Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Other subjects

Tory Mums - At Pruni's request

39 replies

hannahsaunt · 23/01/2007 14:16

Following on from the feminism thread - thoughts please esp from Tory mums on the Nick Cohen article in the Observer this week (thanks Pruni ):

I have always thought that the most interesting stories barely make the news, and last week Cameron proved my point. He gave an extraordinarily reactionary pledge that made a nonsense of his hippy image and no one in the media raised a questioning eyebrow. Writing in the Telegraph, he promised that under a Conservative government Britain would opt out of the European Union's Social Chapter. The immediate effect would be the removal of legal protection for part-time workers and the ending of the rights of women to extend maternity leave. Not much compassionate conservatism in that announcement, I thought.

I double-checked with Cameron's friends to see if there had been some mistake. Not at all, they told me. You don't understand David if you suppose he believes in regulation, particularly regulation from the EU. But what is going to happen to part-time workers - most of them women and many of them poor? Well, they replied, we will exhort employers to be nice to them. David's views on employment rights are like his views on WH Smith selling chocolate oranges instead of real ones. He's not going to force employers to extend maternity leave any more than he is going to ban Smiths from selling chocolate. He is just going to ask them to do the decent thing.

The TUC is appalled and points out that workers will have nothing to fall back on when employers ignore Cameron's lectures, as I'm sure they will. I asked their officials why with the exception of two tiny articles, there had been no follow-up, and one of them said that she feared that Cameron had an alarmingly accurate understanding of the tensions and double standards of middle-class life. As a leading figure in the Labour movement, she hears daily diatribes on how Blair has sold out from members of London's progressive middle class. With barely a pause for breath, the apparently sincere left-wingers switch to anguished wails about the law forcing them to give their nannies flexible working and other benefits. She doesn't dismiss their problems, and accepts that finding and paying for child care can be hellish. But she does come away thinking that many of them would quietly welcome a cutback on the rights of Britain's new servant class, as long as Cameron could make them feel good by covering a right-wing measure in the unctuous language of moral exhortation.

OP posts:
uwila · 24/01/2007 09:32

Well, I still don't know exactly what he wants to opt out of as all the information I have been able to find just generalises about what in the treaty.

However, I am opposed to a cap on the number of hours one can work in a week. I signed a piece of paper to opt out of this cap when I was hired. I can use the money, and I'm willing to work for it. So, if that's the sticking point, then I'm in full support of Cameron.

What I need is a tax break on extortionate cost of childcare. If Cameron offers that, that I will find the time to actively campaign for him.

hannahsaunt · 24/01/2007 09:33

Sorry - missed all this last night - our broadband is on the blink and it's most annoying (typing now from the comfort of my part-time job having had 2 lots of mat leave ). Still unclear how there is anything positive to be gained from DC's article either personally or in wider society. Can't get my head around how laissez faire promotes social responsibility - is it not more of an every man for himself thing (shudders at the thought of a return to the 80s) than recognising that just hoping people will "do the decent thing" doesn't really pan out in practice?

OP posts:
speedymama · 24/01/2007 09:38

It is why I have made the strongest commitment to supporting the family and marriage that any Conservative leader has made for a generation. Ha-Ha! John Major, Boris Johnson, Cecil Parkinson..shall I go on?

Bill of Rights and opt out of European Social Chapter - roll over and weep. How long before he admits that he will abolish the minimum wage?

Lower taxes and public services - you get what you pay for don't you know. Cammy is probably relying on migrant workers who will be grateful to accept low pay, especially if he opts out of the Social Chapter.

Detail, that's what we need and you know what, when you see it, it won't be pretty.

Hug a hoodie? A wolf in sheep clothing more like!

Earthymama · 24/01/2007 09:49

I know that Labour haven't been perfect, (don't list all the faults, I know)but there isn't that sense of being under attack that I felt in the Tory years.
As a leftie feminist single parent union member from the mining valleys I was probaly the epitome of all that Thatcherites hated!!
I dread going back to that sense of oppression.

Ladymuck · 24/01/2007 09:53

But he's not saying that he will change any of the UK law on flexible working or ending the rights of women to extend maternity leave? There is nothing there suggesting any change to the existing UK law? You can speculate to be sure, but unless Cohen names the "friends", and you get mroe detail, then I'm not sure Cohen's claims about wither Dave's views or even the TUC's views (anyone care to guess who the female official refeerred to might be?) really carries much weight.

foxinsocks · 24/01/2007 09:56

I'm not sure he can opt out of it anyway - when Blair decided to opt back in (after Major negotiated the opt out), the social chapter went into EU Law (the Amsterdam Treaty). I'm not sure he can just willy nilly opt out when he feels like it!

hannahsaunt · 24/01/2007 10:00

In some ways it's the lack of detail that's most worrying - just drop in a sentence in a wee thought piece in the Telegraph - no-one notices/picks up on it and x years later, gets into power, xxxx hits the fan and he's says "oh, but I did tell you..." This needs picked up and investigated - what does it mean? Get it out in the open...don't have a go at Nick Cohen for speculating or calling up some people for quotes - at least he's digging slightly deeper than anyone else. Get DC back and make him clarify.

OP posts:
nogoes · 24/01/2007 10:01

Well I was planning on voting Tory for the first time in the next election but I think I have changed my mind now!

speedymama · 24/01/2007 10:12

Absolutely Hannahsunt. The devil is in the detail and that is what I want to see. It's time Cameron and Osborne came clean and revealed what they truely stand for.

Blair and Brown have their faults but at least you know what they stand for - the same cannot be said of the Woolly Duo.

uwila · 24/01/2007 10:17

Really? You think Blair and Brown are honest about what they stand for?

uwila · 24/01/2007 10:25

So what is in this Social Chapter that people feel they would be worse off without.

As fas I can tell Cameron isn't against the principples laid out in it (whatever those are) he is just seeking power to the people and not the government.

foxinsocks · 24/01/2007 10:26

lol at knowing where you stand with Blair and Brown. And now we have Ruth Kelly, as Minister for Women and Equality, who (in the main) absents herself from votes on anything to do with homosexuality and whose personal beliefs are obviously at odds with her ability to defend the rights of homosexuals.

foxinsocks · 24/01/2007 10:35

here you are

just the first bit - under where it says Mr Sutcliffe and starting with 'the burden of proof in sexual discrimination cases....'

(it's not a long link at all - quite succint)

Pruni · 24/01/2007 16:17

Message withdrawn

New posts on this thread. Refresh page