If you were a voter in Britain, which party would you support?

[Cascadian]

Choose your favorite British-based politcal party. If you pick "Other" PLEASE specify which party you would vote for.


John

[freetobegay]

1. Isn't Tony blairs party Labour?

eom

[Cascadian]

2. I'm afraid so but....

he sure does not act like he's part of Labour. It's more like "Thatcher Lite" than anything.


John

[mr blur]

40. Only by name

And it's a disgrace to the name. He's just a Conservative in a red tie.

[rman]

50. it's supposed to be Labour,

but about half the party is behaving ever more RW, including Blair. Many UK citizens actually feel cheated by Blair and Labor.

[Philestine]

3. Monster Raving Loony party

For the skeptical among you this is a real party. One of their leading election policies is to paint all main roads pink so as to be visible from space.

Compared to invading Iraq I think that's eminently sensible.

[Cascadian]

4. They have a website.

Why not have more lunatics in politics?

http://www.omrlp.com/

They also have a U.S. party as well....

http://usloonyparty.tripod.com/


And people thought my political party was a "loony" idea!

John

[Solon]

6. I seen your site, didn't think it was "loony"

Besides, at this point breaking off from the United States seems sane nowadays. Would like to get people together to start up a "Mid-West Confederation" myself. :)

[Cascadian]

8. Thank you.

Unfortunately, the Cascadian National Party did not get very far. In fact, it is pretty much dead right now. Who knows? Maybe I will or somebody will revive the party or my ideas one day. I am seriously considering trying to get much of my platform included in the Washington and Oregon branches of the Green Party as sort of a "Cascadian faction" within the party. The platforms we promoted were above all reasonable.

John

[Solon]

10. I lost faith in these United States awhile ago...

considering the amount of animosity on both sides, the polarization and the fact that we are a superpower. I would hazard a guess that we would probably do ourselves and the rest of the world a favor and "Spin off" so to speak. Simular to the USSR we may be too big geographically and have a federal government that is too powerful to maintain the nation as is.

[Christ was Socialist]

16. ROTFLMAO <NT>

[the Kelly Gang]

5. bring back 'Old' Labour' and ditch T. Blair

[Cascadian]

7. I am surprised how the Liberal Democrats have been doing in the poll.

I wonder if people realize they are the centrist political party in Britain? Don't let the name fool you folks. They are at the center.


John

[Dead_Parrot]

9. Centre of what?

After the LibDems, you keep going left 'till you hit the Socialist parties. It'll be be years before Labour get back over to that side.

[T_i_B]

11. That ones way out of date

The Liberal Democrats platform is very much to the left of Labour these days. Their main problem is that they are a third party and as such not likely to get into power anytime soon at national level. Here's the website.

http://www.libdems.org.uk/

Next elections in the UK are the European elections on June 10 BTW!

[Cascadian]

12. Thanks for the update.

Maybe this move will benefit them the next you have a national election. Blair has ruined Labour.

John

[Screaming Lord Byron]

35. Agreed. The Liberal Democrats are fairly Social Democratic.

If I were English, they'd get my vote.

[Nihil]

13. Still the best option for many

> Don't let the name fool you folks. They are at the center.

They are still significantly to the left of "Blair's New Labour".

My gripe with the Lib-Dems is that they have been the "cats-eye" party
for so long (sat in the middle of the road, doing FA) that they've lost
any courage to act. They only live for alliances with one or other of
the main parties - even after winning a fair number of seats last time
round - and so never manage to back up their words with actions (at a
national level).

The Lib-Dems are excellent at the local level though - councils rather
than MPs - so maybe the courage will permeate upwards?
I'll continue to vote Lib-Dem in the local elections but sometimes go
for an Independent (or even MRLP) at the nationals.

Nihil

[Vladimir]

17. They are and they aren't

The Liberal Democrat platform is sharply to the left of Labour on a lot of issues, but it is debatable how they would govern if ever elected. In most of their marginal areas the Lib Dems are in direct competition with the Tories, meaning that they need to appeal to disaffected centre-right voters to win. Certainly their record in local government has been mixed. See fopr example this article by Ken Livingstone:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1044369,00.html

Ken Livingstone may be a publicity hungry show off, but he also showed a lot of guts in attacking Labour from the left during his exile from the party.

[Vladimir]

14. Labour in the general elections

RESPECT and similar left-wing coalitions in local/European elections. I am a CPB (Communist Party of Britain) supporter.

[AP]

15. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many MP races where the Lib Dem

candidate was better than the Labour candidate.

Remember, you don't vote for Tony. You vote for your local candidate, and the party which gets the most MPs gets to pick the PM.

I'd never ever vote for a local candidate just because he or she wasn't the same party as the potential PM whom I didn't like.

There are only two ways I'd vote -- for the best candidate (85% of the time the Labour candididate) or strategically for the non-Tory candidate with the best chance to win to make sure the Tories get as few MPs as possible.

