How the name of heaven can anyone support the Tories?

[turdassmuthafukka]

I just don't get it. Unless you are a heartless multimillionaire - then it makes total sense of course.

I have to turn off Radio 4 when I hear Hague?Gove et al dribbling out their blatant lies/spin/venom especially early in the morning. How on earth can ANYONE not see them for what they are?

IndigoJohn - in my town the Sure Start centres are used by families who are socially disadvantaged but I suppose you are unaware those people exist - we all live in affluent villages after all.

Electra - don't be ridiculous.

The whole point of my post was to say that building Sure Start centres in affluent villages was a complete and utter bloody waste if money!

I would FAR rather they had been built in deprived areas or the money spent on teh police/NHS/education yadda yadda.

Or do you think building breastfeeding cafes for the middle classes was a good use of taxpayers hard earned?

Sorry - I misunderstood, I thought you were opposing SS generally. In every area though there are people who need a service like SS. And it isn't necessarily about money - some people struggle with parenthood generally or have mental health issues and need support that is not necessarily subsidised play groups only.

No , not at all! I think they have been a superb initiative BUT misused somewhat in some circumstances.

I've been involved with several over the years and all where heavily used by the non target market.

The question isn't whether or not we think surestart is a good idea. Plainly they are.

The question is whether or not we can afford them or want to afford them.

If we had a nice balanced budget or even near a balanced budget then I'd say yeah let's do it. But in current times we have to ask if this is one thing which we must do without.

We don't have infinite money. So do we keep funding for Surestart centres at the same level? If so, where do we take that money from? Do we cut NHS, police, civil service? Or do we think it's important enough to raise taxes?

That's the question we should be asking for each major item of public spending.

It's not about whether or not we want to help those less fortunate. It's about doing stuff which is affordable. And yes, I realise affordable is relative. But it seems many people do not realise there's a trade off. Everytime they want to spend money on something, there's less to spend elsewhere.

Sure Start is just such a superb example of great idea, poor outcome though.
A lot of people who would really benefit from these centres are put off using them because of the demographic of those using them in certain areas.

Honestly, building a brand new building in our village was lunacy. we are £3 and a long bus ride away from any pockets of deprivation. Such a terrible waste when you think where that money could now be going to.

It is firstly about deciding what your prioroties are. And funding the less fortunate might be a government priority, it might not.

Then affordability should be considered.

But every government will have its own priorities and it's a bit naive not to recognise that.

What was cut, or what taxes raised, to cover the Libya war? I would say the government considered it to be one of their priorities and so they cut away at other things that are not their priorities while continuing with the over-arching policy that state provision is not a good thing.

Of course, ticktock. I'm not arguing pro Labour or any other party.

Each party and government has its priorities and it is precisely those priorities that will influence where the biggest cuts are made, as well as the biggest spends. There is always money. The Tories do not have to make the cuts they make. That's just not true. The Labour govt didn't have to make the choices it made.

What cuts do you suppose the Tories should be making?

"There is always money". No there isn't.

Yes there is.

Well as a carer in a working but low income family we face cuts of£200 pcm to our disability tax credit in 2013.

This means we will lose our home and have to move into council accomodation, and that depending on which housing group we get DH might have to close his business as some will not allow working from home. And then we will be totally state dependent.

So some cuts make people dependent rather than enabling them to help themselves and that is pointless and apaprently against the Tory ethos.

Some surestarts work; my office (for another employer, a charity) was in one based on a really notorious estate and it did great work, often in partnership with social services etc but also with teh wider community, just forging links. very valuable.

I guess what makes meangry is the cackhanded way some suts have been made. I get teh need to introduce assessments for ESA and DLA / PIP. but the new test fails to emasure for autism, which emans he will need to go on to JSA. Except if he fails to turn up for work programmes he will lose that and all other benefits as well- and he can't turn up for work programmes as he is autistic and can't really communicate much less go out and about alone........ I'll keep im safe and fed until he dies but I have a very real terror about what will happen to him after I go. I ahve other boys with ASD who will be able to work and pay taxes, one I suspect will be immensely financially successful, but none will be safe to care for him without a real risk of neglect.

