The Queen's Speech - Newsnight would like to know what we think of it

[JustineMumsnet]

Good morning Mumsnetters,
Newsnight's Michael Crick is coming to visit and wants to know about what we all think of the government's plans as to be revealed (but of course already heavily trailed) in the Queen's Speech Today.

Here's a helpful summary from the BBC.

So what are your thoughts please?

[policywonk]

Oh, and what REALLY gets people going on here - and something that politicans of all parties should pay attention to if they really want the MN vote - is special needs provision. Which doesn't seem to feature in the Queen's Speech at all, but is a huge concern on here.

Lots of parents of/carers for children with special needs on Mumsnet, and those of us who don't have any direct experience of it have had our eyes opened by the experiences of those who have.

[WilfSell]

And therefore, what the LP need to do is to engage voters on policies that pick on emotional climate. I think the justification of empathy is an important ideological position but I suspect that moment has passed for many as they feel the heat of competition for resources.

[edam]

Tories would have to do an awful lot to convince me all their fine words in opposition won't be instantly forgotten once they are in power. It's clear they are in bed with Murdoch (junior) and already rowing back on crown jewels sports thing. Not that I give a toss about sport on TV, but an indication of the way the wind is blowing - and very worrying wrt the future of the Beeb, which given the way the newspaper industry is going will be increasingly important in terms of funding decent journalism.

Tory front bench are a bunch of elite ex-public school boys. How on earth can they convince the electorate that they have a clue what our lives are like? Especially as they don't seem to think they have any women or any ordinary comp-educated people with enough talent to be on the front benches?

[cakeywakey]

Hello Newnight,

I certainly won't be voting for the shower that are in at the moment, but am yet to be convinced by the Tories. And can we hear a bit more from the Lib Dems please? Come on guys, speak up a bit!

On the issue of making families and child care central at the next election - is it crucial? No, I don't think it is. It's very important, but no more so than the economy, care of elderly people and climate change. All of these issues are interlinked, I don't see that families are more 'crucial' than any of these others.

[onebatmother]

Beyond my personal interest in schools - child poverty, social mobility v important. Looks like the child poverty targets will be legally binding so future govt will be boxed in - good.

Re too political? Not for me, I think a line in the sand is a very good idea (but am biased). I don't want any muddiness come the GE, any perception that they're all much of a muchness and 'it's someone else's turn'. They're not much of a muchness AT ALL.

[MmeLindt]

Hello Newsnight.

I am not a voter at all, due to the fact that I live in Switzerland but if I were then I would not reduce the deciding issues to those affecting parents.

I am not 'just a mum' so would not vote with only my Mum hat on.

The issues that are important to me are varied and so I would look to see which party is closest to my political viewpoint.

[gizmo]

Quite right Wilf.

Newsnight, what you've got here is a small and self selecting group of policy geeks (sorry ladies) - the type of people who read manifestos and white papers. Not exactly representative. However, there are frequently threads about the impact of politics on people's lives which are much more revealing about the way they decide how to vote.

[tattycoram]

This focus group mumsnet thingy thing is all a bit odd. Newsnight, No, I don't think that people on mumsnet are more likely to swing voters than anyone else. Why would we be? We are just people who happen to have children.

I'm not as concerned about extra funding for childcare as I am about funding for long term care for the elderly but that's because I have frail in-laws. So of course ones priorities are determined by circumstances to some extent.

Hell will freeze over before I am convinced by David Cameron.

[WilfSell]

Jowell is awful. It's all about how shit things are and how they're going to crack down blah blah.

We want plans for good news. Positive human endeavour. Perhaps they have run out of ideas.

Still won't vote for Dave though.

[edam]

Wilfsell is right, although I wouldn't have picked that particular thread out. There is a lot of political discussion on here but not labelled 'Queen's Speech', it's in our everyday conversations about all sorts of other stuff.

[tattycoram]

Bloody hell Nick Robinson let his political allegiance slip somewhat there on News 24 I thought "look in their eyes and ask who you want leading the country at the next election - Gordon Brown again, (pause) or David Cameron".

[morningpaper]

We're interested in the idea that it is the people who use this site that the
politicians of all parties are targeting at the next election? Are they right to
think you're swing voters?

