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

Damn!
news.sky.com/home/article/16081284

I agree with Xenia despite coming to that conclusion from a totally different perspective.

The smaller the state the smaller the tax burden, we should be able to help our own "weakest in society". A nuclear family can barely survive on one income these days. If we were paying less tax then it might be more feasible for a parent to stay at home with their children or care for elderly relatives. (should they wish to)

By bleeding the taxes out of us and distributing to people who meet the criteria we are losing vast swathes of income. We could be cutting out the middle man and deciding where we want our tax £ to go.

he is a wanker.

wanker wanker wanker

he can say what he likes. still a wanker. just insincere with it.

Stop sitting in the fence Hullygully

I like it in the fence.

I haven't read the thread either.

How hard am I?

Well hard.
No, you're in the majority.

Agree with Alouiseg (not for the first time).

I agree with Hully, though I do wish she would stop being so shy about expressing her opinions

Hully...may I add twat to that please

Can I just say that I actually HATE cameron, osborn and gove. I would like to boil their smarmy heads alive.

Seriously Hully, stop holding back. Tell us how you really feel

I'll bring the cooking pot,Hully,and pay for the gas bill.

Safe to say they aren't winning you over, Hully and Crazynanna.

I think GO looks really smarmy and I want him to be horrid, but he was on R4 today sounding fairly pleasant and normal and not especially like a Posh Nobber. I was disappointed, and I say that as a Tory voter.

I heard him on Radio 4

Bulldozing his party line through as ever.

I didn't like that joke G.O. made the other week at that award ceremony.It made me feel a bit sick: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/8749838/George-Osbornes-wanker-joke-lowers-tone-at-GQ-Awards.html

It would certainly be much better if the state were much smaller.

Blimey Riven, anymore words that you'd like to put into my mouth for me? Did I say any of the manipulative things you just posted? No! Thought not.

So who's the 'average Sun or DM reader', Riven? That's a shibboleth.

And I'm struggling to see how you get from Alouiseg's desire for a small state (which I share) to people wanting to kill disabled babies.

Can't be arsed to read the thread. But in my view DC's comments show that not only is he sexist, but he's a classist patronising git with his comments about men who like to 'go down the pub.' What's that got to do with anything?

I'm with Riven. Absolutely. Can't be bothered to type about it, we all know how it goes, just some of us are in denial.

why on earth would one advocate non working sahp caring for children/relatives as a good result from smaller state?how is making this more "feasible" a good idea.

the country needs to retain and maintain skilled workers and taxpayers and contributors not lose them to fluff and fold.cant think any govt (coalition or not) would encourage not working,not contributing and sahp

We used to manage it perfectly well. A smaller state would cost a lot less to administer, we all know that billions are lost in Bureacracy and pen pushers justifying their existence.

Also sahp isn't exactly bad for the children, is it??? Unless the sahp is a useless twat of course

Mogadon anyone?