"Secret" government plans to "win back women"...

[HelenMumsnet]

Hello.

Apparently, the Coalition has "secret plans to win back women" by, among other things, cutting school summer holidays, overhauling child benefit and banning advertising to under-16s.

What do you think?

Would plans like this win you back - if, indeed, you ever went away?

[BellaneyMimphus]

Wow, the LDs have totally lost their fanbase, haven't they?

[pamplemousserose]

Hell would freeze over before I would vote for the misogynistic bigoted scum that is our current government. Does anyone believe they'd do any of the things they are promising anyway?

[Scootergrrrl]

There's a great quote on the Guardian website comments: "It's like someone who's never met a woman had some women's needs explained to them down a bad phone line."

To speak of improving their image among female voters with no mention of the economy or anything else us girls are not supposed to worry our pretty little heads about is ridiculous. Perhaps it'll also include subsided lipstick or kitten cuddling?

[BumptiousandBustly]

scootergirrrl - thats a brilliant quote.

Have to say, was very pissed off with labour by the last election - but simply wouldn't vote Tory or Lib Dem in the future - Can't believe the sheer stupidity of it all or how patronizing it is - "personal maternity budget" my arse.

(NB sorry about the language, never normally swear on mumsnet but am a bit annoyed - as you might me able to tell!)

[LaWeasel]

Unless the government fancies stopping fucking over my children's chances in the future with idiotic economic policies I won't be going near them ever again.

[BellaneyMimphus]

If they take the personal maternity budget thing very far, there's going to be an outcry from those running half-way decent maternity departments, as they realise there will be a stampede for beds, therefor standards will be driven down. I don't understand what is so hard to grasp about 'employ many more midwives' anyway. Except it's women saying it, women needing it, and largely women who would benefit from the jobs. How very dare they! Let's tell them they can shunt themselves fifty miles down the road in labour instead!

[YaMaYaMa]

It's just infuriating isnt it? I am so angry at this govt, I would quite simply like to be able to work without using my annual leave to cover 1 day's childcare a week (because I work 3 days a week and can only afford 2 days childcare), and then having to plan to call in sick when I have no holiday entitlement left. Is that too much to ask?

These people on 'think tanks' are so far removed from the reality of what it means to be a low income woman that it's laughable that they're allowed any input at all. Fucking female mayors, school holidays and empty promises about banning advertising to under 16s. How arrogant and dismissive is that?

[LaWeasel]

I do find the maternity budget suggestion particularly patronising.

Maternity departments desperately need more midwives and like everyone else more money, that's about it.

[RogerMelly]

'overhauling child benefit' oh purlease don't make me laugh

My husband earns just over the threshold and I CANNOT work because I have a severely disabled child to care for and my local authority have cut all my respite so i now get NOTHING. Apart from an early grave for me, I can't see how the hell I am ever going to be able to work again (and I am degree educated thank you very much) and I will have to be reliant on my husband to support me forever. This isn't an upwardly mobile government, it's like the fucking 1950s.

Oh and I will lose my child benefit aswell, so the only thing I am actually able to do - care for my children- they are taking away from me aswell and mr cameron apparently was all for traditional families, hahahahahahahahah please don't make me laugh

[RogerMelly]

and it really sticks in my teeth that my next door neighbours (they aren't real, just an example) both earn 41k each and have one child who is normal and attends school full time and they will still be able to clain child benefiot, but my husband who earns 44k and has a dependant wife and a severely disabled child, and 3 other children, well we will have our child benefit stopped. How on earth is that fair

[Cheria]

Can I link to the blog I did about this earlier?

FWIW I think the 'secret' policies are patronising, offensive and typical of this 'government'.

[witnesser]

Maybe by not assuming that all things related to children are 'women's issued' or indeed that all women have the same issues which can be addressed.

There are issues which face middle income families, which I assume they mean, but they are also my husband's voting priorities.

• greater tax relief on childcare allowing more women to work if they want to for a decent wage
• creating a culture which sees childrearing as a social good and the responsibility of both parents. Encouraging businesses to consider flexible working for fathers would do much to help this and also redress the comparative damage done to women's careers after they have children.
• decent local services, not the choice to travel further.
• a progressive tax system, not VAT increases and top rate reduction
• a housing system that benefits homeowners and renters not private landlords (a system whereby landlords get tax relief on their mortgage and tax cuts on their profits is nuts).
• a decent education system that doesn't end at 18 and won't give my children a lifetime of debt.

Me Osbourne, if you're reading, would be happy to go on ........,

[UrsulaBuffayHere2Help]

Not treating their female counterparts like shit on PMQs might be a start.

