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?

Those "free" nursery places are a gimmick without adding real value though. 2.5 hours a day is nothing, certainly not enough to hold down a job while the kid is in nursery.

Given the scale of national debt, any party is going to find it hard to balance the books. Services will inevitably get cut. My preference woudl be for sound economic management to support economic recovery.

I wouldnt' hold your breath waiting for David Cameron to introduce you to a nice boy.

I suppose what you have to ask yourself is that many people do quite nicely whatever political party is in power - so I would just decide to be one of them.

By WidowWadman Mon 18-Jan-10 06:00:43
Those "free" nursery places are a gimmick without adding real value though. 2.5 hours a day is nothing, certainly not enough to hold down a job while the kid is in nursery.

It's not meant to be free childcare - it's preschool - to educate your child!

Lots of parents do use it as free childcare though - you can either use it to reduce the cost of a full day session in a partnership nursery, get flexible work (like homeworking) or other childcare to extend the time you can be away (e.g. relative or childminder collects or drop to nursery).

Talk about looking a gift horse in the ....

Hmm... I'm not sure I follow your argument Artic. Yes, there is grade inflation - I read the other day that 15% of all graduates get a first... when I was a u/g I think it was more like 1 or 2%!

However, if you want to compete in a global economy, you do need an educated workforce. Over 80% of graduates are in graduate employment within 12 months of finishing their degree.

But you can have high numbers in Higher Ed without any system of meritoracy - my recollection is that social moblity has been fallen steadily since the late 80s...

Ho hum... all very depressing...

My kids went to a free nursery back in the 90s when the Tories were still in power. It is not a Labour initiative.

I can't reassure you I'm afraid posh. They frigthen the bejesus out of me

"Over 80% of graduates are in graduate employment within 12 months of finishing their degree."

That still leaves a hefty percentage who have shelled out thirty grand for a degree and don't have a job to show for it. (BTW can you provide a link for your statistic please.)

It also depends on what you call a 'graduate job' There are many jobs (teaching, nursing etc; a lot that are controlled by Govt) that you used to be able to enter from A Level but they have now made them graduate-only. The poor jobseekers nowadays aren't any cleverer than their predecessors: they are just three years older and thirty grand poorer.

Washwithcare. My argument is that there is no point in pretending that you can make people clever. You can't. Just because more people have degrees does not mean there are more better educated people or that people have got any more academically able. It just means that degrees have got less rigourous.

To compete in a global economy you do not need more better educated people - you need people trained to do something in which the country can be competitive- i.e. more appropriately educated people. Thousands of people getting degrees in media studies and travel and tourism is not going to help.

This is where I think Labour policy has gone so badly wrong- equating a targeted 50% graduate educated population with a "better" educated population.

However, at the same time I wonder what we really can compete in. Our manufacturing base, which should have been demanned, upskilled and specialised in the 70's has pretty much disappeared and relatively high wages mean that it's hard to see a future for service industries which can easily be exported. Be happy you're a blood sucking lawyer :-)

Where are all these free nursery places for 2.9 year olds? I have a 2.10 month old and I'm not getting one...

Paolosgirl, as far as I know, you don't get them here. Ante-pre-school starts at 3 (usually the school term after a child turns 3) and you get 5 morning or afternoon sessions a week. I'm not sure how it works in private nurseries, but that's how it works if your child attends a preschool attached to a school. My younger three have july, december and february birthdays. DS3 (July) started in the Sugust after his 3rd birthday, the other 3 when they were 3 1/2, in the AUgust, DD could theoretically have started in January and DS4 in April but there were no spaces at any of the local nurseries and we would have had to travel for an hour either way on a total of 4 buses minimum to get to the nearest available place.

Under certain circumstances, there are places in special nurseries for younger children but they are few and far between and are for children with complex SN or extremely difficult family circumstances.

?If you train to be a teacher/nurse/social worker then you should get it free-as long as you put in the years (ie work for nhs/us here) and pay it back.?

Interesting idea, tsc. And funnily enough, something the Conservatives are currently proposing with regard to teachers.

In line with a policy Obama is hoping to introduce in the US, the Tories are suggesting that maths and science teachers (where there?s the greatest shortage), should have their student loans paid off ? but only gradually and if they leave the profession they become liable for their own debts again.

Don?t see why something similar couldn?t be applied to doctors, though my understanding was that very few doctors practise only privately, most combine NHS and private work, don?t they?

And since these Tories are really wanting to hone in on all these lazy-arsed dole scroungers, why not end the free ride of Britain's biggest tax-payer subsidised family: the Windsors?

Why are the likes of DC bleating on about all those in receipt of taxpayer monies when that lot takes a massive wodge every year when they're billionnaires in their own right?

Let's start there and then maybe I'd listen to them.

Otherwise, talk to the hand!

How is university paid for here? Both DH and I left uni with about $6,000 each in HECS debts but IIRC we didn't need to start paying that off until we were making $30k a year and even then the minimum payment was not too bad. I can't remember if there was interest due on the debt or not but I think there wasn't. Was first priority on getting a job getting clear of the HECS debt (you could pay it before $30k if you wanted to but didn't have to).

Stressed - I thought that was the case. My 2.10 year old is the youngest of our 3, and the elder 2 received ante-preschool and preschool after they turned 3 and then 4.

So - free nursery places are only available south of the border then? You lucky lot!

candidates lowest priorities are the environment, housing and Scotland www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/01/-6. I'm in Scotland, so the last one is particularly bad for me.

Also, what exactly does priority number 3 "reducing welfare bills" mean? Cutting benefits to single mums? I wouldn't be surprised.

Morloth, you get a student loan. Depending on where you live and where you go to uni, the loan is for either living expenses or living expenses plus course fees. Scottish students attending scottish unis don't pay fees, I think English students do regardless of were the study.

The loans are not repayable until after you are earning £15,000 a year. Then it is collected with your income tax at a rate of 9% of the excess income/ So on a salary of £20,000 you pay 9% of £5k. Interest is set by the government but more or less tracks inflation, so that the government doeasn't make a profit, per se, on student loans but recoups its investment. If you haven't repaid the loan after 25 years, it is written off. It doesn't affect your credit rating or anything like that and there are various ways of deferring payment or of paying off more when and if your circumstances allow.

David Cameron keeps telling us all that we have to be realistic, the next few years are going to painful, that it's better to be honest. Then when asked which services will be cut, gives details of all the pain free savings he's going to make.

I'm confused. So just who is going to feel the pain Mr Cameron? Or is it just reserved for the foxes?

Thanks stressedHEmum sounds about the same then. Seems to work.