TORIES

Skihorse- not sure what you are trying to say - that voting for a party that doesn't financially benefit you as an individual is a luxury? or just trying to dismiss any view points/stance that doesn't tally with your blinkered view of the world?
what level of income/financial status should I have where a vote for labour could be seen as

1. not one bought by the government
2. an easy altruisitic gesture

I think if your income is tenuous and you're struggling to pay bills you would be barmy not to vote to protect your own family TBH

But a factor of that is realising that anyone is vulnerable to such things as cdisability and illness,and that by factoring that into your equations you are also helping to protect them.

Exactly where that leads you is up to you and indeed I don'tthink I tend to tell people how I vote on here, people think they know but would be surprised (but not Tory, I said surpised not amazed )

Which brings me back to my earlier point - it's easy to be "altruistic" when you have everything. E.g., the couple in Oxford who've vowed to give away everything over 20k... I guess the house/car/etc. is already paid off.

2old4thislark I agree with everything you've posted. Good logical sense.

Sorry x-posted Peachy, I was going to say the same - it's a false idea that many or even most people on benefits are doing it because they are lazy. Some maybe. Most people need the money, and you can see on here how hard it can be for people to get hold of things to which they are totally entitled.

Totally agree albinosquirrel.

I find it funny the conversations about selfishness on here.

Tories: Don't be selfish and just think about maintaining the benefits you need to live on. Think of the future of the economy. Oh yes and it might well make me better off, goody.

Others: Don't be selfish, vote for a party that will try to alleviate poverty and protect the rights of vulnerable people, even if I/you do not come under that category.

You know 2old,I dont thimnk there are many who do squander CA- apart from it being £53 (with 2 disabled kids need 1-1 that amopunts to 17p an hours)thecriteria by which it is awarded screens out people who could possibly avoid the work. I do now of a case of that with DLA, it was stopped immediately and indeed carepased to Nan who was then barredfromclaiming becuase of what her daughter had done - the blockwas on the child not the Nan, bizarrely.

And yes I do think I am different but I am stillelarning that, it takes time to get past the guilt.

Suburbia is a bit different but ruralpoverty is a realisue,and for them a car is so important to getting back on the earning ladder.
Benefits shouldnt be set solow they prevent peopleaccessing work after all.I can understand POV'slike your sisters, but its something that does vary enormously.

2old - I don't receive any benefits and have always paid taxes -higher rate for many years, never received tax credits. I will vote Labour.

I probably would be better off under the Tories (caveating since there is absolutely no substance detail to any of their policies)and am lucky enough to think that most of my friends/families wouldn't suffer but i don't think you should vote on that basis. My vote would go to the party who (on balance) would give to the people who need it - not as some reward.
The only details that emerge from Cameron etc are inheritence tax cuts- whioch benefits only the rich, desire to keep capital gains tax low (ditto), married couple allowances....nothing to those who need it.

On balance I would rather some people on benefits were able to spend money on cigarettes/holidays to ensure that there weren't people on benefits who couldn't afford to buy food/shelter/shoes for their children

Peachy - you know you are a world apart from those who squander the FA on fags and down the pub!

We live in suburbia so things are a bit different here. My daughter works next to the local job centre and is forever having rows with people who use their car park (and they turn up in the PJ's!).

Unfortuneately there are people who spend benefits, CA etc on themselves before taking care of their children. When my SIL was on benefits she could still afford a holidays in Spain! But then she was doing cleaning for cash.....

When I say 'bought' votes - I mean that they have created a section of the community who is reliant on the current benefits system so will vote Labour to obviously try and keep it. Ok some people need benefits because of bad luck. However, others need benefits because they have made choices that they cannot afford to fund.

Agree about the elderly and pride but its not just them- BIL has a condition that could killhim any time,and esp. in surgery on the 7th, he is 32. he rarely makes it to work,neeeds the looup to 200 times a day and is seriosuly under nourished (ulcerativecolitis,missed at first toprogressed severely and needs a resection and bag).