[T_i_B]

18. Cobblers. I can think of plenty of seats

My old stomping ground of Sheffield Hallam for a start. Labour are in 3rd place there behind the tories and the Lib Dems and the sitting MP is Richard Allen of the Lib Dems. A very good MP who is much better then the crap labour put up in a seat where a vote for Labour is much like a vote for Nader with you guys as it lets the tory party in! Here's an article on my old stomping ground. I'm sure the rest of us who actually live here can think of examples of Lib Dems who are better then their Blairite brownosing counterparts.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,805250,00.html

I begin my journey in the constituency where I grew up, Sheffield Hallam. Once upon a time, the idea that Hallam - a blue puddle in an ocean of Socialist red - could be anything other than a Conservative seat was preposterous. On paper, that should still be the case today. In August, Hallam made headlines after it was found that the district has the largest number of affluent people anywhere in England outside London and the South-East. Almost eight per cent of those living there earn more than £60,000 - a figure higher than that in, say, Tunbridge Wells. Yet, in 1997, Hallam fell to the Liberal Democrats. More scarily still - if you are a Tory - in 2001, the Lib Dems significantly increased their majority.

I am invited to a smart dinner - guest speaker: the leader of Bradford Metropolitan Council - in the local Masonic Hall by the chairman of the Hallam branch, Judith Burkinshaw. I love Mrs Burkinshaw from the minute I hear her voice on the telephone. Originally from Australia, she has a distinctive accent - sort of Dame Edna with a touch of Geoffrey Boycott - and she keeps her menthol cigarettes in a silver holder, cool as a cucumber. When we arrange to meet for drinks before dinner, she asks me what I look like so she will be able to spot me. 'Well,' I say, 'I'm 33...' Before I can go on, she yells: 'Oh, fine. You'll stand out a mile. You'll be 20 years younger than everyone else.'

This is true. The room is a blur of grey curls. But I have a good time, nonetheless, seated between John Harthman, the candidate at the last election, and his agent. We eat paté, salmon with prawn sauce and apple pie and, as we feast, I ask Harthman why his party is in such trouble in Hallam. He looks tired as he considers this. 'The old money is going, and the university types are happy to vote Liberal because they see it as more left-wing than Labour. As for the public sector and white-collar workers who are moving into the constituency, they aren't angry enough to vote against Labour. They might be fed up, but they're not angry. On top of all that, the Liberals are adept at reminding people how little chance Labour has, so the anti-Tory vote is never split.' He does not sound hopeful that this situation is likely to change any time soon.

Elsewhere in the room, the mood is no better. Here are a few of the things people say to me: 'I wanted Portillo and it was a shame that we weren't allowed to vote for him'; 'We lack discipline - we're acting like Labour used to in the 1980s'; 'There are far too many ex-Ministers clogging up the backbenches - they've had their go, the world has changed'; 'All the bright young things are joining Labour'; 'We've got to be realistic - it's daft to think we can win.' On the other hand, several of their pet subjects - Europe, fox-hunting, immigration and the fact that they miss dear old Mrs T - suggest to me that at least some of this talk is so much hot air. Loyal party members go on about 'change' because, understandably, they would like to win an election; just how much they actually WANT or are even able to change is another matter.

[Vladimir]

19. Oxford South certainly

I have no idea who the Liberal Democrat candidate is, but anyone is better than that warmongering piece of shit Andrew Smith.

[AP]

20. I reiterate my last two paragraphs.

Except I might be willing to change that number from 85% to 75%, but I'd have to take a look at a map and a list of candidates first.

[T_i_B]

48. You don't just need a map and a list

Even political junkies won't be able to recognize all the candidates from a particular party, so what is needed is to take a look at a particular constituency, what its problems are, who is running in that constituency and what they say about those things. Candidates may differ from their parties on some issues, often the further the better. I don't know about you but I do not want an MP who ignores his constituents and simply votes as Phoney Tony tells him to.

This means having to stomach the endless torrent of leaflets and other campaign tripe at election time, plus maybe having a good butchers at the manifestos the candidates have signed up to to see if you can support them, not to mention if at all possible getting to any public debates between local candidates and even meeting them.

In the case of Sheffield Hallam in 1997 we had candidates from the 3 main parties give talks at our school to the sixth form. The Labour candidate was full of crap, the tory was an idiot and the Liberal Democrat was generally considered to be the best politician of al, the candidates. The Liberal Democrat went on to win with a 17% swing from the tories.

[AP]

55. Let's presume that what you described...

...happens in most local elections - - the best candidate wins just as in Sheffield Hallam.

In that case, we can presume that the labor candidate is better than anyone else in what % of districts?

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. Since the Labour platform is to keep tax as it is

and the Liberal Democrat one is to raise national income tax from 40% to 50% for income above £100,000, to pay university tuition fees and personal care for the elderly, and to replace the regressive local council tax (based on house price bands) with a local income tax, would that persuade you to vote for the Lib Dem?

There are some Labour MPs and candidates who would advocate raising income tax on the rich (but not many have the guts to say it out loud, or they'll get in trouble with the party), but they're a minority.

[AP]

26. I'm for progressive taxation, but I'm not so sure that

40% on income over 100K is progressive.

I don't think you can pick a single level at which ALL income over that on to infinity is taxed at the same rate. That's basically a flat tax on income over that single step and is very unfair to people just above the step and very favorable to people the farther out you get from 100k.

In the UK, just about the only time any average person is taxed on cap gains is when the sell their home, and the UK has a very nice, workable exclusion for most people who sell their home. But, if you do get caught up in cap gains, wha't the rate? 40% for cap gains over 10K? And what are the income bands? The top band is 40% and it starts at 50K? Those are some pretty have tax burdens which get flat for low on the wealth ladder.

The only thing right now which makes the tax code relatively fair is that there just aren't that many people making really high incomes. However, pretty soon, the UK is going need to really rework the way they generate tax revenue, and it's going to require more than a de fact two-band system with the higher band starting in the 50k or 100k range.

