To think we perhaps do have a budget deficit

[shareacokewithnoone]

The Tories want to get back into power (obviously.)

If we use Mumsnet as a judge they are hugely unpopular.

They won't want to be unpopular.

AIBU to think maybe, just maybe, they do need to make cuts?

They're not hugely unpopular. Lots of people think the cuts need to be much deeper. I live in the SoE and I have predicted since 2010 that there will be a Tory govt or a Tory/fringe coalition next time.

God help us every one.

But Mumsnet is a fairly big chunk of people and if I was to start a thread entitled 'AIBU to vote Tory' I would get FLAMED!

It's not the need for cuts that people object to, but the type of cuts and the fact they are applied without thought to individual circumstances and they overwhelmingly affect the most in need. Limiting benefits to 26 - ok, spare bedroom tax-no. Cuts in Whitehall spending -yes, cuts in dla - no. As far as I'm concerned, the only cuts that have affected myself directly have been the child benefit cuts for higher earners, and I'm OK with that. I would still not vote tories as I don't trust them to do what is right for the people.

Mumsnet may well be, 'a big chunk of people', but it's not representative of the population as a whole. Despite what some may think about it being an unusually middle-class website, the majority of MNers come out strongly in favour of high-level state benefits and welfare. Turkies don't vote for Christmas.

This is probably because successive governments have created a client-class of middle-income families who are, to varying degrees, dependent on some form of handout and/or subsidy. MNers are not representative of the population at large.

I'll get flamed for this, but hey, it's hard for some to hear, and even harder to accept.

Lots of Tory voters on MN, though admittedly far more of them in recent years, it did feel a lot leftier ten years ago. There are some remnants of that, like warning people before linking to the Daily Mail but not to the Guardian.

Who's middle-income babycham? Lots of people who are middle-income when they live alone or quite well-off as a couple suddenly move to a tougher world when they have young children and/or parents getting older, so it's not surprising that so many people on MN are pro-benefits.

Whether we need to make cuts or not kind of depends on your preferred economic approach to recession to an extent. But even if you accept that we need cuts, the issue is what do you cut? Some of the Tory cuts are more ideological in nature IMO - they have very much a "fend for yourself", "you'll do well if you work hard" kind of mentality and their cuts reflect that.

The cuts and tax changes they have made have largely been more beneficial to the wealthy and detrimental to the less well off.

Well, I'm a teacher and I wouldn't call myself well off but definitely comfortable, and my/our pay has been frozen for YEARS!

So I think cuts are being made everywhere. Isn't it just the poorer you are the more you will notice losing that £5 or whatever it is? (Genuine question.) I'm also surprised to hear that Mumsnet was leftier years ago is that even possible

Frozen pay isn't great. But those on benefits - especially disabled people - are seeing benefits being cut, capped, bedroom tax etc which is in some cases significantly reducing the money they have. They've increased VAT, which hurts the poorest the most. Conversely, top rate of tax has been reduced. They've just announced plans to change the taxing of personal pensions in a way that basically makes it easier for people to inherit them. There is talk of massively increasing the inheritance tax threshold.

I think the objection is to the fact that the cute disproportionately effect the most vulnerable in society and those who are least likely to be able the help themselves, and thus are ideological in nature.

I don't think anyone is trying to say there isnt a deficit, are they?

But Mumsnet is a fairly big chunk of people

Err, no Mumsnet is a fairly large chunk of Mums. It doesn't have a big chunks of single men or pensioners...

True, chipped. But Mumsnet is so busy - must be a fair whack of people?

Yeah, all the scummy unemployed on 72 a week have really crippled this country, haven't they? But there's always room for a tax cut for the super rich, isn't there?

The welfare cuts are idealogical, nothing else.

