Congratulations and commiserations

Many congratulations to George Ferguson and commiserations to the other candidates, especially to Marvin Rees. You have to work hard to become the first elected Mayor of Bristol - but the much harder work begins now. It's a new way to run Bristol with many uncertainties and it has to be made to work. I hope that people in all political parties will work well together and that George's cabinet has someone from each political party with councillors currently on the city council. I hope this is a victory for independent-minded thinking from political people inside and outside of parties. I hope that power is genuinely and effectively spread out into communities, with real opportunities to participate. I hope George's decent record on sustainable development becomes the norm for development in the city. I hope George takes full note of the very large number of votes given to parties (the Greens, Labour and the socialists) supporting the living wage and the fairness agenda and the good number of votes given to the only woman candidate, the Greens Daniella Radice (who was only one percentage point behind the Lib Dems). Feels good to have voted for someone who has won an election - after 30 yrs as a voter!

Very good, gracious speech from the new Mayor George Ferguson here and I agree particularly strongly when he said this,

"I want to use that mandate to go and ask the prime minister and the government in general for more powers for Bristol and for more resources. I think we deserve it.

"We have delivered what they wanted, now they have got to deliver what we want."

Men and Mayor

Daniella Radice, the Green candidate  standing to become Mayor of Bristol, has produced the most comprehensive and detailed manifesto of policies of any of the candidates and has made a lot more sense than other candidates at the many hustings meetings held.  All the other candidates have been more vague, generalised, wishy-washy, incoherent and in some cases populist, where Daniella has offered real leadership. She is the only woman standing, which is a story in itself.

It’s important to discuss the fact that only one of the fifteen candidates for Mayor is a woman because: just 22% of MPs in the House of Commons and 20% of members of the House of Lords are women and women aren't in many positions of power and influence across society; 3 million women in the UK suffer rape, domestic violence, trafficking, forced marriage or other violence; 90% of local authorities do not have a rape crisis centre; of 109 High Court judges only 15 are women; women’s average net income per week in 2010 was £180 compared to £231 for men; 20% of people believe it is sometimes acceptable for a man to hit or slap his girlfriend; 36% believe a woman is partly responsible for being raped if she is drunk; 83% of experts cited in news stories are men; 19% is the proportion of women in news stories portrayed as victims, compared to 10% for men...Clearly our decision making would be better if women were present in positions of power and influence on a par with men.

We need to address the issue of disempowerment and the facts clearly illustrate why. Without strong and positive action it could take forever to achieve fair and balanced representation. We don’t get the best range of candidates for positions of power now because we have a system that on the whole continues to favour men and disempower women. We are wasting half the talent we have. The social system and within it the economic and political system is discriminatory, not always in the legal sense but certainly in the sense of culture/traditions. The right to fair and equal treatment that I'm arguing for is a human right that putting into action would benefit every person.

In broad terms I am saying that if there was no sex discrimination there would be many more women candidates for Mayor of Bristol. Some question this, saying there is no discrimination in the mayoral process itself: doubtless the rules would be illegal if they were directly discriminatory so no surprise there!! But the mayoral election does not take place in total isolation from the social, economic and political context – and we can’t yet say that there is nothing in our social system at all that deters and discourages women from coming forward as candidates (see list and link below). For instance: the costs involved in applying to become Bristol Mayor are a deterrent to many who might otherwise consider standing – however the high cost will discriminate more against women than men because women’s average income and other wealth levels are lower. Discriminatory social, economic and political context deters and discourages women. Some admit that discrimination exists but stick to the unsustainable, implausible position that it has no effect at all on women coming forward to stand in elections such as for Mayor!

