MNHQ Group 5

[AnnMumsnet]

Many thanks for agreeing to take part in this closed discussion thread. As you'll know, you all have an individual user name, separate to your on-site profile. So please feel free to be as open and frank as you like, without your views being read-across to your site profile.

The aim of these discussions is to discover if, how and why women's voting intentions are shifting and what you think about each of the party leaders.

We'll ask a few questions, allow you to think them over, respond, engage in a bit of discussion with other participants, and then we will pop back on the thread. We might want to tease out the reasons behind particular views or opinions and then will crack on with the next set of questions (on Thursday) and one more set over the weekend. Do feel free to re visit the thread at any point over the next week or so. We'll email you when we add a new set of questions.

Here are the questions to get you started

Thinking about when you decide which party to vote for, how important is the leader of the party in that decision?

Why?

What do you look for in a party leader? What makes a good party leader and what makes a bad one? What makes a good prime minister and what makes a bad one?

Thinking about the party you voted for at the 2010 General Election and the party you would vote for now, has it changed?

Why?
Why not?

Feel free to include any thoughts you might have - they don't have to be the conventional, just true to how you feel!

[delegate504]

Thinking about when you decide which party to vote for, how important is the leader of the party in that decision? Why?
I think the leader is very important - they are the mouthpiece of the party. You need someone who is open, honest and strong (or appears to be) but you also have to agree with that leader's party policies or at least believe that the leader will keep those party policies. There are too many politicians who come across has having integrity but when push comes to shove you discover that the only thing they are interested in is themselves and their career. The expenses scandal is a good example of when politicians "go bad"

What do you look for in a party leader? What makes a good party leader and what makes a bad one? What makes a good prime minister and what makes a bad one?
As above - I want someone who is honest, open, has integrity. Who does what is right for the country and has the experience of living in the real world. I want a prime minister who I can believe in because they have a proven track record of integrity and honesty.

Thinking about the party you voted for at the 2010 General Election and the party you would vote for now, has it changed? Why / Why not?
I didn't vote - I have never voted. I have agreed with some party policies of the three main parties but have never believed in the leader - with the exception of Margaret Thatcher and John Smith. I was too young to vote for Thatcher and John Smith sadly died.

I am still undecided for the next election

[AnnMumsnet]

Thanks for answering the first questions: some really interesting feedback. Now we want to try to what you really think about the specific leaders.

1. So, these days how well or badly do you think the current main party leaders are doing on understanding the issues and concerned facing women like you.
   First of all David Cameron?
   And then Nick Clegg?
   And then Ed Miliband?
   What about another party leader you know of (or one you think should/ could be a party leader) - please name them and then say: how well or badly do they do on this aspect?
   
   
2. and how well or badly do you think they make sure or take account of women being heard in their party and in politics generally?
   First of all David Cameron?
   And then Nick Clegg?
   And then Ed Miliband?
   What about another party leader you know of (or one you think should/ could be a party leader) - please name them and then say: how well or badly do they do on this aspect?
   
   
3. Finally for now - which party - if any - do you trust the most to look after the interests of women? Why? And which do you trust the least? And why?
   
   thanks again - we will add some more questions for the weekend.

[delegate506]

I'm so the wrong person to answer this one....

How can any of the current leaders relate to issues concerning me - they're all guys. In the same way, I would struggle to relate properly to issues facing guys. It would be nice if they appeared to listen to others in the party but in all seriousness, they appear to go all gung ho into the bits that interest them/will gain the most votes with no regard to the rest of the issues.

I also don't think issues should be separated out into women's and mens - there are other divides too - areas we live in, families, household money issues etc. I'm not explaining myself too well here - for example, what is important to a woman might not be important to a man but the same could be said for what is important to someone with a good household income may not be important to a family on a lower income and vice versa.

DC, NC and EM cannot possibly relate to a family who have to think about making ends meet each month, or can't just go and buy whatever they want/need.

