MNHQ Group 5

I second what 506 says - they can talk about understanding women all they like, but they're men s they never truly will. There are too few women in positions of real power (I'm not talking about the token females in office) to make a difference to our issues that really matter.

Case in point - VAT on sanitary products - when over 50% of our population needs these at least once a month, they should be classed as an essential item and be VAT exempt. They are not - with a woman in charge I like to believe they would be!

Regarding individual leaders, none of them seem to represent me and my issues. DC is, as mentioned above, too cold and ambitious to really understand the problems I, as a lone parent on income support (not through choice, as the current regime seem to think!) have to face every day.

Ditto NC - he never says anything, you get the impression he's invited along to show face but has no real power or decision making ability.

EM has zero charisma - I like to think he'd listen to the needs of women but have not seen evidence of this yet. I don't think he'd stick his neck out for us if it was needed - I get the feeling all three of them are in an exclusive "boys club" where women are not really welcome...

WHat it comes down to is that NO politician is going to fully represent me, as none of them have been in the position of having to choose between paying the electricity bill, or buying their children shoes. There is no way they will ever understand until they've experienced what real poverty is.

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

The policies are the most important thing as they take longer to change/replace than a party leader - like turning a ship etc... The leader is very important too naturally, as they set the tone for the party's direction.

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 you need the same qualities to be a party leader and a prime minister. Integrity is probably the most important quality as far as I'm concerned. And being grounded in the real world. They need to be doing it for the good of the people, not for themselves. That's one thing that really got me about Tony Blair - he seemed to just want to make a place for himself in the history books, and the country could just go hang... I don't like the smarm and the spin and the cooching babies to-show-what-a-great-guy-I-am. I'm looking for someone who is honest, empathetic, grounded and fair. In terms of big names in politics over the last couple of decades, I have liked John Smith and John Major, ... Both them quite unassuming yet far from ineffectual. I also admire Michael Portillo and William Hague.

I think that if someone is going to make decisions on slashes to benefits and public services etc then they should have to live under the conditions they dictate as being acceptable for a length of time to see if it's feasible. And by that I mean that they would have to pay for parking at work, tax on fuel, not get freebie lunches etc while paying for everything from that amount (not relying on savings to top it up). I think then that their opinions of what's doable might be changed vastly.

Thinking about the party you voted for at the 2010 General Election and the party you would vote for now, has it changed? Why? Why not?

To my shame I can't even remember the name of the party leader! That must mean the leader isn't as important as the policies for me as I'd still vote the same again.

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

I'd like to say that the party and it's politics are bigger than the leader but I don't think I could vote for a party who's leader didn't appeal to me in some way. I suppose I need to feel I connect with who I am voting for and a leader I didn't trust would make me feel very uneasy about voting for that party.

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?

Someone who is not afraid to lead the party, someone who is't scared of rocking the boat every now and then and a leader with the ability to admit they got it wrong and who wants to try and put those wrong things right. I want someone who understands a little of what my life and the challenges I face are but I don't think that is going to happen in my lifetime. I don't know that there will be a party leader who knows what it is to live in social housing and to try to get by on a carer's wages. A good prime minister is not afraid to make decisions that are difficult and I want someone who is prepared to be truthful no matter how difficult that truth might be to swallow.

Thinking about the party you voted for at the 2010 General Election and the party you would vote for now, has it changed? Why? Why not?

I voted LibDem, would I vote for them again? No I would not. I feel they have sold their soul to the devil and backtracked on so many of the promises they made in the run up to the election.

I want to see politicians who do not sound like a gang of braying donkeys when parliament is in session. They often seem to behave in a way that would not be accepted in any other form of employment, heck even a class of very small children would not be allowed to heckle and ridicule each other in the way that our politicians carry on.

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?

This man is out of touch. He wants to be a statesman, a major player in Europe.

He's an opportunist, as they all are I guess but he couldn't possibly have conceived in his wildest dreams of overseeing a massively successful Olympics, Thatcher's death, a Wimbledon winner and a Royal birth in his short time in office. I'm sure these will be listed as achievements for his government come election time.

On a more serious note, as an earlier delegate posted, his detachment from the needs of the weakest elements of our society when his own family has been touched by such tragedy seems cold to say the least.

His concessions to the Lib Dems have been few and far between and the cracks emerged very quickly in that particular relationship.

I suspect that behind the mask Mr Cameron is not as pro-women as he would like us to believe. There aren't enough women in important positions in Government to suggest any different.

His approach to the benefits system and the NHS also suggests that he has little or no idea of the issues facing women in our society.

