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.

I am wetting myself in exitement at the prospect of a Tory government. I don't understand why people are so opposed. You can't possibly want more of the one we have. They are a disaster.

I am DEFINITELY not a Tory voter. I am also definitely not a Labour voter - I think I could be persuaded to vote Labour one day if I thought they had anything worthwhile to offer, but look at the current lot...

However, it amazes me when people try to argue that socialism is better than capitalism, or vice-versa. It always seems such a naive discussion to hold. I remember someone once saying 'In socialism one person oppresses another, and in capitalism it's the other way round'. Both approaches to government have their ills and their advantages. As far as I am aware socialism as practised during the past and present centuries has contained within its foundations more opportunities for abuse than capitalism, but perhaps that's just because the way we report about both systems (i.e. from the perspective of living in a capitalist economy) is biased. Based on that biased reporting I would rather live in a capitalist economy - but that's the (slightly) lesser of two evils, IMO.

We all have to live with the reality that all people are flawed and self-centred, and so those characteristics will heavily influence any systems of government. Expecting one system to somehow trump the other is just wishful thinking.

Reactionary voting, how very informed.
May I suggest some Tena Lady for your affliction.

Not sure there's any element of socialism vs capitalism in this year's election, is there? Merely different versions of the latter.

Fallen I agree.

What we are talking about here is a popularity contest between two parties who are both sucking up to the corporations and just spinning different yarns to which ever bit of the population they are trying to win over that day.

That said the idea of a Tory government makes me feel sick as their fundamental ideology is so far removed from my own.

One could argue that true communism has been tried if you read Acts of the Apostles Ninja.

Please enlighten me as to why the USSR (and Marxist Russia before that) wasn't true communism. It looked bloody close from where I was sitting during the Cold War, and it didn't operate a market economy. As for being a dictatorship - well, that may have been true of Stalin, but the Politburo was supposed to be a form of collective government. Does that mean that Naziism wasn't Fascism because Hitler was a dictator?

I taught in the state system, (and was educated there as well), where I did my best to make sure that every student achieved their potential, as I am an informed and educated teacher. I believe in a meritocracy, but know that at times how you get on in your career depends on being in the right place at the right time. Just because my politics aren't the same as yours, doesn't mean that I am uninformed, uneducated, or ignorant; or are insults the best you can do? GCSE level indeed, if you can't manage more reasoned debate.

I hate to be picky, but I also believe in spelling and knowing what words mean....'I just can't bare ignorance as argument.' The word you need is bear in that sentence, not bare. The former means to cope with in this context; the latter means naked or the basics (bare necessities for example). You also misspelled meritocracy. If you are dyslexic I apologise for picking this up; if not, I don't. Please don't cite poor teaching as a reason for your mistakes either, as obviously you were taught by informed and educated people in the state system who would have modelled use of a dictionary at every available opportunity.

I agree ninjacat, but given the choice between the two would have to choose labour merely because I know their principles are good, even if they don't appear in practice very often. The tories principles never pretend to be anything other than those of self-interest, as modelled by scaryteacher here who - despite teaching in a state school - took the state's wage and used it to send her kids to private school. Not saying you didn't have a perfect right to do so scaryteacher, just that it's a good illustration of tory ideals.

With the tories, the rich(er) buy privilege. If your parents aren't rich, you don't get to network and - bugger me, what a coincidence, you don't end up with a good job/seat in parliament/enough money for university. You then (if you are a tory ideal) set out to get as rich as possible given the circumstances, regardless of social/environmental cost so your own kids can have "what you never had" i.e. be brought up with their "betters" at private school etc. Not talking about you specifically ST, just the general tory plan for society.

Did anyone watch that "When Boris Met Dave" programme a month or two ago? The first ten minutes really brought home to me the fact that we are basically inviting the aristos back to run the country, the same bastards who have been privileged and raised to this from birth. I thought things had changed but clearly I was very wrong.

Oh, and as for picking on ninjacat's spelling - anyone can see she knows what she means by the word "bare" and choosing to make an issue of this just shows how little you can depend on actual argument. I studied English at an Oxbridge college (lucky me eh) and what I learnt taught me to be less pernickety about spelling than I was before. It'll all be different in a hundred years you know, then who'll be looking silly?

"The divide between rich and poor is greater after 13 years of Labour rule than at any time since the Second World War, according to the Government?s own report into inequality.

It concludes that Britain remains a nation riven by class ?from cradle to grave?, despite programmes costing billions of pounds in the past decade designed to narrow the gap.

Social mobility measured by both income and profession is low, with worrying signs that the class divide now opens up among children as young as 3." Here.

Can't believe that anyone seriously believes that more of the same is going to improve things.

Not that "more of the same" is remotely possible. The huge debts run up by Brown mena that public spending is going to have to be slashed in the coming years. Alistair Darling warns of toughest spending cuts for 20 years.

'as modelled by scaryteacher here who - despite teaching in a state school - took the state's wage and used it to send her kids to private school. Not saying you didn't have a perfect right to do so scaryteacher, just that it's a good illustration of tory ideals.'

