Questions for David Cameron

[mumsnet]

We know what he thinks about education, the economy and Europe, but what about the really important stuff? Like how many nappies, exactly, has he changed in the last two weeks? And does young Arthur favour a three-in-one travel system, or a rugged off-roader? You can find out the answers to these and other pressing questions (and tell him what you think of all that tummy-patting) next Monday lunchtime when David Cameron visits Mumsnet to give his first interview since the birth of his third child. David will be online from 12.45pm. You can post advance questions for him here.

...and how would you avoid house prices in the catchment areas of the best schools being hiked up, making it easier to get a decent education if you can afford a better house.

I was going to ask who you were but I have gathered from the posts you must be the leader of the Conservative Party.

MrsSpoon scuttles back off to Button Moon where politics are never mentioned and the news is never watched as CBeebies is always on.

David, I've got another question for you:

Does your wife read and post on mumsnet?
And, if not, why not

More seriously though, I would say to you not to focus on the metropolitan vote (don't copy Blair)but reach out to the provinces.

david, how do you to plan to achieve greater work/life balance for families? the current legislation is toothless - what changes would you make to ensure that mothers and fathers who need/want to work can balance it better with family life?

another one - we've read a lot about your green credentials - what will you do to reduce co2 emissions in the uk?

David-the English education system has seen so much change in recent years do you really think implementing more strategies and initiatives are the answer to raising standards?

Dear David

Sack Ken.

Pleeeeeaaaaase.

Or at least scrap CC London - and give us some cycle tracks alongside the road!!

(doeant CC just make inner london more user friendly for those who can afford it?)

David do you intend to do anything about stealth taxes? eg

inheritance tax
STAMP DUTY - highway robbery imho!

David - what are your thoughts on non professional child carers e.g. grandparents being able to receive an allowance for their time and effort they give to looking after children whilst their own children work (and most HAVE to work).
Many of them do it for free.

who is david cameron?

There are a lot of grievances on this message board, all of them relevant to the people posting them. From the top, though in no particular order; childcare, stay-at-home mums, flexible working, work/life balance, maternity/paternity leave/pay, special needs care/support/education, MMR jabs, school choices, school meals, breastfeeding, nappies, midwife care, tax credits, the CSA, cost of living, house prices, university tuition fees, free NHS, NHS dentists, NHS targets, CO2 emissions, green energy resources, gas/electric prices, women PPCs, poorly paid public sector jobs, volunteering, jail sentences, DNA sampling of children, free speech, legislation through regulation, pension crisis, the pound, inheritance tax, 3 line whip voting, bringing home the troops.

Then there are the personal issues; do/did you use disposable nappies with your children, do you get up in the middle of the night to change nappies, does your wife breastfeed, will he have the triple MMR vaccine, will he attend a state school, what kind of pushchair does Arthur travel in?

Are you going to tackle the more taxing issues in the first paragraph or will you stick to showing us how fluffy and cuddly you are by mostly discussing your personal life and holding up your family as a shield of intimacy with which to gain the pink vote??

Dear David

Will the Tories be the party of modernity and trust parents to choose for themselves who should bring up their children? This would be a fantastic opportunity for you to really differentiate yourselves from Labour.

Labour claims it is offering choice, but actually it is practising social engineering on a huge scale, chivvying parents of tinier and tinier babies back to the workplace, while penalising those who stay at home through the tax and benefits system. To my generation, this feels like something foisted on us by oldies from the 1970s. And we resent it.

Please don't ever think that just because you don't hear from stay-at-home parents very much, or don't see them very much, that we are not there or we don't care. We are and we do. It's just that it's hard to do much in public life with a toddler shackled to your ankle.

AND we do vote.

Labour will pay almost anyone but parents to look after children. Do you think this is right? Will you level the playing field and give the decision-making power back to parents themselves?

Will you acknowledge the mounting research which shows early extensive daycare is bad for children? Will you commit to stop subsidising its headlong expansion with taxpayers' money?

Will you acknowledge the overwhelming evidence showing that most parents would prefer to care for their young children themselves, if they can? And will you help to make this possible?

It doesn't look like any other major party is going to, so this is your chance.

I've read a lot about people's preferences but very little about what's best for young children. Steve Biddulph - author of 'Raising Boys' has written a new book about this - ie 'Raising Babies'. He bravely admits he made a mistake about the suitability of nurseries for young children - after extensive research he now believes mums are ideally the best placed to provide one-to-one attention and care needed by children. I couldn't agree more. Children need confident parenting and ideally care and devotion from mum (or a full time dad)in the first three years or so. Many mums want to be with their kids - surveys show this consistently. THey don't want to hand over their babies and toddlers to some stranger, no matter how well qualified. For those parents who really prefer to work or need to work, well it's great that more and more is already being done to help them....great there are already powerful organisations fighting for the rights of working mothers and gender equality etc BUT improving matters for mothers isn't just about helping us into work - it's about enabling us to parent our children to the best of our ability and shouldering the responsibility (and joy)of day to day care. In the end it's also about saving the state money. If you invest in mothers you don't have to subsidise nurseries or train staff or pay for childcare tax credits....MUMS AT HOME SAVE THE STATE MILLIONS. So Mr Cameron, do you think the government is doing enough to enable young children and mothers to be together in the early formative years? This matter is already being looked at in Europe and at the UN. If you don't recognise the need to support mothers at home now - you may be forced to do so in the end.