And then Nick Clegg?

I think Clegg is the whipping boy for the coalition and the Tories have been content to let that situation exist.

He may well have plenty of positive ideas to progress the role and status of women in our society as he seems like a fair right-minded individual.

Unfortunately due to him being seen as damaged goods in terms of his credibility, we may never get to hear any of them in a forum that matters.

And then Ed Miliband?

Ed Milliband will I hope and suspect be genuinely pro the feminist cause as the one thing I do believe about him is that he is someone with true labour ideals.

However, until we can see and hear some policies delivered with some enthusiasm and charisma we won't know for certain.

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?

With the Tories it has always seemed a little cosmetic with token women. Maybe that's perception more than fact but politics kind of works like that in many areas.

And then Nick Clegg?

I think Nick Clegg was a leader looking to give everyone a voice but these days he's struggling to even be heard himself.

And then Ed Miliband?

The jury is out on Ed Milliband on this until he is really put under the spotlight on the issues and we see who he sees as important in helping him get labour elected closer to the election.

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?

In all honesty I would say the Lib Dems but it is a moot point as they will never again be given the opportunity because of the way the last election panned out.

They made the most sense, seemed the most fair but due to the shortcomings of the two party system, so many voters would have needed to take a chance on them that the best that they could have hoped for was to be in a reasonably equal coalition and even that didn't materialise.

As a result they got to increase the tax allowance to £10k and their BFH (Bus Fare Home) for those who didn't watch Bullseye.

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

In the age of televised debates it has become massively important for the main parties to have leaders that know how or can be coached on how to connect with the voters.

We witnessed Nick Clegg steal a march on Cameron and Brown last time out with his stage craft in the first debate only for Cameron in particular to close the gap by clearly having been coached within an inch of his life on body language and looking down the camera lens.

Clegg called questioners by name and seemed like an all round good egg, a breath of fresh air at the time at least..

Why?

The importance goes beyond that though for me. These people are wanting to lead our country, to represent it on the world stage. I don't want to give that job to just anyone.

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?

A good party leader needs to stand out from the crowd. Someone who can unite their party for the common good.

Likewise a good Prime Minister needs to be able to do the same for the country. Someone who having won, doesn't stick two fingers up to the people who didn't vote for them but says 'You didn't choose me but I'm someone with integrity who is going to try and deliver my manifesto promises and represent this country to the best of my ability. I'm here because your party wasn't doing the job, so give me a shot at it.'

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

I think that like many people I was seduced by the possibility that the Liberals might finally get a chance to break the two party order of things.

The reality was that Clegg was left with a choice of some power or no power and made the choice most people would have made under the circumstances with the hope of getting some policies on the books.

The reality was that he was of course completely hamstrung and seen by most as Cameron's bitch which was a sorry end for someone who initially appeared to have such credibility.

I am a labour voter historically, I believed in Blair and his charismatic new labour but worry that while the wrong Milliband is at the helm they have little to offer. The fact that they see so little urgency to have any real policies until presumably much closer to an election seems shortsighted and lazy.

I live in Scotland but have a polar opposite view to my fellow Scottish delegate extoling the virtues of Mr Salmond.

This man seeks to set himself apart from Westminster and yet for me he is exactly the same oily opportunistic individual that seeks to piggy back on anything that will give him credibility and cudos.

His vision for an independent Scottish state doesn't add up financially or practically and it's not long since he was siting the examples of the economies of Iceland and Ireland as models for Scotland and they haven't faired too well since.

Suffice to say I will be voting 'NO' and taking as many of my friends and neighbours with me as I can but in terms of general election I am utterly disillusioned and desperately hoping that Labour come to their senses.

I'm not convinced that David Cameron does understand the issues facing women like me. The cuts introduced seem to disproportionately affect women. The damage he appears to be doing to the NHS, with many local maternity and paediatric units being downsized or closed. The ridiculous childcare proposals. "Calm down, dear". The list is endless.

I think Nick Clegg probably does understand women's issues.

I believe that Ed Miliband is probably a feminist. And I think he'd have a pretty good grasp on women's issues.

I think in all parties women are underrepresented!!! I think Labour appear to have more women in their shadow cabinet than the Conservative cabinet (I'm saying this without looking it up though, so not sure if this is true). This maybe because of Labour's women only shortlists, which I don't feel comfortable with.
David Cameron obviously listens and trusts Theresa May. He also seems to respect Baroness Warsi, and she seems to be allowed a lot of airtime.
It's hard to comment about Nick Clegg, as I can only think of one female Lib Dem, Sarah Tether, and I am not sure how influential she is.

