Why I support the new Equality bill.

I have always been sceptical of affirmative action. I do however, support Barack Obama's policy on affirmative action, on the basis of economic background.

In the UK, when UCAS forms have to be filled in, the detail of your parents' education has to be mentioned. The right-wing media immedietly denounced this. Consider this. One student who went to an expensive nursery, then a private primary school, followed by an Eton education, enjoying one-on-one tuition, and then further private tuition and gets 3 A's, is compared with a student who gets 3 B's, lives on a council estate, and went to a comp with 25 people per class, having to work every night in a fast food restaurant to bring in money for their family. Isn't it probable, that in equal circumstances, the second student would do much better than the first?

Nonetheless, I was sceptical of this current bill. My worry was that affirmative action would just cream off richer women and minorities.

But I read in the papers (which I still maintain I loathe), of an encounter in Westminster:

David Heathcote-Amory, saw a black woman walking on the member's terrace and demanded to know if she was an MP. "Yes, I am actually. Are you?" Dawn Butler, the former adviser to Ken Livingstone replied. He snapped to his colleagues: "They're letting anybody in nowadays."

The same slanders against this bill, were said of one of the best acts of the Wilson administration, the Equal Pay act.

Harriet Harman has consistantly maintained loyalty to the government, but fought hard for progressive policies against people like John Hutton (why doesn't he just defect to the opposition?).

She reminded me in dark times, why I was a Labour voter. The pay gap between full-time workers is 17%, and between part-time workers, a shocking 40%. She said: "Do we think she is 40 per cent less hard-working, less intelligent, less qualified?"

It is a major factor in low pay that 70% of those on the minimum wage are women, and 40% of part-time workers are on the minimum wage. Feminism isn't some metropolital liberal worry about not enough female FTSE 100 directors, it is at our red beating heart of social justice.

Apparently though, not all agree. The Daily Mail has suprisingly been against this, normally being a much more wise and thoughtful paper. They say that women "choose less well-paid jobs" because they want "more time with their families". The Mail would have to imagine that every woman had a family, and that they had them in teenage years for this to be true (oh, wait, they DO think that every teenager is pregnant). The pay gap sets in long before women decide to have children (and contrary to the Mail's warnings, women are having children much later).

The Women and Work commission found that after just 5 years, the pay gap between those who have earned first-class degrees is 15%.

Indeed, the bill doesn't go far enough. Harman had to compromise with Hutton (who I just want to deport) on pay audits. Also, it was the Tories who not long ago, were mocking the government for not supporting pay audits.

Why do many conservatives like to pretend that there is no ideology in between cut-throat, tough luck, lassez-faire Thatcherism, and throw-you-in-the-gulag communism? These particular conservatives are more politically ignorant than I thought.

Pay audits, whereby private firms who underpay female workers can be named and shamed, enhance economic competition. It strengthens our economy, and social justice at the same time.

On the most contraversial part of the bill, it doesn't ban white men from getting jobs, as spun by the Express. It gives employers a legal right to balance skewed workforces, whether largely female/male or white/thnic minority. They are under no legal requirement. I have been to primary schools where the workforce was largely female, as have been the secondary schools I've been to. Employers would have the right to balance the workforce with more males. That's it. This is what the controversy has been about.

Now we return to another fine Labour woman, Barbera Castle. The same arguments were shot at her, word for word. We apparently can't afford gender equality in a time of 'recession'. This argument is potent, as most low-paid are women, so the wages of the low-paid would rise.

It is the same principle as tax cuts for the rich during times of recession. A recession used to be when a factory owner had to close his fourth factory. If you give tax cuts to the rich, he will open a fifth, failing factory, and spend the rest on boats and cars. If you give tax cuts to the bottom half, they will go out and spend the money in the local economy, allowing the factory owner to re-open the fourth factory. Everybody wins.

A feminist agenda would do wonders for the economy. The estimated NPV of universal childcare, on a neutral estimate in 2003 would have been £40 billion over 65 years. The top estimate, was £93 billion. Wasting women's education and skills costs us £23 billion a year.
Don't believe me? In Norway, they mandated that 40% on corporate boards had to be female, and business growth soared. Mckinsey found that stock growth went up by 53%, when there were more women in senior positions.


