MNHQ Group 2

1) So, these days 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 as I am not an Old Etonian banker or businessman then I think he couldn't care less

And then Nick Clegg?
I had hopes for Nick as I think Marian (sp?) comes across as a "strong" woman, however he has shown himself to be completely useless and spineless.

And then Ed Miliband?
I don't really know much about Ed, for a party leader he doesn't really get out there.

What about another party leader you know of (or one you think should/ could be a party leader) - please name them and then say: how well or badly do they do on this aspect?

2) and how well or badly do you think they make sure or take account of women being heard in their party and in politics generally?

First of all David Cameron? See above!!

And then Nick Clegg? I can't name one female Lib Dem MP

And then Ed Miliband? I think of all parties Labour are the most "women friendly"

What about another party leader you know of (or one you think should/ could be a party leader) - please name them and then say: how well or badly do they do on this aspect?

3) Finally for now - which party - if any - do you trust the most to look after the interests of women? Why? And which do you trust the least? And why?

I would trust Labour the most, mainly as I feel they are more in touch with the fact that women are the ones who struggle to sort childcare etc
I would trust the Tories the least, as I would in everything as I think they are so out of touch with the "common people"

DC - I don't believe he is capable of understanding not has the will to understand women. His responses to and comments about women in the Commons including those in his own party goes to show just how inherently sexist he is and as such is unable to appreciate any issues affecting women. His posturing about women is pathetic and transparent.

EM - my gut feeling is that he has an understanding (to some extent) and is willing to look at evidence and positive policies, however, he is so quiet and unremarkable I struggle to really form an opinion.

NC - spineless. His marriage to a independent woman and his support with childcare, would seem to indicate that he does have at least a smidgen of empathy and a feeling of responsibility towards his family. Which is good. But he has not managed to stand up for his Liberal values in the public eye.

I would like to add here that although I strongly believe in the need to support issues that affect disadvantaged groups disproportionately, such as women, I also believe it is the inherent discrimination against these groups that lead to the issues. And until society and our political parties recognise that issues such as child care, domestic violence, rape, inequality of work and pay, are not 'Women's Issues' but societal issues, in which the inequalities need to be redressed, we will never achieve equality

1. First of all David Cameron? He is incapable of understanding the issues concerning women like me as I come from a completely different background to him and is unable to understand anything that hasn't directly affected him. I'm also a teacher, and he doesn't appear to like or respect teachers that much.

And then Nick Clegg?
I used to think that he had a better understanding of issues that concern women like me, but based on the last few years I guess not. He actually seems to have no opinions on anything by himself now...

And then Ed Miliband?
Hmmm, I'm not sure here. Of all the party leaders his policies are more in line with my view points, so I guess he does have more of an idea than the others by a long way. However, he still remains an enigma at present.

What about another party leader you know of (or one you think should/ could be a party leader) - please name them and then say: how well or badly do they do on this aspect?
I don't know enough about other party leaders to have a full opinion. It's a shame that you don't really hear much about other leaders, apart from occasional negative press.

2. and how well or badly do you think they make sure or take account of women being heard in their party and in politics generally? First of all David Cameron? I don't think he could care less whether women are heard, but he just has the token women around him to show how equal he is.

And then Nick Clegg?
I think he makes more of an effort than DC and certainly has opinions on important issues such as child care. However, he doesn't seem to be listened to very often...

And then Ed Miliband?
I'm unsure on his exact views on women in his party, but he obviously places women in high up positions. One would hope he has places importance on their opinions, as he does with male members of his party.

3. Finally for now - which party - if any - do you trust the most to look after the interests of women? Why? And which do you trust the least? And why?

I would trust Labour the most as their policies in the past and current one tend to work with women instead of against then. However, I don't believe that just because a party has lots of women politicians means that it understands them more. This is a bit of a fallacy.

DC - trying to understand issues for women but just never will. Inherently too posh and public school.
NC - I liked him for slagging off Gina Ford and I think he means well for women. But has proved himself to be ineffectual in govt.
EM - Ought to be sticking up for public sector workers, majority of whom are affected by cuts, but isn't.
Weirdly then I think NC gets it most out if all of them for professional working women like me. But has done nothing to sort out exorbitant childcare costs despite making the right noises, which is a massively big deal and really life changing for women like me. I just had a second child -- when I go back all my salary will go on childcare. It's farcical.
DC - doubt he listens to women at all. 'Calm down dear' says it all
NC - listens but does nothing about it
EM - strikes me as being a bit frightened of women.

