It depends on the public mood, the public mood was strongly against the poll tax, the public mood was strongly against students, the public mood seems to be that the cuts while unpleasant are necessary to get the public finances in order.

 

I don't detect great backlash against the cuts so any violence will backfire on the left.

I think you're are sooo out of touch with that.

 

Where do you live at the moment out of interest because you seem to be very wide of the mark in a lot of things that you talk about

I think you're are sooo out of touch with that.

 

Where do you live at the moment out of interest because you seem to be very wide of the mark in a lot of things that you talk about

 

England till September, I am a hot weather/summer person.

 

Surely the public at large realise that spending £40bn on students over 3 years is ludicrous and if they support it I would be fascinated to find out where they think the money would come from.

 

1,500,000 x 27,000 is over 40 billion

I think you're are sooo out of touch with that.

 

Where do you live at the moment out of interest because you seem to be very wide of the mark in a lot of things that you talk about

 

250,000 or so attended the rally today, over a million attended the anti Iraq war demo, clearly 3-4 times as many people care about Iraq than care about the cuts.

About 500,000 actually, according to the Telegraph.

 

Also, this £40 billion figure is absolute rot. Go check it using actual figures rather than guesses plucked out of the air, because we don't have 1.5m students and your figure doesn't take into account repayments. If it saved that much the government would've made more of the figure. Also, the public mood was distinctly in favour of the students - Labour started really pulling away in the polls after the tuition fees vote. And the same will happen after today - these right wing headlines will be preaching to the converted. Get out of your Daily Mail bubble.

250,000 or so attended the rally today, over a million attended the anti Iraq war demo, clearly 3-4 times as many people care about Iraq than care about the cuts.

 

Well, duh - even someone as anti-Coalition as me would say an unnecessary war poised to kill hundreds of thousands is more important than the cuts, destructive though they will be.

 

The tuition fees hike was wildly unpopular. I think, rightly or wrongly, most of the public do believe students should make some contribution, but trebling them seemed unnecessarily excessive to most people. Polls around the time consistently showed that, while most people disapproved of the violence at some of the student protests, they sympathised with their anger.

About 500,000 actually, according to the Telegraph.

 

Also, this £40 billion figure is absolute rot. Go check it using actual figures rather than guesses plucked out of the air, because we don't have 1.5m students and your figure doesn't take into account repayments. If it saved that much the government would've made more of the figure. Also, the public mood was distinctly in favour of the students - Labour started really pulling away in the polls after the tuition fees vote. And the same will happen after today - these right wing headlines will be preaching to the converted. Get out of your Daily Mail bubble.

 

500,000 is still less than half that attended the Gulf War protest. No one wants cuts but they are a necessary evil to get the debt back on track and in my opinion they will succeed so while the cuts aren't nice they are necessary and I think people realise that.

 

Yes Labour pulled away but do you have any evidence that this was because of the student fees ? or could it have been a general thing and the fact it happened at the same time as the student issue was just a co-incidence ? (cuts, bankers bonuses, MP's expenses etc making the government unpopular)

 

I don't buy the Daily Mail only paper I buy is The Sun and even then no more than 2 or 3 times a week (admittedly I read the Daily Mail website but I read many).

Well, duh - even someone as anti-Coalition as me would say an unnecessary war poised to kill hundreds of thousands is more important than the cuts, destructive though they will be.

 

The tuition fees hike was wildly unpopular. I think, rightly or wrongly, most of the public do believe students should make some contribution, but trebling them seemed unnecessarily excessive to most people. Polls around the time consistently showed that, while most people disapproved of the violence at some of the student protests, they sympathised with their anger.

 

The public are fickle, 1 poxy penny off fuel and a couple of speeches about how nasty Colonel Gadaffi is and the government are ahead in the polls again.

Wow, one poll counts as the government being ahead again. Ever heard of a rogue poll? Labour are still on aggregate ahead over all polling organisations by quite some way. Even the margin of error still fits a fair Labour lead.

 

The tuition fees were pretty dominant at the time. It could've been another factor, but when polls consistently showed the public against the rise and the polls showed Labour taking off after the rise, I fail to see what you could be basing this alternate theory on.

 

Wow, one poll counts as the government being ahead again. Ever heard of a rogue poll? Labour are still on aggregate ahead over all polling organisations by quite some way. Even the margin of error still fits a fair Labour lead.

 

The tuition fees were pretty dominant at the time. It could've been another factor, but when polls consistently showed the public against the rise and the polls showed Labour taking off after the rise, I fail to see what you could be basing this alternate theory on.

