Please convince me that the Tories WON'T create wider divisions btween the rich and poor and haves and have nots?

[poshsinglemum]

I'm not great at politics but I am under the imptression that things like inheritance tax and tax breaks for married people are going to widen the gap between the rich and poor?

Am, I wrong? Would anyone like to explain how the Tories would improve my lot as a single mum. Would they find me a nice man to marry for example?

I got PND and was terrified of going out of the house with the baby. Surestart came round and got to know me, then gradually encouraged me to go to the baby group where I met other mums and could get health and practical advice about the baby. I have also had help with breastfeeding, DD1 has had loads of brilliant playgroups and activities and I have access to parenting courses if I need them later on. I really don't see how if I happened to have a slightly higher income (or if, for example, I still lived at home with my parents in the nicer area they live in) I wouldn't have needed that help.

Those of you who say surestart should be cut, what exactly do you think surestart is? I suppose if you think it is just playgroup then I can see why you might want it cut.

excellent post, lowenergylightbulb, especially the bit about tax credits.

One school of thought is that GB et al prefer tax credits to an increased tax threshold because they encourage the recipients to vote for the government who generously "give" them a "helping hand". If the money was given via increased tax thresholds, people would no longer perceive it as governmental generosity (because they wouldn't actually be "given" as much, if anything, they would simply have less deductions from their pay packet) - so the Labour party would lose votes.

Scarlet- even if we paid no tax whatsoever, we would still be loads worse off without tax credits. They are a way of distributing money according to need. Tax is a way of collecting money according to ability to pay. They are different. Even if you get the money taken off you in tax then given back in TC, that is because you earn a certain amount (so you get taxed fairly) and you need a certain amount (so you get back what you need)

I'm still reeling from the 'facts' shown in the link posted by clever1

"A child who does not grow up in a two-parent family is:

• 75 per cent more likely to fail at school
• 70 per cent more likely to be a drug addict50 per cent more likely to have an alcohol problem
• 40 per cent more likely to have a serious debt problem
• 35 per cent more likely to experience unemployment / welfare dependency"

Where do these figures come from?

IDS also says

"Thirteen years of Labour misrule have inflicted grave damage on the family. All the evidence shows that children brought up in two-parent families do far better in life. Yet under Labour, rates of family breakdown have soared.

• Over 40 per cent of children are now born outside marriage.
• Intentional harm has risen 34 per cent in the last 4 years.
• The UK has the 4th highest teenage pregnancy rate in the world.
• Alcohol consumption by UK children has doubled in the last 15 years; 1 in 4 children now take drugs, compared to 1 in 20 twenty years ago.
• Children living in single parent or broken families are far more likely to experience serious abuse than those living in two-parent families;
• Labour has scrapped all recognition of marriage in the tax system and in most official forms. It has also distorted the benefits system to make it more profitable for couples with children to live apart.
• Britain is the only country in the advanced world, bar Mexico and Turkey, not to recognise marriage in the tax system.

"Most shocking of all, the government now admits that 200,000 children live in homes where there is a known high risk case of domestic abuse and violence. The figures also show that a child living with a non-biological father is eight times more likely to be on the ?at risk? register and 50 times more likely to die from injuries inflicted by an adult living in the home.

WTF?

I'd really like to know where they get these stats from?

Ah wubblybubbly, the power of statistics to confuse.

What is not shown here is the starting point. For example: What does "fail at school" actually mean? Does that mean No A levels? No 5 A-C grades at GCSE? No GCSEs at all? Lets assume that 20% of children in 2 parent homes don't get ANY GCSEs. Bear in mind some of these will be students with Specific Learning Difficulties/disabilities/students who don't sit GCSE because they are home schooled an their parents are putting them through alternative qualifications or none at all. Lets say you are left with a generous 12% failing school. So out of every 100 students in two parent families, 12 may "fail" school. 75% of those 12 students is 9. Therefore it is likely, given those starting points that 21 students out of ever 100 students from one parent families may fail school.

