to vote Tory for £2000?

[Solopower1]

The government is going to give you lucky working parents £2000 for each child for childcare while you go out and earn a living - if you vote for them.

Will you?

'The support package – one of the coalition's central election offers to middle-class working parents – will be available, when launched, for anyone with children up to the age of 12 instead of the previous cut-off age of five.

The £2,000 maximum is to cover 20% of the costs of childcare up to an annual maximum of £10,000 a year. No extra support is available for people with more expensive provision.'

www.theguardian.com/money/2014/mar/18/pm-pitches-families-childcare-cash

[dinosaursarebisexual]

I would eat my own shit with a spoon before I would vote born to rule pony fuckers Tory.

[Dawndonnaagain]

It was their stupid overspending which got us into this mess
I can see you are able to write, but can you read?

[GingerMaman]

No, despite how much it may help, they are destroying this country.

[pointythings]

David Cameron is on the record in Hansard before the crash more or less demanding less regulation for the banks. I wouldn't trust him if he said the sun was hot.

[gelati3]

We wouldn't be getting anything if the labour eejits "let's spend our way out of a recession" were in power. It was their stupid overspending which got us into this mess,

[WooWooOwl]

And it only helps working parents - does nothing for those who decide to look after their children themselves rather than paying someone else to do it.

Why on earth should a policy about childcare do something for parents who choose to SAH

This is about helping parents who are struggling to pay childcare so they can go out to work. That section of society needs some help from the government because it is well known that the cost of childcare is crippling for some people, and it's enough to keep other people out of work when they want to financially provide for their families themselves.

You may as well complain that a policy designed to help youth unemployment does nothing to help pensioners. It's irrelevant.

[Spiritedwolf]

It's true that Labour didn't cause the recession, it is a world wide thing. But their policies made it much worse than it could have been.

Funny , I'm pretty sure that the Conservatives were criticising Labour for regulating the banks too much, and also saying they would match Labour spending. Hindsight is 20/20.

I reckon it would have been rubbish no matter who was in power. I'm grateful that Labour actually bothered to fix the (school and hospital) roofs while the sun was shining.

Borrowing money on the extremely low interest rates available to the governments of affluent countries (by say, issuing government bonds) to invest in infrastructure, health, education and early years, is actually good business sense and money well spent. Conservative attempts to compare national finances to a fixed household income really make me fear for their understanding of how to manage the country's money. At best, they think the public is too stupid to realise the difference between spending and investing and are willing to exploit this misunderstanding for political gain but they could well be that incompetent.

The need for this conference speech revision suggests there's certainly some incompetency there.

[Dawndonnaagain]

Also their profligate spending and ridiculous borrowing I think that if you check the ONS, you will find that Osborne has borrowed more since 2010 than Labour did in the whole of their tenure.

[juliacharles2013]

Rockenholt, what I don't like is how one minute the ConDems are saying that teenagers acting like thugs & hooligans is down to parents working full time & not being able to stay home enough to look after them, then the next minute deciding that any parent (mum or dad) who stays at home during their child's most precious early years are useless wasters who don't deserve help down right offensive!! My main reason for becoming a stay at home mum (other than wanting to look after my boy) is because nurseries & childcare generally around here costs more per month than I was actually getting paid so I simply couldn't afford it £2,000 a year will do sweet FA for me when childcare where I live costs nearly £2,000 a month. As I said, the Tories can kiss my big lazy SAHM arse!!

[throckenholt]

From this thread it doesn't seem like this idea is going down well with the target demographic.

[juliacharles2013]

I'm one of those horrid SAHMs who decided that in my child's early years is rather do something productive like bring up my child myself (oh the horror!!) than continue to slog my guts out in some shite minimum wage job with no future. Yet because I'd rather sacrifice my own financial future for a few years to teach & look after my own son, I'm labelled lazy & ineffectual by the Tories so they can kiss my big, fat, lazy ineffectual arse!!

[juliacharles2013]

Sell my soul to the Tories for £2,000 a year when putting my son in nursery full time would cost nearly the same per month? Hell no!!

Now, if it were Hugh Jackman baring Krispy Kreme donuts & a come hither smile... (Goes to the naughty corner to ponder this more thoroughly)

[OddBoots]

Not a chance, even if it was enough to make me vote for them I don't trust them not to shaft us. Last election they promised that the NHS would be safe with them and since then they've given away huge chunks of it to their friends.

[throckenholt]

You can tell there is an election on the horizon - and apparently women under 40 mostly say they will vote labour. Bribery pure and simple - trying to get working mother's to vote for them.

