David Cameron and George Osborne attend the UK-India Business meeting in New Delhi on July 29, 2010. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Cameron and Osborne can’t avoid the truth that their policies have hit women hardest

The Tories’ tax and benefit changes have cost women four times as much as men – little wonder when they are so absent from the top table.

They say a picture tells a thousand words. And the image last month of David Cameron at Prime Minister's Questions - trying to deny his government was out of touch while surrounded by an all-male frontbench - said it all. The lack of women at the top of the government goes to the heart of a deeper problem. As we celebrate International Women's Day, it's worth assessing the impact on women of the decisions this government has taken over the last four years.

And nowhere is this starker than in the choices the Chancellor has made. The latest analysis by the House of Commons Library shows that since 2010 George Osborne's Budgets and Spending Reviews have hit women four times harder than men. Childcare support has been cut back, children's centres closed and even maternity pay has been cut in real terms. Yet at the same time this government has given a £3bn tax cut to the top one per cent of earners - 85 per cent of whom are men.

It's little wonder the government has made such unfair choices when women are so absent from the top table. There are no women sitting on the key committees making decisions on public spending, banking reform or infrastructure investment - and only one on the Economic Affairs Committee. George Osborne has not appointed a single woman to the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee, which is why there have been no women members of the MPC since June 2010. This is the first time there have been no women on the committee that sets interest rates since 1997 - something which Ed Balls has said he is determined to put right if Labour wins the next election.

Take the Conservative Party's flagship tax policy - the married couple's tax allowance. David Cameron uses it as a fig-leaf to claim his government is helping families - despite the huge hit to household budgets he has delivered. But not only is it a policy which doesn't help millions who are widowed, separated or divorced, it doesn't even help two-thirds of married couples. Only one in six families with children will be helped. And startling figures from HM Revenue and Customs show that most of the gain - 84 per cent - actually goes to men rather than women.

Women are being hit hard by the cost-of-living crisis. As my colleague Gloria de Piero has shown today, women are over £26 a week worse off in real terms since 2010. After significant progress under Labour, when the gender pay gap fell by over 7 per cent, the pay gap between men and women is now increasing again. At the same time, the cost of childcare places has risen by an average 30 per cent on David Cameron's watch - five times faster than pay. The truth is that for women across the country this is no recovery at all.

So we need action in this month's Budget to tackle the cost-of-living crisis and earn our way to higher living standards for all, not just a few. Labour will help make work pay for women and their families by strengthening the minimum wage, incentivising employers to pay the living wage and tackling the abuse of zero-hours contracts. We'll help mums and dads balance work and family life by expanding free childcare for working parents of three and four year olds and guaranteeing before and after-school care for primary school children. And we'll balance the books in a fairer way by reversing this government's £3bn tax cut for the top one per cent of earners.

George Osborne's Budget is one of his final opportunities to turn the tide on this government's failure towards women. But after their woeful record of the last four years, I'm not holding my breath.

Catherine McKinnell is shadow economic secretary to the Treasury and MP for Newcastle upon Tyne

Show Hide image

Labour must reclaim English patriotism if we are to beat Ukip and the Tories

We can't talk about the future of our country unless we can discuss the past. 

I was a parliamentary candidate for Thurrock, but the place which I currently call home is Hackney, London. This distinction is worth explaining. The questions of Labour and Englishness – what exactly is the English problem that we’re trying to solve, why do we need a progressive patriotism, does it already exist, if not why not and if we had one what would it look like? – are, above all, questions of identity and place. We need to build a patriotism that includes and resonates with residents of both Hackney and Thurrock. Currently they are very far apart. 

I’m the little girl who sat on her dad’s shoulders to wave a flag at Princess Anne’s first wedding. And I was also, like Sadiq Khan, waving a flag at the Silver Jubilee in 1977. I’m an ex-Catholic, I’m a Londoner, I’m English and I’m a woman, and all of those identities are important although not necessarily equally so and not necessarily all of the time.

But I’m also a member of the Labour party, not only as a candidate, but now as an activist in Hackney. And that is where I see the difference very strongly between Hackney and what I experienced in Thurrock. 

Thurrock was Ukip ground zero last year - 12,000 people voted for Ukip in a general election for the first time, on top of the 3,500 that had voted for them before in 2010. Most of those 12,000 people had either not voted before, or had voted Labour. 

This isn’t just about being in two different places. Sometimes it feels like more than being in two different countries, or even like being on two different planets. The reality is that large swathes of Labour’s members and supporters don’t identify as patriotic, fundamentally because patriotism has been seized and colonised by the right. We need to understand that, by allowing them to seize it, we are losing an opportunity to be able to reclaim our past. 

We do not have any legitimacy to talk about the future of our country unless we can talk about our past in a better way. We have tried but our efforts have been half-hearted. Take Ed Miliband's call for One Nation Labour, which ended up amounting to a washed-out Union Jack as a visual for our brand. It could have been so much better – an opportunity for an intellectual rebranding and a seizure of Conservative territory for our own ends. Ultimately One Nation Labour was a slogan and not a project. 

There is a section of the left which has a distinct discomfort with the idea of pride in country. It has swallowed the right-wing myth that England’s successes have all been Conservative ones. This is a lie, but one that has spread very effectively. The left’s willingness to swallow it means that we are still living in a Thatcherite paradigm. It is no wonder progressives revolt at the idea of patriotism, when the right’s ideas of duty and authority quash our ideas of ambitions for equality, opportunity for all and challenging injustice. But we risk denying our successes by allowing the right to define Englishness. It’s England that helped establish the principle of the right to vote, the rule of law, equal suffrage, and the fight against racism. 

If Englishness is going to mean anything in modern England, it needs to be as important for those who feel that perhaps they aren’t English as it is for those who feel that they definitely are. And a place must be reserved for those who, though technically English, don’t see their own story within the Conservative myth of Englishness. 

Although this reclaiming is electorally essential, it is not an electoral gimmick. It is fundamental to who we are. Even if we didn’t need it to win, I would be arguing for it.

We need to make sure that progressive patriotism reclaims the visual language that the Conservatives use to dress up their regressive patriotism. Women need to be as much in the pantheon of the radicals as part of the visual identity of Englishness. Women tend to either be there by birth or by marriage, or we are abstract manifestations of ideals like "justice" or "truth" – as seen on city halls and civic buildings across the country. But English women need to be real, rather than just ideal. Englishness does need to be focused on place and connection, and it should include Mary Wollstonecraft and Sylvia Pankhurst as well as Wat Tyler and Thomas Paine. 

We can’t pretend that we’re always right. The most patriotic thing you can do is to admit sometimes that you’re wrong, so that your country can be better. I love my country, for all its faults. But I do not live with them. I try to make my country better. That is progressive patriotism. And I know all of us who want to be part of this can be part of it. 

This article is based on Polly’s contribution to Who Speaks to England? Labour’s English challenge, a new book published today by the Fabian Society and the Centre for English Identity and Politics at the University of Winchester.