The missed opportunity on reporting the gender pay gap

This is a first for me. I am writing the same post for my blog (very political, very left-wing, unforgiving in its views) and for LinkedIn (my professional self, steady, don’t rock the boat, nothing too contentious). The reason for this is that there is a subject I feel so passionately about that crosses into every area of our lives. That is gender equality in the UK and the fact that we are STILL so far away from it in so many respects. And, in my view, we are applying the wrong initial mindset to every really do anything about it.

                This has come up (again) this week because of a new  report by the Institute of Fiscal Studies (you can find the full report here https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8428 ). Sadly, the report is really nothing new. The messages remain the same as they ever were. Men earn more than women. The gap is seen at all occupational or social levels (so we aren’t educating our way out of it). Generally, the pay gap increases once women have taken time off to raise children. If we really needed a report to tell us this, we simply aren’t paying attention.

                It does make me wonder – did the Equal Pay act happen 46 years ago, or was that just a myth (http://www.inbrief.co.uk/employees/equal-pay/)? In a country which has over that period had 2 female Prime Ministers we still languish behind most other developed countries in terms of ridding ourselves of the gender pay gap.  Certainly, when compared to Scandinavian countries who are in many ways near neighbours to us we are nowhere close to their understanding.

                I am not going to say this isn’t an important subject. But I do wonder, are we actually framing this in the right way to achieve equality for men and women. Let me give you an example – TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady was quoted as saying “It is scandalous that millions of women still suffer a motherhood pay penalty. Many are forced to leave better-paid jobs due to the pressure of caring responsibilities and the lack of flexible working” ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37156178 ). I think part of the problem lay in that statement. It could be put another way – “many men face a taking time-off penalty because of the expectation on them to provide for the family”.

                I think we need to reframe the conversation. Instead of the IFS report focussing solely on “The Gender Wage Gap” perhaps it should look at both sides of the problem – “The Gender Wage and Caring Responsibilities Gap”.  If we take a look back at how this conversation has been framed, since the Equal Pay Act, the language has been chosen by the patriarchal view of our society – that the important thing is Pay, how much we earn, how much we provide.

                This has an impact on both men and women. It can not be right that our society forces us to think that the only measure we should focus on is pay – and then thrust the next generation into trying to win a game where the rules are stacked against them. This is a complex problem, and there are lots of remedies that need to be considered to address it. But are we really open to considering all of them whilst we focus on equal pay only? Whilst the recent legislation in the UK to provide Shared Parental Leave (https://www.gov.uk/shared-parental-leave-and-pay/overview) is a step in the right direction, many men (including myself) are priced out of using it because it didn’t include equal access to Company Maternity Pay.

                There are some obvious things that need to happen. Firstly, men and women need to be paid similarly from the outset. That is a no-brainer and large companies will soon be forced to report much more in-depth information to make this harder to get away with. I am certainly not saying we should stop the fight for equal pay for equal work irrespective of gender. But until we can move the conversation on, and talk about work-life balance, sharing our parenting / caring responsibilities as part of the gender pay gap, are we really trying to break out of the patriarchal view that keeps women at home and men in the workplace? We need to push towards a culture that sees raising children and supporting a family financially as the responsibilities of all parents. Until we reframe the questions, I worry we will ever reach it. 

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled

               I am of a certain age where there are some films that absolutely define me. Most people could guess my age pretty accurately, given that my favourite films include Pulp Fiction, Fight Club, Jerry Maguire, Top Gun, Die Hard and The Usual Suspects. In the last of those there is a brilliant line delivered by Kevin Spacey as Verbal Kint – “The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn’t exist” (If you are a young person, I would suggest watching that movie straight away, along with Fight Club).

                As a member of the Labour Party, at the moment I feel a great deal of sadness and anger in terms of where my party is. I am at heart an unreconstructed socialist, who has wound his way back here via a variety of other views being tried on for size. The ongoing / stalling / necessary / evil / failed / righteous* (delete as appropriate) coup has really shown the worst of our politics on all sides. What is equally saddening has been that within the Labour Party and the wider bit of society that sees itself as left-leaning we have seen the worst of absolutist thinking and “othering” behaviour. You are either a Corbynista or a Blairite. You are Progress or Momentum. It is black and white, chalk and cheese. For god’s sake whatever you do, pick a side. Certainly you must not see anything in between (don’t worry, I am not going to use the phrase “a third way”). You are either for or against – and that view will completely and entirely colour whether something is acceptable or not – not the act itself.

