Please convince me that the Tories WON'T create wider divisions btween the rich and poor and haves and have nots?

[poshsinglemum]

I'm not great at politics but I am under the imptression that things like inheritance tax and tax breaks for married people are going to widen the gap between the rich and poor?

Am, I wrong? Would anyone like to explain how the Tories would improve my lot as a single mum. Would they find me a nice man to marry for example?

If I want to study fashion and textiles and become a textiles teacher, how is my degree unessential thesecondcoming?

I do/will have to pay anyway by way of the student loans company

i think workfare is the only practicle way to go at this point.

i know too many ( really honestly truly) young people under 20 years old - doing jack shit.

thats not how i eel about the beneits system as a whole - think there is a whole lifestyle thing /hopes /dreams thing - its wider than benefits and more about a culture shift.

but i see no reason why fit able bodied people shouldn't be on a work fare scheme as long as that scheme doesn't take away genuine jobs.

now, i did read in the paper that something akin to this was being introduced next year - i read this months ago - so don't know if this is the case - but i would heartily welcome it.

i am very very very dissapointed with the way the banks fiasco was handled - and i was watching the daily show with john stewart - who did a great send up of the whole situation that you should watch ( 4OD) it makes me fume that we have bailed them out and they do not have to pay us back - it makes me fume that there wee no sanctions or profit payback ratio or something in place - no becuase they are 'THE BANKS' they just do what the fuck they want.

its vulgar, its disgusting that the people who caused this monumental fuck up are the first to profit from tax payers money.

and so it will be for that reason that new Labour can go fuck itself the sell out bastards

I agree with you about the banks Custardo. Have RBS in the family and oh, the self righteous indignation about bonuses. Turns the stomach.

It will take a generation of schoolchildren IF things change now to bring back vibrancy to the economy. We have a lost generation, lost to poor expectations, education and upbringing. This generation is bringing up another with equally uninspired expectations.

Tsc: how wrong you are. Supply and demand are the thrusts of the economy. Without spending and earning there would be no tax to pay a doctor, or a nurse, or a hospital. It all works together. We need people to design, make, build, buy. Or it all falls apart.

ScaryTeacher, I can't see any justification for asking public sector workers to pay more than their proportionate share, simply because the Government can force them to. Why should a dustbin man take, in effect, a pay cut in order to resolve a national problem that he hadn't nothing to do with?

Even DC is only recommending a pay freeze for the top earners within the public sector, he's not suggesting that those at the very bottom of the ladder pay above their share.

Besides, it would be counter productive, since most lowly paid public and private sector workers will also receive tax credits, unless you're advocating (and I think you might be) cutting those too.

I wonder how you think these people, who no doubt have to account for every penny as it is, will be able to continue to run their households, pay their mortgages, or do you simply not care?

A much fairer system is to simply increase taxation levels for everyone. I make no apologies for my socialist stance here, those who have the most disposable income available should be prepared to pay a higer proportion in order to get us out of this mess, particularly hedge fund managers and big banking bosses earning hundreds of thousands in bonuses.

It is not unreasonable to expect that those who did disproportionately well during the good times should be prepared to take a bigger hit in the bad times.

Having said all of this, I do think public sector pensions do need to be looked at. They are, without doubt, exceptionally generous when compared to the private sector. I think savings could be made and money saved without directly affecting the current standard of living for the lower paid workers in the public sector.

Running late now, so haven't had time to proof read, apologies for any mistakes/typos.

The people that pay the doctors' wages ARE essential: and more to the point, design is a highly aspirational career for poor, bright children. With its technical and academic demands, I do not see it as fluffy at all.

On a more serious note, I think evaluating degrees like that is a highly dangerous path to walk -- though I would balk at giving 10,000 to a Sloane looking for a husband who choses History of Art to fulfil that dream. There is a great programme that is enabling students with less than amazing qualifications to study as doctors and I agree with that sort of thing. But what value do you assign to English, History, Politics, Philosophy and so on? It's impossible and would pander to philistine Daily Mail attitudes.

I didn't mean to imply you were thick, sorry, but I think it's unworkable unless you are talking about health staff and teachers who work only in the public sector. In which case they are not badly rewarded anyway: in terms of security of tenure, pensions and working conditions -- a lot better off than many in the private sector.

Well howabout - your degree is free so long as you stay and work in this country for the next five years. If you choose to work abroad then you have to pay back your tuition fees.

The banks should have to pay back the taxpayer as they have to do in the USA. We are being told to steer ourselves for hardship in the next few years to come, people are being made redundant and the banks still think it's ok to use the money we gave them to pay in huge bonuses. That's like Marie Antoinette saying "Let them eat cake."

I don't think the Tories would handle it any better, but I am appauled at the way Labour are just sitting back and letting it happen.

They need to get rid of Gordon Brown.

He was chancellor of the exchequor when the banks were taking unacceptable high risk gambles with our money, he was the one who backed the war in Iraq yet didn't want to spend money on equipment for troops and now he's sitting on his hands whilst the banks arrogantly think that our money is theirs to do what they like with. Labour don't stand a chance unless they get rid of him.

There is a lot of anger amongst people about the way it's all been handled. If a protest was organised outside Downing Street I'd be there. People need to start voicing their anger and protesting because the government will do jack shit unless they feel their chances of winning an election are seriously compromised.

Banks, grrrr,. Were you all aware that you are now financially supporting Newcastle United football team?

Northern Rock have recently agreed to extend their sponsorship of the club despite the fact that we own the bank. Please sir, I?d like a say in how my money is being spent?

I don?t see why the government bail-out couldn?t have come with strings, ie no bonuses until you?re back in profit, all monies to be re-paid over time etc etc

thesecondcoming, you are contradicting yourself. If I were to use my textiles degree to become a textile teacher in a secondary school (they are phasing it back in you know) would that not be for the greater good of the greater people? Or what if I used it to teach people for pleasure?

Or if I did a pyschology MA afterwards and then trained as an art therapist would I not be doinga greater good either? or do you not believe in art and music therapy? and all the rest of it?

In the meantime someone may have done an engineering degree and designed something that would kill alot of people. Good or bad? who decides?

I have no axe to speak of

There is such a lot of nonsense on this thread. By their own admission Labour have failed to properly address child poverty in their 12 long years in office.

This from the Guardian :
"Despite its commitment to reducing child poverty, Britain still scores badly compared to other developed countries. Like the US, inequality is so deep in this country that the proportion of children in relative poverty remains high.

In 1999 Britain had a higher proportion of children in poverty than any other western European nation. We're still bottom, only now we share the ignominy with Italy and Spain. About 30% of children remain beneath the breadline and the recession is likely to increase that number. The government now concedes that it is unlikely to meet its target to halve the number of children in poverty by 2010."

And social mobility is at its lowest since the 1950s. Just have a look at some of the Sutton Trust's excellent research if you don't believe http://www.suttontrust.com/annualreports.asp me

How could it possibly get worse under the Tories?

Sutton Trust Research into declining social mobility

Swedey, the policies may have failed, true, but the intent was there and still is.

I've missed what David Cameron has said he's planning to do on child poverty, any idea?

I think he is planning on redefining it as being the absolute poorest (ie parents on income support). Atm I believe it is living in a household with less than half the national average household income. So if the entire country gets richer, the poverty line goes up.

I will go off and find out some actual hard facts on this issue and come back. It is an area of interest for me, but I wouldn't like to give the wrong figures.

Thanks BP. I guess that's where Labour went wrong, they should've changed the definition and, hey presto, child poverty solved!

That's the benefit of an Eton education I suppose.