Rebels and whips locked in desperate number crunching

The nerve-centre of the uprising against top-up fees was a small table in a cappuccino bar where the more fashionable MPs swap gossip.

Nick Brown, a former chief whip, was hunched over a hand-written list of Labour rebels. Alongside him were his unofficial lieutenants, Paul Farrelly and George Mudie, who have brought discipline and determination to the revolt. Studying the raw numbers, they believed they were on the brink of a momentous victory.

Labour backbenchers returned from their constituencies yesterday to a feverish Commons. Startled MPs received visits from an aide to Barry Sheerman, chairman of the education select committee and a strong supporter of top-up fees. The aide was bearing brown envelopes containing a blown-up picture of Michael Howard and copies of a recent poll showing a Tory lead over Labour. Unfortunately, the American intern paid calls on several Liberal Democrat MPs by mistake.

With up to 100 MPs ready to defy the Prime Minister today, every vote will count.

Yesterday afternoon, Labour whips warned that they would have lost by 20 votes had the vote been held at that moment. Frantic lobbying on both sides was focused on the waverers deciding whether to vote against the Higher Education Bill or merely abstain.

Government whips made desperate last pleas to undecided MPs to stay loyal and issued invitations to meet senior ministers, including Tony Blair. Despite evidence yesterday that several MPs were moving to the government camp, rebels insisted their support was holding firm. One said: "People have hardened their position even after seeing Charles Clarke's latest concessions. My numbers have gone from 101 to 105 votes against, plus abstentions."

Another said: "It really is too close to call, but I have seen no movement whatsoever."

The whips' list gave an equally alarming message to the leadership. One said: "There's no doubt that if the vote happened now, it would be lost ... it is do-able but it's a real struggle."

Another said their latest calculations were that 83 Labour MPs would vote against the Government, with some 30 abstentions. "We're telling people they're sleepwalking into disaster at the moment," he said. But he added: "On the morning of the foundation hospitals vote, we were going to lose by seven votes. In the end we won by 17."

The number of abstentions on both sides of the argument will be crucial.

As the Liberal Democrats, Scottish and Welsh nationalists, the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP oppose the measure, the rebels, in theory, need 81 votes to overturn the Government's majority of 161. That figure will increase if some Tories abstain. One Conservative, Robert Jackson, is certain to defy Mr Howard and back the Government, while the party's lone Scottish MP, Peter Duncan, will abstain on principle because higher education funding is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Tory high command expects a further three or four to abstain, possibly including the former shadow leader of the House, Eric Forth, as well as Ian Taylor and Sir Patrick Cormack. One Tory source predicted a narrow government victory "because the [Labour rebels] won't have the balls when it comes to the crunch."

But the rebels may be assisted by 20 or more abstentions, on top of votes against the Bill. This will put Mr Blair in difficulty, placing the vote's outcome in the hands of a small band of undecided MPs. Low-profile backbenchers, such as Jim Cunningham, Ann McKenchin and Brian Iddon will find themselves in the spotlight.

One waverer, Andrew Mackinlay, the MP for Thurrock, admitted last night that he was in agony over his decision. He said: "The issue is very finely balanced for me now because there have been some real and substantial concessions."

Shortly before being summoned to see Mr Blair, another said: "My telephone has been buzzing over the weekend with cabinet ministers ringing. It's driving me mad, I wish they would give me some space to make up my mind."

The rebel ranks are composed of a potentially powerful coalition of dispossessed former ministers, MPs passed over for promotion, the hard left of the party and dedicated single-issue rebels passionate about preventing a market in higher education.

At its core, a group of about 30 left-wingers are now deeply opposed to Mr Blair's premiership. They include most of the 29-strong Socialist Campaign Group of MPs, and former ministers - such as Clare Short, who has publicly called for Mr Blair's resignation - who have nothing to lose and everything to gain from Mr Blair's fall and a Gordon Brown succession.

