It is Cameron vs. the Tories as EU vote approaches

The PM is facing the biggest ever Conservative rebellion on Europe -- a crisis largely of his own ma

David Cameron today faces the biggest Commons revolt of his premiership -- and potentially the biggest ever Conservative rebellion on the issue of Europe.

On 20th May 1993, 41 Conservative MPs voted against John Major on the third reading of the Maastricht Treaty. To date, this was the biggest ever Tory rebellion on whipped business on Europe.

Coincidentally, it is also the figure for the largest Conservative rebellion so far in this Parliament. Earlier this month, on 10 October, 41 Tory MPs voted against attempts to criminalise "insulting" words or behaviour. This did not make much of a splash in the news -- unlike the current vote, which has gathered attention both for the spectacle of the Tories fighting over Europe (again), and because of Cameron's belated decision to impose a three-line whip.

It is still unclear how many MPs will defy the whips to vote in favour of a UK referendum on Europe, but according to the highest estimates, it could be nearly double that 41 figure. If the list of Conservative MPs who openly pledged to support the referendum is combined with those who have already defied whips over Europe since the beginning of this government, the number is closer to 78. Separately, Sunny Hundal suggests that up to 10 Labour MPs could defy their whips to vote in favour of a referendum.

Cameron is attempting to reassure the doubters that in the event of treaty change, he will renegotiate Britain's position. The story dominating the papers this morning -- that Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy had a heated exchange on Europe -- fits the narrative that the Prime Minister wishes to further: that he is not afraid to anger European leaders in his defence Britain's interests. However, this does not appear to be getting through to his party.

In a survey for Conservative Home, 64 per cent of respondents said that they did not believe that Cameron was "very committed to repatriating any powers from the European Union", despite his promises, compared with just 18 per cent who did believe he wanted to repatriate "significant" powers.

It is impossible to say exactly how large today's Commons rebellion will be, and, as the Ballots and Bullets blog points out, the number that actually votes against the whip is almost always invariably less than that predicted. Even if the revolt is not as large as expected, however, it is difficult to see how Cameron can emerge well from this, and one must question his logic in applying the whip in the first place. Mary Anne Sieghart argues today:

If there had been a free vote, the motion might not even have been carried. But if it had, Cameron could easily have said, "I hear what you say. I agree that any renegotiated relationship with the EU will have to be endorsed by a referendum. But it's too early to call one now, when we don't yet know what shape the eurozone will take or what any new relationship will look like." He would have sounded both responsive and responsible. Instead he has absolutely infuriated his party.

Emotions in the Tory party are certainly running high, with at least one ministerial aide -- Stewart Jackson (£), aide to Owen Paterson, the Northern Ireland Secretary -- willing to vote against the whips even if it costs him his job. Graham Brady, the head of the powerful 1922 committee which represents backbenchers, is also set to defy the government (Lord Tebbit said yesterday that "not even Ted Heath faced the chairman of the 1922 Committee voting against a three-line whip"). While the vote is likely to go Cameron's way, the damage within his party will take longer to heal.

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Boots sells lots of products used inappropriately – the morning after pill isn't one of them

The aisles are filled with items to “fix” women's bodies, but somehow preventing pregnancy is irresponsible.

As a teenager in the early Nineties, I had a favourite food: Boots Shapers Meal Replacement Chocolate Bars. There was a plain milk version, one with hazelnuts, plus one with muesli which somehow seemed healthier. I alternated which one I’d have, but I’d eat one every day. And that was all I’d eat.

Because the packet said “meal”, I told myself it was fine. Why bother drawing fine distinctions between the thing in itself and the thing in itself’s replacement? Boots sold other such dietary substitutes – Slimfast, Crunch ‘n’ Slim – but the chocolate bars were my go-to lunchtime option. I was severely underweight and didn’t menstruate until I was in my twenties, but hey, I was eating meals, wasn’t I? Or things that stood in for them. Same difference, right?