Never fall for David Cameron. He defines himself as a 'progressive'. That doesn't mean anything. Would anyone call themselves 'regressive'? George Osbourne says there is "much to learn" from George W. Bush's 'compassionate conservatism'.

This is what Boris Johnson ran on. His first act? Slashing half-price bus fares for poor Londoners. Would he be bewildered to know that many can't afford 4x4's? Apparently not. About driving these Chelsea tractors he says:

"Tee hee, I said to myself ... out of my way, small car driven by ordinary person on modest income. Make way for the Nissan Murano."

It isn't that the Tories are toffs (they are). It's that some can go to private schools, which allows them to be shocked by low pay, and poverty. Harriet Harman follows in the tradition of people like Attlee who have done so. Most of the Tories don't know any other world though.

This bill defines what Labour is for, and I hope it starts the process of bringing back soul to the party.





Display: Sort:

Re: Why I support the new Equality bill. (#1)

"In the UK, when UCAS forms have to be filled in, the detail of your parents' education has to be mentioned. The right-wing media immedietly denounced this. "

 
I can't agree with this. It is basing how YOU should be treated on the basis of how much money your parents have.

That simply cannot be right. 

Re: Why I support the new Equality bill. (#2)

Excellent post, jkitleft.

As for the last comment, research evidence has consistently shown that students from comprehensive school backgrounds tend to do better at university than private school entrants, even though their A Levels grades on entry tend to be (on average) poorer. And the discussion in your post explains why- you have to be brighter to get 3 Bs at a comprehensive than you do to get 3 As at a private school. Universities should be trying to find genuinely bright  students, rather than simply spoonfed ones, and they are entitled to look at a range of factors when doing so.   

Re: Why I support the new Equality bill. (#3)

"Universities should be trying to find genuinely bright  students, rather than simply spoonfed ones, and they are entitled to look at a range of factors when doing so."

In that case, make university entrance based solely on exam grades, abolish loans and give grants to all students and ensure that all universities can offer every student accomodation in a Hall of Residence.

Make entry equal for everyone and not dependent on your parents income or lack of it. University entrance should be on merit and not on ability to pay.

It irks me no end that many in the existing cabinet got a free university education and then pulled the ladder up behind them by stopping eveyone else from getting it. 

Re: Why I support the new Equality bill. (#4)

If you base university entrance 'solely on exam grades' you will simply reward those students whose parents can afford to buy the best schooling for them.  

Re: Why I support the new Equality bill. (#5)

"If you base university entrance 'solely on exam grades' you will simply reward those students whose parents can afford to buy the best schooling for them."

Then the solution is to sort out secondary education so that those attending it can get the grades they need to enter university.

Slapping a patch on one system to correct flaws in another system does not solve the problem. 

Re: Why I support the new Equality bill. (#6)

"Then the solution is to sort out secondary education so that those attending it can get the grades they need to enter university." That isn't going to happen under the Tories, a bunch of wealthy public-school elitists whom consider state schooling as nothing better than a squalid safety-net for "the little people".

Re: Why I support the new Equality bill. (#7)

"That isn't going to happen under the Tories, a bunch of wealthy public-school elitists whom consider state schooling as nothing better than a squalid safety-net for "the little people"."

I'm not talking about it happening under the tories - I'm asking WHY isn't it happening under Labour? 

Re: Why I support the new Equality bill. (#8)

As someone who has worked for private firms that take on staff an indivdual rates on pay and make it part of their contract not to discuss it with anyone I have seen it happen where women are payed less than men for similar work.

If you take the 17% or 40% as averages you have to bear in mind that this average would include public sector employers and those larger companies that have a pay structure. When my Grandmother started working in  1936 women where payed half the wage of men. when you consider the part timers that are getting 40% less these women are only marginally better treated than those 70 years ago. At least then it was openly done.

Why do many conservatives like to pretend that there is no ideology in between cut-throat, tough luck, lassez-faire Thatcherism, and throw-you-in-the-gulag communism? These particular conservatives are more politically ignorant than I thought.

