The mum-friendly, webwise Mr Cameron

See David Cameron's answers to the questions posed by mums on 'mumsnet'.

Mr Cameron's web dialogue - on his first day back from paternity leave - followed a speech by George Osborne on childcare and on equal pay for women.

Comments

[Guido Fawkes]

Heard (from a reliable source) that Cameron is going to propose a membership card vote on a Statement of Principles tomorrow...

[Adrian Owens]

David Cameron came across well in this web dialogue.

He is right to ground the child care debate on choice. The challenge will be for the Social Justice Group to provide options which enable women to exercise meaningful choice.

18 months ago, a survey reported over half of working women felt like quitting work completely because of the pressure between work and home life. A similar survey revealed that only 4% of mothers with very young children want to work full-time, while government figures reveal that more than 15% of such mothers actually have to work full-time.

My concern is, that in our desire to be in tune with modern women, we will increase taxpayer subsidy of childcare when the evidence is that most working women want a financial mechanism that helps them spend more time with their children not less.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

Is anyone else watching the Ten?

[Guido Fawkes]

It was on www.order-order.com 2 hours ago...

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

Yes, Guido, I know, but your article didn't actually say anything!

[Guido Fawkes]

It said there Cameron will call for a vote on a Statement of Principles a la Clause 4.

Had to leave something for Robinson to say...

:)

[James Maskell]

These are the principles according to the BBC:

-Economic stability before tax cuts
-Policies must help the least well-off, not the rich
-Women's choices on work and home lives will be supported
-Public services will not necessarily be run by the state
-Party will fight for free and fair trade
-Tories will be hard-nosed defenders of freedom and security
-Government should support home ownership, saving, families and business
-Government should be closer to the people

There must be more to this than just the above principles....right?

[James Maskell]

Its up on the Conservative Party site!

http://www.conservatives.com/pdf/builttolast.pdf

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

Looks fine to me. Put me down for an "aye".

[Tory T]

Well done Guido - you had it two hours before anyone else.

I'll be voting 'yes' too.

[James Maskell]

Since it talks about the Party debating it, Im guessing the CPF is now going to be used? The list seems fine, but Im not going aye or nay quite yet. Im not sure if you can really call this the Conservative Clause 4 moment though. That was enormnous for them, truly momentous. This though appears to be a list of soundbites that weve heard from previous speeches that Cameron has done in the last say six months.

[Editor]

I've now caught up and posted the full "We believe..." statement...

[Chris Palmer]

"Well done Guido - you had it two hours before anyone else." - Tory T

I doubt he got there before David Cameron...

[Deborah]

Thanks Adrian, I couldn't have put it better.
It's wrong to assume that today's mothers would all rather go out to work than look after their own children - many are struggling and making real sacrifices to stay at home.
If Cameron is true to his word on supporting women's choices the new policies need to remove the tax penalities which push women back into the workforce.

[Jon White]

Deborah, this may sound very misogynist, but I really can't see your point. Surely women (like men) have a choice: Work, be a parent, or do both. The tax regime is the same for both sexes.

It is more relevant that women doing the same jobs as men tend to be paid less. That is not right, and we should commit to work to change that. Both sexes should be treated equally in the work place.

Please explain how the tax system is unfair to women - and how it forces them back to work? Or are you arguing that the tax system should allow women not to work and be cared for by the state? If so, why are you on a Conservative web-site?

[Adrian Owens]

Come off it Jon,

If the choice is already clear and straightforward why was George Osborne wasting his breath about it yesterday?

The reason is that the current mess and tangle of child tax credits doesn't work. Your comments are focused on adults whereas we need to focus on children.

We used to recognise that a household's capacity to be taxed was reduced when children came along - hence the child tax allowance. We need to look at providing additional tax relief for households, not individuals (so transferrable reliefs will be required)when children come along. That will help to support the choice women (and men, Jon) increasingly wish to make.

It need cost no more than increased childcare subsidy and it will be popular with parents while most importantly being good for children and wider social outcomes.

[Jon White]

Sorry Adrian, I don't disagree with anything you've said. But you haven't explained how the system discriminates afainst WOMEN, which is what Deborah claimed. Yes it's a mess, but it's an equal mess for both sexes. The system is poor, but it isn't sexist.

[Deborah]

Jon,
You need to read more carefully. I didn't say the system was sexist.
If a family chooses for dad to stay at home and look after the kids, the effects are the same.
Perhaps you could look into the amount of tax allowances and tax credits lost by couples with children who make this choice -last time I looked a couple with income of around £25,000pa stood to lose about £2,000pa. That's a big disincentive.
Some families rail against it and make the financial sacrifice, but others can't and so the system pushes women (usually) back into the workforce. This doesn't match with Cameron's statement about supporting the choices women make about their work and home lives. That's the point.

Other countries recognise the benefits to society of supporting families rather than just focussing on adults. It's about time we did too.

[Jon White]

Deborah, your words were "which push WOMEN back into the workplace" (my capitals). You stressed that it was women being pushed back. Ergo, you were saying it was sexist.

If you have now changed that view, and saying that it pushes A PARENT back into the workplace, then we are in agreement.

It does beg another question however. Just to play Devil's Advocate, why should people with children get tax breaks? It implies that if one decides to breed (and in the modern world it is a conscious decision) then one expects those who have decided not to to subsidise their choice. Somehow that doesn't seem fair. Surely if you chose to breed, then you should accept the financial consequences of that decision. (And I have two children, so I would lose by my own argument,) but please can someone justify why, effectively, we should all pay for other people's kids? Why shouldn't they pay for their own? To quote the old saying, "If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em".