Have you been worse off since the tories came into power?

[samram]

Just wondered if anybody else is worse off since they came into power?
i work 16 hours a week as single parent
Child care is £88 a week term time and £120 half term.
In april i had my tax credits cut by £65 a week!
I am really really struggling at the moment.
Just wondered if anyone else is the same ?
I dont just mean single parents and mean families too !

have had to take a part time job at weekends to make ends meet, am at hone during the wk so dont pay child care , but family life at wk ends has gone out the window.x

Glad to see the back of Gordon Brown if I'm honest but really not happy that Dave and Gideon are running the show.

Tories can bleat on all they like about Nulabour spending too much (it was obvious to most that they were and that's a big part of the reason they lost the election) but right up until 2007, just before the credit crunch the Tories were committing to matching Labour spending (in fact they planned on increasing in certain areas like the NHS ).

I'm not convinced things would have been that wildly different had the Tories been in power, apart from maybe even less regulation in the city and a few less hospitals being built.

50% of Tory donations come from the city, and those in financial services don't seem to be made to feel the pain, as per usual it's those on low and middle incomes that are being hit the hardest.

didnt thik tories would revert to toffs daft move

Yes. I can accept the financial loss, even though it bloody hurts, but what has really made me worse off is the increasingly negative attitude towards women, and single mothers in particular, that is being actively encouraged by the Tories through their policies.

Just as an example, how on earth can it be fair to charge women for using the CSA and then tax their maintenance when the actual problem in such cases is men not taking responsibility for their children. Where are the policies making it clear that having children and then abdicating all responsibility for them is not acceptable. And before anyone goes all gender equality on me, lets remember that 92% of single parents are women.

Men dont have to take responsibility for their children when the taxpayer is there to pick up the tab.

And it works both ways - why have a man about the house when the taxpayer is the 'breadwinner'? Plenty of single mums who choose to be, and in fact planned it that way all along.

Condem policies that directly or indirectly lead to more of the traditional family unit should be encouraged. Its not the states job to bring up a generation of kids.

We're worse off but we're ok at the moment, I'm worried about all the people who will be really hit. And I do blame the Tories. What's wrong with all the people here who've been brainwashed by Tory/Lib Dem rhetoric?

There are estimates that a public sector worker's wages get reinvested back in our economy, including local (private) businesses etc, 16 times over. So if that worker's job is cut, it will mean a lot more than one person's job.

Has anyone noticed that austerity measures in Ireland have just deepened the recession and made things worse?

What Labour should have done is sort out some of the mess created by previous Tory governments when they first got elected - particularly with regard to housing and privatisation. What's going to happen to all those old people living in homes currently run by Southern Cross.

I'm just glad my kids were born and I had my maternity leave under a Labour government. That my local council (yes, Labour) did up all the parks and established some excellent children's services under a Labour government. And that my mum's cancer was diagnosed first time under a Labour government - the new one has abolished targets for further tests without which she wouldn't still be here fighting the illness today.

We are better off. Have had increase in earnings and bonuses that cover inflation plus some.

We will lose child benefit of course but will still be better off than this time a year ago because of the increased earnings.

Elkiedee 'There are estimates that a public sector worker's wages get reinvested back in our economy, including local (private) businesses etc, 16 times over. So if that worker's job is cut, it will mean a lot more than one person's job.'

I don't see how that is possible? Are you saying that someone gets paid say £20K and then £320K gets invested back into the economy? where does the extra come from? Doesn't make a jot of sense

microfight - think about it. That worker spends the money, eg. in a shop. The shop worker gets paid. The shop worker spends their money eg. at the gym, the gym staff get paid. The gym staff etc.. etc..

Elkie - great post

Is future one that the affluent will be able to afford to run cars & live outside the cities - Cities will expand further as folk have to relocate to cities for work and cannot afford to live in commuter or rural communities due to fuel costs, and lack of jobs and as for children- the rest of us will be lucky to afford 1 x child - 2 or 3 kids will be a status symbol and obviously since this country has refused to invest in public transport any meaningful way - and i have yet to see an electric socket for electric cars - i will be travelling on shoddy, late, overcrowded transport - Oh and the kicker is that the richer folk can send their kids to any university they want as they can simply buy a place - Oh and if you are out of work you can volunteer to keep your local liberary open - A large glass of rose for me - nothing has really shifted in terms of society - the have and the have nots -and women are being forced back into the home

Well today's PR is that the tuition fee repayments are the cost of 2 pints of beer and a bag of crisps a week so not likely to cause major problems.

If there are fewer graduates too in consequence then a degree is worth more and your higher earnings over 40 years if you aren't stupid enough to give up work and become a housewife etc will remain much higher than non graduates.

Can you clarify exactly what you mean by "if you aren't stupid enough to give up work and become a housewife"? I'm sure you didn't mean it to sounds quite as cretinous as it did but it certainly came across as pretty small minded and snipey.

btw £9000 divided by 52 is approx £173 so not quite sure how your figures stack up......... I'm guessing beer and crisps must be pretty pricey where you live

I've lost my job due to the total lack of recovery and the fact that the banks aren't lending to small businesses. I've been out of work since Feb and prospects aren't good. My wife has a good job and is off on paid adoption leave at the moment. We're going to start struggling pretty soon if I don't find anything. We can't blame Labour for the state of the world economy. They kept the UK out of recession for two years while it was going on. I DO blame the Tories for the crap recovery. How can you expect it to pick up with massive cuts and job losses??? It's mad! The only good thing they've done for me it start a program for the recently redundant that paid £1800 for a training course I took.

I'm not sure Labour could have done any better it's just that smugness from Cameron and Osborne makes me want to punch 'em in the face! Big Society my ass!

I've just realised that Xenia was referring to the repayments as opposed to the actual fees themselves; she / he can try and minimise the concept of these increased costs but which ever way they slice / spin it you can't pretend having around £30,000 of debt round your neck before you even start a career is anything but extremely daunting.

Haha Xenia is predicting massive inflation in the price of beer and crisps.

Its important to remember that these students are our brightest and best, and while they are paying £173 a week, plus all their living costs, to train and make a better contribution to society, their peers who opted out of education will be earning a wage, buying a car, buying a house etc.

That was in the press today. I assumed it included the interst and capital repayments but I've not had to look at tin detail as I wasn't silly enough to pick a badly paid career nor ever to give up work so all 5 children will graduate debt free under the old and new system. So I don't need to know the details of the new system other than to see how better off we might be under it (if it becomes easier to get in and the degree becomes of greater value too).

I think the problem is that for some reason the poor seem to be a bit stupid over this and cannot use the internet or use calculators and whereas the middle classes have an idea about debt and repayment and what is a big debt and what isn't the working classes seem to be put off by the fact they migh have to work jolly hard and things won't be handed to them on a plate by the state and we seem to think we need their off spring in universities so need to ensure they understand how in the grand scheme of things these aren't big debts. I am not so sure it is worth paying PR to change their views but we certainly do probably need enough student numbers although perhaps only the right academic calibre of student. It may not be too bad if places which are not very academic go to the wall and careers which don't really need a degree become non graduate.

They will have debts of about £45,000 on graduation. By the time the debt is repaid total cost will be closer to £100,000. I.e. there will be no financial reward from achieving in education.

Brain drain anyone?

Men dont have to take responsibility for their children when the taxpayer is there to pick up the tab.
And it works both ways - why have a man about the house when the taxpayer is the 'breadwinner'? Plenty of single mums who choose to be, and in fact planned it that way all along.
Condem policies that directly or indirectly lead to more of the traditional family unit should be encouraged. Its not the states job to bring up a generation of kids.

Oh dear. You really do believe everything you read in the Daily Mail don't you!

Are you aware that more than half of all single parents work? Are you aware that the stereotype you are talking doesn't fit the vast majority of single mothers - the vast majority have their children within marriage and the typical age of a single mother is 36.

I don't want the tax payer to support me. I want the man who planned with me to have children to pay his 50% toward their upkeep. I don't know any other single mothers who like relying on tax credits or benefits. We'd much rather earn our own way but hey - guess what - our earning potential is significantly hampered by the lack of affordable childcare (which our xs also aren't paying for).

What makes you think the traditional family unit is the only way to raise a good family? My children will grow up with far better values, morals, and a sense of personal responsibility than if I'd ever stayed with their violent father.

OP, daft question! Of course we're worse off. Most businesses are either laying people off or freezing wages whilst upping workload. My closest colleague is 60 and actively being pushed out by unpleasantness (workload increases, complaints from management that she isn't managing it). This is in the public sector.

All this whilst costs are rising. My food bill is round about a third more now than it was two years ago, and at the same time those who try to live on the edge are being prosecuted for freeveganing. Where's the sense in that?

I can't think of a single thing that I could do now which doesn't cost much more than it did two years ago.

Do we see tory ministers shopping in Lidl because they can no longer afford Waitrose? No?

Funny, that.

But it's not affected by unaffordable childcare if you make the right career decisions as a teenager so make sure your own children don't make the mistakes those you have made in picking jobs which pay a pittance.

Xenia - are you taking the piss??? - the poor seem to be a bit stupid over this and cannot use the internet or use calculators. How fucking insulting! I am poor BECAUSE I am paying for my masters degree.