MNHQ Group 5

On this issue, which leader do you think has most closely represented your views and concerns? Which leader has best shown leadership in dealing with the crisis in Syria? Which leader has taken the right action for the country?

I think Ed Milliband has probably represented my opinions most closely and has taken a more sensible approach to the situation in my opinion. Of course, he can afford to be a little more cautious as he's not pm.

I'm sorry- I don't seem to be able to see all of the questions that have been asked on here!
The questions about women in politics for example...

I don't know how I feel about this issue. Half of me thinks we should do as Iceland etc, and have equal representation and the other half of me thinks why do women need to be classed as a group, and have group-specific policies?

Any discussion thread on MN shows that we all have completely different lives, interests, and needs despite the fact we're mostly of the same gender- no party could offer policies that suit 51% of the population as a group!

The only issue I feel that should be purely a women's issue is the right to abortion, and I feel this is a personal choice, I don't believe anyone has the right to dictate to another what she may or may not do to her own body.
Anything else, around family matters applies just as much to men as women, or it damn well should! One thing that would even up women's chances in the workplace would be to enforce paternity leave, as they do in Sweden. If men had to take leave at some point in the first 2 years of their children's lives too, I think it would lead to less discrimination (though more headaches for employers too!)
I suppose removing VAT on sanpro would be a good policy too, and womens' interest only.

Re household finances- I would hope all three would manage household finances- for goodness sakes, they're managing enormous political parties, one would hope they could make something like a household budget balance! They're all extremely well educated too.

In terms of them living on our family budget, I think they would all manage, particularly as none of them would be paying school fees! They'd have to rely on their MP's expenses to fund their London homes though- they wouldn't manage that with our budget.
I realise that as a family we're rather fortunate, and compared with most families in the UK, we're in a reasonable position financially. The 'week from hell' I referred to in my previous post was rather costly (new home related emergencies, heavy rain pouring into the main fuse board and unrelatedly, the boiler being condemned as unsafe and irreparable), and has meant we won't holiday this year, but it hasn't put us on the edge of an abyss, we can eat as usual, afford petrol, cope with a bill coming through the letterbox, though our savings are getting somewhat low now.

Of course, when one has money, it is much easier to come by money when one needs it in an emergency. I don't mean from family- neither DH nor my families have any money (he arrived in the UK as a refugee, with his mother, and all their worldly belongings in 1 suitcase), but we can borrow money at reasonable rates from financial institutions, are allowed vast amounts of credit on our cards, can extend our mortgage if necessary etc, just as the Cleggs, Milibands, and Camerons could if they were in need of it. It is far more difficult to manage when your family is paying over the odds for credit, or loans, or a mortgage/rent, when one is paying more than others for utilities though a pre-paid meter, more for insurance because you have to live in a less-salubrious area, your tax credits have been stopped because you're working different hours over summer, or just because of a general cock-up.
I think all three of them would struggle, genuinely struggle on an average household income- it certainly wouldn't go far if they were to live in London. And do you really think that any of their children would be attending state-maintained schools if they had to live in the areas that people on average salaries have to live in?

I am soooo sorry to be so late to this- have had the week from hell, and completely forgotten about it, not even logged into email! And then when the instructions said 'logout of MN' I was a bit bunny in the headlights!

I try not to be swayed by the leader of a party, but I vote at each election (including local) according to the policies and manifestos of the parties- I try to read them all for the main parties standing in my ward/constituency. I think this is because there is no party that is remotely similar to my ideology for life, and I have to pick and choose the policies I support most (well- often it comes down to whose policies do I dislike the least actually, because like another poster above, I would never NOT vote).

I would like party leaders to be people of integrity. To be well-educated, well-informed, and most of all to have the country's best interests at heart, and to make decisions based upon what is best for the citizens of our nation rather than their party's or their own interests. AS IF that would ever happen?
Unfortunately, I think that even people who go into politics with the best intentions end up being corrupted by the system, once they have their snouts in the trough- just look at what goes on with the expenses system! People 'flipping' multiple properties employing their relatives getting their mistresses elected to easy council seats (LibDem and Labour in my city )

At the 2010 General Election, I did something I've never, ever done, and am unlikely to ever do again- I voted Labour. It was a tactical vote, due to the area I live in, and the other candidates. I would have voted LibDem (they came 3rd), however I have the misfortune to know their candidate personally, and I could not vote for him with a clear conscience as I find him morally repugnant. I did not agree with many of the policies in the Conservative (came 4th) manifesto, nor Respect's manifesto (came 2nd), and even more in the UKIP manifesto!

