I am standing for election AMA (except what party I'm standing for!)

[CandidateX]

Any questions at all about the process, but not about the politics, which are talked about all over MN already. I have a very busy morning ahead, but should be back to answer questions around lunch time, or a bit later.

There is a lot of point in standing when you are not going to win, it raises the party profile, it builds up connections and networks. You do influence the policies in the winner if a lot of people in their constituency have voted for your policies they will know it, (especially in local issues) and also, the more people you win over in a general election, the more votes you get in the next local election. So no, I don't find it depressing. It isn't pointless. It is probably less stressful to be in this position, than it would be to be a potential winner.

How would an MP salary compare to your current one?

No, not really, we chat anyway, so I do have an idea of everyone's interests and priorities.

Yes I have, but I don't like them very much. You have a couple of minutes to state your answer to a specific question, then a couple of minutes to state your answer to the next question. It isn't a conversation, like when door knocking. And it is quite nerve wracking! If you answer well, nobody cares, if you mess up, it could be headline news!

I didn't know, so I had to look it up - it would be around 4x as much. But I am not expecting to win, so an academic question really.

It might seem like a strange question but would you still want to stand if you were likely to win? Does the day to day job of being an MP appeal to you (it wouldn't to me!)? Or is it just that they need someone in every seat so some people are just there to make up the numbers rather than through a real desire to get the job?

Have you ever stood in elections for less senior positions (thinking local councils etc)?

yes, if I win I would be excited to do the job. But that is not really why I am standing. I am standing not expecting to win, so people can express their feelings at the ballot box if they want policies like mine. Some people don't want to win, but they would not be in a constituency with a 15-20% chance. They would be standing somewhere with a 0% or 1% chance.

Yes, I have stood in other elections, for a local council position, also with a low chance. I've been the third option for my party, when they have got 1 person in.

Sorry, I forgot I had done that when I was answering if I had experience of politics before

Good for you firstly, I totally agree there should be more 'ordinary' (for want of a better word) people in politics. My dad has just finished reading Posh Boys by Robert Verkaik and although a lot of it is very obvious, it's also horrifying.

Can I ask two questions please?

1. Was there a 'last straw' for you that made you move from just considering standing to actively putting your name forward? You don't have to elaborate if it was a political issue, I'm just interested to know when it moved from the theoretical to the actual for you (I have said myself a few times over the years that I would be tempted to stand and am closer now than ever, but I need to concentrate on my job for the next 5 years).
2. Were you already selected as a constituency candidate before the election was called or have you really had to scramble since it was announced (i.e. have you only had 6.5 weeks to prepare for all this)?

Good luck by the way - although I don't know your preferred politics, you are doing something really important and should be applauded for that frankly.

I work in a school, and the "last straw" for me is the homeless children. We can argue until we are blue in the face about whether parents can or can't feed their children (I think genuinely cant at least some of the time) but the homelessness is a different issue. For a child to have no home is devastating. We have children who don't know where they will be sleeping from one day to the next, we have children sleeping 8 to a room in hotels, no cooking facilities, no private toilet just for their household, nowhere to wash their clothes. We have teenage boys in men's homeless hostels because they cant follow their mothers into women's refuges. We have teens sleeping rough or sofa surfing when their mother has died or remarried

I did say I wouldn't discuss politics! I am trying to avoid this.

But the lack of safe, secure housing in this county is what tipped me over the edge.

And I was chosen some weeks before the election, and was in waiting, which was a bit of a worry, because we didn't know if an election date would be named in time for us to be able to plan a family summer holiday. Luckily it was, as we couldn't make any plans until we knew the election date.

Edit for grammar

Thanks that's really helpful and ironically your answer to the first question is very much where I am too, although not specifically young people, but poverty in general and seeing some of the stuff I see in my (charity) role which is beyond heart-breaking. Yes sorry that's why I said not to worry about elaborating if too political, but actually all parties should be worried about it shouldn't they? As I said, good for you, I hope that even if you don't elected that you continue to look for representative political roles because we need people like you to stand up.

Why is your stance on immigration?

OP said questions about the process, not politics or policies.

And? It is in AMA! I could be a constituent, so I would like to know!

There is plenty of space for political discussions elsewhere on MN. This thread is just about the process of standing in the election.

Because the terms of the AMA were set out clearly, which also includes not disclosing where they are standing!

I’d have thought you would be far too busy than to be messing about on social media.

Well that's clarified that you're not standing in my constituency lol! The labour candidate is currently at 1/8 on to win the seat away from the current Tory incumbent.

