Following in the footsteps of female fighters

Louise Nousratpour
Wednesday March 9, 2011
The Morning Star

Women kicked off the French Revolution when they marched on Versailles to demand bread.

They formed the victorious suffrage movement of the late 19th and early 20th century in Britain.

They are playing an active role in the popular uprisings which have sent dictators packing across north Africa and the Middle East.

And today representatives of working-class women from across England will take centre stage in Eastbourne for their annual parliament, the TUC women's conference, to mobilise and organise a united front against government attacks on every aspect of their lives.

The snail's-pace progress made towards gender equality over recent years is being pushed back with lightning speed as Con-Dem ministers roll up their sleeves to butcher the country's welfare system and dilute equality laws.

With a record 1.4 million women out of work and thousands more expected to join the dole queue once the axe falls on the female-dominated public sector, we haven't had it this bad since Britain's only female prime minister Margaret Thatcher ruled the roost.

More than 70 per cent of the cuts will affect women because they make up two-thirds of the public-sector workforce, twice as many women rely on benefits as men, and women are the main users of local services.

Switching the measure for benefits and public-sector pension increases from the retail price index to the lower consumer price index represents a further blow.

Economics expert Sue Himmelweit of UK Women's Budget Group describes Chancellor George Osborne's spending review as a "stealth tax" on women's work, arguing that their unpaid labour as carers will inevitably be called upon to replace public-service cuts.

"Cuts to local government services and job loss in the public sector equate to less service, fewer jobs and more domestic burden for women," she says.

"The biggest overall cut is in local government at a cumulative 27 per cent by 2014-15.

"Local government provides many of the essential personal services that women and their families need.

"Women are the ones most likely to make up the shortfall in these services by their own unpaid efforts in the home, in some cases reducing their own employment and income to make that possible."

Research by the TUC shows that a two-child family with both parents in minimum-wage jobs earning around £15,000 a year will lose £2,700 annually by April 2013.

Single mothers will be among the worst off, with an estimated loss of £3,121 to their net income - almost a fifth.

Single mum Bernadette, who has two children, worries that the Con-Dem plans will wreck her fragile finances.

She works full time, but like many she relies on benefits to top up her low pay.

She is particularly anxious about the three-year freeze on child benefit from April - worth around £24 a week for two children.

With inflation running at 5.1 per cent, this is a big cut in real terms.

"I cannot live without this benefit," she says.

"My whole budget would just go out of the window."

And Bernadette has another fear - one which will affect thousands of others up and down the country.

"Not only do I worry about losing my benefits because of the recession, I'm nervous about whether the children's father can continue to pay the full maintenance allowance I currently rely on," she says.

"He's a civil servant whose pay is being frozen for two years and his shift allowance has been cut - so you see my entire budget is being threatened."

From January 2013 child benefit will be abolished for families where at least one parent is a higher rate taxpayer.

This change won't affect her personally, but Bernadette believes that it is plain wrong to means test child benefit.

"I think we should retain the universal benefits and claw it back from the better off through a progressive tax system," she says.

"Universal benefits also make the system much simpler and cheaper to administer."

And like many parents she will be affected by the abolition of the education maintenance allowance (EMA), which is worth £30 a week for low-income students aged 16-18 who stay in education.

It's set to be axed from this September.

"This was a big shock," Bernadette says.

"A year ago we agreed that my daughter, now 16, should study dancing full-time through a BTEC national diploma - a course in Chichester, 30 miles from where we live and the only place that does a full-time dance course that is funded.

"To get there, my daughter will be travelling on the train and I was relying on the EMA to help pay for that.

"It was frustrating to see ministers and the media depict EMA as pocket money for teenagers. It's not. Low-paid parents like myself rely on that money to keep their kids in school."

Bernadette also has the prospect of university fees to worry about.

"I'm thinking of selling our family home to pay for my children's university because I don't want them to start their adult life with a massive debt hanging around their neck," she says.

"My house is my pension and now it has to pay for my kids' education too."

Delegates in Eastbourne today will be determined to fight back for the sake of Bernadette and hundreds and thousands like her.

If Cameron thought women were an easy target, he'd better think again.