Saturday, 9 March 2019
Plaza refurbishment to go ahead
Friday, 8 March 2019
Women in European politics
The European Parliament has a Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (FEMM). Rosamund Shreeves writes on the EP's research service blog that, with elections to the parliament fast approaching, FEMM dedicated an event today to the theme of women in politics. While celebrating the distance European democracies have come since 1919, she also charts how far we still have to go and lists some of the obstacles. These will be familiar to anybody who has been involved in British politics. At the end of the article, backed up by videos, she calls for the media to play their part. An extract:
State of play
Women in national parliaments compared with the European Parliament
Not least due to activism by women and their allies, the political landscape now looks far more balanced than it did exactly a century ago when women in several EU countries (Luxembourg, the Netherlands), first won the vote in national elections, got elected to the national parliament (Luxembourg, Austria), or held a ministerial position (Ireland). At the time of writing, three EU Member States (Germany, Romania and the UK) have women prime ministers, who are likely to be joined shortly by a fourth in Estonia. EU-wide data on equality between women and men in decision-making shows that governments in Spain, Sweden and France are at gender parity. However, at the other end of the spectrum, governments in Hungary and Malta have only 7.1% and 12% of women respectively. Men outnumber women in every EU Member State’s national parliament, sometimes by a wide margin and the same goes for regional assemblies. When it comes to the European Parliament, the share of female MEPs currently stands at 36.1%, having risen steadily after each election from a low 16.6 % in the first directly elected legislature in 1979. This is above the world average for national parliaments and the EU average for national parliaments, which stands at 30.2%. However, it is still some way from the parity democracy, which Simone Veil and nineteen other women leaders called for in 1992 at the “European Summit of Women in Power”, which first put the issue on the EU agenda. Its five key arguments for equal representation—equality, democracy, satisfying the needs and interests of women, good use of human resources, and improving the policymaking process—still resonate today.
An obstacle-strewn path to political office
Analysis of the outcome of the 2014 European elections found that women were popular with the electorate. According to the 2017 Special Eurobarometer survey on women in politics, 86 % of respondents think that a female political representative can represent their interests. So why are women still under-represented?
The European Women’s Lobby boils the considerable research down to 5 key factors:
- Confidence: women – for a variety of highly rational reasons – have more doubts putting themselves up for election;
- Candidate selection: once women agree to run, it’s often difficult for them to get an electable spot on the election list;
- Culture: politics is a men’s world. Sexism is rampant and external threats – women – are often not welcome;
- Cash: when women run for election, their campaigns often receive less funding than their male counterparts);
- Childcare: across the EU, women spend double the amount of time on childcare compared to men.
Women in EP and national parliaments
A survey of women’s experiences of selection and election in the UK gives a striking illustration of the cumulative impact these obstacles can have on the journey to political office and beyond, including some of the additional or specific barriers different groups of women can face on account of their age, class, ethnic background, religion, disability, or sexual orientation:
- Deciding whether to stand for office: Respondents of both sexes had a long-standing interest in politics, but women were less likely to see themselves as future MPs because they thought that they did not ‘fit’ the traditional image or felt actively discouraged from going forward for selection by party officials or culture (being talked over, feeling invisible). As party activists, some women found that the timing and location of meetings did not take account of parenting responsibilities or mobility issues, creating further obstacles to being active in the party and therefore to building the necessary credibility, experience and networks to consider standing for office.
- Getting selected as a candidate: In practice, the existing selection process was far from neutral or meritocratic. The time and financial costs involved were a major barrier for many women, especially those from lower socio-economic groups and particularly when employers were not flexible or supportive. Reconciling standing as a candidate and building political capital on top of family commitments and fulltime work was more of an impediment for women than for their male counterparts. Unequal access to resources was compounded by the attitudes and practices of party ‘selectorates’, whose patronage systems and informal selection criteria (e.g. prioritising particular career trajectories or histories of party activism) indirectly advantaged men during the selection process. Across the political spectrum, women respondents also reported more overt forms of bias in political parties, from a preconceived view of the ‘ideal’ candidate as male (and also white, middle class and able bodied), to assumptions about women’s and men’s abilities and roles (women but not men being asked about their marital status or children), and active resistance to selecting a female candidate. This could take the form of resentment and hostility within the local party towards equality measures, or outright opposition, harassment and threats of violence to women candidates from party members, the public and the media.
- Getting elected: The issue of parties not selecting women candidates in ‘target’ or ‘winnable’ seats was a barrier to their electoral success. (Here, the equivalent in PR systems would be placing on a party list). Issues around resources, particularly money, time and flexibility, were even more important at this stage. Not being selected in a ‘target’ or ‘winnable’ seat could also lead to women candidates missing out on additional electoral support and resources from their parties. Respondents felt that in some more socially conservative areas the electorate were reluctant to vote for candidates from minority groups.
