I’m not convinced, Sunny. I don’t think political and “edgy” comedians can be taken as a barometer for public attitudes It seems very likely that this press coverage will have a corrosive effect on public support for non-violent demonstrations and occupations. Unless you’ve been there, or at a similar demo-gone-wrong, you’d probably not appreciate the more complicated reality behind the headlines.

The violence, aside from being plain wrong on all sides, will also make it very harder for those trying to persuade the police to take a less confrontational, inflammatory approach.

Oooo you edgy political activist you.

Russell Brand, eh?

Well, in that case I expect Cameron to surrender tomorrow!

All this talk if “what about the police beating protesters” I have to say show me the footage.

Plenty of protesters took pics and filmed the protest, so if there was any the media would have been all over it. Especially with regards to the injured Alfie Matthews. I’m not claiming alfie wasn’t injured by police, but likewise I’ve not seen any pics of video.

Most protesters didn’t see who hit them, so for all they know it was another protester.

So where are the before, during and after videos of police attacking people? All I’ve seen is police reaction DURING any reaction.

3. Simon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-etV57xZ4_I&feature=related

George, where is the vid BEFORE that clip showing why police reacted as they did?
Anyone can clip a vid like that. IPCC wouldn’t accept that when investigating protesters complaints.

So many vids I’ve seen just show police wielding battons, but not what caused them to react.

Unless protesters can show full story rather than selectively edit events, then the public support will disappear very quickly.

I support peaceful protesters, but even the comments of some of these on Twitter are now carrying me to seriously rethink my support. Already followed some as a result. Ukuncut not far away either, and I did support them fully!

#3 “Most protesters didn’t see who hit them, so for all they know it was another protester.”

I guess the “political and ‘edgy comedians” (Russell Brand, FFS? About as edgy and political as a DFS sale) should give up. That’s the funniest thing I’ve read in weeks. Or it would be, if it wasn’t so despicably insulting to the injured.

Don’t you think if even a handful of protesters had turned up to Parliament Square tooled up with police truncheons or iron bars, some footage or commentary on *that* would have made it on to the TV news or the tabloids? You bet it would.

Or are you suggesting that the 43 hospitalised students received head injuries from other protesters punching them? How many times would you have to punch someone in order to simulate the cracked skull administered by a police truncheon?

So far, I’ve seen amateur footage of police ‘starting it’ in dozens of places on the net, and read accounts, not only from protesters but also from professional journalists who were on the receiving end of what, without hyperbole, they describe pretty uniformly as ‘police violence’.

Of course, there will be the usual froth-mouthed Daily Mail readers (and writers) who denounce the students, but they’d have done that even if the protest had been a single file queue to shake the hand of David Cameron and thank him nicely for not making the fees even higher. But I think it’s possible, if not likely, that amongst the ‘middle ground’, as the truth behind the lies such as “protesters pull policeman from horse” comes out, there may well be an increase in support for what the students did, and a further drop in the support of the coalition, for having hidden behind the batons of the Met to squeeze through this legislation.

Here’s hoping, anyhow.

Of course the violence was terrible, but anyone out there who doesn’t think that it isn’t both ways hasn’t been paying attention. From memory, most people didn’t applaud the Poll Tax riots, but can you honestly say that they (not on their own, but certainly as an aspect of a more general protest movement) had no influence on the tories decision to ditch it?

The violence won’t change peoples minds, because “most” people are capable of seeing that the violent actions of a tiny minority during such protests do not somehow prove that the basis of the protest is groundless, or that all those involved can be tarred with the same brush.

The hysterical over-reaction of the Tory press simply goes to show that they know they have already lost the argument, and that there is about as much appetite for the Coalition’s policies as there was for the Poll Tax.

Oh, and as for #5, you’re seriously saying that the protesters need to supply video evidence of effectively the whole demonstration, before you’ll accept that the police may have been over-zealous in hospitalising nearly 50 young people? Since the vast majority of the recording equipment in Parliament Square belonged either to the police or to broadcast media why don’t you make that demand of them, rather than the students? Perhaps it’s because you actually understand the role they play in society, and that they’re going to selectively edit what they distribute in order to fit their narrative, which is of brave bobbies standing up to a rioting mob.

