TORIES

[Eilatan]

if they get in:

They'll end HIPS so my husband will loose his job
He's actually a teacher but can't get work cos the last time they were in they brought in 'cover supervisors' ...unqualified people who are doing our jobs
They do away with the 15 hours nursery care...all we do is wait for our little un to be 3 so we can just break even each month... but no doubt these evil so and sos will take it away to pay for the w(b)ankers ineptitude
I expect they do away with the trust funds too
Teachers wages will be frozen ...
Over 60s cold weather payments? Ha! last time they were in Edwina Currie advised them to knit woolly gloves!
Any tiny power the unions have been able to claw back will go...
We'll be back to teaching kids that homosexuality is wrong and if a piece of literature wasn't written by someone dead, white and male it isn't worth reading
...if they get in I'm jacking it all in... going to sell the house and live in a caravan... no way am I working on Maggie's farm again!

Don't be fooled by all that caring for the family rubbish. All those c care for is making their own kind richer.

PLEASE don't vote for them.

Reading through the threads on here - it would appear the workers/tax payers who do not receive benefits or tax credits will be voting Tory. And those who receive part or all their income from the Govt will be voting Labour!

Labour has succeeded in buying votes just as it intended!

When the economy was booming and there was a reputed 600 000 jobs to fill they took the easy option and opened the country's doors! They knew it would be a vote loser and a politically dangerous move to encourage the long term unemployed back into work. The result is that wages at the lower end have been driven down by the influx of migrant workers. Students and younger people now find it very difficult to get even low paid part time work.

And just to back it up, my friend who works in the bank in a local town with a high degree of social housing (read between the lines)finds it depressing that the only ones who seem to be working are foreign! (sorry that's probably politically incorrect). All the original inhabitants are on benefits!

Labour may have given some people money but it has taken away their prospects and independence. Does any one beleive that's it good for a human being to sit around all day doing nothing? (I'm talking long term unemployed - not single mums!) I know that if I keep busy that I can stave off depression and keep positive.

I think these people should be doing voluntary work for charities which would would help themselves and help other people.
Am I being a bit naive? Probably.

Dh is public sector, so technically we receive our income from the Government, but given how this lot have screwed HM Forces, we will not be voting for them. They haven't bought our votes.

Well when I said 'income from the govt' I was implying benefits etc.

However I suppose some public sector workers will be concerned how they will fare under a Tory govt as this sector has become rather bloated in some areas under Labour.

How can it be right that some County Council leaders earn more than the PM?

Don't think it's buying votes, 2old. The reality is that the issues that the benefits system works with have pretty much been around for ever. Thinking of illness, childbearing, old age, ill family members, injury or disability etc. I'm no expert on the history of politics (although thanks for the link manfrom) but labour was, I thought, set up to alleviate the poverty of the working class, who were extremely low-paid (what's new eh?) and couldn't cushion the blows of such events. If you read something like Robert Tressell's Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, it paints a terrifying picture of the consequences of an absence of social security. Hardly surprising that people in the same situation nowadays are going to be freaking out at the prospect of their needed benefits being taken away. Poverty is not just a word, it's a real thing. Hard to imagine that those on here complaining that they have to live on tuppence a day despite high incomes can understand this really. If you are earning a lot of money, but end up with none to spend on essentials such as food and clothes, presumably (except in exceptional cases) it is going on the mortgage? What about moving to a smaller house, or one in a less nice area? Sure I'm heading for a flaming with this but I just don't get it.

Oh my god Peachy cannot believe you have just been described at the deserving poor, how bloody patronising can you get? Perhaps we should try to identify the "deserving rich"? Or if you're loaded do you still win the right not to have your daily finances scrutinise critically by tutting parish ladies?

POverty IME isn't about having X pounds,it is about an absence of choices.

When DH wasill,I went back to work (many years ago) early from maternity leave. When needed I took on more hours,or Dh did. We could move where the work was,and wecould be flexible.

Now we cannot make those choices, losing our tenancy may wellmean we cannot find a newlandlady as the first thing ak isn;t 'areyou working''or can you afford the rent' (wecan) but 'areyou in ft work?'. I cannot take on any work, and whilst I fully admit that having ds4 at home is something I missed with older ds's (back them at leave was limited to 12 weeks, I went back at 9) I certainly envisage a future of weeping into my tea with boredom.

The restrictions placed upon someone to change things when they are poor is far more life changing I think than the actual income level (assuming you are fed and clothed). It's frustrating and I am battling to accept it.

Elephants - why does everyone suggest that 'trimming' benefits means a complete abscence of a welfare state? That's not what ANYONE wants. There can be a happy medium.

Am I the only one who gets irritated that some people on benefits can afford to smoke, go to the pub, run a car and go on foreign holidays?

And again don't think Labour has done the elderly of this country any favours. A lot of old people are managing on a lot less than some benefits claimants and/or are too proud to claim any help.

Oh and I have a big mortgage to buy a nice house in a nice area (and I am very grateful for my lot) - I'm not complaining.

At least there'll be something to sell to pay some inheritance tax or for my care home!

