This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/13/cuts-feminist-issue-suffragette-austerity

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Cuts are a feminist issue. So what would a suffragette do? Cuts are a feminist issue. So what would a suffragette do?
(about 5 hours later)
It was a budget that coincided with International Women’s Day. The chancellor marked the happy event by sprinkling generosity on the hardworking wives and mothers who, in their resilience to violence and discrimination, make up the wellspring of this nation’s doughty good cheer. So £20m, over three years, to domestic violence charities; a £5m fund to help women back into work after having children; another £5m to the ones who haven’t necessarily done anything reproductively useful, and merely want to celebrate next year’s centenary of female suffrage. It was a budget that coincided with International Women’s Day. The chancellor marked the happy event by sprinkling generosity on the hardworking wives and mothers who, in their resilience to violence and discrimination, make up the wellspring of this nation’s doughty good cheer. So £20m, over three years, to domestic violence charities; a £5m fund to help women back into work after having children; another £5m to the ones who haven’t necessarily done anything reproductively useful, and merely want to celebrate next year’s centenary of female suffrage.
The numbers are chickenfeed, proudly mounted like the outrageously cheap plastic toys on a magazine for three-year-olds. It was audacious – risible, even – to mention domestic violence without atonement for what has happened to refuge provision since the coalition government’s failure to ringfence its funding. Indeed, the whole budget fandango has been so laughable, with these obvious, poorly executed diversionary tactics shambling across the stage like a pantomime horse at war with itself, that it’s genuinely difficult to muster the required level of outrage.The numbers are chickenfeed, proudly mounted like the outrageously cheap plastic toys on a magazine for three-year-olds. It was audacious – risible, even – to mention domestic violence without atonement for what has happened to refuge provision since the coalition government’s failure to ringfence its funding. Indeed, the whole budget fandango has been so laughable, with these obvious, poorly executed diversionary tactics shambling across the stage like a pantomime horse at war with itself, that it’s genuinely difficult to muster the required level of outrage.
Yet this is outrageous; the chancellor set out a plan that made no nod to reality. Economists looked on aghast. “On current forecasts,” said Paul Johnson from the Institute of Fiscal Studies, “average earnings will be no higher in 2022 than they were in 2007. Fifteen years without a pay rise. I’m rather lost for superlatives. This is completely unprecedented.” Using the Office for Budget Responsibility’s projections, the Resolution Foundation calculated that Britain is now facing its worst decade for wages since the Napoleonic wars.Yet this is outrageous; the chancellor set out a plan that made no nod to reality. Economists looked on aghast. “On current forecasts,” said Paul Johnson from the Institute of Fiscal Studies, “average earnings will be no higher in 2022 than they were in 2007. Fifteen years without a pay rise. I’m rather lost for superlatives. This is completely unprecedented.” Using the Office for Budget Responsibility’s projections, the Resolution Foundation calculated that Britain is now facing its worst decade for wages since the Napoleonic wars.
At the IFS, they laboured in vain to bring the nation’s attention back to the real economic news, which wasn’t the budget so much as the tax and benefit changes set to kick in next month: the cuts to child tax credits – universal credit as it is wistfully known, to give the impression of a system that makes sense – will deliver £3bn out of the mouths of children back into government coffers.At the IFS, they laboured in vain to bring the nation’s attention back to the real economic news, which wasn’t the budget so much as the tax and benefit changes set to kick in next month: the cuts to child tax credits – universal credit as it is wistfully known, to give the impression of a system that makes sense – will deliver £3bn out of the mouths of children back into government coffers.
We could say austerity kills. But this isn’t even austerity. No books are being balanced as a result of these actionsWe could say austerity kills. But this isn’t even austerity. No books are being balanced as a result of these actions
Granted, these are the third and subsequent children of low-income working households. Everyone knows you don’t really need to feed those, you just put them on the floor and the existing children can throw them scraps. But all the four million families with children claiming tax credits are set to lose £500 a year, from the reduced first-child allowance. Even families with a tidy number of children – two – will be £1,051 a year poorer by the next election if both parents are on the national living wage. Single-parent families with two children will be £3,363 poorer. Black and Asian lone mothers lose 14% and 17% of their respective incomes. Granted, these are the third and subsequent children of low-income working households. Everyone knows you don’t really need to feed those, you just put them on the floor and the existing children can throw them scraps. But all the four million families with children claiming tax credits are set to lose £500 a year, from the reduced first-child allowance. Even families with a tidy number of children – two – will be £1,051 a year poorer by the next election if both parents are on the national living wage. Single-parent families with two children will be £3,363 poorer. Black and Asian lone mothers lose 14% and 17% of their respective incomes.
An increase in the personal tax allowance is always dressed up as a boon to those on low incomes, when in fact it mainly benefits those earning above the average. The cuts to disability benefits – specifically, the abolition of the work-related activity component, for people not currently fit for work who hope to be at some point – strips £0.5bn from the incomes of people who are already punishingly poor.An increase in the personal tax allowance is always dressed up as a boon to those on low incomes, when in fact it mainly benefits those earning above the average. The cuts to disability benefits – specifically, the abolition of the work-related activity component, for people not currently fit for work who hope to be at some point – strips £0.5bn from the incomes of people who are already punishingly poor.