Incidentally, I find the new college tuition scheme to be pretty progressive in its own way. It makes the wealthier you pay, and not the poorer, younger you, and it's triggered by the amount you earn. Basically, it's a (what?) 10% income tax which is limited in time and incurred only when you reach a certain income level.

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. Current UK tax rates here

After the allowances (too complicated for here)

http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/rates/it.htm

Taxable bands 2004-05 (£)

Starting rate 10% 0 - 2,020

Basic rate 22% 2,021 - 31,400

Higher rate 40% Over 31,400

This means eg 'the bit of your income that is over 31,400 is taxed at 40%, while that from 2,021-31,400 is taxed at 22%'. So there is not unfairness for those earning just over a limit. This is, I believe, the same concept as the USA.

What the Lib Dems propose is adding another band, so 31,400-100,000 is taxed at 40%, and 100,000+ at 50%. Neither Labour nor Conservatives want another band. So the Lib Dems are the progressive party on tax.

Capital gains has an additional allowance of £8,200 per year. Any gains above that are taxed at your top income tax rate. Very few people who are not well off ever pay capital gains tax - since your home is exempt, as you say, it's people who own 2 houses, or do major share dealings.

The tax that will hit increasing numbers of people soon, unless it's changed a bit, is inheritance tax. After the allowance of £263,000 per estate (no tax for transfers to a spouse), it's taxed at 40%. Houses are not exempted, and £263,000 buys you a 3 bedroomed house in an unimpressive bit of London these days, if you're lucky.

I don't see the new university tuition fees as the end of the world, but funding it out of general taxation (as use to happen, even under Thatcher and Major, and still happens in Scotland under the Labour-Lib Dem coalition) is also progressive. Yes, I think it works out at 9 or 10 percent.

[Vladimir]

28. The tuition fees scheme has many problems

For one, it will distort career choice, becaue students will be more likely to study subjects which lead directly to employment as opposed to more 'academic' disciplines. Even though the fees are only repayable once you earn above a certain threshold, they do count towards your credit rating along with other debt whether you are repaying them or not. More importantly, the 3000 pound fee is only the first step on a road which will lead to the eventual privatization of some academic institutions in Britain. The reason I say this is that the scheme, as it stands, will be losing money (because of implementation costs and the costs of the new regulators). Hence everyone involved recognises that the fees will have to rise. Once the cap is, say 10-15,000 pounds per year, the top universities will split off and privatize fully. This will in turn inevitably lead to reduced opportunities for poorer students.

PS I agree with you that the income tax needs a major reworking. I think the most serious matter that needs adressing is how to scrap council tax and replace it with some form of progressive income based tax...

[AP]

31. Choice should be distorted like that. People should go to school

thinking, 'what can I do to be productive.'

If they don't, then they perhaps shouldn't be taking up places in schools that could be occupied by the children of the working class who are trying to improve their lots in life.

Also, I don't think that 'academic disciplines' should be lowly-paid, or considered as professions for people who don't want to be financially secure. You know why? Because then only financially secure people will pursue them. Academics should be an attractive profession to the children of the working class, and not the playground for the children of the wealthy who think they're persuing professions which will give them a life of leisure and prestige.

I think that this tuition program is probably one of the most progressive schemes in ANY area of public policy that I've ever seen, and I don't think many people appreciate just how brilliant it is.

I also am not sure that tuition will have to rise. Once you get a lot of educated people and build up a middle class, the UK will have an economy delivering a lot of wealth to a lot of people, and there will be more opportunities to find progressive ways of taking some of that wealth to continue the cycle of financing good universities, which educate people, which grows the economy, etc.

[Vladimir]

32. But that isn't the reality of the sitation

I completely agree that academic professions should be paid more highly and be an attractive proposition for the working class. For the love of god, I am a researcher, you don't have to preach to me about academics getting paid more mate! :) But I think you are being unrealistic about the fees not having to rise. It is the one thing on which both the pro and anti-fees camps agree: that this is just the start. The current scheme is losing money (in real terms, for every 1 million delivered to the universities, the scheme costs something like 1.2 million to run), and the cap will be lifted eventually. Once it gets lifted, and once the top universities go private (as they will, they have been pushing for privatization for years now), the working class kids will be denied the very opportunities you talk about.

Also, there is a more profound issue here. I think a child should choose to study a subject because they like doing it, not for any other reason. People, in my view, are most productive for society and for themselves when they do that which they enjoy, not that which pays the most. The way to make university education more accessible to the poor is for me simple: implement a genuine progressive income tax.

[AP]

33. If fees go up, it will be in concert with the wealth added to society by

having more educated people.

The cost of education will be a fraction of the wealth education creates. Inevitably, educating more people will create more wealth, and nobody should believe that education is going to be the same price today in the UK as it will be in 20 years when you see that it has created a ton of wealth for the UK.

But, with a scheme such as the one Labour has introduced, it is much more likely that the cost of education will always be just a fraction of the wealth it creates.

That isn't the case in the US. Now, education costs more than it's worth for many people, and a big reason is because education has become a way to get people hooked on debt and deliver wealth to the private banks which bundle student loans. There is no interest on the "loans" that Labour's program creates. You aren't financiing your education the way you do in the US. In the UK, the government takes the risk. If you don't get a good job, you don't have to pay.

In the US, the student always takes the risk (and their family too). In the US you can't get rid of your student loans in bankruptcy!!!! Student loans in the US influence choices made by the children of the working and middle class in a way that is not often discussed in the media, but is very aparent if you work in a office with 20-35 year olds.

