For a genuine fightback against fees, cuts and privatisation

Socialist Students statement on national protest on February 25. Anyways, must dash as i'm off to speak at a meeting in Manchester later on.

With the review of funding for higher education taking place next year, it is urgent that a campaign is built mobilising students to defend their rights. Already Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have introduced university tuition and top-up fees, and they currently stand at up to £3,000 a year. University vice-chancellors, through their organisation Universities UK (UUK), are keen to see this raised in the 2009 review, and are attempting to push the government to allow universities to charge up to £6,000 or maybe even more. Students need to build a fightback against this possibility, which would have devastating effects for tens of thousands of young people. But we also need to fight against the idea that education is a commodity and should be paid for. Socialist Students has initiated the Campaign to Defeat Fees, which has organised the most successful action on campuses against fees recently, coordinating action in over 50 universities and colleges in highly successful days of action. The Campaign to Defeat Fees has a wide range of support, including leading figures from the trade union movement including John McDonnell and Tommy Sheridan, students unions and over 5,000 individuals.

Unfortunately, the National Union of Students (NUS) leadership has so far not been prepared to launch a serious challenge to the demands of UUK. The leadership of the NUS are politically at one with the government of Brown, and in reality wish to allow the New Labour government free reign, with as little trouble from angry students as possible. They have had a conscious policy of constantly downplaying any action, and of promoting the idea that students cannot win against fees, but should restrain themselves to asking for slight improvements. Instead of battling against fees and for students, the policy of the NUS leadership has been to concentrate on destroying democracy in the NUS in order to insulate themselves from the demands of students.

This raises the question of how can a fight against fees be built on a national level. Socialist Students, as well as being involved in the Campaign to Defeat Fees, has argued for an organisation that brings together those who are opposed to the attacks of the government and the strategy of defeat from the NUS leadership. This should aim to involve as many students as possible, and bring together those students unions involved in fighting back and campaigning, alongside activist groups and individuals. This organisation would have to be based on building coordinated action, of aiming to involve and convince as many students as possible to get involved in campaigning, and on general demands of opposition to fees, cuts and closures and for a better education system for all.

To ensure that this works, it would also have to be organised along democratic lines, guaranteeing representation for those involved and allowing individuals and groups to put forwards different ideas and different strategies. No group should be allowed to dominate and there must be democratic accountability of the steering committee.

Socialist Students is in favour of a serious strategy in the campaign against fees, which should definitely involve national mobilisations and demonstrations. However, a serious strategy should be based on an assessment of a number of factors at every stage. What is the mood amongst students? What level of support could be gained for a national demonstration? What forces are involved in building for the demonstration? What is students' perception and awareness of those forces? How widely can we publicise our action? How many do we estimate that we will be able to mobilise? Will it be seen to represent a step forwards for students in our battles?

Socialist Students has called for and raised the idea with thousands of students of a national demonstration against fees called by the National Union of Students. Given the wide recognition of the NUS, the huge resources that are available to it, the big potential for media coverage etc, this would be the best situation. It would also open the door for genuine anti-fees activists to campaign and build as big a mobilisation as possible. This is comparable, although on a smaller scale, to the NUS 'students in the red' day of action earlier this term, which although organised around very limited slogans, presented an opportunity for activists to build action and gain broader support for those protests. This was an opportunity seized by Socialist Students, although unfortunately ignored by the Socialist Worker Student Societies (SWSS).

However, given the failure of NUS to call action and the urgency of the issues, it is correct that activists do not just give up, and that we take initiatives of our own. The Campaign to Defeat Fees has organised several days of action to mobilise students, building from below rather than waiting for the 'official' structures. However, where we have called protests and initiatives we have ensured that they are properly planned and built for. SWSS has so far called three national demonstrations this term, none of which have had more than a few hundred in attendance. To call a 'national' initiative without the means to mobilise on a national scale can give the impression that there is less of a mood to fight than is the case. Such unilateral action does not strengthen the movement.

Socialist Students want the event on 25 February to be as strong and positive as possible. We think that the best way for this to happen is for activists and activist groups to build support and to mobilise for this protest. But with the limited resources of those involved so far, this protest may not fully show the extent of students' opposition to the raising of the cap and education commercialisation. Nevertheless, it could be a step towards the national mobilisation necessary for a truly national demonstration. Therefore Socialist Students proposes that the main slogan of the protest should be 'for a national demonstration against fees, cuts and privatisation'.

This protest should also be organised along democratic lines. The most democratic way to do this is to allow everyone to have their say and to contribute to discussions, but to prevent any one group taking over. The planning meeting that has been called on 14 December should elect a committee to organise the protest, based on guaranteeing representation for students unions, strands of opinion and campaigning groups relative to their size and weight in the student movement. Unfortunately so far this has not been the case, primarily through the approach of SWSS who have attempted to impose their will on others, firstly at the Another Education is Possible conference, and now more recently in unilaterally naming a date for a national demonstration against fees, on the 25 February. In fact, there is an argument that a date later in the spring may give more time to mobilise support. But debates and discussions like this show precisely why there needs to be a more democratic structure than is in operation at present. A more democratic structure would also aid the protest in ensuring the best balance of speakers at the protest and different views and ideas being heard and ensure that the follow up to a spring protest is properly prepared.