On a site like this it tends to be the non-swing-voters that make all the noise. When it comes to matters of internet argument, half the fun is interacting with people who are VERY opinionated and watching people argue like a dog with a bone. Bear in mind that at home, most of us only argue about who-dolly-belongs-to, then a bit of argy-bargy on here is fun and stimulating. There probably are a lot of swing voters who enjoy watching arguments on here and use them to make up their own minds about issues of the day.

Have you decided who you'll vote for yet?

Personally I'll vote for anything to keep the Tories out, because their policies will inevitably be bad for families, for the elderly, and for the vulnerable in society. The Tories have never been about fairness and they never will be.

Initiatives such as tax credits make the difference for lots of working mums as to whether it's worth going out to work at all (bear in mind that if you have pre-school children, you will need to be earning £24k pro rata just to pay the nursery fees).

And projects such as Sure Start - which have come into a huge amount of criticism - do excellent work in my local area, bringing in mums who are living in a lot of social and economic isolation and giving them access to professionals that they would not otherwise have. I've seen young mums start cooking sessions with their toddlers and they don't notice when their children go off to play - the mums are too busy making pizzas or learning about how they can make bread at home. It's such a great opportunity but it is likely to come to an end because it is virtually impossible to qualitatively measure the success of that sort of initiative.

Personally I'm also very concerned about the future of the third sector - charities are going to be massively hit by spending cuts in the next few years, and I'm sure those will accelerate under the Tories. Labour have been brilliant at funding the voluntary sector but it is drying up now that grant-making bodies are losing income due to the economic downturn. Charities are a huge opportunity for working women because they often offer part-time and flexible hours.

As a post-script, I know that financially, it is probably inevitable that every family is going to be worse off to the tune of thousands of pounds in a couple of years, and that would be easier to accept if Labour had taken more steps to cut tax loopholes for large companies so we could see that it wasn't just us suffering...!

Sorry that's all a bit rambly... good luck with your report!

[policywonk]

I think what is interesting about Mumsnet as a focus group (and I know a lot of MNers hate being thought of as a focus group) is the political split revealed by the census results: 17 per cent Labour, 16 per cent Cons, 16 per cent LibDem, 11 per cent Green (this is from memory) and everyone else not telling/undecided/mad UKIP

It's a much more even split than in the country at large, and much more to the left I suspect, and much more support for smaller leftish parties.

[onebatmother]

Beginnings of a list of Things I'm worried about come the Cameron revolution:
Surestart
the BBC
Failing schools without cohort of middle class parents to whoosh their kids up into a little church hall and get back to basics.
Third sector taking the place of govt bodies with, you know, money.

[MadameDefarge]

Hm, Newsnight, you might want to do a crash course on putting questions clearly.

So basically the NN hook is that sites like MN are prime targets for politicians to engage with because the majority of us on here are swing voters? That can't be right, surely? Did the Times not say that on 37% of us are undecided (admittedly that is a large proportion, but not the majority? oh and btw, MNHQ did I miss the Who Will You Vote for Thread that must have been based on?)

Do you mean that sites like MN have become important because it is possible to address a wide range of political opinion at the same time? And so possible to lure the undecided to your side?

And what do you mean it is crucial to make families and child care central at the next election? Do you mean should they stuff their manifestos pull of family and child friendly policies and initiatives because they have little else to offer? Or that it is only families and parents who are going to be bothered to engage actively in the election, so they might as well focus on them?

As for being convinced by the Conservatives, what do you mean? Am I convinced they are a bunch of idiots/the saviours of the country? Did you mean that are we convinced that they are capable of running the country?

Of course they are capable of it (that's the point of the civil service, after all, the hand hold all the newbies) but to answer your question, I suppose I think that they are still entrenched in opposition politics, and have no coherent vision of how they would change the systems holistically for a better future.

As for does the Queen's speech being political, of course it is, she is just delivering the government's wish list, as she has always done. That's what its for.

[MissingMyWheels]

What did you make of the Queen's
Speech ?

Political!

We're interested in the idea that it is the people who use this site that the politicians of all parties are targeting at the next election? Are they right to think you're swing voters?

