Progress

Other than a very short one by another man and one by me, these are the comments under this. In view of the site, their authors, other than the last one, will certainly be Labour voters and almost certainly active members of the Labour Party:

Marie

Actually what the women we talk to want is for care-giving to be recognised rather than encouraging women to replace unpaid care work with paid care which they don't all want.

Socio-economic systems (and the language of policy) can value and reward invisible care-giving in all sorts of ways - for example by having a more family friendly taxation system, or through protection for child benefit, or schemes like citizen's income.

Also some countries offer home-care allowances.

Talking respectfully about the importance of caregiving and about the contribution of caregivers would also be welcome since giving or receiving care is part of the human condition.

We don't want our primary school children to do long days away from home - we believe that the school day is long enough.

We don't want young babies to have to go into baby rooms and childcare settings, at least not for long hours, and preferably not unless all other avenues are explored to try and avoid separation between mother and baby or father and baby.

Yes we agree we need better hourly rates of pay for everyone, including our young people. But we also need affordable housing and more social housing to protect the welfare net.

Yes we agree to scrapping the bedroom tax.

The trouble with Labour (and others) is that they only want to hear the voices of some women - not all.

Many women value the time they are able to give to caregiving.

We think caring for family is important and the only thing which makes us feel less equal is the attitude of policymakers who devalue care.

Kerry

Every time that Labour or any other politicians talk about family friendly policy they only ever focus on childcare. What about families that want to have a parent at home to raise their children?

It is also childcare but families with a stay at home parent are completely overlooked by politicians & erased from debates about childcare.

We are unfairly discriminated against in the tax & benefit system & patronised & ignored by politicians.

I would like to see families like mine recognised & supported.

Sarah 

The Feminist movement was about giving women choice and freedom; forcing women to leave small children to return to the workplace simply to make ends meet and facilititating it with wraparound childcare is not progress.

I dare you to ask your constituents - would you like us to enable you as a family to have one parent at home raising your children?

And I dare you to consider your policies with Article 3 (1) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in front of you, and answer honestly whether the drive to push ever younger children in to longer and longer hours of childcare is truly in the best interests of the child.

Hannah

As a stay-at-home mum I would love to see my interests represented by any of the main parties.

My husband and I have made considerable sacrifices to our quality of living in order to provide our children with what we see as the best start in life - the security and comfort of having mummy at home.

My children are now four and six, and confident, secure, and already well educated.

We expect to raise useful, reliable members of society. In return the government taxes us harder than families where both parents work,

It would be good to have a tax system that took the family as a unit (rather than treating it as having two incomes) and also recognised the number of dependants within a household. 

I would like my position as a full-time-mother to be respected.

I intend to raise my children to believe that relationships are what give their lives meaning and value, not a pay-packet, and it would be nice to find a political representative who valued family over the economy.

If mothers of small children need to work (given the tax burden levied against families it is hardly surprising when they do), it would be nice to see the government supporting a wider range of child-care choices.

It has been demonstrated by numerous social and psychological studies that nursery is far from an ideal environment for under-threes - a child minder or an au pair for example, offer a small child the intimacy and consistency of care that they need for healthy development.

We forget that as well as physical and educational care, a child's emotional development is just as important.

I would love to see politicians taking up the needs of the voiceless in our society (children) and representing these in parliament.

Imogen

Labour, like all the parties, is driving down a one way street called Childcare with no regard to the value of care provided by parents themselves.

Until you ask why are extra hours desperately needed to be worked (to pay for housing, food bills and school shoes) you ignore the real reason many women (and their families) need help with childcare.

Support families to choose their own 'best' option.

Look to America which has several ways of recognising households within tax and let families decide.

Until mothers and fathers providing love and care 'at home' are recognised and supported, Labour does not have my vote.

So, even Imogen is persuadable. Well, where would these calls for state support get with the other side?

Professions of loyalty to Harriet Harman by more than credible alternative candidates for the Labour Deputy Leadership need to be seen in this light.