Why are you dreading a Tory government?

[Swedes]

Social mobility under Labour has fallen to the levels experienced in the 1950s. That means if you are born poor, you remain poor and if you are born wealthy, you stay wealthy.

I heard this morning on R4 that the NHS is experiencing the worst funding crisis in its history.

I could go on but I'm sure you get my drift.
Labour have had over a decade to fulfill their promise that "things can only get better". It's time for a change.

Can you please give me a few good reasons why Labour should remain in office?

I'll probably be the same as you Lenin. I cannot stand Cameron, he just has no charisma and is one of the educated elite that I despise of. Have you seen that photo where he is at Oxford University with his toff mates posing. There is a story about that picture that it has been doctored to remove a couple o fpeople who they did not want to be associated. Peter Hitchin (Of the Mail on Sunday) of all people has been banging on about it for quiet a while now.

I couldn't say why I wouldn't want a Tory government, because I have virtually no idea about what their policies would be. DC and his gang have let nothing slip (barring the spending cuts, which any government would have to make).

Does anyone have any idea what the Tory policies would be?

Instinctively, I lean left, so I doubt I'd vote for them anyway.

But this conversation feels meaningless (apart from, as Swedes says, the "history" of it). Who knows what they would really do?

oh, german tax system is also better, or used to be...because the lower wage would be considerably lower taxed if married....well...I uppose it is a better system for married people...
but will have to find out if it is still true...might have changed now...

I agree that a lot of this is groping in the dark cos Cameron has yet to announce many firm policies.

I was extremely cheered this week, amid the Andrew Langley kerfuffle, to hear that the Conservatives are making a firm commitment to maintain DFID and NHS funding at Darling's budget levels until 2011 (I think). That's a big thumbs up from me.

Haven't they said they'd abolish Sure Start? Don't like that one.

And don't like their proposals for giving state funding to voluntary groups and civil society organisations instead of government departments. But then I'm a lefty, I like government

I do agree that NuLab have done awful things on the civil liberties front. There's no getting away from that one.

Penth makes a good point. They have ben v guarded about their policies. Not least because everything they come up with gets stolen by New Labour. When an election is called they will be v firm about their policies. Until then it doesn't really matter, their job is to hold the govt to account not to electioneer. But I think we all know they would be the party to shrink the size of the public purse.

"shrink the size of the public purse" - yes, that's undoubtedly what they would do.

So, to answer your OP, Swedes: everyone who benefits from a generous public purse is likely to dread a Tory government, one way or another.

as to what has been said about the lack of Tory policies, I agree. Though I get the impression that thses days it is less about ideology and more about fighting for the centre ground. I somehow do not feel that there is a radical right undercurrent to the Tories now, which was there previously.
In some way the decline of this labour Govt seems to mirrors the decline of the Conservative govt previously. the same accusation of being out of touch, a PM that was une;ected and who was seen as weak. Disraeli's exhausted volcanoes comment on the 1870's seem svery appropriate here too.

Referring to PW's ideology thing, mine is that my voting is to protect the most vulnerable in society, always has been and always will be

Agree wholeheartedly about DC'sd polcies, I find the alck of clarity scary.

Every party will shrink the public purse as thats needed to recover from current times, the question is whether the rules will benefit the well off in society, or those at the vulnerable levels- preventing savings via closures of special schools etc. I think the disabled, carers, vulnerable people will likely be palced at risk in favour of a polify base that protects the intersts of those who can most afford not to be protected

Penth - Labour are now taking extemely short-term positions on spending. A thriving economy long-term will generate more revenue and wellbeing for the UK and its inhabitants, in the long term. The public purse really can't afford its current commitments. It seems v obvious to me.

Policywonk - btw Those claims about surestart were made by a Notts Labour MP. And were denied by the Tories.

hmmm...public purse will have to shrink no matter who is in government....I suppose...

however, a lot of people blame the current government for the financial dilemma the country is in....now I have no idea what sort of governments are operating in many many countries, but it seems that the current dilemma is rather universal to many countries, so....not sure it is a labour party government problem, as such....not that I understand any of it, really

I wasn't arguing with you, Swedes , simply pointing out that people who currently feel the benefit of Labour spending aren't likely to welcome a government which is bound by ideology and necessity to cut spending. You asked why people were dreading a Tory government; I answered!

