At my previous employer despite around 60% of new hires being women only 15% of management had the biological characteristics necessary to bear children. These figures haven't changed for years and are thoroughly demoralising when you are an ambitious young female professional. But, not only do women stay in the junior ranks of employment, the pay-gap between women and men still sits between 16% and 27% depending on age, so some women are earning three-quarters of what an 'equivalent' man earns. Why hasn't this improved? Worryingly, the changes to these figures seem to be stabilising.
Rather than making it easier and increasing the cultural pressure on women to be the primary carers for their children and relatives by increasing maternity pay from 14 to 20 weeks, business should be required to increase the minimum wage and increase paternity leave rights. 64% of the lowest paid workers are women. Increasing the minimum wage would do wonders for the number of families and children living in poverty. Furthermore, spending the money improving paternity leave rights would stop there being an incentive for a woman to take a career break. Would stop the inherent bias faced by women in the workplace every day as employers view you as a child-making time-bomb. Couples would then have complete freedom to choose which parent took primary responsibility for childcare.
Every time there is a change which requires business to spend more money on their employees they protest that they can't afford it. At the moment with cuts to the public sector and the government's need for the private sector to pick up the slack, business groups know that they have George Osborne's ear. But now is the time to think radically on women's rights and fairness to families. It is time to give men paid leave to stay at home with their children. Perhaps rather than a transferable tax allowance, transferable statutory childcare leave (note the gender neutral tone) should be considered?
Without these changes our daughters and granddaughters will continue to go to work and earn less than their male counterparts whilst looking wistfully at the distant glass ceiling...
Sunday, 17 October 2010
The calm before the storm...
Whilst most of the country is probably far more interested in finding out who gets voted off the X-Factor on Sunday night, the world of politics seems eerily calm. Three days before the welfare state and the public sector will undoubtedly be massacred by the Tories there are no further government leaks about where the axe will fall.
With NHS funding ringfenced other departments will be cut deeper...but hold on a second, has Georgie Porgie reneged on his promise to ringfence health? In the Guardian yesterday he says "we will work hard to protect it" wich does seem to be a lot less committal than: "We will guarantee that health spending increases in real terms in each year of the Parliament, while recognising the impact this decision will have on other departments." which was written into the Coalition's programme for goverment. If you were waiting for an operation and your NHS doctor said he guaranteed you would be fine, you would be a lot more positive than if he said he would "work hard".
Perhaps this about turn on the NHS is because the Coalition have, effectively, had to protect defence spending ever since Hilary Clinton waded into the debate on budget cuts. Hilary evidently thinks it is more important to fund the £35 billion, yes that's right, 35 BILLION POUND overspend in defence projects, which, to be frank, shows utter contempt for the budgeting process between government departments, than to fund health care. Why is anyone surprised? Obama is being called a Marxist by the Tea Party movement in the US as a result of his Health Care Bill. Apparently, for the Repblican party, being a good Christian means making sure that people who can afford insurance get healthcare. The same privileges shouldn't be provided to the poor and vulnerable in society.
No department shoud be reingfenced from spending cuts. Every department should be subject to an efficiency review. However, there are some departments where cutting services to save money doesn't make sense and the NHS is one of those departments. But, I digress...Aidan to win X-Factor!!
With NHS funding ringfenced other departments will be cut deeper...but hold on a second, has Georgie Porgie reneged on his promise to ringfence health? In the Guardian yesterday he says "we will work hard to protect it" wich does seem to be a lot less committal than: "We will guarantee that health spending increases in real terms in each year of the Parliament, while recognising the impact this decision will have on other departments." which was written into the Coalition's programme for goverment. If you were waiting for an operation and your NHS doctor said he guaranteed you would be fine, you would be a lot more positive than if he said he would "work hard".
Perhaps this about turn on the NHS is because the Coalition have, effectively, had to protect defence spending ever since Hilary Clinton waded into the debate on budget cuts. Hilary evidently thinks it is more important to fund the £35 billion, yes that's right, 35 BILLION POUND overspend in defence projects, which, to be frank, shows utter contempt for the budgeting process between government departments, than to fund health care. Why is anyone surprised? Obama is being called a Marxist by the Tea Party movement in the US as a result of his Health Care Bill. Apparently, for the Repblican party, being a good Christian means making sure that people who can afford insurance get healthcare. The same privileges shouldn't be provided to the poor and vulnerable in society.
No department shoud be reingfenced from spending cuts. Every department should be subject to an efficiency review. However, there are some departments where cutting services to save money doesn't make sense and the NHS is one of those departments. But, I digress...Aidan to win X-Factor!!