"Cuts make people dependent" is an oxymoron if I ever heard one.

I really do worry about the expectations people have of the government nowadays. It's like the primary responsibility for raising a family has been deferred to the state, and people have the idea that they only work in order to be able to afford luxuries. This is quite simply unsustainable. A lot of people are going to be in for a massive shock in the near future, and I fear it will be too much for them.

I support the tories because I think all the poor people should give all their money to rich people so that we can have a few more millionaires, cause thats what this country really needs.

We should also not charge any tax to very rich companies, so that they can make lots and lots of money and give it all to people who do NO work and contribute nothing to this country, and probably live in some tax haven like Tory Lord Ashcroft on a tropical island. And get him to make our laws, just because hes got lots of money now. Even if he doesnt even live here..
Unfortunately this means we wont be paying teachers or people who do the public services that keep this country going, or disabled people or anyone, but we'll just slag 'em off and say its their own fault. They havent go any money anyway, so what are they going to do ?

Oh, no wait..

It's not Rob

If you take away the means by which people are getting out of poverty then you risk them falling into absolute dependency. If you make it impossible for someone working from home to stay in that house, so that they ahve to move somewhere where it is not permitted, you are quite clearly cutting off a route out for them.

However I am starting to think forcing the LEA to psy for a boarding palce for ds1 and working myself is by far the best route. OK so it would cost a lot more for the state (sort of palce DS needs is close to £2k a week) but I am seriously thinking that I cannot risk the other children's home over the care needs of my beloved yet aggressive child.

All my kids were born with full employment in our household and had DH's employers not moved away we would still be on a decent income. I never expected anything barring a return on many yeras of NI should the unthinkable happen.

I don't get the deficit moaning stuff. The deficit was caused primarily by the economic crisis. There was no option. We were on the brink of bank doors closing and ATMs not working. By a day or so. And yet still some would not take the step to put in the funding.

Whatever you may think of Gordon Brown, he did take the necessary action, and it was followed by the US and Europe.

The deficit previously, while it had exceeded Gordon's own rule of 40%, was sitting at about 50%, would have been managed and would not have been a source for the vitriol that is shot at Labour and Brown now. I don't agree with the increase in the deficit in the domestic spending terms, but the net increase due to the financial crisis was, well, as result of action that had to be taken. And it had to be taken.

While I believe that Labour should not have been so liberal with the bankers to allow the crisis to take such a hit here, as in allow the retail and commercial banks to cross each others' boundaries and also take on so much leverage, it is certainly true that the conservatives favoured fewer constraints on the market than Labour.

the defecit was caused by continual government overspending. even during the boom 2002-5 the government ran a defecit.

Tell me all you Tory supporters,where are the jobs for the public sector workers that have been made redundant?

Don;t worry, usual. We have been told that the private sector will supply many of those jobs. That's probably one of the main reasons why IDS is putting pressure on private companies to take on unemployed Brits.

This solution is, of course, going down very well with the private sector.

But the private sector is facing jobs losses left right and centre as well

how the fuck can they employ all the public sector workers ?

I read on here about private sector workers with pay cuts and pay freezes all the time

It doesn't add up does it ?

Well..... one way is to disband all education services at the LEA and to set them up as private companies.

So did the Tories before Labour took over. And at various times during the Tory thatcher years.

Which data are you looking at? Would be intersted to see?

The deficit was caused primarily by the economic crisis

Not true. New Labour inherited a balanced budget from the previous Tory govt. Whilst they stuck to the Tory spending plans (as they promised they would) things were fine. The moment Gordon Brown let rip with the nation's chequebook, a deficit started. At the time it was a small one and common wisdom was this was manageable. However, the bit he didn't count on was that this meant during a recession, the cupboards were bare as they are now. And given the nature of the crisis, the govt cannot borrow its way out of trouble and seek to pay it back during the next boom.

There's now a significant structural deficit which does not take into account the banking bailout. This is pure overspending on things we cannot afford and not the one off event (hopefully) of the banking crisis.

So nice guy ..where are all the jobs for the public sector workers that are being made redundant?