Were to draw the line and what ever happened to left wing

In the recent General Studies paper it asked something along the lines of:
'Labour, Conservatives and Lib Dems, they are all the same, theres no point in voting' 
Discuss wether it is worth while having different political parties. 
The entire premise of my EPQ is about the different philosophies and policies of different parties so this question spurred me into some what of a frenzy of defining political parties, historical examples. Hopefully which will give me quite a good grade at the end, although you can never tell with General Studies and most peoples view on the subject (not mine) are summed (if not a bit roughly) by youtuber: RichandPoor. 


Yet upon coming home I noticed this article: 

Lord Owen 'could vote for Labour' under Miliband

Lord Owen was one of  the key founders of the SDP party that broke away from labour in the 1981s to eventually merge with the Liberal party to found the Liberal Democrats. The fact that he would not support the Labour party makes a complex situation more difficult. 

There was a time when Labour and the Conservatives were clear cut (not that i was alive to remember it)  and it was not too hard to define the Lib Dems but now drawing the political line is very hard! 

Historically Labour were left wing, Conservatives were right wing and the Lib Dems were central left yet right now the Lib Dems are in coalition government with the right wing Conservatives. 

Oh but how right wing are the Conservatives, replacing a flaming touch with a green tree signalled a so called reinvention of the Tory party to the centre. David Cameron trumped the 2010 emergency budget as 'fair' and progressive, but their  polices don't seem to much of a far cry from Margate Thatcher. Experimental economic policy (crowing out theory and PSNCR priority) and downsizing the public sector is classic Tory policy.  Even the Conservative command acknolages this,  this we know thanks to Wikileaks. 

Yet tweaks to the Conservatives to make them friendlier and more electable seem like nothing compared to Tony Blairs New Labour. The reinvention of Labour Party sifted the party of the Unions into a central  Party to Govern Briton for just under 13 years. Tony Blair was named 12th most infuential right winger in the telegraph! Nick Clegg leader of the 'central-left' Liberal Democrats came 3rd!!

What happened to left wing!?

Well Mr Milliband is not leader of the labour party and it seems he is brining back the left. Elected by the Unions Ed is not new labour which means he could just be left of centre? 

If your looking for the true left wing its actually within the right wing government, if you ask me I would say it those Liberal Democrats that risked peerage to vote against the tuition fees. In time we could see the end of the coalition, if the Lib Dems don't break under pressure they will dissolve back into two parties! 

Rebellions and Promises

Tuition fees are to increase to up to £9000 
Yet not with out heavy resistance. 
28 Lib dems voted Yes
21 Lib dems voted No
8 Lib dems abstained or were not present 
This means that less than half of the Liberal Democrats passed the proposals. Full list here.
Also 6 Conservative MP's also rebelled against the fees. All in all the pass of 323 votes to 302 votes was very small. This raising underling problems within the coalistion, as predicted when tested the Liberals Democrats have split. With the Liberal Democrats being an  initial merge of the SDP and the Liberals back in 1988 and now the a divide between the Socialist of the party and the Orange Bookers, is it too unlikely that we could see a break down of the party? Having seen a number of deffections and resignations today so a number of higher profile Lid Dems leaving their posts, mainly Michael Crockart, who quit his government role. This rebellion has further to go.
Mean while Ed Millibands Labour party voted against it the change and is now speaking out against it trying to capitalize upon the situation. 

In the streets
Outside parelment things were far more open and violent! Protesters attacked Prince Charles car, attacked statues, the treasury and battled with police. Police Cavalry charges and protestors throwing  missiles were seen in public violence that would be hard to match in the last 20 years. Who is to say what will happen next? Should further Unions join strikes in 2011 when budget forms sink in it could have devistating consequences. 

Tuition fee increase: Political not economic.

