TORIES

[Eilatan]

if they get in:

They'll end HIPS so my husband will loose his job
He's actually a teacher but can't get work cos the last time they were in they brought in 'cover supervisors' ...unqualified people who are doing our jobs
They do away with the 15 hours nursery care...all we do is wait for our little un to be 3 so we can just break even each month... but no doubt these evil so and sos will take it away to pay for the w(b)ankers ineptitude
I expect they do away with the trust funds too
Teachers wages will be frozen ...
Over 60s cold weather payments? Ha! last time they were in Edwina Currie advised them to knit woolly gloves!
Any tiny power the unions have been able to claw back will go...
We'll be back to teaching kids that homosexuality is wrong and if a piece of literature wasn't written by someone dead, white and male it isn't worth reading
...if they get in I'm jacking it all in... going to sell the house and live in a caravan... no way am I working on Maggie's farm again!

Don't be fooled by all that caring for the family rubbish. All those c care for is making their own kind richer.

PLEASE don't vote for them.

Do you have any links/further info on doing away with HIPS/trust funds/15 hours free for 3yo's?

Also

Well, as HIPS are generally considered by the majority to be a waste of time, I'm sorry, but they would go sooner or later.

I know several qualified teachers who have done Cover supervisors jobs to get themselves known in the school and then become employed there. If I go back to teaching, I may take that route to get a foot in the door and back in the classroom again. What does he teach?

I don't think taking away nursery care will make enough to pay for the bankers - they'll cut big budget things first.

I think all public sector workers pay will be frozen. However, when I was teaching I was just below threshold, and it was a good salary for where I lived.

As for: Any tiny power the unions have been able to claw back will go...

I hadn't noticed Labour reversing much legislation over the past 13 years to give the Unions back their power, than God.

'We'll be back to teaching kids that homosexuality is wrong' doubt it; 'and if a piece of literature wasn't written by someone dead, white and male it isn't worth reading'....they've only just rewritten the GCSE syllabuses for 2009 and started teaching them. Can't see a major rewrite being on the cards again soon. What's wrong with Shakespeare?

I never had the Trust fund for ds, as that was well after he was born. Nice idea, but if the money is needed to pay the benefits bill, I'd rather the money went to that.

I WILL be voting for them, as I don't want to go back to the union stranglehold; the three day week and the power cuts of the late 70s that I remember.

I would have written what scaryteacher wrote.

I am donning my flameproof suit now...

HIPS are a total and utter waste of time and money and haven't done what they were supposedly designed to do - which is speed up the house buying and selling transaction - in fact it's slowed it down. In a trade article I was reading last week about the resi market, one EA reported last week that in the months since it's been in (12 now?) he's only ever been asked for the HIP by a purchaser the grand total of once!

Unions - I think Bob Crow has quite enough power thank you, and what this country needs is workers who aren't going to hold the country to ransom over outdated working practices which this country cannot afford. Germany and France bounced out of recession last summer - we've had 0.1% growth last quarter because the Government are bribing people to buy cars - we need to have a competitive manufacturing sector again - the union mentality in this country makes it difficult.

I think that the trust fund should go - it was a gimmick by Gordon Brown to buy votes and most of us aren't that gullible. It's an unaffordable luxury. I also think that child benefit for those earning over a certain threshold should go (even though the threshold that is bandied about will mean that we'll lose out) because it's a luxury that we can't afford.

Gordon Brown has brought this country to its knees through his inept financial management - first as Chancellor and now as PM. Before Labour came in, Britain had pension provision that was the envy of the world - after his tax raids it's now completely in deficit and part of the reason that council taxes are having to rise every year - not so new and improved services can be provided. His deregulation of the FSA/The City turned out well didn't it?! He's created a housing bubble and allowing our valuable assets to be sold off in the middle of a recession to raise piddly amounts (Dartford Crossing, Channel Tunnel for example), our gold reserves are gone for a fraction of their true value, and our AAA rating is under severe threat of being lost. The Tories weren't perfect, and yes, they had the odd sex and sleaze scandal here and there - and I'm sure that they'll also make mistakes again, but I really, really, really can't wait to see the back of this inept, self serving load of feeble minded politicians who have completely run out of ideas and road. Bring on the general election.

