If I vote Tory, would I be shooting myself in the foot, as a lone parent?

[BertieBotts]

Just that really. I am musing. Never voted before and never been interested in politics (though I am fascinated by it all now) so I am feeling a bit blind with all this! I keep changing my mind about who to vote for.

I want to go back to college either this or next September rather than getting a job just yet. DS is 18 months. Do you think that I would be able to do this under a conservative government, or will I be forced to work? Thinking childcare costs etc. I can't find anything in any of the manifestos about it - does anyone know what the other parties have said or are likely to do?

" The fact that when working I have to pay a hideous amount of rent to my private landlord is as a direct result of the housing stock being sold off. "

Now I do have an issue with this, because MT believe (much to her credit I think) that working class people should not be excluded from the housing market and should not pay rent all their lives and show nothing for it at the end. ( I aplaude that).

Labour decided people should not have 70% off their councils homes making them virtually unable to afford to buy them and dropped it to a flat 34,000 ( I think) making it impossible for people to afford them.

Labout had 13 years in which to build new council homes but choose instead to allow the private sector to build (too pricey for FTB's without getting 4x- 5x their wages ).

So you can blame MT for selling off the hosuing stock , but labour are to blame for the shortages in HS now.

But social housing isn't meant to get you on the housing ladder. It should be a temporary solution to those who need an affordable house to rent. The only people who have profitted are those who bought, and private landords now making a mint from the current shortage. My generation are screwed when it comes to affordable housing of any kind

"And what about the single parents who want to home educate? Should they not be allowed to make that decision? It's not like they can afford Private school, so effectively that removes the only choice they have with their child's education - it's state school and that is that."

I home ed my DD because she has SN and work PT around that.

Ed Balls wanted to kill HE, but was thankfully defeated by the conservatives last month.

I believe the conservatives schools idea is a good one, and here's why, my dd is SN and can not cope with mainstream, I can't get her into a SN school as there's only one left (labour closing them down) and it's over subscribed.

I would love someone to open a montissori (spelling?) type school where I believe she will do brilliantly, or open more SN schools in my area to give me the choice of where to send her.

I would love to send her private but can't afford it. I would love to get 7 hours spare a day to work, rest or play while she was educated. Sadly under labour I can't do that.

trouble is, nobody wants housing to be built near to them, wherever they earmark land to build the protester start and it all goes back to planning and never gets done! its a vicious circle, tories were very wrong in selling off council housing and the shortgage of housing coupled with massive immigration has created a crisis and a lot of hatred amongst british communities who see housing going to people from other countries. the dfficuklties in society now are endless and have not been created by labour alone, they have been created by years and years of mistakes, lack of forsight and people refusing to listen to oneanother . I watched the Policitics sho this morning where a man in the audience claimed the NHS was OVER staffed saying he had recently been to his A&E dept and saw staff sitting together at a nursing station drinking tea! heaven forbid, from my experience as a nurse most wards and departments have had the staff rooms taken away so when they have a break (if they if=nfact get to have one at all) we often sit at the nurgin station because we have no where else to go and not enough break time to go out, its this kind of ignorance that makes people vote for the wrong decision made by the wrong people

"It's not a typo, the figure is quoted again on the Tories own website link and reads "Nobody with a combined household income of £40,000 or below will be affected, and the maximum loss for those earning more than £50,000 would be just £10 a week." "

Ok the first link confusses the hell out of me I have no idea what it's all about.

The second link I think I get now ?? (think??) I think she's saying no one under 40k will be affected, but between 40-50k it will be tailed off (as it is now over 50k) and anyone over 50k will be cut off but will only lose 10 per week.

Does that sound right/ make sense?

I'm not GO or Ken clarke, you know ( ).

'I never said there was did I? We were talking about toddlers.'

But you claimed that Labour are forcing mothers who would rather be housewives back to work.
And as conditions are only placed on benefits once the youngest child is 7, I assumed you meant school age children

Correct me if I'm wrong, but how has labour forced mums of toddlers to work?

". My generation are screwed when it comes to affordable housing of any kind "

Yes, agreed (my DS 22, is one also) but what i'm saying is her heart was in the right place and I didn't see labour rushing out social housing either.

Her heart was in the right place?? Are you serious

"trouble is, nobody wants housing to be built near to them, wherever they earmark land to build the protester start and it all goes back to planning and never gets done! "

Agreed. It hasn't helped that the government have forced councils to build on brown field sites and allowed so many houses to be built in proximity to one another, but without a legal reason to turn down projects planning depts must allow them or they can be sued.

If Cameron and Osborne intend to look after single mums why are they proposing to spend the people's precious taxes on a little present for married single earner parents only?

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but how has labour forced mums of toddlers to work? "

Please see my earlier posts where all is explained.

Conservative party think we are all vacuous slags who need 'encouragement' not to breed in the form of starving the children we already have.

"If Cameron and Osborne intend to look after single mums why are they proposing to spend the people's precious taxes on a little present for married single earner parents only? "

It is possible with cutting the waste to be able to do both.

"Conservative party think we are all vacuous slags who need 'encouragement' not to breed in the form of starving the children we already have. "

And ".." then means what?

The idea of rewarding someone financially for being financially better off (ie married) makes me sick. It's a bribe, that's all it is. A bribe, based on the premise that you are only fit to keep the money you earn if God says so.

Asking MN who to vote for is sheery lunacy.

BertieBotts, if you're interested in politics, at the very least look at their websites and read their policy documents. Not very interesting, perhaps, but you will at least be able to form an opinion based on your own circumstances and experiences, not on other people's. MN is politically slanted to the left, so you won't get an unbiased opinion. I'm right wing, but I wouldn't tell you that it's right for you!

Atlantis, labour don't start placing conditions on benefits until the youngest child is 7. The tories are saying 5. So we're not talking about parents of toddlers, are we?

'I became a single parent because my ex decided responsibility wasn't his thing, a bit too late . I don't see why the government should punish me for that, or force me back to work. '

I agree in that the government should punish HIM and go after him for that before enacting any measures against lone parents with full residency of their children.

He should NOT be allowed to abandon all financial responsibility of children he fathered to the taxpayer.

Atlantis
I have read your posts but can't seem to find the one which explains how Labour have forced single mothers of toddlers back to the workplace.

Unless you mean a bi annual appointment to discuss the help available for working mothers, in which case our views of what constitutes 'force' are rather different

"Atlantis, labour don't start placing conditions on benefits until the youngest child is 7."

We are talking about being called in to see a LPA before that, with me it was when ex buggered off a DD was nearly 3.

Gosh, that's a cogent argument and no mistake, Atlantis.

how about they support people to stay at home with children until they start school so that the 'ground work' is done, the baking,bonding,first steps, first words, mother and toddler groups etc etc can be enjoyed and benefited from by ALL mothers that want it and then when the child is at school all parents are expected to work -atleast part time. it is not unreasonable surely? why should some stay at home until child is 5 or 7 or 11 whatever when other 'have' to go back at a few months old its not fair? regardless of whether a single parent or not?

If you're talking about two appointments per year, which you don't have to attend anyway, then I think you're being more than a bit unreasonable. It's good that there's advice on offer for those single parents of younger children who do want help to find paid work.