Welcome to the politics 2014 discussion on gransnet: please add your thoughts

1. I don't believe that any of DC, NC or EM have a genuine understanding. I don't know about NF.
I believe that the current system, which appears to favour 'career politicians', does us a disservice. I believe that there should be an expectation that those seeking to become MPs should have had experience of 'proper jobs' beforehand - if only so that they have something to fall back on if/when they lose their seats (this only partly tongue in cheek!)

2. If I may speak from a Scottish perspective here...The modest levels of female representation at Westminster stand in sharp contrast to the Nordic levels of representation achieved in the Scottish Parliament, which currently has 46 female MSPs, a total of just under 35%.

This puts the Scottish Parliament at position 22 in the world league tables, compared with the UK House of Commons which ranks 57th.

Strong equality measures, in the form of Labour's twinning scheme and informal action taken by its electoral rivals, had a strong impact in the 1999 elections and continue to hold up headline figures.

Impacts include the adoption of equal opportunities as one of the key principles of the parliament, the passing of 'family friendly' sitting hours and the development of a more inclusive and consultative style of policy making, to name just a few.

When I watch a report from the House of Commons, I'm turned off by all the booing and braying. It's just not conducive to women's participation.

The Scottish political scene is so much more inclusive. And women are at the forefront. It's not only that Nicola Sturgeon, Deputy Leader of the SNP, Johann Lamont, leader of Scottish Labour, Ruth Davidson, leader of Scottish Conservatives, and Margaret Curran, shadow Scottish Secretary, are all women, it's the fact that women are participating at every level of the campaign. It's grassroots activism, honest connection and debate about Scotland's future.

So yes, it's important. And it makes a difference.

My local MP (Labour) has earned widespread respect for being effective and extremely hardworking on behalf of her constituents.
The fact that she's a woman is a bonus!

3. Given that I did go on rather in the above, I'll be brief here.
Rather than a coalition, where fudge and compromise hold sway, I'd prefer a minority government where proposals are fought point by point.

In an ideal world, my personal preference would be for more Independent candidates, free of party whips.

David cameron: rather upper class/smarmy but at least he has the courage/convictions. He is st ding his ground n the country seems to be improving.
Ed miliband: does he believe what he says, or is he just vote chasing?
Nick clegg: a bit 'vague/wishy-washy'. On a hiding to nothing, I fear. Perhaps he thought this would be a good positive experience both for him and his party.
Nigel farage: says what most people are thinking n I do believe these r his genuine thoughts - but is he a loose cannon.

What do I hope for? All leaders to work together for the good of the country. Slagging each other off at every opportunity just puts everyone off.

David cameron: is he genuinely trying to have more equality in his government or just, if we are to believe the newspapers, just trying to attract more female voters? And are the newspapers really to be trusted on anything?

Miliband: having to reinvent himself - new image/voice and depending on hiz wife to attract votes. Not for me, I'm afraid.

Currently I'm on holiday so a bit 'out of the loop' so can't say my vote had changed - I'm still voting conservative I think. Benefits spending needs much more serious cuts. People should have to work, not be put on the position of being better off on benefits!

Ps I hadnt given snp much thought but I do think building housing for commonwealth games, to be used as social housing is good planning. Did this happen in 2012? Prudent spending.

I forgot to add thoughts on coalition: definite advantages and disadvantages for this. Advantage seems to be another perspective on decision-making. Also i do think some tes other parties/party members bring fresh skills and ideas, and often more 'grass roots' experiences. Sometimes the 'big two' parties forget who their voters are, and why they need those voters!
Disadvantage: points-scorers between the coalitions, inexperience of the smaller parties, and sometimes decisions made because of the smaller parties policies and power to swing the vote.

Apols for succinctness/spelling mistakes - sometimesobile phones r not conducive to these types of forums!

1. The point has already been made that the 3 main party leaders have strong wives (don't know about Farage's wife) and I am sure that this is a very important influence on their attidues to women. Dc has always seemed to acknowledge the influence of his wife; I guess NC's wife is the strong one there as he comes over as a drip anyway -swaying in the wind. DM's wife seems just to have come out of the woodwork and is clearly trying to support him, but when I see her, all I can think of is -what must it be like to be married to that weird man.
So my answer to the question is that a leader with a strong wife, with whom he communicates, as DC and SC clearly do, is going to have a better understanding of issues pertaining particularly to women. But has that influenced his policies? It doesn't seem to have. His recent sacking of really able people (Michael Gove) in order to bring more women into the cabinet is too little, too late and merely tokenism as the election draws near. A Pity.