Oh yes, bloody marvellous choices I had- I disagreed with many of the Labour proposed policies too, but I had to vote, so they got it. They won- the MP has been MP in this seat for many, many years- he has the dubious honour of being the MP that attended the fewest sessions/votes in parliament too
I wouldn't mind, but my street has been in 3 different constituencies for the last 3 general elections!
And now I've just moved house to a different constituency anyway

If I had voted LibDem, I'd have been pretty bloody angry to find them in coalition with the conservatives after the election tbh, and would have felt ripped off.
My Dh voted Conservative, and he's pretty cross about how things have turned out (yes, I know people said what would happen, but still, I think he was expecting better of them tbh).

I just don't feel that any political party represents what I want for the UK. The closest is often the Green party, but they don't always have candidates (I have voted for them quite a bit previously, but seemed to be fewer candidates recently, and the area I live in is never going to elect anything non red a Green. I honestly could not say who I would vote for in a general election tomorrow- unlikely to be any of the big parties. I am angry that the gap between rich and poor is getting larger. I think social inequality is very harmful to society, and would like to see the trend on this reversed.

I think really I believe in the 'benign dictator' model of state- a dictatorship is the only way to actually change things, to get things done, but that dictator must be a good person, moral and just, a protector of the weak and poor, and nurture all in our society. Clearly this is unlikely ever to occur! I also think that to be successful in politics, really, you have to be a sociopath- and sociopaths are often not nurturing, good people with sound ethics.

Actually- I may revise my statement above. I have just looked up who my MP is now I've moved- it's actually someone I know (I have met a number of politicians, local and national, for various reasons, personal and work-related). She is Labour, however I think she has integrity, and reasonable morals, though her faith may lead her to vote against what I believe is right in areas such as abortion rights etc. We'll see what their policies are I suppose, but I don't think I could vote for the Labour party tomorrow judging by their last couple of years in opposition. I despair, I really do. I've met Ed Miliband, (thanks MNHQ ) but I think the labour membership chose the wrong Miliband. But better Ed Miliband than Ed Balls eh?(met him too!)

Like everyone above I think they'd really not manage well. I imagine if DC was running my household, we'd be getting our bank card stopped for fraud as our supermarket would have swapped from dribs and drabs spent in all the low end supermarkets to one big splurge in the M&S food hall (no Waitrose here :-( ;-) ). I think NC would start with the best of intentions but would get suckered in by a payday lender or store credit and then we'd get deeper into debt each month. EM would probably do okay to start with but would flounder after a while

We aren't hard up by any means but there always seems to be not enough money for too much month. We aren't extravagant with our money however we have 4 children (3 planned and one an against all odds on contraception baby) and I am disabled enough to be unemployable but I'm not disabled enough get any help (though I won't even try to apply as I just can't bear the thought of being put through the ATOS mill).

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

I vote with an eye on who I feel is best with regard to my local area but I'd never vote for the 'best' candidate locally if their party leader wasn't someone I hadn't got any faith in. So really the party leader is make or break for me.

Why?

I feel the party leader has greater influence on my local area than my MP, MPs don't always toe the party line, but no matter how much of a back bench rebel they are, they can't opt my town out of a new piece of legislation if the PM is intent on pushing through.

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 a clear political vision in a party leader, which direction do they think the country should go in, what are the issues that they stand for, do they have a good track record of being able to turn the intellectual into practical, does their party respect them? I also think it's important for a PL to have real world experience (no ivory tower public school boys need apply) as the needs majority of the electorate seemed to get ignored in favour of the needs of the most influential & wealthy by PL/PM who are only interested in the bottom line and not their citizens.

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

No, it hasn't changed.

Why? Why not?

In my opinion the Labour party is still the only viable party for me to vote for. I'm not saying they are the 'best' party just that with my political leanings I couldn't ever vote Tory and I don't trust the Lib Dems further than I could throw them. UKIP/BNP don't even warrant my consideration ;-)

How well or badly do you think the party leaders could manage your household finances effectively?

I'm not too sure about this question. To be honest, I think they all could manage them fine, they all seem like pretty sensible chaps.

I suppose all of them are pretty far removed from what a "normal" family has to live on.

