Women Labour MP's
This posting is necessarily about the generality of Women Labour MP's and in particular those elected for the first time in 1997. I am the first to acknowledge that there are still in the Labour party courageous women MP's who continue to follow socialist policies particularly in relation to women and who always put principle before career
In 1997 the Number of Women MP's doubled to 120 and of those 101 were elected as Labour MP's more than one fifth of the parliamentary party. Had this large group of women acted collectively on any one issue affecting women they could have exerted great pressure on the government as rebellions of 40 or more MP's in the party have to be taken seriously even by a government with such a large majority. As this has never happened, even with regards to the archaic practices of the House of Commons itself that discriminate against women it is legitimate to ask questions about the performance of the women Labour Group.
The problem was put forcefully by the NUS Women's Conference in March 2001 :-

"Women are not well served or represented by women MPs who vote to cut lone parent benefits, introduce tuition fees, privatise pensions, hospitals and schools. The Labour party was created to represent the poor, vulnerable and marginalised, yet since coming to power it is specifically these groups they have attacked. In contrast to this they have been more than helpful to the rich, cutting corporation tax to the lowest level in Europe and refusing to increase income tax for the wealthy."

If we take as an example the cutting of single parent benefits. This is an issue that should be properly looked at in the context of financial recognition for the work of raising children, which has evoked no enthusiasm among women MP's.
Over 4 million families live in single parent families in Britain; there are 1,7million parents (93%women) and 2.5 million children. Of course many more people in our society have been single parents or children in single parent families. This Labour Government cut lone parent benefit and one parent benefit at the same time as the Child Support Agency imposed a 40% benefit penalty. The cuts to single parents raised at most for the treasury £480 million over three years so they had nothing to do with making substantial savings. They were a crude attempt at social engineering to force lone parents back to work and given the lack of affordable child care for these women would turn single parent families into no parent families!
But did labour women MP's rebel against the 'hard choices' that New Labour made that clearly harmed women. Paul Cowley of Hull University showed that at first they were seven times less likely to rebel than male MPs of the same intake. As time went on they were still twice as unlikely to rebel as the men.
Women MP's and researchers such as Fiona Mactaggart in her
Fabian pamphlet. and Dr Sarah Childs, of Middlesex University have attempted to combat the notion that rebellion is a useful test of the effectiveness of Women MP's by claiming that the fact that recent budgets had benefited women disproportionately more than men is proof that labour women have been working quietly behind the scenes to help women. Now this argument seems to me totally disingenuous as women are disproportionately represented among those living in poverty in this country, the elderly, the disabled, the sick, the unemployed etc. So any greater expenditure on social services pensions etc will necessarily benefit women disproportionately and even this labour government has made some gestures towards the poor!
If women MP's have failed to make a real impact on the government in terms of improving the position of women what explanations have been offered.
1. The Stepford Wife Explanation
Brian Sedgemore A veteran Labour MP for Hackney South and Shoreditch described some of his new women colleagues in the Commons as Stepford Wives with a "chip inserted into their brain to keep them on message". He made his comments during a speech at the Tate Gallery in London on "New Labour" and the future of fine art under the government. "Then there's the Stepford Wives, that's those female New Labour MPs who've had the chip inserted into their brain to keep them on message and who collectively put down women and children in the vote on lone parent benefits."
2. The Blair's Babes Explanation

Many writers have written disparagingly about "Blair's Babes" but perhaps the writer that has spelt out the inferences regarding the notion of "Blair's Babes" most clearly is the writer Fay Weldon.
The author wrote an article in the New Statesmen in she asked why women MP's had not made an impact and would do anything for promotion

"It's yes Tony, no Tony, smile at me, Tony. How wise and wonderful and powerful you are, Tony,"

wrote Ms Weldon. She followed up her article by speaking on the Today Programme when she said that she
hoped the election of 101 women to the Commons in 1997 would create a "wild sweep of social change" but it had not happened. She also talked about her great fear
"that some women just fell in love with Tony Blair and "in a way you feel that the attraction of the leader is so great they just want him to love them."

Now I feel that both the Stepford wife and Blair's Babes comments on women MP's should simply be rejected out of hand as they are sexist if not deeply misogynist, though I have some sympathy with Fay Weldon's comment that:-

"I think about 90 of Blair's babes speak with one voice and when 90 women speak with one voice you wonder what is going on"

Before trying to explain the apparent willingness of women to support policies detrimental to women and children I would like to consider the issue regarding Women MP's and feminism. Sarah Childs has also done research on the 65 new intake of Labour women in 1997.
She questioned them to see if they were 'attitudinally Feminist' i.e. whether they saw themselves as feminists rather than acting as feminists. This type of research makes me glad that I am a retired Sociologist that no longer considers professed attitudes as particularly useful. Probably a reasonable proportions of New Labour party are "attitudinally socialist" which apparently does not prevent them behaving like "Thatcherites" on immigration, poverty, civil liberties etc.
Of Sarah Child's sample 75% identified themselves as feminists 10% were ambiguous and 18%( wow!) did not see themselves as feminists at all. Interestingly Sarah Child showed that a number of her sample particularly in the ambiguous or not feminist groups saw the designation of themselves as feminist as detrimental to their career prospects within the party.
Jane Griffith a first term labour MP puts it this way:-
"there are too many expectations"

"We are expected to focus on child care and women's health. Just because I am a woman it does not mean that I have to be interested in women's issues."

