Fawcett Society on R4 this morning re effects of budget on women.

you could cut the public service tomorrow by half and no one would notice. lose the odd jobs, the diversity and climate clowns the equality rubbish, the anti smokers, the clerks who do nothing all day. i worked for two councils and both were overstaffed and could easily lose people.
at one it was suggested that the carparks should become public ones with the same parking rates. several staff went ballistic at the idea of paying to park. they claimed that many staff werent on high enough wages ie only £16-20000 PA when pointed out that many people [ mainly women] were woking for min wage in shops etc in town and had to pay these sisters couldnt give a damn the council kept the free parking. ot had been estimated a new pay and display would have brought in around £500000 a year. the council sought to save one million by cuts.

Ladyblablah The public did vote for deficit reduction, all 3 of the main partys and most of the smaller ones too were planning to reduce the deficit after the elction. The Labour Party wanted to eliminate half of the deficit in the next Parliament whilst the Liberals and the Conservatives wanted to eliminate the deficit in time for the next election.

The deficit must be reduced as it is a millstone round the neck of the whole economy as until its is gone we will be at the mercy of the gilt markets and the credit rating agencys. Add to this the £40 billion a year currently being spent on debt interest.

"Autism is a disorder of neural development characterized by impaired social interaction and communication, and by restricted and repetitive behavior."

Just reminded me of the government's way of working especially the restricted and repetitive behaviour - the deficit cutting at the expense of everything else - never mind a bit of unemployment, never mind the women etc etc.

I like your outrage though

Why is it un-Tory to be outraged at someone trying to equate a financial strategy they disagree with, with a distressing medical condition that blights the lives of thousands of children and adults? I don't think there's any political veto on keeping a civil tongue in a debate rather than stooping to the level of Frankie Boyle....

All the information was present before the election, the argument that it wasn't is so very poor. In fact the situation is better now than it was before the election (or at least there was recovery until this lot took decisive action to take us back into recession).

As for your offense at the autism comment. Thought that sort of outrage was very against the grain of the Tory ethos?

"I'm not sure that constantly portraying women as downtrodden victims does them much good." I think sitting back and just taking it makes things much much worse.

A couple of weeks ago Radio 4 Analysis covered the issue of Feminism within the context of the spending cuts.

Whatever happened to Sisterhood?

Worth a listen.

Well said Chili at 07:49 and Litchick.
I'm not sure that constantly portraying women as downtrodden victims does them much good.

All the serious parties pre-election had cost-cutting and deficit reduction in their pre-election manifestos. They differed in terms of numbers and timing and there were few nitty-gritty details attached. The conservative proposals were the most severe but, even allowing for that, none of the main parties' plans came close to what was required. Post election the coalition is dealing with the reality of things like a massive overcommitment on defence spending.... information not available to them pre-election.

BTW I think it's offensive to flippantly use a term like autism to describe a policy strategy.

Nay, do remember that the public did not vote for this

In fact, despite the fact that they didn't even win the election, any pledges they did make as part of their election campaign and since in their coalition manifesto have simply been ignored as a consequence of their deficit reduction autism.

The government have decided, nay the public have decided - cos they voted for this, remember, that the deficit hsd to be reduced and that this will come primarily from public spending.

So jobs will be lost.
And will will dispororinately lose them.

But this doesn't make it an attack on women.
It is an attack on the institutions involved.

When Thatcher decided to close the pits, almost all those made redundant were men. But I don't think anyone owuld say it was an attack on men.

I've said it before....

Equalise maternity and paternity rights and wait twenty years.

Cutting employment in public services will disproportionately affect women for the same reason that cutting benefits disproportionately affects those who depend on benefits. It is an unavoidable consequence.

" do you mean it is necessary to attack women in order to reduce the deficit?"

I don't think anyone can name one cost-cutting or tax-raising measure that would exclusively affect men rather than women. But this is a wider issue, I think, of why women are still in an economically vulnerable situation in society. Why is it that in 2010 daughters are predominantly taking the role of giving up jobs and caring for elderly parents? Why not sons? Why is it that mothers feel they have to organise their jobs around their children (and take lower pay in the process), or give up working all together ... why not fathers?

I see comments on these boards such as 'my wages only pay for the childcare'.... when presumably the reality is that those wages are paying a proportion of all the household expenses. If women see their financial contribution as just 'paying for the childcare', it's very self-denigrating. If women are more negatively affected by a reduction in low-paid public sector jobs and changes to public services or benefits then it should be the start of a much bigger conversation.

Sorry I wasn't very clear I was that the public sector is too big and weighed down by bureaucracy and is unsustainable. It is going to be streamlined by the coalition and there are going tob job losses and due to womens prominence in the public sector then it is likely that more women will lose their jobs.

The point I was making about the pay freeze which is another measure being used to tackle the deficit is that this is likely to mean that a lot of women are going to have their pay frozen for the next 2 years and so will be made poorer in real terms.

lucky1979, that is her.

sorry, am lost...two year pay freeze? are you saying pay in the public sector is over inflated?

are you saying it is an 'unfortunate consequence' to attack women?

are you sure there is nothing else we can do to get the econmomy being more productive to boost employment and cut the deficit? are you sure we cannot cut anything else, or cut things less so?

Is Louise Bagshawe the "chick-lit" author? Presumably she feels that, like in most chick lit, all women end up with the dark handsome (rich) guy in the end and give up their career in PR/Wedding Planning/Being a PA to be a happy wife and mother because that is all they ever really wanted deep down.

Or am I being totally random and thinking of someone else entirely?

To reduce the deficit you need to reduce public spending and unfortunately as a consequence there are going to be redundancies and if women make up a high proportion of the public sector then they are going to lose their jobs, the mistake was to allow the public sector to become so bloated and inefficient. The same applies to the 2 year pay freeze that is being imposed.

do you mean there are honestly not other alternatives? are you sure?

or do you mean it is necessary to attack women in order to reduce the deficit?

The cutting down of the public sector isn't an attack on women it is a necessary act in order to reduce and eliminate the deficit.

'being sacked or made redundant is not exclusive to women'... but it is more likely to happen to women and then even more so again now with the public sector. volunteering isnt compulsory...no not YET, but sure it will be if you want to claim your unemployment benefit in the future-they call it 'big society'. rich coming from a party who said therewas no such thing a short time ago.

funny how that Bagshawe came from a very priviledged background, married into wealth too and then got her current constituency by apparently receiving 30k a year from ...lord ashcroft .

obviously none of the things pointed out by the Fawcett woman will effect her, she does not know how a RL woman lives and manages and she isn't bothered at all.

as for choices...ha ha ha. she even had the audacity to call herself a 'feminist'?
she could not answer the question of affordable childcare yet she banged on about women in work. erm how, without afforadable childcare exactly?

different world, different world.

Home owners often has fewer choices when the economy is destroyed in the way it is being at the moment

If you are in negative equity and can't sell, you are literally fucked - there is no choice about it

The example you give about workers is a sad indication of your opinions about females in general. It is a ridiculous example and bears no resemblance to anything in real life.

If you want to hear a mad tory, check this clip out (also on Wednesday's programme):

news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9086000/9086752.stm

It seems that women's work doesn't contribute to GDP, so we might as well as give up now.

I'm not just fine with women being cheaper to employ when it's like for like. But if it's a choice between losing one very expensive male middle manager or two female manual workers whose combined pay is not so much... maybe things are not so clear cut.

The OP mentioned 'struggling to pay a mortgage'... and I don't think this is an exclusively female problem, which seemed to be the assertion. And home-owners - even in a poor housing market - still have options that aren't open to others.

Many of the choices provided in the past have proved to be illusory because they were funded through borrowing that society can no longer afford.