I'm still not convinced i've got my point across time to give up i think, lol

[delegate509]

DC is very good at being heard; In some ways I think he is quite modern in his interests in promoting the rights of women, gay people and other traditionally disadvantaged sectors- maybe Samantha is a good influence here - but for me one of his main failings is the people he promotes to the cabinet - Osborne and Duncan-Smith in particular strike me as men who really despise the poor. I am lucky enough to be (at the moment anyway) in a safe financial position but I wasn't always and I am a public sector worker so I know all about pay freezes and childcare costs.
DC's government has a track record of announcing loads of initiatives which they have then had to scrap - the one abolition of current child/carer ratios for nurseries and childminders is one example. Basically they were forced to climb down after they were forced to accept that it was lunacy.
However, women are better represented in this govt than previous ones AFAIK so I suppose that is something (although Nadine Dorries is a disgrace IMO)

I quite like Nick Clegg; I feel he has been forced into that tiny opening between a rock and a hard place and he has had to volte face on key promises - tuition fees and the like. He has always been a good supporter of women's issues and I was pleased when a couple of weeks ago he stated publicly he would not accept an MPs pay rise. Things like that do matter. I feel NC is paralysed by the tories but he had the option of turning that position down when he was being courted by both parties on election day. Those are the breaks.

As for Ed, he just doesn't cut it. Labour is a shapeless mess with no vision. They are more right wing than the LibDems. I acknowledge that it was Labour which brought in tax credits and the minimum wage, both very much needed and well judged initiatives, but I struggle to think of any really great ideas Labour has had in recent months/years which would inspire me to vote for them. I do not think of them as being especially interested in womens issues.

Sadly I can't really think of any current politician I admire enough to wish they would go for the top post. DC will be challenged by Teresa May won't she? but she leaves me cold. I like Hillary Benn but he is a quiet type. The days of Peter Shore and Gerald Kaufman (loved them both) are long gone.

[delegate516]

Of course they don't and can't relate - they are all a different class, different sex. Even if politicians have had a hard life , they are likely to have fading memories iyswim. The new life takes over.

I don't feel that any of the top three have anything remotely in common with me or anyone I know. That isn't necessarily because they're men tho - mrs thatcher wouldn't have done anything to help someone in my position either.

Who would I trust to look after the needs of women? I really don't know. It's just one of a massive amount of things that need to be looked after. Least, probably conservative - without much political k owl edge, in saying that because of the traditional public school middle class impression I have of conservatives . Sorry for the generalisation!

[delegate502]

I'm not sure we can ever know how much any of them understand stuch concerns, because there are other issues that they have to look at before they can dare say anything. They might be able to understand some of the problems I have in my life, but it may cost them too much to actually say so.

Sorry, I have a feeling I'm not expressing myself clearly but I know what I mean.

I get the feeling that however much politicians go into the job with the intention of being their for their people, the job gets in the way and they lose touch with reality. They get isolated on the island that is Westminster and lose the ability to relate life there with life in the real world. This isn't just with respect to "women's issues" but everything.

Not sure I trust any of them to look after the needs of women. Purely because I think it's an aspect of the job that barriers go up.

[delegate503]

1. DC more than the others, although that is him personally rather than his party. I too feel that his wife could well be a positive influence here. Also their own personal difficulties (child who died and first-hand experience of the NHS etc).
   

But I want to be treated as a person rather than a woman, so am not terribly interested in specific policies for women.
NC is the most out of touch with women IMHO. I find him quite hypocritical tbh (and met him in real life and he made my flesh crawl - sorry!)
Theresa May shows potential.

1. NC and EM put too much emphasis on it. Not a fan of quotas and positive discrimination.
   

1. Conservatives the most but, as I've said, it is not a huge issue to me.
   

Lib-dems the least - dont trust them on anything. One family member is a (local govt) lib-dem politician and I've met a fair number of their MPs and activists. Not been very impressed.

[delegate510]

I don't trust DC. All that 'calm down, dear' bullshit made me think that he doesn't see women as equals and actually has no idea what women's issues really are. So many of the cuts have affected women more than men.