And it only helps working parents - does nothing for those who decide to look after their children themselves rather than paying someone else to do it. Because those people do not contribute to the economy and so they are not worth considering - when they work they create two contributors (themselves and the carer).

We are all supposed to produced kids to be fed into the pre-school care , then pushed through education (from as young an age as possible) and turn out as well "educated" individuals who will slot into the system, while working full time. Individualism and family life are not important because they have no economic value. Even better if you make sure you spend what you earn and borrow lots - because that also contributes to the economy.

[WooWooOwl]

I agree plainjanine. The recession is far from the only financial problem this country has, and it cannot accurately be blamed for everything.

[plainjanine]

It's true that Labour didn't cause the recession, it is a world wide thing. But their policies made it much worse than it could have been. Not all westernised countries are suffering like we are. We are struggling because Labour neglected private industry while they were in, so when the recession hit we were more exposed than a lot of other countries. Our private industry wasn't in a position to pick up the masses of public workers being made redundant, so the tax and NI revenue losses were worse than might have been.

Also their profligate spending and ridiculous borrowing (no thought to what would happen if interest rates ever rose :-( ) even in the boom years has saddled a whole generation with massive debts and tax burden, just to pay the interest on the debts. And Brown's plan was to spend our way out of trouble! There has not been a single example of that ever working for anyone, ever.

No western country has ever before made it back to a healthy economy from a position of the huge debt we have. Let's hope to god and/or hell, that we can do it. Anyone who thinks we can go back to the good old days after just a couple of years of austerity is delusional.

So thanks for that Gordon!

[Dappydongle]

Fuck the Tories, they can kiss my arse.

[foreverondiet]

We currently get £55 tax free each per week. As both 40% taxpayers that's £44 a week, or £2,288 a year tax saving. However to access this I have to get my au pair to be an ofsted registered nanny which wipes out some of the saving.

Our au / pair cost is around £7k (3 DC are at school so this is for wrap around and holiday care); 20% of that is £1,456 so it would be worse for us that the current provision.

However when I was employing a nanny (3 days a week) as had a baby at home plus needed after school / wraparound for older 2 (nanny was cheaper than nursery and wrap around before I'm berated for having a nanny) - costs more like £16k per annum, so 20% would be £3,120 saving. A full time nanny more like - £26k, so £5,200 saving, although many people I know seem to pay their nannies in cash (presumably to avoid the nannies tax)

Also I work 3 days a week not sure on how that would impact it.

So in summary, helps those the most with large childcare bills (which is right), and also higher rate tax payers get same benefit as basic rate tax payers (which is right). So I think its a reasonable policy, just for me prefer what I have - although would have preferred the new policy when my DC were babies.

[WooWooOwl]

Everyone gets those things though, and while I realise that a civil society is priceless, I don't think we can genuinely say that we get top quality roads, healthcare or education.

Either way, I'm not that bothered about polices that help the richest in society, I'm just saying I don't begrudge it when it's no more than what people who contribute significantly less get.

I am bothered about things that affect the vast majority in the middle as well as the things that affect the most vulnerable.

[pointythings]

Agreed, expat. Taxes pay for the police, fire service and the military for starters.

The rest of it should be about supporting the most vulnerable and creating a society where everyone has a chance. We just don't have that, and the Tories are making things worse.

[Solopower1]

Btw, in Scotland I believe the SNP government is giving every family 600 free childcare hours, starting in April. (If anyone knows more about this please speak as I am not sure of my facts).

[expatinscotland]

Getting something back? They have infrastructure and a peaceful society that allows them to go about their business largely unmolested. This costs a lot, and its value is limitless. This idea that you have to 'get something' is juvenile.

[pointythings]

But WooWoo those people on £300k do get something back - they get the NHS, they get roads, they get education (though I know many of them choose not to take up that last).

I think I'm probably a socialist because I do think that the more you get, the less you should get back from the State because your needs are not as great. I'm not a higher rate tax payer, I'm about £13k below that threshold and so is DH, but I honestly would not mind paying more income tax - if it would mean people on NMW could afford childcare and would be able to increase their hours or keep more of what they earn, for example.

[SingSongSlummy]

pointythings and others asking the question, 150k is the next tax bracket, so they won't have to spend money working out who gets the new childcare deal. I would have thought it should only go to those below the 50k bracket, but the Tory tossers know that they've already pissed them off with the removal of child benefit! Desperate bid to appeal to middle class voters. Ridiculous.

[WooWooOwl]

No, you don't need it, and I'm not saying I think that those on £300k should automatically get it, but I can't object to people who pay a hell of a lot in getting something back either.

The tax system is supposed to work for all of us, including those who pay the most in.