Will we see mass protests against authoritarianism and Covid19 restrictions?

[DustyBin]

Moderator note: Split from

Treatment of students at universities

I've been scrolling through Twitter and am disgusted at some of the things I'm seeing about students at universities at the moment. Apparently police are stationed around some uni halls of residence, telling off people for playing music and apparently some were following students right into...

www.railforums.co.uk

Just catching up with this.

It's some years since I was at University but if I was there I'd be looking at organising a 'mass disobedience' by all the students and this is the only way things can change.

Individual students are finding it difficult to act on their own because the authorities will divide and rule. Time for student protests similar to the ones we saw in the 60s/70s.

I agree but it’s important not to be seen as an ‘organiser’ under the new legislation. I would imagine, using modern technology, organisers could remain anonymous. I think mass disobedience (or disorder) is coming, and it won’t be restricted to students either!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree but it’s important not to be seen as an ‘organiser’ under the new legislation. I would imagine, using modern technology, organisers could remain anonymous. I think mass disobedience (or disorder) is coming, and it won’t be restricted to students either!

People keep saying that and it doesn't happen, largely because most people recognise that this is not an issue to be trifled with.

 

[yorkie]

People keep saying that and it doesn't happen, largely because most people recognise that this is not an issue to be trifled with.

It is happening but only on a small scale; many people are extremely reluctant to be seen to have anything to do with the ridiculous anti-vax / conspiracy theorists (and rightly so) but if the protests progress to be seen as mainstream then I think they would increase massively in popularity.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is happening but only on a small scale; many people are extremely reluctant to be seen to have anything to do with the ridiculous anti-vax / conspiracy theorists (and rightly so) but if the protests progress to be seen as mainstream then I think they would increase massively in popularity.

I don't agree, if only because protest in the UK is always just a minority thing - we aren't big protesters in the UK.

 

[DustyBin]

People keep saying that and it doesn't happen, largely because most people recognise that this is not an issue to be trifled with.

I don’t think it’s part of the national psyche to be honest, but it has happened before. The government, aided by the media, have played divide and conquer very successfully so far (pro-mask v anti-mask, young v old etc.) but surely we must be nearing breaking point. If we end up with millions unemployed with no prospect of employment for the foreseeable future, as looks likely, I would expect things to turn nasty. I hope they don’t, but I wouldn’t be surprised if we skip the disobedience stage and go straight to disorder. The government’s best chance of avoiding this is to successfully continue the narrative that the virus is a public health emergency and tens of thousands will die without restrictions being in place. I’m not sure they can keep this up for much longer though?

It is happening but only on a small scale; many people are extremely reluctant to be seen to have anything to do with the ridiculous anti-vax / conspiracy theorists (and rightly so) but if the protests progress to be seen as mainstream then I think they would increase massively in popularity.

Agreed, I don’t want to be associated with the 5G brigade but I’d be quite happy to be part of the ‘life must go on’ brigade!

 

[brad465]

I don’t think it’s part of the national psyche to be honest, but it has happened before. The government, aided by the media, have played divide and conquer very successfully so far (pro-mask v anti-mask, young v old etc.) but surely we must be nearing breaking point. If we end up with millions unemployed with no prospect of employment for the foreseeable future, as looks likely, I would expect things to turn nasty. I hope they don’t, but I wouldn’t be surprised if we skip the disobedience stage and go straight to disorder. The government’s best chance of avoiding this is to successfully continue the narrative that the virus is a public health emergency and tens of thousands will die without restrictions being in place. I’m not sure they can keep this up for much longer though?

Some parts of media, especially normally right wing outlets, are starting to criticise the current restrictions, along with Tory backbenchers, so I don't see them aiding the Government on such a narrative going forward. The statistics though will tell us what's actually going on (as long as they're not altered too much). The likes of unemployment levels and also the ONS excess deaths measurements will be best for this. Unemployment speaks for itself, while if there continue to be little or no excess deaths, or even worse excess deaths go up but Covid is not the dominant cause (i.e. missed cancer diagnoses, suicides, addiction-related deaths, etc.), the penny will drop for many.

 

[nedchester]

I don't agree, if only because protest in the UK is always just a minority thing - we aren't big protesters in the UK.

True, but there becomes a tipping point where folk have had enough......

 

[102 fan]

Yes, it's only a matter of time.

 

[Smidster]

Simple answer - No

For a start those who disagree with the restrictions are a minority - To have mass protests you need a cause which has very widespread public support and right now that is simply not the case nor is it even close to having anywhere near a critical mass (remember that people who will actually protest are a subset of a subset of a subset)

 

[duncanp]

I certainly hope there are mass protests against authoritarianism and silly COVID-19 restrictions.

