UT Opinion
10
Tuesday 22nd October 2013
//
The University Times
From Target to Triumph
The President of the USI discusses moving the target away from students in Budget 2014
Joe O’Connor Guest Writer
M
ake no mistake about it, Budget 2014 was another very difficult one, containing some extremely severe measures. Our seventh successive austerity Budget marked another €2.5 billion adjustment, and vulnerable sectors of society were im-
pacted once again. This included hits to our young unemployed, pensioners and the bereaved. It is in this context that after four years of consecutive cuts in either the rate or the threshold, the protection of the student maintenance grant marks a considerable achievement
and a turning point. In assessing the political impact of cuts prior to this Budget, it was seen that targeting third-level students was one of the more palatable ways to bring about savings. After successive national campaigns which failed to realise their objectives, the
student movement was in dire need of a win in an economic climate where wins don’t come at all easy. Failure breeds apathy, and it was clear that students needed to see some delivery on their efforts. With the Budget two months earlier, our national campaign efforts needed
to start two months earlier. At USI National Council in Waterford in July, SU officers from across the country unanimously approved a Pre-Budget Submission calling for the protection of the grant and the Back to Education Allowance, a commitment that no deferred payment scheme would be introduced, and investment in the Youth Guarantee. Despite being pragmatic objectives which took into account the economic context and timelines we were faced with, significant threats to realising these goals existed. Severe cuts to the maintenance grant were widely reported throughout the summer, with Education facing up to €100 million in cuts. Protecting the Back to Education Allowance seemed an uphill struggle against a backdrop of a demand for €440 million of savings in Social Protection. Fine Gael backbenchers were calling for student loans. Public Expenditure officials for larger fee contributions. University Presidents, including the Trinity Provost, for full fees to be paid by students. We were single-minded in our focus on delivering these objectives through constructive engagement, and conducted an intensive high-level lobbying campaign which, ultimately, proved successful. Our final Pre-Budget Briefing Event was attended by over 60 members of the Oireachtas. This was designed to present a final opportunity to hammer home our message. By the end of the day, Minister Quinn and the Depart-
ment of Education and Skills had received representations from more than ten TDs specifically about the importance of protecting the maintenance grant. If we had fallen short, we were primed and ready to oppose any further cuts to student supports with firm resistance. Several options,
lege, are not burdened further. This is hugely significant. So where next for the student movement? A large debate on the future of third-level funding is looming. USI fundamentally believes that thirdlevel education should be free and accessible to all
including direct action, would have been presented to our Post-Budget National Council. As someone that responded to last year’s grant threshold cut by chaining myself in to the Taoiseach’s constituency office, I would have been advocating this course of action. I am in agreement that merely protecting the maintenance grant is not good enough. But it does represent a step in the right direction which we now must build on. The same rationale and arguments which won out
through public investment. We will be working with the Nevin Economic Research Institute on a new funding policy for USI’s position, which we intend to launch at our Annual Congress next year. We will continue to campaign to see the Student Contribution Charge, now at €2750 and due to hit €3000 in 2015, reduced to pre-crisis levels through additional State investment in line with economic recovery. We are also working on a comprehensive paper on reform of the current stu-
We’re all fighting for the same reasons, and for the same common belief
Turning on ourselves serves absolutely nothing on the importance of the maintenance grant will continue to be relevant for future campaigns and Budgets. Our next wins may come a little easier. And students can see that our campaigning can make a difference. And it also means that the near 80,000 students on a maintenance grant and their families, who are already struggling to meet the significant cost of col-
dent maintenance grant scheme. We will be engaging with the Department, HEA, commercial credit institutions and the Irish League of Credit Unions with the intent of delivering an affordable loan product for postgraduate students. And while the €14 million euro investment in the Youth Guarantee announced in Budget 2014 is welcome, something USI