Scaryteacher, they won't cut big budget things first, they will cut "unnoticeable" things first. And by unnoticeable, I mean things that matter to people they don't care about: people who don't have money (often because of already existing prejudices/problems) because money is all that matters to them.

So, I predict that anything that matters to these groups will be the first to go:

• mothers
• women in general
• disabled people and their families and carers
• "illegals immigrants" for example police depts rescuing trafficked women & children from prostitution
• GLBT groups
• people on incomes lower that c. 30k/year.
• young people

The tories are the party to vote for if you are sure that you and the people you love are, and always will be, entirely lucky and self-sufficient. They will protect you and your property and probably make you richer.

If you think you might one day have kids/be ill/be made redundant/have a relative needing care etc etc etc, forget the tories, they think you are less than nothing if you're not earning the cash.

Also out of interest, labour have been in for 12 years now, why are you so afraid of an imminent return to the 3 day week after the election scaryteacher? Hasn't happened so far has it? It's just scaremongering.

Disclaimer, not a lover of labour in any way

Sadly I suspect Elephants has it spot on

"I know several qualified teachers who have done Cover supervisors jobs to get themselves known in the school and then become employed there. If I go back to teaching, I may take that route to get a foot in the door and back in the classroom again..."

Get lost! Why should we work unqualified rate? My husband took a career break to bring up our son and only wants a few days supply but the cover supervisor malarky has seen that off. No way should he work for unqualified rates.

"Gordon Brown has brought this country to its knees through his inept financial management - first as Chancellor and now as PM..."

The credit crisis was caused by capitalism - pure and simple. Don't you remember the 80's/90's? We'll keep having depressions and slumps until we get rid of boom and bust capitalism. Blair's (Gidding's) was clearly rubbish too and only seemed successful in the context of the apparent boom. Proper socialism is the only answer but Blair was scared of that. But with no socialist alternative at least labour spend on the areas that matter... THE WORKERS AND THE NEEDY!

Working people are in the majority and we should rule...simple as!

"Unions - I think Bob Crow has quite enough power thank you..."

BOB CROW IS A LEGEND!!! ONE OF THE BEST PEOPLE ALIVE IN UK TODAY!!! Course the unions should rule! We're the workers not those idiot upper class twits.

"Germany and France bounced out of recession last summer..."
France have a strong tradition of union power...Germany and France are republics..so what's your point exactly?

"Trust Fund an unaffordable luxury?" Or a way of trying to break down the rich/poor divide? Let's oust royals and aristos and really save some money!

Nothing wrong with Shakespeare but there are other authors, but those public school toffs'll need to justify their own education by limiting our kids again. Problem is, last time the Tories interferred with English teaching that stupid cow Thatcher said how she thought EM Forster was representative of the values she wanted to promote. Silly moo kind of missed the point - no?

"I don't want to go back to the union stranglehold; the three day week and the power cuts of the late 70s that I remember."

That's when HEATH was in and he was a TORY! Give me strength!

But no, you go right on ahead and vote Tory, that's fine. I'm not working for the f**ckers tho, I'm off. '

I found that the cover supervisors were a far better guarantee of consistent discipline; teaching the lesson that was left, and being there all the time, than having a supply teacher in for a couple of days. The students would see the cover supervisors around school' have regular contact with them and wouldn't give them the nausea that the supply teachers got. Your dh has the same choice as many women who take a career break to bring up the children; take the pay hit to get the time at home, unless he can get a job share or a 50% timetable.

Proper socialism = communism. That doesn't work, as demonstrated by the USSR.

I think you equate workers with the low paid. Those that earn above the national average are workers too, if you define a worker as someone who does a fair days work for a fair days pay. Without people creating wealth at the top end of the spectrum, the bottom end wouldn't have jobs, as people wouldn't be able to afford their services. Take too much in tax from those at the top end and they will leave, taking their personal and corporate spending power with them; and the economy will suffer.

What you don't seem to understand is that in the current climate, if the unions try to hold the transport system or other sectors to ransom, that sector as a whole will suffer. If the trains don't run for example people will use, and keep using other forms of transport for instance. The custom and the goodwill is lost and won't come back easily. The same will apply with Royal Mail.

