A message from Harriet Harman - Minister for Women and Equality - how is the credit crunch/recession is affecting you and how do you think Government can help?

[JustineMumsnet]

Harriet Harman writes:
We want to protect families from the credit crunch with real help. And we want to hear what Mumsnet are concerned about during this recession; what you want us to be doing about it; and what you want to see changed for the future. Prime Minister Gordon Brown is hosting an international Economic Summit in London (which President Obama will be coming to) in April to agree with other countries how we work together to get the global economy back on its feet and growing again. I want to hear from you and feed your views in to this summit.

Opinion polls tell us that women are more concerned about the impact of the recession than men, is that your view?
Is the recession affecting your family life and if so how?
Are you getting the advice and information you need if you ask for help?
What do you want to see government doing to help with that?
What do you think about bonuses?
How can we help women who want to start their own businesses?

I don't think it's hot air to suggest that Ms Harman is creating the impression that she is seeking our views here on behalf of the Government, when actually it would seem from press reports that her "women's conference" (whatever that may be) is in fact part of her own agenda for leadership and not a Cabinet decision. She's trying to make out in her OP that she will be part of the Summit, and she won't.

It is still a free country, just about. Of course it won't be for much longer, if your social class starts dictating whether you can have a job or not, as Ms Harman wants.

Not sure how she would have faired under such a system, being the neice of aristocracy - and that is hypocrisy, Peachy. She wants to create rules to stop people from privileged backgrounds getting public jobs. She is from a privileged background, she has a public job. Is she going to offer to resign? (here's hoping)

Sorry Kezad but you don't get much sympathy from me. In the Good Old Days banks were banks and they understood banking. These days they are little more than salespeople flogging products, hence reliant on their salesman's commission and hence making bad calls. Bank managers used to know their customers and made sensible judgements about loans based on that knowledge. Now they aren't allowed to make judgements anymore, they just sit there saying, "computer says no, but while you are here can I flog you some unnecessary insurance."
'Delivering targets' is only a good thing if they are sensible targets in the first place!

Kezad your post does interest me,for a start you have the humanity to be cncerned about less wellearning colleagues which stands you in good stead. It'salso unusualto hear the voice of people not at the high end of the banking arena, the normal branch level.

FWIW I am opposed to bonuses but I think theirrelegation to the file of poor ideas needs to be countered with a liveable and competitive wage for employees. Thus, poor behaviours are not rewarded but nobody need live in poverty afterasudden policy change or because they follow their conscience and say a few 'sorry, no' replies. There are other ways of rewarding good staff performance as in most industries (non cash incentive schemes, promotions etc) but we need to be aware that whilst shouting no at the higher levels something will need to change in the 'lower' echelons to retain the ability to, yes, pay the bills.

A restructuring along thse lines will also enable staff retention in the partly- Governemnt financed banks, which is important.

And yes,poeple need to look at their behaviour also. A sharp shock several years ago taught DH and I to aovid finance when at allpossible- the fallout if it goes wrong is,ime, horrid.

It'snot hypocrisy, enabling other to get a job isn't hypocrisy. Hypocrisy would be if she said that and yet had a policy of only promoting people from public schools; she can't help her own birthplace or childhood. Promotion should be based on capacity alone(and before you shout yes so get rid of Hariet- because Georgi I know you wanna - MP'sare vted in,so are probably the most rigorously assessed people in a job, in its own way.

She doesn't want to help people get jobs, she wants to stop people getting jobs on the basis that they have a background (over which they have no control) which she doesn't approve of.

MPs are the most vigorously assessed people? You are kidding aren't you??

Have you ever attended a party selection meeting? For a safe seat (the only ones worth fighting over) you will have a favoured local candidate and the A list candidate from central office. The party members (not local voters) then vote.

Then the successful candidate gets voted for by approximately 35% of the 35% of people who bother to vote at all (most of whom would vote for the candidate if they were the metaphorical monkey in a blue/yellow/red rosette, because that's how the vote) and candidate is now an MP.

Then the scramble to become a Minister.

A governing party usually has at least 300 MPs.

100 are too callow and inexperienced.

100 are too old/mad/bad/sad/likely to want to be PM

That leaves approx 100-150 MPs for 100 odd government posts.

Very vigorous.

Or if you're Peter Mandelson, you get parachuted into the Lords, by-passing any kindof electoral process at all. Brilliant.

Rigorously, obviously, sorry.

I have attended a fewevents yes,#i going to stand in election until I found I was pg with ds4,albeit at coucillevel.

I think a review every 4-5 yeas of whether you should have a job isfairly stringent, tbh: much as I don't want a ConservativeGovernment I think we all know it's a possibilty precisely because of that system, at which point MP's will lose jobs. I see so much these days saying' 'sackX immefdiately'and think Hey what about my vote? Ilike X or Y,why areyou trying to assume my say?

