Mumsnet/Mori report on Women Voters(69 Posts)
Just a quick heads up about a project we've done with Ipsos Mori that gets some coverage in the Sunday Times today (£). For a while there's been a fair bit of talk both about David Cameron's so-called women problem and how important the female vote is going to be come this election.
So we teamed up with Ipsos MORI to delve into the subject a little bit more. The folks at MORI have conducted national, weighted polls examining women's feelings about about each of the main leaders and parties. Meanwhile we've been conducting a qualitative online focus group of 100 Mumsnet users to interrogate those feelings in a bit more depth.
There's lots of juicy stuff in there - in truth all the party leaders seem to have "room for improvement" in women's eyes. Do have a look and let us know what you think.
Perhaps as we go into the voting booth, us women should think: 'Now what would my husband do, or father do, or uncle Ned do?'
Vote like a man and stop being such big girls.
Yes it reminds me of Patricia Hewitt and her blethering on how certain women were a "problem".
Oh god we are all doomed, aren't we?
Women voters are not 'a thing', not a homogenous bunch just because we have vaginas: we are people first and foremost.
If politicians implement policies which disadvantage people, they are going to get called on it. Seems like this is a good way to minimise the flak by getting rid of the half of it that comes from 'the Men Problem'.
"The Women Problem" - the title alone is fantastically distasteful. Women are not a "problem". They are voters and policies need to address their perfectly valid concerns and lifestyles.
Well, I might vote Labour, but I'm def not a fan. Especially of Miliband. I'd have given him bunny ears in the picture.
Butthereagain - Perhaps that's because you've already decided to vote Labour and feel the Tories are 'ideological and extreme'? (quoting you from upthread) I'm so pleased we are as one about the Pebbles though.
I think you have to be utterly determined to see bias before you can interpret the picture in that way, or the site frankly. Agree about the Pebbles, though. Scoffs Pebbles
The photographs present David Cameron and Nick Clegg as shadowy figures, but puts forward Ed Miliband, in beatific innocence, totally without shadow.
You do know that subliminal messaging works?
I thought the site had moved away from its persuading us all to 'vote Labour' agenda and was concentrating instead on getting us all to buy Cadbury's Pebbles and Ford motors.
Justine - you are not telling the truth when you say 'there's lots of juicy stuff in there'. In fact, there is very little substance to this. It's honestly demeaning. Trite would be a suitable adjective. Sold-out would be another pretty apt description. Why are you treating us like fools?
Horry - fair enough - wouldn't like to risk it myself. I have to determine whether my current LibDem seat is a sufficient 3-way split to allow me to vote Labour.
Before the 1997 Election I think The Guardian (not so LibDem loving then) commissioned opinion polls to advise anti-Tory voters which way to vote in various constituencies..it was very useful.
The parties who win also look at share of the vote. If UKIP does well, they steal as many UKIP policies as they can, to entice UKIP voters away. If the Green vote increases, they introduce more Green policies.
I truly believe there is no such thing as a wasted vote. It always means something.
I live in a safe seat, so my vote is insignificant whoever I vote for! Another reason for hating the LibDems: they failed to ensure a real, meaningful debate and vote on AV, the mess of pottage they sold themselves for.
ButThereAgain if you care who has the actual power after the next Election under a 'First past the post' system a Green vote is the equivalent of not bothering to vote at all surely?
I have a dilemma too as am in an area with a LibDem MP and would normally vote whatever keeps a Tory out.
I think I'll be more ready than I was in the last election to vote Labour defensively, not because I have any faith in them whatsoever to be a principled force for social justice, but just because the Conservatives have revealed themselves to be so ideological and extreme in their abandonment of the poor and their erosion of the state in favour of business.
Before the last election the Conservatives pictured themselves as mild, unideological. I didn't really see a gulf between them and New Labour's agenda of privatisation of many services. So it seemed possible to register disgust at the Iraq war and disgust at the Labour version of privatisation by not supporting Labour. This time around I'm not sure that I can afford to be so scrupulous. I might have to put on some rubber gloves and cast a vote for Labour. I would vote Green if we had a Green candidate, though, not so much because of a concern for the environment (though there is that!) but because they do position that concern within a context of genuine concern for social justice. And because their whole party culture has women at the centre.
