I should imagine the govt 'forgot' rather than knew about it and thought 'sod it, let's not bother'. It will be down to lack of communication between the civil servant mandarins (is that what they're called) and the politicians probably. The rape thing was bizarre and came out of nowhere, but has thankfully been dropped. I don't believe that either half of the coalition is anti-women or fundamentally sexist.
To be fair to the Treasury, they had to come up with a workable emergency budget in a couple of months, having had no access to the actual figures before then. Of course there will be rough edges, but also it is flexible and can be changed around a bit as there is more time to consider how things are affecting people.
It would be very difficult to reduce taxes, but the personal tax allowance threshold has been raised which equates to a kind of tax cut for people who don't earn much in the first place.
It's not the amount of benefit that claimants receive, it's the number of claimants receiving it plus the cost of admin and the complexity of the benefits system that is the problem. £65 isn't much per week, though plenty of people in work with huge mortgages probably have the same or less to spend on food and clothes. I think my point is that there are too many people reliant on welfare and who view it as their right. Rather than using it as a safety net while they find another job. I realise that the system does not make it easy, but ideologically, we should be trying to get everyone who can work, back to work. It make for a much healthier community and society when unemployment is low.
Public sector cuts are not designed to single out women for all of the pain. On the other hand, why should women be particularly shielded from cuts? It is just as likely that the men who lose their jobs have families to provide for too so why should women be protected?
I agree that TA's are vastly more valuable to society that bankers. However, banking is private sector. The government can regulate but can't interfere beyond this (I don't include Northern Rock in this btw). The money given to banks is being paid back and plenty of bonuses are paid out to the front line cannon fodder of cashiers who have worked hard for small reward. Of course the big bonuses to the big players are sickening. But they were contracted to earn these sorts of bonuses before the crash, employment law would probably overrule any government interference here.
I don't know what the answer is to the rich-poor divide. Labour only made things worse during their seemingly endless tenure with all of their hideous social engineering. Maybe a bit of small goverment and a new feeling of social responsibility will start to reverse things.