In an economy in which barely anybody is prospering, the poorest are set to lose most. All the poorest families of 2020 will be poorer than the poorest families are today. It is so cavalier, so strikingly immoral, that it’s hard to even conceive the proportionate response. We could say “austerity kills” because it does and it will; but this isn’t even austerity. No books are being balanced as a result of these actions. No surplus is sought. There is no end in sight, where we reach an economic milestone and generosity is restored. This is the protracted destruction of social generosity; in its place, a life that is harder and darker. In an economy in which barely anybody is prospering, the poorest are set to lose most. All the poorest families of 2020 will be poorer than the poorest families are today. It is so cavalier, so strikingly immoral, that it’s hard to even conceive the proportionate response. We could say “austerity kills” because it does and it will; but this isn’t even austerity. No books are being balanced as a result of these actions. No surplus is sought. There is no end in sight, where we reach an economic milestone and generosity is restored. This is the protracted destruction of social generosity; in its place, a life that is harder and darker.
These cuts are a feminist issue because they hit women disproportionately, and black and ethnic-minority women particularly hard. But this would be a feminist issue whoever bore the brunt of it, one principle of feminism being that if you can work full-time and still not afford to feed your children, the fault lies not with you but with a society that has its priorities wrong.These cuts are a feminist issue because they hit women disproportionately, and black and ethnic-minority women particularly hard. But this would be a feminist issue whoever bore the brunt of it, one principle of feminism being that if you can work full-time and still not afford to feed your children, the fault lies not with you but with a society that has its priorities wrong.
Like householders complaining that a pillaging mob has trodden mud on the hall carpet, we fixate on trivia – the infighting between Theresa May and Philip Hammond, the salience of manifesto promises – in willed disbelief, trying to avert reality. We’re still not ready to admit they mean to torch the place.Like householders complaining that a pillaging mob has trodden mud on the hall carpet, we fixate on trivia – the infighting between Theresa May and Philip Hammond, the salience of manifesto promises – in willed disbelief, trying to avert reality. We’re still not ready to admit they mean to torch the place.
That £5m suffrage fund may turn out to be more useful than the irrelevant bauble it was devised to be. “It would be good if we could rediscover some of the actual suffragette spirit,” said comedian Deborah Frances-White at one International Women’s Day event. “As a member of parliament,” Stella Creasy replied, “if I hear you planning to bomb anything, I have to report you.” “OK,” Frances-White replied, “but it would be good if we could find a space between marching and bombing.”That £5m suffrage fund may turn out to be more useful than the irrelevant bauble it was devised to be. “It would be good if we could rediscover some of the actual suffragette spirit,” said comedian Deborah Frances-White at one International Women’s Day event. “As a member of parliament,” Stella Creasy replied, “if I hear you planning to bomb anything, I have to report you.” “OK,” Frances-White replied, “but it would be good if we could find a space between marching and bombing.”
We don’t need to rehearse the conditions that gave rise to female suffrage, which emphatically did not include men gracefully standing aside. But it might be useful to draw some impetus from the suffragettes’ example. They fought for women to have the vote so their interests might be represented in parliament. This parliament is systematically attacking women’s interests – specifically, the interests of those with the least time to fight. They fought without conciliation, without regard for how they would be seen by the “reasonable person”, since their proposition – that the status quo be upturned, in the interests of fairness – was inherently unreasonable (“reasonable” being defined, as it always is, as the extent to which your idea resembles what already exists).We don’t need to rehearse the conditions that gave rise to female suffrage, which emphatically did not include men gracefully standing aside. But it might be useful to draw some impetus from the suffragettes’ example. They fought for women to have the vote so their interests might be represented in parliament. This parliament is systematically attacking women’s interests – specifically, the interests of those with the least time to fight. They fought without conciliation, without regard for how they would be seen by the “reasonable person”, since their proposition – that the status quo be upturned, in the interests of fairness – was inherently unreasonable (“reasonable” being defined, as it always is, as the extent to which your idea resembles what already exists).
The best, indeed, the only, way to commemorate them is to consider not what Emmeline Pankhurst did, but what she would do today. Realistically, Hammond’s £5m, presented with a studied lack of shame like a bouquet from a petrol station, will not wind up in the hands of anyone engaged in a real-time fight for equality. He is looking to appropriate women’s suffrage as a heritage event, rather than a stage in a war against injustice that is far from over.The best, indeed, the only, way to commemorate them is to consider not what Emmeline Pankhurst did, but what she would do today. Realistically, Hammond’s £5m, presented with a studied lack of shame like a bouquet from a petrol station, will not wind up in the hands of anyone engaged in a real-time fight for equality. He is looking to appropriate women’s suffrage as a heritage event, rather than a stage in a war against injustice that is far from over.
No doubt wonks are relying on the Women’s Institute and the Girl Guides to be jam and Jerusalem feminists, not realising how radical they are. Rather than fight for scraps, we should crowdsource our own war chest: we have until 6 February 2018, if we are pedantic about the Representation of the People Act, to build a movement of which Pankhurst would have been proud. No doubt wonks are relying on the Women’s Institute and the Girl Guides to be jam and Jerusalem feminists, not realising how radical they are. Rather than fight for scraps, we should crowdsource our own war chest: we have until 6 February 2018, if we are pedantic about the Representation of the People Act, to build a movement of which Pankhurst would have been proud.