NC I think had his heart in the right place at one time, but sold himself out.

I agree with the poster that said Labour are a big mess. They've got a long way to go before they will be ready to run the country again. It's hard to know what they stand for when they're such a shambles.

I think the most obvious politician that is aware of women's issues and cares about them is Caroline Lucas. I don't know much about her successor other than she has something to do with the Fawcett society, so I'd say the Greens are the best bet for people concerned about gender equality.

[delegate513]

1)
I'm not convinced that David Cameron does understand the issues facing women like me. The cuts introduced seem to disproportionately affect women. The damage he appears to be doing to the NHS, with many local maternity and paediatric units being downsized or closed. The ridiculous childcare proposals. "Calm down, dear". The list is endless.

I think Nick Clegg probably does understand women's issues.

I believe that Ed Miliband is probably a feminist. And I think he'd have a pretty good grasp on women's issues.

2)
I think in all parties women are underrepresented!!! I think Labour appear to have more women in their shadow cabinet than the Conservative cabinet (I'm saying this without looking it up though, so not sure if this is true). This maybe because of Labour's women only shortlists, which I don't feel comfortable with.
David Cameron obviously listens and trusts Theresa May. He also seems to respect Baroness Warsi, and she seems to be allowed a lot of airtime.
It's hard to comment about Nick Clegg, as I can only think of one female Lib Dem, Sarah Tether, and I am not sure how influential she is.
I'll be honest, I'm not sure if Ed Milliband does listen to women in his party as I haven't really seen him in action yet!!

I think maybe all parties need to work harder to encourage women into politics. Some women may be put off with the way politics is played. Maybe there needs to be more education of young women about politics, as many of my female friends claim to not care/know about politics to a greater extent then men do.

3)
I still think Labour will probably best look after the interests of women. This isn't based on anything specific, but I just believe they are the most "fair" party

[delegate514]

Thinking about when you decide which party to vote for, how important is the leader of the party in that decision?

In the age of televised debates it has become massively important for the main parties to have leaders that know how or can be coached on how to connect with the voters.

We witnessed Nick Clegg steal a march on Cameron and Brown last time out with his stage craft in the first debate only for Cameron in particular to close the gap by clearly having been coached within an inch of his life on body language and looking down the camera lens.

Clegg called questioners by name and seemed like an all round good egg, a breath of fresh air at the time at least..

Why?

The importance goes beyond that though for me. These people are wanting to lead our country, to represent it on the world stage. I don't want to give that job to just anyone.

What do you look for in a party leader? What makes a good party leader and what makes a bad one? What makes a good prime minister and what makes a bad one?

A good party leader needs to stand out from the crowd. Someone who can unite their party for the common good.

Likewise a good Prime Minister needs to be able to do the same for the country. Someone who having won, doesn't stick two fingers up to the people who didn't vote for them but says 'You didn't choose me but I'm someone with integrity who is going to try and deliver my manifesto promises and represent this country to the best of my ability. I'm here because your party wasn't doing the job, so give me a shot at it.'



Thinking about the party you voted for at the 2010 General Election and the party you would vote for now, has it changed?

I think that like many people I was seduced by the possibility that the Liberals might finally get a chance to break the two party order of things.

The reality was that Clegg was left with a choice of some power or no power and made the choice most people would have made under the circumstances with the hope of getting some policies on the books.

The reality was that he was of course completely hamstrung and seen by most as Cameron's bitch which was a sorry end for someone who initially appeared to have such credibility.

I am a labour voter historically, I believed in Blair and his charismatic new labour but worry that while the wrong Milliband is at the helm they have little to offer. The fact that they see so little urgency to have any real policies until presumably much closer to an election seems shortsighted and lazy.

I live in Scotland but have a polar opposite view to my fellow Scottish delegate extoling the virtues of Mr Salmond.

This man seeks to set himself apart from Westminster and yet for me he is exactly the same oily opportunistic individual that seeks to piggy back on anything that will give him credibility and cudos.