Imagine the party leaders had to live on your family budget, which do you think would cope best/worst? Why? What problems would they encounter?

I guess I think that Ed Milliband would fair the best, and David Cameron the worst, but that's probably based on my prejudice against DC! Like I said before, they are all from a background of privilege. I mean, they might ALL be disappointed by the bi-annual £9.50 Sun holiday, I get the impression they are all used to bigger and better things.I suppose the challenges for them would be being able to food budget, as I imagine they all dine out and take out quite regularly. To be honest though, our family budget isn't that tight compared to some, so it's hard to say.

I've struggled to answer these questions compared to the others tbh. It's too subjective, and really hard to say, as the other questions are asking about their politics, and here you are asking me to surmise whether they could handle budgets or not - really, who knows!

David Cameron? I wouldn't let him anywhere near my household budget, I'd go nuts if anything more was cut!! He has never had to live on a household income similar to mine and he probably never will. And I'm not that badly off. He'd probably take a tenner to give to his rich mates.

Nick Clegg? I think he'd fare a bit better, but not much. One of the reasons why I voted Lib Dem was their promise to scrap Trident, which is a colossal waste of money. So I'd trust him over DC.

Miliband? He would have to stop faffing about and decide what his priorities are before I could decide.

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 have no idea. I think most of them would be in for a shock if they had to live on our above-average middle class household income. They wouldn't last a day if they had to live off the national average! It's not just about knowing how much a pint of milk costs, it's about having to cut back everywhere and make choices between two things instead of just having both. And living like that ALL THE TIME, not just for a couple of days to prove that they can.

514 forget having a go on a regular basis - how about they just earn a salary more in line with the rest of the population? that way, they would be more in touch with the rest of us.

Having said that, im not even sure if that would work. My in laws have done well for themselves but they seem to have forgotten what it's like when you're just starting out and then when little ones come along and belts need to be tightened.

How well or badly do you think the party leaders could manage your household finances effectively?

I would echo much of what has been posted already.

Whatever the high ideals and good intentions that exist when people enter politics, after a relatively short time in office these individuals seem hardly recognisable.

The idea that any one of them could manage the personal finances of an ordinary mortal any more seems fairly far fetched.

They should all be made to have a go on a regular basis in order to give them some small insight into the lives of their subjects, sorry constituents.

I think I would probably expect Nick Clegg to have the best attempt as he seems the closest to some kind of normality and his wife appears a pretty grounded individual.

Cameron wouldn't have a clue in my opinion. So much rhetoric and no substance, I just don't believe he would be up to it.

Milliband is hardly a man of the people either, I'd have no great confidence in has ability to relate.

Imagine the party leaders had to live on your family budget, which do you think would cope best/worst? Why? What problems would they encounter?

I would find it hard to pick between them.

I can't imagine that any one of them is ever in the situation where they are suddenly hit with an unexpected emergency expense and no savings to draw on.

They wouldn't understand the feeling of disappointing their children, going back on promises.

They will never have had to work out to the penny exactly how much petrol they can afford to put in their car this side of payday or however many other scenarios I could mention.

I don't consider my situation to be terrible by any means but we are never far from a potential crisis and the threat of redundancy looms ever large.

This question in particular for me raises the issue of the lack of a mix of backgrounds from which our politicians are drawn. It exposes the fact that so few of them know that other world, that underclass where most of the population ply their trade.

Id be dubious to how well any of them 3 would manage long term. Combined on paper me and DH earn an ok wage but are always in the red at the end of the month. 2 full time workers and our own house youd think wed be ok, but after a full time childcare place theres not much left. Apart from child benefit we are Eligible for naff all but every month There's not enough. Were in that category of your buggered if you work and your buggered if you dont. I'm sure any of these politicians would get by but they'd have a bit of a shock to see the on paper take home and how much cutbacks theyd have to make, how many luxuries they have to do without whilst living in a house that's falling to bits because the money isn't there anymore to do it up (that's what you get for buying a house at the start of the recession). Regardless of the party they work for, I'd bet my life that their lifestyle doesn't come close to that of your average person in the uk at the moment, so I recon it would be good to bring them into the real world.