2. The number of women in office, or whether my MP is male or female has absolutely no effect on my views of that person. It is his/her efficiency, competency and genuineness that matter. I disapprove strongly of positive discrimination - the person who gets the job must be the right person for the role, their sex has nothing to do with it. Do you remember the pictures of Blair's Babes - all those women who had won seats in that fateful election, surrounding Mr B Liar all in their 'smart' crimplene suits and smirking? What happened to them all? Did they make a difference? I don't think so.

3. Coalition - this has not helped strong government and I think Clegg has behaved badly - holding back his support and 'blackmailing' Cameron to get his own way. I wish the conservatives had felt able to hold a minority government - I think the economy, totally ruined by Labour, would be in a better position now. And I think the Lib-Dems are naturally more allied to Labour anyway, so Cameron and co have done well to get as much done as they have. Coalition governments are not strong governments as decisions are so much more difficult to be made - look at continental governments - so I do not want another coalition. But I think that this particular coalition, unusual in peacetime Britain, has, overall, done very well, and perhaps it was right for the country in 2010, but let's hope in 2015 there will be a clear Conservative victory .

I would be happier to vote for a candidate with life experience, and I too despair of career politicians. Irrespective of your views of Tony Blair and new Labour, at least a good few of them had worked outside parliament, chiefly it has to be said, in law, I would think that years in courtrooms as a barrister woul give a good grounding in the public performance aspects of politics. What we have now in DC, NC and I think EM, is people who have gone to public schools, certain universities, then internships/reserach posts in MP offices, then finally selection for a seat of their own. Although this is undoubtedly a long apprenticeship, there is no sense that they have had much experience of the big wide world that they are supposed to represent. I would especially like to see MPs who have started and run their own small business, this is the backbone of the economy, and the sector that pays the bulk of the revenue. I would vote for anyone who promised to change the taxation system whereby large corporations were not able to legally minimise their tax contribution.

1) How well or badly do you think the current main party leaders are doing on understanding the issues and concerned facing women like you.

First of all David Cameron?

Well he thinks we're all easily duped if he thinks that his recent reshuffle adding women to the cabinet will make us all think he's fabulous at womens issues.

However , I think the challenge for him is to get more viable women into politics not promoting those he has simply because they're women. I'd take a good politician any day over one chosen for their sex.

And then Nick Clegg?

Who knows what Nick Clegg knows or doesn't know? For me he's the invisible man, I rarely see or read anything noteworthy from him and Im afraid I don't really have a clue about how well or not he deals with womens issues !

And then Ed Miliband?

I don't believe he has a clue. He's too busy making vague promises which based on historical behaviour he wont keep.

Finally, Nigel Farage?

I wouldn't say I have much clarity on Nigel Farage and his policies with regard to women either. He does have the common touch so maybe he will be closer to the issues facing women but currently I think its hard to tell.

2) Are you more likely to vote for a party with a greater number of female representatives? Is it more important to see women in national roles as Minister/ Shadow Ministers, or equally important when thinking about your own local MP/ candidate? Does the gender of your local MP affect the way you're likely to vote?

I will be voting for the party with the policies that I feel would benefit me, my country and to some extent future generations. I don't care a bit if those policies are made by men or women. I don't see a whole raft of questions about men's issues so I'm slightly uncomfortable that JUST because we're women we have issues that can only be truly understood by other women?

That said, I do believe we would benefit from having more women in senior level positions BUT they have to arrive there by merit not because of their sex.

The gender of my local MP will not affect the way I vote in anyway.


3) We’re nearing the end of what looks likely to be a five year coalition – a first for Britain in peacetime. What have you liked about having a coalition? What has worked well, what do you think are the disadvantages? Do you see it as just a one off or would you like to see more coalitions in the future? Do you think they’re preferable to minority governments?

I don't like the coalition at all. I think its watered down some policies that were necessary but had to be amended because of the 2 parties differing politics.

I liked the coalition because I wanted to see the Conservatives in power and this was the only way it could happen sadly. I do believe that we will see more coalitions going forward but I'm not sure I prefer that option to a minority government. Because there is a lot of difference in all the parties manifesto and policies I think what emerges from a coalition is often a watered down version which doesn't quite hit the mark. I'd rather see hard hitting policies if needed.

Hear, hear!!

Apologies....
I intended my Hear, hear!! message to be attached to WBundecided's comments (31 July).

Question for AnnGransnet:
Just checking...Are you looking for debate, or simply a range of views?

1) How well or badly do you think the current main party leaders are doing on understanding the issues and concerned facing women like you.