Nicola Sturgeon seems to be going out of her way to make life unpleasant for students at Scottish universities, and as a graduate of a Scottish university myself, I do feel for the students affected.

As as for Matt Hancock trying to claim it is "..too urgent to consult parliament..." before introducing the latest petty rules, that is, quite simply, a load of b******s.

Parliament can sit at any time of day or night, both during the week and at the weekend, so claiming something is "too urgent" is subverting the normal democratic process, presumably because ministers know that their silly rules don't stand up to independent scrutiny.

 

[Yew]

Parliament can sit at any time of day or night, both during the week and at the weekend, so claiming something is "too urgent" is subverting the normal democratic process, presumably because ministers know that their silly rules don't stand up to independent scrutiny.

They don't even have to travel now.

 

[102 fan]

Simple answer - No

For a start those who disagree with the restrictions are a minority - To have mass protests you need a cause which has very widespread public support and right now that is simply not the case nor is it even close to having anywhere near a critical mass (remember that people who will actually protest are a subset of a subset of a subset)

When the P45's start arriving, with no end in sight, it won't take long.

 

[AM9]

I don't agree, if only because protest in the UK is always just a minority thing - we aren't big protesters in the UK.

Additionally, compliance with the face covering rules and other rules introduced to constrain the spread of COVID-19 doesn't seem to be the same across the country. Around here in central London and on both rail and buses, the wearing of face coverings in areas where it is stipulated seems to be about 80% or greater and the only flagrant violation of the rules for gathering seems to be where there is alcohol on offer. Of course the media are seeking out newsworthy breaches of the rules which in the South-East has mainly been about late night parties. The many posts here about people ignoring the rules seem to be in the West Midlands and further north, which coincidentally is where the rate of new cases has caused enhanced restrictions.
Of course, for those who want to make a statement, central London is the magnet for protests, but I doubt whether any would come to much, because it isn't a one policy vs another issue, - nobody wants all of these changes in their lives, but there is no coherent case being made for tackling the situation in any other way. Much as some would like to present it, this is not another 'poll tax' situation.

 

[duncanp]

When the P45's start arriving, with no end in sight, it won't take long.

• Or if the pubs are closed at Christmas
• Or if the pubs have to close at 10pm on New Years Eve.
• Or if students are thrown off their courses for the "crime" of wanting to go home to see their families at Christmas
• Or if a major football league club goes bankrupt because fans are still not allowed back into stadiums
• Or when the budget eventually takes place, and taxes are increased to pay for all the COVID-19 related government spending.
• Or when people start to lose their homes because they can't pay the mortgage or rent due to being out of work

I am old enough to remember the riots of the summer of 1981, caused in part by the recession and the effect of government economic reforms.

If the coming recession is anything like the one in the early 1980s, we could well see a similar reaction

 

[bramling]

Simple answer - No

For a start those who disagree with the restrictions are a minority - To have mass protests you need a cause which has very widespread public support and right now that is simply not the case nor is it even close to having anywhere near a critical mass (remember that people who will actually protest are a subset of a subset of a subset)

You may well be right on that, however that said what would happen is it would unlock the subset of people who have had enough and would be quite happy to stop complying. Some level of disorder combined with a drop in compliance (which will happen over time anyway), plus people out of a job for what may well increasingly be deemed nefarious reasons, would IMO be enough to achieve a critical mass.

 

[43066]

Simple answer - No

For a start those who disagree with the restrictions are a minority - To have mass protests you need a cause which has very widespread public support and right now that is simply not the case nor is it even close to having anywhere near a critical mass (remember that people who will actually protest are a subset of a subset of a subset)

I’m not convinced public opinion is quite so in favour of restrictions as we are being told. There’s a minority who are, but I suspect many people are just getting on with things as best they can. Witness the number merely paying lip service to the masks rule etc.

Rather than “mass protests”, which we don’t generally do in this country, what we will probably see is a creeping level of simple ignoring/civil disobedience. No surprise when we find that, after six months of these onerous and pointless measures, we are now back to square one.

but there is no coherent case being made for tackling the situation in any other way.

The situation isn’t currently being tackled at all, the inevitable is just being delayed (at colossal expense). As noted above, we are now essentially back to square one in terms of case numbers.

The coherent approach would be to simply accept the reality of the situation, unlock, and start building hospitals and mortuaries.

There are reports in the press today that the virus is thought to be becoming more transmissible, and of course mutations will reduce the effectiveness of any possible vaccine, so kicking the can down the road while we wait for a magic bullet vaccine (as I can only assume the government is doing) is a ludicrous approach.

 

[AM9]

I’m not convinced public opinion is quite so in favour of restrictions as we are being told. There’s a minority who are, but I suspect many people are just getting on with things as best they can. Witness the number merely paying lip service to the masks rule etc.