Many would have use think that the Tuition fee increase is way of raising finance for the Government, that in these tough times we all must pay. Nick Clegg said his reasons for flip flopping on his promise to the NUS about not increasing them was because after he saw the 'true extent of the debt' he changed his mind. However after a bit of reading around, I've come to the conclusion that in fact it is no an economic move at all.. it is a political move based upon ideology.

The Government wants to reduce exspenditor, so it will cut University funding and increase tuition fees. As a one off this will cut the expenditior for that department as now less funding will go out to Universities. Yet this will cancel out becuase the Government will have to give out more loans. This is not a short term stragegy because it will take some time for these loans to be paid back, the Government will start seeing the return after this term in office. Not to mension the huge costs of setting up the new system!
Its claimed that the increase in tution fees will not have an effect on people going to university, that students will not be put off by high debts and the new system is fairer. This is not true at all, just from first hand experience I can say that many students are being put off from going to university and it can be seen but the civil up roar displited by the students all across the country that it is very much not regarded as fairer.
Increasing the skills and education that works have is a good way of developing the economy. It is a core supply side policy. If we deter people from going to collage then growth will suffer in the economy. On average those with a degree earn 35% more than the national average. This means that if less people go to university the Government will collect less taxes! No only this but the cut to university funding will mean Universites will have to scale down their research, this again will put Briton behind.

So what is too gain from this? Freeing tution fees is on more step to privatising it, the Conservitive party believe in the free markets. The best universities will be able to offer higher charges so will have a higher income. This means the top Universities will have more money to spend but what about those that can't charge so much?
Could we be faced with Universities disappearing? Those that don't perform may be wiped out.  This could just be the begining of policy. The Government will keep pushing up tutuin fees and liberating Universites until it becomes a business. Those that don't attract will fail. Is this really what we want?
There are serious implicaitons to slowing increasing tution fees, re-making university for the elite could be a danger. The question is, is this in the Converitives interest? Some might say so.
If fees are pushed up but the Government whats to still make it viable for everyone to go to University then they will have to increase grant, those maybe this is not a consern for the present Government.
We have established that higher tuition fees will put people off university but perhaps this is the point. Some people believe that their are too many University course and many are useless. Could this be the motive, to put those off that will not benefit themselves or society by going to University?

Really what have the Tories got to loose from upsetting students, they are not a key group of supports of the Conservative party! Those that are, are unlikely to change their view based upon this. The only ones loosing out are the Lib Dems and the students ofcourse.

Yet we must remember for all of this speculation of Conservative gain it was Labour that brought in tuition fees in the first place...

Seriously?! Come on Clegg?!!!

They planned u-turn on tution fees all along?
There is only one conclusion to be made from this: The Liberal Democrats openly lied, consciously betrayed and still don't have the balls to admit it...    Tzzeeech Politicians!
What was Cleggs defense to evidence he always planned to back stab his supporters?
"I just didn't know, of course, before we came into government, quite what the state of the finances were."
LIES
At least give us the truth: you went into power with the Tory's to get power and influence (which may be in your opinion for the greater good) and in order to do that you had to accept their crusade on debt! It was clear what the state of the finances were, everyone knew! What to know what it is: http://www.debtbombshell.com/ there not that hard to find out is it Clegg?
Politicians have always deceived and tricked but to out right lie, so severely and in so many calculated numbers as the Lib-Dems do now it makes you wonder about what kind of democracy we live in?

Nick clegg can't count.

One of my first introductions to politics was seeing Nick Clegg on TV explaining how he would fight to bring back free tuition fees.

Then came the general election, Nick Clegg promised to the voters and the student unions that he would ensure tuition fees did not go up.

"Students face tuition fees rising to £9,000" -BBC 3rd of November 2010

Since when did a promise of no increase in tuition fees become a triple in tuition fees... apparently Nick Clegg can't count! He might be one of an increasing number who struggle with math’s in the coming years thanks to the education cuts, so much for being the party of the young.

But was does £9000 tuition fees mean?

