I'm at a loss - why are the LD's being punished and who is voting Tory?

[smashingtime]

It feels to me as though the LD's are being punished for the Coalition but really it is mostly Tory policies which are in the process of ruining the country. The Tories haven't done badly in these elections so are most people really unaffected by cuts or is it the grey vote that is making the difference?

oh, those incredibly wise international money markets... those would be the ones that not only failed to see the worst economic crisis for 60 years coming, they actually ruddy caused it, screwed the rest of us and then ran away with what was left? Still, nice to know we've got them to blame for Clegg as well as everything else.

Can I just point out to everybody who seemed, ahem, a little disbelieving, of the statement that the UK had come out of a recession under Labour, the source for this was the Office for National Statistics. Perhaps if people had been a little bit more informed about the facts before the election we might still be experiencing a period of growth....

Who are these people carminaburana? Really, who? I worked for ten years in in one of the most deprived areas in the UK I don't know of one person in that community who has 'never done a day's work' in their lives.

Friends work in HR and say that they get literally hundreds of applications for the lowliest jobs going.

The people with this so -called 'sense of entitlement' to benefits are very few and far between. And so are decent jobs in some areas.

'sense of entitlement' applies far more to Cameron and the Tory toffs than to the unemployed - most of whom have lost their jobs due to Tory economic policy. Cameron thinks he's entitled to pursue policies without any mandate - breaking up and privatising the NHS wasn't in the manifesto of either Tories or Lib Dems (the Tories claimed they would protect the NHS - ho ho ho). Clegg thinks he's entitled to screw up that manifesto pledge about tuition fees. And so on and so on and so on...

The Lib Dems are getting the blame because people expect the Tories to savage hit the poor, but hoped the coalition would mean the Lib Dems would temper Tory excesses. Not encourage them.

Abr1de 'Us Tories believe hard work brings prosperity. My family is suffering a big setback at the moment owing to redundancy but I have no doubt that we will bounce back, because we have a work ethic and a strong belief in the strength of the family. We aren't rich but we are enterprising and have grit. That's why we are Tories, we don't believe that the State owes us a living. We will sort ourselves out, thanks. We will do any kind of work to keep our house and standard of living, and we do not whinge like Socialists.'

Oh jesus wept! Just like you Abr1de, my husband and I have a 'work ethic'. Just like you, we don't believe that the state 'owes' us a living. Just like you, we work our bloody socks off to maintain our standard of living.
Unlike you, however, we have an autistic child and, unlike you, I believe that society should care about what happens to him when I am dead, and what support he will receive from the state. Because, you see, it is how we collectively care for, support and look after the most vulnerable in our society that makes us human.

There's a big difference in caring for the genuinely vulnerable, ie; the disabled and the people who are out of work through no fault of their own - and making a life on benefits so attractive you can't see the point in working ( as is the case for lots of people ) not eveyone on benefits is a poor vulnerable person, some refuse jobs because they'll be worse off financially - that is a fact. The welfare state was designed as a safety net to help people until they got back on their feet - it wasn't designed to be a lifelong option.

carmina, do you have any facts and figures to back up those rather sweeping assertions? Would be interested to see any you can find.

Many of the people in poverty are actually working - but working for such shit wages they can't afford to mend their shoes when the soles wear out. When you say people can't afford to take jobs, one way of reading that is that there are far too many shit jobs paying shit money that doesn't allow people to live in decent housing or decent conditions. Not the Ritz, just walls that aren't damp.

I'm so glad I live in red Leicester tonight

thats what we think of the Tories and lib dems

Quite so Edam re the crap pay
And caminaburina who are these people who see benefits as a 'lifelong' option? The welfare state has only place since the second world war ended, ie 65 years or so. Are you telling me that after ww2 some people went on benefits and never came off? Because they would be the only people in Britain who had been on benefits for life!

Edam; I could link you a 1000 reports/newspaper articles to back up my claims - but I won't waste my time or yours as we both know I'm right.
DC is taking the benefit culture very seriously which is why he introduced the welfare reform bill a few months ago -if I was making sweeping generalisations I doubt we'd be seeing the biggest change to the welfare system in over 60 years / so my claims' are all too real - unfortunately.

' And why should employers bother paying any more when the same government decides that all of it's employees struggling to make ends meet on this state sanctioned low wage will be topped up with benefits?'
So giddy I'm trying to follow your logic. You appear to be suggesting that the minimum wage is actually responsible for low pay and unfair wages and the benefits system is responsible for the lack of decent, affordable childcare? And you suggest that, should the market be unfettered by the state, wages would be raised and childcare providers would reduce their rates?
I didn't realise it was all so simple, let's end benefits now and see the philanthropy of the private sector in action!