I'll be honest, I'm not sure if Ed Milliband does listen to women in his party as I haven't really seen him in action yet!!

I think maybe all parties need to work harder to encourage women into politics. Some women may be put off with the way politics is played. Maybe there needs to be more education of young women about politics, as many of my female friends claim to not care/know about politics to a greater extent then men do.

I still think Labour will probably best look after the interests of women. This isn't based on anything specific, but I just believe they are the most "fair" party

I don't trust DC. All that 'calm down, dear' bullshit made me think that he doesn't see women as equals and actually has no idea what women's issues really are. So many of the cuts have affected women more than men.

NC I think had his heart in the right place at one time, but sold himself out.

I agree with the poster that said Labour are a big mess. They've got a long way to go before they will be ready to run the country again. It's hard to know what they stand for when they're such a shambles.

I think the most obvious politician that is aware of women's issues and cares about them is Caroline Lucas. I don't know much about her successor other than she has something to do with the Fawcett society, so I'd say the Greens are the best bet for people concerned about gender equality.

1. DC more than the others, although that is him personally rather than his party. I too feel that his wife could well be a positive influence here. Also their own personal difficulties (child who died and first-hand experience of the NHS etc).

1. NC and EM put too much emphasis on it. Not a fan of quotas and positive discrimination.

1. Conservatives the most but, as I've said, it is not a huge issue to me.

I'm not sure we can ever know how much any of them understand stuch concerns, because there are other issues that they have to look at before they can dare say anything. They might be able to understand some of the problems I have in my life, but it may cost them too much to actually say so.

Sorry, I have a feeling I'm not expressing myself clearly but I know what I mean.

I get the feeling that however much politicians go into the job with the intention of being their for their people, the job gets in the way and they lose touch with reality. They get isolated on the island that is Westminster and lose the ability to relate life there with life in the real world. This isn't just with respect to "women's issues" but everything.

Not sure I trust any of them to look after the needs of women. Purely because I think it's an aspect of the job that barriers go up.

Of course they don't and can't relate - they are all a different class, different sex. Even if politicians have had a hard life , they are likely to have fading memories iyswim. The new life takes over.

I don't feel that any of the top three have anything remotely in common with me or anyone I know. That isn't necessarily because they're men tho - mrs thatcher wouldn't have done anything to help someone in my position either.

Who would I trust to look after the needs of women? I really don't know. It's just one of a massive amount of things that need to be looked after. Least, probably conservative - without much political k owl edge, in saying that because of the traditional public school middle class impression I have of conservatives . Sorry for the generalisation!

DC is very good at being heard; In some ways I think he is quite modern in his interests in promoting the rights of women, gay people and other traditionally disadvantaged sectors- maybe Samantha is a good influence here - but for me one of his main failings is the people he promotes to the cabinet - Osborne and Duncan-Smith in particular strike me as men who really despise the poor. I am lucky enough to be (at the moment anyway) in a safe financial position but I wasn't always and I am a public sector worker so I know all about pay freezes and childcare costs.
DC's government has a track record of announcing loads of initiatives which they have then had to scrap - the one abolition of current child/carer ratios for nurseries and childminders is one example. Basically they were forced to climb down after they were forced to accept that it was lunacy.
However, women are better represented in this govt than previous ones AFAIK so I suppose that is something (although Nadine Dorries is a disgrace IMO)

I quite like Nick Clegg; I feel he has been forced into that tiny opening between a rock and a hard place and he has had to volte face on key promises - tuition fees and the like. He has always been a good supporter of women's issues and I was pleased when a couple of weeks ago he stated publicly he would not accept an MPs pay rise. Things like that do matter. I feel NC is paralysed by the tories but he had the option of turning that position down when he was being courted by both parties on election day. Those are the breaks.

As for Ed, he just doesn't cut it. Labour is a shapeless mess with no vision. They are more right wing than the LibDems. I acknowledge that it was Labour which brought in tax credits and the minimum wage, both very much needed and well judged initiatives, but I struggle to think of any really great ideas Labour has had in recent months/years which would inspire me to vote for them. I do not think of them as being especially interested in womens issues.

Sadly I can't really think of any current politician I admire enough to wish they would go for the top post. DC will be challenged by Teresa May won't she? but she leaves me cold. I like Hillary Benn but he is a quiet type. The days of Peter Shore and Gerald Kaufman (loved them both) are long gone.

I'm so the wrong person to answer this one....

