by Stephen Tall on March 22, 2016
I have written before about how the debate on the gender pay gap irritates me.
It is lazily reported in the media as if the whole problem is down to evil companies flouting the 45 year-old equal pay act and refusing to pay women the same as they pay men for equivalent work. Now, I’m not about to deny that doesn’t ever happen, doubtless it does; but it’s increasingly rare and has little or nothing to do with the continuing gender pay gap, a much more ingrained problem which we are still nowhere near solving.
The graphic above is nicked from an excellent new report, ‘Gender Pay Gap’, published today by the Women and Equalities select committee.
It succinctly summarises the main issues which explain why women, particularly those over the age of 40, earn far less than men:
The key issues of pay differentials are: the part-time pay penalty; women’s disproportionate responsibility for childcare and other forms of unpaid caring; and the concentration of women in highly feminised, low paid sectors like care, retail and cleaning.
It also highlights that this is not just a ‘wmmin’s issue’, but one of vital importance to our economy:
There is strong evidence of the economic and productivity benefits of tackling the gender pay gap. The best organisations recognise this and are taking steps to offer flexible working and improve job design to attract and retain talent. However, the productivity case for reducing the gender pay gap has not been made strongly enough to all employers across the UK. The Government, business, trade bodies, unions and public sector organisations must work to move the discussion about the gender pay gap beyond one of equality, to one of economic necessity.
Its recommendations are sensible, but also far-reaching and bound to be controversial (especially with men, for whom the current system operates very nicely, thank you):
There is clear evidence flexible working benefits the UK economy and individual employers. However, a culture of presenteeism and a lack of creative thinking about job design are hampering progress towards flexibility as the norm. Too few employers are considering the benefits of offering jobs as open to flexible working. … All jobs should be available to work flexibly unless an employer can demonstrate an immediate and continuing business case against doing so. …
The evidence is clear that caring responsibilities are a significant barrier to women’s pay and progression prospects. As long as women continue to take disproportionate responsibility for the care of children and other family members, the gender pay gap will persist. More equal sharing of childcare responsibilities can help to reduce the gender pay gap by facilitating women’s return to the labour market and changing perceptions of men and women as being equally likely to take on caring responsibilities. … If Government is to achieve its objective of reducing the gender pay gap it needs a more effective policy on shared parental leave (SPL). Current weaknesses can be addressed by three months paid paternal leave for second parents. This can only be taken when the mother returns to work and would be additional to current parental leave benefits.
Many women who have left the labour market due to caring responsibilities, or for other reasons, will need to return to paid employment. This may be because of pension shortfalls or changes in circumstances like divorce. Others will choose to return to work. In both cases, the skills and experience of this group of women can help improve UK productivity. The Government should therefore invest in supporting their smooth return to the labour market as a matter of urgency. … The first task of the Government’s new ministerial group on the gender pay gap should be to create a National Pathways into Work scheme for harnessing the skills and experience of women over 40. This scheme would give women a clear entry point into a support system offering careers guidance; retraining where necessary; and information on local skills shortages and job opportunities. …
Women over 40 are concentrated within highly feminised, low paid sectors. Their low pay and lack of progression play a significant part in the gender pay gap. There must be more focus and investment aimed at these low paid employees if the goal of reducing the gender pay gap is to be achieved. … The Department for Business and Skills should develop industrial strategies for low paid highly feminised sectors, beginning with the care sector. This would bring together policies on training and skills; increasing productivity; the use of technology and innovation; regulation; and the role of LEPs. …
If gender pay gap reporting is to have any impact it must help employers understand why pay gaps exist and lead to action to address these problems. It must be seen as the beginning of a process rather than the culmination of a tick box exercise. … We also suggest that the Government should produce a strategy for ensuring employers use gender pay gap reporting as a first step for taking action rather than an end in itself. This strategy should be published a year before the regulations commence.
It’s an highly readable report, and a very important contribution to a debate which too often gets mired in dodgy stats designed to shock rather than to explain.
Hopefully future debates can be based on the real issues facing women – that caring responsibilities primarily fall on them; that we lack a culture of flexible working (bad for all parents, not just mums); and that we under-value highly feminised sectors – and the ways in which we can tackle them. Not only because it’s the right thing to do for women, but because it’s also the right thing to do for the whole of the economy.
by Stephen Tall on March 18, 2016
The last Labour government introduced academy status for schools that were adjudged to need it. The Coalition government extended academy school status to schools that really wanted it. Your government is now imposing it on schools that neither need nor want it.