                It is because of this thinking that I have separately heard a wide variety of possibilities in terms of the underlying cause of the coup in the Labour Party. It is either a right wing coup orchestrated by Portland (http://www.prweek.com/article/1401004/portland-forced-deny-involvement-plot-oust-jeremy-corbyn) on behalf of the permanent political class who rely on voter apathy (http://www.thecanary.co/2016/07/02/the-real-reason-the-permanent-political-class-is-trying-to-topple-jeremy-corbyn/ ). Or alternatively, it is evidence of the party fighting back against an existential threat of Momentum Entryists trying to steal the party (http://uk.businessinsider.com/corbyn-could-split-labour-and-create-a-new-socialist-party-2016-6?r=US&IR=T). When you look at either of these theories they BOTH have an awful lot of “if and then” logic in them.

                The quote from The Usual Suspects comes from an original from Charles Baudelaire. But given the above theories, if either of them prove true, it will certainly need to be changed. So, depending on where you are on that perfect duality where any behaviour is allowed as long as it justifies the ends, you can either have: “The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was after failing to convince 3 MPs involved in the plot to stand aside so there was one candidate standing against Corbyn to not fully engage in the EU referendum; stop the newspapers reporting what Jeremy Corbyn was doing during the referendum campaign; stoke hatred of Jeremy Corbyn by people he works with in the House of Commons; convince almost all of his shadow cabinet to resign in a timed way one after the other (and the press to report it in that order); convince other MPs in the party that it was all his fault; pass a vote of no confidence; but be so incompetent as to botch a leadership challenge by being unclear on what the rules are; to avoid Tony Blair being impeached for war crimes”.

                I am going to go out on a limb here – if you could manage to make 90% of that happen without problem then you would have been able to control the Blairite candidates, and you would have known that you could push through the coup by way of Leadership challenge. Was there anything as disappointing as seeing Neil Kinnock brandishing a print out of the Labour Party rules on the Andrew Marr show saying that Jeremy Corbyn definitely wouldn’t be on the ballot for leader because the rules could stop it? A couple of things show how silly that is – if you know you can get rid of someone through a leadership challenge you go down that route rather than publicly humiliating someone on front of their colleagues. Secondly, sane people do not walk around with a certificate to show they are sane. If you are going on air with a copy of the rules in your pocket, you are not sure the rules really support you. You are using them the same way a drunk uses a lamp post – more for your own support than illumination.

                Oh yes, two possible changes to the quotation. For those of you who are Blairites (and remember – you must be one or the other) “The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing MPs who didn’t support his views to nominate him to get on to the paper; then to have hundreds of thousands of entryists prepared to spring into action and join the Labour Party (myself included); then get them all to vote for him; convince the other contenders to not drop out so their vote was split; hang on to power through both local elections and an EU referendum whilst seizing control of the Labour Party machinery; manufacture outrage within the party to create a split in the party (by way of smearing a PR company with links to Tony Blair) ; in order to get all of those people you have convinced to join the party 12 months earlier to now leave the party and join a newly set up Momentum party; convince the Union Leaders to come with you and bring their members; and on the way get an establishment judge to find that Tony Blair does have a case to answer over the Iraq War; call for and get an impeachment against him; thus destroying the Blairite Labour Party and start afresh with a clean left wing Momentum party”.

                Again, stretching this a bit but maybe there are easier ways to do that. Quite frankly, the thought that a government inquiry into a decision to go to war would ever (or would ever be allowed, take your pick) to find that a Prime Minister of this country had performed in a way that could lead to criminal charges against that PM seems a long way from the truth. If it was going to do that it wouldn’t have been delayed so much. There are not enough people in Politics, irrespective of parties who want to see that happen. I realise that I am making myself a hostage to fortune by calling that before Wednesday. The whole project would be based on the outcome of other things – not a successful strategy usually.

                There is a well-worn approach when considering different theories called Ockham’s razor (or maybe Occam’s Razor depending on your spelling) which isn’t proof of logic of an argument, but is a good starting point – the theory is “Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected”. In other words – the idea with the fewest parts should be your starting point. Looking at those competing viewpoints above anybody outside of the debate would be forgiven for saying they both smell a bit fishy.

What is interesting is that both sides of the argument are giving the appearance that any means is justified because their ends are just. So Jeremy Corbyn allegedly refusing to take Tom Watson’s calls (although clearly these calls must have come after the Glastonbury weekend), the public defrocking of Jeremy Corbyn in parliament which was only second to Cersei’s walk of shame in its gratuitousness, threats for mandatory reselection and taking legal advice on whether MPs can keep the Labour party name whilst splitting from the leadership are all acceptable weapons. As well as that we have entered a lockdown phase where everything Corbyn has done is right OR everything Corbyn has done is wrong. Whether this is what you think or not, it is how it is playing out in the media. And both sides are looking at their own constituencies as an example of them being right, as if this is a binary decision “we have the members on our side so we must be right – is democracy” versus “we have the voters as well as the party members to think about so we must be right – is democracy”. Yeah, because voting on things democratically has been working out so well for us in the last few weeks.

