Blair survives top up fees

#3
The holes are starting to appear in his teflon coating, sacrifices will have to be made and the Spin masters re-inventing another Mark of bullshite :roll:
 
#4
with hope tomorrow will see the end of this piece of siht but i am not getting my hope's up.
 
#5
Hardly surprizing the greasy b4stards little house of cards is starting to crumble. I, being an old bugger and not having any kids going to university, don't have anything against the fees 'per se', provided that they are means tested for the benifit of the poorer students and implemented correctly.

The reason I thought that the govt should not (and they haven't yet!) get away with it is they are fighting to push something through that they 'promised' not to in the manefesto for the last election.

If they hadn't have promised NOT to put this through maybe they wouldn't have enough seats to have carried it off.

Blatant lies to gain votes to enable them to try and do what they want and promised not to. Who's going to vote for them when the walls come crumbling down? Who's going to take any notice of their lies next time?

Not I or anyone with any sense. And I really hope someone in Westminster reads this and takes heed! You can only push the people around so much.
 
#6
would he have one had the scottish MP's not voted in favor of a bill that won't apply north of the border.

As for hutton gilligan and hoon can go and sign on together Blair has probably got a good slopey shoulders for that.
 
S

Scoundrel

Guest
#7
According to early editions of the [/i]Sun (ahemmmmm!!).
Tony Blair will sensationally be cleared of any “dishonourable or underhand” conduct leading to the suicide of scientist David Kelly.
Lord Hutton’s long-awaited report into Dr Kelly’s death also exonerates ex-Downing Street media boss Alastair Campbell.
And it makes only passing criticism of the Defence ministry headed by embattled Geoff Hoon.
But the document top secret until it is published officially at noon is a devastating indictment of the BBC and its defence correspondent Andrew Gilligan.
Gilligan is effectively accused of lying in a bombshell broadcast blaming No 10 for 'sexing up' a dossier on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
Beeb bosses are blasted for failing to check the notes of the journalist, who was already under a cloud over his misuse of language.
Chairman Gavyn Davies, DG Greg Dyke and the BBC board of governors are implicitly blamed for dereliction of duty to licence payers.
 
#8
He's got away with it

Confirmation in the AM , but I can assure you, he has got away with it :(
 
#9
Survived? You can't take the flak that w4nker is getting and not be damaged by it..... he may have teflon knickers, but don't forget his mate Hoon has made sure that all remaining CBA has at last been issued with none left for the PM.

He's forced too much sh1t in too many faces and won't get enough credibility back to survive past the next election. He's about as popular now as a fart in a space suit and he's nobody to blame but himself.
 
#10
PTP, he may get away with it in the sense that he won't have to resign over Hutton, but he will be damaged.

If the report does as the Sun suggests (which is very convenient for the Sun and its owner), then the general reaction will be that the report has been a whitewash - there's too much evidence out there about the actions of Hoon, Campbell & Blair for any other conclusion to be drawn by most of the public who've followed this.

The best result for the govt, I'd suggest, is not absolution, but criticism of their fixation upon presentation (which can all be blamed on the late, unlamented Campbell), with the bulk of the criticism being heaped upon Gilligan and the Beeb.

Also, even if the Sun approves of the verdict (and we're assuming that the Sun has been fed a totally accurate version), the press reaction is likely to be something other than :' Oh. Well that's alright then. Let's move on' - they have the scent of Hoon's minsiterial blood in their nostrils. Any criticism of the MoD will lead to suggestions that Hoon isn't in control of his department; also, unless it is very clearly explained in Hutton's detailed findings, the question of how the PM can chair a meeting at which releasing Kelly's name was discussed and following which his name became available to the newspapers and yet have no responsibility whatsoever for the latter comes into play. The only answers are that either the decision was made for him (TB saying 'Oh, OK then. If that's what you recommend, then I'll accept it) by the meeting or that the Perm Sec was lying.