I just wanted to say thank you for standing.

I have been a long time Tory voter but our MP is not good for our area. He's very much a career politician. Doesn't live in the area, jumps on any political bandwagon that might further his career, picks the sides of the most popular issues (a Boris buddy at Brexit, etc). To be honest, I'm surprised he didn't defect to stand a chance at keeping his seat. He's very poorly represented our constituency since he was elected and only appears when it's election time.

It's refreshing to see someone standing as an MP who is obviously passionate about it for the right reasons: community, rather than personal development, so thank you.

I will be voting for the candidate in our area that follows that same ethos and it's most certainly not our current MP!

I think the next two are a bit political, so I will leave them out, and I am not sure I understand what you are getting at with the last question.

They aren't actually.

The final one - what are the checks and balances in a democracy absoluetely is NOT political. Its poor that ANY candidate doesn't know this one. This is all about the relationship between the courts/judiciary, the media/public and the state/government. Kinda important as an MP understanding power and how they are balanced and hold each other to account to prevent abuses.

As for understanding the importance of legal definitions, what do you think being an MP is about? Its about making law. So if you don't have robust definitions, then you can't make law otherwise it all falls apart. You can't have a belief that is not legally definable. Thats hardly political. Thats how the fucking law works. So if you can't work out that how you define things in law is rather relevant to law making, I really can't take you seriously.

Which brings me back to the question about a woman. The one about what is a woman. But you can't just have a political view or belief about something without an ability to define what you are trying to make the law about. I think you miss the point here - this is literally about the purpose of being an MP and how law is written.

If you won't commit to giving a definition of what a woman is, you can't protect women's rights in any form or on any level. Its everything from pay, to single sex wards, to maternity protection, to homosexual protection. But apparently its 'too political' to commit to protecting these through simply defining what a woman is.

How do you actually protect women in law, if you can't define what a woman is? Its cowardly to say here - ask me anything here, and then dodge that question.

So yes, I'm vastly unimpressed at that response.

And thats why the public are so pissed off with politicians. Cos they can't give a straight answer to a really basic question. Its a matter of trust.

I don't really care which party you are from. The fact you come to Mumsnet - which has created a manifesto that it wants answers to, which includes issues relating to women's rights - and can't give an answer to that on AMA is quite frankly disrespectful.

Poor.

Not really.

Its MN. We get to hold candidates to account. Not candidates trying to dictate which questions are acceptable and which aren't.

Thats the beauty of the relationship between the media (inc social media) and the state (inc candidates wishing to take an elected position).

We get to ask ANYTHING.

You will be judged on what you DON'T answer as much as what you DO answer.

Because its relevant and important to democracy, that there is transparency and that the public is respected in their questions.

You've shown disrespect. It doesn't go unnoticed.

Standing to be a politician, wanting to talk about standing, but not wanting to talk about politics only the process.

Dear lord.

Planet Lala.

Can I ask more about what you said about a recommended home security system? Is this something you’ve been recommended by the party because of abuse / to keep your family safe? I have a friend running who hasn’t done this, and I really think they should because it terrifies me that their address is out there in the public domain and their children could be a risk from nutters

I think it's fair to refuse to answer political questions in this context. They're not looking for votes.

@CandidateX I'd really like to ask (politely) a question on policies. Would you consider starting a thread in the GE section if you don't want to answer those questions here?

About standing for election. Don't know if you'll know the answer to this but my constituency is a marginal yet so far we've only had one leaflet (from the Conservative candidate).

I understand door knocking might not always be possible as it depends on time available to candidates and how many volunteers they have, but do you know why candidates (especially in marginals like my constituency) wouldn't send any leaflets? I want to consider my vote on a local constituency level but feel like most of the parties standing here aren't that bothered about this constituency.

Totally agree - they were also very clear from the start that they would answer questions on the process which personally I find very interesting. Some people on here have been very rude - one of the reasons why people choose not to go into politics is the relentless abuse (and that's at the 'better' end of the scale).

I'm not the OP but I think in terms of leaflets it is three things - money, availability of people to deliver them (my Labour leaflet had a Tory one inside it - obviously doubling up to make resources go further!) but also the targeting issue is a key one. I'm in Swansea West and, while we are not marginal, we had a misbehaving (allegedly) Labour MP previously and now have a parachute candidate which is causing a lot of fuss locally for obvious reasons. I have had leaflets for Labour, Tories, Plaid and Liberal Democrats so far. We have seven people standing but for the first time in a while there is more likelihood of protest voting... so I think the 'top four' are putting their money where their mouth is.