Then you have the issue of "one parent families" Does this apply to children who have always been in a one parent family? Or those who were in a one parent family at the point of failing school? Did they experience theloss of a parent during their exam years? (as good an excuse as any for failing methinks) Is the other parent absent, involved, abusive or dead?

Lies, damn lies and statistics

I was much the same Butterpie, but my mum lived 3.5 hours away as did my in-laws, and dh was away at sea. I HAD to go out or I wouldn't have eaten.

I'm sure that Sure Start provides a valuable service, but not everyone will want or need to access it. It perhaps needs to be targeted at those who really need the help and really struggle to access any kind of help due to lack of money or education as opposed to those who don't.

I've never been in the position where I have been eligible for tax credits, but doesn't it create a type of dependency? Does it mean that if you are offered a promotion, you hesitate about taking it because the tax credits will decrease in the short term, although the promotion may change your life in the long term? I have to agree with Scarlet's last para. At what financial cut off point should these benefits stop being paid?

Wubblybubbly -
Couldn't find the particular page with all the facts you quoted. However, did look at one about crime, and all of the facts given there were cross referenced with thrie won date source.

Butterpie -
I wasn't suggesting for a minute that tax credits be scrapped outright. However, if tax thresholds were raised universally, then net incomes would rise, too. Some people would no longer need tax credits at all; for others, the amount needed would be reduced.

scarletlilybug this is the link from clever1 further up the page.

I did look for the source of the stats shown but couldn't find anything?

I don't understand the comments from people who say they wouldn't vote labour as they haven't done enough for the poor- who would you vote for then?
My memory of the Tory Governments of my childhood/student life would always taint my decisions- no grants, housing benefit /unemployment benefit removed for students/poll tax/council house sales -etc

As a family we needed the help then - now I earn a lot and the Tory proposals seem designed to benefit me now- not me as I was twenty years ago.Tax cuts and benefits should be targeted as those who need it not to reward behaviour such as getting married.

"Thirteen years of Labour misrule have inflicted grave damage on the family. All the evidence shows that children brought up in two-parent families do far better in life. Yet under Labour, rates of family breakdown have soared.

• Over 40 per cent of children are now born outside marriage.
• Intentional harm has risen 34 per cent in the last 4 years.
• The UK has the 4th highest teenage pregnancy rate in the world.
• Alcohol consumption by UK children has doubled in the last 15 years; 1 in 4 children now take drugs, compared to 1 in 20 twenty years ago.
• Children living in single parent or broken families are far more likely to experience serious abuse than those living in two-parent families;
• Labour has scrapped all recognition of marriage in the tax system and in most official forms. It has also distorted the benefits system to make it more profitable for couples with children to live apart.
• Britain is the only country in the advanced world, bar Mexico and Turkey, not to recognise marriage in the tax system.

Labours benefits policy has always been about rewarding single parents rather than couples whereas the Tories were firm believers in marriage. Statistics echo that children do better brought up by married parents and we should do all we can to encourage that.

Our teen pregnancy rate is high because they know that they can have children without a thought as to how they will provide for them as the government will provide a house and money. Take away the benefits and our teen pregnancy rate would soon drop. Although this would apply to more than just teens, far too many children are born through one night stands or in throw away relationships.

The money from Surestart could be put to far better use and spent on schools or hospitals.

The CTF - another Labour gimmick. Those who wanted to save for their childs future would do so anyway without the voucher and those that were unlikely to do so wont add to the fund anyway so it will have little value at the age of 18 anyway.

Tax credits also need an overhaul. I think assistance with early years childcare to enable both parents to carry on working and support their family is great, however they are now relied upon by millions who have used the finances in calculations as to whether to have another child, cut hours at work, not take pay promotions etc. We can ill afford as as country to continually pay out and need to get back to having a welfare state that supports those with disabilities, short term unemployment etc rather than allowing people to live on benefits as a lifestyle choice.

Like other posters, I'd like to see a work scheme where those on benefits have to do some sort of work in return for their benefits - there must be hundreds of jobs that could be done in communities and proper work schemes that would lead to paid employment. Maybe then a lifestyle on benefits would not appeal to so many and our work ethic would return. Obviously disability benefits would have to be excluded for those who cannot work due to disabilities/children with disabilities.