I like this bit for the reason that I have read that many of the architects of Thatcherism were former communists. These people who switched from one to creating the other would have experienced little in between. You may already know this. If not it may be a possible answer to your question. Your comment has got me thinking.

Re: Why I support the new Equality bill. (#9)

Once upon a time I knew someone who worked for the Commission for Racial Equality, as it was at the time. They told me that the CRE never had any problems with what they called the Marks and Spencers of this world, as all the major private sector employers took their responsibilities in this regard very seriously.

As far as the CRE were concerned the problem employers were all local councils, for the simple reason that there was a succession of local authorities who, for the best of reasons, would try and boost the representation of sundry ethnic minorities within their workforce. A few years later, when the Housing Benefit department (or whatever) was in meltdown, the same council would come to the conclusion that many of these newly recruited members of staff were simply not up to the job and sack them. A decision that naturally led to an upsurge of unfair dismissal claims citing racial discrimination and an increased workload for the CRE as they did their best to clear up the mess.

Make of that what you will.

Incidentally, Harriet Harman is far more of a 'toff' than most Tories. Her father was a wealthy Harley Street doctor and her aunt married the Earl of Longford. (Definitely upper middle class.) She's also related to Neville Chamberlain as it happens.

Re: Why I support the new Equality bill. (#10)

I don't care if a Labour supporter happens to be from a 'toff' background. Harriet was mocked by Tory Toffs for daring to say that in the constituency she represents, one of the poorest in the country, that there were women working in factories, with no working rights, who couldn't afford childcare etc. She recognised that there were people in poverty, who had low wages etc.

The Tories don't recognise what effect flat taxes or abolishing EMA's and tax credits have upon poorer families.

Re: Why I support the new Equality bill. (#17)

So you don't care that "Labour supporter happens to be from a 'toff' background", but you do apparently care if they are Conservative supporters, since all "Tories are toffs". I only mention it because I think the Party can do without that kind of schoolboy politics. It didn't work at Crewe and Nantwich, and every reference to "Tory toffs" is simply an invitation for further ridicule to be heaped upon the Party. Nothing is more guaranteed to consign the Party to oblivion at the next General Election than that kind of childish name calling.

Re: Why I support the new Equality bill. (#18)

I did not say that all Tories are Toffs. I am saying, that if like Harriet Harman, you choose from a rich background to fight for policies that significantly help the poor, rather than blaming them for their own misfortune, then I don't care.

I was against the Toff campaign in Crewe. If we had fought on policies in Crewe, we would've won.

Re: Why I support the new Equality bill. (#11)

"One student who went to ... private tuition and gets 3 A's, is compared with a student who gets 3 B's, lives on a council estate, and went to a comp... Isn't it probable, that in equal circumstances, the second student would do much better than the first?"

Why? 

Surely if we don't know anything about them, it's more probable they'll do equally well? Surely two random people will probably have average IQs, and under "equal circumstances" (e.g. same upbringing, same education) would probably both do averagely?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you essentially saying that people with rich parents are below average intelligence, and so if they didn't have rich parents would do below average?

I would have thought it would be the opposite: people with rich parents would probably have above average IQs.

Re: Why I support the new Equality bill. (#19)

I did not say that. What I am saying is if you have a vastly superior education for around 15 years, particuarly with regards as to how to pass an exam, then in equal circumstances, considering the difficulties the second candidate faces, they would do better.


People do not only get A's and B's, and getting a B after being in classes of 35 in primary school, and 25 in secondaries and colleges, and coming from a poorer background in an inner city would be the equivalent of a much higher A, if they went to Eton. There is a mass of difference between the lives of the two candidates.


If they get 3 D's, then the first candidate should be picked.


Also I never mentioned IQ's, which by the way aren't the greatest indicator of ability.

Re: Why I support the new Equality bill. (#22)

"....coming from a poorer background in an inner city would be the equivalent of a much higher A,"

All very well, but you can't grant entrance to a university based on what someone might have got at a different school. The university has to deal with them based on the educational level attained, not on a fantasy level.

The only solution is to improve secondary education, not to fiddle around with a false equality. If the course requires 3 As there is no point in putting someone with 3 Cs into the course. All you would be doing is setting them up for failure.

