Government cuts affecting women disproportionately.

[ElephantsAndMiasmas]

Heard in a R4 doc that £5billion of the £7billion raised by the emergency budget has come out of women's pockets.

Also got sent a link to this event, which sounds interesting: Women At The Cutting Edge

So what do you think? Are they targetting women on purpose? Or is it just a by-product of the traditional Tory Appeal-to-the-Rich-and-Wannabe-Rich mentality. I.e. because women are lower paid and more of us live in poverty, why should they listen to us?

Optimisti I'm not saying that the next few years of deficit reduction will be good for anyone but I just don't think its fair as was suggested earlier that the Government is doing nothing to help those on low wages or that as others suggested those on low wages were subsidising those on higher incomes.

I am against the married tax allowance as it just seems an extravagance we can least afford given the size of the deficit that we have.

I also don't agree with this view that the coalition is somehow attacking women through its spending cuts. The cuts are going to hurt women more than men overall but I don't think they are deliberately targetting women.

It's making people on low wages worse off than before.

how is that helping?

Granted it had to happen, to an extent but it's pointless to pretend it isn't.

Us? low paid workers? but, how did you guess?

Dh has a small business too and is still waiitng the promised Tory mass of help to expand; the local business advice unit is under threat though.

I was wondering about this the other day, and also came to the conclusion that the reason it seems that women and children are being affected by benefit cuts more than men, is that far, far fewer men receive these benefits in the first place. Because the man are rarely the lone parent with the child living with them, or the SAHD. So in reality, apart from JSE and disability, not many men receive benefits which can be cut, IYSWIM.

The real problem that needs addressing is the fact that women and children are in the more vulnerable position in the first place.

The Government has no option but to cut public spending as at the moment we are spending more than £40 billion a year on debt interest and we need to reassure the bond markets and credit agencys that we are going to be able to pay our debts and not default on them.

The Government is trying to compensate those who will be worse affected by the cuts by taking several measures (raising the income tax threshold/ not freezing the pay of lowest paid public sector workers/not including DLA in benefits cap etc) to help those who are worse affected by the reduction in public spending over the next few years. This may or may not offset the cuts my DB who works for just above minimum wage thinks that they will but I appreciate he is single with no children so it might be the same for everyone.

Agree, Sancti. Having established that the £10,000 tax threshold doesn't count because it is more than offset by other changes, what are the government doing to help those on low wages? The tax threshold change was simply trotted out to mollify those who take things on face value.

Am I being completely naive to think that raising the minimum wage would help? More incentive for those out of work to get into work. Less need for HB and other top-ups for low-paid workers. And while I appreciate that many businesses are also struggling, surely most minimum-wage workers are employed by the big companies who could afford it?

It does have an option - it can raise taxes.

There are also a gazillion ways cuts can be made. So they have options of how to do what they do. So it comes down to ideology. It is not non-political.

And does it matter whether the government sit round and conspire to hit women harder, or whether it is central to or a by-product of their ideology, or whether they really didn't notice, it didn't occur to them and they were on holiday when the press were talking about it and the letter from Fawcett got lost in the post?

Governments are not politically unaware, they are not ideologically neutral, they do watch what is going on the the media and they do their very best to control the debate so that their version of how things are just becomes a 'neutral' how things are.

If they are doing it, they are doing it, and saying 'well I'm sure they didn't mean to' doesn't get to the issue.

I don't understand why they can't raise taxes either. Well I do - it's because tory ideology means taxes = bad.

So far we are doing pretty well under this govt - we both work and will still get our CB, we will get the married couples tax thing, and I suspect the other things they do will assist us as on paper we are tory "types" IYSWIM if you look at area and affluence etc. But I'd be happy to pay some more taxes, my parents would be happy to give up their winter fuel allowance... It's all bollocks.

AnnieL it would be more of an incentive but most people claiming are penxioners and disabled; the Governemnt know that, it's why they work so hard at distracting from that core fact.

And with the Goverrnment silent on what is happening to HRP with the CB cut, that is not something we can ignore.

There's also the very basic fact of a job shortage; I am looking atm though restricted by carer duty to hours. Three hundred more people in my town (civil servants, likely to have similar education and background to me) lost their jobs yesterday; all now in competition with me for the jobs that were not there anyway.

I agree with your pooint about more women ebing in vulnerable positions but to an extent wrt to single mothers etc it is not posible to amend that without creating more ahrdshop, or the expenditure on childcare tat Governments resist and is fruitless in the current job market. There would be more value at this precise, abnormal moment in history in focussing on job security and training so that most households can have at least one person in work and those who are less lucky can retrain.

Hudd Dla only protects people from the cap, not many other benefit cuts (eg the HB cut due shortly); the disabled are being made vulnerable. Also there is evidence being seen by charities representing those with non physical disability are losing dla and esa then often winning iot back at appeal, and if people can't access the safety net in the first place the cap is redundant.