Hmmmm - as you might have gathered MN is a varied place

Not all of us agree with the previous poster! What would be nice though, is that govt policy supports choice - no matter what that choice might be

I don't someone to pay me to stay home. And I certainly don't want to go to work to pay taxes to support someone else to stay home. That's a tad bit unfair. I struggle to pay the bills. I cannot afford ahouse myself. My husband and I are both university educated. We recieve no help with childcare -- not one penny! I work 40 - 50 hours per week. My husband travels Mon - Thursday for work. Should we work even longer to fund other people to stay home with their kids? I think not!

And I also think that early childcare has not been proven to be harmful.

Uwila says 'I certainly don't want to go to work to pay taxes to support someone else to stay home' - well by the same token I could easily say I don't want my family to pay taxes (which we do) to support someone else's expensive childcare ad infinitum!! Childcare doesn't come cheap - billions of taxpayers' money is being ploughed into it. Don't make the mistake of thinking that families with one full time parent at home don't struggle - we do -but for a good reason - after all it's surely not much to ask a parent to take care of a baby and toddler in the first three years - that's the very least a child can expect and the government should support this 'choice' at least equally. We should all work together on this. I'm all for choice, but true 'choice' for mothers (mentioned by 'soapbox') disappeared the minute the government decided to support one family's childcare choices/expenses/needs and not another's. A full time parent's 'expenses' could be said to be equal to the salary he/she has forfeited in order to be the main carer. Government policy does not support 'choice' at present - rather it puts ordinary one-income families at a disadvantage and puts unreasonable pressure on young mothers to hand over their children to someone else at an ever earlier age. So Mr Cameron how do you ensure that all mothers have true 'choice' about parenting - to stay at home as well as to go to work?

Uwila, why is it valid to expect the govt to suport and subsidise WOTH parents (in the form of the tax relief on childcare you're looking for) and yet not support SAHPs with any kind of payment/relief? Do you really think it's an invalid choice? I know this discussion is for another thread really but I couldn't let your post go unremarked upon. Feel free to start a thread with your post as the first one if you want to discuss this further.

Hi David

Could you not encourage more companies to use workers at home? It's a minefield trying to find ligitimate companies where you could tie in being at home and working.
You only have to look at the amount of threads on Forums like Mumsnet to see how many Mums/Dads with a variety of skills there are looking for opportunities to tie in around their children/partners. I would have thought companies would jump at the chance of having good workers without the overheads of an office/warehouse.

On a personal note - when Blackpool introduced wheelie bins and recycling they excluded Hotels - I am disgusted at having to pay £1 per bin bag to the council on top of domestic rates and Business Rates (family of 5 running Hotel) and not being able to recycle!! I hate binning items that my domestic next door neighbours can recycle. When the majority of homes in Blackpool are also Hotels I think the council are letting us and Blackpool down!

ps - we offer a very competitive rate and a lovely breakfast if you need a B&B for the conference

The Institute for Public Policy Research estimates that women forfeit lifetime earnings of approx £564k if they choose to stay at home caring for children. And this figure was based on a mid range salary so for anyone in a higher tax bracket this figure would be MUCH higher. I'd like to know what David Cameron thinks should be done about this.

Well, first of all I don't get ANY government funds to assist me with childcare. Not one penny. Never have and I expect I never will. But, the difference in in goverment subsidising WOHM parents and SAHP is that the WOHP is earning the money and only asking to keep some of what they earned. Whereas the SAHP subsidy is looking for someone else's hard earned money so that they can stay home with their kids -- a luxury not afforded to the one who is paying those taxes that would then be given to the SAHP.

This statement will be met with violent objection but I believe it it wholeheartedly: Staying home with your children is a priviledge and not a right. You do not deserve for someone else to support you to stay at home.

Also, in purely financial terms, the goverment is still profiting from the taces that working parents pay -- even after they help to subsidise the cildcare. Of course, not in my case: Gordon Brown profits even from my childcare.

Would you like to see super casinos open in deprived areas as a way of regenerating the local economy?

I am concerned about the lack of NHS dentists especially for children. What can be done about it before it gets into an even worse situation?

Also, I am concerned about the withdrawal of the BCG vaccine at 11 years of age. The NHS guidlines say if you live in a high risk area ie London, or your relatives are from a foreign country you will be able to get it. Does noone think that with travel being so easy these days that never mind going abroad for holidays even going to London could be a risk for TB. The treatment for TB is 6 months on antibiotics, surely prevention is better and cheaper than the treatment?

Uwila, I haven't got time to respond to you in full but I wholeheartedly disagree with you. Maybe I'll post more later when David Cameron's told us what he thinks - I would like to know where he stands on this. It's nice to know you think the only valid contribution to society is a monetary one though (although I'd argue that being a sahp IS making a valid economic contribution).

Has someone already asked this - the gender gap as regards pay, more on the news about this today.

I'm sitting here furious about the discussion that's going on on Woman's Hour at the moment, where the woman keeps going on about re-training women to do better paid jobs. And what she means is full time jobs. Well guess what, as a mother I don't want to do a full-time job, I want a well-paid, highly-skilled part time job, but very few employers will let me have that, because they're not prepared to look at being flexible and enabling me to keep a highly-skilled, highly-paid job so that I can function comfortably both as a highly skilled worker and as a lone mother. I would rather have a low paid low skilled part time job than a well paid, highly skilled full time job, because my children are my first priority, but what I really want is a high paid high skilled part time job, but those are in short supply. What are you going to do David, to make it more cost-effective for employers to be able to offer more flexibility, more job-shares, more part-time work at a high, skilled level instead of just at the low-skill, low-paid level?