Now I cannot understand why many women and men! Have such difficulty in declaring themselves to be feminists especially those who are members of a supposedly socialist political party. I define feminism as a willingness to fight the oppression, injustices, violence against, and exploitation of women carried out by men. Why is making such a commitment so difficult? And how can people be "a bit feminist" but find the notion of being "a bit anti-racist" as absurd?
I feel that the real explanation of why Labour women MP's failed to rebel strongly against labour party policy and legislation obviously detrimental to women is their similarity not their difference from their male colleagues and that the undemocratic selection process for Labour candidates is probably the most important contributing factor. The selection process for candidates involves such a tight screening out of progressive and radical thinkers or those with strong convictions that most of the great Labour Party figures of the past would have failed to become candidates. New candidates are typically young, intelligent, 'attractive', self-serving, careerists with the ethics of "bugs bunny" in short "Thatcher's Children".
MP's of the past knew that in addition to their own self-interest and that of the party they represented constituencies of various kinds. First the geographical constituency for which they were members of parliament. Labour MP's still often represent some of the poorest constituencies in the country and have a duty to strongly represent the interests of their constituents on government policy in relation to poverty. How strongly does David Blunkett represent the interests of the terribly run down schools within his Sheffield constituency for example?
But there are other sorts of constituencies, many labour MP's were and are funded by the Trade Unions and they knew that they had a duty to represent working men and women and particularly Trade Union members. Similarly like it or not labour women do have a constituency of women to consider not least because many women helped to put them in power in the hope that they would get a better deal for them than men.

Most of you will be aware of the recent conference in Bali which was itself a preparation for the UN Eco Summit in Johannesburg in August. The fact that the conference was held in Bali with some of the most luxurious and expensive hotel accomodation in the world says everything about the rich nations attitude to both environmental issues and starvation in poorer countries. The expression
"pissing in the wind" comes to mind. Apparently the cost of sending the British delegation was £250,000 which seems extraordinary considering that John Prescott was merciful enough not to attend. Margarett Beckett as Environment Minister was the only government Minister present. Now everyone knows that the conference was a total waste of time as the major player the United States had already shown its contempt for environmental issues by refusing to ratify the Kyoto agreement and the relationship between trade and poverty in much of the world by fixing US subsidies at $130 Billion. Of course one of the major reasons for poverty
in many countries is that they are predominantly producers of primary products and subsidised agriculture by rich countries effectively prevents them selling their products in world markets. So much for the ideology of 'free trade' peddled by the West and especially by the Blair government. The sign of a genuine commitment to Free Trade on the part of the Western world would involve an immediate end to the subsidy of agricultural products.Do you think that this is likely to happen or be on the table in Johannesburg?
Margaret Beckett appeared ready to tackle America on these issues in Bali. She was interviewed by the BBC on 2nd June which the BBC later published under the heading "Beckett Slams US Subsidies" . In the interview she stated quite clearly that figures from the
OECD showed that the $50 Billion spent on International aid was dwarfed by the $350 subsidy Billion given to First World farmers.
So did she offer at Bali to end British farm subsidies (estimated at £5.2 Billion out of a £16 Billion turnover) or what threats or pressure did she place on the Americans. The interview suggests that the only hope that she really offers is that internal pressures will cause America to reform itself:-
"I personally believe that as we go on with the Kyoto Protocol ... there is every possibility that in the fullness of time, the American business community and interests in America that can see America losing out as a result of some of these things will start to rethink and start to increase the pressure on America itself."
But have Blair and the British Government put pressure on George Bush or made its displeasure really felt". In another interview "How to survive in politics without being trying" - Jackie Ashley meets Margaret Beckett Monday March 4, 2002 The Guardian .The usual weasel words begin to emerge - the government had made it clear

"that we were very disappointed; and when I say we, that wasn't a unilateral exercise by this department. That was from the highest level: we are disappointed." Had Blair actually said this himself to President Bush? "I don't know what he's said to Bush but I know what he's said to me."

So the Minister for the Environment doesn't actually know what if anything Blair has said to Bush about Kyoto or American Farming Subsidies - which says a lot about the way a New Labour Government operates!
After the Bali conference Margaret Beckett was interviewed by BBC 4 news on what had occurred. She was full of "new labour speak" about progress being made and hard work taking place without enlightning us about progress on what. She was also asked whether the conference was such hard work because of American intrangience on just about everything but was extremely coy and evasive about the American role in what had happened. So the fire breathing Minister of "Beckett Slams US subsidies" turns out to be the usual Blair team player endlessly supportive of his role as poodle to George Bush
As Sarah Baxter of the Sunday Times put it when talking about Margaret Beckett
"She has moved from left to right with the rest of the Labour party but has gone to unusual lengths to remain on good terms with everyone."

Dear readers - if I have any. You will probably have gathered from my first posting that I have not understood how to use Blogs yet!
I am not brilliant with computers and it will probably take me some time to make sense of the system. Also my first messsage was something of a 'rant' and although we all need a good rant I hope that in the future this site will develop into a powerful forum for a critique of the current British Government. Evidence will be of crucial importance and I will gladly publish any material that you post to me by Email. Also I am interested in collaboration with any similar sites and perhaps the formation of a group - whatever that entails.I mentioned in my first posting that I would have something to say about Public services so here goes.
The position of New Labour is that vast amounts of 'new money' are being spent on public services. Government ministers all talk in terms of Billions of Pounds of new expenditure, yet the experiences of the public of health, education and transport services is increasingly appalling. What is the explanation for this apparent paradox? The first thing to say is that the proportion of Gross Domestic Product spent on public services is generally a much more reliable indicator than talk of 'billions'.Britain has increased the proportion of GDP on education and health by 0.2% (so much for "Education, Education ,Education" as the governments main priority) and 0.6% respectively. I live in France which has an excellent health service, waiting lists are almost unknown, I make an appointment to see a doctor at a specific time which is honoured and people don't die on trolleys in hospital corriders. There are many inefficiences in French medicine particularly caused by a top heavy bureaucratic system but as France spends a much greater proportion of its GDM on heath than Britain care is necessarily much better. The only exception to this general link between proportion of GDP spent on heath and the well being of a countries population is the USA which spends a massive amount of GDP on heath but has a sick and ailing population. This is because of the 'free market medical system' in the USA which creates huge incomes for the medical profession and also lawyers because of litigation against the appalling consequences of this free market.
There is little doubt that if John Major or William Hague had won the last two elections thay would have had to spend a similar amount of money to that of New Labour just to save education and health from total collapse, which is all that New labour has really done - saved the system from total collapse. Real solutions to the problem of public services demand massive increases in the volume of GDP spend on these services which in turn requires large and genuine progressive tax increases for the very rich and the middle classes. If this is carried out properly it will be reflected in the distribution of wealth statistics as well. There is of course wastege in both health and education which needs to be dealt with as well. The failure of New Labour to dismantle the market oriented management structure in the health service which they promised has lead to a great deal of the structural problems and wastefulness that market oriented service always creates.

I am a retired Sociology Lecturer now living in France. I left the United Kingdom for a variety of reasons but high on the list was the difficulty of living in a country which had been conned into the belief that we had some new kind of government both sympathetic to the market and global capitalism but at the same time genuinely concerned to create a fairer and more just society (the famous 'third way'. My belief is that this is nonsense. New Labour is a far right "Thatcherite" Government pure and simple. One of the major legacies of Thatchers period of office was the growing and obscene gap between rich and poor in Britain, this has not only remained but intensified under New Labour. The recent greedy free for all in the housing market unchecked in any way by New Labour will ensure that the poor of the future will never have the possibilty of owning a home and escaping the profiteering landlord. How about a windfall tax on the value of houses Gordon Brown!! to start building a social stock of houses Gordon Brown! One of the consequences of this manic commitment to 'market forces' will of course mean no houses for public sector workers and a further deterioration of life in the inner cities. A further consequence of the distribution of wealth means that the poor, estimated in Britain as a quarter to a third of the population will either remain a constant or more likely continue to grow. Poverty is the real problem in Britain and only a government committed to eradicating poverty can begin to call itself socialist (a word which Tony Blair hates) or even 'a party of the left'. Nearly all of Britain's social ills poor education, poor health, drug and alchohol abuse, criminality, mental ill health, single parent mothers are all massively correlated with poverty. When the labour party under the decent "John Smith" attacked the Tory record on crime they promised that a future Labour government would be "tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime" what they meant by the "cause of crime" was poverty an idea rapidly ignored by the Blair government. The notion of "being tough on poverty" was replaced by "tough on the poor". In addition 'poverty' was taken out of New Labour's vocabulary and replaced by the less dangerous and vague notion of 'social exclusion'. Of course there is social exclusion in Britain on a massive scale the the key for understanding exclusion is poverty the social exclusion based on gender, ethnicity, disability, etc which of course exists can always be mitigated by rich members of each group. Enough for now I will deal with the supposed improvements brought about in public services by New Labour in my next posting