Sexual harrassment- the other point of view

Posted by on

There’s no harm in a bit of flirting. Don’t get me wrong, says Melissa Kite: I’ve no truck with genuine sexual harassment. I do object, though, to the way sleaze stories are portraying even minor acts of flirtation as uniformly sinister, and casting all women as helpless, “passive victims”. In my days as an ambitious young lobby hack, did I ever feel exploited? Not that I recall. But I certainly remember taking advantage of plenty of British MPs myself, ruthlessly deploying my feminine charms to extract information. I must have taken hundreds out to meals and drinks over the years. I used to particularly enjoy my regular dinners with Michael Fallon (now one of the accused) at party conference time, as “I knew the gossip would be flowing as freely as the wine”. I don’t remember him ever overstepping the mark, but I’m fairly sure that, at least once, “I ever so slightly gave him the come-on” in the hope of getting good political dirt. Sexual assault is inexcusable, “but flirting? Flirting makes the world go round. Well, it made my world go round anyway.”. (Melissa Kite, The Spectator).

Well, yes. This is a point of view we haven’t seen expressed in this often deadly serious and unsmiling world. Epicurus, always in favour of enjoying life (in moderation, of course) would have enjoyed a flirtation as much as you or I. Indeed, I imagine him picking a rose in his garden and handing it to a pretty follower with a charming smile (no, there is no documentary evidence for this; I just hope he did it at least once in his life). Please don’t let our disgust at sordid power plays by powerful men stop us enjoying an occasional rejuvenating and morale building flirtation. As for me, I am happy to flirt with my wife!

Sexual harassment insurance

Posted by on

Sexual harassment is the consuming subject at the moment in America, with aggrieved women popping up all over the place, and startling news about secret shananigans in Congress (about how the taxpayer has been paying for financial settlements, a lot of them concerning sexual harassment) hitting the news. But there is something happening that I really think unseemly: firms are buying sexual harassment insurance. The market is currently worth $2.2 billion a year, covering sexual harassment, racial discrimination and unfair dismissal. 42% of companies have some kind of insurance for these eventualities, most of them medium and larger companies. Firms with sales of $5 billion or more pay about $285,000 a year. (figures from the Washington Post)

The problem with all this is that insurance removes all incentive for companies to address the real problem – that they are employing sexist jerks. The insurance might protect executives from lawsuits and reputational damage, but the effect on morale must be dreadful. The worst outcome for the company is insisting on a confidentiality agreement in return for money. This is just an invitation for the same thing to happen again in companies run by men who create toxic and misogynistic atmospheres. Women employees are discouraged from speaking out, and there is an uncomfortable atmosphere of powerlessness, omerta and suspicion. Forget insurance. The shareholders should not have to pay for sexual deviation of their company’s executives and its costs.

The women (mostly women) tend to be young, maybe on their first jobs, and they know that, if you complain and are paid off you might get as much as two year’s salary, but have to sign a non-disclosure statement. The experience is traumatic, made worse by feeling you have to keep the incident secret – and could it be your fault? Those who go public are very courageous and deserve our support and praise.

This is all about childish power play. Nobody has suggested how many women have to leave their jobs because of predatory men. Even worse is the hypocrisy of the people who wear religion on their sleeves and either keep quiet or actually support religious figures (catholic and evangelicals) who interfere with young women and men.

Epicurus believed in moderation, but “moderation” doesn’t come into it when addressing sexual exploitation of young people from people in positions of power. He would have condemned it out of hand, as we should – and do.

Managers, managers and yet more managers

Posted by on

The number of managers and senior managers employed across the National Health Service rose by 11% between October 2014 and April this year. In the same period, the number of nursing staff and health visitors grew by just 1.1% (and it has fallen since April). (The Daily Telegraph)

What do you want more managers for, especially since the Tory government has been cutting and cutting? What you do need is to recruit more good doctors and trained nurses, and get patients back home and into the hands of health visitors.

I have always thought that an organization with a management structure bigger than that of the worker’s structure is an organisation with a short future ahead of it. Admittedly, this is a very British phenomenon (maybe shared by Italy and Greece?). It is typical that Buggins, the manager, wants to feel more grand and important, control more staff and do less work. It is also a reflection on the dire lack of skill at the very top, particularly in the field of human relations. In England accountants reign, bless them (we need them, but in modest numbers and as seldom as possible as CEOs). Poor management that created uppity unions typified the nationalised industries, and private enterprise was showing clear signs of incompetent management when I worked in England. In America they have a similar problems, only they have loads of semi-trained workers, paid a minimum wage you cannot live on, so that a very comfortable fat-cat management (many hospital managers and doctors reputedly get over a million dollars a year) can hire more loads of workers.