In 2008 an Inter-Parliamentary Union reported said that these factors deter women from entering politics to at least a fair degree: Domestic responsibilities; Prevailing cultural attitudes regarding the roles of women in society; Lack of support from family; Lack of confidence; Lack of finances; Lack of support of political parties; Lack of experience in "representative functions": public speaking, constituency relations; Lack of support from the electorate; Lack of support from men; Lack of support from other women; Politics seen as "dirty" or corrupt; Lack of education. See
http://tinyurl.com/8px89md

Take nursing and primary school teaching as examples in addition to being a Mayor. Stereotyping of male/female roles due to sexism results in men and women tending to be deterred and discouraged from coming forward for certain jobs, for example women for Mayor of Bristol - and elected and other positions of power generally - and men for nursing and primary school teaching. It’s not uncommon to find some arguing that not all jobs are equally appealing because of 'natural tendencies' ie women aren't coming forward to be Mayor because they are not 'naturally' suited to it – ‘men and women are different, in most ways’  as someone said to me recently. Different yes but different in most ways no – and of course there are differences between people of the same sex! Men and women have a huge amount in common - they are equally capable for example of being Mayor, though some suggest otherwise. Sexists argue that we have one woman candidate in fifteen for Mayor of Bristol because men and women 'want different things' and therefore women don’t want to be Mayor and its all down to inherent reasons with no effect from sex discrimination in our society at all. What a load of utter nonsense.

The sexists are assuming that what men and women do is what they want; is where their talents and abilities are; that they have no latent, suppressed capacity for anything else; that this wont/cant and does not need to change...and that its only what men and women inherently 'are' that affects what they do ie there is zero effect from the society, the economy and the political system that men and women live in.

My favoured party – the Greens - do not knowingly or deliberately (and certainly not blatantly) discriminate against women in its processes but  it does exist in a social, economic and political context which does discriminate and this does have effects. It is working continually to do better, has a women leader, Natalie Bennett...its ex-leader and its first MP, Caroline Lucas, is a woman...the Greens fielded a good number of women candidates at the last general election (a higher % than other parties I think) compared to the 20% of MPs that are women  but the Greens must do better as other political parties and society in general must!! 100% of Green MPs and 50% of Bristol’s Green Councillors are women by the way :) but the party can only choose from those who come forward not from its whole membership.  Even in the Greens fewer women come forward because the social context deters and discourages them. There is no inherent reason why they would not come forward.

Bust bigotry

Its right to call for an end to topless women appearing on page 3 (see report here). Its not simply an exposed pair of breasts that's the issue as some seem to think however. Exposed breasts in some contexts other than as seen in certain daily newspapers, magazines are not an issue.

The thing is that women are being portrayed as mere sex objects much more often and in a much more narrow and ignorant way than men are. The evidence is common experience.

Would it make sense to approach it the other way and ensure that both men and women are equally seen only in a narrow, ignorant, sex object way?? Or should we instead try to ensure that all people are seen in a more rounded, fair and complete way?

Please sign Lucy Holmes petition on this issue here, and join over 47,000 other people (figure correct 17 Oct 2012 but growing fast!).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2012/sep/17/sun-women

People, power, parties

Interesting to note that all the main contenders for Mayor of Bristol have committed themselves to 'more people power' (here). I really do hope such a thing actually comes about. What I'd say to the three bigger parties, however, is: why have we had no significant and effective empowerment of people in Bristol if it's really what you stand for? Consultations are often a sham, voters are disillusioned and opportunities for genuine, empowered participation are poor. I have little faith that the big parties really want to empower people - if they did they would empower people to be able to remove them from office between elections through a recall/petitioning mechanism. Political parties want power for political parties in my experience.

The better, more specific ideas on participation and empowering people are with the Green's Daniella Radice (here) and with George Ferguson (here).

Inequality disempowers people, so its also interesting that this issue came up in the online discussion/comments on this story. Lib Dem candidate Jon Rogers raised the matter. Here's a copy of my response: @CllrJonRogers - The gini coefficient which is a measure of overall income inequality in the United Kingdom is now higher than at any previous time in the last thirty years. See http://tinyurl.com/2wtjwcb . The Coalition the Lib Dems are in will be cutting billions more from public spending, including spending on welfare for the poorest, in the coming years. See http://tinyurl.com/8qs5bat . You, as a Lib Dem Bristol City Council Cabinet member have made well over £20 million cuts in council spending per year, including to services for the vulnerable.... See http://tinyurl.com/9oopcvo . Can you explain how all this helps to create a more fair and equal society?