As for the program costing more than it's bringing in, that's because this is a time of transition. Not enough people go to university in the UK, and there's no middle class. The education program will change that, and that's when it will start to create wealth. Also, wages are too low in the UK, and the education program will also change that (partly because it shifts the burden to pay from parents and students to your employer). The caps will come off when wages go up, and people will have the money to pay for their education, and will be happy to pay it because their education will be the reason they have more money. They'll appreciate the investment.

I also agree that people should be able to do what they enjoy. But I believe that if you're doing something you enjoy and it creates social weallth and creates wealth for you employer, it should create wealth for you.

I also agree that progressive income tax is great way to pay for a lot of things. But I think education has another element that is important to remember. Education produces talented workers. Who do talented workers benefit the most? They benefit society a lot, but they really create a ton of wealth that is enjoyed purely within the private sector.

Look at lawyers: you spend three years in school busting your ass, you go to work for a private law firm, and they charge a great deal for your labor, 80% of which goes into the pocket of the partners in the firm. I agree that real progressive taxation is great way to get some of their profits so that they can be guaranteed more educated students. But another great way to get that money is to make sure that private employers have to pay more for the salaries of those employees which then goes to paying off student loans.

A big reason employees get paid so little in the UK is because college is so cheap. There's no sense that employers have to compensate you for the time and effort you put into your education. I really believe that the new tuition scheme changes that landscape. It gives the student a stake, which they have to get from their employer, but they're not punished if they can't find good employment, and they and their parents aren't asked to pay at a time when they have the least money.

[Vladimir]

34. A couple of points...

Firstly, we both agree that the US system is aweful. Where we disagree is that I think this is the first step on the road to a US style system. But I will grant you that the interest free nature of the loans is a good part of a bad deal.

As for the program costing more than it's bringing in, that's because this is a time of transition. Not enough people go to university in the UK, and there's no middle class. The education program will change that, and that's when it will start to create wealth. Also, wages are too low in the UK, and the education program will also change that (partly because it shifts the burden to pay from parents and students to your employer). The caps will come off when wages go up, and people will have the money to pay for their education, and will be happy to pay it because their education will be the reason they have more money. They'll appreciate the investment.

The reason its losing money is not because there are too few people in education - 43% of the population goes to university (as compared with, I think, 50% in the US? That's not a huge gap), but because the fees are too low to pay for all the extra costs UK universities are incurring in trying to:

a) Keep up with US salary levels
b) Spending on research

And the caps will be lifted, I am predicting, roundabout 2007 (for implementation in 2011) if Labour is still in power then. There, that's my Nostradamus moment of the week! :) But in any case, far too early for the scheme to have any impace on earnings (scheme will start in 2006).

Look at lawyers: you spend three years in school busting your ass, you go to work for a private law firm, and they charge a great deal for your labor, 80% of which goes into the pocket of the partners in the firm. I agree that real progressive taxation is great way to get some of their profits so that they can be guaranteed more educated students. But another great way to get that money is to make sure that private employers have to pay more for the salaries of those employees which then goes to paying off student loans.

OK for lawyers, but what about historians, literary critics, sociologists. They do not directly create wealth for anyone, and there will be no incentive for their salaries to go up. This comes back, once again, to my point about distorting choice. This scheme provides a direct disincentive for kids to study non-vocational disciplines.

A big reason employees get paid so little in the UK is because college is so cheap. There's no sense that employers have to compensate you for the time and effort you put into your education. I really believe that the new tuition scheme changes that landscape. It gives the student a stake, which they have to get from their employer, but they're not punished if they can't find good employment, and they and their parents aren't asked to pay at a time when they have the least money.

I don't know that employees get paid that much less here - the UK standard of living is far from low. What is very different is that the pay gap between managers and the rest of the workforce is a lot lower. There is a fairly healthy middle class too IMO, but that depends on how you define middle class I guess. But most importantly, students who can't get a good job are punished under this scheme, because the debt sits on their credit rating, whether they are repaying or not. So it will be harder for them to get a mortgage, etc.

[AP]

38. ...

- I think that it's hard to compare UK and US education rates. I get the sense that many more people graduate from high school in the UK qualified to attend university but don't because they don't see the pay off and they don't have the money to go. In the US, there are many more desperately poor people, and more people in the middle and upper middle class. So, if 40% go to university in the UK, that number could easily be 60 to 80% without having to do anything more than make education more affordable and by making the carrot of middle class wealth attainable --ie, giving them the money to go to college, and promising there's something good at the other end when they finish their education. In other words, in the UK there is a huge group of people whose talents are wasted -- and those are the reasonably well-educated working class who are all but ready to attend university.

In the US, just about everyone who's ready to go to college goes. But the problem in the US is two-fold: there are way more desperately poor people who don't get a good enough education to easily make the step to college. You can't solve that problem with money for college. You need to provide better secondary education before you can get these people ready for the step into college (and then into the middle class).

The other problem in the US is that money to go to college isn't the problem. Everyone can get the money to go to college. The problem is paying off the loans afterwards (and it's a much bigger problem then you hear discussed -- basically the only people making money off educating the middle class in the US are a few large Wall St banks; it's a huge transfer of wealth in the opposite direction that education is supposed to transfer wealth!). Again, this isn't the problem in the UK (and it won't be, thanks to Labour).