I also hope IS is looked at as well by the new government, its always been highly unfair that working mums get 12 months maternity yet those on IS could claim for 16 years. Its been reduced to age 7 now but thats still 6 years longer than maternity leave. Effectively, the mums that work to support their child are penalised and that surely is not fair.

If the Tories do get in they hopefully will make some good changes however they may be limited due to the state the country and finances are in at the moment.

Equally, my memories of the Labour government in my childhood was of the unions emasculating the economy and holding the government to ransom; the winter of discontent; power cuts; bins not being emptied; the dead not being buried; 3 day weeks.

My teenage years were under Thatcher - student grants (I got one), people being able to own houses, employment after A levels, and independent taxation for married women.

As an aside - given that Rateable values hadn't been reexamined since 1973, if they had been, I bet everyone would have gone for Community Charge as an alternative, as the rates would have been so expensive to pay.

Let's be fair, though ST, the tories also presided over clause 28, race riots, poll tax,special measures in NI and the erosion of the right to silence.

And I think that's the crux of it for many.
Although they no longer trust Labour's economic policies and may well benefit from tory polices ( I know I certainly would), they remember many indefensible policies from the last tory administration.

Happymummy - what on earth are you talking about re IS and maternity leave? Do you really think that living off £100 a week or whatever IS is now is the same as living off whatever you get paid on maternity leave (full pay for the first few months isn't it? And that is only in nice stable permanent jobs, which are a rarity in the world of minimum wage. And your maternity pay isn't completely cancelled if your husband happens to work or get benefits) And if you really wanted more time off, you have the CHOICE to go on IS if you think it is so easy.

As a Community Charge Officer for many years, I had no problem with Community Charge. What people don't realise is that bills were about to increase massively. Rateable values on many properties hadn't been altered since 1973, and if there had been a general domestic uprating, then Community Charge would have looked like good value in comparison.

I loathe the current government with a passion and cannot wait for them to be gone. I cried when Blair and New Labour got in in 97 and I will be cracking open the champagne when they go this year.

I see the problem in NI is returning though...bombing an army base; murdering policemen...it never went away, it just looked it.

Scaryteacher, poll tax was a hideous tax that bore absolutely no relation to a person's ability to pay, that is why people revolted, why it was scrapped and why no Tory ever wants to hear the topic raised again.

As an Office Junior, earning £2,500 a year, I was paying over £50 a month in poll tax, more than a quarter of my net salary in poll tax. If it was such good value then, as you claim, I fail to understand how my husband and I pay proportionately less than that now? Perhaps because those with massive incomes, in enormous houses pay proportionately more?

Am frankly horrifed that anyone would consider surestart and Children's Centres a waste of money. People who think this can have utterly no idea of how these centres run or of the fabulous work they do. The Outreach Workers from our local children's centre (who according to the Tory plans will be cut to fund extra HVs - BIG mistake) work with families who would flounder without them. These are not the child protection families but mothers like Butterpie who value the support they give. Ours do all the same things - get to know Mums, provide various groups (prem baby group, teenage and young parents group (discussing and teaching parenting skills), self esteem groups for the mums in situations of domestic violence etc etc etc. They give a fantastic service. They do brilliant work with those in situations of DV - one of the outreach workers in the children's centre gives a dedicated amount of time each week to mothers in the local women's refuge providing parenting support and helping parents deal with the anger and behavioural issues their children have from their years of witnessing abuse.. All this has been since we had a Labour govt. Whatever else they have done wrong (and I know there are issues) the children's centres are one of their massive successes.
Do you know what was out there for parents under the Tories? Sweet fu*k all.
I will be watching what DC et al do very carefully but am not optomnistic that the very good service that parents get now will continue. Dave et al are not normal people, never have been and never will be. They will have absolutely no idea how it is to live normally .... hence I have no faith in their future plans whatsoever.

