Comments on: Strikes – Labour stumbles back towards the 1970s

By: Bazman

Bazman — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 13:51:12 +0000

The bleating teachers will not be happy until they work 8-12 four days a week with more holidays than they already enjoy. Yes holidays. Most the teachers in my school should have been sacked. Most would not last a day in a real job. German teachers who could not speak German? You could not make it up. Pasty middle class skive. Cushy does not even cover it. (Sentence deleted-ed)
There are few inconveniences worse than not being able to pay your bills due to low wages. The inconvenience of strikes is often caused by the employers taking the workforce to that action. The greed of many companies knows no limit and to equate low wages to low prices is naive. The cost savings are not passed onto the consumer and all the time the directors and managers are thinking up ways to increase their own pay.
As soon as the minimum wage was introduced these companies had to think of new ways to pay less to their employees. The obvious way is the attack conditions and benefits like pension schemes. Often the only way to get a better living standard is by threats and changes in 'circumstances'. The working class are not servants.
Not everyone is supported by the middle class social security system like teachers and all the people who say "I don't believe in strikes" then have little else to say after. Where do you work? Most people don't either, as you loose a lot of money and maybe your job. This is a method of last resort when all others have failed.

By: The Twydall Tory » Blog Archive » Selfish Teachers Ruining - Inexcusably - Kid’s Educations!

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:47:10 +0000

[...] refinery in Scotland is closing it’s doors due to industrial action. Is it any wonder people are now comparing Brown’s Labour government to the 1970s “when workers resorted to strike action against [...]

By: John, Wrexham

John, Wrexham — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:29:49 +0000

dear john,

the real issue i have with MPs employing their family is that it can easily make the whole family economically dependent on the family member continuing to be an MP and the result of this is a kind of 'dependency culture' where the career takes precedence over all other considerations.

the payroll vote is already too numerous in parliament, without backbench MPs becming drones as well.

By: Matthew Reynolds

Matthew Reynolds — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:26:55 +0000

On pensions Labour have messed up by taxing pension funds while over complicating state provision and feather bedding their public sector union friends . This has been done to create a large number of people reliant on the state ( along with tax credit created welfare dependency & mass immigration ) so that there are enough left wing inclined voters to keep Labour in office . The dark comic irony is that Labour’s hand is being bitten by those that it feeds . On education just bring in vouchers so that parents can choose whatever schools suit their children meaning that money moves away from red tape & PC LEA’s as a voucher scheme provides a cash incentive for higher standards as producers have to put the service user first . The Citizenship Pension idea would strip out red tape & poverty while not punishing saving and could be funded by tackling welfare dependency , cutting the pointless New Deal and having more private money for railways instead of state subsidy . I do not merely rant about Labour’s faults – I offer a basis for clever Conservative politicians to develop ways to improve things . Surely the Tory Shadow Cabinet are smart enough to put flesh on the bare bones of my policy ideas ? A few vote winning ideas on the things that are of interest to the electorate can get Cameron into Number 10 Downing Street . It is not enough to tell voters how Labour have messed up – we need to show how to fix things like pensions & schools .

By: Rose

Rose — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:50:52 +0000

If MPs are to declare family, then why not friends? And who is to decide where the line be drawn?

Standards are what we want, not voyeurism.

Reply: Yes, there is no accepted definition of "partner", but I can see why MPs should declare if they are employing their live in lover, just as they now have to if they are employing their spouse.

By: APL

APL — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 19:49:05 +0000

Robert Tressellon: "How much do you pay your Partner to be your Researcher Mr Redwood(BBc News Today),"

Oooh! Who has been sleeping in the knife drawer then??

Frankly, I could not care less if Redwood does or does not employ his immediate family, so long as there is evidence to show value for money.

What we need in Parliament is transparency and accountability, which is exactly what we haven't got at the moment.

If I had the choice, I would choose the member for Wokingham rather than (a Labour MP which the correspondent does not like -ed).

Reply: I think it is right that people should declare any members of their family working for them, or a partner they are living with. The BBC owe me an apology as I do not employ a family member or partner at the taxpayer's expense. Taxpayers have a right to know, as these paid jobs at Westminster should be based on merit and offer value for money.

By: Robert Tressell

Robert Tressell — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:04:58 +0000

How much do you pay your Partner to be your Researcher Mr Redwood(BBc News Today),If only striking Teachers could do that to boost their incomes eh?

Reply: I do not employ a partner as a Researcher. Where and when did the BBC say that, for it is a libel?

By: ED

ED — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:03:05 +0000

Before today I only once have I ever heard my partner angry about politics. Today was the second.

By: mikestallard

mikestallard — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:57:58 +0000

I have been a teacher right up to retirement. I still coach and keep in touch.
What made me stop was an end of school registration where five boys (aged 12) were five minutes late. I knew they were going to be because I had been warned. I shut them out. They banged on the door of the classroom very loudly until I let them in. They then ran up and down the gangways swearing and refusing to obey orders.
There was absolutely nothing I could do.
I knew that if I reported them nothing would be done. I knew that I could walk away and no one would be any the wiser (I was on supply). I simply marked them as absent and walked out.
Teaching is like that for so many secondary teachers today. The only difference is the paperwork. Also, in 1999 the A levels and O levels were crudely swindled (I was there at the meetings of teachers for RE, History and Classics) so now there is universal cramming (see excellent post above).
And why did the teachers put up with it?
Their mouths, to quote, were stopped with gold.
Now the gold has run out.
I imagine the same has been the case with all the other workers too.
Do you remember the poster "Don't let Labour ruin it?"
They have done just that – again.

Reply: I too am worried about the rise in the number of exams pupils have to take, and the concentration on learning "right answers" and "exam technique" rather than teaching a subject or discipline and trying to spark an enthusiasm or love for it. Good teachers still do so despite the system, but as you say it gets more and more difficult given the framework offered by the government.

By: Stuart Fairney

Stuart Fairney — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:32:30 +0000

Could this not all be solved by

(a) abolishing every education 'authority' in the land
(b) making all schools self-governing able to offer tuition in whatever they wanted, and
(c) giving parents education vouchers to the equivalent value of the spending per pupil in England that they could spend in whatever school they wanted

This creates choice for parents, competition between schools and good teachers could sell their services for higher salaries. It is widely accepted that competition raises standards, where as moribund state monopolies like state education do not.

Reply: Yes, it could. I have proposed making every school independent, and paying each parent up to an agreed maximum which would be enough to secure a good edcuation at most schools. Poeple could top it up if they wished for the smaller number of dearer schools.