Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

by Red Cat Woman Wed Apr 18, 2012 5:11 am

First topic message reminder :

Cameron's problem with women
Unemployment, childcare and winning back the trust of older voters are just three of the pressing issues facing his future advisor for women

At a time of soaring female unemployment, perhaps any form of job creation is to be welcomed. But whoever benefits from David Cameron's decision to hire a special adviser for women certainly has their work cut out. So what lies in her (or perhaps even his) in-tray?

The immediate challenge is weaning the government off hasty gimmicks, such as the recent "porn filter" for home computers, which didn't quite live up to its billing. Attacking overtly sexualised music videos offers a rare chance for traditional rightwingers and feminists to agree, but while these issues do matter it's jobs, not culture wars, that swing votes.

The urgent economic issue is the C2 women (skilled manual and clerical workers) who are deserting Cameron in droves. Struggling with rising bills and afraid for their jobs, many were also hit by recent cuts in the childcare subsidy provided by Working Tax Credit: airy talk of scrapping maternity leave or unfair dismissal laws just angers them further. The new adviser must explain the political risk to her boss of Nick Clegg looking like the working woman's only friend in government.

She might like to make the case for urgently providing more affordable childcare to keep poorer parents in work, rather than scrapping a 50p tax rate to placate wealthy men. She might even ask why a planned universal credit designed to ensure work pays could end up leaving some second earners (mostly women) worse off.

Another key aim will be winning back older women infuriated by hasty changes to the pensionable age: should the government match Labour's creation of a separate Cabinet post for older people? Or at least find a rising star with whom older women identify, especially if Theresa May doesn't survive the borders scandal?

But the new adviser's biggest task must be to avoid future clunky decisions, by training ministers and officials automatically to stop and ask if any new wheeze would disproportionately hit women. Oh, and given the suspicion with which some male MPs now regard the "wimmin's agenda", she should also make time to watch her own back. Or hers might be a rather short-lived appointment.

So Woman pay to cut bankers tax to 45p. Still I am 100% sure that the Right wing while males on here will all reply and tell us woman how its all so worth while that we carry most of the cuts while there friends in the City get a nice tax break to keep them in the UK.

by Stox 16 Thu Apr 26, 2012 4:40 am

AwfulTruth wrote:Yes Stox, it beggars belief and is just so bizarre and grotesque it is difficult to understand just what a bunch of morons Cameron's coterie really are!

AwlfulTruth
I will very interested to see what the voting figures will be for female voters in May. as Red Cat woman I think made the point that only 13% of female voters would in fact vote Tory. I wonder if it will be this low come the day. What you best guess on females voters that you know?

by AwfulTruth Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:19 am

Yes, Stox

The female Tory vote has absolutely crumbled, big time, and not for the usual reasons either. Word says that it's really mostly all about incompetence and feeling unsafe with a government lurching from one disaster of incompetence to another.

So, with competence being the foremost issue (let alone all the others!), it will look especially bad for the Tories because no one sane would ever want our delicately placed economy in the hands of inept idiots.

The second issue, in order of importance, is the perception of voters, generally, that this is a government of insincere muleteers: stubborn, lying old school tie net-workers who close ranks and refuse to reward incompetence with the sack.

There are other issues, but having the label of 'bunch of crony toffs' hanging above their heads like a petard hoisted above the metaphorically tarred and feathered protagonists, is hardly edifying.

I predict a riot of anti-Tory and anti-LibDem sentiment and one mother of a backlash!

Hell hath no fury...

by oftenwrong Thu Apr 26, 2012 11:29 am

A week from today we go the Polls to elect local Councils, and a week from tomorrow a Wake should begin for the departed soul of the Liberal Democratic Party.

by AwfulTruth Thu Apr 26, 2012 1:46 pm

oftenwrong wrote:A week from today we go the Polls to elect local Councils, and a week from tomorrow a Wake should begin for the departed soul of the Liberal Democratic Party.

As per usual - Oftenright! Very Happy

by tlttf Sat Apr 28, 2012 10:43 am

If 17% of women vote for the tories, does that mean the other 73% can't be bothered to vote?

by **astradt1** Sat Apr 28, 2012 10:50 am

tlttf wrote:If 17% of women vote for the tories, does that mean the other 73% can't be bothered to vote?

Land, you seem to be making what look like posts of desperation.....

Like someone who has lost the will to defend the party they support with a reasoned argument.........

But then again this is just my opinion.............

by tlttf Sat Apr 28, 2012 10:53 am

Fair point astradt1, the problem with politics is that short term memory doesn't equate to long term observation. Whoever is in power all they have to do is offer enough sweeties prior to the election and the voters forget the (often made up) horrors and vote accordingly.

by oftenwrong Sat Apr 28, 2012 11:34 am

There are still large numbers of people who vote as they are instructed by their chosen daily newspaper. It saves thinking, and for people who go through an entire lifetime repeating their mistakes, that can be a comfort.

by AwfulTruth Sat Apr 28, 2012 11:59 am

Everyone who can vote should vote - we must all send a very clear message to the government that they cannot get their own way!

by tlttf Sat Apr 28, 2012 12:12 pm

What if you vote for them, rather than the morons who brought the shyte to the party in the first place?

by AwfulTruth Sat Apr 28, 2012 12:35 pm

Land

Are you voting?

It's all too depressing really - I wonder if retiring to the island of Rhodes would be a good idea?

by tlttf Sun Apr 29, 2012 1:26 pm

I always vote AT and happily there isn't a red bone in my body. I like the retirement plan though my preference would be Skiathos, still a beautiful place.

by Red Cat Woman Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:11 pm

tlttf wrote:I always vote AT and happily there isn't a red bone in my body. I like the retirement plan though my preference would be Skiathos, still a beautiful place.

A bit like me, as there is not one drop of Tory blood in my body or any bone either. nor will there ever be. Italy for me, but them its in my family so will not even have to buy it.

by Red Cat Woman Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:24 pm

tlttf wrote:Fair point astradt1, the problem with politics is that short term memory doesn't equate to long term observation. Whoever is in power all they have to do is offer enough sweeties prior to the election and the voters forget the (often made up) horrors and vote accordingly.

your quite right it was fatal error for jobs and growth, turning a projected 3.2 per cent growth from the time of the comprehensive spending review in autumn 2010 into actual growth of just 0.3 per cent. oh well, That's the Tory party for you. always do such a good job and chucking anythings that they find they need later on.

Now they cannot buy growth for love or money. Still when the election comes in May we should see the first big clear out of all they Tory party dead wood in local government. What a great start. while Cameron carries on with his fake economy that is going know were fast. still the rich bankers will be OK. that should makes most of us dead happy to know they are nice a safe at home. ha ha ha

by sickchip Sun Apr 29, 2012 3:33 pm

Red Cat Woman wrote:Now they cannot buy growth for love or money. Still when the election comes in May we should see the first big clear out of all they Tory party dead wood in local government. What a great start. while Cameron carries on with his fake economy that is going know were fast. still the rich bankers will be OK. that should makes most of us dead happy to know they are nice a safe at home. ha ha ha

So cynical! But oh so right.........spot on, RCW.

by oftenwrong Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:36 pm

But there is plenty of money about. Today, the Sunday Times publishes its "Rich List" that offers few surprises. Three new Members' Clubs are opening in expensive parts of London and Lloyds Bank won't sell its surplus branches to the Co-op Bank because they're common.