Parties. Labour is inherently the party for women I think and certainly mothers as it's often mothers who access public services most like GPs, schools etc. trust Tories the least because their motto is 'there's no such thing as society' - this is absolutely the opposite of how I feel having kids. Labour is the natural party, collective action, coming together to do good things, the welfare state, etc...

1. So, these days 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 don't think DC has any understanding of the issues and needs of women like me, but then again, I don't think his party does either.

EM - I think probably is nearest to understanding

NC - probably does understand but not strong enough to do anything about it

2. and how well or badly do you think they make sure or take account of women being heard in their party and in politics generally?

DC - trick question right? clearly no understanding
DM - I do think Labour stands up more for women and our rights
NC - who knows!

3. Finally for now - which party - if any - do you trust the most to look after the interests of women? Why? And which do you trust the least? And why?

I've always felt that Labour is the most likely to look after womens interests, but in reality all parties promise us the earth and deliver nothing.

Regardless of party, women are somewhat 'invisible and impotent. It seems to be getting harder to be a 'working woman' (with children) due to child care costs etc.

Women being 'heard' in their party - I don't think think is top of any party's agenda - although senior Tory female figures do seem to be female Cameron clones!

I don't trust any of the parties to look after the interests of women

1. Party leaders understanding issues concerning women like me?

Cameron - I think Cameron is wholly out of touch with the majority, and therefore with me. His ideals are based on the appealing fallacy that if everyone pulls their finger out, we can all make Britain great. And yet he tolerates the greed which imho is moral theft at the very top of the multi nationals and banks. Every time a poorly paid worker is topped up with FTC, the government is effectively giving grant aid to profit making corporations. He is so old school, so deeply entrenched in the Old Etonian mould, that I doubt he can ever gain the insight required to truly empathise with anyone who doesn't share his brisk, financially bolstered attitude to life. I was a contemporary of his and Boris's at uni. Such men could not see women as equals. We were a world apart. There are slots in their world we ought to fit into and those who don't are invisible.

Clegg? Can anyone honestly say they know what Clegg thinks or fights for as a leader, let alone his position on women? The Tories could not have got in without him and yet he's rolled over like a kitten with a bull terrier at its throat, and his policies have become invisible too. My guess is that lip service would be paid at all times by Clegg. He'd agree to everything and delay and deliver nothing with regards to what women want and need. (Sensibly funded childcare; affordable housing; a living wage; safe, academically driven schooling for their children locally; a health service with a focus on care not savings and profit margins for the companies to whom work is increasingly outsourced etc.)

Milliband - I agree with the poster upthread who said he doesn't raise his voice hard enough. He needs to start behaving like a leader of this country not the figurehead of the opposition. I suspect he is the most in tune. His upbringing demonstrates that he was raised to see women as equals, as driven, intelligent and professional people. And upbringing I think sets the roots of core beliefs.

Best of the rest is quite clearly Natalie Bennett. She wins my heart by celebrating the Matchgirls' Strike. (Annie Besant is my all time hero.) She appears to show support for key issues: workers' rights, womens' rights, children's rights - all of which were addressed in the Matchgirls' strike. She comes over as far more socialist than Milliband.

My cynical concern is this: it is so easy to say the right things when you have zero chance of running the country. We can all imagine utopia. I can imagine my home - perfectly clean, repaired, ordered and tranquil. In reality the endless demands and interruptions of the day make it a bit of a cosy tip and money put aside to mend a window pane has just been paid out to the vet for the cat's lame leg. Running the country is the macrocosm of this. I'd like to see her explain precisely what she'd do and how she'd fund it, what laws would be passed through parliament to make the changes she espouses.

Someone really REALLY needs to put the brakes on the business for profit model. It fails all but the very few. Where businesses are legally obliged to deliver the highest possible profits to shareholders, it is blatantly obvious that both employees and clients bear the brunt.
The notion of service should be reinstated. Profit-making companies shouldn't be allowed anywhere near core service providers - NHS; education; national transport links and above all right now: housing. Which leader will admit that essentials are being pushed into the luxury bracket? Which leader can come up with a workable plan to undo this appalling constructed financial model we now live by? Not just comment lucidly on it from the sidelines but demonstrate how to change it? If Natalie Bennett can do that, she'd have my vote.

