Did you vote Conservative?

I voted conservative. not that it matters really in my consttuency - (63% cons)

i wanted an abolition of ID cards - and what o you know - they're gone into the political trash here they always belonged.

the equally ridiculous and iniquitous idea of 'road pricing' has also been binned.

and more cuts. necessary but the structural defecit put in by Brown was running a country like a pyramid scheme - doomed to disaster

I didn't vote Conservative. I did, however, vote Lib Dem, on the principle of voting for someone who had a good track record of being a good constituency MP.

The MP for Sheffield Hallam.

Yes, that's right. Nick Clegg.

Oh well. I wasn't to know... Perhaps he'll have more time for us after the next election...

I think all these threads show is the impossibility of people on either extreme of the political spectrum being able to imagine themselves into the headspace of the other. There is especially a mindset on the Left like this, which simply, literally, cannot envisage the state of being in which one has right-wing views. Furthermore, it's usually the case that people associate with the politically like-minded, and so if everybody at your coffee morning or pub quiz night or dinner party thinks the same as you, it just reinforces the incomprehension. And so the only way to cope with it is to rationalise it by saying that the "other side" has got to be selfish, or nasty, or even "evil".

(I'm someone who had very little time for Mrs Thatcher, but I'm still going to leave the Internet for five days or so after she dies, because I simply won't be able to stand the things that some otherwise good people will be saying.)

Usualsuspect. Take your point on that, I must say that it did give you somewhere to go in the day, especially in the winter! Me and my mates, left Surestart with a nice cup of tea and sat in the Park, ahh those were the days....great times!

The surestart round here was attended and used by the people it was intended for ...but thats because it was in the middle of a council estate ..not many au-pairs and middle class mummies round these parts

P.S. Surestart was a load of bollocks and waste of time. I attended two Surestart centres, mostly attended, by yummy-mummies and the middle classes.It was meant to be aimed at the Bangladeshi community, but they never attended, (but bless em, the workers did employ a Muslim girl with headscarf, and when that did not work they gave up!) the classes paid and run for by the tax payers, were for instance 'the challenging years' 'how to cope with your child'. Everyone at the class was middle class, or au-pairs, apart from one woman who was told to attend by Social Services! it has been well recorded that Surestart did not change the life chances of poor children one jot, It cost millions, another labour initiative and waste of money. A strategy that was well intended but not well thought out.

No I didn't, I voted for Lib Dem to keep the Tory candidate out.

We have been hit hard. Single parent with one teen, losing EMA in the summer, even though it was supposed to be awarded for 2 yrs. DD will be affected by the rise in tuition fees.

Of course people who are not affected will think they are doing a splendid job.

Dotnet 'Lord Snooty and his pals?' are you talking about Nick Clegg who attended Westminster? Or the political intelligentsia of Primrose Hill, Milliband?

The Cons are only fixing what the failed labour government left us with....broke.
Anyone who votes for that bunch of illiberal elitist bunch of bastards is beyond me. This country was nearly finished...ruined. Thank god Cameron had the balls of steel, to implement unpopular policies to save us.

Higher Education for the privaledged few?'
Under labour the school system was ruined, they through their politically correct policies managed to dumb down the educational system to such an extent, that the working classes could not get into University, and in particular the good ones.
These children were not up to it, they could not even get into a fee paying school because they would not be able to pass the entrance exam and they would flounder.

I include my own son in this analogy. He attends one of the top state primaries in this country. There is no way he could get into a fee paying school without tuiton (which I've provided). It angers me that years ago, if you were bright you could get into a top grammar school, but not any more. Please don't harp on about the poor not being looked after by the Tory Party, look at the Labour Party and the mess it made to the education system, how it has eroded discipline and failed all of our children.
I went to a state primary as a child, it was like the best-fee paying school in the land, then!

Pension credit, child tax credit, EMA, pensioners' winter fuel payments, free bus travel for pensioners, Surestart - these were all innovations under Labour - yes?

All of the above, changed ordinary people's lives for the better - pushed upwards a bit on the poverty trapdoor.

I don't know enough about economics to know whether or not Labour messed up, or whether it was mostly the fault of the bankers. I DO remember Gordon Brown being praised for his adroit handling of the economy in the early days.

Vote Conservative? When the Cons are taking us back to the 1950s and earlier, to a time when higher education was for the privileged few... Lord Snooty and his pals - No, I don't think I shall (thanks all the same).

p.s. Oh - Goodmanners - don't give up on voting, though. With any luck, the way things are going, in about a year's time we'll be able to remove the present government in another general election. That can only happen if enough likeminded people turn out to vote.

No, not really.

Yes, it was pretty plain that the Conservative plans for the economy were going to involve some financial pain, job-losses and all the rest. But, to be fair, the Labour party numbers posted pre-election weren't all that much different and Alistair Darling memorably promised cuts 'worse than Thatcher'. Don't worry, there will be plenty of Tory voters signing on for JSA in due course... if that makes you feel better.

Nope (hell freezing over first and all that).

I know it's a silly question, just seems that if you did vote tory, then you must have known what they'd be up to and how they would go about things?

That's a silly question BluTac.... Redundancies affecting 'innocent people' were rife in the period post the 2008 crash. The Coalition doesn't have the monopoly on redundancies.

If you did vote tory, would you be happy to give up your job, so that someone who has been offered redundancy but who didn't vote tory can keep theirs? After all, that's what you voted for, why should innocent people be affected?

"So you're saying by not having universal benefits, you're setting people free from the shackles of dependancy?"

I think there is a fine line between eliminating poverty and creating dependency and, for quite some time, we've been too far on the wrong side of that line.

That would be a no.

No, for all the reasons newwave said

Chil - I agree. I was pretty stunned that middle income families had, seemingly, become so reliant on benefits.

One poster claimed that she had budgeted for a third child based on receiving CTC.

I do wonder if CTC didn't artificially constrain salaries in some way. It's quite worrying when people on above average salaries can't afford to get by without state support.

So you're saying by not having universal benefits, you're setting people free from the shackles of dependancy?

"But if you're wealthy and receiving a benefit, you're not dependent on it, surely?"

The MN message boards were alight with messages when CTC was dropped for wealthy families. Even people on relatively big incomes become reliant on top-ups very quickly. And why do working families need top-ups anyway?.... In the old days Labour supporters would have been marching to Westminster demanding a living wage - not benefits. That's what I mean about manipulation.

But if you're wealthy and receiving a benefit, you're not dependent on it, surely? And if you do need it, well then you need it. It's not so much that it will bankrupt you but it will help a lot if you're really on the breadline.

ID cards - agree. Utterly bonkers and useless idea.

Iraq war - to me, that was Labour's downfall. But not really 'nanny stating' and creating dependancy imo.

90 day detention - very scary and I suppose that is the fear you mean through creating the belief that we needed such legislation.

But the Tories too would have gone to war in Iraq. They all voted for it.

ID cards no.

90 day detention - who knows what the Tories would have done?

I'm thinking there isn't much difference really.

Yes, of course. Labour's introduction of Tax Credits to vast numbers of people including wealthy families is one example of how they attempted to control us through dependency. Millions became reliant on government for their income and, as the phrase has it, 'he who pays the piper calls the tune'. And then we had the whole WMD/Iraq mess, moves for 90 day detention, DNA databases, identity cards to keep us nicely nervous that we weren't safe and needed looking after by Westminster.

Maybe micromanagement wasn't the right word and 'nanny state' has been done to death, but I think the approach made us rather lazy and less resourceful.

Bit vague, Chili. Sorry. Could you be more specific?

@WinkyWinkola. By creating dependency and fear. Carrot and stick.