CC benefit was available just as ctb is now. The Rates bore no relation to ability to pay either - neither does CTAX, that's a hybrid of rates and CC. You apply for ctb just as one could for ccb.

CTax is not based on income, but on the banding that the property was put into. Don't fall into the trap that having a house in Band E (£88,000-£120,000) at the time of the original banding means that the people in there have large incomes. The lady who has the house across the road from mine in Cornwall had lived there a long time and is now widowed. She does not have a large income at all.

One of the reasons that Community Charge was removed was that it is easier to trace houses than people. Thus, if you documents relating to property ownership, or tenancy agreements, you can collect the money. I still think Community Charge was fairer than Council Tax, and that's having worked in both CC and CTAX.

Jolly Pirate - the point is surely with Surestart that if the help is targeted more effectively, then those services will get to more families who need them, rather than mums who can cope perfectly well accessing them because it's free and convenient. I don't think anyone has said they are a waste of money at all, but not everyone wants or needs that support, so why not target more accurately at those who do?

I had my lad before a Labour Govt, and had excellent support from one of the midwives and the HV, who was fab. That was all that was required.

Nah Scaryteacher, it was scrapped because there were riots in the street and people rightly refused to pay. I guess you're one of the tiny minority who though it was fair, since even the tories dare not mention it these days, for fear that people will remember what they're actually all about.

I didn't qualify for poll tax benefit, nor have I ever met anyone who did, so I've no idea who these people were?

I do feel a certain amount of empathy for elderly folk in massive houses with large council tax bills I suppose, their situation is similar to the one I was in under poll tax. Still, they could always sell their houses, not nice, but better than selling your body, which was all I had.

As to Surestart, I think you're being naive. What you're basically suggesting is more social workers for struggling families - great we need those - but you would diminish the positive impact of Surestart as it would become associated with being a crappy parent, so you're not exactly going to have many folk knocking on the door for help, or is that the idea, shame people and save money?

The joy of Surestart is that it is available to everyone, regardless of income, 'cos how rich you are doesn't necessarily equate to how a good a parent you are or how well you are coping, does it?

How do you suggest we assess who needs these services? Let's assume, for arguments sake, that your method of assessment shows that all the people who use the services do need them afterall, would you still authorise the budget? Even after you'd spent a small fortune establishing that they did need the service in the first place.

All this assessment rubbish is a total waste of money, IMO. People who need the services use them.

I suppose we could always employ menacing doormen with tattooed faces at the doors of each centre, grilling potential service users as to their need? That would maybe keep out all these wealthy, middle class types who are obviously milking the system (in your mind) despite having enough cash under the bed to pay for their own help.

We have a surestart centre - it's empty! Thousands of pounds spent no doubt!!!

Makes me wonder if anyone even thought about doing a survey to see if it was needed. We have plenty of fantastic playgroups, nurseries, playschemes in our area and being a commuter town we have a very high proportion of working mums who use the nurseries and childminders.

Friend went to baby massage group to find 4 helpers 1 baby massage expert and just her for an hour. (oh! and her baby of course)(although there were enough people around to give her a massage too if she'd wanted it!!!!)

littlemoominmamma, what, your friend went once and it was quiet therefore no one uses it?

Or have you got 24 hours surveillence set up

Our Surestart centre doesn't seem to attract the people it's supposed to be targeting, true, but it's great for me as a place to take DS (ASD) to soft-play and swimming. I can't drive so it's an absolute godsend.

They have BF support / parenting classes / healthy eating and exercise for toddlers and computer courses too. I don't know what the take-up is wrt those things but to me they represent basic services for new mothers.

I was reluctant to us our Surestart centre after DS but my GP/HV ganged up on me and said I should go. I was suffering PND and rarely left the house, so it really was a godsend.

Like you MDW we've used the facilities on and off over the years, baby massage, gym tots, swimming, sing and play. Sometimes we've had to pay, sometimes not, it depends on the group.

I was the kind of person who never liked to ask for help, seeing it as a failure Surestart gave me the chance to meet and talk to other mums who, amazingly, weren't so very different to me! I was able to get the support I needed without feeling like I was letting anyone down.