I won't be voting Tory because...

[2cats2many]

• My children go to a Surestart children's centre and I don't want that threatened when they start their slash and burn;
• The schools in my area are going to get their Building Schools for the Future funding soon. The torys are saying no BSF project is safe unless all the contracts have been signed, so if they get in, my children's future secondary schools are likely to stay over-crowded and sub-standard;
• This report in the Evening Standard today about Boris Johnson's raft of broken promises since he was elected makes me think that a future Tory government is going to deliver on little that they are promising now.

Not sure who I will vote for though. I think I voted Green last time.

(livenletlive has she considered hiring an Ofsted registered nanny, which she may be able to get some tax credit help towards depending on income, and just paying the salary not 3xchildcare fees?)

Further to my reasons for not voting Tory is that the first policy Cameron had was to bring back the hunting of foxes hares deer etc.
What policies are these??? He'll close Surestarts, but he reckons he wants to protect families and their values. Wonky politics!!!

It's too transparent - it's what the Tories want to protect themselves and their friends that their policies are about. They'll protect private business at the expense of poor familes (close Surestart).

They'll also protect their friends and their nasty pastimes by letting them (and many of the Shadow Cabinet do this) rip animals apart for entertainment and sport. What a mean, morally bankrupt lot the Tories are.

They're the Nasty Party all right

anastaisia,
Yes tax credits only kick in at certain levels- look at the prices - triplet are multipled by 3.
It's all in the same price bracket wherever you look. But Surestart are £35-£40 p day per child - discounts in this area x 3 children x 3 days - approx £90 p day. Manageable on a small professional wage with some left to help pay the bills and maybe goodies as babies want/need.

Closing Surestart is a smack in the face to families in need.

Back on topic, you do know that they aren't going to scrap Surestart don't you?

They plan to cut £200Mill from the SureStart budget, would you rather they cut it from one of the other Childrens Service Department areas? Which one? Social Services, support for special educational needs, support for children in care?

The country doesn't have any money, Sure Start is good but not an essential front line service.

(And I'm not even voting Tory btw)

200 mill will close, and is, closing Surestart as we know it. They aren't allowing any new babies/children into nursereies below the age of the youngest already there. Some Surestarts may just stay open with money from their pre school budget.

Better to keep the architects of the brilliant Surestart scheme in, which is Labour, then our needy families will be cared for. Not just the tax breaks for families, married couples only!!

I'd never vote Tory again because of the wreckage they've made in the past/will make in the future to people's lives. Surestart is the main one - it keeps children safe and families more happy.

Destruction of wild animals destruction of good family life. You name it they will destroy it. I haven't even got on to jobs.....

VOTE WRECKAGE AND DESTRUCTION VOTE TORY

200Mill is 20% of the Sure Start budget.

Yes, its a significant amount, but not enough to close the entire Sure Start scheme as we know it.

I actually disagree that Sure Start was a brilliant scheme though. Good intentioned (mostly) but not brilliant.

Brilliant would have been reaching the target group through every centre and not just in some area's.

Brilliant would have been using existing community services to a far greater extent rather than setting up new schemes when there was some exisiting provision.

Brilliant would have been setting up a low cost (to users) but largely self supporting scheme, in the same way that council sports and leisure centres charge for activities but offer sliding scales/concessions etc.

It is not brilliant to have a government with no money almost entirely funding such an expensive scheme that has replaced existing provision to such a large extent while still managing not to provide services to many of the groups it was specifically set up to reach. A vote winner maybe, but not brilliant.

Having three of the most powerful people in the UK (Cameron, Osborne and Johnson) who are ex-Eton, ex-Oxford and ex-Bullingdon Club doesn't seem terribly representative. And having their policy dictated by Ashcroft and Murdoch (two people who think they can decide how the country is run but don't bother to pay taxes here) also doesn't instill me with confidence. I'm also old enough to remember what happened last time they were in power - todays problems with the UK transport system, lack of social housing, banking system etc all started with Mrs T.

