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.

Who is going to tax marriage? Unless you mean the purported marriage tax break?

Donkeyswife - do you mean at teaching? Thanks, didn't realise you knew me professionally. You're right, I'm an hour ahead of you time wise and I need to concentrate tomorrow as it's Yoga, and I can't work out what goes where or how it should goes there if I'm sleepy. The relaxation at the end shouldn't be a problem though!

You may like this from Labourlist which CatintheHat linked to...

'Mumsnet is the political equivalent of standing around outside Waitrose look for votes. It's massively, disproportionately southern, middle class and graduate (I think I read it's something like 80% graduate, 85% AB, 80% southern, 95+% white, average household income something like double the national average. Which means that the issues of interest need to be tailored, and education policy in particular is nuanced.'

If you go back a couple of pages there is Cats link to another thread and then to Labourlist - they're working out how best to target us!

It's actually quite interesting that the concerns of everyone on this thread largely concern domestic policy. No-one has mentioned foreign policy at all (unless you count references to defence spending).

Pop quiz: What do you think will impact your child's life more when they are an adult - potential marriage tax and whether HIPs are abolished, OR British Government's policies on global free trade, European integration, energy security and relationships with new economies such as India and China.

So why is everyone getting so hung up on stupid minor vote winners? There is a bigger picture.

Whoever wins will have no money so there will be no radical improvements to health, education or defence. Accept that and think who will do more to imprive Britain's positioning medium term instead of worrying about the size of your benefit cheque.

I don't care. It will be crap and lies and cuts anyway so I'll vote for the ones who promise the lowest tax rates. For the first time ever in my life I'm voting for us.

Foreign policy and defence are inextricably linked though. You can't work out what you are doing defence wise until you know what the short and medium term foreign policy goals are.

You are right though, it is the bigger picture that will impact in the longer term, especially energy security.

"Foreign policy and defence are inextricably linked though" I agree- sorry- didnt phrase my comment very well

Someone once said "People get the government they deserve." In Britain we let elections get decided on stupid little emotive things rather than challenging MPs on big, world changing issues such as their views on (eg) a federal Europe. Then we wonder why we end up with a government that wastes a load of parliamentary time banning fox hunting and then failin to enforce it's own law.

Upandrunning- Cynical, but's lets face it- everyone votes for whoever they think they will do better with. Some just like to dress it up.

Yes they do. Been voting for others for a long time. And they aren't going to vote for me. So I'm just joining the club.

ST I don't disagree that needs to be done but it would affect other people- time delays on processing (last timewe claimed HB ittook 8months to be processed,during which timemy Mum paid the rent).... or there would be increased staffing and somecosts there. Now, if the extra staffing would improve anti0-fraud behaviours and provide jobs it is a double whammy, but that doesn't seem to fit with the Tory small Government ideal does it?

Please note I amnot saying it doesn't need to be tackled,fraud is theft- of course it does.My own instinct is that it will be done by making it harderto claimand with far tighter rules-as per proposed DLA change and the silly labout Incapacity thing where very illpeople, sometimesterminal,were being forced to attend interviews.

Benefits dependence could be reduced by helping carers and others back towork but no party wants that route,it is easier to penalise than incentivise.

'think who will do more to imprive Britain's positioning medium term instead of worrying about the size of your benefit cheque. '

For the first time like upandcoming I am alsovoting for us,or rather the boys.

The benefit cheque matters to us: any smaller and we end up homeless and destitute. No party is offering us a way out, its agreed budgets willshrink so that won'thappen either-it would cost a lot to help us with carers support and disability childcare. I'm normally the first to vote with my conscience but how silly would that be knowing what we risk?

And as it happens a vote for us is a vote to help other people in our sit.(carers, disability,recently redundant low earners...) sorpetty much the people I wastrying to helplast time, only then I diodnt think it would be us.

Bring on the Tories - it's time everyone gets what they deserve.

Skihorse why have I got a feeling that translates as you deserve, benefits claimants don't? just an inkling...

Peachy I don't know why you've translated it as such. I work, I don't claim benefits, or tax credits (benefits). I'm not wealthy and I'm afraid I can no longer afford to supplement benefits en masse. Not even sure why I feel compelled to "apologise" for not being able to fund benefits (tax-credits) for those earning 50k.

The poor/infirm will be looked after by any western political party and of course nobody (?) would wish it to be any other way.

I wouldn't vote Labour or Tory, unless I was voting Lab to keep the Tories out!