Dc- i dont think he has any idea about women like me and their interests. one full time worker low income, one child, two stepchildren one disabled. hb cut because sc dont live with us full time. things work out against us in the majority of things.
EM - understands more the needs of the average family i think but not sure he would actually inplement changes in power
nc i dont have huge views on he seems to fade into the background

To look after the interests of women?
I'm not sure women have interests that are very gender specific. Dh and I both care about education, money etc. I'm pleased with the change to paternity leave.
DC - no, think he and his bloke mates decide what women want and then kindly give it to them with a pat on the head.
EM - probably takes on board actual input from women
NC - too busy trying to do the right thing to actually do the right thing.

Involving women in the party?
DC - tokenistic
EM - on merit
NC - probably bends over backwards to find PC candidates
Green Party are good for visible women

Woman like me?
Married, middle class, pt worker for a charity, four kids, one disabled.
DC - don't think he understands the financial implications of disability. Am hesitant to say much on this because I doubt very much that money made any difference to his emotional experience of having a disabled son. It's the cuts to benefits for disabled people, the changes to sen law, that make me wonder if visible disabilities are easier for him to understand? I am livid about the end to universal child benefit: circumstances can change in a heartbeat and I feel that a universal amount which covered food and a taxi somewhere safe was A Good Thing. I don't think he sees middle class people as struggling financially as if debt, divorce and disease don't affect us.
EM is completely unknown to me: I cannot get any sort of feel for him. He is pretty silent in terms of raising awareness of his views.
NC did himself no favours with the upturn on tuition fees. F
Getting jnto massive debt at the start of your working life is a really bad idea. I don't feel any of them consider a 3d view of other people: those on benefits are scroungers, those on min wage are hardworking salts of the earth and the middle classes are ripe for tapping for cash and sharp elbowed.

I've been thinking about this a lot. I under stand that you vote for your local mp and not the leader (unless in their constituency) but I think the leader kind of sums up the party: if that's who they want in charge do I feel okay with that?
Having said that, the Tories could put the modern equivalent of Mother Teresa in charge and I still wouldn't vote for them: their actions currently will leave a bad taste for a long time. (Also happened with Labour over Iraq)

Or exactly what deleagate203 said!

I also really don't like the way things seem to be heading with regards to the "benefit scroungers" and disabled. It seems every week there is a new "measure" in to combat fraud etc. Yet big companies get away without paying tax and on and on.
I don't know the figures but I assume if this was sorted then there would be no need for the bedroom tax or making people prove they are disabled etc.
I hate to say it but it smacks a bit of Nazi Germany to me and that really scares me.

Thinking about when you decide which party to vote for, how important is the leader of the party in that decision?

I think the leader is very important.

Why?

This is the person who is going to "lead" our country and if they have no idea how to relate to the majority of the electorate (looking at you David) and me, then why would I want to vote for them?

What do you look for in a party leader? What makes a good party leader and what makes a bad one? What makes a good prime minister and what makes a bad one?

I look for someone who doesn't seem like they are reading from a script. Someone who is basically like you and me. Doesn't turn their nose up at reading to little kids or talking to the average Joe.
A good party leader is someone who makes you believe they want to help you, who wants to do the best for the country AND the people.
A bad prime minister is someone who only looks after one set of voters, ie Cameron and his cronies. Unfortunately there are more "poor" people than rich in this country and they are the ones who need the most assistance in getting back on their feets, not the bankers and their tax cuts.

Thinking about the party you voted for at the 2010 General Election and the party you would vote for now, has it changed?

Yes

Why?

I have always voted Labour. I grew up in the 80's with a father who was unemployed thanks to Thatcher's privatisation and a mother who cleaned my school to try and make a few extra pennies. We had no car, no holidays, free school meals the lot. Voting Tory has never been an option to me.
However I voted Lib Dem at the last election, to make a point I guess and I bitterly regret it now. They are frankly as full of as much shit as the Tories and Nick Clegg is a power hungry little toad.

Why not?

N/a

When I decide which party to vote for, I am looking for the one whose core values best match mine. I'm also looking for the party who appear to have a solid economic policy.
So long as this party are not being represented by a complete idiot, who has been elected as their leader, I'm not massively put out.

I, personally, see the leader as a figurehead. He/she represents the 'brand', and should have a good helping of charisma. The leader should also be a capable public speaker and someone with good morals, although I'm happy for these to be learned! The odd uni spliff isn't something that would make me question their respectability, and I get rather bored of the constant analysis of their teenage indiscretions.

