Did you know under Labour's Watch...

[Grigsy]

...you got and could still get £250 for your child under their Child Trust Fund Scheme. Did you know that Mums? It was Labour that introduced the Child Trust Fund. So when your child and everyone elses child is 18 they will be able to join the very few elite that we call 'Trustafarians', you know, the ones that don't work for a living?

Did you know that under the 'Coalition of Cuts' that the Tories and Liberals will bring will mean bye, bye to the Child Trust Fund. So, that means, any more children you have will not get a cheque for £250 to put in whatever account you decide for your little miracle. That sucks right?

OK, want more?

Did you know that Maternity Leave has been extended to 9 months...from 6 months. But did you also know that after 6 months, parents can decide who takes the 3 months. So on top of the Labour's initiative of Paternity Leave (which has been extended to a month now rather than just 2 weeks) - Dad's can have 3 months with their babies when they are between 6-9 months old. How fab is that?! For everyone....yippee, some much needed siesta time for tired Mums...

Under a Labour Government, should we be so lucky, guess what....they want to extend the Maternity Leave to eventually get to 12 months...that's cool.

Also, hope you are all enjoying the reduced Nursery fees that you probably noticed after your child turned 3. Well guess what, that was also under Labour's watch. My fees for my daughter were £457 per month when she was 2. When she was 3 they were £238 per month. I'm delighted. But should the Tories get in, they plan to introduce 'Top Up Fees', so it will be Goodbye Grant and Hello, I'm skint.

Look, you are welcome to join my debate but please before you do, put aside your pre-conceptions and perhaps even get all 3 parties manifestos. You can do this by going online and go to their respective official sites. To be honest, after looking at all 3 my findings were this:

Nick Clegg, Nice but Dim (sorry), it is almost as if they wrote their policies on the back of an envelope at a dinner party. They mean well but seriously we need substance right now. Look at what's going on in Greece. Who do you want to guide us through these harsh times of austerity? We need prudence not wishy washy policies of some man who seems perfectly nice, but seriously, we are talking about the toughest job in the country. And it's not paid as well as you think. Infact, Gordon Brown took a cut of 1/4 of his salary. Sometimes I wonder, has Nick Clegg actually seen a Job Description for the Prime Minister!!

David Cameron - OK, he's got the gift of the gab but think it's very important to remind ourselves of what and who the Tories actually are. If interested, go to You Tube, and watch COMMON PEOPLE 2010.

Gordon Brown - well, as I said before. Here is a man of substance. Here is an unsung hero. Here is a quiet man with a big agenda. Modest, kind, truthful and a human being of the greatest integrity. He is a good man. Why don't you just look at his wife. Sarah Brown. She is a gentle, kind, serene and entirely beautiful woman. She is also highly intelligent and inspirational in many charities and other very important areas. But above all, Gordon and Sarah Brown are parents. They truly care. They know how important the first 48 months of a childs life is. If you don't buy me, then why not find out for yourself. Go onto the Labour Party Offical site. And watch him in action.

Off for a hot bath now

Ta-ra

Happy Bank Holiday!!!

Sarah

x

claig - i am finding your analysis very superficial, random and scatterish. Have a good night.

TDiddy - yes I am just a scatterbrain who reads the tabloids, I'm not as profound and learned as you. Good night.

Claig - let me know what you make of Tim Harford. The bank bailout bit is about 30 mins in - but the whole podcast is very interesting.

As to: " why would the politicians hide their light under a bushel and not loudly proclaim what a success their investment in the banks had been, if the taxpayer has now been fuly repaid?"

Well the 'blame the greedy bankers' narrative suits all the political parties - especially Labour. And, it is true that the banking crisis caused the recession - so maybe the politicians don't want to confuse the 'blame the bankers' message

They assume the average person can understand 'that it's the bankers fault coz they got our money'. Why confuse them by explaining 'the recession led to a dramatic decrease in tax receipts and increased welfare costs - so we had to borrow more'.

That's my take on it anyway.

Dear Grigsy (because I suspect you are still reading),

No, am not sponsored by Unilever .

We didn't pick on you. We just didn't think much of you addressing us as 'mums' and thinking we'd be impressed by:

• waffling about CTF's; and
• quoting a whole load of incorrect facts about maternity leave.

If you want to talk about CTF's, get a new name and join one of the many threads that has debated this topic recently. Even the most hardened Labour voters generally feel that they are a wast of money because the middle/high earners don't top them up (don't like the thought of them being handed over at 18) and the lower earners can't afford to. Most people (including high earners) think that high earners shouldn't get them. Do you actually have political views on that? Then dive into the debate, with proper points, not "look mummies, free money, xxx".

