WMMMs are a mass distraction

So it's easy to get selected as a Tory WMMM (White, Middle-aged, Middle-class Male) candidate for parliament then, is it?

I wonder. Here's a little tale.

1 May 2008: I win re-election for the second time in Hart, with the biggest majority in the district. Hubris whispers slyly in my ear that this is because of how wonderful I am: Truth forces me to admit I have two excellent fellow councillors in the ward and possibly the best constituency MP in the land.

3 May 2008: Still feeling good about myself, I email my local constituency chairman, asking how to apply to become a Conservative parliamentary candidate (PPC).

7 June 2008: Not having heard, I email again. Again I get no reply.

14 May 2009: It's 11 months later and we have a new constituency chairman. So I email him to ask how to become a PPC.

19 May 2009: The chairman replies apologetically that he has made enquiries and CCO (Conservative Central Office) has recently closed the lists and is not accepting any more applications.

19 May 2009: I write back, pointing out that I'd twice enquired in mid 2008, almost a year before lists closed.

19 May 2009: A somewhat dismissive email comes back from CCO, saying they have no record of me applying. Well, that's right, they don't because my email got either lost or ignored in the local office.

21 May 2009: Having slept on it for 2 nights because it is not necessarily wise to send an email while exasperated, I write to CCO politely pointing out (with attached evidence) that I had twice previously asked to be considered but that the request had somehow fallen through the cracks and would they kindly reconsider having closed their lists?

24 May 2009: David Cameron announces he is re-opening candidates lists.

26 May 2009: I write in and ask for an application form.

29 May 2009: I get a reply from Eric Pickles which says, among other things, "It is clear that our political system needs radical change if we are to restore public trust – and that change involves new people putting themselves forward as MPs." An application form is attached.

Early June 2009: I fill in the forms, get referees, submit the forms.

25 June 2009: I get a reply from CCO, part of which says "... because of the large number of applications, it will not be possible for us to enter into individual correspondence with you about your application, but you will hear from us, probably by the end of July."

15 Aug 2009: I am feeling a touch neurotic now but I don't want to appear too neurotic so I wait a couple of weeks after the end of July deadline before sending CCO an email asking "Have I missed your reply, or are things running slowly over the holiday period?"

20 Aug 2009: A reply arrives. The essence is "We will contact you should you be progressed to the next stage. You will, however, be advised either way."

13 Sep 2009: The Sunday Times runs a story on "A-List" outsiders who've applied when I did and now have completed the whole process. I wonder. I am just a local Tory councillor. Where in the alphabet does that put me? I hope it's not the Z-List.

Early October 2009: I am sadly getting used to being ignored by my party. I see that in Bracknell (where I work), the Tory party has interviewed a lot of candidates and drawn up a short list. I realise I might not have made the short list but it would have been nice to been given the opportunity.

Part of me hopes I make the list before I retire.

Part of me thinks that Bracknell is a pretty good constituency where I have worked for most of the last decade and where I have a large collection of friends.

Part of me wonders whether it wouldn't be easier to run as an independent candidate.

Many people believe that as a white middle-aged middle class man I will have received preferential treatment. I am still waiting for CCO to get back to me. If it's true that men get preference, I wonder how much longer I would have to wait if I were a woman.

Update:
My older son, who is flu'-ridden but whose judgement I respect unquestioningly, told me that what I have written above sounds bitter. I am sorry about this: I didn't intend to sound that way but I must admit to feeling let-down. What I had intended to write was more about getting more women Tory MPs until I got distracted into looking up dates. So, dear reader, having read this far please stay with me!

I have a very good friend who until recently was the UK CFO of one of the best known retailers in the world. She left them when they moved their offices to continental Europe, as she has children who are happily settled in schools and whom she did not want to move. I've tried to persuade her to become a Tory candidate on several occasions but she's been adamant that she feels Tories don't want people like her.

I've attempted to explain this isn't true, but I may be labouring in vain in this case. If we want to attract more high quality women candidates we need to make women feel that they will be welcome. I think all-women candidate lists do the opposite and are patronising. And if we get high quality women candidates to come forward, we'd better be prepared for them and not give them the run-around.

Little Miss Perfect

More than 25 years ago, a customer of mine and his wife were expecting their first child. This man was inherently cheerful: the kind of person you look forward to meeting in a business day. When I heard that the Big Day had come and the child been born, I popped into his office with happy congratulations which had left my lips as I entered. It was too late to register the grey and shocked expression which he could not hide. The child had been born healthy, but with Downs Syndrome. I have always been poor with words in such circumstances and all I could say was how sorry I was, and inwardly berate myself for not having checked if all had gone well before bursting in with a happy smile on my face.

