Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Government facing judicial review over budget discrimination against women

62 replies

edam · 01/08/2010 12:59

Fawcett Society are seeking a judicial review of the budget as the government didn't do a gender impact assessment, which is apparently a legal requirement.

Ruddy well done that Society as far as I'm concerned. Do hope they get their review!

OP posts:
kayah · 02/08/2010 15:25

TA's aren't counted asfront line education jobs, so they may be affected...

GetOrfMoiLand · 02/08/2010 15:33

I agree with lots of you on here - great posts ISNT and Edam.

The coalition is a complete shower. Nick Clegg, may you look back on 2010 with pride.

KinderellaTristabelle · 02/08/2010 16:06

Really glad Fawcett Society are doing this.

Agree totally ISNT.

Callisto · 02/08/2010 16:52

There isn't a rape anonymity law. It was proposed and dropped.

The NHS is a lumbering elephant of bureaucratic waste and needs reform. Whether or not the changes will cost a bomb is something I don't know - perhaps you could come up with some figures on that? But often you need to spend money to save money, it's fairly standard in the private sector tbh.

wubblybubbly · 02/08/2010 17:29

Estimated cost of NHS reorganisation is £2-£3 billion and unlikely to achieve the savings that Lansley is claiming according to this article in The Telegraph.

.

ISNT · 02/08/2010 17:30

The only reason the rape anonimity law was dropped was because there was a huge outcry, from people who deal with rape victims, from the public, and from MPs across all parties. It was proposed despite being in neither manifesto. If people hadn't had their eye on the ball it would have gone through. Why would anyone say "oh that's OK it was dropped"? as if that could wipe out the fact it was proposed and then strongly defended in teh first place.

As for the NHS, well we'll see what happens. It's a institution that I think is fantastic, I have had wonderful treatment there, and many of my family going back a few generations have been doctors (no private work type doctors).

I find it peculiar that someone couldn't see quite easily how restructuring the entire of an organisation like the NHS wouldn't cost a bomb. As for spending money to make money - spending money to enable taxpayers money in future to be channelled into the profit making private sector. Well each to their own. Have they even thought about things like how notes will be transferred between different caregiving organisations, what will happen if local hospitals and other facilities do not win enough market share to fully function and have to close down so core services are lost, what will happen if prime land is sold off as it will draw more revenue than providing health services, what will happen to the unprofitable parts of the service, how GPs are supposed to take over from NICE and what they are to do when their patients know that they hold the purse strings and so on and so on

doorbell just rang is only reason i've stopped

wubblybubbly · 02/08/2010 17:34

Great post ISNT. I don't believe they've thought of any of those things. It seems Lansley came up with idea whilst in the bath one night and announced it to the world a few days later. Otherwise, surely we would have heard about this fantastic money saving NHS improvement before the election?

Original poster
edam · 02/08/2010 17:43

The Tory manifesto stated quite clearly - and senior Tories said repeatedly during the election - that there would be NO massive reorganisation of the NHS.

Lansley is apparently blaming the Lib Dems. Convenient.

Plans to transfer all hospitals out of the NHS and into the private/third sector are huge and I don't think the public has realised exactly what is being done yet, tbh. Also don't think social enterprise is sufficiently developed as model to cope with anything on this scale, and certainly not accountable for or regulated to do anything this massive and important.

Callisto, btw, if the govt. really thought benefits were too expensive, why are they deliberately following policies that they admit will lead to 1.3m unemployed?

OP posts:
LadyBlaBlah · 02/08/2010 17:59

I wonder if I am alone in having the word dictatorship spring to mind....

you know riding roughshod over the laws and doing what they hell they like.

I find it really difficult to read the daily disasters emanating from this 'government'. They are regularly ruining my day.

Original poster
edam · 02/08/2010 18:17

But Nick Clegg's a laugh, with his 'I'm only the work experience boy' approach to Prime Minster's Questions. Hey, we are shutting down Yarl's Wood! (Officials have to clarify - no we aren't). And I forget his other mistake but it was really v. amusing. And then Cameron opens his big gob and offends Pakistan... honestly, you'd think two ex-public schoolboys would understand public speaking and diplomacy and the importance of co-operation in counter terrorism...

OP posts:
LadyBlaBlah · 02/08/2010 18:21

I keep meaning to YouTube Nick the Peg doing PMQ

I had had a nice day so far today, I think I am about to ruin it.

gingercat12 · 02/08/2010 18:22

I think I'll join the Fawcett Society.

In terms of women not caring, I think it is not the case. THey are just too busy working in their low-paid jobs. I cannot get on Mumsnet everyday.

As far as how few contributions are on the other thread, I, for one, am tired of arguing with Longfingernails.

LadyBlaBlah · 02/08/2010 19:21

LOL

I am convinced LFN is George Osbourne's annoying sister

pinkteddy · 02/08/2010 19:40

wubbly bubbly your link doesn't work can you post again please?

ISNT · 02/08/2010 20:15

gingercat yes I can't be arsed to argue with her either.

ilovemydogandMrObama · 02/08/2010 20:28

Thanks for starting thread. I did too, but didn't realize one had already started.

Well, I disagree with the basic premise that there needs to be sweeping cuts anyway. The economy grew last month which was unexpected, by something like 1%.

The cuts proposed are based on 80% cuts on spending with 20% tax rises (keeping in mind that the employers will not face an NI rise, but rather the employee)

There is reason to believe that the economy will recover in terms of growth in about 18 months anyway, so I just don't accept that the economy is in such dire straights.

But meanwhile, a disproportionate percentage of people affected are women and children, and vulnerable ones at that, so glad Fawcett Society is launching a judicial review.

wubblybubbly · 02/08/2010 21:14

Sorry about that, I'll try again.

Telegraph link again.

Or the same article is covered here.

gingercat12 · 02/08/2010 22:40

Thanks for the hugs.

BadgersPaws · 03/08/2010 10:04

"Well, I disagree with the basic premise that there needs to be sweeping cuts anyway. The economy grew last month which was unexpected, by something like 1%."

"There is reason to believe that the economy will recover in terms of growth in about 18 months anyway, so I just don't accept that the economy is in such dire straights."

Compared to GDP the UK is currently in debt to a degree that it hasn't been since the early 1970s.

However what's worse is that the deficit, the amount by which we're plunging even deeper into debt every year, is the third worst in the world. The deficit currently runs at nearly 13% of GDP, growth is never going to match that so every year we'll be more in debt and every year more of our money will have to be spent on interest payments.

So the economy is really in "dire straights" and we need to do something. Imagine the country as family that's spending far more than it earns and is living on credit cards. Would you recommend that they rely on a pay rise to fix the problem when the debt outstrips by far any pay rise that they've ever had? Or would you recommend that they look at their outgoings?

Likewise with the economy and hoping that a growth in GDP will fix the problem. It won't.

ilovemydogandMrObama · 03/08/2010 10:06

Don't patronize me.

BadgersPaws · 03/08/2010 10:31

How is it patronising to disagree with the view that we're not in such a deep hole and to state that a recovery of growth alone won't help things when the shortfall every year is far higher than growth will ever be?

Many people are only thinking of the debt as the problem, it's not, the problem is the staggering growth in that debt.

SuseB · 03/08/2010 10:39

I was at uni with the solicitor quoted in the BBC article on this who is involved in the Fawcett Society's judicial review (Samantha Mangwana). She's a cool lady. When I looked her up she's done other sterling work on maternity rights etc against big city firms. [proud fellow alumna]

Original poster
edam · 03/08/2010 10:48

Badgers - I'd recommend that the family sort it out fairly, rather than expecting that the wife pays all the bills and takes all the pain. Especially if there was s law that said they had to at least work out whether it was fair.

OP posts:
BadgersPaws · 03/08/2010 11:17

"Badgers - I'd recommend that the family sort it out fairly, rather than expecting that the wife pays all the bills and takes all the pain."

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I'm agreeing with the location of the cuts or distribution of the pain. Rather I'm just saying that we are in a mess and have to do something to stop the growth in debt.

wahwah · 03/08/2010 11:30

Good to see some interest here and Coochie I think you are spot on about the agenda and the speed of implementation.

On another topic, ( but sort of related) I am surprised not to see anything about that creepy little man, Zach Goldsmith and his terrible interview with Jon Snow.... Let me know if I'vemissedp something otherwise I'll start a tihread.