to think that the tories actually have nothing to offer families?

[lowrib]

I'm not a staunch Labour supporter by any means, and I certainly don't agree with all they've done - but if you look at what they've done for families, they've actually implemented a lot of things that make a real difference in practical terms, like

• professionalising the child minding profession
• increasing maternity leave pay from 6 months to 9
• introducing child tax credits & working tax credits
• providing more nursery school places
• putting in practical measures to make it easier for children to stay on at school post-16

And probably lots more things (anyone?)

The tories keep going on about helping families, and 'mending our broken society' but how exactly do they plan to do that?

We don't know where their promised cuts will hit, but personally I feel very uneasy. I really don't trust them to leave families alone, and think it will be absolutely disastrous to see all this unpicked. For some families these things are simply convenient, but for many children, it's what makes it possible for them to live a decent family life.

AIBU?

I agree, have yet to hear anything serious from the Tories.

Having said that even Labour will have to cut back on its ideas if it ever had the good fortune to be re-elected

I suspect that if you are a well off family they probably do have a lot to offer.

Aren't they going to give tax breaks to married couples with children?

you can't "professionalise" minding children

all labour have done is saddle CMs in england with lots of pointless paperwork and removed the choice of parents who don't want their childminder to be following some damn curriculum

the tax credit system is evil - it's too complicated, giving people on low incomes a higher tfa would be a good deal fairer and cheaper.

taking tax off people and then making them apply to get it back is wasteful and needlessly paternalistic. the way tc are calculated, the frequency of overpayment, and the way people who have been overpaid through no fault og their own are pursued for repayment are a scandal.

agree with you about the tories, but managerialist, control-freak New Labour with their neo-liberal economics and bossy boots social policies are well past their due date.

LOL @ due date

I meant expiry date, although they've always been a little off IMO

one handed MNing is hard

"Aren't they going to give tax breaks to married couples with children?"

Personally - not being married, that won't affect me at all!

IMO this is grossly divisive.

Who's likely to be in more need of money form the government - married couples with children who have an income- or children living in other arragements?

Seems obvious to me.

I saw a poster in London yesterday saying something like, "the conservatives will help families". DH and I both said exactly what twinset did

I don't pretend to know anything at all about politics but I don't think the Tories have ever done anything to help families, particularly those with low incomes.

Having come from a family on a very low income when I was growing up I can remember the affect that the Poll Tax had on my parents.

Because of this I will never ever vote Tory. Having said that the other choices don't look that appealing either.

Also they promise to create 4200 more SureStart jobs.

Extend the right to request flexible working to everyone with a child under eighteen.

Introduce a new system of maternity/paternity leave so that either parent can take it.

Ensure that the public sector becomes a world leader in flexible working.

Create a new Early Years Support team.

Put funding for relationship support on a more stable footing.

That's what they are saying, along with support for public provided nursery care and other stuff.

Well, Lowrib, so don't vote Tory if they won't give you more money.

Well, here is their draft manifesto on families

www.conservatives.com/Policy/Where_we_stand/~/media/Files/Draft%20Manifesto/DraftFamiliesManifesto.a shx

I agree with them about ending the couples penalty in the benefits system.

Disagree about tax break for marriage - though given we all know the state of the public finances, it will be miniscule anyway.

Agree with freezing council tax.

Unsure about increasing Surestart focus for the neediest - obviously a good idea, but given lack of money, not really possible unless you cut some middle class parents out.

Agree with more health visitors.

Agree with more focused early intervention.

Agree with free nursery care.

Agree with flexible working rights.

Agree with more funding for relationship support.

Overall, it isn't particularly ambitious, but there is quite a bit of good there, as well as some bad, and some I'm not sure about.

Well I voted for Blair twice coz I believed in"New" Labour they had a bash and f----d up royally so I welcome Cameron and will probably vote his way. I care about my family and losing my tax credits and dc's (state) schools losing funding and I am not posh or rich. A dose of reality has to be considered and we have to sort out the debt crisis. Gordo's big talk just ain't cutting it with me. NHS has had more money chucked at in in the last decade than ever before and as an extensive user I think it has got worse.

Personally, I've been really pleasantly surprised by the tax credits system and also my experience of finding a CM.