I suppose the point that needs re-emphasising is that the violence at these demonstrations wasn’t terrible. It was enough to get the media attention. As such it was absolutely necessary, because without it the demonstrations would not have received a real mention in the press. As Slavoj Zizek said:

“People saying you could have delivered the same message without violence. Fuck them! Of course you can deliver the message. But nobody would hear the message. This is what they like, that 100 people gather and write a message and then you don’t even get the bottom note in the day’s paper … You have to break some windows to get the message through.”

“Of course the violence was terrible, but anyone out there who doesn’t think that it isn’t both ways hasn’t been paying attention. From memory, most people didn’t applaud the Poll Tax riots, but can you honestly say that they (not on their own, but certainly as an aspect of a more general protest movement) had no influence on the tories decision to ditch it?”

Fine. But the point is that it shouldn’t do. Because if you have to resort to violence as your first resort, your argument probably doesn’t stand up on its merits. It doesn’t deserve to win. And the argument “But the poor students driven mad by the unlistening fascist heartless baby-eating ConDems! Look how the peaceful Iraq war demos failed! They’ve left us only with violence to make them listen!” doesn’t wash.

I suspect any demos against wider cuts, especially to the welfare state, will pass off peacefully because if made up mainly by working people, there’ll be a greater decency to it than self-righteous Tarquins and Jemimas wanting three years dossing for free. It will undoubtedly have greater effect on Government policy than graffiting Churchill’s statue.

#8 nick,

Mist media vids show the rioters then the police response.

Am not saying the whole days vids need to be seen, but if protesters are to clam price brutality in YouTube clips, DON’T selectively edit out protesters lobbing stuff at police and their horses before your footage showing police reacting.

The IPCC need the whole picture to substantiate claims by any if the injured protesters who wish to make formal complaints.

Some may have been caught amongst rioters and treated as such by police I agree. But again I would have thought at least one person should have caught this on camera/mobile.

Also alarmed at pennyred’s tweet earlier about police hunting 14 rioters. Why debt she support finding them? Or is she defending them?

Oh and meant unfollow not follow in #5.

Violence is never good. Never.

In fact there are major reasons to believe it’s counterproductive. In fact, think about it: what could be more threatening to the government -any government – more than a succession of entirely peaceful mass demonstrations?

However, I wish political commentators and the media stopped all the sanctimony for a second and analysed why students are looking more pissed off than they’ve ever been in decades.

Is it so difficult to do a bit of soul-searching and realise that our political system has effectively slammed the last door available in their faces?

Students did try the “democratic” means one final time in May 2010. A clear majority voted LibDem. The LibDems went on to make a mockery of their vote. The so-called democratic establishment has a lot to answer for.

#9, your comments sum up exactly why public support will disappear if violence continues.

#10 comments are spot on. If you need violence then your argument won’t stand on merit alone. The public won’t see injured students, all they will see is police using necessary action to deal with vandals and thugs in London streets.

As I said, I SUPPORT students fighting the rise PEACEFULLY, but if this is how every protest will end up, then sorry but I will withdraw my support for you.

As most employers look at criminal records for the level of jobs a degree will get you, some will come to regret their actions having wasted all they are protesting about!

“Does it reduce the massive public support for education to be funded entirely via taxation? Not really. The huge support for free education ”

Well done Sunny. Contradicting yourself in only three sentences.

Education is not free, cannot be free. The question is over who pays for it: the general populace through higher taxation or the students through the repayment of loans?

#11 “Mist media vids show the rioters then the police response.”

Does the word “Orgreave” mean anything to you? Our completely-fair-and-balanced-and-not-blindly-supportive-of-the-official-position broadcast media have never apologised for that particular bit of propaganda.

It always makes me laugh at people who claim that the Lib Dems went back on their election promises.

They didn’t as, if you actually read the papers, they didn’t win the election.

They are part of a coalition government which means they just can’t put their policies through.

Also despite not being a Daily Mail reader I don’t know ANYONE who supports the students actions and if they do it again the police should blast them with water cannons filled with acid.

10

Pious hopes about change aren’t really going to help though are they? As others have pointed out, how much notice would have been paid to non-violent protests? Not, that I’m not saying it makes the use of violence the right thing to do, or that I approve of it.

Saying that resorting to violence means your argument doesn’t stand up on its merits gets us nowhere: the vast majority of the protesters were non-violent, does that mean that ipso fact their argument does stand on its own merit, however crazy their non-violent cause?

