The Tories are gonna get in, it's inevitable do you care? Is there an upside?

[TheDullWitch]

Oh why not have the election NOW. Let the buggers get in, show their true colours, become universally loathed, then get kicked out after one term. Come on, let's get on with it!

Also NHS and state education were in hell of a mess. Much worse than they are now.

I've never been on the dole, either.

I have lived in countries with little to no benefits, though.

There are slums in such places that would blow your mind.

Have you not moved yet, Expat? Same area?

Sorry smallwhitecat. I worked in a bank once.
Of course I didn't mean you I meant the fat cats....I sometimes get a bit carried away. Forgive me!

'Personally I find those who are anti-Tory are generally the ones who are the one's who are getting their handouts slashed or being told to go and support themselves rather than expecting the state to give them free money with no conditions.'

Who gets free money with no conditions?

I am anti-tory, we are do not get tax credits and are in the 40% tax bracket.

I think the overwhelming majority of the changes Thatcher implemented have been damaging in the long term, not helpful. Money is not the be and end all. The changes she implemented in the NHS (compulsary competitive tendering, the concept of the 'generic hospital worker' and the private finance initiative) directly contributed, IMO, to the rise in hospital superbugs and dirty hospitals. Efforts to combat this cost £1bn per year. The Labour Government repositioned themselves on these issues after election in 1997 and so can be accused of not implementing change, but the implementers of change were the Tories....

Yes, I'm with curiosity on this one. I'm anti-Tory, but judging by stereotypes bandied about and given my socio-economic status, I should by all rights be pro-Tory - I work in the financial sector, went to a Russell Group uni with PLENTY of Tories, am a higher rate tax payer, never claimed benefit, actually, don't claim any form of tax benefits, receive child credits and so on, don't use many public services (like NHS, schools) etc. etc., but I'm not. If you had asked me six months ago, whether or not I would ever consider voting Tory I would have slapped you and then said "NEVER! I'd rather eat glass", but due to some barking Labour policies I have considered it. Then looked at their policies and went back to the "I'd rather eat glass" stand point I held before.

Yes, strange to consider the 'rich' as Tory voting and anti-socialist and the 'poor' or 'underclass' as socialists...

To say 'free money with no conditions', if it is in reference to welfare benefits, shows a deep misunderstanding of the process of claiming benefits IMO.

Oh, and as for the public sector paying for the private sector's mistakes, come on. The public sector can be incredibly inefficient and generally useless. I have a friend who went from private to public working as a lawyer, and was shocked at his colleagues lazy attitude, the slow rate at which they did anything and general level of waste. In my job, we do work with the public sector and are relied on a LOT by government agencies (in the UK and abroad) to do some of their work, and to basically do things they cannot afford to do. The general public aren't away of these kind of instances were the private sector's doing some of the government's job. Another example - my family know a consultant who works for one of the big firms (like PwC and Deloitte etc.). They do consultancy work for the public sector, and he said it's a complete waste of money. The public sector pays them millions, to basically tell them how to do a job they know how to do, and how to improve it in ways they know how to, but just don't have the courage to do so.

In fact, out of the people I know those with the most radical socialist views are the Doctors, all well off, well educated e.t.c. The person who holds the most extreme right wing views is my neighbour who told me recently she was looking to get another house on benefits (to move out of dad's) by lying about being a lone parent but they couldn't find one that was nice enough and they felt it was unfair that 'the social wouldn't give them a spare bedroom for her boyfriend's daughter to stay in' during contact, even though he apparently doesn't live there.

You can't judge these things by the people you know. Mainly because the people you like and choose to associate with will normally be reflections of yourself and don't provide a true picture of the rest of the country.

There is only one upside for me. By the time they get in I will only have 2.6 years left of being a single parent as DD is 15.6 year old now so by the time they bring the cuts that they will inevitably make to families in my situation I will no longer be a provider for my child.

Thank god I brought her up under a labour government for the majority of her childhood.

Yes, the principles of privatisation are often correct in theory. Public sector jobs are often more stable and better paid. Public sector workers are often more wasteful. I don't believe these are arguments for privatisation however. They are arguments for better regulation of the public sector. Privatisation in the public sector has not got a proven track record, IMO anyway.

The problem is the same as with the bankers, people signing their own cheques does not make for efficiency or responsibility in any workplace. Public sector workers, bankers, MPs, they are all effectively signing their own cheques.

thing is curiosity, the avarage voter won't know all the ins and outs of every policy that's worked or gone wrong, people do however, associate labour with the benefit culture we have today.

the tories want people to have aspirations and are more family/marriage friendly.

labour is ok if you're in a minority group...

i won't vote labour again..they only came about through the trade unions, and then betrayed them....