That was the punchy question BBC Newsnight’s James O’Brien put to Conservative schools minister Nick Gibb, following the Tories’ proposal (not included in their manifesto) to turn every single school into an academy, regardless of the wishes of the school’s leaders, governors, parents or local community.
Much of the insta-opposition I saw accused the Conservatives of being hell-bent on privatisation of schools, a sleight which attributes far more ideological coherence to the policy than is deserved.
In fact, the opposite is true: this is a massive act of nationalisation. By order of the Department for Education, every school will be made accountable to a regional schools commissioner, in turn answerable to the secretary of state.
This diktat has also abolished any notion of choice — the idea schools could decide for themselves which structure would best suit them, to continue within the fold of their local education authority, or to strike out as an academy within a chain or as part of a multi-academy trust.
It is also, of course, extremely risky. Over the past 15 years of academisation, about 5,500 schools have made the leap: two-thirds of secondaries and almost one-fifth of primary schools. This means that of the 15,000+ schools the government is going to forcibly convert to academy status in the next five years, the vast majority will be primary schools — ie, smaller units with thinly-stretched leadership — which will now face this massive distraction. It’s enough to make me nostalgic for Tony Blair’s clarion call, “standards not structures”.
If all this upheaval were likely to improve educational outcomes for children and young people, then fair enough. But there’s no evidence to suggest this will happen. The performance of academy chains is about as patchy as that of local education authorities used to be – some outstanding, many not – while multi-academy trusts are so untested no-one knows what their impact might be.
Lots of people are searching for an ulterior motive behind this rushed policy. I’m not sure there is one. Generously, I could put it down to what Yes, Minister termed Politicians’ Logic: “Something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it.”
At least as likely is, I think, Tory politicians’ unfamiliarity with state schools. They look at grammar/public/private schools, like what they see, and assume it’s because they’re independent of the state (rather than because of their selective intakes). They then look at the exceptional state schools bucking the trend, and seem to assume they can flick a switch marked ‘academy’ which will turn those outliers into the norm.
The key question they have, as yet, completely failed to address is this: where will the capacity for schools’ self-improvement come from?
From local education authorities? They won’t have the money or expertise soon enough. From academy chains? The evidence so far is distinctly mixed. From multi-academy trusts? Perhaps, but who knows? That’s a lot of question marks if the Conservatives really do want to see ‘Educational Excellence Everywhere’, as their white paper proclaims.
It’ll be interesting to see what the House of Lords makes of it all. But, as it stands, schools’ governance will be transformed by 2020. There will be a temptation among those opposed to the plans simply to want to turn the clock back: to re-invent local education authorities. That’s unlikely to be workable or desirable: un-making forced academisation will be at least as messy as making it.
Chances are, the best policy will be to leave well alone and focus instead on fixing the problems this massive experiment is likely to throw up, to grow capacity through whatever institutions emerge from the fug.
Alternatively, I’d suggest devolving the secretary of state’s powers to elected mayors, making the regional schools commissioners accountable to a politician with a local mandate who the voters can boot out or re-elect.
by Stephen Tall on March 15, 2016
It’s a question worth wrestling with. Here are three issues on which I struggle, or have struggled:
A major topic for discussion among Lib Dems this weekend, with the party conference voting that “If any sitting MP elected in 2015 decides not to contest the next General Election, his replacement should be selected from an all-women shortlist” (as well as giving the right to any local party “to be able to vote for an all-women shortlist or an all-disabled shortlist, or reserve some spaces for candidates from other under-represented groups”).
Once, I would have been firmly opposed. We shouldn’t promote equality by openly discriminating against individuals based on their sex. Nor do I see why we should privilege a white, female barrister over a black, male bus driver. Also, the Lib Dems’ leadership programme had proved itself successful in ensuring women were selected in roughly equal numbers as men in what we had thought were “winnable seats” (unfortunately, in 2015 very few seats proved remotely winnable for the Lib Dems).
I still hold those views. But, equally, I cannot deny that progress will be much, much quicker with all-women shortlists. That increased diversity will benefit the party and (if they’re elected) the country.
So, do the liberal ends justify the illiberal means?
Smoking in public places.
One of my most popular articles to this day is something I wrote more than a decade ago – Why we shouldn’t ban smoking in public places – based on a speech I gave in an Oxford City Council debate at the time when the smoking ban was a hot topic.