VIEWS FROM THE CAMPUS

THE MEDICAL STUDENT

Neil Robinson, 22, a fifth year medical student at the Royal Free Hospital, is already £27,500 in debt despite working two days a week in a bookshop. He estimates that he will owe £32,000 by the time he finishes. The son of an electrician and a legal secretary, Neil was the first in his family to go to university.

"I am from a low-income family so I've been exempt from tuition fees but I am still in debt because of the enormous expense of living in London... Under the new system I reckon I would end up owing just under £48,000.

"I think the proposals will put people off going into medicine - particularly those from poorer families. Had I known I would be £32,000 in debt by the fifth year and working seven days a week I am not sure whether I would have gone into medicine. I hope the Government loses the vote."

THE REDBRICK UNIVERSITY STUDENT

Mike Flower, 20, is in his second year studying medieval and modern history at the University of Birmingham. He comes from a middle-class background - his father runs his own business - but is the first in his family to go to university.

"The Government's proposals are really badly thought out. They have forgotten the middle classes. The education system should be free. Provided you have the intelligence to go, it should be open to everybody. If they introduce variable top-up fees, then my university will charge £3,000 and somewhere else will charge £1,000. This will deter many people from coming to Birmingham.

"I would like the Government to be forced to consult everybody properly. The fact they have made these last-minute concessions only shows they hadn't thought it through."

STUDENT AT A NEW UNIVERSITY

Gurpreet Mudhar, 22, is in her final year at the University of East London, studying Communications. She is £3,000 in the red and works part time in a shoe shop and lives at home.

She is the first in her family to go to university. Her father is a fork-lift driver and her mother is a learning mentor at a primary school. "I am strongly against the Government plans. There is no guarantee that going to university will get you a well-paid job so I think a lot of people will decide against going to university just because they can't afford to take on this debt.

"It will just stop people from poorer backgrounds being able to choose the best course for them and force them to make decisions based on the cost.

"I've got four younger brothers and sisters and I am worried about what the plans will mean for them."

THE OXBRIDGE STUDENT

Caroline Harding-Edgar, 21, is a history finalist at Trinity Hall in Cambridge. She supports the fee proposals.

"Universities can't keep going on the current money. The issue is about having world-class universities and we need to compete with the States, where the resources are so much better. The Government has got it more or less right. Universities get more money and will be able to afford better bursaries for poorer students, and students don't have to pay fees upfront. It's fair that students should contribute. Why should the taxpayer pay for an education from which I'll benefit? It's right I should give something back."

But she is worried that some students will be deterred by fear of debt and the £3,000 cap will still leave universities strapped for cash.

HOW THE BILL TOOK SHAPE

2 October 2001: Tony Blair announces a full review of university tuition fees at the Labour Party conference after fears that working-class teenagers were being put off higher education.

July 2002: Margaret Hodge, then the Higher Education minister, raises the prospect of top-up fees while giving evidence to the Commons Education Select Committee. She was accused of a U-turn by MPs after she was asked if top-up fees would be introduced. She replied: "Nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out."

8 January 2003: Charles Clarke, the Secretary of State for Education, hints that up-front tuition fees will be abolished and students will pay for their tuition after they start earning.

22 January 2003: Mr Clarke publishes Government's blueprint for reforming university funding. Students will be charged tuition fees of up to £3,000 a year from 2006, but will not have to pay until after they graduate and are earning more than £15,000. He proposed helping poorer students by giving those with family incomes of less than £10,000 a grant of £1,000 a year from 2004.

8 January 2004: Publication of the higher education Bill. In a new concession, the student grant will rise to up to £1,500 from 2006, an increase of £500. The present fee of £1,200 would also be waived. The £3,000 cap will be fixed through the next Parliament and can be changed only by parliamentary vote. There will be an independent review to examine the scheme's impact after three years. Any student loan outstanding after 25 years would be written off.

16 January: Mr Clarke amends his earlier proposals so students can take their £1,200 fee remission as cash up-front. This means students from poorer families can arrive at university with £2,700.

25 January: At the last minute, Mr Clarke makes an amendment to the Bill which makes it impossible to raise the £3,000 cap during the next Parliament without new legislation.