Sideways News

Winning the female vote is crucial to winning the forthcoming general election, so much so it’s even been billed the "Mumsnet election".

High-profile website, Mumsnet recently celebrated its 10th birthday and, with an estimated one million users, political parties have been tripping over themselves to court this group.. The main political leaders have participated in webchats from which we have gleaned such gems as Brown’s favourite biscuit: "anything with a bit of chocolate on it".

But don’t be fooled by these Stepford-sounding mums who call their partners DH (darling husband) or DD (darling daughter), those who frequent the forums are a tough crowd. Predominantly middle class and quick to express their displeasure - they've also quizzed the leaders on everything from Europe to ID cards.

That women find themselves centre stage in this particular election is no accident; it’s what analysts refer to as the "gender gap". Historically, women have been more likely to vote Conservative but in 1997 the gap noticeably narrowed and Blair swept to power. As we head for the next election the gap has almost closed, meaning that there’s everything to play for.

A politically-independent organisation, the Fawcett Society is the leading campaign group for sexual equality in pay, pensions and politics. Ceri Goddard, Chief Executive is unequivocal, “Whoever the majority of women vote for will win the next election; all the parties know that,” she told Sideways.

Such is the strategic thinking that consultancy, Pretty Little Head (the irony's deliberate) has been taken on to advise the Tory party. Founded by two women, it offers help to clients to "find new and better ways of engaging with women". So, are women such a significantly different species to men that they deserve specific targeting?

“It’s normal to do segmented marketing, the Americans are masters at it” co-founder, Jane Cunningham told Sideways News.

“It makes sense to target women because they’re 51% of the electorate. What happened in the US election showed how important a lever it is in swinging the fortunes of one party. Everybody expected Hillary Clinton to have the female vote but Barak Obama managed to win over women.”

Cunningham maintains that data has repeatedly shown that women’s priorities differ to men’s. “It may not be as Mars and Venus as it is presented but there’s so much hard science to show there are differences. For instance as women tend to be primary carers they’re more interested in the NHS and education than their male counterparts.”

Of course while politicians are setting their sights on 30-something mums, it is self-evident that women are not a homogeneous group. Writing in The Daily Mail, broadcaster Janet Street Porter had this to say: “Politicians should forget Mumsnet and instead target women over 40, many of whom are single and divorced. These women are seeing their pensions tumble in value and are contemplating a much longer period at work than ever before.”

“They are more open to new ideas than their mothers' generation, use the internet, travel widely and are keen to acquire new skills and knowledge. They hold the key to the election, not a bunch of middle-class, Boden-wearing yummy mummies.”

There are indeed many women who fall outside the marketing segment that is Mumsnet. Those too poor to own a computer or those - with or without children - who unlike some Mumsnet mothers have no burning interest in "the dos and don’ts of lunchboxes". Moreover is it realistic to expect a white 25-year-old single mum on benefits in Kirklees to walk into the voting booth with the same priorities as a 45-year-old childless, Asian lawyer in Kensington?

Ceri Goddard says that she would like to see all parties act on the views of a much wider range of women. “Where Mumset has been successful is challenging the notion that because you’re a mother you don’t have strong political beliefs. But you can’t then tick the box and say, 'We’ve done women’.”

She adds, “There are a lot of myths about the women’s vote. It’s dangerous to treat women as if they’re all the same. There are as many differences between groups of women as there are between men and women.” To this end the economy, tax and public spending top the Fawcett Society's pre-election campaign: Election 2010 - What About Women?

Cunningham maintains that to have a greater appeal to female voters, politicians should not only concentrate on the message itself but HOW they deliver it. She believes that women "definitely respond to politicians showing their feelings and using the language of feelings". But is this true? 

It's a template of women that Goddard disputes. In fact, she asserts that women are often more cynical than men and queries what she terms the “essentialist notion” that women are, by definition, more caring than men.

Certainly, counting on women to conform to some dubious stereotype (woman the sentimental creature vs. the rational man) - particularly amongst the over 40s, often a steely-spined bunch - does seem at best to be a shaky premise. Yet who is this incessant campaign to "humanise" politicians aimed at, if not women? (To wit the Brown interview with Piers Morgan.)

Of one thing we can be sure: there's an election riding on it and whoever misjudges the female electorate may well have to consider alternative career options come the summer.