In theory if you we're to believe the ethos of each party, logic would say David Cameron wouldn't be able to live on my budget, nick clegg and ed miliband would manage. But really I think most politicians are really out of touch with the real world and they'd all be a bit shocked and struggle. The main problem they'd encounter is yes we have an ok take home but wave goodbye to half of that in childcare and the other half on mortgage/bills. I'd like to see how they'd cope if they had the month we've just had. Dh 11 year old car gave up the ghost the same time as our boiler did. What do you do? DH is an essential car user, we need a boiler (we have no heating anyway. No gas fire no electric fire no central heating) it needed sorting. We have done but I'd like to see how theydve sorted that conundrum with £0 money at the end of a month!

I'm finding it really hard at answering this second set of questions mainly cos I always see politics as being one big 'boys club'. I mean since thatcher when else has their been a female leader amongst the big three? I really don't expect a bunch of blokes who have no money/childcare issues etc to understand any of the issues a 'typical' woman may encounter. Everything you hear is NHS, benefits, deficit and that's about it. I vary rarely hear anything woman specific. Isnthat cos ive got my heqd in the ground or is it as blokes they just dont get it? And for this reason I can't say I trust any party more over another.

I feel a bit awkward answering this one. Our household income is well above the average and we probably have a similar educational and social background to all the party leaders. I think all three could manage quite fine on our household budget (with a few cutbacks).

I struggle to imagine any of them doing normal things like food shopping or sorting out good deals on car insurance etc. But that is the same with the husbands of many of the women I know!

EM seems most removed from the norm to me.

I can?t imagine any of the three managing my household finances effectively ? they would all have different priorities. I imagine DC would struggle with my food costs, NC wouldn?t know who to pay first and EM would just be constantly borrowing money to get through the week.
If DC/NC or EM had to live on my budget, I imagine they would struggle, I am nowhere near comfortable and I struggle to manage between paydays but we get there by the skin of our teeth. It is unlikely any of them have ever been in a supermarket totting prices up in their head before they get to the cashier and putting some items back so that you have enough money to pay. I doubt very much that any of them have had to go to bed early in the winter nights so that they can get warm as they cant afford to put the heating on and I just cant see DC giving up holidays like we have had to.

One would hope that they all have some understanding of ?womens issues and concerns? after all none of them are living totally separate from women as they all have mothers, wives etc, but I would rather that they thought of these issues as part of something else rather than separate them into nice little women only issues.
And womens issues and concerns can be so totally different, in that what might be important to one woman with a working husband , children and a job would be totally different to a single unemployed woman.
I don?t know who I trust the most or the least where women?s issues are concerned. I know I am not a fan of positive discrimination, quotas etc

It would be quite interesting to know just how much or little they all know about the real cost of living - grocery prices, gas, electricity, bin day etc...

Obviously I don't know their bank balances though i suspect its healthier than mine but im guessing they want for nothing (essentials wise). They won't have to think about the cost of their everyday items in the same way a lot of us do - let's be honest they probably make a list and their supplies appear as if the fairies brought them in the middle of the night. I can't imagine any of them nipping to their local tescos for their weekly shop.

This is partly why I shy away from politics to a certain extent, Their lives are so far removed from my own that there is no way they can relate to me

The problem I feel with this is, that whatever their background and whatever experiences they've had in the past, once they get into government they get a salary and a lifestyle which is hugely different to that which most other people in this country have. They lose touch with the common man and the problems he faces. I'd love to politicians living in council houses, and being paid minimum wage. I think they'd gain the respect of the country if they were forced to live like the majority of their constituents. Then they would know what problems we are facing and then might be encouraged to deal with them practically.

^
What she said...

Seriously, there is no way that any of the current crop of politicians will EVER know what it's really like to be us. I manage my finances pretty well - no wiggle room, and a serious wobble if I get an unexpected bill - but I manage because I have experience living without. The leaders of the parties could try to live on the £65 a week I currently survive on - but I doubt they'd last very long... if anyone would give it a go, for a year, I'd vote for them! I really would...

Just a thought though - I think in my head, I assume they'd find it hard not only for the lifestyle difference, but also because I assume they don't control their own household budget - surely their jobs are too busy to deal with running a house too?

Of course they couldn't live our life & budget - if for no other reason than the fact that its always hard to reduce your circumstances. I'm sure they'd all do well if it was a PR exercise, but if they had to really live here for more than a few days they round hate it. And we're not in the poverty line or anything, we just have to be ever careful.

It depends if they would live our lives, or theirs on our money. For example, there's def no money here for suits and dry cleaning! And they'd all find it hard to be without a car.

