To wonder about the values of Tory/UKIP voters

[Campaspe]

Why would anyone vote for a party that promotes austerity rather than a progressive, liberal party (Labour, SNP, Greens, Plaid Cymru)? I'm not saying for a minute that Tory voters don't care about poor or vulnerable people, so how do they square their political support with their conscience? Is it that these voters genuinely believe Labour caused the recession (most analysts now discredit this theory and point to Tory failure to manage the deficit, but maybe these voters aren't aware).

So, given the economic mismanagement stuff doesn't stick, why??? Dislike of Ed Miliband - in which case, why not another progressive party? How do such voters justify the bedroom tax, benefit sanctions, supporting tax evasion, failure to protect libraries, the growing divide between rich and poor etc etc. What are their reasons???

I really don't see what you must be seeing in that guardian article. They fluff it up and use lots of words to make it sound like money has literally been taken from poor people and handed to rich people, and it's just not like that.

The majority of the people who will have gained aren't really rich, they are just supporting their own lives and their own children without government support. But it seems that that's all it takes to be classified as rich in some minds.

Surely it's obvious that two earner households would be better off than households with only one earner, that's just common sense. It also seems like common sense that those with large families would be worse off, because surprise surprise, children are expensive! People are going to feel skint if they have lots of children when their wages aren't high enough to provide adequately.

All this shows to me is that tax credits were too generous and encouraged people to make choices they couldn't afford.

Why was selling Eurostar and Royal mail an extremely bad idea?

Evidence Ptolomy is what can be seen in the article. It's not fluffed, spun or anything else. The article is not by The Guardian, it's an independent study, showing empirical evidence that Osbourne has removed monies from the poor and given to the rich.

The fact that poorer people have less money now than they did under the last government is not something I'm disputing, nor is the fact that some people are going to be better off because of tax cuts.

But I completely disagree that that article isn't fluffed or spun. It is. And the same report could probably have been interpreted equally favourably by a right leaning journalist.

Increasing the personal tax threshold is not 'giving' money to anyone, and it would be helpful if these journalists writing this stuff would at least clarify what they mean by 'rich'. Because it really does seem to me that anyone who doesn't claim benefits is rich by some standards.

A increase in tax threshold enables a person to have more in their wage packet. That's giving them monies.

No, it's letting them keep their own money by taking less of it.

It can't be given by government unless it came from the treasury and was put into an individuals bank account by a government department, which it didn't.

dawn do you have a link to the study rather than an article about it?

Dawn, by your measure any tax break is taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich. Have I got that right?

Strangely enought Goodbye. No.

A increase in tax threshold enables a person to have more in their wage packet. That's giving them monies.

I was referring to this comment, Dawn. And the way you worded this (the government "giving" someone money in allowing them to keep more of their wages) is revealing.

The problem is that there are people out there who are about to vote and who will read things like that (both the article and comments like DD's) and believe it's true. That the coalition literally has taken money that belonged to poor people and is now handing it over to 'rich' people, which is a mile away from the truth.

Oh good grief, yes, Goodbye I am a benefit scrounger.
I also talk about the government taking away money. Which, if they tax disability benefits, they will be doing. Now that should be an interesting one.
Did you know that JSA has been taxed since Thatcher?

Dawn, maybe you need to read my post again.

There are a few benefits that are taxed. That's why the increase in the personal tax allowance is a good thing.

Not only do people get to keep more of their wages, they get get to keep more of their benefits as well!

Not only do people get to keep more of their wages, they get get to keep more of their benefits as well!
Gosh Ptolemy I can get to keep how much more of my 65 quid carers allowance?

The BBC website quotes the party itself only today- apparently they read the sun, and watch porn. Says their own spokesperson ??

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-32230155

Also quoted in the Independent as "proud to be the party of porn stars"!

I'm not sure what's worse- their politics, their followers, or their cynical patronising categorisation of working people.

Can I just point out that you start to lose your tax free allowance once you earn over 100k. So most rich people don't have a tax free allowance at all so the increase is of no benefit to them at all.

I vote Tory because I think they can sort the economy out.

To me it is simple. We as a country pigged out during the Blair Brown years with nothing put aside for hard times. Hard times arrived in 2008. If you, like me, live on very little money (about £25 a week on food etc) then you know that if you want to borrow money, the less stable your finances, the more it costs. Anyone could get money from Wonga but at what cost? It is no different for countries. The rate offered by lenders is linked to your ability to pay it back based on how well you manage your finances. Personally, I dont think going to the IMF, cap in hand is the way to go.

Austerity has been bad for some people, but do you know how bad things were in Greece when they had to agree to austerity measures before anyone would lend them money? 50% unemployment in the young, over 25% unemployment overall, suicide rates rose 40% in one year. Doctors not being paid for months. That happened, it isnt scaremongering, it is factual and it could happen here if the economy spins out of control again.

The money which is gathered in via taxes is what funds public services. There is no such thing as government money. Paying people more in benefits doesnt increase the tax take, it reduces them, therefore making it harder and harder to fund anything in future. Increased interest payments on borrowing by the country means less money to fund anything. Ask yourself, if you max out your credit cards do you expect it to be easy to borrow from another lender? and at a rate you can afford? I dont and if you know where, please do tell. Why would it be any different for a country? a lot of people in poor households have gone through a lot of pain during this period of austerity, which has improved the credit rating for the UK, so why risk all of that pain all over again. The current government have said two more years of austerity. So that makes seven years in total. Ed, Ed and Eck will run us into debt, it is the nature of the beast. They have always done it. If they are in power you know in your bones they will wreck the economy again. So in 2020, the poorest will be asked to start from the bottom rung all over again, taking at least another parliament term to get us back to where we are now, two years away from the end of austerity.

I am not a member of any political party, I believe in knowing your local politicians as they are the only ones you can hope to influence as a private citizen.

Ahem. The credit rating for the UK has not improved during this government. In fact, it has been downgraded. Something that didn't happen under "irresponsible" Labour.

This government has borrowed more in the last 4 years than Labour did in the last 13.

One would expect that, if the Tories were any cop economically, we would have started to climb out of the recession much faster. As two thirds of leading economists would seem to agree:

www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/two-thirds-of-economists-say-coalition-austerity-harmed-the-economy-10149410.html

Again, I don't actually see any proof that this government have any clue about running an economy (which is nothing like having a bloody credit card!). They seem to think that if they just keep saying they're good on the economy, then that makes it somehow true. I think the electorate thinks: "Well, they're the Nasty Party, they've made a lot of people suffer, so obviously that was for a reason. I mean, they couldn't have just done that for no reason..................................................could they?"

Whilst the official credit rating of the UK has been downgraded, 10 year bond yields have fallen from 4% in 2010 to 2% today - so all the lenders think we are a safer bet.