Labour wants to change the law to allow all-black shortlists in constituencies with high ethnic-minority populations.
Deputy leader Harriet Harman said the highly controversial measure was needed to increase the number of minority MPs.
Look, you fucking little bitch, an all-black shortlist is racist, OK? Positive discrimination based purely on the colour of someone's skin is exactly as racist as negative discrimination on the same grounds.
What we want, you silly cow, is the very best, most capable people selected to be candidates: these people are going to be running the country, not standing about looking pretty. This isn't some unimportant bloody parade, you dolt; this is about who is going to be weilding the whip over the people of this country.
Now, if minorities feel that the only way in which they can get proper representation is to be represented by an ethnic minority candidate—in itself, a racist attitude—then they can put forward a minority candidate. If you find that these minority candidates are being actively discriminated against, then I suggest that you take the guilty CLPs to court under existing race laws. But candidates should be the best for the job, regardless of race, creed, colour, sex, religion, etc. etc.
And, as Croydonian points out, Harman is hardly one to talk.
A bit of digging shows that that Camberwell & Peckham, HH's constituency, had the following ethnic breakdown according to the 2001 census:
So come on Hattie - surely a high earning, St Pauls-educated, law degree-holding, paper QC-holding white woman married to a high earning white man cannot hope to represent the good people of Camberwell & Peckham, can she?
If all of this right-on racism and downright hypocrisy were not enough, Harman demonstrates her utter ignorance about different rates of pay.
Labour had closed the gap between men and women by 5% since 1997. But women were still being paid 12% less than men an hour if they were in full-time work and 40% less if they were in part-time work. "I simply refuse to believe that a part-time working woman is worth less than a full-time man," Ms Harman said.
Really, Ms Harman: and why is that, precisely? The reason that a part-time working woman earns less than a full-time working man—or, indeed, a full-time working woman—is because there are standard costs of employing anyone at all. These costs are not significantly different whether someone is working full-time or part-time, but the full-time worker is more productive because, you see, they are working for longer. Thus, they get paid more per hour.
Incidentally, over the last decade, NuLabour have substantially increased those employment costs—not only through their own policies, but also by signing up to the Social Chapter. So your party, Harrie darling, is partially responsible for the size of the pay gap.
In any case, the average pay gap between men and women in comparable employment modes is, for the most part, caused by the fact that women take time out of the economy.
I do wish people would grasp this most essential of points: the gender pay gap is caused (at least in part) by the very existence of such things as extended maternity leave. At it's most simple, of course someone who takes three or four year long absences from the labour force is going to have less human capital than those who slog though full time. We can also point to the way in which never married childless women do not suffer a gender pay gap, nor lesbians. That the gap is virtually non-existent under the age of 30, widens then shrinks again from the late 40s onwards.
Taking long periods of time out and insisting on being able to work part time (part timers cost more per hour to employ than do full timers) inevitably reduce the wages paid. So, as in so many things, there's actually a choice that has to made here. Which do you want? Child friendly policies, parent friendly ones...or no gender pay gap? The thing is, it looks like you've got to choose one or the other: you can't have both, they're mutually exclusive.
Once again, the punishing maternity leave policies that NuLabour have enacted have actually widened the gap even further, as Timmy points out yet again.
Women are losing out on jobs because some businesses avoid hiring those of child-bearing age because of maternity laws, research claims.
Some 63 per cent of executives say they find regulations pose a “serious threat” to their companies.
Almost one in five directors says they have avoided hiring women of child-bearing age because of the legal risk of being caught out by constant changes in rules on maternity pay and time off.
Such discrimination is illegal. But whether it is or not isn’t quite the point. If 20% of directors avoid hiring women of child bearing age because of the maternity rules then that’s one fifth of the economy off limits to such women of child bearing age. This will obviously have an effect upon the wages on offer. Just more fuel for the fire that is the obvious thought: the gender pay gap is, at least in part, caused by the laws on maternity leave etc.
My my, what a surprise. Perhaps it isn’t possible to have it all, perhaps there really are trade offs that have to be made in real life?
So, NuLabour—and not least their one-time Minister for Women, a Ms H Harman—have contributed to this problem. Well done, Harriet! Harriet, you really are a fucking tool.
Of course, NuLabour's solution is to equalise these costs by compelling men to take statutory (paid) paternity leave. Which will, of course, mean that the labour market will start to favour those who are most unlikely to have children—it's a great look out for eunuchs! Perhaps we'll even see "a vasectomy" as part of potential employment benefits.
Why don't you fuck off, Harman, you ignorant racist shitbag.