His vision for an independent Scottish state doesn't add up financially or practically and it's not long since he was siting the examples of the economies of Iceland and Ireland as models for Scotland and they haven't faired too well since.

Suffice to say I will be voting 'NO' and taking as many of my friends and neighbours with me as I can but in terms of general election I am utterly disillusioned and desperately hoping that Labour come to their senses.

[delegate514]

1. So, these days how well or badly do you think the current main party leaders are doing on understanding the issues and concerned facing women like you.
   First of all David Cameron?
   
   This man is out of touch. He wants to be a statesman, a major player in Europe.
   
   He's an opportunist, as they all are I guess but he couldn't possibly have conceived in his wildest dreams of overseeing a massively successful Olympics, Thatcher's death, a Wimbledon winner and a Royal birth in his short time in office. I'm sure these will be listed as achievements for his government come election time.
   
   On a more serious note, as an earlier delegate posted, his detachment from the needs of the weakest elements of our society when his own family has been touched by such tragedy seems cold to say the least.
   
   His concessions to the Lib Dems have been few and far between and the cracks emerged very quickly in that particular relationship.
   
   I suspect that behind the mask Mr Cameron is not as pro-women as he would like us to believe. There aren't enough women in important positions in Government to suggest any different.
   
   His approach to the benefits system and the NHS also suggests that he has little or no idea of the issues facing women in our society.
   
   
   
   And then Nick Clegg?
   
   I think Clegg is the whipping boy for the coalition and the Tories have been content to let that situation exist.
   
   He may well have plenty of positive ideas to progress the role and status of women in our society as he seems like a fair right-minded individual.
   
   Unfortunately due to him being seen as damaged goods in terms of his credibility, we may never get to hear any of them in a forum that matters.
   
   And then Ed Miliband?
   
   Ed Milliband will I hope and suspect be genuinely pro the feminist cause as the one thing I do believe about him is that he is someone with true labour ideals.
   
   However, until we can see and hear some policies delivered with some enthusiasm and charisma we won't know for certain.
   
   What about another party leader you know of (or one you think should/ could be a party leader) - please name them and then say: how well or badly do they do on this aspect?
   
   
2. and how well or badly do you think they make sure or take account of women being heard in their party and in politics generally?
   First of all David Cameron?
   
   With the Tories it has always seemed a little cosmetic with token women. Maybe that's perception more than fact but politics kind of works like that in many areas.
   
   And then Nick Clegg?
   
   I think Nick Clegg was a leader looking to give everyone a voice but these days he's struggling to even be heard himself.
   
   And then Ed Miliband?
   
   The jury is out on Ed Milliband on this until he is really put under the spotlight on the issues and we see who he sees as important in helping him get labour elected closer to the election.
   
   What about another party leader you know of (or one you think should/ could be a party leader) - please name them and then say: how well or badly do they do on this aspect?
   
   
3. Finally for now - which party - if any - do you trust the most to look after the interests of women? Why? And which do you trust the least? And why?
   
   In all honesty I would say the Lib Dems but it is a moot point as they will never again be given the opportunity because of the way the last election panned out.
   
   They made the most sense, seemed the most fair but due to the shortcomings of the two party system, so many voters would have needed to take a chance on them that the best that they could have hoped for was to be in a reasonably equal coalition and even that didn't materialise.
   
   As a result they got to increase the tax allowance to £10k and their BFH (Bus Fare Home) for those who didn't watch Bullseye.

[delegate511]

Thinking about when you decide which party to vote for, how important is the leader of the party in that decision? Why?

I'd like to say that the party and it's politics are bigger than the leader but I don't think I could vote for a party who's leader didn't appeal to me in some way. I suppose I need to feel I connect with who I am voting for and a leader I didn't trust would make me feel very uneasy about voting for that party.


What do you look for in a party leader? What makes a good party leader and what makes a bad one? What makes a good prime minister and what makes a bad one?

