Conservative leadership bids - Maternity pay comments

[LoobiJee]

The Guardian is quoting Kemi Badenoch using the word “excessive” when talking about tax as ‘taking from one group of people and giving to another’, when questioned about maternity pay.

I mean, the whole point of tax is that it’s about taking money from individual citizens and businesses and using it to pay for things that might not be possible without taking and pooling those funds. Such as, let’s say, pandemic preparations.

She fails to mention that one of the reasons businesses are failing is because of the additional costs of imports and exports post-Brexit.

She also fails to mention that there was a time when houses didn’t costs six times your salary, when rents were lower, when council houses were being built, and when the UK’s economic infrastructure was owned by the tax payer not by overseas multinational corporations.

Quote from the Guardian coverage below.

Badenoch says maternity pay benefits 'excessive'

Kemi Badenoch has said she thinks maternity pay is too high.

In an interview with Times Radio, she was asked if she thought maternity pay was at the right level. She replied:

Maternity pay varies, depending on who you work for. But statutory maternity pay is a function of tax, tax comes from people who are working. We’re taking from one group of people and giving to another. This, in my view, is excessive.

Businesses are closing, businesses are not starting in the UK, because they say that the burden of regulation is too high.

When asked to confirm that she thinks maternity pay is excessive, she replied:

I think it’s gone too far the other way, in terms of general business regulation. We need to allow businesses, especially small businesses, to make more of those decisions.

The exact amount of maternity pay, in my view, is neither here nor there. We need to make sure that we are creating an enviroment where people can work and people can have more freedom to make their own decisions.

When it was put to her that level of maternity pay was important for people who could not otherwise afford to have a baby, Badenoch said:

We need to have more personal responsibility. There was a time when there wasn’t any maternity pay and people were having more babies.

Statutory maternity pay is 90% of average weekly earnings for the first six weeks, and then £184 per week, or 90% of average pay, for the next 33 weeks.

Badenoch says she practises what she preaches in this regard. According to Blue Ambition, Michael Ashcroft’s useful and mostly positive biography of Badenoch, when she was head of digital operations at the Spectator, before becoming an MP, and she became pregnant with her second child, she resigned instead of taking maternity leave. “She told me she thought it would be unfair to ask us to keep her job open while she was on maternity leave,” Fraser Nelson, the Spectator editor, is quoted in the book as saying. “She would have been within her rights not to have done that.”

Badenoch might have been helped in making this decision by the fact that her husband is an investment banker.

It's not actually totally self funded, Cautious - employers also kick in a portion.

There are potentially a lot of possible models, but it's hard to know what might be best unless you have some kind of agreement on what kind of outcome we are looking for.

Personally, I think it's much better for society as a whole to accept that human life and family life don't necessarily work best if every element is commoditized, and everyone in paid work. I think we'd be better off to square up to the idea that there need to be people in society whose productivity isn't directed mainly to paid employment and there has to be a way to support those people. (I am not here meaning people who can't work for some reason but people doing unpaid work.)

I find it best not to judge people too much as being representative of a 'type'. Take people for what they are. You don't have to agree with everything someone says or believes to be able to have some respect for them.

Personally find Kemi far too ideological on economics......but have a lot of time for her on other issues. Generally, though...I think she's great. I like her honesty and her grasp of fundamentals.

'Trans inclusive' is not being in support of women's sex based rights as far as I'm concerned. It is fundamentally dishonest.

Paradoxically advising me not to judge...and then judging yourself.

I think Kemi is dishonest too. The lies she told about Henry Staunton were outrageous.

Personally think lying about the realities of biological sex and what it means for women is far, far worse.

Well, they wouldn't say they were lying. Yvette Cooper as Home Secretary is overseeing a number of activities that are actually going to positively impact women. I'd rather have a "trans inclusive" feminist doing feminist things than a "gender critical" non-feminist "mulling" and doing fuck all.

Badenoch couldn't even manage to speak clearly about the law, getting herself in a right old pickle about legal vs biological sex.

https://x.com/GMB/status/1797536066917765428/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1797536066917765428&currentTweetUser=GMB&currentTweet=1797536066917765428&currentTweetUser=GMB

@CautiousLurker
Statutory Maternity Pay is 90% of average weekly earnings for the first six weeks, and then £184 per week, or 90% of average pay, for the next 33 weeks.
I think the point she has been trying to make is that small businesses struggle under the regulation to pay stat maternity pay, especially if they have a largely female workforce. Anecdotally I have read of small businesses closing because they have 2/3 of female employees on maternity leave in a 2 year period during which they obviously had to employ temporary staff to carry out their roles. The business could not sustain the expense, so I understand what she is saying given there are currently 5.5m SMEs struggling with this.

