I'm at a loss - why are the LD's being punished and who is voting Tory?

mellow - that's an entirely fair point. Too few journalists have a maths or science background so most of 'em struggle with stats. When teenagers ask me what subjects they should take to get into journalism, I always ask if they enjoy science, because it will make them stand out.

Spot the tribal labour supporters on here. Jeez.

Edam - I am not insulting all journalists, btw - I have great respect for the ones who do their jobs properly. Hope no-one takes it like that.

Lol at LFN! (How can you robustly defend tax avoidance??)

Carmina, journalists often don't check their sources. For example, front page of Telegraph and Daily Mail on the day that Osama Bin Laden was caught: they both said he had used his wife as a human shield. That turns out to be totally incorrect. Other papers said the same.

Also, some journalists are not trained mathematicians, and don't know how to analyse statistics. They know that people like to read about benefit scroungers so they look up some 'survey'. All that means is that some interest group or other has picked on a certain group of people, asked them certain questions designed to elicit certain answers and reported their 'research'. Journalist comes along and quotes it. For example, I could go round to four of my neighbours and ask them if they work and if they have ever received benefits from the state. They would all say 'no' to the first question and 'yes' to the second. Neighbour A is disabled, Neighbour B is the rich elderly widow of a colonel, Neighbour C is the 68-year-old owner of at least 11 highly-priced, prime-location properties which she lets to professional couples and Neighbour D was injured in Afghanistan. That gets reported as 'Benefit scroungers'.

Carmina, sorry for going on at such length, as I am sure you know this. The main job of newspapers is to sell newspapers.

so you don't have any evidence, then?

(And you obviously missed the bit in my post where I pointed out I'm a journalist...)

Edam: newspapers tend to have a habit of delivering the 'news' I think it's what they're supposed to do - journos are paid to research things because us mere mortals haven't got the time. Articles are backed up with statistics and evidence - if they weren't, the Times may as well employ Mickey Mouse as chief political editor.

Personally, I am surprised that the Tory share is holding up so well.

After all, on everything but the economy and education, Cameron has not acted like a Tory at all.

He has betrayed our brave military. He has sold us out to the EU. He is backtracking on privatising the NHS. He has not curbed the power of militant trade unions. He has not scrapped the 50% tax rate. He has conceded to the left on tax avoidance, instead of robustly defending it. He has conceded to the left on "inequality".

He is too one-nation. He needs to be more Thatcherite. He needs to be more ruthless.

Carmina, I asked you if you could back up your opinions with facts and statistics. All you seem to have is vague claims of newspaper articles. You do realise that newspaper articles are not proof, don't you? (I'm a journalist, btw. When I make a claim in an article, I back it up, pointing readers to original sources where they can check or citing an expert they can look up. But then I write about health. Stuff about 'benefits scroungers' tends to be rather less evidence-based.)

Did anyone hear "Thinking Allowed" on R4 this week Re: the "feckless poor"? in a nutshell: Poor people are loath to describe themselves as poor and normalise their poverty. But they make up a myth of the benefit scroungers. When asked by the researcher on the proogram who these scroungers are(so they can interview them) , they cannot identify them. ||It is a myth put about to make the poor feel better about their situation, a sort of "at least we're nott lkike that". It's still on iplayer and well worth a listen.

All labour did to make their unemployment figures look half decent was to take people off one list and stick them on another one - off the dole and onto 'sickness' benefit - People on sickness benefit were no longer included in the jobless totals - way hey!

Excuse me but that was first started by Thatcher when they saw their policies were pushing unemployment towards 4 million. This from a party who in 1979 with one million unemployed said "Labour isnt working" and then (as now) sent unemployment rocketing.

Thatcher also changed the way unemployment was calculated four times to reduce the headline figure.

carmina, that's rubbish. You may be aware of similar claims made against the tories in the 90's. Also rubbish.

It basically just serves to perpetuate the myth that a large proportion of those on IB/ESA/DLA are just lazy twats, swinging the lead. Of course, that makes it so much easier to justify cuts.

Abr1de - Im sorry to hear your DH lost his job and your work is drying up. This illustrates another point very well;

Wages like yours and DH's not only supported your family, but also your local economy. Perhaps he bought a coffee every day, creating work and employment in the local cafe. Perhaps you go to a yoga class and provide a job for the teacher. You go to a restaurant now and then, with a chef and a waiter, etc.

