The Good is the wonderful news that finally, after a century or so of women’s liberation, after decades of legislation to ensure women’s full place in the employment market and in higher education – we have got some tax relief on childcare costs. Very little and coming rather late, but it is an important recognition that the strides that women made are to be maintained. There have been lots of protests from stay-at-home mothers, and I am sure they are doing a good job of motherhood. But the insistence that the best mothers stay at home is relatively recent in human history – and the jury is out on whether this makes for better children or not. The no-fault divorce law of the 1970s pulled the rug out from under women who give up their jobs. If too many women stay at home, and I am very well aware that it is almost impossible to reclaim’s one place on the employment ladder after even a few years out, then there are two risks. One is that educators and employers will privately decide that places are wasted on women because they have the choice to stay at home and be maintained by their husbands. The other is that the women who do go out to work will find it even more difficult to attain the male level of pay and secure their rightful share of places in top jobs because they will be regarded as stepping out of line. The government is already using a false statistical basis in calling for half of top jobs to go to women, because only about two thirds of women choose to work, and many of them are part time; so it is statistically unlikely that they are there to take half of those jobs.
The Bad news is that the government is spending at least £60m of taxpayers’ money, and Newham is spending another £40m, to convert the Olympic stadium into a football ground for West Ham. The stadium cost £500m. It is another example of the terrible profligacy of the Olympics at a time when legal aid is being cut for the sake of £350m, and the government is cutting all those other welfare benefits to general outcry. Perhaps they think that football crowds will forget the state we are in while watching the game. The Romans called it “bread and circuses”, that is a diversion created by government to distract the population from the undermining of moral and civic responsibilities.
The Ugly is the way a very important law that, arguably, over-restricts the press was rushed through our House after, apparently, late night deliberations in a smoke-filled room, involving Hacked Off. First, there is no sound legal foundation to the new law. All the expressions of entrenchment, that is, no change without a two-thirds majority, can be overturned by a simple majority in a subsequent Parliament. Nor is there any way that a Lords’ veto could be entrenched. We have no written constitution to facilitate this, and Parliament remains sovereign now and subsequently. Moreover, no one is sure whether a Royal Charter, made by the Queen in Council, needs statutory underpinning, or whether one Royal Charter’s provisions can bind subsequent Privy Councils and Monarchs. And there is strong legal advice that the provisons for exemplary damages are contrary to human rights law. Moreover nobody knows whether and to what extent the internet is caught in this. So all in all a thoroughly bad law crafted and passed in an undemocratic fashion in a fit of national hysteria. We are all sympathetic to the Dowler hacking situation, but let us also remember that it was the press that uncovered the MPs’ expenses story, the thalidomide story, the hospital scandals and much more (sometimes by breaking the law to get the facts). And I do not want to see huge sums going to celebs who live by the limelight when it suits them.
no one is sure whether a Royal Charter,,
Tne next relevant word in the Baroness’ post is
“undemocratic”. A Labour government does not make such claims for authority.
Parliament remains sovereign
In democratic matters, of course. It is not the soverignty of the crown, as the tories would have us believe, but the soverignty of parliament, which counts.
For all the noble baroness’s sincerity, honesty and research, this topic is akin to Lord Tyler’s
“Who serves Britain’s interest best ?”
My condensed answer to both would be
“Without enough sustainworthy and exemplarily-emulable leaders in the Lifeplace,
no combination of Men, Women and Children, even on Workplace and Governance Committees & Bodies, is ever going to succeed”.
We begin with Baroness Deech being elated by the news that ‘tax relief’ has been granted to some working mothers with children in ‘day care.’ I think another name should be found for the term ‘day care’ as this smells strongly as a politically correct indoctrination that is far from the term ‘care’ as you could get.
However, the true umbridge here is, once again, the back handed put down of the female population who are constantly knocking at the door of the anti domestic group, who found their vocation in the halls of power, which exclude those who don’t want to belong to the ‘mysogeny party.’ Patronisingly, she sneers at those women who do a ‘wonderful job’ as stay at home mothers. In other words, take a bow but make it quick. We don’t want to centre on you traitors as it may create a tsunami in honest female demands. And we ‘gels’ don’t want that after we’ve had it our way for so long, do we?
In other words, again, lets sing it as a chorus, ‘we are not listening. We are here for our personal pleasure, not in service to you who vote.’
