Women on Boards: The Roundtable

In the UK today, women are significantly under-represented at company board level despite making up half of the national population. On Thursday 16 December the Young Fabians hosted a “Women on Boards” roundtable discussion in conjunction with BIS to explore this issue and support the Lord Davies Review. The event was hosted at the ICAEW and was attended by around 30 people. Our panel of distinguished speakers included Helen Whitehead from BIS, Baroness Goudie, Rhonda Martin from ICAEW, Averil Leimon from White Water Strategies and Arpita Dutt from Russell, Jones & Walker who were able to share their experiences and work in this area.

The discussion was aimed at presenting the views of young, up and coming women in business and covered a range of topics from personal aspiration and perceived barriers in corporate culture to business led strategies to address under-representation of women at senior management level. 

While the efficacy of introducing quotas was disputed, there was wide agreement that in order to progress the equality agenda men should be involved in the debate and that top down engagement from Boards was necessary to recognise the disparity.  Mentor and sponsor systems that challenge and promote women were supported as well as extra support and engagement with women who have chosen to leave work to have children.

One issue that became apparent was that there seems to be a point somewhere around the age of 30 at which women begin to feel disadvantaged in comparison to male colleagues whether they have decided to have children or not. Addressing this issue will require additional effort from women themselves and the organisations that employ them to proactively address career development and aspiration.

There was no clarity from the table as to whether the women present actually wanted to be on a Board, but it became apparent that transparency and monitoring of board selection would remove barriers to lack of aspiration by providing essential information as to what senior level roles entail.  

We would like to thank our sponsors ICAEW and White Water Strategies for supporting the event.

Lord Davies’ review will be published February 2011.

Reclaiming the Big Society – Winter Anticipations

One issue more than any other has dominated British politics since May. Cuts have been the order of the day, as the coalition has taken the axe to the public finances in its effort to bring down the deficit and shrink the state. In this tough political climate, Labour have played an important role in holding the coalition to account and opposing cuts, like those to housing benefit, that hit the poorest hardest. However, the party must be careful to avoid the temptation of riding the inevitable wave of public anger and opposing all cuts on matter of principle. The recently launched policy review provides a vital opportunity for Labour to develop a credible policy platform that is rooted in the political and economic reality of today.

That reality is a challenging one. Despite what the coalition may claim, the structural issues within the UK economy go far beyond financial services and alleged Labour profligacy. In fact the UK’s long-term debt has far more to do with our ageing demographic profile than with bankers bonuses and complex derivatives. Put simply, the taxes of those in work no longer cover the services and pensions of those who have retired. The problem is systemic and the only solution is a new conception of the state that reflects the complex realities of modern day Britain. Of course this must go beyond the rhetoric of Cameron’s ‘Big Society’. However, unless Labour understands its message – that the state needs to be reformed and that people want more power over the issues that affect their lives – the party will fail to offer the credible alternative that is so desperately needed.

This doesn’t require Labour to give up on its own political traditions. In the latest edition of the Young Fabians magazine, Anticipations newly ennobled Maurice Glasman makes a powerful case for Labour rediscovering its radical tradition of solidarity and cooperation. As he rightly argues, Labour has a rich history of grassroots activism and it is this that the party must tap into if it is to offer a new vision of government that goes beyond investment and centralised control. At a time when the public feel disempowered by an overbearing market and an often unresponsive state, now is the time for Labour to once again become the party of civil society. To win the next election, it is vital that Labour does not cede this ground to the coalition.

There is a lot of great work already being done in this area. As new MP Stella Creasy discusses in this edition’s interview many Labour activists are applying the principles of grassroots activism to their own constituencies, supporting local people to take power and influence the decision making process. As a participant of Citizens UK’s national community organising training – I share my experiences in Anticipations – I have seen for myself how effective these methods can be.

However, organising is only a small part of this agenda. Steve Reed, leader of Lambeth Council, writes in Anticipations about the groundbreaking work he is leading on to make Lambeth the country’s first cooperative council. Big ideas are vital, but implementation is equally as important and Lambeth are showing how Labour’s cooperative and mutual tradition – of which Greg Rosen provides a fascinating overview in the magazine – can be applied to the challenges of the modern world.

During the times of plenty, Labour’s instinct was to invest rather than to empower. Despite its shortcomings, this approach had a huge impact of which all on the Left should be proud. However, in today’s economic climate and with the long-term challenge of an ageing population, a new approach is required. Now is the time for Labour to rediscover its history as a grassroots movement and place community empowerment at the heart of a radical new approach to government. Cooperation, mutualism and community organising; these are old ideas whose time has come.

James Green is Editor of the Young Fabians magazine, Anticipations

An online taster edition of the winter edition of Anticipations is now available on the Young Fabians website here.

To full edition of Anticipations is only available to Young Fabian members. However, along with the online taster edition for all our supporters, we are offering a special rate of membership to celebrate our 50th year – £5 for six months membership. For further information and to join visit www.youngfabians.org.uk.