Wook - there are people who have been claiming benefits for years - entire generations have never worked and don't want to work. I know of council estates where 50% of it's residents have never worked and are in no hurry to find a job.

carmina, how much do think is actually spent on these scores of people who ought to be working but refuse to?

According to the Daily Mail in 2009/2010, of the approx £150 billion spent on welfare, only 3.6 billion was spent on JSA.

Please don't kid yourself the tories are concerned about the sick and disabled. They've set totally arbitrary figures for cuts in these areas, with no regard to need.

Really carmin and where is this estate where all these feckless people live? And how do you know that these people would not like to find a job? What evidence is it that you have for these assertions?
By the way, how old are these 50% of people? Because unless they are all aged 30 or under, then I don't see how this is a Labour issue- since that's about the age school leavers aged 16 in 1997 would now be.

All labour did to make their unemployment figures look half decent was to take people off one list and stick them on another one - off the dole and onto 'sickness' benefit - People on sickness benefit were no longer included in the jobless totals - way hey!

Lies and spin - that's all labour are good at.

The figures actually show that welfare was a much smaller proportion of spending in the labour years, and tories spent much more on welfare.

Its one of those interesting 'unintended consequences', but its also pretty damn obvious that if you sack hundreds of thousands in the midst of a recession, your unemployment support bill will increase, and your tax receipts will drop.

Does anyone find this hard to understand?? How can it be explained any simpler?

Abr1de - Im sorry to hear your DH lost his job and your work is drying up. This illustrates another point very well;

Wages like yours and DH's not only supported your family, but also your local economy. Perhaps he bought a coffee every day, creating work and employment in the local cafe. Perhaps you go to a yoga class and provide a job for the teacher. You go to a restaurant now and then, with a chef and a waiter, etc.

So thats at least 4 jobs you are supporting with your wages. If one salary goes, you have to cut back - perhaps no more restaurants, and no more coffees. thats 3 jobs that are less viable, for the price of one.

This illustrates how Tory policies actively damage our economy.

carmina, that's rubbish. You may be aware of similar claims made against the tories in the 90's. Also rubbish.

It basically just serves to perpetuate the myth that a large proportion of those on IB/ESA/DLA are just lazy twats, swinging the lead. Of course, that makes it so much easier to justify cuts.

All labour did to make their unemployment figures look half decent was to take people off one list and stick them on another one - off the dole and onto 'sickness' benefit - People on sickness benefit were no longer included in the jobless totals - way hey!

Excuse me but that was first started by Thatcher when they saw their policies were pushing unemployment towards 4 million. This from a party who in 1979 with one million unemployed said "Labour isnt working" and then (as now) sent unemployment rocketing.

Thatcher also changed the way unemployment was calculated four times to reduce the headline figure.

Did anyone hear "Thinking Allowed" on R4 this week Re: the "feckless poor"? in a nutshell: Poor people are loath to describe themselves as poor and normalise their poverty. But they make up a myth of the benefit scroungers. When asked by the researcher on the proogram who these scroungers are(so they can interview them) , they cannot identify them. ||It is a myth put about to make the poor feel better about their situation, a sort of "at least we're nott lkike that". It's still on iplayer and well worth a listen.

Carmina, I asked you if you could back up your opinions with facts and statistics. All you seem to have is vague claims of newspaper articles. You do realise that newspaper articles are not proof, don't you? (I'm a journalist, btw. When I make a claim in an article, I back it up, pointing readers to original sources where they can check or citing an expert they can look up. But then I write about health. Stuff about 'benefits scroungers' tends to be rather less evidence-based.)

Personally, I am surprised that the Tory share is holding up so well.

After all, on everything but the economy and education, Cameron has not acted like a Tory at all.

He has betrayed our brave military. He has sold us out to the EU. He is backtracking on privatising the NHS. He has not curbed the power of militant trade unions. He has not scrapped the 50% tax rate. He has conceded to the left on tax avoidance, instead of robustly defending it. He has conceded to the left on "inequality".

He is too one-nation. He needs to be more Thatcherite. He needs to be more ruthless.

Edam: newspapers tend to have a habit of delivering the 'news' I think it's what they're supposed to do - journos are paid to research things because us mere mortals haven't got the time. Articles are backed up with statistics and evidence - if they weren't, the Times may as well employ Mickey Mouse as chief political editor.

so you don't have any evidence, then?

(And you obviously missed the bit in my post where I pointed out I'm a journalist...)