And from a practical point of view, this government took away the mothers ‘child benefit’ to give it to those who drop off their kids to strangers, as they are the champions of womanhood and you, those nurturers out there, are simply underserving ‘clingons’ and traitors of your sex.
Time for a hurricane to come their way, sweeping them off to the land of Oz. Ah, but I forget, they are ‘appointed’ not ‘elected’ and so, unable to be ousted. How convenient. How progressively democratic.
The bad: Newham is one of the most deprived areas of the country. And one of the most unahppy. And governments answer is a free football staduim for those rich foreign football players to make millions out of the pockets of those on the breadline. How men in their droves are still buying tickets at exhorbitant prices to see that farce is an enigma. And it certainly can’t be for the comraderie or the ‘male bonding’ aspects of it, because there isn’t any.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:KH0XWp2i-TYJ:www.newham.info/Custom/LEA/Demographics.pdf+&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjaSrpfvzEsx18bJ8u22sPwPAdJQ31MI6Lni5fVP4vk4jdz0gNBBzi1liABfN75Wc_TXD54o1G5V3XRKTZHQXq_2niYq8CxsQIMs4Vhxw_bWESXJ2LtZDbESOXWrzez2pYAyrf3&sig=AHIEtbSSOcXe64dWIwWCnOYZHKIq5TiFng
So, whilst their kids starve, they cheer the fat cats taking the bread from their mouths. As the Baroness reports, what that money could be spent on, for the entire good of us all, should make us weep with ire.
The team:
https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=west+ham+football+team+players+2012&oq=West+Ham+football+team&gs_l=hp.1.1.0l4.2615.7673.0.10502.22.14.0.8.8.0.212.1634.1j12j1.14.0…0.0…1c.1.7.psy-ab.LiZH2dchDy8&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.44342787,d.d2k&fp=cad3cf36b3f6c4af&biw=1024&bih=629
See anyone you know?
http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/politics/in_depth_child_poverty_in_tower_hamlets_and_newham_1_1954309
This has to be exactly what they need in that London borough, at the tax payers expense of course. This is another gift to the friends of the toffs in power. My God, their largesse sees no barriers does it.
Which makes one ask, how is bald baby Haig managing to fund the excess of his stint, whilst being paid from tax payers money for his role as, what was it, with the scrawny Hollywood freak show called ‘stop the rape.’ If it wasn’t so painful it would be the commedy global show of the decade. No nudity I take it? So what is going to be the draw there I wonder? Anyone care to give it a name?
And last but not least, as the old pith goes, is ugly.
This is simply another pay off for those at top in Dufton….. Gag the press and we go free. No recriminations, no jail time, no heads hung in shane, and a pay off for all those good old friends of ours.
We will hear no more about failing executives who claim to run our health service, or, schools, as they sink them further into dire straits. No more news about thieving bank managers or Lords of the Realm, no pics of Harry with his pants down or Kate without a top. Grant with his Divine pick up on Hollywood Boulevard, or Mosley and that Nazi regime. Back to the days of Edward VIII for a fox trot with the wives of his subjects.
The world is looking and pleading for them not to do this, except of course, Zimbabwe. It puts us right in their league which will see those who starve there, vindicated.
Not to fret, we will continue to ‘read all about it’ in the foreign news as they put it on line for our collective viewing pleasure. They cannot censor the USA. Or, much of Europe, come to that!
When flat rate pensions start, stay-at-home mothers will get the full amount, without contributing the cash – paid for by those who go out to work. Overall that’s a much larger amount than the tax allowance that working mothers will get for the relatively few years of childcare costs.
@Baroness Deech:
As women have, for years, been robbed of their pensions by fraudulaently advise telling them they would be as well off paying the married woman’s stamp, I’m sure many of them will jump for joy to hear this news. However, from their past experience the writing on the wall will change long before they come near to getting what is promised by downright fraudster who play the game of smoke and mirrors with our money. Child benefit is worth far more today than pie in the sky tomorrow. And you, being very bright lady indeed, must know this.
However, the removing of the child benefit from those who are dedicated to their children and family, in order to facilitate those who deny their responsibility to their young, should know this is not a good trade but a bad one, for the ‘majority.’ This government knows how to con the public better than any others.