Rather than “mass protests”, which we don’t generally do in this country, what we will probably see is a creeping level of ignoring/civil disobedience. No surprise when we find that, after six months of these onerous and pointless measures, we are now back to square one.



The situation isn’t currently being tackled at all, the inevitable is just being delayed (at colossal expense). As noted above, we are now essentially back to square one in terms of case numbers.

The coherent approach would be to simply accept the reality of the situation, unlock, and start building hospitals and mortuaries.

There are reports in the press today that the virus is thought to be becoming more transmissible, and of course mutations will reduce the effectiveness of any possible vaccine.

Dream on! A policy of "simply accept the reality of the situation, unlock, and start building hospitals and mortuaries" not only won't get any buy-in from even the mast hawkish MPs, but apart from extreme utterances from anonymous posters on social media threads like this, there will be no traction from mobs in the street whilst there's 80% compliance of the rules.

 

[43066]

not only won't get any buy-in from even the mast hawkish MPs, but apart from extreme utterances from anonymous posters on social media threads like this, there will be no traction from mobs in the street whilst there's 80% compliance of the rules.

I’ve not said anything about “mobs on the street”, rather people paying lip service but ignoring the substance of “the rules”, as is increasingly common.

Like it or not, what I’ve suggested above is a more coherent and sensible approach than anything that has been tried so far. Keep in mind that those “hawkish mps” are most probably responsible for the lighter-touch-than-expected changes to the rules we have just seen so things are starting to change politically (how ironic that the back benches of the Tory party are more likely to save this country from the ravages of the government’s current approach than the impotent opposition!)

In the end, you have to ask what exactly has been achieved over the last few months. We’re now heading into the winter, P45s are about to start landing thick and fast as furlough ends, cases are rising exponentially again...

 

[DustyBin]

When the P45's start arriving, with no end in sight, it won't take long.

Unemployment will affect how a lot of people think about this. I also think young people who feel increasingly disenfranchised may well protest, even if their motives are seen as selfish by some (personally I don't view wanting a decent future as selfish).

Dream on! A policy of "simply accept the reality of the situation, unlock, and start building hospitals and mortuaries" not only won't get any buy-in from even the mast hawkish MPs, but apart from extreme utterances from anonymous posters on social media threads like this, there will be no traction from mobs in the street whilst there's 80% compliance of the rules.

I certainly can't see any political parties using that particular slogan! However, look at the facts, learn the lessons and protect the vulnerable isn't an unreasonable approach in my opinion. I don't think compliance with the rules neccessarily reflects support for them. Nobody wants confrontation or a hefty fine; there will be plenty of people (myself included) who comply (most of the time) because it's easier. If we take mask wearing as an example, if the government were to say "the virus hasn't gone away but mask wearing is now voluntary" I suspect wearers would become the minority, if not overnight certainly within a couple of weeks.

 

[AM9]

... I certainly can't see any political parties using that particular slogan! However, look at the facts, learn the lessons and protect the vulnerable isn't an unreasonable approach in my opinion. ...

It won't take long for somebody to paraphrase whatever weasel words are officially used to define such a policy for the beans to be spilt revealing the real meaning.

... I don't think compliance with the rules neccessarily reflects support for them. Nobody wants confrontation or a hefty fine; there will be plenty of people (myself included) who comply (most of the time) because it's easier. If we take mask wearing as an example, if the government were to say "the virus hasn't gone away but mask wearing is now voluntary" I suspect wearers would become the minority, if not overnight certainly within a couple of weeks.

I don't think that it's that simple. Younger people who think that they are immune from serious side effects might stop using face coverings, but if the official Government words confirm that the virus hasn't gone away, there would be a rather dangerous split in society as regards the rights of those who are vulnerable not to be exposed to infection from others. For that reason, I don't believe that the Government would say such a stupid thing however much haranging the got from part of the population, - especially as the older citizens are the backbone of Conservative votes.

 

[Yew]

Nobody is saying that it's gone away, you're creating a straw man argument there.

 

[43066]

the rights of those who are vulnerable not to be exposed to infection from others.

There is no such right in law and it’s ludicrous to pretend that there is. People can take steps to reduce their own risk of exposure but, if you catch it, it’s just tough luck.

EDIT: and why would it be “stupid” to make mask wearing (an activity which has demonstrably had no benefit) voluntary? The stupidity has been in doubling down on the requirement:

“It isn’t working, so let’s do more of it!”.

 

[Scotrail12]

Yes - I think that we're getting to that point. More and more people are seeing through the government at this point. I feel that a lot more of the population have regained their common sense (with some exceptions), it's just the politicians who haven't.

 

[DustyBin]

It won't take long for somebody to paraphrase whatever weasel words are officially used to define such a policy for the beans to be spilt revealing the real meaning.

I don't think that it's that simple. Younger people who think that they are immune from serious side effects might stop using face coverings, but if the official Government words confirm that the virus hasn't gone away, there would be a rather dangerous split in society as regards the rights of those who are vulnerable not to be exposed to infection from others. For that reason, I don't believe that the Government would say such a stupid thing however much haranging the got from part of the population, - especially as the older citizens are the backbone of Conservative votes.

But I'm being deadly serious here; the words should be taken at face value. I'm by no means an advocate of simply throwing the vulnerable under the bus, as it were. For a start, I have imediate family who fall within the vulnerable category.

I take your point regarding the split in society, but we're heading that way as it is. Here's a suggestion (and we're getting dangerously close to coming up with potential practical solutions here!). Why not offer the vulnerable (and only the vulnerable) proper, effective masks that protect them? That way they could go about their lives with peace of mind and the rest of us aren't forced to wear a pointless piece of cloth over our faces. It's win-win surely? Of course the provision of suitable masks will come at a cost, but as money is no object at present I don't see why that should be prohibitive....

 

[GRALISTAIR]

• Or if the pubs are closed at Christmas
• Or if the pubs have to close at 10pm on New Years Eve.
• Or if students are thrown off their courses for the "crime" of wanting to go home to see their families at Christmas
• Or if a major football league club goes bankrupt because fans are still not allowed back into stadiums
• Or when the budget eventually takes place, and taxes are increased to pay for all the COVID-19 related government spending.
• Or when people start to lose their homes because they can't pay the mortgage or rent due to being out of work

I am old enough to remember the riots of the summer of 1981, caused in part by the recession and the effect of government economic reforms.

If the coming recession is anything like the one in the early 1980s, we could well see a similar reaction

Great summary - I agree.

Nobody is saying that it's gone away, you're creating a straw man argument there.

And indeed it may never go away.

 

[Scrotnig]

For a start those who disagree with the restrictions are a minority

Mostly because so many people are being paid by the government for a long holiday and see the ongoing restrictions as a way to keep that up. When that ends (and the new scheme is nothing like so generous) then some home truths will hit.

 

[bramling]

Dream on! A policy of "simply accept the reality of the situation, unlock, and start building hospitals and mortuaries" not only won't get any buy-in from even the mast hawkish MPs, but apart from extreme utterances from anonymous posters on social media threads like this, there will be no traction from mobs in the street whilst there's 80% compliance of the rules.

The problem is that, much as we might all wish otherwise, the current policy is simply kicking the can down the road, and banking on the emergence of an effective vaccine. For how long can we continue down that path?

 

[WelshBluebird]

Mostly because so many people are being paid by the government for a long holiday and see the ongoing restrictions as a way to keep that up. When that ends (and the new scheme is nothing like so generous) then some home truths will hit.

The furlough scheme only covered a minority of people who work though - even at its height, and since July (presumably when places started opening again) it has covered even less people (for July through to August, 12% of employees were on the scheme).
So even if what you say is true for some people (and I think it is a bit of a reach to suggest that most on furlough wanted the restrictions to continue just so they can be at home for longer - most people I know who were furloughed couldn't wait to get back to work), it doesn't account for the majority of people.

 

[Scrotnig]

The furlough scheme only covered a minority of people who work though - even at its height, and since July (presumably when places started opening again) it has covered even less people (since July a maximum of 12% of employees were on the scheme).
So even if what you say is true for some people (and I think it is a bit of a reach to suggest that most on furlough wand the restrictions to continue just so they can be at home for longer), it doesn't account for the majority of people.

It rather depends on who you ask. Most of the claims about the majority supporting the restrictions are from polls carried out by YouGov. There is considerable doubt cast on their results. Even if they are 100% accurate, YouGov polls are generally completed by people with plenty of time on their hands, either through unemployment, retirement or just wealth. Such people are likely to be unconcerned about any impact on jobs, for example.

 

[WelshBluebird]

It rather depends on who you ask. Most of the claims about the majority supporting the restrictions are from polls carried out by YouGov. There is considerable doubt cast on their results. Even if they are 100% accurate, YouGov polls are generally completed by people with plenty of time on their hands, either through unemployment, retirement or just wealth. Such people are likely to be unconcerned about any impact on jobs, for example.

But you specifically called out furloughed employees as the reasoning. That is what I disagree with.
I agree that there are issues with a lot of polls and public opinion surveys. Some of the reasons you mention, and some others you don't.
However your suggestion that furloughed employees are the reason for the public supporting the restrictions so they can get a longer break from work is just pure speculation at best - and it doesn't match my experience at all.
The fact is that furloughed employees were in a minority even at the height of the scheme, and now are very much in the very small minority. So how could they influence public opinion so much? Especially when a good deal of those actually don't want to still be furloughed anyway and would rather be back at work.