Tuesday, 5 October 2010
The Tory conference - Boris strikes first
As the Tory party conference heads into its final day it will be remembered not for what was said at conference but rather for what Boris wrote in his Telegraph column and what George Osborne let slip to BBC breakfast news. Boris' timing, as usual, was impeccable - he is a permanent thorn in Dave's side. I doubt anyone in the Tory party was given prior warning of his column and without drastic action by Georgie-Porgie he would have stolen the headlines for the whole day....
Boris' call for strike ballots to require a minimum participation level of 50% in order to be valid seems, initially, to have merit. Why should the minority of a union be allowed to hold the whole of London to ransom? But Boris is on slightly less stable ground when you consider that a minority of the London electorate managed to inflict Boris on the entire city - voter turnout at the mayoral elections was around 45%. The CBI unsurprisingly share Boris' view on minimum voter turnout for strike action but with a slightly lower threshold of 40% turnout. The CBI is "the voice of business" so they will be familiar with the thresholds for turnout imposed for corporate governance at shareholder meetings in the UK... none!
The right to withdraw labour should not be restricted. Those who vote should determine whether strike action is authorised not those who are apathetic. This is how democracy has operated in this country for years. Yes, that means that the life of the average Londoner will likely be disrupted pretty frequently over the next few years as the ConDem cuts are effected but the test of whether strike action is successful is public sentiment during and after the strike.
Tube strikes are so regular in London they are no longer that disruptive. Every self-respecting inner-Londoner will be able to tell you at least three or four other routes they can use to get from work to home when the tube isn't running. The strikes are unpopular because it is also increasingly difficult these days to understand what the strike action is really over and the union leadership seem unable to clarify the issues. Bob Crow leaves you with the impression that he'd be more comfortable head-butting Boris than engaging in reasoned debate.
To achieve real change and exert real pressure union action must have public-support and if Red Ed wouldn't even publicly support the strike things can't be good. The union leadership should be mindful that strikes to obtain payrises are not going to go down well in the current economic environment and that they should pick their battles. The unions have a role to play in ensuring that any public sector cuts are well thought through by government, are as small as possible and meted out in a fair way.
A little charm goes a long way in today's 24-hour media society a skill that is evidently beyond every union leader interviewed on TV. Rather than pay Bob Crow £120,000+ the unions should club together and employ Alistair Darling or Peter Mandelson. It may seem fickle but today's union fights are played out in the papers and both Alistair and Peter are able to lead the press core a merry dance with as much skill as the pied piper of Hamlin and with the flair of Gavin Henson dancing a waltz!
Boris' call for strike ballots to require a minimum participation level of 50% in order to be valid seems, initially, to have merit. Why should the minority of a union be allowed to hold the whole of London to ransom? But Boris is on slightly less stable ground when you consider that a minority of the London electorate managed to inflict Boris on the entire city - voter turnout at the mayoral elections was around 45%. The CBI unsurprisingly share Boris' view on minimum voter turnout for strike action but with a slightly lower threshold of 40% turnout. The CBI is "the voice of business" so they will be familiar with the thresholds for turnout imposed for corporate governance at shareholder meetings in the UK... none!
The right to withdraw labour should not be restricted. Those who vote should determine whether strike action is authorised not those who are apathetic. This is how democracy has operated in this country for years. Yes, that means that the life of the average Londoner will likely be disrupted pretty frequently over the next few years as the ConDem cuts are effected but the test of whether strike action is successful is public sentiment during and after the strike.
Tube strikes are so regular in London they are no longer that disruptive. Every self-respecting inner-Londoner will be able to tell you at least three or four other routes they can use to get from work to home when the tube isn't running. The strikes are unpopular because it is also increasingly difficult these days to understand what the strike action is really over and the union leadership seem unable to clarify the issues. Bob Crow leaves you with the impression that he'd be more comfortable head-butting Boris than engaging in reasoned debate.
To achieve real change and exert real pressure union action must have public-support and if Red Ed wouldn't even publicly support the strike things can't be good. The union leadership should be mindful that strikes to obtain payrises are not going to go down well in the current economic environment and that they should pick their battles. The unions have a role to play in ensuring that any public sector cuts are well thought through by government, are as small as possible and meted out in a fair way.
A little charm goes a long way in today's 24-hour media society a skill that is evidently beyond every union leader interviewed on TV. Rather than pay Bob Crow £120,000+ the unions should club together and employ Alistair Darling or Peter Mandelson. It may seem fickle but today's union fights are played out in the papers and both Alistair and Peter are able to lead the press core a merry dance with as much skill as the pied piper of Hamlin and with the flair of Gavin Henson dancing a waltz!