What is it to you what I spent my salary on? I don't smoke, I don't drink often and I don't do drugs. Sending my ds private was the only way I could get wraparound care in one place to enable me to do my job teaching, as dh was away with HM Forces. Childcare in rural Cornwall is hard to come by, believe me, especially when there is no public transport, and your family live 3.5 hours away. Private school that took ds from 0745 to 1900 so I could put in a full day and teach after school as well was the practical solution. I didn't see anywhere in my terms and conditions of employment that I couldn't spend my salary how I pleased. I also spent quite a lot of it on buying my own resources to educate the kids I taught, as the state didn't provide what was necessary to do the job properly. If you don't have a beef with private nurseries, and I bet many on here use them to enable them to combine work and childcare, then why object to someone who chooses to extend that past reception for their own convenience? I did my job well; got the exam results required for the students; that's all that should worry you, not what I spent my money on.

I would also point out that the Government pays an allowance for many private school places for children of HM Forces personnel and for diplomats kids as well, so they obviously have no problem with private boarding education when it suits them and enables their employees to do their jobs. Be realistic - Blair went to Fettes, the Eton equivalent in Scotland; Harriet Harman went to St Paul's Girls; Ed Balls as a fee paying pupil to Nottingham High school - Labour aren't against private education, they just don't want others to benefit from what they had.

As for spelling, I won't be here in 100 years, so I won't look silly, just dead. Much like you I expect. However, spelling (as it is indicative of standards of performance and attention to detail) does matter in business and also in education, as you lose business / marks if you can't spell. The Quality of Written Communication mark can make a difference between a C and a D grade at GCSE, and frequently does.

Well the Tories are quite a scary prospect, but AFAIK it was not them that brought in the concept of cover supervisors. However, given the tight budgets that they will have to work with if they win, I doubt that they will be abolishing them. I think that lots of TA positions will be under threat though...

I did say that you had a perfect right to spend your money on whatever you like ST - private school, hookers & cigars, whatever .

I know what it's like to live in rural Cornwall too (gosh I hope you're not my next door neighbour) and have no doubt that childcare etc can be hard, esp if your DH is away. However I was picking up on what you originally said your reasoning was behind the kids going to private school (rather than e.g. childminders): "I believe in a meritocracy, but know that at times how you get on in your career depends on being in the right place at the right time." Presumably you mean the right place = private school, where the rich kids hang out. So you believe your kids should achieve based on their merits, as long as "their merits" include being in the same class as other privileged children who can help your DCs later in life. Believe me, I PMSL at some people's faces at uni when they asked me "what school did you attend?" and I told them .

scaryteacher!!! I am also a stickler for spelling and grammar (having previously been an English language teacher), but I would always place effective relational skills high above my belief in the importance of good use of English. By picking on someone for being tripped up by the false friend 'bear/ bare', you have made yourself look relationally inept and bloody rude.

As a partial answer to your question about 'true' communism, I would say that Marx's (and, arguably, Lenin's) visions for communisms did not include abuse of the collective in order to hold on to power. That would be one significant reason why the USSR is described as not being communist in the true sense. However, as I said earlier, I would argue that there will always be huge flaws in any system (in theory or practice) because we're all flawed beings.

I wish I could recall the other arguments about 'true' communism but my History A level was quiiiiite some time ago now!

Eilatan - on the subject of the Tories possibly cutting the Early Years Education Grant, which you mentioned in your OP, I would be very surprised if they'd attempt this, following so soon after the present government's embarassing failed attempt to cut childcare vouchers. I'm not a Tory fan at all, but surely even they wouldn't be quite so idiotic?

Oh you said it so much better than I ever could re: spelling, Speedy!

Can MN reprint that at the tops of threads, in the style of the AIBU disclaimer?

"In case of obvious mild spelling errors where the intended meaning is clear, please refrain from mocking the poster concerned. MN always places effective relational skills high above a belief in the importance of good use of English. By picking on someone for their error you run the risk of making yourself look relationally inept and bloody rude."

Be my guest!

Actually I've picked up on a few grammatical errors in scaryteacher's own posts...

I'm having fun re-writing the tory's election poster would you all care to join me?
Here

I hope the TA positions are not under threat - TAs are fab and necessary for teachers to do their jobs. I worked very closely with 3 in particular and they kept me sane and laughing.

I think after 13 years of Labour government the time has come for a change. They are stale and worn out, much as the Major government was in 1997. I wish the Tories had been re-elected sooner, but perhaps they needed their time away to consolidate, regroup and examine plans and policies.

I'd be interested to know the ages of some of the posters here. Are they so anti-Tory because of what they have heard, or experienced? This is the second Labour period of office that I can remember (1974-1979) being the first, and I am not enamoured of either.

'If your parents aren't rich, you don't get to network and - bugger me, what a coincidence, you don't end up with a good job/seat in parliament/enough money for university.' Mine weren't rich, but I ended up with a degree and secure employment. Mind you, there were student grants in those days and your fees were paid too. John Prescott ended up with a seat in Parliament - so your argument about rich parents doesn't hold water, neither were Gordon Brown's or Mrs Thatcher's, her Dad was a grocer.