A bad party leader is a wavering leader. I actually warm to someone who will change their mind in the face of unequivocal evidence, but a leader should be true to their values, at least. Clegg, take note!
Also, the Tories seem to have a veritable selection of leaders with a vacuum in place of their personalities. It doesn't help.
I agree that it would be beneficial to have the political parties represented by individuals with a real understanding of personal struggles/ real life issues. We need a representative cross section in politics in order to ensure that issues are correctly prioritised.

So, despite the wrong Miliband (IMHO) taking centre stage, I will stay loyal to the Labour Party. Although I am willing to change my mind, dependant upon the issues that I deem significant.
I struggle to see how UKIP or the Greens would have a cat in hell's chance of even vaguely managing the economy. They both rustle up support based on one fundamental vote swinger.
I don't even know what the Lib Dems stand for now, since they diluted themselves with the Tories. The next manifesto will be exciting reading!
The Tories would be the possible contender, if I believed in their policies and any ability to make real positive changes. I think they have fluffed over a lot of very important issues with noise, introduced ill-considered and impractical policies to save a few quid, and caused a lot of sleepless nights for people who have little practical help in actually changing their circumstances.

When I decide which party to vote for, I am looking for the one whose core values best match mine. I'm also looking for the party who appear to have a solid economic policy.
So long as this party are not being represented by a complete idiot, who has been elected as their leader, I'm not massively put out.

I, personally, see the leader as a figurehead. He/she represents the 'brand', and should have a good helping of charisma. The leader should also be a capable public speaker and someone with good morals, although I'm happy for these to be learned! The odd uni spliff isn't something that would make me question their respectability, and I get rather bored of the constant analysis of their teenage indiscretions.

A bad party leader is a wavering leader. I actually warm to someone who will change their mind in the face of unequivocal evidence, but a leader should be true to their values, at least. Clegg, take note!
Also, the Tories seem to have a veritable selection of leaders with a vacuum in place of their personalities. It doesn't help.
I agree that it would be beneficial to have the political parties represented by individuals with a real understanding of personal struggles/ real life issues. We need a representative cross section in politics in order to ensure that issues are correctly prioritised.

So, despite the wrong Miliband (IMHO) taking centre stage, I will stay loyal to the Labour Party. Although I am willing to change my mind, dependant upon the issues that I deem significant.
I struggle to see how UKIP or the Greens would have a cat in hell's chance of even vaguely managing the economy. They both rustle up support based on one fundamental vote swinger.
I don't even know what the Lib Dems stand for now, since they diluted themselves with the Tories. The next manifesto will be exciting reading!
The Tories would be the possible contender, if I believed in their policies and any ability to make real positive changes. I think they have fluffed over a lot of very important issues with noise, introduced ill-considered and impractical policies to save a few quid, and caused a lot of sleepless nights for people who have little practical help in actually changing their circumstances.

I've been thinking about this since posting earlier,and agree with the post that the prime minister should be doing what's best for the country, not themselves, their party and their cronies.

I don't understand how any 'leader' could feel proud of leading a country that doesn't care for its weakest citizens. I see the leader as being like a parent in some way. They should be looking out for the whole family, and trying to do what's best for everyone. The current leader is, ironically, failing to care for the 'sick child' in his 'family'. He is prioritising his most well off, and putting their needs first. I find that shameful.

Thinking about when you decide which party to vote for, how important is the leader of the party in that decision?
The party leader is important in that they are a strong and secure person but i dont think they are as important as the policies put in place and ideals behind
Why?
They need to be in control and be a powerful influence but it isnt the be all and end all of a party. if i particularly did not like a party leaders ideas and views it would put me off though.

What do you look for in a party leader? What makes a good party leader and what makes a bad one? What makes a good prime minister and what makes a bad one?

I think that the main positive thing i recognise in a leader is that they can tackle things from different angles. i dont want a party leader who is only for one section of the people. A good leader cant change everything but they can see where changes can be made and will be effective. they have the support of their own party. a bad leader i believe is one who has no idea how life is for the real people and is seen to target one section without thought for the consequences. I want a strong, powerful leader who can admit when things go wrong and not paper over the cracks.

Thinking about the party you voted for at the 2010 General Election and the party you would vote for now, has it changed?

I was unable to vote in the 2010 election as we had recently moved into our house and werent registered to vote in time. The party that i would of and still do support has not changed i would of voted labour before and would do now. They are the closest to my own ideas and beliefs. they arent perfect. we have really struggled under to cuts brought forward by the tories due to being a seperated family who receive a small amount of hb.

