to be dismayed people still think cuts are the route to recovery

[wigglylines]

The cuts are harming our economy, not helping it.

The idea that austerity can get us on the road to recovery is a lie!

Even the IMF have criticised austerity.

Let's get this clear, austerity is idological. The tories want to cut public services, and are using the economic crises (caused by global forces NOT Gordon Brown!) as an excuse.

Cuts harm our economy and the people in it.

We need to invest in the people in our economy to get it going, not bring the country to its knees.

If you believe that Labour caused the crisis by being irresponsible and the Tory cuts are the way forward, can I ask where you get your information from?

Is it by any chance the Murdoch press?

Have you never considered that maybe you are being manipulated - you do know Murdoch has a massive vested interest in the Tories getting in again, right?

worksallhours WOW - your long post has to be one of the best posts on mumsnet I have seen.

The reds spend and the tories spend the rest of the time sorting out their shit! Simple!!
How anyone thinks that we can spend our way out of things greatly amuses me, of course the defecit needs to be cut, and the only way to do so is to spend less.

Dawn

Thanks, but that is a list of recessions, not financial crises, I would count the devaluation of the pound under Wilson in the late 60's as a financial crises, (the economy didn't go into recession) and the almost general strike under Callaghan. In the same way as I would the 3 day week and global oil issues under Heath, and Black Monday under Major. A recession isn't a financial crises.

Also Wilson was elected in feb 74, so your 73 - 75 recession is both parties not tory.

How anyone thinks that we can spend our way out of things greatly amuses me, of course the defecit needs to be cut, and the only way to do so is to spend less.

No, that's not the only way. Growing the economy would shrink the deficit.

Government cuts operate under the principle that all government spending is wasteful, this isn't true. Government spending can yield quite high returns. Not many people are against cuts in principle but I should think most people are like me and would like to see the cuts made in the right places.

Government cuts also assume that individuals will spend more wisely than governments and not save.

and bobby Black Wednesday, also on Major's watch. There is also a theory that says Thatcher's policies (big bang etc) were to blame for the most recent recession.

peggyundercrackers
"worksallhours WOW - your long post has to be one of the best posts on mumsnet I have seen."

Totally agree - a brilliant post worksallhours - the best I've seen on all of these interminable 'labour is great, Conservatives are evil' threads. I know MN is left wing - we've even had the labour ad at the top of the page spamming the usual crap of 'omg Tories will stop child support lies' but for god's sake people, stop dreaming and open your eyes!

I know MN is left wing - we've even had the labour ad at the top of the page spamming the usual crap of 'omg Tories will stop child support lies' but for god's sake people, stop dreaming and open your eyes!

I don't know if I agree with that, there are are loads of Tory voters on MN. And even some UKIP voters.

For me, whether or not cuts are the way forward is now irrelevant because Labour want to borrow more money as an alternative to austerity.

I am a finance lawyer. I personally drafted some of this country's loan documentation. In my professional opinion, we cannot borrow any more without risk of a credit downgrade, breach of financial covenants and default.

So austerity or not, only the Conservatives understand the real financial and economic issues here.

Yes but MN itself ran a Vote Labour banner.

'and bobby Black Wednesday, also on Major's watch. There is also a theory that says Thatcher's policies (big bang etc) were to blame for the most recent recession'

Is it as good as your theory that recessions only happen overnight under a Conservative government?

I can't comment on the economy as I don't consider myself well informed enough about it. You may well all be right that Labour fucked the economy and the Tories are fixing it. I don't know if I agree from various things that I've read, but like I said, I don't know enough about it.

However, my issue stems from the fact that this government has taken from the most poor and most vulnerable in our society. I do not see the rich being any worse off yet all around me I see sick and disabled people being forced to work when they are genuinely unable to, cruel benefits sanctions being imposed and cuts to healthcare and women's refuges. I cannot condone these things.