Alice / ISNT: good posts.

And this marriage thing? it's a rebate. So if you don't pay tax or enough tax you don't get it. DH's business is still at that stage where most coming in has to be invested back in equipment (technology field) so we live off TCs, my carer's allowance and his student finance; we won;t get teh tax rebate for ebing married. Ideologically I don't give a damn, why should I be rewarded because I had a nice party a decade ago? But it's incredible how the 'give aways' tend to be restricted to certain groups isn't it?

I always beleived that 98% of Tory votes were either understandably upset at some decisions made by the last Government or simply voting for the aprty that would protect their interest group; increasingly however I find people are seeming to live in a world where they see it as them and us: my best friend who can quite merrily describe everyone on benefits as a scrounger then say how silly it is that we don't get more halp with our boys. MPs who are offering help to my dad and his colleagues on one hand in a pensions collapse mess, then is a member of a party that sends people on TV to denouce benefits claimants as- oh that word again. Scrounger. It's absolutely true, I read it in the Daily .

Which is not to say everyone who voted that reads it; it has a remarkably high readership though; somebody does.

There are elements of Tory / New Right ideology that make sense: helping people to find their ways out of problems- but the Tories aren't doing that. The ladders are pulled up so fast you can't blink! Home meals services, schools facillities, potentially privatising child protection in some places FGS.
It's an ideology that the Tories are just not sticking with. Reward those who try and make soemthing of tehmselves- yes. By closing business link places? Sorry? By refusing to address disability childcare issues- come again? By moving huge, scary aoyunts of people from their homes to aplces where there is less employment and quite possibly now ehre for them to actually go- that's a joke surely?

But you see the Tories know the truth: youc an provide ladders etc but there are no jobs to claimb up to right now. So you need to find ways of cutting that are negative, and you can only do that if you slur those in general need as scroungers / spongers / feckless / workshy. And completely ignore Mr H who has autism or Mr D who is 89. Focus instead on the large famillies; yet how many really large ones do we actually know? Dad was 15 / 16 chidlren pre-benefits: there was no help, Dad started work at age 5, ate what could be stolen or caught (hedgehog, poached salmon)- Grandad worked but drunk the proceeds. Dad's siblings seem to be split between hardworking stock (now retired clearly) and dead through alcoholism themselves. A fabby outcome.
And tghe alrge houses for bug famillies- don;t amke me laugh! I remember helping a (working) family of five children and parents that I supported move into a three bed house after several years in a two bed on the list. A mother in a homeless unti with her DH and two chidlren, having to return there after the birth of their third and seeing a Christmas there, in a single room, bgecuase the Landlord hadn't paid the mortgage on their (self paid) rented home and they didn;t have the deposit saved for another. After six months they got a council house; six months in which dad lost his job becuase he worked nights and sharing a room with a baby and two small chdilren in the day wasn't conducive to sleep, and it as too cold for Mum to be out all day. A young woman and her child refused housing because she turned a few places down- places on the street of the man who was recently released from prison for trying to stab her whilst they were married 9the child's father).

And these are tales from teh good times; I don't think Heaven knows what it will be like now: Hell might though.

This Government does not reflect a culture of rewarding success from the start of trying or providing aldders from difficulty. It knows that chances and hope are more than limited and it is reeling the ladder in as fast as possible.

"So it comes down to ideology. It is not non-political."

As is their right Aliceworld. The ConDems are the party in power now. I love the way they are reducing the deficit AND slashing out of control benefits. Very efficient.

Benefits are not a lifestyle choice or a means to breed up the housing ladder. No MN poster would ever do this, but plenty of non-MN people do. The cap is not great for those who already abuse the system in this way, and they have my sympathy, but it will certainly stop more cases.

The £150 marriage allowance thing is a recognition that marrage is good for society and will in future be encouraged, rather than be constantly attacked as in the last decade.

Why should they raise taxes ISNT? The level of tax is quite high enough already. The amount being spent is out of control - this is the problem.

The marriage thing is probably an irrelevance to those groups who could most benefit in terms of Tory Ideology from getting into such systems; it's a tax rebate, not tax = no rebate.

And the it will hit a few.... it will hit a lot.

And thus, it comes down in pure eprsonal ideology whether you're OK with that for a greater punishment on the scroungers, or intent on avoiding damge to those groups in society with the elast broad shoulders.

I am of the latter group. We would pay hgher tax if that were an option so that others could not be forced into homelessness.

The tehr pooint of course CCP is that it would be silly to pretend that teh actions of the ConDems are based on joint ideology; witness the Browne report on university fees and compare with LD policy: indeed its only a few weeks ago that I received an e-mail from the LDs asserting tehy were making progress with obtaining free tuition.

har de bloody har.

Scroungers? You're secretly reading the DM too much SanctiMoanyArse. Everyone knows what they write is all lies and never happens.