It's something all expectant parents must worry about at least a little: what if Baby isn't perfect? For the vast majority, a counting of fingers and toes and a verbal thumbs up from the medical staff is a happy start to parenthood. The shock can therefore hit perhaps even harder when you learn later in life that Something is Wrong.

For Colleen and I, this happened with our second child Anthony. A bouncing baby and sturdy toddler (I nicknamed him Barrel, which given his adult wiry frame is ironic) he was a happy child who developed normally up to and including starting to talk. Then he went backwards and said less and less. Family and friends reassured us of famous people they knew who were late starters, but the worry started to grow. Cutting short a very long story of two years' worth of visits to specialists and speech therapists, at the age of four we were told he was autistic and enrolled him in the Key, the Johannesburg school for autistic children. His vocabulary at that age was less than a dozen words.

And then the miracle occurred. Autism is not curable (as far as today's science knows) and yet within weeks Anthony's vocabulary came on at staggering speed. After a year's intense speech, occupational and music therapy his development had pretty much caught up with other children his age. Within the next year he was ready to attend mainstream school. Please forgive a brief boast that he graduated with an excellent degree from Bristol this summer and, equally important, he has a large group of friends. He clearly couldn't have been autistic, but the important point I'd like to make is that somehow the teaching and support he received in those two years at the Key changed his life unimaginably for the better.

These memories came back yesterday when I received a press release from Parliament. The Science and Technology committee is investigating two pretty fundamental elements of government policy (1) What actually is the policy? (2) On what evidence is the policy based? This may sound simple: actually it's radical, making the assumption that government policy should be based on things that have been shown to work, rather than (perhaps) political expedience.

The first investigation will look at reading difficulties and dyslexia and how these are addressed today by government policy. The committee is looking for evidence as to how well this works. I include the full press release below: if you feel you can contribute, please do so now: the closing date for submissions is 26th October, just nine days away as I write this.

Basing government policy on evidence seems obvious. Please help make it happen so that even when a child isn't born Little Miss Perfect (or Master Perfect) they still have a good chance in life.

SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
Select Committee Announcement

Committee Office, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA
Tel. No. 020 7219 2794 Fax. No. 020 7219 0896 Email: scitechcom@parliament.uk


No. 04 (08-09): 16 October 2009

NEW INQUIRY

EVIDENCE CHECK: LITERACY INTERVENTIONS

In preparation for the establishment of the Science and Technology Committee on 1 October, the former IUSS Committee commissioning work to assess the Government’s use of evidence in policy-making. The Committee wrote to the Government on a number of topics and asked two questions: (1) What is the policy? (2) On what evidence is the policy based? The Government has now replied and having considered the responses the Committee has selected Literacy Interventions for its first Evidence Check.

The first Evidence Check will consist of two sessions on 4th and 9th of November. The Committee invites short submissions by 26 October on the issues that the Committee will be exploring:
— the Government’s policy on literacy interventions for school children with reading difficulties
— the evidence base for the Every Child a Reader and Making Good Progress programmes
— the definition of dyslexia
— the evidence base for diagnosing dyslexia and teaching dyslexic children to read.

Each submission should:
a) be no more than 1,000 words in length
b) be in Word format (no later than 2003) with as little use of colour or logos as possible
c) have numbered paragraphs
d) include a declaration of interests.

A copy of the submission should be sent by e-mail to scitechcom@parliament.uk and marked “Evidence Check 1”. An additional paper copy should be sent to:
The Clerk
Science and Technology Committee House of Commons
7 Millbank
London SW1P 3JA

It would be helpful, for Data Protection purposes, if individuals submitting written evidence send their contact details separately in a covering letter. You should be aware that there may be circumstances in which the House of Commons will be required to communicate information to third parties on request, in order to comply with its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Please supply a postal address so a copy of the Committee’s report can be sent to you upon publication.

A guide for written submissions to Select Committees may be found on the parliamentary website at: www.parliament.uk/commons/selcom/witguide.htm

Please also note that:
— Material already published elsewhere should not form the basis of a submission, but may be referred to within a proposed memorandum, in which case a hard copy of the published work should be included.
— Memoranda submitted must be kept confidential until published by the Committee, unless publication by the person or organisation submitting it is specifically authorised.
— Once submitted, evidence is the property of the Committee. The Committee normally, though not always, chooses to make public the written evidence it receives, by publishing it on the internet (where it will be searchable), by printing it or by making it available through the Parliamentary Archives. If there is any information you believe to be sensitive you should highlight it and explain what harm you believe would result from its disclosure. The Committee will take this into account in deciding whether to publish or further disclose the evidence.
— Select Committees are unable to investigate individual cases.