I used to work as a CM many years ago, and am now using the new system as a parent. Although I'm sure it's a PITA for the CMers, as a user of their services I'm delighted that I can read OFSTED inspections for potential CMers - we based our decision on who to send DS to partly on these reports. I'm also delighted that there is a minimum standard, and that you can - if you choose - pay extra and get a CM who has been rated 'outstanding'. This is much better than the old ad hoc system - there is a higher standard overall - that can't be bad surely? If you want to chose not to employ someone to look after your DCs who isn't following a curriculum (although I don't see what the problem is here) you can always choose to employ a nanny.

I've found the Tax Credits system a real help when I needed it. I wasn't earning while at home with DS so a higher tax threshold would have been completely useless, but I've paid in loads of tax while earning in the past so it was great to be able to use it when needed. Also, as the payments go down on a sliding scale as you start earning more, and because you can get decent help with childcare costs I've been able to go back to work (and start paying tax again) easily, without getting caught in the poverty trap. If the tories unpick this, it'll mean more people really struggling IMO.

The best family support any new government could offer is improving the literacy and numeracy rate. All that money chucked away and tens of thousands of eleven year olds still not reading and writing at their proper age.

Just accept that most people, rich and poor alike, will vote with their pockets.

bernadetteoflourdes,

I don't think anyone can say that the NHS has gotten worse under Labour. It is simply impossible to triple the NHS budget and make it worse. It has improved, but not nearly enough.

The problem is that they have wasted so much money. How many billions have been wasted on the NHS supercomputer? How much has been wasted on management consultants and mid-level managers instead of matrons?

Overall though, Labour have improved the NHS. That is why it makes no sense for them now to start closing hospitals and wards. I don't understand why the party of the NHS would do this.

I asked Douglas Alexander about this on his chat and he didn't answer.

I won't be voting Tory. I won't do anything to risk the child tax credit system being dismantled.

"introducing child tax credits & working tax credits"

I think this has done the country more harm than good. People now have a sense of entitlement that they can work the least number of hours and claim benefits rather than fully support themselves. For others tax credits mean that they choose not to work at all.

Add on all the unnecessary paperwork from taking from taxes and giving back its also very costly and prone to errors.

I'd love to see tax credits abolished and assistance given via higher personal allowances.

Savings could be made by getting rid of the gimmick things that Labour have bought in - the CTF voucher, the healthy eating grant, surestart maternity grant where its already been provided once - all this money could be far better spent.

I like their stance on marriage/civil partnerships - stats have always shown that children do far better when bought up in married families.

Labour have done the odd good thing like maternity pay but on the whole have made the country heavily reliant on benefits rather than encourage a good work ethic where people support themselves.

That is a valid point longfingers and I am right with you on money allocation so I should have been more specific. That computer yeah you are spot on hellish waste of funds and it reinforced my disdain for their kind of misplaced control freakery. Douglas Alexander= twat IMHO I think he is scared of Big Ed Ballsy.

They don't have anything to offer anyone but the rich.

Same as it ever was.

It says two things about tax credits: end the couples penalty and reduce fraud and overpayments.

"Dismantled?"

Basically if you're in receipt of government funds you're going to vote for more or the same money. Not exactly the moral high ground.

Probonino you are massively oversimplifying. Speak for yourself, but not everyone votes simply based on income. In the past (pre-DS) there have been times when I would have been better off income-wise under the tories. Did I vote tory then? No. I plan to have a job in the future with a high income one day. Will I vote tory then? No.

Plenty of people vote based on principles, and for the party which they think help create a better society over all. Like my parents, and most of the adults I knew growing up.

If you want to look at self-interest, then the long run, many people try to maximise their own happiness by voting for the party which makes the nation more secure and contented as a whole rather than just voting for the one which gives them more money as an individual. What's the use in being slightly better if the rest of society is worse off? Purely selfishly that's got to affect you somehow - whether through higher crime or worse public services, or less help available if unexpected misfortune hits you, for example.

Voting simply with your pocket is very short IMO and ignores the fact that our lives are interconnected, as we live in the same society.

Meant to say "voting with your pocket is very short sighted"

gah!

It's not a massive oversimplification, to be honest. That's what manifestos appeal to. Most people will vote for more money and better services for themselves. A certain section doesn't, I never have, but am considering it for the first time.

Receipt of government funds does not mean only welfare: at the other end of the spectrum the same will apply: and there is no moral high ground in either end voting to maintain their levels of income: that goes for poor people as well as rich people.

I'm considering it as we've seen so much money wasted by both sides over the last twenty or twenty five years.