Doesn't taking away the ability to run a car,especially in ruralarea,seriously limit peopleschances of everworking?

Dh uses a car to get to Uni every day,the buses don't goearly enough and there is no train station.I need a car here because the SNU is 10km+ awayand I regualrly go in, agagin no buses.

Now,I completely acknowledge that you stated on another thread that you see carers and the disabled as different,and indeed it is DLA that funds the second car. But can you see that if you live outside cities etc lack of transport may seriously prevent working, especially in any role that wants flexiblility (DH's last job involved a commute home at 5am- night shifts- no buses then wherever you live,certainly not in this area!)

I don't understand how anyone can afford to smoke for sure. But allowing a tiny amount of leeway (and it is tiny,I will have £15 left on the last day of the month if nothing comes up) simply means that if a childloses their coat or breaks shoes or comes home with a note about a trip they can be sorted.

Now Ok,our finances are different to many: CA is reward for work done,and DLA is a payment intended to cover the costs of a disability which can be huge. But given we do get a bit more,I cannot possibly see how much leeway there is under standard benefits without depriving your family in someway, which is very hard to battle isn't it?

Doesn't taking away the ability to run a car,especially in ruralarea,seriously limit peopleschances of everworking?

Dh uses a car to get to Uni every day,the buses don't goearly enough and there is no train station.I need a car here because the SNU is 10km+ awayand I regualrly go in, agagin no buses.

Now,I completely acknowledge that you stated on another thread that you see carers and the disabled as different,and indeed it is DLA that funds the second car. But can you see that if you live outside cities etc lack of transport may seriously prevent working, especially in any role that wants flexiblility (DH's last job involved a commute home at 5am- night shifts- no buses then wherever you live,certainly not in this area!)

I don't understand how anyone can afford to smoke for sure. But allowing a tiny amount of leeway (and it is tiny,I will have £15 left on the last day of the month if nothing comes up,and it almost always does, think it isgoing to be another replacement PEkit actually) simply means that if a childloses their coat or breaks shoes or comes home with a note about a trip they can be sorted.

Now Ok,our finances are different to many: CA is reward for work done,and DLA is a payment intended to cover the costs of a disability which can be huge. But given we do get a bit more,I cannot possibly see how much leeway there is under standard benefits without depriving your family in someway, which is very hard to battle isn't it?

Was just responding to your post, 2old:

"Reading through the threads on here - it would appear the workers/tax payers who do not receive benefits or tax credits will be voting Tory. And those who receive part or all their income from the Govt will be voting Labour! Labour has succeeded in buying votes just as it intended!"

My suggestion was that those who receive "part or all of their income from the government" may be more averse to tory rule not because they have been "bought", but because they need those benefits and fear that Tories will slash them from some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the country. And it is hardly surprising if there is a correlation between receiving benefits (for any reason) and supporting labour, as labour kind of invented benefits.

Frankly though labour today are unrecognisable - i was astonished when i went to a talk by a true old labour man, and realised that I would once have been a natural labour voter. Could have knocked me down with a feather, as I'm only acquainted with New Labour [retch] and their tuition-fee introducing, sucking up to business people, privatisation-crazy ways.

Agree about the elderly and pride but its not just them- BIL has a condition that could killhim any time,and esp. in surgery on the 7th, he is 32. he rarely makes it to work,neeeds the looup to 200 times a day and is seriosuly under nourished (ulcerativecolitis,missed at first toprogressed severely and needs a resection and bag).

Willhe claim?nope. Would chmnage things formy sister who is really struggling as a carer and working,my parents who are exhausted elderly and providing childcare he cannot do... but pride tells him no. misplaced pride I think, there is pride in helping those who are victims,just not those who make the choice to be in perpetual need.

Peachy - you know you are a world apart from those who squander the FA on fags and down the pub!

We live in suburbia so things are a bit different here. My daughter works next to the local job centre and is forever having rows with people who use their car park (and they turn up in the PJ's!).

Unfortuneately there are people who spend benefits, CA etc on themselves before taking care of their children. When my SIL was on benefits she could still afford a holidays in Spain! But then she was doing cleaning for cash.....

When I say 'bought' votes - I mean that they have created a section of the community who is reliant on the current benefits system so will vote Labour to obviously try and keep it. Ok some people need benefits because of bad luck. However, others need benefits because they have made choices that they cannot afford to fund.

2old - I don't receive any benefits and have always paid taxes -higher rate for many years, never received tax credits. I will vote Labour.

I probably would be better off under the Tories (caveating since there is absolutely no substance detail to any of their policies)and am lucky enough to think that most of my friends/families wouldn't suffer but i don't think you should vote on that basis. My vote would go to the party who (on balance) would give to the people who need it - not as some reward.
The only details that emerge from Cameron etc are inheritence tax cuts- whioch benefits only the rich, desire to keep capital gains tax low (ditto), married couple allowances....nothing to those who need it.