Then how about discussing some other political points. Maternity leave has barely registered as an issue on here because it is pretty generous already and the parties' policies are pretty similar. No one is offering to really raise maternity pay to a living wage, which might attract some interest.

There are some great debates to be had on other issues though.

Go on, dive in properly, we're always welcoming to someone who genuinely wants to discuss their views. We're just not big on electioneering, especially when it's patronising and based on incorrect facts.

A tiny part of me loves Grigsy.
I would like her to have coffee with me and we could chat and do the crossword in TakeABreak magazine. She could help me with all the really tricky words. And stroke my hair.
We could make anagrams out of the shadow cabinets names

Pag, I think you'd have to have some sort of timer, though, after half an hour you'd start to go all mushy inside and call everyone sweetie and have little stuffed pink heart cushions all over the place

I will be so glad when this nonsense is over, whoever bloody wins. You couldn't make this woman up. I think 'poor misguided beagles' was my favourite line. As a child she must have wept in butchers' shops...

at mumble.
I think that would suit me. She could bring out my inner fluffy... sweetiekins.

Grigsy is surely some kind of Millbank agent provocateur. Or something. Am baffled

It's a poor effort isn't it? Would think Millbank quite a lot savvier than this. I'm thinking that this (and similar contributions we've had in favour of other parties) is just the online/social media equivalent of volunteers leafletting door-to-door.

"just the online/social media equivalent of volunteers leafletting door-to-door."

Yep - that would be it. But (sorry - to repeat myself) the Millbank types will soon be pulling together a decent social networking strategy for next time - with a whole MN section.

Surely this is a Tory double agent? Cos it is one quick way of undoing lots of good work. Idiots.

I assumed Tory double agent, also.

But, blimey, it's all getting a bit "Matrix" in that case ... .

All we need is some random pranksterism now. Having been hanging out on the funereal thread, could perhaps do with a little light relief.

It's a bit crazy even for the Tories. UKIP?

Wilf/Zeph - Grigsy is very real and very visable on the net - you can even follow her on twitter - She gives her business's name earlier on the thread. She is a 'virtual door knocker' hassling you with her message whilst the kids tea burns in the oven!' To extend Zeph's analogy.

jackstarbright, I listened to Tim Harford's podcast. It was interesting, but I don't believe his figures. Even he admits that we do not know what the true cost of the bank bailout was, he says the ONS (Office for National Statistics) is still working it all out and it may be some time before we find out. But Harford accepts the government's figures in their budget that the total cost will be £6bn. Relatively, that is peanuts and I don't believe it.

The government pumped about £850bn in to save the banks
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/163850bn-official-cost-of-the-bank-bailout-1833830.html

they had to find that money from somewhere and I guess they borrowed it, which is why the national debt (as opposed to the deficit) has doubled
www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/feb/19/national-debt-lloyds-hbos
www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2009/02/20/bank-bailout-pushes-uk-s-national-debt-to-2-1tri llion-86908-21137789/

It will take us years and years to pay off this debt. That is why they have to slash public spending, just to pay the interest on the debt. We've been through recessions where public spending has had to be cut before, but this one is different. It has been caused by the banks, many of which were insolvent. To prop them up, the government borrowed billions, and we will have to pay it back. This is no ordinary recession. If the cost of the bank bailout was only £6 billion, we wouldn't be knee deep in it, as we are now.

Claig - so the cost of the bank bail out was;

In April 2009 estimated by the the IMF as £100bn

In December 2009 estmated by the Indy to be £850bn.

Then Alistair D put it at £50bn, then £10bn now £6bn.

How could this happen? Sorry, it's beyond me! But I do see your point.

they have pumped money in in different stages, so maybe it is all adding up to a larger number. Also I think that a lot of the money is pumped in as loan guarantees, so it may never actually be called upon, which means they will get that back. However, I guess that they still have to pay the interest for borrowing that money. So they have pumped £850bn in, but the real cost will be less. However, it looks like a large part of the national debt being doubled is due to the money that was needed for the banks. That debt will have to be paid back over time. I think we will be told what the true cost is sometime after the election. Knowing the truth now would cost them the election.

I can find £320bn they must have borrowed:

The £200bn(?)liquidity money 'invested' in bank assets

Plus, roughly £120bn direct investment in RBS, NR and Lloyds (which apparently, on paper, is now worth approaching £120bn).

And, as you say with 'loan guarantees' it's difficult to tell if they will ever be called upon.

Not saying there's not more - but I still think much of our deficit is due to tax receipts falling and government spending growing.

Maybe the government (and potential government) are just crossing their fingers and waiting for a banking led recovery to save us (which would be ironic ).