- Taking office: Once elected, aspects of political life continued to present challenges. Parliament’s long and unsociable working hours, late-night voting, the requirement to be present for votes, commuting between two places and expectations that MPs should be available to constituents around the clock were all issues for female respondents, as was the level of abuse and harassment they face.
Concerns about managing the lifestyle of an MP and the sheer extent of violence directed against women in politics and public life, particularly on social media, may be deterring women from engaging in politics because they find the environment too toxic.
Interview with the EP vice-president, Mairead McGuinness
Interview with researcher Maarja Lühiste : Empowering Women in Politics
Thursday, 7 March 2019
May is negotiating with the Commons, not the EU
It has long been obvious that "no deal" is a bigger threat to the UK economy than to the EU's. Mrs May is not taking "no deal" off the table because she feels it is her strongest weapon in her fight to get the Commons to ratify the May-Barnier withdrawal contract. (A reminder: half of UK's trade is with the EU; less than a fifth of the EU's trade is with the UK.) For an analysis of what possibilities remain, see this.
Similarly, EU27 citizens living in the UK may not be bargaining chips in the Brussels poker game, as the government has pledged they would not be, but they clearly are when it comes to forcing her deal through Parliament, as Mrs May confirmed yesterday at prime minister's question time:
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) Tove Macdonald is 87 years old. She was brought up under Nazi occupation in Denmark. She has lived in Scotland for 59 years. Why, Prime Minister, is she being forced to register in a country she has called home for almost the last 60 years?
The Prime Minister We want to ensure that EU citizens who are living here have their rights protected. We want to be able to ensure that they have the necessary support that they need and, indeed, the recognition of their status here in the United Kingdom. If the right hon. Gentleman is interested in defending and protecting the rights of EU citizens here in this country, then I hope he will vote for the deal, which does exactly that.
My emphasis.
Similarly, EU27 citizens living in the UK may not be bargaining chips in the Brussels poker game, as the government has pledged they would not be, but they clearly are when it comes to forcing her deal through Parliament, as Mrs May confirmed yesterday at prime minister's question time:
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) Tove Macdonald is 87 years old. She was brought up under Nazi occupation in Denmark. She has lived in Scotland for 59 years. Why, Prime Minister, is she being forced to register in a country she has called home for almost the last 60 years?
The Prime Minister We want to ensure that EU citizens who are living here have their rights protected. We want to be able to ensure that they have the necessary support that they need and, indeed, the recognition of their status here in the United Kingdom. If the right hon. Gentleman is interested in defending and protecting the rights of EU citizens here in this country, then I hope he will vote for the deal, which does exactly that.
My emphasis.
Wednesday, 6 March 2019
Metro trains on the way
The Swiss train manufacturer Stadler is about to start work on 71 new sets for Transport for Wales. There will be a mixture of different power types. It seems that the target is the Metro area centred on Cardiff, but is it too much to hope that one or two of the diesel units will be assigned to the Swansea-Cardiff commute, to replace the ageing Swan Line trains?
More details here.
More details here.
Tuesday, 5 March 2019
Good news for Craig Gwladus
As part of that, this coming Friday, March 8th there will be a short talk by Mark Barber from the Amphibian and Reptile Conservation charity (ARC). The talk will begin at 10:30 a.m., but registration at 10:20 is requested. The council's press release does not state the venue explicitly but it appears that participants should meet at the Aberdulais entry to the park. The talk will be combined with a walk round the park. It looks as if two-and-a-half hours have been allocated to the event, but participants are welcome to stay for as long or little as they wish. They should wear sturdy footwear for walking on the varied terrains within the park. There are no refreshment or other facilities in the park.
For more details about the workshop please contact Mark Barber on 07810 770569.
For general information about the park - visit the Friends of Craig Gwladus Facebook page. For more information about the project as a whole, please email L.Kirman@npt.gov.uk.
Wales surely did not vote for collapse in social care
Social Care Wales is concerned that there will be a huge shortfall in care workers over the next decade. One of the obstacles to the organisation's target of 20,000 more care workers (in addition to those cited in the news item) is the Conservatives' "hostile environment" which is driving away immigrants to Wales who would otherwise be willing to take on these essential tasks.
Another is the economic pressure which prevents local authorities and non-government operators recruiting sufficient trainees to allow for the high turnover in this sector, a turnover which is made worse by short staffing causing high workloads.
