To Wonder Why Tory Voters Support a £13bn cut in benefits (inc tax credits) when hardly any tory voters even receive these benefits?

[Amylovesgalaxyeggs]

Tory voters statistically earn more and live in constituencies that have higher property values.

Tory voters statistically would be less likely to rely on tax credits or other benefits that will be cut by the party.

Aibu to wonder why a group of voters would vote for a party that wants to cut something that they don't claim. Sounds like a of reverse Robin Hood to me.

It's a little generous with the generalisations, isn't it? Red cheese might also be wildly popular on the meanest streets (wherever that are.) And, people might tell me anything, too. I suppose it all depends on who I ask and what I ask them. The article is from the Tory Telegraph. It's not all that surprising that it gushes about IDS's social experiments. They might be fantastic. But, I wouldn't take Matt Ridley's word for it.

I have never voted Tory but I will be in this election and not for tactical reasons. Their candidate in our seat has shown all his life that he is about service and not self gain. He was an RAF officer in Iraq and Afghanistan and subsequently worked in Afghanistan and Africa removing and training others to remove land mines so that land could be returned to farming.

Since being selected he has already made real differences to ordinary people, without any of the power of office. We live in a rural area in Scotland which has a lot of wealthy second home owners. It also has a lot of people on low or no incomes. The candidate visited many local businesses in the early days and found many were looking for staff but the concrete thinking of the Job Centres meant they werent getting people applying. So he organised a Jobs Fair, no funding, just hard work. 100 people found jobs that day. 100 people who were previously without hope of an improving future, found work. How can anyone attack that? Is that all about kicking the poor? not understanding how to improve things for ordinary people?

He has also founded a small business start up organisation which links people wanting to start businesses with people who really know what they are talking about as they have done it themselves.

I am also a small business owner and know how useless the majority of bureaucratic public sector business advisory services are.

He is all about enabling people to improve their lives, not pay them more benefits to stay aspirationally constipated. Before anyone flames me, I am not wealthy, I have a disability and I live on less than the national minimum wage from my own business, but I will fight for hope and aspiration over despondency and inactivity every day of the week.

Ooo, an article from Viscount Ridley. Climate denier and hereditary peer.
It's also a lot of bloody nonsense.

As opposed to a Labour Party Political Broadcast from Martin Freeman, tax evader and private school client ?

I don't understand the first lilne... 'Job creation has surged in the past 5 years on the back of Iain Duncan Smith's tough...'

how does that work? were the jobs not there in the first place? if so, no wonder the folks had to claim out of work benefits, and how come it took hard line near starvation of the workforce cuts for businesses to make these jobs available

if it wasn't the case, that there hasn't been any job creation , then the article opens with a lie

I don't really give a shit about that either Ponio. But what I do know is that the Tory view on welfare is disgusting, shameful bollocks.

Only the Tories can properly look after the poor. Vote conservative.

Why is it hard to understand when the article says job creation has soared? He makes very good points and is right to point out that this has been achieved with a mixture of carrot and stick which is exactly what was needed. We are now well placed to move forwards well unless Labour gets in.

Only the Tories can properly look after the poor. Vote conservative.
Are you serious? I assume you're one of their social media team, so do tell how you look after the poor.

Gotta be a wind up. Surely?

it's hard to understand because the 'facts' don't add up

either jobs were there but unemployed people didn't take them up, or they were created to get people back into work

you can't claim both

The problem with the poor is that they're feckless and don't work hard enough. So, take away their benefits, beat them, beat them, beat them within an inch of their lazy, work-shy lives and then they'll all go out, get jobs, raise stable families who attend feepaying schools and they'll write letters on how, without the Tories, they'd never have experienced their own personal Road to Damascus.

It's tough love. But, spare the rod spoil the feckless waster. PS, any jobs free at the Daily Mail?

Why is it hard to understand when the article says job creation has soared?

Because the reality of people's lived experiences is not resonating with the spin that is coming out of the Tory PR machine. Yes, jobs have been created, but what kind of jobs?

Zero hour contracts with no security or employment rights, part time hours for those who desperately need to work full time, self-employed people who are struggling simply to stay afloat.

People don't understand the statistics that are being bandied around because the rhetoric fails to reflect the struggles and worries that hundreds of thousands of people are facing on a daily basis. If things are so much better, why are so many more people relying on food banks for their next meal?

But there is huge support as Ridley says amongst most people that those at the bottom do work even if they are not better off than on benefits and even if the state is providing them with tax credits and housing benefits.

There was huge support in the South for slavery, too.

Lotus Answer the question.

Is anyone saying people who can work shouldn't? No. Most people would like a stable income and decent housing. Forcing people into exclusive zero hour contracts and expensive insecure private rentals doesn't help anyone. Abandoning those who cannot work to food banks and poverty is in no-one's best interests.
And even if that were the case, any journo can make vague statements that aren't backed up by any quantified facts. I could say that UKIPs popularity has been heralded by a historically low interest rate. Doesn't make them causative. Doesn't even make them related. But you could still say it.

Which question?

so do tell how you look after the poor.

I have always voted Conservative,from age 18 (much to my parent's and Grandparent's chagrin!). I'm 50 now.
I'm a TA, ( but spent 14 years in the NHS) ,my Dh works for a well-known supermarket chain (shop floor). During our 25 years of marriage we have had many periods of Dh having to claim benefits after several redundancies. We get Family tax credits at the moment.
I will still vote conservative at this election,even though I have been sorely tested by education policy, but it has helped that Gove is no longer in charge there.

Overall, I believe Conservatives to be the best of a bad bunch...but I will NOT ever be tempted to vote for Labour. I think they are diabolical.

Why diabolical, jam? Genuine question.

1. The Tories have policies which most benefit the less fortunate in society. Under Labour's definition poverty in the recession just because the middle class got worse off the less well off were suddenly under the formula better off even though they had less money! (As it was a relative poverty test). Weird.
2. If the country does better we have more resources for the less well off whereas if you steer the country to disaster and spend money you don't have then just like every family in the land you end up off the rails unable to help the less fortunate.
3. The Tories as much as Labour support the welfare state. In fact there is no political party that is likely to win in the UK that supports abolishing it.
4. You do not help people who are not working by just giving them more and more money. You help them int he way IDS is doing with a mixture (as Ridley points out) of carrots and sticks which if they get into work means they are into that discipline even if the state is supporting them still to some extent because once they are in work there is more chance they can go for promotions and earn more.

(I am not from any political party and am not a member of one despite the suggestion above. Cameron has surged ahead in the last few days and that is good news. It is because people are realising the Tories are best for the country including the less fortunate).

So lotus, why do you think so many more people are dependent on food banks now than they were five years ago? Do you think this is a good development?

Kampeki - maybe it's a chicken and egg? Maybe if there were no food banks most people would have to manage?
Who knows?

Have you ever volunteered at a food bank ponio, and spoken to the people who use them?

1. What are these policies? How does cutting the welfare budget by 12 billion help people with disabilities.
2. If the country does better under any government, prices may help those on benefits. Benefits do not increase significantly. 3)Then why is IDS doing his best to dismantle it?
3. Already proven to be a nonsense. The IDS regime is cruel, sanctions are cruel and the work capability test has been described by the courts as unfit for purpose. IDS has spunked some 4 billion up the wall on a system that doesn't work.
4. People are dying because of the welfare reforms.