have consistently campaigned on, it must represent merely a starting point to tackling the youth unemployment crisis. At the very minimum, the investment should now be equalised with the amount saved on the welfare reductions for Under 26s announced in Budget 2014. For too long, students have been seen as being inactive at the ballot box. Put simply, students do not vote in great numbers – politicians know this, and it influences their decision-making. That it why USI have created SERD, a national student voter database which will allow us to communicate directly on elections, referendums, issues and decisions facing students. We intend to register 50,000 students on this database by the local and European elections of next year. Linked to constituencies and public representatives, this would allow us to create a powerful voting bloc capable of radically altering the outcome of any election or referendum. I would call on people to engage with and input into their SUs as we undertake the process of next steps, and have your say on the future direction of the national student movement. After all, we’re all fighting for the same reasons, and for the same common belief. Turning on ourselves serves absolutely nothing. Access to a quality education is a right and not a privilege. If we want to make this ideological belief a reality, together, we’re stronger. Illustration by Megan McDermott
LOCKED OUT
Political hypocrisy & the Thoughts on Youth Lockout, Irish people
Editorial Leanna Byrne Editor
D
ays after the student maintenance grant was protected and the students saw a reversed trend in cuts,
Apparently, drums, bass and Mika have no place in a youth movement. The group wanted more action, more anger and less pan-
The group wanted more action, more anger and less pandering to politicians less Buswells, more protests the first public meeting of Youth Lockout, a new student movement which is disaffiliated from Trinity College Students’ Union (TCDSU) the Union of Students in Ireland (USI) or any political party, was held in Room 3074 Arts Block in Trinity College Dublin. “The grants haven’t been cut - and I commend USI for that,” said Dylan JoyceAhearne, one of the key members of the group. “But at the end of the day it’s not good enough. Students are still getting a lot of the burden.” At the meeting, it was no surprise that the main discussion item was student apathy and the poor turnout for the “Fight For Your Future” Dublin Demonstration on October 1st. The turnout of students from Trinity was approximately forty at a push. “I don’t know how many times they thanked the DIT Samba Soc,” said JoyceAhearne.
dering to politicians. Less Buswells, more protests. So why disaffiliate from the student movement to create, well, a student movement? Surely you should just change the movement from the inside; become involved through SUs and “be the change that you want to see”. The thing is, if you want to go radical, you have to do it the right way. Regardless of whatever method you believe will solve the issues that youths are facing today, Youth Lockout are right to distance themselves from the student movement structures that are already in place. The issue is that although that line of thinking is nice and, at the most part, rather safe, that is not how political movements work. Anyone sitting in the Museum Building on Monday mornings in Michael Gallagher’s ‘Political Parties’ module might know a thing or two about the “iron law of oli-
the new student movement: pointless protest?
garchy”. One part of the argument is that regardless of how democratic an organisation may be at the start, it will eventually and inevitably develop oligarchic tendencies, thus making true democracy practically and theoretically impossible. Instead of having a radical goal, the organisation’s goal becomes diluted to maintaining the organisation itself. If we put this into context, TCDSU have just elected over 400 class representatives that represent 17,000 students. The first council had over 250 of these class representatives in a room, all voting through or against various mandates. The process is one of a very well oiled machine. That said, well oiled machines are in no way
These steps are important, but make any attempt at mobilising a force of students absolutely impossible. The twenty or so students speaking in Room 3074 were very conscious that the flexible, radical student movement that they want is virtually non-existent. They want a voice and numbers when tackling issues such as youth emigration, grant cuts, fee hikes and graduate unemployment. A lobby group is no longer “good enough”. Perhaps this is the beginning of a radicalisation of students that many have been hoping for. More than likely, it is the eventual organisation of the minority of students who wanted student politics to be radicalised in the first place. Ei-
Youth Lockout are right to distance themselves from the student movement structures that are already in place radical. If a student stood up to rally the troops out to take a stand against an important issue, this usually gets diluted by the fact that that battle cry becomes a discussion item which will be worded into a mandate to be voted on by council.
ther way, if they do become organised, they will enjoy an adaptable movement where they can protest where they like, whenever they like, without having to be pushed through a bureaucratic machine.
