Mumsnet manifesto (really!)

[CatherineHMumsnet]

When we launched our 'Mumsnet manifesto' www.mumsnet.com/politics/mumsnet-manifesto for April Fool's Day, we did include a number of policies we know Mumsnetters feel strongly about - just to get that authentic feel. Now we've been emailed by Yahoo, who are launching a People's Policies and they want to know if Mumsnet had a single policy we'd like to see the winning party take on board, what would it be.

Over to you...

i want YOU to win catherine.

I think that you could perhaps gather feelings for a single policy, just for Yahoo! but given the mess that the country is in at present, it would be worth getting some feedback over the next couple of weeks on a range of issues too.

You could then actually have your own proper MN Manifesto covering policies across the spectrum (admittedly it's asking a lot of MNHQ) but if even half of the politicians saw how bad their own policies were when compared with those of MN, they might get the hint that "listening to the public" is still not something the public believe happens.

I'll shut up before I suggest some policies which might point too much in one direction!

Something about provision for families of children with SN - to do with respite maybe? Guaranteed respite for four weeks a year?

Only if they were willing to say what they'd cut to pay for it.

Put up income tax! I don't get how no-one wants to put it up - how one earth do they expect to keep paying for the ever increasing cost of services without ever increasing tax?!

Don't know the mathematics of it but how about no-income tax for the lowest earners up to gazillions for those that get ridiculously high wages. And close all the tax loopholes - if this will drive away all the high earners so be it - its not like they are actually contributing anything!

oh god someone will say surestart... as nromal
then anti pasti

Just to stop lying, spinning, thinking we are all as thick as shit, being frightened about and second guessing what The Sun might print about them, talking in sound bites and being vague about important policies

Basically get some balls and some integrity.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine - you've just voiced the intention of the Lib Dems - no tax for earnings below 10,000, additional help for pensioners as they have been "left behind", and closing tax loopholes that supposedly mean some of the richest pay less tax per pound than the office cleaners.

(I wrote "supposedly" because I've seen or heard mention of it in the media, but not recently, and cannot understand what loopholes there are which make this possible.)

Decide what it is YOU believe and how YOU think you should impliment it. Then you tell us clearly and we can decide which one of you is most in line with our own thoughts and beliefs. Stop saying whatever you think we want to hear just to be elected.

Well put LadyBB

Interesting hearing Gordon today, when asked about VAT, saying nothing about whether a rise might happen.

Said there would be no VAT on food and a few other things, and then gave a history lesson on how VAT went from 8% to 15% to 17.5% but just wouldn't answer the journalist's question.

Wriggle, wriggle, spout off comments about another party, but avoid "simple" questions... not the type of politician I could vote for.

put up income tax 2-3% and scrape National insurance altogether and raise the PA

webdude this claim has been dismissed by the www.ifs.org.uk/publications/4813 IFS. Because of not counting any benefits paid to the 'poorer' tax payer.

Sorry bad link- Try this IFS

Agree with Itsallgoingtobefine. Plus it would be vv funny if Mumsnet's GE2010 policy was announced as 'put up income tax'. That'd fox the Daily Mail.

I think (jackstarbright) that it was a different thread where I linked to the IFS myself.

Still think that there are instances where top earners have (currently) legitimate tax avoidance schemes in place (NB not tax evasion) which means they get to keep more.

WebDude my Link shows that the poor do not pay more of their income in tax than the rich - which was the LibDems latest claim. The IFS have used the same numbers as the LibDems.

"The Liberal Democrats have, once again, claimed that the poor pay more of their income in tax than the rich, and that this gap has got larger under Labour. But, by ignoring the fact that the poor get most of this income from the state in benefit and tax credit payments, and by overstating the extent to which indirect taxes are paid by the poor, this comparison is meaningless at best and misleading at worst."

Actually I found this report (published today) very interesting.

Agree that whoever gets in should clamp down on tax avoidance, by individuals and corporations.

The single policy I would like to see is additional help I know thats an extremely broad based statement) for carers, families and parents of anyone who has SN.

The fact that Riven got a visit from Cameron just goes to show it's one they know is a winner (I mean, come on, 13 years ago, before we all had MN and the internet and made our voices heard), would Blair have visited a random (sorry Riv!!) voter? No.

It's a part of any manifesto which seems to be sorely lacking.

I think the tax loophole idea is a bit of a non starter. According to this OU article if "your income comes from employment, there is very little scope for avoidance. HM Revenue has it pretty well pinned down."

And my take from this Guardian article is that corporate tax avoidance is pretty tough to stop in the 'Global economy' where large corporations can choose In which of their international bases to declare their profits.

"An extensive Guardian investigation has examined the accounts of the UK's biggest companies - many of them household names - and discovered a series of sophisticated tax strategies which, critics say, amount to an almost unstoppable tide of perfectly legal corporate tax avoidance."

Stopping tax evasion is, of course, another matter. But I expect, like catching benefit cheats, more important for the principle than as a great revenue generator.