First of all David Cameron?
And then Nick Clegg?
And then Ed Miliband?
Finally, Nigel Farage?

I can answer this question in one easy line.

Nothing at all !

However to expand. DC,NC,EM I would say none of them have any understanding on the issues concerning "women like me".

Have any of them ever tried to run a home (on a budget)?
Look after children or grandchildren whilst trying to work full time, without the services of a nanny or au pair?
Juggled the care of older relatives?
I would think not.

They all claim to understand "hard working families" when in reality they wouldn't know hard work if it bit them on the bum !

I don't know enough about NF's family life/financial position to enable me to make comment. But I would guess he is probably more in touch with reality than the other three.

I agree with a previous post who says that DC,NC and EM all have strong wives but to be fair it is not the wife who we would be voting for is it?

2) Are you more likely to vote for a party with a greater number of female representatives? Is it more important to see women in national roles as Minister/ Shadow Ministers, or equally important when thinking about your own local MP/ candidate? Does the gender of your local MP affect the way you're likely to vote?

I hate the idea of promoting women simply in order to improve the ratio of men/women. It is almost an insult to be given a position in order to "get the numbers up". All cabinet positions should be awarded on merit alone. Gender should not come into it. So no, the number of women in the party would have no bearing on the way I would vote.

3) We’re nearing the end of what looks likely to be a five year coalition – a first for Britain in peacetime. What have you liked about having a coalition? What has worked well, what do you think are the disadvantages? Do you see it as just a one off or would you like to see more coalitions in the future? Do you think they’re preferable to minority governments?

I have not liked the coalition. I would have liked to see what the Conservatives with DC could have done if they had been aloud to. The way things stand I feel that everything has been done in a compromising (half hearted ) way. I would have preferred to see a minority government. It irritates me how NC thinks he got there on merit when in fact he was just the lesser of two evils as far as DC was concerned.

1) How well or badly do you think the current main party leaders are doing on understanding the issues and concerned facing women like you.

I would like to start by saying what sort of "woman" I am. I will be 56 next week, I won't get a state pension until I'm 66, so another 10 years of working. That is IF I could damn well get a job! As far as I can tell, I'm not exactly top of the list for any sort of "understanding" from any of the party leaders listed, but that may be because we are the "forgotten". Yes, they talk about unemployment, but usually focussed on younger people. There seems to be a general attitude that women of my age are comfortably situated, either with husbands working, mortgage paid off, nothing to do except go to Pilates classes, take up hobbies etc. In my case nothing could be further from the truth! I have a large (interest only) mortgage, no private pension and feel that the many years that I have paid tax and N.I. contributions count for nothing, especially when I see television programmes showing migrants coming here expecting (and getting) benefits. I will soon have to "sign on " again, but will get nothing in JSA because I have insufficient N.I. contributions for the required period.

2) Are you more likely to vote for a party with a greater number of female representatives? Is it more important to see women in national roles as Minister/ Shadow Ministers, or equally important when thinking about your own local MP/ candidate? Does the gender of your local MP affect the way you're likely to vote?

No, as I have said before positions in government should be based on nothing other than merit. If you start looking at quotas, then at some stage there will be those saying that unless we have more black disabled lesbians in the cabinet then it is discriminatory (tongue in cheek emoticon)

3) We’re nearing the end of what looks likely to be a five year coalition – a first for Britain in peacetime. What have you liked about having a coalition? What has worked well, what do you think are the disadvantages? Do you see it as just a one off or would you like to see more coalitions in the future? Do you think they’re preferable to minority governments?

At times it has hardly seemed like a coalition, Cameron very much to the fore (but then he is PM) although perhaps the fact that it IS a coalition may have tempered some of the measures. I find it hard to compare, and as to whether it would be good to see more in the future, well that would depend on how they performed.

Sorry, bit of a rant to Q1, and perhaps not enough substance to the others.

Surely the issues facing women like us are the same as those facing men, getting/having a job, earning enough to keep the family in food and with a roof over their heads and to pay the utility bills, or having a decent enough pension to do the same. Are we all women on this discussion?
Of the four leaders, three are married to Europeans, and only Cameron to a British woman. However, she is the daughter of wealthy landed parents, and knows little about the average British family.
Cameron's policies have hit women the hardest as they tend to be the lowest paid. He does not seem at all bothered about the poor and homeless, whether they are men or women, with family or single.
Nick Clegg is useless. He is now trying to separate himself from some of Cameron's policies, but it's probably too late to save him.
Miliband does not seem able to separate himself yet from New Labour, and thinks we need him to promise to be harder on the poor than the coalition. He is not listening to the people he needs to vote for him.
Farage, I could not care less about. Besides, he smokes.