World Human Rights Day

You may not know it, but today (10^th December) is World Human Rights Day. Coinciding the with the day that Liu Xiaobo fails to collect his Nobel Peace Prize, awarded for his tireless efforts to promote greater respect for human rights in China, this year’s celebration is a good time to reflect on the billions of people worldwide for whom the very concept of ‘human rights’ must seem like a meaningless abstraction.

I recently returned from Bangladesh, where I spent four days visiting projects supported by UK charity One World Action. Among other things, One World Action works with local NGO Nagorik Uddyog to promote the rights of the 5.5 million Dalits currently living in Bangladesh. Dalits (often referred to as ‘Untouchables’) represent the lowest castes in the traditional Hindu hierarchy, historically engaged in trades and occupations that are considered ‘unclean’ such as sweeping, cobbling, disposing of dead bodies and manual scavenging (a euphemism for sewerage work). In an endemically poor country, these people are the poorest of the poor; Socially, economically and politically marginalised, Dalits are routinely denied even their most basic rights, ignored in public and despised in private.

The plight of Dalits living in India is well documented, having been brought to light by Ghandi as early as the 1930s. However, as most of the Dalits living in Bangladesh were brought in from India under the colonial regime, the majority-Muslim society has until recently regarded caste-based exclusion as an ‘Indian problem’ that does not concern Bangladesh, or at least a ‘Hindu problem’ that does not concern the vast majority of Bangladeshi society.

In the two days I spent visiting Dalit communities in and around Dhaka, the idea that Dalit exclusion is not a Bangladeshi problem became patently ridiculous.

Most Dalits in Dhaka live in so-called ‘colonies’, physically demarcated areas squeezed into the most crowded parts of the city. The entrance of the first colony I enter is marked by a discreet arch, covering a tiny alleyway which leads into a maze of narrow streets beyond. Like Platform 9¾, you would not know it was there unless you were shown. Hidden away like this the colony seems to physically embody the marginalisation and exclusion of its inhabitants; out of sight, out of mind. Our driver Mintu had no idea such areas of town existed and was visibly taken aback by what we saw.

The first thing that hits you in the confusion of smells; open sewers mixed with frying spices and fresh laundry hung over the already crowded alleys, creating a kind of bunting of colourful dripping clothes. Then the inhabitants- not only the dozens of children that we gather as we walk around, but the thousands of flies that make the colony their home. As we tour round a maze of streets we see houses which are no more than small rooms, often home to families of eight people or more. We see the temples and community halls that provide the only large spaces for the community gather. We walk past the toilet block, an open space for showering with no separate areas for men and women, meaning people are forced to wash over their saris and lungis, denied even the privacy of their morning ablutions. The shared WCs are so few in number that they attract an even greater density of flies, gut-churning smells and angry queues of people.

But among the chaos and the squalor you also get a keen sense of a community increasingly aware of its rights and increasingly able and willing to fight for them. I met young women who were studying for college degrees, and who had chosen, rather than escaping their roots, to come back into the community to teach and lead. I met mothers who had started women’s groups, providing the training, support and loans necessary to earn extra income and provide alternative occupations outside the traditional Dalit trades. And I met men and women who through groups such as Bangladesh Dalit Human Rights were advocating at the city and national levels to tackle Dalit exclusion, improve conditions and promote new laws to protect the human rights of all marginalised communities.

A rally organised by BDERM (Bangladeshi Dalit and Excluded Rights Movement) on my fourth and final day in Dhaka demonstrated just how far the movement has come in a few short years. Cars hooted their horns and cycle rickshaws rang their bells in solidarity as Dalit protesters marched past the National Museum proudly holding signs bearing a slogan that is hard to argue with: ‘Dalit Rights are Human Rights.’ As we marched with the crowd I looked to my left and saw that our driver Mintu had joined the protest, the newest convert to a growing movement.

What are the Lib Dems for?

This morning, Danny Alexander repeated a line on BBC Radio 5 Live used by Vince Cable a few weeks ago:

“We didn’t win the election. We came third. We’re part of a coalition government. We’ve worked to ensure that as part of the discussions we’ve had that we’ve got a system that is fairer, more progressive.”

I’m not sure this will be a fruitful line for Liberal Democrat Ministers to use in respect of tuition fees, or any other difficult policy discussions they’ll have in the coming years*.

Firstly, it implies that, in the extreme, it is acceptable for two (or more) political parties to campaign on one set of policy proposals but – in the event of a hung Parliament – to ignore all of them in order to form a Government with a working majority. Is that really democratic?

Now if that isn’t what Alexander or Cable meant, then surely their position has to be that Liberal Democrat MPs will support policies on those areas where there is common agreement between the two coalition parties, and on any other issues/policy proposals they’ll abstain from voting or argue they should be left off the agenda for this Parliament.