Someone who is not afraid to lead the party, someone who is't scared of rocking the boat every now and then and a leader with the ability to admit they got it wrong and who wants to try and put those wrong things right. I want someone who understands a little of what my life and the challenges I face are but I don't think that is going to happen in my lifetime. I don't know that there will be a party leader who knows what it is to live in social housing and to try to get by on a carer's wages. A good prime minister is not afraid to make decisions that are difficult and I want someone who is prepared to be truthful no matter how difficult that truth might be to swallow.

Thinking about the party you voted for at the 2010 General Election and the party you would vote for now, has it changed? Why? Why not?

I voted LibDem, would I vote for them again? No I would not. I feel they have sold their soul to the devil and backtracked on so many of the promises they made in the run up to the election.

I want to see politicians who do not sound like a gang of braying donkeys when parliament is in session. They often seem to behave in a way that would not be accepted in any other form of employment, heck even a class of very small children would not be allowed to heckle and ridicule each other in the way that our politicians carry on.

[delegate517]

Thinking about when you decide which party to vote for, how important is the leader of the party in that decision?Why?

The policies are the most important thing as they take longer to change/replace than a party leader - like turning a ship etc... The leader is very important too naturally, as they set the tone for the party's direction.

What do you look for in a party leader? What makes a good party leader and what makes a bad one? What makes a good prime minister and what makes a bad one?

I think you need the same qualities to be a party leader and a prime minister. Integrity is probably the most important quality as far as I'm concerned. And being grounded in the real world. They need to be doing it for the good of the people, not for themselves. That's one thing that really got me about Tony Blair - he seemed to just want to make a place for himself in the history books, and the country could just go hang... I don't like the smarm and the spin and the cooching babies to-show-what-a-great-guy-I-am. I'm looking for someone who is honest, empathetic, grounded and fair. In terms of big names in politics over the last couple of decades, I have liked John Smith and John Major, ... Both them quite unassuming yet far from ineffectual. I also admire Michael Portillo and William Hague.

I think that if someone is going to make decisions on slashes to benefits and public services etc then they should have to live under the conditions they dictate as being acceptable for a length of time to see if it's feasible. And by that I mean that they would have to pay for parking at work, tax on fuel, not get freebie lunches etc while paying for everything from that amount (not relying on savings to top it up). I think then that their opinions of what's doable might be changed vastly.

Thinking about the party you voted for at the 2010 General Election and the party you would vote for now, has it changed? Why? Why not?

To my shame I can't even remember the name of the party leader! That must mean the leader isn't as important as the policies for me as I'd still vote the same again.

[delegate521]

I second what 506 says - they can talk about understanding women all they like, but they're men s they never truly will. There are too few women in positions of real power (I'm not talking about the token females in office) to make a difference to our issues that really matter.

Case in point - VAT on sanitary products - when over 50% of our population needs these at least once a month, they should be classed as an essential item and be VAT exempt. They are not - with a woman in charge I like to believe they would be!

Regarding individual leaders, none of them seem to represent me and my issues. DC is, as mentioned above, too cold and ambitious to really understand the problems I, as a lone parent on income support (not through choice, as the current regime seem to think!) have to face every day.

Ditto NC - he never says anything, you get the impression he's invited along to show face but has no real power or decision making ability.

EM has zero charisma - I like to think he'd listen to the needs of women but have not seen evidence of this yet. I don't think he'd stick his neck out for us if it was needed - I get the feeling all three of them are in an exclusive "boys club" where women are not really welcome...

WHat it comes down to is that NO politician is going to fully represent me, as none of them have been in the position of having to choose between paying the electricity bill, or buying their children shoes. There is no way they will ever understand until they've experienced what real poverty is.

[delegate517]

1) So, these days how well or badly do you think the current main party leaders are doing on understanding the issues and concerned facing women like you. First of all David Cameron? And then Nick Clegg? And then Ed Miliband? What about another party leader you know of (or one you think should/ could be a party leader) - please name them and then say: how well or badly do they do on this aspect?

David Cameron seems to live in a world of his own, without much concept of what life is like for ordinary people in general, never mind women in particular.