'She doesn't want to help people get jobs, she wants to stop people getting jobs on the basis that they have a background (over which they have no control) which she doesn't approve of.' I'm sorry, asuming jobsa reallocate purely on merit (a big assumption I know) then I don't see the issue. having watched a goodfriend be awarded a palce at a good UNi purely on the basis of his school and a letter fromhis Head (and then flunk badly) we are nowhre near that yet.

Oh no I wasn't going to stand for Labour btw. But I do think this Government is better than the sadly obvious alternative.I probably vote on issues different than yourself,but I have a real belief the Tories will abandon famillieslike mine-where disability causesa parent to be a carer and therefore a lower income- entirely.

There is a big difference between someone being sacked as a Minister and an MP, Peachy. A sacked Minister who is an MP is still an MP.

Surely you understand that?

How is taking into account someone's background, either because they have been disadvantaged or had a privileged background (something I am completely against by the way) going to mean that jobs are allocated on merit? The best that could be hoped for is that after whatever socio-economic quota is considered desireable is applied, then the remainder are awarded jobs or not on merit. That stinks.

Please don't make presumptions about my family circumstances - you don't know how much I earn, how much my husband earns or whether anyone in my family is disabled, or on what issues I vote.

Wellyes but I am talking about being sacked as an MP. A MInister as I understand it doesn't have to an MP. Imay bewrong but I don't get the impression you'd be happy with any Labour Ministers?As I said I might be reading it the wrong way. They're not goimng toput a Tory in her place.

BTW I am with you on Mandelson.

I didnt make presumptions,I said probably simply on the basis that I am in a small minority of poeple. The chances of anyone I meet day to day voting on the same issues as me areslim.Taht's just a simple fact. I know nobody else in life with a grad parent caring at home because of two disbled kids.
Your incomeis irrelevant (to me anyway).

The application of any criteria beyond suitability to do the job is abhorrent IMO(suitability invcluidng quals /experience). But the criterium that is applied on a regular nasis in my experience is class. As someone from a council house who almost amrried someone from apublic school(and whose sister did) its something I am acutely aware of.

' I know nobody else in life with a grad parent caring at home because of two disbled kids. I should emphqsise in RL obv!

Georgi I think we might respectfuilly agree to differ on this, we ahve very different atkes. Please dont think I amrunning of- RL beckons (DH'sday off).

That's fine, I should be doing some work myself!

I don't want a huge fight with anyone, I just enjoy it when I come across someone who wants to engage about this kind of stuff and sometimes dig my heels in too much!

no its fine Georgi,chance to get my brain out- fairly rare atm!

Opinion polls tell us that women are more concerned about the impact of the recession than men, is that your view?

• No, men tend to be the strong silent type and worry without discussing it, women will talk! In most families women will have been noticing the rising cost of living and adapting the family budget around this.

Is the recession affecting your family life and if so how?
My partner was made redundant last September and it took until February to find another job - salary is 1/3 less than old role. Thankfully he got a decend redundancy package that helped us financially (he was entitled to £6.50 per week JS). We are now rejigging our family finances to take into account his lower salary and our increased childcare costs. We have now put plans to move house on hold.

Are you getting the advice and information you need if you ask for help?
No - partner was told he had to go into Job Centre, nothing could be done via internet/phone. So he went in (petrol/car parking costs) to be given a form to fill out. We filled it out, went back and it was the wrong form. Two copies of his payslips failed to get to the right office as part of his JS application. Job centre staff asked him what he wanted to claim for - did not listen to our situation and make suggestions as to what he might be entitled to claim for - they expected him to know. He has never been in the position to need to claim before

What do you want to see government doing to help with that?
Easier to find out what you are entitled to claim. Be able to print out job centre forms from website, so you don't waste time and money. Job centre staff need CAB-type training or to refer you to someone who can advise on benefits. tax credits if your circumstances have changed.

What do you think about bonuses?
Culture in recent years has been mad - you are sacked because you don't meet the requirement in your job description but you still get a bonus?! We have to renumerate on the same way as other organisations in other countries to keep staff. Remember a lot of staff will have met their requirement for a bonus and should not be penalised. The Chef Exec of a nationalised bank, however has not.

How can we help women who want to start their own businesses?
Childcare costs are going to be high in relation to their income - so some assistance with that. One stop shop for all info they need, free courses to help ie keeping books, tax rules, other things they need to succeed.

Kezad, I agree people on low wages depend on bonuses and they should get them. It is a very wide continuum from people on the lower rungs struggling to make ends meet even with a full time job and those people on the top of the latter whose only apreciation of everyday struggle everyday probably only extends to their lunchtime circuits class.

Blue collar workers (in this sense) should get their bouses.

Thing is Georgie, we can all moan for England. There is no skill in moaning. Fine, if someone has a specific grievance, air it, get it off your chest ? (not you - just being general) but where does ?engaging? with moaning actually take you? It?s a tabloid tendency maybe we have as a nation ? to constantly focus on the problems and not the solutions. Politics is an imperfect system, but that?s because humans are themselves imperfect. That is the reality we have to deal with. Pointing out people are hypocritical, dishonest, confused, daft, whatever is only demonstrating why we need politics and why we need people prepared to enter that mire to deal with us, the grateful and ungrateful, easily pleased and impossible to please. The fact is we gripe so much these days is actually a large proof of our civil liberties. Have you heard of Moynihan's Law?