As I live in Glasgow, that's a bit of a moot point though

We would probably be better off (financially) under the Tories but there are so many mainly ethical reasons (to do with caring for other people for example that Labour haven't got right, but I am convinced that the Tories would get less right) which mean that I am with Donkeyswife - I'd rather walk on broken glass than vote for "Call Me Dave".

Ski if I amwrong I apologise wholeheartedly.

We have encountered each other before tyhough and that was pretty much the view I thought you took. I am glad to be wrong.

I don't live in London so whilst the £50k rule makes sense to me virttually nobody here comesclose to that anyway without being a top flight earner,I'd be happier if it could be weighted for other more expensive palces but there you go.

As someone with absolutely no options (and my presonaltakeon povety is that theft ofchoice is the cruellest thing) I ampetrified about change and how it will affect us. In a few years DH should be quite a decent earner,but ATM it's just part time and training. AFAICS in many ways we'reaTory wet dream-Mumcarer angel (so not but anyway....),Dad worked,lost his job but is studying FT and building a small business PT to try and change things.What that really means though is that for a few eyars every penny count,and things sucha s the DLA would be enough to lose us where we live etc, and would then force us away from the village, schools-everything the boys know really. Doubly scary when autism is a factor and change I so devastating

FWIW I do think I was fair by writing to the Tories to ask about changes I heard rumour of and giving them a chance to asnwer: the insecurity of an 'I don't know' answer will never win anyone's vote will it?

Scaryteacher, very interesting re demographic of mumsnet. I'd often wondered about that. It confirmed what I had suspected!

I'mnot entirely sure I have a problem with being tragteetd given it is that which has brought the leaders in for webshats etc,better to have access than not I feel,and I suspect if we were (for example) a random trekkie board we wouldn't be getting those visitors..

And YY with the demographic but remembering that the sheer number of MN users means that others are still represented in quanity if not percentage. It'seasy to find poorer subgroups on here,look around SN and single parents etc... but what you do often find is a non represneetative poorer person if that make sense, low income grads ot similar. Certainly we don'erepresent the undervlass in real number (how could we?net access,levelofliteracy andinterest in parenting as a topic required).

Incidentally - and further to my previous post - here's what a labour activist (hopefully not a typical one) thinks of using Mumsnet as an election tool:

"Instead of going to the effort of campaigning on Mumsnet, wouldn't it be easier to pay Johnnie Boden to include a Labour flyer in his agreeable clothes catalogue, get a free copy of the Guardian included in every Ocado order and perhaps offer to make tutoring for the eleven plus tax deductable for higher-rate taxpayers?"

"Tax income over say £50k pa at 50% rising to 90% for those on £250k."

What planet are you living on? Taxing income over £50k at 50% would push even more families into poverty.

manffrom that person has exactly the same SOH andposting style as mot MN users FGS! Shows that person gets MN and its wholestyle tbh,probably is a netter (being Labour activist and netter notlegally exclusive)

Labour targets us,Tories target us, Greens probably would if they werent bickering in holes(trust me,I get ttheir internal e--mails),lib Dems seem very under represented here compared to my RL but then Dh comesfrom Paddy Ashdown legacy territory so that might just reflect my RL...

@ Scaryteacher. Interesting points about demographics. I'm not sure I believe those figures but no-one really knows.

It seems that the defining demographic in the forthcoming election will be "Motorway Man"

(link to the FT: blogs.ft.com/westminster/2010/01/introducing-motorway-man-the-new-swing-voter/ )

Presumably "Motorway Mum" is not so important.

People earning over £50k per annum (well, £37k, actually) already effectively pay over 50% tax - i.e 40% income tax, plus 11% NI contributions.

Yes but I think the poster was suggesting that they pay an additional 10%.

I really don't think the demographics quoted on LabourList are correct - well the ethicity one is probably right, but the rest are exaggerations i think. Will try to find the thread...

Here are the MN census results - an unscientific sample probably, but more accurate than what's said on LabourList!

41% London and the South East
75% educated to grad or post-grad level
27% household income under 35,000, 50% household income over 50,000 (blimey!)

@ Policywonk - you say "blimey" at the >50k income, but if you look at this lifestyles outlined in this graphic:

www.ft.com/cms/85ced73e-06db-11df-b058-00144feabdc0.jpg

that figure doesn't seem like so much.

On a total tangent, what strikes me is the massive carbon footprint that a family lifestyle like that would entail - 2 cars, multiple foreign holidays, high mileage etc etc. No wonder that green taxes are not getting much traction in the election campaign...