Another is the economic pressure which prevents local authorities and non-government operators recruiting sufficient trainees to allow for the high turnover in this sector, a turnover which is made worse by short staffing causing high workloads.
Monday, 4 March 2019
The fight for the Chagossians goes on
From Commons questions to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office last week:
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab) Yesterday, the International Court of Justice found that the UK’s control of the Chagos islands is illegal and wrong. This damning verdict deals a huge blow to the UK’s global reputation. Will the Government therefore heed the call of the ICJ to hand back the islands to Mauritius, or will they continue to pander to the United States military?
Sir Alan Duncan The hon. Lady is labouring under a serious misapprehension: yesterday’s hearing provided an advisory opinion, not a judgment. We will of course consider the detail of the opinion carefully, but this is a bilateral dispute, and for the General Assembly to seek an advisory opinion by the ICJ was therefore a misuse of powers that sets a dangerous precedent for other bilateral disputes. The defence facilities in the British Indian Ocean Territory help to keep people in Britain and around the world safe, and we will continue to seek a bilateral solution to what is a bilateral dispute with Mauritius.
It seems to me that Sir Alan is splitting hairs.
I have blogged about Chagos before, in 2010, 2015 and last year (whatever happened to that Bill, I wonder?). South Africa's Mail and Guardian gives the history. Particularly telling is the gratuitous brutality of the forced evacuation of the islands.
Over 250 years ago, people began settling on the Chagos Islands — mostly slaves from Africa and indentured labour from India. During the colonial period, it was considered to be part of Mauritius, and administered from there. Given their tiny size and lack of natural resources, the islands did not receive much attention.
Things changed dramatically as the Cold War began to heat up. The United States recognised that the Chagos Islands’ isolated geography was the perfect location for an Indian Ocean military base. The United Kingdom, a key ally, was happy to cooperate, eventually signing a sweetheart deal that gave the Americans a 50-year lease on Diego Garcia, for the sum of just $1 per year, along with a discount on nuclear technology.
There was one snag, however: this was also Africa’s independence era, and in 1968 Mauritius was about to be granted its own independence. Could a new government in Mauritius be relied upon to grant access to the base?
Taking no risks, the United Kingdom unilaterally annexed the Chagos Islands, and forcibly removed all 2 000-plus Chagos Islanders — referred to by officials at the time as “Tarzans” and “Man Fridays” — the better to preserve security around the base.
The removals took place over several years and were brutal.
According to anthropologist David Vine: “British agents, with the help of Navy Seabees, quickly rounded up the islanders’ pet dogs, gassing and burning them in sealed cargo sheds. They ordered … the remaining Chagossians onto overcrowded cargo ships. During the deportations, which took place in stages until May 1973, most Chagossians slept in the ship’s hold atop guano — bird crap. Prized horses stayed on deck. By the end of the five-day trip, vomit, urine and excrement were everywhere. At least one woman miscarried. Arriving in Mauritius and the Seychelles, Chagossians were literally left on the docks. They were homeless, jobless, and had little money, and they received no resettlement assistance. In 1975, the Washington Post broke the story in the Western press and found them living in ‘abject poverty’. Most remain deeply impoverished to this day.”
[Updated 2019-03-05]
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab) Yesterday, the International Court of Justice found that the UK’s control of the Chagos islands is illegal and wrong. This damning verdict deals a huge blow to the UK’s global reputation. Will the Government therefore heed the call of the ICJ to hand back the islands to Mauritius, or will they continue to pander to the United States military?
Sir Alan Duncan The hon. Lady is labouring under a serious misapprehension: yesterday’s hearing provided an advisory opinion, not a judgment. We will of course consider the detail of the opinion carefully, but this is a bilateral dispute, and for the General Assembly to seek an advisory opinion by the ICJ was therefore a misuse of powers that sets a dangerous precedent for other bilateral disputes. The defence facilities in the British Indian Ocean Territory help to keep people in Britain and around the world safe, and we will continue to seek a bilateral solution to what is a bilateral dispute with Mauritius.
It seems to me that Sir Alan is splitting hairs.
I have blogged about Chagos before, in 2010, 2015 and last year (whatever happened to that Bill, I wonder?). South Africa's Mail and Guardian gives the history. Particularly telling is the gratuitous brutality of the forced evacuation of the islands.
Over 250 years ago, people began settling on the Chagos Islands — mostly slaves from Africa and indentured labour from India. During the colonial period, it was considered to be part of Mauritius, and administered from there. Given their tiny size and lack of natural resources, the islands did not receive much attention.