No. The main thing is this relatively small scale, if unpleasant, violence is a side show. It proves people are angry, but it also shows that there is a groundswell of popular opinion against what the Coalition are doing. Of course, this may not save us from these profoundly misguided policies being enacted…. it may however put the LD’s in particular on notice that they are on a hiding to nothing.

The students probably won’t manage to overturn the decision, any more than the anti-war rallies managed to get the troops out of Iraq, but the reaction to the protest movement as a whole amongst the general population will be telling. I’ve spoken to many people who abhor the violence, but thing the cause is a just one; that alone should give some LD’s sleepless nights.

@16
“They didn’t as, if you actually read the papers, they didn’t win the election.

They are part of a coalition government which means they just can’t put their policies through”

But how does it work? First Nick Clegg and Vince Cable tell us that this is the best possible and most progressive system given the current financial circumstances but then they justify themselves by saying they have to compromise it’s a coalition blah blah.

Either one or the other. Either it’s an excellent system or it’s a campromise. You can’t have your cake and eat it.

As for your appalling comment of “with water cannons filled with acid.“, you’re an idiot.

@10 Oh yeah Zizek. He’s credible, isn’t he? Have you ploughed through any of his postmodern, posturing drivel and manged to extract any real meaning?

If you’re going to cite any authority please choose a credible one.

I think another question to ask is not whether the violence will cause a loss of support for the students and their cause in particular, but how it affects public attitudes to the wider anti-cuts movement or to the wider issue of ‘the cuts’.

It would be very convenient for the government if they could portray the anti-cuts movement as ‘violent extremists’. It would let them off the hook.

16

Water cannon filled with acid? Are you for real? Sounds like even the carpet biters at the Daily Mail would find a nutter like you too extreme.

I know plenty of people who fully support the students… but more importantly, since our personal experiences are really the issue, most people are also capable of seeing that the actions of a small minority don’t have any real bearing on the overall issue.

As for the LD’s…. of course they have abandoned their principles. Nobody is expecting the Coalition to enact LD policies in toto, but that doesn’t mean you can sign a pledge not to increase fees, then do a 180 degree when in power with some lame excuse that things were worse than you thought! and of course, we now know from their own lips that they knew when they were campaigning that the pledge was a lie, so I think we can see how trustworthy they are.

@13 SimonH:

You don’t seem to understand that ‘peaceful violence’ does not get media support. The Guardian, for instance, have an explicit policy on not reporting demonstrations that pass off without incident.

As for your broader point: Well, I’m fully supporting the students without being part of the ‘action groups’. My support for these groups has grown since they have started up and I am a normal member of the public. I know several other normal members of the public who feel far more inclined to support the anti-cuts movement than, say, in the summer when the whole thing was invisible (thanks, mostly, to the media’s lack of interest in ‘non-stories’, i.e. peaceful events).

“As others have pointed out, how much notice would have been paid to non-violent protests?”

A lot if they were done effectively. Imagine if all those students had just sat down in silence for hours. No, I’m not being facetious. Would have created quite an atmosphere and would have attracted media attention.

@19 Cherub:

“Have you ploughed through any of his postmodern, posturing drivel and manged to extract any real meaning?”

Well, yes, he’s remarkably simple to understand. And of course he isn’t a postmodernist, so ‘epic fail’ on your behalf.

@16 Vince:

“They didn’t as, if you actually read the papers, they didn’t win the election.”

The usual juvenile garbage regarding the LDs. If, hypothetically, the Tories ended up as a junior coalition partner with a hypothetical communist party (because ‘they had to be responsible and form a government’) and then proceeded to expropriate home owners as part of their compromise (well they didn’t win the election after all!), I suspect Tory voters would be in their rights to call major foul play and accuse them of reneging on red lines.

Similarly, the LDs have reneged on what was sold as a red line. I wish the current efforts to bring forth charges against Nick Clegg all the best. But in the medium run I simply look forward to the end of the Liberal Party.

@ 22

Define what you mean by “peaceful violence”? As the 2 are exact oppositeas above, a silent air down surrounding parliament would have been much better as someone else pointed out above. Chinese human rights protesters use this quite effectively.

@ 16

“It always makes me laugh at people who claim that the Lib Dems went back on their election promises.

They didn’t as, if you actually read the papers, they didn’t win the election.

They are part of a coalition government which means they just can’t put their policies through.”

Sigh. They specifically pledged not to support this stuff EVEN IN A COALITION. I think it’s you that could do with reading the papers occasionally.

