On Tuesday, January 27, the Labour government won the vote on the second
reading of its Higher Education Bill, which among other things introduces top-up
fees of up to £3,000 per year for undergraduates at universities in England
and Wales from the academic year beginning in 2006. The Bill now goes to the
committee stage, after which it is likely to become Law.
The victory of the government came in the wake of weeks of hype in the monopoly media that there was a massive "rebellion" among Labour MPs against this Bill. According to these reports, this opposition stemmed from the fact that the Bill openly broke the Labour Party's manifesto commitment not to introduce top-up fees (and that it had legislated to prevent them); that it would introduce market forces into higher education which they opposed "in principle" and that it would stop young people from poorer families attending the top universities because of the fear of the crippling debt they would incur. These Labour MPs were dubbed the "rebels" by the monopoly media who declared that they "were standing firm" and that their rebellion "was unstoppable". There was much hype that Tony Blair's government faced certain defeat and much speculation that his resignation was on the cards. However as the moment of truth approached, the "unstoppable rebellion" evaporated and the Labour government put in place another piece of its neo-liberal, anti-people programme.
This scenario which unfolded over top-up fees has become the preferred way in which the government is pushing forward its reactionary programme. First it announces a further attack on peoples rights and livelihoods, the attack is met with almost universal opposition from the people, an "unstoppable Labour rebellion" emerges from among the Labour MPs against the proposal and at the moment of truth the proposal goes through as the "rebellion" evaporates and another brick in the government's neo-liberal programme is put in place. This is precisely what happened over Foundation Hospitals and over the colonial aggression against Iraq.
A crucial feature in this scenario is an "effective" opposition, presented to the people as an even worse evil waiting in the wings (as is the case with the Conservatives under Michael Howard), or (as was the case with New Labour under Tony Blair) as a knight in shining army which must be seen to be electable. In the case of the top-up fees, the fact that the Conservative Party were voting en bloc against the Bill was a given, despite the fact that no sensible person could understand the logic of the opposition since it represents traditional Tory policy, was also a stick to beat the "rebels". If Tony Blair were defeated, what then? We are making "concessions", and it will be on your conscience if Labour is toppled. This scenario illustrates that "party in power/party in opposition" is the governmental arrangement which has been developed to keep the people away from decision-making. The bourgeoisie constantly strives to keep the people from summing up their experience in this regard, from apprehending the reality before their eyes, and from learning the lessons of history. This arrangement was, and still is, coming under strain from the people’s opposition to the war in Iraq and the government’s anti-social offensive, and the parliamentary consensus over such attacks. But a new "leader of the opposition" has to some extent steadied the governmental ship.
Such are the means by which the monopolies, their politicians and media are
attempting to short circuit the growing opposition of the working class and
people to their anti-social offensive. It is aimed at undermining the attempts
of the people to organise themselves as an independent force around a pro-social
programme which suits their needs and to fight for the realisation of this programme.
The aim is to convince the millions of disempowered that the Labour "rebels"
will fight for their interests so they should leave it up to them, even if this
reactionary programme which is wrecking the society and posing a great danger
internationally goes through by the "slimmest of margins". This is
a recipe for disarming yourself in the face of an onslaught. The opposite is
needed. The times are calling out for the people to organise themselves around
their own programme, to break from the disempowerment imposed by the Westminster
system of which the Labour "rebels" are a part and to fight to bring
into being new political arrangements in which it is the people who are the
decision makers.