Things changed dramatically as the Cold War began to heat up. The United States recognised that the Chagos Islands’ isolated geography was the perfect location for an Indian Ocean military base. The United Kingdom, a key ally, was happy to cooperate, eventually signing a sweetheart deal that gave the Americans a 50-year lease on Diego Garcia, for the sum of just $1 per year, along with a discount on nuclear technology.
There was one snag, however: this was also Africa’s independence era, and in 1968 Mauritius was about to be granted its own independence. Could a new government in Mauritius be relied upon to grant access to the base?
Taking no risks, the United Kingdom unilaterally annexed the Chagos Islands, and forcibly removed all 2 000-plus Chagos Islanders — referred to by officials at the time as “Tarzans” and “Man Fridays” — the better to preserve security around the base.
The removals took place over several years and were brutal.
According to anthropologist David Vine: “British agents, with the help of Navy Seabees, quickly rounded up the islanders’ pet dogs, gassing and burning them in sealed cargo sheds. They ordered … the remaining Chagossians onto overcrowded cargo ships. During the deportations, which took place in stages until May 1973, most Chagossians slept in the ship’s hold atop guano — bird crap. Prized horses stayed on deck. By the end of the five-day trip, vomit, urine and excrement were everywhere. At least one woman miscarried. Arriving in Mauritius and the Seychelles, Chagossians were literally left on the docks. They were homeless, jobless, and had little money, and they received no resettlement assistance. In 1975, the Washington Post broke the story in the Western press and found them living in ‘abject poverty’. Most remain deeply impoverished to this day.”
[Updated 2019-03-05]
Sunday, 3 March 2019
Getting rid of those hated EU rules
'It clearly cannot be stated enough that the UK has had a say in the rules ensuring that all EU nations play the same way. This happens two ways, in the council of ministers and in the European Parliament. So the EU is not as undemocratic as Brexiteers maintain. But perhaps for forty years our elected representatives have been kicking and screaming against all the oppressive diktats imposed by a tyrannical majority in Brussels?
Well no, actually. A business owner named Jim Grace has taken the trouble to tot up the directives which the UK fought against to the last, and the result is 72, out of 4,514. (The total number of UK laws passed in the same time was 34,105, which refutes another popular Brexiteer myth.) Here is an extract from his take on the rules we (under both Labour and the Conservatives) do not like. (I have added some highlighting in an appropriate blue.) The complete list is at
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/rationalist-destroys-leavers-with-list-of-all-eu-laws-that-have-been-forced-on-us-against-our-will/22/01/
Well no, actually. A business owner named Jim Grace has taken the trouble to tot up the directives which the UK fought against to the last, and the result is 72, out of 4,514. (The total number of UK laws passed in the same time was 34,105, which refutes another popular Brexiteer myth.) Here is an extract from his take on the rules we (under both Labour and the Conservatives) do not like. (I have added some highlighting in an appropriate blue.) The complete list is at
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/rationalist-destroys-leavers-with-list-of-all-eu-laws-that-have-been-forced-on-us-against-our-will/22/01/
So… what inequities were forced upon us, what degradation, what humiliations for a proud island nation? Let’s have a little look shall we? I have put a link to each law we voted “no” to… and my own TLDR, if you don’t fancy wading through the legalese….
(1/72) 29/03/1996 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:31996L0021 … EU: Food labels should say if Aspartame is present. UK: Nonsense. Bloody red tape! (Linked to cancer, headaches and seizures, even Pepsi USA stopped using it by 2015)
(2/72) 29/04/1996 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:01996L0022-20081218&from=IT … EU: Ban on livestock growth-boosters with hormonal, thyrostatic or beta-agonist effects (carcinogenic residue in meat). UK: Aw come on – a little bit of cancer never hurt no-one.
(3/72) 03/06/1996 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31996L0035&from=EN … EU: Safety advisers dealing with transport of dangerous goods on public roads etc must be properly trained and regulated. UK: Bleedin elf’n’safety gorn mad. Wassamatta wiv a bit a toxic spillage across a playground?
[...]
(71/72) 05/03/2015 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32015R0758 … EU: Some rules about type approval of e-Call systems (they automatically call 999 in a car crash) UK: More Euro-bollocks. Wouldn’t have saved Diana, hawhawhaw.
(72/72) 23/06/2015 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52015PC0569 … EU: The CJEU needs more judges to deal with a big backlog of cases. UK: But we LIKE cases to wait ages. It means only the wealthy – who can afford to wait – can get justice.
FINISHED!
Cries of “VAT!”. a) My thread was “rules we opposed” not “rules we supported” b) If a 15% floor is so intolerable, how comes our VAT is 20% and the lowest in the whole EU is 17%? c) We could have listed sanitary towels at 0% VAT – like Ireland did – but HMG couldn’t be arsed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)