Nicholas Kenny Contributing Writer
O
ctober 15, 2013 – the day the Budget for 2014 was announced – a friend of mine, knowing that I commute to college, advised me to get an earlier bus home, as he wouldn’t want to be waiting on public transportation “after the budget comes out”, implying that the streets would be filled with protesters. Sure, the advice in itself wasn’t bad. The buses were, indeed, considerably delayed, but that’s no new experience to a frequent Bus Éireann user, and, yes, there were a good number of protests on-going as I left the city that evening. However, this isn’t what stuck with me as my long awaited bus finally pulled away, “speeding” me back home, but the sheer hypocrisy of the situation. Earlier this month, the Irish people had an opportunity to make an actual difference on how this country is run, in the form of the twin referendum over the proposed dissolution of the Seanad, and the establishment of a Court of Criminal Appeal. How did we react to this opportunity, this chance to finally have our say on the politics of our time? Well, most of us simply ignored it. With a shockingly low turnout of 1,240,729 votes cast, which, in some areas, didn’t even reach 40% of
the potential electorate, the Irish people finally proved a point that has made itself more and more evident over the recent years: We’ll complain about how the country is run, we’ll condemn the few who try and pull the country up from the mire that it has found itself floundering in and always, always, hold the certainty within our hearts that any one of us “could do a better job”. However, ask us to do something, to give up our time for the betterment of our country, and we’ll stand united in our reluctance and distaste. To put this into perspective, two days later, 970,600 people tuned in to watch the Season Four premiere of the popular television series, Love/Hate, from the comfort of their own homes. Then again, perhaps we should take this as a good sign, and be pleased by the fact that, in this day and age, the government of our country can prove to be just a little bit more popular than an RTÉ crime drama. Not three years from now will be the centenary celebration of a moment when Irish men and women took a stand against the oppressors of the time; they sought to gain Ireland’s freedom from the tyrannical rule they found themselves under. The fact
Nicholas Kenny discusses the nation’s apathy towards political activism that we should choose to ignore the rights that they gave their lives for, and yet celebrate their sacrifice, can only be described as the basest hypocrisy. Now, our government are forced to face the fact that they’re going to have to continue funding the Seanad, while also paying out towards the establishment of a new Court of Criminal Appeal. Meanwhile, people are already lashing out, claiming, as they always do, that the government are targeting the old, the young and the vulnerable. Well, it’s not like we’ve made it easy for them to go after other targets, now, is it? Of course, the reader might ask how I would try to rectify this. If I, with all my words of derision, have a solution to propose. Or, whether I share the characteristics of those whom I am scorning, and, like the people of this country, am filled with complaints instead of resolutions. Unfortunately, it will take a person far more intelligent than I to find a resolution to the current economic mess we have found ourselves in, but the harsh reality of the situation is that: one way or another, we are going to have to pay for it. If the cuts the government propose seem unfair, well then it’s fine to complain, up to a point. But ask yourself this:
How would you resolve this problem? For those who would reply with the tired cliché “Tax the rich”, it might be worth noting that the few hyper-privileged Irish men and women often don’t pay taxes in Ireland, and those who do are often employers that the Irish government have little choice but to protect, or else we might find our unemployment rate rising in tangent with the dole queues. However, I can provide a solution to the growing disinterest our nation has in the politics of this country. I simply propose that we follow the Australian system, where they regard voting not solely as a right, but as a responsibility. Voting is not optional, allowing the people to take up the ways of sloth and ignorance in regards to political affairs that is plaguing our country, but compulsory. Those who do not vote, who choose to ignore their responsibility in ensuring that their government is a true representation of the will of its people, are fined. Through this, we will end yjre nature of despondence and disinterest which has fallen over this country in regard to politics, and in this global recession, the opportunity for a new stream of revenue should not be ignored.