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?

wow that was a long post

@riven totally agree with you on the boarded up houses. They bulldozed a whole street of good sturdy terraced houses up in Preston just to build new ones some locals just wanted them properly renovated.What gets me is that you pay fullVAT on the renovations ofa an old house and zero VAT on a new build it is crazy sometimes

@damnedchilblains liked your post too can you form a pol party with Xenia I will vote for you both.

'Too many people are overstretching themselves, if you can't afford it don't buy it . If people were not paying these ridiculous house prices, they would naturally go down to more reasonable prices.'

Okay, it's not that simple. And here is why: because the tenancy laws in this country lead to a huge amount of insecurity in accommodation, which can prove very problematic when you have children.

Short-assured tenancies mean most of the time, a private renter is never more than 2 months away from having to find another place to live.

The expense to move is never insignificant, because you need to pay letting agent fees and first months' rent and deposit before getting your old deposit back.

Not to mention hiring vans and the like.

All well and good, but private landlords are allowed to specify 'No children'.

And when you have children, you try as much as possible to keep them at the same school, not move catchment areas often.

The net result of this is that many people over-stretched themselves to obtain the security of accommodation that goes along with homeownership.

So changing things requires more than just house prices, but tenancy laws, too.

"Okay, it's not that simple. And here is why: because the tenancy laws in this country lead to a huge amount of insecurity in accommodation, which can prove very problematic when you have children.

Short-assured tenancies mean most of the time, a private renter is never more than 2 months away from having to find another place to live."

Expat I do agree that tenancy laws need looking at, but we're just moving house now, and have found it very easy to find long-term tenancies. we've just signed a 12 month one and have seen many for 2 years, in fact you can often as for a reduction in rent to sign a longer term tenancy. we have just come from a 1 month rolling tenancy but lived at this property for 5 years. Maybe it's where you live in the country that has an affect on what type of tenancies are offered.

It is very expensive to move though, but weighing up the pros and cons of buying a house, unless you buy a new build you often have to pay for this and that when you own your own house. If you're renting you don't have to worry about if the boiler breaks down, or the central heating packs in. we could afford to get a mortgage at the moment, but it's all the other stuff that comes with it.

"I don't know, what used to happen? I'm sure we didn't all buy flats when single and probably lived in smaller accommodation when the DCs were little."

Well there was much more council housing available. The Tories sold a lot off because their opinion was that people should be facilitated to own property and that was the way to increase affluence. Under "right to buy", long term council tenants could buy the houses they lived in at very low prices. Great deal for them, but not great for the next generation who were then reliant on renting in the private sector.

The mail boy where I used to work was able to buy his 2 bed council flat in Pimlico (posh south -central London) for £25k because his family had lived in it for 40 years.

You've been very lucky, chillblains.

Loads of threads on here from people turfed out very shortly, over and over again.

they need to build more council houses. Thatcher used a clever strategy of breaking the dependence on the state by selling council homes. She was trying to transform these voters from Labour to Conservative by making them stakeholders.

A trend now reversed by labour (see earlier post re 25% of people working for the state)

Ah, I'm glad these parties think beyond the next election

ArcticFox, good point, they are all at it

Really expat? Maybe I'm being a little naive then. Can you be thrown out even on a long term contract?

Oh right I didn't know that . I guess i'll just have to be on the ball and keep a little aside in case such a thing happens. I might have a word with the landlord before I sign the contract.

Riven, I agree, but the problem then is there's still an affordability issue, because if interest rates are higher then mortgage costs will increase. If base rate is 8% then a house is only as affordable at £100k as it is at £200k with interest rates at 1% (roughly- I'm making broad assumptions on the spread and loan to value here)

The reason house prices went up was because interest rates fell dramatically and affordability increased.

In a way, the issue isnt absolute prices, it's how much it costs you to borrow the money to buy a house.

Low interest rates always cause asset inflation.

Labour have not done anything to encourage families to stay together. Public services for families are useless. and incentives to keep families together have been removed by Gordon Brown.

isn't it the problem though with so many MP's having had the best schooling and best universtiy life - they have no idea what it wouldbe like to attend a sink state secondary school and try to rasie themselves out of it - not once but 250 times for each child in each sschool year at that school.

