Do Women Make Better Bosses?

Posted on September 6, 2010 by maryhoneyballmep

According to research published last week, female chief executives inspire significantly greater faith in employees than their male counterparts. The Index of Leadership Trust, compiled by the Institute of Leadership and Management in conjunction with Management Today magazine, reveals that women score an average of 68/100, five points higher than the male norm. The gap is largely attributable to women’s willingness to empathise with employees, and demonstrate an understanding of other workers’ roles. Further bolstering scores was the conviction that female bosses more often displayed integrity and honesty. These characteristics are crucial to good leadership. Empathy and integrity do not only make for nicer work environments, they contribute to well-run organizations, since respected CEOs are far more able to negotiate difficult changes without causing resentment.

So what’s the explanation for this particular gender gap? We certainly can’t put it down to some innate female capacity for empathy; leadership style is not dictated by sex. It is instead more likely that women’s greater preparation for top roles better equips them for effectively dealing with colleagues. As the institute’s chief, Penny de Valk, describes: ‘We know that women are unlikely to put themselves forward for new roles unless they feel 95% capable, whereas men will happily do so at 65%, so . . . when women are promoted, they are very familiar with the tasks their people are doing.’

Whatever the answer is, it is refreshing to see that the benefits women have brought to board rooms are being recognised. Too often, we are subjected to the same, implicitly sexist explanations for female exclusion: only two weeks ago, ukjobs.net released a ‘study’ cataloguing the reasons why women don’t make good bosses (a tendency for bitchiness and mood swings being among the reasons). Let’s just hope that employers respond to the Index of Leadership Trust findings when recruiting, acknowledging the varied and multiple attributes needed for good leadership, and recognising that these are not specific to either gender.

Filed under: Labour Party | Leave a Comment »

Honeyball’s Weekly Round Up

Posted on September 5, 2010 by maryhoneyballmep

The silly season was well and truly over by the start of this week, though the coverage given to rumours that William Hague may have acted inappropriately by sharing a room with his aide Mr Myers really should have come into that category.  Surely we can do better than this? Is it really in our interests to know the ins and outs of politicians sleeping arrangmeents?

The story was not covered well even by responsible journalists, not to mention several bloggers. Iain Dale wrote the best account I have read on the subject which you can read here. The truth is it’s none of our business, and we really shouldn’t be so concerned with the details of this story.

The saddest part was that Hague felt forced to reveal that he and his wife had suffered multiple miscarriages. This is the kind of information no couple, whether or not  in the public domain, should have to share with the public. This is one story I hope becomes fish and chip paper sooner rather than later because it’s giving British journalism and the blogosphere a bad name.

Another story to cast a cloud over journalism which has resurfaced over the weekend is that of the News of the World phone hacking scandal. Andy Coulson the No. 10 communication chief was accused by a former colleague of encouraging journalists at he News of the World to carry out the illegal practice of phone hacking. Several senior politicians have claimed they were affected by this and you can read full coverage in the Guardian’s story here.

David Cameron might find he is in a difficult position, but there is absolutely no question in my mind that the correct thing to do is to hold an independent investigation.

 This is a dark story and so much has been swept under the carpet, but it is time to reveal exactly what went on. Why was a culture of ‘getting the story at whatever means’ able to preside for so long unchallenged?

Filed under: Andy Coulson, Iain Dale, William Hague | 1 Comment »

Women in London pay more for cuts in spending

Posted on September 3, 2010 by maryhoneyballmep

‘Women, in London, are more affected by cuts to pensions and housing benefits than men’, a new report published today by mayoral hopeful Ken Livingstone has revealed.

The document showed that women will pay for an astonishing 66% of the planned cuts in London.

And the report also revealed that women who work in the public sector will also come under threat from the planned cuts. This is especially important as they represent some 65% of the public sector workforce in London.

I am of course concerned by this revelation and also to learn that the Treasury has failed to indicate whether it assessed how and if its budget proposals would affect inequality between men and women, something it is required to do under equality laws. I am surprised it has yet to be challenged on this in any significant way and it is something I will look into.

Livingstone also claims that since Boris Johnson succeeded him there has been a reduction in the number of women in senior positions in the Greater London Authority (GLA).

Whether it is Ken or Oona who is selected to represent the Labour Party following the impending ballot I hope that they will take the Mayor to task on this. It sends out a shocking message to Londoners.

The GLA should be at the forefront of equal rights and if this is not happening then the party led by the new candidate must challenge this.

Filed under: Boris Johnson, Ken Livingston, Labour Party, Mayor | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Why I’m supporting Ken Livingstone

Posted on September 2, 2010 by maryhoneyballmep

Ballot papers to select Labour’s candidate for London Mayor will be dispatched next week. Ken or Oona: our previous, successful Mayor or the lively, personable former MP?

It’s a hard choice, but one Labour Party members have to make. I have come to my decision. It quite simply has to be Ken.

As a feminist and a longstanding campaigner for more women in public life, I would dearly like to support a female candidate, this would be my natural choice and what people would expect me to do. I find it a real shame that there is no woman standing as Labour Mayoral candidate who has the right experience.

However, I have decided to support Ken as he is the candidate with a proven track record in running London with the ability to deliver in the future.

Yet I would never claim that Ken has no warts. But I am supporting him ‘warts and all.’

I first came across Ken Livingstone in the 1970s when he was a new Member of the GLC and I was an employee. I later worked on the campaign to save the GLC from abolition by Margaret Thatcher. During the last 10 years as a Labour MEP I have, of course, had dealings with the Labour Mayor of London.

I did not always find it easy dealing with City Hall when Ken was in charge. Since his staff were not from the same political wing of the Labour Party as me, co-operation was not always forthcoming and I was, on occasion, obviously omitted from women’s events where I, as Labour Spokesperson on Women’s Rights in the European Parliament, would have been an obvious choice.

It must be said, both Ken and Oona are experienced politicians who both have considerable experience of political campaigns. However, the selection we as members make must be based on the person who has the highest level of experience, who can deliver for Londoners and who will be the strongest opponent that Boris can face. That candidate is Ken Livingstone.

Livingstone had a truly daunting task as the first elected Mayor of London and he rose to the challenge. When he left office he left many accolades: the congestion charge, the opening up of Trafalgar Square, the improvements at Vauxhall Cross, the London low emission zone – the list goes on. As the one-time Leader of the Greater London Council who introduced “Fares Fair” on the Underground, Ken understood how to get things done.

Ken has done it once and will do it again.

Although he is the candidate better suited to run London this by no means detracts from Oona King. Oona is intelligent and hardworking, and she was an excellent MP for Bethnal Green and Bow. I remember canvassing with her during the 2005 general election campaign when her popularity was evident and her knowledge of her constituents second to none. I would like to see Oona back in the House of Commons where I am sure she would carve out a successful career.

Politically I am closer to Oona King than left- wing ‘Red Ken’. But I believe it would be a mistake to elect the Mayoral candidate on the basis of political philosophy alone. Too often in the Labour Party we choose our representatives and leaders for what they say rather than what they can actually do.

As a London representative, I understand that what a challenge running London is and how important it is to deliver for the people of our city.

I am aware that Ken is not perfect. He is, however, our only realistic choice.

Filed under: Labour Party | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Ed Balls for Shadow Chancellor

Posted on September 1, 2010 by maryhoneyballmep

Good to see that Geoffrey Robinson, one of Ed Balls most prominent supporters, has endorsed David Miliband as second choice in the Labour Leadership election in this article in the Independent today.

Since we are reliably informed that Ed Balls knew Geoffrey Robinson was going to go public with this endorsement, I think it’s reasonable to assume that Ed (Balls) agrees with Geoffrey.  In other words, supporters of Ed Balls should put David Miliband as their second choice.   

As ballot papers go out to Labour Party members today, it’s becoming ever clearer that second preferences will count.  So, if you are one of those who absolutely must vote for Balls as number one, please do follow his wishes and put David Miliband as two.

Geoffrey Robinson also makes a strong pitch for Ed Balls to be Shadow Chancellor.

There is no doubt that Ed Balls is head and shoulders above any other possibility for this key role, so important in shaping future Labour policy and leading us to general election victory.  It was, after all, Ed Balls who devised the five tests for joining the Euro, for which he must be given credit, even though I personally was disappointed that the five tests kept Britain out of the Euro in the early years of Tony Blair’s government.

I met all the Leadership candidates on separate occasions when they came to talk to the EPLP during what has proved to be a very lengthy campaign .  Ed Balls demonstrated a strong intelligence and unrivalled grasp of economics, pointing to the obvious conclusion that he is the ideal person to be Shadow Chancellor.  Even his legendary toughness would, I believe, be an asset in the job.

Filed under: Labour Party | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Hunt for Britain’s Sex Traffickers

Posted on September 1, 2010 by maryhoneyballmep

Having blogged yesterday about the Coalition government’s appalling decision not to endorse a draft EU directive on human trafficking, I was interested to hear about the Channel 4 documentary which also went out yesterday at nine o’clock in the evening.

The first of three episodes The Hunt for Britain’s Sex Traffickers tells the story of the largest-ever police investigation into sex trafficking in Britain following officers from four counties as they go undercover.  I have no doubt the documentaries will offer an insight into the experiences of women duped or coerced into entering the sex trade and being profoundly exploited.

