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!

USERSRLOSERS, it's TrickOrNinks to you, thanks.

Can you tell me how the Tories will address the terrible situation where single mothers lose 96p in the pound if they go to work? Without cutting benefits?

And can you be absolutely sure that the winter fuel allowance will continue?

Rofl at Tony Blair being ex "pubic school"

I'm looking at him in an entirely new light

I bet TB was ex pubic

OMG here is Seeker again what a surprise! I remember th 80's too ,Seeker and i remember your Bovverboots from Greenham Common. Do you drink Veuve Cliquot as you unwind with your copy of Socialist Worker these days?
To all you bleaters whining about Cameron propsing (through George Osborne) a freeze for 1 year on Public Sector wages,welcome to the real wor1d!
My wages have been frozen for the last 4 years. Gordon Brown presided over the Banking crisis he announced the de- regulatory measures back in the late 90's and he, just like Tony Blair was seduced by the allure of the big money and high rollers in the City ,( a lot of whom were alsoChampagne Socialists) Neither man really cared for Middle Britain. Oh, and all you women on the above posts who feel sorry for Gordon! SMELL THE COFFEE!! Getting your wife to stick up for you in front of the Party, pass the sick bag please. While we are at it some of you said you would vote for Gordon just cos his baby died, yes, very sad but I wont be casting my vote for Cameron just because his son tragically died!
Just because the Tories are being honest and spelling out the painful truth people dont like it. What do you want more lies, increased debt? a Yes nd perhaps we can invade Iran this time and look for their OIL (sorry meant WMD!) I did not vote for Thatcher but this bunch of sorry losers have lied and shamed the country in the same way as Wilson and his cronies. Why are you all so bloody gullible( and to the lady who says she will vote UKIP because the Tories getting in will damage women's rights, UKIP are the last bastion of male chauvanism in politics.) Your naivete is breathtaking!!

Trinkylinks why dont the single mothers you are referring go to work and stop letting us sub them? I am all for that. My cousin is a widow and she is earning 2p above the minimum wage she has 2 kids and is trying to instill in her kids a good solid work ethic, it is people like her who need help and not those who refuse to work. Britain is just one big begging bowl full of bleeding hearts. I am not a greedy Industrialist either I earn £8 an hour and I want to see more fair play. Blair and Brown did NOT play fair so dont delude yourselves!!!!

Your shallow and simple arguments are straight from the DM! How can you have a good solid work ethic if there are no jobs to apply this too? How can you say that Brown precipitated the banking crisis when it was a global phenomenon? This is not to say that Labour has been good for Britain. Far from it. After 12 years in power complacency and self interest has corrupted any hope of ever being able to reverse some frankly terrible policy decisions.

However go back to 1979 and the wave of optimism that greeted Thatcher and her promises of getting Britain working, of a better society, of ending the incompetence of the previous Labour government and all of the terrible things that had happened. So we got privatisation of a myriad of businesses, the miners strike, the eroding of the unions powers and protection for workers, the beginning of outsourcing because workers rights were now worth less than nothing, the culture of greed (remember Ben Elton, Harry Enfield on Saturday Night Live?), of wars fought when the tide of public opinion threatened to go against her. Remember Poll Tax and the riots, the riots in Bristol, Brixton and Handsworth, recession and the housing collapse and mass unemployment.

Fast forward to 1997 and there's Blair promising to undo 18 years of Tory policies, spend more money on public services, help the less fortunate, attract more business to Britain to create more jobs. Basically the same promises. Labour had modernised and learnt from the Tories what was needed to get elected. They also realised that once you were in power you didn't necessarily have to pay anything more than lip service to what was said. Cue policies that led us to the current precipice and collapse of confidence. The same cycle, just repeated 6 years earlier.

Does anyone seriously believe that this Tory government will be significantly different to the 1979 or 1997 cravings for change? We're (rightly so) clamouring for change because we've given Labour more than enough chances to fix things that it has broken and it has failed miserably. Cameron's promises of change and policy ring hollow because we've seen it all before - some people will be better off, some worse off, some money will be moved around to plug gaps, services will be cut and the deficit will shrink because the global economy is starting to show tentative signs of recovery and they will use this to show that the Tories are a government of business (whereas they were in the right place at the right time, like Blair). We will not vote for Cameron because his policies are great, are good for us as individuals nor will we vote for him because he has a winning personality - after all like his front bench and the opposition front bench the vast majority are over-privileged public school products with no concept of real struggle and their sweeping policy decisions never affect the rarefied atmosphere they inhabit. So they make their policy decisions with impunity, with advice from the same types of think-tanks populated with isolated academia and public school types, but still we will vote for Cameron. If only because we crave change, any change.