I blame the business schools, neo-liberal policies and human nature. Nothing will ever change, though. The vested interests are too entrenched.

Should private schools be abolished?

Posted by on

For those of you who don’t know, Robert argued in favour of the abolition of private education at his old school. Since Sherborne is a private school, he was understandably met with a frosty reception. So today I will outline my views on private schools. Unlike Robert I was state educated, but my sixth form was founded by the Mercer’s Company of the City of London, so it receives more money than most places. My sixth form also unusual in that it attracted people who had been privately educated, but then decided they wanted a change. That, combined with my mother’s poor experience at a boarding school, meant that I grew up believing private education was a waste of money.

The classic argument in favour of abolishing private schools is that they allow the rich to buy a better education for their children. Since privately educated children have access to more resources, better teachers and smaller class sizes, they have huge advantages when sitting exams or applying to university. The vast majority of the UK’s top universities have a hugely disproportionate proportion of privately educated students. Thus, the notion of a meritocracy or level playing field is a myth in a nation where some children have such advantages over others from the very beginning.

There is quite a lot of truth to this argument. The UK is the least socially mobile country in the developed world- even less so than the US. If you are born poor, you have less of a chance of becoming rich than everywhere else. It would be absurd to conclude that children at independent schools deserve their disproportionate success because they work harder or are naturally cleverer. Private schools also create a very self-conscious upper class and upper middle class culture. It is hard for non-British readers to understand, but Britain is one of the most class-conscious countries in the world. The rich and the poor have scarcely anything in common. As a result, the poor feel they shouldn’t apply to places like Oxford and Cambridge because they won’t fit in- they aren’t of the same culture.

However, on closer examination, Britain’s lack of social mobility is not the fault of the private schools, but the state schools. There is an enormous variation between state school performance in rich and poor areas. Kensington and Chelsea’s state schools are amongst the best in the country, whereas Blackpool and Hull’s schools lag behind. There is little evidence that getting rid of private schools would solve state school underperformance. Rather it could have the reverse effect. Wealthy parents would buy up the most expensive catchment areas, or pay tutors for their children for the 11+ in grammar school areas. One way or another, the wealthiest parents would ensure their children attend the best state schools, making the state system even less meritocratic than it is currently. The country would be left with a situation where the government has to spend more money to cover the formerly privately educated children, while the overall standard of education would decline due to the closure of so many good schools.

There are two solutions. The first is to ensure universities take into account the socioeconomic characteristic of their applicants. So a student predicted 3 A’s from a private school would have less of a chance of getting an offer than a student predicted the same results from a comprehensive in a deprived area. That would improve equality of outcome without reducing academic standards. There would be no crude quotas, just a recognition that it is harder to achieve good exam results if your school wasn’t as well resourced or your family are in poverty.

The other solution is to make the state schools more like the private schools. Teach a more rigorous curriculum. Introduce more traditions, which many students actually enjoy. Encourage the students to be more ambitious. Reduce the amount of paperwork teachers have to do. Foster the creation of extra-curricular societies. Most of this wouldn’t require all that much more funding. The most important reform is a reform of people’s mindsets. There were too many people at my old school who believed they couldn’t achieve highly, and so resigned themselves to mediocrity. Instilling optimism and the will to succeed is the best thing we can do for children of all backgrounds, but especially those from the lowest social class.

Priti Patel and Israel

Posted by on

A friend of mine recently asked me to respond to this article, http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/11/priti-patel-tool-of-the-zionist-lobby-resigns.html#more. It concerns the resignation of British International Development Secretary, Priti Patel, following revelations that she met with the Israeli Prime Minister and members of the Israeli army without disclosing it to the British Prime Minister, only to attempt to cover it up once her meetings had been made public. Following Patel’s resignation, Theresa May has appointed Penny Mordaunt as International Development Secretary- Mordaunt’s status as a woman and Brexiteer keeps a precarious balance in Cabinet.