Willhe claim?nope. Would chmnage things formy sister who is really struggling as a carer and working,my parents who are exhausted elderly and providing childcare he cannot do... but pride tells him no. misplaced pride I think, there is pride in helping those who are victims,just not those who make the choice to be in perpetual need.

Was just responding to your post, 2old:

"Reading through the threads on here - it would appear the workers/tax payers who do not receive benefits or tax credits will be voting Tory. And those who receive part or all their income from the Govt will be voting Labour! Labour has succeeded in buying votes just as it intended!"

My suggestion was that those who receive "part or all of their income from the government" may be more averse to tory rule not because they have been "bought", but because they need those benefits and fear that Tories will slash them from some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the country. And it is hardly surprising if there is a correlation between receiving benefits (for any reason) and supporting labour, as labour kind of invented benefits.

Frankly though labour today are unrecognisable - i was astonished when i went to a talk by a true old labour man, and realised that I would once have been a natural labour voter. Could have knocked me down with a feather, as I'm only acquainted with New Labour [retch] and their tuition-fee introducing, sucking up to business people, privatisation-crazy ways.

Doesn't taking away the ability to run a car,especially in ruralarea,seriously limit peopleschances of everworking?

Dh uses a car to get to Uni every day,the buses don't goearly enough and there is no train station.I need a car here because the SNU is 10km+ awayand I regualrly go in, agagin no buses.

Now,I completely acknowledge that you stated on another thread that you see carers and the disabled as different,and indeed it is DLA that funds the second car. But can you see that if you live outside cities etc lack of transport may seriously prevent working, especially in any role that wants flexiblility (DH's last job involved a commute home at 5am- night shifts- no buses then wherever you live,certainly not in this area!)

I don't understand how anyone can afford to smoke for sure. But allowing a tiny amount of leeway (and it is tiny,I will have £15 left on the last day of the month if nothing comes up,and it almost always does, think it isgoing to be another replacement PEkit actually) simply means that if a childloses their coat or breaks shoes or comes home with a note about a trip they can be sorted.

Now Ok,our finances are different to many: CA is reward for work done,and DLA is a payment intended to cover the costs of a disability which can be huge. But given we do get a bit more,I cannot possibly see how much leeway there is under standard benefits without depriving your family in someway, which is very hard to battle isn't it?

Doesn't taking away the ability to run a car,especially in ruralarea,seriously limit peopleschances of everworking?

Dh uses a car to get to Uni every day,the buses don't goearly enough and there is no train station.I need a car here because the SNU is 10km+ awayand I regualrly go in, agagin no buses.

Now,I completely acknowledge that you stated on another thread that you see carers and the disabled as different,and indeed it is DLA that funds the second car. But can you see that if you live outside cities etc lack of transport may seriously prevent working, especially in any role that wants flexiblility (DH's last job involved a commute home at 5am- night shifts- no buses then wherever you live,certainly not in this area!)

I don't understand how anyone can afford to smoke for sure. But allowing a tiny amount of leeway (and it is tiny,I will have £15 left on the last day of the month if nothing comes up) simply means that if a childloses their coat or breaks shoes or comes home with a note about a trip they can be sorted.

Now Ok,our finances are different to many: CA is reward for work done,and DLA is a payment intended to cover the costs of a disability which can be huge. But given we do get a bit more,I cannot possibly see how much leeway there is under standard benefits without depriving your family in someway, which is very hard to battle isn't it?

Oh and I have a big mortgage to buy a nice house in a nice area (and I am very grateful for my lot) - I'm not complaining.

At least there'll be something to sell to pay some inheritance tax or for my care home!

Elephants - why does everyone suggest that 'trimming' benefits means a complete abscence of a welfare state? That's not what ANYONE wants. There can be a happy medium.