Also, remember that Hutton said that he'd write to those who received some adverse comment in the report. Blair may not have got a letter, but Buff, Campbell, Gilligan and the Beeb all did, so for the Sun to say the two former are absolved absolutely seems odd - not impossible, just odd.

My suspicion is that the Sun's report will prove to be slightly too rosy for Buff and Campbell (although maybe not much), and that the language used by Hutton will be sufficiently legalese for a decent barrister (M Howard, MP PC?) to make some blows.

Blair may escape having to hand over to Prudence on this one, but he will be damaged to some degree. The image of a government that has got away with it won't play well, particularly if exploited by the press (which it will be).
 
#11
If he wasn't so busy trying to create a social utopia of uniformity and mediocrity by putting 50% of all under school leavers into University there wouldn't be a funding crisis, ergo no need for top-up fees. Is that really value for money when:

* 50% of school leavers currently can't get better than low marks on an already dumbed-down A Level and he wants them to get degrees;

* Those already holding degrees and those yet to qualify for them will end up with a worthless qualification that no longer represents "higher learning"

* To differentiate yourself from the other "graduates" you will need a Masters degree or higher to demonstrate any real acumen, meaning even more debt as you spend more years at University for no real net gain;

* Barely literate students being scraped up by the worst universities who will have to lower their standards even further to retain the students they persuade to enter the system to maintain their quotas now comeing out still barely literate with a degree not worth the paper it's written on and no more employable but now also saddled with a lifetime of debt;

* A mass exodus of the best students to Scotland where no fees are charged and the places at the best English universities taken by an influx of foreign students who see the cheaper, capped fees at English universities as a cheaper option leading to a squeeze on places for English students.

Well done BLiar, really done a lot for helping out the people who need the opportunity most, or is it the hidden agenda of destroying institutions rearing its head with this despotic government yet again?
 
#12
Just wait for the fuss when Oxford, Cambridge and a few others tell the govt where the Higher Education Funding Council for England can stick its money (and its 'fair access' office) and go private....

Prior to joining the great centre for purple knowledge, I worked in civ universities. As part of a complex process of accreditation, I had the privilege of working in two 'universities' that were allowed to award degrees at the behest of nearby 'old' universities, who had ensured that the course content was of degree standard (but not the work that was produced...)

What did we get at those fine institutions? Seminar classes made up of 70 people; essays that were easy to mark because they were half a side of utter gibberish, including such classics as :

'Mrs Thatcher insisted that an amphibian invasion should be launched against the Falkland islands after Brazil invaded them and sent parachute marines to retake them.'

'The British was very cruel to the Indians whom they colonised. The Indians did not like being kept in the British's colons and mutinied.'

and my personal favourite:

'Britain suffered severe problems in regenerating after the Second World War when all its semen went on strike in 1947'

And the worst thing about this - the authors of the first two classics are now teachers. I awarded the second one a mark of 6 (out of 100) for one exam paper, but this was deemed 'a bit harsh' and raised to 45 (to fit in the bell curve for the papers overall), which, taking into account credit from other papers (all written in the same style as the Indians with colon problems), meant that he had enough to pass. That was the point where I made sure my secondment to that place ended...

The older universities will not accept lowering their standards much further, and they will jump. It may take time for them to develop the b@lls to do it (is that word allowed in the serious bit?), but in the end one or two of them will, and others will follow...
 
#13
Re. Universal mediocrity. The HEFCE (Higher Education Funding Council for England) has been selecting for mediocrity for years.
A friend of mine went to a now defunct agricultural college that was part of De Montfort University at the time (AAC pilots might know it, it was about 2 miles from the southern end of the runway at Cranditz). He fluffed his A-levels and did an Animal Science degree as a stepping stone to Vet school.
Anyway they had an HEFCE inspection while he was there and the major gripe was that one lecturer was teaching one subject at a far more advanced level than any of the other courses around the country. Essentially thay got marked down - and consequently missed out on funding - for having a good lecturer. Never mind that the college was, I quote: "The most underequipped, isolated and badly run sh1th0le on the face of the earth. In desparate need of a cash boost for new kit."
Having become pissed off with the British system my mate went off to Trinity, Dublin and then Sydney to do his Vet degree where the qulity of both funding and teaching as much better.
 