                What is needed now is calm heads and moving away from that sort of thinking – and pretty quickly. We need to save the Labour party and the ideals it stands for. Unfortunately, that would mean both sides would have to learn and grow up a bit. Let’s get rid of the conspiracy theories, and stick to things that we do know or at least can agree on. There must be some of those mustn’t there? Or are we so far down the rabbit hole we can’t find any common ground.  I have tried to list these in order of increasing contentiousness.

1.       Leaving the EU referendum provides immediate short term risks that the Labour Party needs to be ready for

2.       As a party we are better off together, looking outward rather than fighting ourselves

3.       Our enemies are those who oppose social justice, fairness, workers rights, an end to poverty (look, I am trying to be cool but quite obviously that is code for the Tories and UKIP)

4.       The PLP never wanted Jeremy Corbyn as their leader, and some have openly attacked him, some have been half-hearted and some have supported him

5.       The membership did want him – even without us nasty Entryists, the full members of Labour voted overwhelmingly for Jeremy Corbyn

6.       Having a vote of no confidence in him which carries no constitutional weight whatsoever is a clear indication that you are too nervous to run the gauntlet of a leadership election when that would have been quicker and easier. Stop pretending we are dicks who don’t get that

7.       Jeremy has achieved some things – particularly government u-turns around education cuts; benefit cuts; police funding etc.

8.       Jeremy Corbyn (or possibly the team around him) has made mistakes and what is clear is that something does need to change. Anyone willing to cling to their rationality could see that mentioning ISIS and the state of Israel in the same sentence was going to be a bloody stupid idea

  What isn’t clear is whether the aim of the PLP is to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn (the person / the team) or whether it is to get rid a left wing agenda of policies. This is going to be really crucial in winning many of the party over to looking at a way ahead, potentially without Jeremy Cobryn as leader if that is what it takes. For many people (ie me, and trying to claim the moral high ground) we joined because we were attracted to the agenda rather than necessarily for the person. For those on the Corbyn side it may be time to accept that a new leader is needed – but one who can carry on his views and direction of travel for the party (although let’s be honest, no-one thinks that is Angela Eagle). How we handle this WILL define how we handle the upcoming months and years of turmoil in the country and the next general election. This will therefore help to decide how successful we can be in standing up for the values of the Labour Party. Perhaps, in that we can take something positive from this. It reminds me of my most favourite film quote from Fight Club, delivered by Brad Pitt “How much can you know about yourself if you’ve never been in a fight”.

How to protect our pretty little women

                I originally hail from Hartlepool, a small town in the North East that I regularly go back to. My parents and family are still there. In fact, my fabulous and talented daughter is studying there at the Cleveland College of Arts and Design. But to be honest, not a huge amount that is newsworthy happens there. Imagine my surprise then when I came across this story making waves (it’s a coastal town, geddit) in the daily mirror.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/parents-outraged-school-insists-girls-6803334

               This poor headteacher is being pilloried for being in the vanguard of protecting her weak naïve charges from the clutches of those dastardly men and boys. Why, all she is doing is trying to protect their modesty. My God! Don’t these people know its 1915! Because apparently the last 100 years have not happened in the education system in Hartlepool. (I would also add, having suffered the fate of being a teenage boy in Hartlepool 20 years ago – very few girls in Hartlepool are weak and naïve – they were very much more in charge).

               Unfortunately for the the Headteacher, she almost certainly does have the best interests of her pupils at heart. She wants her pupils to go to a school and be free from harassment, judgement and potentially danger because of the simple fact that they are women. 2015. A headteacher feels that this is still needed in 2015. What is worse is that I can absolutely understand where she is coming from. She has identified the problem correctly, but in my opinion, she has identified the wrong solution. Harassing someone, judging them or putting them in danger is very rarely THEIR fault. It is the fault of the person doing it.

So what is the real problem? Well, surely a culture where women don’t feel safe wearing whatever they choose to is the problem of the society, not the individual? We have to start off with a basic unassailable fact – people find other people sexually attractive from around the age where there body decides they are becoming sexually aware. That is it. Can’t get away from that. It has been quite important to us – without it we would never have survived as a species. It is fundamentally important. Therefore, people will be drawn to look at your body – it is a biological imperative. However, this shouldn't lead to harassment, judging and assaults. Sadly it does.

This is a worldwide problem – and demands a worldwide conversation and response. Whether this is SlutWalks taking place in North America and Europe  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13739876 , demonstrations in India by female students in Delhihttp://metro.co.uk/2015/10/14/even-cinderella-had-til-midnight-female-students-protest-unfair-630pm-curfew-in-india-5438750/ or various other acts and protests around the world, women and men are standing up to try and change this. What else can we do?