Saturday, 2 October 2010
Enough humility time for some ideas!
The road to recovery for the Labour party is going to be a rocky one particularly because the Tories seem to have really done their homework during all those years in opposition. Gone are the days of stuffy old toffs whose main aim in life is to maintain the status quo. On the eve of the Tory party conference I find myself genuinely interested in the ideas they have for social and economic reform. Ian Duncan Smith's welfare plan is bold and radical in its thinking and for once the aim does not seem to be purely cutting benefits. Rather than patronising those who are often trapped into poverty and moralising over how they are lazy and should get back to work, IDS has clearly researched the reasons why people are on benefits and the reasons that they stay on them.
True capitalist socialism is not about blindly defending large benefit payouts it's about creating a culture of social mobility where your socio-economic status at birth does not determine your socio-economic status for life. It's about creating jobs and ensuring those jobs pay a living wage. The Tories are managing to lead the debate in this area - I feel like I'm in some surreal parallel universe!
Ed needs to stop talking about how the cuts don't need to happen, stop talking about a war that is now over and stop talking about humility. Labour lost and no-one cares. People will only start caring again when they start being inspired by Labour's ideas. Time for all those career politicians to step up and justify their existence, show some innovation and show some leadership. Enough humility - start the fight back!
Next ... views on the Tory conference from Brum.
True capitalist socialism is not about blindly defending large benefit payouts it's about creating a culture of social mobility where your socio-economic status at birth does not determine your socio-economic status for life. It's about creating jobs and ensuring those jobs pay a living wage. The Tories are managing to lead the debate in this area - I feel like I'm in some surreal parallel universe!
Ed needs to stop talking about how the cuts don't need to happen, stop talking about a war that is now over and stop talking about humility. Labour lost and no-one cares. People will only start caring again when they start being inspired by Labour's ideas. Time for all those career politicians to step up and justify their existence, show some innovation and show some leadership. Enough humility - start the fight back!
Next ... views on the Tory conference from Brum.
Friday, 1 October 2010
Are computer programs responsible for corporate governance? And why certain investors shouldn't be allowed to own public companies.
When taking a very occasional break from banker-bashing the newspapers have focused on institutional shareholders as playing a supporting role in the financial crisis. Institutional shareholders, often pension funds, are significant investors in public companies. Shareholders are, utlimately, responsible for appointments to the board of directors and therefore, indirectly responsible for how a company is run. So why didn't shareholders intervene in the run up to the financial crisis when boards of banks were taking massive risks and paying even bigger bonuses? The answer may be lurking in a slightly geeky story on the cause of a mini-stock market crash on one day in May....
In May of this year the Dow Jones dropped 700 points in one day, losing 10% of its value. The SEC, the american regulatory equivalent of the FSA, have determined that this loss was due to one trader's algorithm. Algorithms are computer programs based on mathematical formulae. Their purpose is to spot inefficiencies in the market and exploit them which, in layman's terms, means identify shares that are being undervalued in some way, maybe even by a matter of pennies or cents, and then buy them in large volume. Then, when the market corrects itself (or, in layman's terms everyone else spots the inefficiency and buys the stock thereby increasing demand, increasing the price and rectifying the inefficiency), the program initiates a sale for a profit.
These types of trading programs are commonly used by investment banks and are often highly complex. They are devised and operated by a particular type of maths geek known as a quantitative analyst or quant. If one quant can cause the Dow to drop 10% in a day, selling over $4 billion of shares in 20 minutes, how many other shares out there are owned essentially by computer programs?
No wonder corporate governance by shareholders was slack when some of these shares change hands many times a day with each owner only in it for a short-term gain. Maybe the best financial reform would be to divide the share classes of companies in the same way as hedge funds - yes, I'm saying that hedge funds may be doing something right. Some hedge funds divide their share classes into ordinary shares - which have voting rights - and preference shares - which have no voting rights. The ordinary shares are often owned by the manager of the hedge fund who is interested in the long term success of the fund. Investors who want to make a buck buy preference shares and have no control over how the fund is run, as they have no voting rights, but pay their money and get their returns.
Why don't we restrict the ownership of ordinary (voting) shares in public companies to pension funds and other long-term investors and ban bank and hedge fund proprietary traders from owning these shares? Companies should also be allowed to issue preference shares which give their owners a right to a return but no voting rights. Proprietary traders would be allowed to buy these shares.