Blondie not a rare dilemma at all.
Personally I have gone for the look local option and vote for the person who seems the best fit for this role here.
DH voted LibDem. he is far from happy about that. He won't do that again.
Sparrow are you OK? Safe, fed?
A friend who is a carer has just lost £52 a week as well. That's a LOT when your income is the minimum. Bedroom tax / cuts to the disability portion of tax credits.
And my eldest attends a special school and has to be supervised 24/7 due to his disability but won't fit the PIP criteria when he hits 16, so will lose all his income (they removed he clause on that, it's his aggression). Of COURSE as the family form filler and carer that will reflect in my allegiance.
Maybe women don't like them as much because women are more likely to be the carers, single parents? The one struggling by on part time wages because they can't get flexible enough childcare to fit around shift work, yet know that could see them sanctioned when universal discredit comes in?
MN may be leftie but it's not as leftie as it once was.
Having just read the full report it's ^so^ depressing that politicians still believe that they can speak the way they do to women MP's, that they can implement policies which affect women and families so badly and then devote party resource to a "woman problem" entirely of their own making. Can't help feeling there is a distinct gap in the political market right now!
I have NO idea how I'd vote in the next election because NONE of the parties is selling themselves to me.
The Tories' childcare consultation was an utter shambles and more than anything else showed just how fundamentally out of touch they are with working parents. If they can't figure out that childcare needs don't end when a child turns 5 then... <despairing sigh>
I voted LibDem in the last election but have no desire to be "clegged" again.
And Labour...well, meh. What do they stand for?
Great that the full report has been published and a great example of MN leading the debate
And the big cut in corporation tax - you're welcome! Would you like the last tin of beans to go with it?
ButThereAgain - I can answer that one. Its come from cutting off my jobseekers allowance for three months and making me homeless by cutting my housing benefit by half.
Thanks for that chaps! Oh but do enjoy your massive millionaire's tax breaks!
It was trialled by Ed Balls under Labour, but a million initiatives have gone by the board since then and I don't recall any commitment from the coalition to adopt the measure until now. Coming on top of LibDem's announcements of cheaper school uniforms and charging for plastic bags it does seem like one more nervous sop to the voters of 2015 rather than part of any coherent approach.
In the context of the Labour govt, universal free school meals did seem to have the merit of efficiency and avoiding free school meal stigma. But now, after so many cuts and after the abandonment of the principle of universality, I absolutely don't see this as anything other than a bribe. It seems random, panicked. £600m conjured up for the conference season. It is possibly well spent on this, but where has it come from, when the cuts have been so devastating.
It was trialled but usually as part of a range of new ideas and a new superhead. I'm sceptical that "just food" can cause a sea change, regardless of my theoretical support for universal school meals.
Oh, I thought the free school lunches thing was actually something that had been piloted in some areas, and found to be far better/efficient than means testing. More "good for children and alleviating poverty" than "sop to women". Unless only women care about children of course?
Latest LIbDem panicky act of voter bribery aimed at women is free school lunches for infants.
I feel a bit tainted by offers like this flung out in the build-up to an election, when policies better targeted at the poorest have been so comprehensively undermined for the last 3 years.
if this is their response to "the women problem" they won't get very far with me.
And it annoys me that that Telegraph piece refers to the irritation of "mummy bloggers" at the absence of childcare funding for SAHM. I don't think that is on many people's radar (outside of Land of Blog). The same restructuring of childcare subsidy showed itself to be disadvantageious to the poorest. Many women care about social justice, not me-first caslculations of interest.
I've no idea where the Telegraph got their ideas from, but that's not exactly representative either. Makes women sound like a bunch of reactionary professionally offended types.
His blundering comments are just him. He's a bloke, a posh one, so what. How many holidays he has had and the fact that he can't say 'breast' without giggling is par for the course. As you can see from most of the posts on here, we are interested in policies, not niceties and to assume otherwise is just sexist.
Join the discussion
Please login first.