It doesn?t seem particularly part of human nature to be content for an extended period, and there?s an argument that the welfare state contributes to that to some degree ? that it makes us lazy and bilious, basically. We only have to switch on the telly at night to see what happens around the world when politics really is corrupted, yet cynicism still pour out of people. It?s that difference again between a cynic and a sceptic. I don?t know if many people know the difference.

I'm not moaning. I'm making the other posters on this thread aware that it is not entirely accurate for Ms Harman to present herself as acting on behalf of the Government in seeking our views.

On a side issue, if you don't think this Government is corrupt good for you, but I do. And I won't be told by you or anyone else that saying so makes me a cynic who should be grateful that, what? They aren't worse? That I don't live in Zimbabwe?

Childcare seems to be a prevalent issue. I am in the unusual position of being able to utilise the free places to the maximum by combining it with a day care nursery. As a result my children has to attend two nurseries to maximise this benefit to fit around my working day. I would much prefer they went to one nursery but the free one seems to be available all day only to Catergory 1 children ie. under Social services child protection order. This is mostly children of drug/substance abusers not children of parents who work. I can pay for extra hours but again there is no space as all the places are filled by Catergory 1 children!

Is the recession affecting your family life and if so how?
My husband is unhappy in his job but as it is secure he is fearful of looking for another.

Are you getting the advice and information you need if you ask for help? Yes but I don't like the answer!

What do you want to see government doing to help with that? As a sahm we are worse off than if I went back to work and got a stranger to look after my child. I think there should be less discrimination against those who choose to care for their own children. The tax credit system should take into account your mortgage payments. We have an income of £20,000 so don't qualify for any benefits but our mortgage is £600 a month so doesn't leave us with much once bills etc are paid.

What do you think about bonuses? SCRAP them, if workers deserve more money give them a higher wage. No bonuses should be paid while the business is in debt. It is totally taking the piss.

How can we help women who want to start their own businesses? One to one advisers who do home visits who can be a mentor. Once you've been out of work for a while you lose confidence so need extra support. Although I for one would be too fearful of losing money at the moment to even contemplate starting up a business.

'1. extend working tax credits to parents on full-time education courses acknowledging that, for parents, university is a full-time job and requires better funding than the pitiful amount of student loans currently accessible.' thats a fab idea and would change things for us massivley long term.

DH is in work,has been for years but it's athreatened industry and he's sick of being folowed around by the time and motion people giving him abuse about what his jobs are because some other office lies claims its their role too just to make it look as if they do something (irrelevant but heck a rant a day keeps the dr away ). Anyway we all know that when T&M are in your job security is threatened. DH's job is allocated to a contract and if that goes he has no job. He won't find another one, all the compewtition are shedding quickly.

Nw,DH ahs a very big talent: as a hobby he designs light shows for events. He has a palce in process at Uni studying this and a small business set up to gradually turn it into a career.

The problem is I can't work, I have to be home tocare for 2 disabled kids- the usual stuff: no chidlcare (ds1 is very violent), ds2's school bus drop off etc.

So WTC for students would mean DH could feasibly be employed for the rest of his life, not just until contract kickout day.
And therefore pay taxes, instead of being fed by the state.

If that could be combined with access for statemented kids to childcare after school, I could do the last year of my PGCE and we'd have enough to employ a Nanny trained in ASD, get both out to work and pay the Government major moolah in taxes as well as not claiming WTC, CA, etc.

As the meerkat says, the sums are simples!

I second that Peachy!

As a SATM I think a married couple should be allowed to pool their income tax allowances if one partner chooses not to return to work.

I had a great, well-paid career when I gave up work to be a SAHM. That was over four years ago. My younger child is one. Now I am a recently separated single mother on benefits.

If i do not work, i can claim income support, child tax credits, child benefit, housing benefit and council tax benefit. total help of about £300 a week.

if i start my own business, and i earn more than £80 per week (even if it's £85, ie: not enough to live on), then i will lose income support, housing benefit, council tax benefit..... combined with the problem of a potentially very volatile income stream, and the long time it takes to sort out any kind of benefit claim and you end up with the very real possibility that I and my children would end up homeless.

if i do nothing, there would be no such risk.

i cannot see a way to resolve this problem in a way that allows me to proceed with my plan to start a business.
maybe if you tried to explain to me - here, on this page - the logic behind this polcy, then you might begin to answer your question about how to help women (at least women in my situation) start their own businesses. it is your policy, after all, so it should be easy for you to explain this...?

because, really, what is the point of all of us spending our time to write to you here if you won't take the time to respond? how do we know you've even read what we've written?

My job (part time job share) is not being funded after May 2010. I'm petrified about finding a new job. It took me six months to find this one. We need more part time professional jobs or a greater acceptance of job shares. Too often women are forced into lower paid, lower status part time jobs as that is all that is available that fits around school hours.