The ConDem administration doesn’t just disregard women; it evidently wants to put them firmly back under the control, however odious, of men.
How else can we explain the intention as an element of the Welfare Reform Bill that single parents (read: women) should actually pay the Child Support Agency (CSA) to secure money owed by the absent partner (read: men) to feed and clothe their children?
Shamefully, government spokesman Lord de Mauley said the loss of charging would make the scheme unaffordable. Unaffordable, we ask, for whom?
The principle that the wrong-doer should pay for his (or her) misdeed is fundamentally breached by the idea of charging single mums (or very occasionally dads) to make their errant partners pay up for Child Support.
How nasty can the Nasty Party get? And how much more complicit, their LibDem partners in this nastiness?
Even many ConDem Lords have refused to vote for this especially harmful and unfair proposal. Charging desperate mums for trying to make uncaring dads pay up is not only unworkable (the mums by definition don’t have any money…) but it demonstrates a coldness and desire to protect irresponsible fathers which harks back to Victorian times.
It’s errant fathers who should be made to pay a fee (fine) to the CSA, not the impoverished mums.
Sexist double standards don’t get any more distasteful and distressing than when they harm vulnerable women and their dependent children.
Never, ever let so-called Tory feminists claim again that David Cameron ‘supports women’. Those spineless Conservative and LibDem MPs, led by Cameron and Nick Clegg, who voted through the proposals in the previous reading deserve contempt, whatever the final outcome of the grim and ironically named Welfare Rights Bill.
Remind me again, for whom might the activities of the CSA be ‘unaffordable’?