Blair's legacy squandered as Brown loses the women's vote
David Cameron is winning the battle for female hearts and minds, poll shows
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
They were Tony Blair's not-so-secret weapon in his landslide victory in 1997. But now women voters appear to be turning their backs on Labour under his successor Gordon Brown.
Until 1997, Labour had traditionally suffered from a "gender gap" in which the Conservative Party did better among women voters. Experts calculate that if women had not been given the vote, there would have been more or less a continuous period of Labour government since 1945. If only women had voted at the last election in 2005, Labour's majority would have been about 90, rather than the 66 it won. If only men had voted, it would be a precarious 23.
Now the Labour-affiliated Fabian Society is warning that the party could be hit by a new "gender gap" at the next election because women seem to prefer the Tories' approach to public services. It is accusing the Government of a "political failure" in explaining its multi-billion pound investment in public services and persuading voters, particularly women, that it still cares about people.
"The public thinks that Labour has lost its heart," said Seema Malhotra, director of the Fabian Women's Network. "The image of an unloved public emerges, turning its back on a state and a party that it no longer believes cares for them."
Polling for the Fabians by YouGov found that women believe the Tories care the most about the quality of services, while men think Labour cares most. Women are twice as likely as men to say they do not know who cares most.
Women believe Labour would run the public services less efficiently than the Tories, while men are evenly divided over which party would do better. Some 19 per cent of men, and 14 per cent of women, believe that Labour would be most efficient, while 26 per cent of men and 25 per cent of women name the Tories.
Only 26 per cent of women believe that services will get worse if the Tories win the election, compared to 36 per cent of men. Four out of five people think that money is being wasted in the NHS.
Writing in the forthcoming edition of Fabian Review, Ms Malhotra says the findings are "particularly worrying" because public services have been the key to Labour's electoral success. "This is despite record investment in schools, health services, education and communities – areas that have been seen as core to making Labour's case to women."
She adds: "With women still often managing the household budget, talk of expenditure without clarity on what is being delivered is no longer a winning argument."
Ms Malhotra argues: "There has been a failure to explain what has been delivered for the amount spent, which has become even more significant at a time of economic instability. Labour has failed to maintain a relationship with the public whereby they believe Labour does not just pay for care, but actually cares."
The Fabians say there are "chinks of light" in their research and insist the Tories are still vulnerable. A third of people expect public services to get worse under a Cameron Government, with only 22 per cent saying they would get better.
"The battle for public services is going to have to be fought on different grounds," says Ms Malhotra. "The real danger now is that the public will see the Tories as delivering the same but for less, and that Labour will lose control over public services for a generation."
A separate YouGov survey for The Sunday Times published yesterday found that 60 per cent of people want cuts in public spending to close the deficit in the public finances, while only 21 per cent would prefer the Government to raise taxes. Some 29 per cent of voters said the Tories would be better able to reduce spending while minimising the damage to services, while 24 per cent said Labour.
The poll put the Tories on 41 per cent, Labour on 27 per cent and the Liberal Democrats on 17 per cent. All three parties are down one point on last month, while other parties are up three points to 15 per cent.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
What a pity. That suggest one liar who is working for global cxorporations and banking cartels will be replaced by yet another, and it indicates that people are still well and truly deceived.
More of the same after the elvetion. Contuation of unwinnable wars, further cuts to services, ever higher food prices, more job losses.
People need more explanation and persuasion like they look forward to seeing Brown at PMQ - that is unless you're "looking for a laff".
Everyone who's capable of understanding anything, knows exactly what's happened to their standard of living, their children's education, the quality of hospital care, the increase in a myriad of taxes - national and regional, and the national indebtedness.
Replace "explain" and "persuade" with the single word "progaganda", and you can see a similarity with a domineering regime of the 30s and 40s, followed by one from the Soviet Union. In other words, in their deluded minds their plans and proposals fail only because of the message not getting through, rather than everyone knowing they are incompetent but more intransigent than a mule.
Basically, neither they nor their plans are wanted anymore, but just like us with them now, they never listen.
The public know that the problem is that the plans. policies and proposals are wrong, NOT that they are not explained properly.
As ever, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, after a Labour administration since 1997 the public look at the UK and draw their own conclusions!
Couple that fact with the persona of Gordon Brown and it can be no surprise that women have turned away from Labour. The MacBride/Draper affair show that the closest aides of Brown were willing to lie and smear about a Conservative woman politician, the wife of David Cameron as she dealt with the premature death of her child and make allegations about the mental state of the wife of George Osbourne.
Look at the way Brown reacted to the election of Harriet Harman to the Deputy leadership of the Labour Party, how he treated the women members of his Cabinet, abolished the 10p tax rate and has presided, as Chancellor and Prime Minister, over an administration that sees more children growing up in poverty now than in 1997.
Given the above, why would women be interested in voting Labour?
It is not lost on women that Governments must stick to their knitting and first concentrate on getting things right at home before looking to solve problems abroad. This is particularly important at this juncture. Brown has buggered up the economy but denies, Blair before him engaged us in an illegal war believing that God was on his side and Cameron so far gives the appearance of not having a lot to offer to put us back on an even keel. As a male and a lifelong socialist I am devasted by what New Labour has done to the Nation and besmirched sensible socialism in the bargain.
Internationally women also are capable of realising our potential within the EU as opposed to leaning on the illusionary 'special relationship' with the US. We know to our cost what the Bush/Blair axis has done for us.
I think women have much to think about and their input into the next general election will be influential. Let's face it - the men in politics haven't got much to commend them - in fact they have failed us all. Because New Labour has made such a hash of public services we do not need to swing the pendulum violently to the right. We need to take stock so as not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Women are mature enough to do that and I hope they will facilitate that outcome.
by the way, how many stealth taxes did Gordon Brown introduce as Chancellor? was it 60 or more than that? I personally have lost count.
Women had worked out that the nulabor was finished, so whoever is the leader is irrlevant.
"Experts calculate that if women had not been given the vote"
Astounding!!!
(A: *everything*)
"If only women had voted at the last election in 2005, Labour's majority would have been about 90, rather than the 66 it won. If only men had voted, it would be a precarious 23."
Is the 1st sentence wrong and the second right, or both or neither?
But the tail and the dog falls over, as the armed froces found when previous governments preserved the teeth and cut the tail.
Unending wars in the Middle East fought by Britain on behalf of his paymasters, Israel and its wealthy supporters - yeah, Jews.
Fine for sociologists and psephologists to investigate along these lines out of academic, trend-exploring curiosity. But for politicians to use these methodologies shows contempt for the electorate.
Just tell us what the bloody policies are, and why you think they'd be beneficial. We'll decide what we think of them ... and you ...