I think a large part of the gender-pay issue is the expectation of women regarding being the primary carer of children. Certainly, it's made me think about whether I want to have children if I'll have to do 80% of the child-care.
I'm taking it as my one-man mission to get more fathers doing the childcare rather than the mothers; or even share. It's whatever suits the couple best.
Employer's flexibility helps, and we should encourage more of that where it is possible.
We need to get over this attitude that is is somehow not 'manly' to do childcare.
As an employer that will have to comply with this disclosure requirement, I don't have any problem with the general principle of disclosing average salaries for men and women. Is this a gap that should be closed over time? Yes. So we should measure progress.
Employers may have good reasons for a big difference. Let them talk that through. As with school league tables, the fact that some are blockheaded about the raw data doesn't mean it shouldn't be published.
Talk through ?! Fantasy land. The figures will be published in a large government league table, the people at the wrong end of it will be pilloried on social media before any consideration as to whether there is a valid reason for it. The average salary is a meaningless figure. As was said below, the NHS will fail hugely, more women want to be nurses then men, nurses earn less than doctors, average pay will be massively different. The key measure is does a woman nurse with X years of experience and Y seniority earn the the same a a man with the same seniority and experience, and obviously the answer should be yes. As a lawyer I can see why it would appeal to you, the number of lawsuits springing from this bit of idiocy is going to be a sight to behold.
You sound just like schoolteachers moaning about school league tables.
Easy to say as someone that doesn't run a company.
I am an employer and I will have to comply with this requirement. Those were in fact the first words that I wrote on the subject.
So if your company employs two sorts of people, a group of high earning people (lets call them Doctors for the sake of argument) and another group of rather lower earning people (lets call those "nurses"). If the vast majority of your applicants for the first group are men, and the second group are women. How do you plan to get equal pay, and when you firm starts getting panned on twitter for not having equal pay, and your attempts at explaining it are put down as victim blaming and you are told you check your privilege (for being a well paid boss), what's the next move ?
Victim blaming and check-your-privilege... hang around mumsnet much?
So women are on average less talented than men? Interesting argument.
Or perhaps companies need to look a bit harder for the female talent and to think more often about promoting it.
Since no one is suggesting all women short lists for recruitment, it isn't the slightest bit like all women short lists.
I didn't say that, you did. Lets take the example of teachers then. A number of women in my family are teachers, they are all capable and talented women who can no doubt do their job well. They have all taken time out to start a family at one time or another, they have mostly taken about eight years out to raise the family until their kids were at junior school. Should they be paid the same as someone that has stayed in the job for those eight years accumulating experience and seniority, possibly taking on extra training and promotions? If not, the average pay for women is going to be lower than for men even with equal talent. Now please stop the cheap lawyer tricks and engage with the argument.
The cheap lawyer trick is to claim that the public won't understand the impact of career breaks on salaries. This is a requirement to give information. Yet you recoil even from that. Bizarre.
I recoil from giving meaningless broad-brush averages that will be used a targets for name calling on Twitter. If the measure was in effect "pay for staff nurses with 5 years of seniority" should be equal, absolutely, but as been said below in smaller companies that it tantamount to comparing and publishing individual salaries.
The public didn't understand that a recent astrophysicist had been given a risqué shirt by his girlfriend and generated a twitter storm that lost him his job. Or that an eminent Nobel scientist who had made an off colour joke had prefaced it will qualifying comments that were not reported, and that his accuser was using entirely fraudulent professional claims to give credibility to her accusation, and the resulting twitter storm lost him his job and professional memberships. I have a very low opinion of what a lot of the public is interested in understanding.
The obligation is for companies of more than 250 employees. Broader averages start getting meaningful then.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant. If you don't trust the public, perhaps you should campaign against democracy as well.
I think a large part of the gender-pay issue is the expectation of women regarding being the primary carer of children. Certainly, it's made me think about whether I want to have children if I'll have to do 80% of the child-care.
I'm taking it as my one-man mission to get more fathers doing the childcare rather than the mothers; or even share. It's whatever suits the couple best.
Employer's flexibility helps, and we should encourage more of that where it is possible.
We need to get over this attitude that is is somehow not 'manly' to do childcare.
In fact, it's Neanderthal not to.
I agree completely - but I assume you're suggesting that overall men should do as much as women - that is to say in any one couple it's likely to fall more on one than the other?
As an employer that will have to comply with this disclosure requirement, I don't have any problem with the general principle of disclosing average salaries for men and women. Is this a gap that should be closed over time? Yes. So we should measure progress.
Employers may have good reasons for a big difference. Let them talk that through. As with school league tables, the fact that some are blockheaded about the raw data doesn't mean it shouldn't be published.
Talk through ?! Fantasy land. The figures will be published in a large government league table, the people at the wrong end of it will be pilloried on social media before any consideration as to whether there is a valid reason for it. The average salary is a meaningless figure. As was said below, the NHS will fail hugely, more women want to be nurses then men, nurses earn less than doctors, average pay will be massively different. The key measure is does a woman nurse with X years of experience and Y seniority earn the the same a a man with the same seniority and experience, and obviously the answer should be yes. As a lawyer I can see why it would appeal to you, the number of lawsuits springing from this bit of idiocy is going to be a sight to behold.
You sound just like schoolteachers moaning about school league tables.
Easy to say as someone that doesn't run a company.
Okay, this now beats the "polls didn't pickup SNP landslide" comment.
@JosiasJessop, I completely agree with what you're saying. Kids benefit from both parents actively involved rather than just one. I think culturally, we need to see (for men who become dads) fatherhood being just as important to a man's identity, as motherhood is currently seen to a woman's identity.
@foxinsoxuk, I'm glad to hear it. One day I took an unfortunate turn to the DM comments' section regarding paternity leave story, with a large number of male contributors seemingly disliking the idea, and expressing how they couldn't wait to get back to work when their child was born etc. I found it very weird.
I believe that it is still quite hard for a man to get the post of a nanny and certainly I believe that in many primary schools that male teachers have become a rarity? Are there many male teachers in girls-only schools or women teachers in boys-only schools.
Also in a partnership, do most women still expect the man to be the 'provider' as I have seen in some divorce cases that when a man has lost his job, the partnership has been broken asunder?
In Wales there is a lot of language discrimination in the public sector and charity sector, with a high number of jobs requiring fluency in Welsh even though only 23% have the ability to speak Welsh.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant. If you don't trust the public, perhaps you should campaign against democracy as well.
I thought you weren't doing cheap points any more. We shall wait with interest your change in views when a twitter storm of badly informed SJWs engulfs the personal life or business of someone close to you. They do say that a conservative is a liberal that has been mugged by reality
On a point of order, Ladies and Gents, is there a reason why the use of the 'quote' facility has dropped disproportionately recently? It is most annoying to see the same text copy/pasted in several subsequent posts.
The quote system "broke" for a while yesterday resulting in all quotes in a post being expanded, not just the last one. Made the site damn near unreadable...
Ros Altman explained that men and women who have contributed EXACTLY equal amounts as GPs will continue to recieve 50% (Widow's penions)/18% (Widower's pension) if they retired before 2000 and died (Pension then heading to the remaining spouse obviously)
Apparently it is 'unaffordable' to rectify the inbalance !
Ros Altman explained that men and women who have contributed EXACTLY equal amounts as GPs will continue to recieve 50% (Widow's penions)/18% (Widower's pension) if they retired before 2000 and died (Pension then heading to the remaining spouse obviously)
Apparently it is 'unaffordable' to rectify the inbalance !
That is without venturing into the troubled world of custody battles, maintenance settlements and all those other gratuitously biased areas of the law that are so profitable to some.
It strikes me that Lizites are essentially supporting her policy position, rather than her as a potential leader. Blairism without Blair. I would have been prepared to overlook the Blairism, if she had been able to demonstrate Blair's star quality, but she doesn't have it.
Regarding Cooper, she was animated on Sunday, and has edged above Burnham in my preference order. HIPS was a long time ago; I think she can offer the leadership we need through this parliament and beyond. I'm still giving my first pref to Corbyn, however.
Nicola Sturgeon will punish David Cameron for his English Votes for English Laws plan by allowing SNP MPs to vote at a crucial foxhunting debate tomorrow in a bid to “remind him of how slim a majority he has”.
A principled stand by the SNP then, hope they wont be complaining if the government gives them a good kicking in due course to "remind them who has a majority"
I think a large part of the gender-pay issue is the expectation of women regarding being the primary carer of children. Certainly, it's made me think about whether I want to have children if I'll have to do 80% of the child-care.
