I won't be voting Tory because...

I will be voting conservative because I want a small state and after tonight it looks like Sarahmumsnet needs to start packing.

'I just can't face voting for a party run by a small band of over-privileged individuals who seem to have to have no real experience of what life actually is for 99% of the people they want to govern' Ummm... doesn't that describe all the three mainstream parties?

I'm actually old enough to remember pre thatcherite labour government who were entirely responsible for Thatcher with their mismanagment of the economy.

POlitics has moved so far to the centre that I don;t beleive that is particularly helpful to compare pre 1990s politics with current.

Besides the numbers are going to be so tight I find it difficult to believe that any party will have a big enough majority to put through any extreme policies - Thatchers govt effectively had no opposition.

Because I'm a socialist.

Because I don't believe the NHS is safe with them.

I'm a swing voter but won't be voting Tory this time although I think Labour need to go or be in a hung parliament.
Don't think Tory Osborne is capable as Chancellor; too weak,inexpericenced, shifty and we don't need that with the state of the economy. Besides he's Cameron's old mate from Eton and Uni and not there on merit. Perhaps if it were Ken Clarke with some expereince the situation would be different but there again the Tory's always strangle the NHS which Labour have improved. I no longer wait 3-24hrs in accident and emergency!

I'm a swing voter but won't be voting Tory this time although I think Labour need to go or be in a hung parliament.
Don't think Tory Osborne is capable as Chancellor; too weak,inexpericenced, shifty and we don't need that with the state of the economy. Besides he's Cameron's old mate from Eton and Uni and not there on merit. Perhaps if it were Ken Clarke with some expereince I would consider but there again the Tory's always strangle the NHS which Labour have improved.

ilovemydogandmrobama - gosh , impressive political history reference.

Afraid Cameron is just too good to slip up though. He really is the consummate, born to lead politician. I looked at the photo of handsome Dave and his wonderfully pregnant and decent wife and melted. I wish them both well. THis will be his time, whether we like it or not.

TDiddy

Think London Oratory is a state school?

Along the same lines, post WW II, the rally cry was, 'Cheer Churchill, Vote Labour...'

Dunno, the rich got richer under Labour but there was more redistribution under Labour than previous 3 decades so dunno about all you say. I don't really care about accents or which school people go to. Not so interested in class war and rhetoric but the facts of policy (and core values).

"By expatinscotland Thu 18-Mar-10 00:32:38
'I think its an old boys network out to make themselves richer.'

I think they are, too. And if they are not then I know people like us, the working poor, just don't even merit a blip on their radars. They just don't even care enough to find out, how we live. I'll bet they can't even conceive, of the concept of a working poor."

Funny that, it sounded just like you were talking about labour there.

The richest MP is a Labour man. Blair, Brown and all there mates sent there kids to posh school. They all had rich mates bankrolling labour,. Harman has aristocratic parents.

Furthermore, this labout party is not a socialist labour party, its pretty much thatcher through and through they stole all of Thatchers policies and Blair admits he admires Thacher.

On the other hand, the Blairites hate the left, and have disdain for the working class. Half of them even effect an Estuary English accent, like Blair.

Labour has turned its back on the working class, the last socialist leader was Michael Foot, 28 years ago. How would have thought the Labour party knew so little about the working class they invented a 10p tax band that ONLY hit the poorest people ?

ilovemydogandbarack - yes, i actually really like Dave Cameron. He is so comfortable in his own skin (aot Gordon) but it isn't about that, is it. Once every 5 years, gotto do deh right ting, eh

Absolutely! Please vote, whatever your party/beliefs.

Funny thing is that I used to live in a constituency with a Tory MP. He was hilarious, highly entertaining, quite enjoyed his company, but wouldn't vote for him/his party in a million years!

spaceforthree- thanks. Seems like I am in safe as houses Tory seat. I still think people should vote even if tactically.

You are my type re: voting outlook btw.

www.voterpower.org.uk/ to see if your vote counts candiceb

Me and DH should be perfect Tories - professionals, well educated, hit by 50% tax under Labour, live in well heeled area blah blah. As a result the Tory candidate showed up to check he could count on our vote. NO HE CANNOT. Because although I bet we'd personally be better under the Tories I really don't think their backers (or the wider party) have the slightest interest in ordinary people. They are a bunch of self interested, smug little Englanders.

I've always voted Labour but probably not this time.......(still fed up with that tax thing).

If only lib dem wasn't a 'wasted vote'. Couldn't face voting for cameron

all4um- that is reservation I have about the Tories. Nice Mr Cameron hiding the face of an intolerant that is really full of John Redwood types who see tax cuts as an end in itself. The old Thatcherite, laissez faire doctrine.

I am married with 3 children and only work part time so would benefit from the Tories married couples allowance. But I just don't think its a fair tax allowance.

My sister in law has a young daughter and works full time. She is a single mum after her husband left her for another man a few years ago.

The bizarre effect of the Conservative policy would be to give him a tax break for committing to a civil partnership with his new boyfriend but she woul get nothing.

She already earns much less than my husband and I do so it seems bizarre that we would be better off and she wouldn't.

Also I don't see the logic of their argument. Do they honestly think that people will stay in loveles relationships for the sake of £150 a year.

Even if it was more money over time I still think it would be awful to have a load of people married just for the 'tax advantage' and not for love.

It seems to me to be a very confused and unfair policy.

Mind you - you could have a new Tory election slogan along the lines of "Vote Tory for a loveless marriage" ?