On balance I would rather some people on benefits were able to spend money on cigarettes/holidays to ensure that there weren't people on benefits who couldn't afford to buy food/shelter/shoes for their children

You know 2old,I dont thimnk there are many who do squander CA- apart from it being £53 (with 2 disabled kids need 1-1 that amopunts to 17p an hours)thecriteria by which it is awarded screens out people who could possibly avoid the work. I do now of a case of that with DLA, it was stopped immediately and indeed carepased to Nan who was then barredfromclaiming becuase of what her daughter had done - the blockwas on the child not the Nan, bizarrely.

And yes I do think I am different but I am stillelarning that, it takes time to get past the guilt.

Suburbia is a bit different but ruralpoverty is a realisue,and for them a car is so important to getting back on the earning ladder.
Benefits shouldnt be set solow they prevent peopleaccessing work after all.I can understand POV'slike your sisters, but its something that does vary enormously.

Totally agree albinosquirrel.

I find it funny the conversations about selfishness on here.

Tories: Don't be selfish and just think about maintaining the benefits you need to live on. Think of the future of the economy. Oh yes and it might well make me better off, goody.

Others: Don't be selfish, vote for a party that will try to alleviate poverty and protect the rights of vulnerable people, even if I/you do not come under that category.

Sorry x-posted Peachy, I was going to say the same - it's a false idea that many or even most people on benefits are doing it because they are lazy. Some maybe. Most people need the money, and you can see on here how hard it can be for people to get hold of things to which they are totally entitled.

Which brings me back to my earlier point - it's easy to be "altruistic" when you have everything. E.g., the couple in Oxford who've vowed to give away everything over 20k... I guess the house/car/etc. is already paid off.

2old4thislark I agree with everything you've posted. Good logical sense.

I think if your income is tenuous and you're struggling to pay bills you would be barmy not to vote to protect your own family TBH

But a factor of that is realising that anyone is vulnerable to such things as cdisability and illness,and that by factoring that into your equations you are also helping to protect them.

Exactly where that leads you is up to you and indeed I don'tthink I tend to tell people how I vote on here, people think they know but would be surprised (but not Tory, I said surpised not amazed )

Skihorse- not sure what you are trying to say - that voting for a party that doesn't financially benefit you as an individual is a luxury? or just trying to dismiss any view points/stance that doesn't tally with your blinkered view of the world?
what level of income/financial status should I have where a vote for labour could be seen as

1. not one bought by the government
2. an easy altruisitic gesture

I know what she means

She means (and I agree to a large extent practically if certainly not idealistically) that it is easier to take others needs into account when your own are provided for first. far easier to feed the poor when you are already sated.

Is that right seahorse?

I think that is true but as I said before, part of protecting yourself is in ensuring something is there to catch you if the ground opens up because who knows what tomorrow brings for any of us?

We get nothing (other than CB) from the state. Hell will freeze over however before I vote Tory.

Oh and I dont like the bought votes thing: it denies the ability to think of anyone who votes against the voters personal viewpoint. That's unfair. It also makes it seem that only happens with Labour whereas in fact I know a fair few people who will vote Tory because it will suit their situation better. Same thing.

Thank you skihorse - thought I was alone!

Ultimately we will all vote for who we believe will give us the best deal. But I don't agree that Labour has benefited the poor,maybe in the short term but not long term.

As I've said we can only comment on what we have experienced, witnessed etc. Just because you haven't seen child neglect doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I know two people who work in schools in deprived areas and the stories they tell are heart breaking.

My opinions on some benefits claimants have been coloured by some people I know. One girl, first in her family to work and pay tax had a drunken one night stand and got pregnant. She now lives in a 2 bed flat that costs the council £800 a month. If you factor in other benefits and the fact she's not paying tax anymore that probably equates to £2000 per month ! Just for the sake of a free condom! And she smokes and complained the flat was f*ing tiny!

Someone who lives in a council flat and works part time, her husband works full time. He blew his entire wages in the bookies in one day before Christmas. The council have told her she doesn't have to pay her (subsidised) rent and council tax because gambling addiction is classed as a medical condition! I'm all for helping people but this is surely taking the piss!

Since when didnt peplewith medicalconditions pay rent?very odd-maybe it is one council but allthe ones I have dealt with assess on income alone. I know people with alltypes of disorder paying rent.

Amnot doubting you 2old but sounds very strange.

I couild list just as sad stories of non benefit claimants- like my friends H who ahs never claimed in his life and whose entrepreneutrial skills have just earned him timeon remand with nigh on certain without hellfreezing voer conviction for fraud,sextrafficking (wrodsfail me), possibly rape and harassment (they werelong separated, he lived elsewhere).

Plus it is obviosuly likely that peoplewith poor coping strategies, duniousmoralityy,lower IQ etc are more likely to end up in HA accom or on benefits. The problem is separating those from the people who are staright up without causing undue stress(eg massive delays in obtaining payments,constant re interviews) and also without negatively affecting those whoa re their dependants.

If we can do that idbe forst in the queue of course- but am not sure how.

Peachy That's exactly what I'm saying. I've been in the somewhat unenviable position in the last few years of not having enough money to put food on the table... and when that happens, finding 50 cents to stick in the charity jar is pie-in-the-sky.

If I were in the position of being what I consider to be loaded (although according to mn, 50k is poverty! ) then I'd happily give my money away. But right now I need to feed my family.