Large companies are accumulating wodges of cash, because it's so difficult to choose a safe investment while the Government is in crisis, the Nation is in recession, and the Eurozone is melting like a snowman. Curiously, nobody wants to invest in the sure-fire certainty that within ten years the lights will start to go out unless the UK builds some more Power Stations pronto.

by Shirina Sun Apr 29, 2012 7:49 pm

Right-wingers are the same all over. If you aren't white and male, they will do their best to undermine you. In America, it is much the same as Britain with the Republican party waging a massive war on the female species. They ignorantly try to deny it, of course, but the 600+ anti-abortion bills introduced by Republicans to various state legislatures in just one year speaks for itself. And it's not just abortion, it's about reproductive health. Arizona, for instance, passed a bill stating that an embryo is officially a person 2 weeks before the mother is actually pregnant. Yep, as stupid as that sounds, it's true. That means that women in Arizona are considered *always* pregnant as long as there is the possibility of becoming pregnant in the next 2 weeks. But oh no, it doesn't stop there. Wisconsin repealed a law that ensured women were paid the same wages for the same work as men, and Ann Coulter went so far as to suggest women have their right to vote rescinded.

The result? Romney trails Obama by 19 points among female voters. That is an enormous gap. There is no way ... simply no way ... that Romney could ever win the general election with those numbers.

by oftenwrong Sun Apr 29, 2012 10:20 pm

"There is no way ... simply no way ... that Romney could ever win the general election with those numbers. "

Unless the ladies vote illogically.

by sickchip Mon Apr 30, 2012 1:33 am

oftenwrong wrote:"There is no way ... simply no way ... that Romney could ever win the general election with those numbers. "

Unless the ladies vote illogically.

Apparently some women are attracted to bad boys and bastards.........anybody know why?

by Stox 16 Mon May 21, 2012 2:20 am

sickchip wrote:
oftenwrong wrote:"There is no way ... simply no way ... that Romney could ever win the general election with those numbers. "

Unless the ladies vote illogically.

Apparently some women are attracted to bad boys and bastards.........anybody know why?

you know as a father to a daughter is a question I ask a great deal myself. not that my own baby girl has ended up with a bad boy herself. but I have to admit I am at a total loss Sickchip. as who in there right mind would wish to live a life like that. God there is so much more to life than being beaten or pushed around by some bloody man. I myself would go mad if someone hurt my baby girl even if she is 28 years old now. as to me she will always be my baby in my mind. sad maybe but its how i see it.

by Stox 16 Mon May 21, 2012 2:40 am

Shirina wrote:Right-wingers are the same all over. If you aren't white and male, they will do their best to undermine you. In America, it is much the same as Britain with the Republican party waging a massive war on the female species. They ignorantly try to deny it, of course, but the 600+ anti-abortion bills introduced by Republicans to various state legislatures in just one year speaks for itself. And it's not just abortion, it's about reproductive health. Arizona, for instance, passed a bill stating that an embryo is officially a person 2 weeks before the mother is actually pregnant. Yep, as stupid as that sounds, it's true. That means that women in Arizona are considered *always* pregnant as long as there is the possibility of becoming pregnant in the next 2 weeks. But oh no, it doesn't stop there. Wisconsin repealed a law that ensured women were paid the same wages for the same work as men, and Ann Coulter went so far as to suggest women have their right to vote rescinded.

The result? Romney trails Obama by 19 points among female voters. That is an enormous gap. There is no way ... simply no way ... that Romney could ever win the general election with those numbers.

Hi Shirina
You know read your post on right wingers and woman makes me feel quite sick. as I just do not fully understand there sick views on females in general. as everything they support i myself appose. as its all so authoritarian and righteous all the time. what right do they have to act in such a scandalous way. but you're quite right in pointing out that the right are the same the world over. I am not very surprised that Obama has such a big lead among US woman. as its the same here with only 13% of woman saying they will vote Tory. I just find the part about Wisconsin even more alarming than anything else. as its just so hard to believe that anyone would wish to support such a thing. just lost for words right now.

by Sponsored content

Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?

Re: Is it fair that Cameron reduces women's income to fund tax cuts for the rich?