Why?
Why not?

Oh, just to add. Many Tory policies will probably benefit me indirectly as they would benefit DH's family, and so indirectly me, but I could never vote for a government that sells off the NHS (and Royal Mail) and are so insecure that they cannot tell the real truth about immigration, but pander to the popular (DM) opinions.

I believe the leader is less important that people think. Yes, integrity is important (but then I believe it is in everyone) but charisma or personality no so much. However, I could not vote for a party led by someone I did not respect. But I think that is different from thinking the leader is important in and of him/herself.

I do not care about charisma, but do want a leader who is considered of their opinions, takes expert advice, looks at evidence and has integrity, empathy and compassion.

I did not vote in the last election (but only because we moved rather suddenly between registering and the election and I had just had a baby) but would have voted LibDem. I am undecided about the next general election. As I recognise that being a minority party in a coalition government during a particularly difficult time, as they have been, must be extremely difficulty. But I do feel they have not sufficiently differentiated themselves from the Tories. And in any case, I feel I have become more socialist in since the last general election, so would probably vote Labour.

I would never vote Tory.

An unappealing leader would put me off voting. A good leader would be the 'icing on the cake', but the leader is not as important as the policies - I could not vote for a Tory 'good leader' IYSWIM, as I find the politics abhorrent. A good party leader has support from his/her party - no 'in-fighting'. They understand 'real world/Britain' problems, and are not afraid to admit they do not have a magic wand! David Cameron is the epitome of a 'bad' leader - rich, privileged, public school educated. What has he got in common with 99% of voters? When was the last time he needed a food bank etc.? I voted Labour in 2010 and will vote Labour again. The party is not faultless, but it is not deluded either.

Thinking about when you decide which party to vote for, how important is the leader of the party in that decision?

So long as the leader is breathing then it doesn't bother me too much, the policies are set out by other people not solely by the leader.

What do you look for in a party leader? What makes a good party leader and what makes a bad one? What makes a good prime minister and what makes a bad one?

Like all managers, a good one is capable, conscientious, able to listen and able to empathise. I'd also like it if they have managed to hold down a real job (not working for Daddy) and understand what the people they represent are going through. A bad prime Minister is what we have now, he has spent a lifetime insulated from the hoi polloi by his families wealth and power. So we are stuck with Lizard man and his side kick Odious Osbourne who have never got down to their last million and have no idea how real people have to live. I also feel that having a PM that is too chummy with the leaders of service companies is not a good thing, leading to the debacle of services provided by G4S, Serco et al. It makes me think that someone, somewhere is getting kick backs for awarding these companies contracts whilst shareholders reap the rewards and employees suffer.

Thinking about the party you voted for at the 2010 General Election and the party you would vote for now, has it changed?

I voted labour in 2010 but our Labour MP was ousted because the election boundaries were changed to add 2 Tory villages to the City and take a Labour small Town off the City and add it to a completely Tory constituency.

I'd vote Labour again if we were still living here purely because I could never bring myself to vote Tory.

I find the leader important, although as other posts have said, this is perhaps more in an I can't bear to vote for this person way than in a positive way.For example, I believe that the Libdems most strongly match my political beliefs, but have no respect for Nick Clegg as I feel he dropped his beliefs to pursue power.

I want a leader who is charismatic, empathetic, can make a tough decision without gloating and enjoying other's difficulties, who has gained experience in the real world (successfully within their own right) and who represents the country in a way that we can be proud of.

I voted libdem at the last election, but won't if Nick Clegg remains leader. If Vince Cable was Libdem leader I'd vote for them. Otherwise it'll be labour, although I think Ed Milliband lacks the charisma and real world experience that he needs.

I wouldn't vote Tory, they have screwed me and my children over with their decisions on public spending and welfare.

Please ignore last post- I posted far too soon!

I think a good leader needs to have charisma, a personality and be a strong person with the backing of their party. However, this still would not make me change my core beliefs about the party I was voting for.

A good pm should I feel have lived some kind of normal life, had hardships, done things. But I realise this is very unlikely to happen. I think just having Pms and leaders who have only ever seen Eton/Cambridge/house of parliament is very dangerous. A bad pm is unable to have any view on things they've not experienced. Like the current one.

I voted labour in 2010 and I will do again. They don't do everything right but they area by times better than the Tories and have the best chance is getting rid of them.