Historians, social critics, etc. DO bring value to society, and should be compensated for the value they create. But, more importantly, these are the professions that exist because society has lots of lawyers and other wealth-producing middle class, wealth redistributing, wealth DE-concentrating professions. If you want more jobs like those (and more options for more people to be able to chose those professions, and if you want more different kinds of people to be able to pick those professions) you have got to LOVE the new tuition program because it flows more wealth down to the middle class, and creates a big middle class (by making education attainable, and by shifting the costs of it around in way which makes sure the right people are paying for it).

Incidnetally, I think it's beyond doubt that the UK could stand to have a healthier, wealthier middle class. I think the UK is distinctly two-tier society and the point of a lot of things Labour has done (in terms of increasing wages and employment and options) is specifically designed to create a bigger, wealthier middle class (and therefore a stronger democracy).

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. You overestimate the achievement of British school leavers

Well, English, since that's the figures I've found, but that's about 80% of the UK.

http://www.dfes.gov.uk/14-19greenpaper/app2.shtml
proportion of 19 year olds who had attained 'Level 3' (2 or more GCE A levels, or equivalent) in 2001: 50.4%

2 A levels (or equivalent) would be the minimum to enter a degree course.

If sixth form education (ie preparing for A levels) improves, it might be possible to send 50% to university. But it's not finance that's holding many back now - and the whole point is that the financial situation is going to get harder when Blair's reforms are implemented.

If you think the UK is a 2 tier society, but has no significant middle class, how would you define the 2 tiers? How many people do you think there are in each?

[AP]

46. Well, I guess that's a statistic. But I'm not sure what it proves.

That statistic doesn't really tell you if the infrastructure is in place to put a lot of working class kids into university tomorrow. Many working class kids might not try for more A levels because they don't see the point if they aren't going to go to college.

What I'm trying to argue is hard to prove with statistics, however literacy rates might be a good measure (and I reallyu don't know what they are, so an intrepid Googler who disagrees with me might want to take this opportunity to prove me wrong).

Also, it can be seen politically. In the UK, primary and secondary education seems to be taken more seriously than in the US. In the US there is a very stark contrast between school systems in poor neighborhoods and wealthy neighboorhoods. Even in middle class neighborhoods there are many communities that have clearly chosen lower property taxes and crappy schools over good schools and higher property taxes. It's not unsual to find middle class families killing themeselves with property taxes and huge mortgages because they know if they take one step down the ladder they put themselves in school districts which dramatically limit their children's futures.

You don't see that so much in the UK. Since there isn't so much class division geographically compared to the US (and because there isn't the peculiar politics of property taxes) it's possible to be poor and still get a decent education, and opportunities seem really mostly to be limited by money for university and other culture and class-based limitations besides the quality of your secondary education (eg, accent, job opportunities, and real culturally driven sense that if you're working class don't bother to try for anything better).

As for the two-classes in the UK, as I see it, it's this: there's a class of people who are really wealthy and are in little threat of getting too poor. Of course, there's gentile poverty, but there's clearly a pretty big class of people who have, usually, land, connections, and education, which means there's little chance of them slipping down the ladder. Then there is a "middle class" which really can't be distinguished from the working class in terms of much else besides where and how often you go on holiday.

That's because the crux of having a middle class lies in (1) wealth accumulation, and (2) mobility (ie, ease of getting into it, and even rising out of it to the next higher class).

People who enter the middle class in the UK tend to do it on an overdraft and heavy debt, and, therefore, are only acquiring the appearance of being middle class. The reality is that without the accumulated wealth, you really don't have the cultural and political power and the increased options and the social mobility that comes with having a real middle class in which wealth and therefore power accumulates.

Furthermore, the difference between living like you're middle class in the UK (living in a duplex in the suburbs) and living like you're working class (living in a tenement flat) might be as little as 15K pounds a year salary, and that really isn't that much. At least it's nothing to build a middle class on.

I think that if you want to get a sense of the democratizing effect of growing, wealthier middle classes, the US from the late 50s to mid 70s gives you a good sense of what you're looking for. If you look at the US from the late 70s to now, you see a Potemkin middle class. It's really just a visage, but the stuff that makes for a solid middle class is really crumbling away. You have stagnating wages, more and more debt, fewer opportunities, less class mobility, and the ensuing reduction in democracy and the cultural stagnation. To me, the US is on the downslope of what's ideal. The UK is on the upslope, which really began in the late 90s with the election of Labour.

It doesn't sound like a very important revolution -- growing a real middle class -- but I think history will look back and see the Blair years as crucial to the future of a democratic Britain, and will see American from '73 to now as being the end of democracy and the beginning of the banana republic years (unless something drastic isn't done to shift wealth back down to the middle class, rather than up to the top of very narrow power pyramid).

[Vladimir]

47. But Blair is systematically

destroying democracy in Britain. From the EU constitution, to his removal of the principle of 'innocent until proven guility' in certain judicial cases, to his limiting of the right to trial by jury, to the undemocratic reforms of the house of lords, to the way he ignores his own party's positions... and lets not forget the low election turnouts under Blair, which seem set to hit a new all-time low in the upcoming general election. In real terms, I am incredulous that anyone could see Blair as being good for democracy. The people of Britain have not felt as disconnected from their government as they do now for a very long time.

On your second point, of course one of the major problems is getting poor kids to apply to university. This is indeed borne out by the fact that once poorer kids do apply, they are largely selected in proportion to the numbers that apply. However, the present scheme does not address this problem except with the new access regulator. One of the major issues with the scheme is also that most of the benefits for poorer students are means-tested. Experience has shown that such a system will lead to many students not applying for benefits out of embarrasment or fear of rejection.

