David Cameron apologises for 'sexist' remarks

[RowanMumsnet]

Morning all

The Sunday Times is today reporting that David Cameron is apologising for 'using words that could have been interpreted as sexist' in his replies to two women MPs during Prime Minister's Questions; he's also saying that the Conservatives must to more to appeal to women voters.

The full article is here (£), but - at the risk of bringing the wrath of News International on my head [buttock-clench emoticon] here are the most relevant parts:

'David Cameron has issued a heartfelt apology for disrespectful remarks he made to two female MPs and admitted that the Conservative party must do more to appeal to women voters.

The prime minister acknowledged making a 'terrible mistake' in the House of Commons by using words that could have been interpreted as sexist.

In a highly personal interview, he insisted he was not 'one of the lads' and had not meant to cause offence... Cameron acknowledged he had 'screwed up' at prime minister's questions during exchanges with Labour's Angela Eagle, the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, and one of his own backbenchers, Nadine Dorries. He insisted that he had been misunderstood.

'What I find frustrating is that I'm not a sort of 'All right luv, I'm down at the pub tonight' whatever. That's not me. But obviously I've come across in this way,' he said.'

Do let us know what you think.

Thanks
MNHQ

I'll just pop off, surrender myself and iron my floral maxi dress. Won't be a tic.

People I loathe more than the Tories are fucking Libertarians....they make Tories seem like The Indian National Congress.

how is encouraging someone to be economically inactive a good thing?so lets get this straight you want less statutory services and state intervention so a parent can stay at home. certainly dont call that progressive.at all

I want less taxation, less bureaucracy, fewer politicians. More businesses, more disposable income, more industry, wider industrial innovation.

An economy needs to be stimulated through demand not state pushed "incentives".

Id like families to be able to take care of their own If They So Wish to remove the burden of care from the state.

So could someone explain this to me, because my brain just can't make sense of it? It couldn't during privatisation in the 1980s, and it doesn't now.

Slimming down the state would mean outsourcing many more functions than at present, presumably. These functions could be taken over by the private sector.

The private sector needs to make a profit to justify being involved, so presumably adds a mark up.

The main ways it maximises the profit is to slim things like wages bills, sick pay and so on for employees, and minimise what it does for its clients.

However in reality this means people are paid less than a living wage, so the state will then have to step in with some kind of social safety net. Or alternatively it means clients can't always get what they need in areas where market failure has occurred (we see this in rural areas with broadband, for example). Standards suffer, but the public has little recourse (Siemens, Capita). In the absence of state involvement, some sections of the population are forced to suffer thanks to adverse selection by businesses, in other words, there isn't enough of a profit margin for involvement to be worth the business's while (as we see with NHS dentistry, for example). Or businesses go bankrupt with associated consequences for clients (eg Southern Cross).

Meanwhile we see the top 2% of the population able to accrue significantly increased capital partly on the back end of all this, while the other 98% start to experience erratic and expensive service delivery and have little representation or influence.

How is this better for the majority of people?

HullyGully

The public sector also needs to make a profit.

And getting women to take over state functions for free (running libraries, meals of wheels etc) just means you have shifted the burden - it still comes at a cost, i.e. reduced economic growth.

We could get this country running better by taking households and not individuals, maybe?
Or by rewarding people that train in maufacturing/industry with amazing childcare options like creches, we could give companies massive tax breaks for providing decent child care.
We could incentivise industry in a plethora of ways and stop such ludicrous quotas from China coming in....or tax them massively.

I don't see that individual tax reduction would help anything, at all, unless the 25% rate was reduced to 20%.

taxing, not taking. although taking households sounds great, I'll take Longleat.

That's called protectionism TPP it's a dangerous game to play.

I don't consider looking after your children or elderly parents "state functions".

I do agree with taxing households rather than individuals though.

the state has statutory duties in health and social care and in order to fulfil them needs adequate monies eg taxes and contributions.you dont get a better or more inclusive state by advocating parents who can work stay at home.

its not role of state to prop up a uk business and operate protectionism from overseas.of you shop m&s,debenhams,next,gap,asda.tesco,primark you already buying overseas produced products anyway.no point kidding self on any other way.its a nonsense to business suggest hand outs and whoop di doo crèches are answer. be better encouraging competition, try uk exports and sales

As a Scot I loathe DC, Clegg, et al.

However, I also loathed Blair. He made my teeth itch.

Labour did a lot for women. The coalition would like women to do a lot for free

It's SNP all the way here, chez Scarlett.

While a huge number of working families might be economically active, they aren't always economically productive. When families receive significant amounts of tax credits (which huge numbers do) they aren't actually contributing much.

The employers are rubbing their hands because they don't have to pay a living wage because the government tops their employees up with tax credits. Therefore the company gets to keep more of the profits.

It's a flawed system.

Who's responsibility is it then when 'families' fail to care for their children or elderly, or when the 'family' simply does not exist, Alouise?

That is when the state should step in, I believe. I also believe that they should step on far earlier than they currently do especially wrt children.

We will always need a state prepared to take responsibility - but for those in need. Not want.

Step in not on

yes and intervention costs money. extra gp,sw,salt,ot,physio etc all needs funded and maintained. and most productive way to do that is by more people working and contributing

frankly if one want more state intervention,then you have to pay for it. and/or be more selective rigorous about whom fits a eligibility criteria

ideologically the current government has not allocated enough to meet existing demands never mind funding other demands over and above. the reality is unfilled posts, staff leave no one else recruited,huge waiting lists. cant open a paper with reading about impact of cuts

We could shift the burden of care of the elderly on to families and off the state.
We could shift the burden of cost and care of those who have babies and cannot support them on to the grandparents of the child if the mother or father cannot support it.

We could have a welfare state but the minimal provision if provides is much less than is now.
We could as one London borough is doing give people in work council housing in preference for those who do not work. We could have emergency housing which is not as pleasant as council flats for those out of work with no relatives to help them who are in need.

There are lots of ways we could cut back on state provision.

We could take a Swiss position to the defence of the realm too.

We could abolish all foreign aid.