At the outset the 2010 General Election was all set to be the mumsnet election – decided at the school gates.
Get our latest research, insights and events delivered to your inbox
We will never share your data with any third-parties.
Share this and support our work
Labour was clear that ‘middle income female voters with children in marginal seats’ would be key to the outcome. In the end it wasn’t quite such a women focused campaign – both women voters and women politicians were ultimately marginalized, replaced by media attention directed at the attire of the three main male leaders’ wives.
Five years on, what potential is there for women – as party leaders, candidates and voters – to play a prominent role in the election and shaping the debate?
The 2010 general election saw the first ever party leaders’ TV debates – three men interviewed by a series of male political journalists. With women absent it was perhaps not surprising that there was little talk of concerns widely regarded as women’s issues, such as childcare, work-life balance or violence against women and girls. Equally at the point of Coalition formation women politicians were absent; the price was very nearly the adoption of rape anonymity for defendants (which if adopted would have constituted the only area of criminal law that would have afforded the defendant such privacy – implying that false rape allegations are more common than other false allegations, for which there is no evidence). Despite some progress of a liberal feminist nature over the last five years (such as backing campaigns to end violence to women and radically overhauling the system of parental leave), the Coalition was dogged by allegations that it was out of touch with women throughout the parliament: media coverage focused on Cameron’s gendered gaffes, criticism that austerity had a woman’s face, and Cameron’s reluctance to put on that t-shirt.
The widespread realization that the UK is now a multi-party system, with the greater prominence of smaller parties, means that all-male leader debates in our view look increasingly unjustifiable: two of the seven main parties have women leaders, the Green’s Natalie Bennett and the SNP’s Nicola Sturgeon. One of the implications of denying smaller parties’ representation would be the symbolic exclusion of women.
2010 was a missed opportunity for women candidates. Cameron set his stall on improving the diversity of his MPs, and there was some notable progress – with the number of Conservative women increasing from 17 to 49 – from 9 to 16%. Nevertheless the Labour party still had more women MPs than all the others added together (33%, as a result of its use once again of All Women Shortlists); the Liberal Democrats saw fewer women candidates stand and fewer women MPs elected compared with 2005.
As of December 2014 the pattern of parliamentary selections shows continuing differences amongst the parties: in each of the three largest parties’ retirement seats – those seats they hope, if not expect to hold, at the election – 35% of Tory candidates are women; 75% of Labour candidates are women; and 40% of Lib Dem candidates are women. This distribution shows for the fourth general election the positive impact of Labour’s AWS. UKIP’s candidates are 87% male – one indicator of Farage’s problem with women, and maybe women’s problem with UKIP.
In 2010 there was little by way of a gender gap amongst support for the three main UK parties. Men were greater supporters of the SNP, UKIP, and the BNP, and women were slightly more inclined to support the Greens. The fallout from the 2014 Scottish Referendum election has brought gender and voting to the fore. Throughout the Scottish campaign women were less likely to support independence than men. It is an open question whether women will shift their support towards the SNP between now and the 2015 Westminster election. Ditto UKIP, who know they need women’s votes. Inter party competition over women’s votes may well be key in 2015 – although we said that last time…
The UK Spending Review outlines how Government funds will be allocated over several years. Unlike the Budget, which raises revenue, the Review decides how it is spent. But how is it approved? What role does Parliament play if it doesn’t vote on the Review itself? This blog explores how the Spending Review works, how it differs from the Budget, and how Parliament holds the Government to account through the Estimates process.
On Friday 13 June, the House of Commons will once again debate the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which would legalise assisted dying in England and Wales. Specifically, it will hold a second day of Report Stage, during which the whole House will debate and vote on amendments. This briefing explains the structure of Report Stage, what happened on the first day of Report Stage, how amendments are selected and grouped, on which amendments a decision can still be taken, and the likely sequence of events this Friday, including whether a final vote will take place.
The Chancellor, Rachel Reeves MP, will deliver a statement on the Spending Review. MPs will resume Report Stage of the assisted dying bill and debate key legislation on football governance, mental health, and planning and infrastructure. Peers and MPs are expected to resolve their standoff over AI and copyright in the Data (Use and Access) Bill. The Commons Defence Committee will hear from the lead reviewers of the Strategic Defence Review, while a Lords Committee will examine the Chagos Archipelago sovereignty issue. The Hansard Society’s Director will give evidence to the Modernisation Committee about access to the House of Commons and its procedures.
In this episode, we explore why ministers keep bypassing Parliament to make major announcements to the media — and whether returning to the Despatch Box might help clarify their message. We unpack the Lords' uphill battle to protect creators’ rights in the Data Use and Access Bill, challenge claims that the Assisted Dying Bill lacks scrutiny, and examine early findings from a Speaker’s Conference on improving security for MPs, as threats and intimidation against politicians continue to rise. Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.
Our evidence on treaty scrutiny has been published by the House of Lords International Agreements Committee. Our submission outlines the problems with the existing framework for treaty scrutiny and why legislative and cultural change are needed to improve Parliament's scrutiny role. Our evidence joins calls for a parliamentary consent vote for the most significant agreements, a stronger role for Parliament in shaping negotiating mandates and monitoring progress, and a sifting committee tasked with determining which agreements warrant the greatest scrutiny.