Fair fares

The Post reports that, 'A Mayoral candidate has promised to introduce £1 and £1.50 bus fares in Bristol if he is allowed to take control of the city's bus services. Liberal Democrat Jon Rogers, a cabinet councillor who used to be in charge of the city's transport department, wants to see a "Transport Bristol" authority set up to run them – in the same way as London.'. If this is a good idea now then why was implementation not started a few years back??? Jon Rogers and his Lib Dems have been and are running the city! Yes to lower bus fares and yes to a transport authority for Bristol but yes also to judging politicians by actions and outcomes and not just words.  

Fairer future

Labour's mayoral candidate Marvin Rees has promised to introduce a living wage in Bristol if he gets elected to the figurehead post in November. He has pledged to bring in a rate of not less than £7.20 an hour for all council employees and hopes it will be extended across all firms and organisations throughout the city...'fairness will be an over-riding focus of my time as mayor'...(more here).
Good to see a specific, clear policy statement.  The emphasis on fairness is right and the living wage idea is a very good one, though I would argue for fixing it higher than the £7.20 that Marvin Rees proposes. At 60% of net national average earnings, a living wage would be just over £8 per hour.

I hope by taking this policy position Marvin Rees is saying that he wants to tackle unjustifiably high salary payments at the middle and top end, cut the difference between salaries at the top and bottom, and spread salary and other aspects of fairness for council employees out into the private sector.

Jubilee've it ?

                                 http://www.republic.org.uk/index.php

Budget below the belt

Wouldn't it have been fairer, more just and better economics to keep the 50% tax rate and bring in additional measures to make sure that people could not avoid paying it so easily, if that's what is happening on a large scale? I thought we had debts to pay off and that the Govt needed the money for this.

There will be many well-off high rate tax payers who have circumstances such that they wont be liable to pay the additional wealth taxes in the budget, who will thus get a large net tax cut. Its a budget that George Osbourne's mates will like and benefit from I'm sure.

More on the budget here and here.

Swedish sameness

So, David Cameron is off to Sweden to attend the Nordic-Baltic Summit. Great place to go to learn a fair bit about equality. Sweden has much lower income equality than the UK (see here). Its gender equality is also much better: http://www.sweden.se/eng/Home/Society/Equality/Facts/Gender-equality-in-Sweden/.

I doubt very much that our PM will be adopting the Swedish approach though. They redistribute wealth using taxes and benefits. Public services are provided by a very well developed welfare state. Sweden's state is large. Public services are well developed and there is effective legislation to ensure that both men and women can have reasonably balanced work and family lives and good prospects for fair involvement at all levels of society. This is the opposite of Cameron's Conservatism.    

Fairness and females

The current political system is very clearly skewed in favour of men, in terms of style, substance and structures. It is therefore undemocratic, with people chosen for their gender rather than their ability. Its logical to counteract this skewed situation through measures like all-women shortlists (as Labour in Bristol West are planning to use*). To call a measure designed to achieve balance and fairness between men and women sexist, as some do, is to ignore the current bias in favour of men and turn reality upside down. Lets remember that its not so long ago that women had no vote at all! There should not be any need for all-women shortlists but until prejudice is significantly reduced something needs to be done - only 22% of MPs in the House of Commons and 20% of members of the House of Lords are women. Its unreasonable to say, as some do, that MPs who originally became candidates via all-women shortlists are somehow second class - because they have appeared on the ballot paper at a general election and have been put into power by voters in their constituency - presumeably any voter who felt they were not up to the job or were selected as a candidate by an objectionable process woud not have voted for them.

Politics in the UK is often overly and unecessarily macho and confrontational. Parliament has long been acknowledged as a 'boys club' or 'gentleman's club'. This is no way to address and solve problems and in part its down to the skewing of the system to favour men that is clearly shown by the stat that 4 in 5 in Parliament are men, including men with outdated, sexist attitudes. It is suggested that women candidates and MPs as weaker and second rate but many say that the performance of women MPs has been good and that Parliament with more women is better in several respects - a case of prejudice getting  in the way of reason.