Finally, I maintain that this scheme does nothing to encourage academia or indeed the public sector to raise their wages or working conditions. There is simply no reason for the governement to raise wages for nurses, doctors, teachers... if anything, this scheme will only make it more likely that those sectors get privatised, with similar results to the privatisation of the railway network. This is why the tuition fees will continue to distort education choice and lead kids to study for the sake of earnings and not for the love of a subject, which will be a damned shame.

[AP]

52. You're going to have to make your argument for each of those

claims.

The European constitution? The EU provides a floor for rights that is actually higher than the rights British citizens have conferred upon them by their own government.

The right to trial by jury? Although, I'll agree that, on its face, I'm not impressed with the position Blair's government has taken, I do appreciate that this isn't a black and white issue, and even in the US there's a debate over the sorts of cases which should be allowed jury trials. There is a case to be made for not having to have jury trials in very minor offences where there's no threat of incarceration and where an appeals process offers a decent check of judicial eror.

Incidentally, if you want to talk about the civil and criminal justice system in the UK, it seems disingenuous to discuss ONLY this one issue. The democratizing refomrs in the last 7 years have been stunning. The most important are the reforms which will eliminate the inherent conflict of interest in allowing one political appointee to manage criminal defenders, prosecutors and the appointment of judges. Kudos to Blair for recognizing that serious problem and taking steps to end it.

The House of Lords? The House of Lords IS undemocratic. Any reform is an improvement. The UK could probably make do with a unicameral legislature. But the fact is, it's going to be hard to eliminate the HoL overnight, so there's going to be some sort of transition period which doesn't make everyone happy. It amazes me that one would criticize Blair on this issue when, 8 years ago, I don't think anyone could imagine that the end (or at least the transformation) of that incredibily undemocratic institution was as close as Blair has made it. This should be an issue about which Blair is praised.

I'm not sure how low turnout is a sign of people not getting the government they want. It's conceivable that turnout in '97 was at its highest because that's when people really wanted to get the Tories out and Labour in. Because they made that statement in such a big way, they didn't see the need to get out to vote afterwards. If you want to blame anyone for low turnout, blame William Hague and IDS. That they were such mediocre, repugnant politicians is probably the best explanation for people who support Labour deciding that their best interests were served by staying at work on election day and making some extra money.

Your second paragraph -- I really don't understand the argument. Poor kids make a cost-benefit analysis about university. They don't go if they can't afford it, and if they don't see the benefit. Since there really isn't all that much class mobility in the UK, they might not often see the benefit, but if they don't have the money (or can't afford the short-term cost) they really won't go. The new tuition scheme shifts the costs into the future when you can afford them, and doesn't shift them to your parents or to you when you're in university. Furthermore, getting more people educated will create a bigger, wealthier middle class, which will create more opportunity for the middle class (see the US from teh 50s to the 70s). So, you address both parts of the equation. Means testing causing embarassment? Whatever. But I think most people can be easily convinced to be rational economic actors. Make the money available and increase the likelihood of a good job at the other end and you're 99% there.

I don't understand how you make the connection between this scheme and privatisation. That's another political battle you need to fight. I really can't believe you'd not be eager to have such a democratic, progressive, intelligent tuition scheme (which gets universities the money they need to educate people in a world where it is expensive to give people the sorts of educations which create the most social value, and which shifts the costs in a way which helps create a strong middle class) because a fear that it would lead to privatization.

You need to create wealth in society and promote progress. If you're fear is that the wealth created increases the drive for privitization...well...I don't know what you're fighting for. Do you want a poor, backwards society just because you think the smaller carrot on the longer stick fends off privitization? Clearly there's a balance that will make more people have better lives, becaue keeping people poor and not having a strong middle class isn't working.

In fact, create a big middle class that's wealthy and educated and you'll have less privatization of wealth and power. Just look at the US. The growth of the middle class in the US elected Democrats consistently, with the exception of Eisenhower from the 50s to late 60s and I don't think it was an accident. It even elected a Republican who believed in increasing the minimum wage, in protecting the environment. When that guy left, the push for privitization began, not coincidentally at the same time that society stopped delivering wealth to the middle class, and when it started shooting it up the income ladder, and even Carter got on the privitization bandwagon.

It's so obvious to me that the tuition scheme Labour created does one thing really well: transfers wealth and political and cultural power from the top to the middle. That's how you get democracy. That's how you stop the privitization of wealth and power.

[muriel_volestrangler]

56. Privatization looks likely because the fees are variable

Each university will be allowed to set its own level of fees for different courses, up to the maximum £3000. This appears designed to encourage competition, rather than cooperation, between universities. The universities also set their own bursary levels; the minimum required is so that the poorest students are no worse off than now - this would be a bursary from the university of £300. Some, eg Cambridge and Imperial College London, have said they want to provide bursaries up to £4000 for some students (but these will only go to the brightest).

If a university charges the maximum fee and gives the minimum bursary, the fees, against parental income, will work out roughly like this:

income  fees now  future
15000-         0       0
21000          0    1000
27000        600    2000
33000+      1125    3000

Brief guide to bill
so you see that everyone would be worse off, except the poorest families (about 30% of the country), who will come out equal. For anyone to be better off, the individual university has to be generous. The 2 good things that are happening are that the fees don't have to be paid up front (so the amount of the fee doesn't count towards the £4400 student loan amount, meant for maintenance), and the threshold for repaying the fees/loan goes up from £10,000 to £15,000.

