Hammond, Cable and May: the ministers who could resign over cuts

If Osborne refuses to give way in the Spending Review, cabinet ministers may choose to walk out.

When the coalition was formed in 2010, debate quickly began about who would be the first cabinet minister to resign over government policy, with the answer usually involving Vince Cable and spending cuts.

In the event, while there's been no shortage of resignations, not one has been over a point of principle. To refresh, David Laws resigned as chief secretary to the Treasury on 29 May 2010 after claiming expenses to pay rent to his partner, Liam Fox resigned as defence secretary on 14 October 2011 after  his lobbyist friend Adam Werritty was revealed to have joined him on official overseas trips, Chris Huhne resigned as energy and climate change secretary on 3 February 2012 after he was charged with perverting the course of justice by allowing Vicky Pryce to claim speeding points on his behalf, Andrew Mitchell resigned as chief whip on 19 October 2012 after allegedly calling the police "fucking plebs" and Tom Strathclyde resigned as leader of the House of Lords on 7 January 2013 to return to his business career.

But with government unity fraying over the Spending Review, it's worth asking whether we could soon see the first principled resignation. When George Osborne announced yesterday that seven departments had agreed "in principle" to cuts of up to 10 per cent, he simultaneously revealed those that had not, including Defence (Philip Hammond), the Home Office (Theresa May) and Business (Vince Cable). While Osborne now intends to revive the government's "star chamber" to coerce uncooperative ministers into accepting cuts, Hammond made it clear on the Today programme this morning that he was prepared to do battle with the Treasury: 

We should be very clear that there is a difference between efficiency savings, which may be difficult to achieve but are painless in terms of the impact on the front line, and output cuts, which are of a very different order and require proper and mature consideration across government about the impact that they will have on our military capabilities.

Should Osborne nevertheless demand more than mere "efficiency savings", it is no longer unthinkable that the hitherto loyal Hammond could walk out. After his recent interventions over welfare spending (cut it, rather than defence), the EU (he would vote to leave were a referendum held today) and gay marriage (wrong and a waste of government time), speculation has been growing among Tory MPs that Hammond could quit and set himself up as the leader of the traditionalist right. While Hammond's allies dismissed the suggestion as "ridiculous", the possibility of such a resignation increases as the election draws closer. If it looks as if the Tories will lose, the temptation for ministers to quit and position themselves for the leadership election to come could prove irresistible.

Another minister to watch, as ever, is Vince Cable, who has been lobbying hard for his department to be protected on economic grounds and has warned that "further significant cuts will do enormous damage to the things that really do matter like science, skills, innovation and universities" (he even suggested at one point that the Spending Review be abandoned) . If Osborne refuses to give way, Cable could well choose this moment to use his "nuclear option". 

Finally, there's Theresa May, who argued at the weekend that the budget of the counter-terrorism police should be fully protected, as it was in the 2010 Spending Review. She said:

I'm absolutely clear that we need to ensure that the intelligence services and, indeed, in policing CT (counter-terrorism policing)  … in the last spending review we ensured that CT policing was not treated the same as overall policing and I see every reason to take that same view in the next spending review.

Osborne said yesterday that he was "not going to do anything which is going to endanger the security of this country at home or abroad" but David Cameron's spokesman later refused to confirm that this amounted to a guarantee that the anti-terror budget would be shielded from cuts. Should this area fail to escape Osborne's axe, May, who, like Hammond, has been positioning herself for the post-Cameron era, could also choose to walk. 

Vince Cable has warned that "further significant cuts" to skills, science and universities would do "enormous damage". Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

The Science & Society Picture Library
Show Hide image

This Ada Lovelace Day, let’s celebrate women in tech while confronting its sexist culture

In an industry where men hold most of the jobs and write most of the code, celebrating women's contributions on one day a year isn't enough. 

Ada Lovelace wrote the world’s first computer program. In the 1840s Charles Babbage, now known as the “father of the computer”, designed (though never built) the “Analytical Engine”, a machine which could accurately and reproducibly calculate the answers to maths problems. While translating an article by an Italian mathematician about the machine, Lovelace included a written algorithm for which would allow the engine to calculate a sequence of Bernoulli numbers.

Around 170 years later, Whitney Wolfe, one of the founders of dating app Tinder, was allegedly forced to resign from the company. According to a lawsuit she later filed against the app and its parent company, she had her co-founder title removed because, the male founders argued, it would look “slutty”, and because “Facebook and Snapchat don’t have girl founders. It just makes it look like Tinder was some accident". (They settled out of court.)

Today, 13 October, is Ada Lovelace day – an international celebration of inspirational women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). It’s lucky we have this day of remembrance, because, as Wolfe’s story demonstrates, we also spend a lot of time forgetting and sidelining women in tech. In the wash of pale male founders of the tech giants that rule the industry,we don't often think about the women that shaped its foundations: Judith Estrin, one of the designers of TCP/IP, for example, or Radia Perlman, inventor of the spanning-tree protocol. Both inventions sound complicated, and they are – they’re some of the vital building blocks that allow the internet to function. 