 

The students wanted fees scrapped altogether not just rises scrapped which is why Clegg was branded a traitor as he wanted free uni education for all, I fully believe that the public would sympathise with the fee increases but scrapping fees altogether would surely not gain much public support bar students and their parents :unsure:

The students wanted fees scrapped altogether not just rises scrapped which is why Clegg was branded a traitor as he wanted free uni education for all, I fully believe that the public would sympathise with the fee increases but scrapping fees altogether would surely not gain much public support bar students and their parents :unsure:

 

Students and any parents who want their kids to go to university constitute a pretty big section of the population you know :lol:

Students and any parents who want their kids to go to university constitute a pretty big section of the population you know :lol:

 

LOL true :lol: :blush: but aside from those with vested interests I think most people will have agreed that students should have to pay something towards their education.

 

And those with the vested interest in fees being scrapped would be the first to moan if the local hospital closed through lack of funds or no police officer could attend when they got burgled as the local station had closed. The money to pay for free education would have had to have come from somewhere.

The students wanted fees scrapped altogether not just rises scrapped which is why Clegg was branded a traitor as he wanted free uni education for all, I fully believe that the public would sympathise with the fee increases but scrapping fees altogether would surely not gain much public support bar students and their parents :unsure:

Do you really think Clegg would've gotten as much public anger had he forced fees to stay the same? People would've probably understood the rationale behind that far better and easier - there'd have been a bit of a mild backlash, but no more than there was against the Lib Dems for going into coalition anyway. NOBODY with any sense within the student movement expected fees to be scrapped. The SWP were pretty much the only people who thought it at all viable that fees would be scrapped, and when was the last time anybody took their views seriously?

I don't buy the Daily Mail only paper I buy is The Sun and even then no more than 2 or 3 times a week (admittedly I read the Daily Mail website but I read many).

Sorry, but this says everything.

 

I swear that the more posts I read by you, the more I believe you are either:-

 

i) living in cloud cuckoo land

 

or

 

ii) a complete wind-up merchant who just plucks opinions out of the air

 

Either way i am not responding to or reading them anymore

Sorry, but this says everything.

 

I swear that the more posts I read by you, the more I believe you are either:-

 

i) living in cloud cuckoo land

 

or

 

ii) a complete wind-up merchant who just plucks opinions out of the air

 

Either way i am not responding to or reading them anymore

 

I don't buy The Sun for politics I buy it because The Sun has by far the best sports coverage of any national newspaper. I buy it on a Saturday for the football and F1 gossip, on a Monday for the football results and on a Tuesday to get the report on the Monday night game on Sky tv, if your assumption is I buy The Sun to form my political opinions your assumption is so incorrect, I rarely even read beyond the sports pages.

Sorry, but this says everything.

 

I swear that the more posts I read by you, the more I believe you are either:-

 

i) living in cloud cuckoo land

 

or

 

ii) a complete wind-up merchant who just plucks opinions out of the air

 

Either way i am not responding to or reading them anymore

 

I have just seen your profile, it states you are 42.

 

I would least have imagined that you would have the maturity at aged 42 to have tolerance and acceptance of alternative opinions to your own without dummy spitting it really is most undignified seeing a grown middle aged man acting in such a manner.

I have just seen your profile, it states you are 42.

 

I would least have imagined that you would have the maturity at aged 42 to have tolerance and acceptance of alternative opinions to your own without dummy spitting it really is most undignified seeing a grown middle aged man acting in such a manner.

If the opinions being spouted weren't such pie in the sky bull$h!t then I would accept the opinions (wouldn't agree with them though)

 

But at least half of what you spout is unsubstantiated garbage.

 

Typical slurs cast from a right winger.

If the opinions being spouted weren't such pie in the sky bull$h!t then I would accept the opinions (wouldn't agree with them though)

 

But at least half of what you spout is unsubstantiated garbage.

 

There is no dummy spitting going on and from now on will completely ignore what you are saying, you odious little man.

 

If that is how you feel then it is probably best for the both of us if you do indeed add me to your ignore list.

If that is how you feel then it is probably best for the both of us if you do indeed add me to your ignore list.

BTW I completely retract what I said in the final part of my post, apologise for offensive remarks (because I don't like doing it) and have edited my post.

BTW I completely retract what I said in the final part of my post, apologise for offensive remarks (because I don't like doing it) and have edited my post.

 

Nice one :)

 

With regards what you edited it to I don't see myself as a right winger, I would say I am centre right. I certainly haven't posted any extreme views.

 

I have some very strong views on law and order, am economically centre right and am socially centrist so when added together that makes me slightly right of centre and certainly not an extremist.

Craig SUBTLE AS A BRICK as ever then. Clearly never bothered going to Alias 101.