With International Women’s Day – and its theme of “inspiring inclusion” – landing hot on the Budget’s heels, the shortcomings of our government’s exclusionary politics are laid bare. Both these political and cultural moments demonstrate an over reliance on the ideology of individualism. Inevitably, this pushes care to the margins, so what alternative should we be setting our sights on?

This year’s International Women’s Day theme is “Inspire Inclusion”. We’re not sure the Chancellor got the memo. Each year the budget holds the potential to create a more inclusive and fairer economy, but this Spring any levers for meaningful change stayed solidly static. Yet again, this (ominously referred to) ‘fiscal event’ did little to include those most closely connected to care.

The Chancellor opted for tax cuts over meaningful investment in our public services and infrastructure – the first benefits a selected few, the latter benefits us all, particularly those most excluded. Tax reductions are presented as a benefit to the individual, but ultimately we all lose out when our collective resources are put on the chopping block.

Eroding our collective resources and infrastructure inevitably affects our ability to care for each other. Our health and social care systems remain stretched to breaking point, whilst unpaid carers didn’t get a single reference in the Budget. And, as Rachel Charlton-Dailey writes, Jeremy Hunt didn’t mention disabled people in his speech. 

All this despite JRF’s UK Poverty 2024 report finding disabled people, carers and single parents are disproportionately experiencing poverty. Without any reference in this national debate, care is left to individuals to manage in the margins.

This devaluation of care in our economic system is inextricably linked to its patriarchal design. Analysis from the Women’s Budget Group cuts through any pretence that this week’s budget is inclusive of care and of women. They find that lone mothers benefit the least from the 2% cut in National Insurance put forward, with single women overall also benefiting less than single men on average.

Whilst the policy announcements might be a far cry from inspiring inclusion, even this framing for International Women’s day falls short of engaging with the systemic. Placing responsibility on individuals to make change reinforces our capitalist infrastructure. Failing to deliver on inclusion deepens the inequality within it. This is very different from delivering systemic change towards a feminist economy, where inclusion is baked in. 

As Janey Starling explores, International Women’s Day has its roots in collective organising, solidarity movements and migrant rights. Its original iteration – International Working Women’s Day – was grounded in socialist principles and the power of unions, rather than the spotlighting of capitalist success stories we see today.

But this year’s theme is a far cry from rebuilding an economy around our collective wellbeing. Making everyday an international women’s day will require nothing short of a complete refit of our economic system to a feminist economy; actively designing policies that rebalance inequalities and bring care, compassion and wellbeing to the fore.

International Women’s Day should embody a bold, courageous character that gears us towards progressive change. Similarly, our budget must commit to genuinely transformative policies that enable us to care and live well. A four day week, a basic income, foundational basic services. The ideas exist. Our commitment to a better and fairer economy has to come from all directions.

We know how to include people, now we need that inclusion to shape the foundations of our economy; to lead a society that cares.