I’ve just re-read it and found myself nodding along. Not only did the ban re-define private businesses as public places… not only did it ignore the increasing number of pubs etc which were already declaring themselves smoke-free zones (meaning customers had a choice)… not only did it ignore that the real threat to public health was from passive smoking at home… More fundamentally, “I believe that every time governments impose a law designed to compel individuals to improve their health – whether they like it or not – we make the individual less responsible for their own actions. But a functioning liberal society depends on individuals taking full responsibility for their lives.”
Yet I can’t deny that the evidence suggests the policy has worked, according to a government review on its effects: ‘The law has had a significant impact. Results show benefits for health, changes in attitudes and behaviour and no clear adverse impact on the hospitality industry.’
So, do the liberal ends justify the illiberal means?
Freedom of expression.
I’ve long been a First Amendment-er, reckoning that absolute freedom of speech is a fundamental tenet of liberal society. It’s why I’ve long stuck up for the Christian-run Ashers Bakery in Belfast over its refusal to produce a cake with a pro-same-sex marriage slogan for a gay customer: they shouldn’t be forced to write something they don’t agree with, even if it is as a transaction.
As Peter Tatchell wrote, “This raises the question: should Muslim printers be obliged to publish cartoons of Mohammed? Or Jewish ones publish the words of a Holocaust denier? Or gay bakers accept orders for cakes with homophobic slurs?”
And yet, and yet… Do I really want to turn the clock back to the pre-anti-discrimination laws days of the 1950s, complete with infamous landladies’ signs declaring, ‘No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs’? Of course not — but curtailing the rights of businesses not to turn away paying customers on the basis of who they are was a crucial step in ensuring the UK is a more tolerant society.
So, do the liberal ends justify the illiberal means?
There you go, then. Three issues on which my views haven’t changed, fundamentally, but on which I’m now much more ambivalent.
I agree still with my former liberal principles; but cannot pretend that those liberal principles being flouted won’t result in a better, healthier, happier reality. Maybe that’s a function of growing older — our youthful certainties are gradually broken down by life experiences — or maybe it’s a liberal character trait of seeing both sides of an issue. Whichever, I’ve found it interesting to reflect on the issues on which I now find myself conflicted.
It’s also a useful reality check: most people put outcomes before ideology, prize ends above means. Unless you can show how your principles will improve their everyday lives, don’t be surprised if you fail to persuade.
by Stephen Tall on March 8, 2016
Warning: spoilers follow
Well, I gave ‘Spin’ (Les Hommes de l’ombre) — the French political drama broadcast by More4 in its Walter Presents strand — a decent chance. An entire series, in fact. But I’ve now officially given up. Here’s why.
One of my pet-hates always used to be TV dramas which mocked-up newspaper front pages in an appallingly amateurish way. It’s bizarre that directors who will take every care with set designs and costumes seem not to care if they splash the screen with a ‘Daily News’-type tabloid with a badly written, badly spaced headline that looks like a Year 6 kid’s ‘write your own newspaper’ English project.
That still happens. But there’s a new irritation that’s been added — dramas deciding to ignore how social media is used because it would spoil their dramatic tension. And that brings me to ‘Spin’. Two incidents stood out in its first series:
* News breaks of French presidential hopeful Anne Visage’s affair with the recently blown-up former President. Her campaign manager is issued with the urgent warning… “this story will hit the news-stands in just a few hours’ time!”. Because, obviously, we’re all ignorant of what the newspapers are saying til we walk past les kiosques in the morning and Twitter stops at the white cliffs of Dover.
* A key witness — the one person who can testify to the motives of the President’s assassin — is being hunted by the French authorities desperate to ensure their state-sanctioned lie of terrorism isn’t challenged. Tensely, he hunkers down for a couple of days until a journalist with a TV camera can arrive and film his evidence. On tape. Seriously. No suggestion is made that he might tell his story using the smart-phone he’s carrying and post it to the Internet. Or even tweet his testimony.
It’s hard to take seriously a drama which ignores the real world. And then, when the first episode of the second series opened with a laughably contrived cover-up involving the new French president which will, inevitably and tediously, unravel over the next five hours, I thought: enough, this simply wouldn’t be taken seriously if it didn’t have subtitles.
The Economist on the success of the Pupil Premium: “A pricey education policy looks like money well spent”
by Stephen Tall on March 3, 2016
I’ve said before that I think the Pupil Premium – £2.5 billion of extra money given to schools to support children and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds — is one of the most progressive government policies of the last decade, an achievement of which the Lib Dems can be well proud.
