“Angry? We are.”

November 28, 2011 1:04 pm

So begins AboutUspage on Cambridge Defend Education’s website, their rhetorical question perfectly illustrating what little interest they have in listening to other people.

Oddly, it also seems to expect that any visitors to the site are angry. No pleasantries, just straight to the business of being outraged. No time, even, for a fully structured sentence: putting “Are you” in front of the word “angry” would waste valuable time that could be spent being apoplectic about the thing they are keen to tell you they are angry about. Not even about in particular at this point. Not “Angry about cuts?” or “Angry about fees?”. No. Just “Angry?” Angry about anything? You’re in the right place. Did you accidentally stumble across this site after slamming your face repeatedly into the keyboard in an act of inexplicable pent-up rage? You’re one of us now.

On Tuesday, Cambridge University was hosting a debate with Universities Minister David Willetts, who was to open proceedings with a statement about what he felt universities should represent. Just as he got to the stage, however, one man in the crowd stood up.

“Dear David,” he bellowed, by way of interruption. Then he paused, allowing his accomplices within the crowd to repeat his strong opening line. “The future does not belong to you.” Another pause followed, and sections of the crowd again dutifully repeated. This technique of repeating even the most banal statement of the original speaker is apparently known as a ‘People’s Mic’, presumably to make a contrast with the kind of electrical microphones used by rappers, stand up comedians and trade unionists, all of whom are millionaires. “This is an epistle,” the people continued, before adding, unnecessarily, “which is addressed to you.”

This was the self-proclaimed ‘epistle’ of the Cambridge Defend Education, entitled ‘GOHOME, DAVID. I have checked, by the way, and the capitals are not optional. After a few minutes, Willetts left. By the time the CDE got to their closing, “Go home, David./ And learn your gods anew”, he would have been pulling onto the motorway, probably pleased to be able to get home so soon. The poem (I think it’s supposed to be a poem) has lots of lines like “learn your god anew” and not many actual facts or arguments.

There’s a lot about religion and gods that build up to that last sentence. There are bits that don’t make much sense. There’s a bit about a car that they are“clambering” into the driving seat of, before saying that the car metaphor (that they introduced, for no reason) “betrays” Willetts and that, actually, they have no ambition to get into the driving seat. That they’ve already clambered into. The driving seat of a car that they don’t want to be souped up. The driving seat of a car that they don’t want to be souped up, driving down a narrow road. With a horizon that’s vanishing. So “look elsewhere for your metaphors, David”. Yeah, David!

One of their biggest grievances seems to be that David Willetts has already made up his mind about the legislation that he’s introduced. Now, as much as I dislike the reform to higher education, I would say it’s at least fitting with his values. Whereas shutting down a debate because you think that someone won’t agree with you at the end does not follow with the kind of free speech you claim to support. “Nothing is up for debate here;/ your mind is made up;/ you are not for turning”, said the people who didn’t allow the debate to happen.

This is why I accused them of “hilariously unaware, pretentious tosspottery”. They refuted this, claiming it was “hilariouslyself-awaretosspottery”. Well, there we are. We’ve entered an age of post-protest. Meta-anger. They have staged a purposefully bad protest. In a time when everyone is irrelevantly occupying any piece of space, Cambridge Defend Education have realised that the only way to really get any attention is to do something so monumentally rubbish that no one has any option other than to give it attention. I hadn’t realised this was the new Footlights performance piece. It’s reminiscent of Doyouweep, MrsThatcher?’. And that was written by a fictional thirteen year old.

They are still there now, occupying the space they never let David Willetts speak in. An insular close-knit and small-minded group of self-important group, Cambridge Defend Education represent the unthinking, hypocritical left at its worst. In their ‘About Us’, they say “we will listen to each other”. It just seems a shame they won’t listen to anyone else.

  • Anonymous

    Cambridge Defend Education represent the unthinking, hypocritical
    left at its worst. In their ‘About Us’, they say “we will listen to each
    other”. It just seems a shame they won’t listen to anyone else.

    Those swine from the left.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

    There’s just no point in trying to have debate with Tories. We occupy different worlds – there is no meeting point. Of course, its different for the Blairite triangulators, who could happily be part of the Coalition, as Hutton has shown, and the willingness of Purnell to work with the enemy in the person of Tory peer Lord Freud who he was content to slavishly follow as he wrote his welfare reform policy…

  • Anonymous
  • http://twitter.com/CJWallace91 Chris Wallace

    I do agree that it was really quite silly to deny Willetts the chance to speak and engage in an argument. I despise the reforms made to higher education, but I struggle to see what this achieved, aside from a little more media attention than otherwise would be expected. 

    I certainly don’t think it will have persuaded any of those on the fence about the value of the reforms to come down on our side of the argument.

    Looks like something of an own goal.

Latest

  • Comment Housing upheaval can be traced back to Thatcher

    Housing upheaval can be traced back to Thatcher

    If further evidence was needed that the Government is destroying our communities then it came by the bucket load with proposals to relocate hundreds of housing benefit claimants. Councils across London desperately searched for a solution to the housing benefit cap that made it impossible for some of the capital’s poorest residents to stay in their homes. First we heard of plans to move residents to Darlington, Stoke, Hull and parts of Yorkshire. But the revelation that Westminster Council planned [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured The austerity consensus has collapsed

    The austerity consensus has collapsed

    There is no alternative: the only way out of Britain’s current economic plight is massive cuts to public spending. Taxes on the wealthiest must be slashed: they are blocks on aspiration and economically counterproductive. Austerity is the only game in town. Or so we have been told ever since the Coalition was formed in the rose gardens of Number 10 Downing Street. The overwhelming majority of the media has gladly reinforced the Government line, and those voices calling for an [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Should Labour go further on football reform?

    Should Labour go further on football reform?

    “As a party, Labour should take great pride in the fact that we initiated Supporters Direct, but now is the time to go further.” These sentiments, expressed in a recent article for Progress by Steve Rotheram MP, hark back to a time where the landscape was somewhat different for the Labour party, but similar in many ways to that faced by football supporters in 2012. The Football Taskforce was established soon after Labour came to power in 1997, with the [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Making Labour Policy: Who calls the tune?

    Making Labour Policy: Who calls the tune?

    Excellent election results and rising polls have brought a mood of unity and created space and time for serious work on policy. Francois Hollande’s victory shows that austerity is not the only option, and Labour must start to develop an alternative agenda, rejecting the Tory politics of resentment and division in favour of policies which are fair, principled and credible: on housing, crime, transport, health, schools, higher education, manufacturing, tax, defence, social care, equality, employment rights and the environment. We [...]

    Read more →
  • News It’s the budget what won it…

    It’s the budget what won it…

    Why did Labour win the 2010 local elections so convincingly? It’s the budget right? This graph of polling from TNS BMRB certainly suggests that. Labour’s slim lead extends rapidly following the budget (highlighted) – and current stands at 12 points (42/30). And as for why Labour did better in 2012 compared to the 2011 elections – just compare May and May 2012. A year is a long time in politics…

    Read more →