Cameron and his trouble with women

If the Daily Fail is to be believed, iDave is to appoint a female Special Advisor to assess the impact of every Coalition policy on women.


Because their polling numbers amongst women are apparently quite low, coming in at, depending on which article I read, between 34% and 43%.

Obviously it goes without saying that something like 35% of women (and men) won’t vote for him (or, to be more accurate, a member of his party) simply because of the colour of the rosette on offer. What he doesn’t want to lose are the floating voters, that 15% or so who aren’t so tribal and vote depending on which way the wind is blowing.

And it seems that they don’t like him.

To be fair I can see why, given that this government is, amongst other things, driving the female state pension age towards equality faster than the previous one whilst taking measures to cap benefits which they claimed and pruning the civil service jobs which they did.

We are all, to some degree, conservative, disliking change – especially when it affects us. Thus changes, however necessary they are, mean that politicians risk alienating those voters who are affected by them. Alienate them too much and you lose elections… and it is that thought which causes consternation amongst all politicians and their advisors, not just Cameron.

Their frantic vote scrabbling therefore begs two questions:

Firstly (and I realise I am being flippant here) are we also going to get special advisors to assess how changes impact on the disabled, those of different ethnicities, sexualities, hair colour and however else humanity wishes to group itself?

Secondly (and more seriously) was it the short-term thinking of our politicians which drove the short-term thinking of the voters and thus landed us in the mess, or the other way around?


  1. Sue says:

    I can’t stand him to be honest. Women are a better judge of character and he’s a liar and not a terribly good one! He comes across a second hand car salesman, always licking his mean, thin lips while he speaks. Ugh, he makes my skin crawl…

    • Misanthrope Girl says:

      Oh, I don’t disagree that he is about as trustworthy as Blair. However are his polling numbers down to that or people who seeing the effects of his policies on themselves and are engaged in typically human short-term thinking? If the latter then did the chicken or the egg come first?

  2. He should appoint a libertarian adviser. I’m feeling alienated by his big government welfare/warfare interventionist state.

  3. subwus says:

    You say:
    “Firstly (and I realise I am being flippant here) are we also going to get special advisors to assess how changes impact on the disabled, those of different ethnicities, sexualities, hair colour and however else humanity wishes to group itself?”

    Just see how many returns you get from your browser when you do a search for ‘Equality Impact Assessment’….
    Flippancy will turn into despair, at how much of this shite runs right through the public sector from national to local level.
    From the DWP for example:

    I clicked on a link at the DWP site, which takes us to Jobcentre Plus efforts on EIAs, we get the following (read and weep, how much taxpayers’ money is wasted on this crap I wonder?)….
    Just read the first sentence of the first paragraph, I would have (reasonably?) thought getting people back to work would have been central to everything Jobcentre Plus does. Silly me, that would never do in the insane world of our public sector.

    Impact Assessments
    Diversity and Equality are central to everything Jobcentre Plus does. Our customers are diverse and our aim is to support independence and equality of opportunity for all.

    An impact assessment is a systematic way of finding out whether a change that an organisation is introducing affects groups of people equally, or whether it potentially may have a disproportionate negative impact on one or more particular groups. This applies equally to changes involving customers, staff or other stakeholders.

    We have published lists of national and geographic Impact Assessments on separate pages.

    Equality Impact Assessments
    From 2007 Jobcentre Plus has published Equality Impact Assessments that take account of race, disability and gender equality. In addition age, sexual orientation and religion or belief will also be considered.

    This page provides details of Equality Impact Assessments that have been undertaken by Jobcentre Plus as part of legislative responsibilities in relation to Diversity and Equality.

    In order that Jobcentre Plus meets the legislative requirements for race, disability and gender each time a change is developed, reviewed, or implemented, an impact assessment screening is undertaken, followed by the completion of a full impact assessment where that is required.

    Whilst it is currently a legislative requirement to undertake impact assessments in the areas of race, disability, and gender, (from April 2007), we will also consider other areas of diversity, for example age, sexual orientation and religion or belief.

    Race Impact Assessments
    Before April 2007, to meet the requirements of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, Jobcentre Plus completed Race Impact Assessments. Post April 2007, as described above, we will complete Equality Impact Assessments, which will include race as part of a wider assessment.

  4. subwus says:

    Oh yes, found at the DWP, this pdf article is dated October this year, just 750 people will benefit from this ruling of the European Court of Justice.
    The pdf article is headed with the following:

    Gender Reassignment.
    European Court of Justice ruling and the effect on state pension claims.
    Equality impact assessment for gender reassignment.

    On page 4 is a list of just the ‘internal stakeholders’.
    Inspecting the names of them, one could take an informed guess that the bureaucracy involved here, will cost many times the amount that will be paid to those 750 transexuals affected who gain an extra five years state pension.
    Throw in the cost of the EU Social Security Commissioner (and their surrounding bureaucracy) who prompted all of this, also throw in the cost of the ECJs time and that of taxpayer funded lawyers thrashing the arguments out in the ECJ.

  5. subwus says:

    Jeeeese… with my previous post in mind, in pointing out the amount of bureaucracy involved in paying just 750 transexuals five years extra state pension… I then stumble across this at the DWP (second paragraph) are they taking the piss? ;-)

    The Department for Work and Pensions is firmly committed to the principles of good regulation and to good quality policy-making to achieve proportionate, consistent, transparent and targeted regulation that achieves its policy objective without imposing unnecessary burdens on business, the third sector or the public sector.