 Although I am in Brussels this week, and am therefore unable to watch the programme, I will certainly be catching up later in the week when I’m back in London. (British TV over the internet is not available outside the UK).

 The channel’s own description of show is promising, suggesting that attention has been given to the ‘demand side’ of sex trafficking. This is important, since it is all too easy to focus on the obviously culpable criminals orchestrating the trade, whilst neglecting to explore the role played by men in Britain seeking cheap sex.

 I would also hope that The Hunt for Britain’s Sex Traffickers challenges some of the misleading stereotypes that distort understanding, by highlighting the various forms of exploitation that arise from the cross-national sex trade. It is crucial that we recognise that not all victims of trafficking conform to the sometimes sensationalised image of the ‘sex slave’, permanently confined and subject to systematic physical abuse. Many women are constrained and debased in more insidious ways, for example locked into long hours of sex work by the obligations of hefty “debts” to those who control them or deterred from speaking out by the threat of arrest and deportation.

 I think it’s important that the public is exposed to a more nuanced and thorough account of sex trafficking than that frequently splashed across the tabloid press, and I’m interested to see for myself whether C4 has managed to deliver this.

 In any event, I hope the Coalition ministers responsible for fighting the trafficking of human beings watched the Channel 4 programme and that it will inform them sufficiently to persuade the government to support the EU directive.

Filed under: Labour Party | Tagged: , , | 3 Comments »

Coalition Goverment says no to EU Anti-Trafficking Measures

Posted on August 31, 2010 by maryhoneyballmep

As regular readers of my blog will be aware,  I have written before about the EU’s new human trafficking directive and also ran a campaign against the Metropolitan Police Authorities proposed closure of their specialised unit dealing with this matter.  This issue has never seemed to me to be particularly partisan, it being widely accepted that trafficking causes untold misery and ruins the lives of many, especially women and children.  So I could not believe it when I heard about the coalition government’s plan to ‘opt-out’ of the new directive specifically designed to help combat trafficking.

For me,  and I hope everyone else, the most important aspect of the directive is its focus on protecting the victims of trafficking.  Such protection would mean that people who are trafficked into criminal enterprises in the UK, such as the sex trade or cannabis farming, could not be charged over false immigration papers forced on them by the gang responsible for their move. 

The new directive,  still currently in committee, also looks to create a single EU wide definition of trafficking and allow for the law courts to try people who commit trafficking offences in another EU state.  This is crucial to the combating of trafficking since many of the crimes that help sustain the practice, such as document forgery, kidnapping, intimidation and violence will occur in another country before the victim has reached the UK. 

The directive will allow for trafficking crimes to be prosecuted in UK courts, thereby helping to stop the industry of trafficking as well as bring criminals to justice.  The anti-trafficking measures seem right and proper to me.  However,  a Home Office statement in early August said that there were already ample measures in place to combat trafficking in the UK.  An interesting view since, in June this year, an umbrella group of charities and NGOs released a study saying that the anti-trafficking measures in the UK were woefully inadequate.   

I am not alone in my outrage, with leading charities criticising the decision as well as Denis MacShane writing to Nick Clegg, asking him to persuade the Tories to change their mind. 

It is deeply depressing to think that the Conservatives would make a decision that could have a huge impact on the effectiveness of our police force in combating human trafficking on the basis of the odious and irrational anti-European stance.  David Cameron and William Hague have said that they will not cede powers to the EU without a referendum (though they have already put the lie to that particular promise), so I can’t help but feel that the rejection of a powerful and necessary tool in the fight against such an egregious crime is all part of some pathetic political posturing. The idea we would even have to ask the (supposedly) pro-European Clegg to persuade the Tories to think again on this crucial issue is very, very worrying.

Filed under: Labour Party | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Honeyball’s Weekly Round-Up

Posted on August 29, 2010 by maryhoneyballmep

The weekend papers were dominated with op-ed pieces about the labour leadership election. The gloves are off and the papers are focussing on the Miliband brothers: “David hoped Ed wouldn’t stand. Instead he became his greatest rival”, was the Guardian’s headline yesterday. The other candidates have been all but forgotten as the same article’s stand first read: “Battle of the Milibands’ approaches its finale. But who will win?” 

Similarly today’s Sunday Mirror has an interview with both candidates. The quick fired questions put to them by the papers political editor, Vincent Moss provide great insight into where each brother is coming from.

His interview is the most revealing yet. It moves away from a simple comparison of the policies each are so passionate talking about and which you can read all about in the Guardian. Moss’ interviews however, delve much deeper into the brothers’ personalities – he asks each brother what they think of the other and if it’s true they haven’t spoken for some weeks. It’s the most revealing interview I’ve read throughout the entire campaign. You can read it here.