I'm taking it as my one-man mission to get more fathers doing the childcare rather than the mothers; or even share. It's whatever suits the couple best.
Employer's flexibility helps, and we should encourage more of that where it is possible.
We need to get over this attitude that is is somehow not 'manly' to do childcare.
In fact, it's Neanderthal not to.
I agree completely - but I assume you're suggesting that overall men should do as much as women - that is to say in any one couple it's likely to fall more on one than the other?
We'll never have full equality of outcomes - and we should not force it. What we should do is move towards reducing the blocks that create the imbalances.
Attitudes about 'proper' gender roles, in my mind at least, are the major problem.
And on that note, I need to take the little' un to baby sensory.
I think a large part of the gender-pay issue is the expectation of women regarding being the primary carer of children. Certainly, it's made me think about whether I want to have children if I'll have to do 80% of the child-care.
I'm taking it as my one-man mission to get more fathers doing the childcare rather than the mothers; or even share. It's whatever suits the couple best.
Employer's flexibility helps, and we should encourage more of that where it is possible.
We need to get over this attitude that is is somehow not 'manly' to do childcare.
In fact, it's Neanderthal not to.
The flipside of this is absentee fathers during the formative years of their sons. Particularly their preparation for adulthood during their teenage years.
Young males badly need their own father as a positive role model - about what it means to be a man - between the ages of 12-18 when they are trying to understand that.
If they don't get it from them, they will get it elsewhere. With mixed results.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant. If you don't trust the public, perhaps you should campaign against democracy as well.
I thought you weren't doing cheap points any more. We shall wait with interest your change in views when a twitter storm of badly informed SJWs engulfs the personal life or business of someone close to you. They do say that a conservative is a liberal that has been mugged by reality
It's not a cheap point. You are horrified by the concept of sharing information because you don't believe that the public are up to the job of understanding it even if explained. If you have such a low opinion of the public, I can't see why you would think them appropriate for selecting the government.
I can't make out whether you don't think there's a problem, think that there's a problem but that it's not worth addressing or whether you think there is a problem, it is worth addressing but somehow it will be magically addressed without anyone putting any effort into it. Rather than being mugged by reality, you seem to be in retreat from it.
Ros Altman explained that men and women who have contributed EXACTLY equal amounts as GPs will continue to recieve 50% (Widow's penions)/18% (Widower's pension) if they retired before 2000 and died (Pension then heading to the remaining spouse obviously)
Apparently it is 'unaffordable' to rectify the inbalance !
"(Pension then heading to the remaining spouse obviously) "ONLY if they don't re-marry. It is absolutely iniquitous as I am finding out but the surviving spouse loses it if they co habit or re-marry. It makes me very angry to think my darling wife contributed to a spouse's pension which I am going to be denied.
It strikes me that Lizites are essentially supporting her policy position, rather than her as a potential leader. Blairism without Blair. I would have been prepared to overlook the Blairism, if she had been able to demonstrate Blair's star quality, but she doesn't have it.
Regarding Cooper, she was animated on Sunday, and has edged above Burnham in my preference order. HIPS was a long time ago; I think she can offer the leadership we need through this parliament and beyond. I'm still giving my first pref to Corbyn, however.
Why hasn't "Lizards" become the soubriquet of choice for supporters of Ms Kendall?
It would also be nice if Cameron annouced in parallel that he was looking into some of the concerns of Fathers for Justice with a view to reforming the operation of the family courts.
The obligation is for companies of more than 250 employees. Broader averages start getting meaningful then.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant. If you don't trust the public, perhaps you should campaign against democracy as well.
In Essop v Home Office[2015] EWCA Civ 609, a very strong Court of Appeal (Sir Terence Etherton C, Lewison LJ & Sir Colin Rimer), reversing Langstaff J in the Employment Appeal Tribunal, has taken a fairly restrictive approach to founding claims of indirect discrimination on broad brush statistical evidence. In short, it now seems clear that you cannot use statistical evidence to shift the burden of proof onto the employer without addressing the question of why his provision, criterion or practice caused the disadvantaged group to suffer the disadvantage. Of course, sunlight is the best disinfectant, but there is a risk that these sorts of statistics will be misused. In and of themselves, they are not evidence of any unlawful provision, criterion or practice by an employer. Arguably, there is a point at which the more abstract statistics become, the less helpful they are in revealing evidence of unlawful behaviour.
I think a large part of the gender-pay issue is the expectation of women regarding being the primary carer of children. Certainly, it's made me think about whether I want to have children if I'll have to do 80% of the child-care.
I'm taking it as my one-man mission to get more fathers doing the childcare rather than the mothers; or even share. It's whatever suits the couple best.
Employer's flexibility helps, and we should encourage more of that where it is possible.
We need to get over this attitude that is is somehow not 'manly' to do childcare.
In fact, it's Neanderthal not to.
The flipside of this is absentee fathers during the formative years of their sons. Particularly their preparation for adulthood during their teenage years.
Young males badly need their own father as a positive role model - about what it means to be a man - between the ages of 12-18 when they are trying to understand that.
If they don't get it from them, they will get it elsewhere. With mixed results.
For quite a lot of that problem you have to blame the judiciary and quite a few feminist pressure groups who seem quite often to have the ear of social services who may undertake a judge-required report.
It strikes me that Lizites are essentially supporting her policy position, rather than her as a potential leader. Blairism without Blair. I would have been prepared to overlook the Blairism, if she had been able to demonstrate Blair's star quality, but she doesn't have it.
Regarding Cooper, she was animated on Sunday, and has edged above Burnham in my preference order. HIPS was a long time ago; I think she can offer the leadership we need through this parliament and beyond. I'm still giving my first pref to Corbyn, however.
Why hasn't "Lizards" become the soubriquet of choice for supporters of Ms Kendall?
I did use "Lizard People" a while back, but it didn't gain traction.
Nicola Sturgeon will punish David Cameron for his English Votes for English Laws plan by allowing SNP MPs to vote at a crucial foxhunting debate tomorrow in a bid to “remind him of how slim a majority he has”.
A principled stand by the SNP then, hope they wont be complaining if the government gives them a good kicking in due course to "remind them who has a majority"
I do think it's somewhat disingenuous for David Cameron to claim in the Times that a woman earns 80 p for every £ that a man earns, and to compare it to women not having the vote. That is lifetime earnings, not hourly earnings. Men tend to work longer hours, over the course of a lifetime, than women do. Therefore, they earn more than women do, on average, over the course of a lifetime.
Pay audits won't alter that. Either they'll provide a meaningless average figure for men and women, or they'll show that in the majority of cases, people are paid the going rate for the job.
It strikes me that Lizites are essentially supporting her policy position, rather than her as a potential leader. Blairism without Blair. I would have been prepared to overlook the Blairism, if she had been able to demonstrate Blair's star quality, but she doesn't have it.
I don't think it's just the positioning - like I say her election positioning would end up being much the same as Burnham/Cooper, since they'll move to the centre at the last minute, if not before. It's also a stylistic difference.
When a party is in government, it gradually accumulates a bunch of lines-to-take that get progressively further away from anything the voters will believe. This happens because they get crucified by the media if they do anything except faithfully defending their record, and the slightest deviation from the message gets turned into a monster gaffe.
The end result is that over time they end up speaking their own language, that sounds weird and strained and unconvincing to people outside the bubble. Burnham and Cooper sound like that. Kendall doesn't.
For the past 6 years I have been studying part-time with the OU. I am now delighted to report that I have been awarded a degree - a BA in PPE. So all of those PBers who pour scorn on PPE wonks can now direct some of their bile in my direction! Oh, and if anyone is looking for a SPAD - you know where to find me!
Congratulations. Kudos to those who do their degree part-time.. I don't think I could manage to be that disciplined with my time!
I agree, I would find it almost impossible as well. But such work can be a game-changer. The OU was Harold Wilson's creation and having seen my wife work her way through to an OU MBA, I can at least praise him for one enlightened act.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant. If you don't trust the public, perhaps you should campaign against democracy as well.
I thought you weren't doing cheap points any more. We shall wait with interest your change in views when a twitter storm of badly informed SJWs engulfs the personal life or business of someone close to you. They do say that a conservative is a liberal that has been mugged by reality
It's not a cheap point. You are horrified by the concept of sharing information because you don't believe that the public are up to the job of understanding it even if explained. If you have such a low opinion of the public, I can't see why you would think them appropriate for selecting the government.