However, I fear that, even if Conservative policies improve the economy (which I doubt they would in reality, though they may take credit for it: I actually believe that, as this recent recession has shown, individual governments are desperately parochial in their abilities to influence the economy) they would not pass on the benefits of those improvements to the most needy. It's just not true, I'm afraid, that a thriving economy just "naturally" benefits everyone. That's a falsehood of free-marketeering. More direct action has to be taken, and the Tories would never take it.

That's interesting re.Sure Start, Swedes.

Haven't the Tories said they would scrap ID cards? That's another one we'd all agree with, I'd guess.

now I would be, generally speaking, all for i.d. cards...having grown up wiht them...tis just the way they want to implement it over here is kinda shite....so...yeah....best not...

abdnhiker - I like your post (see my posts further up about the lib dems /tories etc.)

I sympathise with your position. I think our family income level is similar to yours but we are the type of family you refer to who has scraped by on one income while the children were pre-school. It appears there are two types of mothers for whom it is most financially worthwhile to work - the very well off who can afford top childcare and those on low incomes who can have their childcare paid. For those in between there can be little money left after paying for childcare and commuting etc but there is at least the incentive of more pension for having kept going with work.

Like you I am cross at the liberal democrats proposals on local income tax. It would definitely make us worse off. I think they are fools if they think a household is wealthy with a household income of over 40k in the south east. They appear to want to replace labour in the north and ignore the south (particularly rural areas). If Nick Clegg thinks an income of 40k is wealthy maybe he would like to try living on it for a year?!

Poor Nick Clegg. Half the country thinks he's too left-wing, the other half think he's too right-wing.

He's about right for me...

womble, you might be hit by a higher local income tax but you'd benefit from lower income taxation under the LibDems I think, so you might find it would all even out. (Theoretically, of course.)

Policywonk..I don't know what Nick Clegg stands for really? Charles Kennedy banged on about a penny on tax to pay for education (smaller class sizes) and that was an appealing idea.

Before labour came into power I was not averse to paying more tax for better public services. However the money appears to have only gone to bureaucracy and new schools/hospitals in labour heartlands so there are not better public services across the board. The hospital here (tory area) is in a dire state and there have been huge cuts in the provision of health visitors etc...presumably because all govt money is targeted at labour areas. Those on middle incomes are paying higher rate tax for other people on lower incomes to go back to work and have their childcare paid. Yet we have to also pay the full rate for our childcare.
Train travel is ridiculously overpriced unless your journey is off peak to an area where there are cheaper offers. The government have done nothing to address this.

The labour party don't care much about the countryside and want to concrete over the green belt.

I don't think things could really get much worse under the tories. Although have little time for my local tory MP and don't think I will bring myself to vote for him.

I don't think £40k is masses, esp.if you were a larger family paying off student loans in the SE.

here in SE Wales a decent FT job pays £15k, so £40 is certainly enough- but I'd set teh figure around £60k I think.

a PM that was une;ected and who was seen as weak Quote BGDad

John Major won the election as PM for the Tories in 1992

Probably Lenin, but am in rented on carers allowance atm LOL so can't possibly comment

No I do know what you mean, we used to have a hgouse and would like to again, security post retirement would be amazing.

£60k X 3 would get you a house here, £40k X 3 wouldn't so maybe there should be some formula linked in to house prices to track the economy? Something like 1/3 of a three bed semi in a middling SE area?

I don't think Cameron can be dismissed. He might be a well healed Etonian but I think he is very likeable especially with the southerners and the press gang. Like Blair and Clinton he knows that elections are won on the centre ground. He knows what imagery the Tories need to get into power. Obviously, I think that he is a very capable and likable man. I don't think that he is at all stuck up nor would he be a bad leader.

BUT I can't justify voting for the Tories because:

-Don't know what most of his policies are. We new what NuLabour manifesto was before 97
-Not yet convinced that his party isn't just about tax cuts for higher paid
-Not convinced that his party still isn't very sexist (and racially biased)

Although I would probably benefit financially from a Tory govt, I like to imagine that I am voting for something over and above self interest and the Tories haven't given that bigger reason to vote for them yet.

Apologies if you have heard my view on this before.