This would mean that shareholders who are interested in the long-term health of the company have the power to make decisions about the long-term future of the company as their percentage shareholding of voting shares would not be diluted by shares owned by computer programs and other quick-buck investors. Long-term shareholders will make better decisions about how appropriate board compensation is, whether the risk profile of the company is acceptable, whether mergers or acquisitions are good for the long term health of the company.
Directors compensation, which is often linked to share price, should then for all public companies be linked only to the share price of ordinary shares as only then will an increase in value be a reflection of good long-term growth prospects rather than the answer spat out by some spotty nerds six-screened computer.
In May of this year the Dow Jones dropped 700 points in one day, losing 10% of its value. The SEC, the american regulatory equivalent of the FSA, have determined that this loss was due to one trader's algorithm. Algorithms are computer programs based on mathematical formulae. Their purpose is to spot inefficiencies in the market and exploit them which, in layman's terms, means identify shares that are being undervalued in some way, maybe even by a matter of pennies or cents, and then buy them in large volume. Then, when the market corrects itself (or, in layman's terms everyone else spots the inefficiency and buys the stock thereby increasing demand, increasing the price and rectifying the inefficiency), the program initiates a sale for a profit.
These types of trading programs are commonly used by investment banks and are often highly complex. They are devised and operated by a particular type of maths geek known as a quantitative analyst or quant. If one quant can cause the Dow to drop 10% in a day, selling over $4 billion of shares in 20 minutes, how many other shares out there are owned essentially by computer programs?
No wonder corporate governance by shareholders was slack when some of these shares change hands many times a day with each owner only in it for a short-term gain. Maybe the best financial reform would be to divide the share classes of companies in the same way as hedge funds - yes, I'm saying that hedge funds may be doing something right. Some hedge funds divide their share classes into ordinary shares - which have voting rights - and preference shares - which have no voting rights. The ordinary shares are often owned by the manager of the hedge fund who is interested in the long term success of the fund. Investors who want to make a buck buy preference shares and have no control over how the fund is run, as they have no voting rights, but pay their money and get their returns.
Why don't we restrict the ownership of ordinary (voting) shares in public companies to pension funds and other long-term investors and ban bank and hedge fund proprietary traders from owning these shares? Companies should also be allowed to issue preference shares which give their owners a right to a return but no voting rights. Proprietary traders would be allowed to buy these shares.
This would mean that shareholders who are interested in the long-term health of the company have the power to make decisions about the long-term future of the company as their percentage shareholding of voting shares would not be diluted by shares owned by computer programs and other quick-buck investors. Long-term shareholders will make better decisions about how appropriate board compensation is, whether the risk profile of the company is acceptable, whether mergers or acquisitions are good for the long term health of the company.
Directors compensation, which is often linked to share price, should then for all public companies be linked only to the share price of ordinary shares as only then will an increase in value be a reflection of good long-term growth prospects rather than the answer spat out by some spotty nerds six-screened computer.
Wednesday, 29 September 2010
Would an unmarried prime minister offend our national sensibilities?
David Milliband's retreating to the backbenches under the guise of giving Ed space and family reasons. Yawn! David obviously thinks Ed's policies are completely bonkers, will take the party back to the 1980s (no wonder Neil Kinnock's endorsing Ed at every possible opportunity) and will ultimately make Labour unelectable. At least by distancing himself from the shadow administration, when the proverbial brown stuff hits the fan (which will be 7 May 2015) he'll be able to mount a credible leadership challenge. Milliband the Elder - the party's knight in shining armour - played by a thoughtful yet dashing Jude Law (after the movie rights to his memoirs are sold).
The more interesting Milliband story of the day is that the press have started asking Milliband the Younger when he's going to make an honest women of the mother of his child (soon to be children). Is the British electorate ready to elect cohabitants to Number 10? Why do we still perceive non-marital relationships to be less stable than marital relationships? The divorce rate is falling and is currently around 11%, which seems pretty low but there are no comparable statistics for unmarried couples who live in a committed relationship for a period of time and then part ways, so no objective test is possible. It seems though that Britain is nostalgic for a way of life centred around family and community. We want to have an aspirational leader - someone who lives the life we want to lead. Someone who seems to have it all figured out - not someone who seems indecisive and flighty.
Like a Jerry Springer story unfolding, we've also heard how Ed isn't named on the birth certificate of his child. Watch this space for the call from the cheap seats for a DNA test. Perhaps next week in OK magazine we'll hear Ms Thornton's reasons for not naming Ed as her child's father whilst wearing a contemporary yet unrevealing outfit from Next...