The changes will introduce a market into higher education. This is why we expect privatization.

[AP]

57. The importance of variable fees is this:

In the past, all students paid the same fees. The tuition at a polytechnic for a working class kid was the same as the cost for a royal at Cambridge or Oxford.

However, not only did you get a better education at Oxford, the government paid Oxford more to give you that education, and you had much better earning potential coming out of Oxford. Furthermore, more kids going into Oxford could afford to pay for Oxford compared to the kid going to the polytechnic.

Essentially, what you had was a state subsidy for the better off guarantying they got a cheap education despite the fact that they could afford to pay more not only when they were students, but after they graduated when they got the better job. it was very unfair to everyone else.

So, the way I see it, having variable fees today allocates the costs and benefits of educating students in a way that makes much more sense than the old system. It makes sure that the universities putting the biggest investement into education its students can get the money required to make that investment (and it's getting it from families who can afford to pay now, and from students after they graduate once they get those well-paying jobs for which their university went to the expense of educating them).

I'm not sure how that leads to privatization. It is expensive to give people the kind of educations they need so that they continue to make valuable contributions to society.

I just read recently Stiglitz saying that a great deal of the wealth created by America in the 19th century came directly from federal investment into university research in agriculture during that time. The lesson: if you want to win big on a societal level, you have to make sure that universities have the money they need to be doing cutting edge research. I still don't understand how doing this in the way Labour is trying to do it means that privitization is the next step. If you keep education small in the UK, you're just keeping people stupid and you're slowing up progress and guarantying a less wealth and happy society.

Also, the universities should be competing to give students great educations. In many respects they already do. What's important is that they compete in the right areas -- ie, not on name presitige, but in giving them the best professors, best educations, and best job opportunities -- and they should charge people a fair rate for doing that. Ie, the kid at the polytechnic shouldn't be paying the same tuition as the Oxford student because, as I said, that's just a big subsidy for the Oxford kid.

[Vladimir]

59. As you like

Firstly, it is important to note that my point about means testing is not a 'whatever' issue. Experience has shown with means tested bursaries at my own university (Oxford) that many students don't apply, or are put off by the procedure, or feel indimidated and so on. Secondly, parents will be forced to contribute here. At the risk of being boring, let me remind you again that these debts will sit on your credit rating whether you are repaying them or not. So someone who goes to work in the public sector and wants to buy a home and start a family may well need help from their parents with the debt. This once again comes back to the core of the problem - that the scheme will drive kids away from public sector and academic jobs into ones which pay more. Finally, and quite fundamentally, means testing asseses kids on their parents's income - which often hurts those whose parents earn just enough to be inelligible for means-tested benefits, but who don't want to help their kids fincancially.

Secondly, social mobility. It is true that social mobility in the UK is poor (although it is improving slowly, see my link below). Indeed only the US has worse social mobility in the western world (I have no data on this, but its an assertion which I hear repeated again and again and would love to have proven/disproven by some figures). What is not debatable is that continental countries have better social mobility (as defined by the correlation between parental and childern's incomes) than Britain. And none of them have tuition fees. So there is no reason whatsoevver that you cannot get good social mobility by funding education through general taxation - indeed the Scandinavian countries achieve precisely that.

Social Mobility in UK only (an interesting aside): http://www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/rc28/Papers/Prandy.pdf

Thirdly, on the short term versus the long term. In the short term, this scheme will achieve precisely nothing. This is for the following fundamental reason: the fees are so low as to be meaningless. Indeed, as I have said before, the scheme currently loses money. So what will happen is that the cap will be lifted - this is something that noone on either side of the debate is seriously doubting. Indeed, it is instructive to note Blair's history on this matter. When he introduced tuition fees (of the up-front kind) in 1997, Blair promised no top-up fees. Everyone then knew that he was lying, because the tuition fees were so low as to make no meaningful contribution to university funding. They were brought in precisely because the public and the Labour party would have never swallowed top-up fees without getting acclimatised to fees in the first place. Blair fought and won the last election on a campaign promise not to introduce top-up fees - that much for democracy! So the pattern and reality suggests that the cap will be lifted, and what then? Lets consider the consequences of a 10,000-15,000 top-up fee, because this is where it will end up.

- It will mean a genuine market in education, with all the previously discussed problems that this brings. I should say, btw, that I agree if you have fees then they have to be variable, but that is precisely why I don't want fees in the first place. At the moment almost every university will charge the full 3,000 for almost every course, because the fees are inadequate.

- It will mean leaving university with debts of between 30,000 - 90,000 pounds. A medic, on a 6 year course, on 15,000 a year. That is not unrealistic, its where we are heading. And interest free or not, kids are going to be scared of leaving university with that level of debt.

- It will mean that the government can no longer afford to fully pay the fees for even the poorest kids. Hence, the poorest in society will end up burdened by fees, and with no family history of borrowing will be strongly disincentivised from going to university.

So that is the long term, and then we have privatisation. Of course I do not want a poor, backwards society to avoid privatisation. Britain is not a poor, backwards society. But top-up fees will not create the kind of middle-class boom that you are hoping for. The cap will be lifted very early on, at which point the poor kids will be disincentivised to go (nevermind that the middle class is already disincentivised). What you will end up with is a society where the very richest can still go to university, the middle classes struggle with huge debts upon leaving, and the poor struggle with debts which may not be so great but which will worry them more because they have no prior experience of borrowing. So the movement is not from top to middle (as it would be with a scheme funded through general taxation) it is from middle to a little below middle. And the movement is also from public sector employment to private sector employment, because the government has no incentive to raise public sector wages. That is not the kind of 'mobility' I want, no.

