Women's Views on News |
| Reshuffle will not affect the status quo Posted: 25 Jul 2014 04:09 AM PDT
David Cameron’s recent cabinet re-shuffle means that Nicky Morgan is now Education Secretary as well as Minister for Women and Equalities and Liz Truss is now the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is no longer education and childcare minister. Making the total number of women in the cabinet now five out of twenty two. It is hard to see how this increase in female representation to 22 per cent of the cabinet will make any substantial difference to harmful policies already in play. This is especially true considering that Nicky Morgan voted against gay marriage. There has also been a slightly disproportionate amount of rejoicing at the departure of the people they are replacing; Truss taking over from Owen Paterson, Morgan from Michael Gove. While Gove’s departure is certainly welcomed by many, and not only teachers, the fact is that the policies he put into place remain. Though the source may be removed, the damage is already done – and Nicky Morgan is not going to reverse it. It seems likely that instead of disagreeing with anything Gove actually did – the Prime Minister has called Gove one of his “great brains, someone who has done extraordinary things for education” – Cameron and his advisors have taken the decision to remove one of the biggest Conservative hate figures to try to appease voters. Deborah Lawson, general secretary of Voice, the union for education, early years and childcare professionals, said, “Both Michael Gove and Elizabeth Truss, while polite and courteous in person, were notorious for failing to listen to the views of education and early years professionals. “Regardless of the weight of evidence presented to them, they would follow their own agenda, often denouncing those who held a different view as 'the enemy', 'misguided' and so forth. “As a consequence, Michael Gove was the most divisive and unpopular education secretary for a generation.” Truss's appointment does mean, as the Guardian reported in a brief outline of her career to date, that Labour can no longer taunt David Cameron about the absence of mothers in his top team: Truss has two children. Although it was Truss who tried to increase the number of infants that could be looked after by childcare workers. She is also, the Independent reported, the youngest female cabinet minister in British history – indeed one of the youngest at all – and a founder of the Free Enterprise Group, and one of five authors of a booklet entitled Britannia Unchained. Esther McVey has remained Minister for Employment and Disabilities but will now attend Cabinet meetings, along with the new Leader of the House of Lords, Baroness Stowell, and Baroness Warsi, Senior Minister of State, Minister of State for Faith and Communities – and seven other men. With less than a year to go until the 2015 election, these cabinet changes are a sadly obvious attempt to gain more votes. Hopefully, enough of the electorate will be able to see through it.  |
| Posted: 25 Jul 2014 01:57 AM PDT
INTERESTED? Contact us at: editor@womensviewsonnews.org
We welcome applications from all: the only criteria is that you have an interest in news and want to write exclusively about women. Our writers usually have some experience, but if you have excellent English grammar and an eye for detail we can train you up. You must, however, have internet access and the ability to work remotely (e.g. from home) and some or all of the following skills:
If you want to write for us, get in touch, and tell us a little bit about yourself and why you want to get involved. We will then contact you to discuss what will be expected of you and how the site, and the team, works. If you are successful in your application, you will then be asked to write at least two stories per fortnight to an assigned deadline and on a regular basis. All stories and features must abide by two basic rules: 1. They must be about women, or told from the perspective of women 2. They must respect our "house" rules which, in general terms, are that racist, sexist or fascist material will not be accepted.
 |
| Legal aid cuts hit family courts Posted: 25 Jul 2014 01:09 AM PDT
Changes in legal aid have forced more parents than ever before to represent themselves in family courts. Legal aid helps with legal costs, such as instructing a solicitor, for those who would otherwise be unable to afford to do so. Legal aid was first introduced in 1949, as a principal pillar of the welfare state. Originally, its reach was almost universal with 80 per cent of British people eligible. But as the years went by eligibility dropped steadily, down to 29 per cent pre-recession in 2008. Rounds of cuts in 2004, 2007 and 2010 introduced fixed fees for certain types of cases, and led to many providers pulling out of more complex legally aided areas like immigration and asylum. Changes to legal aid provision, the 2013 Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO) which came into effect in April 2013, mean that many more people are no longer eligible for financial support in family court proceedings. All family law cases that do not involve domestic violence are no longer covered, although payments may be made to help with mediation. In 2013/2014, 58 per cent of parents went before a court without a lawyer, which is 15 per cent more than the previous year. Which means the family courts in England and Wales dealt with almost 20,000 more unrepresented parents in 2013/14 than the year before, according to data obtained from the Ministry of Justice by Lawyer Supported Mediation, a network of family law solicitors. Mothers from poor backgrounds have been hardest hit, and for the first time made up more than half – 53 per cent – of all unrepresented parents. Speaking about the cuts, Shadow Justice Minister, Sadiq Khan said: "The government were warned three years ago that their cuts to legal aid would lead to chaos in the courts. "As is often the case with this government it's women and the vulnerable bearing the brunt of the changes." He continued: "Not only does it cost the system more money when people turn up in court without a lawyer as the whole process is much slower, but the experience for those concerned can be traumatic and harrowing. "Given these are people looking to secure contact with their children, this makes this data all the more troubling." "This government's actions are seeing access to justice becoming the preserve of the rich and all their talk of increased use of mediation being the saviour have turned to dust," he added. When announcing the legal aid changes the government had said they were trying to encourage mediation as a means of resolving issues rather than court proceedings, which, they said, should be seen as a "last resort". The figures, however, show that the number of parents resorting to court has actually increased. Marc Lopatin, of Lawyer Supported Mediation, said the government had failed in its attempt to encourage mediation, which has fallen since April 2013, as the majority of parents go to see lawyers first regarding child contact disputes and there is little incentive for lawyers to direct them to mediation. A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: "We've increased mediation funding as it's often more successful, less expensive and less stressful than going to court. "In some cases – such as where domestic violence is involved – court clearly is the only answer and we've made sure legal aid remains available here." The spokesperson continued: "There have always been a significant number of people representing themselves in court – as happened in about half of all private family law cases the year before we introduced these changes – and we have improved the information available to help them. "The court can instruct a person to pay for the other party where they are able to do so." The Bureau of Investigative Journalism and The Independent on Sunday, in partnership with the Magistrates' Association, surveyed a sample group of 461 magistrates sitting in a variety of courts across the UK. One respondent replying to the survey said: "In family [courts], if one side is represented and the other not, it makes it very difficult to have a fair hearing, as litigants in person find it difficult to cross-examine and don't understand the process." Another pointed out that: "Justice is limited to those who can afford it."  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Women's Views on News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |