tories

Forty years after the Equal Pay Act was passed, [a study by the Chartered Management Institute (CMI)] shows that the gender pay gap remains stubborn and that male and female managers will not be paid the same until 2067...

The group's survey shows that women's salaries increased by 2.8% over the past 12 months, compared with 2.3% for men. But with the average UK salary for a male manager currently £10,031 more than that of a female manager, women face a 57-year wait before their take-home pay is equal to that of their male colleagues, says the report, compiled with researchers XpertHR. Its findings, from more than 43,000 employees in 197 organisations, showed male pay still outstrips female pay by as much as 24% at senior level...

Despite four decades of equal pay legislation, Britain has one of the worst gender gaps in Europe. Women in the UK are paid 79% of male rates, while across the 27 countries of the European Union the figure is 82%, according to a report earlier this year from Eurobarometer.

Gender equality groups such as the Fawcett Society blame the UK's poor record on a culture of secrecy around pay. They point to examples such as Sweden, where more transparency has resulted in falling pay gaps. They want the coalition government to set a deadline for closing the gap, make laws more transparent, and force companies to audit their workforces for unfair gaps more regularly.

Equal pay for women not likely till 2067, says research

Ah - no such luck. The blessed coalition has abandoned the part of the new Equality Act which would have required businesses to do just that. The Torygraph is very pleased:

My colleagues at the human rights charity are in a frenzy of excitement about Nick Clegg. Cleggomaniacs, to add to their Obamamania (still!). Clegg's vision is even being posted round the office to illustrate the great white hopes of this great white well-educated, well-spoken and well financially endowed young man:

"I believe every single person is extraordinary. The tragedy is that we have a society where too many people never get to fulfil that extraordinary potential. My view – the liberal view – is that government’s job is to help them to do it. Not to tell people how to live their lives. But to make their choices possible, to release their potential, no matter who they are. The way to do that is to take power away from those who hoard it. To challenge vested interests. To break down privilege. To clear out the bottlenecks in our society that block opportunity and block progress. And so give everyone a chance to live the life they want."

So here are a few articles and nuggets to suggest the clear blue sea between the Deputy Prime Minister and his new coalition partner is not so very clear (though very blue):

Praise from the Torygraph:

the two main contenders for the Lib Dem crown are Nick Clegg, the party's home affairs spokesman, and Chris Huhne, the environment spokesman who was runner-up to Sir Ming at the last contest.

They, and indeed almost all the others whose names are now being dropped, both contributed in 2004 to the now celebrated Orange Book, a work of political philosophy of which I fear we shall be hearing a great deal in the weeks to come.

The book was about "reclaiming liberalism". It had a sensible and attractive theme running through it. This is, after all, the inheritor party of Gladstone, Cobden and Bright. In its DNA is to be found a belief in free trade and free markets. Tactfully, and with surprisingly little shock being caused, these ancient doctrines were dusted off, and suggestions made about their possible relevance to the future governance of Britain.

Mr Clegg is felt to be more of a "Tory" than Mr Huhne. This is not just because he once worked for Leon Brittan, but because his belief in traditional liberal values of the sort adopted by Margaret Thatcher in her economic programme is thought to be rather strong.

His detractors call him "Right-wing", an absurd phrase at the best of times, and probably ludicrous in his case.

From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3643387/Lib-Dems-would-be-better-off-...

UPDATED

• Reply from DC
• My reply to him

Original letter:

Dear David Cameron

The following two comments have been brought to my attention, I wonder if you could clarify them for me.

1. On the Politics show recently you expressed your belief that 'The moment a burglar steps over your threshold and invades your property ... I think they leave their human rights outside.’ In terms of international law, you are of course wrong, as I am sure you are aware. Until you succeed in your aim of abolishing the Human Rights Act, you are also wrong in terms of national law. Were you therefore expressing a personal desire for international law (as well as national law) to be changed in this respect; and if so, could you clarify which rights you think the burglar should 'leave behind'?

In Cameron's Britain, for example, would it be legal (and acceptable) to kill or subject to torture a petty thief if he/she crosses the threshold of your home? If not killing and torture, where would you draw the line? Perhaps you are suggesting that such people should lose their right to a fair trial, their right to be presumed innocent before being found guilty?

2. You illustrated the 'strange decisions' that the Human Rights Act has given rise to by the following example: 'For instance, you get the decision to give the prisoner hard core pornography. If you had a British Bill of Rights that had more common sense written into it, you could probably avoid having some of these things happening.'

I am surprised that your researchers have not bothered to correct you on this score and indeed that you yourself might actually believe this to be a plausible example of the HRA's effects. Dennis Nilson did indeed try to bring a claim to use the HRA to demand access to pornographic magazines but as you should know, the High Court rejected his claim. It is precisely an example of the 'common sense' nature of the Human Rights Act that it does not entitle prisoners to access hard core pornography.

If you really think there needs to be a serious debate about human rights in the UK and elsewhere, a rethinking of centuries of legal, ethical and political thought, then let us at least have this debate without resorting to falsehoods and propaganda. If it is indeed your view that human rights should no longer be regarded as universal, indivisible and inalienable, in contradistinction to international agreement and international law; and if you would be happy to withdraw this country's previous consent to those principles, then we should let the world and the country know. But letting people know in the context of a false debate about what human rights in fact mean and where they come from is doing human beings in this country and elsewhere no service at all.

I would be grateful if you could respond specifically to my questions about your comments, rather than providing me with a blanket statement on Conservative Party policy.

Thank you for your attention.

antarchi\