“Also despite not being a Daily Mail reader I don’t know ANYONE who supports the students actions and if they do it again the police should blast them with water cannons filled with acid.”

I know plenty. But maybe that’s because I hang around with a relatively broad church of people and not just the sort of people who will put up with an absolute cunt like you.

(Is that ok, Sunny? I know the comments policy and everything, but this guy really is an absolute cunt.)

Maybe I should have made my “sarcastic smiley” a bit bigger!

I was obviously joking about the acid part, I do not wish to see anyone hurt, students or police.

Students seem to be missing the point that there is no money to pay for their studies, if they want to better themselves then why not pay back their fees once they have finished and have a good job due to their education?

It would be easier for a lot of people to get better paid jobs if they had easy access to free transport, should we supply every one with a free car? If not, why not? It is the same principle.

No wonder there is so much violence in these protests if you call anyone who disagrees with you and “idiot” or even worse.

27

Your original comment was out of order; don’t try and dodge it by claiming now that it was meant in jest – if you come across like carpet biting right wing troll, don’t be surprised if people point and shout “troll”!

There IS the money, it’s just that ‘some” people don’t want to see it spent in that way. No other country in Europe expects their students to pay for their education in this way, and none of them seem to have any problem managing it.

If we are going down the path of “what if-erry”, why not insist that all the baby boomers who benefitted from free education and a cushy life now start paying higher taxes instead of asking the young to subsidise them? I doubt the Daily Mail reading classes would find that too palateable would they?

I’d really love to see the way that Liberal Conspiracy responded to a BNP riot.

After all, if it is OK for lefties to riot, it must be just as OK for the BNP to do so. They too would be acting on their beliefs.

What’s all this bleating about the violence of the demonstrators and/or police?

The state is defined by violence- it uses the violence and the potential violence of the police and armed forces to control its citizens, defend its borders and enforce it’s legitimacy. But the state has no greater moral right to use violence than any other individual or group.

Did the mob that stormed the Bastille have a moral right to do it?

That’s a stupid question.They did it.

At one level, the only real moral legitimacy for violence is self defence but whether it could be argued that this justified the actions of the students is doubtful, but also irrelevant.

Both sides knew what they were doing last Thursday and all need to be responsible for their actions, both as groups and individuals, and accept whatever consequences flow from them. But what violent demonstration does do is to remind us, however fleetingly, of the reality that the state relies on violence for it’s existence, a fact that is routinely concealed and forgotten.

Many find such a reminder strangely liberating.

‘Well, yes, he’s remarkably simple to understand. And of course he isn’t a postmodernist, so ‘epic fail’ on your behalf.’

Postmodernist or not, he’s a Freudian, and therfore a crank.

I’m looking forward to the next time I get poked by a stick. I’m going straight to the police to get the perpetrator arrested.

‘Did the mob that stormed the Bastille have a moral right to do it?

That’s a stupid question.They did it.’

Its a stupid question because students having to pay for their education hardly equates with the experience of peasants in pre-revolutionary France.

‘But what violent demonstration does do is to remind us, however fleetingly, of the reality that the state relies on violence for it’s existence, a fact that is routinely concealed and forgotten.’

No it doesn’t, the State relies on consent, manufactured or otherwise. Pretending you have to collaborate or you’ll get beaten to death might make you feel better about yourself but you co-operate because the cost of standing behind your principles means living without luxuries.

That same State who’s legitimacy you think lies in violence is the same State you expect to buy students off by keeping their fees down.

*That’s* how the State controls society: through an education system that legitimates inequality by pretending those who labour through the mind or pen deserve greater reward than those who labour with the hand or machine.

Lifelong education should be a right for all but lets not pretend the current system isn’t far more complicit inequality than the police could ever be.

@Shatterface:

“Postmodernist or not, he’s a Freudian, and therfore a crank.”

He’s Lacanian (when it comes to his philosophical work). You don’t really know what you are talking about. When in a hole etc…

@ad:

“After all, if it is OK for lefties to riot, it must be just as OK for the BNP to do so.”

Why? Being against cuts is a valid position to take; being against people with dark skin isn’t.

Relativism at its worst.

‘He’s Lacanian (when it comes to his philosophical work).’

So not actually a psychologist then – you know, someone who has actually studied the human mind rather than something concocted by literary theorists?