Nick Clegg seems to have a much better idea, but I don't think he follows his beliefs as he should.

Ed Milliband... Who knows...? Just don't seem to know much about him really, he seems pretty ineffectual. Having said that he said something a few weeks ago that I agreed with. Can't remember what it was now though. As I say, pretty ineffectual!

2) and how well or badly do you think they make sure or take account of women being heard in their party and in politics generally? First of all David Cameron? And then Nick Clegg? And then Ed Miliband? What about another party leader you know of (or one you think should/ could be a party leader) - please name them and then say: how well or badly do they do on this aspect?

I don't think women are really heard or considered in politics. Women politicians have to show more "male" traits than "female" traits to get anywhere in politics, which rather defeats the object! It means essentially that we still don't have women who have the general women's issues represented in politics.

Having said that, I like to think of it all as "family" rather than "women" issues these days.

3) Finally for now - which party - if any - do you trust the most to look after the interests of women? Why? And which do you trust the least? And why?

I'd probably think of the lib dems being most interested in looking after the interests of women/families, but I'm not convinced that they'll actually get anything done, going on recent experience.

[AnnMumsnet]

Thanks again - we really appreciate all the comments.

The last questions for the weekend: please add your comments to these questions below - ideally by Monday morning but we'll give everyone an extra day to post if needed .

How well or badly do you think the party leaders could manage your household finances effectively?

First of all David Cameron?
And then Nick Clegg?
And then Ed Miliband?
What about another party leader you know of (or one you think should/ could be a party leader) - please name them and then say: how well or badly do they do on this aspect?

Imagine the party leaders had to live on your family budget, which do you think would cope best/worst? Why? What problems would they encounter?

First of all David Cameron?
And then Nick Clegg?
And then Ed Miliband?
What about another party leader you know of (or one you think should/ could be a party leader) - please name them and then say: how well or badly do they do on this aspect?

once more...MNHQ

[delegate506]

As a whole i wouldn't have much faith in them running our finances very well at all - they're not use to having to think about what gets spent where...

I'm fully aware that there are many people worse off than myself but we're by no means 'flush'. I'm careful when I do the shopping, I look at offers etc because that's how we manage the few extras we have iyswim.

I'd love to see all of them budget on a 'normal' (i know, there are many normal incomes, just can't think of a better way to word it) income.

If I had to pick one to manage better than the others on a tighter budget, i'd choose NC, but in all honesty it's not cos I think he'd manage any better - more that I think the others' would fare worse!

[delegate509]

Interesting questions!
I cannot see DC managing my household finances at all! I suppose of the three I see Ed paying bills and buying food in a vaguely 'normal' way but I can't see DC or NC doing it.

As for living on my family budget.....we are reasonably solvent but I am forever doling out money for music lessons, swimming lessons, school dinners, school trips/contributions, Brownies, etc etc. I am continuously haemmorhaging (sp) cash. That takes a certain degree of planning and organising in itself. I cannot imagine any of the three current party leaders succeeding in not pissing off at least one of the people I have to pay for something or other. I have no assistants, no PA, no cleaners, nothing. Oh, and no expense account ( nor indeed a 'flipped' second home) Neither do I have any family who can help out. I wonder if DC, NC or EM could manage all that and work?

I hate hate HATE those vile 'swap' schemes which are revived every so often , where MPs swap places with ordinary folk and prove to the world that they can manage Just Like The Plebs. Because they bloody can't, ever.

Someone upthread mentioned Andy Burnham. I also think he is ok; an ordinary person with no delusions of grandeur. He would probably be able to run my house for a bit . And as I said before, perhaps dear old Hillary Benn.

[delegate502]

I'm with 506 - a) I don't think any of them could manage my finances wonderfully, and b) I doubt they could live on my family's budget particularly well.

Saying that:

a) I doubt they could cope better than I, if they were in the same situation as I am. I'm fairly financially savvy, and think I do very well with what's available to me.

b) of course they COULD live on it if they had to, if there was no other choice available to them, but not happily, and probably not for long.