The party I last voted for has 100% women MPs. That's not why I voted for them, by the way, but because of their policies.
My MP is a woman as well. I would not vote for a party that paid lip service to over 50% of the voting population. Anyway, those are the parties that ditch their manifestos after they are elected.

There is nothing I like about this coalition. In fact I doubt that it really is one. Everything that was in the Libdem manifesto was ditched by the Tories. Clegg did not stand up for anyone or anything. He's only doing so now because it's too late, nine months before the next election.
I dislike everything this coalition has done, to the poor, the workless, the homeless, education and the NHS, which they promised would not be privatised or reorganised. The coalition are complete liars from the top down.

One question I would like to ask about this discussion. How come you are only concerned about the four male leaders? What about Natalie Bennett, the only female party leader? At least the Green Party has an MP, which Ukip do not.
How can the Green Party do better if they are even ignored on a thread like this? We can only vote for women if we know they exist.

Hear, hear !! again, this time to all points made by Annaries....Thanks!

1.
My concerns are mainly those that affect my children and grandchildren, i.e. schools and education, the economy and jobs. And my main issue is the NHS. Will it be there for me when I need it? I don't think any of the 4 main leaders are doing very well on any of these. The 3 major party leaders (I don't know about Nigel Farage) are all wealthy people so know nothing about the worry of whether their child will get into the 'good' school, or if their job is secure, or whether their mortgage will be approved. If they need medical treatment they can afford to pay for it so although they probably do use the NHS they know there is another option for them. So no I don't think any of them know much about my concerns. None of them have had a 'real' job so have no idea of the issues facing 'normal' people. (Again I don't know about Nigel Farage's employment history)
2.
It makes no difference to me what gender the ministers/MPs are. People should be elected as MPs or appointed to cabinet positions purely on merit. It does not affect the way I vote at all.
3.
I don't particularly like the coalition as it seems you get the worst of two worlds. Everything has to be a compromise, and most policies seem to be diluted versions due to trying to please both sides. I hope that the next government is a majority one......and not Labour, Lib Dem or UKIP.

1 I don't think it's possible to talk about 'women like you'. I don't vote on the basis of what's best for me, but what's best for the country, although, having said that, the concerns of women in the last third of their lives should feature in manifestos.

DC Doesn't have a clue. He's only interested in bolstering the comfortable circumstances of the most wealthy. He's already declared that he wants to reduce the higher tax rate and is silent about the dreadful situation faced by women whose retirement age was raised dramatically. These women (and I'm not one of them) have really been discriminated against as they are, for the most part, unlikely to have been in well paid jobs, or made the required number of NI contributions.

NC Just a side kick of DC Where are the old Liberal principles?

EM Again, some good ideas not very well communicated, although I'm pleased with promise to repeal the bedroom tax

NF No policies, not morality. A bad joke

And please, where is the question about the Green Party? They have an MP UKIP doesn't. Why are ignoring them? They have the best policies.

2 No, I'm not. I would never vote for anyone on the basis of gender, but that doesn't mean that the number of women candidates in winnable seats is acceptable. A solution to this would be to reinstitute the two member constituency. This was how Barbara Castle was selected and would make t far more likely that woman would be equitably represented. I do think that a genuinely inclusive party would have a greater number of women as MPs and ministers. Another bad mark against DC.

3 I think a coalition is a disaster. Far better to have a minority government and vote on principles That's what Wilson did in the 60s and then went to the country and achieved a majority.

1.I don't view politicians in terms of how they relate to 'women like me'. I think the job of politicians is to do what's best for the country as a whole, not pander to and bribe particular parts of the electorate. In fact if I thought my vote was being 'bought', that would put me off.

I think that DC is doing quite well to have served 4 years as PM without any major personal PR disasters. I think he and George Osborne present a united team, especially compared with the Tony Blair/Gordon Brown show where the whole country knew they were at loggerheads and the country suffered as a result.

NC - massive fail. Will the Lib Dems have a presence in the next government? I doubt it.

EM - I think the Labour Party would be in a much stronger position if his brother had been elected leader.

NF - He has done very well for his party. Who would have thought even 5 years ago that UKIP would rise to the extent it has. I just hope that they never get enough seats to have any real say in Government.

2. I would never vote for a party, locally or nationally, just because it had more women. I want competent leaders and politicians, irrespective of gender. I don't like women -only short-lists.

3. I like the idea of Coalition. The Lib Dems have tempered the Tories and there is a bigger pool from which to draw ministers, Vince Cable and Danny Alexander in particular.