For this campaign to be successful, it cannot just be limited to one action. The best way to ensure that effective opposition to fees is built for an alliance to be built that offers a fighting strategy that will bring together student activists, and inspire others that they can play a role in the fight for free education.

The Labour Party

The recent campaign to try to get John McDonnell a chance to contest for the leadership of the Labour party brought up the question of whether it was possible for the left to reclaim the Labour Party.
Since the 1997 election Labour has lost thousands of members, as of the last council elections the party had been wiped out from 90 or so councils across the country. Furthermore it has sent troops into several countries including most obviously Iraq and Afghanistan, carried through cuts and privatisations as well as passing draconian anti-terror laws as well as pissing off most young people through the introduction of ASBOs.
Of course, CWI members left the labour party earlier than this, with many leading members of the tendency expelled, the labour party moving increasingly to the right and most importantly the labour party failing to lead struggles at that time, most prominently the poll tax. The removal of clause four effectively sealed this degeneration.
Those still in the labour party tell us that the masses will come flooding back to their traditional party. What masses?
It's obviously not young people, if young people were to go en masse anywhere at the moment it would probably be the greens! even the tories can seem to be more appealing than labour. as mentioned before two wars, asbos, a lack of decent jobs has put paid to any want of you people to join that party.
It's not community campaigners either who see there effort ignored or hijacked by labour party members and end up either campaigning or standing against them.
It's not trade unionists, who see their leaders giving millions of pounds to labour and get nothing, and see action taken to protect their jobs and conditions interfered with because it'll make Labour look bad.
It's a disappointment that John McDonnell didn't get on the ballot as this would have really exposed the trade union leaders of UNISON, UNITE, TGWU and others and might have started a debate within society about the ideas he was standing for, instead we are shown what weakness the Labour left has been reduced to, very little influence at all.
All in all I very much doubt there is anything worth reclaiming, and even so the left in the labour party are far too weak to do that.

Fear of Crime and the 'Law and Order' card

In elections we often hear about the main political parties playing the 'law and order' card of setting out tougher and tougher policies to tackle crime rates. Last years local elections saw the 'foreign prisoners scandal' that led to the replacement of then Home Secretary Charles Clarke by John Reid.

'Law and order' ideology arose in the late 70's promoted in this country by Thatcher and the Tories who made crime an electoral issue. It arose as a response to the re-habilitative ideal that collapsed in the 60's and 70's where the penal system (prisons, police etc.) focussed on trying to re-integrate offenders back into society by treating them as if something was wrong with them (like in medicine). The problem wasn't that something was wrong with all offenders, however, it was the capitalist system that can never provide for everyone, as it requires ever increasing concentration of wealth (which underlies many property crimes). Not only this the whole nature of intense competition and struggle for survival under such a system places huge strains and stresses on individuals (which underlies all crime and things such as drug abuse and alchoholism). No matter how much you treat some individuals you are fighting a losing battle as the system is the big problem that causes the others.

As such crime rates were rising and the old rehabilitative system was seen as falling apart. Taking the quasi-religious notion that offenders are evil or somehow implicitly wrong no matter what and also the idea that if you make the penal system scary enough nobody will offend (even though as I've explained the nature of the system means that people will commit criminal offences regardless of this), 'law and order' ideology took the position that one had to have heavy sanctions for offenders and and lots of police officers to appear threatening.

Of course marxists should point out that any bulking up of the penal system is a bulking up of the state of forces that can be used against the working class in struggle, indeed Thatcher used her extra 'coppers' to batter the 1984-85 miners strike. Demands should be posed to counter the grip of the ruling classes on the state forces (such as more openness, democratisation etc.), although ultimately the tops of these forces will side with the ruling class and indecision will help workers struggles.

We also have to understand why 'law and order' ideology appeal to some workers and continues to do so. The reason was that the rehabilitative ideal was failing to reduce or even control crime which threatens working class people. No-one wants to be the victim of a rape, burglary or assault, workers and other people are afraid of crime, they don't want to become victims to it. In this situation saying that you could immediately reduce the crime rate by scaring people out of doing it presents itself as an easy solution to the problem. However, it is a solution that was never going to work and hasn't as is shown by the huge increase in crime and prison population that has occured for the last almost thirty years.

We need to not pose a return to the rehabilitative ideal (although some elements such as giving people the opportunity to access decent education will still be relevant), but to rid ourselves of the capitalist system that breeds mass crime and fight for a socialist world.