I can't make out whether you don't think there's a problem, think that there's a problem but that it's not worth addressing or whether you think there is a problem, it is worth addressing but somehow it will be magically addressed without anyone putting any effort into it. Rather than being mugged by reality, you seem to be in retreat from it.
There is a problem, it needs addressing with thought, care and consideration. Meaningful information, presented to the public in a clear and unambiguous way, not meaningless easy to produce figures being snatched out the air. The vast majority of cock-ups of most governments of whatever colour is because they trying a do things on the cheap with the minimum of legislation and consideration for a quick media splash. How many times have we had laws produced without proper consultation, guillotined through parliament and rushed through committee in a few days,and then turn into a complete clusterf*ck when they hit reality, this is just going to be another small one of those.
I do think it's somewhat disingenuous for David Cameron to claim in the Times that a woman earns 80 p for every £ that a man earns, and to compare it to women not having the vote. That is lifetime earnings, not hourly earnings. Men tend to work longer hours, over the course of a lifetime, than women do. Therefore, they earn more than women do, on average, over the course of a lifetime.
Pay audits won't alter that. Either they'll provide a meaningless average figure for men and women, or they'll show that in the majority of cases, people are paid the going rate for the job.
Spot on. It's on issues like this that I feel Cameron lets Conservatives down. It's new Labourese newspeak.
I think a large part of the gender-pay issue is the expectation of women regarding being the primary carer of children. Certainly, it's made me think about whether I want to have children if I'll have to do 80% of the child-care.
I'm taking it as my one-man mission to get more fathers doing the childcare rather than the mothers; or even share. It's whatever suits the couple best.
Employer's flexibility helps, and we should encourage more of that where it is possible.
We need to get over this attitude that is is somehow not 'manly' to do childcare.
In fact, it's Neanderthal not to.
The flipside of this is absentee fathers during the formative years of their sons. Particularly their preparation for adulthood during their teenage years.
Young males badly need their own father as a positive role model - about what it means to be a man - between the ages of 12-18 when they are trying to understand that.
If they don't get it from them, they will get it elsewhere. With mixed results.
For quite a lot of that problem you have to blame the judiciary and quite a few feminist pressure groups who seem quite often to have the ear of social services who may undertake a judge-required report.
Yes. I'd like to see it targeted as part of Gove's reforms and/or made part of a parliamentary inquiry.
I was almost tempted to say 'independent inquiry' but they take years, cost millions and don't always reach real conclusions.
I'm in favour of gender equality, level playing field etc - but Labour's tabled amendment to the Scotland Bill is taking things a bit far, given the mechanics of Holyrood's AMS system getting 50/50 split in MSPs is impossible:
50-50 in the Scottish Parliament and on boards of public bodies Clause 32, page 34, line 13, at end insert, “including a requirement for gender balance among the members of the Scottish Parliament and members of boards of Scottish public authorities.”
Nicola Sturgeon will punish David Cameron for his English Votes for English Laws plan by allowing SNP MPs to vote at a crucial foxhunting debate tomorrow in a bid to “remind him of how slim a majority he has”.
A principled stand by the SNP then, hope they wont be complaining if the government gives them a good kicking in due course to "remind them who has a majority"
A vote about fox hunting is never ever really about fox hunting per se.
But this one is even less so.
The SNP know that. And so, I think, does Dave. Both have a wider agenda here, and I suspect a defeat on a free vote inflicted by the SNP will go down just fine with No 10, and perhaps many backbench Tories.
I am beginning to regard the Labour leadership election as a disaster.The country needs an opposition that can take the reins if necessary.So far Burnham seems glib and plausible with a sickly desire to please the base.Cooper is wooden and her heart does not appear to be in it.Kendall is rational and flexible and so seems to be in the wrong party.Corbyn is surely there for entertainment of the troops as they sing the old songs.Surely they can find someone better than this or Labour will become irrelevant
On a point of order, Ladies and Gents, is there a reason why the use of the 'quote' facility has dropped disproportionately recently? It is most annoying to see the same text copy/pasted in several subsequent posts.
The quote system "broke" for a while yesterday resulting in all quotes in a post being expanded, not just the last one. Made the site damn near unreadable...
And repeated quotes - especially long ones, as we all know to our cost - mean that the Comment will eventually get rejected for being too long. Personally I then feel uneasy about snipping previous sections if the original bit is way down thread. 'Quote' is a good way to refer to the continuing point you are talking about however.
Well done to Mr Rentool, MA Cantab (Failed) , BTW. However we must all expect much more rigour in his analysis from now on! :-) hope you are not too exhausted.
What is the wage ratio between women with children and those of the same age without?
About 7% less over a career according to a study in America. I assume because child bearing is done mostly at a young age when salaries are low, so less money as a proportion of lifetime income is lost than you might expect. The current preference for starting families later might change that figure.
The figures around this whole subject for the UK are in this ONS Report : http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_328352.pdf the bulk of which suggest that women work less lifetime hours than men, tend to prefer "pink collar" jobs (child care, nursing etc) which tend to be lower paid, and a range of other factors which are intuitively obvious and come as much down to culture as anything else, and are not going to change by leaning on employers but long term measures in education and child care.
On topic, much as I yearn for a Corbyn shock win to repeat the 2010 shock, I do deep down wonder if he actually might make a decent fist of shoring up Labour's vote, pulling back the disaffected who have drifted to UKIP, SNP, Greens and what is left in the Lib Dems, and gaining some casual floating voters who aren't best pleased with continued Tory (so-called) austerity? In a way that none of the other blandities could.
He seems a likeable and down to earth bloke behind the Marxism. If he stopped wearing a vest under his shirt and trimmed his beard a bit, he might actually bring about in 2020 the outcome we all feared in 2015 - the Lab/SNP coalition?
I do think it's somewhat disingenuous for David Cameron to claim in the Times that a woman earns 80 p for every £ that a man earns, and to compare it to women not having the vote. That is lifetime earnings, not hourly earnings. Men tend to work longer hours, over the course of a lifetime, than women do. Therefore, they earn more than women do, on average, over the course of a lifetime.
Pay audits won't alter that. Either they'll provide a meaningless average figure for men and women, or they'll show that in the majority of cases, people are paid the going rate for the job.
Spot on. It's on issues like this that I feel Cameron lets Conservatives down. It's new Labourese newspeak.
And if the Prime Minister is prepared to misuse statistics in that way, it doesn't inspire confidence that any legislation on the issue will be sensible, or that the government will sensibly treat the data that emerges.
On topic, Andy Burnham does seem to do that face (above) much more often than one wishes.
He looks like he's about to sneeze.
And Kendall, unfortunately, does that one. The woman seems to have a perpetual scowl and it is not a good look.
It really has to be Cooper, doesn't it. When in doubt go for brains and she is plainly the smartest.
Hmmm Her delivery is as dull as ditchwater and her husband will always be in the background. Burnham is the best candidate to lose again in 2020. Labour need the new input to come to the fore. All they now have (bar Kendall) are all covered in the mire of the Brown era.
I remain of the view that all bar Corbyn have a chance against Osborne in 2020
I'm in favour of gender equality, level playing field etc - but Labour's tabled amendment to the Scotland Bill is taking things a bit far, given the mechanics of Holyrood's AMS system getting 50/50 split in MSPs is impossible:
50-50 in the Scottish Parliament and on boards of public bodies Clause 32, page 34, line 13, at end insert, “including a requirement for gender balance among the members of the Scottish Parliament and members of boards of Scottish public authorities.”
For the past 6 years I have been studying part-time with the OU. I am now delighted to report that I have been awarded a degree - a BA in PPE.
So all of those PBers who pour scorn on PPE wonks can now direct some of their bile in my direction!
Oh, and if anyone is looking for a SPAD - you know where to find me!
Congrats. You did it the hard way,part time ,OU, requires a discipline I can no longer muster. Harold Wilson was responsible for the OU, and I have a Photo of him shaking my hand and awarding me a degree,he was Chancellor of my university.
Has a politican ever taken a vow of silence? I'm only about a third of the way through this but it seems like the only way anyone could persuade the voters to elect Burnham or Cooper to be on the news every day for five years.
It seems like a no-brainer to me that they should pick Kendall, but I almost feel like Corbyn woud be more electable than Burnham.
