politically correct origami enforcement and then find nobody has any use for you at all, you'll end up unemployed and never pay a red cent back for that course. That is why fees for bizarre courses are likely to be high. The universities know that most of those graduates won't ever earn enough to pay the fees back. Especially those on the 'how to live like a 14th century peasant' course.
No, nobody will be denied a university place because of those fees. That's what the students are shouting about but that's not what the organisers behind it are fighting for. They know that the fees are no problem for the students. That's why they didn't kick up a fuss when Labour introduced them. Labour made them uniform in the name of equality, so all courses charge the same.
These higher, variable fees, and preference given to subjects that are actually useful, are no threat to the students. Unless their degree gets them a well paid job, they repay nothing. If it does, they will be able to afford it. The 'poor' simply don't figure in this at all. They are, and will be, completely unaffected. The poor pay nothing at all.
The threat here is to those bearded and sandal wearing lecturers and professors who run courses like 'sustainable pottery' and 'power station vandalism' and 'setting fire to things to get noticed'. Those courses don't produce doctors or lawyers or physicists, who might be expected to get a decent enough job that they'd actually start paying something back. Those courses produce soap-dodging, entitled, self-important commune occupants who live on the taxes paid by others and then call for the system that feeds them to be destroyed.
Funny thing is, I call for that too. I get no free money from the State so if it falls apart, I lose nothing. Better yet, I wouldn't be paying tax any more. So go on, crusties, bring down Giroland if you like. I don't live there.
Courses where most of the graduates reach high enough earnings to repay their loan will have low fees. Courses where most of the graduates go off into the woods to find themselves and decide money is immoral unless it comes from the dole office will have very high fees. Because very few of the graduates will pay them back. Eventually, universities will notice that nobody from the 'Mud Hut Construction' course is ever paying anything back.
That is what those behind the riots are really afraid of. The useless courses will close, one by one, because they are not getting their funding back from past graduates and because they will scare away new ones with high fees. The more useful the course, the more graduates will get jobs and repay their loans and so fees for those courses will be lower. Oh, the socialists who run the duff courses will insist that the good courses subsidise them. Unfortunately, those are run by lefties too, and lefties don't like to part with money.
They call themselves anarchists, but they are not. They are communists. Anarchy is the absence of government. That is not what these people are calling for. They want to bring down the government, yes, but they want to replace it with their own. A bigger one, even more controlling and intrusive than the one we have now. Anarchy? Hardly.
If real anarchists ever took control of a country, they would immediately relinquish control and tell everyone to go and look after themselves. Real anarchists would not seek to influence any government policy because they don't want any government policies. Real anarchists would certainly not riot in support of State-sponsored education. Communists would. Anarchy does not mean smashing things up to get your way. Those are the actions of infantile minds and if you want to be an anarchist, you need to grow up first. Anarchy means nanny gets fired and you look after yourself.
It does not mean looking after number one to the exclusion of all others. You can be an anarchist and still trade, still give to charities, still cooperate with those around you. What it means is that you don't need permits to do those things. It means you don't have bowler hats and clipboards watching your every move, taking a cut of every transaction, meddling with the minutiae of your life and setting up hordes of diversity outreach co-ordinators and smoking cessation Stasi officers. It means refusing to pay for those things we don't need.
In anarchy, there can still be universities but they would not be free. You would pay or find a sponsor, someone willing to send you there for training so you'd be an asset to their business. Schools would not be free either, but without the bureaucracy and waste of the current system they wouldn't need to be expensive.
No, these are not anarchists. They are big-state authoritarians. Nobody need fear a takeover by anarchists because really, there are very, very few such people. They wouldn't form a political party because it's the opposite of what they want. It would be as ridiculous as atheists setting up non-prayer meetings in a non-church. Don't worry about anarchists. Worry about the authoritarians who hold continuous power.
What will the riots achieve? Aside from enormous cost to the very taxpayer the students demand pay for their education, damage and destruction of property, injury (no deaths yet but that is sheer luck so far), what have they won? Nothing. They have not solved the problem because no problem exists for them. If they don't earn enough to repay the loan it gets written off. No bailiffs, no prison, no fines, no community service, nothing. If they earn enough to repay it, they won't be poor.
How does this price the poor out of university?
There will be more riots. Those instigating them must try to get this policy reversed before the next academic year.
That's when the students will realise that they aren't having to pay to get in after all.
The real issue for the students is not the fees but the application of them. There are fees riots in Glasgow, but Scottish students in Scottish universities pay no fees, so how did they find enough rioters? Scotland does not follow the fees system of England and Wales. Wales should but won't. No, the fees are not the issue for the students. They should be demonstrating against the racist application of the fees to English students only but they're not. They don't seem to have even noticed that part.
The indoctrination runs deep, doesn't it?