Am I the only one who gets irritated that some people on benefits can afford to smoke, go to the pub, run a car and go on foreign holidays?

And again don't think Labour has done the elderly of this country any favours. A lot of old people are managing on a lot less than some benefits claimants and/or are too proud to claim any help.

POverty IME isn't about having X pounds,it is about an absence of choices.

When DH wasill,I went back to work (many years ago) early from maternity leave. When needed I took on more hours,or Dh did. We could move where the work was,and wecould be flexible.

Now we cannot make those choices, losing our tenancy may wellmean we cannot find a newlandlady as the first thing ak isn;t 'areyou working''or can you afford the rent' (wecan) but 'areyou in ft work?'. I cannot take on any work, and whilst I fully admit that having ds4 at home is something I missed with older ds's (back them at leave was limited to 12 weeks, I went back at 9) I certainly envisage a future of weeping into my tea with boredom.

The restrictions placed upon someone to change things when they are poor is far more life changing I think than the actual income level (assuming you are fed and clothed). It's frustrating and I am battling to accept it.

Don't think it's buying votes, 2old. The reality is that the issues that the benefits system works with have pretty much been around for ever. Thinking of illness, childbearing, old age, ill family members, injury or disability etc. I'm no expert on the history of politics (although thanks for the link manfrom) but labour was, I thought, set up to alleviate the poverty of the working class, who were extremely low-paid (what's new eh?) and couldn't cushion the blows of such events. If you read something like Robert Tressell's Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, it paints a terrifying picture of the consequences of an absence of social security. Hardly surprising that people in the same situation nowadays are going to be freaking out at the prospect of their needed benefits being taken away. Poverty is not just a word, it's a real thing. Hard to imagine that those on here complaining that they have to live on tuppence a day despite high incomes can understand this really. If you are earning a lot of money, but end up with none to spend on essentials such as food and clothes, presumably (except in exceptional cases) it is going on the mortgage? What about moving to a smaller house, or one in a less nice area? Sure I'm heading for a flaming with this but I just don't get it.

Oh my god Peachy cannot believe you have just been described at the deserving poor, how bloody patronising can you get? Perhaps we should try to identify the "deserving rich"? Or if you're loaded do you still win the right not to have your daily finances scrutinise critically by tutting parish ladies?

Well when I said 'income from the govt' I was implying benefits etc.

However I suppose some public sector workers will be concerned how they will fare under a Tory govt as this sector has become rather bloated in some areas under Labour.

How can it be right that some County Council leaders earn more than the PM?

Dh is public sector, so technically we receive our income from the Government, but given how this lot have screwed HM Forces, we will not be voting for them. They haven't bought our votes.

Reading through the threads on here - it would appear the workers/tax payers who do not receive benefits or tax credits will be voting Tory. And those who receive part or all their income from the Govt will be voting Labour!

Labour has succeeded in buying votes just as it intended!

When the economy was booming and there was a reputed 600 000 jobs to fill they took the easy option and opened the country's doors! They knew it would be a vote loser and a politically dangerous move to encourage the long term unemployed back into work. The result is that wages at the lower end have been driven down by the influx of migrant workers. Students and younger people now find it very difficult to get even low paid part time work.

And just to back it up, my friend who works in the bank in a local town with a high degree of social housing (read between the lines)finds it depressing that the only ones who seem to be working are foreign! (sorry that's probably politically incorrect). All the original inhabitants are on benefits!

Labour may have given some people money but it has taken away their prospects and independence. Does any one beleive that's it good for a human being to sit around all day doing nothing? (I'm talking long term unemployed - not single mums!) I know that if I keep busy that I can stave off depression and keep positive.

I think these people should be doing voluntary work for charities which would would help themselves and help other people.
Am I being a bit naive? Probably.

