Remembrance Sunday should remind the rioters why liberty was fought for

I had hoped to blog this week about why I regretfully accept that tuition fees have to rise. Unfortunatly- at least certainly for those who are strongly opposed to any such rise- events of this week have rather taken over the debate about tuition fees.

This is because some highly misguided, self-obsessed, delusional idiots decided to turn the otherwise peaceful protest on Wednesday into a full-on rampage of destruction. Let's get a myth out of the way right now: this disgraceful action was not about the 'strength of feeling' towards the rise in tuition fees. This was not the sort of revolutionary cause that has driven people to violently protest before- this was not about enslavery, not about persecution of a people, not about women’s rights or any such like. This, in reality, was about tanked-up students and otherwise general layabouts with nothing better to do on a Wednesday afternoon, taking part in an utterly gratuitous rampage of demolition and violence. Indeed, as demonstrated by the fire extinguisher incident, it was a miracle that no-one died. These people were absolutely out of control, not fighting for a just cause, just frivolous violence and destruction.

Some have said (the academics at Goldsmiths, University of London) that the riots were positive because they raised the profile of the cause against tuition fees. The difficulty with this position is that by implication, what they are saying, is that it’s OK to break the law as long as you further your cause. Where do you draw the line with this principal? Would it have still been acceptable if the fire extinguisher hadn't landed a couple of yards from the police woman and she had died? If so, is this not the guiding principal of terrorism?

Ironically, far from furthering their cause, the riots have meant that very little attention has been devoted to actually debating the issue of the rise in tuition fees. Instead, all press coverage has focused on the unforgiveable rampage itself, and in that, the students have lost the sympathies (if they were there to begin with) of the general public.

If you feel passionately about an issue and you are determined to get it changed, I salute you. I myself am passionate about many issues which I feel aggrieved about every day. Many people argue that you can’t get things changed; that your vote doesn’t translate in real-terms to affect you. I can understand and sympathise with your frustration. But you must continue to fight your cause through rational debate and peaceful protest within the bounds of the law, even if success is a distant possibility.

That is the way it is done in this country; a country which has a hard-earned liberal democracy. Today of all days, we remember just how hard-earned this freedom was. Millions of young men of a not-so-distant generation lost their lives fighting for the liberty we now have, but it wasn’t so that today’s ignorant youths could go on a rampage every time they disagree with a decision made by their government. Perhaps when some of the perpatrators of Wednesday’s despicable acts are sentenced (as I sincerly hope they are, with the full force of the law) they may do well to have some quiet reflection about that point.

Congratulations to the Tea Party! Roll on its influence in Britain!

How very encouraging to see the Tea Party movement having such a successful night at the mid-term elections in America. It really is a remarkable achievement: from something that only sprang up a few years ago, to become such a highly influential force in American politics. It will be fascinating to see whether the successful Tea Party candidates can keep their promises now they are in Washington.

Watching their success made me hope that we might have a similar movement over here. I’m not referring to the wacko right-wing of American politics, which has tried to associate with the Tea Party, but rather the Tea Party in its purest form- that of a movement for truly small government and a significant reinterpretation of the relationship between the state and the individual. This clarification is explained well by James Delingpole here.

From a British point of view, there is something you have to admire about the Tea Party movement’s brashness. In Britain, despite our tax and spend binge of our previous government, to come up with a name that is short for Taxed Enough Already, would be seen as highly politically incorrect. Here, to announce in public that you are taxed too much is to invite derision. The lefty media have influenced the public psyche so that to complain about tax is somehow equated with immorality. It means you do not want to help the poor and must be extremely selfish. It means you must be anti-nurses and teachers. It means you don’t care about schools or hospitals. It probably means you also eat babies for breakfast…

The debate about small government and less tax is only now beginning to tentatively shift in Britain. But we need to get past the overly simplistic view that to ask for less tax is selfish. Given the public deficit, this is a wonderful opportunity to start persuading people of the benefits of small government, but like I have previously argued here, even now the Conservative party are desperate to avoid arguing ideologically about the reduction of the state. God forbid, we might try to argue that asking for less tax and small government, far from being selfish, would actually improve our society as a whole; would give us greater freedom, happiness and prosperity.

The other day, I became particularly agitated as I tried to read my paper in a coffee shop. At the table beside me there was, perhaps, the quintessential caricature of an American; one who talks so loudly that the whole street can hear them! While we polite British might wince when we hear an American with a volume control problem, we should also admire their candidness. The Tea Party’s openness about small government would be a welcome addition to the political debate e over here.