At 12.09 today I sent an email to my office about a case where a constituent is destitute because there has been a breakdown in the benefits system. At around that time a group of students occupied the office and so it was closed. I discussed the issue on air with one of the organisers of the protest and made the point that they were preventing my office from dealing with some very serious and important issues on behalf of constituents. They, however, decided to continue to occupy the office.
I have been on the train to London whilst this was happening. Clearly the students are not concerned about how their actions are affecting other people. I have not made a formal decision as to how to vote on Thursday, but this sort of behaviour does not make me more inclined to support the case that they advocate.
I have been on the train to London whilst this was happening. Clearly the students are not concerned about how their actions are affecting other people. I have not made a formal decision as to how to vote on Thursday, but this sort of behaviour does not make me more inclined to support the case that they advocate.
Comments
Nor can we handle confidential phone calls and then like with 6 students in the office.
It is like occupying a CAB.
Look, did you sign the Pledge or not? Are you a man of your word, or are you just another sleazy politico?
Clegg promised "no more broken promises" ... he didn't say "...unless we are the junior partner in a coalition".
NO MORE BROKEN PROMISES.
The coalition will be implementing cuts that will be directly hurting many people. Birmingham City Council will be cutting 26,000 jobs in a city which already has the highest unemployment of any city in the UK. How does your support for the coalition sqaure with your apparent concern for your constituents?
Direct Action against Liberal Democrat MPs and their offices is more than justified.
If you cannot keep your word in pre-election pledges then you should not be in parliament.
We are proposing a "fairer alternative" much like the NUS scheme.
Wow. That's petty and vindictive. So much for Lib Dem principles.
Regardless of those measures, the prospect of a £40,000 debt will deter poorer people from going to university.
This is the main issue with tuition fees - it does not matter if the debt does not start getting repaid until you earn £21,000 if the prospect of the debt stops you from going to university in the first place.
A fee/loan system is by nature regressive anyway, as those who are rich enough to pay the fees upfront, or not need to borrow to cover living expenses will not pay any interest, whereas those who do not have rich parents will be paying interest on their loans until they are paid back, meaning that they will pay more than they would pay under a graduate tax scheme.
That means that it cannot make me more likely to vote against the motion on Thursday.
You, along with other Lib Dems made a promise to oppose a rise in tuition fees. Your party has broken this promise and students have the absolute right to react in this way.
Just out of interest, how much did you pay to get your degree?
To me it was a little selfish of the students, for one why should people suffer from the actions of the students.
Whether the Benefits issue of the Constituent John mentions is relevant or not, what ever the constituents problem was should have been addressed the right way, sadly it seems someone who is in a bad way was stopped from getting the help they desperately need, how do you know that person is not now on the street homeless, it could have been that serious.
How does a rise in tuition fee's compare with someone who is in serious need of help, sadly if the students think it is then there is no hope for society as a whole.
John and his staff deserve the right to work and do their jobs without interference, how many MP's do you know where the office door is always open and the staff who work tirelessly to help people every day are available, out of the 650 MP's in parliament I bet you wont find many like John and his Staff.
How many of the students protesting will end up working in an MP's offices in the future, say in 3 years time, how would they like it if they were trying to do their job and a hoard of angry people stormed your work place and caused havoc, what would you do then.
I have no problems with peaceful protest, but the Students really do need to think about their actions, like I said earlier all it causes is frustration and despair for the people not connected with the Tuition Fee issue and then a point will come where no one will listen at all to the students.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GEUq_rZbvw
If there was indeed serious problems that constituents had to have dealt with confidentially, we could have arranged to leave the premises and protest outside.
However, after the radio interview, the premises were ordered shut. I presume by John Hemming himself.
He was condescending and arrogant to me and the students, and he clearly has a vengeful and elitist attitude towards us. Even though it is he who will be breaking a promise.
Talking about destitution, how many more young people and their families will be destitute in the future.
In any case, we were not preventing work being done. Indeed we would have liked it if you did not shut the offices so that when the constituents (that you tried to use as political capital over the radio) came, we could have explained to them why we were doing what we were doing, and let them a private space to talk about their issues.
But unfortunately John was not in a mood to negotiate for the benefit of anyone.
The proposals are effectively a mask for privatisation of the higher education sector, thinly veiled as a move to increase social mobility.
I'm not posting this, however, to argue against the proposal, I'm posting this to make one point, and one point only:
A large number of people voted for you on the understanding that you would not do exactly what you are about to. The LibDems were very clear on their stance prior to the election.
You seem to forget that this is a democracy, and in a democracy, protests such as this one should not be 'punished'. Perhaps you ought to go with your conscience, and quit playing around with the futures of so many.
There was no negotiation about this. It is simple. By being there they were preventing people's problems being dealt with.
I am quite happy for you to talk to his family and explain your behaviour if you wish.
I was on the train travelling to London. My staff were present. The fact that they didn't ask or tell you to leave every five minutes did not mean that suddenly the occupiers were welcome.
We had to shut the office because of your dreadful and selfish behaviour and your lack of concern as to the effect on others.
In any case, we would be delighted to talk to your constituents. My email is axo711@bham.ac.uk - please send me the contact details they prefer.
The office had to be closed because you wouldn't go otherwise and the police have other things to do.
Talk about demonstrate contempt for many of the people who voted for you.
And incidentally, not ALL of your student constituents occupied your office, but ALL of them will be punished? Sounds you like you've come up with a good way to assuage your conscience.