"What we are hearing on the doorstep" is extraordinarily selective: Nobody in the public, according to the wilfully deaf, is at all troubled by any policies, or, importantly, by any practices, carried out by civil servants (or, more usually, left undone by them) under any party.
Nobody objects to anything, central or local. Nobody votes against anything. Nobody votes in any election except in favour of a party leader, and in favour of whatever was "in a manifesto".
Mumsnet members have written to MPs and Parties, and attempted to speak to canvassers at the doorstep, but found no response, no willingness to listen.
"On the doorstep", a (by definition, already politically/quasi religiously fervently biased) activist is told for example:
We the public don't want men in womens' wards or changing rooms.
Or/and, we don't want children told they can change sex.
Or/and, our public services are breaking or broken, and we can't get jobs or homes, or NHS or social care, because the country is too crowded.
Nobody voted in favour of unlimited mass population increase at all. Every party has imposed/ has allowed Whitehall to impose, mass import of cultures incompatible with respect for equality.
Respect for women, rule of law, and safety* on the streets and in shops is not racist.
Safety for women and children is not homophobic.
And there is no such thing as transphobic, because nobody can change sex. (As Supreme Court confirms)
But no activist/canvasser/politician will ever hear, because s/he will never listen.
*The safety issue is startling and would be worth investigation: Apparently, every ex PM gets a team of UK paid detectives to accompany him/ her, for life, to carry guns and passports, in round- the-clock teams. If true, and now the PMs are changing so frequently, why is that continuing? Apparently also, Mayor Khan has round the clock shifts of teams of five, tax-funded, armed police, merely to watch his house. Why? If his house is really that unsafe, maybe the whole of his empire, London, may be unsafe for the citizens who pay him? And maybe a re-think of all public safety should be more important than any politician?
The cost of all this personal security for politicians sits badly alongside the closure of police stations, removal of foot patrol, withdrawal from High Street or shop protection for the general public. Apart from anything else, ostentatious display of the mindless squandering of public money is not acceptable:
Internet exists. So do cameras. So does online debating and voting. No second homes needed, no grace and favour mansions, no vast daily sums, tax-free, to sign a book. No travel costs. No duplicate offices. Let them 'work' in their constituencies, where some would be startled ever to catch a glimpse of one of the public they purportedly 'represent' .
Parliament buildings should be auctioned (with a condition of sale that the exterior remains visually unchanged, for photographs). They will cost more than is reasonable to repair and retain. ('Big Ben' could easily be replaced with a recording, and an automated replica of the turning hands). Hospices and care homes are closing, so any avoidable public spending is reprehensible. The pretence nothing has changed in centuries is unaffordable:
Palaces of Westminster, and most of Whitehall, are surplus. There is Portcullis and Downing Street.
What downside is there for the public? Losing a place named the Lobby, (where Penny Mordant's "adored" brother was installed "as a permanent fixture, by Stonewall") and losing the taxfunded alcohol in a place of work, would make Stonewall or any other Group Think a bit harder to embed: It would make it harder for a lobbyist to bribe or persuade a bunch of drunks to change or interpret law, act or fail to act. In other words, there is nothing but gain for the public who pay for it all.
Sorry this is a rant but there is no more patience with re-arranging the teacups of a failed political system, when the whole house is falling down.