On the other hand, given the responsibility of their jobs, they should be able to balance my household books like its second nature! Maybe they could reassess our finances with a fresh eye? I think they would accept that challenge, expecting to see lots f luxury spending to cut back. I wonder what they would cut from my life? My bus pass, in favour iof walking everywhere with 2 kids? Dh's one bottle of £3.49 wine a week?

I also wonder if they'd miss not having sky tv :-)

I'm not sure any of them could manage on what we have to live on. To be honest I'm really not sure how we manage to live off it! I guess our income has been chipped down over the years, and our outgoings have increased so we've gradually approached the breadline. Maybe if they were to do the same then they'd be ok. However, in my experience it's always the woman of a partnership who manages the family's finances through hard times, and is the one doing the belt tightening and looking for alternative ways of doing things. I think out of the three David Cameron would be the worst, and just wouldn't have a clue what to do. I think Nick Clegg and his wife would pull together to get through the hard times. I think maybe Ed Milliband would be best at coping, but I don't really know what I'm basing that opinion on!

I'm with 506 - a) I don't think any of them could manage my finances wonderfully, and b) I doubt they could live on my family's budget particularly well.

Saying that:

a) I doubt they could cope better than I, if they were in the same situation as I am. I'm fairly financially savvy, and think I do very well with what's available to me.

b) of course they COULD live on it if they had to, if there was no other choice available to them, but not happily, and probably not for long.

The problem I feel with this is, that whatever their background and whatever experiences they've had in the past, once they get into government they get a salary and a lifestyle which is hugely different to that which most other people in this country have. They lose touch with the common man and the problems he faces. I'd love to politicians living in council houses, and being paid minimum wage. I think they'd gain the respect of the country if they were forced to live like the majority of their constituents. Then they would know what problems we are facing and then might be encouraged to deal with them practically.

Interesting questions!
I cannot see DC managing my household finances at all! I suppose of the three I see Ed paying bills and buying food in a vaguely 'normal' way but I can't see DC or NC doing it.

As for living on my family budget.....we are reasonably solvent but I am forever doling out money for music lessons, swimming lessons, school dinners, school trips/contributions, Brownies, etc etc. I am continuously haemmorhaging (sp) cash. That takes a certain degree of planning and organising in itself. I cannot imagine any of the three current party leaders succeeding in not pissing off at least one of the people I have to pay for something or other. I have no assistants, no PA, no cleaners, nothing. Oh, and no expense account ( nor indeed a 'flipped' second home) Neither do I have any family who can help out. I wonder if DC, NC or EM could manage all that and work?

I hate hate HATE those vile 'swap' schemes which are revived every so often , where MPs swap places with ordinary folk and prove to the world that they can manage Just Like The Plebs. Because they bloody can't, ever.

Someone upthread mentioned Andy Burnham. I also think he is ok; an ordinary person with no delusions of grandeur. He would probably be able to run my house for a bit . And as I said before, perhaps dear old Hillary Benn.

As a whole i wouldn't have much faith in them running our finances very well at all - they're not use to having to think about what gets spent where...

I'm fully aware that there are many people worse off than myself but we're by no means 'flush'. I'm careful when I do the shopping, I look at offers etc because that's how we manage the few extras we have iyswim.

I'd love to see all of them budget on a 'normal' (i know, there are many normal incomes, just can't think of a better way to word it) income.

If I had to pick one to manage better than the others on a tighter budget, i'd choose NC, but in all honesty it's not cos I think he'd manage any better - more that I think the others' would fare worse!

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? And then Nick Clegg? And then Ed Miliband? 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?

David Cameron seems to live in a world of his own, without much concept of what life is like for ordinary people in general, never mind women in particular.

Nick Clegg seems to have a much better idea, but I don't think he follows his beliefs as he should.

Ed Milliband... Who knows...? Just don't seem to know much about him really, he seems pretty ineffectual. Having said that he said something a few weeks ago that I agreed with. Can't remember what it was now though. As I say, pretty ineffectual!

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? And then Nick Clegg? And then Ed Miliband? 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 think women are really heard or considered in politics. Women politicians have to show more "male" traits than "female" traits to get anywhere in politics, which rather defeats the object! It means essentially that we still don't have women who have the general women's issues represented in politics.

Having said that, I like to think of it all as "family" rather than "women" issues these days.

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'd probably think of the lib dems being most interested in looking after the interests of women/families, but I'm not convinced that they'll actually get anything done, going on recent experience.