Where have all the men of old with principle gone? The ones who fought for the standards most wish we still had? Could it be the watering down of true Britishness in both our houses that has all but eliminated these true warriors from our Parliament?
Disappeared years ago hen the started covering up frauds by peers. What other explanation is there for making it a state secret when peers claimed for more days than they attended?
Current the pensions debt is 5,300 bn
You’ve just confirmed its going to get bigger. Lots of women getting something for nothing. A lot actually.
Just part of the pensions fraud. 550 bn of taxes can’t pay a debt of 5,300 bn rising at above the rate of inflation.
Lots of women and men are going to be screwed as a result
@LB:
Just to put it in words. The full picture.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rog4U_EwZ_g
Time to refuse this Ugly mentality.
The point being missed by this “Women’s Rights”, and all other Adversarially-“disciplined” additional-luxury-perks-seeking “movements”,
is that
1. The dominant establishments of the whole world are wasting the Earth’s vital longterm human-civilisatioon-lifesupports and means to reach a second-Earth.
2. The failing and thereby obsolescent Reinforcement-Theory’s artificially and greedy high-stacking of pay-grades and “lifestyle”-privileges
(a) neither conserves Vital Lifesupports and Means-to-Earth-Two (it is doing the opposite, destroying and extincting them)
(b) nor strengthens our human-races survival-frugal-thrival primary longest-term Need (it is doing the opposite,
(i) sedentarily-softening
and False-National-Health-Service medicating the masses and impaired-minorities
(ii) legislating a Big Brutal Society
whilst
(iii) itself “The Elite” sedentarily-fattening and further-feathering its own “Nest”.
It is as Christ Jesus warned “Woe unto you lawyers, you have the keys to knowledge but do not yourselves use them; and worse, you prevent anyone else from using them”.
For the latter just run a search as to how many and how successfully are the following leading knowledge and practical-know guides being used cooperatively in Society:
“Effort” by Laban & Lawrence;
“Inner Focus – Outer Strength” by Franklin;
“How To Win Every Argument” by Pirie;
“The Busy Person’s Guide To Easier Movement” by Wildman;
“Natural Vision Improvement” by Goodrich;
“Wisdom of the Body Moving” by Hartley;
“Holistic Living” by Pietroni;
“Mindfulness” by Williams incl CD guide.
How many local “Life” centres, Schools and Universities, Health-Services, and Adult Improvement Organisations are about building Healthier and more Sustainworthy Habits rather than Bigger Bank-accounts, cosier cars, and “leaderfully”-luxurious-lifestyles ?
Our Men and our Youth still failing to reform themselves, what are our leading women doing about this our ultimate survival ?
“…educators and employers will privately decide that places are wasted on women because they have the choice to stay at home and be maintained by their husbands.”
Such thoughts never occurred to me when interviewing candidates. Pre-1997, what will have crossed the mind of most (private sector) employers is, “How much will this candidate cost me?”. Post-whenever-1997, the same question but probably closely followed by, “Is this the sort of person who is likely to make a vexatious complaint should it ever be necessary to compel them to leave, and so cost me way more in a tribunal, whether I win or lose, than someone who has miraculously escaped the protection of the Equality Act ?”. Translated, this means more women than any other ‘minority’ group have to convince the interviewer that they can do the job at least as well as all other candidates, and that they won’t cost them any more than any other candidate.
Other things being equal, women employees with children cost more than women with no children while married men (the majority of whom will be fathers*) earn between 10-40% more than single men. On the face of it then, mothers wishing to ‘have it all’ must be, statistically speaking, more likely to be discriminated against than any other protected group and so deserve lots of stuff like universal benefits, NHS freebies, housing queue-jumps, more money, to make up for politicians’ collective guilt that gets passed on to me, as a tax-payer and as a woman who continues to lose out in the job market.
I am one of the 20% of women in the UK who don’t have children, and who’ve never benefited from the wonder of motherhood yet still get associated with the womb=mother syndrome for no good reason. I do not believe the idea that tax relief on childcare costs helps this group of women in any way; rather, it will do more damage to their employment prospects and will do nothing to reduce the pay gap.
Two ideas that might give a better outcome:
1. Ensure every bank makes available a woman with the power to make substantial loan decisions, private or commercial, for women applicants.
2. Allow women to offer their labour either as an employee or self-employed basis.
*My assumption, my space to make it without irrefutable evidence to the contrary.