But there is not only a choice between labour and the tories!

Whenever tories speak about wanting people to have aspirations and valuing marriage I immediately interpret that as cuts to benefits for those most in need whilst the rich get richer. I don't think I am alone in this interpretation and I don't think it is an interpretation formed only by people who think about or take an interest in the history of policy or current party politics.

Bleh, i completely agree with you. I work for a big firm and as part of my job I've spent time working on public sector accounts. I've worked in NHS hospitals, DWP, councils. I now avoid it whenever I can as seeing the complete waste and inefficiency makes me very very angry.

To say the NHS is underfunded is rubbish. What is happening is that the money is being spent in the wrong places. I once asked why every March I was spending all my time in hospitals and the answer was that all these trusts wanted to spend all their budgets before April otherwise they risk not getting the same funding the year after!?!?!

When i was at the DWP, i was asked to look at how we could implement a computer system which would cost £2m, last 18 months and as far as I could tell the sole driver for it was so the minister in charge could get a £32k bonus. My recommendation was just to give the guy his bonus and save the other £1.7m. Unsurprisingly my company ignored that advice, took the contract and made money from it!

A council I was at had a guy who used to come in, sleep at his desk and do nothing. They daren't get rid of him as he would simply claim racism so no-one had the backbone to take him on.

I have every sympathy for the frontline public servants like the police, nurses etc who do a hard job. But too many civil servants are simply coasting on easy street.

SmallWhiteCat it seems that way because it's helping people who need it. Once a family have an income over a certain level then this theory goes out of the window. Now there is no way any government whatever colour is going to get to a situation where it's citizens and thrown onto the street and starving so it cannot make cuts at that lower end.

Instead it will go for the easy targets, the ones just keeping their heads above water but relying on some benefits.

plus curiosity...alot of left-wingers who bang on about immigrants, poor single mothers, etc...don't live anywhere near them...they don't live on the council estate in Burnley...they live in a townhouse in Chiswick.

they are basically full of shit..

Both my husband and I are lucky enough to not have needed to claim any benefits (obv we get child benefit).

We both work in financial services (the sorting out the shit bit, not the make loads of money without a thought for the future and bugger off before the bail out bit).

We are in the 40% tax bracket. He went to private schools, I went to a grammar.

Would I ever vote Tory? Like Bleh I'd rather eat broken glass. Would DH? Same as me.

We believe in the NHS, public services, state schools and happily pay our taxes for the privilage.

We are socialists. We believe in making society better for everyone, not just those that can afford it. We don't always agree with the methods, we don't always think the money gets where it needs to when it needs to, but we influence this by lobbying and exercising our right to vote.

I don't think DC is offering anything new. It's all rhetoric. No substance.

I would be interested in seeing a coalition government with the liberal democrats. That would shake things up a bit and get people thinking about the policies they make (or it might give us lots of stalemates - I realise that) but I don't think either of the big parties can lift us out of the mess on their own. Coalition can work - it is in Germany.

On a separate note, in response to previous posts, Susan Kramer is my local MP. I think she's great. Likewise Vince Cabel across the river. I can't believe any one would seriously think Zac Goldsmith and his dodgy propoganda is a serious rival.

And Zac, if you are googling yourself (and he seems the sort that would IYKWIM), be a dear and stop getting your minions to post your shit newsletter through my letter box. You'll know who I am because you'll notice the day after a delivery it's sitting in the recyling box. Many thanks in advance.

smallwhitecat - no, I'm not saying my interpretation is correct at all. I'm saying that my interpretation is my interpretation and is not necessarily formed just because I'm interested in politics.

I find it hard to make a judgement either way about the benefits system mitigating against marriage or employment. Welfare benefits are worked out based on what the Government judge to be the absolute minimum a person can live on. If a person is worse off in work, IMO that is because there is a problem with the entry level of the workplace in that a person is able to earn less than the Government has judged the bare minimum someone needs to live on.

As far as I am concerned, I believe it is not a Government's place to financially incentivise or disincentivise marriage. I would most likely benefit financially under a Tory Government, being part of a rather middle income (although high rate tax paying) and married family. I still would not vote Tory.

daftpunk - yes tis true!

Some of the FSA workers are notoriously bad. Each bank is supposed to have an allocated individual for some issues. My old boss used to work at Goldman, and said that the designated Goldman contact was impossible to get hold of. They have amazing catering though.

I am very heartened by some of these posts. Even if I were married and had a 40% tax bracket income I would never vote Tory either. There has to be more to a civilised society than an 'I'm alright Jack attitude'.