Shadow health minister Liz Kendall during the party's NHS week in the election campaign. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Five things we learned from Liz Kendall at the Press Gallery

Labour leadership candidate backs the 2 per cent defence spending target and free schools. 

Labour leadership contender Liz Kendall, one of three likely to make the ballot (the others being Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper), appeared before a Parliamentary Press Gallery lunch this afternoon, feeding the hacks plenty of newslines. Here are the five main ones. 

She backs the 2 per cent defence spending target

The Tories have repeatedly refused to pledge to meet the Nato target of spending 2 per cent of GDP on defence (despite David Cameron urging other member states to do so). But Kendall today declared her support for the commitment. "Under this government we have seen a quiet diminishing of Britain's role in the world, which we did too little to challenge because we were paralysed by the past," the shadow health minister said. "Under my leadership, Labour will no longer stand by while the Prime Minister weakens our country and allows the world to become less secure. That means insisting the UK maintains our basic Nato commitment to continue spending 2 per cent on defence. As leader of the opposition I will hold David Cameron to account for Britain's promise to our allies and I will oppose him if he breaks it." 

But while her stance allows Labour to outflank the Tories in a novel area, it will make it harder for her to achieve fiscal credibility unless she outlines how the expensive pledge would be paid for. 

She supports free schools

Labour went into the election opposing the establishment of free schools in areas with surplus places - a stance that Burnham has promised to maintain. But Kendall declared that she would support institutions of all kinds provided that they were "providing a great education".  

"As leader, I'm not going to waste time obsessing about school structures. If a school is providing a great education, whether it's a local authority, academy or free school, we will back it. What's more, if someone wants to help run their school, they deserve credit, not criticism." 

Kendall's stance is designed to show that Labour is open to public service reform (one of her greatest political passions) and takes a non-ideological approach to education. But it will not help her cause among the trade union members and party activists she will need the support of to win the leadership (the majority of whom are opposed to free schools). 

She would not cut tuition fees and instead focus on early years 

One of Labour's signature election pledges was to reduce university tuition fees from £9,000 to £6,000. But Kendall disowned this policy, instead promising to focus on early years education. 

"When kids in my constituency start school 15 months behind where they should be in terms of their development and 20 months behind in some areas, they play catch-up for the rest of ther lives. They struggle to even get basic GCSEs, let alone have a chance of going to college, university or getting a job. That's why children's early years will be my priority as leader, not cutting university tuition fees."

She expected the Tories to win the most seats 

Asked by NS editor Jason Cowley why she and her shadow cabinet colleagues failed to remove Miliband if they believed his approach was failing, Kendall replied: "You don't know what goes on behind closed doors and the conversations people have. But he was elected leader, he deserved our loyalty and support. He took the decisions and we backed that because that's what happens when you elect a leader, I believe in collective responsibility. 

Kendall did admit, though, that she expected the Tories "to get most seats" at the election, recalling that "When you have so many undecided voters in our key marginals, you know something is fundamentally wrong. Because it's either that our Labour party members aren't canvassing properly, which isn't the case because they're fantastic, it's because people aren't telling you the truth: either they're going Tory or they're going to vote Ukip. I thought they'd get the most seats but I didn't predict the scale of it.

She is open to the Labour leader facing re-election  

Asked by the Spectator's Isabel Hardman whether she supported the next leader submitting themselves to re-election before the next election (as proposed by Labour peer Jan Royall), Kendall made it clear that she was open to the idea. 

"I think the idea that people are asked to make sure that you're up the job that you're doing is an interesting one, actually, those three years or whatever. We have to do it as MPs, I think it's an interesting idea." Asked whether she wouldn't object to a second leadership contest, she replied: "If people think you're not up the job, then yes." 

***

Now listen to George discussing the Labour leadership contest on the NS podcast:

 

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.