Personally I am sure that my family will be slightly worse off under a Tory government. However this probably will not stop me voting against Labour and I am sure there are hundreds of thousands feeling the same way as me.

Edit: That was DH btw, he really should get his own account

yep...agree with every word of your brilliant post trickorninks...

Expat, normally I agree with a lot you say in this post and you do make a good point that the realities of your life are very far removed for DC priviledged existance.

However, I take issue with one statement you made:

"MY son is the one who would sign up for Afghanistan.

His would be at Sandhurst."

So, those who go to Sandhurst do not go to Afghanistan and do not fight, get injured or die alongside the lower ranks?

Yes, officers spend a year at Sandhurst training for their role, just as soldiers spend six months completing basic training for their role. Then they all go out on operations.

My husband - a major - did his time at Sandhurst and is currently serving in Afghanistan (and it's not the first time he's been there, either) so, forgive me if I took your statement a little personally.

Userlosers I have met Riven.

She's an incredibly intelligent, elegant (though she says not- she is wrong) woman who is highly artuiculate, dedicated and whom I admiore immensely.

Having a different political opinion does not make you sad; wishing to stifle the existence of that makes you a fascist.Tories in general are not fascists- I am great one for appreciating the validity of breadth of political view (think the Buddhist 'middle way'), but I wonder about where you stem from tbh.

User, since you are so enlightened generally can I ask your opinion of those like me on carers Allowance?

As you can soryt out the entire single mother issues so simply (and clearly have a shed fullof spare jobs to release),perhaps you can explain how I should get back to work?

No childcare possible (violent child), nobody would employ (due to number of appts etc- 2 disabled chidlren)....

???????

Am always wondering if there is some clear solution that I can't work out?Am fairly well educated (egree, studying for MA in autism...) but this one is passing me by....

I do actually understand people who vote Tory and I don't think the difference is massive, but I have a different ideology.

What I don't get is why the PM got The 2009 World Statesman Award ? Below is what I got when I googled it - I don't know if putting the tories in power would we tip into the abyss or as most of the bankers went to Eton and/or Oxbridge unis would they get Britain out of the mess?

On September 22, Prime Minister Brown was awarded the 2009 World Statesman award by the Appeal of Conscience Foundation. The award was presented by Rabbi Arthur Schneier, president and founder of the Appeal of Conscience Foundation, and Dr. Henry Kissinger during the foundation's annual award benefit dinner. The Prime Minister was cited for his "compassionate leadership in dealing with the challenging issues facing humanity, his commitment to freedom, human dignity and the environment and for the major role he has played in helping to stabilize the world's financial system."

Seeking - I think it's mostly the last sentence of the citation that explains it:

'major role he has played in helping to stabilize the world's financial system'

I know this causes snorts in the UK, but globally Brown is regarded as having made absolutely the right calls over the course of the recession, from the run on Northern Rock to quantitative easing. The Tories opposed almost all of his measures at one time or another.

(Brown's actions also went a long way towards causing the problem, of course.)

I can see the discussion's veered off - but in response to Nostrilla's point on WFTCs, yes the Conservatives have only stated that they would scrap tax credits (and baby bonds) for family incomes over £50k as part of a plan of immediate cuts. However, back in August, Theresa May expressed a more general philosophical objection to them, which does imply that they want to get rid of them altogether.

The last thing I want is a bunch of ex public school boys telling me that I am a drain on society because I don't have a man. I have worked before my pregnancy and when my dd is old enough I shall return to work.I think Labour have created a good support network for people who are in difficult circumstances.

And this marriage at all costs philosophy. I just don't get it. I'd love to be married but it's not going to be to any old sausage. Dc wants to make it more difficult for people to divorce. It sound ok but what if you are stuck in abusive marriage. What are the Tories going to do? Have exams to test how strong your marriage is? If you don't pass you can't divorce?

They all say they will do whatever it takes to get your vote n then don't do anything they said they would so it is unlikely to make any kind of difference. Politicians don't live in the real world so have no idea what the real issues are in life. It is just completely depressing and hopeless. How does anyone sort out the mess this country is in now? What government is really interested in fixing it? Hmm....

Completely agree re: marriage. Conservative ideals are at odds with everything I believe in and I will never 'get' it.

Really I can't stand the thought of another Thatcher You know there was a time when I thought Conservative would be unlikely to ever get in again just due to the fact that they have to make their campaigns more right wing than ever they were to distinguish themselves...

