Sex, Gender and Parliamentary Behaviour in the 2005 Parliament

Abstract

One could not be sure how the Conservative party would act on women’s concerns in the 2010 Parliament; whether its manifesto pledges would be implemented or whether its broader perspectives on gender and gender relations would inform its overall governing actions. Analyzing how the party acted in opposition during the 2005 Parliament is, however, suggestive. Of course, there are qualifications: membership of the Conservative parliamentary party is qualitatively and quantitatively different in 2010. There are many more Conservative women MPs, who may be more likely to be predisposed to gender politics. The newly elected Conservative MPs and newly appointed Conservative Peers might well be members more in tune with ‘modern’ gender roles, as a result of generational turnover. Coalition politics might be expected to further bolster an emphasis on women’s issues, given the Liberal Democrats prior history in this respect (Evans 2011; Childs 2008). Even so, Cameron had had five years in which to refashion his private and parliamentary leadership teams (Bale 2010), and to mould his parliamentary party by the time of the 2010 general election. Hence, if the Conservatives under Cameron did indeed seek to be a different kind of Conservative party, the potential opened up for the party to adopt a correspondingly more progressive position on women’s issues during the 2005 Parliament.

[Working and staying at home] are equally valid choices, and both put mothers under enormous strain.¹