---

by Byron
Perhaps now the craven majority of the Labour Party, who sold out everything they ever stood for to get a whiff of a power BlairÂ’s never let them use, can finally face up to the epic self-loathing that caused them to vote for this sleazy charlatan in the first place.

---

Totally agree, Didnt Tony Blair only get the chance to become leader because the previous leader died.

It amazes me how he can be so brazen to forget what he said before and do exactly the opposite to what he promised.
I feel digust that they can call themselves labour.they are so far gone from labour it stinks

---

by JtB
(quotes)

Totally agree, Didnt Tony Blair only get the chance to become leader because the previous leader died.

---

Wasn't that our MEP, Mr Kinnock?

No darling, the sadly lamented John Smith.

Since Blair thinks he feels the hand of history on his shoulders, I think we should let it give him his dues.

---

First after a traitor hath had his just trial and is convicted and attained he shall have his judgment to be drawn to the place of execution from his prison as being not worthy any more to tread upon the face of the earth, whereof he was made. Also that he hath been retrograde by nature, and there fore he is drawn backwards at a horses tail. And whereas god hath made the head of a man the highest and most supreme part as being his chief grace and ornament he must be drawn with his head declining downward, and lying so near the ground as may be being thought unfit to take benefit of the common air. For which cause also he shall be strangled being hanged up by the neck between heaven and earth as deemed unworthy of both or either as likewise that the eyes of men may behold and their hearts condemn him. Then he is to be cut down alive and to have his privy parts cut off and burnt before his face, as being unworthy begotten and unfit to leave any generation after him. His bowels and inlaid parts taken out and burnt who inwardly had conceived and harbored in his heart such horrible treason after to have his head cut off which had imagined the mischief and lastly his body to be quartered and the quarters set up in some high and eminent place to the view and detestation of men and to become a prey for the fowls of the air. And this is a reward due to traitors.

---

The Enlightenment, all rather overrated in my book.

---

by Kate
No darling, the sadly lamented John Smith.

---

Thats him Kate thank you, who imsure would have made a far better PM than Mr Blair.

Ahhh, can't remember him for some reason, was he leader for very long?

---

by Stoo
Ahhh, can't remember him for some reason, was he leader for very long?

---

Elected in 1992, sadly died in 1994. Now I'm not a Labourite, but from what I hear from those who are, Smith would be to Blair as the Beatles were to Wings.

Well, I was at the height of my involvement with the party at the time of John Smith's death, and it pretty much devestated everyone. He seemed to have the knack of presenting an electable face to the electorate, while keeping most parties in the party happy as well. A trick not even the likes of Attlee or Wilson were ever capable of.

There was a rather odd (and slightly annoying) program on Beeb4 recently about what a Smith government would have been like. Which, at the end of the day, is dodgy ground. John Smith never had the chance to lead this country. Never had to face those harsh decisions between real politik and idealism. Never had to deal with a split in government over Europe (think Blair is pro-Europe? I find it hard to believe we would not be using Euros by now under Smith, and there would never have been a referendum over it). Never had to deal with personalities once in power. How would Blair have been as a chancellor? Brown would not have lasted long in such a pro-Europe government. And Mandy?

It is easy to beatify the dead. But I do find it impossible to envisage John Smith standing side by side with Bush. Or introducing the likes of top-up fees, foundation hospitals, privatisation of the Underground and partially of schools. Yet it is easy to see him doing the good things this governement has done - Minimum Wage, Human Rights Act, Removal of Section 28 and the equalisation of the age of consent, and Devolution, to name a few.

But returning to the actual topic, there's no big surprise here. We knew top up fees were coming even when he was lying to us in 2001. And the party didn't turn on him, and the electorate still voted him into a strong majority. This won't be his Poll Tax. It doesn't effect the same amount of people, and it isn't opposed on the same level. To be truthful, I don't think most people care or even oppose it.

I remember the elections for Tony Blair as leader after John Smith's tragic death. I can at least hold my head up high and say I wasn't one of those who wanted government at any cost and voted for him. But I have to drop that houghty posture and admit that the man I did vote for (Prescott) would have been no better, and actually less affective, as he would not have defeated Major. And I'm not even going to discuss the possibility of Beckett winning. John Smith had no peers. The nearest was and is a man to the right of him politically, but who is trying to dress himself in Smith's clothes, at least since the last conference. And to be honest, I actually think he's about the only person who can put this government, and my party back on track.

Step forward, Gordon Brown.
(But please explain why you made a pact with that big eared devil in the first place!)

---

by Jayjay
And Mandy?

---

...well, he came and he gave without taking. now they've sent him away...

Sorry. Couldn't resist that *deep shame* (isn't it sad that there'll be peeps out there who think that was a Westlife quote...)

I agree with the caution about "Virtual History", as Niall Ferguson called it (the "what if?" school). But the level of disillusionment with this government that I see around me makes it hard not to. It's one thing to deal with realpolitik, and another seemingly to turn your back on an entire ideology (I do say "seemingly", as I know that they've kept some of their promises, re minimum wage etc). The tuition fees thing is terrifying though. If I'd had to pay the top-up fees my beloved Vice-Chancellor (and my late Chancellor, Woy Jenkins) seem so hot on, I would not be here on degree number 3. And several part-time jobs as it is. My father would never have got the education he got (son of a miner, got a scholarship to here in classic style). I can't see my baby brother being able to go to Uni, and that is very sad. I concede that there will be bursaries for people who really can't afford it; but those of us whose parents count as earning 'too much', yet still can barely make ends meet, are really up the creek without a paddle. I wish I had any idea what the solution could be

Perhaps part of the problem is the 50% university target the government have set? University isn't necessarily right for everyone, and with that sort of emphasis on university education, it surely devalues other more important skills that we need (because let's face it, what is more important and useful, my poxy degree in English, or an electrician to stop me killing myself on the wiring?? I know who I have more respect for...) We used to have polytechnics, which were wonderful things. Great places to train people, good courses. These days they're all universities, and surely the worse for it - we need to train hairdressers; but does the qualification need to be a BA?

As I say, I have no answers, am just musing...

One question I wish someone would ask the politicians, though. We have a pension crisis; we are all being told we need to save our own pensions, as the country can't afford to keep us, and the final salary schemes are dying the death. How on earth are we meant to save for a pension whilst we're paying back tens of thousands in student debt/top-up fees/etc etc? Just a thought...

---

by Bee
...well, he came and he gave without taking. now they've sent him away...

---

*slap*

---

by Sydney
*slap*

---

Yup, I deserved that!

(Edited by Bee 05/12/2003 18:30)

Bee, yeah, I've wondered about that, the government is in a bit of a fix reguarding universities and student numbers.
The simple fact is that there are too many students in the system to support, those odd courses don't really help either (I read of a degree in Pop Music somewhere).

Perhaps one way would be to encourage businesses to have closer ties to the universities, but then again some people would think that smacked of privatisation as well.

I suppose the real root cause of the various budget related problems can be traced back to the fact that the country doesn't really produce much these days other than paperwork.
We've had a balance of trade deficit for *how* long?

---

by Jayjay
But returning to the actual topic, there's no big surprise here. We knew top up fees were coming even when he was lying to us in 2001. And the party didn't turn on him, and the electorate still voted him into a strong majority. This won't be his Poll Tax. It doesn't effect the same amount of people, and it isn't opposed on the same level. To be truthful, I don't think most people care or even oppose it.

---

Well no, even the most rum-grizzled commentators were predicting he'd have to wait until the next term to put his plans into action. As recently as early this year, we had "Blair will of course have to wait until the next Parliament, because he has a manifesto commitment". An honest politician is as common as ... well an honest politican, but when their lies get this transparent you know they've lost it.

And I must admit I'm baffled by your comment that most people don't "care or even oppose it". Every parent I know is up in arms over the prospect of second mortages (if they're able) and similar fiancial fun, and with uni numbers creeping towards 50 per cent, that's a lot of parents. The poll tax screwed over everyone under a certain income level, and this is doing exactly the same. Every day that passes you see another hat thrown firmly into the Blair be gone camp; I wasn't there for the poll tax, but those who were told me the buildup was just like this.

Well I like to hope so anyhow. See ya on the baracades maybe.

Well, I was there for the poll tax. Still have fond memories of ceremoniously burning my first bill in my Student flat. Then watching it burn out of control with flames everywhere and starting to panic... Still have the (ceramic) bowl I did it in, which is riddled with cracks for the event...

And Tuition Fees seem nothing like this. It dominated everything. Everyone had an opinion, and non-payment was a major division with people taking very strong positions either side, whatever they actually thought of the Poll Tax. And I somehow doubt Tuition Fees will lead to the tabloid loving mass demonstrations by Pensioners. This simply doesn't affect the same number of people.

---

by Byron
Every parent I know is up in arms over the prospect of second mortages (if they're able) and similar fiancial fun[/b]

---

The majority of people I know, parents or otherwise, have not been to university. Nor did they ever intend to. Nor has most or all of their family. They don't expect their kids to either. It is not an important issue for them. This will most likely not impact most of them for over another decade. They have other more immediate concerns, and this is low down on their list of problems, if it is there at all. Which is all anecdotal. But I don't see the tabloids in an uproar on this. Even giving it much attention. Or anywhere else, except the relatively high brow and middle-class media sources. And only people like me and you, Byron, care what they have to say.

And quite rightly commentators are up in arms about such a blatant manifesto u-turn. But here's another painful truth - most people neither care nor even know what is in the party manifesto. They just vote for the person the distrust the least. And as long as Blair doesn't make most of his voters lives a misery (which he hasn't) and the Tory party continues to look like a day time soap opera, then New Labour will remain where they are. And will continue to pay as much attention to manifesto pledges as they currently do. And let's face it, this isn't the first government to ignore its own election promises.

Fact is, only people like you and me care about this stuff, Byron.

As for comments above about University courses and numbers. Stories of wacky and zany degrees are usually gross acts of media misrepresentation, upon even the smallest amounts of investigation. And even still, these courses do not make up 1% of the student population - they are a scapegoat used for those opposed to the principle of sharing wealth and costs, and those who love the traditional British sport of Student-Bashing.

As for increasing University numbers, I personally think this is essential culturally, but if you accept globalisation (and there are strong compelling economic arguments for this, in a capitalist setting) then it is also an economic necessity. We cannot compete with the costs of manual or even low-grade technical work from third world countries. It seems inevitable that we will soon only have the bare essentials of a manufacturing base. And much of this will be foreign owed (and thus a drain on our economy). Even the service industry is leaving us, and our current activities in the Middle East won't help tourism. If we want to grow as an economy we need to increase the skill levels of our work force across the spectrum so that we can compete globally. As such increasing University attendance beyond 50% seems essential to me.

But to expect people to cripple themselves economically in the search for skills we desperately need as a whole, seems not only naive, but also plain stupid. It clearly will discourage those from low incomes and especially those who do come from families without a history of University attendance. Which means we are shooting ourselves in the foot from the off.

To attend University you need to be over 18 (Scots discluded) and therefore are an adult in the eyes of the law. To then insist that if they are to attend University they must remain dependent on their parents seems idiotic to me. As such I approve of the intention to increase University attendance, but oppose any surcharge, means-testing, graduate tax or similar. The state should provide a full grant to all students regardless of family income, and at a level that is above the poverty line. No State Loan, No Tuition Fees, No Graduate Tax.

Simple and necessary for the economic (and cultural) health of this country.

(Edited by Jayjay 06/12/2003 22:34)

That would be all very well and good in an ideal world, but the fact is that the system can't support the level of students it currently has without top-up fees etc.

Where is all the extra funding going to come from?

Anyone have any ideas?

MI5 should start smuggling drugs, like the CIA does.

---

by Jayjay
Well, I was there for the poll tax. Still have fond memories of ceremoniously burning my first bill in my Student flat.

---

Same here, except it was a ritual burning of the registration form on the steps of Norwich City Hall, in the company of many others - "bin 'em, burn 'em, don't return 'em".

The thing about the Poll Tax was that it united many disparate groups - the pensioners, people on council estates with no interest in politics - and tuition fees just don't excite a broad enough base of the population.

It won't be Blair's Poll Tax, but it will warm things up nicely for when his Poll Tax heaves into view, whatever it may be...

Tis best I think for me to leave aside further poll tax comparisons, seeing as you've got the prerogative there. (My principal bone of contention at the time being that those scumbags got Danger Mouse cancelled ... actually, I've yet to forgive Thatcher for that one.)

---

by Jayjay
The majority of people I know, parents or otherwise, have not been to university. Nor did they ever intend to. Nor has most or all of their family. They don't expect their kids to either. It is not an important issue for them. This will most likely not impact most of them for over another decade. They have other more immediate concerns, and this is low down on their list of problems, if it is there at all. Which is all anecdotal. But I don't see the tabloids in an uproar on this. Even giving it much attention. Or anywhere else, except the relatively high brow and middle-class media sources. And only people like me and you, Byron, care what they have to say.

And quite rightly commentators are up in arms about such a blatant manifesto u-turn. But here's another painful truth - most people neither care nor even know what is in the party manifesto. They just vote for the person the distrust the least. And as long as Blair doesn't make most of his voters lives a misery (which he hasn't) and the Tory party continues to look like a day time soap opera, then New Labour will remain where they are. And will continue to pay as much attention to manifesto pledges as they currently do. And let's face it, this isn't the first government to ignore its own election promises.

Fact is, only people like you and me care about this stuff, Byron.

---

The people you know do not constitute the entirety of the British electorate; and, burgeoning as my black book is, neither as yet do those IÂ’m acquainted with. What isnÂ’t anecdotal is that 43 per cent of school leavers currently attend university (source, Daily Telegraph), and that, in anyoneÂ’s book, is a hefty chunk of the electorate. Blair got in by selling out to middle England, and if anythingÂ’s guaranteed to crank said constituency off, itÂ’s whacking a few more noughts on to the collective bank balance. People who ignore the great gravytrain wonÂ’t ignore this.

Neither will Labour backbenches. Craven as the party is, the rebels already stand at over 150; more than was conjured up by the shiver looking for spines that was shot around Westminster by a certain illegal war. And it’s growing by the day. Foundation hospitals scraped through the Commons by 305 votes to 285; “new” Labour were so panicked they paid 30 grand to fly sports minister Richard Caborn halfway around the world to pack their emaciated lobby. And that issue had a fraction of the public recognition top-up fees do. I can’t speak for the sewer press, but the subject’s received no shortage of coverage from the Mail and Express. The point about this one is it isn’t just people like me and you who care what happens; so maybe it isn’t the next poll tax, but it sure as blazes ain’t the next Local Government Bill.

Now as far as university funding goes, I say lower numbers, fully subsidised. A target of 50 per cent apparently dredged at random from the leftovers of John PrescottÂ’s favourite greasy spoon is meaningless. Irrespective of class, not everyone is suited to university, and Labour would be better spent getting a proper apprentice scheme going with all the resources theyÂ’re ploughing into the arbitrary figure theyÂ’ve wed.

(Edited by Byron 07/12/2003 05:24)