But that’s not what they’re proposing on tuition fees. At the very least they’re proposing that Lib Dem ministers – the government bit of the Parliamentary party – votes one way, and the rest can do what they want. This would technically be consistent with the statement in the Coalition Agreement on fees:

“If the response of the Government to Lord Browne’s report is one that Liberal Democrats cannot accept, then arrangements will be made to enable Liberal Democrat MPs to abstain in any vote.”

However, it does invite the question: what are Liberal Democrat ministers for if they abandon their policy platform for Government office? Are they even technically Liberal Democrats?

It implies that the role of the Lib Dems in the Coalition is to (a) provide a working majority for the Conservatives and (b) make essentially Conservative proposals a bit fairer. That makes the Lib Dems look a bit pathetic really, and is contrary to the posturing of Nick Clegg and others about their role in the Coalition (see Clegg’s conference speech, for example).

Secondly, it weakens the positive argument FOR policies which were in their manifesto. In future, Lib Dems might well argue that policy X is right and was something that was in their manifesto at the last election for which they have a mandate. But it seems a fair response to say that it is irrelevant what policy proposals they had in their manifesto on the basis that they didn’t win the election – they came third.

They can’t have it both ways with respect to their manifesto.

The Lib Dems really need to work on the justification for this political car crash.

*More of this sort of stuff and the likelihood of the current Government lasting a full Parliament will probably reduce.

Alex Baker is Secretary of the Young Fabians.

Why David Lammy is wrong

In advance of this week’s vote on tuition fees, David Lammy has penned an article for the Guardian titled “The Oxford whitewash”, in which he basically accuses Oxford of institutional racism – it is, he argues, the university of the elitists in Government and “continues to recruit in the same image”. The tuition fee hike will only entrench that, he concludes.

There are several things wrong with David Lammy’s article, not least his questionable use of statistics – see here, here or here for example. But what most angers and worries me is that apparently serious Labour politicians continue to bemoan the symptoms of a deeper problem, rather than its root cause.

I’ll declare my interest early on – I went to Oxford. It’s not something I’m ashamed of – I worked hard at my local state-funded community college to get the grades, and even harder at the interviews to get the place.

While at the university, I helped on various access schemes including Sutton Trust summer schools and other outreach work. I tried to do my bit to encourage people with backgrounds like mine to believe that Oxford was a university for them, because I genuinely believe it is if you can get the grades and demonstrate potential to tutors.

But what struck me about the then 16 and 17 year olds I spoke to is that a worrying number of them had already made up their minds that Oxford and Cambridge were not the sort of universities people like them went to. Much of the outreach work I did was probably fruitless – not because of the best endeavours of the committed outreach staff at the university, but because those they targeted were beyond convincing of the merits of even applying.

Those experiences convinced me that while universities must do their bit to encourage applications, the real problem was that in schools like the one I went to there is a real poverty of aspiration. Kids aren’t necessarily encouraged to do their best, but to do enough to make league table statistics look a bit better (for example, I remember a lot of effort was spent trying to move kids on the C/D borderline at GCSE into the cherished A*-C grade). This isn’t a reflection on the teachers, of which there are many outstanding examples, but of the structure of the national curriculum system and the practical difficulties of making comprehensive education work.

It is easy for politicians to push the burden of outreach onto universities – it allows them to think less about policies to widen participation in primary and secondary schools, and gives them someone to blame when things don’t work out.

And it is easy for Labour politicians to play the elitist card, both about the current government and about Oxford and Cambridge.

But that won’t help change the problem Lammy identifies. The more Labour politicians bang on about elitism at Oxford and Cambridge – rather than do something useful like focus on the evident poverty of aspiration in state schools – the more likely talented young people from disadvantaged backgrounds will think that they’re not the sort of universities for people like them.

Instead Labour politicians should hold such universities up as the sort of institutions to which anybody should aspire; they should fight for a higher education system in which more universities develop world-leading specialisms; and they should advocate policies at all levels of education which are likely to result in higher volume of applications to world-leading universities (not just Oxford and Cambridge).

Labour should be the party that puts forward a positive vision for our higher education system, and the impact it can have on people’s lives. But instead the temptation to inverted snobbery is too great.

David Lammy is right to be concerned about the impacts of changes to the higher education system on those from disadvantaged backgrounds, but he is wrong to use lazy, worn arguments about elitism to make his point.

Alex Baker is Secretary of the Young Fabians.

Ed, take your time and don’t be hurried

PMQs is a pantomime but it’s one that needs to be entertaining for the right reasons.

With poll results coming in showing Labour on 40 per cent and, amongst students, 42 per cent the question has to be weather difficult PMQ episodes like today’s really matter? Some say yes, some say no. It is no good claiming piously that PMQs is a Westminster oddity that plays badly to the country – we all know it is one of the worst public excesses Westminster allows itself. Nor is it a case of simply taking it on the chin as a ‘bad week’ which won’t happen again. Irrespective of your view, a British political leader needs to show their ability to command PMQs.