I'v ebeen reading the tory manifesto..

[poshsinglemum]

and a lot of it seems reasonable. Eg; they do state they will cut tax credits for those earing OVER £50, 000 which seems fair.It states that will support civil partnerships and combat homophobic bullying etc which sounds great.It also states to increase the number of health visitors and improve sure start centres which is odd as I thought that people were saying they would axe sure start centres. I like the thought that they will promote cou0ples councelling as it may help people stay together. I'm not a tory but I just wanted to see what our possible goverment has in store.
I feel a little less scared at the thought of a tory/lib dem coalition but to what extent do parties stick to their manifestos once in power? Is it all spin?

[poshsinglemum]

For example will they cut other benefits too? Just because they don't mention it dosn't mean they won't do it!

[CanNeverDecide]

If only more people who voted had read the manifestos, we probably wouldn't be in this mess.

And the Tories were trying hard to show themselves as renewed etc. but as a result did not indulge in the falsifications and spin that Labour for example did (I mean, GBs entire campaign was about what the Tories were going to do, mostly incorrectly, but hardly anything about what Labour was going to do) and this, I think, led to them losing out on some votes they otherwise might have had.

[toccatanfudge]

my concern is their large things about "supporting" families (ie 2 adult ones......) I don't believe that single mum's aren't going to lose out big time.

[toccatanfudge]

their large

ermm not sure what I meant there

[CanNeverDecide]

I don't think single mums are going to lose out. Yes, there are plans to almost reward couples, I suppose, but there is no specific mention of single parents suffering as a result. All they're trying to do the way I see it, is try and bring back some old fashioned values by putting the family at the centre of everything. You could argue that much of the increase in crime, antisocial behaviour etc. has co-incided with the decreasing importance of a cohesive family unit.

I am in no way saying that this means people from single parent families have children who are trouble makers, but rather that some children who do grow up in families without solid support from their parents might learn negative behaviours etc. I think single parents do an amazing job, but I don't think any of them would ever argue that it wouldn't sometimes be nice to have the support of a partner in raising their kids.

[toccatanfudge]

well if they're rewarding couples then yes - single mun's do lose out

Children who grow up in 2 parent families with abuse/unhappiness also learn negative behaviours.

[poshsinglemum]

I am a bit torn by this issue. I think that helping cash strapped couples will help them stay together which is a good thing as long as cash-strapped single mums get some help too. I don't see why rich married couples should get more cash thrown at them.
Also, I would say that although I am a single mum, I have very strong family values thank you! I am still a family.

[poshsinglemum]

I just think that the conservatives need to relearn family values. Healthy nuclear families= great for kids. Unhappy nuclear families with fighting parents=bad for kids. extended families and community= crucial.

[electra]

'It states that will support civil partnerships and combat homophobic bullying etc which sounds great'

So, what is the marriage tax break thing all about then? Actions speak louder than words for me and it shows imvho that the Tories only support one kind of relationship.

[poshsinglemum]

true electra- they should surely introduce a civil partnership tax break! I was just trying to glean the best from a bad situation! (sob) I'm so glad that the British public saw a glimmer of sense and progression and didn't give the tories a landslide victory.

[TheHeathenOfSuburbia]

The problem as I see it is that DC has rebranded all the conservative party to be all cuddly and green and not mean at all, honest... but if you look at the MPs he's actually got sitting behind him (all 305 of them ), they include a worrying number of homophobes, europhobes, xenophobes, chauvinists, poor-people-ophobes (), climate-change deniers, etc etc.

So, yeah, I'm sure DC and his mates meant the manifesto when they wrote it, but how much of the party is behind it is another matter. IMO.

[TheHeathenOfSuburbia]

Agree with your post of 21:57:53, poshsinglemum, very nicely put!

Think DC told us enough about 'doing the right thing' in the TV debates; what I hear is 'if we don't approve of your lifestyle, you've got a tough five years coming, matey'

[gaelicsheep]

Why are you only reading the Tory party manifesto now?

[gaelicsheep]

Why when the Tories talk about "families" are they assumed to be only referring to 2 parent families? I've never heard a party overuse the word "family" like the Labour party does - thereby excluding every other type of household that doesn't involve children - and no one ever interprets it that way from them.

[gaelicsheep]

electra - the marriage tax break if for civil partnerships too!

Why don't people inform themselves before voting? GRRRR!

[happikidz]

poshsinglemum, i so agree with your definition of family values, beautifully said.

It would be wrong to say that Cameron would axe sure start centres, as that would imply getting rid of all of them. He only plans to cut them and stop the development of children's centres.

[TottWriter]

The trouble I found with the conservative manifesto was that while I did find some of it reasonable, that was more than outweighed by the parts I found unreasonable.

Leaving aside my opinions on welfare, because that sort of thing always starts a barney, I just find the 'big society' unrealistic. Parents taking over schools and surestart workers having performance-related pay just sounds like a slippery slope to me. Firstly, you won't be able to guarantee a level playing field for students - the postcode lottery we have right now will be even worse, and the vulnerable children won't even have the support they need out of school, because I'm sorry, but it's only in an idealistic world that people will stick in a not fabulously paid job when something like performance-related pay comes into it. If there are thousands of childminders giving it all up because of excess paperwork, how many surestart workers will pack it in because they no longer have the same secure wages? In order to really make pay relate to performance, that's a whole extra layer of beaurocracy in reviewing and assessing staff, which means less time working and more management to pay.

Vulnerable families have enough on their plates without their support networks being cut too. The whole thing seemed a curious blend of 'efficiency' savings which would cut red tape, and schemes which I could only imagine would increase it. Plus, there seemed to be a heavy reliance on community volunteers who I can't see appearing.

I could go on about the other areas I read, but I don't want to stray too far from the issues mentioned in the OP.

[kalo12]

their policies on education are frightening though!

[scaryteacher]

What's wrong with being Eurosceptic? I live in Brussels and I am very Eurosceptic. Nothing I have seen whilst living here has changed my mind.

[vesela]

I don't think Euroscepticism is the best way to get reform/maximum effectiveness in the EU.

[electra]

'electra - the marriage tax break if for civil partnerships too!

Why don't people inform themselves before voting? GRRRR!'

What about gay parents who are raising children? And why should single parents be penalised? Thanks, but I am informed enough to know that a Tory government would not be progressive enough to get my vote. Not to mention that their self serving ideology is directly opposite to everything I believe in.