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

Getty
Show Hide image

A swimming pool and a bleeding toe put my medical competency in doubt

Doctors are used to contending with Google. Sometimes the search engine wins. 

The brutal heatwave affecting southern Europe this summer has become known among locals as “Lucifer”. Having just returned from Italy, I fully understand the nickname. An early excursion caused the beginnings of sunstroke, so we abandoned plans to explore the cultural heritage of the Amalfi region and strayed no further than five metres from the hotel pool for the rest of the week.

The children were delighted, particularly my 12-year-old stepdaughter, Gracie, who proceeded to spend hours at a time playing in the water. Towelling herself after one long session, she noticed something odd.

“What’s happened there?” she asked, holding her foot aloft in front of my face.

I inspected the proffered appendage: on the underside of her big toe was an oblong area of glistening red flesh that looked like a chunk of raw steak.

“Did you injure it?”

She shook her head. “It doesn’t hurt at all.”

I shrugged and said she must have grazed it. She wasn’t convinced, pointing out that she would remember if she had done that. She has great faith in plasters, though, and once it was dressed she forgot all about it. I dismissed it, too, assuming it was one of those things.

By the end of the next day, the pulp on the underside of all of her toes looked the same. As the doctor in the family, I felt under some pressure to come up with an explanation. I made up something about burns from the hot paving slabs around the pool. Gracie didn’t say as much, but her look suggested a dawning scepticism over my claims to hold a medical degree.

The next day, Gracie and her new-found holiday playmate, Eve, abruptly terminated a marathon piggy-in-the-middle session in the pool with Eve’s dad. “Our feet are bleeding,” they announced, somewhat incredulously. Sure enough, bright-red blood was flowing, apparently painlessly, from the bottoms of their big toes.

Doctors are used to contending with Google. Often, what patients discover on the internet causes them undue alarm, and our role is to provide context and reassurance. But not infrequently, people come across information that outstrips our knowledge. On my return from our room with fresh supplies of plasters, my wife looked up from her sun lounger with an air of quiet amusement.

“It’s called ‘pool toe’,” she said, handing me her iPhone. The page she had tracked down described the girls’ situation exactly: friction burns, most commonly seen in children, caused by repetitive hopping about on the abrasive floors of swimming pools. Doctors practising in hot countries must see it all the time. I doubt it presents often to British GPs.

I remained puzzled about the lack of pain. The injuries looked bad, but neither Gracie nor Eve was particularly bothered. Here the internet drew a blank, but I suspect it has to do with the “pruning” of our skin that we’re all familiar with after a soak in the bath. This only occurs over the pulps of our fingers and toes. It was once thought to be caused by water diffusing into skin cells, making them swell, but the truth is far more fascinating.

The wrinkling is an active process, triggered by immersion, in which the blood supply to the pulp regions is switched off, causing the skin there to shrink and pucker. This creates the biological equivalent of tyre treads on our fingers and toes and markedly improves our grip – of great evolutionary advantage when grasping slippery fish in a river, or if trying to maintain balance on slick wet rocks.

The flip side of this is much greater friction, leading to abrasion of the skin through repeated micro-trauma. And the lack of blood flow causes nerves to shut down, depriving us of the pain that would otherwise alert us to the ongoing tissue damage. An adaptation that helped our ancestors hunt in rivers proves considerably less use on a modern summer holiday.

I may not have seen much of the local heritage, but the trip to Italy taught me something new all the same. 

This article first appeared in the 17 August 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Trump goes nuclear