I don’t blame Boots the chemist for my anorexia. The diet foods and pills they sold – and continue to sell – were not, they would no doubt argue, aimed at women like me. Nonetheless, we bought them, just as we bought laxatives, high-fibre drinks, detox solutions, anti-cellulite gels, bathroom scales, razor blades, self-hatred measured by the Advantage Point. Boots don’t say – in public at least – that their most loyal customer is the fucked-up, self-harming woman. Still, I can’t help thinking that without her they’d be screwed.

Whenever I enter a branch of Boots (and I’m less inclined to than ever right now), I’m always struck by how many products there are for women, how few for men. One might justifiably assume that only women’s bodies are in need of starving, scrubbing, waxing, moisturising, masking with perfume, slathering in serum, primer, foundation, powder, the works. Men’s bodies are fine as they are, thank you. It’s the women who need fixing.

Or, as the company might argue, it’s simply that women are their main target market. It’s hardly their fault if women just so happen to be more insecure about their bodies than men. How can it be irresponsible to respond to that need, if it helps these women to feel good? How can it be wrong to tell a woman that a face cream – a fucking face cream – will roll back the years? It’s what she wants, isn’t it? 

Yes, some women will use products Boots sells irresponsibly and excessively, spending a fortune on self-abasement and false hope. That’s life, though, isn’t it? Boots isn’t your mother.

Unless, of course, it’s emergency contraception you’re after. If your desire is not for a wax to strip your pubic region bare, or for diet pills to give you diarrhoea while making you smaller, but for medication in order to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, well, that’s a different matter. Here, Boots have grave concerns that making such medication too cheap may be “incentivising inappropriate use”.

I am wondering in what instances it may be “inappropriate” to want to stop the implantation of an unwanted embryo in its tracks. I’ve wondered and wondered and wondered, but I can’t think of anything. I’ve used emergency contraception five times (twice from Boots, following the third degree from an embarrassed pharmacist for no reason whatsoever.) On no occasion have I particularly felt like it.

I don’t get high on nausea and heavy, gloopy periods. I took emergency contraception because in the context of my life, it was the responsible thing to do (by contrast, the most reckless thing I’ve ever done is have a third baby at age 40, even if it saved me £28.25 in Levonelle costs nine months earlier).

Clearly Boots don’t see things the way I do. There may be women who use Adios or Strippd inappropriately, but what’s the alternative to making these things easily available? More women getting fat, or fewer spending money on trying not to get fat, and such a thing would be untenable.

As for the alternative to accessing emergency contraception ... Well, it’s only a pregnancy. No big deal. And hey, did you know Boots even sell special toiletries for new mums, just so you can pamper yourself and the baby you didn’t want in the first place? See, they really care! (But don’t go thinking you can then use your Advantage Points to buy formula milk. Those tits were made for feeding – why not spend your points on a bust firming gel for afterwards?).

I get that Boots is interested in profit and I get that pretending to really, really care about the customer is just what you do when you’re in marketing. I also get that Boots isn't the only company which does this. They all do.

But making it harder for poorer women to access emergency contraception just so you won’t offend the customers who’ll judge them? Really, Boots? Isn’t that making this whole charade a little too obvious?

Commenting on what another woman does with her body should not be off-limits (if it was, no one would have ever identified and treated the eating disorder that was killing me.) Even so, it’s instructive to look at the things we see fit to comment on and those we don’t.

Want to inject your face with poison? Augment your breasts with silicone? Have your vagina remodelled to please your husband? Go ahead. Your body, your choice.

Want to control your reproductive life? Avoid the risks and permanent aftermath of childbirth? Prevent the need for an abortion down the line?

Well, that’s another matter. We’re just not sure we can trust you. Forget about those pills. Why not have some folic acid and stretch mark cream instead?

Glosswitch is a feminist mother of three who works in publishing.