so now youve had chance to think about it....

FrameyMcFrame - North-East? You mean the North-east where Nissan set up the largest car factory in the UK, enabling us to export cars to Japan? That North-East?

Big society? Big bollocks.

If this last month has done anything it has reminded me why I vote Labour.

Not to say it's all bad. But the general tone I dislike, and I can't see a LibDem influence.

Plusfour - sounds suspiciously like old-fashioned Tory 'the poor should rely on charity' to me. Citizens have rights to state benefits (if they fulfill the qualifications) and rights to public services. No-one has a right to charity.

just because it's in bold doesn't make me believe it I'm afraid plusfourmum!

I voted Tory and got a new Tory MP. I thought about voting LibDem, but the resulting coalition is the best of both!

The cuts are a necessary evil, and Labour's plans to keep borrowing had filled me with horror. So I now look at the coalition plans with a muted sense of relief, balanced with a complete review of our own family spending and anticipate belt tightening!

I felt that Cameron's "Big Society" was a very positive part of their manifesto, and I was rather confused when it seemed to disappear after the election. Therefore, I am delighted to see it back at the forefront, and I fully understand that it did have to take a back seat while we all focussed on the financial disaster left by previous government and made plans to recover!

However, I am saddened by the cynicism being targeted at the Big Society campaign, apparently by Labour supporters (see the BBC blog). I don't want to be centrally controlled and I do want to have more of a say in local issues, and I accept that I have a duty and responsibility to help where I can. The "Big Society" should not be viewed as a means to cut essential public services, but it should encourage and enable everyone to do more to help their own communities and their own lives.

The poor will suffer disproportionately, as they always do, but we're all going to suffer under this government, with the exception of the super rich.

The very rich are always OK, whoever is in power and whatever happens to the economy, but the rest of us will feel the repercussions of this lot selling off the family silver for decades.

I also very much doubt that the cuts the government are proposing will equate to savings. Privatising various government functions will line the pockets of some very wealthy people in the short term (as happened here - yes under a Labour government but there's plenty more to come), and in the longer term there is absolutely no guarantee that they will cost the taxpayer less (I'm inclined to think the exact opposite, tbh).

All I see right now is a government driven by ideology and self-interest. I am all for privatising functions where they will benefit the country, but when they won't, for example, give the Academies Bill the attention is requires, I despair.

I did not votefor the ConDem government. the latest Dave Cameron ruse is the Big Society gsome think it is designed to cover the major cuts story which will greatly effect poorer people. That will be part of the reasoning. Politicians are devious by nature, that is part of the game. Severe welfare cuts are also on the cards from Camerons Tory party. my sypathies are with the poor, in the UK we have great divisions of wealth. Nil desperandum, we live to fight another day. yipeeee. Keep smiling.. Laughter is agreat medicine. Hear the one about the vicar well he did, yes, with the Bishops wife ....thats enough of that.

If Labour were so bad with the more vulnerable how come under LAbour DH ahd a job, and I felt sure our DLA would continue (see lengthy post further down- not bringing myself down troting all that agin) and that ds3's SNU would still be open next year.

And now DH is having to work for himself on far reduced wages, not convinced DLA will keep exisitng as we have invisible disabilities here, and SNU is being given less and less kids which looks shaky.

'Course BA, we've no work wthic right? Those saving we had that we lived off were imaginary? DH's 2 jobs whilst I studied full time (for something that would have led to work had SN childcare been available- no dx's when I started) and cared for rthe boys and their needs. And did a bit of volunteering.

Lazy fat arsed can't be botherd types, us

Les bolleaux.

Oh, and perhaps you need a reminder that it was Bush who was in charge in the US when the financial crisis hit. Hardly a socialist.

Rupert - have a look at the performance of the Major government before you start pretending the Tories are good at managing the economy. And Maggie's two recessions and de-regulating the City. We can all see where the latter got us.

You also need to look up the definition of socialism. Doesn't actually have much to do with Blair's government.

Robyn, I couldn't agree more.

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/18/deficit-cuts-dont-repeat-30s-folly

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/18/british-budget-deficit-coalition-cuts

There's a lot of people saying 2 things -
1 Labour caused this,
2 Dramatic cuts are absolutely necessary.

these 2 statements are put about as fact when they are not fact they are an ideological position.