I do think it's somewhat disingenuous for David Cameron to claim in the Times that a woman earns 80 p for every £ that a man earns, and to compare it to women not having the vote. That is lifetime earnings, not hourly earnings. Men tend to work longer hours, over the course of a lifetime, than women do. Therefore, they earn more than women do, on average, over the course of a lifetime.
Pay audits won't alter that. Either they'll provide a meaningless average figure for men and women, or they'll show that in the majority of cases, people are paid the going rate for the job.
Spot on. It's on issues like this that I feel Cameron lets Conservatives down. It's new Labourese newspeak.
And if the Prime Minister is prepared to misuse statistics in that way, it doesn't inspire confidence that any legislation on the issue will be sensible, or that the government will sensibly treat the data that emerges.
Mr Antifrank assures us that we can rely on the public to correctly understand and interpret the sort of disingenuous crap that government are pumping out on this matter... we shall see.
I do think it's somewhat disingenuous for David Cameron to claim in the Times that a woman earns 80 p for every £ that a man earns, and to compare it to women not having the vote. That is lifetime earnings, not hourly earnings. Men tend to work longer hours, over the course of a lifetime, than women do. Therefore, they earn more than women do, on average, over the course of a lifetime.
Pay audits won't alter that. Either they'll provide a meaningless average figure for men and women, or they'll show that in the majority of cases, people are paid the going rate for the job.
Spot on. It's on issues like this that I feel Cameron lets Conservatives down. It's new Labourese newspeak.
And if the Prime Minister is prepared to misuse statistics in that way, it doesn't inspire confidence that any legislation on the issue will be sensible, or that the government will sensibly treat the data that emerges.
Correct. I think on this, though, Cameron believes it is non negotiable - like the 0.7% for international aid - as a core part of his ongoing modernisation project.
To be fair to Cooper, I think anybody trying to attack her on the basis of who she's married to would cause a backlash, particularly because her husband is no longer in parliament.
Yvette is an interesting one. I can't really work her out, or how good she'd be as leader. I am becoming more convinced she will do well in the leadership election, because she is not Kendall or Burnham and because of Cooper victory would make the Labour Party relatively comfortable with itself, I think.
I think Yvette will win. Kendall is too divisive and inexperienced, and the left vote will split between Corbyn and Burnham.
Cooper is left of Burnham in my view, she has not said Labour spent too much, unlike Burnham or Kendall.
In my view on first preferences it will now be Burnham, Corbyn, Cooper, Kendall. On second preferences Burnham, Cooper, Corbyn. On final preferences Burnham then beats Cooper to win!
I do think it's somewhat disingenuous for David Cameron to claim in the Times that a woman earns 80 p for every £ that a man earns, and to compare it to women not having the vote. That is lifetime earnings, not hourly earnings. Men tend to work longer hours, over the course of a lifetime, than women do. Therefore, they earn more than women do, on average, over the course of a lifetime.
Pay audits won't alter that. Either they'll provide a meaningless average figure for men and women, or they'll show that in the majority of cases, people are paid the going rate for the job.
Spot on. It's on issues like this that I feel Cameron lets Conservatives down. It's new Labourese newspeak.
And if the Prime Minister is prepared to misuse statistics in that way, it doesn't inspire confidence that any legislation on the issue will be sensible, or that the government will sensibly treat the data that emerges.
Mr Antifrank assures us that we can rely on the public to correctly understand and interpret the sort of disingenuous crap that government are pumping out on this matter... we shall see.
How do the two of you feel about school league tables?
I do think it's somewhat disingenuous for David Cameron to claim in the Times that a woman earns 80 p for every £ that a man earns, and to compare it to women not having the vote. That is lifetime earnings, not hourly earnings. Men tend to work longer hours, over the course of a lifetime, than women do. Therefore, they earn more than women do, on average, over the course of a lifetime.
Pay audits won't alter that. Either they'll provide a meaningless average figure for men and women, or they'll show that in the majority of cases, people are paid the going rate for the job.
Spot on. It's on issues like this that I feel Cameron lets Conservatives down. It's new Labourese newspeak.
And if the Prime Minister is prepared to misuse statistics in that way, it doesn't inspire confidence that any legislation on the issue will be sensible, or that the government will sensibly treat the data that emerges.
Mr Antifrank assures us that we can rely on the public to correctly understand and interpret the sort of disingenuous crap that government are pumping out on this matter... we shall see.
How do the two of you feel about school league tables?
I think they are largely worthless. Parents in a town know which schools are good from word of mouth. League tables tell you which schools have catchment areas in middle class housing estates. I went to a fairly indifferent primary school which continues to be fairly indifferent, but has a very well to do middle class estate for its catchment area largely full of middle managers from large IT companies, as a result of which it always figures near the top of the league tables.
I do think it's somewhat disingenuous for David Cameron to claim in the Times that a woman earns 80 p for every £ that a man earns, and to compare it to women not having the vote. That is lifetime earnings, not hourly earnings. Men tend to work longer hours, over the course of a lifetime, than women do. Therefore, they earn more than women do, on average, over the course of a lifetime.
Pay audits won't alter that. Either they'll provide a meaningless average figure for men and women, or they'll show that in the majority of cases, people are paid the going rate for the job.
Spot on. It's on issues like this that I feel Cameron lets Conservatives down. It's new Labourese newspeak.
And if the Prime Minister is prepared to misuse statistics in that way, it doesn't inspire confidence that any legislation on the issue will be sensible, or that the government will sensibly treat the data that emerges.
Mr Antifrank assures us that we can rely on the public to correctly understand and interpret the sort of disingenuous crap that government are pumping out on this matter... we shall see.
How do the two of you feel about school league tables?
I think they're of interest, but they have to be treated cautiously.
If a Prime Minister were to argue that School A is better than School B, because it achieves better results, without looking at the background of the school, the nature of its pupils, the strengths and weaknesses of that school, then I'd say he was misusing statistics.
It would appear that labour is still stuck in the same debate about 'equality of outcome' which was practised by GB and seems to be the choice of Corbyn, Burnham and Cooper; and 'equality of opportunity' which may be the choice of Kendall and seems to have been the choice of the electorate at the GE. This choice of course excepts the OAPs and disabled.
I do not see it resolving that debate in a constructive manner, whilst it continues to ignore the reality of globalisation.
To be fair to Cooper, I think anybody trying to attack her on the basis of who she's married to would cause a backlash, particularly because her husband is no longer in parliament.
Yvette is an interesting one. I can't really work her out, or how good she'd be as leader. I am becoming more convinced she will do well in the leadership election, because she is not Kendall or Burnham and because of Cooper victory would make the Labour Party relatively comfortable with itself, I think.
I think Yvette will win. Kendall is too divisive and inexperienced, and the left vote will split between Corbyn and Burnham.
Cooper is left of Burnham in my view, she has not said Labour spent too much, unlike Burnham or Kendall.
In my view on first preferences it will now be Burnham, Corbyn, Cooper, Kendall. On second preferences Burnham, Cooper, Corbyn. On final preferences Burnham then beats Cooper to win!
I'll echo that point on Cooper - that was a diffentiator at Sunday's hustings, and it was noticable that Cooper and Corbyn gave each other a big hug at the final whistle. Cooper to win or Corbyn second preferences? In a straw poll of two, she is getting the second pref of Corbynites.
I do think it's somewhat disingenuous for David Cameron to claim in the Times that a woman earns 80 p for every £ that a man earns, and to compare it to women not having the vote. That is lifetime earnings, not hourly earnings. Men tend to work longer hours, over the course of a lifetime, than women do. Therefore, they earn more than women do, on average, over the course of a lifetime.
Pay audits won't alter that. Either they'll provide a meaningless average figure for men and women, or they'll show that in the majority of cases, people are paid the going rate for the job.
Spot on. It's on issues like this that I feel Cameron lets Conservatives down. It's new Labourese newspeak.
And if the Prime Minister is prepared to misuse statistics in that way, it doesn't inspire confidence that any legislation on the issue will be sensible, or that the government will sensibly treat the data that emerges.
Mr Antifrank assures us that we can rely on the public to correctly understand and interpret the sort of disingenuous crap that government are pumping out on this matter... we shall see.
How do the two of you feel about school league tables?
I think they're of interest, but they have to be treated cautiously.
If a Prime Minister were to argue that School A is better than School B, because it achieves better results, without looking at the background of the school, the nature of its pupils, the strengths and weaknesses of that school, then I'd say he was misusing statistics.