‘You don’t really know what you are talking about. When in a hole etc…’

Unlike most believers in psychoanalysis, I’m a psychology graduate. We point at psychoanalysists and laugh, the way astronomers point and laugh at astrologers.

“Relativism at its worst.”

Umm, no, other way around.

Action x I disapprove of it if you do it for reason y but action x I approve of if you do it for reason z…..that’s pretty much relativism in a nutchell and it’s you that’s guilty of it here.

Action x I disapprove of whether you do it for reason y or reason z is known as absolutism: the opposite of relativism.

@ 34

“Why? Being against cuts is a valid position to take; being against people with dark skin isn’t. ”

Please. Who died and made you the Minister for Acceptable Opinion?

@ 29

“I’d really love to see the way that Liberal Conspiracy responded to a BNP riot”

I’m always amazed how people judge this site based on its* hypothetical reaction to an event that they just made up in their head. It’s a bit like saying “you should apologise for being hypocritical in that dream I had last night.”

*Not that the site can actually react in that sense, but another aspect of these people is they tend to think that the contributers to LC are a homogenous mass.

Stuart White It would be very convenient for the government if they could portray the anti-cuts movement as ‘violent extremists’. It would let them off the hook.

This is a good point, and one that we should be careful about.

@ 27 Vince

“Maybe I should have made my “sarcastic smiley” a bit bigger!

I was obviously joking about the acid part, I do not wish to see anyone hurt, students or police.”

Maybe so, but in suggesting something truly dreadful you do seem to be excusing or dismissing the real-world violence. You can’t really say “I deplore kettling for moral reasons, but burning the protesters alive is cool”. So maybe you’re not a cunt, but you’re not exactly Captain Humanity either.

“Students seem to be missing the point that there is no money to pay for their studies, if they want to better themselves then why not pay back their fees once they have finished and have a good job due to their education?”

There’s billions of pounds for Trident. There’s loads of money about, it’s just that there are a lot of things we can spend it on. So “there is no money” actually means “I want the money spent on something else”. Which is an entirely different kettle of students.

“It would be easier for a lot of people to get better paid jobs if they had easy access to free transport, should we supply every one with a free car? If not, why not? It is the same principle.”

Sigh… it’s pretty much accepted practice that the state pays for certain things even if it won’t enjoy a direct return. The argument is over what should receive funding, and how much. You can’t reducto ad absurdum leftist or rightist principles because it’s widely understood to be about striking a balance.

For example, if someone said we should lower the cap in terms of how much the NHS is prepared to spend to save one person’s life, and my response was “by your argument, we should let people die of tonsilitis if they can’t afford their own antibiotics!”, I’d be out of line.

“No wonder there is so much violence in these protests if you call anyone who disagrees with you and “idiot” or even worse.”

Not quite sure how you got from the first part of that sentence to the second. Online name-calling causes violent riots and police brutality?

@39

Exactly my point Sunny. Support is being lost, and as you say this is playing right into the governments hands to take flack away from their cuts program.

It’s also interesting that the other unions haven’t joined in and shown “solidity” with the students so far. Quite clearly watching very carefully and taking notes.

The longer this is just about rioting students, the less impact other unions will have protesting the cuts. It’ll be an own goal PR wise.

And its all about positive PR if we are to attack the gov cuts successfully.

Yes, well we all know how the brownshirt media works. If you protest it will put people off, and if you don’t protest that proves how everybody loves the tories.

What ever the story it is always good news for the tories, in tory media land. .

We all know people like sally and Sunny want the police to get even more violent, so it will somehow turn into public sympathy for the students, which is severely lacking after the students turned central London upside down. I wouldnt be surprised if there are plans as to how the police can be provoked – snooker cues and fireworks are one step closer – in order to get a violent reaction. Can I also assume the likes of Clare Solomon are secretly hoping as many student protesters get injured next time, so it can feed into the narrative that the evil CONDOM coalition is cracking down on dissent?

@ 40

the other unions haven’t shown “solidity” with the students

so·lid·i·ty (s?-l?d??-t?)
noun

1. The condition or property of being solid.
2. Soundness of mind, moral character, or finances.

You must be the product of a British school, Simon H.

@44

Should have been solidarity Trofim, but my HTC desire had other ideas! (isn’t predictive text great?)

“We all know people like sally and Sunny want the police to get even more violent”

Evidence please for that statement. Where have Sunny or me said we want the police to get more violent.