I just can't. It's offends every fibre of my being to vote conservative. It's all academic anyway I have just ascertained/confirmed that my voting index see thread here is practically void anyhow. Not voting is not mere voter apathy in my case but simply pragmatism. My vote will not count.

anastaisia You make some good points about Sure Start. I found this article by the late Norman Glass The Dismantling of Sure Start very interesting. Norman Glass was part of the original team who initiated it.

Considering Sure Start is of key importance to this election it's worth a read.

Because I'm Scottish, because of trident and because they are untrustworthy. Just a shame I can't vote green in my area!!!

Because despite the fact that I, personally would benefit from a Tory government, I'm old enough to remember the last one and I know in my heart of hearts that they just don't give a shit about those people who for whatever reason are unable to support themselves.

They seem to blindly believe that if everyone makes an effort and pulls themselves up by their boot straps they, too, could be affluent and priviledged. No concept of the horror that is poverty and how difficult if is to get out.

I've just had a look at the thread on I Won't Be Voting Labour Because and it confirms my worst fears about the Tories - selfish and bigoted (and STILL banging on about benefits scroungers). Best advert for voting Labour I've ever read. Is it so wrong to want things to be better for everyone in this country, rather than just lining your own pockets, which seems to be the main Tory reference point for how to vote.

Anataisia - Brilliance would really be that if the Tories do get in they would pick up and run with Surestart under 3 provision. But of course brilliance is not in their gift! All that you mention is to help those who are mainly self sufficient anyway.
Brilliant is to look at existing needy families who want to try to be self sufficient and can be if nursery support is within their means.

This allows those, mainly women, to not to have to go on benefits.

What is a complete no-brainer is that the Tories in a transperent and feeble attempt to cast for votes is to give tax breaks of average £150 p year (£3 per week!) as a pro-marriage tax incentive. That money - more than twice as much, is being taken our of childcare at Surestart. This could be used to help support marriages, those with children where 2 wages are necessary and other parents who WANT to feel self sufficient.

It's wonky politics, that has nothing to do with giving help to young families, has nothing to do with raising esteem amongst mothers and certainly has nothing to do with helping children of those parents.

It's damning of the Tories that they can pull the rug from under families who, with practical support for their children, can get out of the benefits syndrome. Giving tax breaks to those who don't need support just because they get married is artificial - but simply part of the destructive actions of a party who want to continue to socially engineer women and keep them in the home.

Home/work for women with children is a matter between couples and their banks, not politicians. Again closing Surestart to the most needy and vulnerable in our society is just the start of the wreckage and destruction that will be adminstered if they get a smell of power. Don't vote Tory!!!!!

But do you not see the contradiction in encouraging self-sufficancy through ongoing government support.

If people/couples of up to £50,000 need tax credit help to pay for childcare longterm they are NOT self-sufficent.

Tax credits needed to be a short term solution to families living in poverty with a move away from it towards less government involvment over time - the Labour government seem to intend to provide this support forever.

Same with SureStart - the government should have accepted the expense of setting up the scheme - but with long term plans to only fund some of the provision. To have expected to fully fund such a programme knowing we were headed to a global recession is short sighted at the least. I'm not sure why you think my comments would mean only helping those who are fairly self-sufficent - as the article jackstarbright linked to shows, the original ideas for surestart worked far more along those lines and there were concerns from people involved in that about the direction the government took it in.

And despite being a single working mother - I actually think that the idea of equalising the gap in the tax credit system - where a couple earning the same amount if they both worked aren't entitled to the same if only one of them work - as you say, home/work for couples with children should be a matter for the couples, Labour shouldn't be awarding higher tax credits to couples who both work a min of 16 hours - it should be only on family income. I do however disagree with it being decided on marriage when the rest of the tax credit system goes on 'living with as though married'.

having looked at previous parts of this thread anastasia, the travesty is that, as you, a Tory government dismisses the needs of.
Don't vote for them parents with babies/small children who both choose to go to work in order to have a better life. The money being withdrawn is 200mill against a Tory philosophy that marriage is better and indeed will support it to the tune of 550mill. It's about the numbers game and votes, but as said previously nobody should be tricked into believing that £3 per week for a couple is more important that chaper childcare facilities for needy families as providied by Surestart. This provision must be protected but won't be under the Tories.
Don't vote for them!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dismiss the needs of who livenletlive?