I'm sure that the statistics produced from this new requirement will also be of interest but need to be treated cautiously.
I don't get the desire that we should have less information about something that everyone, even Indigo, accepts is a problem. Until we have the data, we can't see where the problem is arising or how best to address it.
To be fair to Cooper, I think anybody trying to attack her on the basis of who she's married to would cause a backlash, particularly because her husband is no longer in parliament.
Yvette is an interesting one. I can't really work her out, or how good she'd be as leader. I am becoming more convinced she will do well in the leadership election, because she is not Kendall or Burnham and because of Cooper victory would make the Labour Party relatively comfortable with itself, I think.
I think Yvette will win. Kendall is too divisive and inexperienced, and the left vote will split between Corbyn and Burnham.
Cooper is left of Burnham in my view, she has not said Labour spent too much, unlike Burnham or Kendall.
In my view on first preferences it will now be Burnham, Corbyn, Cooper, Kendall. On second preferences Burnham, Cooper, Corbyn. On final preferences Burnham then beats Cooper to win!
I'll echo that point on Cooper - that was a diffentiator at Sunday's hustings, and it was noticable that Cooper and Corbyn gave each other a big hug at the final whistle. Cooper to win or Corbyn second preferences? In a straw poll of two, she is getting the second pref of Corbynites.
We will see but I think Burnham will get more of Kendall's preferences and Burnham would have quite a comfortable lead in the final round so Cooper would need about 2/3 of Corbyn's preferences to win, not impossible, but unlikely
I'm in favour of gender equality, level playing field etc - but Labour's tabled amendment to the Scotland Bill is taking things a bit far, given the mechanics of Holyrood's AMS system getting 50/50 split in MSPs is impossible:
50-50 in the Scottish Parliament and on boards of public bodies Clause 32, page 34, line 13, at end insert, “including a requirement for gender balance among the members of the Scottish Parliament and members of boards of Scottish public authorities.”
I do think it's somewhat disingenuous for David Cameron to claim in the Times that a woman earns 80 p for every £ that a man earns, and to compare it to women not having the vote. That is lifetime earnings, not hourly earnings. Men tend to work longer hours, over the course of a lifetime, than women do. Therefore, they earn more than women do, on average, over the course of a lifetime.
Pay audits won't alter that. Either they'll provide a meaningless average figure for men and women, or they'll show that in the majority of cases, people are paid the going rate for the job.
Spot on. It's on issues like this that I feel Cameron lets Conservatives down. It's new Labourese newspeak.
And if the Prime Minister is prepared to misuse statistics in that way, it doesn't inspire confidence that any legislation on the issue will be sensible, or that the government will sensibly treat the data that emerges.
Mr Antifrank assures us that we can rely on the public to correctly understand and interpret the sort of disingenuous crap that government are pumping out on this matter... we shall see.
How do the two of you feel about school league tables?
I think they are largely worthless. Parents in a town know which schools are good from word of mouth. League tables tell you which schools have catchment areas in middle class housing estates. I went to a fairly indifferent primary school which continues to be fairly indifferent, but has a very well to do middle class estate for its catchment area largely full of middle managers from large IT companies, as a result of which it always figures near the top of the league tables.
League tables can also measure 'value added' which eases that argument a little. It is true though that League tables are dominated by private and selective schools at the top
Mr. Antifrank, because bad data is worse than no data.
It won't be treated with caution or sensibly at all. There'll be (for reasons discussed) a pay gap and people will bleat sexism instead of considering that women take more time off for family reasons and that also means a relative loss of seniority.
The obligation is for companies of more than 250 employees. Broader averages start getting meaningful then.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant. If you don't trust the public, perhaps you should campaign against democracy as well.
In Essop v Home Office[2015] EWCA Civ 609, a very strong Court of Appeal (Sir Terence Etherton C, Lewison LJ & Sir Colin Rimer), reversing Langstaff J in the Employment Appeal Tribunal, has taken a fairly restrictive approach to founding claims of indirect discrimination on broad brush statistical evidence. In short, it now seems clear that you cannot use statistical evidence to shift the burden of proof onto the employer without addressing the question of why his provision, criterion or practice caused the disadvantaged group to suffer the disadvantage. Of course, sunlight is the best disinfectant, but there is a risk that these sorts of statistics will be misused. In and of themselves, they are not evidence of any unlawful provision, criterion or practice by an employer. Arguably, there is a point at which the more abstract statistics become, the less helpful they are in revealing evidence of unlawful behaviour.
Can I just say that you are one of the most interesting and informative forum members on this website? I learn something new from the majority of your posts.
I do think it's somewhat disingenuous for David Cameron to claim in the Times that a woman earns 80 p for every £ that a man earns, and to compare it to women not having the vote. That is lifetime earnings, not hourly earnings. Men tend to work longer hours, over the course of a lifetime, than women do. Therefore, they earn more than women do, on average, over the course of a lifetime.
Pay audits won't alter that. Either they'll provide a meaningless average figure for men and women, or they'll show that in the majority of cases, people are paid the going rate for the job.
Spot on. It's on issues like this that I feel Cameron lets Conservatives down. It's new Labourese newspeak.
And if the Prime Minister is prepared to misuse statistics in that way, it doesn't inspire confidence that any legislation on the issue will be sensible, or that the government will sensibly treat the data that emerges.
Mr Antifrank assures us that we can rely on the public to correctly understand and interpret the sort of disingenuous crap that government are pumping out on this matter... we shall see.
How do the two of you feel about school league tables?
I think they're of interest, but they have to be treated cautiously.
If a Prime Minister were to argue that School A is better than School B, because it achieves better results, without looking at the background of the school, the nature of its pupils, the strengths and weaknesses of that school, then I'd say he was misusing statistics.
I'm sure that the statistics produced from this new requirement will also be of interest but need to be treated cautiously.
I don't get the desire that we should have less information about something that everyone, even Indigo, accepts is a problem. Until we have the data, we can't see where the problem is arising or how best to address it.
This will be fine as long as the forms allow one to comment and inform correctly. So many HMG forms that we receive have been designed by people who do not have a clue about the subject of the form. Too many tick-boxes are used to allow for scanning the answers instead of trying to get at the facts.
Mr. Antifrank, because bad data is worse than no data.
It won't be treated with caution or sensibly at all. There'll be (for reasons discussed) a pay gap and people will bleat sexism instead of considering that women take more time off for family reasons and that also means a relative loss of seniority.
I'm sure that you and others like you will bleat equally loudly.
It would appear that labour is still stuck in the same debate about 'equality of outcome' which was practised by GB and seems to be the choice of Corbyn, Burnham and Cooper; and 'equality of opportunity' which may be the choice of Kendall and seems to have been the choice of the electorate at the GE. This choice of course excepts the OAPs and disabled.
I do not see it resolving that debate in a constructive manner, whilst it continues to ignore the reality of globalisation.
I think Cooper and Burnham are in-between, remember they were both in Blair's Cabinet too, Kendall is an out-and -out Blairite, Corbyn opposed Blair and is opposed to Blairism
What is the wage ratio between women with children and those of the same age without?
About 7% less over a career according to a study in America. I assume because child bearing is done mostly at a young age when salaries are low, so less money as a proportion of lifetime income is lost than you might expect. The current preference for starting families later might change that figure.
The figures around this whole subject for the UK are in this ONS Report : http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_328352.pdf the bulk of which suggest that women work less lifetime hours than men, tend to prefer "pink collar" jobs (child care, nursing etc) which tend to be lower paid, and a range of other factors which are intuitively obvious and come as much down to culture as anything else, and are not going to change by leaning on employers but long term measures in education and child care.
Minimum wage, non doms, these are smart policies that are not only the right thing to do but attract support from sections of the electorate likely to vote for you even if they upset a few donors. This 'feminism' claptrap is daft politics which upsets both your own supporters as well as those likely to support you.
I believe that it is still quite hard for a man to get the post of a nanny and certainly I believe that in many primary schools that male teachers have become a rarity? Are there many male teachers in girls-only schools or women teachers in boys-only schools.
Also in a partnership, do most women still expect the man to be the 'provider' as I have seen in some divorce cases that when a man has lost his job, the partnership has been broken asunder?
In Wales there is a lot of language discrimination in the public sector and charity sector, with a high number of jobs requiring fluency in Welsh even though only 23% have the ability to speak Welsh.
I know of a case where a man was let go from a job he loved at a nursery because mothers were unwilling to leave their young children with a man.