There are other unfair aspects to our system. It needs wholesale radical reform
*See: http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Bristol-Labour-Party-select-MPs-women-list/story-15155549-detail/story.html

http://www.parliament.uk/education/online-resources/parliament-explained/women-in-politics/

Overpaid Ormondroyd

Occupy Bristol protesters question leaders over pay rates.Why have so many comments on this story simply attacked those asking the questions? Its the issue that counts and tactical rather than fair argument is a distraction from the very important matter of who is paid what and why - and whether its fair and deserved. The current Chief Executive Jan Ormondroyd (pictured) is paid £107,000 per year more now than in 1998 - 122 per cent more than her predecessor 14 years ago. This £7600 a year rise every year for ten years, way above inflation and bearing no relation to the performance of Bristol City Council, cannot be right. Less than 10% a year says one person - but this sort of level of sustained increase has only been given to those already well paid and wealthy. Where's the justice in that?

Diversity and dynamism

Great column here by Peter Madden, Chief Executive of Forum for the Future, the sustainable development charity:

I WAS speaking at a conference in the Watershed recently, about whether Bristol should have an elected mayor. One of the delegates stuck up his hand and asked why there were so few Bristol-born people there?

He argued that there is a serious division in the city, with so-called 'incomers' pushing themselves forward to run things, ignoring what 'genuine locals' want.

Now, as an 'incomer' myself, I responded by saying that Bristol is – and always has been – an inclusive city. In fact, it has been from medieval times, when it saw the arrival of Welsh, Irish, Cornish and Jews, to recent decades, when it welcomed Afro-Caribbeans, Polish, South Asians and Somalis. Indeed, I subsequently discovered that Bristol has had ethnic minority citizens for centuries, with a person of African heritage recorded as living in Bristol as early as 1641.

Given this long history of people coming into the city, I said there shouldn't be some kind of 'birth-test' whereby only people who were born here get to have a stake in the city. Go back far enough and surely everyone was an outsider once?

OK, perhaps I am touchy on this because I'm originally a Londoner. But I have chosen to live here. My kids were born here and I'm bringing them up here.

I've committed to Bristol, and I do contribute as much as I can to making Bristol a better place.
Certainly, lots of other people who have chosen to live here – rather than being born here – feel the same passion and pride about the place.

And I do think that incomers bring lots of dynamism – not just to Bristol, but to cities in general. Cities are places people move to in order to improve their lot. If incomers weren't allowed to do anything leading in this city, what would the alternative be? Should we all just to sit back and let things float along? Is that really going to give us a dynamic 21st-century Bristol?

You wouldn't expect to hear people in London say: "Why aren't the Cockneys running everything?" A world class city is open and inclusive.

However, where I think the questioner did have a point – and it was one reinforced by the Dean of the Cathedral – was in his view that we live in a very divided city. Outside London, Bristol is the most unequal city in the UK and there are certainly big chunks of the population who feel that their needs and priorities aren't being properly met.

The challenge, then, is not so much about Bristol-born versus outsiders, but whether we live in a genuinely inclusive city, where discussions about the big priorities include – and respond to – all the people who live here.

So, maybe the next time there is a big debate on how to run Bristol in the future, it should happen in Southmead, Easton or Hartcliffe, rather than on the Harbourside?

Equality - not

I assume that those vehement critics of Occupy Bristol (see here) are happy with huge and unfair inequality that exists - perhaps they are even advocates of it. The 2010 report, An Anatomy of Economic Inequality in the UK showed that the richest 10% of the population are more than 100 times as wealthy as the poorest 10% of society - and comparison between the richest here and the poorest in the world is of course even worse.

Large scale income inequality cuts quality of life and eats away at the fabric of society. Look at the evidence here http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why . We should adopt income inequality as one of the key indicators of progress in our society and urgently enact measures to cut inequality (see http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/remedies ).

On closing the gap between rich and poor

Author Danny Dorling claims the British people need to learn the lessons of the 1930s and do something about the growing gap between the super rich and everyone else.

BBC News - Author Danny Dorling on closing gap between rich and poor

Sustainability and action

Screencast making sustainablity clearer, more measurable, assessable - and most importantly making it action focussed.