I'm frustrated that the other side of the case is not being put to the public strongly enough at the moment.

I'm distressed that on a reactionary whim this country has voted in a government which I think will cause undue suffering not just in the short term but in the medium and long term also.

I voted Labour.

Am happy. Voted Tory in a labour Scottish stronghold so didnt make any difference locally, never does. But glad the socialists are out, dont think i could have coped with any more new laws and loss of liberty.

The dwp is a monolith, the benefits bill must be slashed, and the tax credits, whilst lovely, are only any good if they are affordable. Socialist governments always leave the country at the brink of bankruptcy, it must feel good to throw the money at the people, but the bill must still be paid.

God i cant sleep

I thought this was interesting in yesterday's Observer Especially this bit:

"The chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne, has repeatedly pitted the DWP against other departments by claiming that the choice is between cutting the UK's annual £192bn welfare bill or slashing budgets in other areas such as schools, the police or transport. Sources say officials at the DWP are "frustrated" that the Treasury will not take into account the potential income raised from income tax and VAT as more people move into work."

That's because Osborne knows that there isn't likely to be a shift into employment in the private sector. And/or where jobs are created they will be low-paid so not significant sources of tax revenue.

Oh and Gordon did say that, but it doesn't apply to a global recession where all your neighbours currencies are going down the toilet.

I have always voted Labour and will continue to do so. However, I do think their spending spiralled out of control. I think it's great that money was put into schools, childcare and play facilities. But things such as free swimming and Child Trust funds are luxuries when the country is in so much debt. I am a low income single parent and I find swimming to be a relatively low cost activity in relation to so many other activities, for axample. It is true though - that Dave doesn't have any idea how hard this is really going to hit the poor and I truely hope that the government rethinks their idea to cut housing beneifir. It was the Tories who sold most of the social housing stock after all...This will really hit the poor - do the government think it is that simple for families to simply up sticks and move th cheaper accomadation. They don't seem to realise that families plan their lives around where they live - work, schools etc. How much damage could this potentially cause?

so the Tories care about the poor then? If you lived in the North East in the 80s, you would know that the Tories did nothing while whole communities collapsed. That's why no Tory will ever win a seat up here or in scotland for that matter.

we can't afford a strong pound at the moment, we won't be able to export out of recession. what is the purpose of the pound being strong apart from giving us more euros to spend on holiday?

Can we just nail this "Labour cares about the poor and the Tories don't" rubbish once and for all?

Labour thinks that giving away other people's money to the poor will make their lives slightly more palatable, whilst ignoring the massive disincentive (to work, save, provide for one's own family) this creates.

I wonder who said this?

"A weak currency arises from a weak economy which in turn is the result of a weak Government."

voted Labour as I always have done and Labour got in here (safe seat)
Two things about the Tories:

1:The Tories destroyed the working class communities in the 80s. We are now living with the results, 2nd generation benefit culture. Then the Tories try to blame this on Labour. Sorry, but no.

2:It's not a great thing that we are cutting the deficit fast at all. The pound is now getting stronger therefore our exports are more expensive in Europe and the rest of the world. We can't be competative and the balance of trade will suffer. There will be no growth and we'll be back in depression soon.

Sorry, I forgot to make the links

news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_8727000/8727409.stm?t=9169s

news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_8794000/8794966.stm

I had my doubts about Jacob Rees-Mogg before the election but he seems to be an very good legislator. Then I saw him on BBC Parliament and he is an excellent speaker (even if you don't agree with what he is saying).

Watch his maiden speech

news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_8727000/8727409.stm?t=9169s

and his performance on the Budget

news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_8794000/8794966.stm

(abo ut 57 minutes in).

He is much better than most other MPs!

I know Rees-Mogg's constituency very well (bridgwater girl by birth, my worka rea covered his locality) and it's a bit eeeek that you have him!

Mind, if I lived 200 yards along the road i'd have david davis!!!

I didn't think Dan Norris's campaign was all that though, tbh. Some horrible cheesey photos of him fox-bothering, and lots of childish sniping at Rees-Mogg. Which was just far, far too easy imo, him being a posh wally. I suspect that that backfired somewhat.

I was all excited, too. It was the first time I've been able to vote Labour (border changes meant we were in Lib Dem/Tory country before).