How can any of the current leaders relate to issues concerning me - they're all guys. In the same way, I would struggle to relate properly to issues facing guys. It would be nice if they appeared to listen to others in the party but in all seriousness, they appear to go all gung ho into the bits that interest them/will gain the most votes with no regard to the rest of the issues.

I also don't think issues should be separated out into women's and mens - there are other divides too - areas we live in, families, household money issues etc. I'm not explaining myself too well here - for example, what is important to a woman might not be important to a man but the same could be said for what is important to someone with a good household income may not be important to a family on a lower income and vice versa.

DC, NC and EM cannot possibly relate to a family who have to think about making ends meet each month, or can't just go and buy whatever they want/need.

I'm still not convinced i've got my point across time to give up i think, lol

Thinking about when you decide which party to vote for, how important is the leader of the party in that decision? Why?
I think the leader is very important - they are the mouthpiece of the party. You need someone who is open, honest and strong (or appears to be) but you also have to agree with that leader's party policies or at least believe that the leader will keep those party policies. There are too many politicians who come across has having integrity but when push comes to shove you discover that the only thing they are interested in is themselves and their career. The expenses scandal is a good example of when politicians "go bad"

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?
As above - I want someone who is honest, open, has integrity. Who does what is right for the country and has the experience of living in the real world. I want a prime minister who I can believe in because they have a proven track record of integrity and honesty.

Thinking about the party you voted for at the 2010 General Election and the party you would vote for now, has it changed? Why / Why not?
I didn't vote - I have never voted. I have agreed with some party policies of the three main parties but have never believed in the leader - with the exception of Margaret Thatcher and John Smith. I was too young to vote for Thatcher and John Smith sadly died.

I am still undecided for the next election

513 said it well - it's the career politicians buggering things up, someone who's JOB is politic will always make he decision that will leave them in that job, they won't risk making the hard choices that could see them becoming unpopular. There's your problem right there!! But is it fixable? Can the system be so drastically changed?

(disclaimer - I think I'd make a GREAT prime minister but can't be arsed to make a career out of it, if they change the system count me in!! )

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

The leader sets the tone for the public's perception of the party, so he/she is important. Take EM's total lack of charisma - I may agree with Labour policy but with him in charge I don't think I'll vote for them!

However there are few things that make me angrier than a politician who, once they're in power, completely changes their policy in order to stay where they are. Someone above said it best - integrity is key, if someone cares more about making a difference than keeping themselves on the gravy train, they'll get my vote. DC I'm looking at you

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?

Integrity, honesty, making a real difference, keeping promises, not taking the easy road on things that are difficult but really matter - I haven't yet seen a politician who has really changed things for the better once they were in, apart from Maggie who had balls!! We could do with more like her - strong enough to do what needs to be done, and to hell with what the Civil servants say!

Thinking about the party you voted for at the 2010 General Election and the party you would vote for now, has it changed? Why / Why not?

I voted Tory in the last election, because I thought DC was a strong man who would make the right changes. He is not, and has not - he's turned out to be a total wishy-washy typical politician who is more interested in his own security than fixing the country. I am sorry I voted for him - I certainly won't again! I'm more inclined to choose an independent, someone who isn't a career politician and perhaps doesn't take the game so seriously... not sure who yet, but I'm keeping my options open.

Can I also add, that I think we would get better leaders if there weren't so many "career politicians". What we need is people who are passionate, no matter what their background. Someone who is treating politics like an academic exercise will not make the best decisions for the country.

For me, the leader of the party does not affect the way I vote. What is important to me is the party as a whole, its manifesto, and generally what it stands for. However, if I was a Tory voter, I think I would be terribly put off by Cameron. But I do believe in substance over style. I'm not a huge fan of the "Tony Blair" style politician. I feel patronised by it.

What I would like to see in a party leader is integrity. Current politicians that I believe do have integrity are: Kenneth Clark, David Davis, Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper. In leadership, I like to see courage of conviction, and am seriously unimpressed with the amount of u-turns taken by the current government. Some people say this is listening to the people, I think it shows a leader who has no grasp on reality, and is chasing popularity.

I voted in the 2010 election, and I voted Labour. I was very, very tempted to vote Lib Dem, as actually their manifesto was a lot more left-leaning than Labour's. Also, I was pretty disillusioned at Labour chasing the middle-class vote, and failing the working classes that have voted for them for generations.

In the next election, I will definitely vote Labour (there will be no wobbling towards Lib Dem this time!) I actually believe that Ed Miliband probably has some good ideas, but I fear he doesn't have the courage of his convictions to carry them through. A really important issue for me is a fair and just society, and I believe Labour are probably the party more interested in that at the moment.