I'm more than happy to pay more tax also, but only AFTER the government deals with the hideous waste in the current system. I'm a generous person, but I'm not a fool. Labour policy made it too easy for some to take the piss.

Nah, but I read mumsnet too much which has become pretty much the same thing recently

seen this?

The LDs are the minor partner in the coalition, yet I see their hand in a lot of things. I think they are punching above their weight TBH. They also bring some much needed credibility to the government, as it seems fair game nowadays to slate the Tories with no justification. 'Tories are cnuts' seems to be the mantra on MN, yet rarely with any argument behind it, other than 'Thatcher' who was in power decades ago.

No doubt though, if you are a LD supporter then the match is probably an uncomfortable one. I imagine this counts for double if you are LD with Labour leanings.

I don;t fit any party ideology tbh, never have foudn a good match yet. labour with leanings towards personalm responsibility would my closest fit. I voted LD on teh basis that A) we are in a safe lab seat anyway and B) I knew the candidate through ASD work and admired her.

I don;t think it's true that the Tories are slated needlessly; people have different opinions, not only are they all valid in their own way but a vocal opposition is always a good thing. Hence fighting aginst 10% tax cuts when lab in power and different policies now.

"As is their right Aliceworld. The ConDems are the party in power now. "

Indeed. So why frame it as 'there is no choice'? It could be framed as we want to keep on with what Maggie started, they could frame it as we are ideologically opposed to the public sector and so will systematically take it apart. But no, 'there is no choice'. But there is.

There could well be waste that needs dealing with. It is hard to raise taxes as the British psyche is about wanting Scandinavian services at USA tax levels. But the way it is framed, and in some cases replicated here, is that 'there is no choice', cuts are just a fact and non-ideological. Not true.

So in terms of the matter at hand of gender, the impact is then 'inevitable' as 'there is no choice' and it isn't an attack on women as it is 'apolitical' as 'there is no choice'. Again not true.

I couldn't agree more Alice. The cuts are ideological and they are unfair.

The government has done a fine old job of convincing the public that the cuts are a) inevitable and b) fair. They are neither.

There may well need to be cuts but there is no consensus that they should be so deep or so quick.

All the evidence points to the cuts impacting most upon the poor and the vulnerable (including women, lone parents, people with disabilities, and low income families). How is this fair?

"Indeed. So why frame it as 'there is no choice'?"

Because there is no choice. We cant go on spending like we did in the boom.

Yes there are alternatives, but the ConDems are in power. Sorry if they arent following Labour policies!

Women claim more benefits than men. The cuts will thus affect them more. It is, however, unfair to expect cuts to be drawn up to favour or protect women over men. Plus - the ConDems are not targetting women specifically so there is no argument.

Also - as has been said - I think you have to regard CB as a family benefit. Whos account it is paid into is irrelevant. Some clever use of statistics there, by the Fawcett society (no surprise).

"The government has done a fine old job of convincing the public that the cuts are a) inevitable and b) fair. They are neither. "

In your opinion, RamblingRosa.

The main problem you have though, is that Labour are no longer in power :)

"Whos account it is paid into is irrelevant."

Wholly inaccurate. It is paid into women's accounts on purpose.

Thus, women and children have been targetted in these cuts.

There's money for Trident. Stop spending on that.

There's money for troops in Germany. Stop spending on that.

There's lots of money to be found in the Robin Hood Tax. Implement that.

Are alternatives not a choice then? I think they are, you choose what alternative to adopt.

If you don't think proportion of increase tax vs proportion of cut services is a choice, or cut service a or b is a choice, or cut CB and introduce marriage allowance is a choice then we have very different versions of what the word choice means.

The government can choose to follow what policies they like, that is not my argument. I am not arguing for either side. I am arguing against the idea that political decisions are apolitical. They are not. Politicians make political decisions, they are underpinned (in part) by ideology. Hiding that is very dangerous as it then leads to conclusions that remove debate about the decision-making and the consequences.

So they either discriminate against women, or they then benefit them? How about treating equally, radical I know . Whether or not the government are targeting women is open to argument.

And I do not 'have' to accept that CB is a family benefit. And the source of the data was not the Fawcett society. But I think I've said all this before...

'Women claim more benefits than men. The cuts will thus affect them more. It is, however, unfair to expect cuts to be drawn up to favour or protect women over men. Plus - the ConDems are not targetting women specifically so there is no argument.'

rubbish. You can either cut with no regard to equality or you can consider equality in the way you cut.
you don't need to prove that they are doing it deliberately to think that it would be fairer if they considered the impact and adjusted accordingly.

and I say that as someone who thinks massive cuts are necessary.

They can consider equality in the way they cut but in all fairness it would always affect women more as there are more women on benefits and more that work in the public sector so you can't share the pain as it were in a 50/50 split because there is not a 50/50 representation.