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 think we are currently spending too much on ineffective strategies. Lots of support is given to abusive and negligent parents to "keep the family together" when realistically the children need removing as babies and adopted. I'm fairly certain that a small minority of "problem" families are costing the rest of us hugely.

I don't think that the state should subsidise childcare either. All that's happening is nursery owners are getting astonishingly wealthy while still paying minimum wage to nursery nurses.

Nursing home owners are in the Times Rich List iirc, they receive government funding while taking advantage of minimum wage carers.

Surely most people can be trusted to look after their children properly and lots of us would like to take care of our extended family.

imo,state should provide for illness,mental health,education and its a sound principle. the coalition is eroding nhs and social acre

Shift the burden onto grandparents' who have contributed all their life and brought up their own families.
If it wasn't so appaling it would be a piss-myself moment.

How Xenia? And what do happens when they refuse to take it?

aloiuse,no actually many nursing homes are going bust as LA and NHS cap the fees.v few individual owners are on a rich list.not as lucrative as it once was.and a residential home bed costs la and nhs less than an inpatient bed.so sometimes it is cost effective to pay the fees- reduced cost and a bed not blocked

You are right I'm sure ScottishMummy. I'm certain the nursing homes are only paying minimum wage while they can get away with it. Qualified nurses are more expensive.

As the baby boomers get older, families become more and more top heavy, leaving comparatively few younger people to care for increasing numbers of elderly relatives. One woman here on MN recently related an account of what she had been through caring for 9 of them at once, for example. Is it realistic to shift care over in the way you are suggesting, Xenia, given how dramatically demographics are shifting in this way? Would you be prepared to single handedly take on multiple elderly relatives, some of whom may be childless or have dementia? Or put them all in nursing homes paid for our of taxed income at £1000 a week, three times the national average wage per person? Really?

My solution to the ageing population: legalise Class A's for the over 60's. and their carers

many with challenging and complex physical needs simply cannot be managed at home in a domestic residential setting due to risk of
falls risk
disorientation
wandering
unpredictable behaviours
frailty
altered mental state
reduced mobility
mobiliy

and realistically many residential settings have predominately unqualified staff and maybe 2 trained nurse on per shift

If the state genuinely wants the elderly to be cared for by relatives, then the state has a hell of a lot of social engineering to do, and it is too late for this generation. We're no longer tied to our parents (in my case, thank feck) by geography and a sense of respecting our elders. For many, many families, it is simply not going to happen. They have to be aware of that, unless they're incompetent.

indeed socio-economic and societal changes mean many people dont live near elderly relatives,nor can they provide the care they need. this notion of family accommodating an older adult and seamlessly adjusting to their needs just is not realistic or achievable.esp id the children of the older adult have family commitments and work

The biggest problem is that it is not just for a few years in many cases, people live a long time and need professional care as they become more and more frail, as SM says.

yes,life expectancy has increased .in fairness people are getting fitter less and dependent in older age. the high cost is alzheimer/dementia care or physical illness requiring lots of hand on care and maybe 2 staff for transfers,personal care etc.

but a residential bed is still less costly than nhs bed