MUMSNET

I thought I would maybe be in a Scottish group as TBH I doubt anyone in this group knows anything about Scottish politics.

Unless maybe I'm the token Scot?

For me a good leader has integrity and some sort of vision of what they're trying to achieve but is prepared to compromise or change if that vision if need be. A bad leader is one who gets carried away by the cult of personality and believes their own hype - Tony Blair was the worst for this IMHO. Controversial as it may be, I think Margaret Thatcher was one of the best PMs this country has had. It was clear what she stood for and people were at liberty to vote for her (and her party) or against.

I voted Tory in the 2010 election and would probably vote for them again if there was an election tomorrow. I can't see any credible alternative but am quite disenchanted with some areas (particularly the links with the lib-dems).

To be perfectly honest, all I would like from my MP and PM is honesty about what they can and will do, not empty promises of what they might like to do but what will actually get done.

I also don't think it helps when we see snippets of all the MPs sitting in the commons and its nigh on a brawl and certainly no more than playground arguments - he said this, she said that. Hardly gives the impression of a well thought out, adult debate!

Not disputing need for defence. Just wasting billions on Trident replacement when it is absolutely pointless.

At a guess I would think the likes of Sweden, Switzerland, Ireland, Iceland perhaps do not spend anything like the amount the UK does.
We don't need to be getting dragged into Illegal wars.

The female representation is much better in Scottish Parliament than Westminster, not 50/50 but certainly an improvement.
The Labour Party have a female leader, as do the Tories, SNP have a strong deputy in Nicola Sturgeon and we also have a female Presiding Officer (speaker), not got the old boys Eton nonsense like London thankfully.

508 - yy to John Smith. Things could have been so very different had he survived. FWIW I also agree that Hague has that rare quality I mentioned earlier - integrity.

518 - it was ever thus; show me a country which puts the welfare of its poor above its defence budget and I will gladly eat my hat (or my old CND badges).

Another real switch off in politics I think is the lack of representation for women and also a breadth of cultures and races. Of course there are some women - but not many. There are some black/Asian/Chinese etc MPs - but not many. This has surely got to be significant in 2013. When the only female PM this country has ever seen was the Milk Snatcher, that's pretty damn poor IMO.

Of course Trident should be scrapped, it is not a deterrent, nuclear weapons have no place here.

I would like to see anyone else happy about having them right next to one of their largest cities,the base is beside Glasgow.

When they are cutting benefits to the poorest but prepared to spend billions replacing an outdated imperialist posturing warmongering weapon it shows you their priorities.

I'd like to say that the leader of the party doesn't influence how I vote. That's because I know I'm voting for an individual MP, and because so much of how a leader gets to be leader is to do with who-you-know and, really, how long you've been around and therefore how much chance you've had to spoil your track record and get tarred with the scandal brush. Despite knowing all that though, I am still influenced by the party leader. One reason is that I know how much power/influence leaders can have in any organisation - I work in a public sector organisation and the new boss has changed things completely. The other is that, however they got there, the party leader is the party's public face. They're saying to us that this person is the ultimate representation of their beliefs, and it's very hard to ignore that.

What do I look for? Someone who I think has at least a vague understanding of what my life is like. Someone who has a calling for the role and really wants to improve life for people in this country. Someone who understands that with great power comes great responsibility, as a cartoon character once said. Sadly, I look for all these things and haven't seen them for a long time. John Smith had them, and, although I'm not a Tory, I actually think William Hague did. Other leaders past and present - no, not at all. I can't relate to politicians who went to Eton, are married to millionaire spouses and live that lifestyle accordingly, and who demonstrate in their policies time after time that they have no idea what it's like to live on an income even of £30k a year, let alone the minimum wage.

I voted Lib Dem in 2010. At heart I'm a Labour supporter, but I felt Labour had lost its way, and the Lib Dems had a lot of policies I supported (tuition fees, for example). I felt sick when they made a coalition with the Tories - I'm from a working-class background, my Dad and Grandad were very involved in union activities, and I could never vote Tory. I just couldn't. Now I feel I effectively have done, and I will certainly never, never vote Lib Dem again. However, I'm still not sure about Labour - they don't seem to have enough imagination in opposition and haven't come up with policies that really make me feel that they're a viable alternative at the moment. So I'd probably vote Green if there was an election tomorrow. It would be a complete wasted vote, I know, and I'm not actually sure I agree with every single policy (much as I don't like Trident, I'm not sure we should be scrapping it) but they're about as close as any party is getting to my own beliefs now.