MNHQ calling: we want to know what would be on your policy wishlist

[RowanMumsnet]

Over the years, when MNers have got stuck into issues they particularly care about, we've often seen agreement (or something approaching agreement ) around particular policy ideas.

As the May 2015 general election approaches (ish), we’d like to find out what you think about what the next government should do - parenting-related or otherwise. Which commitments would you like to see in the parties’ manifestos? What would make you consider switching your vote (or voting at all, if you don’t currently intend to)? Which issues do you think deserve to be top priority for incoming ministers?

We’ve collectively campaigned on or added our support to others' campaigns around a number of issues, such as:

affordable, available childcare;
better provision of education, health and social services for children with additional needs;
better miscarriage care;
more and better sex and relationships education in schools;
the availability and variety of contraception;
getting sales reps off maternity wards;
flexible working; and
tackling FGM.

Other issues that seem to crop up regularly are bringing down the cost of some school uniforms; and more and/or better-paid parental leave, including paternity leave and bereavement/adjustment leave.

Are there other things Mumsnetters collectively agree on? Are those on the above list still as important to you as they have been? We’d thought we'd throw out this entirely unscientific starter for 10 with a view to informing a more nuanced analysis of each issue and a fuller survey of Mumsnet users in time for, no doubt, the string of ministers and ministerial hopefuls headed our way come early next year when the election campaign gets into full swing.

So please do let us know what you think.

Thanks
MNHQ

[missgoogly45]

No public school boys in the Cabinet for a change

[missgoogly45]

Abolish Iain duncan smiths meaness towards the disabled and the crackpot bedroom tax

[TreadSoftlyOnMyDreams]

Ban Christmas decorations, music and themed shopping centres unless it's actually December.
No Easter Eggs to go on sale until 4 weeks before Easter

Proper paid one months paternity leave at full salary provided it is taken as part of 12 month paid entitlement.

[FridgeHalfFull]

Two things would catch my attention:

• more money spent on staff in schools, less on policy and random curriculum development (eg. higher ratio of TAs in primary school - there's a whole army of educated 10-2ers who could be drafted in here)
  

• parliament transformation and modernisation. Who gets how it works now? Make it look like the modern work world....eg.Make it compulsory for MPs to be transparent in what work they do each day and put in place proper performance contracts. Annual performance reviews. We shouldn't have to wait for elections for poor performers to be fired! another eg. PM Qs eg. more work less time engaging media and party campaigning.

[Cherrypi]

Some great ideas on here so far.
I think we should protect renters more. More notice before being chucked out and longer contracts. Stop privatising everything - schools, NHS etc. I didn't even know all forensic services had been privatised.
Optional paid sabbaticals available for teachers every five years so they don't burn out. Maybe this could be when they get thoroughly up to date with mental health and SEN issues.
Increase the minimum wage. There shouldn't be an need for working tax credits.
I think a citizens' wage would be a good idea but don't think it will ever happen.

[Uptheairymountain]

Welfare reform, but the reverse of what's being done now. Welfare reform to match the average 25% + GDP spend of other EU countries (eg Germany), rather than the pitiful 6% currently spent in the UK. Use the money to end child poverty. Spend any surplus on the NHS.

[EasilyDistracted77]

Equal rights for men regarding paternity leave. Not sharing it with their partner, but the right to have the same amount of time off as the mother after the birth of their child.

[PetaPipa]

I would like to see value given to stay-at-home parenting and respect and financial support given to parents who choose to look after their pre-schoolers themselves.

[RowanMumsnet]

Hello

Many thanks for all of these.

We're head down in preparing the next stage of our Miscarriage Care campaign at the moment, but we'll be back soon with a longer response.

[Blondieminx]

I don't think we've lost our sense of family, it's more a case that most women work now and sometimes we move away from our parents to find work. Then when they get older and need care, there is already that physical distance barrier on top of the economic one.

[autumnsmum]

I agree with the point up thread about dla renewals , there are many conditions that are not going tpchange

[3littlefrogs]

It is extraordinarily difficult to get a place in a care home even if you are self funding. In fact if you are not self funding and have no family you are much more likely to end your days in isolation with 4 ten minute visits from a state funded carer per day. It is grim. Self funding costs upwards of £700 per week.(£900 in London). It isn't an easy option by any means.
However, we will have to agree to differ on this TrueGent as this is not really the point of this thread.

[TrueGent]

ik8 - I apologise, that did come across as a sweeping generalisation.

What I should have said was that your closing phrase, "They are effectively subsidising the state after all." suggests that you see State activity as the default position (i.e. carers removing a burden from the State as opposed to what is actually happening which is the State helping carers financially). Maybe you don't.

3littlefrogs - yes, Asian families living in the UK may well be facing similar issues but my point is that, generally speaking, they will continue to look after their relatives long after "western families" (sic) have put them into a home or got someone else to care instead.

We have lost our sense of family, alas.

[gruffalocake2]

Housing is the biggest issue for me, but I also think it has massive implications for everybody whether they own/rent whatever.

Nobody seems to be talking about the longer term problems of people being unable to buy. If people can't buy they will be pensioners still paying rent, pensions are crap so they won't be able to afford it, so the government will pick up the tab in the form of housing benefit (this isn't a benefit bash, I've been in receipt of HB until recently). The country will simply not be able to afford to pay for an ageing population to all be adequately housed at vastly inflated rental prices. We need a radical solution to get people into their own homes at an affordable price.
The social benefits of allowing families to put down roots, children to see out their schooling in one school etc. are also huge. Renting means families live in constant unease that they may have to leave their home with only 2 months notice.

Conservative's Help to Buy and Labour's rent capping ideas are both terrible (rent cap will decrease supply and distort the market). We need more house building preferably via massive tax breaks to smaller independent local developers in places people actually want to live, building homes of an adequate size.

We also probably need taxes on second homes and to reshape housing law/taxes so that being a landlord is a stable long term option not a way to make a quick buck. More like Germany where the housing market is very stable.

We also need a revision to stamp duty to make it progressive because currently families are scraping together a deposit only to find all the houses in their area will require 10k of stamp duty minimum(SE).

[3littlefrogs]

I have contact with many Asian families in the UK who are caring for elderly relatives. They have the same issues to deal with as western families do, as their parents and PIL are living well into old age and dementia, incontinence, and the endless round of appointments, assessments etc that comes with this.
Many of my family still live in Asia. They can all afford to have live in carers as labour is very cheap. One great aunt lived until she was 92. She was bedridden for 10 years, but there was a maid in her room constantly for all that time, doing all the necessary care. TBH, the family were all pretty much able to get on with their day to day lives.

The poor people (of whom there are many, simply don't live that long, so the issue doesn't arise.

Comparing the two cultures is a huge oversimplification IMO.

I do look after my elderly relatives, but it is hard while holding down a job in the NHS as well.

[iK8]

Yup, still talking bollocks there truegent. Although I did have a snigger at "people like you"

You really shouldn't presume to know anything about me beyond what I post because it is a) quite rude b) likely to make you look like you base things on supposition instead of fact.

[TrueGent]

3littlefrogs, I am sorry that my post enraged you.

You make some valid comparisons between times gone by and nowadays but, of course, neither of us has given the full picture, which would also mention:
The massive increase in living standards for all levels of society since WW2;
The massive reduction in the cost of holidays, computers, phones and other things once seen as "luxuries" and now viewed by many as "necessities".

Other countries' populations have experienced the same changes but have retained the sense of love and duty towards their relatives that we have lost, by and large.

This is a cultural shift as people have become more self-centred and so they whinge here on Mumsnet about their parents and parents-in-law in ways that people from much of Asia (Africa too) would find incomprehensible.

It's all me, me, me - with my "right" to a holiday/job/phone/iPad/easy life trumping my responsibilities to those that brought me up.

[3littlefrogs]

Truegent
Your last post has enraged me.
People cared for their sick and elderly relatives as a matter of course in the days when people lived until their 70s and dementia was rare.
They did it when housing was affordable and spacious and there were district nurses to visit and help.
They did it when it didn't take two adults working full time to pay for somewhere to live.
They did it when there were jobs for young adults to bring money into the household.
They did it when it didn't cost a fortune to support your children through further education and they didn't leave university with a mountain of debt and little chance of employment.

I have been caring for elderly relatives for upwards of 20 years.
As a community nurse I see the strain and stress this brings to families.
The increase in dementia coupled with people living till their late 90s is creating a huge problem for families.
I worked to help my children pay for their university education so they wouldn't be saddled with huge debts.
Carer's allowance is an absolute pittance.

[TrueGent]

iK8 - one of the cleverest things that the Blair/Brown Labour Government did was to pay people to do things that they used to do for free.

Time was, people would care for their older, poorer, sicker relatives for reasons of love, compassion, duty. The creation and payment of "carers' allowances" to relatives or friends replaced these benign motives with financial ones, overseen and endorsed by the State.

The consequence is that people like you now see State activity as the 'default setting' and any deviation therefrom as an aberration. You probably refer to the 'Bedroom tax' as well, don't you?

Very clever politics and, in your case at least, highly effective.

[MacenroeTheBoatAshore]

To tighten up the justice system, its a joke atm.

the perps get away ewith it and the victims get penalised or made to suffer.

and make more tighter laws about anti social behaviour, racism, disablists etc.

tougher jail sentences, jails should be jails, not Butlins holiday camps.

[debbietheduck]

Some attempt to address the housing crisis would be good - more social housing, better legal protection for tenants and just more houses (on brownfield sites as far as possible).

Stop privatising the NHS, the prison service, the child protection service etc.

Stop banging on about the deficit. It doesn't actually matter that much. Large numbers of unemployed people are a wasted resource and the government should pay them to do something useful.

[iK8]

Wow, what a lot of mansplaining Truegent. You are, of course, talking utter bollocks.

Thankfully we live in a democracy where we each get a vote regardless of income (excepting those legally excluded due to residency status, imprisonment or nationality). Or would you have those taking more out of the pot than they put in denied a vote too? Old people in state funded care, the sick receiving expensive cancer treatment, those who had a baby in the last year or who have a child in state funded education... they're all eating up the pot aren't they and not putting so much in. Or is it just those on benefits you take issue with? And is it all of them or are those who have serious disabilities so they cannot work excused? Maybe a few of those lazy cancer patients or those with serious mobility problems should just show a bit more gumption? Perhaps someone in a coma could be usefully employed? Perhaps as a draft excluder? They don't move about much do they?

Maybe those in receipt of carers' allowance who provide what is, in effect, extremely discounted labour at something like 30p an hour for a service that would cost £15-50 an hour on the open market should get an extra vote? They are effectively subsidising the state after all.

[TrueGent]

iK8 - benefit claimants paying VAT are merely 'churning' public money.
True tax-payers are those that (a) are paid from private enterprise and (b) earn above the threshold of net contribution (i.e. ~£24k).

One could argue that it is they that deserve a say (i.e. a vote) over how their money is spend; those below that level are benefiting from others efforts and it could be argued have no right to a say, let alone a vote.

But that's not how politics works in this country - we kowtow to the weak, poor, incompetent and burdensome and they are in charge, alas.

[iK8]

Bit of a straw man there TrueGent. Comparing dishonest thieves with those in receipt of benefits is like comparing apples and oranges, except in this case your apples are rotten.

They only people who pay £0 tax are in tax avoidance schemes diddling the system or doing some creative (and probably morally dubious) accounting involving overseas residency. Even your benefit claimants pay VAT.

[TrueGent]

"Tax evaders and shameless tax avoiders. To be stripped of public honours. If you don't pay all your tax in this country you don't to decide what happens."

What about those that don't pay tax? Or indeed, those that are net recipients of welfare (i.e. receiving more than they contribute) - should they be treated differently also?