Conservatives maintain that every working family now pays £3000 a year to fund lifestyles of those who do not work.

[moondog]

In addition, there are 3.9 million British households where nobody works-an increase of 200 000 over a decade.

Blimey.

I wouldn't mind a detailed list of all the things our tax gets spent on. £3000 out of my tax is not very much and I don't resent it. I resent every penny spent on the royal family, the olympics and any other pointless shite like Cameron's photographer chappy.

But, MissQue. While I don't doubt that people like this exist if we did not have a welfare system, those genuinely in need who cannot work would suffer. My daughter will not ever be able to work. That isn't her fault - nor would it be her choice, I'm sure.

What the conservatives are doing (as I see it) are putting out propaganda to stir people up so that when they cut support of those genuinely in need nobody will bat an eyelid.

Electra,you would have to be certifiably insane to think that not supporting the genuinely needy and vulnerable is a good thing to do.
Your emotional and irrational response is one that obstructs logical debate about the indisputable fact that many many people are bearing the burden of people wh ocould and should be supporting themselves.

Actually I don't think my response is irrational at all. Most people on the SN board are as fearful as I am about what the future holds for our children with SN. Because the conservatives don't care about those who can't care for themselves. They are playing on people's prejudices about 'scroungers'

How could they accurately know that every family are paying £3000 a year to fund fraudulent claims??

'Because the conservatives don't care about those who can't care for themselves. They are playing on people's prejudices about 'scroungers''

There you go.
Irrational and hysterical.
You want 'accurate detail' on the £3000 point. Fair enough.
Where's your 'acccurate detail' on your assertion?

A political hard-hitting soundbite is not something I would just believe.

I do think that includes the retired, but before we assume that it's terrible that retired people have been included, it's worth thinking about as the babyboomers are all getting to the pension age - forget the unemployed, the retired are going to expensive enough to fund. And while it starts with just pensions, in a few years we're going to have a boom in people needing additional care/NHS resources.

I'm not suggesting we shouldn't pay for that - but it's stupid to stick your head in the sand and not realise the 30 somethings of this country are going to have to pay for it.

We can't really reduce the costs of pensioners or the sick without being cruel, but the unemployed is an area that could be tackled. In fact, it's really the only 'workless' households that can to reduced. (short of bumping off the elderly, again, not a vote winner)

The conservatives don't believe in a welfare system full stop. For anyone.

There is plenty of evidence to support my view. I remember seeing how the country was run in the 80s and how it was quite common to see children in rags. I was not from a family who suffered under the tories but I saw friends who most certainly did, especially if they were from single parent families.

When the tories got control of Hammersmith and Fulham council (which was to be the 'model' for how they would run the country if they won the general election) the first thing they did was to get rid of services that the most vulnerable people in the community were in need of.

Electra, I totally and completely understand, my dd is severely autistic and, since her father left us, I have survived on carers allowance and income support. The cuts are hitting us very hard and I am very worried that her specialist school placement could be put in jeopardy. As it is, she will be losing her mobility allowance in 2 years time, due to her being in a residential school, which will cause immense difficulties for us. She can't cope with public transport, and she connects taxis with school, she it means that she won't be able to go out when she is home, missing out on social interaction that is incredibly important to her development.

I'm not going to go into my situation in any more detail as I have been flamed elsewhere about it, but basically, these cuts will mean she is socially isolated.

I agree with you electra, that the Tories are going to hit the neediest most - contrary to their claims.

But also agree with the other side of the argument, that not all of those getting the 3K in our taxes are like your daughter, that there are plenty of workshy people who are 'in need' ie on benefits through choice, or lack of aspiration if you prefer to put it more kindly.

I remember reading an article where someone suggested the ideal way to run it would for everyone on benefits to be allocated a family/families to pay them benefits directly ie they'd go to the supermarket together, and the one working would pay for both their shopping, the working one would wave through the window at the one sitting inside, feet up, watching the telly, each day, on his way to work in the morning, and same on the way back.

Whilst it sounds patronising, ultimately I think the distance of the benefits system allows people to forget that there are other, real people - maybe their next-door neighbours, who are working extra hours and going without so that the unwaged can receive benefits.

The sooner those who choose to live off the state realise they are choosing to live off the hard work of other taxpayers, the better.

I'm more than happy to contribute towards electra's daughter, say or someone hardworking and temporarily down on their luck - but I'm not happy to contribute towards supporting someone young, fit and just too plain lazy to attempt to work.

My point is that the tories have their own agenda to dismantle the welfare system, because that is what they are about. I really don't think I am being hysterical - I've never seen a shred of evidence to the contrary. David Cameron is struggling to keep a lid on the real views many of the people in the conservative party hold whist trying to promote his 'caring conservative' brand.

The way to dismantle the welfare system is for them to make people outraged about the 'scroungers' they are supporting. They will need to try to change the general mentality of the public, slowly, slowly for them to be able to push their agenda through. Call me cynical but.......

MissQ - it is awful isn't it - I am trying not to think about it tbh.