From what most people talk about on here, I'd say that's very much the case. You get the odd staunch Conservative or Labour voice, but in the main chatters on here are centralist (maybe slightly to the left), and waiting to be impressed by the policies of one or other of the parties.

Have you decided who you'll vote for yet?

Yes - it was never in doubt who I would vote for.

Do you think it is crucial that Labour or the Conservatives make families and child care central at the next election?

I think if policy is allowed to come into an election that is mainly going to be overshadowed by the economy and recent events in Westminster, welfare and family policy will be a key consideration. It has always been something Labour feel comfortable fighting on, but given the work Iain Duncan-Smith has been doing with the Centre for Social Justice, I think the Tories will feel happy talking about it too.

Does this Queen's speech seem very political to you?

Extremely.

Are you convinced by the Conservative Party?

Extremely

[onebatmother]

Yes PW and tattycoram sure I saw something which said that the greatest number of swingers (arf) are parents in the 25-45 age group.

Also there's a perception that parents can be 'got' with directed policy. They are more selfish (in the sense that they vote according to the outcome for them, and less on principle), are often edging right - partic amongst liberal middle class.

[Aubergines]

Hi NN,

I do not think it was a particularly political Speech. As somebody said earlier the Government had to announce new legislation, they had no choice. As it is they announced very little that was new. Half those measures are in Bills already. The measures don?t seem particularly populist to me. A couple are, others are necessary (flood management, file sharing legislation etc). I think legislating to cut the national debt is the prime example of a populist move and a terrible idea to boot (see my earlier e-mail).

I think education must be central to any Party?s election strategy. Education, education, education. It is key and is a prime concern for all parents and hopefully all citizens. However I am far from sure the measures in this Speech are enough to convince me that there will be any changes for the better, it sounds like further bureaucracy to me. I want simple, targeted changes like: flexibility for summer borns in when they start school, an end to schools discriminating on the grounds of education, an end to needless testing and most importantly MORE MONEY FOR SCHOOLS AND TEACHERS. Neither of the other Parties have convinced me of the validity of their education plans either. In fact I would struggle to say what the other Parties? policies are on education. Maybe Cameron can clarify that when he does his next chat.

[WilfSell]

I think none of the parties are really dealing properly yet with inequality and lack of aspiration. As the recent threads on the BNP show, the failure of the metropolitan elites to really address issues facing diverse and less diverse communities is creating a vacuum which fascists are filling.

It is NOT about migration or immigration, it is about providing respect for self and others through work and education. But more than this, I think work needs to be done in communities on identity, belonging and neighbourliness. The real issue is the sense of 'not belonging' that leads to disaffection. I can recommend an extensive reading list to any politician who wishes to do a PhD with me do more than have a knee-jerk response.

[domesticextremist]

Agree with your list of things to worry about under the Tories onebat and would like to add the NHS as well [shudders].

[Aubergines]

And I am afraid I totally disagree with OneBat that binding child poverty targets are a good thing.

I repeat from below: pledges enshrined in legislation are a bad idea. There are three reasons for this: (1) it carries a great risk that the courts will interfere with political/parliamentary judgments about priority setting (Government must be responsible for economic policy, the courts lack expertise and are not elected); (2) it means one Party trying to hold future Governments to its own aims by enshrining them in legislation and (3) if the target is missed then there will be a long and expensive judicial review process - more public money into the pockets of lawyers.

[Ewe]

I am a swing voter and have yet to decide who I will be voting for - not convinced by the tories, but not convinced by anyone else either at this stage. For me, the family and childcare policies along with fiscal policy will decide who I vote for but as I say, there is nothing overwhelming me either way at the moment.

If the tories outlined what they are actually going to do with tax credits that would go a long way to help me decide whether or not to vote for them. That is a big stumbling block for me at the moment and I found all of the tory reform documents so vague they may as well have not even existed.

I think the reason that politicians are targeting this site is because of the equal split between supporters of the three main parties, assume you've seen the census?

[WilfSell]

We need a few famous MN rightwhingers here for balance.

Where is SomeGuy? smallwhitecat? Even daftpunk