I am the sterotype of what Labour is supposed to be helping and supporting. But tax credits would be no help to me if I wasn't prepared to make majorly unconventional lifestyle choices - otherwise I'd be trapped in a minimum wage job, working just to pay the parts of my childcare, housing/council tax bills that decrease as my earnings rise.

I am not at all dismissing the needs of those working but on low incomes - I am arguing that the 'solution' Labour have implemented is not a sustainable longterm strategy but a short term fix. The only long term solution is to look at why the cost of living is so much greater than the wages of the majority of people, and to take actions to bring it back into balance over a period of years - I see nothing in any of Labours policies that make me think they will move away from people being dependent on them (can you say 'vote winner'?) towards people being truely self-sufficent.

Dave is a nice guy. My sort of guy and I would probably be better off in the short term with him as PM but his party has never been about looking after the vulnerable in society. So I have a lot of thinking to do.

Truth is there is very little difference operationally between the parties so one has to look at core values.

Also, the Tories made all bad calls on recent big issues such as Iraq, laissiez faire approach to Financial Sector so not convinced they would have done any better.

I could not vote Tory because I actually went to a Tory Party conference a few years back - invited to be on a fringe meeting panel as I worked for a charity - and was flabbergasted to see how old , predominently male and 'county' they all were! The younger generation were virtually absent and my big impression spending the day wandering round and absorbing/listening was that they were, quite literally, dying out! Also that they were not in the real world - just trying to claw back/keep what they had.
So be warned - DC may be OK but the party machine only chose him to obtain a winning acceptable image and will nobble him if he steps out of line... the biggest irony of all about this reinvention is the slogan - since when have conservatives been about change? I would love to discuss that one on the doorstep but no-one canvasses in rural areas!

"DC may be OK but the party machine only chose him to obtain a winning acceptable image and will nobble him if he steps out of line"

Strangely I remember my mum using almost exactly those words about Tony Blair in 1997 - when I told her I was voting Labour! She often reminds me!

I am married with 3 children and only work part time so would benefit from the Tories married couples allowance. But I just don't think its a fair tax allowance.

My sister in law has a young daughter and works full time. She is a single mum after her husband left her for another man a few years ago.

The bizarre effect of the Conservative policy would be to give him a tax break for committing to a civil partnership with his new boyfriend but she woul get nothing.

She already earns much less than my husband and I do so it seems bizarre that we would be better off and she wouldn't.

Also I don't see the logic of their argument. Do they honestly think that people will stay in loveles relationships for the sake of £150 a year.

Even if it was more money over time I still think it would be awful to have a load of people married just for the 'tax advantage' and not for love.

It seems to me to be a very confused and unfair policy.

Mind you - you could have a new Tory election slogan along the lines of "Vote Tory for a loveless marriage" ?

all4um- that is reservation I have about the Tories. Nice Mr Cameron hiding the face of an intolerant that is really full of John Redwood types who see tax cuts as an end in itself. The old Thatcherite, laissez faire doctrine.

If only lib dem wasn't a 'wasted vote'. Couldn't face voting for cameron

Me and DH should be perfect Tories - professionals, well educated, hit by 50% tax under Labour, live in well heeled area blah blah. As a result the Tory candidate showed up to check he could count on our vote. NO HE CANNOT. Because although I bet we'd personally be better under the Tories I really don't think their backers (or the wider party) have the slightest interest in ordinary people. They are a bunch of self interested, smug little Englanders.

I've always voted Labour but probably not this time.......(still fed up with that tax thing).

www.voterpower.org.uk/ to see if your vote counts candiceb

spaceforthree- thanks. Seems like I am in safe as houses Tory seat. I still think people should vote even if tactically.

You are my type re: voting outlook btw.