How will Cameron solve his prisoners' votes headache?

Ministers deny that they are planning to introduce votes for prisoners. But they still need to respond to the European court's ruling.

David Cameron once memorably declared that the thought of giving prisoners the vote made him "physically ill" but, as he later conceded, the government will have to "sort this out one way or the other". The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled as long ago as 2004 that the UK's blanket ban on prisoners voting was illegal and repeated appeals against its decision have failed.

With just a month left until the deadline for the government to respond, today's Guardian reports that ministers are planning a draft bill to introduce limited prisoner voting rights in order to comply with the court's ruling. An announcement will reportedly be made after the police commissioner elections on 15 November. Conservative MPs, unsurprisingly, have reacted with fury to the news. Within hours of the Guardian story being published, Nick de Bois, Douglas Carswell, Stewart Jackson, Zac Goldsmith and others took to Twitter to reaffirm their opposition to the move. De Bois tweeted: "Sitting working with 5 other Cons MPs - if reports of prisoner voting rights are accurate then that's 6 MPs who won't vote for it". In February 2011, of course, no fewer than 234 MPs voted to keep the ban on prisoners voting, with just 22 opposed.

The government has responded this morning by categorically denying that it is planning to bring forward a bill, with one cabinet source telling the BBC: "It is completely untrue. It's not happening. Its complete nonsesnse." The Prime Minister, we are told, continues to believe that "when people go to prison, they lose their right to vote". But this doesn't alter the fact that the government will have to respond in some form to the ECHR ruling by late-November. So, how could it do so? Tory MP Dominic Raab has previously argued that ministers could simply ignore the ruling, with little prospect of the UK being fined by the European Court or ordered to withdraw from it. But the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, is known believe that, after the failure of successive appeals, the government has no choice but to comply with Strasbourg's demands. Expect Tory MPs to challenge Cameron to make it clear where he stands when PMQs begins later today.

David Cameron visits Wormwood Scrubs Prison earlier this week. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Leaving the cleaning to someone else makes you happier? Men have known that for centuries

Research says avoiding housework is good for wellbeing, but women have rarely had the option.

If you want to be happy, there is apparently a trick: offload the shitwork onto somebody else. Hire cleaner. Get your groceries delivered. Have someone else launder your sheets. These are the findings published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, but it’s also been the foundation of our economy since before we had economics. Who does the offloading? Men. Who does the shitwork? Women.

Over the last 40 years, female employment has risen to almost match the male rate, but inside the home, labour sticks stubbornly to old patterns: men self-report doing eight hours of housework a week, while women slog away for 13. When it comes to caring for family members, the difference is even more stark: men do ten hours, and women 23.

For your average heterosexual couple with kids, that means women spend 18 extra hours every week going to the shops, doing the laundry, laying out uniform, doing the school run, loading dishwashers, organising doctors' appointments, going to baby groups, picking things up, cooking meals, applying for tax credits, checking in on elderly parents, scrubbing pots, washing floors, combing out nits, dusting, folding laundry, etcetera etcetera et-tedious-cetera.

Split down the middle, that’s nine hours of unpaid work that men just sit back and let women take on. It’s not that men don’t need to eat, or that they don’t feel the cold cringe of horror when bare foot meets dropped food on a sticky kitchen floor. As Katrine Marçal pointed out in Who Cooked Adam Smiths Dinner?, men’s participation in the labour market has always relied on a woman in the background to service his needs. As far as the majority of men are concerned, domestic work is Someone Else’s Problem.

And though one of the study authors expressed surprise at how few people spend their money on time-saving services given the substantial effect on happiness, it surely isn’t that mysterious. The male half of the population has the option to recruit a wife or girlfriend who’ll do all this for free, while the female half faces harsh judgement for bringing cover in. Got a cleaner? Shouldn’t you be doing it yourself rather than outsourcing it to another woman? The fact that men have even more definitively shrugged off the housework gets little notice. Dirt apparently belongs to girls.

From infancy up, chores are coded pink. Looking on the Toys “R” Us website, I see you can buy a Disney Princess My First Kitchen (fuchsia, of course), which is one in the eye for royal privilege. Suck it up, Snow White: you don’t get out of the housekeeping just because your prince has come. Shop the blue aisle and you’ll find the Just Like Home Workshop Deluxe Carry Case Workbench – and this, precisely, is the difference between masculine and feminine work. Masculine work is productive: it makes something, and that something is valuable. Feminine work is reproductive: a cleaned toilet doesn’t stay clean, the used plates stack up in the sink.

The worst part of this con is that women are presumed to take on the shitwork because we want to. Because our natures dictate that there is a satisfaction in wiping an arse with a woman’s hand that men could never feel and money could never match. That fiction is used to justify not only women picking up the slack at home, but also employers paying less for what is seen as traditional “women’s work” – the caring, cleaning roles.

It took a six-year legal battle to secure compensation for the women Birmingham council underpaid for care work over decades. “Don’t get me wrong, the men do work hard, but we did work hard,” said one of the women who brought the action. “And I couldn’t see a lot of them doing what we do. Would they empty a commode, wash somebody down covered in mess, go into a house full of maggots and clean it up? But I’ll tell you what, I would have gone and done a dustman’s job for the day.”

If women are paid less, they’re more financially dependent on the men they live with. If you’re financially dependent, you can’t walk out over your unfair housework burden. No wonder the settlement of shitwork has been so hard to budge. The dream, of course, is that one day men will sack up and start to look after themselves and their own children. Till then, of course women should buy happiness if they can. There’s no guilt in hiring a cleaner – housework is work, so why shouldn’t someone get paid for it? One proviso: every week, spend just a little of the time you’ve purchased plotting how you’ll overthrow patriarchy for good.

Sarah Ditum is a journalist who writes regularly for the Guardian, New Statesman and others. Her website is here.