'The conservatives don't believe in a welfare system full stop. For anyone.

There is plenty of evidence to support my view.'

Where is it then?

MissQue, this sounds very difficult for you
'my dd is severely autistic and, since her father left us, I have survived on carers allowance and income support.'

The question to be answered is how can we ensure that the father of your child fulfills his financial and emotional duty to her and doesn't just pass it all on to others? Do you have any ideas as to how this copudl be achieved?

Moondog - what's irrational or hysterical in saying the Tories don't care about those who can't help themselves? It's been basic Tory philosophy for hundreds of years. Right back to the very earliest days of politics dividing between Whigs and Tories. The Tories stood for protecting the interests of the wealthy landowners then, and have only developed as far as representing the interests of the wealthy who are not aristocrats. Fair enough if they were honest about it.

Reasonable for the rich to have political representation - as long as everyone else has equal political representation (rather than Ashcroft pouring thousands into trying to buy the election while avoiding the UK taxes he promised to pay and sitting in our parliament deciding how much everyone else has to pay).

Actually I think I gave two examples, moondog. There are plenty more.

The first time my DP weeded the garden, he turned it into a wasteland.

Oh, he'd got rid of the weeds all right. And a large number of wanted plants he'd mistaken for weeds, or didn't notice, or that his quick, easy weed-removal method (dig and turn over) was bound to destroy anyway.

I have now trained him that it's more important to have a nice garden, than to have zero weeds.

Moondog, which is more important to you?

I do not believe anyone wants to dismantle the welfare system.
But equally I do not believe under capitalism we can have full employment.
So either everyone has to start working 25-30 hours a week, my preferred option and that is enough to live on, by managing down public sector costs for example, cutting out stupid fines for people, managing housing costs or else some people will simply exist rather than live for their whole lives.

The generations of people on sink estates who don't work and probably won't need education, or rather their children do, to realise that there is more to life. A lot of these kids don't know how to raise themselves out of the life they're in. Unfortunately, as was stated earlier in the thread, the tories killed the manufacturing industry where traditionally the lower working classes would look for employment. They also closed down the mines and sold off other public sector industries.

The tories see poorer people on welfare state as an easy target, as they don't want to go after the non tax payers (Lord Ashcroft, Tesco to name a couple) who are the real criminals in this. As for the person who earlier made a huge sweeping statement "everyone knows that foreigners work cash in hand", I award you BNP membership and a subscription to the Daily Mail.

Moondog, I'm not sure what the answer is tbh. Those parents who don't want to pay for their children will find a way of not doing it, they move around, change jobs and are generally evasive. Perhaps the CSA needs to keep closer tabs on them through their tax payments, surely they could keep track of where they are working and how much they are earning that way. I dunno.

In my case, my ex whined about every penny, claiming he was 'giving me a fortune', when it was a pathetic £50 a month. That only changed recently when I requested a reassessment, after him pissing me off time and time again, taking his wife and stepkids on fancy holidays and never taking our own dd. I would like to see the CSA do reassessments on a regular basis, yearly perhaps, to make sure that the right amount is being paid, rather than the parent with care ringing them up and making it all feel very spiteful and nasty.

"The conservatives don't believe in a welfare system full stop. For anyone."

I think that is as useful as saying that the Labour party don't believe in capitalism.

Cleary both the welfare sate and the free market exist and it's the job of whoever is in government to manage them as best they can.

Whether the coalition will improve or damage the welfare state is still a matter of opinion. And time will tell, no doubt tell.

The word 'lifestyle' in teh op is such propaganda on its own.

What Riven said.

Jackstar - I see what you mean. But as panettoinydog says - 'lifestyle' indicates the propaganda. It makes me very uneasy. I think people should see it for what it is.

I saw opinions Electra, not facts.
There is a difference.

MissQue, do you not feel murderous to him? How can people like this sleep at night?
I work with extremely vulnerable people and unfortunately see many examples of this.

A Cage, are you saying we have to tolerate and support shirkers and wasters (I won't assume your weed analogy refers to the ill or disabled) in order for the rest of us to lead a semblance of a civilised life?

Mama, that's an interesting opinion but surely there is work for everyone? I don't know very much about ecomonics at all but pointing the finger at people like Ashcroft and Green and bankers seems a bit of a red herring designed to deflect attention from the fact there are plenty of people not pulling their weight.

At least these people generate jobs for other people so serve a useful economic purpose.

It seem we are reaching a situation where, unless you are on a pretty good whack, it's just not worth it financially to work and that can't be right.

I don't think it is true to say it was common to see children in rags in the eighties. I don't remember that at all, not even in very deprived areas.

Right so I just imagined the painfully distinct divide between the haves and the have-nots as a child then moondog? I'll provide a link for what I said about Hammersmith and Fulham council.

The thing is moondog, you started the thread based on something you read in the telegraph (do you have a link?). How are my opinions any different in terms of how factually correct they are or otherwise?

As edam said - the idealogy of the tory party is not something anyone could dispute - it's pretty clear and has been the case for many years.