Employers in the UK are fully reimbursed by the government for stat maternity pay. It doesn’t cost them a penny out of pocket.

Sorry: correction - large employers claim back 92% of stat maternity pay from the government, small employers can reclaim 104% - so it would actually be a business benefit to have staff on maternity leave if you run a small business

From HMRC website:
What you can reclaim
As an employer, you can usually reclaim 92% of employees’ Statutory Maternity, Statutory Paternity, Statutory Adoption, Statutory Parental Bereavement and Statutory Shared Parental Pay.
This guide is also available in Welsh (Cymraeg).
You can reclaim 103% if your business qualifies for Small Employers’ Relief. You get this if you paid £45,000 or less in Class 1 National Insurance

Sorry: correction - large employers claim back 92% of stat maternity pay from the government, small employers can reclaim 104% - so it would actually be a business benefit to have staff on maternity leave if you run a small business

Not if the cost of advertising or employing someone on a temporary contract is more expensive than the money they can claim.

It is an outrie lie to say that a man can be a woman. It is an ideological article of faith and nothing else. One that flies in the face of material reality.

You are never going to change anything for women unless you accept the realities of biology and what that means for women; until you recognise that women are not men.

In order to make life better for women the facts of women's lives and the ways in which women are different to men have to be accommodated and factored in.

Women cannot have fair and equal sporting competition if men are included in the female category.

Women cannot have dignity if males are permitted into spaces in which which women are vulnerable, undressed or occupied with the facts of their body.

Women, generally, cannot happily and reasonably engage in the workplace unless the facts of motherhood and childcare responsibilities are factored in and accommodated; or in some types of job unless sex differences in body, build and strength are also factored in

Violence against women and predatory male behaviour is never totally going to disappear - and the only way to lessen and make sure men are accountable for it, it is to be aware that women are vulnerable to it, and that males, generally, are more predisposed to engaging in it - so don't provide unnecessary opportunities for them - which means creating protected spaces for women and girls, and making encroachment and boundary infringement socially and/legally unacceptable.

You are never going to change anything for women unless you accept the realities of biology and what that means for women; until you recognise that women are not men.

I think all feminists recognise the "realities of biology" and this para is not accurate.

Yvette Cooper is heading this initiative to reduce domestic violence:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-measures-set-out-to-combat-violence-against-women-and-girls

This will benefit the lives of women, regardless of Yvette Coopers personal politics and views on gender.

I would rather elect a trans inclusive feminist to take actions like this to protect women, than a gender critical politician who can not even make a fairly simple change to the law and does nothing to benefit women.

But I come to GC as a feminist focussed on improving lives of women rather than purely from a GC perspective.

She wasn't 'mulling' she was doing the work. You seem to forget a) she was not Prime Minister and b) she had a full time job as secretary of State for Business and Trade.

It is well known that her departmental civil servants in Equaities were not supportive; they even tried to stop her meeting Keira Bell at one point. There were also a number of cabinet ministers who did not support changes to the EqA. It was up to Sunak to push it and he didn't.

I don't think it is true that all 'feminists' recognise the realities of biology. There are some who claim to be feminists but who include some men in their definition of women. I can only assume they do this because they do not recognise ( or claim not to) any obvious differences between male and female except in terms of social role, presentation or stereotype.In this world, If a woman is merely a matter of 'identity' involving imagination, role play and/or costume then anyone can be 'a woman' if they so 'identify'.

If 'a woman' is merely an 'oppressed' person who is paid less, more prone to victimisation....and so on, rather than an adult human female ( a biological category) then you are not recognising, or more likely denying ( lying) the fact that 'woman' is the word commonly given to adult human females regardless of their social status, their dress sense, their pay grade, or their imagination.

How can you protect women's interests if you cannot even adequately define what a woman is, and if your definitions also include some men? And how can you protect women and girls if you permit some men to gain access to spaces, services and categories which have been set asside for women and girls - in order to accommodate their differences, as well as their vulnerabilities?