France have a strong tradition of unions...mmmm... yes, and have had to just take out an humungous loan to keep the country afloat. France cannot afford the stranglehold the unions have, and it shows, as there have been several attempts at reform. I don't think their status as republics has anything to do with bouncing back from recession. I don't think either France or Germany have been entirely honest about the position of their banks either.

The trust funds are an unaffordable luxury at present; the government is spending about 13% more than it gets in this year, and saving s have to be made somewhere.

I don't think that the Tories have an interest in limiting anyone's education. I certainly don't and I am state educated from the ground up. I studied African and Caribbean literature when I did my degree under the Tories, as well as dead white males and females.

I think big budget things like the aircraft carriers will go first, and possibly we won't get four submarines to replace the Trident boats, but three, which will be a saving. I think they will also hopefully tighten up on the £15 billion public sector fraud (benefits mainly) that the country loses in a year and cut many of the unnecessary quangos that exist.

I am going to vote Tory, as nothing on this earth would ever induce me to vote Labour. I have been voting Tory since 1983 and I ain't going to change now.

Call Me Dave wants to cut £200 million from SureStart's budget as well.

tbh I 'm not sure which way I will vote this time but I'm damn sure it won't be tory (or bnp/ukip/anything right wing).

And as for that Tw**ting marriage tax break....you go ahead and marginalise lone parents even further...not only is it unethical, a vote loser but may end up costing the welfare state in the long run.

I typed a hugely long reply and then wondered what the point was - I am one of the "public school toffs" that you so despise, and so anything I say is likely to be ignored.

I am also a 'worker' albeit one with professional qualifications and non-unionised but I work in a sector that employs a significant percentage of the EU's workforce (retail) and am advising large retailers on where to expand and to open new stores - thus creating jobs.

I don't see that socialism has been such a great success - I lived in Russia for a couple of years and the deprivation and desperation there was something I would not like to experience again. China and Albania aren't such paragons of the socialist ideal either are they?

scaryteacher has beaten me to the response I typed and then deleted the first time....

Panicmode - Russia was state capitolist.

I used to work in retail (no, not in a shop) - I was unionised with USDAW.

Scaryteacher -you should watch Michael Moore's Sicko about France - it might be a poorer country but their day to day quality of life is better and their welfare/healthcare are amazing.

In about 2005 I applied for a temp job as an administrator in a secondary school. They called me and offered me a job as a Cover Supervisor. I didn't know what it was so I went to check it out. The head practically begged me to take the job and start the next day - no training, no induction - nothing - imo it was really quite negligent. I respect the teaching profession and and that to qualify takes 3/5 years and hard work. I don't want dd taught by someone no more qualified than a dinner lady - bit of a tax rip off.

Meanwhile I went to private school, am a quallified professional but work in the public sector so I guess I don't fit into either group but I hate the Torries and pray a return to Thatcheresque rule isn't on the cards.

Russia was a communist state which is an extreme form of socialism, but is supposed to provide for each and every member of society according to their needs. I certainly didn't see that - and Eilatan may deride capitalism, but all I saw were desperately poor people trying to better themselves by trying some entrepreurial solutions to make money for themselves and their families. After 1991 it turned towards capitalism and I guess became what you refer to as being state "capitolist" -whatever that is.

France is also close to being bankrupt - yes they may have a better quality of life but they can't afford it and every time the Government try to reform the system, the unions bring the country to a standstill.

The point of cover supervisors is that they don't teach your children, that's where the misunderstanding comes in. They should be delivering the lesson (i.e. writing the work on the board and making sure it is done) that has been left by the qualified teacher. As a qualified secondary teacher that was all I did for a maths/science cover, as I taught other subjects. A cover supervisor can do that just as well as a qualified teacher, and free the teacher up for an hour of marking or planning that they would otherwise have lost.

I live next door to France, and I don't think the quality of life there is any better than mine was in Cornwall.

I grew up during Thatcherism - I was 13 in 1979 and can remember vividly the day she was toppled in 1990. What I liked about her was that she knew what she stood for and wasn't afraid to take on the entrenched interests like the unions and the EU.

