Budget cuts hit women hardest - men taking only one quarter of the pain

[edam]

coalition's cuts are the worst for women since the creation of the welfare state. That's according to an audit by the House of Commons library, usually accepted an unbiased and reliable source. (Although the questions were drawn up by Yvette Cooper, shadow welfare secretary.)

Apparently there's £8bn to be raised by 2014-15 and £6bn of that comes from women.

Given men (in general) still earn more than women and hold more assets than us, this is even more unfair that it would at first appear. And doesn't include public spending cuts which will hit women hardest, as women are a bigger part of the public workforce and heavier users of public services (partly because we are still the primary carers of children and elderly people).

Shame there aren't any effective lobby groups for women to fight this, in the same way there are for other vulnerable groups.

Does she go on to outline a fairer strategic alternative? Thought not.

Doesn't say so in the paper but quite possibly she has. Even if not, this is the sort of thing the government should be doing - I'm sure civil servants were supposed to be doing audits to see if policies hit particular sections of the population by race. Certainly the NHS does.

The government is designing the cuts, it's their responsibility to make sure they don't disadvantage any demographic group. (Although I suspect they will hit people with disabilities, in need of social care and children very hard.)

Do you have any suggestions, earthworm?

Oh, and I'm pretty sure it was overwhelmingly MEN who caused the crisis, given the gender balance in the City. Not that we can blame all men for that but still, the irony is striking.

Do you have a link to the report itself edam? I can't find it on the Library website, and I would much rather read the detail than the Labour spin.

For example, why weren't all budget cuts and giveaways included - had they included the VAT rise and the council tax freeze, would the findings have been less headline grabbing?

We all know that Labour were going to have to make the same tough decisions, but now they can sit on the sidelines and say that they wouldn't have done this and that with impunity.

I've just watched Ed Balls on the Daily Politics and he was repeatedly asked the direct question - which cuts wouldn't Labour have made - and he couldn't answer.

no, but will have a hunt. Thing is, it's a political choice about how deep to cut how quickly and where - so there are/should be differences between parties. UK govt debt is borrowed on a long term basis (although have forgotten precise details) so there's no actual need to panic right now. A sensible plan for long-term debt reduction could be drawn up without hitting women or minority groups unfairly. "From each, according to his means..." makes sense here, surely?

If only there was a way for women to form a partnership with a man, something legal and visible, that would spread the load. We could ecourage people to wear some sort of symbol to show that they're in such a partnership, oh I don't know, a metal ring or something?

So no one else read the title as Bridge hits woman's headrest?

What a radical idea Captain!

Have been on facebook far too much, was looking for the like button for captains post