Mr. JEO, not a job, but a man was refused entry (alone) to a falconry exhibition or similar because many of the sections were made for kids (not all, there was, of course, falconry).
Mr. Antifrank, are you saying you think a total misreading of statistics to promote an identity politics agenda at odds with reality is a good thing? Because you appear to think that my concerns, shared by others, about the probable abuse of these ill-founded statistics amount to being as bad as misusing the statistics themselves.
I think a large part of the gender-pay issue is the expectation of women regarding being the primary carer of children. Certainly, it's made me think about whether I want to have children if I'll have to do 80% of the child-care.
The problem we have is that big professional jobs (lawyer, consultant, banker etc) increasingly demand 60+ hours a week for people under 40. If one parent is in such a job, it's simply not feasible for them to provide half (or even close to half) of the childcare. This often means that the other parent (usually the woman) gives up work altogether for several years, and they're often skilled productive people the economy is losing. I think the EU limits are excessive, but 55 hour week limits for employees would go a long way to allow joint parenting. Free childcare helps, but successful people often want to be doing a fair chunk of the parenting themselves to make sure their kids are developing properly.
It would appear that labour is still stuck in the same debate about 'equality of outcome' which was practised by GB and seems to be the choice of Corbyn, Burnham and Cooper; and 'equality of opportunity' which may be the choice of Kendall and seems to have been the choice of the electorate at the GE. This choice of course excepts the OAPs and disabled.
I do not see it resolving that debate in a constructive manner, whilst it continues to ignore the reality of globalisation.
I think Cooper and Burnham are in-between, remember they were both in Blair's Cabinet too, Kendall is an out-and -out Blairite, Corbyn opposed Blair and is opposed to Blairism
I find it very disappointing that people still refer to isms - e.g Blairism and Thatcherism. The world has moved on a lot since those two and we need to be free of any -ism and have defined policies that are fit for the 2020s. If we do not then people are not thinking correctly.
Mr. JEO, not a job, but a man was refused entry (alone) to a falconry exhibition or similar because many of the sections were made for kids (not all, there was, of course, falconry).
Mr. Antifrank, are you saying you think a total misreading of statistics to promote an identity politics agenda at odds with reality is a good thing? Because you appear to think that my concerns, shared by others, about the probable abuse of these ill-founded statistics amount to being as bad as misusing the statistics themselves.
I'm saying that the different readings of statistics can be put out there and considered. Are you saying that debate should take place in the absence of statistics? Because if so, we could dispense with the ONS completely. Or is it only statistics on subjects that you feel uncomfortable about that we shouldn't bother compiling?
Mr. Antifrank, because bad data is worse than no data.
It won't be treated with caution or sensibly at all. There'll be (for reasons discussed) a pay gap and people will bleat sexism instead of considering that women take more time off for family reasons and that also means a relative loss of seniority.
I'm sure that you and others like you will bleat equally loudly.
"We haven't done much to acknowledge this in Hampshire either. I feel ashamed."
So you should be.
What about the Irish famine? Tony Blair did apologise for it - although I expect he was too busy invading Iraq to worry about the situation developing in 1847. And having some Irish antecedents, I should apologise to my great-great grandparents for what my great-great grandparents did.
And when have the Danes ever apologised for the terrible Viking raids? Come on, Mrs Kinnock - it's all down to you*
*To be fair, we did raze Copenhagen in 1807 but they made us do it.
If it's alright by you, I'm not going to apologise for my family's behaviour during the Famine.
I do think it's somewhat disingenuous for David Cameron to claim in the Times that a woman earns 80 p for every £ that a man earns, and to compare it to women not having the vote. That is lifetime earnings, not hourly earnings. Men tend to work longer hours, over the course of a lifetime, than women do. Therefore, they earn more than women do, on average, over the course of a lifetime.
Pay audits won't alter that. Either they'll provide a meaningless average figure for men and women, or they'll show that in the majority of cases, people are paid the going rate for the job.
Spot on. It's on issues like this that I feel Cameron lets Conservatives down. It's new Labourese newspeak.
And if the Prime Minister is prepared to misuse statistics in that way, it doesn't inspire confidence that any legislation on the issue will be sensible, or that the government will sensibly treat the data that emerges.
Mr Antifrank assures us that we can rely on the public to correctly understand and interpret the sort of disingenuous crap that government are pumping out on this matter... we shall see.
How do the two of you feel about school league tables?
I think they're of interest, but they have to be treated cautiously.
If a Prime Minister were to argue that School A is better than School B, because it achieves better results, without looking at the background of the school, the nature of its pupils, the strengths and weaknesses of that school, then I'd say he was misusing statistics.
I'm sure that the statistics produced from this new requirement will also be of interest but need to be treated cautiously.
I don't get the desire that we should have less information about something that everyone, even Indigo, accepts is a problem. Until we have the data, we can't see where the problem is arising or how best to address it.
The figures for average hourly earnings show that gap between mens' and womens' hourly wages is steadily diminishing, so I'd say this is a problem that is solving itself.
Mr. Antifrank, comparing the wages of people in different jobs is worse than having no statistics whatsoever because it's completely misleading.
I don't feel remotely uncomfortable on this topic, despite your unfounded accusation. Men and women should receive equal pay for equal work. Comparing the wages of genders when they're working different jobs is a worthless endeavour.
It would appear that labour is still stuck in the same debate about 'equality of outcome' which was practised by GB and seems to be the choice of Corbyn, Burnham and Cooper; and 'equality of opportunity' which may be the choice of Kendall and seems to have been the choice of the electorate at the GE. This choice of course excepts the OAPs and disabled.
I do not see it resolving that debate in a constructive manner, whilst it continues to ignore the reality of globalisation.
I think Cooper and Burnham are in-between, remember they were both in Blair's Cabinet too, Kendall is an out-and -out Blairite, Corbyn opposed Blair and is opposed to Blairism
I find it very disappointing that people still refer to isms - e.g Blairism and Thatcherism. The world has moved on a lot since those two and we need to be free of any -ism and have defined policies that are fit for the 2020s. If we do not then people are not thinking correctly.
Maybe, but it is inevitable. The 2001 Tory leadership contest (taking place after a second defeat, as Labour's contest is now) could be done in the same way. Davis and IDS out-and-out Thatcherites, Ancram and Portillo somewhat Thatcherite but not entirely so, Clarke opposed Thatcher in 1990 and opposed to Thatcherism.
The Blair legacy has as much influence on Labour now as Thatcher did on the Tories in the 90s and early noughties. Of course just as Labour only won when they elected a leader who accepted much of Thatcher's legacy, Blair, so the Tories only won when they elected a leader who accepted much of Blair's legacy, Cameron!
I'm in favour of gender equality, level playing field etc - but Labour's tabled amendment to the Scotland Bill is taking things a bit far, given the mechanics of Holyrood's AMS system getting 50/50 split in MSPs is impossible:
50-50 in the Scottish Parliament and on boards of public bodies Clause 32, page 34, line 13, at end insert, “including a requirement for gender balance among the members of the Scottish Parliament and members of boards of Scottish public authorities.”
It would appear that labour is still stuck in the same debate about 'equality of outcome' which was practised by GB and seems to be the choice of Corbyn, Burnham and Cooper; and 'equality of opportunity' which may be the choice of Kendall and seems to have been the choice of the electorate at the GE. This choice of course excepts the OAPs and disabled.
I do not see it resolving that debate in a constructive manner, whilst it continues to ignore the reality of globalisation.
I think Cooper and Burnham are in-between, remember they were both in Blair's Cabinet too, Kendall is an out-and -out Blairite, Corbyn opposed Blair and is opposed to Blairism
I find it very disappointing that people still refer to isms - e.g Blairism and Thatcherism. The world has moved on a lot since those two and we need to be free of any -ism and have defined policies that are fit for the 2020s. If we do not then people are not thinking correctly.
Maybe, but it is inevitable. The 2001 Tory leadership contest (taking place after a second defeat, as Labour's contest is now) could be done in the same way. Davis and IDS out-and-out Thatcherites, Ancram and Portillo somewhat Thatcherite but not entirely so, Clarke opposed Thatcher in 1990 and opposed to Thatcherism.
The Blair legacy has as much influence on Labour now as Thatcher did on the Tories in the 90s and early noughties. Of course just as Labour only won when they elected a leader who accepted much of Thatcher's legacy, Blair, so the Tories only won when they elected a leader who accepted much of Blair's legacy, Cameron!