@24 olching

My degree was in a science and well before postmodernism, so you’ll have to accept I may miss the finer points of academic fashion. To me Zizek read like PM, meant as little as PM and postured as absurdly as PM.

You can nitpick about his scholarly this or that as much as you like, I wouldn’t rely on his as a basis for a sound political or moral philosophy. He just wants to bring back the communism that benefitted himself and his family so much. Psychoanalyse that!

@ 43

Can’t you do better than specious ad homs?

@47 Cherub:

“so you’ll have to accept I may miss the finer points of academic fashion.”

In other words, you haven’t got a clue what you are talking about. You are simply conveying your ‘feeling’ about Zizek, which is absolutely legitimate but ultimately uninteresting and irrelevant.

@Tim Worstall:

“Umm, no, other way around.”

Umm, no Tim, you are a bit confused.

This is relativism: All actions are the same, because I am unable to make moral/ethical/substantial/qualitative differences between them.

As such a racist BNP riot becomes the same as students causing criminal damage in protesting against cuts.

Tim, do you also condemn in equal measure the

…CONTINUED:

Tim, do you also condemn in equal measure the 1956 Hungarian protesters and the Soviet tanks that followed them? Because that is the essence of the horse shit you are proposing.

“Tim, do you also condemn in equal measure the 1956 Hungarian protesters and the Soviet tanks that followed them?”

Of course not: the two actions are different. Protesting in the streets is different from sending the tanks in to round people up so you can hang them.

Sending the tanks in so that you can round up people to hang them is wrong: this is absolutism.

Sending the tanks in to round people up to that you can hang them because they are anti-communist, or anti-Nazi, or pro-Sinn Fein, or anti-colonialism, this is relativism: judging their action by the reason for their action, not judging their action by their action.

Me, I think hanging people is wrong, I’m an absolutist, not a relativist.

@Tim Worstall:

Tim, all you are doing is highlighting your historical illiteracy about 1956. In 1956 AVO, Soviet, and other soldiers were killed in the uprising (both in the early stages or after the Soviet tanks came back). Yet it would be absurd equate all actions that involved physical violence (or specifically: the death of another human being) as one and the same.

If you believe this crap, then please petition for a monument to ‘all the victims’ of 1956. Better still: Lobby for a monument to commemorate ‘all the victims’ of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. Yes, your insane relativism would include Germans who were killed during the uprising (since all actions, irrespective of reasons for them, are equal when they constitute the same definition).

We do differentiate between reasons for actions; all the time. It’s only relativists who don’t.

Call me ‘biased’ by all means, but relativist it isn’t. I can at once be against the BNP causing criminal damage while shrugging my shoulders at students, protesting at these grotesque attacks on higher education, causing criminal damage. Why? Because these actions aren’t the same.

@ Chaise Guevara. You say that: “They (the Lib Dems) specifically pledged not to support this stuff EVEN IN A COALITION.” I cannot find any published support for this exact assertion, although I concede that this pledge may have been included in the fine print issued by individual prospective Lib Dem candidates before the election. Perhaps you could provide the evidence for your claim.

I can accept genuine political debate, but on this you are a total berk. The idiotic Gilmour had to be dissuaded by fellow students from setting fire to the Supreme Court.

The case for ‘student demonstrations’ has been lost totally through the actions of privileged twerps. If you want a real revolution you don’t talk about it and you don’t have that a stupid woman from the ULU pretending to be the new Rosa Luxembourg. Capisce.

This article had just been posted on false economy, and is with a read for all protesters

“Use energy and anger for effective direct action” – very thoughtful piece just added to our campaign reports section http://bit.ly/ginXOc

Even now, the BBC’s UK section gives front-page billing to released photos of protesters police want to speak, while the hospitilisation of Alfie Meadows is nowhere to be seen.

Just as invisible as the hospitalisation of police officers has been on Liberal Conspiracy, I reckon.

I know a copper in London who says the cops are only too happy to put the boot in. After all, the more violent and protracted these protests, the longer they will retain their jobs! So it was a bad move for the Coalition to announce police budget cuts right beforehand, as they now have a demoralised force with a major DISincentive to uphold the peace. Ultimately, if the violence continues, Cameron will be seen to have lost control of the streets and – since he was never popular enough to be voted PM – it could be bad news for him. His best chance is if Labour continue to faff and offer no real alternative to the electorate.