I read some very depressing stuff yesterday about what the Tories might do to the BBC if they get a big enough majority. The idea that James fucking Murdoch might get his way over the BBC makes me want to cry.

usersrlosers - who looks after single mother's children whilst they work then in your proposed plan? It is likely to be much cheaper to pay a mother benefits to stay at home than to pay for her childcare and top up her earnings in the majority of cases where a single mother is claiming benefits. This is because a single mother is payed £64.30 per week for caring for her own children no matter how many she has. Tax credits top up the income support and are based on income and number of children. If a mother on benefits returns to work in a minimum wage or poorly paid job (which is very likely) she has to pay childcare for all children for the period she works. The Government would pay all or most of those fees and would have to top up her earnings from her job with working Taxcredits and likely housing benefit and council tax benefit. She would pay very little in terms of Tax. The family would likely have less in terms of income and the Government, when you consider nursery fees and top-up benefits would likely be providing just as much financial support as they were when she did not work. This is why the Government have no plans to force single parents off benefits before their children go to school.

A better point would be why are the Government not identifying the absent parent and forcing them to take more financial responsibility for their children?

Oh and the tax you pay from your £8 an hour job doesn't go very far towards supporting the state, perhaps you should try harder to be more gainfully employed.

Single aprentsa re the same as acarers- often there through no choosing of their own, cheaper to keep on benefits overall and demonised for being there when they do claim (OK cares get the lips ervice but that's just covered up with 'Benefits claimants are...'.MN is very enlightened on carers (IMO becuase the SN board makes for real integration) but the world is a different place to MN.

So agree with CK- go after the absent parent (when they don't contribute) rather than demonise the ones coping left behind.

There's so much that can be done to help people off benefits-
like improving access to after school childcare (ATM you pay a deposit and book 6 months in advance here... you'd need to be effectivekly psychic to know when you were getting a job 6 months early, and you cannot afford payments for childcare until you are employed...); focus on creating work in the economy (not sure how mass redundancies in public sector will save a penny when they have nowhere to go to for alternative income- isn't it better to have people working and paying taxes than sat at home claiming benefits, laying off childcare etc....?).... and change the benefit system- instead of you sign on the day you get laid off then off the day you get employment, make it run with paydays so you start to receive a pay period 9week or month dependant on last job) after unemployment but receive until you get your first pay packet- minimal effects for the short term redundancy but ending a massive 'how do we feed purselves for the first month?' dilemma for those with longer term issues.

"I can't see any upsides to the tories getting in as they will cut everything(health and education will go down the pan again just as my boy is starting school, more babies will die from lack of midwives etc etc) while being nice to anyone earning over £100k because obviously they are more worthy than the rest of us."

really

Sweeping statements do no good whatsoever. Less money spent does not necessarily equal poorer services but does require less money wasted. And this government has wasted a lot of money.

ILoveGregory, last time the Tories were in they had a blanket rule that health authorities and NHS trusts had to make 3% cuts every year. Didn't care how those cuts were achieved, as long as they could call them 'efficiency savings'.

So yes, it's highly likely we will have fewer midwives. Easiest thing to do is to cut beds and heads.

When the Tories were around the NHS was starved of resources - we ended up way down the league of EU countries for healthcare spending, while thousands of patients died waiting for operations. You need to do certain operations at certain stages in the progression of the illness. But waiting lists meant people didn't get the operation at the right time - the Tory-run health service was wasting vast amounts of money operating on people who were too ill to benefit, while leaving people who could benefit languishing, getting sicker and dying unnecessarily.

Your access to healthcare also depended on whether your GP had signed up to a government wheeze called fundholding. Hospital notes were stamped on the cover, so the consultant could see whether your GP was a fundholder. Patients of fundholders got preferential treatment. While some fundholders made a lot of money they could stuff in their back pockets.

Let's hope Cameron and his public schoolboy friends who can all afford to go private take a more intelligent approach to the NHS - at least he has some personal experience of it as the private sector doesn't actually do a lot for children with life-limiting special needs.

Curiosity you sound like a real cow just because someone in on £8.00 an hour, my nephew is on minimum wage and supports himself does that mean he is worse than a benefits scounger coz he doesn't earn enough to contribute to state finances and benrit scounger's life style, if I am bigoted the OMG so are you. Iworked for 3 years in Luanda and that is real poverty for people living in that city. Sorry about type errors I am seething Seething GRRR

I don't think CH meant it like that for a minute- just that someone was over estimating the amount of their own contributions

Please can we stop referring to everybody on benefits as a benefit scrounger? It is ridiculously judgemenatal and indicates a complete lack of knowledge of the complicate situations affecting people claiming a wide variety of different benefits and allowances.

There are claimants and there are frausters: jeeping the distinction clear does nothing to harm the genuines and everything to put the fraudsters firmly in the box they should belong in.

Unless of course one beleives that carers, pensioners, the disabled, recently redundant, people on MA etc should be labelled as scroungers? In which case I think most Tories would cast you looks of horror as much as us demon socialists.