So thats at least 4 jobs you are supporting with your wages. If one salary goes, you have to cut back - perhaps no more restaurants, and no more coffees. thats 3 jobs that are less viable, for the price of one.

This illustrates how Tory policies actively damage our economy.

The figures actually show that welfare was a much smaller proportion of spending in the labour years, and tories spent much more on welfare.

Its one of those interesting 'unintended consequences', but its also pretty damn obvious that if you sack hundreds of thousands in the midst of a recession, your unemployment support bill will increase, and your tax receipts will drop.

Does anyone find this hard to understand?? How can it be explained any simpler?

All labour did to make their unemployment figures look half decent was to take people off one list and stick them on another one - off the dole and onto 'sickness' benefit - People on sickness benefit were no longer included in the jobless totals - way hey!

Lies and spin - that's all labour are good at.

Really carmin and where is this estate where all these feckless people live? And how do you know that these people would not like to find a job? What evidence is it that you have for these assertions?
By the way, how old are these 50% of people? Because unless they are all aged 30 or under, then I don't see how this is a Labour issue- since that's about the age school leavers aged 16 in 1997 would now be.

carmina, how much do think is actually spent on these scores of people who ought to be working but refuse to?

According to the Daily Mail in 2009/2010, of the approx £150 billion spent on welfare, only 3.6 billion was spent on JSA.

Please don't kid yourself the tories are concerned about the sick and disabled. They've set totally arbitrary figures for cuts in these areas, with no regard to need.

Wook - there are people who have been claiming benefits for years - entire generations have never worked and don't want to work. I know of council estates where 50% of it's residents have never worked and are in no hurry to find a job.

' And why should employers bother paying any more when the same government decides that all of it's employees struggling to make ends meet on this state sanctioned low wage will be topped up with benefits?'
So giddy I'm trying to follow your logic. You appear to be suggesting that the minimum wage is actually responsible for low pay and unfair wages and the benefits system is responsible for the lack of decent, affordable childcare? And you suggest that, should the market be unfettered by the state, wages would be raised and childcare providers would reduce their rates?
I didn't realise it was all so simple, let's end benefits now and see the philanthropy of the private sector in action!

Edam; I could link you a 1000 reports/newspaper articles to back up my claims - but I won't waste my time or yours as we both know I'm right.
DC is taking the benefit culture very seriously which is why he introduced the welfare reform bill a few months ago -if I was making sweeping generalisations I doubt we'd be seeing the biggest change to the welfare system in over 60 years / so my claims' are all too real - unfortunately.

Quite so Edam re the crap pay
And caminaburina who are these people who see benefits as a 'lifelong' option? The welfare state has only place since the second world war ended, ie 65 years or so. Are you telling me that after ww2 some people went on benefits and never came off? Because they would be the only people in Britain who had been on benefits for life!

I'm so glad I live in red Leicester tonight

thats what we think of the Tories and lib dems

carmina, do you have any facts and figures to back up those rather sweeping assertions? Would be interested to see any you can find.

Many of the people in poverty are actually working - but working for such shit wages they can't afford to mend their shoes when the soles wear out. When you say people can't afford to take jobs, one way of reading that is that there are far too many shit jobs paying shit money that doesn't allow people to live in decent housing or decent conditions. Not the Ritz, just walls that aren't damp.

There's a big difference in caring for the genuinely vulnerable, ie; the disabled and the people who are out of work through no fault of their own - and making a life on benefits so attractive you can't see the point in working ( as is the case for lots of people ) not eveyone on benefits is a poor vulnerable person, some refuse jobs because they'll be worse off financially - that is a fact. The welfare state was designed as a safety net to help people until they got back on their feet - it wasn't designed to be a lifelong option.

Abr1de 'Us Tories believe hard work brings prosperity. My family is suffering a big setback at the moment owing to redundancy but I have no doubt that we will bounce back, because we have a work ethic and a strong belief in the strength of the family. We aren't rich but we are enterprising and have grit. That's why we are Tories, we don't believe that the State owes us a living. We will sort ourselves out, thanks. We will do any kind of work to keep our house and standard of living, and we do not whinge like Socialists.'

Oh jesus wept! Just like you Abr1de, my husband and I have a 'work ethic'. Just like you, we don't believe that the state 'owes' us a living. Just like you, we work our bloody socks off to maintain our standard of living.
Unlike you, however, we have an autistic child and, unlike you, I believe that society should care about what happens to him when I am dead, and what support he will receive from the state. Because, you see, it is how we collectively care for, support and look after the most vulnerable in our society that makes us human.