The whole affair reveals May’s lack of authority following the loss of a Conservative majority since the last election. Under ordinary circumstances, Patel would have been sacked instead of resigning. She would also have been reprimanded far more harshly by May and other senior Cabinet members. Mordaunt’s nomination also shows a lack of authority, as May cannot afford to upset the Brexit wing of her party. The whole affair reflects poorly on the government, which is also mired in sex scandals.

Having said that, I’m very unsympathetic to those who wish to use the affair to score political points. Were Labour in a minority government and hit with scandals, it would respond in a similar way. Labour is just as divided as the Conservatives over Brexit: its surprising electoral success was made possible only by having considerable appeal to both Leave and Remain voters. Conservative minority government is proving difficult, but running any minority government in a country with an adversarial political culture and a majoritarian voting system will always pose significant challenges. I also don’t believe the affair reflects badly on Brexiteers. Remain-supporting politicians have been just as scandal-prone as their Leave counterparts- Clive Lewis being a case in point.

I’m afraid I strongly disagree with the article I’ve been asked to respond to. Partly because it makes lots of factual errors. It claims that Israel is intentionally funding Al-Qaeda, and that Priti Patel supports this. The reality is that Israel is using its presence in the Golan Heights to treat wounded Syrian rebels, fighting against the oppressive Assad regime. We can’t be certain of all of the motives of these rebels. But treating them is undoubtedly the right thing to do, particularly as many of those treated are civilians and not rebel soldiers. Israel believes it is in its interests to fund the rebels because Assad is backed by Iran, a country which funds anti-Israel terror groups. I personally am sceptical of the merits of intervention unless we are explicitly pursuing regime change in Syria. The funding of rebel groups may have the inadvertent effect of prolonging the war, leading to more civilian casualties in the long term. But Israel’s policy is understandable, given that it is threatened by Iran-backed militias Hamas and Hezbollah.

Unlike Patel, I don’t support the Modi government in India. However, her support for the Indian government is in Britain’s interests, particularly post-Brexit. One of the arguments for Brexit is that it will allow Britain to conduct free trade deals on its own. Now whether Britain is better off outside the EU is beside the point, given that leaving is virtually inevitable right now. The reality is, Britain will need favourable treatment from countries like India if we are to thrive outside the EU. A close relationship with the Indian government is the pragmatic means of increasing trade with a historically protectionist economy.

I’m extremely uncomfortable with the way the article refers to a ‘Zionist lobby.’ Partly because historically, that term has been used by anti-Semites to describe an international malicious Jewish influence on world politics. The fact is that Jews and Zionists have far less influence on global affairs than is often assumed. More importantly, that influence is highly heterogeneous; it is more accurate to speak of Zionisms than Zionism. Some Zionists simply support a Jewish state, and want to help Israel, perhaps because they have friends or family living there. Many Zionists would like to see the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Some Zionists are religious, and are more concerned with Israel as a fulfilment of prophecy than the politics of the nation. Even amongst those who are ‘pro-Israel’ as the term is normally used, there are divisions. Many pro-Israel advocates are very critical of the Netanyahu administration- the decay of relations with the US, a hardline policy towards Iran, a lack of peace with the Palestinians, the expansion of settlements etc. Some, of course, take a more conservative line. But the idea that there is a homogenous Zionist lobby which consistently argues an ultra-conservative line on Middle Eastern affairs is total nonsense. Also, if the so-called Zionist lobby was so successful in Britain, then why is a lifelong opponent of Israel now the leader of the Opposition? Corbyn’s rise shows that to an extent, there is an appetite for a different policy towards Israel. If the Zionist lobby controlled everything, he would never have been chosen in the first place.

Overall I’m glad Patel is out of the Cabinet. Her actions were wrong, and her political ambitions scuppered as a result. As a Remain voter, I can’t say I’m terribly sympathetic to her brand of quasi-nationalistic Conservatism. But the article uses this unfortunate scandal to suggest that everyone who is on the pro-Israel side of the Arab-Israeli conflict must somehow be immoral and corrupt. It completely ignores the diversity and subtlety of perspectives on the issue. It is conspiratorial and factually inaccurate. For instance, using an Al-Jazeera report to slam pro-Israel advocates is a nonsense. It would be like using a Fox News report to attack pro-immigration movements; Al-Jazeera is owned by the Qatari government, which is ideologically and irrevocably hostile to Israel. In politics, just as in everything, it is important to look at the facts, rather than assume anyone’s intentions.