Oh yes, Eilatan, your history needs some work - 1974-1979 Labour govt, Wilson, then Callaghan - so late 70s was Labour. Heath was defeated as PM in 1974, Mrs T didn't get in til 79.

I knew i didn't spell capitalist right - apologies. Whether Russia was a true form of socialism is a matter of opinion and often referred to as 'state capitalist' as a communist state is kind of a contradiction in terms.

I know cover supervisors are just that but they are surely supposed to be a stop gap measure - not a money saving exercise to the point where a regular qualified teacher can't get a job! I realise they just deliver pre prepared lessons but they arn't qualified/experienced in managing difficult children/classes either - its not just an academic role being a teacher.

Cover supervisors are a money saving measure and far more reliable than scrabbling around trying to get supply cover. There is no point employing a teacher if you don't have a timetable for them to teach and so cover supervisors take the lessons when a teacher is off and has left planning for the classes. This could be due to illness, training, meetings, taking kids away on school trips etc. Why pay someone like me £28,000 to sit and do cover when you can get someone to do it for half the price?

The cover supervisors who I worked with were superb; were strict, and had exactly the same 'sets of teeth' as the teachers. They were given training in class control and knew what they were doing.

I know it's not just an academic role being a teacher _ I did it for long enough.

As to Russia - the USSR was communist - it was NEVER capitalist until post perestroika. However human nature will out, and although technically all the comrades were equal, those in the Politburo and the KGB were more equal than others.

I am a teacher and I can't wait for the Tories to get in. I am ready to start with the election effort in my constituency.

Hurrah, another Tory teacher. I was the only one on the staff at the comp I taught at...and I educated my ds privately as well! It was interesting, especially when we got on to setting vs mixed ability.

I take it neither of these tory teachers have history degrees.

Russia was a dictatorship, they called it communism but it was not. True communism has never been tried and due to the fact we have always had the markets blah blah blah... read your Orwell - it's only GCSE level at best this debate.

Oh and the state ed system? That's a Socialist idea so I hope you teach in the private sector leaving my children to receive a proper education from informed and educated teachers who believe in equality and meritocricy.

Are you suggesting in your post Ninjacat that there are no state school teachers who'll be voting Tory?

Know Tories will freeze teacher pay but most colleagues accept whichever party gets in, that's likely to be the case, just that one party has been overt about it so far. But there is also the thinking that there will be a trade off in education re political interference otherwise Tories will have teachers backs up in a big way.

DH, lifelong Labour supporter, father a miner, won't be voting for Gordon Brown on May 6th. Not quite sure what he is going to put the X but he is very disillusioned with Labour.

It's chilling to think the Tories will probably be back in power in just a few months. I'm genuinely scared and saddened.

I'm sure there are plenty of Tory teachers out there and it's their right to vote for whom so ever they so wish (being a believer in democracy and all) I just can't bare ignorance as argument.

Any way, doesn't matter who you vote for the Government always gets in.

Sorry, should have added since it's pertinent, that dh a life-long Labour supporting state school teacher.

-Not interested in trust funds - money could be better spent elsewhere.
-Won't revert on homosexuality, times have changed - was listening to R4 and interesting conversation between Michael Cashman and Kelvin McKensie about the social trends survey.
-Last time Tories were in I was teaching the feminist/pro-lesbian texts Maya Angelou's I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings Walker's Color Purple and Winterson's Oranges are not the Only Fruit. Still are the same number of dead WASPs on the syllabus as far as I can see.

• Am pro the benefit that cover supervisors bring to a school: they know the children, know the staff and layout, less disruption all round, are accountable the next day...

What's dh's subject?

But will be examining all the main parties' manifestos this year and following the debate with interest.

I'm no Tory, but I like cover supervisors. They have certainly had an impact on supply teaching, of course they have, but not on teachers in school IME.

OP - does it have to be supply, or can your DH apply for staff positions? I went back to work after 5 years out and there were plenty of jobs in my subject (Science).

Anytime I think of the tories getting back in I have to block my ears and rock repetitively in my chair.

OP Good point about Clause 28. I had utterly forgotten about that supremely nasty piece of legislation.

[rocking repetitively]

Think it is possible we will end up with a hung parliament.

Don't think it will be a '97 landslide.