As for 'so your own kids can have what you never had' - don't we all want that? My mum was pleased I've always had an automatic washing machine, and was the first to get a degree in my family; as opposed to the twin tub she had for years and the fact she left school at 15 with O levels and went out to work and did night school. My ds has had more material things than I did when I was his age, as there are now things that weren't around when I was growing up in the late 70s/early 80s like computers, PS3s, iPods etc. I'm glad that ds won't have to forage around bins for food like my Nan did in the 1920s, as her family was so poor.

What MmeBlueberry said.

OP - you sound thoroughly unpleasant as well as poorly informed.

Give the OP a break, she just sounds like she's under a lot of stress and is worried about the future. I sympathise as I often shout at the TV in a very similar style.

the conservative party scare me. I am anathema to them. I'm a single mother in social housing, and will be doing a low paid job.

WE're going to starve. We are going to fucking starve.

Since my ex walked out on his job, and the tax credits overpaid me (my fault, I got confused) I lost £55 per week income. £20 of that has been made up by income support (thank heaven) but I have lost £35 per week real money and I'm scraping by as it is. Meanwhile food and fuel prices are going up - I have to spend £15 a week so my house isn't cold, and £25 to make it warm. Bread has doubled in price this past five years, ditto pasta, baked beans and other staples.

The spending cuts are going to hit me, and none of the promised benefits will. Marriage tax allowance? it's not my fault I haven't got a bloody husband to give it to!

I did not choose this life, and I honestly think it's up to me to get myself out of it, but how can they even think of cutting the Surestart scheme? It's for the most vulnerable children in this country - they are literally taking candy from a baby! Why not cut the child benefit spend - I know plenty of people who really don't need it. Lots of people save their child benefit, but designer shoes with their child benefit - I know one woman who has LOST it - can't remember which of the many banks it goes into and can't be bothered to find out. I buy bloody heating and food with mine!

They hate the poor. It can be the only explanation for their policies.

This is like a repeat performance of last time.labour Govt overspend and screw the economy People get pissed off and vote teh tories in.Tories bring in lots of unpopular measures to repair teh deficit which p people off but do the job so when labour get elected again they inherit a decent balance book and then proceed to trash it!Now we are in for another dose of the tories and all look to suffer.papers today hinting at basic rate tax rising from 3p to 5p and VAt to 20%.Did anyone see Clarke and Mandelson last night they didn't seem to think 20 yrs was a bad estimate as to how long this mess cold take to sort out !

Please point out my errors and I'll see if you are right or not. I once had fun in my NQT year pointing out to an English teacher that she had written would of and could of on the board, rather than would have and could have. She was most offended and flounced off to her HoD, only to return later and mumble an apology. My HoD always gave me stuff to proof read and spell check as it is something I can't help noticing.

EAM, 'Presumably you mean the right place = private school, where the rich kids hang out. So you believe your kids should achieve based on their merits, as long as "their merits" include being in the same class as other privileged children who can help your DCs later in life.' Nope, I didn't mean that. I was discussing dh's promotion prospects with him, and he said that if he had been in a different branch or deployed in Gulf War 1, Kosovo or Iraq, his promotion chances would have been higher. That is what I meant by right time, right place. I also don't think that having gone to a particular school means that your classmates will help you later in life. I don't think either dh or I keep up with any of our classmates from school, be they from my comp, or his boarding school. Life and geography get in the way. Ds will presumably keep up with those he likes once he leaves his school, and won't with those he doesn't. That is normal surely? The old school tie doesn't work in HM Forces, only the ability to do your job.

Don't worry EAM, I live abroad at the moment, and the house is let out. However, we will be back, so if you are in the Tamar Valley or near, watch out!

Surestart was originally conceived as a way of helping disdvantaged children; in many areas it has been so colonised by the middle classes that poorer families are put off attending. How can it be wrong to try to target it at disadvantaged families? Yes, it would be nice to have a service everyone could use - but the countries finances are in such a state that savage spending cuts are going to have to be made. Even Brown has belatedly admitted that.

Personally, I would be in favour of cutting child benefit for higher income families. However, I remember a thread about this on MN a few monthgs back, and most posters were appalled at the thought. I doubt it would be a vote winner for any political party, so I don't suppose it will be in any manifesto.

Hang on. We've had 12 years of Labour. They inherited a golden legacy of an economy from the Tories yet the rich-poor gap is wider than it has been for over 40 years And you all fear a Tory government?

I am so close to getting a bullhorn and parading around in my local area, telling people what the Tories are actually going to DO so that they will register to vote.

People don't seem to think that this could be a lot worse. Yes, our country is in debt, but it could be so much worse. There is NO NEED for the savage cuts that are being proposed. gentler ones, better targeted, would be much easier for the population to bear.

my generation has never forgotten the loss of the children's milk, and the introduction of the minimum wage which meant we could live.