The more interesting Milliband story of the day is that the press have started asking Milliband the Younger when he's going to make an honest women of the mother of his child (soon to be children). Is the British electorate ready to elect cohabitants to Number 10? Why do we still perceive non-marital relationships to be less stable than marital relationships? The divorce rate is falling and is currently around 11%, which seems pretty low but there are no comparable statistics for unmarried couples who live in a committed relationship for a period of time and then part ways, so no objective test is possible. It seems though that Britain is nostalgic for a way of life centred around family and community. We want to have an aspirational leader - someone who lives the life we want to lead. Someone who seems to have it all figured out - not someone who seems indecisive and flighty.
Like a Jerry Springer story unfolding, we've also heard how Ed isn't named on the birth certificate of his child. Watch this space for the call from the cheap seats for a DNA test. Perhaps next week in OK magazine we'll hear Ms Thornton's reasons for not naming Ed as her child's father whilst wearing a contemporary yet unrevealing outfit from Next...
Monday, 27 September 2010
Never mind Red Ed, Ostrich Ed's more like it
For Labour to be credible in opposition and a realistic prospect for government in the next parliamentary term they need to get real on the economy and the scale of the cuts needed. Just like America never though it could be attacked on home soil by terrorists the powers-that-be in the Labour party seem convinced that we can continue to spend more than we can afford without consequence. Maybe Ireland thought like this 12-months ago? If they did, that decision has come around to bite them faster than many predicted.
The UK's national debt is just over 50% of GDP and this year's deficit is likely to be around £160bn. Yes, other countries are worse. Yes, it is normal for countries to run "manageable " national debts, the US's national debt is around 40% of GDP but we need to take action. The IMF has said so, the Eurozone has said so but Labour continue to talk of the cuts being unnecessary.
So why are Labour insistent that the cuts shouldn't happen or at least shouldn't happen on the scale proposed by the coalition? In simple terms they argue that by taking public investment out of the economy when the economy is in such a fragile state we run the risk of suffocating the recovery. On the surface it sounds convincing - we don't want a double dip recession. Economies need investment to grow. But, with the trade union influence on the Labour party gathering momentum ever since Tony Blair was usurped, the cynic in me has to wonder whether what Labour are doing is arguing for their unionised public sector supporters to keep their jobs even if the country can no longer afford it. Are Labour acting in the best interests of their supporters or the country as a whole? To boil it down Labour are facing a credibility test and Ed Milliband probably has about a month to prove to the country that he has something to say that isn't union paid for propaganda.
I believe the cuts need to happen and that they need to happen now and fast. If Labour ceded this point rather than fighting to the last a battle which in many people's minds is already lost they could focus on the more important debate - what cuts should be made? Which services should be protected? There's plenty of opportunity to answer these questions in terms of fairness and social justice which is where Labour can win over many disenfranchised Lib Dem supporters.
Labour need to stop reacting to the coalition led cuts-agenda and start leading the debate on making these cuts in the fairest way. The Labour party could be invigorated by Red Ed's position on the Port side of the boat but the party needs to chart a new course....
The UK's national debt is just over 50% of GDP and this year's deficit is likely to be around £160bn. Yes, other countries are worse. Yes, it is normal for countries to run "manageable " national debts, the US's national debt is around 40% of GDP but we need to take action. The IMF has said so, the Eurozone has said so but Labour continue to talk of the cuts being unnecessary.
So why are Labour insistent that the cuts shouldn't happen or at least shouldn't happen on the scale proposed by the coalition? In simple terms they argue that by taking public investment out of the economy when the economy is in such a fragile state we run the risk of suffocating the recovery. On the surface it sounds convincing - we don't want a double dip recession. Economies need investment to grow. But, with the trade union influence on the Labour party gathering momentum ever since Tony Blair was usurped, the cynic in me has to wonder whether what Labour are doing is arguing for their unionised public sector supporters to keep their jobs even if the country can no longer afford it. Are Labour acting in the best interests of their supporters or the country as a whole? To boil it down Labour are facing a credibility test and Ed Milliband probably has about a month to prove to the country that he has something to say that isn't union paid for propaganda.
I believe the cuts need to happen and that they need to happen now and fast. If Labour ceded this point rather than fighting to the last a battle which in many people's minds is already lost they could focus on the more important debate - what cuts should be made? Which services should be protected? There's plenty of opportunity to answer these questions in terms of fairness and social justice which is where Labour can win over many disenfranchised Lib Dem supporters.
Labour need to stop reacting to the coalition led cuts-agenda and start leading the debate on making these cuts in the fairest way. The Labour party could be invigorated by Red Ed's position on the Port side of the boat but the party needs to chart a new course....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)