The MP's have no idea what it is like to live on a council estate and have problem neighbours or drug dealers living beside them and trying to get on with a nornal life.

The tory party didn't "do" anything to keep families together - it was just that a few of their policies were so mean that people had to stay together and live in utter misery under the tory party of the 80's and 90's

Labour have not improved the effectiveness of the Police.
If you have problem neighbours, the Police tend to be useless.

If people were not paying these ridiculous house prices, they would naturally go down to more reasonable prices.

People generally aren't paying these prices, developers, buy to let and sipps made property attractive.
When I was younger you didn't live in a flat at all, you bought a house that needed doing up, did it up and then sold it for another doer up with a bit more space, that's how people moved up the ladder.
People cannot compete with professional property dvelopment companies, although I suspect that will change when a) the cheap credit dries up b) there needs and hopefully will be capital gains tax to be chased up and paid retrospectively c) when all the baby boomers who bought property for their pension suddenly need health care they will flood the market with all the 5 bedroom houses they bought for £1.50 in 1970 which was instantly inflated away and they've been rattling around in ever since.

Hopefully we'll actually have jobs on that happy day and be able to buy a house suitable for raising children in rather than our current house suitable for a rabbit hutch.

Despite the probability that I may do well financially under a Tory government (my DH and I do okay financially) we will be voting for Labour. It hurts to even type this as they have pissed me off a lot this last decade but I believe they are the least worst party which says everything about the state of politics in this country.

I follow politics and the thought of David Cameron aka Tony Blair II being our PM just scares me. Cameron appears to think that not being Gordon Brown is reason enough to vote for him. I don't agree. The only policy he has strongly stood behind involves helping the richest 3000 families save money on their inheritance tax! It worries me that out of all the issues we have, it was that he chose to deal with first.

He's hidden Osbourne as its clear he doesn't know what he's doing. He doesn't even have an economics qualification FFS! I don't want us to slide back into recession.

Its also clear to me that Cameron has done a deal with Murdoch and although the BBC is far from perfect I do not want to see it dismantled in favour of News International. The day we get Fox news UK is the day I make moves to relocate my company abroad.

I'm also sick of hearing about 'Broken Britain'. Number one I think he should stop putting this country down. Two - Although there are social problems, I don't believe for one minute that Britain in broken despite what the 24hr news fear-mongers want to promote. Third - When is he going to come up with a policy to fix this supposed breakage?

Cameron the ex-PR man is all about image and I get a kind of George W Bush vibe from him in that he appears to be the shiny, cuddly puppet of some behind the scenes people. His claim to drink Guinness from a can and watch darts finally sealed my distrust of him.

If the LibDems were led by Vince Cable I would vote for them but Nick Clegg reminds me of a junior Cameron or should I say Tony Blair III?! Its like the other parties saw how well Tony Blair did and decided to create clones in a bid to imitate New Labour's successful strategy.

Labour are a joke but I believe they are a less dangerous joke than the Tories.

I think Labour are incredibly dangerous.

Having become more involved in the politics because of the proposed changes to home education legislation I've been horrified by Labour's complete lack of regard for the democratic process.

Home educators have engaged with the government in exactly the way you are supposed to if you wish to influence policy. Has the DCSF taken a single point raised by thousands of responses to the legislation on board? No, not one. Not one amendment proposed to the legislation was passed even though Labour MPs were speaking out against the Bill as it stands.

And of course, this isn't an isolated case being forced through to protect children or something - this seems to be common procedure for the Labour government.

I don't think that any other party (except the BNP) could possibly be more dangerous than Labour currently are.

I have always voted Labour, despite the fact that financially we would do better under the tories. But this time I will not vote for GB. No way, no how.

He is bringing the party to a state-centric position that I cannot support. The government's insistence that they be involved in the minutae of family life is ever owrsening. The Badman dabacle over home education is a perfect example.

When will GB realise that most families in the UK are happy and perfectly capable of making their own decisions. When will he accept that there is more than one way to parent?

I also have issues with how party members and supporters are treated. Any questions or disagreement is stamped out. It's like bleedin' Big Brother.

At-a-glance: Cameron coalition's policy plans

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8677088.stm

Reduction in child trust funds and child tax credits

Bah!