As far as I can see if you earn a reasonable amount of money (read, don't get help from government at present) and are confident that your circumstances will not change in that respect, then a Tory vote will probably make no difference to you or make you better off.
If however you are not so lucky then you will be f**ed if conservatives get in.
The problem is that most of the tory voters will go out and vote but a large proportion of people with low incomes are not bright enough to realise (and therefore be motivated enough to get off their arses to vote against tory) how a change in government will affect them.
I for one will be voting labour because it is one vote not for conservatives, not because I paticularly like the current government. I simply know that a tory government will be worse for my family and I believe for people in general.
I actually prefer the lib dems but despite what the media will tell you there are people capable of tactical voting, and I would rather give my vote to the party most likely to keep conservatives out this time.

Our Labour candidate is going to vote for the continuation of unpayable debt which will end up with us going to the IMF and our grandchildren paying off our unsustainable borrowing.

Depressing...

At least the foxes will be able to rummage through the uncollected bins.

Our Tory candidate is going to vote back in hare coursing, stag hunting and fox hunting.

Depressing...

Hi ElenorRigby

My position on this is quite complex. I experienced 8 very difficult years nursing my mother with dementia. I was never happy with the support that was available.

My interest in all of this predates my joining the labour party, and my initial contacts with my MP were purely to complain about how awful it all was.

What happened is that I began to research the problem of care and care funding very thoroughly.

What i found is that we hadn't set aside money in the way that Sweden had back in the 1970s, and because that we had a pretty huge funding gap opening up by the mid 1990s. This was coupled with the very rapid increase in life expectancy (drugs and acute medicine)so that people were living not just into their 70s and perhaps 80s, but into their 90s and 100s.

John major's solution to the funding gap that this was causing for the health service was to set up the trend that you spotted of closing down the geriatric hospitals and moving people into community care. You had the trend towards privatisation and the rapid expansions of small private care homes at that time.

None of that was necessarily wrong, but it did shift the funding burden from health service, and therefore free at the point of need, to Care service and therefore means tested. A lot of people protested fairly strongle which is why this was an issue in the 1997 election

When Labour came in in 1997 they did what they had promised to do and set up a royal commission to look at how care funding could be better managed. I think that when they came in they were committed to live with the Conservative spending restraints for the first years, and therefore I think when they realised the financial implications of implimenting the full recommendations of the royal commission they panicked. They did then what they did with a number of subsequent reports. They picked up the major recommendation of the problems that needed correcting most urgently, so we have been through the process of taking back the costs that were clearly "health care" into health funding, and trying to distinguish between health and social care.

The reason that I personally think that the National Social Care Package really matters -and it is no skin off my nose if we dont get it, but it could certainly benefit many of you, is that this is the first time when there has been a really thoroughly researched approach to working out how we can deal with funding the vast increase in the very elderly we are expecting in the next 50 years.

As I have indicated most of the impetus for this came from ordinary people, many of whom had like myself gone through the experience of dealing with the last illnesses of their relatives. The consultations were not government led, but they were listened to very thoroughly.

I am certainly no defender of the status quo. I want us to have something much better. It is of course up to you to decide if you are more likely to get a service that we can all be happy with by design, or by the chance that a combination of private sector providers and volunteers will spontaneiously develop services of equal quality all over the country and that we will all happily decide to go out and buy care insurance!

I would estimate that my mother's care cost my family in the region of £100,000. (rather more than that if you start trying to calculate my loss of earnings) The quality was never good enough. If she had been poorer she would have been looked after, If she had been richer, then none of this would have been a problem, she would have had a pension big enough to cover her care fees. It is the people in the middle who are suffering now from this.

I see many of my friends heading towards all of this and I can see it is preventable. All it takes is the kind of vision and will that was there there when my parent's generation decided to set up the NHS

Last post SOOO badly worded!

What is wrong with the 'Hard line Socialists'. Genuine question because I know a BIT about socialism, but don't understand what is wrong with it!
(Other than that my mother is 'A Socialist!!!)