The problem I feel with this is, that whatever their background and whatever experiences they've had in the past, once they get into government they get a salary and a lifestyle which is hugely different to that which most other people in this country have. They lose touch with the common man and the problems he faces. I'd love to politicians living in council houses, and being paid minimum wage. I think they'd gain the respect of the country if they were forced to live like the majority of their constituents. Then they would know what problems we are facing and then might be encouraged to deal with them practically.

[delegate517]

I'm not sure any of them could manage on what we have to live on. To be honest I'm really not sure how we manage to live off it! I guess our income has been chipped down over the years, and our outgoings have increased so we've gradually approached the breadline. Maybe if they were to do the same then they'd be ok. However, in my experience it's always the woman of a partnership who manages the family's finances through hard times, and is the one doing the belt tightening and looking for alternative ways of doing things. I think out of the three David Cameron would be the worst, and just wouldn't have a clue what to do. I think Nick Clegg and his wife would pull together to get through the hard times. I think maybe Ed Milliband would be best at coping, but I don't really know what I'm basing that opinion on!

[delegate516]

Of course they couldn't live our life & budget - if for no other reason than the fact that its always hard to reduce your circumstances. I'm sure they'd all do well if it was a PR exercise, but if they had to really live here for more than a few days they round hate it. And we're not in the poverty line or anything, we just have to be ever careful.

It depends if they would live our lives, or theirs on our money. For example, there's def no money here for suits and dry cleaning! And they'd all find it hard to be without a car.

On the other hand, given the responsibility of their jobs, they should be able to balance my household books like its second nature! Maybe they could reassess our finances with a fresh eye? I think they would accept that challenge, expecting to see lots f luxury spending to cut back. I wonder what they would cut from my life? My bus pass, in favour iof walking everywhere with 2 kids? Dh's one bottle of £3.49 wine a week?

I also wonder if they'd miss not having sky tv :-)

[delegate516]

Just a thought though - I think in my head, I assume they'd find it hard not only for the lifestyle difference, but also because I assume they don't control their own household budget - surely their jobs are too busy to deal with running a house too?

[delegate521]

The problem I feel with this is, that whatever their background and whatever experiences they've had in the past, once they get into government they get a salary and a lifestyle which is hugely different to that which most other people in this country have. They lose touch with the common man and the problems he faces. I'd love to politicians living in council houses, and being paid minimum wage. I think they'd gain the respect of the country if they were forced to live like the majority of their constituents. Then they would know what problems we are facing and then might be encouraged to deal with them practically.

^
What she said...

Seriously, there is no way that any of the current crop of politicians will EVER know what it's really like to be us. I manage my finances pretty well - no wiggle room, and a serious wobble if I get an unexpected bill - but I manage because I have experience living without. The leaders of the parties could try to live on the £65 a week I currently survive on - but I doubt they'd last very long... if anyone would give it a go, for a year, I'd vote for them! I really would...

[delegate506]

It would be quite interesting to know just how much or little they all know about the real cost of living - grocery prices, gas, electricity, bin day etc...

Obviously I don't know their bank balances though i suspect its healthier than mine but im guessing they want for nothing (essentials wise). They won't have to think about the cost of their everyday items in the same way a lot of us do - let's be honest they probably make a list and their supplies appear as if the fairies brought them in the middle of the night. I can't imagine any of them nipping to their local tescos for their weekly shop.

This is partly why I shy away from politics to a certain extent, Their lives are so far removed from my own that there is no way they can relate to me

[delegate504]

One would hope that they all have some understanding of ?womens issues and concerns? after all none of them are living totally separate from women as they all have mothers, wives etc, but I would rather that they thought of these issues as part of something else rather than separate them into nice little women only issues.
And womens issues and concerns can be so totally different, in that what might be important to one woman with a working husband , children and a job would be totally different to a single unemployed woman.
I don?t know who I trust the most or the least where women?s issues are concerned. I know I am not a fan of positive discrimination, quotas etc