Live webchat with Rachel Reeves, Labour shadow for work and pensions; THURSDAY 26 FEBRUARY 11.30-12.30

[RowanMumsnet]

We’re pleased to say that we’ll be welcoming Rachel Reeves MP to MNHQ for a webchat on Thursday February 26 at 11.30am.

Rachel is the MP for Leeds West, and Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; among other things her brief includes the ‘bedroom tax’ (also known as the ‘removal of the spare room subsidy’ or ‘under-occupancy penalty’), which she has said Labour will abolish.

Before becoming an MP, she worked as an economist for the Bank of England, the British Embassy in Washington and at Halifax Bank of Scotland. Her second child is due in June and there was some controversy earlier this week when she announced her intention to take maternity leave should Labour form the government after the General Election in May.

Please join us on Thursday at 11:30 if you can; as ever, if you can’t join us live, then leave your question on this thread in advance. (And please remember our webchat guidelines.)

Thanks
MNHQ

Good luck with Questiontime.

Dove - you put it beautifully, mission to lose my vote.
I have come to the realisation that no party actually wants to win in May. No one wants to be responsible for Britain so they're hoping for another coalition.

I thought she was good. Snappy, honest, not afraid to say 'no' and absolutely hammered it through the questions.

I notice she dodged the bit in my q about Lord Freud but I sort of expected that from a professional politician

That's exactly right thoth. No one seems to be interested in my vote.

@Luckystar82

Hi just wondering when Gloria will answer my question about self-employment and paternity pay?

Should I check back on this thread later today?

Hi Luckystar,

Rachel will email us and we'll post her answer here when we have it.

I agree with thoth, Dove & ihate.

Question Time ? Don't usually stay up that late. Would it be worth me bothering ?

Thanks for the response Rachel. I will take a closer look at the figures - My instinct is that it still sends out the wrong message re how men and women's time is valued when it comes to childcare.

For those first six weeks, the woman is recovering from the physical process of giving birth. In any other circumstances, that process would probably be covered by sick pay so the initial higher rate is misleading.

When it comes to the extended time off to 'care for the baby/family', Labour's proposals still suggest that men's time should be valued more highly.

I'm actually quite a fan of the interchangeable leave arrangements coming into force this April - at least this acknowledges that childcare is both parents' responsibility and men or women are just as likely to take time off as each other (and are just as valuable as parents).

Good luck for your impending arrival.

Ok thanks. I look forward to a response from Rachel (via Gloria) regarding self employment and paternity pay

Don't bother MrsVamos, whenever I watch it, it always makes me want to throw something at the TV.

I thought this was infinitely better than Harriet Harman, anyway!

Will be very interesting to see if Rachel's replies on QT match what she said here...

I imagine she'll be quite careful on zero hours contracts.

ihate

Thanks. That's what I thought.

Just wondered if responses tonight would be the same as on here.

I'll see how knackered and cross I am tonight !

Pausing Great minds....

Line Bet she requests no questions on zero hour contracts.

thoth - another coalition quite suits me - I quite like how (in theory) the different coalition partners can prevent the crazies at the extremes of individual parties having too much influence. It very much depends on who holds the balance of power within that coalition though!

MrsVamos - QT? Very much depends how much politicking, messaging and point scoring (rather than straight question answering) you can take that late in the day ;-)

I'll give Rachel her due, she did at least give some straight answers today - hell, any answers - which is more than Harriet Harman did!

Here's a summary of what Rachel Reeves promised on this thread re disability. Hope I've got it all right.

12:00:03
Scrap bedroom tax for all.

12:05:32 & 12:21:46
To change the assessments for disability benefits to make them fairer to disabled people. (How?)

11:40:19 & 12:00:03 & 12:05:32
To switch providers of the job-hunt programmes for disabled people in 2017.

11:40:19 & 12:00:03
That the DWP and its subcontractors will actually process claims for disability benefits instead of sitting on them.

12:00:03
To penalise contractors which assess disabled people wrongly. (How?)

12:00:03
"Disabled people" will "have a say" in disability assessment. (How? And how much?)

12:00:03
To continue plans to integrate health and social care, transferring £2.5bn to the NHS to do this. (IIUC, the current govt's plans are to give the NHS the social care responsibilities currently held by local councils, but not to give the NHS as much funding as the councils had say 5 years ago to do this. No word on whether Labour's plans differ.)

I won't attempt a summary on zero-hours contracts, because I can't tell what she was actually "promising"!

Nice one, Rachel, and thanks for fluffing around answering my question about pensions

On this basis I would definitely vote for Rachel Reeves! Wonder if she's thought of running for PM ...

Wouldn't bother watching her on QT she never answers a question just spouts the usual bullshit Labour cliches " Tax cuts for millionaires", " Bankers bonuses", " Hard working families" and so on all delivered in monotone faux cockney accent.

I think I annoyed her.

Another jaded voter gingham!

I feel like such a grinch. I did think I'd feel less resentment towards Labour if they changed their name. The Progressive Lawyer and Banker Party would be better. I'd end up voting for them either way but I'd be less irritated.

She didn't answer the question about child abuse in Rotherham

Just promised to spend lots of money.

"Monotone faux - cockney accent" - talk about playing the woman not the ball! FWIW, I was at university with Rachel Reeves and she sounds exactly the same now as she did then. Interesting Web chat. I was impressed with the relatively straight talking although I agree that there was a clear change in position re zero hours contracts. I expect the first post was an example of getting a bit carried away. Personally I'm not in favour of banning them outright. Various surveys have demonstrated that they suit some employees well.

Soooo Labour have no intention of doing anything about the utter unfairness re the CB debacle. One of the major reasons I won't be voting Condem ever again is their lack of care re unfairness on several issues which makes them utterly untrustworthy.Seems labour are exactly the same,shan't be sending any votes their way either.

I'm quite peed off about the Webchat "AT A GLANCE" which makes my post sound like a well off mansion owner complaining directly to Reeves, when in fact I was making a more general point about cross party attitudes to taxation issues for those with financial dependents to Ihategeorgeosborne.