According to key figures within New Labour, the advent of the knowledge-based economy has ended the “sterile” battle between social justice and economic competitiveness; this now means that it is only through the provision of opportunities for all, achieved through high quality education, that the demands of the two goals can be fulfilled. I investigate the claims made by Blair, Brown and the Education Ministers that social objectives are being reconciled with economic considerations in the Party's approach to education and, in doing so, explore the existence and content of a putative 'New Labour' discourse on education. I highlight the limitations of the existing literature in dealing with issues of discourse, agency and time. I contend that in overlooking questions of discourse and ignoring the potential for differences over time and between actors, the current literature fails to capture the dynamism and complexity of the Government's discourse leading it to reach two inaccurate conclusions about New Labour as well as prohibiting us from gaining a proper sense of whether the Party has been coherent in its discussions of education. Conversely, I set out an alternative view of coherence, proposing discourse as an equivalent unit of analysis to policy and demonstrating sensitivity to differences both over time and between agents. I show that there is not one coherent 'New Labour' discourse on education, but a shared conception that is underpinned by three discourses that appeal to arguments about the knowledge-based economy, opportunity and responsibility. Within this however, are eighteen different arguments the use, meaning and significance of which varies between Blair, Brown and the Education Ministers and, over the three terms between 1997 and 2007.

[Typewritten] Includes bibliography. 1. The British West Indian colonies -- 2. The British African colonies -- 3. The British colonies in the Mediterranean, Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden -- 4. The British colonies in the East -- 5. India -- 6. The island dependencies -- 7. Conclusion.

In the mid 1830s, the engraver Ebenezer Landells and the journalist Henry Mayhew began discussions about establishing a satirical news magazine together. Landells and Mayhew wanted to create a London version of the contemporary Paris Charivari. Their aspirations were realized with the printing and circulation of the first issue of <i>Punch</i> on July 17, 1841; <i>Punch</i> was published continually for more than a century and a half from that time on. However, by the mid 1850s, the more radical ideas that had initially dominated <i>Punch</i> were stripped away and replaced with a more respectable worldview under the direction of the editor, Mark Lemon.<p> The increased emphasis on respectability in <i>Punch</i> can be explained by the desire of the <i>Punch</i> men to be recognized as gentlemen. The status of gentleman was much sought after in Victorian Britain, with the result that the varying definitions of this status were heavily contested. Although journalists had not frequently been recognized as gentlemen before, the efforts of William Makepeace Thackeray (a <i>Punch</i> man) to change the definitional terms of the gentleman made this possible. Based on Thackerays understanding of the gentleman, the Punchites used <i>Punch</i> magazine, and their commentary on morality, social class, and fads in Victorian mens fashion within it, to further both a shift in the popular understanding of the gentleman and their recognition as such.

In the mid 1830s, the engraver Ebenezer Landells and the journalist Henry Mayhew began discussions about establishing a satirical news magazine together. Landells and Mayhew wanted to create a London version of the contemporary Paris Charivari. Their aspirations were realized with the printing and circulation of the first issue of <i>Punch</i> on July 17, 1841; <i>Punch</i> was published continually for more than a century and a half from that time on. However, by the mid 1850s, the more radical ideas that had initially dominated <i>Punch</i> were stripped away and replaced with a more respectable worldview under the direction of the editor, Mark Lemon.<p> The increased emphasis on respectability in <i>Punch</i> can be explained by the desire of the <i>Punch</i> men to be recognized as gentlemen. The status of gentleman was much sought after in Victorian Britain, with the result that the varying definitions of this status were heavily contested. Although journalists had not frequently been recognized as gentlemen before, the efforts of William Makepeace Thackeray (a <i>Punch</i> man) to change the definitional terms of the gentleman made this possible. Based on Thackerays understanding of the gentleman, the Punchites used <i>Punch</i> magazine, and their commentary on morality, social class, and fads in Victorian mens fashion within it, to further both a shift in the popular understanding of the gentleman and their recognition as such.

Thesis (M. Phil.)--University of Hong Kong, 2009. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 338-352). Also available online.

Thesis (doctoral)--University College of Wales, 1974. / BLDSC reference no.: DX207688.

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Texas at Arlington, 2009.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Ohio State University, 1978. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 205-210). Available online via OhioLINK's ETD Center.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Oregon, 2001. / Typescript. Includes vita and abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 213-221). Also available for download via the World Wide Web; free to University of Oregon users. Address: http://wwwlib.umi.com/cr/uoregon/fullcit?p3018391.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Yale University, 1938. / "The twenty-eighth volume published under the direction of the Department of History on the Kingsley trust association publication fund, established by the Scroll and key society of Yale college." "Bibliographical note": p. [285]-300.