"DC may be OK but the party machine only chose him to obtain a winning acceptable image and will nobble him if he steps out of line"

Strangely I remember my mum using almost exactly those words about Tony Blair in 1997 - when I told her I was voting Labour! She often reminds me!

I could not vote Tory because I actually went to a Tory Party conference a few years back - invited to be on a fringe meeting panel as I worked for a charity - and was flabbergasted to see how old , predominently male and 'county' they all were! The younger generation were virtually absent and my big impression spending the day wandering round and absorbing/listening was that they were, quite literally, dying out! Also that they were not in the real world - just trying to claw back/keep what they had.
So be warned - DC may be OK but the party machine only chose him to obtain a winning acceptable image and will nobble him if he steps out of line... the biggest irony of all about this reinvention is the slogan - since when have conservatives been about change? I would love to discuss that one on the doorstep but no-one canvasses in rural areas!

Dave is a nice guy. My sort of guy and I would probably be better off in the short term with him as PM but his party has never been about looking after the vulnerable in society. So I have a lot of thinking to do.

Truth is there is very little difference operationally between the parties so one has to look at core values.

Also, the Tories made all bad calls on recent big issues such as Iraq, laissiez faire approach to Financial Sector so not convinced they would have done any better.

Dismiss the needs of who livenletlive?

I am the sterotype of what Labour is supposed to be helping and supporting. But tax credits would be no help to me if I wasn't prepared to make majorly unconventional lifestyle choices - otherwise I'd be trapped in a minimum wage job, working just to pay the parts of my childcare, housing/council tax bills that decrease as my earnings rise.

I am not at all dismissing the needs of those working but on low incomes - I am arguing that the 'solution' Labour have implemented is not a sustainable longterm strategy but a short term fix. The only long term solution is to look at why the cost of living is so much greater than the wages of the majority of people, and to take actions to bring it back into balance over a period of years - I see nothing in any of Labours policies that make me think they will move away from people being dependent on them (can you say 'vote winner'?) towards people being truely self-sufficent.

having looked at previous parts of this thread anastasia, the travesty is that, as you, a Tory government dismisses the needs of.
Don't vote for them parents with babies/small children who both choose to go to work in order to have a better life. The money being withdrawn is 200mill against a Tory philosophy that marriage is better and indeed will support it to the tune of 550mill. It's about the numbers game and votes, but as said previously nobody should be tricked into believing that £3 per week for a couple is more important that chaper childcare facilities for needy families as providied by Surestart. This provision must be protected but won't be under the Tories.
Don't vote for them!!!!!!!!!!!!

But do you not see the contradiction in encouraging self-sufficancy through ongoing government support.

If people/couples of up to £50,000 need tax credit help to pay for childcare longterm they are NOT self-sufficent.

Tax credits needed to be a short term solution to families living in poverty with a move away from it towards less government involvment over time - the Labour government seem to intend to provide this support forever.

Same with SureStart - the government should have accepted the expense of setting up the scheme - but with long term plans to only fund some of the provision. To have expected to fully fund such a programme knowing we were headed to a global recession is short sighted at the least. I'm not sure why you think my comments would mean only helping those who are fairly self-sufficent - as the article jackstarbright linked to shows, the original ideas for surestart worked far more along those lines and there were concerns from people involved in that about the direction the government took it in.

And despite being a single working mother - I actually think that the idea of equalising the gap in the tax credit system - where a couple earning the same amount if they both worked aren't entitled to the same if only one of them work - as you say, home/work for couples with children should be a matter for the couples, Labour shouldn't be awarding higher tax credits to couples who both work a min of 16 hours - it should be only on family income. I do however disagree with it being decided on marriage when the rest of the tax credit system goes on 'living with as though married'.

Anataisia - Brilliance would really be that if the Tories do get in they would pick up and run with Surestart under 3 provision. But of course brilliance is not in their gift! All that you mention is to help those who are mainly self sufficient anyway.
Brilliant is to look at existing needy families who want to try to be self sufficient and can be if nursery support is within their means.

This allows those, mainly women, to not to have to go on benefits.

What is a complete no-brainer is that the Tories in a transperent and feeble attempt to cast for votes is to give tax breaks of average £150 p year (£3 per week!) as a pro-marriage tax incentive. That money - more than twice as much, is being taken our of childcare at Surestart. This could be used to help support marriages, those with children where 2 wages are necessary and other parents who WANT to feel self sufficient.

It's wonky politics, that has nothing to do with giving help to young families, has nothing to do with raising esteem amongst mothers and certainly has nothing to do with helping children of those parents.

It's damning of the Tories that they can pull the rug from under families who, with practical support for their children, can get out of the benefits syndrome. Giving tax breaks to those who don't need support just because they get married is artificial - but simply part of the destructive actions of a party who want to continue to socially engineer women and keep them in the home.

Home/work for women with children is a matter between couples and their banks, not politicians. Again closing Surestart to the most needy and vulnerable in our society is just the start of the wreckage and destruction that will be adminstered if they get a smell of power. Don't vote Tory!!!!!

I've just had a look at the thread on I Won't Be Voting Labour Because and it confirms my worst fears about the Tories - selfish and bigoted (and STILL banging on about benefits scroungers). Best advert for voting Labour I've ever read. Is it so wrong to want things to be better for everyone in this country, rather than just lining your own pockets, which seems to be the main Tory reference point for how to vote.