I haven't got the energy now to go on at length about Blair and democracy - maybe I'll start a thread about it sometime.

[T_i_B]

49. Not to mention council tax

Which the Liberal Democrats want replaced with a local income tax. A tax based on ability to pay is much better IMHO. :-)

[Minstrel Boy]

21. Socialist Alliance

A coalition of organisations providing a left alternative to New Labour.

http://www.socialistalliance.net/

[oc2002]

22. When are they having the election?

nt.

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. The Prime Minister decides

but must hold it before June 2006. Most commentators reckon May/June 2005 is the most likely date, assuming the opinion polls look OK for him leading up to then (there will be some local elections scheduled for around then, and all recent general elections have been scheduled to use the same date as the local ones. I think the theory is that the voters appreciate only going to the polls once in a year, rather than twice).

If the polls looking bad, he'd delay, like John Major did - he took both his governments to the 5 year limit, as opposed to Thatcher and Blair, who, confident of winning, called their elections after 4 years in power.

[Vladimir]

25. Delay or bring it well forward

If the European elections this June are a disaster, Blair may bring the General Election forward and force the issue. The Tories are not ready for a general election yet, although Labour's majority would be severly cut in such a scenario.

[GreenPartyVoter]

29. Green or Socialist

[GreenPartyVoter]

30. Political compass graph of some of the parties

[Minstrel Boy]

37. If I'm reading this correctly, it looks bizarre to me.

The BNP is far right, racist and neo-fascist. How, in any sense, can it be "left"? Even left of Labour and the Liberal Democrats?

[arcos]

41. it is only left economically...

The X axis is economics, Y axis is civil liberties and personal freedom. They are way up, and thus, fascistic.

[GreenPartyVoter]

62. Do the people who voted Liberal Democrat in this poll know that

they are supporting what would be libertarians here in the USA?

[muriel_volestrangler]

63. There's a lot of difference between Lib Dems and Libertarians

for instance, Lib Dems favour increased spending on the National Health Service, a tax increase for those earning more than £100,000, reforming local taxes to be more progressive, and so on.

Historically, it was the Liberals who started state pensions in the UK, and a Liberal, William Beveridge, who wrote the key report that resulted in the modern British welfare state (though it was the post World War Two Labour government that implemented it).

What might make the Lib Dems look 'libertarian' is that they are in favour of a lot of personal liberty (David Steel, who went on to become leader, introduced the bill legalising abortion into Parliament; of the major parties, the Lib Dems have been at the front of the push to decriminalise cannabis, which the other parties are starting to follow), but they have never favoured nationalising major industries (eg coal, steel) which 'old' Labour did. The Lib Dems are quite internationally minded - keen on the EU, for instance. Free trade is a 'classical liberal' aim - so they are not protectionist. You might find that libertarian, I suppose.

From what I've seen, I might say Howard Dean is the closest of recently prominent American politicans to the Lib Dems, but I could easily have got that wrong. Any opinions, anyone who knows both systems well?

[Screaming Lord Byron]

36. I actually have voted for one of the above

plus one that isn't on the list.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

39. Proud Liberal Democrat Supporter here!

[IronLionZion]

42. I voted Sinn Fein

because my Catholic blood wants the British out of Northern Ireland (while treating the protestants with equal respect of course)

But where are the Greens and the British National Party? The BNP are real nazis (unlike the Republicans) and they hold elected seats.

I'd probably be a Green or Independent.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

44. Liberal Democrat

I'd vote LibDem, but would go back to Labour if they ditched Blair.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

45. Who the hell voted Tory?

Come on. Out with it!

[Guy_Montag]

51. Votes

I've voted for:

LibDem (UK Nat, & Scottish)
Tory (Local)
Green (Scottish)
UKIP (European)
Scottish Peoples Alliance (Scottish, looking a bit dodgy now though)
Never voted Labour though, (used to live in G. Galloway's constituancy & he's a twat)

Next UK election will porb be Lib Dem; Euro will be UKIP again I think

[Screaming Lord Byron]

54. You used to live in Hillhead?

Me too.

[Guy_Montag]

58. There was something a bit odd around election time...

Though I lived in a student flat, which therefore has a high throughput of tennents, 7 polling cards were delivered none of them had my name or the name of my flatmates, nor were they for people who had lived there in the previous 3 years (I'd lived there 1 year already & I knew the people who lived there for 2 years before that).

Bear in mind this flat had 5 rooms including the tiny kitchen and bathroom.

Anyway I was a student at Glasgow Uni, that's how I ended up living in Hillhead.

Al

[Screaming Lord Byron]

60. Yeah, that sounds like a Scottish election.

Gotta make sure the dead get their vote.
I lived on Woodlands Rd, myself, then at St George's Cross. Nice part of the world. Unfortunately, I had to go to the Caley, myself. (shudder)

[RogueTrooper]

53. Only one party can beat the Conservatives

and that is the Labour Party.

[MoonRiver]

61. If I were a Brit I'd have had it with Labour.

Blair has turned it into a near facsimile of the Conservative Party. Scratch the surface and the similarity is obvious. So I voted Liberal Democrat. Time for real regime change there and here. Spain set the example, and hopefully, trend.
:kick: