On Tuesday night, I noted on Twitter the leak of the No10 policy unit document suggesting new policies, focus and communications efforts on ‘women’.
Most of the things discussed seem perfectly sensible areas for discussion (apart from the thought that communications is the only real problem).
As a woman – no, wait. I HATE that. I hate that I am supposed to think of things ‘as a woman’. I am a person, an individual, part of a family, part of a community, and part of society. I don’t want my government trying to tickle me with fluffy-sounding policies like an anonymous website to allow me to compare my salary to others, or gestures towards equality such as a summit for women in business. I want them to think about what they’re doing – the palaver over the pension ages for women born in 1953 and 1954 was entirely avoidable, easy to resolve, and a stupid distraction from the main issue.
Being the age I am, many of my friends are having their first babies. Without exception, every single man is as moved, and as concerned for their child’s future, as the women. Society is moving – glacially slowly – towards a more equal and less segregated way of thinking about raising children; governments have a role to play in this by refuting the concept that woman = childcare and men = work.
While I am no fan of the simple notion of ‘marriage tax-breaks’, I can see an argument for something that says that society values couples with children who stay together. I think some of the things like front-loading child benefit or personal budgets for maternity services are sensible and in tune with other changes that are being made in other areas.
I am, unsurprisingly, disappointed that some commentators seem to think that addressing the problem of a lack of women in senior positions in politics or business is somehow un-Conservative. Women make up more than 50 per cent of the population and it is simply not credible to think that they are ‘not good enough’ to make up a similar proportion of senior positions.
As I said above, I am not a fan of thinking in terms of ‘these policies will appeal to women’. I want my politicians to think in terms of what is right and will achieve the results that we as a society want to see. But recent polling has shown that the Conservatives’ polling is slipping behind amongst women, and this is dangerous territory to be in. Given that it’s happening, there are ways to resolve this – first and foremost, the government needs to deliver on its promises – to be the most family-friendly government in the world, to promote equality and to open up opportunity.
Equally it needs to remember that this didn’t need to happen. The Tories had big leads amongst women for years, and yet somehow – whether because they aren’t putting through the policies they promised, or because they’re shying away from the radical ones, or because the rhetoric isn’t matching the substance, or because it turns out the policies are being implemented properly – women aren’t trusting the Tories as much any more.
I’d like to note, finally, that I am very pleased that someone in No10 has recognised something I have argued for years: that too much doom and gloom and austerity is dangerous, and the Tories have to make the argument for why it is worth it by setting out where we will get to if we go through the gloom. This government has, as I’ve said before, the potential to be so radical in terms of what it delivers, but so often it either fails to tell anyone about it, or waters down proposals for fear of upsetting the status quo. We – I – campaigned on a platform of change, and I want to see them getting on with delivering that.
Related posts:
New blogpost: Does David Cameron have a problem with women? http://t.co/nNIK35Lu #fb
I think you’re getting to the real point at the end. Too much doom and gloom and austerity is a problem when women are often the recipients of family benefits, and more likely to work in the public sector.
Also, I don’t think the Conservatives have set out a convincing narrative for any of their (in some cases very radical) reforms. This is why health and forests had to be stopped, and why planning is causing such a fuss. Even where things are going well, like in welfare, it is because the policy plays to underlying prejudice rather than the govt selling it well.
We were all taught in politics seminars in the 90′s that the Conservatives had big leads with women voters. Some speculated because men were more likely to advocate radical change. Perhaps the govts prediliction for radical change without a narrative, usually at the expense of women, is coming back to haunt them?