Could a Tory voter please explain to me why these cuts have to hit the poorest in our society and not the richest? I genuinely want to know as I cannot come up with an answer myself.

Peopel that use services and welfare will be poorer so it follows that when cuts are made the poor are hit.

The Welfare State had to be cut - even Labour agree on that. When some people were better off not working than their neighbours who did, that was morally and finacially unsustainable.

Could a Tory voter please explain to me why these cuts have to hit the poorest in our society and not the richest? I genuinely want to know as I cannot come up with an answer myself.

I'm not a Tory voter. But, traditionally the right is against welfare and thinks it has a work ethic. (It's largely an inheritance ethic, actually, but still.) Cutting welfare, obviously, hurts the poorest most.

Fanny I don't know anyone who is better off on benefits than working. IMO that is a myth that has been propagated by the right-wing press. The average person on benefits receives less than £15,000 a year. JSA is a paltry £72 a week.

Meanwhile we have CEOs, bankers and many other professions earning upwards of 200k. How is that fair? How is it fair that footballers are paid 20 grand a week when already-strapped-for-cash women's shelters are closing by the dozen due to the current government deeming them a non-essential service? What about the battering mental health services have taken?

I am speaking as someone on the higher tax threshold and whose DH is a high earner (six figures). Both of us would gladly pay more tax. IMO that is where the money should be coming from. Not from taking from people who already have nothing.

I am a finance lawyer. I personally drafted some of this country's loan documentation. In my professional opinion, we cannot borrow any more without risk of a credit downgrade, breach of financial covenants and default.

That's unfortunate. The deficit will be there tomorrow regardless of who wins the elections (if anyone actually wins), so the next government is going to have to borrow be they Conservative, Labour or a coalition.

Thanks Dawndonna I was just coming on here to post that article from Benjamin Studebaker. It has the advantage of being written by someone who is a) an economics expert and b) disinterested and is very interesting...

add - no , they aren't better off now with the cap ( in general) but some most definitely were especially with lots of kids!

Could a Tory voter please explain to me why these cuts have to hit the poorest in our society and not the richest? I genuinely want to know as I cannot come up with an answer myself.

I didn't vote Tory, but I'll answer anyway. You can't take benefits away from people who don't claim benefits. It's really that simple.

The richest pay a lot of tax, and the tax cut they got was one that made them pay 45% rather than 50% I think. I it was something like that anyway, I can't remember the details, but people banging on about tax cuts for the rich routinely fail to acknowledge that the 'rich' are still paying a shitload of tax, even if they aren't paying as much as you would like them to. Also, that tax cut was one that was only introduced by labour days before they were voted out. They increased the amount deliberately, knowing that it was unfair and knowing that they'd be voted out days later, just so that when the next government put it back to where it had been for the entirety of their leadership, they could shout about tax cuts for the rich under the new government. They were very underhand and hypocritical about the whole thing.

Fanny yes but someone with 8 kids on benefits for example may get more money but it's still then got to go round nine people, so I don't really understand the validity of that argument :s

Ptolemy - even worse - top rate of tax under Labour was 40% which they raised to 50% weeks before the election and the Tories lowered it to 45%. so still higher than at any point in 13 years of a Labour Govt.

I think the idea of a cap is to discourage people without incomes from having large families. I doubt that it'll work. But, it sounds right wing.

The Welfare State had to be cut - even Labour agree on that. When some people were better off not working than their neighbours who did, that was morally and finacially unsustainable.

Pre-cap, if you compared like for like families, people in work were almost always better off than those not in work, and when they weren't it was invariably because of the cost of childcare or some exceptional reason.

Because add they have often had that many children knowing they can't earn enough to support them all.

I'm not going into it all right now but ask yourself why anyone on benefits/min wage is having 5/6/7/8/9 kids?

Thanks for clarifying Fanny, I knew it was something like that.

Crazy how labour voters can keep complaining about Tory tax cuts while ignoring the truth.