In other news, a reduction in the nation’s tax burden has been ruled out by the chief secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, who revealed the news in his first national paper interview.

They will stay at this level for quite sometime he says, but as we already know the emergency tax budget in June hit the poorest worst. The country’s leading tax experts branded the budget in June as “clearly regressive.”

Another ‘charge’ of unfairness will hit the coalition government tomorrow when the centre for economics and business research report reveals that there will be an “agonising transition” for the north of England economy which estimates that one in 10 people will be unemployed in the north of England between 2010 and 2015. This compares with just 7% in the south-east and 8% in the south-west.

You can read Danny Alexander’s interview in today’s Observer here.

Filed under: Danny Alexander, Miliband brothers, economy | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Letter in the Guardian

Posted on August 28, 2010 by maryhoneyballmep

Despite my post yesterday on the Guardian’s line on the future diection of the Labour Party, I was pleased to have this letter published today.

BBC hits a cynical note on pay talks

I read with dismay Tara Conlan’s article on the BBC storm over pay and pensions and how it is threatening the production of the Proms  (BBC discord threatens Proms, Media, 23 August). It seems that senior executives have offered to sacrifice one month’s salary in an effort to demonstrate that they too can “save the corporation money”. It’s patronising, to say the least, for senior executives to suggest they will work one month for free. It sends a cynical message that their salary is so meaningless, it is something they can afford to do with relative ease.

This move misses the point entirely and does not address the issue that many loyal BBC employees will have their pensions significantly altered without their consent. In addition, they have given their expertise to the corporation precisely because they felt they would be looked after, rather than taking on more lucrative deals with competitors where there is no such security. The BBC must address the pay and pension crisis, rather than being concerned with gimmicky PR moves such as asking senior executives to work one month without pay.

Mary honeyball MEP

London, Labour spokesperson on the European parliament culture committee

 

Filed under: Labour Party | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

The Guardian seeks to return Labour to long term Opposition

Posted on August 27, 2010 by maryhoneyballmep

I have great affection for the Guardian newspaper.  It was the first paper I ever read on a serious basis and it has been a part of my life for over 40 years.

I have always admired and enjoyed the Guardian’s independence, its ability to put forward views outside the conventional media wisdom.  While it is often joked about as the Labour Party’s house journal, the Guardian offers much more than a mouthpiece for Labour.  It’s unique in British politics and deserves support.

But support has to be won and in order to be taken seriously a newspaper, even one leaning leftwards, has to be credible.  Once a publication stops seeing issues in a reasoned fashion based on hard evidence, it risks becoming at best a propaganda sheet and at worst a laughing-stock.

Not that the Guardian is either of these, but I am becoming concerned at some of its pronouncements.

Seamus Milne yesterday talked in no uncertain terms about “New Labour’s failure…it’s triangulation, social authoritarianism, embrace of flexible labour markets and support for tuition fees” , the implication being that Labour lost because it was not left-wing enough.

It’s also worth pointing out that the Guardian also urged its reader to vote Liberal Democrat in this year’s general election.

Both the newspaper’s current line as articulated by Seamus Milne and its ill-fated encouragement to support the Lib-Dems point to a muddle, if nothing else.  Perhaps the Guardian feels it needs to ver towards the left to erase the memory of the Lib-Dem fiasco.

I find this New Labour bashing not only unhelpful but deeply flawed.  I was never an uncritical follower of Blair and I strongly opposed the Iraq war, speaking openly against what has seen proved an expensive debacle.

Yet New Labour and Tony Blair were what people wanted.  No other Labour Prime Minister has won three elections in a row, two with landslide majorities.

The British electorate has no apparent appetite for anything further to the left that Blair, at least at national level.  There is little evidence that in the 2010 election those disillusioned with New Labour turned to the Lib-Dems to any great extent.  Since the Conservatives won more seats than Labour, the glaringly obvious conclusion is that those who wanted a change voted Tory.

This is the nub of the issue for the Labour Party.  On any rational and objective analysis there is no mass of people, either working or middle class, in this country who want a government of what they perceive and what we would call the “left”.

As a veteran of the 1980s, I have been here before, only in a much worse way. Many in the Labour then truly believed that if an electorate which had rejected socialism was given more of it, they would return Labour to power.

I for one do not wish to go through those gruelling 18 years of opposition ever again.  I hope the Guardian will come to see the sense of my point of view.  In the meantime, we should all thank Martin Kettle in Guardian Comment is Free today for making a coherent and valiant attempt to  redress the balance.

Filed under: Labour Party | Tagged: , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Next Page »