Nicola Sturgeon will punish David Cameron for his English Votes for English Laws plan by allowing SNP MPs to vote at a crucial foxhunting debate tomorrow in a bid to “remind him of how slim a majority he has”.
A principled stand by the SNP then, hope they wont be complaining if the government gives them a good kicking in due course to "remind them who has a majority"
A vote about fox hunting is never ever really about fox hunting per se.
But this one is even less so.
The SNP know that. And so, I think, does Dave. Both have a wider agenda here, and I suspect a defeat on a free vote inflicted by the SNP will go down just fine with No 10, and perhaps many backbench Tories.
It's not smart by the SNP even if they think it is... I agree, No 10 are probably happy with the result.
SNP Westminster Group Leader Angus Robertson MP said “We totally oppose fox hunting, and when there are moves in the Scottish Parliament to review whether the existing Scottish ban is strong enough, it is in the Scottish interest to maintain the existing ban in England and Wales for Holyrood to consider."
So the SNP think it's ok to vote against it on the basis that they like it and want to keep it there to look at later...
Meanwhile, away from pb's newfound hostility to gathering statistics, Survation have published some Scottish polling which doesn't seem to have had much discussion:
NumbrCrunchrPolitics @NCPoliticsUK · 2h2 hours ago Survation/Daily Mail (Holyrood seat):
SNP 56 (+2) CON 14 (+1) LAB 20 (-4) LIB 7 (+2) OTH 4 (=)
3rd-7th July N=1,046
Survation/Daily Mail (Holyrood list):
SNP 45 (=) CON 12 (+1) LAB 19 (-2) LIB 8 (+2) UKIP 5 (=) GRN 11 (+1)
On the ridiculous New Labour/SJW pap emanating from Cameron: there is precious little direct gender discrimination (except maybe in the family courts or Labour party selection processes).
There are different outcomes based on different choices people make. Even if men and women are exactly the same in ability to do all jobs their different decisions (on average) will produce different mean pay rates for genders. Maybe instead of worrying about a problem that was solved some years ago we could try equalising the average work related mortality rates between genders... (clue: women don't tend to do dangerous jobs)
This is yet another imposition on the productive part of the economy that will cost real people actual time and money for no benefit (except to the idiots inhabiting twitter).
For Antifrank - we have had significant, ongoing crap spouted at all levels complaining about companies paying the right amount of tax (Starbucks, Boots, etc) based on figures ranging between the accurate but mis-represented (Starbucks) and the just flat out wrong (Vodafone). Why on Earth do you think providing another battery of mis-leading figures is going to help?
Rolls Royce and the NHS will have large gender equality paygaps. The correct approach is then obviously to encourage more women to become doctors and engineers.
Even law firms may not look great as more women head into the 'lower paying than commercial' family law areas.
It is politically very incorrect (which is not me) to talk about the talents or lack of them of various races that inhabit this earth or even note that in general west Africans (or their descendants) are good sprinters and east African are best at long distance events.
However, it is highly probable that men and women are differently hard-wired for differing jobs/occupations/practices and so will show a natural bias - will this be ignored in the employment stats as long as the same wage is available for all-comers for a defined job?
On the ridiculous New Labour/SJW pap emanating from Cameron: there is precious little direct gender discrimination (except maybe in the family courts or Labour party selection processes).
There are different outcomes based on different choices people make. Even if men and women are exactly the same in ability to do all jobs their different decisions (on average) will produce different mean pay rates for genders. Maybe instead of worrying about a problem that was solved some years ago we could try equalising the average work related mortality rates between genders... (clue: women don't tend to do dangerous jobs)
This is yet another imposition on the productive part of the economy that will cost real people actual time and money for no benefit (except to the idiots inhabiting twitter).
For Antifrank - we have had significant, ongoing crap spouted at all levels complaining about companies paying the right amount of tax (Starbucks, Boots, etc) based on figures ranging between the accurate but mis-represented (Starbucks) and the just flat out wrong (Vodafone). Why on Earth do you think providing another battery of mis-leading figures is going to help?
Why on earth do you think the figures are automatically going to be misleading?
Meanwhile, away from pb's newfound hostility to gathering statistics, Survation have published some Scottish polling which doesn't seem to have had much discussion:
NumbrCrunchrPolitics @NCPoliticsUK · 2h2 hours ago Survation/Daily Mail (Holyrood seat):
SNP 56 (+2) CON 14 (+1) LAB 20 (-4) LIB 7 (+2) OTH 4 (=)
3rd-7th July N=1,046
Survation/Daily Mail (Holyrood list):
SNP 45 (=) CON 12 (+1) LAB 19 (-2) LIB 8 (+2) UKIP 5 (=) GRN 11 (+1)
3rd-7th July N=1,046
Labour continue their glissando.
Here's the Scotland Votes projection, also worth taking account of Curtis's view on the list %s:
Rolls Royce and the NHS will have large gender equality paygaps. The correct approach is then obviously to encourage more women to become doctors and engineers.
Even law firms may not look great as more women head into the 'lower paying than commercial' family law areas.
Women aren't interested in being engineers, they are interested in being doctors as reflected in the increasing numbers as it is a caring profession. The more 'liberal' a society the higher the level of gender segregation in employment as women become free to pursue careers they are interested in. Forcing women to become engineers is very lefty authoritarian.
Rolls Royce and the NHS will have large gender equality paygaps. The correct approach is then obviously to encourage more women to become doctors and engineers.
Even law firms may not look great as more women head into the 'lower paying than commercial' family law areas.
Law firms don't look particularly great.
They have no problems with the recruitment of women as junior staff but they have serious problems with the retention of female staff. Unlike, I suspect, most of those on the thread getting hot under the collar, I've had to think directly about this as a problem in some depth. Making more family-friendly arrangements helps, as does mentoring of talented women. But lawyers have a long way to go yet.
Rolls Royce and the NHS will have large gender equality paygaps. The correct approach is then obviously to encourage more women to become doctors and engineers.
Even law firms may not look great as more women head into the 'lower paying than commercial' family law areas.
There's no shortage of women who are doctors. But, comparatively few male nurses.
Family law (particularly if one includes Private Client, which also tends to be dominated by women) can be very lucrative.
Rolls Royce and the NHS will have large gender equality paygaps. The correct approach is then obviously to encourage more women to become doctors and engineers.
Even law firms may not look great as more women head into the 'lower paying than commercial' family law areas.
Why would we encourage more women to become doctors ? They are already in the majority at Med schools and will be in the majority in practice by the end of the decade.
Comments
Employer's flexibility helps, and we should encourage more of that where it is possible.
We need to get over this attitude that is is somehow not 'manly' to do childcare.
In fact, it's Neanderthal not to.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant. If you don't trust the public, perhaps you should campaign against democracy as well.
@foxinsoxuk, I'm glad to hear it. One day I took an unfortunate turn to the DM comments' section regarding paternity leave story, with a large number of male contributors seemingly disliking the idea, and expressing how they couldn't wait to get back to work when their child was born etc. I found it very weird.
Also in a partnership, do most women still expect the man to be the 'provider' as I have seen in some divorce cases that when a man has lost his job, the partnership has been broken asunder?
In Wales there is a lot of language discrimination in the public sector and charity sector, with a high number of jobs requiring fluency in Welsh even though only 23% have the ability to speak Welsh.
Ros Altman explained that men and women who have contributed EXACTLY equal amounts as GPs will continue to recieve 50% (Widow's penions)/18% (Widower's pension) if they retired before 2000 and died (Pension then heading to the remaining spouse obviously)
Apparently it is 'unaffordable' to rectify the inbalance !
Regarding Cooper, she was animated on Sunday, and has edged above Burnham in my preference order. HIPS was a long time ago; I think she can offer the leadership we need through this parliament and beyond. I'm still giving my first pref to Corbyn, however.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relationships/fatherhood/11735872/10-dad-jokes-that-will-make-you-question-the-humour-of-all-men.html
Attitudes about 'proper' gender roles, in my mind at least, are the major problem.
And on that note, I need to take the little' un to baby sensory.
Young males badly need their own father as a positive role model - about what it means to be a man - between the ages of 12-18 when they are trying to understand that.
If they don't get it from them, they will get it elsewhere. With mixed results.
For the past 6 years I have been studying part-time with the OU. I am now delighted to report that I have been awarded a degree - a BA in PPE.