This week’s Economist takes a look at it and gives the policy the thumbs-up:
How to raise the attainment of children from poor backgrounds is now a focus for educators. Before the premium, 57% of school leaders said they aimed support at their most disadvantaged pupils; 94% now do, says the [National Audit Office]. With such a wide gap in attainment between children from rich and poor families, that is no bad thing.
Which backs up something I suggested in 2014 about the Pupil Premium:
What I suspect it has done is focus schools’ attention on the attainment gap and to address it in ways that go beyond, and do not depend on, the value of the Pupil Premium itself.
Full disclosure: I work for the Education Endowment Foundation, cited by the Economist in its article:
… the government has poured funding into studies looking at how best to spend money, providing the Educational Endowment Foundation (EEF), a charity, with £137m. It collates evidence from abroad and funds studies at home: around one-quarter of English schools are involved in randomised control trials run by the charity.
Schools increasingly turn to the research for guidance: two-thirds now consult the EEF’s advice, up from one-third in 2012, according to a report by the National Audit Office (NAO), which scrutinises government spending. Surveys by the National Foundation for Educational Research, a charity, found that the most common interventions in the first years of the pupil premium were to reduce class sizes and increase numbers of support staff—neither of which are judged to be effective by the EEF. Now schools are more likely to put in place one-to-one tuition and pupil feedback—both of which are highly rated.
by Stephen Tall on March 3, 2016
Bang!: A History of Britain in the 1980s by Graham Stewart
The ’80s are suddenly back, at least for the Labour party which has regressed to them. I was two years old when they began, so I recall a fair amount, but through the inevitably unreliable and partial lens of a child. So I thought it was about time I revised what I had lived through.
Graham Stewart’s Bang!: A History of Britain in the 1980s is, overall*, an excellent guide. He’s as comfortable writing about monetarism as he is about Madness, as informative about the SDP as he is Sloane Rangers.
What’s most startling is how much society has changed, mostly for the better – indeed, reading about the rampant sexism, racism and homophobia which prevailed at the time, re-inforced by the stodgily white, male trade unions, might shock those Corbynistas who appear to think that simply turning back the clock to pre-Thatcher would right all wrongs.
We think of the 1979 election as a turning point, with Mrs Thatcher’s victory a decisive pivot away from the soggy, consensus ‘Butskellism’ politics of the 1950-70s. Yet that wasn’t necessarily how it appeared at the time. In 1955, 74% of those polled by Gallup believed there were important differences between the Conservatives and Labour; in 1979, only 54% did so.
Some things don’t change, though. Labour’s chancellor Denis Healey described finding Tory costings in their 1979 manifesto as “like looking for a black cat in a dark coal cellar” — a simile which will resonate with anyone who’s tried to identify where the Tories’ £12bn welfare cuts in their 2015 manifesto will be found.
As for the idea that the Tories are the party to trust with cracking down on welfare spending, well… try squaring that with the ’80s’ reality: ‘after the effects of inflation are taken into account, the state still spent nearly 13 per cent more at the end of the eighties than it had done at the end of the seventies’.
There are some great lines, exposing the hypocrisies which history has a habit of laying bare, and some fascinating facts, including:
Interesting, too, is Stewart’s take on the SDP’s phosphorescent explosion into British politics. He rightly rejects the old leftist canard that the SDP split from Labour was to blame for Mrs Thatcher’s decade of dominance: ‘it was only the intercession of the SDP that stopped the Conservatives beating Labour by even greater margins in the 1983 and 1987 general elections’.
And he is pretty scathing of its intellectual contribution, invoking Ralf Dahrendorf’s famous quip that the SDP offered “a better yesterday”. After all, the ‘Gang of Four’ renegades were ‘committed not to radical change but to the preservation of the post-war consensus’, with their Limehouse Declaration showing they believed the settlement as per 1979 about right — for example, that a state-regulated incomes policy should be core to the government’s anti-inflationary strategy.
If anything, the SDP was more left-wing than Jeremy Corbyn. It’s a moot point who would be most offended by that realisation.
* I say “overall” because my confidence in Stewart’s account was knocked by his lazy peddling of the myths about the infamous 1983 Bermondsey by-election in which Labour’s Peter Tatchell was defeated by the Liberals’ Simon Hughes. He refers to ‘the smear tactics of local Liberal activists’ without mentioning the really virulent campaign against Tatchell came from homophobic Old Labour-ites. (See this Wikipedia entry for a succinct and mostly accurate summary.) It’s only a half a page, but unfortunately it does make me wonder how many other parts of the book rely on press cuttings.