Politics 14 December 2013 Student protest has been quietly sweeping the nation. Now, it's getting louder The Occupy Sussex movement has acted as the spark for a new wave of protest against the marketisation of higher education. Print HTML In 1967, the London School of Economics suspended two students for taking part in demonstrations. The harsh treatment of the duo inspired their peers to hold a sit-in protest and a boycott of lectures. Within weeks, the suspensions were lifted. This began a decade-long student movement that took on social injustice at every turn. Protesting racism, US foreign policy and a whole host of other issues went hand-in-hand with studying in the UK. Fast-forward 46 years. The University of Sussex suspends five students for their involvement in an occupy-style campaign. University management refuse to release evidence of the disruption they have caused and the student body is moved to action. More protests are arranged, a petition is started, messages of support flood in from MPs and academics. Within less than two weeks, senior management buckles to the pressure and the students are reinstated – with a renewed confidence that they can stand up to authority and force through change. Student protest is back. The Occupy Sussex movement, which first saw students protesting in February, started as a campaign opposing plans to outsource campus services to private contractors. Activists complained that the process had not been transparent, students and staff had not been consulted and the university had refused to consider the alternatives to privatisation. They occupied a conference centre on campus and protests continued for several months. The movement peaked with a 1,000-strong student march held on campus. The occupiers inspired their peers at other universities to start movements of their own. Birmingham, Edinburgh, Sheffield, University College London and Warwick are just some of the institutions that have hosted similar movements over the past year. At each university, students have had separate grievances. Some have opposed campus sell-offs, others have objected to the increasing pay of senior management and many have fought against the privatisation of student debt. What underlies and unifies all of these protests is a frustration with what activists call the "marketisation of higher education". In other words, they oppose universities being run like businesses, rather than the unique public institutions that they are. Until recently, these campaigns have largely slipped under the mass media radar. One reason for this is that they have been transient and only locally coordinated. Although students are keen to show solidarity with those at other universities, the protests have not followed a national timetable. It must also be noted that the movements have not yet attracted the same widespread support of the 1960s campaigns – in the wake of the LSE suspensions, 100,000 took part in a single protest. However, all this might be about to change. When the Sussex Vice Chancellor suspended a handful of protesters, he galvanised a large number of otherwise apathetic students. Instead of quelling the protests, this exercise of power gave activists a new, perhaps more tangible injustice to fight. Students at Sussex talk of the suspensions polarising opinion and engaging those who had previously been cynical. At the end of last month, Facebook logged just under 2,000 people talking about the 'Occupy Sussex' page. That number now stands at just over 5,000. A similar thing is happening in London. Earlier this month, campaigners demanded that their outsourced campus cleaners be granted the same sick pay, holidays and pensions afforded to university staff. Protesters were forcefully dispersed and subsequently, The University of London, which represents a number of institutions, including – somewhat ironically - the London School of Economics, banned on-campus protests. This has only strengthened the resolve of campaigners (who were marching to oppose increased police presence on campus only days later) and media interest continues to grow. By refusing to genuinely engage with students, managers have painted themselves as the pantomime villains of this year’s protests. Their heavy-handedness has become a powerful recruitment tool for existing student activists. Managers have encouraged more students to challenge the dictatorial authority they have embraced, as well as their acceptance of the 'marketisation' agenda. Perhaps it is premature to declare the birth of a new mass movement. With Christmas approaching, the protests may well quieten down. But they are not going away. Students will return in the new year, with another three grand of debt and an ever growing sense of frustration. And you'll hear about it too. › Rising homelessness shows the damage caused by welfare cuts A wall outside the University of London Union Building is daubed with paint after protests against a heavy police presence on campus on December 12, 2013. Photograph: Getty Images. James is a freelance journalist with a particular interest in UK politics and social commentary. His blog can be found here. You can follow him on Twitter @jamesevans42. More Related articles Workers on boards or shareholder revolts? 13 ideas for holding bosses to account Theresa May is making the same mistake that Syriza did Kate Bush thinks Theresa May is "wonderful" - and it's not the first time she's turned political Subscription offer 12 issues for £12 + FREE book LEARN MORE Close This week’s magazine
Show Hide image The Staggers 29 November 2016 "Have cake and eat it": Voters deserve a better Brexit strategy than an accidentally-snapped note The Brexit narrative is being told scrap by scrap of paper. Print HTML Political hacks have always been interested in what politicians carry in their briefcases. Any scribbled note caught on a long lens camera is a tantalising glimpse into the reality behind the carefully-organised press briefings or photo shoots. But 2016 has upped the stakes. Now, the scribbles are read like tea leaves. Is a mention of the single market proof we’re ripping out the economic furniture of the past 40 years? Or is this the writing on the wall for hard Brexit? The latest focus of attention is a notebook carried under the arm of aide to Mark Field, the vice-chairman of the Conservative party, captured by the photographer Steve Back. It states, in cursive, a series of observations on Brexit. is this the first insight into Brexit seen going into No10 from the Brexit/cabinet office women holding was with Mark Field MP ? pic.twitter.com/XXeFGFQIa0 — Political Pictures (@PoliticalPics) November 28, 2016 “Problematic for EU if we move decisively with no transition. Difficult on Article 50 interpretation – Barnier wants to see what deal looks like first. Got to be done in parallel…” And then the clincher: “We think it’s unlikely we’ll be offered single market.” And then some more Brexistential questions and phrases. “What’s the model? Have cake and eat it.” “Very French negotiating team.” One option – “Canada plus”. The government has shot down the note, with the business secretary Greg Clark telling the BBC “it doesn’t reflect any of the conversations I’ve been part of in Downing Street”. But while this might be the most outspoken note to make headlines so far, it comes just two weeks after a leaked “Brexit memo” suggesting the government had no plan. This was traced back to an outside consultancy, Deloitte. The government has kept almost entirely schtum on Brexit. Nearly six months on from the EU referendum, we still have no official confirmation of how immigration controls will be weighed against access to the single market. We still know very little about how the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland would be policed. David Davis, the Brexit minister, doesn't even give a straight answer to his Conservative parliamentary colleagues. Remain voters fear they are going to be ignored in favour of a hard Brexit. Leave voters (and some MPs representing Leave constituencies) fear Brexit will never happen. The fact an entire nation is hanging onto scraps of paper for a clue is damning. The government argues that, as a negotiator, it needs to hold its cards close to its chest. On this basis, it is attempting to block parliamentary involvement in triggering Article 50, and has shut out the devolved nations. But the whole principle of voting Leave was – apparently – to return sovereignty to a more accountable, directly-elected body. Leaving the flow of information open to those who are least discreet, or who deliberately blab, or try to obstruct the whole process, seems a strange way to control the narrative on Brexit. Julia Rampen is the editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog. She was previously deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines. More Related articles Workers on boards or shareholder revolts? 13 ideas for holding bosses to account Theresa May is making the same mistake that Syriza did Kate Bush thinks Theresa May is "wonderful" - and it's not the first time she's turned political