When you don't have boundaries and clear definitions you cannot safeguard or protect anything. Safeguarding for women and girls cannot be a relative concept - whereby there can be some exceptions for some men.

Of course trying to tackle demestic abuse is important.....but then so is providing safeguarding measures for women and girls in the public realm. Measures which ensure the dignity, privacy and safety of women and girls in public settings. No exceptions.

There are some who claim to be feminists but who include some men in their definition of women. Before I even start I'll preface with the fact I do not include men in my definition of women and am speaking as someone who has followed the debate for a long time so understands the arguments of the "other side".
Most trans inclusive feminists define "woman" on the basis of gender, not sex. So for them, they recognise the biological realities of being female but don't think that limits who is a woman.

There are plenty of things that can be done that protect women, without ever having to specify their gender. I.e. things that will only or mostly benefit females:

• protecting abortion services
• investing in gynaecological medicine
• reducing maternal mortality
• increasing work place protections for mothers
• reducing domestic violence
• improving rape conviction rates
• making misogyny a hate crime.

A feminist politician is likely to support all these things,whether or not she believes TWAW.

A GC politician may not. See for example today Badenoch's comments about minimum wage (hot on the heels of the mat pay comments). Any reduction in NMW will disproportionately impact women, who are already more likely to be in poverty.

A narrow GC focus caused by "if you can not define women you can't protect them" paradoxically causes more harm than good in my opinion.

Obviously the best of all worlds is a GC feminist like Shabana Mahmood. But I'll take a feminist like Cooper over a GC like Badenoch if a GC feminist isn't available.

As far as we know Labour are committed to doing that.
I'd rather the media were holding them to account on that than focusing on dresses and yearly £200 WFA

Unfortunately the media seem to have got addicted to psychodrama and bringing down leaders instead. Which is no good for anyone.

Labour are not committed to that. Because if they were they'd have made it very clear by now - and we wouldn't be here endlessly discussing how to move forward.Labour intends to make it easier for men to have female markers on their legal documents, and is still wedded to the concept that "living as a woman" means wearing female coded clothing and using women's facilities.

Labour has elected to keep muddying the waters; refusing greater clarity; and is still in the pockets of Stonewall champions such as Lord Ali - who in 2015 Stonewall declared to be the 'politician of the year'.

How are you defining 'trans inclusive'? Included in what?

How are you going to protect single sex spaces, services and categories if you include some men in the definition of woman? And what of issues of 'consent' which are highlighted in that government document you liinked to earlier when it comes to tackling violence against women in the private, domestic sphere?
Are you suggesting that the government can consent on behalf of women when it comes to permitting men into their intimate, public, female only spaces?

You cannot talk clearly and meaningfully about women if you cannot define a woman; or if you implicitly include some male people in that category. You can't just assume that everyone really secretly knows what we are talking about when we are talking about 'women and girls'. You cannot make workable law like that.

Woman is not a costume. It is a biological reality - and it is grossly offensive to suggest otherwise.

Furthermore, if you include some women as men - and in order to accommodate them you end up having to target 'inclusive' women's health campaigns, for example, by eliminating the word 'woman' so as not to offend women who imagine they are men you are eroding and under-mining the very existence of women as a distinct human category. And you are encroaching on the very dignity of women; colonising the language they use to describe their experience.

It is a total nonsense.

Are you disagreeing with my position that action on items in the bulleted list will benefit women, regardless of the definition used?
That's my point. The definition is irrelevant. Only women (=adult human female) will ever need an abortion. Disproportionately women (=adult human female) don't see their rapist (=adult human male) face justice.

Focusing on definitions over and above anything else delays beneficial action that could be taken regardless.

That is the main issue that is dependent on a definition and I'm looking forward to seeing what labour propose.

Labour have already declined to make clear a definition.

And please can you stop writing "you" because I've made it very clear that it's not my opinion that the definition of women should include males, but the way you are writing it could lead readers to think that is my opinion.

I wouldn't mind but people repeatedly call me a TRA or say I'm known for being a lib fem/trans inclusive etc which is all untrue and I don't want to have to repeatedly correct people.

Labour have said they will update the GRA and make it clear there will be "safe spaces" for biological women only.

We can bicker about who's interpretation of that phrase is more likely to be correct but ultimately until they put more meat on the bones it's pointless.