#15
did anyone honestly expect anything but a whitewash that put all the blame on Dr Kelly and the BBC?
 
#16
NO ONE who sat through Lord Hutton’s sensational inquiry last summer can be surprised by the verdict.

It was obvious from the outset that BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan had gone too far by accusing Tony Blair of lying.

It was clear the BBC itself should have acted sooner to avert all-out war with Downing Street in his defence.

And it was plain Dr David Kelly’s suicide a few days earlier was the act of a man who felt “publicly disgraced”.

The Sun said all of this at the time.

We were portrayed as Downing Street stooges — just as Lord Hutton’s report will be portrayed by conspiracy theorists as a whitewash.

And just as the leak of his findings to The Sun will be seen, wrongly, as a handout from Downing Street.

To be fair, we did jump to conclusions about Defence supremo Geoff Hoon who seems to have escaped without serious damage.

And we thought Alastair Campbell might attract some flak, if only for his outspoken diary extracts.

But the eminent judge, whose job was to investigate events leading up to Dr Kelly’s death, has reached the only possible verdict.

Dr Kelly could not live with himself after being exposed as a mole.

The respected boffin was angry that his official ranking failed to reflect his stature as a world renowned scientist. Nor did the size of his pension as he approached retirement.

He was also upset after being passed over for a man half his age — and risked being dropped from a crucial mission to Iraq.

But the tipping point came after he lied to MoD bosses about his media contacts — and when his cover was blown in a showdown with MPs.

Andrew Gilligan is a talented but flawed journalist. And he had a role in both events.

His graphic report contained clues to his source — and he gave MPs a hint about Kelly’s links with another journalist, Newsnight’s Susan Watts.

Gilligan could never have imagined the tragic events that would unfold.

Nor could the BBC high command who simply decided their man was right and Alastair Campbell was automatically wrong.

Even without hindsight, it is staggering that the Beeb could gamble all on a man known for his “misuse of language” without checking his evidence.

BBC chairman Gavyn Davies, a Labour Party donor, has been accused of taking a stand rather than look like a Blairite patsy.

Director-general Greg Dyke was blatantly negligent in failing to call for the facts.

And the board of governors was totally misled into a destructive charge which turned a minor error into a fight to the death.

In the end, Lord Hutton rules that this was a sad catalogue of errors which had unforeseeable consequences.

Sensibly, he does not demand draconian measures to ensure nothing of the sort ever happens again.

Instead, he calls for common sense to prevail in future.

It is a recommendation which, if followed by all concerned, might have made Andrew Gilligan’s 6.07am broadcast as forgettable as it deserves to be.
Interesting conclusions in the sun's comment by Mr Kavanagh

part of the problem I would sugest is the govonors of the BBC being Political appointees.
 
#17
It does in most cases, take ones breath away. The quintessential Marxist must be turning in their graves - what say you "New Labour"?

I made a point while watching the Miners Strike programme last evening, to reflect on the more traditional Labour values and it has become frighteningly obvious just how much has changed within the movement in the last twenty years. In revolutionary (and I use the word very loosely), terms twenty years is nothing. However, we appear to have in one generation, come full circle and embraced Conservatism more than the Conservatives!

Whatever your views of the man, Blair has, single-handedly * transformed Labour - a good or bad thing I shall leave you to decide - but are we too close to the "opposition" for comfort?

Are we seeing in the Tory opposition, a turn away from what one would deem the more acceptable values? Fine to say that Her Majesty's leader of the Opposition at first glance, is giving a good account of himself - but are we falling into the age old trap of just opposing without substance?

Constitutionally - Do we actually have an effective opposition any more?

* Single-handedly may or may not include Rt. Hon Gordon Brown MP (they were young and impressionable - weren't we all!) Sorry if this post is ever so slightly off thread.

Ivor
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top