[Scarletbanner]

It's clear to all of us that this Government hates women, what with gross under-representation of women in the Cabinet, the PM's regular misogynistic outbursts at PMQs, and his two-faced dealings on the recent abortion amendment. So this just proves it: obviously "family" issues are Women's issues, while men get to care about the economy and Afghanistan.

If you're reading this, Conservative Central Office (and I'm sure you are, or you certainly ought to be), then go back and start again, and come back when you've learned how not to be so patronising.

[Scarletbanner]

X posts!

[BellaneyMimphus]

The thing is, if anyone from the government is reading it, it'll be a young lackey who probably totally gets where we are coming from but is not powerful enough to tell it straight, do anything about policy, respond to any criticisms etc.
So it's pointless.

[enjoyingscience]

What a fantastic insight into how their minds work. Women don't like them any more, so we get tossed some pathetic 'family friendly' crumbs to pick at.

I don't want a personal budget for maternity services. I want good care that is responsive to my needs. If I blow my budget in the first trimester, do I have to give birth in my shed? If I underspend, can I keep the rest or spend it on wine?

I don't want front loaded child benefits, I want childcare that is affordable to start with.

I don't think I'll get a payrise because some nameless person on a website earns more than me in a job which may or may not be similar. By boss isn't that stupid.

Grr.

[sleepyhappymummy]

This sort of thing is just so exasperating, and demonstrates such a lack of understanding of the issues affecting women and families, that I find it impossible to know where to start.

The changes which are to be made to child benefit are sooooooooo unfair, that lost any potential vote from me straight off. They are just wrong, poorly thought out, and yet another way of hitting middle (just above threshold) earners. Taking it away from 50% tax payers would have been fair, but that's not what the government are interested in.

The next general election cant come quickly enough for me, hope that slimeball and his weasely sidekick are out as soon as possible.

[hester]

They didn't give a shit when they were dreaming all their policies up and being warned by everybody that they would hit women and children hardest. And I am beyond incensed at that quote from their email about the public perception that female public sector workers are being hit harder than male bankers. Not perception: reality.

I'm a public sector worker currently being made redundant, and I have two small children and a mortgage to pay. Of course I am fearful of the future: of how I will keep a roof over my children's heads, of what is happening to education in our area, of the cuts in children's and youth services, of tuition fees, of the madness of the housing market and how my children will be able to become autonomous adults. If Steve Hilton thinks he can throw me a few crumbs when the thrust and focus of Government policy is fundamentally hostile to me and my family, he is an idiot.

Two little tips for the Tories:

1. If you want women to think you take them as seriously as you take men, then don't ignore their needs when developing and implementing policy, panic when you see a few opinion polls, and think that you can fool them by throwing them a crumb or two and telling them that you are their champion. We are not idiots.
   

1. Even women who despise Nadine Dorries (including me) think that David Cameron's treatment of her in the Commons was vile and illustrative of how much he respects all women. i.e not at all.

[BumptiousandBustly]

sprogger - I really agree with the point about women's issues and family issues. I remember before having children how much it used to annoy me that politicians assumed all women had children, and voted on the basis of their children.

Now that I do have children i think even more that there are women's issues (rape, equal pay etc) and family issues -childcare etc.

Though I do feel very strongly about things like maternity services which DH probably doesn't feel as strongly about - but I am sure women who haven't had/don't plan on having children, don't really feel strongly about them either.

In the end I am a person, with a brain, which I still use, despite having had children, and am therefore able to deduce - for example - that this is a load of patronizing bollocks!

[LaWeasel]

I think it is wrong to scrap child benefit from anyone tbh, it was designed to protect women from domestic violence/abuse (so they always had some money in their name to escape with if necessary) as financial abuse is very often part and parcel of wider abuse.

I assume the suggestion to pay family credits to the woman and not either partner is their replacement for this, but since not everyone will get family credits it's totally irrelevant really.

[UrsulaBuffayHere2Help]

I agree entirely with Hester.

[DorisIsAPinkDragon]

^^ yes yes to all the above.

I read the article with an open mouth, why on earth would they belive that that tosh would eb a priority in my life.

Cost effective childcare (via tax breaks (maybe even better than that which they've just removed!).

Holidays for school aged children are NEEDED. can you imagine the price of accomadation if weeks were even less than the current. And the subsquent increase in unauthorised abscences as families try to manage during term time.

But what really gets me is the fact that it is assumed that only women or more significantly mothers (not all women are mothers!!!) are the ones that these drivel policies are for.

[BellaneyMimphus]

I'm really enjoying all the strong voices on this thread.
I know strong women everywhere. I know strong men too, who will also see this as a pile of arse. What - WHAT - did we vote in last election? It is SO DEPRESSING.