Webchat with Deputy Labour Leader Harriet Harman MP; THURSDAY 12 FEBRUARY 12-1pm

[RowanMumsnet]

Deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman MP will be joining us at MNHQ on Thursday 12 February between 12 midday and 1pm.

Harriet is Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and Shadow Deputy Prime Minister. She was first elected as an MP aged 32 when she was 7 months pregnant, and her long-term campaigning interests include gender equality, better maternity pay and conditions, and women-only shortlists.

Come and chat to Harriet this Thursday at 12 midday, or post a question in advance on this thread if you can't make it on the day.

Thanks
MNHQ

It is quite obvious that the questions she avoided were the things they have no plans to change IF they were to win in May. I have decided now that I am definitely spoiling my ballot. There is no other option as far as I'm concerned. None of the political parties represent me or my family. I am totally disillusioned. I am looking forward to them knocking on my door over the next few months though. I have plenty to say!

God, isn't it depressing how many people are considering not voting because there's no viable party that represents us? I wonder if over 50% of the country feel like that-it's shocking if that's true. Who is the country being run for if not the majority?

We need a revolution! Something has gone horribly wrong.

I would urge anyone planning to spoil their ballot to consider the consequences a little further.
You might not want to vote for either Labour or Conservative, but if it looks like UKIP might get in to your constituency, surely it's worth voting for one of the major parties just to stop them?

It's a Conservative safe seat where I am Sally, so I don't think it will make any difference. I just can't bring myself to vote for a party that I don't believe in and sadly, I don't believe any of them anymore.

I certainly wonder what fraction of the population is sufficiently socialist / left wing that they would vote for anyone but the 3 main parties if given a choice.

Sort of makes me want to stand.....I live in the NE and I wonder how many up here feel betrayed by new labour....

You're probably safe to abstain then george, but it's something many others will need to consider carefully.
The last thing we need is for Farage to get MPs into Parliament just because the major parties' support has fallen away.

Yes, a deed of variation.

These are pretty standard. They are no more tax avoidance than pension contributions.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/12/did-ed-miliband-avoid-inheritance-tax-parents-home-deed-of-variation

And as the beneficiary of the first will, it's his mother who would've had to instruct a solicitor to make the change.

Well.

That was policy 'lite', probably because they haven't got many policies.

She is very disconnected from the mainstream, isn't she?

It all very well blaming HH for answering only a few questions, and she should be ashamed of that. I also note that Rowan posted that HH would come on to answer the posts later. Don't think she has. I also think MN staff are culpable here and why have not any of the posters said this. MN is a big opinion former, and MN staff know this. When they have high profile politicians for we chats, why is it messed up. Either get them on and do it properly or do not invite them on. Furthermore, get someone in the MN staff pool who has the nous, savvy and cajhones to ensure that said politicians answer more than 5 to 7 questions in an hour. And that they answer them lucidly and succinctly.

Yes portico I wonder how often MN staff said 'Come on Harriet, you have to let us type this is going really badly'. Although I'd also expect politicians to be prepared.

Maybe HQ could consider sending the links to the webchats by Delia, Carlos Ruiz Zafon and Alistair Campbell to prospective chatters, to show them how to gain friends and influence people?

Just 3 of the top of my head which were excellent.

HH promised to come back on in the evening and answer questions.

Where are the answers?

Nicky Morgan's was poor as well.

LineRunner. You are right. All establishment Lib, Lab, Con and non such as UKIP will not really say anything new.

the trouble was i think that as HH was seen as credible people asked her serious questions and expected answers ergo she wasn't able to cherry pick questions like 'what's your favourite biscuit' to fluff it out. all of the questions were serious and actually she should have taken that as a compliment as to how she was perceived by the women who bothered to post questions.

normally people have some nice 'lite' questions to pick from to fluff it out.

however this is an influential female politician at a very serious time in economics and politics and one in which women are being treated appallingly and have been thrown under the bus in so many ways during this condem term so of course we had serious questions to ask and be answered by an opposition female MP in the run up to an election.

i don't know if she thought it was going to be like a woman's magazine interview or something? were we expected to ask about shoes and handbags? surely she knew we'd be asking about policies and views on what has happened over this last term and what labour would do to remedy it and what policies and reversals of policies we could expect that impacted on women and children's economic lives?

and i still cannot compute the out of nowhere 'children are entitled to two parents' comment in the context of ignoring questions about children having to take a cut out of their maintenance to pay a private company.

chuckling at 'thrown under the bus' and the idea that sending a pink bus around the country would be a vote winner. we've had quite enough bus' drive over us in the last few years thanks.