Smooth

I am a notoriously fussy eater. I confess this, I am sorry, but that is just how I am and now having lived a good half century, I am unlikely to change.

I suspect that I must have driven my mother mad and that after having me as a fussy toddler it is a wonder that she went on and had two other children. The list of things I don’t like to eat is several times the length of those I do and includes most fruit and vegetables, almost all cheese and most jams.

Except one.

The problem is that this one jam is very hard to find.

I was reminded of this yesterday when staying at a hotel for a business conference. It was a Hilton, which is perfectly acceptable. The breakfast was none too bad, and I noticed this tray with five small jars of things you could spread on your toast or pastry, namely honey, raspberry jam, strawberry jam, peach jam and marmalade.

I loathe them all.

And yet, there is a perfectly harmless jam they could have put there. If they had, it would have been consumed by the gallon. It’s not even expensive. It’s called smooth apricot jam and the best example of it that I have come across in the UK is Hartley’s “No Bits“ apricot jam. It is the best jam in the world and the only one which delivers pure, unalloyed joy upon consuming it.

I looked around all the other tables. No-one had opened even one of their jars of jam. Well, of course not. If one considers the history of apricot jam, I can state for a fact that it led directly to the Treaty of Vienna, the Armistice ending the Great War and the overthrow of apartheid. Who can possibly think bad thoughts or do bad deeds when there is smooth apricot jam on the menu? No-one.

Looking at the world right now, it’s clear that we are going through hard times. Some people blame Gordon Brown, or President Bush, or Putin (what is he now? President? Prime Minister? Grand Panjandrum? I forget). Some blame climate change or bankers or Greenpeace.

I think we all know the truth.

Bring back smooth apricot jam and all will be well.

Who Wants to be a Millionaire?

Bankers still don't get it.

We're in possibly the worst financial crisis of modern history and yet

• Bankers are once again pulling in staggering bonuses
  
• While simultaneously threatening (blackmailing?) governments that if any action is taken to change this culture of greed, banks will move elsewhere.
  

The implication is that we can't afford to do without them. Recent history shows the opposite: they have brought unprecedented hardship to the richest economies of the world by their excessive risk-taking, for which they rewarded themselves handsomely with our money.

Bob Diamond from Barclays Capital was interviewed on BBC Radio4 on 15th September and said "banking is a risk business ... there is no banking without risk". That's fine, Mr Diamond, when you are risking your money. It's not when you are risking our economy. In this area, governments should legislate to reduce the risk to the country if a bank, or a series of banks in the kind of mass hysteria that we saw in recent years, acts foolishly. If banking involves risk (and I think we have to accept it does) then that risk must be qualified and understood at all times.

What about pay packets for bankers or other employees?

I think there is a simple answer here and it doesn't involve changing the law.

Let's start with what a million pounds in annual income buys you. With that much money, you can buy a large house in the best part of the country. A Porsche or two, replaced every year or two. Send your children to the best public schools. Travel first class on holiday. Enough left over to build up a fat pension pot. In other words, you are Extremely Well Off.

So why would anyone want more than £1m a year? The only answer can be bragging rights: a second or third holiday home, which would be empty almost all year. A boat, similarly unused. Maybe a small jet, if first class travel isn't comfortable enough.

Yet most of the money bankers make is our money. A few pounds every time we buy a tax-protected investment. A few pounds every time we buy or sell shares. A few pounds when we use foreign currencies on our holidays. A few pounds with every transaction on our pension plans. Most of these are things over which we have little or no choice because of the business of finance is essentially an oligopoly.

So what should the government do?

Rather than bringing in laws, it could simply decline to do business or minimise business with any publicly-held company whose employees earn over £1m a year.

Which banks would this leave? The small ones. Putting government business through them would make the banking sector much more competitive.

What about things the government can't do without?

Mobile phones? Tell the key supplier that when next reviewed, business will either be moved to a smaller vendor with less plutocratic executives, or cut back or both.

Defence contractors? We'll sign for those planes / helicopters / guns / ships / supplies when your execs cut back their pay. Play one off against the other as part of the negotiating process. Our objective should be to buy security, not absurd levels of wealth for our suppliers.

The BBC? If it wants government support (ie the licence fee) then it better cut everyone's pay back below £1m.

Are there exceptions? Yes. If someone makes a great deal of money through his or her own endeavours with his or her own capital and is successful, then let them earn all they wish. James Dyson making a mint - well done: here's a real entrepreneur! We need more of them and fewer parasites.

Footnote: according to The Telegraph Steve Ballmer, the CEO of Microsoft, earned less than $1.3m (£800,000) last year.