My advice to the PM :

A. If David Cameron wanted a cast iron guarantee of winning he would hold the in/out referendum on EU membership before the election. He should also make a peace pact with UKIP, many of whose voters are natural Conservatives. I have no advice for any other party leaders as I would not vote for them if they paid me. (Which would be illegal anyway!)

B. The three things I would do tomorrow if I were PM would be:

1. Stop HS2 and promise to spend the funds on the existing infrastructure, rail, roads and consider a new Boris airport in the Thames estuary.
2. Stop charging stamp duty on property sales below £500,000.
3. Increase the Inheritance Tax threshold to £500,000 per person.

I would also draw up another list of numerous other things I would do but you have only asked for three!

A) What advice would you give the main party leaders trying to secure your vote and win the next election?
I would advise the party leaders to have a positive election campaign with no negative or personal campaigning.
That the election manifesto had clear policies with stated time frames.
It was clearly spelt out in the manifesto if they would share power with another party and how.
That they had an agreement with other political parties that in marginal seats where there was a danger of a split vote allowing another party in who would stand. This has been done in the past.
That if they won they would introduce proportional representation for the following elections.

B) and finally if you were leader of a party or Prime Minister, what would be the top three things on your to-do list for tomorrow?

To hold an Eu referendum with simple yes no question
To reduce overseas aid and use the money in the UK
To severely reduce immigration and speed deportation.

Dear Gransnet
Can you let us know in what ways the information provided is going to be used?

How to win my vote:

Be perfectly clear in the manifesto what they will do - no weasel words and no empty promises. The LibDem renege on student fees won't be forgotten in a hurry.

I'm looking for a party which will promise to work towards a fairer society. Where the old, the poor and those with a disability are not demonised and where everyone's contribution is valued. That would mean a tax and pension system which takes into account caring responsibilities, be it for very young children, the elderly or the disabled. The welfare state should return to the founding principles based on contributions with a safety net for the categories above.

Clearly, the economy is key so I want to see the senior ranks of the civil service subjected to the rigours of the best practice in both public and private sectors - no more waste in unworkable IT projects for example. And I want to the civil service depoliticised. I want to see the money that is poured into arms redirected to projects which will benefit the nation; the whole nation not just the south east.

A huge house building programme should be started together with measures to force the sale of empty properties or land with planning permission.

Reverse the privatisation of the NHS

I should also like to see an end to the meddling and empire building of ministers who simply want to promote themselves. Leave the professionals to develop policy in education, the health service, social services and the CJS. Constant change means inefficiency and stagnation and resentment. Organic, evidence based development is what is needed.

If I was PM. Well I think long term issues are what really matter, but if instant publicity and feel good effect is what is being looked for, then:

1 Repeal the bedroom tax
2 Declare a Bank Holiday the first Monday of half term in October to give families a nice long weekend
3 Curb the ability of the police to issue cautions so that criminal behaviour is properly dealt with by the courts and victims get justice.

I should also like to know how this thread is going to used.

I would like the party leaders to write an honest manifesto, and not lie to the public as happened the last time. I want them to promise a more equal society. I want them to say what they are going to do about the tax system, to make sure that those people that earn money in this country pay their fair share of taxes. I want to know what they are going to do to stop this country being seen as a tax haven by foreign countries.
I want them to be honest about what they are going to do to save the NHS from privatisation.
I want them to tell us what they are going to do to make wages fairer, and to get rid of food banks.

If I were PM, I would start a house building program straight away, making all builders build affordable housing before they build houses for profit. No more land to be bought before all the land banked is used up.
I would make the minimum wage a living wage by law.
I would bring in a law that says no more bonuses to be paid until the living wage is instituted in all companies - and no weaselling out of it. No zero hours contracts to be used to get out of paying a living wage.
I would also sort out the NHS, by ensuring that GPs have time to work as GPs rather than managers. Stop all negotiating by CCGs with private companies, and make all profits from the NHS go back into the NHS, rather than be syphoned off by private companies.

Sorry, but three is not enough. I've got a much longer list.

I thought you wanted people who would change their minds. NancyDrew has said she would only ever vote conservative.
Suflay, I agree with just about everything you said. Didn't have space to say I would repeal the bedroom tax, but I would.

Yes it's really not possible to restrict to three. It's interesting that so far we all have differing top three. I agree with all the suggestions given so far, especially SuFlay and her paragraph beneath 'Reverse to privatisation of the NHS'.
I would like to add a prompt repeal of the Human Rights Act and replace with a new Rights and Responsibility Act. ( I see no need for the use of the word Human)