And yet David Streitfield, a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist, someow felt it accurate to write in 2012: “Men invented the internet. And not just any men. Men with pocket protectors. Men who idolised Mr Spock and cried when Steve Jobs died.”

Perhaps we forget about tech's founding women because the needle has swung so far into the other direction. A huge proportion – perhaps even 90 per cent - of the world’s code is written by men. At Google, women fill 17 per cent of technical roles. At Facebook, 15 per cent. Over 90 per cent of the code respositories on Github, an online service used throughout the industry, are owned by men. Yet it's also hard to believe that this erasure of women's role in tech is completely accidental. As Elissa Shevinsky writes in the introduction to a collection of essays on gender in tech, Lean Out: “This myth of the nerdy male founder has been perpetuated by men who found this story favourable."

Does it matter? It’s hard to believe that it doesn’t. Our society is increasingly defined and delineated by code and the things it builds. Small slip-ups, like the lack of a period tracker on the original Apple Watch, or fitness trackers too big for some women’s wrists, gesture to the fact that these technologies are built by male-dominated teams, for a male audience.

In Lean Out, one essay written by a Twitter-based “start-up dinosaur” (don’t ask) explains how dangerous it is to allow one small segment of society to built the future for the rest of us:

If you let someone else build tomorrow, tomorrow will belong to someone else. They will build a better tomorrow for everyone like them… For tomorrow to be for everyone, everyone needs to be the one [sic] that build it.

So where did all the women go? How did we get from a rash of female inventors to a situation where the major female presence at an Apple iPhone launch is a model’s face projected onto a screen and photoshopped into a smile by a male demonstrator? 

Photo: Apple.

The toxic culture of many tech workplaces could be a cause or an effect of the lack of women in the industry, but it certainly can’t make make it easy to stay. Behaviours range from the ignorant - Martha Lane-Fox, founder of, often asked “what happens if you get pregnant?” at investors' meetings - to the much more sinister. An essay in Lean Out by Katy Levinson details her experiences of sexual harassment while working in tech: 

I have had interviewers attempt to solicit sexual favors from me mid-interview and discuss in significant detail precisely what they would like to do. All of these things have happened either in Silicon Valley working in tech, in an educational institution to get me there, or in a technical internship.

Others featured in the book joined in with the low-level sexism and racism  of their male colleagues in order to "fit in" and deflect negative attention. Erica Joy writes that while working in IT at the University of Alaska as the only woman (and only black person) on her team, she laughed at colleagues' "terribly racist and sexist jokes" and "co-opted their negative attitudes”. 

The casual culture and allegedly meritocratic hierarchies of tech companies may actually be encouraging this discriminatory atmosphere. HR and the strict reporting procedures of large corporates at least give those suffering from discrimination a place to go. A casual office environment can discourage reporting or calling out prejudiced humour or remarks. Brook Shelley, a woman who transitioned while working in tech, notes: "No one wants to be the office mother". So instead, you join in and hope for the best. 

And, of course, there's no reason why people working in tech would have fewer issues with discrimination than those in other industries. A childhood spent as a "nerd" can also spawn its own brand of misogyny - Katherine Cross writes in Lean Out that “to many of these men [working in these fields] is all too easy to subconciously confound women who say ‘this is sexist’ with the young girls who said… ‘You’re gross and a creep and I’ll never date you'". During GamerGate, Anita Sarkeesian was often called a "prom queen" by trolls. 

When I spoke to Alexa Clay, entrepreneur and co-author of the Misfit Economy, she confirmed that there's a strange, low-lurking sexism in the start-up economy: “They have all very open and free, but underneath it there's still something really patriarchal.” Start-ups, after all, are a culture which celebrates risk-taking, something which women are societally discouraged from doing. As Clay says, 

“Men are allowed to fail in tech. You have these young guys who these old guys adopt and mentor. If his app doesn’t work, the mentor just shrugs it off. I would not be able ot get away with that, and I think women and minorities aren't allowed to take the same amount of risks, particularly in these communities. If you fail, no one's saying that's fine.

The conclusion of Lean Out, and of women in tech I have spoken to, isn’t that more women, over time, will enter these industries and seamlessly integrate – it’s that tech culture needs to change, or its lack of diversity will become even more severe. Shevinsky writes:

The reason why we don't have more women in tech is not because of a lack of STEM education. It's because too many high profile and influential individuals and subcultures within the tech industry have ignored or outright mistreated women applicants and employees. To be succinct—the problem isn't women, it's tech culture.

Software engineer Kate Heddleston has a wonderful and chilling metaphor about the way we treat women in STEM. Women are, she writes, the “canary in the coal mine”. If one dies, surely you should take that as a sign that the mine is uninhabitable – that there’s something toxic in the air. “Instead, the industry is looking at the canary, wondering why it can’t breathe, saying ‘Lean in, canary, lean in!’. When one canary dies they get a new one because getting more canaries is how you fix the lack of canaries, right? Except the problem is that there isn't enough oxygen in the coal mine, not that there are too few canaries.” We need more women in STEM, and, I’d argue, in tech in particular, but we need to make sure the air is breatheable first. 

Barbara Speed is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman and a staff writer at CityMetric.