Next week sees the annual International Men's Day. This ties in with Universal Children's Day and International Women's Day. The aims of International Men's Day are to promote men's and boys' health, promote gender equality, improve gender relationships and highlight positive male role models and their importance. What can be more important to a man than to ensure that your sons and daughters understand the right and wrong way to treat other people? To role model behaviours that show respect for other people, for their lives and their choices in how they look?

Gender relations and the equality of genders will never, ever happen through women alone changing their behaviours and their actions. This change needs to come throughout society. And the discrimination on the basis of gender needs to be addressed in both directions. It must be with a large dollop of irony that International Women’s Day is supported by the UN, however International Men’s Day is not.

Please support International Men’s Day. If we truly want to work towards a world where men and women know how to show respect to each other and feel safe being themselves, then this change needs to come from all of us. Otherwise we will have another 100 years of the well-meaning trying to protect our pretty little women from themselves.

If you want to know more about International Men’s Day http://www.internationalmensday.com/

About International Women’s Day http://www.un.org/en/events/womensday/

              

The biggest story you are not reading about this week

Ah, the difficult decision of what to talk about in my second ever blog. A very interesting week for me. Some obvious ones to discuss – obviously tax credits and the impact it may have on our longer terms governance arrangements through the house of lords? Perhaps responding to a challenge from a  very good (and too smart for my own good) friend of mine – why do we need Momentum and the Labour Party to both exist? The parlous state of the economy based on the latest growth figures?

               I have decided to go for one of the stories which has as far as I am concerned been massively under-reported this week. I don’t know whether this is because it has been pushed off the front pages by the Commons/Lords/Tax Credits debacle or whether because it has become so accepted that we have forgotten we need to do something about it. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC – remember them?) today posted the results of research into the question of “Is Britain Fairer?”

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/about-us/our-work/key-projects/britain-fairer-0

               This is a really important question for all of us. Fairness and equality of opportunity affects everybody. There is no-one this should not matter to. This has always felt like something that has been at the heart of Labour politics, has been explicitly included in Liberal Democrat policies for a while, and is now even (if you can believe anything from their last conference) central to the Conservative parties plans for the future.

               The report paints a balanced picture of where we have improved as a country and where we still need to improve. But the stand out point for me is that the single biggest factor that impacts whether you do well at school or not is if your parents are poor. 130 years after school became compulsory in the UK. 70 years after the introduction of the Tripartite System and 50 years after Labour started dismantling it in favour of comprehensive education. We have had implementation of the market system (because as we know that fixes everything), grant-maintained, academies and free schools. And yet, still the biggest determinant of whether you will achieve through education is which social class your parents belong to. We have not moved on since the Newcastle Commission of the 19^thCentury.

               Now it may be that I feel this acutely for personal reasons – maybe this didn’t hit the news because genuinely nobody gives a shit any more. But we really should. To use the report’s own figures – if you receive Free School Meals (which are taken as a proxy of poverty in the report) then your chances of success at GCSE level are 38%. If you don’t receive free school meals – your success rate is 65%. That is not quite, but not far away from double the chance of success. Why are there not riots in the street over this? This was a report produced by the EHRC because they have a statutory duty to report on it. What was the government response? An unelected official at the Department for Education spouted some kindly sounding drivel. Wonderful.

               150 years of making no progress in addressing the underlying unfairness in our society. 150 years of failing to address the fact that if you are born into a poor family you are more likely to die in poverty. What was the big idea of the last Labour government when it came to education? Academies and stuffing universities with slightly less able middle class kids. Brilliant – because what is holding us back is having Local Government involvement in setting educational priorities and standards and a lack of people with Media Studies degrees. The biggest change in this area recently has come from the Liberal Democrats (wait, is this somebody DARING to say something positive about the Lib Dems in the area of Education?). Their introduction of the pupil premium, and the focus of OFSTED on how this is spent is a real challenge to this ingrained lack of attainment. Money alone is not and will not be enough to fix this - but at least it is a start. 

As a country we should be embarrassed about this – we really should. As a socialist organisation we should be apoplectic with rage. I really hope that Lucy Powell MP, in Education is able to understand how important this is and that we have a plan for how the next government will do this differently. Certainly, it appears today that this certainly wouldn't have been a key focus of Tristram "We are the 1%" Hunt. I am avoiding putting down my feelings on his comments, and leave it to somebody else who is much better at being angry than I am. 

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/tristram-hunt-labour-1-percent.html

There is a real tragedy here. In my view, the quality of our education and the changes we can make to a child's level of aspiration and self-confidence are the best way to upset the status quo. 150 years ago we knew that. 50 years ago we knew that. It is bitterly disappointing that the party who seem to have had the biggest focus on this over the last 20 years is the Liberal Democrats whilst we let jokers like Hunt be shadow education secretary. Perhaps we really are destined to fight the same battles over and over for the rest of time. I have the greatest hope that Lucy Powell can prove me wrong.