So all of those PBers who pour scorn on PPE wonks can now direct some of their bile in my direction!
Oh, and if anyone is looking for a SPAD - you know where to find me!
I can't make out whether you don't think there's a problem, think that there's a problem but that it's not worth addressing or whether you think there is a problem, it is worth addressing but somehow it will be magically addressed without anyone putting any effort into it. Rather than being mugged by reality, you seem to be in retreat from it.
"ONLY if they don't re-marry. It is absolutely iniquitous as I am finding out but the surviving spouse loses it if they co habit or re-marry. It makes me very angry to think my darling wife contributed to a spouse's pension which I am going to be denied.
Equality in treatment is a two way street.
The tale of Angus the clever fox
Pay audits won't alter that. Either they'll provide a meaningless average figure for men and women, or they'll show that in the majority of cases, people are paid the going rate for the job.
Mrs Daemon just finished her 1st year of a part time OU degree in Philosophy and Psychology, only 5 more to go :-)
When a party is in government, it gradually accumulates a bunch of lines-to-take that get progressively further away from anything the voters will believe. This happens because they get crucified by the media if they do anything except faithfully defending their record, and the slightest deviation from the message gets turned into a monster gaffe.
The end result is that over time they end up speaking their own language, that sounds weird and strained and unconvincing to people outside the bubble. Burnham and Cooper sound like that. Kendall doesn't.
The OU was Harold Wilson's creation and having seen my wife work her way through to an OU MBA, I can at least praise him for one enlightened act.
I was almost tempted to say 'independent inquiry' but they take years, cost millions and don't always reach real conclusions.
Unfortunately it has now been decided for me that since I am no longer studying I now have sufficient free time to start going to the gym!
I think you'll find the scorn is at Oxford PPEs rather than PPEs in general.
What with Oxford University being a complete dump.
50-50 in the Scottish Parliament and on boards of public bodies Clause 32, page 34, line 13, at end insert, “including a requirement for gender balance among the members of the Scottish Parliament and members of boards of Scottish public authorities.”
https://twitter.com/scottishlabour/status/620555822129483776
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/21/gender_pay_gap/
A vote about fox hunting is never ever really about fox hunting per se.
But this one is even less so.
The SNP know that. And so, I think, does Dave. Both have a wider agenda here, and I suspect a defeat on a free vote inflicted by the SNP will go down just fine with No 10, and perhaps many backbench Tories.
'Quote' is a good way to refer to the continuing point you are talking about however.
Well done to Mr Rentool, MA Cantab (Failed) , BTW.
However we must all expect much more rigour in his analysis from now on!
:-) hope you are not too exhausted.
The figures around this whole subject for the UK are in this ONS Report : http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_328352.pdf the bulk of which suggest that women work less lifetime hours than men, tend to prefer "pink collar" jobs (child care, nursing etc) which tend to be lower paid, and a range of other factors which are intuitively obvious and come as much down to culture as anything else, and are not going to change by leaning on employers but long term measures in education and child care.
He seems a likeable and down to earth bloke behind the Marxism. If he stopped wearing a vest under his shirt and trimmed his beard a bit, he might actually bring about in 2020 the outcome we all feared in 2015 - the Lab/SNP coalition?
That rather unfortunately prompts a consideration of where SLab lies in the future/current/past definition of ideas.
Harold Wilson was responsible for the OU, and I have a Photo of him shaking my hand and awarding me a degree,he was Chancellor of my university.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-andy-burnham-considered-the-contender-most-likely-to-improve-partys-general-election-chances-10340208.html
In my view on first preferences it will now be Burnham, Corbyn, Cooper, Kendall. On second preferences Burnham, Cooper, Corbyn. On final preferences Burnham then beats Cooper to win!
Mr. Royale, indeed, though those who shout about equality tend to forget about when men have it rough.
If a Prime Minister were to argue that School A is better than School B, because it achieves better results, without looking at the background of the school, the nature of its pupils, the strengths and weaknesses of that school, then I'd say he was misusing statistics.
I do not see it resolving that debate in a constructive manner, whilst it continues to ignore the reality of globalisation.
I don't get the desire that we should have less information about something that everyone, even Indigo, accepts is a problem. Until we have the data, we can't see where the problem is arising or how best to address it.
It won't be treated with caution or sensibly at all. There'll be (for reasons discussed) a pay gap and people will bleat sexism instead of considering that women take more time off for family reasons and that also means a relative loss of seniority.
https://youtu.be/p5LRdW8xw70
Minimum wage, non doms, these are smart policies that are not only the right thing to do but attract support from sections of the electorate likely to vote for you even if they upset a few donors. This 'feminism' claptrap is daft politics which upsets both your own supporters as well as those likely to support you.
Mr. Antifrank, are you saying you think a total misreading of statistics to promote an identity politics agenda at odds with reality is a good thing? Because you appear to think that my concerns, shared by others, about the probable abuse of these ill-founded statistics amount to being as bad as misusing the statistics themselves.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26472809
I don't feel remotely uncomfortable on this topic, despite your unfounded accusation. Men and women should receive equal pay for equal work. Comparing the wages of genders when they're working different jobs is a worthless endeavour.
The Blair legacy has as much influence on Labour now as Thatcher did on the Tories in the 90s and early noughties. Of course just as Labour only won when they elected a leader who accepted much of Thatcher's legacy, Blair, so the Tories only won when they elected a leader who accepted much of Blair's legacy, Cameron!
I lived through all her reigns and even voted for her once - but what she did then and how it's characterised now appear to be quite different beasts.
Blairism is another one that's changing in the mists of time and his own rightwards shift.
But this one is even less so.
The SNP know that. And so, I think, does Dave. Both have a wider agenda here, and I suspect a defeat on a free vote inflicted by the SNP will go down just fine with No 10, and perhaps many backbench Tories.
It's not smart by the SNP even if they think it is... I agree, No 10 are probably happy with the result.
SNP Westminster Group Leader Angus Robertson MP said “We totally oppose fox hunting, and when there are moves in the Scottish Parliament to review whether the existing Scottish ban is strong enough, it is in the Scottish interest to maintain the existing ban in England and Wales for Holyrood to consider."
So the SNP think it's ok to vote against it on the basis that they like it and want to keep it there to look at later...
NumbrCrunchrPolitics @NCPoliticsUK · 2h2 hours ago
Survation/Daily Mail (Holyrood seat):
SNP 56 (+2)
CON 14 (+1)
LAB 20 (-4)
LIB 7 (+2)
OTH 4 (=)
3rd-7th July
N=1,046
Survation/Daily Mail (Holyrood list):
SNP 45 (=)
CON 12 (+1)
LAB 19 (-2)
LIB 8 (+2)
UKIP 5 (=)
GRN 11 (+1)
3rd-7th July
N=1,046
Labour continue their glissando.
There are different outcomes based on different choices people make. Even if men and women are exactly the same in ability to do all jobs their different decisions (on average) will produce different mean pay rates for genders. Maybe instead of worrying about a problem that was solved some years ago we could try equalising the average work related mortality rates between genders... (clue: women don't tend to do dangerous jobs)
This is yet another imposition on the productive part of the economy that will cost real people actual time and money for no benefit (except to the idiots inhabiting twitter).
For Antifrank - we have had significant, ongoing crap spouted at all levels complaining about companies paying the right amount of tax (Starbucks, Boots, etc) based on figures ranging between the accurate but mis-represented (Starbucks) and the just flat out wrong (Vodafone). Why on Earth do you think providing another battery of mis-leading figures is going to help?
Even law firms may not look great as more women head into the 'lower paying than commercial' family law areas.
However, it is highly probable that men and women are differently hard-wired for differing jobs/occupations/practices and so will show a natural bias - will this be ignored in the employment stats as long as the same wage is available for all-comers for a defined job?
Many congratulations to @sandyrentool on his OU graduation!
http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2015/06/and-so-our-eyes-turn-to-may-2016/
https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/620871088038379520
Alex Massie is entertaining and insightful here:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/07/tally-no-the-snp-are-setting-a-trap-for-the-tories-on-fox-hunting/
They have no problems with the recruitment of women as junior staff but they have serious problems with the retention of female staff. Unlike, I suspect, most of those on the thread getting hot under the collar, I've had to think directly about this as a problem in some depth. Making more family-friendly arrangements helps, as does mentoring of talented women. But lawyers have a long way to go yet.
Family law (particularly if one includes Private Client, which also tends to be dominated by women) can be very lucrative.