Re: Why I support the new Equality bill. (#12)

Another economics lesson:

"If you give tax cuts to the rich, he will open a fifth, failing factory, and spend the rest on boats and cars. If you give tax cuts to the bottom half, they will go out and spend the money in the local economy, allowing the factory owner to re-open the fourth factory. Everybody wins."

Yes, most people spend most of their money locally. But the rich do spend their money (allowing the boat factories in another town to re-open?). And if they don't spend it now, they save it, which means investing it. Money is a store of wealth, which gets put to use whoever has it.

There are some good arguments for progressive taxes, but your argument isn't one of them.

Economics is about being able to see all sorts of possible consequences (intended and unintended).

Re: Why I support the new Equality bill. (#20)

I am saying that the rich are more likely to spend their money in specific markets. It is not certain that they will invest their money, even if they save it.

Re: Why I support the new Equality bill. (#21)

"It is not certain that they will invest their money, even if they save it."

Huh? They're going to stick it under a mattress? 

Re: Why I support the new Equality bill. (#13)

"The pay gap between full-time workers is 17%, and between part-time workers, a shocking 40%."
"70% of those on the minimum wage are women"
"The Women and Work commission found that after just 5 years, the pay gap between those who have earned first-class degrees is 15%."

Yes, not all women get married and have children. But they could do. A company will price this in. It's unfair on the ones who don't have children, but how could an employer tell who will be who? You can't ask people, because they might change their minds. A man can't change his mind and have a child.

There is no pay gap between men and lesbians.

I hope this explains your "The pay gap sets in long before women decide to have children" and refutes your "The Mail would have to imagine that every woman had a family".

Re: Why I support the new Equality bill. (#15)

See, most small state conservatives (who ironically oppose devolution?) claim that companies have enough common sense to deliver ethical policies on pay and conditions.

If in some businesses they don't, and left-wingers support legislation to prevent this from happening, they are accused of too much 'regulation'.

That's a double edged sword. Would lifting acts on pay and rights as well as conditions suddenly see a marked improvement for those currently earning the minimum wage? I think not.

Care to offer any factual evidence to refute my claims, rather than assertions? Capitalism is great at generating wealth, but it's all in that defenition. It is there to generate wealth, and if it isn't regulated, most businesses aren't in the interest of having generous pay and conditions for cleaners or carers. What makes these people more undeserving than a CEO? Or is it that they are more vunerable?

Re: Why I support the new Equality bill. (#14)

Excellent post jkitleft.

However, it's important to emphasise that the main point of this bill is not the positive discrimination part (which is relatively small) but the measures to tackle ageism. Harman's good work should improve the lives of the elderly in many ways including fairer access to employment, fairer access to medical treatment and cheaper insurance (motor and travel).

Re: Why I support the new Equality bill. (#16)

Absolutely. And in thirty years time, the legacy of this bill could make Britain a far more egalitarian country. This may be hyperbolic, but a larger chunk of the population will be the elderly.

I think that we need a certain degree of feminism to maintain certain structures of the welfare state. The reason why Sweden has very high social mobility, and almost no poverty, is because they realise that social mobility is enshrined in the earliest years, and they have the best childcare in the world. Overall, this makes longterm savings to our education system.

This, combined with measures like flexible hours, and equality measures like pay audits help tap into a missing £23 bn from our economy.

We know we need more employment, if we are to get higher level pensions. If more women are in work, not only will it boost the economy, but it will drive down the cost of benefits, which can boost our pension system. Overall, I agree with John Denham, in that we need to raise the percentage of earnings to pensions from the current average of 17% to between 30-33%. Overall, I think the government was right not to immedietly restore the link between pensions and earnings, as they concentrated their efforts upon the poor, rather than evenly distributed among the poor, middle classes, and the rich.

However, creating a fairer pensions system if we want to reach European standards of social security, and creating better care for the elderly, must be triggered by a revolution to tackle ageism, and this bill helps to do just that.

Re: Why I support the new Equality bill. (#23)

http://devilskitchen.me.uk/2008/06/hara-kiri-harman.html