I am a scummy unemployed person; been on the dole for nearly 10 weeks.
Worked for 30 years and have relied on family to pay the mortgage so I suppose I can count myself lucky .However....the sheer volume of recent immigration is unprecedented.
I know al lot of you will disagree with this statement but if you could only spend 24 hours in my street you'd see what I can see.
I know this isn't the only issue here, but imagine having a budget to feed a family of 4 and within 2 years that number has doubled what would you do?
The welfare system is being scammed because of loopholes that allow people to claim for children/dependants/illnesses that don't exist.
I see a good many brand new cars from Slovakia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic etc.
Where do you think this money comes from and why are there so many of these cars here? These are not working people; they live in rough areas.
A friend of mine works in immigration and tells me we are powerless to do anything about it. There are huge networks of professionals who offer their services to enable these people to live the life of Riley.
I think that most " illegal" immigrants at least have the tenacity to actually make a living for themselves without relying on benefits.
Things were very different in the 50's and 60's, we had a labour shortage and I am sad that the Indian/Pakistani/Jamaican immigrants were treated so abysmally.
These are very different times now.
We have little industry, as has most of Europe and jobs are hard to come by in most towns and cities.
The UK has become a Holiday Camp for millions of freeloaders.
( The words of my dear friend and Indian born councillor)
Going to get this message deleted but really I don't care.
Rant over.

Interesting thread, will have a proper read in the morning!

BlueBrightBlue, I can't tell whether you're being ironic or not. Are you channelling Alf Garnett? Your post is so full of contradictions, I don't know where to start.

In your hierarchy of deservingness, I'm assuming you think you 'deserve' more help than the 'Indian/Pakistani/Jamaican immigrants' of the 50s/60s, while they're more 'deserving' than all these Slovakians, Bulgarians and Czechs with the audacity to drive round in brand new cars?

In your perfect Britain, who's the arbiter of who gets what? You?

I'd be more believing there was a budget deficit if the local barracks was doing a sponsored walk to buy a new tank.

they might need to make money
but the way they always target the poor and vulnerable to do so
is beyond sick

I completely understand BrightBrightBlue. I worked at a school in the office and we had to copy the Income Support books of those entitled to FSMs (to prove that they were). I was amazed at the amount of money they were to collect each week - some were given around £380 for two parents and two children! At the end of schooltime, these parents would drive up in not old big cars or 4WDs. Where did the money to run these come from? Private hire? It was a girls' school so that would give you a clue as to whence the pupils originated.

Attack after attack on the poor.

I've been happy with the current government, at least they done some of the things they said they would. It takes a lot of guts to reduce benefits and that was a huge trend when they were elected whether you agree with the trend or not. Much like immigration is at the moment.

Benefits aren't the problem

The Tories didn't win the last election.

Labour got more indivual votes than the Tories did.

They can find billions for the banks, millions for MPs pensions, millions for their own idelogoical ideas.

They cant find 1% payrises for hard working nurses and midwives. They can't find the impetus to push through living wages.

So fuck yes they're unpopular.

The trouble is that benefit cuts are often not actually designed to save money and realistically make no difference in the vast majority of cases. Look at the bedroom tax - it's actually costing councils more to rehouse people privately because they haven't enough housing stock to provide alternatives for people with supposedly spare bedrooms; and they're wasting the money they've spent on doing adaptations for disabled people. Look at legal aid: the courts are now way more expensive to run because people are litigating in person, and there are knock-on effects in relation to the damage done because people can't access proper care support or protection when in abusive relationships.

The only way benefit cuts would make any appreciable difference would be to cut pensions, and the Conservatives are never going to do that for obvious reasons.

The proposed welfare freeze is predicted to save £3.2 billion over 2 years. The total welfare bill is predicted to be £365 billion. The cuts will affect the people who can least afford it and have practically no effect on the deficit.

But hey, it's a vote winner.

Taking away more and more from young people, families, poor people, disabled people, and people in ill health and spinning it to try to get anyone who doesn't fit into that list to believe it's better for the country. That's what they've done, and will continue to do if they're voted in again (not that they really were last time).
As far as I can tell, the only people who vote Tory are those who don't give a shit about anyone else in society because they're alright themselves.