Basic macro economic principals states that the supply side of the economy made up of Land, Labour, Capital and Enterprise. Tony Blair famously said: "education, education, education" were the 3 most important things. By improving education he work force (Labour) improves and as such the economy experiences real growth. Increasing tuition fees makes no sense! It is cutting the long term in favour of the short term, in the long term to quote Maynard Keynes we really will be dead at this rate. This is contractionary supply-side policy which could result in negative economic growth... The theory that increased debt will not deter students is not valid at all! From asking around collage it really has had an impact on people considering university. It seems double standards to make a large issue out of government debt (which is not a main economic objective) then expect households not to be bothered.

To blame the universities would be folly teaching grants have been cut by 80% and budgets for research have gone down as well, universities have had to increase their fees. To strengthen the economy we should be investing in our universities not the opposite!

My opinion, it makes no economic sense. But is it fair? No! Is it progressive? NO! Is it politically wise? NO if your a lib dem.

The repercussions have already been felt by the conservative party, mainly on their HQ window panes.. although there is much more to come!

As for the Lib dems, its safe to say they have lost the key youth vote and the NUS are hot on their backs for betraying them. Even talking of hitting MPs with the book!

Could it be ulterior motives? A very cynical view would be to say the conservatives are attempted to reverse history and once again make higher education for the 'elite'.

Even those who will not have to pay the high rate for the first year (and hopefully the rest) are still feeling the pain by increased demand for 2011 places... offers are more demanding

Vince defends Cable Prices

A battle is unfolding between a politician and the founder, CEO and Chairman of one of the most infamous companies in the world!
The story really begins at the Liberal Democrat party conference, but that's another tail we shall start at the first strike:
4/11/2010 is not a day that is likely to go down in history but perhaps it should for this is the day that Vince Cable stood up to Economic evil incarnate; Rupert Murdoch. Calling upon all his powers as business secretary Vince struck a blow against the evil monopolist holding to his vows for free markets and standing against his Conservative superiors In other words, the business Secretary intervened in the free market to prevent a take over.

News Corporation is the 3rd largest media conglomerate in the world, but what is really dangerious about News Corporation is its monopoly grip on media in certain countries. In the UK it owns the Times, the News of the World and The Sun that's a total of 37% of national news paper market. Then it also owns  17.5% of ITV and 39.1% of Sky and perhaps surprisingly it owns US social networking site Myspace. From an economic, political and social perspective this is dangerous! In a sense it was News Corps holdings that lead the attack on Ex-PM Brown and rallied the support for David Cameron so attacking news corp a brave move by Lib Dem Vince Cable? VERY brave.

Vince Cable spoke in his party conference speech that the economy must be managed through strong competition policy, not the Labour idea of a large state but equally not the Conservative blind hope in completely free markets, at least the Liberal Democrat seems to be true to his words in this case. He argued the move by Murdoch to take complete control of Sky would create too much market power for News Corp and be damaging to the consumer. He said that the monopoly power News corp would gain would see unfair price rises for customers. Much more than this, he reffered it to OFCOM for further investiagtion! Vince may even be moving to split Murdocks empire in half!

As I said before the attack on Murdoch is very brave, he is a powerful man to make an enemy of. Murdoch is a strong ally to the Conservative party making Vince an unpopular man within the coalition, but also Murdoch could be provoked into using his media power against the Liberal Democrats. However while it seems politically stupid short term, long term Vince puts himself in good stead, within the party and their voters he will better respected after all the liberals never really had a love for Murdoch! In this sense what has he got too loose, Murdoch was never going to be his ally so why not hit him while he can.

Its not only an economic and political move though, if Vince Cable splits up News Corps holding in the UK he will answer the cry's of many saying that Murdoch influence is dangerously strong. One man controlling a huge proportion of the media means one man and voice his opinions loudest, which history tells us is very dangerous.

Primary Source:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/11/05/business-secretary-vince-cable-blocks-rupert-murdoch-s-bid-to-buy-sky-115875-22693408/#ixzz14PPzz28g