You are spot on HoneyBadger

AND who the hell does their PR work????

they really need to just employ sane normal people who can prevent them from committing such idiocy.

even one quick AIBU would have told them all they needed to know about the concept of a pink bus to engage women fgs - it's politics not an ann summers sales event - yet some overpaid little think tank or pr firm got paid a fortune to come up with that?

i don't know whether to laugh or despair or send in support workers for them.

thank you ihategeorge. i'm going to take deep breaths and make coffee and try to stop posting now

Yes, politicians are so out of touch now, it's like they're a different breed from the rest of us. They really don't have a clue about how any of us live and what we consider to be important. It's all about soundbites and gimmicks. I'm really sick of the lot of them, but I do despair for our country.

I think if they were actually made to be accountable for the consequences of their policies, they wouldn't be in such a hurry to implement most of them and they'd have to really think about the long term. Part of the problem is that they are in government for 5 years and they want to make their mark in that time. The policies are not thought through, they are just trying to garner votes to win the next term in office. If a policy is really rubbish and loses more money than it saves, they should be held accountable in some way. They really need to stop and think about what they are doing.

Some of the problem is that these are mostly not typical people who have come up into being MPs from usual walks of life with any real passion for the people of their area, but are professional politicians who were trained by professional politicians for a political career. An elite, and the received wisdom in that elite is Mandelson's Post Democratic Era crap and the same set of values, which is why there is so little difference between policies or parties.

Ie voters are deluded, can't understand what is good for them because they are not Of Us, and you have to manage them while gently steering them, preferably without their noticing, in the direction that they would not want to go if they realised where it led, but where they should be taken for their own (and politicians') good.

Which is why almost all of it is 'window dressing' of soundbites and PR nonsense and pink buses and 'sending messages' while they won't explain any definite policies and intentions because to do so would frighten the horses. And lots of inviting, tempting stuff that will be kicked into the long grass the moment they get into power while they do their actual mission which are things they know no one ever would have agreed to or voted for.

They call this 'voter cynicism' and give it as a reason why voters should be ignored, little backward moaning minnies that they are.

It's also why, with shame as I believe strongly in voting and the effort that went into acquiring the rights for women to vote, I will not be voting unless the trades description act can be applied to manifestos and politicians held legally accountable for presenting a set of clear intentions and carrying them out. At the moment manifestos are intentional manipulation, the child catcher's sweetie van, not worth the paper they are written on in terms of real commitment or indication of intention.

I also would strongly support a repeat election having to be held if more than 50% of the population did not vote or if the winner of the election was a 'none of the above' option on the ballot paper.

I will vote for the one who tells the least convincing lie. That is the measure that I have now come to realise is the one by which I can assess all the thieving, conniving, odious and morally bankrupt politicians of all parties.

thehoneybadger

Next time I'll name change and post some questions about spare time "making", "baking" etc to see.

i'm surprised mnhq or one of her juniors didn't kindly throw in a few of those for her breakingdad - i'm actually pleased they didn't i might add!

i like the idea of the trades description act applying to manifestos. realistically though it appear criminal law (eg. fraud) doesn't even apply. we really have had it horrendously rubbed in our faces with the so called 'expenses scandal' (which is actually massive criminal activity defrauding huge amounts of money with impunity and facing no criminal charges for it) that they are a law unto themselves. the 11% latest pay rise is enough spit in the face obviously.

on whose mandate are such decisions taken? at what point do we the public get to insist that they, the supposed public servants, are held accountable?

IDS's wasting of billions is also a sickening offense that springs to mind. billions of pounds thrown away on a fantasy. and on whose mandate are the unemployed being given as free labour to big business and big business actually being paid public funds to use that free labour?

it does seem like it's gone 'beyond the pale' to coin an mn phrase this decade. anyone who can't see the man behind hte curtain now must be bindfolded with their fingers in their ears singing la la la at the top of their voice.